1525

Design and construction coordination problems

and planning for design–build project new users
Andrew S. Chang, Fang-Ying Shen, and William Ibbs

Abstract: Design–build (DB) is adopted as a project delivery method in hopes to improve performance. Previous studies
focus on upstream issues such as conditions for adoption and contractor selection, but few address the design and construc-
tion coordination issues that are very likely to be encountered in execution by new users. This paper investigates coordina-
tion problems arising from design and construction concurrence and solutions by studying five ongoing DB projects and
interviewing nine major contract parties. Inconsistent application of the design and construction process and infrequent
feedback are two major problems found to have high influence on DB execution. A work unit planning process with five
steps is presented in this paper to help better manage the design and construction coordination of a DB project.
Key words: design–build, design and construction concurrence coordination, project delivery method, constructability feed-
back, work unit planning.
Résumé : La conception-construction est utilisée comme méthode de livraison de projet en espérant améliorer le rende-
ment. Des études antérieures ont porté sur les questions en amont, telles que les conditions pour l’adoption et la sélection
des entrepreneurs, mais peu traitent des questions de coordination de la conception et de la construction qui seront proba-
blement rencontrées lors de l’exécution par de nouveaux utilisateurs. Le présent article traite des questions de coordination
découlant de la convergence de la conception et de la construction et des solutions en étudiant cinq projets de conception-
construction en cours et en interviewant neuf grands entrepreneurs. Une utilisation irrégulière du processus de conception-
construction et le peu de rétroaction sont deux problèmes principaux ayant une grande influence sur l’exécution de la mé-
thode de conception-construction. Un processus de planification par unités de travail comportant cinq étapes est présenté
dans cet article afin d’aider à mieux coordonner le processus de conception-construction d’un projet.
Mots-clés : conception construction, coordination de la convergence conception-construction, méthode de livraison de pro-
jet, rétroaction sur la constructibilité, planification par unités de travail.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction large amounts of planning, communication, and experience.

Peña-Mora and Li (2001) stated that the advantages associ-
The design–build (DB) method brings many benefits to a ated with DB are not easy to realize with only ad hoc plan-
project, including singular responsibility, cost and time sav- ning. These authors also noted that the problems of planning
ings, quality improvement, and reduction in change orders and executing DB projects are not well understood, espe-
(BFC 1995; DBIA 1997). Studies have examined the use of cially for new users.
DB and its influence on projects (Ndekugri and Turner Under DB, the coordination and transfer of project infor-
1994; Yates 1995) and surveyed the industry to identify DB mation occurs earlier and with less definition than in tradi-
adoption and design-builder selection criteria (Songer et al. tional design–bid–build (DBB) projects. Project participants,
1996; Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy 2000). Other stud- especially new DB users, could not cooperate with each
ies have concluded that DB projects produced better per- other well owing to the lack of experience. The problems
formance (Konchar and Sanvido 1998; Ernzen and may also arise from the design and construction (DC) con-
Schexnayder 2000). currence that will not occur in DBB projects such as incom-
However, the DB project delivery system requires careful plete design information, unfamiliarity with DB process, and
planning and professional execution to be successful (DBIA lack of collaboration between the designer and constructor
1997). Williams (1995) stated that fast-track projects require (Terwiesch et al. 2002; Cheng and Tsai 2008).
Received 30 April 2009. Revision accepted 28 July 2010. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on 5 October
2010.
A.S. Chang and F.-Y. Shen.1 Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan City
701, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
W. Ibbs. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 213 McLaughlin Hall, UC Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 30 April 2011.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: sfangying@yahoo.com.tw).

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37: 1525–1534 (2010) doi:10.1139/L10-090 Published by NRC Research Press
1526
Some research focused on knowledge management and
information technologies to improve information processing
between participants (Abduh and Skibniewski 2003). For ex-
ample, a multicriteria decision system could help the selec-
tion of an effective alternative on construction design and
management, such as architectural design, contractor, and
project managers (Zavadskas et al. 2008; Šarka et al. 2008;
Turskis et al. 2009). A knowledge management system ena-
bles knowledge transfer and better communication among
stakeholders and enhances value engineering practices
(Dave and Koskela 2009; Zhang et al. 2009). But for DB
projects, design and construction are often done by different
companies, and they may not be willing to store and retrieve
information through the same management system (Chi-
nowsky and Rojas 2003).
There is also the issue of increased project intensity
(amount of work at any given time) that necessarily stems
from design and construction being done concurrently. Adler
(1995) indicated that the relationship between design and
manufacturing becomes an important variable when time to
market is compressed. Terwiesch et al. (2002) pointed out
that tasks being completed in parallel by relying on prelimi-
nary information from other tasks frequently cause rework.
Project participants with different experiences, concepts,
goals, and practices contribute to more inconsistencies
(Peña-Mora and Tamaki 2001).
Because few studies address the DC concurrence prob-
lems of DB projects and because these problems are gener-
ally coordination issues, this paper aims to investigate DB
project coordination problems arising from design and con-
struction concurrence, analyze the degree of influence each
problem has, and propose a work unit planning method as a
solution to help new users avoid the preventable problems.
Coordination has been considered as a major factor for
achieving success (Pocock et al. 1996; Thomas et al. 1998;
Chua et al. 1999). Understanding and targeting coordination
problems provide a foundation for better DB project execu-
tion.
Background of studied DB projects
This research studied five ongoing civil and architecture
DB projects as cases (see Table 1). These five subway proj-
ects include detailed design and construction of station, tun-
nel (boring or cut-and-cover), and overpass. The contract
lump-sum prices of DB projects are between $143 million
and $267 million and durations between 49 and 59 months.
These durations are shorter than similar Taipei DBB projects
completed earlier. The five DB projects were essentially on
schedule, with 80% of design and 20% of construction com-
pleted when interviewed at the early stage; they progressed
with 100% of design and more than 80% of construction
completed at the latter interview. They bypassed competitive
bidding, with five design-builders selected by the private
owner. The five design-builders are large constructors (but
were inexperienced in DB projects, as revealed during inter-
views). They are mostly joint ventures by Taiwanese and
Japanese construction companies, and all hired major Taiwa-
nese engineering consulting firms for design. In the begin-
ning, the DB projects did not go smoothly and it took time
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
for the designers and constructors to get along with each
other.
The DB projects come from the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid
Transit (KMRT) BOT Program in Taiwan. The total KMRT
program budget is about $5.3 billion and divided into 15
major civil and architecture projects with stations and tun-
nels as well as 10 core electrical and mechanical (E&M)
projects such as trackwork, signaling, and communications.
The DB is used for the detailed design and construction of
all 15 civil and architecture projects including the five case
projects.
The KMRT program organization is shown in Fig. 1. The
KMRT Department (KMRTD) is the government owner, and
Kaohsiung Rapid Transit Corporation (KRTC) is the BOT
concessionaire. The KMRTD hired a quality and safety con-
sultant to inspect KRTC’s work. The KRTC hired four ma-
jor consultants individually for conceptual design,
construction project management, core E&M integration, as
well as operation and maintenance evaluations. Each of the
15 civil and architecture design-builders signed, as a single
entity, a DB contract with KRTC and they are also named
constructors in this paper. The design was about 50% com-
plete at the time that the design-builders were hired.
Research methodology
The case study method was used to understand and ana-
lyze coordination problems of DC concurrence of five on-
going DB projects. Although five may seem like a small
number of case studies for research purposes, when investi-
gated deeply they are enough to describe the phenomena
and build theories (Eisenhardt 1989). External validation
can still be assured by convergent answers and comparisons
with the major interviews with the design-builders as well as
the remaining auxiliary interviews to support the studied
subject contexts (Yin 2003). The problems identified later
in this paper are mainly resulted from the DB system and
inexperienced users, not from the differences of the studied
projects or companies. Therefore, the number of cases is ac-
ceptable.
The DB literature was first reviewed, relevant project
documents were collected and read, and interviews were
conducted with the project participants. The documents in-
clude contracts, correspondence, meeting minutes, construc-
tion plans, and monthly reports. Since the DB projects under
the KMRT program are complex and many parties are in-
volved, 23 interviews were conducted at two stages to gain
complete perspectives. With two or three interviewees par-
ticipating, each interview took about 1.5 h and notes were
taken. The interviewees are senior managers of relevant par-
ties and project (deputy) managers of the design-builders
with experience of more than 20 years.
At the early stage in February 2003, the first five inter-
views were conducted with the management parties of
KRTC, KMRTD, and three consultants, because they were
involved in contract awarding and understood the conditions
of the studied DB projects. The interviews explored the de-
sign and construction performances, conflicts between con-
ceptual and detailed design, management methods of the
design-builders, and different perspectives of the designers
and constructors.
Published by NRC Research Press
Chang et al. 1527

Table 1. Background of five studied DB projects.

Progress (%)
Early stage Later stage
Project $ (million) Duration (months) Design Construction Construction Construction work Design-builders
A 143 50 84 23 91 Station and tunnel Japan and Taiwan
B 223 50 81 22 91 Station and tunnel Taiwan and Malaysia
C 216 49 79 19 83 Station and tunnel Japan, Taiwan, and Taiwan
D 181 50 81 20 85 Station and overpass Taiwan
E 267 59 80 18 82 Station and tunnel Taiwan and Japan

Fig. 1. Organization of the case projects.

After answers from these parties were reviewed and situa-
tions clarified, two sets of questions were prepared to inter-
view the execution parties: the design-builders (see
Appendix). In December 2003, nine interviews were con-
ducted with design-builders, first five designers and then
four constructors. After the nine interviews, it was found
that their answers to design and construction concurrence
problems were similar and converged. Also, because the
fourth and fifth constructors came from the same company,
the interview with the fifth constructor was skipped.
In January 2004, KMRTD, KRTC, and the three consul-
tants were interviewed again to confirm or clarify the results
from the design-builder interviews. Information collected
from these interviews was compiled, analyzed, and com-
pared. Since these DB projects were executed by a BOT
program, some of the observations may have been caused
by the BOT mechanism, not just the DB delivery system,
and are noted below.
At the later stage, a five-step work unit planning method,
helping divide the project work into smaller units systemati-
cally to enhance coordination between design and construc-
tion, was proposed to address the identified DC concurrence
problems. In September 2006, the four design-builders were
interviewed again. They were asked to evaluate the five
steps and effects of the planning method on DC problems
and whether similar steps (could) have been adopted in their
DB project execution.
Problem analyses and results
The interview questions in the Appendix are related to co-
ordination and information transfer. To make them simple,
the number of questions was minimized and basically the
same for designers and constructors. Sub-questions were
added for the designers, since their role in DB projects is
quite different from that in traditional DBB projects. The
first question asks about conceptual design that is the input
to and influential on the DC process. Questions 2 and 3 con-
cern the DC interaction consistency and feedback, which are
important functions in DB projects. Question 4 probes the
DC difficulty and the time and cost impact on the project.
Question 5 seeks information about design changes and con-
flicts, because previous studies claim that DB minimizes
such.
The views about DC coordination of the five designers
and four constructors are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, re-
spectively. Coordination problems are seen as arising from
inadequate planning and execution. The former includes a
high level of conceptual design completion. The latter in-
cludes inconsistent DC amounts, a long review process, and
little feedback between designer and constructor. Moreover,
the consequence of inadequate DC coordination includes
time and cost increase as well as design change and con-
flicts. They are explained below. More detailed information
is cited from the interview records throughout the remainder
of this paper.
High conceptual design completion
Both designers and constructors believed that conceptual
design was overly completed on these projects when de-
tailed design was started. On projects A and D (Question 1
in Table 2), 50% of all design was finished before the de-
tailed design package was awarded. The designer for project
D stated that the amount of detailed design work would

Published by NRC Research Press

1528 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Table 2. Designer views about DC coordination.

Questions Project A Project B Project C

1.1 Conceptual design level
1.2 Influence of conceptual
design
2.1 How to plan design
2.2 Design amount match
construction amount
3.1 Design review process
3.2 Feedback between design
and construction
4.1 Difficulty for DC concur-
rence
4.2 Time, cost, quality affected
5.1 Reasons for design changes
5.2 Dealing with design
construction conflicts
40% for cut and cover, 60%
for tunneling
Higher completion makes
detailed design simpler
Follow construction schedule
Design chases construction
Too many reviews
Constructor gives opinions
to designer
Feasible
Time increased by 30–40%, cost
increased 10–20%, quality is
the same
Design drawings not consistent
with construction
Many conflicts, design changed
for construction
Adequate conceptual design
level
Hard to deal with when conceptual Should incorporate design-
design does not conform to builder’s needs
design criteria
Meet construction needs Follow construction plan
and schedule
Yes Almost
Review frequent,
review process long
Constructor asks for design revi- Feedback to each other
sion if feasible and cost allows
Need more engineers in the be- Design fragmented
ginning
Time increased, hard to control Time and cost increased
quality significantly
Construction demands Owner change,
such as improved layout
Few conflicts,
construction is the first priority

Table 3. Constructor views about DC coordination.

Questions Project A Project B

1. Influence of conceptual design level 40% complete Design should be finished
Detailed design will be easier if 60% done Some factors are not considered
Basic problems should be solved
2. DC concurrence difficulty Not easy Difficult
Design chases construction progress Hard to control schedule
3. Feedback to designer Not much Not much
4. Time, cost, quality affected Hard to estimate Hard to estimate

5. Dealing with DC conflicts Not clear Solved by coordination meeting

have been the same no matter how much of the conceptual
design was completed. On the other hand, the designer and
constructor for project A (Table 3) stated that detailed de-
sign was simpler when there was a higher level of concep-
tual design completion at the time of the detailed design
contract’s award, but they hoped to avoid conflicts between
the two designs.
Before KRTC awarded the DB contracts, KMRTD di-
rected conceptual design for 16 months and therefore its
completion level was quite high. The intention was to save
time in subsequent detailed design. However, the result was
problematic. Most notably, extra analysis and design on
quality and safety standards of functions and operations
were required. These extra conceptual designs reduced de-
tailed design flexibility and eventually hindered construc-
tion. This higher level of conceptual design was mainly
caused by the BOT mechanism.
Lower levels of conceptual design at time of detailed de-
sign award allow greater flexibility and optimization in de-
tailed design, as well as minimize the conflicts and changes
between the two designs (DBIA 1997; Molenaar et al.
1999). American Consulting Engineers Council (1994) and
Fredrickson (1998) suggest 35% design completion or less
at award.
Inconsistent DC amounts
The second question addresses how to plan design activ-
ities to match construction. All the interviewed designers
voiced the belief that design should comply with construc-
tion and follow the construction schedule, which seems ob-
vious (Table 2). However, in some cases, design was chased
by construction progress. For example, one constructor, after
finishing the station foundation, was awaiting the detailed
design of walls. This observation is not too surprising, since
the designers were subcontractors to the design-builders.
On the other hand, the contractors believed that the design
amount rarely matched the construction needs (Question 2 in
Table 3). One explanation for this may be that the inter-
views were conducted early in construction, when not
enough design was finished and DC cooperation was not
functioning well. In some situations, construction was de-
layed because designers did not know the onsite schedules
of suppliers. Either the contractor did not manage the ven-
dors properly or did not provide schedule information to the
design subconsultant. Because it is the constructor’s respon-
sibility to inform the designer of such construction needs, an
effective DC concurrence planning and execution mecha-
nism is needed. These needs come out of the DB delivery
mechanism.

Published by NRC Research Press

Chang et al. 1529

Project D Project E Summary

40–50% Level high, should be reduced Level of conceptual design is too high

Should be minimized because of the Different conceptual and detailed design Functional requirements and external
same amount of detailed design work concepts add extra work constraints should be clearer

Attach to construction time Comply with construction process Design should comply with construction

Hard to match in the beginning Exceed construction Design can match construction

Review process is too long Review process is too long

Constructor gives ideas to designer Designer gives idea to constructor Feedback exists, but informal and ad hoc

No problem Hard to control time Difficulty exists but can be overcome

Time increased 25%, cost 10%, Negative on time, cost, and quality Time increased more, cost increased,
quality the same quality not affected

Owner’s or constructor’s demand Construction mistakes or condition change Design changes according to construction

Design complies with construction No conflict Conflicts exist

Project C Project D Summary

Completeness is too high
Constant conflicts between conceptual
design specs and construction specs
Not easy
Construction stops when design not finished
Yes, provide construction methods
Time increased by 20%
Cost increased by 20%
Quality remains the same
A few conflicts
Detail design follows conceptual design Level of conceptual design is too high
No right to change design Conceptual design problems should be solved
OK DC concurrence difficult
Design amount hard to match construction
Yes, provide construction ideas Little and ad hoc feedback
Time no difference Time and cost increased little
Cost increased by 3–5% Quality the same
Quality no difference
No conflicts Few conflicts, but can be resolved

Long review process
All designers complained about the long review process
requested by KRTC. To feed construction’s needs, the de-
tailed design work was divided into many smaller units or
work packages but some of which were not approved or ap-
proved conditionally owing to integration consideration. Re-
view was conducted for each of these units, and some
reviews took as long as 2.5 months. Overall, it took 18
months to complete the design work, whereas these design-
ers estimated that it would normally take about 15 months.
In addition, problems that occurred in the review proce-
dure and with the reviewers also lengthened the review
process. The project design manual stipulated for review of
the design documents, by whom, and in what sequence. But
KRTC sent many documents to many departments and con-
sultants for review. The conceptual designer also played a
strict gatekeeper role for the owner KRTC. Many comments
were given to designers, but some of them were inappropri-
ate for DB projects.
Because it was the first time for participants to execute
such a large BOT program and because there were so many
DB projects underway at the same time, KRTC exercised
extra caution in the reviews, which lengthened the process.
The owners should have communicated earlier with design-
ers about the review procedure in terms of design task divi-
sion, reviewers in charge, and responsibilities. Immediate
and informal communication and trust between participants
are essential rather than formal and step-by-step submitted
instructions (Williams 1995).
Little feedback between designer and constructor
Feedback between the detailed designers and contractors
existed but it was informal, ad hoc, and in numerous cases
insufficient according to both the designers and constructors
(Tables 2 and 3). Designers of projects A, B, D, and E indi-
cated that they only received one-way instructions from the
constructors. The feedback process was further complicated
by the fact that the designers and constructors were located
and worked in two different cities.
The interaction between designers and constructors was
infrequent. The routine was that the designer finished and
sent certain drawings to the constructor for review, approval,
and construction. Designers generally only inquired about
review status when they could see that the constructor had
problems with construction or supplier materials. Only a
few constructors provided construction ideas to their design-

Published by NRC Research Press

1530
ers, and when they did so, it was informal, which was diffi-
cult for the designers. Many detailed design considerations
were not consistent.
The advantages of DB projects cannot be fully exploited
if the information feedback loop is not working well be-
tween the designer and constructor. The situation is aggra-
vated if the designer is not experienced with
constructability and the constructor just meekly follows the
design drawings. The DB delivery system should provide a
mechanism for mutual feedback and collaboration (Cheng
and Tsai 2008).
Increased time and cost
All the designers stated that individual design time and
cost were increased but quality was not affected (Question
4 in Table 2). Two apparent reasons are the design adjust-
ment based on construction and the long review process.
Design activities had to be adjusted to respond to construc-
tion needs, and these adjustments resulted in additional time
and cost. The contractors repeatedly held the designers to a
high standard of using economical materials or methods,
which created time pressures and complicated the designers’
efforts to innovate and optimize design or improve quality
(Williams 1995).
As shown in Table 3, the constructors thought time and
cost increased slightly, but quality was not affected. Under
intense project schedule pressures, the constructors could
not allow the designers to spend much time in optimizing
design. When they did allot more design phase time for
such optimization, they would increase equipment or work-
force to accelerate construction phase duration.
Incomplete or unoptimized design information increases
cost (Terwiesch et al. 2002). However, these constructors
were generally in the position to control design work devel-
opment and the designers, so only some cost increase re-
sulted. Under strict supervision of the KMRTD-hired safety
and quality consultant, construction quality was controlled in
the traditional way and was not notably influenced.
The above individual design and construction cost in-
creases are consistent with findings by Ibbs et al. (2003).
The design times for these projects had small time increases
compared to the overall total DC time. Quality of both the
design and the construction work on these DB projects was
considered to be consistent with other DBB projects.
Design change and conflicts
The designers knew that DC conflicts existed but yielded
to construction because construction was the first priority. In
the view of the designers (Table 2), design changed accord-
ing to construction because of owner’s demand, condition
change, or inconsistency. For example, the size of ventilation
shaft was decreased owing to KRTC’s space consideration;
drawings were modified on account of construction condi-
tions or mistakes. On the other hand, the constructors felt
that conflicts were few and resolvable if existed (Table 3).
These results indicate the following. (1) Design changes
still exist, and in many cases the designer absorbs them at
his own cost rather than request a change order. (2) The con-
structor is in a better position to deal with conflicts. Under
proper circumstances, such conflicts can be managed by the
constructor to reduce change and its impact to the designer
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
(Ibbs et al. 2003). Peña-Mora and Tamaki (2001) character-
ize these as ‘‘underground’’ change orders, for instance.
Practical implications
The analyses in the previous section indicate that some dif-
ficulty or problems come from the inexperience of design-
builders in DB practice or the influence of BOT, and not
so much from the DB process itself. Upon further investi-
gation, we found that the constructors planned construction
work and prepared Critical Path Method (CPM) schedules
while the designers focused on their own detailed design.
The design and construction were executed separately with-
out close cooperation. This phenomenon is really a prob-
lem for new users of DB methods.
As summarized in Table 2 (Question 4), the five design-
ers in this study indicate that difficulties with DC concur-
rence existed but could be overcome. The contractors
agreed that DC concurrence was not easy and that it is diffi-
cult to match design amount with construction (Table 3).
This DC concurrence problem deserves a systematic solu-
tion.
The problems discussed are summarized and solutions are
suggested in Table 4. Among these six problems, the incon-
sistent DC amounts and little feedback have the highest
level of influence for DB projects, as analyzed in the prior
section. The inconsistent DC amounts generally will not
happen in traditional DBB projects because designers fre-
quently dominate the project contractually. The construc-
tion-oriented design or constructability imposed by the DB
method places designers in more of a subordinate role, and
this makes it more difficult to stick to their original design.
On the other hand, feedback is not provided in traditional
DBB, but the separation in time between the design and
construction phases may allow the parties sufficient time to
deal with it. Conversely, it is harder for the DB method to
deal with this feedback issue on account of the reduced
amount of project duration and the concurrency of design
and construction.
To overcome these two problems, formal and systematic
planning and execution guidelines are needed. Work unit
planning is helpful in this regard, as proposed and discussed
in the next section.
Ibbs et al. (2003) argue that project management expertise
and experience of design-builders may have a great impact
on DB performance. Lam et al. (2008) indicated that effec-
tive project management action including planning, commu-
nication, control, and organization structure is a critical
success factor for DB projects. Good general management
expertise may be enough to solve the less-serious problems.
For example, the owner follows the principle of not letting
conceptual design get too far ahead of detailed design (what
we call the ‘‘low design principle’’), perhaps by hiring a
consultant to manage this interface. The result is improved
cooperation between designer and constructor, and the par-
ties gain their own experience in DC concurrence.
Work unit planning as a solution
To solve the above DC coordination problems, this study
further developed a work unit (WU) planning method and
interviewed four design-builders to validate its effects. It is
Published by NRC Research Press
Chang et al.
Table 4. Problems with and solutions for DC coordination.
Problems Degree of influence
High conceptual design completion Low
Inconsistent DC amounts High
Long review process Low
Little feedback between designer and constructor High
Individual time and cost increase Low
Design change and conflicts Medium
Fig. 2. Work unit planning steps.
derived from task order planning for on-call contracting
projects (Chang and Ibbs 1998). The WU planning consists
of five steps as shown in Fig. 2: (1) divide the overall work;
(2) group tasks into WUs; (3) design the WU(i), where i
represents task number; (4) review and issue the WU(i);
and (5) construct and feedback. The five steps iterate until
all WUs are constructed. Table 5 shows how the five steps
of WU planning target the problems and the design-builders’
views on the effects of WU planning. They are explained
below.
Divide overall work
The first step in WU planning is to divide the overall
work into smaller, clearly identified tasks and determine du-
rations, resource needs, and relationships. The work break-
down structure (WBS) and master CPM schedule are then
produced. The overall CPM schedule covering all project
tasks is a very important and useful foundation for WU
planning.
Design and construction work should be planned by both
designers and constructors of the DB team. Joint planning
helps delineate clear work contents and sequence. Most in-
terviewed design-builders agreed that joint planning could
improve inconsistent DC amounts and reduce project time
(Step 1 in Table 5); however, it was not implemented be-
cause of tight schedules and different opinions from design-
ers. The constructor should take the lead in this regard
because construction schedule is key, while design schedule
is usually more flexible. In the five DB case projects, sched-
ule was determined by the constructors (design-builders); the
designers were only performing design work, and generally
1531
Solutions
Management expertise
Planning and execution guidelines
Management expertise
Planning and execution guidelines
Management expertise
Management expertise
were not involved in planning. The result is that the design
work was catching up to construction most of the time. The
problems of inconsistent DC amounts can be reduced if the
design and construction work is jointly planned and the next
execution steps are followed.
Group tasks into work units
After work is divided into tasks, the tasks need to be
grouped into WUs or work packages for design and con-
struction. Designers and constructors should work together
to define the scope of WUs. This joint planning is helpful
to reduce the problems of inconsistent DC amounts. The
scope of WUs is then smaller and easier to manage than the
whole DB project. This step is performed continually.
Grouping WUs should consider the constructor’s workload
and the nature of the design–construction interface to derive
adequate design and construction amounts. The supply of re-
sources such as workers and machines can be stabilized ac-
cordingly.
Since the design-builder knows his/her own needs, he/she
should take the lead in determining WU packages. The con-
structor’s management considerations should be supple-
mented by the designer’s technical knowledge and
experience, such as the relationships among design and con-
struction tasks.
Design work unit
This step further designs tasks within the WU and deter-
mines more detailed durations and resource needs. It is basi-
cally like Step 1 except the scope is smaller and the analysis
more detailed. Since WUs are already small compared with
Published by NRC Research Press
1532 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Table 5. Work unit planning targeting DC coordination problems and design-builder views.

Steps of WU planning Targeted problems Project A Project B

1. Divide overall work Inconsistent DC amounts Joint planning can solve the problem Joint planning is helpful to the pro-
Time and cost increase and reduce time blem, but its impact is not obvious
Schedule too tight to do it
2. Group tasks into WUs Inconsistent DC amounts Joint planning can solve the problem Joint planning is helpful to the problem

3. Design WU(i)
4. Review and issue WU(i)
5. Construct and feedback
Design change and con- Assign design reviewers
flicts Check all drawings
Long review process Clear definition of work packages can
improve, but not used
Little feedback Designer and constructor discussion
Assign design reviewers
Confirm design continually
Change is not allowed after design
to a certain point
Discussion with KRTC and detailed
design consultant
Design-builder takes lead in design

the whole project, they can be better designed so the subse-
quent change or conflict is reduced.
Project design freezing is an action taken to reduce
changes and change impacts during design. After planning
the project to a certain point, the scope is then frozen to al-
low detailed design to progress with less inefficiency and re-
work. This results in a shorter design time and maybe
shorter overall project duration. Design freezing is suggested
as a way to manage DC coordination while the WU plan-
ning has features similar to project design freezing (Chang
and Ibbs 1998). Design freezing is usually harder than it ap-
pears. For controlling design change and conflicts, most de-
sign-builders agreed that it is helpful not to change after
designing to a certain point, like design freezing (Step 3 in
Table 5). Besides, projects A and D assigned reviewers and
checked design drawings.
Designers should be proactive in this step and help by
providing input from the design perspective. One advantage
for the design-builder is that WU mechanism brings in a de-
sign manager for the original design work. But bringing in a
design manager does not imply that the designer does extra
work since he/she should plan for his/her design work any-
way. In addition, the designer gains more influence, perhaps
control over the planning process.
Review and issue work unit
Once the WU design is completed, it goes into Step 4,
review and issue for construction. Since the scope of the
WU is smaller and design is more complete, design review
is easier, and therefore a long review process can be
avoided. In Table 5, the design-builders agreed that work
units should be clearly defined (to shorten design review
time).
With individual WUs finished one by one, the design-
builder has time to review the design process and deliver-
ables for the preceding WUs, and think of better ways to
issue the subsequent WUs for construction. This is also
helpful to design review. Work interface is a consideration
for the design-builder when reviewing and issuing WUs.
This means, for instance, that the ease or difficulty of meet-
ing to discuss WUs will influence the size of the WUs. If
large distances separate the designer and constructor, the
WUs might be larger than otherwise recommended.
If a project’s overall plan or schedule has been accepted
in the beginning and kept updated and approved regularly,
it will be easier to review and issue WUs. The designer will
be able to follow a streamlined and balanced workflow with-
out awaiting approval every time from the design-builder.
Construct and feedback
After the design of the WUs is finished, the designs are
reviewed and issued for construction. This last step also col-
lects and analyzes construction information and feedback to
the subsequent WUs, so that they can take advantage of les-
sons learned. Construction experience or constructability
brings construction knowledge into design, which results in
improved DC coordination and reduces the DC concurrence
problem.
To improve the problem of little feedback, it is indicated
in Table 5 that the designer and constructor should have in-
ternal discussions and the constructor should provide con-
struction sequence to the designer before design. The
designer may have opinions that are different from the con-
structor, which is helpful to the DC coordination.
By way of the feedback mechanism, the executability of
individual WUs is continually transmitted to the whole
project, which in turn helps shorten execution time and
raise productivity and project success. For example, after
the prior WU is constructed, the design-builder may find
that certain construction means and methods save time or
cost. That information can then be incorporated into subse-
quent WUs. Since the whole DB project is executed under
sequential WUs, each WU’s execution results are fed back
to the project for evaluation, which can help avoid
mistakes and improve the performance of future WUs.
The designers and constructors are continually learning
during the WU execution process through this feedback
mechanism.
Overall, the work unit planning method is helpful to solv-
ing DC coordination problems. Although not completely va-
lidated, the steps to plan and execute DB projects are
accepted by the interviewed design-builders. The design-
builders actually indicated that some steps such as ‘‘divide
overall work’’ and ‘‘construct and feedback’’ were used on
their projects but to a lesser degree. For example, the overall
work was divided into smaller tasks but without being iden-
tified clearly, and designers did not join the planning. Feed-
back between designers and constructors had been more
than with traditional DBB projects, but its frequency could
be increased.

Published by NRC Research Press

Chang et al. 1533

Project C Project D Summary

Joint planning can solve the problem and
good for the project
Joint planning can solve the problem and
good for the project
Change is not allowed after design to a
certain point
Hold review meetings and limit attendants
Provide construction sequence
Judge design based on experience
Joint planning could solve the problem and
reduce time
Designers do not agree
Joint planning could solve the problem
Change is not allowed after design
to a certain point
Its effect is not obvious
Clear definition of work packages is good
for the project
Construction feedback, designers might not
accept it
Joint planning could solve the problem and
reduce project time
Joint planning could solve the problem
Change is not allowed after design
to a certain point
Work units should be clearly defined
Designer and constructor discussion
Provide construction sequence to designer

Conclusions DB. Participants of DB projects must have the capability

Adoption of the DB project delivery method has increased
in recent years. Many studies address the upstream issues of
this method such as identifying advantages, conditions for
adoption, and design-builder selection. However, DC con-
currence will be the core in execution after the DB contract
is awarded. We know from the manufacturing industry of
concurrent engineering that if information is not transmitted
effectively between designer and constructor, advantages of
the DB will not be realized.
This research studied DC coordination problems on five
DB projects, and proposed a work unit planning method to
guide the coordination. By analyzing these projects, coordi-
nation problems were found to arise from inadequate plan-
ning and execution. The former includes a high level of
conceptual design completion. The latter includes inconsis-
tent DC amounts, a long review process, and little feedback
between designer and constructor. Moreover, the conse-
quence of inadequate DC coordination includes time and
cost increase as well as design change and conflicts. Two
problems have a major influence on DB execution. The first
is inconsistent DC amounts. It is difficult, yet important, for
the design amount to match construction progress (a paced
issue). The second problem is little feedback. Typically,
feedback between the designers and constructors is little, in-
formal, and ad hoc.
Generally, these problems are not as pronounced on tradi-
tional DBB projects because of separate design and con-
struction. Although they occurred in the DB projects
studied in this research, the degree of their influence on DC
execution varied. Formal planning and execution guidelines
as well as good management expertise are needed to solve
or minimize the problems.
The WU planning method is proposed as a way to handle
the identified problems. It consists of five steps: divide over-
all work; group tasks into WUs; design; review and issue;
and construct and feedback. How the five steps of WU plan-
ning reduce the individual problems are explained. The WU
planning is a systematic way to minimize DC coordination
problems, particularly those of inconsistent design and con-
struction amounts and design change and conflicts.
Although only five case projects were available to study,
these problems are very likely to be encountered by new
users of other DB projects. Not resolving these problems
will undercut management’s efforts to reap the benefits of
and experience in design and construction coordination.
Although the cases used in this study are from subway proj-
ects, the investigated DC concurrence problems and pro-
posed WU planning method are the same for other types of
large DB projects. Therefore, the findings are generally ap-
plicable to all types of construction projects, with some dif-
ference in application complexity.
References
Abduh, M., and Skibniewski, M.J. 2003. Utility assessment of elec-
tronic networking technologies for design-build projects. Auto-
mation in Construction, 12(2): 167–183. doi:10.1016/S0926-
5805(02)00042-0.
Adler, P.S. 1995. Interdepartmental interdependence and coordina-
tion: the case of the design/ manufacturing interface. Organiza-
tion Science, 6(2): 147–167. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.147.
American Consulting Engineers Council. 1994. Design/build posi-
tion statement. ACEC, Washington, D.C.
BFC. 1995. Report on design-build as an alternative construction
delivery method for public owners. Building Futures Council,
Georgetown, Md.
Chang, A.S., and Ibbs, C.W. 1998. On-call contracting strategy and
management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 14(4): 35–
44. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1998)14:4(35).
Cheng, M.Y., and Tsai, M.H. 2008. Cross-organization process in-
tegration in design-build team. Automation in Construction,
17(2): 151–162. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2006.12.002.
Chinowsky, P.S., and Rojas, E.M. 2003. Virtual teams: guide to suc-
cessful implementation. Journal of Management in Engineering,
19(3): 98–106. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2003)19:3(98).
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C., and Loh, P.K. 1999. Critical success fac-
tors for different project objectives. Journal of Construction En-
gineering and Management, 125(3): 142–150. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:3(142).
Dave, B., and Koskela, L. 2009. Collaborative knowledge manage-
ment — a construction case study. Automation in Construction,
18(7): 894–902. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.03.015.
DBIA. 1997. Design-build process for civil infrastructure projects.
Design-Build Institute of America, Washington, D.C.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research.
Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550. doi:10.2307/
258557.
Ernzen, J.J., and Schexnayder, C. 2000. One company’s experience
with design/build: labor cost risk and profit potential. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 126(1): 10–14.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:1(10).

Published by NRC Research Press

1534
Fredrickson, K. 1998. Design guidelines for design-build projects.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 14(1): 77–80. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1998)14:1(77).
Ibbs, C.W., Kwak, Y.H., Ng, T., and Odabasi, A.M. 2003. Project
delivery systems and project change: quantitative analysis. Jour-
nal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(4): 382–
387. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:4(382).
Konchar, M., and Sanvido, V. 1998. Comparison of U.S. project
delivery systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, 124(6): 435–444. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1998)124:6(435).
Lam, E.W.M., Chan, A.P.C., and Chan, D.W.M. 2008. Determi-
nants of successful design-build projects. Journal of Construc-
tion Engineering and Management, 134(5): 333–341. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:5(333).
Molenaar, K.R., Songer, A.D., and Barash, M. 1999. Public-sector
design/build evolution and performance. Journal of Management
in Engineering, 15(2): 54–62. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-
597X(1999)15:2(54).
Ndekugri, I., and Turner, A. 1994. Building procurement by design
and build approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 120(2): 243–256. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1994)120:2(243).
Palaneeswaran, E., and Kumaraswamy, M.M. 2000. Contractor se-
lection for design/build projects. Journal of Construction Engi-
neering and Management, 126(5): 331–339. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:5(331).
Peña-Mora, F., and Li, M. 2001. Dynamic planning and control
methodology for design/build fast-track construction projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(1):
1–17. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:1(1).
Peña-Mora, F., and Tamaki, T. 2001. Effect of delivery systems on
collaborative negotiations for large-scale infrastructure projects.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(2): 105–121. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2001)17:2(105).
Pocock, J.B., Hyun, C.T., Liu, L.Y., and Kim, M.K. 1996. Rela-
tionship between project interaction and performance indicators.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(2):
165–176. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1996)122:2(165).
Šarka, V., Zavadskas, E.K., Ustinovičius, L., Šarkiene, E., and
Ignatavičius, C. 2008. System of project multicriteria decision
synthesis in construction. Technological and Economic Develop-
ment of Economy, 14(4): 546–565. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.
2008.14.546-565.
Songer, A., Molenaar, K., and Robinson, G. 1996. Selection factors
and success criteria for design-build in the U.S., and U.K. Jour-
nal of Construction Procurement, 2(2): 69–82.
Terwiesch, C., Loch, C.H., and Meyer, A.D. 2002. Exchanging pre-
liminary information in concurrent engineering: alternative coor-
dination strategies. Organization Science, 13(4): 402–419.
doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.402.2948.
Thomas, S.R., Tucker, R.L., and Kelly, W.R. 1998. Critical com-
munications variables. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 124(1): 58–66. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1998)124:1(58).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E.K., and Peldschus, F. 2009. Multi-criteria
optimization system for decision making in construction design
and management. The Engineering Economist, 1(61): 7–17
Williams, G.V. 1995. Fast track pros and cons: consideration for
industrial projects. Journal of Management in Engineering,
11(5): 24–32. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1995)11:5(24).
Yates, J.K. 1995. Use of design/build in E/C Industry. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 11(6): 33–38. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0742-597X(1995)11:6(33).
Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: design and methods. Sage,
London.
Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Tamosaitiene, J., and Marina, V.
2008. Multicriteria selection of project managers by applying
grey criteria. Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, 14(4): 462–477. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.462-
477.
Zhang, X., Mao, X., and Abourizk, S.M. 2009. Developing a
knowledge management system for improved value engineering
practices in the construction industry. Automation in Construc-
tion, 18(6): 777–789. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.03.004.
Appendix. Interview questions
For the designers
1. What is the level of conceptual design completion?
How will the completion of conceptual design influence de-
tailed design?
2. How do you plan and arrange design work to match
construction needs? Is the designed amount in tune with
construction needs?
3. How is the design review process executed? How are
design lessons fed back to the constructor?
4. What are the difficulties for the design and construction
concurrence? How does design cost, time, or quality af-
fected compare with traditional design projects?
5. What are the reasons for design changes? How do you
deal with design and construction conflicts?
For the constructors
1. How will the completion of conceptual design influ-
ence construction?
2. What are the difficulties for the design and construction
concurrence?
3. How are construction lessons fed back to the designer?
4. How is construction cost, time, or quality affected by
design construction concurrence compared with traditional
construction projects?
5. How do you deal with the design and construction con-
flicts?
Published by NRC Research Press