Hot Issues in PBL – Creating the Problem Context

Holistic Thinking and Decision-Making in a Changing Environment by Incorporating Role Play and Role Evolution

David Eaton, d.eaton@salford.ac.uk
Andrew Turner, a.r.turner@salford.ac.uk.

Abstract
The final year Construction Management undergraduate programme at Salford is unusual in that it is almost entirely problem based learning. Discrete blocks of time are allocated to ‘projects’. These may be of one to three weeks in duration. They allow the students to appreciate the breadth of issues associated with a particular ‘problem’; for example sustainability or waste management in construction. To increase the realism of these Problem Based Learning (PBL) scenarios a role-play approach can be adopted. 

This paper presents one such project that involves the study of the practice and consequences of Partnering in construction procurement.  The approach adopted is to use role-play techniques to expose the undergraduate to the full scope of issues associated with the philosophy of partnering. For instance, the issues associated with honesty, openness and trust are difficult to contemplate in the abstract, and issues of industry culture, ethical behaviour and mind-setting, which are difficult to expose without replicating the industry context.

This paper finds that the outcomes arising from this type of experiential learning are favourably received by both graduates and industry, with interactive role-play developing good levels of transferable skills.  Staff and students both report higher levels of task engagement and enjoyment.

Keywords: Decision-making; Experiential Learning; Holistic thinking; Partnering; Problem-based Learning.

Introduction
The Construction and Property industries are notoriously volatile. Within this environment the Construction Managers and Project Managers are expected to respond effectively and efficiently to fundamental changes in the objectives of clients caused by unanticipated changes in market conditions and other exogenous factors. A key feature of the PBL project (Problem-Based Learning) that will be examined is how ‘best’ to give construction undergraduates ‘real experience’ of working in such a rapidly changing environment.

A vital component of this realistic ‘experiential learning’ is presenting both the content and context of such a problem. Content without context is theory in a vacuum, and equally context without content is ungrounded learning. It therefore becomes necessary to create a PBL that establishes sufficient context for the learning to be relevant, practical, social and personal, yet remains sufficiently indeterminate to allow the problem to evolve through the decision making of the student cohort. The content establishes meaning, application, student needs and student autonomy.

A key feature of this PBL is to foster the holistic nature of the management process. It requires the individual student to ‘see the bigger picture’, since they will experience the consequences of decisions that they make. This is an unusual feature of undergraduate education, since there is rarely the opportunity for construction students to deal with the cumulative effects of a series of decisions made over an artificially accelerated timescale. The project offers an insight into the social, legal, economic, environmental, political, and technological aspects of project management. Many of the risks associated with major construction project development and delivery are simulated in an interactive manner as will be detailed later.

The PBL approach has a philosophical perspective that is based in the cognitive, consequential, utilitarian school of philosophy.  It is possible to determine the moral rights and that the ‘fullest’ appraisal of the consequences of a decision should be considered as a part of the decision making process, to such a degree that ‘the balance of disutility over utility will make a decision wrong’ (J.Bentham,. 1748-1832, in Scruton, R. (1994)). This is also an unusual aspect for construction undergraduates. Some business environments are conducive to ethical behaviour, whilst others allow or encourage more ‘opportunistic behaviour’. The typical construction industry approach is strongly adversarial and highly confrontational. This project is deliberately constructed to proffer an alternative approach via ‘partnering’.

Partnering has been advocated as a preferred procurement process for the construction and property industries (Egan, 1998). Partnering is a form of ‘relational contracting’ in which the commercial reality of the parties expectations goes much further than the legal requirements of the contract document. The parties are encouraged to respond to events, not merely relying on the legal provisions. Such a strategy can remain successful so long as the relationship continues indefinitely. They may break down if one or other party believes the relationship is likely to come to an end. (This is the premise of standard game theory – prisoners’ dilemma, for example see  J Friedman, (1989).) The intention of partnering is to create a repeated game scenario, whereby achieving agreed performance targets leads to repeated work opportunities. 

An element of this project is that the students are responsible for managing and maintaining the ‘relational’ arrangement. Any adversarial or opportunistic behaviour can be easily exposed and particularly affected student groups can determine an appropriate response. Thus the ethical principles become a fundamental operational aspect of the project delivery.

The reality of the project is that ‘typical’ construction behaviours and the adversarial ‘mind-set’ are rapidly exposed and typical responses create consequences that have a particularly powerful experiential quality! The attainment of mutually agreed goals and the evolution of win-win solutions is an outcome from the simulation and role-play.

The definitions of experiential learning within this project content and context are (after Henry(1989), Boud(1989), Warner-Weil & McGill(1989), Revans(1980), Schon(1983), Kolb(1984), et al. as modified by authors)that experiential learning provides:

1.	The basis for bringing about changes in the structures and strategies of business activities in property and construction;
2.	The basis for group consciousness raising, community action and social change;
3.	The basis for the personal growth and development and increasing self-awareness and group effectiveness;
4.	The basis for bringing about changes in systems and behaviours of the individual and the group;
5.	The basis for bringing about critical appraisal and reflection on the consequences of decision-making.

Table 1: PBL Objectives
(Eaton & Turner 2004)

This PBL is a multi-level experience. The issues of content and context interact at many levels. The experiential learning hierarchy is presented as a model of some of these interactions. The boundaries between the levels are permeable and multiple levels can combine to create a complicity and simplexity of action (Eaton, 2002). A model hierarchy has been developed to indicate the interactivity of multi-level experience. Figure 1 presents a simplified model indicating the degree of interactivity (see overleaf).

Aims
This paper aims to:
•	Illustrate the use of role-play techniques on a PBL type exercise;
•	Consider the benefits of this approach for all stakeholders;
•	Consider the disadvantages, or costs, of this approach for all stakeholders;
•	Illustrate that the context in which a PBL exercise is carried out contributes greatly to experiential learning, by replicating the industrial situation.

Background
The project, which provides the PBL vehicle for this study, is based around a real-life scenario; for example the requirements of a national supermarket chain, which is engaged in an expansion plan and requires the building of new stores together with the refurbishment of existing stores.  The work is to be procured through ‘partnering’ and students are provided with an overall brief that gives details of the project and of the three main stakeholders - the client, the main contractor and a sub-contractor.  The brief gives background information on each party thus setting the scene for the role-play.

Students are randomly formed into groups, each group acting the part of one of the stakeholders. Students are then expected to adopt a particular role within their group such as project manager, planner or quantity surveyor. The project is developed through a series of role-play activities representing different stages of the project: (1) the client’s brief, (2) on-site variations and design changes and (3) final settlement of accounts.

Figure 1: Hierarchy Model of Experiential Learning.
(Eaton & Turner 2004)

Role-play sessions last for one hour and at the start of each session role-play briefs (change notes) are handed out.  Each group is given 10 minutes to assimilate the information provided which will represent the same scenario but viewed from the differing perspectives of the three stakeholders.  The differing needs and priorities of each party will be reflected in the information provided.  The groups then engage in 45 minutes of negotiations followed by 5 minutes of de-briefing from the academic staff who act as facilitators and, if necessary, as arbitrators.  

Whilst the same overall project brief can be used year-on-year, scenarios can be readily varied and can incorporate current issues including environmental concerns, threats from ‘eco-warriors’, health and safety matters and the like.

The role-play has been designed for three groups of two or three students; multiple simulations can be run in parallel. At the end of the parallel simulations the students from each simulation stakeholder group can be brought together to discuss the different experiences from the simulations. Requiring the students to develop a workshop presentation based upon a particular stakeholder perspective can do this. Best and worst practice from within each simulation can be used to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the partnering ethos.
Assessment tasks are set after each role-play, such that each student is required to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of ‘partnering’ as a procurement method and also to be critically reflective on the dynamics of the role-play and the outcomes of each role-play session. A group presentation is made at the end of the project such that each group can summarise their findings.

An individual’s performance within the role-play, or the outcomes from each stage of the PBL forms no part of the assessment regime.  The basis of the assessments is the demonstration of knowledge, understanding and critical reflection and not the success, or otherwise, of the simulation.

Values & Norms
The explicit norms and values of this project can be defined as follows:

•	Create a dynamic interactive environment for the investigation of philosophical HOT (honesty, openness and trust) issues;
•	Create a vehicle for the exploration of supra-system contextual issues of industry culture and ethical behaviour;
•	Create an environment wherein the decision maker experiences the consequences of previous decisions;
•	Simulate an experience of rapid assimilation of changing contextual data and to require the rapid development of negotiated solutions to ‘problems’;
•	Simulate ‘alternative’ stakeholder perspectives of a ‘problem situation’;
•	Produce a teaching and learning resource that can develop individual contributions to a ‘team exercise’;
•	Produce a teaching and learning resource that is responsive to the particular needs of an individual cohort and indeed the individual student, without undue prescription of the process to be undertaken;
•	Produce a teaching and learning resource that can evolve over time without repeating the same situation.

During the role-play emergent values and norms appear:

•	Emergent values: honesty; openness; trust; (equality).

In reporting on the philosophy the emergent value of ‘equality’ has been parenthesised since it occurs in some of the simulations and not others. A post-simulation review would suggest that the failure of equality to emerge as a value within some role-plays is attributable to the a priori knowledge of certain individuals within particular role-plays. For example, an individual had an unusually long period of site experience prior to commencement of the role-play (the typical site experience of the undergraduates is 15 months) and found the exercise of unfreezing the industry mind-set deeply disturbing. As a consequence this particular student evidenced ‘traditional’ industry behaviour throughout the role-play and ‘skewed’ the balanced learning towards an atypical confrontational approach. The sub-contractor was not partnered during the simulation and was not treated as an equal. Further reflections upon this experience are presented in the outcomes section later.

After a series of post role-play reflections the following implicit values and norms have been identified:

SYSTEMS	STRUCTURES	STRATEGIES	BEHAVIOURS	
Cooperative	Loyal	Action-oriented	No blame	
Partnering	Caring	Risk sharing	Risk managing	
Relational	Protective	Innovation	Non-prescriptive	
Mutual recognition	Mutual objectives	Skills sharing	Acknowledge differences	

Table 2: Implicit Values and Norms of the PBL Experience.
(Eaton & Turner 2004)

The implicit values and norms have been structured around the schematic archetype of 

Figure 2.

Figure 2: Experiential Archetype for Emergent Changes.
(Eaton & Turner 2004)

Outcomes
Figure 3 diagrammatically illustrates the outcomes of the PBL simulation.

Figure 3

Development and Delivery
The development of the project scenario initially emerged from a PhD research programme.  The scenario was created to test and evaluate research findings relating to the critical success factors (CSFs) for partnering.  Approximately 100 hours of development was necessary to create the roles for the multiple stakeholders (client, main contractor and nominated sub-contractor(s)).

In delivering the role-play, two academic staff are required to facilitate each role-play session: approximately 10 hours each over a three-week period; a further 10 hours each are required for review and intermediate assessment of role-play critiques.  Final assessment and internal moderation takes approximately 5 hours each, together with approximately 6 hours per staff member for mentoring support.  This is an intensive time commitment and requires full commitment by two staff to deliver the project to a group of approximately 12 students.

Additional continuous refinement and development amounting to approximately 10 hours annually has been required.  There is a nominal resource requirement for reproduction of briefing and role-play documentation.

Conclusion
Formal evaluation of all modules takes place periodically within the University as a matter of course by means of student questionnaires (MEQ, Project Suite, BSc Construction Management, April 2003). These have always been supportive of the approach adopted across the entire module, but identify the role-play project in particular as a challenging, but highly enjoyable form of experiential learning. 

A more intuitive evaluation is based upon the changes seen in the students both during and after the role-play has been completed. Students experiencing the unethical behaviour of others, receiving unprincipled negotiation tactics or realising the full extent of the consequences of decisions that they have made have the chance to reflect and then identify ‘better’ responses for the future. More traditional teaching and learning strategies do not easily achieve the exposure of the cohort to issues of industry culture and professional ethics and responsibility.

Figure 4: Cumulative and Iterative Nature of the Experiential Learning ‘Experience’.
(Eaton & Turner 2004)

Figure 4 schematically illustrates the cumulative and multi-level interactivity of the PBL experiential learning ‘experience’. The needs of all stakeholders, the student cohort, their employers, the University staff and the School of Construction and Property Management all benefit from the PBL project.

The observed ‘benefits’ of the PBL projects are:

 To the Student
•	An appreciation of the alternative learning approaches that role-play fosters;
•	Motivation gained through enjoyable role-play;
•	Improved critical appraisal of performance and reflection upon practice through role-play which leads to ad-hoc discussions; 
•	An appreciation of the fallibility of decision-making;
•	An understanding of the philosophy and processes of partnering.

To the Staff
•	This role-play project is seen as a highlight of their teaching input;

To the Industry
•	Graduates with better developed and transferable skills particularly in team work and in negotiation skills;
•	Graduates with a more holistic approach to decision making;
•	Graduates with a realistic recognition of the consequences of ‘flawed’ decision making practices.

To the School of Construction and Property Management
•	‘…examples of innovative work were seen through team-teaching, brain storming and the use of role-play’ (Q304/97 para21).

The observed ‘costs’ of the PBL projects are:

To the Student
•	Unfamiliar learning environment, leading to performance standard stress.
•	Potential in-role conflict with peers.
•	Personal value conflict and change arising from exposure to HOT issues.

To the Staff
•	Time and emotional commitment
•	In-depth role-play facilitation requiring close engagement with student cohort; development of skills required.
•	Confidence and technical knowledge to allow the role-play to develop appropriate to the cohort, whilst maintaining outcome objectives.

To the Industry
•	None, other than perhaps graduates with a realisation of how flawed industry culture is.

To the School of Construction and Property Management
•	High resource (staff) use, compared to undergraduate norms.
•	Identification and support of staff having suitable facilitation skills.
•	Non-standard assessment methods integrating with school systems.

A rudimentary cost-benefit analysis would indicate that whilst there are ‘costs’ attached to this type of approach, the ‘benefits’ are extremely attractive, both internally and externally.  Graduates certainly benefit from the experience, which helps enhance external perceptions of the school by industry, and the process of ‘research into teaching’ helps enhance reputation in the wider academic community.

It is necessary to note that such role-plays require that the staff have different skills from the ‘normal’ teaching regime. Not all staff will be able to deliver the role-play. A large proportion of the success of the role-play is attributed to the management of student learning, mentoring and the facilitation of the role-play exercise.

It is essential that both staff members are proficient facilitators; preferably they should have a good personal rapport. They should be prepared to innovate within an evolving role-play, this may mean quickly developing a new twist or device to foster the intellectual development of the role-play. For example, during one role-play it was noticed that one student was remaining aloof from the role-play and failing to respond and support his stakeholder colleagues. Instead of change notes to the whole stakeholder group, the change note was delivered to the individual with a ‘note’ from the MD that the individual was to be personally responsible for dealing with the problem. As the problem was fundamental to the whole team success the isolated individual was drawn back into full co-operation.

A further point to be stressed is that the students do not benefit from obtaining ‘knowledge’ from past students. The simulations are unique (and evolve) to a particular cohort and therefore seeking previous experiences is of no benefit.

Assessment from the role-play is based upon review, reflection and critical appraisal of the role-play rather than assessment of role-play performance. It has become necessary to reinforce this assessment philosophy within the initial briefing, and the facilitators have occasionally had to intervene within a role-play: the issues having become so ‘real’ that when ‘unethical behaviour’ was exposed, the atmosphere within the role-play was ‘excited’!  As in many other examples of group work marks tend to be compressed within a narrow band and attempts to differentiate between students through a process of peer-assessment has had limited success.

The role-play is continuously evolving. The change notes can be reviewed and revised each simulation (they can be changed during a simulation) to disclose current ‘hot issues’. For example, a change note defining an incident involving ‘green’ protestors threatening to occupy the site exposes the role-play to the necessity for contingency planning, additional security and the philosophy and ethics of ‘green issues’. If the issues are handled competently at this stage, the ‘threat’ fails to materialise, if the issues are not handled well, then the threat can evolve into a site occupation, and so on.

In conclusion we would commend this PBL experiential learning regime to other academics.

Acknowledgements
Dr John Hinks, of Glasgow Caledonian University, formerly of Salford University was the supervisor for the initial PhD investigation.
Dr Steven Allen, formerly a PhD student at Salford University developed the initial scenario around which the role-plays have continued to be developed.

References
Boud, D, (1989), Some competing traditions in experiential learning. In Weil, S, & McGill, I, (Eds.) (1989), Making sense of experiential learning. Milton Keynes, Open University Press
Egan, J, (1998), Rethinking Construction. DETR, London, HMSO
Friedman, JW, (1989), Game Theory with applications to economics. New York, Oxford University Press
Henry, J, (1989), Meaning and practice in experiential learning. In Weil, S & McGill, I, (Eds.). (1989), Making sense of experiential learning. Milton Keynes, Open University Press
Kolb, DA, (1984), Experiential learning. Eaglewood cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall
Lewin, K, (1951), Field theory in social sciences. New York, Harper Row
McGill, I, Segal-Horn, S, Bourne, T, & Frost, P, (1989), Action learning: for personal and group experiential learning. In Weil, S, & McGill, I, (Eds.) (1989), Making sense of experiential learning. Milton Keynes, Open University Press
QAA. (1997), University of Salford, Department of Surveying, Quality Assessment Audit. London, QAA HMSO
Revans, R, (1980), Action Learning. London, Blond & Briggs
Schon, D, (1983), The reflective practitioner. New York, Basic Books
Scruton, R, (1994), Modern Philosophy – An introduction and survey. London, Sinclair-Stevenson
Warner-Weil, S, & McGill, I,  (1989), A framework for making sense of experiential learning. In Weil, S. & McGill, I, (Eds.) (1989), Making sense of experiential learning. Milton Keynes, Open University Press