Content uploaded by Theo C Haupt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Theo C Haupt on Aug 16, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
ASOCSA2016-025
The threat of technology to the way
quantity surveying is practised in
KwaZulu-Natal
Theo C. Haupt1 and Sanjivi Naidoo2
Haupt@ukzn.ac.za 1 and sanjivi@mut.ac.za 2
1 Professor, Construction Studies Program, University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Howard College, Durban 4001, South Africa.
(Tel: +27 31 2602712)
2 Faculty of Engineering, Department of Construction Management &
Quantity Surveying, Mangosuthu University of Technology, Umlazi, Durban
4026, South Africa.
(Tel: +27 31 9077557)
ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS
Purpose: The rapid growth and development of comprehensive user-friendly
estimating software has threatened the traditional roles of quantity surveyors
in the construction sector resulting in them having to develop alternative
services that they render clients. Consequently quantity surveying has
experienced significant changes in terms of scope and types of services
provided. This study examines the perceived threat of new technological
developments on the way that quantity surveyors conduct themselves.
Design/methodology/approach: A sample of 22 quantity surveyors in
Durban was surveyed using an quantitative survey instrument developed
from published literature on responses of quantity surveying to technology
to measure the responses of this sample to the same issues. Knowledge
and experience of technology, benefits, barriers and readiness for
technological change was examined.
Research limitations: The sample of quantity surveyors was drawn from
the Durban area using the Association of Quantity Surveyors (ASAQS) and
South African Council for the Quantity Surveying Professions (SACQSP)
database.
Page 25
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
Findings: Preliminary findings suggest that quantity surveyors are lagging
behind with respect to their adoption of technology due to high cost of
hardware and software.
Response to conference theme: This study identifies the reasons why
the adoption of technology by quantity surveyors is not pervasive
throughout the discipline.
Practical implications: The findings provide the opportunity to improve the
services currently offered by quantity surveyors but also new and
innovative services driven by technological developments
Keywords: Quantity surveying, computer technology, computer hardware,
computer software
Conference sub-theme: Construction Education
1. INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth and development of comprehensive user-friendly estimating
software has threatened the traditional roles of quantity surveyors in the
construction sector (Ashworth, Hogg and Higgs, 2013). Consequently quantity
surveying has experienced significant changes in terms of scope and types of
services provided. Rapid technological innovative practices are being
developing to achieve competitive advantage (Kulasekara, Jayasena, and
Ranadewa, 2013). Technology has the potential to remove many mundane
elements of traditional quantity surveying by automating or assisting in these
tasks while removing human error, increasing efficiency and promoting
collaboration (Zhou, Perera, Udeaja and Charlotte, 2012). This study
examines the perceived threat of new technological developments on the
quantity surveying discipline.
2. ROLE OF QUANTITY SURVEYORS
Quantity surveyors are regarded as the cost managers of construction works
in all sectors of the construction industry particularly in regions where there
has been a historic relationship with the United Kingdom. According to
Ashworth (2010) and Ashworth, Hogg and Higgs (2013), the traditional
quantity surveying roles are, namely
Single rate approximate estimation;
Cost planning;
Procurement advice;
Measurement and quantification;
Document preparation, especially bills of quantities;
Page 26
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
Cost control during construction;
Interim valuations and payments;
Financial statements;
Final account preparation and agreement;
Settlement of contractual claims.
Following the potential demise of bills of quantities additional and potential
new roles evolved and include the following, namely:
Investment appraisal;
Advice on cost limits and budgets;
Whole life costing;
Value management;
Risk analysis;
Insolvency services;
Cost engineering services;
Subcontract administration;
Environmental services measurement and costing;
Technical auditing;
Planning and supervision;
Valuation for insurance purposes;
Project management;
Facilities management;
Administering maintenance programs; and
Advice on contractual disputes (Ibid).
Other classifications have referred to the roles as being traditional (six roles)
(Ashworth, 2010), evolved (ten roles) (Frei and Mbachu, 2009) and emerging
(five roles) (Fanous, 2012) with the traditional roles being regarded as the
most important (Sonson and Kulatunga, 2014). The list under each
classification in order of importance is:
Traditional role
Quantification and costing of construction works
Project financial control and reporting
Procurement and tendering
Contract practice
Cost planning
Construction technology and environmental services
Evolved role
Valuation (property, rental, etc.)
Contract administration
Consultancy services
Project management
Page 27
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
Insurance
Facilities management
Risk management
Management and dispute resolution procedures
Development/investment appraisal
Research methodologies and techniques
Emerging role
Whole life costing assessment
Strategic management and leadership
Value management studies
Sustainability
BIM management [ICT] (Ibid).
From this particular study it is evident that quantity surveyors have not
embraced the potential of new technologies. Some of the issues predicted by
Harris (2000) that will affect the discipline of quantity surveying include the
following, namely:
Blurring of professional disciplines;
Wider range of services offered to present clients;
Application of quantity surveying to new markets;
More extensive and intensive use of information and
communications technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness;
Changes in professional structure;
Multi-discipline working and development;
Increased emphasis on continuing professional development;
Geographical dispersion of work to allow for the most economical
methods of working; and
Forecasted shift between professional and technical activities.
In this list of issues the increased use of technologies to improve efficiency
and effectiveness of quantity surveyors stands out.
3. ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
Ashworth and Hogg (2000) claim that the five most dominant problems of
using computers in quantity surveying are maintaining programs, integration
of processes, cost containment, recruitment, and meeting project deadlines.
Further, benefits of technological advancements for quantity surveyors
include:
Reduction in the amount of time spent on repetitive processes;
Improvement in methods of communications;
Enhancement in the quality of the services provided;
Page 28
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
Development of a broader range of services; and
Speed in the execution of tasks (Ibid).
Technology enables collaboration between users through better visual
understanding of the building artifact (Matipa, Cunningham and Naik, 2010).
Ashworth, Hogg and Higgs (2013) predicted that the broadening range of
quantity surveying functions will include automated measurement and
quantification, environmental and sustainability analysis, facilities
management, legal services, investment advices and quality management. It
has been found that the emergence of new and updated technologies make
the achievement of these functions more efficient (Wu, Wood, Ginige and
Jong, 2014).
Several studies have found that the level of the adoption of information
technologies was positively associated with improved performance (Kang,
O’Brien, Thomas, and Chapman, 2008). Usman, Said and Yahaya (2012)
argue that despite these benefits quantity surveyors have not been taking
serious action towards adopting new technologies. Where they have been
used they have been at the basic stages only with no advancement into the
usage of sophisticated software because of the negative perceptions and
fraudulent activities. The construction industry, and by inference quantity
surveying, has been found repeatedly to be reluctant to apply new
technologies and employs lower levels of technology than other industries
(Yang, 2007). Further, organizations tended to resist giving up and changing
established ways of doing things and familiar technology products (Lawrence
and Scanlan, 2007). This tendency is referred to as organizational inertia.
According to Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis (2003) direct determinants
of user acceptance of technology and usage behavior were likely to be
performance expectancy - degree to which a particular technology
will help individuals attain gains in job performance;
effort expectancy - degree of ease associated with use of the
system;
facilitating conditions - degree to which an individual believes that
organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of
the system;
social influence - degree to which an individual perceives that
important others believe he or she should use the new system;
top management support; and
individual resistance to change.
A study in Nigeria found that the greatest challenges reported as deterrents
to the increased uptake of technology by quantity surveyors were the high
cost of hardware and the fear of virus attacks (Oyewobi, Ibironke and
Oladosu, 2015).
Page 29
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
It is therefore important that quantity surveyors to appreciate technology,
understand their potential and develop and employ effective processes and
tools to integrate technologies into their current practices (Cartlidge, 2011).
4. RESEARCH APPROACH
A convenience sample of 22 quantity surveyors who were either employed in
quantity surveying practices or practicing for themselves in the Durban area
of the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa were surveyed about their
views of the threat of technology to the discipline and practice of quantity
surveying. The data were collected via a quantitative questionnaire survey
comprising of several sections such as knowledge and experience of
technology, benefits, barriers and readiness. Almost all questions took the
form of statements around the various themes which required a scaled
response of agreement. Descriptive statistics were derived using SPSS v23
and presented including measures of central tendency and dispersion. The
internal validity of scaled responses was determined by the Cronbach’s
alpha co-efficient for validity.
5. RESEARCH FINDINGS
Profile of respondents
Most respondents had been in business for between 1 to 10 years (63.6%)
and between 11 to 20 years (31.8%). Just more than half of the respondents
(57.1%) considered their practices or firms ready for technology. They rated
their knowledge and experience of technology, software and innovation as
shown in Table 1 with 1=very low and 5=very high.
