Construction Innovation

Framework for a generic work breakdown structure for building projects

Yahaya Makarfi Ibrahim Ammar Kaka Ghassan Aouad Mike Kagioglou
Article information:
To cite this document:
Yahaya Makarfi Ibrahim Ammar Kaka Ghassan Aouad Mike Kagioglou, (2009),"Framework for a generic
work breakdown structure for building projects", Construction Innovation, Vol. 9 Iss 4 pp. 388 - 405
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14714170910995930
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 01:12 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3197 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
David Hillson, (2003),"Using a Risk Breakdown Structure in project management", Journal of Facilities
Management, Vol. 2 Iss 1 pp. 85-97 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14725960410808131
Joana Geraldi, Thomas Lechter, (2012),"Gantt charts revisited: A critical analysis of its roots and
implications to the management of projects today", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
Vol. 5 Iss 4 pp. 578-594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538371211268889
Andrew J. Czuchry, Mahmoud M. Yasin, (2003),"Managing the project management process", Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 Iss 1 pp. 39-46 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570310456887

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:375684 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

CI
9,4
388
Received 18 September 2007
Accepted 1 July 2008
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)
Construction Innovation
Vol. 9 No. 4, 2009
pp. 388-405
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1471-4175
DOI 10.1108/14714170910995930
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1471-4175.htm
Framework for a generic
work breakdown structure
for building projects
Yahaya Makarfi Ibrahim and Ammar Kaka
School of the Built Environment, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, and
Ghassan Aouad and Mike Kagioglou
School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for the standardisation of the work
breakdown structure (WBS) for building projects. This is based on the premise that buildings in
general retain basic elemental options, and that there is a commonality of activities in the procurement
of building projects.
Design/methodology/approach – To achieve the objective, the general practice of developing the
WBS is investigated. This is achieved by means of an industry-wide questionnaire survey designed to
identify the most widely used criteria among UK construction organisations in segregating building
works into packages. The survey also investigates the sequencing of these criteria across the WBS
hierarchy.
Findings – The findings reveal that the most frequently used decomposition criteria in the
formulation of WBS for building projects are elements, work sections, physical location and
construction aids. The proposed framework is presented as a hierarchical decomposition of a building
project based on these criteria. It allows for flexibility in level of detail while maintaining a rigid
sequencing of the criteria based on their frequency of use.
Originality/value – This paper reports on a specific part of an EPSRC funded project that aims to
investigate the application of computer vision techniques to the on-site measurement of construction
progress. The part reported in this paper addresses planning issues that will lead to automatic
generation of work packages. Previous studies have focused on automating the planning aspect by
associating individual components with schedule information. However, large construction projects
usually consist of thousands of components. Planning and tracking progress at the level of the
component is unrealistic in these instances. The standardisation framework reported in this paper will
form the basis for automating the formulation of work packages, thus providing a uniform basis for
tracking progress (based on computer vision) during project execution.
Keywords Construction works, Standardization, Project planning, Working practices
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The main responsibilities of a contractor’s project manager remain that of
delivering the project within time, budget and to the required quality level. While it
is clear that this requires constant monitoring and control of various aspects of the
project throughout its life span, the validity of the monitoring and control measures
depend heavily on the accuracy of the plan against which performance is measured.
This research is funded by the UK EPSRC grant EP/C535200/1.
 The accuracy of the plans depends in turn on effective definition and structuring of the Framework for
project. One of the tools available to the project manager for defining and structuring of work breakdown
the project is the work breakdown structure (WBS).
The WBS is a hierarchical representation of the work contents, whereby the project structure
is progressively subdivided into smaller units. It is the basis for defining work
packages and its importance in the planning and control of projects has been
acknowledged by both project managers and researchers (Rad, 1999; Colenso, 2000). 389
Garcia-Forniels et al. (2003) assert that the WBS is perhaps the most important tool for
project management because it provides a basis for planning, scheduling, control,
responsibility assignment and information management. Given the level of
importance, several organisations have embraced its use in managing their projects.
The logic of the WBS is based on the premise that the product is not normally
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

created as a “whole”, but is a collection of several “parts” that are created bit by bit.
Indeed, this is the general nature of procuring construction projects. This, coupled with
the fact that managing construction projects is a complex affair, clearly provide an
incentive for the use of an appropriate WBS. Hence, several research efforts have
addressed various issues relating to the WBS, including effective work package sizing
(Raz and Globerson, 1998), alleviating workload associated with managing work
packages (Jung and Woo, 2004; Jung, 2005), and the WBS as cost-schedule integrating
mechanism (Eldin, 1989). However, none of these focused on the development of a
standard WBS for building projects.
There are clear benefits associated with establishing standards and several
researchers have stressed the need for the development of a standard WBS. For
example, Voivedich et al. (2001) developed and implemented a standard WBS for
offshore construction and concluded that this allowed for the reporting of cost data in a
consistent format at various levels of detail. In addition, they asserted that standard
WBS eliminates redundancy, thereby allowing crucial resources to be channelled
elsewhere. Jung and Kang (2007) noted that standardising the WBS will significantly
reduce the managerial workload associated with managing work packages, and this
will greatly improve the accuracy of progress measurement. In addition, a key benefit
of standardising the WBS relates to the need for the industry to embrace a truly
computer-integrated-construction (CIC) approach to project management. As argued
by Hua and Leen (2002), one-way of ensuring CIC is to develop standardised systems of
classifying information. Essentially, this relates to the need for a common language.
The WBS as it is currently employed does provide this common language, albeit on a
project-by-project basis, reflecting a common language for all stakeholders. While this
is of great significance to the success of individual projects, it does not facilitate
performance comparison across projects since the work contents of these projects were
not structured on the same basis.
There are some national standards that aim to provide standard classifications for
formulating the WBS. For example, the Uniformat II, developed by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides a structure for classifying
building elements and related site works. However, this classification is elemental in
nature and may not be suitable for adoption by the UK construction industry. A typical
example relates to the practice of generating estimates. In the UK, estimates are
normally prepared in the form of bills of quantities, based on the Standard Method of
Measurement (SMM). The SMM provides a classification of work sections based on the
 CI Common Arrangement of Work Sections (CAWS). Therefore, standards such as the
9,4 Uniformat, which are based on one facet of information, may not be suitable for use in
the UK. Just like the Uniformat, the masterformat is a North American standard and
may not also be suitable for use in the UK due to differences in certain practices (e.g.
estimating).
This gives authors the motivation to propose a framework for a standardised WBS
390 for building projects in the UK. In the rest of the paper, the commonality and frequency
of occurrence of activities across buildings are discussed. The paper then elucidates the
key features of the WBS, and then describes the development of the proposed
framework.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

Design options in buildings

Crucial to the successful standardisation of the WBS is the frequency with which
design options are repeated amongst buildings. Studies have shown that buildings
retain cognate, elemental options that define a building’s structure. For example, Gray
and Little (1985) showed that construction activity is highly predictable and that the
rules governing the selection of construction activities are consistent among
contractors. Atkin (1993) analysed 40 office building designs and found the presence
of stereotypes, suggesting the adoption of some dominant design options.
Basing their argument on the stereotypical nature of buildings, previous studies
have shown the feasibility of developing standardised construction activities. For
example, Nkado (1992) developed a construction time information model based on
standardised grouping of activities. These groupings were set-up, substructure,
superstructure, cladding, finishes and services. Blyth et al. (2004) developed a set of 39
standardised activities from a sample of 50 building projects. These standardised
activities were employed by Blyth and Kaka (2006) to form the basis for developing a
cash flow forecasting model.
Jung and Kang (2007) argue that the unique nature of construction projects seems to
make WBS standardisation extremely difficult to achieve. However, they noted that
managerial similarities do exist within a particular kind of construction (e.g.
commercial building) or within a particular company and on this basis, developed
corporate-wide standard work packages for progress measurement.
Given the evidence of existence of similarities amongst buildings and the activities
required to realise them, it is reasonable to conclude that a standardised WBS could be
developed. This is clearly the case since by definition; WBS elements contain work
packages, which in turn contain groupings of activities. These similarities provide a
firm basis for the standardisation of the WBS for building projects.

The work breakdown structure

The Project Management Institute (PMI, 2001) define the WBS as:
[. . .] a hierarchical structure that defines and organises the total project scope based on
deliverables, with each descending level in the hierarchy representing an increasingly
detailed definition of the project work.
The Association for Project Management Body of Knowledge (APM, 2006) and the
British Standard Institute (BSI, 2000) give a similar definition. The aim of the WBS is
to ensure complete and proper definition of the entire work. The highest level of the
 structure represents the entire project. This is then subdivided into smaller elements Framework for
that represent the next level in the hierarchy. The process continues until such a level work breakdown
when the entire project is deemed to have been sufficiently decomposed. The last level
entries in the structure are referred to as work packages and represent the level where structure
responsibility for the performance of the work in each work package is assigned to an
individual or organisation (Haugan, 2002).
There are three main issues which must be addressed in standardising the WBS. 391
The first relates to the decomposition criteria, which reflect the facets of information by
which the work is subdivided across the WBS hierarchy. The second is the sequencing
of these criteria, which relates to the order in which the criteria are applied in the
hierarchy. The third issue relates to the level of detail, which reflects the extent to
which the entire work is decomposed (Jung and Woo, 2004; Ibrahim et al., 2007).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

