1. 1
SPICE: A Business Process Diagnostics Tool for Construction
Projects
M.Sarshar, R.Haigh, M.Finnemore, G.Aouad, P. Barrett, D. Baldry, M. Sexton
School of Construction and Property Management, University of Salford, Salford, UK
Contact Details:
Dr. Marjan Sarshar
School of Construction and Property Management
University of Salford
Salford
M7 9NU
Telephone - 0161 295 5317
Fax - 0161 295 5011
E-mail - M.Sarshar@surveying.salford.ac.uk

2. 2
ABSTRACT
The construction sector is under growing pressure to increase productivity and improve quality, most
notably in reports by Latham (1994) and Egan (1998). A major problem for construction companies is
the lack of project predictability. One method of increasing predictability and delivering increased
customer value is through the systematic management of construction processes. However, the industry
has no methodological mechanism to assess process capability and prioritise process improvements.
Standardised Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises (SPICE) is a research project that
is attempting to develop a step-wise process improvement framework for the construction industry,
utilising experience from the software industry, and in particular the Capability Maturity Model
(CMM), which has resulted in significant productivity improvements in the software industry.
This paper introduces SPICE concepts and presents the results from two case studies conducted on
design and build projects. These studies have provided further insight into the relevance and accuracy
of the framework, as well as its value for the construction sector.
Keywords
Capability Maturity Model (CMM), process assessment, process capability, process enablers, process
improvement, SPICE.
BACKGROUND
For many years, businesses within the construction sector have been applying new methods of working
and technologies to improve productivity and attain quality gains. However, the targets set by Sir
Michael Latham in 'Constructing the Team' (Latham 1994) have yet to be achieved. In his report of
July 1998, Sir John Egan (Egan 1998) emphasised the call for productivity improvements and urged the
industry to focus in particular on construction processes. However, until now, the industry has had few

3. 3
recognised methodologies or frameworks on which to base a process improvement initiative. The
absence of clear guidelines has meant that improvements are isolated and benefits cannot be co-
ordinated or repeated. The industry is unable to systematically assess construction process, prioritise
process improvements, and direct resources appropriately. Moreover, it is not possible for companies to
benchmark and measure their performance relative to other organisations. SPICE research is attempting
to address these issues.
Standardised Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises (SPICE) is a current research
project that is developing a process improvement framework for the construction industry. This is
based on an existing successful model (Paulk 1993, Saidian 1995), which was developed by the US
Department of Defence and is widely used in the software industry, namely the Capability Maturity
Model (CMM). Increasing evidence from other sectors (Imai 1986, Paulk 1993) shows that continuous
process improvement is based on many small, evolutionary steps, rather than revolutionary measures.
Successful implementers of CMM have reported significant business benefits. For example, Hughes
Aircraft (USA) reported a 5:1 ROI, and Raytheon (USA) achieved a 7.7:1 ROI and 2:1 productivity
gains (Saidian 1995). Industry analysis by J. Herbsleb (Herbsleb 1994) showed that companies
implementing CMM achieved an average of 35% productivity improvements and an average of 39%
post delivery defect reduction. Latham’s call for a 30% cost reduction and zero defects would become
more feasible if the construction industry could realise similar figures.
Tailoring of CMM to construction is not a linear mapping exercise. Studies by Lillrank (1995)
show that transfer of innovation across countries (and industries) cannot take place in their original
packaging. The core idea of an innovation must be abstracted and then recreated in a form, which fits
local conditions. Lillrank argues that a significant amount of work is required at the receiving end of
innovation, especially in adopting the appropriate organisational forms. This is certainly true in the case
of the SPICE project. SPICE is continuously investigating how CMM’s basic concepts can be benefited

4. 4
from to develop a construction specific framework. The CMM concepts are described in Sarshar
(1998, 1999a). This paper introduces the SPICE concepts and framework, which are similar but not
identical to CMM.
In the following sections the paper differentiates between mature and immature organisations, in
terms of a systematic approach to business processes. It then describes the SPICE maturity model,
which is an incremental model. SPICE helps immature organisations reach process maturity. The paper
also differentiates between process and process capability. It introduces the concept of "process
enablers" and discusses SPICE's assessment mechanism. Level 2 of the model is applied to two design
and build projects. The case study results are discussed and analysed.
IMMATURE VERSUS MATURE CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATIONS
Setting sensible goals for process improvement requires an understanding of the difference between
immature and mature organisations (Paulk 1995, Zahran 1998).
In an immature organisation, construction processes are generally improvised by practitioners and
project managers during the course of the project. Even if a construction process has been specified, it
is not rigorously followed or enforced. The immature organisation is reactionary, and managers are
usually focused on fire fighting. In an immature organisation, there is no objective basis for judging
product quality or for solving product or process problems. The product quality assurance is often
curtailed or eliminated when projects fall behind schedule.
In an immature organisation, product quality is difficult to predict. Activities intended to enhance
quality such as reviews are often curtailed. Many of the quality assurance activities are left until the
"snagging" stage at the end of the project. At this point the problems can be too costly to rectify and
lead to conflict of interest among the project team.

5. 5
Even in undisciplined and immature organisations, individual projects sometimes produce
excellent results (Humphrey 1989). When such projects succeed, it is generally through the heroic
efforts of a dedicated team, rather than through repeating the systematic and proven methods of a
mature organisation.
Conversely, a mature construction organisation possesses an organisation wide ability for
managing design, construction and maintenance activities. The processes are accurately communicated
to both existing staff and new employees, and activities are carried out according to the planned
processes. The processes mandated are fit for use and consistent with the way the work gets done.
Roles and responsibilities within the defined processes are clear throughout the project and across the
organisation. In mature organisations, managers monitor the quality of the products and client
satisfaction. There is an objective, quantitative basis for judging product quality and analysing
problems with the product and process, and a reflective element to the organisational culture. In
general, a disciplined process is consistently followed because all of the participants understand the
value of doing so, and the necessary infrastructure exists to support the process.
THE SPICE FRAMEWORK
Continuous process improvement is based on many small, evolutionary steps (Imai 86). The SPICE
framework organises these evolutionary steps into maturity levels that lay successive foundations for
continuous process improvement. These maturity levels define a scale for measuring the maturity of a
construction organisation's processes, and evaluating its process capability. They provide guidelines for
prioritising process improvement efforts.
A maturity level is a well-defined evolutionary plateau towards achieving mature processes. Each
maturity level provides a layer in the foundation for continuous process improvement. Each level
comprises a set of process goals that, when satisfied, stabilise an important component in the

6. 6
"construction" process. Achieving each level of the maturity framework establishes a different
component in the "construction" process, resulting in an increase in the process capability of the
organisation (Paulk 1993).
The SPICE maturity framework is depicted in figure 1. An assessment tool accompanies this
framework. An organisation can only be at one level of maturity at any stage. Organisations conduct an
assessment to establish which level of maturity they are at. Judging by the experience in the software
industry, most companies are initially at level 1. They then need to focus on and implement all the key
processes at the next level, i.e. level 2.
It is important to note that this framework is still under research. The initial concepts have been
borrowed from CMM (Humphrey 1989, Paulk 1995, Zahran 1998). The characteristics of levels 1 and
2 have been investigated within construction. However, the characteristics of levels 3, 4 and 5 are
based on CMM thinking. These may change, as more empirical evidence gathers. The characteristics of
each level of the framework follow:
Level 1- Initial
At this level, project visibility and predictability are poor. Good project practices are local and cannot
be repeated across the company in an institutionalised fashion. Ineffective planning and co-ordination
undermine good engineering practices. Organisations make commitments that staff or the supply chain
cannot meet. This results in a series of crisis.
During crisis, projects typically abandon planned procedures. Time and costs are often under tight
control in construction. Hence the crisis often leads to compromises on quality. Success depends
entirely on having an exceptional manager and a competent team. When these managers leave, their
stabilising influences leave with them.

