Microsoft Word - Change management for using a Project Website in team communication.doc

Abstract A Project Website (PWS) has been advocated as an important tool for design teams of construction projects, because the tool is supposed to greatly enhance team communication. This, finally, should result in improved team performance in terms of increase of efficiency and effectiveness. PWS vendors claim these results on expected better communication of teams who share and update their design information using a PWS together. The growing use of IT tools by design team members who electronically generate, collect and update design information increases the need for such an IT tool that allow fast and easy access and overview of the status of the latest changed and generated design information of the whole team. Also due to the growing complexity of building projects, the number of design partners and the number of electronic means for communication, the need for better collective communication is more important then it has ever been before. However, due to the expanding complexity and changes in design information, the redundancy of design information is growing too and the risk to failures. Team members need new skills for collective use of a PWS. The use of the tool might need radical changes in information flows to become effective. It might be experienced also that use of a PWS formalizes team communication too much, or might be threatening because of 'big brother effects'. Within this view the change to collective use of a PWS by a design team is not an automatic change to an effective communication environment as vendors like us to believe and many pitfalls can be encountered. In this paper the most important aspects of change to collective use of a project website for team communication will be discussed, based on the results of a Dutch PhD research project. Keywords: Change promoters, project website, rivalry of tools, second-order change, technological frames. Communication aspects To communicate collectively it is important that all members of a group are involved actively in the group's communication. According to Ruler (1996) three concepts of communication can be identified: inter-active, effective and active. These communication concepts are mainly based on differences in communication processes regarding feedback (expected by the sender) of a receiver or group receivers. Feedback is a type of message that the receiver transmits to the sender in response to having received a message (Wiener, 1948). Shannon and Weaver's communication theory (1949) is the basis for this approach. Ruler's interactive concept is defined as a back and forth process between sender and receiver(s) with changing roles. In this process, feedback is essential for communication (for example: in a dialogue, telephone conversation or group meetings). Proceedings of the CIB W096 Architectural Management meeting, publication 307 Designing Value: New directions in Architectural Management Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby November 2005 The effective concept is defined as a one-way process with an active sender and passive receiver(s) with a predictable re-action. In this process, feedback is possible but not expected (for example: postal mail, facsimile). The active concept is defined as an active one-way process of a sender, for broadcasting or publishing of information to receivers. In this process, the same channel of communication usually cannot give feedback (for example: the Queen's Christmas message on television). A sender might use a specific communication means to send a message to receiver(s) depending on the sender's need for feedback, the available means and his preference for use of a specific means synchronous or asynchronous. Synchronous communication can be defined as the communication between senders and receivers at the same time, whether or not it is in the same place (Robbins, 2001) while asynchronous communication between senders and receivers takes place at different times and mostly at different places