5 l a I. 3..qu ‘ :7. {'0 | ‘1: IJ v 5" f 231(73‘ . . Ila: w 1!. 1 .» av”. o V‘. .Aé»:$ I: v. :. t....§ \I3) :55: 1v; AI»... T RAH! i ‘iuiifliiiiiiiii/mill " 93 01026 9847 uniting: This is to certify that the thesis entitled HOW WELL ARE BACCALAUREATE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS SERVING THEIR PRINCIPAL MARKET - THE EMPLOYERS? presented by Ronald Victor Stroup has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree in Building Construction Management Major professor Date 1993 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman thb chockom from your record. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton data duo. I DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ' I“ ' ‘L r 4 'wt , 0 "‘i. [I ‘7; , I—u I r I L_J __L_l:] jr—i—j MSU Is An Affirm-tho Action/Emu Oppommlty Irv-tumor) HOW WELL ARE BACCALAUREATE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS SERVING THEIR PRINCIPAL MARKET - THE EMPLOYERS? By Ronald Victor Stroup A THESIS Submitted to Micfigan State Univerai in partial ent of the req ments for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Engineering 1993 ABSTRACT HOW WELL ARE BACCALAUREATE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS SERVING THEIR PRINCIPAL MARKET - THE EMPLOYERS? By Ronald Victor Stroup The overall purpose of this study is to assess how well baccalau- reate building construction management education programs are serv- ing their principal market - the employers. The study was based on results using a questionnaire mailed to the top four hundred building contractors and the top four hundred construction contractors throughout the United States. One hundred thirty-five building contractors and one hundred forty-six construction contractors responded for response rates of 33.8 and 36.5 per cent. The responses were analyzed by MANOVA. specifically Wilks' lambda. and ANOVA were applied to data for each response. Eleven major hypotheses were developed to determine how im- portant, for day to day use, the curriculums of baccalaureate building construction management programs are to employers of graduates with regard to five major subject areas. Findings indicate significant differences with respect to the five major course group classifications in five different categories. Results are compared with other studies. Copyright by: Ronald V. Stroup 1993 DEDICATED TO My wife, Lynn, for putting up with me; for always being there to love. and to My son, Andy, who keeps everything in perspective iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Tim Mrozowski for his persistent encouragement and constant support allowing me to grow intellectually as a result of this rewarding experience To Dr. von Bemuth for providing indisputable guidance and the charitable use of departmental resources To Dr. Yelon for his enthusiasm, knowledge, technical advice and unfailing assistance during this undertaking To Doug Cron for his business approach to the project, and for his blessings throughout the process To Dr. Rudman for his help in structuring the questionnaire. To Musibau A. Shofoluwe for permitting me use of his research instrument to assist me in my endeavor To Rafa Kasim for his invaluable statistical assistance during the data analysis phase of this study To those individuals in the construction industry who took the time and effort to respond to my questionnaire I am indebted to you all TABLE OF CONTENTS Page [BFOFTABIES ............. ix IBI‘OFHGURBB xi IBI‘OFABBRENIA’HONS ........................................................................................... xii CHAPTER I lNlRODUCilON 1 Germal Statement of the Problem .......................................... 3 Purpmed' the Study ............ 4 mm Hypotheses ....................................................................... 4 Delimitaiims 7 Deflnitim ofTenns ........................................................................... 8 0mm (1' the Study ............................................................ 9 11 REVIEW OFTHE IIIERATURE .................................................. l 1 Review of Previous Research and Opinions .................. 1 1 Clment State of Knowledge ........................................................ 2 1 ReoentSIndIs ...................... 26 Summary 30 III RESEARCH MEI‘HODOIDGY ..................................................... 33 lntmdudim 33 Populations and Samples of the Study ............................... 33 WW - ....................................... 35 vi Imtrumentatim Oova'letier - - ........ Questionnaire ............. ReswdiI-iypaim .......... manly DataOolledhi WW .... Explanation of Staiistical'l‘ast .................................................. N ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF THE DATA ........ Introdmm 'IheSampleRthilaiim _- - ..................................... WW - - - - ......... SugiemmtalAnalysts ..... 5.1mm)! V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .............. Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations Recommendations for Future Research ............................ BIBUOGRAPHY mm vii 36 36 37 38 4 l 43 45 47 48 48 49 5 l 83 83 88 89 91 93 97 98 102 103 107 WA Questionnaire Cover Letter WE Questionnaire - Survey Instrument APPENDIX C Appliioval Letter from Mr. Musibau A. Shofoluwe to use 8 Survey Instrument AHENIDIXD Mr. Musibau A. Shofoluwe's Survey Instrument WE. Appgival of the University Committee on search Involving Human Subjects WF List of Data Variables APPENDIX G List of Building Contractors AHE‘IDIX H list of Construction Contractors viii 109 110 112 113 - 117 118 131 160 Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Co and Com Emp andtheFiveMfior Gra OurseGmrps- Page Overview of the Five Maj or Course Groups and Company Categories with significant difi'erenCes .......................... 52 Com son of the Group Classification and Eve Major Course Groups ............................................................. 54 Com son of the Administration Title and Five Major Course Groups ............................................................. 57 mtgearison of the Company Classification Five Major Course Groups ............................................................. 60 Parison of the Permanent Management oyew and the Five Major Course Groups ................................. 63 Comparison of the Employees with a Bachelor's Dzegree in Building Construction Management the Five Major Course Groups ............................................................ 66 Comparison of the Personal Background Category and the Five Major Course Groups ...................................... 69 Comparison of the Hiring of Building Construction Management Graduates and the Five Major Course Groups ............................................................. 72 Com son of More Hiring in the Future and Eve Major Course Groups ............................................................. 75 Comparison of "Building Construction Management Programs Adequately Structured?" Groups ............................................................. 78 ComJJarison of "Buildin Construction uates more Valuab e?" and the Five Major 8 - ........ 1 ix 12. l3. l4. MoendingOrderinMeansoftheClassIJst ...................................... 84 Summary of the Accepted and Rejected Hypotheses ..................... 85 Descriptive Statistics for the Nine Classes within the GeneralEdumtim Category ..................................................................... 92 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4- 1 Group Classification and the Five Maj or meeGmups ...................... i ....... - 55 4—2 Administration Title and the Five Maj or OmrseGmups - ..................... 58 4—3 Company Classification and the Five Major GuseGmups- - - - ..... - 61 4—4 Permanent Management Employees and the Five Major Course Group .............................................................. 64 45 Employees with a Bachelor's Degree in Building Construction Management and the Five Maj or Course Groups ................ 67 46 Personal Background Category and the Five Major Course Groups ..................................................................... 70 4-7 Hire Building Construction Management Graduates and the Five Majm' Course Groups ............................................................ 73 4-8 More Hiring in the Future and the Five Major Chase Groups ........... - - - - 76 4-9 Are Building Construction Management Programs Adequately Structured?, and the Five Major Course Groups ................... 79 4— 10 Are Building Construction Management Graduates more Valuable?, and the Five Major Course Groups ........................ 82 xi Al‘DVA ...................... MANOVA ................. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS American Council for Construction Education Associated General Contractors of America Univariate Analysis of Variance Building Construction Management Computer - Aided Design Multivariate Analysis of Variance Statistical Package for the Social Sciences xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Many of today's construction projects require both complex technological and sophisticated management techniques. The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), in its Construction Education Directory, describes the construction industry as a highly competitive, extremely volatile and unique business. It also stresses the immediate and continuing need for talented, well educated and sufiiciently motivated personnel (AGC, 1984). The Associated General Contractors of America further believes that the construction industry will be served best by personnel specifically educated and trained in the managerial and scientific techniques necessary to meet the ever increasing demands of this rapidly changing technological age (Shofoluwe, 1990). Over the past ten years, a great deal of effort has been directed toward improving the quality of students graduating from building construction management schools in the United States. It has been well recognized that, in order for the construction industry to remain competitive, it is important that building construction management graduates receive the best possible education. To accomplish this goal, an alliance needs to be developed between the universities and industry. Technological advancements are accelerating at unprecedented rates and avoiding obsolescence in the future will be increasingly 2 difficult for building construction management graduates. Introducing emerging technologies into today's curricula cannot insure against future deficiencies (Baker, 1988). Building construction management graduates of today. four years from now, and in the twenty-first century must have the foundation and tools to transfer from specialty channels made obsolete by new technologies and shifting global economics into new ones open by the forces of change (Baker, 1988). One enormous challenge facing the educational institution today is to improve the quality of construction education so that graduates are better prepared to deal with real world problems. The addition of more highly trained building construction management graduates to the nation's work force will help alleviate the acute shortage of experi- enced constructors our country has had (Braunstein, 1988). Because the construction industry is composed of many unique types of construction, all of which offer career opportunities to con- struction graduates, it is recognized that some types of construction will require greater emphasis in selected curriculum components than others. To prepare graduates with a broad based education necessary to function at several levels in the construction industry, several con- struction programs have placed greater emphasis on management aspects of the industry (Shofoluwe, 1990). The process of developing, assessing, and revising building construction management curricula at universities throughout the United States to respond to the construction industry needs is over- whelming. How have the universities fared in this venture? How well have baccalaureate building construction management programs 3 prepared their graduates? What effects, if any, have these construction programs had on the construction industry? What does the construc- tion industry view as important curriculum for future employees? Those are a few of the issues and questions addressed by this study. General Statement of the Problem Declining productivity is a major issue confronting the con- struction industry today (Shofoluwe, 1990). While there are several contributing factors, the major one that has been identified is the lack of adequate education in technical and management skills. For project and construction managers to ascertain that baccalaureate construc- tion engineering technology programs best serve the needs of the construction industry, it is essential that a continuing dialogue and close relations be maintained between construction educators and industry (Shofoluwe, 1990). To further complicate matters, today’s technology within the construction industry is rapidly changing, and building construction management graduates will work in a world unlike yesterday. Construction has always, and will continue to, require technical skills. However, construction companies will also need qualified personnel who are profitable to the company. Profitable personnel are those equipped with both technical information and the knowledge needed to apply it in work situations. No new employee will be profitable when hired, but the better their education background the more quickly they will become profitable (Gold, 1987). 4 Quality construction education is essential to ensure cost effec- tive construction projects. Thus, undergraduate building construction management programs must be upgraded and made flexible to reflect changes within the industry. Furthermore, the extent to which a program should be upgraded depends largely on the importance of courses as perceived by prospective employers. The analysis reflected in this study provides a further under- standing of the construction industry's needs in curriculum design. Without such an understanding little change will really occur in building construction management curricula. Purpose of the Study The overall purpose of this study is to assess how well baccalau- reate building construction management education programs are serving their principle market - the employers. The following obj ec- tives formulated as a means of achieving the purpose of this study: 0 To determine how important the curriculums of baccalaureate building construction management programs are to employers of their graduates. 0 To assess industry -- academic relations in an attempt to gather information on cooperative efforts and performance of graduates. Research Hypotheses Are there predictable differences between the ratings of Building Contractors and Construction Contractors in regard to curriculum with respect to industrial applications? To answer this question, the study tested the following research hypotheses: 5 There are differences between Building Contractors and Construction Contractors with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations W There are differences between administrative title 0 position with respect to the five major course classifications: 999?? General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations 999?? 11%;; There are difi'erences between company classification with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technolog' Management of Construction Operations W There are differences between how many permanent management em loyees are employed with respect to the five major course classi cations: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations as??? 999?? There are differences between what percentage of permanent employees hold a bachelor's degree in Building Construction Management with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations 999?? There are differences between how you categorize your own personal background with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations flfingthesisl, There are differences between the participants w o res onded yes to the question: Does your company r y hire graduates of Building Construction Management programs?. and those who said no with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technolog Management of Construction Operations Hfimthesiu There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no. or not sure to the question: Based on their performance, do you anticipate more hiring in the future?, with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technologt Management of Construction Operations flfipflfiifii There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the uestion; Should a master's degree in construction be a c terion for promotion?, with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations W There are differences between: the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the question: Does your company feel that current Building Construction Management rograms are adequately structured to serve industry nee ?, with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations peeve {DP-99‘!” 9999'!” 999?? 999?? 7 W There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the uestion: Do you perceive that a graduate of a Building onstruction Management program would be more valuable to your company than a graduate of another program, for example Business?, with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations nee?!» Delimitations To establish clear and definitive boundaries for the study. the following delimiting factors were identified: 1. The study was based on information and findings generated from building contractors and construction contractors which maintain headquarters within the parameters of the United States. 2. The top four hundred building contractors listed in the was July 1991 magazine were surveyed. 3. The top four hundred construction contractors listed in the WW May 1991 were surveyed. 4. Nationwide, four geographic sections were noted on the questionnaire: North, South, East, and West. 5. Internationally, eight regions were indicated on the questionnaire: North America, Africa, Europe, Australia. South America, Asia, Middle East, and Polar. 6. 8 Five major groupings of courses typically offered by Building Construction Management programs were listed in the questionnaire: General Education, Construction Design, Business and Management, Construction Technology, and Management of Construction Operations. Within these five major course groupings, thirty-nine subject areas were presented. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study, terms were defined as follows: Building Contractor: A person, firm or corporation who contracts for and supervises the construction of single family detached housing, rental housing, condominiums, mobile homes and manufactured housing. Construction Contractor: A person, firm or corporation who contracts for and supervises the construction of manufacturing facilities, trans- portation and infrastructure systems, industrial processing (petrochemical, power, nuclear, and hazardous waste), and commercial or storage buildings. Building Construction Management Program: A baccalaureate program designed to provide a student with a background in the economic, social, environmental, 9 technical and managerial aspects of residential and commercial construction. The Five Major Course Groups: Are general education, construction design, business and management, construction technology, and management of construction operations. These five categories were created from thirty-nine classes commonly offered in typical building construction management programs (Appendix B). Organization of the Study The thesis contains five chapters. Chapter I contains an intro- duction to the study, a general statement of the problem, the delimita- tions of the study, and definitions of terms used in the study. Chapter 11 contains a review of the literature, a review of previous research and opinions, an interpretative summary of the current state of knowledge, recent studies, and a summary. Chapter 111 contains the research methodology, the research design, the populations and samples of the study, the instrumentation (cover letter and questionnaire), the research hypotheses, the pilot study, and the method of data collection. Chapter IV contains the analysis of the data, the statistical pro- cessing, the sample population, the description of results for each hypothesis and hypothesis testing, and supplemental analysis. Chapter V contains summaries, conclusions, and discussion of the literature, methodology, general observations and results. In 10 addition, chapter V contains an interpretation of each result, the limitations of the study. implications, conclusions and recommenda- tions for further research and final reflections. CHAPTERII REVIEWOFTHELITERATURE Introduction The general purpose of the literature review is to help develop a thorough understanding and insight into previous works and the trends that have emerged (Borg and Gall, 1989). To help investigate and more clearly define how building contractors differ with construc- tion contractors concerning typical building construction management baccalaureate curriculum a review of the literature was conducted. In this chapter, both historical and current perspectives are considered. To begin with, a review of previous research and opinions will be submitted. Subsequently, an interpretative summary of the current state of knowledge will be discussed. Finally, the recent studies will be presented with some implications of relevant curriculum decision making issues. Review of Previous Research and Opinions Construction education has an acknowledged existence of more than fifty years as a recognizable academic discipline, but its origins go back much further (Rounds, 1992). Rudiments of construction education could be found in Agriculture and Industrial Arts programs early in the century. Other elements of the body of knowledge now associated with the profession of construction reach back to Business, 11 12 Architecture and various Engineering disciplines, all of which have evolved away from those components that have now coalesced into today's well accepted construction academic discipline. From the early construction programs emerging as recognizable entities in the forties and fifties, each decade has shown change and growth. In the sixties the beachhead was secured for recognition of construction as a professional discipline through the formation of a professional society and an accreditation body. Together they worked with the academic programs to establish the character of the profes- sion, and began to formulate the body of knowledge of the profession of construction. In the seventies. as the number of accredited programs began to grow, the academic discipline of construction gained even greater acceptance when programs at the Departmental level emerged, demon- strating the viability of construction as a distinct and independent academic area: an area which could stand on its own beside its progenitors in Agriculture, Industrial Arts, Architecture, Engineering and Business. The eighties saw a resurgence of interest in construction educa- tion in the more traditional Engineering areas, primarily at the graduate level. At the other end of the spectrum, two year associate degree programs gained strength and acceptance, culminating in the establishment of their own accreditation standards by the end of the decade. The eighties represented a positive and healing decade as the industry and the academic community acknowledged that the diverse and complex construction industry needs academically prepared individuals from diverse backgrounds with a variety of academic l3 preparation. Debates over where construction education belongs within the academic community have subsided and have matured to recognize that representation in all areas is needed and must work together to move the industry forward. At long last, construction ed- ucation has moved into an age of mutual respect among professional constructors and other professionals in the industry. ’h'uly, the eighties was a remarkable decade in the emergence of the profession and the academic discipline of construction. The ques- tion facing us now is where construction education will go in the nineties as civilization moves into a new world order (Rounds, 1992). With the approach of the twenty-first century, the role and mission of universities is constantly being challenged. Because of the virtual revolution in knowledge over the past twenty years, this challenge is particularly strong for engineering education. Engineering education not only needs to satisfy the traditional goals of higher education, but needs to properly prepare our students for a productive and satisfying professional career. Moreover, both sets of objectives need to be achieved within the confines of the traditional four-year curricula. A university's first concern must be for the student's social and intellectual development, both as an individual and as an informed participant in a democratic society. A university education should enrich the life experience of all it touches. In order to achieve these objectives, universities must provide students with: 0 the fundamental tools for their careers 0 the ethical, moral, and humanizing philosophies with which to use these tools 14 0 an appreciation for human achievement 0 a perspective from which to understand and address complex societal problems 0 the ability to think critically; that is, the ability to be skeptical without being cynical 0 an appreciation of artistic creativity and scholarly accomplishment 0 an appreciation for other cultures 0 a mastery of the principles of science and technology The achievement of these obj ectives, particularly within the confines of a four-year curricula, is a tall order. Moreover, engineering curricula must give special attention to two of these, the first and the last. Specifically, engineering graduates must have a comprehensive understanding of scientific principles and the skill to apply these principles to the practical ends such as the design, construction and operation of efficient and economical systems (McDowell, 1988). The curriculum in undergraduate construction education was established in the sixties and seventies, being crystallized in the accreditation standards of the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE). These standards have been altered from time to time to improve their effectiveness, but in the last twenty years, little change has occurred in what is taught and how it is taught. This is both good and bad. Little change has occurred because the curriculum has been highly successful. Today's construction education programs exist because the industry demanded them and supported their development. Many successful industry leaders and companies owe their success, in great part, to the preparation provided by first class construction programs (Rounds, 1992). As we move 15 forward, we want to avoid, at all costs, losing the effectiveness of well established programs in providing academically strong leaders for our industry. Yet, the world has changed. In fact, everything about the world has changed. Change appears to have become the only stable charac- teristic of our world today. And if the world is changing around us. then we must change as well. A static curriculum in a dynamic world is dangerous. We must move with the times (Rounds, 1992). The past decade has seen a major change in the United States industrial sector. The need for improved productivity, improved quality. and lowered cost of production has caused industry to reexam- ine the need for new methods of production. High- tech tools for manufacturing, such as computer-aided design (CAD) and robotics can be used to enhance the individual manufacturing steps. Communications tools, such as local area net- works and complex wide band nets, are also being used to augment the manufacturing process. The successful utilization of these tools requires the realization that the manufacturing enterprise is a system (albeit a very complex one). Such systems require sophisticated tech- niques for their effective operation and control. Both industry and universities recognize this problem. In searching for a solution, they discovered that an engineer involved in manufacturing requires an interdisciplinary education. The problems facing today's engineers are not neatly divided into categories such as electrical, mechanical. or industrial. The breadth of these problems has resulted in universities ofiermg a larger selection of interdepartmental programs. 16 Another area that requires improvement is involving top students and faculty in the problems facing manufacturing. Although financial support is required, the primary function is to provide valuable interaction between faculty and students and the manufactur- ing industry, thereby generating meaningful topics for research and education; in particular, developing industry's role in curriculum enhancement, personnel exchange. and research. This role is advisory in nature as the manufacturing companies recognize that the educa- tional expertise resides in academia. In the curriculum area, the manufacturing companies contribute case studies, projects, seminar speakers, and educational modules. Participation in this manner provides the university with a view of some "real" problems. Even though the problems must be scaled down significantly for classroom use, it is helpful to know that they represent a real problem that either has been solved or still needs to be solved. Real problems help in the evaluation of the content and' relevance of the new programs (Book, Krosner, and Habbad, 1987). Another adjustment that needs to be made in construction education of the nineties is a realignment of the basic mission and goals of programs. Because some programs developed are in response to industry demands, emphasis was placed upon the teaching of knowl- edge and skills in construction. In the world of rapid change, knowl- edge and skills change, so if all that is taught is knowledge and skills, graduates will be left critically deficient. The consequence is that the world will change out from under their competence, they will not survive the change, and, even worse, the industry will sufi'er. What is important in the nineties is to impart skills like creative thinking, 17 critical analysis, communication, and, most important of all, how to learn. If graduates cease to learn when they leave their programs, they will be out dated in just a few years. The construction graduates must also be globally aware. The traditional narrow minded, nationalistic, American dominated educa- tion cannot prepare our graduates to participate in a world in which the United States is only one of many strong players, but no longer the dominant player. If construction education does not make some drastic changes, the United States may not even remain one of the strong players. How well is construction education dealing with the realities of the new world order? Construction educators must still teach content. but must also teach thinking, learning and communication. In fact these are the most important. because the industry can teach construction skills, but they cannot teach intellectual skills. The program that address only the traditional subjects like methods, estimating and scheduling in tradi- tional academic ways rooted in lecture and objective testing is hopelessly out dated in the nineties. Another change which must come is the integration of construction education discipline. Construction has traditionally been seen as difi'erent entities coming together to provide their service to produce a static product. These entities have had different goals; thus resulting in well known adversarial relationships. Industry, responding to the realities of an integrated world, is beginning to break these adversarial relationships down, but in the university still foster the old approach. We are the Constructors. We hire (sub-professional) sub- contractors to do most of our work. The Engineers are over there. The 18 Architects are up stairs, and the owner is somewhere off in never-never land (Rounds, 1992). The integrated construction curriculum needed today will work intimately with designers, because design will become "real time" and constructability will dominate design. The sub-contractor will be recogrnized as being as important as the general contractor because, in today's industry, major subs have more invested in most projects than the general. Teaching the construction process will be fundamental, where each entity will provide "value added" in their area of expertise. Focus will be less on new construction: retro-fit and renovation will become more important such that life cycle concepts will dominate. Integration will be the dominant factor, not only across the breadth of the players in the game, but also across the lifetime of the facility from concept to decommissioning, Construction education must adapt to the integration of the industry. At the same time, another change is already taking place. ACCE accreditation standards have been modified to recognize the impor— tance of specialty construction. The specialty contractor, especially in major areas like electrical and mechanical systems. has been gowing in importance and in market share during the eighties. As an example, in the building area, structure and shell have not undergone signifi- cant changes in recent years, but the systems that go into buildings have seen revolutionary changes. In construction programs, we still focus on developing general contractors, yet the overwhelming need and opportunity is in the major specialty areas. In order to support the needs of the industry and to aligrn ourselves with the direction it is 19 going, the construction program of the nineties must provide opportunity for specialization in major discipline areas. In addition, we must build construction terminal degree pro- grams which will produce the professional construction educators for our next generation of academic programs. These terminal degree programs must also provide highly trained construction researchers for the industry, for I am convinced industry will soon begin initiating legitimate research progams in-house (Rounds, 1992). Beaufait (1991) states that, in the eighties, our universities rediscovered the value of a general education for all students. What many institutions failed to recognize was that engineering education had known the value of a general education for years. Unfortunately, the requirements that many of our universities set forth in the name of general education resulted in a regression in the general education of engineering students. The problem is not with the concept of a general education, but with the implementation. The idea of a smorgasbord of introductory level courses from which students elect a course in each of several areas to satisfy some distribution requirement was not a good idea twenty-five years ago, and it is not a good idea today. I am amazed that we believe our students are getting a general education by requiring them to take one course in humanities, one course in history, one course in social science, one course in visual arts, one course in foreign culture, etc. General education requirements should be designed to provide oppor- tunities for students to broaden their interests, explore other interests, and develop new interests. 20 Dr. Tadmor (1987) concurs, stating that in engineering education the subject matters taught should lead to broad education rather than narrow specialization. The perception of engineering education as an education firmly rooted in the sciences, rather than being specialized, vocational, and of trade school nature, is part of a new educational philosophy. Technolog' has emerged as a dominant factor in deter- mining the nature of society. Humarnists must, therefore, study tech- nology to understand social change, and engineers must study humani- ties to appreciate the complex interaction between society and the technology they help create. A strong background in humanities and social sciences also helps the engineer better cope with changing social. econorrnic, and political conditions. Dr. Singer (1987) in his study. states that there is unanimous agreement on the need to stress and improve commurnication skills. One of the key recommendations of the Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer deals with the broad band of nontechnical skills. In addition to a broad engineering education with strong grounding in the fundamentals of science, the curriculum must be expanded to include a greater exposure to a variety of nontechnical subjects (humarnities, economics and sociology) as well as work-ori- ented skills and knowledge. Education in these areas is needed to improve the communication skills of engineers as well as their ability to understand and adapt to changing conditions that affect technologi- cal development. American universities excel at providing rich learning environ- ments, developing research talent, and bringing out the best ideas. We hold enormous potential in our hands. The challenge is before us -- to 21 educate the kind of technically skilled work force which America needs to sustain economic prosperity and growth. In the last few years, the nation has come a long way toward reaching a consensus on the need to improve technical education to remain competitive in world markets. What remains is to develop and broadly implement the kinds of programs that will do the job (Bloch, 1989). In particular, the focus must shift from preparation for the design of elements of systems to understanding and design of complex technological delivery systems that also incorporate public and private institutions and communication networks with social processes and cultural preference to produce goods and services for a world commu- nity in the twenty-first century (Wenk, 1988). Interpretative Summary of the Current State of Knowledge Construction management education has been receiving contin- uous interest over the last two decades, both in the academy and among the practitioners. The sad truth that a graduate of a construc- tion management school is usually less prepared to deal with typical construction tasks than with almost any type of design chores may be disappointing and even frustrating to those who choose this career, as well as to their employers. The question of how to prepare students for professional performance that requires experience and personal attributes as well as "book knowledge" is therefore of great importance to the industry and conscientious educators (Warszawski, 1984). In his study of construction management programs, Warszawski states, that the teaching of construction management is a formidable task. The 22 various programs offered in this area consistently suffer from several typical limitations which are as follows: 1 . Analytical orientation of studies: These courses teach analyt- ical techniques or offer factual data necessary for exploration of specific attributes of various building components, rather than teach- ing how to examine whole self-contained systems even of very simple nature, including their overall performance requirements. technological solutions and execution problems. 2. Difficulty to simulate real life construction environment: Successful construction management involves not only performance of specific tasks such as scheduling, cost estimating, organizing, etc., but also a multitude of routine activities such as negotiating and coordi- nating subcontractors and suppliers. quality control, processing of design information. contract details administration, interaction with local authorities, introduction of changes, and so forth. 3. Lack of emphasis on communication skills: Although com- munication, both oral and written, can be taught as a special subject within the academic curriculum, such a course most often does not attain the desired purpose since it is considered by students as "non- engineering", and therefore not important material. 4. Not enough teaching of technical solutions: The emphasis in most construction management progams is usually placed on general managerial techniques and their application and adaptation to the construction practices. Too little effort is expended upon exposure to technical construction alternatives (selection of appropriate construc- tion methods, equipment type, and site organization) for various types of works. such as high rise construction, excavations, use of 23 prefabricated elements, underground construction and others, which fall under various types of constraints. 5. Limited emphasis on design: There has been a trend in various circles to view construction management as a distinctive profession, divorced form engineering design. Thereby the analysis and design courses which form the core of regular construction management education could be substituted to a large degee by additional management and construction oriented courses in special progams designated for this purpose. Warszawski (1984) concludes that an effective construction management progam on the undergaduate level should provide the students with a good insight into all managerial tasks, starting with the general definition of their objectives. through the various stages of design and execution, and up to their operation and maintenance upon completion. Rubin (1991), in her study, suggests that construction education in the United States is a product of evolution which sooner or later catches up with the changing needs of the nation and industry. However, some critics claim that the process is too slow to produce the kind of well-rounded talent needed to lead the industry into the let Century. They want revolutionary change now. Today's universities are turning out gaduates into a world where technical skills and knowledge of fundamentals must be exemplary. It is also a world where regulatory and cost pressures and intense global competition require more than just good constructors. "We have to take a hard look at the structure of the profession, including the educational part, to see if the skills we are providing young people are 24 the ones that will make them most competitive in a global economy," says Neil A. Norman, immediate past president of the National Society of Professional Engineers. Existent also is the fear that traditional educational approaches are failing to attract and retain those who will help stave off the industry's looming personnel crisis. According to (Junkins, 1989), the competitive challenge Americans face in world markets has prompted intense national soul- searching over the causes and cures of declining United States com- petitiveness. Though the United States construction industry must have skilled human resources to keep the nation's products competitive, present trends are not encouraging. To offset the projected shortfall, methods must be found to encourage more young people to enter construction fields and increase the productivity of the work force. Both goals require collaboration between industry and all levels of the educational system from college continuing on through career-long learning. Collaborative efforts between industry and education can facilitate earlier productivity of construction graduates and contribute to increasing their retention rate in the profession by providing a better understanding of construction practices within the industry. Preparing gaduates for a career in construction is only part of the process of developing a technically competent work force. The half- life of a degee in most construction disciplines is estimated at from five to nine years, and in some areas, it may be as short as three years. This means that constructors face the challenge of educational renewal throughout their careers (Junkins, 1989). 25 A most recent study used to establish the current state of knowl- edge of construction curriculum is by (Kibert, 1992). He concludes that the ultimate goal of construction education is to prepare an indi- vidual to improve the quality of the construction industry, initially through service as a viable employee. Therefore, construction curricula should be designed to reflect current real needs of the construction industry. Since the construction industry is undergoing an accelerated rate of change compared to twenty years ago, the knowledge and capabilities of its employees must not be static. The building construction curricula should be under constant review due to changes in the industry and research. Kibert (1992), makes two recommendations: 1. Regular Reviews: The chairman of a building construction department should schedule regular meetings with professors for the sole purpose of reviewing emerging trends and new developments. Changes can then be incorporated into current or future courses. 2. Lengthen Progams: Currently, most construction progams are squeezed into four years. 'To introduce new areas of study into the curriculum or to treat already-covered areas in geater depth in any of the four-year progams is not feasible," according to C.H. Oglesby, a Professor at Stanford University. New developments in construction education need to be incorporated into current classes. The need to accommodate new information and maintain current course loads suggests that a fifth year be added to progams. An additional year would also provide room for more electives for students to customize their construction education. 26 Recent Studies The construction marketplace, reflecting the world around it, is going to encounter some challenging times in the 1990's and beyond. To survive, constructors will need to upgrade the sophistication of their project management skills and devote geater attention to the skills of all their employees (Friedman, 1984). In April 1989. Paul Emerick. while serving as President of the Msociated General Contractors of America (AGC), in his address to the closing session of the national convention, stressed this point when he stated: "As I look back some twenty five years when I first took over the management of our company, we were a contractor involved in business. Now, however, with the creeping evolution of man- dated requirements upon entrepreneurship, we have necessarily become a business involved in contracting. At the time, my education and experience permitted me to successfully estimate and supervise the work, communicate with the bank and surety, and monitor the bookkeeping department that performed the mundane task of record keeping." That was about it! Contracting was rather simple and fun. Today, even with the additional years of experience, I am far less capable of starting or managing a construction company. Why? Because technical and production skills are only two of the many components necessary to survive. Now we must have knowledge and expertise in all disciplines of a complex business; i.e., finance, bonding, taxes, insurance, legal, 27 marketing, training. education, contract administration, labor relations, legislation. and regulation, to name but a few. All of these are critical components in the business of contracting and at times would seem to either devour or smother us. While experience is still important, entrants into the construc— tion field, especially in the construction management phase, will be expected to have a strong academic backgound in several disciplines. Knowledge of construction materials and methods, design, engineering principles, safety, environmental concerns, computer skills, personnel management, law, business management, codes, labor relations, finance. and communication skills (oral and written) will place demands on the ability and will all be required to be in the "tool box" of tomorrow’s construction manager (Weidman, 1992). The need to expand education in the field of construction can be compared to the need to meet the requirements of the vast construc- tion industry (Moss, 1989). Construction education progams at the undergraduate level continue to expand in size and to increase in number. Thirty-five years ago, the number of university level construction progams could be counted on one hand. Today, there are approximately sixty-five colleges and universities offering four year baccalaureate degee progams. Nearly all of these progams have curricula separate and distinct from traditional engineering and architecture degree pro- gams. The trend is for construction education progams to have a separate identity from classical architecture and engineering programs (Badger, l 989). 28 A recent study by the Construction Industry Institute gathered data from two hundred sixty—six respondents of upper and middle managers of construction firms and facilities owners as to what skills / traits are required for an individual to perform well in various positions in today's construction industry. The following findings were evident: 1. The broad perception that current education and training at all levels are not adequate to meet the changing needs of the construction industry. 2. Formal education at all levels should be strong in the fundamental skills of communication and mathematics. 3. The subject matter of continuing education and on-the-job experience are closely correlated, thus implying that there should be more coordination of the two through formal, ongoing training programs. The study concludes that application subjects such as schedul- ing, estimating and planning are important. Courses should incorpo- rate elements to enhance development of strong problem solving and communication skills, while general college courses are valuable in providing a well-rounded individual for employment. The education process should create a base for the continuation of learning through- out the individual's life (Grubbs, 1992). Another report supporting the view that construction education must be tailored to the needs of the industry is by Loughney and (Reams, 1990). This report is based on a study conducted by the 29 faculty at Eastern Michigan University and is directed towards the needs of contractors within the state of Michigan. A survey of general contractors revealed the following five most important subjects (from a list of forty-three subjects) for eight entry level positions in the con- struction industry: Cost estimating and bidding Project planning, scheduling and time control 1. 2. 3. Construction cost control 4. Working drawings reading: Interpretation and use 5. Specifications: Interpretation and use The results demonstrated that contractors believe construction management is the most important area in the construction curricu- him. The final study presented for review is by Musibau A. Shofoluwe. In his study, (Shofoluwe, 1990) one hundred ten randomly selected construction firms operating in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas were surveyed. The purpose of the survey was to determine how important the curriculum of baccalaureate construction engineering technology progams is to employers of their gaduates. Survey respondents were asked to characterize each course commonly offered in a typical construction engineering technology progam. Respondents could rate each major course goup by four degrees of importance. The courses were grouped under five major categories: 1. General education 30 Construction design and engineering Business and management Construction technology prepare Management of construction operations The findings of the study indicate that there is a lack of instruc- tion in good communication skills (verbal, written, gaphics and listen- ing). The data also indicated that there seems to be relatively lower interest in topics such as humanities, social science, chemistry, and physics. Strong interest was expressed in the following courses: architectural design, blue print reading, project management and control, construction methods, project scheduling and time control. The findings are not that a construction engineering technologr progam should focus solely on the high ranking topics, but should recognize the varying needs expressed. In order to develop effective progams to meet industry needs, educators must better understand the specific requirements of potential clients. This study suggests that opportunities exist in meeting the education and training needs of the construction industry. The study also suggests the importance of direct and continuing contact with the construction industry. Summary Construction education has an acknowledged existence of more than fifty years as a recognizable academic discipline. From the early construction progams in the forties and fifties, each decade has 31 shown growth and change. In the seventies accredited progams began to emerge, and construction education gained even geater acceptance. During the eighties. interest in construction education at the gaduate level increased. As a result of this, the nineties have shown an increase in research by construction educators. As we approach the twenty-first century. the role and mission of universities offering construction education progams will constantly be challenged. Specifically, little change has occurred in the curriculum of undergraduate construction education. A static curriculum in a dynamic world of construction is dangerous. We must move with the times. Construction education progams must adapt to the integration of the industry. In response, the construction industry must provide financial support as required for research, and at the same time. endorse valuable interaction with construction educators to generate meaningful topics, case studies, projects, seminar speakers, and educational modules. Construction educators differ on curriculum development. One recommendation is vocational inn design, i.e., to help prepare the graduate for the first job, focus on specialized and highly technological studies of the trade school nature. This researcher disagrees with this approach and prefers a more encompassirng proposal to construction education reform, which, in addition to teaching a broad band of technical skills, offers greater exposure to a variety of non technical subjects (humanities, economics, social sciences. cross cultural studies) as well as work oriented skills and knowledge. A strong background in these nontechnical studies helps the construction gaduate to better understand social change and appreciate the 32 complex interaction between society and the technology they help create. As Kibert contends, the ultimate goal of construction education is to prepare an individual to improve the quality of the construction industry. Therefore, construction curricula should be designed to reflect current and future real needs of the construction industry. From the Shofoluwe study of construction firms operating in the south central United States, findings suggest that construction pro- gams should not focus solely on high rankinng topics such as con- struction methods, project scheduling, time management and architec- tural design. but should recognize the varying needs expressed throughout the construction industry. In other words, produce well- rounded gaduates equipped to adapt to the dynamic and constantly changing global construction industry. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction This chapter contains an overview of the design, populations and samples, irnstrumentation, and methodology used in this study. Also described are the procedures utilized in preparing and mailing of the survey cover letter and questionnaire. The survey innstrument that was used, irn part, was a modification of the questionnaire developed by Shofoluwe (1989) in his research. Shofoluwe provided a formal autho- rization for the use of the questionnaire (Appendix D). The question- naire was modified to be appropriate for a nation wide survey. Finally, the data collection methods and statistical processing are discussed in this chapter. Populations and Samples of the Study To assess how well baccalaureate building construction man- agement education programs are serving their principal market - the employers, regarding the importance for day to day use within the irndustry, of the five major course goups, two populations were studied: building contractors and construction contractors. 33 34 W The sample of this population, the top four hundred building contractors, ranked by revenue, was selected from the twenty-fourth annual report of housirng giants as registered in W Remgdfle; July, (1991). These housing giants specialize in the con- struction of single family detached housing, rental housing, condo- mirniums, mobile homes and manufactured housing. Their revenues ranged from a high of 2.28 billion dollars to a low of 21.89 million dollars. This sample was represented in all the geographical regions of the United States. Waters The sample of this population, the top four hundred construction contractors, ranked by revenue, was selected from the annual report as registered in the WM May, (1991). These con- struction giants specialize in the following construction arenas: manufacturing facilities, transportation and infrastructure systems, industrial processirng (petrochennical, power, nuclear, and hazardous waste), and commercial or storage buildings. Their revenues ranged hour a high of 4.37 billion dollars to a low of 38.0 million dollars. This sample was represented in all the geogaphical regions of the United States, and, additionally. several international regions. 35 Research Design The initial purposes of this study were primarily exploratory and descriptive. Borg and Gall (1989), suggest that researchers attempt to design a study which yield the strongest possible evidence to support or refute a knowledge claim. Therefore, Krathwohl's (1885) "chain of reasoning" model was used, linking the network sequence of steps that form complex descriptive research. The questionnaire, as modified, was specifically designed to assess how well baccalaureate building construction management education programs are serving their principal market — the employers. regarding the importance for day to day use within the irndustry, of the five major course goups commonly offered in typical building con- struction management progams. Survey research was used to collect, compare and describe data from the two samples of different, but interrelated, populations. According to Kidder (198 1), survey research is ideally suited to study naturally occurring phenomena. Particular attention was paid to the style and appearance of all materials sent to the survey participants. Every effort was made to create a professional image in order to educe maximum response. Official letter head stationary and envelopes of Michigan State University were used for all correspondence. Within the cover letter, participants were informed that the survey would take less than five minutes to complete. All responses were compared using statistical analysis (MANOVA) and (AN OVA) techniques. 36 Instrumentation To accomplish this study, a survey questionnaire was con- structed to solicit information from building contractors (Appendix G) and construction contractors (Appendix H) regarding the importance for day to day use within the construction industry of the five major course goups that are commonly offered in typical building construc- tion management baccalaureate progams. After reviewing research studies with similar purposes, the researcher was able to find an instrument appropriate for this study. The similar study was: Shofoluwe, Musibau A. W W Grambling State University, 1989. Permission to use the survey instrument was requested and ganted (Appendix C). The questionnaire after several revisions, was mailed to both sample populations, and included a letter of transmittal (cover letter) and a self addressed stamped envelope. Botln populations were sur- veyed simultaneously. Cover Letter Each questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter that ad- dressed the purposc of the study, the importance of the respondent's participation, the specific time limit of response, an assurance of con- fidentiality, an offer to send the respondent a copy of the results, and directions for obtaining assistance if the respondent had any ques- tions while completing the study. The cover letter (Appendix A) was 37 identical for both sample goups and was addressed thus: Dear Construction Executive: The cover letter was reviewed by the research committee mem- bers before mailing. Questionnaire The questionnaire for this study was patterned from an instru- ment prepared by Musibau A. Shofoluwe in his study titled: or -1- .1; l'-1‘°!J° ' nelou _c- ._ ,0 ' Ir _r u o " m, Grambling State University, 1989. The questionnaire was recon- structed with the following objectives in mind: making the question- naire as neat and attractive as possible; organizing the questions so they could be completed effortlessly; including concise, comprehensi- ble instructions to the participant; and keeping the questions consis- tent with the objectives of the study. The completed questionnaire, two pages long, (Appendix B) consisted of three major parts. Part I contained seven questions concerning demographical data and company characteristics. Questions one and two were open form responses, requiring the participant to fill in their administrative title of position and years of experience in their present position. The five remaining questions were closed form requesting a check mark by the subjects' chosen response. Part 11 contained five questions regarding the perspective of the participant's company about current building construction manage- ment progams. These five closed form questions required a check 38 mark to one of the three following possible choices: Yes. No, and Not sure. Part III, the entire back page of the questionnaire, used a Likert -- type scale. The five major course goups were presented in order, with thirty-nine distinct subject areas. The participant was asked to check one of five possible responses for each subject area. The choices were as follows: very essential, highly useful, somewhat useful, of little use, and of no use. The questionnaire was identical in content for both sample goups. However, to help distinguish the returned responses, white color paper was sent to building contractors and linen color paper was sent to construction contractors. The questionnaire was reviewed by the research committee members before mailing. Research Hypotheses Part I and II of the questionnaire was composed of twelve ques- tions. The data from each goup in part I and II were compared with each of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, busirness and management, construction technology, and man- agement of construction operations) in part III. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used because it simultaneously explores the relationship between several independent variables and two or more dependent variables. When MANOVA was completed, the researcher used univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine for each case if a significance occurred. This reduces Type I error rates and 39 provides the strongest evidence of reliable goup difi'erences. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Hypothesis 1. The two goups of respondents, building contractors and construction contractors, were directed toward the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construc- tion design, business and management, construction technologI, and management of construction operations). Hypothesis 2. One question in part I was directed toward the administrative title of position and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and man- agement, construction technology, and management of construction operations). Hypothesis 3. One question in part I was directed toward the company classification and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and management, construction technology, and management of construe - tion operations). Hypothesis 4. One question in part I was directed toward how many permanent management employees are employed with a company and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and management, construction technology, and management of construction operations). Hypothesis 5. One question in part I was directed toward the percentage of permanent employees holding a bachelor's degree in building construction management and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business 40 and management, construction technology, and management of construction operations). Hypothesis 6. One question in part I was directed toward how the respondents categorize their own personal backgound and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and management, construction technologr, and management of construction operations). Hypothesis 7. One question in part II was directed toward whether the respondents company regularly hire graduates of building construction management programs and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and management, construction technology, and management of con- struction operations). Hypothesis 8. One question in part II was directed toward based on the performance of building construction management gaduates, whether the respondents anticipate more hiring in the future and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and management, construc- tion technology, and management of construction operations). Hypothesis 9. One question in part II was directed toward should a master's degee in construction be a criterion for promotion and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and management, construction technol- ogy, and management of construction operations). Hypothesis 10. One question in part II was directed toward does the respondents company feel that current building construction management progams are adequately structured to serve industry 41 needs and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and management, construction technology, and management of construction operations). Hypothesis 1 1. One question in part II was directed toward whether the respondents perceive that a gaduate of a building construction management program would be more valuable to their company than a graduate of another progam, for example business and the importance of the five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and management, construction technology, and management of construction operations). The Pilot Study According to Borg and Gail (1989), to further improve data collecting routines, to reduce the number of questionnaire treatment errors, to determine whether any communication problems exist, and to locate ambiguities, a thorough pilot study should be conducted. For the pilot study, four subjects were selected. No building contractors and two construction contractors were interviewed. These four subjects represented similar populations as in the main study, how- ever, none were listed in the top four hundred of W W. July. 1991 or Wed. May. 1991. Before conducting a formal pilot study, the cover letter and ques- tionnaire were reviewed by Dr. Rudman, and the members of the research committee, Dr. von Bemuth, Dr. Yelon, Tim Mrozowski, and Doug Cron. Several changes and corrections were recommended. 42 These were subsequently incorporated into the cover letter and questionnaire. The cover letter was written three times. Reasons for rewriting were: to streamline the information, include a brief assurance of confidentiality, present the subject with a good reason for completing the questionnaire and sending it back, and convince the subject that the study was significant and important. The questionnaire for this study was patterned from an instru- ment prepared by Musibau A. Shofoluwe in his study titled u. ”L _.. .- ,~_._,. -L . .oi _.- ._ u u.- U. . -' Vim, Grambling State University, 1989. This questionnaire. after examination by the researcher and research committee, was re- designed to embody a high degee of content validity with the study. Subsequently, reorganization along with several modifications were incorporated into the new questionnaire used in this study. These modifications were as follows: To help assure a satisfactory percent age of responses, the questionnaire was reduced inn size to fit entirely on one sheet of paper, both sides; Within Part I, the geogaphical regons of company operations were divided into two distinct categories, Nationwide and International. These categories were then subdivided into representative sub sets of the two regional classifications. Question number four, within Part 1, "Please irndicate the dollar amount in millions of dollars, of your annual volume of business", was completely deleted. The researcher thought this question was not relevant to the study. Part 111 from the instrument prepared by Musibau A. Shofoluwe was exchanged with part II to help streamline the new questionnaire. In Part III, question number three, "Will your 43 company provide financial support full or partial for an employee to complete a BS. in construction under certain contractual obligation?" was deleted. In addition, question number five, of Part III "Is your company in favor of providing financial gants to Institutions in support of undergaduate construction education?" was deleted. The researcher felt that these two questions were not pertinent to the new study and could possibly limit the response return rate of the ques- tionnaire. The new part III was reformatted to reflect a Likert--type scale where the individual checks one of five possible responses. A fifth response, (of little use), was added to the new instrument. The order of responses was transposed from: Of no use, Somewhat useful, Highly useful but not essential, and Very essential, to the following: Very essential, Highly useful, Somewhat useful, Of little use, and Of no use. This, according to Dr. Rudman, better reflects a positive response condition. Finally, in part 111, four other subset courses were intro- duced as follows: under the major course goup of general education, foreign languages and cross cultural studies were added, and within “the major course goup of management of construction operations, land development and acquisition and land use regulations were added. Data Collection Mail surveys of the two sample goups, building contractors and construction contractors, were conducted. Only one mailing was performed. This occurred on July 3, 1992 and all the envelopes were addressed to the attention of the human resource director. The envelope contained a cover letter addressed to the construction 44 executive, the questionnaire. and a pre-printed, stamped returnn envelope in which to return the completed questionnaire. The mailing used first class mail rather than that recommended by Dillrnan (1978): certified mail. As a result of sufficient responses from the first mailing, and anonymity of the respondents a follow-up mailing was deemed unnecessary by the researcher. After selecting the list of names for both sample groups, data entry began. The four hundred building contractors, as presented in 111W, July, 199 l , contained completed addresses with postal zip codes. The four hundred construction contractors, as presented in the WM, May, 1991, listed only the company name, city of headquarters, and state. For this goup all the street addresses and postal zip codes had to be derived. Many of these were registered in Dun 8: Bradstreet's W D ‘ 0s LII‘I .'- :4 1° 11 ll 8‘ is .‘ 0190.1-“ M J 01010. New Jersey: 1992. Remaining street addresses and postal zip codes were located in city directory phone books. Using the computer database progam by Microsoft called Excel version 4.0 running on a Macintosh IIsi micro computer, two separate data layouts were de- signed to imput and export data according to specific formats. The company names and addresses of the four hundred building contrac- tors and the four hundred construction contractors, respectively, were entered into the two databases. After all the names and addresses were entered and checked for errors, the two databases were linked with a mail merge progam by Avery, called MaclabelPro l .0. The researcher decided to personalize the envelopes by printing the addresses on the envelope rather than using mailing labels. This was accomplished by 45 using a Macintosh Style Writer progammable printer, using helvetica font set at twelve characters per inch. Botln the envelopes used in the mailing and the accompanying return envelopes included the Michigan State University return address irn the upper left hand corner. The questionnaire, which used helvetica font set at ten characters per inch, was printed on plain paper, white color paper was used for the building contractors and linen color paper was used for the construction contractors. The cover letter was printed on Michigan State University building construction management progam stationary, using helvetica font set at ten characters per inch. The cover letters were dated and individually signed by the researcher using a black ink pen. In the cover letter, the researcher requested a return date for the completed questionnaire of July 31, 1992. This allowed one month from time of mailing to expected return deadline. Statistical Processing As each survey questionnaire was returned, they were sorted by color irnto two goups and assigned a subject number; white for the building contractors and linen for the construction contractors. Additionally, each questionnaire was reviewed for respondents who indicated that they would like a copy of the results. To facilitate data imput, a data key was made from the questionnaire. and each variable on the questionnaire was assigned a number, V0 through V82 (Appendix F). Each goup of variables was then assigned numbers depending on the possible number of outcomes to the response. It was 46 decided by the researcher to use the number -9 for all missing responses to any variable. The responses were entered into a Macintosh personal computer database progam, Microsoft Excel. The input and export layout was designed to comply with a format which could be uploaded to the SPSS-PC 4.0. l statistical package. The data was arranged in a spread sheet format containing eighty-five columns, reflecting the total number of outcome variables of the questionnaire. The first column contained the subject number. Column two contained the group number: the number 1 represented building contractors and the number 2 represented construction contractors. The subsequent eighty-two columns were as follows: three through forty was for the variables to the questions in part I of the questionnaire, forty-one through forty-five for the variables in part II, and forty-six through eighty-five for the variables in part III. Five outcome variables (general education, construction design, business and management, construc- tion technolog', and management of construction operations) were created from the thirty-nine variables in part III, by using the mean of the items in each of the five goups. After all the data was entered it was printed out and each data entry was verified three times by the researcher. When the data collection period ended, the data was uploaded to the SPSS-PC 4.0.1 software system for analysis. The responses from botln goups were compared for all eleven hypotheses using the MANOVA and ANOVA statistics test. The data was analyzed using the SPSS-PC 4.0.1 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software package running on an IBM 386 personal computer. 47 Explanation of Statistical Tests Multivariate analysis of variance (MAN OVA) was selected by the researcher to run first because it is a statistical technique for deter- nnirning whether several goups difi'er on more than one dependent variable. The purpose of MANOVA is to determine whether there are statistically significant differences between the centroids of different goups. The next step is to do a test of the statistical significance of the difference between goup centroids. The most commonly used test for this purpose is Wilks lambda. This test yields an F value. which can be looked up in an F ratio table to determine its level of statistical significance. If a sigrnificant MANOVA F is obtained, we can then do an analysis of variance ANOVA on each dependent variable to deter- mine which of these variables are statistically significant and con- tributing to the overall MANOVA F, (Borg and Gall, 1989). CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF THE DATA Introduction The data for this research and analysis was obtained through a mailed questionnaire during the period from July 1, 1992 through August 27 , 1992. A cover letter explaining the goal and objectives of the survey accompanied the three part questionnaire. The survey was forwarded to the top four-hundred building contractors and the top four hundred construction contractors as listed in the W W July. 1991. and the Wad May, 1991 , respectively. Aside from color, both samples were surveyed with identical instruments. Chapter III outlined the methodology used irn this study. The qualitative and statistical analysis of the data col- lected are presented as follows. The Sample Population In total, two hundred eighty-one completed questionnaires were returned, representing an over-all response rate of 35. 1%. Of these, one hundred thirty-five were from building contractors and one hundred forty-six were from construction contractors reflecting response rates of 33.8% and 36.5%, respectively. Two respondents returned untouched questionnaires. One construction contractor indicated, "Please be advised that it is corporate policy not to participate in surveys of any 48 49 type." A building contractor questionnaire was returned by a bank receiver stating, "I regret to tell you that this firm has been dissolved." The two hundred eighty-one responses provided the basis for the comparative analysis conducted in this study. Research Hypotheses Are there predictable differences between the ratings of Building Contractors and Construction Contractors in regard to curriculum with respect to industrial applications? To answer this question. the study tested the following research hypotheses: There are differences between Building Contractors and Construction Contractors with respect to the five major course classifications: a. General Education b. Construction Design c. Business and Management (1. Construction Technology e. Management of Construction Operations W There are differences between administrative title 0 position with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations peeve . There are differences between company classification with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technologt Management of Construction Operations as??? 50 W There are differences between how many permanent management em loyees are employed with respect to the five major course classi cations: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations 99??? There are differences between what percentage of permanent employees hold a bachelor's degee in Building Construction Management with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations peeve There are differences between how you categorize your own personal backgound with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations W There are differences between the participants w o responded yes to the question: Does your company regular y hire graduates of Building Construction Management programs ?, and those who said no with respect to the five major course classifications: 999?? General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations W There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the question: Based on their performance, do you anticipate more hiring in the future?, with respect to the five major course classifications: peeve General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations 999?? 51 Hfifliflhfllfii There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the uestion: Should a master's degree in construction be a c terion for promotion?, with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations WM There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the question: Does your company feel that current Building Construction Management rograms are adequately structured to serve industry nee ?, with respect to the five major course classifications: {DP-99‘!” General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations W There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the uestion: Do you perceive that a graduate of a Building onstruction Management program would be more valuable to your com any than a graduate of another program, for example, Bus ness?, with respect to the five major course classifications: 999?? General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations sue-99's Hypothesis Testing To help better understand the hypothesis testing, a mean approaching 1 indicates the course goup is very essential where as a mean approaching 5 indicates the course goup is of no use. Table 1 shows the Wilks' lambda, F-values and p-values for the five major course goups tested within the ten subject category areas idemtified in each hypothesis (p s .05 are highlighted). 52 Table l . Overview of the Five Major Course Groups and Company Categories with Significant Difference Wilks‘ Comgany1 Categories lam roup ass cation . Administrative Title . Company Classification Management Employees Bachelor's Degree 111 BCM Personal Background . . . Hire BCM Graduates , , ; ss' {‘53:iéil-:§iéiéiiiiiéééiéiziiiéi'zi Future Hiring Adequately Structured BCM Programs . . 1.3;.Qfig; BCM Graduates more Valuable . . 5?:-a’Zggfggsgif'é1:35:55: ‘Significant at or beyond the .05 level There were significant differences found within the following five sub- ject categories: goup classification, administrative title, hiring of building construction management gaduates, adequately structured building construction management programs. and are building con- struction gaduates more valuable. Hypothesis 9 was dismissed alto— gether, due to an overwhelming no response, and, therefore, insuffi- cient data for analysis. W There are differences between Building Contractors and Construction Contractors with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technolog' Management of Construction Operations sense This hypothesis attempted to determine if the two goups (building contractors and construction contractors) differ in their views about the importance of the five major course goups. MANOVA 53 was used as a test of significance for the five major course goups related to this hypothesis. A Wilks' lambda value of .83830 produced an F—value of 10.33918 and a probability (p) of .0001 (Table 2). Thus there was a significant difierence between the two groups over their perception of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 1 was not rejected. The ANOVA test of significance identified three topics in which the two groups differed significantly (Table 2). Figure 4- 1 gaphically illustrates where the two goups differed the most. Construction con- tractors consistently viewed these topics more important than did building contractors: general education (2.846 vs. 2.584), construction design (2.253 vs. 1.914), and construction technologi (1.816 vs. 1.595). Figure 4- 1 shows that general education is viewed lower than the other four major course groups by both building contractors and construction contractors. Furthermore, the larger standard deviation in all categories by the building contractor's suggests building contrac- tors were not as unified in their rating of the topics. W There are differences between administrative title 0 position with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations sense This hypothesis attempted to determine if the six administrative title goups (president, manager, vice president, human resource direc- tor, project manager and chairman) differ in their views about the importance of the five major course goups. MANOVA was used as a 54 cm: 0: Co a m 9.20353 case a 32.33 b? a F 838986 SSE < ”202 .96. no. 2: 2:8 3 a. 285ch . my 98:2 _c .. vow. o Qnmd .9 n<>Oz< chm wmw. o. owe. N NAN... cued :0... Sum 05cm: ..: womd wand 0 w wmwé wrap IoN 4N. Nwmd .85 N. we. m_..m.o 5:83.200 cow own. 0 3.33m .58. u a 968.9 I u. omwom. o n «BEE .953 "(>052 33.5 8.500 .532 can 2F can nounofimmflo 95.5 .N 0588 55 cm: 0: .0 m_ m 05:03.03 :38 m .5530 a? a F 05:80.03 :02: < ”202 0885820 9.0.0 u 00000.. 5383 38:00 928050 050:3 I mbOuomhcoo cozoabmcoo D 30.00508... 00.822200 20:82.0 .0 000808022 0980 2.282.200 is 20800222 . . \ «.8063 m — _ 1r. _ _ A _ H 00:00:33.0 .520 .70 200.... sdnors osrnoo role" BAH 56 test of significance for the five major course goups related to this hypothesis. A Wilks' lambda value of .8622 produced an F-value of 1 .5943 and a probability (p) of .033 (Table 3). Thus there was a sig- nificant difference between the administrative title of position over the perception of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 2 was not rejected. The ANOVA test of significance identified one category in which the six groups differed significantly (Table 3). Figure 4-2 graph- ically illustrates where the six goups differed the most. Vice presi- dents and chairman viewed the topics in general education lower than did human resource directors, (2.828 and 2.792 vs. 2.496). Figrre 4-2 shows, general education is viewed lower by all six admirnistrative title goups than the other four major course goups. Furthermore, the larger standard deviation score from vice presidents suggests they are not as unified in their ratings of the topics. Emma, There are differences between company classification with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations roe-99‘? This hypothesis attempted to detennine if the four goups of company classification (building construction, engineering, irndustrial, and other) differ in their views about the importance of the five major course goups. MANOVA was used as a test of significance for the five major course goups related to this hypothesis. A Wilks' lambda value 57 on: 0: .0 a. m 002000500 506 a .3235 bo> a F 9.2000500 52: < ”202 .26. mo. 2. 0:28 a a .5855 . 8N; 33; 2:3 . ..,00n£10.050 0....ch... ., . : : 80....“ 30.3. 08.3“ PIN 30.5w NN0.N . :. ., , . .. .. .. , .. . ._ . . . ~2an 00.5.20. SEN 8005.2 .0220 8N 858cm 552.. oNoN 05032.“. 8_> 03N 535.2 scum“ 25202.”. Namingmco...r5_8§m50fi_ 50.0003 30,0000 2 moat. 03m... I u. «N00. 0 I 035. .95; .(>°.z:<= 095000 00300 5.02 020 05. 05 can. scumbag .m 030,—. 58 mm: 0: 00 m_ m 003000500 000:. 0 5.00800 00> 0_ F 002000500 :09: < ”202 m 500025.02 n 0503 252005 I 50000.2 D £02020 02> I 00582“. 56:: I 5005.2 .0055 5.50:0 m 2.: 802.3553 .3 2:9". 500003 .9050 5.000 50000050 80.50055. \ $050.5 30.0050... 5:02.050 0528000 .0 052000002 sdnoro osnnoo role" onu 59 of .93640 produced an F—value of 1.18430 and a probability (p) of .278 (Table 4). There was no significant difierence between the four groups of company classification over their perception of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 3 was rejected. As Figure 4-3 shows, general education is rated higher than the four other major course goups by all four company classifications. In addition Table 4 indicates a smaller standard deviation by engineering company respondents, suggesting they were more unified in their ratings of the topics. W There are differences between how many permanent management employees are employed with respect to the five major course classi ncations: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations 999?? This hypothesis attempted to determine if the six possible goups of permanent management employees (less than 50, 50 to 100, 100 to 250, 250 to 500, 500 to 1000, and over 1000) differ in their views about the importance of the five major course goups. MANOVA was used as a test of significance for the five major course goups related to this hypothesis. A Wilks' lambda value of .87737 produced a F-value of 1 .4137 and a probability (p) of .086 (Table 5). There was no significant difference between the six groups of permanent man- agement employees relative to their understanding of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 4 was rejected. on: 00 .0 a. m 00.500500 0020 0 00000000 00> m. .. 00.500500 0000. < .202 .26. mo. 2.. 2.2.8 3 a 280.50 . 6O 8». $8.0 o 30.0 $3.. 3.0.82. 00500.05 .580 8.0.30 moat. 0019.... I N. 90006 I 035. .953 .<>oz<: .................. . ......... .... ..... ..... _..: ,..............,..... 003000 00500 .502 030 0E. 05 0030090000 0300800 .0 030.0 61 000 00 00 0. 0 0500000000 000E 0 00000000 00> 0. F 050000.000 000E < ”0.02 0 0000050006 00000.00 a 00000.. 0000000000 00.2.00 I 000000.05. D 3.00000. I .050 I 00:00:33.0 >000E00 .90 0000.". 0000003. 0.00006 00.000 0000000000 00.000000: \ 0000.000 30.00000... 0000000000 000000000 00 2000000002 sdnms «moo Joleu eAL-j 62 The ANOVA test of significance identified general education as having a statistical difference probability of .013; however, we cannot conclude that this is significant because the univariate F test is not independent. Figure 4—4 shows the category of less than 50 permanent management employees generally viewed lower than did the category of 500 to 1000 (2.779 vs. 2.303). Also shown by figure 4-4, is that the category of over 1000 viewed business and management courses lowest but a standard deviation of .884, indicates they were not unified in their ratings. W15. There are differences between what percentage of permanent employees hold a bachelor's degree in Building Construction Management with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations 99-957!” This hypothesis attempted to determine if the four groups of permanent employees having a bachelor's degree in building construc- tion management (less than 5%, 5% to 10%, 10% to 25%, and over 25%) differ in their views about the importance of the five major course groups. MANOVA was used as a test of significance for the five major course groups related to this hypothesis. A Wilks' lambda value of .9143 produced an F-value of 1.6166 and a probability (p) of .064 (Table 6). There was no significant difference between the four groups of permanent employees having a bachelor's degree in building construction management over their perception of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 5 was rejected. 63 000 00 .0 0. m 002000.000 000.0 0 0000000 .00.. 0. . 002000.000 0000.. < ”0.02 .26. 00. a... 08.8 a .0 28000.0 . .000; 00:39 hwomd 000.. 000.. 000.. 000.. 000.. 000.. 0.0.. 00.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 005.0 000.0 .80 . .00 $3 000. .96 000. 2 000 000 2 000 000 o. 00. 00. o. 00 00 00.: 80.. has; a “— 00050.0 I 0000.0. .05.; 0050.00 00.500 .8 _.02 02... 05. 0:0 000003.00 308000.002 30:08.00 .0 030.0 64 0: 00 .0 0_ 0 050002000 000.: 0 00000000 00> 0_ 050009000 000.: < ”0.02 000>o_aEw u 00000.. on 005 000.. I 8. o. 00 D 000 o. 8. I 80 o. 000 I 08. o. 80 E 08. .05 E m 0000033 .0508 09000 02.02.0000 2000000002 \ 000503 32000000. 02.03.0000 000000000 .0 508000002 00033.5 220000002 000000200. .1. 0.52". sdnms osmoo 10'8" OAH 65 Figure 4-5 shows that general education was rated higher than the other four major course groups by all four categories. Furthermore, figure 4-5 indicated. that companies employing more than 5% building construction management graduates gave construction design a high rating. Also of interest is that companies which employ more than 20% building construction management graduates show a lower stan- dard deviation in four out of five categories, indicating a more harmo- nious rating of their responses. W There are differences between how you categorize your own personal background with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technologr Management of Construction Operations sup-99'? This hypothesis attempted to determine if the five categories of personal background (accounting / finance, business / management, architectural, engineering, and technolog') differ in their views about the importance of the five major course groups. MANOVA was used as a test of significance for the five major course groups related to this hypothesis. A Wilks' lambda value of .8995 produced an F-value of 1.4010 and a probability (p) of .1 13 (Table 7). There was no signifi- cant diflerence between the five categories of personal background concerning the perception of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 6 was rejected. Figure 4-6 illustrates that all five categories viewed general education the lowest. Also, those respondents having a technology 00: 00 .0 0. m 002000.000 000.0 0 00000000 00> 0_ . 002000.000 000.0 < ”0.02 .20. 0o. 0... 0.5.8 3 .0 28000.0 . 66 N36 ammod 0000 2 08. 08. 0. $0 $0 :0... 000.. 09.0.5 00.500 02.02 02m 00.... 0:0 0:080; concur—00:00 mags—3m 5 00039 0.00.053 0 5.3 009003800 .0 050... 67 0: 00 .0 0. m 050000.000 000E 0 __0..00000 00> 0. 0020000000 000.0 < ”0.02 m 000>0_0Em .000 .00 u 000004 0000003 .000006 00.000 00.83.0000 £6 005 000.. I $0. 0. oxom D .00E0u0002 $00 0. °00. I 0000.03 $00 .05 I 3200000.. 00.82.0000 00000000 .0 20.000000: 20.000000: 00.82.0000 00.2.3 0. 00509 0.00.0003 0 0...... 0030.95 .0... 0.50.". sdnoio osmoo role" on“ 68 background viewed construction design lowest and construction tech- nology highest of the five major course groups. WW There are differences between the participants w o responded yes to the question: Does your company regular y hire graduates of Building Construction Management programs?, and those who said no with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations 9999'!» This hypothesis attempted to determine if the two categories responding yes or no to the question: Does your company regularly hire graduates of Building Construction Management programs?, differ in their views about the importance of the five major course groups. MANOVA was used as a test of significance for the five major course groups related to this hypothesis. A Wilks' lambda value of .92063 produced an F-value of 4.51729 and a probability (p) of .001 (Table 8). As a result. there was a significant difference between the two categories over their perception of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 7 was not rejected. The ANOVA test of significance identifies three t0pics in which the two categories differed statistically (Table 8). Figure 4-7 graphi- cally illustrates where the two categories differ the most. The no respondents consistently viewed general education, construction design, and construction technology lower than those answering yes. As Figure 4-7 displays. both categories viewed general education lower than the other four major course groups. In addition, the higher 69 000 00 .0 0. m 002000.000 000.0 0 00200000 00> 0. . 002000.000 000.0 < “0.02 .05 00. o... 03.3 a .0 .080000 . 0000.0 0000.. 0000.. 0000.. 000.0 . 020000.... n 00.085000 05.02.00... 00.2.8205 .0."..00..§o8< 05v P I ”— mmmwd I 03.00. .953 0.50.00 00500 .00 _.02 02... 0E. .50 00003.00 05009.00.“ 00.000000. . 0 0.0.0... 70 00: 00 .0 0_ m 002000.000 0.00... 0 50000000 00> 0_ . 002000.000 0005 < ”0.02 m 00.00.00.000 0000.00 u 00000.. 00005030000002 I 0005000002 0005000 B 3.200.202. I 05.00505 I 3200000.. § 0000003 0.0000 09000 0000000000 .00E000002 \ 0005000 32000005 0000000000 00000.000 .0 205000005. 3000.00 00.00.00.000 2000.00 .0... 0.30.". sdnma osmoo JOIBfl and 71 standard deviation for all categories of the no responses suggests a greater disagreement in their ratings. Interestingly, the number of responses for this hypothesis was: Yes = 136 N0 = 132 Not sure = 5 Therefore, the "not sure" response, having negligible statistical signifi- cance to this hypothesis, was discounted by the researcher. flfipgmslifi‘ There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the question: Based on their performance. do you anticipate more hiring in the future?, with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations sup-99's» This hypothesis attempted to determine if the three categories responding yes, no, and not sure, to the question: Based on their performance. do you anticipate more hiring in the future ?, difier in their views about the importance of the five major course groups. MANOVA was used as a test of significance for the five major course groups related to this hypothesis. A Wilks' lambda value of .9395 produced an F-value of 1.5671 and a probability (p) of .1 13 (Table 9). There was no significant difference between the three categories over their perception of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 8 was rejected. Figure 4-8 shows, general education was again viewed lowest by all three respondents. Furthermore, the "not sure" respondents viewed all five major course groups lower than the other two. 72 000 00 .0 0. m 002000.000 000... 0 00000000 00> 0_ . 002000.000 000... < .0002 .20. 00. a... 000.3 .0 .0 080.000 . _ H000..- 000.0,. _. . r. _ m... _ 000......_0.0...0s ,. 5.00.. 0.00.0 000. 000.0 . M00. 000.0 000.... 00.. m 00. can. _. _. 0000. com. o 000.. 00. #2 00 z 00 om 00:00.0 00.500 .00 002 0...... 0E. 0:0 000050000 000800052 00.003.000.000 050005 0.5.. .m 030... 73 000 00 .0 0 w. 0 002000.000 00: 0000. 0 0.0 m 0.. F 0.0 0 0 ._0.000000 00> . _ _ _ _ 0. F 002000.000 0000. < ”0.02 00000000 0.0000 00.000 0000000000 00> I 200300002 \ 0000.000 02 D 00200000.. 0000000000 0080.000 .0 0008000002 . . _ _ H 00.00020 0005000002 00.82.0000 00.2.00 0.... .5. 0.00.... Canals mnoa 10M. on“ 74 W There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the uestion: Should a master's degree in construction be a c terion for promotion?, with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations EDP-PS7!” This hypothesis attempted to determine if the three categories responding yes, no, and not sure, to the question: should a master's degree in construction he a criterion for promotion?, differ in their views about the importance of the five major course groups. 246 out of a possible 274 of the responses for the hypothesis were no: therefore. due to unsuitable data for analysis, the researcher eliminated this hypothesis. W There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the question: Does your company feel that current Building Construction Management rograms are adequately structured to serve industry nee ?, with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations {DP-99'!” This hypothesis attempted to determine if the three categories responding yes, no. and not sure, to the question: Does your company feel that current Building Construction Management programs are adequately structured to serve industry needs?, differ in their views about the importance of the five major course groups. MANOVA was used as a test of significance for the five major course groups 75 000 00 .0 0. 0 002000.000 0000. 0 00.20000 00> 0. P 002000.000 0000.. < ”0.02 .22 00. 05 000.00 .0 .0 0.80.000 . 00. mowmd mend 55.0 30.0 m00. Oma. _. 03.0 02.0 200.02 oz 300.0 030.0. .002; j . m: ._.‘._...... ._._.....‘....._._._._.‘.‘._._._..._.‘.~.. ..'.‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .‘. J.‘ .' ‘.‘.‘.'.‘.‘.'.‘.'.'.‘.‘.‘.‘.' ‘.‘.‘.'.'.‘.‘.‘.' i . . . . 0 ' i ‘ 1 ‘ I O . . A. . . I . ‘ ' , 1 . ‘ . : | ’ ‘ .. . . .'.‘.‘.'. ..." ".. C.“ n ‘ . l g . . t ' 0030.00 00.300 .00 H02 02,0 05. 9.0 0.03:... 05 E 05.5.. 0.02 .0 030... 76 0_ m 050000.000 0000. m 0 ._0=00wm0 00> 0_ F 050000.000 0000. < “0.02 00> I 02 D 0.00 002 I 0.3:". 05 0_ 00.0: 0.05. .00 0.30:. 0000033 0.0000 09000 02.00.8000 .00.:000002 \ 0005000 30.00003 000026000 sdnoxs «moo 1010" CAM 0030.000 .0 005000002 77 related to this hypothesis. A Wilks' lambda value of .90084 produced an F—value of 2.8 195 and a probability (p) of .002 (Table 10). Hence there was a aimiflcant difi'erence between the two groups over their perception of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 10 was not rejected. The ANOVA test of significance identifies two topics, general education and construction design, in which the three categories difi'ered statistically (Table 10). Figure 4-9 illustrates where the three categories differ the most. The "no" respondents viewed general educa- tion (2.918 vs. 2.585) and construction design (2.179 vs. 1.906) lower than those responding yes. Moreover, the standard deviation for the "no" group was higher than the "yes" or "not sure" respondents, indicat- ing a greater division in their ratings. Additionally, figure 4-9 illustrates that all three respondent categories viewed general education lowest. A statistical p-value of .051 in construction technology suggests significance nearly exists in this category. On further analysis of Figure 4-9 the "yes" respondents show a higher importance for construction technology than the other respondents. The standard deviations are very close suggesting there is a high agreement within all three respondents over this issue. Hfipgjhflm There are differences between the participants w o responded yes, no, or not sure to the uestion: Do you perceive that a graduate of a Building onstruction Management program would be more valuable to your company than a graduate of another program. for example Business?, with respect to the five major course classifications: General Education Construction Design Business and Management Construction Technology Management of Construction Operations 999?? 78 00: 00 .0 0_ m 002000.000 0000. 0 20000000 00> 0_ F 002000.000 0000. < ”0.02 .25. mo. 05 08.3 .o .0 08000.0 . 000 no 800.. u . . . 308.0 .. 0300. .505 u<>oz<2 00:00.0 00.300 00 _.02 02... 05 0:0 000300.50 0.0005002 080000.... 0.3 .0. 030... 79 Cw: C: an. E m 002000.000 000E 0 00000000 00> 0_ F 002000.000 000E < ”0.02 00> I 02 D 0.30 .02 I 005.025 00.03023 00.0.00... 0.< .00 0.00.". 0000033 0.0000 09000 09.02.0000 .00E000002 \ 00002.3 3200000... 02.02.0000 002.0000 .0 .00E000002 IdIIOJE) osmoo Jolefl mu 80 This hypothesis attempted to determine if the three categories responding yes, no, and not sure, to the question: Do you perceive that a graduate of a Building Construction Management program would be more valuable to your company than a graduate of another program. for example Business?, differ in their views about the importance of the five major course groups. MANOVA was used as a test of significance for the five major course groups related to this hypothesis. A Wilks‘ lambda value of ..90586 produced an F-value of 2.6859 and a probability (p) of .003 (Table l 1). Thus, there was a significant diflerence between the two groups over their percep- tion of the importance of the five major course groups. Hypothesis 1 1 was not rejected. The ANOVA test of significance identifies three topics. (construction design, construction technology, management of opera- tions) in which the three categories difl'ered statistically (Table l 1). Figure 4-10 shows where the three categories differ: the "no" respon- dents viewed construction technology and management of operations lowest, while the "not sure" respondents viewed construction design lowest of the three. Once again, as illustrated in Figure 4- 10, general education is viewed lower than the other four major course groups by all three respondents. In the category of construction design, the standard deviation for the no respondents is high suggesting they are not in agreement on this issue. 81 3: o: no 3 m 9.20353 cuoE a .3233 be, a P 9.30353 .32: < ”802 .26. mo. 2.. 2:3 3 a 28535 . ommod .ooo. omwmfi mo...o when; .960. hovcd I. vnmd 2a.. Pup mmmd 05m .02 oz 8> mmmmd .- u camomd I «BE! .853 "(>052 .3580 emu—.50 .5 F2 can «E. was Esau—fig 0.88 "1.89680 buoaommnmz couogmcov mafia—m 0.3 A g 2an 82 mm: o: .o m_ m m uszuwoaaa came m .5558 a? 2 p 920853 58.: < ”202 c8333 .9286 :9ch 8:02.200 8> I 02 D Eoanwcaz \ 8283 95m 62 I 328:8... 5:023:00 202880 no 2250982 o_na:_a> 9.2: «22626 Eon—caucus cozoaficoo 2.23m o._< 67¢ 0.59". sdnms esmoo .lOIBfl any; 83 Supplemental Analysis Descriptive statistics were run on all thirty-nine typical courses as presented in Part III of the questionnaire. Table 12 delineates the mean and standard deviation for each class in ascending importance to both the building contractors and the construction contractors. The variable responses range from one to five, and are presented as follows: Response Rating of Category Importance Very Essential 1 Highly Useful 2 Somewhat Useful 3 Of Little Use 4 Of No Use 5 Both respondent groups rated oral communication and written communication classes as very essential (1.272 and 1.373). This agrees with data from other studies as presented in: Review of the Literature, Chapter 3. Summary The results of the statistical analysis for each of the eleven hypotheses were presented in this chapter. Multivariate analysis of 84 Table 12 Ascending order in means of the class list ems" LISTING MEAN : D V 0‘71 ommunication 1. " . ”0'0 . * ' Project Scheduling & Time Control 1.305 .507 2.574 ritten Communication 1.373 .561 2.447 Construction Methods 1.418 .601 2.359 Construction Management 1.433 .609 2.353 Project Management & Control 1.440 .603 2.388 Quality Control 1.487 .630 2.360 Construction Estimating 1.498 .664 2.256 Construction Safety 1.524 .736 2.071 hitectural Design / Blueprint 1.538 .663 2.320 Construction Productivity Improvement 1.675 .727 2.304 Construction Materials 1.702 .724 2.351 Management Principles 1.731 .651 2.659 Building Codes 1.865 .81 1 2.300 Construction Equipment 1.920 .872 2.202 Foundation & Soil Mechanics 1.953 .842 2.319 Surveying & Layout 1.964 .823 2.386 Legal Aspects of Construction 2.000 .824 2.427 Construction Economics 2.033 .761 2.671 Personnel Management 2.040 .830 2.458 Reinforced Concrete Design 2.138 .937 2.282 Structural Wood Design 2. 178 .901 2.417 Engineering Graphics 2.228 .905 2.462 Organization Behavior 2.229 .872 2.556 Financial Management 2.247 .800 2.809 ounting Principles 2.269 .745 3.046 Construction Labor Relations 2.276 .898 2.535 Business Law 2.295 .822 2.792 Technical Report Writing 2.375 .842 2.821 Basic Steel Design 2.404 1.029 2.336 Algebra & Trigonometry 2.425 .874 2.775 Construction Firm Organization 2.480 .877 2.828 Land Use Regulations 2.800 1.060 2.642 Land Development and Acquisition 2.807 1.055 2.661 Humanities & Social Science 3.059 .732 4.179 85 variance and univariate analysis of variance were employed to analyze the data collected for the study. Each of the eleven hypotheses was tested using five categories: General Education. Construction Design, Business / Management, Construction Technolog, and Management of Operations. These topics were identified as major course groups in Part III of the ques- tionnaire. The average of all the means of the sub-courses within a major course group represented the mean used in the analysis. Table 13. shows a summary of the accepted and rejected hypotheses. Hypothesis 9 was deemed unsuitable for analysis and subsequently discarded. Table 13. -- Summary of the Accepted and Rejected Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Accepted Hypothesis 2 Accepted Hypothesis 3 Rejected Hypothesis 4 Rejected Hypothesis 5 Rejected Hypothesis 6 Rejected Hypothesis 7 Accepted Hypothesis 8 Rejected Hypothesis 9 Discounted ‘ Hypothesis 10 Accepted Hypothesis 1 1 Accepted Significant differences were found between the two groups (building contractors and construction contractors) concerning the importance of general education, construction design and construction technology. They maintained similar views on the importance of business / management and management of operations (Hypothesis 1). 86 Similarly, statistical differences were found between the adminis- trative title of position and the five major course groups concerning the importance of general education (Hypothesis 2). No significant difference was found between the company classi- fication and the five major course groups. However general education was rated higher than the other four groups (Hypothesis 3) In like manner, no significant difference was found between the number of permanent management employees and the five major course groups. Still. they did differ over the importance of general education, and again all six groups rated general education higher than the other four course groups (Hypothesis 4). No significant difference was found between the percentage of employees having a bachelor's degree in building construction man- agement and the five major course groups. However, they differed in the two categories of construction design and construction technology. Again all four groups rated general education highest of the major course groups (Hypothesis 5). No significant difference was found between the personal back- ground category and the five major course groups. Nevertheless all five personal background categories rated general education the highest. (Hypothesis 6). Significant differences were found between the responses (yes, no) of the participants hiring building construction management grad- uates and the five major course groups in the categories of general education, construction design, and construction technolog'. Both respondent groups rated general education the highest (Hypothesis 7). 87 No significant differences were established between the respon- dents (ves, no, and not sure) of the participants who anticipate future hiring and the five major course groups. The groups do differ. but not significantly, in regard to construction design and construction tech- nology; they were in agreement of highly rating the general education course group (Hypothesis 8). Statistical difi'erences were found between the respondents (yes, no, and not sure) of the participants who perceive the building con- struction management programs are adequately structured with respect to the five major course groups. They differed in the categories of general education and construction design (Hypothesis 10). Similarly, statistical difi'erences were found between the respon- dents (ves, no, and not sure) of the participants who perceived that building construction management graduates are more valuable and the five major course groups. The three categories of disagreement were construction design, construction technology and management of operations (Hypothesis 1 l) . Altogether, significant statistical differences were discovered in five of the ten (50 per cent) individual hypotheses. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION Introduction This study was primarily designed to be exploratory and descrip- tive. A structured three part questionnaire was used to obtain re- sponses from both building contractors and construction contractors. The initial focus was to determine how well baccalaureate building construction management education programs are serving their prin- cipal market - the employers. The analysis included two sample groups, building contractors and construction contractors. They represented the top four hundred in the nation in dollar volume of their representative populations for 1990. During July of 1991, a mail survey of both groups was con— ducted. and except for color, each group received the same survey. The data received was analyzed by SPSS-PC, using multivariate analysis of variance MANOVA. and univariate analysis of variance AN OVA. A literature review was conducted for the following reasons: to locate previous research and opinions, to establish an interpretative summary of the current state of knowledge. and to discover any relevant recent studies. Based on the literature review and the comparative analysis. eleven hypotheses were tested for significant differences. One hypoth- esis was discarded do to lack of meaningful data, five hypotheses were rejected, and five hypotheses were accepted. 88 89 Literature A search of the literature was conducted to discover previous research related to the study. Due to the lack of directly related studies and references in the area of this study, the review of the literature considers elements that held logical ties. The literature supported change and growth in the construction industry. As the twenty-first century approaches, the mission of universities and their faculty will be challenged to produce building construction management graduates properly prepared to be produc- tive constructors. The building construction management curriculum has changed little in the past twenty years. primarily because the curriculum has been highly successful., however the construction business is dynamic and the world around us is changing rapidly, therefore construction curriculum must also change with the times and technology. Skill in creative thinking, critical analysis. communication, and, most impor- tant, how to learn, will help prevent our graduates from becoming critically deficient. In addition to an extensive building construction management education, the curriculum must be expanded to include greater exposure to a variety of non-building construction management subjects such as humanities, economics, and sociology to name a few. Education in these areas is necessary to ensure the communication skills of building construction management graduates, as well as to strengthen their ability to understand and adapt to changing condi- tions of the new global economies. 90 It was suggested in the literature review that building construc- tion management curricula should be under constant review and designed to reflect current real needs of the construction industry. Finally, universities must maintain direct and continuing interrelations with the construction industry. The results would be meaningful curriculum enhancement, and the provision of real world construction case studies, projects, and problems for discussion in the classroom. Methodology No populations were surveyed in this study. The first popula- tion (building contractors) was sampled using the list of the top four hundred building contractors as illustrated in W Remodels}; July 1991. One hundred thirty-five building contractors responded to the survey instrument, a response rate of 33.8 per cent. The second population consisted of construction contractors. This population was sampled using the list from the top four hundred construction contractors as presented in the WM May 1991 . One hundred forty-six construction contractors responded to the survey instrument, a response rate of 36.5 per cent. With the exception of color, both groups were given the same questionnaire. The questionnaire contained three parts. Part I contained seven questions concerning demographical data and company characteristics. Part II was composed of five questions regarding the perspective of the participant's company concerning current building construction management programs. Part III of the 91 questionnaire, a Likert -- type scale, presented the five major course groups along with an applicable roster of thirty-nine typical classes which are offered in building construction management programs. Returned surveys were reviewed and the responses were entered into a data base and transferred to the SPSS-PC statistical analysis software for processing. Statistical analysis was completed using multivariate analysis of variance and univariate analysis of variance. Each of the subject areas were subjected to five MANOVA analyses (general education, construc- tion design, business / management, construction technolog', and management of operations) at a significance level of .05. Where signif- icance was found, further topic analysis within a subject area and category was completed using univariate analysis. One table was developed for each hypothesis with Wilks' lambda, F-values, p-values, topic means, and standard deviations for all groups, and p-values for topic area significance. A graph was developed to graphically illustrate differences in group response means and standard deviations for each subject area where significant difference occurred. General Observations One particular general observation worth noting in this study, regarding construction graduates, is a perceived need for better com- munication skills by both building contractors and construction con— tractors. Nearly every category in parts I and II of the questionnaire, when correlated to Part III, rated the major course group of general education the highest. When the group of general education is reduced 92 empirically to its nine individual classes. the descriptive statistics indicate the following results: (Table 14.). Table 14. Descriptive Statistics for the Nine Classes within the General Education Category. General Education Classes Mean S D 1. Oral Communication 1.272 .500 2. Written Communication 1.373 .561 3. Technical Report Writing 2.375 .842 4. Humanities and Social Science 3.059 .732 5. Algebra and Trigonometry 2.425 .874 6. Calculus 3.146 .972 7. Chemistry and Physics 3.444 2.793 8. Foreign Languages 3.554 .827 9. Cross Cultural Studies 3.733 .865 To help interpret this data, a Likert--type scale was used. A number fi'om one to five was assigned to each 0f the five possible class responses depicted by the following: Ve essential Hi 1y useful Somewhat useful Of little use Of no use thCDNo—a II II II II II A mean of 1 indicates a very essential class, whereas a mean of 5 indicates a class of no use for day to day operations. With means in oral communications and written communications of 1.272 and 1.373 respectively, a generalization can be made that both sample groups 93 (building contractors and construction contractors) perceive a greater need for communication skills connected with building construction management graduates. In a like manner, numerous authors of the literature review support this concern. In his study on construction curriculum design, Mr. Shofoluwe's findings strongly indicate that the construction indus- try perceives a lack of instruction by baccalaureate construction pro- grams in good communication skills (verbal, written, graphics and listening). With emphasis on team building, where no clear superior is appointed, good communication skills become absolutely critical. These skills must be taught within the framework of today's building construction management programs. Interpretation of Each Result The first hypothesis pertained to how the two sample groups (building contractors and construction contractors) differ over the importance of the five major course categories (general education, construction design, business and management, construction technol- og, and management of construction operations). The two groups differed in ratings of general education, construction design and construction technology. In all three categories construction contrac— tors considered these three class groups to be more important than building contractors for day to day application. Additionally, both groups rate construction technology as the most important course grouping. 94 This suggests that construction contractors prefer building construction management graduates to be better prepared in areas of construction methods, estimating, safety, materials and building codes. Building contractors, though recognizing a need for these skills, placed less emphasis in the degree of training in these areas. The standard deviation values of the building contractors in all three categories were much larger than those of the construction contractors. This implies greater disagreement over the importance of these class groupings among building contractors. Questions about the second hypothesis rated the significance of the administrative title of position (president, manager, vice president, human resource director, project manager, and chairman) relative to the five major course groups. Of the two hundred seventy-three responses, the title of vice president was declared one hundred and two times: i.e., a rate of 37.4 per cent. Even though the survey instrument was mailed to the human resource director, this respondent placed a distant second, at 19. 1 percent. Chairmen responded at a rate of 5.5 percent. The significant difference in this hypothesis was shown by the category of general education: more specific between the vice presi- dents (mean of 2.828) and the human resource director (mean of 2.496) . From this contrast, a statement can be made that human resource directors view general education courses as being more useful for day to day application. There were no statistical significant differences from data obtained regarding hypotheses 3, concerning differences between company classification, 4, regarding differences between how many 95 permanent management employees are employed, and 5, in regard to difl‘erences between what percentage of permanent employees hold a bachelor's degree in building construction management. However in hypothesis 4, as depicted in figure 4-4, those companies (2) having over one thousand permanent management employees viewed the business and management course category much lower than the other four choices. Though data is inconsequential, this suggests firms employing large numbers of management personnel favor graduates with more training in business and management courses. Interestingly, hypothesis 5 shows that firms which employ less than five per cent building construction management graduates tend to favor classes in the construction design and construction technologt categories. This implies that such firms would be more interested in graduates with training in construction methods, estimating, safety, materials, architectural design and blue print reading. No significance was found in hypothesis 6, which considered differences between how respondents categorize their own personal backgound, however, business and management was the most frequently selected personnel background category (47.6 per cent). Hypothesis 7, whether the respondents company regularly hire graduates of building construction management progams, showed significance in three categories: general education, construction design, and construction technology. This indicates that firms hiring building construction management graduates prefer classes with more emphasis on design and technology. No significance was discovered in hypothesis 8, concerning more anticipated hiring in the future, however, 69.5 per cent responded yes 96 to the question: Based on the performance of building construction management gaduates, do you anticipate more hiring in the future?. This response suggests that firms which have hired BCM gaduates in the past are willing to do so again and are satisfied with their training. This reflects a positive trend that indicates present BCM progams are in tune with the needs of many firms in the construction industry. Of particular concern were the participants who responded no to the same question. More study is needed in this area to ascertain reasons these firms do not plan on hiring building construction gaduates in the future. Hypothesis 9, which concerned should a master's degree in construction be a criterion for promotion, was discarded. In hypothesis 10, respondents were asked if they feel that current building management progams are adequately structured to serve industrial needs. There wasn't a high degee of satisfaction, 42.6 per cent. This was a surprising result, in view of the high ratings received for more hiring in the future of BCM gaduates. Consequently, it appears that there is skepticism of building construction management progams within the construction industry. This is in agreement with Book, Krosner, and Habbad (1987): adjustments need to be made in construction education of the nineties, with necessary realignments of the basic mission and goals of current building construction manage- ment progams. Results from hypothesis 1 1, pertaining to how respondents perceive gaduates of a building construction management progam as being more valuable than gaduates of another program, supported a high level of satisfaction in that building construction management 97 graduates are more valuable than graduates of other programs (76.7 per cent). An examination of Table l 1 . reveals three categories (construction design, construction technology, and management of operations) as being statistically significant. In all three categories, the "yes" respondents viewed them lower, signifying more importance for day to day use in these three categories. Many of the results suggest that building construction manage- ment programs are serving their principal market - the employers adequately. Nevertheless. concern is indicated in the structure of these progams, primarily in the general education course goupings. In addition, several respondents from both sample goups prefer more emphasis on construction design and construction technology classes. Both the review of the literature and the survey repeatedly suggested that universities and the construction industry work together in developing a curriculum that would benefit the discipline. Limitations of the Study The findings of the study were limited by the following: 1. The inability of the researcher to secure a 100 per cent questionnaire response rate. 2. The time and financial restraints of the researcher. 3. The survey instrument was addressed to the Human Resource Director, thus distorting the response of the survey instrument question number one. 4. No second mailing was used. 98 5. The ability to ascertain appropriate and valid data from a diverse goup using a common questionnaire. 6. The state of the United States economy at the time of the survey. 7. Stratified sampling procedures were inadequate for subgroup analysis. 8. The only method used for collecting data in this study was by questionnaire. 9. The course grouping of general education should have been further subdivided into two goups: communications, and math's and sciences. 10. The questionnaire did not provide write in space for additional courses not mentioned on the back page. Conclusion. Implications and Recommendations 993911111211: This study tries to answer the question of how well are baccalau- reate building construction management education programs serving their principal market - the employer? Clearly, as the data in this study indicates, the future of building construction management programs will need to change with the times. Change is occurring in the construction industry today at an unprecedented rate: this change is placing a new set of demands on the building construction man- agement graduate currently entering the work place. The relationship between education and the construction industry will become increas- ing important in the 1990's and beyond. The future of the construction industry as well as building construction management graduates 99 depends on nurturing this relationship. The need for new approaches to this interaction will become paramount in order to insure that the construction industry will have a competitive work force and a contin- uous supply of well trained, well informed talent adaptable to the new processes. methodologies, and technologies which lie ahead. To improve building construction management education and to produce successful future graduates, we must first fully recognize current short comings and clearly define what should be accomplished. Secondly, building construction management departments and their faculty need to identify and overcome these shortcomings while agreeing on new objectives for their progams. Thirdly, these objec- tives must be implemented. Finally, building construction manage- ment progams need to be continuously mornitored and adapted to keep pace with the dynamic construction industry. Impligations: From this study, several generalizations concerning shortcom- ings in building construction management progams can be made. First and foremost, communication skills need to be improved. Both building contractors and construction contractors are in ageement over this issue. The next generalization is that construction contractors view classes in the categories of construction technology and construction design significantly lower than building contractors perceive these categories. Paradoxically, among both goups regularly hiring BCM graduates, these same categories are rated highest by building 100 contractors. Finding possible reasons could be a focus for a future study. A third generalization is that the administrative title of human resource director perceives the classes within the category of general education as more relevant than those within the other categorical goups. Human resource directors typically supervise the hiring of new employees. One may assume that these administrators are looking for graduates with a well rounded construction education; graduates with the skills, knowledge and abilities to adapt to the dynamics of the construction industry. / Another broad based generalization is that the more management _ employees a construction firm employs, the more they prefer gaduates with credentials in business and management courses; this is an area building construction management progams presently address very *"well. Of particular interest was the overwhelming rejection of the requirement of a master's degee in building construction management for promotion. This consensus could change as the number of univer- sities providing terminal degree progams in building construction management continues to increase. Finally, the literature review suggests that universities continue to provide broad based nontechnical curriculum (humanities, eco- nomics, sociology), along with the essential technical courses. Improve communication skills (verbal, written, gaphic, listening), and teach thinking, learning, and the ability to change. 101 W: The construction industry is a highly competitive, extremely volatile and unique business with an immediate and continuing need for talented, well educated, and sufficiently motivated personnel. Specifically, personnel educated and trained in the managerial and scientific techniques needed to meet the ever increasing demands of the construction industry. From results of this study, various recom- mendations for BCM progams can be proposed: 1. Encourage valuable interaction between faculty and students and construction industry. This association will provide real problems for case studies, projects, and potential seminar speakers, and also generate meaningful t0pics for future research. Involve students and faculty with real world problems facing the construction industry. This affiliation would enhance the foundation and contribute tools which can improve the quality of construction education so that gaduates are better prepared to enter the field. Develop capstone projects in which students within the building construction management programs work together to solve construction related problems. Endorse sabbatical exchanges between the construction industry and faculty. Encourage internship employment in the construction industry for undergaduate students. 102 6. Conduct regular reviews of building construction management programs for the sole purpose of reviewing emerging trends and new developments. Recommendations for Future Research Based on the review of the literature and the analysis conducted in this study, there are several general recommendations identifying areas for future exploration and attention. The recommendations for future studies might include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Would building contractors and construction contractors, if studied separately, compare similarly to the results of this study? 2. Would there be a significant difference in the responses of building contractors and construction contractors? 3. What impact would regional analysis have on the two goups studied? 4. Would changes occur if these two goups were studied in five years? 5. What would the impact of the building construction manage- ment gaduate perspective be on these two groups? 6. Would the response of the two goups be similar if they were randomly selected from a larger strata of company size? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Associated General Contractors of America, WW Mon. 1984: 7. Badger, William W., and Robert O. Segier Jr. "The Challenges in Establishing a Master's Degee Program in Construction." WW 1989: 1-8. Baker, Merl. "A Strategr for Resolving the Conflict Between Rapidly Emerging Technologies and Slowly Changing Curricula." WW 2483 1988: 98-104. Beaufait, Fred W. "Engineering Education Needs Surgery." Wit-ream 23D5 1991: 519-522. Block, Erich. "The Strategic of Education For Importance Competitiveness." Wm 24 Spring 1989: 18-23. Book, Wayne J ., Stephen P. Krosner, and Abrhaham H. Haddad. "Development of a Curriculum for Integated Manufacturing Systems Engineering." WW 7 Feb. 1987: 48-52. Borg. Walter R., and Gall. Meridith D. W W Fifth edition, New York: Longnan Inc., 1989. 103 104 Braunstein, Barry D. ‘Trade Offs in Using Industrial Solids Modeling Software vs. Instructional Software for Undergaduate Engineering Curricula." WW 3 (1988) 963-964. Damian. Don A. MW. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. Friedman, E.A. "The Wired University." W Nov. 1984: 1 15- 120. Gold, Gerald G. "A Reform Strategy for Education: Employer- sponsored Teacher Internships." W 68 1987: 384-387. Junkins, Jerry R. "Competitiveness and Collaboration." W 1 May 1989: 474-481. Kibert, Charles, James Grubbs, and D. Linda Waller. "A Comparative Analysis of Construction Courses at Selected Undergaduate Building Construction Progams in the United States." W 1992: 43-49- Kidder. Louise H. W New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 198 1 . 105 Longhney, P.J.. and J .S. Reams. "Construction Curricula Needs Assessment Study-" donmalnflndustrialleehnom Spring 1990: 18-27. McDowell, Edward D. "Engineering Design in the IE Curriculum." W- 5 1988: 2193-2197- Moss, Dorsey D. "Proposed Master's Degee Progam for Constructors." MW 1989: 84-86. Rounds, Jerald. "Construction Education: On the Brink." MW 1992: 145-149. Rubin, Debra K. "Research Progams Tracks where the Construction Students Are." W 11 Nov. 1991: 26-34. Shofoluwe, Musibau A. "Construction Engineering Technologt Education: The Employer's View." W W Summer 1990: 11-25. Singer, Karl. "Basic Versus Specialized Education-The Science Revolution." W Nov. 1987: 105-107. Tadmor, Z. "Engineering Education 2001 WW Nov. 1987: 113-123. 106 Warszanwski, Abraham. "Construction Management Progam." W. 110 Sep. 1984: 297-310. Weidman, Brent. "I‘wo Year Construction Management Education." WW 1992: 19-27- Wenk, Edward Jr. "Social, Economic and Political Change: Portents for Curricular Reform in Engineering Education." A§E_E_ WW 3264 1988: 1724-1727. REFERENCES REFERENCES Boothe, David Allan. "Construction Management Planning: The Impact on Meeting Owner Goals." Thesis Michigan State University, 1984. Borg. Walter R.. and Gall, Meridith D. W W Fifth edition, New York: Longman Inc., 1989. Campbell, John Henry. "A Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Postshooting Trauma on Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Diss. Michigan State University, 1992. Cross, Raymond W. "A Comparison of Manufacturing Engineering Technolog' Faculty and Manufacturing Managers on Issues of Curriculum." Diss. Michigan State University, 1991 . Dun & Bradstreet. W W. New Jersey: Dun 8!. 1992- DWYer. James H. W Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. Gibaldi, Joseph. and Achtert. Walter 5. W W. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1988. 107 108 Iversen, Gudmund R., and Helrnut Norpoth. W. New York: Sage. 1976. 'The 24th Annual Report of Housings Giants." Wm: M 1 July 1991: 68-114. "The TOP 400 Contractors." W 27 May 1991: 37-55. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Questionnaire Cover Letter 109 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ammo cousnucnoN MANAGEMENT nocm ' EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN . «324.1325 207 A. w. rum rum. (in) 356-2096 . w: (317) 35349:: July 1992 Dear Construction Executive, I am doing Master's thesis research under the supervision of Tim Mrozowski in the Building Construction Management program of the Agriculture Engineering Department, Michigan State University. My objective is to assess how well baccalaureate construction management education programs are serving their principle market - the employer. The voluntary participation of your company in my study is important. Please take a few minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire and mail it in the return stamped envelope provided. A high rate of return for my survey will enable me to better define those aspects of Building Construction Management which are important to building and construction companies throughout the United States. In return, upon request, I will provide feedback to your company regarding results. No individual company data will be used or made public. I am hoping to have your completed questionnaire by July 31. Should you have difficulty with this request or regarding the questionnaire, please do not hesitate to contact me. This research has no affiliation with any consulting firm or national organization. Sincerely, 8.2/7 255% Ronald V. Stroup (616) 846-8968 MS U it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution APPENDIX B Questionnaire Survey Instrument MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48824-1323 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1 10 (517) 335-2095 FAX (517)353-8982 207 AW. FARRALL HALL QUESTIONNAIRE. EOE UNDEBGBAQUAIE PBQGBAM: Part I. Please answer each statement by placing a check or write in the choice that indicates your response. 1. 2. 3. Administrative title of position? Years of experience in your present position? How would you classily your company? Building Construction (Institutional, Educational, Commercial, Residential, etc.] Engineering [Highway, Heavy] Industrial [Power plants, Petrochemicals, etc.] Other [Please specily] Approximately how many permanent management employees are employed with your company? Less than 50 50 - 100 100 - 250 250 - 500 500 - 1000 over 1000 What percentages at your permanent employees hold bachelor’s degree in Building Construction Management? less than 5% 5 - 10% 10 - 25% over 25% Ill Please indicate the geographical regions of your company's operation: Check all that apply. Natignwidg international East North N. America S. America Alrica Asia West South Europe Middle East Australia Polar How would you categorize your own personal background? Accounting / Financing Business I Management Architectural Engineering Technology Part ll. Please answer the lollowing questions by placing a check in the appropriate column. ‘ Yes No Not sure Does your company regularly hire graduates of Building Construction Management programs? Based on their performance, do you anticipate more hiring in the future? Should a master’s degree in construction be a criterion (or promotion? Does your company leel that current Building Construction Management programs are adequately structured to serve industry needs? 00 you perceive that a graduate at a Building Construction Management program would be more valuable to your company than a graduate of another program, for example Business? PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE 111 Part III. Listed below are groups ol major courses that are commonly oliered in typical Building Construction Management programs. Indicate with a check in the appropriate box your judgment about the importance (or day to day use of each lrom the stand point oi an employer oi Building Construction Management graduates. Check only one description for each major course. Very Highly Somewhat Oi little Oi no W essential uselul uselul use use Oral Communication U D D E1 E1 Written Communication ------------------------ El E1 El E] [:1 Technical Report Writing D D D D D Humanities 8. Social Science ---------------- El El El D D Algebra & Trigonometry ---- U D D D D Calculus D D D El E1 Chemistry & Physics - D D D D 0 Foreign Languages -- D D D 1:! Cl Cross Cultural Studies D U E] U D W Architectural Design / Blueprint ------------- D U D I] D Reinforced Concrete Design ---------------- Cl C] I] Cl Cl Engineering Graphics ----- El El El El [I Basic Steel Design C1 U D El [1 Structural Wood Design --------------------- El E1 Cl CI [1 Foundation 8. Soil Mechanics --------------- E] U D I] U W Management Principles -— --------------------- III III Cl 0 Cl Accounting Principles - ----------------------- Cl 13 D E] El Financial Management C] D El E] [:1 Project Management 8- Control ------------- E] Cl [:1 [J E] Business Law E] El 0 D D Personnel Management E] El Ci 0 El Organization Behavior ------' ------------------ D E] D [:1 D Construction Economics -- ------------------- CI 0 c] n a 92W Construction Methods Cl 0 I] [J U Construction Equipment -------------------- E] El El D I] Construction Salely El El 1'] Cl D Construction Materials - E] D D n D Surveying 8- Layout ‘ -- E] D D D D Construction Estimating U U U D I] Building Codes 0 El [:1 E] El Winn; Construction Productivity Improvement Quality Control Project Scheduling & Time Control ----------- Construction Management Legal BSPOCIS Oi Construction ---------------- Construction Labor Relations ................. COOSiIUCiion Firm Organization .............. Land Development and Acquisition --------- Land Use Regulations .......................... DDDUDDDDD DDDDDDUUU DDDDUDDDD DDDDDDUUU DDDUDDDDU APPENDIX C Approval of Musibau A. Shofoluwe To Use His Survey Instrument 112 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EAST LANSING o MICHIGAN s “324.152, 207 A. W. 7mm HALL (317) 336-2096 0 FAX (117) 333-8982 October 30, 1991 Mr. Musibau A. Shofoluwe Department of Industrial Technology Construction Management Division Cedar Falls, lovra 50614 Dear Mr. Shofoluwe: I am doing Master Thesis Research under the supervision of Tim Mrozowski in the Building Construction Program of the Agriculture Engineering Department at Michigan State University. My research will address the various ways educational programs in the building construction management and technological curriculum can be tailored to better prepare college graduates for career opportunities in these fields. This project is similar to one you published in (The Mai 91 industrial 169.009.8201. Summer 1990, Volume 6, Number 3). i would therefore greatly appreciate your permitting my use of your research instrument to assist me in my endeavor. I would also find it very helpful if you include the following: the list of construction firms interviewed, the questionnaire used, your bibliography and references. This research is totally supported with my own funds having no affiliation with a consulting lirrn or national organization. I will gladly assume any cost you may incur in forwarding me this material. If you will notify me of the amount, I will forward you a check for payment, or you may send it 00.0. to the following address,15248 Kelly Road, Spring Lake, Michigan, 49456. I am certain this information will be extremely helpful, and I will be sure to return these documents to you as well as a copy of my work as soon as it is complete. It (2%) (Ct, Sincerely, Q I e , oqmt'suivt ) // meia, #6“. :1 :92 16-“ k fl'UnQ/ , .-/' -- vbg K424. “NAM ‘ . . Ronald v. Stroup ‘ 3 2e 61+ . 7““:- “’“‘*‘m"":’_1 ‘4 (616)846-1546 ”Mt/bk; Wrt-k , 001+“ Mi“ menu/la ii. We SIT Via, 9:3. 5mg chat—50k, éoCeLjd°Pqfi 3E} SIM/raw mtg.) flw Mafia MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 61M [MC/k- ( fl (“QM APPENDIX D Musibau A. Shofoluwe's Survey Instrument 113 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY GRAMBLING STATE UNIVERSITY P.O. BOX 34 GRAMBLING, LOUISIANA 71245 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM: Please answer each statement by placing a check ( ) or write in the choice that indicates your response. Administrative title or position Years of Experience in your present position How would you classify your Company: Building Construction (Institutional, Educational, a. CommerCIal, Residential, etc.) b. En ineering (Highway, Heavy) c. ‘——_'In ustrial (Power plants, Petro-chemicals, etc.) d. Other (Please specify) Please indicate the dollar amount (in million of dollars) of your annual volume of business: under 5 5-20 20-100 over 100 Ill How permanent employees (including craftsmen) are employed with your company ? B m :1 l< What percentage'of your permanent Employees hold Bachelor's degree in Construction Engineering Technology ? less than 5% 5-10% 10-25% over 25% Please indicate in dollars the average job size or most of your Company's job size: 114 8. Indicate the geographical regions of your Company's Operation: -a. ____ East c. ____ North b. ____ West d. ____ South e. ____ Nationwide f. _____International PART II Construction Engineering Technology Programs: Degree of importance. Listed below are groups of major courses which are commonly offered in a typical Construction Engineering Technology pro- grams.Indicate with a check in the appropriate column your judgement about the importance of each from the standpoint of an employer of Construction Engineering Technology graduates. GROUP A General Education 1 2 3 4 Of no Somewhat Highly useful Very use useful but not essenti essential Oral Communication Written Communication Technical Report Humanities & Soc. Sci. Algebra & Trigonometry' Calculus Chemistry & Physics 0 O O O \JO‘U‘l-wat-J O I GROUP B __ Construction Design Courses Reinf. Conc.Design Arch. Design/Blueprint Eng. Graphics Basic Steel Design Structural Wood Design Found. & Soils Mech. mmkw NH 0 o 115 GROUP C'__ Business and Management ' 1 2 3 4 Of no Somewhat Highly useful Very us useful but not essential essential (D Mnagement Principles Accounting Principles Financial Management Project Mgt. & Control Business Law Personnel Management Organization Behavior Construction Economics |||||||| |||||||| |||||||| |||||||| mummthH I O GROUP D__ Construction Technology Courses Construction Methods Construction Equipment Construction materials Construction Safety Surveying & Layout Constr. Estimating Building Codes lllllll Illllll ||||||| |||H|| GROUP E __ Management of Construction Operations 1. Constr. ProductivitY Improvement 2. Quality Control 3. Project Scheduling & _Time Control l___ 4. Construction Management___‘ 5. Legal aspects of constr. 6. Constr. Labor Relations 7. Construction Firm Organization PART III Construction Industry Relationship: Please answer the following questions by placing a check ( ) in the apprOpriate column. Yes No Not sure 1. Does your company regularly hire graduates of undergraduate construction engineering technology programs ? ___ ___ ‘___ 2. Based on their performance, do you anticipate more hiring in the future ? 116 Yes No Not sure Will your company provide financial support (full or partial) for an employee to complete a 8.8. in construction under certain contractual obligation ? Should a master's degree in construction be a criterion for promotion ? Is your company in favor of providing finanCial grants to Institutions in support of undergraduate construction education ? ___ Does your company feel that current construction engineering technology undergraduate programs are adequately structured to serve Industry needs ?. ___ ___ .___ APPENDIX E Approval of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects 117 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH . EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1046 AND DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL July 9, 1992 Ronald Stroup 5 Farmll Hall RE: HOW WELL ARE BACCALAUREATE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS SERVING THEIR PRINCIPLE MARKET-THE EMPLOYER?, IRB #92- 315 Dear Mr. Stroup: The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol has been reviewed by a member of the UCRIHS committee. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to June 30, 1993. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notifed promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. . Sincerely, WZO ' David E. Wright, Ph.D.,@r x... University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) DEW/pjm cc: Dr. Tim Mrozowski MSU is an ,-I//irma!n'c riclinn/Fquul ()[t/mrlum'ly In rnlumm APPENDIX F List of Data Variables V0 V 1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V1 0 VI 1 V1 2 V1 3 V1 4 V1 5 V1 6 V1 7 V1 8 V1 9 V20 V2 1 V22 V23 V24 V25 V26 V27 V28 V29 V30 V3 1 V32 V33 V34 V35 V36 V37 V38 V39 V40 Group Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part I. Part 1. List of Data Variables Question 1 . Question 2. Question 3. Question 4. Question 5. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Question 6. Part 11. Question 1. Part 11. Question 2. 118 APPENDIX F V4 1 V42 V43 V44 V45 V46 V47 V48 V49 V50 V5 1 V52 V53 V54 V55 V56 V57 V58 V59 V60 V6 1 V62 V63 V64 V65 V66 V67 V68 V69 V70 V7 1 V72 V73 V74 V75 V76 V77 V78 V79 V80 V8 1 V82 Part II. Part II. Part II. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part IH. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Part III. Question 3. Question 4. Question 5. . E l. E 2. E 3. E 4. . E 5. . E 6. . E 7. . E 8. . E 9. PP N pppppppppN@QPPP?pgmgppprWPW. SSSESSSSSDDDDDDORWWEWWRROODCOOooooopooo @wsomswwr ooooncnocfififiHfififizzgsgzggpppp 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 APPENDIX G List of Building Contractors 131 APPENDIX G List of Building Contractors A-M Homes 125 East Victoria Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 A. G. Spanos Construction 1341 West Robinhood Drive Stockton, California 95207 Acacia Construction Inc. 102 1 West Bastanch Road Fullerton, California 633 Ahmanson Development Inc. 1370 South Valle Vista Drive Diamond Bar, C ornia 91765 Akins Development Company 5 Park Plaza Irvine, California 92714 Alden Company 41 l Borel Avenue San Mateo, California 94402 American West Development 2700 East Sunset Road Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 Amir Development Com any 8730 Wilshire Boulevar Beverly Hills, California 9021 l Amrep Corporation 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Amurcon Corporation of Virginia 1001 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 232 19 Anden Group 1 5260 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, California 9 1403 Andrade Development 1620 West Fairmont Fresno, California 93705 132 Arker Construction 1015 Cedar Lane Woodmere. New York 1 1598 Artery Organization Inc. 7200 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Arthur Rutenberg Homes Inc. 13922 58th Street N Clearwater, Florida 34620 Baldwin Company 168 l 1 Hale Avenue Irvine, California 92714 Barden & Robeson Corporation 26 Copeland Avenue Homer, New York 13077 Barnett - Range Corporation PO Box 8 189 Stockton, California 95208 Barratt American Inc. 30 Fairbanks Irvine, California 92718 Barry, Bette 8: Led Duke Inc. PO Box 12789 Albany, New York 122 12 Bay Ridge Properties 41 1 108th Avenue Bellevue, Washington 98004 BBC Group Inc. 3 1731 Northwestern Highway Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334 Beazer Properties Inc. 945 East Paces Ferry Road Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Bennett 81 Compton Inc. PO Box 1597 Lodi. California 95241 Bergheer Company 840 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Blazer Building 1010 l Harwin Houston, Texas 77036 133 Blitman Building Corporation 222 Grace Church Street Port Chester. New York 10573 Borror Corporation 550 1 Frantz Road Dublin. Ohio 430 l 7 Boston Capital Partners Inc. 313 Congress Street Boston, Massachusetts 022 10 Bovis Homes 498 Palm S rings Drive Altamonte prings, Florida 32701 Bozzuto 8: Associates 640 1 Colden Triangle Drive Greenbelt. Maryland 20770 Braddock & Lo an Associates 4 l 55 Blackhaw Circle Danville, California 94506 Bradley Construction PO Box 6875 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Braemar Homes 30495 Canwood Street Agoura Hills, California 91301 Bramalea California Inc. One Park Plaza Irvine, California 92714 Brehm Communities 2835 Camino Del Rio San Diego, California 92108 Bresler 8: Reiner Inc. 401 Main Street SW Washington, DC. 20024 Bri ton Homes 50 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 Broadmoor Homes 5405 Oberlin Drive San Diego, California 92121 Buie Corporation 16935 West Bemardo Drive San Diego. California 92127 134 Burkart 8: Oehlerkin 14 North 808 Route 5 East Dundee, Illinois 601 18 Burnside Construction Company 18400 South Halsted Street Glenwood. Illinois 60425 C-I / Mitchell & Best Company 1686 East Gude Drive Rockville, Maryland 20850 CP Morgan Company 1980 East 1 16th Street Carmel, Indiana 46032 Cal Coast Development Group 2500 VIA Cabrillo Marina San Pedro, California 90731 California Community Builders 233 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica. California 90401 Calgop Corporation 54 McConnell Avenue Los Angeles, California 90066 Calton Inc. 500 Craig Road Freehold, New Jersey 07728 Cambrid e Homes Inc. 800 Sou Milwaukee Avenue Libertyville, Illinois 60048 Casden Company 9090 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 902 l 1 Castle & Cooke Properties 10900 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90024 Catalina Homes 644 Ferguson Drive Orlando, Florida 32858 Cavalier Homes Inc. 600 M Bank Building Wichita Falls, Texas 76307 Cayman Development 18012 Cowan Street Irvine, California 92714 135 CEH Investments 4 10 Severn Avenue Annapolis. Maryland 2 1403 Centex Corporation 3333 Lee Parkway Dallas, Texas 752 19 Century American PO Box 3500 Laguna Hills, California 92705 Century Homes Communities 1535 South D Street San Bemardino, California 92408 Cham ion Home Builders 5573 st North Street Dryden, Michigan 48428 Chandler Group 704 South Victory Boulevard Burbank, California 91502 Charles Rutenber Housing Group 28059 Highway 1 N Clearwater, Florida 3462 1 Charter Grou Inc. PO Box 241 9 Omaha, Nebraska 68124 Christo her Construction 8290 0 d Courthouse Road Vienna, Virginia 22 180 Ciotti Construction 1 1 1 Summit Drive Exton, Pennsylvania 1934 1 Citation Builders 15101 Redhill Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Clayton Homes Inc. PO Box 15 169 Knoxville, Tennessee 37901 Coachmen Industries 601 East Beardsl Avenue Elkart. Indiana 4 5 14 Coleman Homes Inc. PO Box 9336 Bakersfield. California 93389 136 Colony Homes PO Box 100 Woodstock. Georgia 30168 Colson 81 Colson Construction 2741 12th Street SE Salem, Oregon 97302 Commodore Corporation PO Box 577 Coshen, Indiana 46526 Communities Construction Corporation 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 3340 1 Community Construction Inc. 53 1 California Avenue Bakersfield, California 93304 Condiotti Enterprises PO Box 6855 Santa Rosa, California 95406 Contempri Homes Inc. Staufler Industrial Park Taylor, Pennsylvania 18504 Continental Homes Holding 7001 North Scottsdale Road Scottsdale, Arizona 85250 Cooper Communities Inc. 1 Sunset Drive Bella Vista, Arkansas 72714 Coscan Development Corporation PO Box 428 Toronto, Canada M5X1H9 Costain Homes Inc. 620 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Covin on Development Group 2451 t Orangethog Fullerton. California 63 l Cris - Lingerfelt Company 944 Phillips Highway Jacksonville. Florida 32256 Crosland Contractors 135 Scaley Bark Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28209 137 Crossst Communities 7380 Meadowridge Circle Bloomfield, Michigan 48033 Custom Living Homes 375 Route 24 Chester. New Jersey 07930 D. G. 81 Associates 10769 Woodside Avenue Santee, California 92071 David Cutler Group 1 Valley Square Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422 Davidson Communities 12520 High Bluff Drive San Diego, California 92130 Davis Building Corporation 8200 North Haverstick Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 DeLuca Enterprises Inc. 842 Durham Road Newtown, Pennsylvania 18940 Deluxe Homes of Pennsylvania 499 West 3rd Street Berwick, Pennsylvania Dematteis Construction EAB Plaza West Tower Uniondale, New York 1 1556 DiLoreti Construction PO Box 70280 Reno, Nevada 89570 Diversified Homes 10015 Old Columbia Road Columbia, Maryland 2 1046 Dividend Development Corporation 3600 Pruneridge Avenue Santa Clara, California 95051 Divosta 81 Company 10358 Riverside Drive Palm Beach Gardeb, Florida 33410 Dobson Builders 753 D 8: E Thimble Shoals Boulevard Newport News, Virginia 23606 138 Dominion Developments Inc. 59 1 1 Orchard Streat West Tacoma, Washington 98467 Don Galloway Homes 1 1231 Carmel Commons Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28226 Dou Alfred Com 1 mm) Hotel CigcalrtltyDrive San Diego, California 92108 Doyle Wilson Homebuilder 8310 Ca ital of Texas Highway Austin. exas 78731 Drake Homes PO Box 1448 Chico. California 95927 Drees Company 2 1 1 Grandview Drive Covington, Kentucky 41017 Dunmore Homes 2 150 Professional Drive Roseville, California 95661 Edward Rose Building Enterprises PO Box 937 Southfield. Michigan 48037 Elam G. Stoltzfus Inc. 474 Mount Sidney Road Lancaster, Pennsylvania 1 7602 Elliott Homes Inc. 1 1093 Sun Center Drive Rancho Cordova, California 95670 Embrey Investments Inc. 750 East Mulberry Street San Antonio. Texas 78212 Emerald Homes 333 North Belt Houston, Texas 77060 En e Group Inc. 12 Northwest 13th Street Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Enterprise Development 710 West Oakdale Chicago, Illinois 60657 139 Eproch Properties Inc. 359 Carolina Avenue Winter Park. Florida 32789 Estes Home Building PO Box 17360 Tucson, Arizona 85731 Estridge Construction 1 48 West Carmel Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032 Evans With combe Inc. 4455 East amelback Road Phoenix. Arizona 850 18 Fairfield Communities Inc. 2800 Cantrell Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Fairfield Homes Inc. 12876 Harbor Drive Woodbridge. Virginia 22192 Falcon Development Corporation 2290 South Jones Boulevard Las Vegas, Nevada 59102 Fieldstone Company 1 4 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach. California 92660 Fischer 8r Frichtel 7 The Pines Court St. Louis, Missouri 63141 Fleetwood Enterprises PO Box 7638 Riverside. California 92523 Floumoy Construction PO Box 6566 Columbus, Georgia 31995 Forecast Group 10670 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Forest City Enterprises 1 0800 Brook ark Road Cleveland. 0 0 44130 Foreston Development Corporation 5 Dakota Drive Lake Success. New York 1 1042 140 Foster Brothers Inc. 3975 University Drive Fairfax. Virginia 22030 FPA Corporation 2507 Philmont Avenue Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania 1 9006 Frank Robino & Associates 5189 West Woodmill Drive Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Frankel Ente rises 1845 Walnut treet Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19 103 Friedman Homes 10807 Laurel Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Friendswood / Village Builders PO Box 2567 Houston, Texas 77001 Frylin Construction 2 100 hicago Drive SW Wyoming. Michigan 49509 Fuqua Homes Inc. 7100 South Cooper Arlington, Texas 76017 G.L. Homes of Florida 1 40 1 University Drive Coral Gables. Florida 3307 1 Garden State Land Company 10 1 Interchange Plaza Cranbury, New Jersey 08512 GBW Pro rties 520 Sou Lafayette Park Place Los Angeles, California 90057 General Development 2601 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133 General Homes Corporation 7322 Southwest Freeway Houston, Texas 77074 Gentry Homes PO Box 295 Honolulu. Hawaii 96809 141 Ginsburg Development 245 Saw Mill River Road Hawthorne, New York 10532 Glenfed Development Co ration l 660 1 Ventura Boulevar Encino. California 91436 Golden West Homes 1308 Wakeham Santa Ana. California 92705 Goldrich 8r Kest Industries 5 l 50 Overland Avenue Culver City, California 9023 1 Good Value Homes 1460 93rd Lane NE Blaine, Minnesota 55434 Goodman Homes Inc. 1424 Gables Court Plano, Texas 75075 Graham Construction 6843 Main Street Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Grancorp 8309 North Lake Drive Dublin, California 94568 Grant Construction 1 1 17 Lone Palm Avenue Modesto, California 95353 Grayson Homes Inc. 9025 Chevrolet Drive Ellicott City, Maryland 2 1043 Gregory Group Inc. 1070 Sixth Avenue Belmont, California 94002 Griffin Homes 24005 Ventura Boulevard Calabasa. California 91302 Grupe Company PO Box 7576 Stockton, California 95207 Guerdon Homes 5285 Meadows Lake Oswego, Oregon 97305 142 Gulfstream Housing Corporation 86 1 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 327 14 Hal Porter Homes 1280 Central Boulevard Brentwood, California 94513 Harkins Builders Inc. 12301 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring. Maryland 20904 Harold Moore Associates PO Box 756 Fayetteville, Tennessee 37334 Hassinger Construction 300 Park Boulevard Itasca. Illinois 60143 Heamdon / Rosewell Construction 20 10 Old Greenbrier Road Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 Henry Fischer Builder Inc. 1035 Eaton Drive Ft. Wright. Kentucky 41017 Highland Homes 12880 Hillcrest Dallas, Texas 75230 Hill Williams Development Corporation 175 Riverview Anaheim Hills, California 92808 Hills Developers Inc. 7420 Montgomery Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45236 Hofrnann Company PO Box 907 Concord, California 94522 Holiday Builders Inc. 1901 South Harbor Ci Boulevard Melbourne. Florida 32 1 Holiday Organization Inc. 400 Post Avenue Westbury, New York 1 1 590 Holly Corporation 101 East 26th Street Tacoma, Washington 9842 1 143 Holtzrnan 81 Silverman Construction 30833 Northwestern Highway Farmington Hills, Michigan 480 18 Home by Hemphill 330 West Frontage Road Northfield, Illinois 60093 Home Capital Development Group 707 Broadway San Diego, California 92185 Homes by Dave Brown 2 164 East Broadway Road Tempe, Arizona 85282 Homes of Mreit Inc. PO Box 1 606 Barton, Florida 33830 Homestead Group Association 10345 West Olgm ic Boulevard Century City, ornia 90064 Homestead Land Development 979 Broadway Millbrae, California 94030 Horton Homes Inc. PO Box 58 1 Eatontown, Georgia 3 1024 Housing Group, 1 399 anacio alle Road Walnut Creek, C ornia 94598 Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. 10 Highway 35 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 Hughes - Patwil Homes PO Box 618 1 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1 7 112 Hunt Building Corporation PO Box 9368 El Paso, Texas 79984 H lton Grou 5 93 Maple ale Plaza Dale City. Virginia 22 193 Icon Develo ment Corporation 6262 Bird oad Miami, Florida 33155 144 Inco Homes PO Box 970 Upland, California 91785 Interamerican Builders Corporation 1 5375 Barranca Parkway Irvine. California 92718 International American Homes 100 Walnut Avenue Clark, New Jersey 07066 Interstate General Com y 222 Smallwood Village enter St. Charles, Maryland 20602 HT Community Homes 1 Corporate Drive Palm Coast, Florida 32151 Ivory Homes 127 South 500 E Salt Lake City. Utah 84102 J .E. Jones Constructon Company 13100 Manchester Road St. Louis, Missouri 63131 J .L. Mason Group Inc. 5020 Tamiami 'h‘ail North Naples, Florida 33940 J acobsen Manufacturing PO Box 368 Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 James Lewis Corporation 130 1 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, Pennsylvania 193 12 J CC Development 3480 Torrance Boulevard Torrance, California 90503 Jim Walter Homes Inc. 1 500 North Dale Mabgy Highway Tampa, Florida 3360 JMC Homes 1830 Vernon Street Roseville, California 95678 Joe Keim Builders Inc. 618 Frazier Court Wheaton, Illinois 60187 145 John Cooley Company 36250 DeQuindre Sterling Heights, Michigan 483 10 John Lain Homes, Inc. 23382 Creek Laguna Hills. California 92653 John Wieland Homes PO Box 87363 Atlanta. Geordia 30337 Jose h Miller Construction 181 3 Cedar Avenue S Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Ka lan Or anization 3 1 W bridge Avenue Edison, New Jersey 08818 Kathryn Thompson Development 85 Argonaut Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Kaufman and Broad 10877 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90024 Kennedy Group (Florida) 2001 West Sample Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Remedy Group (Illinois) 372 1 Ventura Drive Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 Kettler Brothers Inc. 9426 Stewartown Road Montgomery Village, Maryland 20879 Kettler Forlines Inc. 19 1 1 0 Montgomery Village Avenue Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760 Company 1020 East Wendover Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 Kimball Hill inc. 5999 New Wilke Road Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008 Kirk Corporation 201 Juniper Circle Streamwood, Illinois 60107 146 Kit Manufacturing Company PO Box 848 Long Beach, California 90801 Klutts Homes 1433 Emerywood Drive Charlotte, North Carolina 282 10 K0 f Construction Corporation 32 30 Walker Road Avon Lake, Ohio 44012 L.A. Chanco Inc. 22632 Golden Springs Road Diamond Bar, California 91765 L.J . Hooker Homes 6000 Live Oak Parkway Norcross, Georgia 30093 Landstar Homes 5 10 Elkwood Court Kissirnmee, Florida 34743 Larwin Construction Company 1 6255 Ventura Boulevard Encino, California 91436 Leader Ente rises Inc. 146 Timber reek Drive Cordova, Tennessee 38134 Lecesse Co ration 14 12 West olonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Legacy Homes 900 Roosevelt Parkway Chesterfield, Missouri 63017 Leisure Technology 12233 West Olym ic Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90064 Lennar Corporation 700 NW 107th Avenue Miami, Florida 33172 Levitt Corporation 7777 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33434 Lewis Homes Group PO Box 670 Upland. California 91785 147 Lexin on Homes Inc. 1 1 56 est Shure Drive Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 Lexington Homes - SKK Development 7700 College Town Drive Sacramento, California 95826 Liberty Homes Inc. 1 1 0 1 Eisenhower Drive North Goshen, Indiana 46526 Lincoln Property Company 500 North Akard Dallas, Texas 7520 1 Lindal Cedar Homes Inc. 4300 South 104th Place Seattle, Washington 98178 Lin ro Company 2063Berwyn Park Berwyn, Pennsylvania 193 1 2 Lokey Construction 1800 Bering Drive Houston, Texas 77057 Lon Si ature Homes 13 1 ffice Place Woodbridge. Virginia 22192 Lowder Construction Company 2000 Interstate Park Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36 142 Luckey Com any PO Box 742 Stockton, California 95207 Lusk Com any 17550 G ette Avenue Irvine, California 92713 Lycon Group 1 5303 Ventura Sherman Oaks, California 9 1403 M.D.C. Holdings Inc. 3600 South Yosemite Denver, Colorado 80237 MacLeod Development Company 2 North Lake Avenue Pasadena, California 91 101 148 Manning Company 203 1 Orchard Drive Santa Ana Heights, Califomia 92707 Marrano / Marc Equity Company 2730 'IYansit Road Bufl'alo, New York 14884 Martin Seiko Company 1 10 North Doheny Drive Beverly Hills, California 902 1 l Maize] 8r Mumford Organization 6 1 Village Court Hazlet, New Jersey 07730 Ma er Homes 17 9 New Smizer Mill Road St. Louis, Missouri 63026 McBail Com any 3200 Dan e Bulavarde Alamo, California 94507 McBride & Son Enterprises 1 1 McBride Corporation Center St. Louis, Missouri 63005 McKellar Communities 5151 Shoreham Place San Diego. California 92122 McMillin Communities 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 92050 Meeker Development Company 19 100 VonKarman Avenue Irvine, California 927 15 Mercedes Homes 1600 West Eau Gallic Boulevard Melbome, Florida 32935 Miceli Holding Com any 14897 Clayton Roa Ballwin, Missouri 6301 1 Michael Andrew Group 12526 High Bluff Drive San Diego, California 92130 Michael T. Rose Associates PO Box 40 Laurel, Maryland 20707 149 Michaels Group PO Box 887 Latham, New York 12 1 10 Milbum Investments Inc. 1 191 1 Bumet Road Austin, Texas 78766 Miller and Smith Construction 1568 Spring Hill Road McLean. Virginia 22102 Milton Compan 1430 Spring Road McLean, Virginia 22102 Mitchell Com any PO Box 1603 Mobile, Alabama 36616 Morris General Building Company PO Box 3632 Chatsworth. California 91313 Mungo Compan 4400 South An rews Road Columbia. South Carolina 29210 Nanticoke Homes Inc. PO Box F Greenwood, Delaware 19950 National Enterprises Inc. 230 1 South Banker Efiingham, Illinois 62401 Newhall Land 81 Farming Company 23823 Valencia Boulevard Valencia. California 91355 Newmark Home Corporation 10435 Greenbough Stafford, Texas 77477 N rt Pacific Development 44 McArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 North American Housing Corporation PO Box 145 Point of Rocks, Maryland 21777 NVR LP. 7601 Lewinsville Road McLean, Virginia 22102 150 Oakwood Homes Corporation PO Box 7386 Greensboro, North Carolina 2741 7 Oberer Development Company 4324 Webster Street Dayton, Ohio 45414 Orange Blossom Hills Inc. 1200 Avenida Central Lady Lake, Florida 32159 Oriole Homes Corporation 1 151 NW 24th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Owen Construction 2035 South Myrtle Avenue Monrovia, California 91016 Owings & Terry Homebuilding PO Box 7679 Marietta, Georgia 30065 Pacesetter Homes Inc. 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Pacific Scene Inc. 3900 Harne Street San Diego, alifornia 92110 Pacific U.S. Corporation 2 North Lake Avenue Pasadena, California 91 101 Pacific Corporation 200 North Westlake Boulevard Westlake Village, California 9 1362 Palm Harbor Homes Inc. 1 530 1 Dallas Parkway Dallas, Texas 75248 Panic Myers / Woodside Group 4353 1 Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Paragon Group Inc. 7557 Rambler Road Dallas, Texas 75231 Paragon Homes Inc. 1448 1 5th Street Santa Monica, California 90404 151 Parker Lancaster Co ration 7 1 1 Moorefield Park rive Richmond, Virginia 23236 Pasgéinelli Construction Company PO x 1639 Homewood, Illinois 60430 Patriot Homes Inc. 57420 County Road Elkhart, Indiana 46517 Pembroke Enterprises Inc. 4425 Corporation Lane Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 Pennhill Company 399 1 MacArthur Newport Beach, California 92660 Peters (J .M.) Company 3501 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92658 PHM Corporation (Pulte) 33 Bloomfield Parkway Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013 Piceme Properties 75 Lambert Lind Highwa Warwick, Rhode Island 886 Pinn Brothers Construction 147 5 Saratoga Avenue San Jose, California 95129 PLH Co ration PO Box 7 Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania 1 7870 Post Properties 100 Cumberland Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Premier Homes 2010 Main Street Irvine, California 92714 Primark Corporation 1200 South 192nd Street Seattle, Washington 98148 Pro ects West Corporation 1 7 Ventura Boulevard Encino, California 91316 152 Prometheus Development Company 2600 Campus Drive San Mateo, California 94403 Quaker Group Builders 593 Bethlehem Pike Montgomeryville, Pensylvania 18836 KB. McCornic Inc. 4920 Carroll Canyon Road San Diego, California 92121 Radnor Homes Inc. 5544 Franklin Road Nashville. Tennessee 37220 Randall Group 9500 Southwest Barbur Boulevard Portland, Oregon 97219 Randall Properties 330 North Sixth Street Redlands. California 92374 Rayco Inc. PO Box 5250 San Antonio, Texas 78201 Realen Homes 1235 Westlake Drive Berwyn, Pennsylvania 193 12 Red Seal Develrépment Corporation 425 Huehl Roa Northbrook, Illinois 60062 Redman Homes 2550 Walnut Hill Lane Dallas, Texas 75229 Regency Homes Inc. 28 6 Universi Drive Pompano Beac , Florida 33065 Re 3 Homes 51 0 Campus Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 olds Construction 1 1 1 South Marshall Street El Cajon, California 92020 RGC Group 20 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 153 Richnarr Construction Co ration 530 1 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, DC. 20015 Ritz - Craft Corporation PO Box 70 Mifi1inburg, Pennsylvania 1 7884 Roberts Properties Inc. PO Box 28744 Atlanta. Georgia 30328 Robertson Homes 6653 Embarcadero Drive Stockton, California 95209 Robson Communities 25612 E.J. Robson Boulevard Sun Lakes, Arizona 85248 Rocky Gorge Communities 1410 Spring Hill Road McLean, Virginia 22102 Rottlund Company 5201 East River Road Fridley, Minnesota 5542 1 Royce Homes Inc. 14614 Falling Creek Houston, Texas 77068 RWR Development 16461 Sherman Way Van Nuys, California 91406 RWS Development Corporation 9650 West 194th Street Mokena, Illinois 60448 Ryder Homes PO Box 4008 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Ryland Group Inc. 10221 Wincopin Circle Columbia, Maryland 2 1044 S 8r A Custom Built Homes 501 Rolling Drive State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Schneider Homes 65 10 South Center Boulevard Seattle. Washington 98 188 154 Scottenstein (M/ I) Inc. 1855 East Dublin - Granville Columbus, Ohio 43229 Schuler & Associates 1001 Bisho Street Honolulu, await 968 13 Schult Homes Corporation PO Box 1 5 1 Middlebury, Indiana 46540 Selective Group Inc. 27655 Middlebelt Road Farmington Hills. Michigan 48018 Sexton Construction 9001 North Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46260 Sha ll Industries 838 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 902 1 1 Shawntana 3501 Jamboree Newport Beach, California 92660 Shea Homes 655 Brea Canyon Road Walnut. California 91789 Shelter Canadian Holdings 2600 Seven Evergreen Place Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R312T3 Signature Homes 801 South Rancho Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Signature Prriperties 6685 Owens rive Pleasanton, Califomia 94566 Skyline Corporation PO Box 743 Elkhart, Indiana 46515 S ielman - Cohen Builders 25 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 9021 1 Stafi'ord Homes Inc. 16016 1 18th Place Bothell, Washington 9801 1 155 Standard Pacific LP. 1 565 West MacArthur Costa Mesa, California 92626 Stanl Martin Construction 8000 owers Crescent Drive Vienna Spring, Virginia 22 182 Stok Homes Inc. 1420 Spring Hill McLean, Virginia 22102 Stokes - Collins PO Box 19417 Jacksonville, Florida 32245 Stuard - Signature Homes 23701 Birtcher Drive ElToro, California 92630 Summerhill Development 777 California Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304 Summit Pro rties 212 South on Street Charlotte, North Carolina 2828 1 Sun City Center Corporation PO Box 5698 Sun City Center, Florida 33570 Sundance Homes 5360 Keystone Court Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008 Sunland Communities 5095 Murphy Canyon Road San Diego, California 92123 Sunrise Company 42600 Cook Street Palm Desert, California 92260 Taylor Morl Simon Inc. 1227 Femri ge Parkway St. Louis, Missouri 63141 Taylor Woodrow Homes USA 3991 McArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Techbilt Construction 3575 Kenyon Street San Diego, California 921 10 156 Toll Brothers Inc. 3 1 03 Philmont Avenue Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania 19006 To 96mins Heritage Homes Old St. Augustine Road Jacksonville. Florida 32257 Torino Construction Coporation PO Box 294 1 Palos Verdes, California 90274 Town 81 Country Homes 1603 West 16th Street Oak Brook, Illinois 6052 1 fiafallguu arHouse Property 300 P ps Boulevard 'h'enton, New Jersey 08618 'ITammell Crow Residential 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 'hiad Development Inc. 320 Andover Park Seattle. Washington 98138 'h'ojan Properties Inc. PO Box 962 Rancho Mirage, California 92270 U. S. Home Corporation 1800 West Loop South Houston, Texas 772 52 UDC- Universal Development 4812 South Mill Avenue Tempe, Arizona 85282 Union Valley Corporation 2209 Route 9 Howell. New Jersey 007731 United Develo ment Management 1400 South olf Road Wheeling, Illinois 60090 Universal Constructors PO Box 28 McMinnville, Tennessee 371 10 Van Daele Development 2900 Adams Street Riverside, California 92504 157 Van Metre Construction 5252 Lyngate Court Burke, Virginia 22015 Village Homes Ltd. 6 West Creek Road Littleton, olorado 80 127 W.O. Brisbem Construction 4750 Asth Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45241 Wallick Construction Company PO Box 1023 Columbus, Ohio 43216 Warmin [ton Homes 3090 ilman Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 Washington Homes Inc. 1802 Bright Seat Road Landover, Maryland 20785 Waterloo Inc. 7447 Bee Caves Road Austin, Texas 78746 Watt Industries Inc. 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90406 Wausau Homes Inc. PO Box 8005 Wausau, Wisconsin 54402 Wayne Homes 6370 Mt. Pleasant Road NW North Canton, Ohio 44720 Webb (Del) Communities PO Box 29040 Phoenix, Arizona 85038 Weekley Homes Inc. 1300 Post Oak Boulevard Houston, Texas 77056 Weingarten Seigel Group Inc. 198 Route Nine Manalapan, New Jersey 07726 Wellesley Constriction 1 7875 University Drive Iivonia, Michigan 48 152 158 West Venture Development Company 6345 Balboa Boulevard Encino, California 91316 Western National Properties 630 The City Drive Orange, California 92668 Wesrfield Homes 33073 North Hunt Club Road Gumee, Illinois 6003 1 Weston Development 10960 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90024 Westrend Corporation 2367 1 Birtcher Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 Westway Construction Corporation 250 West River Drive Saint Charles, Illinois 60174 Weyerhauser Real Estate Company Building WRE - 2 Tacoma, Washington 98477 Whitecliff Company 859 San Mateo Drive San Mateo, California 94401 Whittaker Construction 355A Mid Rivers Mall Drive St. Peters, Missouri 63376 Wick Building S terns 404 Walter Roa Mazomanie, Wisconsin 53560 William L. Berry Com any 6701 Democra Bou evard Bethesda, Mary and 20817 William Lyon Construction 4490 Von Karmon Newport Beach, California 92658 Williamsburg Pr0perties Inc. 423 Wards Corner Road Loveland, Ohio 45140 Wirn (George) Inc. 356 Seventh Avenue San Diego, California 92103 159 Winncrest Homes 9985 Flosom Boulevard Sacramento. California 95827 Wiseman - Hu es Enterprises 975 East 22n Street Wheaton, Illinois 60187 Woodcrest Development Inc. 179 1 1 Mitchell Avenue Irvine, California 92714 Woodside Homes 2275 Renaissance Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 891 19 Woodview Development Company 200 East Sand omte Avenue Santa Ana, C ornia 92707 Wooldrige Organization 1500 Green Hill Road West Chester, Pennsylvania Zale Group 100 Lexington Drive Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 Zarigg National Corporation 1 13 Cornell Park Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45242 Zicka Homes 1 1939 Montgomery Road Cincinnati, hi0 45249 APPENDIX H List of Construction Contractors 160 APPENDIX H List of Construction Contractors A.J . Contracting Company Inc. 470 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10016 ABB Lummus Crest Inc. 1515 Broad Street Bloomfield, New Jersey 07003 Absher Construction Company 1 106 Shaw Road SE Puyallup, Washington 98372 Adolfson 8: Peterson Inc. 6701 West 23rd Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 Advanco Constructors Inc. 1500 West 9th Street Upland. California 91786 A1 Johnson Construction Company 3209 West 76th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Alex J. Etkin Inc. 3 1440 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1 50 Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018 Allam A. Meyers Inc. PO Box 98 Worchester, Pennsylvania 19490 Alvin H. Butz Inc. Route 309 North 22 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18 104 Andrew T. Curd Builders Inc. 230 North M land Avenue Glendale, C ornia 91206 Anthony Marina Construction Corporation 485 Broadway New York. New York 100 13 ARE Inc. 4042 Patton Way Bakersfield, California 93308 F W! 161 Armada / Hofiler Construction Company 860 Greenbriar Circle Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 Austin Industries 2949 Stemmons Freeway Dallas. Texas 75247 Ball, Ball 81 Brosamer Inc. 333 Camille Alamo, California 94507 Barge - Wagener Inc. 18 15 The Exchan e Atlanta. Georgia 0339 Barnard 8: Burk Group Inc. 10252 Mayfair Drive Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809 Bamhill Contracting Company 231 1 North Main Street Tarboro, North Carolina 27886 Barr 81 Barr Inc. 330 West 42nd New York, New York 10036 Bargy, Bette & Led Duke Inc. 124 Kings Road Schenectady, New York 12303 Barton Malow Company 27777 Franknn Road Southfield, Michigan 48034 Batson - Cook Company 8 1 7 4th Avenue West Point, Georgia 3 1833 Baugh Ente rises Inc. 900 Poplar P ce South Seattle. Washington 98144 BE 81 K Inc. 2000 International Park Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35243 Beaver Builders Inc. One Wells Avenue Newton. Massachusetts 02 1 59 Beazer USA Inc. 25 1 5 McKinney Avenue Dallas. Texas 7 5201 162 Bechtel Group Inc. 50 Beale Street San Francisco. California 94105 Becker Brothers Inc. 1200 Peoria Savin s Plaza Peoria, Illinois 61 2 Becon Construction Company Inc. 650 North Belt Houston, Texas 7 7060 Bedford Development Company 3470 Mount Diablo Boulevard Lafayette, California 94549 Beers Construction Company 70 Ellis Street NE Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Bell Ra Construction Company Inc. 255 W son Pike Circle Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 Bernards Brothers Construction 61011ez Street San Fernando, California 91340 Biehn Construction Inc. 2 100 Quaker Pointe Drive Quakertown, Pennsylvania 1895 1 Big - D Construction Corporation 389 West 2nd Street Ogden, Utah 84404 Birtcher Construction Ltd. 27822 Lazo Road Laguna Beach, California 92656 Blake Construction Company Inc. 1 120 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC. 20007 Blounting Inc. 4520 Executive Park Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36 1 16 Blythe Industries Inc. 291 1 North Graham Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28206 BMW Constructors Inc. 1 740 West Michigan Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46222 163 BOH Brothers Construction Company Inc. 730 South Street New Orleans, Louisiana 701 19 Boldt Group Inc. 2525 North Roemer Road Appleton, Wisconsin 549 1 5 Bradbury 8r Stamm Construction Company Inc. 12 l 7 lst NW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Brasfield 81 Gorne General Contractors Inc. 729 South 30th Street Birmingham, Alabama 35233 Breton Construction inc. 2 Corporate Park Irvine, California 92714 Brice Building Company Inc. PO Box 1028 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Brinderson Co ration 19700 Fairchil Irvine, California 92715 Brown 82 Root Building Co. 5830 142nd Avenue N Clearwater, Florida 34620 Brown 8r Root Inc. 4100 Clinton Drive Houston, Texas 77020 Burns and Roe Enterprises Inc. 800 Kinderkamack Road Oradell, New Jersey Butler Construction Blst Southwest TYafficway Kansas City, Missouri 64108 C. J. Langenfelder 8: Sons Inc. 8427 Pulaski Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 2 12 17 C. Overaa 8r Company 200 Parr Boulevard Richmond, California 94801 C. D. Smith Construction Inc. 889 E. Johnson Street Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin 54935 164 C. G. Schmidt Inc. 4199 North Richards Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 532 12 C. J. Ro ers Inc. G3328 orrey Road Flint, Michigan 48507 C. R. Klewin Construction Company 40 Connecticut Avenue Norwich, Connecticut 06360 C. R. Meyer 8: Sons Company 895 West 20th Avenue Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901 Caddell Construction Company Inc. 27 00 Lagoon Park Drive Montgomery. Alabama 36 1 09 Cajun Contractors Inc. 15131 Airline Highway Baton Rouge, Louisiana 708 1 7 Campbell Construction Company 2 120 20th Street Sacramento, California 95818 Carrothers Construction Inc. Highwa 7 S Water alley, Mississippi 38965 CCC Group Inc. 5797 Dietrich San Antonio, Texas 78219 CD1 Contractors Inc. 3000 Cantrell Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 CDK Contracting Company 800 South Hutton Street Farmington, New Mexico 87401 Centennial Contractors Inc. 838 1 Old Courthouse Road Vienna, Virginia 22182 Centex Construction Group Inc. 3333 Lee Parkway Dallas, Texas 75219 Centric / Jones Company 5490 West 13th Avenue Denver, Colorado 802 14 165 Century Contractors West Inc. 4 Kingwood Place Kingwood, Texas 77339 Chanen Construction Company 3300 North 3rd Avenue Phoenix. Arizona 850 13 Charles Pankow Builders Ltd. 2476 North Lake Avenue Altadena, California 91001 Charter Builders Inc. 10105 West Technology Boulevard Dallas, Texas 75207 Chicago Bridge Iron Company 901 West 22nd Street Hinsdale. Illinois 60521 Cianbro Co ration PO Box 1 Pittsfield. Maine 04967 Citadel Corporation 6075 The Corners Norcross, Georgia 30076 Cives Corporation 4 1 1 Rouse Lane Roswell. Georgia 30076 Cland 8r Theys Construction Company 516 est Cabarrus Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Clark Construction Company PO Box 40087 Lansing. Michigan 48901 CRSS Construction Inc. 2 16 16th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Cruz Construction Corporation 952 Holrndel Road Holrndel, New Jersey 07733 Dal - Mac Construction Com any 1 1 1 West Spring Valley Roa Richardson, Texas 75081 Damon G. Douglas Company 245 Birchwood Avenue Cranford, New Jersey 07016 166 Daniel J. Keating Construction Company 8 12 Lancaster Avenue Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085 Danis Industries Corporation 2 Riverplace Suite 400 Dayton. Ohio 45401 Davidson 8: Jones Construction Company 1201 Front Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Davy McKee Corporation One Oliver Plaza Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15222 Day 8: Zimmermann Inc. 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19 103 DeMaria Building Company Inc. 45500 Grand River Novi, Michigan 48050 DeMetree Central Constructors Corporation 895 SE Lake Street Longwood, Florida 32750 Denton Construction Company 204 1 5 Mack Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan 48236 Destec Engineering Inc. 2500 Citywest Boulevard Houston, Texas 77042 Devcon Construction Inc. 555 Los Coches Street Milpitas. California 95035 Dick Corporation 900 State Route 5 1 Clairton, Pennsylvania 1 5025 Dillingham Construction Holdings Inc. 5960 Inglewood Drive Pleasanton, California 94588 Donald M. Drake Company 1740 NW Flanders Street Portland, Oregon 97209 Dondlinger 8r Sons Construction 1206 East Lincoln Wichita, Kansas 6721 1 167 Donohoe Construction Inc. 2 101 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC. 20007 Duke Associates 8888 Keystone Cross Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 Dunn Construction Company Inc. 2 Old River Place J ackson, Mississippi 39202 E.A. Hathaway 8: Company 565 Laurelwood Road Santa Clara. California 95054 E.L. Yeager Construction Company Inc. 1995 ua Mansa Road Riversi e, California 92509 E.W. Howell Company Inc. 2 Seaview Boulevard Port Washington, New York 1 1050 Ebasco Services Inc. 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10048 EBY Co ration 6 10 No Main Wichita. Kansas 67203 ECCO III Ente rises Inc. 500 East 132n Bronx, New York 10454 Ecolo and Environment Inc. 368 P easantview Drive Lancaster, New York 14086 Edward Kraemer 8: Sons Inc. 1 Plainview Road Plain, Wisconsin 53577 Eichleay Holdings Inc. 5th & Penn's Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1 5206 EMJ Corporation 6148 Lee Highway Chattanooga, Tennessee 3742 1 Environmental Contracting Corporation 445 South Fi ueroa Los Angeles, alifornia 90071 168 Environmental Industries Inc. 2412 1 Ventura Boulevard Calabasas, California 91302 F.A. Wilhelm Construction Company Inc. 3914 Pros ect Street Indianapo s. Indiana 46203 Facilities Systems En eering Corporation 8933 La Cienega Bo evard Inglewood, California 90301 Facility Constructors Inc. 2233 Lake Park Drive Smyrna, Georgia 30080 Faulkner Construction Company 3901 South Lamar, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78704 Federal Construction Company 1355 Snell Isle Boulevard NE St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Ficon Co ration 1401 1 Te egraph Road Woodbridge. Virginia 22 192 Fish Engineering 8: Construction Inc. 1990 Post Oak Boulevard Houston, Texas 77056 Fitzpatrick 8r Associates Inc. 1 1 15 Pine Brook Road Eatontown, New Jersey 00724 Foster Wheeler Corporation Perryville Plaza Clinton, New Jersey 08809 Frank L. Cirninelli Construction Company Inc. 369 Franklin Street Buffalo, New York 14202 Frank Messer 8: Sons Construction Company 4612 Paddock Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45229 Fred Weber Inc. 2320 Creve Coeur Mill Road St. Louis, Missouri 63 146 Freesen Inc. 316 South Pearl Hi way Bluffs, Illinois 626 1 169 Frontier - Kemper Construction Inc. 1695 Allen Road Evansville, Indiana 47710 Fru - Con Consrtuction Corporation 15933 Clayton Road Ballwin, Missouri 6301 1 Fusco Corporation 555 Longwharf Drive. Suite 14 New Haven, Connecticut 0651 1 GE. Johnson Construction Company Inc. 310 South 14th Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80904 Gall Landau 8: Young Construction Company Inc. 100 1 16th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Gentosi Brothers Inc. 42 Corporate Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92714 George 81 Lynch Inc. 1 13 West 6th Street New Castle, Delaware 19720 George A. Fuller Company 9 1 9 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 George B.H. Macomber Company Russia Wharf 530 Atltntic Boston, Massachusetts 022 10 Gerald H. Phip s Inc. 1530 West 13 Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204 Geu 1 Construction Company Inc. 166 Old Henderson Road Columbus, Ohio 43220 Geu 1 De Mars Inc. 19 1 North Meridian Street Indianapolis. Indiana 46202 Gilbane Building Company 7 Jackson Walkway Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Glen Construction Company Inc. 9055 Comprint Court Gaitersburg, Maryland 20877 170 Gosnell Builders 2728 North 24th Street Phoenix. Arizona 85008 Granger Construction Company PO Box 22 187 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Granite Construction Company 585 West Beach Street Watsonville, California 95076 Graycor Inc. 640 North La Salle, Suite 610 Chicago, Illinois 60610 Great Lakes Dredge Dock Company 2 122 York Road Hinsdale. Illinois 60521 Green Holdin s Inc. 8055 East 'I‘ugts Avenue, Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80237 Gulf States Inc. 323 Che Freeport, exas 77541 Gust K. N ewberfi Construction Company 2040 North As (1 Chicago, Illinois 60614 Guva. Atkinson Company of California 10 est Orange Avenue South San Francisco. California 94080 H 81 M Construction Company Inc. 50 Security Drive J ackson, Tennessee 38305 H.B. Alexander Enterprises Inc. 3300 North 3rd Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1 7 1 10 H.B. Zachry Com y 527 Harding BouFeavgrd San Antonio. Texas 78221 H.J. Russell Construction Company 504 Fair Street SW Atlanta, Georgia 30313 Haden Management Corporation 32450 North Avis Madison Heights, Michigan 48071 171 Halmar Contracting Inc. 1 60 West Lincoln Avenue Mt. Vernon, New York 10550 Harbert International Inc. 1 Riverchase Parkway S Birmingham, Alabama 35224 Hardin Construction Group Inc. 1380 West Paces Fe Raod Atlanta. Georgia 303 7 Harkins Builders Inc. 12301 Old Columbia Pike Silver Springs, Maryland 20904 Harris Construction Company 1505 North Chestnut Avenue Fresno, California 93703 Harvey Construction Company Inc. 10 Harvey Road Manchester, New Hampshire 03 102 Haselden Construction 2 1 34 South Valentia Denver, Colorado 8023 1 Hawkins Construction Company 2512 Deerpark Boulevard Omaha, Nebraska 68 105 HBE Co oration 1 1330 O ve Street Raod St. Louis. Missouri 63141 HCB Contractors 1401 Elm Street, Suite 4600 Dallas, Texas 75202 Hensel Phelps Construction Company 420 6th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Hoar Construction 1 900 International Park Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35243 Hoffman Corporation 1 300 SW 6th Portland, Oregon 97201 Holder Corporation 900 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta. Georgia 30338 172 Hood Corporation 8201 South Sorensen Avenue Whittier, California 90607 HRH Construction Corporation 909 3rd Avenue New York, New York 1 0022 Hubbard Construction Company 1 936 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Huber, Hunt and Nichols Inc. 2450 South Tibbs Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 4624 1 Hunt Building Corporation 4401 North Mesa El Paso, Texas 79902 Huntcor Inc. 426 North 44th Street, Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Hunzinger Construction Company 2 1 100 Enterprise Avenue Brookfield. Wisconsin 53005 IA Construction Corporation Route 202 Concordville, Pennsylvania 19331 IC Harbor Construction Company 701 Harger Road, Suite 100 Hinsdale. Illinois 60521 ICA - Construction Corporation 2655 Le Jeune Road Miami, Florida 33134 ICF Kaiser Engineers Inc. 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax. Virginia 22031 Industrial Contractors Inc. 401 NW 1st Street Evansville, Indiana 47708 International Technology Corporation 23456 Hawthorne Torrance, California 90505 J. Fletcher Creamer 8: Sons Inc. 101 East Broadway Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 173 J .S. Alberici Construction Company Inc. 2 150 Kienlen Avenue St. Louis, Missouri 63121 J .A. Tiberti Construction Company 1806 Industrial Road Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 J .D. Abrams Inc. 1 1 1 Congress Avenue, Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701 J .E. Dunn ConstructionCompany 929 Holmes Kansas City, Missouri 64106 J .F. White Contracting Company 1 Gateway Court Newton, Massachusetts 02 158 J .H. Findorfi' & Son Inc. 601 West Wilson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703 J .H. Kelly Inc. 821 3rd Avenue Longview, Washington 98632 J .H. Pomero 81 Company Inc. 400 West e Street, Suite 206 Roselle, Illinois 60172 J .R. Roberts Enterprises Inc. 5330 Primrose Drive, Suite 248 Fair Oaks, California 95628 Jack B. Parson Construction 5 100 South Washington Boulevard Ogden. Utah 84403 Jackson Construction Company 280 Bridge Street Dedham, Massachusetts 02026 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 251 South Lake Avenue Pasadena, California 91 101 James McHugh Construction Company 2222 South Indiana Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60616 James N. Gray Construction Company Highway 90 Glasgow, Kentucky 42141 174 J aynes Co ration 2906 Broa way Boulevard NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107 Joe E. Woods Inc. 63 East Main Street, Suite 4 10 Mesa, Arizona 85201 John Brown E 82 C Inc. 333 Ludlow Street Stamford, Connecticut 06902 John S. Clark Company Ltd. 450 Airport Road Mount Airy, North Carolina 27030 Jones Group Inc. 6060 South Albans Charlotte, North Carolina 28287 Kajima Engineering 8r Construction Inc. 510 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, California 90014 Kajima International Inc. 2 100 North Central Road Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024 Kaiser Foundation Inc. 1 Kaiser Plaza Oakland. California 94612 Kasler Corporation 27400 East 5th Street Highland. California 92346 Keller Construction Company Ltd. 9950 East Baldwin Place El Monte, California 91731 Kiewit Construction Group Inc. 3555 Famam Omaha, Nebraska 68 13 1 Kitchell Corporation 1707 East Highland, Suite 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Knutson Construction Company 5301 East River Road Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 Kokosin Construction Company Inc. PO Box 26 Fredericktown, Ohio 43019 175 K011 Construction 4343 Vonkarman Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660 Koren - Diresta Construction Company Inc. 475 5th Avenue New York, New York 10017 Korte Construction Company 700 St. Louis Union Station St. Louis, Missouri 63103 Koss Construction Company 4090 Westown Parkway West Des Moines. Iowa 50265 Kraus - Anderson Construction Company 525 South 8th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 L.E. Wentz Company 1 599 Industrial Road San Carlos, California 94070 L.F. Driscoll Company 9 Presidential Boulevard Bala Cynwyd, Pensylvania 1 9004 LaQuila Construction Inc. 789 East 9 lst Brooklyn, New York 1 1236 Layton Construction Company Inc. 2987 South 300 West Salt Lake City. Utah 84115 Lee Lewis General Contractors Inc. 252 1 74th Lubbock, Texas 79423 Lehrer McGovern Bovis Inc. 387 Park Avenue S New York, New York 10016 Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corporation 820 Elrnont Road Elmont. New York 1 1003 Linbeck Construction Corporation 38 10 West Alabama Houston, Texas 77027 Lionmark Inc. 1620 Woodson Road St. Louis, Missouri 63114 176 Litwin Engineers 8: Constructors Inc. 580 Westlake Park Boulevard Houston, Texas 77079 Lunda Construction Company 620 Gebhardt Road Black River Falls, Wisconsin 546 1 5 Lusardi Construction Company 1570 Linda Vista Drive San Marcos, California 92069 Lyda Inc. 6228 Bandera Road San Antonio, Texas 78238 Lydi Construction Inc. No 603 Havana Spokane, Washington 99202 M.A. Mortenson Company 700 North Meadow Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 MB. Kahn Construction Company Inc. Flintlake 8: Highway 555 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Macco Construction Inc. 14409 South Paramount Boulevard Paramount, California 90723 Maescher Industries Inc. 2 106 Florance Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45206 Majestic Construction Company 275 North Franklin Tumpike Ramsey, New Jersey 07446 Manhattan Building Construction 1717 South Boulder Tulsa, Oklahoma 741 19 Mamell Corrao Association Inc. 4495 Polaris Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89103 Marshall Contractors Inc. 75 Newman Avenue Rumford, Rhode Island 02916 Mashuda Corporation 2 1 1 0 1 Route 19 Evans City, Pennsylvania 16033 177 McCarthy Building Construction 1341 North Rock Hill Road St. Louis, Missouri 63124 McMormick Construction Company 2507 Empire Avenue Burbank, California 91504 McCrrgeConstruction Company Inc. 1616 rvais Street Columbia, South Carolina 2920 1 McDermott Intemational Inc. 1010 Common Street New Orleans, Louisiana 701 12 McDevitt 8: Street Company One Parkway Plaza Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 McGough Construction Company Inc. 2737 Fairview Avenue N St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 McShane Builders Inc. 2604 East Dempster, Suite 500 Des Plaines, Illinois 60016 Mellon Stuart Company One North Shore Court Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1 52 12 Miller Building Corporation 14 1 0 Commonwealth Drive Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Miron Construction Company Inc. 806 Valley Road Menasha, Wisconsin 54952 Misener Marine Construction Inc. 544 West Tyson Avenue Tampa, Florida 3361 1 Modern Continental Construction Company Inc, 2277 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge. Massachusetts 02 138 Morganti Group Inc. 10 South Street Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877 Morley Construction Company Inc. 2999 Overland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90064 178 Morrison Knudsen Corporation Morrison Knudsed Plaza Boise, Idaho 83729 Morse Diesel International 1 5 1 5 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Mosser Construction Inc. 122 South Wilson Avenue Fremont, Ohio 43420 Mountain States Mineral Enterprises Inc. 4370 South Fremont Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85714 Mumane Associates Inc. 99 B0 ton Avenue Platts urgh, New York 12901 NAB Construction Corporation 1 12-20 14th Avenue College Point, New York 1 1356 Nabholz Construction Corporation 612 Garland Conway, Arkansas 72032 Nason 8r Cullen Inc. 150 South Warner Road Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 National Engineering 81 Contracting Company 12608 Alameda Drive Cleveland, Ohio 44136 Nielsen Construction Company 3127 Jefferson Street San Diego, California 921 10 Nielsons Inc. 22419 County Road G Cortez, Colorado 81321 Norwood Industrial Construction Company Inc. 530 Brandywine Parkway West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380 Nuhann Inc. 614 West 184th Street Gardena, California 90248 O & G Industries Inc. 1 12 Wall Street Torrington, Connecticut 06790 179 OHM Corporation 16406 State Route 224 East Findlay. Ohio 45840 Oltrnans Construction Company 10005 Mission Mill Raod Whittier, California 90601 0 us Construction 9 00 East Bren Road Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 P J Dick Contractin Inc. 1020 LaBanon Roa Route 885 West Mifilin, Pennsylvania 15122 Pacific Construction Company Ltd. 707 Richards Street, Suite 400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Pan - Pacific Construction Inc. 1001 Bisho Street Honolulu, awaii 96813 Paul H. Schwendener Inc 1 000 VanDustiial Drive Westrnont, Illinois 60559 Pavarini Construction Company Inc. West Putnum Avenue Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 PCL Ente rises Inc. 2000 Sou Colorado Boulevard Denver, Colorado 80222 Peabody Construction Company Inc. Granite Street Route 536 Braintree, Massachusetts 02 1 84 Peck / Jones Construction Corporation 10866 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90024 Perini Corporation 73 Mount Wayte Avenue Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Peter Brown Construction Company 205 4th Street SW Largo, Florida 34640 Petracca 8: Sons Inc. 109-37 Sutphin Boulevard Jamaica, New York 1 1435 180 Pike Holdings Inc. Route 3 at I 93 'I‘ilton, New Hampshire 03276 Pioneer Construction Company 550 Kirtland Street SW Grand Rapids. Michigan 49507 Pitt - Des Moines Inc. 3400 Grand Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1 5225 Pizzagalli Construction Company 55 Joy Drive Burlington, Vermont 05403 PKF - Mark III Inc. 170 Pheasant Run Road Newtown, Pennsylvania 1 8940 Power Contracting 8: Engineering Corporation 3205 North Wilke Road Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004 R. S. Mowery 8: Sons Inc. 625 Hamilton Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 R.J. Griffin 8: Company 5775 Peachtree - Dunwoody Atlanta, Georgia 30342 R.M. Shoemaker Compan 100 Front Street, Suite 1 00 West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 R.W. Granger 8: Sons Inc. 4 15 Boston Tumpike Shrewsbury, Massachusetts 0 1 545 Ray Wilson Company 199 South Los Robles Avenue Pasadena. California 91 101 Rentenbach Engineering Company 2400 Sutherland Avenue Knoxville, Tennesse 37919 Riedel International Inc. 4555 North Channel Avenue Portland, Oregon 97217 Rieth - Riley Construction Company Inc. 3 1 1 West Madison Elkhart, Indiana 46516 181 Ringland - Johnson - Crowley Company 500 SW 7th, Suite 300 West Des Moines, Iowa 50265 River City Construction Company 1050 West Washington Street Peoria, Illinois 6161 1 Robert A. Kinsley Inc. Water Street Extended York, Pennsylvania 1 7403 Robert E. Bayley Construction Inc. 1 Union Square, Suite 1601 Seattle. Washington 98101 Rodgers Builders Inc. 5701 North Sharon Amity Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28215 Roebbelen Engneering Inc. 1241 Hawk's Flight Court Folsom, California 95630 Rudolph and Sletten Inc. 989 East Hillsdale Boulevard Foster City, California 94404 Ruscilli Construction Comapny Inc. 2042 Arlingate Lane Columbus, Ohio 43228 Ruscon Corporation 149 East Bay Street Charleston, South Carolina 29401 Rust International Corporation 1 00 Co rate Parkway Birmin am, Alabama 35242 Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota 900 2nd Avenue S, Suite 700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 S 8: B Engineers 8: Constructors Inc. 7809 Park Place Boulevard Houston, Texas 77087 S.A. Healy Company 47th & East Avenue La Grange. Illinois 60525 S.J. Amboroso Construction Company 348 Hatch Drive Foster City, California 94404 182 S.G. Phillios Constructors Inc. PO Box 5 10 Waitsfield, Vermont 05673 SAE Engineering and Construction Company 1 1400 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Saturn Construction Company Inc. 1 l 5 Stevens Avenue Valhalla, New York 10595 Schal Associates Inc. 200 West Hubbard Chicago, Illinois 60610 Sciaba Construction Corporation 1 8 Walcott Street Boston, Massachusetts 02172 SDL Co ration 2100 1 1 th NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Sellen Construction Company Inc. 228 9th Avenue N Seattle. Washington 98 109 Sevenson Environmental Services Inc. 2749 Lock ort Road Niagara F s, New York 14305 Sheehan Pipeline Construction Company 1924 South Utica Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104 Shiel Sexton Company Inc. 8035 Castleton Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46250 Shook National Corporation 440 Hunter Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45404 Sigal Construction Corporation 3299 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20007 Slattery Associates Inc. 46-36 54th Road Maspeth, New York 1 1378 Sletten Construction Company 1000 25th Street N Great Falls, Montana 59401 183 Snyder - Langston Builders 17962 Cowan Avenue Irvine, California 92714 Sordoni Construction Services 45 Owen Street Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania 18704 Starboard Development Corporation 1202 Kettner Boulevard San Diego, California 92101 Stevens Painton Corporation 14470 York Road Cleveland, Ohio 44133 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation 245 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 021 10 Structure Tone Inc. 15 East 26th Street New York, New York 10010 Suffolk Construction Company Inc. 65 Allerton Street Boston, Massachusetts 02 1 19 Suitt Construction Company Inc. 1400 Cleveland Street Greenville, South Carolina 29605 Sullivan Long 8: Hagerty Inc. PO Box 2247 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Summit Constructors Inc. 5470 Valley Highway Denver, Colorado 80216 Sundt Corporation 4101 East Irvington Tucson, Arizona 85714 Sverdrup Boulevard Corporation 1836 Lackland Hill Parkway St. Louis, Missouri 63146 Swinerton 8: Walberg Company 580 California Street San Francisco, California 94104 T.L. James 8: Company Inc. 106 West Mississippi Ruston, Louisiana 71270 184 Tarlton Co oration 5500 West ark Avenue St. Louis, Missouri 631 10 Teichert Inc. 3500 American River Drive Sacramento, California 95864 Temple Associates Inc. 700 North Temple Drive Diboll, Texas 7594 1 Terminal Construction Corporation Route 1 7 Moonachie Avenue Woodridge, New Jersey 07074 The Albert M. Higley Company 2926 Chester Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 441 14 The Auchter Company 102 1 Oak Street J achsonville, Florida 32204 The Austin Compan 3650 Mayfueld Roa Cleveland, Ohio 44121 The Badger Company Inc. 1 Broadway Cambridge, Massachusetts 02 142 The Branch Group Inc. 3902 Franklin Road SW Roanoke, Virginia 24014 The Christrnan Company 408 Kalamazoo Plaza Lansing, Michigan 48901 The Clark Construction Group Inc. 7500 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 The Conduit & Foundation Corporation 33 Rock Hill Road Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 The Dirneo Construction 75 Chapman Street Providence, Rhode Island 02905 The Flintco Construction Inc. 1624 West 2lst Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107 185 The George Sollitt Construction Company 790 North Central Wood Dale, Illinois 60191 The Great Lakes Construction Company 6600 Schaaf Road Cleveland, Ohio 44131 The Hardway Company 945 Broadway Columbus, Georgia 3 1901 The Haskell Company 1 1 1 Riverside Avenue J acksonville, Florida 32202 The Henderson Corporation 575 Route 28 Raritan, New Jersey 08869 The Lane Construction Corporation 965 East Main Street Meriden. Connecticut 06450 The Lott Group Inc. 3500 South Gressner Drive Houston, Texas 77063 The M.W. Kellogg Company 3 Greenway Plaza Houston, Texas 77046 The Parsons Corporation 100 West Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91 103 The Pepper Construction 643 North Orleans Street Chicago, Illinois 60610 The Pinkerton 8: Laws Company 875 Dou as Road Atlanta. eorgia 30342 The Pritchard Co ration 8205 West 108th errace Shawnee Mission, Kansas 662 10 The Quandel Group Inc. PO Box E Minersville, Pensylvania 1 7954 The Robins Corporation 190 1 Robins Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35209 186 The Rudol h Libbe Construction Inc. 6494 Late a Road Walbridge. Ohio 43465 The Ruhlin Corn y 693 1 Ridge Roa Sharon Center, Ohio 44274 The Turner Corporation 633 3rd Avenue New York, New York 1 00 1 7 The Whiting - Turner Contracting Company 300 East J oppa Road Baltimore, Marryland 21204 Thomas O'Connor & Company Inc. 45 Industrial Drive Canton, Massachusetts 0202 1 TIC Holdings Inc. 40 185 Routt County Road Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80487 Tidewater Construction Corporation 809 South Military Highwa Virginia Beach, Virginia 2 464 Torcon Inc. 2 14 Grove Street E Westfield, New Jersey 07090 Townsend and Bottum Inc. 2245 South State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Trataros Construction Inc. 664 64th Street Brooklyn, New York 1 1220 Traglor Brothers Inc. 83 North Congress Avenue Evansville, Indiana 47715 Tutor - Saliba Corporation 15901 Olden Street San Fernando, California 91342 Underground Construction Company Inc. 5145 Industrual Wa Benicia, California 510 United Dominion Constuction 6000 Paplar Avenue Memphis, Tennessee 38137 187 United Engineers 8: Constructors International 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19 103 V.R.H. Construction Corporation 320 Grand Avenue Englewood, New Jersey 07631 Vecellio 8r Grogan Inc. PO Box V Beckley. West Virginia 25802 Veco International Inc. 5151 Fairbanks Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Vratsinas Construction Company 2 16 Louisiana Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 W.E. O'neil Construction Company 2751 North Clybourn Avenue Chicago, Illinois W.J. Barney Corporation 360 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 W.A. Klinger Inc. 2015 East 7th Street Sioux City, Iowa 51 105 W.G. Yates 8: Sons Constuction Company 1 Gully Avenue Philadelphia, Mississippi 39350 W.M. Blanchard Company 199 Mountain Avenue Springfield, New Jersey 07081 W.M. Jordan Company Inc. 1 1010 Jefferson Avenue Newport News, Virginia 2360 1 W.M. Schlosser Company Inc. 2400 5lst Place Hyattsville, Maryland 2078 1 W.S. Bellows Construction Corporation 7272 Pinemont Houston, Texas 77040 Walbridge Aldinger Company 613 Abbott Street Detroit, Michigan 48226 188 Walsh Construction Company of Illinois 37 10 South Western Chicago, Illinois 60609 Washington Construction Company 101 International Wa Missoula, Montana 9802 Webcor Builders Inc. 7 7 7 Mariner's Island Boulevard San Mateo, California 94404 Wehr Construction Inc. 25 17 Plantside Drive Louisville, Kentucky 40299 Weitz Company Inc. 800 2nd Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50309 White Barclay Inc. 22 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312 Wilder Construction Company 2006 North State Street Bellingham, Washington 98225 Williams Brothers Construction Company Inc. 3800 Milam Houston, Texas 77006 Wohlsen Construction Company 548 Steel Way Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601 Worth Construction Company Inc. 24 Ta lor Avenue Bethe , Connecticut 06801 MICHIGAN smTE UNIV. LIBRARIES "HI ”NI WIN “NW” WW I" ill ""1 Will H WI 31293010269847