An Empirical Analysis of Building Projects
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EFFECTIVE USE OF INTEGRATION MECHANISMS FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF BUILDING PROJECTS By Emily Rose Dodd B.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Los Angeles Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 1999 @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Signature of Author Department fivil and Environmental Engineering May 7, 1999 Certified by ... ------I----- .......... E. Sarah Slaughter Assistant Pro ss of Cilil and Environmental Engineering "t . I AThesis Supervisor Accepted by ..................................................................... Andrew J. Whittle Chairman. DeDartmental Committee on Graduate Studies 2 EFFECTIVE USE OF INTEGRATION MECHANISMS FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF BUILDING PROJECTS By Emily Rose Dodd Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT This research was pursued to study the relationship between construction project complexity and project team integration. Construction projects exhibit several dimensions of complexity, including building system complexity, site complexity, and project complexity. It was shown that project teams could work more effectively if these complexities are identified and an appropriate mechanism for integration is implemented. The study began with the identification of the specific dimensions of complexity that are relevant to design and construction, and the definition of integration mechanisms that can be used by project teams. It was expected that high complexity requires high levels of integration, except when familiarity and high levels of trust exist within the project team. Low levels of complexity do not require integration. Using the dimensions of complexity and the measures of integration, this theory was tested through the in-depth study of seventeen building projects. This empirical study was conducted through the use of detailed personal interviews of critical participants of building projects in Southern California. Four types of buildings were used in the seventeen detailed case studies: Medical/ Laboratory, Institutional, Office, and Other. This research was compared to a set of twenty-five general case studies, taken from information gathered from journal articles. The results of this study reflected four trends. First, the function and purpose of a building determines its critical systems. Second, knowledge of and confidence in the capabilities of specialists reduces the need for formal interaction, particularly for intra-system complexities. Third, complexities related to the physical aspects of design and construction, such as site logistics, are best solved through coordination. Fourth, complexities related to informational aspects of design and construction, including functional relationships between systems and project objectives, are best solved through collaboration. These findings provide the knowledge needed both to identify the types of complexity that will be encountered in specific building projects, and to provide guidance in the choice of the most effective form of project integration. Thesis Supervisor: E. Sarah Slaughter Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering 3 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Professor Slaughter has my sincere gratitude for her generous inputs of time, effort, and ideas. Her passion for research and her love of construction has been an inspiration to me throughout my education at MIT. Many thanks to the National Science Foundation and to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering for sponsoring my educational experience at MIT. This support has allowed me to pursue my many interests in design and construction, especially building systems integration, project team dynamics, and construction management. I am also truly grateful to the many members of the construction industry who contributed to this research. The list of people that I want to thank is extensive, but so was the knowledge and inspiration that I gained. My appreciation to: David Vadman, Gino Polizzotto, Caryn Cowin, and Randy Hartman of Bovis Construction Group; Kevin Smith, Jeff Lucas, Brett Firebaugh, and Joe Sanders of Charles Pankow Builders; Craig Smith, Magdalen Hron, Bill Quade, and Fred Gans of DMJM; Jay Leopold, John Foran, and Russell Hamilton of DPR Construction; and Terry Dooley, Joe Didone, Jeremy Dominik, Bob Morrison, and Tod Howard of Morley Builders. Additional thanks to Terry Dooley for giving me the opportunity to be a member of the Morley team on the Los Angeles Cathedral Project and to Jay Leopold for inspiring me to philosophize about the future of the construction industry. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the people most dear to me. Mom, Dad, Joanna, Cecile, and Li, are the greatest blessings of my life. Their love and faith in me has helped me to find the strength to excel and to meet whatever challenges the world has in store for me. 5 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................13 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION.............................................................17 2.1 COMPLEXITY .......................................................................................................................... 18 2.1.1 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................. 18 2.1.1.1 Structure..................................................................................................................... 20 2.1.1.2 Eff ort .......................................................................................................................... 22 2.1.2 COMPLEXITY TOPICS SPECIFIC TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ....... 23 2.1.2.1 Buildings as Complex Systems ............................................................................... 23 2.1.2.2 Construction and the Modes of Complexity .......................................................... 24 2.1.3 MECHANISMS TO MANAGE COMPLEXITY ........................................................ 29 2.1.3.1 Specialization........... .. .. ................................................... 29 2.1.3.2 HierarchicalOrganization...................................................................................... 29 2.1.3.3 Architecture Reorganization................................................................................... 29 2.1.3.4 Early Communication ............................................................................................ 30 2.1.3.5 ConcurrentDesign................................................................................................. 30 2.2 INTEGRATION......................................................................................................................... 31 2.2.1 THE INTEGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE................................................................. 31 2.2.2 INTEGRATION TOPICS SPECIFIC TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION....... 33 2.2.2.1 Common Forms of Integration............................................................................... 33 2.2.2.2 The Physical and FunctionalIntegration of Systems............................................. 34 2.2.3 INCENTIVES FOR INTEGRATION.......................................................................... 37 2.2.4 MECHANISMS TO ACHIEVE INTEGRATION...................................................... 38 2.2.4.1 Information Technology .......................................................................................... 38 2.2.4.2 Relationships.............................................................................................................. 38 2.2.4.3 Common Goals ....................................................................................................... 38 2.2.4.4 Common Knowledge .............................................................................................. 39 2.2.4.5 Repeated Tasks........................................................................................................... 39 2.2.4.6 OrganizationalStructure ....................................................................................... 39 2.2.4.7 Appropriate Choice of Integration........................................................................ 40 2.3 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 41 CHAPTER 3: FRAMEW ORK.........................................................................................................43 3.1 GOAL OF RESEARCH ............................................................................................................. 43 3.2 VARIABLES AND MEASURES.............................................................................................. 44 3.2.1 COMPLEXITY ................................................................................................................ 44 3.2.1.1 Measures of ConstructionProject Complexity ...................................................... 44 3.2.2 INTEGRATION ............................................................................................................... 48 3.2.2.1 IntegrationMechanisms.......................................................................................