Assessing our Design Capacity, Is our Design Change Free?

By

Muhammad Daniyal

A term paper submitted in the

fulfillment of the course requirement of

CE 545 Construction Claim Management

for the degree of

Masters in Engineering Management

specialization in

Construction Management

November 2015

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

KARACHI, PAKISTAN

1

ABSTRACT

Engineering design of construction project is a complex and multifarious process involving different stake holders and its completeness as well as integrity depends highly on clear and concise brief from client, interpretation of that brief by designer, close coordination with trade consultants and its translation in terms of quality deliverables like drawing and specifications.

The objective of this term paper is to assess the state of design completeness in construction industry while highlighting the factors and owners which constitutes the major changes in design during construction phase and major causes of delays in construction project.

The primary data was gathered by designing and conducting a study targeted towards major contributors to the design like clients, architects, structural engineers, MEP engineers and Contractors while the secondary data was gathered by studying the prior research in the areas of design process, design coordination and change management in construction projects.

In order meet the objectives a questionnaire was designed that targets four areas to get the insight from respondents using ordinal questions with Likert type scale. In first section respondents were identified. In second section state of design was assessed, in third section major causes of changes and their owners were identified while in fourth section major causes of delays were identified.

Total 35 questionnaires were distributed in hard form and 31 were responded. During the preliminary validation 1 questionnaire was found invalid making the response percentage at 85.7%. Responses thus obtained from the survey were parametric in nature on which elementary statistical analysis was performed calculating mean, median, mode and standard deviation and the hypothesis was presented using mean. Further, questions related to major causes of changes, frequency of changes with respect to owner, importance of stake holders in approval process and major causes of delay were subjected to detailed statistical analysis for further insight and their ranking attributes were calculated using Relative Importance Index

From the research is was evaluated that the design is dependent on project brief which is occasionally provided and frequently changed by the client. With standards not adopted and specification not tailored for individual projects the confidence of contractor on the construction document remains below the optimum level, which is further reduced by introducing frequent changes to complete the incomplete and further enhance the level of design at construction stage. This factor also constitute mainly towards the delay that occurs on the project.

In the end it was recommended that client should be well aware of its needs and future plans and should communicate clear and concise brief to the design consultants, Standards for design documentation should be adopted and construction documents like drawings, BOQs and specifications etc. should be well coordinated in order to communicate a single actual picture of the project. Efforts should also be made to utilize latest in BIM technology and input from the leading contractors should be taken at design stage in order to cater constructability issues as well as coordination of services.

2

As far as changes are concerned, they should be logged, tracked and managed through a proper system. By application of such recommendations, Design Capacity of the construction industry could be vastly increased.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND 4

2. SCOPE 4

3. OBJECTIVES 4

4. METHODOLOGY 4

5. LITERATURE REVIEW 5

6. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDY 7

Survey Design 7

Survey Administration 7

7. SURVEY ANALYSIS 8

8. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 11

9. CONCLUSION 12

10. RECOMMENDATIONS 12

11. REFERNCES 14

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Stakeholder Responsibility Matrix 6Table 2 Dimensions of Changes 6Table 3 Survey Response Statistics 8Table 4 Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Part 2 8Table 5 Descriptive Statistical and RII analysis of Part 3 9Table 6 Descriptive Statistical and RII analysis of Part 4 10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Design-Bid-Build Procurement Model 5

APPENDIX

Sample Survey Questionnaire

3

1. BACKGROUND

Engineering design of construction project is a complex and multifarious process involving different stake holders and its quality dictates overall success of the project. The completeness and integrity of this process highly depends on clear and concise brief from client, interpretation of that brief by designer, close coordination with trade consultants and its translation in terms of quality deliverables like drawing and specifications. This paper titled “Assessing our Design Capacity, Is our Design Change Free?” studies the factors associated with completeness of design process and scenarios which demands changes in the final outcome.

2. SCOPE

The scope of this term paper is limited to study the design development and implementation process, its susceptibility to changes, types of changes and their owners in a typical design bid build environment.

3. OBJECTIVES

The objective of this term paper is to assess the state of design completeness in construction industry while highlighting the factors and owners which constitutes the major changes in design during construction phase and major causes of delays in construction project.

4. METHODOLOGY

Two types of sources are utilized to gather the information in order to substantiate the opinions as follows:

Primary Source: The primary data was gathered by designing and conducting a study targeted towards major contributors to the design like clients, architects, structural engineers, MEP engineers and in some extent towards contractors as they implement the design. The study answers the questions regarding qualities, occurrence and requirements of a complete design also nature, factors that demand changes and factors associated with delays in a construction project.

Secondary Source: The secondary data was gathered by studying the prior research in the areas of design process, design coordination and change management in construction projects. The information obtained from these sources guided the direction of research and formulation of study.

4

5. LITERATURE REVIEW

In Pakistan traditional method of design-bid-build procurement system is adopted for most of the public and private sector construction projects. A research conducted for assessment of general trends adopted for bidding and procurement in the construction industry of Pakistan found out that 100% of the projects among surveyed companies are delivered using design-bid-build method with open competitive bidding and lowest bid criteria (Farooqi et al, 2008).

For design-bid-build model, the client first acquires a consultant who starts with a preliminary design which is then transferred into a final design and bid package through interacting with client. This bid package is then floated among the capable contractors and awarded to the lowest bidder who executes the works based on provided plans and specifications (Bijari, 2007).

On the basis of this description the whole procurement process can be consolidate in to following phases;

Figure 1 Design-Bid-Build Procurement Model

Design stage cumulates the identification of client’s requirements in the form of project brief and constructive aspects of which are translated into procedures, plans and specifications by the consultant which are mostly of specialist nature (e.g. Architect, Structural Designer, MEP Consultant etc.). The main problems that have been detected in this work sequence are little interaction among design and construction as well as among the specialist consultants which compels the subsequent phases to work on incomplete design with the consequences of suboptimal solutions, lack of constructability and greater number of change orders (Alarcon and Mardones, 1998).

According to RIBA Plan of Work 2013, the responsibilities of different stake holders as adopted in local industry during the project life cycle can be identified as follows;

5

Selection of Consultant

Design Development

Preperation of Tender Package

Bidding and selection of Contractor

Execution of Works

Key: A-Does the Works, B-Receives, C-Coordinate, D-Review and Approves

Task Client Project Manager

Consultant Contractor

1. Strategic Definition A - - -2. Preparation and Brief A B B -3. Concept Design D B A -4. Developed Design D C A -5. Technical Design D C A B6. Construction D C,D D A7. Hand over and Close out B C,D D A8. Use A - - -

Table 1 Stakeholder Responsiblity Matrix

Generally the incompleteness of design and design defects are highlighted during the construction stage, According to a survey, the main problems associated with design stage are defects of individual specialist consultant, lack of coordination among specialties, changes introduced by the owner and designers, inconsistencies among drawings and specifications, designers with little construction knowledge and non-technical specifications (Alarcon and Mardones, 1998).

The inherent design deficiencies are then mitigated through changes and this phenomenon is widespread in the industry where project changes are often regarded as inevitable (Shipton and Huges, 2013). According to a study 5 dimensions of changes in typical construction projects are identified as follows (Wang et al, 2008);

Dimension Time Need Effect Environmental Process

Related Changes

Proactive Changes, Reactive

Changes and Crisis

Changes

Elective Change and

Required Change

Beneficial Change, Neutral Change,

Disruptive Change

Internal Change or External

Change

Incremental Change,

Punctuated Change and Change in Continuity

Table 2 Dimensions of Changes

These dimension tends to provide tools for analyzing attributed and evaluating consequences for which response strategies should be prepared accordingly. Beside design deficiencies, changes initiated by clients subsequent to finalization of design brief is another factor which constitutes to re-work in construction project (Peter et al 2008). Such changes may be elective or required in need dimension but are mostly reactive or due to crisis in time dimension.

Changes are common, their causes are numerous and they are a frequent source of conflict (Love 2002). Nevertheless, projects with high change costs are still capable of

6

completion in time and budget (Love 2002), subject to management system adopted to control them.

6. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDY

Survey Design:

The questionnaire survey was conducted to seek the opinions of key stakeholders in construction industry. The questionnaire designed targets four areas to get the insight from respondents. First the respondents were identified by their name, organization, experience and role in the industry. In second part state of design was assessed by asking ordinal type question with Likert scale related to project brief, adoption of standards in design and design usability during tender as well as construction stage. In third part similar to second, major causes of changes in design were identified along with identification of owners and their role in approval process. In similar fashion major causes of delays were identified in final part.

Three type of rating system adopted for Likert are as follows:

From Question 1 to 5 and 9

1 (1.0 – 1.5) 2 (1.5-2.5) 3 (2.5 – 3.5) 4 (3.5 - 4.5) 5 (4.5 – 5.0)Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Often

NR RR OC FR OT

From Question 6 to 8 and 11

1 (1.0 – 1.5) 2 (1.5-2.5) 3 (2.5 – 3.5) 4 (3.5 - 4.5) 5 (4.5 – 5.0)Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

SD DG NU AG SA

For Question 10

1 (1.0 – 1.5) 2 (1.5-2.5) 3 (2.5 – 3.5) 4 (3.5 - 4.5) 5 (4.5 – 5.0)

Not Important Slightly Important

Moderately Important Important Very Important

NI SI MI IM VI

A sample questionnaire is attached in appendix A of this paper.

Survey Administration:

In order to select the audience convenience sampling method was used to target the following stake holders in construction projects

1. Project Managers2. Architects

7

3. Structural Consultants4. MEP Consultants5. Contractors

Further Snowball Sampling technique was utilized to gather cascading responses from above mentioned companies. Total 35 questionnaires were distributed in hard form and 31 were responded. During the preliminary validation 1 questionnaire was found invalid making the response percentage at 85.7% details of which are as follows:

Organization TypeExperience in Years

TotalLess than 5 5 to 10 10 to

1515 to

20

More than 20

Client 0 1 0 0 0 1Project Managers 4 2 5 0 6 17Design Consultants 1 2 1 0 0 4

Contractor 5 1 1 0 1 8Total 10 6 7 0 7 30

Table 3 Survey Response Statistics

7. SURVEY ANALYSIS

Since the responses are gathered on ordinal scale resulting in parametric data, elementary statistical analysis was performed calculating mean, median, mode and standard deviation but the hypothesis was presented using mean.

Questions related to major causes of changes, frequency of changes with respect to owner, importance of stake holders in approval process and major causes of delay were subjected to detailed statistical analysis for further insight and their ranking attributes were calculated using Relative Importance Index as per the equation below (Muhwezi et al, 2014):

RII=∑ WA∗N

(0≤ RII ≤1)

Where:

RII – is Relative Importance Index

W – is the weight given to each factor by the respondents and ranges from 1 to 5, (where “1” is “strongly disagree” and “5” is “strongly agree” or 1 is “Never” and 5 is “Often” for Question No.1 to 5 & 9);

A – is the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case) and;

N – is the total number of responses.

Analysis of the survey is presented in tables below;

8

Q.No Question Mean Median Mode S.D OpinionPart 2

1 How often design of a project rely on client provided project brief? 3.80 4.00 5.00 1.10 FR

2 How often client provide written and concise project brief? 3.23 3.00 4.00 1.10 OC

3 How often does a client changes the project brief in middle of design? 3.70 4.00 4.00 0.75 FR

4 How often does standard form of specifications and cost codes (like CSI Master Format, SMM 7, NRM 2 etc.) are utilized on construction projects?

3.00 3.00 3.00 0.75 OC

5 How often tailor made specifications are drafted for construction projects? 3.03 3.00 4.00 1.13 OC

6 Rate the following statements from 1 to 5 (with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) based on the information available at tender stage on a typical construction project.

6.1 Sufficient for quantification 3.43 4.00 4.00 0.97 NU6.2 Sufficient for costing 3.37 3.00 3.00 0.93 NU6.3 Sufficient for ordering of material 2.93 3.00 3.00 0.93 DG6.4 Sufficient for construction planning 3.57 3.00 3.00 0.94 AG6.5 Sufficient for arranging tools and plants 3.40 3.00 4.00 0.97 NU6.6 Sufficient for carrying out works 2.83 3.00 3.00 1.12 DG

7 Rate the following statements from 1 to 5 (with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) based on the information available at construction stage on a typical construction project.

7.1 Sufficient for quantification 4.07 4.00 4.00 1.07 AG7.2 Sufficient for costing 4.13 4.00 4.00 0.95 AG7.3 Sufficient for ordering of material 4.17 4.00 4.00 0.70 AG7.4 Sufficient for construction planning 4.30 4.00 4.00 0.56 AG7.5 Sufficient for arranging tools and plants 4.23 4.00 5.00 0.87 AG7.6 Sufficient for carrying out works 4.27 4.00 4.00 0.69 AG

Table 4 Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Part 2

Q.No Question Mean Median Mode S.D Opinion RII RankPart 3

8

Rate the following statements from 1 to 5 (with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) the major causes of changes in design after its issuance for construction

8.1 Enhancement of design details 3.73 4.00 4.00 0.94 AG 0.747 1

9

8.2 Coordination issues of services 3.67 4.00 4.00 1.06 AG 0.733

2

8.3 Cost Curtailment 3.67 4.00 3.00 0.96 AG 0.733 28.4 Changes in design brief 3.57 4.00 4.00 1.01 AG 0.713 3

8.5 Design development in Shop Drawings 3.23 3.00 3.00 1.04 NU 0.647 4

8.6 Constructability Issues 3.20 3.00 3.00 0.76 NU 0.640 5

8.7 Changes in selection of materials 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.02 NU 0.600 6

9How often the changes in design are introduced by following stakeholders?

9.1 Design Consultants 4.13 4.00 4.00 0.68 FR 0.827 19.2 Client 4.07 4.00 5.00 1.11 FR 0.813 29.3 Project Managers 2.57 2.50 2.00 0.73 OC 0.513 39.4 Contractor 2.17 2.00 3.00 0.79 RR 0.433 4

10

Rate the importance of following stakeholders from 1 to 5 (with 1 being not important and 5 being most important) in approvals of change and variation orders

10.1 Client 4.40 5.00 5.00 0.89 IM 0.880 110.2 Design Consultants 3.90 4.00 4.00 0.80 IM 0.780 210.3 Project Managers 3.63 4.00 4.00 0.80 IM 0.727 310.4 Contractor 2.73 3.00 3.00 1.17 MI 0.547 4

Table 5 Descriptive Statistical and RII analysis of Part 3

Q.No Question Mean Median Mode S.D Opinion RII RankPart 4

11

Rate the following statements from 1 to 5 (with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) the major causes of delay on a typical construction project.

11.1 Missing information in construction documents 4.10 4.00 5.00 0.96 AG 0.820 1

11.2 Delay in resolution of queries 3.80 4.00 4.00 0.85 AG 0.760 2

11.3 Introduction of frequent changes in design 3.67 4.00 4.00 1.12 AG 0.733 3

11.4 Delay in approval of shop drawings 3.43 3.00 3.00 1.01 NU 0.687 4

11.5 Delay in approval of samples 3.17 3.00 3.00 0.83 NU 0.633 5

11.6 Delay in preparation of shop drawings 3.10 3.00 4.00 0.99 NU 0.620 6

11.7 Delay in procurement of samples 3.10 3.00 3.00 0.84 NU 0.620 6

11.8 Incompetency of 2.93 3.00 4.00 1.20 NU 0.587 7

10

Contractor11.9 Unavailability of material 2.80 3.00 3.00 1.13 NU 0.560 8

11.10 Billing and Cost related issues 2.77 3.00 2.00 1.19 NU 0.553 9

11.11 Unavailability of labor 2.47 2.00 2.00 1.04 DG 0.493 10

Table 6 Descriptive Statistical and RII analysis of Part 4

8. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

State of design completion in construction industry:

First objective of this study was to assess the state of design completion in the industry, the research undertaken stipulated that construction projects are frequently based on client’s project brief (M=3.8, S.D=1.10) which is provided occasionally in written and concise manner (M=3.2, S.D=1.10). But, it is frequently changed by the client in middle of the design phase (M=3.70, S.D=0.75). As far as adoption of standards is concerned, consultants occasionally adopts standard form of specification and cost codes like CSI Master Format, NRM 2, SMM 7 etc. (M=3.00,S.D=0.75) and same stands true for adopting the specification in tune to the project (M=3.03, S.D=1.13) resulting in redundant clauses and ill coordinated documents.

Further, concerning to the confidence, industry is in agreement that construction planning could be done based on information available at the tender stage (M=3.57, S.D=0.94) but they are of neutral opinion regarding the exact quantities (M=3.43, S.D=0.97), cost (M=3.37, S.D=0.93) and arrangement of tools and plants for works (M=3.40, S.D=0.97). They significantly dis-agree with the statement that ordering of materials (M=2.93, S.D=0.93) and execution of works (M=2.13, S.D=1.12) could be done with the information available at this stage which is understandable as the design is usually not fully developed at this stage.

It should be noted with concern that this confidence level do not increase considerably when the design is transferred to construction stage where the industry agree but not strongly with the statement that construction planning (M=4.30, S.D=0.56), quantification (M=4.07, S.D=1.07), costing (M=4.13, S.D=0.95), arrangement of tools and plants (M=4.23, S.D=0.87), ordering of material (M=4.17, S.D=0.70) and execution of works (M=4.27, S.D=0.69) could be done with the information available at construction stage, which implies that design still remains incomplete even after it issuance for construction leaving opportunities for addendums and revisions.

Factors and Owners which causes changes in design during construction stage:

The second objective of this study was to highlight the factors and owners which constitutes the major changes in design during construction phase, the research undertaken established that Enhancement of design details is the number one factor (RII=0.747) constituting towards change in design after its issuance for construction, followed by Coordination issues among services (RII=0.733), Cost curtailment (RII=0.733) and changes in design brief (RII=0.713). It is to be noted that site related issues like design development in shop drawings, constructability issues and changes in selection of materials ranked 4, 5 and 6 with RIIs of 0.647, 0.640 and 0.600 respectively which is below 0.700 mark. This implies that major

11

changes in design after its issuance for construction are mainly related to deficiencies in design provided at construction stage.

This assumption is further reinforced by the fact that Design Consultant and Client are rated no. 1 and 2 in terms of introduction of changes (RII=0.827 and 0.813 respectively) while the RIIs of Project Managers (RII=0.513) and Contractor (RII=0.433) were below 0.599 making them insignificant.

As far as importance of stakeholders in approval process of changes and variation order are concerned we saw a similar kind of trend where Client was ranked at no. 1 and Design Consultants were ranked at no. 2 with RIIs of 0.880 and 0.780 respectively.

Major causes of delays in Construction Project:

The third objective of this study was to highlight the major causes of delays in light of the overall scheme of the study, the research undertaken identified Missing information in construction documents as the number 1 cause of delay (RII=0.820) which confirms and relates to the findings of previous sections where it was established that design remains incomplete at construction stage and major factor for introduction of changes was enhancement of design details. This factor is followed by delay in resolution of queries ranked at no.2 (RII=0.760) and Introduction of frequent design changes ranked at no.3 (RII=0.733). The occurrence of delays due to sampling and approval process are ranked between 4 and 6 with RIIs ranging between 0.687 and 0.620.

It is interesting to note that in repetition of the pattern observed in previous sections the occurrence of delays related to execution like Incompetency of contractor, Unavailability of material and labor as well as billing and cost related issues are all ranked below no.6 with RIIs of less than 0.599 making them insignificant.

9. CONCLUSION

Capacity to design is inherently dependent upon the inputs of the facility owner and operator i.e. client, understanding of those inputs by the designer and his professional capabilities. A good design is one which formulates these inputs into an executable solution communicated in a most understandable way. However, no matter how good and complete the design was and how well it was communicated, changes are inevitable and their causes can be many. Nevertheless, projects with high rate of change are still capable of completion in time and on budget as well as perform their function in best manner depending on how well the changes were managed.

The aim of this study was to assess the design capacity in Pakistani construction industry and it was found out that design is dependent on project brief which is occasionally provided and frequently changed by the client. With standards not adopted and specification not tailored for individual projects the confidence of contractor on the construction document remains below the optimum level, which is further reduced by introducing frequent changes to complete the incomplete and further enhance the level of design at construction stage. This factor also constitute mainly towards the delay that occurs on the project.

The hypothesis thus presented paints a dark picture of design capacity in our industry. Despite of having professionals of repute and experience we are facing the dilemma of

12

changes andre-work which have its financial as well as environmental impacts.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to further enhance our design capacity, flowing recommendations are made based on the evaluation of this study;

Client should be well aware of its needs and future plans. A clear and concise brief should be provided to the design consultants by the client. All stake holders should agree upon that brief and provide surety that a solution can

be met by utilizing their skills and abilities. Standards for design documentation should be adopted, specification should be

tailored specifically for the project well suited to its environment and conditions. Construction documents like drawings, BOQs and Specifications etc. should be well

coordinated and should communicate a single actual picture of the project. Efforts should be made to utilize latest in BIM technology to cater the constructability

and service coordination issues that could arrive at site. Input of market leading contractors should be taken during the design stage to have a

better idea of the real world constraints that could arise during construction. Changes should be logged, tracked and managed through a proper system.

13

11. REFERENCES

A competitive bidding decision-making model considering correlation, Hesam Bahman-Bijari, 2007.

An assessment of General Trends adopted for bidding and procurement in the construction industry of Pakistan, Rizwan U. Farooqi, Muhammad Saqib, Farrukh Arif, Sarosh H. Lodhi, First International Conference on Construction In Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I), 2008.

An Assessment of the Factors Causing Delays on Building Construction Projects in Uganda, L. Muhwezi, J. Acai, G. Otim, International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2014.

Improving the design-construction interface, Luis F. Alarcón and Daniel A. Mardones, 2015.

Influence of Project Type and Procurement Method on Rework Costs in Building Construction Projects, Peter E. D. Love, 2002.

Making changes in practice, an ethnographic study of hospital project, Clare Shipton and Will Hughes, 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2013.

RIBA Plan of Work, Royal Institute of British Architects, 2013.

Volatility in Construction: Different Dimensions and Types of Changes, Zhuoyuan Wang, Benson T.H. Lim, and Imriyas Kamardeen, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building Conference Series, 2012

14