Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Axiomatic design framework for changeability in design for construction projects

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(adapted from Kiviniemi 2005)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, K. M. (2015). Design methodologies. Nonfunctional requirements in systems analysis and design (Vol. 28, pp. 15–43)., Topics in safety, risk, reliability and quality Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anees, M. M., Mohamed, H. E., & Abdel Razek, M. E. (2013). Evaluation of change management efficiency of construction contractors. HBRC Journal,9(1), 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becerril, L., Sauer, M., & Lindemann, U. (2016). Estimating the effects of Engineering Changes in early stage product development. In Proceedings of the 18th International Dependency and Structure Modeling Conference, São Paulo, pp. 125–135.

  • Bureau of Indian Standards. (2000). IS 456: 2000—plain and reinforced concrete—code and practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, D. K. H., & Hossain, M. A. (2012). Predicting change propagation and impact on design schedule due to external changes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,59(3), 483–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P. J., Simons, C., & Eckert, C. (2004). Predicting change propagation in complex design. Journal of Mechanical Design,126(5), 788–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, I. D., Morris, J. P., Rogerson, J. H., & Jared, G. E. (1999). A quantitative study of post contract award design changes in construction. Construction Management and Economics,17(4), 427–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ElMaraghy, H., & AlGeddawy, T. (2015). A methodology for modular and changeable design architecture and application in automotive framing systems. Journal of Mechanical Design,137(12), 121403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, B., Anumba, C., Bouchlaghem, D., & Nielsen, Y. (2005). Change Management in Construction: The Current Context. 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, London, pp. 1085–1095.

  • Foith-Förster, P., Wiedenmann, M., Seichter, D., & Bauernhansl, T. (2016). Axiomatic approach to flexible and changeable production system design. Procedia CIRP,53, 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricke, E., Gebhard, B., Negele, H., & Igenbergs, E. (2000). Coping with changes: causes, findings and strategies. Systems Engineering,3(4), 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricke, E., & Schulz, A. P. (2005). Design for changeability (DfC): principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle. Systems Engineering,8(4), 342–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giffin, M., de Weck, O., Bounova, G., Keller, R., Eckert, C., & Clarkson, P. J. (2009). Change propagation analysis in complex technical systems. Journal of Mechanical Design,131(8), 81001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, N., Tommelein, I. D., & Schruben, L. W. (2006). External change in large engineering design projects: the role of the client. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,53(3), 426–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamraz, B., Caldwell, N. H. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2011). A holistic categorization framework for literature on engineering change management. Systems Engineering,14(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, S., & Navon, R. (2013). A graph-based model for the identification of the impact of design changes. Automation in Construction,31, 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarratt, T. A. W., Eckert, C. M., Caldwell, N. H. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2011). Engineering change: an overview and perspective on the literature. Research in Engineering Design,22(2), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiviniemi, A. (2005). Requirements management interface to building product models. Ph.D. Thesis. VTT Publications, pp 328.

  • Koh, E. C. Y., Caldwell, N. H. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2012). A method to assess the effects of engineering change propagation. Research in Engineering Design,23(4), 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, E. C. Y., Caldwell, N. H. M., & John Clarkson, P. (2013). A technique to assess the changeability of complex engineering systems. Journal of Engineering Design,24(7), 477–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, P. E. D., Frani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). A rework reduction model for construction projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,51(4), 426–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, P. E. D., Holt, G. D., Shen, L. Y., Li, H., & Irani, Z. (2002). Using systems dynamics to better understand change and rework in construction project management systems. International Journal of Project Management,20(6), 425–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mindess, S., & Young, F. (1981). Concrete. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morkos, B., Shankar, P., & Summers, J. D. (2012). Predicting requirement change propagation, using higher order design structure matrices: an industry case study. Journal of Engineering Design,23(12), 902–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosallam, K., Chen, W. F. (1990). Design considerations for formwork in multistorey concrete buildings. Engineering structures, 12(3), 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A. M., Rhodes, D. H., & Hastings, D. E. (2008). Defining changeability: reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability, and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value. Systems Engineering,11(3), 246–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Y., & Chua, D. K. H. (2006). Modeling of functional construction requirements for constructability analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,132(12), 1314–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suh, N. P. (1990). The principles of design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh, N. P. (2001). Axiomatic design: advances and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, M., Fleming, A., Senaratne, S., Motawa, I., & Yeoh, M. (2006). A change management toolkit for construction projects. Architectural Engineering and Design Management,2(4), 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, M., & Meng, X. (2009). Taxonomy for change causes and effects in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management,27(6), 560–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, D. (1999). A roadmap for decomposition: activities, theories, and tools for system design. Ph.D. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp 210.

  • Terwiesch, C., & Loch, C. (1999). Managing the process of engineering change orders: the case of the climate control system in automobile development. Journal of Product Innovation Management,16(2), 160–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, I., Tang, D., Wang, Q., & Yin, L. (2017). Least Risky change propagation path analysis in product design process. Systems Engineering,20(4), 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, I., Tang, D., Wang, Q., Yin, L., & Hussain, I. (2018). Managing engineering change requirements during the product development process. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications,26(2), 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weck, O. De. (2007). On the role of DSM in designing systems and products for changeability. In Proceedings of 9th International DSM Conference, Munich, Germany, pp. 311–323.

  • Wiendahl, H. P., ElMaraghy, H. A., Nyhuis, P., Zäh, M. F., Wiendahl, H. H., Duffie, N., et al. (2007). Changeable manufacturing—classification, design and operation. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology,56(2), 783–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. H., Hsieh, T. Y., & Cheng, W. L. (2005). Statistical analysis of causes for design change in highway construction on Taiwan. International Journal of Project Management,23(7), 554–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, A. T. W., & Shen, G. Q. P. (2013). Problems and solutions of requirements management for construction projects under the traditional procurement systems. Facilities,31(5), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, 110016, India

    S. P. Sreenivas Padala & J. Uma Maheswari

Authors
  1. S. P. Sreenivas Padala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Uma Maheswari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. P. Sreenivas Padala.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Padala, S.P.S., Maheswari, J.U. Axiomatic design framework for changeability in design for construction projects. Asian J Civ Eng 21, 201–215 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00187-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00187-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation