International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Impact of project briefing clarity on construction

project performance

Ali Vahabi, Farnad Nasirzadeh & Anthony Mills

To cite this article: Ali Vahabi, Farnad Nasirzadeh & Anthony Mills (2020): Impact of project
briefing clarity on construction project performance, International Journal of Construction
Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1802681

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1802681

Published online: 07 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 154

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1802681

Impact of project briefing clarity on construction project performance

Ali Vahabi, Farnad Nasirzadeh and Anthony Mills
School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Defining a clear project brief at an early stage is critical for the project success. A lack of project brief clar- Briefing; project
ity can cause design and construction changes or errors throughout project delivery, which ultimately performance; system
leads to project time and cost overruns. This research proposes a dynamic simulation model to evaluate dynamics; feedback loops
the overall impact of briefing on cost and time performance of construction projects. The causal feedback
loop model portraying the impact of briefing on project cost and time performance is developed. The
interrelationships that exist among the influencing factors incorporated into the stock and flow model of
the project briefing. Then, the proposed model is applied in a road project to assess its applicability and
performance.
The results indicate that a clear project brief aid in reducing brief changes, design changes, and construc-
tion changes throughout project delivery, which can ultimately improve project cost and time perform-
ance. Despite the fact that the clear brief increases required budget and duration for the project briefing,
it still represents good value to the project cost and time performance overall.

Introduction not applicable for managing the consequences of an unclear pro-

One of the most crucial challenges in any construction project is
defining the project brief clearly, since it affects project perform-
ance in terms of cost and time. Project briefing establishes cli-
ent’s needs and expectations, the translation of these needs into
design criteria, and the generation of a design concept and pro-
ject scopes (Ballard and Zabelle 2000). The more defined the
project brief, the more certain the performance of construction
projects (Xia et al. 2015). However, defining a clear project brief
is very challenging in construction projects, as clients need to
have a precise understanding of the project requirements and to
clearly articulate their end-user needs before communicating
them to the builder (Xia et al. 2012; 2013). A poorly or inad-
equately defined construction project can cause costly changes in
project scopes and design that may result in redesign and
rework, which can then cause time slippage and cost overruns
(Mirza et al. 2013). Therefore, improving the clarity of briefing
at an early stage is a critical task for the success of construc-
tion projects.
The criticality of clearly defining the project brief led to
extensive studies on establishing different types of guidelines
from a general overview of the process to a detailed description
of the task that must be done (Yu et al. 2006; Tang 2011; Yu
and Shen 2015). Computer-based tools, such as Brief Maker,
Brief Builder, KMan, and Building Information Modelling, have
been also designed to facilitate the process of briefing by improv-
ing communication and interaction among project team mem-
bers (Lee Hansen and Vanegas 2003; Cerulli 2006; van Ree and
van Meel 2007; Poirier et al. 2015; Sackey et al. 2015). Despite
the innovative performance of these guidelines and tools, their
application is limited to improve the briefing outcome. If there is
a lack of clarity after defining the project brief, these tools are
ject brief.
Given the importance of clearly defining the project brief and
its associated challenges, it is of great benefit to evaluate the
impact of brief clarity on project performance. However, deter-
mining how to precisely measure the impact of briefing on pro-
ject performance is difficult, as construction projects are very
complex systems, consisting of many processes and tasks that are
performed in parallel, and/or in series, throughout the delivery
period. This situation creates multiple interdependencies between
these tasks and interrelationships between their influencing fac-
tors that change over time.
There are a number of studies conducted to evaluate the
effect of briefing on project performance. Fageha and Aibinu
(2013) stated that a poor project brief can negatively influence
project performance. This was concluded using a developed
framework by which the project management team could assess
the briefing completeness in construction projects. Xia et al.
(2015) discussed that a clear project brief can directly impact
project performance. They evaluated the causal relationship
between briefing and project performance quantitatively. It was
also concluded that a clear project brief causes higher project
design quality, which can ultimately improve project perform-
ance. Chritamara et al. (2001) analysed the impact of various
level of briefing completeness measured based on the levels of
project design completion, on project performance. Although
previous studies have investigated the effects of briefing on pro-
ject performance, their outcomes did not replicate a real project
delivery system, since the complexity arise from multiple interde-
pendencies between the processes and tasks, are not taken into
account over time (K. Cho et al. 2009; Xia et al. 2015).
Additionally, controlling the significant consequences of
design errors and changes, as well as cost and time overruns due
to poor project briefing means that the mechanism of their

