I agree with the entire premise of the article by Robichaud and Antatmula (2011), which is that the main motivators of building owners and contractors in using sustainability concepts in building constructions are the costs and the profits. Despite the noble goals or intentions behind sustainability in that it helps protect the environment, building owners and contractors would still be realistic and practical when considering the methods they use for their construction projects. Even if they have great concerns for the environment, they would still be more concerned about the financial stability of their own companies and businesses; thus, it is only right that they approach sustainability practices with caution. Just as the authors pointed out, there are not many case studies on the results obtained from practicing sustainability concepts in building construction. As such, the contractors and building owners have no concrete basis or evidence for believing that they can profit from practicing sustainability concepts. Although it is presumed that the benefits will be realized in the long-term, these are still mostly forecasts, which mean that they may or may not come true; and thus, would be a big risk for those involved.
However, I am glad that more and more engineers, building owners, and contractors are becoming interested in incorporating sustainability concepts in their projects. This is at least a good sign that the professionals and experts in the industry are open to possibly changing their work processes. In this regard, I think that the new construction methodology proposed by Robichaud and Antatmula (2011) provides engineers, project managers, building owners, and contractors with a good way to start making changes in their work processes. This can be compared to the implementation of an organizational change, which entails a corresponding change in the organizational culture, that is, in order for industry experts to successfully implement sustainability concepts, they would need to change their “culture.” In particular, these industry experts would need to change their behaviors, their values, and their attitudes. For example, they have to change the way they work or how they behave in that they would need to work more closely together and would need to have a more efficient way of communicating and coordinating with each other. They would also need to change their values in that they would need to really be concerned about protecting the environment and not just about making a profit. In addition, they would need to change their attitudes and their mindsets in that they should acknowledge that the successful implementation of sustainability concepts would require them to deviate from the traditional ways of completing their building construction projects and that they would need to adapt new ways that would be more appropriate for green building. In this regard, just like changes in organizational culture, which will take a long time for employees to really imbibe, I would reckon that it would also take a long time for industry processionals and experts to fully imbibe the new methods and practices that would need to come with green building.
As indicated by Robichaud and Antatmula (2011), hard bidding may not be the best way to obtain contractors for green building projects, that a team consisting of experts from multiple disciplines should instead be formed to work on a particular project. With this new way of assigning projects, I think that contractors and other professionals would feel compelled to up their game, that is, they would feel that they need to be as knowledgeable and experienced in green building as possible in order to compete. Since the contract price will no longer be the basis for the selection of a contractor, there are bound to be more and more professionals who will aim to gain expertise in sustainability. This will be good for the industry because this will mean that there will not be a shortage of green building experts, that there will be quality professionals in the field who will in turn produce quality results. In addition, this could mean a reduction in professional, consultancy, or labor costs as green building knowledge and skills would no longer be scarce.
I also agree with the authors’ assertion that green building projects would be more successful if all the project members were involved from the onset. Based on my personal experience, I have held jobs where the team I belonged to was asked to join only in the middle of the project. This usually led to my teammates and I spending plenty of time learning about the project and understanding it while the rest of the project teams were already busy completing their own assigned tasks. My teammates and I also had to constantly bother the other project teams with questions. This led to wasted time and to frustrations on both our part and the part of the other project teams. In contrast, I have also held jobs where my teammates and I were involved right at the start of the project. This led to a more efficient way of working for all the project teams involved as everyone learned about the specifics of the project at the same time, which meant that everyone was also able to start working on their assigned tasks at the same time. This reduced any frustration that the project members may feel from not fully understanding the project’s details. This also ensured that everyone was on the same page with regards to the project.
In the same regard, Robichaud and Antatmula (2011) emphasized the advantage of providing contractors with rewards rather than imposing penalties in order to encourage good performance. I think that they are right in this assertion in that even when disciplining children, positive reinforcement usually yields better results than negative reinforcement. The same holds true when working with contractors. More specifically, contractors are more likely to be interested in obtaining rewards than in avoiding penalties. Financial rewards, for example, will definitely be of interest to contractors because these can either add to their profits or reduce their risks. Again, contractors need to be realistic or practical in the management of their business, which means that they will certainly value any increase in their cash flow. In contrast, penalties will not necessarily result in improved performance. Rather, it may just make the contractors resentful of the project manager and other project team members, which may in turn result in the decreased quality of their output.
In conclusion, it is true that we still have a long way to go before green building becomes the norm in the field of construction. It is also true that there are many challenges and barriers that need to be overcome before that point is reached. These barriers include not only tangible factors such as costs and materials but also intangible factors such as the people’s mindsets, work attitudes, behaviors, and work processes. However, with the buzz going on around green building and the increasing interest being generated around it, the future of sustainability definitely looks optimistic.
References
Robichaud, L. B. & Anantatmula, V. S. (2011, January). Greening project management
practices for sustainable construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27, 48-
57.