Table 1. Knowledge and experience of technology, software and innovation
(n=22)
1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD
Knowledge 4.5 18.2 40.9 31.8 4.5 3.14 0.94
Experience 4.5 31.8 36.4 23.4 - 2.86 0.89
Respondents tended to have average knowledge (mean 3.14) and
experience (mean=2.86) of technology, software and innovation. Almost all
respondents (95.5%) expressed that they were open to the introduction and
adoption of new technology to quantity surveying despite the threats that it
might present.
Page 30
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
Reliability
Table 2 shows the Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient for the scaled responses of
each of the four constructs. There is an acceptable degree of internal
consistency for the scales used for all the constructs, namely a Cronbach
Alpha statistic which is greater than the rule-of-thumb 0.70 for acceptable
internal scale consistency. There is therefore between 71.2% and 90.1%
probability that the constructs each measure a single underlying concept with
an error of at most 5%. The scales used to measure the perceptions of
technology in quantity surveying are therefore acceptable in their measure of
the reliability of the constructs.
Table 2. Reliability statistics
Construct Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient
(n=22)
Technology and quantity surveying 0.712 (25 items)
Benefits of technology 0.857 (8 items)
Barriers of technology 0.863 (8 items)
Knowledge and experience 0.901 (2 items)
Technology and quantity surveying
Respondents were presented with 25 statements about technology and quantity
surveying and were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert
scale where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree and 5=strongly
agree. The findings are shown in Table 3 ranked by the means of their responses.
Table 3. Technology and quantity surveying (n=22)
Factor/Influence 1
(%) 2
(%) 3
(%) 4
(%) 5
(%) Mean SD Rank
Software reduces the time to
produce BoQs - - 4.5 36.4 59.1 4.55 0.60 1
Technology increases efficiency
of quantity surveying - - 13.6 54.5 31.8 4.18 0.66 2
Technological advances require
new skills and knowledge - 9.1 9.1 40.9 40.9 4.14 0.94 3
Cost estimation can be improved - 13.6 - 50.0 36.4 4.09 0.97 4
Technology allows the quantity
surveyor to focus on strategic
activities
- 4.5 13.6 54.5 27.3 4.05 0.79 5
Technological innovations
promote collaboration between
stakeholders
- 4.5 18.2 54.5 22.7 3.95 0.79 6
Technology enhances life cycle
costing data provision to clients - 4.8 23.8 47.6 23.8 3.90 0.83 7
Technology automates taking off 4.8 4.8 9.5 57.1 23.8 3.90 1.00 8
Page 31
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
and BoQ production
Technological developments can
streamline the procurement
process
- - 27.3 59.1 13.6 3.86 0.64 9
Technology potentially removes
many mundane elements of
traditional quantity surveying
4.5 9.1 13.6 45.5 27.3 3.82 1.10 10
Upfront costs are too high - 9.1 22.7 59.1 9.1 3.68 0.78 11
Technology increases program
certainty at the tender stage - 13.6 36.4 27.3 22.7 3.59 1.01 12
Table 2 continued
Factor/Influence 1
(%) 2
(%) 3
(%) 4
(%) 5
(%) Mean SD Rank
Financial and time commitment
from small practices is too large 4.5 13.6 27.3 45.5 9.1 3.41 1.01 13
Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) are too
expensive
4.5 4.5 50.0 36.4 4.5 3.32 0.84 14
Additional costs of training make
technology prohibitive 9.1 13.6 36.4 31.8 9.1 3.18 1.10 15
Roles and responsibilities of
quantity surveyors will change - 40.9 13.6 31.8 13.6 3.18 1.14 16
There is a scarcity of available
training 4.8 19.0 38.1 33.3 4.8 3.14 0.96 17
Technology removes human
errors from quantity surveying 4.5 27.3 31.8 22.7 13.6 3.14 1.13 18
Organizational inertia prevents
the adoption of new technology 9.1 22.7 22.7 36.4 9.1 3.14 1.17 19
Quantity surveyors resist the
introduction and adoption of new
technology
13.6 27.3 13.6 31.8 13.6 3.05 1.32 20
There are problems with legal
ownership of information - 27.3 54.5 18.2 - 2.91 0.68 21
Technology reduces the amount
of variations during the
construction phase
13.6 27.3 31.8 18.2 9.1 2.82 1.18 22
There is no client demand 18.2 31.8 31.8 18.2 - 2.50 1.01 23
QS practices are too small to
embrace technology 36.4 22.7 27.3 13.6 - 2.18 1.10 24
Technological developments are
only for architects and designers 68.2 22.7 - 9.1 - 1.50 0.91 25
Respondents tended to agree strongly that software would reduce the time to
produce Bills of Quantity (mean=4.55). They tended to agree that technology
Page 32
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
would increase the efficiency of quantity surveying (mean=4.18) but would require
new skills and knowledge (mean=4.14). They also tended to agree that cost
estimation could be improved (mean=4.09), technology would allow the quantity
surveyor to focus on strategic activities (mean=4.05) and promote collaboration
between stakeholders (mean=3.95). Respondents tended to disagree strongly that
technological developments were for architects and designers only (mean=1.50).
