This chapter intends to describe the Swedish Transport administration in short and their part within bridge construction and in the bridge construction process.
In most countries, a public authority acts as the single most important client in the sector of infrastructure. In Sweden this is operated by the Swedish Transport Administration (STA). In addition to the STA, the Swedish bridge construction industry consists for the most part of approximately six to seven contractors and ten engineering consultancy firms active in bridge engineering design. Apart from very large projects, architects are very rarely used. Although these businesses have mutual differences, as a profession it is generally quite a homogenous industry. Over the years, the Swedish infrastructure market has been characterised by the traditional Design- Bid-Build (D-B-B) contract, but for bridge construction projects a modified version of Design-Build (DB) contracts has been in use for quite some time, leaving the contractor with larger, yet limited, control of detailed design. During recent years the STA has offensively introduced more D-B-B contracts, but more collaborative approaches are sparingly tested in large scale infrastructure projects.
CHALMERS, Architecture and Civil Engineering
21
3.3 Integration in design
Integrated design and construction as an expression may constitute a limitation in its own due to its vague statement and understanding. Still, design and construction integration have been discussed in the literature for a long time, together with the ambiguous questions of contractual relationships and how to benefit from collaborative approaches between companies during long term relationships e.g.
(Bygballe et al., 2010). These interdisciplinary methods (see e.g. Emmitt, 2010) in construction are best exemplified by multi-party contracting practices such as project alliancing, project partnering, integrated project delivery (IPD).
These contracting methods, usually referred to as ‘relational’, are based upon a relationship of trust between parties with fair division of responsibilities and benefits (Lahdenperä, 2012). The American Institute of Architects defined IPD as a “method that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to reduce waste and optimize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and construction”
(The American Institute of Architects California Council, 2007). The relational aspect thus helps enrich inter-organizational relationships to deal with unforeseen events difficult to capture within the dictates of the contract definitions.
Consequently, it encourages a flexible and speedy response to deal with the challenges usually associated with a risk event that has not been explicitly addressed in the contract.
However, this challenge is not completely understood and very little has been adopted within projects in the Swedish construction industry up to date. Contractual arrangements are only a subset of the transition towards a more efficient and sustainable construction process and can only establish the prerequisites for a project to be successful. The degree of success still lies in the hands of the project participants, i.e. the individuals involved in the daily work of engineering and construction activities. So, to reap success in a construction project, the project team should strive for an integrated project process, with a focus on the end-product, and formulate clear project goals and specify priorities regarding quality, cost, and time.
In this thesis, the meaning of an integrated design and construction process is an approach to undertake the work by a collaborative, integrated and interdisciplinary approach. Many of the concepts and methods proposed in literature are by nature multi/interdisciplinary and complex. Although several sources for the definition of integrated design exist, the basic is to implement all relevant and significant requirements into one single design process (fib Bulletin 71, 2013). Commonly defined characteristics of integrated design are a holistic mind-set and the goal of improving the performance of the resulting building structure by including long-term performance as a criterion from the earliest parts of the design process (fib Bulletin 71, 2013).
The complexity of the approach also involves a situation where the proposed changes might mean different things to the different participants within a project. Integration of design and construction often generates opportunities for the client to generate greater efficiency in construction, resulting in lower cost, reduced construction time, and/or improved quality. For the engineer, awareness of such opportunities enables an understanding for the methods and constraints of the actual construction required to execute the design. For the contractor, it is a combination of efforts required to
CHALMERS, Architecture and Civil Engineering
22
implement the design most efficiently and the opportunity to minimize the resource effort and cost.
The integration of design and construction as used here is not intended by merging different stages. Instead, the integration refers to the flow and use of information and how knowledge is used to transform the needs and requirements from the client and contractor into the final product. Still, the prevailing pre-construction stage consist of a fragmented approach between different design phases and different trades. It is during these phases which literature frequently suggests increased collaboration and integration to enhance the outcome of a construction project (Anumba, Baugh and Khalfan, 2002; Larsson, 2009; Owen et al., 2010). To do so, this normally requires overlap of domains, for example that a contractor more actively take part during design development and in the conceptual discussions or even to compete with different bridge concepts or the structural engineer gets involved in upstream activities to support in the architectural design (Uihlein, 2015). However, the appropriate level of integration may vary from project to project and for some projects, the early or extended integration might be unnecessary and unproductive.
Barriers and costs associated with integration needs to be evaluated since it may outweigh the benefits.
Many project-based industries have recognized that multi-function teams reduce the probability of costly changes and production difficulties. This is enabled by addressing design and production decisions earlier in the process (Crowley, 1998; Anumba et al., 2002). Uihlein (2015) studied the integration between architects and engineers and what aspects were the underlying drivers regarding the structural integration. From the results, the time when structural engineers were introduced to the projects was considered a very important factor. The importance was found at several layers or organisational levels. If introduced in conceptual stages the structural engineers could not only be involved in the development of structural ideas in line with the aesthetics, the engineer can also attend to avoid structural inefficiencies. On the more individual level, the feeling of being valued as an asset to the end-product was significant to the engineers, clearly indicating the social part of the process. From an individual perspective, it is natural to desire to influence as far upstream as possible and to gain control and dictate your own conditions. By this, of course, the traditional domains between participants begin to overlap. This overlap offers opportunities for collaborative work and ultimately a shared understanding between all the stakeholders already in earlier stages of the project.
At this stage, an engineer can not only offer suggestions and develop structural ideas in keeping with the architectural concept, but the engineer can prevent structural inefficiencies from being added to the scheme. Additionally, this early inclusion signified to engineers that their input was valued as they were being given the opportunity to invest in the big ideas — architectural and structural—of the project. If knowledge from contractor or construction engineering (Tatum & Luth, 2012) is added and invested in — structural and construction — this investment is of course value added to the design process. This integrated and concurrent structural and construction engineering process is a way to achieve an efficient design process adapted to facilitate construction to be performed effectively.
CHALMERS, Architecture and Civil Engineering
23