Exploring Miscommunications in the Construction Industry Through Experiments ^†

Abstract

Through a formal experiment, this study aims to identify miscommunication scenarios, quantify miscommunication levels, and analyze potential factors influencing communication in the construction industry with a focus on the communications between owners and designers. The study entails a five-step process: literature review, experiment design, questionnaire formulation, experiment execution, and post-experiment survey. Data analysis indicates that the owners and designers interpreted the communication processes and contents differently, with the presence of communication barriers leading to misunderstandings, errors, and misinterpretation of the design ideas. The utmost need is identified for improved communication strategies within design and construction projects to minimize miscommunications and support project success.

1. Introduction

In the construction industry, ineffective communication is widely recognized as one of the most prevalent causes of project failures [1,2]. Frequent challenges occur in construction projects due to low-quality communication and coordination issues among team members at different scales [2,3]. Efficient knowledge sharing and communication throughout a design and construction project is considered a challenge, as the flow of information persists throughout the project’s development and execution lifecycle [3].

Meanwhile, architectural practices have become increasingly competitive globally, so effective communication is essential for ensuring client satisfaction [4]. The process of developing design concepts and refining the project’s requirements to meet clients’ expectations relies heavily on the active involvement of the design team [5]. Additionally, increased user involvement in design discussions results in reliable information exchange, hence enhancing mutual satisfaction. For communication to be effective, the information circulated between the designer and owner must be clear, accurate, efficient, and understandable. This requires emphasizing information and identifying the appropriate communication methods, tools, and channels [6]. In addition to the verbal aspects, the non-verbal aspects of communication, like eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, and body language, also influence communication effectiveness [7]. As one main step in the construction process, the effectiveness of the communications and interactions between designers and owners remains critical to the overall performance of a construction project. For a project to be successful, a collaborative and interactive environment that fosters mutual understanding is fundamental [8].

Multiple studies have been conducted at various scales using different methods to examine the communication aspects in the construction industry. The interaction issues were explored between architects and clients based on a comprehensive literature review [9]. The study highlighted the lack of effective tools for architect–user interactions and the incorporation of design, sociology, and psychology for better communication. In Ref. [2], a questionnaire-based survey and structured interviews were conducted to identify the communication issues for the design-build projects. Through surveys and interviews, four categories with 26 factors causing miscommunication were examined [10]. Ref. [11] identified key communication variables affecting construction projects, categorized as “accuracy, procedures, barriers, understanding, timeliness, and completeness”. Architects’ expertise, user-led communications, and stakeholders’ behavior significantly impacted the quality of discussions and ideas [12]. Ref. [13] found causative and effectual factors for poor communication in the construction industry, such as fear of communicating, individual barriers, poor communication skills, improper communication channels, language barriers, misinterpretation, misunderstanding, etc. Project complexity also affects communication in architectural projects [14]. Ref. [15] concluded that communication bottlenecks among stakeholders, such as lack of information and coordination, affect the acceleration of the project’s workflow. It was also found that the lack of communication among team members is one of the top five causes of delays and conflicts in construction projects [16].

Previous studies were conducted based on subjective expert surveys, interviews, or literature reviews, without formally designing concrete communication experiments. We intended to fill this gap by investigating communications and miscommunications in the design through a communication experiment. Through a formal experiment with designers and owners during the conceptual design stage, the barriers in design communications were investigated to quantify the extent to which the miscommunications occur and identify the underlying causes of frequent communication errors in the construction industry.

2. Materials and Methods

The study was carried out in five phases: literature review, experiment design, questionnaire preparation, experiment execution, and data analysis (Figure 1). In the initial phase, guided by a literature review, the research objectives were formulated, and relevant journals and conference papers were evaluated. The experiment involved a conceptual design discussion between owners and designers, during which owners stated their design requirements. In the second phase, the design subjects were defined, and the owners were required to choose three objects: two 2D objects from a reference that they found interesting to design and one object from their free choice. For the experiment, 22 undergraduate students from two different programs including Construction Management and Landscape Architecture at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry were recruited. Fifteen students majoring in construction management served as owners, and seven majoring in landscape architecture acted as designers. The students were divided into groups, each of which consisted of two owners and one designer, except for one group which had three owners and one designer.

After planning the experiment, a questionnaire was created for the survey in the third phase. The findings from the literature review and the authors’ industrial experience were used to configure the parameters and categories to be evaluated, such as interaction, accuracy, understanding, time, visualization, and satisfaction. Then, questionnaires were formulated, drawing ideas from sample questions from the literature and challenges possibly encountered through professional experiences. After multiple feedback cycles with revisions, 25 questions were selected for the survey among the 40 initial questions. All the questions allowed for multiple-choice on a five-point Likert scale. In the pre-design stage of a project, designers and owners communicated to decide on the program of requirements to outline the owners’ needs, objectives, and expectations [17]. A similar approach was applied in the fourth phase of the experiment, where communications occurred between designers and owners regarding the design concepts. According to the owners’ imagination and description, the designers had to understand and conceptualize the designs. The total time given for each group for communication was 11 min. At the end of the experiment, the participants filled out the questionnaires based on their experience. Finally, the data obtained from the survey were statistically analyzed.

3. Results and Discussion

Survey results corresponding to the evaluated parameters and categories—interaction, accuracy, understanding, time, visualization, and satisfaction—were obtained (Figure 2). Pearson’s product-moment correlation test was performed between the responses from the owners and designers for each parameter and category to examine the relationships between the variables. If Pearson bivariate correlations were greater than 0.4, the parameters and categories in the analysis were assumed to contain related attributes [18].

3.1. Interaction

Within this category, the questionnaire covered various aspects of communication. The aspects included smoothness in interaction, ability to express thoughts clearly, difficulty in conveying ideas, tendency to seek clarification, feelings of nervousness, attentiveness in discussing ideas, and overall communication effectiveness. In the “interaction” category, there was a weak positive correlation between owners’ and designers’ responses, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.163 and p = 0.27. The weak correlation found in overall communication between owners and designers suggested that miscommunication occurred between the two groups. This finding reflects the inconsistencies in how owners and designers perceive their interactions, indicating possible misunderstandings or differing expectations. As shown in Figure 2a, smoothness in interaction was rated higher by the customers than by the designers. Also, customers found communication more effective than designers, maybe because designers faced more difficulty in expressing their thoughts than the customers. The results indicate challenges in achieving smooth interaction due to misinterpretation and lack of clarity, as noted in previous studies [11,13].

3.2. Visualization

Within this category, the questionnaires covered various aspects to reveal differences in the responses. The aspects include effortless visualization, sketching, 3D-printed objects, and virtual reality for better visualization, and understanding during conceptual discussions. In the “visualization” category, there was a weak negative correlation between owners’ and designers’ responses, with a correlation coefficient of r = −0.06 and p = 0.74. The low coefficient indicates that there is almost no relationship between the two groups’ responses. This finding reflects the inconsistencies in the experiences regarding visualizing the design concepts. As shown in Figure 2b, the designers rated lower for effortless imagination than the customers. There was a discrepancy between customers’ and designers’ responses in preference for sketching to illustrate ideas, but the customers found sketching to be a likely option for understanding the ideas during communication. The customers and designers acknowledged that 3D-printed objects or virtual reality (VR) could help them visualize the ideas. The discrepancies in preferences for visualization methods emphasize the need for adopting visualization tools for better understanding, which is also consistent with the conclusions from earlier research [6,9,13,14].

3.3. Understanding

This category covered the aspects affecting communication accuracy, including understanding the design intent, interpreting each other’s responses, and how often misunderstandings occur. There was a weak negative correlation between owners’ and designers’ responses in the “understanding” category, with a correlation coefficient of r = −0.08 and p = 0.75. The very low coefficient and high p-value indicate that there is almost no relationship between the responses from the two stakeholder groups. Figure 2c illustrates that designers perceived that they could not comprehend the responses provided by the owners, whereas the owners did not have difficulty understanding the designers. Moreover, the responses from both groups were mixed regarding the occurrence of misunderstandings during the interactions. Both the customers and designers perceived that misunderstandings happened more often during the discussions. Further, there was a gap in mutual understanding, which was noted in prior studies [11,15].

3.4. Time

The communication aspects examined under this category include time consumption during the explanation process and understanding process of the design ideas, and an overall time distribution (in minutes) during the discussions of three different design concepts. There was a weak negative correlation between owners’ and designers’ responses in the “time” category, with a correlation coefficient of r = −0.07 and p = 0.77. This means that there is almost no relationship between the responses of the two groups. Figure 2d indicates that the owners and designers had differing views on the time associated. The time consumption and distribution impacted the overall efficiency of owner–designer communications.

3.5. Accuracy

The communication aspects examined under this category include the extent to which the requirements were conveyed exactly, the presence of barriers in conveying requirements, the effect of linguistic differences on understanding, and the need to re-explain ideas. In the “accuracy” category, there was a weak negative correlation between owners’ and designers’ responses, with a correlation coefficient of r = −0.038 and p = 0.86. There is almost no relationship between the responses from the two groups. There is minimal alignment in the perceptions of communication accuracy between the two groups, i.e., owners and designers. Figure 2e illustrates the responses from owners and designers. There were barriers in conveying information, especially due to terms and complexity. Designers believed that linguistic differences affected communication accuracy. Further, the graph indicates that both the owners and designers had to re-explain their ideas frequently due to a lack of accuracy in communication. The barriers to communication accuracy underscore the importance of adopting appropriate communication channels.

3.6. Satisfaction

This category covered the aspects regarding the likelihood of meeting design goals in the future and the smoothness of communication experience between the two groups. There was a weak negative correlation between owners’ and designers’ responses in the “satisfaction” category, with a correlation coefficient of r = −0.124 and p = 0.72. The weak correlation found in overall communication between owners and designers suggests differing expectations from the communications. Figure 2f shows the responses from the owners and designers, indicating mixed results concerning the likelihood of achievement of the final design goals in the future. This shows that the lack of communication negatively affected the potential for achieving the design goals, which was directly related to client satisfaction.

4. Conclusions

Communication effects between designers and owners in the construction industry were investigated in this study. The parameters and categories affecting communications were analyzed, comprising interaction, accuracy, understanding, time, visualization, and satisfaction, through a formal five-step experimental process encompassing a literature review, experiment design, questionnaire formulation, experiment implementation, and survey distribution. The responses from the owners and designers were weakly correlated across all categories, implying that miscommunications frequently arose during design discussions. Interactions and satisfaction were more highly correlated than other aspects, indicating that owners and designers had different interpretations in most communication aspects. A limitation of this study was the small sample size, which affected the statistical significance of the analysis. Therefore, future research is mandated, using a larger sample size for more robust statistical analysis. Despite the limitations, the findings from this research highlight the need for the construction industry to pursue strategies and new technologies that minimize communication errors and misunderstandings among stakeholders to ensure project success.