Exploring the applicability of configuration information in construction projects

Figures & data

Figure 1. Configuration information flow between building owner and construction projects.

Figure 2. Overall research design.

Table 1. Literature assessed relevant to the key areas of configuration information in construction projects.

Reference	Function	Design	Production method	Verification	Change
(Aljohani, Ahiaga-Dagbui, and Moore 2017)			X		X
(Bock 2015)			X		X
(Chen and Luo 2014)		X
(Chun and Cho 2015)					X
(Cox et al. 1999)					X
(Ding et al. 2017)			X	X
(Ding et al. 2019)	X			X
(Fernandes et al. 2015)				X
(Hallerstede, Jastram, and Ladenberger 2014)		X
(Huovila et al. 2004)	X	X
(ISO 2017)	X	X	X	X	X
(Joseph et al. 2014)	X
(Kamara, Anumba, and Evbuomwan 2001)	X
(Kim, Cha, and Kim 2016)	X
(Kiviniemi 2005)		X
(Minato 2003)	X
(Parvan, Rahmandad, and Haghani 2015)			X
(Porwal and Hewage 2013)		X
(Shipton, Hughes, and Tutt 2014)					X
(Stasis, Whyte, and Dentten 2013)	X
(Sun and Meng 2009)					X
(Toor and Ogunlana 2010)	X
(Ullah et al. 2018)					X
(Whyte, Stasis, and Lindkvist 2016)					X
Total	9	6	5	4	9

Table 2. Presentation of the survey questions including response alternatives.

ID	Question	Type of response options	Response alternatives
Q1	Rank what you think is important for a high quality of the end-product configuration in healthcare facilities construction projects? (drag and drop the options in the order you want them) 1  = most important, 2 = second most important etc.	Fixed	– Documentation of all functions – Complete description of the product configuration – Control of changes to the product – Structured management of functional requirements on the product
Q2	Based on your experience of construction projects, what information about the healthcare facility configuration is documented at the end of the planning phase?	Fixed	– Functional requirements – Design solutions – Production methods – Verification methods
Q3	The planning phase includes all information about functional requirements needed to select technical solutions in the design phase.	Likert scale	1 = ‘fully agree’ 2 = ‘agree’ 3 = ‘disagree’ 4 = ‘do not agree at all’ Do not know
Q4	It is common that new requirements on the healthcare facility configuration are added in the design phase.	Likert scale	See Q3
Q5	Based on your experience of construction projects, what information about the healthcare facility configuration is documented at the end of the design phase?	Fixed	– Functional requirements – Design solutions – Production methods – Verification methods – All configuration changes
Q6	The design construction documents include all information about functional requirements and the related technical solution needed to select adequate production methods.	Likert scale	See Q3
Q7	It is common that new requirements on the healthcare facility configuration are added in the production phase.	Likert scale	See Q3
Q8	In the production phase, the healthcare facility functional requirements are documented together with the associated technical solution and production method.	Likert scale	See Q3
Q9	In the production phase, healthcare facility functions are continuously verified against measurable requirements.	Likert scale	See Q3
Q10	Based on your experience of construction projects, what information about the healthcare facility configuration is documented at the handover?	Fixed	See Q5

Figure 3. The respondents’ opinion on which information is documented in each construction phase.

Figure 4. Completeness of the necessary configuration information flow between the construction phases, according to the respondents.

Figure 5. Respondents’ ranking of what is most important for high end-product quality.

Figure 6. Conceptual model for systematic configuration information with the key areas as headings and the information relevant in construction projects below. The arrows represent the interrelationship between the key areas.

Aljohani, A., D. Ahiaga-Dagbui, and D. Moore. 2017. “Construction Projects Cost Overrun: What Does the Literature Tell Us?” International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology 8 (2): 137–143.

 Google Scholar

Bock, T. 2015. “The Future of Construction Automation: Technological Disruption and the Upcoming Ubiquity of Robotics.” Automation in Construction 59: 113–121. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.022.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, L., and H. Luo. 2014. “A BIM-Based Construction Quality Management Model and its Applications.” Automation in Construction 46: 64–73. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chun, J., and J. Cho. 2015. “QFD Model Based on a Suitability Assessment for the Reduction of Design Changes in Unsatisfactory Quality.” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 14 (1): 113–120. doi:10.3130/jaabe.14.113.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cox, I. D., J. P. Morris, J. H. Rogerson, and G. E. Jared. 1999. “A Quantitative Study of Post Contract Award Design Changes in Construction.” Construction Management and Economics 17 (4): 427–439. doi:10.1080/014461999371358.

 Google Scholar

Ding, L., K. Li, Y. Zhou, and P. E. D. Love. 2017. “An IFC-Inspection Process Model for Infrastructure Projects: Enabling Real-Time Quality Monitoring and Control.” Automation in Construction 84: 96–110. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.029.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ding, Z., S. Liu, L. Liao, and L. Zhang. 2019. “A Digital Construction Framework Integrating Building Information Modeling and Reverse Engineering Technologies for Renovation Projects.” Automation in Construction 102: 45–58. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fernandes, J., E. Henriques, A. Silva, and M. A. Moss. 2015. “Requirements Change in Complex Technical Systems: an Empirical Study of Root Causes.” Research in Engineering Design 26 (1): 37–55. doi:10.1007/s00163-014-0183-7.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hallerstede, S., M. Jastram, and L. Ladenberger. 2014. “A Method and Tool for Tracing Requirements Into Specifications.” Science of Computer Programming 82: 2–21. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2013.03.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huovila, P., J. Leinonen, P. Paevere, J. Porkka, and G. Foliente. 2004. “Systematic performance requirements management of built facilities.” Clients Driving International Innovation Conference.

 Google Scholar

ISO. 2017. ISO 10007; Quality Management - Guidelines for Configuration Management. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.

 Google Scholar

Joseph, A., X. Quan, A. B. Keller, E. Taylor, U. Nanda, and Y. Hua. 2014. “Building a Knowledge Base for Evidence-Based Healthcare Facility Design Through a Post-Occupancy Evaluation Toolkit.” Intelligent Buildings International 6 (3): 155–169. doi:10.1080/17508975.2014.903163.

 Google Scholar

Kamara, J. M., C. J. Anumba, and N. F. O. Evbuomwan. 2001. “Assessing the Suitability of Current Briefing Practices in Construction Within a Concurrent Engineering Framework.” International Journal of Project Management 19 (6): 337–351. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00015-6.

 Google Scholar

Kim, T. W., S. H. Cha, and Y. Kim. 2016. “A Framework for Evaluating User Involvement Methods in Architectural, Engineering, and Construction Projects.” Architectural Science Review 59 (2): 136–147. doi:10.1080/00038628.2015.1008397.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kiviniemi, A. 2005. “Requirements Management Interface to Building Product Models.” Doctoral thesis, Department of civil and environmental engineering, Stanford university.

 Google Scholar

Minato, T. 2003. “Design Documents Quality in the Japanese Construction Industry: Factors Influencing and Impacts on Construction Process.” International Journal of Project Management 21 (7): 537–546. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00083-2.

 Google Scholar

Parvan, K., H. Rahmandad, and A. Haghani. 2015. “Inter-phase Feedbacks in Construction Projects.” Journal of Operations Management 39–40 (C): 48–62. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.07.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Porwal, A., and K. N. Hewage. 2013. “Building Information Modeling (BIM) Partnering Framework for Public Construction Projects.” Automation in Construction 31: 204–214. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shipton, C., W. Hughes, and D. Tutt. 2014. “Change Management in Practice: An Ethnographic Study of Changes to Contract Requirements on a Hospital Project.” Construction Management and Economics 32 (7–8): 787–803. doi:10.1080/01446193.2014.915336.

 Google Scholar

Stasis, A., J. Whyte, and R. Dentten. 2013. “A Critical Examination of Change Control Processes.” Procedia CIRP 11: 177–182. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2013.07.053.

 Google Scholar

Sun, M., and X. Meng. 2009. “Taxonomy for Change Causes and Effects in Construction Projects.” International Journal of Project Management 27 (6): 560–572. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Toor, S-ur-R., and S. O. Ogunlana. 2010. “Beyond the ‘Iron Triangle’: Stakeholder Perception of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Large-Scale Public Sector Development Projects.” International Journal of Project Management 28 (3): 228–236. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ullah, I., D. Tang, Q. Wang, L. Yin, and I. Hussain. 2018. “Managing Engineering Change Requirements During the Product Development Process.” Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 26 (2): 171–186. doi:10.1177/1063293X17735359.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Whyte, J., A. Stasis, and C. Lindkvist. 2016. “Managing Change in the Delivery of Complex Projects: Configuration Management, Asset Information and ‘big Data’.” International Journal of Project Management 34 (2): 339–351. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar