The design-build design process is one of the most difficult functions to manage because of its iterative nature and the large numbers of interdependent activities that must be aligned with the construction schedule. Consequently, designers and project managers often become frustrated at the time spent in iterative loops and rework cycles throughout the design process. Unlike the construction industry, which has created a professional career path around construction management, a similar standardized practice or protocol has not been established for managing the design process.
Most contractors have many years of experience managing construction challenges, such as labor, sub contracts, materials and equipment. However, on design-build projects, the design process is one more vital resource they often must manage as the controlling entity. Unfortunately, most contractors have little experience managing design; and designers themselves often struggle to deliver procurement and construction-level information in accordance with an integrated design-build schedule.
”Design management” does not mean managing how designers actually perform design. Instead, it is about managing how the design process unfolds and — most critical — how information is developed, shared and utilized among collaborating team members.
One of the things that make managing design so difficult is that design and construction are two very different processes. Construction is a sequential process in which progress can be readily observed and performance can be measured.
You can see the materials, equipment and manpower, and you don’t have to complete the construction task. If you don’t have what you need, then you don’t proceed with the construction task. Design is different, as the complex process is not sequential and instead progresses through iterative work cycles, with the integration of new information along the way, creating loops of design decisions that may need to be re-visited several times over. Furthermore, design progress does not always manifest itself in the form of a physical output, so it is very difficult to see progress and measure performance in a meaningful way. Fundamentally, you cannot manage what you cannot see.
Because of its complexity, design seemingly occurs in a mysterious black box into which we place information, and after some magical process, out pops data, plans and specs that meet the client’s needs.
In design-bid-build, it may be OK to think of design as nothing more than plans and specs, because they are complete before construction begins. How the design process unfolds and is managed inside that mysterious black box has no real impact on construction delivery. However, on a design-build project, when design, budgets, schedules, performance and quality all get mixed together as a single, integrated contract obligation, it is crucial to find out what goes on inside that black box, because the design process impacts every other deliverable. Unless we can manage it, we cannot manage any other components of the project.
Information Identity
What goes on inside that black box is an information transfer, and if we can identify what information is needed to complete a design task, then we can manage its flow. If we manage information flow, we manage the design process.
If we redefine the design deliverable as a series of information inputs and outputs, then we are able to see what we have and what we don’t have available and make proactive decisions that will move the design forward. We are no longer measuring design performance as an arbitrary percentage of completed plans and specifications. Design is now observable as information outputs and may include memos, narrative descriptions, reports, calculations, meeting minutes, risk registers, sketches or other forms of communication besides plans and specifications. A design manager can monitor whether information necessary to produce a design element is in place, thus ensuring that architects and engineers get the information they need, when they need it, and the design efforts can be better coordinated to align with procurement needs and construction sequencing.
Shifting Paradigms
To really understand how to best manage design in design-build we must first clearly recognize design-build project management as uniquely different from traditional project management. Although we still use many standard project control methodologies to manage construction, the design-build project management team must accept broader accountability. For one thing, we no longer simply manage the project. Instead, we manage an integrated process comprised of overlapping design and construction functions. The primary objective is to define and monitor a repeatable procedure that, when executed, behaves predictably and consistently delivers a quality project on schedule and within budget. Therefore, we must find ways to manage and measure design performance against targeted results, including tasks completed, deliverables produced and responsibilities performed. However, we first must create a plan for executing the design, just as we create a plan for executing construction.
New Tools and Techniques
Once we clearly recognize design-build as an integrated process intended to optimize project performance across all contract deliverables and design as a series of information outputs and not just plans and specs, we can apply appropriate tools and techniques for managing design.
In 2000, Analytical Design Planning Technique (ADePT™) was developed. It’s a new planning methodology to specifically allow design information to be managed in the context of design-build projects. Already widely used in the United Kingdom, where design-build contracts are the norm, other parts of Europe, Dubai, Australia and leading U.S. design-build teams have adopted it as well. Available software tools allow quick and easy implementation on projects both large and small.
ADePT uses a matrix approach to account for the iterative, information-driven nature of design and produces design schedules which integrate design disciplines with cost checking, approval, procurement and construction processes. The technique then ensures that the delivery of design information is controlled, and the design disciplines’ performances are measured in terms of their ability to deliver information as required.
ADePT methodology is a comprehensive design management approach that is comprised of four distinct and very important stages.
Defined Scope
The first stage defines the scope of the design process and dependencies among activities by creating a work breakdown structure for design, similar to what contractors typically create for construction. Although a time consuming process, the design activities that occur on any given project are actually quite repetitious, and it is possible to define the design process generically, with more than 90 percent of a project’s activities pre-defined. ADePT software tools incorporate a generic process model of design activities and information dependencies that enable large, complex design processes to be generated quickly and simply by the project team using a unique wizard.
Process Sequencing
In the second stage, the process sequence is determined based on the dependencies among activities and the iteration within the process. A sequence of activities displayed in a matrix is calculated, which minimizes the iteration in the design process and ensures any assumptions the team must make can be made with confidence. This is achieved by weighting the dependencies among activities. The calculation of a sequence, including clusters of inter-related tasks, prioritizes the availability of information outputs associated with the most critical dependencies.
The interdependent, iterative groups of activities which remain in the process following sequencing are typically multi-disciplinary. They represent points in the design process where design team members should collaboratively focus their attention to solve interdependent problems and engage their construction team members around “hot spots” requiring more intense coordination.
Scheduling
In the third stage the sequenced design process must be represented in a schedule so that design delivery dates can be seen alongside construction and procurement target dates and the entire process can be coordinated. ADePT software tools do not provide an actual schedule, but they enable two-way import/export with widely used project management applications — most notably Primavera, ensuring that the schedules are recognized and accepted by the project team.
Design Workflow Control
Integrating the design, procurement and construction schedules does not mean that the design will automatically be delivered as promised. As a result, the fourth stage is where the design process is monitored and workflow controlled. All too often, the design process deviates from the agreed schedule, forcing the entire project plan off track. It is then almost impossible to implement action to get the process back to the target schedule, and the deviation increases to the point where the schedule is meaningless. Many conventionally planned projects suffer from this problem, which contributes to the general lack of confidence in design and project schedules. Therefore, the design process must be controlled. ADePT incorporates process control techniques, based on lean production methods, which pre-empt deviation from the target schedule by analyzing constraints. This allows the schedule to be kept up-to-date and used in a meaningful way with potential risks to the project being mitigated in advance.
Facilitated Design Planning
“Design planning” is the key phrase with ADePT, as very little time is dedicated to planning as a design proceeds. This is due, in part, to the shortage of design knowledge within any single organization, and the fact that design teams are sometimes rushed into design production without adequate set up time after contract award. It also goes back to the idea that the design function is too complex to explain or manage. (Many assume it will just happen.) However, once we recognize the design process as a series of information inputs and outputs, creating a plan for the design begins to make sense. Teams can overcome the mystery associated with design by involving all design disciplines in the planning process to capture their combined knowledge and by planning the planning process itself so that it happens quickly after contract award (or preferably before it). Thus, a key design management role and accountability in design-build is the development of the design plan.
ADePT project applications demonstrate that the use of a facilitator, such as the integrated design manager, is very effective. The facilitator’s job is to engage the design team members at appropriate times and help them define the high-level organizational structure of the design plan, define the design scope, ensure that designers accept ownership of — and accountability for — design tasks and identify issues around the interfaces between design, procurement and construction. When this management task is properly performed, its result is a consistent and meaningful schedule.
The facilitator’s role is a skilled one, and it is not uncommon for the facilitator to come from outside the project team. Unfortunately, they cannot expect that all team members are going to recognize the benefit in contributing to the design planning process — or even the need for a design schedule. The facilitator will ideally have a balanced project understanding, a general understanding of the planning and design process and the ability to foster positive and collaborative contributions from team members. The design planning process should begin with a project characteristics workshop with the team to identify concerns, challenges, risks and opportunities associated with the project design from multiple perspectives. Feedback reveals that most team members benefit greatly from this, contrary to popular belief that team members often do not share the same understanding of the project scope and priorities around design decisions.
Once the design plan is fully fleshed out, team members agree to their individual scope of responsibilities, and the team is focused on the information inputs needed to progress the design forward and not on the deliverables. One of the underpinning principles of ADePT is that consideration of all combined design requirements in one plan will dictate the optimal design sequence.
Again and Again
One of the biggest challenges associated with design planning and management is the iterative nature of the process. It is unavoidable. However, some iteration is positive and some negative. Negative iteration is reactive, unmanaged and results from simply undertaking design in the wrong sequence and making random assumptions, owing to lack of available information — the consequence being that decisions made earlier in a process have to be reworked even though the rework could have been avoided if key issues had been considered at the right time. Conversely, positive iteration is proactive and involves advancing design on the basis of an assumption in the full knowledge that through attempting a solution, more will become known about the problem and thus, an optimum solution can be generated.
The key is to identify areas of critical iteration so the design-build team can make deliberate, calculated decisions about how best to manage them. ADePT identifies iteration within the design process so the team can agree on tactics to manage the concurrent work on any given interdependent design problem. Each issue is thought about in turn, and an appropriate approach can be properly documented and put in place. This helps focus the design team on these iterative coordination problems and provides a guide for undertaking the work during each period of concurrent working. Once we can see the iteration, we can manage it.
Design, Procure, Construct
When integrating a design schedule with a construction/procurement schedule, design information and document release dates must be tied to required procurement and construction deliverables. Rarely does all the required design information meet with target construction dates. This gap usually causes the design team to make assumptions in order to “fix” the design so it can be expedited to meet the construction schedule. This is risky if done haphazardly. However, assumptions and their effects can be observed in the ADePT matrix stage to ensure that only the necessary ones are made. Just as important, these are collective — not unilateral — decisions and are not left implicit by one party.
Managing and Measuring
When managing a design project it is important to understand where the process deviates from the schedule as a result of constraints so action can be taken.
A result of implementing ADePT is biweekly reports on forthcoming activities (information inputs and outputs) for each design team member. These “to-do” lists are much easier for the design team to digest than a detailed schedule, which may have been changed in fairly subtle ways.
At the end of each work/plan period, the design team reports progress as a percentage of work complete and also notes the status of constraints. The meaningless delivery of 30, 60 or 90 percent complete documents under the traditional approach is no longer relevant. (Consider this with Building Information Modeling in mind, and the fragility of using documentation to demonstrate levels of design completion should become clearer.) The maturity of the information that represents the design is what demonstrates its true level of completion. Overall design progress is generally measured in two ways: the proportion of activities due for completion, which are completed (the percentage planned complete) and the proportion of activities due to proceed (which have been works in progress). The first of these measures is the most important, since it is only upon the completion of a design activity when all of its outputs are coordinated and advanced. This approach focuses the team on completing activities fully in a structured fashion that moves the design forward in coordination with procurement and construction as planned and agreed to as a team.
Go Forth and Manage Design
Managing design remains one of the most challenging aspects of the design-build process. However, there are significant benefits to be derived from the implementation of the ADePT approach, although none of this happens in a vacuum. As effective as the method is, it is still only a technique and a tool. Without the right design-build team, the project will still suffer from the fragmentation and mistrust that comes from the traditional adversarial attitude. The team must be design-build ready and mature enough to engage the technique in a collaborative, proactive fashion — ready to disclose and share information openly and accept direct accountability.
Barbara Jackson, John Steele and Paul Waskett will demonstrate the ADePT technique during their presentation “The Power of Integration — Tools and Techniques to Optimize Design and Construction Sequencing” in Las Vegas at the 2008 DBIA Conference & Exhibition, Nov. 5, at 9:15 a.m. For more information on the DB-Ready Team™ and ADePT™ contact Barbara Jackson at bjackson@calpoly.edu or John Steele at John.Steele@adeptmanagement.com.
Barbara Jackson is a professor in the Construction Management Department at Cal Poly State University; John Steele is Technology Operations Director, ADePT Management; Paul Waskett is Development Director, ADePT Management.