University of Salford: Ben Guneratne PYP382 Ben Guneratne PYP382

Ben Guneratne PYP382
University of Salford
School of the Built Environment
Date: 7th May 2010
Student Name: Nahallage Don R Ben Guneratne
Roll Number: PYP 382
Title of Assignment: Project Processes (Question 1)
Module Name: Project and Process Systems
Programme of Study: Msc in Quantity Surveying
Year of Study: 2010
Full Time/Part Time/Distance Taught: Distance Learning
Declaration
I confirm that this work is mine, I have not plagiarized and there is no hidden collusion. I have read and
agree with the Declaration on Conduct of Assessed Work Form on the student intranet, URL:
http://intranet.sobe.salford.ac.uk/studentintranet_share/bb_Declaration_Conduct_Assessed_Work.pdf
The Hilda Lane Project and the Generic

Design and Construction Process Protocol
Question 1 – Project Processes
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………04
Hilda Lane Project (HLP)……………………………...………………………………………….06
Analysis of the Project…………………………………………………………………………..…09
Problems Encountered During the Project….………………………………………..…12
Generic Development and Construction Process Protocol..…………………..…15
RIBA Model & Adapting the GDCPP Methodology..………………………………..…17
GDCPP & Hilda Lane Project…………………………………………………………………….19
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………….21
Reference..……………………………………………………………………………………………….22
Appendices….…………………………………………………………………………………………..24
3
Introduction
Construction is often referred to the “barometer of development”, this is certainly true for Sri Lanka
which has had many impediments to development. Despite the importance of the construction
industry to a country’s economic growth, it is often an industry plagued by inefficiencies and
delays. The UK construction industry is one such country that has documented it’s less than
optimum performance (e.g. Lee, Wu, Cooper & Aouad, 2000) and has tried at various times to
improve the performance through the use of various protocols and models. Sri Lanka’s construction
industry is no stranger to these very same problems however it’s industry not only has the
traditional documented problems as noted by much of the literature on the topic but it also has its
own domestic issues to contend with, which has a huge impact on the industry.
It is important for the reader to understand some of the domestic issues faced by Sri Lanka’s
construction industry as it has relevance to the topic to be discussed further on in this paper. Sri
Lanka has had an on-going civil war that has lasted more than 30 years and this ongoing conflict at
the time was considered to be a great hindrance to development and thus had a great impact on the
construction industry. The construction industry in Sri Lanka is the fourth largest sector
contributing to the national economy. This industry has contributed around 6-7% GDP over the last
decade (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2005). Sri Lanka achieved independence from British Colonial
rule in 1948. On achievement of independence until the devolution of power in 1987 local
governments, much of Sri Lanka’s bureaucratic structures; systems and policies were based on the
British systems and to this day continue to be influenced by our colonial past. This certainly
applies to the construction industry and even today much of the construction industry practices are
influenced by the British including one of the most important and integral part of the construction
industry namely the “contract” is based on the UK legal system.
Sri Lanka is considered a middle income country however it is still a developing country. As such it
is plagued by many of the inefficiencies that developing countries face. This is especially true for
construction industry which is known for time delays and issues relating to quality. The government
of Sri Lanka recognising the importance of this industry and knowing the issues it faces has been
increasing pressure on governing bodies such as the Institute of Construction Training and
Development (ICTAD) and professional bodies such as The Sri Lanka Institute of Architects
(SLIA), Institute of Quantity Surveyors (IQSSL) and other relevant parties to improve efficiency
and rectify the underlying problems to get the industry on track.
4
In December 2004, the Asian Tsunami hit devastating much of the eastern and western coastline of
the country, thereby adding a new face to the already fragile development ongoing in Sri Lanka.
The intensity of the Tsunami was such that the devastation to coastal development was not only
costly in terms of lives lost (Sri Lanka alone lost over 35,000 lives not to mention over half a
million people was displaced, (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/sri2-d29.shtml), but
also due to the impact it had on the tourism industry as much of the destruction was to coastal
properties such as hotels and services industry properties. Following the Tsunami there was a great
injection of finance to assist in the reconstruction and recovery process with many foreign donors,
both multilateral and bilateral, committing funds to assist Sri Lanka.
According to Nissanka, et.al. (2007), “Relief, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction are the
main activities in rebuilding an affected nation, where Government and Non-Government
Organizations are the main stakeholders”. Following the Tsunami, the government of Sri Lanka
(GOSL) developed a post Tsunami housing policy to clearly set out how the development should be
addressed. In line with this policy GOSL signed memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Non
Governmental Organisation (NGO) to provide donor driven reconstruction plans where the
government to provide land to donors and other utilities. In this backdrop the writer became
involved in a recovery project which will be the subject of this assignment.
In Sri Lanka the RIBA Plan of work is used to organise the process of managing, designing, and
administering building contract from the inception (client’s requirement) through to post
construction, (RIBA, 2007). This paper will examine a project based on the RIBA plan of work
where the Architect took on the lead role in the whole process. According to Chan, et. al. (2004),
the nature of procurement methods such as design and build are ever changing and this cause a shift
in power from the Architect to the Contractor where the Contractor directly employs the Architect,
hence the move towards development of process mapping. The Hilda Lane Project (HLP) was
initiated by a Non government organisation (NGO) named Community Concern Society (CCS).
CCS employed my company Sinquad Construction Pvt Ltd on a Management Contract basis to
construct 6 apartment complexes consisting of 96 units for Tsunami survivors at Hilda Lane,
Dehiwala Sri Lanka. This paper will examine the project construction which used the RIBA plan of
work and look at some of the challenges and issues faced. It will then look at whether it would
have been possible to improve the process used, if the Generic Design and Construction Process
control (GDCPP) was used. First I will provide the reader a brief introduction to Hilda Lane
Project.
5
The Hilda Lane Project (HLP)

The project commenced just after the Tsunami in 2005. The project scope included building 6
apartment blocks consisting of 96 apartments units. As a result of the tsunami, the government
together with construction industry professionals had come up with a total cost of construction for
low cost housing for Tsunami Survivors. This costing with some modification was used in the cost
plan. The project intended to provide housing for 96 families displaced by the Tsunami who had
been working with the Non Government Organisation (NGO) in an area close to Colombo. The
housing was to be provided in a location just outside of Colombo called Dehiwala. The objective of
the project was to provide low cost housing to these 96 families with minimum disruption to their
livelihood which was very much locationally determined.
According to Sathyendrakajan, et. al. (2007) a major factor (post Tsunami) attributed to delays was
the inability of contractors to meet the huge demand generated by the need to build tsunami housing
quickly and at a low cost especially when looking at the nature of sub constructing; tsunami
housing construction costs and the construction industry culture. The ability to implement a process
that streamlines construction in an efficient way would have been welcome by many in the
construction industry at that time, given the huge pressure by the government, donors and tsunami
survivors to construct housing quickly and at a low cost. This becomes very relevant in the case of
the HLP particularly when looking at the type of challenges faced by the Management Contractor
(MC) and will be discussed later on. As mentioned above, HLP involved developing 96 units of
apartments (6 buildings with 16 apartments each, each block had 4 floors with 4 apartments on each
level) to be developed in 9 months with a cost of construction USD 850,000.00.
The costing of USD 850, 000, 00 was an important figure as the MC and the other consultants had
to ensure that the project remained within the budget. It is important to note that as a reaction to the
need for low cost housing some of the professional bodies involved in construction industry had
been requested to come up with a figure for a single story house as a benchmark within which
donors and other development practitioners could work with when coming up with housing costs.
The costing mentioned above took in to account the industry advice on the subject. It is also
important for the reader to understand that this was not a traditional construction project. Apart
from the normal stakeholders such as client, consultants, contractors etc, this project also included
several other stakeholders to manage such as donors and the recipients who also had a stake in the
project.
6
In the context of using a system such as the GDCPP, the ability to manage the flow of information
becomes important especially when the number stakeholders are more than a traditional
construction project. For the benefit of the reader I have provided a list of the stakeholders involved
below to give an idea about the complexity of managing information and feedback.
• Parties Involved
o Donors – Various parties from the Netherlands donated money to build the
dwellings
o Donors – Land was provided by the Urban Development Authority (UDA)
o Donors – Water and Electricity was provided by the Divisional Secretariat of
Dehiwala area (DS)
o Client – Community Concern Society (CCS) (NGO)
o Architect – R Susil Weddikkara Associates (RSWA)
o Cost consultant – Qserve Pvt Ltd (QSPL)
o Contractor – Sinquad Construction Pvt Ltd (SCPL)
o Sub contractors – 6 package subcontractors, 1 plumbing and 1 electrical
contractor
Just after the Tsunami the GOSL set out a policy on the redevelopment of the affected areas. One of
the major challenges was the scarcity of land for re-development. One reason for this scarcity was
that the government had come up with a rule regarding reconstruction on coastal properties- one
was that re-construction could not take place with 100-200 meters of the coastline. However many
tsunami survivors including hoteliers had built premises right on the shore this proved to be a big
issue as many were unable to re-build on the land they had owned previously as result the GOSL
stepped in and pledged to help NGO’s obtain land for development.
Many NGO’s signed MOU’s with the GOSL and were able to obtain land. CCS was one of the first
NGO’s in Sri Lanka who managed to obtain such land for development. With the help of the UDA
and DS, CCS obtained land and the necessary electricity and water connection required for
construction. Not to mention that the government wanted to take part in the project for political
reasons. The funds to construct the 96 units were provided by CCS by pledging support from
various families in the Netherlands and other parts of the world whom CCS has worked before.
As mentioned above, unlike in a traditional construction project this tsunami development project
involved a number of clients. CCS was the main party who initiated the project with the help of
7
funding given by various individuals from the Netherlands. CCS was one of the many NGO’s that
signed a MoU with the GOSL where land was to be provided by the Urban Development
Department (UDA) and other services by the Divisional Secretariat (DS). With the help of the
UDA, CCS managed to procure a 1.5 acres (0.607 hectares) land off a major highway close to
Colombo, which otherwise would have been an impossible task. This Tsunami development was
one of the very few donor driven projects that managed to obtain land and start construction in June
2005, just 6 months after the Tsunami devastation.
Once the initial requirement was finalised by CCS they approached RSWA (Architectural firm) and
QSPL (Quantity Surveying firm) to discuss the initial designs, cost plans, procurement methods etc.
The project was based on a low budget housing model and several designs were discussed with
CCS, UDA and DS prior to finalising a design to minimise the construction cost. Bearing in mind
UDA and DS are government entities where work done by these entities are displayed as projects
completed by the politicians in power in the respective areas hence whilst meeting the need to
house tsunami displaced people there was a need to please politicians to help them get re elected.
The next section of this paper will provide an analysis of the project execution and the focus of my
involvement.
8
Analysis of the Project

As mentioned in the above narrative, the HLP was a complex project involving many stakeholders-
my involvement was in the construction phase of the project. The project used a procurement
methodology that was a mix between a Management contract (MC) method and Construction
Management (CM) methods. According to Kwakye (1997), a construction company is appointed by
the client to as a MC to manage and coordinate the process of design and construction of a project
alongside with the help of the client’s advisors (273). There are two types of construction
management – agency construction manager and at risk construction manager. In the former – the
agency construction manager acts as an advisor to the owner/client (for a fee) and the owner
engages spate contractor and design organisations (Bennett, FL, 2003: 16). The “at risk” contract
manager occupies a slightly different role where he/she is positioned between the owner an
execution contractors (ibid). Please see the diagram below
Owner
Architect/ Construction
Engineer Manager
Concrete Mechanical Electrical

Subconsultants Subcontractor Subcontractor Subcontractor
Diagram 1: At Risk Construction management relationship chart (from Bennett, FL, 2003:
17)
The above diagram illustrates the at risk construction managers relationship with the various
stakeholders involved in the procurement of the project. However my company Sinquad
Construction Pvt. Ltd (SCPL) was a mix between the at risk construction manager in that my role
under this procurement methodology was limited to holding the various trade contracts. I also held
a role similar to that of a Management based contract.
9
A CM is a similar procurement method to a MC however differs because a construction manager is

a consultant appointed by the client in a purely managerial context.
The defining factor between a CM and MC is the appointment of the MC to manage the
construction works in return for a lump sum or percentage fee (Ashworth & Hogg, 2007: 229). In
this methodology the MC “does not employ any of the labour or plant except for the possibility of
the work involved in setting up of site and the costs normally associated with preliminary works
(Ibid: 230). This was very true in the case of SQCPL where work was undertaken for a fee.
Diagram 2 illustrates the relationship SCPL had with the Client/Owner and the rest of the
stakeholders involved in the construction process.
Diagram 2: Sinquad Construction Pvt Ltd Contractual Modality
This mix between the CM and MC methodologies suited the HLP project well given the complex
nature of the project. The client in the case of the HLP was CCS; they were responsible for
appointing the Architectural Consultants (CCS) who designed the buildings. Once the design and
costing was finalised, there was a call for tender from pre-qualified contractors. The selected
contractor was appointed as a Construction Manager after a tender process.
10
Diagram 2 illustrates the organisation structure of the selected procurement method. SCPL was
responsible for obtaining rates from sub contractor and managing the sub contractors directly under
the CM/MC and Consultants supervision. In addition the Consultant also was in communication
with the sub contracts on technical matters. Payments were directly paid to the sub contractors and
material suppliers that was certified by the MC and approved by the Consultant.
The CM/MC was paid a fixed fee as a percentage of the construction cost for his service however in
the project the CM/MC was not involved in the design phase. The complex nature of this mixed
relationship is discussed extensively by Dononhoe & Brooks (2006) who suggest that although
these are separate roles, they do have potential to overlap. I have provided a stage by stage process
on how the project was carried from stage 1 onwards below. This has also been mapped and is
provided in the appendices.
Stage 1: - Bidding for the project (See appendix 1 for process Map for stage 1) SCPL was pre
qualified by the consultant and was invited to tender for the project. Once SCPL decided to proceed
with the trending the formal process was followed where we scrutinised the documents and
summarised the main contractual points, requirements and gathered required information (rates)
visited the site and filled and handed over the tender document with the required bid bonds in time
for tender opening. In addition we prepared pre tender construction plan and a site organisation
chart we were well prepared to proceed to the next stage in the event the tender was successful.
Stage 2: - Documentation (See appendix 2 for process Map for stage 2)

Once the tender was successful we were given written notice (award of contract) and were required
to obtain the necessary bonds, guarantees and insurance policies prior to formally signing the
contract. Once obtained the formal contract was signed and the client extended a Mobilisation
Advance which was 20% of the contract sum. Whilst the formalities were occurring with CCS and
the design consultants, SCPL was negotiating and finalising rates with sub-contractors. Once the
details were finalised, in the presence of the Consultants, contracts were signed with the Sub
contractors (6 separate sub contractors for the 6 buildings). The sub contracts were required to
submit a bank guarantee and a performance bond prior to obtaining a mobilisation advance from
SCPL. Once the documentation process was finalised SCPL moved onto Stage 3.
Stage 3: - Pre construction planning (See appendix 3 for process Map for stage 3)
This was the most vital stage of the process planning where SCPL had four concurrent processes
which are integral to the success of any construction project.
11
1. Mobilisation at site – at this stage SCPL formally took over the site and moved into site.
Staff were identified from SCPL to work on site at the site office. The site was secured
with fencing, required offices, stores and toilets were set up for the project. Finally with
the services of a land surveyor and under the supervision of the consultant the site was
set out to build 6 blocks of apartment units.
2. Project Planning - A work breakdown structure (WBS) was developed based on the
project scope. A Work Break Down Structure (WBS) divides a project in to identifiable
parts that can be managed (Oberlender, 1993: 54). A projected cash flow for the project
together with a construction plan (based in MS Project) was finalised and submitted to
the Consultant for approval of the planned work.
3. Procurement Management – SCPL finalised and locked in the prices of materials from
various suppliers most importantly cement, sand and metal. In addition the client paid
advances for items such as roof tiles, timber, plumbing equipment, electrical wiring
where the supplier (manufacture in relevant cases) locked in the price for the period
agreed upon. This enabled the project to minimise any adverse price fluctuation that
could result in cost overruns. Bearing in mind donors have committed a limited amount
of money for the construction of the project and any cost overruns mean that CCS would
need to seek additional funding. At site level SCPL implemented a stores management
system on receipt and issuance of material to the site from stores.
4. Cost Management – As mentioned above in item 3, this project was a low cost housing
development hence it was paramount that the cost of the construction was kept within the
budget. At this planning stage SCPL finalised the cost estimates and the resource
schedule. A resource schedule is a detailed document that lists out what materials, labour
is required at different stages, based on this SCPL was able to properly forecast the cash
flow requirements to keep the project running at a constant pace. SCPL informed the
client of the cash flow requirement so the client was on track to disburse the monies
when required. Processes and procedures were set in place to monitor and control costs
during the construction period.
12
Stage 4 – Construction (See appendix 4 for process Map for stage 4)

The construction stage was a complex stage with a series of interrelated activities especially
considering 6 apartment blocks were required to be built concurrently whilst managing 6 different
sub-contractors. After careful planning, SCPL commenced construction on the decided date. SCPL
together with the consultant updated and finalised the project program and reviewed the milestones
and deliverable at decided stages.
A health and safety officer was appointed as required by the contract to keep a risk register and to
mitigate any safety issue that may arise during construction. Throughout the project the consultant
made sure the client was aware of any changes to the design (scope) as this meant extra costs to the
client and required additional commitments from donors. Regular meetings were held to keep track
of the progress and technical meetings were held weekly to clarify any technical issue related to the
program.
At pre determined stages SCPL submitted bills to the Consultant clearly giving break downs of the
material and labour components where the certified bills could be paid directly by the client as a
reimbursement for material purchases and labour payments directly to the labour gangs. At the end
of construction a hand over report was completed and the building was formally handed over to the
client under the supervision of the consultant.
Stage 5: -Post Construction (See appendix 5 for process Map for stage 5)
At the end construction and during the defects liability period SCPL together with the consultant
inspected the site and identified defects liable for correction by the contractor (SCPL). The proper
rectifications were made using the same labour gangs employed during the construction project
where these labour gangs were withheld of a retention payment. Once the defects were rectified
under the consultant’s recommendation CCS released the retention money held and SCPL in turn
released the retention held form labour gangs.
At this time SCPL has formally finished all obligations under the contract it signed with CCS and
RSWA.
13
Problems Encountered during the Project:

Upon reading the above, it appears that the HLP had no problems however there were several
serious issues that may have benefitted from GDCPP methodology. Some of the key issues are
highlighted below.
1. Costs of preliminaries were high due to the back to back bond requirement from sub
contractors as well as CM/MC. (Appendix 2: B7 & B8). As sub contractors came under the
MC and was given a mobilisation advance MC required a bonds and guarantees for this
purpose. This increased the cost of the preliminaries as it was duplicated by the MC and the
sub contractor.
2. Delays in obtaining the site: even though CCS signed a MOU with the GOSL there were
delays experienced in getting the land required. Once the land was obtained SCPL was
given the site for mobilisation and construction however further delays were experienced as
the land had been given as temporary housing and people were living on the land. During
the initial site visits by SCPL it was promised that the people will vacate the premises
however this did not take place. This delayed the program by about 6 weeks.
3. Payment was made directly by the client once the bills were certified by the consultant.
However there were no contractual arrangement between the sub contractors and the client.
Hence when there were delays in payment the sub contractors reacted by delaying work
which was responsibility of the MC. Payment for material purchases were paid directly by
the client, however there we many instances the MC paid for supplies and got a
reimbursement from the Client. In these instances there were problems with billing. There
was a lot of paperwork that required sorting out to ensure that appropriate payment was
made this required a lot of repetitious procedures to be put in place to sort out which party
paid for the material. This caused unnecessary wastage of resources.
4. One subcontractor abandoned site due to inability to manage his cash flow.
14
Generic Design and Construction Process

Control (GDCPP)
The Generic Design and Construction Process Control (GDCPP) is based on the achievement of “a
common set of definitions, documentation and procedures that provides the basis to allow a wide
range of organisations involved in a construction project to work together seamlessly”
(http://www.processprotocol.com).
The GDCPP was developed with idea of improving the design and construction process particularly
aiming at the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) Plan of Work and the BPF (British
Property Federation) models (Nelson et al, 1999). The Plan of Work (RIBA, 1997) was originally
published in 1963 as a standard method of operation for the construction of buildings, and it has
become widely accepted as the operational model throughout the building industry (Kagioglou et al,
1998). The most important factors for any client is that the product is built within the required time
period; cost and with a high level of quality. The construction industry in general is plagued by
inefficiencies to do with time; wastage of material and cost. The RIBA model and the GDCPP aim
to fulfill this goal by improving the systems and processes employed by construction industry
professionals. These models become doubly important in countries that have inefficient
construction industries especially in developing countries such as Sri Lanka.
As result various models have been developed to address such situations. If we look at the Sri
Lankan context the construction industry is particularly unique. The RIBA model although used
widely in Sri Lanka, is argued to be a model designed from an Architectural perspective and tends
to be rigid in its application. Here, in an industry dominated by construction industry professionals
and contractors particularly sub contractors who are generally not educated in construction industry
techniques and methodologies such methodologies often become a non-entity to those “working in
the trenches”. Therefore often there is an imbalance of power which can lead to advantages and
disadvantages depending on perspective of client; consultant or contractor.
The linear nature of the RIBA model, prevents looking at the construction process as a whole and
often compartmentalize the different stages of construction causing stages of constructions to be
viewed in isolation. However for want of another model, the RIBA model is the standard operating
procedure in this country.
15
The GDCPP provides an opportunity for an alternate modality to the standard as it looks at the
construction process in its totality and allows and the stages of construction are not looked at in
isolation. This is particularly relevant in the Sri Lankan context where often the RIBA model fails
to consider issues such as communication with all stakeholders throughout the life of a project.
However it is interesting to note that Chan et al (2004) suggests that although process protocols
such as the GDCPP were designed with intension of integrating participants across client and
consultant organizations often this does not happen due to various reasons ( 5). Therefore it would
be interesting to see whether in fact in a “multi client” project with various stakeholders, the likely
success of integrating the various parties.
GDCPP divides the design and construction process to 4 broad stages: Pre project stage which
include phases zero, one, two and three; pre-construction stage which includes phases 4-6;
Construction Stage including phases 7 & 8 and Post Completion stage. My involvement in the HLP
comes in at the Construction stage which includes phases 7, 8 & 9 and partially in the Pre
Construction stage particularly in Phase 6. Therefore for the purpose of this assignment I will only
look at the HLP in context of the above 4 stages. In the next part of the paper I will examine some
of the issues faced during these phases and examine whether these issues would have been avoided
or mitigated had I used the GDCPP methodology.
16
RIBA Model and Adapting the GDCPP

Methodology
The RIBA model which was followed during this project and the project management system used
failed to anticipate many of the issues faced by the CM/MC. Of course, it is important to note that
HLP used Microsoft project as a project management system which is quite a simplistic project
planning tool. However it is important to keep in mind, the nature of the construction industry
personnel in Sri Lanka with many sub-contractors computer illiterate and unable to follow even a
simple Microsoft project plan.
As discussed above the RIBA model although widely used in Sri Lanka, has been designed with
Architects in mind. That is although this model was developed for the construction industry, it is
designed from one angle- that is the Architectural perspective. Therefore this model does not take in
to account the various actors and processes encountered in the construction process and therefore do
not provide an efficient model to follow. Whereas the GDCPP being a generic model, does not
favour one actor or process more than the other and is perhaps better suited to serve as model of
process for the construction industry. However having said that, GDCPP is based on a
manufacturing process which can be quite mechanical at times where as the construction industry is
filled with a rich variety of construction industry professionals where many of the processes cannot
be viewed with a “mechanical eye”.
A key component to me in the GDCPP system is the “risk log” where risks are identified and
updated at each stage and phase. This identification of “identification risk” was solely lacking in the
methodology employed during the HLP. The need for identification of risk is necessary in any type
of project and especially true for the construction industry in Sri Lanka which fraught with risk.
This was particularly true for the HLP which had a very tight deadline and budget and had the
added pressure of being necessary for those survivors of the tsunami who had no fixed abode due to
the loss of their original home. The overall communication strategy and methodology of feedback
provided in the GDCPP model would have been an excellent modality for stakeholders to
communicate and be involved at all stages of construction.
The key principles of stakeholder involvement/teamwork; coordination and feedback are principles
by which the GDCPP model operates, the use of the phase review process would have definitely
benefited the HLP. If a risk log had been developed, perhaps mitigation strategies could have been
17
developed for the problems encountered. As mentioned above the preliminaries were duplicated as
both the subcontractor and MC were required to be obtained by both groups. However if the client;
consultant and MC had communicated this through a formal means as set out in the GDCPP system
(i.e. Update communication strategy) this may not have occurred.
For example, the client could have paid the advance directly to the subcontractor and obtaining the
bonds and guarantees directly from this party. However none of the stakeholders listed above, had
identified this prior to the contract being awarded and due to the linear nature of the RIBA model,
once one stage was completed no-one really looked back or for that matter forward.
The risk log would have been immensely beneficial to this project as the project required
completion in 9 months, within a very low cost keeping in mind the nature of the construction
industry post tsunami. That is post tsunami; there was a huge demand for contractors and sub-
contractors. Many donors were throwing money at the country with various construction projects
being planned not to mention the GOSL reconstruction and recovery effort. The pressure to
complete projects well ahead of time was of immense importance however, labour shortages were
experienced and material shortages such as cement. In case of the cement, anticipating a shortage,
the MC managed to obtain a steady supply by coming in to an agreement with a supplier and the
client and pre-paying the cement in advance. However this was only in one case.
One of the problems faced as mentioned above was a sub contractor abandoning his site mid
construction. The subcontractor simply left one evening without telling the CM/MC. It was later
discovered that he was not managing his own labour effectively and he was having a cash flow
problem. In the initial stages if a risk log had been kept, this may have been one of the problems
identified and mitigation strategies could have been implemented such as providing assistance with
money management. As mentioned earlier on, many sub contractors are not educated and in fact
have no formal qualification. This particularly true for the construction industry in Sri Lanka so
providing assistance to such persons would have been well within the interests of the CM/MC had
he created such a log.
18
GDCPP & Hilda Lane Project

I tried to highlight above some of the entry-points for HLP to the GDCPP – appendix 6 provides an
outline as to where HLP could benefit. The entry point for the HLP to the GDCPP process is
definitely in the communication strategy of the 3 phases and the risk register; and risk management
process activities. However it is also important to highlight that as there were many clients or
donors involved, the use of the communication strategy may have had the potential to slow down
the process rather create a more efficient business process. The diagram in appendix 6 outlines only
those areas relevant to the HLP and its entry points to the system and provides a simple
identification of where HLP’s process fits in to the GDCPP
Although my involvement only emerged at the tail end of Phase 6 and then more prominently in
phases 7, 8 & 9, it is apparent that if you look at the construction process as a “whole” process as
outlined by the model, it would be difficult for me to find an entry point. This is because I would
not be involved until the tender process was finalised. The nature of the procurement method used
prevented my involvement in earlier stages. By using a mix between construction management and
management construction as procurement method my position was slightly different than if I was
one or the other. In the procurement process identified I was considered as an “at risk construction
manager” however if the “agent construction management” process was used instead, the
opportunity for me to be involved from the start of the construction process would have been
possible. In this scenario, my entry point would have been much earlier in the process under the
GDCPP model and would have allowed for a much more productive involvement. This is especially
important in light of the outcome of the project.
Although the project was completed, it was not completed on time and in fact went over by 6
months and the estimated budget went over by approximately 10%, perhaps these figures could
have been lower had a risk identification register been developed and updated at every stage and
mitigation strategies been employed. My involvement at an earlier stage would have allowed me to
provide input to the risk register and potentially identify some of possible risks that would be
encountered such as the possibility of abandoning of site by sub contractors. The benefit of the
model is that it provides for the opportunity to anticipate risk and provide mitigation strategies for
these potential risks for all actors and the generic nature of the model allows for this to be viewed in
a construction neutral way as opposed to the say the RIBA model which is very Architect centric.
19
Given the reality of the construction industry in Sri Lanka, the likelihood of being able to
implement such a system in its entirety and obtaining buy-in from all stakeholders is very difficult
to assess. The adaptability of the system makes it a suitable possibility however not necessarily a
realistic option. Especially when you consider that that one stakeholder (such as political entity) can
change and influence the whole outcome of a project whether a generic model is implemented to
manage the project or a tailor made model is used.
20
Conclusion
The Hilda Lane Project was a challenging construction project due the nature of the project; the
need and the urgency. The project was complicated due to the various stakeholders involved;
situation in the country and the huge demand on the construction industry. The project was targeted
at 9 months for completion however the reality was that the project went over by 6 months! (Please
see appendix 7 for images of the project) The additional 6 months needed to complete the project
was not entirely due to the fault of delays on construction, in fact much of the delays can be
attributed to delays in obtaining land, since the land was occupied, and obtaining a free and clear
land also took time. However some delays were due to the actual construction process. The cost of
the project also increased by approximately 10% possibility due to an unrealistic price for
construction attributed by the government and then required by sub contractors to fulfil, but also
due to variations and so on.
The HLP could have definitely benefitted from the GDCPP model however would the model have
been able to be realistically implemented? The process orientated nature of GDCPP provides a
potentially beneficial system of project implementation given the inefficiencies of the Sri Lankan
construction industry. This is particularly relevant when looking at activities such as supervision or
the very nature of construction workers who do not have technical qualifications and often requires
hands on supervision. However the implementation of the model would require a top down process
of education on the need for the system starting from the Consultants to educate and implement a
process such as GDCPP. Significant investment in IT and educating the work force should be also
looked at prior to establishing such a system which could be subsidised by the GOSL.
Given the post war climate in Sri Lanka there is a growing demand in the construction industry. It
would be an ideal time for the introduction and implementation of a process system such as GDCPP
which is a customisable system which could be adapted to the Sri Lankan market. In addition Sri
Lanka Clients, consultants, contractors equally can adapt to the GDCPP and create their own
process to improve the productivity, efficiency and performance of the construction industry.
21
References
Ashworth, Allan & Hogg Keith (2007). “Willi’s Practice Procedure for the Quantity Surveyor
(12th Edition)”, Blackwell Publishing
Bennett, Lawrence, F (2003). “The Management of Construction: A Project Life Cycle

Approach”, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Chan P.W.C., Carmichael S, Tzortzopoulos P & Cooper, R (2004). "Beyond process protocol: A
Review of the Generic Design and Construction Design Process Protocol to Explore Future Work",
Proceedings of the First International SCRI Symposium, Editors Aouad, G., Amaratunga, D.,
Kagioglou, M., Ruddock, L. and Sexton, M.. pp 346-355. 30-31 March 2004.
Donohoe, Steve & Brooks, Lynn, (2006). “Reflections on Construction Management Procurement
Following Great Eastern Hotel Company v. John Laing, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 25, 701-708
Graham, M & Carr, B (2001). “ Processes, Maps and Protocols: Understanding the Shape of the
Construction Industry”, Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19, 519-
531, Taylor and Francis
Kagioglou, M.,Cooper , R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M & Sheath, D. ( 1998). “Final Report:
Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol, The University of Salford, Salford
Kwakye, A.A (1997). “Construction Project Administration in Practice”, Publishers, Addison

Wesley Longman
Lee, A., Wu, S., Cooper, R. & Aouad, G (2000). " The Process Protocol: A Solution for the
Problems of Construction”, The International Conference of Business Ethics, New York, 2000
N. M. N. W. K, Nissanka., Karunasena, G. & Rameezdeen, R ( 2007). “Study of Factors Affecting

Post Disaster Housing Reconstruction”, Post Disaster Recovery Challenges in Sri Lanka, A
Collection of Research Papers based on a Series of Undergraduate Research Works carried out in
Sri Lanka in 2007
22
Sathyendrakajan, N., Weddikkara, C & Karunasena, G (2007). “Capacity of the Construction

Industry in Post Disaster Reconstruction”, Post disaster recovery challenges in Sri Lanka, , A
Collection of Research Papers based on a Series of Undergraduate Research Works carried out in
Sri Lanka in 2007
Sunil, WA (2005). “One year after the tsunami, Sri Lankan survivors still live in squalor”,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/sri2-d29.shtml
Oberlender, Garold, D (1993). “Project Management for Engineering and Construction”,

McGraw-Hill International Editions
http://www.processprotocol.com
23
Appendices
Appendix 1 – SCPL Stage 1 Bidding Process
Appendix 2 – SCPL Stage 2 Documentation
Appendix 3 – SCPL Stage 3 Pre Construction Planning
Appendix 4 – SCPL Stage 4 Construction
Appendix 5 – SCPL Stage 5 Post Construction
Appendix 6 - Incorporation of SCPL Process Map with GDCPP
Appendix 7 – Project Pictures
24
Appendix 1 - (A) Bidding for the Project –
STAGE 01
Visit site to
gather required
information
(A4)
Call for
quotations
from Complete
subcontractors information
(A5) gathering.
Examine tender (inclusive of
Prequalified by
documents & labour, materials,
consultant and Obtain tender
START Decide to Bid Yes prepare list for plant, machinery &
was invited to documents (A2)
required Call for prelims items
tender (A1)
information (A3) quotations of costs. (A8)
materials from
suppliers (A6)
No
Advice Consultant of Determine Attend the pre

intent construction bid meeting to
methods/ clarify any
prepare list of queries / verify
equipment & scope
plant required
(A7)
Handover tender Prepare a pre

Finalise all rates.
documents & bid tender
STAGE 02 Proceed to Await tender Prelims & fill
Yes Tender Won bond by due date construction plan /
(Documentation) documentation results. tender documents
& attend tender site organization
(A10)
opening. (A11) chart (A9)
No
END
Appendix 2 - (B) – Documentation STAGE 02
Obtain CAR policy, Sign formal

START Receive written workmen contract & submit Receive
Documentation confirmation to insurance and , all bonds mobilization
process proceed (B2) performance bond insurance policies. advance (B5)
(B3) (B4)
STAGE (03)
Pre Construction
Planning
Sign contract with
Negotiate &
subcontractors Pay mobilization
finalise with sub
and obtain bid on advance to
contractors to
bonds for advance subcontractors.
commence work
payment release (B8)
(B6)
(B7)
Appendix 3 - (C) PRE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING –
STAGE 03
START
Pre Construction
Planning
Erect fencing, Setout & prepare

Mobilization at site Identify staff for
hording, stores, site for
(C2) project (C3)
office, toilets (C4) construction (C5)
Develop a WBS
Decide on Finalise & submit
Project Planning based on project
milestones & construction
(C6) scope & cash flow
deliverables. (C8) program (C9)
(C7)
CONSTRUCTION
Finalise prices with Setup plant/ (STAGE 04)
Procurement
supplies of machinery
Management
materials and plant maintenance
(C10)
(C11) system (C12)
Organise store
management
issuance of receipt
of materials &
plant (C13)
(Cost Budget)
Finalise cost
Identify and Monitor & Control
Cost Management estimates &
allocate funds cost during
(C14) resource schedule
based on the construction (C17)
(C15)
WBS(C16)
Appendix 4 - (D) PRE CONSTRUCTION PLANNING -
STAGE 04
Review progress
Update & finalise Agree on the Review milestone Appoint HSW with milestone
Start of project program deliverables Mobilization & schedule & project Completion of
finilise project office & maintain a
Construction construction (D2) program Construction (D3)
program risk register (D1)
Prepare &
Rectify & Identify any
Yes Handover report
Handover (D5) defects
(D4)
No
Hand over Project

POST CONSTRUCTION
& Submit final
STAGE 05
accounts (D6)
Appendix 5 – (E) POST CONSTRUCTION -
STAGE 05
Yes Rectify defects

(E3)
Post Construction 12 month follow up
Commenced of 12
meeting & & checking of
Post Construction month defects liability Any Defects
finalizing pending building with
period
issues (E1) consultant. (E2)
Submit requests
to release
No retention held.
(E4)
Signing of final No
Collection of final
END OF PROJECT claim certificate
payments (E6)
(E5)
Appendix 6: Incorporation of SCPL Process Map with GDCPP
Pre-Project Phase Pre-Construction Phase
Liaison PHASE ZERO PHASE ONE PHASE TWO PHASE THREE PHASE FOUR PHASE FIVE PASE SIX ON WARDS
with
Process
Manager
DEVELOPMENT
MANAGEMENT
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
Phases Zero to Five were not in the scope
DESIGN
MANAGEMENT
of SCPL as the MC
PRODUCTION
MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT
S H
O A
HEALTH & SAFETY, F R
STATUTORY & LEGAL T D
MANAGEMENT
G G
A A
DEVELOPMENT T T
MANAGEMENT E E
Process
management /
change
management DOCUMENT CONTROL ARCHIVE (Feedback and Reports)
Feedback Received & Feeback

Documented at the
Liaison end of each phase
with other
activity
zones
Occurred at the end and
start of each phase
Pre-Construction Phase
Liaison PHASE SIX

with
Process PRODUCTION DESIGN, PROCUREMENT & FULL FINANCIAL AUTHORITY
Manager
Update project brief Finalise Business Case Update site and environmental Update
issues report communicati
on strategy
DEVELOPMENT
MANAGEMENT
Revise Risk Revise Revise

Management Risk Project
PROJECT
Process Register Execution
MANAGEMENT
Plan
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT Tender process fo
UPDATE
PROCUREMENT SCPL – A1 to A11
PLAN - Start of
DESIGN Processes of SCPL
MANAGEMENT – invitation to Tender
Update
Cost Plan
PRODUCTION
MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT
HEALTH & SAFETY, S H

STATUTORY & LEGAL O A
MANAGEMENT F R
T D
DEVELOPMENT G G
MANAGEMENT A A
T T
E E
Process
management /
change
management
DOCUMENT CONTROL ARCHIVE (Feedback and Reports)
Liaison
with other
activity
zones
Construction Phase
Liaison PHASE SEVEN

with
Process PRODUCTION INFORMATION
Manager
Finilise Project Brief Finilise Site and Finilise Communication Prepare Handover Plan
Enviromental Issues Strategy
Report
DEVELOPMENT
MANAGEMENT
Revise Risk Update Risk

PROJECT Management Register
MANAGEMENT Process
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
DESIGN
MANAGEMENT Finilise Cost
Plan
Finilise Procurement Plan Start Enabling Works
PRODUCTION
Process B6 – B8 & C10 – C 13
MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT Update Opreational Policy
and Maintenance Plan Finilise Production Model (Production Infomration)
Process C 12 –C13 Monitoring Cost During Construction (Process C17)
HEALTH & SAFETY, S

H
STATUTORY & LEGAL O
A
MANAGEMENT F
R
D T
DEVELOPMENT G G
MANAGEMENT A A
T T
E E
Process
management /
change
Liaison
with other
activity
zones
Construction Phase
Liaison PHASE EIGHT

with
Process CONSTRUCTION
Manager
Update and Implement Handover
Plan
DEVELOPMENT
MANAGEMENT
PROJECT Revise Risk Management Consider Risk Issues

MANAGEMENT Process
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
DESIGN Develop as Built

MANAGEMENT Information
PRODUCTION Manage and Undertake

MANAGEMENT Construction Activities
FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT
HEALTH & SAFETY, S Manage Health & Saftey H

STATUTORY & LEGAL O A
MANAGEMENT F R
T D
DEVELOPMENT G Update and Implement G

MANAGEMENT A Handover Plan A
T T
E E
Process
management /
change
Liaison
with other
activity
zones
Post-Completion Phase
Liaison PHASE NINE

with
Process OPREATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Manager
Undertake Post Project Review
DEVELOPMENT Undertake Post Project Review

MANAGEMENT (Process E1)
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
DESIGN
MANAGEMENT
PRODUCTION Ongoing Update of Opreation Policy

MANAGEMENT & Mainenence Plan
FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT
HEALTH & SAFETY, H

STATUTORY & LEGAL A
MANAGEMENT R
D
Feedback
G Entered to
DEVELOPMENT Update Post Project Review Finilise Process Execution Plan
A Document
MANAGEMENT (Process E2) Control
T
E Archive of
Process SCPL
management /
change
Liaison Perfrom ongoing review of facilities

with other Lifecycle
activity
zones
Appendix 7: Pictures
Early Stage in Construction (One of 6 buildings) After erection of columns
Building shell A near completion building

University of Salford: Ben Guneratne PYP382 Ben Guneratne PYP382

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

University of Salford: Ben Guneratne PYP382 Ben Guneratne PYP382

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ben Guneratne PYP382

School of the Built Environment

Date: 7th May 2010

Student Name: Nahallage Don R Ben Guneratne

Roll Number: PYP 382

Title of Assignment: Project Processes (Question 1)

Module Name: Project and Process Systems

Programme of Study: Msc in Quantity Surveying

Year of Study: 2010

Full Time/Part Time/Distance Taught: Distance Learning

The Hilda Lane Project and the Generic

Question 1 – Project Processes

Hilda Lane Project (HLP)……………………………...………………………………………….06

Analysis of the Project…………………………………………………………………………..…09

Problems Encountered During the Project….………………………………………..…12

Generic Development and Construction Process Protocol..…………………..…15

RIBA Model & Adapting the GDCPP Methodology..………………………………..…17

GDCPP & Hilda Lane Project…………………………………………………………………….19

The Hilda Lane Project (HLP)

Analysis of the Project

Concrete Mechanical Electrical

A CM is a similar procurement method to a MC however differs because a construction manager is

Diagram 2: Sinquad Construction Pvt Ltd Contractual Modality

Stage 2: - Documentation (See appendix 2 for process Map for stage 2)

Stage 4 – Construction (See appendix 4 for process Map for stage 4)

Problems Encountered during the Project:

Generic Design and Construction Process

RIBA Model and Adapting the GDCPP

GDCPP & Hilda Lane Project

Bennett, Lawrence, F (2003). “The Management of Construction: A Project Life Cycle

Kwakye, A.A (1997). “Construction Project Administration in Practice”, Publishers, Addison

N. M. N. W. K, Nissanka., Karunasena, G. & Rameezdeen, R ( 2007). “Study of Factors Affecting

Sathyendrakajan, N., Weddikkara, C & Karunasena, G (2007). “Capacity of the Construction

Oberlender, Garold, D (1993). “Project Management for Engineering and Construction”,

Appendix 2 – SCPL Stage 2 Documentation

Appendix 3 – SCPL Stage 3 Pre Construction Planning

Appendix 4 – SCPL Stage 4 Construction

Appendix 5 – SCPL Stage 5 Post Construction

Appendix 6 - Incorporation of SCPL Process Map with GDCPP

Appendix 7 – Project Pictures

Advice Consultant of Determine Attend the pre

Handover tender Prepare a pre

Obtain CAR policy, Sign formal

Erect fencing, Setout & prepare

Hand over Project

Yes Rectify defects

Pre-Project Phase Pre-Construction Phase

Feedback Received & Feeback

Liaison PHASE SIX

Revise Risk Revise Revise

HEALTH & SAFETY, S H

Liaison PHASE SEVEN

Revise Risk Update Risk

HEALTH & SAFETY, S

Liaison PHASE EIGHT

PROJECT Revise Risk Management Consider Risk Issues

DESIGN Develop as Built

PRODUCTION Manage and Undertake

HEALTH & SAFETY, S Manage Health & Saftey H

DEVELOPMENT G Update and Implement G

Liaison PHASE NINE

DEVELOPMENT Undertake Post Project Review