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

net/publication/269048054

A Critical Review of Methods Used to Determine Productivity of Mechanical,

Electrical, and Plumbing Systems Coordination

Conference Paper · May 2014

DOI: 10.1061/9780784413517.080

CITATIONS READS

13 1,202

3 authors, including:

Baabak Ashuri Saman Yarmohammadi

Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology
133 PUBLICATIONS 1,839 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

If These Walls Could Talk: Data Analytics for Automated Performance Measurement in Building Design View project

Pricing in infrastructure management projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saman Yarmohammadi on 16 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 777

A Critical Review of Methods Used to Determine Productivity of Mechanical,

Electrical, and Plumbing Systems Coordination

Baabak ASHURI1, Saman YARMOHAMMADI2, and Mohsen SHAHANDASHTI3

1
Assistant Professor, Economics of the Sustainable Built Environment (ESBE) Lab,
School of Building Construction, Georgia Institute of Technology, 280 Ferst Dr.,
First Floor, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332; e-mail: baabak.ashuri@coa.gatech.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2
PhD Student, Economics of the Sustainable Built Environment (ESBE) Lab, School
of Building Construction, Georgia Institute of Technology, 280 Ferst Dr., First Floor,
Atlanta, Georgia, 30332; e-mail: saman.yar@gatech.edu
3
PhD Candidate, Economics of the Sustainable Built Environment (ESBE) Lab,
School of Building Construction, Georgia Institute of Technology, 280 Ferst Dr.,
First Floor, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332; e-mail: sshahandashti3@gatech.edu

ABSTRACT
Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) systems coordination is a
process during the pre-construction phase through which the proposed location and
route of each system components are specified. The MEP coordination process has
significantly changed due to utilization of Building Information Modeling (BIM).
There is a gap in knowledge regarding productivity measurement of MEP
coordination team. Moreover, there is a need for research to enhance our
understanding about important factors affecting productivity of MEP coordination.
The main objectives of this research are: (i) to document approaches for conducting
MEP coordination using BIM, (ii) to identify metrics for measuring productivity of
MEP coordination; and (iii) to identify factors affecting MEP coordination
productivity. A questionnaire survey was conducted to achieve these objectives. The
survey show that the most frequently used metric for conducting MEP coordination
using BIM is square feet of coordinated area per total coordination hour. Moreover,
experience level of MEP coordination team members is the top factor that
significantly affects MEP coordination productivity. The findings of this study
indicate that construction industry lacks a systematic procedure to record information
to track, measure, and compare MEP coordination productivity across different
coordination projects.

INTRODUCTION
Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) systems coordination is a
challenging task during the pre-construction phase of complex building projects
(Riley et al. 2001; Korman 2009). In general, coordination is conducted after
engineers complete MEP systems design including equipment requirements, system
components’ location, and component routes in the building (Korman and Tatum
2001). After completing the designs, the coordination process begins by holding
meetings between the representatives of the general contractor and specialty trades
(e.g., HVAC dry, HVAC wet, plumbing, fire protection). Through these meetings, the
2D drawings of different MEP systems, developed by engineers, are sequentially
compared and overlaid on a light table to detect spatial conflicts and interferences. To

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 778

avoid these interferences, MEP systems components are re-routed or relocated.

Moreover, the coordination process might also result in the structural and
architectural design modifications. Finally, upon the completion of coordination,
specialty trades prepare shop drawings that are later used to fabricate different
systems’ components. This process is manual, error-prone, time-consuming,
expensive, and is perceived as one of the major challenges in the delivery process for
construction projects (Tatum and Korman 2000).
MEP coordination process has changed by the utilization of BIM tools in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

design processes (Korman et al. 2008). Korman stated that three-dimensional

building models enable engineers and constructors to visualize the size, location, and
routing of different MEP systems. Moreover, software integration tools such as
NavisWorks provide a platform to merge the 3D models into one common model and
conduct automated clash detection. Automated clash detection not only expedites
detection of physical interferences, but also increases the precision of coordination
task. In addition to the effects utilization of BIM technology has on the MEP work
coordination processes, it also has significantly magnified the benefits of conducting
coordination prior to construction. Increased design and field productivity are some
of the reported benefits of the use of BIM tools in coordination (Staub-French and
Khanzode 2007; Khanzode et al. 2008; Hartmann et al. 2008). These studies mostly
investigated the engineering productivity gain considering design process in its
entirety. However, little research has been reported that particularly discuss
productivity analysis of MEP coordination.
There is little literature on documentation of the different MEP coordination
using BIM technology. There are legitimate questions regarding the difference of the
current coordination approaches in term of their means and methods. There is a need
to identify the metrics construction firms use to measure the productivity of their
coordination teams. There is also additional need to identify major factors that affect
the productivity of coordination efforts. This study was initiated with the goal of
enhancing the existing knowledge regarding productivity analysis of MEP
coordination. The objectives of this study were: (I) to document current approaches of
conducting MEP coordination using BIM technology (II) to identify the metrics
companies use to measure productivity of their MEP coordination teams (III) to
identify the information items companies collect to monitor the coordination process
(IV) to identify factors that affect MEP coordination productivity. This research
project contributes to the body of knowledge in engineering design productivity
through identification of major factors affecting MEP coordination and metrics used
to measure productivity of MEP coordination. In addition, this research contributes to
the state of practice through providing information needed to establish a systematic
procedure to track, measure, and compare MEP coordination productivity across
different construction projects.

DESIGN PRODUCTIVITY
MEP coordination is a task that is conducted as a part of engineering design
process of construction projects. Thus, MEP coordination productivity analysis
should be conducted in accordance to principals of engineering productivity studies.
Different studies have been conducted concerning engineering and design

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 779

productivity. Productivity metrics suggested by the studies can be categorized as

follows:
 Design hours per construction document: metrics that consider design hours
as input and construction documents (e.g., drawings, specifications, contract
forms) as output.
 Design hours per installed/built quantities: metrics that consider design hours
as input and installed/built quantities (e.g., number of installed equipment,
concrete volume, building floor area) as output.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

 Normalized design hours: Metrics that consider design hours as input and are
normalized through dividing the input by basis design hours
A summary of the existing literature on engineering productivity is presented in this
section. In addition, the metrics that are used to measure engineering productivity are
further discussed.

Design Hours per Construction Documents

Thomas et al. (1999) developed a model to measure engineering and design
productivity during the contract documents phase. Thomas et al. considered
construction documents (e.g., drawings, specifications, contract forms) as design
outputs; Accordingly, productivity unit rates were defined as design work hours per
drawing sheet, design work hours per specification section, and design work hours
per each contract documents. Chang and Ibbs (2006) also used design work hours per
drawing sheet unit rate in a study to find the major factor that affect design
productivity. Productivity metrics that consider construction documents as the
tangible outputs of design require less effort to estimate design productivity.
However, consideration of tangible construction documents as the outputs is arguable
since the real output of engineering firms is the design information; construction
documents are the means to convey this information to other project stakeholders and
are not the actual outputs. Moreover, the described metrics do not take project
characteristics into account. Therefore, these metrics can only be used to compare
projects with similar characteristics.

Design Hours per Installed/Built Quantities:

Construction Industry Institute (CII) (2001) conducted an extensive study to
define industry standard metrics to measure engineering productivity. Through this
study, a framework to measure productivity in ten different engineering disciplines
was developed. Application of this framework was also illustrated by conducting
productivity analysis in piping industry. This framework was later modified and
improved in another CII’s supported project to benchmark engineering productivity
(Kim 2007). Both studies incorporate the effects of project characteristics and design
quality in developing proper engineering productivity metrics. Consequently, the
developed metrics can be used to compare engineering productivity across different
projects. Another example of considering installed/built quantities as the outputs of
engineering is a study conducted by Sacks and Barak (2008) to quantify the impact of
3D parametric modeling on productivity in structural engineering practice. Sacks and
Barak deemed total volume of concrete and gross floor area as output measures of
structural engineering practices. Unlike the approach discussed in the previous

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 780

section, these studies measure the output of engineering practices using installed/built
quantities.

Normalized Design Hours

CII (2004) conducted a study in continuation of its efforts to establish
consistent standards to measure engineering productivity. To measure engineering
productivity, the study proposed “productivity index” that is calculated by dividing
actual design hours by “basis hours”. Basis hours can be predicted using regression
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

models developed for different engineering discipline. The models were developed
based on design component quantity data. The advantage of this approach is that
productivity index can be used to compare engineering productivity not only across
different projects, but also across different engineering disciplines. However, the
predictive regression models have large estimation errors and are therefore unreliable
(Kim 2007).
An important observation is that the information items that were collected
vary based on the metrics used to calculate engineering productivity. Table 1 shows a
summary of these metrics and corresponding information items for different studies.
Overall, studies that use number of construction documents to measure design output
require information items that can be simply obtained. While, more detailed
information should be collected to estimate engineering productivity if productivity is
measured by considering construction quantities as design output. Unlike engineering
productivity, MEP coordination productivity analysis has received limited attention in
the existing body of literature. The presented study is part of a larger effort in
progress at the Georgia Institute of Technology to define proper metrics to measure
MEP coordination productivity considering major affecting factors. This paper
presents results of a survey conducted among construction industry professional to
document MEP coordination approaches, identify metrics that are used to measure
MEP coordination productivity, and identify major factors that affect productivity of
MEP coordination teams.

SURVEY OF INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS

In order to fulfill the objectives of this study, a questionnaire survey was
conducted among construction industry professionals. The questionnaire was
designed in two parts based on a wide scope review of existing literature. The first
part collected respondent’s information such as respondent’s role in the company,
company name, and company type. The second part focused on obtaining information
regarding the means and methods of conducting MEP coordination using BIM, and
MEP coordination productivity measurement. The questionnaire was sent out in
summer 2013 to a total of 72 construction industry professional with experience in
MEP coordination. A summary of survey results is presented in the following section.

DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS

Forty-five complete responses from 28 different companies were received.
Thirty-five respondents were BIM/VDC managers and the rest consisted of
coordinators, project managers, and owners. Figure 1 shows the count of respondents

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 781

based on their company types. The majority of respondents were contractors, which
was expected since general contractors and specialty trades are usually responsible
for coordination.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. Count of respondents based on company

In the second part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to answer nine
questions regarding the means and methods of conducting MEP coordination using
BIM and MEP coordination productivity measurement. The results obtained from
each question are discussed in the rest of this section.
1. Utilization Frequency of Different MEP Coordination Approaches
The respondents were asked to specify, on a scale of one (never) to four
(often), how frequently they observe the use of different coordination approaches by
their firms. Six specific MEP coordination approaches were defined and provided in
the questionnaire:
 Regular coordination: All trades conduct four days of drafting and one day of
coordination per week.
 Parallel coordination: Multiple coordination teams conduct coordination
simultaneously on different zones of the project.
 Coordination meetings as needed: All trades draft separately and coordination
meetings will be scheduled when needed.
 Remote coordination: Team members remotely attend coordination meetings.
 Coordination conducted by specialty trades: General contractor transfers
responsibility of conducting coordination to specialty trades
 Cloud computing-based coordination: coordination is conducted using cloud-
computing technologies.
In addition, respondents were asked to indicate whether they have seen any other
coordination approaches. Figure 2 shows the average usage frequency of the defined
coordination approaches. It is shown that remote coordination and regular
coordination are the two most commonly used approaches for MEP coordination.
One respondent specified another coordination approach called “Staging
Coordination”. In this approach, coordination is scheduled in a way that only one
trade works in an area at a time. Next trade starts working on the area when the first
trade is finished. Coordination of each area starts with trades with “the least movable
items” and then other trades model around those who modeled before. After all trades
finish modeling major pieces, the coordination process continues through regular
meetings. Some respondents specified that in “fast-track projects” collocation of
trades meet in one location and conduct modeling and coordination simultaneously.

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 782

Table 1. Metrics and Collected Information Items Used to Measure Design Productivity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Productivity Metrics
Thomas et al. Chang and
CII (2001) CII (2003) Kim (2007) Sacks (2008)
(1999) Ibbs (2006)
design hours
design hours per direct work
Direct per 1000 m2
sheet, design direct hours*/Issued
design of floor area,
hours per section, work hours* design hours For
hours*/basis design hours
design hours per per per drawing Construction
hours** per m3 of
each contract installed unit (IFC)
predicted precast
document quantities
concrete
Design Hours      
Number of Drawings      
Number of Contractual
     
Documents
Project Size      
Information Items

Project Type      
Project Cost      
Client/Owner      
Number of Installed
     
Pieces
Volume of Structural
     
Concrete
Project Delivery
    
System 
Project Profit   
  
QA/QC   
  
* “Direct Work Hours” or “Direct Design Hours” refers to the work hours associated with activities such as deliverable
production, site investigations, meetings, and engineering rework; indirect engineering work hours, such as document control
and quality management, are excluded from productivity calculation.
**“Basis hours” were calculated using regression models for each design discipline.

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 783

Remote Coordination 3.38

Regular Coordination 3.31
Parallel Coordination 3.24
As Needed Coordination 3.00
Coordination By Trades 2.53
Cloud Computing-Based Coordination 1.93
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Frequency

Figure 2. Average usage frequency of defined MEP coordination approaches

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2. Involvement of Trades in Coordination Process

Thirty-two respondents indicated that all trades are involved from the
beginning to the end of coordination. One respondent specified the following order
for trade involvement: 1) HVAC wet, 2) HVAC dry, 3) electrical, 4) plumbing, 5) fire
protection. Another respondent stated a different order: 1) HVAC wet, 2) HVAC dry,
3) Plumbing, 4) Fire Protection, 5) Electrical.
3. Numbers and Titles of Personnel Assigned to Coordination by General Contractor
and Trades
Respondents indicated that in the majority of projects only one personnel is
assigned to coordination by the general contractor and each trade. The following are
the top three personnel titles that were reported:
 General Contractor: BIM coordinator, BIM manager, BIM engineer
 HVAC Dry: drafter, detailer, BIM coordinator
 HVAC Wet: drafter, detailer, BIM coordinator
 Plumbing: drafter, detailer, BIM coordinator
 Electrical: drafter, detailer, BIM coordinator
 Fire Protection: drafter, detailer, BIM coordinator, designer, MEP engineer
4. Software Packages Used by Coordination Teams
According to survey results, NavisWorks, AutoCAD, Revit, and Tekla are the
top four software packages that coordination teams use. Synchro, BIM 360 Glue,
Pneumatic Tube, BlueBIM, and PD3D are among other software packages that were
mentioned by respondent.
5. Metrics Construction Firms Use to Measure Productivity of MEP Coordination
Fifteen out of 45 respondents indicated that their firms do not measure MEP
coordination productivity. The top five metrics are as follows (the numbers in
parentheses show the number of companies that use the corresponding metric):
1. Coordination hours/SF of building zones (3)
2. SF coordinated/number of meetings (2)
3. Coordination hours/number of coordinated discipline components (1)
4. SF coordinated/coordination hours/trades (1)
5. Clashes/1000 SF of building area (1)
6. Separate Productivity Measurement for Each Trade
Twenty-three out of 45 respondents specified that their firms measure coordination
productivity separately for different trades. One respondent stated that his firm estimates
trades’ coordination productivity based on reduced labor and fabrication times. Another
respondent indicated “we track the clash batches between trades to assign fixes and look at
productivity”.

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 784

7. Trade Rankings Based on the Time It Takes to Coordinate

Respondents were asked to rank trades in terms of the time it takes them to
coordinate. They were also asked to specify which trades have been perceived as the
bottlenecks of MEP coordination. Respondents were allowed to choose more than
one answer. Figure 3 shows the results. It is shown that HVAC dry is the most time
consuming trade in MEP coordination process. An important observation is that
although fire protection is the fastest trade to coordinate, it ranked second among
trades perceived as bottleneck of coordination process.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

HVAC dry 4.27 HVAC Dry 29

Plumbing 3.49 Fire Protection 16

HVAC wet 2.97 Electrical 14

Electrical 2.45 Plumbing 13

Fire Protection 2.14 HVAC Wet 8

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Average Assigned Rank Count

Figure 3. Left: Trade rankings in in terms of coordination time. Right: Trades

perceived as bottleneck

8. Information Items Collected to Monitor MEP Coordination Progress

Twenty-six respondents specified their firms monitor MEP coordination
progress. Figure 4 shows the results. Number of clashes resolved in each meeting,
BIM competency of team members, number of trades attending meetings, experience
level of team members, and number of clashes resolved in each meeting per trade are
among the information items that are more commonly collected. “Number of
drawings” is another information item mentioned by one of the respondents.

Number of clashes resolved in each meeting 26

BIM competency of team members 26
Number of trades attending meetings 24
Experience level of team members 23
Number of clashes resolved in each meeting per trade 22
Number of clashes approved in each meeting per trade 21
Number of clashes approved in each meeting 21
Number of people attending meetings 18
Number of meetings per week 16
Number of meeting hours 12
SF coordinated in each meeting 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Count

Figure 4. Information items collected by companies to monitor coordination

9. Major Factors that Affect MEP Coordination Productivity

Thirteen factors that could possibly affect MEP coordination productivity
were identified through literature review. Respondents were asked to specify the
impact of these factors on a scale of one to four. Figure 5 shows the rankings of these
factors according to survey results. It is shown that coordination team experience
level, preliminary design quality, and project schedule are the major factors that
affect productivity of MEP coordination.

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 785

Team Experience Level 3.6

Preliminary Design Quality 3.42
Project Schedule 3.4
MEP System Complexity 3.37
BIM Competency of Team Members 3.33
Building Type 2.95
Project Delivery System 2.79
Software Used For Coordination 2.55
Project Size 2.53
Interoperability Issues 2.44
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Project Volume (dollar value) 1.95

Public vs. Private Owner 1.88
Project Location 1.84
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Figure 5. Rankings of factors that affect MEP coordination productivity

CONCLUSIONS
This study was initiated with the goal of enhancing the existing knowledge
regarding productivity analysis of MEP coordination. The objectives of this study
were to identify the metrics companies use to measure productivity of their MEP
coordination teams and identify factors that affect MEP coordination productivity. In
order to fulfill the objectives of this study, a questionnaire survey was conducted
among construction industry professionals with experience in MEP coordination. The
survey results indicate that “remote coordination” and “regular coordination” are the
top two most common approaches of conducting coordination. Coordination team
experience level, preliminary design quality, and project schedule were identified as
the top three major factors that affect MEP coordination productivity. It was shown
that there is no established metric to measure MEP coordination productivity across
construction industry. Moreover, construction companies do not have a systematic
procedure to record information to track and measure MEP coordination productivity.
This research contributes to the body of knowledge in engineering design
productivity through identification of metrics companies use to measure MEP
coordination productivity and major factors that affect it. In addition, this study
contributes to the state of practice through identifying information needed to establish
a systematic procedure to measure, track, and compare MEP coordination
productivity across different construction projects. This research makes step toward
acquiring a better understanding of MEP coordination productivity measurement;
however, more research is necessary to quantitatively investigate the relationship
between MEP coordination productivity and factors that affect it. Moreover,
development of a methodic approach to measure and benchmark MEP coordination
productivity is recommended for future studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The writers thank Professor Charles M. Eastman, who leads Digital Building
Laboratory (DBL) at the Georgia Institute of Technology, for supporting this research
project. In addition, we are grateful to Turner Construction Company, in particular
Mr. James P Barrett, Ms. Jennifer Downey, Mr. Pushkar Mahabaleshwarkar, Mr.
Omar Martinez, and Mr. Chad C Bacote who kindly helped us throughout the
progress of this study.

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 786

REFERENCES
Chang, A. S., and Ibbs, W. (2006). “System model for analyzing design
productivity.” J. Manage. Eng., 22(1), 27–34.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2001). “Engineering productivity
measurement.” RR156-11, Construction Industry Institute, Univ. of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2004). “Engineering productivity
measurements II.” RR192-11, Construction Industry Institute, Univ. of Texas
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 09/16/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

at Austin, Austin, TX.

Hartmann, T., Gao, J., and Fischer, M. (2010). ”Closure to “Areas of application for
3D and 4D models on construction projects” by Timo Hartmann, Ju Gao, and
Martin Fischer.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(8), 932–934.
Khanzode, A., Fischer, M., & Reed, D. (2008). “Benefits and lessons learned of
implementing building virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies
for coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems on a
large healthcare project.” ITcon, Vol. 13, Special Issue Case studies of BIM
use, 324-342.
Kim, I. (2007). “Development and implementation of an engineering productivity
measurement system (EPMS) for benchmarking.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Korman, T. and Tatum, C. B. (2001). “Development of a knowledge-based system to
improve mechanical, electrical, and plumbing coordination.” Center for
Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE). (Technical Report #129), Stanford
University, Stanford, California.
Korman, T., Simonian, L., and Speidel, E. (2008) “Using building information
modeling to improve the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing coordination
process for buildings.” AEI 2008: pp. 1-10.
Korman, T. (2009), “Rules and guidelines for improving the mechanical, electrical,
and Ppumbing coordination process for buildings.” Construction Research
Congress 2009: pp. 999-1008.
Riley, D. R., and Horman, M. J. (2001). “Effects of design coordination on project
uncertainty.” Proc., 9th Ann. Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Construction
(IGLC-9), 129–136.
Sacks, R., and Barak, R. (2008). “Impact of three-dimensional parametric modeling
of buildings on productivity in structural engineering practice.” Autom.
Construct., 17(4), 439–449.
Staub-French, S., and Khanzode, A. (2007). “3D and 4D modeling for design and
construction coordination: issues and lessons learned.” ITcon, Vol. 12, 381-
407.
Tatum, C. and Korman, T. (2000). ”Coordinating building systems: process and
knowledge.” J. Archit. Eng., 6(4), 116–121.
Thomas, H., Korte, Q., Sanvido, V., and Parfitt, M. (1999). ”Conceptual model for
measuring productivity of design and engineering.” J. Archit. Eng., 5(1), 1–7.

View publication stats Construction Research Congress 2014