3f“!
5:33:5‘
I la: 1.

z. .
r. :
“.3.th 1......
3.3.3.731.
.1411...

a nil-
..
:55... 33:,
1.. .. he. 2.

z .2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.392... rd! ._ 3.81.453

 

 

m LIBRARY
o? Michigan State
24 0061 University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR ON
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CLOSEOUT

presented by

SURABHI RAO

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT

 

 

‘ C‘

-‘J

 

Major Professor’s Signature

8/; L/m

Date

MSU is an affinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

 

-‘-\-------o--t-v-'-O-V-:-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K lProj/Acc8Pres/ClRC/DateDue Indd

INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR ON CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT CLOSEOUT

By

Surabhi R210

A THESIS
‘ Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Construction Management

2008

ABSTRACT

INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR ON
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CLOSEOUT

By
Surabhi Rao
Information exchange plays an important role in an inter-organizational setting. There are
continuous interactions among stakeholders throughout the course of a project to
complete the project on time and within budget. A study “Assessment and Improvement
of Construction Project Closeout” (Abdelhamid et al., 2007) conducted at Michigan State
University (MSU), found that during final “Project Closeout”, exchange of information
often comes to a standstill. This researcher has examined burnout factors derived from
the literature on organizational behavior including role stress, role of interpersonal
relations, incentives, and lack of motivation in the context of project closeout. Data
obtained from interviews of contractors, subcontractors, and owners during the MSU
study (Abdelhamid et al., 2007) was analyzed using “Grounded Theory” (Charmaz,
2006) to understand causes for slow closeout and to determine behavioral factors that
impact closeout by comparing the literature to the data. Recommendations were
developed for midsize contracting and subcontracting organizations by comparing the
strategies suggested in the interviews with motivation theory in organizational behavior
literature. Recommendations were validated through proof of concept interviews which
indicated that organizational behavior has an impact on closeout and that problems that
arise during closeout can be prevented by stressing the importance of the

recommendations relating to role conflict and role ambiguity.

T 0 the Three

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere gratitude to my graduate advisor and mentor, Prof. Tim
Mrozowski for his invaluable guidance, insight and support during my research and
preparation of my thesis. I thank Dr. Tariq Abdelhamid and Dr. Richard Lyles for their
timely inputs and encouragement as committee members. I thank both Prof. Tim
Mrozowski and Dr. Tariq Abdelhamid again for giving me an opportunity to be a part of
the research project and learn under their joint tutelage. I also thank Mr. Don Schafer for

sharing his research knowledge with me.

I thank my family and friends for their help, encouragement and support at every

stage.

I especially thank the Three whose unquestionable love, immense strength and

constant support motivates me to pursue and attain my goals.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ ix
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview ...................................................................................... 2
1.2 Research rationale ........................................................................... 3
1.3 Research goal and objectives ............................................................... 5
1.4 Scope of the research ........................................................................ 5
1.5 Limitations .................................................................................... 5
1.6 Methodology ................................................................................. 6
1.6.1 Literature review ............................................................. 7
1.6.2 Data collection through interviews ........................................ 7
1.6.3 Analysis of survey responses and development
of recommendations ......................................................... 8
1.7 Deliverables ................................................................................... 8
1.8 Chapter summary ............................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Organizational behavior ............................................................... 11
2.2 Stress .................................................................................... 13
2.3 Burnout ................................................................................. 15
2.3.1 Role of interpersonal relations ............................................ 18
2.3.2 Role stress ................................................................... 19
2.3.3 Role overload ............................................................... 20
2.3.4 Contingency and noncontingency of
organizational outcomes ................................................... 21
2.3.5 Job context .................................................................. 21
2.4 Consequences of burnout ............................................................. 21
2.5 Motivation .............................................................................. 24
2.5.1 Goal-setting theory ......................................................... 24
2.6 Project closeout ........................................................................ 29
2.7 Project Closeout activities ............................................................ 33
2.7.1 As-built drawings ........................................................... 33
2.7.2 Operation and maintenance manuals .................................... 35
2.7.3 Records archiving and transfer ........................................... 35
2.7.4 Warranties ................................................................... 36
2.7.5 Post project analysis ........................................................ 36
2.8 Responsibilities of various project personnel ...................................... 37

2.8.1 Role of contractors and subcontractors .................................. 39

2.9 Causes of untimely closeout ......................................................... 42
2.10 Grounded theory ..................................................................... 43
2.11 Chapter summary ..................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Methodology ........................................................................... 47
3.2 Data from MSU study ................................................................. 50
3.2.1 Preparation of interview questionnaire .................................. 50
3.2.2 Interview of owners, contractors and
subcontractors ............................................................... 5 1
3.2.3 COAA survey and closeout workshop .............................. - ..... 54
3.3Ana1ysis of responses from contractor and subcontractor
interviews, and COAA closeout workshop ......................................... 55
3.4 Proof of concept ........................................................................ 57
3.5 Chapter summary ...................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Analysis of interview responses ...................................................... 59
4.2 Subject 1 interview responses ........................................................ 60
4.3 Subject 2 interview responses ........................................................ 62
4.4 Subject 3 interview responses ........................................................ 64
4.5 Subject 4 interview responses ........................................................ 65
4.6 Subject 5 interview responses ........................................................ 66
4.7 Subject 6 interview responses ........................................................ 67
4.8 Subject 7 interview responses ........................................................ 68
4.9 Subject 8 interview responses ........................................................ 69
4.10 Interview responses of subcontractors ............................................. 70
4.11 COAA survey ......................................................................... 71
4.12 Organizational factors ............................................................... 75
4.13 Chapter summary ..................................................................... 83
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................. 85
5.2 Recommendations for contractors ................................................... 85
5.2.1 Role conflict, role ambiguity and job context ........................... 85
5.2.2 Role overload ............................................................... 86
5.2.3 Role of interpersonal relations ............................................ 87
5.3 Proof of concept ........................................................................ 87
5.4 Proof of concept responses ........................................................... 89
5.5 Chapter summary ...................................................................... 91

vi

CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................. 93
6.2 Research objectives .................................................................... 93
6.3 Research contributions ................................................................ 94
6.4 Research limitations ................................................................... 95
6.5 Areas of future research ............................................................... 96
6.6 Research conclusions .................................................................. 96

APPENDIX I

CONTRACTOR INTERVIEWS ............................................................... 98

APPENDIX 11

SUBCONTRACTOR INTERVIEWS ........................................................ 120

APPENDIX III

COAA CLOSEOUT WORKSHOP ............................................................................. 131

APPENDIX IV

PROOF OF CONCEPT PACKAGE ......................................................... 136

APPENDIX V

CONSENT LETTERS ........................................................................... 146

REFERENCES .................................................................................... 150

vii

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Roles and responsibilities of project personnel ............................................. 38
2.2 F our stages of analysis ......................................................................... 44
4.1 Organizational factors identified in interview # 1 .......................................... 61
4.2 Organizational factors identified in interview # 2 .......................................... 63
4.3 Organizational factors identified in interview # 3 .......................................... 64
4.4 Organizational factors identified in interview # 4 .......................................... 66
4.5 Organizational factors identified in interview # 5 .......................................... 66
4.6 Organizational factors identified in interview # 6 .......................................... 67
4.7 Organizational factors identified in interview # 7 .......................................... 69
4.8 Organizational factors identified in interview # 8 .......................................... 70
4.9 Organizational factors identified in subcontractor interviews ............................ 71

4.10 Comparison of causes found in all the
interviews with the literature ................................................................ 73

4.11 Comparison of strategies from interviews with
literature ....................................................................................... 75

4.12 Frequency of responses in interviews ...................................................... 81

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Domain and focus area of the research ........................................................ 6
2.1 Understanding stress ........................................................................... 15
2.2 Conceptual framework for burnout proposition ............................................ 18
2.3 Closeout relationships .......................................................................... 32

2.4 Closeout process map of contractors

and subcontractors ............................................................................... 41
3.1 Methodology of research ...................................................................... 49
4.1 Contractor and subcontractor responses .................................................... 60

4.2 Relative impact of organizational
behavior factors .................................................................................. 82

5.1 Recommendations relating to role conflict
and role ambiguity .............................................................................. 86

5.2 Recommendations relating to role overload ................................................ 87

5.3 Recommendations relating to role of
interpersonal relations .......................................................................... 87

5.4a Snapshot of proof of concept package
from appendix V ............................................................................... 88

5.4b Snapshot of proof of concept consent form
from appendix V ............................................................................... 89

5.4c Snapshot of proof of concept responses
from appendix V ............................................................................... 90

ix

AIA

COAA

CCD

GT

IRB

MSU

OB

0&M

RFI

ABBREVIATIONS
American Institute of Architects
Construction Owners Association of America
Construction Change Directive
Grounded Theory
Institutional Review Board
Michigan State University
Organizational Behavior
Operation and Maintenance Manuals

Request for Information

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

"Nothing is as fatiguing as the eternal hanging on of an uncompleted task. "
William James
1.1 Overview

This research was drawn from a study on construction project closeout conducted
by the Construction Management Program in the School of Planning, Design and
Construction at Michigan State University (MSU). The MSU study was commissioned by
the MSU Office of Vice President for Finance and Operations and developed guidelines
and recommendations for improving practices to reduce time and cost of construction
closeout within a university construction context. It was evident from that study that
seamless exchange of information among project participants became critical during
project closeout (Abdelhamid et al., 2007). A delay in transfer of information such as
closeout related documents during this phase often led to prolonged closeout.

This research concentrated on the influence of organizational behavior on project
closeout within commercial contracting and subcontracting organizations. Behavioral
factors that affect exchange of information during final closure of a project based on
stress and motivation theories were investigated. The behavioral factors that are discussed
include role stress, role overload, role of interpersonal relations, burnout, job context, and
incentives. Each of these factors is discussed in detail in the next chapter.

A construction project can be broadly divided into four phases which include
initiation, planning, execution and closeout. The researcher here concentrated on the

closeout phase. Closeout is generally defined as the time between substantial and final

completion of the project. During this period the owner, contractor, and design
professional create a list of items (referred to aspunch list) that require attention prior to
final completion as well as reconcile change orders, claims and payments. The American
Institute of Architects (AIA-A201, 1997), in its general conditions of construction
contract defined substantial completion as “the stage in the progress of the work or the
designated portion thereof is sufficiently complete in accordance with the contract
documents so that the owner can occupy the facility or utilize it for its intended use.”
Final completion according to AIA-A201 occurs when “the work is complete in
accordance with the contract documents and retainage released to the contractor.”
Substantial completion and final completion are two milestones that prominently define
project closeout.

This research correlated organizational behavior factors which impact information
exchange in order to assess their role in construction closeout. Literature on
organizational behavior, along with project closeout was used to compare and identify
factors related to organizational behavior that cause closeout delays and to develop

recommendations based on the literature and interviews.

1.2 Research rationale

Closeout is a concern for all project participants. This was evident from the MSU
study (Abdelhamid et al., 2007) where contractors, subcontractors, owners, and
architects; all indicated that they perceived project closeout to be one of the most time
consuming steps in a construction process. Abdelhamid et al. found that projects with less

than six months construction duration took an average of 255 days from substantial

completion to contractor’s receipt of payment and an additional 236 days from
contractor’s receipt of final payment to MSU internal closeout. Internal closeout activities
conducted internally afier the contractor receives final payment may include internal
accounting and self perform work by the university such as data, telecommunications and
landscaping. Projects with construction durations from six months to one year averaged
255 days from substantial completion to contractor’s receipt of final payment. Projects
with construction durations of more than one year averaged 348 days from substantial
completion to contractor’s final payment. Owners other than MSU indicated that for a
two-month to six-month project, the typical time to close was five months or less. When
twelve-month projects were considered, the typical time to close was found to be
approximately nine months (Abdelhamid et al., 2007).

Bennett indicates that many contractors are guilty of putting too little emphasis on
this final phase of a project (Bennett, 2003). Projects are said to proceed until they are
95% complete and then remain at 95% forever. The importance of the project closeout
phase is often overlooked (Pinto, 1998). In a 1993 customer survey, the Defense Contract
Management Command (DCMC) identified the contract closeout process to be “one of
the most important services provided and one with which customers are least satisfied”
(Valovcin, 1995). The Department of Energy contends that closeout is frequently
understaffed, under-funded and not well planned (DOE, 2003).

The significance of closeout in a construction project was highlighted in the MSU
study (Abdelhamid et al., 2007) where the researchers investigated the causes of closeout

delays and developed recommendations to improve the closeout process. This thesis

study extends the work of Abdelhamid et al. and explores the influence of organizational

behavior during closeout within contracting businesses.

1.3 Research goal and objectives
The goal of this research is to determine the influence of organizational behavior
on construction project closeout.
In order to achieve this goal, the following objectives are outlined:
1. Identify factors of slow closeout related to organizational behavior by comparing
the literature with interview responses.
2. Develop recommendations for contractors and subcontractors based on motivation
theories of organizational behavior.

3. Validate these recommendations by conducting proof of concept interviews.

1.4 Scope of the research

Organizational behavior focuses on the “behavior, attitudes and performance of
people in organizations” (Champoux, 2006). As depicted in Fig 1.1 within the discipline
of organizational behavior, the researcher emphasized causes of low performance of
individuals. They include role stress, role overload, role of interpersonal relations,
burnout, job context, and incentives. These factors were examined with respect to project
closeout to identify the impact of organizational behavior on construction project

closeout.

Organizational
Behavior

low performance --
of individuals

 

Fig 1.1 Domain and focus area of the research

1.5 Limitations

Organizational behavior factors addressed in this study were limited to those
factors that relate to burnout such as role stress, role overload, role of interpersonal
relations, incentives, job context, and motivation theory.

The target group was restricted to commercial general contracting and
subcontracting organizations in the Mid-Michigan area. Though project closeout can be
studied in terms of time or cost or both, the researcher in this study focused on time

impacts and did not address costs associated with closeout.

1.6 Methodology
This section outlines the methodology used for conducting the research which

was broadly divided into the following steps indicated in section 1.6.1 to 1.6.3.

1.6.1 Literature review

Literature relating to organizational behavior and construction project closeout
was reviewed. The connection between these two subjects is established in Chapter 4.
Literature on organization behavior was used to identify factors that cause low
performance such as role stress, role overload, role of interpersonal relations, burnout,
incentives, and job context. Literature on construction project closeout was reviewed to
identify existing closeout practices and the role of project personnel during closeout.
Since it was evident fi'om the MSU study (Abdelhamid et al., 2007) that there is very
little motivation to completely close a project after substantial completion, the researcher
uses goal-setting theory to develop strategies to reduce closeout delays.
1.6.2 Data collection through interviews

The research on project closeout was conducted at MSU by the Construction
Management Program in the School of Planning, Design and Construction. That research
provided a university’s perspective on delays in project closeout and provided
recommendations for improving closeout processes (Abdelhamid et al., 2007). MSU
administrators, personnel from four other universities, contractors, and subcontractors
were interviewed as part of that research. In addition to the interviews a “Project
Closeout Workshop” at the Construction Owners Association of America (COAA) was
held.

Data collected from the closeout workshop and interviews of contractors,
subcontractors, and owners collected during the MSU study were used by this researcher
to identify factors related to organizational behavior. MSU administrators and attendees

of the COAA closeout workshop are termed as owners in this study. This researcher was

involved in developing the MSU study methodology and drafied questions that were
included to aid in this research. Though the interviews addressed several topics, the
responses to certain questions (explained in Chapter 3) were considered to identify and
code them into respective organizational behavior categories. Questions addressed
include closeout definitions, perception of problems, causes of slow closeout and
strategies for reducing delays.
1.6.3 Analysis of survey responses and development of recommendations

The interview responses of owners, contractors and subcontractors were
correlated with organizational behaviors identified through the literature review. Data
obtained from the interviews and the closeout workshop was summarized and dominant
themes related to organizational behavior indicating causes of closeout delays were
identified. Based on the concept of Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1992;
Strauss, 1987) (described in Chapter 2) these themes were coded into different
organizational behavior categories. Each organizational behavior category was evaluated

and compared to the literature to understand causes and develop recommendations.

1.7 Deliverables
The primary deliverable of this research is a thesis that identifies factors related to
organizational behavior which impact construction project closeout and recommendations

for reducing their negative influence on closeout.

1.8 Chapter summary

This chapter establishes the groundwork for the research and includes an
introduction to the topic and outlines research scope, limitations and methodology.
Chapter 2 describes the literature review conducted for the research, identifies the
organizational behavior factors impacting closeout, and addresses the steps involved in

the closeout process.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

10

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter outlines the literature review conducted in order to identify factors of
organizational behavior including stress and motivation that may impact project closeout.
Literature on both organizational behavior and project closeout are discussed
independently and laid out in separate sections. The connection between these two

subjects is developed in chapter 4 of the thesis.

2.1 Organizational Behavior

As part of the literature review on organizational behavior, PsycINFO- a
comprehensive database which links to 1300 journals was reviewed. Along with this,
research papers and journal articles from the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal
of Management, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Journal of
Business Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology were reviewed to identify past
research and findings.

“Organizational behavior” refers to the behavior of people in organizations and
focuses on behavior, attitudes and performance (Champoux, 2006). The study of
organizational behavior originated with the concept of ‘leadership’ by the Greek
philosopher Plato but academic importance was associated with the advent of scientific
management in the 18903. “Proponents of scientific management held that rationalizing
the organization with precise sets of instructions would lead to increased productivity”
(Ash, M.G., 1992). Concepts of organizational behavior were further developed through a
number of studies from eminent scholars including Henri Fayol, Max Weber, Follett,

Barnard, Hawthome, Douglas McGregor, and lately through Peter Drucker (Champoux,

ll

2006). Organizational behavior is currently considered to be a developing field and
becoming important in the global economy as people with diverse backgrounds and
cultural values are coming together to work effectively and efficiently (Robbins, 2004).

Clark described organizational behavior as the “study and application of
knowledge about how people, individuals and groups act in organizations. It takes a
systems approach by interpreting people-organizational relationships in terms of whole
person, whole group, whole organization and whole social system”(Clark, 2007).
Schneider defined organizational behavior as the “confluence of individual, group and
organizational studies flowing from industrial-organizational psychology, and
organization and management theory with headwaters in psychology, sociology and
management” (Schneider, 1985). According to Champoux, the discipline of
organizational behavior draws on theory and concepts from various branches of
psychology, anthropology, political science and sociology. Information about human
psychological processes is derived from the discipline of psychology whereas
anthropology, political science and sociology of work contribute analytical tools for
studying behavior, a base for political behavior and an understanding of social status and
social relationships in a work setting respectively (Champoux, 2006).

Organizational behavior encompasses a wide range of topics such as motivation,
leadership, stress, communication, groups, socialization, culture and organizational
change. Two topics of interest to the researcher: stress and motivation are explored in this

thesis.

12

2.2 Stress

A recent survey conducted on occupational stress by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (A18, 2007) cites that “40% of workers reported their job
was very or extremely stressful, 25% view their jobs as the number one stressor in their
lives, three fourths of employees believe that workers have more on-the-job stress than a
generation ago, 29% of workers felt quite a bit or extremely stressed at work, 26 percent
of workers said they were often or very often burned out or stressed by their work.” The
above statistics indicate that occupational stress is a significant factor plaguing
organizations.

Stress is a condition that results when person-environment transactions lead the
individual to perceive a discrepancy between the demands of the situation and resources
of the person’s biological, psychological and social systems (Champoux, 2006). Jamal
defines job stress as an individual’s reactions to work stress environment that appear
threatening to the individual (Jamal, 1990). A person experiences stress when an event in
the environment presents a constraint, an opportunity or an excessive physical or
psychological demand (Champoux, 2006) that will lead to important outcomes (McGrath,
1976; Schuler, 1980). Stress can be positive or negative as represented in Fig 2.1.
According to Champoux, “stress can be negative when constraint blocks a person’s
efforts to reach a desired goal. This is commonly known as distress. An opportunity from
the person’s environment may present a chance with something a person values which is
construed positive. This is commonly known as eustress. But when an event in the
person’s environment presents excessive physical or psychological demand, the stress is

again construed to be negative” (Champoux, 2006). A person’s perception determines

13

whether the object or an event leads to a stress response. Stress is beneficial when a
person feels challenged and stimulated, but negative when a person feels overloaded or
under stimulated. At opposite ends of the spectrum a person can suffer from ‘burn out’ or

‘rust out’ (OHS & W, 2007).

 

 
  
 
 
  
  
   
   

 
  
 
 
    
    
  
 
 

 

 

- Negative
Good 0 tlmum

é p Stress
5 Effective Less Effective :
: Creative Less Creative :
'o I :
(D - Decisive Less Alert :
a = -
fl : Alert Overloaded :
3 : sr lat d I d ' ' =
m . IITIU e n ecrsrve .
3 I I
8 : Under Involved Irritated :
'. . Bored ' '
Posrtive Anx'Ous :
Stress Frustrated Fatigue V

Rustout
Demands Bum“
Poor "
Low High

 

 

 

Fig 2.] Understanding stress

Source - http://www3.hantsfire.gov.uk/manage/safey/managingstrcss (11/10/2007)

Champoux indicates that “understanding stress, especially stress in organizations, is
important because it can have both positive and negative effects. For an individual, stress
is associated with health problems and for organizations; stress is associated with high
absenteeism rates, high turnover, poor productivity and poor decision-making”
(Champoux, 2006).

Prolonged and unmitigated stress leads to professional burnout. Despite the

growing consensus surrounding the concept of burnout, the distinction between burnout

l4

and stress has not been clearly defined (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). Ganster and
Schaubroeck argue that burnout in fact, is a type of stress - specifically, a chronic
affective response pattern to stressful work conditions that features high level of
interpersonal contact (Ganster and Schaubroeck, 1991). Cordes and Dougherty indicated
that although most researchers define stress as an outgrth of person-environment
interactions (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; French and Caplan, 1972; McGrath, 1976;
Schuler, 1980) or as a result of dysfunctional role relationships (Kahn et al., 1964), there
has been little definitional or operational agreement among job stress conceptualizations
(Schuler, 1980). On this basis, a number of authors advocated the treatment of stress as a
general concept that can provide a “framework” for research on a number of problems.
Based on the above definitions, burnout is subsumed to be one of the outcomes of stress
(Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). In the following sections, organizational factors related to
antecedents of burnout which have been used in coding and categorizing data are

described.

2.3 Burnout

Burnout is a chronic state of emotional exhaustion that stems from an unrelenting
series of on-the-job pressures with few positive experiences (Champoux, 2006). The term
burnout was coined by Herbert Freudenberger to characterize the psychological state of
individuals involved in emotionally charged interactions with clients (Brock & Grady,
2002). The concept of burnout was more clearly conceptualized and defined during the
early 1980’s when systematic empirical studies on burnout were clearly conducted and

published. Burnout is a distinctive aspect of stress which has been defined primarily as a

15

pattern of responses of stressors at work (Shirom, 1989). The most widely accepted
definition of burnout is Maslach’s three component conceptualization (Cordes and
Dougherty, 1993; Wright and Bonett, 1997). Maslach and Jackson defined burnout as “a
syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal
accomplishment that can occur among individuals who do ‘people work’ of some kind”
(Maslach and Jackson, 1986). As the definition suggests, burnout is characterized by
three primary symptoms. Emotional exhaustion refers to depletion of emotional resources
(Halbesleben and Buckley, 2004). Repeated exposure to work results in emotional
exhaustion (Champoux, 2006). The second component, depersonalization is characterized
by negative cynical attitudes and feelings about one’s clients (Wright and Bonett, 1997).
Depersonalization of response is a way of building an impersonal barrier which results in
reduced personal accomplishment. Employees experience increased dissatisfaction with
their accomplishments on the job, coupled with a heightened perception of minimal
work-related progress. Wright and Bonett, in their study of burnout and work
performance found that burnout leads to poor performance in individuals (Wright and
Bonett, 1997). Different hypotheses exist regarding the sequence in which these three
primary characteristics result in an individual. Unlike the above conceptualization of
Maslach, Golembiewski and Munzenrider hypothesized that significant depersonalization
is necessary to diminish feelings of personal accomplishment and significant reductions
in personal accomplishments are necessary to result in high levels of emotional
exhaustion (Golembiewski and Munzenrider, 1981). Of the two hypotheses proposed by

Maslach and later by Golembiewski, Maslach sequencing of three components has gained

16

empirical support (Maslach and Jackson, 1986; Golembiewski and Munzenrider, 1981;

Lieter, 1988; Lieter and Meechan, 1986; Liter and Maslach, 1988).

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demand Stressors: :- - I
JoblRoleIOrganizational I I
0 Quantitative role overload —————I> Emotional Exhaustion I
. ROIe COHfliCt I 3* , = 1:: :g 3:7; as.» . I
0 Role of Interpersonal relations : epeated :
I exposure I

I to work I

| I

Factors suggesfing one is part of an I '
impersonal, controlling and : :
dehumanizing system . . I
. Lack of participation in decision fl Depersonalization . it; I
making process . I Negative ‘ :

o NoncontIngent punishment : cynical attitudes '
I about one’s I

I clients :

Factors suggesting one is : I
unappreciated, ineffective or I I
inadequate I I
o Qualitative role overload I Diminished personal . '
. Low skill utilization : accomplishment I
. Lack of performance—contingent ' Minimal work I
awards I I t d I

0 Role ambiguity I re a a progress :

 

 

 

Fig 2.2 Conceptual framework for burnout proposition (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993)

Fig 2.2 depicts the conceptual framework for burnout proposition developed by Cordes
and Dougherty. It indicates the three Maslach’s components, their causes and
consequences. The causes are divided into job and role characteristics, organizational
characteristics and personal characteristics. The job and role characteristics highlight the
role of interpersonal relations, effect of role conflict, role ambiguity and role overload.

The researchers indicate that, client interactions that are more direct, frequent or of a

17

longer duration are associated with higher levels of burnout. Role stress which includes
role conflict and role ambiguity has been shown to be associated with burnout to varying
degrees. Individuals who report higher levels of these variables report higher levels of
burnout (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993).

Organizational characteristics include the effects of rewards and punishments as
linked to performance and job context whereas personal characteristics include personal
expectations and social support (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). In this research, the
researcher attributes importance to the first two criteria discussed by Cordes and
Dougherty which include job and role characteristics along with organizational
characteristics.

Job characteristics which include role stress, role overload, and role of
interpersonal relations and organizational characteristics which include job context and
incentives are termed antecedents of burnout in the literature (Cordes and Dougherty,
1993). These antecedents, described below are considered to be precursors to burnout.
2.3.1 Role of interpersonal relations

Most of the systematic research on the concept of burnout has focused on
individuals in the helping professions, specifically health, social services and teaching
where burnout is typically believed to be experienced due to the high level of arousal
from direct, frequent and rather intense interactions with clients. Maslach theorized that
potential for emotional strain is greatest for workers in the helping professions because
they are constantly dealing with other people and their problems (Maslach, 1978).
Jackson and colleagues in their research focusing on the role of client and employee’s

caseload in contributing to burnout suggested that, caseload be divided into quantitative

18

and qualitative dimensions (Jackson et al., 1986). The quantitative dimensions include
frequency of contact, number of interactions and percent of time spent with clients. As
the number of clients increases, the demands on the employee’s personal resources
increase. If these demands are continuous rather than intermittent, the employee may be
vulnerable to burnout (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). Qualitative dimensions of client
caseload include interpersonal distance such as phone contact versus face—to-face contact.
Cordes and Dougherty indicate that though the variables are viewed in context of client
or service recipient contacts they may provide insight into the generalizability of burnout.
Maslach, Jackson and Shirom noted that there are many occupations not included under
the rubric of helping professions where interpersonal contacts cause strain, in which
employees may be vulnerable to burnout (Maslach and Jackson, 1984; Shirom, 1989).
Jackson and Schuler have speculated that managers and supervisors also may experience
burnout because they are required to help their employees resolve job-related and
personal difficulties (Jackson and Schuler, 1983; Jackson, 1984)
2.3.2 Role Stress

Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity are two components of role stress. According
to Cordes and Dougherty, “role conflict occurs as a result of incongruity or
incompatibility of expectations communicated to a role incumbent by his or her role
senders (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Kahn, 1978). Role ambiguity is associated with
one’s need for certainty and predictability especially regarding one’s goals and means of
accomplishing them. It may occur if an individual lacks adequate information to
accomplish required activities or when the information is not clearly defined or

articulated” (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). Lack of clarity regarding either proper

l9

procedures for performing job tasks; or criteria for performance evaluations result in role
ambiguity (Miles and Perreault, 1976). Cordes and Dougherty in their research study on
burnout compared the findings of past researchers. It was found that in a Schwab and
Iwanicki study, these two variables role conflict and role ambiguity, accounted for a
significant amount of variance in the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization
dimensions for a sample of 469 teachers (Schwab and Iwanicki, 1982). Brookings and
colleagues reported statistically significant relationships between perceived role conflict
and role ambiguity and all three burnout components for 135 female human service
professionals (Brookings et al., 1985). F imian and Blanton found both role variables were
related to total burnout for a sample of teacher trainees and first-year teachers (F imian
and Blanton, 1987). Cordes and Dougherty found the effect of role conflict and role
ambiguity on burnout to be consistent in their comparative studies. These researchers
report that the relationship between these two role variables and burnout are not restricted
to human service professionals but extend to corporate and industry settings as well
(Cordes and Dougherty, 1993).
2.3.3 Role Overload

Burnout was believed to result partially from qualitative and quantitative overload
(Maslach & Jackson, 1984). Individuals experiencing qualitative overload feel they lack
the basic skills or talents necessary to complete the task effectively. Quantitative overload
refers to the individual’s perception that the work cannot be done in the allotted time
(Kahn, 1978; Pines and Maslach, 1978). In many organizations, this may come about due
to resource scarcity and the continual threat of cutbacks (Jackson, 1984). As a result,

workers may often be overloaded with cases or clients (Maslach, 1976).

20

2.3.4 Contingency and noncontingency of organizational outcomes

Organizational characteristics comprise contingency and noncontingency of
organizational outcomes and job context (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). Though
contribution of job or task to burnout has been investigated, the question of how variables
associated with the organization itself and its policies may affect burnout has received
comparatively little attention. Jackson and colleagues studied contingency of
organizational outcomes in two ways. First, they examined the role of this variable as a
job condition that might contribute to burnout. Next, they examined the role of this
variable in the experience of unmet job expectations. In both cases, they did not find any
significant relationships (Jackson etal., 1986). Contingencies do not have an effect either
as contract clauses with incentives attached or when payment is linked to performance.
2.3.5 Job context

Empirical evidence indicates that specific context affects the incidence of stress
and burnout in the workplace (McCarthy and Catano, 1992; Cordes and Dougherty,
1993). The context is characterized by a variety of factors such as subsystem, work shift
and psychological environments. A critical factor contributing to burnout may be the
nature of the employee-client relationship. If job contexts differ significantly by the types

of interaction that characterize them, contexts would be differentially related to burnout.

2.4 Consequences of Burnout
Cordes and Dougherty illustrated the importance of burnout as a practical concern
by associating it with negative organizational outcomes and various types of personal

dysfunction (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). In their meta-analytical research, they

21

compared the consequences of burnout in various fields as illustrated by previous
researchers. Though it is indicated that the consequences discussed are not unique to
burnout, they illustrate how potentially costly and damaging burnout can be and highlight
the importance of better management. In a review of burnout research, Kahill grouped the
consequences into five categories such as physical, emotional, interpersonal, attitudinal
and behavioral consequences (Kahill, 1988)

Physical and emotional consequences have been linked with a variety of mental
and physical health problems such as low self-esteem, depression, in'itability, anxiety and
fatigue (Maslach and Pines, 1977; Champoux, 2006). Lee and Ashforth found
psychological and physiological strain to be associated with higher levels of emotional
exhaustion and depersonalization in a study of supervisors and managers from a public
welfare agency (Lee and Ashforth, 1990).

The effects of job-related activities on a person’s interpersonal relationship
received recognition in the early 1980’s with the work of Jackson and Maslach. Studies
conducted on interpersonal consequences found that links between burnout and work-
nonwork conflict have received empirical support (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Burke
and Deszca, 1986; Jackson and Maslach, 1982). In their studies, Burke and Deszca found
that those individuals who reported higher levels of the burnout components reported a
greater negative impact of the job demands on their personal lives (Burke and Deszca,
1986)

Attitudinal consequences involve the development of a negative attitude towards
the client, job, organization and oneself (Kahill, 1988). Cordes and Dougherty in their

meta-analysis of burnout research found that burnout components also have been linked

22

to lower levels of organizational commitment for public service lawyers (Jackson et. al.,
1987) and nurses (Leiter and Maslach, 1988; Cordes and Dougherty).

Behavioral consequences include turnover, absenteeism and decrease in the
quality and quantity of job performance (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). In studies of
police workers, Burke and Deszca found that individuals reporting higher levels of
burnout components were more likely to report intentions to leave their jobs (Burke and
Deszca, 1986). In another study conducted by Firth and Britten, it was found that
absenteeism was reported to be higher among nurses with high levels of emotional
exhaustion (Firth and Britton, 1989). Maslach and Jackson in their study of public contact
employees in a federal service agency found that the burnout components are linked not
only to turnover but also to poorer job preparation (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993;
Maslach and Jackson (1985)). These instances indicate that burnout has a consequence
not only on the individual but also on the organization as well.

To mitigate the effects of stress, several researchers have linked stress to
motivation of employees. The following sections review research on motivation. A recent
study links burnout and motivation to monitor changes in academy cricket players over a
competitive season (Weston and Thelwell, 2007). Similar studies on the relationship
between burnout and motivation have been conducted in various fields such as sports,
medicine and teaching. In this research, the researcher utilizes the literature available on

both burnout and motivation to study their influence on construction project closeout.

23

2.5 Motivation

Motivation refers to those psychological processes that cause the arousal,
direction and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal directed (Champoux, 2006).
Pinder defines work motivation as “a set of energetic forces both within and beyond an
individual’s being to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its form, direction,
intensity and duration (Pinder, 1998). This indicates that motivation is a psychological
process which is a result of interaction between the individual and environment (Latham
and Pinder, 2005). “Motivation is said to be individualistic, intentional and multifaceted
(Mitchell, 1982). This indicates that motivation is unique to each individual, under
control of the employee and multifaceted in terms of its activation and direction of
behavior.

Champoux says that organizations intentionally or unintentionally build
“motivation systems.” These systems hold assumptions about what affects behavior and
which behaviors are important for job performance. Theories of motivation developed by
earlier researchers provide tools to analyze an organization’s existing motivation system.
The motivation theories are differentiated into need theories and cognitive theories. Need
theories of motivation use personal characteristics or attributes to explain motivation
whereas cognitive theories relate to a person’s cognition (Champoux, 2006). In this

thesis, emphasis is placed on cognitive theories with focus on goal-setting.
2.5.1 Goal- setting theory

Goal setting theory was formulated by Edwin Locke in the mid 1960’s. Locke

derived the idea for goal setting out of Aristotle’s theory of final causality. According to

24

Aristotle, action is caused by a purpose; thus, Locke began researching the impact goals
have on individual performance (Locke, 2001). Locke’s theory of goal setting (1981)
deals with the relationship between conscious goals and actual performance (Locke,
1981). The premise of the theory is that the individual’s conscious intentions dictate his
actions. (Latham et. a1, 1975) A goal is defined as what the individual is consciously
trying to do. Goldstein (1993) indicates that “goals provide a sense of direction and
purpose” (Goldstein, 1993). Locke and Latham (2002) contrary to the management style
of most managers who urge their employees to ‘do their best’; state that outlining clearly
and concisely what is required elicits the required response. “Doing your best has no
external referent and hence does not elicit specific behavior.” To elicit some specific
behavior it is imperative that the person has clear view of expectations. A goal is thereby
of vital importance because it facilitates an individual in focusing his efforts in a
specified direction.

According to Champoux “goals that are specific, challenging, reachable, and
accepted by a person lead to higher performance compared to goals that are fuzzy,
unchallenging, not reachable or not accepted. Goal specificity includes what needs to be
done, how much needs to be done and the performance period. Goal setting affects
behavior through the psychological processes of directing attention, stimulating effort,
persisting in the effort and finding ways to do the task well” (Champoux, 2006).

In addition, the theory states that a person’s goals mediate how performance is
affected by monetary incentives, time limits, performance feedback, participation in
decision making and competition. Goals that are assigned to a person have an effect only

to the extent that is consciously accepted by the person (Latham and Yukl, 1975). Locke

25

states that “It is not enough to know that an order or request was made; one has to know

whether the individual heard it and understood it, how he appraised it and what he

decided to do about it before its effects on his behavior can be predicted and explained.”

Goal setting theory recommends the following steps to set goals (Champoux, 2006):

1.

2.

7.

Specify the tasks, duties and responsibilities.

Specify how performance will be assessed. Be specific about the way job
performance will be assessed and behaviors that will be part of the assessment.
Specify the goal or target to reach.

Specify the time span of employee performance.

Set priorities among goals. When several goals are set, the more important ones
should be distinguished from less important.

Specify goal difficulty and goal priority. Achieving goals of low priority is not as
high a level of performance as achieving goals of high priority. Locke et a1.
examined the behavioral effects of goal-setting, concluding that 90% of
laboratory and field studies involving specific and challenging goals led to higher
performance than easy or no goals (Locke et al., 1981).

Review goals for coordination and cooperation with others.

The goal setting steps can produce goals that are specific about the task and the time to

finish the task. Stating how performance will be measured and stating the priorities

among multiple goals makes a task even more specific. Champoux indicates that “goal

setting theory does not view the goal as static. Goals are based on the past and some

predictions about the future. As circumstances change, goals might need to change.” It is

26

said that an important element is the ability to change goals after they have been set
because the circumstances have changed (Champoux, 2006).

Locke and Latham have distilled four mechanisms through which goal setting is able
to affect individual performance (Locke and Latham, 2002):

1) Goals focus attention towards goal-relevant activities and away from goal-

irrelevant activities.

2) Goals serve as an energizer; higher goals will induce greater effort while low
goals induce lesser effort.

3) Goals affect persistence; constraints with regardto resources will affect work
pace.

4) Goals activate cognitive knowledge and strategies which allows employees to
cope with the situation at hand. Through an understanding of the effect of goal
setting on individual performance, organizations are able to use goal setting to
benefit organizational performance.

Locke and Latham have therefore indicated three moderators which indicate the
success of goal setting namely goal commitment, feedback, task complexity, employee
motivation and macro-economical characteristics. They mention that with respect to
“goal commitment”, people will perform better when they are committed to achieve
certain goals. Goal commitment is dependent on importance of the expected outcomes of
goal attainment and on self-efficacy. Self efficacy is one’s belief that one is able to
achieve the goals. In “feedback”, the employee’s performance record is tracked, to see
how effective they have been in attaining the goals. Without proper feedback channels it

is impossible to adapt or adjust to the required behavior. In “task complexity”, goals that

27

are more difficult require more cognitive strategies and well developed skills. The more
difficult the tasks ahead, a smaller group of people will posses the necessary skills and
strategies. From an organizational perspective it is thereby more difficult to successfully
attain more difficult goals since resources become more scarce. With “employee
motivation”, the more employees that are motivated, the more they are stimulated and
interested in accepting goals. When goals are established at a management level and
thereafter solely laid down, employee motivation with regard to achieving these goals is
rather suppressed (Locke and Latham, 2002). Thereby to facilitate motivation, the
employees not only need to be allowed to participate in the goal setting process but the
goals have to be challenging as well. Participation increases information about the way
the goal can be reached. The information can let employees to discover alternate ways of
doing the job (Champoux, 2006). Also, “macro-economical characteristics” have an
impact to an extent. The position of the economy in the conjuncture puts pressure or
simply relieves the organization. This means that some goals are easier set in specific
macro-economical surroundings.

Latham and Yukl reviewed eleven studies to examine the effects of setting specific
goals. It was found that ten studies provided strong support that specific goals increase
performance and that difficult goals, if accepted, result in better performance. This
indicates the effectiveness of goal-setting in organizations (Latham and Yukl, 1975).

The researcher after reviewing literature on organizational behavior shifts focus to
closeout to define the process and understand problems related to construction project

closeout.

28

2.6 Project Closeout

It’s been said that “Projects proceed smoothly until 95% complete, and then they
remain 95% forever” (Bennett, 2003). It has also been said that “if 90% of the effort is
expended on the first 90% of the project then, another 90% is expended on the remaining
10% of the project” (Bennett, 2003). According to Westland, more than 90% of the
projects fail to conduct a post-implementation review to determine the level of success
after completion (Westland, 2006). All these indicate that not enough attention is being
paid by project personnel to accelerate “Project Closeout” and that, it also requires an
equal if not greater attention as other phases in a project. Some organizations such as the
Department of Energy (DOE), and the Facilities Construction and Renovation
Department at the Yale School of Medicine have identified the need for formal project
closeout procedures. Perspectives on project closeout vary based on project participants.
The American Institute of Architects,(AIA Best Practices, 2007) in very concise and in
apt terms describes the perspectives of various participants. “To the Contractor, it means
resolving the punchlist, reconciling the job cost and collecting the final payment. To the
architect it is the satisfaction of the design resulting in a completed project that
substantially conforms to the construction documents and functions as intended to meet
the client’s needs. To the owner, it brings about nervous anticipation and anxiety since
the facility will be soon transferred into their hands.” Several sources (Yale School of
Medicine, 2005; Busansky, 2003; Bennett, 2003; DOE, 2003) indicate that though
various definitions are prevalent, there is no well defined process for project closeout.

The Facilities Construction and Renovation Department at Yale School of

Medicine defines construction closeout as “the time period between substantial

29

completion until all punch list items have been addressed and are completed (Facilities
Construction and Renovation Department at Yale School of Medicine, 2005).”

Project closeout is considered an important activity during the final phase of the
completion of the project. It is the “completion of the contract and related inspection,
correction and acceptance of the wor ” (LA DPW Engineering, 2003). The project
closeout and completion phase is often thought of as a project unto itself. According to
Bennett, “this phase must be planned and programmed, tasks must be assigned, the phase
must be executed effectively and its costs, schedule and quantity must be controlled”
(Bennett, 2003).

Busansky refers to closeout as “the process that is verified complete and
administratively processed for official closure. Closeout is completed when all
administrative actions have been completed; all disputes settled and final payment has
been made” (Busansky, 2003) This aligns with an MSU study where Abdelhamid et al.,
defines MSU closeout processing times as TI and T2 where TI represents the time from
substantial completion to contractor’s final payment and T2 represents time from final
payment to owner’s internal closing of all accounts (Abdelhamid et al., 2007).

The Department of Energy, DOE indicates that “closeout begins at beneficial
occupancy or project termination, and is complete after all the physical, regulatory,
contractual and financial closeout activities are complete.” DOE defines “physical
closeout as those activities remaining after the user accepts the project; contract closeout
includes each project contract and subcontract” (DOE, 2003). Regulatory Closeout for
required projects is defined by the DOE as those projects which comply with regulatory

requirements and financial closeout includes reviewing of closing statement of cost,

30

authorizing the release of excess funds and preparing the project final cost report for the
project (DOE, 2003). Fig 2.2 shows the interrelation of physical, contractual, regulatory
and financial closeout in the DOE closeout process. DOE indicates that “closing a project
is a time of emotional and user satisfaction. It is the time when necessary steps are taken
to ensure that customer, user, project team members and contractors are treated properly

and all loose ends on the project are completed” (DOE, 2003).

31

L88. .moe
2:55:29. «zooms—U m.~ wE

 

 

mohoéhzoo oz_._.<¢mn_o

 

 

new 2965qu T L

I. II L Eases” 88.0 _ I- .-IL LI.im.L.§c8I .L I. I I. I
ago .0 85 a8 Lo 86:: ILT-LI.-I LL26 82% 858833 L
-L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So 8.85 806 L WWWWWWNLL LIIII Lace magma <08 53% En «.5me 893. L888 fiLLasmmL I..aoomo_o....lL
I-IILHIII-l. U -I
3, M41 M... M,,,. L
L, m L LmBL L II - L. <2 L. 08 L
/. x ,./.I\.. I ./I- \ II I I I-.. II-.I
I I II- fl \I /.,_. fl 3565:, L ILmsmLusL; III I fi 68.0 588.0 8.65
L I i I. - ._ Lo 98:8 I III I.__LI LAL L
7929: 8 . L L. o 0» _AI Em 8:2 L41 .6. 28:96 Evian 9.32 smegma 9.8.0.. Lo 8:856: _
Léo .863 m8ma 50820 T- ./,,I\.. 8888 m<a .LI- _ 8:2 zEmeIIL I. I II L. L 5L>mmB>L8om L 028%
odommzo .I I I. III IIILINI .- --I -I.. .I Iii. -.I
_.I I I .I..--I I II III. I I IIt II- I I I I .L L
L :cmEIIEEmcc 9. .8L fl; I-I.I-I I. II I-.-I I .I - .II I I L
L 285:: go: I
L I II II ._ p I IL I. -I.L L 328828 L L < _._L L ._<_oz<z_....
. 50820 L IL 886 L L 88388 . -. .. L.
L 8 LSLHLI L VI 5928 aLILoz. 183:8 egg LI L
w I . . -_ Is I V _. I-,--._ I w- ..... .
. I. L I. II LI ILI I I III +I IL L I_ L L E. L I I II..- I
.. .I- -I II II J L _ L . WEE—WU L L IL mEIob ..0_Inm__mI>Nl L U0«0_Q58 E03. L L «3080—0 «005:8 . 9.208 ~300w0_0
L 8938 L .-L 8%“. LA 0889382 LL. I. :96 560 LLLLLsLmszSowmoLQA . 8:2 T 1 Lo 8:8ae8m A1 no 96 m o T- . .
L __ I I .I. Z _ «L_ L 5828 ucowl LL 2633. L fiasco”. _ u cc E . 89:50
EL; 85988 L .II LII?! L _l I I LL . I - I IL L L USEB 328m . - I. I .
L $83.38 L L L .I I>II .I -III M
_ . Iiil I- .LI I I
L €03 >550 L L L L L . momxoma
.- II I I . - IL I.-I LLL. II I- - L .7 I I I L _ _ 98 30 L
..vL.-,.- «582% LAL 8536 cam _ .- -L LoLomLmefioezmse , I I I I I - L . ._<=._.o<m._.zoo _ :WEILoLmLLoaa/L. L
L ooh L 29:83 IWQSKL L mELmLo 868m L LI Em 8.8mm L Li L
, t I I . .I I I. I1 [IL L
.,.....I I I . 83:8 _L LI -I III ; . L. I III L
L II 4-I..- .L L HIII . IIW I. I L £3 85988 T 8.568352. .AIL swam”? A L
_ 38.0 8.05 I L 181536 _ LI L 586358 _ LLmLLcoEa m>oaa<L L o _.o L
. L wIEms 86>: 965% L . . I - . . . L00 5 2
L 08. 8539.0 -u L L L can mELmBLo L L . _ L . E03 €80 L III I- I rIIIII
-\.. . 8.20: mg L 208le L LcoL§om9coaaawL new mzmomm L . I I--I II

LI I - I I I L I L 455::

 

32

 

2.7 Project Closeout Activities
Bennett indicates two main categories that overlap and interact throughout the phase.
Sometimes these activities occur concurrently in the closeout phase (Bennett, 2003).
These categories include-
]. Completing the work which includes physical activities that must be
accomplished on the site.
2. Administrative closeout which mainly involves the multitude of required

documents and paperwork issues.

Completing the work mainly includes testing and startup, cleanup, punch list completion,
inspection and corrective work whereas administrative closeout includes payment to
subcontractors, waivers of lien and request for final payment (Bennett, 2003). Along
with all the activities described above, at the time of project closure, the contractor is
required to provide and maintain documents such as as-built drawings, operating and
maintenance manuals (O & M’s), warranties and other records. These documents form
part of the information exchange between owner, contractors and subcontractors. In some
cases, contractors are also required to provide training for maintenance personnel before
handing over the operations of various equipment.
2.7.1 As-built drawings

Producing and furnishing as-builts are an inteng part of contract closeout and
they are generally maintained by the contractor (Bennett, 2003). As-builts represent a set
of record drawings that depict the actual locations, dimensions and features that are

different from the original contract drawings. They are used to show the finished

33

condition of the work as it was actually constructed and accepted. The process requires
that any change that modifies the original work be incorporated over a separate set of
drawings maintained just for that purpose (Pettee, 2005). Pettee indicates that the change
documentation may include incorporation change orders, field orders, value engineering
agreements and sometimes responses to Requests for Information (RF I).

As-builts are considered to be an important part of contractor’s scope of work.
They are often neglected until the end of the project when they are really needed. Pettee
indicates that this neglect mainly occurs due to the fact that there are several other
activities occurring at the same time and during that stage, documenting as-builts takes a
backseat. As-builts are treated as an administrative obstacle, among many others needed
to close a project. They are generally the last submittal to be processed.

As-builts play a very important role as these record documents contain all the
latest pertinent information required for all the project parties. According to Pettee, they
act as a one-stop repository of all directed changes. Theoretically, these are the set of
drawings that all the subcontractors are supposed to refer to as the work progresses. After
the construction of the facility, they depict what was actually built. They also aid the
owner during fiiture renovation or demolition of a facility.

As-builts though important, are not updated regularly due to either a lack of
motivation or a full understanding of what is ultimately expected of them or both
(Pettee, 2005). There is also the perception of not being paid for the effort which has also
led to neglect of as-built drawings.

It is necessary and convenient for the contractor to update the as-built drawings

regularly as the project proceeds as it will not only aid contractors but will help

34

subcontractors as well. Updating as-builts regularly will help in preventing final payment
delay as contractors are required to submit as-built drawings to the owner in order to
receive final payment (Bennett, 2003)

2.7.2 Operation and Maintenance Manuals (O & Ms)

Operation and maintenance manuals provide information necessary to perform
installation, test, operate, adjust and repair equipment. 0 & Ms are necessary for effective
operation and maintenance and are critical to long term viability of any project.

Operation and maintenance manuals are usually required to be filmished by the
contractor in accordance with contract terms. The contractor is responsible for
assembling all 0 & M’s provided by manufacturers. The main effort involves gathering
and organizing documents as they are received from manufacturers (Bennett, 2003).
Various operation and maintenance manuals are gathered and transferred to the facility’s
operating and maintenance personnel at the time of project closeout. Like as-built
drawings, a contract requires that these drawings be furnished in complete form prior to
final payment (Bennett, 2003).

2.7.3 Records archiving and transfer

Bennett maintains that project records form an essential part of a project history
and are required for operation and maintenance of a facility (Bennett, 2003). Contractors
are required after completion of a project to maintain records and correspondences of the
project for future reference by the contractor’s own personnel. This provides historical
data for future projects.

In addition to the archiving of records, the contractor also has an obligation to

transfer the required documents to the owner or the design professional in an organized

35

and complete manner. As mentioned by Bennett, these documents include 0 & Ms, as-
builts, certificates, progress photographs, materials and testing inspection results and any
other documents required by the contract.

At Michigan State University (MSU), the contractor has to submit all documents
mentioned in a ‘final payment/closeout checklist’ which provides a list of all the
documents that have to be submitted prior to the final payment of the contractor. A
university representative within the university ensures the submittal of all the required
documents before the project is closed completely (Abdelhamid et al., 2007).

2.7.4 Warranties

The term “warranty” in construction contracts indicates the obligation that the
contractor assumes for repairing defects in the work for a specific period of time after
substantial completion of the facility (Bennett, 2003). Warranties are provided to the
owner before final completion of a project. The AIA-A201, defines warranty as “general
representation by the contractor that materials, equipment and workmanship will conform
to the good quality standards and requirements of the contract documents.” The warranty
period as mentioned in AIA-A201 is typically for one year and commences at the time of
substantial completion of the facility (AIA-A201, 1997)

2.7.5 Post-project analysis

After completion of the project, a post-project analysis should be conducted by
contractors internally in order to realize the lessons learned from a project. This aids
contractors in their assessment and management of future projects. It is considered to be
the most neglected aspect of the project as there is pressure on the contractors to move

ahead to the next job rather than look backward to the work already completed (Bennett,

36

2003). Some of the topics suggested by Bennett include personnel and labor relations,
construction methods and on-site coordination, safety issues, subcontractor performance,
fabrication and delivery matters, cost control, schedule issues, owner and design
professional relationships, and the quality of the project, its components and systems. The
“lessons learned” process will help in building the firm’s intellectual capital. The AIA
Best Practices, indicates that at the end of each project, the firm should collect all the
lessons learned from project team members and incorporate them to improve the firm’s
processes (AIA Best practices, 2007).

A written report by the project manager which is a compilation of all the analyses
of various project personnel will serve as a good historical record for the contractor,
prevent recurring mistakes and help in continuous improvement (Bennett, 2003). The
lessons learned can be compiled by the organization and used as a “knowledge-based”
system for future purposes.

All the above activities are important steps which occur either concurrently or one

after the other during the closeout phase (Bennett, 2003).

2.8 Responsibilities of various project personnel

In order to understand the project in its entirety, it is necessary to understand who
the project participants are, and their roles and responsibilities in making a successful
project. With regard to this, several organizations including the Associated General
Contractors (AGC), American Institute of Architects (AIA), and many major universities
such as Penn State University, and the University of Wisconsin have outlined certain

responsibilities for project team members in order to close a project effectively. Division

37

of responsibilities by project personnel ensures smooth flow during closeout and saves
project time and money (Penn State University, 2006; University of Wisconsin, 2007)

AIA and universities such as Penn State University and the University of
Wisconsin outline some of the responsibilities for owners, contractors, subcontractors and
design professionals at the time of project closeout (Penn State University, 2006;
University of Wisconsin, 2007). These responsibilities originate from the time of
substantial completion and end at final completion of a project. The researcher has
integrated the roles and responsibilities of project personnel from these sources and
identified them in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 Roles and Responsibilities of project personnel
Adopted from AIA, 2007; Penn State University, 2006; University of Wisconsin, 2007

 

 

Responsibilities Roles
Responsibility of the Creation of the punchlist along with contractor and
Owner design professional

Training and orientation

Accept O & M’s manuals from contractor
Distribute O & M’s to project manager

Distribute warranties to project manager and other

 

concerned personnel
Responsibility of the Request for substantial completion inspection in order to
Contractor create a punchlist

Completion of all punchlist items created along with
owner and design professional

Deliver O & M’s to the user

Submit as-built drawings

Ensure testing and balancing is complete

Ensure all the inspections are complete
Installation of owner fumished equipments if any
Request for final inspection

Submit warranties to owner

Perform a post-construction evaluation

 

 

 

 

38

 

Table 2.1 continued

 

 

Responsibility of the Complete punchlist items
Subcontractor Deliver O & M manuals to contractor

Deliver shop drawings to contractor

 

Responsibility of the Create a punchlist at the time of substantial completion
Desifl Professional Ensure completion of punchlist items by contractor

 

Receive as—builts from contractor
Receive warranties of equipment from contractor

 

 

 

2.8.1 Role of Contractors and Subcontractors

AGC indicates that final completion of a project and acceptance of project by the
owner should be the ultimate goal and that project closeout procedures must be integrated
into all phases of the project. In its “Guideline on Project Closeout” AGC indicates that,
both contractors and subcontractors must work in tandem to accomplish the project
closeout objectives which are as follows (AGC et al., 2003):

o Assure the owner and the A/E that all work on the project will be completed in a
timely manner and in accordance with the contract documents.

0 Cause the owner to provide the general contractor a positive incentive to complete
the work properly or ahead of time by providing prompt and proper payment for
work satisfactorily performed.

0 Prevent multiple punch lists through effective communication with all the parties
and timely inspections.

The researcher has developed a process map from the AGC guidelines (AGC et al.,

2003) depicting the steps involved during construction closeout and it is included in Fig

2.2. Similar to AGC, AIA Best Practices indicates six critical aspects with respect to

39

project closeout. One is the use of checklists which gives a logical sequence to complete
tasks in closeout. AIA Best Practices states that, this logical sequence disappears in the
final 10% of the project (AIA Best Practices, 2007). Second, is not allowing anyone to
work on anything which is not in the checklist. Anything beyond the checklist will act as
a distraction resulting in incomplete and unfinished work of the actual items and will also
be a strain on the project budget. AIA Best Practices indicates that, in order to keep the
focus of all personnel on project closeout frequent meetings should be conducted. Third,
the firm’s intellectual capital can be built through “lessons learned” processes. Fourth, is
safeguarding project records so that they are easily accessible to the company even years
after completion of the project. Fifth is asking for a referral from the client to ensure in
writing that the project was successful. The last suggestion is to plan for project
completion party at the beginning of the project and allocating budget to it, to motivate
the team to look forward to project success.

Sometimes, though projects reach substantial completion according to schedule,
there are an inordinate number of delays during closeout. Valovcin, in his research on
naval project closeout cites some of the causes for untimely closure of projects which are

briefly described below (V alovcin, 1995).

40

.88 9.. .5 38.. E. ..
. 8:3 0.... 8 88.8.8
_. a... 8 8.8.33
_ 8% 88380 .8: .

to. 2888 a 388m .

 

1. 8.83... 88.88. . w
_ 8:883 .388”. _

,.

Amoom ...m .o 003 88:2 .0 3.88580 .8080 88.003... ES. @283.
2322.833 “Ea 3.82238 .5. 92: 339:. 25330 Wu w...—

 

 

 

wsog E. 88.. 9.8.8.8. .88.: >8... . . so 8... 8 3
.338 m... 8.8 o. 8.58. m a. 388.08“. . 8 858mg m o
.808 8 m8. .88 o... 8.. 59.8 K 3.8m .W 38 .9. JR.

.808 88.8. 2.. 8.8.2.. . .88....83 . a. Ewen...” the. M...
_ .888 .9... 39.8mm . .8 8.8.80 . . u. .. oo
_ - . Saga- I? 588.0 f ll
. 38.. E. 88.. 9.38.5 . 81.3389. 83.88
F , 82.8. 8.8.2.2888 I... ._ .
o... 8888 3.3 00

. .2... 32.8. 283 00

_ E. 88a 8 3.80. :8: _

11,.llllt: . .

3.5.328 U8 . __
m2 886 m... .5

r--

_ 29988.... .88

. __ £88 38.. .888 _
. m... .o 38.0. o... 5.; i . i.
88288 c. 229:8 .

_ 2.9.8.83 m. 83 85> _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. €98.88 3.8.33 3.

0.28.8
2.9.8.83
m. .8; T l

2.. .2. 33 9.. _
5.; 3...... 8

_

B3 .5 88.8.8 g. .
.2883 888. .

8.. 8.... 8 8.8g _
888.38 a... 8:80

 

\\... /_
_
.
338.9 8.. 888.3. ._

. 3.2 a o $.83... 82...... _
w .832... .0. 3.8880

88.88 *

_ 8 8.82.8

J occ.=8.mc.m...o .
_ E. 8:3 989.“.

 

 

SHOLOVBLNOOBHS CINV SHOLOVHLNOO

ll

41

2.9 Causes of Untimely Closeout

Closeout is a final and important phase in the lifecycle of a project. A delay in this
phase leads to delay in the final completion of the project thereby resulting in monetary
and relationship losses. Each project has its own history in terms of why a delay was
caused during closeout of a project. The DOE and Valovcin discuss some of the reasons
that have led to prolonged and lengthy closeout time (DOEa, 2005; Valovcin, 1995).
Firstly, after substantial completion of a project, when the owner can actually use the
facility for its intended purpose, the pressure to complete the project reduces and there is
little or no incentive to close the project on time. During this phase, since project
personnel will be moving on, enough personnel may not be assigned to completely close
the project. The main staff who are closely related to the project would have moved on
and new staff assigned would be unaware of the history of the project. It becomes a
daunting task for newly assigned people to piece together whatever remains, complete
file documentation and deal with the administrative burden of closing out the project.
Issues that seemed complete look less so to the newly arrived, and finding the party or
parties that have first hand knowledge of hazier details gets more difficult with time
(Criss, 2005).

Some of the other factors indicated as causes of untimely closeout include lack of
management attention to closeout, poor management information systems to monitor
contract closeout processes, poor coordination among project teams, lack of closeout
checklists, low priority in organizations, inaction by contractors and subcontractors and
lack of internal controls (DOEa, 2005; Valovcin, 1995). Although project closeout is

considered important by some organizations, there is no well defined process which

42

would aid in effective closeout. All these lead to inefficiency and delay in closeout and
increase burnout of project participants and have led to inefficiency.

Organizational behavior factors and project closeout were described in the
previous sections of this chapter but in order to identify and analyze factors of
organizational behavior in the closeout data; Grounded Theory was adopted and is

described below.

2.10 Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research methodology in the social
sciences emphasizing generation of theory from data in the process of conducting
research (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1992; Strauss, 1987). This theory was developed by
Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss and has its origins in organizational or professional
settings (Martin and Turner, 1986). Grounded theory contradicts the traditional model of
research, where the researcher chooses a theoretical framework, and only then applies
this model to the studied phenomenon (Allen, 2003). It is a research method that operates
almost in a reverse fashion to traditional research and at first may appear to be a
contradiction of the scientific method. Rather than beginning by researching and
developing a hypothesis, a variety of data collection methods are the first step. Table 2.2
depicts the four stages of analysis in this theory. From data collected as an initial first
step, key points are marked with a series of “codes,” which are extracted from the
literature. The codes are grouped into similar “concepts,” in order to make them more
workable. From these concepts “categories” are formed, which form the basis for the

creation of a “theory”, or a reverse engineered hypothesis. “Theory” forms a core stage

43

and emerges from a constant comparison of data. “All is data” is a fundamental property
of Grounded Theory and includes both literature and interviews (Glaser, 1998). This
process of comparing data is termed as “memoing.” Glaser asserts that “memos are
important tools to both refine and keep track of ideas that develop when comparing
incidents to incidents and then concepts to concepts in the evolving theory. In memos,
ideas are developed about naming concepts and relating them to each other. In memos,
relationships are established between concepts in two-by—two tables, in diagrams or
figures or whatever makes the ideas flow, and generate comparative power. Without
memoing, the theory is superficial and the concepts generated not very original.
Memoing works as an accumulation of written ideas into a bank of ideas about concepts
and how they relate to each other. This bank contains rich parts of what will later be the
written theory.”

Table 2.2 Four stages of analysis
(Charmaz, 2006, Glaser, 1992; Strauss, 1987)

 

Stage Purpose

 

Identifying anchors that allow the key points of the data
Codes to be gathered

 

Collections of codes of similar content that allows the
Concepts data to beqrouped

 

Broad groups of similar concepts that are used to
Categories generate a theory

 

A collection of explanations that explain the subject of
Theory the research

 

 

 

 

Grounded Theory is said to be well suited when dealing with “qualitative data of the kind
gathered from participant observation, from the observation of face to face interaction,
from semi-structured or unstructured interviews, from case-study material or from certain

kinds of documentary sources” (Martin and Turner 1986).

44

This researcher applied Grounded Theory to closeout data because it provides a formal
process for evaluating qualitative information rich data. Organizational behavior formed
the key emphasis examined in the closeout data obtained from interviews and the COAA
workshop. The data was grouped and categorized based on organizational behavior
literature. The categories were based on role stress, role overload, role of interpersonal
relations, burnout, job context, and incentives. These categories were compared to the
literature to identify common themes and generate recommendations for closeout relative
to organizational behavior. This process of comparing data is termed “memoing” and was

achieved during analysis (described in chapter 4) through the use of figures, tables and

graphs.

2.11 Chapter Summary

This chapter reviews literature of two independent topics including organizational
behavior and project closeout. In the review of Organizational behavior, concepts such as
stress, burnout, role stress, role overload, role of interpersonal relations, job context,
incentives, motivation, and goal-setting theories were examined. Project closeout
literature includes a definition of the closeout process and roles and responsibilities of the
project parties. The relation between organizational behavior and project closeout is

explained in Chapter 4 of this thesis through the principles of Grounded Theory.

45

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

46

3. METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the methodology that was used for this research. The

researcher evaluated available data based on the principles of “Grounded Theory” (GT)

proposed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1992; Strauss,

1987). Data was obtained by a research team at MSU from contractor, subcontractor, and

owner interviews, and a COAA closeout workshop (Abdelhamid et al., 2007). The

interviews were conducted as part of a project titled “Assessment and Improvement of

Construction Project Closeout at Michigan State University” (Abdelhamid et al., 2007).

3.1 Methodology

Fig. 3.1 depicts the methodology that was used for this research and includes the

following primary activities:

1.

Definition of the project, identification of needs, goals, and objectives of the
research.

Literature review of organizational behavior and project closeout.

Development of interview questionnaires to address existing closeout processes
(Abdelhamid et al., 2007).

Extraction of data from the interviews conducted of owners, contractors and
subcontractors to understand their perspective on closeout and ascertain dominant
causes of closeout delays (Abdelhamid et al., 2007).

Identification of organizational behavior factors in the data obtained from
interviews and COAA closeout workshop. This step in Grounded Theory is

referred to as “codes.”

47

10.

ll.

12.

Collection of “codes” of similar content that allowed the data to be grouped in
order to recognize “concepts.”

Data obtained fi'om interviews and the COAA workshop were “categorized” into
different organizational factors to generate a “theory.”

“Theory” was developed by constantly correlating literature on organizational
behavior factors to the responses obtained from interviews to recognize causes of
delays and to develop strategies for improvement. This process of comparing
data termed “memoing” was achieved in this research through the use of figures,
tables and graphs.

Development of recommendations through further comparison of motivation
theories and interview responses.

Approval from the MSU Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained and
proof of concept interviews with contractors and subcontractors were conducted
in order to review the recommendations and to gain feedback regarding their
correctness and usefulness.

Revision of recommendations to incorporate input obtained from the proof of
concept interviews with contractors, and subcontractors.

Preparation of a summary of the research.

48

 

Definition of the ,
Praiect

Need for research, goals and objectives F‘ '
of the research '

i

Literature review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature revrew of Literature review of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organizational Project Closeout
Behavror
Preparation of interview questionnaire *
'. ;. , -. l; -41-. .1- .--~--..;

F 4
Interview of MSU administrators, " COAA closeout workshop "
contractors and subcontractors " - discussion ' '

L A” ‘ .. 7 . r .

l MSU STUDY

 

Identification of Organizational Behavior L
factors in the data obtained from interviews
and workshop (Grounded Theory- Codes)

M‘T‘. a- ri'rMJ-N — , grit... m‘. “-— fi'mm-z: :_:i‘

a'l

 

 

Collection of codes of similar content
(Grounded Theory -Concepts) and
Categorization of the data obtained from
interviews into different organizational factors
to generate a theory

3—' — —
,, I

‘ .
‘v , ‘ L v " .. - r, _ ”'7 iv

Development of recommendations based on Grounded _.
Theory (GT- Theory) through comparison of literature and : ~
data

Proof of concept interviews with contractors '
and subcontractors

Revision, summary and conclusions

 

 

 

 

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ - MSU study (Abdelhamid et al., 2007)

 

 

Fig 3.1 Methodology of Research

49

3.2 Data from the MSU study

The raw data for this research was obtained fiom interviews conducted for the
research project titled “Assessment and Improvement of Construction Project Closeout at
Michigan State University” (Abdelhamid et al., 2007). The researcher revisited this
database to identify responses related to organizational behavior.

As part of the interview process for the MSU study, twenty one MSU
administrators, eight contractors, four subcontractors, two architects and personnel fi'om
four other universities were interviewed to understand their current processes. In this
current research, the researcher evaluated only the contractor and subcontractor responses
along with responses from the COAA closeout workshop. Contractors and subcontractors
were chosen from the list generated by an MSU closeout research Oversight Committee.
The Oversight Committee consisted of operations and administration staff from Physical
Plant, Housing and Food Services, and Capital Flaming and Administration. The
research team selected the interviewees based on their availability and their willingness to
share their information. The selected interviewees were not disclosed to the Oversight
Committee. The interviewees were contacted by phone and appointments were set up
based on their convenience. At least two members from the research team met them

personally at their respective offices to conduct these interviews.

3.2.1 Preparation of Interview Questionnaire
The interview questionnaire was an important tool which aided the research team
in its quest for data. It addressed two research topics mainly project closeout and vendor

performance. This researcher was involved only in the development of project closeout

50

questions. A rough draft of the questionnaire consisted of 150 questions which later were
reduced to 42 questions. The interview questionnaire covered various aspects of owners’,
contractors’ and subcontractors’ processes such as organization structure, project
management and closeout. It focused on their perception of closeout - whether
contractors and subcontractors perceive closeout to be a problem in their organization,
their prevailing process at the time of project closeout, dominant causes which have led
to delay in closeout, time consuming steps, timeframe for closeout, and any strategy they
might have implemented for effective project closeout.

After final review and editing by the research team, the interview questionnaire
was sent to MSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for review and approval. MSU’s
IRB is responsible for the protection of individuals who are the subjects of research (IRB,
2007). IRB review ensured that the questionnaire was in compliance with its ethical and
safety procedures.

Prior to the interviews, the IRB approved questionnaire was tested in an interview
setting with one of the members of the Oversight Committee to determine its duration
and also to receive positive feedback on the questions and the interview process itself.
The feedback obtained was considered and adopted during the interviews of owners,
contractors and subcontractors. Based on the pilot interview, an actual timefiameof 90

minutes was set for these interviews.

51

3.2.2 Interview of Owners, Contractors and Subcontractors

Based on the list generated by the oversight committee, the interviewees included
mainly MSU administrators and staff, contractors, subcontractors and architects involved
in projects at MSU. Before each interview, a consent form was read and signed by both
interviewer and interviewee. The consent form developed by the research team
maintained confidentiality and was in accordance with MSU’s IRB submitted protocol.
The interview questionnaire for the external and internal parties followed a similar
pattern; however, the contractor and subcontractor questionnaires had an additional
section which addressed MSU construction processes. The consent form and the
interview questionnaire are included in appendices I, H, and V.

The average duration of the interviews was 90 minutes and generally, two
members from the research team were present during these interviews. While one
member interviewed the subjects, the other made detailed notes which were later
transcribed in an MS-Excel® spreadsheet. The response spreadsheets developed as a
result of these interviews were used as data by this researcher. Though the interview
addressed several topics, the responses to the following questions were considered to
identify and code them into respective organizational behavior categories:

I What is your company’s definition of construction project closeout?

. Can you outline for us the basic steps and activities in the project closeout
process? Are these project closeout activities identified in the construction
schedule?

- Do incentives exist within your firm to quickly and effectively closeout a project?

- Is project closeout perceived as a problem by the contractors? If so, why?

52

I What are the most difficult or time consuming steps in the project closeout
process? Why?

I Have you drawn any conclusions with respect to the dominant causes of slow
project closeout process times (punch list, quality of design documents, etc.)?
What are they?

I In your opinion, what are the main causes of slow completion of punch list items
or end of project administrative tasks such as record documents, turning over
operation and maintenance manuals, etc, by contractors?

I Do contract clauses have an impact on overall project closeout?

I Does retainage, or the threat of holding retainage, affect the project closeout
process?

I In your opinion, what motivates contractors to work for timely project closeout?

I Based on your work with other large owners, what organizational traits influence
timely and effective project closeout?

I Describe effective project closeout techniques performed by subcontractors or
vendors you have observed.

I What incentives or measures have you seen used on projects (or department) that
can help lead to quickly closeout a project? If none exist, what incentives do you
feel would be effective?

The data was analyzed based on the principles of Grounded Theory and is presented in
Chapter 4 of this thesis. Through the interviews, the researcher was able to gather
information on the dominant causes of delay and the most time consuming steps during

closeout.

53

3.2.3 Construction Owners Association of America (COAA) Survey and Project
Closeout Workshop
The researcher also considered responses from attendees of a project closeout

workshop in order to expand the range of the study. The “Project Closeout” workshop
was part of the Construction Owners Association of America (COAA) Spring Conference
2007 held on May 9 in New Orleans. Workshop attendees consisted mostly of owners
and several contractors and subcontractors. The 39 attendees were divided into nine
workgroups during the workshop session. A consent letter was signed by the workshop
attendees prior to commencement. The workshop began with a presentation of
preliminary results of a construction project closeout survey of COAA members which
was later followed by a discussion related to closeout causes and strategies. This survey
consisted of an interview questionnaire similar to that of contractors in a format which
was prepared and posted online by the research team two weeks prior to the workshop.
Data was analyzed beforehand and presented during the workshop. The reasons for delay
in project closeout, main causes and improvement strategies were addressed by the
workgroups.
Four pertinent questions were raised for which a discussion followed as part of a “barn
raising” session. These questions were:

0 What are the critical factors that affect the project closeout process?

0 How does the relative impact of these factors rate with respect to the likelihood of

project delays?

54

o What upstream actions during the programming design and construction phases
might be taken to reduce the impact of the identified factors on project closeout
process?

0 Building on our knowledge of effective contractual systems and team processes,
what integrated approach can be developed that leads to better project closeout,
hence more successfiil construction projects?

The groups reported their responses and discussions ensued for each of the questions. For
the first question, the critical factors that were listed by all the groups were further rated
by the attendees. Based on the rating given to these factors, the research team picked the
10 most important factors. Similarly, strategies to improve closeout were also discussed
during the workshop session. Through this session, the research team was able to observe
significant factors which impact closeout. The final workshop responses were
summarized and used by this researcher as data. Analysis of this data is presented in
Chapter 4. Although several pertinent factors were discussed, this researcher placed
emphasis on discussions relating to the causes for delay in closeout and strategies for

improvement.

3.3 Analysis of responses from Contractor and Subcontractor interviews and the
COAA closeout workshop

The interview response spreadsheets and summarized workshop responses
obtained from the MSU study (Abdelhamid et al., 2007) were used as data by this
researcher. Data was analyzed based on the principle of Grounded Theory proposed by

Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. Grounded Theory (GT) has its origins in

55

organizational or professional settings (Martin and Turner 1986) and is a systematic
qualitative research methodology in the social sciences emphasizing generation of theory
from data in the process of conducting research. (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1992; Strauss,
1987) This researcher followed the four steps for analysis suggested in Grounded Theory:
Codes, Concepts, Categories, and Theory.

The data which included responses of interviews and COAA workshop session
was coded by identifying those responses that relate to organizational, behavior. The
codes consisted of anchors that allowed key points relating to organizational behavior in
the data to be gathered. These codes were collected in a separate spreadsheet. This is
termed “concepts” in Grounded Theory. They were further broadly grouped into various
categories. Categories derived from the literature relating to organizational behavior
included role stress, role overload, role of interpersonal relations, burnout, job context,
and incentives. Categories that emerged from the data were then compared to the
literature on factors of organizational behavior. Through this process of comparison
termed “memoing,” causes of delay with respect to organizational behavior factors
emerged. A fiirther comparison of strategies suggested in the data with motivation theory,
resulted in the development of recommendations. This complete process of constant
comparison in order to understand causes and develop recommendations is termed

“theory” in Grounded Theory.

56

3.4 Proof of Concept

To practically evaluate the developed recommendations and test their workability
in practice, the researcher conducted “Proof of Concept” follow-up interviews with
contractors and subcontractors. For this purpose, all contractors involved in the first MSU
closeout study were contacted. Based on availability, four were selected for follow-up
interviews. Questions were targeted towards improvement of factors in an organization to
provide seamless exchange of information during construction project closeout. The

proof of concept questions are presented and discussed in chapter 5 of this thesis.

‘ 3.5 Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the researcher has laid out the steps that were followed in
conducting the research. It briefly describes the interview process and workshop session
of the MSU study (Abdelhamid et. a1, 2007) and the method of analysis of the data that
lead to an understanding of the causes of closeout delays and development of
recommendations in order to provide seamless exchange of information during closeout.

The data and its analysis are discussed in chapter 5.

57

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

58

4. DATA ANALYSIS
This chapter presents the data and the analysis used to draw conclusions by the
researcher about how organizational behavior impacts closeout. In conducting the
analysis, interview responses were compared to the literature presented in chapter 2 using
the principles of Grounded Theory. Figures, tables, and graphs were used as a basis for
comparison in this chapter. All these form a part of the “memoing” process in Grounded

Theory which was described in section 2.10.

4.1 Analysis of Interview responses

In order to understand whether closeout is a problem fiom available data,
contractors and subcontractors were asked “Is Project Closeout perceived as a problem?”
Eight out of twelve contractors and subcontractors indicated that they perceive closeout
to be a problematic and time-consuming step in a project. This is depicted in Fig 4.1
below. To understand the reason for this perception in terms of organizational behavior,
the researcher analyzed the data relating to causes for slow closeout and identified key
points relating to organizational behavior.

Using the principles of Grounded Theory, the key points which are termed codes
in Grounded Theory were collected, grouped in a spreadsheet and categorized into
different factors of organizational behavior. Tables 4.1 to 4.9 depict these categorizations.
These categories were further compiled in Table 4.10 and organizational factors obtained
through the interviews were compared to the literature to arrive at conclusions and

develop recommendations.

59

 

ls Closeout considered a problem?

Interview responses

 

contractors and wbeornrecton

 

 

 

Fig 4.1 Contractor and subcontractor responses

4.2 Subject 1 Interview responses

This interview was of a commercial contracting organization which was involved
in institutional projects such as schools, universities, hospitals, offices, and other
infrastructure with dollar value of projects ranging from $30,000 to $23 million. In this
organization, closeout for a project was defined by its specifications and included
documentation that varied based on the requirement of owners and designers. The basic
closeout steps included collection of O & M manuals after 50% of project completion,
test reports, and collection of second set of shop drawings for owner’s documentation.
These steps along with major milestones are outlined in scheduling sofiware. Closeout

was perceived as a problem by this organization and informally there are internal reviews

60

conducted after completion of projects. The researcher in the following paragraph
identifies organizational behavior factors and later compares them to the literature.

Table 4.1 Organizational Factors identified in subject # 1 interview

 

Interview Responses Organizational Factors
(causes) Role Stress Role Overload Incentives

 

 

 

contract clauses X
threat of holding retainage X
different team X
less number of people X
assigned
project team’s focus shifts X
requirements are boilerplate X
and not project specific
expectations are unclear X
disagreement over the X
warranty period

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During construction project closeout activities of Subject 1, contract requirements
are broken down into manageable parts. In the literature, one of the motivation theories,
the goal-setting theory indicated that tasks, duties and responsibilities should be specified
(Champoux, 2006). Locke and Latham further reinstated that outlining clearly and
concisely what is required elicits the desired response (Locke and Latham, 2002).
Further, the interviewee indicated that there are no incentives to close a project on time.
Jackson and colleagues examined incentives and burnout with respect to job condition
and job expectations and found that incentives did not have a significant impact on
burnout (Jackson et al., 1986). Contrarily, the interview indicated that contract clauses
and threat of holding retainage impact project closeout by motivating project personnel to
work towards final completion. Along with the above mentioned factors, the interviewee
indicated that staffing problems arose when the number of people dedicated to this phase

was low or when personnel actively involved during a project moved on to another

61

project after substantial completion. The most difficult and time consuming steps listed
included pursuing people for information, researching items that were unique, unclear
closeout items at the front end, and extra extension of warranty period.

Overall, the interview stressed the importance of assigning tasks and responsibilities and

also using project specific checklist instead of boilerplate checklists.

4.3 Subject 2 interview responses

Subject 2 interview responses were from a contracting organization that
specialized in institutional projects, historic preservation, hospitality, K-12 projects with
dollar volume ranging from $5 million to $100 million. Project Closeout in this
organization was defined as when project requirements were completed in accordance
with the contract documents, final invoice submitted, warranties provided, and final
payment was being released. Closeout was considered at the pre-construction stage where
the owner’s criteria were established with follow-up at each stage of percentage
completion. The schedule included a line item for closeout where submittals were
approved, 0 & M manuals requested and training documents prepared. The closeout time
in this organization was approximately 30 to 90 days from substantial completion. This
was monitored by senior management in the organization both financially and
operationally and a closeout log was maintained which was generic or project specific
based on the project. Along with this log, project management software was used to track
and verify closeout documents. Closeout was not perceived as a problem but recognized

as a phase that may add scope.

62

The most difficult and time consuming steps as indicated included receiving and
reviewing O & M manuals, preparing and coordinating as-built drawings with
subcontractors. Staffing decisions seemed to be the dominant cause of slow closeout. It
was indicated that there was less motivation among project personnel to completely close
a project during this phase.

Strategies suggested included decentralization and autonomy of project
representative, and use of knowledgeable personnel to enable faster decision-making
during a project. Proactive behavior from subcontractors and a good understanding of
closeout requirements were said to aid in effective closeout. The above factors stressed
commitment that most organizations need to undertake to improve their closeout process.

Table 4.2 depicts the organizational behavior factors that were identified in this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

interview.
Table 4.2 Organizational Factors identified in the interview
Interview Responses # 2 O anizatlonal Factors
(causes) Role Stress Role Overload Incentives
less motivation it
different team x
less number of people
assigned
shift in project team’s focus x

 

lack of responsible,
knowledgeable personnel

 

lack of autonomy

 

lack of decentralization x

 

clear and accurate 0 & M’s
not obtained

 

x
preparing and coordinating
as-built drawings with the
subcontractors x

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

4.4 Subject 3 Interview Responses

This commercial contracting organization was involved in construction and
renovation projects such as schools, banks, universities, community colleges, dorms,
manufacturing and others with dollar volume ranging from $500,000 to 13 million.
Project closeout, though considered at the beginning of a project; actively commenced
with use of a facility by the owner whereupon all 0 & M’s were collected and turned
over to the owner. A closeout process which included a list developed from specifications
was passed on to subcontractors. This process was identified in the schedule as several
line items. Incentives to complete closeout early were through profit-sharing where
every project member had a stake in their project.

The most difficult and time consuming step for this organization indicated was
ensuring that subcontractors read and understood the specifications completely. One of
the dominant causes indicated was with respect to project personnel; who were less
knowledgeable about the process. The transfer of documents also played a part in causing
delay. Contract clauses were said to have an impact on overall project closeout and

money along with a strong desire to close projects early acted as motivators to complete

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

projects.
Table 4.3 Organizational factors identified in interview # 3
Interview Responses # 3 Or anizational Factors
(causes) Role Stress Role Overload Incentives
contract clauses x
different team x
transfer of documents not
completed on time x
lack of responsible,
knowledgeable personnel x

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.5 Subject 4 Interview Responses

This contracting organization was involved in projects such as schools,
infrastructure, city halls, municipal projects, and restoration projects. Dollar volume of
projects ranged from $13 million to $20 million. During closeout, all documents
including as-builts were submitted and final payment was expected from the owner.
Project closeout was considered when the project was 50-60% complete, during which
time requests for closeout documents were made to subcontractors. Closeout was
included as a line item in the construction schedule but, it was not itemized. A closeout
checklist was derived from the specifications for each project. Closeout was perceived to
be one of the expected problems in a project. Smaller subs were believed to cause
problems during this stage since they were unable to understand the process.

Acquiring closeout documents including as-builts were considered to be the most
difficult and time consuming step. In some projects a single point of contact with the
owner was said to aid in closeout process. The type of project was also believed to have
an impact. The restoration projects took more time compared to new construction
projects due to more CCD’s (Construction Change Directive) that were issued. With
respect to subs, retainage was considered to be a motivator but with respect to contractors
the psychological feeling of having completed the project was considered to be the

driving force during closeout.

65

Table 4.4 Organizational factors identified in interview # 4

 

Interview Responses # 4
(causes)

Organizational Factors

 

Role Stress Job context

Incenfives

 

 

psychological feeling

 

retainage

 

project type

 

clear and accurate 0 & M’s
not obtained

 

 

preparing and coordinating
as-built drawings with the
subcontractors

 

 

 

 

4.6 Subject 5 Interview Responses

This contracting organization worked on projects such as hospitals and

The most difficult and time consuming step according to this contractor was

were assembled, change orders approved and final billing processed.

institutions with total dollar volume ranging from $10,000 to $4—5 million. During project
closeout, all documents including as-builts, O & M’s, testing reports were collected.

Construction schedules included line items for closeout, during which time all documents

obtaining information from subcontractors to close a project on time. The flow of

documents among project team was considered to have an impact on closeout.

Table 4.5 Organizational factors identified in interview # 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interview Responses # 5 Organizational Factors
(causes) Role Stress Role Overload
transfer of documents x
clear and accurate 0 & M’s
not obtained x
preparing and coordinating
as-built drawings with the
subcontractors x

 

 

 

66

 

4.7 Subject 6 Interview Responses

This commercial contracting organization was involved in projects such as
healthcare, K-12, institutional, automotive, industrial and national level project with total
dollar volume ranging from $15 million to $ 500 million. Project Closeout included
completion of punch lists, paperwork approval, final invoice submission, owner
occupancy of buildings and obtaining final payment. An expected tirneline for closeout
was laid out at the start of a project and activities were broken down accordingly. Time
for closeout varied from three months to one year.

The dominant cause of slow closeout included lack of diligence by project
personnel during the project closeout phase. Closeout paperwork was delayed in the
absence of important project team members. Clear expectations, good control of the
process, and having essential people working on a project were considered to be
important organizational traits to improve closeout.

Table 4.6 Organizational factors identified in interview # 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interview Responses # 6 Or anizational Factors
(causes) Role Stress Role Overload Incentives
less motivation x
different team x
unclear expectations x

 

lack of responsible,
knowledgeable personnel

 

clear and accurate 0 & M’s
not obtained

 

 

 

 

 

 

x
preparing and coordinating
as-built drawings with the
subcontractors x

 

67

4.8 Subject 7 Interview Responses

This contracting organization worked on a broad range of projects with total
dollar volume ranging from $5 million to $100 million. The closeout phase was divided
into two categories; field closeout, and financial closeout. Field closeout involved
completion of punch list items whereas financial closeout involved issuance of
warranties, bonds, waivers and other documents. A closeout meeting to discuss and
identify closeout requirements was held at 50% completion of the project. Subcontractors
were recommended to identify line items for as-builts, O & M’s, and warranties. Though
closeout was perceived as a problem, an effort was made to obtain warranties early to
ease the difficulties later on in a project.

The most difficult and time-consuming step indicated included obtaining accurate
0 & M’s and as-builts. There was a delay in the submission of closeout documents by
subcontractors. The number of people working on closeout and a project team’s focus
was also said to have an impact because project teams were said to focus their energies
on a new project without completely closing their current project. One of the strategies
for improvement included streamlining processes within the organization so that the
number of approvals required for a project was considerably reduced. Also,
subcontractors who were proactive in submitting O & M’s and updated as-builts regularly

were said to have a positive impact.

68

Table 4.7 Organizational factors identified in interview # 7

 

Interview Responses # 7
(causes)

Or anizational Factors

 

Role Stress

Role Overload

Role of
Interpersonal
relations

 

 

less number of people
assigned

 

shift irnaroject team’s focus

 

lack of responsible,
knowledgeable personnel

 

clear and accurate 0 & M’s
not obtained

 

preparing and coordinating
as-built drawings with the
subcontractors

 

lack of proactive
behavior/pursuing people for
information

 

 

delay in transfer of documents

 

 

 

 

This organization was involved in commercial projects such as hotels, resorts, K-

4.9 Subject 8 Interview Responses

69

included collecting and organizing closeout data.

12 with dollar volume of the projects ranging from $5 million to $200 million. During
closeout, two categories of documents were delivered to the owner. One was financial
which included warranties, waivers, sureties and the other was work related documents
which included 0 & M’s and as-builts. Closeout was identified in construction schedules.
Kick-off meetings outlined closeout procedures. Submittals required by the contract
documents were requested 90 days prior to substantial completion. Closeout was
reviewed for all projects and annually meetings were held which reviewed project data.
Regardless of these defined procedures, closeout was perceived as a problem by the

organization. One of the reasons cited included problems with project staffing, others

 

The dominant causes for slow closeout indicated included lack of effort, lack of
interest, project personnel moving on to new projects and unclear expectations. Strategies
suggested to improve closeout included creating a strong organizational commitment,
having organized and proactive subcontractors and employment of knowledgeable,
responsible personnel with enough authority and accountability.

Table 4.8 Organizational factors identified in interview # 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interview Responses # 8 Organizational Factors
(causes) Role Stress Role Overload Burnout

different team x
shift in project team’s focus x
lack of responsible,
knowledgeable personnel x
lack of effort it
unclear expectations x

 

clear and accurate 0 & M’s
not obtained

 

preparing and coordinating
as-built drawings with the
subcontractors x

 

lack of interest x
lack of autonomy x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lack of decentralization x

 

4.10 Interview responses of subcontractors

Subcontractor responses were compiled and reported together here since the
researcher could not find sufficient varying data related to organizational behavior in
these interviews. All four subcontractors perceived closeout to be a problem. The basic
closeout steps outlined by all subcontractors included completion of punchlist items,

obtaining O & M manuals from suppliers, and providing as-builts and warranties.

70

Each subcontractor interviewee indicated that a project team’s shift of focus to a
new project and scope creep were considered to be main problems associated with
closeout. Along with these, preparing as-builts and collecting O & M manuals were said
to be time consuming closeout steps. Also, personality traits of a project team were said
to influence a project. Aggressive project management was suggested as one of the
organizational traits to influence timely and effective closeout.

Table 4.9 Organizational factors identified in subcontractor interviews

 

 

 

 

 

Interview Responses of Organizational Factors
subcontractors (causes) Role Stress Role Overload
shifi in project team’s focus x
lack of responsible,
knowledgeable personnel x

 

clear and accurate 0 & M’s
not obtained

 

 

 

 

 

x
preparing and coordinating
as-built drawings with the
subcontractors x

 

4.11 COAA Survey

Out of the four questions discussed in the COAA project closeout workshop, two
questions relating to causes and strategies for improvement were selected by the
researcher for her study. The responses obtained were recorded and later synthesized to
identify common themes. These responses were further subdivided based on their relation
to organizational behavior and are depicted in Table 4.10. The overarching themes found
included commitment of project team, communication, quality of design and construction
documents, handling of documents, administrative procedures, staffing, and punchlist
issues. The critical factors for project closeout delays related to organizational behavior

included complexity of the project, burnout, project personnel moving out afier

71

substantial completion, lack of contractual agreements with clearly defined closeout
procedures, lack of organizational commitment, selection of contractors, lack of pressure
after substantial completion, limitations of project manager (or owner) in terms of time,
knowledge and motivation, retainage, project team loss of focus, delay in submitting
closeout paperwork such as as-builts, and O & M manuals, and unclear expectations of
owner.

Though several strategies were discussed and recorded to avert delay during closeout,
the researcher chose to concentrate on strategies relating to organizational behavior and

presented them in Table 4.11.The organizational behavior strategies discussed include:
' clearly defined closeout documents.

' contractual understanding by all team members.

' well established roles and responsibilities.

' involving subcontractor and asking for suggestions.

' use of partnering down to subcontractor and sub-consultant level throughout project

life with one common goal or motivation.
' monetary incentive to inspector and superintendent for completed documents.

' with minimum restrictions; select, develop and nurture project team members and
align team member goals with overall project success.

The above responses regarding causes and strategies were compared to the
literature to discern factors that were similar or dissimilar in nature. They are depicted in
Tables 4.10 and 4.11 respectively. Champoux indicated that along with outlining the
responsibilities, in order to complete work satisfactorily, it is necessary to ensure that

these responsibilities are clearly interpreted and understood by team members

72

(Champoux, 2006). Latham and Yukl highlighted that; goals that were assigned to a
person had an effect only to the extent that was consciously accepted by the person. Both
the literature and interview responses highlighted the importance of partnering; involving
subcontractors to review goals for coordination and cooperation with others (Latham and
Yukl, 1975). Locke and Latham (2002) indicated that people performed better when they
were committed to a certain goal which is termed as “goal commitment” (Locke and
Latham, 2002).

The COAA Workshop revealed certain factors related to organizational behavior
that impact construction project closeout and are indicated in Table 4.11 Most of the
responses obtained in this workshop supported the literature on organizational behavior
however some do vary from the literature.

Table 4.10 Comparison of causes found in all the interviews with the literature

 

 

 

Organizational Interview Responses Literature

Factors (Causes of closeout
delays)

Role stress Project requirements are Literature discusses role conflict and
boilerplate and not project role ambiguity as part of role stress
specific

Expectations communicated by the
Expectations are unclear sender and those perceived by the
receiver are incompatible
Closeout not understood

well by smaller Lack of adequate information to
subcontractors accomplish required activities
Documents required not Information not clearly defined or
clearly communicated to articulated, Lack of clarity regarding
contractors and proper tasks to be performed
subcontractors by the

owner (Champoux, 2006; Cordes and

Dougherty, 1991; Kahn 1978; Miles and
Clear and accurate as-builts Perrault, 1976)
and O & M’s not obtained

Disagreement over the
warranty period

 

 

 

73

 

 

Table 4.10 continued

 

Role Overload

A different team assigned
to closeout that does not
have sufficient knowledge

Number of people to
complete closeout activities
is reduced considerably

Lack of autonomy and
decentralization

Project team’s focus shifts
to a new project

Lack of responsible,
knowledgeable personnel

Characterized by qualitative and
quantitative overload

Lack of basic skill or talent to complete
task effectively

Work cannot be done within allotted time
Resource scarcity

(Maslach and Jackson, 1984; Kahn,
1978; Pines and Maslach, 1978)

 

Role of Interpersonal
Relations

Pursuing people for
information is time-
consuming and requires
more personal resources

Potential for strain because of constant
contact with people

Increase in number of clients results in
increase in demand on personal
resources

(Cordes and Dougherty 1993; Maslach
and Jackson, 1984;Maslach, 1978)

 

 

 

Job Context Complexity of the project Nature of employee client relationship
Specific context related to a job
(McCarthy and Catano, 1992; Cordes
and Dogherty, 1993)

Incentives Less motivation to close Incentives do not have significant impact

 

projects due to lack of
incentives

Contract clauses and the
threat of holding retainage
impact project closeout by
motivating project
personnel to work towards
final completion

 

on organizational outcomes

(Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Jackson et
al., 1986)

 

74

 

Table 4.11 Comparison of strategies from interviews with literature

 

Organizational factors

Interview Responses
(stratrfles)

Literature

 

 

Motivation theory

 

Commitment of project team
Communication

Clearly define closeout
documents

Contractual understanding of all
team members

Establish roles and
responsibilities

Involve subcontractor and ask
for suggestions

Use of partnering down to the
subcontractor and sub-
consultant level throughout
project life with one common
goal or motivation

Monetary incentive to inspector
and superintendent for
completed documents

Select, develop and nurture
project team members

Align team member goals with
overall project success

 

Goal-setting theory indicates that
tasks, duties and responsibilities
should be specified

Outlining clearly and concisely
what is required elicits the desired
response.

Partnering - involving
subcontractors to review goals for
coordination and cooperation with
others.

Champoux indicates that along
with outlining the responsibilities,
in order to complete work
satisfactorily, it is necessary to
ensure that these responsibilities
are clearly interpreted and
understood by the team members.

Goal commitment- people will
perform better when they are
committed to certain goal

Goals that are assigned to a person
have an effect only to the extent
that is consciously accepted by the
person

(Champoux, 2006; Locke and
Latham, 2002; Latham and Yukl,
1975)

 

4.12 Organizational factors

The organizational factors found in the literature were compared to data obtained

during the interviews to identify common themes or variances. Table 4.10 lists the causes

for closeout delays and associates them with the organizational behavior literature.

75

 

The causes indicated by contractors and subcontractors and referenced in Table
4.10 such as unclear expectations, absence of a formal closeout process, lack of clear
understanding by subcontractors, and lack of clarity in performance of tasks, suggest
evidences of role conflict and role ambiguity. Role conflict occurs when the expectations
communicated by the sender and those perceived by the receiver are incompatible. A lack
of clarity in performance of proper tasks results in role ambiguity.

Goal setting theory, which is one of the motivational theories states that tasks, duties
and responsibilities should be specified at the onset of a project. A clear view of
expectations is imperative to elicit a specific behavior. Outlining clearly and concisely
what is required elicits the desired response. In order to ensure that expectations are met,
it is necessary to bring all project personnel together to discuss goals, assign tasks and
responsibilities, and identify required steps and activities. AIA Best Practices indicated
that there is an absence of logical sequence in the final 10% of projects (AIA Best
Practices, 2007). Therefore, in order to maintain focus on closeout items, it is necessary
to develop a project closeout checklist and set priorities among goals. Along with this,
organizations should make an effort to enable project personnel to achieve the goals
outlined for closeout by providing constant feedback and motivating employees. The
relationships between organizational behavior concepts and the literature are depicted in
Table 4.10 under the role stress section.

The researcher incorporated concepts from goal setting theory along with the
interviews to develop a group of recommendations included as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 and

indicated below.

76

Conduct closeout meetings in the presence of all necessary personnel to discuss
specific goals and to assign roles and responsibilities. The studies on goal setting
theory indicate that setting specific goals increase performance and that diflicult

goal if accepted results in a better performance.

Expectations should be clearly articulated. All project personnel should ensure
that the expectations communicated by the sender and those perceived by the

receiver are compatible.

A well defined process for closeout should be laid out. This process should outline

steps and activities that are required in order to closeout a project eflectively.

The project requirements should be project specific and not boilerplate.

Create an “organizational commitment ” to achieve the goals set out for eflective
closeout. The literature indicates that this can be achieved through feedback, task
complexity and employee motivation. The employee ’5 performance record is
tracked to see how eflective they have been in attaining the goals. Without proper
feedback channels it is impossible to adapt or adjust to the required behavior.
When goals are established at a management level and thereafier solely laid
down, employee motivation with regard to achieving these goals is rather

suppressed. Thereby to facilitate motivation employees should not only be

77

allowed to participate in goal setting processes but goals have to be challenging

as well.

6. Set priorities among goals with the help of checklists. The literature indicated that
having checklists prevented personnel from working on other items and also

alleviated strain on project budget.

The relation between the literature and interviews which relate to role overload are
depicted in Table 4.10. The causes indicated included a different team being assigned
which lacked sufficient project knowledge, shift in the focus of the project team, resource
scarcity in terms of labor, and lack of autonomy and decentralization. All these causes
have resulted in the development of following recommendations:

7. A closeout team that is aware of project details and has suflicient knowledge
should be assigned to close projects. Project details should be available to the
team through a common database which shares pertinent project information.
Since the focus shifts to a new project after substantial completion, the closeout
team can ensure that the project is closed out completely to the owner ’s

satisfaction.

8. Enough resources should be allotted to complete closeout activities within the

given time. The interviews indicated that there was a lack of resources in terms of

labor during closeout. This resulted in an extension of closeout time.

78

9. Empower frontline personnel with decision making authority so that less time is

spent in getting approvals fi'om higher levels in the organization.

The role of interpersonal relations plays a significant part and is depicted in Table
4.10. Since the project team worked on multiple projects simultaneously, there was a
potential for strain when contractors had to pursue subcontractors for closeout
documents. This was said to be time consuming and required additional resources in
terms of project management time and money. This results in burnout which in the
literature is characterized by lack of effort and lack of interest. The project team
disassociated itself from a project after substantial completion. This may have been due
to less importance attached to closeout or lack of defined procedures for closeout. The
interviewees with respect to job context indicated that complexity of a project played a
significant role during closeout. A complex project took longer to closeout than a simple
project. The nature of the relationship of project participants and personality traits also
contributed to closeout. This resulted in recommendations 10 and 11 which are as
follows:

10. The closeout documents should be submitted in a timely manner. It was evident

from the interviews that more personnel time was spent pursuing people for

documents.

I I. An open line of communication between the project participants should be
ensured for quick and easy resolution of problems.
The interviews indicated that there was less motivation for the project team to close a

project due to lack of incentives. The threat of holding retainage and contract clauses

79

relating to closeout were suggested as alternatives to motivate people to close a project on
time. Contrarily, the literature suggested that incentives do not have a significant impact
on organizational outcomes. This indicates that further research in this field is required to
assess the impact of incentives on organizational outcomes.

To assess the frequency of a particular cause with respect to organizational
behavior factors in all the interviews, a frequency table was created which is presented

below as Table 4.12.

Table 4.12 Frequency of responses in interviews

 

Role of
Interview responses RoIe Role Interpersonal
causes stress overload relations Incentives Job context

 

 

contract clauses xx

 

threat of holding
retaingge xx

 

different team xxxxx

 

less number of people
assigned xxx

 

project team's focus
shifts xxxxx

 

requirements are
boilerplate and not
project specific x

 

expectations are unclear xxx

 

disagreement over the
warranty period x

 

less motivation xx

 

lack of responsible
knowledgeable personnel xxxxxx

 

lack of autonomy xx

 

lack of decentralization xx

 

clear and accurate 0 &
M's not obtained xxxxxxx

 

preparing and
coordinating as-built
drawings with the
subcontractors xxxxxxx

 

delay in transfer of
documents xxx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

 

Table 4.12 continued

 

psychological feeling x

 

project type x

 

lack of proactive
behavior/pursuing people
for information x

 

lack of effort x x

X
X
X

 

lack of interest x x x x x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To recognize the relative impact of organizational behavior factors, these factors
were plotted against data obtained from the interviews. The number of interviewees who
mentioned a particular factor is depicted here. Eleven interviewees indicated role stress
and role overload in their responses. Similarly, responses of all the interviewees were
plotted to identify organizational factors which have the most and the least impact on
closeout. It was found that role stress which includes role conflict and ambiguity, and role
overload had higher impacts, impact of incentives were relatively low, and the role of
interpersonal relations and job context had very low impact on project closeout. This is

depicted through a pareto chart shown in Fig 4.2

81

 

OB In Interviews

number of Interviewees
a:

 

RoIeConIIIcIaReIe RoIeOverIoed lneeniivee Roleoflntupersonal Jobconiaxi
relations

OBfeeInrs

 

 

 

Fig 4.2 Relative impact of OB factors

The organizational factors indicated above are considered to be antecedents or
precursors of burnout in the literature. Burnout is characterized by emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment which results in lack of
effort and lack of interest during the project closeout phase. The recommendations that
are developed in this chapter may be considered to alleviate burnout of people in
organizations. To assess the importance of these recommendations, further feedback was
obtained from contractors through proof of concept interviews, which are discussed in

chapter 5.

82

4.13 Chapter Summary

This chapter presents the interview responses and their analyses in the context of
the literature on organizational behavior. Tables 4.10 and 4.11 list the causes and
strategies indicated in the interviews. Causes were categorically subdivided into
organizational factors based on the literature. The common themes and variances were
obtained through this comparison and described. These comparisons were used to form

the basis for recommendations which are discussed in chapter 5.

83

CHAPTER 5

RECOMMENDATIONS

84

5. RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 recognized the impact of organizational behavior on construction
project closeout by analyzing data related to causes and strategies. Recommendations that

evolved from that analysis are outlined in this chapter.

5.2 Recommendations for contractors

Based on the antecedents of burnout suggested in the literature, the following
recommendations were grouped into role conflict, role ambiguity, job context, role
overload, and role of interpersonal relations. Though incentives are considered to be one
of the antecedents of burnout, conflicting opinions existed between the literature and data
obtained from interviews. Hence it was difficult to ascertain the impact of incentives and
to develop recommendations for them in this study.
5.2.1 Role conflict, role ambiguity and job context

The literature indicates role conflict occurs when expectations communicated by a
sender and those perceived by a receiver are incompatible. Role ambiguity is a result of
lack of clarity and poor performance. Figure 5.1 includes recommendations relating to the

above two factors in the context of construction project closeout.

85

 

 

 

1. Conduct closeout meetings in the presence of all necessary personnel to discuss specific
goals and to assign roles and responsibilities. The studies on goal setting theory indicate
that setting specific goals increase performance and that difficult goal if accepted results
in a better performance;

 

LI:- ~~— .""_3z—-.._._ —. -J --.-.. flru-u g ->-—- 2' .vfi‘..- #3. , --_... -,_._ ....-:___' --..._-.——r ...__

._ ' - L..- h. fl—‘_ . H - gr -W— “— ~.._. -—~r W m‘w— ...— ‘vv
4. J ‘— -*“'1:;I-' ’_... J— _ 1:3..._ u.»--__...

2. Expectations should be clearly articulated. All project personnel should ensure that the
expectations communicated by the sender and those perceived by the receiver are
compatible.

 

 

 

 

3. A well defined process for closeout should be laid out. This process should’outline steps
and activities that are required 1n order to closeout a pr0jecteffect1vely

-- ‘1" 4’ -r-. .1. n: V-..“ _. ."w _~:-,-._ .tn-n‘f‘.‘ _-r z. » .2:.. 7.....- ~-._:: .‘:~¢-r-_.*::...-~-o~7_:_‘:. mug:

 

.-o--1—e—r1 —-—.—y . "-1- o'Frr. h

4. Create‘ ‘organizational commitment” to achieve the goals set out for effective closeout.
The literature indicates that this can be achieved through feedback, task complexity and
employee motivation. The employee’s performance record is tracked, to see how
effective they have been in attaining the goals. Without proper feedback channels it is
impossible to adapt or adjust to the required behavior. When goals are established at a
management level and thereafter solely laid down, employee motivation with regard to
achieving these goals is rather suppressed. Thereby to facilitate motivation, employees
should not only be allowed to participate in goal setting process but goals have to be
challenging as well.

 

 

133.:

 

 

 

5. Set priorities among goals with the help of checklists. The lrteratureumdrcates that having
checklists prevent personnel from working on other items and also alleviates the strain on
project budget. .

err. 51......- ‘ ~ ’ hn—eqo-H -1.

 

h..- . ._ “w- - W-.. . rfiw—iw __;_.-- ._._.. _ __.. . __ ... __ ........
- “11.“ T's-1.; .a- LK a...” a_ . _._ .__‘,_ _" __'

6 The project requirements should be project specrfic and not borlerplate

, «a» *Th “2““ -__1._..—.~o-PI1‘§.‘J';DI..~'H '_'.' . .- -.- ._“_‘

 

 

 

 

‘11:: -. 11.4-“... ~ne~1~ —-._.__-

Fig 5.1 Recommendations relating to role conflict and role ambiguity

 

5.2.2 Role overload

Role overload occurs when there is resource scarcity or when the work cannot be
completed within the allotted time. The following figure includes recommendations

relating to role overload in the context of construction project closeout.

86

 

7. A closeout team that is aware of project details and has sufficient knowledge should be
assigned to close projects. The project details should be made aware to this team through
a common database which shares pertinent project information. Since the focus shifts to a
new project after substantial completion, the closeout team can ensure that the project is
closed out completely to owner‘s satisfaction.

Enough resources should be allotted to complete closeout activities within the given time.
The interviews indicated that there is a lack of resources in terms of labor during
closeout. This results in an extension of the closeout time.

Empower frontline personnel with decision making authority so that less time is spent in
_ettin an urovals from hi_her levels in the or anization.

 

Fig 5.2 Recommendations relating to role overload

5.2.3 Role of interpersonal relations

The role of interpersonal relations indicates that there may be a potential for strain
when there is constant contact with people or there is an increase in demand on personal
resources due to an increase in the number of projects. Closeout interviews indicated that
there was a potential for strain when pursuing people for information which was often

time consuming and required resources.

11. An open of the project ensured

 

Fig 5.3 Recommendations relating to role of interpersonal relations

5.3 Proof of concept
In order to conduct “proof of concept” interviews, a proof of concept package
which consisted of a consent letter, brief introduction to the purpose of these interviews,

summary of the research and its findings, and questions for validation were sent to the

87

 

MSU IRB for approval. Fig 5.4a and 5.4b present snapshots of the proof of concept
package. Upon receiving approval from the IRB, interviewees of the MSU study were
contacted through phone and e-mail to validate the suggested recommendations. The
purpose of these interviews was to obtain feedback from contractors regarding the
usefulness of the suggested recommendations. Eight questions relating to the practicality
of implementing these recommendations in their organization, barriers to
implementation, and importance with respect to a particular organizational factor were
included. Upon their agreement to participate in the interview, each interviewee was sent
a proof of concept package through e-mail. Appendix IV includes the entire “proof of
concept” package sent to contractors for their review and their responses to the interview

questions.

 

Introduction

The purpose of this research is to determine the influence of organizational behavior on construction
project closeout. The output of this research is a set of recommendations which were developed based
on goal-setting theory of organizational behavior to aid contractors and subcontractors during
construction closeout process. The recommendations developed through this research are validated here
by conducting follow-up interviews with all contractors and subcontractors who were interviewed as
part of an ongoing Michigan State University study entitled “Assessment and Improvement of
Construction Project Closeout and Vendor Performance Evaluation Methods.” The purpose of the
Michigan State University (MSU) study is to develop guidelines and recommendations for improving

practices to reduce time and cost of construction closeout within a university construction context.

 

 

This validation process consists of 8 questions relating to the recommendations developed by

 

Fig 5.4a Snapshot of “Proof of Concept” package from Appendix IV

88

 

Participant Consent Form
Influence of Organizational Behavior on Construction Project Closeout

Researcher — Surabhi Rao
Adviser - Professor Tim Mrozowski, AIA
School of Planning, Design, and Construction

This is a Masters thesis currently being conducted under the direction of Professor Tim
Mrozowski of the School of Planning Design and Construction at Michigan State University (MSU). It
determines the influence of organizational behavior on construction project closeout. Recommendations
were developed by comparing previous literature to the data collected in the MSU study entitled
“Assessment and Improvement of Construction Project Closeout and Vendor Performance Evaluation
Methods”. To validate these recommendations the researcher is interviewing contractors and
subcontractors who were involved in the ongoing MSU closeout study. As an experienced industry
participant, your input with respect to these recommendations will be very useful to fulfill the
objectives of this research

As a participant in this research, you will be asked a series of closed and open ended questions
relating to organizational behavior and construction closeout. Your participation is voluntary and you

 

 

 

Fig 5.4b Snapshot of “Proof of Concept” consent form from Appendix IV

5.4 Proof of concept responses

Feedback was obtained from three contractors through phone interviews and a
fourth interview was conducted face to face. Fig 5.4c shows a snapshot of the proof of
concept responses which were summarized in an Excel® spreadsheet. The first question
addressed the ease with which the developed recommendations could be understood. All
contractors indicated that the recommendations were clear and concise and were easily
understandable. Contractors were asked to rate the recommendations relating to each
organizational behavior factor. Recommendations relating to role conflict and role
ambiguity were considered to be very important by all contractors whereas
recommendations relating to role overload, and role of interpersonal relations were
considered less important. Contractors further stressed that problems relating to role

overload and role of interpersonal relations could be alleviated if importance was given to

89

recommendations relating to role conflict and ambiguity at the onset of the project. This

was consistent with data obtained from previous interviews of all contractors,

subcontractors, the closeout workshop and the literature.

 

7r.._fr ,.1____-. _r. - . .. .-_7 V...“ -_...._.- -rw- . .,_,___..__.:- V”..-

Proof of Concept Responses

.~___.._.- fiv—v—o—‘r r~——"v-— . ——- ~— ,_ ~~-—- —-~ - v.-___ ., -v._.- "—1

 

 

 

 

 

lo. Questions Responses
very well
How well do you understand these very well
recommendations for project closeout fairly well
described in this research? veg: well

 

”—8

What are the barriers for implementation
of these recommendations during project
closeout in your organization?

 

 

The recommendation relating to using a
different team (recommendation 7)was tried out
at the organization. But one of the problems
faced was the closeout team was not familiar
with the owner or trade contractors. Also, when
the project staff realised that there was a
closeout team they were not interested in clean
up of items. It was not a good financial model
or a good business model for performance

 

1. Cost for additional resources

2. Failure to recognize the true workload
involved due to past practices that underdeliver
or hide the effort

 

 

Even though formal procedures are developed

 

Fig 5.4c Snapshot of “Proof of Concept” responses from Appendix IV

The second question related to barriers for implementation of the developed

recommendations. Interviewees indicated that though all the recommendations were

important, recommendation 7 under role overload relating to use of a different team for

closeout was difficult to implement since this team would not be familiar to the owner,

trade contractors or other project participants. Further, it was indicated that when project

staff realized that there was a closeout team they were not interested in clean up of items.

Cost for additional resources, failure to recognize the true workload involved due to past

90

 

practices that under delivered or hid the effort, use of closeout documents by
subcontractors as a bargaining tool were other barriers indicated by contractors.

The third question addressed other organizational behavior factors that influence
closeout. The interviewees responded that communication and leadership were other
factors that should be considered during closeout. One of them indicated that
recommendations relating to role conflict and role ambiguity also highlighted the
importance of communication between project participants. In terms of leadership, it was
indicated that personnel at a higher level have to take the lead during planning stages in
order to drive the closeout process.

When contractors were asked how helpful these recommendations were to their
organization they indicated that they have implemented some of the recommendation but
there was no formalized process. Even if there was a process, these recommendations
reinforced the importance of closeout process.

Some additional comments the interviewees made included all parties should came
together early on in the project to discuss roles and responsibilities, and a knowledgeable

person with decision making authority should be assigned to close projects effectively.

5.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter presents the recommendations for contractors and considers

feedback obtained for validation through proof of concept interviews.

91

CHAPTER6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

92

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 included analysis of data and recommendations were presented in
chapter 5. This chapter summarizes the contents of this thesis and reiterates the goals and
objectives of this research. It also presents contributions of the research, areas for future

research, research limitations, and conclusions.

6.2 Research objectives
The overall goal of this research was to determine the influence of organizational
behavior on construction project closeout. To achieve this goal, the objectives outlined in

this research were:

1. Identification of factors related to organizational behavior in the interviews by
comparing the literature with the interview responses.

The researcher analyzed the data based on the concepts of Grounded Theory
proposed by Glaser and Strauss (Glaser, 1992; Strauss, 1987). The factors related to
organizational behavior were identified in the closeout data and compared to the
literature. This was useful in identifying and understanding common causes for slow

closeout in organizational behavior terms.

93

2. Development of recommendations to contractors and subcontractors based on
motivation theories of organizational behavior.

Motivation theories were used in previous research in the field of athletics and
medicine to prevent burnout. Similarly, to alleviate the causes which are considered to be
antecedents of burnout, goal-setting theory relating to motivation was adopted and used
to identify closeout strategies suggested in the data. Recommendations were developed

based on this comparison to mitigate the effects of burnout.

3. Validation of these recommendations by conducting proof of concept interviews.
Contractors who reviewed the recommendations developed by the researcher

indicated that these recommendations reinforced the opinion that closeout is a very

important phase and that importance should be given to this phase in order to maintain

good relations and to leave a good lasting impression with the owner.

6.3 Research contributions

Project closeout is an important phase in the lifecycle of a project but this phase is
often overlooked and according to the literature was considered to be the one in which
customers were least satisfied. The reasons cited for this dissatisfaction were many but in
this research, the researcher explored the effects of antecedents of burnout on closeout.
The antecedents of burnout included role conflict, role ambiguity, role of interpersonal
relations, job context, and incentives. By identifying and comparing each antecedent of

burnout in the literature with closeout data, the causes were understood. Subsequently,

94

recommendations were developed based on goal-setting theory of motivation. The
following are the contributions of this research:

1. Literature review identified previous research in sports, medicine, and teaching
that linked burnout and motivation. This researcher identified organizational
behavior factors related to burnout that influence the construction closeout
process.

2. Applied Grounded Theory to analyze information rich data.

3. Developed recommendations to contractors and subcontractors based on
motivation theory of organizational behavior to mitigate the effects of burnout
components on closeout.

4. Identified antecedents of burnout that impact construction project closeout.

5. Conducted proof of concept interviews which indicated that problems which arise
during closeout can be alleviated by placing importance to recommendations

relating to role conflict and role ambiguity.

6.4 Research limitations

The target group was limited to commercial contractors and subcontractors in the
Mid-Michigan area. Though only a limited number of interviews were conducted, this
was an information rich study and while it is possible that a greater number of interviews
could have led to different results there was no indication of that in this research. The
quality of information is directly dependent on the knowledge of interviewees. In this
case, since highly experienced interviewees participated, the researcher is fairly confident

about the responses.

95

Another limitation is that the research focused on project closeout and not on

other phases in the lifecycle of a project.

6.5 Areas of Future Research

This research focused on organizational behavior factors that were considered to
be the antecedents of burnout. Future research could include other organizational factors
that were not explored in this study.

Goal-setting theory of motivation was used to develop recommendations to
mitigate the effects of antecedents of burnout. Other areas of organizational behavior
could be explored to alleviate the effects of burnout.

Project closeout which is only one of the phases in the lifecycle of a project was
investigated. Future research may be expanded to include the entire lifecycle of a project.

This was an exploratory research which mainly used qualitative methods of
Grounded Theory for data analysis. A quantitative method of data analysis could be used
in the future research to assess the extent of impact of burnout on construction closeout.
Data obtained from the interviews of eight contractors and four subcontractors along with
attendees of COAA closeout workshop were analyzed in this study. Future research could

include a larger sample study for greater accuracy.

6.6 Research conclusions
Based on the research conducted on both organizational behavior and project
closeout, the researcher concludes that organizational behavior has an impact on project

closeout. This was determined by comparing the burnout factors categorized in the

96

closeout data to the literature on organizational behavior using Grounded Theory for
qualitative analysis. It was evident that antecedents of burnout which include role
ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, and role of interpersonal relations were prevalent
among contractors and subcontractors during the project closeout phase. The negative
influences of these factors could be alleviated by implementing the recommendations
developed from goal-setting theory of motivation. Use of Grounded Theory was found to
be helpful. The researcher believes that in the absence of application of Grounded
Theory, recommendation 5 relating to priorities among goals would not have emerged.
Also, recommendation 4 relating to organizational behavior would have been absent
without use of Grounded Theory.

Proof of concept interviews conducted to validate the recommendations
developed in this research indicated that role conflict and role ambiguity had relatively
more impact; and further, problems caused due to role overload and role of interpersonal
could be prevented if importance was given to these recommendations at the onset of a

project.

97

APPENDIX I

CONTRACTOR INTERVIEWS

98

 

Feedback from Contractors

 

Sl No. I

Questions

I Responses

 

structureandP

 

C1

What is the title of your position

within your firm?

 

Project Manager

 

Vice President for Central MI region, Project Manager
Vice President

 

1 President and 2 Project Managers

 

President

 

A 5 member team attended the interview. their positions
were: Project manager, Field Engineer. Accountant, VP-
Health Facilities Group, VP- Higher Education

 

Project Director and Accountant.

 

Project Director

 

 

CZ

 

What are the types and ranges of
projects your firm is typically involved

with?

Types of projects include mainly institutional namely
state work like prisons and offices, hospitals, schools,
universities. massive utility projects. infrastructure.
waste water and fresh water. pump and booster. self
performed heavy concrete. site concrete

range of projects include 30,000 to $23 million projects
target is $5million to $50 million

 

lnstituitional, Historic preservation. State projects.
Independent. Hospitality, K-12. Project values from 5 to
100 Million Dollars.

 

All types of construction and renovation projects like
schools. banks, universities, community colleges.
dorms. manufacturing etc. The project amount ranges
from $ 500k to 13 million.

 

Higher Education, K-12. Grad schools, Infrastructure,
City Halls, Municipal projects, Restoration projects. The
roject value ranges from $13-20 million

 

We do hospitals , Institutions, school works. we work for
CMs. Our projects range from $10000-$4-5million. At
MSU we have done works ransing $150k-$250k.

 

Higher Education (Univ. and Colleges), Health Facilities.
Sports Facilities. Energy Environmental. K-12,
Automotive, Industrial, National level projects, Program
management. The project value ranges from $15mlllion
to $500million

 

Broad Range of projects. our project rangesare from
$5mill-100mill. With universities we do smaller dollar
value projects.

 

 

We do Hotel, Resorts, Institutional, K-12, commercial
(everything except residential), cost-wise from 5 to 200
million.

 

 

99

 

Sl No.

Questions

Responses

 

C3

 

Describe your firms primary delivery
method (i.e. design build,
construction manager, ...)

the finn's primary delivery method is GC. hard-bid
design-build and CM used for sommivate clients

 

70% of prjects are done as CM at risk. Other delivery
methods used are GC, Design-build, and CM at Agenc

 

General Contracfig

 

General ContractinL

 

General Contractor or a trade contractor to CM. But we
don’t think CM adds any value to the project.

 

80% of our dollar value comes from CM at risk. rest
20% comes from GC delivery method

 

70% CM, 30% GO, we occassionally do DIB also.

 

 

We do mostly CMAR (construction managers at risk) or

Agency, around 5 % of general contracting and a very

small % of design build. We have not done any self
erformance since the last 5 years.

 

Closeout Processes

 

 

 

What is your company's definition of
construction project closeout?

defined by the specifications and the documentation
also varies with owners and designers
encompasses process from permitting, certificate of
completion

construction completion substantial completion
final completion

Construction completion is when the tradesmen
complete the installation

the contract requirements are also broken down into
manageable parts

 

When the work meets all project requirements as
mentioned in the contract documents, final Invoice is
submitted; final payment is being released. Warranties
are provided.

 

When the owner starts using the facility. All 0&Ms are
handed out.

 

We expect to be clear with subs on all payments, sworn
statements, all documents are submitted. As-bullts are
submitted and expect a final payment from the owner.

 

Getting good set of As-builts, 0&Ms. TAB reports.
Guarantees, getting WBE 81 MBE verification, and
receiving final payment.

 

Gathering and completion of punchlists. Paperwork
approval, handing final invoice, getting final payment.
owner occupancy of the buildings. We consider all these
factors as a part of construction closeout

 

Closeout for us is divided in two categories. Field

closeouts involve completing of punchlists. Financial

closeout involves Issuing of warranties, waivers. bonds
builder's risk) etc.

 

 

Our definition of a project closeout would be when the
owner has received all required documents and we
have received our final payment. We normally deliver 2
categories of documents to the owner. The financial,
like the guarantees. waivers, sureties and work related
like 0&M manuaLAs-builts.

 

100

 

 

Sl No.

Questions

Responses

 

C5

When do you begin to consider the
project closeout phase?

as soon as the contract is let

 

From Pre-Construction Stage. Owner's criteria for
closeout is established. Followup at each stage of %age
completion.

 

We consider it at the beginning. we set C/O process
and give it to subs

 

We start considering at 50-60% completion stage, beign
asking subs for closeout documents. We do that
because interest wanes out towards the end. As-builts
are the last thing that come in. Documentation is a big
deal for subs.

 

At MSU we begin considering it when final change
orders are coming in, we try to get subs to get things
early. MSU is notoriously slow with change orders, CPA
takes 5-6 months to process changes. but their process
has improved since project reps have come in.

 

Technically, we mention it at post bid interview/meeting,
and include it in contract. Physically we consider it at
75% stage of project; we send c/o reminders to subs.
Get 0&M manuals when the equipment arrives.

 

We think about it from day 1. We give our documents to
subs at start of the contract.

 

We begin to consider a closeout at the submittal of the
shop drawing phase.

 

 

C6

 

Are disagreements over achieving
substantial completion common
among large owners? How are
these conflicts usually resolved?

Yes. the disagreements are common

State of Michigan requires 0 & M manuals before
substantial completion but it is rarely submitted before
Substatntial completion since it is difficult to get this
information by the contractors from the subs
negotiated to suit owner's needs and atleast a
temporary certificate of occupancy is almost always
regired

 

Very rarely; AIA has a good description of SC. stage. A
temporary CO is issued at 8.0. stage.

 

No, AIA contractual terms dictate.

 

No

 

Disagreements happen over Mechanical and electrical
items. schedules for long lead time items are unrealistic
at MSU which cause problems.

 

No, rarely have disagreements over Substantial
completion as it is usually well defined by the owner
(State). Sometimes there is a discussion required
regarding extended warranties for ajor equipments
which need startup before final completion of project.
Phased turnovers become challenging because
expectations of closeout changg.

 

Disagreements occur only with individual owners who
are not knowledgable about the process. We resolve it
by refering to AIA document.

 

 

Not normally but if there is then its mostly about
warranties and mechanical equipment which is triggered
at the substantial completion stage.

 

101

 

 

Sl No.

Questions

Responses

 

 

C7

 

Can you outline for us the basic
steps and activities in the project
closeout process? Are these project
closeout activities identified in the
construction schedule?

the basic steps include

-Collect O 81 M manuals after submittals are complete
which is usually afet 50% of project duration

-collect test reports

-a second set of shop drawings for the owner are
maintained for closeout

all the above items are identified in the schedule using
primavera. A submittal log is issued at the beginning of
the project. Finish milestones like Construction
completion. testing and balancing. permitting, O 81 M
also identified for projects

It is issued with each subcontract and mentioned in the
project meeting

 

We put closeout as a line item in construction schedule.
After submittals are approved the 081M manials are
asked for. Locations are identified to place stock.
Warranty letters are mailed. Training documents are
prepared.

 

Review specifications. Identify subcontractors and give
them the list. They are sometimes identified in schedule
as several line items.

 

We put ”closeout" on the schedule but donot itemize it,
we put 7% on it in schdule of values. We start faxing the
requirements to subs at 60-80% of the project and
withold the last cheque. Documents required by MSU
are As-builts. 0&Ms, Warranties. Materials as built list.
For certain mechanical equipment the 081M goes
straight to MSU which is cumbersome for us to manage.

 

The basic steps involved are assembling documents.
getting change orders approved, process final billlng.
We have a line item for closeout in the schedule.

 

We have an actual process flowchart but not specifically
mentioned in the schedule. It is our standard process.
We put an expected timeline of closeout at start. later
on we break out the closeout activities. We assign them
monetary values in the schedule of values.

 

we see the manual early on. at 50% project completion
we have project c/o meeting where we Identify c/o
requirements. we recommend subs to identify line ltmes
of do for as-builts, 0&M, warranties. State of Mlchlgan
requires C/O docs to be presented as line items In SOV.

 

 

we identify project closeout in schedule giving It more
depth. We also have kick-off meetings during which we
identify the closeout procedure. 90 days prior to the
substantial completion we send out letters to parties
reminding them about submittals and documents. For
technical specifications we maintain logs and we have
our own set of front and documents that as CM we put
together what format and how many we want.

 

102

 

 

Sl No.

Questions

Responses

 

C8

Based on statistical data or from
your experience. what is the usual
time associated with closeout of
projects?

No statistical data and the trme for closeout names with
owner

State of Michigan has liquidated damages for both
substantial completion and final completion

Most owners mention both the substantial completion
and final completion dates

Liquidated damages may help with the final completion
since it encourages contractors to protect ask for time
on the change order

 

30-60 days from final stage of completion. Sometimes it
is 60-90 days.

 

30—60 days.

 

Usually its 6 months, but it varies with project. Waivers
take time. if they can be done at time of 081M then the
prcess could be faster. MSU issues a lot of change
orders at the end which costs a lot of time. This results
in delays amending the subs contract who in turn hold
on to 0&Ms before they get the full payment. At MSU
the documents exchange a lot of hands which takes a
lot of time. Issues like prevailing wage compliances are
not processed timely so they hold checks at the end
which squeezes us.

 

We try to get it done in 30 days time which is achieved
for 75% of the projects. otherwise it takes around 4560
days from substantial completion.

 

30 days to 1year. On an average its 3 months.

 

For Financial closeout it takes 30 days on an average.
Total closeout takes 90-120 days depending on the
owner type. We payout the subs within 30 days of
receivirgfihe finaljayment.

 

closeout starts upon substantial completion when
documents begin to get gathered and payments are
made. An overall of 90 to 270 days approximately.

 

C9

Does your organization evaluate
project closeout for various projects?

No formal process but informally there is an effort to find
ways to make closeout better

 

the closeout is tracked in senior management;
financially and cmerationally.

 

Yes

 

We don't have any formal process. It’s a watch dog
system; we have learned from experience.

 

No. we discuss it informally and keep records for last 5
years of work

 

We ask the owner to evaluate us. and closeout is a part
of the evaluation.

 

Yes. but only with large owners. We do it for financial
and of closeout. We do field closeout evaluation only for
problem projects. We send out questionnaires to the
owner and discuss it in financial meetings with different
accountants in the firm

 

Yes. we do post-mortem on projects in form of periodic
reports. In addition to that we have the ISO annual
meetings which review the data annually.

 

 

C10

Does your organization have a
project closeout checklist for various
projects depending on the size? If so
can we obtain a copy of this

 

checklist?

 

No, the checklist for a project varies with the owner‘s
rocess

 

103

 

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

yes we use a closeout log which is both generic and
roject specific. Yes you can have the copy of the lgg.

Yes, but it changes from job to job. We took MSU's list

and adapted from it.

The 0/0 checklist varies from project. The

specifications outline the requirements, we print out the

sub list§ and iart asking them

No, we use the checklist used by MSU for their projects.

for other projects we use the checklist supplied by

architects.

Yes, yes we will give you a copy of the checklist.

Yes

Yes. we posses a standard format. We could give it to

you but you may not publish it in your report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C11

 

What project management software
is currently being used by the

organization? How have they its perdormance. It is used only for transmittal tracking

impacted project closeout?

"Masterbuilder" is currently being used and pleased with

Developed custom process using 'viewpoint' program. It
is an integrated document tracking software which takes
inputs of financial documents, payroll. change orders,
submittals,and RFI. Helps in the closeout process by
verification of documents and minimizes the unknowns
and claims.

We use Microsoft Project, also use excel based
program for estimating. It helps in tracking and
accountability.

We use Timberline for Project management. lT helps
controlling all the submittfi

Primavera-Expedition; using it for 20 years. It helps
tracking documents status tremendously. We also use
microsoft project.

We use ProLog for tracking documents, it is web based
therefore all information is put on project websites which
can be accessed by different project teams especially
when they are not local teams.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

 

SI No.

Questlons

Rgponses

 

We use CMlC which integrates accounting with project
management. Enterprise software is used for tracking
logs and other documents. We are not sure how they
have impacted project closeout.

 

Prolog has a helpful impact in managing projects. We
use it in form of an accesible webpage. for example the
RFI logs can be used by contractors and shop logs are
for read only purpose by contractors.

 

C12

What is the targeted duration for
completion of your portion of the
project closeout process?

30 to 60 days between substantial to final completion
but internally the company aims for 30 days

 

30-60 days.

 

As a trade contractor we aim to have CIO documents
before project is done. As GC we expect it within 30
days from the sub.

 

2-4 weeks is ideal for us.

 

30 days

 

45 days for a project value of $50-75 million. For a
project of $100 million and above we set a time frame of
6 months.

 

90 days

 

90 to 270 days

 

C13

Do incentives exist within your firm to
quickly and effectively closeout a
project?

No incentives but just keeping one's job and people
trying their best

 

The personnel get to keep their job.

 

We have pension. profit sharing; so everyone has a
flan-‘2-
Get to keep our jobs.

 

the quicker we get done the more money we make, we
give bonuses for effective management.

No incentives, cash flow is important Life gets easier if
we get quick closeout.

 

No

 

No

 

C14

Are you aware of any published
industry average rates for project
closeout process times?

No

 

No

 

No.

 

No

 

No

 

No

 

No

 

No

 

 

C15

Is Project Closeout perceived as a
problem by the contractors? If so,
why?

 

Yes.absolutely

the closeout phase gets frustrating since the
specifications are not well written and are mostly
boilerplate. owners and architects do not put in enough
work to create the list. owners ask for O & M manuals
for items which do not have one

on every project a list is sent to the owner extrapolated
from the specification but doesn't work well and is
mostly in owner's control

in case of warranties there is a disagreement between

 

the owner and the sub regarding the warranty period

 

105

 

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

Not a problem with us. Have alleviated problems as
much as possible. Have placed a priority on this issue
and look at it right from the start of the project. The only
problem with it is that it is looked at as an added scope.

 

Its not a problem for us as a GC. But we have observed
that the subs don't read and often miss things like attic
stock.

 

Yeah sometimes. but its considered part of the job.
Smaller subs cause problems because they don't
understand closeout.

 

Yes, biggest problem at MSU is that they point out
mistakes in work long after they should have done.

 

We look at it as a challenge. lots of money is involved
so we have to get through it. A lot of it depends on the
structure and process of the subs.

 

Everybody perceives it as a headache. We try to make
it easy by getting warranties prepared beforehgnd.

 

 

Yes, because they are not sure what they want and they
do not seem to care even If its just the matter of giving a
document for the release of the payment. One reason
could be that they a_re not staffed properly.

 

C16

What costs, if any. are associated
with the project closeout process?

closeout process requires a significant amount of PM
and administrators time. In terms of hours 120 to 160
hours for project administrator and 40 to 80 hours for
project manager It
is job specific-for a $13 million project, approximately
6000 to 7000 is spent in closeout documentation

also leads to loss of productivity pursuing these
documents from the subcontractors

 

It ties up the resources. which are non-compensable. It
affects release of retention money (which is more of a
problem for sub-contractors). The labor and other
services are also tied up.

 

Staff time. Calls. Compiling Documents. For Subs delay
of final payment is a problem. also affects the
contractors who are t_ardy with submittals.

 

12-15% on overheads (G&A). Shipping. binders.
materials, Administration time.

 

Around $600. other indirect costs include waiting for the
money after we closeout completely.

 

If the Closeout process drags. it has financial
implications. Costs entail administrative time.

 

Mostly Time and administrative costs. Affects 0818
ratings sometimes when the subs complain for non-
payment for over 90 days. Titular companies require
waivers to be furnished which take time.

 

We have not tried tracking it yet. It depends on the size
of the project. It may include administrative costs, lost
opportunity to collect payments and cost of manpower
used in collecting data and final pay.

 

 

C17

 

What are the most difficult or time
consuming steps in the project
closeout process? Why?

 

pursuing people for information, researching items that
are unique. mispecified item and extra extension of
warranty period, atypical items are time consuming

 

106

 

 

Sl No.

Questions

Responses

 

getting and reviewing 0&M manuals. preparing and
coordinating As-buiit dwgs with subs. Since there is no
dollar value attached to these documents therefore the
contractors are not financially motivated.

 

Having subs read and understand specifications. There
is always one who doesn’t follow.

 

Getting CCDs processed. Documentation. getting as-
builts.

 

Having to do it. Calling subs and suppliers and getting
info from them.

 

Getting punchlist that is agreeable to everyone.
Cleaning up outstanding disagreements, getting change
orders resolved. We try to get punchlists performed by
all trade craftsman as soon as possible. (eg. Get all
masonry punchlist work before painter arrives).

Getting correct and complete 08M and As-builts. And
financial closeout.

 

 

collecting and organizingfle data.

 

 

C18

 

What are some project factors that
can impact the success of the
project closeout process? (e.g..
dollar value of the contract. new vs
renovation. source of funds. project
delivery system. etc.)

individual GC's PM heavily influence the sucess of the
project by working with subs and not losing them by
asking for things that cannot be given. by understanding
the process . by providing a specific list of things that
subs must provide without passing the entire
responsibility to the subs

owners should be reasonable in their requirements
Design-build works better to facilitate speedy closeout.
With CM, it may help a little because they may make a
list but CM avoids risk

in renovation. it depends on the scope of the project

 

Dollar value of project doesn't affect much. No
difference either in new or renovation project. Source of
funds have impact at times for example the state funded
projects are difficult to finish. The most important factor
is project delivery system; CM and 0/8 systems
helpbecause of early interaction with the owner. the GC
delivery system causes problems.

 

Type of owner as not all owners are knowledgable
about maintenance. Subs that don’t comply. In MSU the
documents touch too many hands which is a problem

 

Renovation projects take more time bewuse more
0003 are issued.

 

 

Longer projects cause problemsphasing of projects
cause problems. new projects generate more punchlists
so they cause more problems compared to renovation.
When the premises are partially occuped then the
damage due to their use also cause problems.

 

107

 

 

SI No.

Questions

Responses

 

Diligence is important. Smaller projects may be harder
to closeout because personnel are working on multiple
projects.

 

Project staffing is critical for the success because the
Project engineer and trailer cannot do all the stuff
together. New projects are easier than renovation
projects because of fewer changes. CM might go
quicker because they are properly staffed.

 

The factors that may impact the success of the project
closeout are: 'communication. 'tracking the closeout.
*choice of materials and methods. *new vs renovation
project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C19 Typically. how long after you have varies. with MSU it takes 45 to 60 days

completed your last closeout/project State of Michigan- 15 to 30 days

papenNork/item does it take to private clients- 30 days

receive final payment from owner? public agency- 30 to 60 days
By contract within 60 days which is generally done.
However problem is reaching the last papenivorklitem
stage. Its typically 30-60 days after the resolution of all
change orders.
6months—1year in case of MSU which is terrible. State of
Michigan clears payment in 60 days.
Within 30 days. MSU requires Pollution control
insurance policy which they dint inform on time. This
costed us timely payment. They should mention C/O
expectations at a kickoff meeting.
30 days at best and 60 days at worst.
30-45 days. At MSU the documents touch too many
hands which wastes a lot of time. They have a tendency
to lose documents. Interim payment is a problem with
MSU as they don't process it on time. They don't as-
built material list as a requirement in front and
documents. other universities have stricter and clear
requirements setup. Documentation required is a
moving target.
45 days. it takes 20 more days if audited for all the
draws.
45 to 365 days, varies

C20 Generally. which project parties are owners and architects on front and through the

delays?

 

most responsible for closeout

specifications

mechanical. electrical. roofing. coating. any major
manufacturer. subs generally are co-operative but the
source of problems are more with the distributors and
manufacturers who really force the parties to conform to
the manaufacturer's process

 

Owners. resolving financial claims is not an issue
though. Its only the scope and resolution of change
orders.

 

Telecommunication and mechanical contractors
generally cause most delays. In MSU. someone is
always late in progress meetings. They hold sidebar
conversations too which is annoying.

 

At MSU it's the CCDs which take maximum time.
Generally it's the mechanical and electrical contractors.
State of Michigan with owner supplied equipment costed

 

us a lot of time. Architectural reviews.

 

108

 

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

Electrical. Plumbers. Parties like Siemens don’t care
about timely completion

 

All parties say A/E. Owner. CM. Contractors are equally
responsible. MSU shops don't affect much.

 

The Project Management side of things causes
maximum delays. Architects do take long times. The PM
for any party if not communicating well with his own
office causes problem. MSU has had instances of losing
documents within EAS. The CPA informed very late on
builder's risk insurance which caused us problems.

 

Subcontractors. Specialty contractors and MEP cause
the maximum amount of closeout delays.

 

 

C21

 

Are performance records of specialty
contractors your firm works with
formally maintained? if so. what
metrics are tracked? How do these
records affect contractor selection?

informally.the contractors know the strength and
weaknesses of each of the subs and looks for
advantages nd disasvantages in each.the contractors
also know the working style of each of the them (benefit
Vs Cost analysis)

 

yes. a rating form is in place called 'trade contractor

performance questionnaire'. Which is subjectively filled

by the PM or superintendent or both. The questionnaire

acts as a factor in selection of the contractor in future
rojects.

 

Yes we have ISO certified evaluation form. wherein we
look for trend of bad subs. We have manager meetings
to evaluate subs.

 

We are a small firm. have a staff scheduling meeting
every Thursday where we schedule work for next week.
We mentally take notes of staff performance. talk about
subs performance.

 

We have an informal "crap list" in our office for people
who don't perform well.

 

Yes. in a subcontractor database if the project value is
more than $50K. Evaluation done by field team. If a
contractor gets 3 no's then their record goes to process
improvement team who decide if to keep them for future
projects.

 

Yes. We track their bonding capacities. and we maintain
a database which can be accessed by anyone across
the board.

 

 

Yes. we do collect data to track performance of
specialty contractor. We have FTC (failure to comply)
forms which allow us to report and record the problems
on site and give contractors time-frame to correct it.
This form also ensures safety and quality in
performance of work.

 

109

 

 

Sl No. I

Questions

Responses

 

Project Closeout Improvements

4 ‘ — "...4. LL

 

C22

Have you drawn any conclusions
with respect to the dominant causes
of slow project closeout process
times (punch list. quality of design
documents. etc)? What are they?

clear closeout items at the front end in case of O & M
and warranties making sure the information is accurate
owner and NE should prepare a list of specific technical
requirements from the specifications

contractor needs to take initiative on punchlist

very low productive work on punchlist

need contractor's "work to complete list" to be ongoing
and contractors need to take ownership

owners should ask for things that is really needed with
respect to the project

 

staffing decisions of contractors play critical role (we do
err soemtimes). The contract documents arent an issue.
The design documents. if poor. may cause lots of
chanLes which take "eye of the ball”.

 

Some people haven‘t been trained or they don‘t know.
When we work with MSU students we make sure we
make them understand the process.

 

Preparation of As-builts. approval of 0005. self
performed punch lists are dominant causes of slow
project do. We think a single point contact with
authority can greatly help in expediting the process.

 

when the work is slow it is mainly due to contract
document confiictstlans and specifications collide

 

Diligence is the most important thing.

 

Collection of paperwork takes maximum time. Design
docs also cause problems if they lead to many change
orders.

 

'Lack of effort ‘lack of interest ‘If technical

specifications do not clearly specify the requirement of

document then it takes time to turnover the documents.

in addition to that Architects take long to approve
unchlists.

 

 

C23

 

In your opinion. what are the main
causes of slow completion of punch
list items or end of project
administrative tasks such as record
documents. turning over operation
and maintenance manuals etc. by
contractors?

punchlist takes a long time with almost no production in
punchlists since subs put in small crew on work

record documents are not a problem since they are
collected as work progresses

M EP generally good on keeping as-builts up to date
record documents too loosely defined and varies.
sometimes include change orders. bulletins. RFI quotes
etc

expectations and definitions should be clear

 

 

If the partnering agreement between client. contractor &
sub-contractor is not good then it affects the closeout
process. It is also important to give a pre punch list to
the sub-contractor before they are offset.

 

110

 

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

Transfer of documents from too many hands. Lots of
times architects don’t know what they are looking for.
MSU takes a lot of time tranfer documents into right
hands. We would like to have maintenance people sign-
off on documents.

 

Mostly mechanical subs cause delays chasing their
suppliers and coordinate with their stuff. Generally
speaking the subs don’t coordinate timely.

 

Arguments in punchlists by people who move in or
check them late. Partial occupancy of premises also
cause trouble.

 

Contractors donot want to perform punchlists unless
they have entire punchlists in hand. Change order
finalizations take time. Paperwork takes time incase the
main guy is taken off the project. Sometimes end
user/owner who is reviewing is not knowledgable about
the documents.

 

Main cause of the slow completion is that the project
team's focus shifts to the next project by that stage.

 

'getting people together *identifying who will organize a
walk through with the parties to check the punchlist
items

 

C24

Do you feel that owners’ contract
documents adequately describe the
project closeout procedures? How
could this be improved?

No
the owner's contract documents should be clear and
s ecific to the project and not boilerplate

 

Yes

 

Yes, it does. We would appreciate if a date is given for
closeout document handover. MSU dates are ridiculous
especially for remodel projects where it takes too long to
get a CCD. The prject representatives should carry a
pad of CCIM'nd issue quickly.

 

Specific to MSU . they could give us a project specific
checklist instead of issuing a generic checklist.
Probably. introduction of separate division of Closeout
could help.

 

Yes. at MSU they are consistent with their request. with
ears of experience with them we know what they want.

 

with MSU they don't clearly specify as built material list
as a requirement in front and documents. More
teamwork is required in that aspect.

 

No. we would like to see them in detail by division wise.
We don't want to see generalised statements.

 

varies with owners. MSU is very inconsistent on
identifying the closeout documents. instead of giving
the list at the end, they must give it with the contract
documents.

 

 

C25

 

Do contract clauses have an impact
on overall project closeout? (Please
give an example)

yes in terms of motivation

State of Michigan does not hold retainage but has a
closeout line in the documents with a total of 6% held
back (2% for as-builts. 2% for code certification and 2%
for O & M)

 

 

Yes. Substantial and final completion liquidated
damages elevate the significance of closeout. They
work good from risk management perspective. but bad
for partnerships. MSU has final completion clause but
no damages associated with it.

 

111

 

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

Yes. we have a 72 hour clause where if the sub doesn’t
comply then we do it ourselves and back charge the
subcontractor.

 

We are obligated to closeout the project no matter what
clauses are there in the contract.

 

NO

 

No. it is a clear understanding of expectations.

 

Putting definite timelines for Substantial Completion and
Final Completion might draw attention of contractors.
(MSU does it).

 

More often than contract clauses. the management
aspects have a greater impact over the overall project
closeout.

 

C26

Does retainage. or the threat of
holding retainage. affect the project
closeout process?

yes. refer C25

 

Yes. works as financial motivation. It’s a fiowdown
clause so wont pay the subs. However retainage should
not be kept for closeout documents. lnsteead they
should be included as line items in schedule of values.

 

No

 

Retainage is a non-issue for us. but it affects the subs.

 

Retainage more than 5% is a pain. It does pushes some
subs.

 

Is it not a big motivator. The owners just use it as a
hammer.

 

Yes

 

Yes. to an extent. witholding retainage may affect the
porject closeout.

 

C27

In your opinion, what motivates
contractors to work for timely project
closeout?

not paying liquidated damages. getting money in the
bank. providing good service to the client. future work
with the owne and customer service

 

Money

 

They get paid quickly.

 

Holding back retainage on subs motivates them to work
faster. We personally don't like to see pile up in the
books so we try to finish quickly. Holding back our
retainage has some minor issues with bonding
companies as they tend to observe the clash flow and
our exposure in the market, so the bonding capacity
decreases for that portion of time.

 

MoneL

 

Money. prospect of future work

 

Quicker payment. prospect of future work.

 

final payment

 

 

C28

 

Do you have any opinion or analysis
on whether the project delivery
methods such as design-build.

construction management. general

contracting influences project
closeout times?

Design-build and CM is better in general

 

Yes the affect. in the order of 1. Design-build. 2.
Construction management. 3. General contracting.

The level of control is more and at an early stage in first
2 delivery systems.

 

 

No

 

112

 

 

Sl No.

Questions

Responses

 

GC system is better than CM as it does no extra benefit
to the owner. For us Design-build is the best method as
"we get to drive the bus". We make technically practical
designs and our submittals are more seamless.

 

Design build is the best. CM is no use for project
amounts below $50million

 

GC closes out faster because more money is at stake

 

Maybe GC has a longer lead time because of less
staffingthan CM.

 

CM affects the POD times most. This method of delivery
is most favorable to the owner.

 

C29

Has your organization been involved
with projects which have used
commissioning services? How does
the commissioning process impact
project closeout time?

not really applicable because of limited experience, also
de nds on the qualiy of the commissioning agent

Yes. The commissioning process delays the closeout
process at times because a lot of commissioning stuff is
dependent on weather conditionseg. Boiler testing.

 

Yes. it makes the closeout process easier.

 

we have provided commissioning services in UofM
projects. It is very helpful as the preforrnat closeout for
us.

 

No

 

Yes. commissioning helps. because things are in place
at an early stage. Equipments are brought in early and
so is commissioning agent. Plus there are very few
repair calls.

 

Yes, it helps closeout because things go hand in hand
from the start.

 

Yes. Commissioning services shorten punchlists and
minimizes closeout times.

 

 

C30

 

if you have used partnering
agreements on projects. has project
closeout been mentioned or
highlighted in these sessions? Has it
been effective in condensing the
project closeout time?

Yes project closeout is mentioned in partnering
agreements

yes. it has been effective in condensing the project
closeout time when it is established and and mutually
agreed upon

Yes. have done partnering agreements but don’t
remember mentioning closeout. Yes it helg

 

Yes. but it doesn’t have any substantial impact on
closeout process.

 

No we havent used any partnering_agreements.
No

 

have used it in health care projects. but closeout wasn’t
highlighted in partnering.

Yes. but we havent seen any effect one way or another
on do. But partnering did affect resolving disputes
better. so in a way could affect do better.

 

 

 

Yes we hahve used but not sure if that affects the P00.

 

113

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

C31

In your opinion, are the items
identified by owner personnel on the
punchlist usually reasonable?

the identified in the punchlist by the owner are not
reasonable but the items identified by the NE are
usually reasonable skilled
trades may sometimes ask for items which are not really
in the contract documents which results in change of
scope ' wish list'

also the plans and specifications are not reviewed
properly before construction

 

Yes. most of the times.

 

Yes, we usually self punch and then go to the owner
and punch as we go along.

 

Yes, it is fairly reasonably at MSU. the church projects
are painful because there are more than no. of people
required to check punchlist with us.

 

Usually they are reasonable but not always. End of
ro'ect changes by end users do cause problems.

 

99% of the time.

 

Yes. mostly owner defers it to the architect.

 

Yes

 

 

C32

 

Based on your work with other large
owners. what organizational traits
influence timely and effective project

closeout?

No discemable differences

 

Decentralized and autonomy of the project
representative help in running the project quicker. The
most knowledgable individual is best able to handle
situation. In MSU. the different source of funding and
shops affects the project reps' ability to closeout. The
BMS is worst; works directly with siemens. keyshop.
telecomm landscaping are other problem makers.
roblems arise when there is a gap between gctivities.

 

Strong desire to get the job done

 

certain qualities that we think are important in
organizations are maintaining teamwork emphasis
which comes with knowledge and experience.
personality combination. no fingerpolntlng. single point
contact with the authority.

 

Speed of document flow is important. All organizations
are same with respect to closeout.

 

Having clear expectations. having important people
active in the process. Good control of the process

 

Heirarchical structure of the organisation. No. of
approval levels make a difference (we expect less
levels).

 

 

Having an owner's representative who is knowledgable.
responsible and has enough authority and accountability
to make decisions is a strong factor.

 

 

114

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

C33

Describe effective project closeout
techniques performed by
subcontractors or vendors you have
observed.

vendor must be proactive and take control of the
process rather than waiting for the process by sending
O & M and other documents as soon as they can.
vendors are better than subs at closeout

 

Sub-contractors' own understanding of close-out
importance easies out the job. Not aware of the
techniques used by them

 

Developing relationships with people. they then know
what to expect.

 

Haven't seen any.

 

All of them have ups and downs. Multiple people doing
as-builts cause problems. Changing PM during job
cause problems.

 

Some of them step-pp and do it on time.

 

Vendors who keep O&M. As-builts up to date are better.
Individuals who are proactive make the big difference.

 

Some of them are very organized and that helps. They
set a timeline and back it with proper staff to meet the
deadline.

 

 

C34

What incentives or measures have
you seen used on projects (or
department) that can help lead to
quickly closeout a project? If none
exist. what incentives do you feel
would be effective?

 

withholding payment is one of the incentives

 

if closeout documents are allowed to be included as line
items in schedule of values. that would help.

 

Pay quickly is the best incentive. We try to shame
people if they don’t do the job; make subs call each
other.

 

We like to tell people that they have done a good job
and appreciate it. lntra-office competition to step up the
speed is a good measure. We would appreciate
acknowledgement from MSU in form of certificate if
closeout project on time.

 

Experienced and effective people who are organised
should handle the stge.

 

Havent seen any financial incentives. Having right
people on the side who push the prcess is what matters
the most.

 

We havent observed any Incentives. Quicker release of
retention money or reduction in retention percentage
could work as an incentive.

 

 

The most important thing for the contractor and the
subs would be to deliver the as builts on time and for
the owner to release final payment on time.

 

115

 

 

Sl No. I Questions

1 Responses

 

Closeout and Michigan State University (MSU)

r; _ _—

 

C35

Please describe your company’ s role
and involvement in the project
closeout process on MSU projects.

GC rs in control and rs at the apex in the process

 

no answer.

 

We try Met the job done quickly and gipaid.

 

discussed already

 

CCD's take time to process. we start doing it when last
CCDs start coming in.

 

Answered in C36 and C37

 

Our role with MSU is to get the documents that you
need as quickly as possible. MSU audits prevailing
wage rate audits regularly whichiigood.
Overseeinfihe process

 

 

036

Please comment on effectiveness of
MSU's project closeout process?

 

final change orders are big,usually delay closeout since
the project can't be closed without it

project closeout list for project rep is helpful but the
boilerplate is not project specific

closeout items should be defined upfront

 

MSU is more thorough as compared to other owners
and universities. They cover all bases.

 

Lots of people are looking over the process which is
unneccessary. It takes a long lead time. The documents
sit on project reps or architect's desk for long time.
State of michigan puts As-builts. O&Ms and Cert. Of
Occupancy as line items for 2% under schedule of
values.

 

CCDs take lots of time. Documents exchange many
hands.
Thy are consistent with their requirements.

 

They should come up with clear expectations. identify
the authority from their side. On MSU part. getting their
whole team on same page is important. Their physical
plant self performed work takes a lot of time. The
student reps only add an extra layer and thus more
time. R: Landscaping should be included in contract; not
in shop.

 

its effective. but could be more so if communicated
earlier. They could communicate expectations at kickoff
meetings. Training might be a good idea. And single
point of contact would help.

 

MSU is poorly effective. they sometimes lose
documents (such as invoice, insurance certificates).
Therefore. we may have to pay the subs from our

 

 

pockets resulting in less metitive bids from subs.

 

116

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

C37

Is the length of the project closeout
process at MSU comparable to other
projects your firm encounters? Do
unique conditions exist at MSU that
either shorten or extend the project
closeout phase?

Yes. fairly typical except for the change order

 

yes. very typical. No special conditions exist.

 

No. They take too long to issue a change order and do
final billing. For a comparison scale they take 5 times
more time than state of michigan to do final billing.

 

State of Michigan is worse because of lots of hands and
bureaucratic system. UofM does it quick as they carry a
hammer on closeout documents. MSU delays a lot
when it comes to CCDs. it extends to the point of being
abusive. Change orders at UofM are quick. they use
labor rate sheets for pricing subs.

 

MSU is more stringent with requirements. Sparrow
hospitals are a bit lax. But their change order process is
too drawn out.

 

We had a lengthy closeout process. Had lots of
changes at the end of our project with liquidated
damages clause hanging at our head.

 

Yes. but MSU has the potential to go faster.

 

No. MSU has a long pay out process. In other aspects
all owners take alomost the same time.

 

C38

Do you consider MSU to be a
reasonable customer with respect to
project closeout requests?

Yes

 

yes. they are easier than some other clients. They
specifLit too early and don't vary from project to project.

 

Yes

 

Yes, they don't request waivers till the end.

 

In generalies.
Yes. but they need to be more clear.

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

C39

What impact do the
design/construction standards of
Michigan State University or its
administrative processes have on
project closeout process times?
Explain.

 

design/construction standards does not impact much
Inconsistency in construction manual requires changes
at times. If standards arent upto date then 'unwritten
standards' apply. Earlier involvement of shops and
trades in the process is required.

 

It makes it easier as we can see the updates on the
website.

 

CCDs are a big issue. there should be more people
involved upfront. A single point contact works better.

 

Green book gives us sets of guidelines which eliminate
arguments.

Standards are not out of line. Administrative tasks take
more time and cause problems. EAS should improve
their own understanding of their requirements.

 

Ones that are better spelled out to last detail would help
closing out better.

 

They do not have any specific required standards
mentioned in the list. its mostly general inclusive of the

 

documents required in the project closeout.

 

117

 

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

C40

Do MSU (or other owner) “front end
documents" adequately address
project closeout requirements and
process?

No the front end documents are too boilerplate and are
not project specific

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

No, we expect a clearty defined closeout checklist

 

Yes

 

No. expectations are not clearly communicated.

 

Yes. but it depends on owners. MSU is particularly
mod.

It requires improvement. They should update and
publish the forms regularly.

 

if you provide construction services
for universities or other large public
sector owners. what aspects of their
project closeout management
processes which should be
considered for adoption by Michigan
State University? Explain.

Not aware of any

 

None

 

They should consider involving fewer people in the
review process.

 

Uof M's labor rate sheets and project billing rate sheets
hem) in streamlining the process.

 

MSU's system is laborious but consistent, but their
Change order processing takes time.

 

UM understands project requirements better than MSU.
MSU held all contingency outside of contact. we would
like to control construction contingency to better
manage the contract, would not have to wait for MSU
issued change orders.

 

None.

 

Not sure of any. Fewer people handle the documents.

 

 

What suggestions do you have
regarding project closeout that might

processes?

 

be helpful in improving MSU closeout

upfront expectations for items to be submitted and
should be explicitly stated

 

Should define const. closeout activities and define
responsibilites for contractors. Should minimize late
scope changes and let the contractors finish out. If
closed out once. then MSU should issue new contract
for any work on same project.

 

Need change orders quicker to do projects. would like
to do a job with no change orders.

 

There should be one point of contact. A customised
closeout checklist. CCD process times should be
quicker. They should have additional backup for a
change request from a student (students need more
oversight).

 

Should track paper work effecitively; quit losing them.
Consistency among project reps would help a lot (each
of them have their own trackianystem)

 

 

 

118

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

They should handle change orders better and timely.
Should understand project requirement better. Define
responsibilities better. They have a lumpsum mentality
(refer to contingency comment in C41).

 

If there is a way to shift responsibilities to PM or Project
Rep like getting approvals then that would help.
Standardizing procedures across the MSU PMs can
help things quicker.

 

identifying who is responsible for closeout process.
important to discuss their shortcomings.

 

 

 

Any other comments you would like

to add?

disincentives(punishment) does not really work since
contractors are skilled at defending themselves and also
the contractors devote a lot of resources
communications. documents and the requirements must
be clear

 

None

 

Need Standardized c/o meetings. Relay expectations
with 605 and other people. regular exchange with
vendors; that will streamline processes.

 

Simplification and standardization of processes would
help

 

 

 

When someone goes on vacations. the process gets
stuck. They should notimbsences.

 

 

Follow up with discussions

 

119

 

APPENDIX 11

SUBCONTRACTOR INTERVIEWS

120

 

Feedback from Subcontractors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Si No. I Questions Responses
Orggtizatlon structure and Pr Marta ement
Cl What is the title of your position
within your firm?
Project Manager
resident
Project Manager/Estimator
Project Manager/Estimator and Executive Vice President
C2 What are the types and ranges of

projects your firm is typically involved
with?

all sizes of commercial construction and small industrial

 

commercial and industrial

 

MSU, schools. commercial. pump station

 

All MSU Projects. Hospitals. Power House. Auto
Buildings. Excavation work. Steam work or Underground
work. (Largest firm in MI)

 

C3

Describe your firms primary delivery
method (i.e. design build.
construction manager. ...)

 

hard bid "plans and specs"

 

design-build. construction manager. GM (bids and
specs)

 

desjqn-build. CM. GC

 

 

Our method of project delivery is General Contractor.
Design (Build‘and as trade contractor on CM projects. ‘ --

 

Closeout Processes

 

 

 

What is your company’s definition of
construction project closeout?

O & M manuals. as-builts, punchlist mainly constitute
project closeout

 

final documents to be turned in at the end of the project

 

transfer information to owners. mainly consists of as-
builts. warranties. O 8: M. People usually tend to move
on to the next job and closeout should be thought about
midwamrough the project

 

 

We consider a project to have closed out when the
owner has obtained a reviewable. accessible set of
drawings and data that helps them to maintain
documents. install or order new parts. We also help
MSU with their commissioning and supply them with an
O&M manual.

 

121

 

 

 

Sl No.

Questions

Responses

 

C5

When do you begin to consider the
project closeout phase?

project closeout is considered from the very beginning of
the project

 

1 to 1 1/2 months

 

1 Month before completion

 

We generally begin to consider a close out from the time
when we begin the contract and start to issue purchase
orders. We usually provide the schedule of values.
Retention % is flexible.

 

C6

Are disagreements over achieving
substantial completion common
among large owners? How are these
conflicts usually resolved?

yes. there are disagreements over achieving substantial
completion the owner
always pushes the boundaries with substantial
completion though there are defined laws about
substantial completion. there is always a grey are about
the date of substantial completion

warranties and retainage are concern of the contractor

 

Yes. conflicts usually resolved through meetings at the
closeout phase

 

The substantial completion date-is part of the contract
and usually there aren't any disagreements. The date is
achieved by bringing in more manpower and working
more hours

 

Owner usually expects us to take responsibility of the
maintainance therefore there is usually conflicts between
the maintainance and warranty of the work. We get the
certificate of substantial completion for the work when
the individual departments give their approval. For
example. Mechanical dept. there is no occupancy w/o
permits and therefore no substantial completion.

 

 

C7

 

Can you outline for us the basic
steps and activities in the project
closeout process? Are these project
closeout activities identified in the
construction schedule?

as—builts, O & M. punchlist. warranty. Usually not
included in the schedule

 

punchlist. O & M, Warranty. final payment
these mainly derived from the specs and usually not
outlined in the construction schedule

 

O 8. M's are obtained from suppliers through e-maii, as-
builts obtained from electrucal foreman. warranties begin
from the substantial completion date. testing. final
electrical certification from the State of Michigan

the closeout activities are not outlined in the construction
schedule

 

‘Get the subcontractors and suppliers to provide the
information to MSU in the beginning of the project close
out. *Helping MESRI to prepare the O&M by providing
them with the basic data.*Completeing the as—built
material list for MSU and providing all the necessary
permits. warranties. records. flushing&testing and forms.

 

 

Comment by personnels of the company WRT to C7:

*We prefer Construction Management compared to the
General Contractor. CM maintain a submittal log. their
process involves more paper work but is more efficient
and reliable. General Contractor. they do not have as
much paper work. which is good but then its not reliable
sometimes. *We also
maintain a set of coordination drawings and Supervisor‘s
reference manual on site

 

122

 

 

Sl No.

Questions

Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C8 Based on statistical data or from your the time depends on the size of the project. Sometimes,
experience. what is the usual time punch list drags and may take months - 6 months.
associated with closeout of projects? Smaller projects are easier to close and have less
problems
depends on where the project is located. If it is in E.
Lansing, usually takes one to two months and if it is a
MSUJroject takes 6 months to gear
30 to 60 days
For small jobs it usually takes about 3 to 4 days or a
week and for larger jobs it takes about 4 months. But
considering total completion including final payment- a
small job may also take 60 to 90 days after submittals
are completed to gather all parties together. to
coordinate various as builts and follow up.
C9 Does your organization evaluate No
project closeout for various projects? yes
No
Formal evaluation is done by means of the company's
Evaluation form and otherwise informally experienced
project managers are recruited for the purpose by word
of mouth.
C10 Does your organization have a
project closeout checklist for various
projects depending on the size? If so
can we obtain a copy of this No formal checklist but information is derived from the
checklist? smcifications
es, checklist is provided
checklist provided
Yes.
C11 What project management software do not use any software

 

is currently being used by the:

organization? How have
impacted project closeout?

they

 

software 'Quickpen" is used for Bid, estimating and
Design. The software does not have any impact on the
closeout phase. it is mainly driven by the contractor

 

"Accuvid" is the software cuurently being used for
estimation. A 'binder book' is maintained for RFl's.
purchase orders, contracts. permits. bulletins. lights. fire
alarm. security. log books

 

We have been using a Project Management software for
the last 14 years which have had a positive impact on

 

the project closeout process.

 

123

 

 

Sl No.

Questions

Responses

 

C12

What is the targeted duration for
completion of your portion of the
project closeout process?

No timeframe. but an effort is made to complete as soon
as possible

 

The last month- 30 days

 

30 to 60 days

 

ASAP or probably one week. Realistically it takes 2 to 4
weeks considering substantial completion process and
then preparinfle as built material list

 

C13

Do incentives exist within your firm to
quickly and effectively closeout a
project?

No

 

no

 

no direct incentives. final retainage which is usually 5 to
10% is the only motivation

 

No

 

C14

Are you aware of any published
industry average rates for project
closeout process times?

No

 

no

 

no

 

No

 

C15

Is Project Closeout perceived as a
problem by the contractors? If so.
why?

Yes. always. Money and time are the issues

 

yes. because of the time that it takes between different
rejects

 

yes. it is more a hassle bcause of people moving on to
the next job and it would be more easier if it starts
midway through the project

 

Yes. This process continues to be a moving target even
with consistent customers as MSU. Everytime a new
process and a new price is added. it becomes an
ongoing and continuous process. thereby witholding the
final payment of the contractors.

 

C16

What costs. if any. are associated
with the project closeout process?

Typically. hourly labor. Burden is on the sala_ried people

 

1 to 2 % of the project (dollar value)

 

No benefits. but there are labor costs

 

management cost. clerical cost. delayed final payment
and when its more than one project. it adds on to a huge
amount.

 

 

C17

What are the most difficult or time
consuming steps in the project
closeout process? Why?

 

as-builts - since they are not updated regularly.

 

commissioning because of the units that have to be
brought in together

 

all steps need equal attention

 

 

As-built drawings an important part of the closeout
process is good but compiling the O&M manual.
preparing as-built's material list and gathering the field
data takes longer.

 

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sl No. Questlons Responses
C18 What are some project factors that dollar value of the project does have an impact but not
can impact the success of the project sure about the new vs. renovation. Source of funds do
closeout process? (e.g.. dollar value not have much impact and the delivery system might
of the contract. new vs renovation, help
source of funds, project delivery ‘ust the people one is working with
system. etc.) none but then project closeout should be thought of
midway through the project
Dollar value. new vs renovation aspects of the project
does not necessarily affect the success of the process
but the project delivery method does. A CM method
facilitates quick review of the documents because of the
log being maintained. The success is also influenced by
the level of complication of the project and the
information regarding the required equipment and the
tools.
C19 Typically. how long after you have final payment is received fairly quickly. On an average
completed your last closeout/project 30 days
paperwork/item does it take to varies. some are very quick and some are slow. Sparrow
receive final payment from owner? Hospital- quick, MSU-slow
varies quite often. 60 to 90 days to even a year or two
min 60 days. approximately for all projects
020 Generally. which project parties are getting 0 8. M manuals from vendors
most responsible for closeout problem are from the subcontractors. they are not on the
delays? frontline
Don't know
The control contractor by default is mostly responsible
for the delays because he is the last one to finish his job.
C21 Are performance records of specialty No. not formally maintained but mainly based on

 

contractors your firm works with
formally maintained? If so. what
metrics are tracked? How do these
records affect contractor selection?

expenence

 

yes, mostly througginsurance. EMR is also made known

 

yes based on the date. scheduling and the wait for
materials. The data is used as a leverage at the time of
selection

 

No. we normally give them a review of their work and
represent their performance to the owner in our
performance evaluation form. Normally. we educate and
train our subs to mde their performance.

 

 

125

 

 

Sl No. I

Questions I

Responses

 

Project Closeout Improvements .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

022 Have you drawn any conclusions with punchlist and as-built are major factors
respect to the dominant causes of no
slow project closeout process times no
(punch “Si. quality 0f design Punchlist takes the longest time (Recommendation: It
documents. etc-)? What are they? should be more frequent and periodic. one per month
atleast). Too many RFls(design issues) contributes to
the delay in the process. (self derived solution: for
steaming projects we prepare punchlists ourselves due
to safety issues and for other projects we prepare
preliminary punchlists.
C23 In your opinion. what are the main punchlist is slow because building is occupied. people
causes of slow completion of punch have moved on to the next job and should be schedule
”St items or end 0f project around the activities within the building. Difficult to mark
administrative tasks such as record the concealed parts in the as-built drawings by the end
documents, turning over operation of the project
and maintenance manuals etc. by causes are with the subcontractors since they are busy
contractors? with other projects this takes a backseat and closeout
not dicussed as much as it should be
MSU is proactive in the completion of punchlist items
Any of the trade contractors can cause the delay in the
preparation of the punchlist
024 Do you feel that owners’ contract the specifications are pretty clear
documents adequately describe the yes
project closeout procedures? How yes
could this be improved?
MSU's contract documents do. They have defined a
checklist. but it includes every single detail of repeated
items.(This makes it very time consuming. If they have
considered us as prequalified and preferred contractor.
they should allow leniency in submittals to that extent
that we are efficient in our delivery of work)
C25 Do contract clauses have an impact only if it is perceived as a threat

 

on overall project closeout? (Please
give an example)

 

yes

 

yes. money plays an important role

The new MSU contract always include some amount of
Killer Clauses, but never mention that the contractor will
be notified about the same.(self derived solution: we
have a clause that we now include in all our forms that

 

 

we must the right to review the contract before signing.

 

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sl No. Questlons Responses
C26 Does retainage, or the threat of yes
holding retainage. affect the project No. because still closeout gets done
closeout process? yes
Yes
027 in your opinion. what motivates money
contractors to work for timely project 5 chological effect- closipqthe project in books
closeout? retainage. startinlcloseout midway thmgh the job
Money (Final Payment), release of retention. That is
where the profits at.
028 Do you have any opinion or analysis
on whether the Dielect delivery In design-build, the projet seems to go faster. drawings
methods such as design-build. are good and changes are made as the project goes
construction management. general alonLand punchlist can be created by the organization
contracting influences project CM is lot slower than GC because it adds one more
closeout times? layer. Desifibuild is faster
no
CM- involves more paper work but more efficient.
thorough. more organized due to Log. 60- is more
streamlined (less expenditure) but not thorough and they
at involved in bid shoppipgactivities.
029 Has your organization been involved no
with projects which have used Yes. makes the project mer
commissioning services? How does not directly but adds more cost to the project and also
the commissioning process impact takes a lot of time and labor
project closeout time? Yes. Currently the commissioning process is affecting
the project closeout time greatly and negatively because
the system is not set up very well.
030 If you have used partnering Not involved in any partnering projects
agreements on projects. has project No
closeout been mentioned or no
highlighted in these sessions? Has it
been effective in condensing the Yes. But its early to tell.
031 In your opinion, are the items pretty reasonable but the owners do not get the trades

 

identified by owner personnel on the
punchlist usually reasonable?

Light

 

Yes

 

90% are reasonable but the rest 10% is not

 

Punchlists are done by engineers and reviewed by
project representatives. Sometimes its reasonable and
sometimes unreasonable.

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sl No. Questions Responses
032 Based on your work with other large there are no organizational problems from the owner’s
owners. what organizational traits perspective. If there is a lack of organization it is from
influence timely and effective project the contractor's side.
closeout? training of individuals invlolved in closeout. personality
traits
refer above
Aggressive project management helps influence
timeliness and effectiveness of a project closeout.
033 Describe effective project closeout
techniques performed by training and in case of big equipment the vendors are
subcontractors or vendors you have proactive in sending their 0 & M manuals. Usually sent
observed. before installation or in conjunction with it.
No set techniques. The specifications are thoroughly
looked at in order to obtain items that are required
during closeout
none
For example. Michigan Supply (piping and fixtures) are
very responsive and proactive. They give O&M manuals
with submittals and with each revisions they resubmit it.
034 What incentives or measures have Haven't seen any incentive. Retainage is usually a
you seen used on projects (or disincentive
department) that can help lead to None but instead of retainage an incentive clause would
quickly closeout a project? If none be helpful
exist. What incentives do YOU feel startingcloseout midway through the job
would be effective? Asbuilts= 2%, O&M=2%. project closeout and
miscellaneous=2%
Closeout and MlchlgflState UnlversltyiMSU)
035 Please describe your company’s role mainly involved in producing as-built drawings. 0 8. M
and involvement in the project manuals, warranty and punchlist
closeout process on MSU projects. 'ust participate as per the specifications
refer the checklist provided. MSU has an as-built
material list which is added document compared to
others but is not much of a hassle
036 Please comment on effectiveness of pretty minimal involvement with MSU directly involved

 

MSU's project closeout process?

with the contractor

 

slow

 

N/A

 

 

 

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sl No. Questions Responses
037 is the length of the project closeout Pretty comparable. MSU has an as-built material list
process at MSU comparable to other which is uncommon compared to others but is not a big
projects your firm encounters? Do hindrance. The time taken for payment is lpnger
unique conditions exist at MSU that No- MSU process is longer compared to the others
either shorten or extend the project because of the billinflrocess
closeout phase? yes
Yes.the project closeout process at MSU is comparable
to other projects our firm encounters. The as built
material list plus the equipment serial no list contributes
to the extention of the closeout period.
038 Do you consider MSU to be a yes
reasonable customer with respect to yes
project closeout requests? as
Yes
039 What impact do the
design/construction standards of MSU requests three 0 at M manuals which takes a long
Michigan State University or its time but that is typical for an entity-in par with the others
administrative processes have on makes the closeout process longer due to innumerable
project closeout process times? steps and different levels of hierarchy that is involved
Explain. like student trainer. inspector. engineer. consultant.
admin (Contracts and Grants) whereas outside it is just
one person
none
It is mostly taken care of by the engineers. therefore we
do not have much problem.
040 Do MSU (or other owner) “front end as
documents” adequately address yes
project closeout requirements and yes
process? Yes
041 If you provide construction services No big difference with other large owners. Pretty

 

for universities or other large public
sector owners. what aspects of their
project closeout management
processes which should be
considered for adoption by Michigan
State University? Explain.

standard

 

not aware of anfihing different from MSU

 

no. nothing more

 

 

Michigan State University should have all its O&M
manuals converted to electronic format. They could
switch to paperless technology such as BIM and develop
a common database that could be accessed by
contractors, suppliers and be gpdated every 6 months.

 

129

 

 

 

Sl No.

Questlons

Responses

 

C42

What suggestions do you have
regarding project closeout that might

MSU should not duplicate anything. like 0 & M manuals
which they might have from other projects shouldn't be

be helpful in improving MSU closeout re-requested

processes?

 

Only one person should be involved for closeout rather
than too may people

 

closeout should be considered halfway through the
project.through CM

 

* There should be a brief meeting before the submittal
log is prepared.‘ MSU should not charge us for the
coordination drawings. they may accept electronic copy
of the same.‘ They should have one Project person
contact responsible to filter the requests sent to us.’
They may extend some amount of leniency to us being
preferred and prequalified contractor.‘ Change orders
should be processed more frequently. atleast one per
month.

 

 

 

Any other comments you would like

to add?

no

 

 

 

For larger projects, MSU could perhaps save more time
and money by using the list of prequalifled contractors.
in addition to this. a frequently updated database will
halp save time and also serve to be a source of future
reference.

 

 

130

 

APPENDIX HI

COAA CLOSEOUT WORKSHOP

131

COAA Spring 2007 Conference
Project Closeout Workshop- Barn Raising
May 9th 2007
Introduction
Project Closeout workshop was one of the first few sessions in the COAA Spring
2007 conference. 39 attendees were present which included owners from various
institutions, each of whom belonged to one of the 9 groups. The presentation included a
brief introduction to the research currently being conducted by the CPPAI team at
Michigan State University, the literature review till date, barn raising session which
included a discussion and sharing of views by various participants about project closeout
and finally tabulation of results and conclusion. The barn raising session comprised of
three questions where several views of the attendees were shared. The following are the
questions that were part of the barn raising session-

1. What are the critical factors that affect the project closeout process? Rate the
relative impact that these factors affect the likelihood of project delays

The nine groups present in the closeout workshop session listed several critical
factors, out of which the five factors that each group considered to be important were
chosen. Some of the critical factors mentioned by the groups included

0 Complexity of the project
Unresolved construction issues
Never-ending punch list items
Lack of defined closeout procedure
Project personnel moving out after substantial completion,
Commissioning performance issues
Planning
Contractual agreements with clearly defined responsibilities
Management attention
Choice of contractor
Money as an incentive/disincentive
Project manager (owner) limitations in terms of time, knowledge, motivation,
incentive
Contract requirements- link pay with completion
Pressure is off after substantial completion
Burn out, project team loss of focus
Closeout paperwork, record drawings, 0 & M
Completion of punchlist and never-ending punchlist
Building officials-certificate of occupancy
Fire Marshall
Final change order/unresolved claims
A/E electronic as-builts, CM/Sub as-builts
Delivery method
Poor trades coordination
Accounting/funding issues

132

Amount of MEP work

owner defined closeout terms/ expectations

lingering design issue

definition of substantial completion

Audit process (auditors)-identified at the beginning of the project
Retainage % held

Scope creep

The attendees of the workshop finally chose five factors which were considered
important from the list developed by all the groups put together. The factors in order of
importance, chosen by the attendees of the project closeout workshop include-

Unresolved construction issues (35)

Lack of defined closeout procedures ( 25)

Lack of monetary incentive (21)

Punch list (19)

Strength of contract agreement, quality of documents (17)

Change in project personnel (15)

PM (Owner limitation) in terms of knowledge, motivation and incentive (11)
No urgency to final completion (7)

Audit process identified at the beginning of the project (accounting, funding) (6)
Burn out (4)

2. What upstream actions during the programming design and construction phases
might be taken to reduce the impact of the identified factors on project closeout
process?

Some of the upstream actions identified in the workshop session include

Monthly reviews of pay applications, as-builts and progress photos

Integrating commissioning into design upfront

Prepare early handoff from construction to Operations

Percentage or dollar incentive to closeout

Closeout milestones in documents and schedule

Program (performance) standards identified early

Unhurried design process with realistic design schedules

Educating end-user early in the process

Include closeout in schedule of values

List/ spreadsheet/ matrix of all closeout documents and reviewed long before
substantial completion

Identify long lead items

Closely define problem to be solved at the programming stage

Identify best team/ delivery method (programming)

Specifications link payments to architect] contractor with regular submittals
during project (design)

Clear definition of required documents and processes (design)

133

Conduct partnering with team on closeout- include in contract requirements
(design)

Clear definition of MEP coordination/commissioning (design)

Conduct partnering with team on closeout process (construction)

Specify/identify closeout documents as required for construction

Weekly MEP meeting with team on closeout

Owner, PM performance review to include closeout

Contract language should be tight and to include specific process, responsibilities
and timelines

Allow adequate time for programming, design, contract document preparation and
complete quality control

Plans and specifications should be tight to include specific process and equipment
requirements

Establish closeout team

Commissioning agent involved at project conception

Budget for incentives

Brainstorm closeout incentives with the team

Identify closeout activities that could start or be done before closeout like
0 O & M manuals
o As-builts
0 Partial Commissioning
0 Fire Marshal
Educate end-users to minimize change orders and delays
Periodic financial audits- large scale and duration
Strong adherence to project schedule
Define owner processes with NE and Contractor
Put a process in place
0 & M manuals with submittals
Create special division ‘closeout’ in contract
Fresh person for closeout identified in program phase
One punch list with all parties represented
Hold firm on retainage

3. Building on our knowledge of effective contractual systems and team processes,
what integrated approach can be developed that leads to better project closeout,
hence more successful construction projects?

Clearly define closeout document

Contractual understanding by all team members

Establish role/responsibilities

Establish accountability

Implement as contracted

Periodic reviews/checks

Contractor writes closeout plan which becomes an addendum to contract-
becomes pay item

134

Ask contractor and subcontractor for suggestions
design for closeout by involving operators/ users and starting early
involving design team throughout

0 quality inspections around closeout
integrate commissioning- focus project around commissioning with a goal for
perfect commissioning
use of partnering down to the subcontractor and sub-consultant level throughout
project life with one common goal or motivation (overall motivation is project
success- on time, within budget, quality construction)

0 excellent A/E producer

0 A/E with strong CA personnel

0 CM that executes quality construction
constructability and maintenance review from project concept
performance based selection of construction team and design team
the owner/ architect/ contractor in a co-operative, win-win team contractually
bound but operating on exceptional team oriented spirit throughout the project
including project closeout
monetary incentive to contractor, inspector and superintendent for complete
documents
With minimum restrictions, select, develop and nurture project team members and
align team member goals with overall project success.

135

APPENDIX IV

PROOF OF CONCEPT PACKAGE

136

Introduction

The purpose of this research is to determine the influence of organizational
behavior on construction project closeout. The output of this research is a set of
recommendations which were developed based on goal-setting theory of organizational
behavior to aid contractors and subcontractors during construction closeout process. The
recommendations developed through this research are validated here by conducting
follow-up interviews with all contractors and subcontractors who were interviewed as
part of an ongoing Michigan State University study entitled “Assessment and
Improvement of Construction Project Closeout and Vendor Performance Evaluation
Methods”. The purpose of the Michigan State University (MSU) study is to develop
guidelines and recommendations for improving practices to reduce time and cost of
construction closeout within a university construction context.

This validation process consists of 8 questions relating to the recommendations
developed by the researcher in this research. The questions mainly relate to the
practicality of implementing the recommendations in their organization, barriers for such
implementation, the importance of these with respect to a particular organizational
behavior factor. The responses to these questions will aid the researcher in recognizing
the importance of particular recommendations and also help in determining the
organizational behavior factor that may impact project closeout the most.

Data obtained from the MSU study was compared to the literature on
organizational behavior. Common themes relating to role conflict, role ambiguity, role
overload, role of interpersonal relations, incentives, and lack of motivation in the context

of project closeout were identified in the data and categorized. These factors are

137

considered to be the antecedents to burnout in literature. Earlier researches in other fields
of study such as sports and medicine have used motivation theories to mitigate the impact
of burnout. Similarly, the researcher uses one of the motivation theories namely goal-
setting theory in order to develop recommendations to mitigate burnout. By comparing
the burnout factors categorized in the data to the literature, causes of slow project
closeout relating to organizational behavior was determined. Further, the strategies
suggested for effective closeout were compared to goal-setting theory of motivation to

develop recommendations which are outlined below.

138

Role conflict and role ambiguity

In literature, role conflict is said to occur when the expectations communicated by the
sender and those perceived by the receiver are incompatible. A lack of clarity in
performance of proper tasks results in role ambiguity. The following figure includes
recommendations relating to above two factors in the context of construction project

closeout.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Conduct closeout meetings in the presence of all necessary personnel to discuss specific
goals and to assign roles and responsibilities. The studies on goal setting theory indicate
that setting specific goals increase performance and that difficult goal if accepted results
min a better performance.

 

 

 

 

-o :1“..- 1"'e—H‘—_‘$"fil—v:.‘__l_ —r u-

ifimAr war-w

 

2. Expectations should be clearly articulated. All project personnel should ensure that the
expectations communicated by the sender and those perceived by the receiver are
“com tatible.

 

51:.L" iii-.33.. 1m'-:.x: se- :. -'-- '- . “7 31:" W‘” "" - ":3- ‘ ‘- m «’3'-.. '-:-- ‘ imam-re: Warm—Lanes” m;.L‘.-..‘+; EEES 2554'" .. mi. "in”:
:z- 1‘" '- _:j-:._: ..;_ as: *&A-T'—‘:_r':. m’ 1‘;x.~+;"§§yt. 7.25;. was-1m }:‘m-is— 23,327.: —_: an aw:- gas-:5: W“W,.—7r‘mhev 1;... _ '

3. A well defined process for closeout should be laid out. This process should outline steps
and activities that are requ1red in order to closeouta Jim effectivel .

 

 

was

i '3 ‘:...1_:T3.:-7 .L a. :3 -s I’ ’ 233a .:..r‘ ~-—'J~: Am .hn-Lr —-....x:: r- cmczr1s+ .23..;’..y~- uz.-'_*::1fl'»51LJ_L-":.L.;:l

 

.1 im—

 

4. “Organizational commitment” to achieve the goals set for closeout. The literature
indicates that this can be achieved through feedback, task complexity and employee
motivation. The employee’s performance record is kept track of, to see how effective
they have been in attaining the goals. Without proper feedback channels it is impossible
to adapt or adjust to the required behavior. When goals are established at a management
level and thereafter solely laid down, employee motivation with regard to achieving these
goals is rather suppressed. Thereby to facilitate motivation, the employees not only need
to be allowed to participate in the goal setting process but the goals have to be
challenging as well.

 

 

 

 
  
 

it‘. ~.. - — .. .-. - :2 «~13- —.w~ .- nu . ._.. rr .‘:- . ..1. w .1 u} 1-... --- r

. - , . j - ,_ -..,~;~. . ‘3
-...::- . .. —~ .~- ru. .. g .1-.~~~:. _egr— -.‘_s..~— “anyway“. ‘:_.v-11.:.:.-~. ._‘_“;‘ ». :Tr: .--~‘.:< ‘meA _; ~ vi. -4432»: -.- ...—

". ‘23—- . jf;.‘.~.‘;~ «5:14:4- m1; " $.35: than. W‘L'w' my heart's-- ;_-—__-. __

   

 

    

Set priorities among goals with the help of checklists.iThe literature indicates that havmg _
checklists prevent personnel from working on other items and also alleviates the strain on
project budget.

 

 

. . - _ - - . ._ . 1 - ‘T'w -27 z ————c.. m
" -‘ ”at; '“‘—o-.. ‘ - - '- . .~‘~ Hahn's c.1- '.‘-1n-.-t_--—~.._ is...“ --‘ t“ «it"s-1v h “1. .fi- u. .v“... . we- ‘- e..- _tm—w “.3- -.. .2 A, 4.2:“. a z. j
,e

.. 1-,1.-- . n .‘ r“- “he“: -~a}‘;‘w 2., -—.g m... — - .4»- “—4.... m “‘11”. v; “a... _\_m“4 :3; ..p ~-—-—.-..“-1___y_. _ ._- .._.. ___r-_->~-.. ,_—~~. .-._-._ _.'-_- --
z___.__s_ .. _ .

 

 

 

_ 6. The project requirements should be project specific and notborlerplate

--u ... mks. ..L‘- . Niki." .151er {3'1 1 p"... E ‘. _. w“; rm... W1 V-----—

 

; II“: R. 'uL- “:5: “In... “-53—... £JM17‘ Hwnv—hmhmh —“.‘-_ L—u v ‘1‘._."~r‘-t --—~—..—-

 

Fig A51 Recommendations relating to role conflict and role ambiguity

139

Role overload
Role overload occurs when there is resource scarcity or when the work cannot be
completed within the allotted time. The following figure includes recommendations

relating to role overload in the context of construction project closeout.

 

..- ' ’ - {-17 ‘75,;- .... p..- .-.‘ a . .-.*....—"H- "- --:: «r; "“W"- ,.. - —.' ".—

 

 

7. A different team that is aware of project details and has sufficient knowledge should be
assigned to close projects. The project details can be made aware to this team by
maintaining a common database which shares pertinent project information. Since the
focus shifts to a new project after substantial completion, the closeout team can ensure
that the ro ect is closed out completely to owner’s satisfaction.

1.1-:11". 32.”;1.-— 1 “4.2.1944; 2*..."1'3‘ 51‘.- ‘-~.-:- “—1. Ls m4 £2.11:Lw~ w..:‘.“.'-. :.~s-'.—_..._'*-.::1:-1;~4.: .. ."axw‘ut; - ~-’

 
 

8 Enough resources should be allotted to complete closeout activities Wlthln the given time.
The interviews indicated that there is a lack of resources in terms of labor during
closeout Thls results in an extension of the closeout time

Th

  
  
 

:-,‘-.- . ;f-._7.'....“__ «.42. -,-..1..

:. - :7.._",':‘:-."}.:"-~:.. “‘15.“: ""'-'.“t;:_:.'_ 1";__‘~:~2_ ~:§_.....u...._."~-={*"~1~A« -.1- - .-

9 Empower frontline with decision making authority so that less time is spent in getting
approvals from hi her levels 1n the organlzauon

' b J. . . 1 -..u- . »- o q. - .1. o .
.- .. ~31 _ x 1 . - , ~ -. _._ __
—- . 1....‘:.*-A:1:._ Lid-1. .1- a 1... 1 r -: ..- . ‘ g-n-w... '
.. , .. : -1 1. .- V_—._.. 1.77.-. 1. ~... 1..- ._‘_. -._ ;- ‘ -... ._---
. - ~ ... “ ' flaw-s .‘t".:z:'- “Eh-u: 41.: “*1 ..f 11'- ’- J-_".-.' _ _,1 -‘1‘..‘.':-~>~ " ' .

Fig A5. 2 Recommendations relating to role overload

 

 

 

   

 

Role of interpersonal relations

Role of interpersonal relations indicates that there may be a potential for strain when there is
constant contact with people or there is an increase in demand on personal resources due to an
increase in the number of projects. Closeout interviews indicated that there is a potential for strain

when pursuing people for information which is ofien time consuming and requires resources.

 

 

10. The closeout documents should be submitted in a timely manner. It is evident from the
interviews that more personnel time is spent pursuing people for documents.

71‘1“)“1‘=_H'9~L_ --
; ,g-r-‘g‘ 'C‘ n. w... :1 m w-i... .wm—r-“u ,

 

 

l1. An open line of commumcatlon between the project participants should be ensured for
(prick and easy resolution of problems.

 

 

Fig A5. 3 Recommendations relating to role of interpersonal relations

140

Questions

How well do you understand these recommendations for project closeout described in

this research?

What are the barriers for implementation of these recommendations during project

closeout in your organization?

What other organizational factors (other than those indicated in this research) may

influence project closeout process?

How helpful were these recommendations to your organization?

141

Do you have any additional suggestions for improvement?

Rank the importance of recommendations related to role conflict and role ambiguity

0 Very important

0 Important

0 Less Important

0 Not important at all

Rank the importance of recommendations related to role overload

0 Very important

0 Important
0 Less Important
0 Not important at all

Rank the importance of recommendations related to role of interpersonal relations

Very important
Important

Less Important
Not important at all

0000

142

 

._—.—k ”~—

 

..-s.: q. - ...,- ...J- _._. .. H. . _. _ t---).,.,s 1":4333

Questions

._ Proofchonce tRes useswm m

 

 

 

 

 

very well

How well do you understand these very well
recommendations for project closeout fairly well

1 described in this research? very well

 

The recommendation relating to using a different
team (recommendation 7)was tried out at the
organization. But one of the problems faced was
the closeout team was not familiar with the owner
or trade contractors. Also, when the project staff
realised that there was a closeout team they were
not interested in clean up of items. It was not a
good financial model or a good business model for
erformance

 

1. Cost for additional resources

2. Failure to recognize the true workload involved
due to past practices that underdeliver or hide the
effort

 

Even though formal procedures are developed in
the organization, closeout is at the mercy of
subcontractors. Subcontractors don't put a high
level of importance to closeout, which is why there
is a struggle to get them to accept the formal
procedures

 

What are the barriers for implementation of
these recommendations during project
closeout in your organization?

Closeout documents are used as bargaining tool
by second and third tier subs to get back the
retainage. It is also difficult to use a different team
for closeout since the nature of relationship is
different as compared to omal project team.

 

 

 

Recommendations relating to role conflict and role
ambiguity stress the importance of good
commmunication. Further these recommendations
should be taken into consideration at the onset of
the project or even at the planning stage

 

None

 

What other organizational factors (other than

somebody needs to take the lead to drive the
closeout process

 

those indicated in this research) may

 

influence project closeout process?

establishinga timeline for closeout has an impact

 

143

 

 

No.

Questions

Responses

 

How helpful were these recommendations to
your organization?

Some of the recommendations are being
implemented and one of them has been tried out
at the organization

 

the information is not new but implementation is
difficult due to previously noted barriers

 

the recommendations are good. it reinforces some
of established procedures in the organiation.
These recommandations formalize the current
process prevalent in the organization. The ISO
procedures measure closeout as one of the
factors, still working on the process. As mentioned
in the recommendations, closeout should be
stressed at the kick-off meeting and a checklist
that is project specific should identify closeout
requirements

 

Some of the recommendations are in use. They
are not formal procedures but best practices

 

Do you have any additional suggestions for
improvement?

Key to efficient closeout is conduct meeting early
with focus on closeout. It leaves a lasting
impression when a project is not closed out
properly. Some projects cannot be closed on time
because of additional work requested or due to
slow change order process times or simply due to
owner's desire to keep the project open.

 

None

 

None

 

Assigning knowledgeable personnel with decision
makinjlauthority may help speed up the process

 

Rank the importance of recommendations
related to role conflict and role ambiguity
Very important

Important

Less important

Not important at all

Very important

 

Very important

 

Very important

 

Very important

 

 

 

Rank the importance of recommendations
related to role overload

Very important

Important

Less important

Not important at all

Very important

 

Important

 

Less important, the activities are time consuming
but they can be minimized if recommendations
relating to role conflict and role ambiguity are
given importance and expectations are made
clear upfront

 

 

Important

 

144

 

 

 

 

No.

Questions

Responses

 

 

Rank the importance of recommendations
related to role of interpersonal relations

Very important
important

Less important
Not important at all

Very important

 

lrflnortant

 

Less important, clear expectations upfront will
improve the rest, so again stress the importance
of recommendations relating to role conflict and
role ambiguity

 

 

Important

 

145

 

APPENDIX V

CONSENT LETTER

146

 

Participant Consent Form
Influence of Organizational Behavior on Construction Project Closeout

Researcher — Surabhi Rao
Adviser — Professor Tim Mrozowski, AIA
School of Planning, Design, and Construction

This is a Masters thesis currently being conducted under the direction of Professor Tim
Mrozowski of the School of Planning Design and Construction at Michigan State University (MSU). It
determines the influence of organizational behavior on construction project closeout. Recommendations
were developed by comparing previous literature to the data collected in the MSU study entitled
“Assessment and Improvement of Construction Project Closeout and Vendor Performance Evaluation
Methods”. To validate these recommendations the researcher is interviewing contractors and subcontractors
who were involved in the ongoing MSU closeout study. As an experienced industry participant, your input
with respect to these recommendations will be very useful to fulfill the objectives of this research

As a participant in this research, you will be asked a series of closed and open ended questions
relating to organizational behavior and construction closeout. Your participation is voluntary and you may
choose to terminate your involvement in this study at any time during this project. If you are
uncomfortable at any time during the questioning, you may terminate and withdraw from the interview.
You may refuse to answer any particular interview question. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. If you are employed by a vendor, neither you nor your company will be
identified by name in any reporting. The estimated time to complete this interview is approximately 30
minutes. As a participant, you may request a copy of this consent letter for your records.

If you have any questions about this project, you may contact Surabhi Rao or Professor Tim
Mrozowski, School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University at (989)-560-0379. If
you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to
register a complaint about this research study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, Michigan State
University Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, or regular e-mail
irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at: 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

Subject Name Occupation Signature Date

 

Witness Name Occupation Signature Date

147

 

Participant Consent Form

Assessment and Improvement of Construction Project Closeout and Vendor
Performance Evaluation Methods

Architects, Contractors and Specialty Contractors Interviews

Principal Investigators: Professor Tim Mrozowski, AIA and Tariq S. Abdelhamid, PhD
Research Assistants: Don Schafer, Yash Singh, Surabhi Rao, and Samarth Jain

The Michigan State University Center for Construction Project Performance Assessment and Improvement
is conducting a research project to assess construction project closeout processes and vendor performance
evaluation methods. The research will benchmark the performance of construction project closeout at
institutions of higher education and help identify the causes of closeout process difficulties in order to
better streamline it. The research will also explore vendor performance evaluation methods that can be
adopted by owners who procure construction projects annually. Funding is being provided by the
Michigan State University Office of the Vice President for Finance and Operations.

As part of the research we are interviewing Architects, Contractors and Specialty Contractors who have
worked on design and construction projects at Michigan State University and/or who also work with other
large owner groups. As an experienced industry participant, your insight into the project close-out process
and effective vendor performance evaluation methods along with that of others will be very useful to
attaining the aims of this research.

As a participant in this research, you will be asked a series of closed and open ended questions relating to
construction closeout in an interview setting. Your participation is voluntary and you may choose to
terminate your involvement in this study at any time during this project. If you are uncomfortable at any
time during the questioning, you may terminate and withdraw from the interview. You may refuse to
answer any particular interview question. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable
by law. If you are employed by a vendor, neither you nor your company will be identified by name in any
reporting. However, your title (e.g. Project Manager) will be reported. If you are employed by a
university, your name and title will not be used but the university you work for will be identified. The
estimated time to complete this interview is approximately 90-120 minutes. As a participant, you may
request a copy of this consent letter for your records.

If you have any questions about this project, you may contact Prof. Tim Mrozowski and/or Dr. Tariq
Abdelhamid, School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University at (517) 432-6188.
If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, please feel free to contact
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Subject Protection Programs at Michigan State University:
(517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing,
MI 48824.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

Subject Name Occupation Signature Date

 

Witness Name Occupation Signature Date

148

Participant Consent Form

Assessment and Improvement of Construction Project Closeout and Vendor
Performance Evaluation Methods

Collaborative Work Session

Principal Investigators: Professor Tim Mrozowski, AIA and Tariq S. Abdelhamid, PhD
Research Assistants: Yash Singh, Surabhi Rao and Don Schafer

The Michigan State University Center for Construction Project Performance Assessment and Improvement
is conducting a research project to assess construction project closeout processes and vendor performance
evaluation methods. The research will benchmark the performance of construction project closeout at
institutions of higher education and help identify the causes of closeout process difficulties in order to
better streamline it. The research will also explore vendor performance evaluation methods that can be
adopted by owners who procure construction projects annually. Funding is being provided by the
Michigan State University Office of the Vice President for Finance and Operations.

As part of the research we are conducting this Collaborative Work Session to gain input and advice from
experienced professionals who are involved with capital facility development projects. As an experienced
industry participant, your insight into the project close-out process and effective vendor performance
evaluation methods along with that of others will be very useful to attaining the aims of this research. Work
session responses to a variety of closed and open ended questions will be transferred to Excel Spreadsheets
and organized to determine general themes regarding the project close-out process and vendor evaluation
methods. Because the data will be collected in a group setting at the Work Session, other participants will
hear and discuss responses. Work Session data will not be attributed in reporting to specific individuals
and will reported in aggregate form only. The Work Session is expected to last approximately four hours.

Your participation is voluntary and you may choose to terminate your involvement in this study at any time
during this project. If you are uncomfortable at any time during the questioning, you may terminate and
withdraw from the interview. You may refuse to answer any particular interview question. Your privacy
will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you are employed by a vendor, neither you
nor your company will be identified by name in any reporting. However, your title (e.g. Project Manager)
will be reported. If you are employed by a university, your name and title will not be used but the
university you work for will be identified. As a participant, you may request a copy of this consent letter
for your records.

If you have any questions about this project, you may contact Prof. Tim Mrozowski and/or Dr. Tariq
Abdelhamid, School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University at (517) 432-6188.
If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, please feel free to contact
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Subject Protection Programs at Michigan State University:
(517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing,
MI 48824.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

Subject Name Occupation Signature Date

 

Witness Name Occupation Signature Date

149

 

REFERENCES

150

REFERENCES

Abdelhamid, T., Mrozowski, T., et al., (2007) “Assessment and Improvement of
Construction Project Closeout” C2P2AI, MSU

Allen, G. (2003) “A critique of using grounded theory as a research method’ Electronic
Journal of Business Research Methods. 2(1), 1-10

AIA - American Institute of Architects Best Practices, (2007), “Planning for Eflective
Project Closeout” The Architects’ Handbook of Professional Practice Update 2003
http://soloso.aia.org/cKnowlcdgc/Rcsourccs/PDFS/AIAPO16634?dvid=4294964337

AIA - A201 (1997) “The General Conditions of the Contract for Construction”
Washington, DC

AIS - American Institute of Stress (2007) “Job Stress” htg)://www.stress.org/iob.htm
(1 1/13/2007)

Ash, M.G., (1992) "Cultural Contexts and Scientific Change in Psychology: Kurt Lewin
in Iowa" American Psychologist, Vol. 47(2), 198-207.

AGC- Association of General Contractors of America, American Subcontractors
Association Inc., Associated Specialty Contractors (2003) “Guideline on Project

Closeout” http://www.constructionguidelines.orglpdf/DSaProjectCloseout.pdf
(5/23/2007)

Bennett, L., (2003) “The Management of Construction- A Project Lifecycle Approach”,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA

Brock, B., Grady, M., (2002) “A voiding bumout: Keeping the fire alive” Corwin Press,
Thousand Oaks, CA.

Brookings, J.B., Bolton, B., Brown, C. B., McEvoy, A., (1985) “Self-reportedjob
burnout among female human service professionals ” Journal of Occupational behavior,

6, 143-150

Burke, R.J., Deszca, E., (1986) “Correlates of psychological burnout phases among
police officers” Human Relations, 39, 487-502

Busansky, M., (2003) “Contract Closeout Pathologies and Recovery Strategies”,
Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California

Champoux, J. E., (2006) “Organizational Behavior: Integrating Individuals, Groups and
Organizations ” 3rd Ed., Thomson South- Western

151

 

Charmaz, K. (2006) “Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through
Qualitative Analysis” Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Chemiss, C., (1992) “Long-Term Consequences of Burnout” Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(1), 1-11

Clark, D., (2007) “Organizational Behavior”
http://www.nwlink.com/~doncLark/lcader/lcadob.html (1 1/14/2007)

Cordes, C., Dougherty, T., (1993) “A Review and an Integration of Research on Burnout”
The Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 621-656

Cornell University, (2007) “Project Closeout”,
http://www.cit.comell.edu/computer/robohelp/cpmm/Phase5_Purpose.htm (01/ 12/2007)

 

Criss, R. M., (2005) “Five best practices for government contractors: adding value one
step at a time” Contract Management

DOE, US Department of Energy (2003) “Closeout” Office of Management, Budget and
Evaluation http://managementenergy.gov (1 1/07/07)

DOEa (2005) “Acquisition Guide - Contract Closeout ”
professionals.pr.doe.gov/ma5/MA-5Web.nsf/WebAttachments ( 1 0/ 05/2006)

Fimian, M.J., Blanton, LR, (1987) “Stress, burnout, and role problems among teacher
trainees and first-year teachers ” Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 157—165

Firth, H., Britton, P., (1989) “Burnout, absence, and turnover amongst British nursing
stafi” Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 55-59

French, J .R. P., Caplan, RD, (1972) “Organizational stress and individual strain ”
The Failure of Success, 30-66

Ganster, D.C., Schaubroeck, J., (1991) “Work Stress and Employee Health” Journal of
Management, 17, 235-271

Glaser, B., (1992) “Basics of grounded theory analysis” Sociology Press, Mill Valley,
CA

Glaser, B., (1998) “Doing Grounded Theory - Issues and Discussions” Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA.

Golembiewski, R.T., Munzenrider, R., (1981) “Eflicacy of three versions of one burn-out
measure: W] as a total score, sub-scale scores, or phases?” Journal of Health and
Human Resource Administration, 228-246

152

Halbesleben, J. R.B., Buckley, M. R., (2004) “Burnout in Organizational Life” Journal of
Management 30(6) 859-879

Heath, C., Sitkin, S., (2001) “Big-B versus Big-O: What is Organizational about
Organizational Behavior?” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 43-58

Hinze, J ., Tracey, A., (1994) “The Contractor—Subcontractor Relationship: The
Subcontractor ’s View” J. of Constr. Engg. & Mgmnt. 120(2), 274—287

Hines, P., Rich, N., Bicheno, J ., Brunt, D., Taylor, D., Butterworth, O, Sullivan, J.,
(1998) “Value Stream Management” The International Journal of Logistics Management
9 (1), 25-42

IRB (2008), “MS U 's Institutional Review Board” http://www.hum_anrcsegrch.msu.cdu/
(07/ 1 0/2008)

Jackson, S. E., (1984) “Organizational practices for preventing burnout ” Handbook of
organizational stress coping strategies, 89-111

Jackson, S. E., Maslach, C ., (1982) “After-eflects of job related stress: Families as
victims ” Journal of Occupational Behavior, 3, 63-77

Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R.L., Schuler, R. S., (1986) “Towards an understanding of the
burnout phenomenon” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630-640

Jackson, S. B., Turner, J .A., Brief, AR, (1987) “Correlates of burnout among public
service lawyers” Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 339-349

Jackson, S.E., Schuler, RS, (1983) “Preventing Employee Burnout" Personnel, 60(2),
58-68

Jamal, M., (1990) “Relationship of Job Stress and T ype-A Behavior to Employees'Job
Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Psychosomatic Health Problems, and

Turnover Motivation” The Tavistock Institute 43(8), 727-738

Kahill, S., (1988) “Symptoms of professional burnout: A review of the empirical
evidence ” Canadian Psychology, 29, 284- 297

Kahn, R., (1978) “Job Burnout: Prevention and Remedies” Public Welfare, 36, 61-63

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J .D., Rosenthal, R. A., (1964)
“Organizational Stress: Studies in role conflict and role ambiguity” Wiley, New York

LA DPW Engineering (2003) “Project Closeout” Project Delivery Manual, Bureau of
engineering http://eng.lacitv.org/techdocs (09/01/2006)

153

Latham, G., Yukl, G., (1975) “A Review of Research on the Application of Goal Setting
in Organizations” The Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 824-845

Latham, G.P., Pinder, CG, (2005) “Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn
of the T wenty-F irst Century” Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516

Lee, R.T., Ashforth, B. E., (1990) “On the meaning of Maslach ’s three dimensions of
burnout” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630-640

Leiter, M., Maslach, C., (1988) “The Impact of Interpersonal Environment on Burnout
and Organizational Commitment” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(4), 297-308

Leiter, M. P., Meechan, K.A., (1986) “Role structure and burnout in the field of human
services” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 47-52

Locke, E., Latham, G., (2002) “Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and
Task Motivation” American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705-717

Locke, Edwin A., (2001) “Motivation by Goal Setting” Handbook of Organizational
Behavior (2), 43-54.

Locke, E., (1996) “Motivation through Conscious Goal Setting” Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 5, 117-124

Martin, P.Y., Turner, B. A., (1986) “Grounded Theory and Organizational Research ”
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22(2), 141-157

Maslach, C., (1978) “The client role in stafl burnout ” Journal of Social issues, 34, 111-
124

Maslach, C., (1976) “Burned-out” Human Behavior, 5(9), 16-22

Maslach, C., Jackson, S., (1986) “The Maslach Burnout Inventory” Consulting
Psychologists Press, CA

Maslach, C., Jackson, S., (1984) “Burnout in Organizational Settings” Applied social
psychology annual: Applications in Organizational Settings, 5, 133-153

Maslach, C., Jackson, S., (1981) “The Measurement of Experienced Burnout” Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 2(2), 99-1 13

Maslach, C., Pines, A., (1977) “The burn-out syndrome in the day care setting” Child
Care Quarterly, 6, 100-113

McGrath, J. E., (1976) “Stress and Behavior in Organizations” Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology 390-419

154

Miles, R. H., Perrault, W. D., (1976) “Organizational role conflict: its antecedents and
consequences” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 19-44

Mowday, R., Sutton, R., (1993) “Organizational Behavior: Linking Individuals and
Groups to Organizational Contexts” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 44, 195-229

OHS & W, (2007) “Understanding Stress- Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare”
http://www3.hantsfire.gov.uk/manage/safety/managingstress (1 1/10/2007)

Penn State University (2006), “Construction Contract Closeout Process”, Office of the
Physical Plant http://www.opppsu.edu/about/divisions/ (12/12/2006)

Perlman, B., Hartman, E. A., (1982) “Burnout: Summary and Future Research” Human
Relations, 35(4) 283-205

Pettee, S., (2005), “As-builts- Problems and Proposed Solutions” Construction
Management Association of America

Pinder, CC, (1998) “Work motivation in organizational behavior” Prentice Hall, NJ

Pines, A., Maslach, C., (1978) “Characteristics of staff burnout in mental health settings”
Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 29, 233-237

Robbins, S. P., (2004) “Organizational Behavior - Concepts, Controversies,
Applications” 4th Ed., Prentice Hall

Schuler, R. S., (1980) “Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations”
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 25(2) 184-215

Shirom, A., (1989) “Burnout in Work Organizations” International review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, 25-48

Strauss, A., (1987) “Qualitative analysis for social scientists” Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England.

University of Wisconsin (2007), “Construction Policies”, Capital Planning and
Development https://fpm-www3.fpm.wisc.cdu/ (2/12/2007)

Schneider, B., (1985) “Organizational Behavior” Annual review of Psychology
http://arioumals.annualrcvicws.org/doi/abs/10.1 l46/annurev.ps.36.020185.003041
(1 1/13/2007)

Schwab, R., Iwanicki, E., (1982) “Perceived Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity and Teacher
Burnout” Education Administration Quarterly, 18(1), 60-74

155

 

Valovcin, J ., (1995) “Streamlining the Contract Closeout Process”, Master’s thesis,
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California

Westland, J ., (2006) “The Project Management Life Cycle”, 1St Ed., Kogan Page Limited,
Philadelphia

Weston, N., Thelwell, R., (2007) “Monitoring burnout and motivation changes in
academy cricket players over a competitive season” J. Sports Sci, Vol. 25, no. 3, p. 331

Wright, P., Bonett, D., (1997) “The Contribution of Burnout to Work Performance”
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(5), 491-499

156