top of page

Discussion

The organisation of construction projects has hardly changed since the late 19th century. Design and building are separate operations. A strongly supported hierarchical structure leaves little room for independent thinking and effective cooperation. Other industries are embracing new technologies and mindsets, and the conservative construction industry falls behind. BIM is a buzzword but might be a step in the right direction. The construction industry is starting to digitalise parts of the construction process and accomplishing paperless projects. However, they are still figuring out how to apply new technologies best. It might be beneficial to look at other industries or ways of collaborating, which could point the industry in the right direction. By comparing characteristics, differences and similarities, an understanding of how the construction industry should evolve, can be acquired. New ways of collaboration might give rise to stigmergic patterns.

Characteristics of Coordination

Stigmergy has been observed in software development. In the construction industry, stigmergy has hardly been discussed. The construction industry claims to be complex in terms of collaboration and organisation. Still, the industry has barely looked at entirely new ways of working. The industry could probably learn a few things from how stigmergy appears in peer production. By comparing the characteristics of coordination in projects, one might understand how they are alike and different. Hopefully, this might give insight into how coordination in construction can be improved. A comparison of characteristics between stigmergy, peer production and construction projects is therefore suitable.

Characteristics

Stigmergy

Peer Production

Construction

Physical

Environment

Digital

Physical and digital

Insects (originally)

Agents

People

People

Significant.

In the same environment.

Location

Insignificant

Significant.

In the same office / construction site.  

No

Planning

No

Planned at the start

Indirect.

Through marks in the environment.

Coordination

Indirect and direct. Through marks in the digital medium. Through explicit communication.

Direct.

Through planning and communication.

Shared. 

Might be unknown to the individual.

Goal

Paramount.

Simple goal. Principles of work.

Pre-defined.

Conflicting and changing. 

Equality among agents

Organisation

Flat structure.

Few central figures.

Sometimes roles are identified.

Hierarchy.

Managers and subordinates.

Self-assignment. 

Marks stimulate actions.

Task assignment

Self-assignment

By manager

Reinforcement

Decision mechanism for promising work

Reinforcement

Managers choose what is good

Unaware of contribution

Motivation of work

Contribute one’s knowledge

Paycheck

Cyclic

Sequence of tasks

Continuous development

Sequential, partly overlapping steps

Table 1 Comparison of coordination characteristics

From the comparison of Table 1, a few similarities are found, but most characteristics are almost opposites. Starting with planning and goals, stigmergy and peer production are similar. Neither of them requires any planning. The overall goal is guiding for the individual tasks. In stigmergy, individuals act on stimuli in the environment. Social insects are not conscious of the primary goal in which they are contributing. In peer production, the paramount goal is commonly determining the general direction of the project. In construction, a project goal is set right at the beginning. This goal might be diffuse or conflicting. The different parties of the project might all have different opinions on what the goal is. This unclarity might lead to disagreements and project changes during the project life-cycle.

 

Coordination is an essential characteristic in the comparison. In stigmergy, coordination is invisible, embedded in the work. There is no communication between the different agents. The environment is used for indirect communication through marks. Peer production is a combination of the two, using both direct and indirect communication. Peer producers might coordinate work through talking or messaging. At the same time, work is commonly coordinated through marks in the digital medium. Construction solely uses direct communication. Planning and collaboration happen in meetings, through talking or corresponding via email. Direct communication is useful for communicating a message or coming to an agreement in discussions. It might, however, be inefficient in coordinating work. Meetings are time-consuming, and misunderstandings might occur. Too frequent communication might not even lead to the best solution (Bernstein et al., 2018). Learning from stigmergy where work is coordinated indirectly, these things might be avoided. However, as long as people are working in the construction industry, direct communication will always be present. By learning from peer production, it should be possible to strike a balance in how work is coordinated — both through direct and indirect communication. 

Task assignment is another characteristic that differs. Agents act on stimulus from marks in stigmergy. In social insects, this often happens unconsciously. In human stigmergy, people are more aware of their stigmergic contribution. Peer production, on the other hand, has people self-assigning to tasks. They choose tasks they are motivated for and knowledgeable about for their contribution. In construction, people are often assigned to tasks by managers. It is harder for them to influence which tasks they are allocated. The lack of influence on their work tasks is likely to give less motivated workers in the construction industry. When they are signed to tasks by managers higher up in the system, their ownership of the work is also reduced.

