The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1471-4175.

htm

CI 9,4

Framework for a generic work breakdown structure for building projects

Yahaya Makar Ibrahim and Ammar Kaka
School of the Built Environment, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, and

388
Received 18 September 2007 Accepted 1 July 2008

Ghassan Aouad and Mike Kagioglou

School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for the standardisation of the work breakdown structure (WBS) for building projects. This is based on the premise that buildings in general retain basic elemental options, and that there is a commonality of activities in the procurement of building projects. Design/methodology/approach To achieve the objective, the general practice of developing the WBS is investigated. This is achieved by means of an industry-wide questionnaire survey designed to identify the most widely used criteria among UK construction organisations in segregating building works into packages. The survey also investigates the sequencing of these criteria across the WBS hierarchy. Findings The ndings reveal that the most frequently used decomposition criteria in the formulation of WBS for building projects are elements, work sections, physical location and construction aids. The proposed framework is presented as a hierarchical decomposition of a building project based on these criteria. It allows for exibility in level of detail while maintaining a rigid sequencing of the criteria based on their frequency of use. Originality/value This paper reports on a specic part of an EPSRC funded project that aims to investigate the application of computer vision techniques to the on-site measurement of construction progress. The part reported in this paper addresses planning issues that will lead to automatic generation of work packages. Previous studies have focused on automating the planning aspect by associating individual components with schedule information. However, large construction projects usually consist of thousands of components. Planning and tracking progress at the level of the component is unrealistic in these instances. The standardisation framework reported in this paper will form the basis for automating the formulation of work packages, thus providing a uniform basis for tracking progress (based on computer vision) during project execution. Keywords Construction works, Standardization, Project planning, Working practices Paper type Research paper

Construction Innovation Vol. 9 No. 4, 2009 pp. 388-405 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1471-4175 DOI 10.1108/14714170910995930

Introduction The main responsibilities of a contractors project manager remain that of delivering the project within time, budget and to the required quality level. While it is clear that this requires constant monitoring and control of various aspects of the project throughout its life span, the validity of the monitoring and control measures depend heavily on the accuracy of the plan against which performance is measured.
This research is funded by the UK EPSRC grant EP/C535200/1.

The accuracy of the plans depends in turn on effective denition and structuring of the project. One of the tools available to the project manager for dening and structuring of the project is the work breakdown structure (WBS). The WBS is a hierarchical representation of the work contents, whereby the project is progressively subdivided into smaller units. It is the basis for dening work packages and its importance in the planning and control of projects has been acknowledged by both project managers and researchers (Rad, 1999; Colenso, 2000). Garcia-Forniels et al. (2003) assert that the WBS is perhaps the most important tool for project management because it provides a basis for planning, scheduling, control, responsibility assignment and information management. Given the level of importance, several organisations have embraced its use in managing their projects. The logic of the WBS is based on the premise that the product is not normally created as a whole, but is a collection of several parts that are created bit by bit. Indeed, this is the general nature of procuring construction projects. This, coupled with the fact that managing construction projects is a complex affair, clearly provide an incentive for the use of an appropriate WBS. Hence, several research efforts have addressed various issues relating to the WBS, including effective work package sizing (Raz and Globerson, 1998), alleviating workload associated with managing work packages (Jung and Woo, 2004; Jung, 2005), and the WBS as cost-schedule integrating mechanism (Eldin, 1989). However, none of these focused on the development of a standard WBS for building projects. There are clear benets associated with establishing standards and several researchers have stressed the need for the development of a standard WBS. For example, Voivedich et al. (2001) developed and implemented a standard WBS for offshore construction and concluded that this allowed for the reporting of cost data in a consistent format at various levels of detail. In addition, they asserted that standard WBS eliminates redundancy, thereby allowing crucial resources to be channelled elsewhere. Jung and Kang (2007) noted that standardising the WBS will signicantly reduce the managerial workload associated with managing work packages, and this will greatly improve the accuracy of progress measurement. In addition, a key benet of standardising the WBS relates to the need for the industry to embrace a truly computer-integrated-construction (CIC) approach to project management. As argued by Hua and Leen (2002), one-way of ensuring CIC is to develop standardised systems of classifying information. Essentially, this relates to the need for a common language. The WBS as it is currently employed does provide this common language, albeit on a project-by-project basis, reecting a common language for all stakeholders. While this is of great signicance to the success of individual projects, it does not facilitate performance comparison across projects since the work contents of these projects were not structured on the same basis. There are some national standards that aim to provide standard classications for formulating the WBS. For example, the Uniformat II, developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides a structure for classifying building elements and related site works. However, this classication is elemental in nature and may not be suitable for adoption by the UK construction industry. A typical example relates to the practice of generating estimates. In the UK, estimates are normally prepared in the form of bills of quantities, based on the Standard Method of Measurement (SMM). The SMM provides a classication of work sections based on the

Framework for work breakdown structure 389

CI 9,4

390

Common Arrangement of Work Sections (CAWS). Therefore, standards such as the Uniformat, which are based on one facet of information, may not be suitable for use in the UK. Just like the Uniformat, the masterformat is a North American standard and may not also be suitable for use in the UK due to differences in certain practices (e.g. estimating). This gives authors the motivation to propose a framework for a standardised WBS for building projects in the UK. In the rest of the paper, the commonality and frequency of occurrence of activities across buildings are discussed. The paper then elucidates the key features of the WBS, and then describes the development of the proposed framework. Design options in buildings Crucial to the successful standardisation of the WBS is the frequency with which design options are repeated amongst buildings. Studies have shown that buildings retain cognate, elemental options that dene a buildings structure. For example, Gray and Little (1985) showed that construction activity is highly predictable and that the rules governing the selection of construction activities are consistent among contractors. Atkin (1993) analysed 40 ofce building designs and found the presence of stereotypes, suggesting the adoption of some dominant design options. Basing their argument on the stereotypical nature of buildings, previous studies have shown the feasibility of developing standardised construction activities. For example, Nkado (1992) developed a construction time information model based on standardised grouping of activities. These groupings were set-up, substructure, superstructure, cladding, nishes and services. Blyth et al. (2004) developed a set of 39 standardised activities from a sample of 50 building projects. These standardised activities were employed by Blyth and Kaka (2006) to form the basis for developing a cash ow forecasting model. Jung and Kang (2007) argue that the unique nature of construction projects seems to make WBS standardisation extremely difcult to achieve. However, they noted that managerial similarities do exist within a particular kind of construction (e.g. commercial building) or within a particular company and on this basis, developed corporate-wide standard work packages for progress measurement. Given the evidence of existence of similarities amongst buildings and the activities required to realise them, it is reasonable to conclude that a standardised WBS could be developed. This is clearly the case since by denition; WBS elements contain work packages, which in turn contain groupings of activities. These similarities provide a rm basis for the standardisation of the WBS for building projects. The work breakdown structure The Project Management Institute (PMI, 2001) dene the WBS as:
[. . .] a hierarchical structure that denes and organises the total project scope based on deliverables, with each descending level in the hierarchy representing an increasingly detailed denition of the project work.

The Association for Project Management Body of Knowledge (APM, 2006) and the British Standard Institute (BSI, 2000) give a similar denition. The aim of the WBS is to ensure complete and proper denition of the entire work. The highest level of the

structure represents the entire project. This is then subdivided into smaller elements that represent the next level in the hierarchy. The process continues until such a level when the entire project is deemed to have been sufciently decomposed. The last level entries in the structure are referred to as work packages and represent the level where responsibility for the performance of the work in each work package is assigned to an individual or organisation (Haugan, 2002). There are three main issues which must be addressed in standardising the WBS. The rst relates to the decomposition criteria, which reect the facets of information by which the work is subdivided across the WBS hierarchy. The second is the sequencing of these criteria, which relates to the order in which the criteria are applied in the hierarchy. The third issue relates to the level of detail, which reects the extent to which the entire work is decomposed (Jung and Woo, 2004; Ibrahim et al., 2007). Decomposition criteria Identifying generally employed criteria in the decomposition of different WBS entries at various levels of the structure is obviously the rst challenge. Several attempts have been made to develop standardised frameworks for the classication of construction information. The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO, 1994) identied eight facets of classication for construction information. These include facility (e.g. hospital, school), space (e.g. recreational, ofce spaces), element (e.g. stairs, oors), work section (e.g. concrete work, masonry), construction product (e.g. paint, cement), construction aid (e.g. formwork, scaffolding) attributes (e.g. shape, size) and management (e.g. drawing, procurement). These facets were updated in ISO (2001) to include more classes. The ones relevant to this study are construction entities (e.g. buildings, bridges), construction complexes (e.g. transport complex, industrial complex), work results (e.g. excavation, lling) and life cycle phases (e.g. design phase, production phase). Individual researchers have also focused on developing standards for classifying construction information. For example, Kang and Paulson (1997) suggest a construction information classication system based on ve facets facility, space, element, operation and resource. Chang and Tsai (2003) proposed an information classication system that consists of construction type, life cycle, product or service, function, tasks and man-hour facets. Other classication schemes include, for example, the masterformat, the samarbetskommitten for byggnadsfragor (sfB) and the Construction index/sfB (CI/sfB). It is desirable to have one standard classication system whose facets are comprehensive enough to be employed as decomposition criteria since this will facilitate standardisation of the WBS. However, these classication systems have their weaknesses. According to Kang and Paulson (1997), the masterformat gives more priority to construction components than functional components, the sfB system does not have facility classication and the coding system of the CI/sfB system is a complicated one. This study addresses this issue by conducting a survey aimed at uncovering the most widely used criteria in the formulation of WBS for building projects. Questionnaire survey A total of 180, building and civil engineering contracting organisations were approached in the survey. These include the top 100 UK construction companies as

Framework for work breakdown structure 391

CI 9,4

392

ranked by Building magazine and 80 randomly selected construction organisations. Each organisation was sent a copy of the questionnaire by post. The sample comprises 25 building contractors, ve civil engineering contractors, and 13 general contracting organisations. These made up a total response rate of 24 percent. The survey targeted different professionals who are actively involved with the development of the WBS for building projects. As shown on Figure 1, 84 per cent of these have at least ten years experience developing and working with the WBS. Before sending out the questionnaires, the questions were tested through discussions with two professionals. This served to ensure better quality of the responses received. The objective of the survey was to identify the most commonly used criteria and to investigate whether their extent of use varied across different kinds of organisations. The aim was to develop a standard WBS by selecting those commonly used criteria whose usage is not peculiar to some kind of organisation. Survey results A total of 11 facets of construction information classication were identied from literature, and respondents were asked to indicate the ones they use as decomposition criteria in developing a WBS for building projects (Table I). Although the results show the extent of use of the criteria, they do not reveal their frequency of use within each kind of organisation. The frequency of use of each criterion was then examined based on the three kinds of organisation. The aim is to identify and omit those criteria that do not enjoy similar levels of use across the three kinds of organisation. Criteria usage within different kinds of organisations Elements, as already established, is the mostly used criterion across the whole sample. Table II, shows that there were no apparent dependence or relationship

20

15 Frequency

10

Figure 1. Respondent level of experience

0 Less than 5 Between 5 Between 11 Between 16 years and 10 years and 15 years and 20 years Respondent's level of experience Over 20 years

Decomposition criteria Work section Elements Facility Construction aids Construction product Attributes Management Spaces Function Location Lifecycle phases

Frequency of use 34 40 15 31 13 11 17 8 11 27 18

Respondents (%) 81.0 95.2 35.7 73.8 31.0 26.2 40.5 19.0 26.2 64.3 42.9

Framework for work breakdown structure 393

Table I. Criteria usage

between the use of elements and kind of organisation, and that a fairly similar level of usage across all kinds of organisations is apparent. This is also conrmed by the high signicant values of the Pearson x 2, likelihood ratio and the linear-by-linear association as shown on Table III. This implies that the level of usage of the elements criterion does not really depend on whether the contractor was a building, general, or civil engineering contractor. The same statistic was employed to test for signicant association between kinds of organisation and all other criteria. The results (as shown on Tables II and III), except in the case of construction product and attribute criteria show no signicant relationship. Again, this implies that the use of these decomposition criteria is not peculiar to any specic kind of organisation. Both construction product and attribute criteria were found to be inuenced by different kinds of organisations. The nature of this inuence is such that both of these criteria are highly unpopular amongst building contractors. In order to ensure generalisation, the decomposition criteria used in developing the framework must enjoy usage by at least 50 per cent of the sample considered. In addition, the usage of the criteria must not be peculiar to some specic kinds of organisation. As portrayed by the survey results, only elements, work section, location and construction aids satisfy these requirements. Sequencing the structure Respondents were asked if they have a dened order by which they apply the decomposition criteria in formulating the WBS for all projects. About 66 per cent of respondents indicate they have no denite order by which they sequence the WBS while 27 per cent indicate they follow a dened order for all projects. About 7 per cent of respondents did not answer the question and these were coded as missing values (Table IV). Respondents who had such a dened order for sequencing the WBS were asked to show the sequence by indicating the criteria they apply at each level of the WBS. Table V shows the dened order in which criteria are applied in the formulation of WBS for each respondent. None of the respondents goes beyond Level 8 and most of them limit the WBS to Level 5.

CI 9,4

394

Kind of organisation Elements Building contracting Frequency 1 24 25 Percent within kind of organisation 4.0 96.0 100.0 Percentof total 2.3 55.8 58.1 Civil engineering contracting Frequency 1 4 5 Percent within kind of organisation 20.0 80.0 100.0 Percent of total 2.3 9.3 11.6 General contracting Count 1 12 13 Percent within kind of organisation 7.7 92.3 100.0 Percentage of total 2.3 27.9 30.2 Total Count 3 40 43 Percent within kind of organisation 7.0 93.0 100.0 Percentage of total 7.0 93.0 100.0 5 20 20.0 80.0 11.6 46.5 2 3 40.0 60.0 4.7 7.0 2 11 15.4 84.6 4.7 25.6 28 15 65.1 34.9 65.1 34.9 Attributes 22 3 88.0 12.0 51.2 7.0 3 2 60.0 40.0 7.0 4.7 13 100.0 30.2 43 100.0 100.0 7 6 53.8 46.2 16.3 14.0 32 11 74.4 25.6 74.4 25.6 25 100.0 58.1 5 100.0 11.6 13 100.0 30.2 43 100.0 100.0 43 100.0 100.0 16 27 37.2 62.8 37.2 62.8 13 100.0 30.2 6 7 46.2 53.8 14.0 16.3 13 100.0 30.2 3 10 23.1 76.9 7.0 23.3 13 100.0 30.2 43 100.0 100.0 Life cycle phases 16 9 64.0 36.0 37.2 20.9 1 4 20.0 80.0 2.3 9.3 8 5 61.5 38.5 18.6 11.6 25 18 58.1 41.9 58.1 41.9 25 100.0 58.1 5 100.0 11.6 13 100.0 30.2 43 100.0 100.0 5 100.0 11.6 4 1 80.0 20.0 9.3 2.3 5 100.0 11.6 2 3 40.0 60.0 4.7 7.0 5 100.0 11.6 4 1 80.0 20.0 9.3 2.3 6 7 46.2 53.8 14.0 16.3 26 17 60.5 39.5 60.5 39.5 Spaces 22 3 88.0 12.0 51.2 7.0 4 1 80.0 20.0 9.3 2.3 9 4 69.2 30.8 20.9 9.3 35 8 81.4 18.6 81.4 18.6 25 100.0 58.1 5 100.0 11.6 13 100.0 30.2 43 100.0 100.0 25 100.0 58.1 18 7 72.0 28.0 41.9 16.3 25 100.0 58.1 11 14 44.0 56.0 25.6 32.6 25 100.0 58.1 16 9 64.0 36.0 37.2 20.9 25 100.0 58.1 5 100.0 11.6 13 100.0 30.2 43 100.0 100.0 Construction aids 9 16 36.0 64.0 20.9 37.2 1 4 20.0 80.0 2.3 9.3 2 11 15.4 84.6 4.7 25.6 12 31 27.9 72.1 27.9 72.1 13 7 6 100.0 53.8 46.2 30.2 16.3 14.0 43 30 13 100.0 69.8 30.2 100.0 69.8 30.2 5 2 3 100.0 40.0 60.0 11.6 4.7 7.0 5 100.0 11.6 25 21 4 100.0 84.0 16.0 58.1 48.8 9.3 25 100.0 58.1 9 34 43 20.9 79.1 100.0 20.9 79.1 100.0 Construction product

Kind of organisation Building contracting Frequency Percent within kind of organisation Percentage of total Civil engineering contracting Frequency Percetwithin kind of organisation Percentage of total General contracting Frequency Percent within kind oforganisation Percentage of total Total Frequency Percent within kind of organisation Percentage of total

Table II. Kind of organisation vs Criteria

No Work section Facility Location Management Yes Total No Yes Total No Yes Total No Yes Total No Yes Total No Yes Total Function 20 5 80.0 20.0 46.5 11.6 3 2 60.0 40.0 7.0 4.7 9 4 69.2 30.8 20.9 9.3 32 11 74.4 25.6 74.4 25.6 25 100.0 58.1 5 100.0 11.6 13 100.0 30.2 43 100.0 100.0

Pearson x 2 Work section Element Facility Construction aids Construction product Attributes Management Spaces Function Location Life cycle phases 0.508 0.436 0.216 0.371 0.048 0.053 0.360 0.368 0.566 0.445 0.182

x 2 tests Asymp.Sig. (2-sided) Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-linear association

0.547 0.520 0.221 0.353 0.049 0.053 0.351 0.383 0.576 0.429 0.177 0.840 0.581 0.140 0.172 0.040 0.020 0.346 0.163 0.426 0.220 0.728

Framework for work breakdown structure 395

Table III. x 2 tests Kind of organisation vs elements

Do you have a dened order or sequence? Frequency Valid Missing Total No Yes Total 27 11 38 3 41

Percentage 65.9 26.8 92.7 7.3 100.0

Table IV. Respondents with dened sequence for WBS

The following can be deduced from Table V: . Element is the most used criterion in Levels 1 and 2 but is more used in Level 2. It can therefore be concluded that a typical rigid structure will have elements as the decomposition criterion at Level 2. . The most used criteria at Level 1 after elements are facility/physical location. These are equally used and it can be concluded that these criteria are the most used at Level 1 amongst standardised sequences. . The most used criterion at Level 3 is work section. Although it is also the most used at Level 5, it is more used at Level 3. . Most used criterion at Level 4 is construction aids. . At Level 5, the most used is construction product. Figure 2 shows a generalised representation of the standardised order or sequence based on the most used criterion at each level. Following this sequence, irrespective of the order, will yield the same set of work packages at the end. The order in which the criteria are applied across the hierarchy denes the sequence of the structure. Ormerod (1983) noted that the rst level of the structure is normally the project, and proposed a sequence for subsequent levels based on operation, work section and location, in that order. However, Globerson (1994) has shown how the sequencing of the structure reects different management styles and organisational structures. In this regard, it is worth noting that so long as the 100 per cent rule (total work contents of child elements is exactly the work content of the parent element) is

CI 9,4

396

1 2 3 4 5 Elements Management Life cycle phases Work section Life cycle phases Elements 11 Element 10 Work section 10 Construction aids Function Physical location Management Spaces Work section Construction aids Elements Physical location Elements Construction aids

6 7 8 9 10 11

Total (N) Mode

Table V. Dened sequence for WBS Level 2 Elements Physical location Elements Work section Elements Work section Work section Work section Facility Facility Construction aids Construction product Construction aids Construction aids Work section Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Function Attributes 2 2 Level 8 Spaces Construction aids Management Construction product Life cycle phases Work section Work section Construction product 6 Work section/ const product

Level 1

Facility Elements Facility Elements Physical location

Physical location Elements Facility Elements Physical location Life cycle phases

11 Element

Level 1: Facility/physical location

Project

Framework for work breakdown structure

Name title

Level 2: Elements

Name title

Name title

397
Level 3: Work section
Name title Name title Name title

Level 4: Construction aids

Name title

Name title

Name title

Level 5: Construction product

Name title

Name title

Name title

WP1

WP2

WP3

WP4

WP5

Figure 2. Rigid sequence for the WBS

applied in subdividing each WBS element, the same set of work packages will be obtained irrespective of the order in which the criteria are applied. This study therefore adopts a sequence based on the frequency of use of each criterion, applying the most commonly used at the highest level, and then the next most commonly used at the next lower level. The trend continues to the lowest level where the least used criterion is applied. This sequence is similar to that followed by rigid approach (as shown on Figure 2). Denition of the criteria The denition of each of the decomposition criteria is critical to the successful development of the proposed generalised framework. Jung and Woo (2004) noted that the denitions vary from organisation to organisation and are often very subjective. In order to do away with the subjectivity and ensure clarity of meaning, this study simply adopts denitions based on standardised construction classication documents. This will serve to ensure common understanding of the proposed framework. Many standard documents that dene and classify these facets of information do exist. It is crucial therefore to identify the standard denition to adopt for each of the criteria. For the elements criterion, this study adopts the standard list of elements developed by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) since it is the most popular UK standard that denes and classies building elements. The BCIS (1996) denes an element as a part of a building which fulls a specic function or functions irrespective of its design, specication or construction. The main elements based on the BCIS are shown on Table VI. The CAWS is adopted for the denition of work sections since other documents that dene work sections (such as the SMM) are themselves based on it. A work section reects a type of construction activity requiring a certain skill applied to a particular

