DESIGN CHANGE MANAGEMENT: DEVELOPING A SOFTWARE APPLICATION TO SUPPORT THE EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION DESIGN CHANGES

Transcription

1 DESIGN CHANGE MANAGEMENT: DEVELOPING A SOFTWARE APPLICATION TO SUPPORT THE EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION DESIGN CHANGES A Thesis Submitted to the University of Manchester for the Degree of Doctor of Engineering (EngD) in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences 2012 Helen Hindmarch School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering

2

3 List of Contents 3 LIST OF CONTENTS LIST OF CONTENTS... 3 LIST OF FIGURES... 9 LIST OF TABLES...11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...13 ABSTRACT...15 DECLARATION...17 COPYRIGHT STATEMENT...17 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...19 PREFACE...21 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH Engineering Doctorate Programme Introduction to Arup Research Background Research Aim Research Objectives Research Scope Overview of Research Contribution Publications and Conferences Thesis and Research Structure...29 Figures...33 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction Action Research/Science Research Methods used during this Research Ethnomethodology...38

4 List of Contents Review the literature Case study investigation Interviews Benchmarking Research Validity Process Improvement Measures Project Limitations Critical Appraisal of Chosen Methods Discussion and Summary Figures CHAPTER 3: CURRENT PRACTICE- ARUP Arup NW Structures Team Work Breakdown and Responsibility for Design Case Study Investigation of a Design Change Case study 1: Changing the raking beam material - the flow of communication and durations Case study 2: Change in raking beam material producing a check list of work Case study 3: Change in a stadium project using a library of process maps Case study 4: Simple building Combined Management System Managing Project Change Best practice guides Arup s change management processes Impact Assessment of Design Changes Tables Figures... 73

5 List of Contents 5 CHAPTER 4: CURRENT PRACTICE- COMPARATOR ORGANISATIONS Introduction Benchmarking Literature Study of Comparator Organisations - Methodology Study of Comparator Organisations - Interview Findings Discussion and Summary Tables Figures CHAPTER 5: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Latham and Egan Reports Design Change Management Context of project level design change The cost of design changes Types of design change Causes and sources of change The client role in the change process Approaches for managing design changes Change management systems Design Management Lean construction and Process Thinking Optimising the design process using a Design Structure Matrix Information processing based methods for managing design Knowledge management in construction projects Discussion Figures...131

6 List of Contents 6 CHAPTER 6: ProCESS: PROJECT CHANGE EVALUATION SUPPORT SOFTWARE Introduction to the ProCESS Concept Developing the ProCESS Concept Proof of Concept of ProCESS Description of the ProCESS Choice of software Creating a Design Structure Matrix Identifying existing similar changes in database DSM analysis used to identify rework tasks Producing a process map Updating Microsoft Project based on predicted Impacts Other software characteristics Description of ProCESS from the Users Perspective Discussion of the Benefits of ProCESS Tables Figures CHAPTER 7: ProCESS VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION Introduction Validation Informal validation Validation interviews Software log of bugs and suggested improvements Verification Ongoing testing Project tracking Non-expert user testing Summary and Discussion

7 List of Contents 7 CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Overview of the Research Critical Review of the Research Contribution to Knowledge Conclusions Recommendations Recommendations for Arup Recommendations for further research REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A: Research Output Conference Papers and Oral Presentations Poster Presentations Other Contributions Appendix B: RIBA Stages of Work Appendix C: ProCESS User Guide Word Count = 56,366

8

9 List of Figures 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Thesis structure relative to the research process Figure 2-1: Research methodology Figure 3-1: A schematic of the contribution to design by the client and designers. (Gray and Hughes, 2001) Figure 3-2: IDEF-0 Modelling Paradigm (Hunt, 1996) Figure 3-3: A simple IDEF-0 diagram (Hunt, 1996) Figure 3-4: Process map 1, change in raking beam material Figure 3-5: Simplified raking beam process map Figure 3-6: Option diagram for case study Figure 3-7: MATLAB GUI for case study Figure 3-8: Stadium structural design process map Figure 3-9: User interface and output from case study Figure 3-10: Process map of a generic simple building Figure 3-11: MATLAB GUI for case study Figure 3-12: Visual Basic output for case study Figure 3-13: Change opportunities and impact (CIRIA, 2001) Figure 3-14: Change management process - changes during design development (CIRIA, 2001) Figure 3-15: Change management process - urgent post-fixity changes (CIRIA, 2001) Figure 3-16: Change management process - post-fixity changes (CIRIA, 2001) Figure 3-17: Arup generic change notification and authorization process (Bennett, 2001) Figure 3-18: Assessing the impact of design changes Figure 4-1: Rank Xerox process (Camp, 1989) Figure 4-2: Faces of benchmarking, McNair and Leibfried (1994)

10 List of Figures 10 Figure 4-3: Andersen and Pettersen (1995) benchmarking wheel Figure 4-4: Phases of benchmarking by Anand et al (2008) Figure 4-5: AstraZeneca design change management process Figure 5-1: Dependent, independent and interdependent tasks (adaptation from Eppinger (1991); Eppinger et al. (1990, 1994) and Austin et al. (1994)) Figure 6-1: Basic concept of ProCESS Figure 6-2: Schematic of ProCESS Figure 6-3: Microsoft Project schedule of making a cup of tea in a cup Figure 6-4: DSM example for sour milk in project Figure 6-5: Example process map for sour milk in project Figure 6-6: Microsoft Project schedule of making a cup of tea in a teapot Figure 6-7: DSM representing the project 2 original programme Figure 6-8: Process map representing rework required for sour milk on project Figure 6-9: Detailed schematic of ProCESS Figure 6-10: Example DSM corresponding to Table Figure 6-11: Tracing rework tasks in the DSM Figure 6-12: Extracting the MiniDSM from a DSM Figure 6-13: Dynamical production of a process map from the MiniDSM Figure 6-14: Schematic diagram of how to use ProCESS

11 List of Tables 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Explanation of case study 1 process map tasks Table 3-2: Explanation of case study 1 process map links between tasks Table 3-3: Description of symbols used in equation Table 3-4: Example - Design Responsibility Matrix (Arup, 2006) Table 4-1: Semi - structured benchmarking interview guide Table 6-1: Basic DSM example of task names and predecessors Appendix Table- 1: RIBA stages of work (adapted from RIBA (2008))

12

13 List of Abbreviations 13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADePT ARCOM NW NY & Y ASEM AZ BAA BAE BEAN BNFL BT CFCRB CMS CPM D & B DFDs DSM EngD EPSRC ICT IDEF-0 IEEE IEEM IPP IRS KPC Analytic Design Planning Technique Association of Researchers in Construction Management Arup North West sub region (Manchester and Liverpool offices) Arup North West and Yorkshire sub region (a new sub region formed from merging ARUP NW with Sheffield, Leeds and York offices) American Society for Engineering Management AstraZeneca British Airports Authority British Aerospace Built Environment and Natural Environment British Nuclear Fuels, LTD British Telecom Cross-Functional Change Review Board Combined Management System Critical Path Method Design and Build Procurement System Data Flow Diagrams Design Structure Matrix Dependency Structure Method Dependency Structure Matrix Engineering Doctorate Engineering and Physical Science Research Council Information and Communications Technology Integration Definition for Function Modelling Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management Intranet Project Plan Information Required Schedule Key Performance Criteria

14 List of Abbreviations 14 LCI NEC OED PCO PD PM ProCESS QMS R & D RIBA UKMEA VB.net TPS Lean Construction Institute New Engineering Contract Oxford English Dictionary Potential Change Order Project Director Project Manager Project Change Evaluation Support Software (the software application produced as a deliverable of this research) Quality Management System Research and Development Royal Institute of British Architects UK Middle East and Africa region Visual Basic.net Toyota Production System

15 Abstract 15 ABSTRACT University: The University of Manchester Candidate: Helen Hindmarch Degree Title: Engineering Doctorate (EngD) Thesis Title: Design Change Management: Developing a Software Application to Support the Evaluation of It is widely accepted that design changes, occurring during construction projects, can account for a significant proportion of the engineering design consultant s total cost. Projects with multidisciplinary, distributed and virtual project teams, working on technically challenging problems, make the impact of design changes increasingly difficult to predict. Existing guidance suggests best practice protocols for recording, reporting and communicating design changes. However, best practice protocols do not provide guidance for predicting the impact in terms of project cost and duration. Impact assessments are essential in the decision to implement changes and subsequently being in a position to justify fee claims to clients. Decisions in the construction process are normally based on experience and professional knowledge of practitioners, such as architects, engineers, project managers and contractors. There is evidence, however, that, in design management, sharing of professional knowledge tends to be tacit and socially constructed (where team members draw on their own experience and the experience of those around them). Although practitioner experience and intuition is invaluable in determining the impact of a design change, this research is based on the position that a more structured process is required. It is argued that a software based approach, to better inform practitioners existing knowledge, is required to improve the quality and accuracy of impact assessments. The current practice for managing and assessing change was examined through studying the operations of the case study organisation, undertaking a literature review and conducting interviews with representatives from organisations in other industries. A new project management tool was then developed which provides support for practitioners to make better-informed impact assessments. This is achieved through providing: (a) a process map to visualise rework, (b) instant access to previous similar impact assessments and (c) an embedded, standardised method for knowledge sharing. The concept for this tool was developed by combining appropriate techniques and tools found in the design management and knowledge management literature. Users are further encouraged to use the software tool through a system to automate the updating of Microsoft Project schedules, thus eliminating time currently spent scheduling rework. The validation and verification stages consisted of formal interviews with potential users and preliminary user testing. Regular feedback on the support tool was obtained from a wide range of peers and potential users and this was then used to develop its functionality. Positive feedback has included comments about the concept of the tool, user-friendliness and need for implementation.

16

17 Declaration and Copyright Statement 17 DECLARATION No portion of the work referred to in thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the Copyright ) and she has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the Intellectual Property ) and any reproductions of copyright works in thesis, for example graphs and tables ( Reproductions ), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library s regulations (see and in The University s policy on Presentation of Theses

18

19 Acknowledgements 19 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my utmost thanks to Prof Andy Gale who has been my academic supervisor throughout my EngD programme. I have particularly appreciated his positive attitude and guidance through the more challenging times I have endured during this EngD. I have had the pleasure to work with some genuinely great people during this research. Thanks also go to Dr Rob Harrison and Martin Simpson, who have both been industrial supervisors at different times during the research. This industrial based research would not have been possible without the support of the Arup North West Structures Team, with whom I have spent a huge amount of time and drank a lot of tea! Particular thanks go to the project managers who have been involved in the validation and verification of the software. Specific thanks go to Dr Greg Beattie, David Heron and Catherine Darby-Roberts who have also contributed to numerous meetings that have undoubtedly increased the quality of this work. In recent months and years the increased involvement of the Management of Projects research group at the University of Manchester in providing meetings, workshops and presentations, has helped me through providing a platform for sharing and developing ideas. Particular thanks go to Dr Richard Kirkham and Dr Paul Chan for their very helpful debate and occasional banter. This research has involved numerous interviews within Arup and with representatives from other industries. I express my gratitude to Simon Henley (Rolls Royce), Nigel Fraser (BAA), Sue Clarke (AstraZeneca) and Mehmood Alam (AMEC) firstly for agreeing to meet with me and secondly for their informative contributions. This research would not have been possible without the joint funding provided by EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Science Research Council) and Arup. Further thanks go to Dr David Stanley, director of the EngD Centre, for his continued effort

20 Acknowledgements 20 to provide consistently high quality professional development courses as well as ensuring the individual wellbeing of each EngD researcher. Finally yet importantly, I thank my friends for putting up with me, during my grumpy last few months. I apologise to my family and particularly little Dan-Dan who I ve not seen as much as I should have done. Thank you Mam and Dad for your emotional and (sometimes) financial support during my eternity in education! Thank you Carl, I wouldn t have got to submission day without you!

21 Preface 21 PREFACE The author is a graduate with an MSc in Applied Numerical Computing from the University of Manchester and a BSc (Hons) in Mathematics from the University of Leeds. Work carried out during the MSc programme in Applied Numerical Computing has helped in moulding the methodology chosen for this EngD research project. In January 2008, the author commenced the Engineering Doctorate, for which this thesis was submitted for examination in December Approximately half of this time has been spent working in the sponsor organisations (Arup) offices, initially working two days a week and building this up to four days a week during the final year of the project. During the four years, the author has produced five peer reviewed conference papers and presented at four international conferences in Washington DC, Arkansas, Macau and Leeds. In 2010, a conference paper was awarded best paper (runner up) in the Annual BEAN (Built Environment and Natural Environment) Conference at the John Moores University in Liverpool. The Author, supported by the research industrial supervisory team, has recently received additional Arup (R & D) funding to enable implementation of the software application built as part of this EngD research project.

22

23 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 23 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH 1.1. Engineering Doctorate Programme This thesis is submitted for the award of Engineering Doctorate (EngD). The Engineering Doctorate is a postgraduate research based degree, which differs from the standard Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programme in that it is based in a commercial environment. An industrial company sponsors each delegate and the research project is expected to be of value to the sponsoring company. The Engineering Doctorate programme is also designed to prepare the delegates for a career in Engineering Management. Compulsory elements of the Engineering Doctorate include a professional development programme and an additional Postgraduate Diploma in Enterprise Management (PgDip). Due to these additional requirements, the programme of study is extended to 4 years from the traditional 3 years for a PhD. At the time of writing this thesis, the author has completed the PgDip in Enterprise Management and technical lectures in Project Management and Structural and Stress Analysis have been attended to support this research Introduction to Arup The industrial sponsor and case study organisation for this research project is Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, also known as Arup. Founded in 1946, Arup are an internationally renowned engineering design consultancy. Initially working on structural engineering projects, Arup came to the world s attention when they provided the structural design for the Sydney Opera House. Today, Arup are a truly multidisciplinary organisation, their recent work for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing has reaffirmed their reputation for delivering innovative and sustainable designs (Arup, 2011). The author has been working alongside the structural engineering team, in the Manchester office, which forms a part of Arup s 90 offices worldwide. The Manchester office is closely aligned with the Liverpool office and the employees often work on many of the same projects. During the majority of this research, the

24 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 24 group was known as Arup North West (NW), but a recent merger with the Yorkshire offices has led to the formation of the Arup North West and Yorkshire (NY & Y) sub region. The sub region has an impact on financial planning. In this research, however, the author has concentrated on the operations of the structures teams in Manchester and Liverpool. During the four years of this EngD research, the types of projects undertaken by the structural engineering teams in Arup NW have changed dramatically due to the economic recession. Prior to the author starting work within Arup the structures team in Manchester worked predominantly on specialist stadium structures, including the 2008 Beijing Olympic Stadium, the 2002 Commonwealth Games City of Manchester stadium, the Allianz Arena in Munich and stadia for FC Shaktar in the Ukraine and Valencia FC in Spain. At the time of starting the research in January 2008, many of the structural engineers in Manchester and Liverpool were busy working on a technically complex embargoed stadium in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Since the completion of this stadium project in late 2009 the types of projects the office work on has changed. Rather than relying solely on the income of one large project, the team now works on a variety of smaller, local projects, which have included education and health care facilities, offices and supermarkets. As such, over the duration of this research project the software deliverable has been modified in order to provide benefit on these small jobs in addition to the large stadium projects Research Background Design changes account for up to 15% of a construction project s total cost (Cox et al, 1999; Love and Li, 2000). Working in multidisciplinary, distributed and virtual project teams, on technically challenging projects makes the impact of design changes increasingly difficult to predict. Existing guidance, such as CIRIA (2002) and CII (1994), suggest best practice protocols, for recording, reporting and communicating design changes. However, these best practice protocols do not provide guidance for predicting the impact, in terms of project cost and duration.

25 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 25 Impact assessment is essential in the decision to implement a change and subsequently being in a position to justify fee claims to clients. Decisions in the construction process are normally based on experience and professional knowledge of practitioners such as architects, engineers, project managers (PMs) and contractors (Cornick and Mather, 1999). There is evidence that in managing design, sharing of professional knowledge tends to be tacit and socially constructed (Senaratne and Sexton, 2011). Where team members share and learn from the experience of those around them rather than sharing this tacit knowledge across the whole organisation. Although practitioner experience and intuition is invaluable in determining the impact of a design change, this research is founded on the belief that a more structured software based process to better inform practitioners existing knowledge is necessary to improve the quality and accuracy of impact assessments Research Aim To improve efficiency in managing design changes, through mitigating the risk associated with practitioners (project managers and engineers) making inaccurate judgements surrounding the impact of a design change, in terms of a project s schedule and cost Research Objectives The aim of the research, as detailed in section 1.4, has been achieved by concentrating the research on the following objectives: Perform a case study investigation to determine the complexity of the multidisciplinary engineering design process when design changes occur Determine, through the company intranet, combined management system, forums and interviews, how Arup manage and assess the impact of design changes.

26 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research Through benchmarking interviews, explore how other companies and industries manage and assess project level change and determine if this is comparable to the process used in the construction industry (and Arup) Investigate relevant literature to identify the relevant, tools, techniques and theories on which to build a concept piece of software to mitigate the risk associated with inaccurate impact assessments of design changes Build, validate 1 and verify 2 the software application for use within Arup Research Scope The aim of the research has been developed with the purpose of producing a deliverable that will provide benefit for Arup whilst contributing to the existing academic body of knowledge. Since Arup is an engineering design consultancy, this research has been performed by considering the design change management process from the perspective of design consultants, rather than the perspective of a client, architect or contractor. The research has been carried out with input from the structural engineering team in Arup s NW sub region. The software has been produced, validated and verified with structural design tasks in mind, with the intention of implementing the software within the structures teams in Arup s Manchester and Liverpool offices. An investigation of their current practices found that the structures team tends to use Microsoft Project to schedule work. Microsoft Project was chosen as the projectscheduling tool behind the software. It is beyond the scope of this project, but not impossible, for the software support tool to be developed to incorporate Primavera or other planning software, this would require further work. The ultimate aim is to implement the software throughout Arup and across various engineering disciplines. This again, was beyond the scope of the current doctoral project. Additionally, there 1 Verification: Am I building the product right? Informal definition by Boehm (1984) 2 Validation: Am I building the right product? Informal definition by Boehm (1984)

27 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 27 is evidence that the software would be applicable to other organisations and industries (such as ICT) and a possibility to commercialise the software exists Overview of Research Contribution The outcomes of this research contribute significantly to both academia and industry. The research contains originality and provides a substantial addition to the academic body of knowledge and the operations of the sponsor organisation. The operations of Arup, existing best practice protocols and interviews with representatives from other industries, highlight that existing protocols to manage design changes do not provide guidance on how to assess the impact of design changes, in terms of their effect on a project s schedule and cost. Findings drawn from Arup and the existing body of literature provide evidence that, within the construction industry, knowledge sharing tends to be tacit and socially constructed. In terms of assessing the impact of design changes, project teams tend to work together to share their professional judgement and previous experience. This activity is coordinated by an experienced project manager who will predict the likely impact of the change. The outcome of this research to the sponsor organisation is a software application, which can be used by project managers to better inform their existing knowledge and professional judgement. The software application fits within the sponsor organisations existing combined management system (CMS) and provides the following benefits: Process maps of design tasks requiring rework - these can be used by the project manager to visualise rework, used to explain the design process to less experienced team members and justify fee claims to clients. A database provides access to the reasons for previous inaccurate judgements, thus helping the project manager to identify additional items to consider whilst producing impact assessments of design changes.

28 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 28 A database provides the details of project managers who have dealt with similar changes on similar projects. This encourages project managers to share tacit knowledge throughout the organisation rather than relying on socially constructed networks of communication. The existing process for managing design changes requires manual rescheduling of design tasks. The software tool provides automated updating of a Microsoft Project schedule, thus eliminating time currently spent scheduling rework. This software application has been developed by combining tools and techniques found in the existing literature and implementing them in a different application. These tools and techniques include the use of process mapping and the use of a design structure matrix (DSM) which has previously been used when initially scheduling design tasks. There is little existing literature providing information about how the impact of design changes is assessed and the use of process maps and the DSM within the process of assessing the impact of design changes has not previously been documented. This thesis documents a unique socio-technical software application, which allows project managers to maintain their dynamic thinking, accountability and responsibility, whilst providing a structured practice and better informing impact assessments of design changes Publications and Conferences The author has produced five peer reviewed conference papers and presented at four international conferences in Washington DC, Arkansas, Macau and Leeds. In 2010, a conference paper was awarded best paper (runner up) in the Annual BEAN (Built Environment and Natural Environment) Conference at John Moores University in Liverpool. Four posters and one oral presentation have been presented at internal conferences organised by the University of Manchester. A joint paper/ presentation and a poster

29 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 29 have been presented at an internal company conference organised by the Arup Doctoral College. Another paper has been published and presented at an ARCOM (Association of Researchers in Construction Management) doctoral workshop. A journal paper is in the process of being written and will be submitted to the ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. A full list of publication citations is available in Appendix A Thesis and Research Structure Due to this being an EngD research project, there is considerable industry application. The research project has developed through investigating the change management process within Arup. The chosen method was to produce a software application for use within Arup. The development of the software application constitutes the pilot work (initial software attempts) and the main fieldwork. Verification and validation was about testing that the software worked as expected and checking that the software was deemed appropriate (in terms of its ease of use and ability to deal with relevant data) by the practitioners who are expected to use it. Figure 1.1, describes the thesis layout relative to the research process, which has involved identifying a problem, investigating the existing theory, applying a method to perform pilot and main field work, collating results, performing analysis, interpreting the analysis and providing conclusions and recommendations. Figure 1.1 can be used by the reader to direct them to specific areas of the research. For example if the reader is particularly interested in the main fieldwork then they can use Figure 1.1 to direct them to Chapter 6: ProCESS Project Change Evaluation Support Software. Likewise, if interested in the results then Figure 1.1 would direct the reader to Chapter 7: Verification and Validation. This thesis is structured, where possible, in the order the research has been carried out. The initial introduction chapter sets the scene of the research and the research methodology chapter explains the research approach. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 could have been presented in any order since the research into Arup s change management

30 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 30 procedures, benchmarking against other industries and the literature review was an iterative process, which was carried out in parallel. Literature is presented throughout the thesis. The chapter titled, literature details a discussion of relevant literature, which has informed the research but does not fall neatly within one of the other chapters. The concept of the ProCESS software, presented in Chapter 6, was developed through combining the findings documented in Chapters 3, 4 and 5, namely, Arup s existing practices, findings within other industries and the literature review. After the concept for the software was developed, validated and verified (Chapter 7). Conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter 8. Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter introduces and sets the context of the research. The Engineering Doctorate is introduced with an explanation of how it differs from the standard PhD programme. This research is sponsored by Arup, an engineering design consultancy, and there is an expectation that the research will benefit Arup. A description of Arup and the type of work performed by the company is provided. A brief description of the research background is also included. This is followed by the research proposal including the aim, objectives and scope. An overview of the research contribution is given in addition to an overview of the publications and conference papers produced throughout this research programme. Chapter 2: Research Methodology This chapter explains the approach, methods and considerations taken into account while carrying out the research. The research has incorporated various approaches including action research and benchmarking. The qualitative research methods include observation and various forms of interview. Chapter 3: Current Practice: Case Study Organisation This chapter, details the current practices at Arup, focusing in particular on how the Structures teams in the North West sub region manage design changes as they occur on projects. Some cases study investigations have been carried out retrospectively to

31 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 31 investigate a specific change, which occurred on an Arup stadium project. Protocols for managing project change are discussed, including the CIRIA (2002) best practice protocols and the various protocols used by Arup. Chapter 4: Current Practice: Comparator Organisations This chapter investigates how project level change is managed in other industries. Interviews were carried out with representatives from Rolls Royce, BAA, AstraZeneca and AMEC. Chapter 5: Literature Review This chapter discusses current trends in the relevant literature and links the views expressed in the literature to the current findings within Arup. First general information about the construction industry is presented. The review then focuses on design change management and general design management, before moving on to knowledge management in the construction industry. Chapter 6: ProCESS: Project Change Evaluation Support Software ProCESS is a software application developed as part of this project to aid practitioners in making better-informed impact assessments of design changes. Chapter 6 details how the concept was developed from the findings detailed in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. A very simple proof of concept is shown through applying the process of making a cup of tea. A full description of how the software works is provided in addition to a simpler users perspective of how to use the software. The initial and accrued benefits of using the software tool are discussed. Chapter 7: ProCESS Validation, Verification and Implementation Chapter 7 explains how the software has been validated and verified. This includes tracking changes on a real job and logging bugs and improvements. Interviews with project managers, who will use the software, were performed. Recommendations are made for how the software should be implemented.

32 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 32 Chapter 8: Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter includes a critical review of the approach taken during the research, a discussion of the lessons learnt about field-based research, conclusions and recommendations for future work.

33 Chapter 1 Introduction to Research 33 Figures Figure 1-1: Thesis structure relative to the research process

34

35 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 35 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1. Introduction This chapter discusses the methodology adopted for this project. Figure 2.1 provides a schematic diagram of the methods used during this research. A significant factor, due to this being an EngD programme, and the nature of the industrial application being investigated, the methodology employed was action research based. Due to the industrial nature of the EngD programme other research methods were not considered appropriate Action Research/Science Kurt Lewin (1946) is widely credited with first using the term action research. Lewin s methodology has parallels with continuous improvement and is based upon a cycle of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. There is great debate in the literature surrounding the academic rigour of Action Research. This argument exists because of a wide range of definitions of action research and because of its similarities with management consultancy. It is noted, Some action research may not be very far removed from a problem solving, consultancy project (Collis and Hussey 2009, p.81) In 1980, Hult and Lennung carried out a literature survey, which revealed a wide range of definitions and emphases. Through breaking down the various definitions and looking for the least common denominators, they developed the following definition: Action research simultaneously assists in practical problem-solving and expands scientific knowledge, as well as enhances the competencies of the respective actors, being performed collaboratively in an immediate situation using data feedback in a cyclical process aiming at an increased understanding of a given social situation, primarily applicable for the

36 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 36 understanding of change processes in social systems and undertaken within a mutually acceptable ethical framework (Hult and Lunnung, 1980). Gummerson (2000) and Agyris et al (1985) use the term action science to distinguish between a consultancy type action research project and a project, that contributes to science. Gummerson agrees with Hult and Lunnung s definition of action research, stating that management action science should always involve two goals: to solve a problem for the client and to contribute to science. Gummerson has developed his own management action concept, which is specified in ten points. The key considerations of action science, which have also been carried out in this research, are to use ethically a variety of data-gathering methods to understand, plan and implement change in an organization. This includes coordinating with the client to take action in real time and not just propose action for future implementation. In addition, as mentioned earlier action research involves two goals: solving the problem for the client and contributing to science. This is also the aim of any EngD, to provide benefit to the sponsor company while also carrying out doctoral research, with a clear contribution to research, as documented in section Research Methods used during this Research The initial stage of the research was to develop an understanding of the sponsor s current practice, in terms of culture and existing protocols. Several case studies were carried out in order to establish the magnitude of design changes. Through a combination of researching the company s current practices and exploring small case study problems, an area of weakness in the design process was identified. The area identified as a weakness was the accuracy of impact assessments undertaken on design changes. The research aim was developed: to improve efficiency in managing design changes, through mitigating the risk associated with practitioners (project managers and engineers) making inaccurate judgements

37 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 37 surrounding the impact of a design change, in terms of a project s schedule and cost. A desk study of the literature on impact assessments and design management was carried out. Simultaneously, benchmarking was undertaken in order to determine the impact assessment process undertaken in other sectors (including aerospace, IT and nuclear). The outcomes of the desk study and benchmarking process were used to re-define the research problem and influenced the development of a proposed solution. The solution chosen was a software application, which would enhance the effectiveness of practitioners (project managers and engineers), making more effective and informed impact assessments. This tool is based upon supplying historic data about changes and the production of process maps to allow project managers and engineers to visualize the rework process. Historical data in question relates to that which will be generated from the time Arup starts using the software application. This following section discusses each research method in turn, to evaluate its appropriateness and to explain why it was selected. At the inception of this research project, the researcher had no background knowledge of the sponsor organisation, or knowledge of structural engineering. This had the advantage that the chosen methodology and solution was not based upon any preconceptions about how the design process should be carried out. It did mean that the researcher needed to develop a thorough understanding of how the structural team within the case study organisation operated. For the four-year duration of the research, the researcher spent between two to four days per week working in the case study organisation s office. This provided the opportunity to collect primary data through action research.

38 Chapter 2 Research Methodology Ethnomethodology Understanding an organisation s business (design) processes through observation is essential in order to appreciate the design process in the context of project and organisational contexts (environments). As Ackroyd and Hughes (1992) suggest, observation is to build up over time, an account of the way in which participants being studied manage and organize their lives as social actors. Creswell (2003) supports this argument, advising that spending a prolonged time in the field allows the researcher to develop an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study and can convey detail about the site and the people that lends credibility to the narrative account. Gill and Johnson (2010) define four possible types of observation: 1. Complete participant: where the researcher would take part in the process and their identity as a researcher would be concealed from the other team members. 2. Participant as observer: where the researcher would take part in the process and their identity as a researcher would be known by the other team members. 3. Observer as participant: where the researcher would observe the process and their identity as a researcher would be known by the team members. 4. Complete observer: where the researcher would observe the process and their identity as a researcher would be concealed from the team members. The complete observer (4) and complete participant (1) roles were not valid options since it was necessary to interact with team members to learn about their job roles within the design process. The most appropriate observational roles were observer as participant (3) or participant as observer (2). Since the researcher was not a trained Structural Engineer it was not possible to take part in the design process, however this would have been a valuable opportunity to learn the process while doing the job. This lack of engineering knowledge resulted in the researcher becoming an observer as participant. This had the advantage that the researcher could focus solely on the research. It also had the disadvantage that the researcher did not share subjective

39 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 39 awareness of how it feels to be carrying out the tasks within the process. The researcher was able to become part of the Arup team by regularly interacting with Arup employees and working alongside them; this facilitated the transfer of information to support the research. Various observational techniques were used to record, analyse and interpret the design process. Through being immersed in the project environment, the researcher was able to gain an understanding of the project environment, company culture and ethos. Formal meetings were held, where minutes were taken and agreed. Informant verification and triangulation (e.g. regularly checking minutes from previous meetings) were used in order to determine whether the discussion was interpreted as the informants had expected. The disadvantage of formal meetings when investigating the design process was that of the observer effect (Robson, 2002). For example, the team members would be reluctant in admitting where they cut corners in the process and instead would describe what they should do rather than what they actually did. The team members may also act differently during the period of the observation due to the Hawthorn effect (Gill and Johnson, 2002). The researcher tried to eliminate this effect by developing relationships with team members so that they would appreciate that the research aim was to develop a solution to improve the efficiency through eliminating unnecessary work Review the literature Throughout the project, secondary data were identified from a variety of sources. This included internal Arup reports documenting their process protocols. These reports were available through the company intranet. Public domain sources (books and journals) were used to investigate current practices in design management and impact assessment. The literature review of impact assessment highlighted a gap in the existing literature regarding methods of calculating impact assessments for design changes. The techniques defined in the literature relating to project planning and general design management were used to develop a method for improving the impact assessment of design changes (Hindmarch et al, 2010). Methodologies were

40 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 40 investigated in the literature in order to carry out case studies and benchmarking effectively. During the benchmarking study, other companies internal reports were also investigated in order to determine their processes Case study investigation Gerring (2007) defines a case study as an intensive study of a single case (or a small set of cases) with an aim to generalize across a larger set of cases of the same general type. As suggested by Gerring, to form an in depth understanding of the design process a single-case study was carried out in order to determine the rework, coordination and communication required within the design process when a design change occurs. The consequence of a design change is most severe, in terms of either its effect on the cost or schedule, when a change to an initial design assumption occurs during the detailed design stage of a project. A recent change in an Arup project was chosen as a suitable case. The project was the design of a 60,000-seat FIFA regulation stadium. The change was to redesign some of the main structural elements to be produced from prefabricated steel rather than post-tensioned concrete. This change occurred during the detailed design phase of the project. The consequence, in terms of rework, coordination and communication was investigated through a review of the relevant literature and focus groups with Arup s experts. This case was selected because it provided a real life case, which had recently occurred on a project and fitted well within the research domain (investigating the design process). At the time of agreeing the design change, the impact on the project schedule was not fully anticipated. A process map was developed during the case study to demonstrate the communication required, within design teams, in order to redesign the main structural elements. This process map shows the complex nature of design, with many loops of iteration between engineering and architectural disciplines. Using a case study to carry out this small piece of intensive research allowed the complex nature of the design process to be visualised, by both the researcher and the design

41 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 41 team. The case study was extended to consider the design, communication and coordination that would be required for a change in material from prefabricated steel to post-tensioned concrete. The process would be considerably different. This demonstrates that the initial design assumptions (e.g. material type) can have a significant effect on the design process. The design process is built-up from a combination of design assumptions Interviews Interviews are often used as a method for gathering data. As suggested by Robson (2002), asking people directly is an obvious short cut in seeking answers to research questions. Interviews do have their disadvantages in that the questions can be unintentionally biased by the researcher. This bias was eliminated where possible by using open-ended questions and performing pilot interviews. Various interview methods have been used to collect data in addition to observation and literature based research. Interviews have varied from informal chats to formally requested semi-structured recorded/ transcribed interviews. Striking the correct balance for the approach to interviewing is essential in enabling the collection of the most appropriate data. The type of interview chosen has depended upon who is being interviewed, the type of data and the necessity to eliminate researcher bias. Bias was minimised by running a pilot study of the questions and is discussed in section 4.4. Group interviews and focus groups were used within Arup to collect process data from the structural engineering design team. The advantage of using focus groups was that the team members were keen to contribute to the research but did not have much time available for additional activities. The focus group was a mixture of interviews and observation and enabled the generation of data. The focus group was used to develop a process map of the structural engineering tasks required to design a hypothetical simple building. The focus group met several times until a consensus was reached.

42 Chapter 2 Research Methodology Benchmarking It was acknowledged early in the development of the research proposal that important lessons could be learned from collaboration with The University of Manchester s industry contacts. For example, is it possible to improve performance in the built environment industry through exploring current practice in aerospace and adapting any appropriate tools? Over the last 30 years, the implementation of benchmarking has become increasingly popular. It is agreed by Rolstadås (1995) and McNair et al (1992) that benchmarking was first developed by Camp (1989) when he started to revive Xerox during Benchmarking is the search for those best practices that will lead to the superior performance of a company. Establishing operating targets based on the best possible industry practices is a critical component in the success of every business That process of consistently researching for new ideas for methods, practices, and processes, and either adopting the practices or adapting the good features, and implementing them to obtain the best is what is known as benchmarking. (Camp, 1989) Generic benchmarking was selected for this project, which is when the chosen benchmarking partners work in different industrial areas but perform similar processes. Benchmarking partners were selected from the aerospace, automotive and civil industries. The key elements of any benchmarking study include: 1. Studying and understanding one s own process 2. Finding appropriate benchmarking partners 3. Studying the benchmarking partner s process 4. Analysing the differences between one s own and the partner s process 5. Implementing improvements based on what has been learnt from the benchmarking partner

43 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 43 It is not possible to improve through solely knowing that another process provides better performance, it must also be understood how the process in question operates. In addition, understanding the enablers which allow a process to be used may help when it comes to implementing an improved process. Benchmarking against more than one company makes it possible to create a straw man model, which takes the best bits from each of the benchmarking partners to form a best practice case. The two purposes for carrying out benchmarking were, firstly, to find out how the impact of design changes is assessed in other industries. What tools and/or techniques are used to assess changes? Can these tools be adapted for use in Arup s design process? Secondly, to investigate whether the impact assessment of design changes in other industries is similar to the assessment used by Arup. In addition, could any development to improve Arup s design efficiency be adapted for use in other industries? Four companies from different sectors agreed to be benchmarked. Face to face, semi-structured interviews were chosen as the most suitable method for collecting data from the benchmarking partners. Five topics were identified for discussion: 1. Location and distribution of design team 2. Multidisciplinary team 3. Process and technology 4. Process diagram key performance criteria 5. Suitability of support tool for benchmarking partner 2.4. Research Validity Various types of bias are apparent in action research. These include confirmation bias, action bias, decision bias and problem solving bias. The effects of these types of bias on this action research project are discussed below. Action bias refers to a human tendency to do something rather than do nothing. There is a risk in action research (including process improvement) that a bias for action may hinder the choice of optimal solution (Bar-Eli et al, 2007). For example,

44 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 44 acting on a good idea rather than spending time exploring other solutions. Once a possible solution has been identified, it often becomes difficult to explore other options because of a tendency for the mind to revert to the previous solution; this is called the Einstelling effect (Bilalic, 2008). The outcome of action research based on a researcher making an improvement is heavily dependent upon the researcher s previous background, knowledge and ability. Another bias likely to occur in action research is confirmation bias where the researcher seeks out evidence to support a theory they already believe, rather than assessing evidence, which may not confirm their belief (studies include: Bilalic, 2008; Dawson et al 2002; Westen et al 2006). Process improvement could be developed in applying a variety of management approaches, including both soft and hard skills. In this research, a software solution was produced. This decision was influenced by the previous knowledge and experience of the researcher, who already had some ability to program computer code. This may be a case of the Einstelling effect, where the negative impact of previous knowledge may have affected the ability of the researcher to explore options other than a piece of software. However, the choice to build a software application fitted well with Arup s expectations in terms of a useful project deliverable Process Improvement Measures It is widely acknowledged that the first stage in developing process improvement is measuring the performance of the process. Bates (1999) gives appropriate measures for demonstrating performance improvement. In this research, the processes prior to and after improvement were compared in order to show positive improvement. This was possible because the accuracy of impact assessments of design changes, in terms of time and cost, can be measured. Thus, if the impact assessments after implementing the software support tool are more accurate than when the software is not used then there is evidence of process improvement. However, the lack of a

45 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 45 generic process performance measure makes comparing process improvement options difficult (Zou and Lee, 2008) Project Limitations The main restriction of this research project was balancing the requirements of doctoral research with the necessity to adopt the most appropriate method of process improvement. The doctoral requirements are to perform research within a four-year period. Many elements of this research would have been carried out more thoroughly if more time had been available. In particular, a more rigorous benchmarking study would have been carried out, widening the variety and number of benchmarking partners. The software validation and verification would also have been more rigorous with more user s ideas and suggestions being incorporated into the final support tool. The researcher selection and researcher s background has a major influence on the project outcomes. For this project, a researcher with a mathematical background but limited engineering knowledge was chosen. This helped in eliminating confirmation bias. However, it has limited the ability for observation as participant ethnomethodology and resulted in a significant portion of the four year research project being spent gaining an understanding of the engineering design process prior to investigating process improvements Critical Appraisal of Chosen Methods No research of this type has been performed previously with Arup s NW offices and although some best practice techniques have been used, in hindsight they could have been implemented more effectively. The ways in which the research could have been improved can be categorized into three main areas: a) Researcher bias b) Scope/ detail of research c) Process improvement measures

46 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 46 a) Researcher Bias Subconsciously, researcher bias has affected project outcomes with few areas for improvement formally identified and discussed. However, the solution that was chosen was refined over a period of 18 months with continued engagement from industry practitioners to produce a suitable tool. The performance of the solution was measured by comparing the accuracy of impact assessments when both using the tool and not using the tool. However, performance measures were not used when assessing areas for improvement. This was partially due to the Einstelling effect and action bias in that a good area for improvement and a good solution were identified and this hampered the development of subsequent, possibly more appropriate solutions. Also, due to the time pressure of the project there was haste in getting started in developing the solution rather than investigating further possibilities. If the project were to be performed again, a more structured approach to measuring performance of the process would be carried out. More options would be developed in identifying areas for improvement and in developing solutions for improving performance. b) Scope and detail of research If the time scale had permitted it, more case studies would have been investigated and the verification would have been carried out using more design changes on a variety of design projects. The benchmarking investigation was restricted due to the time it takes to carry out a benchmarking study. Identifying suitable benchmarking partners, willing to participate, arranging, and preparing interviews can be very time consuming. The benchmarking exercise highlighted a wide difference in culture between Arup and the benchmarking partners. Arup tends not to adopt protocol and has the opinion that strict protocol stifles creativity whereas the other companies investigated all had very stringent project management protocols. In terms of the impact assessment of design changes within the process, each benchmarking partner had a similar process, namely relying on experts perceived judgment. Each benchmarking partner agreed that a

47 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 47 tool to improving the accuracy of impact assessments would also be of benefit to their process. The benchmarking process was worthwhile and beneficial. However, benchmarking failed in identifying processes used in other industries, which could be transferred for use in design for construction; this was one of the initial aims of benchmarking. If more time had been available, a more intensive benchmarking study would have been carried out. c) Process improvement measures It is widely acknowledged that the first stage in developing process improvement is measuring the performance of the process. Bates (1999) gives appropriate measures for demonstrating performance improvement. In this research the processes prior to and after improvement can be compared in order to determine whether process improvement is achieved. This is possible because the accuracy of impact assessments of design changes can be measured in terms of time and cost. Thus, if the impact assessments after implementing the software support tool are more accurate than when the software was not used then there is evidence of process improvement. However, the lack of generic process performance measures makes comparing process improvement options difficult Discussion and Summary The research approach has been action research based, where a wide variety of methods have been used to gather qualitative information about Arup s existing processes. These methods include observation, focus groups, interviews and case studies. Interviews with representatives from organisations in other industries have been performed. The findings from the process used to manage change in Arup and other industries have been used to identify an area where the change management process can be improved. The existing literature has been used to formulate a concept software application to aid practitioners in making better-informed impact assessments of design changes. This software application has then been validated and verified, and is ready for implementation within Arup.

48 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 48 Time restrictions have resulted in the research scope being focused predominantly on Arup s operations. Although some interviews have been carried out with representatives from other industries, these are insufficient to generalise the findings although there is some evidence that the software application produced for Arup would be applicable for use in other organisations and industries.

49 Chapter 2 Research Methodology 49 Figures Figure 2-1: Research methodology

50

51 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 51 CHAPTER 3: CURRENT PRACTICE- ARUP 3.1. Arup NW Structures Team Arup are an international company with offices worldwide. This EngD project is geographically based in Arup s Manchester office, within the Structural Engineering team. Full access to the company s literature and intranet site was granted. The views of Arup expressed throughout this thesis have been developed predominantly through observation and semi-structured interviews with practitioners in the Manchester and Liverpool offices. However, the wider Arup community has been included with intranet searches and forum chat. The industrial purpose of this research is to provide benefit (in terms of improved process efficiency) to the Arup NW structures group. On completion of the EngD, this benefit can then be disseminated to other disciplines and offices. Since Arup are a major engineering design consultancy, any significant benefit to Arup will be transferable and applicable to the wider construction industry. Arup are an engineering design consultancy and provide the engineering design required when constructing buildings and structures; they are not architects (although they do have some architects and perform some architectural work) and they are not contractors who physically build the structure. The purpose of the structural design team is to provide the structural engineering design for construction projects. In simplified terms, this is taking an architect s concept design and producing all the information required by a contractor to build the structure. This involves many calculations to determine whether the design is structurally viable and compliant with design legislation and codes. In general, a structure is an object that carries loads from one place to another. In buildings, this is usually to transfer a load from somewhere in space to the ground without collapsing or deforming excessively (Williams and Todd, 2000). In designing a structure or building, it is necessary to consider the loads on a structure. Loads are usually categorised to include dead and live loads. A dead load is a constant load due solely to the weight of the structure. A live load is the sum of all

52 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 52 other loads on the structure. The live load may vary, for example wind and snow loads or the weight of machinery or people in a building. It is necessary to consider the combination of loads to ensure that the structure does not collapse or deform beyond acceptable levels. All loads are also categorised into static and dynamic loads. A dynamic load is a load, that oscillates in frequency over a short period. If the resonance of the load is similar to the natural frequency of the structure this can cause very large movements in the structure, which has been known to occur when soldiers march across bridges in time, and at music concerts when spectators move to the time of the beat. It is therefore necessary for the structural engineers to design a structure, which has a natural frequency, which adheres to the legislation, and design codes, which correspond to how a structure will be used Work Breakdown and Responsibility for Design Built environment projects usually follow work stages, which are governed by the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) Plan of Work (RIBA, 2007). The RIBA plan of work breaks a project down into 12 distinct stages. Each stage is contained within one of four categories: Preparation, Design, Construction and Use. Appendix B provides a table showing the different RIBA stages from inception through each design stage, tender, construction to building use. The design responsibility is delegated throughout the project. During the initial project stage the responsibility for developing a brief remains with the client. However, the client may have some input from an appointed architect. Once the brief has been developed, architects are formally appointed and become responsible for developing the concept and scheme design. During this stage, there is usually input from consulting engineers and the client, although the overall design responsibility remains with the architect. During the engineering design stage, the engineers and specialists take on the responsibility for developing the design; they will be advised by the architect and to a lesser extent the client. This process is demonstrated in Figure 3.1, which is a schematic of the contribution to the design by the client and designers (Gray and Hughes, 2002).

53 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 53 Arup are multidisciplinary engineering design consultants. On most projects the structural design team will be working with the client, external architects, internal engineering disciplines (e.g. mechanical, electrical and public health), internal and external specialist engineers (e.g. acoustic and fire), contractors and appointed project managers. It is usually during the scheme and detailed design stages that the structures team will maintain responsibility for the design development. Design deliverables are expected at each stage of the design. At the end of the brief stage, it is expected that the location, orientation, scale and project programme are known and agreed. At the end of the concept design stage, the general building systems should be agreed, e.g. the structural frame, building envelope, site infrastructure and electrical distribution. The general location and size of spaces should also be agreed prior to the scheme design stage. During scheme design, the overall geometry is resolved, each system is defined in more detail and the sizes and material of key elements is determined. At the end of the detailed design stage there should be sufficient information in the design to begin construction Case Study Investigation of a Design Change During the first two years of this research project Arup NW were working on a major stadium project in the UAE. The stadium project was used as a catalyst to perform case study investigations to develop a deeper understanding of the complexity of the design process within a real project environment. The stadium project was chosen due to both the availability of suitable data and the complex nature of its design. The project team was made up of over 40 engineering disciplines in multiple locations.

54 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 54 Stadium Project Overview The project is currently embargoed, it will not be named and its location will not be disclosed. The main client requirements were: 1. A moving roof, stadium to be used in open and closed configurations 2. Parking for 1500 cars and 60 golf carts below the podium level 3. A specific, reserved ceremonial entrance linked to existing ceremonial routes 4. Capacity of 65,000 people 5. Conforms to FIFA recommendations and requirements for hosting FIFA world cup championships, with seating close to the pitch consistent with FIFA regulations 6. A level of suite and box accommodation, dedicated suite for his royal highness in the west stand 7. Provision within his highness s suite for climate controlled viewing positions, plenty of accommodation for guests, security facilities, kitchens, washroom and a secure elevator from the secure car park under the podium. 8. Additional revenue generating facilities, sports museum, stadium tours, stadium shop etc. 9. A stadium providing thermal comfort to all spectators through the use of specific materials and through the generation of a micro-climate around spectators at all levels A project of this size and complexity requires the interaction of many design disciplines including, architectural, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, fire engineering, public health engineering and acoustic engineering. During the detailed design phase of the project a major redesign was requested and agreed. At the time of agreeing the redesign, the full consequence of the change could not be visualised. This created the opportunity to retrospectively investigate and map the work and communication required between affected design disciplines.

55 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 55 Design Change Overview The design change was to produce one of the main stadium structural elements (raking beams) from prefabricated steel, while the original design had assumed the use of post-tensioned concrete. Three types of supporting beams are used to form the bowl structure of sports stadia. They are radial, circumferential and raking beams. The raking beam is positioned on an angle and is shaped to support the terracing units. Concrete is moulded into shape while being poured whereas steel stools are welded onto steel raking beams during manufacture. This change request was initiated by the building contractor and supported by the client. There are various advantages for using each material; however, the main benefit of steel was that it could prefabricated off site while other tasks could simultaneously be carried out on site. The original concrete design took advantage of the inherent fire resistant and dynamic damping properties of concrete. Therefore, the redesign to change from concrete to steel would require additional dynamic analysis and a new fire strategy. Process Mapping Over the last 20 years, process maps have been used as part of the various methodologies developed to aid business process improvement (Biazzo, 2002; Kettinger et al, 1997) through understanding exactly how activities, people and data interact (Anjard, 1998). A structured technique is the ICAM DEFINITION language (IDEF). IDEF-0 methodology can be used for process mapping, it is based on a paradigm of activities, inputs, outputs, controls and mechanisms or controls see Figure 3.2. The inputs, outputs, controls and mechanisms must always enter on the sides shown, according to the paradigm. All processes can be defined in terms of one of these four components. A simple connected IDEF-0 diagram is shown in Figure 3.3.

56 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 56 The advantages of using a formalised method for a process diagram are that it imposes structure and provides a category for each element of the process. standardises the process mapping so that diagrams are easily communicated and consistent. The following sections contain case studies where process mapping has been used to provide an insight into the complexity of the design process Case study 1: Changing the raking beam material - the flow of communication and durations It was the structural engineers who were most affected by the change, since they needed to re-evaluate the dynamic/ damping effect of the change in material. Generally, concrete tends to be stiffer, with higher inherent damping, which is particularly important when designing the dynamic aspect of crowd behaviour. The Green Guide (Great Britain, 1997) recommends specific values for dynamic stiffness, based on practical experience. The guide emphasises that careful consideration should be given to dynamic effects before sports grounds are used for concerts. Steel raking beams tend to require extra bracing between each other. This was difficult to arrange in this stadium because a plenum was positioned underneath each terracing unit. The plenum was required to be completely empty to allow for the correct airflow through an air cooling system. Concrete has inherent fire resistance properties, whereas the use of steel requires additional maintenance and cost associated with fireproofing finishes (CIBSE, 2003). The possibility of thermal bridging also needed to be assessed, due to the possible health risk of air borne viruses caused by condensation developing on the underside of the raking beam (Mehta et al., 2008; Rural, 2001). The properties of various materials result in different outcomes when the material is heated and/or cooled; therefore, it was also necessary to allow for thermal expansion within joints (Yates, 1972). This needed to be recalculated, taking into account the specific properties of steel. It

57 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 57 Since the rest of the stadium s structure was to be produced from concrete, problems occurred regarding the connections between the steel raking beams and the rest of the concrete structure. Such connections are often very large and tend to cause conflict with the architect s aesthetic requirements. Figure 3.4 shows an IDEF-0 process map detailing the implications and re-evaluation required because of the decision to change the raking beam material from posttensioned concrete to pre-fabricated steel. This process map has been developed based on a literature review and verification with Arup representatives. To appreciate the time and cost implication of the design change each task and link within the process map must be assigned a duration and resource. Most tasks will require work, and hence will have both an assigned resource and duration, whereas most links represent the communication of data, which will usually have duration but no resource. It is assumed that the practitioner s time will be assigned to other work while waiting to receive the data. Each task and link in process map 1 is described in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. The process map produced contains 10 blocks representing tasks and 27 links representing the communication of data. The case study process map shows the complexity of a typical example of the type of change dealt with during complex, multidiscipline projects. The outcome of the case study warrants further research into how design changes are managed and assessed on construction projects. If we consider that multiple changes can occur on a project at any one time thus increasing the complexity of managing changes then it is unrealistic to expect all practitioners to communicate data effectively without some form of project/design management support. Through considering the information flow in the process map it was determined that the information required by various disciplines was often the same information, for example, being notified of a further change in raking beam size, shape or location.

58 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 58 The plenum design cannot be completed until the restraint is known; the connections depend upon both restraint and plenum design and thermal issues cannot be assessed until the connections are known. Therefore, the process map can be simplified by carrying out restraint, plenum design, connection design and thermal evaluation, in series. This results in the process map shown in Figure 3.5. By giving the duration of each task and communication link a value, the overall time can be calculated using Equation 3.1. Table 3.3 defines the symbols used in Equation 3.1. t = δ ab ( γ + 1)( δ be + i( τ e + δ ec + τ c1 + δ ce) + δ eb) ( β + 1) + δbg + j( τ g + δ gc + τ c2 + δ cg ) + δ gj + ( α + 1) + τ j + δ jb + δ jf + k( τ f + δ fc + τ c3 + δ cf ) + δ fh + τ h + δ hb bd { l( τ + δ + τ + 4 δ ) τ } + δ + MAX : d dc c cd i Equation 3.1: Time to Complete Change in Material Case study 2: Change in raking beam material producing a check list of work Case study 2 is an extension of case study 1. Instead of focusing on a specific stadium project and a change in material from concrete to steel, the study considers any change in material of a raking beam under various constraints. For example, restraint is only required when the raking beams are constructed from steel, connections require significant consideration only when the raking beam is supported by beams of a different material. A matrix representing the various options is shown in Figure 3.6. This matrix was programmed and a user interface developed using MATLAB. The user interface allows users to answer a series of questions and the output is a checklist of the tasks requiring work. The user interface and output can be seen in Figure 3.7.

59 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup Case study 3: Change in a stadium project using a library of process maps The process map shown in Figure 3.8 has been developed by an Arup senior structural engineer. The process map represents the work done by the structures department on a stadium project. This process map was initially developed as an aid to help the client to understand the process. The process map has been used in case study 3 to demonstrate how a process map can be generated, from a library of process maps, by answering a series of questions. The user interface and corresponding process map is shown in Figure Case study 4: Simple building To develop a more thorough understanding of the structural design process for a simple building, focus group meetings were held with four members of the Arup structural engineering team. These team members all had considerable experience in designing simple structures. The process map shown in Figure 3.10 was developed by the team. All team members agreed that it was a realistic representation of a generic simple building. As a team, types of changes which may occur and which areas of the design would require rework were considered. This was developed into a MATLAB programme, which calls the relevant process map from a library of process maps, shown in Figure It was noticeable that the library of process maps was taking up large amounts of storage. This showed that having a library of process maps was not a viable option. It was also decided not to use MATLAB since the final software tool would need to be accessed by a wide range of practitioners who may not be familiar with MATLAB. The case study software shown in Figure 3.12 is a user interface developed in Microsoft Visual Basic (VB.net). The software does not use a library of process maps, it is based upon coding to display or hide objects.

60 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 60 Carrying out the four case studies was fundamental to understanding the complex nature of the design process. These case studies also helped in determining what was achievable within the scope of the EngD project. While carrying out the case studies Arup s design management processes were also investigated through searching their intranet and speaking to project managers and senior engineers. Internal intranet forums were used to gain an appreciation of what is done internationally within Arup Combined Management System Arup have a Combined Management System (CMS), which contains the health and safety, quality and environmental management systems. Within the CMS there are numerous operating procedures, policies, documents and templates. It is the project manager s responsibility to ensure that their projects are managed according to the CMS operating procedures. The change management procedures fall within the Quality Management System (QMS), which is ISO 9001: 2000 certified. Certification is important to demonstrate Arup s high standards of quality and is normally a major client expectation. In order for Arup to remain ISO 9001: 2000 certified, projects are randomly audited to ensure that the CMS operating procedures are followed. During project delivery, the CMS has a five-stage process for managing project changes. 1. All project team members are responsible to communicate any significant changes to the PD (Project Director) before proceeding (specific forms are provided). 2. The PD must request changes to the scope of service. 3. If the PD has agreed to the change request the PM (Project Manager) must submit a record of the change to the client or the client s delegated agent, for his information, comment or approval (a template letter is provided). 4. The PM must instruct the team on any necessary action.

61 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup The PM must summarise changes on the project change register (this is a specific form) and update the project plan if necessary. Evidence of the communication at each stage in the process must be provided if requested during an audit. Forms and template letters exist to aid team members in communicating the potential change Managing Project Change There are various sources of change in a project, which will have a knock-on effect on how they are managed. For example, a legislative change will be a required change which the client must accept. Another required change is if the site conditions change. Other changes will be elective changes where the client can choose whether to implement the change. Examples include design changes, client change to scope or a request from the contractor. As the design process continues, the level of detail in the design increases, subsequently the cost impact of a design change also increase. This is shown in Figure Conversely, the early stages of a project can be seen as an opportunity to introduce change whereas this opportunity diminishes as the project progresses. The effect that a change has on a project can be defined as direct or indirect. A direct effect can be measured and is often chargeable when the change is instigated or supported by the client. A direct effect is the additional time and cost required to implement the change. The direct effects were studied in the case study described in section 3.3. Indirect effects include the waste associated with an increase in coordination failures and lower employee morale Best practice guides In 2001, a best practice guide for managing project change was published by CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association). The research work leading to this best practice guide was carried out by Arup under contract with CIRIA. The study was guided by a steering group made up of stakeholders in the construction supply chain.

62 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 62 Lazarus and Clifton, the authors of CIRIA, (2001) differentiate different types of project changes as design development and post-fixity change. Design development is defined as, Change during design development must relate to a starting-point, the baseline for that activity. Initially, this is the project described in terms of client objectives, the basic functional brief, and the design cost and time budgets. This baseline will be revised during the project to reflect agreed proposals at the end of each project stage. The recording and management of change provides an auditable trail of the decisions made. Post-fixity change is defined as, Post-fixity changes occur whenever revisions are proposed to any aspect of the brief or design that has previously been agreed by the project team (including client) to be fixed. Fixity can be ascribed to the whole project at a particular level of detail, one element, component or an area of a project. Design development is when a change occurs which does not have an impact on anything that has already been agreed; therefore, the project manager or project director within the design consultancy would have authority to accept to the change without consulting the client. A post-fixity change would almost certainly require authorisation from the client or the client s agent. In some cases, there may be some flexibility to the scope agreed in the contract, but the majority of post-fixity changes would require authorisation because of their possible effect on others in the project supply chain. The CIRIA (2001) best practice guide gives three different change management processes, these are: 1. Change management process- changes during design development. 2. Change management process- urgent post-fixity changes. 3. Change management process- post-fixity changes.

63 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 63 The main process is to identify the change, evaluate the change, review the change, request client approval, if agreed implement the change or if not agreed, record the decision. In addition, if the change is post-fixity there is a requirement to issue a change order to the client in order to receive payment for the work. These change management processes are shown in Figure 3.14, Figure 3.15 and Figure An Oracle White Paper (2009) also highlights the best practice for managing changes that may occur in construction projects. It states; An effective project manager must have the ability to quickly identify and determine the time and cost effects of a change and effectively communicate with all project participants. The process outlined in the Oracle White Paper is very similar to the procedures suggested by CIRIA and are required by Arup s CMS system Arup s change management processes Within Arup there are various change management protocols. Each protocol is a process chosen for a particular type of project in order to fulfil the CMS requirements described in section 3.4. The choice of change management process is dependent upon the project size, type and project director/manager s preference. Two examples of Arup change management protocols are a generic change notification and authorisation process and a computer based earlywarnings system. Change notification and authorization Process The change notification and authorization process described here is a generic process, which can be adapted to specific projects; it is recommended for typical UK projects valued at 1M to 25M (Bennett 2001). The purpose of this procedure is similar to that of any change management protocol; it is to ensure that (Bennett 2001): 1. Proposed changes are properly and efficiently notified, recorded and authorized or rejected.

64 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup The type of information submitted with a proposed change is sufficient for decisions to be made on the proposed change. 3. The consequential impacts of a proposed change to budgets, expenditure, performance and programme are properly recorded and reported. The protocol process is described in Figure The advantage of this protocol is that the process is simple to understand. The disadvantage of the protocol is that there is considerable additional work and responsibility for the proposer. The proposer is responsible for identifying the potential change, making an initial impact assessment and preparing a detailed justification for the change. This appears to be counterproductive, since when working to tight time constraints an individual may not raise a necessary change for fear of having more work to do, and leave the required change to be found by somebody else. Early warning change management system The Early Warnings system is a software tool available through the intranet site; it allows any team member to log a possible change, which is then highlighted and the project manager and project director is notified. The system then prompts each task required by the CMS system, i.e. for the PM to notify the client and project team if/ when a request is authorised. The system is rarely used in the North West office (Personal conversation, Senior Project Manager, Arup North West, 13 th August 2009) because previous use of the system demonstrated a lack of compliance by the design teams to log changes. Any protocols will only work successfully if used by all team members in each discipline and all changes logged. A solution to this would be to implement a disciplinary procedure for failing to log changes; however, this disagrees with Arup s company culture, where freethinking is encouraged and compulsory protocols are kept to a minimum.

65 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 65 The design change management protocols used within Arup are similar to the best practice models outlined in CIRIA (2001) and the Oracle White Paper (2009). The protocols are adapted for specific projects depending upon project constraints, e.g. size, type of project and client s requirements Impact Assessment of Design Changes In essence, each change management protocol is very similar. Within each protocol, in order to aid the decision on whether to implement a change, an assessment of the impact, in terms of resource and cost, is required. After discussing this section of the protocol with project managers and project directors in Arup NW and approaching the Arup global community, via a web forum, it was clear that there is also no formal process for making this assessment. At the beginning of a project, a multidisciplinary responsibility matrix is usually drawn up to lay down the individual responsibilities of each discipline for that specific project (see Table 3.4). In the majority of cases, the impact is predicted from an individual s professional experience, guided by the responsibility matrix, as shown in Figure A design change request can occur for numerous reasons, instigated from within the design consultancy, the contractor or the project owner/client. Once a design change request has been logged, the team leader in each discipline is asked to assess the impact for their team. The team leader will then consider which team members will be affected. They will then approach the individual team members and ask them to determine how they will be affected by the change. The team members will then perform the impact assessment based on their professional judgement and experience of changes on similar projects. As demonstrated through the case study investigations, projects are complex in nature. Built environment projects are becoming more and more complex with multidisciplinary design and non co-located teams. In turn, this is making the impact assessment more difficult to perform accurately. It would not be possible nor would one want to have a fully automated process for predicting the impact of design changes. Arup employ highly qualified and experienced engineers and project

66 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 66 managers; the knowledge of individual experience is very valuable and so it is important that this knowledge be shared appropriately. Due to the complex nature of modern design, there is some risk of making an incorrect judgement of the impact of a change and this risk is increased when a project team is both multidisciplinary and not co-located. Arup usually work on projects where multidisciplinary expertise is drawn from non co-located project teams working across various offices. For example, the ArupSport team working on the recent stadium project had engineers based in both Liverpool and Manchester, and the architects based in London. Relying solely on an individual s professional judgement is not acceptable for two specific reasons: 1. There is a risk that the individual could make an incorrect judgement. (This risk is highlighted in Figure 3.18.) 2. Strategically, relying solely on an individual s experience, will not add any value to the company, since when that individual is no longer employed by the firm, their expertise will be lost. The outcome of this EngD research is to reduce the risk associated with an impact assessment being disproportionate to the true impact of a design change. This risk will be reduced by providing the team leaders and team members with a support tool to facilitate them in making better-informed impact assessments. A study of comparator organisations has been carried out to determine how the case study company (Arup) perform against other industries and is documented in Chapter 4 (Current Practice: In Comparator Organisations). The proposed software application has been developed through investigating and adapting design management and planning techniques, described in Chapter 5 (Literature Review) and Chapter 6 (ProCESS: Project Change Evaluation Support Software).

67 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 67 Tables Table 3-1: Explanation of case study 1 process map tasks Block Category Variable being changed Block Description A Raking beam material B Raking beam size: The raking beam size will change depending on the re-evaluated design considerations Design considerations being re-evaluated as a consequence of the changed variable Design Restrictions - C D E F G H I J - Architects visual requirements and space planning: This is a design restriction due to the limit of aesthetics accepted by the architect Fire Protection: Re-evaluation is required into the types of fire protection required. Concrete tends to have greater inherent fire protection. Dynamics: Re-evaluation of the dynamical characteristics of the raking beam, changing the size of the raking beam to adhere to design restrictions Types of connection: A different type of joint will be required specific to the type of material being used Restraint: need for bracing between raking beams (bracing tends to be required for steel raking beams and not for concrete) Thermal Issues: Re-evaluation of the level of thermal bridging to occur. Thermal bridging occurs around joints and is dependent on the materials of the connecting beams and the types of joints. Re-evaluation of the level of thermal expansion occurring in and around raking beam connections, and redesign of connection joints Routing of Cables: Changing the raking beam material, shape and size will require re-routing of cables and public health Plenum Design: The plenum will require redesigning due to the re-evaluated design changes Cranage Size: For prefabricated raking beams there is a design restriction due to the maximum size of beam which can be physically craned Green Guide' (Great Britain, 2008) and legislation requirements

68 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 68 Table 3-2: Explanation of case study 1 process map links between tasks Connector Description A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 The material of the raking beam affects the amount of fire protection required, for example, concrete requires less fire protection than steel due to its inherent fire resistance properties. Each material has different dynamical properties Differing materials require different types of connections Steel is weak in lateral stiffness and hence requires bracing between raking beams, whereas concrete would not require bracing Different materials react differently to varying temperatures and hence have a different affect on thermal bridging. Different materials expand at different rates depending upon their properties A change in material will impact the shape of the raking beam. E.g. the shape/ size of the steel terracing stools will need to be designed The size of the raking beam may impact the decision of what type of fire protection to use. The size of the raking beam impacts the dynamics of the raking beam The type of structure connections is dependent on the size of each component The amount of bracing required is dependent upon the inherent properties, dimensions and shape used The extent of thermal bridging occurring is dependent upon the size of the raking beam A change in size or shape of raking beam will affect the routing of cables, e.g. the length or route of the cables The architect has specific dimensions and a visual interpretation of how the plenum will look; for example, headroom clearance on the level below each raking beam Bracing between raking beams may impact the appearance desired by the architect. Bracing may also impact space planning and the required headroom.

69 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 69 Connector Description C3 C4 C5 D1 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2 H1 Where concrete and steel are connected, joints tend to be very large and untidy looking, this may conflict with the architects view of how the stadium should look The architect s required appearance dictates the dynamics of the raking beam, since the shape and size of the beam affects the natural frequency of the beam The type of fire protection used will be depend on the appearance accepted by the architect, for example intumescent paints can be used if beams can be seen, if beams can be hidden then unattractive spray on fire protection can be used The type of fire protection used will be depend on the appearance accepted by the architect, for example intumescent paints can be used if beams can be seen, if beams can be hidden then unattractive spray on fire protection can be used The dynamics of the structure will affect the size/shape of the raking beams, in turn this may not be in keeping with the architects visual aspirations. The architect and engineers will need to communicate to produce a design which adheres to the dynamical legislation and also satisfies the aspired aesthetics The dynamics of the structure will affect the size/shape of the raking beams Connections between beams produced from different materials can be Due to thermal bridging occurring around component connection, the type of connection has a direct effect on the level/ type of thermal bridging Bracing between raking beams may impact the appearance desired by the architect. Bracing may also impact space planning and the required headroom Since the plenums are situated in the space between raking beams, the plenum design will be determined by where bracing can be used. The plenum design may need adjusting The extent of thermal bridging occurring is dependent upon the size of the raking beam. A change of raking beam size may be requested if thermal issues are identified

70 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 70 Connector Description J2 J3 Airflow within the plenum may Since the plenums are situated in the space between raking beams, the plenum design will be determined by where bracing can be used. The plenum design may need adjusting. - The fire protection chosen must comply with legislation - Legislation dictates the level of permitted thermal expansion - The green guide specifies the dynamic stiffness tolerances for the raking beam. Especially important for concert venues, due to crowd behaviour - Legislation dictates maximum loads on the raking beam - It may be necessary to reconsider the choice of material it a precast or fabricated raking beam could not physically be craned into position - A precast or fabricated raking beam must be small enough that it can be physically craned into position

71 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 71 Table 3-3: Description of symbols used in equation 1 δ ab τ a α β γ i j k l Time delay in the link between operations A and B Time to complete operation A The number of changes to raking beam size/shape (B) due to thermal issues (H) The number of changes to raking beam size/shape (B) due to plenum design (J) The number of changes to raking beam size/shape (B) due to dynamics (E) The number of re-evaluations of dynamics (E) due to aesthetics and space planning (C) The number of re-evaluations of restraint (G) due to aesthetics and space planning (C) The number of re-evaluations of connections (F) due to aesthetics and space planning (C) The number of re-evaluations of fire protection (D) due to aesthetics and space planning (C)

72 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 72 Table 3-4: Example - Design Responsibility Matrix (Arup, 2006) (N.B. this is only a sample from a more detailed Design Responsibility Matrix) DESIGN RESPONSIBILITIES L: Lead and Co-ordinate D: Design and Draw A: Advise Architect S and P Civil/Struct/Geo Engineer Arup MandE Engineer Arup Contractor (TBC) COMMENTS (PM:Project Manager QS:Quantity Surveyor) 1. GENERAL Site Layout L,D A A Building Setting out: coordinates, grids, dimensions, levels, falls, gullies (internal and External). Co-ordination of dimensions building L,D A A See Note 1 L,D A A See Note 1 Temporary works A A - L,D Cost estimating A A A QS Lead Health and Safety A A A L See Note 23 Master programme A A A PM Lead Design Programme A A A PM Lead Contract documentation A,D A,D A,D PM Lead Site clearance / preparation / prelims A A A L

73 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 73 Figures Figure 3-1: A schematic of the contribution to design by the client and designers. (Gray and Hughes, 2001)

74 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 74 Controls Inputs Outputs Activity Mechanisms Figure 3-2: IDEF-0 Modelling Paradigm (Hunt, 1996) (Controls) Feedback Orders (Inputs) Schedule Cell Schedule Materials Operator Tooling Operate Cell Products (Output) Figure 3-3: A simple IDEF-0 diagram (Hunt, 1996)

75 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 75 Figure 3-4: Process map 1, change in raking beam material

76 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 76 Figure 3-5: Simplified raking beam process map

77 Chapter 3 Current Practice- Arup 77 Figure 3-6: Option diagram for case study 2 Figure 3-7: MATLAB GUI for case study 2