International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Design documents quality in the Japanese construction industry:

factors influencing and impacts on construction process
Andia,*, Takayuki Minatob
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Petra Christian University, Jalan Siwalankerto 121-131, Surabaya 60236, Indonesia
b
Institute of Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan

Received 20 March 2002; received in revised form 19 June 2002; accepted 19 November 2002

Abstract
Despite its technological advance, the Japanese construction industry is currently paying attention to the quality of its design
documents. It acknowledges defective design as the most important risk for the success of a project. This paper aims to investigate
the quality of design documents in the industry by presenting factors that may influence design documents quality, and then dis-
cussing design document related problems and their impact on the construction process. The result is based on a number of inter-
views and questionnaire surveys involving 105 designers and 91 construction personnel. The results show that designers and
contractors have different perceptions of the quality of design documents. The study also finds that the problems of defective
designs are complex and deep rooted, influenced by many factors operating at individual designer, company, construction industry
and global or national levels. The paper discusses these problems and proposes possible solutions to improve the level of design
documents quality.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Defective design; Design documents quality; Japan; Risk

1. Introduction Researchers and practitioners have acknowledged

According to many independent analyses [1–3], design
fees are often less than one percent of the life-cycle cost
of a project (or less than 10% of the total construction
costs), yet the design is the single most important influ-
ence on those costs. Decisions and commitments made
during the design phase have a tremendous impact on
later expenditures. In a grass-roots petroleum refinery,
for example, ‘‘a rough guess would put the remaining
level of influence at about 25% of the original by the
time field construction commences on [1].’’ While this
concept of ‘ability to influence’ is well developed and
well known in construction, it is believed that its imple-
mentation is still under development in practice, leading
to low quality, inadequate and defective or deficient
design documents.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-31-8494830; fax: +62-31-
8415274.
E-mail addresses: a_sunyoto@yahoo.com (Andi),
minato@k.u-tokyo.ac.jp (T. Minato).
0263-7863/03/$30.00 # 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00083-2
defective design is a major cause of contract claims and
change orders during construction [4]. One study shows
that design error is the single most common cause for a
contract claim [5]. It is also found that more than 50%
of change orders are attributable to defective design
[6,7].
Let us see another view of this situation, that is, the
importance of defective design in comparison to other
risks in construction projects. A recent survey in Kuwait
[8] reports that defective design is one of the most sig-
nificant risks to project delays. Similar results were also
obtained from studies in Japan [9], US [10] and Hong
Kong [11]. Defective design is considered a critical risk
in these countries, particularly in Japan. Here both
owners and contractors perceive defective design as the
most crucial for project success, as indicated in Table 1.
One survey conducted by Nikkei Construction invol-
ving 79 Japanese contractors [12] shows that 44% of
respondents often experienced significant number of
design documents problems, while 46 and 10% had
fewer and no experiences, respectively. The common
problems experienced were constructability, conflicts in
538 Andi, T. Minato / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546
Table 1
Risks ranking in Japanese construction [9]
Ra Japanese owner
1 Defective design
2 Acts of God
3 Safety
4 Contractor competence
5 Changes in work
6 Quality of work
7 Differing site conditions (lump sum contract)
8 Contract-delay resolution
9 Third-party delays
10 Defective material
11 Site access/right of way
12 Financial failures
13 Labor, equipment, and material availability
14 Permits and ordinances
15 Inflation (lump sum or unit price contract)
16 Change-order negotiation
17 Changes in government regulations (lump sum)
18 Labor and equipment productivity
19 Labor disputes
20 Delayed payment on contract
a
Rank order from most to least important.
structural designs, inadequate temporary work designs,
improper construction methods, and differing site con-
ditions information. These design problems are ongoing
issues in the Japanese construction industry and of
major concern to many parties within the industry.
Consultant companies, a key player at the design stage,
are attempting to reduce these problems.
This paper also aims to investigate further the quality
of design documents in Japanese construction by mea-
suring the extents of design attributes (such as economy,
life cycle cost, and constructability) and its documenta-
tion attributes (such as timeliness, completeness, accu-
racy, coordination, and conformity). More importantly,
the paper identifies critical factors influencing design
documents deficiencies and then presents design related
problems, emphasizing their impact on the construction
process and project performance.
2. Research methodology and questionnaire survey
development and distribution
Results for this research were based on a ques-
tionnaire survey and supplement interviews. The ques-
tionnaire survey is one of the most cost effective ways to
involve a large number of people in the process in order
to achieve better results, whereas the face-to-face inter-
views serve as crosscheck and, sometimes, unexpected
information may be given during the interviews.
By focusing on traditional procurement projects, two
types of questionnaires were developed, one for designers
Japanese contractor
Defective design
Differing site conditions (lump sum contract)
Changes in work
Change-order negotiation
Safety
Acts of God
Financial failures
Third-party delays
Contract-delay resolution
Quality of work
Contractor competence
Permits and ordinances
Site access/right of way
Defective material
Delayed payment on contract
Labor and equipment productivity
Labor, equipment, and material availability
Inflation (lump sum or unit price contract)
Changes in government regulations (lump sum)
Labor disputes
and one for contractors. After considering several ver-
sions of questionnaires, the questionnaires used in a
similar study in an Australian context [13,14] were uti-
lized with some modifications. The questionnaires con-
tained both close and open types of questions.
A pilot study was conducted to test the developed
questionnaires. Several revisions were made to the origi-
nal questionnaires after that, including contents, wording
and format, to make the questionnaires more applicable
and understandable in the Japanese context. The final
versions of the contractor’s and designer’s questionnaires
were six and eight pages long, respectively.
To distribute the questionnaires, 20 contractor and 30
consultant companies, listed as members of Construc-
tion Management Committee of JSCE (Japan Society of
Civil Engineering) in 1998, were approached. Prior to
the distribution of the final versions, one representative
from each company was contacted first by phone to
assess their willingness to participate and distribute five
sets of questionnaire to personnel who had experience
either in construction or design works. It was thought
that by doing this would increase the response rate.
Finally, 150 designer’ and 100 contractor’ ques-
tionnaires were distributed. It took about one and half
months before the last set of questionnaires were
returned. The overall response rate for designers was
70%, i.e. 105 questionnaires, while for contractors a
return rate of 91% was achieved, i.e. 91 questionnaires.
These rates were considered high because in the Japa-
nese environment, it is very difficult to obtain answer
through questionnaires.
 Andi, T. Minato / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546
3. General information of respondents
In general, all companies who responded to the ques-
tionnaires had ISO 9000 certification, except for one
designer company. Table 2 summarizes other general
information of the respondents for both contractors and
designers. For the purpose of analysis, the designers
were grouped based on the number of employees in the
company. However, the groups did not indicate the real
company size. They were just relative size, in which
companies having 500 employees or more (totally 16
companies) were assumed bigger than those having less
than 500 employees (totally 12 companies).
The respondents were experienced in their field since
most of them have worked for more than 10 years in the
industry. The table also exhibits that most of the
designer companies received work orders from public
clients, while the contractor companies received almost
equally from public and private clients. Considering the
types of projects, all respondents had experiences in civil
engineering projects and only a few designers had
experience in other types. It can be said therefore that
the designers based their answers on civil engineering
projects they worked on for public clients.
4. Design documents quality
Designers’ and contractors’ perceptions of the
achievement of design document quality were assessed
using rating scales from Very Poor (1) to Excellent (5).
The quality was evaluated from several attributes indi-
cating the quality of design and its documentation (such
as drawings and specifications). The addressed attri-
butes and their respective definition are listed in Tables 3
and 4.
Fig. 1 shows the comparison of the perceptions by the
respondents for the attributes. Several interesting findings
are pointed out there. While in general the perceptions of
Table 2
General information of respondents
No. Information Contractors Designers
1 Number of employees in the present 1707–15,400 40–1060
company
2 Experience in industry (years) 10–39 3–40
3 Average proportion of clients or
projects (%):
i. Public 43% 90%
ii. Private 57% 10%
4 Type of projects usually involved with
(% of respondents):
i. Building 80% 19%
ii. Industrial (process plants) 22% 5%
iii. Civil engineering 100% 100%
iv. Manufacturing 57% 5%
v. Others 16% 5%
539
Table 3
Attributes of ‘Design’ quality
Attributes of ‘design’ quality
(a) Consideration of whole life-cycle cost issues
(b) Material efficiency—ensuring the efficient use of materials
(c) Economy—ensuring design solutions are cost effective
(d) Relevancy—ensuring project requirements are met
(e) Constructability—considering constructability and safety
aspects
(f) Innovation—incorporating innovation in the design solution
(g) Expressiveness—provides symbolic expression and feeling
(h) Aesthetics—the finished product is visually pleasing
(i) Consideration of ecological sustainability
(j) Site compatibility—effectively uses and makes due allowance
for site conditions
(k) Material selection—ensuring the availability, suitability and
compatibility of materials
(l) Functionality—effectively serves the purpose for which it was
intended
designers and contractors have a similar trend, it is
obvious that designers rated all attributes higher than
contractors did, except for material selection. The dif-
ferences in perceptions are higher for documentation
attributes than design attributes. The big differences for
document attributes can be seen for site representation,
certainty, and completeness. While for design attributes
the big differences are found for economy and con-
structability. Statistical analysis, using the t-test, con-
firmed the significant differences for these attributes (at
=1%).
Lack of feedback from contractors to designers about
the quality of design documents is one reason for the
differences. It is suggested that the original designers
should be also involved in the construction so that they
can make use of the learning opportunities to improve
design quality. To make it happen, the clients should
consider the opportunities by which both contractors
and designers can learn from each other. Communi-
cation between designers and contractors during the
design process is also encouraged to improve the quality
of design documents. Currently, such a link is very weak
in public projects.
Averaging the designers’ and contractors’ answers,
design attributes having less-than-average rating are
expressiveness, life cycle cost, and innovation, and for
documentation attributes are certainty, coordination,
and accuracy.
Both designers and contractors rated the design attri-
bute life cycle cost low. This was crosschecked from the
direct interviews with some professionals. In Japan,
there is low motivation or no incentive for value engi-
neering (VE) program under traditional design-then-
construction option. There are two possible reasons for
this. First, the contractor gets nothing from the VE
saving. In other words, it is a ‘free’ knowledge. There is
still no clause in the contract that requires VE program.
540 Andi, T. Minato / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546

Table 4
Attributes of ‘Documentation’ quality

Attributes of ‘documentation’ quality

(a) Completeness—drawings and other documents provide all the information required
(b) Clarity—drawings and other documents are eligible and are easily read and interpreted
(c) Consistency—drawings and other documents are consistent
(d) Accuracy—drawings and other documents are free from errors and omissions
(e) Standardization—use of standard details and specifications in drawings and other documents
(f) Relevance—trade specifications and details are specific, relevant and appropriate to the project
(g) Timeliness—drawings and other documents are supplied when required, to avoid delays
(h) Coordination—drawings and other documents are thoroughly coordinated between design disciplines
(i) Certainty—drawings and other documents do not require changes or amendments
(j) Conformity—drawings and other documents indicate the requirements of performance standards and statutory regulations
(k) Representation—drawings and other documents correctly represent the geological (subsurface), topography (surface) conditions, including the
existing utilities and structures

Fig. 1. The extent of quality of design and documents attributes.

Another reason is that even if they successfully reduce
the cost, the saving is not shared between contractors
and clients. According to the Japanese accounting law,
it is to be returned to the Ministry of Treasury. There-
fore, it is argued that a reasonable incentive plan should
be implemented to motivate not only contractors but
more importantly the designers too, so as to encourage
VE, and finally to minimize the life cycle cost.
While the focus of this study is on traditional pro-
curement projects, part of this quality section also
requests contractors and designers’ perception for the
overall quality of design documents produced in three
different procurement systems—traditional, design and
build (D&B), and construction management (CM)
methods—using the same rating scales as discussed ear-
lier. Note that not all respondents gave their opinion for
this part, especially for the two modern systems. This
may be because they did not have experience with the
systems. Despite the limited number of responses, they
still could supply valuable information as denoted in
Fig. 2. The figure indicates the average value of the
quality in public and private projects.
Apparently there are differences between contractors’
and designers’ perceptions with the use of traditional
and D&B procurement systems. While the contractors
perceived the quality of design documents were better in
D&B systems than in traditional systems, the designers
took the opposite view. Statistical t-test analysis sig-
nificantly confirmed the differences (at =5%).
The differences in perceptions above might be under-
stood from the controversy about the D&B procure-
ment system in Japanese public works that has taken
place since about 80 years ago [15]. The designers favor
traditional procurement systems in order to maintain
their independent status. With regards to D&B systems
one design firm argues, ‘‘if contractors can do design and
 Andi, T. Minato / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546
Fig. 2. Perceived quality level in design documents produced in three different procurement systems.
build, we can design the project and also build the project’’
(Interviews). This paper, however, will not discuss fur-
ther about the controversy. Readers may refer to other
sources for more details [15].
5. Factors affecting design documents quality
To examine factors affecting quality of design docu-
ments, designers were given a list of influential factors
and then asked to indicate frequency (F) and impact (I)
of each factor using a five-point rating scale. The ana-
lysis depended on the weighted average of the frequency
and impact of each factor. Then these two values were
multiplied to obtain importance level (IL) of each fac-
tor. Finally, these importance levels were sorted from
highest to lowest in order to rank the factors. Fig. 3
presents the rank and the frequency and impact levels
for each factor.
It can be learned that there are two key factors
affecting design documents quality. They are time and
fee for design works. The designers regarded insufficient
design time as the most important issue influencing
design document quality. According to the open dis-
cussion, it was pointed out that the Japanese fiscal year
system (April–March) was a major cause of this. Most
design works are usually subcontracted to designers at
the end of each fiscal year (January–March). That
means design firms have to complete the jobs within a
short period of time with limited number of qualified
personnel.
Designers also regarded client’s tendency to shop
around for design fee and a low design fee as most
important factors affecting the quality of design docu-
ments. As will be detailed later in the paper, the design-
ers thought the design fee was mostly unreasonable in
both public and private projects. These findings were in
line with those in the Australian context [16] too.
Statistical analysis (t-test) shows that the frequency of
the issue ‘difficulty in finding good staff’ has a significant
541
difference (at =5%) between smaller and bigger compa-
nies, where the former perceive more frequent problems.
6. Aspects of people, organization and management
In addition to the earlier factors, designers were also
asked to rate aspects related to people, organization and
management, which were believed to have impact on the
quality of design document. Using the same scale and
method of analysis as earlier, Fig. 4 shows the results of
the analysis.
If we examine the first three most important aspects
(time pressures, work overload and high stress situation),
it can be understood that they are interrelated to one
another. Time pressures may cause work overload and
high stress situation, where designers will easily make
mistakes during designing. It is also known that in
Japan, there is usually no overtime payment in designer
companies.
The designers also acknowledged that ‘lack of con-
struction knowledge’ had been a major problem for
them, bringing impractical design. It is suggested that
they should have more chance to observe and get
themselves involved during the construction phase,
especially those young and inexperienced designers.
Currently, the role of designers during construction is
small and almost none for the management of con-
struction works in public projects (Interviews). This is
quite different from practices in US or UK, where the
original designers are often employed as client repre-
sentatives to supervise the construction works.
7. Level of design fees
Another part of the designer questionnaire was
designed specifically to look at the reasonableness of the
current fee level for design service in public and private
projects. The question required the respondents to
542 Andi, T. Minato / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546

Fig. 3. Factors influencing design documents quality.

Fig. 4. Aspects of people, organization, and management influencing design documents quality.

express their perceptions of the fee in terms of one of
four levels (Reasonable, Mostly Reasonable, Mostly
Unreasonable, and Unreasonable). The result was then
compared to a similar study conducted by Nikkei
Architect in 1992 [15] as summarized in Table 5.
It is interesting to see that there is no single response
for ‘reasonable’ level in the current survey. About two-
third of the current respondents perceived that the
current design fee is ‘mostly unreasonable’ from both
public and private client. It can be concluded that there
is a decrease in the design fee level in the current sit-
uation compared to 10 years ago. Many believed that
this situation is also influenced by the overall economic
condition in Japan, whereby the unit rate (Yen/man
day) for design service is decreasing year by year
(Interviews).
 Andi, T. Minato / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546 543

Table 5 design firm had to pay 3 Millions Yen for construction

Reasonableness of design fee level rework because of an error in the produced design [17].
Reasonableness of Nikkei survey Current survey (2000/2001) In addition to the immediate consequences, defective
design fee (1992)a (%) designs place other costs on companies. The total costs
Public (%) Private (%) may be higher than the actual figure they spent, because
Unreasonable 9.4 11 12
they could include other such indirect costs as decrease
Mostly unreasonable 40.4 65 70 in the designers’ productivity and lost of contracts (lost
Mostly reasonable 40.4 24 18 of reputation).
Reasonable 8.8 0 0
a
Source: Nikkei Architecture, September 1992, pp. 110–142, cited
from Ref. 15. 9. Areas of design documents problems

8. Design practices With regard to design document problems, con-

In this section, designers were asked to consider 20
different aspects of design practices and to rate the
extent to which each aspect had been fulfilled using a
five-point scale: never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3),
often (4) and always (5). A bar graph in Fig. 5 presents
the result.
In average there is no single design practice with the
rating ‘always’ or even ‘often.’ That is to say that they just
‘sometimes’ performed some design practices although
some of them, such as design reviews, are a must do in
order to produce a quality design document. Further
statistical analysis found no significant differences (at
=5%) between the smaller and bigger companies.
While there are many factors constraining their prac-
tice, it is suggested that design firms should improve
their own design practice as far as possible, when they
can exercise control over a project. They should con-
sider liquidated damages resulting from defective
design. Since 1999 design firms have to be fully respon-
sible for liquidated damages (including the costs of
construction rework) if damages result from any defec-
tive design. For example in one bridge construction, a
tractors were requested to give their opinion on the fre-
quency of the occurrence of this problem and their
relative impact on construction processes, using a five
point rating scale. Fig. 6 graphs the contractors’ per-
ceptions. Using the aforementioned important levels
(IL), the contractors perceive insufficient clearances prior
to commencement on site to be the most important. The
process of clearances is often in progress when con-
struction activities start. The contractors sometimes had
to wait for approval to start the project although the
completion date was unchanged. There are occasions
when contractors need to get clearance with no money.
In the worst cases, the clearance may involve disputable
elements from the viewpoint of the statutory body. It
may result in changes to design and hence time will be
spent on redesign. Consequently the contractor might
exceed the time allocated to complete the project if no
additional time is allowed.
One contractor narrated one example of the clear-
ances problem in a subway construction project in
Tokyo area (Interviews). When the construction work
had been awarded, the process of clearances for prop-
erty right had not yet finished. Because the project area

Fig. 5. Extents of fulfillment of some aspects of design practices.

544 Andi, T. Minato / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546
Fig. 6. Levels of impact and frequency of deficiencies in design documents.
belonged to two different government agencies, it took
about one year for the client to settle the land acquisi-
tion. Consequently the contractor had to delay their
work.
Another important problem faced by contractors in
the survey was design not being achievable within the
project budget (which means that the cost of designed
construction exceeds the budget). If the budget for a
project has no allowance for unforeseen costs, the pub-
lic clients will not be able to pay even if the project costs
exceed its limit. In such a case, contractors sometimes
have to cover the overrun even though it is not their
responsibility (Interviews).
The next three important problems are related to
constructability, in which lack of construction knowl-
edge on the designer side and inadequate site investiga-
tion were believed by many contractors to be
responsible for many of the problems. The problems
can also be explained from Fig. 1, in which site repre-
sentation attribute has the biggest difference in percep-
tion between designers and contractors. There are many
cases told during interviews, where contractors suffer
from designs that are difficult or even impossible to be
built on site.
Considering only the frequency of occurrence, lack of
innovation was found to be the most critical issue. This
answer may perhaps confirm previous finding in Fig. 1
about the low ratings of life cycle cost and innovation
design attributes. Based on several interviews, several
problems inhibiting innovation in public projects were
identified. Among many factors is conflict of interest
among client divisions. The use of innovative design
sometimes will necessitate higher initial construction
cost, leading in the end to a more economical total life
cycle cost (e.g. due to low maintenance and operational
costs). However, the construction division’s personnel
may disagree with this because they will be responsible
for the high cost. Another problem expressed was reg-
ular changes of client personnel every two years, which
may introduce motivational problem. Even though the
innovation is successfully done in a project, the efforts
of former officer(s) may be left out of evaluation at the
end of construction period because they may not be in
charge anymore with the project. Hence, his/her succes-
sor will get the advantage/reward from the evaluation.
(The rewards maybe promotion or praise.)
10. Impact of deficient design documents on
construction process efficiency
The contractor’s questionnaire also asked the propor-
tion (%) of poor performances from the total amount/
value generally achieved on a project, which were con-
sidered as a direct result of design documents defi-
ciencies. The poor performances taken into account
 Andi, T. Minato / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546
Fig. 7. Proportion of poor performance caused by defective design.
were rework, delays, cost overruns, changes, accidents,
disputes and loss of profit. It should be noted that the
loss of profit might be of interest because if defective
design occurred in a project it could lead to changes,
and such changes may cause a ripple effect, in which a
contractor could lose money [18]. Fig. 7 summarizes the
results.
Concurrent with the results discussed in other papers
[6,7], respondents believed that a significant proportion
of changes, i.e. almost 40%, originated from defective
design. However, the client does not always reimburse
all the costs of the changes. As seen in the answer for
loss of profit, contractors said that about 29% of the
total loss was caused by defective design. This result
also confirms the findings of two previous researches in
Japan about the compensation for defective design
[9,12]. Meanwhile defective design occupied about 30%
of total rework and cost overruns.
11. Conclusions
The defective design problems in Japanese construc-
tion industry are both complex and deep rooted, influ-
enced by many factors operating at individual designers,
company, construction industry and global or national
levels. This paper has shown that significant and
enduring improvements will occur when both designers
and clients realize these problems.
Based on the responses of the surveys it is believed
that the reduction in the level of design fees together
with the limited time made available to carry out the
work have caused problems in the quality of design
documents. Further, these problems have affected the
efficiency of the construction process.
By reducing design fees to minimize costs, clients are
by their own actions contributing to the problems. Sav-
ing money at the expense of design can have a 100 to 1
negative impact on the ultimate life-cycle cost of the
project. The clients need to understand these realities
and then cooperate with the designers to agree upon the
545
role of quality in design phase. In one designer’s words,
‘‘Recently, the condition of the consultant company is
really difficult to get over. Although we know that the
quality of the design document is very important, we
cannot afford to take control of it.’’ It would appear
therefore, that the tenet ‘what you pay is what you get’ is
very appropriate when it comes to procuring design
services.
Despite the time and financial constraints, there are
still many aspects within individual consultant compa-
nies that need improvement. As observed in Fig. 5, all
design practices were yet completely done. In fact, few
of the suggestions expressed in the paper are novel. This
should not be surprising since many of the designers’
problems stem not from a dearth of technical or man-
agement approaches, but rather from the failure to
integrate them into a coherent and consistent manage-
ment strategy of design practice.
In long run, there will be slow changes to the current
situation due to, among other things, the procurement
system in the public work construction in Japan, i.e.
separation between design and construction. Close
coordination between designers and contractors during
the design stage thus needs to be increased. This will
enhance the constructability, innovation and value
engineering aspects in design. Currently, all the aspects
become consideration only at the end of the construc-
tion contract. This is too late and more expensive! They
should get more attention early during the design stage,
i.e. conceptual design. In short, all of these are directed
to implement the concept of ‘ability to influence’ in
practice by increasing awareness and ensuring an active
role for all players in the construction industry.
While this paper has highlighted important causes for
deficiencies, it is found that the process of occurrence is
not just that easy to understand. There are many com-
plex relationships among the factors to be considered.
The authors have looked further at this topic toward
development of a mechanism for defective design cau-
sation. By developing such mechanism, understanding
of inherent influencing factors and, more importantly,
546 Andi, T. Minato / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 537–546
their interactions becomes clearer and consequently
effort to reduce design defects turn to be more effective
and efficient. This will be elucidated in forthcoming
papers.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere grati-
tude to Asian Development Bank—Japan for providing
the financial support for the research and also Ministry
of Education of Japan through Grant-in-Aid No:
10305038. Many thanks to consultants and contractors
who kindly participated the survey and interviews. The
authors are also very grateful to anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments to this paper.
References
[1] Paulson BC. Designing to reduce construction costs. Journal of
the Construction Division 1976;102(CO4):587–92.
[2] McGeorge JF. Design productivity: a quality problem. Journal of
Management in Engineering 1988;4(4):350–62.
[3] Eldin NN. Management of engineering/design Phase. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 1991;117(1):163–75.
[4] Vlatas DA. Owner and contractor review to reduce claims. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 1986;112(1):104–11.
[5] Diekmann JE, Nelson MC. Construction claims: frequency and
severity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
1985;111(1):74–80.
[6] Kirby JG, et al. Improvements in design review management.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 1988;
114(1):69–82.
[7] Lutz JD, et al. Framework for design-quality-review data-base
system. Journal of Management in Engineering 1989;6(3):296–
312.
[8] Kartam NA, Kartam SA. Risk and its management in the
Kuwaiti construction industry: a contractors’ perspective. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management 2001;19:325–35.
[9] Sawada M. A fundamental study of risk management in con-
struction projects—risk allocation between owners and con-
tractors for public works. Unpublished Master thesis, University
of Tokyo, Japan; 2000 [In Japanese].
[10] Kangari R. Risk management perceptions and trends of US
construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment 1995;121(4):422–9.
[11] Ahmed SM. Risk management trends in Hong Kong construc-
tion industry: a comparison of contractors and owners percep-
tions. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
1999;6(3):225–34.
[12] Anon. Impossible to be built design drawing. Nikkei Construc-
tion 2000;253:60–85 [in Japanese].
[13] Tilley PA, McFallan SL. Design and documentation quality sur-
vey: designer’s perspective. Australia: CSRIO; 2000.
[14] Tilley PA, McFallan SL. Design and documentation quality sur-
vey: contractor’s perspective. Australia: CSRIO; 2000.
[15] Matsushita F. Design and construction practice in Japan: a
practical guide. Tokyo: Kaibunsha Ltd; 1994.
[16] Tilley PA et al. Design and documentation quality and its impact
on the construction process. CIB W55 & W65 Joint Triennial
Symposium, Cape Town; 1999.
[17] Anon. How to protect from recurrence errors. Nikkei Construc-
tion 2001;275:46–85 [in Japanese].
[18] Gerwick and Woolery. Construction and engineering marketing
for major project services. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1983.