Traditional and Agile Project Management

Agile project management (APM) has been very successful in software development. Lean manufacturing has some similar ideas to agile development. However, it has not been too successfully adopted by construction management so far. To understand how construction can learn from project management in other industries, one must first discover what makes the industries different. Construction management represents a traditional way of managing projects. Agile management, on the other hand, is a more recent way of managing software projects.

Characteristics

Traditional

Agile

Well defined scope and requirements.

Project requirements

Discovered throughout the project.

The entire project is planned at the start of the life-cycle, aims to stick to the plan.

Planning

A realistic plan for a shorter term, changes happens more frequently.

Little. 

Less the further into the project life cycle.

Flexibility

High.

Always open for changes.

Little.

All risks are on the different companies, everyone tries to avoid taking risks.

Risk

High.

Passed to actors capable of handling it.

Budget, schedule and scope.

Manager's focus

Deliverables, business value.

Distributed.

Include specialists and juniors. Little project commitment. Stay on a project at various lengths.

Teams

Co-location.

High level of project commitment and product ownership.

Negative

Attitude towards change

Positive

Table 2 Comparison of traditional and agile project management

Table 2, summarises some of the differences between agile project management and construction management. It is based on work by Fernandez & Fernandez (2008) and Owen et al. (2006).

Some studies are looking at the introduction of agile project management in construction management. They have found that some things are more easily adaptable to construction. Adaptability depends on the complexity and size of a project. Principles of APM are most successfully used in the design phase of a project (Owen et al., 2006). The core of APM is flexibility and adapting to change. In the later stages, when construction has started, there is less flexibility making agile management less suitable. At this point, changes are likely to cause a big impact and massive cost increases.

 

The attitude towards change is not exclusively positive in construction. The industry and its philosophy have been around for ages. Where APM prefer a flat structure of the organisation, construction has a highly hierarchical one. In agile development, teams are often small and work closely together. They have regular meetings to keep everyone updated on the project progress. The distance between leaders and other team members is short. Teams are given much freedom and are commonly self-organised. These conditions foster creativity and useful solutions. Construction has a one-way communication between managers and employees at lower levels. This is due to the hierarchical structure. The industry has a high level of command and control, which inhibit trust and reliability.

 

Some of the principles in agile project management are common to what is seen in similar industries. In manufacturing more freedom in the development teams gave more creative solutions. The teams were self-managed, and projects were started from scratch. Being allowed to think outside the box gave rise to new ways of developing products. The projects had a flat structure, and managers were used for consulting rather than making every decision. 

 

Construction management can learn some from other industries like manufacturing and software development. Letting go of some of the strict hierarchy could be one step. In that way, people could collaborate more freely to foster new and creative solutions. A flatter structure of the project will bring team members closer together. By being more involved in a project, workers will feel more ownership of it. 

Challenges in Construction

Documental interaction is typical for construction. Many formal documents and regulations set guidelines for the project work. Construction contracts are legal agreements between owners and contractors. Contracts are formulated, stating who is responsible for what. They outline things like work and risk, but more important duties and legal rights. Contracts are central in construction projects. However, the downside of contracts is that they often lead to disagreements ending in court. This is likely to affect the mentality of the industry. Owners and contractors always have to bear in mind what their responsibilities and risks are. Disagreements are solved by looking at what is in the contract. Solving problems in this way will give little trust between the different parties. 

 

Trust is an essential key in good teamwork. When trust is lost, collaboration is hard. People and companies are more concerned with avoiding taking risks than to collaborate on better solutions. The lack of trust also results in bad business relationships. In agile development risk management is done differently. Risk is passed to those who are most likely able to handle it (Owen et al., 2006). The focus is instead to collaborate on handling risks and overcome them if they arise.

 

Stigmergy is a way of collaborating through indirect communication. The work climate in the construction industry does not encourage collaboration. People always have to keep in mind that they are responsible for their actions. If they make a mistake, they will get the blame. These are not favourable conditions for stigmergy to occur. It might be some of the reason why stigmergy is a rare event in constructional collaboration.

Further Work

Christensen (2014) suggested that stigmergy is seen in some collaborative tasks in construction design. In his studies, Christensen investigates stigmergy in terms of computer-supported collaborative work. A starting point for further study of stigmergy in construction could be investigating cooperation in Building Information Modelling (BIM). The study could focus on the design phases of projects as they seem to be most promising. Since this is entirely information work, most principles from peer production should be applicable. The study could concentrate on positive feedback mechanisms which are commonly associated with stigmergy.

 

Other valuable inspiration can be achieved from the work of Haugsand (2010) and Storødegård & Luis (2014).

Previous page

Next page

bottom of page