Enhancing building maintainability through early supplier involvement in the design process

Maintenance could be classified into several types, see Figure 1.

Fig. 1:

There are three factors that affect building maintenance effectiveness, as follows (Talib et al. 2014).

DfM can be defined as the reduction of the probability of occurrence of building defects to a minimum, while simultaneously reducing the materials required and the expected maintenance labour hours, through adapting specific measures in order to fulfil the maintenance requirements during the building life cycle, all of which is done in the initial design and planning stage (Chew et al. 2018). The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) in Singapore introduced the concept of maintainability in 2017, when a DfM checklist (Building and Construction Authority, 2014) was provided to address the importance of maintainability, which includes the release of DfM framework throughout the building life cycle. The framework checklist is organised around the major components of a building. The following three critical maintainability design factors are then applied to each building component.

The primary tasks completed during this stage include preparing the project brief, developing project outcomes and sustainability outcomes; undertaking feasibility studies; agreeing on project budget; sourcing site information and surveys; and preparing project programme and execution plan (RIBA 2020).

The concept design stage is concerned with developing an architecture concept that incorporates strategic engineering requirements and is aligned with the cost plan, project strategies and outline specification. It also focusses on agreeing on project brief components, conducting design reviews with clients and project stakeholders, and developing a stage design programme (RIBA 2020).

The primary tasks of the spatial coordination stage are to conduct design studies, engineering analyses and cost exercises to test architecture concepts, resulting in spatially coordinated designs that are aligned with updated cost plans, project strategies and outline specifications. Furthermore, it focuses on initiating change control procedures and preparing a stage design programme (RIBA 2020).

The technical design stage is concerned with the development of architecture and engineering technical design; preparing and coordinating design team building systems information; preparing and integrating specialist subcontractor building systems information; and preparing a stage design programme (RIBA 2020).

In general, a supplier is a person or organisation that offers a good or service to another organisation. Providing top-notch goods from a manufacturer at a competitive price to a distributor or retailer for resale is the responsibility of a supplier in a business. The supplier serves as a liaison between the manufacturer and the store, making sure that information is forthcoming and that the inventory is of appropriate quality (Oberlo 2021). Suppliers in the construction industry were previously thought of as businesses that were hired to deliver tangible supplies, such as items, materials, plants, etc., either directly to the client or to the contractor or subcontractors. However, as the construction sector and supply chain became more complex, concomitant with the emergence of new techniques such as offsite fabrication, suppliers were required to provide services for the project, such as creating the project brief, providing architectural and engineering services, providing construction management services or providing goods for the project, such as constructed assets (PAS 1192-2 2019).

Supplier participation in the design process provides knowledge and expertise for new ideas and technologies. Potential issues may also be recognised early on, which enhances the overall quality of the design. Furthermore, it avoids rework, decreases costs, provides techniques for outsourcing that can minimise project inner complexity, and give extra resources that can reduce the project’s critical path. ESI can also increase information flow and collaboration, resulting in fewer delays and on-time completion of the project. When suppliers understand all aspects of the project, it leads to a better connection between the supplier and the customer on future projects. As a result, the most major advantage of ESI is that suppliers participate to the development of a better solution by offering access to their technology resources, capabilities and design ideas (McIvor 2004). Furthermore, ESI has an essential role in increasing building maintainability (Kamal et al. 2019) and minimising construction waste throughout the project life cycle, notably at the design stage (El-Saeidy and Othman 2021). Northey (2018) stated that ESI helps simplifying the project logistics delivered to the site in a timely manner and with minimal impact on the surrounding community as well as developing long and fruitful collaborative business relationship.

Despite the advantages of ESI, integrating suppliers into the design process poses several challenges. Cooperation with suppliers can sometimes result in a slew of new ideas, which suppliers can then take and sell to competitors. Furthermore, suppliers’ offerings are sometimes limited, and they will frequently choose their untested products, which lowers competitiveness and limits prospective options. In addition, the goals of the contractors, designers and suppliers are not always coinciding, which results in unwillingness in sharing accurate information (Wynstra 1998; Johnsen 2009). Effective ESI can be negatively affected by the excessive interventions by customers exercising their power in the relationship. It is unlikely that enough resources would be dedicated to the joint work with key suppliers to reach the full benefits of ESI. Another cultural challenge is present in the resistance of the design team to include suppliers in the design phase as it is difficult of trusting external parties and sharing information with transparency (Chen 2010) and the unwillingness of clients to accommodate the idea of ESI (Saghatforoush 2014). Furthermore, it is not easy to coerce suppliers to provide additional levels of support. ESI is still shrouded in mystery as no clear guidelines, policies or legal framework have emerged to govern this type of involvement. Furthermore, ESI is not a common practice in the design process and supplier remuneration is insufficient to involve in design phase (Chavhan et al. 2012).

ESI is regarded as one of the most important project development endeavours. This is due to the high levels of rivalry between organisations both domestically and internationally, as well as the fast-paced marketplaces, which necessitated the development of better, smarter and more inventive projects. ESI will assist in taking rapid and critical steps to avoid delays, waste and poor building performance (Basi 2015). There are numerous prerequisites for integrating suppliers early in the project life cycle. These primarily include the ongoing need to improve design, incorporate sustainability factors, decrease waste, improve building maintenance, meet quality standards, and boost levels of flexibility and efficiency during the construction process (Othman et al. 2004; Kamal et al. 2019; El-Saeidy and Othman 2021). In addition, these prerequisites include also the rate at which key materials and technologies are developed, as well as gaps in the field’s market structure. As a result, there will be greater cooperation and transparency between suppliers and clients. Furthermore, it is vital to share ideas and data, to work closely together and to have open dialogues between suppliers and clients throughout the early stages of a project. Furthermore, project enhancement and innovation may be added responsibilities for supplier work throughout construction. Suppliers are also informed about the cost, efficiency, storage, standards and transportation of supplies and equipment. As a consequence, this information will improve the final design and eliminate redesign and modification, allowing the supplier to provide the most appropriate material and equipment at the greatest price, eliminating rework and waste during construction (Johnsen 2009).

There are four levels of supplier involvement in the design process and each level implies certain responsibilities towards the project design. The first level is ‘None’ where the supplier is not involved in the design development. The second level is the ‘White Box’ where the supplier is involved informally as a consultant to provide advice to the design team when needed. The third level is ‘Grey Box’ which includes formalised supplier involvement, where the supplier provides expertise, makes suggestions and conducts joint development activities such as joint design, prototype development and testing. However, the supplier typically will not assume sole responsibility for design development. Finally, the ‘Black Box’ level can be mentioned, in which the design is primarily supplier-driven. The supplier is formally empowered to design the different components of the project based on the required performance specifications. In this level, a high degree of trust typically exists between the client and the supplier, as the client relies on the supplier’s capabilities to design and accordingly, the supplier assumes almost complete responsibility for the designed components (Koufteros et al. 2007; Zhao et al. 2014).

The sampling plan using a random probability sampling method was applied to the population size, which was 44 ADFs registered in the Egyptian Engineers Syndicate (EES 2019). This sampling plan ensures that each unit had an equal opportunity of being encompassed in the sample (Hannagan 1997). Consequently, the sample would be representative and not biased with regard to the task of investigating the perception and application of ADFs towards ESI in enhancing building maintainability during the design process. To develop a representative sample size that can support the research findings, two equations were used. With Eq. (1) was calculated the sample size with a distribution of 50% that indicates no bias for measuring the extent to which information is misrepresented, a confidence level score of 1.96 that corresponds to a confidence level of 95% referring to the required accuracy and lastly a 5% margin of error. With Eq. (2) was computed the True Sample Size (Freedman et al. 2007; FluidSurveys Team 2014). 1Sample size=Distribution of50%[Margin of error%/Confidence Level Score]2$${\rm{Sample size}} = {{{\rm{Distribution of }}50{\rm{\% }}} \over {{{[{\rm{Margin of error\% }}/{\rm{Confidence Level Score}}]}^2}}}$$ 2True Sample=Sample Size×PopulationSample Size+Population−1$${\rm{True Sample}} = {{{\rm{Sample Size}} \times {\rm{Population}}} \over {{\rm{Sample Size}} + {\rm{Population}} - 1}}$$

These figures are most commonly used in scientific research because they ensure that the research is 95% certain that the results contain the actual mean value of the total population. Sample Size=0.5×(1−0.5)[0.05/1.96]2=384.16$${\rm{Sample Size}} = {{0.5 \times (1 - 0.5)} \over {{{[0.05/1.96]}^2}}} = 384.16$$ True Sample=384.16×44384.16+44−1=39.57∼40$${\rm{True Sample}} = {{384.16 \times 44} \over {384.16 + 44 - 1}} = 39.57 \sim 40$$

However, since the true sample size is only different from the population size by 4, the population size would be considered entirely for the survey questionnaire. It worth mentioning that the names of these design firms were suppressed for the purpose of security according to their request.

Respondents confirmed their perception of the concept of DfM, which indicates the maturity of the surveyed ADFs.

Fig. 3:

Among the respondents, 87.5% agreed that involving external professionals (e.g. material and product suppliers) would help enhance building maintainability. However, the rest of the respondents stated that the involvement of suppliers during the design process depends on the nature of the adopted project procurement approach and client desire. On a scale of 1–5, respondents rated the role that suppliers can play towards enhancing building maintainability during the design process. Results showed that ’Better estimation for operation and maintenance costs’ was ranked the highest contribution with an average of (3.56/5), followed by ‘Reduce the number of operation and maintenance problems or reworks’ (3.53/5), ‘Using new and innovative operation and maintenance ideas’ (3.47/5), ‘Providing information about equipment and capabilities for the design and construction’ and ‘Added knowledge of properties and applications of new materials’ (3.46/5), ‘ESI can help project managers to solve logistical challenges’ and ‘Increase knowledge of designers for fast technological advances’ (3.44/5) and finally ‘Overall quality improvement’ (3.06/5), see Figure 4. Among the respondents, 55% stated that they encourage and involve suppliers during the design process using the white box approach, where suppliers are involved informally as a consultant, in order to provide the design team with advice and suggestions.

Fig. 4:

On a scale of 1–5, respondents ranked the challenges that may affect the ESI in the design process in ADFs in Egypt. Results showed that ‘Difficulty in trusting suppliers and sharing information with transparency’ was ranked the highest challenge with an average of (3.83/5), followed by ‘Legal competitive advantage restrictions’ (3.76/5) and ‘Designer’s goals and the supplier’s goals may be different’ (3.71/5), followed by ‘Lack of legal framework to integrate supplier in design’ (3.62/5), while ‘Not common practice in the design process’ was ranked the lowest challenge with an average of (2.53/5), see Figure 5. These results are in line with a previous study conducted by El-Saeidy and Othman (2021). This highlighted the need to overcome these challenges to enable ESI in the design process in ADFs towards enhancing building maintainability.

Fig. 5:

On a scale of 1–5, respondents rated the criteria to be followed in order to identify and involve the right supplier to join the design team. According to the results, ‘Innovation, technical expertise, and competence’ was ranked the highest criteria with an average of (4.12/5), followed by ‘Supplier willingness and ability to share information’ (3.9/5), followed by ‘Technical support and the ability to provide future materials and product spare parts’ (3.75/5), followed by ‘supplier commitment, trust, and view of partnership’ (3.6/5), ‘Senior management culture’ (3.55/5) and ‘Involvement cost and quality’. These findings are consistent with the ones drawn by Kannan and Tan (2002) and Petersen et al. (2003). According to 40% of respondents, they intend to compensate participating suppliers by paying consultation fees for offering advice and recommendations to the design team. On the other side, 26% of respondents suggested that suppliers share cost savings with the client, and 18% indicated that fees could be added to the price of materials and goods provided by suppliers during the procurement process.

Communication is an essential tool in construction for ensuring a smooth building process from start to finish. Furthermore, it is critical in achieving organisational and project objectives. Communication not only leads to more successful outcomes but also breaks down barriers between project team members, improves teamwork abilities, fosters good cooperation and leads to an optimistic project journey for the client. Communication enables project participants to share their knowledge and expertise in order to improve building performance and maintainability (Othman and El-Saeidy 2022). One of the most common reasons that suppliers are not integrated into the design process is a lack of communication among project participants. As a result, improving communication among project participants will aid in overcoming the difficulty of trusting external members of the design process (such as materials and product suppliers) and transparently sharing project information with them. Allowing project participants to participate effectively in planning, collecting, creating, distributing, storing, retrieving, managing, controlling, monitoring and disposing of project information could result in effective communications (PMBok 2021).

One of the challenges that obstructs supplier involvement and the use of their knowledge and experience in improving project design is a lack of legal and financial procedures. As a result, developing legal procedures will aid in clarifying business relationships, agreements and the rights and obligations of involved parties, as well as overcoming legal competitive advantage constraints. Furthermore, legal procedures will aid in the avoidance of potential disputes and litigation, as well as the protection of the project’s intellectual property. Furthermore, in the design process, the developing financial framework will define a sufficient and agreed-upon remuneration package for ESI. This remuneration package will be proportional to the level and nature of supplier involvement in the design process, ranging from ‘None’ where the supplier is not involved in the project design to ‘Black Box’ where the design is primarily driven by the supplier. Setting legal and financial procedures will encourage suppliers to participate in design development and overcome the cost challenge of allowing joint working with the design team.

The project vision is the team’s or project’s overarching goal. A clear project vision is essential for project success. It gives direction, establishes goals and may even prevent problems from occurring. The participation of project team members enables the sharing of a common understanding and involvement in the design decision-making process for the project. Furthermore, participation results in empowerment and shared ownership of the project. This will help both the designer and the supplier overcome the obstacles of having distinct goals. Creating a shared project vision among project participants must begin with consultation, progress to negotiations, and conclude with a shared vision and mutual decisions. Participation by project team members helps to ensure that project plans reflect real needs and priorities, fosters trust by allowing all participants’ voices to be heard and issues to be addressed, and holds the project accountable to project participants. Furthermore, having a shared vision encourages openness in project activities, fosters project ownership and encourages project participants to sponsor the project, all of which contribute to the effective realisation of project objectives.

Organisational culture is the set of shared values, beliefs, behaviours, goals, attitudes and practises that define a company, organisation, community or group. From a business standpoint, culture is the sum of people’s behaviours regarding how they complete their tasks. Employees attribute their ability or inability to achieve something to their organisation’s culture. The organisational culture either facilitates or inhibits change or opposition (Mann 2005). Changing organisational culture aims to influence employees’ attitudes, behaviours, abilities or performance in ADFs. One of the cultural challenges that must be overcome in ADFs is involving suppliers in the design process. This is because the design team’s resistance to include suppliers in the design process prevents the project design from leveraging supplier experience to improve building maintainability. Furthermore, despite the importance of client involvement in project design, the culture of client power exercise must be changed because it may be detrimental to effective ESI. Finally, the notion that ESI is not a common practise in the design process must be reconsidered in light of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), which encourages it. The involvement of various project participants (for example, suppliers) is becoming more common in the United States and other parts of the world. Its use in the Middle East and Egypt has yet to begin (Barrett et al. 1996; Othman and Youssef 2020; Rached et al. 2014).

A committed senior management is required for a firm’s daily operations, the creation of goals and strategies, as well as for strong involvement, commitment and trust (Martensson 2000). Leaders are crucial in developing business strategies that enhance an organisation’s performance and boost its competitive advantage in the dynamic business world of today. To enhance building performance and maintainability, these strategies entail defining an organisation’s vision, goal and objectives. According to Storey and Barnett (2000), senior management involvement should be ongoing and provided in a realistic manner. This will assist in overcoming challenges such as the client’s equipment limitations and choice of low-quality materials, as well as the absence of a clear audit tool to allow ESI evaluation assessment. Raising senior management’s awareness of the advantages of enhancing building maintainability, boosting competitiveness, establishing formal legal and financial processes to support ESI, and boosting top management confidence by showcasing the effectiveness of the DfM idea will all help to encourage senior management participation. Senior management must frequently communicate with team members to both assess their performance and inspire them to focus their efforts on achieving organisational objectives and enhancing building maintainability.