QUT Research Week 2005

Conference Proceedings
Edited by A. C. Sidwell
45 July 2005, Brisbane, Australia

A COLLABORATION OF:

COBRA
the Construction Research Conference of the RICS
Foundation
AUBEA
the Australasian Universities' Building Educators
Association Conference
3rd CIB Student Chapters International Symposium
CIB W89
Building Education and Research
CIB TG53
Postgraduate Research Training in Building and
Construction

Australasian
Universities
Building
Educators
Association

The Queensland University of Technology

Research Week International Conference
4-8 July 2005
Brisbane, Australia

Conference Proceedings

Editor: A. C. Sidwell
July 2005

Published by:
Queensland University of Technology
Australia

ISBN 1-74107-101-1

DESIGN AND DOCUMENTATION QUALITY PROBLEMS A

LEAN THINKING OPPORTUNITY
Paul A. Tilley
Salford Centre for Research and Innovation in the Built & Human Environment, Salford University

ABSTRACT
For some time, the construction industry has been portrayed as being uncompetitive and
inefficient when compared to other industries. Projects running over budget, over time
and plagued with rework, variations and disputation, still occur all too frequently. Poor
design and documentation quality standards have often been identified as major
contributors to these project ailments. With design and documentation quality having such
a major influence on the overall performance and efficiency of construction projects, any
improvements can only lead to corresponding improvements in the efficiency of the
construction process.
In trying to determine the causes of design and documentation deficiencies, a number of
studies have identified a variety of external factors; including low design fees, insufficient
design time, inexperienced staff, inappropriate procurement methodologies and poor
communications, to name a few. Various recommendations aimed at improving design
and documentation quality have previously been made, however the majority of these
recommendations require industry-wide initiatives and are generally outside the control of
the designers themselves. This paper suggests that improving the way in which the design
process is managed, may provide more immediate results and enable designers to be more
directly involved in improving the quality of their output.
Lean Construction is a term used to describe the adoption of lean production
philosophies to try to improve the efficiency of the construction process and there is a
growing volume of literature documenting the success of Lean Construction
implementation. By introducing lean production principles to the process of design, it is
felt that an improved management strategy can be developed that will improve the quality
of design and documentation produced. This paper provides an overview of an ongoing
study into Lean Design Management, which is expected to significantly improve the
efficiency of the design process and improve the quality of its output.

Keywords
Design Management, Design Quality, Lean Construction, Lean Design Management

INTRODUCTION
For some time, the construction industry has been portrayed as being uncompetitive and
inefficient when compared to other industries like manufacturing (Latham, 1994; Egan,
1998) with the quality of design and documentation produced being identified as a major
contributing factor (Syam, 1995; Tilley & Barton, 1997). In an ideal world, the design and
documentation provided for construction projects would be complete, precise and
unambiguous. Unfortunately, contractors are often supplied with project documentation that
is considered to be substandard or deficient due to incomplete, conflicting or erroneous

Tilley

information. According to Barrett & Barrett (2004) projects that run over time and budget
are often underpinned by faulty documentation that looks professional (CAD and WP), but in
fact does not properly specify or describe the built solution. Is it any wonder then that the
perception of what constitutes good quality documentation has started to decline (Egan,
2002).
As the quality of the design and documentation produced has a major influence on the overall
performance and efficiency of construction projects (Burati et al. 1992; Lutz et al. 1990;
Kirby et al. 1988), any improvements in design and documentation quality can only lead to
corresponding improvements in the efficiency of the construction process.
The successful application of lean production principles within construction to achieve
process improvement, has highlighted the opportunities for similar gains within the process of
design. To consider the issues, this paper will firstly look at recent research to determine both
the extent and causes of design and documentation problems within construction. Support for
a lean thinking approach will then be considered, before looking at why the traditional
approach does not seem to be working properly. Following a look at the lean approach to
design management, a number of conclusions will be made as well as some recommendations
for future research.

EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

Inadequate and deficient design and documentation, impacts directly on the efficiency of the
construction process by leading to delays, rework and variations, which in turn, contribute to
increases in project time and cost (Tilley and Barton, 1997; Love and Li, 2000; Tilley and
McFallan, 2000a, b & c; Tilley, et.al., 2002; Andi and Minato, 2003; Love and Edwards,
2004). In a study into the causes of quality deviations in design and construction where
deviations are defined as departures from established requirements Burati et al. (1992)
found that on average, 78% of the total number of deviations identified were design related
and that these deviations made up 79% of the total deviation costs. According to Kirby et.al.
(1988), 56% of all contract modifications are needed to correct design deficiencies. In a
similar study to investigate the causes of contract variations, Hibberd (1980) determined that
60% of variations were directly design and documentation related.
Similarly, when considering the problem of rework, Love et.al. (1997) notes that a large
proportion of rework and non-conformance costs are due to deficiencies in design and
documentation and in the transfer of information during the design process. John Holland
Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd and WorkCover New South Wales (1997) also found
that problems with design and documentation quality were major contributors to rework and
rectification. They also indicated that the cost of rework went beyond just the direct physical
cost of rectification.
When considering the cost of rework, Crosby (1979) considered the impact of rework at
different stages of a project with the 1/10/100 Rule. When applied to construction, this rule
states that changes made during the pre-design phase will have an impact of $1 to the project.
However, if these changes arent identified early, they are likely to cost $10 during the design
phase and $100 if you wait until construction has begun. Extending this concept to post
occupancy, then the cost of rework to implement changes not picked up previously, could be
as high as $1000.

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM

There appears to be many influencing factors that contribute to the overall problem of poor
design and documentation quality. Some of these factors are considered to be whole of
industry issues such as the nature of the economy, tertiary education standards and the
fragmented nature of the industry. In addition, inequitable risk/reward arrangements,
inappropriate contracts, poor supply chain integration and an adversarial industry culture have
led to poor industry relationships and a lack of trust between project participants (Egan,
2002).
However other factors such as procurement methodology, project duration and budget,
project brief and project management approach tend to be more project related. In a recent
study (Tilley et.al., 2002), the majority of influencing factors identified by clients and
industry practitioners, tended to be project related, with the following rating most highly:

Design fee levels

Design time allowances

Client briefs

Constructability

Quality control

Quality of staff

From the design consultants point of view, inadequate design fees, inadequate design time
allowances and inadequate/changing design briefs, were considered to be the most important,
due to the direct impact they have on all aspects of the design process, as well as the
relationships between project participants. Interestingly, contractors also considered these
issues to have the most influence on design and documentation quality. When considering the
impact of fees, the following quote is considered appropriate:
It is unwise to pay too much, but its worse to pay too little. When you pay too
much, you lose a little money - that is all. When you pay too little, you
sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing
the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits
paying a little and getting a lot - it cant be done. If you deal with the lowest
bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you
will have enough to pay for something better. (John Ruskin, 1860)

According to DeFraites (1989), overall project quality is greatly determined by the level of
professional services provided and that the quality of these services is generally determined
by how the services are selected and how the fees are negotiated. Where designers are
selected on the basis of low design fees, then the level and quality of the service provided is
likely to be limited, thereby impacting on design and documentation quality.
Many within the construction industry believe that an overall decline in design fee levels over
a number of years and a corresponding reduction in the amount of time being made available
to carry out design combined with an increase in the overall complexity of construction
projects are the major contributing factors to an industry wide decline in design and
documentation performance (Tilley and McFallan, 2000a, b & c; Tilley, et.al., 2002). Baigent
(2000), is also of this belief, but also considers declining staff experience, declining staff
training and an inappropriate reliance on technology, to be other contributing factors.

Tilley

However, it is the impact on the industry which is of most concern, with research in Australia
and overseas confirming that a reduction in project design fees can be directly linked to a
decline in design and documentation quality and construction process efficiency, which
contribute significantly to increases in project time and cost (McGeorge, 1988; Abolnour,
1994; Tilley and McFallan, 2000a, b & c).
Unfortunately however, this situation is not helped by the fact that some sectors of the client
population perceive that low price or cheapness also equates to good value (Pasquire &
Collins, 1996) and as such, there is great pressure on the design fraternity to continue to
reduce their fees. With this type of pressure, is it any wonder then that when investigating the
decline in fee recovery for professional services, Lowry (1996) concluded that the decline in
fees was not the result of efficiency or productivity gains in the provision of professional
services, but was due to: simple cost-cutting measures undertaken for organisational
survival.
However, having gotten used to a low design fee environment, it is highly unlikely that clients
would now be interested in providing additional up-front funds for initial planning and design
even though value engineering (Green and Popper, 1990) and value management (Barton,
1996; Tilley and Barton, 2000) research has indicated significant cost, quality and community
benefits are likely to eventuate. Designers therefore need to consider ways of working smarter
with the limited resources available to them.
Whilst the decline in design fees has obviously provided added pressure on design firms to
carry out their role effectively and try to remain profitable at the same time, it would also
appear that the project management approaches being used to manage the design process are
deficient and need to be reviewed if the challenges of a changing industry are to be met
(Koskela et.al., 1997; Koskela and Howell, 2002). Accordingly, there are a growing number
of researchers who believe that a large proportion of design and documentation problems are
due to inadequate design management and quality control resulting in unnecessary waste
and rework and could be resolved by managing the design process more effectively
(Rounce, 1998; Ballard, 1999; Tzortzopoulos and Formoso, 1999).
In Australia, this belief would also appear to have support from the recent Construction 2020
exercise carried out by the CRC-CI (Hampson & Brandon, 2004), where a national survey of
industry representatives identified Improved management of design and construction as
being of primary importance for improving the industry in the long term (see Figure 1 below).
However to achieve the necessary improvements in design management, will require a change
in the way the process is carried out and a move towards a more collaborative and integrated
system. For many, that means a move towards a system based on the principles of lean
production (Ballard, 1999; Tzortzopoulos and Formoso, 1999; Freire & Alarcon, 2002;
Koskela et.al., 2002) which provides opportunities for these changes.

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

Q4 Picture Your Vision

b. Improved mgmt of design & construction
k. Ongoing environmental assessment & mgmt
h. Avoidance of adversarial relationships
d. Improved building performance

Wish List

i. Fairer distribution of project risks

f. Virtual simulation of design & construction
a. Restructuring of supply chain
j. Design/contractor involvement beyond completion
m. Greater off-site manufacturing
c. Improved asset management
e. Computer-based B2B transactions
g. Automated sensing of built environments
l. Improved working conditions
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% of Respondents Selecting Vision as Top 5 Priority

Figure 1. Issues essential for improving the industry in the long term (Hampson & Brandon, 2004)

The Support for a Lean Thinking Approach

Over the last few years, support for a Lean Thinking approach to construction has been
growing steadily and been provided at fairly high levels. In his report entitled Rethinking
Construction, Egan (1998), recommend that the UK construction industry should adopt
Lean Thinking as a means of sustaining performance improvement. More recently, in their
Construction 2020 document, Hampson and Brandon (2004) identified the need to move to a
lean production environment as part of its Improved Process of Manufacture of Constructed
Products vision for the future. Generally, this vision sees the industry developing new
production processes to enable it to work more efficiently and effectively. It is therefore their
belief that a lean production environment in association with the adoption of ICT
improvements will enable the supply chain to become more integrated and collaborative,
leading to a considerable reduction in time and cost over-runs on construction projects.
According to Kagioglou et.al. (2000), the successful implementation of lean production
philosophies within the design and construction process, provides opportunities for optimising
material and information flows and processes which lead to reduced project time-scales and
waste in both materials and time as well as improvements in internal and external supply
chain integration through the more effective partnerships.
Problems with Traditional Design Management
According to Rounce (1998), a lot of the quality and efficiency problems experienced during
the design process, are due to inadequate design management and poor quality control of the
end product. Whilst modern construction projects range in their level of complexity, they all
still require the skills of many diverse individuals to be brought together, coordinated and
effectively managed as a team, to ensure the realization of the clients objective.
Unfortunately, designers tend to be well known for their lack of management ability (Emmitt,
1999).

Tilley

According to Tzortzopoulos and Formoso (1999), poor design management contributes

significantly to poor design process performance, with the following being the main problem
areas:

Poor communication

Unbalanced resource allocation

Lack of adequate documentation

Lack of coordination between disciplines

Deficient or missing input information

Erratic decision making

The main problem with design from a management perspective, is that the process is complex
and therefore difficult to manage. From identifying customer needs to visualising and
developing construction solutions that meet those needs, design requires the input and
collaboration from a large and diverse group of individuals and organisations. Managing the
design process therefore has as much to do with managing people and the flow of information
between the various project participants as it has to do with managing specific activities and
tasks.
It is therefore probably due to its difficult nature, that the effort applied to planning and
controlling the design process is generally either inadequate or inappropriate. This inability to
effectively plan and control the process, eventually leads to chaos and a lack of a common
direction for the design team, ensuring that information does not flow efficiently between the
parties, to enable the design solutions to develop properly.
However, when design management is carried out, it is generally using a project management
model. However, according to Ballard & Koskela (1998), the concepts and techniques of
project management are unable to provide an effective solution to the difficulties of managing
the design process. This is due to the fundamental nature of project management which
according to Koskela & Howell (2002) is based solely on the transformation model/theory
of production, in which inputs are converted into outputs and where the total transformation is
able to be broken down (de-composed) into smaller transformations or tasks; with each task
being considered and managed independently of other tasks. Management techniques such as
work breakdown structures (WBS) and Critical Path Method (CPM) are based on this model
(Ballard & Koskela, 1998).
This approach can be of benefit from a contractual perspective, by allowing the extent of
work completed or the amount of money expended to be determined through the simple
addition of the percentage complete of each task. However, it does nothing to assist with the
production of design, which requires an allowance for the inter-dependant nature of tasks and
the individuals carrying them out, or the flow of information needed to enable design
solutions to progress. This lack of appreciation of the inter-relatedness of tasks also leads to
tasks being planned in an order that is sub-optimal to the information needs of the designers,
causing poor productivity, project delays and decreased value of the final solution (Koskela
et.al., 1997).
Although the traditional project management approach is able to identify specific design tasks
within a project plan, there is often insufficient consideration given to the information
required from others to enable these tasks to actually be completed as and when required. By
failing to plan the information flows in relation to the various tasks, delays in obtaining the
information often occur, which can either lead to delays in completing design tasks, or having
designs and design documents issued with missing information. Unfortunately these design
management problems often dont show up until much later in the construction process and as

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

indicated previously, the latter situation is a common cause of rework in both the design and
construction processes (Rounce, 1998; Lahdenper and Tanhuanp, 2000).
Another problem relates to change and if there is one constant in construction projects, it is
change. Standard project management practice is to try to avoid change and manage the
project as if the project initiators and planners had a crystal ball and could tell the future with
a large degree of certainty. This is obviously not the case and as all projects have a large
degree of uncertainty and are constantly changing to meet the challenges of a variable system,
then the management approach also needs to be flexible enough to adapt to those changes
(Highsmith, 2004). A project manager who tries to slavishly adhered to a rigid plan, is only
looking for trouble and will miss opportunities to enable the project objectives to be met
through being flexible with activity definitions and schedules. Due to the iterative and
developing nature of design, such flexibility needs to be an integral part of its management
process.
The Lean Approach to Design Management
Unlike the traditional method of managing design, the lean approach considers design not
only as a transformation (T) of inputs to outputs, but also considers the issues of material and
information flows (F) as well as value generation (V) for the customer at the same time. A
brief summary of this TFV view of design presented in more detail in Koskela and Huovila
(1997) and Koskela (2000) is shown below in Table 1.
Table 1: Transformation, Flow and Value generation concepts of design (Koskela et.al., 2002).

