!"#$%&'$

(

))

$*+

',--./0&1233&4,4

5$!6233&

The Queensland University of Technology Research Week International Conference

4-8 July 2005 Brisbane, Australia

Conference Proceedings

Editor: A. C. Sidwell

July 2005

Published by:

Queensland University of Technology

Australia

ISBN 1-74107-101-1

DESIGN AND DOCUMENTATION QUALITY PROBLEMS A LEAN THINKING OPPORTUNITY

Paul A. Tilley Salford Centre for Research and Innovation in the Built & Human Environment, Salford University ABSTRACT

For some time, the construction industry has been portrayed as being uncompetitive and inefficient when compared to other industries. Projects running over budget, over time and plagued with rework, variations and disputation, still occur all too frequently. Poor design and documentation quality standards have often been identified as major contributors to these project ailments. With design and documentation quality having such a major influence on the overall performance and efficiency of construction projects, any improvements can only lead to corresponding improvements in the efficiency of the construction process.

In trying to determine the causes of design and documentation deficiencies, a number of studies have identified a variety of external factors; including low design fees, insufficient design time, inexperienced staff, inappropriate procurement methodologies and poor communications, to name a few. Various recommendations aimed at improving design and documentation quality have previously been made, however the majority of these recommendations require industry-wide initiatives and are generally outside the control of the designers themselves. This paper suggests that improving the way in which the design process is managed, may provide more immediate results and enable designers to be more directly involved in improving the quality of their output.

Lean Construction is a term used to describe the adoption of lean production philosophies to try to improve the efficiency of the construction process and there is a growing volume of literature documenting the success of Lean Construction implementation. By introducing lean production principles to the process of design, it is felt that an improved management strategy can be developed that will improve the quality of design and documentation produced. This paper provides an overview of an ongoing study into Lean Design Management, which is expected to significantly improve the efficiency of the design process and improve the quality of its output.

Keywords Design Management, Design Quality, Lean Construction, Lean Design Management

INTRODUCTION For some time, the construction industry has been portrayed as being uncompetitive and inefficient when compared to other industries like manufacturing (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998) with the quality of design and documentation produced being identified as a major contributing factor (Syam, 1995; Tilley & Barton, 1997). In an ideal world, the design and documentation provided for construction projects would be complete, precise and unambiguous. Unfortunately, contractors are often supplied with project documentation that is considered to be substandard or deficient due to incomplete, conflicting or erroneous

Tilley

information. According to Barrett & Barrett (2004) projects that run over time and budget are often underpinned by faulty documentation that looks professional (CAD and WP), but in fact does not properly specify or describe the built solution. Is it any wonder then that the perception of what constitutes good quality documentation has started to decline (Egan, 2002).

As the quality of the design and documentation produced has a major influence on the overall performance and efficiency of construction projects (Burati et al. 1992; Lutz et al. 1990; Kirby et al. 1988), any improvements in design and documentation quality can only lead to corresponding improvements in the efficiency of the construction process.

The successful application of lean production principles within construction to achieve process improvement, has highlighted the opportunities for similar gains within the process of design. To consider the issues, this paper will firstly look at recent research to determine both the extent and causes of design and documentation problems within construction. Support for a lean thinking approach will then be considered, before looking at why the traditional approach does not seem to be working properly. Following a look at the lean approach to design management, a number of conclusions will be made as well as some recommendations for future research.

EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM Inadequate and deficient design and documentation, impacts directly on the efficiency of the construction process by leading to delays, rework and variations, which in turn, contribute to increases in project time and cost (Tilley and Barton, 1997; Love and Li, 2000; Tilley and McFallan, 2000a, b & c; Tilley, et.al., 2002; Andi and Minato, 2003; Love and Edwards, 2004). In a study into the causes of quality deviations in design and construction where deviations are defined as departures from established requirements Burati et al. (1992) found that on average, 78% of the total number of deviations identified were design related and that these deviations made up 79% of the total deviation costs. According to Kirby et.al. (1988), 56% of all contract modifications are needed to correct design deficiencies. In a similar study to investigate the causes of contract variations, Hibberd (1980) determined that 60% of variations were directly design and documentation related.

