Design and Construction Integration

The following is an interview with a principal design manager who works for a large Design & Build
contractor on an iconic project in London.

The design manager about his work

I did part one architecture at the university and decided that I was more interested in the details and
how you put things together as opposed to the conceptual courses that the architectural schools
provide. In 2001 and at the end of part one of my studies, I was offered a role as a design
coordinator to work in London, which I accepted and never looked back. I was a design coordinator
for three years then I moved to another company as a design manager for eight and half years. All
this time, I was always based onsite. I moved to another company where I worked offsite within the
design teams as a design manager for four years. I joined the current job as a principal design
manager in September 2015.

In that period, how did you develop design management knowledge? What do you
see as design management?
Our role is mainly two folds; firstly, it is managing the design programme and the adequacy and
quality of design information as well as managing the release of information from the designers in
time to meet the programme and lead-in periods thus to get these to the site when it is needed.
Design management is very much planning and organising the design team and making sure that
they issue information when we need it. The other fold is checking the compliance of the design
information against client's requirements, building regulations and a whole range of information we
should satisfy and comply with. The biggest problem is making sure that the information is in a
buildable format. It is very often that we get information that is drawn by consultants, which means
nothing to the team onsite, e.g. missing details or reference to specifications. The drawing might be
clear to somebody who knows the information, i.e. information that is meant for internal use but is
issued to site. We make sure that the information that is passed to the site team is easily readable
and easily understandable and simply interpret what is supposed to be built.

Designers are used to developing the design in a way to make the building work however a lot of
designers have never been to a building site listening to the queries raised by the trades. On jobs
where the design team are resident onsite, they would walk away with completely different ideas
because as soon as they are in front of a trade contractor saying I can't get on with this information,
it starts to change the way they think. The designers are not producing the information that tells the
people how the building is going to look. They are producing the information for the guy onsite to do
his job. A good design manager role is to get this type of information right first time. It is setting the
level of details and the scale of the information that is to be produced and by whom. The designers
have the big picture, but they need to scale it down to be used onsite with no ambiguity.

There are similar issues within the design team too, i.e. not just between the design
team and the trade contractors. The question is about how to get information
together from all those who are contributing to the project.
In my previous job, for each package that the company procures there is a set of design information
that goes with it. In accordance with the company internal QA process, for each package, there
should be a workshop with the designers that is led by the design manager and attended by the
relevant package manager and the commercial manager. We would review the information before
we send the package out for tender and we would ask the designers to amend the information to
suit the trade contractors, i.e. add information where necessary, change the format if needed and
have a general coordination review of the information before the tender document is sent out.
That is a very good way of articulating to the architect, service and structure engineers what we
want to do as well as getting the buy in from the rest of the team that this is the information and it is
complete and correct.

Here at this project, we have a meeting before we start working on a trade package to say this is
what is within the scope of this package. I produce what I call Package Scope Sheet which I give to
the architects to tell them exactly what I think is in that work package and then we will meet midway
through their design period to check where they are up to, have some comments and review the
information before we issue it. This is a proactive approach as I'm not waiting passively for the
designers to issue the drawings then comment on them. Instead, comments are incorporated all the
way through the process from the beginning to the end so the checking of the information I get once
the drawings are issued is just ticking the boxes. On this project, we needed to be proactive because
we've got a very little float in the programme. We are building the job, but at the same time, the
designers are designing the job, so everything is on the basis of Just-In-Time (JIT) information. If the
information is not good enough, then we put the construction programme at risk. We have to be
proactive in checking before it is needed onsite.

When it comes to the programme, how do you tease out the design programme from
the construction programme?
We have to use a couple of tools. Our project lead planner develops the construction programme,
and we extract from it the design programme on the basis of package by package start onsite dates.
Then we apply the lead-in and procurement periods for the design to be ready on that date, e.g. the
average steelwork piece of steel requires 16 weeks lead period while some long lead steel items are
24 weeks. For that piece of steel to be installed onsite, we need all the design information 24 weeks
in advance of the installation date stated on the programme. So we map that back to get the date
for when we need to have all the design information about this piece of steel. In an ideal world you
have a float so you can use the float if we miss a date but on this job, a lot of it has been JIT
information that leads to procurement. One of the problems we've faced is that we have in the
initial programme 16 weeks leading to a typical piece of steel. However, Hares came back with 24
weeks which have big implications for the design programme. So the earlier you can get input from
the trade contractor to verify that lead-in period for them the better because that will tell us
whether the sequence in the programme is correct.

