Design-Build Inefficiencies
This is a quick paper outlining an abandoned research project for my freshman year project…
Architecture can be a lot of different things; beautiful, expansive, ugly, restrictive, unique, bland, etc. For professionals in the architectural industry, I believe one thing it must be is profitable. The goal of any capitalist business model is to provide a service or product for a profit, architecture is no different. However, in today’s business environment it seems profitability is becoming increasingly difficult to ascertain. Although there are numerous influences that affect the profitability of any given business model, I believe one of the most effective ways to address low margins in a proven method, such as the Design-Build approach, is to evaluate the current workflow, identify and correct inefficiencies that will increase productivity, accuracy and overall potential. For many it is imperative to continually audit business practices to aid in the adaptation of internal processes. This will inherently allow architecture firms, regardless of size, to maximize profits.
The business of Architecture is changing rapidly. There are many forms of project delivery in the architectural profession, but just a single method is quickly becoming the leading form in the United States. Over the last decade, the Design-Build method has become the preference of residential, commercial, educational as well as government clients. This preference has altered the way many architectural and construction firms conduct business. Prior to 1980, the Design-Build process was viewed as a method of delivery that was best utilized in agricultural and utilitarian projects. In fact, until repealed in 1978, The American Institute of Architects (AIA) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct2 stated that architects should not be allowed to participate in the construction aspects of any project, including Design-Build project delivery. (AIA, 2003, p.1) Due to this limitation, the growth of the Design-Build method was slowed. However, due to the aforementioned repeal and the inherent benefits for the client, its popularity soared.
Understanding the delivery approach is central to the evolution of delivery methods in the architecture profession. There are various methods of project delivery used in the design/construction industry today and a continual evolution of these methods is expected. However, each can be classified as a variant as one of three general types: traditional design-bid-build, construction management, and design-build. Although the client or project restrictions may require the use of a specific method, in The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice, Bernstein provides detail into the selection of delivery approach,
“The project delivery method chosen for a building project depends on two main considerations: What roles will the owner, architect, and contractor play during development and construction? Which variable factor(s) – cost, schedule, building quality, risk, and client capability – are driving the choice?” (Demkin, 2008, p. 257)
Using these questions as a guide in selecting the appropriate method of project delivery, the architect/firm can increase the efficiency of the project before it starts. Previously, only the cost of a project’s construction drove the delivery approach, and usually the contractor submitting the lowest bid was selected. Today, however, the aforementioned variables will affect the selection of a delivery approach. Identifying the impact of these variables will considerably reduce project hardship and aid in the selection of the most effective approach.
The traditional or conventional project delivery system, most commonly referred to as design-bid-build or D/B/B, is based on a chronological process of design, construction documents, bidding, contract award, and then construction. This approach requires a significant amount of time as each work segment must be completed prior to beginning the next. The construction documents, a direct result of the design process, are used by the contractor to submit fixed price bids on the project. In this approach, the lowest-bid contactor that is aligned with the project requirements of the contract documents is usually selected. The traditional project delivery system is best used when the project is divided into separate contracts for the design and construction phases (“AIA Contract Documents,” 2010, sl. 2). Currently, this is the method in which most projects in the United States are completed. Much like the hierarchy of project delivery, numerous variations of this method exist, such as the negotiated select team and cost plus fixed fee approaches.
Although limitations exist in this model, there are significant advantages to the design-bid-build process. The client can significantly reduce their involvement in the project, if their creative and functional objectives align well with the designer. The use of a bidding system inherently increases the competition with regards to project cost and scheduling, allowing for the architect to increase efficiency and quality of the project for the client. Some of the potential issues surrounding the traditional method include: absence of construction professional during design process and an increased project timeline which can cause significant project cost increases due to expenses on construction loans and/or seasonal material availability.
As previously mentioned, the design-build methodology has grown significantly in popularity in the past ten years (Jackson, 2004), and is frequently referred to as single-source project delivery. This approach requires a single contract; the client contracts with a design-build entity that will be responsible for both the design and construction of the project. Although growing in appeal, the design-build method is still just the second most common method of project delivery. According to a 2006 AIA Firm Survey, design-bid-build accounted for 59.3% of all projects while just 13.5% of gross billings were design-build projects (Demkin, 2008). However, owners are moving toward design-build delivery for a variety of reasons, including benefits such as these: single source for design and construction, quicker project delivery, guaranteed project pricing, minimized claims and damages, and extended product warranties (Quatman & Dhar, 2003).
