Design-Construction Interface Dissonances Presented By; Faisal Manzoor Arain MSTHESISMSTHESIS

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.


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.


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)


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)


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.


Al-Hussaini Commercial Center (Dammam)

Project Owner Mohd. Adil Al-Hussaini

Designer & Consultant

Saudi Designer Engineering Consultants

Contractor Saudi Wiemer & Trachte Ltd.


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


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.


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.


SurveySurvey

Minimum required sample size.

Received Responses.

48 responses for Statistical Analysis


ResultsResults Consultants ResponsesConsultants Responses

Responses (Design Consultants)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4



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_



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_


ResultsResults Spearman Correlation Spearman Correlation

Designers Vs Consultants

Rank Correlations (SPEARM~4.STA 9v*60c)

VAR4

VAR3


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



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







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


ResultsResults Most Important Origins of DissonancesMost Important Origins of 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


ResultsResults Least Important Origins of DissonancesLeast Important Origins of 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


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


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


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





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





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




Actual # TEXT Rank

Q_25 Involvement of Designer as design consultant. 01

Q_10 Insufficient communication between contractor and designer dyad. 02



Q_05 Lack of human resources for design firm. 04

Q_34 Participant’s honest wrong beliefs. 05




Actual # TEXT Rank


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


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


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


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





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





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


ResultsResults Spearman CorrelationSpearman Correlation

Rank Correlations (SPEARM~5.STA 10v*60c)

Consultants Vs Contractors

VAR3

VAR2




Actual # TEXT Rank



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




Actual # TEXT Rank


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


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”.


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 %


ConclusionConclusion (Most Important)(Most Important)

Second Most Important Origin of Dissonances.

Combined Evaluation

Insufficient Working Drawing Details


Very Important, 49.0 %

Important, 46.9 %



Third Most Important Origin of Dissonances.

Combined Evaluation

Involvement of Designer as Design Consultant



Important, 55.0 %



Fourth Most Important Origin of Dissonances.

Combined Evaluation

Involvement of Contractor as Consultant



Important, 57.0 %



Fifth Most Important Origin of Dissonances.Combined Evaluation

Participant's Honest Wrong Beliefs



Important, 43.0 %

Combined Evaluation

Contractor's lack of Comprehension of drawings details & spec.



Important, 43.0 %


ConclusionConclusion (Least Important) (Least Important)

Top Least Important Origin of Dissonances.

Combined Evaluation

Project Construction Management as Individual Professional Serv.


Important, 26.5 %


Not Important, 55.1 %



Second Least Important Origin of Dissonances.

Combined Evaluation

Nationality of Contractor & Designer firms



Important, 34.7 %


Combined Evaluation

Involvement of Contractor in Design Conceptual Phase



Important, 20.4 %




Third Least Important Origin of Dissonances.

Combined Evaluation

Involvement of Contractor in Design Development Phase



Important, 28.6 %




Fourth Least Important Origin of Dissonances.

Combined Evaluation

Weather Conditions



Important, 42.9 %




Fifth Least Important Origin of Dissonances.

Combined Evaluation

Unforeseen Problems



Important, 42.9 %



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.



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.



Most Sophisticated & Updated Contemporary Professional Courses at institutions level.

Certification of Practicing Professionals on International Standards by Regional Certification Boards.


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.


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.


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.


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 .


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.


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.


THANK YOUTHANK YOU

Documents

Design-Construction Interface Dissonances Presented By; Faisal Manzoor Arain MSTHESISMSTHESIS