1. 1
Assessing our Design Capacity, Is our Design Change
Free?
By
Muhammad Daniyal
A term paper submitted in the
fulfillment of the course requirement of
CE 545 Construction Claim Management
for the degree of
Masters in Engineering Management
specialization in
Construction Management
November 2015
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
KARACHI, PAKISTAN

2. 2
ABSTRACT
Engineering design of construction project is a complex and multifarious process involving
different stake holders and its completeness as well as integrity depends highly on clear and
concise brief from client, interpretation of that brief by designer, close coordination with trade
consultants and its translation in terms of quality deliverables like drawing and specifications.
The objective of this term paper is to assess the state of design completeness in construction
industry while highlighting the factors and owners which constitutes the major changes in
design during construction phase and major causes of delays in construction project.
The primary data was gathered by designing and conducting a study targeted towards major
contributors to the design like clients, architects, structural engineers, MEP engineers and
Contractors while the secondary data was gathered by studying the prior research in the areas
of design process, design coordination and change management in construction projects.
In order meet the objectives a questionnaire was designed that targets four areas to get the
insight from respondents using ordinal questions with Likert type scale. In first section
respondents were identified. In second section state of design was assessed, in third section
major causes of changes and their owners were identified while in fourth section major causes
of delays were identified.
Total 35 questionnaires were distributed in hard form and 31 were responded. During the
preliminary validation 1 questionnaire was found invalid making the response percentage at
85.7%. Responses thus obtained from the survey were parametric in nature on which
elementary statistical analysis was performed calculating mean, median, mode and standard
deviation and the hypothesis was presented using mean. Further, questions related to major
causes of changes, frequency of changes with respect to owner, importance of stake holders in
approval process and major causes of delay were subjected to detailed statistical analysis for
further insight and their ranking attributes were calculated using Relative Importance Index
From the research is was evaluated that the design is dependent on project brief which is
occasionally provided and frequently changed by the client. With standards not adopted and
specification not tailored for individual projects the confidence of contractor on the
construction document remains below the optimum level, which is further reduced by
introducing frequent changes to complete the incomplete and further enhance the level of
design at construction stage. This factor also constitute mainly towards the delay that occurs
on the project.
In the end it was recommended that client should be well aware of its needs and future plans
and should communicate clear and concise brief to the design consultants, Standards for design
documentation should be adopted and construction documents like drawings, BOQs and
specifications etc. should be well coordinated in order to communicate a single actual picture
of the project. Efforts should also be made to utilize latest in BIM technology and input from
the leading contractors should be taken at design stage in order to cater constructability issues
as well as coordination of services.
As far as changes are concerned, they should be logged, tracked and managed through a proper
system. By application of such recommendations, Design Capacity of the construction industry
could be vastly increased.

3. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND 4
2. SCOPE 4
3. OBJECTIVES 4
4. METHODOLOGY 4
5. LITERATURE REVIEW 5
6. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDY 7
Survey Design 7
Survey Administration 7
7. SURVEY ANALYSIS 8
8. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 11
9. CONCLUSION 12
10. RECOMMENDATIONS 12
11. REFERNCES 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Stakeholder Responsibility Matrix 6
Table 2 Dimensions of Changes 6
Table 3 Survey Response Statistics 8
Table 4 Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Part 2 8
Table 5 Descriptive Statistical and RII analysis of Part 3 9
Table 6 Descriptive Statistical and RII analysis of Part 4 10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Design-Bid-Build Procurement Model 5
APPENDIX
Sample Survey Questionnaire

