 

 

ﬁrzr ,
II‘HIF}. 1

21.... no . 5.:
2' 52‘s} .
. . . 1341‘}:

 

. 1-50. . l..r.. An!
.3... sad...» 5. . ‘ 3-4.35
. I
9..
is
a

.41 n: , . .
, y r . I V ‘:
. ‘ . haw.

‘1‘, .
i¢ s h“! u.
w v.3“: : 51.355-
.nﬂ. . sl:?t.1a‘l€.il
“.0mmnﬂstsﬂa‘v. .
In“ 55:53:95»: I
, \ ‘13.
‘01.

‘\‘
.3. .
2.9,...

«319.11 .31?

n. .35FII: 16119.; I
.i<\\rku.t=on!.¢‘ .

3.12111 .il

12 at...
£121“...

t..9!n4..vvn§4]ll!

45.. :9... ratio“

 

 

 

 

mgm LIBRARY
ﬂ 1? Micnlgau dtate
4 '3 ‘ 0 University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

INFLUENCE OF PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS ON ACHIEVING
SUSTAINABLE HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS

presented by

Lipika Swarup

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Construction Management

 

 

a? Lorm

Major Professoréﬁignature

02/05/ 1 O

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

w—m‘*—--mmw

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K3IProleoc8PrelelRCIDateDue.indd

 

 

 

 

 

*qp ---— -

INFLUENCE OF PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS ON ACHIEVING
SUSTAINABLE HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS

By

Lipika Swarup

A THESIS

Submitted to the
Michigan State University
in the partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE
Construction Management

2010

ABSTRACT

INFLUENCE OF PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS ON ACHIEVING
SUSTAINABLE HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS
By

Lipika Swamp

Buildings addressing energy efﬁciency, durability, life-cycle performance, occupant well
being and productivity are known as sustainable, high performance buildings.
Incorporating all high performance attributes to these - buildings increases their
complexity; therefore, interdisciplinary integration is required in their project delivery
processes. However, the literature was found to be lacking in terms of the guidelines to
lead these processes. Literature also indicates that project delivery methods adopted (e.g.,
design-bid -build, design-build, and construction management at risk) can inﬂuence the
level of integration achieved by a project. To respond to the need in the industry, this
study aimed to understand the extent of the eﬂect of project delivery methods and
practices on the level of integration achieved by the project team and further its effects
on project outcomes with a focus on sustainability goals.

To achieve the study goals, the research adopted a case study approach and qualitative
methods of analysis. The ﬁndings suggest that strong owner commitment towards
sustainability, early involvement of contractor, and early inclusion of green strategies are
attributes crucial to the delivery process that can have potential effects on project
outcomes especially on sustainability goals. The results were veriﬁed through external

validation with previous research ﬁndings.

To Baba and Nana,

“Who taught me to see the world for not what it is but for what it can be "

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have worked on this thesis for over two years. This is the product of the support and
encouragement of many people. With this acknowledgement I would like to thank all the

people who directly or indirectly participated in this process.

First, I want to thank my parents for introducing to me a whole new world and
broadening my horizon’s by sending me to the United States. Though, sometimes
unnerving, but mostly it has been a wonderful experience that has helped me grow both
professionally and personally. Thank you for your support and insistence that I pursue my
master’s degree. My sister, Lori and brother in law, Kunal need a special mention for
being my surrogate parents in this country and helping me transition from adolescence to
adulthood. Thank you for taking all my emotional breakdowns. Now you know how to

deal with teenagers!!!

I would like to thank my primary advisor Dr. Sinem Korkmaz, for having faith in me and
starting her academic career with me. I would also like to [extend my appreciation to the
Charles Pankow Research Foundation and research team associated with it for giving

their valuable input and supporting this study.

Next, I would like to thank Dr. Matt Syal for being a wonderful mentor to me
academically and personally, and Dr. Sue Grady for her timely inputs towards this study.
It has been my utmost pleasure to know and learn from Dr. Tariq, Prof. Mrozowski, Dr.

Elgafy, Dr. Kotval and Dr. Gold.

iv

My friends that I made at MSU were a very important part of the past two years of my
life here. I want to thank Aman, Samarth, Sagata, Bo, Qingwei Li, and Nikhil for their
emotional and unconditional support. Thank you guys you made it a lot easier.

Also, there are many other people associated with me such as my friends and colleagues
here at Michigan State University who in their way supported me and my study, I’m
sorry for not mentioning all of you but please accept my thanks and I hope to receive

your support in future as well.

Finally, maintaining the philosophy of saving the best for last. I would like to specially
thank my husband Saleel, who I met here at Michigan State. You stuck by me in the
toughest times and not only helped me through it but made it easy and a lot of fun.

Thank you! I l

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Overview .................................................................................

1.2 Need Statement ..........................................................................

1.3 Research Goals and Objectives ........................................................

1.4 Research Methodology .................................................................
1.4.1 Conduct Literature Review ......................................................
1.4.2 Develop, Test and Verify the Data Collection Tool. .
1.4.3 Case Study Selection Criteria ...................................................
1.4.4 Data Collection Process and Follow up .......................................
1.4.5 Data Coding .......................................................................
1.4.6 Data Analysis .....................................................................
1.4.7 Discussions and Report Results ................................................

1.5 Research Scope .........................................................................
1.5.1 Scope of the Study ...............................................................

1.6 Results and Deliverables ................................................................

1.7 Reader’s Guide ...........................................................................

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................ - ..

2.2 Sustainable Development ................................................................
2.2.1 Sustainable High Performance Bulldmgs
2.2.2 Sustainable Building Assessment Systems ....................................
2.2.3 Critique of Assessment Systems ................................................

2.3 Design Management ....................................................................
2.3.1 Integrated Design Process ..........................................................
2.3.2 Integrated Design Process in Sustainable Buildings .........................

2.4 Project Delivery Methods ..............................................................
2.4.1 Level of Integration in Design and Project Delivery Systems. ...............

2.5 Project Participants (Roles and Responsibilities) ...................................
2.5.1 Summary ...........................................................................

2.6 Performance Metrics ....................................................................
2.6.1 Project Delivery Attributes ......................................................
2.6.2 Project Performance

2.7 Summary .................................................................................

vi

x1i

Eassga‘cmmqhth—t

15

'16

19
21
26
28
3O
31
35
41
45
46
47
48
55
65

CHAPTER 3

Methodology
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 66
3.2 Research Goals and Objectives ........................................................ 67
3.3 Research Approach ..................................................................... 67
3.3.1 Choice of Research Strategy .................................................... 69
3.3.2 Qualitative Research in Construction Studies ................................ 71
3.3.3 Summary ........................................................................... 80
3.3.4 Research Strategy Adopted for the Current Study ........................... 81
3.3.5 Data Quality ........................................................................ 85
3.4 Data Collection Procedure ............................................................. 87
3.4.1 Performance Evaluation Metrics ................................................ 88
3.4.2 Test and Verify the Tool ......................................................... 90
3.4.3 Pilot Case Study .................................................................. 91
3.4.4 Case Study Selection Criteria ................................................... 93
3.4.5 Data Collection Process and Follow Up ...................................... 96
3.5 Data Analysis Procedure ............................................................... 98
3.5.1 Data Coding ........ ' ............................................................... 98
3.5.2 Proposition Development ........................................................ 100
3.5.3 Data Analysis Methods ............................................................. 101
3.6 Summary ................................................................................. 104
CHAPTER 4
Data Collection, Categorization, and Coding
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 105
4.2 Sample Characteristics ................................................................... 105
4.3 Data Collection Steps ................................................................... 108
4.3.1 Institutional Review Board Approval ......................................... 108
4.3.2 Interview Application ............................................................... 109
4.3.3 Problems Encountered in the Data Collection Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.4 Data Recording and Categorization ................................................... 112
4.4.1 Input survey data in excel sheets .............................................. 114
4.4.2 Transcribe open ended responses using ....................................... 115
4.4.3 Categorizing open ended responses using ................................... 115
4.4.4 Eliminating discrepancies within responses for the same project ......... 115
4.5 Data Coding....... ..................................................................... 116
4.5.1 Owner’s Commitment .......................................................... 116
4.5.2 Level of integration achieved by projects ................................... 117
4.5.3 Levels of Sustainable High Performance Achieved ........................ 118
4.5.4 Post- Occupancy and Quality ................................................. 119
4.5.5 Cost and Schedule Performance .............................................. 119
4.6 Data Quality ............................................................................. 121
4.6.1 Sampling Error ...................................................................... 121
4.6.2 Response Bias ....................................................................... 122
4.6.3 Non-Response Bias .............................................................. 122
4.7 Summary ................................................................................. 123

vii

CHAPTER 5

Findings
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 124
5.2 Pattern Matching Results ............................................................... 124
5.2.1 Proposition 1 ...................................................................... 124
5.2.2 Proposition 2 ...................................................................... 127
5.2.3 Proposition 3 ...................................................................... 130
5.2.4 Proposition 4 ...................................................................... 139
5.3 Cross Case Synthesis Results .......................................................... 140
5.3. 1 Owner Commitment ............................................................... 141
5.3.2 Project Delivery Method ......................................................... 142
5.3.3 Contractual Conditions ............................................................ 142
5.3.4 Integration in the Delivery Process ............................................. 143
5.4Description of the outliers .............................................................. 144
5.5 Additional Lessons Learned ........................................................... 147
5.6 Summary ................................................................................. 148
CHAPTER 6
Summary, Discussions, and Conclusions
6. 1 Summary of Results ..................................................................... 149
6.2Veriﬁcation of the Results ............................................................. 155
6.3 Comparison of results with Molenaar et al., (2009) ............................... 165
'6.4Guidelines and Lessons Learned on Sustainable, High Performance Building
Project Delivery ......................................................................... 172
6.5 Conclusions .............................................................................. 174
6.6 Limitations .............................................................................. 175
6.7 Recommendations for Future Research .............................................. 178
6.8 Concluding Remarks .................................................................... 180
Appendix A : High Performance Green Building Project Delivery Survey ......... 182
Appendix B : Institutional Review Board Approval Letter ........................... 195
Appendix C : Consent Form .............................................................. 196
Appendix D : E-mail to the Respondents ................................................. 198
Appendix E : Outline of the Phone Conversation with Respondents ................ 199

Appendix F : Snapshot of Transana 2.12® used for transcription of the
telephonic InterVIews 200

Appendix G : Snapshot of ATLAS. ti® used for transcription of the telephonic
interviews .................................................................... 201

viii

Appendix H : Coding for the Level of Sustainable High Performance Achieved
by Using LEED® Score Card ............................................

Appendix I : Coding for the Owner Commitment Using Survey Responses .......

Appendix J : Coding for the Project Team Procurement Using Survey
Responses ....................................................................

Appendix K: Coding for the Integration in the Delivery Process Using Survey
Responses ...................................................................

Bibliography .................................................................................

ix

202

203

204

205

207

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Characteristics of Leading Assessment Systems across the World

(USGBC, 2008; BREEAM, 2008; Energy Star, 2008; Green Globes,
2008) ............................................................................

Table 2.2 Integrated Design Process vs. Traditional Design Process (adopted
from BCBC, 2001; Larsson, 2002; WBDG, 2008) .......................

Table 2.3 Characteristics of the Three Main Project Delivery Methods
(Al Khalil, 2002; C11, 2002; AIA-AGC, 2004) ..............................

Table 2.4 Project Delivery Attributes (Adopted from Korkmaz, 2007) .............
Table 2.5 Measurement Approaches and Techniques for Building Performance
Evaluation Metrics at the Completion Stage (Konchar and Sanvido,
1998; Gransberg and Buitrago, 2002; Korkmaz,
2007) .............................................................................
Table 3.1 PVEs from Pilot Study on Project 1 (Modiﬁed from Pulaski, 2005). .

Table 3.2 Final Results of Proposition Event Replication (Modiﬁed from
Magent, 2005) ...................................................................

Table 3.3 Review of the methods utilized in project delivery literature .............
Table 3.4 Methodology Steps ..............................................................
Table 3.5 Data Quality Tests and Tactics (Adopted from Yin, 2003) ................
Table 3.6 Distribution of Case Studies ....................................................
Table 3.7 Example of Difference in the Available Propositions between Projects.
Table 4.1 Case Study Distribution ........................................................
Table 4.2 Study Population Characteristics ..............................................
Table 4.3 Performance Metrics Used in the Study ......................................

Table 4.4 Data Coding Logic for All Variables .........................................

Table 5 .1 Level of Integration Achieved and Sustainability Goals ..................

Table 5.2 PDM’s and the Levels of Integration Achieved ............................

Table 5.3 Integration in the Delivery Process ............................................

26

30

40

54

64

76

78

79

84

87

94

104

107

108

113

120
125

128

131

Table 5.4 Contractual Terms ..............................................................
Table 5.5 Contractual Conditions ........................................................
Table 5.6 Owner Commitment ............................................................
Table 5.7 Cross Case Synthesis Analysis ................................................

Table 6.1 Checking for the Generalizability of the Study Results through
External Validation .............................................................

xi

133

136

138

141

159

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The Paradigm Shift (Traditional to Sustainable Development)
Experienced by the Construction Industry (Modiﬁed from Vanegas et
aL,1995)”.H .........................................................................................

Figure 2.2 Shift from the New Paradigm to the Global Context as experienced by
the Construction Industry (As modiﬁed from Agenda 21, 2003) .......

Figure 2.3 Change in Energy Saving Opportunities According to the Phases of
Design Process (Modiﬁed from Perkins and Stantec Consulting). .

Figure 2.4 Contractual Relationships and Direction of Information Flow between
Owner ..........................................................................

Figure 2.5 Contractual Relationships and Direction of Information Flow between
Owner ...........................................................................

Figure 2.6 Contractual Relationships and Direction of Information Flow between
Owner ...........................................................................

Figure 2.7 Categories of the Project Phases .............................................

Figure 3.1 Toyota Capital Delivery Process Map: Levels Top 2 and Bottom 3
(Modiﬁed from Lapinski, 2006) .............................................

Figure 3.2 Process Map of the Steps Followed to Achieve the Objectives of the
Research ........................................................................

Figure 3.3 Proposition Analysis Process .................................................

Figure 4.3 Example Sheet to Input Survey Responses .................................

xii

18

19

33

36

38

39

48

83

101

114

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Overview

The demand for sustainable buildings in the United States (US) has been rising since the
Arab oil restriction during the 1970’s (Frej, 2005). However, since past years, due to the
accelerated depletion of the natural resources, continuous damage to the natural
environment, and U.S.’s signiﬁcant contributions to the global waste generation,

construction industry in the US. is undergoing transitions such as traditional to
sustainable construction (aUSGBC, 2008). Where traditional approach emphasizes only

on cost, schedule, and quality performance of a building, sustainable construction
expands its realm to attributes such as low energy consumption, reduced air emissions,
and minimal waste generation (Vanegas et a1. 1995). Although, the market for sustainable
buildings is still growing, in the recent years the scope of the required performance from
such buildings has increased and now it includes user satisfaction and occupant well
being also. Such buildings along with sustainable issues also address issues such as
indoor environment quality and user satisfaction, health, and productivity are known as

sustainable high performance buildings (Harding, 2005).

As the level of complexity is mounting in the project program increased interdisciplinary
interaction is becoming imperative for more optimized solutions. This interdisciplinary
interaction is known as integrative design process and suggests that attributes such as

early involvement of participants, level and methods of communication, and

compatibility within project teams would result in better outcomes (7 Group and Reed,
2009). However, literature indicates that the above mentioned attributes might be affected
by the project delivery methods (PDM) adopted by the project. There are primarily three
PDM’s that are utilized in the US. currently. These are: Design-Bid-Build (DBB),
Construction Management at Risk (CMR), and Design-Build (DB). These essentially
deﬁne the contractual relationship and communication lines between participants and
therefore determine attributes such as time of entry / exit of participants, project team
procurement methods, and contract conditions (penalties / incentives / risk / liabilities)

between participants (“Korkmaz, 2007).

1.2 Need Statement

Literature indicates that attributes such as timing of participant entry, communication
methods, and collaboration sessions have an effect on the level of integration achieved by
the projects teams (WBDG, 2008). Also, it is reported that these could potentially affect
project performance (WBDG, 2008). Although the sustainable industry and literature
points towards integration and close relationships between players, a dearth of literature

was found when the guidelines to achieve the same were researched upon.

To ﬁll the gap in the literature this study attempts to understand (1) the level of project
team integration achieved under each project delivery method in sustainable buildings
and (2) if better project team integration leads to better project outcomes (e.g. higher
sustainability achievement, lower cost, better construction schedule). Recent research

piloted evaluation metrics for high performance green building project delivery, veriﬁed

a data collection tool and analysis methods to improve the understanding on high
performance green buildings (Korkmaz, 2007). This research will build on Korkmaz’s
exploratory study (2007) by employing its data collection tools and analysis methods and
verifying its ﬁndings through utilizing a well thought case study selection process and
analysis. The main research question this study is attempting to answer is: ‘What is the
extent of the effect of project delivery methods and practices on the level of integration
achieved by the project team and further does it have an effect on project outcomes with

a focus on sustainability goals? ’

1.3 Research Goals and Objectives
The main goal of this research study is to, “determine the extent to which project delivery
methods and practices aﬂect levels of project team integration and whether this has an
effect on project outcomes especially on achieving sustainable goals. ” The speciﬁc
objectives of this study are to:
1. Determine the relationship between the level of integration achieved in the
delivery process and sustainability goals;
2. Determine the relationship between various PDMs and the levels of integration
achieved in the design process;
3. Identify the main project delivery attributes that have relations to project
outcomes in a green building and examine the identiﬁed patterns according to

various PDMs.

1.4 Research Methodology

Although traditionally, construction research is dominated by quantitative methods,
recent researches (such as Korkmaz, 2007; Lapinski, 2006; Pulaski, 2005; Magent, 2005)
recommend qualitative method as a valid approach for data analysis. Also due to the
limited sustainable population and the variability that exists, within it, conducting a
statistically signiﬁcant study was unfeasible. Therefore, it was determined that this
research would follow a qualitative methodology. A description of the methodology steps

is given next.

1.4.1 Conduct Literature Reviews
1. Sustainable buildings: This section describes a brief history of the concept of
sustainability in buildings. It also addresses the current status and scope of the
subject.

a. Sustainable high performance building: All high performance buildings are
sustainable buildings but it is not the same the other way around. This
distinction was made with the help of the literature.

b. Green building assessment systems: The level of sustainability in buildings
can be evaluated by many different assessment systems. Each assessment
system has its own way and criteria for calculating the level of sustainability
achieved by a building. Therefore a thorough literature review of the available
systems and their criteria’s was important for this research. This review was
instrumental in developing the performance metrics and choosing the case

studies.

2. Design management: Design is one of the most important stages in the pre-
occupancy phase of the project and has signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the post-
occupancy phase. Therefore it was important to understand in what ways the
design stage can affect project performance and post-occupancy building
performance.

a. Integrated Design Process: Currently, the design process followed by the
building industry involves participants from varied disciplines working in
isolation. However, the literature supports the requirement of a more
integrated process that advocates increased and early multi-disciplinary
involvement.

b. Integrated Design Process in Green buildings: Literature reports design phase
as one of the most important stages in the preoccupancy phase suggesting that
this stage can be responsible for the success or failure of the project.
Therefore, for increased efﬁciency maximum integration and restructuring of
the sequence is suggested in this phase.

3. Project delivery methods: Project delivery systems used by the industry at present
such as the DBB, DB, and CMR are explained.

4. Level of integration in the design and the project delivery systems: This section
explains the level of integration that exists in each PDM present. Superiority of no
project delivery could be proven as each method had its own opportunities and
constraints. These are described in this section with examples in the form of case

studies.

5.

Project participants (roles and responsibilities): This section discusses the roles
and responsibilities of the project participants in the different stages of the project.
Although there are many players involved in the projects participants whose roles
are deﬁned here are: owner, contractor, design team, commissioning agent,

special value adding Consultants

6. Performance Metrics: The performance metrics to be utilized in the current study

is one of the three main outputs of the research conducted by Korkmaz (2007).
Guided by previous studies (Korkmaz, 2007; Konchar and Sanvido, 1998;
Gransberg and Buitrago, 2002) this study has grouped the building evaluation
metrics and attributes in to three categories. The three categories are 1) Project
Delivery Attributes; 2) Building Performance Upon Completion, and; 3) Building
Performance Post Occupancy. This study primarily focuses on the ﬁrst two stages
by investigating the effects of project delivery attributes (independent variables)
on project performance at construction completion (dependent variables).
Addressing the last stage occurs through owner perception, and therefore, the last
stage becomes a component Of the second stage as “Owner’s Perception of the
Resource Consumption and Level of User Satisfaction in the Post-Occupancy
Phase.” The description and scope of the two categories are given below.
a. Project Delivery Attributes: This category evaluates the process followed for
the execution of the building by documenting the subjective experiences and
the method of evolution of innovative ideas for the optimization of project

outcomes. It includes owner commitment; project delivery method, project

team procurement, contract conditions, integration in the design process, and
project team characteristics.

b. Building Performance Upon Completion: Metrics such as schedule, cost,
quality, safety, levels of high performance, and owner’s perception of the
resource consumption and level of user satisfaction in the post-occupancy
phase achieved (comparing the intended vs. achieved performance levels)
clearly and quantiﬁably demonstrate the success or failure of the project
(Korkmaz, 2007; Fowler et al., 2005; Gransberg and Buitrago, 2002; Konchar
and Sanvido, 1998). Therefore this study has adopted these to evaluate the

performance of the outcomes of the projects.

1.4.2 Develop, Test and Verify the Data Collection Tool

The data collection tool employed in this study is the second main output of the research
conducted by Korkmaz (2007). It was utilized by the author to collect data from 40 high
performance green projects. The current research has adopted and altered the tool
according to research speciﬁc criteria (explained in Chapter 3).

This research was funded by the Charles Pankow Research Foundation and is part of a
joint research conducted by scholars from Michigan State University, University of
Colorado, University of Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania State University. The research
team worked with an industry panel, consisting of leader’s in the ﬁeld of sustainable
buildings, to get feedback at certain milestones, receive veriﬁcation on research tools and
outcomes, and receive support in case study selection and data collection. Therefore, aﬁer

tool development, it was veriﬁed by the research team and the industry panel. It was then

submitted and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Michigan State
University for compliance with human participant research rules. Next, the tool was
tested on one pilot case study further to which ﬁnal changes were made to the tool.
Finally, the tool was used to collect data from 30 participants of the 12 case studies

selected for this research.

1.4.3 Case Study Selection Criteria
This research focused on sustainable projects that have achieved one of the four levels of

certiﬁcation under United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) assessment system. Although the research

prioritized 8 projects that deﬁned the boundary conditions; as the resources allowed the

number was expanded to 12 case studies. The sample for this study was limited to green

projects in the US, those included in the USGBC’S database as LEED® ‘New
Construction’ and ‘Core and Shell’ categories. The other criteria were: PDM selected,

USGBC’s LEED® rating, USGBC’s LEED® certiﬁcation level, location, function,

personal rapport, and size.

1.4.4 Data Collection Process and Follow Up

The data was conducted in the form of structured interviews (General Accounting Ofﬁce
methodology to be followed). It was intended that a personal rapport was developed with
the respondents to approach them with follow up questions. It was attempted that three
respondents (i.e., owner, designer, and contractor) were contacted from each case study
however, due to circumstances such as unavailability of the respondent or one entity

8

performing the role of two, on an average two respondents were interviewed from each

case study. Interviews were conducted via email and phone.

1.4.5

Data Coding

For the ease of analysis, the collected data was coded and managed at three levels

(1) coding open ended responses, (2) coding survey responses and, (3) proposition

development. These are discussed next:

1.

3.

Coding open ended responses: Two kinds of coding were used for the open ended
responses (a) priori: codes developed before examining the data; (b) inductive:
codes developed based on the frequency of the occurrence of the themes. This
was conducted to ﬁnd suitable quotes supporting or negating the survey results.
Coding survey responses: The data points were mostly coded as -1, 0 or, +1 based
on their position in the data set as below average, average or above average
correspondingly. This assisted to ascertain the level of success achieved by a
project when compared to other projects within the data set.
Proposition Development: Due to the qualitative nature of the data from limited
case studies, expected patterns deﬁned as propositions were tested for validity. If
the data strongly supported the proposition they were converted to results else
were discarded. The primary four propositions used in this study are:
a) Higher levels of integration in the design process will lead to higher levels of
sustainability;
b) CMR and DB will provide higher levels of integration in the design process

compared to DBB;

c) Project delivery attributes affect ﬁnal outcomes;
(1) PDM’s affect project outcomes through the level of integration in the project

delivery process;

1.4.6 Data Analysis

This research adopted a case study methodology (Taylor et al., 2009) and followed a
protocol, for qualitative methods of analysis, as suggested by Yin (2003) and Korkmaz
' (2007). Three approaches were adopted to examine the data; these were pattern

matching, cross case synthesis and explanation building.

1.4.7 Discussions and Report Results

Limited sample population resulted in non-generalizability of the ﬁndings. Therefore, to
prove the validity of the current results they were discussed with results of six recent
researches conducted in the same ﬁeld. These studies are:

1. Beheiry et a1. (2006) Examining the Business Impact of Owner Commitment to
Sustainability: The purpose of this study was to establish a research mechanism to
investigate the impact of corporate commitment to sustainability on capital project
planning and capital project performance.

2. Lapinski et al (2006) Lean Processes for Sustainable Project Delivery: The
purpose of this paper was to evaluate the life cycle of Toyota’s capital facility
delivery process to empirically identify the critical activities and capabilities that

led to Toyota’s South Campus project success. This utilized a post hoc process-

10

based analysis to identify where value and waste were generated in Toyota’s
delivery system.

. Korkmaz (2007), Piloting Evaluation Metrics for High Performance Green
Building Project Delivery: The research attempted to provide a foundation for
future research by deﬁning meaningﬁrl evaluation metrics, methods, and tools to
collect and analyze high performance green building project delivery data.

. Enache-Pommer (2008), Lean and Green Healthcare Facilities: Improving the
Delivery Process in Children ’s Hospitals: This main aim of this study was to
understand the building delivery process in green children’s hospitals, starting
from programming, through design, construction, operations and maintenance. An
emphasis was placed on the affects of the delivery process and the stakeholders
present in each project on the ﬁnal product.

. Molenaar et al. (2009), Sustainable, High Performance Projects and Project
Delivery Methods: A State-of-Practice Report: This paper is the ﬁrst part of a
broader study that seeks to determine project delivery methods inﬂuence on
owner’s ability to achieve their sustainability goals in delivering building projects.
This paper describes the state-of-practice in project delivery methods for
achieving sustainable, high performance building projects.

. Bilec and Ries (2009), Preliminary Study of Green Design and Project Delivery
Methods in the Public Sector: The aim of this study was to examine possible
relationships between design-bid-build (DBB), construction management (CM),
and DB PDMs and green design with the goal of beginning to identify potential

positive correspondence between them.

11

1.5 Research Scope
This study focused on determining the extent of the effects of PDM’s and practices on the
level of integration achieved by the project team and ﬁuther on achieving successful

outcomes with a focus on sustainable goals. The research boundary is stated below.

1.5.1 Scope of the Study

The study aimed to understand the underlying relationship between PDM’s, level of
integration achieved, and the ﬁnal outcomes. Therefore, to achieve the intended target
research scope and study boundaries were deﬁned. It was determined that only the
projects that adopted one of the three primary PDM’s (i.e., DBB, DB and CMR) would
be considered for the study. Also, due to the resources available and the location
signiﬁcance only US. based projects were considered. As the study focused on

sustainable buildings it was determined that projects from the different certiﬁcation levels

under the USGBC’s LEED® will be adopted. However, to reduce variability in the usage

of the building, materials, and process, ofﬁce buildings categorized under the new

construction and core shell sections of USGBC’S LEED® were selected.

Due to resources available for this study, building performance evaluation was primarily
conducted from the owner’s perspective. Although, 8 case studies were prioritized as the
time and ﬁnances allowed the scope was expanded to 12 case studies. It was attempted
that the data be collected from the three primary participants of a project (i.e., owner,
designer, and contractor) however, due to circumstances (explained in chapter 4) on an

average two participants were interviewed from each project. Finally, it was observed

12

that due to the limited number of case studies, practices followed by exemplary projects

could not be generalized. Hence, the ﬁnal results were validated by discussing them with

those of past research. Unlike exemplary practices, it was detected that ﬂawed practices

could be generalized as not to be followed.

1.6 Results and Deliverables

The following are the deliverables of this study:

1.

Identiﬁcation of the best practices in the case study protocol capitalizing and
establishing team integration;

Identiﬁcation of certain ﬂawed practices, which if followed can potentially lead to
unsuccessful outcomes;

External validation of results by discussing them with those of past researches;
Based on the results, developed a guideline of exemplary practices that should be
followed and ﬂawed practices as not to be pursued as they could lead to
unsuccessful outcomes;

A comprehensive performance evaluation metrics (project inception to occupancy
stages);

A tested tool / procedure to collect data from sustainable high performance
buildings;

Based on past researches and literature this study deﬁned and illustrated in detail
the case study methodology and qualitative methods of analysis;

Database of exemplary projects and contacts with the team member’s;

13

9. A foundation for future research in sustainable project delivery by providing a
protocol and tool to collect data, and most importantly variables to understand
project delivery process and performance outcomes such as timing of participant
involvement, level of owner commitment and contractual associations between

project stakeholders.

1.7 Reader’s Guide

Chapter 2 describes the literature review conducted for this study. The methodology
followed to realize the stated research goals and objectives are composed in Chapter 3.
Next, in Chapter 4, methods and process for data collection, categorization, and coding is
presented followed by Chapter 5 where the ﬁndings of the study are listed. Finally
Chapter 6 includes summary of the results, limitations of the research, discussion of the
results with past studies, list of exemplary and ﬂawed practices that could potentially lead

to successful or unsuccessful projects and recommendations for future research.

14

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Any endeavor or a project has many facets. To address them the project requires a team
of people who have expertise in various ﬁelds. The ‘successful’ execution of the project
is the result of efforts of many people. The individuals who constitute these multi
disciplinary teams need not just work together but must consciously and systematically
reduce professional clashes amongst themselves. They must speciﬁcally focus their
thoughts and ideas towards a common goal. The aim in this case is the successful
execution of the project where success is deﬁned as achieving the project intent set out by
the project team in the beginning (e.g. certain green building rating, cost boundaries,

incorporation of sustainable strategies in buildings).

A review of the literature is crucial to this research as it reinforces the ideaslpresented
above. With the dwindling natural resources and high-energy bills, sustainable buildings
are becoming increasingly popular amongst participants having ﬁnancial stakes in
projects. This chapter outlines studies enumerating the advantages offered by sustainable
buildings economically and environmentally. The chapter also describes and details the
different green building assessment systems available. This section is referred to again in

the end, for the development of metrics, for this research.

15

Another important feature of this chapter is highlighting the importance of design
management and integrated design. Here, the projects need for increased communication
between various design disciplines, contractor’s input for constructability information of
materials and technologies and a formally managed design phase are elaborated upon.
Next, in the chapter project delivery methods are discussed. Here, the delivery methods
and their variations, used by the industry at present, are elaborated upon. It reports the
opportunities and constraints presented by each method. Finally the chapter lists and
outlines the roles and responsibility of the pivotal players in the project team. This

section is critical during the adoption of the data collection tool.

2.2 Sustainable Development

United States Bureau of Labor (2006) states that, almost 86% of the employed population
spent an average of 7.6 hours per day at their work places (USBL, 2006). Another
statistic by the US. Environmental Protection Agency Green Building Workgroup shows
that each year, approximately 170,000 commercial buildings are constructed and nearly
44,000 commercial buildings demolished (USEPA, 2004). Smart Market Report states
that corporate buildings in the United States (US) contribute to 40% of all energy
consumption, 71% of electricity consumption, 38% of C02 emissions and 36% of all
green house gas emissions and according to High Performance Building Guidelines
(1999) almost $10-60 billion is wasted in combined health premiums, absenteeism, and
annual productivity losses due to sick building syndrome and building-related illnesses
(Smart Market Report, 2007; High Performance Building Guidelines, 1999). Finally,

Cole et al. (1999) states that raw materials annually extracted from the earth are

16

transformed into the concrete, steel, glass, rubber, and various other construction
materials. In the process the natural enviromnent is destroyed and various pollutants are
released in soil, water, and air. This pollution manifests itself in poor indoor air quality
leading to loss in productivity of individuals resulting in wastage and ﬁnancial losses
(Cole et al., 1999). From the presented statistics it can be satisfactorily concluded that
buildings especially commercial one’s directly or indirectly affect our lives and
environment signiﬁcantly. Although the need for commercial buildings cannot be denied
it is essential that the construction industry strongly attempts to alter design, construction,
and operation process to reduce their negative affects by minimizing energy use, water

use, green house gas emissions, and waste.

The demand for environmentally responsible buildings is not new. The oil crisis (due to
Arab oil restriction) faced by the US. in the 1970’s has already put pressure on the
construction industry to reduce its dependence on natural resources (Frej, 2005).
Realizing that natural fuels cannot indeﬁnitely power un-optimized and underutilized
buildings the industry is constantly revising its construction practices. These revisions
and changes of practices and processes is part of a paradigm shift experienced by the
construction industry such as traditional to sustainable development. It is illustrated in

Figure 2.1.

Agenda 21 (CIB, 1999) deﬁnes sustainability as “the condition or the state that would
allow the continued existence of homo sapiens. " (CIB, 1999). A more common and

accepted deﬁnition is by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and

17

Development (Brundtland Commission) Report and it states that, “those paths of social
economic and political progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs " (WCED, 1987). This
development incorporates the three focal points (time, cost and quality) of the traditional

development in to its comparatively larger realm.

Old Paradigm New Paradigm

g0“ Minimal Natural
\ Resources Consumption
\ and Depletion and
\ Degradation

 

 

   
   

Functional and Formal
Requirements of
the Facilities

     

‘ s Requirements
of the
acilitie

 

Minimize Waste Minimal
Generation and Environmental
Accumulation Quality Impact and
Degradation

Contextual Satisfaction of
Human Needs and Aspiration

 

 

 

Figure 2.1 The Paradigm Shift (Traditional to Sustainable Development)
Experienced by the Construction Industry (Modified from Vanegas et al., 1995)
The added foci’s includes minimal usage of natural resources, minimized waste
generation, and accumulation and contextual satisfaction of human needs and aspirations.
It aims at limiting adverse impacts on the natural environment natural (i.e., surroundings,
materials, resources, and processes present in nature) throughout the life of the building

(i.e., from cradle to grave) and requires the designers to understand the environmental

18

impact of their design decisions such as energy and resource consumption by the building
(Karolides, 2002). This understanding is important, as building designs are one of the

main determinants of the level of impact on the natural environment.

2.2.1 Sustainable High Performance Buildings
Currently the construction industry is experiencing another shiﬁ. Agenda 21 (2003)
expands the new paradigm in the global context to include social, cultural, and

environmental implications (Figure 2.2) (Agenda 21, 2003).

Old Paradigm New Paradigm Global context

 

 

       
       

 

Time EOSt Social Equity and Economic
\ M' . IN 1 Cultural Issues Constraints
\\ Imma atura . I a
\ \Resources consumption ’ a Time
. \ \ ' /
Quallt}I \ \ andDDeplztrton mid ’
\ \ \ egra a top
\ \ \ ’
\ \
\ \
\ I
I
I
I
Minimize Waste , Minimal
Generatron and _ E . t 11 t
Accumulation Quality nvrronmen a mpac
and Degradation

Contextual Satisfaction of
Human Needs and Aspiration

 

 

 

Figure 2.2 Shift from the New Paradigm to the Global Context as experienced by
the Construction Industry (As modiﬁed from Agenda 21, 2003)

Buildings addressing these implications in a global context are known as High
Performance Sustainable Buildings. Title IX, Subtitle A, Section 914 of the 2005 Energy
Policy Act deﬁnes a high performance buildings as a, “building that integrates and

optimizes all major high-performance building attributes, including energy eﬂiciency,

19

durability, lifecycle performance, and occupant productivity. " (The Energy Policy Act,
2005). The US. Ofﬁce of Energy Efﬁciency and Renewable Energy (DOE, 2008) deﬁnes
a high-performance building as: “A building with energy, economic, and environmental
performance that is substantially better than standard practice. It’s energy efficient, so it
saves money and natural resources. It 's a healthy place to live and work for its occupants
and has relatively low impact on the environment. " (DOE, 2008). These deﬁnitions
expands the scope of project programs by taking in to account stress on economic
beneﬁts from energy conservation, indoor environment quality (IEQ) and occupant

satisfaction along with increased environmental performance.

Since the idea of ‘green’ tends to improve the building’s image in the market, it is
imperative that business and ﬁnancial advantages be perceived as signiﬁcant beneﬁts.
According to the Smart Market Report (2007), commercial construction market professes
advantages such as decreased operating cost by 8-9% (due to decreased water use and
energy savings such as lighting, heating ventilation air conditioning), increase in building
value by almost 7.5%, and almost a 6.6 % improvement on investment returns. The report
also suggests that the occupancy ratio increases by 3.5%; therefore increasing the rent

ratio by 3% (Smart Market Report, 2007).

United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC) The Leadership in Energy and
Environment Design (LEED®) platinum rated, Genzyrne Center, in Massachusetts,

presents is a very good example of ﬁnancial advantages. In the ﬁrst year of its operation,

the building used 42% less energy and 34% less water than a traditionally built building

20

of comparable size (Lockwood, 2006). 15% increase in employee productivity was the
result of the usage of alternative materials. These materials that did not emit toxins like
formaldehyde, commonly found in standard building materials, therefore improving
indoor air quality. Also, the green design criteria such as abundant day lighting,
individual climate control, and outdoor views enhanced employee morale and hence were

instrumental in increasing productivity (Lockwood, 2006).

2.2.2 Sustainable Building Assessment Systems

Although sustainable buildings aim towards lower impact on the environment, each
building due to its unique nature reaches different levels of sustainability. In recent years,
many methods have been developed to evaluate and recognize the various levels of
sustainability. Over the years they have resulted in continuous evolution of buildings and
have established a comprehensive means to assess a broad range of environmental
considerations (Inge, 2006). Cole et al. (2005) reports that these evaluation models
represent an ‘industry standard’ of the constituents of a green building inclusive of
improved building performance, cost and practicality. These prioritize environmental
issues consequently providing focus to designs; also, they summarize building
performance that is communicated to stakeholders to further education and development
(Cole et al., 2005). These methods encourage innovation and materials and product
suppliers to develop new environmentally beneﬁcial products, services and practice
(Todd et al., 2001). Finally, assessment systems also affect the construction market as
they bolster the growing consumer concern for sustainable products. The

‘environmentally friendly and responsible’ label they provide to buildings advertises the

21

improved environmental qualities and increases the real market value of buildings

(Roper, 2006).

Today, worldwide, many green building assessment models and methods exist, but the
most widely accepted are Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment

Method (BREEAM), Green Globes, Energy Star, and United States Green Building

Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®). The

characteristics of these agencies are summarized in Table 2.1.

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM):
Developed by the Building Research Establishment Limited (BRE Ltd) in England, it
was established in 1990 as an environmental assessment method. It evaluates the
environmental performance of both new and existing buildings in the UK and applies to
the following building types: ofﬁces, homes, retail, industries, schools, and health
buildings. This model provides weights to different environmental aspects/ criteria. The
building is evaluated and awarded credits on the basis of its performance on the various

criteria. The ﬁnal score achieved is rated on a scale of pass, good, very good, or excellent

(BREEAM, 2008).

Green Globes: Green GlobesTM is a Canada based green building guidance and
assessment program. It was established in 1996 by the Canadian Standards Association
(CSA) as BREEAM Canada for Existing Buildings. In 2002, the system became an

online assessment and rating tool under the name Green Globes for Existing Buildings. It

22

comprehensively assesses the environmental impact on a 1,000 point scale in multiple
categories such as Energy, Indoor Environment, Site Impact, Water, Resources,
Emissions, and Project / Environmental Management. It facilitates and encourages multi-
disciplinary collaboration from the earliest stages of a project and introduces the elements
of sustainability from goal setting to construction documents and building operations.
This model not only evaluates a building after the construction, but further helps to
enhance the building during the life of the project (i.e., from inception to construction).
Both new building projects and existing buildings environmental management and
operations can be enhanced through the use of the Green Globes online software tools.
Qualiﬁed third party assessors interface with project teams and building owners to review
progress, make enhancement suggestions, and validate environmental achievements

(Green Globes, 2008).

Energy Star®: Introduced in 1992, Energy Star is a joint program between the US.

Environmental Protection Agency and the US. Department of Energy. It is a voluntary

labeling program that identiﬁes and promotes energy-efﬁcient products. The label of

Energy Star® can be seen on major appliances such as ofﬁce equipment, lighting, and

home electronics. Recently the label was extended to cover new homes and commercial
and industrial buildings. To measure, track, and improve energy performance, Energy
Star provides web-based tools, calculators, resources, and training. The energy
performance of commercial and industrial buildings is scored on a scale of 1-100.
Facilities achieving a score of 75 or higher are eligible for the Energy Star label. The

energy performance rating is derived from fuel consumption data of existing commercial

23

buildings, which includes the total energy use associated with the buildings. The Energy
Use Intensity (EUI) reﬂects the distribution of energy performance in commercial
buildings derived from the 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS) (Energy Star, 2008). The required data inputs in the tools are understood as the
primary drivers of energy use. The tool includes the ZIP codes to determine the climate
conditions that the building would experience in a normal year (based on a 30-year
climate average), and the energy fuel mix is used calculate the total annual EUI. The tool

also displays percent electricity and natural gas defaults used to calculate design.

Although Energy Star does not require integrated design to be a mandatory practice, it
supports and promotes the method. 'It suggests integrated design criteria such as a multi—
disciplinary project team and design charrette. The project team should include
stakeholders such as the building owner, architects, energy consultants, engineers, and
proposed tenants. The charrette must be organized to determine project intent that would
eventually become a common goal for all the members. It would address energy
objectives pertinent to the design, identify synergies between design concepts and energy
use, and investigate energy performance design strategies that would eventually help in
the development of a plan for a top performing energy-efﬁcient building. The team must
also determine ways to integrate these strategies in the design (Energy Star, 2008).

United States Green Building Council ’5 (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED®): The LEED® system, developed by the USGBC in

1998, is the US. national standard for developing sustainable buildings. It is a third party

certiﬁcation program and the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction,

24

and operation of green buildings. This certiﬁcation symbol demonstrates that a
building is environmentally responsible, proﬁtable and a healthy place to live and work

(U SGBC, 2008). Over the years it has evolved and presently applies to new commercial

construction and major renovation projects (LEED® NC), existing buildings operations
(LEED® EB), commercial interiors projects (LEED® CI), core and shell projects
(LEED® CS), homes (LEED®-H) and neighborhood development (LEED® ND). All

. . . ® . . .
certiﬁed pI'OjeCtS receive a LEED plaque at various levels accordrng to their

achievements in green strategies. The certiﬁcation levels are certified, silver, gold, and
platinum. Platinum is the highest level in certiﬁcations and recognizes buildings
achieving exceptional success in applying green strategies. This system prioritizes
different criteria by giving them points which, when, added together, make a building

eligible for different plaques (USGBC, 2008).

25

Table 2.] Characteristics of Leading Assessment Systems across the World
(USGBC, 2008; BREEAM, 2008; Energy Star, 2008; Green Globes, 2008)

I

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USGBC": 111,1)“ BRI.I;,>\.\I (irccn (ilulicxI ijrg} \[tll'
ES‘a'i’l'l'Shed USA, 1998 UK, 1990 Canada, 1996 USA, 1992
New Construction, Ofﬁces, Major appliances,
Existing Building, Homes, Ofﬁces, Homes, Ofﬁce Equipment,
Buil din Core and Shell, Retail, Retail, Lighting, Home
t es g Commercial Industries, Industries, Electronics, New
yp Interiors, Homes, Schools and Schools and Homes, and
Neighborhood Health Health buildings Commercial and
development buildings Industrial buildings.
Rating Scale Point System Point System Point System Point System
. . Platinum, Gold, Pass, Good, One Globe, Two
Certiﬁcation . globe, Three
Silver, Very Good, Energy Star Label
levels . Globe, Four
Certified Excellent
Globes
Energy and
Atmosphere, Indoor Management Energy, Indoor . .
Envrronment, . Effective Insulation,
. . Health and envrronment, .
Sustainable Site, . . High Performance
. well being, Site, Water, . .
. Water Efﬁmency, Windows, Tight
Evaluation . Energy, Resources, .
, Materials and . . Construction and
Categories Transport, Emissmns and .
Resources, Indoor . Ducts, Effluent
. Water, Pr0ject/ .
Envrronment . . Heating and
. Material and Env1ronmental . .
Quality, and . Cooling Equipment
. Pollution management
Innovation and
Design Process

 

2.2.3 Critique of Assessment Systems

Although the various assessment methods, discussed, are successﬁil in providing stimuli

and focus to projects, buildings do not always perform as intended. In 2008, a study by

US. Green Building Council (U SGBC) and New Building’s Institute (NBI), analyzed the

measured energy performance for 121 LEED® New Construction (NC) buildings

providing critical link between predicted and actual outcome for LEED® projects (Turner

and Frankel, 2008). According to the report, measured EUls for over half the projects

26

 

deviated by more than 25% from design projections, with 30% signiﬁcantly better and
25% signiﬁcantly worse (Turner and Frankel, 2008). This variability between predicted
and actual performance can have signiﬁcant affects on the accuracy of the life cycle cost
evaluations for any given building. Therefore continuous evaluation is required
throughout the life of the building (i.e., from cradle to grave) (Akatsuka, 1994;

Harputlugil and Hensen, 2006; Bordass et al. 2001).

Typically evaluation criteria consist of energy and water efﬁciency, cost, schedule,
environmental impact (e. g., emissions and carbon footprint) as well as productivity and
health of the occupants (Fowler et al. 2005; Carr and Beyor, 2005; Gransberg et a1. 2007;
Ibbs et al. 2007; Fisk & Rosenfeld, 1997). However, the literature signiﬁcantly suggests
that decisions taken during the design process have considerable impacts on the ﬁnal
outcome as the affects of the decision taken earlier in the design phase manifest in the
post occupancy phase (discussed in further detail in Section 2.3 of this chapter) (OGC,
2005; Heintz, 2002; Chan and Tarn, 2000). Therefore, the ﬁnal performance of the
building is relative to the performance of the project during the pre-occupancy phase.
Results only ﬁom a post-occupancy evaluation can be considered as ambiguous and
skewed. It is important to conduct a pre-occupancy evaluation to gain a complete picture
of the project consequently helping in understanding the success/failure of the
performance of the building during the post occupancy phase. Recent research piloted
evaluation metrics for high performance green building project delivery, veriﬁed a data
collection tool and analysis methods to improve the understanding on high performance

green buildings (Korkmaz, 2007). However, before going further in the metrics it is

27

important to understand project delivery methods and other pre-occupancy concepts such
as design management and integrated design, and then their impact on the ﬁnal output

i.e., the performance of the building.

2.3 Design Management

Design Management can be deﬁned as a management process that integrates the different
disciplines, to reduce conﬂicts and increase compatibility, during the design phase of a
project to result in better project outcomes (DMJ, 1998). In the design phase of a project
multidisciplinary participants / stakeholders with varied objectives are brought together to
derive a composite design solution that is consistent with the design requirements (Reed
and Gordon, 2000). However, as the majority of project complexities lie in this phase, in
most cases, this combined effort results in clashes between the different disciplines
leading to the maximum amount of wastage and inefﬁciency such as incompatibility
between design and its constructability leading to change orders during the construction
phase (Formoso et a1, 1998). Alarcén and Mardones (1998) discuss that designers invest
almost 40-50% time of the total project in working on the changes. They also suggest that
almost 20-25% of the total construction period is wasted due to design deﬁciencies
arising from these clashes (Alarcén, L. F. and Mardones, D. A., 1998- refers Undurraga,
1996). Architecture, engineering and construction, owes 78% of quality problems to
design (Koskela, 1992). From the point of view of cost, design caused defects are fairly
large contributors to the expense of the building hence considerably lowering eventual

proﬁts (Rounce, 1998).

28

Hammond et a1 (2000) proposes that design phase owes its inefﬁciencies to the currently
followed conventional design process, which can be deﬁned as sequential and non-
interactive (Hammond et al., 2000). Chua and Tyagi (2003), suggest that in the
conventional design process generally the architect leads the phase by preparing the
project program that is then used by other disciplines to prepare their designs. In this
process the information exchange between the various disciplines such as architecture,
mechanical, electrical and HVAC needs to happen at two levels i.e., broad and detailed.
However, the interaction takes place only at the broad level. Once the detailed design
begins each discipline works in isolation, interacting only in case of potential conﬂicts
(Chua and Tyagi, 2003). In most cases the contractor is ignored entirely and therefore no
constructability information is added to the design of any discipline. This lack in
communication results in deﬁciency in the information available to all the disciplines to
complete the design tasks, inconsistencies within construction documents, and lack of

coordination between disciplines; therefore, leading to inconsistent decision-making.

From the literature presented it can be inferred that the conventional design process lacks
integration causing inefﬁciencies in the whole process that results in less than optimal
products. Therefore, it is imperative, that the project participants interact from the
beginning and continue their communication process throughout the life of the project.
This would facilitate integration of the design phase consequently minimizing clashes
and eventually leading to improved outcomes such as lower project costs, faster payback

period, realistic schedules, and a signiﬁcant leap in the actual building performance.

29

2.3.1 Integrated Design Process

Integrated design process can be deﬁned as a process constituting teamwork between
multiple disciplines to achieve optimized solutions in coherence with the design
requirements for better project outcomes (BCBC, 2001). Integrated design process is
more comprehensively deﬁned as a method for creating high performance buildings
through a collaborative process that focuses on the design, construction, operation and
occupancy of a building (Larsson, 2002). The deﬁnition also suggests that this process
facilitates client and other stakeholders to develop and deﬁne functional, environmental,
and economic goals and objectives. Integrated design process proceeds ﬁom whole
building system strategies; working through increasing levels of speciﬁcity, to realize
more optimally integrated solutions (Larsson, 2002; WBDG, 2008). Table 2.2 compares
integrated design process with the traditional design process.

Table 2.2 Integrated Design Process vs. Traditional Design Process (adopted from
BCBC, 2001; Larsson, 2002; WBDG, 2008)

  

Categories Integrated Design Process Traditional Design Process

     

 

 

 

 

 

Facilitates early collaboration of all Has predeﬁned phases for the
the players involvement of the team members
Level of Collaboration 1.8 maintained Collaboration is minimal (only when
. throughout the pI‘OJCCt life although . .
Collaboration . . required) players mostly work in
the desrgn phase receives the . .
. . . . isolation
max1mum communication.
Whole-systems thinking Systems often considered in isolation
Project Project phases happen in parallel to . .
Pr0ject phases are more or less linear
Phases each other
Decisions are taken by member’s
Decisions are inﬂuenced by primary to the discipline in question
Decisions members from different disciplines (suggestions are taken only in cases
of clashes).
Life-cycle costing Emphasis on up-front costs

 

 

 

 

 

30

It is used extensively in sustainable construction, as a green building requires optimum
building system solutions / balance, achieved only by close working relation between
multidisciplinary teams (Zimmerman, 2005; PTI, 1996; Frej, 2005). For example — the
effective use of climate responsive design (proper building orientation, massing and
shading and effective use solar energy and passive cooling and heating attributes) and the
use of high performance envelope technologies has considerable impacts on mechanical
and electrical systems, failure to optimize the solution can have signiﬁcant negative
effects on the ﬁrst cost and operational energy costs of the systems.

Allison Hall Fitness Center (2005), a Green GlobesTM case study, poses an example of
integrated design. It is located in Sackville, Canada has earned 3 globes out of four.
According to the case study the design was a collaborative effort between architect,
engineers, consultants, and occupants. Day lighting was optimized through building
orientation and window-to-wall size ratios (95% of windows are located with brise soleil,
5% wall) and electrical lighting was integrated with day lighting, taking into account
daily and seasonal variations. Consequently, it has affected the envelope of the building
requiring close working relationship between the architect and the lighting and electrical
consultants. To maintain and enhance the interior thermal comfort that could have been
upset by the 95% windows in the envelope, a low U value (2.52) glazing was used (Green

Globes, 2005).

2.3.2 Integrated Design Process in Sustainable Buildings
Integrated design process although still in nascent stages is gaining momentum in the

construction industry. Due to its multidisciplinary approach and optimized results this

31

l

process is highly recommended by the assessment models and other industry standards
(USGBC, 2009; Green Globes, 2009; DoE, 2009). Evaluation methods and other
literature suggest project stakeholders to organize design charrettes and integrated design
workshops. Such programs provide a common focus to the project and facilitate positive

communication and chemistry amongst the participants (Frej, 2005).

Sustainable buildings in particular are encouraged to adopt integrated design process as it
is futile to add or overlay environmental systems on an existing building. For a building
to be genuinely green; it needs to beneﬁt from the integrated or whole systems, design
approach from the inception (7 Group, 2004; Enache-Pommer and Horman, 2009). The
success of integrated design in green buildings depends upon the time frame that it is
practiced in. According to Building Green Inc. (2001) integrated design process practiced
early in the project (to integrate green strategies) yields better outcomes than when it is
practiced later (Figure 2.3). This is so because the goals and objectives determined at the
beginning enable a clear understanding of project scope requirements and project needs,
the adoption of green early in the project saves project rework due to accurate project
bids and costs and save time for incorporating these sustainable objectives later in the
future (Enache-Pommer and Horman, 2009). Sustainable strategies are added later in the
projects life either behave as add-ons that don’t perform as intended to or they change the
approach towards design (sometimes the design itself) resulting in extensive rework and

increase in cost.

32

 

PD SD DD CD BC BO/PO
Intensive high
Involvement
Periodic high
Involvement

Moderate
Involvement

Periodic low
Involvement
Sporadic or no
involvement

 

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 42
Duration (Months)

------------ Opportunities to Inﬂuence Sustainability
Conventional Architect, Engineer, Contractor
------- IDP Architect, Engineer

- - -'-" [DP Contractor

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.3 Change in Energy Saving Opportunities According to the Phases of
Design Process (Modified from Perkins and Stantec Consulting, 2007)
An example of the use of integrated design approach is the commercial ofﬁce building

Heifer International Center (2002) (LEED® -NC-Platinum). This case study demonstrates

the use of integrated design throughout the life of the project. Through the integrated
design process the project team participated in discussions ranging from methods of
ﬁnance to site selection. A charrette was held for the project participants to establish a list
Of attainable environmental goals eventually leading to the ﬁnal design of the building.
The team was very particular about the structural concept of the building and aimed to
minimize ornamentation and express the functional detailing of steel. To achieve goal the
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems had to be integrated. The
construction team involved in the design process incorporated constructability

information to understand the feasibility of the design and suggested alternative material

33

that was in compliance with the indoor air quality needs and local availability. Along

with the broad objectives of the project, the design team also communicated the process

. ® . . . . . .
of documenting LEED criteria to the construction team bringing the two teams in

concurrence with each other (USGBC, 2008).

Another striking example is the Aldo Leopold Legacy center (2007) (LEED®-NC-

Platinum). Functionally it houses an interpretive center, commercial ofﬁce and meeting
spaces an archive and a workshop organized around a central courtyard. According to the
case study from the start of the schematic design phase through construction, project team
meetings included the environmental consultant, energy simulation consultants,
commissioning agent and control system. The goal of the project was to demonstrate the
relationship between human activity, built environment and the natural world. To achieve
this goal, the project strictly adhered to a holistic design process. One of the main
challenges of the project was to only use locally available resources. This required
extensive inputs from the various disciplines for information such as properties of the
material and their affects on building systems and actual building performance (USGBC,

2008)

Literature demonstrates the importance of integrated design and early involvement of
participants. However, the timing and the level of involvement of participants is
signiﬁcantly affected by the contractual arrangements/ project delivery methods (PDM)
chosen by the projects. According to Bilec and Ries (2009) the delivery System affects

the level of integration in a project as it is the delivery system that establishes the

34

communication, coordination, and contractual interfaces between the owner, contractor,
and designer. The next section details the different project delivery methods presently

adopted by the industry.

2.4 Project Delivery Methods

Project delivery and contracting strategies deﬁne the formation of project teams, their
working relationships and levels of involvement over project timelines (aKorkmaz, 2007).
The decision that confronts each project is determining the framework that is most
suitable to optimize the results and maximize project and building performance (Konchar
and Sanvido, 1998). Generally, depending on the project details and objectives of the
owner, one of the prescribed approaches is selected. Therefore, it is imperative that the
alternatives be well deﬁned from all the aspects so that ﬁnally a framework can be
chosen in the projects best interest. The Primer on Project Delivery, jointly provided by
The American Institute of Architects and The Associated General Contractors of America
(2004), deﬁnes the three most common Project delivery methods / frameworks used by
the industry at present. The US. construction industry either uses these methods or
variations and combinations of them. The three methods are Design-Bid-Build (DBB),
Construction Management at Risk (CMR), and Design Build (DB) (AIA-AGC, 2004).
Next is a discussion of the methods and the characteristics have also been listed in Table

2.3.

The Design-Bid-Build method: This method is often described as the traditional method
of project delivery, consisting of three main roles of owner, architect, and builder. This

delivery method is best deﬁned as sequential s the project is executed in clearly deﬁned

35

phases that are design, bidding, and construction, conducted in a linear sequence (Miller
et al., 2000). In this approach, the owner contracts with an architect and contractor
separately. First the owner contracts with an architect for a design package, including
contract documents. Second, competitive bids are secured from contractors with the
procured design documents (produced by the architect) used by the owner. The owner
submits the package for bidding and unless otherwise mentioned in the tender document,
selects the lowest responsible bidder to undertake the construction of the project. The I
method requires the owner to monitor contractor’s activities to assure adherence to
contract requirements (Ibbs et al. 2003). The contractual relationship and the direction of

information ﬂow for this PDM is illustrated in Figure 2.4.

 

Contractual Relationship

‘—>
\ Direction of information ﬂow

Figure 2.4 Contractual Relationships and Direction of Information Flow between
Owner, Contactor, and Designer in Design-Bid-Build

  
     

 

 

 

AIA-AGC (2004) suggests that the initial low project costs, typically due to the price
competition between bidding contractors is the reason that most federal projects are built
using the design-bid-build delivery method. Many times large private projects such as
churches and schools are also required to use sealed bids and formal procedures, similar
to procedures for public projects. However, Klotz (2005) reports that because this method
does not incorporate constructability information into the design phase, many times it

leads to conﬂicts between design and construction (due to differing perspectives of

36

contractor, owner and architect over the work scope and items), leading in change orders,
repairs and lawsuits, negating the initial cost advantage of the design-bid-build system

(Klotz, 2005).

The Construction Management at Risk Method: This approach is a relatively new
approach of project management. According to Dorsey (1997) it was developed as the
existing delivery systems failed to address the issues arising in the projects. Some of the
main reasons are rapid inﬂation of construction costs; increasing complexity in buildings;
prolonged construction schedules for complex buildings; difﬁculty in compressing the

traditional design-bid-build time requirements; rise in litigations (Dorsey, 1997).

The construction manager (CM) delivery system consists of a single individual or a team
of professionals. Here, the construction manager can be hired only to coordinate the
project on the owners behalf or can offer the owner, contractual arrangement to facilitate
a single source of responsibility for design development coordination and construction
(Koppinen and Lahdenpera, 2000). Depending upon the area of expertise on the CM,
he/she can offer services such as constructability reviews, value engineering studies,
construction estimates, and contract packaging. During construction, the CM coordinates
contractors’ activities and controls the project (A1 Khalil, 2002). Although this offers the
owner an experienced construction professional, this professional works just as a
consultant, and hence does not have responsibility for any failure faced by the project.
The ‘at risk’ is added to construction management when the CM takes on the risk of
building a project. Owner contracts with the architect separately. The CM holds contracts

with schedule and price warranties signiﬁcantly delegating owner’s control and risk over

37

the project. The contract is held typically in two stages i.e., First, CMR manages and
undertakes services during conceptual & preliminary design phases with the design
professional. Second when the design is complete, owner and CMR then agree on a price
and schedule for the completion of the construction work (Al Khalil, 2002). The formal

and informal relationship between participants in this PDM is illustrated in Figure 2.5.

I Owner I ______
Contractual Relationship

<—>
Direction of information ﬂow

 

  
 
 
 
   
   
 
    

 

Construction
Manager

Contractor

 

Architect

   

 

 

 

Figure 2.5 Contractual Relationships and Direction of Information Flow between
Owner, Contactor, Designer, and Construction Manager in Construction
Management at Risk
The Design Build Method: In DB, design and construction take place simultaneously,
unlike DBB where the process was sequential. Here the owner contracts with a single
entity for both design and construction, therefore, eliminating the bidding phase. As now
the design and construction is being done by the same body, this method not only reduces
the overall project time, it also permits the incorporation of constructability information,

by taking contractors input, during the design phase (C11, 2002).
In this approach the contractual relationship is very simple and straightforward. The
owner maintains a single contract with the architect—contractor or design-build entity

(Figure 2.6). This process consolidates the contracts that the owner has with several

38

parties, as now there is only one entity that is responsible for providing both design and
construction services to the owner. Due to the change in the contractual arrangements, the
project can be led either by an architect or a general contractor or both. This method
requires much deﬁned allocation of the roles and responsibilities in the design-build team
and is particularly successful in cases where the scope is clearly laid out; the design is

standard and repetitive with a tight schedule (Chan et a1, 2001).

 

 

 

 

 

Owner
I ______
l Contractual Relationship
I
I < >
I Direction of information ﬂow
Design Build
Agency

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.6 Contractual Relationships and Direction of Information Flow between
Owner, and the Design Build Agency in Design Build

This method is relatively contemporary and addresses many of the problems with the
design-bid-build or traditional method. Here, as the design team and contractor are both
part of the same entity, the chances of then with each other rather than as adversaries’
increases drastically. The resulting advantages are typically lower project costs (owed
mainly to less design changes and less change orders), improvement in performance both
project and building and decreased project duration (due to the simultaneous execution of

the design and construction phases).

39

Table 2.3 Characteristics of the Three Main Project Delivery Methods
(AI Khalil, 2002; C11, 2002; AIA-AGC, 2004)

Characteristics

  

Team members

Design Bid Builrl

- 3 prime players -
Owner, Designer,
Builder

   

Design Build

- 2 prime players -
Owner, Design-build
entity

(‘onstruction

Management at Risk
- 3 prime players -
Owner, Designer,
Construction Manager

 

' Two separate

- Two separate

 

bid or total contract
price

cost

Contractual contracts - owner- - One contract - owner contracts - owner to
Arrangement designer, owner- to design-build entity designer, owner to
builder CMR
- inal tr . . . .
F . con actor ' F inal provrder - Final provrder

selection based on . .

Contractor lowest res onsible selection based on selection based on

Selection p aspects other than total aspects other than total

cost

 

 

 

. . ' Overlapping phases - ° Overlapping phases -
Project Phases disjlneagighgfjjd- design and build (fast design and build (fast
gn, ’ track) track)
o Well-established ° Project-by-project . SpeCiﬁc contractual
Roles and . . . arrangement
. . . . and broadly baSis for establishing & .
Responsrbilities . determines the roles of
documented roles documenting roles
players
- Preconstruction
. 0 Lowest responsible ° Either cost or solution serVices offered by the
Basrs for . . . constructor (such as
. bid that provrdes a as the baSis for . .
choosmg the . . . . constructability
reliable market price selection of the desrgn- . .
team for the project build entity reView, bid
development and
management)

 

° Overall project

 

 

 

 

construction-related
decisions in advance.

 

the start of the project

 

. . planning and - A fast track schedule
An opportunity for scheduling by the achieved by dividing
. construction . . . . .
Planning and . deSign-build entity the preject into several
. planning based on . . . .

Scheduling prior to mobilization contract packages and
completed d 'bl b h h . h k
documents (ma e possr e y t e p asrng t e pac . ages,

Single pOint of the CM can achieve.
responsibility)
Cost ' Low ﬁrst cost - High ﬁrst cost ° High ﬁrst cost
- Contract documents
, completed before - Some construction- 0 Some construction-
Construction construction begin, . . . .
. . . . related dechIOns after related deCiSions after
DecISions requiring

the start of the project

 

40

 

 

2.4.1 Level of Integration in the Design and the Project Delivery Systems

Through literature, integration is understood as participation of multi disciplinary
stakeholder in a project. It has also been established that earlier the integration happens
better are the project outcomes. However, the section on project delivery establishes that
the entry and exit of participants in a project is regulated by the contractual arrangements.
This directly suggests that level of integration gets strongly affected by the project
delivery system chosen. Even though the balance tips towards DB the superiority of any
project delivery method has not been proven in the literature. Each project delivery
method has its own opportunities and constraints and they can be understood with the

help of examples in the form of case studies.

The Hawaii Gateway Energy Center (2004) (LEED® - NC- Platinum), a USGBC case

study is one such example. The delivery method chosen for this project was DBB.
According to the case study the choice of the project delivery method restricted
contractor involvement until after the design. Therefore, contractors input for important
information like constructability of the design, value engineering and waste management

could not be received and added to the project (U SGBC, 2008). Another example is the

CBF Merrill Environmental Center (2000) (LEED® - NC- Platinum). The case study
states that the contractor was not very experienced with the green systems and
construction and the project would have beneﬁted if he shared the clients goals and

objectives. Such a situation could be avoided if project delivery methods such as D-B or

CMR had been chosen (USGBC, 2008).

41

Due to the early involvement of the contractor and ﬂexibility in the contractual
arrangements it is easily assumed that project delivery methods (PDM) such as DB and
CMR allow a lot of integration and would automatically result in better project outcomes.
However, these PDM’s have their own constraints that include restricting client’s
involvement only till the design phase. They tend to reduce the clients control over
decision making because in DB a single agency is responsible for design and construction
therefore many decisions are taken internally and independent of the client (CDE, 2002).
Where as in the DBB method the owner contracts with two different entities and hence
maintains control over the project by the responsibility of coordination. According to
Lahdenpera (2001), owners choosing DB as they need to be very clear of their objectives
and need to state them lucidly to the DB team unlike the traditional system where the
client loosely states his/her intentions and then the program is developed after a series of
meeting. Here unlike DBB the client does not have the luxury to change the scope, as the

projects are generally fast-tracked.

2.5 Project Participants (Roles and Responsibilities)

The importance of multidisciplinary participants cannot be disputed. However, to further
understand the importance of early collaboration it is important to conduct a literature
review recognizing the main project participants and their roles and responsibilities.
According to Frej (2005), the main project team includes architects, landscape designers,
civil, mechanical electrical plumbing and structural engineers, contractors and facility
managers, commissioning agent, design managers and construction managers, human

resources and marketing staff (Frej, 2005). Depending upon the team’s experience and

42

level of knowledge specialists such as sustainability consultants, energy consultants,

indoor air quality consultant, can also be made part of the team.

1.

2.

Client / Owner / Tenant: The owners or the clients are the most important and
powerful players in the construction industry. Such status is given to the owners
as they create construction jobs, by creating construction projects and being the
primary consumers of construction services and project ﬁnances, they are often at
pivotal positions in the project (Carr, 2000; Huang, 2003). Traditionally, they
controlled design, construction, contract documents, and selection of the project
team. However, this control has seen a shift due to the different project delivery
systems adopted by the industry. Although owner still controls the design intent
and to a large extent the design itself, the owner’s can now choose the level of
risk and cOntrol to have on the project (Col Debella, 2004). The contractual
arrangements can be modiﬁed to facilitate shifting of risks and management
control on other participants such as construction manager, contractor, and/or
design—build entity. Typically owner’s responsibilities include determining the
project’s objective, focus, budget, schedule, and operating requirements and the
communication of the same to the team members. The choice of contractual
arrangements would determine the lines of communication between the team
members (Huang, 2003). The owners should carefully choose the contractual

arrangements as they can have signiﬁcant affects on the end product.

Design Team: This consists of all the disciplines that are involved in the
‘designing’ of a building. The main team members consist of the architect,

mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) engineers, HVAC consultants and

43

structural engineers. Regardless of the scale/type of project and project delivery
method, contractual arrangements have to be such that all these disciplines must
be present during‘the design phase. Even if one of the above stated disciplines
were missing it would create a gap that would lead to an incomplete building
design. Although communication and integration of design are highly
recommended, it depends on the team dynamics, project requirements, and the

focus on goals and strategies that the team works together or in isolation.

Contractor: Traditionally the role of the contractor is to physically put up the
building. However, contractual arrangements can be organized in a way to
involve the contractor from the design stage lasting up-till commissioning. In the
case of the contractor being retained by the owner from the design phase his
services would include comprehensive cost estimating, system value analysis,
products and regional material identiﬁcation, master scheduling and
constructability reviews (Frej, 2005). In case of a green building the contractor
must be made part of the design charrette providing sustainability reviews
developing cost data, local market analysis, information on availability of
materials, lead times for delivery, evaluation of tradeoffs (value engineering),
analysis of constructability and overall scheduling for the projects (Myers, 2005).
The contractor can provide the owner with the ﬁrst cost and also be instrumental

in doing a risk assessment of the project.

During the construction phase, contractor must procure the right subcontractors

and trade contractors by ensuring that they match with the intent of the project.

44

The standards of the green products, materials, equipments, and systems must be
ensured by, making sure that they follow the guidelines of the assessment systems
(Forbes, 2001). Most assessment systems require detailed documentation of the
process followed. This documentation starts from the design phase. During the
construction phase the contractor must maintain proper documentation so that at

project end, complete information is available for review and analysis.

In the post construction phase contractor’s main input is required for
commissioning. The contractor must assist the commissioning agent and
designers with reviewing and testing systems and training the owner’s O&M staff.
Once all the systems are performing as designed a performance manual is to be

prepared comparing as built results with the original intent.

Commissioning Agent: Commissioning is an organized process which ensures that
a building’s performance is in accordance with the design intent and the contract
documents (Haasl and Sharp, 1999). This process typically takes place during the
turnover phase of the project however; a commissioning agent can be included in
the project team from the design phase itself to make certain that the design is in
coherence with the owner’s operational needs (US, 2005). Enache-Pommer and
Horman (2009), suggest that the commissioning process should be speciﬁed early
and the quality assurance should be focused on the speciﬁcation phase itself as it
can signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the cost quality and timeframe of the project.

During commissioning all the equipments are examined and tested to make sure

that they were installed correctly and worked in accordance with the

45

speciﬁcations. The process is heavily documented and results in a training
program for ongoing performance and many times also for a longer-term
validation of continuous efﬁcient performance (WBDG, 2008). Typically, a third
party with whom the owner contracts with directly executes commissioning. This

allows an unbiased evaluation of the design and installation.

. Special Value-adding Consultants: This consists of all the consultants that are not
essential to the project however, are made part of the team to add value to the
project such as sustainability, energy, and indoor air quality consultants. They are -
employed for their expert knowledge in the particular discipline. This is not
mandatory in all projects and is based proj ect-by-project, for unique requirement.
These are generally hired during the design phase; however, they can be hired at

any point in the project depending upon their area of expertise.

Summary

In the above section roles and responsibilities of various participants in a project are

discussed. The main participants that this research recognizes are owner, design team

(designer, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing consultants), contractor, commissioning

agent, and special value adding consultants. These are the pivotal players in a project.

However, the intensity of their role can change depending upon the liability and risk

allocation in the project. It can also be affected by the onus of management. The intensity

manifests in the timing of involvement of the participant in the project. In any case the

individual and collaborative performance of these players has signiﬁcant affects on the

46

performance of the ﬁnal outcomes in a project. The next section describes the various

metrics / methods for the evaluation of the project team and the outcomes of the project.

2.6 Performance Metrics

The literature review presented above strongly justiﬁes the need of integrated design
process in sustainable building to achieve optimized results. However, so far the literature
only focuses on ‘what ’ is required to achieve sustainability in a project, integrated design
process being one of the attributes. A gap was seen in the literature when ‘How’ to
achieve a high level of integration in the design process (consequently resulting in higher
levels of achieved sustainability) was researched upon. This section intends to describe
performance evaluation metrics for the life span of the project to compare the
performance of the project in the project delivery phase with the occupancy phase. This
will help in identifying key factors in the design process that lead to the achievement of

high levels of sustainability via level of integration in the design process.

Guided by previous research (Korkmaz, 2007; Gransberg and Buitrago, 2002; Konchar
and Sanvido, 1998) this research has classiﬁed a building’s project timeline into three
categories: (1) project delivery attributes; (2) project performance upon the completion of
construction and building performance in the preoccupancy stage; and, (3) post-
occupancy user satisfaction or building performance in the post—occupancy stage. This
study primarily focused on the ﬁrst two stages by investigating the effects of project
delivery attributes (independent variables) on project performance at construction

completion (dependent variables). Addressing the last stage occurs through owner

47

perception, and therefore, the last stage becomes a component of the second stage as
“Owner’s Perception of the Resource Consumption and Level of User Satisfaction in the
Post-Occupancy Phase.” The description and scope of the two categories are given below

(Figure 2.7).

 

 

    
 

Project Performance Metrics

 

  
 

Project

Building Performance upon
Delivery Attributes

Completion

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.7 Categories of the Project Phases

2.6.1 Project Delivery Attributes

These attributes assess the delivery phase of a building project. Until present, the
literature lacked an evaluation metric for the delivery phase. Recent research, “Piloting
Evaluation. Metrics for High Performance Green Building Project Delivery” (Korkmaz,
2007), comprehensively documented and listed project delivery attributes to assess the
project. This research has adopted six out of the seven attributes listed in Korkmaz
(2007). These are as follows: owner’s commitment, project delivery system selection,
project team procurement, contract conditions, level of integration in the design process,
and project team characteristics. These attributes are explained in further detail below and
are also summarized in Table 2.4. The seventh project delivery attribute, construction
application, was omitted because of its minimal affects on project performance. It was
observed in Korkmaz (2007) that although this attribute has signiﬁcant affects on the
long term ’building performance’, and includes metrics such as commissioning agent’s

48

role in the project and the quality control procedures conducted, it does not have

consequential affects on project performance (i.e., level of success achieved in cost,

schedule, safety, levels of sustainable high performance achieved and owners perspective

of quality and user satisfaction in the post occupancy phase). However, certain metrics

such as education to the contractors were considered important for this research and

therefore are addressed under other attributes.

1.

Owner Commitment: Korkmaz (2007) deﬁnes owner commitment as the level of
an owner’s dedication towards high-performance green features and
predetermined goals in a building project. This is inclusive of criteria such as the
party to introduce “green” features to the project, the reason to pursue “green”
objectives, the timing of introducing the “green” concept in the process, and the
importance of the “green” goals for the project.

The owners or the clients are the most important and powerful players in the
construction industry. According to Carr (2000), such status is given to the
owners as they create construction jobs, by creating construction projects (Gulgel
and Russell, 1994; Carr, 2000). Being the primary consumers of construction
services and project ﬁnances, they are often at pivotal positions in the project
(Huang, 2003). Traditionally, they have controlled design, construction, contract
documents, and selection of the project team. However, this control has seen a
shift due to the different project delivery systems adopted by the industry.
Although for obvious reasons the owner still controls the design intent and to a
large extent the design itself, the owner’s can now choose the level of risk and

control to have on the project (Col Debella, 2004). The contractual arrangements

49

2.

can be modiﬁed to facilitate shifting of risks and management control on other
participants such as construction manager, contractor, and/or design-build entity.

Typically owner’s responsibilities include determining the project’s objective,
focus, budget, schedule, and operating requirements and also the communication
of the same to the team members. The choice of contractual arrangements would
determine the lines of communication between the team members (Huang, 2003;
Bubshait and Al-Musaid, 1992). The owners should carefully choose the
contractual arrangements as they can have signiﬁcant affects on the end product.
According to Enache-Pommer and Horman (2009), increased owner commitment
leads to better project planning consequently leading to improved cost and

schedule performance.

Project Delivery Method Selection: Project delivery systems deﬁne major project
participants’ ofﬁcial involvement in the project, the level of integration, and
contractual relationships between project parties (Oyetunji and Anderson, 2001;
A1 Khalil, 2002; Ibbs et al., 2003, AIA-AGC, 2004). Three types of project
delivery systems are widely used in the USA: design-bid-build, design-build, and
construction management at risk. Enache-Pommer and Horman (2009) suggest if
the sustainable project objectives are integrated with other delivery aspects during
programming, design and construction would eventually reduce delays, costs, and

rework on the project.

50

3. Project Team Procurement: The method and process followed to procure the
project teams can have signiﬁcant affect on the ﬁnal outcome (Korkmaz, 2007).
The procurement method can strongly affect the relationship between different
project participants and the chemistry that they share with each other. Literature
suggests various procurement systems such as past experience of a project team,
technical aspects of a proposal, sole source selection, best value source selection,
competition, negotiation, low bid, ﬁxed budget/ best design and qualiﬁcation
based selection. Each of the mentioned method stresses on different qualities
therefore it is up to the procurer to select particular method according to the
requirement (Gransberg and Senadheera, 1999; Molenaar and Gransberg, 2001;
Molenaar et al., 1999; El Wardani, 2004). For example if the procurer does not
have the required know-how they might decide to use qualiﬁcation based

procurement method however, a more qualiﬁed procurer may choose low bid.

4. Contractual Conditions: This variable includes evaluation of contractual terms of
the project, the importance of “green” in the contract, contractual relations
between important team members, incentive/penalty clauses within the contract,
established criteria for communication such as timing, milestones, and level
completed work and established criteria for the shift of liability of safety,
productivity, risk and quality (Korkmaz, 2007; Ibbs et al., 2003; Gransberg and

Molenaar, 2004).

51

5. Level of Integration in the Delivery Process: Integration in the design process
suggests early collaboration of the project participants for optimized results
(U SGBC, 2009). It does not necessarily mean that all the participants should enter
at the same time. Rather it means that all the participants should be involved in
the project at the ‘correct’ time (Bubshait and Al-Musaid, 1992; Drexler and
Larson, 2000). Integration also includes methods and timing Of communication
amongst the participants, and chemistry amongst participants. The former would
have strong affects on integration as working comfort/discomfort would arise
from participants past experience of working with each other and on the type of
facility in question (OGC, 2003; Pocock et al., 1997).

Finally this metric includes energy modeling. Enache-Pommer and Horman
(2009), suggest that this would help to optimize the building design and allow the
design team to prioritize investments in the strategies that will have the greatest
effect on the building’s energy use. Achieving energy modeling would not only
require technical effort but also input from the various team member’s thereby
reﬂecting on the multidisciplinary integration during the design phase.

The evaluation of this metric includes timing and method of communication,
facilitation of design charrette, employ project peer review at regular intervals
through the project, the level of owner involvement in the project, chemistry
amongst participants, ease of communication amongst participants and techniques

for energy modeling.

52

6. Project Team Characteristics: Project teams are made up of individuals having
very unique and diverse characteristics. These characteristics can either be
compatible or completely incompatible with each other. The purpose of this
metrics is to evaluate the level of compatibility by measuring communication and
chemistry amongst project team members (Korkmaz, 2007; Chan et a1. 2002; C11,
2002). This metrics also includes team member’s experience in similar projects

and owner’s capabilities to understand the project team competencies.

53

Table 2.4 Project Delivery Attributes (Adopted from Korkmaz, 2007)

 

Project Delivery .-\ttributcs Focus

 

PM # 1 Owner Commitment

 

0 Party to introduce “green” features to the project;

0 Reason to pursue “green” objectives;

0 Timing of introducing the “green” concept in the
process;

0 Importance of the “green” goals for the project;

0 Mandating green metric (contractually or verbally);

 

PM # 2 — Project Delivery
System Selection

Inclusion of either one the three primary PDM's
0 Design-Bid-Build;

0 Design-Build;

0 Construction Management at risk.

 

PM # 3 Project Team
Procurement

0 Negotiated vs Competitive selection process;

0 Restrained pools of potential participant;

0 Benchmark of restraint;
Sole source selection, best value source selection,
competition, negotiation, low bid, ﬁxed budget/ best
design, qualiﬁcation based selection.

 

PM # 4 Contract Conditions

0 Green features part of whose contract;

0 Contractual relations between important team
members;

0 Incentive/ penalty clauses within the contract;
0 Likert scale evaluation of onerous contract clauses.

 

PM # 5 Integration in the
Delivery Process

0 Timing of contracting;

0 Methods and timing of Communication;

0 Presence of a LEED® AP. and contractual position;
0 Design Charettes;

0 Teams prior experience as a unit;

0 Level of communication within team members;

0 Level of compatibility within team members;

0 Education to contractors.

 

PM # 6 Project Team
Characteristics

 

0 Team member’s experience in similar projects;
0 Owner’s representative’s capabilities;

0 Owner’s ability to deﬁne scope;

0 Owner’s ability to make decisions;

0 Evaluation of the level of compatibility by measuring
communication and chemistry among project team
members.

 

 

54

 

2.6.2 Project Performance

This is the performance evaluation at the turnover stage i.e, in between the pie—occupancy
and the occupancy phase. These performance metrics are used to understand the effects
of project delivery attributes on the project outcomes. The literature review helped to
identify six metrics in this category. These are as follows: Schedule, Cost, Quality,
Construction Safety, Levels of High-Performance Sustainability, and Owner’s Perception
of the Resource Consumption and Level of User Satisfaction in the Post-Occupancy
Phase. The measurement approaches and techniques for each described metric are listed
in Table 2.5.

1. Schedule: This is an important metric and is one of the factors that deﬁne the
success/failure of project performance. Every project has time is allocated to its
different phases; in the ﬁrst two phases that is the design and construction the
owner’s invest money in the building. It is the third phase that the owner’s expect
the building to pay back that investment by becoming functional. It is safe to
assume that the owners would want the building to be functional at the earliest or
no later than a predetermined time for the payback to begin. Therefore time
becomes equal to cost which makes time an important metrics for evaluation
(Korkmaz, 2007). The potential measures to evaluate high performance green
project performance that are based on the deﬁnitions provided by Konchar and
Sanvido (1998) and Gransberg and Buitrago (2002), are schedule growth,

construction speed, design speed, and delivery speed.

55

Although time growth is useful in showing a snapshot of the project it is
ambiguous in nature and lacks clarity. It is expressed as positive or negative
where positive is considered ‘bad’ for the project and negative ‘good’. However,
time grth does not explain the reasons behind the variation, neither does it
numerically show the reason behind the change, nor does it assign responsibility
for the change (Gransberg and Buitrago, 2002). Therefore, construction and
design time growth should be separated to understand where exactly did the
delays lie. Also, difference lies in the project delivery chosen as unlike DBB, DB
allows overlap between design and construction phase. Hence the time growth

needs to be relatively understood.

Cost: Cost deﬁnes the magnitude of the investment made by a facility owner or a
developer to design and construct a building and excludes property costs, owner
costs of installed process or manufacturing equipment, furnishings, ﬁttings and
equipment, or items not included in the cost of the building (Korkmaz, 2007). The
potential measure to evaluate high performance green project performance that is
based on the deﬁnitions provided by Konchar and Sanvido (1998) and Gransberg
and Buitrago, (2002) is cost growth.

Similar to Schedule growth this too presents ambiguous results and for more lucid
results construction and design cost growth should be separated. However,
depending upon different project delivery methods the segregation of construction
and design cost might not be possible. Therefore the data collection tool will

contain separate tables for the three PDM’s.

56

3. Quality: Quality being relative signiﬁcantly differs for different team members.
Being on the receiving end of the project, quality should be seen from the owner’s
perspective. The quality metric for the preoccupancy stage includes turnover
quality (Konchar and Sanvido, 1998) and value of the cost and schedule grth

for the project owner.

Turnover quality: This evaluates owners’ perception of project quality that

depends on the ease or difﬁculty of the turnover of a facility. This metric

combines the difﬁculty of facility start up (Qstanup), number and magnitude of call

backs during the turnover process (Qcau backs), and the difﬁculty of the submittal
review process if the facility went through a documentation submission process
for receiving certiﬁcation from any of the environmental building assessment
systems (qubmittal review). Each category in this metric is evaluated by the
respondents in a Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represents high, 3
represents medium, and 5 represents low difﬁculty in these processes. A total of
15 points are possible in the evaluation of this metric. The formula to calculate

facility turnover quality is as follows:

Turnover Quality = Qstartup + Qcall backs + qubmittal review

Owner ’s satisfaction with the cost and schedule growth of the building: Cost and
schedule grth if positive, can have a negative impact on the owner’s perception
of quality. However, if the grth is due to owner related scope changes, they

could be satisﬁed with the results (Naoum 1994; Korkmaz, 2007). Therefore,

57

value of the cost and schedule growth to the owner needs to be calculated to
determine if it was the owner’s decision or a ﬂaw in the design and construction
phases. The Likert scale used in measuring turnover quality is also used in this
metrics. The range will be from 1 to 5, where 1 represents high, 3 represents
medium, and 5 represents low difﬁculty in these processes. A total of 10 points

are possible in the evaluation of this metric.

Construction Safety: The management determines level of safety during design as
policies and during construction on site. Project delivery methods shift the
liability of this on different players. This shifting of liability has major affects on
the safety. For example, according to Toole (2002), under the traditional design-
bid-construct project arrangement, subcontractors have a high ability to inﬂuence
root causes, general contractors have a moderate ability to inﬂuence root causes,
A/Es have a mixed ability to inﬂuence root causes, and owners have a low ability
to inﬂuence root causes. Therefore, safety is an important metric to consider in

the evaluation of high performance green project performance outcomes.

Safety can be measured by Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) recordable incident ratings on the projects. The following metrics are
used to measure constructions’ safety levels in this research: (1) OSHA
Recordable Incident Rate (RIR); (2) DART Rate (Days Away/Restricted or Job
Transfer Rate); (3) Lost Time Case Rate (LTC); (4) Lost Work Day Rate (LWD).

These were found to be the only post construction collectable metrics however,

58

based on previous research they have not proved to be very helpful. Therefore
open ended questions were added to the data collection tool such as onus of the
responsibility of safety on the participants and how important were the safety

issues for the project.

. Levels of High-performance Sustainability: Sustainable building assessment

systems address the critical aspects from the deﬁnition to enable high-

performance buildings. Among these assessment systems, LEED® (USGBC,

2008) has received the most recognition in the US. green building community.

Therefore, this research utilizes High Performance criteria from LEED® to assess

energy and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) to measure high-performance
levels of green projects. According to Korkmaz (2007), energy and IEQ sections
reﬂected that some of the criteria in these sections might conﬂict with each other.
However, the results of a regression analysis conducted demonstrated a positive
relationship but only with a 13.4% of the variance (Korkmaz, 2007). Therefore,
these sections are to be considered as different metrics.

The metrics used to measure levels of high performance green in project that are
based on the deﬁnitions provided by Korkmaz (2007) are: energy performance,
level of green, level of high performance, and indoor environment quality
performance. Finally, one more metric was added to the existing ones this is
achieved certiﬁcation vs. intended. This directly determined the success of the

project i.e., the project being below, above or on target.

59

6. Owner ’5 Perception of the Resource Consumption and Level of User Satisfaction
in the Post-Occupancy Phase

a. Energy: Energy consumption and reduction is the most important building
utility affecting building performance. It is typically responsible for the
highest building cost and has an environmental impact based on the energy
sources used (Fowler et al., 2005). It would include Heating, Cooling,
Lighting Ventilation, and Equipment. For the purpose of this research no
actual data was collected instead the owner/facility manager were asked to
rate the level of their satisfaction with the energy performance of the building
on a likert scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).

b. Water: Potable water consumption is the second most important building
utility representing costs and resource use (Fowler et al., 2005). The
evaluation of this metrics will be similar to that of energy.

0. Quality: In the post occupancy phase quality is deﬁned by the level of user
satisfaction of the facility. This metric includes system quality (Konchar and
Sanvido 1998) and overall quality (Korkmaz, 2007) and facility usage quality.

0 Facility usage quality: This again is a relative metric and combines
project usage satisfaction from the owner’s perspective. This metric
uses a Likert scale from 1(poor/did not meet expectations) to 5
(excellent/exceeded expectations) respectively and is calculated with
the formula given below. A total of 20 points is possible for each
project in this metric, where high points indicate higher levels of

project success.

60

F (161110) USage Quality = Swater consumption + Senergy consumption

+ Soccupant turnover rate + Sabsenteeism

Overall Quality:_This is a relative metric and combines project success
from a project team’s and owner’s perspective, with the condition of
meeting the intended project and high performance green goals. This
metric uses a Likert scale from 1(poor/did not meet expectations) to 5
(excellent/exceeded expectations) respectively. A total of 20 points is
possible for each project in this metric, where high points indicate

higher levels of project success.

Overall Quality = Sproject team + Sowner + Sgoals

+ Shiglr performance green goals

Indoor Environment Quality: Level and quality of indoor pollutant
concentrations, thermal comfort conditions, lighting quality,
Acoustics, and Day-lighting and views are environmental
characteristics that are collectively referred to as indoor environmental
quality (IEQ) (NIBS, 2005). These together as well as individually
have the potential to inﬂuence the health and productivity of building
occupants (Fisk and Rosenfeld, 1997).

Thermal comfort: This includes ventilation temperature and humidity
levels. Although thermal comfort standards were developed ' by
keeping occupants clothing and activity levels in consideration such as
ASHRAE / ANSI Standard 55-1992, it is difﬁcult to satisfy all the
occupants because thermal preferences vary among people. Therefore

61

this is a relative metric and would evaluate thermal comfort from the
user’s perspective. Other than the temperature and air velocity,
humidity also will adversely inﬂuence thermal comfort (Building
Green Inc., 2001). This metric uses a Likert scale from 1(poor/bad) to
5 (excellent) respectively.

Lighting comfort: The quality of the indoor environment depends
signiﬁcantly on several aspects of lighting (Veitch and Newsham,
1996) including the illuminance (the amount of light that reaches a
surface), and glare. Lighting characteristics impact performance by
inﬂuencing the quality of vision and having psychological inﬂuences
on mood and on perceptions of the space (Veitch, 1997; Deru and
Torcellini, 2005). Similar to thermal comfort standards were
developed to determine occupant comfort such as AN SI/IESNA—RP-
1-1993, however, experience varies amongst the users. This metric
uses a Likert’s scale ranging from 1(poor lighting comfort) to 5
(excellent lighting comfort) respectively.

Acoustical comfort: Internal noise is a signiﬁcant factor in terms of
occupant satisfaction and wellbeing. World health organization
recognizes that acoustics can be very inﬂuential on health and
wellbeing and can also be a health hazard. It is measured in decibels
(dB) where 0 dB corresponds to the lowest possible audible sound and
140 dB to the level at which pain will occur. Noise level should

usually lie in the range between 30dB -35dB. Acoustical comfort for

62

the users is calculated by a Likert’s scale ranging from 1 (very
uncomfortable) to 5 (comfortable) respectively.

0 Health and Productivity: Finally IEQ is reported to have effects on
health and productivity of the building occupants (Heerwagen, 2000;
Fowler et al., 2005). Increase or decrease in health and productivity
can be detected through occupant turnover rate and absenteeism. This
metric used a Likert scale from 1 (poor/bad) to 5 (excellent)
respectively measuring the buildings perceived IEQ through turnover

rate and absenteeism at the time of evaluation.

63

Table 2.5 Measurement Approaches and Techniques for Building Performance
Evaluation Metrics at the Completion Stage (Konchan and Sanvido, 1998;
Gransberg and Buitrago, 2002; Korkmaz, 2007)

 

Metrics

Measurement Approach

0 Schedule Growth

Measurement 'I‘cclinique
[(Total Actual Delivery Time-Total as
Planned Time) / Total as Planned

 

 

 

 

Time]* 100
Schedule 0 Construction Speed (ﬁséﬁcmal Construction Time 1n
. Design Speed (Area / Actual Design Time in Days)/30
' Delivery Speed (Area / Total Actual Delivery Time in
Days)/30
Cost Cost growth [(Final Project Cost—Contract Project
Cost) / Contract Project Cost]* 100
o Turnover Qstarl‘up + Qcall backs + qubmittal
Quali review
ty . Owner Satisfaction Likert scale responses of owner
perception
0 OSHA Recordable Archived Documents
Incident Rate
0 Days Away/Restricted
Safety or Job Transfer Rate
0 Lost Time Case Rate
0 Lost Work Day Rate
’ Energy Performance (Achieved Energy Points in LEED® /
Total Possible Points in Energy
0 Level of Green Section)* 100 A
(Achieved Total Points in LEED® /
0 Level of High Total Possible Points in
Performance LEED®)*100
Levels of High- ' (Achieved Energy Points+ Achieved
Performance . Indolor E1? Vifronment IEQ Points in LEED® / Total Possible
Sustainability Qua rty er ormance

Achieved vs. Intended

Points in Energy and IEQ in LEED®

 

 

Certiﬁcation )*100 ®
(Achieved IEQ points in LEED /
Total Possible Points in IEQ
Section)* 100
Below, above, or on targt
Owner’s perception 0 Energy Likert scale responses of owner
of the resource . Water perception
consumption and . Quality
1 l f
eve 0 user . IE Q

satisfaction in the
post-occupancy
phase

 

 

 

64

 

2.7 Summary

This chapter has addressed the need and importance of sustainable construction in the
present times. It also reports the details and characteristics of the green building
assessment systems that evaluate sustainable construction. As the assessment systems are
critiqued on being only product based and lacking process based guidelines such as
utilization of multidisciplinary collaboration, integrated design, and contractual
arrangements. Therefore, next in the chapter, integration in the design process is
discussed that advocates early collaboration of the participants. However, it was
understood that the timing of the involvement of the participants depends upon the
contractual arrangements that are categorized under PDM’s. Therefore the chapter next
describes the various PDM’s that are prevalent in the US. construction industry. Finally
the chapter presents a review of the performance evaluation metrics available in the
literature that will help in the identiﬁcation of key characteristics of the integration that
lead to better performance. In particular for the project delivery phase the metrics was
adopted from Korkmaz (2007). The current research intends to build on this study by also
employing its data collection tools and methods and verifying its ﬁndings through
utilizing a well thought case study selection process and analysis. To achieve the goals of

this research the following chapter describes the methodology steps to be undertaken.

65

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

3.1 Introduction

A review of the literature conducted in the last chapter established that higher levels of
integration achieved in a project result in better performance outcomes. It also suggests
that the achieved level of integration gets affected by project delivery methods (PDM)
because it formally deﬁnes the relationship between the project participants. Based on
literature, previous researches, and green case studies a relation exists between PDM’s,
integration and the ﬁnal achieved/ to be achieved sustainable goals. However, no cause-
effect relation was identiﬁed or researched upon rigorously by previous studies. To ﬁll
this gap in the literature the current research is attempting to answer the question: ‘What
is the extent of the effect of PDM ’s and practices on the level of integration achieved by
the project team and further does it have a significant effect on project performance

especially on achieving sustainable goals? ’

In the pursuit of answering the stated question, this research aims to qualitatively analyze
the inﬂuence of PDM’s over the relationship existing between players. The current
project is a follow up study to a recent research at Penn State University, ‘Piloting
Evaluation Metrics for High Performance Green Building Project Delivery’, (Korkmaz,
2007). This study intends to adopt and build on the lessons learned ﬁ'om the previous
research. In this quest the data collection tool and evaluation metrics will be adopted

from Korkmaz (2007), however, both will be evolved to ﬁt the speciﬁc needs of this

66

research. This chapter contains a description of the research process and speciﬁc

methodological steps that will be followed in the investigation of the research question.

3.2 Research Goals and Objectives
The main goal of this research study is to, “determine the extent to which project delivery
methods and practices affect levels of project team integration and whether this has an
effect on project performance especially on achieving sustainable goals. ” The speciﬁc
objectives of this study are to:
1. Determine the relationship between the level of integration achieved in the
delivery process and sustainability goals;
2. Determine the relationship between various PDMs and the levels of integration
achieved in the design process;
3. Identify the main project delivery attributes that have relations to project
outcomes in a green building and examine the identiﬁed patterns according to

various PDMs.

3.3 Research Approach

Case study approach to research as deﬁned by Yin (2003), is “an empirical inquiry that:
(1) investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, especially when
(2) the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.” Yin
further suggests that in this approach there are several variables of interest than data
points therefore it requires collecting and triangulating results from multiple sources of

evidence. For collection and triangulation this approach encompasses a variety of data

67

collection and analysis methods such as ethnography, evaluation, experiments, grounded
theory and quasi- experiments (Yin, 2003), therefore including both qualitative as well as

quantitative methods of analysis.

Similar to other approaches this method is also subject to negative critique. One of the
main critiques received by this approach is the generalizability of the results due to
limited sample size (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2003; Taylor et a1. 2009). However, Platt
(1992), suggests that cases should be selected based on their ability to support analytic
generalization as opposed to statistical generalization (Platt, 1992). Another negative
critique as reported by Taylor et a1 (2009), states that many manuscripts based on case
study research are executed with insufﬁcient precision, quantiﬁcation, objectivity or rigor
where investigators have not followed standard procedures, or have allowed a biased
view to inﬂuence the direction of the ﬁndings. However, bias on the part of the

researcher can occur and be controlled with any research method (Taylor et al. 2009).

Although the negative critiques are very valid and support quantitative and statistical
methods of analysis, it must be understood that in the construction industry many
phenomenon are often too large to be tested in a traditional quantitative and statistical
fashion. Also, the number of variables within the research can be beyond ﬁnite hence

becoming out of the managing capacity of the researcher (Taylor et a1. 2009).

According to Taylor et al. (2009) in the ﬁeld of construction research case studies allow

researchers to study phenomenon set in reality thereby allowing the researcher to witness

68

decisions made about real issues that impact factors such as a time, cost, quality, and
safety. This approach also allows researchers to observe and document causal factors and
quantify the impact of new technologies or techniques on a project by a exploring the
details of particular application and capturing the participants own observations about
difference between the case in question and other projects. Furthermore case study allows

researchers to work at a variety of levels of granularity (Taylor et al. 2009).

Along with case study approach other methods also pose the following limitations such
as access to (Taylor et al. 2009):

l. a willing respondent;

2. the project details; and

3. information that is often considered propriety or conﬁdential.
However, Taylor et al. (2009) suggests that “as a researcher establishes a relationship
with a case study project, these barriers are often overcome because the researcher is

committed to an in depth study and considered as part of the project team”.

3.3.1 Choice of Research Strategy

Over the years, research methodology and theory of inquiry have undergone complex
discussions and arguments, however, no consensus was found. The main dilemma that
the researchers face is to choose the most ‘scientiﬁc’ method between qualitative and
quantitative processes of analysis. Where qualitative research explores attitudes, behavior
and experiences through methods such as interviews and focus groups, quantitative

research generates numerical data through large-scale surveys and questionnaires (Dabbs,

69

1982). Due to its nature of relating to numbers and measures (therefore implied precision)
quantitative methodology is impulsively considered to be more scientiﬁc than qualitative
(Berg, 2006). Other reasons for a comparatively lower popularity of qualitative
methodology are that the research takes longer period of time, requires greater clarity of
goals during design stages, and can’t be analyzed be running computer programs (Berg,

2006)

The above presented argument is clearly biased towards the quantitative methodology
however; this approach cannot be considered as absolute. This method is limited to the
development and utilization of mathematical models, theories and/or
hypotheses pertaining to natural phenomena (Silverman, 2001). Unlike qualitative
methods it does not have the potential to examine, analyze and interpret observations for
the purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships, including
classiﬁcations of types of phenomena and entities (Patton, 2002). The contrast between
the two methodologies and the debate to choose one over the other is extremely common
and documented in the social sciences. In construction studies researchers still tend to
follow quantitative methods however; recently qualitative methodology is accepted as a

valid approach for research.

Adopting a qualitative approach is essential to this study because it aims at understanding
the process followed during the execution of the project by comprehensively assessing
and documenting the subjective understanding of the events, to optimize strategies for

sustainable high performance buildings, experienced by the project participants. This will

70

be achieved by evaluating cross-discipline interactions, team dynamics, and consensus-

based decision-making that are understandably unquantiﬁable.

3.3.2 Qualitative Approach in Construction Research

As mentioned earlier construction research is traditionally dominated by studies analyzed

quantitatively. However, considering the diverse, dynamic and people centric character of

this ﬁeld recently qualitative methodology is accepted as a valid approach to research.

Descriptions of some relevant qualitative examples are presented next. Also, to show the

change in the methodology trend in construction research Table 3.3 summarizes

additional qualitative and quantitative studies.

1.

Piloting Evaluation Metrics For High Performance Green Building Project
Delivery (Korkmaz, 2007): The main goals of this research study were to: (1)
Deﬁne meaningful evaluation metrics for high performance green building project
delivery, (2) Develop tools/methods to collect high performance green building
project delivery data, and (3) Illustrate data analysis methods for high

performance green building project delivery research.

The research used mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) for data analysis.
Under qualitative approach two methods were employed: ( 1) Pattern matching,
and (2) Cross case synthesis. Both techniques were performed over multiple case
studies. The case studies were selected based upon research speciﬁc case study
selection criteria. The analysis primarily included performance comparisons of

two sets of projects according to the predetermined performance criteria. The

71

process attributes of the two categories were recorded and compared to observe
any difference in patterns. Results were reported to support or reject and add to
the quantitative analysis results.

Pattern matching was performed using similar case study pairs. It was conducted
by assigning scores to the performance metrics of the case studies using a
qualitative scale (-1: Poor, 0: Average, 1: Good). It was then determined whether
any differences occurred in the sum scores of performance outcomes based on
changes in the project delivery attributes. Finally, it was determined that the
projects showing similar scores were focusing on almost same attributes thus
presenting a pattern.

The results of this approach provided support for four out of seven process
indicators (PI) deﬁned in the research. These process indicators, in the order of
their importance were: ( 1) contract conditions, (2) owner commitment, (3)
integrated design, and (4) project delivery methods. Although the PPS were not
rejected due to the lack of contradictory results their inﬂuence over performance
outcomes was determined to be inadequate as. they failed to yield positive
evidence.

In the cross case synthesis approach, projects were categorized as good and poor
performing and a comparison was conducted by marking the project delivery
attributes that differ in the two project categories. Table 3.2 illustrates an example
of this method. According to the research the results aligned with the expected
outcomes i.e., certain attributes were present/ emphasized upon in the projects

rated vs. the poor ones.

72

2. Lapinski et al. (2006). Lean Processes for Sustainable Project Delivery: The
purpose of this paper was to evaluate, using a scientiﬁc approach, the life cycle of
Toyota’s capital facility delivery process to empirically identify the critical
activities and capabilities that led to the success of Toyota’s South Campus
project. This involved comprehensive process-based analysis to identify
accurately the critical juncture for the generation of value and waste in Toyota’s
delivery system.

To document the process for evaluation, a modeling approach was developed to
map the entire capital delivery process, i.e., programming through design,
procurement, construction, handover, and operation. These maps provided a
pictorial representation (with levels of detail inereasing) of the steps Toyota uses

to deliver their capital facilities. An example of the process model is given in

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 
     

Figure 3.1
Develop Project Present to Approved
1.Project , Business Case Business Unit & Project
Reqt’s’s Corporate TMS Business
Case

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.1 Toyota Capital Delivery Process Map: Levels Top 2 and Bottom 3
(Modified from Lapinski, 2006)

The main qualitative method used in this study was content analysis in the form of

value assessment. Essentially, the developed process maps underwent value

assessment. Here, each activity was scrutinized to evaluate if it met the needs of

either the end user, or the environment. If a certain activity could attribute no

73

3.

value in these terms it was categorized as waste. However, in some instances, an
activity was found to be wasteful, but essential to achieve a value added outcome.
In these cases, the activity was categorized as non-value adding.

For purpose of this study, the aim of conducting a value assessment was to
identify all occurrences of value and waste generation (inclusive of non value
adding) in conjunction with Toyota achieving sustainable goals. Having assessed
the locations of value and waste generation in the delivery process, activities were
then examined for their contribution to the sustainable goals for the project. This
provided an understandable breakdown of the value-adding activities that
contributed to the sustainable objectives during project delivery. Finally, the
analysis focused on identifying opportunities for delivery process improvement

which assisted in revealing the process improvements in building project delivery.

Pulaski (2005), The Alignment of Sustainability and Constructability: A
Continuous Value Enhancement Process (C VEP): The goal of this research was
to develop a process based model enabling project teams to continuously generate
new ideas and identify optimal building solutions concerning sustainability for
high performance building projects. This research used mixed methods
(qualitative and quantitative) for data analysis. Under qualitative approach two
methods were employed 1) Content analysis and, 2) Comparative analysis.
Content analysis refers to “any qualitative data reduction and sense-making effort
that takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core

consistencies and meanings” (Patton 2002) and Comparative analysis is a

74

common analytical technique used in qualitative and quantitative studies to
compare empirically based patterns, models or events with a predicted one (Patton
2002)

Under content analysis the data was coded according to clearly deﬁned context
speciﬁc categories with each data point coded under only one category.
Comparative analysis was conducted by two methods; qualitative and
quantitative. The qualitative portion of the analysis applied to assess the
systematic nature of the model by comparing the details of the evaluation process
(CVEP) to a leading industry organization (TPS — The Toyota Production
System) (Table 3.1) This research technique enabled key aspects of the model to
be examined for alignment with existing research and state-of—industry practices.
The results indicated that the CVEP model had an impact on the performance of
building projects. This model enabled the project teams of the selected case
studies to optimize and improve ﬁrst and life cycle costs by promoting new ideas.
However, comprehensiveness and external applicability tests were not completely

validated although the data suggest that the model possessed these capabilities.

75

Table 3.1 PVEs from Pilot Study on Project 1 (Modified from Pulaski, 2005)

 

Value enhancement log
(Wedge 2)

Cost

Quality

Schedule

Process Efﬁciency

Safety/ Health

Maintainability

Resources Use

LEED Credit

Timing

CSI Division

 

Offsite Fabrication of the smart
walls

0

H

—:

r—i

H

r—

m
O

\O

 

75%

VD

 

Ca et tile in lieu of Broadloom
Mechanically crimpted (Propress)
ﬁttings versus solder joints in the
‘ plumbing piping

REP-
35%

 

The Universal Space Plan (mock
up) helps to create user acceptance
and promotes knowledge of the new

system and functionally of the space

 

Use of PDS ribbon ﬁbre
signiﬁcantly reduces the amount of

‘ EMT required

50%

 

Kits of parts furniture as a
standardized repeatable component

of the building system

75%

 

Optional glass inﬁll panels
maximize day lighting within
delineated suites

SD

 

 

Factory applied carpet on access
ﬂooring improves air quality on site
(glue vapors) and reduces the risk of

‘ safety hazards.

50%

 

Energy Management Control
System (EMCS) to control lighting
and HVAC.

 

Recycled content Gypsum
Wallboard

 

Low-e Windows throughout the
building

 

 

Refurbish existing hand rails

 

Thermostat Occupancy Pushbuttons
recommended vs. Suite Entry
Pushbuttons for after hours override

lighting control.

15%

 

Totals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

 

4. Magent (2005) A Process and Competency-Based Approach T 0 High
Performance Building Design: The aim in this research was to provide a
methodology to evaluate continuously and improve the value, relationship, and
timing of decisions in the design process of high performance buildings through a
reduction in the waste generated during the design process. The author opted for a
qualitative research approach to achieve the stated aim. Essentially two methods
were adopted to analyze the data (1) Content analysis and (2) Cross case
synthesis.

Data collection was in the form of interviews. Content analysis was conducted on
these interviews to identify project events that were related to the predetermined
six research propositions. Once the events were categorized they were analyzed
individually to see if they supported the proposition positively or negatively.
Next, each event that was determined to support a given proposition was
compared to other events within the individual case study for replication.
Replicated event occurrences that supported a proposition were identiﬁed and an
internal case study proposition validation was developed for each project. The
analysis of individual cases was followed by a cross-case analysis. Here the
occurrence of similar events in each project was studied to triangulate the results
to determine the degree of proposition support within and between cases. An

example of the method described above is given in Table 3.2.

77

Table 3.2 Final Results of Proposition Event Replication (Modiﬁed from Magent,
2005)

Replications Total Number Event Occurences By Project
Required for of Replications Cambria S AL A AII-II
Validation
Proposition #1 3 7 10 4 4
Function Based
Process Design
Proposition #2 4 4 3 1 1
Design Decisions
Charachteristics
Proposition #3 5 9 15 17 13
Decisions Timing
and Sequencing
Proposition #4 5 6 l l 8 11
Pull Driven
Commitments
Proposition #5 6 8 22 15 16
Competemcy
Centerd Team
Proposition #6 4 0 0 0 2
Decisions Based
Evalutaion Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ﬁnal results conﬁrmed validation of ﬁve out of six propositions. According to the
author failure in the validation of the sixth proposition was not due to the disproval of the
proposition rather it was inadequacy of the evidence gathered from the case study.
However, due to the lack in validation of the sixth proposition it was omitted from the

research ﬁndings.

78

 

Table 3.3 Review of the methods utilized in project delivery literature

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference & Description Quantitativglahogiialitative Limitations
Pocock (1996): Compared the - Regression
performance of traditional projects to Analysis
those using alternative delivery N= 209
approaches -
Konchar and Sanvido (1998): - Univariate Objective data for quality
Empirically compared the cost, and performance was
schedule and, quality performance of - Multivariate collected by direct
the US. building projects that used regression interactions b/w
CMR, DB and DBB project delivery models researcher and owner that
systems N=301 could be biased based on
owner perception
Molenaar and Songer (1998): The - Regression The model cannot
study provides a formalized selection Models produce accurate
model for public sector design build N=122 predictions 3 100% of the
project. time.
Pulaski, (2005): Develop a process- - Categorize - Content ~ Short period of time to
based model for detailed project and Plot (+) Analysis effectively gauge any
decisions concerning sustainability on and( -) rated - Comparativ continuous improvement
high performance building projects data, Sign Test e Analysis ~ Unclear whether results
and, - Document would increase or
Null Review decrease with extended
Hypothesis timeframe
Testig L Limited sample size
Magent (2005): Evaluate and N=3 - *PM r Researcher Bias
continuously improve the value, - "CCS - Limited sample size
relationship, and timing of decisions - Explanation
in the design process of high Building
performance buildings.
Beheiry et al (2006) Establish a Regression - Limited sample size
research mechanism to investigate the Analysis - Low level of
impact of corporate comrrritrnent to signiﬁcance in the
sustainability on capital project N=17 ﬁndings
planning performance.
Lapinski et al. (2006): Evaluated the Process
life cycle of Toyota’s capital facility Mapping
delivery process to empirically
identify the critical activities and
capabilities that led to the success of
Toyota’s South Campus project.
Korkmaz (2007): Deﬁne meaningful - Univariate I *PM - Limited sample size
evaluation metrics for high and L **CCS Handpicking case study
performance green building project - Multivariate threatens the external
delivery. regression validity
models N=40
Enache-Pommer and Horman (2009): N=4 - Process
To provide understanding of the key mapping
process those are most critical for - *PM
deliveEy of good health care facilities. ~ "CCS
*PM=Pattem Matching **CCS= Cross Case Synthesis

79

 

3.3.3 Summary

Qualitative methods of analysis are not commonly utilized in construction research.
However, recent studies have successfully attempted to use this methodology for
collection and interpretation of data. The studies listed above successfully developed and
validated models and metrics or validated pre-developed models and metrics. These were
majorly done by developing propositions from the literature or previous research that
were validated by data collected from case studies. Their ﬁnal results are published in

peer reviewed journals and conference proceedings.

The summary of the analysis methods and their utilization in the studies is presented
above. They strongly support the use of qualitative methods of analysis for understanding
certain phenomenon in this ﬁeld. All the studies presented above either used only
qualitative methods or adopted mixed (qualitative and quantitative) methods of analysis
to triangulate the results for increased validation. The main qualitative analysis methods
selected in these recent researches are content analysis, pattern matching, and cross case
synthesis or a variation of them. Content analysis essentially categorizes the data under
different themes and topics. The themes can be predetermined or developed during the
course of analysis. Depending upon the aim of the research pattern matching is used to
recognize emergence of any pattern in the data set or to compare empirically based
patterns with predicted patterns. Finally cross case synthesis is adopted to mark distinct
differences between data sets. This is generally conducted between data sets at the

extreme ends of the sample spectrum.

80

3.3.4 Research Strategy Adopted for the Current Study

This research seeks to understand the inﬂuence of PDM’S on high performance
sustainable buildings outcomes by analyzing its affect on the level of integration
achieved. To achieve the intended objectives this study will follow a qualitative approach
for data collection and analysis. The procedures followed and their outcomes in each step
of this research are illustrated in Figure 3.2.

0 Unit of analysis: To satisfy the research goals the author will employ a variety of
projects for analysis. The relationship between the players and affects of those
interactions on the performance outcome of the building can be understood only
by studying the participants of the various building projects. Therefore, “projects ”
will be considered as the unit of analysis in this study, rather than organizations or

individuals.

This study is based on the ﬁnding of a recent research ‘Piloting Evaluation Metrics for
High Performance Green Building Project Delivery’ (Korkmaz, 2007). It will use the
outcomes and lessons learned from the previous study as a building block for further
investigation. Also it would adopt and according to the research speciﬁc objectives alter
the outputs developed by the previous researcher. The main outputs of the research
conducted by Korkmaz (2007) were:

1. Deﬁned meaningful evaluation metrics for high performance green building

project delivery;
2. Developed tools/methods to collect high performance green building project

delivery data;

81

3. Illustration of data analysis methods for high performance green building project
delivery research.

This research piloted an evaluation metric for the project delivery phase to ﬁll the gap in

literature. The developed tool was based on previous research conducted at Penn State

University and was again tested by the author on 40 high performance green projects.

Finally, the study used mixed methods for data analysis that was used as a foundation for

the choice of analysis approach of the current research.

The literature review has assisted in the development of the methodology for this
research. The research process and steps followed are listed in Table 3.4. This includes
sequentially the steps and the chapters that the mentioned steps belong to. The research
steps include review of relevant literature, research approach, data collection tool
development, data collection, qualitative data analysis procedure, discussions, results, and

conclusions.

82

causeway. 2: no 83.330 2.. 9623.. 3 coke—=5 2.8m a... he an: 83o...— ~.m PEEK

 

u

a 98:... 5833. 23:“. Sm meccmowwsm .98 32.5.8... 6:23.280 6:33. “$3553: 1 .i 1 1H
+

.88. as. Ba 8.5 a 88$ .3 a cacao:
.88. SEER £25 .88. REES. .88. a a 33.8.. .683 a a DRE 5.2 same 0858

33.3% .aomox +
_

 

 

8.3.3. ..o connect“;

 

 

 

 

 

_ _ d
mmoooa bo>=ov 50.85 ammoooa 388:5 Ham. 8 $.26. .23.: 0. tau.
2.. E SEEMS... 80.8%. .3... Bungee wmoooa swab... E? 8.88.. amazon
mo .o>o. on. 2955.. Soﬁa 8:55... o... E 3.5832: me 232 9... E aocﬁwoﬁ.
88850 80.8%. Satan beget .885 kiwi. DESK. 53 mm we £96. Samar.
229. a. 858 2.. ESE Ea 56% $83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> »| k +
95.33% zonezsmkmw we 3355M .8qu .830 $2.233: 523%

      

 

—_________——_|____

    

31.5..an wqtoam
can mouoo @2969

Hoonwcmoam Sun
8.32 @2955

  

  

i i .— I I ﬂab—.2 Sea

30:62.on SEED «.9833 38:8:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r0. S
353.8: :0 98 Va. I.
O. V
9mo.ocoﬁo2 O<©. Sam 8 comm m. D
.o 28.... a; 30.38:. maﬁoshm 6:980 . S. a
”.8. 8.80:8 Saw @3555 anew . S. S

REHQEEHNQ HEB tonne... .3522. SEED . £9.8qu numam 90>? SEED notooﬁm " .558 o Sm

Sun. 8260 .3 3.3% 8.5 Amuse... 33m 030 “.2035 r .. m I . = U Q
.
a . EDEQOEEQ
.1 83oz nouns—gm i i h i i .008 8.82.00 Sun.
.00... "8.8230 San QOEEQ A ESQ 3.5%.: we EEK {9.58% KRD Souk :55 3.2.3. ﬁnance.

 
 

 

 

 

98% Site. 8%
mkxuuzkuh NQQ~ :NQEV

 

36.38% 3552.5 .28on _ .

£9883. 2.. do 83.8.30 can £86 beach. _i i r i 2.8m 5333.
r

 

 

 

83

Research Process

. Review of Relevant

Literature (Chapter 2)

Table 3.4 Methodology Steps

 

Conduct Literature Review
Document :
0 Relevant project delivery and level of integration -
opportunities and constraints;
0 Performance metrics;
0 Data collection and analysis methods;
0 Sources for data collection

 

. Research Approach
(Chapter 3)

Research approach:

0 Choice of research strategy

0 Qualitative research in construction studies

0 Research strategy adopted for the current study
Data Quality

 

. Development of the
Data Collection Tool
(Chapter 2)

Adopt and alter evaluation metrics from previous research
Korkmaz (2007);
Preliminary Survey/Structured Interview Design adopted
and altered from Korkmaz (2007)
Survey Veriﬁcation

0 Charles Pankow Foundation Research team

0 Industry Professionals

0 Pilot survey

 

. Data Collection
Process (Chapter 3)

Case study selection criteria
Data Collection Steps
0 Institutional Review Board Approval
- Contact respondent via email or phone
0 Data Collection and Follow-up
- General Accounting Ofﬁce methodology for
structured interviews

 

. Data Analysis

Code data under developed propositions;

 

 

 

 

 

Procedure (Chapter 3) o Priori
o Inductive
Develop proposition based on literature and collected data;
Data Analysis
- Pattern Matching
- Cross Case Synthesis
- Explanation Building
. Data Collection 0 Study Response Rate
Procedure (Chapter 4) 0 Data Veriﬁcation
0 Study Population Characteristics
. Results (Chapter 5) 0 Findings
0 Lessons Learned
. Discussions, 0 Comparisons with the ﬁndings of the previous research
Limitations and 0 Summarize ﬁndings of the study
Conclusions 0 Identify the limitations of the research
(Chapter 6)

 

84

 

3.3.5 Data Quality

To ensure quality design in case study research, four widely used tests will implemented:

construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability (Yin, 2003).

1.

Construct validity: This is necessary to create correct operational measures. To
implement this tactic Yin (2003) suggests use of multiple sources of evidence,
establishment of a chain of evidence and ﬁnally having a draft of case studies
reviewed by key informants. In the current research, this was accomplished by,
interviewing multiple participants from each case study facilitating cross-
referencing and triangulation of the results. Also, the draft case study report was
reviewed by the Charles Pankow Foundation (CPF) research team and the
industry panel associated with the team members, who commented on the
comprehensiveness of the data collected. This took place in the data collection
and ﬁnal report composition phases of this research.

Internal validity: This is important in explanatory studies to establish casual
relations. Yin (2003) proposes ﬁve tactics to approach this test. This study has
adopted three out of the ﬁve approaches; these are pattern matching, cross case
synthesis and explanation building. Pattern matching was accomplished by
identifying emerging patterns in the data collected from projects. Cross case
synthesis focused on identifying distinct differing attributes in the case studies.
Finally, explanation building was adopted to understand the speciﬁc practices that
lead to success or failure in outlier projects. These took place in the data analysis

phase of this study.

85

3. External validity. This test establishes that the study ﬁndings can be generalized.
According to Yin (2003) a replication model should be implemented via various
case studies. Therefore, for the purpose of this research data was collected from
multiple similar case studies with similar characteristics. However, it was
observed that due to the limited number of case studies statistically signiﬁcant
results could not be generated. Therefore, to bolster the results and achieve
external validity explanation building was adopted by cross referencing and
discussing the results with those from previous research. Although this physically
took place during the data collection and analysis phase it is categorized under
research design. This is because this test was a signiﬁcant deciding factor for
deciding the number of case studies that were selected to prove the stated goal for
this research.

4. Reliability: This represents the operations of a study and is important for the
repetition of similar studies. Yin (2003) suggests development of standard
protocol for data collection. Therefore, this research altered and utilize the data
collection tool i.e., structured interview, to collect data from the case studies. This
was the standard data collection tool for all the projects. This test was

implemented in the data collection phase of this research.

The section above has described in detail the various tests to be performed to ensure data
quality. It also describes tactics suggested by Yin (2003), tactic that will be implemented
in this research, and phase of the research that the tactic will be implemented in. the

various tests and tactics have again been listed in Table 3.5.

86

Table 3.5 Data Quality Tests and Tactics (Adopted from Yin, 2003)

Tactic suggested by

Yin, (2003)

'l‘actic to hc
implcmcnted in this

Phase of research
in which tactic will

 

Construct Validity

Use of Multiple sources
of evidence

rcscarch
Data triangulation
through interviews of
multiple project
participants;

OCCIII‘

Data Collection

 

Establish chain of
evidence

Develop research design
process for each step of
the case study data
collection;

Data Collection

 

Have draﬁ case study
report reviewed by key
informants

Request comments on
report from the CPF
research team and
industry panel;

Composition

 

Internal Validity

Pattern Matching

Identify multiple similar
characteristics of the
project execution process

in similar projects;

 

Cross case Synthesis

Data Analysis

 

Identify multiple
differing characteristics
of the project execution
process among projects
of variant attributes;

Data Analysis

 

Explanation Building

Identify speciﬁc
characteristics and
practices in outlier
projects;

Data Analysis

 

External Validity

Use replication logic

Collect data ﬁom
multiple similar sets of
rgjects;

Research Design

 

Discuss ﬁnal results with
past research;

Research Design

 

Reliability

Use case study Protocol

Develop standard
protocol for conducting
interviews;

Data Collection

 

Develop case study
database

Data Collection

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4 Date Collection Procedure
This section summarizes the data collection procedure including the performance
evaluation metrics adopted for this study, methods to test and verify the data collection

tool including the lessons learned from the pilot case study, case study selection criteria

and ﬁnally the data collection and follow up process.

87

3.4.1 Performance Evaluation Metrics

The performance metrics to be utilized in the current study is one of the three main
outputs of the research conducted by Korkmaz (2007). The author aimed to examine the
relations between the project delivery attributes and project performance outcomes in
high-performance green (high performance green) buildings. As literature lacked an
evaluation metrics for the project delivery phase the research ﬁrst conducted a
comprehensive literature review to deﬁne and list meaningful attributes to be evaluated

which are adopted by the current research.

Based on previous research (Korkmaz, 2007; Konchar and Sanvido, 1998) and existing
literature this study has categorized the building evaluation metrics and attributes in to
three phases of the project life span. The three categories are 1) Project Delivery
Attributes; 2) Building Performance Upon Completion and; 3) Building Performance
Post Occupancy. This study primarily focuses on the ﬁrst two stages by investigating the
effects of project delivery attributes (independent variables) on project performance at
construction‘completion (dependent variables). Addressing the last stage occurs through
owner perception, and therefore, the last stage becomes a component of the second stage
as “Owner’s Perception of the Resource Consumption and Level of User Satisfaction in
the Post-Occupancy Phase.” The description and scope of the two categories are given
below. The individual list of the adopted metrics can be seen in the literature review

(Chapter 2) section of this research.

88

1.

2.

Project delivery attributes: The evaluation metrics for this phase is adopted from
the recent research conducted by Korkmaz (2007). This category evaluates the
process followed for the execution of the building. The span of this category is
from the conception of the project until it is turned over to the client/ owner/
tenant. It aims to document the subjective experiences and the method of
evolution of innovative ideas for the optimization of project outcomes. The main
themes that this category is addressing are owner commitment; project delivery
method, project team procurement, contract conditions, integration in the design
process, and project team characteristics. However, this research has prioritized
project delivery method, project team procurement, contract condition, and
integration in the design process. During data collection these will be addressed
ﬁrst, later if the resources allow, data pertaining to the remaining two will be
collected.

Building Performance upon completion: This category consists of metrics such as
schedule, cost, quality, safety, levels of high performance, and level of user
satisfaction in the post-occupancy phase achieved (comparing the intended vs
achieved performance levels) achieved (Korkmaz, 2007; Konchar and Sanvido,
1998; Gransberg and Buitrago, 2002; Fowler et al., 2005). These metrics are
adopted because they clearly and quantiﬁably demonstrate the success/failure of
the project. Success/failure can be deﬁned by the owner’s satisfaction with the
growth (negative/positive) in cost and schedule and level of performance

achievement in safety and high performance.

89

3.4.2 Test and Verify the Data Collection Tool

The tool to be utilized in this study is the second main output of the research conducted
by Korkmaz (2007). It was already based on previous research of Konchar and Sanvido,
1998 and El Wardani et al., 2006 conducted at Penn State University. It was then veriﬁed
two times by industry professionals. The ﬁrst round of the survey veriﬁcation was
executed at the Partnership for Achieving Construction Excellence (PACE) Roundtable at
Penn State in 2005. The second round of the veriﬁcation was completed in Washington
DC. where industry professionals with experience of green buildings expressed their
opinions on the lucidity and the competency of the survey questions, to measure the
desired attributes. Finally Korkmaz (2007) utilized the tool to collect data from 40
sustainable high performance projects. The current research has adopted and altered the

tool according to research speciﬁc criteria.

This research is funded by the Charles Pankow Research Foundation. This study is part
of a joint research conducted by scholars from Michigan State University, Colorado State
University, University of Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania State University. The research
team works with an industry panel, consisting of leader’s in the ﬁeld of sustainable
buildings, to get feedback at certain milestones, receive veriﬁcation on research tools and
outcomes, and receive support in case study selection and data collection.

Therefore, after developing the data collection tool (Appendix A), it was veriﬁed by the
research team at the Charles Pankow Research Foundation (CPF). Also the tool was
assessed by the industry panel associated with the research. After the approval of the

research team and industry panel the tool was be submitted for the review and approval

90

by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Michigan State University for compliance
with human participant research rules (Appendix B and C). Finally, the tool was tested on
one pilot case study. Since the core purpose of this research was to understand the affect
of PDM’s on the level of integration achieved and its consequent effects on the ﬁnal
outcome, these aspects were the focus. The next section discusses the results from the

pilot case study.

3.4.3 Pilot Case Study

An ofﬁce building in the state of Michigan was selected as the pilot case. Personal
contact with the respondent and the physical proximity to the research team were the
major determining factor in the selection. The project adopted the construction

management at risk (CMR) delivery method. Also, it achieved United States Green

Building Council’s (U SGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®)

platinum rating in two areas; core and shell and commercial interiors. A structured
interview was held with the concerned project manager of the facility. This pilot study
evaluated the validity of the building performance metrics and the data collection tool
and methods. Lessons learned from the pilot study were as follows:

1. The results showed that the identiﬁed evaluation metrics was entirely useful and
collectible: As the project followed the guidelines of several agencies, most data
was well documented and since rest of the information requested from the
respondent was intended to be more of an opinion than a fact the respondent felt

comfortable in responding.

91

2. The data collection method was successful in gathering information: A personal
relationship with the respondent was signiﬁcant in data collection. Since the
respondent already knew the research team the data was shared willingly.
Structured interview was a successful form of data collection as a lot of the
respondent’s reaction could be documented unlike other quantitative measures
such as a survey. Moreover, contacting various participants of the project for
different sections of the project helped to minimize the time for the survey
completion for each participant, improved the participants; willingness to
participate, and decreased the number of non-response questions within the
survey due to lack of knowledge in the area.

3. The data collection tool requires follow up questions depending on the project:
Many unpredictable events can occur in a projects life. These events can have
signiﬁcant affects on project performance such as a weather change can cause
schedule delay and consequent cost escalation or removal of a team player due to
extreme situations can cause not only a schedule delay but loss of morale for the
team members. Therefore depending on the preliminary interview, follow up
questions will be added such as “Did anything extreme and out of the project
team’s control happen during the delivery process that affected project

performance outcomes such as schedule and cost or team chemistry?”

3.4.4 Case Study Selection Criteria

This research focused on sustainable projects that have achieved one of the four levels of

certiﬁcation under USGBC’s LEED® assessment system. Kats et a1. (2003) reported the

92

costs and ﬁnancial beneﬁts of green buildings. However, the author also reported the
distinct difference in beneﬁts between the four certiﬁcation levels. According to Kats et
al. (2003) though certiﬁed and silver buildings provide costs beneﬁts in terms of energy
and water consumption, gold and platinum buildings beneﬁts are larger because they are
represented by productivity and health of the occupants which is far larger than the costs
of buildings and energy. Similar, results are presented in a report ‘Building Better
Buildings’, prepared by the Sustainable Building Task Force and the State and Consumer
Services Agency (2003). The report suggests higher beneﬁts from gold and platinum
rated buildings than certiﬁed and silver (BBB, 2003). Hence, it can be satisfactorily
concluded that certiﬁed and silver projects can be achieved by standard practices;
however, gold and platinum projects require more optimization. This achievement for
higher optimization is reﬂected from high level of integration achieved during the design

process.

The research prioritized on selecting 8 projects that deﬁned the boundary conditions,
however, as the resources allowed (time and money), the number of case studies was
expanded to 12. For minimum bias, the ideal case study distribution was as following.
The case studies were to be from 3 different locations with 1 Platinum rated buildings
belonging to each location. There were supposed to be 3 certiﬁed buildings belonging to
each PDM. To triangulate the results 1 project was to be selected from the silver
certiﬁcation under design bid build (DBB) and 1 project was to be gold certiﬁed under
design build (DB). This distribution was to maintain minimum variability and bias.

However, due to circumstances such as disinterested participants and non availability of

93

the concerned respondents the case study distribution changed. The ﬁnal case study
distribution (prioritized and ﬁnal) can be seen in Table 3.6., with the prioritized break
down in parenthesis.

Table 3.6 Distribution of Case Studies

 

 

Design Build 1 (1) 2(1) 1 0(1)
Design Bid Build 1(1) 0 1(1) 1(1)
Construction Management at Risk 2 (1) 0 1 2(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The variability in the projects was emphasized to strengthen the reliability of the results.

The sample for this study is limited to green projects in the US, those included in the
USGBC’s database as LEED® ‘New Construction ’ and 'Core and Shell ' categories. Also,

due to the limited population projects were selected until version 2.2. Version 3.0 is not
addressed in this study as it was released after data collection phase. The other criteria for

choosing the case studies for this research are listed next.
1. Project delivery methods: The case study must include one of the three PDM’s:
DBB, DB, or CMR. Efforts were made to achieve an equal number of PDMs

within the study sample to eliminate bias towards any of the methods;
2. USGBC‘s LEED® Rating: USGBC’s LEED® is the one the most popular

assessment systems in the country and has in 2006 had 775 million sq ft of
commercial space registered that is approximately 2% of the corresponding
commercial built space (Smart Market Report, 2007). Therefore, it was
considered as an apt data base for project selection. Also, this research is focusing

on projects that were recently constructed. Hence, projects rated as new

94

5.

construction were selected. Also, project under the core and shell category were
considered as the evaluation metric for both are very similar. However, careful
attention was required when choosing the projects because many projects in the
USGBC’s database listed as new construction or core and shell, had major
renovated portions. This signiﬁcantly changed the details of the project; hence,

comparison with a new construction project was not valid;

USGBC's LEED® Certification Level: Projects were selected over all the

categories of certiﬁcation, such as platinum, gold, silver, and certiﬁed. Further, all
the projects were compared, to observe any emerging patterns (successful or
ﬂawed). The projects were compared across certiﬁcation levels to see the distinct
differences;

Location: Certain regions, cities, and states in the US. are known to support the
sustainability movement with enabling legislation. Location can also affect
project outcomes with the available pool of contractors/designers in the area.
Therefore, location variety in the sample was preferred to eliminate bias in the
results towards any city, region, or state;

Function: For the purpose of eliminating functional and major construction
systems / materials differences in projects selected, the focus was on the projects
that were essentially ofﬁce spaces. Minimal combination with other functions was
focused upon;

Personal rapport: Certain projects posed as good case studies, however, due to
lack of contacts or respondent disinterest information was not unavailable. Also,

as this study was qualitative in nature, respondents were contacted several times

95

for data. Therefore, this research preferred case studies where there are

preexisting interested contacts.

3.4.5 Data Collection Process and Follow Up

The data collection on identiﬁed buildings took place once the data collection tool had
been developed and veriﬁed on the basis of the pilot case study. Target projects were
limited to sustainable ofﬁce buildings and other criteria listed in section 3.4.4 of this
chapter. Based on the lessons learned from the pilot study, previous research, and existing
databases, this research followed the General Accounting Ofﬁce methodology (1991) for
structured interviews. Respondents were contacted via email, phone, or both. The outline
for the email and phone conversation can be seen in Appendix D and E. Three primary
respondents (owner, designer, and contractor) were contacted from each case study.
Questions in the data collection were segregated depending upon the respondent. On an
average each interview took approximately 40-50 minutes and was conducted on the

phone.

General Accounting Office (GA 0) Methodology (1991)
The design of a GAO (1991) evaluation encompasses seven elements:
1. The kind of information to be acquired;
2. Sources of information (for example, types of respondents);
3. Methods to be used for sampling sources (for example, random sampling);
4. Methods of collecting information (structured interviews and self-administered

questionnaires);

96

5. The timing and frequency of collecting information;
6. The basis for comparing outcomes with and without a program (for cause-and-
effect questions);
7. The analysis plan.
According to GAO (1991), the ﬁrst element i.e., the nature of the information to be
acquired can be categorized into three evaluation strategies:
1. Descriptive: Provides descriptive information about speciﬁc conditions of a
program or activity;
2. Normative: Compares an observed outcome to an expected level of performance;
3. Impact (cause-and-effect): Assists in determining that whether observed
conditions, events, or outcomes can be attributed to the operation of the program
or activity.
Considering the presented deﬁnitions the author has determined to adopt the descriptive

strategy.

GAO (1991) has termed the technique for collecting data as data-collection instruments
(DCIs). A DCI is a tool that contains a series of questions that are presented
systematically and are highly ordered to enable the evaluator to obtain uniform data. The
information obtained can then be categorized under themes and propositions and
eventually can be subjected to analysis using quantitative, qualitative, or both
methodologies. The form of a DCI varies according to the method of collecting
information i.e., a structured interview, a self-administered questionnaire, or a pro forma

schedule to obtain information from records. An interview that uses a DCI to gather data,

97

either by telephone or face to face, is a structured interview. In this technique the same
DCI is used to interview several participants thus the information received is precise and

does not go much beyond the scope of the tool.

In contrast, an unstructured interview contains many open-ended questions, which are not
asked in a structured, precise manner. Different evaluators interpret questions and often
offer different explanations when respondents ask for clariﬁcation. As this research
needed precise data, the structured interview strategy was adopted. Also the interviews
were conducted over the telephone. As the DCI for this research contains a series of open
ended questions, mailed questionnaires could not be used to maintain the response rate. It
was also important for this research to adopt the face to face or telephone interviewing
strategy to develop a personal rapport so that respondents can be approached again for

follow up questions.

3.5 Data Analysis Procedure

Based on previous research and literature (Korkmaz, 2007, Lapinski, 2006; Pulaski 2005;
Magent, 2005) it was determined that qualitative methods must be adopted to efﬁciently
document and analyze innovative ideas and thought process that will evolve in the

sustainable building market over time to improve their project delivery processes.

3.5.1 Data Coding
Once collected the next step was to manage the data. To arrange the data for analysis

several methods could be adopted such as expanded accounts, memos, codes, and data

98

displays. For the purpose of this research the data was managed by coding. In qualitative

research, ‘Coding’ is understood as marking segments of data with symbols, descriptive

words, or category names (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003).

The data was coded at two levels for the ease of analysis:

1.

Coding Open Ended Responses: This study used two kinds of coding for the open
ended responses (1) priori: codes developed before examining the data; (2)
inductive: codes developed based on the frequency of the occurrence of the
themes. The priori codes were the description of the six independent variables
used in this study. For example under owner commitment themes such as reason
to pursue green, mandating green contractually or verbally, and participant to
include green notions were used as codes. Further as the data was analyzed new
themes occurred that were not listed before such as contractor commitment to the
project, team commitment to the project, positive market image of the project.
Therefore inductive coding had to be conducted by developing new codes that
were later accommodated within the independent variables. This open ended
responses were coded categorize quotes that would bolster and provide validity to
the results achieved from pattern matching, cross case synthesis and explanation
building.

Coding Survey Responses: To achieve the intended objectives certain survey data
had to be coded to ascertain their level of success when compared to other
projects within the data set. Primarily it included the data about the building
performance upon completion i.e., schedule, cost, level of high performance

achieved, quality, and post occupancy evaluation. The last two metrics were

99

based on owner’s perception. The list also included two independent variables
i.e., owner’s commitment and level of integration in the delivery process. The
other independent variables were not coded such as contract conditions, project
team procurement, and project delivery method selected because the data within
them was more inclined towards being practices rather than codable success

factors. The coding logic and description are presented in Chapter 4.

3.5.2 Proposition Development

Considering the qualitative nature of this study, in place of hypothesis, that needs to be
proved or disproved, propositions were developed. This research deﬁnes propositions as
‘expected patterns ’. Essentially based on literature and the preliminary review of the data,
existence of relationships between the different variables was observed. However,
concrete analysis had to be conducted to bolster these propositions and converting them
to results. Therefore, this research followed a spiral format of analysis i.e., a proposition
was developed/observed, next analysis was conducted focusing on the concerned
variables, further if the analysis supported the proposition then it was converted to a
result else it was discarded and another proposition was tested. The spiral process is

illustrated in Figure 3.3.

100

 

 

Develop New Proposition

/ \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Convert to Result Discard Proposition
Data Supports Proposition Data does not Support Proposition

 

 

 

 

 

\ /

Analyze the Collected Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.3 Proposition Analysis Process

Based on the objectives and the collected data this study developed four propositions that
were tested for their relevancy and strength. The four propositions are given next:
1. Higher levels of integration in the design process will lead to higher levels of

sustainability;

2. CMR and DB will provide higher levels of integration in the design process

compared to DBB;
3. Project delivery attributes affect ﬁnal project outcomes, and

4. PDMs affect project outcomes through the level of integration in the project

delivery process.

3.5.3 Data Analysis Methods
Three methods were adopted analyze the data: (1) Pattern matching; (2) Cross case
synthesis; and (3) Explanation building.

1. Pattern Matching: This refers to emergence of similar attributes in different

projects. It demonstrates the existence of a pattern in projects of similar types and

101

can help explaining a recurring phenomenon. This analysis method was applied to

the three objectives sequentially. The process followed for the application is as

follows:

Proposition 1 : Higher levels of integration in the design process will lead
to higher levels of sustainability;

First the projects were listed according to the level of integration achieved
by them in the delivery process i.e., high medium low. Next, listed were
the scores achieved by them in the three sustainability metrics. Once the
table was created, different combinations of metrics were compared with
the projects to see any emerging patterns such as higher integration
resulting in better achieved vs intended performance or better
sustainability scores.

Proposition 2: CMR and DB will provide higher levels of integration in
the design process compared to DBB;

For this proposition ﬁrst the projects were listed according to the level of
integration achieved by them in the delivery process i.e., high medium low
and then by the PDM adopted by them. Next, the dependent variable
scores achieved by them were listed. Similar, to the previous objective the
data was compared across rows and columns in different combinations to
see emerging patterns.

Proposition 3: Project delivery attributes affect ﬁnal project outcomes;
This was the largest and the most complicated objective as it required

comparing all independent variables with the dependent variable to see

102

patterns. To analyze, responses and coding, for independent and dependent
variables was listed. Next, different combination of independent and
dependent variables was compared to observe patterns. For example, in
one combination level of owner commitment was compared with all the
dependent variables to see if different levels of owner commitment results
in different success outcomes. In another example two independent
variables (i.e., owner commitment and integration in the design process
were compared with the dependent variables to observe their combined
affect on the outcomes.

0 Proposition 4: PDMs affect project outcomes through the level of
integration in the project delivery process.
The testing this proposition was similar to the last pr0position with only
one primary difference. Here, all the independent and dependent variables
were listed together in one table to check for patterns. This was conducted

as this proposition encompassed the entire main goal of this study.

2. Cross Case Synthesis: In this approach pairs of projects on the extreme ends of
the success spectrum were compared with each other to distinctly illustrate the
differences between them. To conduct this analysis pairs of projects were selected
with certain control variables (such as certiﬁcation, size, PDM) kept constant
between the two. This method assisted (1) in bolstering the pattern matching
results; (2) explained the outliers within the pattern matching tables. An example

of this method is given in Table 3.7.

103

Table 3.7 Example of Difference in the Available Propositions between
Projects

Owner Comm itmcnt

Contractual Terms
Grccn

 

 

Project . Reason to Timinu of . , .
Incorporated. .. . ‘ [)cslgncr ( ontractor
by Pursue (rrccn (Jrccn
Exemplar Owner “51°“ Con D cosr
y' Statement ' '
Flawed Designer Grants Des.D. LUMP LUMP --------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Con.D. = Conceptual Design, Des.D. = Design Development

3. Explanation Building: Within the pattern matching results a number of outlier
projects were seen. Outliers were projects that displayed different results than
expected. To explain these, each outlier project was analyzed individually to
understand the speciﬁc characteristics.

3.6 Summary

This chapter contains a description of the methods and process that were followed in this
research study. The research utilized a qualitative approach for data analysis and adopted
pattern matching, cross case synthesis, and explanation building as the primary analysis
methods. Based on the GAO methodology, structure interview, was selected as the
primary data collection tool. To increase the response rate it was determined that phone
interviews would be conducted. The main sections described in this chapter are data

collection tool design, data collection process, data quality, and data analysis process.

104

CHAPTER 4

Data Collection, Categorization, and Coding

4.1 Introduction

Qualitative research attempts to identify and report the various facets of a phenomenon
and the multiple perspectives towards the same. Therefore, it is important that the before
presenting the results, sample data characteristics and steps taken to reﬁne the data for
analysis are deﬁned. This chapter presents the study population characteristics, sample
description, data collection procedure, data quality and veriﬁcation methods and

procedures with which to record, categorize, and code.

4.2 Sample Characteristics

Although the market for sustainable high performance buildings has existed for almost 3
decades it is still developing and has an extremely limited population. However, even in
this limited population there exists a wide variety of characteristics. Therefore, a case
study selection criterion (as explained in chapter 3) was employed to reduce the
variability in the sample. As the original population in itself was very small the selection
criteria further reduced the pool of potential case studies. This consequently reduced the
control of the selection criteria and resulted in slightly different study population

characteristics than as previously predicted.

In the descending order of priority the current study population characteristics are

described next.

105

Function: It is suggested by Korkmaz (2007) that owners are mostly motivated to
employ sustainable features on ofﬁce buildings, due to reduced building life-
cycle costs and improved occupant productivity provided by these buildings.
Also, for the purpose of eliminating ﬁmctional and major construction systems /
materials differences in projects selected, the target population for this research
was limited to sustainable ofﬁce buildings. Also it was important for this research
to understand the inﬂuence of integration over sustainable strategies therefore
only new construction projects were chosen as these projects include maximum
green strategies and need to achieve high level of integration to be successful.

US. Green Building Council ’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and

Environmental design (LEED®) Rating: Projects listed under new construction

and core and shell in the USGBC’s LEED® system were considered. This is

because these ratings include the major buildings systems that this research

attempts to understand. Also both ratings i.e., new construction and core and shell

under USGBC’s LEED® version 2.2 follow almost the same credit list making it

an equal comparison.

Project Delivery Methods: It was essential for this research that the case studies
broadly include one of the three PDM’s: DBB, DB, or CMR. Efforts were made
to achieve an equal number of PDMs within the study sample however due to the
shortage of consenting respondents an equal distribution was not possible. Table
4.1 lists the current case study distribution. The intended distribution is given in

parenthesis.

106

5.

6.

Table 4.1 Case Study Distribution

 

 

 

 

Platinum Gold Silver Certiﬁed
Design Build 2 (2) 2 (1) 1 (1) 0 (1)
Design Bid Build 1(2) 0(1) 1(1) 1(1)
Construction Management at Risk 1 (2) 0 (1) 1 (l) 2 (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although Construction Manager at Agency is also a valid and a widely used PDM
this study did not include this method in the sample due to the lack of study
speciﬁc case studies. The majority of the projects found by the web research,
adopted one of the primary three PDM’s

USGBC's Certiﬁcation Level: Projects were chosen over all the categories of
certiﬁcation, such as platinum, gold, silver and, certiﬁed. As can seen in Table
4.1, an equal distribution was attempted however, due to project delivery method
selection being a higher priority and a lack of willing respondent an unequal
distribution occurred.

Personal rapport: This research preferred case studies where there were
preexisting contacts. However owing to the current economic situation many
contacts we not available in the companies therefore a web based search for case
studies was conducted.

Location: It was been attempted that project from locations with similar
characteristics be chosen however due to the lack of consenting case studies
projects were selected from all over the country. Figure 4.1 shows the location
distribution of the study population.

Size: It was attempted that projects be of similar size however due to lack of

projects this criterion was not prioritized. The resultant project sizes range from

107

7000 sqft to 190,0005qft. The study population characteristics including the size
distribution is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Study Population Characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al New York Conﬁdential DBB Certified 25,000 3 Ow, D & C
A2 Texas Private CMR Certiﬁed 7000 2 Ow/D & C
A3 Colorado Private CMR Certiﬁed 89,200 3 Ow, D &, C
Bl Colorado Private DBB Silver 60,000 3 Ow, D &, C
B2 Colorado Private CMR Silver 7,700 3 Ow, D &, C
B3 Alabama Private DB Silver 12,900 2 Ow/C & D
Cl Ohio Private DB Gold 14,077 2 Ow/ C & D
C2 Pennsylvania Developer DB Gold 35,000 3 Ow, D &, C
D1 Colorado Private DB Platinum 1 86,000 1 Ow/D/C

D2 Arkansas Private CMR Platinum 94,000 3 Ow, D &, C
D3 California Private DB Platinum 66,000 2 Ow & D

D4 Missouri Public DBB Platinum 120,000 3 Ow, D & C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"‘ Ow= Owner, D= Designer, C= Contractor

4.3 Data Collection Steps

This section describes the speciﬁc steps taken to conduct data collection for this research.
It includes the process followed to gain the institutional review board approval, the
process of administering interviews, and data collection procedures followed in this
study.
4.3.1 Institutional Review Board Approval

After the data collection tool design was ﬁnalized, the interview questions and the data
collection procedures were reviewed and approved by the Michigan State University’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Appendix B), for its compliance with the rules of
human participant research. A consent form was created that was used to inform the

respondents about the research goal, objectives, interview conduct process, the time

108

required time for the interview, its storage, and the use of collected data. The interview
questions were in a survey format and the consent form was a MS Word document and
can be seen in Appendix A and C. The consent form and the questionnaire were sent to
the respondent prior to the interview. The consent forms were collected from the

respondents via email or fax before the interview was conducted.

4.3.2 Interview Application

For this research 12 projects were selected and from each project three main participants
i.e., the owner, designer and, contractor were asked to respond to the interview questions.
All the three participants are crucial to the project as they are deeply involved in the
process and therefore can provide keen insights. The interviews were telephonic and were
individually held from the three participants. The projects were mainly identiﬁed through
a web-based research and then personal rapport was developed with the point of contact

to receive information about the potential participants.

A list of potential projects was generated from the USGBC’s project directory. Some of
the projects were available in the form of case studies on the website but many were not.
Therefore anther web based research had to be conducted to ﬁlter the projects based on
the detailed case study selection criteria. The projects that were not available online were
contacted via telephone. Once an acceptable project list was established, the points of
contacts were once again contacted and invited to participate in the study. Also the points
of contact were asked for information of the relevant team members. The primary consent

was required from the owner. Follow ups were conducted via telephone and email. A

109

broad guideline of the email and the telephonic conversation can be seen in Appendix D
and E.

Once the project teams (i.e., owner, designer, and contractor) agreed to participate in the
study, consent forms, and a c0py of the relevant questionnaire was sent to the individual
member. Also they were requested for a convenient time to participate in the interview.
On the relevant day and time of the interview the participants were once again informed
about their rights and responsibilities as a respondent for this project. The main advantage
of conducting telephonic interviews in this research was that owing to the respondents
busy schedule they were not obligated to a certain time or location as in a face to face
interview. The respondents had the freedom to stop the interview at any time and
continue it another day or shift the appointment based on their convenience. Also as the
entire process was conducted over the intemet and phone the respondents could react to
follow up questions at their pace and were not obligated to answer immediately. This
convenience of responding affected the interest of the willing participants positively
towards this study. Respondents were willing to answer follow up questions, volunteered
to impart more information than asked for and go in a deeper discussion of the already

present questions.

4.3.3 Problems Encountered in the Data Collection Process

Although the data collection method was very successful certain drawbacks were

observed that affected the response rate negatively and increased the time to collect data:

110

There was a dearth of information about many projects over the web and therefore
it was required by the author to call each project to ﬁnd even the basic
information;

For most projects point of contacts were not given. Therefore it took several calls
before the ﬁrst point of contact could be established;

For the projects that did give points of contact they mostly belonged to the
marketing department who lacked the relevant information;

For a telephonic contact it was easy for the respondent to ignore the call and
required the author to leave a message which elongated the time to collect data;
Owing to the current economy many professionals who worked on the speciﬁc
projects did not continue with the ﬁrm in concern and therefore made it difﬁcult
and mostly not possible to reach them;

The length of the questionnaire was too long to hold the respondents interest. This
was especially true because the interview was conducted over the telephone and
the respondent had the luxury to shift it to another day;

The telephonic interview brought an informality in the process that reﬂected
negatively in the respondents approach towards the interview there were instances
of recall of commitments towards the study;

Due to the time lag in the project the respondents experienced difﬁculty and lack
of motivation in ﬁnding the data needed to complete the entire interview;

In many cases there was just a lack of motivation to participate.

lll

4.4 Data Recording and Categorization

This study adopted the performance metrics and data collection tool deﬁned by Korkmaz
(2007) to collect, categorize and, analyze the data. However, as no data was received on
the safety metric, it is eliminated from the ﬁnal performance metrics used in this study.

The details and description of the performance metrics is presented in Table 4.3.

Also, due to the qualitative nature of the current study the data collection tool was altered
on the basis of the GAO methodology (1991) of structured interviews. The resultant tool
was a combination of structured interviews and survey questions (Appendix A).
Next, data collection was conducted over the phone and email. Finally, the received
information was in the format of recordings and ﬁlled out survey forms. To facilitate
analysis this data was categorized at several levels; these are:

4.4.1 Input survey data in excel sheets;

4.4.2 Transcribe open ended responses using Transana 2.12 (Refer Appendix F);

4.4.3 Categorizing open ended responses using ATLAS.ti (Refer Appendix G);

4.4.4 Eliminating discrepancies within responses for the same project.

112

Table 4.3 Performance Metrics Used in the Study

Independent Variables

Description

Control Variables

 

Owner Commitment

Party to introduce “green” features to the
project

Reason to pursue “green” objectives
Timing of introducing the “green” concept
Importance of the “green” goals for the
project

Mandating green metric (contractually or
verbally)

 

 

. . 0 Design-Bid-Build
Pr0ject Delivery . Design-Build
M th (I
e 0 0 Construction Management at risk
0 Negotiated v/s Competitive selection
process

Project Team 0 Restrained pools of potentralpartrcrpant
P o Benchmark of restraint

rocurement

0 Sole source selection, best value source

selection, competitively negotiated, low
bid, qualiﬁcation based selection

 

Contract Conditions

0 Green contract provisions
0 Contractual relations between important

team members

Incentive/ penalty clauses within the
contract

Likert scale evaluation of onerous contract
clauses

 

Integration In The
Delivery Process

Timing of contracting

0 Methods and timing of Communication

®
Presence of a LEED AP. and
contractual position

0 Design charcttes
0 Teams prior experience as a unit

Level of communication within team
members

Level of compatibility within
members

Education to contractors

team

 

 

Project Team
Characteristics

 

Team member’s experience in similar
projects

Owner’s representative’s capabilities
Owner’s ability to deﬁne scope

Owner’s ability to make decisions
Evaluation of the level of compatibility by
measuring communication and chemistry
amongst project team members

 

0 Building Size

0 Location

0 Project Complexity

0 Regulatory or Legal
Constraints

m

0 Schedule performance
- Schedule Growth
0 Cost performance
- Cost Growth
0 Quality performance
- Facility start up
- Call backs
- Quality of
o envelope/roof/
structure/foundatio
n
o interior/space/layou
t
0 environmental
systems
0 process equipment/
layout
0 overall
0 Post occupancy (Owner
Perception)
- Av. Water Consumption
- Av. Energy
Consumption
- Occupant Turnover
Rate
- Occupant Absenteeism
- General Satisfaction
- Acoustic Quality
- Ventilation
- Controllability
- Lighting
- Thermal Comfort
0 Levels of Sustainable High
Performance
- Level of Green
- Level of High
Performance
— Intended v/s Achieved
Certiﬁcation

 

113

 

4.4.1 Input survey data in excel sheets

Data was collected from three participants from each project i.e., owner, designer, and
contractor. The same data collection tool (comprising of 13 sections- respondent
information, project proﬁle, owner commitment, project delivery method, project team
procurement, contract conditions, integration in the design process, project team
characteristics, levels of high performance, project schedule performance, project cost
performance, safety and lessons learned) was used for all the three participants. However,
the owners were requested to ﬁll out two more sections namely project quality and post
occupancy evaluation. An excel ﬁle was created with each sections name as a tab; all the
tabs were hyperlinked to one master tab. These tabs were used to store the survey
responses received. Each tab, including the master tab had a ‘projects’ column and a
‘respondent’ column. In this manner all the information received form a single project

could be accessed together. An example of the categories is given in Figure 4.3.

Owner
Designer
Contractor
Owner

Designer

 

Contractor Owner

Figure 4.3 Example Sheet to Input Survey Responses

114

4.4.2 Transcribe open ended responses using Transana 2.12

Next, the open ended responses were transcribed verbatim with the help of commercial
software called Transana 2.12. This software has been developed by the University of
Wisconsin. Although there are new versions available, the author used an old free

version. For a snapshot of this software refer Appendix F.

4.4.3 Categorizing open ended responses using ATLAS.ti

Once transcribed, the open ended data was then imported as primary documents in
ATLAS. ti, a software commercially procured, for categorization purposes. The data was
categorized based on the performance metrics described previously in Table 4.4. For a

snapshot of this software refer Appendix G.

4.4.4 Data veriﬁcation and eliminating discrepancies within responses for the same
project

After creating the excel sheet and transcribing and categorizing the open ended
responses, the next step was to eliminate the discrepancies within the data received for
the same project. The primary veriﬁcation was conducted by cross referencing the
responses of the different participants from the same project. Also some information was
cross-reference from web based research. As data was primarily collected by telephonic
interviews personal rapport had been established with the participants. Therefore it was
relatively easy to clarify and ﬁll out any discrepancies and uncertain data over a course of
a few phone calls and emails. For example there was a disagreement amongst the

participants over the project delivery method was adopted for the project. Contractual

115

relations and open-ended responses had to be referred to eliminate this discrepancy and
have one single answer for the project. At the end of this step individual participant

responses were eliminated and only one response was maintained for the project.

4.5 Data Coding
To manage and analyze the survey responses they were coded and input in excel sheets.

The coding logic is presented next.

4.5.1 Owner’s Commitment:

Coding for this metric was based on the patterns that were seen within the data. Out of all
the parameters used to evaluate owner commitment primarily two were seen as having
considerable affects on the success metrics. These were 1) reason to pursue green and 2)
timing of incorporating green. It was seen that projects that performed well on the
sustainability and success metrics had vision statement from the owner as their reason to
pursue green. Also the timing of incorporating green was in the conceptual phase.
Projects performing lower on success and sustainability metrics incorporated green in the
schematic or design deve10pment phases. Also their reason to pursue green was
achievement of a certain certiﬁcation consequently translating into a positive public

image or marketability, or ﬁnancial remunerations in terms of grants and tax rebates.

On examining the literature and open ended responses similar trends were seen (Building
Green, Inc., 2001). Both suggested that early incorporation of green results in better
project outcomes, and as it gets late in the project it becomes difﬁcult to fully utilize the

potential of the incorporated strategies. Also it was reported that as the owner is the

116

primary decision maker their ‘buy-in’ in to the notion of green early in the project was
very important for project success. Finally Open ended responses stated that as
sustainable high performance buildings include complex processes under designing and
execution, for better project outcomes, the reason to pursue green should be more than
only certiﬁcation or ﬁnancial remunerations. The owner should have an inherent faith in
the notion of green that would reﬂect in their vision statement for the project. Therefore,
based on the literature, patterns in the survey and open ended responses coding for owner

commitment was established. This can be seen in Table 4.4 (Also refer Appendix D.

4.5.2 Level of integration achieved by projects:
The integration metric was evaluated based on the parameters presented in the previous
table. Responses to most parameters were common amongst the project participants. For

example timing of communication was reported to be weekly; every project except one

had a designated green design coordinator or LEED® A.P., conducted collaboration

sessions and educated their subcontractors for the LEED® submittal process. However

discrepancies were seen mainly within three parameters: Timing of contractor
involvement; communication methods; and quantitative performance metrics used to

measure the sustainable performance of the building.

Literature suggests that early involvement of contractor results in better project outcomes.
The open ended responses collected during the course of this study also aligned with the
literature. In the majority of the projects respondents endorsed the idea of involving the

contractor early. Therefore, the interviews showed that if the contractor joins the project

117

at the construction documents or bidding phase it is too late to incorporate any major
constructability reviews in the design. Also, the respondents suggested that better results
can be achieved if the contractor was on board with the project team from pre-design or
conceptual design phase. Hence, the study categorizes projects involving contractors as
late as construction documents or bidding should be categorized as poorly integrated.
Involvement of the contractor in the pre-design and conceptual phase point towards a
highly integrated project and projects that involved the contractor in the phases in
between can be considered as medium integrated. The coding logic is shown in Table 4.4
(Also refer Appendix K).

The other two parameters have not been used to indicate the level of integration achieved
by a project as they did not show a signiﬁcant pattern amongst the different methods
adopted. However patterns have emerged within both parameters that suggest that they

have an effect on the ﬁnal outcome. These are discussed in detail ﬁrrther in the report.

4.5.3 Levels of Sustainable High Performance Achieved:

This metric is evaluated on three parameters; Level of Green, Level of High
Performance, and Intended v/s Achieved Certiﬁcation. Under intended v/s achieved,
projects that achieved above the intended target, were on target, or were below target are
coded as +1, 0, and -1 respectively. Level of high performance is evaluated by combing
the achieved IEQ and energy scores in the USGBC’s checklist. To make the scores
comparable they were converted into percentages. Once listed the median in the data was
detected and coded as zero, points above and below the median were coded as +1 and -1.

The same process was followed for the level of green except this parameter was

118

calculated by listing the total points achieved by the project. The resultant coding is

shown in Table 4.4 (Also refer Appendix H).

4.5.4 Post- Occupancy and Quality:

To evaluate these metric owners were asked to respond to likert scale questions. The
resultant scores under each metric were added and listed. Similar to last metric a median
was detected and coded as 0 values above and below the median were given +1 and -1

respectively. The ﬁnal coding is shown in Table 4.4 (Also refer Appendix K).

4.5.5 Cost and Schedule Performance:

Apart from the fact that cost and schedule metrics include critical information, it was still
difﬁcult to ﬁnd data on these metrics because there are many variables that affect their
performance. To ﬁnd data on all the variables affecting these metrics such as material
selection, technology, and day to day operations was not possible with the resources
(time and ﬁnances) available for this study. Therefore, the coding of cost and schedule
was based on the perceptions of the owner. If the owner suggested that project had a
signiﬁcant cost or schedule growth, the project was coded as -1. If they suggested that it
was on target then the project was coded as 0. The ﬁnal coding for both cost and schedule

is in Table 4.4.

119

M li'I'RIC

Table 4.4 Data Coding Logic for All Variables

CODING PARAMETER

CODING

 

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

 

Vision statement and Conceptual Design
phase

High Commitment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Owner’s Certiﬁcation and-or Grants and Medium Commitment
Commitment Schematic/Conceptual Design Phase
ert'fcat' n & ants ' .
C 1 r 10 Gr and Desrgn Low Co trnent
Development
Project Dcsign-Bid-Build Design-Bid-Build
Delivery Design-Build Design-Build
Method Construction Management at risk Construction Management at risk
. Benchmark of restraint; Benc rk 0f restraint;
Pr0ject Team . Sole source selectron, best value source
Sole source selectron, best value source . . . . .
Procurement selection co e ti tivel ne otiated low selectron, competition, negotiation, low
(Appendix J) . 3 mp y g . ’ bid, ﬁxed budget/ best design,
brd, qualiﬁcation based selectron. . . .
qualiﬁcation based selectron.
Contract Contractual relations between important Contractual relations between
Conditions team members; important team members;

 

Integration in
the Delivery
Process

Timing of contractor entry: Pre-design,
Conceptual

High Integration

 

Schematic or Design Development

Medium Integration

 

Construction Documents and Bidding

Low Integration

 

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

 

Intended v/s

Below target

-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Achieved On target 0
Certiﬁcation Above target +1
Level of Less than 55 -1
High 55-65 0
Performance More than 65 +1
Less than 50 -1
Lgtzisf o
More than 70 +1
Below 39 -1

Post
Occupancy 39 0
Above 39 +1
Below 26 -1
Quality 26 0
Above 26 +1
High growth -1
Cost Growth On target 0
Under budget +1
Schedule High growth -1
Growth On target 0
Under schedule +1

 

120

 

4.6

Data Quality

This research employed several tactics to satisfy the research quality criteria. These

tactics

below.

4.6.1

addressed sampling error, response and non-response bias are explained in detail

Sampling Error

Under this section the following factors were focused on to eliminate bias;

1.

2.

3.

Location: This study attempted to look at projects across the US. for a broader
understanding of the issue. The literature suggests that certain locations in the
US. affect sustainable construction by legislation such as having stringent state
laws and ﬁnancial remunerations in taxes. Also locations characteristics such as
weather, terrain details, and availability of material and recycling plants can have
affects on sustainable projects. Therefore geographical diversity was important to
eliminate bias towards a certain region or location.

Project Delivery Methods: The study aimed to understand the level of affect of
project delivery methods on integration and project outcomes, therefore having a
mix of PDM’s was important to this study to eliminate bias towards a single
delivery method.

Responding participants: To facilitate cross referencing and understand the
perspective of different stakeholders 3 project participants were requested to

respond including owner, designer, and contractor.

121

4.6.2 Response Bias

As this study was conducted post completion of projects, responses of participants
especially in the project team characteristics metric, was prone to bias. The bias was
based on many variables such as the participant experience on the project, their
relationship to the owner and to other participants, the owner satisfaction with the project,
and time lag that skews memory of the project details. Therefore, to eliminate the
response bias, all project participants for each project (the owner, designer, and
contractor) were included in the data collection process for the team characteristics
evaluation questions. The responses were eliminated when the participants evaluated
themselves. The other responses were coded and their average generated the ﬁnal

response for these questions.

4.6.3 Non-Response Bias

To understand the different perspective and to conﬁrm the project details, it was
important for this research to eliminate non responses bias. Therefore, to cross reference
or ﬁll missing information, from every project maximum three and minimum two
participants were requested to respond. Also, the respondents were contacted again
and/or ‘followed-up’ if certain questions were not answered during the interview or in the
survey. Finally, web research was conducted to cross reference or ﬁll out missing, from

external sources such as web research.

122

4.7 Summary

This chapter described the data collection, categorization, and coding procedures. The
chapter characterizes and discusses the various data collection and categorization steps
that were undertaken to satisfy data uniformity and quality for this research. The main
sections under this chapter are; study population characteristics, participant recruitment
procedure, data collection tool application, problems encountered in the data collection
process, data recording and categorization, data quality and, data veriﬁcation. The study

is continued with the data analysis methods and results in the next chapter.

123

CHAPTER 5

Findings

5.1 Introduction

Qualitative methods were adopted to analyze the data for this research. The ﬁnal results
of the analysis are presented in this chapter. The chapter includes pattern matching
results, cross case synthesis results, descriptions of outlier projects, and additional lesson

learned.

5.2 Pattern Matching Results

Pattern matching was conducted on all the three objectives of this study sequentially. The

consequent results are presented in the same sequence i.e., under the respective

objectives.

5.2.] Proposition 1. Higher levels of integration in the design process will lead to
higher levels of sustainability;

The patterns within this objective were assessed based on Table 5.1. It is sorted by the

level of integration achieved in the projects. The projects achieving high integration are

listed on the top and coded as dark grey. Projects achieving medium and low integration

are coded as ‘light grey’ and ‘white’, and listed subsequently. The table shows two

exemplary projects marked by a * sign and two outliers marked by ** sign. The former

two projects are considered as outliers because even with low and medium integration

they performed exemplary on sustainability goals. The speciﬁc results seen within the

table above are listed next:

124

1) Projects achieving high level of integration also scored high on the sustainability
metrics;

2) Higher level of integration was seen within projects that achieved gold and platinum
certiﬁcations under the USGBC’s LEED® assessment system;

3) The probability of exceeding the intended certiﬁcation target was higher projects with

higher levels of integration.

Table 5.1 Level of Integration Achieved and Sustainability Goals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Codes Intevnsded. Level of High performance
Achieved. Green (IEQ + ENERGY)
Dl* +1 +1 +1
(32* +1 +1 +1
Cl +1 0 +1
, D3 0 +1 +1
D2** +1 +1 +1
A3 0 -1 -1
B2 0 -1 -1
Bl 0 -1 -1
A2 -1 -1 _1
D4** +1 +1 +1
A1 0 -1 -1
* Exemplary Projects r I High Integration I
** Outliers I Medium Integration

 

L Low Integration

 

Overall, the table shows that projects with high level of integration have high chances to
be successful on the sustainable metric, versus projects achieving medium or low
integration that may or may not be successful. This indicates that integration is a very
important attribute that can potentially inﬂuence the level of sustainability achieved by a

project. This is because sustainable strategies increase complexity within projects and

125

therefore, require increased inter disciplinary interaction to develop optimized solutions.
The open ended answers consistently suggested that under integration early involvement
of participants was a signiﬁcant metric. It facilitated timely inclusion of suggestions from
all participants thereby resulting in adoption of more efﬁcient alternatives. Apart from
timing, there were also, other recurring themes, in the collected data such as
communication and collaboration within participants. First a pattern was seen that all
high and two medium integrated projects used more than one method of communication
i.e., apart from email, fax and phone; project management software’s (scheduling and
estimation), and/ or online databases and/or building information modeling (BIM) were
also used. These methods increased efﬁciency and reduced conﬂicts in the transfer of
information. Second, a conscious effort was made to make sure, that all the participants
were focused towards the same goals. One owner reported:
“ ....... we spend a lot of time in the programming of the building, being

very clear about what our goals and objectives are. Writing those down

in a clear and concise terms that we can communicate to everyone. And

that is probably the most important step because it gives us something to

go back to check ourselves, if we tend to wander. It also allows us to

identijy when we are done with a certain step have we accomplished it

consistently. ”
This focused the thought process of all the participants and assisted them to work towards
a common goal. Conversely, another project that did not have an aligned team did not
perform as well. The owner reported that they could not exceed the intended certiﬁcation

target because the general contractor (GC) was not committed to the project.

126

5.2.2 Proposition 2: CMR and DB will provide higher levels of integration in the design

process compared to DBB;

The patterns within this objective were assessed based on Table 5.2. The three delivery

methods adopted here are design bid build (DBB), design build (DB), and construction

management at risk (CMR). The projects in this table are ranked according to the level of

integration achieved by them. The table shows three exemplary projects marked by a *

sign and two outliers marked by ** sign. The former two projects are considered as

outliers because project B2 with a medium level of integration performed the worse in

this sample however project D4 with low integration performed competitively with

medium and high integrated projects. The trends seen within the data are listed next:

CMR and DB project delivery methods facilitated higher levels of integration;

1) Mostly DBB provided low level of integration within the project;

2) Medium level of integration could be provided by any of the three delivery methods
through informal involvement of the contractor;

3) Although cost growth was seen under every project delivery method no trend was
detected. However, projects that were executed with traditional DBB displayed a

trend in cost growth.

127

Table 5.2 PDM’s and the Levels of Integration Achieved

O00
0000

-l

I
p—a

I
,_a

D2

00

A3

DBB l
DBB D4"
DBB A1

.L-o

 

I
._.
000000

I
p—i

 

* Exemplary Projects

** Outliers

DB= Design Build
DBB: Design—Bid—Build
CMR= Construction Management at Risk Low Integration
HPG= High Performance Green

 

Medium Integration

 

 

 

 

 

Within the sample set DBB delivery method facilitated medium or low level of
integration and CMR and DB provided competitive levels of high and medium
integration. However it is the, author’s understanding that DBB also, has the potential to
facilitate high level of integration if the contractor is informally involved early in the

project life.

From the received open ended data it was not possible to find consensus on the
superiority of anyone delivery method as both positive and negative competitive
arguments were available. Additionally, over the years with the growth in the
construction market availability of contractors and design builders in location has started
to become less problematic and not inﬂuential in selection of PDMs. The choice of PDM

was not found to be dependent on availability of service and to be on the owner’s

128

discretion. Except for one criteria, it could not be concluded from the collected data that
any discretionary views towards PDM’s such as owners requirements for direct interface
with the architect or need for tax savings, had negative or positive affects on the project.
The one criterion that can result in ﬂawed performance was the owner’s requirement for

the ‘lowest price ’, thus choosing DBB. The designer for project A1 suggested that:

” ....... well especially with a LEED® building it would have been far

preferable to have the builder on the team prior to it going out to bid

there was I think a lot of the bidders were it was their first LEED®

project so really didn ’t know what they were getting themselves into I 'm
not sure if the general contractor really understood so DBB did not
beneﬁt in any way other than getting a ﬁxed price and presumably a low

price. ”
This project performed low not only on the sustainability metric but also on the success
metric. The responses from the participants suggested that it was mainly because the
contractor was brought on, at the bidding phase. The contractor suggested that they

should have been brought on board earlier to facilitate constructability reviews. The

contractor reported that:

“ ...... if any team can facilitate the design constructability from a builder
or someone from a building background earlier in the phase other than
the bidding and once it ’s awarded will streamline and a ectively

smoothen out the project delivery and construction of the job. ”

Contractor of one another DBB project suggested:

129

“ ..... It would have been better to have been involved earlier. In terms of
a better way to do it, I think the design build for the contractor is online
ahead of time or you can have input in being involved in LEED®
decisions. And look at the cost impact of the items, is tremendous

beneﬁt over the DBB process. "

5.2.3 Proposition 3: Project delivery attributes affect ﬁnal outcomes

The analysis of this objective was conducted by testing different combinations of
independent and dependent variables to see the emerging patterns. This was ﬁrst
conducted by comparing all the variables together. The emerging patterns then were
classiﬁed under four categories i.e., integration in the delivery process, contractual terms,
contractual conditions, and owner commitment and are listed next according to their
strengths. Strength can be deﬁned as the difference between the normalized total scores
of the categories. It deﬁnes the importance of the variables tested in potentially

inﬂuencing the success metrics.

a) Integration in the delivery process

The results under this section are based on Table 5.3. This table is sorted at two levels; (i)
according to the level of integration of the projects, and (ii) within each level of
integration, in the descending order of the total scores achieved by the projects.
1) Projects with high level of integration displayed better performance under the
success metric;
2) The contractor should be on board by design development phase (contractually

or informally) for successful outcomes

130

3) Cost growth was mainly seen in project with low or medium integration;

Table 5.3 Integration in the Delivery Process

A2
A3

B1
DBB
DBB Al

 

 

   
     

* Exemplary Projects ** Outliers
Sch.=Schedule

Post-occ. =Post-Occupancy

DB= Design Build

DBB= Design~Bid-Build

CMR= Construction Management at Risk
HPG= High Performance Green

Medium
Inte ; ration
Low

Integration

 

The explanation to this metric is similar to objective 1. Once again within exemplary
project strong emphasis was placed on team collaboration and participant’s focus on
common goals. The open ended responses emphasized that the success of projects
depended on the, “degree to which the team is aligned around the purpose. ” Owner of
project B2 reported:

” ..... I really wasn’t happy because the subcontractors in my opinion
were not really committed to it as much as the owners were and so they

didn ’t work with us to try and develop solutions that would enable us to

keep a reasonable cost on the building and so perform adequately. ”

131

The owner also reported that:
” ...... my initial goal would have been gold but the project costs drove us

to silver and we barely made silver and I had to appeal one of the points

to get to silver. It was a failure of the GC that I think signiﬁcantly

affected as. ”
This shows that conunitment from the GC is a signiﬁcant factor in inﬂuencing project
success. Compared to other participants, it was seen that, contractors were most insistent
to join the project early and involve themselves in the design process advocating that it
would result in better performance on the success metric. Supporting the results a
contractor stated:
” ....... in our opinion the sooner you bring on the GC the better the
project goes you now you get the team work aspect of it, but at the point
that we were brought in the project we offered a lot to the team we
provided a lot of estimating services so you know I think it had a lot of

positive affect over all it would have a more positive affect if they would

have brought us in at the very beginning. ”

b) Contractual terms

Table 5.4 shows patterns that are classiﬁed under this section. Here the owner
commitment is tested with the contractual terms followed and ﬁnally with the total score
achieved by projects under dependent variables. The contractual terms seen here are Cost
plus fee (Cost), lump sum (Lump) and guaranteed maximum price (GMP). The table also
shows normalized scores of projects under the three levels of owner commitment.

Finally, the projects are ranked according to the total scores achieved by them.

132

Table 5.4 Contractual Terms

 

DB= Design Build . , : ,
DBB= Desrgn-Brd- g» , Normalized

Blilld :» SC re

CMR= Construction ' r; 0
Management at Risk '

 

 

Commitment

1. Projects displaying better outcomes and higher certiﬁcation mostly adopted the cost
plus fee contractual terms;

2. Lump sum as a contractual term was more common in projects with low
certiﬁcation and lower owner commitment;

3. Cost plus fee is more common in project with high owner commitment.

Although, the survey data shows trends that in instances where the contractual terms were
cost plus fee, projects, outperformed on the success metrics; positive and negative
arguments for each type of contractual term were seen within the open ended responses.

An owner suggested:

133

“ ..... GMP and lump sum are simply not as good. They are old school

old thinking and they do not allow the embracing of innovation and

new technologies. ”
The owner suggested that both GMP and lump sum tend to make the stakeholders focus
more on protecting their interest than the projects however cost plus fee removes this
contention and assists the participants to look in a common direction. In contrast one
contractor stated,

“ ....... Actually a lump sum made it clear and deﬁnitive on whose

responsibilities the financial and cost fell in. When you get into a GMP

then you get owners who feel that u present them with a change and the

change should be incorporated in the GMP and that you should have

picked it up in the GMP, cost plus is the same way, where on the lump

sum you issue it and its either shown or not shown and is straight

forward. "
Another designer stated

“ ....... We prefer lump sum because it allows us to manage our risks if

we know what are paid upfront we can budget accordingly on occasions.

GMP we don 't like because it works for the owner but it cannot work for

us if the scope starts to deviate scope creep for instance. ”

However, the designer later reported that lump sum became a ‘big’ problem because the

owner refused to pay the additional fees that were incurred by including LEED®

requirements. Finally cost plus fee was highly criticized by one of the designers who

stated,

134

(i

....... cost plus fee for the most part implies a percentage of the
construction cost that by far is the absolute worse way to do it because in
my view there are perverse disincentives to achieving performance for all
parties because if the idea is to try and reduce the size of systems they
cost less and if in fact my fees based on cost I ’m therefore not
incentivized for efficiencies. ”
The designer further suggested that GMP / lump sum provided a ﬁxed value reﬂecting on
a clearly deﬁned scope. Also if an integrative design process was followed then any
upcoming contingencies could be adjusted and the project would not cost more.
Finally, the data collection tool included questions on competitive v/s negotiated
contractual terms; however, no patterns were detected in terms of their effect on project

outcomes such as cost and schedule growth.

c) Contractual Conditions

This section compared contractual relations within participants with scores achieved
under sustainability and total dependent variables score. The results are on the basis of
Table 5.5. Here, projects are ranked in the descending order of the total scores achieved
by the project.
1. Project in which green design coordinator/ LEED® A.P. did not contract directly
to the owner resulted in lower sustainability and success outcomes;

2. Projects displayed better outcomes when the all the primary participants

(including mechanical and electrical subcontractors, LEED® A.P., commissioning

agent, and energy and lighting consultants were contracted directly to the owner;

135

3. It was seen that when LEED® A.P. contracted directly to the owner the chances of

exceeding the intended certiﬁcation target increased.

Table 5.5 Contractual Conditions

D2

A2
A3
Bl
D4
A1
82 ** Ow Ow

 

 

 

* Exemplary Projects Elec. Sub.: Electrical Subcontractor

** Outliers E Cnsl.: Energy Consultant

Ow= Owner C= Contractor D= Designer L Cnsl.: Lighting Consultant Medium
DB= Design Build CAg.: Commissioning Agent
DBB= Design-Bid-Build Int vs. Ach : Intended Vs. Achieved '

CMR= Construction Management at Risk HPG= High Performance Green Low

Integration

 

 

Mech. Sub: Mechanical Subcontractor

 

136

d) Owner commitment

Strong patterns could not be detected within the data for this category. However, there
were certain relevant ﬁndings that needed to be addressed. Table 5.6 is the basis for the
results under this category. Projects here are ranked in the descending order of their total
score
1. High owner commitment increased the probability to exceed the intended
sustainability target; Outlier projects: D2, D4
2. Green metric was mandated mostly verbally in low certiﬁcation projects and mostly
contractually in higher certiﬁcation projects. (Contractual terms mainly included,
including USGBC’s green metric in the project and not necessarily the level of
certiﬁcation to be achieved); Outlier projects: A3, C1
3. Projects achieving high on the success metric and higher certiﬁcations had owner
vision statement as the reason to pursue sustainability. Open ended answers
suggested that due to the complexity in the sustainable process it is important that

the owner have an interest in the notion of green itself instead of ‘chasing points’

under the USGBC’s LEED® system.

4. Including green in the design development or later phases of the project can result

in a cost growth and achieving lower certiﬁcation.

137

Table 5.6 Owner Commitment

VS
VS
VS
TS,
VS

VS

Grounds
and

LEED® ‘
A3 LEED Contractually
B l LEED Verbally
Al Grants D.
BZ VS D.

A2

Verbally I
I

 

 

*VS: Vision Statement

Con.D. : Conceptual Design

Sch. D.= Schematic Design

Design D. = Design Development
Int vs. Ach : Intended Vs. Achieved

DB= Design Build

DBB= Design-Bid-Build

CMR= Construction Management
at Risk

7 I High Integration

 

Medium Integration

 

Low Integration

 

 

 

 

 

Open ended responses repeatedly reported that owner commitment was an important
attribute in affecting the success metric. First it was suggested that the inclusion of green
should be earlier in the project life. One designer stated:

(I

...... clearly if the owner had embraced the notion prior to design and if
the owner had made their decrszon to commit to LEED earlier I thmk it

would have been a better building. ”
Although it was not stated clearly, on comparing open ended responses and projects
performance on the success metric, it was observed that the reason to pursue green was a
strong indicator of owner commitment and in certain cases affected the level of

138

sustainability achieved. The data showed that projects that had a stronger commitment
towards green itself, rather than the incentives that came with a sustainable building,
performed better. One owner reported:

“ ........ we did not want to use the green scorecard as a design directive,
because then you start chasing points, and cost effectiveness of your
design direction becomes quite a challenge, because you start spending

money in pursuit of points. ”

Another owner reported:

(I

....... we used LEED® as a marketing tool and secondly we did it

 

’

because it is the right thing to do. ’

5.2.4 Proposition 4: PDM 's affect project outcomes through the level of

integration in the project delivery process;

Finally, the overall project goal was revisited in this proposition and it was concluded
that project delivery methods do inﬂuence project outcomes through the level of
integration in the project delivery process. The primary ﬁndings from this proposition. are
given below:
° Projects adopting DB method mostly ranged high in the success
outcomes. They had high level of integration in the delivery process and
owner commitment, also, adopted cost plus fee as the payment method;
° Projects adopting CMR demonstrated medium success in project

performance. These projects had medium level of integration in the

1.39

delivery process and owner commitment, also, adopted either Lump sum
or GMP as the payment method;

° DBB displayed medium and low level of integration and all three levels
of owner commitment. Also success ranged from medium to low in
projects that adopted the lump sum payment method;

° Under DB, projects that achieved high integration and high success, had

most participants directly contracted to the owner.

5.3 Cross Case Synthesis Results

To conduct cross case synthesis, three pairs of projects (exemplary and ﬂawed) were
selected and compared to ﬁnd the differentiating characteristics. The projects were
chosen based on three primary control variables i.e., PDM (DBB, DB, and CMR),
certiﬁcation achieved (platinum, gold, silver and, certiﬁed), and size (small, medium
large). All the control variables have not been used in all the three sets. The control
variables used to choose the three sets of projects are described next;

Set 1: Both projects under this set are platinum certiﬁed and large in size i.e., their size is
between 120,000 to 180,000 sqft. However the exemplary project has been delivered by
the CMR method and the ﬂawed project by the DBB method.

Set 2: In this set the control variables were size and PDM. Both projects were medium
sized (i.e., 60,000 -100,0005qﬁ) and had been delivered by the CMR method. Under
certiﬁcation the exemplary and ﬂawed projects achieved platinum and certiﬁcation
respectively.

Set 3: Small sized (25,000-35,000 sqft) projects were chosen for this set.

140

Also it is as this study includes a very small sample size therefore generalizability of the

results is a limitation. However, characteristics of ﬂawed projects can be generalized so

as not to be repeated. Therefore, characteristics of ﬂawed project as opposed to good

projects are listed next. Table 5.7 shows an example of this analysis method.

Project

   

Exemplary. Owner

Table 5.7 Cross Case Synthesis Analysis

Owner Commitment Integration in the deliwr)‘ process
Green Reason to Timing Green . . . TiminLy of
. . r 7. Destgn (.ollalmrulion. ‘
Incorp. Pursue 0t design . r . . contractor

. ‘ Charctte Session. .
b) Green Green cord. involvement
Vision Con D Pre-Design
Statement ‘ ' (Contractuall .

  

 

 

Flawed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Designer Grants Des.D. No No No Bidding

 

Con. D = Conceptual Design, Des.D.: Design Development

The following characteristics were seen in ﬂawed projects as opposed to exemplary

projects:

5.3.1 Owner Commitment

(1.

Reason to pursue green: The process of sustainable, high performance
building is complex in nature owing to the increased interaction of multi—
disciplinary teams. Due to this increased complexity, owners must
demonstrate high commitment towards the project and inclusion of green
strategies as they are the primary decision makers. Especially for
sustainability metrics, almost ten respondents reported that, as it is not a
mandatory requirement, the owner must show strong interest and belief
towards the notion of green for the building to be successful. It was seen

within ﬂawed projects that the reason for including green strategies was
mostly LEED® certiﬁcation leading to ﬁnancial remunerations and
marketability. Also these “ﬂawed ' projects generally stood at the lower end of

141

the certiﬁcation metric indicating that the owners did not pursue higher levels
of certiﬁcation due to lack of incentives.

b. Timing of including green strategies: Pattern matching results showed that
projects performed better if green strategies were included in the conceptual
or schematic phase. It was seen in cross case synthesis that projects
categorized as ﬂawed included the notion of green in the design development
phase leading to projects performing low on the success metric.

c. Mandating green verbally: Most, lower certiﬁcation and lower success
projects did not mention green intentions in the contracts with the participants.
This indicated unclear mindsets that affected participant commitment towards
green as their roles and responsibilities, scope of the project and ﬁnancial
remunerations were not clear.

5.3.2 Project Delivery Method

a. All the delivery methods have the potential to facilitate at least medium level
of integration by informal involvement of the contractor. However, projects
delivered purely by the DBB method (i.e., contractor involvement at the
biding phase) resulted in low integration and also lower performance on the
success metric as the contractor could not provide input in the design phase.

5.3.3 Contractual Conditions

a. Contractual Terms: In ﬂawed projects it was more common to use the lump
sum as a contractual term for both designer and contractor. This indicated that
cost was a priority for the owner thereby putting the other success factors such

as level of high performance achieved and quality lower on the same list. Also

142

due to the nature of the contractual term it reduced the commitment of the
team towards over reaching the intended target if it resulted in a cost growth.
Cost plus fee was more common in projects that performed better on the
sustainability metric. The open ended responses suggested that this contractual
term allowed innovation within the thought process of the design team as they

were not constantly under the pressure of rising cost;

b. Contractual relationship of LEED® A.P..' It was seen when the LEED® AF.

was not contracted directly to the owner it resulted on less successful project.

This was indicative of the importance of the green strategies for the project.

Direct relationship between the owner and the LEED® A.P. allowed the latter

to orchestrate the inclusion of green more efﬁciently because the contractual
relationship demonstrated the importance of green goals for the owner.
5.3.4 Integration in the Delivery Process

a. Timing of contractor involvement: For successful outcomes, literature strongly
suggests early involvement of the contractor in the project (7 Group and Reed,
2009). It was seen by cross case synthesis that ﬂawed projects that involved
the contractor, contractually or informally, schematic phase onwards. Also,
the open ended responses from these ﬂawed projects reported that the
contractor should be involved from the pre-design or conceptual phase to
facilitate clarity of common goals and higher commitment from the contractor
towards the project.

b. Green Design Coordinator: The ﬂawed projects either did not have a green

design coordinator or they were a part of the designer’s team. This lowered

143

 

C.

the priority of green inclusion as there was no direct coordination between the
owner and the green design coordinator.

Design charrette’s: These were either not conducted or if conducted only
included the owner and the design team. Thereby excluding contractor and the
mechanical electrical and plumbing subcontractors who are signiﬁcant
members of the team as they physically execute building construction and

could provide important suggestions.

d. Prior experience of the team members: Previous experience of the project

a.

team with each other, their communication, and compatibility amongst the
participants was not rated high on the likert scale, in ﬂawed projects. This
indicated that previous working relationships are important because then the
team is more focused on the goals rather than on developing relationships with

the other participants;

5.4 Description of the Outliers Through Explanation Building

While conducting pattern matching, it was seen, that there were certain projects, that
performed differently (better or worse) than expected. These were categorized as outliers.
As a part of results, it is important to discuss these projects, to gain a more meaningﬁil
and deeper understanding of the other variables, which have the potential to affect the

success metrics.

Project D4
This project was delivered by the traditional DBB method where the

contractor was involved in the bidding phase. The contractor reported that due

144

to their late involvement in the project they were not privy to all the
information. Although the project saw cost growth; both the owner and the
designer stated that the contractor was very committed to the project goal,
which was instrumental in achieving better outcomes. The designer
particularly stated,

........ we had the contractor came early, interested in learning

about sustainability and worried about how to make a building

with LEED® practices. They really took it on with the high

level of dedication, commitment. We were very satisﬁed with

the way that project with this executed from all the away from

the bidding, contracting, all the way from construction. The

contractor did a great job dealing with sub contractors' work,

potential changes, scope, changes and cost, really keeping the

team forward and cooperative way. ”

b. Project B2

This project was delivered by the CMR method and the contractor was
involved in the schematic phase. However unlike project D4 this was not a
committed contractor. According to the owner, even though the contractor
was presented with the opportunity of involving themselves early in the
project they did not do so. It was stated that the contractor failed in providing
sufﬁcient cost estimation and value engineering services to develop optimized

solutions. Although the owner acknowledges the market changes at the time

145

for the exceeding cost of the project; they placed signiﬁcant responsibility on
the contractor for the under— performance of the project.

Project A2

The primary reason to pursue green was stated to be two folds l)
marketability and 2) the owner wanted to use this project as an ongoing lab to
educate their own staff for future projects with outside clients. The owner
reported that they were not experienced in this kind of construction and
wanted to ‘practice’ on their own building and therefore were pursuing silver
certiﬁcation. Primarily, this project under performed only in one metric, i.e.,
level of sustainability achieved. The project intended for a silver certiﬁcation
however achieved only certiﬁed. Reason for this underperformance was
reported to be loss of certain points that the team had originally accounted for.
The owner stated that they were satisﬁed with the project in general, as it
achieved the intended needs, and blamed the under-performance on the
inexperience of the entire team. It was also suggested that with the gained
experience they were now in a better position to serve their clients achieve

sustainable projects.

146

5.5 Additional Lessons Learned

Apart from the ﬁndings achieved from the survey responses. There were certain repeated

themes seen in the open ended responses. These are listed below as additional lessons

learned.

1.

Contractor is a signiﬁcant member of the team and high level of commitment
towards the project is required from them;

The existing deﬁnitions of PDM’s are not consistent or fully understood in the
industry; for example many industry members consider early involvement of
contractor to be a DB delivery method even if the owner holds separate contracts
with the designer and contractor;

Lower certiﬁcation projects were mostly the ﬁrst sustainable project attempted by
the team, therefore in some cases, they were treated as practice grounds for future
projects;

Cost was of high priority in low certiﬁed projects. Many projects chose not to
pursue higher certiﬁcations due to rising cost;

Based on the open ended responses it seems that there still a notion in the industry

that suggests that LEED® projects cost more than traditionally built projects.

It was seen that more than the project delivery methods, project delivery attributes
affect the ﬁnal outcomes. the main attributes identiﬁed by this study are :

a. Timing of participant entry: Project delivery methods suggest contractual

relationships between participants and also to some extent direct the timing

of entry of the participants. However that can be overcome by informally

involving participants from the beginning.

147

b. Team characteristics: A thorough selection process should be conducted
not only to make sure about the qualiﬁcations and capabilities of the
participants but also to align their commitment to the project and green

strategies, to avoid compatibility issues.

5.6 Summary

This chapter listed the results achieved by conducting qualitative analysis of the data.
The primary ﬁndings supported the expected outcomes. The results point towards the
need for high level of integration and owner commitment in projects. It was also reported
that project team characteristics and commitment were also signiﬁcant attributes that
could potentially inﬂuence ﬁnal outcomes. It was recognized that the current sample size
was too small to provide generalizable results. However, the observed patterns provide
important lessons learned in terms of practices that should not be followed for successful

projects.

148

CHAPTER 6

Summary, Discussions, and Conclusions

6.] Summary of the Results

This study attempted to understand the extent of the effect of projects delivery methods
(PDM) and practices on the level of integration achieved in the project delivery and
further their effects on project performance (e.g. cost, schedule, and quality) with a
speciﬁc focus on sustainability goals. In pursuit of this aim, project delivery attributes
such as owner commitment, level of integration achieved in the delivery process and
project team procurement, were compared with project performance outcomes to identify

potential relationships.

This study is the second step of a research that aims to determine the state of practice in
green building project delivery and procurement. This study contributed to the larger
research by developing a rigorous case study approach. It is a collaborative effort
between Michigan State University, University of Colorado, University of Oklahoma,
and Pennsylvania State University and is funded by the Charles Pankow Research

Foundation.

The project delivery attributes and the performance outcomes were primarily identiﬁed
through a literature review and input from the four university research team and industry
panel. This research followed a case study approach and based on the deﬁned case study
selection criteria, selected 12 completed ofﬁce building projects that received

certiﬁcations from United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in

149

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED® ). 30 respondents were engaged in the data

collection of the case study protocol (i.e., owners, designers, and contractors) with an
average of two types of respondents per project. A combination of survey application and
structured interviews were performed. Qualitative methods (i.e., pattern matching, cross
case synthesis, and explanation building) were adopted to analyze the collected data.
Analyses showed emerging patterns within the data that were converted to results by

further bolstering with quotes from the open-ended responses.

The ﬁndings of this research suggest that owner commitment, contract conditions, and
integration in the delivery process are critical project delivery attributes inﬂuencing
project outcomes such as cost, time, quality, and especially sustainability goals. The
ﬁndings also report, that strong owner commitment towards sustainability, early
involvement of contractor in the project delivery process, and early inclusion of green
strategies to the project are crucial to the delivery process for successful outcomes. Other
factors affecting outcomes include increased contractor commitment towards
sustainability and the project, previous experience of the team members with each other,

arrangements of design charettes, and project team procurement.
A detailed list of these ﬁndings and their explanation is given next:

Owner Commitment:

1. Although the open ended responses suggested competitive arguments for

mandating green both verbally and contractually, survey responses showed

150

patterns that owners of exemplary projects mostly mandated the achievement of
sustainability goals in their contracts with design and build teams;

2. Sustainability is an extensive concept including complex processes that are very
different from the traditional design and construction practices. The results lucidly
demonstrate that strong owner commitment is required to satisfy even minimal

aspects of it. However, it was observed that particularly, to achieve or exceed,

high sustainability targets (i.e., USGBC’s LEED® gold and platinum

certiﬁcations) exceptionally high owner commitment is required. This is because
a belief exists in the industry suggesting that sustainable buildings cost more than
traditionally built buildings. Also, a_ll the beneﬁts of highly sustainable buildings
do not always result in obvious materialistic returns to the owner such as low
energy consumption and / or market credibility and / or increased occupant
productivity. Therefore, owners really need to believe in the notion of green as
the ‘right thing to do’ and understand that green buildings can have important and
positive consequences on the occupants and environment, that is worth investing
their resources (i.e., ﬁnance, time, and commitment) on.

3. Green strategies need to be included until the schematic design phase to make
them a fundamental part of the project and not add on. However, earlier inclusion
of the notion of green is only possible if an owner demonstrates high level of

commitment as the primary stakeholder and decision maker in a project.
Project Delivery Method (PDM):

4. Based on the literature and the collected data, this study deﬁned the level of

integration achieved by projects, primarily based on the timing of contractor

151

 

entry. The data showed that both construction management at risk (CMR) and
design-build (DB) can provide high or medium level of integration as they
inherently facilitate early involvement of contractors. On the other hand design-
bid-build (DBB) provides low level of integration as the contractor is involved at
the bidding phase. However, DBB too has the potential to provide higher levels of
integration if the contractor is informally involved from the early phases of the
project.

5. Between PDM’s and cost growth, the only trend detected suggests that projects
adopting the DBB method display positive cost growth. This mainly occurred
because of contractor suggested changes that had to be incorporated at/ after the

bidding phase.
Contractual Conditions:

6. Majority of the exemplary projects adopted the cost plus fee contractual term for

the project participants such as the designer, contractor, or design-builder;

7. In exemplary projects LEED® Accredited Professionals (A.P.) were directly

contracted to the owner: If the LEED® A.P.’s are directly contracted to the

owners, who are the primary decision makers, it would raise the importance to
include green strategies for the project team, as then, it would be considered as an
owner priority. Also, the green implementation is orchestrated from a central

source as opposed to contractors following the lead of the designer.

152

 

‘5 _ I: _

Integration in Project Delivery Process:

8.

10.

ll.

12.

Early involvement of the contractor was seen as a key factor in the success of a
project as well as deﬁning the level of integration in project delivery process;
High level of integration in the project delivery process (i.e., involvement of the
contractor in the project informally or contractually, until the schematic phase)
mostly occurred in exemplary projects i.e., projects that outperformed and
achieved/exceeded intended targets in terms of sustainability and success metrics
such as cost, schedule, quality and owners perception of post-occupancy
performance;

Projects that had low or medium level of integration in their delivery processes
resulted in more cost grth than exemplary projects. Late involvement of
participants in the design phase that mostly results in rework can be considered
the reason for the cost growth;

Under design charette and collaboration sessions, consistent positive survey
responses were observed i.e., a majority of projects conducted these successﬁilly.
However, the open ended responses stressed on the importance and the affect of
these sessions on project success. The responses aligned with literature (USGBC,
2009; Green Globes, 2009; DoE, 2009; Frej, 2005) and reported that these are
important factors towards the success of a project as they assist project teams to
focus on common goals;.

In the metric, “previous experience with team members”, variation in survey
responses was not observed. It was consistently rated as high that reﬂected in the

adoption of the sole source procurement method in the majority of the projects.

153

 

However, open ended responses explained the importance and need of previous
experience with team members. It was reported that this metric was important for
the compatibility of the team and also a determining factor for procurement of the
participant’s themselves (e.g., owner’s are likely to go through sole source
selection of the participants if they have already worked with the owner on

previous project).

PDM’s affect project outcomes through the level of integration in the project
delivery process;
13. Projects adopting DB method mostly ranged high in the success

14.

15.

16.

outcomes. They had high level of integration in the delivery process and
owner commitment, also, adopted cost plus fee as the payment method;
Projects adopting CMR demonstrated medium success in project
performance. These projects had medium level of integration in the
delivery process and owner commitment, also, adopted either Lump sum
or GMP as the payment method;

DBB displayed medium and low level of integration and all three levels
of owner commitment. Also success ranged from medium to low in
projects that adOpted the lump sum payment method;

Under DB, projects that achieved high integration and high success, had

most participants directly contracted to the owner.

154

Additional Lessons Learned:

1. The results showed that for successful project outcomes, apart from owners,
increased commitment is required from other team members such as general
contractors and design teams. The open ended responses suggest that each
stakeholder must take leadership in delivering the green aspects of buildings instead
of following the direction given by an outside entity (e.g. contractors following
designers leadership for achieving certain levels of certiﬁcation without being
contractually obligated or fully responsible.)

2. It was also observed that project delivery attributes such as timing of participant
involvement, design charrettes and collaboration sessions, contractual conditions
and terms, and owner commitment, were more important for the project success
than the adopted project delivery method itself.

3. Finally, it was observed that there should be direct contractual arrangements
between the owner and other primary participants such as mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing (M.E.P) subcontractors. A strong pattern was not observed in the data
set as such applications existed only in three of the sample projects. However, it is

considered as a valuable ﬁnding as it was strongly supported by the literature.

6.2 Verification of the Results

Due to the low sample size of this study, generalizability of its results might be
questionable. However, recent research studies conducted in the same ﬁeld have arrived
at similar results to those of the current study. Therefore, this study conducted an

extensive literature review to perform external validation procedure to verify its results

155

 

facilitate their generalizability. The six researches selected for the comparison of results
are presented below.

0 Beheiry et al. (2006) Examining the Business Impact of Owner Commitment to
Sustainability: The purpose of this study was to establish a research mechanism to
investigate the impact of corporate commitment to sustainability on capital project
planning and capital project performance.

0 Lapinski et al (2006) Lean Processes for Sustainable Project Delivery: The
purpose of this study was to evaluate the life cycle of Toyota’s capital facility
delivery process to empirically identify the critical activities and capabilities that
led to Toyota’s South Campus project success. This utilized a process-based
analysis 106king back in time to identify where value and waste were generated in
Toyota’s delivery system.

0 Korkmaz (2007), Piloting Evaluation Metrics for High Performance Green
Building Project Delivery: The research attempted to provide a foundation for
future research by deﬁning meaningful evaluation metrics, methods, and tools to
collect and analyze high performance green building project delivery data.

0 Enache-Pommer (2008), Lean and Green Healthcare Facilities: Improving the
Delivery Process in Children ’3 Hospitals: This main aim of this study was to
understand the building delivery process in green children’s hospitals, starting
from programming, through design, construction, operations and maintenance. An
emphasis was placed on the affects of the delivery process and the stakeholders

present in each, project on the ﬁnal product.

156

 

o Molenaar et al. (2009), Sustainable, High Performance Projects and Project
Delivery Methods: A State-of-Practice Report: This paper is the ﬁrst part of a
broader study that seeks to determine project delivery methods inﬂuence on
owner’s ability to achieve their sustainability goals in delivering building projects.
This paper describes the state-of-practice in project delivery methods for

achieving sustainable, high performance building projects through a content

analysis and a nationwide survey of LEED® AP.

0 Bilec and Ries (2009), Preliminary Study of Green Design and Project Delivery

Methods in the Public Sector: The aim of this study was to examine possible

 

relationships between design-bid-build (DBB), construction management (CM),
and DB PDMs and green design with the goal of beginning to identify potential

positive correspondence between them.

There were strong or medium level similarities between the ﬁndings of the current study
and previous research ﬁndings. No contradicting results were detected. However, there
were some results in previous research that were not observed in the current study
potentially due to the small sample size and the sample being skewed towards private
type of building projects. For a detailed discussion only ﬁve out of the six studies were
selected. Beheiry et al. (2006) is omitted from the detailed discussion as primarily
addressed only one independent variable i.e., owner commitment. However, for the

beneﬁt of the reader its results have been discussed next.

157

Examining the Business Impact of Owner Commitment to Sustainability (Beheiry et. al.,
2006): This paper tested ﬁve hypothesizes in order to establish a basis upon which the
impact of owner corporate commitment to sustainability on capital project planning and
performance can be studied. The author suggests that high owner commitment translates
to better planning for sustainable project practices at the project deﬁnition level as the
owner reﬂects positively on the other project participants and show commitment to
sustainability the project results in better performance outcomes.

These results align completely with these ﬁndings. It was observed in the collected data
that projects with high owner commitment performed better especially under cost and

schedule growth and level of sustainability metrics.

Finally, the detailed discussion of the results of the other ﬁve studies is presented next.

Table 6.1 illustrates the levels of alignment within the results.

158

 

venom 053 3:58 ELSE—Eco o: 36 $5352 8me x55

accuses gym 0 began 523: © brazen macaw O

 

”Emu“ “8.8:“ 2.: 50¢ 3:sz EoEHEEOo 3?:
632: m5“ com @8362 £ 059: conning Stem

0553830
Each. 60...on

 

@Qmm: can mﬁwoﬁhm

 

 

 

 

 

. av 58w :3 who 52: :88 o. a 0 85:0qu Sc o
a . p a m . . m
300.83
. . . 2: no use. 2: 3 38.628 3 $38 903855 :wEuQ .
M. . a c>m m2: 385
. . . m < @Qmm: 2: a . < .
“£3on
. . . . “moo 2 maﬁa“: x538 E :32 :8 soummeE 304 o
”mmuooa amine mmoooi
. . . . . 05 Em NACMD 6.509 CO on @306? wacmmmgtmm ENECQ =< o EOE—0Q US“ a:
. . 30303 a mo $083. on“ E 88$ zox a a 568280 . cosmeBE
EoEoSoBm
O 0 Boom £3 :8th oz 0 Each 608$
5:30 2:
. 8 38868 3826 on 8 359053 basin 2: :< o
O . ”5:30 on: 2 38888 3826 m5 8 .m.< @Qmm: o £89980
0 O MESH 328550 550 concoﬁogzo 08 SE “moo o 68:89
0 $6522
.520 3::85330 mm o .CPEoQ
EV . . ”me Eggnog So mm 98 MED o “83$
. . . Szmaombcg seam wccmvcaz o
. . . 588 magic 80.85 on“ on 8 5:30 o
£88m
Q . . 536 5:30 on 2:05 50% 255m 2 =88» 02% o EoﬁzﬁEoU
. . . . Aamﬁovbav 5on mo 8632: beam 0 5:30

5003
BE Us...
.525

   

 

3003 .E

3 32202

 

chomv
SEEOL
-2325

 

Ahoomv
NSF/cov—

 

2233

553:5» :53; __ .. :25 31.8: new 2: .8

 

mun—EEC

=ES=E§U 2: .8 3:85 E 2.3..

 

3:32
3.33m Eutzb

 

159

Owner commitment: Under this metric except for Bilec and Ries (2009), the other
four studies report that for better project outcomes, green strategies should be
included early in the design process. In particular Enache-Pommer (2008),
Korkmaz (2007), and the current research report that it should be included as

early as the pre-design phase.

Requirement of strong owner commitment in terms of being a driving force in the
project was a clear pattern seen in the majority of the open ended responses and as
a characteristic in exemplary projects in the current study. Similar ﬁndings were
observed in Korkmaz (2007) and Enache- Pommer (2008) and Bilec andRies
(2009). Enache—Pommer (2008) reported that, “dedication, belieﬁ commitment, and
executive mindset play a very important role in the delivery of the four case studies
investigated. ” Also, similar to the current study all the three studies suggest that

inclusion of green should be an owner driven pursuit.

Next, Molenaar et al. (2009), Korkmaz (2007), Bilec and Ries (2009) and the
current study all suggest that mandating green requirements contractually can
result in better outcomes. According to Korkmaz (2007), “project green
specifications should be included in the request for proposals, ” and the author’s
cross case synthesis results showed that, “achievement of the project “green”
goals was inserted in the design-build team’s contract. ” Lapinski et al. (2006)
reports, “all RFP respondents should discuss relevant experience with sustainable
facility delivery and how they will help achieve environmental goals.” This

shows that previous experience is important for team procurement. However, it is

160

 

2.

also indicated that the owner has to be conscious about introducing the notion of
green as early as compiling Request for Proposal (RFP). This is supported by
Bilec and Ries (2009) it is suggested that, “The owner ’3 experience is central
early in the project, in particular the owner ’s development of the RFP in the

initial design phase. "

Project delivery method selection: The current study, Korkmaz (2007), and
Molenaar et al. (2009) suggested that CMR and DB methods out-performed the
DBB method. Bilec and Ries (2009) have only medium similarity to this result as
they suggest that DB outperforms the other two delivery methods. However, it
was observed that DBB projects can lead to exemplary performance under the
sustainability metric, achieved through early informal involvement of the
contractor in the delivery process, when these projects were examined in detail

the might show low performance in other categories. Speciﬁcally, a DBB project
that achieved LEED® Platinum certiﬁcation had higher cost growth than
expected. Therefore this study concludes that it is possible to achieve high
LEED® certiﬁcation under any PDM, however, the chances are low to minimal

for attaining high performance in all outcomes such as cost, schedule, and quality.

Contract conditions: Korkmaz (2007), Molenaar et al. (2009), and the current
study consistently suggest that contract conditions is an important project delivery
attribute that can potentially affect the success of a project. Korkmaz (2007)

piloted evaluation metrics and therefore broadly suggested that negotiated

161

 

contractual terms performed better than lump sum. However, on a detailed level
strong alignment in results is not seen amongst the other two studies.
Molenaar et a1. (2009) reported guaranteed maximum price (GMP) payment
method is most likely to result in successful outcomes. However, the results of the
current study showed that in exemplary projects cost plus fee was the common

method of payment.

Difference in the sample characteristics of these studies might be inﬂuential on
these results. The sample of the current study included mostly private projects
where the project team was procured mostly through the sole source selection
where as in Molenaar et al. (2009) most projects were public and competitively
bid for. Therefore, with the current results this aspect cannot yet be generalized

over the green building population.

Next, the results showed that for better project outcomes, LEED® A.P.’s should

be must directly contracted to the owner. Also, all the primary participants
including M.E.P subcontractors should be contracted to the owner. These results

are strongly supported by Korkmaz (2007). It is suggested that direct contract

between LEED® AP. and the owner would assist the former to effectively
coordinate the inclusion of green strategies in the project. The cross case synthesis
results of Korkmaz (2007) support direct contract between owners and other

primary participants for higher communication and transparency in the delivery

process.

162

 

4. Project team procurement: Korkmaz (2007), Molenaar et al. (2009), and the

current study suggest that procurement of project teams have the potential to
affect project outcomes. Both Korkmaz (2007) and Molenaar et al. (2009)
speciﬁcally report that low bid procurement method should be avoided as it can
potentially lead to unexpected cost growths. However, discrepancies were
observed within the results of the two studies: Molenaar et al. (2009) reports that
most exemplary projects adopted qualiﬁcations based selection where as
Korkmaz (2007)’s sample inclined towards sole sourced and best value selection.
The current study cannot contradict or support these ﬁndings because of the low
sample size. No patterns were detected in the current study as most of the projects
procured participants by sole source selection method. Therefore, in absence of

conclusive results this attribute cannot be generalized to the whole population.

. Integration in the design process: Under this metric results of all ﬁve studies
strongly align with each other. Lapinski et al. (2006) reports that all primary
participants should be involved in the project early in the design phase.
Molenaar et al. (2009), Korkmaz (2007), Bilec and Ries (2009), and the current
study support this ﬁnding and additionally suggest that early involvement of the
contractor is a key factor for project success. Based on all the studies it was
inferred that the contractor involvement should be as early as the pre-design or
conceptual phase to effectively include all the value engineering and

constructability reviews.

163

 

6.

Lapinski et al. (2006) and Bilec and Ries (2009) also suggest that prior experience

of team members with LEED® could result in positive outcomes the lack of the

same can create delays. This ﬁnding was strongly supported by Enache-Pommer
(2008). Although the current study, agrees with this ﬁnding based on the open
ended data, no concrete patterns were seen either in the survey responses or in
comparison with project outcomes. According to the ﬁndings of the current study
this result is not generalizable especially because even the other two studies have
not supported this directly.

Other results under this metric include:

0 Green design coordinators are key members to guide the project team for
the inclusion of strategies and documentation processes and therefore are
critical to project success;

0 High cost growths are seen in projects with low integration, mostly due to
rework;

0 Design charrettes and collaboration sessions are important aspects that
assist the project team to focus towards common goals.

These ﬁndings are strongly supported by Korkmaz (2007), Enache- Pommer

(2008) and the current study.

Project team characteristics: Korkmaz (2007) and Lapinski et al. (2006) suggest
that project team characteristics (e. g., past experience with sustainable buildings,
project delivery methods and with other team members) can potentially affect the

ﬁnal outcomes of a project. However, Korkmaz (2007) also suggests that the

164

 

Likert scale evaluation adopted to collect data was not the best method as it
included a lot of bias from the respondents. The current research supports this
statement as no strong pattern was seen within the Likert scale responses. Also,
the responses were highly inﬂuenced by the experience of the team members on
the project.

Next, Enache-Pommer (2008), reported that for successful outcomes apart from
the owners commitment, increased commitment was also required from the team
members towards the project. The current study supported this result. It was seen
that strong commitment especially from the contractor could lead to signiﬁcantly

successful outcomes.

The external validity procedure presented above showed that most study ﬁndings on
owner commitment, project delivery method selection, and integration in the delivery
process can be generalized. The other ﬁndings show deviation with the previous research
ﬁndings however, they cannot be entirely rejected as the deviation occurred mainly due

to differing sample characteristics.

6.3 Comparison of study results with Molenaar et al. (2009)

Both Molenaar et a1. (2009) and the current study attempted to answer the same research
question through different research designs, level of detail, and sample sizes. Therefore,
to bolster the external validity, a detailed comparison of results between the two research

studies is conducted in this section.

165

 

The research approach followed by Molenaar et al. (2009) consisted of three primary
levels, 1) an industry survey; 2) content analysis; and 3) structured interviews. The

sample population was determined by the industry survey, where randomly selected 230

LEED® A.P. from the USGBC’s online database were asked on their lessons learned

about the project delivery methods and certiﬁcation performance. The content analysis
was adopted for a detailed analysis of solicitation documents from 92 public and private
projects. Structured interviews were conducted with four design-builders and four owners

to gain a deeper understanding of the results.

The current research study applied a case study protocol with 12 case studies for an
extensive data collection procedure that included various parties of a project to get
different perspectives of the full project delivery process (i.e., in total 30 respondents
were engaged in this process) and an in-depth analysis of the data through a careful

selection of the cases and a proposition testing procedure. The sample case studies for the

current research were a good mix of all the three PDM’s and the four LEED®

certiﬁcation levels.

Most projects in Molenaar et al. (2009) were public where as the current study included
mostly private projects. This slightly skewed the results for both the studies especially in
the project team procurement and contract condition attributes. For example, most
exemplary projects in the Molenaar et al. (2009) database displayed GMP contractual
term to result in positive outcomes as a majority of the projects were public and therefore

were competitively bid for. On the contrary, such control did not exist in private projects

166

 

that were in majority in the current study. Hence, most exemplary projects were

negotiated with cost plus fee as their contractual term. Also, the differing sample sizes of

the studies have resulted in deviant ﬁndings.

A discussion of the results based on Molenaar et al. (2009)’s ﬁndings are presented

below.

Deciding to go green/ The green guarantee

Molenaar et al. (2009) deﬁnes green guarantee “as the contractual responsibility
to deliver a building that will receive the owner '3 designated level of LEED®

certiﬁcation.” It is further suggested that “green guarantee deﬁnes the point
where the owner '5 level of sustainability is compatible with the budget within
which the project must be delivered. " Based on the statements above
Molenaar et al. (2009) concluded that the earliest guarantee is provided by DB
where as the latest is by DBB. The green guarantee in CMR is based on the

timing when the GMP is locked.

The current study supports the concept of green guarantee, however, only slightly
aligns with it. This is because based on the open ended responses in the current
study, considering green guarantee as a point in the delivery process is a narrow
outlook. Construction projects are inherently prone to positive or negative scope
changes due to the ﬂow of ﬁnances or any other unexpected circumstances such
as weather calamities or city intervention. These can have a direct affect on the
owner’s sustainability requirements. Hence, even after contractual obligations are

set they can be changed according to the owner’s requirements regardless of the

167

 

2.

delivery method selected. Therefore, green guarantee should be considered as a
ﬂuctuating point that cannot be stabilized until substantial completion as it is

dependent on owner’s requirements and scope changes in the project.

For example, in the current study data set, a project delivered by the CMR method
set a green guarantee for silver certiﬁcation at the schematic design phase.
However, during certiﬁcation, they lost certain points slipped to certiﬁed level.
The owner neither pursued higher certiﬁcation further nor penalized the other
participants, thereby changing the point of green guarantee. However, in DBB
project, the owner was highly committed to sustainability and pursued platinum
certiﬁcation from the inception of design. The project eventually experienced a
positive cost growth in its pursuit to platinum certiﬁcation. As can be seen, in this
case, the green guarantee was not based on contractor involvement rather it was

an owner driven factor.

Delivering Green: State of the Practice
According to Molenaar et al. (2009) any level of LEED® certiﬁcation can be

delivered by any PDM. However, data also suggests that PDM’s where the
contract pricing provisions allow negotiation of scope and allow contractor to
make relevant suggestions result in positive outcomes. The current study
completely aligns with these ﬁndings.

However, the study also reports that; 1) 75% of its database was delivered by

integrated project delivery that included DB and CMR projects and; 2) CMR was

168

 

3.

the most successful PDM within the sample. Both the results seem a little ﬂawed
as results from the current study show that DBB projects can demonstrate
competitive integration if they involved the contractor either informally or
formally for preconstruction services. However, this ﬂaw is understandable
because the data set was too large to pursue an in depth analysis. The second
ﬁnding seems ﬂawed as the sample selected by Molenaar et al. (2009) seems to
be biased towards CMR projects by including 54 DBB and 56 DB projects versus

120 CMR projects.

Assignment of the Green Responsibility
Molenaar et al. (2009) reports that “if an owner desires a highly sustainable

building, i.e. gold or platinum, it should assign the responsibility for obtaining
LEED® certiﬁcation as early as possible. ” The study also reports that “if an

owner would like to maximize the sustainability within the constraints of budget

and schedule, it is better to use DB-Lump Sum (LS) or DBB to speciﬁ/ the LEED®

level in the procurement documents.” The current study completely aligns with
the ﬁrst ﬁnding; however, for the second result the current study did not observe

any patterns therefore this study cannot conclusively support the ﬁnding.

Green Liability
Molenaar et al. (2009) deﬁnes green liability as an issue in failed certiﬁcations or
certiﬁcation below the contractually deﬁned level. The survey found that the

performance of the DB and the DBB delivery methods in achieving or exceeding

169

the desired certiﬁcation level (contractually opposite ways of specifying
sustainable objectives) was approximately the same. In the current study, except
for one project all the others either exceeded or achieved their intended targets.
The data set was a balanced distribution between the three delivery methods.

Therefore, this study cannot refute or support this ﬁnding.

Green Procurement Approaches
In Molenaar et al. (2009) sample population, quality based selection procurements
enjoyed the highest success rate which was more common in DB-GMP and CMR

projects. The report suggested that this was because contractor design input and
integration were thought to be aspects most critical to LEED® success within the
DB and CMR delivery methods. The current study does not align or refute this
ﬁnding as participants for the majority of the current study were selected through

sole source method. Due to the differing type of projects (i.e., public vs private) in

the sample led to deviating results.

However, the current study does not align with the proposition that integration
can only happen within CMR and DB methods in Molenaar et al. (2009). As

mentioned earlier DBB has the potential to display competitive level of

integration and contractor input for LEED® success. The study observed that

contractors can be involved in the design phase informally or contractually for

pre-design services allowing upto medium level of integration.

170

 

6. Contract Payment Provisions
Molenaar et al. (2009) suggests that success rates favor those project delivery
methods that use GMP payment provisions. It is suggested by the author that
GMP is negotiated and therefore owner and designer can negotiate which credits
the project will accrue while getting real-time pricing for those features from the
entity that will actually complete the construction. The current study showed cost
plus fee to be the most effective payment method leading to successful outcomes.
It was observed that the respondents preferred cost plus fee because it helps the
project team (designer and contractor) to focus towards the project goals rather

than deviating to protect their own ﬁnancial interests.

The discussion above shows that there although there are deviations in the results of the
two studies; there are also many points of alignments. The main reason for the deviant
results can be owed to the differing sample type and size. Molenaar et a1. (2009) database
consisted of mostly public projects where as the current study included mostly private
projects. This resulted in deviant results under attributes such as project team
procurement and contract conditions. Also, the sample population for Molenaar et al.
(2009) was too big to be analyzed in detail where as the sample population of the current
study was too small to generate generalizable results by itself. Therefore, a discussion of

results has helped bolster results of both studies.

171

6.4 Guidelines and Lessons Learned on Sustainable, High Performance Building
Project Delivery

In the current study, some practices leading to exemplary projects were observed.
However, outliers to these exemplary practices were also seen i.e., projects that did not
follow the exemplary practices to their entirety and still achieved exemplary results. On
the contrary, the common practices in ﬂawed projects were seen as red ﬂags throughout
the delivery process that if crossed would increasingly reduce the probability of achieving
exemplary results. Therefore, the common practices in the ﬂawed projects were seen to
be more generalizable than the exemplary ones. To avoid achieving less than optimal

results the guidelines below should be prioritized.

Practices leading to ﬂawed projects:
. o If the owner commits to green strategies as late as design development phase, it is
less likely that the process would lead to successﬁil outcomes;

0 Mandating the green verbally lessens the probability for successful outcomes as it
indicates towards the unclear mind set of the owner which could eventually reﬂect
on the project team;

- Contractor is one of the key members of a project and if involved later than
construction documents or bidding phase would not be able to provide
constructive suggestions that can eventually lead to rework and consequently to a
cost growth;

0 If the green design coordinator is not directly contracted to the owner it tends to

reduce the priority of green for the project team leading to probable under

172

 

achievement in the level of sustainability as the motivation to pursue a green
building is not coming directly from the owner;

Construction is dynamic process that is prone to change. Low bid procurement
method should not be followed as it inherently cannot accommodate such changes

and generally leads to contention between participants.

Practices leading to exemplary projects:

The practices listed in this section were observed in exemplary projects. Although

following these practices can lead to potentially successful outcomes, not following them

will not necessarily lead to ﬂawed outcomes. Therefore, these results were not

completely generalizable.

Owner must display high commitment towards green strategies and the project by
including green early in the project process starting as early as pre-design stages;
Contention between the participants to protect their own interest needs to be
eliminated from project to pursue successful outcomes;

The presence of a green design coordinator is imperative in a sustainable project.
Also direct contract between the LEED® AP. and owner seem to yield better
outcomes especially in terms of sustainability as the former orchestrates the
inclusion of green with strong owner support;

Timing of participant involvement (contractually or informally) especially

contractor’s should be as early as pre-design or schematic phase in the design

process;

173

 

6.5

Design charrette and collaborations session should be conducted to align the
project team towards common goals and deliverables;
Prior experience of team members with each other can be an important factor for

the success of the project.

Conclusions

This research aimed to understand the extent of the effect of project delivery methods and

practices on the level of integration achieved by the project team and further its effects on

project outcomes with a focus on sustainability goals. After conducting a comprehensive

case study protocol the following is concluded.

I.

The level of design integration in a project achieved can strongly affect the
accomplishment of sustainability goals. Timing of participant’s involvement,
timing and methods of communication, and level of collaboration among
participants are the most vital attributes to complement the level of integration
achieved in a project.

Project delivery attributes were found to be more inﬂuential on the level of design
integration achieved by a project than the PDM’s adopted. These include timing
of participant’s involvement, the level of collaboration they share and the
procurement methods adopted.

Project delivery attributes, in particular integration in the delivery process,
contractual terms, contractual conditions, owner commitment, have strong effects

on the ﬁnal project outcomes such as schedule and cost performance.

174

 

4. Any PDM can achieve any level of sustainability i.e., LEED® certiﬁed to

6.6

platinum. However, DB and CMR delivery methods have higher potential to

achieve the same at lower cost and schedule growth.

Limitations

This section discusses the limitations of this study with potential remedies.

1.

Due to the relatively small sample size, statistical validation of the results was not

possible. However, the generalizability of the results was established through
external validation i.e., by comparing the results with previous research study

ﬁndings from the same ﬁeld;

Due to the intense focus of the research on sustainable ofﬁce buildings that were
new construction and fairly small sample size, the results could not be generalized
over all building types, locations, functions, sizes. However, certain results could
be generalized that were seen as red ﬂags to compromise the success of projects
along the project delivery phase. Under most circumstances these should not be

followed as they could lead to potentially ﬂawed projects;

In a qualitative study any sample is limiting as increasing number of respondents
can provide more perspectives, and a broader understanding of the same topic.
Also with the time lag, respondent’s memory gets skewed leading to inaccurate
responses. A potential remedy to this problem can be including various projects
participants ( e. g. owner, designer, and contractor) in the data collection process
and cross referencing their responses. Archival documents and cross referencing

175

I}.

 

can also be utilized for minimizing the response bias which were all utilized in
this study however, alternate methodologies may be adopted (e. g. ethnography to
fully eliminate this limitation); where a researcher is embedded to the project

delivery process where they perform in time recording.

. Majority of the projects selected for this research were private and therefore
skewed the results. For example the procurement methods utilized in the study
were mostly sole sourced selection. A balanced mix of public and private projects
could have provided a broader perspective of certain metrics such as timing of
participant involvement, project delivery methods, and the reason to build green
and its timing of intro to the project. There were no restriction for the selection of
alternative delivery methods and the potential affect of legislation was not

detected.

. Handpicking case studies threatens the external validity of the research and it is

not considered as strong as random selection. Although, the case study selection
criteria adopted for this study introduced a bias in the sample this bias was
important to control external variables such as size scope and complexity of
buildings. This procedure minimizes the effects of such variables and therefore
leads to more generalizable results towards the project delivery attributes.

Additionally the case study selection procedure allowed for a good balance in the

sample for all PDM’s and level of LEED® certiﬁcation.

176

 

6. This study is using projects only from the USGBC’s LEED® certiﬁed projects

database that is available on the web which can be seen as a limitation to the
study. however, there are extreme numbers of projects in the market that are built
according to sustainability standards that have not attempted to receive

certiﬁcation or has adopted other green buildings assessment system than

LEED®. However, LEED® is the most widely accepted national standers for the

US. and a well known tool in the world market. Therefore, LEED® certiﬁed

buildings are considered as good representatives of the green building population
in the US. This system also provides a good sustainable, high performance

assessment basis for the objectives of this research.

7. Cost and schedule metrics are very complex and difﬁcult to collect data on and
analyze as they include many aspects such as design, construction, and material
cost and market changes resulting to inﬂation. Their evaluation is a limitation to
this study. Also even if the data is collected, it is very difﬁcult to ﬁnd an exact
comparison between projects as they differ in terms of their systems, locations,
complexities, and scope changes along the delivery process. Even more
importantly, the objective reﬂection of cost on project performance may not be

representative of the real project success. For example, an owner might accept
cost growth in return for high LEED® certiﬁcation if added it later to the scope, in

which case it becomes an acceptable cost growth. On the contrary, another owner

might decline higher LEED® certiﬁcation due to the rising cost. To realistically

177

 

take these factors in to account, this study coded cost and schedule metrics based

on respondent evaluations (e.g., as high cost growth, on target, and under budget).

8. Although, safety is one of the critical factors in construction project, responses
were provided by the study participants. Therefore, this metric was excluded from

the analysis stage.

9. Certain metric such as project team characteristics, evaluation of prior team

experience and project team chemistry and compatibility that were evaluated via

 

Likert scale, were prone to response bias. The bias was based on the respondents
experience with the project and other members. Therefore, to eliminate this bias,
all project participants for each project (the owner, designer, and contractor) were
included in the data collection process for the team characteristics evaluation
questions. The responses were eliminated when the participants evaluated
themselves. The other responses were coded and their average generated the ﬁnal

response for these questions.

6.7 Recommendations for Future Research
Based on its results and limitations this study recommends the following areas for future
research:
1. Due to the changes in the followed practices the learning curve of the industry is
also constantly changing. Therefore, in time this topic should be revisited in form

of a longitudinal study with mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) as the

178

results may not, stay the same. It is expected that the associations between

attributes might in fact become even stronger.

Throughout the study it was seen that the time lag skewed the memory of the
participants. Also different respondents had different understanding of the
concepts such as PDM’s and integration. Therefore, to understand the
relationships, communications, and compatibility levels within team members and
in depth ﬁeld study should be conducted. This study should attempt an
ethnography methodology to record the actual activities in delivery processes or
through a data base entry by project team members (e. g. designer, contractors, and

subcontractors) as they occur;

Over time methods of communications have evolved future research could look at
the potential effects of different communication methods such as building
information modeling, and project management software’s on integration and

further on project outcomes;

Due to lack of resources and data sharing enthusiasm from the participant’s safety
metric could not be included in this study. However, safety is a very important
metric having signiﬁcant affects on the outcomes. Therefore, future research
should attempt a study by deﬁning a data collection tool and evaluation guideline

for this metric.

179

 

5. It was seen within this study that the “project team characteristics metric” could
not be evaluated efﬁciently due to the inherent response bias. A study should
attempt to ﬁnd a more subjective evaluation method such as application of entry
and exit surveys of project delivery processes for project team characteristics,

which would potentially eliminate the inherent bias from respondents.

6.8 Concluding Remarks

Sustainability is a growing trend in the building market. Currently, most sustainability
assessment systems available in the literature and market are product-based. However,
recently a need for rigorous process guidelines is recognized. Therefore, this study aimed
to understand the extent of the effect of projects delivery-methods (PDM) and practices
on the level of integration achieved in the project delivery and further their effects on
project performance with a speciﬁc focus on sustainability goals. This study followed a
case study approach and qualitative methods of analysis. The primary ﬁndings of the
study showed that the level of integration in the delivery process has signiﬁcant affects
on the ﬁnal project outcomes especially on sustainability goals. Also, the study
determined that level of integration is more affected by project delivery attributes such as
owner commitment and timing of participant involvement, rather than project delivery
method selected. Even though the sample population for this study was limited to 12
case studies, the majority of the results were generalized through external validation with
recent research ﬁndings. The veriﬁed ﬁndings included:

0 Early inclusion of green (Pre-design) in the project;

0 The reason to pursue green should be an owner driven factor;

180

 

Green should be mandated contractually with the team members;

Projects delivered by the CMR and DB outperformed DBB projects;

LEED® A.P. should be directly contracted to the owner;

Contractor is a key factor in the success of a project and should be involved in the
early design phases;

Design charrettes and collaboration sessions should be conducted to assist the

project team focus towards a single goal.

181

 

 

Appendix A

HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDING PROJECT DELIVERY SURVEY
RESPONDENT INFORMATION

 

Name

 

Position/Title

 

Company

 

E-Mail Address

 

Phone Number

 

Case Study Project Name

 

I’ROJICCI‘ I’ROli'ILI-Z

 

1. Please provide following information about the project:

 

 

 

 

(a) Building Size: / SF (Total / Garage)
(b) Number of Floors:
(c) Building Location: (City / State)

 

((1) Who is the owner of the project?

 

(e) Type of Owner: [3 Public [3 Private Cl K-12
[J Higher Education C] Developer [3 Other

OWNER ('ONIM I'I‘NIICN’I'

 

1. Who initially proposed the idea of incorporating "green" or "sustainable" building
attributes/requirements?

El Owner (:1 Developer Cl Designer/Design-Builder C] Other

2. What is the primary reason for the project team to pursue green building objectives?

D Mandated by client or state C] Owner Driven Factor (Vision Statement)
C] Energy Use / Cost [3 Productivity of Occupants
CI Other (Please list)

 

(a) If mandated by the client. How?

3. If asked for any, what green metric did the owner asked the project team to follow?

182

D USGBC's LEED certiﬁcation level [:1 Green Globes

 

 

C] Platinum [:1 4 Globes
C] Gold [1 3 Globes
Cl Silver [:1 2 Globes
[:1 Certiﬁed [:1 1 Globes
[1 Does not matter Cl Does not matter
C] Other (Please list)
4. If mandated, How did the owner mandate the green metric? F-
C] Contractually D Verbally ‘
5. At what point during the design process was the notion of a green building introduced?
(Please base your timing deﬁnition on the level of design completed.)
C] Conceptual Design (0-15%) D Schematic Design (IS-30%) ‘ '
I] Design Development (30-60%) [:1 Construction Documents (60-99%)

[:1 Bidding (Full CD)

6. Did the project program undergo a Scope Creep? D No D Yes

Scope Creep: The increase in scope due to the introduction of more requirements (egztechnology
usage for construction/material/design/ function/user ratio) that were not included in the initial
planning of the project whilst maintaining the same time frame for project delivery

(a) If yes, what was the reason?

(b) If yes, then who would you consider responsible for it?
(You can choose more than one or add to the list)

13 Owner C] Developer 1:] Design-Builder [3 Designer
[1 Contractor [3 Green Design Facilitator D Other

 

(c ) Please describe in detail the extent of the scope creep in terms of cost, schedule, quality,
and level of sustainability achieved.

7. If you are the Owner please answer the following questions?

(a) Are you satisﬁed with the increase in scope? C] No [:1 Yes
(b) Are you satisﬁed with the:
(b-l) Schedule growth (if any) caused by the increase in scope? C] No C] Yes
(b-2) Cost growth (if any) caused by the increase in scope? C] No [I] Yes

183

(c) If answered no to b what do you consider responsible for the increase? (Circle more than
one if needed)

[I] Change orders [I] Incomplete Project program C] Other

(d) If answered no to b & c who do you consider responsible for the increase? (Circle more than
one if needed)

[:1 Owner C] Developer D Design-Builder [:1 Designer
Cl Contractor [:1 Green Design Facilitator [:1 Other

 

PROJECT DELIVERY .\1 ICTIIOI)

 

1. Mark the appropriate box for the project delivery system (PDM) which best describes that used
on your project. (Please use the deﬁnitions of project delivery methods below.)

C] Construction Management at risk
[:1 Design-Build
Cl Design-Bid-Build

CM at Risk: The owner contracts with a design company to provide a facility design.
The owner separately selects a contractor to perform construction a management services
and construction work in accordance with the plans and speciﬁcations for a fee. The
contractor usually has signiﬁcant input in the design process and generally guarantees

the maximum construction price.

Design Build: This is a single agreement between an owner and a single entity to perform
both design and construction under a single design build contract. Portions or all of the
design and construction may be performed by the entity or subcontracted to other
companies.

Design Bid Build: This is a traditional process in the US construction industry, where the
owner contracts separately with a designer and a contractor. The owner normally contract
with a design company to complete design documents. The owner or his/her agent then
solicits ﬁxed price bids from contractors to perform the work. One contractor is usually
selected and enters into an agreement with the owner to construct a facility in accordance
with the plans and speciﬁcations.

2. Please describe in detail how did this PDM hinder or add to your efﬁciency?
3. Can you explain in detail the reasons for the choice of this PDM.
4. Will you use this PDM on a similar project again? D No [I] Yes

5. If no can you describe in detail that under what circumstances you may consider to use this PDM
again.

184

 

6. How would you rate the current PDM in terms of :

 

General Satistfaction

 

C] 1 (High) C] 2 [:1 3 (Medium) [3 4 5 (Low)
Cost:

[:1 1 (High) C] 2 Cl 3 (Medium) D 4 5 (Low)
Schedule:

D 1 (High) Cl 2 r3 3 (Medium) D 4 5 (Low)
Quality of Constructed Product:

Cl 1 (High) D 2 D 3 (Medium) D 4 5 (Low)
Safety:

Cl 1(High) D 2 r3 3 (Medium) Cl 4 5 (Low)

 

7. Do you think another PDM from the above list could have been more efﬁcient?

If yes which one?

 

 

General Satistfaction: C] No D Yes

CI CM at Risk [3 Design-Build Cl Design-Bid-Build
Cost: C] No D Yes

D CM at Risk D Design-Build C] Design-Bid-Build
Schedule: D No D Yes

D CM at Risk CJ Design-Build Cl Design-Bid-Build
Quality of Constructed Product: [I] No D Yes

[3 CM at Risk D Design-Build D Design-Bid-Build
Safety: [3 No D Yes

[3 CM at Risk [:1 Design-Build [:1 Design-Bid-Build

 

185

 

 

 

I’ROJICCI ’I‘I'ZAM I’R()( 'l’RICM ICN'I‘

 

1. Mark the appropriate box for the procurement method used for the designer and
contractor or design builder. (Use the deﬁnitions of procurement methods below.)

Designer Sole source selection D
Best value selection C]
Design Competition

Contractor Sole source selection

:1
Best value selection [:1
Sole source selection Cl
Best value selection Cl

Design-Builder

DDDDDDD

Qualiﬁcations-based selection
Fixed budget/best design [1 Low bid

Qualiﬁcations-based selection

Low bid

Qualiﬁcations-based selection

Fixed budget/best design B Low bid

Sole source selection : Direct selection without proposals.

Qualiﬁcations-based selection : Through an RFQ, the owner selects the most qualiﬁed
designer/contractor and negotiates only with that entity to a “fair and reasonable” price.
Best value selection : The designer/contractor entities respond with proposals that contain
technical aspects and price; the owner selects the proposal it deems to be of best value.
Fixed budget/best design : The owner announces the budget for the project and the
design-build teams compete by submitting proposals containing as much scope as they can

place in their package.

Competition : Design only through competition w/out budget concerns.

2. Was the primary process for selecting the designer and contractors competitive or

negotiated?

Designer [3 Competitive
Contractor Cl Competitive
Design-Builder D Competitive

D Negotiated
D Negotiated
CJ Negotiated

3. Mark the appropriate box that deﬁnes the attributes of your project team:

(a) Was there an attempt to restrain the pool of:

 

Designer: [3 No
Contractor: E] No
MEP Consultant: C) No

 

D Yes
Yes
D Yes

Cl

 

 

(b) If yes,What was the ability to restrain the pool:

 

Designer: [:1 Low
Contractor: Cl Low
MEP Consultant: C] Low

 

[3 High
[:1 High
C] High

 

 

(c ) What was the primary benchmark of the restrained pool?

C] Qualiﬁcations C] Proximity 13 Previous work experince

[I] Number of LEED previously completed [3

186

Other

 

 

4. Mark the appropriate box for the contractual terms used for the design-builder or
designer and contractor.

Architect/Designer El Lump-Sum a GMP :1 Cost Plus fee [I] Not Applicablt
Contractor C] Lump-Sum D GMP C] Cost Plus fee [3 Not Applicablt
Design-Builder r3 Lump-Sum [:1 GMP [3 Cost Plus fee I] Not Applicablt

('().\"I'R.’\( 'T CONDITIONS

 

1. Were 'green features'a part of the contract? Which party was responsible for conducting
these requirements?

[:1 No, sustainability requirements were not listed in the contract.

Yes, designer was primarily responsible for it.

Yes, contractor was primarily responsible for it.

Yes, design-builder was primarily responsible for it.

Yes, owner's LEED AP was responsible for it.

CIDDCI

2. Was onsite safety requirements a part of the contract and which party was responsible
for conducting these requirements

[3 No, safety requirements were not listed in the contract.

D Yes, designer was primarily responsible for it.

D Yes, contractor was primarily responsible for it.

(:1 Yes, design-builder was primarily responsible for it.

D Yes, owner was primarily responsible for it.

3. What incentive clauses and/or penalties were included in the project? (Circle choices in
parenthesis that apply.)

 

El Quality (Incentive / penalty) El LEED certiﬁcation (Incentive / penalty)

Cl Schedule (Incentive / penalty) D Energy Performance (Incentive / penalty)

C1 Cost (Incentive / penalty) [3 Other (Incentive / penalty)
0 Safety (Incentive / penalty) [3 None

187

4. When were the project participants contracted to the project team? (Please base your timing
deﬁnition on the level of design completed.) (Please write C- CONTRACTUALLY or I-
INFORMALLY)

I211
Project Participants Predesign Design Design Development Documents (Full CD)

Core Team
Designer
Contractor
Design-Builder
Mechanical Sub.
Electrical Sub.
Consultants

Green Design
Facilitator (eg.

Energy Consultant

 

Lighting Consultant
ItV

Commissioning

 

5. If applicable, who held the contracts for the project participants listed below? (Please check
the relevant boxes)

 

Contract Held by
Project Participants Owner Designer Contractor Desiﬂ-Buildel N/A
Green Design
Coordinator (eg.

 

 

 

Energy Consultant

 

Lighting Consultant

 

Mechanical Contracto

 

Electrical Contractor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commisioning Agent]

 

188

IN'I‘IC(.‘R.\'I‘|O.\' IN 11117. I)lf.\l(.‘.\ I’RO(‘IC.\S

 

1. Does the project have a designated "Green Design Coordinator" with relevant credentials
or experience?
D Yes D No [3 Not sure

2. Was a collaboration session/ Design charrete held during the design initiation stage to
discuss sustainable goals?

13 Yes [:1 No :1 Not sure

3. If yes, who attended the session?

E] Owner or owner’s representative [3 Green Design Coordinator

C1 Designer El Mechanical Engineer

E] Electrical Engineer [3 Civil Engineer

0 Contractor D Other (Please list)

 

4. Were at least two collaboration sessions held before the preparation of construction documents
(not including the project initiation stage session)?

D Yes D No I] Not sure

5. When did the project team communicate with each other?
(Please check all applicable choices.)

C] At prescribed milestones (as part of the contract)
:1 Only during design clashes D At regular intervals regardless of clashes

6. What were the methods of communication used amongst the team members?
(Please check all applicable choices.)

D Email/ Fax/Phone a Project Management Softwares
Cl Building Information Modelling D Other
[:1 Online databases

 

7. Please evaluate the effectiveness of the communication methods used using a l to 5 scale.
Cl 1 (None) I: 2 D 3 (Limited) [3 4 D 5 (Excellent)

8. What quantitative performance metrics does your team use to measure the sustainable
performance of the project?

[3 Building Energy Use Intensity D New PV System Production
Cl Lighting Power Density El LEED points or certiﬁcation level
C] Other (Please list)

 

9. To what extend were the construction documents (drawing and performance
speciﬁcations) completed at the time of envelope and mechanical-electrical-plumbing
(MEP) systems' construction? (%)

 

10. Were the subcontractors educated for speciﬁc applications and practices needed for green
rating and certiﬁcation systems such as LEED? D Yes D No [3 Not sure

189

 

I’ROJ E( "l‘ 'I'I’AM ('II.-\R.A\( "IICRIS'I‘K ”S

1. According to your experience please mark the appropriate box for each of the following
attributes of your project team at the time of the project ((on a scale of 1(none) to
5 excellent)

(at) Individual experience of team members with similar facilities

Owner's Representative [3 l E] 2 Cl 3 a 4 r3 5
Design-Builder D 1 c1 2 El 3 D 4 CI 5
Designer/Designer C] 1 [:1 2 C] 3 D 4 [:1 5
Contractor a 1 c1 2 a 3 D 4 r3 5
Mechanical Subcontractor [:1 1 C] 2 D 3 :1 4 [:1 5
Electrical Subcontractor D l [:1 2 r3 3 El 4 D 5

(b) Individual experience of team members with high performance green buildings

Owner's Representative Cl 1 D 2 c1 3 c1 4 D 5
Design-Builder [:1 1 Cl 2 [:1 3 D 4 D 5
Designer/Designer C] l C] 2 [:1 3 a 4 c1 5
Contractor D 1 c1 2 U 3 1:1 4 D 5
Mechanical Subcontractor D 1 a 2 D 3 Cl 4 [I] 5
Electrical Subcontractor D l C] 2 El 3 c1 4 D 5
(c) Individual experience of team members using your project's delivery system
Owner's Representative C] l D 2 Cl 3 D 4 Cl 5
Design-Builder D l U 2 Cl 3 El 4 C] 5
Designer/Designer C] 1 CI 2 C] 3 a 4 [:1 5
Contractor [:1 l a 2 Cl 3 C] 4 U 5
Mechanical Subcontractor D 1 Cl 2 [:1 3 D 4 D 5
Electrical Subcontractor Cl 1 Cl 2 Cl 3 D 4 a 5

2. Please evaluate the following project characteristics (on a scale of 1(none) to 5 (excellent):

(a) Team's prior experience as a unit: [3
(b) Project team communication: [:1
(c) Project team chemistry: C]
(d) Owner representative's capability: C]
(e) Owner's ability to deﬁne scope: D
(f) Owner's ability to make decisions: D
(g) Project complexity: E]
(h) Regulatory/ legal constraints: C]
(i) Onerous contract clauses: E]

I—ID—Ib-I—Io—It—ti—iD—lI—ﬁ
DUDUDDUDU
NNNNNNNNN
DDDDDDDDD
wwwwwwwww
UCIDDDDUDCI
hA-b-AA-hA-h-h
UCICICIDDCICID

3. How many LEED certiﬁed projects have you completed.
Cl 0 C] 1-3 C] 3-5 [3 5+
4. Please categorize the number of projects according to their certiﬁcation level.

(:1 Platinum C] Gold

 

C] Silver [3 Certiﬁed

 

190

 

MMMMMML’IMM

 

 

LICVICLS OF HIGH I’F.RFOR.\l.-\N('li (QRHCN

 

1. Please attach your preliminary and ﬁnal LEED Checklist/ Scorecard.

2.. How important were the project's green goals for the project team?
[:1 Very Important E1 Fairly Important [3 Not Important

3. Did the project meet the green goals that the team had set at the beginning of the project?
D Yes D Exceeded D Below Target [:1 Don't Know

4. What was the intended certiﬁcation level?

Cl Platinum D Gold C] Silver [3 Certiﬁcation
5. Why was the project below target or how did the project exceed the intended target. T1
(Please answer the relevant option in detail) "‘

I’ROJ F.("l‘ SCH lil)l ? LF. I’l". R FOR .\I .A\I\'(' F.

 

 

1. Please provide the following schedule information. (D/B/B and CMR) v ""

 

As Planned As Built

Item (mm/dd/yy) (mm/dd/yy)

 

Design Start Date (Notice to proceed)

 

Construction Start Date (Notice to proceed)

 

Construction End Date (Substantial Completion)

 

 

 

 

 

2. Please provide the following schedule information. (D/B)

 

As Planned As Built

"em (mm/dd/yy) (mm/dd/yy)

 

Start of Request for Proposal

 

Start of Design Build

 

Construction End Date (Substantial Completion)

 

 

 

 

 

3. If you are the Owner how satisﬁed are you with the schedule performance of the project?

C] 1(Did not meet) I] 2 Cl 3(Met) C] 4 Cl 5(Exceeded)

191

 

I’RO.Ili( "1 ('OST I’ICRI’OR.\I;\,\('I7.

 

1. What are the following total project costs? Indicate whether estimated (E) or actual (A).
Please deduct all property costs, owner costs of installed process or manufacturing
equipment, furnishings, ﬁttings and equipment, or items not a cost of the building.

 

Stage / Cost Design Costs Construction Costs Total Project Costs

 

Contract Award

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Cost

 

2. If you are the Owner are you satisﬁed with the cost performance if any?
D 1 (Did not meet) El 2 Cl 3 (Met) [3 4 [:1 5 (Exceeded)

3. What percentage of construction cost was the design fee?
4. Approximately, what percentage of cost growth related to external factors
(e.g. weather,material delay, government. regulations)?

 

 

 

 

I’ROJ li('T QU A LI’I‘Y PF, R FOR ;\'1 .\ NCIﬂ

1. If you are the owner please complete this section. If not please proceed to next section.
Please evaluate the quality of the project compared to your expectations using a 1
to 5 scale.

 

 

Difﬁculty of facility start up:
a 1 (High) ‘ C] 2 C] 3 (Medium) C] 4 [:1 5 (Low)

Number and magnitude of call backs:
Cl 1 (High) C] 2 r3 3 (Medium) C] 4 Cl 5 (Low)

Did the quality of envelope/ roof/ structure/ foundation meet your expections?
E] 1 (Did not meet) CI 2 C] 3 (Met) a 4 [:1 5 (Exceeded)

Did the quality of interior/ space/ layout! meet your expectations?
C] 1 (Did not meet) Cl 2 D 3 (Met) [3 4 D 5 (Exceeded)

Did the quality of environmental systems (light/ HVAC) meet your expectations?
El 1 (Did not meet) Cl 2 D 3 (Met) D 4 D 5 (Exceeded)

Did the quality of process equipment/ layout meet your expectations?
[I] 1 (Did not meet) [3 2 c1 3 (Met) [:1 4 [:1 5 (Exceeded)

Did the project meet your expectations overall?
C] 1 (Did not meet) D 2 D 3 (Met) [3 4 D 5 (Exceeded)

If the building has received a green certiﬁcation (e. g. LEED, Green Globes),

please rate the difﬁculty of the submittal review process.
[1 1 (High) Cl 2 D 3 (Medium) D 4 D 5 ﬁow)

 

 

192

 

1. If available please provide the safety records of the project on the following:

OSHA Recordable Incident Rate (RIR):

DART Rate (Days Away/Restricted or Job Transfer Rate):

Lost Time Case Rate (LTC):

SA FI‘L'H

 

 

 

 

Lost Work Day Rate (LWD):

 

POST ()(,‘(‘I'I’.r\.\'('\' EVALL'ATION

 

1. Please evaluate the quality of the project compared to your previous experience of other

facilities on 1 to 5 scale

 

Average water consumption:

 

 

 

 

D 1 (High) [:1 2 C] 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)

Average energy consumption:

[3 1 (High) [3 2 C1 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)

Occupant turnover rate:

[:1 1 (High) E] 2 C] 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)

Occupant absenteeism:

D 1 (High) El 2 D 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)
2. How would your users rate this building?

General Satisfaction:

D 1 (High) Cl 2 C] 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)

Acoustic quality:

D 1 (High) [3 2 Cl 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)

Ventilation:

Cl 1 (High) C] 2 Cl 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)

Controllability:

D 1 (High) [3 2 C] 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)

Lighting:

[:1 1 (High) E] 2 C] 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)

Thermal Comfort:

1:] 1 (High) [:1 2 C] 3 (Medium) 5 (Low)

 

 

 

193

 

 

3. What were the number of callbacks in terms of:

(a) Acoustic:

(b) Ventilation:

(c )Controlability:

(d ) Lighting:

(e) Thermal Comfort:

 

 

 

 

 

4. Which system has been subject to most complains? What were the complaints?

 

5. Did the project meet the modelled performance v/s the ﬁnal performance?

D Yes D Exceeded C] Below Target 1:] Don't Know

[JCSSONS LEARNED

 

1. Please answer the following questions in detail

 

(a) Could this project have been delivered better or more successful? How?
(b) Did the project meet intended needs?
(c ) Describe any unique features about this building that inﬂuenced its cost, schedule or quality.
(d) How did the project delivery method chosen had an affect on the level of integration
achieved by the project?
(e) Did you have any problems along the way? What type and measures were taken to
eliminate them?
(1) What were the speciﬁc steps you took for the building to achieve its goals?
(g) In terms of process were there any speciﬁc problems affecting the performance?
(h) If you were to do this project again what would you do to make this project more efﬁcicent?
(1) How did external factors (e. g. weather,material delay, regulations) affect the project
(eg. in terms of cost schedule quality or achievement of LEED points)?

194

Appendix B

Institutional Review Board Approval Letter

January 5. 2009

To: Slnern Korkmaz
111-A Human Ecology Building
East Lansing

Re: lRB! X08-1185 Category: EXEMPT 1-2
Approval Date: January 5. 2009

Title: inﬂuence of Project Delivery Method on
Achieving Sustainable. High Performance Buildings

The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am-pleased to advise you that your
project has been deemed as exempt in accordance with federal regulations.

TheIRB hasfoundthatyourreeearch projectmeetsthecriteriaforexemptstatusandthecritedaforme
protection of human subjects in exempt research. Under our exempt policy the Principal Investigator
assumes the responsibilities for the protection of human subjects in this project as outlined in the
assurance letter and exempt educational material. The lRB ofﬁce has received your signed assurance for
exempt research. A copyof this signed agreement is appended for your lnfonnatlon and records.

Renewals: Exempt protocols do mt need to be renewed. If the project is completed. please submit an
Application for Permanent Closure.

Revisions: Exempt protocols do not require revisions. However. if changes are made to a protocol that may no
longer meet the exempt criteria. a new initial application will be required.

Problems: if issues should arise during the conduct of the research. such as unanticipated problems. adverse
events. or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects and change the category of review.
notify the lRB ofﬁce promptly. Any complaints from participants regarding the risk and beneﬁts of the project
must be reported to the lRB.

Follow-up: if your exempt project is not completed and closed after mm the lRB ofﬁce will contact you
regarding the status of the project and to verify that no changes have occurred that may affect exempt status.

Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project. or on any
correspondence with the IRB ofﬁce.

Good luck in your research. if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email
at W- Thank you for your cooperation.

 

Dan llgen. a .0.

SI RB Chair

0: ‘ liplka swarup
916 cheny lane appt h
east lensing
michigan-48823

195

 

 

 

Appendix C
Consent Form

The research on “The Inﬂuence oLPrg’ect Delivery Method on Achievirg Sustainable,
High Perirrmance Buildings” is being conducted by the construction management
Program at Michigan State University. This project is funded by the Charles Pankow
Research Foundation.

The main theme of the research is to understand the inﬂuence of different project
delivery methods on the level of interdisciplinary integration in projects and consequently
its affect on pre and .post occupancy project performance. Goals for this project are to
provide building owners, planners, designers, constructors and operators with
recommendations, tools and guidelines for (a) determining the most effective delivery
and project management strategies, and for (b) applying best practices by which project
teams can capitalize on the delivery method selected.

Your participation in this research is in the form of structured interviews that will
be voice recorded and transcribed verbatim later. Each interview conducted would take
approximately 40-50 minutes. All information collected through interviews will be kept
conﬁdential in the principal’s investigators ofﬁce and would only be accessible to the
research team involved with this project. The information collected will only be used to
achieve the research objectives as well as for written or oral reports and published papers.
Your name and other critical information (such as cost, schedule or any other information
as per the discretion of the interviewee) received about the project will be kept
conﬁdential in all public references to this research and your conﬁdentiality will be
maintained to the maximtun extent allowable by law (unless the interviewee agrees to the
inclusion of his/her name and/or professional afﬁliation and/or critical project
information in the study). There are no known risks associated with participation in the
study.

As a possible beneﬁt of your participation, you could gain a better understanding
of your facilities overall performance. This work may also help in advancing the ongoing
sustainable construction research in the county. Also as a participant we will be glad to

share with you a copy of YOUR interview and the ﬁnal report.

196

 

Your participation is voluntary i.e., you may choose not to participate at all, or
refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your
participation at any time without consequence. One copy of this document will be kept
together without research records at Michigan State University for 3 years after the
project completion. If at any time, you would like to discuss questions regarding this
research, you may do so by contacting Dr. Sinem Korkmaz (517-353-3252) or Lipika
Swarup (630-701-5715). Also, if you have any questions or concerns about your roles
and rights as a research participant, or would you like to register a complaint about this
study, you may contact anonymously if you wish to the director of MSU’s Human
Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180 or email at irb@msu.edu or regular mail at

202, Olds Hall, East Lansing, Mi- 48824.

Research team contacts

Primary Investigator : Secondary Investigator:

Dr. Sinem Korkmaz Lipika Swarup

Asst. Professor Graduate Student,

(Construction Management) (Construction Management)
201-D Human Ecology Building Room no. 405, Human Ecology
Michigan State University Michigan State University
Ofﬁce: (517) 353-3252 Ph— 517-432-3968, 630-701-5715

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

 

 

Please print your full name Signature Date

I voluntarily give the permission to use my name and designation in the published

report.

 

 

 

Please print your full name Signature Date

197

 

Appendix D
E-mail to the Respondents

Dear Sir/Madam

We, in construction management Program at Michigan State University, are conducting
research on the Inﬂuence of Project Delivery Method on Achieving Sustainable, High
Performance Buildings. This project is funded by the Charles Pankow Research
Foundation.

The main theme of the research is to understand the inﬂuence of different project
delivery methods on the level of interdisciplinary integration in projects and consequently
its affect on pre and post occupancy project performance. Goals for this project are to
provide building owners, planners, designers, constructors and operators with
recommendations, tools, and guidelines for (a) determining the most effective delivery
and project management strategies, and for (b) applying best practices by which project
teams can capitalize on the delivery method selected.

Your participation in this research will be highly appreciated and would add
highly to the construction research. Participation will be in the form of structured
interviews that would take approximately 30-40 minutes. All the information collected
and your name will be kept conﬁdential in all public references to this research.

> If you agree to participate in this research please respond to us on
swarupli@msu.edu. We would appreciate if you could include your contact information
and a convenient time for us to conduct the interview.

At this point we wish to inform you that your participation is voluntary i.e., you
may choose not to participate at all, or refuse to participate in certain procedures or
answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without any
consequence. If at any time, you would like to discuss questions regarding this research,
you may do so by contacting Dr. Sinem Korkmaz (517-353-3252) or Lipika Swarup
(630-701-5715). Also, if you have any questions or concerns or complaints as a research
participant you may contact anonymously if you wish to the director of MSU’s Human
Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180 or email at irb@msu.edu or regular mail at
202, Olds Hall, East Lansing, Mi- 48824.

Thank you

Research Team Contacts

Primary Investigator: Secondary Investigator:

Dr. Sinem Korkmaz Lipika Swarup

Asst. Professor Graduate Student,

(Construction Management) (Construction Management)
201-D Human Ecology Building Room no. 405, Human Ecology
Michigan State University Michigan State University
Ofﬁce: (517) 353-3252 Ph- 517-432-3968, 630-701-5715

198

 

 

Appendix E

Outline of the Phone Conversation with Respondents

Hello... Good Morning/aﬁemoon/evening.... My name is Lipika Swarup, I’m graduate
student from MSU, I was hoping if you would have a minute to talk to me....

Thank you. . ..

I’m a student of the construction Management program we are conducting a research on
the Inﬂuence of Project Delivery Method on Achieving Sustainable, High Performance
Buildings. This project is funded by the Charles Pankow Research Foundation.

We received your contact information from Mr/Miss Website XYZ.

We are very interested in studying you facility. The main theme of the research is to
understand the inﬂuence of different project delivery methods on the level of
interdisciplinary integration in projects and consequently its affect on pre and post
occupancy project performance.

If you agree to participate in this research we would be conducting structured interviews
with you and the project team. The interviews should not take more than 40—50 minutes.
All the information we collect and your name will be kept conﬁdential in all public
references to this research. This is completely voluntary and you choose to opt out at any
time. There is minimal or no known risk associated with this research.

(If the respondent agrees)

Thank you so much for agreeing to take part in this research. We greatly appreciate your
assistance. I was wondering when will be a good time to contact you again or will you
like to schedule an interview right now...

Thank you!!

Can we please have your email id so that we can conﬁrm the interview slot? I would
include my contact information in the email if you need to contact me for anything.
Thank you once again

See you on........

(If the respondent disagrees)

We understand your reluctance to participate in his research. Thank you and have a nice

day!!!

199

 

 

"23:52 man» a— can: has nonal- rgnnuo wanna: none .4 a:

I: ”u no

sauna an: vain-«vi- : u u.— we

Hummus: unau I all union {gunnnnng noon 0:9 lo: we. aduanl no.4... on... apnoea y‘auUnu- uﬂhual I III anon.- 5 mr
guano n5» 5...: Arena lacunae no use“. had an: Dunn-ﬂue. 3 vv

mg "m av
: «noun 5 clung: an» Au: channavil = u 1. av
V . on: u- n_l:iuun an... on «:6

Fistula-unis «no a!» nun bananauuu ocean noon on luuuan acquouzco uuull new Iuoo I'm hangouuﬂu bonded on 096 1.5an all» you Eon >u-05I
ash: . and and: :1: 1!. wanna 9:33.. :5 ou—nauue «be: NI 2: kuuahen use. r “In I. Iva. use no. augn =0: cal—In It Out: can .11 uncu-
uan 2.qu 5.3—an . unsold anal as 3nd. vegan-veg hpiundgluuan use no "u .r
hu—quolcnaunsn soon. he: ".— a:
nu» S 2

null .5. ueooo an «sienna: no nun... ‘u>.u.— one: al.... 0» 3 keep up

Ugandan all noon an avenue 2..-0:25: a dbl: 6:. adobe Kauai: 3 an

lilo: emf: Hun-non nonlu I 558an no 5 >00 61.3 a goon vu on. ave vnoo .- no :3 sbaunvonun o no value: a «a .u rn

hu—«I’U use «guano: unou any wean-wu- ua :- 5 2:0. :0: v:- 3 an
52:: use on unav- ni-
ulcu ca Angina: I ale ‘3 any on ooiﬁo nt- uuvnu noun. — oils of. .Udanounudu any :0 naive uluuu you ml save-uh nae—ugl- ugu we ulon you man
an halves. ban on again Inn an 3 one .1:qu we Univ 1 no: 5 nun..— 00 no unnauuu as none as.» a. «noun one: via» uco «A... :4Iu.nen

6.2mm nouuo «noun «a» no 3:3: «5 2.333 "nun: so» in 5 an

 

 

 

gag: haul: hvaa—SD on.» an ﬂaw-DI DI "u an
was» a 5 you sausages-nu uuuanaou a 3.5: a... 3 an
lulu-nice.- a any "u an
331253.535... . .vunu usou. - 8.435 nuance... «5 Eu v5 3 an
um: 6 C. >04: 02.: so Unvnb one an: of. can» nee uaulunu- you 310. . BOON a: nuauniou ﬁsoon bun» was Sun «us: «not noun «>2 « "n mu
u. UP! no .
w Ell-Imago}! . a mu ‘7 ﬂ . ,. ... r.

   

 

.253: 2.3:: ..._uco:e.:uE. 8.7....- Etcm .3 :w ﬁve—Eu £51 3:35.:

. cur-5014‘ 98.8.“: is. E S .

uiv‘l

 
 

mini—"a n16»

Joins-Bun
1%. u 5;. 3.9.5. alien:

.u3o_>._8:_ 0323—8 95 .«o ﬂog—towns... he 18: o~ﬁ~ «52:28 me «32—55

a 522.3.

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2.3602“. . .5 d2... . ..
giw dd .
. . . 4.. . . . .. i..—
4.4?1. 5.53.3... 2 ..
.351 . a 1 .. . om.— .
. 1 .. .1... . .24 «lulu...
«I... 1 1.: «4.4.1. ~ ~ . «2. ..P1 ,1 .1J
bTEiouuni-gu 6&3. {Waging .guﬂuiiiwv sons-Pﬁqvﬂuonu-ucouuﬁh gouﬁwmh-Iuﬂ-Igumgu
7.5.33 :: .. 3:125. .25 I I951... FEES 1 . a 4. . . .1.. Bgovuaﬁi.§nl§unﬁ.ﬁnioEBEAELSQS
.. i n 1 .. 4 .dj— 1 . . i.” alga . # «e
E . . u . . =- . I ... 1.1 . I. 1
.uﬁlzbiﬂ 5:: 51910 . . ... 4 : 4 in . .Sowg-z N.ib.lﬂ§.£§ Euhruihiu. hank.
allevméaiﬁnaﬁaluui .. p. .. . . . a 13325. I...
.. . ... . . . 1 c A“... ..E21
Sun an} if. ~ Jiojsohdukr .—A
r H 1 «a 3,5155?! 1.1 .I. 1 A w . cm I 41.. 1 1.
1.5.5.5.... .. .. .. . .. .... sum-1 .. .. . 1 ..:.A.
a . .333 .
In... 4 . r. c 1 P .. bl . . . m... It. I;
1 . .11 a. . . I . . a . t. . .. 1 u 519.5! u...» 33.....372 _
.. . . . . . av. 55....
a . . 1. 1 <.. . F. . .. .53....ﬁron.
SoﬁaﬁEpquoeéoBSas. ,3! 5 .. . 1. 1 . E b. .1 i. 1 . . I: ,
J... 11 1 11.1.11]. .14“ . Sean—Suing
~ 53:15.5. I .. E 2 a 1. 1 1.3; .
.a J .. .2. . . .w. 2: mug..- gaﬂoﬁ 2 .
«ESE: I} a ~ ill...“ it! 9.1:- Iu. «E. 33.2. BAaA .
E3... and a a 853 iii... . P .
ENE: lad _ I .5835“ . cl: 1 .z , vat. 10..—
ENE: .9“ a ' ....6o:>io5§u 2453.2
NEE: I?“ o L ilk-SD
E3: Ina . a gﬁiu «wgoaouaguziuﬁuEEubaaSuﬁn-Iﬁﬁh an; .— .
Ina a u .. .
89m o m .
led a o Camp .2 .
I! o N . .
an a a 1: . 41a . .1 cv .— ,
I9“ 0 n .
I?“ o a 1 .n. 3» .2
:4 >3 35.50

 

.. . 2.. 3: .._:..........z_.. .

       

 

. a . x . 1 a v
r .. ...,.....,...m._..m....z..w as... .. . a»,

 
 

ﬁéia 3237.....245t {Ink shit.» .5. L4.t.»:...rn}z....§

3.23%.“... ., .1... awarrwwxpﬁéi...a...3......
_ .s, .,. .. , . .. it'nralIvtllllnL KEEP.

El

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.363..an 3.8.328 05 he EVE—285.5 .8.“ com: 9: .3153. no «2.2.26

0 582...

 

 

201

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ 53% mm mm ~ on 3 N. _ 8.3 C 2 ~ 3.3. 3 mm VD
_ N22. mm mm o 860 2 E _ mmdw S w. _ emdh ac mm mQ
_ mm mm VN _ ow 2 S _ «WE : .2 _ wmdn o0 mm NO
_ 3.3 mm mm # 5.3 2 I _ mm o— S _ Sims 5 0v #0
ﬂ hmdw mm mm _ 8.0» 2 2 _ mmNm C 3 _ 3.3 mo 3 NO
_ Wmo mm om T oo 2 o _ oﬁvo C I o no.3 0o ow _U
T Om mm 3 _ on 2 N_ T NWmN C v T 35¢ 00 mm mm
T mm mm m T Vmém Z c T «N: E N T 2.9» S cm ﬁm
T 3.3 mm 2 T. co 2 o T aﬁmm C o T 5%? ac 0m m<
T nmém mm : T mm.mm 2 w T v9: : m T weﬁm mo cm N<
T ow mm 2 o m0? 2 Z T Imam C m T woﬁm mo cm ﬁ<

PRU 23m own—mm: “E5 3 eo>oEo< moans—Stu.— awE 93.2—32.5 .8 .951— 2: he wE—SU

I “5.5%:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

202

 

EoEBSm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm> wm> mmxw 5:30 mg :mwmoQ 3:350:00 35:52:50 UmUWD :o_m_> 5:30
HGDEUHNHM

mmNr wm> my? 5:30 mm> :wﬂmoD QDNEQSQW 33:52:00 0m0mD :o_m_> 5:30
uCUEOuﬂu—m

mm> mmxw mm> 5:30 mm> :wmmoQ obmeuwaum >=~=5§Eo0 UmOWD :o_m_> 5:30
HGUEQH—Nu

****.._ 5.1.1. ***** ***** 02 $550 FBQREOU 37.55th50 5:0: :OGC/W 5:30
HCUEUHNHW

“3.31:." 1*: WE 5:wwmoQ mm> :mﬁoQ 33:50:00 3333::00 OmUmD :o_m_> 5:30
HQDEOHMHW

mm> mm> mm> 5:30 mm> :wiuQ 5:550:00 >=mﬂ5> 0m0m3 :o_m_> 5E30
HGDEDHNHW

OZ 02 OZ 5:30 wm> Eoﬁaomguﬂ :wdmuﬂ ~A=§~5> 0m0mD :0:m_> 5:30
mm> mm> mg 5:30 mm.» :wmmuﬂ 33:50:00 >=mn5> UMDmD @QWMQ 5:30 _m
mm> 02 mm; 5:30 mmCr :mmmoQ 53:50:00 31:58:50 umwmb @QmmxH 5:30 m<
:95 25:5 5 a a 5 5::on 5:3
31:; .31.; ***** ***** OZ . Q . a m = n— > UmUmD wEEmuA 0 N<
**.._** ***** 3.3.2., ".231... OZ EOEQBURVQ :wmmuQ NA=ao5> UmOmD 8:30 5:w_moQ _<

 

225:5
;: 5
35:5

 

vacum
5::

3.23m

 

3.5565:me

 

530

macaw

 

520.3 wEE;

_ 52.2.3.

 

32.an

 

252
580

5338K 53.5 min: EoﬁxEEoU 5:30 55 .5.“ ”—550

 

:omnum
\CEEE

 

 

 

 

203

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:5m :55: £554 55:0sz “ 00mZ

5m 55 :50 ”Hm00 552$ 585m 20m ”mAOw 55:55 5:5 52:55 155552 H mm“):

8:: :55me “585550 ”.020 Em 30A ”m: 525m :wﬁom n m-Q
53:02:50 i200 :ouoBom 55> 55m ”Hmmm 558250 n :50

552% 55m 5:55:50 ”1350 5:65:50 :wioﬂ ” n3200 me 5:350 H .50

 

 

 

1.12.... EDA r500 20:: >900 EOHI mm> 0Z mg 1.1.1.... E00 .0200 1:1. m:

 

@204 51.1. 1.1.... 1.1.... 1:13.. SOME 02 1.1. OZ .5200 1:12.. ECU mem 1:1.

 

 

11:1. Pm00 Hw00 1.1... 20:: EOHE OZ OZ OZ 1.12:. E00 00mZ 1:1. Hmmm mAOm

 

11:1. HmOU FmOU 1.1.... ..:.:.:.:.. 131:1. 1:1. 1:1. 1:1. 131.... 1:12.. 1.12.... 1.1. m‘HOm WAOW

 

HmOU 1.1.... 1:13.. 305* mom: Emvum mm? mmNr mm? OUMZ OOWZ OUWZ. E00 1.1.... 12.31.
mm—Q

 

PmOU 1.11. 1.1.... 11:11. 1.1.... IDEA OZ OZ mm> 00mz 8W2 OOmZ NAOM 1.1.1. 1.1.1.

 

 

11:1. LED EDA .1131. 1.1.... 1:11. 1.1. 1.1. 1:1. 1.13.. OUmZ OUmZ 1:1. MAOM m40m 2Nm

 

1.1.... @234 AEDA .1111. Emu—E 302* 1:1. WMV mm> 1.11.... OUmZ OOWZ 1:1. WHOM MAOm —m

 

1.1.1.1.... :20 @354 $003 302* 10:10 mm> mm?» mm> 1:12.. @200 0002 1.13.. Emmm 13.30 m<

 

1.1.... $234 1:11. .1131. EOHE 1.13.. OZ mm? 02 1.1.... OOWZ OOmZ 1:1. NAOW mAOM N<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1.... @234 QEDA 11:1. EOHE BOA mm> mg me> 1.1.1. @200 OUMZ 1.1. Hmmm mAOw #4

553.95% 5?:6 ”:50 «55555.5 E58 555.5 2: :8 9550

a 552...

204

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm 550 mm 550
vm 36:00 530m wEEwE 30 monBcom 5.55%“:va 85on
mm 5:03.00 Eoﬁxm >m 262 mm 83:85 25:0
mm BR: 5:800:50 5 3:5: @0004 NM wﬁzocoz 59.8505 @530
5 @6550 $0 35:0 55:50 30 0550\me \szm
3500 3:380...

v m m mmCr vém {~40 XXXX mm> mm;

m w m mg .mmwm 3. mm; mm» m;

V v v mmtw m .N ._m 30 .mm .30 mm.» mm; mm>

v m m mm> m .Nm v 6.30 mm; 02 mmcw

m m N mm; mm YNJM m0.» mm> mm>

v w v mm? mm .5 30 .NM .30 m0> mm> mm>

m m m mm; wroim 30 mm; OZ mm>

v v v mm; mm 30 mm> mm> mm;

v v m mm> mm 50 mm> mm> mm>

v v v mm.» mm :0 mm> wm> Mm; N<

m m _ 02 mm vm AM OZ 02 02 _<

 

 

 

 

 

3:523

Eu 5 SEE 5 5...
z . A. .50 2% 32:92

3:855

 

15225.0
.5:

 

:0_mmvm

5:230

 

 

 

 

5.5.65
5:30 629:
.520

3:20
51;.st

 

83°33— .motsm “in: 9.55...— m5>=o0 2: E nasahwouﬁ 2: 5.— “.550

v. 55...?

205

 

£8805 HA0

:wwwoﬂ 0CmE0£0m H D .nom

 

AAA—5:080:00 U A 0v

cmmmoﬂ 3:800:00 U Q .:00

 

 

mucuﬁzoom :ocodbmcoo ”DU

 

EoanBgQ cwwmoa H Dd

 

552005 N .D .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m< EEoU

 

 

A50 05

 

.moU Ems

 

.ASU .2..»L2_u

 

i.<
- 0mm;

0.”.

.CEm (.0 mEE;

 

 

 

0036.:on

momucnmom zotam ”Em: 08005 bot—on 05 5 55.2305 05 .8 wEucU

v— 0505...;

 

02:“;me

 

A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 d oi A 00 .m oi A 00 Em it: A 00 Em A 00 d oi E
A 00 a .mom A 00 a .8m A 00 m mom A00 9 .80 A 00 a mom A 00 a mom 1:: A 00 m 8.0. A 00 .m oi 8
A 00 d oi A 00 d oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi 5
A 00 .m oi A 00 .m .oi A 00 .m oi A00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi A 00 .m oi N0
A 00 A 00 m .80 A 00 m .80 A 00 A: m A00 a .8m A 00 Em m Amymwm A 00 m .80 00
m 8% A: m .80 .60 oi . A: .m oi .80 .d oi .A: m .80 . :I: .d oi A: .m oi
A 00 m .mom A 00 m .mom A00 .m oi A 00 d oi A00 .m oi A00 m0 :1: m .mA.0o0 oi A00 m .mom Nm
Em :3: m .80 m .80 m .80 m .80 1:: .A00 Em A 00 m .80 _m
. A: .m oi
****** ****** 8.312.... 35.3.2.1. ADV Q doU CV :Q .oum ***..:I, ADV Q .Som ADV .Q dim M<
—

«.5131. ..:..**..:._ “Icing”... 31.0.31. Q zAnwVEm ADV Em ****** CAVMW—wvmwnm ADV .Q 0.5 N<
m0 Em it: A 00 .m oi it: Em 1:: Em A 00 .m oi 2
ADV .Q .00.» ****..:.n 3.3.3:..." .3.:..&;.... ADV .Q 0.5 ADV Q .ﬁom ADV .Q .05 ADV .3 00¢ ADV .Q 0.5 MD

33.05

 

206

Bibliography

7Group and Reed, B. (2009). ”T he Integrative Design Guide to Green Building:
Redeﬁning the Practice of Sustainability, ” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken,
New Jersey

7Group (2004). “High Performance Green Building Design Charrette Report, ”
Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary New Library Building

AIA-AGC (2004). “Primer on Project Delivery, ” jointly published by The American
Institute of Architects and The Associated General Contractors of America l

Akatsuka, Y. (1994). “Review of Post Construction Evaluation Procedures for
Infrastructure Projects, ” Peer Reviewed Paper, Journal of Management in ‘
Engineering, Vol.10, No.1 :

 

Al Khalil, Mohd I. (2002). ”Selecting the Appropriate Project Delivery Method Using
AHP, ” International Journal of Project Management 20, 469—474

Alarcon, L. F. and Mardones, DA. (1998). “Improving the Design-Construction
Interface, ” Proceedings of Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction (IGLC-6 ) Guaruja, Brazil, 13-15 August

Auerbach, C. F. and Silverstein, LB. (2003). “Qualitative Data: An Introduction to
Coding and Analysis, ” New York University Press.

aUSGBC (2008). ”Green Building Facts, ” available on
www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5961 (Accessed on Aug 03, 2008)

BBB, Sustainable Building Task Force and the State and Consumer Services Agency
(2003). “Building Better Buildings, ” Report, An Update on State Sustainable
Building Initiatives

BCBC (2001). “Guide to Value Analysis and the Integrated Design Process, ” British
Columbia Buildings Corporation, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations

Beheiry, S.M.A, Chong, W.A. and, Haas, CT. (2006). “Examining the Business Impact
Of Owner Commitment to Sustainability, ” Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management,132, (4)

Berg, BL. (2006). “Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, ” (sixth
edition) Allyn & Bacon.

Bilec, M. and Ries, R. (2009). “Preliminary Study of Green Design and Project Delivery
Methods in the Public Sector, " Journal of Green Building, 2, (2), 151-160

207

 

Bordass, W., Leaman, A. and, Eley, J. (2001). “A Guide to Feedback and Post-
Occupancy Evaluation, ” The Usable Buildings Trust

BREEAM (2008) “About, ” http://wwwbreeamorg (Accessed on May 20,
2008)

Bubshait, A. and Al-Musaid, A. (1992). “Owner Involvement in Construction Projects in
Saudi Arabia, ” Journal of Management in Engineering, Volume 8, Issue 2

Building Green, Inc. (2001). “Greening federal facilities— An Energy, Environmental, and
Economic Resource Guide for Federal Facility Managers and Designers, ”
Second edition, Produced for US. Department of Energy Ofﬁce of Energy
Efﬁciency and Renewable Energy Federal Energy Management Program

Carr, P. G. and Beyor, P. S. (2005). “Design Fees, The State of the Profession, and a
Time for Corrective Action, ” Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(3), 110—
117.

Carr, R. I. (2000). “Detroit Owners ’ Role in Construction Improvement, ” Construction
Detroit CEO Summit

CDE (2002). “Design-Build Project Guideline, ” California Department of Education,
School Facilities Planning Divisions

Chan A., Ho, D. and, Tam, C. (2001). “Design and Build Project Success Factors:
Multivariate Analysis, ” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 127, No. 2

Chan, A. Scott, D. and, Lam, E. (2002). “Framework of Success Criteria for
Design/Build Projects, ” Journal of Management in Engineering, 18 (3)

Chan, A.P.C. and Tam, CM. (2000). “Factors Affecting the Quality of Building Projects
in Hong Kong, ” International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 17 Nos 4(5), Pp. 423-441.

Chua, D.K.H. and Tyagi, A. (2003). "Process-parameter-interface model for Lean
Design Management, " Journal of Construction Engineering. and Management,
Volume 129, Issue 6, Pp. 653-663

CIB (1999). “Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction, ” CIB Report Publication 237

C II (2002). “Measuring the Impacts of the Delivery System on Project Performance —
Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build, ” US. Department of Commerce

208

 

 

Col Debella, D.M. (2004). “Construction Delivery Systems: A Comparative Analysis of
the Performance of Systems within School Districts, ” MS. Thesis, University of
Pittsburgh

Cole R.J., Howard, N., Ikaga, T. and, Nibel, S. (2005). “Building Environmental
Assessment Tools: Current and Future Roles, ” The 2005 World Sustainable
Building Conference in Tokyo, Action for Sustainability, Institute of International
Harmonization for Building and Housing, Tokyo.

Cole, R.L., Connery, K., Rousseau, D. and, Theaker, I. (1999) “Green Building Design &
Construction Guidelines, ” Santa Monica Green Building Program

Dabbs, J. M., Jr., (1982). “Making Things Visible, ” Van Maanen, J. (Ed), Varieties of
Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Deru, M. and Torcellini, P. (2005). “Performance Metrics Research Project — Final
Report, " Technical Report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

DMJ (1998). “18 Views on the deﬁnition of Design Management, " Design Management
Journal, Summer, 14-19

DoE (2009). “Buildings, ” available
http://www.energy.gov/energyeﬂiciency/buildings.htm (Accessed on Oct 05,
2009)

DOE, Department of Energy (2006). “Department of Energy, High Performance Green
Project Database, " available
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/highperformance/, (Accessed on
10/23/2008)

Dorsey, R. W. (1997). “Project Delivery Systems for Building Construction, ”
Washington, DC. Associated General Contractors of America

Drexler, J. and Larson, E. (2000). “Partnering: Why Project Owner-Contractor
Relationships Change, ” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
126 (4)

El Wardani, M. (2004). “Comparing Procurement Methods for Design-Build Projects, "
MS. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University

E1 Wardani, M., Messner J. I. and, Horman M., (2006). “Comparing Procurement

Methods for Design-Build Projects, ” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 132, (3), 230-238.

209

 

 

Enache-Pommer, E. (2008). “Lean and Green Healthcare Facilities: Improving the
Delivery Process in Children ’s Hospital, ” MS. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State
University

Enache-Pommer, E. and Horman, M. (2009). “Key Processes in the Building Delivery of
Green Hospitals, ” Building a Sustainable Future, 636—645

Energy Star (2008) History, http://www.energystangov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_history
(Accessed on May 20, 2008)

Fisk, W.J. and Rosenfeld, AH. (1997). “Estimates of Improved Productivity and health
from Better Indoor Environments, ” Indoor Air, 7, 158—172

Flyvbj erg, Bent. (2006). “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research, ”
Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2): 219-245

Forbes, L. H. (2001). “Continuous Improvement in the Construction Industry, ”
Leadership and Management in Engineering, Winter, 54-55

Formoso C. T., Tzotzopoulos, P., Jobim, M. and, Liedtke, R. (1998). “DevelopingA
Protocol for Managing the Design Process in the Building Industry, ” Proceedings
of Sixth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
(IGLC-6 ) Guaruja, Brazil, 13-15 August

Fowler, K.M., Solana, A.E. and, Specs, K. (2005). “Building Cost and Performance
Metrics:Data Collection Protocol, ” Paciﬁc Northwest National Laboratory,
operated for the US. Department of Energy

Frej, Anne B. (2005). “Green Office Buildings- A Practical Guide to Development, " The
Urban Land Institute, Washington DC,

GAO (1991). “Using Structured Interviewing Techniques, ” United States General
Accounting Ofﬁce, Program Evaluation Methodology Division

Gransberg, DD. and Buitrago, M.E.V. (2002). “Construction Project Performance
Metrics, ” AACE Intemational Transactions, CSC .02, Pg. C821

Gransberg, DD. and Molenaar, K. (2004). “Analysis of Owner ’s Design and
Construction Quality Management Approaches in Design/Build Projects, ”
Journal of Management in Engineering, 20 (4)

Gransberg, DD. and Senadheera, S. (1999). “Design-Build Contract Award Methods for
Transportation Projects, ” Journal of Transportation Engineering, 125(6)

210

 

Gransberg, D.D., Puerto, CL. and, Humphrey, D. (2007). “Relating Cost Growth from
the Initial Estimate to Design Fee for Transportation Projects, ” Journal
Construction Engineering and Management, 133(6), 404—408

Green Globes (2008) About, http://www.greenglobes.com/about.asp (Accessed on May
20,2008)

Green Globes (2009). “Case Studies, ” http://www.greenglobes.com/casestudies.asp
(Accessed on Oct 05, 2009)

Gugel, J. and Russell, J. (1994). “Model for Constructability Approach Selection, ”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Volume 120, Issue 3

Haas], T. and Sharp, T. (1999). “A Practical Guide for Commissioning Existing
Buildings, ” Ofﬁce of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, US.
Department of Energy

Hammond, J ., Choo, H.J., Austin, 8., Tommelein, ID. and, Ballard, G. (2000).
“Integrating Design Planning, Scheduling, and Control with Deplane, ”
Proceedings of International Group for Lean Construction Eighth Annual
Conference (IGLC—8), July 17-19, Brighton, UK, IGLC.

Harding, N. (2005). “High Performance Green Building Factors: Understanding the
Pre-Design Process, ” MS. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University

Harputlugil, U.G. and Hensen, J. (2006) “Relation between Design Requirements and
Building Performance Simulation, ” lst International CIB Endorsed METU
Postgraduate Conference, Built Environment & Information Technologies,
Ankara

Heerwagen, J. (2000). “Green Buildings, Organizational Success, and Occupant
Productivity, ” Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 (5), 353-367

Heintz, J .L. (2002). “Collaborative Design Planning Networks, ” Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management 9 (3), 181—191

High Performance Building Guidelines (1999). “High Performance Building
Guidelines, ” City of New York, Department of Design and Construction

Huang, X. (2003). “The Owner ’s Role in Construction Safety, ” PhD Thesis, University
of Florida

Ibbs, C., Kwak, Y., Ng, T. and, Odabasi, A. (2003). “Project Delivery Systems and

Project Change: Quantitative Analysis, ” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 129, No. 4

211

 

 

Ibbs, W., Nguyen, L.D. and, Lee, S. (2007). “Quantified Impacts of Project Change, ”
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133(1) 45—
52

Inge B. (2006). “Environmental assessment of buildings: Bottlenecks in current
practice, ” ENHR conference "Housing in an expanding Europe: theory, policy,
participation and implementation" Urban Planning Institute of Republic of
Slovenia, Slovenia.

Karolides, A. (2002). "An Introduction to Green Building- Part 1- Resource Efficiency, ”
Rocky Mountain Institute Newsletter, 18(3), 7-8

Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E. and, Perlman, J. (2003). “The Costs and
Financial Benefits of Green Buildings, ” A Report to California’s Sustainable
Building Task Force

Klotz, L. (2005). “Recommendation of Green Building Delivery Procedures for use on
NJSC C Projects, " Research Paper, University of Washington

Konchar, M. and Sanvido, V. (1998). “Comparison of US Project Delivery Systems, ”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.124, No.6

Koppinen, T. and Lahdenpera, P. (2000). “The Current and Future Performance of Road
Project Delivery Methods, " VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Korkmaz, S. (2007). “Piloting Evaluation Metrics for High Performance Green Building
Project Delivery, ” PhD Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University

Korkmaz, S., Riley, D. and, Horman M. (2007). “Effective Indicators for High
Performance Green Building Delivery, ” ASCE-CIB Proceedings of the 2007
Construction Research Congress, 6-8 May, Grand Bahama Island, Bahamas.

Koskela, L. (1992). “Application of the New Production philosophy to Construction,”
Stanford, CIF E, Stanford University. Technical Report No. 72

Lahdenpera, P. (2001). “Design- Build Procedures, ” VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland

Lapinski, A. Horman, M. and Riley, D. (2006). “Lean Processes for Sustainable Project
Delivery, ” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.132, No.10

Larsson, N. (2002). “T he Integrated Design Process, ” Report on a National Workshop

held in Toronto, October 2001 , Buildings Group, CETC, Natural Resources
Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Enbridge Consumers Gas

212

 

 

Lockwood, C. (2006). “Building the Green Way, ” Harvard Business Review, Harvard
Business School Publishing Corporation

Magent, C. (2005). “Process and Competency-Based Approach to High Performance
Building Design, ” PhD Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University

Miller, J ., Garvin, M., Ibbs, C. and, Mahoney, S. (2000). “Toward a New Paradigm:
Simultaneous Use of Multiple Project Delivery Methods, ” Journal of Management
in Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 3

 

 

Molenaar, K. and Gransberg D. (2001). “Design-Builder Selection for Small Highway
Projects, ” Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(4)

Molenaar, K. R. and Songer, A. D. (1998). “Model for Public sector Design Build
Project Selection, ” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,124,

(6)

Molenaar, K., Sobin, N., Gransberg, D., McCuen, T., Korkmaz, S. and, Horman, M.
(2009). “Sustainable, High Performance Projects and Project Delivery Methods:
A State-of-Practice Report, ” Report, Charles Pankow Research Foundation

 

Molenaar, K., Songer, A. and, Barash, M. (1999). “Public-Sector Design/Build Evolution
and Performance, ” Journal of Management in Engineering, 15(2)

Myers, D. (2005). “A Review of Construction Companies 'Attitudes to Sustainability, ”
Construction Management and Economics, 23, 781—785

Naoum, S. (1994). “Critical Analysis of Time and Cost of Management and Traditional
Contracts, ” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,120, (4)

OGC (2005). ”Achieving Excellence in Construction Procurement Guide 05 .' The
Integrated Project Team: Team Working and Partnering, ” Ofﬁce of Government
Commerce, Crown copyright 2003. www.ogc.gov.ul_<_ (Accessed on Sept 20,
2008)

 

Oyetunji, A. and Anderson, S. (2001). “Project Delivery and Contract Strategy, ” A
Report to Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin

Patton, MO. (2002). “Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, ” (third edition)
Sage Publications

Perkins and Stantec Consulting (2007). “Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process
Part One: Summary Guide, ” BC Green Building Roundtable

Platt, J. (1992) “ ‘Case Study’ in American Methodological Thought, ” Current Sociology,
Spring, 40(1):]7-48.

213

Pocock, J ., Liu, L. and, Tang, W. (1997). “Prediction of Project Performance Based on
Degree of Interaction, ” Journal of Management in Engineering, 13 (2)

Pocock, J .B. (1996). “The Relationship between Alternative Project Approaches,
Integration and, Performance, ” PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign

PTI, Public Technology Inc., (1996). “Sustainable Building Technical Manual, ”
Sponsored by US. Department of Energy, US. Environmental Protection Agency

Pulaski, M. H. (2005). “T he Alignment of Sustainability and Constructability: A
Continuous Value Enhancement Process (C VEP), ” PhD Thesis, The
Pennsylvania State University

Reed W.G. and Gordon EB. (2000). “Integrated Design and Building Process: What
Research and Methodologies are Needed?, ” Building Research and Information,
28(5/6). 325-337

Roper, K. O. and Beard, J .L. (2006) “Justifying Sustainable Buildings - Championing
Green Operations, ” Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 8, 2; Pg. 91

Rounce, G. (1998). “Quality Waste and Cost Considerations in Architectural Building
Design Management, ” International Journal of Project Management Vol. 16, No.
2, Pp. 123-127

Smart Market Report (2007). “Greening of Corporate America, ” McGraw Hill
Construction

Silverman, D. (2001) “Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text
and Interaction, ” (second edition). London / Thousand Oaks / New Delhi: Sage,

Taylor, J. E., Dossick, CS. and, Garvin, M.J. (2009). “Constructing Research with Case

Studies, ” Building a Sustainable Future, 1469-1478
The Energy Policy Act. (2005). “The Energy Policy Act, ” PUBLIC LAW 109—58

Todd, A.J., Crawley, D., Geissler, S. and, Lindsey, G. (2001). “Comparative Assessment
Of Environmental Performance Tools and the Role of the Green Building
Challenge, " Building Research and Information, 29(5), 324-335.

Toole, M.T. (2002). “Construction Site Safety Roles, ” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 128, (3)

Turner, C. and Frankel, M. (2008). “Energy Performance of LEED® for New

Construction Buildings, ” Report prepared for USGBC, National Building
Institute

214

 

 

 

Undurraga, M. (1996). “Construction Productivity and Housing Financing, ” In Spanish:
“La Productividad en la Construccio'n y F inanciamiento de Vivienda Seminar
and Workshop Interamerican Housing Union, Ciudad de Mexico, D.F., Mexico,
28-29 October

US (2005). “The Building Commissioning Guide, ” US. General Services Administration
Public Buildings Service Ofﬁce of the Chief Architect

USBL, (2007). Bureau of Labor statistics “American Time Use Survey—2006 Results, "
United States Department of Labor, Washington DC.

 

USEPA , (2004). US. Environmental Protection Agency Green Building Workgroup
“Buildings and Environment: A Statistical Summary," Environment Protection
Agency

 

USGBC (2008) About, http://www.usgbc.org/Disp_1ayPage.aspx?CategorvID=19
(Accessed on May 20, 2008)

USGBC (2009). “LEED® Projects & Case Studies Directory” available on

http://www.usgbc.org/ LEED® /Project/CertiﬁedProjectList.aspx
(Accessed on Oct 05, 2009)

Vanegas, Jorge A., DuBose, Jennifer R. and, Pearce Annie R. (1995). “Sustainable
Technologies for the Building Construction Industry, ” Proceedings, Symposium
on Design for the Global Environment, GA, USA

Veitch, J. (1997). “Revisiting the Performance and Mood Effects of Information About
Lighting and Fluorescent Lamp Type, ” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,
253—262

Veitch, J. and Newsham, G. (1996). “Determinants of Lighting Quality II: Research and
Recommendations, ” National Research Council of Canada, Presented at the 104th
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada

WBDG (2008). “Building Commissioning, ” available on
http://www.wbdg.org/proiect/buildingcomm.php (Accessed on Aug 03, 2008)

WBDG. (2009). “Engage the Integrated Design Process, ” Whole Building Design
Guide, National Institute of Building Sciences, available on
http://www.wbdg.org/design/engagejrocess.php (Accessed on Oct 03, 2009)

WCED, (1987). “Our Common Future, ” Brundtland Report, United Nations World
Commission on Environment and Development.

215

Yin, R.K. (2003). “Case Study Research: Design and Methods (third edition) Sage
Publications, CA

Zimmerman, A. (2005). “Integrated Design Process Guide, ” Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation

216