FEASIBILITY OF APPLICATION CONCURRENT ENGINEERING IN

NIGERIA AS A DEVELOPING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

BY
UKOKOBILI, O.JACOB
ENG0402079
A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
(B. ENG.) DEGREE
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF BENIN
NIGERIA
FEBUARUY, 2011.

CERTIFICATION
1

This work was carried out by UKOKOBILI, O.J in the Department of Civil
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Benin, Benin City and is hereby
certified.
SUPERVISOR:
Name: A.N ANIEKWU
Signature and Date: __________________________
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
Name: ENGR. DR. C. IZINYON
Signature and Date: ____________________________

DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to Almighty God for the gift of life and His abundant grace
all this years, my parents Mr. and Mrs. A. UKOKOBILI for their parental love, care,
moral teachings and financial support, my siblings UKOKOBILI REBECCA
(Miss),

UKOKOBILI

DANIEL,

UKOKOBILI

PETER,

UKOKOBILI

OSEMUDIAMEN and the family of Hon. and Mrs B.O ASIKHIA for their moral
support.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am sincerely grateful to God Almighty for giving me the Grace to run and
complete this project successfully.
My gratitude goes to my supervisor A.N ANIEKWU for his fatherly care and
support throughout the period he supervised me, my H.O.D. ENGR. DR. C.
IZINYON, the entire academic staff and other members of staff of the Department,
other members of the University community.
Words are not enough to express my gratitude to my beloved friend PEACE
AMAKA AGHOLOR (Miss) for her support and encouragement especially when
my Laptop was stolen almost at the end of my project, also to Choristers of Gabriels
Catholic Church Choir, Urora for prayers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content

Page

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ii

ABTRACT

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

vi

LIST OF SYBMOLS

vii

CHAPTER ONE:
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

Introduction
Problem Definition
Aims and Objective
Scope of Study

CHAPTER TWO:
2.1

Literature Review ...................................................................... 4

2.2

The Historical Foundation of Concurrent Engineering.............. 5

2.1.1

The Evolution of the internal environment................... 11

5

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.1.2

The changes in external environment...........................12

2.1.3

The reinvention of concurrent engineering...................20

Building blocks for concurrent engineering............................24

2.2.1

Function of good project development....................... 24

2.2.2

Important factors in concurrent practices.....................25

2.2.3

Helpful rule base method.............................................26

Cross functional teamwork in organisation.............................30

2.3.1

Teamwork...................................................................30

2.3.2

What is a team............................................................33

2.3.3

Multifunction product development team.................35

2.3.4

Ten principle of successful team...............................37

2.3.5

Organisational design and planning..........................38

Implementation.....................................................................42
2.4.1

Project team structure..............................................44

2.5.1

Team meeting..........................................................45

Benefits of concurrent engineering....................................48

CHAPTER THREE:

3.0

Methodology.....................................................................50

3.1

Methodology.....................................................................51

CHAPTER FOUR:
4.0

Result...............................................................................53

4.1

Respondent profile......................................................... 53

4.2

Summary of results........................................................99

4.3

Discussion....................................................................101

CHAPTER FIVE:
5.0

Conclusion...................................................................103

5.1

Recommendation.........................................................103

REFERENCES................................................................................... 105
APPENDIX 1......................................................................................109
APPENDIX 2.....................................................................................117
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

ABSTRACT
The Nigeria construction industry is faced with increasing number of
complex and sophisticated design of structure, that requires the urgent need for a
more technical and technological method to improve the performance of project
development in the construction industry.
This study therefore assesses the feasibility of Concurrent Engineering to a
developing construction industry to make construction process less fragmented, to
improve project quality, to effectively keep construction project within deadline.
Thus, avoiding problems that might jeopardize the success of the whole construction
process.
KEYWORDS: Concurrent Engineering (CE) in the Nigeria construction industry.

CHAPTER ONE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Nigeria construction industry over the years has been faced with
continuously increasing demand and sophistication of clients, which calls for the
need for changes within the construction industry in its current practices and
project development which include design, procurement, construction, project
delivery etc.
Many of the services and parts of the structure of the modern facilities are
now so technically specialized that they have to be designed by many specialists.
8

Hence, a feature of the construction industry is the division of the production

responsibilities amongst many participants who belong to different organisation
with different policies, objectives and practices (Aniekwu, 2002).
Concurrent Engineering (CE), sometimes called parallel or simultaneous
engineering is a work methodology based on the parallelisation of tasks (i.e
performing tasks concurrently), and is a systematic approach to the integrated,
concurrent design of products and their related processes, including manufacture
and supports (Winner at el. 1998).
The context of the construction industry, Evbuomwan and Anumba (1998)
defined CE as an attempt to optimize the design of the project and its
construction process to achieve reduced lead times, and improved project quality
and cost by integration of design fabrication, construction and ecration activities
and maximising concurrency and collaboration in working practices.
The concurrent engineering (CE) method is still a relatively new design
management system, but has had the opportunity of mature in recent years to become
a well-defined cycles.
Therefore, this paper focuses on the feasibility of the application of
concurrent engineering to a developing construction industry.

1.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION

The Nigeria construction industry has not been performing as well as it could
for a number of years now. This industry comprises a group of heterogeneous and
fragmented firms and within firms. There is often a great diversity of activities.
No other has similar characteristics.

The separation of design from production. Traditionally, design is carried out

by the design team (architects, structural engineer, and services engineers) while
the production is carried out by separate team, the building team comprising the
builders/construction manager and the quantity surveyors who carries out the cost
management making the entire construction process a complex industrial
structure.
Sadly, this has resulted in many unethical practices leading to shoddy jobs,
structural failures, and project abandonment among others.
The Nigeria construction industry shares similar characteristics with
construction industry all over the world. Hence, this study will be relevant to
professional in other countries and foreign professionals who will be doing
business in Nigeria in the future.
1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study is to access the feasibility of the application of CE to a
developing construction industry.
The main objective of this study includes:
1. To assess the level of awareness of CE,
2. Factors and Constrains that will hinder implementation,
3. Benefits of applying of CE in Nigeria as a developing construction industry,
and
4. The readiness in adopting CE
1.4 SCOPE OF WORK
This work study is limited to the application of CE within Nigeria as a
developing construction industry.

10

CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Concurrent engineering which is sometimes called simultaneous engineering
or Integrated Product Development (IPD) is defined as a systematic approach to the
integrated, concurrent design of products and their related processes, including
manufacture and support. This approach is intended to cause the developers, from the
outset, to consider all elements of the product life cycle from conception through
disposal, including quality, cost, schedule, and user requirement.
Concurrent engineering is not a quick fix for a companys problems and its
not just a way to improve engineering performance. Its a business strategy that
addresses important company resources. The major objectives this business strategy
aim to achieve is improved project development performance. CE is a long-term
strategy, and it should be considered only by organisation willing to make up front
investment and the wait several years for long-term benefit. It involves major
organisation and cultural changes.
The problem with project with project development performance that CE
aims to overcome, those of the traditional serial project development process in
which people from different department work one after the other successive phase of
development. In traditional serial project development, the project is first completely
defined by the design team, after which the construction process is defined by the
construction team, etc. Usually this is slow, costly and low-quality approach, leading
to a lot of changes, projects delays and construction errors.
11

Concurrent engineering bring together multidisciplinary teams in which

project developers from different functions work together and in parallel from the
start of a project with the intention of getting things right as quickly as possible, and
as early as possible. A cross-functional team might contain representatives of
different functions such as the Consultants, Architects, Structural engineer, the
building team, quantity surveyor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, service
engineer etc. Sometimes client is also included.
In the CE approach to development, input is obtained from as many
functional areas as possible before the specifications are finalized.
This results in the project development team clearly understanding what the
project requires in terms of mission performance, environmental conditions during
construction budget and scheduling
2.1 THE HISTORICAL FOUNDATION OF CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
The concepts fundamental to concurrent engineering can be traced back to every
small manufacturer and designer in history. When design, marketing, production and
the target customers were the same person or very small specialized team, the idea of
their cooperation and designs reflecting knowledge of all the downstream
requirements is natural. Concurrent engineering has not been the sole domain of
theoretical academics but is well demonstrated in industry.
CE may not always have been identified with a name since it was applied and
unrecognized or identified. A concept such as CE can only be defined in comparison
to something, which it is not. If there is no known alternative it is hardly possible to
label what is common practice, the names did not develop until there were plenty of
12

examples of very different practice. The modern need for concurrent engineering is
directly related to the increase of size and complexity of industry. The factors which
lead to the rebirth of CE over the past 20 years are not only increased competition,
accelerated development requirements, increased quality requirements, but also the
progress and growth of the post war period. This period of expansion is marked
with increasing over-management and compartmentalization in industry which
caused sequential engineering to develop. The benefits resulting from the
application of CE are the result of large complex entities function as many small, yet
integrated groups. The potential of this is great; by using the skills of many people it
creates a potential reservoir of skill, knowledge and experience far greater than any
individual could ever posses. The results of this approach are seen well before the
early 1980s when CE was rediscovered.
The Ford Motor Company historically utilized many of the ideas found in
modern CE, but lost them after the Second World War and then, over the last two
decades, expended a great deal of energy to reintroduce the same ideas in a
modernization and evolved form. The philosophy of CE is not entirely novel.
Pioneers of the automobile industry, like Henry Ford and Ransom Olds, practiced to
a certain extent the philosophy of what we now call concurrent engineering. During
Ford s early years, (1908-1927) it was by no means small single man operation, yet
they focused on designing a car easily and cheaply mass- produced, this car, the
Model T would be built for 19 years and revolutionize industry and culture around
the world. Designing a car to be easily manufactured and assembled sounds much
like DFA and DFM of modern theory. Not only did Ford use small-integrated teams,
but also as a mechanic, machinist and businessman, he possessed intimate knowledge
of the complete process. As businesses grew in size and complexity, it became much
13

more difficult for a single person to posses all the skills needed to understand the
entire process. The modern education system creates an intrinsic separation between
the people who will build the machines and those who design. In companies such as
Ford where they started with just a handful of people, each performing multiple
tasks, this sort of separation was not such an issue. Admittedly, given the
requirements of modern technology, this sort of educationally separation is largely
inescapable, although through sufficiently broad education and experience it may be
minimized. Following this trend, that compartmentalization is the result of greater
complexity, the subsequent evolution of SE along with the increase in complexity is
natural. As company expands, both in terms of size and interconnection with other
entities, the designer is prevented from taking an integrated approach unless they
enact some deliberate mechanism such as CE to preserve interaction among all the
parties involved.
Some of the best early demonstrations of Concurrent Engineering come out
of American industry during the Second World War. The United States developed not
only an immense production capacity of war material, but also designed and built the
necessary equipment in highly compressed timeframes with high quality results. At
this point Ford still possessed the qualities that had enabled it to development its
early successes. The peacetime engineering philosophy, a legacy of Henry Ford, of
using small, integrated, multidisciplinary teams similar to modern concurrent
engineering practices was extended to Ford s military production. Ford used these
techniques to develop and build trucks, tank engines, jeeps, B-24 bombers and other
important products for the war. A specific and rather impressive example is the
design of the P-51 fighter. The story of this airplanes design demonstrates what
could be done with the combination of CE, time pressure and the willingness to
14

utilize progressive technology. The design process used on the P-51 project was not
called by any special title; it was simply doing what needed to be done, presumably
the way the best of industry functioned at the mid century mark. The P-51 was
developed extremely quickly, although infinitely far from the complexity of modern
aircraft, designing and building a fighter for scratch to a flying prototype in a little
more than three months is truly an impressive feat. This remarkable aircraft was
designed and built in 102 days . . . Compared to a contemporary Spitfire with the
same engine, the Mustang climbed faster, had 50mph greater top speed and had a
much longer range, despite being 1600 pounds heavier. These examples demonstrate
that although very useful and perhaps necessary in the modern environment, it was
possible to rapidly develop complex designs without digital computers, CAD or all
of the modern tools now associated with CE. It cannot accurately be said that
intelligent design practices (such as CE) ever disappeared in a chronological sense, it
is more a matter of increasing limitations and constrains developing to overshadow
what fundamentally sound practice existed. The following is an example of a
company that managed to use fundamentally practices without the benefit of a
formally recognized methodology.

Western Gear was a heavy machinery

manufacture, based in Everett Washington. The following is an excerpt from the

recollections of mechanical engineer who worked for Western Gear from the early
1970s until 1986. At Western Gear where we built everything that we designed,
there was an emphasis on getting manufacturing involved as early as possible. We
would hold reviews of initial designs when all we had to talk over a fairly sketchy
layout on vellum. The real reason was to cut costs so that the manufacturing was
only done once or twice. When the time schedule was really tight, planning would
start planning manufacturing by looking over our shoulders at the drafting boards

15

while the design was still fluid. We usually got some good ideas from the planners
and machinists when the time was tight and we were all working together at once.
When time wasn't so critical there wasn't so much motivation or the priorities were
on other projects where it was more critical. If vellum was replaced with CAD
system this quote could easily be coming from a contemporary account of applied
CE. Yet this quote is in reference to a company which closed down before the
widespread application of systematic concurrent engineering in the USA. This also
brings up an important change in corporate practice, the fact that Western Gear built
everything they designed is in stark contrast to the practice of most modern
companies, such as Boeing, who essentially design the overall structure and assemble
the parts built by suppliers.
This sort of structure requires more much effort to ensure proper
communication than when parts and being built in the same faculty by employees of
the same company who designed them and is going to do the final assembles. These
issues are now starting to be added with new Internet based tools such as IP Team
mentioned later in the paper, yet these sorts of tools are very new and still uncommon
in industry. The Western Gear example shows that although all industry was not
universally entrenched in a hopeless state of sequentially engineered disaster, the
level of the problem depended on other factors such as the level of outsourcing.
Western Gear was relatively small and specialized in low tech heavy machinery,
these factors helped to create the type of environment where it was possible to do
good design without a formal process. The major difference between what was done
in this example and theory is the lack of a formal plan; what they were doing worked,
but it is impossible to know if anyone knew why this was. Without the awareness of
their practices, there is no motivation to preserve their function as other factors
16

change. This lack of awareness may explain part of the evolution into sequential
engineering. Managers and designers didnt realize that small integrated teams were
an efficient and effective means of structuring design groups, so they adopted new,
and we now can say, less productive strategies as they evolved. An important, or at
least often neglected, point is that the ideas fundamental to concurrent engineering
have long been recognized by at least some portion of academia. These ideas were
not commonly identified within the entire community, but were still at least at times
recognized to some extent. Within the engineering literature there are numerous preW.W.II examples directly referring to the ideas fundamental to concurrent
engineering. The following is an example which dates for 1921, some sixty years
prior to the modern invention of concurrent engineering. It is plain that the
manufacturing designer must take into consideration every circumstance involved in
the production of the commodity.

To be successful, he must work in close

cooperation with all who will be engaged in the development and operation of the
manufacturing equipment. This will include tool designers and the superintendents
and foremen of the various manufacturing and assembling departments.
It is clear that neither the ideas nor the practices that define CE are inventions
of the past couple of decades. It is however unclear why much of American industry
evolved in such a way that it would eventually require major reform and the
reintroduction of the very ideas and practices which had years before come naturally.
The history of Concurrent engineering, consists of three periods, the first is
the historical application of the ideas without recognition of a formal structure. This
typically took place before the Second World War. During the second phase, which
continued though the early 1980s, the ideas of CE were apparently lost, or were at

17

least prevented from being used by changes in the design environment. The third
period of CE s history, from the early 80 s through present, is characterized by the
resurrection of ideas from the first period along with new tools and methodology,
which were used to adapt to the contemporary design environment. It is fairly clear
what happened during CEs history, the question of why those things happened is not
so clear. In the next section of this paper it will examine this aspect of CE s history
and attempt to developed a plausible explanation for the development of the
environment which lead to the recent popularly of Concurrent Engineering.
2.1.1 THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
After the remarkable achievements of the period up through the Second
World War, American design entered into a period characterized by poor design
methodology and then suddenly, around 1980 began to adopt the practices and ideas
which are today called Concurrent Engineering. The literature suggests numerous
explanations for this phenomenon, despite the multitude of theories, no single one is
capable of providing a particularly satisfying explanation. Thus in order to
understand the background as well as is possible, the spectrum of theories will be
considered and appraised. The most common explanation for the transition to CE that
increasing complication of technology and heightened competition forced design
companies to make radical changes in design and management philosophy to remain
competitive. Yet this approach is difficult to support, both with the literature and
through solid reasoning. More importantly the competition theory does not9 explain
how industry came to be in such a state that they could no longer be viable after
years of successful or at least sufficient performance.

There are two general

approaches to understand the origin of the problem. The first is that the environment

18

changed around industry that design was working fine until something external, such
as foreign competition came along and made the old system no longer viable. The
second is the idea that changes within in structure and organization of the design
environment caused it to become ineffective and unacceptable to both industry and
the end customer. The most probably explanation is a combination of both internal
and external factors combining at the right time to force a change.
2.1.2 CHANGES IN THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
There are a many potential influencing factors on the adopted of CE. These
include increased cooperation required by new manufacturing technologies, the
change in the availability/cost of communication and information technologies,
internal reluctance to restructuring out of the fear of losing power, the level and type
of training received by engineers and finally a widespread shift towards shortened
lead-times. The first explanation for the change in the design environment is that the
manufacturing processes developed recently require greater cooperation than those of
the earlier period and thus have increased the need for systems such as CE. We
observe the long-standing notion that new manufacturing technologies increase the
need for design-manufacturing integration.
Although its effect is characteristic of an overall increase in complexity,
manufacturing process alone is not responsible for this paradigm shift in design.
While there certainly have been new, complicated technologies developed over the
last decades, all technologies were new at one time and the design environment that
has undergone considerable change over time. There is little new about change in
technology, aside from the its rate. Although a general change in the degree of
cooperation required by new manufacturing technologies is not a major factor in the
19

creation of a need for a new design methodology, a change in the overall complexity
is. In the 1980s companies started to feel the influence of large multinational
organizations on markets, increased product complexities and new developments in
innovative technologies. This directly affected the organizations ability to develop
and introduce new products to the market.
This increase in complexity and technologies made it more difficult to
develop products and hence more difficult to compete. The differences between
companies may also have been increased; the new complex technologies made it
harder to other companies to catch up if a competitor had the advantage of years of
development time. Another factor that has in fact undergone a great deal of change is
the price and availability of the communication and information technologies. The
reinvention of CE and the development of computer technology took place over a
very similar timeframe. Advancements in CAD, CAM, and other computer tools
have greatly enhanced and simplified information storage and sharing, making the
implementation of CE much less expensive.
Although certainly important, the availability and cost of Information
Technology (IT) can only be part of the reason for CE s rebirth, as it shown
elsewhere in this paper there are plenty of examples of CE type practices before the
invention of the transistor. One point this argument does have in its favour is that as
the companies grew and decentralized, the computer tools greatly enhance
communication.

Yet such programs as NexPrise's IPTeam are just now being

developed, 20+ years after the initial renewed interest in CE began. In the early
1980s CE developed along with CAD, but before the Internet and other tools which
help it to be practical for modern use. There is also an issue of the culture and

20

structure that CE had to develop under, the separation pre-existent within

management structure made it difficult to implement CE. It is intriguing to theorize
that it took so long for CE to become popular because the existing
compartmentalized system s character suppressed11 any sort of structural change.
One of the characteristics of the post-war, pre-CE workplace is the excessive
management. By introducing small multi-disciplinary teams with decision-making
authority, it can erode the lines of authority and threaten the power within a company.
Since those in power usually are the ones to make decisions, it is not surprising that
this might inhibit the growth of CE. Training and education may also be contributing
factors. Smith suggests that engineers lacked the proper education and training in
what makes good design methodology. This lack of knowledge is blamed for CE not
becoming widespread earlier. This is an interesting suggestion, although it was not so
much a matter of training in process, but rather a lack of training in awareness of
process. As discussed previously it was unschooled engineers such as Henry Ford
who first applied the ideas on a reasonable scale.

Training is certainly part of the

solution, yet it requires a greater wariness of process and methodology for training in
any sort of design methodology to take place. A final suggestion is that a widespread
trend towards shortened lead-time created a situation that had the potential to benefit
greatly from the application of CE and thus is encouraged its adoption. There have
been changes in the strategic environment that have led to an increased need for and
acceptance of concurrent engineering ideas in recent years

An increase in the

quality expected from the customer is often used to explain the need for CE
implementation. Yet the idea that there was a great deal more competition seems
unlikely. One justification given for the need for increased cooperation in the Product
development process is an increased level of competition. This justification is

21

incongruent with historical facts.

There have been claims that the level of

competition has increased recently at times that we no longer consider recent.

Also, business historians have observed that the level and degree of competition was
as severe, if not more severe, in previous eras than it is today. Increased competition
from a compressed design cycle cannot be completely dismissed, but competition is
hardly a new phenomenon. There has always been competition in industry, consider
the number of independent companies in such areas as the automotive industry has
greatly reduced over the past century. So that at least in terms of numbers, there are
few companies vying for market share in an industry which has been one of the
strongest users of CE. It is probably more a matter of the potential for a great
advantage if one company uses CE while the others are not. From these ideas Smith
focuses on education as being the major factor which delayed CEs reintroduction. I
suggest that the concurrent engineering ideas have existed for a long time, but were
not put into practice both because older methods seemed easier and because the
educational system did not advocate sufficiently a change to pre existing practices.
Educators and researchers have the duty to ensure that this does not happen again.
Yet this statement does not adequately address the multifaceted nature of the issue.
Although education does play a role, there are other important issues. The
development of communication tools made CE easier and more applicable for large
companies. Although the tools alone do not ensure intelligent design, they are
important for taking CE from theory into application.

Also the problem of

entrenched managements reluctance to change is not inconsequential. Finally there

is very little change that takes place that is not in some way a matter of economics.
Although SE may have seemed easy in comparison to the adoption of new methods,
there must have been some breakpoint in the early 1980s at which it became

22

worthwhile, and possible because of the availability of technology and ideas, to

transition to CE. The reason for the transition is only part of the issue; it is also
necessary look at the creation of the problem before fully understanding its solution.
The pressures on designers and corporations were not just from needing to compete,
but something more fundamental. The move towards increasing complexity, such
that a single engineer or manager can no longer be an expert on an entire system and
the use of both geographically separated faculties and independent suppliers explain
much of the change in the design environment. Competition is not new, the trends in
industry over the last half century on the other hand are. The level of competition in
all markets, including engineering products, is globally increasing. Reasons for this
are complex, but the main contributors are use of new technology, larger number of
organizations in the same markets and wider appreciation and use of continuous
process improvements. There have also been changes in the external demands and
conditions over the recent past. These are the product life-cycles of products
shortening, the diversity, variety and complexity of products increasing and the
customers becoming increasingly more sophisticated and demanding customized
products more closely targeted to their needs. This has led to the pressures of
continuous product improvements, leading to ever increasing functionality and
features.
This author, Syan credits a number of different issues: increasing complexity,
life cycle shortening, increasing customer expectations, and greater specialization
requirements. This view is at the least more specific, if not more realistic than Smith
is, and from this vantage-point, sound very reasonable. One commonly cited
examples of increased pressure on American business is Japanese industry s higher

23

quality and lower prices forcing American industry to change in order to compete. In
some industries the Japanese did play an influential role. In many cases the pace was
set by the Japanese, who progressively made inroads in North American and Europe
and in some cases dominated chosen markets. The list of these chosen markets
became longer year by year. The pressure applied by the Japanese would not have
been so important, except that American industry was not positioned to make
changes and did not act soon enough. Western companies attempted to meet this
pressure by applying computer tools without changing their basic structure. This
method did not work; the computer tools alone were insufficient to meet the
challenge.

Western companies were slow to recognize the basis of Japanese

success, but eventually responded with a whole string of actions including

CAD/CAE/ CAM/CIM, robotics, automation, value analysis, quality programmes,
and information technology and so on. They sought to offset a perceived weakness
their workforces by building on their apparent strength technology, particularly
computer-based technology.
In addition to foreign pressures, there were internal pressures that also acted
at the same time to compound the pressures on industry to reform. This is all
happening with the majority of the Western worlds common economic background
of slow growth, excess capacity, increasing legislation compliance, demographic
changes, market complexity and increasing globalization of industries. The combined
forces of Japanese progressive design philosophy and economic advantages over
those of most Western companies was an important factor in bringing the state of the
design environment to a point where drastic measures were required. One twist on
this technological acceleration theory is that it was not the case that everyone was
equally handicapped. As the rate of technological development accelerated, it made
24

it possible for some companies to create new successful products, which because of
the technological advantage over the competition placed enormous pressures on
those companies who fell behind.
The effect of forced design cycle reduced the possibility for input from
marketing and manufacturing which resulted in increasingly poor reflection of the
original engineering requirements. One effect of the changing design environment
was the increasing competitive demands and compressed design cycles. To compete
successfully, companies have to continuously keep reducing development times and
sustain improvements in their products and their quality. The need for better quality
and shorter product development lead times is now widely acknowledged and the
realization that the concurrent engineering approach offers the best way of achieving
these objectives has also became a necessary company strategy.
These pressures helped to trigger the change to new methods and attitudes
about design. Concurrent engineerings history may be considered from the premise
that it was introduced to combat internally sourced problems in the design
environment. This problem is characterized by the phenomenon, now identified as
Sequential Engineering (SE). It was not so much a theory, as a symptom of the ills
affecting industry. The alternative to concurrent engineering had strong
organizational separation between design, manufacturing and marketing, and/or to
separate the functional design of the product from production design and
manufacturing process design. There were, and continue to be many problems with
SE, one of the particularly weak areas is an inadequate understand of product
specifications, including not only those of the purchase customers, but also Design
for Manufacturing (DFM) and Design for Assembly (DFA). DFM and DFA are

25

ironically areas that were previously strong in American industry. Henry Ford in the
early 1900 s and Ford Motor Co through the 1940 have used DFM/DFA, yet they
were lost in the post-war expansion. (This is explored in depth earlier in the paper)
Concurrent Engineering offers simple, yet powerful instruments such as QFD to
combat some of SEs failures. QFD is a structured approach to defining customer
needs or requirements and translating them into specific plans to produce products to
meet those requirements which requires no computer technology or advanced
communications ability to implement only the knowledge of their existence. Despite
its appealing nature QFD was not first introduced in the USA until 1984. QFD also
combats SEs failure to perform accurate cost estimates, this is reflected in fire
fighting late stage design changes. These changes resulted from poor specification
understand and a lack of DFM. Yet these simple, low-tech tools were not adopted
initially Western companies, instead they attempted to meet the challenge of their
foreign competitors by using new computer technology within their existing systems.
These attempts can at best be called a Band-Aid solution that was largely
unsuccessful despite the expense and attractive nature of computer technology.
Without the proper structure, computer tools were used simply as a direct
replacement for older technology for such tasks as drafting and did very little to
alleviate the problems of SE. This expensive technology was largely ineffective,
because the new tools were used with existing structures, practices and attitudes.
Within the SE environment, application of the new computer technology did not help
the situation. Products continued to arrive in the market place at unsatisfactory
quality levels, and often too late to achieve sales and profit objectives.

Real

progress would require both the computer tools and the intentional adoption of
progressive design methodologies. All of the factors discussed played some role in

26

bringing about CEs modern development and popularly. It is not possible to choose
a single factor which was responsible, other than to say that a lack of historical
perspective, both in the modern and historical engineering communities caused them
to fail to understand what practices worked or if their new and improved practices
were actual an improvement. The design environment, both internal and external,
underwent a great deal of change in the past century and a half since the industrial
revolution began, and at least during the portion of the twentieth century, engineering
design philosophy did not always adapt along with the environment.
2.1.3 THE REINVENTION OF CE
The reinvention , reintroduction and adaptation of concurrent engineering
which has taken place over the past 20 years is one of the most ironic, almost
comical, aspects of CE s history. It is akin to European reintroduction of the Greek
classics from the Islamic Moors. The very ideas that had originally defined Western
throughout were lost for 500 years before being reintroduced from a foreign culture.
Although CE was lost for closer to 50 years, it might still be appropriate to call the
SE era the Dark Ages of design methodology.

Even

once

sequential

engineering was recognized as needing a replacement, the process of change was not
an easy one. It could be argued that many factors remain that17 inhibit the complete
adaptation of CE s principles. Ideas that were perceived as coming from Japan are
important in the re-creation process. At the beginning of the 1980 s American
corporations such as Ford set up programs to learn design from a group perceived as
being more skilled then could be found domestically: the Japanese. It has been
practiced by successful manufacturing managers, but no one has paid much attention
to applying it in a systematic way.

Japanese industry has practiced CE, without

27

using its name, for some time. This is clearly illustrated by the studies done in the
automotive industry, comparing the time to market of Japanese and European
manufactures.
Although Japanese industry may certainly claim credit for further developing
the ideas and the creation of some tools for CE, it was ironically an American, Dr. W.
Edwards Deming who thirty years before had introduced CE to Japan after Second
World War. In 1981 the American Supplier Institute (ASI) and Ford (ASI was
previously called the Ford Supplier Institute) brought Deming back to the United
States to help them develop CE in the USA.

Japans early adoption of CE

demonstrates what inhibiting force an existing entrenched system and perceived

success can have on the implementation of new ideas. Japan was forced to rebuild
from nothing after the war, while USA industry grew on top of an already highly
developed foundation without a firm understanding of the principles, which are
necessary for preservation of communication and intelligent design. The issue of
defence spending and contracts may also explain some of the differences. While the
US government funded immensely expensive space and defence projects of the Cold
War, Japan was forbidden from building its military and therefore put its efforts into
the civilian sector of the economy. After the Second World War, the USA sent
advisors such as Deming to assist the Japanese in rebuilding their industry.
Deming was intelligent enough to recognize, well before it was widespread
knowledge, what worked in design and was therefore able to encourage the use of
those principles in Japan and eventually back home in the USA.18 Another important
foreign influence to the implementation of CE, is CATIA, a powerful CAD and
integrated design, modelling and manufacturing system. Avions Marcel Dassault, a

28

French aeronautical company started working with CADAM systems in 1975, when
they acquired one from Lockheed. This system proved inadequate so they began
developed an own proprietary software in 1977. IN 1985, CATIA V.2 was released
with fully integrated drafting, solid and robotics functions. It took a couple of more
years before IBM joined and CATIA was used in the USA.
In '87-'88 Boeing was beginning to focus on CATIA which had the capability
of being used by both engineering and manufacturing. At first it was being used
mostly as a drafting machine but gradually as people learned how to use it was used
for layouts (initial engineering) and we started to talk about eliminating the paper
drawings and only using data sets, both for design and planning.
CATIA is important because it was more than a computer system used to
generate drawings, but also provided tools which could be used to promote the
sharing of information and connecting manufacturing and design within the same
computer system. This paper has stressed that the ideas and concepts that define
concurrent engineering were well established in both industry and academia prior to
the 1950, yet there are some important differences that characterize the modern
incarnation. It could be argued that what is new about concurrent engineering
practice is not the adoption of any individual element of this package, but rather the
adoption of all of this approach, and its synthesis into a novel method for product
development.
Modern CE is not only using many of the different techniques, more
importantly it is the acknowledgment of a definite systematic strategy to overcome
the factors which create compartmentalization and poor cooperation and
communication. As has been demonstrated historically, CE can be practiced with
29

great success in certain special situations without the benefit of computers or even a
formal methodology. Yet such situations are a rarity in the modern world of bigger
companies, more complex products, shortened design cycles and dispersed
development teams. This [informal/unorganized] type of CE practice exists in very
small companies who have very skilled and experienced people in their
organizations. So while for the sake of argument CE is not new, it did not develop
until the early 80s because it did not make economic sense, the pressures were not
high enough and the tools were not yet available earlier to enable large corporations
to adopt CE. Future considerations one final historical note (further study). It strikes
the author that there must be some connection between the industrial atmosphere of
the Cold War period, and the nature of evolution away from concurrent engineering
practices. Although there must be some mention of it in the literature it is well hidden
and the author of this paper was not able to find anything about the effects of the
Cold War on design methodology. It does not seem, or perhaps it is still classified,
that there were the same great feats of engineering as during the Second World War.
Yet the movement back to concurrent engineering came from the military sector
which
2.2 BUILDING BLOCKS FOR CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
A feasible approach to part count reduction is to design multi-use or "building block"
parts that can be used interchangeably in a variety of different products, product
models, or applications. For example, with the right standardization scheme, the
same mounting plate can be used to mount a variety of different components. Multiuse parts reduce manufacturing information content by reducing the number of part
variations that need to be manufactured. They produce economies of scale because of

30

increased production volume of fewer parts and economies of scope because the
same part is being used in a variety of applications and products.
2.2.1 FACTORS OF GOOD PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
The first step in achieving a simple design is to develop a systematized
product structure which standardizes the relationship between product function, form
and fabrication.What are product development tasks?

2.2.2

IMPORTANT

FACTORS

IN

CONCURRENT

ENGINEERING

PRACTICE
1. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTOR
a. Cross-functional Teams - Project team members gain a better
understanding of project priorities and process discipline, making risks and
compromises visible for better control. The design team is composed of
experts from engineering, production, marketing and any other functional
area which has a vested interest in the development project. The team is
formed to work on a specific project, and stays together throughout the

31

development of the product. This approach seems more recent, as it has been
discussed throughout the forties, fifties, and sixties as a viable mode of
accomplishing complex development work.
b. Liaison Personnel - Liaison personnel are not members of any
functional piece of an organization, but rather people who are capable and
prepared to address issues which span functional organizational
boundaries. Liaison Personnel have as their full-time job the coordination
of the disparate functions. Under this approach, they become the primary
modes of accomplishing information transfer between functional areas.
c. Job Rotation - Job Rotation means to rotate personnel between
functional categories. These personnel are assigned temporarily or
permanently outside of their accustomed functional specialty, which is a
manufacturing engineer will work with design engineers or vice versa.
Thus it is possible to integrate the

various knowledge bases without

making significant structural changes to the organization. Job rotation

does seem to have useful integration benefits.
2.2.3 SOME HELPFUL RULE BASED METHODS:
a. Product Design Methods

Design for Manufacturing (DFM) - DFM seeks to minimize

manufacturing information content of a product design to the
fullest extent possible within constraints imposed by
functionality and performance.
1.

Minimize the total number of parts

32

2.

Simplify the design to ensure that the remaining parts

are easy to fabricate, assemble, handle and service

3.

Standardize where possible to facilitate desirable

produceability
interchangeability,

characteristics
interoperability,

such

as

simplified

interfaces, effective consolidation of parts and

function, availability of components and so forth.

Design for Quality - can be implemented in the system

design step by intentionally designing the product and
process to be tolerant of variation

Design for Cost - It is essential that industrial organizations

have viable and responsive cost analysis and control systems.
Effective analysis of product or project costs and the ability
to implement cost control management includes management
of the product or project cost, and this requires a knowledge
and understanding of the cost elements and their sensitivity
to various control parameters. Cost analysis forms the basis
for cost control, and without accurate and timely cost data,
effective cost control is impossible. The most accurate and
timely cost data are useless unless coupled with an effective
cost control mechanism.

Design for Assembly (DFA) - Seeks to minimize cost of

assembly within constraints imposed by other design
requirements. DFA has been the starting point for
33

development of a corporate DFM philosophy and the culture

change that accompanies it.

Design for Safety - The designer must develop the habit of

constantly evaluating the design for safety, considering not
only the design itself but the personnel involved in
fabricating the product, using the procedure, and in
maintaining and repairing the product or system as well as
the end user or purchaser. Developing the manufacturing
processes as well as the maintenance and operating
procedures early during the design process will assist in
revealing safety problems at a time when corrective action
can be taken at minimum cost.

Design for Reliability - Reliability is defined as the

probability that a system device or component will
successfully perform for:
1. A given range of operating conditions
2. A specific environmental condition
3. A prescribed economic survival time

Design for X - Help to ensure that parts and products are

correctly designed to be produced using a particular
production process or method such as plastic injection
moulding or sheet metal stamping.

b. Integrated Computer Analysis

34

This is based on the recognition that steps in the development of a

manufactured product are interrelated and can be modeled effectively by using
computers. This relationship comes about not only from the characteristics of the part
being fabricated but also from the processes, specifications, instructions and data that
define and direct each step in the manufacturing process.
EXAMPLE 2.1 Catastrophic Design Errors
In 1986, the General Electric Company (GE) marketed a new refrigerator.
Their engineers were confident that their new compressor would help them leapfrog
the Japanese; yet, in 1988 they declared a loss of $450 million. What went wrong?
The story began in 1981, when the market share and profits of the GE Appliance
Division were falling. GE was using 1950's technology to make compressors. Each
compressor took 65 minutes to make, whereas Italian and Japanese companies made
theirs in 25 minutes, with lower labour rates.
The GE engineers said they could reduce the part count by one-third by
replacing the reciprocating compressor with a rotary compressor, like the one used in
their air conditioners since 1957. Furthermore, they said they could make it easier to
machine by using powdered-metal instead of steel and cast iron for two parts,
thereby cutting manufacturing costs. Although powdered-metal had failed in GE air
conditioners a decade earlier, no one on the new design team had experience with
this previous failure, and evidently, they felt no need for advice from people involved
in a failed project. They also turn down advice from Japanese and American
consultants with experience in designing rotary compressors.

35

Six hundred compressors were "life tested" by running them continuously for
two months under temperatures and pressures that were supposed to simulate five
years of actual use. Not a single compressor failed, and the good news was passed up
the management ladder. During testing, technicians noticed that many of the motor
windings were discoloured from heat, bearing surfaces appeared worn, and the sealed
lubricating oil seemed to be breaking down. This bad news was not passed up the
management ladder!
GE offered a five year warranty on the refrigerators, but they could not wait
five years before beginning full-scale manufacturing. Evaluating a five -year life
span based on two months of testing is tricky, so the original test plan was to fieldtest some refrigerators for two years before full-scale manufacturing began. Pressure
to stay on schedule reduced this test time to nine months.
By the end of 1986, GE had produced over one million new compressors.
Everyone was ecstatic over the new refrigerators; however, in July of 1987 the first
refrigerator failed. Quickly thereafter came an avalanche of failures, and the
engineers could not fix the problems. In December of 1987, GE started buying
foreign compressors for the refrigerators. Finally, in the summer of 1988 the
engineers made their report. The two powdered-metal parts were wearing
excessively, increasing friction, burning up the oil, and causing the compressors to
fail. GE management decided to redesign the compressor without the powderedmetal parts, and in 1989 they voluntarily replaced over one million defective
compressors.

36

The designers who specified powdered-metal made a mistake, but everyone

makes mistakes. Systems engineering is supposed to reveal such problems early in
the design cycle or at least in the testing phase.
2.3 CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAMWORK IN ORGANIZATIONS
2.3.1 TEAM WORK
To make a group means follow a deliberate action to identify and eliminate
the difficulties, to make a good work. The absence of objectives creates feelings of
frustration and dissatisfaction for the incapacity to change things. Teammates accuse
other people for their mistakes and inactivity.
Team Work is a plural process; it cannot be made by a person. When workers
are meeting to make groups, each person gives their knowledge, motivations, values
and capacities. The ways in which these people get involve could be positive or
negative. In some cases, members neutralize other ones and the result is the absence
of effectiveness, or passivity. In other cases, they sum their efforts totally or partially.
But, there exists another possibility: the interaction makes a transcendental state that
exceeds the contribution of any of the members and the sum of all of them. When
this happens the team has developed synergy. The total is superior to the sum of the
parts. The group exceeds the sum of the individual contributions; this is the meaning
of team work.
We can see an example of Team Work functions: A boss and his employer are
going to make a decision. Both of them were studying a technical paper that contains
tips to facilitate the situation, the data and the logic necessary to a complex, but
necessary decision. Suppose that they will take a test to show how much they know
37

about the technical paper. In the test (100 points) one makes 70 points and the other
one gets 50 points.
When discussion begins, they can neutralize each other and they will be
confused about the situation, the data and the logic necessary to make a good
decision. The media can be reducing to 60 or 50 at the end of the discussion. It
means that they are going to be in an incomprehension state. Thats not impressive.
In other hand, they can joy their knowledge and get in comprehension levels.
In this case, the action represents a 60: above the decision that could take the team
mate less prepare, but below the decision of the best prepare of them. Thats not
impressive too.
Exist a third possibility: if each of them put his knowledge to the disposition
to the other they can resolve the situation using the free and sincere dialogue. The
final point is going to be 99. Thats impressive.
Synergy Team Work is an intelligent group working together. Team Work
brings impressive results if the members of the group give all their dedication, effort,
information and recommendations to get the goals.
The project team approach has been proven to be the most successful
organizational structure used to implement new product development. One of the
most important factor in the future success of the concurrent engineering effort is the
acquired knowledge of ilities in the design and development of engineering team.
The goal of concurrent engineering is the interactive work of different
disciplines that affect a product to make it better.

38

Minimize the product life cycle

Decrease product cost

Maximize product quality

Team work

One of the principal tools of concurrent engineering in the accomplishment of

its goal is team work. This is where human resources are working together with the
objective of surviving and having success in the actual global market; recognizing its
sophistication, and that it is highly competitive.
For this reason is imperative to improve our products and service, taking
advantage of all the opportunities; from simple improvements through greater and
not so frequent scientific and technological innovation. The complexity of
organizational processes today, requires individuals with specific knowledge in the
different areas of the evaluated process, and in the techniques and tools of the team
work. This is the most effective way to obtain and use the experience and knowledge
of the employees to provide increased quality of processes, services and products.
2.3.2 WHAT IS A TEAM?
A team is a small group of persons with:

a clear, defined and significant purpose

managerial support

the responsibility to accomplish with an established rules of work

embarrassing in the contribution of time, abilities and knowledge

for a common goal
39

A team will constitute and develop with expert care. It could adopt a lot more
of the sum of individual as an entity. Some teams will pass an unknown barrier and
will reach to a phase of super execution.
An important aspect when the team development stated and its success is the
fact that they should count with a support structure so much from the administration
as internal and external counsellors.
The four fundamentally different types of teams we just looked at are based
on two defining characteristics: the need for coordination of actions among team
members and the degree of specialized or discrete skills needed within the team to
perform. Regardless of the type of team, there are common characteristics all team
configurations have that clearly differentiate them from groups or collections of
individuals. This is an important distinction. Many companies are using the bowling
or home-care model to form groups, but in no way have they created a fully
functioning team.
A team has a common:

Purpose

Understanding of how the activities of the team link to the company

Awareness of the customer needs that the teams efforts are addressing

Understanding of team member roles

Information-sharing, problem-solving and decision-making mechanisms

Set of operating guidelines or norms of behavior

40

Regardless of the type of team, these factors remain common- they are the
defining qualities of teaming. Without them, there is no team, merely a collection of
individuals.
2.3.3 MULTIFUNCTIONAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TEAM
In the best form of basic concurrent engineering, each product is developed
by a multifunctional product development team (PDT). The PDT makes all decisions
about the product design, production system, and field-support system. Although the
PDT must grow and then later shrink in size and, in so doing, change its composition
somewhat, there is never any sudden change. In particular, at the transitions in
process phases, there are not any sudden changes in the PDT. Continuity is
maintained; throwing results over the wall is avoided. All decisions are made with
the full participation of the people who have all of the relevant knowledge.
Basic concurrent engineering is best carried out by a multifunctional product
development team (PDT) led by a strong product manager. All functions of the
corporation should participate. People who are doing significant work for the specific
product development program should be part of the PDT while they are doing the
programs work. There is a vast psychological difference between performing a task
within a support group and performing it as a member of the PDT. As a PDT
member, the contributor will:

understand the specific requirements,

have the necessary close communications with other members of the

PDT, and

be dedicated to the utilization of the task results to make design decisions.

41

All three of these benefits are much less likely to materialize if the
contributor remains outside the PDT. It is important that the people on the PDT from
each function be able to:

represent the knowledge of that function, and

gain the commitment of that function to the decisions that are made.

Dysfunction will occur if the information is not provided or is wrong, or if the

function subsequently disowns the decisions and wants major changes. For example,
if the PDT decides to use an aluminium die casting and if later, when the product
enters into production, the production operations people want a fibre-reinforced
polymer part, then rework of the development will become rampant. Strong,
complete multifunctional product development team is essential for success.
Some people will stay on the PDT throughout the development program,
while others will be on the team only during the phase or task that requires their
expertise. The important criterion is that there should not be any sudden changes in
the composition or size of the PDT, since that would reduce teamwork and cause lack
of continuity.
Even while a member of a team, the individual still does much independent
work, but the work is done for the team. Membership in the team makes the goals of
individual work more holistic. The individuals work contributes effectively to the
overall development program.

42

Although we refer to the team, it is actually a team of teams. The chief

engineer who leads the PDT and the managers who report directly to him or her
constitutes one team. They are responsible for everything related to the product and
its development program. They include the subsystem leaders, for each product
subsystem has a team. Many critical interfaces have a dedicated team. Teams are
formed wherever the new product needs them. Although the complete PDT for a
large, complex product may have several hundred members, it is rare for any one
operational team to have more than 20 members. Many have only a few members.
The formation of the best interlocking structure of teams is a key success factor.
2.3.4 TEN PRINCIPLES OF SUCCESSFUL TEAMS
Ian Morley (1990) has developed 10 principles of teamwork in doing total
development work:
1. Select cohesive teams, based on sentiments of mutual liking and respect
for each others expertise.
2. Bring specialists from all major functional areas into the PDT
3. Ensure a common vision of the concurrent process.
4. Organize controlled convergence to solutions that everyone understands
and everyone accepts.
5. Organize vigilant information processing and encourage actively openminded thinking. Avoid the facile, premature consensus.
6. Maintain the best balance between individual and group work. Let
individuals do the things that individuals do best-for example, the initial
generation of new concepts.
7. Use systematic methods.
43

8. Use formal and informal communication.

9. Select at least some of the members according to how well suited they are
to the specific type of development work. One example is how static or
dynamic the concepts underlying the work are. A person who is proficient
in applying standards to rapidly completed static designs may have
difficulty with dynamic conceptual work. The opposite is also true.
10. Provide principled leadership. The leader must emphasize improved
process, making it visible to the team. He or she must take the primary
responsibility for helping to empower members of the team.
The organization and leadership on the multifunctional product development
team help to develop the successful practice of Morleys 10 principles. If these and
the principles are practiced, then any of the three product-focused modes can be
successful-heavyweight product manager, project execution team, or independent
PDT.
2.3.5 ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND PLANNING
In September 1985, the SESC and the executive staff participated in two
simultaneous engineering vision and implementation strategy development
workshops to assure alignment prior to establishing simultaneous engineering teams.
One result was the shared vision developed simultaneous engineering as follows:
Simultaneous engineering is a process in which appropriate disciplines are
committed to work interactively to conceive, approve, develop, and
implement product programs that meet pre-determined Cadillac objectives.

44

A further development was the pyramid structure. Cadillac has adopted the
pyramid as the symbol Simultaneous Engineering. At the base or foundation,
is the Cadillac executive staff who supports and nurtures the process with the
ultimate objective of satisfying our customers-at the top of the pyramid.
The role of top management in the simultaneous engineering environment is
to:

Sanction the simultaneous engineering process

Set simultaneous engineering policy and direction

Provide the environment in which simultaneous engineering can

flourish
Any time an organization sets out to make a significant change in the way it
does business, it is going to take a great deal of time and education for all employees
to make it work. But, without top managements leadership, support, patience, and
commitment nothing will be accomplished. Next on the pyramid is the steering
committee whose job is to:

Plan and implement simultaneous engineering policy and direction

Allocate the necessary resources

Serve as liaison to communicate the process to the total organization

Monitor and lead the process

45

Next are vehicle teams that are responsible for managing all steps of product
development in their vehicle program. Each vehicle team comprises members
representing all staffs of the organization. The roles of the vehicle team are to:

Develop the vehicle strategy including defining the target market and
specific demographics. This vehicle strategy must be consistent with the
overall divisional strategy.

Establish the overall vehicle goals required to meet this strategy.

Manage the vehicle content. Provide complete, consistent, stable, and

timely program definition for each vehicle.

Assure the needs and expectations of the customers are met or exceeded.

Manage the continuous improvement of the vehicles quality, reliability,

durability, and performance.

As Cadillac developed the structure for simultaneous engineering, the car was
sectioned into specific vehicle systems and created six corresponding vehicle system
management teams. These were the exterior component/body mechanical,
chassis/power train application, seats and interior trim, electric/electronic, body-inwhite, instrument panel/heating, and air-conditioning systems. The role of each one
46

of these vehicle system management teams was to manage their vehicle system in
order to optimize the business decisions that are made in that area of the vehicle.
The vehicle system management teams and the vehicle teams are in the same
layer of the pyramid. This symbolized their partnership and interdependence to
accomplish the task.
The product development and improvement teams (PDITs) are responsible
for the actual design of components that are part of the six vehicle systems. Each
PDIT has varying core memberships, depending on its purpose, but can draw
members from any area of the organization and suppliers. One hundred percent of the
vehicle is covered by these simultaneous engineering teams.
In some companies the simultaneous engineering approach calls for product
development teams (PDTs). These teams include process and product engineers in
the development phase of products, and then disband when the particular product
goes into production. Unlike these PDTs, Cadillacs PDITs have cradle to grave
responsibility for the productions and continuous quality improvement of that
component or part. Cadillac PDITs focus on all business aspects of their assigned
portion of the vehicle: quality, cost, timing, technology, reliability, and profitability.
It is as if they are running their own business. Cadillac eventually created 66 PDITs
with an average of eight team members.
The structure of the pyramid is similar to a matrix organization structure
although Cadillac has formally maintained its centralized functional structure. Each
team member still reports to a staff area and has other assignments as well. With the
exception of the vehicle teams, all other simultaneous engineering teams elect their

47

own chairpersons and do not have a manager as in typical matrix structure. The
teams receive expectations and leadership from the next team down in the pyramid.
Each of the vehicle systems management teams is responsible for business
decisions concerning its systems, as well as determining what vehicle subsystems
require the formation of PDITs. Each PDIT, in turn, has similar business decisionmaking responsibilities at a component or subsystem level.
The vision was developed and the structure was determined. Roles and
responsibilities were defined and the strategy for simultaneous engineering was
ready for the next stage of implementation. The new expectations of team members
would require them to learn about other part of the business. In addition, most team
members were familiar with planning and decision-making in the context of their
individual staff, but not with cross-staff teams. Normally this type of decisionmaking is not experienced in a centralized organization except at the executive staff
level. The need to develop consensus decision-making skills and teamwork was
acknowledged. A great need existed to provide education and training.
2.4 IMPLEMENTATION
Change takes time and education. In November of 1985, an organization
event was held to communicate the plan. It was considered important to
communicate the design for simultaneous engineering to those who had originally
met in January as a follow-up since they had empowered the steering committee. It
was also considered important to communicate to significant others who would
eventually be called upon to staff the simultaneous engineering teams. The meeting
was designed to be interactive. All questions were documented and a response was

48

given either by the panel of SESC members, executive staff, or included in

forthcoming documentation of the work session.
At the November meeting, the idea of forming Vehicle System Management
Teams (VSMT) based on various sections of the car was shared. At this time each
staff representative on the SESC began to consider who should be assigned from
their staff to these new simultaneous engineering teams. Although each staff retained
the authority for their own selections, they received input from members of the
SESC. Early in 1986, four-day kick-off workshops were held for the formation of
VSMT. The design for these workshops included five sections:
1. Background Information
2.

Cultural Change

3.

Business and System Information

4.

Planning

5.

Esprit de Corps

The executive staff and SESC demonstrated leadership and support by

participating first in the workshop in January, followed by VSMTs in February. The
final day of the VSMT workshops included highly creative non-traditional
presentations that were attended by both SESC and the executive staffs. The final day
presentations were an organizational event. There were celebrations and the
demonstrated enthusiasm further nurtured the evolving teamwork culture.
The newly formed VSMTs began identifying appropriate product
development and improvement teams for their system. Appropriate members were
notified of their selection and in April, PDIT kick-off workshops began. They were

49

similar to those for VSMTs but included more emphasis on problem solving
techniques. They, unlike the four day VSMT kick off, were delivered in three phases:
Phase 1: Simultaneous engineering, business, and systems information.
Phase 2: Team building and planning
Phase 3: Problem solving (applied to product quality).
2.5 PROJECT TEAM STRUCTURE
Project team structure consists of an autonomous project team, existing
independently of the rest of the organization. The project team is assembled for a
specific project under the action of the product manager. The team is thus temporary
and will be disbanded when its project is complete.
Sometimes we can find design or products with special requirements that are
not encompassed within one or more of the functions. This will lead to cooperative
efforts of marketing, production, engineering, and others as appropriate; as well as
assistance from the accounting legal, and contracting staffs. When it is an important
new effort, a dynamic and capable person from the upper levels of middle
management is selected to take responsibility for this unique activity. A project is
organized around this project manager, and then a few specialized assistants are
provided and a project team is formed. The project manager exercises direct and
autonomous control over the various discipline groups and is responsible for the
coordination and monitoring of the effort of the team. Since most major
organizational functions will be affected by this team, it is typically removed from
the functional organizations structure.

50

A multiple project organization is needed when the number of projects

increases. There is a definite limit to the number of major projects any traditional
organization can support. As the number of projects increases the managerial load on
the general manager increases to the point where he can no longer cope.
Advantages of project team structures

Good at responding well to an immediate project need.

Flexibility

Responsibility for success of project clearly identified.

Releases top management from micromanaging operations, so that the

management can focus on the overall company strategy rather than
detailed nuts and bolts.

Disadvantages of project team structures

The actual organizational power and authority of the team manager may
be a delicate issue.

Greater administrative overhead.

In-group vs. Out-group mentality may develop.

2.5.1 TEAM MEETINGS

In spite of the different means in which a team can communicate such as
memoranda, telephone calls, faxes and meetings; the last one is the communication
method where the majority of decisions occur. This bring us to evaluate constructive
meetings

51

A. A constructive meeting must have a clearly defined purpose, and realistic

expectations.
B. In a constructive meeting a well thought-out agenda is critical.
The agenda will be the instrument to assign the corresponding
discussion period of each topic along the meeting. It also allows us to
identify the issues with priority.
Finally, the agenda will not permit the rapid discussion of
productive decisions and the long exchange of in fructuous and
repeated subject that have hot reach to a consensus. Note we define
consensus as the general agreement or concord, harmony; and it is the
goal of all meetings.
C. A constructive meeting requires advance preparation by all participants.
Provide agenda and all informational materials prior to meeting and
request that participants come prepared to act.
D. Tasks that are better accomplished by individuals or small groups.
E. In a constructive meeting, balanced participation is promoted.
The balanced participation will lead more rapidly to a consensus on
solutions.
F. During a constructive meeting an environment of respect is maintained.
The environment of respect should be remarked when a critic emerges
during the team activities.
52

Some criteria for productive criticism are:

Describe, do not judge.

Be specific.

Consider the needs from all the involve individuals during the
action.

Do not talk while another member has the floor.

Direct the critic to an observe behaviour and not to the individual.

A different point of view should stand out when the person receive a critic:

Maintain the calm, breathing deeply during the time the critics
will be done.

Listen well and verify the amount of understanding.

Recognize the valid points and be thanks for the action.

Finally the repercussion of a code of cooperation is habitual. It is prominent

the interaction between the roles of the meeting participants, the meeting structure
and the interpersonal skill recognizing them as the elements of an effective meeting.

53

2.6 BENEFITS OF CE
Concurrent Engineering is a system of practices that companies can employ so that
their engineering and production departments work together in the most streamlined
manner possible.
When the processes between the two groups are organized correctly through a
systematic methodology, the work flow and exchange of information is extremely
efficient and problems that would otherwise slow down the processes are avoided.
Potential benefits of Concurrent Engineering include a shorter cycle to get
new product to market, a quicker turnaround time for issues with product quality that
require engineering time and a smaller number of changes made to a product or its
process during its life cycle. Another benefit is that employees then require less time
learning how to produce new or improved products, thereby enabling engineers to
have higher visibility when it comes to knowing exactly what is going on in the shop
floor operations. Concurrent engineering also produces a continual streamlining of
processes so they can continue to be consistently duplicated. Concurrent Engineering
focuses on the process by which a product is manufactured.
The practices also prioritize the time spent putting together a manufacturing
process which works to bring a quality product to market quickly and at a reasonable
54

cost. The process is considered as important as the product design itself. For
example, even if you have the blueprint for the next iphone in your head, what value
is it if you do not take the time to detail the process of bringing your idea to fruition?
So without a validated plan, essentially you plan to fail. The main ingredients
of Concurrent Engineering are integrated tools and data. Though engineering and
manufacturing are closely related, each department's tools and data are often
managed separately, which can lead to inefficiencies. With Concurrent Engineering,
the manufacturing data models are created directly from their engineering
predecessors with tightly integrated change management.
Integrated processes for managing changes and digital validation of the product and
process streamline shop floor changes.
Previously, the manufacturing shop floor would have to basically work
around engineering. Often, changes would be tested on the shop floor, only to have
to be redone and reworked on later. Integrating the processes eliminates this. Having
a collaborative culture and environment also allows product engineers to spend a lot
of time on the shop floor effectively evaluating the success of their designs. When
the value in the corporate culture changes to emphasize reducing the number of
changes in the process rather than being able to pump changes out more quickly, then
Concurrent Engineering strategies works at their best.
So, as complex as the technology and methodology might sound, it basically
circles around one idea, that of working together.

55

CHAPTER THREE
3.0 METHODOLGY
The purpose of this study is to determine the level of awareness, factors,
benefits, constraints and readiness of CE in Nigeria as a developing construction
industry. This chapter therefore explains the method and mode used for collecting
datas.
In order to access CE in the Nigeria construction industry, a case was carried
out by using questionnaires which was administrated to Consultancy firms,
Contracting firms, Materials suppliers, and Clients. One of the reason for carrying
out this case study is the fact that, it will help to solve current problem through an
examination of what happened in the past and which is happening now, and this will
save a lot of time.
In this study, questionnaires were designed to sample relevant information
needed to access the feasibility of CE in the Nigeria construction industry.
The five-point Linker-type scale was used to measure a range of
opinions from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree in the designed
questionnaires. The significant agreement or otherwise with the notion being tested
was determined by adopting the mid-point value of the index (that is 3) as the
hypothesized mean (Coakes and Steed, 2001). This implies that any result
significantly different from this uncommitted or unsure value was assumed to be
either positive or negative to the notion being tested (Pullin and Haidar, 2003).

A
56

total of one hundred firms comprising construction firms, architectural, engineering

and quantity surveying consultants, and Clients was randomly chosen and was used
as for confidence level of at least 99% recommended by Rea & Parker (1997). A total
100 questionnaires were distributed in Edo State and Warri in Delta State, SouthSouth region of Nigeria, out of which sixty five were collected. In accordance with
Idrus & Newman (2002), a response rate of 30% is good enough in construction
studies and Ellhag and Boussabaine (1999) considers this response rate adequate.
3.1 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Chi-square is a statistical test commonly used to compare observed data with
data we would expect to obtain according to a specific hypothesis, was used in
analysing the collected data to determine if there is significance difference between
the excepted and observed results (datas). This significance difference is called the
null hypothesis and is express as follows;

Where O= Observed results

E= Excepted results
Degree of Freedom (D.F) = (No. of columns -1) (No. of rows -1)
Excepted results (values) for each cell = (row total column total) /Grad total (N)
NOTE;

57

a. If the p value for the calculated

is p > 0.05, accept your hypothesis. 'The

deviation is small enough that chance alone accounts for it. A p value of 0.6,
for example, means that there is a 60% probability that any deviation from
expected is due to chance only. This is within the range of acceptable
deviation.

b. If the p value for the calculated

is p < 0.05, reject your hypothesis, and

conclude that some factor other than chance is operating for the deviation to
be so great. For example, a p value of 0.01 means that there is only a 1%
chance that this deviation is due to chance alone. Therefore, other factors
must be involved.

CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS
The result of this study are presented and discussed in this chapter. The major
purpose of this was to examine:
58

1.
2.
3.
4.

Level of awareness of Concurrent Engineering.

Benefits of implementing Concurrent Engineering
Factors that will affect it implementation
Constraint in applying Concurrent Engineering.

4.1 RESPONDENTS PROFILE

Fig 4.1

From the total 65 respondents received, 22 (33%) were contractors, 18 (27.7%) were
consultants, 10 (10%) were client, 11 (17%) were material suppliers and while the
other 4 (6.2%) were suc-contractors.

59

Fig 4.2; Level of information, communication and technology in use by firms

From the above chart, telephone is the most used followed by the internet and the
least is fax.

Age of respondents organisation

Fig 4.3; Age of respondents organization

The figure above shows that 33% of the respondents had over 10 years of
professional experience. As many as 18% had less than 5 years, while only 24% had
over 30% years of
Below are data samples collected from Consultants, Clients, Contractor and Material
supplier from Edo State and Warri in Delta State.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: I about concurrent engineering

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
1
12
0
0

fo

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
2
0
3
18
0
4
6
10

11

10

21

12

11

25

60

fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe
60

0.04

0.0333
33

0.44444
44

0.6666
67

0.53777
78

0.16

0.7333
33
1.8285
71
19.6
2
2.2
4.2
0.0666
67

1.77777
78

1.3333
33

2.15111
11

1.4666
67
3.6571
43
3.3
2.5606
06
4.4133
61
0.8889
61
2.7
0.8066
67
0.4378
79
0.1785
71
53.071
76

1.2

0.6666
67

0.7333
33

-0.2
0.666666
7
0.733333
3

3
12
0
0
0

1.4
3.6
2
2.2
4.2

1.6
8.4
-2
-2.2
-4.2

2.56
70.56
4
4.84
17.64

2.4

1.3333
33

1.4666
67

-0.4
1.333333
3
1.466666
7

2.8
3.3
1.8333
33
2.0166
67

3.2
-3.3
2.166666
67
2.983333
33

10.24
10.89
4.69444
44
8.90027
78

3.85
7.5
4.1666
67
4.5833
33

-1.85
-4.5
1.833333
33
1.416666
67

3.4225
20.25
3.36111
11
2.00694
44

10

8.75

1.25

1.5625

6
0
4
5
2
3
6

Since our x2 statistic value (53.07176) exceed the critical value for 0.05 probability
level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the professionals in the industry are not
aware of CE.
RESEARCH QUESTION 2: I participated in its usage;

61

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
0
10
0
3

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
5
3
0
18
1
4
2
10

11

13

22

22

19

61

fo

fe
0
0
2

0.8852
46
0.4918
03
0.5409
84

10

1.0819
67
6.4918
03

3.6065
57

3.9672
13
7.9344
26

5.6065
57

3.1147
54

0
13
3
4
2
0

3.4262
3
6.8524
59
2.6557
38
1.4754
1
1.6229
51
3.2459
02

fo-fe
0.885245
9
0.491803
3
1.459016
39
0.081967
2
3.508196
72
0.606557
4
2.967213
1
0.065573
77
0.606557
4
2.114754
1
3.426229
5
6.147540
98
0.344262
3
2.524590
16
0.377049
18
3.245901

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

0.78366
03

0.8852
46

0.24187
05
2.12872
88

0.4918
03
3.9349
23

0.00671
86
12.3074
44

0.0062
1
1.8958
44

0.36791
19

0.1020
12

8.80435
37
0.00429
99

2.2192
79
0.0005
42

0.36791
19

0.0656
22

4.47218
49

1.4358
07

11.7390
49
37.7922
6
0.11851
65
6.37355
55
0.14216
61
10.5358
77

3.4262
3
5.5151
38
0.0446
27
4.3198
54
0.0875
97
3.2459
02
62

2.3606
56
1.3114
75
1.4426
23

2.8852
46

0
2

6
2.360655
7
0.688524
59
4.557377
05
2.885245
9

5.57269
55
0.47406
61
20.7696
86

2.3606
56
0.3614
75
14.397
17

8.32464
39

2.8852
46
47.681
18

Since our x2 statistic value (47.68118) exceed the critical value for 0.05 probability
level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the professionals in the industry are not
aware if they have participated in it usage.
RESEARCH QUESTION 3: Government new policies will raise cost of project
execution

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
5
8
5
3

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
0
3
2
18
1
1
0
10

11

10

10

22

26

25

61

fo

fe
5
5
6
10
8
3

7.6721
31
4.2622
95
4.6885
25
9.3770
49
7.3770
49
4.0983

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

2.672131
1
0.737704
92
1.311475
41
0.622950
82
0.622950
82
-

7.14028
49
0.54420
85
1.71996
78
0.38806
77
0.38806
77
1.20639

(fo-fe)2
/fe
0.9306
78
0.1276
8
0.3668
46
0.0413
85
0.0526
05
0.2943
63

61

4.5081
97
9.0163
93
0.2950
82
0.1639
34

0.1803
28

4
10
0

0.3606
56
2.0655
74
1.1475
41

1.2622
95

0
3

2.5245
9
0.5901
64

0.3278
69

0.3606
56

0.7213
11

1.098360
7
0.508196
7
0.983606
56
0.295082
0.836065
57
0.180327
9
0.360655
7
0.934426
23
0.147541
0.262295
1
0.524590
2
1.409836
07
0.327868
9
0.360655
7
0.721311
5

61

61

0.25826
39
0.96748
19
0.08707
34
0.69900
56

0.0572
88
0.1073
03
0.2950
82
4.2639
34

0.03251
81

0.1803
28

0.13007
26
0.87315
24
0.02176
83

0.3606
56
0.4227
17
0.0189
7

0.06879
87

0.0545
03

0.27519
48
1.98763
77

0.1090
06
3.3679
42

0.10749
8

0.3278
69

0.13007
26

0.3606
56

0.52029
02

0.7213
11
12.461
12

Since our x2 statistic value (12.46112) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that the Government new
policies will raise cost of project execution.
RESEARCH QUESTION 4: The approval and licensing polices of the government
are favourable.
64

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
5
8
4
1

fo

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
0
5
0
18
2
2
1
10

11

22

14

12

11

17

61

fe
fo-fe
(fo-fe)
4.1311 0.868852 0.75490
5
48
46
46
2.2950 1.704918 2.90674
4
82
03
55
2.5245 1.524590 2.32437
1
9
2
52
5.0491 1.049180 1.10077
4
8
3
94
3.5409 4.459016 19.8828
8
84
39
27
1.9672 0.967213 0.93550
1
13
1
12
2.1639 1.163934 1.35474
1
34
4
33
4.3278 2.327868 5.41897
2
69
9
34
3.2459 3.245901 10.5358
0
02
6
77
1.8032 0.196721 0.03869
2
79
31
93
1.9836 1.983606 3.93469
0
07
6
5
3.9672 5.032786 25.3289
9
13
89
44
5.0163 0.016393 0.00026
5
93
4
87
2.7868 0.786885 0.61918
2
85
2
84
3.0655 1.934426 3.74200
5
74
23
48
5 6.1311
- 1.27949

(fo-fe)2
/fe
0.1827
35
1.2665
11
0.9206
94
0.2180
11
5.6150
58
0.4755
46
0.6260
56
1.2521
11
3.2459
02
0.0214
61
1.9836
07
6.3845
68
5.36E05
0.2221
79
1.2206
54
0.2086
65

48

2.0655
74
1.1475
41
1.2622
95

2.5245
9

0
1

1.131147
5
2.065573
8
0.147541
2.737704
92
0.524590
2

48

88

4.26659
5
0.02176
83
7.49502
82

2.0655
74
0.0189
7
5.9376
2

0.27519
48

0.1090
06
31.975

Since our x2 statistic value (31.975) exceed the critical value for 0.05 probability
level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the approval and licensing of the
government are not favourable.
RESEARCH QUESTION 5: Plant/equipment would be fundamental for success.

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
16
1
8
1

fo

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
0
1
0
18
0
1
0
10

11

13

20

40

11

59

fe
fo-fe
(fo-fe)2
12.203 3.796610 14.4142
16
39
17
49
6.7796 1.220338 1.48922
8
61
98
72
7.4576 4.457627 19.8704
3
27
1
4
13.559
- 0.31284
13
32 0.559322
11
3.3559 2.355932 5.55041
1
32
2
65
1 1.8644
- 0.74719

(fo-fe)2
/fe
1.1811
68
0.2196
61
2.6644
45
0.0230
72
1.6539
12
0.4007
66

07
2.0508
47
3.7288
14

0.6101
69

0.3389
83
0.3728
81

0.6779
66

1.5254
24
0.8474
58
0.9322
03

1.6949
15

0.3050
85

0.1694
92

1
1

0
1

0.1864
41
0.3389
83

0.864406
8
1.949152
54
1.271186
44
0.610169
5
0.338983
1
1.627118
64
0.677966
1
0.525423
7
0.152542
37
1.067796
61
0.694915
3
0.305084
7
0.169491
5
0.186440
7
0.661016
95

91
3.79919
56
1.61591
5

7
1.8525
0.4333
59

0.37230
68

0.6101
69

0.11490
95
2.64751
51

0.3389
83
7.1001
54

0.45963
8

0.6779
66

0.27607
01
0.02326
92
1.14018
96

0.1809
79
0.0274
58
1.2231
12

0.48290
72

0.2849
15

0.09307
67

0.3050
85

0.02872
74

0.1694
92

0.03476
01
0.43694
34

0.1864
41
1.2889
83
20.822
63

Since our x2 statistic value (20.82263) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that the Plant/equipment will be
fundamental for success

67

RESEARCH QUESTION 6: CE is for smaller small firms and younger person

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
1
1
6
3

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
2
5
9
18
0
0
1
10

22

11

12

12

13

16

61

fo

fe
1
6
1
4

3.5409
84
1.9672
13
4.3278
69
2.1639
34

3.5409
84
1.9672
13
4.3278
69
2.1639
34

2.3606
56

1
3
5

0
4
2
5
0
7

1.3114
75
2.8852
46
1.4426
23
3.8360
66
2.1311
48
4.6885
25

fo-fe
2.540983
6
4.032786
89
3.327868
9
1.836065
57
2.540983
6
1.032786
89
0.672131
15
0.836065
57
0.360655
7
1.311475
4
1.114754
1
0.557377
05
1.163934
43
2.131147
5
2.311475
41

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

6.45659
77
16.2633
7

1.8233
91
8.2672
13

11.0747
11
3.37113
68

2.5589
29
1.5578
74

6.45659
77
1.06664
88
0.45176
03
0.69900
56

1.8233
91
0.5422
13
0.1043
84
0.3230
25

0.13007
26

0.0551

1.71996
78
1.24267
67
0.31066
92
1.35474
33

1.3114
75

4.54178
98
5.34291
86

2.1311
48
1.1395
74

0.4307
0.2153
5
0.3531
6

68

2.3442
62
4.7213
11

2.6229
51

5.7704
92

2.8852
46

1.344262
3
4.278688
52
1.622950
8
0.770491
8
1.885245
9

1.80704
11
18.3071
75

0.7708
36
3.8775
61

2.63396
94

1.0042
01

0.59365
76

0.1028
78

3.55415
21

1.2318
37
29.624
24

Since our x2 statistic value (29.62424) exceed the critical value for 0.05 probability
level, we can reject the null hypothesis that CE is for smaller small firms and
younger person.
RESEARCH QUESTION 7: It will improve productivity

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
13
5
4
4

fo

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
0
0
0
18
0
1
1
10

11

10

10

22

30

23

61

fe
fo-fe
(fo-fe)2
8.8524 4.147540 17.2020
13
59
98
96
4.9180 0.918032 0.84278
4
33
8
42
5.4098 2.409836 5.80730
3
36
1
99
10 10.819
- 0.67186
67 0.819672
24

(fo-fe)2
/fe
1.9432
0.1713
66
1.0734
72
0.0620
96
69

10

6.7868
85
3.7704
92
4.1475
41
8.2950
82

0.5901
64

5
4
4

0
1
1

0.3278
69
0.3606
56
0.7213
11

0.8852
46
0.4918
03
0.5409
84

1.0819
67

0
1

0.8852
46
0.4918
03
0.5409
84

1.0819
67

0
1

1
1.786885
2
0.229508
2
0.147541
1.704918
03
0.590163
9
0.327868
9
0.639344
26
0.278688
52
0.885245
9
0.508196
72
0.459016
39
0.081967
2
0.885245
9
0.508196
72
1.459016
39
1.081967
2

3.19295
89
0.05267
4
0.02176
83
2.90674
55

0.4704
6
0.0139
7
0.0052
48
0.3504
18

0.34829
35

0.5901
64

0.10749
8
0.40876
11
0.07766
73

0.3278
69
1.1333
83
0.1076
75

0.78366
03
0.25826
39
0.21069
6

0.8852
46
0.5251
37
0.3894
68

0.00671
86

0.0062
1

0.78366
03
0.25826
39
2.12872
88

0.8852
46
0.5251
37
3.9349
23

1.17065
31

1.0819
67
14.482
66

Since our x2 statistic value (14.48266) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis, it will improve productivity.

RESEARCH QUESTION 8: I am not comfortable with a system I cannot control

70

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
2
13
1
1

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
2
0
1
18
5
0
3
10

11

22

13

25

10

61

fo

fe
2

3.8360
66

2.1311
48

13

2.3442
62
4.6885
25
7.3770
49

4.0983
61

4.5081
97

9.0163
93

2
8

2.9508
2
1.6393
44
1.8032
79

3.6065
57

1.7704
92

2
5

0
2

0.9836
07
1.0819
67

fo-fe
1.836065
6
1.131147
5
0.344262
3
3.311475
41
5.622950
82
3.098360
7
2.508196
7
0.016393
4
0.950819
7
3.360655
74
0.196721
31
2.606557
4
1.770491
8
0.983606
6
0.918032
79

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

3.37113
68

0.8788
01

1.27949
48

0.6003
78

0.11851
65
10.9658
69
31.6175
76

0.0505
56
2.3388
74
4.2859
38

9.59983
88

2.3423
61

6.29105
08

1.3954
69

0.00026
87

2.98E05

0.90405
8
11.2940
07
0.03869
93

0.3063
75
6.8893
44
0.0214
61

6.79414
14

1.8838
3

3.13464
12

1.7704
92

0.96748
19
0.84278
42

0.9836
07
0.7789
37
71

2.1639
34

2.0655
74
1.1475
41
1.2622
95

2.5245
9

1
3

1.836065
57
1.065573
8
1.852459
02
1.737704
92
2.524590
2

3.37113
68

1.5578
74

1.13544
75
3.43160
44
3.01961
84

0.5497
01
2.9903
98
2.3921
65

6.37355
55

2.5245
9
34.541
18

Since our x2 statistic value (34.54118) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the system cannot be
controlled.

RESEARCH QUESTION 9: I would rather work with people I know

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
2
6
3
1

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
3
1
6
18
1
2
3
10

11

22

12

16

10

15

61

fo

fe

3.5409
84
1.9672
13

2.1639
34

fo-fe
1.540983
6
1.032786
89
2.163934
4

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

2.37463
05
1.06664
88

0.6706
13
0.5422
13

4.68261
22

2.1639
34
72

4.3278
69
4.7213
11

2.6229
51

0
9
3

2.8852
46
5.7704
92
2.3606
56

1.3114
75
1.4426
23

2.8852
46

1
2
4

2.9508
2
1.6393
44
1.8032
79

3.6065
57
4.4262
3
2.4590
16
2.7049
18

5.4098
36

3
6
3

2.672131
15
1.278688
52
1.622950
8
2.885245
9
3.229508
2
0.639344
26
0.311475
4
0.557377
05
0.885245
9
1.950819
7
0.360655
74
2.196721
31
0.606557
4
1.573770
49
0.540983
61
2.295081
97
4.409836
1

7.14028
49
1.63504
43

1.6498
39
0.3463
11

2.63396
94

1.0042
01

8.32464
39
10.4297
23
0.40876
11

2.8852
46
1.8074
24
0.1731
56

0.09701
69
0.31066
92

0.0739
75
0.2153
5

0.78366
03

0.2716
1

3.80569
74
0.13007
26
4.82558
45

1.2897
09
0.0793
44
2.6760
06

0.36791
19
2.47675
36
0.29266
33
5.26740
12

0.1020
12
0.5595
63
0.1190
16
1.9473
42

19.4466
54

3.5946
85
22.171
55

Since our x2 statistic value (22.17155) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis.

73

RESEARCH QUESTION 10: Bank and credit facilities are readily available to
sustain Concurrent Engineering
options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
1
4
0
1

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
4
8
1
18
0
3
6
10

11

22

11

15

19

12

61

fo

fe
1

1.1803
28

0.6557
38

0.7213
11
1.4426
23
3.2459
02

1.8032
79

0
3

1.9836
07
3.9672
13

4.4262
3

0
2
9
8
3

2.4590
16
2.7049
18
5.4098
36
5.6065
57
3.1147

fo-fe
0.180327
9
0.655737
7
0.721311
5
1.557377
05
0.754098
36
0.803278
7
1.983606
6
2.032786
89
0.426229
5
2.459016
4
0.704918
3.590163
93
2.393442
62
-

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

0.03251
81

0.0275
5

0.42999
19

0.6557
38

0.52029
02
2.42542
33
0.56866
43

0.7213
11
1.6812
59
0.1751
95

0.64525
67

0.3578
24

3.93469
5
4.13222
25

1.9836
07
1.0415
93

0.18167
16

0.0410
44

6.04676
16
0.49690
94
12.8892
77
5.72856
76
0.01316

2.4590
16
0.1837
06
2.3825
63
1.0217
62
0.0042
74

4
4

54
3.4262
3
6.8524
59

3.5409
84
1.9672
13
2.1639
34

4.3278
69

1
6

0.114754
1
0.573770
49
2.852459
2.540983
6
4.032786
89
2.836065
57
4.327868
9

85
0.32921
26
8.13652
24

28
0.0960
86
1.1873
87

6.45659
77
16.2633
7
8.04326
79

1.8233
91
8.2672
13
3.7169
65

18.7304
49

4.3278
69
32.155
31

Since our x2 statistic value (32.15531) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that the bank and credits facilities
are not adequate to sustain this process.
RESEARCH QUESTION 11: Import and export policies will favour the
implementation of Concurrent Engineering
options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
2
4
1
2

fo

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
4
7
1
18
1
2
4
10

11

10

11

22

17

17

13

11

61

fe
fo-fe
(fo-fe)
0.8852 1.114754 1.24267
2
46
1
67
0.4918 0.508196 0.25826
1
03
72
39
0.5409 0.540983 0.29266
0
84
6
33
0 1.0819
- 1.17065
67 1.081967
31

(fo-fe)2
/fe
1.4037
64
0.5251
37
0.5409
84
1.0819
67
75

5.0163
93

2.7868
85

10

3.0655
74
6.1311
48

5.0163
93

2.7868
85

1
11
7

3.0655
74
6.1311
48
3.8360
66

2.1311
48
2.3442
62

4.6885
25

3.2459
02
1.8032
79
1.9836
07

3.9672
13

1
4

2
1.016393
4
0.786885
2
2.065573
8
3.868852
46
1.016393
4
1.786885
2
2.065573
8
4.868852
46
3.163934
43
0.131147
5
0.655737
7
3.688524
6
2.245901
6
2.196721
31
4.016393
44
3.967213
1

1.03305
56

0.2059
36

0.61918
84

0.2221
79

4.26659
5
14.9680
19

1.3917
77
2.4413
08

1.03305
56

0.2059
36

3.19295
89

1.1457
09

4.26659
5
23.7057
24
10.0104
81

1.3917
77
3.8664
42
2.6095
7

0.01719
97
0.42999
19

0.0080
71
0.1834
23

13.6052
14

2.9018
11

5.04407
42
4.82558
45
16.1314
16

1.5539
82
2.6760
06
8.1323
67

15.7387
8

3.9672
13
36.455
36

Since our x2 statistic value (36.45536) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the import and export policies
will not be favourable.
76

RESEACH QUESTION 12: There is nothing wrong with the traditional system of
project delivery

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

11

10

20

11

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)2
1.55227
09

0.4782
25

3.2459
02

1.245901
6

1.8032
79

0.196721
31

0.03869
93

0.0214
61

1.9836
07

1.983606
6

3.93469
5

1.9836
07

3.9672
13

3.032786
89

9.19779
63

2.3184
53

2.9508
2

1.049180
33

1.10077
94

0.3730
42

1.6393
44

0.639344
3

0.40876
11

0.2493
44

1.8032
79

0.803278
7

0.64525
67

0.3578
24

3.6065
57

0.393442
62

0.15479
71

0.0429
21
77

2.6557
38

1.344262
3

1.80704
11

0.6804
29

1.4754
1

1.475409
8

2.17683
42

1.4754
1

1.6229
51

0.622950
8

0.38806
77

0.2391
12

3.2459
02

0.754098
36

0.56866
43

0.1751
95

5.9016
39

1.098360
66

1.20639
61

0.2044
17

3.2786
89

0.278688
5

0.07766
73

0.0236
89

3.6065
57

0.606557
4

0.36791
19

0.1020
12

7.2131
15

0.213114
8

0.04541
79

0.0062
97

3.2459
02

2.245901
6

5.04407
42

1.5539
82

1.8032
79

2.196721
31

4.82558
45

2.6760
06

1.9836
07

4.016393
44

16.1314
16

8.1323
67

3.9672
13

3.967213
1

15.7387
8

3.9672
13

25.061

Since our x2 statistic value (25.061) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that there is nothing wrong with
the old system of project delivery.
78

RESEARCH QUESTION 13: Insurance policies are well implemented

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

11

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

13

22

column
total

28

10

61

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)2
0.42999
19

0.1619
11

2.6557
38

0.655737
7

1.4754
1

1.524590
16

2.32437
52

1.5754
1

1.6229
51

0.622950
8

0.38806
77

0.2391
12

3.2459
02

0.245901
6

0.06046
76

0.0186
29

11

8.2622
95

2.737704
92

7.49502
82

0.9071
36

4.5901
64

2.590163
9

6.70894
92

1.4615
93

5.0491
8

3.049180
3

9.29750
07

1.8413
88

13

10.098

2.901639

8.41951

0.8337
79

36

34

09

2.6557
38

1.655737
7

2.74146
73

1.0322
81

1.4754
1

0.524590
16

0.27519
48

0.1865
21

1.6229
51

0.622950
8

0.38806
77

0.2391
12

3.2459
02

1.754098
36

3.07686
11

0.9479
22

2.9508
2

1.049180
33

1.10077
94

0.3730
42

1.6393
44

0.360655
74

0.13007
26

0.0793
44

1.8032
79

1.196721
31

1.43214
19

0.7941
88

3.6065
57

2.606557
4

6.79414
14

1.8838
3

1.4754
1

1.475409
8

2.17683
42

1.4754
1

0.8196
72

0.180327
87

0.03251
81

0.0396
72

0.9016
39

3.098360
66

9.59983
88

10.647
09

1.8032
79

1.803278
7

3.25181
4

1.8032
79

26.540
62

Since our x2 statistic value (26.54062) exceed the critical value for 0.05

80

probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that insurance will not be well
implemented.
RESEARCH QUESTION 14: The client is too uniformed for this concept

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

10

22

column
total

16

20

12

61

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

2.0655
74

0.065573
8

0.00429
99

0.0020
82

1.1475
41

3.852459
02

14.8414
4

12.933
26

1.2622
95

1.262295
1

1.59338
89

1.2622
95

2.5245
9

2.524590
2

6.37355
55

2.5245
9

4.7213
11

2.278688
52

5.19242
14

1.0997
84

2.6229
51

0.622950
8

0.38806
77

0.1479
51

2.8852

3.55415

1.2318
81

46

1.885245
9

21

37

5.7704
92

0.229508
2

0.05267
4

0.0091
28

5.9016
39

0.098360
66

0.00967
48

0.0016
39

3.2786
89

2.278688
5

5.19242
14

1.5836
89

3.6065
57

0.606557
4

0.36791
19

0.1020
12

10

7.2131
15

2.786885
25

7.76672
94

1.0767
51

3.5409
84

0.540983
6

0.29266
33

0.0826
5

1.9672
13

0.967213
1

0.93550
12

0.4755
46

2.1639
34

0.163934
4

0.02687
45

0.0124
19

4.3278
69

1.672131
15

2.79602
26

0.6460
51

1.7704
92

1.770491
8

3.13464
12

1.7704
92

0.9836
07

0.016393
44

0.00026
87

0.0002
73

1.0819
67

3.918032
79

15.3509
81

14.188
03

2.1639
34

2.163934
4

4.68261
22

2.1639
34
41.314
41
82

Since our x2 statistic value (41.31441) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the client is uninformed.
RESEARCH QUESTION 15: Corruption will not let this system work

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

10

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

12

22

14

18

15

10

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

4.1311
48

1.131147
5

1.27949
48

0.3097
19

2.2950
82

5.704918
03

32.5460
9

14.180
8

2.5245
9

2.524590
2

6.37355
55

2.5245
9

5.0491
8

2.049180
3

4.19914

0.8316
48

5.3114
75

1.311475
4

1.71996
78

0.3238
21

2.9508
2

0.950819
7

0.90405
8

0.3063
75
83

3.2459
02

3.245901
6

12

6.4918
03

5.508196
72

30.3402
31

4.6736
21

1.1803
28

1.180327
9

1.39317
39

1.1803
28

0.6557
38

0.655737
7

0.42999
19

0.6557
38

0.7213
11

0.721311
5

0.52029
02

0.7213
11

1.4426
23

2.557377
05

6.54017
74

4.5335
32

10

4.4262
3

5.573770
49

31.0669
17

7.0188
22

2.4590
16

2.459016
4

6.04676
16

2.4590
16

2.7049
18

0.295081
97

0.08707
34

0.0321
91

5.4098
36

3.409836
1

11.6269
82

2.1492
3

2.9508
2

1.950819
7

3.80569
74

1.2897
09

1.6393
44

1.639344
3

2.68744
96

1.6393
44

1.8032
79

6.196721
31

38.3993
55

21.294
19

3.6065
57

2.606557
4

6.79414
14

1.8838
3

10.5358
77

3.2459
02

84

71.253
71

Since our x2 statistic value (71.25371) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the system fail due to high of
corruption.
RESEARCH QUESTION 16: The supply market is too informal and undeveloped

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

11

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

11

11

23

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

0.06046
76

0.0186
29

3.2459
02

0.245901
6

1.8032
79

4.196721
31

17.6124
7

9.7669
15

1.9836
07

1.983606
6

3.93469
5

1.9836
07

3.9672
13

1.967213
1

3.86992
74

0.9754
78

85

2.3606
56

0.360655
7

1.3114
75

1.688524
59

2.85111
53

2.1739
75

1.4426
23

1.442623

2.08116
1

1.4426
23

2.8852
46

0.114754
1

0.01316
85

0.0045
64

3.2459
02

1.245901
6

1.55227
09

0.4782
25

1.8032
79

1.803278
7

3.25181
4

1.8032
79

1.9836
07

1.983606
6

3.93469
5

1.9836
07

3.9672
13

5.032786
89

25.3289
44

6.3845
68

11

6.7868
85

4.213114
75

17.7503
36

2.6153
88

3.7704
92

3.770491
8

14.2166
08

3.7704
92

4.1475
41

0.147541

0.02176
83

0.0052
48

8.2950
82

0.295082

0.08707
34

0.0104
97

2.3606
56

2.360655
7

5.57269
55

2.3606
56

1.3114
75

0.311475
4

0.09701
69

0.0739
75

1.4426
23

5.557377
05

30.8844
4

21.408
53

0.13007
26

0.0551

86

2.8852
46

2.885245
9

8.32464
39

2.8852
46
60.200
6

Since our x2 statistic value (60.2006) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the supply market will not
sustain this process.
RESEARCH QUESTION 17: It will be difficult to integrate the supply chain in the
concurrent engineering system

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

column
total

13

10

19

11

61

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)2
1.85138
4

0.7842
67

2.3606
56

1.360655
7

1.3114
75

2.688524
59

7.22816
45

5.5114
75

1.4426
23

0.557377
05

0.31066
92

0.2153
5
87

2.8852
46

1.885245
9

3.8360
66

0.836065
6

0.69900
56

0.1822
19

2.1311
48

0.868852
46

0.75490
46

0.3542
24

2.3442
62

1.344262
3

1.80704
11

0.7708
36

4.6885
25

1.311475
41

1.71996
78

0.3668
46

2.9508
2

2.950819
7

8.70733
67

2.9508
2

1.6393
44

0.360655
74

0.13007
26

0.0793
44

1.8032
79

0.803278
7

0.64525
67

0.3578
24

3.6065
57

3.393442
62

11.5154
53

3.1929
21

5.6065
57

1.393442
62

1.94168
23

0.3463
23

3.1147
54

3.114754
1

9.70169
31

3.1147
54

3.4262
3

0.573770
49

0.32921
26

0.0960
86

6.8524
59

1.147540
98

1.31685
03

0.1921
72

3.2459
02

3.754098
36

14.0932
55

4.3418
61

1.8032
79

0.803278
7

0.64525
67

0.3578
24

3.55415
21

1.2318
37

88

1.9836
07

1.016393
44

1.03305
56

0.5207
97

3.9672
13

3.967213
1

15.7387
8

3.9672
13
28.934
99

Since our x2 statistic value (28.93499) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that it will be difficult to integrate.
RESEARCH QUESTION 18: Project schedule are strictly adhered to

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

13

18

18

61

column
total

fo

fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

3.8360
66

0.163934
43

0.02687
45

0.0070
06

2.1311
48

2.868852
46

8.23031
44

3.8619
17

2.3442
62

2.344262
3

5.49556
57

2.3442
62
89

4.6885
25

0.688524
6

5.3114
75

1.688524
59

2.85111
53

0.5367
84

2.9508
2

1.049180
33

1.10077
94

0.3730
42

3.2459
02

2.245901
6

5.04407
42

1.5539
82

6.4918
03

0.491803
3

0.24187
05

0.0372
58

1.4754
1

0.475409
8

0.22601
45

0.1531
88

0.8196
72

0.819672
1

0.67186
24

0.8196
72

0.9016
39

1.098360
66

1.20639
61

1.3380
03

1.8032
79

0.196721
31

0.03869
93

0.0214
61

5.3114
75

0.688524
59

0.47406
61

0.0892
53

2.9508
2

2.950819
7

8.70733
67

2.9508
2

3.2459
02

0.754098
36

0.56866
43

0.1751
95

6.4918
03

1.508196
72

2.27465
74

0.3503
89

2.0655
74

2.065573
8

4.26659
5

2.0655
74

1.1475
41

0.147541

0.02176
83

0.0189
7

0.47406
61

0.1011
12

90

1.2622
95

2.737704
92

7.49502
82

5.9376
2

2.5245
9

0.524590
2

0.27519
48

0.1090
06
22.844
51

Since our x2 statistic value (22.84451) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the schedule cannot be
strictly adhere to.
RESEARCH QUESTION 19: Failure of a member in the team will be very
expensive

