Advertisement

Axiomatic design framework for changeability in design for construction projects

  • S. P. Sreenivas PadalaEmail author
  • J. Uma Maheswari
Original Paper
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

An approach to deal with changing requirements of construction projects is to develop a design that will have the ability to undergo various changes easily. Projects must be designed not only to meet client requirements, but also to meet requirements of construction, operation and throughout their entire project lifecycle. Hence, this paper introduces a modeling method that seeks to incorporate the changeability in designs of construction projects. The proposed method builds on Axiomatic Design approach to eliminate unnecessary changes due to requirements conflicts and to detect necessary changes throughout the project lifecycle. The results of this study indicate that changeability can be incorporated in the early stages of the project by analyzing relationships between functional requirements and design parameters. Changeability can be achieved when any change in functional requirement can be satisfied by a change in the design parameter independently or sequentially. Two construction projects—underground metro and hotel building are used as a case study to elaborate on how the method can be applied.

Keywords

Changeability Changeable design Design change Axiomatic design Functional requirements 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adams, K. M. (2015). Design methodologies. Nonfunctional requirements in systems analysis and design (Vol. 28, pp. 15–43)., Topics in safety, risk, reliability and quality Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Anees, M. M., Mohamed, H. E., & Abdel Razek, M. E. (2013). Evaluation of change management efficiency of construction contractors. HBRC Journal, 9(1), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becerril, L., Sauer, M., & Lindemann, U. (2016). Estimating the effects of Engineering Changes in early stage product development. In Proceedings of the 18th International Dependency and Structure Modeling Conference, São Paulo, pp. 125–135.Google Scholar
  4. Bureau of Indian Standards. (2000). IS 456: 2000—plain and reinforced concrete—code and practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  5. Chua, D. K. H., & Hossain, M. A. (2012). Predicting change propagation and impact on design schedule due to external changes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(3), 483–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarkson, P. J., Simons, C., & Eckert, C. (2004). Predicting change propagation in complex design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 126(5), 788–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, I. D., Morris, J. P., Rogerson, J. H., & Jared, G. E. (1999). A quantitative study of post contract award design changes in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 17(4), 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ElMaraghy, H., & AlGeddawy, T. (2015). A methodology for modular and changeable design architecture and application in automotive framing systems. Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(12), 121403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erdogan, B., Anumba, C., Bouchlaghem, D., & Nielsen, Y. (2005). Change Management in Construction: The Current Context. 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, London, pp. 1085–1095.Google Scholar
  10. Foith-Förster, P., Wiedenmann, M., Seichter, D., & Bauernhansl, T. (2016). Axiomatic approach to flexible and changeable production system design. Procedia CIRP, 53, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fricke, E., Gebhard, B., Negele, H., & Igenbergs, E. (2000). Coping with changes: causes, findings and strategies. Systems Engineering, 3(4), 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fricke, E., & Schulz, A. P. (2005). Design for changeability (DfC): principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle. Systems Engineering, 8(4), 342–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giffin, M., de Weck, O., Bounova, G., Keller, R., Eckert, C., & Clarkson, P. J. (2009). Change propagation analysis in complex technical systems. Journal of Mechanical Design, 131(8), 81001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gil, N., Tommelein, I. D., & Schruben, L. W. (2006). External change in large engineering design projects: the role of the client. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(3), 426–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamraz, B., Caldwell, N. H. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2011). A holistic categorization framework for literature on engineering change management. Systems Engineering, 14(3), 305–326.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Isaac, S., & Navon, R. (2013). A graph-based model for the identification of the impact of design changes. Automation in Construction, 31, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jarratt, T. A. W., Eckert, C. M., Caldwell, N. H. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2011). Engineering change: an overview and perspective on the literature. Research in Engineering Design, 22(2), 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiviniemi, A. (2005). Requirements management interface to building product models. Ph.D. Thesis. VTT Publications, pp 328.Google Scholar
  19. Koh, E. C. Y., Caldwell, N. H. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2012). A method to assess the effects of engineering change propagation. Research in Engineering Design, 23(4), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koh, E. C. Y., Caldwell, N. H. M., & John Clarkson, P. (2013). A technique to assess the changeability of complex engineering systems. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(7), 477–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Love, P. E. D., Frani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). A rework reduction model for construction projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(4), 426–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Love, P. E. D., Holt, G. D., Shen, L. Y., Li, H., & Irani, Z. (2002). Using systems dynamics to better understand change and rework in construction project management systems. International Journal of Project Management, 20(6), 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mindess, S., & Young, F. (1981). Concrete. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Morkos, B., Shankar, P., & Summers, J. D. (2012). Predicting requirement change propagation, using higher order design structure matrices: an industry case study. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(12), 902–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mosallam, K., Chen, W. F. (1990). Design considerations for formwork in multistorey concrete buildings. Engineering structures, 12(3), 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ross, A. M., Rhodes, D. H., & Hastings, D. E. (2008). Defining changeability: reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability, and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value. Systems Engineering, 11(3), 246–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Song, Y., & Chua, D. K. H. (2006). Modeling of functional construction requirements for constructability analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(12), 1314–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suh, N. P. (1990). The principles of design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Suh, N. P. (2001). Axiomatic design: advances and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sun, M., Fleming, A., Senaratne, S., Motawa, I., & Yeoh, M. (2006). A change management toolkit for construction projects. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2(4), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sun, M., & Meng, X. (2009). Taxonomy for change causes and effects in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6), 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tate, D. (1999). A roadmap for decomposition: activities, theories, and tools for system design. Ph.D. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp 210.Google Scholar
  33. Terwiesch, C., & Loch, C. (1999). Managing the process of engineering change orders: the case of the climate control system in automobile development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(2), 160–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ullah, I., Tang, D., Wang, Q., & Yin, L. (2017). Least Risky change propagation path analysis in product design process. Systems Engineering, 20(4), 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ullah, I., Tang, D., Wang, Q., Yin, L., & Hussain, I. (2018). Managing engineering change requirements during the product development process. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, 26(2), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weck, O. De. (2007). On the role of DSM in designing systems and products for changeability. In Proceedings of 9th International DSM Conference, Munich, Germany, pp. 311–323.Google Scholar
  37. Wiendahl, H. P., ElMaraghy, H. A., Nyhuis, P., Zäh, M. F., Wiendahl, H. H., Duffie, N., et al. (2007). Changeable manufacturing—classification, design and operation. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology, 56(2), 783–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu, C. H., Hsieh, T. Y., & Cheng, W. L. (2005). Statistical analysis of causes for design change in highway construction on Taiwan. International Journal of Project Management, 23(7), 554–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Yu, A. T. W., & Shen, G. Q. P. (2013). Problems and solutions of requirements management for construction projects under the traditional procurement systems. Facilities, 31(5), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations