Ž .Automation in Construction 8 1999 651–662www.elsevier.comrlocaterautcon

The use of electronic information exchange on constructionalliance projects

A.N. Baldwin ), A. Thorpe, C. CarterDepartment of CiÕil and Building Engineering, Loughborough UniÕersity, Loughborough, UK

Accepted 29 October 1998

Abstract

Several methods of electronic data transfer are available to construction organisations and their clients. TheseŽ .technologies are collectively called Information Exchange IE . This paper reviews partnering, alliances and Information

Exchange. A case study involving a major industrial project constructed under an alliance agreement was used to highlightthe important issues relating to these areas of study. This study also provided the focus for a survey of 67 major constructionorganisations. The findings of this survey confirmed that construction alliance and IE have reciprocating benefits whichtogether produce a significant impact on the project. q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Alliances; EDI; Electronic information exchange; Partnering; Electronic commerce

1. Introduction

The construction industry does not have a goodw xrecord of completing projects on time 1 . With such

a poor record it is not surprising that a recent surveyw x2 , found that in UK 52% of all construction pro-jects end with some type of claim. The constructionindustry is renowned for the adversarial nature of therelationship between the parties concerned. Tired ofthe traumas of litigation, construction clients havesought ways of preventing and resolving construc-tion disputes. Their aim has been to find new formsof agreement to secure the delivery of the facilitiesthey require on time, at cost and to the specificationrequired without the threat of claims and arbitration.

) Corresponding author

One such technique is partnering. Partnering isessentially a consensus building process that re-orientates the parties from a ‘them and us’ mentality

w xto a ‘we’ mentality 3 . Partnering may be ‘strategic’,or ‘project’ based. The latter is also known as analliance: several organisations aligned with each otherfor mutual benefit on a project basis, sharing therisks and rewards and eliminating the adversarialrelationships normally found on construction pro-jects. The introduction of such new business pro-cesses has required construction organisations andtheir clients to review existing business methods andevaluate new techniques and new technologies. Con-struction organisations have sought to discover howthis form of agreement may best be used on con-struction projects. This debate still continues andfocuses on such issues as: suitable types of project;the roles of the key personnel; contractual arrange-

0926-5805r99r$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Ž .PII: S0926-5805 98 00110-1

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662652

w xments; and implications for the supply chain 4 . Thewriters contend that added to these issues should bethat of information exchange and information man-agement.

From the inception of the construction projectthrough its design, construction, mobilisation, opera-tion and demolition all parties involved with theproject are dependant upon information. The infor-mation may be commercial, such as a purchaseorder, financial, such as an instruction for paymentor technical, such as graphical information on a

w xdrawing 5 . Experts have estimated that if this infor-mation could be managed effectively then savings ofup to 25% in the cost of construction could be

w xachieved 6 . Parallel to the emergence of new meth-ods of procurement has been the development ofnew technologies for electronic data transfer. These

Ž .include Electronic Data Interchange EDI , Elec-Ž .tronic mail E-mail , Document Image Processing,

and CAD Data Exchange. These are known collec-Ž .tively as Information Exchange IE . In some indus-

tries, these technologies have had a considerableimpact upon the business processes and have re-sulted in new ways of working. Our research hasfound that few construction organisations are cur-rently using IE on a regular basis, either internally or

w xwith their business partners 7 . This is in directcontradiction to those who argue that, in the currentconstruction market, organisations need to share orexchange information quickly within their own or-ganisations, and to and from their business partnersanywhere in the world, and that the latest communi-

w xcation technologies should be applied 5 .This paper focuses on this important issue of IE

within projects constructed under alliance agree-ments. Following a review of the background to IEand partnering a case study where IE was used tofacilitate information sharing is described. Details ofthis case study are reviewed and the benefits of theIE assessed. This is followed by summary resultsfrom a questionnaire survey undertaken to obtain abetter overall view of the use of IE on other projectsconstructed under alliance agreements.

2. Information exchange

This section summarises Electronic Data Inter-Ž . Ž .change EDI , Information Exchange IE , and Multi

Ž .Format Exchange MFE , and discusses their appli-cation within the construction industry.

2.1. Electronic Data Interchange, EDI

EDI has been defined as ‘‘the transmission in astandard syntax of unambiguous information of busi-ness or strategic significance between computers of

w xindependent organisations’’ 8 . The essential featureof EDI is the structured nature of the data transfer,enabling the data to be integrated into the recipient’sinternal database system with no manual interven-tion. A number of standards exist to ensure theintegrity of the data, and its presentation in a univer-sally acceptable format, including the three majorEDI standards utilised for the transfer of commercialdata in the UK: Tradacoms; ANSI X12; and EDI-

w xFACT 9 .EDI has had considerable impact on the banking,

manufacturing and retailing industries. The benefitsof this technology have been readily acknowledgedin these industries since the 1980s and the use ofEDI is now a prerequisite for industry participation.The main benefits from EDI have been stated as:reductions in paper handling and clerical costs; elim-ination of data re-keying; reductions in data process-ing errors; savings in mail costs; increased produc-tion efficiency; and a reduction in supply and distri-

w xbution cost 10 .ŽA number of messages particular structures of

data for exchange between trading partners conform-.ing to EDI standards are available for use in the

construction industry covering all aspects of the trad-ing cycle. For construction, a number of industryspecific messages have also been designed to aug-ment those adopted from other sectors. These includethe transfer of bills of quantities, tenders and valua-

w xtions 11 . These have been developed by EDICON,the industry group established in the UK to promoteEDI and develop appropriate message standards.

EDI is only one form of electronic data exchange.Whilst the existence of other technologies is indis-putable, how they inter-relate and their potential andanticipated use in construction is widely debated. Inthis paper these issues are discussed under the sub-

Ž .headings of Multi Format Exchange MFE , andŽ .Information Exchange IE .

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662 653

2.2. Multi Format Exchange, MFE

MFE is the name given to EDI where additionaldata are appended to the main EDIFACT messageeither by embedding the data or by attaching the datavia another linked transmission. Whilst the electronictransfer of drawings has become widely accepted bythe use of standards such as DXF, these formats arenot particularly suitable for the ordering of materialswhere, in addition to purchase order information,there is a requirement to include a simple sketch

Žshowing the dimensions of the materials item thesesketches are less formal than construction drawings,

.and may not produced on CAD workstations . Thiscan be achieved by attaching a graphics file to themain message. EDICON and other European organi-sations are currently surveying users to identify theformats used for the transmission of such informa-

w xtion and how the data is combined 12 .

2.3. Information Exchange, IE

The simplest form of IE is the exchange of textfiles, usually in the standard ASCII format, usingfloppy disks. This type of data transfer originated onan informal basis but has become accepted practicein many parts of the industry. Examples located inour industry search included the experience of some

w xLocal Authorities for tender bid submissions 13 .E-mail is another form of IE, and may become

one of the core technologies for data exchange andw xsharing in the future 14 . E-mail enables informal

communications within and between organisations,with advanced systems providing workflow applica-tions which can organise the transition of data through

w xan organisation and keep track of its progress 15 .To date, the use of E-mail in construction has beenpredominantly by the larger construction organisa-tions who have sought to link personnel in theiroffices over Local and Wide Area Networks. Asurvey undertaken by the Construction Industry

Ž . w xComputing Association CICA 16 , anticipated arapid growth in the use of E-mail within UK con-struction which was expected to increase to 41% ofthe companies surveyed by the end of 1995.

2.4. Lack of use of EDI in the construction industry

Our research revealed that few construction or-ganisations are currently using any form of EDI on a

regular basis. Despite the attractions of EDI to theconstruction industry and the energies of EDICON,construction organisations have failed to adopt thetechnology as anticipated at the start of the decade.Surveys such as those instigated by the CICA and

w xPeat Marwick McLintock 16,17 , forecast some 15%of construction organisations would be using EDI by1995. These forecasts have proved to be optimisticwith the current level of EDI use in construction

w xreported by Akintoye and McKellar 18 as 8% forcontractors and 11% for subcontractors, althoughmore organisations are considering implementation.

w xThe findings of other researchers 19 , indicate thatthe EDI applications that do exist are generallyconcentrated between builders’ merchants and theirsuppliers, and are restricted to the receipt and ap-proval of invoices.

It is significant that at this point in time the CITEŽ .Construction Industry Trading Electronically group,which includes all the major UK construction organi-sations and representatives of the major QS practiceshave, whilst recognising the importance of the trans-fer of Bill of Quantities Data, shunned the EDIFACTmessage standard and the use of EDI, preferring toadopt their own standard for BoQ data using floppy

w xdisks 20 .

3. Partnering and the construction alliance

3.1. Definition

Partnering is ‘‘A relationship based upon trust,dedication to common goals and an understanding ofeach other’s individual expectations and values. Ex-pected benefits include improved efficiency andcost-effectiveness, increased opportunity for innova-tion and the continuous improvement of quality

w xproducts and services’’ 21 .There are two different partnering options: strate-

gic partnering, where organisations work togetherover a series of projects; or project partnering, wherecompanies work together on a one-off basis for a

w xsingle project 22 . Such relationships may involveonly two parties or may be extended to include anynumber of organisations. The strategic approach mayextend to aiming to become acknowledged world

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662654

leaders in a particular field of construction servicesw x23 .

One common form of partnering is known as analliance. The dictionary defines an alliance as ‘‘a

w xunion or association formed for mutual benefit’’ 24 .Another definition is ‘‘several organisations alignedwith each other for mutual benefit on a project basis,sharing the risks and rewards and eliminating theadversarial relationships normally found on construc-

w xtion projects’’ 25 .An alliance is therefore a particular form of part-

nering which may include the client organisation andseveral others including contractors, suppliers, etc.The aim is to secure partnership in the provision ofall the functions necessary from initial design throughto construction and maintenance. An alliance mayinclude several contractors who would normally beconsidered as competitors, but have joined togetheras each can supply specialist services for the project.The aim is therefore to produce a business relation-ship where: all parties seek win–win solutions; valueis placed on long term relationships; trust and open-ness are norms; all are encouraged to openly addressany problems; all understand that no one benefitsfrom the exploitation of others; innovation is encour-aged; each partner is aware of the other’s needs,concerns, and objectives, and is interested in helping

w xtheir partner to achieve their aims 26 .

3.2. The benefits of partnering

The main objective of partnering is to meet theclient’s requirements in the most cost effective wayw x27 . Partnering brings substantial cost savings to theclient. The ‘Trusting the Team’ report states that inproject partnerships companies can expect to seesavings of 10%. In strategic partnerships savings of

w x30% are achievable over time 22 . The benefitshowever go beyond cost savings. In both strategicand project partnering there is the opportunity toincrease profitability and competitiveness. Partneringcan deliver better designs, avoid defects, make theconstruction process safer, reduce claims and resultin a project team that genuinely enjoy the experienceof working together. For those contractors and sup-pliers engaged in strategic partnering, the benefitsare continuity of work, the ability to plan resources,better control of quality, and the ability to train staff

w x27 . It should be noted however that all these bene-fits are not achieved instantaneously. The ‘Trusting

w xThe Team’ report 22 , stresses that it takes time toaccrue the full benefits of partnering.

