Kirby, J G; Furry, D A and Hicks, D K (1988) Improvements in design review management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(1), pp. 69-82. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Design reviews to improve the technical quality and con-structibility of contract documents can result in significant savings in project costs, contract modifications, and subsequent liability claims. The benefits of a formal design review program depend on the ability to efficiently manage many simultaneous review efforts and effectively incorporate the resulting comments into the final contract documents. Research into the Army Corps of Engineer’s design review program identified areas of needed improvement, which resulted in development of the Automated Review Management System (ARMS). ARMS is a computer-based program that fosters increased communication and interaction among all review participants and provides a mechanism for data collection, collation, distribution, and incorporation into contract documents. A discussion of the potential for private sector application of ARMS or a similar system concludes this paper.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | savings, engineer, private sector, interaction, project cost, liability, management system, contract modification, contract document, program |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, profession, industry analysis, behavioral psychology, liability law, management, economics, software systems, contractual condition, contract management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here