Managing Construction Change Orders: Analysis and Critique

Introduction

Throughout the lifecycle of construction projects, a myriad of potential factors can influence the scope of work, period of performance, and budget. In the peer-reviewed article Effective Management of Project Change Orders (Douglas, 2003), the author provides a theoretical framework explaining how change orders can be used to mitigate the risks and interruptions that are inevitable in construction projects. He also provides prescriptive guidance on how to optimize the constraints of work scope, the period of performance or timeframe for a given project, and the budgetary considerations that every project must contend with.

What emerges from the optimization examples and frameworks given is a lifecycle-based approach to defining change order systems that align with the planning and design, bid and award, and construction phases of a project. It is common knowledge that the longer a project's duration, the more challenging it is to change requirements, with the final phases being the most difficult to modify. The author describes a constraint-based view of these trade-offs in the context of a large-scale construction project within the scope of the presented analysis.

Analysis and Critique of Effective Management of Change Orders

In the peer-reviewed article Effective Management of Project Change Orders (Douglas, 2003), the author defines a series of concepts and frameworks aligned to each phase of a large-scale construction project, using the triad-based constraint model of scope of work, period of performance, and budget to define the parameters of analysis. Using these parameters as the foundation, the author provides insightful analysis of how change orders can serve as a catalyst for continual improvement in the fulfillment of each project phase.

One of the shortcomings of this analysis is the author's failure to provide stronger allegorical references and clear definitions of how the lessons learned can be readily applied to other industries or across more complex, interdependent projects. There is little guidance on how to recover from the nearly fatal errors of continually modifying complex projects in the middle and final stages of development. The author identifies these aspects of change orders as potentially fatal yet fails to provide a solid foundation for resolving these dilemmas (Douglas, 2003).

Another significant observation concerns the research's treatment of stakeholder coordination. The findings show that stakeholders involved in a large-scale project — including owners, architects, and key members of the construction firm — all need to be coordinated with one another. There is ample evidence from standards definition efforts across the construction industry that the development of collaboration platforms, processes, and programs pays dividends when embedded into the culture of an organization (Doyle, Molnar, & Brown, 2008). As established best practices demonstrate, managing change in a construction project involves repeated iterations of involvement and a continual reinforcing of trust and communication. Without these aspects solidified in the foundational culture of a project, change itself has the potential to derail even the best-managed project teams.

The broader literature on change management strongly implies the need for clear accountability and transparency, including the development of trust within and between teams and individuals. Yet in Effective Management of Project Change Orders (Douglas, 2003), these critical factors are not mentioned, and there is no implied or expressed integration of trust into the overall structure of change orders or, more specifically, change management. Instead, the author continually concentrates on scope, time, and budget as the three most critical triangulating factors in defining the overall performance of a project over time. This approach becomes nearly myopic in the context of the cited article, as the framework concentrates only on the most quantifiable and measurable aspects while ironically leaving out the most costly and least quantifiable aspects of managing change in a project (Douglas, 2003).

The only aspects of the cited research that deviate from this highly quantified view of change management are the brief mentions of stakeholders and the development of an effective interaction and listening system. Only then does the rigid taxonomy and triad model defined through inference in the cited article begin to become more strategic in scope.

Conclusion

Change orders defy being reduced to an equation or series of abstracts and frameworks. The triad constraints that every project faces form a suitable foundation (Douglas, 2003), yet they lack the advanced depth of taxonomy definition and the resulting change management planning and execution needed to implement change orders without impacting overall project deadlines (Doyle, Molnar, & Brown, 2008).

References

Douglas, E. E., I., II. (2003). Effective management of project change orders. AACE International Transactions, PM111–PM114.

Doyle, J. T., Molnar, M. M., & Brown, R. B., P.E. (2008). Lessons learned on reducing change orders. AACE International Transactions, OW21–OW29, OW210–OW216.