Do you produce design information schedule?

We have two sets of design information schedules; we have an overall design programme that
sequences the design in term of design coordination. Once we get the trade contractor on board for
each package, we work with them on producing the information requirement schedule by breaking
down the overall programme for that package. For example, I need Level 0 to 3 by this date and 3 to
10 by this date, so we break them down on a package basis and monitor those in trade contractors’
meetings.

How do you manage and deal with this massive amount of information?
I’ve got a team of design managers who each deals with specific packages, e.g. steel and concrete of
the shell and cores, façade, lifts and so on. The design management team expands as more
packages are procured. I’m responsible for the planning and compliance with requirements, client
interface and architectural package. We've got an agreed drawings list for the designers, so we
know what they intend to produce therefore we can allocate packages accordingly, and all we have
to do is monitoring.

Any design information that goes into the system gets a status from our company dedicated person.
Therefore, all the drawings onsite should have our stamp on them. This doesn't say that we have
fully approved the drawing as we don't take responsibility for the design but this means that it has
been through a QA process from our side, i.e. one of my team has said that in our opinion this
drawing contains all the information that is needed onsite. We only monitor consultant drawings list
against the information on the drawings.

I also use, a Distribution Matrix, to be able to keep up to date with my document controller that says
for example, when the structural steel drawing for level 25 comes in, it needs to be distributed to
these people.

Do the trade contractors have design responsibilities?

Most of the trade packages include an element of design. In the case of the steelwork, for example,
it is Hares responsibility to finish the detailed design, things such as connections design and checks
on fire protection, etc. They reproduce the information on their own drawings that are logged in
their drawing file to go through the process of comments and approvals from the design team. That
information comes back to our company to be checked, and we put a final status on it to say we are
happy for it to be released onsite. Everything is issued by the trade contractor get a status A, B and
C. (A: No Comment, B: Noted subject to comments. Correct and resubmit within 5 business days. C:
Rejected. Correct and resubmit within 5 business days.)

How do you draw the line between the designers’ responsibility and the trade
contractors’ responsibility?
On this project, the client has appointed the designers to a written scope of services. We have
produced a full schedule of services as we have converted the client’s written scope into Design
Responsibility Matrix which says for each package who is doing what, who need the package and
whether there is a design intent within the package, is it a full design package or only for certain
design information. If there is a design intent, then the responsibility of the trade contractor to
finish that information is stated in the Matrix. These are fairly detailed, and everyone knows what
their responsibilities are. The other part of the scope meetings that we have for the packages is to
say to them this is the level of information we expect from you to be able to produce to give it to
someone to finish.

Are your design management efforts focused more on the level of consultants or the
more detailed level of trade contractors?
We do the whole lot. I currently have to manage about 18 different consultants. We manage the
design of all the designers involved on this project, whether appointed by the client and retained by
the client, appointed by the client and novated to us or whether we appoint them and approved by
the client.
How do you work with the design team? Do they all work internally as far as their
organisations or do you work in their organisations with them to sort out design
management issues?
We meet for a formal design meeting every Tuesday for an hour and a half we are quite strict on
time. This meeting is a programme overview meeting. Every week we review the information that
is due this week, the status of that information and if there is any missing information that the
consultants should produce. In the meeting, we agree whether to hold workshops with the relevant
trade contractor(s) to coordinate the design. These workshops tend to be on Thursdays where we
go through basement coordination for example. The designers design and coordinate amongst
themselves and we give them advice on buildability and discuss with them the changes we want to
make. We tend just to work together. I don't send a design programme then sit here waiting for a
month or so then expect the information issued by the designers would meet the requirements of
the programme. I probably talk to the architects and the engineers four or five times a day every
day.

How do you sort out the buildability issues?

We discuss the sequence of how we want to build a section of the building so there may be
something in the sequence that drives how we want the things to be designed. For example, we
were looking at wind canopies yesterday, and we asked the designers to adjust the design to suite
the sequence of putting it up. We install first the steelwork, then the glass mullions, and finally we
install the wind canopy. This installation sequence required that the designers have to redesign the
wind canopy connections.

We also often have a situation where a trade contractor would say we don't want to install a certain
building element in the sequence prescribed and we want to change the design to make it easier to
be built. One example was the perimeter steel columns. These are large steel columns spans from
basement 3 all the way to ground floor and weight from 7 to 26 tonnes. The steel columns have
splices as they go up. The structural engineers design was that these columns are joined by welding
a plate on the outside of the column to give it stiffness. The steel trade contractors didn’t agree on
this method as they don't want a welding job on the side of the building. The steel trade contractor
suggested a change so that the splice detail is a bolted solution that they can do at the edge of the
slab. We had few workshops with steel contractor and the engineers over two and half weeks of
discussions, agreements and disagreements until we arrived at a decision and a revised design for
the connections to provide a better and safer installation method onsite.

Do the trade contractors sit on the design coordination meetings?

What we typically do depend on the package. We chair a meeting every Wednesday with the steel
trade contractor and the engineers to coordinate the steelwork. We meet weekly also for the
concrete work with reinforced concrete trade contractor, however, for the staircases, for example,
we meet with stairs trade contractor every three weeks. These regular workshops are to go through
buildability and programme issues. The intervals depend on how big and intensive the package
is. These workshops are attended by the engineers’ relevant designers and the relevant trade
contractor. The architects attend a meeting when their input is required, e.g. they don’t sit in the
steelwork workshops as these are intended for the detailed design of connections and calculations,
designing holes through the beams and things like that. However, when there is a meeting that
affects the special fit, our policy is that the structural guy from architects should attend the meeting
to do the coordination elements for architecture. The splice in the column redesign is a good
example of a situation that needed the architect contribution too. The column became slightly
bigger because of the redesign of the connections. The architects had to redesign the column
encasing in the affected areas. In summary, whenever a change is suggested we have to make sure
we follow its implications all the way through back to the architectural design.

As we know, the client is a very knowledgeable client. What are the implications this
may have on the design management process?
We carry out regular client design session every Tuesday afternoon at 2 o'clock. This is the client
design meeting. The designers and we attend this meeting. There we raise the issues that we need
to discuss with the client, and we go through everything on the meeting agenda. The client get all
the information that we have for that week with our status stamped on it so they can comment,
accept, disagree or whatever they want to do with that information. Hopefully, the client issues all
the information that comes onto the system for that period. When we go to contract there will be a
whole team that is set up to monitor the design information on behalf of the client.

Is the client looking at it from a cost perspective?

At the moment they are looking at it from a cost perspective. But when the client signs the fixed
price D&B contract, they will check whether the information put forward are complying with what
they want.

How do you deal with the interfaces between the trades?

We developed an Interface Matrix that serves two objectives. First, how packages interface with
each other, e.g. The fixing system STC of the staircases provided by the stairs STC interfaces with the
core concrete provided by the reinforced concrete STC. The stairs STC design the fixing that should
be provided by the fixing STC to be installed in the reinforced concrete STC to a specific tolerance to
allow the staircases STC to fix the stairs. In the Interface Matrix, this is one of the supply interfaces
that we identified, i.e. the stairs STC provides the fixing design to the fixing STC who will in their turn
manufacture and provide the fixing to reinforced concrete STC to be put into their concrete. In the
matrix we listed out who is responsible for designing the fixing, supplying them and fixing these
items into the concrete. Some interfaces are reasonably easy such as this one because the three
involved STCs are used to this kind of interfaces. Some other interfaces are more complex therefore
we have dedicated workshops to sort out who is doing what and when, e.g. the design of the
cladding system secondary steelwork that is supported by the steel STC should be coordinated. So
we had the steelwork STC with the cladding STC last week to solve this interface. One of the main
concerns for the cladding trade contractor was the axial shortening of the columns owing to the self-
weight of this tall building that will cause the steel columns to shrink by a couple of mm. The
cladding trade contractor needed to know exactly how the steel trade contractor is taking that
tolerance.

We don’t know all the coordination issues that might arise but we can identify about 70% of the
interface issues, and the rest would be found out through continuous dialogue with contractors.

The biggest interface is between the structure and the services.

The main challenge of the services is the basement. It is an existing basement therefore cutting and
carving to suite the services that need to go there is very difficult to coordinate in some cases but
after all, it is an office block, and there are not that many services in comparison to hospitals for
example. These are reasonably simple interfaces; get the basement right and the vertical risers
correct, a bit of power a bit of data. All the services go through the steel. So we maximised the holes
in the steelwork, and these holes will be used to distribute the services. The design and installation
of the services for the repetitive floors are simple; it is getting the plumbing in the basement that is
challenging.

Are you using pre-assembled and pre-fabricated services?

This is one of the options we are looking at. The risers are prefabricated anywhere between 9-12 m.
A lot of the plant rooms are prefabricated and will be brought in what we call plant skids.

Do you see your role more at the level of designers’ coordination or trade contractors’
coordination?
Initially, we start work with the designers. We make sure that they produce the information on time
and to the right quality. But what you tend to find is that it gets hectic when the trade contractors
are on board because everything is time critical particularly when the appointment is not early
enough. The trade contractor issues the drawing, the designers have ten days to comment on that
drawing then it goes back to us, and we have only three days to review the drawing and put our
status on it. Whereas the consultants’ design is less critical, so if they missed a day or two, it is not
an issue as long as it is not going to affect my overall critical path. In the trade contractors’ case,
they will not be able to get onsite unless they have all the information they need to do the job.

Who deals with the design coordination between trade contractors?

The architect responsibility is to deal with the overall design coordination issues.

Is there an overlap and possible conflict between your role and the architect role?
We tend to take the lead. We identify the problems and make sure someone is dealing with it. The
architect is responsible for coordinating the design, e.g. the internal stone design is in line with the
tolerances we have for the concrete. There will always be some queries, interfaces and coordination
problems; our role is to log these into a register and make sure they are resolved.

Is there a coordination responsibility at the packages level?

Every trade contractor has in their contract that they have to coordinate their design with other
trades. Our role is to facilitate these discussions. The architect role is to make sure that the trades
coordinate their design back to architectural design, i.e. make sure that the product is right. For
example, to fix the staircases to the cores, the concrete trade contractor needs to cut a hole in a slab
to put the fixings. The stairs trade contractor, who are designing the fixings need to coordinate the
design with the concrete trade contractor to decide the exact dimensions and locations of the holes
they need. The architect checks this interface to make sure that the size of the fixing is right, the
specification is right, it is what the client wants, it is in the right place, i.e. the architect overall
checking the design and making sure it is right.
The big issues we've picked up in the past is that design develops. Designers start
with a concept and gradually work at it in more and more details. But they need a vast
amount of inputs, specialist input. It is getting that information from the trades to the
design team and back again to the trades, that to and fro which started to dictate the
sequence of when you procure the trades i.e. procure the design information rather
than the product. How is that addressed in your working?
We try to get people on board early enough to advice on the design. One example would be the
basement turntable. We haven’t procured the turntable yet that should be installed in the
basement for the delivery of vehicles to the car park. We had advice from the supplier about things
like its diameter, the depth, the drains, information about the steel ring etc. We tend to get that
information as and when we need it before we sign the contract. We get enough information to
allow us to progress the design knowing that we need to go off to procure this trade later.

What we are interested in is how you link the whole of the supply chain together so
that the components arrive onsite on time, perfect and ready to be assembled or
bolted etc. in place. Are you confident that this sort of process could effectively
ensure that at least three organisations down that supply chain are sufficiently geared
to achieve this target?
That is part of the trade contractor telling us when they need the information to feed into their
manufacturing process. This is to make sure the components are arriving onsite at the right time. A
good example is the cladding. The cladding is not due onsite until the end of this year, but we
approved the materials for fabrication back at the end of last year. You have to know how far in
advance you need to approve things to meet the site needs but that is working with the trade
contractor for them to say it takes me eight months to procure the glass. You need to make
decisions a long time in advance, and that is part of the reason we produce individual information
schedule for each trade. In this way we can be very specific about what we need, e.g. in the case of
toilets, it took us six months of design and development by the designers, the client and the trade
contractor before you can say go off and procure expensive marble. The provider produced a mock
up, and we asked for changes and so on.

We use internal information to plan the procurement of the building components. From experience,
we know how long it takes to procure packages. On this project, although we need to do the
basement, structural steel and the frame early we also need to procure the lift services because the
lifts are always on a long lead-in period. The cladding is usually a one year lead-in to be onsite.
Major MEP item such as generators needs 40 weeks lead-in. Chillers also 40 weeks lead-in. We
know that these are the first things we need. We developed a Tender Event Schedule spreadsheet
to show the starting onsite date of each important component and the placing of order date for this
component considering its lead-in time. The Tender Event Schedule spreadsheet is linked to the
programme, and it has periods for tender, reviewing tenders, leading and when we need the design
information and track through.
A lot of information you are talking about comes from a whole variety of different
sources. Putting it into a federated model is an obvious representation of this
information, taking into consideration the technology available. However, it looks
horrendously complicated as every contributor to this model has their own different
system. How is that working? Do you use that at all or is that is something that is
separated?
My BIM manager is responsible for coordinating all the battling that is going on. There is a couple of
issues. The engineers are designing in 3D, so their information is very much transferrable to us. The
architect was appointed by the client to work in 2D. They are in the process of converting their
information into 3D.

In an ideal world, we will all design in 3D and constantly be doing clash detection. The way BIM is
implemented is that we get individual models from the designers every two weeks. Our BIM
manager puts all those models on top of each other into what is called the Federated Model then he
runs a clash detection exercise of it. This built in coordination in the model doesn't lie. In 2D
drawings one can fix a problem if it doesn't look right while in 3D you can't do that and you've got to
resolve the issue. Otherwise, you get a big red flag. If for example, the clash detection pointed out a
problem with the design of an access hatch, the designers will be forced to go off, and model the
actual access hatch so would know that the builders work, and product for that hatch is right.
Where if it is in the 2D model the designers will just draw a square for the hatch, so you have no idea
whether it is buildable or not.

Every two weeks, we run a clash detection exercise, we meet with the designers, and we say this is
where we think you've got problems in the model, and then they go off and fix that. The main
difficulty is with the architects’ contribution to the BIM model. That is because they are not using
BIM approach to produce their design information. Contributing to BIM model is a separate stream
for them, which is not the way it should be. We use BIM for logistics coordination onsite and for all
other problems that need coordinated efforts. We are demanding that the trade contractors should
design in 3D where necessary so ultimately we will end up with an As-Built 3D model.

Is BIM model up to date?

The architects are catching up; they are 80% of where the model is. The reason why the architects
are behind everyone else is that because they convert 2D information they produce to 3D model but
not before the 2D information is fixed. What they should do instead is converting 3D to 2D for
client signing off and other submissions like planning application or H&S, etc. but they are not doing
that. The design is pretty fixed between Level 3 and Level 62, only the bit at the bottom and the bit
at the top are still to be designed. The client is still checking the bottom of the building and also still
reviewing whether they should change the top profile of the building slightly. The architects are not
converting that into Revit because they want to wait for more finished and fixed design. In this way,
they work on the same information three times.

What I need desperately to do at some point, is to get the architects up to a level so when we start
putting the trade contracts information back in the model, we can coordinate that against some
models that we are comfortable with.
In addition to your company, who is also contributing to the BIM model?
Main contributors to the model are the architects and the engineers. Also, the cladding STC are
producing their work in 3D. The steel STC work in 3D always because their modelling software is
3D. Everybody has their model, but we combine them in what we call Navisworks. We are just
basically laying them one on the top of other. Our BIM manager has what we call the BIM Execution
Plan that lays out how everybody should model their information. Our BIM manager instructs the
contributors to BIM on the way they should develop their model for him to be able to lay the various
models within the Federated BIM Model automatically without having to reformat the information
provided by the contributors. He usually has a meeting with the specialists of any new comer
joining the project team first thing and say this is how I want you to model your work. There will be
a test model to make sure everything is set up correctly and in a compatible way.

Are you finding that the industry is now geared up to using BIM?
The trades are catching up. As soon as a trade contractor finds some benefit in this, then they are
on board. BIM is a good tool, but you have to be committed to it. Running two systems in parallel
is nonsense. Once you are committed, you have to put the efforts and the time into it. What BIM
does well is the elimination of a lot of coordination problems, which cost us money and delays
onsite.

What would you say were the major problems that you had to deal with so far?
The completion of the design to be in line with the site programme is the main challenge. The
designers have been lagging behind the site. For example, we were building before we had planning
permission. It has been difficult because we have to catch up and release information to keep the
site going. The main issue has been the ground floor where the client is making most of the
changes. We are trying to get the designers to issue construction information, and they are still
changing the design with the backup of the client, so it is difficult to fix that down. Steelwork lead-in
caused a big problem for a long time. The steel contractor demanded 24 weeks lead-in for the steel
instead of the 16 weeks we have in the initial programme.

Why did that change?

Because the market is too busy on one hand, and because of the sizes of some pieces of the steel we
need. The initial programme stated 16 weeks lead-in for steel, which is a typical lead-in time. That
went up to 20 weeks for standard steel purely because the market is very busy at the moment. That
went up to 24 weeks because some of the steel we've got is called jumbo sections, so the steel
contractor had to procure that on a longer lead-in time for them. We had a double hit that no one
expected.

Is it imported steel?
Yes, from Europe.

Just dealing with lead-in times since I joined this job I've said that the site is a kind of six months
ahead of where the design stage is. The designers are still developing the scheme design for some
parts of the building while we are building the building. This is the biggest challenge for us at the
moment.
What are the successes you've achieved?
We've done a really good job in catching up. We had some quality issues with the engineers’ design
of the steelwork in the early days. They were rushing information. My team has done a really good
job in bringing that information up to quality. I have some sympathy with engineers as they were
rushed to get their design out. They are also very busy because they have many other big projects to
design. Some of our steel designs are done in Poland and then sent back here to be checked. If it is
complex design, it goes first out to Canada to get checked by the engineers’ technical department.
Another thing you have to deal with as a design manager is where your design has been produced.

What is the most difficult part of your job?

Controlling the client I would say is the most difficult part of the design manager job. Part of why
the client got us so early was that the whole selling point for the funding organisation is that they
could start building the building and finishing it as soon as possible. So the client didn't have the
chance to go through their normal process of reviewing images and checking how the building is
going to look like. The planning application was produced extremely quickly. The client got the
commitment, but they need that natural time to resolve their own design issues. The trick for us
has been trying to shut them down and say you need to fix this now otherwise we are going to have
some problems onsite. In the early days, we didn't give them that advice properly. We've been too
nice, we were trying to bend things over, and we were trying to re-sequence the programme to give
the client more time. Whereas what we should have been doing is saying to the client and the
designers, you've got eight weeks, six weeks, four weeks, two weeks, i.e. being a bit firmer with
giving them a process to follow. We are better at that now. That what we are doing now.

Do you think that when the D&B contract is finally placed on the basis of a fixed price,
things might become more complex to manage?
No, it will be easier. The contract requires that we put a client clause. We tell the client when we
need to make a decision, so we can go and procure an item. The contract also will set a formal
change process in place. So if the client wants a change, they have to put a form in, and we deal
with that with a pre-set mechanism. At the moment, the designers work for the client so they can
change things, and we can't stand up and say anything about it. It will be a good thing to have some
agreed process for change management in place.

The client for some reason decided they didn't want the designers to go through the RIBA stages 1,
2, 3 and 4. They didn't put a stage close out into the process. The lack of proper stage close out is
causing a bit of a muddle because the designers are not allowed to issue information or coordinate
the design to a point where it is checked, approved and then move on to the next stage. We always
have been dealing with a design that is developed at different stages, e.g. the engineers’ steelwork is
miles ahead of where the architectural design is for several floors. All these guys are at different
stages of design development, and we are trying to pull them together to coordinate their
work. They are using movement in cost targets as the early warning notice, but some of the items
such as WC fit out, for example, caused a big problem. The design got too far down the line before
they did a cost check and it was miles over budget. So it was like hang on a minute, we need to think
about this, let us go back and look at the information to see how this can be dealt with.
In a construction management situation, which the client has a very long experience
in, the client is effectively managing the project. So, in fact, having a separate
contractor under this arrangement doesn't enable the client to have that direct
connection. So they have to rely on you to give them this access. That is the tricky
thing in this situation.
That will automatically set the required level of design in the contract, i.e. for this percent of design
development, this is the price.

How is change managed now?

Change is managed by an early warning system. We meet with the client once a week every
Tuesday and any changes that either proposed by the designers or requested by the client are put
on the meeting schedule to be discussed, costed by the client’s cost consultants and then approved
or rejected. However, what has been difficult is getting the designers to raise changes in these
meetings so we haven’t been able to apply this early warning system as we should. The designers
are not giving the client the chance to review the changes on time. We get into situations when the
information has to be costed, so we price it then the client would say I didn't sign for that and I
would have done this differently if you have given me the option so we have to go back to the
designers saying this should have been raised earlier. If the designers are committed to a more
rigorous process and give us the chance to check the cost of the design every month, then that
might have been a much easier way to keep track of the design changes. Post D&B contract there
will be a formal change process so it should be much easier to control. The task for me would be to
make sure I'm controlling the client talking to the designers by the back room and also for the
designers bringing in changes that are not approved by the client. I will have a change process with
the client and also will have change process with the designers. Therefore, when they issue a
drawing, and it is bubbled, that would tell me why it is changed. Is it a deficient design, or
something else? Whether the design is irrelevant and they need to redo it. Is it a client-requested
change, a trade-requested change or a change we wanted? We should be able to factor everything
and give it a status. Then we need to pass that all to the client. There is a form that we use for this
project to just pass the information to the client formally.