3.3. The case study

The project studied was the construction of anoffshore oil installation. The entire project was let onan alliance basis with ten major partners. The client’seconomic analysis of the oil-field showed it to bemarginal, so a reduction in cost in the order of 50%from the original cost estimates was required tomake it a viable investment. An alliance includingBrown and Root, the design engineering manage-ment organisation was formed to design and con-struct the installation. The contract provided bonusesor penalties to all the partners, awarded proportion-ally according to the risk each organisation faced inthe project. To facilitate a rapid completion at such areduced cost, the partners had to be entirely commit-ted to providing each other with all the data theyrequired, and in a timely manner, and work closelyto realise mutual benefits. A good illustration of thiswas in the design of the pipework on the platform.On previous projects, the design engineer wouldproduce a ‘design’ drawing, and send it to the fabri-cation yard. The fabricator would then re-draft andamend the drawing to produce a construction or‘fabrication’ drawing. On this project, a small teamfrom the fabrication yard was situated in the designengineers’ offices. Working with the designers, acomplete set of fabrication drawings were produceddirectly from the 3D CAD model, with the minimumof work required at the fabrication yard. This pro-vided more accurate data, and reduced the overallcost and time of the drawing stage.

4. The application of IE in construction alliances

4.1. IE as a core element in alliances

This research sought to investigate the role of IEin partnering and alliance projects. There did notappear to be any extensive research into the use ofIE on these types of project. The basis of anypartnering arrangement is openness and the sharing

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662 655

of information between the business partners. Howwas this achieved on a typical alliance project?Given the lack of enthusiasm for IE amongst themajor construction organisations, was partnering acatalyst for a change in attitude? Could IE enhanceand extend the basis of partnering agreements byproviding a platform for more efficient working andnew services to the client? Could partnering and IEproduce a symbiotic relationship that brought aboutbenefits far above those that may be achieved sepa-rately? These were some of the questions that thisresearch sought to investigate through the case studyand then the subsequent survey.

4.2. The IE infrastructure on the Andrew Project

The use of IT in the process industry is consider-ably more widespread than in the general construc-tion industry. Greater investment in technology hasgenerally provided access to computing facilities forall staff, and they are therefore more familiar withthe application of technology than those in generalconstruction. This provides a platform on whichproject communications can be considerably im-proved without prohibitive training costs. On theAndrew Project, for example, everyone in the designorganisation has access to E-mail, and most partnershave at least some E-mail links.

This ability to communicate effectively with otherorganisations has been developed further, withthe implementation of a central server to receiveand distribute project communications. The serveris based on a conventional EDI system from a major

Ž .VAN Value Added Network service supplier, Gen-Ž .eral Electric Information Services GEIS . The sys-

tem provides a complete audit trail of all commu-nications sent within the Andrew alliance, withcontrolled security and access.

On the Andrew Project the system was intro-duced, albeit not in its final form, to assist with thedesign and fabrication of the pipework on the plat-form. Representatives from the fabrication yard,Trafalgar House Offshore Engineering, worked inthe design office with Brown and Root. Fabricationdrawings were produced directly from the 3D CADmodel and were later printed remotely at the fabrica-tion yard over a network link. This obviously im-proves the speed and reliability of drawing delivery.

However, this is only a small improvement on aconventional drawing exchange process, which canbe achieved in several ways. The major developmenton the Andrew Project was the extraction of datafrom Brown and Root’s 3D CAD system. These datawas sent to the fabricators in Teesside over a Megas-tream link. A program received and checked thecontents of the transmission for integrity of the data.It was then mapped directly into the Trafalgar Housedatabase. This automatically provided a number ofdata fields, such as the drawing names and numbers,the type and number of welds in a pipe, its length,size and details of fittings. Previously, these datawould have been taken manually from isometricdrawings produced by the fabricators draughtingteam. With the provision of this data in electronicformat the effort of re-keying is removed, and obvi-ously the quality of the data is improved. The IEsystem ensured that the transfer of this data wascarried out in a controlled manner, to guarantee thesecurity of both organisations systems, and satisfiedboth parties requirements for improved data deliverywithout sacrificing quality.

The long-term objective of this development workwas to set up an electronic network, which willconnect all the suppliers and partners to the clientand the rig, for use throughout the operational life ofthe installation. This would then remove a completecommercial interface from the procurement process,and assist with cost savings.

4.3. The benefits of IE on the Andrew Project

The case study identified the following benefits ofusing IE: guaranteed delivery of data; improvedquality of data; reduced data handling; improvedcommunication between the alliance partners; andreduced risk of project delay. Through the use of IEdata delivery was guaranteed. The system providedautomatic data management and a full audit trail. Itwas possible to ensure that pipeline details and draw-ings had been received by the contractor and toprovide a record of the time and date of transmis-sion. The quality of data received by the fabricatorswas enhanced as there was no risk of transcriptionerrors through the re-keying of data. Communicationlinks between the parties concerned were improvedand the inefficiencies of waiting for information to

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662656

be delivered via other members of the alliance orŽ .third parties e.g., courier companies , were re-

moved. The risk of delay to the project was reducedbecause the improved communication ensured thatdata were delivered quicker. If after design checksrevisions were required, these could be obtainedfrom the design team at very short notice.

These benefits resulted in not only shorter deliv-ery times but also improved general communicationsand teamwork between the personnel involved. Oncethe inevitable technical ‘teething troubles’ had beenovercome and the procedures for transmission andreceipt of information agreed, then the informationexchange facilities improved not only the productiv-ity of individuals, but also helped to contribute to theoverall team-spirit. The receipt of data earlier ratherthan later meant more time to check the correctnessof the proposed design. Any amendments becamecarefully considered solutions to the problem, notquick ‘fixes’ to problems necessitated by fear ofdelaying the construction team. This meant lesschanges and less frustration to all parties concerned.

5. The questionnaire survey

To augment the findings from the ‘Andrew Pro-ject’ it was decided to survey representatives of themember organisations of the European Construction

Ž .Institute ECI , to obtain their views of the use of IEon PartneringrAlliance Projects. The ECI is a re-search organisation whose member organisationscomprise some of the largest client, engineering andconstruction organisations within the UK and Eu-rope. The ECI was selected for the survey samplebecause of the range of construction projects withwhich the member organisations are involved. Inaddition, a previous meeting held by the ECI on thesubject of Partnering had attracted considerable de-bate. Therefore, a good response to the survey couldbe anticipated.

Two copies of a three page questionnaire surveydocument were forwarded to each of the memberorganisations with a request that two senior projectmanagers complete and return the document. Thesurvey document was designed to obtain responsesnot only from those who had experience of partner-

ing projects but also those who did not. In this way itwould be possible to ascertain whether senior man-agers’ experiences of project partnering met theirexpectations. To ensure a high response rate thesurvey document was prepared with the adoption of

w xthe best practice identified by Hoinville et al. 28 ,w x w xFowler 29 , and Prescott 30 . It comprised both

closed and open questions. The respondents wereinvited not only to confirm specific statements butalso to indicate their strength of feeling and toexpand on their statements with appropriate com-ments. A draft version of the questionnaire wastested by inviting an independent party to review thequestions and identify any part of the questionnairethat was ambiguous.

6. The analysis of the survey data

One hundred and twenty questionnaire documentswere issued. Sixty-three responses were received ofwhich four were incomplete. This gave a responserate of 49%. The responses were almost evenlydivided between those that had experience of projectpartnering and those that did not. All the respondentswere senior managers or project managers withintheir respective organisations. The majority of themwere employed by contractors or design and con-struct organisations. When analysed by industrysector there was a predominance of organisationsinvolved with offshore construction. This was con-firmed with an analysis of the type of projects inwhich those with project partnering experience hadtaken part. The majority of these were large con-struction projects valued between £50 million and£500 million. The distribution of the respondents bytype of organisation and industry sector is shown inFigs. 1 and 2.

The survey focused on the following issues: majororganisations views on project partnering; whether

Ž .Electronic Information Exchange EIE is essentialfor successful partnering; the different types of EIEcurrently being used; the functions within an organi-sation that benefit most from IE; and the organisa-tional changes that result from the introduction of IE.Each of these issues is considered below togetherwith a summary of the findings.

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662 657

Fig. 1. Distribution of respondents by type of organisation.

Fig. 2. Distribution of respondents by industry sector.

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662658

6.1. Major organisations’ Õiews on project partner-ing

Fifty-eight percent of the respondents consideredthat project partnering was the only way to obtainthe cost savings currently required by constructionclients. Forty percent considered that it was only byentering project partnering agreements that construc-tion organisations would survive the current eco-nomic recession. These results indicate how impor-tant project partnering is viewed by both those withdirect experience of this type of project and thosewho were only aware of this form of procurementthrough industry journals or their colleagues withinthe industry. Several respondents indicated that anoption such as project partnering could never beconsidered the only way to obtain cost savings butthat project partnering was probably the best way toreduce costs.

6.2. Was IE essential for successful partnering?

Given that alliances were extremely important toconstruction organisations, was IE essential for effec-tive partnering? Eighty-two percent of the respon-

dents who had no experience of project partneringthought that fast effective IE would facilitate projectpartnering. Ninety-four percent of the respondentswho had experience of project partnering consideredEIE to be essential. Therefore, it was widely recog-nised that project partnering can only succeed withthe sharing of project information. Any informationrelating to the project must be distributed quickly,efficiently and accurately. EIE was clearly the mostappropriate medium for the distribution of projectinformation.

6.3. What types of IE were currently being used?

What types of IE were currently being used? TheŽ .results, displayed in Fig. 3 , show that a number of

different IE technologies exist but no one technologypredominates. Organisations select the forms of ex-change most suitable for the style of the project, thelevel of communication required, and appropriate totheir business partners. The respondents to the sur-

Ž .vey identified in descending order of importance ,CAD, E-mail and ASCII file transfer to be the mostimportant. To the proponents of other technologiessuch as Document Imaging or EDI these results

Fig. 3. Current EIE in use.

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662 659

Fig. 4. Essential EIE for project partnering.

would appear disappointing with simple establishedtechnologies being adopted. The findings comple-

w xment those of Graham et al. 31 , who indicate thatorganisations adopting these technologies in otherbusiness sectors favour an incremental approach. Theresults emphasise the need for agreed standards andsimple solutions to the problem of data exchange.Fig. 4 shows the forms of IE considered essential foreffective partnering.

6.4. The functions within an organisation that benefitmost from IE

The functions to benefit most from IE are repre-sented in Fig. 5. The organisations who had used IEon partnering projects stated that Project Manage-ment, Materials Procurement and Cost Control werethe functions that benefited most from IE. The lim-ited space afforded to this question in the surveydocument did not allow a detailed analysis of theseresponses. The written comments added by the re-spondents do however indicate that when anticipat-ing the benefits of EIE it is important not to focusattention on the traditional application functions

within organisations. Project partnering changes theway organisations work. Hence the use of EIE forProject Partnering reflects not a predominant prefer-ence for formal Project Management systems, ratherthe use of EIE for the general collation and distribu-tion of management information.

6.5. The organisational changes resulting from IE

None of the respondents involved with projectpartnering had instigated organisational changes as adirect result of IE. Several organisations had how-

Žever instigated organisational changes such as team.working , to meet the requirements of this new way

of working.The results of this part of the survey are best

illustrated by typical comments from those received:

There were no specific organisational changes, onlya wider understanding of key issues across the organ-isation.

There was a willingness to agree to mutually accept-able standards of practice and systems.

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662660

Fig. 5. Functions to benefit from EIE.

The result was a ‘mushrooming’ of IT support re-quirements of a quantum proportion.

Communication changes included single person re-porting and stronger inter-company relationships.

Project partnering results in organisations creatingthe project teams and structures required to meet thedemands of the project, not to facilitate IE. Neverthe-less, several respondents indicated that although therewere no organisational changes as a result of IE thiswas only ‘to date’. This indicates that, as experienceof IE develops, it may result in changes to theorganisational structure and more distributed work-ing.

6.6. Client demands for contract documentation inelectronic format

This question in the survey was a direct result ofthe experience of the ‘Andrew Project’ case studywhere the client had requested that all project docu-mentation should be supplied to them in electronicform. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents with

project partnering experience indicated that the clienthad requested contract records in such a form pre-sumably to facilitate ongoing maintenance. Thisshows the importance of such systems to those clientorganisations seeking to enter this form of procure-ment. Clearly construction organisations must beprepared to meet these demands with new ways ofworking. This should be viewed as a business oppor-tunity not an obligation.

7. Conclusions

This paper has reviewed the introduction of IE ona typical alliance project. This case study identifiedthe following benefits of using IE: guaranteed deliv-ery of data; improved quality of data; reduced datahandling; improved communication between the al-liance partners; and reduced risk of project delay.The findings have been supported by data from aquestionnaire survey. These results show many con-struction organisations consider that project partner-ing is the only way to obtain the level of costsavings currently expected by construction clients. Itwas widely recognised that project partnering can

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662 661

only succeed with the sharing of project information.Any information relating to the project must bedistributed quickly, efficiently and accurately. IEwas clearly the most appropriate medium for thedistribution of project information. The respondentsto the survey identified CAD data transfer, E-mailand ASCII file transfer to be the most importantforms of IE. Project Management, Materials Procure-ment and Cost Control were the main functions tobenefit most from IE. None of the respondents in-volved with project partnering had instigated organi-sational changes as a direct result of IE. However, asexperience of IE develops, it may result in changesto the organisational structure and more distributedworking.

The research has shown the potential of the ex-tended use of IE. Since conducting the originalsurvey the term Electronic Commerce has becomemore widely accepted as representing this group oftechnologies. Irrespective of the name used it isapparent that, given the lack of enthusiasm for thesetechnologies amongst the major construction organi-sations, partnering is a catalyst for a change inattitude towards IE. The use of IE or Electric Com-merce on such projects is seen by the writers as animportant aspect of the development of the relation-ships between the alliance partners. With the com-mitment of all the alliance partners these technolo-gies can enhance and extend the basis of partneringagreements by providing a platform for more effi-cient working and new services to the client. Withthe increasing trend for the client to demand compre-hensive information relating to the design, construc-tion and maintenance of construction projects thisform of IE will form the only viable method of datacollection, storage and retrieval.

References

w x1 World Bank, Annual Review of Performance Results, WorldŽ .Bank, New York 1990 .

w x2 D. Onyango, Reduction of conflicts in construction, MScProject Report, Department of Civil and Building Engineer-ing, Loughborough University of Technology, Loughbor-

Ž .ough, UK 1993 .w x3 C.J. Wall, The dispute resolution adviser in the construction

industry, in: Construction Conflict Management and Resolu-Ž .tion, E&F.N. Spon 1992 , pp. 202–208.

w x4 European Construction Institute, ECI, Documentation for anevening meeting of ECI members, ECI, Loughborough Uni-

Ž .versity of Technology, Loughborough, UK 1995 .w x5 Cranfield School of Management, EDI in the Construction

Industry, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, UKŽ .1993 .

w x6 New Civil Engineer, News Analysis in New Civil Engineer,the magazine of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 4th April1991, Thomas Telford, p. 15.

w x7 A.N. Baldwin, T. Thorpe, C. Carter, Data exchange inconstruction: EDI or MFE or IE? in: Proceedings of the SixthInternational Conference in Civil and Structural Engineering

Ž .Computing, Civil Comp Press, Edinburgh 1995 .w x8 ANSI X12rDISA, X12rDISA Information Manual, Alexan-

Ž .dria, VA, USA 1993 .w x9 A. Thorpe, A.N. Baldwin, T. Lewis, Data exchange stan-

dards for the construction industry, International Journal ofŽ . Ž .Construction Information Technology 2 2 1993 65–84.

w x10 EDIBUILD, In The Process of Construction, EDIBUILDŽ .1994 .

w x Ž .11 EDICON, October 1994 Newsletter, EDICON 1994 .w x12 EDICON, User Requirements for the Multi Format Exchange

Concerning UNrEDIFACT, distributed at the 1995 EDICONAnnual Conference.

w x13 I. Jenkinson, Electronic data interchange of contract docu-ments—a call for a code of practice, in: Proceedings of theInstitution of Civil Engineers Municipal Engineer, Vol. 93,September 1993, pp. 157–160.

w x14 J. Carroll, Electronic mail, workflow and you, CMA Maga-Ž . Ž .zine 67 5 1993 IM9–IM11.

w x15 K. Hales, Workflow management: an overview of someapplications, Information Management and Technology 26Ž . Ž .5 1993 203–221.

w x16 CICA, Building on IT for quality: a survey of informationtechnology trends and needs in the construction industry,

Ž .Peat Marwick McLintock Publications, London 1993 .w x17 CICA, Building on IT for the 90’s: a survey of Information

technology trends and needs in the construction industry,Ž .Peat Marwick McLintock Publications, London 1990 .

w x18 A. Akintoye, T. McKellar, Electronic data interchange in theUK construction industry, RICS Research Paper Series, Vol.2, No. 4, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,February 1997, ISBN 0-85406-816-3.

w x19 M. O’Brien, A. Al-Soufi, A survey of data communicationsin the construction industry, Construction Management and

Ž .Economics 12 1994 457–465.w x20 A.N. Baldwin, A. Thorpe, C. Carter, An internal survey

report on the Construction Industry Trading ElectronicallyGroup, CITE, Department of Civil and Building Engineering,Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough, UKŽ .1995 .

w x21 NEDC Construction Industry Sector Group, Partnering: Con-tracting Without Conflict, National Economic Development

Ž .Office, NEDO, London 1991 .w x22 Centre For Strategic Studies, Trusting The Team, The Centre

For Strategic Studies, Reading University, Reading, UKŽ .1995 .

( )A.N. Baldwin et al.rAutomation in Construction 8 1999 651–662662

w x23 J. Smit, Trusting the partner, in: New Civil Engineer, TheMagazine of the Institution of Civil Engineers, June 22,1995, Thomas Telford, pp. 14–15.

w x24 R. Scott, Competitive advantage through alliancing, in: Pro-ceedings of the 6th European Conference of the EuropeanConstruction Institute, ECI, Loughborough University of

Ž .Technology, Loughborough, UK 1994 .w x25 C. Carter, Research Interviews with Brown and Root UK,

Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughbor-Ž .ough University of Technology, Loughborough, UK 1995 .

w x26 Construction Industry Institute, CII, Partnering: Strategic Al-liances, The Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX,

Ž .USA 1994 .

w x27 M.P. Nicholson, Peace, love and harmony, in: ConstructionŽ .Conflict Management and Resolution, E&F.N. Spon 1992 ,

pp. 202–208.w x28 G. Hoinville, R. Jowell, et al., Survey Research Practice,

Ž .London 1977 .w x29 F. Fowler, Survey Research Methods, Sage Publications,

Ž .USA 1993 .w x30 C.P. Prescott, Tenant Feedback: A Step by Step Guide to

Ž .Tenant Satisfaction Surveys, HMSO, London 1993 .w x31 Graham et al., Diversity in the emergence of electronic

Ž .commerce, Journal of Information Technology 11 1996161–172.