International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running

Design and Build Projects in Construction

Edmond W.M. Lam, Albert P.C. Chan & Daniel W.M. Chan

To cite this article: Edmond W.M. Lam, Albert P.C. Chan & Daniel W.M. Chan (2007)
An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running Design and Build Projects in
Construction, International Journal of Construction Management, 7:1, 1-15, DOI:
10.1080/15623599.2007.10773091

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2007.10773091

Published online: 10 Feb 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 76

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20

Download by: [University of Saskatchewan Library] Date: 12 June 2016, At: 20:16
 An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running Design and
The International Journal of Construction Management
Build Projects (2007) 1 - 15
in Construction 1

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON THE PROBLEMS OF

RUNNING DESIGN AND BUILD PROJECTS IN
CONSTRUCTION
Edmond W.M. LAM1, Albert P.C. CHAN2 and Daniel W.M. CHAN3

Department of Building and Real Estate, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
E-mail: bselam@inet.polyu.edu.hk

Abstract
The drawbacks of the traditional design-bid-build procurement system (design then build) have led
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

project participants in the construction industry to opt for alternative procurement systems, like design-
build (D&B) (design and build) to deliver their projects. Previous research reported the better time
performance of the D&B method and the benefits of the single-point contact from the contractor. While
D&B has been popularly used in some western countries, the identification of problems in running
D&B projects can arouse the concern of project stakeholders, namely, clients, contractors and consultants,
especially in countries where D&B is at a germinating stage. This paper presents the empirical findings
on the problems of running D&B projects from the perspectives of clients, contractors and consultants.
Inter-group comparisons reveal that there is generous consensus in problem ranking in the client-consultant
and contractor-consultant groups, while significant differences exist between the clients and the contractors
on the ranking exercise. Based on a better understanding of the problems faced by the major participants
in running D&B projects, the authors suggest further research on identifying the critical success factors
for D&B projects in order to enhance the well being of the construction industry at large.

Keywords
Procurement, design-build, problems, cross-comparison, construction, Hong Kong

INTRODUCTION

Design-build (D&B) is one popular alternative procurement method in the UK as it seeks less
adversarial and more integrated project procurement strategies (Palaneeswaran and
Kumaraswamy, 2001). In fact, D&B has been used over the world extensively for around 40
years and its popularity has gained substantially over the last ten years (Ernzen and
Schexnayder, 2000). More significant moves towards D&B are evident from statistics and
examples from the UK, USA and Australia (Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy, 2001). In
Japan, 10% of construction projects are acquired through D&B and the method is also gaining
popularity in Singapore (Chan et al., 2001; Lip, 2001).

In the last decade, D&B has been used extensively in Hong Kong to help deal with the problems
associated with the traditional procurement method (Chan, 2000). Three forms of variants,
namely pure D&B, enhanced D&B and novation D&B are most widely used. The pure form
requires the contractor to accept total responsibility for both the design and construction to
meet the requirements of the client (Lam, 1998). The enhanced D&B enables the client to
ensure the conformance of the basic design to his requirements by retaining control of the
initial design whereas the contractor under novation D&B is required to employ the same
team of consultants after the award of contract (Chan, 2000; Ng and Skitmore, 2002). While
the pure D&B form is normally used for simpler building types like residential buildings, the
 2 Lam, Chan and Chan

enhanced and novation forms apply to more complex buildings like hospitals and
slaughterhouses. Previous research reported the benefits of the D&B method, and the
identification of problems in running D&B projects can enable project stakeholders, namely,
clients, contractors and consultants to run D&B projects more efficiently.

This paper investigates the problems associated with running D&B projects. It first provides
an overview of the potential problems in running D&B projects. The techniques used in
analyzing the responses from a questionnaire survey are then explained. The results from the
statistical analyses on the ranking of problems and the cross-comparison of the responses are
presented, followed by rigorous discussions of the results. The paper ends by recommending
further research on determining the critical success factors for D&B projects in the conclusion
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

section.

LITERATURE REVIEW OF PROBLEMS IN RUNNING D&B PROJECTS

Despite the global use of D&B over the last two decades, the management skills of applying
the D&B method to specific project types and situations are still inadequate (Konchar et al.,
1997). Chritamara and Ogunlana (2001) classified the major risks of running D&B projects in
terms of technical, financial and environmental aspects. A comprehensive literature review on
the potential problems in running D&B projects can be found in Chan et al. (2000) and the
problems can be best portrayed at different stages of a D&B project, namely the pre-construction
stage and the construction stage.

Problems at the pre-construction stage

Unclear project scope with insufficient innovative ingredients
In D&B projects, the client is highly demanded to state the project requirements clearly;
otherwise, the opportunity for disputes and variations will be increased due to incomplete
documentation (Lam, 2000). Such client competency is related to the experience of the client,
which may be deficient in some client organisations. In fact, it is the inadequate client’s brief
that is more likely to be the major problem for most D&B projects (Dulami et al., 1995).
Moreover, the tender document is rigidly prepared and there is little room for innovative ideas
(Tao, 1996).

Deviation of contractors’ proposals from the client’s requirements

At tender stage, the D&B contractor works in association with the designers for the project
proposal and so the D&B tenderers may come up with alternatives which do not exactly
follow the client’s requirements (Foo et al., 1999). The problem may be complicated when the
client’s brief is ambiguous and no communication of the client’s precise wishes is conveyed
to the contractor (Masterman, 2002). Such poor communication may consequently lead to
misunderstanding of the client’s requirements (Akintoye and Fitzgerald, 1995). In the tender
assessment of D&B projects, different proposals in terms of designs, materials and service
equipment may be received and it is difficult for the client to compare the proposals with the
client’s requirements, which involves a large amount of subjective judgment (Lam, 2000). It
is also difficult to establish guidelines and adjustments for tender assessment of D&B projects
since tenderers offer different designs and the assessment cannot be made solely by the lowest
price (Works Bureau, 1999). Moreover, the ambiguities of responsibilities usually arise from
the various contract documents for a D&B project and the procurement type between the
client and the D&B contractor may be different from that between the D&B contractor and
the sub-contractor, which can bring about confusions in design responsibilities (Lewis, 1999).
 An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running Design and
Build Projects in Construction 3

Problems at the construction stage

Inexperience of project participants with unclear roles and objectives
The contractors are inexperienced in managing the design team and design process when
compared with the designers (Smith, 1996). As a result, the lack of design planning results in
insufficient information being available to complete the design tasks and conflicts on
construction documents. The liability issues under D&B are also inherently more complex
and the incomplete documentation by the design team calls for attention to better design
management (Dulami et al., 1995). Since the contractor works with the project participants at
both the design and construction stages, the control of the client on the design quality of the
project will be reduced (Mo and Ng, 1997). Some clients employ design professionals as their
representatives. The traditional role of the design professionals to protect the interests of the
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

client is lost, leading to a reduction of client’s control during construction in case the client is
busy with other business activities (Smith, 1996; Works Bureau, 1999). In D&B projects, the
single point entity requires the design professionals to work closely with the contractor who
becomes the employer of the design teams. As a result, the design consultants may be involved
in serious conflict of interest situations such as the change in design with an increase in cost
(Smith, 1996). Some project team members may not be clear enough about their roles and
responsibilities, and the contractor cannot take up the role as the team leader to control their
consultants (Ling et al., 2000).

Frequent changes on tight time schedule

In D&B projects, it is possible that changes are initiated by the client during construction
since the scope may not be clearly defined at project initiation (Ernzen and Schexnayder,
2000). The layered structure of design approval process for government D&B projects also
provides rooms for variations (Lewis, 1999). In a large multi-client organisation, clients and
end-users may make decisions and changes with conflicting views of priorities which can
lead to confusion and delays (Dulami et al., 1995). The frequent change of mind of end-users
may also disturb the progress of the construction work, and delays may occur as a result of
late approval from the related statutory organizations (Foo et al., 1999). While some changes
in requirements are inevitable, each change may cause delay and consequential costs (Pearson
and Skues, 1999). To achieve the time benefit of D&B, the design consultants have to provide
the service within a tight time schedule and so project time for design and construction may
not be sufficient (Akintoye and Fitzgerald, 1995). Fast tracking pressures may be exerted on
design which is cited as being one of the main reasons for quality deviations in D&B projects
(Dulami et al., 1995). During construction, it may not be possible for the project participants
to explore deeper into the design brief for better ideas, and the various services installations
may not be properly coordinated (Tao, 1996).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This paper presents some interim findings of an on-going study on developing a conceptual
model of success for design-build projects in the public sector of Hong Kong. The questionnaires
were piloted to the target D&B participants in the Hong Kong construction industry from
January to March 2003, and a reminder was sent in one month’s time in case the participants
forgot to reply. The respondents were instructed to rate the problem attributes that the D&B
project had brought to them and other project participants. Sixteen problem attributes were
identified in the literature and refined from a pilot study implemented at a previous stage
(Table 1).
 4 Lam, Chan and Chan

Table 1 Results on mean ranking and ‘intra-group’ comparisons for the problems in running D&B projects
Nr Problem Item All Client Contractor Consultant
respondents Group Group Group
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
1 It was difficult to get a consensus of the client’s 8.76 7 6.76 13 9.80 5 8.73 8
requirements from the different interpretations of the
project participants
2 It was hard to understand the client’s requirements of this 6.32 15 5.50 15 7.36 9 5.50 15
project
3 There was conflict of interests between design team 10.43 5 11.71 2 9.12 6 11.30 2
members and the contractor
4 D&B contractors were not competent at design issues 7.49 9 8.74 8 6.53 12 7.93 9
5 It was difficult to control design quality in this project 6.88 12 7.39 11 6.09 13 7.57 11
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

6 It was difficult to control workmanship in this project 7.13 11 9.79 4 5.66 16 7.27 12
7 Frequent changes were introduced by various clients 10.29 4 9.45 6 11.26 4 9.59 5
8 Frequent changes were introduced by various end-users 11.11 2 9.50 5 11.95 2 11.11 3
9 The schedule was tight
10 There was no room for innovation in this project 14.13 1 14.66 1 14.46 1 13.34 1
11 It was difficult to compare contractor’s proposal with the 8.80 6 9.13 7 8.35 7 9.16 6
client’s brief 7.35 10 5.74 14 6.85 11 9.11 7
12 Stress was placed on the project from the client 11.10 3 10.18 3 11.86 3 10.71 4
13 There was ambiguity in allocating the responsibilities in 7.88 8 7.84 10 8.04 8 7.70 10
the contract
14 The various service installation was poorly coordinated 6.52 14 8.61 9 5.77 15 6.11 14
15 The project participants were unclear about their roles in 6.83 13 6.95 12 6.88 10 6.70 13
D&B
16 The scope for this D&B project was ill-defined 4.96 16 4.05 16 6.01 14 4.18 16
Number 84 19 37 28
Results

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) 0.284 0.348 0.360 0.284

Level of significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H0: The ratings of problems of the respondents are unrelated to each other

Demography of data
As there is no public release on the list of D&B contractors, the respondents were selected
from local journals and web-pages of the client, contractor and consultant companies to identify
the respondents who should have experience in running at least one D&B building project in
the public sector of Hong Kong. Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy (2003) also adopted similar
strategies in the knowledge mining of their procurement studies. The survey questionnaires
were sent to 248 target D&B participants in the construction industry of Hong Kong between
January and April 2003 by ordinary postal mail. In total, 92 valid responses were received,
with a response rate of 41%. The respondents represented major stakeholders in a D&B project.
Almost half of the respondents (43%) worked in the contractor organisations while nearly
one-quarter (24%) worked for the clients. One third of the respondents (33%) came from
consultant organisations: architectural firms (11%), quantity surveying consultancy firms
(10%), engineering consultancy firms (10%) and project management consultancy firms (2%).

Methods of data analysis

Mean ranking
Sixteen problem attributes in running D&B projects identified from literature review in the
construction industry were included in the survey. In public sector projects, the clients and the
end-users are two separate bodies. In the questionnaire, the term ‘clients’ refers to ‘client’s
representatives’ who act as coordinators of various end-users. ‘End-users’ are the users of the
D&B project. The method of determining the mean scores of attributes to conduct ranking
exercise has been employed by previous researchers, like Chan et al. (2003) who investigated
 An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running Design and
Build Projects in Construction 5

the potential problems of project partnering in construction. The technique of mean ranking
has been applied in the current study. The respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement
about each problem attribute on a seven-point Likert scale, where 1 represents ‘Strongly
Disagree’ and 7 represents ‘Strongly Agree’. The sum of the ranks is calculated by the mean
times a weighting generated by the SPSS software assigned to the rank and so it is possible
that then mean ranks are greater than 7. The seven-point Likert scale was adopted to avoid
‘neutral’ responses and to differentiate the difference in perceptions of the project participants
on the ranking exercise. The mean ranking for each problem was calculated in order to determine
the relative ranking of different problems in descending order of importance.

In order to compare the pattern of ranking of the problems in running D&B projects by the
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

respondents, the following null hypotheses (H0) have been put forward for substantiation:

1) The ratings of problems are unrelated among all respondents and within each
respective group.
2) There is no significant difference in the pattern of ranking of the individual problem
between the clients and the contractor-consultant group.
3) There is no significant disagreement on the rankings of problems in the client-
contractor, client-consultant and contractor-consultant groups.

Three statistical tests, namely independent- samples t-test, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance
(W) and the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient (rs) were used to test the above
hypotheses in the survey.

Independent- samples t-test

In applying the D&B method, the design consultants work closely with the contractor on
design issues while other project management consultants work for the client to manage the
D&B project. Therefore, the data were re-grouped into the adjusted client group and adjusted
contractor group to compare the mean scores on the problems in running D&B projects. The
independent-samples t-test is used to compare the mean scores of each individual problem
between any two populations, in the current research, the adjusted client group and adjusted
contractor group. ‘H0’ is the null hypothesis, which states that there is no significant difference
between the mean scores of the problem rating between the adjusted client and contractor
groups. If the value obtained is less than the specified level of significance, say P = 0.05 or
P = 0.01 used in testing the set of hypothesis, the null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded
that the two populations are different (Pavkov and Pierce, 2001).

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W)

Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) is used to measure the agreement among different
sets of rankings by different groups. This was adopted in the research in order to investigate
the level of agreement among the three major parties, namely, client, contractor and consultant,
in ranking the problems of D&B projects, A high or significant value of W indicates that
different parties are essentially applying the same standard in ranking the attributes (Chan et
al., 2003). If there is a complete lack of consensus within a particular group on the ranking of
the problems under study, W will be zero.

Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient (rs )

The agreement between any two parties on their rankings of the problems of running D&B
projects can be measured by the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient (rs). This method
was adopted in the research so as to cross-compare the relative importance of the problems
 6 Lam, Chan and Chan

from the different perceptions of the client-contractor, client-consultant and contractor-

consultant groups. The value of +1 indicates a perfect linear correlation while negative values
indicate negative correlations (Chan, 1998).

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) and the Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient
(rs) were used to determine the ranking of D&B problems from the perceptions of clients,
consultants, and contractors. While the Kendall method conducts an ‘intra-group’ comparison
within the same group of respondents, the Spearman method goes for an ‘inter-group’
comparisons with any two separate groups of respondents and the computation was performed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

RESULTS

The main stakeholders of D&B projects are, namely, clients, contractors and consultants. Of
the 92 responses received, 22 were solicited from the client organisation, 40 from the contractor
organisation and 30 from the consultant organisation. However, not all respondents provided
a complete set of answers to the list of the problems, and thus the total numbers of the client,
contractor and consultant respondents used in the analysis of the problems in running D&B
projects were adjusted to 19, 37 and 28 respectively. The mean scores were calculated by the
SPSS package and the results of the ranking were shown in Table 1.

It was found that:

(1) ‘The schedule was tight’;
(2) ‘Frequent changes were introduced by various end-users’;
(3) ‘Stress was placed on the project from the client’;
(4) ‘Frequent changes were introduced by various clients’; and
(5) ‘There was conflict of interests between design team members and the contractor’
were considered as the top five problems of running D&B projects by the
respondents, whereas ‘It was hard to understand the client’s requirements of this
project’ and ‘The scope for this D&B project was ill-defined’ were considered the
least problematic.

In order to test whether the ratings of the problems in running D&B projects are unrelated
among all respondents and within each respective group, Kendall’s coefficients of concordance
(W) were computed for all respondents and within the groups of clients, contractors and
consultants respectively and the results are shown in Table 1. The null hypothesis that the
respondents’ ratings among the respondents and within the respective participant group on the
problems of running D&B projects are unrelated to each other was rejected at 0.000 significance
level. Thus it can be concluded that there is agreement among the respondents on the ranking
of the problems of running D&B projects at 0.000 significance level.

The independent-samples t-test was next employed to determine whether there is no significant
difference in the pattern of ranking of the individual problem between the adjusted client and
contractor groups, and the results were shown in Table 2.
 An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running Design and
Build Projects in Construction 7

Table 2 Comparison between adjusted client’s and contractors’ rankings on the D&B problem attributes
Nr Items T Significance Conclusion
1 It was difficult to get a consensus of the client’s requirements -1.803 0.075 Accept H0
from the different interpretations of the project participants
2 It was hard to understand the client’s requirements of this project -1.699 0.093 Accept H0
3 There was conflict of interests between design team members 2.417 *0.018 Reject H0
and the contractor
4 D&B contractors were not competent at design issues 2.533 *0.013 Reject H0
5 It was difficult to control design quality in this project 1.722 0.089 Accept H0
6 It was difficult to control workmanship in this project 2.968 #0.005 Reject H0
7 Frequent changes were introduced by various clients -2.382 *0.019 Reject H0
8 Frequent changes were introduced by various end-users -3.265 #0.002 Reject H0
9 The schedule was tight -1.990 0.052 Accept H0
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

10 There was no room for innovation in this project -0.509 0.612 Accept H0
11 It was difficult to compare contractor’s proposal with the client’s 0.270 0.788 Accept H0
brief
12 Stress was placed on the project from the client -2.174 *0.032 Reject H0
13 There was ambiguity in allocating the responsibilities in the
contract -0.312 0.756 Accept H0
14 The various service installation was poorly coordinated 2.317 *0.023 Reject H0
15 The project participants were unclear about their roles in D&B 0.292 0.771 Accept H0
16 The scope for this D&B project was ill-defined -2.006 *0.048 Reject H0
#
P<0.01(2-tailed); *P<0.05(2-tailed); T=t-statistic; H0=No significant difference in mean score

The independent-samples t-test shows that the adjusted client-contractor comparisons on the
eight problem attributes, namely (1) ‘There was conflict of interests between design team
members and the contractor’, (2) ‘D&B contractors were not competent at design issues’,
(3) ‘It was difficult to control workmanship in that project’, (4) ‘Frequent changes were
introduced by various clients’, (5) ‘Frequent changes were introduced by various end-users’,
(6) ‘Stress was placed on the project from the client’, (7) ‘The various service installation was
poorly coordinated’ and (8) ‘The scope for that D&B project was ill-defined’, were significant
at the specified significance level (P = 0.05 or P = 0.01). The null hypothesis that there is no
significance difference in the pattern of ranking between the adjusted client and the adjusted
contractor groups on these eight problem attributes was rejected at P = 0.05 or P = 0.01.

A further attempt was made to investigate whether there is any significant disagreement on
the rankings of problems in the client-contractor, client-consultant and contractor-consultant
groups by the Spearman rank-order correlation test (Table 3). Thus the null hypothesis is
accepted that no significant disagreement exists between clients and consultants, and contractors
and consultants on the ranking of problems in running D&B projects. However, significant
disagreement exists between clients and contractors on the ranking exercise.
Table 3 Comparison of Spearman rank correlation coefficients among the client-consultant,
contractor-consultant and client-contractor groups for D&B problems
Comparison rs Significance Conclusion
Client ranking versus contractor ranking 0.485 0.057 Reject H0
Client ranking versus consultant ranking 0.747 0.001 Accept H0
Contractor ranking versus consultant ranking 0.812 0.000 Accept H0
H0: No significant disagreement on the rankings of problems between any two respondents’ groups
 8 Lam, Chan and Chan

DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH RESULTS

In general, all respondents apply the same standard in ranking the problems of running D&B
projects, as illustrated in Table 1, where the results are all significant at P=0.000. The Kendall’s
coefficients of concordance (W) of the individual groups are greater in magnitude than the W
of all respondents, indicating that there is a stronger level of agreement within the individual
groups. This can be explained by the similar background of the respondents that influences
the perceptions of the respective group. The consultant group has generated a value for W the
same as that of all respondents, which may be explained by the more diversified categorisation
of the consultant respondents forming a miniature of all respondents.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

Top problems in running D&B projects

Results show ‘The schedule was tight’, ‘Frequent changes were introduced by various end-
users’, ‘Stress was placed on the project from the client’, ‘Frequent changes were introduced
by various clients’ and ‘There was conflict of interests between design team members and the
contractor’ as the top five problems in running D&B projects.

All participants ranked ‘the schedule was tight’ as the highest, which is a common problem in
the Hong Kong construction industry and as a result, stress was placed on the project from the
client, which results in the third problem by the client and contractor respondents and the
fourth by the consultant respondents. The consultants were harsh in approving the design by
the contractor (Chan et al., 2000). Frequent changes could be detrimental to D&B projects,
which were ranked the second and the fourth problems by the participants. Chan et al. (2000)
reported that the large number of end-users in a D&B office building made it time consuming
to deal with the different parties.

The contractor interviewees reported in the study claimed that there were abortive works
since design runs parallel with construction. For some public sector projects, such as the
hospital project, the end-users are the different departments with specific needs for operations.
If there is inadequate coordination among user departments, frequent changes may result,
which may produce ‘knock-on’ effects to the overall planning of the hospital if the changes
are critical. In fact, D&B can restrict the client from making changes to project requirements
once the tender is accepted (Akintoye, 1994). Indeed, changes may inhibit the smooth running
of the D&B method.

Traditionally, the designers work for the aesthetics aspect while the contractors focus on the
cost issue, which may sacrifice the quality of the D&B project. The architects no longer work
close to the client but work in the best interests of the contractor (Chan et al., 2000). The
design team members may find it difficult to work with the client’s objectives since the
contractor is in charge of the project. In fact, the Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA)
also revealed possible conflicts in engaging the architects in the D&B method, such as the
compromise of time and design, and a decreased cost with inferior quality (HKIA, 1998).

Similarities in rankings between clients and consultants

While a general agreement is observed from the respondents in ranking the problems, the
Spearman rank correlation coefficient demonstrates similar agreement in ranking between the
client and the consultant groups and the comparison is shown in Fig 1.
 An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running Design and
Build Projects in Construction 9
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

Figure 1 Comparing perceptions of clients and consultant on the problems of running D&B projects

The client and consultant groups consider ‘The schedule was tight’ and ‘There was conflict of
interests between design team members and the contractor’ as the foremost problems in running
D&B projects. The attempt to achieve design certainty has indeed exerted time pressure on
the design consultants (Chan et al., 2000). The lack of sufficient time indeed hinders the
consultants to produce good design solutions (Akintoye and Fitzgerald, 1995). The latter can
be explained by Pearson and Skues (1999) who claimed that it is difficult for the consultants
to criticize the employer, who is in fact the D&B contractor. However, the contractor
respondents ranked ‘There was conflict of interests between design team members and the
contractor’ as sixth. While the client and consultant respondents considered ‘D&B contractors
were not competent at design issues’ as a moderately important problem (ranked eighth and
ninth respectively), the contractors considered it less important (ranked twelfth) probably
because of the confidence of the contractor to produce a buildable design. Such findings
coincide with the research of Akintoye and Fitzgerald (1995) where architects were of the
opinion that D&B contractors generally lack imagination in design.
 10 Lam, Chan and Chan

The client and consultant respondents also agree that ‘Frequent changes were introduced by
various end-users’ and ‘Stress was placed on the project from the client’ as the more important
problems, ‘It was difficult to control design quality in this project’ as moderately important,
and ‘The scope for this D&B project was ill-defined’ as the least important. Akintoye and
Fitzgerald (1995) found out that consultants perceive D&B as involving sacrificing product
quality and design innovation. Chan (2000) also reported that the quality of project would be
lowered due to inadequate supervision of projects. Although both clients and consultants
considered ‘It was hard to understand the client’s requirements of this project’ as somehow
not important (ranked fifteenth), the contractors ranked it as the ninth important problem. As
the brief is drafted by the clients with the help of the consultants, it is not uncommon that both
parties spend their utmost effort in preparing an understandable and clear client’s brief. Chan
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

et al. (2000) also reported that it was hard to understand what should have been included in
the design development compared with a variation. The inaccuracies in the client’s brief are
even considered as one dispute area (Ndekugri and Turner, 1994).

Similarities in rankings between contractors and consultants

Comparing the computed rs, the level of agreement of the contractor-consultant group is stronger
than that of the client-consultant group in ranking the problems and Fig 2 depicts the level of
agreement in the contractor-consultant group.

Figure 2 Comparing perceptions of contractor and consultant on the problems of running D&B projects
 An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running Design and
Build Projects in Construction 11

The contractors and the consultants ranked ‘The schedule was tight’, ‘Frequent changes were
introduced by various end-users’ and ‘Stress was placed on the project from the client’ as the
major problems in running D&B projects. Indeed, D&B provides for design to be done at a
staggering speed into the construction stage (Akintoye, 1994). Moreover, this group of
respondents ranked ‘There was no room for innovation in this project’ and ‘There was ambiguity
in allocating the responsibilities in the contract’ as the moderate problems, and ‘The scope for
this D&B project was ill-defined’ as the less important problem. Indeed, the client hardly
gives contractors free hands in terms of design ideas and materials specifications (Akintoye,
1994).

While both contractors and consultants considered ‘It was difficult to control workmanship in
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

this project’ and ‘The various service installation was poorly coordinated’ as the less important
problems, the clients ranked them important and moderately important respectively. Chan et
al. (2000) reported that there is insufficient time for an architect to complete thorough design
and detailing for a D&B project. As the consultant works as a team with the contractor in the
D&B method, the client may find it difficult to control workmanship which is rather remote
from supervision. The two parties also work closely to coordinate the various services
installations to minimise operation problems whereas the client may not be satisfied with the
coordination. The client ranked ‘It was difficult to compare contractor’s proposal with the
client’s brief’ with low importance while the contractors and the consultants unanimously
classified it as a moderate problem. This is because the two parties are held responsible to
make sure that the client’s brief is strictly followed in drafting the proposal while the client
has systematic procedures to make sure the requirements are met.

Differences in rankings between clients and contractors

While there is no significant disagreement in ranking the problems by the client-consultant
and contractor-consultant groups, the Spearman rank-order correlation test justifies that there
is significant disagreement in ranking the problems by the clients and the contractors, which
is illustrated in Fig 3.

The independent-samples t-test provided preliminary results on the difference in ranking of

some problem attributes between the client and the contractor, which is further elaborated by
the Spearman rank-order correlation test to indicate that the client and contractor respondents
have difference in ranking the problems. Such result differs from that in Chan et al. (2000)
who grouped the problems and barriers as the drawbacks of the D&B method.

The clients ranked ‘There was conflict of interests between design team members and the
contractor’ and ‘It was difficult to control workmanship in this project’as important problems
while the contractors ranked them as moderately important and least important respectively.
This finding is consistent with the research work of Chan (2000) where the contractors also
ranked ‘poor workmanship’ as the least important. In fact, the client may agree that there is
conflict of interest between the designer and the contractor, which is essentially the single
D&B team that is too financially focused. The client may also suffer from poor workmanship
since the control is remote and the consultants can no longer safeguard the monitoring of the
works on its behalf.

By contrast, the clients ranked ‘It was difficult to get a consensus of the client’s requirements
from the different interpretations of the project participants’ and ‘It was hard to understand
the client’s requirements of this project’ as the least important while the contractors ranked
them as important and moderately important respectively. Ndekugri and Turner (1994)
 12 Lam, Chan and Chan
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

Figure 3 Contrasting perceptions of clients and contractors on ranking the problems of runnign D&B projects

identified conflicts between the brief and the contractor’s proposal as one dispute area. This is
because the scope of the D&B project is defined by the client, which, if drafted ambiguously,
may result in claims from the contractor. Moreover, disputes may be resulted from the different
interpretations of the project participants in the D&B team which is coordinated by the
contractor and the client may hold different views from those of the contractor.

The contractors considered ‘D&B contractors were not competent at design issues’ and ‘The
various service installations were poorly coordinated’ as the least important while the client
ranked them as moderately important. Chan et al. (2000) also reported that D&B contractors
were quite experienced but with poor design knowledge. This may result from the management
and leadership of the D&B contractor who should be confident enough to coordinate both
design and construction works. One abnormality was observed in the ranking of the problem
attribute “Stress was placed on the project from the client” as the responses of the consultants
have been incorporated in the t-statistic, which may be contrasting and result in difference in
ranking from that by the respective client and contractor groups.
 An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running Design and
Build Projects in Construction 13

In general, all respondents perceived ‘The scope for this D&B project was ill-defined’ as one
least important problem and so the participants can in general understand the client’s
requirements, whose problem was rated at the second least significant. Moreover, it is revealed
that project participants are experienced enough to coordinate various services of the D&B
project and to control the quality of design and workmanship of the project.

CONCLUSIONS

The traditional design-bid-build method has been in use for years, but the undesirable project
delay and the adversarial relationships have urged the client to consider other alternative
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

procurement systems. The current study examines the problems in running D&B projects and
compares different perceptions on the ranking exercise from the major stakeholders of a D&B
project, namely the client, the contractor and the consultant.

Findings from the literature show that the problems of running D&B projects can be categorised
into those at the pre-construction stage and the construction stage, and major problems identified
are Unclear project scope with insufficient innovative ingredients, Deviation of contractors’
proposals from the client’s requirements, Inexperience of project participants with unclear
roles and objectives and Frequent changes on tight time schedule. The identified problems
are further synthesised into 16 problem attributes, which form the framework of data for
conducting the empirical study with D&B participants in the Hong Kong construction industry.
Mean ranking on the 16 problem attributes was conducted and the top five problems in running
D&B projects are ‘The schedule was tight’, ‘Frequent changes were introduced by various
end-users’, ‘Stress was placed on the project from the client’, ‘Frequent changes were introduced
by various clients’ and ‘There was conflict of interests between design team members and the
contractor’. Both intra-group and inter-group comparisons are also carried out to compare the
level of agreement in the ranking exercise. The results reported in this paper have provided a
sound basis for future research in identifying the barriers to the development, and the reasons
for wider adoption of the design-build procurement method for comparison. A further research
focus is hereby suggested on determining the critical success factors for D&B projects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for providing
funding to support this research effort. Special thanks are also given to the respondents for
their kind cooperation and generous contributions in completing the empirical survey
questionnaire for this research.

REFERENCES

Akintoye, A. (1994). ‘Design and Build: A Survey of Construction Contractors’ Views”, Construction
Management and Economics, 12(2), 155-163.
Akintoye, A., and Fitzgerald, E. (1995). “Design and Build: A Survey of Architects’ Views”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 2(1), 27-44.
Chan, A. P. C. (1998). “Perception on Variations - A Tale of Three Cities”, Australian Institute of Quantity
Surveyors Refereed Journal, 2(1), 42-54.
 14 Lam, Chan and Chan

Chan, A. P. C. (2000). “Evaluation of Enhanced Design and Build System - A Case Study of a Hospital
Project”, Construction Management and Economics, 18, 863-871.
Chan, A. P. C., Chan, D. W. M., and Ho, K. S. K. (2003). “Partnering in Construction: Critical Study of
Problems for Implementation”, Journal of Management in Engineering, 19(3), 126-135.
Chan, A. P. C., Ho, D. C. K., and Tam, C. M. (2001). “Evaluation Criteria of Public-Sector
Design and Build Projects in Hong Kong”, Journal of Construction Research, 2(2), 135-145.
Chan, A. P. C., Tam, C. M., and Ho, D. C. K. (2000). “Research Monograph - Evaluation of Integrated
Procurement Systems in Hong Kong”, Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University.
Chritamara, S., and Ogunlana, S. O. (2001). “Problems Experienced on D/B Projects in Thailand”,
Journal of Construction Procurement, 7(1), 73-93.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016

Dulami, M. F., Morris, G. K., and Baxendale, T. (1995). “The Role of Design Management in Improving
the Effectiveness of Design and Build Projects”, Design and Build Projects - International
Experiences, International Congress on Construction, 5-6 October 1995, Singapore, 83-89.
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.
Foo, J., Low, C., Goh, B. H., and Ofori, G. (1999). “Design and Build Procurement of Construction
Projects: Hybrids in Singapore”. In: Profitable partnering in construction procurement, E&FN Spon,
383-392.
HKIA (1998). Report of the design & build task force. Hong Kong Institute of Architects.
Konchar, M. D., Sanvido, V. E., and Moore, S. D. (1997). “The Benefits of Design-Build Contracting in
the United States”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Construction Process Re-
engineering, Australia, 14-15 July 1997, 191-201.
Lam, K. C. (2000). “Management of Building Services Procurement for Highly Serviced Healthcare
Facilities”, Building Journal Hongkong China, Jun-00, 70-81.
Lam, T. (1998). “Experience Sharing of ‘Design & Build’ Contract Practice”, HKIA Journal, 15(2),
61-63.
Lewis, D. (1999). “Preparation of Design and Build Contract Documents to Minimize Future Disputes”,
Seminar Proceedings on Design and Build Procurement System, January 1999, Hong Kong, 1-7.
Ling, F. Y. Y., Ofori, G., and Low, S. P. (2000). “Importance of Design Consultants’ Soft Skills in
Design/Build Projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 7(4), 389-398.
Lip, E. (2001). “Design-Build: Evolution or Revolution?” International seminar on project procurement
and cost management: perspectives from different nations, HKIS and PAQS, 23 May 2001, Hong
Kong.
Masterman, J. W. E. (2002). An introduction to building procurement systems, E&FN Spon.
Mo, J. K. W., and Ng, L. Y. (1997). “Design and Build Procurement Method in Hong Kong -An
Overview”, CIB W92 Symposium Procurement - a key to innovation, University de Montreal, 20-23
May 1997, 453-462.
Ndekugri, I., and Turner, A. (1994). “Building Procurement by Design and Build Approach”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 120(2), 243-255.
Ng, S. T., and Skitmore, R. M. (2002). “Contractors’ Risks in Design, Novate and Construct Contracts”,
International Journal of Project Management, 20(2), 119-126.
Palaneeswaran, E., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2001). “Reinforcing Design-Build Contractor Selection:
A Hong Kong Perspective”, The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Transactions, 8(1), 7-12.
Palaneeswaran, E., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2003). “Knowledge Mining of Information Sources for
Research in Construction Management”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
129(2), 182-191.
Pavkov, T. W., and Pierce, K. A. (2001). Ready, set, go! A student guide to SPSS 10.0 for Windows,
Mayfield Publishing Company.
 An Empirical Study on the Problems of Running Design and
Build Projects in Construction 15

Pearson, M., and Skues, D. (1999). “Control of Projects Implemented through Design and Build
Contracts”, Seminar Proceedings on Design and Build Procurement System, January 1999, Hong
Kong, 49-60.
Smith, T. E. (1996). “D/B: The Architects’ Perception in the HK Context”, Design/Build Symposium,
The Architectural Services Department, May 1996, Hong Kong.
Tao, H. (1996). “Design & Build: Challenge & Response”, Design/Build Symposium, The Architectural
Services Department, May 1996, Hong Kong.
Works Bureau (1999). “Administrative Procedures for Use with The Government of The Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region General Conditions of Contract for Design and Build Contracts”,
HKSARG, 1999.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 20:16 12 June 2016