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

13

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

18

26

10

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

5.3114
75

0.311475
4

0.09701
69

0.0182
66

2.9508
2

0.049180
33

0.00241
87

0.0008
2

91

3.2459
02

1.754098
36

3.07686
11

0.9479
22

6.4918
03

1.491803
3

2.22547
7

0.3428
13

13

7.6721
31

5.327868
85

28.3861
87

3.6999
09

4.2622
95

2.262295
1

5.11797
9

1.2007
57

4.6885
25

2.688524
6

7.22816
45

1.5416
71

9.3770
49

0.377049
2

0.14216
61

0.0151
61

1.7704
92

1.770491
8

3.13464
12

1.7704
92

0.9836
07

3.016393
44

9.09862
94

9.2502
73

1.0819
67

0.081967
2

0.00671
86

0.0062
1

2.1639
34

1.163934
4

1.35474
33

0.6260
56

2.9508
2

2.950819
7

8.70733
67

2.9508
2

1.6393
44

0.639344
3

0.40876
11

0.2493
44

1.8032
79

0.196721
31

0.03869
93

0.0214
61

3.6065
57

3.393442
62

11.5154
53

3.1929
21

92

0.2950
82

0.295082

0.08707
34

0.2950
82

0.1639
34

0.163934
4

0.02687
45

0.1639
34

0.1803
28

0.819672
13

0.67186
24

3.7257
82

0.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.13007
26

0.3606
56

20.013
5

Since our x2 statistic value (20.0135) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that failure of team member will
be detrimental to the process.
RESEARCH QUESTION 20: Delayed payments of valuation will frustrate the
concept

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

10

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

29

23

61

column
total

fo

fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

93

8.5573
77

0.557377

0.31066
92

0.0363
04

4.7540
98

1.245901
64

1.55227
09

0.3265
12

5.2295
08

0.770491
8

0.59365
76

0.1135
21

10.459
02

1.459016
4

2.12872
88

0.2035
31

10

6.7868
85

3.213114
75

10.3241
06

1.5211
85

3.7704
92

0.770491
8

0.59365
76

0.1574
48

4.1475
41

0.147541

0.02176
83

0.0052
48

8.2950
82

2.295082

5.26740
12

0.6350
03

1.1803
28

1.180327
9

1.39317
39

1.1803
28

0.6557
38

0.655737
7

0.42999
19

0.6557
38

0.7213
11

0.721311
5

0.52029
02

0.7213
11

1.4426
23

2.557377
05

6.54017
74

4.5335
32

1.1803
28

1.180327
9

1.39317
39

1.1803
28

0.6557
38

0.344262
3

0.11851
65

0.1807
38

0.7213
11

0.721311
5

0.52029
02

0.7213
11
94

1.4426
23

1.557377
05

2.42542
33

1.6812
59

0.2950
82

0.295082

0.08707
34

0.2950
82

0.1639
34

0.163934
4

0.02687
45

0.1639
34

0.1803
28

0.819672
13

0.67186
24

3.7257
82

0.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.13007
26

0.3606
56
18.398
75

Since our x2 statistic value (18.39875) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that it will frustrate the concept.
RESEARCH QUESTION 21: Avenues of manpower development is very limited

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

11

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

14

22

21

30

61

column
total

fo

fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

95

6.1967
21

0.803278
69

0.64525
67

0.1041
29

3.4426
23

3.557377
05

12.6549
31

3.6759
56

3.7868
85

3.213114
75

10.3241
06

2.7262
79

7.5737
7

7.573770
5

57.3619
99

7.5737
7

11

8.8524
59

2.147540
98

4.61193
23

0.5209
78

4.9180
33

1.918032
8

3.67884
98

0.7480
33

5.4098
36

3.409836
1

11.6269
82

2.1492
3

14

10.819
67

3.180327
87

10.1144
85

0.9348
24

0.8852
46

0.885245
9

0.78366
03

0.8852
46

0.4918
03

0.491803
3

0.24187
05

0.4918
03

0.5409
84

0.540983
6

0.29266
33

0.5409
84

1.0819
67

1.918032
79

3.67884
98

3.4001
49

1.1803
28

1.180327
9

1.39317
39

1.1803
28

0.6557
38

0.655737
7

0.42999
19

0.6557
38

0.7213

0.278688

0.07766

0.1076
96

11

52

73

75

1.4426
23

1.557377
05

2.42542
33

1.6812
59

0.8852
46

0.885245
9

0.78366
03

0.8852
46

0.4918
03

0.491803
3

0.24187
05

0.4918
03

0.5409
84

0.459016
39

0.21069
6

0.3894
68

1.0819
67

0.918032
79

0.84278
42

0.7789
37
29.921
84

Since our x2 statistic value (29.92184) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that manpower development is
limited.
RESEARCH QUESTION 22: The level of manpower skills will not meet up the
needed requirements of Concurrent engineering

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

14

22

13

26

12

61

column

97

total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

3.8360
66

0.836065
6

0.69900
56

0.1822
19

2.1311
48

2.868852
46

8.23031
44

3.8619
17

2.3442
62

2.655737
7

7.05294
28

3.0085
98

4.6885
25

4.688524
6

21.9822
63

4.6885
25

7.6721
31

3.672131
1

13.4845
47

1.7576
01

4.2622
95

0.262295
1

0.06879
87

0.0161
41

4.6885
25

0.688524
6

0.47406
61

0.1011
12

14

9.3770
49

4.622950
82

21.3716
74

2.2791
47

1.1803
28

1.180327
9

1.39317
39

1.1803
28

0.6557
38

0.655737
7

0.42999
19

0.6557
38

0.7213
11

0.278688
52

0.07766
73

0.1076
75

1.4426
23

1.557377
05

2.42542
33

1.6812
59

3.5409

3.459016

11.9647

3.3789
98

84

39

94

47

1.9672
13

0.967213
1

0.93550
12

0.4755
46

2.1639
34

1.163934
4

1.35474
33

0.6260
56

4.3278
69

1.327868
9

1.76323
57

0.4074
14

1.7704
92

2.229508
2

4.97070
68

2.8075
29

0.9836
07

0.983606
6

0.96748
19

0.9836
07

1.0819
67

1.081967
2

1.17065
31

1.0819
67

2.1639
34

0.163934
4

0.02687
45

0.0124
19

29.293
75

Since our x2 statistic value (29.29375) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the level of man power skill
is limited.
RESEARCH QUESTION 23: Concurrent engineering involves a team formation of
some key persons of different personality and character

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

10

18

client

10
99

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

11

22

17

27

10

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

1.03305
56

0.2059
36

5.0163
93

1.016393
4

2.7868
85

1.213114
75

1.47164
74

0.5280
62

3.0655
74

0.934426
23

0.87315
24

0.2848
25

6.1311
48

1.131147
5

1.27949
48

0.2086
88

10

7.9672
13

2.032786
89

4.13222
25

0.5186
53

4.4262
3

1.426229
5

2.03413
06

0.4595
63

4.8688
52

1.868852
5

3.49260
95

0.7173
37

11

9.7377
05

1.262295
08

1.59338
89

0.1636
31

2.9508
2

1.950819
7

3.80569
74

1.2897
09

1.6393
44

0.360655
74

0.13007
26

0.0793
44

1.8032
79

2.196721
31

4.82558
45

2.6760
06
100

3.6065
57

0.606557
4

1.7704
92

0.229508
2

0.05267
4

0.0297
51

0.9836
07

0.016393
44

0.00026
87

0.0002
73

1.0819
67

1.081967
2

1.17065
31

1.0819
67

2.1639
34

0.836065
57

0.69900
56

0.3230
25

0.2950
82

0.704918
03

0.49690
94

1.6839
71

0.1639
34

0.163934
4

0.02687
45

0.1639
34

0.1803
28

0.180327
9

0.03251
81

0.1803
28

0.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.13007
26

0.3606
56

0.36791
19

0.1020
12

11.057
67

Since our x2 statistic value (11.05767) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that it involves team formatiom.
RESEARCH QUESTION 24: This system of practice involves shifting of
responsibility

options
consultant

strongly
A
9

No
option

Agree
8

strongly
D
0

Disagr
ee
1

row
total
18
101

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

11

22

column
total

22

17

12

61

fo

fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

6.4918
03

2.508196
72

6.29105
08

0.9690
76

3.6065
57

2.606557
4

6.79414
14

1.8838
3

3.9672
13

2.967213
1

8.80435
37

2.2192
79

11

7.9344
26

3.065573
77

9.39774
25

1.1844
26

5.0163
93

2.983606
56

8.90190
81

1.7745
63

2.7868
85

0.786885
2

0.61918
84

0.2221
79

3.0655
74

1.065573
8

1.13544
75

0.3703
87

6.1311
48

1.131147
5

1.27949
48

0.2086
88

3.5409
84

3.540983
6

12.5385
65

3.5409
84

1.9672
13

1.032786
89

1.06664
88

0.5422
13
102

2.1639
34

2.836065
57

8.04326
79

3.7169
65

4.3278
69

0.327868
9

0.10749
8

0.0248
39

1.4754
1

1.475409
8

2.17683
42

1.4754
1

0.8196
72

1.180327
87

1.39317
39

1.6996
72

0.9016
39

0.098360
66

0.00967
48

0.0107
3

1.8032
79

0.196721
31

0.03869
93

0.0214
61

1.4754
1

0.475409
8

0.22601
45

0.1531
88

0.8196
72

1.180327
87

1.39317
39

1.6996
72

0.9016
39

1.098360
66

1.20639
61

1.3380
03

1.8032
79

1.803278
7

3.25181
4

1.8032
79

24.858
84

Since our x2 statistic value (24.85884) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that it does not involves shifting
of responsibility.
RESEARCH QUESTION 25: Compliance with conditions of contract is low

options

strongly
A

Agree

No
option

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total
103

consultant

10

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

13

18

21

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

3.8360
66

1.836065
6

3.37113
68

0.8788
01

2.1311
48

3.868852
46

14.9680
19

7.0234
55

2.3442
62

0.655737
7

0.42999
19

0.1834
23

4.6885
25

2.688524
6

7.22816
45

1.5416
71

5.3114
75

1.311475
4

1.71996
78

0.3238
21

2.9508
2

0.950819
7

0.90405
8

0.3063
75

3.2459
02

0.754098
36

0.56866
43

0.1751
95

6.4918
03

1.508196
72

2.27465
74

0.3503
89

2.0655
74

1.065573
8

1.13544
75

0.5497
01

1.1475

1.31685

1.1475
104

41

1.147541

03

41

1.2622
95

0.262295
1

0.06879
87

0.0545
03

2.5245
9

2.475409
84

6.12765
39

2.4271
88

10

6.1967
21

3.803278
69

14.4649
29

2.3342
87

3.4426
23

1.442623

2.08116
1

0.6045
28

3.7868
85

1.786885
2

3.19295
89

0.8431
62

7.5737
7

0.573770
5

0.32921
26

0.0434
67

0.5901
64

0.409836
07

0.16796
56

0.2846
08

0.3278
69

0.327868
9

0.10749
8

0.3278
69

0.3606
56

0.639344
26

0.40876
11

1.1333
83

0.7213
11

0.721311
5

0.52029
02

0.7213
11
21.254
68

Since our x2 statistic value (21.25468) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that compliance level is
satisfactory.
RESEARCH QUESTION 26: Sabotage of the concurrent engineering system is easy

105

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

22

17

12

61

column
total

fo

fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

6.4918
03

1.508196
72

2.27465
74

0.3503
89

3.6065
57

2.393442
62

5.72856
76

1.5883
76

3.9672
13

1.032786
89

1.06664
88

0.2688
66

7.9344
26

4.934426
2

24.3485
62

3.0687
24

5.0163
93

0.983606
56

0.96748
19

0.1928
64

2.7868
85

0.786885
2

0.61918
84

0.2221
79

3.0655
74

0.934426
23

0.87315
24

0.2848
25

6.1311
48

1.131147
5

1.27949
48

0.2086
88

3.5409
84

0.540983
6

0.29266
33

0.0826
5
106

1.9672
13

1.967213
1

2.1639
34

2.163934
4

4.68261
22

2.1639
34

4.3278
69

4.672131
15

21.8288
09

5.0437
78

2.6557
38

1.655737
7

2.74146
73

1.0322
81

1.4754
1

0.524590
16

0.27519
48

0.1865
21

1.6229
51

0.622950
8

0.38806
77

0.2391
12

3.2459
02

1.754098
36

3.07686
11

0.9479
22

0.2950
82

0.295082

0.08707
34

0.2950
82

0.1639
34

0.163934
4

0.02687
45

0.1639
34

0.1803
28

0.819672
13

0.67186
24

3.7257
82

0.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.13007
26

0.3606
56

3.86992
74

1.9672
13

22.393
78

Since our x2 statistic value (22.39378) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis sabotage will be rare.
RESEARCH QUESTION 27: Compliance/cooperation of team members is not
guaranteed without sanction
107

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

24

15

11

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

7.0819
67

1.081967
2

1.17065
31

0.1653
01

3.9344
26

4.065573
77

16.5288
9

4.2010
93

4.3278
69

2.672131
15

7.14028
49

1.6498
39

8.6557
38

5.655737
7

31.9873
69

3.6955
1

4.4262
3

1.573770
49

2.47675
36

0.5595
63

2.4590
16

0.459016
4

0.21069
6

0.0856
83

2.7049
18

0.704918

0.49690
94

0.1837
06

5.4098
36

0.409836
1

0.16796
56

0.0310
48

3.2459
02

1.245901

1.55227
09

0.4782
25

108

6
1.8032
79

1.803278
7

3.25181
4

1.8032
79

1.9836
07

1.983606
6

3.93469
5

1.9836
07

3.9672
13

5.032786
89

25.3289
44

6.3845
68

2.6557
38

0.344262
3

0.11851
65

0.0446
27

1.4754
1

1.475409
8

2.17683
42

1.4754
1

1.6229
51

0.622950
8

0.38806
77

0.2391
12

3.2459
02

1.754098
36

3.07686
11

0.9479
22

0.5901
64

0.409836
07

0.16796
56

0.2846
08

0.3278
69

0.327868
9

0.10749
8

0.3278
69

0.3606
56

0.639344
26

0.40876
11

1.1333
83

0.7213
11

0.721311
5

0.52029
02

0.7213
11

26.395
66

Since our x2 statistic value (26.39566) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that compliance of team members
is will guaranteed.
109

RESEARCH QUESTION 28: Dependence on imported material and technology

would be harmful to the concept

options

strongly
A

consultant

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

10

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

10

22

26

25

61

column
total

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)2

10

7.6721
31

2.327868
85

5.41897
34

0.7063
19

4.2622
95

2.737704
92

7.49502
82

1.7584
49

4.6885
25

1.311475
41

1.71996
78

0.3668
46

9.3770
49

6.377049
2

40.6667
56

4.3368
39

7.3770
49

0.622950
82

0.38806
77

0.0526
05

4.0983
61

2.098360
7

4.40311
74

1.0743
61

4.5081
97

0.491803
28

0.24187
05

0.0536
51

10

9.0163
93

0.983606
56

0.96748
19

0.1073
03

0.2950

0.08707

0.2950

fo

fe

110

82

0.295082

34

82

0.1639
34

0.163934
4

0.02687
45

0.1639
34

0.1803
28

0.180327
9

0.03251
81

0.1803
28

0.3606
56

0.639344
26

0.40876
11

1.1333
83

2.0655
74

2.065573
8

4.26659
5

2.0655
74

1.1475
41

0.147541

0.02176
83

0.0189
7

1.2622
95

1.262295
1

1.59338
89

1.2622
95

2.5245
9

3.475409
84

12.0784
74

4.7843
3

0.5901
64

0.590163
9

0.34829
35

0.5901
64

0.3278
69

0.327868
9

0.10749
8

0.3278
69

0.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.13007
26

0.3606
56

0.7213
11

1.278688
52

1.63504
43

2.2667
66

21.905
72

Since our x2 statistic value (21.90572) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that dependence on imported
materials and technology will be favourable.
111

RESEARCH QUESTION 29: Facilities for professional teaming is inadequate

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

18

20

17

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

5.3114
75

4.311475
4

18.5888
2

3.4997
47

2.9508
2

6.049180
33

36.5925
83

12.400
82

3.2459
02

3.754098
36

14.0932
55

4.3418
61

6.4918
03

5.491803
3

30.1599
03

4.6458
44

5.9016
39

1.098360
66

1.20639
61

0.2044
17

3.2786
89

2.278688
5

5.19242
14

1.5836
89

3.6065
57

0.393442
62

0.15479
71

0.0429
21

7.2131
15

0.786885
25

0.61918
84

0.0858
42

1.1803

1.39317

1.1803
112

28

1.180327
9

39

28

0.6557
38

0.655737
7

0.42999
19

0.6557
38

0.7213
11

0.721311
5

0.52029
02

0.7213
11

1.4426
23

2.557377
05

6.54017
74

4.5335
32

5.0163
93

2.983606
56

8.90190
81

1.7745
63

2.7868
85

2.786885
2

7.76672
94

2.7868
85

3.0655
74

3.065573
8

9.39774
25

3.0655
74

6.1311
48

2.868852
46

8.23031
44

1.3423
77

0.5901
64

1.409836
07

1.98763
77

3.3679
42

0.3278
69

0.327868
9

0.10749
8

0.3278
69

0.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.13007
26

0.3606
56

0.7213
11

0.721311
5

0.52029
02

0.7213
11
47.643
23

Since our x2 statistic value (47.64323) exceed the critical value for 0.05

113

probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that facilities for professional
teaming is adequate.
RESEARCH QUESTION 30: The local penetration of information communication
technology (ICT) is shallow

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

20

20

61

column
total

fo

fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

5.9016
39

3.098360
66

9.59983
88

1.6266
39

3.2786
89

1.278688
5

1.63504
43

0.4986
89

3.6065
57

1.393442
62

1.94168
23

0.5383
76

7.2131
15

3.213114
8

10.3241
06

1.4312
97

5.9016
39

1.098360
66

1.20639
61

0.2044
17

3.2786
89

1.278688
5

1.63504
43

0.4986
89

3.6065

0.36791

0.1020
114

57

0.606557
4

19

12

7.2131
15

0.786885
25

0.61918
84

0.0858
42

1.4754
1

1.475409
8

2.17683
42

1.4754
1

0.8196
72

0.819672
1

0.67186
24

0.8196
72

0.9016
39

0.901639
3

0.81295
35

0.9016
39

1.8032
79

3.196721
31

10.2190
27

5.6669
15

2.3606
56

1.360655
7

1.85138
4

0.7842
67

1.3114
75

0.688524
59

0.47406
61

0.3614
75

1.4426
23

1.442623

2.08116
1

1.4426
23

2.8852
46

2.114754
1

4.47218
49

1.5500
19

2.3606
56

1.360655
7

1.85138
4

0.7842
67

1.3114
75

2.688524
59

7.22816
45

5.5114
75

1.4426
23

1.557377
05

2.42542
33

1.6812
59

2.8852
46

2.885245
9

8.32464
39

2.8852
46

28.850
23

115

Since our x2 statistic value (28.85023) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the ICT facilities adequate.
RESEARCH QUESTION 31: Dependence of Concurrent Engineering on
communication will create problems for the effectiveness of the concept

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

column
total

20

17

10

61

fo

fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

2.3606
56

1.639344
26

2.68744
96

1.1384
34

1.3114
75

0.311475
4

0.09701
69

0.0739
75

1.4426
23

1.442623

2.08116
1

1.4426
23

2.8852
46

0.114754
1

0.01316
85

0.0045
64

5.9016
39

0.098360
66

0.00967
48

0.0016
39

3.2786
89

2.278688
5

5.19242
14

1.5836
89

116

3.6065
57

4.393442
62

19.3023
38

5.3520
12

7.2131
15

2.213114
8

4.89787
69

0.6790
24

1.7704
92

1.770491
8

3.13464
12

1.7704
92

0.9836
07

0.983606
6

0.96748
19

0.9836
07

1.0819
67

1.081967
2

1.17065
31

1.0819
67

2.1639
34

3.836065
57

14.7153
99

6.8002
98

5.0163
93

2.983606
56

8.90190
81

1.7745
63

2.7868
85

0.213114
75

0.04541
79

0.0162
97

3.0655
74

3.065573
8

9.39774
25

3.0655
74

6.1311
48

0.131147
5

0.01719
97

0.0028
05

2.9508
2

2.950819
7

8.70733
67

2.9508
2

1.6393
44

3.360655
74

11.2940
07

6.8893
44

1.8032
79

1.196721
31

1.43214
19

0.7941
88

3.6065
57

1.606557
4

2.58102
66

0.7156
48

37.121
117

56

Since our x2 statistic value (37.12156) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that communication would not be
a problem.
RESEARCH QUESTION 32: The IT infrastructure to support Concurrent
Engineering is adequate

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

10

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

12

22

column
total

24

15

61

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)2
3.13464
12

1.7704
92

1.7704
92

1.770491
8

0.9836
07

3.016393
44

9.09862
94

9.2502
73

1.0819
67

1.081967
2

1.17065
31

1.0819
67

2.1639
34

0.163934

0.02687
45

0.0124
19

118

4
10

7.0819
67

2.918032
79

8.51491
53

1.2023
38

3.9344
26

1.934426
2

3.74200
48

0.9510
93

4.3278
69

4.327868
9

18.7304
49

4.3278
69

12

8.6557
38

3.344262
3

11.1840
9

1.2921
01

2.6557
38

0.344262
3

0.11851
65

0.0446
27

1.4754
1

1.475409
8

2.17683
42

1.4754
1

1.6229
51

0.377049
18

0.14216
61

0.0875
97

3.2459
02

0.754098
36

0.56866
43

0.1751
95

4.4262
3

0.573770
49

0.32921
26

0.0743
78

2.4590
16

1.459016
4

2.12872
88

0.8656
83

2.7049
18

2.295081
97

5.26740
12

1.9473
42

5.4098
36

1.409836
1

1.98763
77

0.3674
12

2.0655
74

2.065573
8

4.26659
5

2.0655
74

1.1475
41

1.852459
02

3.43160
44

2.9903
98

1.2622

2.737704

7.49502

5.9376
119

95

92

82

2.5245
9

2.524590
2

6.37355
55

2.5245
9
38.444
38

Since our x2 statistic value (38.44438) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that IT infrastructures.
RESEARCH QUESTION 33: Bandwidth available for communication cannot be
guaranteed

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

column
total

18

20

11

61

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

2.3606
56

1.360655
7

1.85138
4

0.7842
67

1.3114
75

1.688524
59

2.85111
53

2.1739
75

1.4426
23

1.557377
05

2.42542
33

1.6812
59

120

2.8852
46

1.885245
9

5.3114
75

0.688524
59

0.47406
61

0.0892
53

2.9508
2

0.950819
7

0.90405
8

0.3063
75

3.2459
02

2.245901
6

5.04407
42

1.5539
82

6.4918
03

2.508196
72

6.29105
08

0.9690
76

5.9016
39

5.901639
3

34.8293
47

5.9016
39

3.2786
89

1.721311
48

2.96291
32

0.9036
89

3.6065
57

3.393442
62

11.5154
53

3.1929
21

7.2131
15

0.786885
25

0.61918
84

0.0858
42

3.2459
02

3.754098
36

14.0932
55

4.3418
61

1.8032
79

1.803278
7

3.25181
4

1.8032
79

1.9836
07

1.983606
6

3.93469
5

1.9836
07

3.9672
13

0.032786
89

0.00107
5

0.0002
71

1.1803
28

2.819672
13

7.95055
09

6.7358
83

0.6557
38

0.655737
7

0.42999
19

0.6557
38

3.55415
21

1.2318
37

121

0.7213
11

0.721311
5

1.4426
23

1.442623

0.52029
02

0.7213
11

2.08116
1

1.4426
23
36.558
69

Since our x2 statistic value (36.55869) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that bandwidth for
communication is guaranteed.
RESEARCH QUESTION 34: This Concurrent Engineering concept will be better for
more mechanical production system

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

22

14

14

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

6.4918
03

1.491803
3

2.22547
7

0.3428
13

3.6065
57

0.606557
4

0.36791
19

0.1020
12
122

3.9672
13

5.032786
89

25.3289
44

6.3845
68

7.9344
26

2.934426
2

8.61085
73

1.0852
53

4.1311
48

0.131147
5

0.01719
97

0.0041
63

2.2950
82

0.295082

0.08707
34

0.0379
39

2.5245
9

1.524590
2

2.32437
52

0.9206
94

5.0491
8

1.950819
67

3.80569
74

0.7537
26

4.1311
48

0.868852
46

0.75490
46

0.1827
35

2.2950
82

2.295082

5.26740
12

2.2950
82

2.5245
9

2.524590
2

6.37355
55

2.5245
9

5.0491
8

3.950819
67

15.6089
76

3.0913
88

2.0655
74

0.065573
8

0.00429
99

0.0020
82

1.1475
41

2.852459
02

8.13652
24

7.0903
98

1.2622
95

1.262295
1

1.59338
89

1.2622
95

2.5245
9

1.524590
2

2.32437
52

0.9206
94

1.1803
28

0.819672
13

0.67186
24

0.5692
17

123

0.6557
38

0.344262
3

0.11851
65

0.1807
38

0.7213
11

0.278688
52

0.07766
73

0.1076
75

1.4426
23

1.442623

2.08116
1

1.4426
23
29.300
69

Since our x2 statistic value (29.30069) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis.
RESEARCH QUESTION 35: The concurrent engineering concept is too advanced
for a developing country

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

17

14

13

11

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

5.0163
93

4.016393
4

16.1314
16

3.2157
4

2.7868

2.213114

4.89787

1.7574
124

85

75

69

73

3.0655
74

2.934426
23

8.61085
73

2.8088
89

6.1311
48

1.131147
5

1.27949
48

0.2086
88

4.1311
48

2.131147
5

4.54178
98

1.0994
02

2.2950
82

0.295082

0.08707
34

0.0379
39

2.5245
9

0.475409
84

0.22601
45

0.0895
25

5.0491
8

1.950819
67

3.80569
74

0.7537
26

3.8360
66

0.836065
6

0.69900
56

0.1822
19

2.1311
48

2.131147
5

4.54178
98

2.1311
48

2.3442
62

1.344262
3

1.80704
11

0.7708
36

4.6885
25

4.311475
41

18.5888
2

3.9647
48

3.2459
02

2.754098
36

7.58505
78

2.3368
11

1.8032
79

1.196721
31

1.43214
19

0.7941
88

1.9836
07

0.983606
6

0.96748
19

0.4877
39

3.9672
13

2.967213
1

8.80435
37

2.2192
79

125

1.7704
92

4.229508
2

17.8887
4

10.103
83

0.9836
07

0.983606
6

0.96748
19

0.9836
07

1.0819
67

1.081967
2

1.17065
31

1.0819
67

2.1639
34

2.163934
4

4.68261
22

2.1639
34

37.191
68

Since our x2 statistic value (37.19168) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the concept is too advance.

RESEARCH QUESTION 36: ICT skilled workers are available in the company

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

11

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

10

22

column
total

18

24

61

fo

fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

126

5.3114
75

0.311475
4

2.9508
2

0.049180
33

0.00241
87

0.0008
2

3.2459
02

3.245901
6

10.5358
77

3.2459
02

10

6.4918
03

3.508196
72

12.3074
44

1.8958
44

11

7.0819
67

3.918032
79

15.3509
81

2.1676
15

3.9344
26

1.934426
2

3.74200
48

0.9510
93

4.3278
69

2.327868
9

5.41897
34

1.2521
11

8.6557
38

0.344262
3

0.11851
65

0.0136
92

1.1803
28

1.180327
9

1.39317
39

1.1803
28

0.6557
38

0.344262
3

0.11851
65

0.1807
38

0.7213
11

1.278688
52

1.63504
43

2.2667
66

1.4426
23

0.442623

0.19591
51

0.1358
05

2.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.13007
26

0.0551

1.3114
75

0.311475
4

0.09701
69

0.0739
75

1.4426
23

1.557377
05

2.42542
33

1.6812
59

0.09701
69

0.0182
66

127

2.8852
46

0.885245
9

2.0655
74

2.065573
8

4.26659
5

2.0655
74

1.1475
41

1.852459
02

3.43160
44

2.9903
98

1.2622
95

2.737704
92

7.49502
82

5.9376
2

2.5245
9

2.524590
2

6.37355
55

2.5245
9

0.78366
03

0.2716
1

28.909
1

Since our x2 statistic value (28.9091) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that ICT skilled workers are not
available.
RESEARCH QUESTION 37: Not enough competent professionals to managed
Concurrent engineering

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

11

18

client

10

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

16

17

17

61

column
total

128

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

4.7213
11

2.721311
5

7.40553
61

1.5685
34

2.6229
51

3.377049
18

11.4044
61

4.3479
51

2.8852
46

2.114754
1

4.47218
49

1.5500
19

5.7704
92

2.770491
8

7.67562
48

1.3301
51

5.0163
93

1.016393
4

1.03305
56

0.2059
36

2.7868
85

0.786885
2

0.61918
84

0.2221
79

3.0655
74

2.934426
23

8.61085
73

2.8088
89

6.1311
48

1.131147
5

1.27949
48

0.2086
88

1.1803
28

1.180327
9

1.39317
39

1.1803
28

0.6557
38

0.344262
3

0.11851
65

0.1807
38

0.7213
11

0.721311
5

0.52029
02

0.7213
11

1.4426
23

1.557377
05

2.42542
33

1.6812
59

11

5.0163
93

5.983606
56

35.8035
47

7.1373
08

129

2.7868
85

1.786885
2

3.0655
74

3.065573
8

9.39774
25

3.0655
74

6.1311
48

1.131147
5

1.27949
48

0.2086
88

2.0655
74

1.065573
8

1.13544
75

0.5497
01

1.1475
41

1.147541

1.31685
03

1.1475
41

1.2622
95

1.262295
1

1.59338
89

1.2622
95

2.5245
9

3.475409
84

12.0784
74

4.7843
3

3.19295
89

1.1457
09

35.307
13

Since our x2 statistic value (35.30713) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that there is enough competent
professionals.
RESEARCH QUESTION 38: Size and characteristics of an industry will help
improve concurrent engineering implementation

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

12

18

client

10

130

mat
&
supplier

11

contractor
s

22

16

23

61

column
total

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

0.52029
02

0.1102

4.7213
11

0.721311
5

2.6229
51

1.377049
18

1.89626
44

0.7229
51

2.8852
46

2.885245
9

8.32464
39

2.8852
46

5.7704
92

2.229508
2

4.97070
68

0.8614
01

12

6.7868
85

5.213114
75

27.1765
65

4.0042
77

3.7704
92

0.770491
8

0.59365
76

0.1574
48

4.1475
41

3.147541

9.90701
42

2.3886
48

8.2950
82

1.295082

1.67723
73

0.2021
97

2.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.13007
26

0.0551

1.3114
75

0.311475
4

0.09701
69

0.0739
75

1.4426
23

0.442623

0.19591
51

0.1358
05
131

2.8852
46

1.114754
1

1.24267
67

0.4307

2.0655
74

2.065573
8

4.26659
5

2.0655
74

1.1475
41

0.147541

0.02176
83

0.0189
7

1.2622
95

1.737704
92

3.01961
84

2.3921
65

2.5245
9

0.475409
84

0.22601
45

0.0895
25

2.0655
74

2.065573
8

4.26659
5

2.0655
74

1.1475
41

0.147541

0.02176
83

0.0189
7

1.2622
95

4.737704
92

22.4458
48

17.781
78

2.5245
9

2.524590
2

6.37355
55

2.5245
9

20.985
09

Since our x2 statistic value (20.98509) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis.
RESEARCH QUESTION 39: Electricity supply is readily available for project
execution.

options

strongly
A

No
option

Agree

strongly
D

Disagr
ee

row
total

consultant

10

18

client

10

132

mat
&
supplier

11

11

contractor
s

12

22

column
total

38

19

61

fo

fe

(fo-fe)2
/fe

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

17.7503
36

1.5829
98

11.213
11

4.213114
8

6.2295
08

1.770491
8

3.13464
12

0.5031
92

11

6.8524
59

4.147540
98

17.2020
96

2.5103
54

12

13.704
92

1.704918

2.90674
55

0.2120
95

10

5.6065
57

4.393442
62

19.3023
38

3.4428
15

3.1147
54

2.114754
1

4.47218
49

1.4358
07

3.4262
3

3.426229
5

11.7390
49

3.4262
3

6.8524
59

1.147540
98

1.31685
03

0.1921
72

0.2950
82

0.295082

0.08707
34

0.2950
82

0.1639
34

0.836065
57

0.69900
56

4.2639
34

0.1803
28

0.180327
9

0.03251
81

0.1803
28

133

0.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.5901
64

0.409836
07

0.16796
56

0.2846
08

0.3278
69

0.327868
9

0.10749
8

0.3278
69

0.3606
56

0.360655
7

0.13007
26

0.3606
56

0.7213
11

0.278688
52

0.07766
73

0.1076
75

0.2950
82

0.295082

0.08707
34

0.2950
82

0.1639
34

0.163934
4

0.02687
45

0.1639
34

0.1803
28

0.180327
9

0.03251
81

0.1803
28

0.3606
56

0.639344
26

0.40876
11

1.1333
83

0.13007
26

0.3606
56

21.259
2

Since our x2 statistic value (21.2592) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis.
RESEARCH QUESTION 40: Members of your technical team often require
supervision to perform their work effectively
options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
9
5
2
1
5

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
0
4
0
18
1
2
4
10
0

11
134

contractor
s
column
total

fo

10

22

26

16

10

61

fe
7.6721
9
31
2
5
10
5
1
3
7
0
1
0
1
4
2
0
4
0
4
3
0

4.2622
95
4.6885
25
9.3770
49
4.7213
11
2.6229
51
2.8852
46
5.7704
92
0.5901
64
0.3278
69
0.3606
56
0.7213
11
2.9508
2
1.6393
44
1.8032
79
3.6065
57
2.0655
74
1.1475
41
1.2622
95
2.5245
9

(fo-fe)2
fo-fe
(fo-fe)
/fe
1.327868 1.76323 0.2298
85
57
23
2.262295 5.11797 1.2007
1
9
57
0.311475 0.09701 0.0206
41
69
92
0.622950 0.38806 0.0413
82
77
85
0.278688 0.07766 0.0164
52
73
5
1.622950 2.63396 1.0042
8
94
01
0.114754 0.01316 0.0045
1
85
64
1.229508 1.51169 0.2619
2
04
69
0.590163 0.34829 0.5901
9
35
64
0.672131 0.45176 1.3778
15
03
69
0.360655 0.13007 0.3606
7
26
56
0.278688 0.07766 0.1076
52
73
75
1.049180 1.10077 0.3730
33
94
42
0.360655 0.13007 0.0793
74
26
44
1.803278 3.25181 1.8032
7
4
79
0.393442 0.15479 0.0429
62
71
21
2.065573 4.26659 2.0655
8
5
74
2.852459 8.13652 7.0903
02
24
98
1.737704 3.01961 2.3921
92
84
65
- 6.37355 2.5245
2.524590
55
9
2

135

2
21.587
52

Since our x2 statistic value (21.58752) exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that the professionals involves are
confidence the technical team does not require any supervision to their effectively.
RESEARCH QUESTION 41: Your specialist are committed to any project at hand
options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
6
1
3
1

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
2
9
0
18
1
2
3
10

11

14

22

22

18

11

61

fo

fe
6

6.4918
03

3.6065
57
3.9672
13

7.9344
26

5.3114
75

2.9508
2

2
14
2
1

3.2459
02
6.4918
03
1.7704
92
0.9836

fo-fe
0.491803
3
0.606557
4
3.032786
89
1.934426
2
4.311475
4
1.950819
7
1.245901
6
7.508196
72
0.229508
2
0.016393

(fo-fe)

(fo-fe)2
/fe

0.24187
05

0.0372
58

0.36791
19
9.19779
63

0.1020
12
2.3184
53

3.74200
48

0.4716
16

18.5888
2

3.4997
47

3.80569
74

1.2897
09

1.55227
09
56.3730
18
0.05267
4
0.00026

0.4782
25
8.6837
22
0.0297
51
0.0002
136

07
1

1.0819
67

2.1639
34
3.2459
02
1.8032
79

1.9836
07

3.9672
13

2
9

0
3
1
0

1.1803
28
0.6557
38
0.7213
11
1.4426
23

44
0.081967
2
0.163934
4
5.754098
36
0.196721
31
1.983606
6
3.967213
1
1.180327
9
2.344262
3
0.278688
52
1.442623

87

73

0.00671
86

0.0062
1

0.02687
45
33.1096
48
0.03869
93

0.0124
19
10.200
45
0.0214
61

3.93469
5

1.9836
07

15.7387
8

3.9672
13

1.39317
39
5.49556
57
0.07766
73
2.08116
1

1.1803
28
8.3807
38
0.1076
75
1.4426
23
44.213
49

Since our x2 statistic value (44.21349) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis.
RESEARCH QUESTION 42: Material suppliers are very proficient
options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
7
2
0
1

fo

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
1
5
3
18
2
3
4
10

11

11

22

19

16

11

61

(fo-fe)2
fe
fo-fe
(fo-fe)
/fe
5.6065 1.393442 1.94168 0.3463
7
57
62
23
23
2

137

3.1147
54
3.4262
3
6.8524
59

4.7213
11

2.6229
51

0
6

2
11
1
2

2.8852
46
5.7704
92
2.0655
74
1.1475
41

1.2622
95
2.5245
9
3.2459
02
1.8032
79

1.9836
07

1
3
5

3.9672
13
2.3606
56
1.3114
75
1.4426
23

2.8852
46

2
3
4

3.114754
1
2.573770
49
0.852459
2.721311
5
1.622950
8
0.885245
9
5.229508
2
1.065573
8
0.852459
02
0.262295
1
0.475409
84
1.754098
36
1.196721
31
0.983606
6
1.967213
1
0.639344
26
2.688524
59
0.442623
2.885245
9

9.70169
31
6.62429
45
0.72668
64

3.1147
54
1.9334
07
0.1060
48

7.40553
61

1.5685
34

2.63396
94

1.0042
01

0.78366
03
27.3477
56

0.2716
1
4.7392
42

1.13544
75
0.72668
64

0.5497
01
0.6332
55

0.06879
87
0.22601
45
3.07686
11
1.43214
19

0.0545
03
0.0895
25
0.9479
22
0.7941
88

0.96748
19

0.4877
39

3.86992
74
0.40876
11
7.22816
45
0.19591
51

0.9754
78
0.1731
56
5.5114
75
0.1358
05

8.32464
39

2.8852
46
26.322
11

Since our x2 statistic value (26.32211) exceed the critical value for 0.05

138

probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that material suppliers are
proficient.
RESEARCH QUESTION 43: A higher number of labours will be required in
concurrent engineering

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
8
6
6
4

fo

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
2
2
0
18
0
0
0
10

10

11

22

30

18

61

fe
fo-fe
(fo-fe)
8.8524
- 0.72668
8
59 0.852459
64
4.9180 1.081967 1.17065
6
33
21
31
5.4098 4.590163 21.0696
10
36
93
05
10.819 4.819672 23.2292
6
67
1
39
5.3114 0.688524 0.47406
6
75
59
61
2.9508 1.049180 1.10077
4
2
33
94
3.2459 2.245901 5.04407
1
02
6
42
6.4918 0.508196 0.25826
7
03
72
39
1.7704 0.229508 0.05267
2
92
2
4
0.9836 0.983606 0.96748
0
07
6
19
1.0819 1.081967 1.17065
0
67
2
31
2.1639 1.836065 3.37113
4
34
57
68
2 1.1803 0.819672 0.67186

(fo-fe)2
/fe
0.0820
89
0.2380
33
3.8946
85
2.1469
45
0.0892
53
0.3730
42
1.5539
82
0.0397
83
0.0297
51
0.9836
07
1.0819
67
1.5578
74
0.5692
139

28
0

0.6557
38

0.7213
11
1.4426
23

0.8852
46

0.4918
03

0
3

0.5409
84
1.0819
67

13
0.655737
7
0.721311
5
0.557377
05
0.885245
9
0.491803
3
0.540983
6
1.918032
79

24

17

0.42999
19

0.6557
38

0.52029
02
0.31066
92

0.7213
11
0.2153
5

0.78366
03

0.8852
46

0.24187
05

0.4918
03

0.29266
33
3.67884
98

0.5409
84
3.4001
49
19.550
81

Since our x2 statistic value (19.55081) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that a higher labour will required
for this system.
RESEARCH QUESTION 44: Government as regulators will create a constrain

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
0
11
4
4

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
0
7
0
18
1
0
1
10

11

22

11

28

13

61

fo

fe
0
4

3.2459
02
1.8032
79

fo-fe

(fo-fe)

3.245901
6
2.196721
31

10.5358
77
4.82558
45

(fo-fe)2
/fe
3.2459
02
2.6760
06
140

1.9836
07

11

3.9672
13
8.2622
95

4.5901
64

5.0491
8

10.098
36

2.3606
56

1.3114
75
1.4426
23
2.8852
46
3.8360
66

2.1311
48

1
0
7

2.3442
62
4.6885
25
0.2950
82
0.1639
34

0.1803
28

0.3606
56

0
6
0

5.016393
44
3.967213
1
2.737704
92
0.590163
9
1.049180
3
1.098360
7
2.360655
7
0.311475
4
1.442623
4.114754
1
3.163934
43
2.131147
5
2.344262
3
1.311475
41
0.295082
0.836065
57
0.180327
9
0.360655
7

25.1642
03

12.686
09

15.7387
8
7.49502
82

3.9672
13
0.9071
36

0.34829
35

0.0758
78

1.10077
94

0.2180
11

1.20639
61

0.1194
65

5.57269
55

2.3606
56

0.09701
69
2.08116
1
16.9312
01
10.0104
81

0.0739
75
1.4426
23

4.54178
98

2.1311
48

5.49556
57
1.71996
78
0.08707
34
0.69900
56

2.3442
62
0.3668
46
0.2950
82
4.2639
34

0.03251
81

0.1803
28

0.13007
26

0.3606
56
46.192
98

5.8682
2.6095
7

Since our x2 statistic value (46.19298) exceed the critical value for 0.05

141

probability level, we can reject the null hypothesis that Government regulation will
not be a constrain.
RESEARCH QUESTION 45: Institutional support is required for concurrent
engineering application.

options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
10
8
5
4

fo

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
0
0
0
18
0
0
1
10

11

14

22

20

31

61

fe
fo-fe
(fo-fe)2
5.9016 4.098360 16.7965
10
39
66
6
3.2786 1.721311 2.96291
5
89
48
32
3.6065 0.606557 0.36791
3
57
4
19
7.2131 5.213114 27.1765
2
15
8
65
9.1475
- 1.31685
8
41 1.147541
03
5.0819 1.081967 1.17065
4
67
2
31
5.5901 0.590163 0.34829
5
64
9
35
11.180 2.819672 7.95055
14
33
13
09
1.1803 1.180327 1.39317
0
28
9
39
0.6557 0.655737 0.42999
0
38
7
19
0.7213 1.278688 1.63504
2
11
52
43
1.4426 0.557377 0.31066
2
23
05
92

(fo-fe)2
/fe
2.8460
84
0.9036
89
0.1020
12
3.7676
6
0.1439
57
0.2303
54
0.0623
05
0.7111
2
1.1803
28
0.6557
38
2.2667
66
0.2153
5
142

0.5901
64

0.3278
69

0
2
0
1
1
2

0.3606
56
0.7213
11
1.1803
28
0.6557
38
0.7213
11
1.4426
23

0.590163
9
0.327868
9
0.360655
7
1.278688
52
1.180327
9
0.344262
3
0.278688
52
0.557377
05

0.34829
35

0.5901
64

0.10749
8

0.3278
69

0.13007
26
1.63504
43

0.3606
56
2.2667
66

1.39317
39
0.11851
65
0.07766
73
0.31066
92

1.1803
28
0.1807
38
0.1076
75
0.2153
5
18.314
91

Since our x2 statistic value (18.31491) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05
probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that institutional support will be
instrumental.
RESEARCH QUESTION 46: Will you support concurrent engineering for your
company
options
consultant
client
mat &
supplier
contractor
s
column
total

strongly
No
A
Agree
option
12
6
7
2

fo

strongly Disagr
row
D
ee
total
0
0
0
18
0
0
1
10

11

13

22

40

13

61

fe
fo-fe
(fo-fe)
11.803 0.196721 0.03869
12
28
31
93
6.5573 0.442622 0.19591
7
77
95
51

(fo-fe)2
/fe
0.0032
79
0.0298
77

143

7.2131
15

14.426
23
3.8360
66

2.1311
48

2.3442
62

4.6885
25

1.4754
1

13

0.8196
72
0.9016
39
1.8032
79
0.2950
82

0.1639
34

0
1
4

0
1
0
1
0
1

0.1803
28
0.3606
56
0.5901
64
0.3278
69
0.3606
56
0.7213
11

0.786885
25
1.426229
5
2.163934
43
0.131147
5
0.344262
3
1.688524
6
1.475409
8
0.819672
1
0.098360
66
2.196721
31
0.295082
0.163934
4
0.180327
9
0.639344
26
0.590163
9
0.672131
15
0.360655
7
0.278688
52

0.61918
84

0.0858
42

2.03413
06
4.68261
22

0.1410
02
1.2206
81

0.01719
97

0.0080
71

0.11851
65

0.0505
56

2.85111
53

0.6081
05

2.17683
42

1.4754
1

0.67186
24
0.00967
48
4.82558
45
0.08707
34

0.8196
72
0.0107
3
2.6760
06
0.2950
82

0.02687
45

0.1639
34

0.03251
81
0.40876
11

0.1803
28
1.1333
83

0.34829
35
0.45176
03

0.5901
64
1.3778
69

0.13007
26
0.07766
73

0.3606
56
0.1076
75
11.338
32

Since our x2 statistic value (11.33832) did not exceed the critical value for 0.05

144

probability level, we can accept the null hypothesis that CE is concept that has come
to stay.
4.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
COOMPARISON OF RESULT SAMPLES.
Agree/disagr

Agree/disagree

ee
S/NO

Questions

General sample
From

Edo from Six States

State

and

Warri.
1.

I know about concurrent engineering

Disagree

Disagree

2.

I have participated in its usage

Disagree

Disagree

3.

Government new policies raise cost of project

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

be

Disagree

Disagree

This concept of Concurrent Engineering is for

Disagree

Disagree

execution
4.

The approval and licensing policies of the

government are favourable

5.

Plant/equipment

support

would

fundamental for success

6.

smaller firms and younger person

7.

This concept will improve productivity

Agree

Disagree

8.

I am not comfortable with a system I cannot

Disagree

Disagree

control
9.

I would rather work with people I know

Disagree

Disagree

10.

Bank and credit facilities are readily available

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

to sustain Concurrent Engineering

11.

Import and export policies will favour the

implementation of Concurrent Engineering

12.

There is nothing wrong with the traditional

145

system of project delivery

13.

Insurance policies are well implemented

Disagree

Disagree

14.

The client is too uniformed for this concept

Disagree

Disagree

15.

Corruption will not let this system work

Disagree

Disagree

16.

The supply market is too informal and

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

undeveloped
17.

It will be difficult to integrate the supply chain

in the concurrent engineering system

18.

Project schedule are strictly adhered to

Disagree

Disagree

19.

Failure of a member in the team will be very

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

expensive
20.

Delayed payments of valuation will frustrate

the concept

21.

Avenues of manpower development is very

limited

22.

The level of manpower skills will not meet up

the

needed

requirements

of

Concurrent

engineering
23.

Concurrent engineering involves a team Agree

Disagree

formation of some key persons of different

personality and character
24.

This system of practice involves shifting of

Disagree

Disagree

responsibility
25.

Compliance with conditions of contract is low

Agree

Disagree

26.

Sabotage of the concurrent engineering system

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Agree

is easy
27.

Compliance/cooperation of team members is

not guaranteed without sanction

28.

Dependence

on

imported

material

and

146

technology would be harmful to the concept

29.

Facilities

for

professional

teaming

is

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

communication

Disagree

Disagree

This Concurrent Engineering concept will be

Disagree

Disagree

The concurrent engineering concept is too Disagree

Disagree

inadequate
30.

The

local

penetration

of

information

communication technology (ICT) is shallow

31.

Dependence of Concurrent Engineering on

communication will create problems for the
effectiveness of the concept

32.

The IT infrastructure to support Concurrent

Engineering is adequate

33.

Bandwidth

available

for

cannot be guaranteed
34.

better for more mechanical production system

35.

advanced for a developing country

36.

ICT skilled workers are available in the

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

company
37.

Not

enough

competent

professionals

to

managed Concurrent engineering

38.

Size and characteristics of an industry will

help

improve

concurrent

engineering

implementation
39.

Electricity supply is readily available for

project execution

40.

Members of your technical team often require

supervision to perform their work effectively

41.

Your specialist are committed to any project at

hand

42.

Material suppliers are very proficient

147

43.

A higher number of labour will be required in

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Agree

concurrent engineering
44.

Government as regulators will create a

constrain

45.

Institutional support is required for concurrent

engineering application

46.

Will you support concurrent engineering for Agree

Disagree

your company
4.4 DISCUSSION

After analysing the results using Chi square, results assessment obtained from
Edo State and Warri in Delta State shows that there is actually a low level of
awareness. Comparing this result with the general samples from the six different
States, the awareness is generally low.
These result further shows that, there are constraints that will hinder it
implementation if not closely examined. Such constrains includes;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Government policies
Plant and Equipment support
Import and Export policies
Corruption in the system
Facilities for professional training
Bank and Credits facilities
Insurance policies
Availability of power
The most of the respondents agreed that it will help in improve construction

industry product and are fully in support of concurrent engineering concepts.

148

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSION
The assessment of this research has so far shown the level of awareness and
use of concurrent engineering of the respondents on the feasibility of the system,
benefits and constraints that will be experience in the Nigeria system.
It is expected that these will guide organisation and firms in Nigeria and other
developing countries identify where to focus their efforts to promote increase in
productivity in applying concurrent engineering in the construction industry in
Nigeria.
5.1 RECOMMENDATION
149

This should be review in the next few years to measure any quantitative and
qualitative advancement in application of concurrent engineering and it sustainability
in the Nigeria construction industry.

REFERENCES
1. Aniekwu N. (1995). The business environment of the construction industry in
Nigeria, Construction Management and Economics 13, 445-455.
2. Arif A. A and Karam A.H. (2001). Architectural practices and their use of IT
in the Western Cape
Province, South Africa, Journal of Information Technology in Construction,
6, 17-34, at http://www.itcon.org/2001/2
3. Adachi, T., Enkawa, T. and Shih, L. C. (1995), A concurrent engineering
methodology using analogies to just-in-time concepts, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 587609.
4. Adebayo A. Oladapo, 2006. An investigation into the use of ICT in the
Nigerian construction industry
5. Adler, P., Mandelbaum, A., Nguyen, V. and Schwerer, E. (1994), From
project

to

process

management

in

engineering:

managerial

and

150

methodological challenges, in Dasu, S. and Eastman, C. (eds),

Management of Design, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp. 6182.
6. Adler, P. S., Mandelbaum, A., Nguyen, V. and Schwerer, E. (1996),
Getting the most out of your product development process, Harvard
Business Review, MarchApril, pp. 134152.
7. Akao, Yoji (ed.) (1990), Quality Function Deployment, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA, 369 p.
8. Ashton, J. A. (1992), Managing design for continuous improvement in a
system job shop, Manufacturing Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 149157.
9. Ballard, G. (2002), Managing work flow on design projects: a case study,
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.
284291.
10. Carter, D. and Baker, B. (1992), Concurrent Engineering: The Product
Development Environment for the 1990s, Addison-Wesley, Reading, PA.
11. Clark, K. and Fujimoto, T. (1991), Product Development Performance,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 409 p.
12. Clausing, D. (1994), Total Quality Development, ASME Press, New York,
506 p.
13. Cohen, L. (1995), Quality Function Deployment, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, 348 p.
14. Cook, H. E. (1997), Product Management Value, Quality, Cost, Price,
Profit and Organization, Chapman & Hall, London, 411 p.
15. Cooper, K. (1993), The rework cycle: benchmarks for the project
manager, Project Management Journal, Vol. XXIV, March, pp. 1721.
16. Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., McCall, R. and Morch, A. I. (1991), Making
argumentation serve design, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, No. 3
4, pp. 393419.
17. Lillrank, Paul & Kano, Noriaki. 1989. Continuous Improvement: Quality
Control Circles in Japanese Industry.
18. Michigan papers in Japanese Studies: no. 19. Center for Japanese Studies, the
University of Michigan, AnnArbor, MI.

151

19. Monden, Yasuhiro. 1983. Toyota Production System. Industrial Engineering

and Management Press, Norcross, GA.
20. Nakajima, Seiichi. 1988. Introduction to TPM. Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
21. Ohno, Taiichi. 1988. Toyota production system. Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA. 143 p
22. Prasad, B. (1996), Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, Vol. 1, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 478 p.
23. Project Management Institute (1996), A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge, 176 p.
24. Putnam, A. O. (1985), A redesign for engineering, Harvard Business
Review, MayJune, pp. 139144.
25. Shingo, Shigeo. 1984. Study of 'TOYOTA' Production System. Japan
Management Association, Tokyo.
26. Akao, Yoji (editor). 1990. Quality Function Deployment. Productivity Press.
Cambridge, Ma.
27. Shingo, Shigeo. 1988. Non-stock production. Productivity Press, Cambridge,
Ma.
28. Shingo, Shigeo. 1984. Study of 'TOYOTA' Production System. Japan
Management Association, Tokyo.
29. Shingo, Shigeo. 1986. Zero Quality Control. Productivity Press, Cambridge,
Ma.
30. Shinohara, Isao. 1988. New Production System: JIT Crossing Industry
Boundaries. Productivity Press.
31. Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Leaders New Work: Building Learning
Organizations. Sloan Management Review, From pp. 7 - 23.
32. Camp, Robert C. 1989. Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best
Practices that Lead to Superior Performance. ASQC Quality Press,
Milwaukee. 299 p.
33. Robinson, Alan (ed.). 1991. Continuous Improvement in Operations.
Productivity, Cambridge.
34. Greif, Michel. 1991. The Visual Factory. Productivity Press, Cambridge.

152

35. Rockart, John F. & Short, James E. 1989. IT in the 1990s: Managing
Organizational Interdependence. Sloan Management Review, Winter 1989. P.
7 - 17.
36. Plenert, Gerhard. 1990. Three differing concepts of JIT. Production and
Inventory Management Journal, Second Quarter, pp. 1 - 2.
37. Pall, Gabriel A. 1987. Quality Process Management. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
38. Schonberger, Richard J. 1982. Japanese manufacturing techniques. The Free
Press, New York. 260 p.
39. Schonberger, Richard J. 1986. World class manufacturing. The Free Press,
New York. 253 p

APPENDIX 1
FEASIBILITY OF CONCURRENT ENGINEERING IN THE
NIGERIAN CONSTRUTION INDUSTRY

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE FEASIBILITY OF CE ON

CONSTRUCTION
Dear Sir/Madame,
On behalf of the department of Civil Engineering university of Benin, I am
conducting a research on the feasibility of concurrent engineering (CE) on the
Nigerian construction industry with a view of determining the best practices.

153

The following questions are meant to elicit information on the feasibility of

CE on construction in Nigeria. It is our sincere desire that the questions be answered
objectively as possible. Individual anonymity will be maintained. You are therefore
not required to write your names or your companys.
Your cooperation would be highly appreciated, as you would be contributing
in no small way to the growth and progress of your company and the industry in
general. All you need to do is to tick the number that agrees with your objective
view.

Note:

strongly agree = 5, Agree = 4, no option = 3, disagree =2, strongly

disagree = 1
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF CONCURRENT ENGINEERING (CE)
In the context of the construction industry, Evbuomwan & Anumba (1998)
defined Concurrent Engineering as an attempt to optimise the design of the
project and its construction process to achieve reduced lead times, and improved
quality and cost by the integration of design, fabrication, construction and erection
activities and by maximising concurrency and collaboration in working practices.
This is in sharp contrast with the traditional approach to construction project
delivery.
There is growing awareness and interest in the adoption of Concurrent
Engineering (CE) in the Construction Industry because CE has the potential to make
construction projects less fragmented, improve project quality, reduce project
duration and reduce total project cost. The urgent need to improve the performance
of construction can also be achieved during the design process by concurrently
considering key aspects of the construction projects downstream phases. It is evident
that by adopting Concurrent Engineering, the construction industries have
significantly improved their business processes.
154

155

SECTION A
Please specify your role on site;

1. Client

2. Consultant

3. Contractors

4.

contractors

Sub-

5.

Material

suppliers/manufacturers
Please circle the letters of your appropriate view on the following statements.
1.

How many years have you been operating in Nigeria?

a. More than 50 years

b. 30-50 years

c. 10-30 years d.

5-10

years
e. Less than 5 years
2.

What approximate percentage of your work force is computer literate?

a. 100-75%

b. 75-50%

c. 50-25%

d.25-10%

e. Less

than 10%
3.

How much collateral are you normally required to furnish when taking a loan
from a bank?
a. 100-75%

b. 75-50%

c. 50-25%

d.25-10%

e. Less

than 10%
4.

What percentage of your budget do you spend on generator fuel?

a. 100-75%

b. 75-50%

c. 50-25%

d.25-10%

e. Less

d. Rarely

e. Never

than 10%

5.

How frequent do you have electrical power?

a. Always

b. Most of the time

c. Sometimes

156

6.

Approximately, what percentage of your skilled construction workers receive

their training on the job?
a. 100-75%

b. 75-50%

c. 50-25%

d.25-10%

e.

Less

than 10%
7.

How many of your technical staff are co-located in the same environment?
a. 100-75%

b. 75-50%

c. 50-25%

d.25-10%

e. Less

than 10%
How often are meetings held with the clients for briefing on work progress?

8.

a. Always

b. Most of the time

c. Sometimes

d. Rarely

e.

Never
9.

How often do you call in specialists to help assist in the project?

a. Always

b. Most of the time

c. Sometimes

d. Rarely

e.

Never
10.

Listed below are some of the construction projects. Indicate in percentages,

the approximate level of involvement of your company in their project execution?

Projects

Projects

Buildings

Airports

Dams

Bridges

Drainage and sewage

Highways

works
Ports/harbour

Tower constructions

157

12.

Listed below are some of your clients. Please indicate the

level of their contributions in the volume of your construction
works, stating approximately their percentages.

Projects

% Projects

Government ministries

Private companies

Government parastatals

International/foreign
organisation

Private individuals

Others (please specify

with percentages)

14.

Please

tick

which

of

these

is

readily

available

for

communication in your organization?

Telephone

Internet

Fax

Post office

Courier service

SECTION B
Note: strongly agree = 5, Agree = 4, no option = 3, disagree =2,
strongly disagree = 1
Please tick your appropriate view in the following statements.

S/N
O

158

1.

I know about concurrent engineering

2.

I have participated in its usage

3.

Government new policies raise cost of

project execution

4.

The approval and licensing policies of

the government are favourable

5.

Plant/equipment support would be

fundamental for success

6.

This
concept
of
Concurrent
Engineering is for smaller firms and
younger person

7.

This concept will improve productivity

8.

I am not comfortable with a system I

cannot control

S/N
O

9.

I would rather work with people I

know

10.

Bank and credit facilities are readily

available
to
sustain
Concurrent
Engineering

11.

Import and export policies will favour

the implementation of Concurrent
Engineering

12.

There is nothing wrong with the

traditional system of project delivery

13.

Insurance
policies
implemented

14.

The client is too uniformed for this

concept

15.

Corruption will not let this system

work

are

well

159

16.

The supply market is too informal and

undeveloped

17.

It will be difficult to integrate the

supply chain in the concurrent
engineering system

18.

Project schedule are strictly adhered

to

19.

Failure of a member in the team will

be very expensive

20.

Delayed payments of valuation will

frustrate the concept

21.

Avenues of manpower development is

very limited

22.

The level of manpower skills will not

meet up the needed requirements of
Concurrent engineering

23.

Concurrent engineering involves a

team formation of some key persons
of different personality and character

24.

This system of practice

shifting of responsibility

involves

S/N
O

25.

Compliance
with
contract is low

conditions

26.

Sabotage
of
the
concurrent
engineering system is easy

27.

Compliance/cooperation
of
team
members is not guaranteed without
sanction

28.

Dependence on imported material

and technology would be harmful to
the concept

29.

Facilities for professional teaming is

of

160

inadequate
30.

The local penetration of information

communication technology (ICT) is
shallow

31.

Dependence
of
Concurrent
Engineering on communication will
create problems for the effectiveness
of the concept

32.

The IT infrastructure to support

Concurrent Engineering is adequate

33.

Bandwidth
available
for
communication cannot be guaranteed

34.

This Concurrent Engineering concept

will be better for more mechanical
production system

35.

The concurrent engineering concept

is too advanced for a developing
country

36.

ICT skilled workers are available in

the company

37.

Not enough competent professionals

to managed Concurrent engineering

S/N
O

38.

Size and characteristics of an industry

will
help
improve
concurrent
engineering implementation

39.

Electricity supply is readily available

for project execution

40.

Members of your technical team often

require supervision to perform their
work effectively

41.

Your specialist are committed to any

project at hand

161

42.

Material suppliers are very proficient

43.

A higher number of labour will be

required in concurrent engineering

44.

Government as regulators will create

a constrain

45.

Institutional support is required for

concurrent engineering application

46.

Will
you
support
concurrent
engineering for your company

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete the
questionnaire. If you wish to comment further please use the space
below.

162

APPENDIX 2
Chi-square distribution table

P
DF
1

0.995

0.975

0.0000393 0.000982

0.20

0.10

0.05

0.025

0.02

0.01

0.005

0.002

0.001

1.642

2.706

3.841

5.024

5.412

6.635

7.879

9.550

10.828

0.0100

0.0506

3.219

4.605

5.991

7.378

7.824

9.210

10.597

12.429

13.816

0.0717

0.216

4.642

6.251

7.815

9.348

9.837

11.345

12.838

14.796

16.266

0.207

0.484

5.989

7.779

9.488

11.143

11.668

13.277

14.860

16.924

18.467

0.412

0.831

7.289

9.236

11.070

12.833

13.388

15.086

16.750

18.907

20.515

163

0.676

1.237

8.558

10.645

12.592

14.449

15.033

16.812

18.548

20.791

22.458

0.989

1.690

9.803

12.017

14.067

16.013

16.622

18.475

20.278

22.601

24.322

1.344

2.180

11.030

13.362

15.507

17.535

18.168

20.090

21.955

24.352

26.124

1.735

2.700

12.242

14.684

16.919

19.023

19.679

21.666

23.589

26.056

27.877

10

2.156

3.247

13.442

15.987

18.307

20.483

21.161

23.209

25.188

27.722

29.588

11

2.603

3.816

14.631

17.275

19.675

21.920

22.618

24.725

26.757

29.354

31.264

12

3.074

4.404

15.812

18.549

21.026

23.337

24.054

26.217

28.300

30.957

32.909

13

3.565

5.009

16.985

19.812

22.362

24.736

25.472

27.688

29.819

32.535

34.528

14

4.075

5.629

18.151

21.064

23.685

26.119

26.873

29.141

31.319

34.091

36.123

15

4.601

6.262

19.311

22.307

24.996

27.488

28.259

30.578

32.801

35.628

37.697

16

5.142

6.908

20.465

23.542

26.296

28.845

29.633

32.000

34.267

37.146

39.252

17

5.697

7.564

21.615

24.769

27.587

30.191

30.995

33.409

35.718

38.648

40.790

18

6.265

8.231

22.760

25.989

28.869

31.526

32.346

34.805

37.156

40.136

42.312

19

6.844

8.907

23.900

27.204

30.144

32.852

33.687

36.191

38.582

41.610

43.820

20

7.434

9.591

25.038

28.412

31.410

34.170

35.020

37.566

39.997

43.072

45.315

21

8.034

10.283

26.171

29.615

32.671

35.479

36.343

38.932

41.401

44.522

46.797

22

8.643

10.982

27.301

30.813

33.924

36.781

37.659

40.289

42.796

45.962

48.268

23

9.260

11.689

28.429

32.007

35.172

38.076

38.968

41.638

44.181

47.391

49.728

24

9.886

12.401

29.553

33.196

36.415

39.364

40.270

42.980

45.559

48.812

51.179

25

10.520

13.120

30.675

34.382

37.652

40.646

41.566

44.314

46.928

50.223

52.620

26

11.160

13.844

31.795

35.563

38.885

41.923

42.856

45.642

48.290

51.627

54.052

27

11.808

14.573

32.912

36.741

40.113

43.195

44.140

46.963

49.645

53.023

55.476

28

12.461

15.308

34.027

37.916

41.337

44.461

45.419

48.278

50.993

54.411

56.892

29

13.121

16.047

35.139

39.087

42.557

45.722

46.693

49.588

52.336

55.792

58.301

30

13.787

16.791

36.250

40.256

43.773

46.979

47.962

50.892

53.672

57.167

59.703

164

31

14.458

17.539

37.359

41.422

44.985

48.232

49.226

52.191

55.003

58.536

61.098

32

15.134

18.291

38.466

42.585

46.194

49.480

50.487

53.486

56.328

59.899

62.487

33

15.815

19.047

39.572

43.745

47.400

50.725

51.743

54.776

57.648

61.256

63.870

34

16.501

19.806

40.676

44.903

48.602

51.966

52.995

56.061

58.964

62.608

65.247

35

17.192

20.569

41.778

46.059

49.802

53.203

54.244

57.342

60.275

63.955

66.619

36

17.887

21.336

42.879

47.212

50.998

54.437

55.489

58.619

61.581

65.296

67.985

37

18.586

22.106

43.978

48.363

52.192

55.668

56.730

59.893

62.883

66.633

69.346

38

19.289

22.878

45.076

49.513

53.384

56.896

57.969

61.162

64.181

67.966

70.703

39

19.996

23.654

46.173

50.660

54.572

58.120

59.204

62.428

65.476

69.294

72.055

40

20.707

24.433

47.269

51.805

55.758

59.342

60.436

63.691

66.766

70.618

73.402

41

21.421

25.215

48.363

52.949

56.942

60.561

61.665

64.950

68.053

71.938

74.745

42

22.138

25.999

49.456

54.090

58.124

61.777

62.892

66.206

69.336

73.254

76.084

43

22.859

26.785

50.548

55.230

59.304

62.990

64.116

67.459

70.616

74.566

77.419

44

23.584

27.575

51.639

56.369

60.481

64.201

65.337

68.710

71.893

75.874

78.750

45

24.311

28.366

52.729

57.505

61.656

65.410

66.555

69.957

73.166

77.179

80.077

46

25.041

29.160

53.818

58.641

62.830

66.617

67.771

71.201

74.437

78.481

81.400

47

25.775

29.956

54.906

59.774

64.001

67.821

68.985

72.443

75.704

79.780

82.720

48

26.511

30.755

55.993

60.907

65.171

69.023

70.197

73.683

76.969

81.075

84.037

49

27.249

31.555

57.079

62.038

66.339

70.222

71.406

74.919

78.231

82.367

85.351

50

27.991

32.357

58.164

63.167

67.505

71.420

72.613

76.154

79.490

83.657

86.661

51

28.735

33.162

59.248

64.295

68.669

72.616

73.818

77.386

80.747

84.943

87.968

52

29.481

33.968

60.332

65.422

69.832

73.810

75.021

78.616

82.001

86.227

89.272

53

30.230

34.776

61.414

66.548

70.993

75.002

76.223

79.843

83.253

87.507

90.573

54

30.981

35.586

62.496

67.673

72.153

76.192

77.422

81.069

84.502

88.786

91.872

55

31.735

36.398

63.577

68.796

73.311

77.380

78.619

82.292

85.749

90.061

93.168

165

56

32.490

37.212

64.658

69.919

74.468

78.567

79.815

83.513

86.994

91.335

94.461

57

33.248

38.027

65.737

71.040

75.624

79.752

81.009

84.733

88.236

92.605

95.751

58

34.008

38.844

66.816

72.160

76.778

80.936

82.201

85.950

89.477

93.874

97.039

59

34.770

39.662

67.894

73.279

77.931

82.117

83.391

87.166

90.715

95.140

98.324

60

35.534

40.482

68.972

74.397

79.082

83.298

84.580

88.379

91.952

96.404

99.607

61

36.301

41.303

70.049

75.514

80.232

84.476

85.767

89.591

93.186

97.665

100.888

62

37.068

42.126

71.125

76.630

81.381

85.654

86.953

90.802

94.419

98.925

102.166

63

37.838

42.950

72.201

77.745

82.529

86.830

88.137

92.010

95.649

100.182

103.442

64

38.610

43.776

73.276

78.860

83.675

88.004

89.320

93.217

96.878

101.437

104.716

65

39.383

44.603

74.351

79.973

84.821

89.177

90.501

94.422

98.105

102.691

105.988

66

40.158

45.431

75.424

81.085

85.965

90.349

91.681

95.626

99.330

103.942

107.258

67

40.935

46.261

76.498

82.197

87.108

91.519

92.860

96.828

100.554 105.192

108.526

68

41.713

47.092

77.571

83.308

88.250

92.689

94.037

98.028

101.776 106.440

109.791

69

42.494

47.924

78.643

84.418

89.391

93.856

95.213

99.228

102.996 107.685

111.055

70

43.275

48.758

79.715

85.527

90.531

95.023

96.388

100.425 104.215 108.929

112.317

71

44.058

49.592

80.786

86.635

91.670

96.189

97.561

101.621 105.432 110.172

113.577

72

44.843

50.428

81.857

87.743

92.808

97.353

98.733

102.816 106.648

111.412

114.835

73

45.629

51.265

82.927

88.850

93.945

98.516

99.904

104.010 107.862 112.651

116.092

74

46.417

52.103

83.997

89.956

95.081

99.678

101.074 105.202 109.074 113.889

117.346

75

47.206

52.942

85.066

91.061

96.217

100.839 102.243 106.393 110.286 115.125

118.599

76

47.997

53.782

86.135

92.166

97.351

101.999 103.410 107.583 111.495

116.359

119.850

77

48.788

54.623

87.203

93.270

98.484

103.158 104.576 108.771 112.704 117.591

121.100

78

49.582

55.466

88.271

94.374

99.617

104.316 105.742 109.958 113.911 118.823

122.348

79

50.376

56.309

89.338

95.476

100.749 105.473 106.906

111.144

115.117 120.052

123.594

80

51.172

57.153

90.405

96.578

101.879 106.629 108.069 112.329

116.321 121.280

124.839

166

81

51.969

57.998

91.472

97.680

103.010 107.783 109.232 113.512

117.524 122.507

126.083

82

52.767

58.845

92.538

98.780

104.139 108.937 110.393 114.695

118.726 123.733

127.324

83

53.567

59.692

93.604

99.880

105.267 110.090

119.927 124.957

128.565

84

54.368

60.540

94.669

100.980 106.395

111.242

112.712 117.057 121.126 126.179

129.804

85

55.170

61.389

95.734

102.079 107.522 112.393

113.871 118.236 122.325 127.401

131.041

86

55.973

62.239

96.799

103.177 108.648 113.544

115.028 119.414 123.522 128.621

132.277

87

56.777

63.089

97.863

104.275 109.773 114.693

116.184 120.591 124.718 129.840

133.512

88

57.582

63.941

98.927

105.372 110.898 115.841

117.340 121.767 125.913 131.057

134.745

89

58.389

64.793

99.991

106.469 112.022 116.989

118.495 122.942 127.106 132.273

135.978

90

59.196

65.647

101.054 107.565 113.145 118.136

119.648 124.116 128.299 133.489

137.208

91

60.005

66.501

102.117 108.661 114.268 119.282 120.801 125.289 129.491 134.702

138.438

92

60.815

67.356

103.179 109.756 115.390 120.427 121.954 126.462 130.681 135.915

139.666

93

61.625

68.211

104.241 110.850

116.511 121.571 123.105 127.633 131.871 137.127

140.893

94

62.437

69.068

105.303

111.944

117.632 122.715 124.255 128.803 133.059 138.337

142.119

95

63.250

69.925

106.364 113.038

118.752 123.858 125.405 129.973 134.247 139.546

143.344

96

64.063

70.783

107.425 114.131

119.871 125.000 126.554 131.141 135.433 140.755

144.567

97

64.878

71.642

108.486 115.223 120.990 126.141 127.702 132.309 136.619 141.962

145.789

98

65.694

72.501

109.547 116.315 122.108 127.282 128.849 133.476 137.803 143.168

147.010

99

66.510

73.361

110.607 117.407 123.225 128.422 129.996 134.642 138.987 144.373

148.230

100

67.328

74.222

111.667

118.498 124.342 129.561 131.142 135.807 140.169 145.577

149.449

101

68.146

75.083

112.726 119.589 125.458 130.700 132.287 136.971 141.351 146.780

150.667

102

68.965

75.946

113.786 120.679 126.574 131.838 133.431 138.134 142.532 147.982

151.884

103

69.785

76.809

114.845 121.769 127.689 132.975 134.575 139.297 143.712 149.183

153.099

104

70.606

77.672

115.903 122.858 128.804

134.111 135.718 140.459 144.891 150.383

154.314

105

71.428

78.536

116.962 123.947 129.918 135.247 136.860 141.620 146.070 151.582

155.528

111.553

115.876

167

106

72.251

79.401

118.020 125.035 131.031 136.382 138.002 142.780 147.247 152.780

156.740

107

73.075

80.267

119.078 126.123 132.144 137.517 139.143 143.940 148.424 153.977

157.952

108

73.899

81.133

120.135 127.211 133.257 138.651 140.283 145.099 149.599 155.173

159.162

109

74.724

82.000

121.192 128.298 134.369 139.784 141.423 146.257 150.774 156.369

160.372

110

75.550

82.867

122.250 129.385 135.480 140.917 142.562 147.414 151.948 157.563

161.581

111

76.377

83.735

123.306 130.472 136.591 142.049 143.700 148.571 153.122 158.757

162.788

112

77.204

84.604

124.363 131.558 137.701 143.180 144.838 149.727 154.294 159.950

163.995

113

78.033

85.473

125.419 132.643 138.811 144.311 145.975 150.882 155.466 161.141

165.201

114

78.862

86.342

126.475 133.729 139.921 145.441 147.111 152.037 156.637 162.332

166.406

115

79.692

87.213

127.531 134.813 141.030 146.571 148.247 153.191 157.808 163.523

167.610

116

80.522

88.084

128.587 135.898 142.138 147.700 149.383 154.344 158.977 164.712

168.813

117

81.353

88.955

129.642 136.982 143.246 148.829 150.517 155.496 160.146 165.900

170.016

118

82.185

89.827

130.697 138.066 144.354 149.957 151.652 156.648 161.314 167.088

171.217

119

83.018

90.700

131.752 139.149 145.461 151.084 152.785 157.800 162.481 168.275

172.418

120

83.852

91.573

132.806 140.233 146.567 152.211 153.918 158.950 163.648 169.461

173.617

121

84.686

92.446

133.861 141.315 147.674 153.338 155.051 160.100 164.814 170.647

174.816

122

85.520

93.320

134.915 142.398 148.779 154.464 156.183 161.250 165.980 171.831

176.014

123

86.356

94.195

135.969 143.480 149.885 155.589 157.314 162.398 167.144 173.015

177.212

124

87.192

95.070

137.022 144.562 150.989 156.714 158.445 163.546 168.308 174.198

178.408

125

88.029

95.946

138.076 145.643 152.094 157.839 159.575 164.694 169.471 175.380

179.604

126

88.866

96.822

139.129 146.724 153.198 158.962 160.705 165.841 170.634 176.562

180.799

127

89.704

97.698

140.182 147.805 154.302 160.086 161.834 166.987 171.796 177.743

181.993

128

90.543

98.576

141.235 148.885 155.405 161.209 162.963 168.133 172.957 178.923

183.186

129

91.382

99.453

142.288 149.965 156.508 162.331 164.091 169.278 174.118 180.103

184.379

130

92.222

100.331 143.340 151.045 157.610 163.453 165.219 170.423 175.278 181.282

185.571

168

131

93.063

101.210 144.392 152.125 158.712 164.575 166.346 171.567 176.438 182.460

186.762

132

93.904

102.089 145.444 153.204 159.814 165.696 167.473 172.711 177.597 183.637

187.953

133

94.746

102.968 146.496 154.283 160.915 166.816 168.600 173.854 178.755 184.814

189.142

134

95.588

103.848 147.548 155.361 162.016 167.936 169.725 174.996 179.913 185.990

190.331

135

96.431

104.729 148.599 156.440 163.116 169.056 170.851 176.138 181.070 187.165

191.520

136

97.275

105.609 149.651 157.518 164.216 170.175 171.976 177.280 182.226 188.340

192.707

137

98.119

106.491 150.702 158.595 165.316 171.294 173.100 178.421 183.382 189.514

193.894

138

98.964

107.372 151.753 159.673 166.415 172.412 174.224 179.561 184.538 190.688

195.080

139

99.809

108.254 152.803 160.750 167.514 173.530 175.348 180.701 185.693 191.861

196.266

140

100.655

109.137 153.854 161.827 168.613 174.648 176.471 181.840 186.847 193.033

197.451

141

101.501

110.020 154.904 162.904 169.711 175.765 177.594 182.979 188.001 194.205

198.635

142

102.348

110.903 155.954 163.980 170.809 176.882 178.716 184.118 189.154 195.376

199.819

143

103.196

111.787 157.004 165.056 171.907 177.998 179.838 185.256 190.306 196.546

201.002

144

104.044

112.671 158.054 166.132 173.004 179.114 180.959 186.393 191.458 197.716

202.184

145

104.892

113.556 159.104 167.207 174.101 180.229 182.080 187.530 192.610 198.885

203.366

146

105.741

114.441 160.153 168.283 175.198 181.344 183.200 188.666 193.761 200.054

204.547

147

106.591

115.326 161.202 169.358 176.294 182.459 184.321 189.802 194.912 201.222

205.727

148

107.441

116.212 162.251 170.432 177.390 183.573 185.440 190.938 196.062 202.390

206.907

149

108.291

117.098 163.300 171.507 178.485 184.687 186.560 192.073 197.211 203.557

208.086

150

109.142

117.985 164.349 172.581 179.581 185.800 187.678 193.208 198.360 204.723

209.265

151

109.994

118.871 165.398 173.655 180.676 186.914 188.797 194.342 199.509 205.889

210.443

152

110.846

119.759 166.446 174.729 181.770 188.026 189.915 195.476 200.657 207.054

211.620

153

111.698

120.646 167.495 175.803 182.865 189.139 191.033 196.609 201.804 208.219

212.797

154

112.551

121.534 168.543 176.876 183.959 190.251 192.150 197.742 202.951 209.383

213.973

155

113.405

122.423 169.591 177.949 185.052 191.362 193.267 198.874 204.098 210.547

215.149

169

156

114.259

123.312 170.639 179.022 186.146 192.474 194.384 200.006 205.244 211.710

216.324

157

115.113

124.201 171.686 180.094 187.239 193.584 195.500 201.138 206.390 212.873

217.499

158

115.968

125.090 172.734 181.167 188.332 194.695 196.616 202.269 207.535 214.035

218.673

159

116.823

125.980 173.781 182.239 189.424 195.805 197.731 203.400 208.680 215.197

219.846

160

117.679

126.870 174.828 183.311 190.516 196.915 198.846 204.530 209.824 216.358

221.019

161

118.536

127.761 175.875 184.382 191.608 198.025 199.961 205.660 210.968 217.518

222.191

162

119.392

128.651 176.922 185.454 192.700 199.134 201.076 206.790 212.111 218.678

223.363

163

120.249

129.543 177.969 186.525 193.791 200.243 202.190 207.919 213.254 219.838

224.535

164

121.107

130.434 179.016 187.596 194.883 201.351 203.303 209.047 214.396 220.997

225.705

165

121.965

131.326 180.062 188.667 195.973 202.459 204.417 210.176 215.539 222.156

226.876

166

122.823

132.218 181.109 189.737 197.064 203.567 205.530 211.304 216.680 223.314

228.045

167

123.682

133.111 182.155 190.808 198.154 204.675 206.642 212.431 217.821 224.472

229.215

168

124.541

134.003 183.201 191.878 199.244 205.782 207.755 213.558 218.962 225.629

230.383

169

125.401

134.897 184.247 192.948 200.334 206.889 208.867 214.685 220.102 226.786

231.552

170

126.261

135.790 185.293 194.017 201.423 207.995 209.978 215.812 221.242 227.942

232.719

171

127.122

136.684 186.338 195.087 202.513 209.102 211.090 216.938 222.382 229.098

233.887

172

127.983

137.578 187.384 196.156 203.602 210.208 212.201 218.063 223.521 230.253

235.053

173

128.844

138.472 188.429 197.225 204.690 211.313

213.311 219.189 224.660 231.408

236.220

174

129.706

139.367 189.475 198.294 205.779 212.419 214.422 220.314 225.798 232.563

237.385

175

130.568

140.262 190.520 199.363 206.867 213.524 215.532 221.438 226.936 233.717

238.551

176

131.430

141.157 191.565 200.432 207.955 214.628 216.641 222.563 228.074 234.870

239.716

177

132.293

142.053 192.610 201.500 209.042 215.733 217.751 223.687 229.211 236.023

240.880

178

133.157

142.949 193.654 202.568 210.130 216.837 218.860 224.810 230.347 237.176

242.044

179

134.020

143.845 194.699 203.636 211.217 217.941 219.969 225.933 231.484 238.328

243.207

180

134.884

144.741 195.743 204.704 212.304 219.044 221.077 227.056 232.620 239.480

244.370

170

181

135.749

145.638 196.788 205.771 213.391 220.148 222.185 228.179 233.755 240.632

245.533

182

136.614

146.535 197.832 206.839 214.477 221.251 223.293 229.301 234.891 241.783

246.695

183

137.479

147.432 198.876 207.906 215.563 222.353 224.401 230.423 236.026 242.933

247.857

184

138.344

148.330 199.920 208.973 216.649 223.456 225.508 231.544 237.160 244.084

249.018

185

139.210

149.228 200.964 210.040 217.735 224.558 226.615 232.665 238.294 245.234

250.179

186

140.077

150.126 202.008 211.106 218.820 225.660 227.722 233.786 239.428 246.383

251.339

187

140.943

151.024 203.052 212.173 219.906 226.761 228.828 234.907 240.561 247.532

252.499

188

141.810

151.923 204.095 213.239 220.991 227.863 229.935 236.027 241.694 248.681

253.659

189

142.678

152.822 205.139 214.305 222.076 228.964 231.040 237.147 242.827 249.829

254.818

190

143.545

153.721 206.182 215.371 223.160 230.064 232.146 238.266 243.959 250.977

255.976

191

144.413

154.621 207.225 216.437 224.245 231.165 233.251 239.386 245.091 252.124

257.135

192

145.282

155.521 208.268 217.502 225.329 232.265 234.356 240.505 246.223 253.271

258.292

193

146.150

156.421 209.311 218.568 226.413 233.365 235.461 241.623 247.354 254.418

259.450

194

147.020

157.321 210.354 219.633 227.496 234.465 236.566 242.742 248.485 255.564

260.607

195

147.889

158.221 211.397 220.698 228.580 235.564 237.670 243.860 249.616 256.710

261.763

196

148.759

159.122 212.439 221.763 229.663 236.664 238.774 244.977 250.746 257.855

262.920

197

149.629

160.023 213.482 222.828 230.746 237.763 239.877 246.095 251.876 259.001

264.075

198

150.499

160.925 214.524 223.892 231.829 238.861 240.981 247.212 253.006 260.145

265.231

199

151.370

161.826 215.567 224.957 232.912 239.960 242.084 248.329 254.135 261.290

266.386

200

152.241

162.728 216.609 226.021 233.994 241.058 243.187 249.445 255.264 262.434

267.541

201

153.112

163.630 217.651 227.085 235.077 242.156 244.290 250.561 256.393 263.578

268.695

202

153.984

164.532 218.693 228.149 236.159 243.254 245.392 251.677 257.521 264.721

269.849

203

154.856

165.435 219.735 229.213 237.240 244.351 246.494 252.793 258.649 265.864

271.002

204

155.728

166.338 220.777 230.276 238.322 245.448 247.596 253.908 259.777 267.007

272.155

205

156.601

167.241 221.818 231.340 239.403 246.545 248.698 255.023 260.904 268.149

273.308

171

206

157.474

168.144 222.860 232.403 240.485 247.642 249.799 256.138 262.031 269.291

274.460

207

158.347

169.047 223.901 233.466 241.566 248.739 250.900 257.253 263.158 270.432

275.612

208

159.221

169.951 224.943 234.529 242.647 249.835 252.001 258.367 264.285 271.574

276.764

209

160.095

170.855 225.984 235.592 243.727 250.931 253.102 259.481 265.411 272.715

277.915

210

160.969

171.759 227.025 236.655 244.808 252.027 254.202 260.595 266.537 273.855

279.066

211

161.843

172.664 228.066 237.717 245.888 253.122 255.302 261.708 267.662 274.995

280.217

212

162.718

173.568 229.107 238.780 246.968 254.218 256.402 262.821 268.788 276.135

281.367

213

163.593

174.473 230.148 239.842 248.048 255.313 257.502 263.934 269.912 277.275

282.517

214

164.469

175.378 231.189 240.904 249.128 256.408 258.601 265.047 271.037 278.414

283.666

215

165.344

176.283 232.230 241.966 250.207 257.503 259.701 266.159 272.162 279.553

284.815

216

166.220

177.189 233.270 243.028 251.286 258.597 260.800 267.271 273.286 280.692

285.964

217

167.096

178.095 234.311 244.090 252.365 259.691 261.898 268.383 274.409 281.830

287.112

218

167.973

179.001 235.351 245.151 253.444 260.785 262.997 269.495 275.533 282.968

288.261

219

168.850

179.907 236.391 246.213 254.523 261.879 264.095 270.606 276.656 284.106

289.408

220

169.727

180.813 237.432 247.274 255.602 262.973 265.193 271.717 277.779 285.243

290.556

221

170.604

181.720 238.472 248.335 256.680 264.066 266.291 272.828 278.902 286.380

291.703

222

171.482

182.627 239.512 249.396 257.758 265.159 267.389 273.939 280.024 287.517

292.850

223

172.360

183.534 240.552 250.457 258.837 266.252 268.486 275.049 281.146 288.653

293.996

224

173.238

184.441 241.592 251.517 259.914 267.345 269.584 276.159 282.268 289.789

295.142

225

174.116

185.348 242.631 252.578 260.992 268.438 270.681 277.269 283.390 290.925

296.288

226

174.995

186.256 243.671 253.638 262.070 269.530 271.777 278.379 284.511 292.061

297.433

227

175.874

187.164 244.711 254.699 263.147 270.622 272.874 279.488 285.632 293.196

298.579

228

176.753

188.072 245.750 255.759 264.224 271.714 273.970 280.597 286.753 294.331

299.723

229

177.633

188.980 246.790 256.819 265.301 272.806 275.066 281.706 287.874 295.465

300.868

230

178.512

189.889 247.829 257.879 266.378 273.898 276.162 282.814 288.994 296.600

302.012

172

231

179.392

190.797 248.868 258.939 267.455 274.989 277.258 283.923 290.114 297.734

303.156

232

180.273

191.706 249.908 259.998 268.531 276.080 278.354 285.031 291.234 298.867

304.299

233

181.153

192.615 250.947 261.058 269.608 277.171 279.449 286.139 292.353 300.001

305.443

234

182.034

193.524 251.986 262.117 270.684 278.262 280.544 287.247 293.472 301.134

306.586

235

182.915

194.434 253.025 263.176 271.760 279.352 281.639 288.354 294.591 302.267

307.728

236

183.796

195.343 254.063 264.235 272.836 280.443 282.734 289.461 295.710 303.400

308.871

237

184.678

196.253 255.102 265.294 273.911 281.533 283.828 290.568 296.828 304.532

310.013

238

185.560

197.163 256.141 266.353 274.987 282.623 284.922 291.675 297.947 305.664

311.154

239

186.442

198.073 257.179 267.412 276.062 283.713 286.016 292.782 299.065 306.796

312.296

240

187.324

198.984 258.218 268.471 277.138 284.802 287.110 293.888 300.182 307.927

313.437

241

188.207

199.894 259.256 269.529 278.213 285.892 288.204 294.994 301.300 309.058

314.578

242

189.090

200.805 260.295 270.588 279.288 286.981 289.298 296.100 302.417 310.189

315.718

243

189.973

201.716 261.333 271.646 280.362 288.070 290.391 297.206 303.534 311.320

316.859

244

190.856

202.627 262.371 272.704 281.437 289.159 291.484 298.311 304.651 312.450

317.999

245

191.739

203.539 263.409 273.762 282.511 290.248 292.577 299.417 305.767 313.580

319.138

246

192.623

204.450 264.447 274.820 283.586 291.336 293.670 300.522 306.883 314.710

320.278

247

193.507

205.362 265.485 275.878 284.660 292.425 294.762 301.626 307.999 315.840

321.417

248

194.391

206.274 266.523 276.935 285.734 293.513 295.855 302.731 309.115 316.969

322.556

249

195.276

207.186 267.561 277.993 286.808 294.601 296.947 303.835 310.231 318.098

323.694

250

196.161

208.098 268.599 279.050 287.882 295.689 298.039 304.940 311.346 319.227

324.832

300

240.663

253.912 320.397 331.789 341.395 349.874 352.425 359.906 366.844 375.369

381.425

350

285.608

300.064 372.051 384.306 394.626 403.723 406.457 414.474 421.900 431.017

437.488

400

330.903

346.482 423.590 436.649 447.632 457.305 460.211 468.724 476.606 486.274

493.132

450

376.483

393.118 475.035 488.849 500.456 510.670 513.736 522.717 531.026 541.212

548.432

500

422.303

439.936 526.401 540.930 553.127 563.852 567.070 576.493 585.207 595.882

603.446

173

550

468.328

486.910 577.701 592.909 605.667 616.878 620.241 630.084 639.183 650.324

658.215

600

514.529

534.019 628.943 644.800 658.094 669.769 673.270 683.516 692.982 704.568

712.771

650

560.885

581.245 680.134 696.614 710.421 722.542 726.176 736.807 746.625 758.639

767.141

700

607.380

628.577 731.280 748.359 762.661 775.211 778.972 789.974 800.131 812.556

821.347

750

653.997

676.003 782.386 800.043 814.822 827.785 831.670 843.029 853.514 866.336

875.404

800

700.725

723.513 833.456 851.671 866.911 880.275 884.279 895.984 906.786 919.991

929.329

850

747.554

771.099 884.492 903.249 918.937 932.689 936.808 948.848 959.957 973.534

983.133

900

794.475

818.756 935.499 954.782 970.904 985.032 989.263 1001.630 1013.036 1026.974 1036.826

950

841.480

866.477 986.478 1006.272 1022.816 1037.311 1041.651 1054.334 1066.031 1080.320 1090.418

100
0

888.564

914.257 1037.431 1057.724 1074.679 1089.531 1093.977 1106.969 1118.948 1133.579 1143.917

174

175