Built Environment Project and Asset Management

Grand challenges for the Indian construction industry

Anil Sawhney Raghav Agnihotri Virendra Kumar Paul
Article information:
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

To cite this document:

Anil Sawhney Raghav Agnihotri Virendra Kumar Paul , (2014),"Grand challenges for the Indian construction
industry", Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 317 - 334
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-10-2013-0055
Downloaded on: 17 October 2014, At: 02:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 72 times since 2014*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-124X.htm

Challenges for
Grand challenges for the Indian the Indian
construction industry construction
industry
Anil Sawhney
RICS School of Built Environment, Amity University, Noida, India
317
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

Raghav Agnihotri
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi, India, and
Virendra Kumar Paul
Department of Building Engineering and Management,
School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India

Abstract
Purpose – Today, construction sector of most emerging economies, including India, is witnessing
sharp growth prospects on the one hand and pressure to effectively and efficiently contribute to the
national development on the other. The Indian construction industry is one of the major stimulants of
the economic and social growth of the nation. However, the sector is confronted by numerous issues,
thereby reducing its efficacy and unhindered growth prospects. The purpose of this paper is to extract
various industry impediments and suggest a prioritized listing of challenges faced by the industry
using the Grand Challenges Approach (GCA).
Design/methodology/approach – Motivated by the GCA this study uses the Delphi process for
consensus building in the expert panel, comprising of 39 professionals from across various industry
stakeholders. A qualitative round was first used to acquire views on the challenges. Consequently
two quantitative Delphi rounds were conducted to extract Top-10 Challenges for the industry based
on two aspects – priority and impact. A wider industry survey was also carried out, which served as
an unscientific validation of the Delphi Study.
Findings – Grand Challenges facing the Indian construction sector were identified. Addressing these
challenges at the national level has the potential of transforming the industry to highly efficient,
quality cantered and bullish industry capable of delivering successfully.
Originality/value – The GCA, used extensively by the health sector internationally, is used for the
Indian construction industry in a novel way to set an agenda for enhancing its operational efficiency.
Keywords Project management, Developing countries, India, Delphi method, Construction industry,
Grand Challenges Approach
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction and background of the Indian construction sector

The Indian construction industry is one of the key pillars of the Indian economy. The
sector possesses the ability to grow further due to economic development,
industrialization, urbanization (Gupta et al., 2009). The contribution of the construction
industry to the GDP has been above 8 per cent since 2007 (Planning Commission, 2011).
Over the next decade, India should continue to be among the fastest growing countries in
terms of construction output (Accenture & CIDC, 2012). The total investment in the
infrastructure sector during 2012-2017 is estimated to result in construction demand
of US$ 500 billion (ICRA et al., 2011). Apart from infrastructure, the construction industry Built Environment Project and Asset
is also a beneficiary of the growth in the manufacturing and the real estate sectors (CARE Management
Vol. 4 No. 4, 2014
Research, 2011) (eMpulse India, 2012). pp. 317-334
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
There is no dearth of opportunity for growth, but is the construction industry ready 2044-124X
to reap the maximum benefits from this projected growth? To tap into this growth DOI 10.1108/BEPAM-10-2013-0055
 BEPAM considerable efforts are required to boost the capacity of the sector, reduce wastage and
4,4 cause a complete paradigm shift to quality cantered work. Currently, the construction
sector is facing many issues, which it needs to resolve. Lack of standards and low
use of technology across the construction supply chain is one of the weak points of the
industry (Planning Commission, 2011). Literature reports that the sector is confronted
by many inefficiencies – time and cost overruns (Singh, 2010; Satyanarayana and Iyer,
318 1996; Iyer and Jha, 2005); irregularities in procurement (Tabish and Jha, 2011);
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

and below par performance on development projects amongst its peers (Ahsan and
Gunawan, 2010).

2. Framing of the research study

Numerous deliberations have been carried out by researchers and professionals
regarding the problems plaguing the industry. But, what are the industry accepted and
feasible solutions to overcoming the constrained growth of the construction industry?
This research seeks to answer this very important question. The overarching goal is
to identify the roadblocks impeding the growth of the Indian construction industry
over the next ten years and suggest strategic initiatives in consultation with industry
experts and professionals. This is explored through studying the various challenges
faced by the construction industry and by generating specific action oriented
challenges in accordance with the “Grand Challenges Approach (GCA)”.

3. Literature review
Problems of construction sector have been analysed world over and example of UK is
often cited. Rethinking Construction was a report published in 1998 on the construction
industry in the UK by the Construction Task Force chaired by Sir John Egan. It was
instrumental in encouraging efficiency improvements within the construction industry
in the UK. This came close on the heels of the Latham Report, titled “Constructing the
Team” authored by Sir Michael Latham and published in 1994. It identified industry
shortcomings and inefficiencies, and made recommendations for better collaboration
and coordination in the industry (Latham, 1994).
A similar exercise was conducted in USA, where Construction Committee of
the Business Roundtable (renamed in 2000 as the Construction Users Roundtable
(CURT)) worked for 30 years to create a competitive advantage for construction
users. Examples from Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Hong Kong also illustrate
sector-wide initiatives.
Similar studies in the developing nations also present bodies of knowledge that
identify the problems faced and list the difficulties hindering the growth of an
indigenous industry (Al-Momani, 1995a,b; Edmonds, 1979; Manoliadis et al., 2006;
Moavenzadeh, 1978; Moore and Shearer, 2004; Ofori, 1989, 1994, 2000). Considerable
evidence exists that the construction industry in developing countries is lacking in
capacity to fulfil its role in the economic development process (Wells, 2001). Ofori
observed the action points necessary for the development of any construction industry
(Ofori, 1989, 1994) and also underlined the importance of developing key performance
indicators (Beatham et al., 2004; Ofori, 2000). While the solutions offered by the
researchers and policymakers are always ideal in nature, in reality, a priority based
approach should be used (Ofori, 1990).
In the past, researchers have been optimistic about the improvement plans made for
the construction industry of various countries (Koenigsberger and Groak, 1978; Turin,
1973). They have been of the view that the plans should work effectively, economically
 and within a short duration. But the results have been largely disappointing (Chemillier, Challenges for
1988; Ofori, 1984, 1990; UNCHS, 1990). Barring a few countries, the problems have the Indian
persisted over a long period of time despite efforts made to overcome them. Research has
pointed towards a long-term strategic approach to be followed, which is related to the construction
socio-economic needs of the country, often overseen by a steering committee (Ofori, 1994). industry
In India a critical study of the construction sector is needed along the lines of the studies
reported in literature. 319
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