Conceptualization
of Design

Main principles

Methods and
practices

Practical
contribution

Suggested name
for practical
application of the
concept

Transformation View
As a transformation of
requirements and other
input information into
product design

Flow View
As
a
flow
of
information, composed
of
transformation,
inspection, moving and
waiting
Hierarchical
Elimination of waste
decomposition; control (unnecessary activities);
of
decomposed time reduction, rapid
activities
reduction of uncertainty

Value Generation View

As a process where value
for the customer is created
through fulfillment of his
requirements

Elimination of value loss

(gap between achieved
value and best possible
value),
rigorous
requirement
analysis,
systematized
management of flowdown of requirements,
optimization
Function
Structure Quality
Work
Breakdown Design
Team Deployment,
Structure, Critical Path Matrix,
Tool requirements
Method, Organizational Approach,
management, Value
Integration, Partnering
Responsibility Chart
Engineering/Management,
Taguchi Methods
Taking care that
Taking care of what
Taking care that what
customer requirements
has to be done
is unnecessary is done
are met in the best
as little as possible
possible manner
Task management
Flow management
Value management

Tilley

Transformation View
Obviously, the design process includes transformation; transformation of information into
ideas, ideas into concepts and concepts into design solutions, which are ultimately converted
from mental images into various documents (ie. drawings and specifications), to allow
communication of these ideas with others, as well as maintaining a record of the authors
thoughts and ideas. However, to avoid total chaos and a lack of direction, it is also necessary
to consider the traditional management issues of planning, executing and controlling, but not
in isolation and at a level of detail appropriate to the level of management and control.
High level plans should only consider the big issues and those major project milestones that
are pertinent to the various stages of the design process. Whilst this provides direction, it also
provides sufficient flexibility to allow for the inevitable changes that will occur throughout
the design process. It is then up to the lower levels within the project hierarchy to plan their
work (in consultation with others) by decomposing larger project activities into specific
process tasks, identified as being required to achieve activity objectives. This not only allows
specific tasks and their inter-relationships to be defined with greater clarity (generally poorly
done in practice), but also helps to develop a greater level of ownership and commitment
within the team, to achieving the plans developed.
Flow View
When considering the design process from a flow perspective, in addition to transformation,
the non-value adding stages of waiting, moving and inspection and how we can either
eliminate or minimize them are also consider. By identifying and defining what prerequisite information is required, who is responsible for supplying it and obtaining
commitments that the information will be provided to the required quality standards as well as
when it is needed, it is possible to manage the flow of information more efficiently and reduce
wasted effort. Failure to properly consider these issues has been a common cause for design
delays, or worse, incomplete, inefficient or inappropriate design solutions being issued, which
can lead to rework, increased costs or a loss of value.
However, by keeping track of both upstream and downstream team members (information
suppliers and information receivers) it is also possible to ensure that effort is mainly carried
out on tasks that maintain activity progress objectives and isnt wasted on tasks that arent
needed immediately. Due to the nature of the industry, changes and delays will occur, so it is
essential to keep a track on both those supplying and receiving information, to determine if
information requirements change thereby ensuring that information provided is appropriate to
the changing circumstances.
Two planning methodologies that are commonly used to help with flow are, Decision
Structure Matrix (DSM) and Last Planner SystemTM (LPS). DSM is a process that looks at
the various tasks and tries to identify an optimal planning sequence, based upon the
information flow inter-relationships between the various tasks. As out-of-sequence design
work has been directly linked to poor design performance, this is a simple method to assist
with process improvement (Koskela, et.al. 1997).
LPS on the other hand, is more involved with assisting designers to balance the push and
pull elements of production planning where push relates to workflow meeting preestablished delivery dates regardless of the state of the process, while pull relates to
allowing workflow to occur, only when the process is in a state of readiness. (Ballard, 1999).
Managing the design process in relation to both push and pull elements, provides a balance
between programme pressure and the realities of a dynamic production system, to improve
workflow and productivity which ultimately lead to better design solution and improved time,
cost and quality outcomes.

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

Value Generation
Value generation is about maximizing value for the customer by being able to create better
design solutions through the use of improvements in the quantity and quality of information
used to make design decisions. This is done by acknowledging the fact that customer needs
and requirements are unlikely to be properly known at the start of the project and that only
through a continuous process of requirements capture and feedback, can value be maximised.
Traditionally, requirements capture is only done at the beginning of the design process, with
the development of the Design Brief. However, whilst clients may have an overall vision of
what the project is about and the types of services that the project is meant to deliver, rarely
do they know exactly what is required to achieve that vision or the form it will take. Due to
this uncertainty at the beginning of the project, requirements capture is an evolving process
that occurs throughout the design process as a collaborative process between the client and the
rest of the project team (Highsmith, 2004). This process acknowledges the iterative nature of
design and assists with the continual development of design solutions by embracing the fact
that change will continue to occur as greater knowledge identifies ways to further increase
customer value.
Although used here to describe the practical application of the theoretical concept of value
generation, Value Management is also an existing practice-based discipline that can and has
been used as a process to help define project requirements and maximise project value for all
involved (Tilley & Barton, 2000). Additionally, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) has
also been identified (Koskela, et.al., 2002) as a method by which customer value is enhanced
by ensuring that expectations are met.
Application of Lean Design Management.
Although the number of recorded case studies that review the implementation of lean
principles to design management are few, results have been quite positive. Through the use
of DSM and LPS, Koskela, et.al. (1997) noted that a more transparent design process with
metrics for effectively monitoring progress was able to be achieved, and helped achieve a
30% reduction in design time, compared to similar projects. Similarly, a lean approach
including the use of the LPS on a design and construct project, was shown to be
instrumental in enabling a quality design solution to be delivered quickly and allow the
projects extremely tight time and cost parameters to be met (Miles, 1998). Tzortzopoulos
and Formoso (1999) on the other hand, used flowcharts and input-output charts to effectively
model the design process of a number of house builders, and integrate the TFV concept of
design to achieve process improvement. More recently however, Freire and Alarcon (2002)
identified significant decreases in product unit errors, waiting time in process and nonvalue adding activities to achieve a 31% increase in productivity, by implementing a lean
improvement methodology for the design process.
And whilst the potential benefits of adopting a lean approach to design management are
many, there would also appear to be a number of criteria that need to be considered, to ensure
the best possible outcome from its implementation. As Tzortzopoulos and Formoso (1999),
rightly note, no matter how good a design process might be, if the design team is not up to the
task (ie does not have the qualifications or experience to carry out the work) then the quality
and ultimate value of the design outcomes, are likely to be reduced. This would seem to
indicate that a Qualification Based Selection (QBS) process be used when selecting the design
team. However, just as important as (if not more than) their qualifications and experience, is
the teams ability to work together as a team, in a collaborative environment. This factor in
particular, seems to provide an underlying thread to the application of lean principles in
design and construction.

Tilley

Conclusions and Recommendations

Problems with the quality of design and documentation in the construction industry are
continuing to have a significant impact on the efficiency of the construction industry and are a
major contributor to design and construction rework. Research has identified a variety of
industry-wide and project specific issues that have an impact on the quality of design and
documentation produced, with designers indicating issues such as low design fees, short
design time allowances and poor design briefs as having the major influence.
Whilst these issues obviously can influence design and documentation quality, other research
suggests that the traditional way in which the design process is managed is also contributing
to these problems, with examples of the impact of poor design management being given. The
adoption of lean production philosophies to the construction industry, is however seen by
many as a way of helping to improve its efficiency. By adopting a lean approach to the
management of design, it is felt by many that the deficiencies of the traditional management
approach can be alleviated to help make the design process more efficient and optimise the
use of the limited resources available.
The design process is a creative one, requiring complex, uncertain and conflicting
requirements to be transformed into buildable and usable solutions. Managing this process
requires not only providing support for the creative process to flourish, but also removing any
potential obstacles as well. Through better management of the time available, not only could
one of the most noted root causes of design deficiency insufficient/inadequate time be
alleviated, but that the additional time recovered could be used to provide better project
outcomes and increase value for the customer.
It would also appear that a side benefit achieved by the application of lean principles relates to
improvements in the working relationships between project participants. For the design
process to work effectively, a collaborative working environment needs to be in place. By
promoting high levels of collaboration and communication within the project team, lean
design processes can assist in enabling design solutions to be more integrated, coordinated
and focused on delivering value to the end customer. However, to achieve maximum benefit
from the application of lean principles within design management, it is recommended that a
relationship based procurement methodology be used.
Based on the above, it would appear that for the dramatic improvements needed in design and
documentation quality to occur, a change in the way the design process is managed is
necessary. This paper has highlighted the deficiencies with the traditional method of
managing design projects as well as the opportunities for improvement that a lean design
management approach can provide. Now it is up to the industry to decide whether it wants to
continue with a process that isnt performing to requirements, or adopt an approach to offers
significant advantages for all parties involved.

REFERENCES
Abolnour, M.M. (1994), The Relationship of Fee Structure in Engineering Offices and Design Deficiency, MSc.
Dissertation, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Andi, S. and Minato, T. (2003) Design documents quality in the Japanese construction industry: factors
influencing and impacts on construction process, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp 537546.
Baigent, A. (2000), Engineers, Documentation and Litigation, AISC IEAust Special Issue, Steel Construction,
Vol. 34, No. 4, Dec. 2000.
Ballard, G. (1999), Can Pull Techniques Be Used In Design Management, Presented at the Conference on
Concurrent Engineering in Construction, Helsinki, Finland. August 26-27.

Design and documentation quality problems a lean thinking opportunity

Ballard, G. and Koskela, L. (1998). On the Agenda of Design Management Research, Proceedings of the Sixth
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja Beach, Brazil.
Barrett, P. & Barrett, L. (2004) Revaluing Construction: Final Synthesis Report on Workshops, University of
Salford.
Barton R.T. (1996), The application of value management to the development of project concepts, Proceedings
of the International Symposium on the Organisation and Management of Construction: Shaping Theory and
Practice, Glasgow, Scotland, pp 115-123.
Burati, J.L., Farrington, J.J. and Ledbetter, W.B. (1992), Causes of quality deviations in design and construction,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp 34-49.
Crosby, P.B. (1979),Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, New American Library, New York.
DeFraites, A.A. Jr. (1989), Fee versus quality, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 115, No.2, pp
125-128.
Egan, J. (2002), Accelerating Change: A report by the Strategic Forum for Construction, Rethinking
Construction, Construction Industry Council, London.
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
Emmitt, S. (1999), Architectural managementan evolving field, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 188196.
Freire, J. and Luis F. Alarcon, L.F. (2002), Achieving Lean Design Process: Improvement Methodology, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128, No. 3, pp. 248-256.
Green, S.D. & Popper, P.A. (1990), Value Engineering - The Search For Unnecessary Cost, Occasional Paper
No. 39, Chartered Institute of Building, Ascot, Berkshire.
Hampson, K. and Brandon, P. (2004) Construction 2020: A Vision for Australias Property and Construction
Industry, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, Brisbane.
Hibberd, P.R. (1980), Variations in Construction Contracts, MSc Thesis, University of Manchester Institute of
Technology, UK.
Highsmith, J. (2004) Agile Project Management Creating Innovative Products. Addison-Wesley, Boston.
John Holland Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd and WorkCover New South Wales (1997), Occupational
health and safety: Best practice study of erection of steelwork at Sydney showground Homebush Bay. Journal
of the Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp 219.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G. & Sexton, M. (2000), Rethinking construction: the Generic Design and
Construction Process Protocol, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 7, No. 2,
pp.141153.
Kirby, J.G., Douglas A. & Hiks, D.K. (1988), Improvements in design review management, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 114, No. 1, pp 69-82.
Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2002), The underlying theory of project management is obsolete, Proceedings of the
PMI Research Conference, pp. 293-302.
Koskela, L., Huovila, P. and Leinonen, J. (2002), Design Management in Building Construction: From Theory to
Practice, Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Koskela, L., Ballard, G. and Tanhuanp, V-P. (1997), Towards lean design management, Proceedings of the
Fifth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Griffith University, Gold Coast.
Lahdenper, P. and Tanhuanp, V-P. (2000). "Creation of a new design management system based on process
optimization and proactive strategy." Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 7, No. 3,
pp. 267277.
Latham, M. Sir. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London, UK.
Love, P.E.D. and Edwards, D.J., (2004) Determinants of rework in building construction projects, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Volume 11 Number 4 2004 pp. 259274
Love, P.E.D. and Li, H. (2000), Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 18, pp 479-490.
Love, P.E.D., Mandel, P. and Li, H. (1997), A systematic approach to modeling the causes and effects of rework
in construction, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Construction Industry Development:
Building the Future Together, Singapore, Vol. 2, pp. 347-355.
Lowry, N. (1996), Government Procurement of Capital Works and Competition Policy Their Effect on the
Quantity Surveying Profession and Ramifications for the Community, Research Report, Australian Institute of
Quantity Surveyors: Queensland Chapter, Australia.
Lutz, J.D., Hancher, D.E. & East, E.W. (1990), Framework for design-quality-review data-base system, Journal
of Management in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp 296-312.
McGeorge, J.F. (1988), Design productivity: A quality problem, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 4,
No. 4, pp 350-362.
Miles, Robert (1998), Alliance lean design/construct on a small high tech project, Proceedings of
the Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja Beach, Brazil.

Tilley

Pasquire, C.L. and Collins, S. (1996), The effect of competitive tendering on value in construction, Proceedings
of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors COBRA Conference, University of the West of England,
http://www.uwe.ac.uk/conferences/COBRA96/cobra.htm.
Rounce, G. (1998), Quality, waste and cost considerations in architectural building design management,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 123-127.
Syam, A. (1995), Editorial, Steel Construction Journal of the Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Vol.
29, No. 3, p 1.
Tilley, P. A., McFallan, S. L., and Sinclair, R. G. (2002). Improving design and documentation quality. In,
Measurement and Management of Architectural Value in Performance-Based Building - Proceedings of the CIB
W60/W96 Joint Conference on Performance Concept in Building and Architectural Management, Hong Kong,
6-8 May, pp. 361 377. CIB Publication 283: Rotterdam.
Tilley, P. A. and McFallan, S. L. (2000a). Design and Documentation Quality Survey Designers
Perspectives. (BCE DOC 00/113). CSIRO - Building, Construction and Engineering: Melbourne.
Tilley, P. A. and McFallan, S. L. (2000b). Design and Documentation Quality Survey Contractors
Perspectives. (BCE DOC 00/114). CSIRO - Building, Construction and Engineering: Melbourne.
Tilley, P. A. and McFallan, S. L. (2000c). Design and Documentation Quality Survey Comparison of
Designers and Contractors Perspectives. (BCE DOC 00/115). CSIRO - Building, Construction and
Engineering: Melbourne.
Tilley, P. A. and Barton, R. T. (2000). Cost-Cutting Leads to Poor Value, Proceedings of the Fourth
International Value Management Conference "Add Value, Create Wealth, Go VM", Hong Kong, 22-23
November.
Tilley, P.A. and Barton, R. (1997), Design and documentation deficiency Causes and effects. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Construction Process Reengineering, Gold Coast, Australia, pp. 703712.
Tzortzopoulos, P. and Formoso, C.T. (1999), Considerations on the Application of Lean Construction principles
to Design Management, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, University of California, Berkley, 26-28 July, pp. 335-344.