how building design imperatives constrain construction productivity and quality

How building design imperatives constrain constructionproductivity and quality

STEPHEN FOX* , LAURENCE MARSH� & GRAHAM COCKERHAM*

*School of Engineering, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK, and �Department of Construction

Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 219, Reading RG6 6AW, UK

Abstract Since the early 1960s, the construction

industry has been continually criticized for its low

productivity and poor quality. Throughout this period, it

has been widely recognized that building design has a

significant impact on construction performance. As a

result, considerable research and industry efforts have

been focused on improving information and activities in

the building design process. This paper reports the

findings of a study which investigated how design

imperatives affect design information and design

activities. First, design imperatives are defined. Then,

an analysis of their determining influence on design

information and design activities are provided. Next, it is

explained how design imperatives, rather than

information and activities, constrain productivity and

quality by limiting production options. In conclusion, it

is argued that design imperatives have a greater

influence on productivity and quality than the industry

in which design is carried out.

Keywords bespoke, custom, productivity, quality,

standard, tailored

INTRODUCTION

Since the early 1960s, the construction industry has

been continually criticized for its low productivity and

poor quality (HMSO, 1962; DETR, 1998). Through-

out this period, it has been widely recognized that

building design has a significant impact on construc-

tion performance (HMSO, 1964; RCF, 1998). The

term, buildability, is frequently used when assessing

the ease with which building designs can be construc-

ted. Over the past 20 years, many papers and books

have been written about improving productivity and

quality through increasing buildability (Gray, 1983;

Anderson et al., 2000). More recently, there has been

considerable interest in concurrent engineering (Jones

& Riley, 1994; Khalfan et al., 2000). Concurrent

engineering involves designing products and their

related processes and systems simultaneously to

achieve the best available balance between form,

function and production. Researchers and practition-

ers who seek to increase buildability and apply

concurrent engineering often are concerned with

improving design information and design activities.

They have provided many sound recommendations

such as, �detail for maximized repetition and stan-

dardization� (CIRIA, 1983) and �maximize concurren-

cy and collaboration in working practices�(Evbuomwan & Anumba, 1998).

This paper reports the findings of a study which

investigated how design imperatives affect design

information and design activities. First, design impera-

tives are defined. Then, an analysis of their determining

influence on design information and design activities is

provided. Next, it is explained how design imperatives,

rather than information and activities, constrain pro-

ductivity and quality by limiting production options. In

conclusion, it is argued that design imperatives have a

greater influence on productivity and quality than the

industry in which design is carried out.

IDENTIFYING DESIGN IMPERATIVES AND

THEIR INFLUENCE

Definition

The definition of �imperative� used in this paper is, �an

essential thing� (OUP, 1996). Literature review identi-

fied two design imperatives which have a fundamental

influence on the nature of design information and

activities in all industries. These are:

• design authority must be compatible with supply

capabilities; and

• design application must match demand conditions.

Design authority can be defined along a continuum

between producer-led design and customer-led design.

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 2002 9 5/6, 378–387

378ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd

For example, companies like Toyota carry out producer-

led design, dictating design options to customers

through a range of standard component options.

Toyota’s supply capability is based on the repeated

production of identical components using lean plant

and processes. If Toyota switched to customer-led

design buyers could then insist that cars were designed

individually to suit their own particular ideas. Conse-

quently, Toyota would have to change its supply

capability. It would have to begin using general-

purpose tools and skills to produce one-off compo-

nents. This would push up production times and costs.

Thus, if Toyota switched from producer-led design to

customer-led design, it would have to try to increase car

prices or accept lower margins. Also, its customers

would probably have to wait much longer for the

delivery of their cars.

Design application can be defined along a continuum

between design for a global market and design for a

single location. Architects and engineers are often

employed to produce a design for a single location.

Consider what would happen if a contractor tried to

apply a location-specific design, such as Foster’s design

for the British Museum, to a global market. The

hypothetical contractor would find that because the

British Museum design links several existing structures

it would not fit anywhere else. Also, the design created

a public space, The Great Court, which links adjacent

areas of London. Consequently, the design had to

respect adjacent features and incorporate combinations

of materials and finishes which would be incongruous

at other locations. Furthermore, the hypothetical con-

tractor could not overcome such difficulties by trying to

develop one design for a global market comprising of all

museum buildings. For example, the demand condi-

tions for the Reichstag in Berlin (now a �living museum�as well as a national parliament) and the Guggenheim

in New York were very different, and thus necessitated

very different building designs. Market-specific build-

ing designs (e.g. Portakabins) can only match demand

conditions if location-specific factors are not structur-

ally significant and are not considered important by

clients and planning authorities.

A more detailed analysis of the two fundamental

design imperatives and their far reaching influence is

now provided.

Design authority: comparing customer-led

design with producer-led design

Producer-led design is compatible with mass and lean

supply capabilities. Producer-led design often results

in pre-order design certainty. Design engineers who

develop goods such as cars create a standard pattern of

space which delivers the general functionality required by

a customer type. They fix the forms and finishes of each

car, and the forms, finishes, configurations and inter-

faces of every component used to manufacture each

car. Design authority is held by the producer, not the

customer, and as a result design is certain before any

orders are received. As a result, it is technically feasible

to develop:

(a) product-specific production information systems;

and

(b) product-specific mass produced components with

product-specific assembly tooling (Gann, 1996).

In contrast, customer-led design often results in post-

production design certainty. Building design is usually

customer-led, with architects and consultant engineers

being employed to create patterns of space which

deliver the specific functionality required by a particular

customer (Gray, 1996). As a result, it is difficult for them

to define the designs of all components with certainty

before an order is issued for construction. This is

because the client’s objectives, budgets and ⁄ or prefer-

ences may change during both design and construction

(CSSC, 1996). Further, as shown in Fig. 1, they may

not be able to define the designs of all component

interfaces with certainty until as-built drawings are

issued (Cox et al., 1999). It is explained in detail later

in this paper that customer-led design is compatible

with general purpose supply capabilities.

Customer-led design often results in bespoke and

tailored goods, whereas producer-led design often

results in standard and custom goods. As shown in

Fig. 2, these words are used here to define the levels of

pre-order design certainty which can be achieved.

Throughout this paper, the term design certainty

means full and fixed definition of forms and finishes.

The word �standard� is used to identify that design is

certain at product level before any orders are received.

For example, the design of every Dyson vacuum cleaner

Figure 1 Timing of design certainty.

How building design imperatives constrain construction productivity and quality 379

ª 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 9 5/6, 378–387

is certain at product level before each order is received.

The word �bespoke� is used to identify that only the

design of loose parts and materials are certain before an

order is received. For example, if plasterboards and

nails are used in the construction of a bespoke building

their design is certain before they are ordered. Their

forms are well known as standard board and fixing

sizes. The word �tailored� is used to identify that a

design comprises standard sub-assemblies with bespoke

interfaces. The word �custom� is used to identify that

design is certain at assembly level before any orders are

received. For example, when choosing a new car, a

buyer can select and configure a range of assemblies,

such as engines and bodies. As shown in Fig. 3,

bespoke, tailored, custom and standard goods are

designed in both the manufacturing industry and the

construction, industry. It is important to recognize that

these are design certainty, not design complexity,

categories. For example, although both a home IT

system and a hotel chain building can be tailored, the

bespoke building interfaces between standard hotel

sub-assemblies, such as bathroom pods, are likely to be

far more complex than the bespoke IT system cabling

interfaces between standard computer hardware.

Design application: comparing location-specific

design with market-specific design

Market-specific design often results in high volume

goods. A market can be global with millions of custom-

ers. As shown in Fig. 4, this means market-specific

design can lead to high repetition of the pre-order design

certainty achieved by producer-led design. Demand is

often high enough to make it economically viable to

develop:

(a) product-specific production information systems;

and

(b) product-specific mass produced components with

product-specific assembly tooling (Gann, 1996).

Location-specific design often results in low volume

goods. Even when a construction client, such as a hotel

chain, wishes to have a standard building designed for

repeated construction, this is seldom possible because

each building encloses a particular space which is defined

by its specific location. For example, the footprint of a

building is constrained by location-specific factors, such

as adjacent structures and natural features. Similarly,

the colours and textures of its finishes are constrained

by planning laws which are intended to ensure that

environmental considerations are respected. Many new

buildings are tailored because, in order to satisfy

irregular boundaries, standard sub-assemblies have to

be installed with bespoke interfaces and ⁄ or finishes.

Further, bespoke component interfaces are also required

because tolerances for construction operations, such as

excavation, can lead to significant differences between

actual and drawn building dimensions. Building refur-

bishments are bespoke, because bespoke interfaces are

the only means of achieving a coherent appearance

between new components and an original structure and

fabric. Also, to meet market pressures for increased

Figure 3 Examples of different categories

of goods.

Figure 4 Repetition of design certainty.

Figure 2 Different levels of pre-order

design certainty.

Fox, S. et al.380


functionality, designers have to specify the latest high

performance components. As a consequence, many of

the design details for each new building and building

refurbishment will be original. All of these factors limit

the ability of architects and consultant engineers to

design buildings which can be constructed in many

locations. This, in turn, limits opportunities for them to

work with manufacturers in the design of mass pro-

duced, building-specific, components. Hence, location-

specific design results in there being little, or no,

repetition of the post-production design certainty which

results from customer-led design.

The foregoing analysis suggests that the two funda-

mental design imperatives, design authority and design

application, determine the types of design information

and activities which are technically feasible and eco-

nomically viable. The impact of design imperatives on

production opportunities is now described in more

detail. It is explained that, by determining the nature of

design information and design activities, design imper-

atives also determine the production options which are

feasible and viable.

DESIGN IMPERATIVES DETERMINE

PRODUCTION OPTIONS

The effect of design information on production

options

As discussed above, and shown in Fig. 5, when design

is customer-led and location-specific there is little, or

no repetition, of the building design certainty which is

achieved either during or after production. This often

leads to new production information being prepared

during design. New architectural ⁄ engineering draw-

ings, specifications and bills of quantities being pre-

pared for each bespoke and tailored building. Similarly,

new workshop drawings, cutting lists and purchase

orders are prepared by manufacturers of bespoke and

tailored building components for each order. As cus-

tomers demand more sophisticated buildings, and the

materials and parts required to produce them become

more diverse, the time and cost of preparing informa-

tion increases. The time taken to prepare new infor-

mation can reduce the time available for component

manufacture and building construction. This can often

result in operatives having to work overtime and hurry

their tasks, which can lead to quality problems. In

contrast, producer-led market-specific design results in

there being high repetition of the design certainty which

is achieved before any orders are received. This makes

it both feasible and viable for marketing ⁄ assembly

companies, which produce standard and ⁄or custom

goods, to develop the types of production information

with their manufacturers which are listed in Fig. 6. All

of these can be used for every order which is received

for a particular product. Order-specific manufacturing

information is generated by using computer systems to

perform the component configurations which are

defined in engineering bills of materials. Material

requirements are defined by manufacturing bills of

materials and capacity requirements are defined in

Figure 5 The timing and repetition of

design certainty.



process routes. Component forms, finishes, configura-

tions and interfaces are defined with sufficient accuracy

and precision in bills of materials and process routes to

ensure that goods are produced right first time every

time. It is important to recognize that design certainty

can be achieved without the design ever having been

produced. For example, during the development of a

new car model, only some of the thousands of options

which will be available to buy are produced. Neverthe-

less, by the end of product development, the design of

every potential combination of body shapes, engine

sizes, colours and accessories is certain. Where mar-

keting ⁄ assembly companies are operating globally, it is

imperative that production information can be used

easily and reliably by component manufacturers and

assembly plants in different parts of the world. To

achieve this requires up-front investment in production

information which far exceeds the investment required

for traditional experience-based approaches to prepar-

ing production information. UK construction compan-

ies and building component manufacturers may buy in

materials and parts from companies which face global

competition, but they are less likely to have to compete

against foreign marketing ⁄ assembly businesses than a

UK car company. Fig. 7 suggests the different levels of

competition likely to be experienced.

Architects and ⁄or consulting engineers may partici-

pate in an international competition to design a

prestigious building, but they are at site to explain

and expand the production information which they

have prepared. In contrast, the production information

generated during the design of standard or custom

goods can be used without the design engineers

responsible being present. All of these factors result in

the differences in design information shown in Fig. 8.

The effect of design activities on production

options

As shown in Fig. 5, producer-led market-specific

design results in the forms, finishes, configurations

and interfaces of components being certain before a

high volume of orders is received. This enables a design

engineer with overall responsibility for the development

of a standard or custom product to control the

following activities:

• total design of the product;

• design of mass-produced product-specific sub-

assemblies and assemblies;

• selection of component-specific manufacturing pro-

cesses and plant; and

• optimization of product-specific assembly processes,

plant and tooling.

In contrast, a building designer with overall responsi-

bility for the design of a bespoke or tailored building is

only able to control the following activities:

• agreement of the building’s design with client and

planning authorities;

• selection of mass-produced standard or custom

materials and parts; and

• design of one-off building-specific bespoke and tailored

sub-assemblies and assemblies (Morton & Jagger,

1995).

Figure 6 Types of information.

Figure 7 Levels of competition.

Figure 8 Comparison of design informa-

tion.

Fox, S. et al.382


Bricks, plasterboard, cement, plaster, drainage pipes

and heating pipes are examples of standard materials

and parts. Raised floor tile systems, suspended ceiling

systems, and paint systems are examples of custom

materials and parts. Both standard and custom

materials and parts tend to be produced for stock.

Examples of sub-assemblies include steel staircases

with hardwood treads, and glazed screens with sign

written glass. Examples of assemblies include pre-

fabricated clean rooms and pre-fabricated hotel bed-

rooms. These sub-assemblies and assemblies may often

have common features but tend to be produced to

order rather than for stock.

Design engineers who lead the development of a

standard or custom product are often able to carry out a

wider range of activities than building designers

because, as shown in Fig. 9, it is both feasible and

viable to develop mass produced product-specific

components. Further, it is feasible to develop a design

comprising of only discrete components which are

specific to a family of products, such as a range of car

models. These components have few and certain

configuration and interface options. Examples are

shown in levels 1, 2 and 3 of Fig. 10.

Where assembly companies provide component

manufacturers with high demand, it is viable for them

to develop mass produced, product-specific, discrete

sub-assemblies and assemblies. In contrast, the aes-

thetic, geometrical and dimensional uncertainties ari-

sing from customer-led location-specific design

necessitate the use of materials to form interfaces

between parts. In building design, materials, such as

plasterboard, are used to provide a coherent appear-

ance for irregular interfaces between discrete compo-

nents, such as square ceiling tiles and curved curtain

walling sections. Also, formed materials, such as vinyls,

and formless materials, such as sealants, are used to

construct building details that cannot always be

achieved by discrete components, such as shower trays,

which have fixed forms and finishes. Materials are

placed with installed parts in the sets of relationships

shown in Fig. 11.

As a result of these variable and mixed component

relationships, building components have many and

uncertain configuration and interface options. The

design uncertainty shown in Fig. 12, leads building

component manufacturers to develop either a range of

mass produced, standard and custom, materials and

Figure 10 Fixed vertical standard ⁄ custom

goods component relationships.

Figure 9 Development of mass produced

product-specific components.



parts, or the capability to produce bespoke and tailored

sub-assemblies and assemblies. Building designers’

influence over the development of standard materials

and parts is limited to possible participation in manu-

facturers’ market research. Building designers have

more control over the forms and finishes of bespoke

sub-assemblies and assemblies, but these are not mass

produced using product-specific plant and tooling. As

shown in Fig. 13, the design of mass produced build-

ing-specific components, production plant and tooling,

are seldom building design activities. General purpose

mass-produced components (e.g. concrete blocks),

general purpose plant (e.g. excavators), and general

purpose tooling (e.g. an excavator bucket) tend to be

used instead. This use of general purpose components,

plant and tooling contrasts with the development of

product-specific mass-produced components and pro-

duct-specific assembly tooling, which takes place

during the design of standard and custom goods.

Long-term, collaborative, high investment procure-

ment and production arrangements are needed to

achieve these product-specific developments. These

arrangements are feasible and viable when design is

producer-led and market-specific.

WHY DESIGN IMPERATIVES CONSTRAIN

PRODUCTIVITY AND QUALITY

The foregoing analysis suggests that design authority

and design application determine (a) what types of

design information, and (b) what types of design

activities, are feasible and viable. For example: the

pre-order design certainty achieved by producer-led

design makes development of: (a) product-specific

production information systems; and (b) product-

specific mass produced components with product-

specific assembly tooling, feasible. High repetition of

design certainty achieved by market-specific design

makes their development viable. In any industry: (a)

product-specific information systems can radically

reduce the time taken to generate production infor-

mation; (b) mass production of product-specific com-

ponents can cut manufacturing costs, and use of

product-specific tooling can increase product quality

as well as reduce assembly times and costs.

Hence, it is the two fundamental design imperatives,

design authority and design application, which deter-

mine what procurement and production options are feas-

ible and viable. Consider the example of McDonald’s

drive-thru restaurants (CIRIA, 1999). Only the design of

the foundations of these buildings is location-specific.

This has made it both feasible and viable for building-

specific assemblies and construction processes to be

developed. As a result, the previous 26-week construc-

tion programme has been reduced to less than 2 weeks

and quality has increased. Another example of these

types of improvements is the cost of constructing BP

petrol stations being reduced by 26% between 1997 and

1999 (DETR, 1999). Again, in this case only the design

of building foundations is location-specific.

Fig. 14 illustrates how procurement and production

link design imperatives to productivity and quality.

When design is producer-led and market-specific a

wide range of production options are available, from

Figure 11 Variable mixed bespoke ⁄ tailored

building component relationships.

Figure 12 Building component design

uncertainty.

Figure 13 Comparison of design activities.

Fox, S. et al.384


job assembly processes with general purpose compo-

nents and tooling, to flow assembly processes with

product-specific components and tooling. In contrast,

wherever design is customer-led and location-specific

(e.g. bespoke and tailored goods), radical productivity

and quality improvements are far harder to achieve.

This is because, as explained above, and illustrated in

Fig. 15, the development of product-specific produc-

tion information systems, mass-produced product-

specific components and product-specific assembly

tooling are neither feasible nor viable.

As explained previously, when design is customer-led

and location-specific procurement and production are

more likely to be carried out on a one-off basis, with

materials and parts being selected from catalogues and

purchased from merchants. These types of approaches

are so well-established and so widely used, that

becoming more proficient in their execution is unlikely

to yield significant productivity and quality improve-

ments.

DISCUSSION

The UK construction industry has been criticized for

low productivity and quality throughout the past

40 years. These criticisms have often been based on

Figure 15 The effects of customer-led

location-specific design on productivity

and quality.

Figure 14 The effects of producer-led

market-specific design on productivity and

quality.



comparisons with the manufacturing industry. For

example, the report, Rethinking Construction, states,

…in the manufacturing industry there have been

increases in efficiency which a decade or more ago

nobody would have believed possible… (DETR,

1998).

However, in many cases these increases have only

been feasible and viable because of the high repetition of

pre-order design certainty which arises from producer-

led market-specific design. Unfavourable comparisons

with the manufacturing industry are particularly

questionable when they are based on the observation

that there is nearly as much repetition in the construc-

tion of buildings as there is in the production of

consumer goods. World Class manufacturers are able

to make repeated use of product-specific plant and

processes. In contrast, the construction industry has to

make repeated use of general purpose plant and

processes. As explained above, this is because cus-

tomer-led location-specific design leads to little, or no,

repetition of post-order design certainty. Figs 14 and

15 illustrate that the repeated use of general purpose

technology offers far fewer opportunities to improve

productivity and quality than the repeated use of

product-specific technology.

Criticisms based on the better use of new technology

in the manufacturing industry can also be questioned.

Paradoxically, technological innovation can, in some

cases, make the improvement of construction produc-

tivity and quality more difficult. This is because

building designers have to choose from a rapidly

increasing number of high performance components

and specialist processes (Moore, 1996). Compared

with traditional materials and parts, newer components

can be more difficult to adapt or replace quickly, and

their properties are not always compatible with tradi-

tional site practices. This means that practical experi-

ence can have a narrower application and a shorter

life-span (Hyde, 1995). Consequently, it is difficult for

even the most experienced architects and consulting

engineers to integrate the latest production best prac-

tised into their designs. In contrast, technological

innovation is more likely to lead to improved produc-

tivity and quality in the manufacturing industry because

design is more likely to be producer-led and market-

specific. Where producers dictate the design of prod-

uct-specific components to their customers they are

better able to exploit new materials and processes such

as powder technology (Edwards, 1995). This is because

there is often sufficient repetition of pre-order design

certainty to justify the investments in time and money

which are required. As discussed above, designers of

bespoke buildings work in very different circumstances.

It is seldom feasible and viable for them to lead the

development of mass produced building-specific com-

ponents. Similarly, it is neither feasible nor viable to

fully exploit the rapid information processing capabil-

ities of MRPII systems when design is customer-led

and location-specific (Storey, 1994). This is the case in

any industry no matter what materials are used and no

matter how big or small finished products are. Further,

a very high repetition of pre-order design certainty is

required to make assembly automation technology

viable in the construction industry. This is because

the size of buildings compared with, say, white goods

necessitates bigger robots and more factory space per

product. Some companies are trying to move the

production of house envelopes into factories (Watson,

2001), but even if they are successful in doing this, a

large proportion of work will still have to be done

in-situ. As long as this is the case, productivity and

quality are always likely to be higher in summer, than

winter when hands are frozen and legs are knee deep in

mud (Ferguson, 1989).

Some critics who make unfavourable comparisons

with the manufacturing industry advocate increasing

the number of standardized building products as a way

of improving construction productivity and quality

(Wood, 2001). Ironically, this suggestion is made at a

time when many other sectors, including manufactur-

ing, are moving further and further away from stan-

dardization. For example, designers of sports shoes,

spectacles and ready meals have to find ways of

satisfying increasing demand for non-standard goods

(Hare, 1999). In these sectors, it has been recognized

that customers buy the most attractive products rather

than buy from the most efficient producers (Jones,

1999). Consequently, designers are having to focus on

satisfying customer requirements rather than develop-

ing self-defined product ranges. This trend is not

limited to smaller markets: companies like Dell and

Ford are also trying to find ways of offering person-

alized goods (Roberts, 2000). Even in sectors such as

medical engineering, where marketing is often focused

on organizations rather than individuals, it is forecast

that goods will soon have to be tailor-made (Wells,

2000). Clearly, there are some building clients who

want sufficient standardization to communicate their

brand identity. Retail and leisure companies are well

known examples. However, as discussed above, many

building designs have to be location-specific in order to

satisfy structural and planning requirements. Overall,

these factors suggest that customer-led location-specific

design will continue to be prevalent in the construction

industry for some time to come.

Fox, S. et al.386


CONCLUSIONS

• Construction productivity and quality must be con-

tinuously improved to meet clients’ requirements.

• In every industry, two primary design imperatives

determine the types of information systems and

production processes which are technically feasible

and economically viable. These are:

• design authority must be compatible with supply

capabilities: design authority can be defined along

a continuum between producer-led design and

customer-led design; and

• design application must match demand conditions:

design application can be defined along a con-

tinuum between design for a global market and

design for a single location.

• The design of consumer goods is usually producer-

led and market-specific. The design of buildings

often has to be customer-led and location-specific.

• Product-specific systems and processes are feasible

and viable when design is producer-led and market

specific. These systems and processes have led to

radical productivity and quality improvement in the

manufacturing industry.

• Often, only general purpose systems and processes

are feasible and viable when design is customer-led

and location-specific. This makes significant pro-

ductivity and quality improvements far harder to

achieve in the construction industry.

REFERENCES

Anderson, S.D., Fisher, D.J. & Rahman, S. (2000) Integrating

constructability into project development. Journal of Con-

struction Engineering and Management, 126, 81–88.

CIRIA (1983) Buildability: an Assessment. Special Publication

26. Construction Research and Information Association,

London.

CIRIA (1999) Standardisation and pre-assembly: adding value

to construction projects. CIRIA Report 176. Construction

Industry Research and Information Association, London.

Cox, I., Morris, J., Rogerson, J. & Jared, G. (1999) A quan-

titative study of post contract award design changes in

construction. Construction Management and Economics, 17,

427–439.

CSSC (1996) Designing and Building a World-Class Industry.

Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction, The University

of Reading, UK.

DETR (1998) Rethinking construction. The Report of the

Construction Industry Task Force. Department of the Envi-

ronment, Transport and the Regions, London.

DETR (1999) Rethinking construction: a review. Presentation

to Sir John Egan by The Movement for Innovation at 142

Harrow Road, Middlesex, 8 July.

Edwards, L. (1995) Manufacturing with Materials. Butter-

worth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford, UK.

Evbuomwan, N. & Anumba, C. (1998) An integrated frame-

work for concurrent life-cycle design and construction.

Advances in Engineering Software, 5, 587–597.

Ferguson, I. (1989) Buildability in Practice. Mitchell Publishing

Company Limited, London.

Gann, D.M. (1996) Construction as a manufacturing process?

Construction Management and Economics, 14, 437–450.

Gray, C. (1983) Buildability – the Construction Contribution,

Occasional Paper no. 29. The Chartered Institute of

Building, Ascot, UK.

Gray, C. (1996) Value for money (Helping the UK afford the

buildings it likes). Reading Construction Forum, Reading,

UK.

Hare, D. (1999) Succeeding with ERP. Manufacturing Engin-

eer, 78, 65–67.

HMSO (1962) Survey of Problems before the Construction

Industry, Ministry of Works. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,

London.

HMSO (1964) The Placing and Management of Contracts for

Building and Civil Engineering Work. Her Majesty’s Sta-

tionery Office, London.

Hyde, R. (1995) Buildability as a design concept for architects.

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2, 46.

Jones, M. (1999) Second sunrise. Manufacturer, 2, 4–5.

Jones, B. & Riley, M. (1994) Concurrent engineering – an

alternative way for the construction industry. Project, APM,

July, 17.

Khalfan, M., Anumba, C. & Carrillo, P. (2000) An Investi-

gation of the Readiness of the Construction Industry for Con-

current Engineering. http://www.ciob.org.com.

Moore, D. (1996) The renaissance: the beginning of the end

for implicit buildability. Building Research and Information,

24, 265.

Morton, R. & Jagger, D. (1995) Design and the Economics of

Building. E & FN Spon, London, p. 48.

OUP (1996) The Oxford English Reference Dictionary. Oxford

University Press, Oxford, UK.

RCF (1998) Unlocking Specialist Potential: a More Participative

Role for Specialist Contractors. Reading Construction Forum,

Reading, UK.

Roberts, A. (2000) e-commerce ⁄ e-business ⁄ e-strategy. Engine-

ering Management Journal, 10, 250–251.

Storey, J. (1994) New Wave Manufacturing Strategies. Paul

Chapman Publishing Ltd, London.

Watson, K. (2001) Construction product manufacturer of the

year. Contract Journal Awards Supplement, October, 38.

Wells, O. (2000) Medical engineering gets back on its feet.

Manufacturing Engineer, 79, 177–181.

Wood, T. (2001) Eganomical thinking. Contract Journal, 3

October, 17.



how building design imperatives constrain construction productivity and quality

Documents