Lopez, R and Love, P E D (2012) Design error costs in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(5), pp. 585-593. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Design errors can adversely influence project performance and can contribute to failures, accidents, and loss of life. Although there has been a considerable amount of research that has examined design error causation, little is known about design error costs. With increasing emphasis placed on the use of nontraditional forms of procurement methods as a result of various government reports and the advent of Building Information Modelling there is a general perception that design error costs will be significantly less than those projects procured by traditional means. By using a questionnaire survey, estimates for design error costs were obtained from 139 projects. The mean direct and indirect costs for design errors were revealed to be 6.85 and 7.36% of contract value, respectively. Design error costs were found not to significantly vary with procurement method and project type used. Although the research provides invaluable insights into practitioners' perceptions of design errors costs, their actual costs remain relatively unexplored.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction costs; design; errors; procurement |
| Index terms: | construction project, practitioner, questionnaire, actual cost, survey, project performance, estimate, procurement method, building information modelling, indirect cost, design error, construction cost |
| Subjects: | production management, project management theory and practice, cost management, information systems, practitioner, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, professional practice, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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