CI 9,4

398

Work sections (CAWS) Description M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 Testing equipment General equipment 2G 2H 3A 3B 3C 4A 5A 5B 5C 5D 2F 2D 2E Stairs External walls Windows and external doors Internal walls and partitions Internal doors Wall nishes Floor nishes Ceiling nishes Fittings and furnishings Sanitary appliances Services equipment Disposal installations Water installations 2A 2B 2C Frame Upper oors Roof 1 Substructure

A Preliminaries/general conditions

B Complete buildings/structures/units C Demolition/alteration/renovation D Groundwork

Table VI. Standard classications of decomposition criteria Construction aids (UNICLASS) Code Description Elements (BCIS) Code Description Location (Blyth et al. 2004) Code Description B G 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Basement Ground Floor First oor Second oor Third oor Fourth oor Successive oors Pumps for ground water lowering Formwork Scaffolding, shoring, fencing Lifting appliances and conveyors Construction vehicles Tunnelling, drilling, compaction Concrete, stone production (continued )

E F

In situ concrete/large precast concrete Masonry

G Structural/carcassing metal/timber

H J K L M N P Q R S

Cladding/covering Waterproong Linings/sheathing/dry partitioning Windows/doors/stairs Surface nishes Furniture/equipment Building fabric sundries Paving/planting/fencing/site furniture Disposal systems Piped supply systems

Work sections (CAWS) Description 5E 5F 5G 5H 51 5J 5K 5L 5M 5N 50 6A 6B 6C 6D Space heating and air treatment Ventilating systems Electrical installations Gas installations Lift and conveyors installations Protective installations Communication installations Special installations Builders work in connection with services Builders prot and attendance on services Site works Drainage External services Minor building works Heat source

Construction aids (UNICLASS) Code Description

Elements (BCIS) Code Description

Location (Blyth et al. 2004) Code Description

T Mechanical heating/cooling/refrigeration systems U Ventilation/air conditioning systems V Electrical supply/power/lighting systems W Communications/security/control systems X Transport systems Z Building fabric reference specication

Framework for work breakdown structure 399

Table VI.

CI 9,4

type of resource. It therefore relates to various trades and subcontractors who actually procure the work. CAWS denes a total of 360 work sections but for sake of brevity, Table VI shows only the main groupings. Table M of UNICLASS Classication of Construction Aids is adopted for the construction aids criterion. The term construction aid is dened by UNICLASS as:
[. . .] a material resource used in production, maintenance and demolition activities, but which are not intended for incorporation into, nor for furnishing or equipping construction entities.

400

Again, Table VI shows only the main classications. The authors are not aware of a standardised classication of the location criterion. The present study therefore simply adopts a classication based on oor level (e.g. rst oor, second oor, etc.) since this is the denition commonly adopted by planners (Blyth et al., 2004). Level of detail The level of detail reects the extent of decomposition and is therefore directly related to the number of decomposition criteria used across the WBS hierarchy. Raz and Globerson (1998) gave a helpful review of the factors to consider in deciding whether or not to further decompose. In this study, the level of detail is limited to the fth level in the hierarchy since this is the lowest level that can be achieved based on the four criteria employed. The proposed framework The framework is developed by analysing specic parts of the three standard documents that dene the decomposition criteria. It is clear that specic elements are related to specic work sections and construction aids. This relationship is identied for each element in the BCIS list. Figure 3 shows an overview of the framework. The framework is based on the notion that a building is a collection of building elements. Each of these elements is in turn constructed on the basis of one or more work sections, at a particular location, with the help of some construction aids. An instance of an element in an instance of a building may belong to one or more work sections, and an instance of a work section may apply to more than one element. Similarly, an instance of a work section may require one or more types of construction aids at one or more locations. In addition, an instance of a construction aid may be required for work relating to more than one work section. This many-to-many relationship that may exist in a given building necessitates the careful analysis of specic parts of the documents that dene the different criteria. It is not feasible to show the entire standardised WBS because of its size. However, since the principle is the same, only parts of the structure that relate to the rst four BCIS elements (substructure, frame, upper oor and roof) are demonstrated in Table VII. The highest Level (1) of the structure represents the project. Level 2 represents a subdivision of the entire project into the various BCIS elements. Each element is then subdivided into the various work sections that may be applicable to it in Level 3. Level 4 represents a subdivision of each work section into main work and the construction aids that may be required for the work. A caveat about this though, is the fact that some construction aids (e.g. scaffolding) are normally required by more

Element (BCIS) -Name -Code

1..* -Element

1..* -Element

IsContainedIn

1 -Building

Building project -Name

Framework for work breakdown structure 401

Belong To

1..*

-WorkSection

WorkSection (CAWS) -Name -Code -Main Work

-WorkSection 1

Contains -ConstructionAid 1..*

Construction aids (UNICLASS) -Name -Code

1..* -ConstructionAid

1..*

-WorkSection

IsUsedIn

1..* IsCarriedOutIn -Location 1..*

-Location

Location (Blyth et al) -Name

Figure 3. Framework overview

than a single work section. Such construction aids are lumped together as a single package. The nal Level (5) represents a breakdown by the physical location of the work. This is based on the particular oor level the work is situated. Again it should be noted that by denition, the location of some elements is already xed. The part of the structure that depicts such elements (roof and substructure) does not therefore require a breakdown by location. Table VII shows the various WBS elements and work packages. WBS elements at the lowest level of the structure are generally known as work packages. These represent levels where responsibilities for the performance of the work are assigned. Conclusion The need for a standardised WBS for building projects is clear. First, it will serve to ensure a truly computer-integrated approach to managing projects. This is essentially the case given the current object-oriented approach to modelling building information which makes it possible to store more information than just geometry in computer interpretable format, thereby facilitating the automation of the WBS. Second, it will serve as the basis for performance measurement not only within an organisation, but also across organisations, paving the way for industry-wide continuous improvement. This is particularly the case since a generic WBS will form a common language for all, whereby measurement and reporting are done on the same basis. This paper proposes a framework for a standardised WBS for building projects in the UK. This was based on an industry-wide survey that identied the most frequently used decomposition criteria in the development of WBS for building projects. In order to ensure clarity, the denitions of these criteria were based on standardised

CI 9,4

Work package Project Substructure Groundwork Main work Pumps In situ concrete/large precast concrete Main work Formwork Concrete production Masonry Main work Stone/block/brick production Structural/carcassing metal/timbe Waterproong Frame In situ concrete/large precast concrete Main work Basement Ground oor Successive oors Formwork Basement Ground oor Successive oors Concrete production Basement Ground oor Successive oors Structural/carcassing metal/timber Basement Ground oor Successive oors Upper oors In situ concrete/large precast concrete Main work Basement Ground oor Successive oors Formwork Basement Ground oor Successive oors Concrete production Basement Ground oor Successive oors Structural/carcassiing metal/timber Basement Ground oor Successive oors

WBS code 1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2 1.1.2 1.1.2.1 1.1.2.2 1.1.2.3 1.1.3 1.1.3.1 1.1.3.2 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.1.1 1.2.1.1.1 1.2.1.1.2 1.2.1.1.3 1.2.1.2 1.2.1.2.1 1.2.1.2.2 1.2.1.2.3 1.2.1.3 1.2.1.3.1 1.2.1.3.2 1.2.1.3.3 1.2.2 1.2.2.1 1.2.2.2 1.2.2.3 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.1.1 1.3.1.1.1 1.3.1.1.2 1.3.1.1.3 1.3.1.2 1.3.1.2.1 1.3.1.2.2 1.3.1.2.3 1.3.1.3 1.3.1.3.1 1.3.1.3.2 1.3.1.3.3 1.3.2 1.3.2.1 1.3.2.2 1.3.2.3 (continued )

402

Table VII. Proposed work package structure

Work package Roof Masonry Main work Stone production In situ concrete/large precast concrete Main work Formwork Concrete production Structural/carcassing metal/timber Cladding/covering Waterproong Windows/doors/stairs

WBS code 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.1.1 1.4.1.2 1.4.2 1.4.2.1 1.4.2.2 1.4.2.3 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5 1.4.6

Framework for work breakdown structure 403

Table VII.

