Resources:
This paper summarises a piece of undergraduate research work that was carried out within the department. The data collected is based upon the interviews of 20 former CEM graduates (employed in and outside the construction industry), 12 final year undergraduates, 5 representatives from the various sponsoring organisations and 3 members of the teaching staff at the university, in all a sample size of 40.

Details:

Programme Overview
The B.Sc. (Hons) Construction Engineering Management Degree is a four-year split sandwich (two five month work placements) programme. The course and its students are sponsored by eleven national/international construction organisations.

Nature of the Problem
The consortium (of sponsoring companies) of the CEM programme is losing a large percentage of students upon graduation (Table 1). This is compounded by the diminishing number of students applying for engineering courses at Loughborough and indeed the UK as a whole. Although the University is currently enjoying an enhanced image in the league tables of some of the broadsheet newspapers and employability surveys which suggested that Loughborough students to be the fourth most employable in the country during 2000/01 and its engineering and construction graduates to be considered the most employable, this has not increased the applications made to the department or CEM programme. Thus the recruitment problems appear to lie with either the sponsoring companies or the construction industry at large. This latter view is well documented and supported by various studies and editorial features e.g. in the Times UK Top 100 Graduate Employers, no construction organisation featured in the list of companies that ranged from the likes of Accenture to Mars, Marks and Spencer and even the troubled Marconi.

Table 1 Sponsoring-consortium retention rate of students from the CEM Programme (Research Figures).

Table 2: Recruitment numbers

Student Progression during the Programme
Student progression during the course has remained fairly consistent with an acceptable retention rate. A small number of students fail to progress from the first year, some withdraw (normally within the first couple of weeks of term) and some through termination (usually as a result of failing maths based modules e.g. structural mechanics, statistics etc.). Many of these students are relocated to other programmes in the university. After the first year students progress through to graduation without to many problems.

Table 3: Degree Results

Whilst the sample numbers are low, degree results (Table 3) have also been consistent following a relatively high number of first class honours in 1997 and a dip in 1998. Similarly the first destination of graduates (Table 4) shows most in UK employment, not surprisingly considering the sponsored nature of the Programme although not necessarily in construction.

Table 4: First destinations of graduate (departmental figures)

For the University as a whole 65.2% of students move straight into employment. For the faculty of Engineering, which encompasses the CEM Programme, this figure is 78.8%.

Evaluation:
The data generated from the questionnaires and interviews was evaluated and is summarised below:

50% of the postgraduates sample who ultimately left their sponsoring company did so in order to obtain a better package elsewhere. Graduates from the management science course run in the Business School at Loughborough could expect higher salaries and probably less initial responsibility, with the average wage estimated to be around £20,000. The construction companies forming the consortium will not increase their base salaries to match competition from other sectors, the usual response quoted in defence is one of existing payment scales within the organisations, prohibiting individual deals, regardless of the degree classification attained or capability of the graduate.

Both undergraduates and postgraduates were united in identifying a lack of commitment from the sponsoring organisations as a factor for leaving, 66% of both samples that left their sponsoring company or are leaving felt a lack of sponsor support.

60% of the sample of consortium companies had observed a decrease in the numbers applying for sponsorship since they had been involved with the scheme. Despite this only 30% displayed any wish to expand the current system to counteract the diminished interest.

The work placement plays a huge part in moulding perceptions of the industry in the eyes of its potential managers with 90% of the postgraduates and 92% of the CEM undergraduates having had on-site experience (as opposed to those that worked at Head Office). 40% of the postgraduates who decided to leave the industry took their decision upon completion of their placements.

There is evidence to suggest that trainees are being viewed more-and-more as commodities during placements, with site teams intent on obtaining the most (sometimes menial) activity rather than trying to develop student skills. Only 20% of the undergraduate sample said they wished to stay due to a good site experience. Every one of the undergraduate sample felt that they had been taken advantage of during placement. 55% of the postgraduate sample insisted that they were not given enough responsibility on their placements, suggesting that there is no structured development programme or no one on site to implement and monitor one.

Another major issue, which percolated through the data samples, was the perception of the industry. 66% of the postgraduates interviewed identified the image of construction as being detrimental to recruitment and retainment of graduates.

Key drivers for students undertaking construction-related courses at Loughborough were evident. 83% of undergraduates stated it was their first choice with 50% of postgraduates claiming that Loughborough was a key factor in choosing to undertake a construction related course. 100% of postgraduates praised the course content, claiming it formed the basis for carrying out their jobs on a day-to-day basis. 67% of the undergraduate sample thought that the course content offered benefits to jobs outside the industry. This is highlighted by the fact that 30% of interviews for positions unrelated to construction firms from the postgraduates in the sample were successful. The increased employability however doesn't always encourage individuals to leave the industry. Indeed, although 66% felt employable elsewhere, only 28.5% have taken the decision to ply their skills in an alternative sector, which is still 28% too much for the sponsors and thereby the construction industry. The desire for alternative employment is further identified in that 80% of those staying with their sponsoring companies express a desire to leave at some stage in the future.

The study found evidence to suggest that the consortium companies are taking the role of the sponsor more seriously, with 100% of the sample admitting to structuring their graduate development system to be more successful. This is supported in the postgraduate sample of which 65% felt that their company was proactive towards graduate development. Undergraduates are also responsive to proactive sponsoring companies. Of the 75% stating their intent was to remain with their sponsors, 50% confessed to the HR department being influential in the decision.

Benefits:
In the context of this case study, the findings are seen as negative issues to be faced by the construction sector rather than positive benefits to be celebrated. The following factors were identified as the main contributors to graduates leaving their sponsoring company.

• Packages: graduates can secure more lucrative packages elsewhere, with consortium companies base salaries unlikely to increase.
  
  
• Increased Employability: Graduates are more likely to take on jobs with higher salary knowing that their skills are valued and applicable to other sectors. Construction graduates are desirable.
  
  
• Sponsors Commitment: Relations with sponsoring companies through university are vital. A lack of commitment on the part of the sponsors reflects badly on the company and encourages the student to leave.
  
  
• Undergraduate Perception of Industry: In the eyes of the undergraduate the industry is 'behind the times' when compared to other sectors and they are not convinced that it will meet their long-term goals.
  
  
• Placements: Bad experiences during placements are not conducive to retention of graduates. Emphasis should be on development.
  
  
• Undervalued Workforce: In the more experienced eyes of the postgraduate, the industry as a whole undervalues its work force. This is not solely a monetary issue.

Overall, the study suggests that both the University and the CEM degree programme are well liked. In particular the course was found to be relevant to the requirements and challenges of the industry and although demanding it was found to be suitable for careers outside construction. Although some of the HR managers from consortium sponsors were not well suited to particular aspects of the industry, it was felt that they had the students' interests at heart.

In conclusion, apart from limited financial packages, sometimes-poor working conditions and overall image of the industry, which are outside the control of the HR managers the main problem lies in the uncoordinated work experience placements. For many this is the students' first experience of working life at a time when they are still very impressionable. A bad first experience, whatever the cause, can literally turn students off construction in an instant. This effect is likely to be experienced on all sites not just those of the sponsoring companies of the CEM programme. Construction has never been an industry in which people are mollycoddled, but unless the students are given more consideration and scope for development during work placement the industry will continue to under recruit, which amongst other things could result in the closure of academic / training departments. It is therefore in the interest of both the CEM academic staff and the consortium sponsors that students' development needs are fulfilled.

Issues and lessons to be learnt:
The following have been identified as possible areas for improvement for the course, the consortium and industry as a whole:

• on-site staff during placements need to share the same drive towards developing trainees as their HR departments;
  
• consortium companies must appoint appropriate HR personnel with adequate knowledge of the industry to recruit the right people for the industry;
  
• in order to expand the CEM programme could look at changing the philosophy that every student must be sponsored;
  
• consortium companies must be more responsive to individuals. Graduates become discontent when treated as 'just another graduate'. Development programs specific to the individual would be beneficial;
  
• the university should market the CEM course better, placing emphasis on the degree as non-vocational, with diverse career opportunities;
  
• undergraduates should be reluctant to endorse the recruitment decision of the sponsoring company by consciously accepting unsuitable employment.

Ongoing Developments:
Applications have remained steady with a small increase in recent years. With the national reduction in the number of applications for engineering and, in particular, construction related courses more attention is being focused on non A-level students. In addition the first overseas (non EU) student will start in 2002/03, although it is not anticipated that this will start a trend, as the sponsors have too many immigration/employment issues with O/S students.

References, Further Reading and Sources of Further related information:

1. Dand, J. (2002) Action to address the retention of sponsored CEM/CMQS graduates from Loughborough University. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Loughborough University, Loughborough.
2. Dainty, A.R.J, Pritchard, S. & Gibb A.G.F. (1996) Contractors influence in Building Education: Are universities producing the right type of graduate?. Paper from 1996 CIB Beijing International Conference on construction Modernisation and Education. China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing.