See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251980239

Factors influencing project quality in the design phase of building projects: A

case in the Department of Building and Engineering Services of Botswana

Article · December 2010

DOI: 10.1109/IEEM.2010.5674525

CITATIONS READS

0 62

3 authors, including:

Cornelis Cristo van Waveren Kai-Ying Chan

University of Pretoria University of Pretoria
38 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   207 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Knowledge Transfer in PBOs View project

Project Management Offices View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kai-Ying Chan on 24 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Factors Influencing Project Quality in the Design Phase of Building Projects: A
Case in the Department Of Building and Engineering Services of Botswana
E.N.D. Dodoo, C.C. van Waveren, K.-Y. Chan
Graduate School of Technology Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
(corro@up.ac.za)
Abstract –There were numerous complaints regarding
the quality of building projects ran by the Department of
Building and Engineering Services (DBES) in Botswana. The
aim of this study is to evaluate participants involving DBES
projects by using 16 factors in the project design phase
which may influence the quality of building projects.
Empirical results show that DBES lacks commitment to
continuous quality improvement and poor use of lessons
learned to improve quality. The key focus area is adherence
to project management principles and poor level in this area
may contribute towards DBES’s poor project quality.
Moreover, this study identified 3 types of groups based from
the respondents’ attributes and explored the differences in
group means.
Keywords – building projects; project quality; project
design phase, project management principles
I. INTRODUCTION
The Department of Building and Engineering
Services (DBES) in Botswana is a merger of the previous
Department of Architecture and Building Services
(DABS) and Department of Electrical and Mechanical
Services (DEMS). This newly merged department, DBES,
is responsible for the implementation of government
building infrastructure development projects. DBES has a
pure project management structure where people working
on a project are grouped together under a project manager
that report to an executive officer. It appears that the
merging of the two departments has not lead to better
project quality. There were numerous complaints from
Botswana government on DBES building projects. In
previous research, the project design phase has a greater
impact on overall project quality [1]. This paper identified
16 factors during the design phase that may influence the
quality of projects and evaluating participants involved in
DBES projects against these factors in order to identify
key focus area. Moreover, the characteristics of the
respondents were also taken into account to identify
behavioural differences.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND FRAMEWORK
Building projects start with the project design phase
where it ‘translates the primary concept into an expression
of a spatial form which will satisfy the owner’s
requirements into an optimum and economic manner’ [2].
978-1-4244-8503-1/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
During the project design phase the objectives, constraints
and specifications of the project are defined by a team of
individuals [3]. In building projects many uncertainties
could be eliminated during the early stage by addressing
the scope of the project, the deliverables, the cost
involved, as well as the schedule for delivery [4].
Effective management for project quality starts when the
deliverables (that satisfy the need) are determined at this
phase [5]. Customer satisfaction is considered as one of
the four project quality pillars that emerge from the
conceptual foundation [6] and thus customer / user
requirements at the initial stages of projects (i.e. design
phase) should be specified or defined clearly to avoid
design deficiencies which may cause contract
modifications during the implementation of the project
[7].
In this study the authors identified three categories of
factors in the project design phase that may influence
project quality. These categories are: project management
principles, involvement of role players, and project scope.
1) Project Management Principles: These principles
are most often learnt from experience and may be applied
to all projects to ensure success. In this study the
following principles to be included during the design
phase of DBES’s projects have been identified:
x DBES’s selection process of the design team on
meeting the client’s requirements and
expectations
x Adherence to design brief from clients
x DBES’s commitment to continuous quality
improvement
x DBES leadership commitment to the adherence of
procedures and specifications at the design phase
x Comprehensiveness of drawings and
specifications
x Visibility of the total life cycle cost during the
design phase
x Use of lessons learned to improve the quality of
designs
2) Involvement of Role Players: Inputs from project
participants (role players) during the design phase will
clarify project scope, planning and scheduling and
eliminate uncertainties in the future [8]. Involvement of
the following role players during design phase are
important to DBES project quality:
651
 Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM

x End-users standard deviation of the attributes of the respondents and

x Management of DBES the factors (seen as variables in this study) in the design
x All Stakeholders phase. Moreover, a reliability test was done on these
x Building Contractors variables to determine how well the items measured a
3) Project Scope: Inadequate or poor scope single, unidimensional latent construct. The second part of
definition may negatively collate to the project data analysis explored the differences in ratings of the
performance and result in failure of projects [9]. factors between the independent groups (which are
Moreover, it may lead to poor design basis and adversely identified based from the attributes of the respondents).
affect projects [10]. Project scope related factors Independent samples t-tests were used to explore any
identified in this study are: significant differences in the group means.
x Sufficient project information provided by DBES
x Completeness and clarity of the scope definition IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION
provided by DBES
x Pre-project planning effort on government projects A. Descriptive statistics: Attributes of respondents
by DBES
The frequency counts of the respondents’ attributes
x Stability (less changes in) of design brief or project
are illustrated in Table 1. The results of the frequency
requirement during the design phase
counts further identified two possible independent groups
x Management of changes in design brief at the
(with equal group sizes) within the same attribute.
design phase
Exploring the years of experience in Table I,
respondents working equal to and less than 10 years
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
contributed to 58.6% of the population (i.e.
32.9%+25.7%); on the other hand, respondents working
A. Data collection
more than 10 years in DBES projects constitutes to
41.4%. Two independent groups with similar group sizes
This research applies a quantitative research
were identified in the total sample population as ‘” 
methodology and uses a questionnaire survey to collect
years’ (denoted as Group 0) and ‘> 10 years’ (denoted as
data. A total of 115 questionnaires were distributed to
Group 1). Moreover, in the profession or training
participants (units of analysis) involved in DBES building
attribute, those professions which were constructional
projects. The survey sample comprises 5 Project
related (i.e. architectural & quantity surveyor services,
Managers, 15 Architects, 15 Quantity Surveyors, 15 Civil
civil & structural engineering) constituted to 48.6%
Engineers, 15 Structural Engineers, 15 Mechanical
(denoted as Group 1) while the other professions were
Engineers, 15 Electrical Engineers, 10 client
ministries/departments and 10 PPADB (Public TABLE I
Procurement and Asset Disposal Board) registered FREQUENCY COUNTS OF RESPONDENTS CHARACTERISTICS
contractors in grade E. A total of 70 completed Respondents’ characteristics
questionnaires were returned resulting in a response rate Variables Frequency
Counts (%)
of 61%. From the returned questionnaires, it was found
1-5 years 32.9
that respondents who have more than 5 years of Years of 6-10 years 25.7
experience constitute to 70% of the population and all of experience 11-20 years 31.4
the respondents have participated in DBES building More than 20 years 10
projects; this indicates the validity of the sample and data Architectural services 15.7
collected. Quantity surveyor services 14.3
Mechanical engineering 20
Profession or
Electrical engineering 27.1
B. Questionnaire design and statistical methods training
Civil engineering 8.6
Structural engineering 10
There are two parts in the questionnaire design: Others 4.3
i. Attributes of the respondents: years of experience, Sector of Public 51.4
employment Private 48.6
professions or trainings, sectors of employment.
ii. Factors during design phase that influence building
TABLE II
project quality. INDEPENDENT GROUPS IDENTIFIED
Respondents were asked to use a Likert scale of 5 to Frequency
rate each factor from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). These Group code Group description
Counts (%)
ratings were used to evaluate DBES during the project Years of Group 0 ”\HDUV 58.6
design phase. Lower ratings will indicate key focus areas experience Group 1 > 10 years 41.4
Profession or Group 0 Non-constructional 51.4
where DBES may take into considerations to improve training Group 1 Constructional 48.6
building project quality. Sector of Group 0 Public 51.4
In the first part of the data analysis, the SPSS employment Group 1 Private 48.6
statistical software was used to determine the means and

652
 Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM
non-constructional (i.e. electrical and mechanical
engineering) and constituted to 51.4% (denoted as Group
0). These two groups may be associated with participants
in the previous two departments mentioned in the
V Į’s are greater than 0.6, which indicates
introduction section (i.e. DABS & DEMS). Participants
working on DBES building projects who are employed in
the public sector (denoted as Group 0) and the private
sector (denoted as Group 1) are two independent groups
with similar group sizes. The above analysis is
summarized in Table II. These groups will be used in the
independent samples t-test in order to compare the group
means of factors.
B. Descriptive analysis: Factors in design phase
As mentioned in the research methodology section,
questionnaires survey was used and the respondents were
asked to rate the factors in the questionnaires so that one
can assess DBES in the design phase. In Table III,
descriptive statistics of all the factors are presented.
From Table III one can notice that none of the factors
has the mean score above 3 (which is the mid-point on a
scale of 5). This observation implies that respondents
working on DBES building projects do not perform above
TABLE III
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF FACTORS
Variables Means
Category A: Adherence to project management principles in
project design phase
Į PHDQ 6' 
A1: Selection process of the design team 2.83
A2: Design brief from clients 2.83
A3: DBES’s commitment to continuous
2.57
quality improvement
A4: DBES leadership commitment to
adherence of procedures and specifications at 2.80
the design phase
A5: Comprehensiveness of drawings and
specifications
2.73
A6: Visibility of the total life cycle cost during
2.63
the design phase
A7: Use of lessons learned to improve the
2.57
quality of designs
Category B: Involvements of role players in project design
phase
Į PHDQ 6' 
B1: Involvement of building contractors 2.63
B2: Involvement of the end-users 2.90
B3: Involvement of the management of DBES 2.80
B4: Involvement of all stakeholders 2.61
Category C: Project scope
Į PHDQ 6' 
C1: Clarity and completeness of the project
information provided by DBES
2.84
C2: Completeness and clarity of the scope
2.81
definition provided by DBES
C3: Pre-project planning effort on government
2.64
projects by DBES
C4: Stability (less changes in) of design brief
or project requirement during the design phase
2.70
C5: Process of management of changes in
2.80
design brief
or equal to satisfactory level under these factors assessed.
There is internal consistency (or reliability) in the
factors measured under each category; i.e. all the
&URQEDFK
reliable scales. In other words, the average scores of all
the means of factors under the corresponding category can
represent the score of that particular category. It was
found that the average score for the category Adherence to
Project Management Principles (2.7082) was the lowest
amongst all three categories. Moreover, within this
category, DBES’s commitment to continuous quality
improvement, and use of lessons learned to improve the
quality of design had the two lowest means (below 2.6)
and visibility of the total life cycle cost during design
phase (the third lowest) amongst the seven factors. This
finding implies that DBES’s poor project quality may be
the result of participants involving in DBES building
projects not satisfactorily adhere to project management
principles, especially with regards to the three particular
factors mentioned above, during its project design phase.
C. Independent samples t-test results
As shown earlier, two independent groups exist in
each of the respondent attributes (see Table II). We
examine how these groups rate the 16 factors differently
(significant at 5% level). Table IV shows the independent
S.D. samples t-test results for Group 0 and Group 1 where
respondents differ in years of experience. Tables V and
VII show the t-test results for the other two respondents’
attributes.
1.129 In Table IV, there are no significant differences
1.204 between the group means, except factors B2 and C5.
Group 0 (respondents working equal to or less than 10
1.149 years on DBES building projects) scored higher in factor
B2 (involvement of the end users) as compared to Group
0.957 1 (more than 10 years). Moreover, Group 0’s score on B2
is higher than the mid-point (i.e. 3 on the scale of 5). This
0.977 may be interpreted that respondents who have more years
of experience working on DBES building projects have
1.066
known the end-users’ needs and requirements from their
past experience. Thus they are not necessarily eager to
1.124
involve end-users during the design phase as compared to
respondents who have less working experience. Another
interpretation may be that respondents who have more
1.132 years of working experience feel ‘business as usual’ and
1.276
there may be a lack of enthusiasm in them. On the other
hand, it is assumed that respondents with less years of
1.001
working experience are young and are eager to strive for
0.906 perfection by involving the end-users in the design phase.
For factor C5 (process of management of changes in
design brief), respondents in Group 0 again score higher
0.973 than those in Group 1. This is an interesting finding
showing that respondents who have less years of
0.952 experience actually are better in managing changes in
1.077 design brief. One of the interpretations may be that
respondents are young and have learnt the most updated
0.998 project management tools and techniques to better
manage the process regarding to changes in design brief.
1.016
653
 Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM

TABLE IV TABLE V
INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST RESULTS: FACTORS INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST RESULTS: FACTORS
Years of experience Profession or training
Group 0 Group 1 Mean Group 0 Group 1 Mean
Variables Variables
”\HDUV > 10 years difference non-constructional constructional difference
t-testa t-testa
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
p-valueb p-valueb
A1 2.98 1.084 2.62 1.178 0.355 A1 2.83 1.207 2.82 1.058 0.01
A2 2.90 1.2 2.72 1.222 0.178 A2 2.78 1.198 2.88 1.225 -0.105
A3 2.68 1.192 2.41 1.086 0.269 A3 2.72 1.186 2.41 1.104 0.310
A4 2.88 1.029 2.69 0.85 0.188 A4 2.94 1.013 2.65 0.884 0.297
A5 2.8 0.872 2.62 1.115 0.184 A5 2.75 1.079 2.71 0.871 0.044
A6 2.61 0.972 2.66 1.203 -0.045 A6 2.78 1.124 2.47 0.992 0.307
A7 2.76 1.157 2.31 1.039 0.446 A7 2.78 1.222 2.35 0.981 0.425
B1 2.80 1.077 2.38 1.178 0.426 B1 2.78 1.174 2.47 1.080 0.307
B2 3.17 1.321 2.52 1.122 0.653* B2 2.83 1.298 2.97 1.267 -0.137
B3 2.93 0.959 2.62 1.049 0.306 B3 2.75 1.025 2.85 0.989 -0.103
B4 2.71 0.929 2.48 0.871 0.225 B4 2.83 0.971 2.38 0.779 0.451*
C1 2.95 0.893 2.69 1.072 0.262 C1 2.86 1.073 2.82 0.869 0.038
C2 2.98 0.821 2.59 1.086 0.389 C2 2.94 0.924 2.68 0.976 0.268
C3 2.78 1.037 2.45 1.121 0.332 C3 2.86 1.046 2.41 1.076 0.449
C4 2.80 0.954 2.55 1.055 0.253 C4 2.72 0.974 2.68 1.036 0.046
C5 3.00 0.894 2.52 1.122 0.483* C5 2.97 0.910 2.62 1.101 0.355

a. mean difference between groups

b. significance at 5 percent-level (p-value<0.05)
* mean difference is statistically significant at p<0.05
Table V shows that almost all the factors are rated
equally between the two groups with the exception of
factor B4 (involvement of all stakeholders). Respondents
in Group 0 (non-constructional; previously worked for
DEMS) score higher than those in Group 1
(constructional; previously worked for DABS). This may
be accounted to the fact that the type of work performed
by Group 0 (i.e. electrical and mechanical engineering) is
more operational and maintenance related (e.g. planning
and lying of electricity cables or maintaining mechanical
systems) as compared to Group 1 (i.e. more architectural).
During project design phase, Group 0 needs more
comprehensive information and involvement from all the
stakeholders in order to add its service.
In Table VI, it is shown that all the factors score the
same between the two groups, except factor B2
(involvement of the end-users) in which the respondents
in Group 0 (employed in public sector) score higher than
Group 1 (employed in private sector). Moreover, the
Group 0 score is higher than the mid-point of the scale
which indicates a more than satisfactory level. There is a
phenomenon that corresponds to this finding. It is noticed
that in DBES projects during the design process, the end-
users provide design needs and requirements to the DBES
project participants who are employed in the public sector
(e.g. government officials) and this information is then
passed on to the participants in the private sector (e.g.
design consultants). Thus participants from the public
sector seem to be closer to the end-users because of the
direct communication channel that exists between them.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to numerous complaints about DBES building
projects, the purpose of this empirical paper is to assess
participants in DBES building projects under 16 factors
during the project design phase which influences project
quality. In this section the most important findings are
summarized and discussed. Further recommendations are
suggested.
This paper has shown statistical evidence of less than
satisfactory performance of project participants during
DBES building projects design phase. That is, all factors
have less than 3 (mid-point on a scale of 5) mean values.
The key focus area that needs the most attention is
Adherence to Project Principles during design phase
(which has the lowest score out of the three categories).
DBES may improve upon three factors in order to address
this problem, namely: commitment to continuous quality
improvement, use lessons learned to improve quality of
designs and visibility of the total life cycle cost during
design phase.
From the descriptive analysis of the respondents
attributes this study identified two independent groups
within each of the attribute. Independent samples t-test
was performed to explore any significant differences with
regard to the ratings of the factors.
As compared to participants with less than 10 years,
those with longer experience are less able to manage
changes in the design brief. This study assumes that
respondents with less years of experience are younger and
have learnt the most updated project management tools
and techniques which may help them to better manage
design brief change processes. However, on the other
hand, respondents who have longer experience may not
necessarily have previous project manage education. It is
recommended to provide continued education with the

654
 Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM

TABLE VI
INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST RESULTS: FACTORS
Sector of employment
Group 0 Group 1 Mean
Variables
public sector private sector difference
t-testa
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. p-valueb
A1 2.86 1.099 2.79 1.175 0.067
A2 2.72 1.210 2.94 1.205 -0.219
A3 2.58 1.204 2.56 1.106 0.025
A4 2.81 1.009 2.79 0.914 0.011
A5 2.61 0.994 2.85 0.958 -0.242 Fig. 1. Inter-relationships amongst end-users, participants from the public
A6 2.44 0.998 2.82 1.114 -0.379 sectors and the private sectors.
A7 2.42 1.105 2.74 1.136 -0.319
B1 2.42 1.105 2.85 1.132 -0.436
B2 3.25 1.273 2.53 1.187 0.721* factors can also be taken into consideration during the
B3 2.89 1.036 2.71 0.970 0.183 project design phase. Thirdly, relationships between these
B4 2.64 0.899 2.59 0.925 0.051 factors can be explored by using regression analysis. A
C1 2.94 0.984 2.74 0.963 0.209 certain factor may have a positive or negative impact on
C2 2.78 0.959 2.85 0.958 -0.075
C3 2.64 1.125 2.65 1.041 -0.008
another one. For example, involvement of all stakeholders
C4 2.72 0.944 2.68 1.065 0.046 may positively impact on the process of managing
C5 2.86 0.990 2.74 1.053 0.126 changes in the design brief. Such analysis can further
provide recommendations to improve DBES building
focus on project management within DBES to those project quality.
participants who have no previous knowledge of project
management. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
T-tests further explore another important issue.
Participants of DBES projects from the public sector (e.g. The authors would like to express their appreciations
government officials) has direct communication with the to participants in DBES building projects during the
end-user and pass on the information regarding design questionnaire survey. Secondly to Graduate School of
requirements to the participants in the private sector (e.g. Technology Management for providing academic support.
design consultants). Information may be inaccurately
interpreted and may be lost when transferring it from the REFERENCES
public sector to the private sector. Inaccurate information
[1] J.B. Pocock, “A model air force construction quality
may contribute to the reasons for poor design quality
management system”, Mater thesis, Dept of Architectural
(which does not meet specifications). Therefore, it is Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A., 1998
recommended to have all three parties involved in the [2] D.W.M. Chan, and M..M. Kumaraswamy, “A comparative
project design phase so that direct communication can study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong
exist amongst all of them (see Fig 1). construction projects”, International Journal of Project
Lastly, there seem to be a problem of co-ordination Management, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 55-63. 1997
between the non-constructional group (i.e. electrical & [3] M.J. Leseure, and N.J. Brookes, “Knowledge management
mechanical services) and the constructional (i.e. benchmarks for project management”, Journal of
architectural). This can be seen from the statistical Knowledge Management, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 103-116, 2004.
[4] H. Steyn, et al., Project Management: A multi-disciplinary
evidence of less involvement of all stakeholders from the
approach, Pretoria: FPM Publishing, 2007.
constructional side. Not involving all stakeholders may [5] M.C. Carruthers, Principles of Management for Quality
lead to correctional work after the building is completed. Projects. London: London International Thomson Business
For example, if an architect does not involve an electrical Press, 1999.
engineer during the design phase, the building plan may [6] T.J. Kloppenborg, and J.A. Petrick, Managing Project
have an air-conditioning system in the position where the Quality, USA: Management Concept Inc, 2002.
electrical engineer finds difficulties in operating or [7] M.I. Darwish, O. Moshen. , I. Alramadan, and M.
maintaining at later stage. It is therefore recommended to Algahtani, Factors Affecting Design and Documentation
include all stakeholders during the design phase for better Quality in the Construction Industry, CEM520:
Construction Contracting Administration, 2007.
co-ordination at the later stage of projects (i.e. design for
[8] A.P.C. Chan, D. Scott, and A.P.L. Chan, “Factors affecting
maintainability). the success of a construction project”, Journal of
Several future studies are suggested. Firstly, DBES Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 130, iss.
may also be evaluated under factors during other project 1, pp. 153-155, 2004.
phases, e.g. execution phase. This may further point out [9] P. Dumont, G. Gibson, and J. Fish, “Scope management
other key focus areas to ensure better project quality. using the project definition rating index (PDRI)”, ASCE
Secondly, this study only considers three key focus areas Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 13, no.5, pp.
(i.e. the three categories) of the design phase; the 54 -60, 1997.
framework may be extended further by exploring other [10] C.-S Cho, and G.E. Gibson Jr., “Building project scope
definition using project definition rating index”, Journal of
focus areas as well. For example, environmental impact
Architectural Engineering, vol. 7, iss. 4, pp. 115-125, 2001

655
View publication stats