Case Study

Challenges of Process Modeling in Architecture and

Engineering to Execute Projects and Public Works
Lourenço Costa 1; Mariana Biancucci Apolinário Barbosa 2; Roquemar de Lima Baldam 3;
and Thalmo de Paiva Coelho Jr. 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to present a structure of governance for activities and processes applicable to the architecture and
engineering sector for the execution of projects and public works. It is intended that this structure will orchestrate the various necessary
actions, ranging from the identification of the complete organization’s delivery scope, through to delivery disorders, activity structure, and
the way in which these activities are to be managed. The current literature does not include a complete structure applicable to public service
that can be widely used and with short learning time, such as the presented structure. Based on a business process management (BPM)
cycle, the stages of planning, analysis, modeling, and optimization of processes were developed. In the planning phase, the typical activities
of a sector responsible for the architecture and engineering projects and works of a public institution were identified and categorized, and
possible dysfunctions were verified. Subsequently, analysis and modeling of the prioritized processes was performed, and finally, opti-
mization and validation of the modeled processes were completed. The results obtained demonstrated that the proposal can be applied to
seek improvements in public organizational environments regarding issues related to architecture and engineering projects and works
through the management of their processes. Moreover, the lessons learned have indicated some common problems of the administrative
units responsible for this type of activity that need to be addressed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001575. © 2018 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Business process management (BPM); Process management; Process modeling; Architecture and engineering; Projects
and works; Public sector.

Introduction costs and deadlines. According to Perez (2011), public institu-

Data gathered by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics
(IBGE 2013) indicate the relevance of projects and public works for
the civil construction sector in Brazil. In 2013, the companies in
this area executed works and services in the amount of BRL
346.7 billion. Of this amount, BRL 116.8 billion (33.7% of the
total) was contracted by public entities, i.e., bodies belonging to
federal, state, or municipal government. Considering the figures
presented, one infers a need for conscious and rational management
of these resources when conducting public contracts of architecture
and engineering projects and works.
Perez (2011) stated that deficiencies in projects and works in
the public sector have been repeatedly identified by the media and
have gradually been discussed more often by the academic com-
munity. Currently, coupled with the demand for efficiency of pub-
lic power, there is great pressure to increase quality and reduce
1
Professor, Dept. of Metallurgical Engineering, Instituto Federal do
Espírito Santo, 29040780 Vitória, Brazil (corresponding author). Email:
lourenco.costa@ifes.edu.br
2
Professor, Reference Center for Distance Education and Training,
Instituto Federal do Espírito Santo, 29040780 Vitória, Brazil. Email:
mariana@ifes.edu.br
3
Professor, Dept. of Metallurgical Engineering, Instituto Federal do
Espírito Santo, 29040780 Vitória, Brazil. Email: roquemar.baldam@
ifes.edu.br
4
Professor, Dept. of Metallurgical Engineering, Instituto Federal do
Espírito Santo, 29040780 Vitória, Brazil. Email: thalmo@ifes.edu.br
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 12, 2017; approved
on June 25, 2018; published online on October 23, 2018. Discussion period
open until March 23, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
tions have faced difficulties in responding to this type of issue.
One possibility that has been demonstrated to be feasible is the
implementation of business process management (BPM). In addi-
tion to the benefits already enshrined in this approach, it is possible
to add that it addresses the control of complex procedures. It is true
that the activities related to architecture and engineering, either
projects or works, together with the specificities of the public sec-
tor, are characterized by a high level of complexity and therefore
require careful handling by institutions (Smart et al. 2009).
Owing to the specific characteristics of public institutions, there
is a greater difficulty in the implementation of process manage-
ment, particularly in activities such as performance measurement,
implementation of organizational changes, computerization, train-
ing, and empowerment of stakeholders (Baldam et al. 2014;
Trkman 2010). Gulledge and Sommer (2002) added that the main
benefit of the implementation of BPM, with a focus on the public
sector, is the increase in effectiveness and efficiency achieved by
restructuring the organization and its processes.
Thus, this research aims to propose a processes model spe-
cifically designed for the sector responsible for the execution of
architecture and engineering projects and public works as part of
a federal governmental institution. It aims to understand how to
model processes in architecture and engineering to execute projects
and public works. For this to happen effectively, the following
steps will be taken: (1) identify the typical activities of a sector
responsible for architecture and engineering projects and public
works by categorizing them; (2) plan the implementation of process
management in the sector, verifying the existence of possible dys-
functions and prioritizing processes for modeling; (3) analyze and
model the selected processes; and (4) optimize and validate the
modeled processes.

© ASCE 05018015-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

 Theoretical Framework
Architecture and Engineering Services in the
Public Sector
According to Perez (2011), there has been a growing worldwide
concern with improving civil construction projects and works
through the implementation of various management techniques.
Perez (2011) mentioned that in the public sector, this type of con-
cern, which is mainly related to management processes, is based on
and finds support for application in the guiding principles of public
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
administration (morality, impersonality, efficiency, transparency,
and legality).
In the public sector, architecture and engineering projects and
works are related to the construction of highways, railways,
bridges, viaducts, tunnels, urbanistic and landscape interventions;
the implantation of infrastructure for electricity, water and gas sup-
ply, telecommunications, and sanitation; and the construction of
buildings to house schools, hospitals, prisons, dwellings, and ad-
ministrative teams (Albuquerque et al. 2015). These developments
have become increasingly complex, not only because of the diver-
sity of stakeholders but also because of the need for speed in meet-
ing demands and saving resources.
The public authority, as a contractor of architectural and engi-
neering services, faces a great number of obstacles and bureaucratic
limitations, coupled with the absence of an institutional quality cul-
ture aimed at the satisfaction of the final client (Perez 2011).
Albuquerque et al. (2015) argued that this type of constraint is
inherent to most public bodies in the country, and that many short-
comings concern the lack of planning and control over perfor-
mance, quality, and scope (Motta 2005; Campos 2010; Guidugli
Filho and Andery 2002).
An alternative that has been proposed is the introduction into
the bidding documents, through legal mechanisms, of terms of
reference related to specific quality plans for public enterprises
(Guidugli Filho et al. 2001), inducing companies to prepare a plan
before contracting them (Santos and Melhado 2003). According to
Oliveira and Amorim (2006), these plans would consist of a dy-
namic document encompassing the whole product lifecycle from
conception to the use, operation, and maintenance phases, being
constantly fed by criteria and restrictions.
However, such plans are not effective when their implementa-
tion does not occur in an organized way through a pre-established
procedure, or when those involved are not aware of their role within
existing processes, as well as the implications of their activities and
decisions. In this context, BPM can be a useful tool for improving
the quality of public enterprises and services provided because it
enables better management, monitoring, and improvement of ac-
tions developed.
Public Sector and Process Management
The main function of the public sector is the provision of services,
and some aspects of this type of product make it difficult to monitor
and measure its results and consequently improve their quality
(Pyon et al. 2011).
Currently, there is a vast body of international literature on pub-
lic management. Much of the research during the 1980s was
marked by the experiences of the United Kingdom in the Thatcher
years. The introduction of new programs, policies, and reforms, as
well as the resulting implementation of innovative practices, proc-
esses, and techniques, have often been referred to as New Public
Management (Hood 1995). New Public Management is based on
reforms aimed at improving the quality of public services, reducing
© ASCE 05018015-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015
public expenditure (increasing the efficiency of government oper-
ations), and introducing more effective policies (Barretta and
Busco 2011).
One of the greatest obstacles to New Public Management is the
challenge of transforming bureaucratic and hierarchical structures
with a tendency toward isolation into flexible and entrepreneurial
organizations. This transformation would imply the adoption by
public institutions of management standards developed for the
environment of private companies, with the necessary adaptations
to the specificities of the sector. To do this, it would be necessary to
break with the traditional models of resource management and
introduce a new management culture.
The process-based organizational structure advocated by BPM
is grounded in the way the work is performed, not around depart-
mental and bureaucratic specific qualifications. For this to be
implemented, it is fundamental that there is a breakdown of the
rigid structures of public institutions and an integration of the vari-
ous internal activities and departments, as well as with other organ-
izations that interact with their business processes.
Traditional models of public management have a greater focus
on organizational structure. However, there are several cases in
public initiatives where existing silos needed to be broken down,
the structure made less hierarchical, and levels of approval reduced.
This feature has been observed not only in BPM, but also in lean
initiatives, ABC analyses, and enterprise resource planning (ERP)
implementations. The sharing of material and human resources in a
way that is separate from the structure or department in which they
are filled increases the efficiency and effectiveness of these resour-
ces and the processes involved. This makes the processes more
focused on the products that must be delivered (e.g., materials,
services, energy, customers, or combination of these) and more in-
dependent of the hierarchical structure of the organization, which is
strongly linked to the management model adopted by the occupants
of public offices, which in turn change with each new mandate.
Some integration initiatives can be identified, such as interorga-
nizational cooperation, which has been portrayed by the new
government policies as a means to improve efficiency in the public
services provided. However, in general, the administration and con-
trol of these initiatives are more a result of imposition than volun-
tary action by organizations (Barretta and Busco 2011).
Because it is a structured and systematic approach to managing
processes, BPM assumes and requires the development of the
following features: (1) means of putting processes in place; (2) sys-
tematic and reliable method of analyzing process impact and intro-
ducing innovations; (3) process execution models that are aligned
with the organization’s strategy, reflect the complexity of its daily
activities, and facilitate the analysis, transformation, and mobiliza-
tion of its teams; (4) management of a processes portfolio focused
not only on current customer needs, but also on the constant change
of these needs; (5) ability to respond to changes in the market and
combine and customize processes; (6) improved understanding of
the organization’s strategic trajectory; and (7) consistent, resilient,
and predictable means of processing processes, transforming the
organization into a permanent process laboratory (Davenport
1993; Harrington et al. 1997; Smith and Fingar 2003).
In addition, Andrews and Boyne (2010) analyzed public man-
agement and found a positive relationship between capability
(capital investment, finance, human resources, and information)
and organizational performance. They also observed that internal
structures and organizational processes make the difference in
the improvement of the services provided.
In public institutions, owing to their specific characteristics,
there is a greater difficulty in the implementation of process
management, particularly in activities such as performance
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Political and legal Change
structure management Social responsibility

Compliance with standards

Project
Management

Reference models
Guidelines and
I. Planning BPM specifications

Benchmarking
Best practices
a. Selection of critical processes
b. Prioritization of activities IT
c. Team formation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

d. BPM governance

External Feedback Market

environment
IV. Monitoring processes II. Analysing, modelling
and optimizing processes
a. Statistics Feedback
b. Control of groups of processes a. Business analysis
instances Feedback b. As-is and To-be modelling
c. Auditing c. Simulation
d. Process optimization
Management reports
Data for strategy

Monitoring

Configuration,
Business III. Implementing
Strategy
environment processes Customization
and Specification
a. Developments
b. New processes implementation
c. Technology transfer
d. Monitoring and control of
Process
process instance
Process maturity
office

Additional
Risk knowledge
Domestic and management Technological
cultural area development and creation

Fig. 1. Unified BPM cycle. (Reprinted from Baldam et al. 2014, with permission.)

measurement, implementation of organizational changes, comput-
erization, training, and empowerment of stakeholders (Trkman
2010).
Although radical change is possible with the implementation of
BPM in the public sector, the opportunity for this type of change is
relatively low because the organizational structures of institutions
are often rigid, resources for projects are generally scarce, the com-
mitment of middle management is difficult to achieve, and proc-
esses are predominantly intrafunctional (Stemberger and Jaklic
2007). In the public sector, Stemberger and Jaklic (2007) found that
changes would mean unification of processes, automation of some
activities, and elimination of unnecessary procedures. Gulledge and
Sommer (2002) concluded that the main benefit of implementing
BPM with a focus on the public sector is the increase in effective-
ness and efficiency achieved by restructuring the organization and
its processes.
Although BPM is a well-known and widely used practice, there
is an ongoing discussion about the best method to implement it.
Because of its comprehensive nature, a variety of approaches have
been used, such as continuous process improvement, business
processes reengineering (BPR), workflow management, reference
modeling, and implementation of ERP systems (Rohloff 2011).
In addition, it is natural for organizations that begin to practice
process management to be in doubt about where to start, what
activities to involve, who will be responsible, how not to waste
resources, how to ensure synergy with other initiatives, and how
to provide continuity, among many other issues. In short, the great
challenge is to understand how to deploy BPM such that organi-
zational efforts actually generate value. Usually this is done in the
foreground by identifying the primary products of the organization,
be it material goods, services, energy, or customers, that constitute
the reason for the organization’s existence. By taking these primary
products as reference, it is possible to identify the existing dysfunc-
tions preventing satisfactorily obtaining such products. From this
need, a basic structure of activities for delivery of these primary
products, supported by a management cycle, should be built to help
managers make decisions, define action plans for BPM work (or
other management action), and enable adapting ongoing processes
in the organization and future processes in a common management
context (Baldam et al. 2014).
Based on the analysis of the BPM cycles studied and syn-
thesized, Baldam et al. (2014) proposed the unified BPM cycle,
which will be a reference for this research; this cycle is illustrated
in Fig. 1.
Methodology
The guiding line of this research was an exploratory case study (Yin
2017). To perform the collection and analysis of data that supported

© ASCE 05018015-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

 this research, a multimethod approach (Freitas et al. 2000) was
used, considering that different instruments and research tools were
used. All methods used are presented and related to their respective
objectives following the research matrix proposed by Choguill
(2005), which is shown in Fig. 2.
Overview of the Organization and Sector Surveyed
The Federal Institutes of Education, Science, and Technology are
pluricurricular and multicampus education institutions that special-
ize in offering professional and technological education at different
levels and types of education based on the conjunction of technical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and technological knowledge and pedagogical practices.
The infrastructure of a campus in that network is usually imple-
mented gradually as new employees are assigned and new activities
are put into practice. In addition, after construction, facilities re-
quire permanent maintenance. It cannot be denied that the teaching,
research, and extension actions performed by institutions of this
nature are dynamic and constantly changing, seeking to accompany
and/or boost the social, economic, and technological contexts of the
country. It is therefore natural that the spaces of their campuses
need to be changed with some frequency. The exposed situations
confirm the tendency that the activities performed by the adminis-
trative sectors in charge of architecture and engineering in the
Federal Institutes are not exhausted in a significant time frame.
At the Federal Institute of Espírito Santo (IFES), this adminis-
trative unit underwent a recent restructuring and was renamed as
General Objective Specific Objectives
Identify the typical activities
of a sector responsible for
architecture and engineering
projects and public works
and categorize them.
Model processes in Plan the implementation of
architecture and
process management in the
engineering to execute sector, verifying the
projects and public existence of possible
works. dysfunctions and prioritizing
processes for modelling.
Analyse and model the
selected processes.
Optimize and validate the
modelled processes.
Fig. 2. Research matrix.
© ASCE 05018015-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015
General Coordination of Engineering Projects and Works (CGPE),
occasionally developing architecture and/or engineering projects
but with a focus on contracting companies of the civil construction
sector for project design and execution of works. The choice of
IFES as the study environment was made mainly as a result of
the following factors:
• The institution has undergone significant expansion and diver-
sification of its activities, a situation in which organizational
structures traditional to its history (and hence the modus oper-
andi of such structures) were replicated without questioning
whether they represent the best practices to be adopted for
the optimization of resources, i.e., it continued to act as if
the demand and scale were still the same as in the pre-expansion
period.
• As a public organization, the data and information used and/or
produced during this research are in the public domain; thus,
there are no ethical or confidentiality restrictions regarding pub-
lication of the results.
• The public sphere, especially in project design and works
execution, requires attention to the design of its policies and
procedures.
Research Conduction
The research matrix (Fig. 2) provided in this subsection relates each
specific objective with the discussion instruments used for its
development.
Methodology, Instruments and Tools
Secondary Data Survey
Focus Group (sectoral) (Sharts-Hopko 2001,
Morgan 1997, Rea and Parker 2002, Krueger and
Casey 2014, Kitzinger 1994, Debus and Novelli
1986)
Business Model Canvas - BMC (Osterwalder
and Pigneur 2010, Abraham 2013)
Current Reality Tree - CRT (Goldratt 1994,
Librelato et al. 2014, Costa et al. 2013, Maier
and Stix 2013, Kum and Sahin 2015)
SWOT Matrix (Zhang and Chen 2013, Chang
and Huang 2006, Lee, Huang and Teng 2009).
Focus Group (institutional)
Process Classification Framework - PCF
(APQC 2015)
Secondary Data Survey
Focus Group (sectoral)
Unified BPM Cycle (Baldam, Valle and Rozenfeld
2014)
SIPOC Matrix
Action Research Elements (Thiollent, 2011).
Focus Group (sectoral)
Unified BPM Cycle (Baldam, Valle and Rozenfeld
2014)
Business Process Model and Notation - BPMN
(OMG 2013)
Action Research Elements
Focus Group (institutional)
Unified BPM Cycle (Baldam, Valle and Rozenfeld
2014)
Business Process Model and Notation - BPMN
(OMG 2013)
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Business
WHAT IS THE BUSINESS? Model Canvas
(BMC)

ORGANIZATIONAL
STRATEGY
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS Current
TO DELIVER THE
PROPOSED PRODUCTS? Reality Tree
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

WHAT ARE THE TEAM

CHARCATERISTICS? SWOT Matrix

PROJECTS

OPERATIONS
Process
WHAT OPERATIONS,
PROJECTS AND PROCESSES
Classification
WILL BE MANAGED? Framework
(PCF)

PROCESSES

UNIFIED BPM
MANAGEMENT CYCLE

HOW TO MANAGE
ANALYSING, MODELING
PLANNING BPM PROCESSES? AND OPTIMIZING
PROCESSES

Fig. 3. Research structure.

The actions developed in this study are distributed in three
stages: (1) organizational strategy; (2) operations; and (3) BPM
unified management cycle. The research structure is summarized
in Fig. 3.
Results and Discussion
Preceding the presentation of the results achieved by this research,
and in addition to the discussion that these results provokes, a brief
report about the actions undertaken by IFES is appropriate for con-
textualization purposes in the sense of deploying process manage-
ment in the organization.
The first initiatives dates back to 2009, and at the time, there
were no known educational units (federal institutes or universities)
dedicated to this type of work in a broad and integrated manner as
proposed by IFES, except for isolated actions that included analy-
ses of specific processes. It is a fact that projects of this nature are
not normally present in public organizations except those that need
to compete in the market (IFES 2015).
As mentioned previously, management of processes should
be a continuous act, remaining over time, working on the audit
and improvement of existing processes, creating processes for
new products, and modeling other processes considered critical.
According to the guidelines set by the institution itself, the
intent of implementing BPM is to allow IFES to know and have
a single view of its processes, thereby creating a culture of
permanently improving its method of working, as occurs in leading
organizations.
The results of this study are presented according to the execu-
tion sequence of the specific objectives (Fig. 2) and the performed
steps of research (Fig. 3), following the chronology of application
of chosen methods for its fulfillment and, consequently, achieve-
ment of the general objective.
Organizational Strategy Actions
Trkman (2010), supported by Jeston and Nelis (2006), argued that
BPM should transform the strategic view of an organization, and
an intimate connection is required between BPM and strategy to
achieve long-term success and better performance (Guo-Shuang
and Liang 2008). Vom Brocke et al. (2014) emphasized BPM as
a management tactic aimed at change, evidencing its ability to cre-
ate transparency in the business and organizational system while
adding value through the use of different mechanisms chosen in
accordance with a strategic purpose (such as gains in efficiency,
agility, or integration).
The next three subsections are designed to investigate the first
part of the scheme shown in Fig. 3, which has a predominantly
diagnostic character.
What is the Business?
Every business process is associated with the production of a result,
i.e., a product, be it something physical or a service. To better align

© ASCE 05018015-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

 business processes with the organization’s strategy, several meth-
ods can be used. One such method is the business model canvas.
Fig. 4 presents the model built in 2014 by the employees of the
General Coordination of Engineering Projects and Works for the
sector.
Once the model is complete, it is possible to clearly see some of
the most relevant aspects of the sector, in addition to its operational
strategies in the organizational context. It may be inferred that in
order to understand the true nature of the business, it is important
to unpack this question into four aspects: (a) what; (b) for whom;
(c) how; and (d) how much.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fundamental for CGPE to visualize its restrictions as well as rela-
tions between them, thereby allowing the organization to focus on
actions that minimized or solved problems with the potential to
spark chain reactions to other subsequent dysfunctions.
What are the Characteristics of the Team?
To identify the intrinsic characteristics of the staff working in
CGPE, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)
matrix was drafted in 2015. In the construction of this graphic
model, data were described and organized into strengths and weak-
nesses of the internal environment and opportunities and threats of

It is worth emphasizing that each area of Fig. 4 represents
part of the structural connection of the business. All of these areas
relate to each other to form the general context, and according to
the business typology, some of them may become more relevant
(Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010).
What are the Problems with Delivering the Proposed
Products?
The current reality tree (CRT), a systematic method proposed by
Goldratt’s (1994) Theory of Constraints, describes the reality ex-
perienced in an organization by identifying what internal aspect
need to be changed (i.e., its problems), visualizing in detail the
existing relationships between such dysfunctions and enabling im-
provement efforts focused on the most critical points (Librelato
et al. 2014). The CRT built for CGPE in 2015 is presented in Fig. 5.
In a brainstorming session held with employees of the sector, 18
dysfunctions relevant to the performance of CGPE were listed, and
each of them was written in isolation on adhesive Post-it Note
paper. Next, cause-and-effect relationships were discussed, with the
aim of organizing them vertically from the bottom to the top of the
graph, linking them with arrows upward to induce the reading
direction.
According to Button (1999) and Watson et al. (2007), this sys-
tematic method is very efficient when used in the identification
of problems in unstructured businesses, and in this sense, it was
the external environment, which allowed this group’s situation to be
understood in a simple manner. Fig. 6 represents the SWOT analy-
sis performed, providing both points of view (both positive and
negative) experienced daily.
From the 33 surveyed characteristics of the CGPE team, neg-
ative aspects obtained a slight predominance of occurrence (18),
mainly in the weaknesses area (11). However, eight mentions were
recorded for the item strengths, and seven were recorded for the
opportunities item. Colored markers were used to assist in the clas-
sification of the listed characteristics.
Identification and Categorization of Activities
At this time, the second phase of the reasoning outlined as a guide-
line for this study was triggered (Fig. 7). This phase aims to list the
operations, project, and processes to be managed. In this research,
to understand the location of the procedures that allow the institu-
tion operate and how they are integrated, a classification structure
of activities and processes called the Process Classification
Framework (PCF), which was established in 1992 by the American
Productivity and Quality Center (APQC 2015), was used as
reference.
The creation of such a structure specific to IFES was part of a
larger initiative to implement BPM in the institution (held between
2008 and 2009), and was one of the first and most important steps

MAIN MAIN ACTIVITIES VALUE PROPOSAL CUSTOMER CUSTOMER

PARTNERSHIPS RELATIONSHIP SEGMENTS
Manage, follow,
monitor, and measure
the execution of
projects and works Protocol E-mail

Update of
Technical support Support Provost
government
to engineering development of Construction Renovation and Individual in-
systems of
works and services urbanistic plans works expansion works Phone person
works
Construction meetings
companies Assist in General
Projects of
Assist in directors
Receive maintenance and Design of construction and Periodical
construction of
works improvement of works renovation works, Website meetings with
the master plan
infrastructure and design of works works team
Architecture and Administrative
Technical Update of directors
Engineering Service MAIN RESOURCES assistance in CHANNELS
Providers government
engineering systems of works
Human resources Vehicles, computers works and
(architects, and equipment of Technical teams
services Website Protocol
engineers, and projects and of campuses
technicians) measurement

COST STRUCTURE INCOME SOURCES

Maintenance Government
Cooperation
(vehicles, equipment, Infrastructure Annual Parliamentary programs Public-Private
Staff agreements
software) and fuel maintenance Budget Law Amendments (federal, state Partnership
with SETEC
and municipal)

Fig. 4. Business model canvas of CGPE. (Data from IFES 2015.)

© ASCE 05018015-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

 Lack of organization
and planning

Frequent priority Lack of draft

changes project

Lack of knowledge of Excessive informality Difficulty in Deficiency in

the contractor, in processes with high
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

assigning activities monitoring

personnel and responsibility and risks effectively and
managers' for the institution and efficiently
measurement flow employees

Insufficient
Lack of participation
Lack of infrastructure
of the sector in
inspection and
works
measurement
implementation
programs

Lack of Lack of Lack of

Lack of Lack of Lack of
procedure and camera to physical
printer software driver
standardization inspect works space

Main undesired effects

Lack of knowledge about Lack of
Intermediary undesired effects
procedures of other institutes sectoral
executing the same activities organization Root-Causes

Fig. 5. Current reality tree of CGPE. (Data from IFES 2015.)

to the success of the venture. The model, called global view of proc-
esses and activities, allowed understanding of IFES’s products in
addition to their production processes.
The sector surveyed in this study is part of the macroprocess
080 - Manage Institutional Development, and its specific activities
begin in the subprocess 080.100 - Manage Works. The classifica-
tion structure uses the form of listing activities without specifying
whether they are performed as processes or projects, covering them
horizontally rather than ordered by an organization chart. Given
that CGPE operations contain both processes and projects, it was
decided to perform their categorization concomitantly with their
presentation (Table 1).
Planning of BPM Deployment
After performing the diagnosis and identification/categorization
of activities of the CGPE, the BPM planning phase, i.e., the first
part of the unified management cycle proposed by Baldam et al.
(2014), began.
The actions implemented included maintaining the governance
of the processes. Cornforth (2004) argued that although governance
principles and practices were first developed for companies, they
can be adopted by nonbusiness organizations because it is known
that the benefits of aligning interests contribute to the success of
organization as a whole (IBGC 2009).
A key governance role is to monitor management behavior
(Provan and Kenis 2008). In this sense, one of the most relevant
aspects to be addressed is the preparation of the institutional envi-
ronment for the promotion of change. To this end, CGPE opted to
conduct meetings (three in total), with different objectives and tar-
get audiences, which are described and analyzed in the following
paragraphs.
As a result of three meetings with general directors, administra-
tive directors, and technical teams of the campuses, the following
considerations that underlie governance were reached:
• The characteristics of the bidding model imposed by the federal
government are unattractive.
• A lack of standardization of procedures leads to the emergence
of many management modes.
• Quality control of projects is typically deficient.
• There are constant changes in scope during the work.
• Works are contracted and conducted without compliance with
minimum standards.
• Inefficient and ineffective inspections are performed.
• There are contract doubts in works due to problems with release
of resources.
In the case of CGPE, processes were prioritized based on the
employees’ perceptions of the intensity of effort and amount of
time required to manage certain activities. The processes selected
for modeling can be considered as the basis of the sector’s attribu-
tions and, at the same time, are configured as true bottlenecks for
the normal workflow (Table 2).
Analysis and Modeling of Processes
In this subsection, the study focus shifts to analysis and modeling
of processes, i.e., the first part of the second stage of the unified
BPM cycle proposed by Baldam et al. (2014).
In terms of methodology, it is worth mentioning that from now
on, action research elements are used as reported in a specific sec-
tion because to date, discussions were based on the analysis of sec-
ondary data, i.e., document analysis. Still regarding methodology,
it is possible to state that the modeling of processes prioritized by
CGPE used the focus group strategy in a narrower context, with the
participation of the employees in the sector.

© ASCE 05018015-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

 HELPFUL HARMFUL
Lack of
proactivity
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT Lack of

Unity for Lack of Lack of
standardiza-
solving Determination periodical specific
tion of Perform a
problems meetings knowledge
procedures revision of
contracted
Technical Lack of Lack of a
Lack of projects
Ease of capability clarity when feedback
Proactivity feedback
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

adaptation defining system of

on activities
actions activities
Delivers
products on
time Lack of
Lack of
perception Failure to
Development Production planning Lack of dialogue
of strategic communicate
capability capability maturity to understand
planning with
customers’ view
customers

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

Poorly
Possibility
conducted
of unifying
contract
information
Exchange Lack of Failures of processes
Partnerships
with other credibility by communication
with SETEC
bodies community with customers Setting of
Creation of
unfeasible
standards
deadlines
Non- IFES standards
Trainings Ongoing Unnecessary
structured are not followed
sponsored restructuring changes in
construction by contracted
by IFES of CGPE Differentiated scope of
companies companies
Contract contracts
Regime
(DCR)

Fig. 6. SWOT matrix of CGPE. (Data from IFES 2015.)

To avoid mistakes from the past, prevent rejection by the users

OPERATIONAL PROCESSES of the processes, and better understand the possible points of
improvement, several authors (Davenport 1993; Harrington et al.
010 020 030 1997; Smith and Fingar 2003; Jeston and Nelis 2006) have
Manage Manage Research Manage agreed that the first step in any BPM project is to understand the
Education and Post-Graduation Extension existing process and identify its flaws, in other words, to model
processes through an as-is approach. This position respects the
experience of those who work daily in the institutional processes,
thus minimizing the possibility of resistance to any optimiza-
MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
tion needs.
040 Manage corporate governance Considering the level and amount of information compiled in a
process model, it is possible to predict a great potential of modeling
050 Manage and develop personnel in capturing explicit knowledge, strongly supporting the manage-
ment of institutional knowledge. According to Kalpic and Bernus
060 Manage infrastructure (2002), this technique can also be used as an effective tool for cap-
turing and sharing knowledge within an organization.
070 Manage financial resources To go beyond the occasional use of knowledge about essential
elements and layout patterns, IFES published in 2009 a Procedures
080 Manage institutional development Manual (IFES 2015) that, in unusual and metalinguistic behavior,
addressed a very special case, namely modeling processes. The
preparation of this material aimed to disseminate best practices re-
Fig. 7. Global view of the processes and activities of IFES. (Data from
lated to the theme and provide basic guidelines to be followed in the
IFES 2015.)
institutional actions in this area.

© ASCE 05018015-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

 Table 1. Activities of CGPE
Code Activity Classification
080.100 Manage works Operation
080.100.010 Maintain CGPE governance Process
080.100.020 Manage the sector routine Operation
080.100.020.010 Handle small-size demands and technical advice Operation
080.100.020.020 Establish standards (e.g., delivery of works, document models, and internal service order) Project
080.100.020.030 Create cooperation agreement with Department of Professional and Technological Education Operation
of the Ministry of Education
080.100.020.040 Track and communicate progress of service orders in the sector Operation
080.100.020.050 Assign activities to team members Operation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

080.100.020.060 Support the implementation of in-company training Project

080.100.020.070 Manage the documentation of the sector (technical and administrative) Operation
080.100.020.080 Select projects and works to be executed according to criteria Project
080.100.020.090 Plan annual training Project
080.100.030 Manage the delivery of projects and works Process
080.100.030.010 Standard procedures for the execution of works Process
080.100.030.010.005 Manage the construction site Process
080.100.030.010.006 Execute the concreting Process
080.100.030.010.007 Define criteria of service specifications (tender dossier) Process
080.100.030.030 Analyze miscellaneous documents of the enterprise Process
080.100.030.040 Perform complementary analysis Operation
080.100.030.050 Prepare work project for internal execution Process
080.100.030.060 Elaborate the service reference term Process
080.100.030.065 Prepare draft and/or basic project Process
080.100.030.070 Execute the work project internally Process
080.100.030.080 Check pertinent documents and perform quality control of the project executed internally Process
080.100.030.130 Bidding and contracting (according to PROAD guidelines) Process
080.100.030.140 Hold a kick-off meeting (authorize the beginning of execution of the service or work) Process
080.100.030.150 Manage project delivery Process
080.100.030.160 Manage, measure, and supervise the execution of the work Process
080.100.030.160.010 Check measurement and pay services Process
080.100.030.160.020 Supervise the execution of the work according to contract and project Process
080.100.030.160.030 Supervise work safety Process
080.100.030.160.040 Evaluate the contractor’s performance Process
080.100.030.160.050 Fine the contractor after irregularities Operation
080.100.030.160.060 Generate addendum for work (deadline and/or value) Process
080.100.030.160.070 Solve contract doubts in conventional bidding or DRC Process
080.100.030.170 Deliver the work definitively Process
080.100.040 Update the government systems of works Operation
080.100.050 Assist technically in engineering works and services Operation
080.100.060 Support the development of urbanistic plans Operation
080.100.070 Assist in the preparation of the master plan Operation
080.100.080 Assist in the maintenance and improvement of the existing infrastructure Operation
Note: DRC = differentiated regime of public contracts; PROAD = pro-rectory of administration; and SETEC/MEC = Department of Professional and
Technological Education of the Ministry of Education.
Source: Data from IFES (2015).

Table 2. Processes prioritized for modeling Optimization and Validation Processes

Code Process In this study, two different moments were outlined:
080.100.030 Manage the delivery of projects and works • In the first stage, the analysis and modeling of processes was per-
080.100.030.060 Elaborate the service reference term formed on a domestic scale (i.e., in the CGPE) to construct drafts
080.100.030.140 Hold a kick-off meeting (authorize the of processes that would make the following dynamics feasible.
beginning of execution of the service or work) • In the second stage, the group of stakeholders was expanded for
080.100.030.160.010 Check measurement and pay services analysis and optimization of the constructed drafts of processes.
080.100.030.160.040 Evaluate the contractor’s performance Regarding the methodology, the elements of action research and
080.100.030.160.060 Generate addendum for work
the focus group strategy were used.
(deadline and/or value)
It is true that there is a wide range of opportunities for col-
laboration by members of the institution in the project of process
management. Personnel may participate in meetings, validate the
Where necessary and possible, it is relevant to compare models modeled processes, define the most appropriate performance indi-
(constructed or under construction) with best practices and/or by cators for the processes, suggest ways for continuous improvement,
performing benchmarking, working with benchmarks in terms of verify the possibility of eliminating unnecessary products, make
performance (Matook and Indulska 2009; Fettke and Loss 2003). suggestions for automation of routine processes, participate in the
In CGPE, processes were modeled and, at the same time, compared audit of processes in use, warn about flaws in the proposed model,
with and/or inspired by similar models of other public agencies. and flag products and processes that are not covered.

© ASCE 05018015-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

 To ensure dynamic and profitable interactions, in addition to
relying on the participation by the largest number of IFES’ employ-
ees who constantly address the processes related to projects and
works, it was proposed to conduct training entitled the First IFES
Workshop of Structuring of Architecture and Engineering Activ-
ities, whose main objective was to discuss the procedures to be
standardized in this field of activity.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The event was held over 2 days and totaled a workload of 20 h,
with 14 h of classroom activities and 6 h of out-of-class activities.
Institution employees who were heavily involved in the processes
that would be addressed in the workshop, such as engineers, archi-
tects, technicians, general directors, administrative directors, bid-
ding teams, and supervision teams, were defined as the target
audience of this action. Invitations were sent to the individuals’

Fig. 8. Process: manage delivery of projects and constructions.

© ASCE 05018015-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

 institutional email addresses, and the message contained a link
allowing those interested to register. Registrants received in ad-
vance the documents that would be discussed at the workshop for
prior reading purposes. At the end of the training, a certificate of
participation was issued to the graduates. Of the 67 invited and/or
expected persons, 51 attended the event.
The first stage of the workshop was conducted by the Planning
Director of IFES, who presented the objectives of that moment as
well as the governance model of CGPE. In addition, the perception
of lack of a complete formal framework for the conduct of work
was mentioned as the sector’s main motivation to undertake such a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
project, including both governance implementation and processes
management.
Next, the business model canvas (BMC), CRT, and SWOT ma-
trices prepared by the team were presented. Soon after, participants
were asked to build new CRTs and SWOT matrices for CGPE to
cause them to reflect on the dysfunctions and characteristics (both
positive and negative) that they identified in the sector.
To complete this round of the workshop, the Planning Director
explained that the discussions to be held there would be all decided
by consensus, i.e., the final definitions approved by the group
should be accepted and practiced by all, regardless of agreement
or disagreement with what was decided. In addition, the provisional
nature of the generated documents was emphasized, considering
that revisions and new optimizations could be performed whenever
necessary.
That said, the focus group investigated drafts of each of six proc-
esses prioritized and modeled by CGPE, according to the following
dynamics:
1. The process diagram was presented, highlighting each activity,
explaining the flow, and assigning responsibilities (functional
roles).
2. Instructions in the procedure manual of the process were read.
Fig. 9. Process: elaborate service terms of reference.
© ASCE 05018015-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015
3. Participants solved questions or made suggestions for
improvements.
4. The proposals were discussed until consensus was reached.
5. Contributions and the generally consensual changes were re-
corded in the minutes.
6. All participants signed the minutes, expressing agreement.
7. The process was optimized and validated.
Importantly, processes were not remodeled during the focus
group to prevent participants from losing concentration on what
was indeed fundamental: to analyze and optimize processes. Later,
all the documents were altered in accordance with the notes in-
cluded in the signed minutes and made available on CGPE’s
website. Furthermore, intense and active cooperation was offered
by the participants, from which a real interest in the discussed topic
was inferred. Thus, processes were individually discussed, opti-
mized, and validated.
At the end of the workshop, it was reported that an inquiry
would be made by emailing the participants to define the next proc-
esses and/or documents to be analyzed, modeled, optimized, and
validated.
Apart from the main purpose of this focus group, which aimed
to discuss the procedures to be standardized in architecture and en-
gineering under IFES, and considering also the specific objectives
of this action (such as understanding the governance of this type of
activity in the institution, discussing and creating to-be models of
the procedures and approving them, and finally, generating propos-
als for resolutions for the implementation of approved procedures),
there was the premise of the legitimacy of the processes, in addition
to its appropriation by the internal community involved in and
responsible for planning, executing, and supervising the implemen-
tation of these processes.
The processes, whose diagrams are given subsequently, have
their respective complete models presented (IFES 2015). The goal
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 here is only to show a graphic notion of the diagrams involved
(Figs. 8–13). Full details of the models and diagrams shown are
available from the institution’s website.
Barriers to Implementing BPM in Public Organizations
This research largely upholds the literature that deals with obstacles
to BPM implementation in public organizations. One example is
public service motivation (PSM), defined by Perry and Wise
(1990) as the predisposition of an individual to respond to motives
based mainly or exclusively on public organizations. In this case, it
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In addition, it was verified that part of the lack of motivation can
be attributed to the effects of the absence of pressure exerted by
market forces in relation to the performance of public organiza-
tions, as already advocated by Gowan et al. (2001) and Pyon et al.
(2009). This absence of market pressure translates into (1) lack of
urgency for improvement; (2) unstructured quality of service man-
agement; and (3) lack of recognition of value from the customer’s
point of view.
When it comes to management of public institutions, one of the
most discussed aspects is the administration of expenditures, rather
than efficiency and effectiveness in budget execution. The existing

was often possible to observe a lack of motivation among those literature on public expenditure efficiency is deficient (Hwang and
involved in the execution of daily tasks. Akdede 2011), although public-sector institutions have the difficult

Fig. 10. Process: hold a kick-off meeting.

© ASCE 05018015-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Process: check measurement and pay services.

task of establishing how a budget, which is always limited, will be
used. Because the public sector is multidimensional and costly to
measure, those involved often have difficulty obtaining and process-
ing information about their services (Figlio and Kenny 2009).
Final Considerations
The main contribution of this paper both from theoretical and prac-
tical points of view is presenting a structure of governance of
activities and processes applicable to the architecture and engineer-
ing sector for the execution of projects and public works that
orchestrates the various necessary actions. These actions range
from the identification of complete organization’s delivery scope
through to delivery disorders, activity structure, and the way in
which these activities are managed. The current literature does
not include a complete structure applicable to the public sector that
can be widely used with a short learning time, unlike the structure
presented herein.
All construction is based on project management, and every
project requires the execution of many process types (PMI 2017),
which are thoroughly repetitive. This paper presented some proc-
esses that generate the most problems in works executed in the
IFES. These processes also usually generate problems in other
public organizations that need civil construction. However, all pro-
cesses raised in this research are of general use in the civil construc-
tion sector, whether public or private.
Obtaining the necessary support to accomplish this study im-
plied the preparation of a detailed diagnostic picture of the situation
of governance of the General Coordination of Engineering Projects
and Works. This path of recognition made it possible to (1) clearly
outline the sector’s products, (2) identify the problems that it faces
in delivering them, and (3) characterize the team working for the
operation of the sector.
The typical activities of the department were identified and cat-
egorized using the PCF approach. The priority processes for imple-
menting processes management were achieved through application

© ASCE 05018015-13 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Process: evaluate contractor performance.

of the unified BPM cycle proposed by Baldam et al. (2014). Some
basic procedures identified to be adopted included (1) constant
attention in maintaining the governance of processes, keeping the
focus on cognitive maps constructed as diagnostic tools (BMC,
CRT, and SWOT); (2) in-depth reflection on the dysfunctions
affecting the administrative unit; (3) prioritization of the processes
demanding modeling, i.e., standardization; and (4) identification of
key elements of the prioritized processes.
It is emphasized that planning the deployment of BPM will not
always require implementation of all phases of the management
cycle for all processes because each one may be at a different stage
of maturity. In other words, although presented in a linked and sub-
sequent manner, the steps act as a framework to guide the opera-
tion, not a rigid and pragmatic prescription.
The selected processes were analyzed and modeled through the
use of the graphic notation of business process model and notation
(BPMN) 2.0, the focus group methodology, and a comparison
with other process models (best practices and benchmarking). It
is known that modeling is only the beginning of the work and that
successful BPM implementation is what ensures the success of a
BPM project.
For accomplishing the specific objective of optimizing and
validating the modeled processes, a workshop was designed and
conducted. In a critical and synergistic manner, the dynamic sub-
stantially improved and collectively legitimized the draft of the
processes previously modeled by the CGPE team. It was confirmed
that the participation of stakeholders in the process is an aspect
that strongly contributes to the achievement of positive results in
BPM projects. As a rule, encouraging the development of a collab-
orative work caused employees to reflect on the focused processes
and become responsible for them, thereby increasing their sense of
ownership and desire to do increasingly better work.
The combination of different techniques and strategies proved to
be useful and appropriate for the intended objectives. The presented
method has demonstrated that practical application of the tools used
herein enables increased productivity and quality in the public
organizational context. Furthermore, the degree of generality of
the presented method enables it to be used in other administrative
units of IFES or in other institutions. This means that one can stra-
tegically use a similar base as a starting point for particular con-
figurations, i.e., resort to a generic reference as a parameter to
construct a particular model.
Considering that the processes were modeled in a specific cul-
tural, economic, and technological context, some adjustments in
these processes will be needed for each organization that wishes
to use them.

© ASCE 05018015-14 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Process: generate contract amendment (time and/or value).

Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during the study are included in the
published paper. Information about the Journal’s data-sharing pol-
icy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0001263.
References
Abraham, S. 2013. “Will business model innovation replace strategic
analysis?” Strategy Leadersh. 41 (2): 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1108
/10878571311318222.
Albuquerque, A. E. C., M. A. M. Primo, and F. A. Pereira. 2015.
“Vantagens, riscos e desvantagens na adoção do método de contratação
design-build pelo setor público brasileiro.” [In Portuguese.] Revista
Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios 17 (54): 828–838. http://dx.doi
.org/10.7819/rbgn.v17i54.1757.
Andrews, R., and G. A. Boyne. 2010. “Capacity, leadership, and organi-
zational performance: Testing the black box model of public manage-
ment.” Pub. Administration Rev. 70 (3): 443–454. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02158.x.
APQC (American Productivity & Quality Center). 2015. “Process
classification framework—Version 6.1.1.” Accessed June 8, 2015.
http://www.apqc.org.
Baldam, R. L., R. Valle, and H. Rozenfeld. 2014. Gerenciamento de
Processos de Negócio - BPM: uma referência para implantação
prática. [In Portuguese.] Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Elsevier.
Barretta, A., and C. Busco. 2011. “Technologies of government in public
sector’s networks: In search of cooperation through management

© ASCE 05018015-15 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015

 control innovations.” Manage. Accounting Res. 22 (4): 211–219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2011.10.002.
Button, S. 1999. “Genesis of a communication current reality tree:
The three-cloud process.” In Proc., 1991 Constraints Management
Symp., 31–34. Phoenix: APICS—Educational Society for Resource
Management.
Campos, C. O. 2010. “O termo de referência para o gerenciamento de
projetos integrados em uma instituição pública” [The term of reference
for management of integrated projects in a public institution]. [In
Portuguese.] Master’s thesis, Engineering School, Federal Univ. of
Minas Gerais.
Chang, H. H., and W. C. Huang. 2006. “Application of a quantification
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
SWOT analytical method.” Math. Comput. Modell. 43 (1/2): 158–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2005.08.016.
Choguill, C. L. 2005. “The research design matrix: A tool for development
planning research studies.” Habitat Int. 29 (4): 615–626. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.06.001.
Cornforth, C. 2004. “The governance of cooperatives and mutual associ-
ations: A paradox perspective.” Ann. Pub. Cooperative Econ. 75 (1):
11–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2004.00241.x.
Costa, J. M. H., H. Rozenfeld, C. S. T. Amaral, R. M. Marcacinit, and S. O.
Rezende. 2013. “Systematization of recurrent new product development
management problems.” Eng. Manage. J. 25 (1): 19–34. https://doi.org
/10.1080/10429247.2013.11431963.
Davenport, T. H. 1993. Process innovation: Reengineering work through
information technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Debus, M., and P. Novelli. 1986. Handbook for excellence in focus group
research. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.
Fettke, P., and P. Loss. 2003. “Classification of reference models: A meth-
odology and its application.” Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manage. 1 (1): 35–53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02683509.
Figlio, D. N., and L. W. Kenny. 2009. “Public sector performance meas-
urement and stakeholder support.” J. Pub. Econ. 93 (9–10): 1069–1077.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.07.003.
Freitas, H., M. Oliveira, A. Z. Saccol, and J. Moscarola. 2000. “O método
de pesquisa survey [The survey research method].” [In Portuguese.]
Revista de Administração 35 (3): 105–112.
Goldratt, E. M. 1994. It’s not luck. Great Barrington, MA: North River
Press.
Gowan, M., J. Seymour, S. Ibarreche, and C. Lackey. 2001. “Service qual-
ity in a public agency: Same expectations but different perceptions
by employees, managers, and customers.” J. Qual. Manage. 6 (2):
275–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1084-8568(01)00040-2.
Guidugli Filho, R. R., and P. R. P. Andery. 2002. “Sistema de garantia
da qualidade em obras públicas habitacionais: um modelo para gestão
de contratos” [Quality assurance system in public housing projects:
A model for contract management]. [In Portuguese.] In Proc., XXII
Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção. Curitiba, Brazil:
ABEPRO.
Guidugli Filho, R. R., P. R. P. Andery, and A. M. Gomes. 2001. “Sistema de
garantia da qualidade em obras públicas de edificações” [Quality assur-
ance system for public works of buildings]. [In Portuguese.] In Proc.,
XXII Encontro Nacional da Indústria da Construção, 81–88. Fortaleza,
Brazil: Instituto Superior Técnico.
Gulledge, T. R., and A. R. Sommer. 2002. “Business process management:
Public sector implications.” Bus. Process Manage. J. 8 (4): 364–376.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150210435017.
Guo-Shuang, T., and Q. Liang. 2008. “An improved framework of business
process management system which integrating the strategy manage-
ment.” In Proc., 15th Int. Conf. on Management Science and Engineer-
ing, 256–261. New York: IEEE.
Harrington, H. J., E. K. C. Esseling, and H. Nimwegen. 1997. Business pro-
cess improvement workbook: Documentation, analysis, design, and man-
agement of business process improvement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hood, C. 1995. “The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a
theme.” Accounting Organizations Soc. 20 (2–3): 93–109. https://doi
.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W.
Hwang, J., and S. H. Akdede. 2011. “The influence of governance on pub-
lic sector efficiency: A cross-country analysis.” Social Sci. J. 48 (4):
735–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2011.04.002.
© ASCE 05018015-16
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015
IBGC (Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa). 2009. “Código das
melhores práticas de governança corporativa.” [In Portuguese.]
Accessed March 10, 2016. http://www.ibgc.org.br.
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2013. “Pesquisa
Anual da Indústria da Construção 2013.” [In Portuguese.] Accessed
June 10, 2015. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca
-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=754.
IFES (Instituto Federal do Espírito Santo). 2015. "Obras e Engenharia.”
Accessed June 27, 2015. https://prodi.ifes.edu.br/component
/content/article/2-uncategorised/16267-coordenadoria-geral-de-projetos
-de-engenharia.
Jeston, J., and J. Nelis. 2006. Business process management: Practical
guidelines to successful implementations. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Kalpic, B., and P. Bernus. 2002. “Business process modelling in industry:
The powerful tool in enterprise management.” Comput. Ind. 47 (3):
299–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00151-8.
Kitzinger, J. 1994. “The methodology of focus groups: The importance
of interaction between research participants.” Sociology Health Illness
16 (1): 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023.
Krueger, R., and M. A. Casey. 2014. “Participants in a focus group.”
In Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, edited by
R. Krueger and M. A. Casey, 63–83. London: SAGE.
Kum, S., and B. Sahin. 2015. “A root cause analysis for Arctic marine ac-
cidents from 1993 to 2011.” Saf. Sci. 74 (1): 206–220. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ssci.2014.12.010.
Lee, K. L., W. C. Huang, and J. Y. Teng. 2009. “Locating the competitive
relation of global logistics hub using quantitative SWOT analytical
method.” Qual. Quantity 43 (1): 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11135-007-9087-1.
Librelato, T. P., D. P. Lacerda, L. H. Rodrigues, and D. R. Veit. 2014. “A
process improvement approach based on the value stream mapping and
the theory of constraints thinking process.” Bus. Process Manage. J.
20 (6): 922–949. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2013-0098.
Maier, K., and V. Stix. 2013. “A semi-automated approach for structuring
multi criteria decision problems.” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 225 (3): 487–496.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.10.018.
Matook, S., and M. Indulska. 2009. “Improving the quality of process refer-
ence models: A quality function deployment-based approach.” Decis.
Support Syst. 47 (1): 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.12.006.
Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus group as qualitative research. London: SAGE.
Motta, C. A. P. 2005. “Qualidade das obras públicas em função da inter-
pretação eprática dos fundamentos da Lei 8.666/93 e da legislação
correlata” [Quality of public works in function of interpretation and
practice of foundations of Law 8.666/93 and related legislation].
[In Portuguese.] In Proc., X Simpósio Nacional de Auditoria de Obras
Públicas. Recife, Brazil: SINAOP.
Oliveira, V. A., and S. R. L. Amorim. 2006. Diretrizes para elaboração do
Plano de Qualidade do Empreendimento [Guidelines for elaboration of
enterprise quality plan]. [In Portuguese.] Niterói, Brazil: Universidade
Federal Fluminense.
OMG (Object Management Group). 2013. “Business process model and
notation (BPMN)—Version 2.0.2 (2013).” Accessed June 27, 2015.
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2.
Osterwalder, A., and Y. Pigneur. 2010. Business model generation: A hand-
book for visionaries, game changers and challengers. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Perez, C. P. 2011. “Proposta e implantação de um plano de qualidade para
obras públicas de pequeno porte [Proposal and implementation of a
quality plan for small public works].” [In Portuguese.] Master’s thesis,
Engineering School, Federal Univ. of Minas Gerais.
Perry, J. L., and L. R. Wise. 1990. “The motivational bases of public
service.” Pub. Administration Rev. 50 (3): 367–373. https://doi.org/10
.2307/976618.
PMI (Project Management Institute). 2017. A guide to the project manage-
ment body of knowledge: The PMBOK. 6th ed. Newtown Square, PA:
PMI.
Provan, K. G., and P. Kenis. 2008. “Models of network governance: Struc-
ture, management, and effectiveness.” J. Pub. Administration Res.
Theory 18 (2): 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Pyon, C. U., M. J. Lee, and S. C. Park. 2009. “Decision support system for
service quality management using customer knowledge in public ser-
vice organization.” Exp. Syst. Appl. 36 (4): 8227–8238. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.021.
Pyon, C. U., J. Y. Woo, and S. C. Park. 2011. “Service improvement by
business process management using customer complaints in financial
service industry.” Exp. Syst. Appl. 38 (4): 3267–3279. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.112.
Rea, L., and R. Parker. 2002. Metodologia da Pesquisa: do planejamento
à execução [Research methodology: From planning to execution].
[In Portuguese.] São Paulo, Brazil: Pioneira.
Rohloff, M. 2011. “Advances in business process management implemen-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUST NAT'L UNIV OF SCI & TECH on 04/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tation based on a maturity assessment and best practice exchange.”
Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manage. 9 (3): 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10257-010-0137-1.
Santos, L. A., and S. B. Melhado. 2003. “Diretrizes para elaboração de
PQE” [Guidelines for preparation of PQE]. [In Portuguese.] In Proc.,
3th Simpósio Brasileiro de Gestão e Economia da Construção.
São Carlos, Brazil: ANTAC.
Sharts-Hopko, N. C. 2001. “Focus group methodology: When and why?”
J. Assoc. Nurses Aids Care 12 (4): 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S1055-3290(06)60220-3.
Smart, P. A., H. Maddern, and R. S. Maull. 2009. “Understanding business
process management: Implications for theory and practice.” Br. J.
© ASCE 05018015-17
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(1): 05018015
Manage. 20 (4): 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008
.00594.x.
Smith, H., and P. Fingar. 2003. Business process management: The third
wave. Tampa, FL: Meghan Kiffer.
Stemberger, M. I., and J. Jaklic. 2007. “Towards e-government by business
process change: A methodology for public sector.” Int. J. Inf. Manage.
27 (4): 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.02.006.
Thiollent, M. 2011. Metodologia da Pesquisa-Ação [Action research
methodology]. [In Portuguese.] São Paulo, Brazil: Cortez.
Trkman, P. 2010. “The critical success factors of business process manage-
ment.” Int. J. Inf. Manage. 30 (2): 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijinfomgt.2009.07.003.
Vom Brocke, J., T. Schmiedel, J. Recker, P. Trkman, W. Mertens, and
S. Viaene. 2014. “Ten principles of good business process manage-
ment.” Bus. Process Manage. J. 20 (4): 530–548. https://doi.org/10
.1108/BPMJ-06-2013-0074.
Watson, K. J., J. H. Blackstone, and S. C. Gardiner. 2007. “The evolution
of a management philosophy: The theory of constraints.” J. Oper.
Manage. 25 (2): 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.004.
Yin, R. 2017. Case study research and applications. London: SAGE.
Zhang, H., and M. Chen. 2013. “Research on the recycling industry devel-
opment model for typical exterior plastic components of end-of-life
passenger vehicle based on the SWOT method.” Waste Manage.
33 (11): 2341–2353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.07.004.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.