4. 4
1. BACKGROUND
Engineering design of construction project is a complex and multifarious process
involving different stake holders and its quality dictates overall success of the project.
The completeness and integrity of this process highly depends on clear and concise
brief from client, interpretation of that brief by designer, close coordination with trade
consultants and its translation in terms of quality deliverables like drawing and
specifications. This paper titled “Assessing our Design Capacity, Is our Design Change
Free?” studies the factors associated with completeness of design process and scenarios
which demands changes in the final outcome.
2. SCOPE
The scope of this term paper is limited to study the design development and
implementation process, its susceptibility to changes, types of changes and their owners
in a typical design bid build environment.
3. OBJECTIVES
The objective of this term paper is to assess the state of design completeness in
construction industry while highlighting the factors and owners which constitutes the
major changes in design during construction phase and major causes of delays in
construction project.
4. METHODOLOGY
Two types of sources are utilized to gather the information in order to substantiate the
opinions as follows:
Primary Source: The primary data was gathered by designing and conducting a study
targeted towards major contributors to the design like clients, architects, structural
engineers, MEP engineers and in some extent towards contractors as they implement
the design. The study answers the questions regarding qualities, occurrence and
requirements of a complete design also nature, factors that demand changes and factors
associated with delays in a construction project.
Secondary Source: The secondary data was gathered by studying the prior research in
the areas of design process, design coordination and change management in
construction projects. The information obtained from these sources guided the
direction of research and formulation of study.

5. 5
5. LITERATURE REVIEW
In Pakistan traditional method of design-bid-build procurement system is adopted for
most of the public and private sector construction projects. A research conducted for
assessment of general trends adopted for bidding and procurement in the construction
industry of Pakistan found out that 100% of the projects among surveyed companies
are delivered using design-bid-build method with open competitive bidding and lowest
bid criteria (Farooqi et al, 2008).
For design-bid-build model, the client first acquires a consultant who starts with a
preliminary design which is then transferred into a final design and bid package through
interacting with client. This bid package is then floated among the capable contractors
and awarded to the lowest bidder who executes the works based on provided plans and
specifications (Bijari, 2007).
On the basis of this description the whole procurement process can be consolidate in to
following phases;
Figure 1 Design-Bid-Build Procurement Model
Design stage cumulates the identification of client’s requirements in the form of project
brief and constructive aspects of which are translated into procedures, plans and
specifications by the consultant which are mostly of specialist nature (e.g. Architect,
Structural Designer, MEP Consultant etc.). The main problems that have been detected
in this work sequence are little interaction among design and construction as well as
among the specialist consultants which compels the subsequent phases to work on
incomplete design with the consequences of suboptimal solutions, lack of
constructability and greater number of change orders (Alarcon and Mardones, 1998).
According to RIBA Plan of Work 2013, the responsibilities of different stake holders
as adopted in local industry during the project life cycle can be identified as follows;
Selection of Consultant
Design Development
Preperation of Tender
Package
Bidding and selection of
Contractor
Execution of Works

6. 6
Key: A-Does the Works, B-Receives, C-Coordinate, D-Review and Approves
Task Client Project
Manager
Consultant Contractor
1. Strategic Definition A - - -
2. Preparation and Brief A B B -
3. Concept Design D B A -
4. Developed Design D C A -
5. Technical Design D C A B
6. Construction D C,D D A
7. Hand over and Close out B C,D D A
8. Use A - - -
Table 1 Stakeholder Responsiblity Matrix
Generally the incompleteness of design and design defects are highlighted during the
construction stage, According to a survey, the main problems associated with design
stage are defects of individual specialist consultant, lack of coordination among
specialties, changes introduced by the owner and designers, inconsistencies among
drawings and specifications, designers with little construction knowledge and non-
technical specifications (Alarcon and Mardones, 1998).
The inherent design deficiencies are then mitigated through changes and this
phenomenon is widespread in the industry where project changes are often regarded as
inevitable (Shipton and Huges, 2013). According to a study 5 dimensions of changes in
typical construction projects are identified as follows (Wang et al, 2008);
Dimension Time Need Effect Environmental Process
Related
Changes
Proactive
Changes,
Reactive
Changes and
Crisis
Changes
Elective
Change and
Required
Change
Beneficial
Change,
Neutral
Change,
Disruptive
Change
Internal Change
or External
Change
Incremental
Change,
Punctuated
Change and
Change in
Continuity
Table 2 Dimensions of Changes
These dimension tends to provide tools for analyzing attributed and evaluating
consequences for which response strategies should be prepared accordingly. Beside
design deficiencies, changes initiated by clients subsequent to finalization of design
brief is another factor which constitutes to re-work in construction project (Peter et al
2008). Such changes may be elective or required in need dimension but are mostly
reactive or due to crisis in time dimension.
Changes are common, their causes are numerous and they are a frequent source of
conflict (Love 2002). Nevertheless, projects with high change costs are still capable of
completion in time and budget (Love 2002), subject to management system adopted to
control them.

7. 7
6. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDY
Survey Design:
The questionnaire survey was conducted to seek the opinions of key stakeholders in
construction industry. The questionnaire designed targets four areas to get the insight
from respondents. First the respondents were identified by their name, organization,
experience and role in the industry. In second part state of design was assessed by
asking ordinal type question with Likert scale related to project brief, adoption of
standards in design and design usability during tender as well as construction stage. In
third part similar to second, major causes of changes in design were identified along
with identification of owners and their role in approval process. In similar fashion major
causes of delays were identified in final part.
Three type of rating system adopted for Likert are as follows:
From Question 1 to 5 and 9
1 (1.0 – 1.5) 2 (1.5-2.5) 3 (2.5 – 3.5) 4 (3.5 - 4.5) 5 (4.5 – 5.0)
Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Often
NR RR OC FR OT
From Question 6 to 8 and 11
1 (1.0 – 1.5) 2 (1.5-2.5) 3 (2.5 – 3.5) 4 (3.5 - 4.5) 5 (4.5 – 5.0)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
SD DG NU AG SA
For Question 10
1 (1.0 – 1.5) 2 (1.5-2.5) 3 (2.5 – 3.5) 4 (3.5 - 4.5) 5 (4.5 – 5.0)
Not Important
Slightly
Important
Moderately
Important
Important Very Important
NI SI MI IM VI
A sample questionnaire is attached in appendix A of this paper.
Survey Administration:
In order to select the audience convenience sampling method was used to target the
following stake holders in construction projects
1. Project Managers
2. Architects
3. Structural Consultants
4. MEP Consultants
5. Contractors
Further Snowball Sampling technique was utilized to gather cascading responses from
above mentioned companies. Total 35 questionnaires were distributed in hard form and

8. 8
31 were responded. During the preliminary validation 1 questionnaire was found
invalid making the response percentage at 85.7% details of which are as follows:
Organization Type
Experience in Years
TotalLess
than 5
5 to 10
10 to
15
15 to
20
More
than
20
Client 0 1 0 0 0 1
Project Managers 4 2 5 0 6 17
Design
Consultants
1 2 1 0 0 4
Contractor 5 1 1 0 1 8
Total 10 6 7 0 7 30
Table 3 Survey Response Statistics
7. SURVEY ANALYSIS
Since the responses are gathered on ordinal scale resulting in parametric data,
elementary statistical analysis was performed calculating mean, median, mode and
standard deviation but the hypothesis was presented using mean.
Questions related to major causes of changes, frequency of changes with respect to
owner, importance of stake holders in approval process and major causes of delay were
subjected to detailed statistical analysis for further insight and their ranking attributes
were calculated using Relative Importance Index as per the equation below
(Muhwezi et al, 2014):
𝑅𝐼𝐼 =
∑ 𝑊
𝐴 ∗ 𝑁
(0 ≤ 𝑅𝐼𝐼 ≤ 1)
Where:
RII – is Relative Importance Index
W – is the weight given to each factor by the respondents and ranges from 1 to 5,
(where “1” is “strongly disagree” and “5” is “strongly agree” or 1 is “Never” and 5 is
“Often” for Question No.1 to 5 & 9);
A – is the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case) and;
N – is the total number of responses.
Analysis of the survey is presented in tables below;
Q.No Question Mean Median Mode S.D Opinion
Part 2
1 How often design of a project rely on
client provided project brief?
3.80 4.00 5.00 1.10 FR
2 How often client provide written and
concise project brief?
3.23 3.00 4.00 1.10 OC

9. 9
3 How often does a client changes the
project brief in middle of design?
3.70 4.00 4.00 0.75 FR
4 How often does standard form of
specifications and cost codes (like CSI
MasterFormat, SMM 7, NRM 2 etc.)
are utilized on construction projects?
3.00 3.00 3.00 0.75 OC
5 How often tailor made specifications are
drafted for construction projects?
3.03 3.00 4.00 1.13 OC
6 Rate the following statements from 1 to
5 (with 1 being strongly disagree and 5
being strongly agree) based on the
information available at tenderstage on
a typical construction project.
6.1 Sufficient for quantification 3.43 4.00 4.00 0.97 NU
6.2 Sufficient for costing 3.37 3.00 3.00 0.93 NU
6.3 Sufficient for ordering of material 2.93 3.00 3.00 0.93 DG
6.4 Sufficient for construction planning 3.57 3.00 3.00 0.94 AG
6.5 Sufficient for arranging tools and plants 3.40 3.00 4.00 0.97 NU
6.6 Sufficient for carrying out works 2.83 3.00 3.00 1.12 DG
7 Rate the following statements from 1 to
5 (with 1 being strongly disagree and 5
being strongly agree) based on the
information available at construction
stage on a typical construction project.
7.1 Sufficient for quantification 4.07 4.00 4.00 1.07 AG
7.2 Sufficient for costing 4.13 4.00 4.00 0.95 AG
7.3 Sufficient for ordering of material 4.17 4.00 4.00 0.70 AG
7.4 Sufficient for construction planning 4.30 4.00 4.00 0.56 AG
7.5 Sufficient for arranging tools and plants 4.23 4.00 5.00 0.87 AG
7.6 Sufficient for carrying out works 4.27 4.00 4.00 0.69 AG
Table 4 Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Part 2
Q.No Question Mean Median Mode S.D Opinion RII Rank
Part 3
8
Rate the following
statements from 1 to 5
(with 1 being strongly
disagree and 5 being
strongly agree) the major
causes of changes in
design after its issuance
for construction
8.1
Enhancement of design
details
3.73 4.00 4.00 0.94 AG 0.747
1
8.2
Coordination issues of
services
3.67 4.00 4.00 1.06 AG 0.733
2
8.3 Cost Curtailment 3.67 4.00 3.00 0.96 AG 0.733 2
8.4 Changes in design brief 3.57 4.00 4.00 1.01 AG 0.713 3
8.5
Design development in
Shop Drawings
3.23 3.00 3.00 1.04 NU 0.647 4
8.6 Constructability Issues 3.20 3.00 3.00 0.76 NU 0.640 5

10. 10
8.7
Changes in selection of
materials
3.00 3.00 3.00 1.02 NU 0.600 6
9
How often the changes in
design are introduced by
following stakeholders?
9.1 Design Consultants 4.13 4.00 4.00 0.68 FR 0.827 1
9.2 Client 4.07 4.00 5.00 1.11 FR 0.813 2
9.3 Project Managers 2.57 2.50 2.00 0.73 OC 0.513 3
9.4 Contractor 2.17 2.00 3.00 0.79 RR 0.433 4
10
Rate the importance of
following stakeholders
from 1 to 5 (with 1 being
not important and 5 being
most important) in
approvals of change and
variation orders
10.1 Client 4.40 5.00 5.00 0.89 IM 0.880 1
10.2 Design Consultants 3.90 4.00 4.00 0.80 IM 0.780 2
10.3 Project Managers 3.63 4.00 4.00 0.80 IM 0.727 3
10.4 Contractor 2.73 3.00 3.00 1.17 MI 0.547 4
Table 5 Descriptive Statistical and RII analysis of Part 3
Q.No Question Mean Median Mode S.D Opinion RII Rank
Part 4
11
Rate the following
statements from 1 to 5
(with 1 being strongly
disagree and 5 being
strongly agree) the major
causes of delay on a
typical construction
project.
11.1
Missing information in
construction documents
4.10 4.00 5.00 0.96 AG 0.820 1
11.2
Delay in resolution of
queries
3.80 4.00 4.00 0.85 AG 0.760 2
11.3
Introduction of frequent
changes in design
3.67 4.00 4.00 1.12 AG 0.733 3
11.4
Delay in approval of shop
drawings
3.43 3.00 3.00 1.01 NU 0.687 4
11.5
Delay in approval of
samples
3.17 3.00 3.00 0.83 NU 0.633 5
11.6
Delay in preparation of
shop drawings
3.10 3.00 4.00 0.99 NU 0.620 6
11.7
Delay in procurement of
samples
3.10 3.00 3.00 0.84 NU 0.620 6
11.8
Incompetency of
Contractor
2.93 3.00 4.00 1.20 NU 0.587 7
11.9 Unavailability of material 2.80 3.00 3.00 1.13 NU 0.560 8
11.10
Billing and Cost related
issues
2.77 3.00 2.00 1.19 NU 0.553 9
11.11 Unavailability of labor 2.47 2.00 2.00 1.04 DG 0.493 10
Table 6 Descriptive Statistical and RII analysis of Part 4

11. 11
8. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
State of design completion in construction industry:
First objective of this study was to assess the state of design completion in the industry, the
research undertaken stipulated that construction projects are frequently based on client’s
project brief (M=3.8, S.D=1.10) which is provided occasionally in written and concise manner
(M=3.2, S.D=1.10). But, it is frequently changed by the client in middle of the design phase
(M=3.70, S.D=0.75). As far as adoption of standards is concerned, consultants occasionally
adopts standard form of specification and cost codes like CSI Master Format, NRM 2, SMM 7
etc. (M=3.00,S.D=0.75) and same stands true for adopting the specification in tune to the
project (M=3.03, S.D=1.13) resulting in redundant clauses and ill coordinated documents.
Further, concerning to the confidence, industry is in agreement that construction planning could
be done based on information available at the tender stage (M=3.57, S.D=0.94) but they are of
neutral opinion regarding the exact quantities (M=3.43, S.D=0.97), cost (M=3.37, S.D=0.93)
and arrangement of tools and plants for works (M=3.40, S.D=0.97). They significantly
dis-agree with the statement that ordering of materials (M=2.93, S.D=0.93) and execution of
works (M=2.13, S.D=1.12) could be done with the information available at this stage which is
understandable as the design is usually not fully developed at this stage.
It should be noted with concern that this confidence level do not increase considerably when
the design is transferred to construction stage where the industry agree but not strongly with
the statement that construction planning (M=4.30, S.D=0.56), quantification (M=4.07,
S.D=1.07), costing (M=4.13, S.D=0.95), arrangement of tools and plants (M=4.23, S.D=0.87),
ordering of material (M=4.17, S.D=0.70) and execution of works (M=4.27, S.D=0.69) could
be done with the information available at construction stage, which implies that design still
remains incomplete even after it issuance for construction leaving opportunities for addendums
and revisions.
Factors and Owners which causes changes in design during construction stage:
The second objective of this study was to highlight the factors and owners which constitutes
the major changes in design during construction phase, the research undertaken established that
Enhancement of design details is the number one factor (RII=0.747) constituting towards
change in design after its issuance for construction, followed by Coordination issues among
services (RII=0.733), Cost curtailment (RII=0.733) and changes in design brief (RII=0.713). It
is to be noted that site related issues like design development in shop drawings, constructability
issues and changes in selection of materials ranked 4, 5 and 6 with RIIs of 0.647, 0.640 and
0.600 respectively which is below 0.700 mark. This implies that major changes in design after
its issuance for construction are mainly related to deficiencies in design provided at
construction stage.
This assumption is further reinforced by the fact that Design Consultant and Client are rated
no. 1 and 2 in terms of introduction of changes (RII=0.827 and 0.813 respectively) while the
RIIs of Project Managers (RII=0.513) and Contractor (RII=0.433) were below 0.599 making
them insignificant.