Decomposition criteria
Identifying generally employed criteria in the decomposition of different WBS entries
at various levels of the structure is obviously the first challenge. Several attempts have
been made to develop standardised frameworks for the classification of construction
information. The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO, 1994) identified
eight facets of classification for construction information. These include facility (e.g.
hospital, school), space (e.g. recreational, office spaces), element (e.g. stairs, floors),
work section (e.g. concrete work, masonry), construction product (e.g. paint, cement),
construction aid (e.g. formwork, scaffolding) attributes (e.g. shape, size) and
management (e.g. drawing, procurement). These facets were updated in ISO (2001)
to include more classes. The ones relevant to this study are construction entities (e.g.
buildings, bridges), construction complexes (e.g. transport complex, industrial
complex), work results (e.g. excavation, filling) and life cycle phases (e.g. design
phase, production phase).
Individual researchers have also focused on developing standards for classifying
construction information. For example, Kang and Paulson (1997) suggest a
construction information classification system based on five facets – facility, space,
element, operation and resource. Chang and Tsai (2003) proposed an information
classification system that consists of construction type, life cycle, product or service,
function, tasks and man-hour facets. Other classification schemes include, for example,
the masterformat, the samarbetskommitten for byggnadsfragor (sfB) and the
Construction index/sfB (CI/sfB).
It is desirable to have one standard classification system whose facets are
comprehensive enough to be employed as decomposition criteria since this will
facilitate standardisation of the WBS. However, these classification systems have their
weaknesses. According to Kang and Paulson (1997), the masterformat gives more
priority to construction components than functional components, the sfB system does
not have facility classification and the coding system of the CI/sfB system is a
complicated one. This study addresses this issue by conducting a survey aimed at
uncovering the most widely used criteria in the formulation of WBS for building projects.

Questionnaire survey
A total of 180, building and civil engineering contracting organisations were
approached in the survey. These include the top 100 UK construction companies as
 CI ranked by Building magazine and 80 randomly selected construction organisations.
9,4 Each organisation was sent a copy of the questionnaire by post. The sample comprises
25 building contractors, five civil engineering contractors, and 13 general contracting
organisations. These made up a total response rate of 24 percent.
The survey targeted different professionals who are actively involved with the
development of the WBS for building projects. As shown on Figure 1, 84 per cent of
392 these have at least ten years experience developing and working with the WBS. Before
sending out the questionnaires, the questions were tested through discussions with two
professionals. This served to ensure better quality of the responses received. The
objective of the survey was to identify the most commonly used criteria and to
investigate whether their extent of use varied across different kinds of organisations.
The aim was to develop a standard WBS by selecting those commonly used criteria
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

whose usage is not peculiar to some kind of organisation.

Survey results
A total of 11 facets of construction information classification were identified from
literature, and respondents were asked to indicate the ones they use as decomposition
criteria in developing a WBS for building projects (Table I).
Although the results show the extent of use of the criteria, they do not reveal their
frequency of use within each kind of organisation. The frequency of use of each
criterion was then examined based on the three kinds of organisation. The aim is to
identify and omit those criteria that do not enjoy similar levels of use across the three
kinds of organisation.

Criteria usage within different kinds of organisations

“Elements”, as already established, is the mostly used criterion across the whole
sample. Table II, shows that there were no apparent dependence or relationship

20

15
Frequency

10

0
Figure 1. Less than 5 Between 5 Between 11 Between 16 Over 20
Respondent level years and 10 years and 15 years and 20 years years
of experience
Respondent's level of experience
 Framework for
Decomposition criteria Frequency of use Respondents (%)
work breakdown
Work section 34 81.0 structure
Elements 40 95.2
Facility 15 35.7
Construction aids 31 73.8
Construction product 13 31.0 393
Attributes 11 26.2
Management 17 40.5
Spaces 8 19.0
Function 11 26.2
Location 27 64.3 Table I.
Lifecycle phases 18 42.9 Criteria usage
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

between the use of “elements” and “kind of organisation”, and that a fairly similar level
of usage across all kinds of organisations is apparent. This is also confirmed by the
high significant values of the Pearson x 2, likelihood ratio and the linear-by-linear
association as shown on Table III. This implies that the level of usage of the “elements”
criterion does not really depend on whether the contractor was a building, general, or
civil engineering contractor.
The same statistic was employed to test for significant association between kinds of
organisation and all other criteria. The results (as shown on Tables II and III), except in
the case of “construction product” and “attribute” criteria show no significant
relationship. Again, this implies that the use of these decomposition criteria is not
peculiar to any specific kind of organisation.
Both “construction product” and “attribute” criteria were found to be influenced by
different kinds of organisations. The nature of this influence is such that both of these
criteria are highly unpopular amongst building contractors.
In order to ensure generalisation, the decomposition criteria used in developing the
framework must enjoy usage by at least 50 per cent of the sample considered. In
addition, the usage of the criteria must not be peculiar to some specific kinds of
organisation. As portrayed by the survey results, only “elements”, “work section”,
“location” and “construction aids” satisfy these requirements.

Sequencing the structure

Respondents were asked if they have a defined order by which they apply the
decomposition criteria in formulating the WBS for all projects. About 66 per cent of
respondents indicate they have no definite order by which they sequence the WBS
while 27 per cent indicate they follow a defined order for all projects. About 7 per cent
of respondents did not answer the question and these were coded as missing values
(Table IV).
Respondents who had such a defined order for sequencing the WBS were asked to
show the sequence by indicating the criteria they apply at each level of the WBS.
Table V shows the defined order in which criteria are applied in the formulation of
WBS for each respondent. None of the respondents goes beyond Level 8 and most of
them limit the WBS to Level 5.
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

CI
9,4

394

Table II.

vs “Criteria”
“Kind of organisation”
No Yes Total No Yes Total No Yes Total No Yes Total No Yes Total No Yes Total

Kind of organisation Elements Work section Facility Location Management Function

Building contracting
Frequency 1 24 25 5 20 25 18 7 25 11 14 25 16 9 25 20 5 25
Percent within kind of organisation 4.0 96.0 100.0 20.0 80.0 100.0 72.0 28.0 100.0 44.0 56.0 100.0 64.0 36.0 100.0 80.0 20.0 100.0
Percentof total 2.3 55.8 58.1 11.6 46.5 58.1 41.9 16.3 58.1 25.6 32.6 58.1 37.2 20.9 58.1 46.5 11.6 58.1
Civil engineering contracting
Frequency 1 4 5 2 3 5 4 1 5 2 3 5 4 1 5 3 2 5
Percent within kind of organisation 20.0 80.0 100.0 40.0 60.0 100.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 40.0 60.0 100.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 60.0 40.0 100.0
Percent of total 2.3 9.3 11.6 4.7 7.0 11.6 9.3 2.3 11.6 4.7 7.0 11.6 9.3 2.3 11.6 7.0 4.7 11.6
General contracting
Count 1 12 13 2 11 13 6 7 13 3 10 13 6 7 13 9 4 13
Percent within kind of organisation 7.7 92.3 100.0 15.4 84.6 100.0 46.2 53.8 100.0 23.1 76.9 100.0 46.2 53.8 100.0 69.2 30.8 100.0
Percentage of total 2.3 27.9 30.2 4.7 25.6 30.2 14.0 16.3 30.2 7.0 23.3 30.2 14.0 16.3 30.2 20.9 9.3 30.2
Total
Count 3 40 43 9 34 43 28 15 43 16 27 43 26 17 43 32 11 43
Percent within kind of organisation 7.0 93.0 100.0 20.9 79.1 100.0 65.1 34.9 100.0 37.2 62.8 100.0 60.5 39.5 100.0 74.4 25.6 100.0
Percentage of total 7.0 93.0 100.0 20.9 79.1 100.0 65.1 34.9 100.0 37.2 62.8 100.0 60.5 39.5 100.0 74.4 25.6 100.0
Construction
Kind of organisation Construction aids product Attributes Life cycle phases Spaces
Building contracting
Frequency 9 16 25 21 4 25 22 3 25 16 9 25 22 3 25
Percent within kind of organisation 36.0 64.0 100.0 84.0 16.0 100.0 88.0 12.0 100.0 64.0 36.0 100.0 88.0 12.0 100.0
Percentage of total 20.9 37.2 58.1 48.8 9.3 58.1 51.2 7.0 58.1 37.2 20.9 58.1 51.2 7.0 58.1
Civil engineering contracting
Frequency 1 4 5 2 3 5 3 2 5 1 4 5 4 1 5
Percetwithin kind of organisation 20.0 80.0 100.0 40.0 60.0 100.0 60.0 40.0 100.0 20.0 80.0 100.0 80.0 20.0 100.0
Percentage of total 2.3 9.3 11.6 4.7 7.0 11.6 7.0 4.7 11.6 2.3 9.3 11.6 9.3 2.3 11.6
General contracting
Frequency 2 11 13 7 6 13 7 6 13 8 5 13 9 4 13
Percent within kind oforganisation 15.4 84.6 100.0 53.8 46.2 100.0 53.8 46.2 100.0 61.5 38.5 100.0 69.2 30.8 100.0
Percentage of total 4.7 25.6 30.2 16.3 14.0 30.2 16.3 14.0 30.2 18.6 11.6 30.2 20.9 9.3 30.2
Total
Frequency 12 31 43 30 13 43 32 11 43 25 18 43 35 8 43
Percent within kind of organisation 27.9 72.1 100.0 69.8 30.2 100.0 74.4 25.6 100.0 58.1 41.9 100.0 81.4 18.6 100.0
Percentage of total 27.9 72.1 100.0 69.8 30.2 100.0 74.4 25.6 100.0 58.1 41.9 100.0 81.4 18.6 100.0
 Framework for
x 2 tests – Asymp.Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson x 2 Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-linear association work breakdown
Work section 0.508 0.547 0.840
structure
Element 0.436 0.520 0.581
Facility 0.216 0.221 0.140
Construction aids 0.371 0.353 0.172 395
Construction product 0.048 0.049 0.040
Attributes 0.053 0.053 0.020
Management 0.360 0.351 0.346
Spaces 0.368 0.383 0.163 Table III.
Function 0.566 0.576 0.426 x 2 tests – “Kind of
Location 0.445 0.429 0.220 organisation” vs
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

Life cycle phases 0.182 0.177 0.728 “elements”

Do you have a defined order or sequence?

Frequency Percentage

Valid No 27 65.9
Yes 11 26.8
Total 38 92.7 Table IV.
Missing 3 7.3 Respondents with defined
Total 41 100.0 sequence for WBS

The following can be deduced from Table V:

.
“Element” is the most used criterion in Levels 1 and 2 but is more used in Level 2.
It can therefore be concluded that a typical rigid structure will have “elements”
as the decomposition criterion at Level 2.
.
The most used criteria at Level 1 after elements are facility/physical location.
These are equally used and it can be concluded that these criteria are the most
used at Level 1 amongst standardised sequences.
.
The most used criterion at Level 3 is work section. Although it is also the most
used at Level 5, it is more used at Level 3.
.
Most used criterion at Level 4 is construction aids.
.
At Level 5, the most used is construction product.

Figure 2 shows a generalised representation of the standardised order or sequence

based on the most used criterion at each level. Following this sequence, irrespective of
the order, will yield the same set of work packages at the end.
The order in which the criteria are applied across the hierarchy defines the sequence
of the structure. Ormerod (1983) noted that the first level of the structure is normally
the project, and proposed a sequence for subsequent levels based on operation, work
section and location, in that order. However, Globerson (1994) has shown how the
sequencing of the structure reflects different management styles and organisational
structures. In this regard, it is worth noting that so long as the 100 per cent rule (total
work contents of child elements is exactly the work content of the parent element) is
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

CI
9,4

396

for WBS
Table V.
Defined sequence
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8

1 Facility Elements Work section Construction aids – – – –

2 Elements Physical location Work section Construction product – – – –
3 Facility Elements Work section Construction aids – – – –
4 Elements Work section Facility Construction aids Management Spaces Function –
5 Physical location Elements Facility Work section Construction Construction Attributes –
product aids
6 Physical location Elements – – – – – –
7 Elements Management Function Construction aids Life cycle phases – – –
8 Facility Life cycle phases Physical location Elements Work section – – –
9 Elements Work section Management Physical location – – – –
10 Physical location Life cycle phases Spaces Elements Work section – – –
11 Life cycle phases Elements Work section Construction aids Construction – – –
product
Total (N) 11 11 10 10 6 2 2
Mode Element Element Work section Construction aids Work section/
const product
 Level 1: Facility/physical location
Framework for
Project
work breakdown
structure
Level 2: Elements Name Name Name
title title title

397
Name Name Name
Level 3: Work section
title title title

Name Name Name

Level 4: Construction aids
title title title
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

Name Name Name

Level 5: Construction product
title title title

Figure 2.
WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 Rigid sequence for the WBS

applied in subdividing each WBS element, the same set of work packages will be
obtained irrespective of the order in which the criteria are applied. This study therefore
adopts a sequence based on the frequency of use of each criterion, applying the most
commonly used at the highest level, and then the next most commonly used at the next
lower level. The trend continues to the lowest level where the least used criterion is
applied. This sequence is similar to that followed by rigid approach (as shown on
Figure 2).

Definition of the criteria

The definition of each of the decomposition criteria is critical to the successful
development of the proposed generalised framework. Jung and Woo (2004) noted that
the definitions vary from organisation to organisation and are often very subjective. In
order to do away with the subjectivity and ensure clarity of meaning, this study simply
adopts definitions based on standardised construction classification documents. This
will serve to ensure common understanding of the proposed framework.
Many standard documents that define and classify these facets of information do
exist. It is crucial therefore to identify the standard definition to adopt for each of the
criteria. For the “elements” criterion, this study adopts the “standard list of elements”
developed by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) since it is the most popular
UK standard that defines and classifies building elements. The BCIS (1996) defines an
element as “a part of a building which fulfils a specific function or functions
irrespective of its design, specification or construction”. The main elements based on
the BCIS are shown on Table VI.
The CAWS is adopted for the definition of “work sections” since other documents
that define work sections (such as the SMM) are themselves based on it. A work section
reflects a type of construction activity requiring a certain skill applied to a particular
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