An example outlining a client’s rationale regarding their choice of the design-build process corroborates the argument above. When asked about their choice regarding a recent design-build project, a University of Florida official responded:
Rather than having two sources of responsibility, with me trying to take documents from a designer and giving them to the CM—with me essentially being the middleman—the designer is working for the contractor. So if there are any errors in the design, the contractor is responsible for that, versus the University of Florida. It presents a different contractual arrangement and one that I really like. (Quatman, 2004, p. 1)
A Navy spokesman expressed a similar view,
Having a team approach to construction yields the best product because you are not handing off someone else’s design, which eliminates finger-pointing and it’s also great for fast project execution. (U.S. Military Delivering Smarter Construction, Design-Build, June 2003, p.40.)
In both cases, the motivation for utilizing the design-build process can be attributed to project efficiencies. In the first example, efficient communication and compartmentalized responsibility are provided as reinforcement to the decision. The second example highlights the benefits of single point of contact as well as the advanced project completion timeline. I feel that due to the current advantages already offered by the design-build process over the more traditional design-bid-build method the Design-Build method provides more opportunity to increase the efficiency of the process and methodology of project delivery.
Just as it is important to understand the various methods of project delivery to assess which processes have the greatest potential; it is also imperative the method in which research is conducted is comprehensive. While exploring the various methods of research that could be used to assist in the analysis of the Design-Build project delivery method, I believe a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches are necessary. In Architectural Research Methods, Groat and Wang describe qualitative research to be dependant on nonnumeric evidence, whether verbal, experimental, or artifactual whereas the quantitative research depends on the manipulation of phenomena that can be measured by numbers. (Groat & Wang, 2002, p. 25) As I am relying on numeric evidence, such as interview/survey results and nonnumeric evidence such as case studies, both classifications should be applied. Due to the large number of variables within the Design-Build process and the inability to numerically quantify human thought/interaction, the success of suggested process alterations must be considered within some level of probability. Because of this human element, modifications and accommodations will have to be made in the research process. (Groat and Wang, 2002, p.33) It is my opinion that this inquiry best correlates with the Postpositivism paradigm.
In addition to the type of information that is collected throughout the research process, it is vital to consider the quality of standards. The survey provided to the various industry professionals was administered electronically. To meet the internal validity standards, once inefficiencies have been indentified and corrected, the processes need be measured in a production environment to provide confirmation of the enhancement. Unfortunately, for this portion of the research, implementing new processes in a professional environment was not possible.
When requesting participation, architectural firms from across the United States were selected. I felt this was the best way to provide external validity of the research as it would ensure the responses were not bound by contextual constraints such as; geographical location, building type, industry, etc. As previously stated, the same survey was provided to various individuals for completion. Due to the way the survey was administered, I feel confident the results will provide sufficient information to propose alterations to current processes in the Design-Build method; however, given the amount of human interaction/decisions, I don’t feel it would meet the reliability standards outlined by Groat and Wang. It would be impossible to guarantee the processes will function in the same manor anytime or anywhere.
After carefully studying the various methods in which research can be structured, I was compelled to utilize the case study and the multi-method approach. The use of case studies allows the injection of historical data to support the qualitative information that is collected using various forms of individual interviews. One tactic that was utilized was an electronic survey to collect structured answers from the respondents. In addition to providing the validity to the survey findings, as one of the weaknesses of qualitative research is that the credibility of qualitative data can be seen as suspect with the postpositivist paradigm, the case studies give insight of the current attributes of Design-Build projects being completed today. Important project metrics such as: timeline, budget, size, geographic location, etc., can all be identified in case studies.
In conjunction with the case study approach, a qualitative method was also used. Although the aforementioned case studies aid in my efforts to justify the necessity to efficiently overhaul of the Design-Build processes, additional information was required to narrow the scope of research. I felt the best way to identify the various areas was to survey professionals currently practicing the Design-Build project delivery method. The ability to “take in rich and holistic qualities of real life circumstances” (Groat and Wang, 2002, p.199), is one of several strengths to the qualitative approach. As the Design-Build process is riddled with human decision, it is necessary to have the flexibility in the design and procedures of the research structure to allow adjustments for these incalculable deviations. In addition to the method of collection, the means in which I intend to display the information served as a guide when choosing the research design as well. Most qualitative research studies make use of data displays, whether in the form of charts, graphics, or tables.” (Groat and Wang, 2002, p. 194). My intention to provide results in an intuitive graphical representation can be viewed in the accompanying report.
One of the major issues I encountered while this research focus developed was challenge of dealing with an immense amount of data. I was able to limit the amount of scope creep that took place by adjusting the questions that were provided in the survey; however, moving to the next phase of research will require a significant effort of categorization. The necessity of categorization comes from the variables injected into the process by human decision and interaction. Assigning values to these decisions will require a tremendous amount of flexibility in the measurement structure that is created to identify whether a process is efficient or not. Another weakness to the use of the qualitative design method was the lack of guidelines or relevant case studies that could be used to aid in the setup of the research method. Without sufficient examples, I found it to be difficult when structuring the collection as well as analytical portions of the research.
The impersonal characteristics of the electronic format provided a significant setback in the first survey design. In most cases, respondents did not have an issue answering the survey with personal information such as; name, age, length of employment, etc., however, it was necessary to delete these demographic metrics from the electronic format due to lack of response. Once these questions were not required, the response rate quickly rose. In addition to the comfort level of respondents to the medium, I was also not able to account for the variations from the Design-Build process as defined by the AIA. Like many project delivery methods, many firms have adapted the process to fit more congruently with their approach to business. Due to these adjustments, it was difficult to correlate some of the responses.
Although the intention was to utilize only one collection method, I feel this is something I would adjust in the next round of research. The survey tactic, although helpful, could have received tremendous benefit from the injection of interviews with the respondents as well. Using both data sets, it would be possible to expand the analysis of the Design-Build process to include the current adaptations being utilized in today’s professional environment. Incorporating this data would provide the validity needed to justify the adaptation of the AIA defined Design-Build process.
The goal of this research is to identify, summarize and categorize the current inefficiencies of the Design-Build process in the business phase. In understanding how and why each process is inefficient, we can introduce more effective procedures and automation into the delivery method. Ideally the benefits of this exploration will provide a solid understanding of the methods of identification, categorization and implementation to aide architectural firm’s ability to increase profits while providing affordable services for their clients. I think the impact of this research would have tremendous effects on the architectural design world. Reducing the financial commitment required for clients can provide significant incentive for new developments. In addition to the benefit of inflated business opportunities, shortened project timelines will provide opportunity for internal resources to be distributed more effectively across all projects. From the client’s perspective, the benefits of a streamlined project delivery method will reduce the financial commitment and implementation timeline. It is my hope that architecture firms will be able to utilize this research as a guideline to audit additional project delivery types.
References
Advantages of Design/Build for Clients. (n.d.). Design/Build Business Training and Consultation for Professional Residential Designers, Builders and Remodelers in the Business of Home Improvement and the Remodeling Industry. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.mydesignbuildcoach.com/articles/advantages_of_design_build.htm
Architects, A. I. (2008). The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice (14 ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Architects, T. A. (2003). The Architect’s Guide to Design-Build Services. New York, NY: Wiley.
Beard, J. L., Loulakis, M. C., & Wundram, E. C. (2001). Design-Build: Planning Through Development (1 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Design-bid-build – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design-bid-build
Design-build – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved April 17, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design-build
Elvin, G. (2007). Integrated Practice in Architecture: Mastering Design-Build, Fast-Track, and Building Information Modeling. New York, NY: Wiley.
Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2001). Architectural Research Methods. New York, NY: Wiley.
Jackson, B. J. (510). Construction Management JumpStart. New York: Sybex.
Thomas, A. (2006). Design-Build (Architecture in Practice) (1 ed.). Chichester: Academy Press.
Paper written by Matthew Wehrly, Student at Lawrence Technological University