7. 7
The construction process capability of level 1 organisations is unpredictable because the process is
not specified and is constantly changed or modified as the work progresses. Performance depends on
the capabilities of the individuals, rather than that of the organisation.
Level 2- Repeatable
At this level there is a degree of project predictability. Policies and procedures for managing the major
project based processes are established. A major objective of level 2 is to focus on effective
management processes within each construction project. This allows organisations to repeat the
successful practices of earlier projects. An effective process can be characterised as practised,
documented, enforced, trained, evaluated and able to improve.
At level 2, organisations make realistic commitments based on project requirements. Managers
track quality and functionality as well as time and costs. Problems in meeting the commitments are
identified as they arise. The integrity of the project requirements are maintained throughout the project.
Standards are defined and organisations ensure that they are faithfully followed. Projects work with
sub-contractors to establish strong relationships.
To date the emphasis of the research has been the characteristics of this level.
Level 3- Defined
At level three both management and engineering activities are documented, standardised and integrated
into the organisation. These standard processes are referenced throughout the organisation. All projects
use approved, tailored versions of organisation's standard processes, which accounts for their unique
characteristics.
Level 3 is where an organisation develops the capability to capture and share best practices, across
the organisation rather than on a localised basis. This is a topical issue for the construction industry.

8. 8
One implication of the SPICE model is that an organisation does not have the capability to capture
best practices, until it reaches level 3. Attempts to do so will be risky and are likely to prove
unsuccessful.
A well-defined process includes standard descriptions and models for performing the work,
verification mechanisms (such as peer reviews) and completion criteria. Because the process is well
defined, management has good insight into progress. Quality and functionality of all projects are well
tracked.
Level 4- Managed
At this level organisations have the capability to set quality goals for (i) the product, (ii) the process,
and (iii) the supply chain relationships. Productivity and quality are measured for important
construction process activities across all projects as part of an organisational measurement program.
This forms an objective basis for measuring the product, the process, and the degree of customer
satisfaction.
Projects gain control by narrowing the variations in their process performance, to fall within
acceptable quantitative boundaries. Meaningful variations can be distinguished from random variations.
The risks involved in moving up the learning curve either due to undertaking new categories of
projects, or engaging in new procurement and supplier chain arrangements can be managed.
Level 5- Optimised
At this stage the entire supply chain is focused on continuous process improvement. The organisations
have the means to identify weaknesses and strengthen the processes pro-actively, in a collaborative
manner. Data on the effectiveness of the processes is used to perform cost benefit analysis of new

9. 9
technologies and proposed changes to the organisation's processes. Innovations that exploit the best
business management practices are identified and transferred throughout the organisations.
Project teams across the supply chain analyse defects to determine their causes. Construction
processes are evaluated to prevent known types of defects from recurring, and lessons learned are
communicated to other projects.
SCOPE OF SPICE
The CMM model has not specifically addressed the supply chain. In construction, it is difficult to scope
improvement efforts without directly addressing supply chain issues. Another characteristic of the
construction industry is that the process maturity may change, during the different stages of a project
life cycle.
SPICE attempts to address these construction characteristics. The current research has primarily
focused on a single project phase in one organisation. The research will progressively expand to
investigate the other life cycle and supply chain issues.

10. 10
KEY PROCESSES; LEVEL 2
There are a number of "key processes" associated with each level of the SPICE model, in figure 1. To
achieve each level of maturity an organisation must perform all these key processes adequately. Since
the focus of SPICE has been level 2 of the framework, this section provides a short description of level
2 key processes. These key processes are based on CMM’s key processes (Sarshar 1999 b), but
changed to reflect construction terminology and characteristics. For example the SPICE key process
“Brief & Scope of Work Management”, maps onto CMM key process “Requirements Management”.
These can be listed as:
§ Brief & Scope of Work Management - Establishes a common understanding of the project
requirements between the client and the project team.
§ Project Planning - Establishes realistic plans and programmes of work for all activities during
the project.
§ Project Tracking & Monitoring - Ensures that there is an awareness of actual progress so that
management can take corrective actions when the project's performance deviates significantly from
the plans.
§ Sub-contract Management - Involves selecting a suitable sub-contractor, establishing
commitments, and tracking and reviewing their performance and results.
§ Project Change Management - Tracks revisions to the project brief by assessing and
controlling the impact of any changes and informing all relevant members of the project team.
§ Risk Management - Identifies, assesses, monitors and mitigates risks.
§ Project Team Co-ordination - Draws on the experience of other organisations within the
project team in order to effectively meet project requirements.
For an organisation to achieve level 2 of maturity, all projects must perform all these key processes
adequately. This forms the basis for progression to level 3.

11. 11
PROCESS ENABLERS
Anecdotal evidence during SPICE research highlights that if you ask project managers: "Do you
implement level 2 key processes?", they are likely to give a positive response. On the other hand our
current case studies indicate the contrary. How can project managers ensure that they are performing
the key processes adequately?
Zahran (1998) differentiates between “incomplete processes” and “disciplined processes”. He lists
a number of characteristics for each category. Paulk (1995) also lists a number of “key management
features” for a complete and coherent process. Based on these philosophies, SPICE has developed a
number of “process enablers”.
Process enablers focus on results, which can be expected to be achieved from a key process. This is
a forward-looking approach, which indicates process capability before a process takes place. They
provide detail of features, which a key process must posses in order to yield successful results.
Ensuring that all the process enablers are in place, improves the performance and predictability of key
processes.
Process enablers are common across all the key processes. SPICE process enablers are listed
below:
§ Commitment - This criterion ensures that the organisation takes action to ensure that the process
is established and will endure. It typically involves establishing organisation policies. Some
processes require organisational sponsors or leaders. Commitment to perform ensures that
leadership positions are created and filled and the relevant organisational policy statements exist.
§ Ability - This describes the preconditions that must exist to implement the process competently. It
normally involves adequate resourcing, appropriate organisational structure, and training.

12. 12
§ Verification - This verifies that the activities are performed in compliance with the process that
has been established. It emphasises the need for independent, external verification by management
and quality assurance.
§ Evaluation - This describes the basic internal process evaluation and reviews that are necessary.
These internal evaluations are used to control and improve the processes. During the early stages of
maturity, this translates into efforts by the team to improve their existing processes.
§ Activities - This describes the activities, roles and procedures necessary to implement processes. It
typically involves establishing plans and procedures, performing the work, tracking it, and taking
corrective action as necessary.
THE ASSESSMENT MECHANISM
The SPICE assessment mechanism ensures that each key process has reached capability by testing it
against the above “process enablers”. The assessment would generally comprise of three elements: a
questionnaire; interviews of key personnel; a document review.
The assessment team, review the results to establish whether each key process is 'capable'. This
process allows the assessment team to "hold a mirror in front of the project team". The findings are
shared with the project team, who use these results to plan improvement activities.
The combination of these key processes viewed as a whole, will place the organisation at a level of
process maturity in the model. An organisation can only be considered to be at a particular level in the
model if all the key processes are deemed capable at that level.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research is carried out in close collaboration with industry. A core steering group of 8 practitioners
and academics lead the research and findings are verified by continuous dissemination and exchange of

13. 13
ideas with industry representatives. The research is presented to a bi-annual 'panel of experts'
workshops, where between 20-30 senior academics and industrialists provide discussion, feedback and
future directions.
The research approach can be classified as a ‘testing-out research’ due to the nature of theme. In
this type of research, the aim is trying to find the limits of previously proposed generalisations (in the
software sector) and, subsequently, specifying, modifying or clarifying their content (Starke 1995). As
a 'testing-out' research, it has to be carried out in ‘real world’ conditions where the kind of control
present in a laboratory is not feasible and not even ethically justifiable. Thus, it was decided to adopt a
case study research strategy, with multiple case study design.
Since the basic philosophies of SPICE were borrowed from the software industry, it is important to
ensure that construction is not "shoehorned" into software concepts. The research team developed a set
of success criteria for the SPICE concepts. The criteria was that the SPICE concepts and results would
be meaningful and of value to the construction teams, as well as to construction academics and senior
managers. At the end of each case study the SPICE results were shared with the project teams, to seek
if the results added value and are were for initiating improvements. Once the teams had understood and
agreed with the results, they are put to the panel of experts, to establish their validity with the
academics and senior industrialists.
Several case studies were conducted in two companies: (i) a large contracting firm, and (ii) a small
professional architectural practice. These case studies provide the facility to test the research proposals
in a live project environment. Figure 2 shows the project's iterative approach and output.
It is generally acknowledged that there are large gaps between industrial perspectives and
requirements, as opposed to the academic outlook (Brandon 1999). SPICE has been reasonably
successful in bridging some of the gaps. Some lessons learned from this collaborative approach are
discussed in Sarshar (1999b). In summary the construction professionals are comfortable with "hard"