They tended to disagree that quantity surveying practices were too small to
embrace technology (mean=2.18). What was noticeable were the large
proportions of respondents who had neutral views about several of the issues
such as there being problems with legal ownership of information (54.5%) and
information and communication technologies being too expensive (50.0%). This
finding might be indicative of their lack of knowledge and experience with new
technological advances.
Benefits of technology
Respondents were presented with eight benefits of technology to quantity
surveying and were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert
scale where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree and 5=strongly
agree. Their responses ranked by the means are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Benefits of technology to quantity surveying (n=22)
Benefit 1
(%) 2
(%) 3
(%) 4
(%) 5
(%) Mean SD Rank
Improved efficiency - - 4.5 31.8 63.6 4.39 0.59 1
Standardization of routine tasks - 4.5 4.5 45.5 45.5 4.31 0.78 2
Cost plan production - - 9.1 54.5 36.4 4.27 0.63 3
Visual aid - - 13.6 54.5 31.8 4.18 0.66 4
Automatic schedule/program
production - 4.5 13.6 54.5 27.3 4.05 0.79 5
Co-ordination of all design
information - 4.5 13.6 59.1 22.7 4.00 0.76 6
Accurate measurement - 4.5 22.7 45.5 27.3 3.95 0.84 7
Cost effective - 4.8 42.9 28.6 23.8 3.71 0.90 8
The findings suggest that respondents tended to either agree or strongly
agree that technology would benefit quantity surveying in all the ways
indicated in Table 4 with means ranging from 3.71 to 4.39. Improved
efficiency (mean=4.39) was the most dominant benefit derived from
technology and cost effectiveness and efficiency was the least dominant
benefit (Mean=3.71).
Barriers of technology
Respondents were presented with eight barriers of technology to quantity
surveying and were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert
Page 33
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
scale where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree and 5=strongly
agree. Their responses ranked by the means are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Barriers of technology to quantity surveying (n=22)
Barriers 1
(%) 2
(%) 3
(%) 4
(%) 5
(%) Mean SD Rank
High cost/extra capital investment - 14.3 19.0 47.6 19.0 3.71 0.96 1
Lack of software application
interfaces - 19.0 47.6 19.0 14.3 3.29 0.96 2
Less familiarity with project 9.5 14.3 23.8 42.9 9.5 3.29 1.15 3
Software complexity - 31.8 18.2 40.9 9.1 3.27 1.03 4
Liability concerns 9.1 18.2 50.0 13.6 9.1 2.95 1.05 5
Lack of standards 4.5 31.8 36.4 22.7 4.5 2.91 0.97 6
Threat to services conventionally
provided by quantity surveyors 13.6 40.9 31.8 9.1 4.5 2.50 1.01 7
Removed need for a quantity
surveyor 36.4 31.8 18.2 9.1 4.5 2.14 1.17 8
From the findings in Table 5 it is evident that respondents tended to agree
that the high cost and extra capital investment involved would be the largest
barrier to adopting technology by quantity surveyors (mean=3.71). They
tended to disagree with the perceptions that technology would remove the
need for a quantity surveyor (mean=2.14) or present as a threat to services
conventionally provided by quantity surveyors (mean=2.50). They were
somewhat neutral about the other barriers (means from 2.91-3.29).
Determinants of technology usage
Respondents were asked to rank the significance of six determinants of the
use of technology in quantity practices in ascending order from 1 to 6 with 1
being most significant. The rankings are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Determinants of technology usage (n=22)
Determinants of technology usage Mean SD Rank
Performance expectancy 3.18 1.89 1
Top management support 3.32 1.67 2
Effort expectancy 3.45 1.44 3
Facilitating conditions 4.05 1.21 4
Social influence 4.09 1.44 5
Individual resistance to change 4.32 1.78 6
From Table 6 it is evident that respondents regarded the degree to which a
particular technology would help individuals attain gains in their employment
(Performance expectancy) as the most significant determinant of technology
usage in quantity surveying practices. Top management support was the
Page 34
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
next most significant determinant. Of the six determinants Individual
resistance to change was the weakest.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The study found that the knowledge that quantity surveyors had about
technology, software and innovation was at best rather average. They
recognized the most obvious benefits of embracing technology such as the
time taken to produce Bills of Quantities which intuitively they still regard as
one of their core services to the construction industry. Similarly, more
accurate cost estimation was attractive. Largely because of their lack of
knowledge of available technologies they could not comment assertively on
many of the issues surrounding the relationship between technology and
quantity surveying. They, however, recognized the potential that technology
might have on various somewhat routine activities that quantity surveyors get
involved with. The greatest inhibitor to technology uptake was the perceived
high cost and extra capital needed. They denied that technological
advancements presented threats to their existence or the services that they
traditionally offered. What would enhance the uptake of technology was the
individual gains that could possibly be achieved through mundane and
tedious tasks becoming easier and quicker. In the main the findings of the
study resonated with those of other studies done particular in developing
countries.
7. REFERENCES
Ashworth, A. 2010. Cost Studies of Building, Pearson Education Ltd.,
England Ashworth, A., Hogg, K. and Higgs, C. 2013. Willis’ Practice and
Procedure for the Quantity Surveyor, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
Fanous, A. (2012) Surveying the Field: Changes in Quantity
Surveying available online www.smashwords.com Accessed April 20, 2016
Frei, M. and Mbachu, J. 2009. The future of quantity surveying in
New Zealand: Likely changes, threats and opportunities, The 13th PAQS
Congress
Kang, Y., O’Brien, W., Thomas, S. and Chapman, R. 2008. Impact
of information technologies on performance: cross study comparison, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 134 (11), 852-863
Kulasekara, G., Jayasena, H. and Ranadewa, K. 2013.
Comparative effectiveness of Quantity Surveying in a Building Information
Modelling implementation. In: The Second World Construction Symposium:
Socio-economic Sustainability in Construction, Colombo, June 14-15, 101-
107
Page 35
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
Lawrence, P. and Scanlan, J. 2007. Planning in the dark: why major
engineering projects fail to achieve key goals, Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, 19 (4), 509-525
Matipa, W., Cunningham, p. and Naith, B. 2010. Assessing the
impact of new rules of cost planning on Building Information Model (BIM)
schema pertinent to quantity surveying practice. In: Egbu. C. (eds)
Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, September 6-8. Leeds U.K.
625-632 Oyewobi, L., Ibironke, O. and Oladosu, I. 2015. Information
Communication Technology (ICT) compliance among professionals of
Nigerian construction industry. Nigerian Journal of Technological Research,
10 (1)
Sonson, S. and Kulatunga, U. 2014. Quantity Surveying role and
environmental influences in Saint Lucia, available online
http://www.cib2014.org/proceedings/files/papers/664.pdf Accessed April 20,
2016 Usman, N., Said, I. and Yahaya, A. 2012. Indolent disposition
towards ICT acceptance among practicing quantity surveyors in Nigeria. Acta
Technica Corviniensis, 75
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. and Davis, F. 2003. User
acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly,
27 (3), 425-478
Wu, S., Wood, G., Ginige, K. and Jong, S. 2014. A technical review
of BIM based cost estimating in UK quantity surveying practice, standards
and tools. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITCon), 19,
435-562 Yang, L. 2007. Exploring the links between technology usage and
project outcomes, Construction Management and Economics, 25 (10), 1041-
1051 Zhou, L., Perera, S., Udeaja, C. and Charlotte, P. 2012. Readiness
of BIM: a case study of a quantity organization. In: First UK Academic
Conference on BIM, Northumbria University, Newcastle-on-Tyne, September
5-9
Page 36
Proceedings: 10th Built Environment Conference
31 July-2 August 2016, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
ISBN 978-0-620-71904-9
