Sustainable green construction management: schedule performance and improvement.
Hwang, Bon-Gang ; Leong, Lay Peng ; Huh, Young-Ki 等
JEL Classification: L74, O22, O32, O53.
Introduction
Building construction companies from various regions around the
world have integrated green concept into their construction plans to
mitigate the impacts to the environment (Hwang, Tan 2012). Singapore has
also shifted its focus to making sustainable development a key national
priority as well (Building and Construction Authority 2009; Hwang, Ng
2013; Kua 2011; Singapore Green Building Council 2009). Since the launch
of the Green Mark Scheme in 2005, the number of green mark certified
buildings in Singapore has increased to about 440 from the mere 17 green
mark certified buildings in 2005 (The Business Times 2010). Above and
beyond the Green Mark Scheme developed by the Building and Construction
Authority (BCA) to promote environmental sustainability in buildings,
BCA had also formulated the 1st and 2nd Green Building Masterplan
together with other efforts to thrust forward in developing more green
buildings in Singapore. By year 2030, through BCA's 2nd Green
Building Masterplan, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable
Development (IMCSD) targets to have at least 80% of the buildings in
Singapore to achieve the BCA Green Mark Certified rating (Building and
Construction Authority 2009). Furthermore, in order to intensify the
efforts in speeding up the development of green buildings in Singapore,
the Code for Environmental Sustainability of Buildings incorporated the
Green Mark Scheme, which requires all new building developments and
major renovations which are over 2000 meters square in size to achieve
minimum Green Mark certification in 2008 (Building and Construction
Authority 2008).
Male (1988) argued that projects that are completed on time can be
an indicator of an efficient construction industry. Positive
construction time performance can ensure that a project can be completed
within the stipulated time or earlier and provide the project owner with
a higher opportunity to generate revenue at an earlier stage. While many
researchers have performed analyses on the schedule performance of
traditional construction projects, there has been little research
focused on the schedule performance of green building construction
projects. Therefore, this study aims to: (1) compare schedule
performance of green and traditional building construction projects; and
(2) provide some recommendations to improve schedule performance of
green building projects. The analysis performed in this study identifies
how much less/more time green building construction saves/spends over
traditional building construction. Also, as there is rare reference
point to gauge the schedule performance of green building construction
projects, this study acts as a guide for the construction industry
players to benchmark the time taken to construct green building projects
in comparison with traditional building projects. Subsequently, this
study can contribute to the building and construction industry by
strengthening players' awareness and commitment towards sustainable
management of green project schedule performance.
1. Background
According to Li et al. (2011) the negative environmental impacts of
traditional building have attracted more attention to green buildings,
resulting in an increasing number of studies on the project delivery of
such building. The construction of green building is part of sustainable
construction. According to Kibert (2008), sustainable construction
addresses the ecological, social and economic issues of a building in
the context of its community. Sustainable construction is applied
throughout the entire life cycle of construction, from preconstruction
to disposal of the building. Such construction aimed to reduce the
impact of the construction practice on the environment through its
planning and managing of a construction project complying with the
contract document (Glavinich 2008).
Since the inception of Green Mark Scheme together with the 1st and
2nd Green Building Masterplan, Singapore has experienced a concerted
shift towards the development of green buildings (Tobias 2010). The
sharp growth in the number of BCA Green Mark Certified new buildings in
2007 is an evident success of the BCA's 1st Green Building
Masterplan which was launched in 2006 (Building and Construction
Authority 2009). The thrust towards more buildings being certified with
Green mark has grown beyond Singapore to overseas such as Thailand,
Vietnam, Indonesia, and China (Building and Construction Authority 2009;
Nguyen et al. 2004; Ogunlana et al. 1996; Zhang et al. 2011). At
present, statistics from the BCA green mark webpage revealed that there
are a total of 326 green mark certified buildings in Singapore where 52
buildings are awarded with green mark platinum, 36 green mark goldplus
certified, 134 green mark gold certified and 104 green mark certified
buildings (Building and Construction Authority 2010).
Korkmaz et al. (2010a) argued that owner commitment; project
delivery system, project team procurement, contract conditions, design
integration, project team characteristics, and construction process
might affect schedule, cost, quality, and sustainable performance of
green buildings and by managing these non-technical aspects, green
buildings can be delivered successfully. This result is along with the
findings of Enache-Pommer and Horman (2009), which identified the top
three attributes: owner commitment, expertise on sustainable delivery,
and early timing of sustainable objectives in the building delivery of
green hospitals. Furthermore, Li et al. (2011) summarized 19 specific
success factors for managing green building projects into five major
components, namely, human resourceoriented factors, technical and
innovation-oriented factor, support from designers and senior
management, project manager's competence, and coordination of
designers and contractors.
