Knotten, V; Lædre, O and Hansen, G K (2017) Building design management: key success factors. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 13(6), pp. 479-493. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
The architectural, engineering, and construction industry is facing challenges related to increased productivity and improved quality. Most of these challenges need to be dealt with early in the design phase of the projects. This requires an effective design process and increases the need for effective building design management (BDM). This paper explores the success factors for BDM by addressing the following research questions: (1) What are the key success factors in BDM according to literature? (2) Which of these key success factors are considered important by practitioners? Based on a literature review, a framework with 10 success factors for BDM is proposed. The success factors were then assessed with a case study. Afterwards, 22 design managers (DMs) have ranked these success factors according to importance. The case study shows that not all 10 success factors were equally dealt with, underlining the need for a broader perspective on successful BDM. The case study findings emphasize the design team and communication as the most important success factors, while the DMs rated communication and decision-making as most important. The proposed framework should enable building DMs to better handle the challenges of the design phase.The architectural, engineering, and construction industry is facing challenges related to increased productivity and improved quality. Most of these challenges need to be dealt with early in the design phase of the projects. This requires an effective design process and increases the need for effective building design management (BDM). This paper explores the success factors for BDM by addressing the following research questions: (1) What are the key success factors in BDM according to literature? (2) Which of these key success factors are considered important by practitioners? Based on a literature review, a framework with 10 success factors for BDM is proposed. The success factors were then assessed with a case study. Afterwards, 22 design managers (DMs) have ranked these success factors according to importance. The case study shows that not all 10 success factors were equally dealt with, underlining the need for a broader perspective on successful BDM. The case study findings emphasize the design team and communication as the most important success factors, while the DMs rated communication and decision-making as most important. The proposed framework should enable building DMs to better handle the challenges of the design phase.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building design; success factors; building design management; case studies; design engineering; decision making |
| Index terms: | design team, design engineering, building design management, literature review, productivity, success factor, building design, design manager, design process, case study, construction industry, decision-making, practitioner, design phase |
| Subjects: | management, structural engineering, design process, decision analysis, industry analysis, data collection methods, profession, practitioner, design methods, professional practice, data analysis and analytics, architectural design, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Risk Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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