<%BANNER%>

Integrated Design and Delivery as a Facilitator for High Performance Green Buildings

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041670/00001

Material Information

Title: Integrated Design and Delivery as a Facilitator for High Performance Green Buildings
Physical Description: 1 online resource (171 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcnamara, Charlie
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, design, green, integrated
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Current building methods associated with traditional design-bid-build are too often muddled by adversarial relationships between the owner, architect and contractor. Change orders, miscommunication, faulty workmanship and deceit ultimately escalate tempers and budgets; usually culminating in some form of litigation and financial loss. Due to increasing demand for ?green building,? the market for construction is undergoing a serious paradigm shift toward streamlined, environmentally friendly and economically feasible projects. Boosted by the increasing market saturation of LEED certification, the ideas of sustainable buildings and a sustainable cooperative building process are becoming more widely embraced. This is the right time to revisit the notion of the ?master builder;? the historical term for what we know as the design-builder. The master builder was the one person in complete control of all aspects of a project; from design through construction. Today, design-build as a delivery method is the closest option to emulating the master-builder concept in the current push for an integrated design process. In contrast to the master builder principle, rather than relying on one person, the design-build team can be a hybrid grouping of professionals that collaborate to work on whole building schematics for projects. There is a cohesive intelligence which drives the team and every person involved sees the project through from start to finish. Integrated design is one of the core principles of creating sustainable buildings through systems thinking. Generating ideas from a diverse group of people allows for unexpected results to emerge. For example, a contractor may have an input about the constructability of an architect?s design long before any final drawings are ever generated, thus saving time and money from potential rework. Utilizing technological innovations such as building information modeling (BIM) and energy simulation modeling, the design and construction process is streamlined through efficient and effective data communication. Keeping everyone involved under the same umbrella also facilitates the documentation process for potential LEED certification as well as providing a singular contact point for the owner to oversee the results. A systemic perspective is not limited to the notion of a team effort in providing an effective project process, but also incorporates the consideration of the ecological impacts that building has on the varying scales of its environment. A truly integrated process considers the efforts of team building in harmony with concern for the ecology in which the team operates. Project stakeholders in a green project are not merely the client, designers and builders, but the ecological attributes such as energy, water, land use and waste and societal considerations such as community and local economy. Sustainability needs to be initially addressed not as a deliverable, but as a process. Team formation and team effectiveness are equal to energy efficient design measures and environmentally responsible building practices in providing a truly sustainable and high performing green building project. Architects, engineers and builders are divided amongst their respective fields. This separation has resulted in an overbearing emphasis on specialization rather than integration. Revisiting the old notions of the master-builder is a step in breaking away from the old ways of design-bid-build and the beginning of exploring the integrated design process. The core questions at hand are: How did we stray away from the cohesive intelligence fostered by the master builder concept? Is there reluctance amongst professionals to make a return to this concept? How much are the professions of architecture, engineering and construction exposed to the ideas of the integrated design process as a tool for achieving sustainable projects? What is the level of awareness, knowledge and experience of the integrated design process amongst professionals in the building industry? Is design-build the best delivery method for implementing an integrated design process? If not, then what delivery method has been proven to be most successful according to professionals?
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Charlie Mcnamara.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Ries, Robert J.
Local: Co-adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041670:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041670/00001

Material Information

Title: Integrated Design and Delivery as a Facilitator for High Performance Green Buildings
Physical Description: 1 online resource (171 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcnamara, Charlie
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, design, green, integrated
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Current building methods associated with traditional design-bid-build are too often muddled by adversarial relationships between the owner, architect and contractor. Change orders, miscommunication, faulty workmanship and deceit ultimately escalate tempers and budgets; usually culminating in some form of litigation and financial loss. Due to increasing demand for ?green building,? the market for construction is undergoing a serious paradigm shift toward streamlined, environmentally friendly and economically feasible projects. Boosted by the increasing market saturation of LEED certification, the ideas of sustainable buildings and a sustainable cooperative building process are becoming more widely embraced. This is the right time to revisit the notion of the ?master builder;? the historical term for what we know as the design-builder. The master builder was the one person in complete control of all aspects of a project; from design through construction. Today, design-build as a delivery method is the closest option to emulating the master-builder concept in the current push for an integrated design process. In contrast to the master builder principle, rather than relying on one person, the design-build team can be a hybrid grouping of professionals that collaborate to work on whole building schematics for projects. There is a cohesive intelligence which drives the team and every person involved sees the project through from start to finish. Integrated design is one of the core principles of creating sustainable buildings through systems thinking. Generating ideas from a diverse group of people allows for unexpected results to emerge. For example, a contractor may have an input about the constructability of an architect?s design long before any final drawings are ever generated, thus saving time and money from potential rework. Utilizing technological innovations such as building information modeling (BIM) and energy simulation modeling, the design and construction process is streamlined through efficient and effective data communication. Keeping everyone involved under the same umbrella also facilitates the documentation process for potential LEED certification as well as providing a singular contact point for the owner to oversee the results. A systemic perspective is not limited to the notion of a team effort in providing an effective project process, but also incorporates the consideration of the ecological impacts that building has on the varying scales of its environment. A truly integrated process considers the efforts of team building in harmony with concern for the ecology in which the team operates. Project stakeholders in a green project are not merely the client, designers and builders, but the ecological attributes such as energy, water, land use and waste and societal considerations such as community and local economy. Sustainability needs to be initially addressed not as a deliverable, but as a process. Team formation and team effectiveness are equal to energy efficient design measures and environmentally responsible building practices in providing a truly sustainable and high performing green building project. Architects, engineers and builders are divided amongst their respective fields. This separation has resulted in an overbearing emphasis on specialization rather than integration. Revisiting the old notions of the master-builder is a step in breaking away from the old ways of design-bid-build and the beginning of exploring the integrated design process. The core questions at hand are: How did we stray away from the cohesive intelligence fostered by the master builder concept? Is there reluctance amongst professionals to make a return to this concept? How much are the professions of architecture, engineering and construction exposed to the ideas of the integrated design process as a tool for achieving sustainable projects? What is the level of awareness, knowledge and experience of the integrated design process amongst professionals in the building industry? Is design-build the best delivery method for implementing an integrated design process? If not, then what delivery method has been proven to be most successful according to professionals?
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Charlie Mcnamara.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Ries, Robert J.
Local: Co-adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041670:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





INTEGRATED DESIGN AND DELIVERY AS A FACILITATOR FOR HIGH
PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS















BY

CHARLES RICHARD MCNAMARA JR.


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2010

































2010 Charles Richard McNamara Jr.









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to my advisors: Dr. Robert Ries, Dr. Raymond Issa and Dr. E

Douglas Lucas for their feedback and help during this process. Also, I would like to

extend a thank you to Patrick Bynum, Christian Terrell and Patryck Ayala-Pakula for the

many laughs and good times while at the Rinker School.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............ ..... ......... .. ....................... 3

LIST O F FIG U R ES ...................................... ................... 7

LIST OF TABLES ............... ........ ..... ......... .. .................. 10

A B S T R A C T ...................................................................................................... 1 2

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ....................... .... ... ........... ........... ........... 15

P purpose .............. ....................................... ........... ........................ 16
Objective of the Study .................. .......... ........ ......... 17
O organization ......................................... 17

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............. ... .. ................................. 19

The Old Ways of Doing............................................. ............... 19
The Em ergence of Professionalism .............. ................. .................................. 24
The C current Process............................... ............... 32
The New Green Building Culture .. ... .................. .. ............... 41
The Age of Integration ......... ........ ......... ..... ........................ 55

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................ ..... ............................. 64

Overview ................................... ............... 64
D eve lopm e nt of the S urvey ............................................................ ... ................. 65
D efining the Population and Sam ple................................................... ............... 65
Survey Design ............................. .................. 67
Part I: Professional Dem graphics ........... ............................... .... ............ 67
Part II: G reen Project Perceptions......... .................................. ...... ............. 69
Part III: Integrated Design Perceptions......................... .... ........ .... 73
Part IV: O optional Free Response............................................. ......... ...... 76
Survey Distribution ...................................... ........... 76
Survey A analysis ................. .... .... ............................... ....... .......... 77

4 SURVEY RESULTS........................................ .......... 78

Part I: Professional Demographics Responses............................ ............... 78
Question 1.6 ................... ... ......... .................. 82
Q question 1.7 .............. ........................... ............................................ 83
Part II: Green Project Perception Responses ............................ ............... 83
4









Question 2.1 ................ ......... ................. 84
Question 2.2 ................ ......... ........ ............. 88
Question 2.3 ................ ......... ........ ............. 88
Question 2.4 ................ ......... ........ ............. 89
Question 2.5 ................ ......... ........ ............. 90
Question 2.6 ......... ......... .............. .......... 90
Part III: Integrated Design Perception Responses ............... .... ................ 91
Question 3.1 ................ ......... ................. 91
Question 3.2 ................ ......... ........ ............. 95
Part IV: Optional Free Response ..... ............................... ...... .............. 99

5 SURVEY ANALYSIS ......... ..................................... 100

Part II: Green Project Perception Comparisons ................... ............... 101
Question 2.1 ................ ......... ................ 101
Question 2.2 ..................................... ........ 114
Question 2.3 ..................................... ........ 115
Question 2.4 ..................................... ........ 116
Question 2.5 ..................................... ........ 117
Q u e s tio n 2 .6 ......... ...... .................... ................................ ............... 1 1 8
Part II: Integrated Design Perceptions ..... ................................. ............... 120
Q u e s tio n 3 .1 ................................................................................................... 1 2 0
Question 3.2 ..................................... ........ 133

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... ........ ..... ............... 146

Literature Review Conclusions ............................................ ............... 146
Survey Conclusions ...... .................. ................... 148
Recommendations for Future Research ................................. ................... 150

APPENDIX

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL ............... .... ....................... 151

B IRB-02 SURVEY PROPOSAL FORM ....... ................. .......... 153

C IRB-02 APPROVAL LETTER.......................................... 155

D SURVEY REQUEST EMAIL ........ ...................................................... ... ...... 156

E SURVEY INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENTATION ............... .............. 157

F SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .................................. ...... 159

G SURVEY FREE RESPONSE ANSW ERS ........................................................ 165

LIST OF REFERENCES ................ ......... ................ 169









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............ ..... .. ................. .................. ............... 171









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

2-1 Cross-section................... ... ....................... ......... 23

2-2 Design-bid-build framework ........................ ..... ............... 33

2-3 CM at risk framework ........................................................... ...... ......... ..... .........36

2-4 Design-build framework .......... .. .................... .................... 38

2-5 Nested subsystems hierarchy....... ...................................... 44

2-6 W hole Building Design interrelationships. .................... ........... ................... 54

2-7 Elements of integrated design. ........................ ............... 56

2-8 Feedback loops. ............... ......... ......... ......... 62

3-1 Research methodology framework. ................................ ......... ........................ 65

4-1 Responses to survey question 2.1. Statements A through F ........................... 87

4-2 Responses to survey question 2.1. Statements G through K .......................... 87

4-3 Survey responses to question 3.1. Statements A through F............................ 94

4-4 Survey responses to question 3.1. Statements G through L. ........................... 95

4-5 Survey responses to question 3.2. Statements A through F............................ 98

4-6 Survey responses to question 3.2. Statements G through K............................. 99

5-1 Responses to Q2.1 statement A ................ ................................... ............... 103

5-2 Responses to Q2.1 statement B. ................ .............................. ............... 104

5-3 Responses to Q2.1 statement C.... ............................ 105

5-4 Responses to Q2.1 statement D................................. 106

5-5 Responses to Q2.1 statement E ................. .............................. ............... 107

5-6 Responses to Q2.1 state ent F .................................................. ............... 108

5-7 Responses to Q2.1 statement G. .......................... ............ .. ............... 109

7









5-8

5-9

5-10

5-11

5-12

5-13

5-14

5-15

5-16


5-17 Responses to Q3.1 statement A................................................ 122


Responses to Q3.1

Responses to Q3.1

Responses to Q3.1

Responses to Q3.1

Responses to Q3.1

Responses to Q3.1

Responses to Q3.1

Responses to Q3.1

Responses to Q3.1

Responses to Q3.1


statement

statement

statement

statement

statement

statement

statement

statement

statement

statement


5-28 Responses to Q3.1 statement


B .................. ................................

C .................. ................................

D .................. ................. .............

E .................. ................................

F ................ ..................... ... ...........

G ................. ...................................

H .................. ................. .............

. ................... ....... ............ ...............

J. ................... ..................... .............

K .................. ................. .............

L. ........................................ .. .............


Response to Q3.2 statement A ........ .......................... ....................

Responses to Q3.2 statement B.................. ....... ...... ...........................

Responses to Q 3.2 state ent C ....................................... ..... ...............

Responses to Q 3.2 state ent D ....................................... ..... ...............
8


123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

135

136

137

138


Responses to Q2.1 statement H........................................................

Responses to Q2.1 statement I. .......................................................

Responses to Q 2.1 state ent J. .................................................... ...............

Responses to Q2.1 statement K .............. ........ .................. ...............

Responses to Q2.2.................... .... ... ......... ...........................

Responses to Q2.3..................... ..... ........ ................

Responses to Q2.4..................... ..... ........ ................

Responses to Q2.5..................... ..... ........ ................

Responses to Q2.6..................... ..... ........ ................


110

111

112

113

114

115

117

118

119


5-18

5-19

5-20

5-21

5-22

5-23

5-24

5-25

5-26

5-27


5-29

5-30

5-31

5-32









5-33 Responses to Q3.2 statement E.............. .............. ............. ............... 139

5-34 Responses to Q3.2 statement F............................................... 140

5-35 Responses to Q3.2 statement G. .................. ............ ........ ................ 141

5-36 Responses to Q3.2 statement H ........ ........... .... ............. .. .............. 142

5-37 Responses to Q3.2 statement I. ................................................. 143

5-38 Responses to Q3.2 statement J. .......... ...... .... ........................ .............. 144

5-39 Responses to Q3.2 statement K........ ........... ............. ................ 145









LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

4-1 Respondents' professional role. ................ ........................... ............... 79

4-2 Respondents' number of years working. .............................. .. ............... 80

4-3 Respondents' company involvement in project types............ .. ..... ........ 80

4-4 Respondents' annual company revenues....... ............. ........ .... .............. 81

4-5 Number of company employees............................................... 82

4-6 Number of LEED Accredited Professionals. ........ .... .... ..................... 82

4-7 Com pany regional location. .... .. ............................................... ............... 83

4-8 Company attitudes toward sustainable construction practices. .............. .......... 84

4-9 Respondents' choice for best project delivery method. ................................. 88

4-10 Respondents' choice for factor of greatest influence. ............. ............... 89

4-11 Part of the construction process most. ............................. ...... ......... 89

4-12 Project stakeholder with the greatest influence. .............. .... ................ 90

4-13 Most common project delivery method for LEED certified projects................. 91

4-14 Respondents' perception on integration. .... .......................... .. ............... 92

4-15 Elements of integrated design prioritized by respondents. .............................. 96

5-1 Responses to Q2.1 ............. ..... ............. ............ ....... ........ 102

5-2 Responses to Q2.2............ ............ ............ .. ............. ............... 114

5-3 Responses to Q 2.3 ...... .. .. ........... ......... ....................... .................. 115

5-4 Responses to Q 2.4................... ............................... .............. 116

5-5 Responses to Q 2.5.................................................. .............. 117

5-6 Responses to Q 2.6 ...... .. .. ........... ......... ....................... .................. 119

5-7 Responses to Q3.1 ............. ..... ............. ............ ....... ........ 121

10









5-8 Responses to Q3.2.................. ............... .................................... 134
















































11









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
Of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

INTEGRATED DESIGN AND DELIVERY AS A FACILITATOR FOR HIGH
PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS

By

Charles Richard McNamara Jr.

August 2010

Chair: Robert Ries
Co-chair: R. Raymond Issa
Major: Building Construction

Current building methods associated with traditional design-bid-build are too often

muddled by adversarial relationships between the owner, architect and contractor.

Change orders, miscommunication, faulty workmanship and deceit ultimately escalate

tempers and budgets; usually culminating in some form of litigation and financial loss.

Due to increasing demand for "green building," the market for construction is

undergoing a serious paradigm shift toward streamlined, environmentally friendly and

economically feasible projects. Boosted by the increasing market saturation of LEED

certification, the ideas of sustainable buildings and a sustainable cooperative building

process are becoming more widely embraced.

This is the right time to revisit the notion of the "master builder;" the historical

term for what we know as the design-builder. The master builder was the one person in

complete control of all aspects of a project; from design through construction. Today,

design-build as a delivery method is the closest option to emulating the master-builder

concept in the current push for an integrated design process. In contrast to the master









builder principle, rather than relying on one person, the design-build team can be a

hybrid grouping of professionals that collaborate to work on whole building schematics

for projects. There is a cohesive intelligence which drives the team and every person

involved sees the project through from start to finish.

Integrated design is one of the core principles of creating sustainable buildings

through systems thinking. Generating ideas from a diverse group of people allows for

unexpected results to emerge. For example, a contractor may have an input about the

constructability of an architect's design long before any final drawings are ever

generated, thus saving time and money from potential rework. Utilizing technological

innovations such as building information modeling (BIM) and energy simulation

modeling, the design and construction process is streamlined through efficient and

effective data communication. Keeping everyone involved under the same umbrella also

facilitates the documentation process for potential LEED certification as well as

providing a singular contact point for the owner to oversee the results. A systemic

perspective is not limited to the notion of a team effort in providing an effective project

process, but also incorporates the consideration of the ecological impacts that building

has on the varying scales of its environment. A truly integrated process considers the

efforts of team building in harmony with concern for the ecology in which the team

operates. Project stakeholders in a green project are not merely the client, designers

and builders, but the ecological attributes such as energy, water, land use and waste

and societal considerations such as community and local economy.

Sustainability needs to be initially addressed not as a deliverable, but as a

process. Team formation and team effectiveness are equal to energy efficient design

13









measures and environmentally responsible building practices in providing a truly

sustainable and high performing green building project. Architects, engineers and

builders are divided amongst their respective fields. This separation has resulted in an

overbearing emphasis on specialization rather than integration. Revisiting the old

notions of the master-builder is a step in breaking away from the old ways of design-bid-

build and the beginning of exploring the integrated design process. The core questions

at hand are: How did we stray away from the cohesive intelligence fostered by the

master builder concept? Is there reluctance amongst professionals to make a return to

this concept? How much are the professions of architecture, engineering and

construction exposed to the ideas of the integrated design process as a tool for

achieving sustainable projects? What is the level of awareness, knowledge and

experience of the integrated design process amongst professionals in the building

industry? Is design-build the best delivery method for implementing an integrated design

process? If not, then what delivery method has been proven to be most successful

according to professionals?









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In an era bombarded with media attention toward the "greening" of our society,

the notion of sustainability is seeping its way into the status quo. Our lives are touched

daily by the constant buzzing of green terminology. These influences have trickled their

way into our core dependencies and affect how we operate in our day-to-day

environment. They range from the serious: our general lifestyle choices (e.g.

transportation and eating habits); to the mundane: what bag do I choose to take my

groceries home with today? However, it is our buildings, the places where we dwell and

work, that usher in the greatest problems attached to solving the great question of

sustainability. Buildings consume the most energy, water and resources. Their

associated costs are high, both monetarily and environmentally. Their construction

excites, angers, frustrates or prides all who are involved. Buildings have the illusory

appeal of permanence, yet it is a fact that nothing can last forever.

Currently there stands a great divide between the many professions involved in

the building process. The traditional method of design-bid-build has placed walls

between architects, engineers and contractors; shutting out each other as well as the

most important player of all: the client. The client is the catalyst for a project. Designers

and builders translate the ideas and goals of the client by following a prescribed path of

action based upon their respective skillsets. Often this method yields results that are

detrimental to this supposedly collaborative process and thus it is "unsustainable" in

terms of client patience and budget. Clients seek efficiency and economy, along with

the fulfillment of their initial project goals. If the building industry is to ever completely

embrace the ideals of economic and environmental sustainability, there needs to be a
15









shift in the process of building and a drive from all professions involved toward reaching

a common defined goal of a sustainable building process.

Sustainability does not stop at the level of economy and environment since

buildings have their place in the social realm. More importantly, the process by which

buildings are made needs to have its own level of social importance. The trades

involved do not need to be sequestered but instead integrated; stitched together to form

a cohesive fabric of ideas and experiences. Building is a collaborative process and thus

it needs to unfold as such. Threading the trades into a high performance process with a

foundation in cohesive intelligence leads to the creation of sustainable, high performing

green buildings.

Purpose

While the notion of integrated design is straightforward, its implementation is not

as easy to embrace. Many trades have their respective beliefs about what their roles

are in a project and have developed a routine they are comfortable with. The common

excuse of "we do it because it is the way we have always done it" is no longer

acceptable if the goal of high performance green building is to be attainable. These

honest-wrong-beliefs accompanied by the employment of rudimentary rules of thumb

throughout a project's course hinder the ability for the players involved in a building's

creation to fully collaborate and deliver a superior project.

This problem not only has roots within the professional world but also in

academia. Students of architecture, engineering and construction are often taught very

little about the other professions they will be directly involved with in the workplace.

Attitudes toward other professions tend to be generated upon predisposed stereotypes

16









rather than fact. Training for these professions is geared toward single minded

specialization and does not set the stage for an integrated process.

This research aims to examine three areas pertaining to integrated design: 1) the

current attitudes toward the integrated design process (IDP) in the professional realm. Is

integrated design really an optimal choice, embraced by the building industry? If so,

how is it being embraced? 2) the successful methods for forming a prescriptive

integrated design process and how they create high performance green buildings and 3)

the methods and ideologies (e.g. LEED) and methods that are progressing integrated

design further into widespread acceptance.

Objective of the Study

Through extensive review of books, journals, conference proceedings and

reference guides along with a qualitative and quantitative survey of architecture,

engineering and construction professionals, this research seeks to provide the current

perception and status of the integrated design process at the present time.

Understanding the level of exposure and knowledge that professionals have of the

integrated design process will enable suggestions for future research as well as for

suggestions for furthering the level that integrated design is embraced academically and

professionally.

Organization

Chapter 2 consists of a literature review of articles, books, conference

proceedings and journals pertaining to the integrated design process. Definitions of key

terminology relative to the research are generated from precedent literature on

integrated design. The literature review also serves to examine the historical









perspective of the master builder concept and its gradual dissipation as technology

progressed and specialization amongst trades became the status quo. The current

methods of project delivery in the construction process and their associated pitfalls are

discussed to set the stage for explanation of the benefits of the integrated design

process. Supporting the benefits of shifting toward integration, the present notion of

sustainability in the building profession with a focus on a systemic perspective on the

building process is introduced and highlights the varying scales of criteria that project

stakeholders need to consider both ecologically and socially with regards to team

formation and overall construction procedures.

Chapter 3 details the research methodology used to conduct the surveys of

architecture, engineering and construction professionals in order to gain a current

perspective of how the integrated design process is faring in the professional context

with regards to high performance green buildings.

Chapter 4 provides an analysis of the qualitative and quantitative results from all

survey respondents. The expected results include the general attitudes and perceptions

toward integrated design among professionals, as well as the level of experience and

success with the integrated process in professional projects. Chapter 5 explores the

survey results further by making comparisons between architects, engineers and

builders. The individual professional perceptions, opinions and awareness of the

integrated design process are discussed.

Chapter 6 concludes the research in a critical manner addressing any potential

shortcomings or reconsiderations related to the research methodology as well as

associated successes. Finally, suggestions for future research are made.

18









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW


This literature review consists of five parts that document the origins, evolution and

present state of the building process leading up to the emergence of integrated design

in the area of high performance green building. Each section addresses a fundamental

issue pertaining to the historical path and shifting trends within the approach toward

building; culminating with a detailed exploration of the integrated design process itself,

its varying definitions, prescriptive paths and modes of application.

The first and second sections establish the historical context of the building

process; paying particular attention to the master builder concept that was the

predominant method of project delivery up until the Industrial Revolution of the 18th

century and the subsequent rise of individualized building professions. The third section

examines the current project delivery methods used today, especially design-bid-build,

and their associated advantages and shortcomings. The fourth section discusses the

emerging culture of sustainable building and its attributes that support integrated

design. The fifth section addresses the burgeoning shift from professional specialization

into integrative collaboration amongst building trades by applying principles of the

integrated design process toward sustainable construction.

The Old Ways of Doing

Integration as an idea pertaining to construction has its roots in the historical

development of building as a human necessity. Since the dawn of man's existence,

shelter obtained through building has been a fundamental requirement for survival.

Through this need, the act of building quickly evolved into an integral part of human

19









culture as a whole. Every great civilization on earth has produced a unique building

culture that concurrently progressed (or regressed) with its changing societal, economic

and environmental needs. It was through the hand of the master builder that man's

initial foray into creating a complex built environment began.

Long before the traditional definitions of architect, engineer and contractor were

established, the master builder was the one responsible for all facets of the building

process. He possessed a highly developed, wide range of knowledge involving an

intimate understanding of local issues. By accruing knowledge passed down through

generations, the master builder learned through apprenticeship. It was through this

method that the he developed receptiveness toward local materials, resource flows,

workforce skills, traditions, techniques, microclimates, soil conditions and local

limitations. He continued to build upon this body of localized knowledge through

practice. The ideal master builder understood the importance of harmony among the

processes and products of building and the local economy (Boecker et al. 2009).

Master builders of the past created buildings that were highly responsive to their

respective local conditions; building was regarded as a significant cultural ritual and the

master builder was at the center. The master builder employed the theories and

application of architecture as a rigorous, mathematical science; synthesizing the

technical attributes of engineering with the aesthetics of architectural design. Actual

building was executed under the direct supervision of the master builder through a

hierarchy of local artisans, craftsmen and journeyman. Each group of subordinates

under the master builder contributed to the rich layering of diverse details through









construction. The master builder not only oversaw the building process, but was a direct

participant as well (Davis 1999).

Projects of the past which were led by master builders relied upon the cohesive

intelligence among the local artisans, craftsmen and journeymen who formed the

master-apprentice hierarchy. Each member of this hierarchy possessed varying levels

of knowledge pertaining to local patterns and this knowledge was in turn integrated into

the construction process producing results which affected the building as a whole.

Cohesive intelligence through the exchange of knowledge among the varying scales of

the master-apprentice hierarchy was the foundation of success for the master builder

system (Boecker et al. 2009).

Up until the eighteenth century, the traditional definition of architect referred to

someone that possessed a holistic responsibility for both the design and construction of

a project. These architects evolved out of building trades (e.g. masonry, carpentry,

surveying) and produced not only the working design drawings but also supervised

construction directly on site. They organized the trades and oversaw the workers

involved. The architects' role was an extension of the craftsman. The architect, who

could in turn be called the master builder, possessed a higher degree of knowledge

than the craftsmen he supervised since he was ultimately responsible for shaping the

entire design and construction process. Yet this greater knowledge was not placed in an

order where the architect exuded solely a managerial superiority over his craftsmen and

merely produced a design to be constructed. Instead, the knowledge the architect

needed to design and construct was an extension of the skills of those beneath him.

The hierarchy of apprenticeship to master builder followed a datum of the transfer of

21









knowledge through doing and the subsequent building of skills which stitched together a

threaded building society rooted in cohesive intelligence (Davis 1999).

This cohesive intelligence was not limited to construction, but was a result of the

connection the builders had to their respective local conditions. Building, as a cultural

act, initially grew out of the inner nature of the environment in which a building was

placed. Buildings and towns were generated in a naturalistic manner: man's attempt at

integrating his creations into the natural world. The master builder relied upon this

cohesive intelligence and the common building language that was shared throughout

the master-apprentice hierarchy in order to facilitate the creation of buildings that

yielded to their environmental context. The critical element which supported a building's

integration and response to local forces stemmed from the systemic approach to the

process of creating the building (or town) itself (Alexander 1979).

Using the analogy of a flower and a seed, Christopher Alexander compared the

historic building process to organic wholeness. A building's quality remains heavily

dependent upon the degree of adaptation of its assembled parts within the whole. The

kit of parts used in this building process was comprised of autonomous patterns within a

culture's specific building language; similar to the genetic codes contained within a seed

that would eventually generate a flower. Each level within the master-apprentice

hierarchy was responsible for applying a certain pattern which reflected the skills,

knowledge and expertise of the craftsmen involved. In simple terms, these patterns

could be described as rules of thumb which could be combined and repeated in multiple

different forms to make an infinite range of details (Alexander 1979).









The multi-hierarchical repetition of these patterns in the building language

generated a natural rhythm to the building process. Building forms emerged from the

local life conditions within a culture in addition to being a direct response to topography.

The tendency of these patterns to evolve in a fashion that was in a relationship with

nature solidified the way building progressed in an organic manner. The master builders

of the past possessed a unique intuition that was aligned with the fundamental ideas of

natural creation which shaped their building process (Saarinen 1948).
















Figure 2-1. Cross-section of a human musculature vein structure (left) compared to the
medieval plan of Venice, Italy (right). The urban morphology of the city bears
uncanny resemblance to the cellular patterns contained within the human
body; demonstrating that builders (and planners) of the past possessed an
innate sensitivity toward context and organic building evolution.

This attitude toward the construction process has been described by Alexander

as "the timeless way of building." The manner in which the master builders shaped their

environment emerged directly out of the inner nature of the matter (i.e. the people, land,

plants, animals, customs and traditions) contained within that environment. Utilizing the

common building language which stratified the master-apprentice hierarchy, the

creation of buildings and towns mimicked a genetic process. From the master builder to

23









the lowliest craftsman, the shared living language of building provided a singular

feedback loop which kept the patterns of the building language synchronized with the

shifting tides of a society's culture, economy and relationship with the natural

environment (Alexander 1979).

Many of history's most treasured built works were a direct result of the master

builder system. The Great Pyramid at Giza, the Parthenon, the Alhambra, Chartres

cathedral and the Duomo of Florence are all iconic works of architecture, yet they were

not created by a single man. Instead, they resulted from the master-apprentice

hierarchy's relationship with the prevailing societal attitudes and cultural values: a group

of men who all shared a common building language. These are buildings that foster a

unique harmony with their respective cultural and natural environments and possess an

extremely strong sense of place. They are a historic testament to the cohesive

intelligence used in the building process and stand as prime examples of how buildings,

and the processes undertaken to construct them, can define and complement their

contexts.

The Emergence of Professionalism

The demise of the master builder system began with two significant events in

history: the establishment of the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chausses (French

National School of Bridges and Roads), the first school of civil engineering in 1747, and

the rise of the Industrial Revolution which had its roots in 18th century Great Britain

(Frampton 2007). With the wave of new technologies that emerged, the attitudes and

language pertaining to building shifted with the changing tides of the culture and

economy.









Since the building culture and its processes were tied to the organization of

society as a whole, the progression in industrial mechanization and manufacturing

resulted in a re-ordering of the post-industrial society and its building practices.

Increasing societal needs led to an increase in specialization: people needed to be put

in an explicitly understood place. The building culture reciprocated this need and

reflected the fragmented character of the new contemporary society with the emergence

of specific professions each with its own distinct specialization: the architect, the

engineer and the general contractor (Davis 1999).

Subsequent acceptance of the industrial ethic diminished the local and tradition

based methods of regulating the activities of people involved in building. Increased

transportation technology enlarged the community scale and the exchange of

information and scientific knowledge became more rapid. The master-apprentice

system that had once educated and guided the building process had evolved into a

management-labor system: those who controlled the economic means and those who

made the product became separate entities (Davis 1999).

The increase in specialization in both society and the building culture led to a

decline in the cohesive intelligence that had once been the crux of the old hierarchal

system headed by the master builder. Establishment of separate schools for

architecture and engineering mirrored the post-industrial societal tendencies of defining

explicit standards of professional behavior. The split between management and labor in

order to achieve economic efficiency created a distinction between the highly educated

and uneducated.









By the late nineteenth century, there were only remnants of what was once the

master builder system and the master-apprentice hierarchy had been replaced by

professional institutions that had been established to elevate their professional agendas

and roles within the post-industrial building culture. At this time, the role of the builder

and the earliest iteration of the modern building firm emerged out of the ashes of the

master builder system. Comprised of many trades, the earliest general contractors were

actually builders who were either loosely defined architects, surveyors, bricklayers or

carpenters. The builder, as known then, possessed a large amount of overlap between

these trades. They were builders who understood architecture or surveyors who could

draw plans or architects who prided themselves with building knowledge. With the

societal drive toward specialization, the evolution of the building culture eventually

yielded defined professional roles: the architect became the generator of design, the

engineer served as a guardian of technical pragmatism and the builder became a

managerial position limited to following the specifications and guidelines set forth by the

architect (Davis 1999). A one-to-one relationship was gradually established amongst the

individuals involved and their respective professional activities. This relationship

subsequently generated its own hierarchy in the resulting building, architecture and

engineering firms that would be established. While the master-apprentice hierarchy still

existed in diminished form; within the greater building culture the embrace of

specialization and the acceptance of a management-labor relationship had become

status quo. The old notion of cohesive intelligence had given way to the rise of

competing isolated professional institutions.









The divergence between architects, engineers and builders had been solidified

by the end of the nineteenth century. General contractors had emerged not strictly as

builders, but as negotiators, managers and supervisors of construction. By distancing

themselves from actual building trades, the general contractors' primary role had shifted

into one that was subordinate to the architects they were obligated to serve under

contract. General contractors had little direct involvement in the actual construction

process and instead relied upon the hiring and supervision of trade subcontractors to

fulfill the actual building work (Davis 1999).

The definitions of architect and engineer had evolved concurrently with the notion

that design was a separate intellectual activity from craft and building. The architect's

role was seen as central to the overall building aesthetic and layout in addition to

communicating the client's architectural idea. The responsibility for mathematical

knowledge and rigor that had once been embraced by architects of the past was now

shifted upon the engineer who had now become delegated to the role of consultant to

the architect's design. The application of a trade by the architect had been abandoned

entirely and the role of the architect as solely a designer and representative of the

owner had become accepted. With the increased level of specialization the architecture

and engineering professions incurred, they subsequently developed exclusive claims to

professional expertise. The requirement for professional licensure to practice

architecture and engineering became law and the result was a formally structured

management-labor hierarchy within the professions between the principals, who were

the most educated and licensed, and the draftsman, who were the least educated and

unlicensed (Davis 1999).









The increased schism amongst the professional roles in the building culture and

the rise of the manager-laborer hierarchy within the building process followed the

embrace of Frederick Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management at the dawn of the

20th century. The Taylorist notion that each individual was to be assigned a discrete and

highly specialized task that was to be carried out to maximum efficiency fueled the

capitalist economic engine of production, exemplified in the United States with Henry

Ford's establishment of an assembly line process to manufacture automobiles. Taylor

advocated that there was a clear distinction among the duties of individuals involved in

a production process. Each individual's role was studied meticulously in order to

determine the most efficient method of conducting the task at hand. The individual was

then instructed in this method and allowed to continue to repeat his assigned isolated

task within the greater line of production. The work between the manager and the

laborer was divided equally with managers aligning the task planning scientifically in a

manner where the workers would in turn perform their desired tasks. Each unit of work

was matched with an equal unit of supervision to ensure that the tasks were being

completed in the most efficient and profitable way (Taylor 1911). In construction, this

notion of highly developed, rationalized techniques at ordering not only building design,

but the processes carried out to construct them, became the indirect philosophical

backbone behind the economic consequences of the post-industrial built environment.

With the rise of speculators and developers, and the increasing role of financial

institutions in construction, the monetary bottom line became the primary focus of

building (Davis 1999).









The resulting specialization in the construction process that imitated the Taylorist

philosophy gave only an illusory appearance of integration. However, Taylor's idea

embraced quality within the production process of a product instead of focusing on the

end product alone. As processes evolved in both manufacturing and construction over

the course of the 20th century, the study of product quality concurrently matured in its

scientific complexity. Following Taylor, Walter Shewart continued to study the methods

of quality control through the use of statistics by developing control charts which

emphasized reducing variation in processes and exposing that continual process

adjustment increased variation and led to degradation in quality. In the 1950s, Joseph

Juran and William Deming furthered Shewart's work by expanding the idea of quality

control as an effective management tool. Juran's studies emphasized managerial

approaches toward quality; where focusing on the formation of the project team, training

and leadership would subsequently result in both increased customer satisfaction and

product quality. Juran placed high importance on the culture of a team, adding a human

dimension to quality control and stressing that isolating the problems among human

relationships on a team would result in increased quality.

Deming's approach involved a blending of Taylor's holistic focus on process over

product and Shewart's use of statistical control when improving quality. Deming's views

on management and quality are summarized in fourteen points:

1) Create consistency of purpose for improvement of product and service with the
aim to become competitive and stay in business and to keep providing jobs.

2) Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western
management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities and
take on leadership for change.









3) Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for
inspection on a mass basis by building quality in to the product in the first place.

4) End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead,
minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-
term relationship of loyalty and trust.

5) Improve constantly and forever every process for planning, production and
service. Improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.

6) Institute training on the job. This should be part of everybody's everyday
activities.

7) Adopt and institute leadership. The aim of supervision should be to help people
and machines to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of
overhaul as well as supervision of production workers.

8) Drive out fear so that everyone may work effectively for the company because
they want it to succeed.

9) Break down barriers between staff areas or departments. People in research,
design, sales and production must work as a team to foresee problems of
production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.

10)Eliminate slogans, exhortations and targets for the workforce asking for zero
defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial
relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong
to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.

11 )Eliminate numerical quotas for the workforce and numerical goals for
management

12)Remove barriers that rob people of pride of workmanship. Eliminate the annual
rating or merit system.

13)Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement for everyone. Let
them participate to choose areas of development.

14)Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The
transformation is everybody's job (Deming 1986).


Deming's principles were widely influential, particularly in Japan, with shaping

attitudes toward quality in industrial production. The notion that quality control is a

holistic process, beginning with the design of a product through its distribution to









customers, generated the new concept of total quality management that had a profound

influence on post-war manufacturing applications during the latter half of the 20th

century.

Cohesive intelligence, not only among technical skillsets, but human

relationships among team members was an important element of upholding high quality

standards. In construction, quality standards were upgraded through many of the

principals set forth by Deming; notably through integrating training exercises into the

standard work routine of employees and embedding quality management into company

project management practices. The key elements of project management: engineering,

scheduling, organizing, tracking and reporting the phases of a construction project were

found to directly correlate with the quality of the finished product. However, increasing

the quality of products was not limited to streamlining project management, but also

included a shift in the culture of the company that desired to increase its output quality

level. Total quality management brought forth the notion that quality must be

incorporated into the process and the organizations that wished to follow it needed to

develop a corporate culture that would embrace it (Ries et al. 2009).

While the focus of quality has evolved over the course of the 20th century, the

roles of the contractor, architect or engineer became more sequestered. The rising

separation between the professions and trades involved in building led to difficulties

resulting from increased formalities, overwhelming institutional complexities and the

removal of ordinary people of society from those who have been assigned the control of

expertise pertaining to building (Davis 1999). While quality may be a focus of a

particular profession, in order for a building to uphold high quality standards, all

31









professionals involved in a project need to follow the same quality control protocols. The

gradual rise of post-industrial professionalism separated building from its traditional

roots in cohesive intelligence and sensitivity toward local culture and economy and

fostered an age of specialization that has created a contradictory process that is

ultimately unsustainable. The old ways of doing had been abandoned as visions for

building and replaced by institutional compromises between increasingly isolated and

adversarial professional groups (Davis 1999).

The Current Process

Over the course of the 20th century, the modern building culture has failed to

evolve in a significant way from its post-industrial status as an assemblage of

professions operating in isolation from one another. While there are levels of interaction

among the professionals involved in a project, there remain set prescriptive paths that

have only continued the perpetuation of distancing the building process from true

integration. In construction, the project delivery method describes the roles and

functions of the participants (i.e. owner, design team, builder), their formal and informal

interrelationships, the timing of events and the management techniques used to

generate a built project (Ireland 1984). The three most commonly used project delivery

methods are: design-bid-build, construction manager at risk and design-build (Molenaar

et al. 2009).

This section of the literature review is focuses on defining the current project

delivery methods, their similarities and contrasts and the factors that support or negate

successful project implementation. Most emphasis will be placed upon the design-bid-

build project delivery method because of its unchanged nature over the past century

32









and its status as the traditional modern project delivery method. Both CM at Risk and

the Design-Build delivery methods are studied to provide insight into the benefits of

integration among project participants and serve as models leading towards embrace of

an integrated design process.

Particular attention is placed upon how the respective contractual structures of

each project delivery method are arranged with regards to which party takes on the

most risk and how the parties are segregated or integrated when working on a project.

Design-Bid-Build


Owner



Designer Contractor


Design Trade
Consultants Subs --contracts
---- communications
Figure 2-2. Design-bid-build framework.

Design-Bid-Build is regarded as the traditional project delivery method in the

United States and has been the standard method of project delivery since the

emergence of construction professionalism in the late 19th century (Elvin 2007). The

process begins when the project owner contracts separately with a designer (architect)

to produce a complete set of design documents. Throughout the process of design

development and finalizing construction documents, the architect will contract with

consultants (i.e. mechanical and structural engineers, landscape architects, green

building consultants) to assist with specifications within the design.









When the construction documents are completed, the architect then issues the

documents publicly and allows for the owner, or owner's representative, to solicit fixed

price bids from builders (general contractors or construction firms) to provide the actual

construction work. The building contractor who is selected for the project traditionally

corresponds with having the lowest bid price to complete the work. After the builder

enters a contract with the owner, the builder is contractually obligated to provide the

construction services within the fixed price limits specified in the winning bid for the

project and follow the specifications set forth by the architect. The relationship between

architect and builder is highly formalized via contracts and the contractor has no input in

the design process. Only when design has been completed and the contractor's bid has

been selected does the contractor have a project role (Sanvido and Konchar 1998).

Using the design-bid-build method provides several advantages for the owner.

The owner assumes minimal risk since the architect is contractually defined as the

owner's agent and representative throughout the process, thus assuming a majority of

the liability. This relationship between owner and architect enables the owner to have a

very close alignment with how the design is developed according to his needs. The

resulting completed construction documents produced by the architect should provide

contractors a feasible opportunity to produce accurate bid prices and give the owner an

idea of how much the project is going to cost in its entirety (Elvin 2007).

However, the negatives associated with design-bid-build outweigh the positives.

With the contractor being completely absent from the design process, accurate pricing

as design progresses and inputs regarding constructability and schedule are not

discussed during the early stages of design. The stressing of fixed prices among

34









competitive bids can lead to adversarial relationships between either the owner and the

contractor or the architect and contractor. The structure of dual contracts between

owner-architect and owner-builder lead to a complicated hierarchy of individual

contracts between architects and consultants as well as contractors and multiple

subcontractors. The risk of liability diminishes teamwork and only encourages the

growth of adversarial relationships. When the architect has completed construction

documents and the winning bid has been chosen, the role of the architect retreats from

the building process until there is a proliferation of change orders initiated by the

contractor resulting from errors or omissions. Changes only increase the tension within

the relationships among the owner, architect and builder and increase the burdens of

cost and time (Elvin 2007).

The fundamental flaw of this delivery method is derived from its linear nature that

embraces the abyss between the responsibilities and assumed risks of the design team

and the builder. The client proposes an idea to the architect, who in turn alone

generates a schematic design to the client's satisfaction. When the client is pleased with

the architects design, the architect then moves forward with design development,

shifting certain design responsibilities onto a group of consultants (i.e. mechanical and

structural engineers) who examine the architect's documents in isolation. The

communication that goes back and forth between the consultants, architect and client

remains staggered and isolated, tantamount to a child's game of telephone. The final

set of construction documents that are issued contain an imbedded temporal and

monetary value derived from the thousands of man hours accrued during their creation.









These values equate to time and money expounded over the course of many months

and sometimes years (Boecker et al. 2009).

Contractors who are bidding for the project are given an extremely limited

timeframe to receive these documents, examine them and generate an affordable

estimate. The expectation to fully digest information resulting from thousands of hours'

work, apply an accurate price to it and then be contractually committed to that price

yields a formula that is inherently problematic.

Construction Manager at Risk (CM at Risk)


Owner




Designer CM at Risk

S--contracts
communications
Design Trade -..-.. contractual
Consultants Subs coordination
requirements
Figure 2-3. CM at risk framework.

Following the model of design-bid-build, CM at risk involves the owner

contracting separately with a designer and construction manager. The contract with the

design team ensures that construction documents are generated and then the owner

selects a construction management entity, who guarantees cost and schedule, to carry

out the work for a fee. The construction manager may be a general contractor, a

segment of an engineering or architecture firm which provides CM at risk or an

independent construction management company. This process differs from design-bid-

build in the level of involvement the contractor has within the design process and the

scope of interaction among the client, designer and builder. Contractors are invited to
36









participate in the design stages thus giving them the ability to assign roles early, plan in

advance for critical construction phases, assist in constructability reviews, provide value

engineering input and coordinate the ordering of long lead items more effectively with

less conflict. Construction manager at risk still involves a dual tiered contract system,

yet it begins to foster principles of integration with increased client, designer and builder

collaboration (Molenaar et al. 2009).

While CM at risk operates in a way that benefits greater integration between

designers and builders, this method may also be structured as CM at fee. Construction

manager at fee involves the CM entity to act only as the owner's agent thus removing

any liability the CM has for project over-budgeting, schedule and quality. While the CM

at fee bears a great deal of project influence and leadership, it does not take on the

associated risks that other players within a project carry. With this unequal distribution

of risk, the power balance within a project is undermined and integrated teamwork is

lost (Elvin 2007).

Because the CM at fee provider stands as a staunch ally to the owner's demands

yet bears no liability with the project's outcome, there is lacking incentive for embracing

integration among the other teams involved. CM at fee is not a project delivery method,

but rather a management method. The CM at fee is tantamount to "CM at no risk." In

CM at fee, the CM entity is merely a consultant to the owner and does not commit to

expending the capital and resources in a project, nor provides any level of guarantee for

the finished product, in the same manner as general contractors (Akintoye and

MacLeod 1997). However, the CM at fee may assist the owner in selecting a design

team, choosing a CM at risk entity or hiring a design-build team. Ultimately,

37









responsibility and liability are muddled among project teams and it is the owner who is

most affected by the coordination risks associated with the project as there are no

formal contracts between the CM entity and the design teams (Elvin 2007).

Design-Build


Owner



Design
Builder


Design Trade
Consultants Subs contracts
Q communications

Figure 2-4. Design-build framework.

Design-build is the closest project delivery method to true integration among

client, designer and builder. The owner contracts directly with a single entity that is to

provide full design specifications and then perform or subcontract the necessary

construction. The design-builder may be a completely integrated firm that provides

either design and construction services in-house, or it may be collaboration between

two architecture and construction firms that share the same project interests or have a

longstanding history of effective cooperation and mutual profitability. In design-build,

both the designer and the builder share the same risks and rewards (Engdahl 2003).

Unlike CM at risk, there is formal contractual integration with design-build, yet

both designer and builder are still under the same umbrella from the start allowing for

the builder to exert influence in the early stages of design and provide continued

constructability and budget feedback throughout the process. This also means that the









design-build entity is singularly responsible for operating within the project budget as

well as any errors and omissions encountered during construction (Molenaar et al.

2009). Communication between the design and building teams is streamlined, allowing

for effective compression of the project delivery period, better budgetary control,

reduced changes and a decrease in adversarial relationships between clients,

designers and builders. The design-build delivery method fosters a spirit rooted in

commonality of purpose that supports the cause for integration among project

stakeholders (Engdahl 2003).

The streamlined process of design-build poses some drawbacks. Pushing a

project along within the owner's requirements in the most economical and efficient way

does not necessarily always result in a higher quality built product. Design-build

involves the owner to procure a partially designed project within a fixed price which

results in a risk of potentially compromised quality. The design-build entity assumes a

greater amount of risk than in the traditional design-bid-build process and it is important

for owners to select a design-build team based upon qualifications and experience

relative to the proposed project at hand rather than lowest cost. This requires the owner

to maintain a level of sophistication and readiness to provide up-front involvement and

clarity with what his or her project intentions and requirements are so that price and

schedule fluctuations do not occur in the long run (American Consulting Engineers

2001).

Design-build has become an increasingly popular choice for owners to implement

a tightly integrated project delivery method. Over 40% of all buildings being produced in

the United States were using a design-build process at the dawn of the 21st century

39









(Sell 2003). With the increasing market influx of sustainability as a driving force in

construction, the push toward integrated design-build practices in achieving green

projects is becoming more prevalent.

There is a common flaw that prevails throughout these three main project

delivery methods that has prevented true integrated project delivery to thrive. The

fragmented and abstract nature of the contractual agreements among the owners,

designers, builders, consultants and subcontractors involved in all project delivery

methods has still separated those who are at the apex of the hierarchy (i.e. the

principals that uphold the legal risks and sign the contracts) from those closest to the

actual construction of the building (i.e. the trade subcontractor and laborer) (Davis

1999).

Even with the integrative attributes of CM at risk and design-build, there are still

parts of the building process that have elements of seclusion among those involved.

The tiered systems of formal contracts among owners, designers and builders are

institutions of control and protection. While these contracts are necessary to prevent

legal problems and ensure that professional obligations are fulfilled, they render each of

these project delivery methods into instruments of assembly rather than integration.

This notion that a building is a linear effort of assembly, and that these project delivery

methods function as set prescriptive paths, is a blind approach which leads to ballooned

costs, redundant procedures and wasted time (Boecker et al. 2009). No two built

projects undergo an exactly similar process and each one has its own unique set of

successes and failures. With the current push toward sustainable, high performance

buildings; an integrated egalitarian approach to the building process with an emphasis

40









on pliability and cohesive intelligence needs to emerge as a viable alternative to the old

standards of project delivery.

The New Green Building Culture

Since the Industrial Revolution brought forth tremendous technological change

there has been a dramatic alteration in the way humans have interacted with their

natural environment. The onset of fossil fuels used to power the mechanization of

material extraction, manufacturing and their resulting waste products have tainted the

harmony that man has shared with nature. This increased level of efficiency through

innovation has lead humankind to infiltrate the naturally evolved, complex and diverse

biotic systems of our environment in a manner that leads to environmental degradation

(Kibert 1999). The post-industrial growth and omnipresence of the built environment, its

required infrastructure and the processes undertaken to construct it has had a profound

impact upon the world we live in.

In the United States, buildings consume approximately 40% of total energy use,

73% of all electricity use (USDOE 2008) and are responsible for approximately 30% of

both total greenhouse gas emissions and raw material expenditures (USEPA 1998).

The built environment's consumption habits reflect mankind's increased complex needs

as society has progressed with rises technological advancement. The correlation

between increasing societal and economic demands along with increasing resource

depletion and waste expulsion demonstrates a pattern that is ultimately unsustainable.

Buildings need not to be examined solely as assembled products designed to cater to

the needs of their users, but instead as systemic organisms that share a relationship









with not only the natural environment, but with society and the economy in a way that

engages and progresses a healthy, sustainable relationship to a greater whole.

What is sustainability?

The most common definition for what constitutes sustainable development

comes from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development's

report titled Our Common Future. The report defined sustainable development as

"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED 1987). Kibert argues that the

success of this definition's intention is dependent upon two concepts that need to be

met by both present and future generations: natural resources must be allocated in a

fair and just manner and that biological systems must preserve their functions over time

(Kibert 1999). The essence of this definition is that sustainability is not a concrete

element that can be simply integrated into any process: it is a process unto itself.

According to Boecker et al., "sustainability is not a deliverable. Sustainability is

not a thing. Sustainability is not simply about efficient technologies and techniques.

Sustainability is literally about sustaining life; a practice by which living things such as

forests, neighborhoods, people, businesses, watersheds, mushrooms, microbes and

polar bears contribute to the interrelationships that ensure the viability of each over the

long haul" (Boecker et al. 2009).

This statement supports the notion that the abstract idea of sustainability fits

within the fundamental common thread of environmental concern: enduring the viability

of the human species and its natural environment. Within the realm of the built

environment, sustainability becomes an issue of integration among not only the building

42









and its context (i.e. nature, society and economy) but as well as the stakeholders

involved in the process of putting the building together.

Sustainable Construction

The application of sustainable principles upon construction practices has become

increasingly popular in the wake of surmounting evidence of environmental degradation

by the hands of man. The terms "green" and "building" have been synthesized into a

hybrid definition of what one can call high-performance green buildings: buildings that

are designed in ways that seriously consider and reduce their impacts upon the

environment and human health (Yudelson 2009). The impact that high-performance

green buildings have upon their environment is tertiary: the affected elements are

natural, social and economic. Kibert provides a general list of seven principles that

guides toward what protocol high-performance green buildings should follow in order to

embody the principles of sustainable construction:

1. Minimization of resource consumption;

2. Maximization of resource reuse;

3. Use of renewable and recyclable resources;

4. Protect the natural environment;

5. Create a healthy and non-toxic environment;

6. Incorporate economics by using life-cycle costing; and

7. Pursue quality in creating the built environment (Kibert 2005).

The term "high-performance" is not necessarily synonymous with increased

technological innovation relative to the building's overall design, but instead should be

examined as a shift in the thought process undertaken by the owner, designer and

43










builders during the building's design and construction. Not only should the building be

high-performing, but the process utilized to make the building should be as well.

This shift in perspective in applying sustainable principles upon a building

process begins with understanding the nested subsystems of varying scale that relate

the building project to the greater environment as a whole. The construction process

and subsequent building occupation involves a chain of resource exchanges between

the building and its environment which resonate at larger and larger scales throughout

the building's life cycle.

Building Functions
Building Envelope
Site
Community
Watershed
Region
Planet
Universe








Figure 2-5. Nested subsystems hierarchy. (Adapted from Boecker, et al. 2009).

Utilizing a systemic perspective on the impacts of a building upon the varying

scales of its environment is the foundation for achieving the goals toward sustainable

construction. Examination of Figure 2-5 highlights the levels of systems that a building

has consequential impact relationships with. The first level relates strictly to the

building's functions: the mechanical systems contained within and the optimization of

those systems in order to satisfy the needs of the users. The building functions must

emphasize the health, safety, comfort and well-being of the building's occupants as well

as function in a manner that maximizes energy efficiency. The second level is the









building envelope and relates to the material makeup of the building itself, its

orientation, daylighting strategies, insulation efficiency and aesthetics. The material

composition of the building should possess a high level of reused or recycled materials

and the construction process should have minimal waste. The third level pertains to the

building's relationship with its site. Certain site elements (e.g. natural shading, capture

and channeling of prevailing breezes) can be incorporated to assist in achieving

sustainability goals. It is crucial that the site be viewed as something that needs to be

protected or rehabilitated; the building should enhance the site and vice versa. The

relationship between building and site corresponds directly to the previous two systems

related to building functions and envelope; as it is these three initial levels that compose

the building as a singular entity. However, in order for the built environment to become

truly sustainable, the impact upon the subsequent broad-scale systems and their

relationship to a building must be addressed.

The fourth level is community. Unlike the site system, the relationship between

building and community straddles three much broader primary subsystems within the

community scale: local economy, culture and natural environment. Communal issues

pertain to the building's location relative to transportation needs of occupants and users;

the building's economic importance within the community; whether or not the building

serves as a place of public importance to the local society; or if the building sets a

precedent for generating future sustainable growth that benefits the community as a

whole. Building quality, albeit a term that has different interpretations among many, is

important at this level because the built environment needs to be a positive and

sustainable component of the community.









The fifth system is the watershed and relates the building's relationship between

water consumption and freshwater impacts. Pollution from the construction process,

storm water runoff and the intake of freshwater and expulsion of wastewater are issues

requiring focus when undertaking a green building project. Watershed impacts could

have potentially hidden consequences due to the interconnectivity of many water

systems through rivers, lakes, aquifers and streams. Water consumption has a

correlation with communal well-being since freshwater is necessary for sustaining

human life.

The sixth, seventh and eighth levels (i.e. region, planet and universe) serve as

reminders that the building's greater context spans outward beyond the normal confines

of conventional scale. Well executed, thoughtful high-performance green buildings can

possess an influence that reaches far beyond the realms of local community and can

drive other builders to follow suit. The notion that a building can possess a regional or

worldly influence is not a new concept as evident by the noted built projects throughout

history discussed at the beginning of this literature review.

Kibert's principles of sustainable construction and the application of these

principles within the nested subsystem hierarchy of a building's relationship with the

greater world as a whole have a commonality rooted in integration. Buildings, as

manmade products set within a natural context, must be designed and thought of

integrated organisms that have a direct and mutual impact upon their environment.

These components that form an integrated hierarchy (i.e. building, site, community and

watershed) are referred to as stakeholders; bodies which affect the building process or

bear the effects of infiltration from a building project.

46









Stakeholders and Sustainable Construction

When discussing sustainable construction or development, the term 'stakeholder'

is commonly used to describe the participants directly involved in the ownership,

financing, design, engineering and building of a project. In a broad sense, stakeholders

are those who have a vested interest in the project being undertaken. However,

stakeholders can be defined as not only individuals working directly on the project, but

also the subsystems that the project is contained within. There are ecological, social

and economic stakeholders that are affected by a project's impact on its various

environmental contexts. For this thesis, the stakeholders refer to an integrated group of

relevant project participants who come from various professional backgrounds and

possess a diverse grouping of knowledge, skillsets, perceptions and experience to a

project. This group could include not only the project owner, financier, architect,

engineers and builders; but also the citizenry of the community who have a social

interest in a project, environmental consultants or any private or government agency

that may have a concern with a project's upstream needs or downstream impacts.

Stakeholder Based Life Cycle Assessment

Conventional life-cycle assessment (LCA) involves assessing the environmental

consequences of an intended decision toward implementing a particular product or

process throughout its entire lifespan. Building materials and the building itself can be

scrutinized though LCA. The main benefit of an LCA perspective is that it based upon

long-term benefits and examines the varying scales of extraction, production, use and

disposal of a product. Energy consumption, water usage, building materials and the

resulting environmental performance and impacts are analyzed and compared among

47









product alternatives. The LCA analysis is a comprehensive evaluation of both positive

and negative attributes of a product or process and a decision upon which is the best

choice to select is made (Kibert 2005).

The framework of LCA involves four primary steps: goal and scope definition; life

cycle inventory; life cycle impact assessment; and interpretation. The first step involves

establishing the reasoning behind the study, specifying the intended audience,

demarcating the boundaries for analysis and any requirements or study limitations. This

step is followed by life cycle inventory; which involves the collection and validation of

any inputs and outputs that quantify material and energy consumption, their associated

environmental impacts and their subsequent waste products throughout each life cycle

stage. The next step is life cycle impact assessment where impacts on environment and

human health are categorized and calculated using equivalency factors and weighted

values to stratify the data so impact comparisons can be made. The final step of

interpretation assesses the results of the life cycle assessment and compares them to

the initially defined goals and scope. The resulting interpretation gives an unbiased

analysis of the results and provides recommendation for reducing the environmental

impact of a product, process or system (Thabrew et al. 2008).

Stakeholder based life cycle assessment (SBLCA) caters to analyzing the

necessary upstream factors required to initiate a product or process and their

consequential downstream effects in a setting where a collaborative effort is employed.

The framework of this process is similar to a life cycle assessment for a singular product

or process, yet it accommodates a multitude of stakeholders with varying backgrounds

and expertise to assess impacts and recommend alternatives.

48









Utilizing a collaborative SBLCA is a key component for achieving a successful

implementation of an integrative approach toward a building project. It has a direct

relationship with not only the quality of the building product, but the process undertaken

to construct it and the effects the construction process and product have on an

environmental, social and economic level. Stakeholder based life cycle assessment

consists of five main parts: goal formation, analyzing the current state, assessing

alternative scenarios, incorporating strategies, and developing indicators for monitoring

and evaluation. Each process is described as follows:

Goal formation: Align the stakeholders' perspectives to commit to joint
development that will benefit the community in the most sustainable way
possible.

Analyzing and assessing the current state: Establishes a 'distance to target'
mentality for achieving sustainability goals. Develop an understanding of
upstream requirements and downstream effects in both broad scale and
localized contexts. In this phase, the links between environmental, social and
economic aspects affected by the project are identified. Impacts may be
described through quantitative or qualitative data or a combination of both.

Assessing alternative scenarios: Due to the transdisciplinary involvement of
the stakeholders involved, a set of consistent options of possible scenarios for
goal achievement is generated.

Incorporating strategies: Stakeholders examine the scenarios created in the
previous step and determine which options most benefit the local conditions, use
of available resources and ease of implementation. Holistic thinking when
examining upstream requirements and downstream effects is critical in this stage
at reducing uncertainties and transaction costs while simultaneously promoting
unity and agreement among stakeholders.

Developing indicators for monitoring and evaluation: This phase requires
stakeholders to implement monitoring and evaluation strategies across all levels
of the community (i.e. environmental, social and economic impacts) to support
sustainable development and ensure project goals are fulfilled (Thabrew et al.
2008).









While SBLCA can provide a framework for integration among project

stakeholders, there are some factors that hinder the SBLCA mindset. Bounded

rationality among stakeholders results in all stakeholders expecting their collaborators to

all follow the same rationality when approaching a project's sustainability goals. This

mindset is tantamount to 'tunnel vision' and limits the holistic approach that all

stakeholders should embrace. Asset specificity is another hindrance to SBLCA that

relates to specifying stakeholder resource allocation in a limited manner. When

resources are allocated for a specific task or project, there is little regard for the

changing requirements, priorities and perspectives upon a more holistic scale.

Opportunistic behavior is also a problem when trying to implement successful SBLCA

practices. This involves stakeholders focusing primarily on their own benefits, which is

the exact opposite of the core issue of SBLCA: integration. When stakeholders conduct

themselves in an opportunistic manner, the essence of collaboration associated with

SBLCA is lost. The overall benefits of all of the stakeholders involved are diminished as

well as the opportunity for achieving any sustainability goals for the project (Thabrew

and Ries 2009).

Life-Cycle Costing

Much like LCA, life-cycle costing (LCC) examines the economic side of a product

or process from extraction through disposal. The purpose of LCC is to differentiate

between purportedly high first costs of a decision versus an overall financial benefit in

the long run based upon the yield of lower operational costs over the course of a

product's life. Life-cycle costing is coupled with LCA because of the long-term

perspective they both share. Life-cycle assessment decisions can be affected by an

50









LCC analysis and vice versa (Kibert 2005). Both LCC and LCA analyses are critical

steps when considering an integrated design process. The complementary nature of

these two processes can greatly improve the achievement of an owner's sustainable

goals in both environmental and economic terms.

LEED as a Guide for a Sustainable Process

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building

certification is a voluntary program established by the United States Green Building

Council (USGBC) that promotes a national standard for establishing the requirements

for high-performance green buildings. From its original inception in 1998, LEED has

gradually evolved to become the most widely accepted and well known green building

assessment program in the United States. The basis behind LEED is a whole-building

approach to assessing key attributes of a building's design, construction and life-cycle

performance in seven key areas: sustainable sites; water efficiency; energy and

atmosphere; materials and resources; indoor environmental quality; innovation in design

and regional priority (USGBC 2010).

What makes LEED a contender toward fostering integration is that it provides a

credible performance-based, goal oriented system that combines the efforts of the four

major stakeholders in the construction process: owner, architect, engineer and

contractor. Each of the seven areas requires submittal documentation from varying

stakeholders. For example, in order to fulfill points for the energy and atmosphere

component LEED, engineers need to provide detailed energy modeling data that meet

or exceed the requirements set forth by LEED. This energy modeling relates back to the

architect's inputs relative to the design, scale and orientation of the building. If the

51









engineers feel that there is an opportunity to increase points, they can communicate

with the architects in order to make adjustments in the design. Another example that

combines the efforts of stakeholders is the materials and resources component.

Contractors play a role in determining material acquisitions specified by the architect's

design to ensure that they may be of recycled or reused materials, or materials acquired

within a specified regional distance.

As a process, LEED's success stems from its pliability with regards to changes in

green building trends. The system is under constant scrutiny and evolves through a

consensus based process that emphasizes a common standard of measurement,

raising consumer awareness of green building benefits, promotes integration among

stakeholders and is continually transforming the building market (USGBC 2010). The

infiltration of the LEED rating system and the proliferation of LEED accredited

professionals in all professions within the construction industry have established a

common green building language that has begun to provide a consistent path toward

implementing sustainable construction techniques.

Whole Building Design

Created by the National Institute of Building Sciences, a non-governmental

United States-based organization dedicated to advancing construction research, Whole

Building Design (WBDG) is a process that promotes the ideas encompassed by other

green building programs (e.g. USGBC's LEED rating system) and actively seeks to find

ways to unify them into both an integrated design approach and integrated team

process. Whole Building Design advocates that project stakeholders from the design,

technical planning and construction teams examine project objectives, building

52









materials, systems and assemblies from various perspectives. The process also

emphasizes the integrated team process where all affected stakeholders (i.e. owner,

design and construction teams) work together continuously throughout the duration of

each project phase to evaluate project cost, quality, future environmental and economic

impacts as well as the project's beneficial effects upon occupants (Prowler and Vierra

2008).

The foundation of Whole Building Design is the integrated design approach

where the potential for success is dependent upon the earlier the project goals are

identified and defined along with balancing out those goals during the design process

and all interrelationships and interdependencies among all other building systems are

taken into consideration. Whole Building Design is rooted in a set of complementary

objectives necessary to achieve a successful holistic project:

Accessible: Pertains to building elements, heights and clearances implemented
to address the specific needs of disabled people.

Aesthetics: Pertains to the physical appearance and image of building elements
and spaces as well as the integrated design process

Cost-Effective: Pertains to selecting building elements on the basis of life-cycle
costs (weighing options during concepts, design development and value
engineering) as well as basic cost estimating and budget control.

Functional/Operational: Pertains to functional programming-spatial needs and
requirements, system performance as well as durability and efficient
maintenance of building elements.

Historic Preservation: Pertains to specific actions within a historic district or
affecting a historic building whereby building elements and strategies are
classifiable into one of the four approaches: preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration or reconstruction.









Productive: Pertains to occupants' well-being-physical and psychological
comfort-including building elements such as air distribution, lighting,
workspaces, systems and technology.

Secure/Safe: Pertains to the physical protection of occupants and assts from
man-made and natural hazards.

Sustainable: Pertains to environmental performance of building elements and
strategies (Prowler and Vierra 2008).
Sustainable

Cost Effective ..** **. Safe/Secure

S High A
Accessible -i Performance 4- Functional
1 Green Building f

Productive *.. .* Aesthetics

Historic

Figure 2-6. Whole Building Design interrelationships (Prowler and Vierra 2008).

In Whole Building Design, the generation of a high-performance green building is

not only dependent upon fulfilling the holistic objectives, but also incorporating an

integrated team process where all stakeholders (i.e. all parties involved in the planning,

design, construction, operation, occupation and maintenance of the building) must

completely embrace and comprehend the issues and input of all participants and

interact with them throughout all phases of the project. Collective brainstorming through

a design charrette at the beginning of a project initiates the Whole Building Design

process and encourages a mutual exchange of ideas among project stakeholders. The

cross-fertilization when tackling project goals and problems allows stakeholders to

share their collective professional knowledge that may provide other team members

with knowledge beyond their own professional expertise (Prowler and Vierra 2008).
54









The Whole Building Design approach to a project's design sparks a return to the

embrace of cohesive intelligence among those involved in putting a project together.

The objectives set forth by the Whole Building Design objectives represent a threading

of ideas that resort back to the premise of systems thinking based upon a uniquely

defined vocabulary rooted in holistic green building terminology. The idea behind Whole

Building Design is of interest in this literature review because of its emphasis on

formulating a process rather than providing explicit outcomes for deliverables. The

collaborative and open-minded nature of the Whole Building Design process differs

greatly from the traditional, professionally isolated methods of project delivery (i.e.

design-bid build) that have been the status quo. It relates almost interchangeably with

the emerging ideas toward a fully integrated design process and embodies the notion of

cooperative cohesive intelligence that was once a hallmark of the master builder.

The Age of Integration

Coupled with the rise of the new sustainable building culture, integrated design

is beginning to emerge in the construction industry as a viable method of successfully

achieving project sustainability goals. However, the definition of what the integrated

design process is yields no singular concrete answer. This section of the literature

review serves to pool the various attributes of successful integrated design strategies

from different sources related to integrated design.

Tools and ideologies such as LEED and Whole Building Design are evidence

that the construction industry is making a return to the cohesive intelligence that was

once fundamental in the historic building culture lead by the master builder. The new

green building culture is reliant upon stripping away the confines of professionals

55









operating in isolation and promoting a much more liberal environment where ideas can

be collectively shared, analyzed and implemented. The resulting entity has been called

"the composite master builder:" a collection of individuals with varying expertise

collaborating toward understanding a building project through the multiple sub-systems

within a project's whole (Boecker et al. 2009). Yet just as each building project is

unique, the methods of implementing an integrated design process also vary dependent

upon who is enacting them and what type of goals the project is attempting to achieve.

The Whole Building Design guidelines introduced in the previous section contain

a sub-section that specifically pertains to implementing the integrated design process.

The elements of integrated design specified through Whole Building Design in the

following diagram provide a springboard for establishing the common qualities that most

models of an integrated design process share.


Emphasize the
Integrated Process

Ensure requirements and goals .... .... Think of the building
are met (e.g. commissioning) .. as a whole


fElements
ff f \ .


Evaluate solutions --


<-- Focus on life-cycle design


xDesignn


". .. "
Develop tailored solutions *** .... Work together as a team
that yield multiple benefits while from the beginning
meeting requirements and goals Conduct assessments
(e.g. risk analysis) to help
identify requirements and set goals
Figure 2-7. Elements of integrated design (Adapted from Prowler and Vierra 2008).









Alex Zimmerman provides a general overview of the common core elements that

make up the varying definitions of an integrated design process:

Goal driven with the primary goal being sustainability, but with explicit subsidiary
goals, objectives and targets set as a means to get there.

Facilitated by someone whose primary role is not to produce the building design
or parts of it, but to be accountable for the process of design.

Structured to deal with the issues and decisions in the right order, to avoid
locking in bad performance by making non-reversible decisions with incomplete
input of information.

Clear decision-making for a clearly understood methodology for making
decisions and resolving critical conflicts.

Inclusive-everyone, from the owner to the operator, has something critical to
contribute to the design and everyone must be heard.

Collaborative so that the architect is not simply the form-giver, but more the
leader of a broader team collaboration with additional active roles earlier in the
process.

Holistic or systemic thinking with the intent of producing something where the
whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and which may even be more
economic.

Whole-building budget setting-allows financial trade-offs, so money is spent
where it is most beneficial when a holistic solution is found.

Iterative-to allow for new information to inform or refine previous decisions.

Non-traditional expertise-on the team, as needed, or brought in at non-
traditional times to contribute to the process (Zimmerman 2006).

Integrated Design Team

In order for the above elements to be successfully implemented on a construction

project and for integrated design to be useful in achieving sustainability goals, the

foundation of the integrated design team needs to be established. This "composite

master builder" is a grouping of different professionals who are brought together for the









purpose of guiding the achievement of project goals efficiently and effectively. Reverting

back to the holistic perspective of building green, the integrated design team needs to

also function as an organism; especially one that is adaptive and open to change

(Boecker et al. 2009).

The core members, or stakeholders, of an integrated design team are the

building owner (or owner's representative), the architect, the mechanical engineer and

the builder or general contractor. However, the stakeholder group may also include civil,

electrical and structural engineers; landscape architects; interior designers; lighting

consultants; energy experts; and commissioning agents. The types of professions and

consultants may vary depending on the type and scale of the project; what is most

critical is that all of the project stakeholders come together before any decision-making

toward project goals is made (Yudelson 2009).

The initial stages of team for an integrated design process rely on the principles

of everybody engaging everything early. The "four E's" are referred by Boecker et al. as

being part of the initial phase of discovery at the onset of an integrated process. The

argument is that all assumptions, honest-wrong-beliefs, misgivings, doubts and

questions about the project's goals need to be addressed as soon as the team is

formed. Solutions need not be imposed onto the team, but rather discovered by the

team through the process of questioning one another based upon the multitude of

various professional expertise among the integrated team members. Team members

engaging in mutually respectful discussions and listening to what each other have to

say creates alignment within the team and begins the iterative process for subsequent

revisits to the initially established project goals if necessary (Boecker et al. 2009).

58









The Process of Integrated Design

While there is no singular set prescriptive path for integrated design, most

models take on a general form that is discussed in this section. The integrated design

process can vary in length and complexity depending on the intricacy and scale of the

project undertaken. It important to note that an effective integrated process is cyclical.

Unlike the linear nature of design-bid-build, an integrated process is composed of a

series of meetings, or workshops, which generate feedback loops and allow

stakeholders to critically evaluate and re-evaluate decisions until the best decision is

ultimately reached and the process can progress onward. The stakeholders operate

together rather than in isolation.

The integrated design process begins with the client establishing a project idea

and creating a list of associated goals for that project. The base conditions of the project

are identified and the client, usually with the assistance of an architect, begins to

assemble and select potential members for the integrated design team. After the team

has been chosen, a charrette, or pre-design kickoff meeting, among all of the involved

project stakeholders is held. The purpose of the charrette is to align the team with

regards to their individual professional expertise and their expected role and

responsibilities in fulfilling a project's initial sustainability goals. During the charrette,

performance goals are set, the decision whether to pursue green building certification

(e.g. LEED) is made and an integrative process road map, or schedule, is created The

charrette is the time when stakeholders listen and participate creatively in order to

generate preliminary ideas for the building's design (Yudelson 2009).









Another goal of the charrette is to identify potential internal project strengths and

weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats. Strengths recognized may

come in the form of extraordinary design talent, owner resources or building expertise.

Weaknesses involve direct problems that inhibit project sustainable goals such as

disagreements among stakeholders over a problem's solution or lacking resources in

order to pay for certain sustainable building attributes. Opportunities come in the form of

external factors that boost a project's sustainable goals. These may range from present

natural resources (e.g. abundant solar gain for potential photovoltaic panel installation)

or financial incentives for building green in a particular jurisdiction. Threats are external

to the project and comprise anything that may prevent the project from achieving its

goals outside of the stakeholder's realm. These factors include changes in ownership,

financial troubles or local laws that restrict the application of certain designs that

otherwise would enhance the project's goals (Yudelson 2009).

Following the initial project charrette, all stakeholders have had their values

aligned with the project goals and an all encompassing holistic attitude is embraced by

all. The process now shifts toward schematic design. At this juncture, each stakeholder

understands his or her respective role and responsibility and generates schematics for

whatever he or she has been assigned to. These preliminary schematic designs must

take into account their relationship to various subsystems (i.e. natural, social, economic)

that their assigned task has the greatest effect on. Schematics do not necessarily mean

commitment to a building form. They are merely iterations of the conceptual design

initially presented in the first charrette, yet this time they are backed by supporting data.

This data may include site analysis of water flows, utility connections, potential

60









renewable energy sources, key habitat areas, programmatic data, building massing

options, material choices, daylighting strategies, potential LEED points assessment or a

rough outline of LCA and LCC models. The supporting data is not confined to any set

rules (Boecker et al. 2009).

When schematic designs have yielded a viable choice for inclusion in the project,

the actual design development can begin and systems can be designed for

optimization. This entails determining whether or not the ideas introduced from

schematic design can actually be applied to the project and if they still adhere to the

initial performance goals set forth during the first charrette (Yudelson 2009). It is critical

to constantly be validating the building performance results against the initial

performance targets in order to maintain a track toward sustainable goal fulfillment. The

design development stage is where commitment to building form is made and the plans

for commissioning protocol are drafted (Boecker et al. 2009).

After design development, the project enters the construction documents phase.

This is where the design goes through a final evaluation and the verification of achieving

the initial project sustainability targets is made. There is no more designing left to do.

Aside from verification of goal achievement and producing bidding documents, this

stage is where the final commissioning and system measurement and verification

procedures are drafted. The perspective has now shifted onto preparing for occupation

and monitoring the building's performance throughout its lifecycle (Boecker et al. 2009).

Unlike conventional design-bid-build, the integrated process relies heavily upon

feedback loops so that owners, designers and builders can be knowledgeable about a

project's status with regards to its performance targets in order to potentially assist with

61









future projects. When a project has been completed and occupied, post-occupancy

evaluations can be performed to assess how the occupants feel about the building and

whether or not the performance targets established at the onset of the design process

are still maintained after the building has been occupied. Post-occupancy evaluations

do not need to be confined to quantifiable energy performance and system operation.

They may discuss other elements such as building quality of life; site or habitat quality;

communal impacts; building health and any plans the occupants have to improve their

building for continued future use. Utilizing this feedback helps project stakeholders

evolve their approach to integrated design as lessons are learned about the positive

and negative elements that affected the process and it only enhances their collective

cohesive intelligence toward green building (Boecker et al. 2009).







V)




Commissioning
Client Designers Builder Agent Occupar





SIS hand offlfe station
CL

rM -- -- -------y




post-occupancy evaluation results to future projects

Figure 2-8. Feedback loops (Adapted from Boecker et al. 2009).









Summary

Beginning with a historical perspective focusing on the master builder hierarchy

leading up to the rise of professionalism and through the emergence of a new green

building culture that fosters integration, this literature review served to provide a case

that there is a need for a return to some of the old ways of doing. The cohesive

intelligence that was the essence of the master builder system has reemerged as the

foundation of an integrated design process. The push toward integration cannot be

emphasized enough in the drive toward creating a truly sustainable built environment.

At this point in history, we are witnessing a major change in the way we approach

building. The rise of the sustainable building culture and its subsequent impact on the

construction industry makes it very clear that green building is no passing fad. However,

it may be some time before the entire construction industry fully embraces an integrated

design process as status quo; and it may never do so. As our society's needs continue

along the path of ever-growing complexities, our built environment will continue to

reflect this with increasing demands for high-performance green buildings. The beauty

of the integrated design process is that its malleability will allow it to evolve concurrently

with increasingly complex societal and building needs; as long as the stakeholders

involved foster a spirit of cooperation, respect and trust.









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Overview

This research undertaken dealt with looking at the integrated design process

through the lens of professionals and served to form a present understanding of how

integrated design is perceived among architects, engineers and building contractors.

The contrasting professional perceptions, awareness and experience of the integrated

design process were examined as well as the successful methods used to employ the

integrated design process in the field.

The research methodology consisted of three main parts: 1) a comprehensive

literature review of recent publications related to the integrated design process, 2) a

quantitative and qualitative survey of construction industry professionals, and 3) the

generation of a descriptive diagram of an integrated prescriptive path toward the

construction of a high performance green building.

Studying previous research of the integrated design process established the

context of current attitudes, trends and methods used in the building industry that foster

integrated design with regards to high performance green buildings. In addition, the

literature review served as a generator for the first iteration of a diagrammatic pathway

of an integrated design process to be compared with the traditional method of design-

bid-build. The literature review also acted as the catalyst for generating the survey

questionnaire to be distributed to professionals.

Survey responses were statistically analyzed to compare the levels of knowledge,

experience and perception among professionals with regards to the current trends in

integrated design found in the literature review. Examination of the survey results set
64









forth the present issues of greatest concern regarding the integrated design process in

the professional circles. These results also exposed the setbacks faced by industry

professionals dealing with integrated design.



Literature Survey Design Survey Survey Response
Review Distribution Analysis


Conclusions
and Recommendations for
Future Research
Figure 3-1. Research methodology framework.

Development of the Survey

The survey was created to gain a current perspective of the attitudes and

experience that professionals in the architecture, engineering and construction fields

have toward the principles and processes associated with the integrated design

process. There were three primary aims of the survey process as follows:


1) To determine the attitudes and perceptions professionals have toward the current
state of green building. Focus was placed upon company attitudes toward green
projects and the various factors that contributed to their success.

2) To determine the attitudes and perceptions professionals have toward an
integrated design process with regards to high performance green building and
what aspects of an integrated process have the greatest bearing on facilitating
green building.

Defining the Population and Sample

Population: Architecture, engineering and construction professionals in all 50
states.

Sample: 1800 randomly selected architecture, engineering and construction
professionals taken from the USGBC online membership directory









The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) is the largest organization

dedicated to promoting sustainable construction in the United States. It is the originator

and ruling authority for LEED certification in the building industry and has over 20,000

registered company members. Firms that are members of the USGBC must possess a

strong dedication to following the principles of sustainable construction and are at the

forefront of driving trends in green building in the United States (USGBC 2010).

Through the online membership directory provided by the USGBC website

(www.usgbc.org), a random sampling of architecture, engineering and construction

firms were taken. The website directory allows the user to filter the directory listings

based upon the registered professional category of each firm. The total sample included

1800 architecture, engineering and construction firms which were selected by going

through the directory and taking a set number of thirty-six firms from each U.S. state.

The breakdown of the selections involved taking the e-mail contacts from nine

respective architecture, engineering, construction and combined hybrid

architecture/engineering firms from each state's directory listing. If the state had less

than nine registered firms in a particular category (e.g. North Dakota having only three

registered engineering firms), then the selection was carried over to the next successive

state. The same could be said for states that had no registered professionals in a

particular category (e.g. Wyoming had no registered engineering firms with the

USGBC). The goal was to minimize geographical bias on states that had higher

populations and to generate results that were widespread across the country.









Survey Design

The survey was comprised of four separate parts: 1) professional demographics,

2) green project perceptions, 3) integrated design perceptions, and 4) optional free

response. The sections contained either qualitative multiple choice answers or

quantitative Likert scale responses. This survey titled "Integrated Design Process as a

Facilitator for High Performance Green Building" may be found in Appendix F of this

thesis. Each section is described as follows:

Part I: Professional Demographics

This section served as a basis of establishing who was taking the survey through

a series of seven multiple-choice questions. Each question is described as follows:

Question 1.1: Indicate the following which best matches your personal or

company's professional role in a building project This question served to

establish the professional background of the respondent. Respondents were

given the following set of roles and asked to select the one that best matched

their profession:

Architect
Engineer (e.g. civil, mechanical, electrical, structural)
General Contractor
Construction Manager
Design Builder
Trade Subcontractor (e.g. carpentry, masonry, etc.)
Landscape Architect
Planner
Consultant (e.g. legal, green building, etc.)
Financier (e.g. developers, mortgage brokers, etc.)









Question 1.2: Indicate approximately the number of years you have been

actively working within the construction industry This question served to

determine the level of experience the respondent had with working in the

construction industry. Respondents were asked to choose from a series of

multiple-choice responses ranging from zero to two years experience for the

lowest range and to over thirty years experience for the highest range.


Question 1.3: Indicate all applicable types of projects that your organization

primarily works on This question served to provide a context of what types of

projects the respondents were most involved in. Respondents were given the

opportunity to select multiple answers from the following project types:

Commercial
Residential
Industrial
Heavy Civil
Transportation
Healthcare
Government
Institutional
Other (respondents were given space to specify)


Question 1.4: Annual Company Revenue Respondents were given a series of

multiple-choice answers and asked to select the range that best matched their

company's annual earnings. The low end of the range was annual revenues

under $500,000 and the high end was for companies with annual revenues of

over $10 billion. The broad range of revenues was chosen to accommodate the

varying scales of companies surveyed.









Question 1.5: Number of Company Employees Much like the previous

question, this question served to provide context to the respondent's company

scale based upon the number of people working. The respondents were again

given a multiple-choice set of ranged values. The low end range choice was "less

than ten employees" and the high end range was "over 1000 employees."


Question 1.6: Number of LEED Accredited Professionals in your company -

This question served to establish the amount of LEED Accredited Professionals

within the respondent's company.


Question 1.7: Company regional location Respondents were asked to provide

a generalized geographical location based upon the following regions: northeast,

mid-Atlantic, south, midwest, west (Rocky Mountains) and Pacific coast. This

question served to gauge the geographical distribution of survey responses

across the United States.


Part II: Green Project Perceptions

Part two of the survey consists of eight questions aimed at compiling information

about professional involvement in projects that implement sustainable construction

techniques and have sustainable goals. Each question is described as follows:


Question 2.1: Please respond to each statement according to your perception of

your company's attitude toward sustainable construction practices This

question was comprised of a series of statements pertaining to the respondent's

perception of his or her company's outward attitudes and actions regarding

69









sustainable construction practices. The question was organized as a five point

Likert Scale response with the scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly

agree." The statements provided to respondents are as follows:


* Sustainability plays a major role in shaping my company's attitude toward a
project.

* My company makes an effort to be aware of the most recent trends in
sustainable construction.

* My company encourages owners to pursue sustainable methods and goals for
their projects.

* My company educates employees on sustainable design and construction
techniques.

* My company's mission statement places emphasis on fostering sustainable
practices.

* My company focuses on making a strong impact upon the local community
through green building.

* My company owes a great deal of its success in green projects to technology
(e.g. BIM).

* My company quickly responds and adapts to shifting trends in green building.

* My company actively seeks ways to improve its ability to implement sustainable
practices.

* My company encourages employees to become LEED Accredited Professionals.

* My company encourages owners to pursue LEED certification for their projects.

The responses were used to establish a work environment context for the

respondents and see how strongly the respondents felt about their company and

its attitudes and actions toward sustainable construction practices.









Question 2.2: In your opinion, what project delivery method has proven to be

most successful economically and efficiently in facilitation green projects? --

Respondents were asked to select only the one they felt was the best

response to the question. The choices were: design-bid-build, construction

manager at risk, construction manager for fee, design-build, integrated

project delivery and a fill-in-the-blank spot labeled "other."



Question 2.3: In your experience, which one of these factors has had the

greatest influence in fulfilling a project's sustainability goals? Respondents

were asked to select one factor that they believed provided the greatest benefit

for fulfilling a project's sustainability goals from the following items:

Design
Budget
Project Delivery Method
Pursuit of LEED Certification
Technology (e.g. BIM)
Team Experience

This question was aimed at determining the respondents' opinion

regarding the most successful element that contributed to green project

successes.


Question 2.4: In your experience, what part of the construction process is most

critical for ensuring fulfillment of a project's sustainable goals? This question

gave the respondents a listing of the following different chronological project

phases:









Pre-Design Bidding
Schematic Design Procurement
Design Development Construction
Construction Documentation Facilities Commissioning

From the responses to this question, it can be determined which phase of

the construction process is most crucial, in the opinions of the respondents, in

facilitating the fulfillment of a project's sustainability goals.


Question 2.5: In your experience, which project stakeholder has had the

greatest influence in guiding a project's sustainability goals? Respondents were

presented with a list of professional stakeholders who would normally have a

hand in the construction process. The following stakeholders were listed:

Owner General Contractor
Architect Commissioning Agent
Engineer Other (respondents given space to specify)

This question served to identify the most influential role in the construction

process with regards to guiding the project's sustainability goals.



Question 2.6: What was the most common project delivery method used for

LEED or equivalent green rated projects your company undertook? This

question asked respondents to select the one project delivery method that was

most successful specifically at facilitating LEED or equivalent green rated

projects. The following methods were given: design-bid-build, construction

manager at risk, construction manager for fee, design-build, integrated

project delivery and a fill-in-the-blank spot labeled "other."









The purpose of this question is to see if there was a preference for a

particular delivery method when it is explicitly stated that the project is required to

attain a LEED or equivalent green building certification.

Part III: Integrated Design Perceptions

This section consists of two multi-part Likert scale responses aimed at gauging

the respondents' awareness and experience specifically related to integrated design

and its use in the construction industry. The first Likert scale question presents

statements related to the roles, relationships and responsibilities among project

stakeholders. Respondents were asked to gauge their level of agreement with the

statements on a five point scale. The second question presents the respondent with a

series of descriptive integrated design process attributes and asked the respondent to

prioritize the statement on a five point scale gauging how important the statement's

topic is for achieving project sustainability goals. Each question is described as follows:


Question 3.1: Please respond to each statement according to your

perception of integration among project stakeholders and its application on

sustainable construction projects Respondents were asked to indicate a level

of agreement to the following statements on a five point Likert Scale from

"strongly disagree" to "strongly agree:"

Traditional design-bid-build is plagued by adversarial relationships among those
involved.

The industry needs to move away from design-bid-build into a more integrated
approach.

An egalitarian approach among the roles of clients, architects, engineers and
contractors boosts achievement of sustainability goals.

73










* My company places strong emphasis on an integrated design process among
architects, engineers and contractors with regards to green projects.

* My schooling prepared me for working with other building professionals in a
collaborative and integrated manner.

* Accepting an egalitarian approach to project roles (i.e. among architect, engineer
and general contractor) diminishes my professional motivation to do my best.

* The professional roles of architect, engineer and contractor are presently too
isolated from one another which limits green building potential.

* The earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the better the chance
of achieving project sustainability goals.

* Mutual respect and trust among project stakeholders are the key foundations of
success in implementing an integrated design process and achieving
sustainability goals.

* Holistic and long-term thinking (e.g. LCC/LCA) is necessary for successful
sustainable design and construction.

* The Integrated Design Process is an idea that looks great on paper, but is
difficult to implement in real world construction projects.

* The construction industry is not ready to fully embrace and integrated design
process.
This question aimed at gauging the respondents' opinions and perceptions

of integrated design and its relationship among the professional roles within a

sustainable construction process.


Question 3.2: How do you rate the following terms and their potential impact on

an Integrated Design Process and the achievement of project sustainability

goals? This question presented respondents with key attributes of an

integrated design process that were derived from information compiled in the

Literature Review section of this thesis. The statements were structured in the









form of a ranked Likert Scale ranging from "one" being the lowest priority and

"five" being the highest priority. Respondents were asked to prioritize the

elements of integrated design that they felt were most important in facilitating

green projects. Each statement is presented as follows:


* Cohesive Team Formation: grouping of engaged and experienced AEC
professionals who are involved from project start to finish

* Holistic, Outcome-Oriented Project Goals: owner establishes well-defined
goals early

* Effective/Open Communication: transparent lines of communication among all
involved

* Pre-Design Meeting: both the design and construction teams meet with owner
to establish project goals so everyone is on the same page

* Systematic Decision Making: decisions are based upon their relationship to the
building project as a whole, considering all impacts and alternative solutions

* Cohesive Intelligence: professional knowledge is openly shared between
clients, architects, engineers and contractors in order to facilitate successful
green strategies

* Feedback Loops: decisions are based upon the collective intelligence of the
integrated team and all decisions are cyclically evaluated from pre-design
through construction completion

* Use of Technology: BIM and computer energy modeling used as effective tools
for streamlining an integrated design process

* Building Assessment: LEED, Green Globes, BREEAM, etc. as effective
guidelines for an integrated design process

* Clearly Defined Team Responsibilities: All team members know their role and
their expected contribution to achieving goals. No one is left behind.

* Workshops: Owner, design and construction teams meet periodically throughout
the project course to evaluate progress and update goals.









Responses were used to gauge the respondents' opinions as to what elements

of an integrated design process are the most important in facilitating green projects.

Part IV: Optional Free Response

Respondents were provided an area to write freely about any personal

successes or setbacks pertaining to their experience with integrated design and green

building. Respondents were asked to list what worked, what did not work and any

changes they would like to see in the construction industry in order to progress

integrated design and green building. If respondents had not had previous experience

working with an integrated design process, they were asked to mention any methods

that aided or hindered green building projects they have worked on.

Since this question was a free response, this section was used to give

respondents an opportunity to break away from the survey format and freely describe

their thoughts and opinions about integrated design, green building or the general

collaborative process when undertaking a construction project.

Survey Distribution

The surveys were distributed in accordance to the IRB-02 forms from the

University of Florida and administered online via the survey website Zoomerang

(www.zoomerang.com). The e-mail addresses of architecture, engineering and

construction professionals were obtained from the USGBC online membership

database. Respondents were sent a direct hyperlink via e-mail to take the survey. The

IRB-02 form, consent form and the introductory e-mail distributed to survey respondents

can be found in Appendix A of this survey.









Based upon a tabulated error (p = 0.05) at a 95% confidence level, the

appropriate sample size for the population of 1800 surveyed professionals was

calculated at 322 responses. Therefore, a response rate of approximately 17.9% was

needed to state this study as significantly relevant within the population sample. The

survey was launched online on February 3rd, 2010 and closed on February 19th, 2010.

Survey Analysis

The final stage of the research involved pooling the survey responses for detailed

analysis of the professional perceptions and attitudes toward the integrated design

process. Collectively, the responses to each survey question were analyzed through

descriptive statistics in order to provide a broad scale view of how integrated design is

perceived and implemented toward facilitating green building in the construction

industry. Part I of the survey (Professional Demographics) served as the basis for

establishing the relationships in the subsequent sections of the survey in order generate

comparisons among architecture, engineering and construction professionals with

regards to integrated design and green building.









CHAPTER 4
SURVEY RESULTS


At the survey's closure, there were 173 visits by invitation recipients, 25 partial

responses and 101 complete responses. For the sake of consistency, partial responses

were eliminated from the final response tabulations. The actual survey response rate

was calculated to be approximately 5.6%, which fell short of the 17.9% for the results to

be statistically significant of the population sampled; thus all results in this chapter are

analyzed through descriptive statistics. Although the data accrued does not provide a

sound statistical overview of the population, the results compiled may still be beneficial

in gaining some insight into the integrated design process and its perception throughout

the construction industry.

The following sections of this chapter present the data for all survey responses

from all respondents. This results discussed in this chapter are broken down by their

respective survey section (i.e. Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV). Chapter 5 discusses the

results through further analysis; focusing on the respondents who explicitly identified as

architects, engineers and builders.


Part I: Professional Demographics Responses

Part I of the survey served as the benchmark to manage and filter the

subsequent sections' responses. The goal of this section was to establish who was

taking the survey through a series of multiple choice answers that reflected the

respondents' professional backgrounds, experience, company project focus, company

revenues, company size and location.









Question 1.1

Question 1.1 was designed to have the respondent identify the role that he or

she best fulfills in the construction industry. The results in Table 4-1 show that the

highest number of responses came from architects at 46% (46 respondents) of the

sample, followed by builders at 26% (26 respondents) and engineers at 18% (18

respondents). The category 'others' was created to provide respondents the opportunity

to clarify their roles if needed. The category included, but was not limited to, owners;

developers; legal consultants; energy consultants; and trade subcontractors.

Respondents who identified themselves as 'other' constituted approximately 10% (11

responses) of the sample. It should also be noted that in order to streamline the results;

the category 'builder' was compiled as a grouping of respondents who defined

themselves as general contractors, construction managers and design-builders.

Table 4-1. Respondents' professional role.
Company Role Number of Participants % of Total
Architect 46 46%
Engineer 18 18%
Builder 26 26%
Others 11 10%
Total 101 100%

Question 1.2

This question asked the respondents to provide, within a range, the number of

years they have been actively involved in the construction industry. Thirty-six percent

(36 responses) of all respondents claimed to have between 21 and 30 years of

experience in the industry, followed by 26% (26 respondents) claiming between 11 and

20 years and 22% (22 responses) claiming over 30 years experience. Only a small










portion of the professionals sampled (9%) claimed less than five years experience.

Table 4-2 details all of the survey respondents' professional experience timeframes.

Table 4-2. Respondents' number of years working in the construction industry.
Number of Years Number of Participants % of Total
0 2 Years 3 3%
3 5 Years 6 6%
6-10 Years 8 8%
11 20 Years 26 26%
21 30 Years 36 36%
Over 30 Years 22 22%
Total 101 100%

Question 1.3

Question 1.4 presented the respondents with a listing of various project types

and asked respondents to select all of the applicable types their company is primarily

involved in. The top three project types respondents' companies primarily work on were

commercial (92%), institutional (61%) and residential (60%). Healthcare and

government projects followed at 57% and 55%, respectively. The category 'other' was

provided to allow respondents to elaborate on any project types not available for

selection. These responses, which constituted 12% of respondents' choices, included

agricultural, hospitality, retail, master-planning and consulting.

Table 4-3. Respondents' company involvement in project types.
Project Type Number of Participants % of Respondents
Commercial 92 91%
Residential 60 59%
Industrial 41 41%
Heavy Civil 7 7%
Transportation 10 10%
Healthcare 57 56%
Government 55 54%
Institutional 62 61%
Other 12 12%









Question 1.4

Question 1.4 attempted to establish the respondents' context of company scale

through annual company revenue. Respondents were presented with a list of revenue

ranges and asked to select the one that was applicable to their organization. Forty-one

percent of respondents' companies fell within the range of $1 million to $9,999,999,

followed by 17% at either $10 million to 49,999,999 or in the lowest subcategory of

under $500,000. Table 4-4 provides a full listing of the revenue categories for

respondents.

Table 4-4. Respondents' annual company revenues.
Annual Revenue Number of Respondents % of Total
Under $500,000 17 17%
$500,000 $999,999 10 10%
$1,000,000- $9,999,999 41 41%
$10,000,000- $49,999,999 17 17%
$50,000,000 $99,999,999 4 4%
$100,000,000 $499,999,999 7 7%
$500,000,000- $1 Billion 1 1%
Over $1 Billion 4 4%
Total 101 100%

Question 1.5

Like question 1.4, question 1.5 serves to establish the scale of the respondents'

respective organizations based on number of employees. Thirty-seven percent of

respondents came from companies that employed less than ten people; followed by

32% of respondents in companies with ten to forty-nine employees. Eleven percent of

respondents came from companies with 50 to 99 employees. From this data, it is

concluded that the majority of respondents, approximately 80%, come from small to

mid-sized companies. Only a small fraction of respondents (3%) came from companies










with over 1000 employees. Table 4-5 breaks down the responses based upon

employee count.

Table 4-5. Number of company employees.
Number of Employees Number of Respondents % of Total
Less than 10 37 37%
10-49 32 32%
50-99 11 11%
100-149 5 5%
150-249 6 6%
250-500 5 5%
500-999 2 2%
1000 or more 3 3%
Total 101 100%

Question 1.6

Question 1.6 served to establish the number of LEED Accredited Professionals

(LEED APs) in the respondents' companies. Since the companies surveyed came from

the USGBC online member registry, it was of interest to see the distribution of LEED

APs among companies with high sustainability standards. Seventy-seven percent of

respondents reported less than ten LEED APs among their company peers, followed by

15% of respondents stating their company had between 10 and 49 LEED APs.

Table 4-6. Number of LEED Accredited Professionals in your company.
Number of LEED APs Number of Respondents % of Total
Less than 10 78 77%
10-49 15 15%
50-99 7 7%
100-149 0 0%
150-249 0 0%
250 or more 1 1%
Total 101 100%









Question 1.7

Question 1.7 asked respondents to provide a general geographic regional

location from which they operate so that a distribution of survey responses across the

United States could be observed. The goal of this survey was to seek respondents in all

parts of the country so that an accurate measure of widespread perception of integrated

design could be attained. According to Table 4-7, the highest percentage of

respondents came from the midwestern United States and the lowest came from the

Rocky Mountains western United States (4%).


Table 4-7. Company regional location.
Regional Location Number of Respondents % of Total
Northeast 18 18%
Mid-Atlantic 15 15%
South 23 23%
Midwest 29 29%
West (Pacific Coast) 12 12%
West (Rocky Mountains) 4 4%
Total 101 100%

Part II: Green Project Perception Responses

Part II of the survey asked the respondents questions related to their companies'

attitude toward sustainable construction practices and the various factors that

contributed to success in green building projects. The purpose of this section was to

establish the context of the respondents' professional environment pertaining to green

building and company awareness of sustainable construction practices. It could be

assumed that since respondents' were selected from the USGBC online registry, their

companies must possess a high degree of awareness and involvement in sustainable

construction practices.










Question 2.1

Question 2.1 was presented to respondents as an eleven part Likert Scale

response that gauged the respondents' opinions to a series of general statements

regarding company attitudes toward sustainable construction practices. Respondents

were asked to respond to each statement on a scale ranging from 'strongly disagree' to

'strongly agree.' The responses were then weighted to attain an average score for the

overall survey responses to each statement. The following equation was used to

determine the weighted value for each statement:

s sn
101 ,s = score, n = # of responses


The weighted value was used to determine an overall opinion of each statement

by the population. Table 4-8 provides a breakdown of the statements.

Table 4-8. Company attitudes toward sustainable construction practices.
1 2 3 4 5
Top number is the count of respondents
selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Average
the total respondents selecting the option. Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Score

a) Sustainability plays a major role 1 4 12 40 44
in shaping my company's attitude
toward a project 1% 4% 12% 40% 44% 4.21

b) My company makes an effort to 0 3 6 31 61
be aware of the most recent trends
in sustainable construction 0% 3% 6% 31% 60% 4.49

c) My company encourages owners 0 3 9 37 52
to pursue sustainable methods and
goals for their projects 0% 3% 9% 37% 51% 4.37

d) My company educates 3 2 5 34 57
employees on sustainable
design/construction techniques 3% 2% 5% 34% 56% 4.39

e) My company's mission statement 5 5 30 26 35
places emphasis on fostering
sustainable practices 5% 5% 30% 26% 35% 3.80

84









Table 4-8 (continued). Company attitudes toward sustainable construction practices.

f) My company focuses on making a 3 4 25 26 43
strong impact upon the local
community through green building 3% 4% 25% 26% 43% 4.01

g) My company owes a great deal 31 24 24 13 9
of its success in green projects to
technology (e.g. BIM) 31% 24% 24% 13% 9% 2.46

h) My company quickly responds 3 6 30 38 24
and adapts to shifting trends in
green building 3% 6% 30% 38% 24% 3.73

i) My company actively seeks ways 2 5 13 39 42
to improve its ability to implement
sustainable practices 2% 5% 13% 39% 42% 4.13

j) My company encourages 1 4 15 21 60
employees to become LEED
Accredited Professionals 1% 4% 15% 21% 59% 4.34

k) My company encourages owners 7 7 28 34 25
to pursue LEED certification for
their projects 7% 7% 28% 34% 25% 3.62


From the results to question 2.1, several observations can be made about the

respondents' respective company attitudes toward sustainable construction practices:

The majority of respondents 'strongly' or 'somewhat agree' (44% and 40%,
respectively) with statement A stating that sustainability plays a major role in
shaping their companies' attitude toward a project. An average weighted score of
4.21 was determined, placing the mean opinion in the range of 'somewhat
agree.'

Sixty percent of respondents 'strongly agreed' that their company makes a strong
effort to be aware of the most recent trends in sustainable construction, followed
by 31% stating they 'somewhat agree.' An average weighted score of 4.49
placed the overall opinion in between 'somewhat' and 'strongly agree.'

Over half of respondents (51%) stated they 'strongly agree' that their company
actively encourages owners to pursue sustainable project goals, followed by 37%
saying they 'somewhat agree.' The average weighted score of 4.37 placed the
overall opinion in the range of 'somewhat agree.'









* Over half of respondents (53%) strongly agreed that their company actively
educates employees on sustainable design and construction techniques,
followed by 34% stating they 'somewhat agreed.' The average weighted score of
4.39 placed the overall respondent opinion in the range of 'somewhat agree.'

* Statement E, regarding whether the respondents' company holds a mission
statement emphasizing sustainability had 35% stating they 'strongly agreed,'
26% stating 'some agree' and 30% with a neutral opinion. The average weighted
score of 3.80 placed the overall respondent opinion in the range of 'somewhat
agree.'

* Forty-three percent of respondents stated 'strongly agree' in that their company
focuses on making a local impact through green building. Neutral and 'somewhat
agree' statements were closely aligned with 25% and 26%, respectively. The
average weighted score of 4.01 places the overall respondent opinion in the
range of 'somewhat agree.'

* The majority of respondents (31%) surprisingly stated that their company does
not owe a great deal of success to technology (e.g. BIM) in achieving
sustainability goals. Twenty-four percent of respondents either somewhat
disagreed or were neutral. Only 9% of respondents strongly agreed that
technology was a major factor in the success of achieving project sustainability
goals. The average weighted score of 2.46 places the overall respondent opinion
in the range of 'somewhat disagree.'

* Thirty-eight percent of respondents selected 'somewhat agree' to their
companies quickly adapting to shifting trends in green building. Approximately
30% of respondents were either neutral or strongly agreed with this statement.
The average weighted score of 3.73 places the overall respondent opinion in the
range of 'somewhat agree.'

* Forty-two percent of respondents strongly agreed and 39% somewhat agreed
that their company actively seeks ways to improve its ability to implement
sustainable practices. The average weighted score of 4.13 places the overall
respondent opinion in the range of 'somewhat agree.'

* Over half of respondents (59%) strongly agreed that their company encourages
employees to become LEED APs. The average weighted score of 4.34 places
the overall respondent opinion in the range of 'somewhat agree.'

* Thirty-four percent of respondents somewhat agreed that their company
encourages owners to pursue LEED certification, followed by 28% neutral and
25% strongly agreeing. The average weighted score of 3.62 places the overall
respondent opinion in the range of 'somewhat agree.'













Respondents' Perception of Company Attitude Toward Sustainable
Construction Practices (Statements A to F)

0 100%

S90% ---
u
o. 80% 44- 43
m 52
S70% 6157

= 60% --
C 50% MStrongly Agree
S 40% Somewhat Agree
40%
N Neutral
30% =Somewhat Disagree
30
V) 20% 25 Strongly Disagree

10% 12

E 0%
Sa) Sustainablllty plays a b) Makes an effort to be c) Encourages owners d) Educates employees e) Mission statement f) Focuses impacting
major role aware of the most to pursue sustainable on sustainable emphasizes sustainable the local community
recent trends in goals design/construction practices through green building
sustainable construction techniques

Statement


Figure 4-1. Responses to survey question 2.1. Statements A through F.



Respondents' Perception of Company Attitude Toward Sustainable
Construction Practices (Statements G to K)

S100%
S 9
90% 24 25
$. 80% 42
70% 60
60% --

50% Strongly Agree
40% I- Somewhat Agree
30% Neutral
30%
O 30 Somewhat Disagree
= 20%
0 0 EStrongly Disagree
10% -
o 0%
M g) Owes a great deal of h) Quickly adapts to i) Company actively j) Encourages k) Encourages owners
E its success in green trends in green building seeks ways to improve employees to become to pursue LEED
projects to technology sustainable practices LEED Aps certification
Z (e g BIM)

Statement


Figure 4-2. Responses to survey question 2.1. Statements G through K.





87









Question 2.2

This question asked for the respondents' opinion on what project delivery method

has proven to be the most successful economically and efficiently in facilitating green

projects. Respondents' were provided a list of project delivery methods and asked to

select the one they felt was the best. The results were divided evenly at 26% each for

design-bid-build, design-build and integrated project delivery. The category 'other' was

provided so respondents could elaborate on any other methods used. These verbatim

responses included negotiated contract, "team not process," and "varies depending on

project scope." Table 4-9 provides the entire breakdown of responses.

Table 4-9. Respondents' choice for best project delivery method for facilitating green
projects.
Project Delivery Method Number of Respondents % of Total
Design-Bid-Build 26 26%
Construction Manager at Risk 12 12%
Construction Manager for Fee 8 8%
Design-Build 26 26%
Integrated Project Delivery 26 26%
Other 3 3%
Total 101 100%


Question 2.3

This question served to determine the respondents' opinion about which project

factor had the greatest influence in fulfilling a project's sustainability goals. Respondents

were asked to select only one answer from a multiple choice list. The results were

divided with 33% stating budget as the most important factor, followed by team, design

and pursuit of building certification at approximately 22%, 21% and 21% respectively.

Table 4-10 presents all of the factors and the percentage of responses recorded.












Table 4-10. Respondents' choice for factor of greatest influence in fulfilling project
sustainability goals.
Factor Number of Respondents % of Total
Design 21 21%
Budget 33 33%
Project Delivery Method 2 2%
Pursuit of Building Certification 21 21%
Technology (e.g. BIM) 0 0%
Team 22 22%
Experience 2 2%
Total 101 100%


Question 2.4

Question 24 gauges the respondents' opinion of what is the most critical

construction phase for ensuring the achievement of project sustainability goals. The

majority of respondents stated that pre-design (36%) was most crucial, followed by

schematic design (22%) and design development (21%). The results in Table 4-11

demonstrate a preference for engaging sustainability goals early.

Table 4-11. Part of the construction process most critical for achieving project
sustainability goals.
Construction Phase Number of Respondents % of Total
Pre-Design 36 36%
Schematic Design 22 22%
Design Development 21 21%
Construction Documentation 9 9%
Bidding 1 1%
Procurement 2 2%
Construction 9 9%
Facilities Commissioning 1 1%
Total 101 100%









Question 2.5

This question asked the respondents to state from their experience which

member of a project (stakeholder) had the greatest influence in achieving project

sustainability goals. Over half of respondents' (54%) stated that the owner was the most

important stakeholder in ensuring goal fulfillment, followed by the architect with 35%.

Judging by the results in Table 4-12, there is an overwhelming preference for the owner

and the architect.

Table 4-12. Project stakeholder with the greatest influence in guiding project
sustainability goals.
Stakeholder Number of Respondents % of Total
Owner 55 54%
Architect 35 35%
Engineer 3 3%
General Contractor 3 3%
Commissioning Agent 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Total 101 100%


Question 2.6

Question 2.6 asked respondents to state from experience the best project

delivery method used specifically for LEED or equivalent rated (e.g. Green Globes)

projects. Almost half of respondents (48%) stated design-bid-build as the preferred

delivery method. The results to this question are surprisingly different to the ones

presented in Question 2.2. This question aimed to deal specifically with projects that

were attempting to achieve a green building certification. Table 4-13 lists all respondent

results.









Table 4-13. Most common project delivery method for LEED certified projects.
Project Delivery Method Number of Respondents % of Total
Design-Bid-Build 48 48%
Construction Manager at Risk 13 13%
Construction Manager for Fee 9 9%
Design-Build 12 12%
Integrated Project Delivery 8 8%
Other 11 11%
Total 101 100%

Part III: Integrated Design Perception Responses

This section of the survey consisted of two multi-part Likert Scale responses

assessing respondents' professional experience and awareness of the integrated

design process. The first being a measure of opinion of concepts related to integration

among project stakeholders and its application on sustainable construction practices

and the second being a measure of priority of various attributes of the integrated design

process itself.


Question 3.1

This question provided 12 statements to respondents about the integrated design

process and asked respondents to select from a five-point scale their opinion of each

statement ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree.' The resulting responses

were given a weighted score using the following formula:

s sn
101 ,s = score, n = # of responses


The responses are provided in Table 4-14 followed by explanation of the results.











Table 4-14. Respondents' perception on integration among project stakeholders and its
application on sustainable construction projects.
1 2 3 4 5
Top number is the count of respondents A 2 3
selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Average
the total respondents selecting the option. Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Score

a) Traditional design-bid-build is plagued by 13 8 13 42 25
adversarial relationships among those
involved 13% 8% 13% 42% 25% 3.57

b) The industry needs to move away from 14 3 13 29 42
design-bid-build into a more integrated
approach 14% 3% 13% 29% 42% 3.81

c) An egalitarian approach among the roles 7 3 24 36 31
of clients, architects, engineers and
contractors boosts achievement of
sustainability goals 7% 3% 24% 36% 31% 3.80

d) My company places strong emphasis on 8 5 24 28 36
an integrated design process among
architects, engineers and contractors with
regards to green projects 8% 5% 24% 28% 36% 3.78

e) My schooling prepared me for working 18 27 20 19 17
with other building professionals in a
collaborative and integrated manner 18% 27% 20% 19% 17% 2.90

f) Accepting an egalitarian approach to 43 30 11 12 5
project roles (i.e. among Arch/Eng/GC)
diminishes my professional motivation to do
my best. 43% 30% 11% 12% 5% 2.07
g) The professional roles of architect, 19 12 20 30 20
engineer and contractor are presently too
isolated from one another which limits green
building potential 19% 12% 20% 30% 20% 3.20

h) The earlier the contractor is involved in the 6 5 7 31 52
design process, the better the chance of
achieving project sustainability goals 6% 5% 7% 31% 51% 4.17

i) Mutual respect and trust among project
stakeholders are the key foundations of 4 0 3 27 67
success in implementing an integrated
design process and achieving sustainability 4% 0% 3% 27% 66% 4.51
goals

j) Holistic and long-term thinking (e.g. 3 0 16 33 49
LCC/LCA) is necessary for successful
sustainable design and construction 3% 0% 16% 33% 49% 4.24

k) The Integrated Design Process is an idea 11 27 20 29 14
that looks great on paper, but is difficult to
implement in real world construction projects 11% 27% 20% 29% 14% 3.08

15 18 20 33 15
I) The construction industry is not ready to
fully embrace an integrated design process
15% 18% 20% 33% 15% 3.15









* 42% 'somewhat agree' that traditional design-bid-build is plagued by adversarial
relationships, followed by 25% of respondents who stated they 'strongly agreed.'
The average weighted score of 3.57 places the overall respondent opinion in the
range of 'somewhat agree.'

* 42% 'strongly agree' that the industry needs to move away from design-bid-build
into a more integrated approach, followed by 29% who 'somewhat agreed.'
Fourteen percent of respondents strongly disagreed with this statement. The
average weighted score of 3.81 places the overall respondent opinion in the
range of 'somewhat agree.'

* 36% of respondents 'somewhat agree' that an egalitarian approach among
project stakeholders boost achievement of sustainability goals, followed by 31%
stating they 'strongly agreed' and 24% being neutral. The average weighted
score of 3.80 places the overall respondent opinion in the range of 'somewhat
agree.'

* 36% of respondents 'strongly agree' that their company emphasizes integration
among project stakeholders, followed by 28% 'somewhat agreeing' and 24%
being neutral. The average weighted score of 3.78 places the overall respondent
opinion in the range of 'somewhat agree.'

* 27% of respondents 'somewhat disagree' that their schooling prepared them for
working with other building professionals, followed by 20% being neutral.
Responses were almost evenly distributed for 'strongly disagree,' 'somewhat
agree,' and 'strongly agree' at 18%, 19% and 17% respectively. The average
weighted score of 2.90 places the overall respondent opinion in the range of
'neutral.'

* 43% of respondents 'strongly disagree' that accepting an egalitarian approach
among project stakeholders on a project diminishes their professional motivation
to do their best, followed by 30% 'somewhat disagreeing.' The average weighted
score of 2.07 places the overall respondent opinion in the range of 'somewhat
disagree.'

* 30% of respondents 'somewhat agree' that the professional roles of architect,
engineer and contractor are presently too isolated, followed by 20% choosing
'strongly agree' and 'neutral;' and 19% stating they 'strongly disagree.' The
average weighted score of 3.20 places the overall respondent opinion in the
range of 'somewhat agree.'

* 51% of respondents strongly agree that the earlier the contractor is involved in
the design process, the better the chance of achieving project sustainability
goals, followed by 31% stating 'somewhat agree.' The average weighted score of
4.17 places the overall respondent opinion in the range of 'somewhat agree.'











* 67% of respondents 'strongly agree' that mutual respect and trust are the
foundations in implementing an integrated design process. The average
weighted score of 4.51 places the overall respondent opinion in the range of
'strongly agree.'


* Almost half of respondents (49%) strongly agree that holistic long-term thinking is
necessary for successful sustainable design and construction. The average
weighted score of 4.24 places the overall respondent opinion in the range of
'somewhat agree.'


* 29% of respondents 'somewhat agree' that the integrated design process is an
idea that looks good on paper but is difficult to implement on real world
construction projects, followed by 27% of respondents 'somewhat disagreeing.'
The average weighted score of 3.08 places the overall respondent opinion in the
range of 'neutral.'


* 33% of respondents 'somewhat agree' that the construction industry is not ready
to fully embrace an integrated design process, followed by 20% who stated a
'neutral' opinion. Yet, 15% 'strongly agree' and another 15% strongly disagree.
The average weighted score of 3.15 places the overall respondent opinion in the
range of 'neutral.'


Respondents Perception of Integration Among
(Statements A to F)


Project Stakeholders


25
- 42


36


111


Strongly Agree
S Somewhat Agree
Neutral
S Somewhat Disagree
' Strongly Disagree


a) Traditional b) The industry c) An egalitarian d) My company e) My schooling f) Accepting an
design-bid-build is needs to move approach among places strong prepared me for egalitarian
plagued by away from design- the roles of clients, emphasis on an working with other approach to
adversarial bid-build into a architects, integrated design building project roles (i e
relationships more integrated engineers and process among professionals in a among
among those approach contractors boosts architects, collaborative and Arch/Eng/GC)
involved achievement of engineers and integrated manner diminishes my
sustainability goals contractors with professional
regards to green motivation to do
projects my best
Statement


Figure 4-3. Survey responses to question 3.1. Statements A through F.


100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%


-
-
-
-












Respondents Perception of Integration Among Project Stakeholders
(Statements G to L)


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


20 14 15


52 49
67



10








g) The professional h) The earlier the i) Mutual respect j) Holistic and long- k) The Integrated I) The construction
roles of architect, contractor is and trust among term thinking (e g Design Process is industry is not ready
engineer and involved in the project stakeholders LCC/LCA) is an idea that looks to fully embrace an
contractor are design process, the are the key necessary for great on paper, but integrated design
presently too better the chance of foundations of successful is difficult to process
isolated from one achieving project success in sustainable design implement in real
another which limits sustainability goals implementing an and construction world construction
green building integrated design projects
potential process and
achieving
sustainability goals


Statement


Figure 4-4. Survey responses to question 3.1. Statements G through L.


Question 3.2


Question 3.2 provided respondents with a five-point Likert Scale and asked them


to rank the priority of 11 terms from 1 (indicating low importance) to 5 (indicating high


importance). The terms were all related to key attributes of the integrated design


process as determined in the literature review chapter of this thesis. The responses


were tabulated and a weighted average was determined using the following formula:


s sn
101 ,s = score, n = # of responses


Table 4-15 details the survey responses for each statement and provides the


weighted score for each response.


SStrongly Agree
*Somewhat Agree
* Neutral
*Somewhat Disagree
EStrongly Disagree











Table 4-15. Elements of integrated design prioritized by respondents.
Top number is the count of respondents 1 2 3 4 Average
selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of LOW Neutral High vc
the total respondents selecting the option. Score

a) Cohesive Team Formation: grouping of 2 0 6 36 57
engaged and experienced AEC professionals
who are involved from project start to finish 2% 0% 6% 36% 56% 4.45


b) Holistic, Outcome-Oriented Project 0 1 10 37 53
Goals: owner establishes well-defined goals
early 0% 1% 10% 37% 52% 4.41


c) Effective/Open Communication: 0 0 2 24 75
transparent lines of communication among all
involved 0% 0% 2% 24% 74% 4.72


d) Pre-Design Meeting: both the design and 3 1 1 30 66
construction teams meet with owner to
establish project goals so everyone is on the
same page 3% 1% 1% 30% 65% 4.53

e) Systemic Decision Making: decisions are 0 0 5 35 61
based upon their relationship to the building
project as a whole, considering all impacts and
alternative solutions 0% 0% 5% 35% 60% 4.55

f) Cohesive Intelligence: professional 1 0 9 25 66
knowledge is openly shared between clients,
architects, engineers and contractors in order
to facilitate successful green strategies 1% 0% 9% 25% 65% 4.53

g) Feedback Loops: decisions are based
upon the collective intelligence of the 0 1 9 38 53
integrated team and all decisions are cyclically
evaluated from pre-design through 0% 1% 9% 38% 52% 4.42
construction completion

h) Use of Technology: BIM and computer 5 8 39 29 20
energy modeling used as effective tools for
streamlining an integrated design process 5% 8% 39% 29% 20% 3.50


i) Building Assessment: LEED, 2 5 25 48 21
GreenGlobes, BREEAM, etc. as effective
guidelines for an integrated design process 2% 5% 25% 48% 21% 3.80


j) Clearly Defined Team Responsibilities: All 0 0 4 39 58
team members know their role and expected
contribution to achieving goals. No one is left
behind. 0% 0% 4% 39% 57% 4.53

k) Workshops: Owner, design and 0 4 7 49 41
construction teams meet periodically
throughout the project course to evaluate
progress and update goals 0% 4% 7% 49% 41% 4.26









* Over half of respondents (56%) stated cohesive intelligence is of 'high
importance,' with 36% stating 'somewhat-high importance.' The average
weighted score of 4.45 places the overall respondent rank of importance at
'somewhat-high.'

* Over half of respondents (52%) believe that holistic outcome-oriented goals are
of 'high importance,' followed by 37% stating 'somewhat-high importance.' The
average weighted score of 4.41 places the overall respondent rank of importance
at 'somewhat-high.'

* 74% of respondents stated that effective and open communication among project
stakeholders is of 'high importance.' The average weighted score of 4.72 places
the overall respondent rank of importance at 'high.'

* 65% of respondents stated that a pre-design meeting of both design and
construction teams is of 'high' importance, followed by 30% stating 'somewhat-
high' importance. The average weighted score of 4.53 places the overall
respondent rank of importance at 'high.'

* 60% of respondents stated that systemic decision making where decisions
consider all impacts and alternates is of 'high' importance, followed by 35%
stating 'somewhat-high' importance. The average weighted score of 4.55 places
the overall respondent rank of importance at 'high.'

* 65% of respondents stated that cohesive intelligence; when professional
knowledge is openly shared among all project stakeholders, is of 'high'
importance. The average weighted score of 4.53 places the overall respondent
rank of importance at 'high.'

* 52% of respondents stated that feedback loops are of 'high' importance, followed
by 38% stating 'somewhat-high' importance. The average weighted score of 4.42
places the overall respondent rank of importance at 'somewhat-high.'

* 39% of respondents felt the use of technology, such as BIM, in achieving
sustainability goals was of 'neutral' importance, followed by 29% stating it was of
'somewhat-high' importance. The average weighted score of 3.50 places the
overall respondent rank of importance at 'somewhat-high.'

* 48% of respondents ranked building assessment of 'somewhat-high' importance
when achieving sustainability goals, followed by 25% feeling 'neutral.' The
average weighted score of 3.80 places the overall respondent rank of importance
at 'somewhat-high.'











* 57% of respondents stated that clearly defined team roles and responsibilities
were of 'high' importance, followed by 39% stating 'somewhat-high' importance.
The average weighted score of 4.53 places the overall respondent rank of
importance as 'high.'


* 49% of respondents ranked periodic workshop meetings of 'somewhat-high'
importance, followed by 41% stating 'high' importance. The average weighted
score of 4.26 places the overall respondent rank of importance at 'somewhat-
high.'



Respondents' Rating of Integrated Design Process Attributes in Achieving
Project Sustainability Goals (Statements A to F)

100%


90%


80%


70%


60%


50%


40%


30%


53
57


-61
66 66


S 5 High
04
M3 Neutral
m2
S1 Low


20%


10%
610

0%
a) Cohesive Team b) Holistic, Outcome- c) Effective Open d) Pre-design e) Systemic decision- f) Cohesive
Formation oriented project Communication meeting making intelligence
goals
Statement

Figure 4-5. Survey responses to question 3.2. Statements A through F.













Respondents' Rating of Integrated Design Process Attributes in Achieving
Project Sustainability Goals (Statements A to F)


53
57


--_- 61
66 66


m5 High
m4
M3 Neutral
m2
* 11 Low


20%


10%


0%





Figure 4-6.


a) Cohesive Team b) Holistic, Outcome- c) Effective Open d) Pre-design meeting e) Systemic decision- f) Cohesive
Formation oriented project goals Communication making intelligence
Statement

Survey responses to question 3.2. Statements G through K.


Part IV: Optional Free Response


Of the 101 complete responses received for the survey, 28 respondents elected


to answer the optional free response question. The question asked respondents to


briefly explain any successes or setbacks pertaining to integrated design or green


building in general. They were asked to provide feedback on the current state of


integrated design and green building in the construction industry. The responses may


be found in their entirety in Appendix G.


100%









CHAPTER 5
SURVEY ANALYSIS


While Chapter 4 presented the overall response results to the survey,

encompassing a total of 101 complete responses; this chapter serves to stratify the

results and analyze the responses from three main groups of the population sample:

architects, engineers and builders. Instead of analyzing the entire survey, this chapter

only examines responses from parts II and III. It should be noted that the category for

'builder' throughout the following results refers to general contractors, construction

managers and respondents who defined themselves as design-builders.

When stratifying the survey responses and considering only architects, engineers

and builders the response breakdown yielded 46 architects, 18 engineers and 26

builders, constituting approximately 89% of the original 101 survey respondents. These

three subcategories were chosen due to their professional roles' importance in the

integrated design process. The following chapter provides a comparison of survey parts

II and III among architects, engineers and builders.

Based off a null hypothesis that the average weighted scores of architects,

engineers and builders taken from the survey responses are assumed to be equal,

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed in order to determine if any

significant differences existed among the responses. The following equation illustrates

the formula used as a basis for determining any significant differences in the opinions

and perceptions among the three professional groups:

Ho: pa= Pe = Pb
pa= mean scores of architects
pe= mean score of engineers
pb= mean scores of builders
100










This null hypothesis formula is used throughout the remainder of this analysis in

determining any significant differences among the three groups. If the ANOVA test

determined that there existed a significant difference among the groups, then individual

paired t-tests were conducted between paired professional groups: architect and

engineer; architect and builder; and engineer and builder. From the t-tests, it was

determined which two groups had the most significant difference in opinion or

perception toward a particular response statement. Any acceptance or rejection of the

null hypothesis was taken at a 95% confidence level.

Only questions 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2 were subject to increased statistical analysis due

to their complex structure and large amount of information. The goal was to gather a

broad view of if there are any differences in how architects, engineers and builders

perceive sustainability and integrated design. The remaining questions in this section

are analyzed through descriptive statistics.


Part II: Green Project Perception Comparisons

Question 2.1

Question 2.1 consisted of a five-point Likert Scale response gauging respondent

opinions regarding their companies' attitude toward sustainability and construction.

Table 5-1 on the following page displays the results to this question as answered by the

architects, engineers and builders followed by individual statement analysis.














Table 5-1. Responses to Q2.1.
Top number is the count of

Bottom % s percent of the total Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Average Score Standard F
respondents from the category NeutralStrongly Somewhat Agree Deviation value value
(Arch/Eng /Builder) selecting the Disagree Disagree Agree
option

A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B

a) Sustainability plays a major role in 0 0 1 3 0 0 4 3 3 16 8 13 23 7 9
shaping my company's attitude
toward a project 0% 0% 4% 7% 0% 0% 9% 17% 12% 35% 44% 50% 50% 39% 35% 428 422 412 089 073 091 028 075

b) My company makes an effort to be 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 1 1 13 6 10 27 11 15
aware of the most recent trends in
sustainable construction 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 9% 6% 4% 28% 33% 38% 59% 61% 58% 441 456 454 083 062 058 041 067

c) My company encourages owners 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 4 19 4 13 23 11 9
to pursue sustainable methods and
goals for their projects 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 4% 17% 15% 41% 22% 50% 50% 61% 35% 437 444 419 087 078 069 062 054

d) My company educates employees 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 15 6 11 26 11 12
on sustainable design/construction
techniques 4% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 4% 6% 8% 33% 33% 42% 57% 61% 46% 435 456 427 113 062 092 047 062

e) My company's mission statement 1 2 1 3 0 1 11 6 12 13 2 9 18 8 3
places emphasis on fostering
sustainable practices 2% 11% 4% 7% 0% 4% 24% 33% 46% 28% 11% 35% 39% 44% 12% 396 378 346 105 135 090 179 017

f) My company focuses on making a 1 1 1 1 2 0 11 6 7 12 1 10 21 8 8
strong impact upon the local
community through green building 2% 6% 4% 2% 11% 0% 24% 33% 27% 26% 6% 38% 46% 44% 31% 411 372 392 099 1 32 098 093 040

g) My company owes a great deal of 12 7 10 9 4 8 16 1 5 5 3 3 4 3 0
its success in green projects to
technology (e g BIM) 26% 39% 38% 20% 22% 31% 35% 6% 19% 11% 17% 12% 9% 17% 0% 257 250 204 124 158 104 153 022

h) My company quickly responds and 2 1 0 3 2 0 15 2 11 17 5 11 9 8 4
adapts to shifting trends in green
building 4% 6% 0% 7% 11% 0% 33% 11% 42% 37% 28% 42% 20% 44% 15% 361 394 373 102 126 072 071 049

i) My company actively seeks ways 1 1 0 2 2 0 4 1 8 22 6 8 17 8 10
to improve its ability to implement
sustainable practices 2% 6% 0% 4% 11% 0% 9% 6% 31% 48% 33% 31% 37% 44% 38% 413 400 408 092 1 24 083 012 089

j) My company encourages 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 3 5 9 4 7 29 11 13
employees to become LEED
Accredited Professionals 0% 0% 4% 9% 0% 0% 9% 17% 19% 20% 22% 27% 63% 61% 50% 437 444 419 097 1 02 1 02 041 067

k) My company encourages owners 4 1 2 4 0 1 12 6 9 14 4 12 12 7 2
to pursue LEED certification for their
projects 9% 6% 8% 9% 0% 4% 26% 33% 35% 30% 22% 46% 26% 39% 8% 357 389 342 123 113 099 091 041


102













Q2.1 Statement A: Sustainability plays a major role in shaping my
company's attitude toward a project
S 100%
90%
U 80%
=a
CL CL 70%
60% 23
50% 8
.| 40% 91 9
= 40%
M2 30%
10%
0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
*Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 4%
SSomewhat Disagree 7% 0% 0%
SNeutral 9% 17% 12%
*Somewhat Agree 35% 44% 50%
SStrongly Agree 50% 39% 35%

Figure 5-1. Responses to Q2.1 statement A.


From the responses to Q2.1 statement A, the average weighted scores for

architects, engineers and builders were 4.28, 4.22 and 4.12 respectively; yielding an

overall respondent opinion of 'somewhat agree' for all subcategories. It should be noted

that half of the architects surveyed felt strongly about their company's attitude toward

sustainability, while 44% and 55% percent of respective engineers and contractors

'somewhat agreed' that sustainability plays a major role in shaping their company's

attitude toward a project.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.75, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


103











Q2.1 Statement B: My company makes an effort to be aware of the most
recent trends in sustainable construction


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


18






Architect (46)


6







Engineer (18)


10








Builder (26)


*Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0%
SSomewhat Disagree 4% 0% 0%
Neutral 9% 6% 4%
*Somewhat Agree 28% 33% 38%
*Strongly Agree 59% 61% 58%

Figure 5-2. Responses to Q2.1 statement B.

The average rated scores for statement B from architects, engineers and builders

were 4.41, 4.56 and 4.54 respectively. Architects 'somewhat' agreed that their

organizations make an effort to be aware of the most recent trends in sustainable

construction whereas engineers and builders 'strongly agree' that their companies make

efforts.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.67, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders











Q2.1 Statement C: My company encourages owners to pursue sustainable
methods and goals for their projects


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


19








Architect (46)


-9---


4





Engineer (18)


Builder (26)

Builder (26)


Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0%
SSomewhat Disagree 4% 0% 0%
*Neutral 4% 17% 15%
*Somewhat Agree 41% 22% 50%
SStrongly Agree 50% 61% 35%

Figure 5-3. Responses to Q2.1 statement C.

The respective weighted averages for statement C from architects, engineers

and builders were 4.37, 4.44 and 4.19; placing all three subcategories in the range of

'somewhat agreeing' with the statement that their company encourages owners to

pursue sustainable methods and goals for their projects.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.54, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.






105





















0)




O,
EI,

Z x


*Strongly Dis
SSomewhat
*Neutral
*Somewhat
SStrongly Ag


Q2.1 Statement D: My company educates employees on sustainable
design/construction techniques
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 12
11
40%
15 6
30%

20%

10% 2

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
agree 4% 0% 4%
Disagree 2% 0% 0%
4% 6% 8%
Agree 33% 33% 42%
ree 57% 61% 46%


Figure 5-4. Responses to Q2.1 statement D.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.35, 4.56 and 4.27. Architects and builders 'somewhat agreed' with the statement

whereas engineers 'strongly agreed' that their companies educate employees on

sustainable design and construction techniques.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.62, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.



106










Q2.1 Statement E: My company's mission statement places emphasis on
fostering sustainable practices


O,
CC


0.
z x
WD


100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%


-a12


13


2 t2


Architect (46) Engineer (18)


I I


Builder (26)


-9-----





E


*Strongly Disagree 2% 11% 4%
SSomewhat Disagree 7% 0% 4%
SNeutral 24% 33% 46%
*Somewhat Agree 28% 11% 35%
*Strongly Agree 39% 44% 12%
Figure 5-5. Responses to Q2.1 statement E.

The respective weighted average scores for architects, engineers and builders

were 3.96, 3.78 and 3.46. Architects and engineers 'somewhat agreed' that their

companies maintained a mission statement that places emphasis on fostering

sustainable practices while builders felt 'neutral' about their companies' mission

statement.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.17, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.




























E
o C


z x
0.


SStrongly
*Somewh
SNeutral
*Somewh
SStrongly


Q2.1 Statement F: My company focuses on making a strong impact upon
the local community through green building
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 21
8

40% 10
6 8
30% 12 1
11

20%
2
10%
1 1
0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
Disagree 2% 6% 4%
iat Disagree 2% 11% 0%
24% 33% 27%
iat Agree 26% 6% 38%
Agree 46% 44% 31%


Figure 5-6. Responses to Q2.1 statement F.

The respective average weighted scores for architects, engineers and builders

were 4.11, 3.72 and 3.92. All three subcategories 'somewhat agreed' that their

companies' focus on making a strong impact on the local community through green

building.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.40, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


108


























0
0,.
w

^^1V
w,


Q2.1 Statement G: My company owes a great deal of its success in green
projects to technology (e.g. BIM)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

7 10
40% 16
8
30%
9 45
20% -3
5 3
10%

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
Disagree 26% 39% 38%
iat Disagree 20% 22% 31%
35% 6% 19%
iat Agree 11% 17% 12%
Agree 9% 17% 0%


Figure 5-7. Responses to Q2.1 statement G.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

2.57, 2.50 and 2.04. Architects and engineers felt 'neutral' about their companies'

success when it comes to using technology, whereas builders 'somewhat disagreed'

that their companies' owe a great deal of success to technology.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.22, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


109


Strongly
*Somewh
SNeutral
*Somewh
Strongly











Q2.1 Statement H: My company quickly responds and adapts to shifting
trends in green building


0.
wc






z x
W?


100%

90%

80%


70%

60%

50%


40%

30%

20%


10%

0%


11 11


17


5


Architect (46)


4--


2 2
1


Engineer (18)


Builder (26)


*Strongly Disagree 4% 6% 0%
*Somewhat Disagree 7% 11% 0%
*Neutral 33% 11% 42%
*Somewhat Agree 37% 28% 42%
*Strongly Agree 20% 44% 15%

Figure 5-8. Responses to Q2.1 statement H.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.61, 3.84 and 3.74. All three subcategories 'somewhat agreed' that their companies'

quickly respond and adapt to shifting trends in green building.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.49, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


110











Q2.1 Statement I: My company actively seeks ways to improve its ability to
implement sustainable practices


0
==,


0a)


W
Ul


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


17
6


1A

Architect (46)


8 8


2


Engineer (18)


Builder (26)


Strongly Disagree 2% 6% 0%
*Somewhat Disagree 4% 11% 0%
SNeutral 9% 6% 31%
*Somewhat Agree 48% 33% 31%
*Strongly Agree 37% 44% 38%

Figure 5-9. Responses to Q2.1 statement I.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were


4.13, 4.00 and 4.08. All three subcategories 'somewhat agreed' that their companies


actively seek ways to improve their ability to implement sustainable practices.


Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,


engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the


ANOVA test was 0.89, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant


difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.

























oa

O0.0
0L

z x
WU


SStrongly
*Somewh
SNeutral
*Somewh
Strongly


Q2.1 Statement J: My company encourages employees to become LEED
Accredited Professionals

100%

90%

80%

70%
29
11
60%
13
50%

40%

30% 7

9 4 5
20%

44
10%

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
Disagree 0% 0% 4%
at Disagree 9% 0% 0%
9% 17% 19%
at Agree 20% 22% 27%
Agree 63% 61% 50%


Figure 5-10. Responses to Q2.1 statement J.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were


4.37, 4.44 and 4.19. All three subcategories 'somewhat agreed' that their companies


encourage employees to become LEED Accredited Professionals.


Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,


engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the


ANOVA test was 0.67, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant


difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.




112



























O,
CI




Z x
0.


Q2.1 Statement K: My company encourages employees to become LEED
Accredited Professionals

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 12
7
40% 6%
14
30%
4
20%
44 2 2
10%

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
Disagree 9% 6% 8%
at Disagree 9% 0% 4%
26% 33% 35%
at Agree 30% 22% 46%
Agree 26% 39% 8%


Figure 5-11. Responses to Q2.1 statement K.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.57, 3.89 and 3.42. Architects and engineers 'somewhat agreed' that their companies

encourage owners to pursue LEED certification for projects; whereas builders felt

'neutral.'


Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.41, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


113


Strongly
*Somewh
SNeutral
*Somewh
SStrongly











Question 2.2


This question asked respondents' opinion of what project delivery methods was

proven to be most successful economically and efficiently in facilitating green projects.

Table 5-2 details the responses from architects, engineers and builders surveyed.



Table 5-2. Responses to Q2.2.
Project Delivery Method Architect Engineer Builder
Design-Bid-Build 14 30% 6 33% 4 15%
Construction Manager at Risk 7 15% 1 6% 2 8%
Construction Manager for Fee 3 7% 3 17% 2 8%
Design-Build 6 13% 4 22% 13 50%
Integrated Project Delivery 15 33% 4 22% 5 19%
Other 1 2% 0 0% 0 0%
Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100%


Q2.2












z (
wx


- What project delivery method has proven to be most successful
economically and efficiently in facilitating green projects?
100%

90%


80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


4
E22


1
L


Architect


Engineer


Builder


Design-Bid-Build 30% 33% 15%
SConstruction Manager at Risk 15% 6% 8%
SConstruction Manager for Fee 7% 17% 8%
SDesign-Build 13% 22% 50%
Integrated Project Delivery 33% 22% 19%
SOther 2% 0% 0%

Figure 5-12. Responses to Q2.2.


5










The results to this question are surprising considering that a majority (33%) of

engineers chose design-bid-build, as 30% of architects as well. For builders, half of

those surveyed said design-build was the best choice in facilitating green projects

followed by 19% opting for integrated project delivery.


Question 2.3

This question surveyed respondents on what factor has had the greatest

influence in fulfilling a project's sustainability goals. Table 5-3 lists the factors provided

to respondents along with the responses.

Table 5-3. Responses to Q2.3.
Factor Architect Engineer Builder
Design 10 22% 5 28% 5 19%
Budget 12 26% 8 44% 7 27%
Project Delivery Method 0 0% 0 0% 1 4%
Building Certification (e.g. LEED) 14 30% 1 6% 5 19%
Technology (e.g. BIM) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Team 10 22% 4 22% 6 23%
Experience 0 0% 0 0% 2 8%
Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100%

Q2.3 What factor has had the greatest influence in fulfilling a project's
sustainability goals?
100%
SS 80%
60% 8
4. I.l2 14 i.5.A.7.A
40%
E0%
.- 40%0% 14 5--

SArchitect Engineer Builder
Design 22% 28% 19%
Budget 26% 44% 27%
Project Delivery Method 0% 0% 4%
Building Certification (e.g. LEED) 30% 6% 19%
Technology (e.g. BIM) 0% 0% 0%
STeam 22% 22% 23%
mExperience 0% 0% 8%

Figure 5-13. Responses to Q2.3.


115









Question 2.4

This question asked respondents to answer from experience as to which part of

the construction process was most critical for ensuring fulfillment of a project's

sustainability goals.

Table 5-4. Responses to Q2.4
Project Phase Architect Engineer Builder
Pre-Design 17 37% 4 22% 10 38%
Schematic Design 10 22% 7 39% 4 15%
Design Development 10 22% 3 17% 5 19%
Construction Documentation 3 7% 2 11% 4 15%
Bidding 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Procurement 1 2% 0 0% 1 4%
Construction 4 9% 2 11% 2 8%
Facilities Commissioning 1 2% 0 0% 0 0%
Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100%

All of the responses to this question stress early engagement of sustainability

goals. Architects emphasized pre-design with 37% of responses, as did builders with

38% of responses. Engineers preferred the next phase, schematic design; most likely

because the engineers' role within a project increases as the design begins to develop

and architects start bringing consultants on board with the design. The responses to this

question support the findings in the literature review that stress engaging everybody

early in the project in order to foster an integrated process.


116












Q2.4 What part of the construction process is most critical for ensuring
fulfillment of a project's sustainable goals?


W
C 1

~O~


0
WG
w1
E
0M0
z C
a)x
W-u


100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%


IU Ar 4




Architect


2 2


Engineer


4Bu

Builder


SPre-Design 37% 22% 38%
*Schematic Design 22% 39% 15%
SDesign Development 22% 17% 19%
SConstruction Documentation 7% 11% 15%
SBidding 0% 0% 0%
SProcurement 2% 0% 4%
*Construction 9% 11% 8%
SFacilities Commissioning 2% 0% 0%

Figure 5-14. Responses to Q2.4.


Question 2.5


This question asked respondents to identify the project stakeholder who has had


the greatest influence in guiding a project's sustainability goals. Table 5-5 lists the


options and responses.


Table 5-5. Responses to Q2.5
Stakeholder Architect Engineer Builder
Owner 24 52% 10 56% 14 54%
Architect 20 43% 6 33% 7 27%
Engineer 1 2% 1 6% 1 4%
General Contractor 0 0% 1 6% 1 4%
Commissioning Agent 1 2% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 0 0% 0 0% 3 12%
Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100%











Architects selected the owner (52%) and themselves (43%) in an overwhelming


majority. Engineers also chose the owner (56%) and themselves (33%). Builders


continued the trend by selecting the owner (54%) and themselves (27%). However, over


50% of respondents from each subcategory selected the owner as the top project


stakeholder in terms of guiding project sustainability goals.


Q2.5 What project stakeholder has had the greatest influence in guiding
project sustainanability goals?


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


In


20






1 i 1

Architect


6






Engineer


7





Builder


*Owner 52% 56% 54%
*Architect 43% 33% 27%
HEngineer 2% 6% 4%
SGeneral Contractor 0% 6% 4%
SCommissioning Agent 2% 0% 0%
*Other 0% 0% 12%

Figure 5-15. Responses to Q2.5.

Question 2.6


This question again asked respondents about project delivery methods, yet this


time the question was directed at determining what project delivery method was most


commonly used for projects undergoing building certification (e.g. LEED).


118










Table 5-6. Responses to Q2.6.
Project Delivery Method for LEED Architect Engineer Builder
Design-Bid-Build 26 57% 11 61% 8 31%
Construction Manager at Risk 5 11% 1 6% 3 12%
Construction Manager for Fee 3 7% 3 17% 3 12%
Design-Build 1 2% 1 6% 8 31%
Integrated Project Delivery 4 9% 2 11% 2 8%
Other 7 15% 0 0% 2 8%
Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100%


Architects overwhelmingly chose design-bid-build at 57% of responses, as did

engineers with 61% responding. Builders were divided between design-bid-build and

design-build; splitting the responses to an equal 30% for each. The 'other' category

provided respondents to fill in an answer. All of the 'other' responses for this question

said the respondent had not participated in any LEED projects.



Q2.6 What was the most common project delivery method used for LEED or
equivalent green rated projects your company undertook?
100%
90%
80%

70% 11
"26
60%
Bo 50%
40%
z 30%
20% 3
10% 52 2 2
10%
0%


Architect Engineer


Builder


SDesign-Bid-Build 57% 61% 31%
*Construction Manager at Risk 11% 6% 12%
SConstruction Manager for Fee 7% 17% 12%
*Design-Build 2% 6% 31%
SIntegrated Project Delivery 9% 11% 8%
mOther 15% 0% 8%

Figure 5-16. Responses to Q2.6.


119









Part III: Integrated Design Perceptions


Question 3.1

This question is presented as a five point Likert Scale to gauge the respondents'

opinions on integrated design. The responses from architects, engineers and builders

were compiled and then each response was given a weighted average score to gauge

the overall opinion of the group toward each statement. Table 5-9 displays all of the

responses to question 3.1 from architects, engineers and builders. Following the table is

an individual analysis of each statement comparing responses from architects,

engineers and builders. This question aimed at gauging the respondents' opinions and

perceptions of integrated design and its relationship among the professional roles within

a sustainable construction process. This question presents statements related to the

roles, relationships and responsibilities among project stakeholders.


120















Table 5-7. Responses to Q3.1.
Top number is the count of respondents
selecting the option Bottom % is 1 2 4 Standard
3 5 Standard
percent of the total respondents from Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Average Score F P
the category (Arch/Eng/Builder) Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree AgreeDeviation
selecting the option

A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B

a) Traditional design-bid-build is 6 2 4 4 2 0 9 0 2 17 10 13 10 4 7
plagued by adversarial relationships
among those involved 13% 11% 15% 9% 11% 0% 20% 0% 8% 37% 56% 50% 22% 22% 27% 346 367 373 129 128 131 042 066

b) The industry needs to move away 8 4 1 0 1 1 10 1 0 11 6 9 17 6 15
from design-bid-build into a more
integrated approach 17% 22% 4% 0% 6% 4% 22% 6% 0% 24% 33% 35% 37% 33% 58% 363 350 438 1 44 1 58 098 317 0 05*

c) An egalitarian approach among the 3 1 3 3 0 0 9 7 6 19 4 8 12 6 9
roles of clients, architects, engineers
and contractors boosts achievement of
sustainability goals 7% 6% 12% 7% 0% 0% 20% 39% 23% 41% 22% 31% 26% 33% 35% 374 378 377 112 111 127 001 099
d) My company places strong emphasis 5 2 1 3 0 0 12 5 5 14 4 6 12 7 14
on an integrated design process among
architects, engineers and contractors
with regardsto green projects 11% 11% 4% 7% 0% 0% 26% 28% 19% 30% 22% 23% 26% 39% 54% 354 378 423 1 26 1 31 1 03 271 007

e) My schooling prepared me for 13 3 2 10 5 8 11 2 5 10 3 5 2 5 6
working with other building
professionals in a collaborative and
integrated manner 28% 17% 8% 22% 28% 31% 24% 11% 19% 22% 17% 19% 4% 28% 23% 252 311 319 123 153 133 263 008

f) Accepting an egalitarian approach to 19 8 11 17 4 5 3 5 3 6 0 5 1 1 2
project roles (i e among Arch/Eng/GC)
diminishes my professional motivation
todo my best pf41% 44% 42% 37% 22% 19% 7% 28% 12% 13% 0% 19% 2% 6% 8% 198 200 231 111 114 141 067 052
g) The professional roles of architect, 10 4 3 5 2 4 9 1 6 13 7 9 9 4 4
engineer and contractor are presently
too isolated from one another which
limits green building potential 22% 22% 12% 11% 11% 15% 20% 6% 23% 28% 39% 35% 20% 22% 15% 313 328 327 1 27 1 53 1 25 013 087

h) The earlier the contractor is involved 3 2 1 2 2 0 4 1 1 15 8 3 22 5 21
in the design process, the better the
chance of achieving project
sustanabilhgity sprjet 7% 11% 4% 4% 11% 0% 9% 6% 4% 33% 44% 12% 48% 28% 81% 411 367 465 1 16 1 33 089 420 002*
i) Mutual respect and trust among
oMutual respected are thamong 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 17 6 3 25 11 22
project stakeholders are the key
foundations of success in implementing
an integrated design process and 4% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 37% 33% 12% 54% 61% 85% 437 444 473 094 098 083 1 31 028
achieving sustainability goals

j) Holistic and long-term thinking (e g 1 1 1 0 0 0 8 3 4 15 3 12 22 11 9
LCC/LCA) is necessary for successful
sustainable design and construction 2% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 15% 33% 17% 46% 48% 61% 35% 424 428 408 090 113 093 031 074

k) The Integrated Design Process is an 3 3 5 12 5 7 11 3 4 14 2 8 6 5 2
idea that looks great on paper, but is
difficult to implement in real world
construction projects 7% 17% 19% 26% 28% 27% 24% 17% 15% 30% 11% 31% 13% 28% 8% 317 306 281 116 1 51 1 30 066 052

I) The construction industry is not ready 5 3 6 8 3 5 9 2 6 16 6 7 8 4 2
to fully embrace an integrated design
process 11% 17% 23% 17% 17% 19% 20% 11% 23% 35% 33% 27% 17% 22% 8% 330 328 277 126 146 131 147 024











Q3.1 Statement A: Traditional design-bid-build is plagued by adversarial
relationships among those involved
100%

90%

80%

w 70%

S 60%
'13
0. 3
50%
O-o
I 40%
E w


10 4
20% 4
2 2
10% --

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
Strongly Disagree 13% 11% 15%
*Somewhat Disagree 9% 11% 0%
Neutral 20% 0% 8%
*Somewhat Agree 37% 56% 50%
*Stongly Agree 22% 22% 27%

Figure 5-17. Responses to Q3.1 statement A.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.46, 3.67 and 3.73. It can be stated that as a whole, the architects are 'neutral' when it

comes to the opinion that traditional design-bid-build is plagued by adversarial

relationship while engineers and builders 'somewhat agree' that it is.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.66, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


122


















0





0 .

z x
W)


Strongly
*Somewh
* Neutral
*Somewh
SStongly


Q3.1 Statement B: The industry needs to move away from design-bid-build into a
more integrated approach
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 15
50%
40% 17 66 -
30%
20% 8
10%
0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
Disagree 17% 22% 4%
at Disagree 0% 6% 4%
22% 6% 0%
at Agree 24% 33% 35%
\gree 37% 33% 58%


Figure 5-18. Responses to Q3.1 statement B.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.63, 3.50 and 4.38. It can be stated that all three subcategories 'somewhat agree' that

the industry needs to move away from design-bid-build into a more integrated approach.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.05, indicating with 95% confidence that there was a significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Individual t-tests

were performed and between architects and engineers a t-value of 0.76 was

determined; supporting the null hypothesis. However, between architects and builders

and engineers and builders, t-values of 0.01 and 0.04 were respectively calculated;

indicating with 95% confidence a significant difference existed among those pairs.


123

























0


0, )
E=1


SStrongly
*Somewh
SNeutral
*Somewh
SStongly


Q3.1 Statement C: An egalitarian approach among the roles of clients, architects,
engineers and contractors boosts achievement of sustainability goals
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%
19 7
40%
6 8








Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
Disagree 7% 6% 12%
6
20%

10% -

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
Disagree 7% 6% 12%
at Disagree 7% 0% 0%
20% 39% 23%
at Agree 41% 22% 31%
\gree 26% 33% 35%


Figure 5-19. Responses to Q3.1 statement C.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.74, 3.78 and 3.77. It can be stated for all three subcategories that they all 'somewhat

agree' that an egalitarian approach among the roles of clients, architects, engineers and

contractors boosts the achievement of sustainability goals.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.99, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


124


























O,
z x



IW


SStrongl
*Somew
* Neutral
*Somew
SStongly


Q3.1 Statement D: My company places strong emphasis on an integrated design
process among architects, engineers and contractors with regards to green projects
100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 14

50%
7
40%
14 5



20% 7



5 2 28%19%
10% 1

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
yDisagree 11% 11% 4%
hat Disagree 7% 0% 0%
26% 28% 19%
hat Agree 30% 22% 23%
'Agree 26% 39% 54%


Figure 5-20. Responses to Q3.1 statement D.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.54, 3.78 and 4.23. It can be stated for all three subcategories that they all 'somewhat

agree' that their companies place strong emphasis on an integrated design process

among architect, engineers and contractors with regards to green projects.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.07, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


125






















W


~O~
ow
n U
0.0

0
WG
IE
Q 0.


w1
M,


SStrongly Di
*Somewhat
SNeutral
*Somewhat
SStongly Ag


Q3.1 Statement E: My schooling prepared me for working with other building
professionals in a collaborative and integrated manner

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%
8
13 5 5
30%
10 11 10 1 H 6
55
20% -

10% 2

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
sagree 28% 17% 8%
Disagree 22% 28% 31%
24% 11% 19%
Agree 22% 17% 19%
ree 4% 28% 23%


Figure 5-21. Responses to Q3.1 statement E.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were


2.52, 3.11 and 3.19. It can be stated for all three subcategories that they have a 'neutral'


opinion with regards to how their schooling prepared them for working with other


building professionals in a collaborative manner.


Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,


engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the


ANOVA test was 0.08, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant


difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders


126

























,"U
0.0

0
W


Q3.1 Statement F: Accepting an egalitarian approach to project roles
(i.e. among Arch/Eng/GC) diminishes my professional motivation to do my best
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 8
19 8 11
40% 1- 17

30% -

5 5
20%

10% -

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
sagree 41% 44% 42%
Disagree 37% 22% 19%
7% 28% 12%
Agree 13% 0% 19%
ree 2% 6% 8%


Figure 5-22. Responses to Q3.1 statement F.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

1.98, 2.00 and 2.31. It can be stated that all three subcategories 'somewhat disagree'

that accepting an egalitarian approach to project roles diminishes their professional

motivation to do their best.


Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.52, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


127


SStrongly Di
*Somewhat
SNeutral
*Somewhat
SStongly Ag

























O,

0.
z x
II


SStrongl
*Somew
* Neutral
*Somew
SStongly


Q3.1 Statement G: The professional roles of architect, engineer and contractor are
presently too isolated from one another which limits green building potential
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%
7
40%

30%
10 4 4 6
9 9
20% -
5 2 3
10% --

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
y Disagree 22% 22% 12%
'hat Disagree 11% 11% 15%
20% 6% 23%
'hat Agree 28% 39% 35%
Agree 20% 22% 15%


Figure 5-23. Responses to Q3.1 statement G.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.13, 3.28 and 3.27. It can be stated that for all three subcategories all of the

respondents are 'neutral' in their opinion that the professional roles of architect,

engineer and contractor are too presently isolated from one another which limits green

building potential.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.87, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.

128










Q3.1 Statement H: The earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the
better the chance of achieving project sustainability goals
100%
a 90% 21

0 W
-ai 70% -
C- 60% -
22
50% 8
40% 5
B 30%
M= 20% 23-
S10% -
0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
SStrongly Disagree 7% 11% 4%
*Somewhat Disagree 4% 11% 0%
Neutral 9% 6% 4%
*Somewhat Agree 33% 44% 12%
*Stongly Agree 48% 28% 81%

Figure 5-24. Responses to Q3.1 statement H.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.11, 3.67 and 4.65. Architecture and engineering respondents 'somewhat agree' that

the earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the better the chance of

achieving sustainability goals. Builders 'strongly agree' that they should be included

earlier.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.02, indicating with 95% confidence that there was a significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Individual t-tests

were performed and between architects and engineers a t-value of 0.23 was

determined; supporting the null hypothesis. However, between architects and builders

and engineers and builders, t-values of 0.03 and 0.06 indicate with 95% confidence a

significant difference among architects vs. builders and engineers vs. builders.

129

























- tU

0

0 .

w1

z C
0 (
W^


Strongly
*Somew
* Neutral
*Somew
Stongly


Q3.1 Statement I: Mutual respect and trust among project stakeholders are the key
foundations of success in implementing an integrated design process and achieving
sustainability goals

100%

90%2

80%

70%
11
60% -2

50%

40%
6

30%

20%
3
10%
2 2(

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
y Disagree 4% 6% 4%
'hat Disagree 0% 0% 0%
4% 0% 0%
'hat Agree 37% 33% 12%
Agree 54% 61% 85%


Figure 5-25. Responses to Q3.1 statement I.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were


4.37, 4.28 and 4.73. Architects and engineers 'somewhat agree' that mutual respect


and trust among project stakeholders are fundamental to successful integrated design


whereas builders 'strongly agree.'


Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,


engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the


ANOVA test was 0.28, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant


difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.

130


























0.

0
,O0

L'J


Strongly
*Somew
* Neutral
*Somew
SStongly


Q3.1 Statement J: Holistic and long-term thinking (e.g. LCC/LCA) is necessary for
successful sustainable design and construction

100%

90%

80%



11
60%

50% 22 12

40%
15

30%

20% 3

10%

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
SDisagree 2% 6% 4%
hat Disagree 0% 0% 0%
17% 17% 15%
hat Agree 33% 17% 46%
Agree 48% 61% 35%


Figure 5-26. Responses to Q3.1 statement J.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were


4.24, 4.28 and 4.08. It can be stated that all three subcategories 'somewhat agree' that


holistic and long-term thinking is necessary for successful sustainable design and


construction.


Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,


engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the


ANOVA test was 0.74, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant


difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.

131



























O,
CC
0.
Z x
W)


SStrongly
SSomewha
* Neutral
SSomewha
SStongly A


Q3.1 Statement K: The Integrated Design Process is an idea that looks great on
paper, but is difficult to implement in real world construction projects
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%
148


20%

10% 2__

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
Disagree 7% 17% 19%
It Disagree 26% 28% 27%
24% 17% 15%
t Agree 30% 11% 31%
gree 13% 28% 8%


Figure 5-27. Responses to Q3.1 statement K.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were


3.17, 3.06 and 2.81. It can be stated for all three subcategories that they all share a

'neutral' opinion that the integrated design process is an idea that looks good on paper,


but it difficult to implement in real world construction projects.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,


engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the


ANOVA test was 0.52, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant


difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


132










Q3.1 Statement L: The construction industry is not ready to fully embrace an
integrated design process
100%
90%
5 80%
W* 70%
60%
1" 1," 6 0 %--------------------------
S50%
O 40% 6
| 30%
E 8 8 33 5
20%
w 2
10% __
0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
*Strongly Disagree 11% 17% 23%
*Somewhat Disagree 17% 17% 19%
SNeutral 20% 11% 23%
*Somewhat Agree 35% 33% 27%
*Stongly Agree 17% 22% 8%

Figure 5-28. Responses to Q3.1 statement L.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.30, 3.28 and 2.77. It can be stated that all three subcategories share a 'neutral'

opinion with regards to whether or not the construction industry is not ready to fully

embrace an integrated design process.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.24, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


Question 3.2

Respondents were presented with 11 statements and asked to rank the

importance of each statement. Table 5-10 contains all responses from architects,

engineers and builders.


133















Table 5-8. Responses to Q3.2.
Top number is the count of 1 2 3 4 5
respondents selecting the option
Bottom % is percent of the total Low Neutral High Average Standard F p
respondents from the category Score Deviation value value
(Arch /Eng /Builder) selecting the
option
A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B
a) Cohesive Team Formation:
group esiv e ea oration 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 18 4 8 24 12 16
grouping of engaged and
experienced AEC professionals
who are involved from project start 2% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 6% 8% 39% 22% 31% 52% 67% 62% 439 444 454 0802 1 042 0647 028 076
to finish

b) Holistic, Outcome-Oriented 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 0 16 4 12 23 12 13
Project Goals: owner establishes
well-defined goals early 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 15% 11% 0% 35% 22% 46% 50% 67% 50% 435 456 442 0737 0705 0703 055 058

c) Effective/Open 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 14 3 3 30 15 23
Communication: transparent
lines of communication among all
involved g 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 30% 17% 12% 65% 83% 88% 461 483 488 0532 0383 0326 348 004
d) Pre-Design Meeting: both the 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 16 5 5 27 11 21
design and construction teams
meet with owner to establish
project goals so everyone is on the 4% 6% 0% 0% 6% 0% 2% 0% 0% 35% 28% 19% 59% 61% 81% 443 433 481 091 1 138 0402 220 012
same page
e) Systemic Decision Making: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 15 4 11 28 13 15
decisions are based upon their
relationship to the building project
as a whole, considering all impacts 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 6% 0% 33% 22% 42% 61% 72% 58% 454 467 458 0622 0594 0504 032 073
and alternative solutions

Coesi kntllge openly 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 10 4 7 29 12 19
professional knowledge is openly
shared between clients, architects,
engineers and contractors in order
to facilitate successful green 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 6% 0% 22% 22% 27% 63% 67% 73% 448 444 473 0752 1 042 0452 1 14 032
strategies
g) Feedback Loops: decisions
are based upon the collective 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 1 19 5 8 21 11 17
intelligence of the integrated team
and all decisions are cyclically
evaluated from pre-design through 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 13% 6% 4% 41% 28% 31% 46% 61% 65% 433 444 462 0701 0856 0571 1 81 017
construction completion
h) Use of Technology: BIM and 1 2 2 5 1 1 19 5 10 12 8 7 9 2 6
computer energy modeling used
as effective tools for streamlining
an integrated det streamlssng 2% 11% 8% 11% 6% 4% 41% 28% 38% 26% 44% 27% 20% 11% 23% 350 339 354 0997 1145 1208 011 090
an integrated design process
i) Building Assessment: LEED, 2 0 0 3 1 1 9 8 5 22 6 15 10 3 5
GreenGlobes, BREEAM, etc as
effective guidelines for an
integrated design process 4% 0% 0% 7% 6% 4% 20% 44% 19% 48% 33% 58% 22% 17% 19% 376 361 392 1 005 085 0744 064 053
j) Clearly Defined Team
Responsibilities: All team 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 19 9 7 24 9 18
members know their role and
expected contribution to achieving 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 4% 41% 50% 27% 52% 50% 69% 446 450 465 0622 0514 0562 090 041
goals No one is left behind
k) Workshops: Owner, design
and construction teams meet 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 25 9 11 18 7 11
periodically throughout the project
course to evaluate progress and 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 8% 4% 11% 8% 54% 50% 42% 39% 39% 42% 430 428 419 0662 0669 0895 019 083
update goals










Q3.2 Statement A: Cohesive Team Formation


100%

90%

80%

70% 12
16
S 60%2
SC 24
50%
18
S 40%
M CL 8
30%

20%

10% 3 2

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
1 Lowest Priority 2% 6% 0%
S2 Low Priority 0% 0% 0%
S3 Neutral 7% 6% 8%
S4 High Priority 39% 22% 31%
5 Highest Priority 52% 67% 62%

Figure 5-29. Response to Q3.2 statement A.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.39, 4.44 and 4.54. Architects and engineers had collective ranking of cohesive team

formation to be 'high priority.' Builders gave cohesive team formation 'highest priority.'

From the results shown in the graph, all three subcategories placed a majority of their

responses on 'highest priority.'

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.76, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.

135









Q3.2 Statement B: Holistic, Outcome-Oriented Project Goals


Figure 5-30. Responses to Q3.2 statement B.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.35, 4.56 and 4.42. Architects and builder both gave holistic, outcome oriented goals

'high priority' while engineers gave them 'highest priority.'

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.58, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


136










Q3.2 Statement C: Effective/Open Communication
100%
90% 15
80%

CL, C 60%
50%
40%
30%
EM 3
z 20% -3-
10%
0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0%
02 Low Priority 0% 0% 0%
03 Neutral 4% 0% 0%
04 High Priority 30% 17% 12%
E5 Highest Priority 65% 83% 88%

Figure 5-31. Responses to Q3.2 statement C.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.61, 4.83 and 4.88. All three subcategories placed the 'highest priority' on effective and

open communication. Transparent lines of communication are an essential part of an

integrated design process.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.04, indicating with 95% confidence that there was a significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Individual t-tests

were performed and between architects and builders a t-value of 0.01 was determined;

rejecting the null hypothesis with 95% confidence. However, between architects and

engineers and engineers and builders, t-values of 0.08 and 0.65 indicate with 95%

confidence that no significant difference among architects vs. engineers and engineers

vs. builders.











Q3.2 Statement D: Pre-Design Meeting
100%

90%
21
80%

3 2 70%
1| %27
60%

S 50%

.8 8 40% 16
E 5

20%

10%
1
0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
1 Lowest Priority 4% 6% 0%
S2 Low Priority 0% 6% 0%
S3 Neutral 2% 0% 0%
*4 High Priority 35% 28% 19%
S5 Highest Priority 59% 61% 81%

Figure 5-32. Responses to Q3.2 statement D.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.43, 4.33 and 4.81. Architects and engineers place 'high priority' on the pre-design

meeting whereas builders place 'highest priority.' Contractors are usually left out of any

pre-design meetings in a traditional design-bid-build process. The fact that the builders'

responses place overwhelming emphasis on 'high' and 'highest priority' is a signal that

contractors desire to be a part of the process early.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.12, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


138











Q3.2 Statement E: Systemic Decision Making
100%

90%

80%
13
S 70%
C 28
28 15
60%1
0 .
aO-
50%
11
$ 40%
EE 15
30%
4
20%

10%

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
S1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0%
S2 Low Priority 0% 0% 0%
S3 Neutral 7% 6% 0%
S4 High Priority 33% 22% 42%
S5 Highest Priority 61% 72% 58%

Figure 5-33. Responses to Q3.2 statement E.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.5, 4.67 and 4.58. All three subcategories stated that systemic decision making, where

decisions are based upon their relationship to a whole and consider all impacts and

alternatives, is of 'highest priority.'

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.73, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


139










Q3.2 -Statement F: Cohesive Intelligence


0
0 "
M^
zJ C0
x-U


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


4!


i 10





Architect (46)


S1 Lowest Priority 0% 6% 0%
S2 Low Priority 0% 0% 0%
S3 Neutral 15% 6% 0%
S4 High Priority 22% 22% 27%
S5 Highest Priority 63% 67% 73%

Figure 5-34. Responses to Q3.2 statement F.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.48, 4.44 and 4.73. Architects and engineers placed 'high priority' for the open sharing

of professional knowledge between clients, architects, engineers and contractors to

facilitate green projects. Builders placed 'highest priority' onto this cohesive intelligence.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.32, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


140


Engineer (18)


Builder (26)











Q3.2 Statement G: Feedback Loops
100%

90%

80%

S 70%
Y-' 11
S 60%

50% 21
.^ 19
40%
5 8
W 30% 5

20%

10%

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0%
S2 Low Priority 0% 6% 0%
S3 Neutral 13% 6% 4%
S4 High Priority 41% 28% 31%
S5 Highest Priority 46% 61% 65%

Figure 5-35. Responses to Q3.2 statement G.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.33, 4.44 and 4.62. Architects and engineers placed 'high priority' on feedback loops,

the cyclical evaluation of all project decisions from pre-design through construction.

Builders placed 'highest priority' on feedback loops.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.17, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.











Q3.2 Statement H: Use of Technology (e.g. BIM)
100%

90%

80%

70%

S 60%

50%
o 19
4%10
S 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
1 Lowest Priority 2% 11% 8%
S2 Low Priority 11% 6% 4%
S3 Neutral 41% 28% 38%
S4 High Priority 26% 44% 27%
5 Highest Priority 20% 11% 23%

Figure 5-36. Responses to Q3.2 statement H.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.50, 3.39 and 3.54. Architects and builders placed 'high priority' on the use of

technology for integrated design, while engineers felt 'neutral. The engineers' range of

data was affected greatly by extreme highs and lows, thus skewing the data toward a

'neutral' response.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.90, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


142











Q3.2 Statement I: Building Assessment (e.g. LEED)
100%

90%

80%

70%
o15








9 105 5
S 60%
010%
S 22
50%











Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
40%1 Lowest Priority 4% 0% 0%
30%


20%




Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
1 Lowest Priority 4% 0% 0%
S2 Low Priority 7% 6% 4%
S3 Neutral 20% 44% 19%
S4 High Priority 48% 33% 58%
5 Highest Priority 22% 17% 19%

Figure 5-37. Responses to Q3.2 statement I.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

3.76, 3.66 and 3.92. It can be stated that all three subcategories collectively placed

'high priority' on building assessment as an effective guideline for an integrated design

process.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.53, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.


143









Q3.2 Statement J: Clearly Defined Team Roles


Figure 5-38. Responses to Q3.2 statement J.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.46, 4.50 and 4.65. It can be stated that all three subcategories chose to place 'high

priority' on clearly defined team responsibilities; where all roles are clearly defined and

each knows his or her expected contribution to project sustainability goals.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.41, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.

144










Q3.2 Statement K: Periodic Workshop Meetings
100%

90%

80%

70%

S 60%2
ow25
50%
o *11 11
g 18 7
40%
Ew

30%

20%
2
10% 2

0%
Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26)
1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0%
S2 Low Priority 2% 0% 8%
S3 Neutral 4% 11% 8%
S4 High Priority 54% 50% 42%
S5 Highest Priority 39% 39% 42%

Figure 5-39. Responses to Q3.2 statement K.

The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were

4.30, 4.28 and 4.19. It can be stated that all three subcategories place 'high priority' on

periodic workshops involving the owner and the design and construction teams to

evaluate progress toward achieving project sustainability goals.

Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects,

engineers and builders would be equal (Ho: A=E=B) The calculated p-value from the

ANOVA test was 0.83, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant

difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders.

145









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The research in this thesis can be divided into two main components: the

literature review and the survey. The literature review served as the basis of formulating

the research methodology which subsequently became the survey distributed out to

architecture, engineering and construction professionals. This chapter serves to discuss

both the literature and the survey in terms of both successes and setbacks. This chapter

concludes with a listing of recommendations for future researchers on integrated

design.

Literature Review Conclusions

The goal of the literature review was to establish a timeline that originated with

the master builder system of ancient times and trace the lineage all the way to the

current state of construction practice in the 21st century. The principal attributes of

integrated design have their roots with the master builder; thus it was deemed

necessary to investigate the historical patterns of the master builder and determine why

they fell by the wayside. The historical datum begun at the start of the literature review

concludes with the introduction of the 'new green building culture' and discusses the

current ideologies shaping sustainable building construction today.

Successes in the literature review included a synthesis of historical facts and

architectural theories that defined the master builder system of the past and their

relationships with current trends in sustainable construction. Integrated design, as

portrayed in the literature review is predominantly idea-based; meaning that much of

what is discussed is based upon ideologies and ideas for practicing sustainable

146









construction and not necessarily what is status quo in the widespread construction

industry. However, the ideas discussed are gradually becoming integrated as standard

practice as the push toward sustainable construction continues to grow.

Setbacks in the literature include limitations on available resources about

integrated design itself. There are few published books and prior studies on integrated

design and the information that is out there becomes repetitive. The review of three

books on integrated design usually leads to the same conclusion about how the process

is undertaken. This recycling of information became tedious at times and it was difficult

to synthesize different authors' works when they all more or less were saying the same

thing. Depth of information was also regarded as a setback because some publications

on integrated design provided extremely detailed outlines of the process undertaken. In

order to fully describe each process would have turned the literature review into a book

unto itself. Thus extensive summarizing had to be done.

It would be a beneficial to the literature review to include a series of case studies

that document how an integrated design process was used in each. Successes and

failures would be used to high light the key points in an integrated process that help or

hinder the achievement of sustainability goals. Overall the literature review in this thesis

stands as an effective text that fulfilled its goal of documenting a timeline of how

integration was once the standard practice in building, how it dissolved as society grew

more complex and how it is now re-emerging as society takes on a new era of green

construction.









Survey Conclusions

The survey was derived from the research performed in the literature review.

Questions in parts II and III were created based off findings in the literature and applied

to the survey in order to gauge the current professional perceptions, awareness and

experience with integrated design. The literature review discussed project delivery

methods, principles of sustainable construction and the integrated design process: all

major components of the survey.

Through examining the survey responses it can be determined that the survey

was overall ineffective at attaining any significant results about the integrated design

process and its current use in the construction industry. Reverting back to a survey free

response answer: the survey was too biased toward integrated design and all of the

supposed attributes that make up integrated design are in fact the standard practice of

any successful and reputable architecture, engineering or building firm. The statements

provided to respondents were too vague and not specific enough about the integrated

design process itself. Only three statements, one from question 3.1 and two from

question 3.2, yielded any significant differences in opinion among the architects,

engineers and builders surveyed.

Another setback faced by the survey was the population sample. Respondents

were chosen from the USGBC online membership database. This method was chosen

because of its ease of access and also based upon the assumption that if a company

was a member of the USGBC, then they must be very proactive in sustainable

construction. If the survey could be re-designed and redistributed, a much more diverse


148









sampling of the construction industry would need to be taken in order to minimize the

bias faced by only sampling members of the USGBC.

The question structure of the survey also suffered due to the complexity of the

Likert scale responses. These questions contained too many statements and utilized

ineffective language when presented to respondents. The complex nature of these

questions is likely one of the causes for incomplete survey responses. Survey length

was also an issue upon post-examination. Respondents were sent the survey link at

their work e-mail addresses. Thus the survey would most likely be taken at their place of

employment. Construction professionals are more likely to be occupied with work duties

rather than wish to take a survey that is too long or too complex to complete within a

brief period of time.

The main success of the survey was the efficient method of distribution and

collection through the online survey website Zoomerang (www.zoomerang.com).

Zoomerang proved to be an effective tool when filtering out incomplete responses,

stratifying data and generating tables that otherwise would have taken hours to

complete if done through a paper survey. However, this efficiency is not beneficial when

the results are lackluster. The conclusion is that a survey may not be the best method of

conducting research on integrated design. On the whole, the subject matter is too rich

and too complex to garner effective results through survey. Case studies are a much

better option when exploring integrated design because they have laid out prescriptive

paths the document the attributes, successes and setbacks of the process. Interviewing

owners, architects, engineers and builders who have all worked on a project together

utilizing integrated design should achieve far greater results about the process itself.

149









Recommendations for Future Research

Future researchers should be open to exploring not only the positive attributes of

integrated design, but also determine whether there are negative effects too. The

current literature on integrated design is overwhelmingly positive in its descriptions

about the process. Prominent organizations, such as the Design Build Institute for

America, have proclaimed that integration is the future of the construction industry.

Future researchers should conduct extensive case studies of past projects utilizing an

integrated design process and explore both the good and the bad sides of integrated

design.

Other potential research prospects may include the correlation between the ever

evolving LEED building assessment system and its use as a tool for facilitating

integrated design. Generating a hypothetical future model of a LEED rating system that

incorporates an integrated design process as a requirement could lead toward creating

a set prescriptive path for integrated design on sustainable construction projects.

Gaining a current understanding of how integrated design is treated in academic

circles could also be useful to future researchers. Providing studies of architecture,

engineering and construction management degree programs at major universities

through interviews, surveys or curriculum case studies could provide insight into how

integrated design and sustainable construction are being taught to the next generation

of architects, engineers and builders.


150









APPENDIX A
RESEARCH PROPOSAL


Committee: x New Changed Same
Degree Sought: MBC x MSBC
Funded Research Project: Yes x No

February 24, 2010

To: Dr. R. Raymond Issa
From: Charlie McNamara
Subject: Proposal for Graduate Committee

Proposed Committee

Chair: Dr. Robert Ries
Co-Chair: Dr. R. Raymond Issa
Member: Dr. E. Douglas Lucas

Proposed Subject:
Integrated Design Process as a Facilitator for High Performance Green Building

Research Objectives:
Sustainability needs to be addressed not as a deliverable, but as a process. Integrated design is
one of the core principles of creating sustainable buildings through systems thinking. A systemic
perspective is not limited to the notion of a team effort in providing an effective project process,
but also incorporates the consideration of the ecological impacts that building has on the varying
scales of its environment. A truly integrated process considers the efforts of team building in
harmony with concern for the ecology and economy in which the team operates. Project
stakeholders in a green project are not merely the client, designers and builders, but the
ecological attributes such as energy, water, land use and waste and societal considerations such
as community and local economy.

Architects, engineers and builders are divided amongst their respective fields. This separation
has resulted in an overbearing emphasis on specialization rather than integration. Revisiting the
old notions of the master-builder is a step in breaking away from the old ways of adversarial
design-bid-build and the beginning of exploring the integrated design process. The core
questions at hand are:

1. How did we stray from the cohesive intelligence fostered by the master builder concept?
Is there reluctance amongst professionals to make a return to this concept?
2. How much are the professions of architecture, engineering and construction exposed to
the ideas of the integrated design process as a tool for achieving sustainable projects?
3. What is the level of awareness, knowledge and experience of the integrated design
process amongst professionals in the building industry?
4. Which delivery method is best for implementing an integrated design process and why?










Research Methodology:
The research methodology will consist of a two-tiered survey distributed to architects, engineers
and builders in the construction industry. Part one will be a quantitative survey utilizing a Likert
scale. Part two consists of qualitative questions which require short answer. The data will be
collected and analyzed statistically in order to gauge the levels of knowledge and practice of
integrated design. Evaluations and recommendations will be given according to the results of the
data.

Literature Review:
The primary references used for establishing the research framework include:

1. Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way ofBuilding, Oxford University Press, New York.

2. American Consulting Engineers, C. (2001). Multiple project delivery systems : the design
professional's handbook, design build project delivery, The Council, Washington, D.C.

3. Boecker, J., Horst, S., Keiter, T., Lau, A., Sheffer, M., Toevs, B., and Reed, B. (2009). The
Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the Practice of Sustainability, Wiley,
Hoboken, N.J.

4. Davis, H. (1999). The Culture ofBuilding, Oxford University, New York.

5. Kibert, C. (1999). "Reshaping the Built Environment" Island Press, Washington, D.C.

6. Levy, S. M. (2006). Design-build project delivery : managing the building process from proposal
through construction, McGraw-Hill, New York.

7. Molenaar, K., Gransberg, D., Korkmaz, S., and Horman, M. (2009). "Sustainable, High
Performance Projects and Project Delivery Methods." Design Build Institute of America,
Washington, D.C.

8. Sanvido, V. E., and Konchar, M. D. (1998). Project delivery systems : CM at risk, design-build,
design-bid-build, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas.

9. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles ofscientific management, Harper, New York.

10. Yudelson, J. (2009). Green Building Through Integrated Design, McGraw Hill, New York.

Expected Completion: May 2010


Director of Graduate Program Date


152











APPENDIX B
IRB-02 SURVEY PROPOSAL FORM


This form must be typed. Send this form and the supporting documents to IRB02, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL
32611. Should you have questions about completing this form, call 352-392-0433.

Title of Protocol: Integrated Design and the Path Toward a Truly Sustainable Architecture


Principal Investigator: Charlie McNamara UFID #:

Degree I Title: Master of Science in Building Mailing Address: (If on Email:
D: Construction campus include PO Box
address :

Department: M.E. Rinker School of Building ____ Telephone #:
Construction


Co-Investigator(s): None UFID#: N/A Email: N/A


Supervisor (If PI is Dr. Robert Ries UFID#:
student):
Degree I Title: Professor Mailing Address: (If on Email:
campus include PO Box rries@ufl.edu
address):
Department: RNK 304 / Box 115703 Telephone #:
M.E. Rinker School of Building Gainesville, FL (352) 273-1155
Construction 32611-5703




Date of Proposed 02/15/2010 05/0112010
Research:

Source of Funding (A copy of the grant proposal must
be submitted with this protocol if funding is involved): None


Scientific Purpose of the Study:

To determine the levels of awareness and experience of architecture, engineering and construction
professionals with regards to an Integrated Design Process
To determine trends among architecture, engineering and construction professionals related to
implementing an Integrated Design Process to facilitate high performance green building
To gain insight into some of the professional stereotypes that exist in the architecture, engineering and
construction industry that may hinder the embrace of an Integrated Design Process


153


















Describe the Research Methodology in Non-Technical Language: (Explain what will be done with or to the
research participant.)

Through an online survey consisting of multiple choice and Likert scale responses; the respondents are asked to
state basic information about their overall professional experience, their opinions related to green building and
their perceptions and experience with integrated design pertaining to its effect on green building.

Describe Potential Benefits:
Most published research on integrated design and its effect on green building practices has emerged only within
the past 3 years. Right now is an excellent time to gain insight into the current status of integrated design in the
architecture, engineering and construction fields. The primary goal of the research is to see what elements of an
integrated design process are currently most successful in achieving sustainable goals in building projects.

Describe Potential Risks: (If risk of physical, psychological or economic harm may be involved, describe the
steps taken to protect participant.)
There are no potential risks involved with this survey.


Describe How Participant(s) Will Be Recruited:
Participants are to be recruited from a registration list provided by the United States Green Building Council's
online membership database. Architecture, engineering and construction professionals will be selected randomly
from all 50 U.S. states. The participants will be emailed an electronic survey through ZoomerangM an online
survey generator.

Maximum 1800 Age Range of 20-80 Amount of None
Number of Participants: Compensation/
Participants (to course credit:
be approached
with consent)

Describe the Informed Consent Process. (Attach a Copy of the Informed Consent Document. See
http://irb.ufl.edulirb02/samples.html for examples of consent.)


(SIGNATURE SECTION)

Principal Investigator(s) Signature: Date:


Co-Investigator(s) Signature(s): Date:

Supervisor's Signature (if PI is a student): Date:

Department Chair Signature: Date:











APPENDIX C
IRB-02 APPROVAL LETTER



T'F Institutional Review Board PO Box 112250

U UNIVERSITY ofFLORIDA Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
352-392-0433 (Phone)
352-392-9234 (Fax)
irb2(5ufl.edu



DATE: February 16, 2010

TO: Charlie McNamara



FROM: Ira S. Fischler, PhD, Cha
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02

SUBJECT: Approval of Protocol #2010-U-0141

TITLE: Integrated Design Process as a Facilitator for High Performance Green Building

SPONSOR: None

I am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional Review Board has
recommended approval of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined that this
research presents no more than minimal risk to participants, and based on 45 CFR 46.117(c),
An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed consent form for
some or all subjects if it finds either: (1) That the only record linking the subject and the
research would be the consent document and the principal risk would be potential harm
resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject will be asked whether the subject
wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject's wishes will
govern; or (2) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and
involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the
research context.

The IRB authorizes you to administer the informed consent process as specified in the
protocol. If you wish to make any changes to this protocol, including the need to increase
the number of participants authorized, you must disclose your plans before you implement
them so that the Board can assess their impact on your protocol. In addition, you must report
to the Board any unexpected complications that affect your participants.

This approval is valid through February 12, 2011. If you have not completed the study by
this date, please telephone our office (392-0433), and we will discuss the renewal process
with you. It is important that you keep your Department Chair informed about the status of
this research protocol.

ISF:dl





An Equal Opportunity Institution


155









APPENDIX D
SURVEY REQUEST EMAIL



Dear AEC Industry Professional,

I am a graduate student at the Rinker School of Building Construction at the
University of Florida. Part of my research requirement is to conduct a survey of
architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry professionals about the
current state of the Integrated Design Process and its use as a facilitator for green
building practices.
To assist in this research, please take a few minutes of your time to follow the
link at the bottom of this email to take a brief online multiple-choice questionnaire. Your
input into this research is highly valuable. There are no anticipated risks or benefits
involved with this survey and all responses are completely confidential.
If you are unfamiliar with the principles of an Integrated Design Process or green
building, would you please forward this message to someone in your organization that
may be familiar with these topics who could participate in this survey?

To begin the online survey, please click on the link below and follow the
instructions. Your prompt reply is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your
time in helping assist with this research.

http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB22A6DFXPQZP

Sincerely,

Charlie McNamara, LEED AP

MS candidate in Sustainable Building Construction
M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction
University of Florida


156










APPENDIX E
SURVEY INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENTATION


Informed Consent

Protocol Title:

Integrated Design Process as a Facilitator for High Performance Green Building

Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research study:

The purpose of this study is to investigate the current status of using an Integrated Design Process (IDP)
as a method in facilitating sustainable design and construction practices. The following statements list the
three primary goals of the study:
How much are the professions of architecture, engineering and construction exposed to the ideas
of IDP as a tool for achieving sustainable projects?
What is the level of awareness, knowledge and experience of the integrated design process
among professionals in the building industry?
What successful methods are employed by professionals following an integrated design process
and how important are they in achieving green building projects?

What you will be asked to do in the study:

As a participant, you will asked to answer a short questionnaire on various topics concerning you and/or
your company's perceptions on the Integrated Design Process; sustainable design and construction
practices; and professional stereotypes within the construction industry.

Time required:

10 minutes, self-administered

Risks and Benefits:

There are no potential risks involved in participation with this survey. There are no direct benefits to you
for participating in the study.

Compensation:

There is no compensation for this survey.

Confidentiality:

Your responses are anonymous and will be held in complete confidentiality. Your identity will be kept
confidential to the extent provided by law












Voluntary participation:

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.

Right to withdraw from the study:

You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:

Charlie McNamara, Principal Investigator, University of Florida School of Building Construction
Phone:
Email:

Dr. Robert Ries, Professor, University of Florida School of Building Construction
Phone: (352) 273-1155
Email: rries@ufl.edu

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:

IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
Phone: (352) 392-0433
Email: irb2@ufl.edu


Click Here to Submit Consent and Take Survey


158











APPENDIX F
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE


Professional Perceptions and the Integrated Design Process (IDP)

Part I: Professional Demographics: This section is for compiling information about respondents and grouping
survey responses based upon these classifications.

1. Company/Professional Role: Please indicate one of the following that best matches your personal or
company's professional role in a building project.

C Architect C Trade Subcontractor (Carpenters, Masons, Roofers, etc.)
C Engineer (Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Structural, etc.) C Landscape Architect
C General Contractor C Planning (Urban Designers/Planners, etc.)
C Construction Manager C Consultant (Legal, Green Building, etc.)
C Design-Builder C Financier (Developers, Mortgage Brokers, etc.)

2. Experience: Please indicate approximately the number of years you have been actively working within the
construction industry.


C 0 2 years
C 3-5 years


C 6- 10 years
C 11 20 years


C 21 30 years
C Over 30 years


3. Company Involvement: Please indicate all applicable types of projects that your organization primarily
works on.


C Commercial
C Residential
C Industrial


4. Annual Company Revenue:

C Under $500,000
C $500,000 $999,999
C $1,000,000 $9,999,999


C Heavy Civil
C Transportation
C Healthcare


C Government
C Institutional
C Other I
(Please specify)


C $1 Billion $5 Billion
C $5 Billion $10 Billion
C Over $10 Billion


5. Number of Company Employees:


C Less than 10
C 10-49
C 50-99


C 100- 149
C 150-249
C 250-500


500 999
1000 or more


6. Number of LEED Accredited Professionals in Your Company:


C Less than 10
C 10-49


C 50-99
C 100- 149


C 150-249
C 250 or more


7. Company Regional Location:


C Northeast
C Mid-Atlantic


C South
C Midwest


C West (Pacific Coast)
r West (Rocky Mtns.)


159


C $10,000,000 $49,999,999
C $50,000,000 $99,999,999
C $100,000,000 $1 Billion










Professional Perceptions and the Integrated Design Process (IDP)

Part II: Green Project Perceptions: This section is for compiling information about professional involvement in
projects that implement sustainable construction techniques and have sustainable goals.


1. Please respond to each statement according to your perception of your company's
attitude toward sustainable construction practices.


Strongly Somewhat


a) Sustainability plays a major role in shaping my
company's attitude toward a project

b) My company makes an effort to be aware of the
most recent trends in sustainable construction

c) My company encourages owners to pursue
sustainable methods and goals for their projects

d) My company educates employees on
sustainable design/construction techniques

e) My company's mission statement places
emphasis on fostering sustainable practices

f) My company focuses on making a strong impact
upon the local community through green building

g) My company owes a great deal of its success in
green projects to technology (e.g. BIM)

h) My company quickly responds and adapts to
shifting trends in green building

i) My company actively seeks ways to improve its
ability to implement sustainable practices

j) My company encourages employees to become
LEED Accredited Professionals

k) My company encourages owners to pursue
LEED certification for their projects


Disagree

C


Disagree

C


Neutral

"


Somewhat
Agree

C


C C r r r


C C C C C


C' r c r rC


C C C C C
r r C C rC






r r r r r
C C C r C


r C C C C
C C C C C


C c c c C


2. In your opinion, what project delivery method has proven to be most successful
economically and efficiently in facilitating green projects? (Select one)


C Design-Bid-Build
C Construction Manager at Risk
C Construction Manager for Fee


C Design-Build
C Integrated Project Delivery
C Other I
(Please specify)


160


Strongly
Agree

C










Professional Perceptions and the Integrated Design Process (IDP)


3. In your experience, which one of these factors has had the greatest influence in fulfilling
a project's sustainability goals? (Select one)

C Design C Project Delivery Method C Technology (e.g. BIM)
C Budget C Pursuit of LEED Certification C Team Experience


4. In your experience, what part of the construction process is most critical for ensuring
fulfillment of a project's sustainable goals? (Select one)


C Pre-Design
C Schematic Design
C Design Development


C Construction Documentation C Construction
C Bidding C Facilities Commissioning
C Procurement


5. In your experience, which project stakeholder has had the greatest influence in guiding
a project's sustainability goals? (Select one)


C General Contractor
C Commissioning Agent
C Other I
(Please specify)


6. What was the most common project delivery method used for LEED or equivalent
green rated projects your company undertook? (Select one)


C Design-Bid-Build
C Construction Manager at Risk
C Construction Manager for Fee


C Design-Build
C Integrated Project Delivery
C Other I
(Please specify)


C Owner
C Architect
C Engineer











Professional Perceptions and the Integrated Design Process (IDP)

Part III: Integrated Design Perceptions: This section is for compiling information about professional awareness
and experience with the integrated design process (IDP).


1. Please respond to each statement according to your perception of integration among
project stakeholders and its application on sustainable construction projects.


Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree


a) Traditional design-bid-build is plagued by
adversarial relationships among those involved

b) The industry needs to move away from design-
bid-build into a more integrated approach

c) An egalitarian approach among the roles of
clients, architects, engineers and contractors
boosts achievement of sustainability goals

d) My company places strong emphasis on an
integrated design process among architects,
engineers and contractors with regards to green
projects
e) My schooling prepared me for working with
other building professionals in a collaborative and
integrated manner

f) Accepting an egalitarian approach to project
roles (i.e. among Arch/Eng/GC) diminishes my
professional motivation to do my best.

g) The professional roles of architect, engineer and
contractor are presently too isolated from one
another which limits green building potential

h) The earlier the contractor is involved in the
design process, the better the chance of achieving
project sustainability goals

i) Mutual respect and trust among project
stakeholders are the key foundations of success in
implementing an integrated design process and
achieving sustainability goals
j) Holistic and long-term thinking (e.g. LCC/LCA)
is necessary for successful sustainable design and
construction

k) The Integrated Design Process is an idea that
looks great on paper, but is difficult to implement
in real world construction projects

1) The construction industry is not ready to fully
embrace an integrated design process


Somewhat Strongly
Neutral Agree Agree


C C r C C


C C C r C










C C C C C




r r C C C



r r r r r
Cr r C C





C C C C r

r r r C C







C C C C C



C C C C C


162











Professional Perceptions and the Integrated Design Process (IDP)


2. How do you rate the following terms and their potential impact on an Integrated Design
Process and the achievement of project sustainability goals? ("1" indicates a low priority and "5"
indicates high priority)


a) Cohesive Team Formation: grouping of
engaged and experienced AEC professionals who
are involved from project start to finish

b) Holistic, Outcome-Oriented Project Goals :
owner establishes well-defined goals early

c) Effective/Open Communication: transparent
lines of communication among all involved

d) Pre-Design Meeting: both the design and
construction teams meet with owner to establish
project goals so everyone is on the same page

e) Systematic Decision Making: decisions are
based upon their relationship to the building
project as a whole, considering all impacts and
alternative solutions

f) Cohesive Intelligence: professional knowledge
is openly shared between clients, architects,
engineers and contractors in order to facilitate
successful green strategies

g) Feedback Loops: decisions are based upon the
collective intelligence of the integrated team and
all decisions are cyclically evaluated from pre-
design through construction completion

h) Use of Technology: BIM and computer energy
modeling used as effective tools for streamlining
an integrated design process

i) Building Assessment: LEED, GreenGlobes,
BREEAM, etc. as effective guidelines for an
integrated design process

j) Clearly Defined Team Responsibilities: All
team members know their role and their expected
contribution to achieving goals. No one is left
behind

k) Workshops: Owner, design and construction
teams meet periodically throughout the project
course to evaluate progress and update goals


Neutral
3
C


C C C C C


r r C r C


C C C C C



C C C C

r C r r







r C r r C




r C C r r



C C C C C



C C C (r C




C C C C C


163











Professional Perceptions and the Integrated Design Process (IDP)


Part IV: Optional Free Response: Please feel free to briefly explain or list any personal successes or setbacks
pertaining to your involvement with an Integrated Design Process. What worked? What did not work? What changes would
you like to see within the construction industry in order to progress an Integrated Design Process and green building? What
changes would you make to the Integrated Design Process itself? If you or your company have not had experience with an
Integrated Design Process, what are other methods that you have used that have aided or hindered green building projects?









APPENDIX G
SURVEY FREE RESPONSE ANSWERS


1. Technologies and delivery methods are effective in supporting only the
agendas of those involved in a project. More than any other factor, commitment
by the owner and the project stakeholders has the highest impact by far on the
level of sustainability that can be achieved.

2. BIM, unfortunately is difficult to integrate within the smaller firms at this
time due to the economy. The MPE Engineers we use indicate that BIM is not
feasible for them to implement due to so many issues with the programs that are
available to them.

3. Sustainability in design is receiving a lot of media attention but is viewed
primarily as marketing material. With some exceptions it is by and large only
architects that are truly embracing its principals and actively pursuing sustainable
solutions. Architects are the only members of these teams consistently being
educated to pursue sustainable solutions. Integrated Design Process promotes
design by committee instead of design by the most highly trained professional on
the team. Engineers, constructors, and owners should not be driving building
design; they have not been properly trained and educated to do so. They are
highly skilled but not at building design. They of course should contribute during
the design process but it should not be a round table.
Architecture should always be done by architects with hired engineering
consultants and input from owners and builders. Owners are the least trained
and stand to lose the most through projects that are not competitively bid or
properly designed by an architect free do their best work instead of "voting" on
solutions. This survey is so biased towards Integrated Project Delivery, rather
than quality architecture, that its author could not possibly come to accurate or
legitimate conclusions.

4. Our company is young, but our primary focus is sustainable design. We
currently have three projects that are pursuing LEED certification. Two of which
should achieve Gold Certification in the next few months.

5. The green goals need to be established early in the project. Too often the
green objectives are added late in the process if money is available in the budget
and at that point to many decisions have been made that impact the overall
success of the green objectives. Having the contractor, owner, architect,
engineers and major sub-contractors are involved early in the design process is
critical to the success of the project.


165









6. I would like to see less of an emphasis on LEED and more on sustainable
design. LEED is far too costly and is starting to be seen as the optimum for
building construction and design instead of programs like the Living Building
Challenge and Architecture 2030. LEED AP should be banned. It is such a false
program; it's ridiculous. It is a reference exercise to create a building. USGBC
has gone from Green to Greed.

7. This questionnaire is leading the respondent to an ideal situation when the
motives for each party and each building are different. Profit motives for the
participants influences (controls?)their actions during the design and construction
processes. There is no "ANSWER" because each set of circumstances is
different.

8. In the private sector, EVERYTHING involving the success of the process
or degree of sustainability of a project comes down to money! There must be a
financial payback or an economic reward, such as perceived beneficial
marketing, expedient permit review time, and reduced municipal expenses. Many
of these economic rewards come in the form of government sponsored
programs. Now, if it is necessary for the government to pay for sustainability, just
how sustainable is it? We have to get back to common sense. We are all about
being environmentally conscious, but we have a difficult time encouraging the
concept when our clients our strapped for cash already.

9. All that you mention above is common practice among leading design,
engineering and construction forms. It has been happening for many years. The
attitude has always been the same. The technology is the only element that
varies. My advice: "keep it simple and stay on top of it". If you do this
EVERYTHING works out.

10. Subcontractor participation is key in sustainable projects. One of our
LEED submissions is being held up due to the sub's inability to provide
paperwork.

11. Full Disclosure: we have not engaged an IDP process, but are looking
forward to the opportunity. We have been using a pseudo-IDP model for a while
now and are glad the industry is punctuating a title.

12. Within our market, sustainable construction practices and materials have
become common place. There are often increased costs with sustainability, but
costs are continuing to equalize with non-sustainable alternative. In my
experience sustainability can be successfully integrated into every project
regardless of the design team structure and construction procurement method. It
has simply become part of our everyday design approach.

13. Is it being "Green" or is it being "Responsible"?


166









14. We are currently involved in encouraging the professionals in our firm to
become LEED certified. Our president became certified last year. Although we
have not completed a LEED certified project, we have done studies for clients
and have made efforts to encourage our clients to this end. Most of our
professionals are mechanical engineers, so we have been meeting energy
saving goals throughout our existence. This is a natural progression for our firm.

15. Biggest hurdle is how to define the construction documents. If this product
must be 2D, the value of BIM is drastically diminished. The construction industry
is currently better prepared than the A/E industry.

16. The resistance we have had has come from the legislative approach to
procurement in our State. Bidding laws of governmental projects make IDP & IPD
difficult.

17. Sorry, don't have time to write much here... we've been doing an evolution
of "IDP" for about 5-10 years on 30+ LEED projects and now LBC.

18. We were CM on a job and conducted a pre-design meeting but the
Owner's architect had pretty much already completed the design. Neither was
familiar with LEED. Project ended up going out to bid with no LEED goals.

19. Green Buildings and LEED Certified buildings are only feasible if there is a
reasonable return on investment vs. the buildings life expectancy.

20. Many of my projects are Developer driven. In these cases the marketing
value is the primary concern for the buildings- at the lowest possible cost! Very
disruptive to the main focus of sustainable design! This often requires the
architect to be creative on points that don't necessarily lend to conservation
efforts. Ultimately, with any building type, if the owner is not completely on board
with the cause, the contribution of the GC (owner contracted) is destructive.

21. The value in having a contractor knowledgeable about green practices
involved during design, is: 1) there can be discussions about cost of green
measures and trade-offs between strategies selected by the team 2) Capabilities
of the sub-contractor community can be discussed with the team. 3) The
Design/bid/build "low bid" approach is avoided. Low bid has no flexibility for
adjusting to the requirements of green measures and practices. You need the
sub's knowledge about what works and if the drawings are not complete, then
you want to know in time to make adjustments.









22. Commercially, budget/financing is a big issue even though, in Georgia,
many tax credits, etc incentives exist, the initial outlay of capital is being resisted
as many property owners are short sighted in their investment many see their
involvement financially and from a cash flow analysis as less than 10 years which
does not provide for a long term vision of recouping benefits of items such as
geothermal, solar, solar thermal, rainwater retention, etc especially in the south
where energy is not restrictively expensive nor legislatively restrictive this
welcome in the future but not present currently.

23. Historically our projects have a higher certification level with less cost the
earlier the CM is involved.

24. We would love to use an IDP on every project, but continually struggle
against the status quo design-bid-build. Also if the owner is not a champion of
sustainability goals, it's doomed. The architect can't convince them.

25. We are a small architecture firm that now, in this particular economy is
doing a lot more residential than commercial. Clients are interested in
sustainability and energy efficient structures but they have no interest in LEED
generally.

26. You can have an integrated design process on a design-bid-build project,
but the contractor is not party until hired, and then every change is a cost. IPD as
a contractual delivery method still needs help from the insurance industry to
make this feasible in our litigious society. Right now participating in IPD can be a
risk that some firms cannot take.

27. Contractors, at even the highest level (we work on many multibillion dollar
projects) lack the expertise or willingness to be meaningful participants in the
design process. Typically, the offer little to inform the design and simply increase
their leverage and profits by getting involved early. The only way to keep the
owner from getting hurt is to adhere to the traditional process of design bid build.
No contractual arrangement I have seen achieves the stated goal of integrated
design.

28. Until it is required by the building codes or more financial incentives are
developed, Owners will view Green Design as a costly and optional "extra".


168









LIST OF REFERENCES


Akintoye, A., and MacLeod, M. (1997). "Risk Analysis and Management in
Construction." International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 31-38.

Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building, Oxford University Press, New
York.

American Consulting Engineers, C. (2001). Multiple project delivery systems : the
design professional's handbook, design build project delivery, The Council,
Washington, D.C.

Boecker, J., Horst, S., Keiter, T., Lau, A., Sheffer, M., Toevs, B., and Reed, B. (2009).
The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the Practice of
Sustainability, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J.

Davis, H. (1999). The Culture of Building, Oxford University, New York.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA.

Elvin, G. (2007). Integrated Practice in Architecture, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, New Jersey.

Engdahl, D. (2003). "The Integrated Design Build Firm." The Architect's Guide to
Design-Build Services, G. W. Quatman and R. Dhar, eds., John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Frampton, K. (2007). Modern Architecture : A Critical History, Thames & Hudson,
London ; New York.

Ireland, V. "Virtually Meaningless Distinctions Between Nominally Different Procurement
methods." Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Organisation and
Management of Construction, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 203-212.

Kibert, C. (2005). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Kibert, C. J. (1999). "The Promises and Limits of Sustainability." Reshaping the Built
Environment, C. J. Kibert, ed., Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Molenaar, K., Gransberg, D., Korkmaz, S., and Horman, M. (2009). "Sustainable, High
Performance Projects and Project Delivery Methods." Design Build Institute of
America, Washington, D.C.

Prowler, D., and Vierra, S. (2008). "Whole Building Design." National Institute of
Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.


169










Ries, R. J., Needy, K. L., Bansal, A., and Turan, F. (2009). "Quality Management Best
Practices in the Capital Facilities Delivery Industry." Journal for Construction
Engineering and Management.

Saarinen, E. (1948). Search for Form: A Fundamental Approach to Art, Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, New York.

Sanvido, V. E., and Konchar, M. D. (1998). Project delivery systems : CM at risk,
design-build, design-bid-build, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas.

Sell, M. (2003). "Introduction to Design-Build." The Architect's Guide to Design-Build
Services, G. W. Quatman and R. Dhar, eds., John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, New Jersey.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper, New York.

Thabrew, L., and Ries, R. J. (2009). "Application of Life Cycle Thinking in
Multidisciplinary Multistakeholder Contexts for Cross-Sectoral Planning and
Implementation of Sustainable Development Projects." Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management, 5(3), 445-460.

Thabrew, L., Wiek, A., and Ries, R. J. (2008). "Environmental decision making in multi-
stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning
and implementation." Journal of Cleaner Production, 17.

USDOE. (2008). Buildings Energy Data Book, United States Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C.

USEPA. (1998). "Characterization of Construction and Demolition Debris in the United
States." U. S. E. P. Agency, ed., Franklin Associates, Prarie Village, Kansas.

USGBC. (2010). "USGBC: United States Green Building Council."

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future [The Brundtland Report], Oxford University Press,
for the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development,
Oxford, UK.

Yudelson, J. (2009). Green Building Through Integrated Design, McGraw Hill, New
York.

Zimmerman, A. (2006). "Integrated Design Process Guide." Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, Ottawa, ON, Canada.


170









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Charlie McNamara was born in 1984 in Winter Park, Florida. He received his

Bachelor of Design in 2007 and Master of Science in Building Construction in 2010;

both from the University of Florida.


171





PAGE 1

1 INTEGRATED DESIGN AN D DELIVERY AS A FACI LITATOR FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BU ILDINGS BY CHARLES RICHARD MCNA MARA JR A THESIS PRESENTED T O THE GRADUATE SCHOO L OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL F ULFILLMENT OF THE REQUI REMENTS FOR THE DEGR EE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTIO N UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Charles Richard McNamara Jr

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to my advisors: Dr. Robert Ries, Dr. Raymond Issa and Dr. E Dougl a s Lucas for their feedback and help during this process. Also, I would like to extend a thank you to Patrick Bynum, Christian Terrell and Patryck Ayala Pakula for the many laughs and good times while at the Rinker School.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTE NTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 16 Objective of the Study ................................ ................................ ............................. 17 Organization ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 The Old Ways of Doing ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 The Emergence of Professionalism ................................ ................................ ........ 24 The Current Process ................................ ................................ ............................... 32 The New Green Building Culture ................................ ................................ ............ 41 The Age of Integration ................................ ................................ ............................ 55 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ............... 64 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 64 Development of the Survey ................................ ................................ ..................... 65 Defining the Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ....... 65 Survey Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 67 Part I: Professional Demographics ................................ ................................ ... 67 Part II: Green Project Perceptions ................................ ................................ .... 69 Part III: Integrated Design Perceptions ................................ ............................. 73 Part IV: Optional Free Response ................................ ................................ ...... 76 Survey Distribution ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 76 Survey Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 77 4 SURVEY RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ 78 Par t I: Professional Demographics Responses ................................ ....................... 78 Question 1.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 82 Question 1.7 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 83 Part II: Green Project Perception Responses ................................ ......................... 83

PAGE 5

5 Question 2.1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 84 Question 2.2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 88 Question 2.3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 88 Question 2.4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 89 Question 2.5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 90 Question 2.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 90 Part III: Integrated Design Perception Responses ................................ .................. 91 Question 3.1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 91 Quest ion 3.2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 95 Part IV: Optional Free Response ................................ ................................ ............ 99 5 SURVEY ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ............................. 100 Part II: Green Project Perception Comparisons ................................ .................... 101 Question 2.1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 101 Question 2.2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 114 Question 2.3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 115 Question 2.4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 116 Question 2.5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 117 Question 2.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 118 Part III: Integrated Design Perceptions ................................ ................................ 120 Question 3.1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 120 Question 3. 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 133 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ..................... 146 Literature Review Conclusions ................................ ................................ ............. 146 Survey Conclusions ................................ ................................ .............................. 148 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 150 APPENDIX A RESEARCH PROPOSAL ................................ ................................ ..................... 151 B IRB 02 SURVEY PROPOSAL FORM ................................ ................................ ... 153 C IRB 02 APPROVAL LETTER ................................ ................................ ................ 155 D SURVEY REQUEST EMAIL ................................ ................................ ................. 156 E SURVEY INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENTATION ................................ ........ 157 F SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................ 159 G SURVEY FREE RESP ONSE ANSWERS ................................ ............................. 165 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 169

PAGE 6

6 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 171

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2 1 Cross section ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 23 2 2 Design bid build framework. ................................ ................................ ............... 33 2 3 CM at risk framework. ................................ ................................ ......................... 36 2 4 Design build framework. ................................ ................................ ..................... 38 2 5 Nested subsystems hierarchy. ................................ ................................ ............ 44 2 6 Whole Building Design interrelationships. ................................ .......................... 54 2 7 Elements of integrated design. ................................ ................................ ........... 56 2 8 Feedback loops. ................................ ................................ ................................ 62 3 1 Research methodology framework. ................................ ................................ .... 65 4 1 Responses to survey question 2.1. Statements A through F. ............................. 87 4 2 Responses to survey question 2.1. Statements G through K. ............................ 87 4 3 Survey responses to question 3.1. Statements A through F. .............................. 94 4 4 Survey responses to question 3.1. Statements G through L. ............................. 95 4 5 Survey responses to question 3.2. Statements A through F. .............................. 98 4 6 Survey responses to question 3.2. Statements G through K. ............................. 99 5 1 Responses to Q2.1 statement A. ................................ ................................ ...... 103 5 2 Responses t o Q2.1 statement B. ................................ ................................ ...... 104 5 3 Responses to Q2.1 statement C. ................................ ................................ ...... 105 5 4 Responses to Q2.1 statement D. ................................ ................................ ...... 106 5 5 Responses to Q2.1 statement E. ................................ ................................ ...... 107 5 6 Responses to Q2.1 statement F. ................................ ................................ ...... 108 5 7 Responses to Q2.1 state ment G. ................................ ................................ ..... 109

PAGE 8

8 5 8 Responses to Q2.1 statement H. ................................ ................................ ...... 110 5 9 Responses to Q2.1 statement I. ................................ ................................ ....... 111 5 10 Responses to Q2.1 statement J. ................................ ................................ ...... 112 5 11 Responses to Q2.1 statement K. ................................ ................................ ...... 113 5 12 Responses to Q2.2. ................................ ................................ .......................... 114 5 13 Responses to Q2.3. ................................ ................................ .......................... 115 5 14 Responses to Q2.4. ................................ ................................ .......................... 117 5 15 Responses to Q2.5. ................................ ................................ .......................... 118 5 16 Responses to Q2.6. ................................ ................................ .......................... 119 5 17 Responses to Q3.1 statement A. ................................ ................................ ...... 122 5 1 8 Responses to Q3.1 statement B. ................................ ................................ ...... 123 5 19 Responses to Q3.1 statement C. ................................ ................................ ...... 124 5 20 Responses to Q3.1 statement D. ................................ ................................ ...... 125 5 21 Responses to Q3.1 statement E. ................................ ................................ ...... 126 5 22 Responses to Q3.1 statement F. ................................ ................................ ...... 127 5 23 Respo nses to Q3.1 statement G. ................................ ................................ ..... 128 5 24 Responses to Q3.1 statement H. ................................ ................................ ...... 129 5 25 Responses to Q3.1 statement I. ................................ ................................ ....... 130 5 26 Responses to Q3.1 statement J. ................................ ................................ ...... 131 5 27 Responses to Q3.1 statement K. ................................ ................................ ...... 132 5 28 Responses to Q3.1 statement L. ................................ ................................ ...... 133 5 29 Response to Q3.2 statement A. ................................ ................................ ........ 135 5 30 Responses to Q3.2 statement B. ................................ ................................ ...... 136 5 31 Responses to Q3.2 statement C. ................................ ................................ ...... 137 5 32 Responses to Q3.2 statement D. ................................ ................................ ...... 138

PAGE 9

9 5 33 Responses to Q3.2 st atement E. ................................ ................................ ...... 139 5 34 Responses to Q3.2 statement F. ................................ ................................ ...... 140 5 35 Responses to Q3.2 statement G. ................................ ................................ ..... 141 5 36 Responses to Q3.2 statement H. ................................ ................................ ...... 142 5 37 Responses to Q3.2 statement I. ................................ ................................ ....... 143 5 38 Responses to Q3.2 statement J. ................................ ................................ ...... 144 5 39 Responses to Q3.2 statement K. ................................ ................................ ...... 145

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4 1 ................................ ................................ ......... 79 4 2 ................................ ............................ 80 4 3 ................................ ........ 80 4 4 ................................ .......................... 81 4 5 Number of company employees. ................................ ................................ ........ 82 4 6 Number of LEED Accredited Professionals. ................................ ....................... 82 4 7 Company regional location. ................................ ................................ ................ 83 4 8 Company attitudes toward sustainabl e construction practices. .......................... 84 4 9 ................................ ...... 88 4 10 est influence ................................ ......... 89 4 11 Part of the construction process most. ................................ ............................... 89 4 12 Project stakeholder with the greatest influence. ................................ ................. 90 4 13 Most common project delivery method for LEED certified projects. .................... 91 4 14 ................................ ............................ 92 4 15 Elements of integrated design prioritized by respondents. ................................ 96 5 1 Responses to Q2.1. ................................ ................................ .......................... 102 5 2 R esponses to Q2.2. ................................ ................................ .......................... 114 5 3 Responses to Q2.3. ................................ ................................ .......................... 115 5 4 Responses to Q2.4 ................................ ................................ ........................... 116 5 5 Responses to Q2.5 ................................ ................................ ........................... 117 5 6 Responses to Q2.6. ................................ ................................ .......................... 119 5 7 Responses to Q3.1. ................................ ................................ .......................... 121

PAGE 11

11 5 8 Responses to Q3.2. ................................ ................................ .......................... 134

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School Of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction INTEGRATED DESIGN AN D DELIVERY AS A FACI LITATOR FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BU ILDINGS By Charles Richard McNamara Jr A u g u s t 2010 Chair: Robert Ries Co chair: R. Raymond Issa Major: Building Construction Current building methods associated with traditi onal design bid build are too often muddled by adversarial relationships between the owner, architect and contractor. Change orders, miscommunication, faulty workmanship and deceit ultimately escalate tempers and budgets; usually culminating in some form o f litigation and financial loss. undergoing a serious paradigm shift toward streamlined, environmentally friendly and economically feasible projects. Boosted by the increasing m arket saturation of LEED certification, the ideas of sustainable buildings and a sustainable cooperative building process are becoming more widely embraced. term for wha t we know as the design builder. The master builder was the one person in complete control of all aspects of a project; from design through construction. Today, design build as a delivery method is the closest option to emulating the master builder concept in the current push for an integrated design process. In contrast to the master

PAGE 13

13 builder principle, rather than relying on one person, the design build team can be a hybrid grouping of professionals that collaborate to work on whole building schematics for projects. There is a cohesive intelligence which drives the team and every person involved sees the project through from start to finish. Integrated design is one of the core principles of creating sustainable buildings through systems thinking. Generati ng ideas from a diverse group of people allows for unexpected results to emerge. For example, a contractor may have an input about the generated, thus saving time and money f rom potential rework. Utilizing technological innovations such as building information modeling (BIM) and energy simulation modeling, the design and construction process is streamlined through efficient and effective data communication. Keeping everyone in volved under the same umbrella also facilitates the documentation process for potential LEED certification as well as providing a singular contact point for the owner to oversee the results. A systemic perspective is not limited to the notion of a team eff ort in providing an effective project process, but also incorporates the consideration of the ecological impacts that building has on the varying scales of its environment. A truly integrated process considers the efforts of team building in harmony with c oncern for the ecology in which the team operates. Project stakeholders in a green project are not merely the client, designers and builders, but the ecological attributes such as energy, water, land use and waste and societal considerations such as commun ity and local economy. Sustainability needs to be initially addressed not as a deliverable, but as a process. Team formation and team effectiveness are equal to energy efficient design

PAGE 14

14 measures and environmentally responsible building practices in providi ng a truly sustainable and high performing green building project. Architects, engineers and builders are divided amongst their respective fields. This separation has resulted in an overbearing emphasis on specialization rather than integration. Revisiting the old notions of the master builder is a step in breaking away from the old ways of design bid build and the beginning of exploring the integrated design process. The core questions at hand are: How did we stray away from the cohesive intelligence foste red by the master builder concept? Is there reluctance amongst professionals to make a return to this concept? How much are the professions of architecture, engineering and construction exposed to the ideas of the integrated design process as a tool for ac hieving sustainable projects? What is the level of awareness, knowledge and experience of the integrated design process amongst professionals in the building industry? Is design build the best delivery method for implementing an integrated design process? If not, then what delivery method has been proven to be most successful according to professionals?

PAGE 15

1 5 C HAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION the notion of sustainability is seepin g its way into the status quo. Our lives are touched daily by the constant buzzing of green terminology. These influences have trickled their way into our core dependencies and affect how we operate in our day to day environment. They range from the seriou s: our general lifestyle choices (e.g. transportation and eating habit s); to the mundane: what bag do I choose to take my groceries home with today? However, it is our buildings, the places where we dwell and work, that usher in the greatest problems attac hed to solving the great question of sustainability. Buildings consume the most energy, water and resources. Their associated costs are high, both monetarily and environmentally. Their construction excites, angers, frustrates or prides all who are involved Buildings have the illusory appeal of permanence, yet it is a fact that nothing can last forever. Currently there stands a great divide between the many professions involved in the building process. The traditional method of design bid build has place d walls between architects, engineers and contractors; shutting out each other as well as the most important player of all: the client. The client is the catalyst for a project. Designers and builders translate the ideas and goals of the client by followin g a prescribed path of action based upon their respective skillsets. Often this method yields results that are terms of client patience and budget. Clients seek efficien cy and economy, along with the fulfillment of their initial project goals. If the building industry is to ever completely embrace the ideals of economic and environmental sustainability, there needs to be a

PAGE 16

16 shift in the process of building and a drive from all professions involved toward reaching a common defined goal of a sustainable building process. Sustainability does not stop at the level of economy and environment since buildings have their place in the social realm. More importantly, the process by which buildings are made needs to have its own level of social importance. The trades involved do not need to be sequestered but instead integrated; stitched together to form a cohesive fabric of ideas and experiences. Building is a collaborative process and thus it needs to unfold as such. Threading the trades into a high performance process with a foundation in cohesive intelligence leads to the creation of sustainable, high performing green buildings. Purpose While the notion of integrated design is st raightforward, its implementation is not as easy to embrace. Many trades have their respective beliefs about what their roles are in a project and have developed a routine they are comfortable with. The common acceptable if the goal of high performance green building is to be attainable. These honest wrong beliefs accompanied by the employment of rudimentary rules of thumb creation to fully collaborate and deliver a superior project. This problem not only has roots within the professional world but also in academia. Students of architecture, engineering and construction are often taught ver y little about the other professions they will be directly involved with in the workplace. Attitudes toward other professions tend to be generated upon predisposed stereotypes

PAGE 17

17 rather than fact. Training for these professions is geared toward single minded specialization and does not set the stage for an integrated process. This research aims to examine three areas pertaining to integrated design: 1) the current attitudes toward the integrated design process (IDP) in the professional realm. Is integrated de sign really an optimal choice, embraced by the building industry? If so, how is it being embraced? 2) the successful methods for forming a prescriptive integrated design process and how they create high performance green buildings and 3) the methods and id eologies (e.g. LEED) and methods that are progressing integrated design further into widespread acceptance. Objective of the Study Through extensive review of books, journals, conference proceedings and reference guides along with a qualitative and quanti tative survey of architecture, engineering and construction professionals, this research seeks to provide the current perception and status of the integrated design process at the present time. Understanding the level of exposure and knowledge that profess ionals have of the integrated design process will enable suggestions for future research as well as for suggestions for furthering the level that integrated design is embraced academically and professionally. Organization Chapter 2 consists of a literatu re review of articles, books, conference proceedings and journals pertaining to the integrated design process. Definitions of key terminology relative to the research are generated from precedent literature on integrated design. The literature review also serves to examine the historical

PAGE 18

18 perspective of the master builder concept and its gradual dissipation as technology progressed and specialization amongst trades became the status quo. The current methods of project delivery in the construction process and their associated pitfalls are discussed to set the stage for explanation of the benefits of the integrated design process. Supporting the benefits of shifting toward integration, the present notion of sustainability in the building profession with a focus on a systemic perspective on the building process is introduced and highlights the varying scales of criteria that project stakeholders need to consider both ecologically and socially with regards to team formation and overall construction procedures. Ch apter 3 details the research methodology used to conduct the surveys of architecture, engineering and construction professionals in order to gain a current perspective of how the integrated design process is faring in the professional context with regards to high performance green buildings. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of the qualitative and quantitative results from all survey respondents. The expected results include the general attitudes and perceptions toward integrated design among professionals, as well as the level of experience and success with the integrated process in professional projects. Chapter 5 explores the survey results further by making comparisons between architects, engineers and builders. The individual professional perceptions, op inions and awareness of the integrated design process are discussed. Chapter 6 concludes the research in a critical manner addressing any potential shortcomings or reconsiderations related to the research methodology as well as associated successes. Final ly, suggestio ns for future research are made.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review consists of five parts that document the origins, evolution and present state of the building process leading up to the emergence of integrated design in the area of high performance green building. Each section addresses a fundamental issue pertaining to the historical path and shifting trends within the approach toward building; culminating with a detailed exploration of the integrated design process itself, its varying definitions, prescriptive paths and modes of application. The first and second sections establish the historical context of the building process; paying particular attention to the master builder concept that was the predominant method of proj ect delivery up until the Industrial Revolution of the 18 th century and the subsequent rise of individualized building professions. The third section examines the current project delivery methods used today, especially design bid build, and their associate d advantages and shortcomings. The fourth section discusses the emerging culture of sustainable building and its attributes that support integrated design. The fifth section addresses the burgeoning shift from professional specialization into integrative c ollaboration amongst building trades by applying principles of the integrated design process toward sustainable construction. The Old Ways of Doing Integration as an idea pertaining to construction has its roots in the historical development of building shelter obtained through building has been a fundamental requirement for survival. Through this need, the act of building quickly evolved into an integral part of human

PAGE 20

20 culture as a whole. Every grea t civilization on earth has produced a unique building culture that concurrently progressed (or regressed) with its changing societal, economic initial foray into creating a complex built environment began. Long before the traditional definitions of architect, engineer and contractor were established, the master builder was the one responsible for all facets of the building process. He possessed a highly developed, wide range of knowledge involving an intimate understanding of local issues. By accruing knowledge passed down through generations, the master builder learned through apprenticeship. It was through this method that the he developed receptiveness toward local materia ls, resource flows, workforce skills, traditions, techniques, microclimates, soil conditions and local limitations. He continued to build upon this body of localized knowledge through practice. The ideal master builder understood the importance of harmony among the processes and products of building and the local economy (Boecker et al. 2009) Master builders of the past created buildings that were hig hly responsive to their respective local conditions; building was regarded as a significant cultural ritual and the master builder was at the center. The master builder employed the theories and application of architecture as a rigorous, mathematical scien ce; synthesizing the technical attributes of engineering with the aesthetics of architectural design. Actual building was executed under the direct supervision of the master builder through a hierarchy of local artisans, craftsmen and journeyman. Each grou p of subordinates under the master builder contributed to the rich layering of diverse details through

PAGE 21

21 construction. The master builder not only oversaw the building process, but was a direct participant as well (Davis 1999) Projects of the past which we re led by master builders relied upon the cohesive intelligence among the local artisans, craftsmen and journeymen who formed the master apprentice hierarchy. Each member of this hierarchy possessed varying levels of knowledge pertaining to local patterns and this knowledge was in turn integrated into the construction process producing results which affected the building as a whole. Cohesive intelligence through the exchange of knowledge among the varying scales of the master apprentice hierarchy was the fo undation of success for the master builder system (Boecker et al. 2009) Up until the eighteenth century, the traditional definition of architect ref erred to someone that possessed a holistic responsibility for both the design and construction of a project. These architects evolved out of building trades (e.g. masonry, carpentry, surveying) and produced not only the working design drawings but also sup ervised construction directly on site. They organized the trades and oversaw the workers could in turn be called the master builder, possessed a higher degree of knowledg e than the craftsmen he supervised since he was ultimately responsible for shaping the entire design and construction process. Yet this greater knowledge was not placed in an order where the architect exuded solely a managerial superiority over his craftsm en and merely produced a design to be constructed. Instead, the knowledge the architect needed to design and construct was an extension of the skills of those beneath him. The hierarchy of apprenticeship to master builder followed a datum of the transfer o f

PAGE 22

22 knowledge through doing and the subsequent building of skills which stitched together a threaded building society rooted in cohesive intelligence (Davis 1999) This cohesive intelligence was not limited to construction, but was a result of the connectio n the builders had to their respective local conditions. Building, as a cultural act, initially grew out of the inner nature of the environment in which a building was in tegrating his creations into the natural world. The master builder relied upon this cohesive intelligence and the common building language that was shared throughout the master apprentice hierarchy in order to facilitate the creation of buildings that yiel integration and response to local forces stemmed from the systemic approach to the process of creating the building (or town) itself (Alexander 1979) Using the analogy of a flower and a seed, Christopher Alexander compared the dependent upon the degree of adaptation of its assembled parts within the whole. The kit of parts used in this building process was comprised of autonomous patterns within a that would eventually generate a flo wer. Each level within the master apprentice hierarchy was responsible for applying a certain pattern which reflected the skills, knowledge and expertise of the craftsmen involved. In simple terms, these patterns could be described as rules of thumb which could be combined and repeated in multiple different forms to make an infinite range of details (Alexander 1979)

PAGE 23

23 The multi hierarchical repetition of these patterns in the building languag e generated a natural rhythm to the building process. Building forms emerged from the local life conditions within a culture in addition to being a direct response to topography. The tendency of these patterns to evolve in a fashion that was in a relations hip with nature solidified the way building progressed in an organic manner. The master builders of the past possessed a unique intuition that was aligned with the fundamental ideas of natural creation which shaped their building process (Saarinen 1948) Figure 2 1 Cross section of a human musculature vei n structure (left) compared to the medieval plan of Venice, Italy (right). The urban morphology of the city bears uncanny rese mblance to the cellular patterns contained within the human body; demonstrating that builders (and planners) of the past possessed an innate sensitivity toward context and organic building evolution. This attitude toward the construction process has been described by Alexander environment emerged directly out of the inner nature of the matter (i.e. the people, land, plants, animals, customs and traditions) contained wit hin that environment. Utilizing the common building language which stratified the master apprentice hierarchy, the creation of buildings and towns mimicked a genetic process. From the master builder to

PAGE 24

24 the lowliest craftsman, the shared living language of building provided a singular feedback loop which kept the patterns of the building language synchronized with the environment (Alexander 1979) builder system. The Great Pyramid at Giza, the Parthenon, the Alhambra, Chartres cathedral and the Duomo of Florence are all iconic works of architecture, yet they were not created by a single man. Instead, they resulted from the master apprentice of men who all shared a common building language. These are buildings that foster a unique harmony with their respective cultural and natural environments and possess an extremely strong sense of place. They are a historic testament to the cohesive intelligence used in the building process and stand as prime e xamples of how buildings, and the processes undertaken to construct them, can define and complement their contexts. The Emergence of Professionalism The demise of the master builder system began with two significant events in history: the establishment o f the cole Nationale des Ponts et Chausses (French National School of Bridges and Roads), the first school of civil engineering in 1747, and the rise of the Industrial Revolution which had its roots in 18 th century Great Britain (Frampton 2007) With the wave of new technol ogies that emerged, the attitudes and language pertaining to building shifted with the changing tides of the culture and economy.

PAGE 25

25 Since the building culture and its processes were tied to the organization of society as a whole, the progression in industr ial mechanization and manufacturing resulted in a re ordering of the post industrial society and its building practices. Increasing societal needs led to an increase in specialization: people needed to be put in an explicitly understood place. The building culture reciprocated this need and reflected the fragmented character of the new contemporary society with the emergence of specific professions each with its own distinct specialization: the architect, the engineer and the general contractor (Davis 1999) Subsequent acceptance of the industrial ethic diminished the local and tradition based methods of regulating the activities of people involved in building. Increased transportation technology enlarged the community scale and the exchange of information and scientific knowledge became more rapid. The master apprentice system that had once educated and guided the building process had evolved into a management labor system: those who controlled the economic means and those who made the product became separ ate entities (Davis 1999) The increase in specialization in both society and the building culture led to a decline in the cohesive intelligence that had once been the crux of the old hierarchal system headed by the master builder. Establishment of separ ate schools for architecture and engineering mirrored the post industrial societal tendencies of defining explicit standards of professional behavior. The split between management and labor in order to achieve economic efficiency created a distinction betw een the highly educated and uneducated.

PAGE 26

26 By the late nineteenth century, there were only remnants of what was once the master builder system and the master apprentice hierarchy had been replaced by professional institutions that had been established to el evate their professional agendas and roles within the post industrial building culture. At this time, the role of the builder and the earliest iteration of the modern building firm emerged out of the ashes of the master builder system. Comprised of many tr ades, the earliest general contractors were actually builders who were either loosely defined architects, surveyors, bricklayers or carpenters. The builder, as known then, possessed a large amount of overlap between these trades. They were builders who und erstood architecture or surveyors who could draw plans or architects who prided themselves with building knowledge. With the societal drive toward specialization, the evolution of the building culture eventually yielded defined professional roles: the arch itect became the generator of design, the engineer served as a guardian of technical pragmatism and the builder became a managerial position limited to following the specifications and guidelines set forth by the architect (Davis 1999) A one to one relati onship was gradually established amongst the individuals involved and their respective professional activities. This relationship subsequently generated its own hierarchy in the resulting building, architecture and engineering firms that would be establish ed. While the master apprentice hierarchy still existed in diminished form; within the greater building culture the embrace of specialization and the acceptance of a management labor relationship had become status quo. The old notion of cohesive intelligen ce had given way to the rise of competing isolated professional institutions.

PAGE 27

27 The divergence between architects, engineers and builders had been solidified by the end of the nineteenth century. General contractors had emerged not strictly as builders, but as negotiators, managers and supervisors of construction. By distancing into one that was subordinate to the architects they were obligated to serve under contract. General contractors had little direct involvement in the actual construction process and instead relied upon the hiring and supervision of trade subcontractors to fulfill the actual building work (Davis 1999) The definitions of architect and engineer ha d evolved concurrently with the notion role was seen as central to the overall building aesthetic and layout in addition to dea. The responsibility for mathematical knowledge and rigor that had once been embraced by architects of the past was now shifted upon the engineer who had now become delegated to the role of consultant to e by the architect had been abandoned entirely and the role of the architect as solely a designer and representative of the owner had become accepted. With the increased level of specialization the architecture and engineering professions incurred, they su bsequently developed exclusive claims to professional expertise. The requirement for professional licensure to practice architecture and engineering became law and the result was a formally structured management labor hierarchy within the professions betwe en the principals, who were the most educated and licensed, and the draftsman, who were the least educated and unlicensed (Davis 1999)

PAGE 28

28 The increased schism amongst the professional roles in the building culture and the rise of the manager laborer hierarc hy within the building process followed the 20 th century. The Taylorist notion that each individual was to be assigned a discrete and highly specialized task that was to b e carried out to maximum efficiency fueled the capitalist economic engine of production, exemplified in the United States with Henry advocated that there was a clear distin ction among the duties of individuals involved in determine the most efficient method of conducting the task at hand. The individual was then instructed in this method and al lowed to continue to repeat his assigned isolated task within the greater line of production. The work between the manager and the laborer was divided equally with managers aligning the task planning scientifically in a manner where the workers would in tu rn perform their desired tasks. Each unit of work was matched with an equal unit of supervision to ensure that the tasks were being completed in the most efficient and profitable way (Taylor 1911) In construction, this notion of highly developed, rationalized techniques at ordering not only building design, but the processes carried out to cons truct them, became the indirect philosophical backbone behind the economic consequences of the post industrial built environment. With the rise of speculators and developers, and the increasing role of financial institutions in construction, the monetary b ottom line became the primary focus of building (Davis 1999)

PAGE 29

29 The resulting specialization in the construction process that imitated the Taylorist embraced quality within t he production process of a product instead of focusing on the end product alone. As processes evolved in both manufacturing and construction over the course of the 20 th century, the study of product quality concurrently matured in its scientific complexity Following Taylor, Walter Shewart continued to study the methods of quality control through the use of statistics by developing control charts which emphasized reducing variation in processes and exposing that continual process adjustment increased variat ion and led to degradation in quality. In the 1950s, Joseph approaches toward quality; where f ocusing on the formation of the project team, training and leadership would subsequently result in both increased customer satisfaction and product quality. Juran placed high importance on the culture of a team, adding a human dimension to quality control and stressing that isolating the problems among human relationships on a team would result in increased quality. on management and quality are summarized in fourteen points: 1) Create consistency of purpose for improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive and stay in business and to keep providing jobs. 2) Adopt the new p hilosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities and take on leadership for change.

PAGE 30

30 3) Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass ba sis by building quality in to the product in the first place. 4) End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long term relationship of loyalty and trust. 5) I mprove constantly and forever every process for planning, production and service. Improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs. 6) activities. 7) Adopt and institu te leadership. The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul as well as supervision of production workers. 8) Drive out fear so that everyone may work effectively for the comp any because they want it to succeed. 9) Break down barriers between staff areas or departments. People in research, design, sales and production must work as a team to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or servi ce. 10) Eliminate slogans, exhortations and targets for the workforce asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the s ystem and thus lie beyond the power of the work force. 11) Eliminate numerical quotas for the workforce and numerical goals for management 12) Remove barriers that rob people of pride of workmanship. Eliminate the annual rating or merit system. 13) Institute a vigorou s program of education and self improvement for everyone. Let them participate to choose areas of development. 14) Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The (Deming 1986) attitudes toward quality in industrial production. The notion that quality control is a holistic process, beginning with the design of a product through its distribution to

PAGE 31

31 customers, generated the new concept of total quality management that had a profound influence on post war manufacturing applications during the latter half of the 20 th century. Cohesive intelligence, not only among te chnical skillsets, but human relationships among team members was an important element of upholding high quality standards. In construction, quality standards were upgraded through many of the principals set forth by Deming; notably through integrating tra ining exercises into the standard work routine of employees and embedding quality management into company project management practices. The key elements of project management: engineering, scheduling, organizing, tracking and reporting the phases of a cons truction project were found to directly correlate with the quality of the finished product. However, increasing the quality of products was not limited to streamlining project management, but also included a shift in the culture of the company that desired to increase its output quality level. Total quality management brought forth the notion that quality must be incorporated into the process and the organizations that wished to follow it needed to develop a corporate culture that would embrace it (Ries et al. 2009) While the focus of quality has evolved over the course of the 20 th century, the roles of the contractor, architect or engineer became more sequestered. The rising separation between the professions and trades involved in building led to difficulties resulting from increased formalities, overwhelming institutional complexities and the removal of ordinary people of society from those who have been assigned the control of expertise pertaining to building (Da vis 1999) While quality may be a focus of a particular profession, in order for a building to uphold high quality standards, all

PAGE 32

32 professionals involved in a project need to follow the same quality control protocols. The gradual rise of post industrial pr ofessionalism separated building from its traditional roots in cohesive intelligence and sensitivity toward local culture and economy and fostered an age of specialization that has created a contradictory process that is ultimately unsustainable. The old w ays of doing had been abandoned as visions for building and replaced by institutional compromises between increasingly isolated and adversarial professional groups (Davis 1999) The Current Process Over the course of the 20 th century, the modern building culture has failed to evolve in a significant way from its post industrial status as an assemblage of professions operating in isolation from one another. While there are levels of interaction among the professionals involved in a project, there remain set prescriptive paths that have only continued the perpetuation of distancing the building process from true integration. In construction, the project delivery method describes the roles and functions of the participants (i.e. owner, design team, builder), t heir formal and informal interrelationships, the timing of events and the management techniques used to generate a built project (Ireland 1984) The three most commonly used project delivery methods are: design bid build, construction manager at risk and design buil d (Molenaar et al. 2009) This section of the litera ture review is focuses on defining the current project delivery methods, their similarities and contrasts and the factors that support or negate successful project implementation. Most emphasis will be placed upon the design bid build project delivery meth od because of its unchanged nature over the past century

PAGE 33

33 and its status as the traditional modern project delivery method. Both CM at Risk and the Design Build delivery methods are studied to provide insight into the benefits of integration among project p articipants and serve as models leading towards embrace of an integrated design process. Particular attention is placed upon how the respective contractual structures of each project delivery method are arranged with regards to which party takes on the mos t risk and how the parties are segregated or integrated when working on a project. Design Bid Build Figure 2 2 Design bid build f ramework. Design Bid Build is regarded as the traditional project delivery method in the United States and has been the s tandard method of project delivery since the emergence of construction professionalism in the late 19 th century (Elvin 2007) The process begins when the project owner contracts separately with a d esigner (architect) to produce a complete set of design documents. Throughout the process of design development and finalizing construction documents, the architect will contract with consultants (i.e. mechanical and structural engineers, landscape archite cts, green building consultants) to assist with specifications within the design.

PAGE 34

34 When the construction documents are completed, the architect then issues the price bids from builders (general contractors or construction firms) to provide the actual construction work. The building contractor who is selected for the project traditionally corresponds with having the lowest bid price to complete the work. After the build er enters a contract with the owner, the builder is contractually obligated to provide the construction services within the fixed price limits specified in the winning bid for the project and follow the specifications set forth by the architect. The relati onship between architect and builder is highly formalized via contracts and the contractor has no input in been selected does the contractor have a project role (Sanvido and Konchar 1998) Using the design bid bu ild method provides several advantages for the owner. The owner assumes minimal risk since the architect is contractually defined as the the liability. This relationship b etween owner and architect enables the owner to have a very close alignment with how the design is developed according to his needs. The resulting completed construction documents produced by the architect should provide contractors a feasible opportunity to produce accurate bid prices and give the owner an idea of how much the project is going to cost in its entirety (Elvin 2007) However, the negatives associated with design bid build outweigh th e positives. With the contractor being completely absent from the design process, accurate pricing as design progresses and inputs regarding constructability and schedule are not discussed during the early stages of design. The stressing of fixed prices am ong

PAGE 35

35 competitive bids can lead to adversarial relationships between either the owner and the contractor or the architect and contractor. The structure of dual contracts between owner architect and owner builder lead to a complicated hierarchy of individual contracts between architects and consultants as well as contractors and multiple subcontractors. The risk of liability diminishes teamwork and only encourages the growth of adversarial relationships. When the architect has completed construction documents and the winning bid has been chosen, the role of the architect retreats from the building process until there is a proliferation of change orders initiated by the contractor resulting from errors or omissions. Changes only increase the tension within the r elationships among the owner, architect and builder and increase the burdens of cost and time (Elvin 2007) The fundamental flaw of this delivery method is derived from its linear nature that emb races the abyss between the responsibilities and assumed risks of the design team and the builder. The client proposes an idea to the architect, who in turn alone th e architects design, the architect then moves forward with design development, shifting certain design responsibilities onto a group of consultants (i.e. mechanical and communica tion that goes back and forth between the consultants, architect and client set of construction documents that are issued contain an imbedded temporal and monetary value d erived from the thousands of man hours accrued during their creation.

PAGE 36

36 These values equate to time and money expounded over the course of many months and sometimes years (Boecker et al. 2009) Contractors who are bidding for the project are given an extremely limited timeframe to receive these documents, examine them and generate an affordable estimate. The expectation to fully digest information result work, apply an accurate price to it and then be contractually committed to that price yields a formula that is inherently problematic. Construction Manager at Risk (CM at Risk) Figure 2 3 CM at risk f ramework. Following th e model of design bid build, CM at risk involves the owner contracting separately with a designer and construction manager. The contract with the design team ensures that construction documents are generated and then the owner selects a construction manage ment entity, who guarantees cost and schedule, to carry out the work for a fee. The construction manager may be a general contractor, a segment of an engineering or architecture firm which provides CM at risk or an independent construction management compa ny. This process differs from design bid build in the level of involvement the contractor has within the design process and the scope of interaction among the client, designer and builder. Contractors are invited to

PAGE 37

37 participate in the design stages thus gi ving them the ability to assign roles early, plan in advance for critical construction phases, assist in constructability reviews, provide value engineering input and coordinate the ordering of long lead items more effectively with less conflict. Construct ion manager at risk still involves a dual tiered contract system, yet it begins to foster principles of integration with increased client, designer and builder collaboration (Molenaar et al. 2009) While CM at risk operates in a way that benefits greater integration between designers and builders, this meth od may also be structured as CM at fee. Construction any liability the CM has for project over budgeting, schedule and quality. While the CM at fee bears a great deal of p roject influence and leadership, it does not take on the associated risks that other players within a project carry. With this unequal distribution of risk, the power balance within a project is undermined and integrated teamwork is lost (Elvin 2007) integration among the other t eams involved. CM at fee is not a project delivery method, CM at fee, the CM entity is merely a consultant to the owner and does not commit to expending the capital and reso urces in a project, nor provides any level of guarantee for the finished product, in the same manner as general contractors (Akintoye and MacLeod 1997) However, the CM at fee may assist the owner in selecting a design team, choosing a CM at risk entity or hi ring a design build team. Ultimately,

PAGE 38

38 responsibility and liability are muddled among project teams and it is the owner who is most affected by the coordination risks associated with the project as there are no formal contracts between the CM entity and the design teams (Elvin 2007) Design Build Figure 2 4 Design b uild f ramework Design build is the closest project delivery method to true integration among client, designer and builder. The owne r contracts directly with a single entity that is to provide full design specifications and then perform or subcontract the necessary construction. The design builder may be a completely integrated firm that provides either design and construction services in house, or it may be collaboration between two architecture and construction firms that share the same project interests or have a longstanding history of effective cooperation and mutual profitability. In design build, both the designer and the builder share the same risks and rewards (Engdahl 2003) Unlike CM at risk, there is formal contractual integration with design build, yet both designer and builder are still under the same umbrella from the start allowing for the builder to exert influence i n the early stages of design and provide continued constructability and budget feedback throughout the process. This also means that the

PAGE 39

39 design build entity is singularly responsible for operating within the project budget as well as any errors and omissio ns encountered during construction (Molenaar et al. 200 9) Communication between the design and building teams is streamlined, allowing for effective compression of the project delivery period, better budgetary control, reduced changes and a decrease in adversarial relationships between clients, designers an d builders. The design build delivery method fosters a spirit rooted in commonality of purpose that supports the cause for integration among project stakeholders (Engdahl 2003) The streamlined process of design build poses some drawbacks. Pushing a pr does not necessarily always result in a higher quality built product. Design build involves the owner to procure a partially designed project within a fixed price which re sults in a risk of potentially compromised quality. The design build entity assumes a greater amount of risk than in the traditional design bid build process and it is important for owners to select a design build team based upon qualifications and experie nce relative to the proposed project at hand rather than lowest cost. This requires the owner to maintain a level of sophistication and readiness to provide up front involvement and clarity with what his or her project intentions and requirements are so th at price and schedule fluctuations do not occur in the long run (American Consulting Engineers 2001) Design build has become an increa singly popular choice for owners to implement a tightly integrated project delivery method. Over 40% of all buildings being produced in the United States were using a design build process at the dawn of the 21 st century

PAGE 40

40 (Sell 2003) With the increasing market infl ux of sustainability as a driving force in construction, the push toward integrated design build practices in achieving green projects is becoming more prevalent. There is a common flaw that prevails throughout these three main project delivery methods th at has prevented true integrated project delivery to thrive. The fragmented and abstract nature of the contractual agreements among the owners, designers, builders, consultants and subcontractors involved in all project delivery methods has still separated those who are at the apex of the hierarchy (i.e. the principals that uphold the legal risks and sign the contracts) from those closest to the actual construction of the building (i.e. the trade subcontractor and laborer) (Davis 1999) Even with the inte grative attributes of CM at risk and design build, there are still parts of the building process that have elements of seclusion among those involved. The tiered systems of formal contracts among owners, designers and builders are institutions of control a nd protection. While these contracts are necessary to prevent legal problems and ensure that professional obligations are fulfilled, they render each of these project delivery methods into instruments of assembly rather than integration. This notion that a building is a linear effort of assembly, and that these project delivery methods function as set prescriptive paths, is a blind approach which leads to ballooned costs, redundant procedures and wasted time (Boecker et al. 2009) No two built projects undergo an exactly similar process and each one has its own unique set of successes and failures. With the current push toward sustainable, high performanc e buildings; an integrated egalitarian approach to the building process with an emphasis

PAGE 41

41 on pliability and cohesive intelligence needs to emerge as a viable alternative to the old standards of project delivery. The New Green Building Culture Since the Ind ustrial Revolution brought forth tremendous technological change there has been a dramatic alteration in the way humans have interacted with their natural environment. The onset of fossil fuels used to power the mechanization of material extraction, manufa cturing and their resulting waste products have tainted the harmony that man has shared with nature. This increased level of efficiency through innovation has lead humankind to infiltrate the naturally evolved, complex and diverse biotic systems of our env ironment in a manner that leads to environmental degradation (Kibert 1999) The post industrial growth and omnipresence of the built environment, its required infrastructure and the processes undertaken to construct it has had a profound impact upon the world we live in. In the United States, buildings consu me approximately 40% of total energy use, 73% of all electricity use (USDOE 2008) and are responsible for approximatel y 30% of both total greenhouse gas emissions and raw material expenditures (USEPA 1998) as society has progressed with rises technological advancement. The correlation between increasing societal and economic demands alon g with increasing resource depletion and waste expulsion demonstrates a pattern that is ultimately unsustainable. Buildings need not to be examined solely as assembled products designed to cater to the needs of their users, but instead as systemic organism s that share a relationship

PAGE 42

42 with not only the natural environment, but with society and the economy in a way that engages and progresses a healthy, sustainable relationship to a greater whole. What is sustainability? The most common definition for what constitutes sustainable development report titled Our Common Future. The report defined sustainable development as romising the ability of (WCED 1987) Kibert argues that the on is dependent upon two concepts that need to be met by both present and future generations: natural resources must be allocated in a fair and just manner and that biological systems must preserve their functions over time (Kibert 1999) The essence of this definition is that sustainability is not a concrete element that can be simply integrated into any process: it is a process unto itself. According to Boecker et al., "sustainability is not a deliverable. Sustainability is not a thing. Sustainability is not simply about efficient technologies and techn iques. Sustainability is literally about sustaining life; a practice by which living things such as forests, neighborhoods, people, businesses, watersheds, mushrooms, microbes and polar bears contribute to the interrelationships that ensure the viability o f each over the (Boecker et al. 2009) This statement supports the notion that the abstract idea of sustainability fits within the fundamen tal common thread of environmental concern: enduring the viability of the human species and its natural environment. Within the realm of the built environment, sustainability becomes an issue of integration among not only the building

PAGE 43

43 and its context (i.e. nature, society and economy) but as well as the stakeholders involved in the process of putting the building together. Sustainable Construction The application of sustainable principles upon construction practices has become increasingly popular in the w ake of surmounting evidence of environmental degradation hybrid definition of what one can call high performance green buildings: buildings that are designed in ways that se riously consider and reduce their impacts upon the environment and human health (Yudelson 2009) The impact that high performance green buildings have upon their environment is tertiary: the affected elements are natural, social and economic. Kibert provides a general list of seven principles that guides toward what protocol high performance green buildings should follow in order to embody the principles of sustainable construction: 1. Minimization of resource consum ption; 2. Maximization of resource reuse; 3. Use of renewable and recyclable resources; 4. Protect the natural environment; 5. Create a healthy and non toxic environment; 6. Incorporate economics by using life cycle costing; and 7. Pursue quality in creating the built envir onment (Kibert 2005) ld be examined as a shift in the thought process undertaken by the owner, designer and

PAGE 44

44 high performing, but the process utilized to make the building should be as well. This shift in perspective in applying sustainable principles upon a building process begins with understanding the nested subsystems of varying scale that relate the building project to the greater environment as a whole. The construction process and sub sequent building occupation involves a chain of resource exchanges between the building and its environment which resonate at larger and larger scales throughout Figure 2 5 Nested subsystems hierarchy. (Adapted from Boecker, et al. 2009). Utilizing a systemic perspective on the impacts of a building upon the varying scales of its environment is the foundation for achieving the goals toward sustainable construction. Examination of Figure 2 5 highlights the levels of systems th at a building has consequential impact relationships with. The first level relates strictly to the functions : the mechanical systems contained within and the optimization of those systems in order to satisfy the needs of the users. The building functions must emphasize the health, safety, comfort and well as function in a manner that maximizes energy efficiency. The second level is the

PAGE 45

45 building envelope and relates to the material makeup of the building i tself, its orientation, daylighting strategies, insulation efficiency and aesthetics. The material composition of the building should possess a high level of reused or recycled materials and the construction process should have minimal waste. The third lev el pertains to the site Certain site elements (e.g. natural shading, capture and channeling of prevailing breezes) can be incorporated to assist in achieving sustainability goals. It is crucial that the site be viewed as s omething that needs to be protected or rehabilitated; the building should enhance the site and vice versa. The relationship between building and site corresponds directly to the previous two systems related to building functions and envelope; as it is thes e three initial levels that compose the building as a singular entity. However, in order for the built environment to become truly sustainable, the impact upon the subsequent broad scale systems and their relationship to a building must be addressed. The fourth level is community. Unlike the site system, the relationship between building and community straddles three much broader primary subsystems within the community scale: local economy, culture and natural environment. Communal issues pertain to the b serves as a place of public importance to the local society; or if the building sets a preceden t for generating future sustainable growth that benefits the community as a whole. Building quality, albeit a term that has different interpretations among many, is important at this level because the built environment needs to be a positive and sustainabl e component of the community.

PAGE 46

46 The fifth system is the watershed water consumption and freshwater impacts. Pollution from the construction process, storm water runoff and the intake of freshwater and expulsi on of wastewater are issues requiring focus when undertaking a green building project. Watershed impacts could have potentially hidden consequences due to the interconnectivity of many water systems through rivers, lakes, aquifers and streams. Water consum ption has a correlation with communal well being since freshwater is necessary for sustaining human life. The sixth, seventh and eighth levels (i.e. region, planet and universe) serve as the normal confines of conventional scale. Well executed, thoughtful high performance green buildings can possess an influence that reaches far beyond the realms of local community and can drive other builders to follow suit. The notion that a building ca n possess a regional or worldly influence is not a new concept as evident by the noted built projects throughout history discussed at the beginning of this literature review. pri greater world as a whole have a commonality rooted in integration. Buildings, as manmade products set within a natural context, must be designed and thought of integrated o rganisms that have a direct and mutual impact upon their environment. These components that form an integrated hierarchy (i.e. building, site, community and watershed) are referred to as stakeholders; bodies which affect the building process or bear the ef fects of infiltration from a building project.

PAGE 47

47 Stakeholders and Sustainable Construction is commonly used to describe the participants directly involved in the ownership, fina ncing, design, engineering and building of a project. In a broad sense, stakeholders are those who have a vested interest in the project being undertaken. However, stakeholders can be defined as not only individuals working directly on the project, but als o the subsystems that the project is contained within. There are ecological, social environmental contexts. For this thesis, the stakeholders refer to an integrated group of r elevant project participants who come from various professional backgrounds and possess a diverse grouping of knowledge, skillsets, perceptions and experience to a project. This group could include not only the project owner, financier, architect, engineer s and builders; but also the citizenry of the community who have a social interest in a project, environmental consultants or any private or government agency Stakeholder Ba sed Life Cycle Assessment Conventional life cycle assessment (LCA) involves assessing the environmental consequences of an intended decision toward implementing a particular product or process throughout its entire lifespan. Building materials and the bui lding itself can be scrutinized though LCA. The main benefit of an LCA perspective is that it based upon long term benefits and examines the varying scales of extraction, production, use and disposal of a product. Energy consumption, water usage, building materials and the resulting environmental performance and impacts are analyzed and compared among

PAGE 48

48 product alternatives. The LCA analysis is a comprehensive evaluation of both positive and negative attributes of a product or process and a decision upon whic h is the best choice to select is made (Kibert 2005) The framework of LCA involves four primary steps: goal and scope definition ; life cycle inventory; life cycle impact assessme nt ; and interpretation The first step involves establishing the reasoning behind the study, specifying the intended audience, demarcating the boundaries for analysis and any requirements or study limitations. This step is followed by life cycle inventory ; which involves the collection and validation of any inputs and outputs that quantify material and energy consumption, their associated environmental impacts and their subsequent waste products throughout each life cycle stage. The next step is life cycle impact assessment where impacts on environment and human health are categorized and calculated using equivalency factors and weighted values to stratify the data so impact comparisons can be made. The final step of interpretation assesses the results of th e life cycle assessment and compares them to the initially defined goals and scope. The resulting interpretation gives an unbiased analysis of the results and provides recommendation for reducing the environmental impact of a product, process or system (Thabrew et al. 2008) Stakeholder based life cycle assessment (SBLCA) caters to analyzing the necessary upstream factors required to initiate a product or process and their consequential downstream effects in a setting where a collaborative effort is employed. The framework of this process is similar to a life cycle assessment for a singular product or process, yet it accommodates a multitude of stakeholders with varying backgrounds and expertise to assess imp acts and recommend alternatives.

PAGE 49

49 Utilizing a collaborative SBLCA is a key component for achieving a successful implementation of an integrative approach toward a building project. It has a direct relationship with not only the quality of the building prod uct, but the process undertaken to construct it and the effects the construction process and product have on an environmental, social and economic level. Stakeholder based life cycle assessment consists of five main parts: goal formation analyzing the cur rent state assessing alternative scenarios incorporating strategies and developing indicators for monitoring and evaluation Each process is described as follows: Goal formation: development that w ill benefit the community in the most sustainable way possible. Analyzing and assessing the current state : mentality for achieving sustainability goals. Develop an understanding of upstream requirements and downstream eff ects in both broad scale and localized contexts. In this phase, the links between environmental, social and economic aspects affected by the project are identified. Impacts may be described through quantitative or qualitative data or a combination of both. Assessing alternative scenarios: Due to the transdisciplinary involvement of the stakeholders involved, a set of consistent options of possible scenarios for goal achievement is generated. Incorporating strategies: Stakeholders examine the scenarios creat ed in the previous step and determine which options most benefit the local conditions, use of available resources and ease of implementation. Holistic thinking when examining upstream requirements and downstream effects is critical in this stage at reducin g uncertainties and transaction costs while simultaneously promoting unity and agreement among stakeholders. Developing indicators for monitoring and evaluation: This phase requires stakeholders to implement monitoring and evaluation strategies across all levels of the community (i.e. environmental, social and economic impacts) to support sustainable development and ensure project goals are fulfilled (Thabrew et al. 2008)

PAGE 50

50 While SBLCA can provide a framewo rk for integration among project stakeholders, there are some factors that hinder the SBLCA mindset. Bounded rationality among stakeholders results in all stakeholders expecting their collaborators to all follow the same rationality when approaching a proj stakeholders should embrace. Asset specificity is another hindrance to SBLCA that relates to specifying stakeholder resource allocation in a limited manner. When resources are allocated for a specific task or project, there is little regard for the changing requirements, priorities and perspectives upon a more holistic scale. Opportunistic behavior is also a problem when trying to implement su ccessful SBLCA practices. This involves stakeholders focusing primarily on their own benefits, which is the exact opposite of the core issue of SBLCA: integration. When stakeholders conduct themselves in an opportunistic manner, the essence of collaboratio n associated with SBLCA is lost. The overall benefits of all of the stakeholders involved are diminished as well as the opportunity for achieving any sustainability goals for the project (Thabrew and Ries 2009) Life Cycle Costing Much like LCA, life cycle costing (LCC) examines the economic side of a product or process from extraction through disposal. The purpose of LCC is to dif ferentiate between purportedly high first costs of a decision versus an overall financial benefit in the long run based upon the yield of lower operational costs over the course of a cycle costing is coupled with LCA because of the lon g term perspective they both share. Life cycle assessment decisions can be affected by an

PAGE 51

51 LCC analysis and vice versa (Kibert 2005) Both LCC and LCA analyses are critical steps wh en considering an integrated design process. The complementary nature of goals in both environmental and economic terms LEED as a Guide for a Sustainable Process The Leader ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building certification is a voluntary program established by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) that promotes a national standard for establishing the requirements for high performance gree n buildings. From its original inception in 1998, LEED has gradually evolved to become the most widely accepted and well known green building assessment program in the United States. The basis behind LEED is a whole building approach to assessing key attri cycle performance in seven key areas: sustainable sites; water efficiency; energy and atmosphere; materials and resources; indoor environmental quality; innovation in design and regional priority (USGBC 2010) What makes LEED a contender toward fostering integration is that it provides a credible performance based, goal oriented system that combines the efforts of the four majo r stakeholders in the construction process: owner, architect, engineer and contractor. Each of the seven areas requires submittal documentation from varying stakeholders. For example, in order to fulfill points for the energy and atmosphere component LEED, engineers need to provide detailed energy modeling data that meet or exceed the requirements set forth by LEED. This energy modeling relates back to the

PAGE 52

52 engineers fee l that there is an opportunity to increase points, they can communicate with the architects in order to make adjustments in the design. Another example that combines the efforts of stakeholders is the materials and resources component. Contractors play a r design to ensure that they may be of recycled or reused materials, or materials acquired within a specified regional distance. h regards to changes in green building trends. The system is under constant scrutiny and evolves through a consensus based process that emphasizes a common standard of measurement, raising consumer awareness of green building benefits, promotes integration among stakeholders and is continually transforming the building market (USGBC 2010) The infiltration of the LEED rating system and the proliferation of LEED accredited profess ionals in all professions within the construction industry have established a common green building language that has begun to provide a consistent path toward implementing sustainable construction techniques. Whole Building Design Created by the Natio nal Institute of Building Sciences, a non governmental United States based organization dedicated to advancing construction research, Whole Building Design (WBDG) is a process that promotes the ideas encompassed by other green building programs (e.g. USGBC ways to unify them into both an integrated design approach and integrated team process. Whole Building Design advocates that project stakeholders from the design, technical planning and construction teams e xamine project objectives, building

PAGE 53

53 materials, systems and assemblies from various perspectives. The process also emphasizes the integrated team process where all affected stakeholders (i.e. owner, design and construction teams) work together continuously throughout the duration of each project phase to evaluate project cost, quality, future environmental and economic (Prowler and Vierra 2008) The foundation of Whole Building Design is the integrated design approach where the potential for success is dependent upon the earlier the project goals ar e identified and defined along with balancing out those goals during the design process and all interrelationships and interdependencies among all other building systems are taken into consideration. Whole Building Design is rooted in a set of complementar y objectives necessary to achieve a successful holistic project: Accessible: Pertains to building elements, heights and clearances implemented to address the specific needs of disabled people. Aesthetics: Pertains to the physical appearance and image of b uilding elements and spaces as well as the integrated design process Cost Effective: Pertains to selecting building elements on the basis of life cycle costs (weighing options during concepts, design development and value engineering) as well as basic cos t estimating and budget control. Functional/Operational: Pertains to functional programming spatial needs and requirements, system performance as well as durability and efficient maintenance of building elements. Historic Preservation: Pertains to specif ic actions within a historic district or affecting a historic building whereby building elements and strategies are classifiable into one of the four approaches: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction.

PAGE 54

54 Productive: Pertains to occupant being physical and psychological comfort including building elements such as air distribution, lighting, workspaces, systems and technology. Secure/Safe: Pertains to the physical protection of occupants and assts from man made and natural hazards. Sustainable: Pertains to environmental performance of building elements and strategies (Prowler and Vierra 20 08) Figure 2 6 Whole Building Design i nterrelationships (Prowler and Vierra 2008). In Whole Building Design, the generation of a high performance green building is not only dependent upon fulfilling the holistic objectives, but also incorporating an integrated team process where all stakeholders (i.e. all parties involved in the planning, design, construction, operation, occupation and maintenance of the building) must completely embrace and comprehend the issues and input of all participants and int eract with them throughout all phases of the project. Collective brainstorming through a design charrette at the beginning of a project initiates the Whole Building Design process and encourages a mutual exchange of ideas among project stakeholders. The cr oss fertilization when tackling project goals and problems allows stakeholders to share their collective professional knowledge that may provide other team members with knowledge beyond their own professional expertise (Prowler and Vierra 2008)

PAGE 55

55 embrace of cohesive intelligence among those involved in putting a project together. The objectives set forth by the Whole Building Design objectives represent a threading of ideas that resort back to the premise of systems thinking based upon a uniquely defined vocabulary rooted in holistic g reen building terminology. The idea behind Whole Building Design is of interest in this literature review because of its emphasis on formulating a process rather than providing explicit outcomes for deliverables. The collaborative and open minded nature of the Whole Building Design process differs greatly from the traditional, professionally isolated methods of project delivery (i.e. design bid build) that have been the status quo. It relates almost interchangeably with the emerging ideas toward a fully int egrated design process and embodies the notion of cooperative cohesive intelligence that was once a hallmark of the master builder. The Age of Integration Coupled with the rise of the new sustainable building culture, integrated design is beginning to em erge in the construction industry as a viable method of successfully achieving project sustainability goals. However, the definition of what the integrated design process is yields no singular concrete answer. This section of the literature review serves t o pool the various attributes of successful integrated design strategies from different sources related to integrated design. Tools and ideologies such as LEED and Whole Building Design are evidence that the construction industry is making a return to the cohesive intelligence that was once fundamental in the historic building culture lead by the master builder. The new green building culture is reliant upon stripping away the confines of professionals

PAGE 56

56 operating in isolation and promoting a much more liber al environment where ideas can be collectively shared, analyzed and implemented. The resulting entity has been called collaborating toward understanding a building project t hrough the multiple sub systems (Boecker et al. 2009) Yet just as each building project is unique, the methods of implementin g an integrated design process also vary dependent upon who is enacting them and what type of goals the project is attempting to achieve. The Whole Building Design guidelines introduced in the previous section contain a sub section that specifically perta ins to implementing the integrated design process. The elements of integrated design specified through Whole Building Design in the following diagram provide a springboard for establishing the common qualities that most models of an integrated design proce ss share. Figure 2 7 Elements of integrated d esign (Adapted from Prowler and Vierra 2008).

PAGE 57

57 Alex Zimmerman provides a general overview of the common core elements that make up the varying definitions of an integrated design process: Goal driven with th e primary goal being sustainability, but with explicit subsidiary goals, objectives and targets set as a means to get there. Facilitated by someone whose primary role is not to produce the building design or parts of it, but to be accountable for the proc ess of design. Structured to deal with the issues and decisions in the right order, to avoid locking in bad performance by making non reversible decisions with incomplete input of information. Clear decision making for a clearly understood methodology fo r making decisions and resolving critical conflicts. Inclusive everyone, from the owner to the operator, has something critical to contribute to the design and everyone must be heard. Collaborative so that the architect is not simply the form giver, but more the leader of a broader team collaboration with additional active roles earlier in the process. Holistic or systemic thinking with the intent of producing something where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and which may even be more econ omic. Whole building budget setting allows financial trade offs, so money is spent where it is most beneficial when a holistic solution is found. Iterative to allow for new information to inform or refine previous decisions. Non traditional expertise on the team, as needed, or brought in at non traditional times to contribute to the process (Zimmerman 2006) Integrated Design Team In order for the above elements to be successfully implemented on a construction project and for integrated design to be useful in achieving sustainability goals, the of different professionals who are brought together for the

PAGE 58

58 purpose of guiding the achievement of project goals efficiently and effectively. Reverting back to the holistic perspective of building green, the integrated design team needs to also function as an organism; especially one that is adaptive and open to change (Boecker et al. 2009) The core members, or stakeholders, of an integrated design te am are the the builder or general contractor. However, the stakeholder group may also include civil, electrical and structural engineers; landscape architects; interior designers; lighting consultants; energy experts; and commissioning agents. The types of professions and consultants may vary depending on the type and scale of the project; what is most critical is that all of the project stakeholders come together before any decision making toward project goals is made (Yudelson 2009) The initial stages of team for an integrated design process rely on the principles of everybody engaging everything early erred by Boecker et al. as being part of the initial phase of discovery at the onset of an integrated process. The argument is that all assumptions, honest wrong beliefs, misgivings, doubts and on as the team is formed. Solutions need not be imposed onto the team, but rather discovered by the team through the process of questioning one another based upon the multitude of various professional expertises among the integrated team members. Team memb ers engaging in mutually respectful discussions and listening to what each other have to say creates alignment within the team and begins the iterative process for subsequent revisits to the initially established project goals if necessary (Boecker et al. 2009)

PAGE 59

59 The Process of Integrated Design While there is no singular set prescriptive path for integrated design, most models take on a general form tha t is discussed in this section. The integrated design process can vary in length and complexity depending on the intricacy and scale of the project undertaken. It important to note that an effective integrated process is cyclical. Unlike the linear nature of design bid build, an integrated process is composed of a series of meetings, or workshops, which generate feedback loops and allow stakeholders to critically evaluate and re evaluate decisions until the best decision is ultimately reached and the proces s can progress onward. The stakeholders operate together rather than in isolation. The integrated design process begins with the client establishing a project idea and creating a list of associated goals for that project. The base conditions of the proje ct are identified and the client, usually with the assistance of an architect, begins to assemble and select potential members for the integrated design team. After the team has been chosen, a charrette, or pre design kickoff meeting, among all of the invo lved project stakeholders is held. The purpose of the charrette is to align the team with regards to their individual professional expertise and their expected role and rrette, performance goals are set, the decision whether to pursue green building certification (e.g. LEED) is made and an integrative process road map, or schedule, is created The charrette is the time when stakeholders listen and participate creatively in order to (Yudelson 2009)

PAGE 60

60 Another goal of the charrette is to identify potential internal project strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunitie s and threats. Strengths recognized may come in the form of extraordinary design talent, owner resources or building expertise. Weaknesses involve direct problems that inhibit project sustainable goals such as disagreements among stakeholders over a proble order to pay for certain sustainable building attributes. Opportunities come in the form of natural resources (e.g. abundant solar gain for potential photovoltaic panel installation) or financial incentives for building green in a particular jurisdiction. Threats are external to the project and comprise anything that may prevent the project from achieving its goals outside of the stak financial troubles or local laws that restrict the application of certain designs that (Yudelson 2009) Fo llowing the initial project charrette, all stakeholders have had their values aligned with the project goals and an all encompassing holistic attitude is embraced by all. The process now shifts toward schematic design. At this juncture, each stakeholder un derstands his or her respective role and responsibility and generates schematics for whatever he or she has been assigned to. These preliminary schematic designs must take into account their relationship to various subsystems (i.e. natural, social, economi c) that their assigned task has the greatest effect on. Schematics do not necessarily mean commitment to a building form. They are merely iterations of the conceptual design initially presented in the first charrette, yet this time they are backed by suppo rting data. This data may include site analysis of water flows, utility connections, potential

PAGE 61

61 renewable energy sources, key habitat areas, programmatic data, building massing options, material choices, daylighting strategies, potential LEED points assessm ent or a rough outline of LCA and LCC models. The supporting data is not confined to any set rules (Boecker et al. 2009) When schematic designs have yielded a viable choice for inclusion in the project, the actual design development can begin and systems can be designed for optimization. This entails determining whether or not the ideas introduced from schematic design can actually be applied to the pr oject and if they still adhere to the initial performance goals set forth during the first charrette (Yudelson 2009) It is critical to constantly be validating the building performance results against the initia l performance targets in order to maintain a track toward sustainable goal fulfillment. The design development stage is where commitment to building form is made and the plans for commissioning protocol are drafted (Boecker et al. 2009) After design development, the project enters the construction documents phase. This is where the design goes through a final evaluation and the verification of achievin g the initial project sustainability targets is made. There is no more designing left to do. Aside from verification of goal achievement and producing bidding documents, this stage is where the final commissioning and system measurement and verification pr ocedures are drafted. The perspective has now shifted onto preparing for occupation ( Boecker et al. 2009) Unlike conventional design bid build, the integrated process relies heavily upon feedback loops so that owners, designers and builders can be knowledgeable about a potentially assist with

PAGE 62

62 future projects. When a project has been completed and occupied, post occupancy evaluations can be performed to assess how the occupants feel about the building and whether or not the performance targets established at the onset of the design process are still maintained after the building has been occupied. Post occupancy evaluations do not need to be confined to quantifiable energy performance and system operation. They may discuss other elements such as building quality of life; site or habitat quality; communal impacts; building health and any plans the occupants have to improve their building for continued future use. Utilizing this feedback helps project stakeholders evolve their approach to integrated design as lessons are lea rned about the positive and negative elements that affected the process and it only enhances their collective cohesive intelligence toward green building (Boecker et al. 2009) Figure 2 8 Feedback l oops (Adapted from Boecker et al. 2009).

PAGE 63

63 Summary Beginning with a historical perspective focusing on the master builder hierarchy leading up to the rise of professionalism and through the emergence of a new green building culture that fosters integration, this literature review served to provide a case that there is a need for a return to some of the old ways of doing. The cohesive intelligence that was the essence of the master builder system has reeme rged as the foundation of an integrated design process. The push toward integration cannot be emphasized enough in the drive toward creating a truly sustainable built environment. At this point in history, we are witnessing a major change in the way we ap proach building. The rise of the sustainable building culture and its subsequent impact on the construction industry makes it very clear that green building is no passing fad. However, it may be some time before the entire construction industry fully embra ces an integrated along the path of ever growing complexities, our built environment will continue to reflect this with increasing demands for high performance green buil dings. The beauty of the integrated design process is that its malleability will allow it to evolve concurrently with increasingly complex societal and building needs; as long as the stakeholders involved foster a spirit of cooperation, respect and trust.

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Overview This research undertaken dealt with looking at the integrated design process through the lens of professionals and served to form a present understanding of how integrated design is perceived among archi tects, engineers and building contractors. The contrasting professional perceptions, awareness and experience of the integrated design process were examined as well as the successful methods used to employ the integrated design process in the field. The r esearch methodology consisted of three main parts: 1) a comprehensive literature review of recent publications related to the integrated design process, 2) a quantitative and qualitative survey of construction industry professionals, and 3) the generation of a descriptive diagram of an integrated prescriptive path toward the construction of a high performance green building. Studying previous research of the integrated design process established the context of current attitudes, trends and methods used in the building industry that foster integrated design with regards to high performance green buildings. In addition, the literature review served as a generator for the first iteration of a diagrammatic pathway of an integrated design process to be compared with the traditional method of design bid build. The literature review also acted as the catalyst for generating the survey questionnaire to be distributed to professionals. Survey responses were statistically analyzed to compare the levels of knowledge, experience and perception among professionals with regards to the current trends in integrated design found in the literature review. Examination of the survey results set

PAGE 65

65 forth the present issues of greatest concern regarding the integrated design proces s in the professional circles. These results also exposed the setbacks faced by industry professionals dealing with integrated design. Figure 3 1 Research methodology f ramework. Development of the Survey The survey was created to gain a current pers pective of the attitudes and experience that professionals in the architecture, engineering and construction fields have toward the principles and processes associated with the integrated design process. There were three primary aims of the survey process as follows: 1) To determine the attitudes and perceptions professionals have toward the current state of green building. Focus was placed upon company attitudes toward green projects and the various factors that contributed to their success. 2) To determine th e attitudes and perceptions professionals have toward an integrated design process with regards to high performance green building and what aspects of an integrated process have the greatest bearing on facilitating green building. Defining the Population a nd Sample Population: Architecture, engineering and construction professionals in all 50 states. Sample: 1800 randomly selected architecture, engineering and construction professionals taken from the USGBC online membership directory

PAGE 66

66 The United Stat es Green Building Council (USGBC) is the largest organization dedicated to promoting sustainable construction in the United States. It is the originator and ruling authority for LEED certification in the building industry and has over 20,000 registered com pany members. Firms that are members of the USGBC must possess a strong dedication to following the principles of sustainable construction and are at the forefront of driving trends in green building in the United States (USGBC 2010) Through the online membership directory provided by the USGBC website ( www.usgbc.org ), a random sampling of architecture, engineering and construction firms were taken. The website directory allows the user to filter the directory listings based upon the registered professional category of each firm. The total sample included 1800 architecture, engineering and construction firms which were selected by going throug h the directory and taking a set number of thirty six firms from each U.S. state. The breakdown of the selections involved taking the e mail contacts from nine respective architecture, engineering, construction and combined hybrid architecture/engineerin than nine registered firms in a particular category (e.g. North Dakota having only three registered engineering firms), then the selection was carried over to the next successive state. The same could be said for states that had no registered professionals in a particular category (e.g. Wyoming had no registered engineering firms with the USGBC). The goal was to minimize geographical bias on states that had higher populations and to generate results that were widespread across the country.

PAGE 67

67 Survey Design The survey was comprised of four separate parts: 1) professional demographics, 2) green project perceptions, 3) integrated design perceptions, and 4) optional free response. The sections con tained either qualitative multiple choice answers or F of this thesis. Each section is describ ed as follows: P art I: Professional Demographics This section served as a basis of establishing who was taking the survey through a series of seven multiple choice questions. Each question is described as follows: Question 1.1: Indicate the following whi ch best matches your personal or This question served to establish the professional background of the respondent. Respondents were given the following set of roles and asked to select the one that best matched their profession: Architect Engineer (e.g. civil, mechanical, electrical, structural) General Contractor Construction Manager Design Builder Trade Subcontractor (e.g. carpentry, masonry, etc.) Landscape Architect Planner Consultant (e.g. legal, gr een building, etc.) Financier (e.g. developers, mortgage brokers, etc.)

PAGE 68

68 Question 1.2: Indicate approximately the number of years you have been actively working within the construction industry This question served to determine the level of experien ce the respondent had with working in the construction industry. Respondents were asked to choose from a series of multiple choice responses ranging from zero to two years experience for the lowest range and to over thirty years experience for the highe st range. Question 1.3: Indicate all applicable types of projects that your organization primarily works on This question served to provide a context of what types of projects the respondents were most involved in. Respondents were given the opportun ity to select multiple answers from the following project types: Commercial Residential Industrial Heavy Civil Transportation Healthcare Government Institutional Other (respondents were given space to specify) Question 1.4: Annual Company Revenue Re spondents were given a series of multiple choice answers and asked to select the range that best matched their under $500,000 and the high end was for companies with annual revenues of over $10 billion. The broad range of revenues was chosen to accommodate the varying scales of companies surveyed.

PAGE 69

69 Question 1.5: Number of Company Employees Much like the previous question, this question served to provide context to the responden scale based upon the number of people working. The respondents were again given a multiple Question 1.6: Number of LEED Accredited Professionals in your company This question served to establish the amount of LEED Accredited Professionals Question 1.7: Company regional location Respondents were asked to provide a gene ralized geographical location based upon the following regions: northeast, mid Atlantic, south, midwest, west (Rocky Mountains) and Pacific coast. This question served to gauge the geographical distribution of survey responses across the United States. Part II: Green Project Perceptions Part two of the survey consists of eight questions aimed at compiling information about professional involvement in projects that implement sustainable construction techniques and have sustainable goals. Each question i s described as follows: Question 2.1: Please respond to each statement according to your perception of This question was comprised of a series of statements pertaining to the responde

PAGE 70

70 sustainable construction practices. The question was organized as a five point e statements provided to respondents are as follows: project. My company makes an effort to be aware of the most recent trends in sustainable construction. My company encourages owners to pursue sustainable methods and goals for their projects. My company educates employees on sustainable design and construction techniques. practices. My company focuses on making a strong impact upon the local community through green building. My company owes a great deal of its success in green projects to technology (e.g. BIM). My company quickly responds and adapts to shifting trends in green building. My company acti vely seeks ways to improve its ability to implement sustainable practices. My company encourages employees to become LEED Accredited Professionals. My company encourages owners to pursue LEED certification for their projects. The responses were used t o establish a work environment context for the respondents and see how strongly the respondents felt about their company and its attitudes and actions toward sustainable construction practices.

PAGE 71

71 Question 2.2: In your opinion, what project delivery met hod has proven to be most successful economically and efficiently in facilitation green projects? -Respondents were asked to select only the one they felt was the best response to the question. The choices were: design bid build, construction manager at risk, construction manager for fee, design build, integrated project delivery and a fill in the Question 2.3: In your experience, which one of these factors has had the nability goals? Respondents were asked to select one factor that they believed provided the greatest benefit Design Budget Project Delivery Method Pursuit of LEED Certification T echnology (e.g. BIM) Team Experience regarding the most successful element that contributed to green project successes. Question 2.4: In your experience, what part of the construction process is most This question gave the respondents a listing of the following different chronological project phases:

PAGE 72

72 Pre Design Bidding Schematic Design Procurement Design Develop ment Construction Construction Documentation Facilities Commissioning From the responses to this question, it can be determined which phase of the construction process is most crucial, in the opinions of the respondents, in facilitating the fulfillm Question 2.5: In your experience, which project stakeholder has had the Respondents were presented with a list of professional stakeholders who w ould normally have a hand in the construction process. The following stakeholders were listed: Owner General Contractor Architect Commissioning Agent Engineer Other (respondents given space to specify) This question served to identify the most influ ential role in the construction Question 2.6: What was the most common project delivery method used for LEED or equivalent green rated projects your company undertook? This questio n asked respondents to select the one project delivery method that was most successful specifically at facilitating LEED or equivalent green rated projects. The following methods were given: design bid build, construction manager at risk, construction m anager for fee, design build, integrated project delivery and a fill in the

PAGE 73

73 The purpose of this question is to see if there was a preference for a particular delivery method when it is explicitly stated that the project is required to attain a LEED or equivalent green building certification. Part III: Integrated Design Perceptions This section consists of two multi part Likert scale responses aimed at gauging to integrated design and its use in the construction industry. The first Likert scale question presents statements related to the roles, relationships and responsibilities among project stakeholders. Respondents were asked to gauge their level of agreement with the statements on a five point scale. The second question presents the respondent with a series of descriptive integrated design process attributes and asked the respondent to prioritize the statement on a five point scale gauging how important the s topic is for achieving project sustainability goals. Each question is described as follows: Question 3.1: Please respond to each statement according to your perception of integration among project stakeholders and its application on sustain able construction projects Respondents were asked to indicate a level of agreement to the following statements on a five point Likert Scale from Traditional design bid build is plagued by adversarial relationshi ps among those involved. The industry needs to move away from design bid build into a more integrated approach. An egalitarian approach among the roles of clients, architects, engineers and contractors boosts achievement of sustainability goals.

PAGE 74

74 My comp any places strong emphasis on an integrated design process among architects, engineers and contractors with regards to green projects. My schooling prepared me for working with other building professionals in a collaborative and integrated manner. Accept ing an egalitarian approach to project roles (i.e. among architect, engineer and general contractor) diminishes my professional motivation to do my best. The professional roles of architect, engineer and contractor are presently too isolated from one anot her which limits green building potential. The earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the better the chance of achieving project sustainability goals. Mutual respect and trust among project stakeholders are the key foundations of succe ss in implementing an integrated design process and achieving sustainability goals. Holistic and long term thinking (e.g. LCC/LCA) is necessary for successful sustainable design and construction. The Integrated Design Process is an idea that looks great on paper, but is difficult to implement in real world construction projects. The construction industry is not ready to fully embrace and integrated design process. of integrated d esign and its relationship among the professional roles within a sustainable construction process. Question 3.2: How do you rate the following terms and their potential impact on an Integrated Design Process and the achievement of project sustainabilit y goals? This question presented respondents with key attributes of an integrated design process that were derived from information compiled in the Literature Review section of this thesis. The statements were structured in the

PAGE 75

75 form of a ranked Liker elements of integrated design that they felt were most important in facilitating green projects. Each statement is prese nted as follows: Cohesive Team Formation: grouping of engaged and experienced AEC professionals who are involved from project start to finish Holistic, Outcome Oriented Project Goals: owner establishes well defined goals early Effective/Open Communicati on: transparent lines of communication among all involved Pre Design Meeting: both the design and construction teams meet with owner to establish project goals so everyone is on the same page Systematic Decision Making: decisions are based upon their rel ationship to the building project as a whole, considering all impacts and alternative solutions Cohesive Intelligence: professional knowledge is openly shared between clients, architects, engineers and contractors in order to facilitate successful green s trategies Feedback Loops: decisions are based upon the collective intelligence of the integrated team and all decisions are cyclically evaluated from pre design through construction completion Use of Technology: BIM and computer energy modeling used as e ffective tools for streamlining an integrated design process Building Assessment: LEED, Green Globes, BREEAM, etc. as effective guidelines for an integrated design process Clearly Defined Team Responsibilities: All team members know their role and their expected contribution to achieving goals. No one is left behind. Workshops: Owner, design and construction teams meet periodically throughout the project course to evaluate progress and update goals.

PAGE 76

76 s as to what elements of an integrated design process are the most important in facilitating green projects. Part IV: Optional Free Response Respondents were provided an area to write freely about any personal successes or setbacks pertaining to their ex perience with integrated design and green building. Respondents were asked to list what worked, what did not work and any changes they would like to see in the construction industry in order to progress integrated design and green building. If respondents had not had previous experience working with an integrated design process, they were asked to mention any methods that aided or hindered green building projects they have worked on. Since this question was a free response, this section was used to give r espondents an opportunity to break away from the survey format and freely describe their thoughts and opinions about integrated design, green building or the general collaborative process when undertaking a construction project. Survey Distribution The su rveys were distributed in accordance to the IRB 02 forms from the University of Florida and administered online via the survey website Zoomerang ( www.zoomerang.com ). The e mail addresses of architecture, engineering a nd construction professionals were obtained from the USGBC online membership database. Respondents were sent a direct hyperlink via e mail to take the survey. The IRB 02 form, consent form and the introductory e mail distributed to survey respondents can b e found in Appendix A of this survey.

PAGE 77

77 Based upon a tabulated error (p = 0.05) at a 95% confidence level the appropriate sample size for the population of 1800 surveyed professionals was calculated at 322 responses. Therefore, a response rate of approxima tely 17.9 % was needed to state this study as significantly relevant within the population sample. The survey was launched online on February 3 rd, 2010 and closed on February 19 th 2010. Survey Analysis The final stage of the research involved pooling the survey responses for detailed analysis of the professional perceptions and attitudes toward the integrated design process. Collectively, the responses to each survey question were analyzed through descriptive statistics in order to provide a broad scale vi ew of how integrated design is perceived and implemented toward facilitating green building in the construction industry. Part I of the survey (Professional Demographics) served as the basis for establishing the relationships in the subsequent sections of the survey in order generate comparisons among architecture, engineering and construction professionals with regards to integrated design and green building.

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 4 SURVEY RESULTS ecipients, 25 partial responses and 101 complete responses. For the sake of consistency, partial responses were eliminated from the final response tabulations. The actual survey response rate was calculated to be approximately 5.6%, which fell short of the 17.9 % for the results to be statistically significant of the population sampled; thus all results in this chapter are analyzed through descriptive statistics. Although the data accrued does not provide a sound statistical overview of the population, the r esults compiled may still be beneficial in gaining some insight into the integrated design process and its perception throughout the construction industry. The following sections of this chapter present the data for all survey responses from all responden ts. This results discussed in this chapter are broken down by their respective survey section (i.e. Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV). Chapter 5 discusses the results through further analysis; focusing on the respondents who explicitly identified as arch itects, engineers and builders. Part I: Professional Demographics Responses Part I of the survey served as the benchmark to manage and filter the taking the survey through a series of multiple choice answers that reflected the revenues, company size and location.

PAGE 79

7 9 Question 1.1 Question 1.1 was designed to have the respondent identify the role that he or she best fulfills in the construction industry. The results in Table 4 1 show that the highest number of responses came from architects at 46% (46 respondents) of the sample, followed by builders at 26% (26 respondents) and engineers at 18% (18 to clarify their roles if needed. The category included, but was not limited to, owners; developers; legal consultants; energy consultants; and trade subcontractors. Res responses) of the sample. It should also be noted that in order to streamline the results; themselv es as general contractors, construction managers and design builders. Table 4 1 Company Role Number of Participants % of Total Architect 46 46% Engineer 18 18% Builder 26 26% Others 11 10% Total 101 100% Question 1.2 This question asked the respondents to provide, within a range, the number of years they have been actively involved in the construction industry. Thirty six percent (36 responses) of all respondents claimed to have between 21 and 30 y ears of experience in the industry, followed by 26% (26 respondents) claiming between 11 and 20 years and 22% (22 responses) claiming over 30 years experience. Only a small

PAGE 80

80 portion of the professionals sampled (9%) claimed less than five years experience. Table 4 Table 4 2 the construction industry Number of Years Number of Participants % of Total 0 2 Years 3 3% 3 5 Years 6 6 % 6 10 Years 8 8% 11 20 Years 26 26% 21 30 Years 36 36% Over 30 Years 22 22% Total 101 100% Question 1.3 Question 1.4 presented the respondents with a listing of various project types and asked respondents to select all of the ap plicable types their company is primarily commercial (92%), institutional (61%) and residential (60%). Healthcare and government projects followed at 57% and 55%, respec provided to allow respondents to elaborate on any project types not available for agricultural, hospitality, retail, master planning and co nsulting. Table 4 3 olvement in project types Project Type Number of Participants % of Respondents Commercial 92 91% Residential 60 59% Industrial 41 41% Heavy Civil 7 7% Transportation 10 10% Healthcare 5 7 56% Government 55 54% Institutional 62 61% Other 12 12%

PAGE 81

81 Question 1.4 through annual company revenue. Respondents were presented with a list of revenue ranges and asked to select the one that was applicable to their organization. Forty one followed by 17% at either $10 million to 49,999,999 or in the lowest subcategory of under $500,000. Table 4 4 provides a full listing of the revenue categories for respondents. Table 4 4 ual company revenues Annual Revenue Number of Respondents % of Total Under $500,000 17 17% $500,000 $999,999 10 10% $1,000,000 $9,999,999 41 41% $10,000,000 $49,999,999 17 17% $50,000,000 $99,999,999 4 4% $100,000,000 $499,999,999 7 7% $500,000,000 $1 Billion 1 1% Over $1 Billion 4 4% Total 101 100% Question 1.5 Like question 1.4, question 1.5 respective organizations based on number of employees. Thirty seven percent of respondents came from companies that employed less than ten people; followed by 32% of respondents in companies with ten to for ty nine employees. Eleven percent of respondents came from companies with 50 to 99 employees. From this data, it is concluded that the majority of respondents, approximately 80%, come from small to mid sized companies. Only a small fraction of respondents (3%) came from companies

PAGE 82

82 with over 1000 employees. Table 4 5 breaks down the responses based upon employee count. Table 4 5 Nu mber of company employees Number of Employees Number of Respondents % of Total Less than 10 37 37% 10 49 32 32% 50 99 11 11% 100 149 5 5% 150 249 6 6% 250 500 5 5% 500 999 2 2% 1000 or more 3 3% Total 101 100% Question 1.6 Question 1.6 served to establish the number of LEED Accredited Professionals panies. Since the companies surveyed came from the USGBC online member registry, it was of interest to see the distribution of LEED APs among companies with high sustainability standards. Seventy seven percent of respondents reported less than ten LEED APs among their company peers, followed by 15% of respondents stating their company had between 10 and 49 LEED APs. Table 4 6 Number of LEED Accredited Prof essionals in your company Number of LEED APs Number of Respondents % of Total Less than 10 7 8 77% 10 49 15 15% 50 99 7 7% 100 149 0 0% 150 249 0 0% 250 or more 1 1% Total 101 100%

PAGE 83

83 Question 1.7 Question 1.7 asked respondents to provide a general geographic regional location from which they operate so that a distribut ion of survey responses across the United States could be observed. The goal of this survey was to seek respondents in all parts of the country so that an accurate measure of widespread perception of integrated design could be attained. According to Table 4 7, the highest percentage of respondents came from the midwestern United States and the lowest came from the Rocky Mountains western United States (4%). Table 4 7 Company regional location Regional Location Number of Respondents % of Total Nort heast 18 18% Mid Atlantic 15 15% South 23 23% Midwest 29 29% West (Pacific Coast) 12 12% West (Rocky Mountains) 4 4% Total 101 100% Part II: Green Project Perception Responses Part II of the survey asked the respondents questions r attitude toward sustainable construction practices and the various factors that contributed to success in green building projects. The purpose of this section was to ent pertaining to green building and company awareness of sustainable construction practices. It could be companies must possess a high degree of awareness and involvement in sustainable construction practices.

PAGE 84

84 Question 2.1 Question 2.1 was presented to respondents as an eleven part Likert Scale regarding company attitudes toward sustainable co nstruction practices. Respondents overall survey responses to each statement. The f ollowing equation was used to determine the weighted value for each statement: 101 = score = # of responses 1 The weighted value was used to determine an overall opinion of each statement by the population. Table 4 8 provides a breakdown of the statements. Table 4 8 Company attitudes toward sustainable construct ion practices Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Somewhat Agree 5 Strongly Agree Average Score a) Sustainability plays a major role in shaping my company's attitude toward a project 1 4 12 40 44 1% 4% 12% 40% 44% 4.21 b) My company makes an effort to be aware of the most recent trends in sustainable construction 0 3 6 31 61 0% 3% 6% 31% 60% 4.49 c) My company encourages owners to pursue sustainable methods and goals for their projects 0 3 9 37 52 0% 3% 9% 37% 51% 4.37 d) My company educates employees on sustainable design/construction techniques 3 2 5 34 57 3% 2% 5% 34% 56% 4.39 e) My company's mission statement places emphasis on fostering sustainable practices 5 5 30 26 35 5% 5% 30% 26% 35% 3.80

PAGE 85

85 Table 4 8 (continued) Company attitudes toward sustainable construction practices f) My company focuses on making a strong impact upon the local community through green building 3 4 25 26 43 3% 4% 25% 26% 43% 4.01 g) My company owes a great deal of its success in green projects to technology (e.g. BIM) 31 24 24 13 9 31% 24% 24% 13% 9% 2.46 h) My company quickly responds and adapts to shifting trends in green building 3 6 30 38 24 3% 6% 30% 38% 24% 3.73 i) My company actively seeks ways to improve its ability to implement sustainable practices 2 5 13 39 42 2% 5% 13% 39% 42% 4.13 j) My company encourages employees to become LEED Accredited Professionals 1 4 15 21 60 1% 4% 15% 21% 59% 4.34 k) My company encourages owners to pursue LEED certification for their projects 7 7 28 34 25 7% 7% 28% 34% 25% 3.62 From the results to question 2.1, several observations can be made about the respectively) with statement A stating th at sustainability plays a major role in eir company makes a strong effort to be aware of the most recent trends in sustainable construction, followed Ov actively encourages owners to pursue sustainable project goals, followed by 37% overall opinion in the

PAGE 86

86 Over half of respondents (53%) strongly agreed that their company actively educates employees on sustainable design and construction techniques, 4.39 ith a neutral opinion. The average weighted Forty focuses on making a local impact through gre average weighted score of 4.01 places the overall respondent opinion in the The majority of respondents (31%) surprisi ngly stated that their company does not owe a great deal of success to technology (e.g. BIM) in achieving sustainability goals. Twenty four percent of respondents either somewhat disagreed or were neutral. Only 9% of respondents strongly agreed that techno logy was a major factor in the success of achieving project sustainability goals. The average weighted score of 2.46 places the overall respondent opinion Thirty o their companies quickly adapting to shifting trends in green building. Approximately 30% of respondents were either neutral or strongly agreed with this statement. The average weighted score of 3.73 places the overall respondent opinion in the Forty two percent of respondents strongly agreed and 39% somewhat agreed that their company actively seeks ways to improve its ability to implement sustainable practices. The average weighted score of 4.13 places the overall respondent op Over half of respondents (59%) strongly agreed that their company encourages employees to become LEED APs. The average weighted score of 4.34 places Thirty four percent of respondents somewhat agreed that their company encourages owners to pursue LEED certification, followed by 28% neutral and 25% strongly agreeing. The average weighted score of 3.62 places the overall respondent opinion in the range o

PAGE 87

87 Figure 4 1. Responses to survey question 2.1. Statements A through F. Figure 4 2. Responses to survey question 2.1. Statements G through K. 1 0 0 3 5 3 4 3 3 2 5 4 12 6 9 5 30 25 40 31 37 34 26 26 44 61 52 57 35 43 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% a) Sustainability plays a major role b) Makes an effort to be aware of the most recent trends in sustainable construction c) Encourages owners to pursue sustainable goals d) Educates employees on sustainable design/construction techniques e) Mission statement emphasizes sustainable practices f) Focuses impacting the local community through green building Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Statement Respondents' Perception of Company Attitude Toward Sustainable Construction Practices (Statements A to F) Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree 31 3 2 1 7 24 6 5 4 7 24 30 13 15 28 13 38 39 21 34 9 24 42 60 25 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% g) Owes a great deal of its success in green projects to technology (e.g. BIM) h) Quickly adapts to trends in green building i) Company actively seeks ways to improve sustainable practices j) Encourages employees to become LEED Aps k) Encourages owners to pursue LEED certification Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Statement Respondents' Perception of Company Attitude Toward Sustainable Construction Practices (Statements G to K) Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

PAGE 88

88 Question 2.2 hod has proven to be the most successful economically and efficiently in facilitating green select the one they felt was the best. The results were divided evenly at 26% e ach for design bid build, design provided so respondents could elaborate on any other methods used. These verbatim ending on 9 provides the entire breakdown of responses. Table 4 9 projects Project Delivery Method Number of Respondents % of Total Design Bid Buil d 26 26% Construction Manager at Risk 12 12% Construction Manager for Fee 8 8% Design Build 26 26% Integrated Project Delivery 26 26% Other 3 3% Total 101 100% Question 2.3 on about which project were asked to select only one answer from a multiple choice list. The results were divided with 33% stating budget as the most important fa ctor, followed by team, design and pursuit of building certification at approximately 22%, 21% and 21% respectively. Table 4 10 presents all of the factors and the percentage of responses recorded.

PAGE 89

89 Table 4 10 influence in fulfilling project sustainability goals Factor Number of Respondents % of Total Design 21 21% Budget 33 33% Project Delivery Method 2 2% Pursuit of Building Certification 21 21% Technology (e.g. BIM) 0 0% Team 22 22% E xperience 2 2% Total 101 100% Question 2.4 construction phase for ensuring the achievement of project sustainability goals. The majority of respondents stated that pre des ign (36%) was most crucial, followed by schematic design (22%) and design development (21%). The results in Table 4 11 demonstrate a preference for engaging sustainability goals early. Table 4 11 Part of the construction process most critical for achievi ng project sustainability goals Construction Phase Number of Respondents % of Total Pre Design 36 36% Schematic Design 22 22% Design Development 21 21% Construction Documentation 9 9% Bidding 1 1% Procurement 2 2% Construction 9 9 % Facilities Commissioning 1 1% Total 101 100%

PAGE 90

90 Question 2.5 This question asked the respondents to state from their experience which member of a project (stakeholder) had the greatest influence in achieving project sustainability goals. Over h important stakeholder in ensuring goal fulfillment, followed by the architect with 35%. Judging by the results in Table 4 12, there is an overwhelming preference for the owner and the architect. Table 4 12 Project stakeholder with the greatest influence in guiding project sustainability goals Stakeholder Number of Respondents % of Total Owner 55 54% Architect 35 35% Engineer 3 3% General Contractor 3 3% Commissioning Agent 1 1% Other 4 4% Total 101 100% Question 2.6 Question 2.6 asked respondents to state from experience the best project delivery method used specifically for LEED or equivalent rated (e.g. Green Globes) projects. Almost half of respondents (48%) stat ed design bid build as the preferred delivery method. The results to this question are surprisingly different to the ones presented in Question 2.2. This question aimed to deal specifically with projects that were attempting to achieve a green building cer tification. Table 4 13 lists all respondent results.

PAGE 91

91 Table 4 13 Most common project delivery method for LEED certified projects Project Delivery Method Number of Respondents % of Total Design Bid Build 48 48% Construction Manager at Risk 13 13% Construction Manager for Fee 9 9% Design Build 12 12% Integrated Project Delivery 8 8% Other 11 11% Total 101 100% Part III: Integrated Design Perception Responses This section of the survey consisted of two multi part Likert Scal e responses design process. The first being a measure of opinion of concepts related to integration among project stakeholders and its application on sustainable construction pr actices and the second being a measure of priority of various attributes of the integrated design process itself. Question 3.1 This question provided 12 statements to respondents about the integrated design process and asked respondents to select from a f ive point scale their opinion of each were given a weighted score using the following formula: 101 = score = # of responses 1 The responses are provided in Table 4 14 followed by explanation of the results.

PAGE 92

92 Table 4 14 application on sustainable constru ction projects Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Somewhat Agree 5 Strong ly Agree Average Score a) Traditional design bid build is plagued by adversarial relationships among those involved 13 8 13 42 25 13% 8% 13% 42% 25% 3.57 b) The industry needs to move away from design bid build into a more integrated approach 14 3 13 29 42 14% 3% 13% 29% 42% 3.81 c) An egalitarian approach among the roles of clients, architects, engineers and contractors boosts achievement of sustainability goals 7 3 24 36 31 7% 3% 24% 36% 31% 3.80 d) My company places strong emphasis on an integrated design process among architects, engineers and contractors with regards to green projects 8 5 24 28 36 8% 5% 24% 28% 36% 3.78 e) My schooling prepared me for working with other building professionals in a collaborative and integrated manner 18 27 20 19 17 18% 27% 20% 19% 17% 2.90 f) Accepting an egalitarian approach to project roles (i.e. among Arch/Eng/GC) diminishes my professional motivation to do my best. 43 30 11 12 5 43% 30% 11% 12% 5% 2.07 g) The professional roles of archit ect, engineer and contractor are presently too isolated from one another which limits green building potential 19 12 20 30 20 19% 12% 20% 30% 20% 3.20 h) The earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the better the chance of achieving project sustainability goals 6 5 7 31 52 6% 5% 7% 31% 51% 4.17 i) Mutual respect and trust among project stakeholders are the key foundations of success in implementing an integrated design process and achieving sustainability goals 4 0 3 27 67 4% 0% 3% 27% 66% 4.51 j) Holistic and long term thinking (e.g. LCC/LCA) is necessary for successful sustainable design and construction 3 0 16 33 49 3% 0% 16% 33% 49% 4.24 k) The Integrated Design Process is an idea that looks great on paper, but is di fficult to implement in real world construction projects 11 27 20 29 14 11% 27% 20% 29% 14% 3.08 l) The construction industry is not ready to fully embrace an integrated design process 15 18 20 33 15 15% 18% 20% 33% 15% 3.15

PAGE 93

93 that traditional design bid build is plagued by adversarial The average weighted score of 3.57 places the overall respondent opinion in the bid build Fourteen percent of respondents strongly disagreed with this statement. The average weighted score of 3.81 plac es the overall respondent opinion in the project stakeholders boost achievement of sustainability goals, followed by 31% 4% being neutral. The average weighted being neutral. The average weighted score of 3.78 places the overall respondent working with other building profess ionals, followed by 20% being neutral. weighted score of 2.90 places the overall respondent opinion in th e range of among project stakeholders on a project diminishes their professional motivation hted engineer and contractor are presently too isolated, followed by 20% choosing average weighted score of 3.20 places the overall respondent opinion in the 51% of respondents strongly agree that the earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the better the chance of achieving project sustainability

PAGE 94

94 foundations in implementing an integrated design process. The average weighted score of 4.51 places the overall respondent opinion in the range of Almost half of respondents (49%) stro ngly agree that holistic long term thinking is necessary for successful sustainable design and construction. The average weighted score of 4.24 places the overall respondent opinion in the range of t the integrated design process is an idea that looks good on paper but is difficult to implement on real world The average weighted score of 3.08 places the overall respondent o pinion in the to fully embrace an integrated design process, followed by 20% who stated a ngly disagree. The average weighted score of 3.15 places the overall respondent opinion in the Figure 4 3 Survey responses to question 3.1. Statements A through F. 13 14 7 8 18 43 8 3 3 5 27 30 13 13 24 24 20 11 42 29 36 28 19 12 25 42 31 36 17 5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% a) Traditional design bid build is plagued by adversarial relationships among those involved b) The industry needs to move away from design bid build into a more integrated approach c) An egalitarian approach among the roles of clients, architects, engineers and contractors boosts achievement of sustainability goals d) My company places strong emphasis on an integrated design process among architects, engineers and contractors with regards to green projects e) My schooling prepared me for working with other building professionals in a collaborative and integrated manner f) Accepting an egalitarian approach to project roles (i.e. among Arch/Eng/GC) diminishes my professional motivation to do my best. Number of Responses Expressed as a Percentage Statement Respondents Perception of Integration Among Project Stakeholders (Statements A to F) Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

PAGE 95

95 Figure 4 4 Survey responses to question 3.1. Statements G throug h L. Question 3.2 Question 3.2 provided respondents with a five point Likert Scale and asked them to rank the priority of 11 terms from 1 (indicating low importance) to 5 (indicating high importance). The terms were all related to key attributes of the in tegrated design process as determined in the literature review chapter of this thesis. The responses were tabulated and a weighted average was determined using the following formula: 101 = score = # of responses 1 Table 4 15 details the survey responses for each statement and provides the weighted score for each response. 19 6 4 3 11 15 12 5 0 0 27 18 20 7 3 16 20 20 30 31 27 33 29 33 20 52 67 49 14 15 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% g) The professional roles of architect, engineer and contractor are presently too isolated from one another which limits green building potential h) The earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the better the chance of achieving project sustainability goals i) Mutual respect and trust among project stakeholders are the key foundations of success in implementing an integrated design process and achieving sustainability goals j) Holistic and long term thinking (e.g. LCC/LCA) is necessary for successful sustainable design and construction k) The Integrated Design Process is an idea that looks great on paper, but is difficult to implement in real world construction projects l) The construction industry is not ready to fully embrace an integrated design process Number of Responses Expressed as a Percentage Statement Respondents Perception of Integration Among Project Stakeholders (Statements G to L) Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

PAGE 96

96 Table 4 15 Elements of integrated design prioritized by respondents Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. 1 Low 2 3 Neutral 4 5 High Average Score a) Cohesive Team Formation: grouping of engaged and experienced AE C professionals who are involved from project start to finish 2 0 6 36 57 2% 0% 6% 36% 56% 4.45 b ) Holistic, Outcome Oriented Project Goals: owner establishes well defined goals early 0 1 10 37 53 0% 1% 10% 37% 52% 4.41 c) Effective/Open Communic ation: transparent lines of communication among all involved 0 0 2 24 75 0% 0% 2% 24% 74% 4.72 d) Pre Design Meeting: both the design and construction teams meet with owner to establish project goals so everyone is on the same page 3 1 1 30 66 3% 1% 1% 30% 65% 4.53 e) Systemic Decision Making: decisions are based upon their relationship to the building project as a whole, considering all impacts and alternative solutions 0 0 5 35 61 0% 0% 5% 35% 60% 4.55 f) Cohesive Intelligence: professional knowledge is openly shared between clients, architects, engineers and contractors in order to facilitate successful green strategies 1 0 9 25 66 1% 0% 9% 25% 65% 4.53 g) Feedback Loops: decisions are based upon the collective intelligence of the inte grated team and all decisions are cyclically evaluated from pre design through construction completion 0 1 9 38 53 0% 1% 9% 38% 52% 4.42 h) Use of Technology: BIM and computer energy modeling used as effective tools for streamlining an integrated desi gn process 5 8 39 29 20 5% 8% 39% 29% 20% 3.50 i) Building Assessment: LEED, GreenGlobes, BREEAM, etc. as effective guidelines for an integrated design process 2 5 25 48 21 2% 5% 25% 48% 21% 3.80 j) Clearly Defined Team Responsibilities: All team members know their role and expected contribution to achieving goals. No one is left behind. 0 0 4 39 58 0% 0% 4% 39% 57% 4.53 k) Workshops: Owner, design and construction teams meet periodically throughout the project course to evaluate progress and update goals 0 4 7 49 41 0% 4% 7% 49% 41% 4.26

PAGE 97

97 weighted score of 4.45 places the overall respondent rank of importance at Over half of respondents (52%) believe that holistic outcome oriented goals are average weighted score of 4.41 places the overall respondent rank of importance 74% of respondents stated that effective and open communication among project 65% of re spondents stated that a pre design meeting of both design and 60 % of respondents stated that systemic decision making where decisions the overall respondent rank of 65% of respondents stated that cohesive intelligence; when professional importance. The average weighted score of 4.53 places the overall respondent rank of impo 39% of r espondents felt the use of technology, such as BIM, in achieving overall respondent rank of import average weighted score of 3.80 places the overall respondent rank of importanc e

PAGE 98

98 57% of respondents stated that clearly defined team roles and responsibilities The average weighted score of 4.53 places the overall respondent rank of i F igure 4 5 Survey responses to question 3.2. Statements A through F. 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 10 2 1 5 9 36 37 24 30 35 25 57 53 75 66 61 66 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% a) Cohesive Team Formation b) Holistic, Outcome oriented project goals c) Effective Open Communication d) Pre design meeting e) Systemic decision making f) Cohesive intelligence Number of Responses Expressed as a Percentage Statement Respondents' Rating of Integrated Design Process Attributes in Achieving Project Sustainability Goals (Statements A to F) 5 High 4 3 Neutral 2 1 Low

PAGE 99

99 Figure 4 6 Survey responses to question 3.2. Statements G through K. Part IV: Optional Free Response Of the 101 complete responses received for the survey, 28 respondents elected t o answer the optional free response question. The question asked respondents to briefly explain any successes or setbacks pertaining to integrated design or green building in general. They were asked to provide feedback on the current state of integrated d esign and green building in the construction industry. The responses may be found in their entirety in Appendix G. 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 10 2 1 5 9 36 37 24 30 35 25 57 53 75 66 61 66 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% a) Cohesive Team Formation b) Holistic, Outcome oriented project goals c) Effective Open Communication d) Pre design meeting e) Systemic decision making f) Cohesive intelligence Number of Responses Expressed as a Percentage Statement Respondents' Rating of Integrated Design Process Attributes in Achieving Project Sustainability Goals (Statements A to F) 5 High 4 3 Neutral 2 1 Low

PAGE 100

100 CHAPTER 5 SURVEY ANALYSIS While Chapter 4 presented the overall response results to the survey, encompassing a total of 101 complete respon ses; this chapter serves to stratify the results and analyze the responses from three main groups of the population sample: architects, engineers and builders. Instead of analyzing the entire survey, this chapter only examines responses from parts II and I II. It should be noted that the category for managers and respondents who defined themselves as design builders. When stratifying the survey responses and considering only architects, engineers and builders the response breakdown yielded 46 architects, 18 engineers and 26 builders, constituting approximately 89% of the original 101 survey respondents. These three subcategories were chosen due to their professional roles integrated design process. The following chapter provides a comparison of survey parts II and III among architects, engineers and builders. Based off a null hypothesis that the average weighted scores of architects, engineers and builde rs taken from the survey responses are assumed to be equal, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed in order to determine if any significant differences existed among the responses. The following equation illustrates the formula used as a basis f or determining any significant differences in the opinions and perceptions among the three professional groups: H 0 : a = e = b a = mean scores of architects e = mean score of engineers b = mean scores of builders

PAGE 101

101 This null hypothesis formula is used throughout the remainder of this analysis in determining any significant differences among the three groups. If the ANO VA test determined that there existed a significant difference among the groups, then individual paired t tests were conducted between paired professional groups: architect and engineer; architect and builder; and engineer and builder. From the t tests, it was determined which two groups had the most significant difference in opinion or perception toward a particular response statement Any acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis was taken at a 95% confidence level. Only questions 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2 we re subject to increased statistical analysis due to their complex structure and large amount of information. The goal was to gather a broad view of if there are any differences in how architects, engineers and builders perceive sustainability and integrate d design. The remaining questions in this section are analyzed through descriptive statistics. P art II: Green Project Perception Comparisons Question 2.1 Question 2.1 consisted of a five point Likert Scale response gauging respondent opinions regarding th Table 5 1 on the following page displays the results to this question as answered by t he architects, engineers and builders followed by individual statement analysis.

PAGE 102

102 Table 5 1 Responses to Q2.1. Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents from the category (Arch./Eng./Builder) selecting the option. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Somewhat Agree 5 Strongly Agree Average Score Standard Deviation F value p value A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B a) Sustainability plays a major role in shaping my company's attitude toward a project 0 0 1 3 0 0 4 3 3 16 8 13 23 7 9 0% 0% 4% 7% 0% 0% 9% 17% 12% 35% 44% 50% 50% 39% 35% 4.28 4.22 4.12 0.89 0.73 0. 91 0.28 0.75 b) My company makes an effort to be aware of the most recent trends in sustainable construction 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 1 1 13 6 10 27 11 15 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 9% 6% 4% 28% 33% 38% 59% 61% 58% 4.41 4.56 4.54 0.83 0.62 0.58 0.41 0.67 c) My com pany encourages owners to pursue sustainable methods and goals for their projects 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 4 19 4 13 23 11 9 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 4% 17% 15% 41% 22% 50% 50% 61% 35% 4.37 4.44 4.19 0.87 0.78 0.69 0.62 0.54 d) My company educates employees on sustainable design/construction techniques 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 15 6 11 26 11 12 4% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 4% 6% 8% 33% 33% 42% 57% 61% 46% 4.35 4.56 4.27 1.13 0.62 0.92 0.47 0.62 e) My company's mission statement places emphasis on fostering sustain able practices 1 2 1 3 0 1 11 6 12 13 2 9 18 8 3 2% 11% 4% 7% 0% 4% 24% 33% 46% 28% 11% 35% 39% 44% 12% 3.96 3.78 3.46 1.05 1.35 0.90 1.79 0.17 f) My company focuses on making a strong impact upon the local community through green building 1 1 1 1 2 0 11 6 7 12 1 10 21 8 8 2% 6% 4% 2% 11% 0% 24% 33% 27% 26% 6% 38% 46% 44% 31% 4.11 3.72 3.92 0.99 1.32 0.98 0.93 0.40 g) My company owes a great deal of its success in green projects to technology (e.g. BIM) 12 7 10 9 4 8 16 1 5 5 3 3 4 3 0 26% 39% 38% 20% 22% 31% 35% 6% 19% 11% 17% 12% 9% 17% 0% 2.57 2.50 2.04 1.24 1.58 1.04 1.53 0.22 h) My company quickly responds and adapts to shifting trends in green building 2 1 0 3 2 0 15 2 11 17 5 11 9 8 4 4% 6% 0% 7% 11% 0% 33% 11% 42% 37% 28% 42% 20% 44% 15% 3.61 3.94 3.73 1.02 1.26 0.72 0.71 0.49 i) My company actively seeks ways to improve its ability to implement sustainable practices 1 1 0 2 2 0 4 1 8 22 6 8 17 8 10 2% 6% 0% 4% 11% 0% 9% 6% 31% 48% 3 3% 31% 37% 44% 38% 4.13 4.00 4.08 0.92 1.24 0.83 0.12 0.89 j) My company encourages employees to become LEED Accredited Professionals 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 3 5 9 4 7 29 11 13 0% 0% 4% 9% 0% 0% 9% 17% 19% 20% 22% 27% 63% 61% 50% 4.37 4.44 4.19 0.97 1. 02 1.02 0.41 0.67 k) My company encourages owners to pursue LEED certification for their projects 4 1 2 4 0 1 12 6 9 14 4 12 12 7 2 9% 6% 8% 9% 0% 4% 26% 33% 35% 30% 22% 46% 26% 39% 8% 3.57 3.89 3.42 1.23 1.13 0.99 0.91 0.41

PAGE 103

103 Figure 5 1. R esponses to Q2.1 statement A. From the responses to Q2.1 statement A, the average weighted scores for architects, engineers and builders were 4.28, 4.22 and 4.12 respectively; yielding an es. It should be noted sustainability, while 44% and 55% percent of respective engineers and contractors attitude toward a project. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 75 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 4% Somewhat Disagree 7% 0% 0% Neutral 9% 17% 12% Somewhat Agree 35% 44% 50% Strongly Agree 50% 39% 35% 1 3 4 3 3 16 8 13 23 7 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement A: Sustainability plays a major role in shaping my company's attitude toward a project

PAGE 104

104 Figure 5 2 Responses to Q2.1 statement B The average rated scores for statement B from architects, engineers and builders were 4.41, 4.56 and 4.54 res organizations make an effort to be aware of the most recent trends in sustainable efforts. Based off of a null hypo thesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 67 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects engineers and builders Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0% Somewhat Disagree 4% 0% 0% Neutral 9% 6% 4% Somewhat Agree 28% 33% 38% Strongly Agree 59% 61% 58% 2 4 1 1 18 6 10 23 11 15 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement B: My company makes an effort to be aware of the most recent trends in sustainable construction

PAGE 105

105 Figure 5 3 Responses to Q2.1 statement C The respective weighted averages for statement C from architects, engineers and builders were 4.37, 4.44 and 4.19; placing all three subcategories in the range of ith the statement that their company encourages owners to pursue sustainable methods and goals for their projects. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 54 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0% Somewhat Disagree 4% 0% 0% Neutral 4% 17% 15% Somewhat Agree 41% 22% 50% Strongly Agree 50% 61% 35% 2 2 3 4 19 4 13 23 11 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement C: My company encourages owners to pursue sustainable methods and goals for their projects

PAGE 106

106 Figure 5 4 Responses to Q2.1 statement D. The respective weighted averages for archi tects, engineers and builders were sustainable design and construction techniques. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 6 2 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions o f architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 4% 0% 4% Somewhat Disagree 2% 0% 0% Neutral 4% 6% 8% Somewhat Agree 33% 33% 42% Strongly Agree 57% 61% 46% 2 1 1 2 1 2 15 6 11 26 1 12 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondent s expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement D: My company educates employees on sustainable design/construction techniques

PAGE 107

107 Figure 5 5 Responses to Q2.1 statement E The respective weighted average scores for architects, engineers and builders companies main tained a mission statement that places emphasis on fostering statement. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders wou ld be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 17 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 2% 11% 4% Somewhat Disagree 7% 0% 4% Neutral 24% 33% 46% Somewhat Agree 28% 11% 35% Strongly Agree 39% 44% 12% 1 2 1 3 1 11 6 12 13 2 9 18 8 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement E: My company's mission statement places emphasis on fostering sustainable practices

PAGE 108

108 Figure 5 6 Responses to Q2.1 statement F Th e respective average weighted scores for architects, engineers and builders building. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 40 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 2% 6% 4% Somewhat Disagree 2% 11% 0% Neutral 24% 33% 27% Somewhat Agree 26% 6% 38% Strongly Agree 46% 44% 31% 1 1 1 1 2 11 6 7 12 1 10 21 8 8 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement F: My company focuses on making a strong impact upon the local community through green building

PAGE 109

109 Figure 5 7 Responses to Q2.1 statement G The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were success w Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A= E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 22 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 26% 39% 38% Somewhat Disagree 20% 22% 31% Neutral 35% 6% 19% Somewhat Agree 11% 17% 12% Strongly Agree 9% 17% 0% 12 7 10 9 4 8 16 1 5 5 3 3 4 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement G: My company owes a great deal of its success in green projects to technology (e.g. BIM)

PAGE 110

110 Figure 5 8 Responses to Q2.1 statement H The respective weighte d averages for architects, engineers and builders were quickly respond and adapt to shifting trends in green building. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scor es among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 49 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 4% 6% 0% Somewhat Disagree 7% 11% 0% Neutral 33% 11% 42% Somewhat Agree 37% 28% 42% Strongly Agree 20% 44% 15% 2 1 3 2 15 2 11 17 5 11 9 8 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement H: My company quickly responds and adapts to shifting trends in green building

PAGE 111

111 F igure 5 9 Responses to Q2.1 statement I The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were actively seek ways to improve their ability to imp lement sustainable practices. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 89 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no s ignificant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 2% 6% 0% Somewhat Disagree 4% 11% 0% Neutral 9% 6% 31% Somewhat Agree 48% 33% 31% Strongly Agree 37% 44% 38% 1 1 2 2 4 1 8 22 6 8 17 8 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement I: My company actively seeks ways to improve its ability to implement sustainable practices

PAGE 112

112 Figure 5 10 Responses to Q2.1 statement J The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were encourage employees to become LEED Accredited Professionals. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 67 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 4% Somewhat Disagree 9% 0% 0% Neutral 9% 17% 19% Somewhat Agree 20% 22% 27% Strongly Agree 63% 61% 50% 1 4 4 3 5 9 4 7 29 11 13 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement J: My company encourages employees to become LEED Accredited Professionals

PAGE 113

113 Figure 5 11 Responses to Q2.1 statement K The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers an d builders were encourage owners to pursue LEED certification for projects; whereas builders felt Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among a rchitects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 41 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 9% 6% 8% Somewhat Disagree 9% 0% 4% Neutral 26% 33% 35% Somewhat Agree 30% 22% 46% Strongly Agree 26% 39% 8% 4 1 2 4 1 12 6 9 14 4 12 12 7 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.1 Statement K: My company encourages employees to become LEED Accredited Professionals

PAGE 114

114 Question 2.2 proven to be most successful economically and efficiently in facilitating green projects. Table 5 2 details the responses from architects, engineers and builders surveyed. Ta ble 5 2 Responses to Q2.2. Project Delivery Method Architect Engineer Builder Design Bid Build 14 30% 6 33% 4 15% Construction Manager at Risk 7 15% 1 6% 2 8% Construction Manager for Fee 3 7% 3 17% 2 8% Design Build 6 13% 4 22% 13 50% Integrated Pr oject Delivery 15 33% 4 22% 5 19% Other 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100% Figure 5 12 Responses to Q2.2. Architect Engineer Builder Design Bid Build 30% 33% 15% Construction Manager at Risk 15% 6% 8% Construction Manager for Fee 7% 17% 8% Design Build 13% 22% 50% Integrated Project Delivery 33% 22% 19% Other 2% 0% 0% 14 6 4 7 1 2 3 3 2 6 4 13 15 4 5 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.2 What project delivery method has proven to be most successful economically and efficiently in facilitating green projects?

PAGE 115

115 The results to this question are surprising considering that a majority (33%) of engineers chose design bid build, as 30% of archit ects as well. For builders, half of those surveyed said design build was the best choice in facilitating green projects followed by 19% opting for integrated project delivery. Question 2.3 This question surveyed respondents on what factor has had the gr eatest 3 lists the factors provided to respondents along with the responses. Table 5 3 Responses to Q2.3. Factor Architect Engineer Builder Design 10 22% 5 28% 5 19% Budget 12 26% 8 44% 7 27% Project Delivery Method 0 0% 0 0% 1 4% Building Certification (e.g. LEED) 14 30% 1 6% 5 19% Technology (e.g. BIM) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Team 10 22% 4 22% 6 23% Experience 0 0% 0 0% 2 8% Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100% Figure 5 13 Responses to Q2.3. Architect Engineer Builder Design 22% 28% 19% Budget 26% 44% 27% Project Delivery Method 0% 0% 4% Building Certification (e.g. LEED) 30% 6% 19% Technology (e.g. BIM) 0% 0% 0% Team 22% 22% 23% Experience 0% 0% 8% 10 5 5 12 8 7 1 14 4 5 10 4 6 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.3 What factor has had the greatest influence in fulfilling a project's sustainability goals?

PAGE 116

116 Question 2.4 This question asked respondents to answer from experience as to which part of sustainability goals. Table 5 4 Responses to Q2.4 Project Phase Architect Engi neer Builder Pre Design 17 37% 4 22% 10 38% Schematic Design 10 22% 7 39% 4 15% Design Development 10 22% 3 17% 5 19% Construction Documentation 3 7% 2 11% 4 15% Bidding 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Procurement 1 2% 0 0% 1 4% Construction 4 9% 2 11% 2 8% Facilit ies Commissioning 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100% All of the responses to this question stress early engagement of sustainability goals. Architects emphasized pre design with 37% of responses, as did builders with 38% of responses. Enginee rs preferred the next phase, schematic design; most likely and architects start bringing consul tants on board with the design. The responses to this question support the findings in the literature review that stress engaging everybody early in the project in order to foster an integrated process.

PAGE 117

117 Figure 5 14 Responses to Q2.4. Question 2.5 This question asked respondents to identify the project stakeholder who has ha d 5 lists the options and responses Table 5 5 Responses to Q2.5 Stakeholder Architect Engineer Builder Owner 24 52% 10 56% 14 54% Architect 20 43% 6 33% 7 27% Engineer 1 2% 1 6% 1 4% General Contractor 0 0% 1 6% 1 4% Commissioning Agent 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% Other 0 0% 0 0% 3 12% Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100% Architect Engineer Builder Pre Design 37% 22% 38% Schematic Design 22% 39% 15% Design Development 22% 17% 19% Construction Documentation 7% 11% 15% Bidding 0% 0% 0% Procurement 2% 0% 4% Construction 9% 11% 8% Facilities Commissioning 2% 0% 0% 17 4 10 10 7 4 10 3 5 3 2 4 1 1 4 2 2 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.4 What part of the construction process is most critical for ensuring fulfillment of a project's sustainable goals?

PAGE 118

118 Architects selected the owner (52%) and themselves (43%) in an overwhelming majority. Engineers also chose the owner ( 56%) and themselves (33%). Builders continued the trend by selecting the owner (54%) and themselves (27%). However, over 50% of respondents from each subcategory selected the owner as the top project stakeholder in terms of guiding project sustainability g oals. Figure 5 15 Responses to Q2.5. Question 2.6 This question again asked respondents about project delivery methods, yet this time the question was directed at determining what project delivery method was most commonly used for projects undergoing building certification (e.g. LEED). Architect Engineer Builder Owner 52% 56% 54% Architect 43% 33% 27% Engineer 2% 6% 4% General Contractor 0% 6% 4% Commissioning Agent 2% 0% 0% Other 0% 0% 12% 24 10 14 20 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.5 What project stakeholder has had the greatest influence in guiding project sustainanability goals?

PAGE 119

119 Table 5 6 Responses to Q2.6. Project Delivery Method for LEED Architect Engineer Builder Design Bid Build 26 57% 11 61% 8 31% Construction Manager at Risk 5 11% 1 6% 3 12% Construction Manager for Fee 3 7% 3 17% 3 12% Design Build 1 2% 1 6% 8 31% Integrated Project Delivery 4 9% 2 11% 2 8% Other 7 15% 0 0% 2 8% Totals 46 100% 18 100% 26 100% Architects overwhelmingly chose design bid build at 57% of responses, as did engineers with 61% responding. Builders w ere divided between design bid build and design said the respondent had not participated in any LEED projects. Figure 5 16 Responses to Q2.6. Architect Engineer Builder Design Bid Build 57% 61% 31% Construction Manager at Risk 11% 6% 12% Construction Manager for Fee 7% 17% 12% Design Build 2% 6% 31% Integrated Project Delivery 9% 11% 8% Other 15% 0% 8% 26 11 8 5 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 8 4 2 2 7 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q2.6 What was the most common project delivery method used for LEED or equivalent green rated projects your company undertook?

PAGE 120

120 Part III: Integrated Design Perceptions Question 3.1 opinions on integrated design. The responses from architects, engineers and builders were compiled and then each response was given a weighted average score to gauge the overall opinion of the group toward each statement. Table 5 9 displays all of the responses to question 3.1 from architect s engineers and builders Following the table is an individual analysis of each statement comparing responses from architects, engineers and builder s. perceptions of integrated design and its relationship among t he prof essional roles within a sustainable construction process. Th is question presents statements related to the roles, relationships and responsibilities among project stakeholders.

PAGE 121

121 Table 5 7 Responses to Q3.1. Top number is the count of respondents selectin g the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents from the category (Arch./Eng./Builder) selecting the option. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Somewhat Agree 5 Strongly Agree Average Score Standard Deviation F p A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B a) Traditional design bid build is plagued by adversarial relationships among those involved 6 2 4 4 2 0 9 0 2 17 10 13 10 4 7 13% 11% 15% 9% 11% 0% 20% 0% 8% 37% 56% 50% 22% 22% 27% 3.46 3.67 3.73 1.29 1.28 1.31 0.42 0.66 b) The industry needs to move away from design bid build into a more integrated approach 8 4 1 0 1 1 10 1 0 11 6 9 17 6 15 17% 22% 4% 0% 6% 4% 22% 6% 0% 24% 33% 35% 37% 33% 58% 3.63 3.50 4.38 1.44 1.58 0.98 3.17 0.05 c) An egalitarian approach among the roles of clients, architect s, engineers and contractors boosts achievement of sustainability goals 3 1 3 3 0 0 9 7 6 19 4 8 12 6 9 7% 6% 12% 7% 0% 0% 20% 39% 23% 41% 22% 31% 26% 33% 35% 3.74 3.78 3.77 1.12 1.11 1.27 0.01 0.99 d) My company places strong emphasis on an integrated design process among architects, engineers and contractors with regards to green projects 5 2 1 3 0 0 12 5 5 14 4 6 12 7 14 11% 11% 4% 7% 0% 0% 26% 28% 19% 30% 22% 23% 26% 39% 54% 3.54 3.78 4.23 1.26 1.31 1.03 2.71 0.07 e) My schoo ling prepared me for working with other building professionals in a collaborative and integrated manner 13 3 2 10 5 8 11 2 5 10 3 5 2 5 6 28% 17% 8% 22% 28% 31% 24% 11% 19% 22% 17% 19% 4% 28% 23% 2.52 3.11 3.19 1.23 1.53 1.33 2.63 0.08 f) Acc epting an egalitarian approach to project roles (i.e. among Arch/Eng/GC) diminishes my professional motivation to do my best. 19 8 11 17 4 5 3 5 3 6 0 5 1 1 2 41% 44% 42% 37% 22% 19% 7% 28% 12% 13% 0% 19% 2% 6% 8% 1.98 2.00 2.31 1.11 1.14 1.41 0.67 0.52 g) The professional roles of architect, engineer and contractor are presently too isolated from one another which limits green building potential 10 4 3 5 2 4 9 1 6 13 7 9 9 4 4 22% 22% 12% 11% 11% 15% 20% 6% 23% 28% 39% 35% 20% 22 % 15% 3.13 3.28 3.27 1.27 1.53 1.25 0.13 0.87 h) The earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the better the chance of achieving project sustainability goals 3 2 1 2 2 0 4 1 1 15 8 3 22 5 21 7% 11% 4% 4% 11% 0% 9% 6% 4% 33% 4 4% 12% 48% 28% 81% 4.11 3.67 4.65 1.16 1.33 0.89 4.20 0.02 i) Mutual respect and trust among project stakeholders are the key foundations of success in implementing an integrated design process and achieving sustainability goals 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 17 6 3 25 11 22 4% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 37% 33% 12% 54% 61% 85% 4.37 4.44 4.73 0.94 0.98 0.83 1.31 0.28 j) Holistic and long term thinking (e.g. LCC/LCA) is necessary for successful sustainable design and construction 1 1 1 0 0 0 8 3 4 15 3 12 22 11 9 2% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 15% 33% 17% 46% 48% 61% 35% 4.24 4.28 4.08 0.90 1.13 0.93 0.31 0.74 k) The Integrated Design Process is an idea that looks great on paper, but is difficult to implement in real world construction projects 3 3 5 12 5 7 11 3 4 14 2 8 6 5 2 7% 17% 19% 26% 28% 27% 24% 17% 15% 30% 11% 31% 13% 28% 8% 3.17 3.06 2.81 1.16 1.51 1.30 0.66 0.52 l) The construction industry is not ready to fully embrace an integrated design process 5 3 6 8 3 5 9 2 6 16 6 7 8 4 2 11% 17% 23% 17% 17% 19% 20% 11% 23% 35% 33% 27% 17% 22% 8% 3.30 3.28 2.77 1.26 1.46 1.31 1.47 0.24

PAGE 122

122 Figure 5 17 Responses to Q3.1 statement A. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 3.46, 3.67 and comes to the opinion that traditional design bid build is plagued by adversarial Based off of a null hypot hesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.66, indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 13% 11% 15% Somewhat Disagree 9% 11% 0% Neutral 20% 0% 8% Somewhat Agree 37% 56% 50% Stongly Agree 22% 22% 27% 6 2 4 4 2 9 2 17 10 13 10 4 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement A: Traditional design bid build is plagued by adversarial relationships among those involved

PAGE 123

123 Figure 5 18 Responses to Q3.1 statement B. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were the industry ne eds to move away from design bid build into a more integrated approach. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.05, indica ting with 95% confidence that there was a significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Individual t tests were performed and between architects and engineers a t value of 0.76 was determined; supporting the null hypothes is. However, between architects and builders and engineers and builders, t values of 0.01 and 0.04 were respectively calculated; indicating with 95% confidence a significant difference existed among those pairs. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 17% 22% 4% Somewhat Disagree 0% 6% 4% Neutral 22% 6% 0% Somewhat Agree 24% 33% 35% Stongly Agree 37% 33% 58% 8 4 1 1 1 10 1 11 6 9 17 6 15 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement B: The industry needs to move away from design bid build into a more integrated approach

PAGE 124

124 Figure 5 19 Responses to Q3.1 statement C. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were and contractors boosts the achievement of sustainability goals. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.99, indicating wit h 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 7% 6% 12% Somewhat Disagree 7% 0% 0% Neutral 20% 39% 23% Somewhat Agree 41% 22% 31% Stongly Agree 26% 33% 35% 3 1 3 3 9 7 6 19 4 8 12 6 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement C: An egalitarian approach among the roles of clients, architects, engineers and contractors boosts achievement of sustainability goals

PAGE 125

125 Figure 5 20 Responses to Q3.1 statement D. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 3.54, 3.78 and among architect, engineers and contractors with regards to green projects. Based off of a null hypo thesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 07 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 11% 11% 4% Somewhat Disagree 7% 0% 0% Neutral 26% 28% 19% Somewhat Agree 30% 22% 23% Stongly Agree 26% 39% 54% 5 2 1 3 12 5 5 14 4 6 12 7 14 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement D: My company places strong emphasis on an integrated design process among architects, engineers and contractors with regards to green projects

PAGE 126

126 Figure 5 21 Responses to Q3.1 statement E. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were opinion with regards to how their schooling prepared them for working with other building professionals in a collaborative manner. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 08 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 28% 17% 8% Somewhat Disagree 22% 28% 31% Neutral 24% 11% 19% Somewhat Agree 22% 17% 19% Stongly Agree 4% 28% 23% 13 3 2 10 5 8 11 2 5 10 3 5 2 5 6 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement E: My schooling prepared me for working with other building professionals in a collaborative and integrated manner

PAGE 127

127 Figure 5 22 Responses to Q3.1 statement F. The respective weighted averages for arc hitects, engineers and builders were that accepting an egalitarian approach to project roles diminishes their professional motivation to do their best. Based off of a nu ll hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 52 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of arc hitects, engineers and builders Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 41% 44% 42% Somewhat Disagree 37% 22% 19% Neutral 7% 28% 12% Somewhat Agree 13% 0% 19% Stongly Agree 2% 6% 8% 19 8 11 17 4 5 3 5 3 6 5 1 1 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement F: Accepting an egalitarian approach to project roles (i.e. among Arch/Eng/GC) diminishes my professional motivation to do my best

PAGE 128

128 F igure 5 23 Responses to Q3.1 statement G. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 3.13, 3.28 and 3.27. It can be stated that for all three subcategories all of the engineer and contractor are too presently isolated from one another which limits green building potential. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineer s and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 87 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 22% 22% 12% Somewhat Disagree 11% 11% 15% Neutral 20% 6% 23% Somewhat Agree 28% 39% 35% Stongly Agree 20% 22% 15% 10 4 3 5 2 4 9 1 6 13 7 9 9 4 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement G: The professional roles of architect, engineer and contractor are presently too isolated from one another which limits green building potential

PAGE 129

129 Figure 5 24 Responses to Q3 .1 statement H. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were the earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the better the c hance of earlier. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 02 indicating with 95% confidence that there was a significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Individual t tests were performed and between architects and engineers a t value of 0.23 was determine d; supporting the null hypothesis. However, between architects and builders and engineers and builders, t values of 0.03 and 0.06 indicat e with 95% confidence a significant difference among architects vs. builders and engineers vs. builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 7% 11% 4% Somewhat Disagree 4% 11% 0% Neutral 9% 6% 4% Somewhat Agree 33% 44% 12% Stongly Agree 48% 28% 81% 3 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 15 8 3 22 5 21 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement H: The earlier the contractor is involved in the design process, the better the chance of achieving project sustainability goals

PAGE 130

130 Figure 5 25 Responses to Q3.1 statement I. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were and trust among project stakeholders are fundamental to success ful integrated design Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 28 indicating with 95% co nfidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 4% 6% 4% Somewhat Disagree 0% 0% 0% Neutral 4% 0% 0% Somewhat Agree 37% 33% 12% Stongly Agree 54% 61% 85% 2 1 1 2 17 6 3 25 11 22 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement I: Mutual respect and trust among project stakeholders are the key foundations of success in implementing an integrated design process and achieving sustainability goals

PAGE 131

131 Figure 5 26 Responses to Q3.1 statement J. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 4.24, 4.28 and 4.08. It holistic and long term thinking is necessary for successful sustainable design and construction. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builde rs would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 74 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 2% 6% 4% Somewhat Disagree 0% 0% 0% Neutral 17% 17% 15% Somewhat Agree 33% 17% 46% Stongly Agree 48% 61% 35% 1 1 1 8 3 4 15 3 12 22 11 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement J: Holistic and long term thinking (e.g. LCC/LCA) is necessary for successful sustainable design and construction

PAGE 132

132 Figure 5 27 Responses to Q3.1 statement K. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 3.17, 3.06 and 2.81. It can be stated for all three subcategories that they all share a r, but it difficult to implement in real world construction projects. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 52 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 7% 17% 19% Somewhat Disagree 26% 28% 27% Neutral 24% 17% 15% Somewhat Agree 30% 11% 31% Stongly Agree 13% 28% 8% 3 3 5 12 5 7 11 3 4 14 2 8 6 5 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement K: The Integrated Design Process is an idea that looks great on paper, but is difficult to implement in real world construction projects

PAGE 133

133 Figure 5 28 Responses to Q3.1 statement L The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 3.30, 3.28 a opinion with regards to whether or not the construction industry is not ready to fully embrace an integrated design process. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores amo ng architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0. 24 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Q uestion 3.2 Respondents were presented with 11 statements and asked to rank the importance of each statement. Table 5 10 contains all responses from architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) Strongly Disagree 11% 17% 23% Somewhat Disagree 17% 17% 19% Neutral 20% 11% 23% Somewhat Agree 35% 33% 27% Stongly Agree 17% 22% 8% 5 3 6 8 3 5 9 2 6 16 6 7 8 4 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.1 Statement L: The construction industry is not ready to fully embrace an integrated design process

PAGE 134

134 Table 5 8 Responses to Q3.2. Top number is the count of respondents select ing the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents from the category (Arch./Eng./Builder) selecting the option. 1 Low 2 3 Neutral 4 5 High Average Score Standard Deviation F value p value A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B A E B a) Cohesive Team Formation: grouping of engaged and experienced AEC professionals who are involved from project start to finish 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 18 4 8 24 12 16 2% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 6% 8% 39% 22% 31% 52% 67% 62% 4.39 4.44 4.54 0.802 1.042 0.647 0.28 0.76 b) Holistic, Outcome Oriented Project Goals: owner establishes well defined goals early 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 0 16 4 12 23 12 13 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 15% 11% 0% 35% 22% 46% 50% 67% 50% 4.35 4.56 4.42 0.737 0.705 0.703 0.55 0.58 c) Effective/Open Communication: transparent lines of communication among all involved 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 14 3 3 30 15 23 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 30% 17% 12% 65% 83% 88% 4.61 4.83 4.88 0.532 0.383 0.326 3.48 0.04 d) Pre Design Meeting: both the design and construction teams meet with owner to establish project goals so everyone is on the same page 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 16 5 5 27 11 21 4% 6% 0% 0% 6% 0% 2% 0% 0% 35% 28% 19% 59% 61% 81% 4.43 4.33 4.81 0.91 1.138 0.402 2.20 0.12 e) Systemic Decision Making: decisions are based upon their relationship to the building project as a whole, considering all impacts and alter native solutions 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 15 4 11 28 13 15 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 6% 0% 33% 22% 42% 61% 72% 58% 4.54 4.67 4.58 0.622 0.594 0.504 0.32 0.73 f) Cohesive Intelligence: professional knowledge is openly shared between clients, architects, e ngineers and contractors in order to facilitate successful green strategies 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 10 4 7 29 12 19 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 6% 0% 22% 22% 27% 63% 67% 73% 4.48 4.44 4.73 0.752 1.042 0.452 1.14 0.32 g) Feedback Loops: decisions are base d upon the collective intelligence of the integrated team and all decisions are cyclically evaluated from pre design through construction completion 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 1 19 5 8 21 11 17 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 13% 6% 4% 41% 28% 31% 46% 61% 65% 4.33 4.4 4 4.62 0.701 0.856 0.571 1.81 0.17 h) Use of Technology: BIM and computer energy modeling used as effective tools for streamlining an integrated design process 1 2 2 5 1 1 19 5 10 12 8 7 9 2 6 2% 11% 8% 11% 6% 4% 41% 28% 38% 26% 44% 27% 20% 1 1% 23% 3.50 3.39 3.54 0.997 1.145 1.208 0.11 0.90 i) Building Assessment: LEED, GreenGlobes, BREEAM, etc. as effective guidelines for an integrated design process 2 0 0 3 1 1 9 8 5 22 6 15 10 3 5 4% 0% 0% 7% 6% 4% 20% 44% 19% 48% 33% 58% 22% 17% 19% 3.76 3.61 3.92 1.005 0.85 0.744 0.64 0.53 j) Clearly Defined Team Responsibilities: All team members know their role and expected contribution to achieving goals. No one is left behind. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 19 9 7 24 9 18 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 4% 41% 50% 27% 52% 50% 69% 4.46 4.50 4.65 0.622 0.514 0.562 0.90 0.41 k) Workshops: Owner, design and construction teams meet periodically throughout the project course to evaluate progress and update goals 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 25 9 11 18 7 11 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 8% 4% 11% 8% 54% 50% 42% 39% 39% 42% 4.30 4.28 4.19 0.662 0.669 0.895 0.19 0.83

PAGE 135

135 Figure 5 29 Response to Q3.2 statement A. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 4.39, 4.44 and 4.54. Archite cts and engineers had collective ranking of cohesive team From the results shown in the graph, all three subcategories placed a majority of their Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.76 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant diffe rence among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 2% 6% 0% 2 Low Priority 0% 0% 0% 3 Neutral 7% 6% 8% 4 High Priority 39% 22% 31% 5 Highest Priority 52% 67% 62% 1 1 3 1 2 18 4 8 24 12 16 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement A: Cohesive Team Formation

PAGE 136

136 Figure 5 30 Responses to Q3.2 statement B. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 4.35, 4.56 and 4.42. Architects and builder both gave holistic, out come oriented goals Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.5 8 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0% 2 Low Priority 0% 0% 4% 3 Neutral 15% 11% 0% 4 High Priority 35% 22% 46% 5 Highest Priority 50% 67% 50% 1 7 1 16 4 12 23 12 13 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement B: Holistic, Outcome Oriented Project Goals

PAGE 137

137 Figure 5 31 Responses to Q3.2 statement C. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were open communication. Transparent lines of communication are an essential part of an integrated design process. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average score s among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.04 indicating with 95% confidence that there was a significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Indi vidual t tests were performed and between architects and builders a t value of 0.01 was determined; rejecting the null hypothesis with 95% confidence. However, between architects and engineers and engineers and builders, t values of 0.08 and 0.65 indicate with 95% confidence that no significant difference among architects vs. engineers and engineers vs. builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0% 2 Low Priority 0% 0% 0% 3 Neutral 4% 0% 0% 4 High Priority 30% 17% 12% 5 Highest Priority 65% 83% 88% 2 14 3 3 30 15 23 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement C: Effective/Open Communication

PAGE 138

138 Figure 5 32 Responses to Q3.2 statement D. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 4.43, 4.33 and 4.81. A design pre design meetings in a traditional design bid responses contractors desire to be a part of the process early. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) T he calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.12 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 4% 6% 0% 2 Low Priority 0% 6% 0% 3 Neutral 2% 0% 0% 4 High Priority 35% 28% 19% 5 Highest Priority 59% 61% 81% 2 1 1 1 16 5 5 27 11 21 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement D: Pre Design Meeting

PAGE 139

139 Figure 5 33 Responses to Q3.2 statement E. The respective weighted ave rages for architects, engineers and builders were 4.5, 4.67 and 4.58. All three subcategories stated that systemic decision making, where decisions are based upon their relationship to a whole and consider all impacts and Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.73 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference am ong the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0% 2 Low Priority 0% 0% 0% 3 Neutral 7% 6% 0% 4 High Priority 33% 22% 42% 5 Highest Priority 61% 72% 58% 3 1 15 4 11 28 13 15 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement E: Systemic Decision Making

PAGE 140

140 Figure 5 34 Responses to Q3.2 statement F. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were he open sharing of professional knowledge between clients, architects, engineers and contractors to Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.32 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 0% 6% 0% 2 Low Priority 0% 0% 0% 3 Neutral 15% 6% 0% 4 High Priority 22% 22% 27% 5 Highest Priority 63% 67% 73% 1 7 1 10 4 7 29 12 19 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement F: Cohesive Intelligence

PAGE 141

141 Figure 5 35 Responses to Q3.2 statement G. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were the cyclical evaluation of all project decisions from pre design through construction. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.17 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0% 2 Low Priority 0% 6% 0% 3 Neutral 13% 6% 4% 4 High Priority 41% 28% 31% 5 Highest Priority 46% 61% 65% 1 6 1 1 19 5 8 21 11 17 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement G: Feedback Loops

PAGE 142

142 Figure 5 36 Responses to Q3.2 statement H. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were data was affected greatly by extreme highs and lows, thus skewing the data towa rd a Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.90 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no signif icant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 2% 11% 8% 2 Low Priority 11% 6% 4% 3 Neutral 41% 28% 38% 4 High Priority 26% 44% 27% 5 Highest Priority 20% 11% 23% 1 2 2 5 1 1 19 5 10 12 8 7 9 2 6 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement H: Use of Technology (e.g. BIM)

PAGE 143

143 Figure 5 37 Responses to Q3.2 statement I. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 3.76, 3.66 and 3.92. It can be stated that all three subc ategories collectively placed process. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.53 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 4% 0% 0% 2 Low Priority 7% 6% 4% 3 Neutral 20% 44% 19% 4 High Priority 48% 33% 58% 5 Highest Priority 22% 17% 19% 2 3 1 1 9 8 5 22 6 15 10 3 5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement I: Building Assessment (e.g. LEED)

PAGE 144

144 Figure 5 38 Responses to Q3.2 statement J. The respective weighted averag es for architects, engineers and builders were each knows his or her expecte d contribution to project sustainability goals. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average scores among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.41 indicating with 95% confidence t hat there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builder s. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0% 2 Low Priority 0% 0% 0% 3 Neutral 7% 0% 4% 4 High Priority 41% 50% 27% 5 Highest Priority 52% 50% 69% 3 1 19 9 7 24 9 18 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement J: Clearly Defined Team Roles

PAGE 145

145 Figure 5 39 Responses to Q3.2 statement K. The respective weighted averages for architects, engineers and builders were 4.30, 4.28 and 4.19. It can be sta periodic workshops involving the owner and the design and construction teams to evaluate progress toward achieving project sustainability goals. Based off of a null hypothesis that the average score s among architects, engineers and builders would be equal ( H 0 : A=E=B) The calculated p value from the ANOVA test was 0.83 indicating with 95% confidence that there was no significant difference among the opinions of architects, engineers and builders. Architect (46) Engineer (18) Builder (26) 1 Lowest Priority 0% 0% 0% 2 Low Priority 2% 0% 8% 3 Neutral 4% 11% 8% 4 High Priority 54% 50% 42% 5 Highest Priority 39% 39% 42% 1 2 2 2 2 25 9 11 18 7 11 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of respondents expressed as a percentage Q3.2 Statement K: Periodic Workshop Meetings

PAGE 146

146 CHA PTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS The research in this thesis can be divided into two main components: the literature review and the survey. The literature review served as the basis of formulating the research methodology which subsequently became the survey distributed out to architecture, engineering and construction professionals. This chapter serves to discuss both the literature and the survey in terms of both successes and setbacks. This chapter concludes with a listing of recommendations for future researchers on integrated design. Literature Review Conclusions The goal of the literature review was to establish a timeline that originated with the master builder system of ancient times and trace the lineage all the way to the current state of construction practice in the 21 st century. The principal attributes of integrated design have their roots with the master builder; thus it was deemed necessary to investigate the historical patterns of the master builder and determine why they fell by the wayside. The historical datum begun at the start of the literature review current ideologies shaping sustainable building construction today. Successes in the literature review included a synthesis of historical facts and architectural theories that defined the master builder system of the past and their relationships with current trends in sustainable construction. Integrated design, as portrayed in the literature review is predominantly idea based; meaning that much of what is discussed is based upon ideologies and ideas for practicing sustainable

PAGE 147

147 construction and not necessarily what is status quo in the widespread construction industry. However, the ideas discussed are gradually becoming integrated as standard practice as the push toward sustainable construction continues to grow. Setbacks in the literature include limitations on available resources about integrated design itself. There are few published books and prio r studies on integrated design and the information that is out there becomes repetitive. The review of three books on integrated design usually leads to the same conclusion about how the process is undertaken. This recycling of information became tedious a t times and it was difficult thing. Depth of information was also regarded as a setback because some publications on integrated design provided extremely detailed outlin es of the process undertaken. In order to fully describe each process would have turned the literature review into a book unto itself. Thus extensive summarizing had to be done. It would be a beneficial to the literature review to include a series of case studies that document how an integrated design process was used in each. Successes and failures would be used to high light the key points in an integrated process that help or hinder the achievement of sustainability goals. Overall the literature review in this thesis stands as an effective text that fulfilled its goal of documenting a timeline of how integration was once the standard practice in building, how it dissolved as society grew more complex and how it is now re emerging as society takes on a ne w era of green construction.

PAGE 148

148 Survey Conclusions The survey was derived from the research performed in the literature review. Questions in parts II and III were created based off findings in the literature and applied to the survey in order to gauge the c urrent professional perceptions, awareness and experience with integrated design. The literature review discussed project delivery methods, principles of sustainable construction and the integrated design process: all major components of the survey. Throu gh examining the survey responses it can be determined that the survey was overall ineffective at attaining any significant results about the integrated design process and its current use in the construction industry. Reverting back to a survey free respon se answer: the survey was too biased toward integrated design and all of the supposed attributes that make up integrated design are in fact the standard practice of any successful and reputable architecture, engineering or building firm. The statements pro vided to respondents were too vague and not specific enough about the integrated design process itself. Only three statements, one from question 3.1 and two from question 3.2, yielded any significant differences in opinion among the architects, engineers a nd builders surveyed. Another setback faced by the survey was the population sample. Respondents were chosen from the USGBC online membership database. This method was chosen because of its ease of access and also based upon the assumption that if a compa ny was a member of the USGBC, then they must be very proactive in sustainable construction. If the survey could be re designed and redistributed, a much more diverse

PAGE 149

149 sampling of the construction industry would need to be taken in order to minimize the bias faced by only sampling members of the USGBC. The question structure of the survey also suffered due t o the complexity of the Likert s cale responses. These questions contained too many statements and utilized ineffective language when presented to respon dents. The complex nature of these questions is likely one of the causes for incomplete survey responses. Survey length was also an issue upon post examination. Respondents were sent the survey link at their work e mail addresses. Thus the survey would mos t likely be taken at their place of employment. Construction professionals are more likely to be occupied with work duties rather than wish to take a survey that is too long or too complex to complete within a brief period of time. The main success of the survey was the efficient method of distribution and collection through the online survey website Zoomerang ( www.zoomerang.com ). Zoomerang proved to be an effective tool when filtering out incomplete responses, strati fying data and generating tables that otherwise would have taken hours to complete if done through a paper survey. However, this efficiency is not beneficial when the results are lackluster. The conclusion is that a survey may not be the best method of con ducting research on integrated design. On the whole, the subject matter is too rich and too complex to garner effective results through survey. Case studies are a much better option when exploring integrated design because they have laid out prescriptive p aths the document the attributes, successes and setbacks of the process. Interviewing owners, architects, engineers and builders who have all worked on a project together utilizing integrated design should achieve far greater results about the process itse lf.

PAGE 150

150 Recommendations for Future Research Future researchers should be open to exploring not only the positive attributes of integrated design, but also determine whether there are negative effects too. The current literature on integrated design is overwhe lmingly positive in its descriptions about the process. Prominent organizations, such as the Design Build Institute for America, have proclaimed that integration is the future of the construction industry. Future researchers should conduct extensive case s tudies of past projects utilizing an integrated design process and explore both the good and the bad sides of integrated design. Other potential research prospects may include the correlation between the ever evolving LEED building assessment system and its use as a tool for facilitating integrated design. Generating a hypothetical future model of a LEED rating system that incorporates an integrated design process as a requirement could lead toward creating a set prescriptive path for integrated design on sustainable construction projects. G aining a current understanding of how integrated design is treated in academic circles could also be useful to future researchers. Providing studies of architecture, engineering and construction management degree progr ams at major universities through interviews, surveys or curriculum case studies could provide insight into how integrated design and sustainable construction are being taught to the next generation of architects, engineers and builders.

PAGE 151

151 APPENDIX A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

PAGE 152

152

PAGE 153

153 APPENDIX B IRB 02 SURVEY PROPOSAL F ORM

PAGE 154

154

PAGE 155

155 APPENDIX C IRB 02 APPROVAL LETTER

PAGE 156

156 APPENDIX D SURVEY REQUEST EMAIL Dear AEC Industry Professional, I am a graduate student at the Rinker School of Building Construction at the Un iversity of Florida. Part of my research requirement is to conduct a survey of architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry professionals about the current state of the Integrated Design Process and its use as a facilitator for green building practices. To assist in this research, please take a few minutes of your time to follow the link at the bottom of this email to take a brief online multiple choice questionnaire. Your input into this research is highly valuable. There are no anticipated r isks or benefits involved with this survey and all responses are completely confidential. If you are unfamiliar with the principles of an Integrated Design Process or green building, would you please forward this message to someone in your organization t hat may be familiar with these topics who could participate in this survey? To begin the online survey, please click on the link below and follow the instructions. Your prompt reply is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time in helping as sist with this research. http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB22A6DFXPQZP Sincerely, Charlie McNamara, LEED AP MS candidate in Sustainable Building Construction M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction University of Florida

PAGE 157

157 APPENDIX E SURVEY INFORMED CONS ENT DOCUMENTATION Informed Consent Protocol Title: Integrated Design Process as a Facilitator for High Performance Green Building Please read this consent document care fully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to investigate the current status of using an Integrated Design Process (IDP) as a method in facilitating sustainable design and construction practices. The following statements list the three primary goals of the study: How much are the professions of architecture, engineering and construction exposed to the ideas of IDP as a tool for achieving sustainable projects? What is the level of aware ness, knowledge and experience of the integrated design process among professionals in the building industry? What successful methods are employed by professionals following an integrated design process and how important are they in achieving green buildin g projects? What you will be asked to do in the study: As a participant, you will asked to answer a short questionnaire on various topics concerning you and/or n practices; and professional stereotypes within the construction industry. Time required: 10 minutes, self administered Risks and Benefits: There are no potential risks involved in participation with this survey. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study. Compensation: There is no compensation for this survey. Confidentiality: Your responses are anonymous and will be held in complete confidentiality. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law

PAGE 158

158 Volu ntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Charlie McNamara, Principal Investigator, University of Florida School of Building Construction Phone: (407) 927 2662 Email: crm2@ufl.edu Dr. Robert Ries, Professor, University of Florida School of Building Co nstruction Phone: ( 352) 273 1155 Email: rries@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250 Phone: (352) 392 0433 Email: irb2@ufl.edu Click Here to Submit Consent and Take Survey

PAGE 159

159 APPENDIX F SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 160

160

PAGE 161

161

PAGE 162

162

PAGE 163

163

PAGE 164

164

PAGE 165

165 APPENDIX G SURVEY FREE RESPONSE ANSWERS 1. Technologies and delivery methods are effective in su pporting only the agendas of those involved in a project. More than any other factor, commitment by the owner and the project stakeholders has the highest impact by far on the level of sustainability that can be achieved. 2. BIM, unfortunately is difficult to integrate within the smaller firms at this time due to the economy. The MPE Engineers we use indicate that BIM is not feasible for them to implement due to so many issues with the programs that are available to them. 3. Sustainability in design is receiv ing a lot of media attention but is viewed primarily as marketing material. With some exceptions it is by and large only architects that are truly embracing its principals and actively pursuing sustainable solutions. Architects are the only members of thes e teams consistently being educated to pursue sustainable solutions. Integrated Design Process promotes design by committee instead of design by the most highly trained professional on the team. Engineers, constructors, and owners should not be driving bui lding design; they have not been properly trained and educated to do so. They are highly skilled but not at building design. They of course should contribute during the design process but it should not be a round table. Architecture should always be don e by architects with hired engineering consultants and input from owners and builders. Owners are the least trained and stand to lose the most through projects that are not competitively bid or properly designed by an architect free do their best work i nstead of "voting" on solutions. This survey is so biased towards Integrated Project Delivery, rather than quality architecture, that its author could not possibly come to accurate or legitimate conclusions. 4. Our company is young, but our primary focus is sustainable design. We currently have three projects that are pursuing LEED certification. Two of which should achieve Gold Certification in the next few months. 5. The green goals need to be established early in the project. Too often the green objecti ves are added late in the process if money is available in the budget and at that point to many decisions have been made that impact the overall success of the green objectives. Having the contractor, owner, architect, engineers and major sub contractors a re involved early in the design process is critical to the success of the project.

PAGE 166

166 6. I would like to see less of an emphasis on LEED and more on sustainable design. LEED is far too costly and is starting to be seen as the optimum for building constructio n and design instead of programs like the Living Building Challenge and Architecture 2030. LEED AP should be banned. It is such a false has gone from Green to Greed. 7. This qu estionnaire is leading the respondent to an ideal situation when the motives for each party and each building are different. Profit motives for the participants influences (controls?)their actions during the design and construction processes. There is no ANSWER" because each set of circumstances is different. 8. In the private sector, EVERYTHING involving the success of the process or degree of sustainability of a project comes down to money! There must be a financial payback or an economic reward, such as perceived beneficial marketing, expedient permit review time, and reduced municipal expenses. Many of these economic rewards come in the form of government sponsored programs. Now, if it is necessary for the government to pay for sustainability, just how s ustainable is it? We have to get back to common sense. We are all about being environmentally conscious, but we have a difficult time encouraging the concept when our clients our strapped for cash already. 9. All that you mention above is common practice am ong leading design, engineering and construction forms. It has been happening for many years. The attitude has always been the same. The technology is the only element that varies. My advice: "keep it simple and stay on top of it". If you do this EVERYTHIN G works out. 10. Subcontractor participation is key in sustainable projects. One of our LEED submissions is being held up due to the sub's inability to provide paperwork. 11. Full Disclosure: we have not engaged an IDP process, but are looking forward to the opportunity. We have been using a pseudo IDP model for a while now and are glad the industry is punctuating a title. 12. Within our market, sustainable construction practices and materials have become common place. There are often increased costs with susta inability, but costs are continuing to equalize with non sustainable alternative. In my experience sustainability can be successfully integrated into every project regardless of the design team structure and construction procurement method. It has simply b ecome part of our everyday design approach. 13. Is it being "Green" or is it being "Responsible"?

PAGE 167

167 14. We are currently involved in encouraging the professionals in our firm to become LEED certified. Our president became certified last year. Although we have not completed a LEED certified project, we have done studies for clients and have made efforts to encourage our clients to this end. Most of our professionals are mechanical engineers, so we have been meeting energy saving goals throughout our existence. This is a natural progression for our firm. 15. Biggest hurdle is how to define the construction documents. If this product must be 2D, the value of BIM is drastically diminished. The construction industry is currently better prepared than the A/E industry. 16. Th e resistance we have had has come from the legislative approach to procurement in our State. Bidding laws of governmental projects make IDP & IPD difficult. 17. Sorry, don't have time to write much here... we've been doing an evolution of "IDP" for about 5 1 0 years on 30+ LEED projects and now LBC. 18. We were CM on a job and conducted a pre design meeting but the Owner's architect had pretty much already completed the design. Neither was familiar with LEED. Project ended up going out to bid with no LEED goals. 19. Green Buildings and LEED Certified buildings are only feasible if there is a reasonable return on investment vs. the buildings life expectancy. 20. Many of my projects are Developer driven. In these cases the marketing value is the primary concern for the buildings at the lowest possible cost! Very disruptive to the main focus of sustainable design! This often requires the architect to be creative on points that don't necessarily lend to conservation efforts. Ultimately, with any building type, if the own er is not completely on board with the cause, the contribution of the GC (owner contracted) is destructive. 21. The value in having a contractor knowledgeable about green practices involved during design, is: 1) there can be discussions about cost of green m easures and trade offs between strategies selected by the team 2) Capabilities of the sub contractor community can be discussed with the team. 3) The Design/bid/build "low bid" approach is avoided. Low bid has no flexibility for adjusting to the requiremen ts of green measures and practices. You need the sub's knowledge about what works and if the drawings are not complete, then you want to know in time to make adjustments.

PAGE 168

168 22. Commercially, budget/financing is a big issue even though, in Georgia, many t ax credits, etc incentives exist, the initial outlay of capital is being resisted as many property owners are short sighted in their investment many see their involvement financially and from a cash flow analysis as less than 10 years which does not prov ide for a long term vision of recouping benefits of items such as geothermal, solar, solar thermal, rainwater retention, etc especially in the south where energy is not restrictively expensive nor legislatively restrictive this welcome in the future bu t not present currently. 23. Historically our projects have a higher certification level with less cost the earlier the CM is involved. 24. We would love to use an IDP on every project, but continually struggle against the status quo design bid build. Also if the owner is not a champion of sustainability goals, it's doomed. The architect can't convince them. 25. We are a small architecture firm that now, in this particular economy is doing a lot more residential than commercial. Clients are interested in sustaina bility and energy efficient structures but they have no interest in LEED generally. 26. You can have an integrated design process on a design bid build project, but the contractor is not party until hired, and then every change is a cost. IPD as a contractua l delivery method still needs help from the insurance industry to make this feasible in our litigious society. Right now participating in IPD can be a risk that some firms cannot take. 27. Contractors, at even the highest level (we work on many multibillion dollar projects) lack the expertise or willingness to be meaningful participants in the design process. Typically, the offer little to inform the design and simply increase their leverage and profits by getting involved early. The only way to keep the owne r from getting hurt is to adhere to the traditional process of design bid build. No contractual arrangement I have seen achieves the stated goal of integrated design. 28. Until it is required by the building codes or more financial incentives are developed, Owners will view Green Design as a costly and optional "extra".

PAGE 169

169 LIST OF REFERENCES Akintoye, A., and MacLeod, M. (1997). "Risk Analysis and Management in Construction." International Journal of Project Management 15(1), 31 38. Alexan der, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building Oxford University Press, New York. American Consulting Engineers, C. (2001). Multiple project delivery systems : the design professional's handbook, design build project delivery The Council, Washington, D.C. Boecker, J., Horst, S., Keiter, T., Lau, A., Sheffer, M., Toevs, B., and Reed, B. (2009). The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the Practice of Sustainability John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J. Davis, H. (1999). The Culture o f Building Oxford University, New York. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Elvin, G. (2007). Integrated Practice in Architecture John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Engdahl, D. (2 003). "The Integrated Design Build Firm." The Architect's Guide to Design Build Services, G. W. Quatman and R. Dhar, eds., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Frampton, K. (2007). Modern Architecture : A Critical History Thames & Hudson, Lond on ; New York. Ireland, V. "Virtually Meaningless Distinctions Between Nominally Different Procurement methods." Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Organisation and Management of Construction Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 203 212. Kibert, C. (20 05). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Kibert, C. J. (1999). "The Promises and Limits of Sustainability." Reshaping the Built Environment, C. J. Kibert, ed., Island Press, Washington, D.C. Molenaar, K., Gransberg, D., Korkmaz, S., and Horman, M. (2009). "Sustainable, High Performance Projects and Project Delivery Methods." Design Build Institute of America, Washington, D.C. Prowler, D., and Vierra, S. (2008). "Whole Building Design." Nation al Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 170

170 Ries, R. J., Needy, K. L., Bansal, A., and Turan, F. (2009). "Quality Management Best Practices in the Capital Facilities Delivery Industry." Journal for Construction Engineering and Management Saarine n, E. (1948). Search for Form: A Fundamental Approach to Art Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York. Sanvido, V. E., and Konchar, M. D. (1998). Project delivery systems : CM at risk, design build, design bid build Construction Industry Institute, Aus tin, Texas. Sell, M. (2003). "Introduction to Design Build." The Architect's Guide to Design Build Services, G. W. Quatman and R. Dhar, eds., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management H arper, New York. Thabrew, L., and Ries, R. J. (2009). "Application of Life Cycle Thinking in Multidisciplinary Multistakeholder Contexts for Cross Sectoral Planning and Implementation of Sustainable Development Projects." Integrated Environmental Assessme nt and Management 5(3), 445 460. Thabrew, L., Wiek, A., and Ries, R. J. (2008). "Environmental decision making in multi stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation." Journal of Cleaner Production 17. USDOE. (2008). Buildings Energy Data Book United States Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. USEPA. (1998). "Characterization of Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States." U. S. E. P. Agency, ed., Franklin Associates, Prarie Villa ge, Kansas. USGBC. (2010). "USGBC: United States Green Building Council." WCED. (1987). Our Common Future [The Brundtland Report] Oxford University Press, for the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, UK. Yudelson, J. (2009). Green Building Through Integrated Design McGraw Hill, New York. Zimmerman, A. (2006). "Integrated Design Process Guide." Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

PAGE 171

171 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Charlie McNamara was b orn in 1984 in Win ter Park, Florida. He r eceived his Bachelor of Design in 2007 and Master of Science in Building Construction in 2010; both from the University of Florida.