See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268746629

INTEGRATED DESIGN OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT

IN COMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Conference Paper · October 2008

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1503.7128

CITATION READS
1 491

3 authors:

Palaneeswaran Ekambaram Muthukaruppan Ramanathan

Swinburne University of Technology AECOM
118 PUBLICATIONS   1,624 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

C. M. Tam
City University of Hong Kong
232 PUBLICATIONS   13,871 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and Construction Error Mitigation in Infrastructure Projects View project

Resource management in construction projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Palaneeswaran Ekambaram on 25 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INTEGRATED DESIGN OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT IN COMPLEX
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Dr. Ekambaram Palaneeswaran

Department of Building and Construction, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
palanees@cityu.edu.hk

Ir. Muthukaruppan Ramanathan

Maunsell Structural Consultants Limited, Maunsell-AECOM, Hong Kong
M.Ramanathan@maunsell.aecom.com

Prof. Chi-Ming Tam

Department of Building and Construction, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
bctam@cityu.edu.hk

INTRODUCTION
Infrastructure projects are often complex and involve multiple stakeholders. Moreover, due to
several inter-related designs and multi-disciplinary requirements, design management in such
projects is usually quite challenging. Normally, the clients and stakeholders as well as the
designers and constructors are scattered and disconnected, e.g. the design teams including the
lead consultant and various specialist/ sub-consultants work in different places in their respective
offices. This scattered distribution can essentially result in numerous problems such as poor
coordination, lack of collaboration, excessive variations/ design changes, abortive rework and
unwarranted delays in infrastructure developments. For example, coordinating joint design works
and project communications and information management among different design teams is often
great concern in multi-disciplinary project systems (Perry and Sanderson, 1998; Gorse and
Emmitt, 2007). Hence, dynamic interactions and continuous coordination among various
disciplines and key stakeholders are essential for achieving success in such infrastructure
projects. Although technological advances somewhat facilitate virtual collaborations e.g. through
web-based systems, personal interactions are still deemed as necessary in the construction
industry, especially non-standard practices are still prevalent. Therefore, specific best practice
initiatives adopt a system of integrated design team office arrangements to assemble multi-
disciplinary design teams and relevant client personnel, which also facilitates effective
engagement of key stakeholders and other parties.

Previous studies identified several concerns in construction project systems such as achieving
requisite design quality (e.g. McGeorge, 1988; Acharya et al. 2006; Palaneeswaran et al. 2007;
Love et al. 2008), consultancy performance (e.g. Ng and Chow, 2004) and team integration (e.g.
Baiden et al. 2006). Hence, an ongoing research aims to consolidate useful knowledgebase of
design management good practices in the construction industry. In this exercise, a hybrid
research method with triangulation approach (e.g. surveys, interviews, data-mining, literature
review and case-studies) is used. This paper presents an overview of integrated design office
1 

 
arrangement for effective design management in large and complex infrastructure projects. Main
discussions include: (i) generic synopsis on design related procurement and management
practices in infrastructure projects, (ii) specific review of co-located collaborative engineering
arrangements for complex/ innovative designs, and (iii) some case study extracts from recent
integrated design office arrangements.

PROCUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN WORKS

Construction industry is mainly project-based in which design and construction transactions of
project delivery are mostly segregated. Different procurement routes and contractual
arrangements are being considered such as segregated approaches (e.g. Design-Bid-Build),
integrated methods (e.g. Design-Build, Design-Build-Operate-Maintain) and management routes
(e.g. management contracting, construction management at risk). In most cases, the design teams
of infrastructure projects are mainly procured by clients through qualifications based selections
instead of purely price-based selections. For example, as per WB(1999), the selection of
engineering and associated consultants in the public works in Hong Kong are based following
split for technical and price assessments: (a) 80% technical : 20% fee for the multi-disciplinary
projects that require special emphasis on technical input, including feasibility studies and
investigation-stage consultancies and design and construction consultancies of above average
complexity; (b) 70% technical : 30% fee for the less complex feasibility studies and
investigation-stage consultancies, and design and construction consultancies of average
complexity; (c) 60% technical : 40% fee for the technically straightforward design and
construction consultancies. An example set of criteria for technical marks in selection exercise
include: consultant’s experience, response to brief, methodology and work programme, approach
to cost-effectiveness, and staffing. Based on assessing the suitability of consultancy works,
different contractual payment mechanisms such as lump sum, negotiated fees, time charges with
ceiling levels, cost plus fixed fees/ percentage and other incentive frameworks are followed.
Normally, large clients maintain their respective lists of consultants for various project-based
objectives e.g. architectural, structural, geotechnical, building services, quantity surveying,
landscape design. In some cases, clients may specially nominate few specialists/ sub-consultants.
But, mostly the lead consultant of a project could choose freely relevant sub-consultants either
from the registered lists maintained by clients or as per their own choice. For example as per
ETWB (2003), such selection (i.e. in public projects) shall be from relevant bands of appropriate
consultant categories and the lead consultant should identify the sub-consultants in the
‘expression of interest’ stage and the identified ones cannot be changed without acceptable
justifications. On the other hand, outsourcing of some design works is also considered in some
practices. Even after selecting good design teams, the client-led best practice initiatives still
strive for further reinforcements in infrastructure project delivery.

Effective design management is critical for overall success in construction projects. In general,
multi-disciplinary consultants and multiple stakeholders are involved in the design stages of
infrastructure projects. For example, a typical railway project involves several disciplines
including: civil, structural, geotechnical, tunnelling, building services, architectural works and
finishes, permanent way/ track works, overhead lines, electrical and mechanical works.
Interfaces with property development over stations and public transport interchanges are also
required. Also, the impact on the existing/ adjacent structures should be assessed and remedial

2 

 
works need to be undertaken, which involve multitudes of site and desk studies, e.g. in
geotechnical, material technology, civil and structural disciplines. Hence it is quite common that
the scope of requirements might vary during different stages of design development in such
complex projects. Normally, the design phase in such projects involves conceptualization and
reconciliation of (a) client requirements, (b) project objectives, (c) demands of relevant
stakeholders and target customers/ users, and (d) other priorities and constraints. Although there
may be some similarities between different projects, repetitions are rarely considered with
respect to designs as the underlying reasons include typical one-off production practices, varying
project conditions, differing client/ stakeholder requirements, technological developments/
innovations and other value priorities. Normally, the pre-construction design works in
infrastructure projects are broadly divided into following five phases: (i) feasibility study, (ii)
preliminary design, (iii) scheme design, (iv) detailed design, and (v) tender design. In some cases,
the design consultancy works of infrastructure projects are procured through three major
packages such as (a) one key segment covering feasibility study, (b) the second one including
preliminary designs and scheme designs, and (b) the third main part including detailed designs
and tender designs. Moreover, the design management roles during construction stages such as
vetting contractors’ alternative designs and other obligated designs are arranged through separate
consultancy agreements. Over and above the systematic procurement reinforcements for
ensuring design quality, some advanced client practices have established systematic frameworks
for assessing and managing consultants’ performance, e.g. as in ETWB (2007). Moreover,
project-based partnering is considered in some good practices. In addition to various best
practices of procurement and performance management related reinforcement measures,
achieving design quality is targeted through several design audit protocols such as (i) generic in-
house design audit arrangements within engineering design consultancy organizations, (ii)
specific independent external design auditing arrangements, (iii) mandatory mechanisms for
auditing private projects, and (iv) client led auditing arrangements in public and quasi-
government projects (Palaneeswaran et al. 2008). However, some of the risks and concerns may
still remain in the traditional arrangements of distributed design teams, especially in complex
infrastructure works.

CO-LOCATED COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

In traditional design management arrangements, the design teams of different disciplines are
working in their own offices at different distributed locations. Such distributed functioning might
be more complicated in cases such as joint-ventures, sub-consultancies and outsourcing. The
driving considerations for such distributed arrangements include: targeted business opportunities
(e.g. focused resource pooling, experience track-records), specialization objectives (e.g. micro-
specialization, special software, specific talent and knowledge resources), cost aspects (both
direct and indirect costs), and resource management considerations (e.g. current workload,
training requirements, working space). Still, the concept of team building and principles of
integrated teaming for collaborative engineering designs are being encouraged to achieve
enhanced organizational and individual performance outcomes from various useful measures
such as shared focus, synchronous team-working, dynamic interactions, efficient coordination,
effective collaboration, integrated resource management, and closer physical/ virtual proximities.
However, the barriers for integrated working environment through centralized co-locations
include goal alignment (i.e. with respect to roles and responsibilities), communication problems,

3 

 
cultural alignment (such as resistance to change and intrusiveness), trust (such as lack of
confidence and ethical conduct concerns), management commitment from both sides, lack of
knowledge/ experience, competitive concerns (e.g. Monczka et al. 2000; Sharifi and Pawar,
2002). Moreover, with the advances in information and communication technologies, virtual
collaboration environments (e.g. Monell and Piland, 2000) and alternative workspace strategies
(e.g. McGregor, 2000; Gill, 2006) are being increasingly considered. Especially, the virtual
collaborative engineering aims at suitable integrated electronic environment for supporting
design development, e.g. with multiple design teams located at various geographically
distributed locations. Ideally, such virtual collaborative environments are expected to provide
convenient arrangements for virtually co-located multi-disciplinary collaborative design space
(e.g. Lee and Gilleard, 2002).

Basically, co-located multi-disciplinary collaborative design office space could aim at

synchronous team-working through relevant systems-supported design environment (e.g. for
information and communication, special software) for a shared understanding of the requisite
design tasks and processes as well as synergistic functioning of multi-disciplinary roles of the
design team members in a convenient design management setting. Thus, suitable considerations
for co-location along with relevant information systems can facilitate effective design
management through integrated design management. While every design team is individually
responsible for design development in their respective specialization, co-location of multi-
disciplinary design teams may occur throughout or part of the design management in any major
project. Such integrated design office arrangement in large/ complex projects supports effective
design management and best value through (i) increased informal interactions, (ii) enhanced role
clarity and understanding, (iii) more frequent communications between relevant parties, (iv)
development of harmonious relationships, (v) effective problem solving, (vi) quick/ timely
decisions, (vi) enhanced creativity/ innovations (e.g. Monczka et al. 2000). In the integrated
design office arrangements, ambient co-located workspace is provided for every speciality of all
the design teams. Also, other collaborative arrangements include facilities for information
sharing, knowledge management, dynamic group decision-making, formal/ informal meetings,
convenient information and data management. However, the role of design manager is important
in both traditional (i.e. distributed) as well as integrated (i.e. co-located) design team
arrangements for engineering design projects (Schueller and Basson, 2001).

The designs in construction projects require both collaboration and co-operation between
different parties and the design collaborations require a higher sense of working together in order
to achieve successful outcomes (Kvan, 2000). Previous studies such as Fullerton and West
(1996) and Appelbaul and Steed (2005) analyzed the factors of clients and consultants working
together in project systems. Similarly earlier research such as Moore and Dainty (1999)
recommended integrated project teams for the construction industry. Moreover, several best
practices and industry wide reform initiatives such as Latham (1994), Egan (1998; 2002), Tang
(2001), and Constructing Excellence (2004) reiterate for integrated project teams in construction
industry. Thus, the success stories of some enlightened clients highlight the benefits generated by
integrated project teams with trusting relationships such as in the projects of British Airport
Authority (Wolstenholme, 2001; Sweet, 2008) and Hong Kong Mass Transit Railways
Corporation (Bayliss, 2000; Bayliss et al. 2004) and the Australian National Museum (Walker et

4 

 
al. 2000). Furthermore, earlier research such as Humphreys et al. (2003) reiterate pre-
construction collaborative relationships in addition to project partnering (Larson, 1995) and
relational integration with contractors (e.g. Palaneeswaran et al. 2003; Rahman and
Kumaraswamy, 2008) as well as partnering in maintenance stages (Espling and Olsson, 2004).
Drawing threads from such integrated project teams and relationship building measures, co-
located design teams in integrated design office arrangements are considered as useful in large/
complex infrastructure projects. In co-located integrated design team office arrangements, the
clients and other project team members can effectively enforce various measures to improve the
project performance and best value.

SNAPSHOTS FROM INTEGRATED DESIGN OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS

In the first case study, the design management of preliminary design of a medium capacity
railway project using co-located design office arrangement is considered. This infrastructure
project is primarily complex as it included few stations, a depot and property development
adjacent to and above stations and depot. Moreover, the rail route included tunnels and some
portions are elevated. Also, it included connection to an existing station and provisions for
railway expansions. The scope of the preliminary design mainly targeted for (a) describing all
the main options for various elements of the scheme; and (b) making recommendations on the
best options for all design elements. For example, some of the notable issues finalized during the
preliminary design stage are regarding: (i) design options for the alignment and stations
(including station arrangement, accessibility, constructability and costs), (ii) design options for
tunnels and viaducts (including tunnel ventilation, fire safety, etc.), (iii) landscape issues, (iv)
ground condition improvement (including geological studies, soil and rock stabilization along the
alignment), (v) interface with property development, (vi) land requirements, (vii) electrical and
mechanical services provisions for each stations, (viii) construction planning issues including
work area, construction shaft locations, barging points and magazine sites. Hence, in this
project, close interaction between several design disciplines in a co-located office was deemed as
essential. Some details of such notable issues are presented in this section.

The design teams faced several challenges in this project. Locating one of the stations over an
existing nullah set some technical challenges for the engineering design, which was well
coordinated among different disciplines (such as drainage, geotechnical and structural) and the
conflicts were effectively resolved for sound decisions. In addition, providing the station
adjacent to the depot and still avoiding the depot entrance track was effectively resolved. Yet
another major challenge was on the aesthetics aspects. The architectural design teams
responsible for station design and property development worked towards consensus decision
regarding such matters. Retail podium and station entrances were also complex and crucial. The
station entrances were suitably located to attract the residents and customers of the said
development as well as the adjacent housing estates. Thus, the station has been made easily
accessible by the all the nearby residents and shoppers. Moreover, careful planning and
interaction with various stakeholders such as different government departments and utility
companies were required to achieve effective design solutions.

The critical challenges regarding air-conditioning and ventilation of station concourse were also
quickly resolved in the integrated design team arrangement. The station an elevated one, with

5 

 
platform level above the concourse, was originally designed without air conditioning. A steel
roof above the platform was proposed with louvers to allow natural ventilation. The station was
located at the west end of the depot supporting property development above. The location of the
station was so chosen in order to keep the station away from a set of depot entry tracks between
the mainline tracks. For this scheme, relatively a shorter length of station was adequate. As the
station was originally designed as non air-conditioned, corresponding air-handling unit rooms
and associated requirements were not necessary, and few plant rooms would have been adequate.
However, this above-mentioned station layout was subsequently revised, as it did not fit well
with the requirements of other designers and stake holders. The electrical and mechanical
engineers though did not have serious technical comments on providing a non air-conditioned
platform at high level, they categorically pointed out that providing a non air-conditioned
concourse facility would be very difficult. The headroom available for the concourse - located
between the public transport interchange at ground level and a platform at high level - was low.
Platform level was dictated by rail alignment level of the whole system, and could not be raised.
Moreover, adequate natural ventilation would not be available with the existing estate on one
side and the proposed development on the other side. Hence, the rise in temperature would be
more likely within the concourse. All such concerns favored for air-conditioning of the
concourse floor. Following this development, the station planners also felt that if the concourse
would be air conditioned, the platform should be air conditioned as well; otherwise the passenger
climbing to the non air- conditioned platform from an air-conditioned concourse would feel a
sudden discomfort. The discomfort might be multitude if the passengers had accessed the
concourse from the shopping mall or retail area. The issue was quickly resolved through the co-
located integrated design office meetings. Finally, extending the length of the station was
required to accommodate the additional plant rooms. Figure 1 portrays the representation of
original scheme before resolving such design issues in this case-study.

Figure 1 Original scheme before resolving issues of preliminary designing in Case-study 1

6 

 
In addition, the property development designers requested that the station be moved eastwards to
allow the front elevation of the retail area at the west end can be vividly seen, and not blocked by
the station. As a result, the station was moved eastwards for aesthetical reasons and also enlarged
to house the additional plant rooms required due to air-conditioning. Owing to which the depot
entrance tracks mentioned above fell within the station. It was then considered to move the depot
entrance tracks further eastwards, and the station design was further revised. But due to
alignment problems, moving the depot entrance tracks was found not feasible. As such,
entertaining the depot entrance tracks within the platform area became necessary; plant rooms
previously located between the upstream and downstream tracks had been moved upwards
creating a new plant room level. Thus, the station had to be enlarged both horizontally and
vertically. All these issues were quickly identified and resolved with requisite inputs from
several disciplines e.g. civil, architectural, structural teams of both railway and property
development designers. The project team members working in the integrated design office met
and discussed conveniently. All the significant risks, constraints/ limitations and inter-
disciplinary issues were thoroughly discussed and effective mitigation measures were quickly
evolved. Resolving issues in this manner is much different to the conventional system of each
designer stationed in their works stations, meeting only during the biweekly design meetings.

In another case study of co-located integrated design team office for infrastructure works,
detailed design for additions and alterations to one of the existing busy railway stations is
discussed. A new plant room was necessitated to tie-up with some modifications to the station,
and this was proposed to be constructed underneath one of the station entrances. To facilitate the
construction, the entrance had to be demolished, and subsequently rebuilt. The opportunity was
used to upgrade the entrance located near a landmark in Hong Kong. An iconic glass box with
full height glass panels and glass roof was proposed. An unobstructed view from the adjacent
road crossing was also planned for. Some of the design issues as per the initial condition are:
(i) The canopy was proposed with structural beams and glass panel frame work to withstand
the wind load
(ii) To improve the structural stability mid-level beams were proposed. This was necessary as
the size of the four corner steel columns was restricted.
(iii) An existing retaining wall behind the glass-box was proposed to be kept, with the aim of
not affecting the existing features to possible extent. Also, the owner of the wall is
different from the railway operator.
(iv) Owing to (iii) the rear column was located above this wall, and was short.

The co-located design teams included consultants from various disciplines such as civil (as
project coordinator and for civil engineering issues), architectural (for addressing functional and
aesthetical design issues), structural (for structural aspects), electrical and mechanical (for
building services designs), system (for cabling and signaling), and façade specialist (for glass
curtain wall designs). In the integrated design office arrangement, design management was
through effective design meetings and efficient coordination between various specialties.
Routine inter-disciplinary meetings were held every week. More formal and informal
communications were considered for real-time coordination. Up to date drawings and design
details were stored in online electronic formats for 24/7 access through intranet and secure server.

7 

 
After quick revision considerations in the co-located design office, the glass façade specialist
consultant came forward to provide structural glass for canopy, with special joints. Steel beams
for canopy were thereby avoided, and scheme looked close to the originally contemplated design
in this regard. The end columns were increased in size and also their structural thickness were
adjusted accordingly. This enabled the structural engineer to get rid of the intermediate beams,
and also control the sway within the specified limits. The revisions improved the unobstructed
view as well. Following this coordinated design revisions, the civil engineer liaised with the
client and also the owner of the rear side retaining wall. Subsequently, he proposed a
construction sequence to demolish and rebuild the retaining wall, and also extended the rear
column down to the ground level. Thus, the shortcomings in the original design were quickly
realized and fixed. Appreciation of the architectural intent and providing solutions by the civil,
structural and specialist consultants enabled the team to attain good results. Figure 2 portrays the
key details of initial condition, interim developments and final solution of design issues in this
second case study.

Shortened 
column 
Shortened column 
not yet 
– A compromised 
resolved 
solution for 
keeping the 
retaining wall 
location 

Existing retaining 
wall – which was  Retaining wall 
Canopy 
kept due to the  Canopy with  not yet resolved
Mid level  resolved
construction  steel frame,  Mid Beam deleted by 
beams were  which was 
sequence  introducing thicker and 
introduced for  designed to  bigger sizing of columns, 
Interim stage 2
structural  withstand the  
(i.e. 400x400 instead of 
stability  wind load 
  Initial condition  350x350) and column 
spacing updated

Glass 
Shortened  Column at  canopy 
column is  the rear  resolved
not yet  extended 
resolved  to match  Mid 
others  Beam 
deleted 

Retaining wall is  Canopy changed to Glass 
not yet resolved  structure after deciding in New retaining 
coordination meetings to  introduced by 
use special Structural  updating the 
 
Glass for structure – as  construction  Final solution 
Mid Beam issue is   
the Façade Specialist  sequence with Civil 
  not yet resolved  designed fixing details to  Engineer input
Interim stage 1  deal with the loadings 

Figure 2 Fast-tracked revisions for solving various detailed design issues of Case-study 2

8 

 
As a part of the ongoing research, a structured supervised questionnaire on rework and changes
in design consultancy works was also conducted and project-specific observations from several
building projects and infrastructure works were consolidated (e.g. Palaneeswaran et al. 2007).
Table 1 presents a sample set of beneficial pointers consolidated from couple of infrastructure
projects that adopted integrated design team office arrangements for effective design
management. Both these case-study projects adopted integrated design team office with several
convenient arrangement such as SharePoint TM based electronic project management system,
some common purpose software and hardware facilities, and client organization’s identity and
services (e.g. email, intranet, office space, overheads).

Table 1: A sample set of beneficial pointers from a couple of recent infrastructure projects

Effectiveness of management strategy

(on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being ‘not effective’ and 5 being ‘highly effective’)
Extent of rework
Integrated Project Team building and
Advanced CADD, computer- discovery (%)
Management in co-located relationships
based integration, etc.
Project office
ID
Enhancement

Enhancement

Enhancement
of best value

of best value

of best value
Reduction of

Reduction of

Reduction of

Reduction of

Reduction of

Reduction of

independent
design team
meetings
Interface
changes

changes

changes

reviews
rework

rework

rework

design
Peer/
I 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 4 4 21-30% 21-30%
II 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 4 4 1-10% 11-20%
Note: ‘Project – I’ correspond to preliminary design stage of an infrastructure project and ‘Project – II’ is regarding detailed design
stage of another large infrastructure project.

Overall, the observations from this research on integrated design office usage for the
infrastructure project developments indicate that the total design development time periods in
such projects were more efficiently managed while higher design quality performance was also
achieved. Especially, the co-located design team arrangement enabled timely identification of
design related risks and subsequent fast-tracking of relevant solutions. Moreover, the conflicts
among various disciplines were effectively resolved through the convenient arrangements of
integrated design office settings. Furthermore, more dynamic interactions with the client and
principal stakeholders enabled successful design management outcomes in this case study
projects.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The construction industry is predominantly project based and majority of infrastructure projects
are complex and high value works involving multi-disciplinary teams and diverse stakeholder
interests. Achieving requisite design quality through effective design management is one of the
prime concerns for the project stakeholders including clients and design teams of such projects.
Managing infrastructure developments often involve several complex tasks. The case study
observations from the ongoing research indicated that the co-located collaborative environment
(i.e. in integrated design team offices by housing multi-disciplinary consultants and client
representatives as well as key stakeholders under common office space) facilitated effective
management of project outcomes with harmonious team-working and better informed design
9 

 
decisions. The main rationale to consider an integrated design office arrangement for large/
complex infrastructure projects include: effective design development through efficient
management of time and costs, increased flexibilities, improved design quality, enhanced
constructability potentials, reduced rework and wastages, lesser conflicts and changes, and
optimal project costs. However, the strategic choice of such re-engineered co-location
arrangement of design teams and client representatives in integrated design office for a particular
project should be based on systematic assessment of relevant needs. Moreover, with additional
standardization (e.g. design information), integration (e.g. electronic project management
platforms), promotion (e.g. client-led innovations and top-down management initiatives),
motivation (e.g. bottom-up support) and training the virtual co-location could be effectively
considered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the City University of
Hong Kong (CityU Project No. 7200097), and partially supported by another competitive
earmarked research grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special
Administration Region, China (Project No. 712606). The research team is also grateful for the
valuable knowledge-based contributions from many experts and practitioners who shared their
valuable experiences with the research team. 

REFERENCES
Acharya, N.K., Lee, Y.D., and Kim, J.S. (2006) “Design errors: inefficiency or carelessness of
designer? Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 192-195.
Appelbaum, S.H., and Steed, A.J. (2003) “The critical success factors in the client-consulting
relationship”, Journal of Management Development, 24(1), 68-93.
Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D.F., and Dainty, A.R.J. (2006) “The extent of team integration within
construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, 24, 13-23.
Bayliss, R. (2000) Project Partnering - A Case Study on MTR Corporation Limited's Tseung
Kwan O Extension, Proceedings of the Millennium conference on Construction Project
Management, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, Hong Kong, 1-6.
Bayliss, R., Cheung, S. O., Suen, H. C. H., and Wong, S. P. (2004) “Effective partnering tools in
construction: A case study on MTRC TKE contract 604 in Hong Kong.” International
Journal of Project Management, 22(2), 253–263.
Constructing Excellence (2004) Effective teamwork: A best practice guide for the construction
industry, Constructing Excellence, London, UK.
(Available at: www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/pdf/document/Teamwork_Guide.pdf ).
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking construction. Department of Environment, Transport and Regions,
London, UK.
Egan J. (2002) Accelerating change. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
London, UK.
Espling, U. and Olsson, U. (2004) “Part II. Partnering in a railway infrastructure maintenance
contract: a case study” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 10(4), 248-253.
ETWB (2003) Listing and Selection of AACSB Consultants, Environment, Transport and Works
Bureau Technical Circular (Works) No. 25/2003, Environment, Transport and Works
Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government Secretariat, Hong Kong.

10 

 
ETWB (2007) Consultants’ Performance Information System and Management of Consultants'
Performance, Environment, Transport and Works Bureau Technical Circular (Works)
No. 4/2007, Environment, Transport and Works Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government
Secretariat, Hong Kong.
Fullerton, J., and West, M.A. (1996) “Consultant and client – working together?”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 11(6), 40-49.
Gill, T.J. (2006) “Workplace continuity: how risk and technology will affect facilities strategy”,
Journal of Facilities Management, 4(2) 110-125.
Gorse, C.A., and Emmitt, S. (2007) “Communication behaviour during management and design
team meetings: a comparison of group interaction”, Construction Management and
Economics, 25, 1197-1213.
Humphreys, P., Matthews, J., and Kumarawamy, M. (2003) “Pre-construction project partnering:
from adversarial to collaborative relationships”, Supply Chain Management, 8(2), 166-
178.
Kvan, T. (2000) “Collaborative design: what is it?”, Automation in Construction, 9(4), 409-415.
Larson, E. (1995) “Project partnering: Results of study of 280 construction projects”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, 11(2), 30–35.
Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the team. HMSO, London, UK.
Lee, Y.C. and Gilleard, J.D. (2002) “Collaborative design: a process model for refurbishment”,
Automation in Construction, 11(5), 535-544.
Love, P.E.D., Edwards, D.J., and Irani, Z. (2008) “Forensic project management: An exploratory
examination of the causal behavior of design-induced rework.” IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 55(2), 234-247.
McGeorge, J. F. (1988) Design productivity: Quality problem, Journal of Management in
Engineering, 4(4), 350–362.
McGregor, W. (2000) “The future of workspace management”, Facilities, 18 (3/4), 138-143.
Monczka, R.M., Handfield, R.B., Scannell, T.V., Ragatz, G.L., Frayer, D.J. (2000) New Product
Development, American Society for Quality, Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Monell, D.W., and Piland, W.M. (2000) Äerospace systems design in NASA’s collaborative
engineering environment”, Acta Astronautica, 47(2-9), 255-264.
Moore, D.R., and Dainty, A.R.J. (1999) “Integrated project teams’ performance in managing
unexpected change events”, Team Performance Management, 5(7), 212-222.
Ng, S.T., and Chow, L.K. (2004) “Framework for evaluating the performance of engineering
consultants”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering and Education Practice,
130(4), 280-288.
Palaneeswaran, E., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Rahman, M.M., and Ng, T.S.T. (2003) “Curing
congenital construction industry concerns through relationally integrated supply chains”,
Building and Environment Journal, 38(4), 571-582.
Palaneeswaran, E. Ramanathan, M., and Tam, C.M. (2007) “Rework in projects: Learning from
errors”, Journal of Surveying and Built Environment, 18(2), 47-58.
Palaneeswaran, E., and Ramanathan, M., Love, P.E.D., and Tam, C.M. (2008) “Design audits in
construction projects – A Hong Kong perspective”, Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Forensic Engineering 2008 – From Failure to
Understanding, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK, 2-4 December 2008, 10
pages.

11 

 
 Perry, M., and Sanderson, D. (1998) “Coordinating joint design work: the role of communication
and artefacts”, Design Studies, 19, 273-288.
Rahman, M.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (2008) “Relational contracting and teambuilding:
assessing potential contractual and noncontractual incentives”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, 11(2), 30–35.
Schueller, A. And Basson, A. H. (2001) “A framework for distributed conceptual design”, In:
Design Management – Process and Information Issues, 13th International Conference on
Engineering Design, August 21-23, 2001, Editors: Culley, S., Duffey, A., McMahon, C.,
and Wallace, K., Professional Engineering Publishing, Glasgow.
Sharifi, S., and Pawar, K. (2002) “Virtually co-located product design teams”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(6), 656-679.
Spence, R., Kirby, P. & Macmillan, S. (2001) Interdisciplinary Design in Practice, Thomas
Telford, London, UK.
Sweet, R. (2008) “The T5 effect”, International Construction Review – icon, CIOB International,
02 Quarter 2008, 10-14.
Tang, H. (2001) Construct for Excellence. Report of the Construction Industry Review
Committee, The Printing Department, Government of Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong.
Walker, D.H.T., Hampson, K., and Peters, R. (2000) “Project alliancing and project partnering –
what’s the difference? Partner selection on the Australian National Museum project – A
case study.” Proceedings of the CIB W92 Procurement Systems Symposium on
Information and Communication in Construction Procurement. Santiago, Chile. Edited
by Serpell, A. 2000; 641-655.
WB (1999) Selection and Remuneration of Engineering and Associated Consultants – Revisions
to Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 16/95, Works Bureau, Hong Kong SAR
Government Secretariat, Hong Kong.
Wolstenholme, A. “Adding value through innovation.” Keynote address at the 1st International
Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction. Loughborough
University, Loughborough, UK. 2001.

12 

View publication stats