4. Research methodology
The research was inspired by the GCA, which has a few apt features like a key
burning issue, a panel of experts drawn from the related domain, a consensus-building
approach and prioritized implementation programmes and/or research agenda.
The Delphi method, also used by the Grand Challenges in the Global Mental Health
Study, became the vehicle via which this study was conducted. It was decided to
adopt the Delphi method of consensus building, done in three stages, to enable the flow
of information from the previous stages to the final stages and optimizing on the
experience and wisdom of all the experts. Figure 1 shows the overall research
methodology adopted by the authors. While GCA and the Delphi method form the core
of this study; two additional methods namely the Interquartile Ratio (IQR) and the
Relative Importance Index (RII) are also used in the analysis.

4.1 GCA
The GCA has been developed, tested, refined and used by a plethora of individuals and
organizations over the past century (Grand Challenges Canada/Grand Défis Canada,
2011; Leijten et al., 2012). First documented use of this approach began with the work

Literature Review

Literature Review Developed Initial List of Challenges

Delphi (Phase 1)

One on One Interactions Expanded Challenges base 21 interviews

Delphi (Phase 2)

Online Survey – Selection from Sub

Narrowed Down 32 complete responses
group

Delphi (Phase 3)
Rating Mechanism – Priority &
Online Survey 29 complete responses
Impact

Figure 1.
Schematic overview of
Grand Challenges for the Indian Construction Industry research methodology
 BEPAM of David Hilbert, a mathematician who in 1900 proposed 23 mathematics problems
4,4 he hoped would be solved in the twentieth century (Omenn, 2006). This led to motivation
amongst a generation of mathematicians to work on and solve the challenges. Some
of those problems remain unsolved to date, but the approach was a success.
The Grand Challenges concept was revived in 2003 by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation (BMGF). The study defined a Grand Challenge as “A specific scientific or
320 technological innovation that would remove a critical barrier to solving an important
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

health problem in the developing world with a high likelihood of global impact and
feasibility” (Collins et al., 2011). Taking note of the 2003 BMGF initiative, the approach
was used in 2006-2007 to find the Grand Challenges in Chronic Non-Communicable
Diseases (Daar et al., 2007). The approach has been used several times to find workable
solutions to some burning issues in sectors other than health (Lenahan and Charles,
2006; National Academy of Engineering, 2008; Collins et al., 2011; World Health
Organisation, 2012; Grand Challenges Canada/Grand Défis Canada, 2011).
A simpler definition of a Grand Challenge was given by Charles Vest, US National
Academy of Engineering. He defined a Grand Challenge as “Visionary, terribly
important, and do-able”.
GCA generally has two phases:
(1) exploration of Grand Challenges phase; and
(2) addressing the challenges phase.
The approach essentially looks at the long-term societal gains, through a multi-level,
multi-stakeholder participation of trans-disciplinary experts to come up with implementable
strategies, which are implemented by using “prize mechanisms to stimulate a demand
driven search for solutions of societal problems” (Leijten et al., 2012). The GCA provides
a sense of focus and urgency, and utilizes the expertise of veterans and innovators alike
for finding solutions to a pressing issue.

4.2 Delphi method

Delphi method was developed at the RAND (Research And Development) Corporation
in the late 1950s. It allows a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex
problem (Linstone and Turoff, 1975; von der Gracht, 2012). The method involves
the flow of knowledge from one round to the next round. It assimilates the view of the
experts and channelizes it towards a consensus. Delphi is effectively used to collect and
synthesize expert judgements, but its real value lies in the ideas it generates (Gordon
and Pease, 2006). The Delphi method is also used for the “derivation of probable and
surprising wildcard scenarios” (Nowack et al., 2011). Delphi method is characterized
by anonymity (Strauss and Zeigler, 1975; von der Gracht, 2012); iteration (Linstone and
Turoff, 1975; Strauss and Zeigler, 1975); controlled feedback (Nowack et al., 2011);
statistical “group response” (von der Gracht, 2012); and participating experts (Hsu and
Sandford, 2007). The very strength of Delphi rounds is that experts can voice their
opinions without the negatives of face-to-face discussions, reduce the dominance effect,
bandwagon effect and enable positive criticism. To identify the Grand Challenges for
the Indian construction sector a three-phase Delphi study was undertaken.

4.3 Interquartile range

IQR is used for deciphering convergence and consensus in a study constituting a
number of experts. When Likert scale is used to measure a respondent’s level of
 agreement to a statement it is crucial for the success of the Delphi method that a sound Challenges for
quantitative tool is used to identify consensus or lack thereof. Previous research the Indian
has revealed that consensus measurement cannot be based on some subjective criteria,
or descriptive statistics (Bertram, 1999; Jamieson, 2004; Kuzon et al., 1996; von der construction
Gracht, 2012). The literature points towards the use of IQR, which is the difference industry
between the 3rd (75 per cent) and 1st quartile (25 per cent). An IQR of 1 signifies that
50 per cent of the responses lie between a difference of one point on the scale (Sekaran, 321
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

2006). For a five-point scale, an IQR o1 signifies the achievement of group consensus
(Raskin, 1994).

4.4 RII
The measurement of the rank of the various challenges was done using the RII, which
has also been used by many researchers in the past (Alsadey et al., 2011; Kometa et al.,
1994). Its value ranges between 0 and 1, and indicates the relative importance of the
factors in comparison.

5. Panel of industry experts

An adequate stakeholder representation is a requisite for this type of industry level
studies (Abdel-Razek, 1998). Thus, the expert panel required representation from
across the industry – constructors, academicians, developers, public sector firms,
consultants, architectural firms, councils/professional or educational bodies and
financial consultants. Literature suggests eight panel members as the lowest,
16 members as an average and 80 members as a maximum (Hallowell and Gambatese,
2009). In addition to it, a careful selection of panel was vital to ensure a well-rounded
geographical representation.
Thus, 39 national experts were empanelled for the study, who contributed to
the study from their in-depth knowledge and experience of the field. Hallowell
and Gambatese (2009) have emphasized on the importance of expertise requirements in
the respondent group. Thus, a cautious effort was exerted to reach out to highly
experienced panellists, as evident from the illustration in Table I.

Delphi – Delphi – Delphi – Wider industry

Parameters phase 1 phase 2 phase 3 survey

Time taken 7 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks

Panellists covered 21 32 29 110
Response rate 53.85% 82.05% 74.36% –
Panellist distribution Number of panellists
Civil contractors 3 6 6 17
Developers 6 7 7 5
Consultants 2 3 2 36
Architectural firms 1 2 2 1
Councils/professional or educative bodies 1 3 3 5
Academicians 2 3 2 6
Public sector firms 4 5 5 7 Table I.
Banks and financial consultants 2 3 2 2 Summary of Delphi
Others – – – 32 survey and wider
Average industry experience of panellists (in years) 28.50 25.90 27.20 23.8 industry phases
 BEPAM 6. Initial challenges from literature
4,4 Before collecting information from the panel of experts, an initial list of challenges was
prepared from literature. Instead of posing open-ended questions to the expert panel,
the panel was asked to use an initial list as a starting point. The problems faced by the
industry were modified to an action-oriented challenge resulting in 38 challenges
categorized as below:
322
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

. regulatory framework;
. contract procurement system;
. dispute resolution;
. human resource development;
. planning stage;
. construction stage;
. miscellaneous issues/environmental issues;
. quality in construction work;
. research and development for construction;
. taxation;
. institutional financing; and
. use of technology.

7. Delphi method of consensus building

Past studies indicate that that the number of rounds ranged from two to six with over
one-half of these studies found acceptable convergence after three or fewer iterations
(Hallowell and Gambatese, 2009). To ensure adequate retention and expert involvement, a
three-step Delphi method was used, as illustrated in Figure 1. Table I shows the summary
of the Delphi phases in terms of number and domain-wise distribution of respondents.

7.1 Delphi method: stage I – brainstorming

The first phase of the Delphi method was aimed to document the diverse views of the
industry experts and generate new and innovative solutions to the constraints faced
by the industry. This phase encompassed one-on-one interviews with the industry
experts and detailed discussions on the problems faced by the industry as well as
the possible solutions in sight. To save time, audio recordings of the interactions were
made, which were transcribed later. The experts were presented with an initial list
of challenges for the industry, categorized under suitable subheads. Transcripts of the
individual expert interviews were prepared, using which a comprehensive industry
view was generated in the form of a document, covering the diverse views within the
industry. A qualitative analysis of the raw data was done using the software QSR
NVivo. This analysis was used to formulate the questionnaire for the next stage of
the survey. The qualitative analysis revealed important issues that are summarized
in Table II.
Another important element of the qualitative analysis, depicted in Figure 2 was the
word frequency analysis, which was used to view the “buzzwords” used by the experts
during the course of the interaction, thereby indicating prominent issues.
 90% of the experts preferred standardization and uniformity Challenges for
86% of the experts mentioned lack of implementation of existing rules the Indian
86% of the experts explicitly mentioned adopting technological changes
81% of the experts mentioned flaws in the existing system construction
71% of the experts blamed the Government for negligence or inaction industry
71% of the experts stressed on stepped-up R&D
67% of the experts explicitly mentioned corrupt or unethical practices
323
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

62% of the experts mentioned problems in the planning stages of projects

62% of the experts stressed on stepping-up skills and trained/educated workers at graduate
levels
52% of the experts mentioned a lack of accountability in industrial practices
48% of the experts were worried about the quality of consultants
48% of the experts favoured updating the current standards and modernizing byelaws
48% of the experts favoured decentralizing the system and greater freedom in decision-making
43% of the experts explicitly mentioned labour shortage
43% of the experts mentioned non-performing stakeholders
38% of the experts mentioned lack of awareness of the prevalent system
29% of the experts mentioned lack of transparency in the system Table II.
24% of the experts mentioned explicitly the un-accounted money in the industry Views of panellists
24% of the experts explicitly mentioned a resistance to adopt changes revealed after the
19% of the experts blamed non-performing contractors qualitative analysis

This phase of the Delphi method generated a broad qualitative analysis of the
opinions expressed by the industry experts in the form of 84 challenges for the Indian
construction industry. Essentially in this stage a number of root causes that are
intertwined with different challenges were carefully analysed and these inter-linkages
were captured in the survey instrument that was created for stage II.

7.2 Delphi method: stage II – narrowing down

The main purpose of this phase was to narrow down the list of 84 challenges generated
post-stage I. The expert panel was given the feedback from the first phase and
the group response document covering the 84 challenges as well as the diverse views
associated with each challenge was revealed to them. This diminished collective
unconscious bias, myside bias and von restorff effect (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2009).
An online survey form, with auto programmed positioning of listed challenges to
reduce positioning bias, was created for the narrowing down phase. Pilot surveys
were conducted to judge the simplicity of survey forms and to know whether the
intention was being conveyed adequately. Experts were then asked to select their
Top 25 Challenges out of the 84 listed. This phase of the Delphi method generated
the Top 29 Challenges, reflecting the direction demonstrated by the panel.
Rating of these 29 challenges on the priority scale and impact scale was needed for
the third stage of the Delphi. This meant 58 Likert-type questions would have to be
answered, which would have been demanding on the experts. Thus, to avoid
uninterested opinions and faulty survey inputs, it was decided to reduce the number of
challenges. The Top 29 Challenges resulting from the phase 2 of the research were thus
reworded to serve the dual purpose of aligning them to the GCA, and enabling better
responses. This resulted in a final list of the following Top 15 Challenges:
(1) strengthen accountability, transparency and governance on public sector
projects;
(2) enact industry status and formulate a national construction authority;
 BEPAM accountability adopt already approvals arbitration authority back bank
4,4
based benefits best case change client come companies

324
completion conditions consultants contract
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

contractor cost development country

different document done even drawings engineering

every example feel finance first fixed gets give given going good
grading happen help high housing implementation incentives
increase interest international issue item just know labour lack

land laws lead like make management many mechanism

might money much need payments people

performance place possible present private problem process quality
rate real required rules sector single skilled small specific

standard system take technology tendering

Figure 2.
Word frequency analysis things think time used work workers years

(3) standardize contracts, contractual procedures, procurement systems and

project delivery methods;
(4) streamline and standardize project approvals and statutory sanctions;
(5) encourage adoption of project management and lean principles over the entire
life cycle of the project;
(6) streamline land acquisition and land procurement procedures;
(7) ensure worker welfare and well-being;
(8) provide investments in sectorial skill development with industry support;
(9) encourage appropriate use of Information and Communication Technology;
 (10) implement construction sector research and development programme; Challenges for
(11) standardize and update building byelaws and codes to modern times; the Indian
(12) promote modern time-bound dispute resolution and prevention techniques; construction
(13) provide incentives for offsite construction and the use of other modern industry
technologies;
325
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

(14) create a suitable fiscal environment for the industry to enhance funding
certainty; and
(15) establish national construction quality, sustainability and safety benchmarks.
7.3 Delphi method: stage III – final rating
This was the most important phase of this research. It was aimed at including each
expert’s assessment of each challenge, judging its priority and impact on the industry,
and then arriving at a consensual response from the expert panel to obtain the Top 10
Challenges.
The expert panel was given the feedback of the second phase, in form of the Top 29
Challenges selected and the description of each of the Top 15 Challenges. An online
survey form was prepared, which consisted of questions in the form of a five-point
Likert rating to prioritize (not a priority 1, low priority 2, medium priority 3, high priority
4, very high priority 5) each challenge as well as to identify its perceived impact (very
insignificant 1, insignificant 2, neutral 3, significant 4, very significant 5).
The Top 10 Challenges were finalized on the basis of the rank allotted by the
calculation of the RII for each challenge, while the consensus was judged through
the calculation of the IQR for the responses, as recommended in available literature
(Hallowell and Gambatese, 2009). As shown in Table III, the results of the Delphi study
revealed:
. general consensus within the panel emerged for the selection of the Top 3
Challenges, based on priority;
. general consensus in deciding the Top 5 Challenges, based on the perceived
impacts; and
. consensus amongst the expert panel to keep the challenges ranked 12 to 15 out
of the Top 10 list.

8. Wider industry survey

The main objective of this survey was to capture the wider industry response on
the challenges before the Indian construction industry, and also to serve as an
unscientific validation of the Delphi study. A summary of the survey is depicted in
Table I. An online survey form was prepared, which was identical to the survey form
used in phase 3 of the Delphi study. Based on 110 responses the Top 10 Challenges were
finalized on the basis of rank given by calculation of RII for each challenge, while the
consensus was judged through the calculation of IQR for the responses.
As shown in Table IV the results of the wider industry survey revealed:
. general consensus in the respondents for the selection of the Top 7 Challenges,
based on priorities; and
. general consensus in the panel for deciding the Top 7 Challenges, based on the
perceived impacts.
 BEPAM Priority Impact Cumulative
4,4 Challenges Valid RII IQR Valid RII IQR Aggregate Rank

Streamline land acquisition and land

procurement procedures 28 0.89 1.00 28 0.86 1.00 0.875 1
Streamline and standardize project approvals
326 and statutory sanctions 28 0.89 1.00 28 0.84 1.00 0.864 2
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

Strengthen accountability, transparency and

governance in public sector projects 28 0.86 1.00 28 0.86 1.00 0.857 3
Standardize and update building byelaws and
codes to modern times 28 0.81 1.75 28 0.83 1.00 0.821 4
Standardize contracts, contractual procedures,
procurement systems and project delivery
methods 28 0.80 2.00 28 0.82 1.00 0.811 5
Provide investments in sectorial skills
development with industry support 28 0.79 2.00 28 0.79 2.00 0.789 6
Encourage adoption of project management and
lean principles over the entire life cycle of a
project 28 0.79 0.75 28 0.78 1.00 0.782 7
Ensure worker welfare and well-being 28 0.78 1.00 28 0.79 1.75 0.782 8
Establish national construction quality,
sustainability and safety benchmarks 28 0.76 1.75 28 0.79 2.00 0.779 9
Promote modern time-bound dispute resolution
and prevention techniques 28 0.77 0.75 28 0.79 1.50 0.779 10
Provide incentives for offsite construction and
other modern technologies 28 0.76 2.00 28 0.77 1.75 0.778 11
Create a suitable fiscal environment for the
industry to enhance funding certainty 28 0.76 1.00 28 0.76 0.00 0.761 12
Enact industry status and formulate a national
construction authority 28 0.76 1.00 28 0.76 0.75 0.761 13
Encourage appropriate use of Information and
Communication Technology 28 0.76 1.00 28 0.76 1.00 0.761 14
Table III. Implement construction sector research and
Delphi method development programmes 28 0.68 1.00 28 0.69 1.00 0.682 15
(phase 3 – final rating)
results Note: IQR 41 indicates low consensus

9. Discussion
Working from Delphi phase 1 to phase 3 along with an industry wide validation survey
resulted in emergence of a complex and comprehensive picture of root causes,
challenges and Grand Challenges for the Indian construction sector. The interviews
and responses yielded over 18,000 typed words – a wealth of views on problems and
solutions for the Indian construction sector. A partial snapshot of this is presented in
Figure 3 as a complex mind-map. As expected it is evident from the figure that many of
the root causes are linked to multiple Grand Challenges that emerged from the study.
On a broad level, majority of experts felt that it is crucial for all industry
stakeholders to first recognize the problems facing the industry and accept the need for
change (collectively these issues are termed “Lack of Awareness”). The industry is
plagued by resistance to change and barriers that exist due to mind-set issues. Some
experts were of the opinion that corruption is the key reason for status quo and
resistance to change; further leading to significant trust deficit in the industry. The
malady termed as corruption was a recurrent theme that appeared in the discussions
 Priority Impact Cumulative
Challenges for
Challenges Valid RII IQR Valid2 RII2 IQR2 Aggregate Rank the Indian
construction
Strengthen accountability, transparency
and governance in public sector projects 110 0.87 1.00 102 0.85 1.00 0.863 1 industry
Streamline and standardize project approvals
and statutory sanctions 110 0.86 1.00 102 0.84 1.00 0.854 2 327
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

Streamline land acquisition and land

procurement procedures 110 0.85 1.00 102 0.85 1.00 0.850 3
Establish national construction quality,
sustainability and safety benchmarks 110 0.85 1.00 102 0.82 1.00 0.836 4
Standardize and update building byelaws
and codes to modern times 110 0.83 1.00 102 0.84 1.00 0.835 5
Standardize contracts, contractual
procedures, procurement systems and
project delivery methods 110 0.82 1.00 102 0.82 1.00 0.819 6
Ensure worker welfare and well-being 110 0.81 1.00 102 0.78 1.00 0.795 7
Promote modern time-bound dispute
resolution and prevention techniques 110 0.78 2.00 102 0.79 2.00 0.782 8
Provide investments in sectorial skills
development with industry support 110 0.78 2.00 102 0.77 1.00 0.775 9
Encourage adoption of project management
and lean principles over the entire life cycle
of a project 110 0.78 2.00 102 0.76 2.00 0.772 10
Implement construction sector research
and development programmes 110 0.77 1.00 102 0.76 1.00 0.764 11
Enact industry status and formulate a
national construction authority 110 0.76 2.00 102 0.76 2.00 0.763 12
Provide incentives for offsite construction
and other modern technologies 110 0.77 1.25 102 0.75 1.00 0.758 13
Create a suitable fiscal environment for the
industry to enhance funding certainty 110 0.75 1.25 102 0.76 1.00 0.754 14
Encourage appropriate use of Information
and Communication Technology 110 0.75 1.00 102 0.73 1.00 0.744 15 Table IV.
Wider industry
Note: IQR41 indicates low consensus survey results

with experts, as evident from the interactions in phase 1, where 67 per cent of the
experts explicitly mentioned corrupt or unethical practices and 24 per cent mentioned
the unaccounted money circulating in the industry.
Most organizations were said to be working in a “firefighting” mode, with no
utilization of lessons learnt and minimal attention to knowledge management. Skills
shortage, lack of professionalism and other similar human resource related issues were
a recurrent theme in most of the responses. Lack of professionalism amongst
individuals and organizations led many to believe that some type of professional
registration is needed (e.g. professional engineer or chartered surveyors). A plethora
of issues related to construction workers and their work conditions also emerged.
A significant strand of discussion pertained to the type of contract documents being
used in India. Most experts were exasperated due to lack of a model contract document
and by the purported circulation of over “500 types” of documents. Unfair contracts
promoting adversarial relationship among project stakeholders are prevalent.
Complicating matters further is the existence of multiplicity of laws and authorities,
 Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

4,4

328

Figure 3.

