In this chapter the editors set the scene for the chapters that follow. They present an outline of the nature of construction and the industries that relate to construction and the built environment sector, of which it is a key component. They describe the nature of the project-based industry and consider factors such as measuring construction productivity, the significance of informal construction, the concept of industrialised building, and the emergence of a digital construction industry.

Measuring construction used to be a straightforward exercise. Accounting for construction at the broader levels requires measurement, and that takes many forms. Building work undertaken as part of maintenance, renovation and refurbishment is an added complication; in many places this sort of work represents a large part of total construction activity, but its value may or may not be included in measures of construction industry activity. National accounts in different countries measure construction activity in different ways, and that adds further layers of complexity to the challenges of comparing industries or even specific industry characteristics across national boundaries. Official data on construction activity can be confusing. Construction in national accounts can be even more complicated. The volume of output can be expressed in other ways; in Measuring Construction the idea of purchasing power parity was described and construction-specific applications of the approach were explored.

Comparisons of the cost of construction across national boundaries have been routinely undertaken for many years for a variety of purposes. For clients, the reason may be as simple as wanting to know how much it will cost them in their own national currency to build a facility in another country; for governments and other agencies, it may be about how competitive their industry is in a global marketplace. For example, in 1949, a UK group, the Building Industry Productivity Team, visited the US (Anglo-American Council on Productivity 1950). A primary purpose of the visit was to compare the cost of construction in the two countries, which they did by comparing the cost of buildings of similar size used for similar purposes. The group concluded that US costs were in the order of 55 to 80% higher than comparable UK costs but noted that differences in design and specification of buildings varied considerably between the two countries. Costs were collected in the respective national currencies and then compared using the exchange rate current at the time of the group’s visit to the US, GBP1 = USD4. A year later, that rate had changed considerably to GBP1 = USD2.80 – had this rate been used, US costs would have appeared to be more like 120 to 160% higher than UK costs. That there would be so much change in relative construction costs in such a short time is extremely unlikely.

Little consideration has been given to the context of housing in remote areas. It is important for the economic survival of many remote communities that appropriate and sustainable housing solutions are decided and implemented.This report examines housing at St Pauls, Moa Island in the Torres Strait, using site information, historical research and a review of cultural and geo-political factors to compare the current model with similar studies in self-build housing undertaken in the region between 1986 and 1992. It not only demonstrates tangible economic benefits, but also evaluates the environmental and social improvements which can be achieved with a re-examination of the existing model. It is important to consider the value of investing in policies and practices of sustainable development that can play a pivotal role in potential capacity building within such communities.Current land tenure policy means that families wishing to own their own homes must leave St Pauls, or build illegally. Economically they cannot establish businesses so must leave the island or remain on welfare. The result of this is an exponential increase in the cost of providing community housing and the associated increase in social and health stresses. Acknowledgement at a policy level of the links between social and emotional well-being, and ‘Closing the Gap’ initiatives, have the potential to offer a wide range of funding opportunities and innovative approaches to solving the housing crisis in remote Australia, if they can be implemented in an open and effective manner.

While psychologists remain divided whether ‘workplace stress’ is caused by workplace experiences or other factors, it's commonly accepted that, regardless of cause, people experiencing stress can demonstrate decreased workplace performance. From a human performance and productivity perspective, from whence stress arises is somewhat irrelevant–the relevant fact is that it's far more important to have systems and procedures in place to contribute to avoidance of undue work environment- caused stress. It is also important to identify when an employee is exhibiting signs of stress than it is to focus only on remedial measures for when stress effects have already taken their toll on a person. Many organisations engage external service providers to deal with management of stress effects on people. It has not been clear how many organisations engaged in construction or project management address workplace environment as a potential causal factor in stress as part of organisational risk management. This paper focuses more on what leading construction and project management organisations are doing (and according to benchmark practice, should be doing) to address the matter of stress impacts on employees from a three phase perspective–environmental stressors, management training to identify early signs of stress, and managing employee stress when it is clearly affecting performance. The paper also proposes an approach by which organisations in construction and project management can become more effective in this three phase approach to stress management in the workplace, based on a pilot study which is the basis of more in-depth research currently under way at Bond University.

Measuring construction industry productivity at any level above that of site activities such as bricklaying or plastering remains a vexed question. A variety of methods have been developed and tested but results are often far from consistent with different methods that appear equally valid in theory producing quite different results. A recent study conducted in Australia demonstrated the application of different methods that produced some similar results but with some care required in the analysis of the outcomes. Another example showed large variations in results following the application of a similar method to different yet apparently equally valid datasets. Analysis of these studies shows that it seems likely that the differences are often a function of the quality of the data rather than the underpinning theory. The second example displayed methodological problems as well as data reliability issues.

In a report published in June 2012 the Business Council of Australia (BCA) reported that it costs considerably more to build a variety of types of infrastructure in Australia than it does in the US. Airports (90% more costly) and hospitals (62%) were quoted as the worst cases with other projects ranging from 26% to 43% more. They used these figures to conclude that Australia is a high cost, low productivity environment for building infrastructure projects. These claims were based on cost/m2 figures published by a major international construction consultancy. The method used by the BCA is flawed in two ways: one is the in the use of costs that are recognised as giving only the broadest of indications of probable costs and the second is the use of exchange rates to convert Australian construction costs to US dollars. Careful analysis of the methodology used, supported by a series of other comparisons based on other data sources and other conversion factors (purchasing power parities or PPPs), suggests that in real terms it probably costs no more to build in Australia than it does in the US and that it may well be cheaper to build in Australia than it is in the US.

The building that houses the Mirvac School of Sustainable Development at Bond University is the first educational building to achieve a six Green Star rating from the Green Building Council of Australia. It has won numerous awards since opening in August 2008 including being judged the RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) Sustainable Building of 2009. After more than two years in use a post-occupancy evaluation study was carried out to assess the performance of the building from the viewpoint of the users; both resident staff and transient students. Results for factors such as lighting, thermal comfort, noise and air quality. were compared to benchmarks established by the Usable Buildings Trust. The evaluation also assessed the occupants’ perceptions of the building’s impact on their own productivity. Users generally find the building provides a comfortable work environment although a number of areas of performance were noted as posing some concerns. These included intrusive noise in some parts of the building and some issues with glare in daylit teaching spaces. Such concerns were found to be in accord with the results of previous studies and they highlight some recurrent problems in “green” buildings designed to maximise the use of natural ventilation and natural light. These design challenges and how occupant satisfaction is to be measured and benchmarked are also discussed in the context of this comparative building study.