14. 14
management, as opposed to "soft" research management. Any changes to original research project
plans and re-thinking of concepts can be viewed by these professionals as poor project management,
which disrupts their business. The industrialists are thirsty for quick business returns and are impatient
with "thinking" phases of the project. It is important to manage the expectation of the industrialists, so
that the researchers have room to explore, and at the same time the industrialists can expect some
business benefits. Consequently, the research team developed an incremental hand over plan, from
research concepts to commercial packages, which is shown in figure 4. During the early stages of this
plan (i.e. "academic concepts" in figure 4), the industrialists should expect re-thinking and re-
examination of concepts. As these concepts take shape, the industrialists become more involved in the
development of commercial packaging of concepts. The project management is "soft" in the early
stages, and becomes increasingly "hard" as the concepts are handed over to industrialists.
The large contracting firm agreed in collaborating with the researchers, based on the plan in figure
4. This plan was shared with the relevant practitioners and project managers, to set expectations.
CASE STUDIES
Level 1 is the entry level to SPICE. Level 1 has no key processes and organisations at this level have
little process focus. Level 1 organisations must focus on implementing level 2 key processes. Hence the
process capability of an organisation is assessed against the key processes of levels 2 and above. The
researchers assessed two design and build projects against level 2 of the SPICE framework. Both
projects were in their construction phase.
The objectives of the case study were to: -
1) identify any process issues not addressed by the framework;
2) determine if the recommendations derived are meaningful;
3) to capture the experience of the project team; and

15. 15
4) to test the effectiveness of the assessment mechanism.
The Assessment Process
The researchers introduced the model to senior project and contracts managers, in order to obtain their
commitment. They then briefed the project teams and conducted an assessment of the projects. The
project teams consisted of senior and middle managers, as well as practitioners representing all work
functions within the project. The assessment included questionnaires, interviews and a limited
document review. This approach is based on the CMM assessment approach (Zahran 1998).
The researchers analysed the data from the questionnaires, interviews and document reviews. A
traceability matrix was used to assist the research team in the collation of data for each of the
assessment tools employed, each finding being supported by multiple sources of data. For example, a
single finding may be supported by responses given in interviews with various members of staff and
from reviewing project documentation. By not relying on a single source of data, the likelihood of
errors was reduced. To ensure confidentiality, a matrix format, similar to figures 4, was used to present
an overview of the assessment results, therefore ensuring the findings cannot be attributed to a single
employee. The x-axis lists the key processes at level 2, the y-axis lists the process enablers. A clear cell
indicates a mature process capability, whilst a shaded cell highlights process weaknesses, hence
opportunities for improvement.
The question marks on figure 4, show areas where inconclusive evidence was found during the
assessment. In both case studies, the findings for ‘Brief and Scope of Work Management’ were
inconclusive, as this process focuses on the capture and management of client requirements, a process
that was performed in the pre-construction phase. The two case studies were undertaken too late in the
project life cycle to investigate this process. This led to the research finding that, during the assessment
of the construction phase of a project, the key process "Brief and Scope of Work Management" is

16. 16
irrelevant and should be omitted. This key process must be analysed during the briefing and design
phases of a project.
The scope of the assessment did however include the management of changes to the brief, which is
addressed by the key process area "Project Change Management".
The researchers shared each matrix results with the relevant project team to confirm that it was a
true representation of the project. Based on this, the team could agree improvement priorities.
Case Study 1
This was a £6m project. The project was running behind schedule and profit expectation was poor.
However, it was viewed as a typical design and build project for the company. 12 project team
members participated in the assessment process.
The researchers developed results using data from each stage of the assessment process
(questionnaires, interviews and document reviews). The researchers highlighted strengths and
weaknesses for each key process area. A summary of the results can be found in a matrix, as in figure
4. The complete results were presented in detail to the project team, so that individual issues could be
discussed and lead to improvement suggestions.
The assessment highlighted a number of strengths. A review of project documentation revealed
that clear organisational directives and supporting procedures that provided guidance for performing
many of the process areas defined within the SPICE model. In addition, the questionnaires and
interviews confirmed that the project team contained many experienced and well-trained practitioners.
The capability of the project to plan the work, track performance and manage subcontractors was
strong.
However, the assessment also found a number of important weaknesses. The interviews revealed
many different perceptions about the project goals and critical success factors. Primarily this was due

17. 17
to poor communication between senior management and practitioners performing the work, an issue
clearly highlighted by interviewing staff independently. This was resulting in confused priorities
amongst staff.
Although procedures existed, awareness of them was poor. Many practitioners used their
experience to improvise. Although such examples were sometimes effective, many of the procedures
in use were not recorded, leading to problems when responsibilities were transferred to other members
of staff. In particular there was no defined method for managing design changes. A new member of
staff that was assigned responsibility for this role was inadequately equipped to carry out this function.
This was compounded by the absence of any training for this role.
Although quality assurance audits were performed, issues of non-compliance were not actioned or
followed up. The value of quality assurance was not understood by some members of staff. The audits
were ineffective at ensuring compliance with company procedures.
The interviews also revealed that many of the staff were aware of improvements that needed to be
made. Although a mechanism for initiating change was available within the company procedures, it
was not visible to the project team, or driven by senior management. The team therefore made no
attempt to address problems.
All 12 members of the project team that participated in the case study attended a workshop to
review the strengths and weaknesses identified in the assessment. Some of the findings were queried
by individual members of the project team. Further discussions amongst the attendees confirmed that
the results as they stood, were an accurate representation of the project's process capability. The results
of the assessment provided a common and agreed basis from which to identify and plan improvements.
Due to the case study being performed near to project completion, it was too late to implement
improvements on that particular project. However, the improvements have been taken on board at a
regional level within the organisation and are to be implemented on future projects.

18. 18
Case Study 2
This was a £55m P.F.I. (Private Finance Initiative) project. The project was one of the early P.F.I.
projects. The industry as a whole knew little about this procurement mechanism. At the start of the
project, it was classified as a high-risk project and consequently, the contractor had utilised a highly
experienced team of senior managers and practitioners. The project was running ahead of schedule and
was perceived as a successful project. The SPICE assessment was conducted in a similar manner to
case study 1. 15 project team members participated in the assessment, representing a cross section of
staff including senior management and practitioners. The case study results were analysed and
arranged in a matrix, as in figure 4.
This project was an example of good process practice. The assessment found that the team worked
towards common goals. The goals were clearly established at project commencement and effectively
communicated from senior management to all members of the project team. The project had tailored
organisational procedures and standards to meet their specific requirements at the start of the project.
These documented processes were implemented and were the basis for all management processes.
A quality assurance audit schedule was used as a basis for verifying that procedures were
complied. The value of this exercise was clearly understood by the majority of the project team.
Significantly, points of non-compliance were actively pursued by senior management and tracked until
resolution.
The major shortcoming highlighted by the assessment was that the processes were not reviewed on
a periodic basis by the project team, to identify potential improvements. Some managers took the view
that a live project does not have the time and resources for improvement efforts. Senior management
dismissed this view.

19. 19
A project team workshop reviewed the results from the SPICE assessment. The project team
agreed with the findings and suggested a number of improvements to address the weaknesses
highlighted. The project team also saw value in the SPICE as a tool for capturing process strengths,
and transferring that knowledge to future projects.
Organisation wide process improvement and good practice transfer is the focus of level 3 of the
SPICE. This level has not been fully developed at this stage of the research.
As a consequence of this assessment, the company is investigating mechanisms for creating an
infrastructure to capture and share good practice throughout the organisation.
Panel of Experts Opinion
The case study findings were put to an industry panel of experts. Around 20 senior industrialists and
academics were represented on this panel. The panel found great potential value in the findings. The
major recommendation of the panel was that SPICE should not be purely a diagnostic tool. The
diagnostic matrix should be used to determine improvement priorities.
The senior project managers involved in SPICE recommend that SPICE should be used early, on
all large contracts. The industrial (panel and project teams') verdict to date, is that SPICE is more useful
to large projects, than to the small projects.
ANALYSIS OF FRAMEWORK
Benefits from using SPICE
The observed benefits of SPICE can be listed as:
§ SPICE creates a strong process focus within project teams.
§ The framework identifies process strengths as well as weaknesses.

20. 20
§ The assessment time is relatively short. It takes around 3 days on site, whilst only requiring the
participation of the whole team for a briefing at the start of the assessment, and for a workshop to
discuss the findings and determine improvement priorities.
§ Though not part of the framework, the assessment process highlights cultural issues, as well as
evaluating process management.
§ SPICE creates a strong platform for discussing improvements and capturing implementation plans.
Improvements Required in SPICE
The improvements needed to the model are: -
§ The industrialists could not relate to some of the terminology. For example some sub-contractors
did not understand the key process “Brief Management”. The sub-contractors believed that they do
not manage a brief, but instead receive a scope of work. Hence this key process was changed to
"Brief and Scope of Work Management". The sub-contractors could understand and relate to this
key process.
§ SPICE is still a research tool, rather than an industrial product, hence some documentation is still
missing.
§ SPICE will be more beneficial if it is applied to all stages of the life cycle, as many of project
problems are typically locked in at pre-construction phases.
§ The key process “Risk Management” is sometimes confused with Health & Safety “Risk
Assessment”. The definition for this process requires more clarity. Therefore:
§ “Health & Safety Management” is identified as a new key process. This will be added to level 2.
This key process is not part of CMM’s original model, as it has no value in the software industry. In
construction, health & safety is of major importance and requires significant focus.

21. 21
§ During the construction phase, the key process “Brief & Scope of Work Management” has no
specific meaning, as the brief has already been defined by this phase. The key process “Project
Change Management” becomes important, during the construction phase. Hence in the future
“Brief & Scope of Work Management” will be omitted from the SPICE questionnaire, during the
construction phase.
Observations Relating to the Assessment Process
The case study assessments were conducted by both assessors independent to the company and by
personnel from the company QA department. The case studies revealed that project staff were more
comfortable discussing process management and cultural issues when only the independent assessors
were present, hence more information was forthcoming. Interviews conducted with internal QA staff
present yielded less productive interviews.
As mentioned previously, to date, the project managers see SPICE as more suitable for use with
larger projects. SPICE concepts are applicable to small projects as well as large projects. This suggests
that the current assessment process is too resource consuming for smaller projects.
Future case studies will examine how to reduce the cost and time of SPICE assessment, while
maintaining its accuracy.
SUMMARY
This paper describes the concepts behind the SPICE project and explains its research methodology.
SPICE intends to develop a stepwise process improvement methodology for the construction industry.
This will be based on tailoring an existing successful model in the software industry, namely the
Capability Maturity Model (CMM). Due to complex supply chain arrangements in the construction

22. 22
industry, the usability, value and meaning of SPICE needs to be tested against various supply chain
arrangements and procurement scenarios. This is shown in figure 2.
The research has conducted case studies on two design and build projects, in a single organisation,
during one phase of the life cycle (i.e. construction). The projects were tested against level 2 of the
framework.
The case studies have shown that SPICE: (i) creates process focus; (ii) is meaningful to project
teams; (iii) is a good process diagnostics tool; (iv) has a short assessment process; and (v) highlights
some cultural issues as well as process issues.
The recommendation for improvements to the framework are that: (i) the scope of SPICE needs to
be extended so that it is a comprehensive improvement tool; (ii) terminology of the framework needs
improvement; (iii) a key process “Health & Safety Management” must be added to level 2. (iv) the
definition of some key processes need clarity.
The research will continue to examine the applicability of SPICE to other phases of the life cycle
and also to supply chain issues.

23. 23
REFERENCES
Brandon, P.S. et. al (1999) Engagement Leading to Enchantment, in Linking Construction Industry
Needs and Construction Research Outputs. CRISP Consultancy Commission 98/1, London.
Egan, Sir J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. HMSO, London.
Herbsleb, J. et al (1994) Software Process Improvement: State of the Payoff. American Programmer
September.
Imai, M. (1998) Kaizen: The Key to Japan's Competitive Success. Mc-Graw-Hill, New York.
Humphrey, W. "Managing the Software Process", Addison-Wesley, 1989.
Latham, Sir M (1994) Constructing the Team. HMSO, London.
Lillrank, P. (1995) The Transfer of Management Innovations From Japan. Organisation Studies,
Organization studies, Vol.16/6, pp. 971-989.
Paulk, M. C. et al (1993) Capability Maturity Model for Software v 1.0. Software Engineering Institute,
Carnegie Mellon University.
Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B. (1995) The Capability Maturity Model:
Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Massachusett.
Saiedian, H., Kuzara, N. (1995) SEI Capability Maturity Model’s Impact on Contractors. IEEE
Computer, January.
Sarshar, M., et. al. (1998) Standardised Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises (SPICE).
Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on Product and Process Modelling, Watford, UK.
Sarshar (a), M., Finnemore, M., Haigh, R. (1999) SPICE: Is the Capability Maturity Model Applicable
in The Construction Industry, 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials
and Components (CIB W78), May 30 - June 3, Vancouver, Canada
Sarshar (b), M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, P. (1999) Standardised Process
Improvement For Construction Enterprises (SPICE): Research Methodology & Approach.
Challenge of Change: Building & Construction in the New Millennium, Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors (RICS) COBRA Annual Conference, Salford, UK, 1-2 Sept. 1999.
Starke, R.E., "The Art of Case Study Research", Thousand Oaks, Cali; London, Sage, 1995.
Zahran, S. “Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success”, Addison-
Wesley 1998.

24. 24
Level 5
Continuous process improvement, Optimising
across the organisation
Level 4
Quantitative process control
Managed
across the organisation
Level 3
Standard consistent processes
Defined
across the organisation
Disciplined processes for Level 2
each individual project Repeatable
Level 1
Initial
Figure 1 SPICE framework

25. 25
Literature Search & Output
Reference to original
CMM Framework
handbook &
assessment tool
Steering Committee Industrial
& Industrial 'Panel of guidelines
Experts' workshops booklet
Seminars & club
meetings on
Evaluate via process
questionnaires & improvement
case studies
Figure 2 Research Methodology

26. 26
industrial uptake
industry led- complete
industrial pilots documentation & training programs;
hard project management;
framework ready for use.
industry / academic led- 3-4 case studies;
industrial case studies more rigid project management; investigation
of roles and responsibilities and reporting
structures; by the end of this stage the
deliverables are 90%-95% complete.
academic led- 1-3 case studies; soft
research case studies
project management; by the end of this
stage the deliverables are 80%
complete.
research concepts academic led- investigation and
discussion of open concepts, formulation
of requirements.
Figure 3- An incremental approach to research
project management and research uptake.

27. 27
Key
Strength
Weakness
? Not determined
Case Study 1 Case Study 2
Key Process Areas (Level 2) Key Process Areas (Level 2)
Project Change Mgt.
Project Change Mgt.
Team Co-ordination
Team Co-ordination
Brief & Scope Mgt.
Brief & Scope Mgt.
Subcontract Mgt.
Subcontract Mgt.
Project Planning
Project Tracking
Project Planning
Project Tracking
Risk Mgt.
Risk Mgt.
Process Enablers Process Enablers
Commitment ? Commitment ?
Ability ? Ability ?
Activities ? Activities ?
Evaluation ? Evaluation ?
Verification ? Verification ?
Figure 4 Case Study Results Matrix