Challenges
BEPAM

challenges and Grand

Mind-map of root causes,
Streamline land Streamline and Strengthen accountability, Lack of accountability
acquisition and land standardize project transparency and
procurement procedures approvals and statutory governance in public
sanctions sector projects
Updating standards
and specifications Lack of transparency

Standardize contracts,
contractual procedures, Adopting technology
Standardization and procurement systems and
uniformity project delivery methods

Problems in the Lack of

Standardize and update Provide investments in implementation
planning stages
building byelaws and sectorial skills
codes to modern times
Grand challenges for the
development with industry
Indian Construction support
Industry
Graduate Skill
upgradation Flaws in the existing Unaccounted money
system
Ensure worker welfare and
well-being
Lack of awareness Lack of good quality
Negligent consultants
Government

Encourage adoption of Establish national Promote modern time-

project management and construction quality, bound dispute resolution Labour shortage
Non-performing lean principles over the
contractors sustainability and safety and prevention
entire life cycle of a project benchmarks techniques
 anomalies in the existing legal systems. Experts suggest the need for a Unified Challenges for
Construction Law to solve some of the problems (Planning Commission, 2011). the Indian
Mainstream use of fundamental principles of project management is also lacking
within the industry. Due to this, projects are approved with unrealistic targets and construction
baselines, not much time is spent on the “drawing board”, and no standardized process industry
is followed (e.g. RIBA Plan of Work). Ad hoc changes are a norm rather than an
exception. Tools such as life cycle analysis, value engineering and lean techniques 329
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

are not commonplace.

At the sector level tremendous fragmentation is reported. Many of the experts
suggested that the government must give the sector the “industry status”. In the
mind of these respondents this will streamline the procurement process, standardize
taxation and levies, improve the availability of financing for the sector, and reduce
fragmentation. The land procurement process and project approval process time-and-
again came across as two areas that had maximum amount of irregularities and
corrupt practices. Sheer complexity and opaqueness of these two processes was
highlighted by the experts. Experts were also divided on the issue of introducing
new regulation to improve these processes. It was felt that regulation is currently
“fashionable” and the intent to make positive change is missing. Beginning with
standardization of the building codes, streamlining of the approval process, developing
a code of ethics, putting land records online, investing in research and development,
and deploying modern dispute avoidance and resolution systems, a significant amount
of industry wide ground work is needed. Sifting through these problems, their root
causes, and suggested improvements can be a daunting task. This is where the GCA
came in handy – providing a sector-wide macro view rather than getting bogged by a
plethora of issues, the Top 10 Grand Challenges yielded clarity in the final outcome.
It becomes evident from the complex relationship between the root causes and
the Grand Challenges that one must understand the cultural, social and political
dimensions of the final results. For example, the colonial history of the country can be
traced back to many of the root causes provided in the mind-map. Many of the codes
and standards are adopted from the pre-independence era and remained static due the
inherent political regime that developed after independence. Similarly the root cause
entitled “Lack of Awareness” is linked to two Grand Challenges namely “streamline
land acquisition and land procurement procedures” and “standardize, update and
modernize building byelaws and codes” showing the complex interrelationships
and political, cultural and social influences on the construction sector. The Top 4
Challenges were as follows:
1. Streamline land acquisition and land procurement procedures: a
Pan-India issue that is marred by forced acquisitions; inequitable compensations;
archaic land records; and opaque transactions; besides various other social and
environmental irregularities. As per the respondents land related problems negatively
impact both public sector and private sector projects. The Land Acquisition Act 1894
is seen by most experts as the reason for these shortcomings. Many respondents felt
that resolution of land related issues will lead to decrease in corruption, unaccounted
money circulation and fraudulent land deals. Last quarter of 2013 saw the enactment of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 by the Indian government to resolve land related issues.
2. Streamline and standardize project approvals and statutory sanctions: industry
has struggled with a cumbersome project approval processes. As pointed out by the
experts this process is riddled with ambiguity, complexity and coordination issues
 BEPAM between the involved departments. Some respondents felt that this ambiguity and
4,4 complexity in the approval process promotes irregularities and corruption in the
approval process. There is a need for devising a systematic single window clearance
mechanism for simplification and time bound approvals to bring transparency
and accountability.
3. Strengthen accountability, transparency and governance in public sector projects:
330 all experts felt that it is important to make government agencies and officials
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

empowered and accountable for the delivery of public sector projects. Vastly a
prerogative of a regulation by the government, this also needs according powers to the
responsible officials to take crucial decisions in crunch time. Industry experts feel that
bureaucratic inertia is witnessed in public sector projects, which is also attributed
to non-aligned goals between the various government departments. The idea is to
develop an incentive for decision making, and a disincentive for delaying decisions.
4. Standardize, update and modernize building byelaws and codes: the present
building byelaws and codes appear to be very archaic and out of sync with
the latest construction material improvements and technological advancements and
are riddled with anomalies. Industry observers feel that developing a uniform
document for building byelaws nationally, having classifications based on special
needs such as topography, climate, etc. will overcome the complexities and to
modernize building controls.
These Top 4 Challenges are based on government prerogative and require political
will. Three out of four of these challenges are related to the current regulatory regime,
which now needs to be modernized keeping in view the demands from the industry.
Remaining challenges are as follows.
5. Standardize contracts, contractual procedures, procurement systems and project
delivery methods: a national tribunal is needed to standardize and harmonize contracts;
especially on public sector projects. Clauses relating to escalation and risk allocation
are weak and have led to a monumental litigation volume estimated to be close to
US$ 12.6 billion (CIDC, 2013). Modern contract documents and delivery methods
that encourage collaboration in the project delivery network are needed. A step in the
direction would be adoption of internationally recognized contracts such as FIDIC,
NEC, and JCT contracts for high valued projects. Industry experts also feel a need
to come of age in the procurement systems by devising a bid evaluation criteria
shifting focus away from the “lowest bidder”. As reported in an earlier study,
many respondents felt that e-tendering could bring transparency and competition in
the public procurement process (Tabish and Jha, 2011). Simultaneously modernizing
the project delivery methods would also improve the way the industry functions.
6. Provide investments in sectorial skill development through industry support: less
than a year ago the Indian Construction Sector Skills council has been launched jointly
by the government and industry. With industry employment over 35 million persons,
skills development at all levels is a major hurdle. Massive up-scaling is needed, and all
the stakeholders have to play an active role in this.
7. Encourage the adoption of project management practices and lean principles over
the entire life cycle of a project: experts highlighted the lack of use of project
management and lean principles in the industry. A strong need to foster significant
growth in the intellectual capital pertaining to construction project management was
felt. The industry is persistently dealing with problems relating to both project
management success and project success. A lot of times the very basic objective of the
project remains blurred. An increased focus on project management practice is needed.
 8. Ensure worker welfare and well-being: the industry is reeling under an acute Challenges for
shortage of labour. Labour laws and regulations need to be streamlined to ensure the Indian
worker welfare and dignity. Ensuring adherence to minimum wages and raising
awareness regarding insurance and workers compensation should be on top of the list construction
for the industry. Likewise, talent is weaning out from the industry due work-life industry
conflict. Rebranding of the construction industry is needed to attract and retain talent.
9. Establish national construction quality, sustainability and safety benchmarks: 331
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

many respondents talked about poor quality, sustainability and safety standards
in the industry. Root cause of the problems as identified by the experts pertains
to lack of national benchmarks for quality, sustainability and safety. There
is a need to setup quality, safety and sustainability benchmarks, against which the
construction works can be graded.
10. Promote time-bound dispute resolution and prevention techniques: dispute
avoidance, dispute resolution and partnering are badly needed by the
industry. The construction industry is suffering on account of a lion’s share stuck in
on-going disputes (CIDC, 2013). Many experts have expressed their displeasure at
the present dispute resolution mechanisms. Thus, a need has arisen to develop and
adopt mechanisms like institutional arbitration, dispute resolution boards and other
dispute avoidance mechanisms.

10. Conclusions
This research harnessed GCA to identify the “Grand Challenges for the Indian
construction industry”. Broad ranges of problems were presented to experts in a
structured Delphi-based study. To validate the results a survey was also conducted.
The Top 3 Challenges and the Top 10 Challenges remained the same, for the Delphi
method, and also the wider industry survey. Although their order varied due to
differences in RII for the different challenges, but emergence of the same Top 10 served
as an unscientific validation of the Delphi study. The onus to implement the challenges
ranked 5 to 10 lies squarely with the industry. It would essentially require focused
programmes of demonstration projects and multi-stakeholder collaborations.
Startlingly, challenges related to the use of Information and Communication
Technologies, offsite-building technology, and construction sector research and
development do not feature in the Top 10 Challenges.
Although researching the way forward is crucial, the most important aspect
is actually treading along the somewhat arduous path of implementation. The Grand
Challenges exploration may be complete, but addressing the challenges is the ultimate
goal. The industry must now take up the challenges one by one, in a collaborative
manner. A tripartite linkage between the industry, government, and academia is needed
in order to develop a national roadmap for the construction sector and push the
improvement forward. If these challenges are actively taken up, then the industry would
catapult itself to a highly efficient, quality cantered and bullish industry.

References
Abdel-Razek, R.H. (1998), “Factors affecting construction quality in Egypt: identification and
relative importance”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 220-227.
Accenture & CIDC (2012), “High performance in infrastructure and construction: India
perspective 2012”, available at: www.accenture.com/in-en/Pages/insight-infrastructure-
construction-industry-india.aspx (accessed 22 July 2013).
 BEPAM Ahsan, M.K. and Gunawan, I. (2010), “Analysis of cost and schedule performance of
international development projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28
4,4 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Al-Momani, A.H. (1995a), “Construction practice: the gap between intent and performance”,
Building Research & Information, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 87-91.
Al-Momani, A.H. (1995b), “The economic evaluation of the construction industry in Jordan”,
332 Building Research and Information, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 30-48.
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

Alsadey, S., Omran, A., Hamid, A., Pakir, K. and Pinang, P. (2011), “Personal and professional
needs for the project leader in the Libyan construction industry”, International Journal of
Research & Reviews in Applied Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 159-162.
Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T. and Hedges, I. (2004), “KPIs: a critical appraisal of their use
in construction”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 93-117.
Bertram, D. (1999), “Likert scales y are the meaning of life”, available at: http://poincare.matf.
bg.ac.rs/Bkristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf (accessed 29 April 2013).
CARE Research (2011), “Indian construction industry, Mumbai”, available at: www.
careratings.com/Portals/0/ResearchReports/TableofContentIndianConstruction.pdf
(accessed 2 May 2013).
Chemillier, P. (1988), “Facing the urban housing crisis”, Batiment International, Building
Research and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 99-103.
CIDC (2013), “Action plan for arbitration and dispute resolution in construction contracts”,
available at: www.cidc.in/new/theme3.html (accessed 2 May 2013).
Collins, P.P.Y., Patel, V., Joestl, S.S.S., March, D., Insel, T.R. and Daar, A.S. (2011), “Grand
challenges in global mental health”, Nature, Vol. 302 No. 7354, pp. 398-399.
Daar, A.S., Singer, P.A., Persad, D.L., Pramming, S.K., Matthews, D.R., Beaglehole, R. and Bell, J.
(2007), “Grand challenges in chronic non-communicable diseases”, Nature, Vol. 450
No. 7169, pp. 494-496.
Edmonds, G.A. (1979), “The construction industry in developing countries”, International
Labour Review, Vol. 118 No. 3, pp. 355-369.
eMpulse India (2012), “Market research on construction industry in India”, available at:
www.empulseglobal.com/market-research-india/whitepapers/Construction_Real_Estate_
Market_Research_India_White_Paper.pdf (accessed 29 April 2013).
Gordon, T. and Pease, A. (2006), “RT Delphi: an efficient, ‘round-less’ almost real time Delphi
method”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 321-333.
Grand Challenges Canada/Grand Défis Canada (2011), “The Grand Challenges Approach”,
available at: www.grandchallenges.ca/ (accessed 29 April 2013).
Gupta, P., Gupta, R. and Netzer, T. (2009), Building India Accelerating Infrastructure Projects
Infrastructure Practice, McKinsey & Company Inc., New Delhi.
Hallowell, M.R. and Gambatese, J.A. (2009), “Qualitative research: application of the Delphi
method to CEM research”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136
No. 1, pp. 99-107.
Hsu, C.-C. and Sandford, B.A. (2007), “The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus”,
Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 1-8.
ICRA (2011), “Indian construction sector”, available at: www.icra.in/Files/Articles/Construction_
Note_7th_March%202011-r.pdf (accessed 30 April 2013).
Iyer, K.C. and Jha, K.N. (2005), “Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian
projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 283-295.
Jamieson, S. (2004), “Likert scales: how to (ab)use them”, Medical Education, Vol. 38 No. 12,
pp. 1217-1218.
 Koenigsberger, O. and Groak, S. (1978), Essays in Memory of Duccio Turin (1926-1976): Construction Challenges for
an Economic Development Planning of Human Settlements, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
the Indian
Kometa, S.T., Olomolaiye, P.O. and Harris, F.C. (1994), “Attributes of UK construction clients
influencing project consultants’ performance”, Construction Management and Economics, construction
Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 433-443. industry
Kuzon, W.M., Urbanchek, M.G. and McCabe, S. (1996), “The seven deadly sins of statistical
analysis”, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 265-272. 333
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

Latham, M. (1994), “Constructing the team”, Final report of the government/industry review of
procurement and contractural arrangements in the UK construction industry HMSO,
London.
Leijten, J., Butter, M., Kohl, J., Leis, M. and Gehrt, D. (2012), “Investing in research and innovation
for grand challenges”, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/erab/pdf/erab-study-
grand-challanages-2012_en.pdf (accessed 25 July 2013).
Lenahan, J. and Charles, P. (2006), “Grand challenges of command and control policy”,
available at: www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location¼U2&doc¼GetTRDoc.pdf&AD¼
ADA461552 (accessed 25 July 2013).
Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.
Manoliadis, O., Ioannis, T. and Alexandra, N. (2006), “Sustainable construction and drivers of
change in Greece: a Delphi study”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 113-120.
Moavenzadeh, F. (1978), “Construction industry in developing countries”, World Development,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 978-116.
Moore, J.P. and Shearer, R.A. (2004), “Expanding partnering’s horizons: the challenge of
partnering in the Middle East”, Dispute Resolution Journal, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 54-59.
National Academy of Engineering (2008), “Grand challenges for engineering”, available at:
www.engineeringchallenges.org (accessed 27 July 2013).
Nowack, M., Endrikat, J. and Guenther, E. (2011), “Review of Delphi-based scenario studies:
quality and design considerations”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78
No. 9, pp. 1603-1615.
Ofori, G. (1984), “Improving the construction industry in declining developing economies”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 127-132.
Ofori, G. (1989), “A matrix for the construction industries of developing countries”, Habitat
International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 111-123.
Ofori, G. (1990), The Construction Industry: Aspects of its Economics and Management,
Singapore University Press, Singapore.
Ofori, G. (1994), “Practice of construction industry development at the crossroads”, Habitat
International, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 41-56.
Ofori, G. (2000), “Challenges of construction industries in developing countries: lessons from
various countries”, 2nd International Conference on Construction in Developing
Countries: Challenges Facing the Construction Industry in Developing Countries, Gabarone,
15-17 November, pp. 1-3.
Omenn, G. (2006), “Grand challenges and great opportunities in science, technology, and public
policy”, Science, Vol. 314 No. 5806, pp. 1696-1704.
Planning Commission (2011), “Approach to the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17)”, available at:
http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/12appdrft/appraoch_12plan.pdf (accessed
25 July 2013).
Raskin, M.S. (1994), “The Delphi study in field instruction revisited: expert consensus on issues
and research priorities”, Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 75-89.
 BEPAM Satyanarayana, K.N. and Iyer, K.C. (1996), “Evaluation of Delays in Indian construction
contracts”, Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 14-22.
4,4
Sekaran, U. (2006), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Singh, R. (2010), “Delays and cost overruns in infrastructure projects: extent, causes and
remedies”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45 No. 21, pp. 43-54.
334
Downloaded by KING MONGKUT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THONBURI At 02:05 17 October 2014 (PT)

Strauss, H. and Zeigler, L. (1975), “Delphi, political philosophy and the future”, Futures, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 184-196.
Tabish, S. and Jha, K. (2011), “Analyses and evaluation of irregularities in public procurement
in India”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 261-274.
Turin, D.A. (1973), The Construction Industry: Its Economic Significance and Its Role in
Development, University College Environmental Research Group, London.
UNCHS (1990), People Settlements, Environment and Development, United Nations Centre for
Human Settlements, Nairobi.
Von der Gracht, H.A. (2012), “Consensus measurement in Delphi studies”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 79 No. 8, pp. 1525-1536.
Wells, J. (2001), “Construction and capital formation in less developed economies: unravelling the
informal sector in an African city”, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 267-274.
World Health Organisation (2012), “Grand challenges in genomics for public health in developing
countries”, available at: www.who.int/rpc/grand_challenges.pdf (accessed 2 August 2013).

Corresponding author
Dr Anil Sawhney can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints