2011 Membina semula persekitaran pembela

PROCEEDINGS OF 1 ST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONDUCIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR SMART SCHOOL

(CLES) 2011

Main Organizer

Conducive Learning Environment for Smart School Research Group, UKM

Building Performance & Diagnostic Research Group, UM

Co-Organizer

Kampus Lestari Research Group, UKM Low-Energy Architecture Research Group, UKM Eco-Urbanscape Research Group, UKM Building Surveying Division, ISM School Of Housing, Building & Planning, USM Department Of Building Surveying, UiTM

Publishing Officers: Hafsah Othman

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Norliyana Mohd Fadilah

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Nurul Syuhada Spalie

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Published By Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor, MALAYSIA Email: kjsb@vlsi.eng.ukm.my

National Library of Malaysia Catalguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the National Library of Malaysia

1 st international symposium on conducive learning environment for smart school (CLES) 2011

ISBN 978-967-5878-26-8

All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the Publishers or a licence permitting restricted copying in the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia dan Universiti Malaya.

Printed in Malaysia by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, MALAYSIA

EDITOR

N.Utaberta N.M.Tawil

A.S.Ali S.N.Kamaruzzaman

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

SCIENTIFIC COMMITEE

A.I. Che-Ani (UKM) M.M. Tahir (UKM) N.A. Goh (UKM) N. Hamzah (UKM) N.M. Salleh (UM) L. Chi-Hin (UM) L.C.Hsia (UM) L.P. Wah (UM) M.Y. Yuzainee (UNITEN) R. Sulaiman (UM) S.A.F.Al-Zawawi (UM)

PREFACE

Conducive learning environment is pertinent in generating critical thinking, be it from the early stages of learning up to tertiary level of education. Developing an institution with a holistic Conducive Learning Environment in mind is not easy. The development of the learning environment should be examined in terms of the environment, master planning, space planning and design elements as well as operating assets and buildings. This will create a school which takes into account the overall environment and ensure the health interests and excellent well being of its students. This symposium is organized by the Conducive Learning Environment for Smart School (CLES) research group of the Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment of UKM. It intends to uphold and generate the development of knowledge in conducive learning environment for Malaysia and the world.

The conference itself tries to gather and share different view and understanding of studies and research among academician, architect, consultants, developers, engineers, government officer, local authorities, manufacturers, politicians, project manager, students, surveyors and all those interested in one day seminar and conference in order to:

1. To provide formal communication platform and publication to the members of the international researchers who have aspiration about Smart School.

2. To disseminate knowledge that related with the development of learning environment for smart school to the local and overseas research community.

3. To empower the research collaboration between members of the group with another researchers within and outside UKM.

4. Empowering the research network for smart school with the local and overseas universities.

It is expected that from this ‗conducive‘ platform, the idea, exploration and discussion will initiate a better paradigm, explore different point of view and open a healthy dialogue towards a

better learning environment of teaching and learning in the future.

Sr. Dr. Adi Irfan Che Ani

Chairman of CLES 2011

Factors Affecting Students‘ Performance In Calculus

B. Faridah, M.Y.Yuzainee, A. R.Fadhilah ……………………………….…………..……….........…128

Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Pelajar Dalam Memilih Universiti: Kajian Kes M.Y.Yuzainee, A.R.Fadhilah, B.Faridah.....................................................................................134

Pembangunan Kriteria Pemeriksaan Ruang Tandas Bangunan Institusi Pengajian Berdasarkan Enam Piawaian Pemeriksaan Bangunan

A.R.M. Nasir, A.I. Che-Ani, N.M. Tawil, M.M. Tahir, N.A.G. Abdullah.....................................148

Mendefinisikan Semula Rekabentuk Pembelajaran Di Luar Kelas Di Malaysia: Pengajaran Dari Pendekatan-Pendekatan Frank Llyod Wright Dalam Penyusunan Ruang Dan Landskap. N.Utaberta, N.Spalie, N.A.G.Abdullah, M.M.Tahir ………………………………….………....…..156

Analysis of Lighting Performance During Summer Equinox Between Single Dome and Pyramid Roof Mosque in Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina. A.S. Hassan, Y .Arab …..………………………………………….……………………………………..163

Pengembangan Sebuah Ruang Kelas Belajar Serta Aplikasi Learning by Doing di Sekolah High Scope Indonesia A.Setiawan ………………………………………………………………………………………….……..176

An Alternative Design for A Smart School A.H.Abdullah, S.S.Zubir …………………………………………………………...…………………….182

AUTHOR INDEXS

PROCEEDINGS

1 ST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONDUCIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR SMART SCHOOL (CLES) 2011

Management of Change in Singapore’s Programme for Rebuilding and Improving Existing (PRIME) Schools

L.S.Pheng PhD, FCIOB Professor, Department of Building School of Design and Environment National University of Singapore

Abstract

The rationale behind PRIME to upgrade and improve existing schools in Singapore to keep up with rapid changes in info-com technology (ICT) and to provide a more conducive learning and work environment for the stakeholders, namely the students and the teachers, is presented in this paper. The study highlights the key components of PRIME and underscores the causes of variations that may occur in both the design and construction stages in the school building projects. The effects of the variations made in the PRIME school building projects will be presented, together with a checklist of the corresponding controls to manage these variations that may occur during the: (1) Design stage; (2) Construction stage; and (3) Design-construction interface. Finally, the paper will present the most important causes, their frequent effects and effective controls for managing change orders in the PRIME school building projects in Singapore.

Keywords: School buildings, Singapore, PRIME, Change management

1.0 Introduction

Construction projects are complex because they involve many human and non-human factors and variables. They usually have long duration, various uncertainties, and complex relationships among the participants. The need to make changes in a construction project is a matter of practical reality. Even the most thoughtfully planned project may necessitate changes due to various factors (O‘Brien, 1998).

The high living standards have generated many manufacturing and building employment opportunities in global construction industry. The growth of towns has accelerated as a result of high population growth. Large and complex projects have been built, attracting contractors from all over the world. Most of these contractors appear to lack a sufficient understanding of the social, cultural and physical environment (Dulaimi and Hwa, 2001). This situation, coupled with inexperienced owners, has led to inadequate designs resulting in many changes to plans, specifications and contract terms.

Changes are inevitable in any construction project (Mokhtar, et al., 2000). Needs of the owner may change in the course of design or construction, market conditions may impose changes to the parameters of the project, and technological developments may alter the design

and the choice of the engineer. The engineer‘s review of the design may bring about changes to improve or optimize the design and hence the operations of the project. Furthermore, errors and omissions in engineering or construction may force a change. All these factors and many others

necessitate changes that are costly and generally un-welcomed by all parties.

Consideration must be given from the initial stages (inception) of the project until commissioning. Contractual provision is required to define the conduct of owner, consultant and contractor to participate in and manage changes. Systematic and proper procedures must be set in place to process a change from conceptual development until it materializes in the field. The reality is that an adverse environment exists among parties in the construction industry. Changes could be perceived as positive or negative to the preconceived goals of the professionals involved in a project. Therefore, a major change must be managed and handled professionally in order to minimize its cost, schedule and consequential impacts that may divert the project away from its targeted goals.

To identify and analyze potential changes that could happen in a project as early as possible can enhance the management of projects. Learning from these changes is imperative because the professionals can improve and apply their experience in the future.

2.0 Thinking School, Learning Nation Through Prime

The only resource which Singapore has its people. Hence, education is an important component in Singapore‘s economic development plans. The government‘s vision for ―Thinking School, Learning Nation‖ is to prepare the young citizens of Singapore to face future challenges in an

increasingly globalized world. For this purpose, certain basic fundamentals must first be put in place. In addition to committed and well trained teachers, the education system must be supported by excellent school facilities to create a physically conducive environment for the learning journey.

Many of the primary and secondary schools (both government and aided) in Singapore were some 20 to 30 years old about the time when this vision was articulated. The government of Singapore, through the Ministry of Education (MOE), initiated the Programme for Rebuilding and Improving Existing Schools (PRIME) in 1999 to ensure that the new generation of Singaporeans would get the best opportunities to equip themselves with the information technology (IT) available. The new and upgraded facilities will include computer laboratories, media resource libraries, IT learning resource rooms, IT networking for the entire school, pastoral care rooms and health and fitness rooms. Teachers and students can also look forward to bigger classrooms and staff-rooms, and more interaction areas. The emphasis on IT is also in line with the Master Plan 1 for IT in Education that was formulated by the MOE in the mid-1990s (Mokhtar, Foo and Majid, 2007).

Schools that were built before 1997 will either be rebuilt or upgraded. Upgrading works involve construction of extension blocks and alteration of existing school buildings. Rebuilding works involve the construction of entirely new buildings. Construction in PRIME is carried out in phases, and the selection of schools for PRIME is determined by the age and state of the school physical facilities as well as the availability and suitability of sites for this purpose. In summary, PRIME is carried out based on: (1) On-site rebuilding and upgrading, (2) Relocation, and (3) Mergers, as appropriate (Source: Ministry of Education, Singapore at www.moe.edu.sg/initiative/prime retrieved on 27 April 2010). Over a period of seven years from 1999 to 2005, MOE invested some S$4.46 billion to either rebuild or upgrade some 290 existing schools. Under PRIME, a new primary school building can expect to house some 2500 pupils Schools that were built before 1997 will either be rebuilt or upgraded. Upgrading works involve construction of extension blocks and alteration of existing school buildings. Rebuilding works involve the construction of entirely new buildings. Construction in PRIME is carried out in phases, and the selection of schools for PRIME is determined by the age and state of the school physical facilities as well as the availability and suitability of sites for this purpose. In summary, PRIME is carried out based on: (1) On-site rebuilding and upgrading, (2) Relocation, and (3) Mergers, as appropriate (Source: Ministry of Education, Singapore at www.moe.edu.sg/initiative/prime retrieved on 27 April 2010). Over a period of seven years from 1999 to 2005, MOE invested some S$4.46 billion to either rebuild or upgrade some 290 existing schools. Under PRIME, a new primary school building can expect to house some 2500 pupils

Given the massive capital investments in PRIME projects, important consideration must be given to budgetary and costs controls. Part of this important consideration relates to how costs may be better controlled through an effective system for managing change in the design and construction phases of the PRIME projects.

3.0 Management Of Change

Change orders are an unwanted, but inevitable reality of every construction project (Clough and Sears, 1994; O‘Brien, 1998; Mokhtar, et al., 2000). Construction projects are bound to encounter

change orders; the goal of the owner, design or construction manager is to limit the number of such changes (CII, 1994a; Ibbs, 1997). Proper management of change orders is very significant for all types of construction projects. Changes in drawings and contract documents usually lead to a change in contract price or contract schedule. Change also increases the possibility of contractual disputes. Conventionally, changes present problems to all the parties involved in the construction process.

Mendelsohn (1997) observed that probably 75% of the problems encountered on site were generated at the design phase. This is not to say that contractors do not create a slew of problems of their own but that these problems were often compounded by inherent design flaws. If one were to seriously consider ways to reduce problems on site, an obvious place to begin with is to focus on what the project team can do to eliminate these problems at the design phase.

There are many reasons for issuing construction change order in the construction process. It can be a result of the non-availability or slow delivery of required materials or the correction of contract document errors and omissions (Thomas, 1990). Identifying the causes of change orders is very important in order to avoid potential changes in future projects or to minimize their effects.

The construction process is influenced by highly changing variables and unpredictable factors that could result from different sources (Zipf, 1998). These sources include the performance of construction parties, resources availability, environmental conditions, involvement of other parties and contractual relations. As a consequence of these sources, the construction of projects may face problems which could cause delay in the project completion time (Clough and Sears, 1994).

Kumaraswamy, et al. (1998) studied claims for extension of time due to excusable delays in Hong Kong‘s civil engineering projects. Their findings suggested that 15-20% time over run was mainly caused by inclement weather. 50% of the projects surveyed were delayed because of

changes.

Kaming, et al. (1997) studied the factors influencing construction time and cost over runs for high rise projects in Indonesia where 31 project managers working in high rise buildings were surveyed. Kaming, et al. (1997) pointed out that the major factors influencing cost overrun were material cost increase due to inflation, inaccurate material estimating and the degree of project complexity. In the case of time over run, the most important factors that caused delays were design changes, poor labor productivity, inadequate planning and resource shortage.

The magnitude of schedule average slippage due to changes was reported as 18% (CII, 1990a; Burati, et al., 1992; Zeitoun and Oberlender, 1993, Kumaraswamy, et al., 1998). The deviation (change) cost amounted to an average of 14% of the total cost of the project (CII, 1990a; Burati, et al., 1992; Zeitoun and Oberlender, 1993). Although there have been cases where change cost accounted for as high as 100% of the budgeted funds, the industry norm of this percentage was about 10%. The impact of changes varies from one project to another. However, it is generally accepted that the changes affect the construction projects with unpalatable consequences in time and cost (CII, 1986; CII, 1988; Hester, et al., 1991; Moselhi, et al., 1991; Barrie and Paulson, 1992; CII, 1994a; Ehrenreich-Hansen, 1994; Ibbs, et al., 1998; Mokhtar, et al., 1997; Mokhtar, et al., 2000; Ibbs, et al., 2001).

Changes are common in all types of construction projects (CII, 1994a; Fisk, 1997; O‘Brien, 1998; Ibbs, et al., 2001). The nature and frequency of changes occurrence vary from one project to another depending on various factors (CII, 1986a; Kaming, et al., 1997). Changes in construction projects can cause substantial adjustment to the contract duration, total direct and indirect costs, or both (Tiong, 1990; Odell, 1995; Ibbs, 1997a; Ibbs, et al., 1998). Therefore, project management teams must have the ability to respond to changes effectively in order to minimize their adverse impact to the project.

Great concerns have been expressed in recent years regarding the impact of changes in construction projects. As mentioned briefly in the previous section, changes are frequent in construction projects and can cause considerable adjustments to the project time, cost and quality. The causes of change orders are greatly varied, thus making the task of change management difficult for most clients. However, the undesirable situation can be minimized as long as a mechanism for handling change orders and making more informed decisions based on the past projects can be understood and built into project management.

The litmus test for successful management should not be whether the project was free of change orders, but rather, if change orders were resolved in a timely manner to the benefit of all the parties and the project. A clearer view of the causes and their impacts and controls will enable the project team to take advantage of beneficial changes when the opportunity arises without an inordinate fear of negative impacts. Eventually, a clearer and comprehensive view of causes, their effects and potential controls based on past projects will assist the project team to learn from past experiences and to make more informed decisions for effective management of The litmus test for successful management should not be whether the project was free of change orders, but rather, if change orders were resolved in a timely manner to the benefit of all the parties and the project. A clearer view of the causes and their impacts and controls will enable the project team to take advantage of beneficial changes when the opportunity arises without an inordinate fear of negative impacts. Eventually, a clearer and comprehensive view of causes, their effects and potential controls based on past projects will assist the project team to learn from past experiences and to make more informed decisions for effective management of

Learning from the changes is very important because the professionals could improve and apply their experience in the future (Ibbs, et al., 2001; Arain, 2005a). In cases where professionals leave the organization, the project experience continues to reside within the individual professionals. In the absence of an established and organized knowledge-base of past similar projects, the professional teams would face problems in planning effectively before starting a project, during the design phase as well as during the construction phase to minimize and control changes and their effects. Hence, a comprehensive system for consolidating decisions made on past similar projects is highly recommended.

4.0 Knowledge Gap in Change Management

There have been many research studies in the area of change orders. Most researchers have looked at the classification of changes (Thomas and Napolitan, 1994; Yu, 1996; Fisk, 1997; Hsieh, et al., 2004), classification of change originators (CII, 1990a; Burati, et al., 1992; Thomas and Napolitan, 1994), constitutional aspects, for instance, contract change, clause interpretation, contractual administration of changes and substantiation of change claims (Ashly and Mathews, 1986; Ibbs, et al., 1986; Hester, et al., 1991; Krone, 1991; Diekmann and Kim, 1992; Cox, 1997; Hsieh, et al., 2004), cost related aspects, for instance, quantitative studies on the productivity factor in change and its impact and magnitude of the impact (Ibbs, et al., 1986; CII, 1990a; Hester, et al., 1991; Burati, et al., 1992; Zeitoun and Oberlender, 1993; Thomas and Napolitan, 1994, 1995; Ibbs, et al., 1998) and costing and valuation of changes (Hester, et al., 1991; Thomas and Napolitan, 1994; CII, 1990a). In the context of Singapore‘s construction industry, a notable study on the causes and improvement for quality problems in design and build projects was carried out by Geok (2002).

The issue concerning changes has received much attention in the literature. Despite many articles and much discussion in practice and academic literature, an in-depth and holistic view of causes, their effects and controls for changes for making timely and more informed decisions for effective management of change orders was not well represented in the literature. A clearer view of the causes and their impacts on the projects will enable the project team to take advantage of beneficial changes. Eventually, a clearer and comprehensive view of the causes, their effects and potential controls will result in informed decisions for effective management of change orders.

In view of the transfer and acquisition of construction knowledge and experience, a Decision Support System (DSS) can help to conserve the knowledge and experience and make these more widely, easily and quickly available for assisting in the decision making process (Alkass, et al., 1992; Turban and Aronson, 2000; Arain, 2008). The decision aid can also facilitate the knowledge acquisition process once it has acquired the necessary construction knowledge and experience and transferred these into a usable form (McCoy and Levary, 1988). The decision aid In view of the transfer and acquisition of construction knowledge and experience, a Decision Support System (DSS) can help to conserve the knowledge and experience and make these more widely, easily and quickly available for assisting in the decision making process (Alkass, et al., 1992; Turban and Aronson, 2000; Arain, 2008). The decision aid can also facilitate the knowledge acquisition process once it has acquired the necessary construction knowledge and experience and transferred these into a usable form (McCoy and Levary, 1988). The decision aid

5.0 Fundamentals of Changes

A change order is a written order to the contractor signed by the owner and issued after execution of the contract, authorizing a change in the work or an adjustment in the contract sum or the contract time (Clough and Sears, 1994; Fisk, 1997).

The term ―change‖ shall mean any change in the original contract intention as deduced from the contract as a whole describing or defining the works to be carried out and shall include but is

not restricted to:

a) An increase or decrease in the quantity of any part of the work.

b) An addition to or omission from the works.

c) A change in the character, quality or nature of any part of the works.

d) A change in the levels, lines, positions and dimensions of any part of the works.

e) The demolition of or removal of any part of the works no longer described by the employer of the superintending officer.

f) A requirement to complete the works or any phase or part by a date earlier than the relevant time for completion.

Functionally, a change order accomplishes after execution of the agreement what the specifications addenda do prior to bid opening (see Figure 1), except that an accompanying price change may be involved in a change order. A price change would not necessarily always be in

the contractor‘s favor; it could also be in the form of a cash credit to the owner, or it may involve no price change at all (Fisk, 1997). It is the standard practice in construction contracts to allow

the owner the right to make changes in the work after the contract has been signed and during the construction period.

Changes by Addenda

No Changes

Changes by VO

Figure 1 Changes through project phases (Fisk, 1997)

6.0 Causes, Effects a nd Controls f or Change Orders

The need to make changes in a construction project is a matter of practical reality. Even the most thoughtfully planned project may necessitate changes due to various reasons (O‘Brien, 1998). To overcome the problems associated with changes to a project, the project team must be able to

effectively analyze the change and its immediate and downstream effects (CII, 1994a).

Potential Causes of Change Orders

An effective analysis of changes and change orders requires a comprehensive understanding of the root causes of changes (Hester, et al., 1991). Hence, 53 causes of change orders were identified. As shown in Figure 2, the causes of changes were grouped under four categories: Owner related changes, Consultant related changes, Contractor related changes and Other changes. These groups assisted in developing a comprehensive enumeration of the potential causes of changes.

Potential Effects of Change Orders

Effects of changes were observed by many researchers (CII, 1986; CII, 1990; CII, 1994; Thomas and Napolitan, 1995; Ibbs, et al., 1998, Arain and Low, 2005c). The 16 potential effects identified from the literature review are shown in Figure 3. These will also form the basis for the survey of the professionals described later.

Controls for Change Orders

Controls for changes and change orders have been suggested by many researchers (Mokhtar, et al. , 2000; Ibbs, et al., 2001; Arain and Low, 2003). 30 controls have been identified from the literature review. These will also form the basis for the survey of the professionals later. The controls were grouped under three categories: Design stage, Construction stage and Design- Construction interface stage as shown in Figure 4. These groups assisted in developing a comprehensive enumeration of potential controls for change orders.

Figure 2 Causes of variation orders grouped under four categories

Causes of variation orders

D. Other variations

A. Owner related

B. Consultant

C. Contractor

variations

related variations

related variations

D.1 Weather scope by owner

A.1 Change of plans or

B.1 Change in design by

C.1 Lack of contract or’s

condition

consultants

involvement in design

D.2 Safety by owner

A.2 Change of schedule

B.2 Errors and

equipment

C.2 Unavailability of

omissions in design

considerations

D.3 Change in govt. problems

A.3 Owner’s financial

B.3 Conflicts between

skills

C.3 Unavailability of

regulations A.4 Inadequate

contract documents

C.4

D.4 Change in economic project objectives

B.4 Inadequate scope of

financial difficulties

Contractor’s

conditions A.5 Replacement of

work for contractor

C.5

D.5 Socio-cultural factors materials/procedures

desired profitability

Contractor’s

B.5 Technology change

D.6 Unforeseen prompt decision making

A.6 Impediment in

B.6 Value engineering

conditions

C.6 Differing site

problems process

C.7 Defective

A.7 Obstinate

B.7 Lack of coordination

workmanship

nature of owner

C.8 Unfamiliarity with

A.8 Change in

B.8 Design complexity

local conditions

specifications by owner

C.9 Lack of specialized

B.9 Inadequate working

drawing details

construction manager

C.10 Fast track

B.10 Inadequate shop

drawing details

construction

B.11 Consultant’s lack of

C.11 Poor procurement

judgment and experience

process

B.12 Lack of consultant’s

C.12 Lack of

knowledge of available materials

communication

and equipment

C.13 Contractor’s lack of

B.13 Honest wrong belief of

judgment & experience

consultant

C.14 Long lead

B.14 Consultant’s lack of

procurement

required data

contractor

C.15 Honest wrong belief of

B.15 Obstinate nature of

consultant

C.16 Complex design and

B.16 Ambiguous design details

technology

C.17 Lack of strategic

B.17 Design discrepancies

planning

(inadequate design)

C.18 Contractor’s lack of

B.18 Non-compliance design

required data

C.19

with govt. regulations

Contractor’s

B.19 Non-compliance design

obstinate nature

with owner’s requirement

B.20 Change in specifications by consultant

Progress is affected but without any delay

Increase in project cost

Hiring new professionals

Increase in overhead expenses

Delay in payment

Quality degradation

Productivity degradation

Procurement delay

Effects of variation orders

Rework and demolition

Logistic delay

Tarnish firm’s reputation Poor safety conditions

Poor professional relations

Additional payment for contractor

Dispute among professionals

Completion schedule delay

Figure 3 Potential effects of variation orders

A.1 Review of contract documents

ta

A.2 Freezing design

si g n s

A.3 Value engineering at conceptual phase

A . De

A.4 Involvement of professionals at initial stages of project A.5 Owner involvement at planning and design phases

e rs

B.1 Clarity of variation order procedures

rd

tag

B.2 Written approvals

B.3 Variation order scope

B.4 Variation logic and justification

Co

B. B.5 Project manager from an independent firm to manage the project

tr n

Co

Owner’s involvement during construction phase

e C.1 Prompt approval procedures

tag

C.2 Ability to negotiate variation

rfac

te

C.3 Valuation of indirect effects

C.4 Team effort by owner, consultant and contractor to control

u cti

variation orders

str

C.5 Utilize work breakdown structure

n -Co g si

C.6 Continuous coordination and direct communication

C. De

C.7 Control the potential for variation orders to arise through

contractual clauses

7.0 Data Collection

A major survey of the professionals, preceded by a pilot study, was undertaken to ascertain which of the 53 causes, 16 effects and 30 controls were important, and their level of importance. The survey results identify the most important causes, their frequent effects and effective controls. The survey results also assists in developing a checklist for implementing the most effective controls for change orders for school building projects. Like any other construction project, school building projects are also subjected to similar risks.

The analysis of data collected from the source documents assisted in identifying the nature and frequency of occurrence of changes in school building projects. The data collected from the source documents was analyzed.

The objective of this study was to develop an exhaustive list of important causes, their effects and controls for change orders for school building projects in Singapore. To achieve the study objectives, a questionnaire survey was carried out to collect the relevant information. The questionnaires were divided into two main types based on the targeted population i.e., the developer, consultants and contractors. One type of questionnaires was developed for collecting data from the developers and the other type was for collecting data from the consultants and the contractors who were involved in the school building projects under the Programme for Rebuilding and Improving Existing Schools (PRIME).

The questionnaire survey was restricted to the professionals who were involved in the school building projects under PRIME. The selection process for the respondents was carried out using the following parameters:

a. Restricted to the school building projects carried out under PRIME in Singapore.

b. Restricted to professionals from the developers‘ side who were involved in school building projects under PRIME in Singapore.

c. Restricted to professionals i.e., project architects, senior architects, principal architects and

d irectors, from the consultants‘ side who were involved in school building projects under PRIME in Singapore.

d. Restricted to professionals i.e., project managers, construction managers, senior project managers and directors, from the contractors‘ side who were involved in school building

projects under PRIME in Singapore.

The survey packages i.e., the final questionnaire along with a covering letter stating the main objectives of the questionnaire, and a self addressed and stamped envelope, were prepared. The survey packages were sent to the 178 professionals. They included 35 developers, 82 consultants and 61 contractors who carried out the school projects under PRIME. Of the 178 professionals,

98 professionals responded to the survey. 29 (82.86%), 36 (43.90%), and 33 (54.10%) responses were received from developers, consultants and contractors respectively.

After checking though the completed questionnaires, 92 questionnaires were found to be suitable for data analysis. This yielded a response rate of about 51.69%. The respondents After checking though the completed questionnaires, 92 questionnaires were found to be suitable for data analysis. This yielded a response rate of about 51.69%. The respondents

Table 1 Survey response rates Questionnaires Responses

Valid

Respondents

Percentage sent

Major causes of changes

The major causes of changes in school building projects were categorized into the most important ones as shown in Table 2. The results suggested that the errors and omissions in design, change in specifications by owner, unforeseen problems, change of plans or scope by owner, and design discrepancies were considered to be the most important causes of change orders for school building projects in Singapore. It was revealed that of the top five most important causes of changes, four causes were from both owner related changes and the consultant related changes groups.

Table 2 Most important causes of changes in school building projects S

10 Errors and omissions in design

8 Change in specifications by owner

53 Unforeseen problems

1 Change of plans or scope by owner

Design discrepancies (Inadequate

Additional causes of changes in school building projects

The respondents were also asked to add other causes considered to be important to their type of work that were not included in the questionnaire. Other causes which the respondents reported include readily available contingency sum, lack of coordination between end-user and the

designer, and user‘s lack of judgment and experience (non-technical user), low profit margin for contractors, unclear hierarchy of authorities for initiating changes, time constraint for design

process, and shop drawing preparation and approval.

Most Frequent Effects

The 16 potential effects of changes in school building projects were categorized into the most frequent ones as shown in Table 3. The results presented that project cost increase, progress is affected but without any delay, additional payment for contractor, increase in overhead expenses The 16 potential effects of changes in school building projects were categorized into the most frequent ones as shown in Table 3. The results presented that project cost increase, progress is affected but without any delay, additional payment for contractor, increase in overhead expenses

Table 3 Most frequent effects of change orders for school building projects

2 Increase in project cost

Progress is affected but without any

delay

14 Additional payment for contractor

4 Increase in overhead expenses

9 Rework and demolition

Most Effective Controls

The controls for change orders were also categorized according to their effectiveness as shown in Table 4. The top five most effective controls were owner‘s involvement at the planning and

design phases, clear and thorough project brief, thorough detailings of design, continuous coordination and direct communication, and team effort by owner, consultant and contractor to control change orders. The results indicated that the design stage and design and construction interface stages were considered as the most potential phases for implementing controls for minimizing the adverse impact of changes in school building projects.

As shown in Table 4, the top five most effective controls were revealed based on the responses from all the professional respondents. Interestingly, all these controls were related to the design stage and the design-and-construction interface stage, which clearly identified the potential project phases for implementing controls for reducing changes.

Table 4 Most effective controls for changes in school building projects

Rank Dev.

Owner‘s involvement at planning and design

4.29 0.86 1 phases

8 Clear and thorough project brief

7 Thorough detailings of design

4.17 0.75 3 Continuous coordination and direct

4.13 0.70 4 communication

Team effort by owner, consultant and contractor

4.09 0.82 5 to control change orders

8.0 Analysis Of Data From Source Documents

This section presents the analysis of the data collected from source documents of school building projects completed. The source documents included the contract documents, change orders documents, contract drawings and as-built drawings. The information collected from the source documents was pertinent to the school projects and changes in projects, specifically, project This section presents the analysis of the data collected from source documents of school building projects completed. The source documents included the contract documents, change orders documents, contract drawings and as-built drawings. The information collected from the source documents was pertinent to the school projects and changes in projects, specifically, project

The profile of the projects investigated in this study is given in Table 5. The 79 school projects were constructed between July 1999 and December 2003 (Note: the 79 schools included only primary and secondary schools. One junior college project was not included for analysis). There were two types of school projects, namely, primary school and secondary school. Primary schools were built for children between 6 and 12 years of age. Secondary schools were for students between 13 and 16 years of age. Both these school project types possessed similar

facilities, but the covered area for primary schools was 17,500m 2 and for secondary schools was 21,500m 2 . As shown in Table 5, of the 79 school projects investigated, 43% were new building

projects and 56.96% were upgrading projects. 73.52% of the new building projects were primary schools and 26.47% were secondary schools. 93.33% of the upgrading projects were primary schools and 6.66% were secondary schools.

Table 5 Statistics of the school projects investigated from source documents

Program

Total Grand S/No.

projects total

70.88% of the 79 school projects were completed during phase 1 (P1), 26.58% were completed in phase 2 (P2) and only 2.53% were built during phase 3 (P3) of the PRIME. As a majority of the projects were completed during the initial phases of the programme, large numbers of changes were expected. This was because during the initial phases of the programme, the user requirements and specifications were not well defined.

The average number of change orders for the new school projects was 61.11, and 73.82 for the upgrading school projects. Average number of changes in the new school projects was 70.58, and 91.46 for the upgrading school projects. Thus, changes were more evident in upgrading projects than in new projects (Arain and Low, 2005d).

The analysis also highlighted that new projects tended to have less frequent changes because the architects started with a clean slate unlike those in upgrading projects (Arain and Low, 2005d).

To examine the nature of changes in school building projects and to identify the potential areas on which to focus to reduce changes, the number of changes related to four major categories of work types in both upgrading and new school projects were computed and tabulated as shown in Table 6.

The results indicated that the highest number of changes for both types of projects related to the architectural works, the second highest number to the mechanical and electrical works, and a significant numbers of changes were related to civil and structural works.

As mentioned above, the total number of changes in the upgrading school projects was almost double the number of changes that occurred in new school projects. The average number of changes in upgrading school projects was almost 21% more than in new school projects. This occurred because of the constraint posed by an existing structure leading to discrepancies between the as-built drawings and the real situation on the ground.

The total number of change orders, changes and omissions in both upgrading and new school projects were computed and shown in Table 7.

Table 6 Statistics of changes in school building projects from source documents

E S/No.

u m jects

n g ical)

n g ices)

an itectu

es (

an

o ch ch tal o g tal o ch ch lectr

E o ch (Ser

Upgrading 2 Projects

Table 7 Statistics of change orders, changes and omissions in all school building projects from source documents

S/No Group name

Total number of

Total changes

Total omissions

change orders

172 1 Owner related changes (ORV)

141 2 Consultant related changes (CRV)

Contractor related changes

42 51 5 4 Other changes (OV)

5 Combination of causes (CC)

1.96%

1.75%

The results indicated that of the 5,400 change orders for school projects, 39.42% were related to the ORV group, while a majority (54.53%) of change orders was from the CRV group. Only 3.29% were related to the CTRV group. Very few change orders were from the OV and CC groups. Of the 6,516 changes that occurred in both new and upgrading school projects, 39.18% were related to the ORV group, and 55.09% of the changes were from the CRV group. The changes related to the CTRV group were only 3.19%. Very few changes were related to the OV and CC groups as shown in Table 7. Of the 346 omissions that occurred in both types of school projects, 49.71% were from the ORV group and 40.75% were from the CRV group. Omissions related to the CTRV and OV groups were 8.09% and 1.44% respectively. It was also revealed through in-depth interviews with the professionals that the omissions were mainly carried out for reducing the project costs and not exceeding the contingency sum allocated for the project (Arain, 2005b). The results suggested that the more number of changes encountered during the projects were also due to the timing of the project implementation, as a majority of the projects were carried out during the early phases of the PRIME in Singapore. As discussed earlier, the objectives and specifications provided by the developers were not fully developed during the early phases of the programme. The time allocated for design development was not sufficient and the specifications and requirements were frequently revised by the developers, thus leading to numerous changes during the construction phase of the projects (Arain and Low, 2005a). As a majority of the school projects were completed during the initial phases of the PRIME, large numbers of changes were expected. The overall analysis suggests that the highest number of change orders, changes and omissions that occurred in the upgrading and new projects were contributed from the ORV and CRV groups as shown in Table 7. Hence, both these groups were further analyzed to determine the most important root causes of changes in both new and upgrading school projects.

Of the 28 causes of changes, 8 causes were related to the ORV group and 20 were related to the CRV group as shown earlier in Figure 2. The results indicated that a majority of the frequent root causes were related to the CRV group. Nonetheless, the numbers of causes were not exactly the same for each group. Furthermore, the causes of change orders were extracted and categorized into the most important ones as shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Most important root causes of changes in school building projects from source documents

S No.

TV TO 1 Change of plans or scope by owner

1184 97 2 Change in specifications by owner

ORV

1145 65 3 Noncompliance design with govt. regulations

ORV

940 14 4 Design discrepancies (Inadequate Design)

CRV

697 1 5 Change in design by consultant

CRV

563 38 6 Errors and omissions in design

CRV

451 8 7 Change in specifications by consultant

CRV

363 34 8 Inadequate scope of work for contractor

CRV

187 9 Inadequate project objectives

CRV

167 8 10 Consultant‘s lack of judgment and experience

(Note: TVO= Total change orders, TV= Total changes, TO= Total omissions)

As shown in Table 8, the results of these two groups revealed that change of plans or scope by owner, change in specifications by owner, and inadequate project objectives from the ORV group and noncompliance design with government regulations, design discrepancies, change in design by consultant, errors and omissions in design, change in specifications by consultant,

inadequate scope of work for contractor, and consultant‘s lack of judgment and experience from the CRV group were considered as the most important and common root causes of changes in

school building projects (Arain, 2005b). Furthermore, the results concurred with the results of the questionnaire survey, as the most important causes of changes that were revealed earlier were also considered as the most important causes of changes in this analysis as shown in Table 8.

The analysis results suggested that the professionals should concentrate more on defining the scope of project, allocating sufficient time for design development and improving design detailings and compliance with government regulations that would assist in reducing changes related to the ORV and CRV groups. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, a majority of the most important root causes of changes were related to the CRV group as shown in Table 8. Hence, it is highly recommended that changes can be reduced with due diligence during the design stages.

Figure 5 presents the most frequent effects and effective controls for the most important causes of changes that were identified earlier. This would benefit the professionals involved with school projects. The professionals would learn about the root causes of change orders and their downstream effects that would assist in the proactive evaluation of change orders.

Figure 5 Most important causes, their frequent effects and effective controls for change order for school building projects

5) Design discrepancies design

1) Errors and omissions in

2) Change in specifications

3) Unforeseen problems

4) Change of plans or

by owner

scope by owner

(inadequate design)

Increase in project costs

Increase in project

Increase in project

Progress is affected but

costs

Delay in payment

without any delay

costs

Increase in overhead TS

Delay in payment E C expenses

Increase in overhead

E CTS

Increase in project

F F CTS

expenses

F F Increase in overhead

E CTS

CTS E F

F F F E Delay in payment

E costs

expenses

F E E Increase in overhead

N T E F T Delay in payment U T Increase in overhead E N

expenses QN

T E Q E Rework and demolition

E R F Rework and demolition