Design-Construction Design-Construction Interface Dissonances Interface Dissonances Presented By; Faisal Manzoor Arain Faisal Manzoor Arain M S T H E S I S
Dec 30, 2015
Design-Construction Interface Design-Construction Interface DissonancesDissonances
Presented By;
Faisal Manzoor ArainFaisal Manzoor Arain
M
S
T H E S I
S
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 2
Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives
To Assess the Professional Interfaces
between Designer and Constructor.
To Identify Potential Dissonances of Design & Construction Common Boundaries.
To Provide Suggested Solutions &
Recommendations.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 3
Research Scope & ConstraintsResearch Scope & ConstraintsLarge Building Projects; (SR 20 Millions or
more).Selection Context; (Eastern Province of
Saudi Arabia).Selection of (Grade-2 or above)
Construction Contractors. Eminent Architectural Consultant Firms.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 4
Research MethodologyResearch Methodology
Questionnaire Survey
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Conclusions & Recommendations
Literature Review
Development of Initial Questionnaire
Pilot Study :Detail documentation of Selected Projects
Development of Final Questionnaire
Development of list of dissonances (Guideline
for Documentation)
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 5
Pilot StudyPilot Study
Selection of Large Building Projects in Eastern Province.
Al-Rashid Tower (Al-Khobar) AL-Hussaini Commercial Center. (Dammam) AL-Subeaei Commercial Complex. (Al-Khobar)
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 6
Al-Rashid Tower (Al-Khobar)
Project Owner Mr. Salah Ali Rashid
Designer Samir Khair Allah Associates (Lebanon)
Contractor Saudi United Company
Construction Management
Universal Cooperation for Industries & Trad.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 7
Al-Hussaini Commercial Center (Dammam)
Project Owner Mohd. Adil Al-Hussaini
Designer & Consultant
Saudi Designer Engineering Consultants
Contractor Saudi Wiemer & Trachte Ltd.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 8
Al-Subeaei Commercial Complex (Al-Khobar)
Project Owner M. & Abdullah Al- Subeaei
Designer Saudi Consolidated Engineering Co.
Contractor Swayeh Company
Construction Management
Dar-ul-Riyadh Consultants
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 9
Inference Inference
Detail discussions with Professionals on Reality scenario.
Perception Variance in professionals.
Verification of Questionnaire.
No additional indication of Dissonances by
Professionals on Pilot Projects.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 10
Professional Opinions Professional Opinions
Most Important Origins of Potential Dissonances
TEXT
Involvement of Designer as design consultant.
Involvement of contractor as consultant.
Lack of coordination between professionals.
Insufficient working drawing details.
Contractor’s lack of comprehension of drawings details& Specifications.
Least Important Origins of Potential Dissonances
TEXT
Involvement of contractor in design conceptual phase.
Involvement of contractor in design development phase.
Project construction management as individual professional service.
Nationality of both Construction and Design firms.
Weather Conditions.
Unforeseen problems.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 11
SurveySurvey
Minimum required sample size.
Received Responses.
48 responses for Statistical Analysis
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 12
ResultsResults Consultants ResponsesConsultants Responses
Responses (Design Consultants)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 13
ResultsResults Consultants ResponsesConsultants Responses
Ranking By Design Consultants(Ascending Order)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Q__24
Q__33
Q__28
Q__27
C_D
Q__07
_C_
Q__08
Q_06
Q__44
Q__20
Q__17
Q_05
Q__03
Q__09
Q__11
Q__41
Q__16
Q__10
Q__34
Q__23
Q__22
Q__14
Q__40
Q__18
Q__36
Q__13
Q__19
Q__26
Q__31
Q__15
Q__04
Q__43
Q__39
Q__35
Q__30
Q__21
Q__37
Q__32
Q__29
Q__25
Q__42
Q__12
Q__38
Q__45
Q_02
Q_01_
D_
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 14
ResultsResults Consultants ResponsesConsultants Responses
Ranking By Designers(Ascending Order)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Q__07
_C_
Q__20
Q__44
Q__24
Q__33
Q_05
Q__10
Q__26
Q__09
Q__25
Q__03
Q_06
Q__08
Q__16
Q__17
Q__27
C_D
Q__28
Q__34
Q__23
Q__11
Q__22
Q__12
Q__40
Q__18
Q__19
Q__14
Q__36
Q__35
Q__32
Q__31
Q__15
Q__43
Q__41
Q__04
Q__39
Q__37
Q__30
Q__29
Q__21
Q__13
Q__42
Q__45
Q_02
Q__38
Q_01_
D_
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 15
ResultsResults Spearman Correlation Spearman Correlation
Designers Vs Consultants
Rank Correlations (SPEARM~4.STA 9v*60c)
VAR4
VAR3
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 16
ResultsResults Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive Statistics (Consultants Responses) (Consultants Responses)
Descriptive Statistics (Consultant Responses)
MEAN MEDIAN MIN. MAX. RANGE VARIANCE STD_DEV_ Rank
Q_01_D_ 1.68 1 1 4 3 1.47666667 1.215181742 25
Q_02 1.8 1 1 4 3 1 1 24
Q__03 3.36 3 3 4 1 0.24 0.489897949 04
Q__04 2.88 3 2 4 2 0.27666667 0.525991128 15
Q_05 3.36 3 2 4 2 0.32333333 0.56862407 04
Q_06 3.4 3 2 4 2 0.41666667 0.645497224 03
Q__07_C_ 3.44 3 2 4 2 0.34 0.583095189 02
Q__08 3.4 3 3 4 1 0.25 0.5 03
Q__09 3.32 3 3 4 1 0.22666667 0.476095229 05
Q__10 3.2 3 2 4 2 0.41666667 0.645497224 08
Q__11 3.32 3 2 4 2 0.31 0.556776436 05
Q__12 2.64 3 1 4 3 0.57333333 0.757187779 21
Q__13 3.08 3 2 4 2 0.57666667 0.759385717 11
Q__14 3.12 3 1 4 3 0.61 0.781024968 10
Q__15 2.96 3 1 4 3 0.70666667 0.840634681 14
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 17
ResultsResults Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive Statistics (Consultants Responses) (Consultants Responses)
Q__16 3.24 3 2 4 2 0.27333333 0.522812905 07
Q__17 3.36 3 2 4 2 0.32333333 0.56862407 04
Q__18 3.12 3 2 4 2 0.44333333 0.665832812 10
Q__19 3.04 3 2 4 2 0.45666667 0.675771164 12
Q__20 3.36 3 2 4 2 0.49 0.7 04
Q__21 2.8 3 2 4 2 0.33333333 0.577350269 17
Q__22 3.16 3 2 4 2 0.30666667 0.553774924 09
Q__23 3.2 3 2 4 2 0.25 0.5 08
Q__24 3.52 4 2 4 2 0.34333333 0.585946528 01
Q__25 2.72 3 2 4 2 0.54333333 0.73711148 19
Q__26 3 3 2 4 2 0.66666667 0.816496581 13
Q__27C_D 3.44 3 3 4 1 0.25666667 0.506622805 02
Q__28 3.44 3 3 4 1 0.25666667 0.506622805 02
Q__29 2.72 3 1 4 3 1.12666667 1.061445555 19
Q__30 2.84 3 2 4 2 0.72333333 0.850490055 16
Descriptive Statistics (Consultant Responses)
MEAN MEDIAN MIN. MAX. RANGE VARIANCE STD_DEV_ Rank
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 18
ResultsResults Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive Statistics (Consultants Responses) (Consultants Responses)
Descriptive Statistics (Consultant Responses)
MEAN MEDIAN MIN. MAX. RANGE VARIANCE STD_DEV_ Rank
Q__31 2.96 3 2 4 2 0.70666667 0.840634681 14
Q__32 2.76 3 2 4 2 0.27333333 0.522812905 18
Q__33 3.44 3 3 4 1 0.25666667 0.506622805 02
Q__34 3.2 3 2 4 2 0.5 0.707106781 08
Q__35 2.88 3 2 4 2 0.61 0.781024968 15
Q__36 3.08 3 2 4 2 0.32666667 0.571547607 11
Q__37 2.8 3 2 4 2 0.33333333 0.577350269 17
Q__38 2.32 2 1 4 3 0.72666667 0.852447457 22
Q__39 2.88 3 1 4 3 0.44333333 0.665832812 15
Q__40 3.12 3 2 4 2 0.19333333 0.439696865 10
Q__41 3.28 3 2 4 2 0.37666667 0.613731755 06
Q__42 2.68 3 2 4 2 0.31 0.556776436 20
Q__43 2.88 3 2 4 2 0.44333333 0.665832812 15
Q__44 3.36 4 1 4 3 0.90666667 0.952190457 04
Q__45 2.2 3 1 4 3 1.33333333 1.154700538 23
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 19
ResultsResults Most Important Origins of DissonancesMost Important Origins of Dissonances
Most Important Origins of Potential Dissonances
Actual #
TEXT Rank
Q_24 Contractor’s lack of comprehension of Drawings details and specifications. 01
Q_02 Lack of designer knowledge of available material and equipments. 02
Q_27 Design Complexity. 02
Q_28 Buildability. 02
Q_33 Obstinate nature of participants. 02
Q_06 Time limitation in design phase. 03
Q_08 Incomplete & inadequate plans and specifications. 03
Q_03 Lack of stipulated data. 04
Q_05 Lack of human resources for design firm. 04
Q_17 Design Errors. 04
Q_20 Lack of coordination between professionals. 04
Q_09 Insufficient working drawing details. 05
Q_11 Lack of mutual respect between designer and contractor. 05
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 20
ResultsResults Least Important Origins of DissonancesLeast Important Origins of Dissonances
Least Important Origins of Potential Dissonances
Actual # TEXT Rank
Q_01 Involvement of contractor in design conceptual phase. 01
Q_02 Involvement of contractor in design development phase. 02
Q_45 Project construction management as individual professional service. 03
Q_38 Nationality of both Construction and Design firms 04
Q_12 Exotic design and technology. 05
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 21
ResultsResults Contractors ResponsesContractors Responses
Contractors Responses
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Q_01__D_
Q__02
Q__03
Q__04
Q__05
Q__06
Q__07_C_
Q__08
Q__09
Q__10
Q__11
Q__12
Q__13
Q__14
Q__15
Q__16
Q__17
Q__18
Q__19
Q__20
Q__21
Q__22
Q__23
Q__24
Q__25
Q__26
Q__27C_D
Q__28
Q__29
Q__30
Q__31
Q__32
Q__33
Q__34
Q__35
Q__36
Q__37
Q__38
Q__39
Q__40
Q__41
Q__42
Q__43
Q__44
Q__45
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 22
ResultsResults Contractors ResponsesContractors Responses
Ranking By Contractors(Ascending Order)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Q__25
Q__10
Q__20
Q__09
Q__05
Q__34
Q__41
Q__07
_C_
Q__16
Q__23
Q__08
Q__06
Q__17
Q__22
Q__24
Q__40
Q__03
Q__33
Q__27
C_D
Q__19
Q__11
Q__02
Q_01_
_D_
Q__15
Q__26
Q__28
Q__44
Q__43
Q__35
Q__18
Q__04
Q__39
Q__21
Q__14
Q__13
Q__29
Q__12
Q__32
Q__36
Q__30
Q__31
Q__42
Q__38
Q__37
Q__45
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 23
ResultsResults Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics (Contractors Responses)(Contractors Responses)
Descriptive Statistics (Contractors Responses)
Valid N Mean Median Sum Min. Max. Variance Std.Dev. Rank
Q_01__D_ 24 2.75 3 66 1 4 1.065217391 1.032093693 14
Q__02 24 2.833333 3 68 1 4 1.101449275 1.049499536 13
Q__03 24 3.041667 3 73 2 4 0.476449275 0.690253052 11
Q__04 24 3.041667 3 73 2 4 0.650362319 0.806450444 15
Q__05 24 3.458333 4 83 2 4 0.606884058 0.779027636 04
Q__06 24 3.166667 3 76 2 4 0.31884058 0.564659703 09
Q__07_C_ 24 3.375 3 81 3 4 0.244565217 0.494535355 06
Q__08 24 3.375 3 81 2 4 0.331521739 0.575779245 06
Q__09 24 3.583333 4 86 2 4 0.427536232 0.653862548 03
Q__10 24 3.625 4 87 2 4 0.418478261 0.646898957 02
Q__11 24 2.833333 3 68 1 4 0.84057971 0.916831342 13
Q__12 24 2.416667 2 58 1 4 1.123188406 1.059805834 21
Q__13 24 2.375 2.5 57 1 4 1.201086957 1.095941128 19
Q__14 24 2.416667 2 58 1 4 1.297101449 1.138903617 18
Q__15 24 2.75 3 66 1 4 0.456521739 0.675663925 14
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 24
ResultsResults Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics (Contractors Responses)(Contractors Responses)
Descriptive Statistics (Contractors Responses)
Valid N Mean Median Sum Min. Max. Variance Std.Dev. Rank
Q__16 24 2.5 2 60 1 4 0.869565217 0.932504808 07
Q__17 24 3.166667 3 76 2 4 0.405797101 0.637022057 09
Q__18 24 2.666667 3 64 1 4 0.753623188 0.868114732 15
Q__19 24 2.75 3 66 1 4 0.804347826 0.896854406 12
Q__20 24 3.583333 4 86 2 4 0.34057971 0.583592075 03
Q__21 24 2.75 3 66 1 4 0.717391304 0.846989554 17
Q__22 24 3.041667 3 73 1 4 0.476449275 0.690253052 09
Q__23 24 2.833333 3 68 1 4 0.579710145 0.761386988 08
Q__24 24 3.125 3 75 2 4 0.548913043 0.74088666 10
Q__25 24 3.708333 4 89 2 4 0.302536232 0.550032937 01
Q__26 24 2.75 3 66 2 4 0.456521739 0.675663925 14
Q__27 24 2.958333 3 71 1 4 0.389492754 0.624093546 12
Q__28 24 2.75 2.5 66 1 4 0.891304348 0.944089163 14
Q__29 24 2.333333 2 56 1 4 0.753623188 0.868114732 20
Q__30 24 2.208333 2 53 1 4 0.867753623 0.931532943 23
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 25
ResultsResults Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics (Contractors Responses)(Contractors Responses)
Descriptive Statistics (Contractors Responses)
Valid N Mean Median Sum Min. Max. Variance Std.Dev. Rank
Q__31 24 2.166667 2 52 1 4 1.014492754 1.00722031 24
Q__32 24 2.291667 2 55 1 4 1.085144928 1.041702898 21
Q__33 24 3 3 72 1 4 0.956521739 0.978019294 12
Q__34 24 3.416667 4 82 1 4 0.862318841 0.928611243 05
Q__35 24 2.625 2 63 1 4 1.288043478 1.134920032 15
Q__36 24 2.25 2 54 1 4 1.065217391 1.032093693 22
Q__37 24 1.958333 2 47 1 4 0.737318841 0.85867272 27
Q__38 24 2.083333 2 50 1 4 0.949275362 0.974307632 26
Q__39 24 2.625 3 63 1 4 0.592391304 0.769669607 16
Q__40 24 3.291667 3 79 1 4 0.476449275 0.690253052 10
Q__41 24 3.166667 4 76 1 4 1.362318841 1.16718415 06
Q__42 24 2.125 2 51 1 4 0.89673913 0.946963109 25
Q__43 24 3.25 3 78 1 4 0.543478261 0.737209781 15
Q__44 24 2.75 3 66 1 4 0.717391304 0.846989554 14
Q__45 24 1.791667 1 43 1 4 1.476449275 1.215092291 28
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 26
ResultsResults Most Important Origins of DissonancesMost Important Origins of Dissonances
Most Important Origins of Potential Dissonances
Actual # TEXT Rank
Q_25 Involvement of Designer as design consultant. 01
Q_10 Insufficient communication between contractor and designer dyad. 02
Q_09 Insufficient working drawing details. 03
Q_20 Lack of coordination between professionals. 03
Q_05 Lack of human resources for design firm. 04
Q_34 Participant’s honest wrong beliefs. 05
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 27
ResultsResults Least Important Origins of DissonancesLeast Important Origins of Dissonances
Least Important Origins of Potential Dissonances
Actual # TEXT Rank
Q_45 Project construction management as individual professional service. 01
Q_37 Weather conditions. 02
Q_38 Nationality of both Construction and Design firms 03
Q_42 Unforeseen problems. 04
Q_31 Lack of professional experience and judgment. 05
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 28
ResultsResults Combined Evaluation Combined Evaluation
Combined Responses
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Q__01
_D_
Q__02
Q__03
Q__04
Q__05
Q__06
Q__07
_C_
Q__08
Q__09
Q__10
Q__11
Q__12
Q__13
Q__14
Q__15
Q__16
Q__17
Q__18
Q__19
Q__20
Q__21
Q__22
Q__23
Q__24
Q__25
Q__26
Q__27
CD
Q__28
Q__29
Q__30
Q__31
Q__32
Q__33
Q__34
Q__35
Q__36
Q__37
Q__38
Q__39
Q__40
Q__41
Q__42
Q__43
Q__44
Q__45
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 29
ResultsResults Combined Evaluation Combined Evaluation
Combined Ranking(Ascending Order)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Q__20
Q__09
Q__25
Q__44
Q__24
Q__34
Q__05
Q__07
_C_
Q__10
Q__06
Q__08
Q__17
Q__33
Q__41
Q__03
Q__27
CD
Q__40
Q__22
Q__28
Q__11
Q__43
Q__23
Q__04
Q__18
Q__19
Q__16
Q__26
Q__15
Q__21
Q__14
Q__39
Q__35
Q__13
Q__36
Q__31
Q__32
Q__12
Q__29
Q__30
Q__42
Q__37
Q__02
Q__38
Q__01
_D_
Q__45
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 30
ResultsResults Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics (Combined Evaluation)(Combined Evaluation)
Descriptive Statistics (Combined Evaluation)
Mean Median Sum Min. Max. Variance Std_Dev. Rank
Q__01_D_ 2.204082 2 108 1 4 1.540816 1.241296 28
Q__02 2.306122 2 113 1 4 1.30017 1.14025 27
Q__03 3.204082 3 157 2 4 0.37415 0.611678 10
Q__04 2.959184 3 145 2 4 0.456633 0.675746 15
Q__05 3.306163 4 162 2 4 0.454932 0.674486 06
Q__06 3.285714 3 161 2 4 0.375 0.612372 07
Q__07_C_ 3.306163 3 162 2 4 0.288265 0.536903 06
Q__08 3.285755 3 161 2 4 0.284014 0.532929 07
Q__09 3.44898 3 169 2 4 0.335884 0.579555 02
Q__10 3.306163 4 162 2 4 0.454932 0.674486 06
Q__11 3.081633 3 151 1 4 0.618197 0.786255 12
Q__12 2.530612 2 124 1 4 0.837585 0.915197 24
Q__13 2.734694 3 134 1 4 0.990646 0.995312 21
Q__14 2.77551 3 136 1 4 1.052721 1.026022 19
Q__15 2.857143 3 140 1 4 0.583333 0.763763 18
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 31
ResultsResults Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics (Combined Evaluation)(Combined Evaluation)
Descriptive Statistics (Combined Evaluation)
Mean Median Sum Min. Max. Variance Std_Dev. Rank
Q__16 2.877551 3 141 1 4 0.693027 0.832483 17
Q__17 3.265306 3 160 2 4 0.365646 0.604687 08
Q__18 2.897959 3 142 1 4 0.635204 0.796997 16
Q__19 2.897959 3 142 1 4 0.635204 0.796997 16
Q__20 3.469388 4 170 2 4 0.420918 0.648782 01
Q__21 2.77551 3 136 1 4 0.511054 0.714881 19
Q__22 3.102041 3 152 1 4 0.385204 0.620648 11
Q__23 3.020408 3 148 1 4 0.437075 0.661116 14
Q__24 3.326531 3 163 2 4 0.47449 0.688832 05
Q__25 3.408282 3 167 2 4 0.665816 0.815976 03
Q__26 2.877551 3 141 2 4 0.568027 0.753676 17
Q__27CD 3.204082 3 157 1 4 0.37415 0.611678 10
Q__28 3.102041 3 152 1 4 0.676871 0.822722 11
Q__29 2.530612 3 124 1 4 0.962585 0.981114 24
Q__30 2.530612 2 124 1 4 0.879252 0.937684 24
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 32
ResultsResults Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics (Combined Evaluation)(Combined Evaluation)
Descriptive Statistics (Combined Evaluation)
Mean Median Sum Min. Max. Variance Std_Dev. Rank
Q__31 2.571429 2 126 1 4 1 1 23
Q__32 2.530612 3 124 1 4 0.712585 0.844148 24
Q__33 3.22449 3 158 1 4 0.636054 0.79753 09
Q__34 3.326522 4 163 1 4 0.67517 0.821687 05
Q__35 2.755102 3 135 1 4 0.938776 0.968904 20
Q__36 2.673469 3 131 1 4 0.84949 0.921678 22
Q__37 2.387755 2 117 1 4 0.70068 0.837066 26
Q__38 2.204082 2 108 1 4 0.832483 0.912405 28
Q__39 2.755102 3 135 1 4 0.522109 0.722571 20
Q__40 3.204082 3 157 1 4 0.332483 0.576613 10
Q__41 3.22449 3 158 1 4 0.844388 0.918906 09
Q__42 2.408163 2 118 1 4 0.663265 0.814411 25
Q__43 3.061224 3 150 1 4 0.517007 0.719032 13
Q__44 3.387824 3 166 1 4 0.892007 0.944461 04
Q__45 2 1 98 1 4 1.416667 1.190238 29
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 33
ResultsResults Spearman CorrelationSpearman Correlation
Rank Correlations (SPEARM~5.STA 10v*60c)
Consultants Vs Contractors
VAR3
VAR2
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 34
ResultsResults Most Important Origins of DissonancesMost Important Origins of Dissonances
Most Important Origins of Potential Dissonances
Actual # TEXT Rank
Q_20 Lack of coordination between professionals. 01
Q_09 Insufficient working drawing details. 02
Q_25 Involvement of Designer as design consultant. 03
Q_44 Involvement of contractor as consultant. 04
Q_34 Participant’s honest wrong beliefs. 05
Q_24 Contractor’s lack of comprehension of drawings details& Specifications.
05
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 35
ResultsResults Least Important Origins of DissonancesLeast Important Origins of Dissonances
Least Important Origins of Potential Dissonances
Actual # TEXT Rank
Q_45 Project construction management as individual professional service. 01
Q_38 Nationality of both Construction and Design firms. 02
Q_01 Involvement of contractor in design conceptual phase. 02
Q_02 Involvement of contractor in design development phase. 03
Q_37 Weather Conditions. 04
Q_42 Unforeseen problems. 05
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 36
ConclusionConclusion
Designers mostly categorized as design Consultants.
Majority of firms are Saudi National. Professional experience range between 5-10yrs. Working relationship between contractor and
designer considered as “good relationship”.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 37
ConclusionConclusion (Most Important)(Most Important)
Top Most Important Origin of Dissonances.Combined Evaluation
Lack of Coordination between Professionals
Somewhat Important, 8.2 %
Important, 36.7 %Very Important, 55.1 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 38
ConclusionConclusion (Most Important)(Most Important)
Second Most Important Origin of Dissonances.
Combined Evaluation
Insufficient Working Drawing Details
Somewhat Important, 4.1 %
Very Important, 49.0 %
Important, 46.9 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 39
ConclusionConclusion
Third Most Important Origin of Dissonances.
Combined Evaluation
Involvement of Designer as Design Consultant
Somewhat Important, 2.0 %
Very Important, 43.0 %
Important, 55.0 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 40
ConclusionConclusion
Fourth Most Important Origin of Dissonances.
Combined Evaluation
Involvement of Contractor as Consultant
Somewhat Important, 2.0 %
Very Important, 41.0 %
Important, 57.0 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 41
ConclusionConclusion
Fifth Most Important Origin of Dissonances.Combined Evaluation
Participant's Honest Wrong Beliefs
Somewhat Important, 12.0 %
Very Important, 45.0 %
Important, 43.0 %
Combined Evaluation
Contractor's lack of Comprehension of drawings details & spec.
Somewhat Important, 12.0 %
Very Important, 45.0 %
Important, 43.0 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 42
ConclusionConclusion (Least Important) (Least Important)
Top Least Important Origin of Dissonances.
Combined Evaluation
Project Construction Management as Individual Professional Serv.
Very Important, 14.3 %
Important, 26.5 %
Somewhat Important, 4.1 %
Not Important, 55.1 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 43
ConclusionConclusion
Second Least Important Origin of Dissonances.
Combined Evaluation
Nationality of Contractor & Designer firms
Not Important, 26.5 %
Very Important, 6.1 %
Important, 34.7 %
Somewhat Important, 32.7 %
Combined Evaluation
Involvement of Contractor in Design Conceptual Phase
Not Important, 44.9 %
Very Important, 22.4 %
Important, 20.4 %
Somewhat Important, 12.2 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 44
ConclusionConclusion
Third Least Important Origin of Dissonances.
Combined Evaluation
Involvement of Contractor in Design Development Phase
Not Important, 34.7 %
Very Important, 18.4 %
Important, 28.6 %
Somewhat Important, 18.4 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 45
ConclusionConclusion
Fourth Least Important Origin of Dissonances.
Combined Evaluation
Weather Conditions
Not Important, 16.3 %
Very Important, 6.1 %
Important, 42.9 %
Somewhat Important, 34.7 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 46
ConclusionConclusion
Fifth Least Important Origin of Dissonances.
Combined Evaluation
Unforeseen Problems
Not Important, 14.3 %
Very Important, 6.1 %
Important, 42.9 %
Somewhat Important, 36.7 %
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 47
RecommendationsRecommendations
First two Important origins can be diminished through “involvement of contractor in design phases”
Third & fourth most important dissonances origins can be handled through “Project management as individual professional service”
A neutral participant (Designer or Constructor) would be hired to bridge the schism between professional and working environment.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 48
RecommendationsRecommendations
Need of Establishing Numerous Professional Meetings during Project Phases.
Application of Construction Industry Model with necessary modification according to Saudi Arabian Construction Industry Requirements.
An Accrediting Body should be Established for surveillance in construction Industry Practices.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 49
RecommendationsRecommendations
Most Sophisticated & Updated Contemporary Professional Courses at institutions level.
Certification of Practicing Professionals on International Standards by Regional Certification Boards.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 50
Recommendations for Recommendations for Future ResearchersFuture Researchers
Design-construction interface in the context of Industrial projects and highways.
Considering the whole country’s construction industry as survey target.
Same survey considering the lower grade contractors and residential projects.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 51
ReferencesReferences
11) Acharaya, Prakash; Pfrommer , Charles; Zirbel, Charles.(1995) “ Think Value Engineering” Journal of management in engineering, Nov./Dec. 1995. p 13-17.22) Ahmad, Irtishad.(1999) “ What A/E/C organizations should know” Journal of management in engineering, July/Aug. 1999. p 33-36.33) Al-Dubaisi, Abdul-Ghafoor Habib.(2000) “Change orders in construction projects in Saudi Arabia” MS Thesis, K.F.U.P.M, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 2000. 44) Al-Ghamdi, Abdullah.(1999) “An overview of construction industry in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” MS Thesis ,K.F.U.P.M, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 1999.55) Al-Hazmi, Muhammad Hassan Sulaim.(1987) “Causes of delays in large building construction projects” MS Thesis, K.F.U.P.M, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 1987.66) Al-Yousif, Fawzi A.(2001) “Assessment of constructability practices among general contractors in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia” MS Thesis, K.F.U.P.M, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 2001.77) Assaf, Sadi; Al-hammad, Abdulmohsen.(1992) “ Design-Construction interface problems in Saudi Arabia” Journal of building research and information, Vol 20, number 1, 1992.88) Berggren, Christian; Soderlund, Jonas; Anderson, Christian.(2001) “Clients, contractors, and consultants: The consequences of organizational fragmentation in contemporary project environments” Project management journal, Vol. 32, number 3, p 39-49.99) Bubshait, Abdulaziz A.; Al-Musaid, Abdulaziz A.(1992) “Owner involvement in construction projects in Saudi Arabia” Journal of management in engineering, Vol. 8, number 2, April 1992. p 176-185.110)Chan, A.(1995) “Towards an expert system on project management” Journal of construction procurement, Glamourgan, U.K. Vol. 1, number 2 , p 111-123.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 52
111) Chappell, David; Willis, Andrew. “The Architect in Practice” 8th edition, Blackwell science Ltd, USA, 1996.112) Chase, G. W.(1993) “Effective total quality management process for construction” Journal of management in engineering, ASCE, Vol. 9, number 4, p 433-443.113) Clancy, B. P.(1995) “New buildings from old: some views on refurbishment projects” The Structural Eng., London, U.K, Vol. 73, number 20, p 341-346.114) Clough, Richard H.; Sears, Glenn A. “Construction Contracting” sixth edition, John Wiley & sons inc., New York, 1994.115) Daoud, Osama E. K.(1997) “The architect/engineer’s role in rehabilitation work” Journal of construction engineering and management, Mar. 1997, p 1-5.116) Dunnam, C. N.(1984) “Dealing with constraints affecting construction quality” Proc. Quality in the constructed project, ASCE, New York, N.Y, p 162-168.117) Fisk, Edward R. “Construction Project Administration” fifth edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1997.118) Fondahl, J. W.(1991). “The development of the construction engineer: past progress and future problems” Journal of construction engineering and management , ASCE, Vol. 117, number 3, p 380-392.119) Foti, Ross.(2001) “ Managing large construction projects” PM network, Aug.2001,p24-32.220) Fredrickson, Ken.(1998) “Design guidelines for design-build projects” Journal of management in engineering, Jan./Feb. 1998, p 77-80.221) Friedlander, Mark c.(1998) “Design-Build solutions” Journal of management in engineering, Nov./Dec. 1998. p 59-64.222) Gambatese, John A.; McManus, James F.(1999) “The constructability review process: A constructor’s perspective” Journal of management in engineering, Jan,/Feb. 1999, p 93-94.223) Haplin, D. W.; Woodhead, R. W.(1980) “Construction Management” Mc Graw Hill, New York, N.Y.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 53
224) Hellard, R. B.(1993) “Total quality in construction projects” Thomas Telford, London, U.K.225) Jaafari, A.(1997) “Concurrent construction and life cycle project management” Journal of construction engineering and management, ASCE, Dec. 1997, p 427-435.226) Jackson, J. P.(1986) “A cost effective quality control program for commercial construction” Proceedings, ASCE, New York, N.Y., p 54-63.227) Kostoff, S.(1977) “The architect: chapters in the history of the profession”. Oxford university press, New York, NY. 228) Kumaraswamy, Mohan M.; Dissanayaka, S. M. (1998) “Linking procurement systems to project priorities”. Journal of Building research and information, London, Vol. 26, number 4, p 223-238.229) Langford, D. A.; Kennedy, P.; Sommerville, J.(1992) “Contingency management of conflict: analysis of contract interfaces” construction conflict management and resolution. P.Fenn and R. Gameson, eds., E & Spon, London, U.K.330) Larson, E.(1995) “ Project partnering: Results of 280 construction projects”. Journal of management in engineering, Vol. 11, number 2, p 30-35.331) Latham, M.(1994) “Constructing the team-joint review of procurement and contractual arrangement in the UK construction industry” HMSO, London, U.K.332) Liker, J.; Fleisher, M.(1992) “ Organizational context barriers to DFM” Integrating design and manufacturing for competitive advantages, Oxford university press, New York, NY.333) Mendelsohn, Roy.(1997) “The constructability review process: A constructor’s perspective” Journal of management in engineering, May/June 1997, p 17-19.334) Molenaar, Keith R.; Barash, M. (1999) “Public sector design/build evolution and performance” Journal of construction engineering and management, ASCE, Vol 15, number 2, p 54-62 .
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 54
335) Myklebust, S.; Yates, G.(1995) “Co-operation through integrated teams in the Njord project” IPMA World congress on project management, Vol. 1, p 213-218.336) Naam, C.H.; Tatum, C.B.(1992) “Non-contractual methods of integration on construction projects” Journal construction engineering and management, ASCE, Vol. 118, number 2, p 385-398.337) Nesan, L. Jawahar; Price, A. D. F.(1997) “Formulation of best practices for owner’s representatives” Journal of management in engineering, Jan./Feb. 1997, p 44-51.338) Newcombe, R.(1996) “Empowering the construction project team” International Journal of project management, Vol. 18, number 6.439) O’Brien, James J. “Construction Change Orders” Mc-Graw Hill, New York, N.Y., 1998.440) Palaneeswaran, Ekambaram; Kumaraswamy, Mohan M.(2000) “Construction selection for Design-Build projects” Journal of construction engineering and management, ASCE, Sept./Oct. 2000, p 331-338.441) Puddicombe, Michael S.(1997) “Designer and Contractors: Impediments to Integration” Journal of construction engineering and management, ASCE, Sept. 1997, p 245-252.442) Qaiser, Muhammad.(1991) “Practical Stages of Project (buildings)” Achi-times, Karachi, 1991, p 9. R43) Rizzo, Jack.(1998) “Design-Build alternative: a contracting method” Journal of management in engineering, Nov./Dec. 1998, p 44-47.444) Seitz, Brian.(1997) “The engineering environment- a team concept” Design News, 1997, p55.445) Sommerville, J. (1994) “Multivariate barrier to total quality management within the construction industry” Total quality management, Vol. 5, number 5, p 289-298.446) Songer,D. Anthony; Molenaar, Keith R. (1996) “ Selecting Design-Build: Public and Private Sector Owner Attitudes” Journal of management in engineering, Nov./Dec. 1996, p 47-53.447) Tarricone, P. (1992) “Cranes, concrete, construction and computers” Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 62, number 6, p 44-47.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 55
448) The Chartered Institute of Building. Design-Build code of estimating practice supplement number 2, 1988.449) Twomey, T. R. (1989) “Understanding the legal aspects of design-build” R. S. Means Co., Kingston, Mass.550) Wang, Yuhong.(2000) “Coordination issues in Chinese large building projects” Journal of management in engineering, Nov./Dec. 2000. p 54-61551) Zipf, Peter J.(1998) “An integrated project management system” Journal of management in engineering, May/June 1998, p 38-41.
6th May 2002 MS Thesis Presentation 56
THANK YOUTHANK YOU