It has been identified that higher cost premium of green buildings
would be one of critical barriers against active implementation of green
concept and technologies to building projects (Tagaza, Wilson 2004;
Hwang, Tan 2012). According to Zhang et al. (2011), Global Green
Building Trends study, released in 2008, reported that of the over 700
construction professionals who responded to the survey, 80% cited
"higher first costs" as an obstacle to green building (Kats
2010). Similarly, planning that involves schedules of green buildings
tends to be affected by some specific features of green development.
Among various success factors that have identified by previous
studies such as Fortune and White (2006), Hwang and Lim (2013), Hwang et
al. (2013), Isik et al. (2009), Iyer and Jha (2006) and Lapinski et al.
(2006), intensive construction planning and scheduling are one of the
distinctive characteristics of green building construction, and green
requirements need to be well addressed and reflected in execution plans
and construction schedules to avoid any impediment (Glavinich 2008). As
noted by GreenBiz Group (2005), the design and construction process of
green building construction usually takes longer than traditional
building construction. This might be due to the reason that project team
members require more time to be familiar with and implement unique green
building practices. Design can be more complicated than that of a
conventional building due to the evaluation of alternative materials and
systems (Hwang, Ng 2013). Kats et al. (2003) and Kats (2010) also
supported that the design process of green building construction
generally takes longer than traditional design process. Design documents
are required to be more comprehensive and more time is necessary for
architectural and engineering designs to integrate green building
features. As a result, green building construction entails a more
holistic and integrated approach for its design (Korkmaz et al. 2010b)
and may result in increase of project schedule and cost (Glavinich 2008;
Hwang, Ng 2013; Kats et al. 2003; Kibert 2008).
Green requirements also affect the schedule of procurement,
construction, and commissioning (CIRIA 2001; Glavinich 2008; Choi 2009).
Contractors have to ensure that materials, equipment, devices, and
systems specific to green construction should be delivered as planned so
as not to affect construction activities and schedule. Also, green
requirements and constraints can have a great influence on construction
phase as well. For example, HVAC ducts are usually mounted before a
building under construction is enclosed. However, in green building
construction, to prevent any dust and moisture contamination, the
building is enclosed before installation of HVAC ducts (Glavinich 2008).
As such, green requirements may pose an impact on the construction
schedule and such requirements are needed to be indicated in the
schedule to prevent any problems causing project delay.
Commissioning and closing out of green building projects is more
complicated than that of conventional projects (Glavinich 2008). This is
especially so when clients wish to attain third party green
certification such as LEED and Green Mark. Also, there is a
responsibility to impart knowledge of green building systems to new
facilities management teams and end users to maintain the constructed
facility (CIRIA 2001). As a result, the time to be spent in
commissioning and closing out can be increased, affecting the entire
duration of green construction projects.
With consideration of these unique characteristics of green
construction, schedule performance of green building projects and its
performance has been of interest. Although there have been several
researches carried out to evaluate schedule performance of traditional
construction projects, there is limited literature that has explored the
areas mentioned above. As a result, this study tries to fill the gap by
analyzing the responses from a questionnaire survey and interviews with
industry experts.
2. Methodology and data presentation
Having conducted a comprehensive literature review of which the
result was summarized in the previous section, a survey questionnaire
was developed as input from industry practitioners were required to
ensure that this study can represent the overall green building
construction position. The main purpose of the survey was to observe how
schedule performance of green building construction projects differs
from traditional building projects. In addition, it intended to produce
some recommendations which would be useful to enhance green construction
schedule performance. The questionnaire was composed of four sections:
(1) the profile of the participating companies and respondents; (2) the
information of traditional and green building projects performed by the
companies; (3) the assessment of schedule performance of green building
projects; and (4) the solutions for improving green building schedule
performance. More details of the questions in the survey are explained
in the following section, in conjunction with the analysis results.
A total of 100 questionnaires were sent out with reference to the
list made available by the directories of the BCA registered contractors
and licensed builders, BCA green mark architectural firms, and Singapore
Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. As the BCA green mark scheme
commenced in 2005, the target of the survey was the companies that had
experience in both green and traditional projects performed in years of
2005 to 2010. As a result of the survey, 30 completed questionnaires
were returned and analyzed (Response Rate = 30%). 30 respondents that
represented their companies participated in the survey, based on the
projects that their companies performed during the given timeframe. Due
to confidentiality restrictions with the participating companies, the
direct collection of individual project performance data was restricted
while the respondents reported only aggregated data at the company
level. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the profiles of the companies,
respondents, and projects.
In addition to the survey, interviews with industry experts were
conducted to further supplement and substantiate the survey results.
This study was able to engage 6 project managers who have more than 3
years of experience in managing green building construction projects
that had been awarded Green Mark GoldPlus and Platinum. The analysis
results presented in the following section were reviewed by the
interviewees. Their shared views and experiences provided deep insights
and understanding with regard to how performance of green construction
would be like and differ from traditional construction. The interviewees
also facilitated in proposing recommendations to improve schedule
performance of green building projects.
3. Data analysis and discussions
3.1. Duration of green building construction projects
The respondents were first asked to provide the percentage of
additional time required by green building projects. All the respondents
agreed that green building projects took more time to complete when
compared to similar types of traditional projects, and the average of
the additional time taken was about 8% of the entire duration of the
traditional building projects considered. This is in line with the
findings of Glavinich (2008), which stated that green building
construction projects would take a longer period to complete.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 3, the survey result revealed that
design development of green building projects took 17.15% more time than
that of traditional projects. Planning and feasibility studies also
required additional time of 15.7%. According to Kubba (2010), green
buildings are progressively incorporating more advanced and intricate
systems of interacting elements. Furthermore, as mentioned by the
project managers interviewed for this study, during the design
development stage, greater efforts are made to ensure that all the green
features are incorporated into design items, and confirmation on the
design items is critical. Also, design consultants may require more time
to convince the client to adopt a particular green system.
For planning and feasibility study of green projects, it is
necessary to better understand green technologies to be used, which may
be relatively new to the project team members. Some interviewees
reported that most of the green technologies are imported from overseas
and to ensure its compatibility and performance in the local context,
numerous tests should be conducted. As a result, more time needs to be
allocated to the planning and feasibility stage.
Furthermore, 'Selection of Project Team' was ranked third
as shown in Table 3, indicating that this phase required 14.20% more
time than that of traditional projects. This might be because project
members to involve green projects need to have appropriate knowledge and
experience in green technologies. To select right team members and to
organize an optimizedproject team, rigorous selection procedures with a
set of qualification criteria should be developed and implemented even
if more time would be taken.
The analysis results discussed above were also supplemented by
analysing the impact of the 7 phases, which are listed in Table 3, on
entire schedule performance of green construction projects. Assuming
that the phases required more time may have a stronger impact on project
schedule performance, the survey asked the respondents to rank the level
of relative significance of the phases, with 1 being most significant
and 7 being least significant. The analysis revealed that the design
development stage had the highest impact on schedule performance of
green projects with mean rank of 2.23. In addition, the schematic design
(Mean Rank = 3.10) and the planning and feasibility study (Mean Rank =
3.43) were ranked second and third, respectively. Based on these
results, it could be deduced that project planning, feasibility studies,
design development and schematic design need to be adequately managed to
produce good schedule performance of green construction projects.
3.2. Difficulty in meeting as-planned schedule
The next question included in the survey asked the respondents to
rate the difficulty in meeting the targeted schedule of green
construction projects, with a scale of 1 being least difficult to 5
being 'most difficult. As shown in Table 4, majority of the
respondents were in opinion that the difficulty of following as-planned
schedule for both traditional (Mean = 3.367; SD = 1.189) and green
building projects (Mean = 3.667; SD = 1.124) were somewhat similar. In
order to see if the mean difference was statistically significant, the
paired samples t-test was conducted and the p-value was 0.001,
indicating that it is indeed more difficult for green projects to adhere
to their as-planned schedule.
The project managers interviewed for this study commented that
tools and systems being used for schedule management of green projects
would not differ from those for traditional building projects. However,
since green building projects would be more intricate, meeting
as-planned schedule might be more laborious. For example, when new
technologies and control systems need to be used to meet specific
requirements of a green construction project, it is difficult to
accurately estimate duration of the related activities. This may cause
contractors in charge of the activities to easily go over the deadlines
set by the estimation, resulting inschedule overrun of the entire
project. As a result, the next section discusses the result of further
analysis on the schedule overrun of green building projects.
3.3. Schedule overrun of green building construction projects
In order to identify schedule performance of green building
projects, the frequency and the percentage of schedule overrun were
analyzed, and Table 5 presents the summary of the analysis results.
The respondents were first required to report the frequency of
green building projects completed later than as-planned schedule. As
shown in Table 5, 50% of the respondents (15) indicated that half of the
green building projects that their companies performed were completed
behind their planned schedule. On average, the frequency of schedule
overrun of green building projects was approximately 43%, indicating
that about 4 out of 10 green projects that they had performed
experienced schedule overrun. This probability can be considerably high
and it may be attributable to the complexity in green construction.
Another possible reason is that more time is required by key project
team members to fully understand the green technology systems which are
incorporated into the design. In addition, it is necessary to ensure
that the green elements are able to be integrated with the other
building systems fully to prevent any conflicts during construction
(Glavinich 2008; GreenBiz Group 2005; Kats et al. 2003).
Furthermore, as shown in Table 5, more than half of the respondents
(16) reported that the amount of the schedule overrun of their projects
ranged from 4 to 6% of the as-planned schedule. Also, the mean shown in
Table 5 (4.8%) indicated that the actual schedule of the green projects
was delayed by an average of 4.8%, which might be considered relatively
severe. Thus, it can be of paramount concern of both clients and
contractors as such delay has substantial effect on the overall project
performance, ultimately reducing chances of producing successful
projects.
3.4. Recommendations for green construction schedule performance
improvement
The last section of the survey questionnaire inquired about
respondents' sentiment in identifying possible recommendations to
enhance green building construction project schedule performance. 14
possible solutions were included in the survey as a result of the review
on several literatures (Alaghbari et al. 2007; Assaf et al. 1995;
Beheiry et al. 2006; Chan, Kumaraswamy 1996; Kibert 2008; Korkmaz et al.
2010b; Lapinski et al. 2006; Magent et al. 2009; Nofera, Korkmaz 2010;
Project Management Institute 2004; Smith 2003). The solutions were rated
by the respondents with a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1 being most relevant
and 5 being least relevant), and Table 6 illustrates the ranking of the
mean scores for the 14 listed solutions.
The top 5 solutions are further discussed as follows:
Ensure that the actual construction schedule and resources are
seriously monitored and reviewed so that the performance is in line with
as planned to avoid chances of cost overrun and disputes: Project
managers should check that the green building construction planning and
scheduling are in perpetual processes during construction and the
schedule plans correspond with the time to develop the work and
resources to prevent cost overrun and disputes (Assaf et al. 1995). To
ensure that the project schedule and resources are constantly monitored
and reviewed, owners may deploy certain tools and techniques for
schedule control. A schedule control system may be set up to define the
procedures when changes occur in the project schedule, and performance
measurements should be carried out to assess the degree of variations
that took place (Project Management Institute 2004).
Ensure that design documents are produced on time: Design documents
may include detailed construction drawings and specifications. When
design documents are prepared to the required level, the design
documents are used to secure a building permit, to competitively bid the
work among qualified contractors and ultimately as the basis for the
construction of the project. In addition, the design documents are
submitted for approval and review by the local government building
authority. As such, it is crucial that design documents are produced on
time to facilitate the necessary actions and activities as mentioned in
the former without impeding the project schedule.
Ensure that contractor have the capability and the resources for
constructing the project before awarding the tender: According to
Alaghbari et al. (2007) contractor related factors such as difficulties
in financing projects, deficiencies in planning and updating schedule,
and new construction methods implemented would have relatively high
impact on project schedule performance. Considering that green
construction requires new technologies, comprehensive planning and
control, and experienced project team members, it is crucial to select
contractors who can meet all the requirements. As a result, more
comprehensive analysis on contractors' capacity should be performed
before awarding necessary contracts. Development of a rigorous set of
evaluation criteria that can be considered to screen contractors needs
to be developed and implemented, based on specific requirements of green
construction projects.
Check for mistakes and discrepancies in design documents to avoid
redoing of designs and drawing before submission for approval to avoid
variations or necessary corrections: When mistakes and discrepancies are
discovered in design documents, redoing of designs and drawing requires
extra time beyond the as-planned schedule to make the necessary changes
(Assaf et al. 1995) and it will more often than not lead to poor time
performance (Chan, Kumaraswamy 1996). When these mistakes and
discrepancies are detected especially during the construction stage,
variations leading to rework may take place thus giving rise to
redundant work with additional cost pumped in to make the corrections.
Alternative procurement method should be analysed to ensure it
meets the project requirements and complexity: Every procurement method
has a different course of project development and involves different
relationships between all the project team members (Nofera, Korkmaz
2010). As such, clients should analyse the project characteristics with
care to select the appropriate procurement method as misinterpretation
of project characteristics would probably lead to poor project
performance and resulting in cost growth (Smith 2003). Due to the higher
complexity of technical systems used in green building construction
projects, the projects requires high levels of interdependency,
communications and close partnerships with all the project participants
during design stages (Kibert 2008; Magent et al. 2009; Korkmaz et al.
2010b). In addition, research had also shown that early involvement of
owners would enable green building construction projects to achieve its
green objectives at lower cost (Beheiry et al. 2006; Lapinski et al.
2006). Accordingly, it is vital to analyse alternative procurement
methods to achieve better green building construction project
performance.
3.5. Limitations
Although the analyses performed for this study provided meaningful
finding and led to some productive discussions, one of the limitations
is the small sample size as the survey only managed to obtain 30
completed sets. With a higher response rate, it would be able to project
a more accurate industrial perspective with regard to the current green
construction schedule performance in comparison with traditional
building construction projects. Another limitation is only the
consultants' and contractors' point of views was obtained as
the client/developers of past green construction projects declined to
respond to the research survey. Lastly, the respondents were reluctant
to provide actual data of individual projects due to some
confidentiality issues. Instead, the respondents went through their
projects to investigate and compare actual and planned schedules of
their projects. Then, they provided the average percentage of their
companies.
Conclusions and recommendations
In April 2008, legislation mandated that all new buildings should
achieve minimum Green Mark standard. Since new building construction
projects are obliged to comply with Green Mark Scheme standards, it is
therefore essential to look into how green building construction project
performance can be managed more effectively. As such, this study aimed
to address schedule performance of green building construction projects
and provided some recommendations that may improve the performance.
The literature review performed for this study indicated that
construction schedule performance was closely linked to construction
cost and quality, and intrinsically, it was used as a benchmark to
evaluate the performance of the entire project and efficiency of the
project organization. In addition, it was widely discussed that green
building construction projects required a more holistic and integrated
approach in its delivery system as compared to traditional building
construction projects. As green building construction required a more
detailed design due to its complex technological characteristics, it
called for greater efforts in communication and collaboration between
project parties.
Furthermore, the analysis performed for this study revealed that on
average, green building projects required about 8% more time to complete
than traditional building construction projects with consideration of
comparable characteristics. Also, it can be concluded that the planning
and feasibility studies stage (15.70%), and design development stage
(17.15%) were the two phases that were accountable for the increased use
of time in order to achieve 'green' goals for green building
construction projects. Similarly, the ranked project phases by the
survey respondents revealed that design development stage (mean rank =
2.23), schematic design (mean rank = 3.10) as well as planning and
feasibility stage (mean rank = 3.43) had the highest impact on green
building project schedule performance. In addition, the frequency of
green building projects that experienced schedule overrun amounts to an
average of 43% and the actual construction schedule would differ
approximately 4.8% from the as-planned schedule which was attributed
mainly by the design development phase.
Project participants may also consider the following
recommendations drawn upon from this study in ensuring positive green
construction project schedule performance: (1) to ensure that the actual
construction schedule and resources are seriously monitored and reviewed
so that the performance is in line with as planned to avoid chances of
cost overrun and disputes; (2) to ensure that design documents are
produced on time; (3) to ensure that contractors have the capability and
the resources for constructing the project before awarding the tender;
(4) to check for mistakes and discrepancies in design documents to avoid
redoing of designs and drawing before submission for approval to avoid
variations or necessary corrections; and (5) alternative procurement
method should be analysed to ensure it meets the project requirements
and complexity.
On the basis of the above findings, this study offers a benchmark
for the industry to gauge the overall time duration required by a green
building construction as compared to a traditional green building
project of similar characteristics. Similarly, Clients should take into
consideration the additional time required by the project phases when
setting out the overall project schedule for green building projects.
For future studies, a construction time prediction model can be
developed for a specific type of green building construction projects.
The types of green projects that can be first considered for the
development are industrial, housing, and commercial projects. Also, as
project planning and feasibility studies together with project design
stage in green building construction projects bear the highest impact on
project schedule performance, one can also analyze the entire process of
these two stages under various factors such as how different procurement
method may affect project schedule to identify areas to enhance the
project schedule performance.
doi: 10.3846/20294913.2013.869669
References
Alaghbari, W.; Kadir, M. R. A.; Salim, A.; Ernawati. 2007. The
significant factors causing delay of building construction projects in
Malaysia, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 14(2):
192-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980710731308
Assaf, S. A.; AI-Khalil, M.; AI-Hazmi, M. 1995. Causes of delay in
large building construction projects, Journal of Management in
Engineering 11(2): 45-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1995)11:2(45)
Beheiry, S. M. A.; Chong. W. K.; Haas, C. T. 2006. Examining the
business impact of owner commitment to sustainability, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 132(4): 384-92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:4(384)
Building and Construction Authority (BCA) 2008. Code for
environmental sustainability of buildings (Version 1.0). Singapore: BCA.
[online], [cited 12 Feb 2011]. Available from Internet: http://www.
bca.gov.sg/EnvSusLegislation/others/Env_Sus_Code.pdf
Building and Construction Authority (BCA). 2009. 2nd Green Building
Masterplan. Singapore: BCA. [online], [cited 12 Feb 2011]. Available
from Internet: http://www.bca.gov.sg/Newsroom/others/ pr270409.pdf
Building and Construction Authority (BCA). 2010. BCA clinches
prestigious award from The Aspen Institute and sets higher Green Mark
standards for new buildings. Singapore: BCA. [online], [cited 12 Feb
2011]. Available from Internet:
http://www.greenmark.sg/news_August05.html
Chan, D.W. M.; Kumaraswamy, M. M. 1996. An evaluation of
construction time performance in the building industry, Building and
Environment 31(6): 569-578.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-1323(96)00031-5
Choi, C. 2009. Removing market barriers to green development:
principles and action projects to promote widespread adoption of green
development practices, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 1(1): 107-138.
CIRIA. 2001. Sustainable Construction Procurement: a guide to
delivering environmentally responsible projects. London: CIRIA.
Enache-Pommer, E.; Horman, M. 2009. Key processes in the building
delivery of green hospitals, in Building a sustainable future, ASCE,
Reston, VA, 636-645.
Fortune, J.; White, D. 2006. Framing of project critical success
factors by a systems model, International Journal of Project Management
24(1): 53-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.07.004
Glavinich, T. E. 2008. Contractor's guide to green building
construction. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470259979
GreenBiz Group. 2005. Green building technique: a two-minute
briefing on key business environmental issues. Oakland: GreenBiz Group
Inc. [online], [cited 27 Feb 2011]. Available from Internet: http://
www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/files/document/O16F4162.pdf
Hwang, B. G.; Lim, E. S. 2013. Critical success factors for key
players and objectives: case study of Singapore, ASCE Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 139(2): 204-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000597
Hwang, B. G.; Ng, W. J. 2013. Project management knowledge and
skills for green construction: overcoming challenges, International
Journal of Project Management 31(2): 272-284.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.05.004
Hwang, B. G.; Tan, J. S. 2012. Green building project management:
obstacles and solutions for sustainable development, Sustainable
Development 20(5): 335-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.492
Hwang, B. G.; Zhao, X.; Ng, S. Y. 2013. Identifying the critical
factors affecting schedule performance of public housing projects,
Habitat International 38: 214-221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.008
Isik, Z.; Arditi, D.; Dikmen, I.; Birgonul, M. T. 2009. Impact of
corporate strengths/weaknesses on project management competencies,
International Journal of Project Management 27(6): 629-637.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10.002
Iyer, K. C.; Jha, K. N. 2006. Critical factors affecting schedule
performance: evidence from Indian construction projects, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 132(8): 871-881.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:8(871)
Kats, G.; Alevantis, L.; Berman, A.; Mills, E.; Berkeley, L.;
Perlman, J. 2003. The costs and financial benefits of green buildings. A
Report to California's Sustainable Building Task Force.
Kats, G. 2010. Greening our built world: costs, benefits, and
strategies. New York: Island Press.
Kibert, C. J. 2008. Sustainable construction: green building design
and delivery. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Korkmaz, S.; Riley, D.; Horman, M. 2010a. Piloting evaluation
metrics for sustainable, high performance building project delivery,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136(8): 877-885.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000195
Korkmaz, S.; Messner, J. I.; Riley, D. R.; Magent, C. 2010b.
High-performance green building design process modeling and integrated
use of visualization tools, Journal of Architectural Engineering 16(1):
37-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2010)16:1(37)
Kua, H. W. 2011. Integrated sustainability policies for
China's cement industry--a case study approach, in environmental
change in Asia: challenges and prospects. Pearson, Singapore.
Kubba, S. 2010. Green construction project management and cost
oversight. U.S.A: Elsevier.
Lapinski, A. R.; Horman, M. J.; Riley, D. R. 2006. Lean processes
for sustainable project delivery, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 132(10): 1083-1091.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1083)
Li, Y. Y.; Chen, P.; Chew, A. S.; Teo, C. C.; Ding, R. G. 2011.
Critical project management factors of AEC firms for delivering green
building projects in Singapore, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 137(12): 1153-1163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000370
Magent, C. S.; Korkmaz, S.; Klotz, L. E.; Riley, D. R. 2009. A
design process evaluation method for sustainable buildings,
Architectural Engineering and Design Management 5: 62-74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/aedm.2009.0907
Male, S. 1988. Faster building for commerce. UK: National Economic
Development Office.
Nguyen, D. L.; Ogunlana, S.; Truong, Q.; Ka, C. L. 2004. Large
construction projects in developing countries: a case study from
Vietnam, International Journal of Project Management 22(7): 553-561.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.03.004
Nofera, W.; Korkmaz, S. 2010. Design process integration for
sustainable, high performance buildings, in Engineering Project
Organizations Conference, South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Ogunlana, S. O.; Promkuntong, K.; Jearkjirm, V. 1996. Construction
delays in a fast growing economy: comparing Thailand with other
economies, International Journal of Project Management 14(1): 37-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00052-6
Project Management Institute 2004. A guide to the project
management body of knowledge (PMBOK' Guide) Third Edition. USA:
Project Management Institute
Singapore Green Building Council (SGBC). 2009. A Strategic plan.
Singapore: SGBC. [online], [cited 27 Feb 2011]. Available from Internet:
http://www.sgbc.sg/images/uploads/SGBC_Strategic_Plan_v5.pdf
Smith, A. 2003. Building momentum: national trends and prospects
for high performance green buildings. Green Building Roundtable and
Prepared for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
(U.S. Green Building Council). Washington, D.C.
Tagaza, E.; Wilson, J. L. 2004. Green buildings: drivers and
barriers e lessons learned from five melbourne developments, in Report
Prepared for Building Commission by University of Melbourne and Business
Outlook and Evaluation.
The Business Times. 2010. Making Their Mark on The Environment.
Singapore: Environmental Directory. [online], [cited 10 December 2011].
Available from Internet:
http://www.greensingapore.com/Singlenews.aspx?DirID=55&rec_code=591674
Tobias, C. 2010. Outlook for carbon markets uncertain, in
Eco-Business. [online], [cited 10 December 2011]. Available from
Internet: http://www.eco-business.com/blog/outlook-carbon-markets-uncertain/
Zhang, X.; Platten, A.; Shen, L. 2011. Green property development
practice
in China: costs and barriers, Building and Environment 46(11):
2153-2160.
Bon-Gang HWANG is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Building at National University of Singapore. He has several years of
experience in the construction industry in South Korea, USA, and
Singapore. His current research interests are in the areas of management
strategies and innovations for green construction projects, performance
assessment and improvement, and risk management.
Lay Peng LEONG graduated from the National University of Singapore
in 2011 in Project and Facilities Management. She had been with EC
Harris Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore as an Cost Control Executive since
2011.
Young-Ki HUH is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Architectural Engineering at the Pusan National University, Republic of
Korea. He is a member of Korea Institute Construction Engineering and
Management (KICEM) and Architectural Institute of Korea. His research
interests include project success factors, productivity analysis, cost
estimation of a public housing project, and standardized cost estimation
system for public sector.
Bon-Gang HWANG (a), Lay Peng LEONG (b), Young-Ki HUH (c)
(a) School of Design & Environment, National University of
Singapore, 157766 Singapore
(b) Executive, Cost Control, EC Harris Singapore Pte Ltd, 089315
Singapore
(c) School of Architecture, Pusan National University, Busan,
609-735 South Korea
Received 25 January 2012; accepted 20 May 2012
Corresponding author Young-Ki HUH
E-mail:
[email protected]
Table 1. Profile of companies and respondents
Years of experience
1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years
Characteristics C.I G C.I G
Company Construction 0 2 0 3
Consulting 0 0 0 0
Development 0 0 0 0
Quantity 0 0 0 0
Total 0 2 0 3
(0%) (6,6%) (0%) (10%)
Respondent Project 0 3 0 3
Manager/
Construction
Manager
Project 0 0 0 1
Director/Higher
Management
Projecr 0 0 0 1
Personnel
Total 0 3 0 5
(0%) (10%) (0%) (16.67%)
Years of experience
3 to 4 years >4 years
Characteristics C.I G C.I G
Company Construction 0 4 18 9
Consulting 0 1 5 4
Development 0 1 3 2
Quantity 0 0 4 4
(13.33%)
Total no/ 6 30 20
0% (20%) (100%) (63,33%)
Respondent Project 0 5 18 7
Manager/
Construction
Manager
Project 0 3 4 0
Director/Higher Management
Projecr 1 2 7 5
Personnel
Total 1 10 29 12
(3.33%) (33.33%) (96.67%) (40%)
Characteristics Total
(N = 30)
Company Construction 18
(60%)
Consulting 5
(16.67%)
Development 3
(10%)
Quantity 4
Total 30
(100%)
Respondent Project 18
Manager/ (60%)
Construction
Manager
Project 4
Director/Higher (13.33%)
Management
Projecr 8
(26.67%)
Personnel
Total 30
(100%)
C.I refers to years of experience in construction industry;
G refers to years of experience in green building construction;
Higher Management includes Executive president, Project Director,
General Manager and Managing Director;
Project Personnel includes Project Engineers, Construction
Engineers, and Quantity Surveyors.
Table 2. Profile of projects
Characteristics Traditional Green
Projects Projects
No. % No. %
Project Nature Commercial 48 21.81 28 29.17
Project Type Residential 91 41.36 21 21.88
Educational 81 36.81 47 48.96
New Construction 184 83.63 93 96.88
Addition & Aliteration 36 16.36 3 3.12
Project size Less than $5M 32 14.54 3 3.13
$5M to less than $10M 6 2.72 8 8.33
$10M to less than $20M 35 15.90 6 6.25
$20M to less than $30M 33 15.00 13 13.54
$30M to less than $40M 15 6.81 16 16.67
$40M to less than $50M 27 12.27 18 18.75
$50M and Above 72 32.72 32 33.33
Total 220 100 96 100
Table 3. Green project duration and schedule impact
Additional Impact on Schedule
Duration of Performance of
Green Project Green Project
(% of
Traditional
Project
Duration)
Project Phase Mean S. D. Mean Rank S. D.
Planning and Feasibility Studies 15.70 7.07 3.43 2.25
Selection of Project Team 14.20 8.18 4.30 2.31
Schemetic Development 9.62 7.22 3.10 1.13
Design Development 17.15 7.15 2.23 1.31
Tender Document 9.37 6.72 4.70 1.09
Construction 12.20 7.93 4.30 1.56
Closing Out and Commissioning 3.77 2.58 5.93 1.74
Table 4. Difficulty in meeting targeted schedule
Variable Mean N Std. T-test
Deviation (p-value)
Difficulty in meeting targetted 3.367 30 1.189
schedule (Traditional)
0.001
Difficulty in meeting targetted 3.667 30 1.124
schedule (Green)
Table 5. Schedule overrun of green building construction projects
Freaquency of Schedule Overrun
of Green Building Construction
Projects
Scale No. of % Mean, S. D.
Respondents %
Not at all 3 10.00
(0%)
Seldom 7 23.33
(1%-49%)
Half of their 15 50.00
time (50%) 43.33 21.71
Most of the time 5 16.67
(51%-99%)
All the time 0 0.00
(100%)
Freaquency Schedule of Overrun of Green Building
of Schedule Construction Projects (% of Planned
Overrun of Schedule)
Green Building
Construction
Projects
Scale Scale, No. of % Mean, S. D.
% Respondents %
Not at all 0 3 10
(0%)
Seldom 1-3 5 16.67
(1%-49%)
Half of their 4-6 16 53.33
time (50%) 4.80 2.76
Most of the time 7-9 3 10.00
(51%-99%)
All the time [greater than 3 10.00
or equal to]10
Table 6. Recommendations for green construction schedule performance
improvement
Recommendations Mean S. D. Rank
Ensure that the actual construction schedule and
resources are seriously monitored and reviewed so 4.40 0.77 1
that the performance is in the line with as
planned to avoid the chances of cost overrun and
disputes
Ensure that design documents are produced on time 4.37 1.03 2
Ensure that contractors have the capability and 4.37 1.00 2
the resources for constructing the project before
awarding the tender
Check for mistakes and discrepancies in design
documents to avoid redo-ing of designs and drawing 4.17 0.95 4
before submission for approval to avoid
variations or necessary corrections
Alternative procurement method should be analysed 4.17 0.99 4
to ensure it meets the project requirements and
complexity
To minimize variation orders to avoid delays 4.07 0.69 6
Avoid delay in when reviewing and approval of 4.00 0.64 7
documents, materials or others are needed
Ensure that there is optimum number of labours to 3.97 0.81 8
be assigned for individual activities and
motivate the workers to increase productivity
Administrative and technical staff should be
appointed as soon as project is awarded to 3.93 1.02 9
facilitate the project is completed within
specified time with the required quality and
estimated cost
Consultants should not delay the checking, 3.93 1.05 9
reviewing and approving of design documents
leading to a delay in construction phase
Pay progress payment to the contractor timely to 3.90 1.09 11
facilitate the contractors' ability to finance
the work
Consultant should be flexibile in evaluating 3.57 0.73 12
contractors work and balance between the required
quality with cost
Contractor should manage his financial resources 3.47 1.14 13
and plan cash flow by utilizing progress payment
Contractor should carry out a comprehensive 3.10 1.03 14
economic analysis and workable financial plans