construction classication documents. Yet, the study has a number of limitations. These relate to the fact that the standards documents adopted (BCIS standard list of elements and CAWS) are UK-based. In addition, the survey was conducted within a relatively small sample (180) of UK construction organisations. Hence, the framework may not be suitable for use internationally. Also, the relatively small sample size imposes a limitation on the extent to which the results could be generalised. Future work will employ the results of this study to develop a system for the automation of work package generation. The developed system will then be integrated with vision-based algorithms that will track and report progress of construction at work package level. The overall system will be an integrated planning and progress monitoring tool.
References APM (2006), APM Body of Knowledge, 5th ed., APM, New York, NY. Atkin, B. (1993), Stereotypes and themes in building designs: insights for model builders, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 119-30. BCIS (1996), BCIS Elements for Design and Build, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London. Blyth, K. and Kaka, A. (2006), A novel multiple linear regression model for forecasting S-curves, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 82-95. Blyth, K., Lewis, J. and Kaka, A. (2004), Developing a framework for a standardised works programme for building projects in the UK, Construction Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 193-210. BSI (2000), Project Management Part 2: Vocabulary BS6079:2:2000, British Standard Institution, London. Chang, A.S-T. and Tsai, Y-w. (2003), Engineering information classication system, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 454-60. Colenso, K. (2000), Creating the work breakdown structure, Artemis Management Systems. Eldin, N.N. (1989), Measurement of work progress: quantitative technique, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 115 No. 3, pp. 462-87.

CI 9,4

Garcia-Fornieles, J.M., Fan, I.S., Perez, A., Wainwright, C. and Sehdev, K. (2003), A work breakdown structure that integrates different views in aircraft modication projects, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 47-54. Globerson, S. (1994), Impact of various work-breakdown structures on project conceptualization, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 165-71.

404

Gray, C. and Little, J. (1985), The classication of work packages to determine the relationship between design and construction, Occasional paer No. 18, Department of Construction Management and Economics, University of Reading, Reading. Haugan, G.T. (2002), Effective Work Breakdown Structures, Management Concepts, Vienna. Hua, G.B. and Leen, C.Y. (2002), Developing national standards for the classication of construction Information in ingapore, paper presented at International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, CIB W78 Conference, Aarhus School of Archtecture, Aarhus. Ibrahim, Y.M., Kaka, A.P., Trucco, E., Kagioglou, M. and Ghassan, A. (2007), Semi automatic development of thework breakdown structure (WBS) for construction projects, Proceedings of the 4th International SCRI Research Symposium, Salford. ISO (1994), Classication of Information in the Construction Industry, Technical Report 14177, ISO, Geneva. ISO (2001), Building construction organisation of information about construction works, ISO 12006-2:2001, ISO, Geneva. Jung, Y. (2005), Integrated cost and schedule control: variables for theory and implementation, paper presented at Construction Research Congress, San Diego, CA. Jung, Y. and Kang, S. (2007), Knowledge-based standard progress measurement for integrated cost and schedule performance control, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 10-21. Jung, Y. and Woo, S. (2004), Flexible work breakdown structure for integrated cost and schedule control, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 5, pp. 616-25. Kang, L.S. and Paulson, B.C. (1997), Adaptability of information classication system for civil works, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 123 No. 4, pp. 419-26. Nkado, R.N. (1992), Construction time information system for the building industry, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 10, pp. 489-509. Ormerod, R. (1983), A hierarchy approach to work packages and the structuring of project information, Occasional Paper No. 11, Department of Construction Management and Economics, University of Reading, Reading. PMI (2001), Project Management Institute Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structure, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA. Rad, P.F. (1999), Advocating a deliverable-oriented work breakdown structure, Cost Engineering, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 35-9. Raz, T. and Globerson, S. (1998), Effective sizing and content denition of work packages, Project Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 17-23. Voivedich, B.E., White, R.E. and Aghili, H.K. (2001), Development and implementation of a standard WBS for offshore construction, paper presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX.

Further reading Allot, T. (Ed.) (1998), Common Arrangement of Work Sections for Building Works, Construction Project Information Committee, Newcastle upon Tyne. Crawford, M., Cann, J. and O Leary, R. (Eds) (1997), Unied Classication for the Construction Industry, RIBA, London. RICS (1996), Elements for Design and Build, The Building Cost Information Service, London. Corresponding author Yahaya Makar Ibrahim can be contacted at: ymi6@hw.ac.uk

Framework for work breakdown structure 405

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints