Adapting a Design-Construction Integration Methodology to Improve Construction Education

A review of the literature indicates a strong correlation exists between the level of design-construction integration on a project and a project’s ultimate performance and identifies the lack of design-construction integration as one of the primary weaknesses of the design-bid-build contracting method used within the public works industry. To address this issue, a research project was conducted that developed a conceptual framework for utilizing a lessons-learned database to improve design-construction integration on public works projects. The methodology relies on the repeatable nature of the project development process, utilizes the key decision-making activities of generating and evaluating alternatives as opportunities for interfacing with the lessons-learned database, and incorporates the data collection and retrieval functions into standard project management reporting mechanisms. Both an industry expert panel and a hypothetical case study indicated the methodology’s potential for improving design-construction integration. Such a methodology also has potential implications for improving civil engineering and construction education. However, additional research is required to verify the best methods for adapting the methodology for use in the educational process.  

Key Words: Lessons-Learned Database, Design-Construction Integration, Project Delivery

Introduction 

The world’s civil infrastructure systems, increasingly complex and interconnected, are under stress and eroding due to age, neglect, misuse, and excessive demand (Bordogna, 1995). As a result, public work agencies are faced with the task of building new facilities and/or upgrading existing systems in order to provide adequate levels of service. However, limited financial resources and inefficient procurement methods for engineering and construction services have made it difficult to deliver the required improvements in a timely manner or within the available budget. 

Despite these difficulties, the delivery system for most public works projects has changed little over the last several decades. The project development process of planning, engineering, constructing, and operating a facility is often segmented and sequential where one entity performs and completes a task before passing the results on to another, different entity for further processing and so on until the project is completed. The commonly used design-bid-build project delivery method is a reflection of this segmented process as the engineering is first completed by one entity, construction bids solicited, and then the project constructed by a different entity.  

The segmented, sequential nature of the design-bid-build project delivery method restricts feedback between project phases and tends to produce opaque results where much of the decision-making rationale and information is hidden from subsequent participants. This impedes communication and obstructs understanding between entities, which often leads to contractual disputes when errors or changes are encountered on a project (Reinschmidt, 1991). Such disputes drive up project costs and delay project completion and are considered a major contributing factor in the lack of productivity improvement within the construction industry (Business Roundtable, 1983). In addition, lessons-learned during a project are not readily transferred to others within the industry as each party maintains exclusive control and ownership of any new experience gained. The end result is a lost opportunity for future innovation that could improve performance, reduce costs, or shorten delivery schedules. 

Due to the apparent shortcomings of the traditional design-bid-build project delivery method, alternative approaches are being tried to lower costs and increase productivity in delivering public works projects. Formal contracting methods such as design-build and construction management-at-risk, and non-contracting management techniques such as partnering, constructability, and concurrent engineering are all being investigated in an effort to improve the exchange of information and knowledge between the owner, engineer and contractor, particularly on larger, more complex projects. However, the applicability and effectiveness of these alternative methods on the more typical and routine type public work project has yet to be fully demonstrated. 

Despite this fact, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that, if identified, the same underlying principles that make these alternative methods effective on larger projects could be effectively applied to these more straightforward projects. To address this issue, a research project was conducted to identify the fundamental principles and develop a framework for applying them on public works projects, particularly within the context of the traditional design-bid-build project delivery system (Gehrig, 2002).  A secondary corollary result of the research effort is the possibility of adapting the same framework to improve construction education. 

Literature Review 

A basic premise of the research project was that the performance of public work projects could be improved through improved coordination or communication between the design and construction sectors during the project development process. The continuous interdisciplinary sharing of data and knowledge between design and construction is known in the research literature as “design and construction integration.” As this describes a rather ambiguous process, researchers have attempted to further define the concept. 

Initial research efforts described the concept of design and construction integration in terms of a two dimensional model (Vanegas, 1987). The model’s horizontal direction encompassed integration between project disciplines such as architectural, structural, mechanical, etc. while the vertical direction encompassed integration across project phases such as planning, design, construction, etc. Building on the model, others added a third, longitudinal vector that includes integration over time and across successive projects (Fergusson, 1993). 

Therefore, design and construction integration is comprised of three principal components. One that focuses on the coordination of parties during a common or single phase of a project, a second that focuses on the interaction or exchange of information between successive project phases, and a third that encompasses organizational development or lessons-learned over time through repetition with similar projects. Although considerable research effort has been focused on improving horizontal or inter-disciplinary integration, research has demonstrated that the vertical and longitudinal components of integration have a more significant impact on overall project quality then does the horizontal component (Fergusson, 1993). 

Supporting the conclusion that efforts should be focused on improving vertical integration, it has been shown that the ability to influence a project’s final outcome decreases over the life of a project (ASCE, 1990). In other words, decisions made early in the initial phases of a project while obligated expenditures are still low have a greater capacity to shape a project’s final performance then later decisions. Therefore, construction expertise or feedback must be brought into the review process at the earliest conceptual stages of a project (Mendelsohn, 1997). 

Efforts to quantify the cause and effect relationship between improved integration and improved project performance have been hampered by the difficulty in measuring the degree of integration occurring between participants on a project. However, in instances where the degree of integration has been measured, a positive statistical correlation between the degree of integration and improved project performance has been demonstrated (Pocock, 1996). Unfortunately, most design and construction integration studies lack hard, quantitative data concerning the benefits resulting from improvements in integration. 

Due to the segmented, sequential nature of the design-bid-build delivery system, the contractor does not become involved in the project until relatively late in the overall project development process and, therefore, has very little opportunity to provide construction related input to the design process. Not surprisingly, this has been identified as one of the major weaknesses of design-bid-build (Iyer, 2000). One consequence from this lack of integration is an increase in the cost of a project, estimated to be in the range of 10 to 20% (Heery, 1993). 

In contrast, the design-build delivery system allows the contractor to be brought into the project development process much earlier. This enables the contractor to provide more construction related input to the design process and results in improvements in project cost, schedule, functionality, and contract administration over traditional design-bid-build projects (FCC, 1993, Konchar, 1998, Molenaar, 1999). As a result, more public agencies are becoming interested in the concept; however, there remain both legal and institutional barriers to its adoption within the general pubic works industry (Terrill, 1998).  

Despite the apparent advantages of improving design and construction integration, there is no clear understanding of how to formally incorporate construction knowledge and experience into the project development process (Anderson,  2000, Vanegas, 1987). Several researchers have discussed the potential of utilizing a lessons-learned database as a tool in improving design and construction integration (Gugel, 1994, Russell, 1994, O’Connor, 1994). Others have indicated that part of the problem can be contributed to the current delivery method for engineering and construction education in the United States (Fergusson, 1993, Nam, 1992). 

Formulation of Improved Design and Construction Integration Methodology 

The first step of the research was to identify the critical informational exchange links within the traditional design-bid-build project delivery process. This was accomplished by reviewing relevant project development process models found in the research literature and utilizing the Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0) technique to synthesize a comprehensive model of the public sector design-bid-build project development process from project conception through to completion of construction. From the model, the type and flow of information could be tracked and areas of potential improvement in design and construction integration identified. 

A review of the aggregated model revealed a repeatable nature to the project development process, across both project phases and from project-to-project. This repeatable nature is significant as it allows a consistent design and construction integration methodology to be developed and linked to all phases of a project. From the model, it was also possible to identify the activity of generating and evaluating alternatives as the key repeatable opportunity for improved design and construction integration. 

The next step of the research was to determine the domain and structure of the informational exchange requirements. This was accomplished through a series of formal structured expert interviews conducted with individuals selected from the underground utility sector of the public works industry. As the research was concerned with improving integration among project participants, a pool of individuals forming a representative cross section of the owner, design, and construction sectors was created.  

Responses from the interviews revealed that a project could be characterized according to a narrow range of critical decisions. These critical decisions were defined as those which have the greatest potential to influence the final outcome of a project and, therefore, would benefit most from improved design and construction integration. For example, identified critical decisions on underground utilities included, but were not limited to, project sequencing, construction methods, horizontal and vertical alignment, and pipeline materials. Thus, if the decision-making rationale behind these types of critical decisions could be documented and saved, the lessons-learned could be used by others to improve the overall design and construction process on future projects. 

Within the interviewed industry group, it was revealed that efforts to document lessons-learned on a project were extraordinary weak. Most within the group were not tracking reoccurring changes or problems in a formal manner nor were they documenting critical decisions, particularly the rationale or “why” behind decisions made. When asked why not, most respondents mentioned the potential increased administrative burden and difficulties associated with collecting the information. 

Based on the results from the project development process modeling and responses from the industry interviews, a conceptual framework for utilizing a lessons-learned database to improve design and construction integration on public sector projects was developed. The collected lessons-learned would be the critical decision-making rationale associated with the key repeatable activities of generating and evaluating alternatives, thereby allowing users of the system to extract relevant lessons-learned when faced with similar decisions on other projects.  The collected rationale would form the basis for a knowledge based decision support system that would aid in generating and

evaluating the alternatives in response to project data entered by the user. The entire system would be developed with a web-based graphical user interface tied to industry standard project management reporting mechanisms. A diagram of the overall concept indicating how the system is tied to the project development process is shown in Figure 1.

The proposed framework would consist of a series of reporting modules that would allow information to be entered into the system’s databases. As contractors and design professionals often change from project-to-project on public sector projects, the lessons-learned database would be hosted and maintained by the public works agency or owner. Therefore, there would be an administrative module that would allow the owner to establish controls over the use and modification of the lessons-learned database.

Once a particular project was initiated, representatives from the owner, contractor and engineer would be contractually mandated to document lessons-learned information through the web-based system. To reduce any associated increase in administrative burden, the lessons-learned information would be extracted through industry standard project management reporting mechanisms such as periodic project status or inspection reports. The knowledge-based system would be configured to recognize from the information being entered into a periodic status report when a critical decision has likely occurred. At that point, the system would then lead the user through the procedure of documenting the rationale behind the critical decision. If no critical decision had occurred, the user would just complete the standard periodic report. Such a reporting mechanism allows the collecting and retrieval of lessons-learned data while project participants generate information and reports that would otherwise be required anyway. 

Information to be saved in the lessons-learned database includes the periodic status reports, the critical decision rationale reports with supporting documentation, construction change order rationale reports, and post project evaluations. The post project evaluation would allow each of the critical decisions made during the course of a

project to be evaluated based on their ultimate impact on the project. Each decision’s critique would be linked back to the original documentation so that subsequent users would automatically be presented with both the original decision rationale and its post-project evaluation when the lessons-learned database is queried. 

The final component of the proposed system includes the lessons-learned database query function. As the system would be hosted by public work agencies, the collected knowledge within the lessons-learned database would fall within the public domain and open public access would be granted to query the database. When faced with a critical decision, owners, contractors, and engineers would be able to query the database to determine how similar situations had been handled on previous projects. The decision support system would assist the user in determining and evaluating alternatives based on the knowledge within the lessons-learned database. An overall schematic of the proposed system is given in Figure 2. 

Hypothetical Case Study 

A hypothetical case study was developed to illustrate the underlying principles of the proposed concept. The case study was structured to highlight the repeatable nature of the project development process, the types of typical decision-making activities that may occur within the process, and how project participants would interact with the lessons-learned database. By comparing the differences between the same typical project with and without the system, the case study demonstrates the potential benefits and incentives accruing to project entities from the proposed lessons-learned based framework. 

The hypothetical case study involves a public works agency charged with the design and construction of a new 24-inch diameter pipeline. The full case study illustrates how the lessons-learned framework could improve communication and decision-making during all phases of the project and among all project participants including owners, engineers, and contractors. However, this paper presents only one decision activity in detail, which is a decision to select the horizontal alignment of the pipeline within an east-west roadway. Such a decision is typically made during the preliminary design phase and has possible ramifications on the construction of the project. 

Considering the case study of the project without the lessons-learned database, based on site constraints the engineer determines that there are three available options: the north side of the roadway, the center of the roadway, and the south side of the roadway. Because of a constraint to keep access open to adjacent businesses, the engineer selects a horizontal alignment that proceeds down the center of the road. The engineer notes the decision in a periodic project status report. At completion of the pipeline’s construction, no unusual difficulties were noted concerning horizontal alignment. 

Now, the same situation is considered but with the available aid of the lessons-learned methodology. As before, the engineer initially recognizes the same three options:  the north side of the roadway, the center of the roadway, and the south side of the roadway. Considering the same business access constraint, the engineer again selects a horizontal alignment that goes down the center of the road. The engineer then automatically documents the decision-making rationale in the lessons-learned database during the course of completing a modified version of a project status report. 

While preparing his bid proposal for the project, a contractor recognizes that it would be quicker and more cost-effective if the pipeline was laid down the north side of the roadway. Noting a potential competitive advantage, the contractor queries the lessons-learned database to determine the rationale behind the engineer’s decision to lay the pipeline down the center of the road. As a result, the contractor learns of the engineer’s concern with maintaining access to surrounding businesses. Therefore, the contractor investigates the project site further and discovers an alternative method for maintaining access to the businesses. 

As a result, the contractor bids the project accordingly and is awarded the project. The contractor then presents the alternative pipeline route to the owner and requests approval to make the alignment change.  A change order is issued and all parties document the rationale behind the change in the lessons-learned database. The final outcome is a more cost-effective project for the owner and an increased competitive advantage for the contractor.    

It would be incorrect to assume that all decisions currently being made during the design and construction of a project are flawed and, therefore, could be improved by the proposed methodology. In fact, most current decisions are likely based on sound engineering principles and professional judgment. However, this does not mean that the opportunity to improve the decision-making process is insignificant as improving just one or two critical decisions could have a positive impact on overall project performance. 

It would be equally incorrect to assume that the proposed framework would be infallible and will have a positive impact on all decisions. An occasional negative outcome would be unavoidable as any lessons-learned database is going to be limited in its domain and will not contain an infinite amount of knowledge concerning all things or situations. It is because of this potential for negative outcomes that the proposed lessons-learned database framework includes a post-project evaluation component as often the impact or result of a decision, even if made during the earliest stages of a project, is not fully known until the project is completed.  

Results and Conclusions 

The hypothetical case study performed as part of the research highlighted several potential benefits or incentives accruing to users of the system. The primary benefit accruing to the owner is an overall improvement in project performance and delivery. Engineers and contractors potentially benefit from improved designs, the ability to submit more responsive proposals for work, and reduced misunderstandings and disputes. The end result is an improved competitive advantage and working relationship with the owner.  

A prototype of the lessons-learned based system was presented to the initial group of industry experts for their evaluation. The consensus was that the concept could be beneficial to project performance within the underground utility public works industry. However, it was noted that the proposed framework has a natural owner-centric bias as the owner is going to benefit most over time through the collection of lessons-learned information obtained from a variety of sources and projects. Therefore, engineers and contractors would likely be reluctant to voluntarily take on the additional administrative burden of documenting their lessons-learned on the owner’s behalf. Nevertheless, the parties indicated that they would participate if the process was contractually mandated by the owner.

If such a lessons-learned based system could be successfully implemented by industry, it would be possible to adapt the methodology to improve civil engineering and construction education. Several of the interviewed industry experts cited shortcomings in the current method of delivering civil engineering and construction education as part of the reason for the lack of design and construction integration found within the industry which confirms the research of others cited previously. They commented that engineers are not being sufficiently trained to evaluate the constructability of their designs nor are contractors sufficiently trained to evaluate the engineering implications of their operations. Part of the reason is that architecture, civil engineering, and construction education have become separated making it difficult for both students and educators to meaningfully engage with other disciplines within the industry. 

If the rationale behind the critical engineering and construction decisions being made during projects could be documented and incorporated into a publicly available web-based system as described in this paper, both students and educators would be able to access the system as part of the educational process. This would potentially allow engineering students to improve their understanding of constructability issues faced by contractors and, thereby, improve their engineering designs. Conversely, it would also allow construction students to gain an appreciation of the decision-making rationale used during the engineering design process and, thereby, provide opportunities for improved communication between the two professions. In short, such a lessons-learned based system would expand both the quantity and quality of professional industry experience available for use during the educational process. 

In conclusion, the research effort demonstrated that it is possible to develop a lessons-learned based framework that would improve design and construction integration and project performance on public sector underground utility projects. The concept would improve integration in the longitudinal or project-to-project direction by allowing experienced gained on earlier projects to be incorporated on future projects. In addition, such a methodology has potential implications for improving civil engineering and construction education. However, additional research is required to verify the best methods for adapting the methodology for use in the educational process. 

References 

American Society of Civil Engineers. (1990). Quality in the constructed project: a guide for owners, designers, and constructors, Vol. 1. New York, NY. 

Anderson, S. D., Fisher, D. J., & Rahman, S. P. (2000). Integrating constructability into project development: a process approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126 (2). 

Bordogna, J. (1995). Civil infrastructure systems: ensuring their civility. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 1 (1). 

The Business Roundtable. (1983). More construction for the money, summary report of the construction industry cost effectiveness project. New York, NY. 

Federal Construction Council. (1993). Experiences of Federal Agencies with the Design-Build Approach to Construction (Technical Report No. 122). The National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Fergusson, K. J. (1993). Impact of integration on industrial facility quality, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University. 

Gehrig, G. B. (2002). A decision support system framework to improve design-construction integration and project performance on public sector underground utility projects. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University. 

Gugel, J. G., & Russell, J. S. (1994). Model for constructability approach selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120 (3). 

Heery, G. T., Thomsen, C. B., & Wright, C. D. (1993). Improving on Design-Build. The Military Engineer, 85 (554). 

Iyer, N. R. (2000). Integrated approach towards use of computers and IT for construction. Indian Concrete Journal, 74, (12). 

Konchar, M., & Sanvido, V. (1998). Comparison of U.S. project delivery systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124 (6). 

Mendelsohn, R. (1997). Constructibility review process: a contractor’s perspective. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13 (3). 

Molenaar, K. R., Songer, A. D., & Barash, M. (1999). Public-sector design/build evolution and performance. Journal of Management in Engineering, 15 (2). 

Nam, C. H., & Tatum, C. B. (1992). Noncontractual methods of integration on construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118 (2). 

O’Conner, J. T., & Miller, S. J. (1994). Constructability programs: method for assessment and benchmarking. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 8 (1). 

Pocock, J. B. (1996). The relationship between alternative project approaches, integration, and performance. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

Reinschmidt, K. F., Griffis, F. H., & Bronner, P. L. (1991). Integration of engineering, design, and construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117 (4). 

Russel, J. S., & Swiggum, K. E. (1994). Lessons-learned and constuctability review databases (Technical Report 116). WISDOT Research #92-07, University of Wisconsin – Madison. 

Terrill, M. A. (1998). Legal aspects of the design-build method of construction delivery. Unpublished Master’s Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin. 

Vanegas, J. A. (1987). A model for design construction integration during the initial phases of design for building construction projects. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University.