Similarly, when considering the problem of rework, Love et.al. (1997) notes that a large proportion of rework and non-conformance costs are due to deficiencies in design and documentation and in the transfer of information during the design process. John Holland Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd and WorkCover New South Wales (1997) also found that problems with design and documentation quality were major contributors to rework and rectification. They also indicated that the cost of rework went beyond just the direct physical cost of rectification.

When considering the cost of rework, Crosby (1979) considered the impact of rework at different stages of a project with the 1/10/100 Rule. When applied to construction, this rule states that changes made during the pre-design phase will have an impact of $1 to the project. However, if these changes arent identified early, they are likely to cost $10 during the design phase and $100 if you wait until construction has begun. Extending this concept to post occupancy, then the cost of rework to implement changes not picked up previously, could be as high as $1000.

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM There appears to be many influencing factors that contribute to the overall problem of poor design and documentation quality. Some of these factors are considered to be whole of industry issues such as the nature of the economy, tertiary education standards and the fragmented nature of the industry. In addition, inequitable risk/reward arrangements, inappropriate contracts, poor supply chain integration and an adversarial industry culture have led to poor industry relationships and a lack of trust between project participants (Egan, 2002).

However other factors such as procurement methodology, project duration and budget, project brief and project management approach tend to be more project related. In a recent study (Tilley et.al., 2002), the majority of influencing factors identified by clients and industry practitioners, tended to be project related, with the following rating most highly:

Design fee levels Design time allowances

Client briefs Constructability

Quality control Quality of staff

From the design consultants point of view, inadequate design fees, inadequate design time allowances and inadequate/changing design briefs, were considered to be the most important, due to the direct impact they have on all aspects of the design process, as well as the relationships between project participants. Interestingly, contractors also considered these issues to have the most influence on design and documentation quality. When considering the impact of fees, the following quote is considered appropriate:

It is unwise to pay too much, but its worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it cant be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better. (John Ruskin, 1860)

According to DeFraites (1989), overall project quality is greatly determined by the level of professional services provided and that the quality of these services is generally determined by how the services are selected and how the fees are negotiated. Where designers are selected on the basis of low design fees, then the level and quality of the service provided is likely to be limited, thereby impacting on design and documentation quality.

Many within the construction industry believe that an overall decline in design fee levels over a number of years and a corresponding reduction in the amount of time being made available to carry out design combined with an increase in the overall complexity of construction projects are the major contributing factors to an industry wide decline in design and documentation performance (Tilley and McFallan, 2000a, b & c; Tilley, et.al., 2002). Baigent (2000), is also of this belief, but also considers declining staff experience, declining staff training and an inappropriate reliance on technology, to be other contributing factors.

Tilley

However, it is the impact on the industry which is of most concern, with research in Australia and overseas confirming that a reduction in project design fees can be directly linked to a decline in design and documentation quality and construction process efficiency, which contribute significantly to increases in project time and cost (McGeorge, 1988; Abolnour, 1994; Tilley and McFallan, 2000a, b & c).

Unfortunately however, this situation is not helped by the fact that some sectors of the client population perceive that low price or cheapness also equates to good value (Pasquire & Collins, 1996) and as such, there is great pressure on the design fraternity to continue to reduce their fees. With this type of pressure, is it any wonder then that when investigating the decline in fee recovery for professional services, Lowry (1996) concluded that the decline in fees was not the result of efficiency or productivity gains in the provision of professional services, but was due to: simple cost-cutting measures undertaken for organisational survival.

However, having gotten used to a low design fee environment, it is highly unlikely that clients would now be interested in providing additional up-front funds for initial planning and design even though value engineering (Green and Popper, 1990) and value management (Barton, 1996; Tilley and Barton, 2000) research has indicated significant cost, quality and community benefits are likely to eventuate. Designers therefore need to consider ways of working smarter with the limited resources available to them.

Whilst the decline in design fees has obviously provided added pressure on design firms to carry out their role effectively and try to remain profitable at the same time, it would also appear that the project management approaches being used to manage the design process are deficient and need to be reviewed if the challenges of a changing industry are to be met (Koskela et.al., 1997; Koskela and Howell, 2002). Accordingly, there are a growing number of researchers who believe that a large proportion of design and documentation problems are due to inadequate design management and quality control resulting in unnecessary waste and rework and could be resolved by managing the design process more effectively (Rounce, 1998; Ballard, 1999; Tzortzopoulos and Formoso, 1999).

In Australia, this belief would also appear to have support from the recent Construction 2020 exercise carried out by the CRC-CI (Hampson & Brandon, 2004), where a national survey of industry representatives identified Improved management of design and construction as being of primary importance for improving the industry in the long term (see Figure 1 below).

However to achieve the necessary improvements in design management, will require a change in the way the process is carried out and a move towards a more collaborative and integrated system. For many, that means a move towards a system based on the principles of lean production (Ballard, 1999; Tzortzopoulos and Formoso, 1999; Freire & Alarcon, 2002; Koskela et.al., 2002) which provides opportunities for these changes.

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

Q4 Picture Your Vision

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

l. Improved working conditions

g. Automated sensing of built environments

e. Computer-based B2B transactions

c. Improved asset management

m. Greater off-site manufacturing

j. Design/contractor involvement beyond completion

a. Restructuring of supply chain

f. Virtual simulation of design & construction

i. Fairer distribution of project risks

d. Improved building performance

h. Avoidance of adversarial relationships

k. Ongoing environmental assessment & mgmt

b. Improved mgmt of design & construction

Wis

h Li

st

% of Respondents Selecting Vision as Top 5 Priority

Figure 1. Issues essential for improving the industry in the long term (Hampson & Brandon, 2004)

The Support for a Lean Thinking Approach

Over the last few years, support for a Lean Thinking approach to construction has been growing steadily and been provided at fairly high levels. In his report entitled Rethinking Construction, Egan (1998), recommend that the UK construction industry should adopt Lean Thinking as a means of sustaining performance improvement. More recently, in their Construction 2020 document, Hampson and Brandon (2004) identified the need to move to a lean production environment as part of its Improved Process of Manufacture of Constructed Products vision for the future. Generally, this vision sees the industry developing new production processes to enable it to work more efficiently and effectively. It is therefore their belief that a lean production environment in association with the adoption of ICT improvements will enable the supply chain to become more integrated and collaborative, leading to a considerable reduction in time and cost over-runs on construction projects.

According to Kagioglou et.al. (2000), the successful implementation of lean production philosophies within the design and construction process, provides opportunities for optimising material and information flows and processes which lead to reduced project time-scales and waste in both materials and time as well as improvements in internal and external supply chain integration through the more effective partnerships.

Problems with Traditional Design Management

According to Rounce (1998), a lot of the quality and efficiency problems experienced during the design process, are due to inadequate design management and poor quality control of the end product. Whilst modern construction projects range in their level of complexity, they all still require the skills of many diverse individuals to be brought together, coordinated and effectively managed as a team, to ensure the realization of the clients objective. Unfortunately, designers tend to be well known for their lack of management ability (Emmitt, 1999).

Tilley

According to Tzortzopoulos and Formoso (1999), poor design management contributes significantly to poor design process performance, with the following being the main problem areas: Poor communication Unbalanced resource allocation

Lack of adequate documentation Lack of coordination between disciplines

Deficient or missing input information Erratic decision making The main problem with design from a management perspective, is that the process is complex and therefore difficult to manage. From identifying customer needs to visualising and developing construction solutions that meet those needs, design requires the input and collaboration from a large and diverse group of individuals and organisations. Managing the design process therefore has as much to do with managing people and the flow of information between the various project participants as it has to do with managing specific activities and tasks.

It is therefore probably due to its difficult nature, that the effort applied to planning and controlling the design process is generally either inadequate or inappropriate. This inability to effectively plan and control the process, eventually leads to chaos and a lack of a common direction for the design team, ensuring that information does not flow efficiently between the parties, to enable the design solutions to develop properly.

However, when design management is carried out, it is generally using a project management model. However, according to Ballard & Koskela (1998), the concepts and techniques of project management are unable to provide an effective solution to the difficulties of managing the design process. This is due to the fundamental nature of project management which according to Koskela & Howell (2002) is based solely on the transformation model/theory of production, in which inputs are converted into outputs and where the total transformation is able to be broken down (de-composed) into smaller transformations or tasks; with each task being considered and managed independently of other tasks. Management techniques such as work breakdown structures (WBS) and Critical Path Method (CPM) are based on this model (Ballard & Koskela, 1998).

This approach can be of benefit from a contractual perspective, by allowing the extent of work completed or the amount of money expended to be determined through the simple addition of the percentage complete of each task. However, it does nothing to assist with the production of design, which requires an allowance for the inter-dependant nature of tasks and the individuals carrying them out, or the flow of information needed to enable design solutions to progress. This lack of appreciation of the inter-relatedness of tasks also leads to tasks being planned in an order that is sub-optimal to the information needs of the designers, causing poor productivity, project delays and decreased value of the final solution (Koskela et.al., 1997).

Although the traditional project management approach is able to identify specific design tasks within a project plan, there is often insufficient consideration given to the information required from others to enable these tasks to actually be completed as and when required. By failing to plan the information flows in relation to the various tasks, delays in obtaining the information often occur, which can either lead to delays in completing design tasks, or having designs and design documents issued with missing information. Unfortunately these design management problems often dont show up until much later in the construction process and as

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

indicated previously, the latter situation is a common cause of rework in both the design and construction processes (Rounce, 1998; Lahdenper and Tanhuanp, 2000).

Another problem relates to change and if there is one constant in construction projects, it is change. Standard project management practice is to try to avoid change and manage the project as if the project initiators and planners had a crystal ball and could tell the future with a large degree of certainty. This is obviously not the case and as all projects have a large degree of uncertainty and are constantly changing to meet the challenges of a variable system, then the management approach also needs to be flexible enough to adapt to those changes (Highsmith, 2004). A project manager who tries to slavishly adhered to a rigid plan, is only looking for trouble and will miss opportunities to enable the project objectives to be met through being flexible with activity definitions and schedules. Due to the iterative and developing nature of design, such flexibility needs to be an integral part of its management process. The Lean Approach to Design Management Unlike the traditional method of managing design, the lean approach considers design not only as a transformation (T) of inputs to outputs, but also considers the issues of material and information flows (F) as well as value generation (V) for the customer at the same time. A brief summary of this TFV view of design presented in more detail in Koskela and Huovila (1997) and Koskela (2000) is shown below in Table 1. Table 1: Transformation, Flow and Value generation concepts of design (Koskela et.al., 2002). Transformation View Flow View Value Generation View Conceptualization of Design

As a transformation of requirements and other input information into product design

As a flow of information, composed of transformation, inspection, moving and waiting

As a process where value for the customer is created through fulfillment of his requirements

Main principles Hierarchical decomposition; control of decomposed activities

Elimination of waste (unnecessary activities); time reduction, rapid reduction of uncertainty

Elimination of value loss (gap between achieved value and best possible value), rigorous requirement analysis, systematized management of flow-down of requirements, optimization

Methods and practices

Work Breakdown Structure, Critical Path Method, Organizational Responsibility Chart

Design Structure Matrix, Team Approach, Tool Integration, Partnering

Quality Function Deployment, requirements management, Value Engineering/Management, Taguchi Methods

Practical contribution

Taking care of what has to be done

Taking care that what is unnecessary is done as little as possible

Taking care that customer requirements are met in the best possible manner

Suggested name for practical application of the concept

Task management Flow management Value management

Tilley

Transformation View Obviously, the design process includes transformation; transformation of information into ideas, ideas into concepts and concepts into design solutions, which are ultimately converted from mental images into various documents (ie. drawings and specifications), to allow communication of these ideas with others, as well as maintaining a record of the authors thoughts and ideas. However, to avoid total chaos and a lack of direction, it is also necessary to consider the traditional management issues of planning, executing and controlling, but not in isolation and at a level of detail appropriate to the level of management and control.

High level plans should only consider the big issues and those major project milestones that are pertinent to the various stages of the design process. Whilst this provides direction, it also provides sufficient flexibility to allow for the inevitable changes that will occur throughout the design process. It is then up to the lower levels within the project hierarchy to plan their work (in consultation with others) by decomposing larger project activities into specific process tasks, identified as being required to achieve activity objectives. This not only allows specific tasks and their inter-relationships to be defined with greater clarity (generally poorly done in practice), but also helps to develop a greater level of ownership and commitment within the team, to achieving the plans developed.

Flow View When considering the design process from a flow perspective, in addition to transformation, the non-value adding stages of waiting, moving and inspection and how we can either eliminate or minimize them are also consider. By identifying and defining what pre-requisite information is required, who is responsible for supplying it and obtaining commitments that the information will be provided to the required quality standards as well as when it is needed, it is possible to manage the flow of information more efficiently and reduce wasted effort. Failure to properly consider these issues has been a common cause for design delays, or worse, incomplete, inefficient or inappropriate design solutions being issued, which can lead to rework, increased costs or a loss of value.

However, by keeping track of both upstream and downstream team members (information suppliers and information receivers) it is also possible to ensure that effort is mainly carried out on tasks that maintain activity progress objectives and isnt wasted on tasks that arent needed immediately. Due to the nature of the industry, changes and delays will occur, so it is essential to keep a track on both those supplying and receiving information, to determine if information requirements change thereby ensuring that information provided is appropriate to the changing circumstances.

Two planning methodologies that are commonly used to help with flow are, Decision Structure Matrix (DSM) and Last Planner SystemTM (LPS). DSM is a process that looks at the various tasks and tries to identify an optimal planning sequence, based upon the information flow inter-relationships between the various tasks. As out-of-sequence design work has been directly linked to poor design performance, this is a simple method to assist with process improvement (Koskela, et.al. 1997).

LPS on the other hand, is more involved with assisting designers to balance the push and pull elements of production planning where push relates to workflow meeting pre-established delivery dates regardless of the state of the process, while pull relates to allowing workflow to occur, only when the process is in a state of readiness. (Ballard, 1999). Managing the design process in relation to both push and pull elements, provides a balance between programme pressure and the realities of a dynamic production system, to improve workflow and productivity which ultimately lead to better design solution and improved time, cost and quality outcomes.

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

Value Generation Value generation is about maximizing value for the customer by being able to create better design solutions through the use of improvements in the quantity and quality of information used to make design decisions. This is done by acknowledging the fact that customer needs and requirements are unlikely to be properly known at the start of the project and that only through a continuous process of requirements capture and feedback, can value be maximised.

Traditionally, requirements capture is only done at the beginning of the design process, with the development of the Design Brief. However, whilst clients may have an overall vision of what the project is about and the types of services that the project is meant to deliver, rarely do they know exactly what is required to achieve that vision or the form it will take. Due to this uncertainty at the beginning of the project, requirements capture is an evolving process that occurs throughout the design process as a collaborative process between the client and the rest of the project team (Highsmith, 2004). This process acknowledges the iterative nature of design and assists with the continual development of design solutions by embracing the fact that change will continue to occur as greater knowledge identifies ways to further increase customer value.

Although used here to describe the practical application of the theoretical concept of value generation, Value Management is also an existing practice-based discipline that can and has been used as a process to help define project requirements and maximise project value for all involved (Tilley & Barton, 2000). Additionally, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) has also been identified (Koskela, et.al., 2002) as a method by which customer value is enhanced by ensuring that expectations are met.

Application of Lean Design Management. Although the number of recorded case studies that review the implementation of lean principles to design management are few, results have been quite positive. Through the use of DSM and LPS, Koskela, et.al. (1997) noted that a more transparent design process with metrics for effectively monitoring progress was able to be achieved, and helped achieve a 30% reduction in design time, compared to similar projects. Similarly, a lean approach including the use of the LPS on a design and construct project, was shown to be instrumental in enabling a quality design solution to be delivered quickly and allow the projects extremely tight time and cost parameters to be met (Miles, 1998). Tzortzopoulos and Formoso (1999) on the other hand, used flowcharts and input-output charts to effectively model the design process of a number of house builders, and integrate the TFV concept of design to achieve process improvement. More recently however, Freire and Alarcon (2002) identified significant decreases in product unit errors, waiting time in process and non-value adding activities to achieve a 31% increase in productivity, by implementing a lean improvement methodology for the design process.

And whilst the potential benefits of adopting a lean approach to design management are many, there would also appear to be a number of criteria that need to be considered, to ensure the best possible outcome from its implementation. As Tzortzopoulos and Formoso (1999), rightly note, no matter how good a design process might be, if the design team is not up to the task (ie does not have the qualifications or experience to carry out the work) then the quality and ultimate value of the design outcomes, are likely to be reduced. This would seem to indicate that a Qualification Based Selection (QBS) process be used when selecting the design team. However, just as important as (if not more than) their qualifications and experience, is the teams ability to work together as a team, in a collaborative environment. This factor in particular, seems to provide an underlying thread to the application of lean principles in design and construction.

Tilley

Conclusions and Recommendations Problems with the quality of design and documentation in the construction industry are continuing to have a significant impact on the efficiency of the construction industry and are a major contributor to design and construction rework. Research has identified a variety of industry-wide and project specific issues that have an impact on the quality of design and documentation produced, with designers indicating issues such as low design fees, short design time allowances and poor design briefs as having the major influence.

Whilst these issues obviously can influence design and documentation quality, other research suggests that the traditional way in which the design process is managed is also contributing to these problems, with examples of the impact of poor design management being given. The adoption of lean production philosophies to the construction industry, is however seen by many as a way of helping to improve its efficiency. By adopting a lean approach to the management of design, it is felt by many that the deficiencies of the traditional management approach can be alleviated to help make the design process more efficient and optimise the use of the limited resources available.

The design process is a creative one, requiring complex, uncertain and conflicting requirements to be transformed into buildable and usable solutions. Managing this process requires not only providing support for the creative process to flourish, but also removing any potential obstacles as well. Through better management of the time available, not only could one of the most noted root causes of design deficiency insufficient/inadequate time be alleviated, but that the additional time recovered could be used to provide better project outcomes and increase value for the customer.

It would also appear that a side benefit achieved by the application of lean principles relates to improvements in the working relationships between project participants. For the design process to work effectively, a collaborative working environment needs to be in place. By promoting high levels of collaboration and communication within the project team, lean design processes can assist in enabling design solutions to be more integrated, coordinated and focused on delivering value to the end customer. However, to achieve maximum benefit from the application of lean principles within design management, it is recommended that a relationship based procurement methodology be used.

Based on the above, it would appear that for the dramatic improvements needed in design and documentation quality to occur, a change in the way the design process is managed is necessary. This paper has highlighted the deficiencies with the traditional method of managing design projects as well as the opportunities for improvement that a lean design management approach can provide. Now it is up to the industry to decide whether it wants to continue with a process that isnt performing to requirements, or adopt an approach to offers significant advantages for all parties involved. REFERENCES Abolnour, M.M. (1994), The Relationship of Fee Structure in Engineering Offices and Design Deficiency, MSc. Dissertation, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Andi, S. and Minato, T. (2003) Design documents quality in the Japanese construction industry: factors influencing and impacts on construction process, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp 537-546. Baigent, A. (2000), Engineers, Documentation and Litigation, AISC IEAust Special Issue, Steel Construction, Vol. 34, No. 4, Dec. 2000.

Ballard, G. (1999), Can Pull Techniques Be Used In Design Management, Presented at the Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Construction, Helsinki, Finland. August 26-27.

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

Ballard, G. and Koskela, L. (1998). On the Agenda of Design Management Research, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja Beach, Brazil. Barrett, P. & Barrett, L. (2004) Revaluing Construction: Final Synthesis Report on Workshops, University of Salford. Barton R.T. (1996), The application of value management to the development of project concepts, Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Organisation and Management of Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice, Glasgow, Scotland, pp 115-123. Burati, J.L., Farrington, J.J. and Ledbetter, W.B. (1992), Causes of quality deviations in design and construction, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp 34-49. Crosby, P.B. (1979),Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, New American Library, New York. DeFraites, A.A. Jr. (1989), Fee versus quality, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 115, No.2, pp 125-128. Egan, J. (2002), Accelerating Change: A report by the Strategic Forum for Construction, Rethinking Construction, Construction Industry Council, London. Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London. Emmitt, S. (1999), Architectural managementan evolving field, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 188196. Freire, J. and Luis F. Alarcon, L.F. (2002), Achieving Lean Design Process: Improvement Methodology, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128, No. 3, pp. 248-256. Green, S.D. & Popper, P.A. (1990), Value Engineering - The Search For Unnecessary Cost, Occasional Paper No. 39, Chartered Institute of Building, Ascot, Berkshire. Hampson, K. and Brandon, P. (2004) Construction 2020: A Vision for Australias Property and Construction Industry, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, Brisbane. Hibberd, P.R. (1980), Variations in Construction Contracts, MSc Thesis, University of Manchester Institute of Technology, UK. Highsmith, J. (2004) Agile Project Management Creating Innovative Products. Addison-Wesley, Boston. John Holland Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd and WorkCover New South Wales (1997), Occupational health and safety: Best practice study of erection of steelwork at Sydney showground Homebush Bay. Journal of the Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp 219. Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G. & Sexton, M. (2000), Rethinking construction: the Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.141153. Kirby, J.G., Douglas A. & Hiks, D.K. (1988), Improvements in design review management, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 114, No. 1, pp 69-82. Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2002), The underlying theory of project management is obsolete, Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, pp. 293-302. Koskela, L., Huovila, P. and Leinonen, J. (2002), Design Management in Building Construction: From Theory to Practice, Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-16. Koskela, L., Ballard, G. and Tanhuanp, V-P. (1997), Towards lean design management, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Griffith University, Gold Coast. Lahdenper, P. and Tanhuanp, V-P. (2000). "Creation of a new design management system based on process optimization and proactive strategy." Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 267277. Latham, M. Sir. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London, UK. Love, P.E.D. and Edwards, D.J., (2004) Determinants of rework in building construction projects, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Volume 11 Number 4 2004 pp. 259274 Love, P.E.D. and Li, H. (2000), Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18, pp 479-490. Love, P.E.D., Mandel, P. and Li, H. (1997), A systematic approach to modeling the causes and effects of rework in construction, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Construction Industry Development: Building the Future Together, Singapore, Vol. 2, pp. 347-355. Lowry, N. (1996), Government Procurement of Capital Works and Competition Policy Their Effect on the Quantity Surveying Profession and Ramifications for the Community, Research Report, Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors: Queensland Chapter, Australia. Lutz, J.D., Hancher, D.E. & East, E.W. (1990), Framework for design-quality-review data-base system, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp 296-312. McGeorge, J.F. (1988), Design productivity: A quality problem, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp 350-362. Miles, Robert (1998), Alliance lean design/construct on a small high tech project, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja Beach, Brazil.

Tilley

Pasquire, C.L. and Collins, S. (1996), The effect of competitive tendering on value in construction, Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors COBRA Conference, University of the West of England, http://www.uwe.ac.uk/conferences/COBRA96/cobra.htm. Rounce, G. (1998), Quality, waste and cost considerations in architectural building design management, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 123-127. Syam, A. (1995), Editorial, Steel Construction Journal of the Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 29, No. 3, p 1. Tilley, P. A., McFallan, S. L., and Sinclair, R. G. (2002). Improving design and documentation quality. In, Measurement and Management of Architectural Value in Performance-Based Building - Proceedings of the CIB W60/W96 Joint Conference on Performance Concept in Building and Architectural Management, Hong Kong, 6-8 May, pp. 361 377. CIB Publication 283: Rotterdam. Tilley, P. A. and McFallan, S. L. (2000a). Design and Documentation Quality Survey Designers Perspectives. (BCE DOC 00/113). CSIRO - Building, Construction and Engineering: Melbourne. Tilley, P. A. and McFallan, S. L. (2000b). Design and Documentation Quality Survey Contractors Perspectives. (BCE DOC 00/114). CSIRO - Building, Construction and Engineering: Melbourne. Tilley, P. A. and McFallan, S. L. (2000c). Design and Documentation Quality Survey Comparison of Designers and Contractors Perspectives. (BCE DOC 00/115). CSIRO - Building, Construction and Engineering: Melbourne. Tilley, P. A. and Barton, R. T. (2000). Cost-Cutting Leads to Poor Value, Proceedings of the Fourth International Value Management Conference "Add Value, Create Wealth, Go VM", Hong Kong, 22-23 November. Tilley, P.A. and Barton, R. (1997), Design and documentation deficiency Causes and effects. Proceedings of the International Conference on Construction Process Reengineering, Gold Coast, Australia, pp. 703712. Tzortzopoulos, P. and Formoso, C.T. (1999), Considerations on the Application of Lean Construction principles to Design Management, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of California, Berkley, 26-28 July, pp. 335-344.