CI
9,4

398

Table VI.
Standard classifications
of decomposition criteria
Location
Work sections (CAWS) Construction aids (UNICLASS) Elements (BCIS) (Blyth et al. 2004)
Description Code Description Code Description Code Description

A Preliminaries/general conditions M1 Pumps for ground water 1 Substructure B Basement

lowering
B Complete buildings/structures/units M2 Formwork 2A Frame G Ground Floor
C Demolition/alteration/renovation M3 Scaffolding, shoring, fencing 2B Upper floors 1st First floor
D Groundwork M4 Lifting appliances and 2C Roof 2nd Second floor
conveyors
E In situ concrete/large precast concrete M5 Construction vehicles 2D Stairs 3rd Third floor
F Masonry M6 Tunnelling, drilling, 2E External walls 4th Fourth floor
compaction
G Structural/carcassing metal/timber M7 Concrete, stone production 2F Windows and external doors Successive
floors
H Cladding/covering M8 Testing equipment 2G Internal walls and partitions
J Waterproofing M9 General equipment 2H Internal doors
K Linings/sheathing/dry partitioning 3A Wall finishes
L Windows/doors/stairs 3B Floor finishes
M Surface finishes 3C Ceiling finishes
N Furniture/equipment 4A Fittings and furnishings
P Building fabric sundries 5A Sanitary appliances
Q Paving/planting/fencing/site furniture 5B Services equipment
R Disposal systems 5C Disposal installations
S Piped supply systems 5D Water installations
(continued)
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

Location
Work sections (CAWS) Construction aids (UNICLASS) Elements (BCIS) (Blyth et al. 2004)
Description Code Description Code Description Code Description

T Mechanical heating/cooling/refrigeration 5E Heat source

systems
U Ventilation/air conditioning systems 5F Space heating and air treatment
V Electrical supply/power/lighting systems 5G Ventilating systems
W Communications/security/control systems 5H Electrical installations
X Transport systems 51 Gas installations
Z Building fabric reference specification 5J Lift and conveyors installations
5K Protective installations
5L Communication installations
5M Special installations
5N Builder’s work in connection with
services
50 Builder’s profit and attendance on
services
6A Site works
6B Drainage
6C External services
6D Minor building works
structure
work breakdown
Framework for

399

Table VI.
 CI type of resource. It therefore relates to various trades and subcontractors who actually
9,4 procure the work. CAWS defines a total of 360 work sections but for sake of brevity,
Table VI shows only the main groupings.
Table M of UNICLASS “Classification of Construction Aids” is adopted for the
“construction aids” criterion. The term construction aid is defined by UNICLASS as:
[. . .] a material resource used in production, maintenance and demolition activities, but which
400 are not intended for incorporation into, nor for furnishing or equipping construction entities.
Again, Table VI shows only the main classifications.
The authors are not aware of a standardised classification of the “location” criterion.
The present study therefore simply adopts a classification based on floor level (e.g. first
floor, second floor, etc.) since this is the definition commonly adopted by planners
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

(Blyth et al., 2004).

Level of detail
The level of detail reflects the extent of decomposition and is therefore directly related
to the number of decomposition criteria used across the WBS hierarchy. Raz and
Globerson (1998) gave a helpful review of the factors to consider in deciding whether or
not to further decompose. In this study, the level of detail is limited to the fifth level in
the hierarchy since this is the lowest level that can be achieved based on the four
criteria employed.

The proposed framework

The framework is developed by analysing specific parts of the three standard
documents that define the decomposition criteria. It is clear that specific elements are
related to specific work sections and construction aids. This relationship is identified
for each element in the BCIS list. Figure 3 shows an overview of the framework.
The framework is based on the notion that a building is a collection of building
elements. Each of these elements is in turn constructed on the basis of one or more
work sections, at a particular location, with the help of some construction aids. An
instance of an element in an instance of a building may belong to one or more work
sections, and an instance of a work section may apply to more than one element.
Similarly, an instance of a work section may require one or more types of construction
aids at one or more locations. In addition, an instance of a construction aid may be
required for work relating to more than one work section. This many-to-many
relationship that may exist in a given building necessitates the careful analysis of
specific parts of the documents that define the different criteria.
It is not feasible to show the entire standardised WBS because of its size. However,
since the principle is the same, only parts of the structure that relate to the first four
BCIS elements (substructure, frame, upper floor and roof) are demonstrated in
Table VII. The highest Level (1) of the structure represents the project. Level 2
represents a subdivision of the entire project into the various BCIS elements. Each
element is then subdivided into the various work sections that may be applicable to it
in Level 3. Level 4 represents a subdivision of each work section into “main work” and
the “construction aids” that may be required for the work. A caveat about this though,
is the fact that some construction aids (e.g. scaffolding) are normally required by more
 Element (BCIS) 1..* 1 Building project
Framework for
IsContainedIn
-Name
-Code
-Name work breakdown
-Element -Building
structure
1..* -Element
Belong To
401
1..* -WorkSection

WorkSection (CAWS)
-WorkSection
Construction aids (UNICLASS)
-Name Contains -ConstructionAid
-Name
-Code
-Code
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

-Main Work 1 1..*

1..* -ConstructionAid
1..* -WorkSection
IsUsedIn

1..* -Location

-Location Location (Blyth et al)

IsCarriedOutIn Figure 3.
-Name Framework overview
1..*

than a single work section. Such construction aids are lumped together as a single
package.
The final Level (5) represents a breakdown by the physical location of the work.
This is based on the particular floor level the work is situated. Again it should be noted
that by definition, the location of some elements is already fixed. The part of the
structure that depicts such elements (roof and substructure) does not therefore require
a breakdown by location.
Table VII shows the various WBS elements and work packages. WBS elements at
the lowest level of the structure are generally known as work “packages”. These
represent levels where responsibilities for the performance of the work are assigned.

Conclusion
The need for a standardised WBS for building projects is clear. First, it will serve to
ensure a truly computer-integrated approach to managing projects. This is essentially
the case given the current object-oriented approach to modelling building information
which makes it possible to store more information than just geometry in computer
interpretable format, thereby facilitating the automation of the WBS. Second, it will
serve as the basis for performance measurement not only within an organisation, but
also across organisations, paving the way for industry-wide continuous improvement.
This is particularly the case since a generic WBS will form a common language for all,
whereby measurement and reporting are done on the same basis.
This paper proposes a framework for a standardised WBS for building projects in
the UK. This was based on an industry-wide survey that identified the most frequently
used decomposition criteria in the development of WBS for building projects. In order
to ensure clarity, the definitions of these criteria were based on standardised
 CI
9,4 Work package WBS code

Project 1
Substructure 1.1
Groundwork 1.1.1
Main work 1.1.1.1
402 Pumps 1.1.1.2
In situ concrete/large precast concrete 1.1.2
Main work 1.1.2.1
Formwork 1.1.2.2
Concrete production 1.1.2.3
Masonry 1.1.3
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

Main work 1.1.3.1

Stone/block/brick production 1.1.3.2
Structural/carcassing metal/timbe 1.1.4
Waterproofing 1.1.5
Frame 1.2
In situ concrete/large precast concrete 1.2.1
Main work 1.2.1.1
Basement 1.2.1.1.1
Ground floor 1.2.1.1.2
Successive floors 1.2.1.1.3
Formwork 1.2.1.2
Basement 1.2.1.2.1
Ground floor 1.2.1.2.2
Successive floors 1.2.1.2.3
Concrete production 1.2.1.3
Basement 1.2.1.3.1
Ground floor 1.2.1.3.2
Successive floors 1.2.1.3.3
Structural/carcassing metal/timber 1.2.2
Basement 1.2.2.1
Ground floor 1.2.2.2
Successive floors 1.2.2.3
Upper floors 1.3
In situ concrete/large precast concrete 1.3.1
Main work 1.3.1.1
Basement 1.3.1.1.1
Ground floor 1.3.1.1.2
Successive floors 1.3.1.1.3
Formwork 1.3.1.2
Basement 1.3.1.2.1
Ground floor 1.3.1.2.2
Successive floors 1.3.1.2.3
Concrete production 1.3.1.3
Basement 1.3.1.3.1
Ground floor 1.3.1.3.2
Successive floors 1.3.1.3.3
Structural/carcassiing metal/timber 1.3.2
Basement 1.3.2.1
Table VII. Ground floor 1.3.2.2
Proposed work Successive floors 1.3.2.3
package structure (continued)
 Framework for
Work package WBS code
work breakdown
Roof
Masonry
1.4
1.4.1
structure
Main work 1.4.1.1
Stone production 1.4.1.2
In situ concrete/large precast concrete 1.4.2 403
Main work 1.4.2.1
Formwork 1.4.2.2
Concrete production 1.4.2.3
Structural/carcassing metal/timber 1.4.3
Cladding/covering 1.4.4
Waterproofing 1.4.5
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

Windows/doors/stairs 1.4.6 Table VII.

construction classification documents. Yet, the study has a number of limitations.

These relate to the fact that the standards documents adopted (BCIS standard list of
elements and CAWS) are UK-based. In addition, the survey was conducted within a
relatively small sample (180) of UK construction organisations. Hence, the framework
may not be suitable for use internationally. Also, the relatively small sample size
imposes a limitation on the extent to which the results could be generalised.
Future work will employ the results of this study to develop a system for the
automation of work package generation. The developed system will then be integrated
with vision-based algorithms that will track and report progress of construction at
work package level. The overall system will be an integrated planning and progress
monitoring tool.

References
APM (2006), APM Body of Knowledge, 5th ed., APM, New York, NY.
Atkin, B. (1993), “Stereotypes and themes in building designs: insights for model builders”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 119-30.
BCIS (1996), BCIS Elements for Design and Build, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,
London.
Blyth, K. and Kaka, A. (2006), “A novel multiple linear regression model for forecasting
S-curves”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 82-95.
Blyth, K., Lewis, J. and Kaka, A. (2004), “Developing a framework for a standardised works
programme for building projects in the UK”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 193-210.
BSI (2000), Project Management – Part 2: Vocabulary BS6079:2:2000, British Standard
Institution, London.
Chang, A.S-T. and Tsai, Y-w. (2003), “Engineering information classification system”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 454-60.
Colenso, K. (2000), “Creating the work breakdown structure”, Artemis Management Systems.
Eldin, N.N. (1989), “Measurement of work progress: quantitative technique”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 115 No. 3, pp. 462-87.
 CI Garcia-Fornieles, J.M., Fan, I.S., Perez, A., Wainwright, C. and Sehdev, K. (2003), “A work
breakdown structure that integrates different views in aircraft modification projects”,
9,4 Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 47-54.
Globerson, S. (1994), “Impact of various work-breakdown structures on project
conceptualization”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 165-71.
Gray, C. and Little, J. (1985), “The classification of work packages to determine the relationship
404 between design and construction”, Occasional paer No. 18, Department of Construction
Management and Economics, University of Reading, Reading.
Haugan, G.T. (2002), Effective Work Breakdown Structures, Management Concepts, Vienna.
Hua, G.B. and Leen, C.Y. (2002), “Developing national standards for the classification of
construction Information in ingapore”, paper presented at International Council for
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, CIB W78 Conference, Aarhus
School of Archtecture, Aarhus.
Ibrahim, Y.M., Kaka, A.P., Trucco, E., Kagioglou, M. and Ghassan, A. (2007), “Semi automatic
development of thework breakdown structure (WBS) for construction projects”,
Proceedings of the 4th International SCRI Research Symposium, Salford.
ISO (1994), “Classification of Information in the Construction Industry”, Technical Report 14177,
ISO, Geneva.
ISO (2001), “Building construction – organisation of information about construction works”, ISO
12006-2:2001, ISO, Geneva.
Jung, Y. (2005), “Integrated cost and schedule control: variables for theory and implementation”,
paper presented at Construction Research Congress, San Diego, CA.
Jung, Y. and Kang, S. (2007), “Knowledge-based standard progress measurement for integrated
cost and schedule performance control”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 10-21.
Jung, Y. and Woo, S. (2004), “Flexible work breakdown structure for integrated cost and schedule
control”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 5, pp. 616-25.
Kang, L.S. and Paulson, B.C. (1997), “Adaptability of information classification system for civil
works”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 123 No. 4, pp. 419-26.
Nkado, R.N. (1992), “Construction time information system for the building industry”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 10, pp. 489-509.
Ormerod, R. (1983), “A hierarchy approach to work packages and the structuring of project
information”, Occasional Paper No. 11, Department of Construction Management and
Economics, University of Reading, Reading.
PMI (2001), Project Management Institute Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structure,
Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Rad, P.F. (1999), “Advocating a deliverable-oriented work breakdown structure”, Cost
Engineering, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 35-9.
Raz, T. and Globerson, S. (1998), “Effective sizing and content definition of work packages”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 17-23.
Voivedich, B.E., White, R.E. and Aghili, H.K. (2001), “Development and implementation of a
standard WBS for offshore construction”, paper presented at Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX.
 Further reading Framework for
Allot, T. (Ed.) (1998), Common Arrangement of Work Sections for Building Works, Construction work breakdown
Project Information Committee, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Crawford, M., Cann, J. and O’ Leary, R. (Eds) (1997), Unified Classification for the Construction
structure
Industry, RIBA, London.
RICS (1996), Elements for Design and Build, The Building Cost Information Service, London.
405
Corresponding author
Yahaya Makarfi Ibrahim can be contacted at: ymi6@hw.ac.uk
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Sang-Hyuk Son, Han-Seong Gwak, Hong-Chul Lee, Dong-Eun Lee. 2014. Developing Quality Record
Traceability System using Construction Operation Model. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea
Structure and Construction 30, 69-80. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG At 01:12 31 January 2016 (PT)