12. 12
As far as importance of stakeholders in approval process of changes and variation order are
concerned we saw a similar kind of trend where Client was ranked at no. 1 and Design
Consultants were ranked at no. 2 with RIIs of 0.880 and 0.780 respectively.
Major causes of delays in Construction Project:
The third objective of this study was to highlight the major causes of delays in light of the
overall scheme of the study, the research undertaken identified Missing information in
construction documents as the number 1 cause of delay (RII=0.820) which confirms and relates
to the findings of previous sections where it was established that design remains incomplete at
construction stage and major factor for introduction of changes was enhancement of design
details. This factor is followed by delay in resolution of queries ranked at no.2 (RII=0.760) and
Introduction of frequent design changes ranked at no.3 (RII=0.733). The occurrence of delays
due to sampling and approval process are ranked between 4 and 6 with RIIs ranging between
0.687 and 0.620.
It is interesting to note that in repetition of the pattern observed in previous sections the
occurrence of delays related to execution like Incompetency of contractor, Unavailability of
material and labor as well as billing and cost related issues are all ranked below no.6 with RIIs
of less than 0.599 making them insignificant.
9. CONCLUSION
Capacity to design is inherently dependent upon the inputs of the facility owner and operator
i.e. client, understanding of those inputs by the designer and his professional capabilities. A
good design is one which formulates these inputs into an executable solution communicated in
a most understandable way. However, no matter how good and complete the design was and
how well it was communicated, changes are inevitable and their causes can be many.
Nevertheless, projects with high rate of change are still capable of completion in time and on
budget as well as perform their function in best manner depending on how well the changes
were managed.
The aim of this study was to assess the design capacity in Pakistani construction industry and
it was found out that design is dependent on project brief which is occasionally provided and
frequently changed by the client. With standards not adopted and specification not tailored for
individual projects the confidence of contractor on the construction document remains below
the optimum level, which is further reduced by introducing frequent changes to complete the
incomplete and further enhance the level of design at construction stage. This factor also
constitute mainly towards the delay that occurs on the project.
The hypothesis thus presented paints a dark picture of design capacity in our industry. Despite
of having professionals of repute and experience we are facing the dilemma of changes and
re-work which have its financial as well as environmental impacts.
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to further enhance our design capacity, flowing recommendations are made based on
the evaluation of this study;
 Client should be well aware of its needs and future plans.
 A clear and concise brief should be provided to the design consultants by the client.

13. 13
 All stake holders should agree upon that brief and provide surety that a solution can be
met by utilizing their skills and abilities.
 Standards for design documentation should be adopted, specification should be tailored
specifically for the project well suited to its environment and conditions.
 Construction documents like drawings, BOQs and Specifications etc. should be well
coordinated and should communicate a single actual picture of the project.
 Efforts should be made to utilize latest in BIM technology to cater the constructability
and service coordination issues that could arrive at site.
 Input of market leading contractors should be taken during the design stage to have a
better idea of the real world constraints that could arise during construction.
 Changes should be logged, tracked and managed through a proper system.

14. 14
11. REFERENCES
A competitive bidding decision-making model considering correlation, Hesam Bahman-
Bijari, 2007.
An assessment of General Trends adopted for bidding and procurement in the construction
industry of Pakistan, Rizwan U. Farooqi, Muhammad Saqib, Farrukh Arif, Sarosh H. Lodhi,
First International Conference on Construction In Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I), 2008.
An Assessment of the Factors Causing Delays on Building Construction Projects in Uganda,
L. Muhwezi, J. Acai, G. Otim, International Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 2014.
Improving the design-construction interface, Luis F. Alarcón and Daniel A. Mardones, 2015.
Influence of Project Type and Procurement Method on Rework Costs in Building
Construction Projects, Peter E. D. Love, 2002.
Making changes in practice, an ethnographic study of hospital project, Clare Shipton and
Will Hughes, 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2013.
RIBA Plan of Work, Royal Institute of British Architects, 2013.
Volatility in Construction: Different Dimensions and Types of Changes, Zhuoyuan Wang,
Benson T.H. Lim, and Imriyas Kamardeen, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics
and Building Conference Series, 2012