Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 2000 7  3, 300 – 306
The conditioning effect of objective decision-making on
the client’s capital proposal
ROY M. WOODHEAD & STEVEN P. MALE
School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
Abstract This paper explains how the capital proposals
of large experienced clients of the UK construction indus-
try are influenced by paradigms and perspectives. It
shows how those involved in the decision-to-build pro-
cess react to stimuli caused by a need to demonstrate
objective decision-making. The paper is taken from a
5-year PhD study undertaken by the first author, which
investigated the origins of the decision to build under-
taken by leading clients. The clients sampled had a total
annual construction budget of between £700 million and
£1000 million in the year that data were collected. The
product of the research was an explanation of what
happens in the pre-project stage, why it happens, and
why it will change in the future. The significance of its
INTRODUCTION
Value management research (Green & Popper 1990;
Kelly & Male 1991, 1993; Green 1997; Neasby et al.
1999) has seen its focus move further up the client’s
decision-making process to its core strategic planning
stages (Construction Round Table 1995; NEDO
1974, 1983a,b). This paper, written as the construc-
tion industry is reacting to the challenges of the Egan
Report (DETR 1998), considers a period before
thoughts of construction and property have started
(Construction Industry Institute 1995). It reports on
one aspect of research that investigated the origins of
the decision to build (Woodhead 1999).
Figure 1 is an adaptation of a model which shows
the pre-project stage as defined in the paper’s under-
pinning research (Woodhead 1999). The intention of
this figure is to emphasize that many capital decisions,
not just for buildings, commence well in advance of
the arrival of the architect and external project man-
ager. It also shows the Royal Institute of British Archi-
tects (RIBA) Plan of Work as a downstream activity
and as a corollary of other decisions in a larger deci-
sion-making process. Architects currently enter the
capital proposal process when the design problem has
already been bounded by other expectations, con-
straints and assumptions flowing from the strategic
300
conclusions is that any system designed to model or
improve decision-making in the pre-project stage must
be capable of adaptation and modification as influences
and considerations shift. Moreover, the need to justify
decisions as ‘objective’ empowers paradigms and per-
spectives that act as conditioning influences on the peo-
ple making or shaping proposals. The paper concludes by
showing that an understanding of the role played by
paradigms and perspectives could allow management to
‘rethink construction’ and meet the challenges put for-
ward by Sir John Egan (The Egan Report: Rethinking
Construction, DETR, 1998).
Keywords client, decision-making, objective, paradigm,
perspective, satisfaction
planning process (Simon 1964, 1979). Whilst many
large clients who regularly procure buildings have dif-
ferent approaches to the development of individual
capital proposals, the research identified common
themes. The three screening stages a proposal must
pass through before it can become a funded project is
but one example commonly shared by large experi-
enced clients. In this instance, the commonality is
caused by the power and influence of the financial
institutions in the City and the Stock Market, whose
systems interface with, and impact upon, individual
organizations. In some organizations, the terminology
lacks consistency and thus, for example, ‘Outline Busi-
ness Case’ may be named ‘Approval in Principle’ and
‘Screening Stages’ may be referred to as ‘Gateways’.
This paper moves beneath the rhetoric to explain the
root causes influencing and directing the way particu-
lar values and subjective approaches are justified as
objective decision-making during the emergence and
development of a capital proposal, that is ‘good’ deci-
sions are justified in relation to criteria and
expectations.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology combined inference, case
study, grounded theory, two validation stages and au-
© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd

Figure 1 An illustrative flowchart to highlight the scope of the pre-project stage.
dit trails (Glaser & Strauss 1967; McCracken 1988;
Yin 1994). A case study methodology was used to
structure data collection and allowed comparability
both within and between the cases. Twelve cases were
drawn from different categories of the Standard Indus-
trial Classification (SIC) system in order to investigate
a diverse sample. The cases were researched within a
designed protocol and a further five cases which sup-
ported the 12 were also included; for example, an
unforeseen opportunity lead to the inclusion of the
Local Authority that allowed their side of a client’s
investment to be reported. The grounded theory
methodology was used to draw inferences from the
case study data and the literature in a corroborating
strategy that sought to explain the decision-to-build
process. Because grounded theory is viewed as a risky
method, owing to its dependence on insights, the case
study methodology also provided a fall back position
that would enable a generalized explanation of what
happens in practice. As insights were realized, the
grounded theory approach combined with case studies
allowed an explanation not only of what happens, but
also why it happens and why it will change in the
future. To increase confidence in the reliability of the
findings, an audit trial was provided for the validated
empirical evidence in the PhD thesis underpinning this
paper (Woodhead 1999). To disprove the findings,
one must use or construct a paradigm or perspective
and show how the findings lack fit with the expecta-
tions or values of that paradigm or perspective. The
Conditioning effect of objective decision -making 301
paradox is that to disprove the explanation of ‘what
happens in the pre-project stage’ requires the use of
the explanation of ‘what is happening and why it is
happening’. Thus, the explanation of how paradigms
and perspectives influence decision-making is proven
by the act of trying to disprove it. This inherent
validity flows from the grounded theory methodology,
which draws meaning from the data. More traditional
approaches to research tend to draw meaning from
theory and then seek to verify hypotheses using data as
a source of confirmation and verification. As no com-
prehensive body of literature describing the research
domain was found in 1994, the research could not use
‘hypothetico-deductive’ methodologies and was forced
to become exploratory in nature (Gill & Johnson
1991).
Figure 2 represents the professional knowledge bases
found in a project life cycle. These were used to tease
out an initial proposition, which anticipated that a
professional’s education was designed to encourage
good practice. This then led to the second set of
propositions, which asked ‘What are the common
themes that structure the education and learning expe-
rience of the professionals?’. For example, why do
clients place emphasis on things such as return on
investment? The generation and abandonment of
propositions is evidenced in the thesis as a series of
incremental steps from the research aims and objec-
tives to the conclusions. This exploratory study was
not overly concerned with the validity of the proposi-

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7  3, 300 – 306
302 Woodhead, R.M. & Male, S.P.
Figure 2 Consideration of disciplines within the project’s life cycle.
tions during the initial years of the research. Their role
was to fuel the creative insights that allowed the clarifi-
cation of a complex, messy problem (Ackoff 1979).
Twelve clients, who spent between £700 million
and £1000 million on construction, were selected be-
cause of their assumed levels of familiarity and exper-
tise in taking proposals through the initial stages to
become budgeted projects. As major clients who regu-
larly commissioned new buildings, they were chosen
because of their in-house experience and expertise in
the proposal stages of the decision to build. The
method used to select them was influenced by Master-
man & Gameson’s (1994) work and avoided client
types with construction or property as their core busi-
ness. The selection method used by Bresnen & Haslam
(1991) was also considered but thought unsuitable for
this particular exploratory research project as market
conditions could have led to a biased sample. In an
attempt to reduce any systematic bias in the selection
process of subjects, the 1980 SIC system was used to
categorize the different client types. Attempts to access
organizations led to interviews with property directors
or senior managers from the property or estates section
of the organization. Wherever possible, corroboration
was sought from other personnel in the same organiza-
tion who had experience of the same project. When
the construction industry is working for large experi-
enced clients, the reality is that our real ‘client’ is often
a small team in a very large organization that has other
core business issues and priorities. However, one for-
mer managing director of a large multinational engi-
neering company was interviewed. Interviewing the
chief executive officer (CEO) of such large organiza-
tions would not necessarily have revealed anything as
they usually meet once a month at a capital expendi-
ture committee to deal with many proposals for capital
requests from across the whole organization. When
considering other major clients, then the case of Sir
John Egan taking an active interest in construction was
the exception rather than the rule.
After each case study was written up, it was sent
back to the subject for agreement that it was a ‘true
and fair view’. Cross-sectional analysis of all cases was
then started. The intention was to introduce a level of
stability before multiple case study analysis began. A
validation workshop was used to test the validity of the
analysis at a post-inference stage. Confidence in the
reliability of the findings was confirmed by an audit
trail. This trail cross-references the findings with the
validated data from within the case studies and allows
others to see where and why the claims have validity.
WHAT IS MEANT BY PARADIGM AND
PERSPECTIVE?
A paradigm is taken as a collection of rules, codes of
practice and peer expectations that seek to condition.

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7  3, 300–306

They can be used to identify a particular school, social
institution or profession. At the heart of all paradigms
are values and collective beliefs as to what is ‘good’,
‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Within paradigms, perspec-
tives exist and fight for dominance of the paradigm. So,
as paradigms themselves fight for dominance against
other paradigms, perspectives fight within the paradigm.
This competition can be illustrated by considering an
argument between accountants where one feels that the
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is inferior to the Net
Present Value (NPV). This vying for dominance within
the capital investment paradigm might occur at the same
time as the marketing paradigm is fighting for domi-
nance over the capital investment paradigm by arguing
internal financial calculations are not important. What
is important is what the customer needs and can pay for.
PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN THE
DECISION TO BUILD
During the literature survey (1994–97), Bilello’s (1993)
PhD thesis was the only research found that began in
the very embryonic stages of the decision to build.
Bilello (1993) took Allison’s (1971) decision-making
model based on the Cuban Missile Crisis and adapted
it to describe how California State Polytechnic Univer-
sity arrived at their decision to hold an architectural
competition and build a facility. The four frames of
reference used by Bilello were:
(i) rational goal attainment;
(ii) motivation and the need to serve humans;
(iii) the impact of individual and collective power on
time, money and space; and
(iv) the elicitation of aspirations, symbols, meanings
and ambiguities.
Woodhead’s (1999) research built on Bilello’s work
and the theme of the professional’s education as de-
scribed in Schön’s (1995) The Reflective Practitioner:
How Professionals Think in Action. Schön showed how
competing paradigms and perspectives develop out of
the professional’s learning, influencing their approach
to solving problems in practice. Frames of reference
were then seen as either paradigms or perspectives
because Schön’s influence resulted in the need for
such a distinction. By the end of the literature survey,
ten paradigms and perspectives had been identified as
having an influence on the decision to build, which
were later confirmed in the 12 case studies. They were:
1. the capital investment paradigm;
2. the cost–benefit analysis paradigm;
Conditioning effect of objective decision -making 303
3. the financial paradigm;
4. the strategic paradigm;
5. the marketing paradigm;
6. organizational perspectives;
7. management perspectives;
8. the property development paradigm;
9. the planning permission paradigm; and
10. the preliminary design paradigm.
The paradigms and perspectives could also be un-
derstood in terms of how they influence the decision-
to-build process. The following categories were
developed to explain these influences.
A process-influencing paradigm which is
internally focused
The capital investment paradigm influences the deci-
sion to build process before and during the proposal
stage. Central to this paradigm are the beliefs that
returns must be larger than the cost of investment,
decision-making must be objective and that no conflict
of interest must exist, that is, the decision should be
evaluated on its own merits.
A process-influencing paradigm which is
externally focused
The cost – benefit analysis paradigm influences the de-
cision-to-build process by emphasizing the benefits in
terms of externalities. Central to its logic is that all
benefits flowing from the project must be greater than
the cost of investment, decision-making must be objec-
tive and subjective decision-making is discouraged. All
qualitative issues are translated into financial sums.
Content-influencing paradigms and perspectives
which are internally based
Four influences were identified in this category. The
marketing paradigm emphasizes customer expectations
and values. The strategic paradigm influences organi-
zational direction, long- and short-term planning, and
resource concerns. The organizational perspective
joins with the strategic paradigm and is concerned with
the implications of the latter. At a more detailed level
of strategic implementation, the manager’s perspective
influences attitudes, involvement and satisfaction (Si-
mon 1964) at both the tactical and the operational
levels.

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7  3, 300 – 306
304 Woodhead, R.M. & Male, S.P.
Content-influencing paradigms and perspectives
which are externally based
The financial paradigm links the external financier’s
expectations to the decision-to-build process. The
property development paradigm also influences the
decision to build as it is viewed by clients as a rich
source of expertise that can inform the decision-to-
build process and so influence how the property sec-
tion plans to interact with the core business strategy
and the construction industry.
Content-influencing paradigms and perspectives
which are imposed on the decision to build
process by external agents
Some paradigms and perspectives are imposed on the
decision-to-build process by external agents, such as
the legislature. One such intervention is planning per-
mission, a politically imposed paradigm through which
central government can influence organizational devel-
opment decisions and seek to promote inward invest-
ment to local economies. The preliminary design
paradigm, in addition to the arrival of project man-
agers and architects from the construction industry,
causes the client organization to revisit many previ-
ously made decisions in this later phase of the pre-pro-
ject stage. The arrival of the construction industry and
the commencement of the briefing stage marks the
transition from the dominant language of organiza-
tional development, accountancy and business to that
of architecture, design, bills of quantities, procurement
routes and contract clauses.
It is accepted that some paradigms and perspectives
may not have been identified and that others, not yet
in existence, may still emerge. One surprise to emerge
from the research was the fact that from a sample that
spent between £700 million and £1000 million on
construction, not one of them raised any environmen-
tal concerns. Either such matters were considered after
the pre-project stage or the environmental paradigm
had not yet started to dominate the pre-project stage.
It must be remembered that the aim of this paper is to
explain the paradigms and perspectives as forces that
provide a structure for the pre-project stage and that
condition the decisions of the actors. The Tavistock
Institute (1966) report argued that there is ‘interde-
pendence and uncertainty’ between the clients and the
construction industry. Whilst this is endorsed, the
Tavistock Institute report ignored the larger complex
relationship between the systems that influence how
decisions are justified. In this sense, a system is taken
as an artificial boundary drawn around a particular
‘thing’ being studied. It is taken as an artificial
boundary because its purpose is to allow clarity of
thought by disregarding the actual complexity of inter-
dependency. For example, should the cost of finance
rise sharply, then the power of the capital investment
paradigm would gain in importance and subsume a
number of other paradigms and perspectives as the
relative imperatives change. Reality in this context is
the dialectical relationship between a wider desire for
rational order and a changing complexity. An analogy
would be to consider the relationship between many
atoms crashing about in molten metal whilst being
held within the stability provided by a crucible made of
a metal whose atoms move about less dramatically. It
is only by considering the paradigms and perspectives
as a composite that a heightened awareness can be
achieved. That is, the considerations and expectations
of the client team’s decision-makers are heavily influ-
enced by the most dominant paradigms at a particular
moment in time. The significance of this is that, as the
proposal and projects move through their various life
stages, different paradigms and perspectives dominate
how value and success are perceived.
Within the pre-project stage, the dominant paradigm
of capital investment has an almost seductive logic and
can be used to describe ‘how’ clients arrive at the
decision to build within it and in isolation from other
paradigms. This could be viewed as ‘logical’ and,
therefore, defendable so long as satisfaction is only
defined within the terms of this paradigm; for example,
one person may see the achievement of maximum
profit as the imperative and pollution as not being too
important. To adopt such a bounded view is to be
inside a paradigm and treat other paradigms as being
less important or even inconsequential.
The intention of Fig. 3 is to illustrate how a collec-
tion of paradigms and perspectives try to influence the
decision to build as modelled in Fig. 1. The main
thrust of each of these influences is in accordance with
the five ‘process’ or ‘content’ foci described earlier in
this section. Each promotes objective decision-making
because the need to justify accountability increasingly
promotes the need for decision-making to be seen as a
science. What must not be forgotten in the context of
the pre-project stage is that at the heart of all
paradigms are dominant values, beliefs and expecta-
tions. To view objective decision-making as a science
disregards the role paradigms play in justifying deci-
sions founded on values and subjectivity. It is these
founding values that influence the process and content
of the decision to build through the mechanisms ad-
vanced by paradigms and perspectives.

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7  3, 300–306

Figure 3 The paradigms and perspectives influencing the decision to build.
It is very important to understand that when the UK
construction industry works with large experienced
client organizations, the term ‘client’ is usually the
property department. In large organizations, it is rare
to see senior management become involved in the
decision-shaping processes at any time other than to
provide advice and information, and to approve or
reject proposals. For smaller organizations, the level of
intimacy between the CEO and the decision-shaping
process does tend to become closer. The property
team becomes involved in the core business strategy at
a stage when the capital investment and strategic
paradigms are very strong. As the property team usu-
ally resides in the large client’s middle management
tiers, it is also at this stage that other paradigms begin
to exert their influence. The challenge facing the prop-
erty team is to develop a proposal that can win through
to become a project.
CONCLUSIONS
Society is created through people fighting to establish
collective perceptions of ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘good’ and
‘bad’. These perceptions are communicated by means
of paradigms and perspectives, which are used to
demonstrate objective decision-making. Many
paradigms and perspectives pervade organizations dur-
ing the pre-project stage and mesh their considerations
to a wider society and its social institutions. The
pre-project stage and the decision to build are thus
linked to a complex web constructed through
paradigms and perspectives. As we use paradigms and
Conditioning effect of objective decision -making 305
perspectives to justify objective decision-making, we
also have our decision-making processes conditioned
by them. The interdependency of society, the econ-
omy, client organizations and construction industry
organizations can be explained through competing
paradigms and perspectives. Reality in the context of
the pre-project stage is dynamic because the underly-
ing values shift and cause paradigms and perspectives
to adapt; an example of this is new legislation. Our
outlook and management systems cannot remain static
and must be continually updated and modified as new
concerns, such as those relating to the environment,
modify the decision-making agenda. The decision to
build can thus be seen as a ‘system’ which adapts as
paradigms and perspectives change. What must be
understood is that it is the need to justify decisions
that ‘effects’ the influential role of paradigms and
perspectives. Paradigms and perspectives condition the
people making or shaping proposals by emphasizing
the preference of one metric over another. For exam-
ple, a view that ‘at the end of the day it’s the bottom
line that counts!’ could subsume the importance of any
community benefits a project may provide. By consid-
ering all of the paradigms and perspectives as a com-
posite, ‘reality’ as perceived by the actors can be
understood as a constructed value system based on a
combination of rules and decisions justified with re-
spect to those rules.
The significance of this conclusion is that any sys-
tem, be it managerial, information technology-based or
whatever, designed to model or improve decision-mak-
ing in the pre-project stage must be capable of adapta-

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7  3, 300 – 306
306 Woodhead, R.M. & Male, S.P.
tion and modification as the underlying values change.
Having made this realization, the design and construc-
tion industry can question why some things are re-
garded as more important than others. Such questions
could free thinkers from the conditioning effect of the
dominant paradigms and perspectives. For example,
why are capital proposals treated as mutually exclusive
within the same client organization? Why is the core
business considered by one team and property by
another? What new potential is possible by combining
or empowering some paradigms that are often sub-
sumed by others? For example, how many small orga-
nizations could have the new facilities they cannot
afford if they were brought together and their collec-
tive commercial power used to gain economies of
scale?
This paper concludes that gaining an understanding
of the role played by paradigms and perspective is a
necessary step towards rethinking the pre-project
stage, what we do in the process and why. This
understanding empowers decision-makers as they can
then avoid having their decisions conditioned by exter-
nal forces and make more informed choices. To
achieve an improved capital proposal stage, design and
construction organizations need a better understanding
of the organizational and strategic values that direct
the core business and its building programmes. The
construction industry could focus on improving the
client’s ‘return on investment’ rather than on building
at less cost than the tender-sum target. Such a rela-
tionship allows clients and the construction industry to
establish common views of what is needed to be effec-
tive before searching for more efficient ways of achiev-
ing that effectiveness.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. (1979) The future of operational research is past.
Journal of Operational Research Society, 30, 93 – 104.
Allison, G.T. (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban
Missile Crisis. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA.
Bilello, J. (1993) Deciding to build: university organization and
design of academic buildings. PhD Thesis, University Of
Maryland.
Bresnen, M.J. & Haslam, C.D. (1991) Construction industry
clients: a survey of their attributes and project management
practices. Construction Management and Economics, 9, 327 –
342.
Construction Industry Institute (1995) Pre-project Planning
Handbook, Special Publication 39-2, April, The University
of Texas at Austin, USA.
Construction Round Table (1995) Thinking about Building.
The Business Round Table, London.
DETR (1998) The Egan Report: Rethinking Construction.
DETR, Publications Sale Centre, Rotherham.
Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (1991) Research Methods for Managers,
32. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd, London.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine De
Gruyler, New York.
Green, S.D. & Popper, P. (1990) Value Engineering: The
Search for Unnecessary Cost. CIOB, Ascot.
Green, S.D. (1997) New directions in value management. Pro-
ceedings of the Hong Kong Institute of Value Management
International Conference, November 12 – 13.
Kelly, J.R. & Male, S.P. (1991) The Practice of Value Manage-
ment: Enhancing Value or Cutting Costs? RICS, London.
Kelly, J.R. & Male, S.P. (1993) Value Management in Design
and Construction: The Economic Management of Projects.
Spon, London.
Latham, M. Latham Report (1994) Constructing the Team.
HMSO, London.
McCracken, G. (1988) The long interview, qualitative research
methods. Series 13, A Sage University Paper.
Masterman, J.W.E. & Gameson, R.N. (1994) Client character-
istics and needs in relation to their selection of building procure-
ment systems. CIB 92, Procurement Systems Symposium
Publication No. 175, East meets West. Hong Kong: Depart-
ment of Surveying, University of Hong Kong.
Neasby, M., Barton, R. & Knott, J. (1999) Value manage-
ment. In: Building in Value (eds R. Best & G. De Valence),
pp. 232 – 247. Arnold, London.
NEDO (1974) Before You Build: What a Client Needs to Know
About the Construction Industry. HMSO, London.
NEDO (1983a) Thinking About Building. HMSO,
London.
NEDO (1983b) Faster Building for Industry. HMSO, London.
Schön, D.A. (1995) The Reflective Practitioner: How Profession-
als Think in Action. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, London
(Reprint, Arena).
Simon, H.A. (1964) On the concept of organization goal.
Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1 – 22.
Simon, H.A. (1979) Rational decision making in business
organisations. American Economic Review, 69, 493–513.
Tavistock Institute (1966) Independence and Uncertainty. Tavi-
stock, London.
Woodhead, R.M. (1999) The influence of paradigms and per-
spectives on the decision to build undertaken by large experienced
clients of the UK construction industry. PhD thesis, School of
Civil Engineering, University of Leeds.
Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Lon-
don.

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7  3, 300–306