Hindmarch, H; Gale, A W and Harrison, R E (2010) A proposed construction design change management tool to aid in making informed design decisions. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Current practice shows that construction design change management (CDCM) relies heavily on the experience of practitioners to assess the impact of proposed design changes. This UK government and industry (Arup) funded research is concerned with mitigating the risk associated with a practitioner making a judgment disproportionate to the true impact of a design change. Several design management and planning tools have been reviewed (including the Analytical Design Planning Technique (ADePT) and the 'last planner' methodology), suggestions have been made on how they can be adapted to apply to design change management. A CDCM model has been proposed as a possible solution, enabling practitioners to make a better informed decision regarding the true impact of a proposed design change. The CDCM model incorporates a design structure matrix (DSM) and process map generation to create a checklist of rework; it also records the reason for deviation if the true impact is different to the assessed impact. The cost, resource, deviation, and reason for deviation are stored in a database and are available when a similar change is required on a similar project, allowing compensation to be applied to the predicted impact. The analysis used in the CDCM model is demonstrated using a generic simple building case study.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design change management; decision-making; impact assessment; last planner; risk |
| Index terms: | design decision, compensation, planner, impact assessment, practitioner, design management, decision-making, methodology, planning technique, database, design structure matrix, deviation, rework, design change, judgment, case study |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, financial and cost management, urban planning, operations management, value management, design methods, practitioner, dispute resolution, profession, data collection methods, data management, decision analysis, design process, design practice, research methods |
| Topics: | Procurement, Governance, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Cost Management, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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