An empirical study of the complexity of requirements management in construction projects

Abstract

Purpose -The aim of this paper was to investigate in-depth the current approach of managing client requirements in construction and to highlight the significant factors, which contribute to the complexity of managing the requirements in order to define a better approach.Design/methodology/approach -A case study of a leading international global built asset and engineering consultancy organization was conducted over two years. The case study was conducted principally using semi-participant observations supplemented with other qualitative data collection methods (i.e., interviews, questionnaires and document analysis). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.Findings -The results highlight major factors associated with the complexity of managing client requirements information, which include: mechanisms for documentation, storage and access, distribution of requirements information between stakeholders and across lifecycle phases of a project, traceability management and the provision of effective change management incorporating dependency checking and impact analysis.Research limitations/implications -The main limitation of the research is the use of an in-depth study of a single organization, which applied the same project management method across all the projects they managed. Further work is planned to develop the proposed framework fully, and develop a software prototype to operationalize and evaluate its industrial applicability with construction projects.Practical implications -The implications of this research is that a better approach to managing requirements information is needed, which will facilitate the design, construction and operations of buildings within budget and time. An integrated framework and an associated tool are suggested to implement the approach.Originality/value -This study identifies major research gaps and problems in the AEC/FM industry; proposes and presents eRIM framework to facilitate lifecycle management of the requirements.

Requirements processing for building design: a systematic review

“…Usually they are associated with the construction of the brief, not considering the whole design process and even less the whole project life cycle. Requirements are open to changes and the RM activities should enable such changes to be evaluated and implemented (Jallow et al, 2014). We have found lack of guidelines on how they could be continuously performed without losing the track of the requirements.…”

“…Jallow et al, 2014), most of the researches poorly considered all of them. Usually they are associated with the construction of the brief, not considering the whole design process and even less the whole project life cycle.…”

“…Concerning the first one, it is basically due to the high number of stakeholders (Jallow et al, 2014) and the poor definition of the project's objectives and priorities Rezgui et al, 2003). Concerning the second one, the lack of channels and common language are recurrent problems that hinder the communication between stakeholders (Jallow et al, 2014) and it causes many avoidable losses in time, budget and value generation Shen et al, 2013;Jallow et al, 2014). The open communication was the most important factor according to a survey with specialists that indicated thirty-seven critical factors for the success of the briefing process .…”

“…We have found lack of guidelines on how they could be continuously performed without losing the track of the requirements. Kamara & Anumba, 2001a;Yu et al, 2006;Soetanto et al, 2006;Jensen, 2011;Elf et al, 2012;Yu & Shen, 2013;Jallow et al, 2014).…”

“…For most of the authors who use the term "briefing", this is assumed as a process of identification, articulation, definition and registration of design requirements that takes place in the initial stages of the project, such as the planning and preliminary studies (Luo et al, 2011;Yu & Shen, 2013). However, some authors state that briefing occurs dynamically throughout design, construction and through-life of a facility (Luck et al, 2001;Othman et al, 2004;Jensen, 2011;Jallow et al, 2014), a position which is more similar to the SE view.…”