CONTACT Farnad Nasirzadeh farnad.nasirzadeh@deakin.edu.au

ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. VAHABI ET AL.
Figure 1. The procedure of model development.
occurrence throughout the project delivery should be identified.
Identifying such a dynamic mechanism analyses how the clarity
of the brief impacts project performance over time. However,
this identification is difficult due to the associated complexities
and dynamism of project systems, and as such, requires a sys-
tematic approach. Modelling is a systematic method that can
portray and measure the overall impact of briefing, with its com-
plex and dynamic characteristics, on project performance
throughout the delivery.
This research aims to build a dynamic model that measures
the impact of project brief clarity on cost and time performance
of construction projects. To do so, firstly the level of clarity/com-
pleteness of the brief is defined as an indicator to evaluate the
impact of briefing in a construction project. Although clarity and
completeness literally refer to different terms, these are insepar-
able characteristics in the analysis of the project briefing. So, this
research applied the level of clarity as the main term, which
includes these two characteristics.
Then, a system dynamics (SD)-based approach is adopted to
develop the dynamic model of evaluating the impact of briefing
on project performance. The causal feedback loop (FBL) model
portraying this impact on a project cost and time performance,
is developed using the governing causal feedback loops. Then,
the identified interdependencies between factors in the feedback
loops are formulated and the stock and flow model is con-
structed. Applying the obtained SD model in a road project, the
impact of the brief clarity on cost and duration of this project
is simulated.
Theoretically, the research outcomes contribute to the existing
body of knowledge through the development of a dynamic
model of the briefing process in construction project systems.
The presented dynamic model provides practical feedback on the
clarity level of defined project brief by portraying its impact on
the cost and time performance of construction projects. This
effective feedback can assist clients to successfully define pro-
ject brief.
Research methodology
In this research, system dynamics (SD) is used to predict the
impact of briefing on project cost and time performance. SD
introduced by Forrester (1961), is an object-oriented simulation
methodology to model complex systems where a holistic set of
interrelated components is defined to provide a better under-
standing of the system.
SD is used to measure how systems’ behaviour change over
time. The focus of this approach throughout modelling is on two
main system characteristics: (1) dynamic behaviour of the sys-
tem, which means tracking changes in the system overtime and
(2) tracing feedbacks-transferring and receiving information in
the system (Richardson and Pugh 1981). Coyle (1996) defined
SD as a technique that deals with the time-dependent behaviour
of managed system with the aim of describing the system
through the causal FBL and stock and flow model, understanding
how information feedback governs its behaviour, designing
robust information feedback structures, and controlling policies
through simulation and optimization.
SD models are technically developed based on diagrammatic
features to show system structures, including stock and flow dia-
grams and causal feedback loops. Causal loop diagrams are por-
trayed by factors which are connected by arrows or called causal
links. Assigning þ or – signs on each link means how the
dependent factor varies when the independent factor changes.
The modelling requires an analyst to determine the mathematical
relationships between factors and embed the equations in a dia-
gram (Sonawane 2004). Two types of causal loops exist, positive
or reinforcing (R) feedback loops and negative or balancing (B)
feedback loops. All feedback processes in causal loop diagrams

Figure 2. Initial briefing step.
are defined based on these two types. The reinforcing loop indi-
cates continuously increasing or decreasing action in the system.
In contrast, the balancing loop attempts to reduce changes and
control stability in the system or seeks a specific goal.
Model structure
As can it be seen in Figure 1, this research is conducted in five
main stages including identification of key processes, tasks, and
their influencing factors; creation of a FBL model; development
of the stock and flow model; dynamic simulation of the model;
and application of the developed model in a project case study.
Following Figure 1, first all key factors that determine the
impact of briefing on project cost and time performance is iden-
tified. Then, a causal feedback loop (FBL) model that portrays
this impact is created. These established causal relationships
between factors are quantified by mathematical equations which
leads to a stock and flow model. Simulation of the obtained
model can determine the impact of briefing on project cost and
time performance. In the end, the validation analysis is under-
taken to evaluate the reliability of the developed model and
assess the outcome.
Implementing the final SD model can aid in assessing the
impact of the clarity level of briefing on project cost and time
performance.
Dynamic modelling of the impact of briefing on project
performance
This section informs different stages of developing the system, in
which the overall impact of briefing on project performance is
simulated, using the SD approach.
Identification of key processes and their influencing factors
To evaluate the impact of briefing on project performance, it is
required to identify the key processes, tasks, and their influenc-
ing factors that are affected by the brief throughout the project
delivery. To identify these affected processes and tasks, the pro-
ject requirements and information, which are included in the
project brief, should be identified.
Identification of main processes
An extensive review of the literature established that defining the
project brief technically consists of identifying the strategic and
project requirements. Strategic requirements include the project
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3
decision and goal and its main parameters, such as overall
budget and program, while project requirements include the cli-
ent, end-user, site, environmental, and regulatory requirements
(Akintoye and Donnelly 2003). These critical requirements,
which must be defined in the project brief, are also classified
into three categories related to the basis of project decision, basis
of design, and executive approach in the construction project
(Caldas et al. 2007; Bingham 2010; Bingham and Gibson 2016).
Evaluating the impact of these critical requirements and their
categories revealed that project brief vitally influences the execu-
tion of the design and construction processes in the project
delivery (Othman et al. 2004). This means the briefing, design,
and construction are the main processes for evaluating the
impact of the project brief clarity on cost and time performance.
Identification of key factors
The three identified processes including briefing, design, and
construction aided in detecting the related factors that are influ-
enced by the clarity of the project brief in construction projects.
Identification of these factors was carried out through a critical
review of the literature. Finally, 41 key factors were identified
within the briefing, design, and construction processes that
define the system boundary. These factors are mentioned in the
FBL models, as shown in Figures 4–7. Of these, the crucial fac-
tors are: clarity level of project brief, request for information
(RFI), brief clarification, brief change, detailed design change dis-
covery, construction change discovery, initial briefing cost, latent
briefing cost, detailed design cost, detailed design duration, con-
struction cost, construction duration, project budget, and pro-
ject duration.
Causal FBL modelling of the impact of briefing on project
performance
This section focuses on modelling the briefing, design, and con-
struction processes occurring in the project delivery, where each
of these processes impacts project cost and time performance. By
doing so, developing the FBL model is simplified if each process
is explained and diagrammed separately. In the following section,
these three modelling sectors are provided.
Model of the briefing process
Developing the FBL model of the briefing process refers to pre-
senting the complex interrelated structure of various influencing
factors throughout affecting this process. In this research, it is
assumed that the briefing process can be separated into two
4 A. VAHABI ET AL.
Figure 3. Latent briefing step.
main steps of initial briefing and latent briefing. These two steps
aid in simplifying the modelling process to easily understand the
complex system of the briefing process.
Initial briefing step. In the first step, called ‘initial briefing’, pro-
ject brief is defined by clients at an early stage before involving
designers or builders in the detailed design process. This step
includes initially defining the project brief, where the definition
rate of the project brief per time unit depends on the allocated
time and resources provided by the client at the early stage.
Figure 2 presents a general overview of the initial briefing step,
which is the first part of the main model of the briefing process.
Latent briefing step. The second step, called ‘latent briefing’,
involves communication between the client and the designer/
builder regarding tasks or scopes defined unclearly. If the client
detects any errors or lack of clarity in the initial brief throughout
these communications, extra brief clarification and/or brief
changes occur in the latent briefing step. This step theoretically
addresses to ‘control scope’, as a main process of project scope
management, which is defined by project management body of
knowledge (PMBOK) (Project Management Institute 2017).
The latent briefing step begins with the designer or builder’s
questions about unclear brief defined in the project brief docu-
ments. Questions are submitted via the official procedure of
request for information (RFI), which is a key factor that aids cli-
ents to detect errors or a lack of clarity in the project brief.
Clients should review, evaluate, and respond to those pieces of
scope that are questioned within a certain time. This evaluation
may lead to the detection of unclear brief or errors in the project
brief. When part of brief is not clear or not precisely matched
with other parts, clients may change or clarify the brief. This
iterative brief clarification and brief change procedure continue
until the client responds to all RFIs (Figure 3).
Hence, the latent briefing step shows that unclear brief causes
designers or builders to request more information. The lower the
level of briefing clarity, the higher the number of RFIs that will
be submitted. This indicates that clearly defining the project brief
at an early stage (i.e., initial briefing step) can reduce extra tasks
and activities in the latent briefing step, such as brief clarification
and brief change. Therefore, it is assumed that the clarity level of
initial brief to be a key indicator in specifying the amount of
submitted RFIs, which could lead to extra brief clarification and
brief change activities throughout the latent briefing step. In
other word, the percentage of work that has been questioned by
RFIs can be assumed as the clarity level of initial brief at the
early stage of the project. Also, the clarity level of the initial
brief, as a constant factor in the model, is the initial value of the
clarity level of project brief, which is determined in initial brief-
ing step.
Figure 3 shows feedback loops that control the value of the
tasks and their variables in the latent briefing step. Of these
loops, the B1 balancing loop and the R2 reinforcing loop, which
are caused by brief change and brief clarification, are critical fac-
tors that control the latent briefing step. For simplicity of
explaining these feedback loop in the model, only key factors
and causal relationships are shown in Figure 3.
The balancing loop, represented by red arrows in Figure 3,
shows that a lack of briefing clarity may cause brief clarification
in the latent briefing step, through which clarity level of the

Figure 4. The impact of the project brief clarity on the briefing process.
project brief is ultimately improved. This loop includes ‘clarity
level of project brief’, ‘brief release rate’, ‘brief defined’, ‘request
for information (RFI)’, ‘discover brief requiring further action’,
‘brief pending for further action’, ‘brief clarification’, and
‘increase in brief clarity’ variables. In addition, ‘clarity level of
initial brief’ impact this loop.
Increasing the clarity level of project brief positively impacts
the brief release rate. Releasing brief for design reduces the num-
ber of defined briefs, which directly decreases the number of
RFIs. The lower the number of submitted RFIs, the lower the
amount of brief requiring further action, such as brief clarifica-
tion. However, clarifying brief increases brief clarity and
improves the clarity level of project brief. Thus, this iterative
procedure creates a balancing loop where increasing brief clarifi-
cation improves the clarity level of project brief until this level
reaches a determined value.
The reinforcing loop, indicated by the blue arrows in Figure
3, explains how a lack of briefing clarity leads to brief changes in
the latent briefing step. This loop includes the ‘brief defined’,
‘request for information (RFI)’, ‘discover brief requiring further
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5
action’, ‘brief pending for further action’, and ‘brief change’ vari-
ables. In addition, ‘clarity level of initial brief’ impact this loop.
After initial defining of the project brief by the client, the
designer/builder asks questions about the portion of ‘brief
defined’ that is not clear through RFIs. These questions are
posed through RFIs. The portion of the unclear brief is deter-
mined by the ‘clarity level of the project brief’ variable.
Submitted RFIs cause the client to re-evaluate the questioned
brief. This re-evaluation may lead the client to discover errors,
which ultimately causes brief changes. This change refers to
replacing the scope with a new one, which may be redefined
with a lack of clarity. Thus, this iterative procedure creates a
reinforcing loop, which increases ‘brief change’ in the latent
briefing step.
Performing both ‘brief clarification’ and ‘brief change’, occurs
in the B1 and R2 feedback loops, and requires cost variables, as
shown by black arrows in Figure 4. By doing so, the value of the
‘latent briefing cost’ variable grows, which ultimately increases
the ‘project cost’. Clarifying and changing brief also requires
time, which reduces the rate of ‘brief released to be designed’
6 A. VAHABI ET AL.
Figure 5. The impact of the project brief clarity on the design process.
and increases latent briefing duration, as represented by the
black arrows in Figure 4.
Explaining the initial and latent briefing steps separately aids
in simply presenting a general overview of the FBL model of the
briefing process. However, there are several interdependencies
between influencing factors in these two steps that are shown in
Figure 4. This means FBL model shown in Figure 2 and 3 are
merged into one FBL briefing process model, which is shown in
Figure 4.
These interdependencies lead to causal feedback loops in the
briefing process model, as shown in Figure 4. The main balanc-
ing feedback loop, represented by red arrows (B1), shows that a
lack of clarity in the initial brief may cause brief clarification in
the briefing process, through which the clarity level of project
brief is ultimately improved. Meanwhile, the reinforcing loop,
indicated by the blue arrows (R2), explains how a lack of brief
clarity leads to brief changes in the briefing process.
Modelling the impact of the project brief clarity on the
design process
Diagramming the design process refers to presenting the com-
plex interrelated structure of various influencing factors affecting
this procedure. Evaluating the design process reveals that the
project brief clarity has an extensive impact on design quality. It
has been previously confirmed that a low level of design quality
can cause design changes throughout project delivery (Cho and
Gibson 2001; Gibson and Gebken 2003; Xia et al. 2015).
Figure 5 depicts the impact of the project brief clarity on the
design process. To simplify understanding the impact of briefing
clarity on detailed design process, only key factors are shown for
in this figure. As shown, this model portrays two main behav-
iours of the design process that are influenced by the level of
project brief clarity. The first indicates that increasing the clarity
level of the project brief can reduce design cost and time by
decreasing design changes in the project delivery, which can
ultimately reduce project cost and duration. This means decreas-
ing the clarity level of the project brief, which is caused by the
briefing process, adversely impacts design quality throughout the
completion of design tasks, as shown by the red arrows in Figure
5. This may cause errors in the completed design tasks that
ultimately lead to design changes after discovering those errors,
as represented by the R3 blue colour loop. However, changing
the design through this loop increases the design cost, which
ultimately impacts the project cost. Design changes also reduce
the completed design tasks and design physical progress. The
black arrows in Figure 5 show the impact of design changes on
design cost and time.

Figure 6. The impact of the project brief clarity on construction process.
However, the second behaviour of the design process indi-
cates that improving the brief clarity by spending more than the
required time may adversely impact design cost and time if the
design duration becomes restricted. Taking too long to define
the project brief restricts available design duration, which causes
schedule pressure over the design process. This pressure nega-
tively impacts the design quality, as shown by the green arrows
in Figure 5 and may create errors in the performed design tasks.
Rectifying these errors occurs by changing the design, as shown
by the R3 loop. As previously explained, design changes can
increase design cost and time.
Modelling the impact of the project brief clarity on the con-
struction process
The feedback loop model depicted in Figure 6 shows how the
behaviour of the construction process is influenced by the clarity
level of the project brief. The diagram also clarifies how this
behaviour impacts project cost and time. The construction pro-
cess includes three feedback loops and several causal links
between related factors, as shown in Figure 6. To simplify under-
standing the impact of briefing clarity on construction process,
only key factors are shown for in this Figure.
This model portrays two main behaviours of the construction
process that are influenced by the clarity level of the project
brief. The first indicates that a lower clarity level of the brief can
increase construction cost and time, which can ultimately reduce
project cost and duration. Increasing undiscovered design
changes over the design process, which is caused by low clarity
levels of the brief, adversely impacts construction quality
throughout the completion of construction tasks, as shown by
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7
the red arrows in Figure 6. This may cause errors in the com-
pleted construction tasks that ultimately lead to construction
changes after discovering these errors, as represented by the R4
blue colour loop. However, changing the construction tasks
through this loop increases construction cost, and ultimately,
project cost. Construction changes also reduce the completed
construction tasks and construction physical progress. The black
arrows in Figure 6 show the impact of construction changes on
project cost and duration.
The second behaviour of the construction process also indi-
cates that improving the clarity level of the brief may reduce the
construction duration by accelerating the construction progress,
which can ultimately lead to delivering project earlier. The green
arrows in Figure 6 show that clearly defining the project brief
can help the designers or builders to propose design solutions
with more constructability. This increases the construction com-
pletion rate, which accelerates the construction progress, as
shown by the black arrows in Figure 6. The faster the physical
progress of the construction, the shorter the construction dur-
ation will be, which may finally reduce the project duration.
Modelling the impact of project brief clarity on project cost
performance
Figure 7 shows the causal loop diagram of the impact of briefing
clarity on project cost performance. It indicates that project cost
is the sum of the main process expenditures including: initial
briefing cost, latent briefing cost, design cost, and construction
cost. This diagram also illustrates that project cost performance
is evaluated by cost deviation as the difference between project
8 A. VAHABI ET AL.
Figure 7. The impact of briefing clarity on project cost performance.
expenditure and project budget (estimated project cost at the
early stage of the project).
The analysis of the system behaviour, considering the inter-
action of all causal loop diagrams presented in Figures 4–6,
reveals that a lack of project brief clarity causes five type of
impacts on project cost performance. Figure 7 shows these
impacts on project cost performance in a simplified diagram,
where only key factors are kept for demonstrating each impact.
Stock and flow model of the briefing impact on project
performance
Having developed the FBL model of the impact of briefing on
project performance, the relationships defined between influenc-
ing factors in the model, are quantified using mathematical equa-
tions. Implementation of these mathematical formulations leads
to constructing the stock and flow model, by which the influence
of the project brief clarity on project performance can
be measured.
The mathematical relationships between the influencing fac-
tors can be simply determined by appropriate mathematical
functions where there are evident physical relationships between
them. However, in other cases where the relationships cannot be
simply formulated, the extrapolation of historical data is imple-
mented to assess these relationships.
For instance, project cost performance, which is counted as
project cost overrun, is calculated based on the difference
between the actual project cost and the project budget. The
actual project cost is the summation of initial briefing cost, latent
briefing cost, detailed design cost, and construction cost.
A. Actual project cost ¼ initial briefing cost (B) þ latent brief-
ing cost (C) þ detailed design cost (D) þ construction
cost (E).
B. Initial briefing cost ¼ INTEG (initial briefing  unit price of
initial briefing, 0)
C. Latent briefing cost ¼ INTEG (brief clarification  brief
clarification unit price, 0) þ INTEG (brief change  brief
change unit price, 0)
D. Detailed design cost ¼ INTEG (detailed design comple-
tion  detailed design work unit price, 0)
E. Construction cost ¼ INTEG (construction comple-
tion  construction work unit price, 0)
The mathematical functions utilized to measure “brief clar-
ification” and “brief change” variables in formula (C) are
shown below:
F. brief change ¼ brief pending for further action  brief
change fraction/Avg time for brief change  IF THEN ELSE
(brief pending for further action > 0,1,0)
G. brief clarification ¼ brief pending for further action  (1-
brief change fraction)/Avg time for clarification  IF THEN
ELSE (brief pending for further action > 0, 1, 0)
As explained in the latent briefing step, section ‘Model of
the briefing process’, the clarity level of initial brief, as a
constant variable in the model, is the initial value of the
clarity level of project brief. Through the latent briefing
step, the value of clarity level of project brief can be
increased by brief clarification. Below show the associated
mathematical functions for measuring the clarity level of
project brief.
H. Clarity level of project brief ¼ INTEG (increase in brief clar-
ity, clarity level of initial brief)
I. increase in brief clarity ¼ IF THEN ELSE (clarity level of
project brief <1, brief clarification/initial project brief, 0)
The required data for the other variables, such as Avg time
for clarification in function (G) is collected from the historical
data of a real project.
A real road project was selected and studied to obtain
required historical data for model quantification. Project docu-
mentations, project reports, and site visits were all utilized as
data collection sources for this road project. Given the difficulty
of determining mathematical functions between factors, a

significant number of relationships were formulated using the
linear regression feature of the Matlab software.
Dynamic simulation of the briefing impact
Through the development of the proposed stock and flow model,
the simulation of the briefing impact can be done in a virtual
environment. This simulation can show how project cost and
duration are influenced by the project brief clarity.
Model application
The developed model is utilized in a real road project to evaluate
its applicability and performance. This project case study
includes construction of 6 km four lane road with the input fac-
tors, shown in Table 1, used in the simulation model.
Prediction of the impact of briefing clarity on cost
performance
The proposed model can aid in the prediction of project cost
overrun due to a lack of clarity in the initial brief. Through the
model simulation, the cost overrun is predicted by aggregating
the impact of lack of initial brief clarity on latent briefing cost,
detailed design cost, and construction cost, which are calcu-
lated separately.
In Table 2, the simulated values of latent briefing cost,
detailed design cost, and construction cost are presented in two
different cases including initial brief clarity level of 100%, 90%,
70%, and 50%. The 100% clarity for the initial brief refers to the
ideal project delivery situation where this road project is com-
pleted in accordance with the planned project cost. In this scen-
ario, all project scopes are clearly defined, which means no extra
brief clarification or brief change is required throughout the pro-
ject delivery. This is the reason for presenting zero value for the
latent briefing cost. In this case, the value of detailed design cost
and construction cost become the same as the initial cost of the
detailed design and construction estimated in the contract at the
early stage.
Applying 90%, 70%, and 50% clarity level of the initial brief,
which were quantified by the judgment of the project manager
of the road project, reveals an increase in the value of latent
briefing cost, detailed design cost, and construction cost. The
Table 1. Input factors of the model.
Factors Unit
Initial project brief metre
Design work unit price $/metre
Construction work unit price $/metre
Initial briefing duration week
Unit price of initial briefing $/metre
Planned detailed design duration week
Planned construction duration week
By applying the data collected from the road project and running the model,
the simulation results are produced.
Table 2. Simulated value of cost performance influenced by clarity level of initial brief.
Clarity level of initial brief (%) Latent briefing cost ($)
100 0 611,600
90 14,700
70 51,678
50 101,800
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9
difference between these values in Table 2, i.e., detailed design
cost when the clarity is 70% compared with 100% clarity, deter-
mines the direct impact of lack of clarity on cost overrun in this
project. It should be stated that the calculated cost overrun indi-
cates the direct impact of the lack of clarity in the initial pro-
ject brief.
Figure 8 shows the detailed design cost throughout the project
delivery duration. The red line graph portrays the simulated value
of the detailed design cost related to the selected road project with
70% clarity of the initial brief, while the blue line indicates the
detailed design cost estimated in the contract at the early stage with
considering 100% clarity of the initial brief. As can be seen in
Figure 8, the difference between these 2 graphs is increased
throughout the design process, which is due to the occurrence of
design changes caused by the lack of initial brief clarity. This differ-
ence, which can be considered as the design cost overrun, is pre-
dicted to be increased up to 12% of the initial estimated design
cost, shown by arrow A, at the end of the detailed design process.
The black and orange line graphs, which portray the simulated
value of the detailed design cost related to this road project with
90% and 50% clarity of the initial brief, respectively.
The construction cost throughout the project delivery is
shown in Figure 9. The red line graph in Figure 9 shows the
simulated value of construction cost where the clarity of the ini-
tial project brief is 70%. As shown, lack of clarity in the initial
project brief increases construction cost by 5.6% compared to
the initial estimated construction cost shown by the blue graph.
This is due to the occurrence of construction changes through-
out the project delivery caused by the low level of the initial brief
clarity. This extra cost can be seen by arrow C in Figure 9. The
black and orange line graphs, which portray the simulated value
of the construction cost related to this road project with 90%
and 50% clarity of the initial brief, respectively.
Prediction of the impact of briefing clarity on time
performance
The developed model is capable of predicting the impact of ini-
tial brief clarity on project duration. Given the sequence of the
initial briefing, design, and construction process, which are per-
formed in series, the completion time of the construction process
is considered as the project completion time. Table 3 represents
the simulated value of latent briefing duration, detailed design
duration, and construction duration in the cases that the clarity
of the initial project brief is 100%, 90%, 70%, and 50%.
Comparing the simulation results in two cases where clarity is
100% 70%, can reveal the impact of initial brief clarity on the
Value extension of each process duration.
5880 For example, in the case the clarity level of initial brief is
104 70%, the predicted duration of the detailed design process in this
2138
8 road project is 21.4 weeks. This duration indicates the possibility
30 of 5 weeks extension of the detailed design, shown by arrow B in
16 Figure 8, due to the lack of initial brief clarity compared to the
44 base case where the clarity of initial brief is 100%. Moreover,
Table 3 shows that 16.4 weeks are predicted to either change or
clarify project based on the RFIs questioned throughout the
Detailed design cost ($) Construction cost ($) Project cost ($)
12,571,400 13,359,400
639,700 12,803,600 13,634,400
685,708 13,273,800 14,187,600
724,000 13,672,600 14,674,800
10 A. VAHABI ET AL.

Figure 8. Impact of the clarity level of the initial brief on the detailed design cost.

Figure 9. Impact of the clarity level of the initial brief on the construction cost.

latent briefing process in this project. This brief change or brief the initial brief is 100%. As can be seen in Table 3, the similar
clarification occurs due to the lack of initial brief clarity in the pattern of extension of project duration occurs when clarity level
project, whereas they will not be required if the clarity level of of initial brief is 90% or 50%.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 11

Table 3. Simulated value of time performance influenced by clarity level of initial brief.
Latent briefing Detailed design Construction duration Project
Clarity level of initial brief (%) duration (week) duration (week) time (week) duration (week)
100 0 16 44 69
90 12 18.5 53.5 80
70 16.4 21.4 74.4 103.8
50 24 25 90.5 123.5

Figure 10. Impact of brief clarification during the latent briefing step on the clarity level of the project brief.

Impact of latent briefing process on the clarity level of the
project brief
Clarification of scope of work for project tasks which are ques-
tioned by submitting RFIs throughout the latent briefing process,
can resolve the issues that the project team has faced after
reviewing the initial brief. Moreover, it leads to improving the
clarity level of the project brief. The simulated value of the clar-
ity level of the project brief and brief clarification in the latent
briefing step is shown in Figure 10. The trend of graphs in
Figure 10 confirms that by clarifying the scope of work through
the latent briefing step, which is shown by the solid blue graph,
the clarity level of the project brief can be increased from 70% to
85%, which is enlightened by the solid red colour graph.
Although this clarification increases latent briefing cost and dur-
ation, it can reduce the consequences of lower project brief clar-
ity on the detailed design and construction process. The
improvement of the project brief clarity in the latent briefing
step can positively impact design quality by reducing design
changes throughout the detailed design process, which can ultim-
ately reduce project cost and duration. As can be seen in Figure
10, similar trend for brief clarification graph and clarity level of
project brief graph occur when the initial brief clarity is 90%
and 50%.
The validation of the proposed model has been undertaken to
ensure the reliability of the simulated outcomes. A range of
standard validation tests including structural evaluation, bound-
ary assessment, dimensional consistency, parameter controlling,
12 A. VAHABI ET AL.
extreme conditions, and integration error, which has been pro-
posed in the literature was used in this research (Sterman 2000).
Conclusion and remarks
The assessment of the impact of project brief on time and cost
performance of construction projects was undertaken by devel-
oping a dynamic simulation model. This model developed by
system dynamics approach, determines key principles, by which
the impacts of the project brief clarity on project cost and time
performance can be measured. These principles are:
 Improving the clarity level of initial brief can enhance pro-
ject cost and time performance by positively impacting the
latent briefing step. This comes from the fact that enhancing
clarity at the early stage reduces brief changes and extra
brief clarification required during the latent briefing step, by
which latent briefing cost and time is decreased. This reduc-
tion can improve project cost and time performance. The
application of the developed model in the road project con-
firms this principle where an extra cost of $51,678 is pre-
dicted for the latent briefing cost to resolve brief changes
and brief clarification caused by 70% clarity level of the ini-
tial brief compared to the ideal 100% clarity.
 However, enhancing clarity of the project brief at the early
stage, throughout the initial briefing step, may negatively influ-
ence project cost and time performance by increasing required
cost and time of the initial briefing step. This is because clients
may need to recruit more experienced staff and spend more
time to clearly define project brief, which is aligned with previ-
ous studies (Tang 2011; Yu and Shen 2015).
 The growth of the initial brief duration may also cause a
rise in project time and cost by increasing design cost and
time. If clients spend too much time to define the project
brief, considering a strict deadline for the project delivery,
this may limit the remaining time for other project tasks,
such as the project design, and cause schedule pressure for
the project design. The more the time pressure on the exe-
cution of the design tasks, the less the design quality, which
leads to unavoidable design changes. These changes have
been identified as one of the key factors of extra cost and
time for the project design.
 In contrast, clearly defining the project brief at the initial
brief step may improve project time performance by
enhancing the design constructability in construction proj-
ects. This aligns with previous research where state a clear
project brief at the early stage can provide designers/builders
with a concise overview of all project requirements, which
aids in proposing more constructible design solutions
(Molenaar and Songer 1998; Chritamara et al. 2002).
Improving the design constructability can accelerate the
construction progress, which reduces construction duration,
and may possibility shorten the project duration.
 Clearly defining the project brief at the initial brief step can
positively impact project time and cost performance by
decreasing time and cost of the design process. This occurs
when unavoidable design changes are limited by enhancing
the design quality. This is in accordance with Xia et al.
(2015) findings, where they state the project brief clarity can
directly improve the design quality. The application of the
model in the road project also predicts that 70% initial brief
clarity can cause 12% extra design cost and 34% extra
design duration, due to the possible design changes
throughout the design process, compared to the situation in
which the clarity of the initial brief is 100%.
 A clear project brief at the early stage can also decrease project
cost and duration by decreasing cost and time of construction
process. As mentioned earlier, clearly defining project brief can
reduce design changes. This reduction improves construction
quality, which limits construction changes throughout the pro-
ject delivery. This finding is in accordance with previous
research indicating construction changes is one of the key ele-
ments leading to cost and time overrun in the projects
(Chritamara et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2005; Parvan et al. 2015). In
the applied case study, 5% extra construction cost is required
for occurred construction changes caused by 70% clarity of the
initial brief. In the studied project, construction and design
cost increased by 5% and 12%, due to the 70% initial brief
clarity, respectively. Although the increase percentage of con-
struction cost is less than design cost, the magnitude of this
impact on construction cost is more significant.
The analysis of these principles reveals the complexity of
assessing the impact of project brief clarity on the project cost
and time performance throughout project delivery. On one hand,
clearly defining the project brief at an early stage can enhance
project cost and time performance by reducing brief changes,
design changes, construction changes, or improving design con-
structability throughout project delivery. On the other hand,
increasing the clarity level of the project brief raises initial brief
cost and duration due to recruiting more experienced staff, as
well as allocating more time for initial briefing.
Given the complexity of the impacts of project brief clarity,
the overall evaluation of all these impacts occurring in a con-
struction project is very challenging. The SD model proposed in
this research tried to account for all these complexities and
presents an efficient tool to assess the overall impact of project
brief clarity. Although more sample construction projects are
required to validate the model outcomes, the developed model
can provide an efficient tool for decision makers to evaluate the
overall impacts of the brief clarity on project cost and time per-
formance throughout delivery.
Further research can be undertaken to implement this model
in other types of construction projects, such as buildings and
refurbishments.
The model can also be applied in the projects delivered in the
other locations or regions. The factors considered in the SD
model of briefing are common in different types of projects. It is
therefore possible to add any other variable (if required) to the
existing model structure to adjust the model to the other type of
the projects executed in the other locations or regions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Akintoye A, Donnelly J. 2003. Client briefing in public private partnership
projects. In Proc Joint Int Symposium of CIB Working Commissions
W55/W65/W107 in Knowledge Construction, Singapore.
Ballard G, Zabelle T. 2000. Project definition. Lean Construction Institute.
VA.
Bingham E. 2010. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index
(PDRI) for infrastructure projects [Master’s thesis]. Phoenix: Arizona State
University.

Bingham E, Gibson GE. 2016. Infrastructure project scope definition using
Project Definition Rating Index. J Manage Eng. 33(2):04016037. doi: 10.
1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000483.
Caldas CH, Le T, Gibson Jr GE, Thole M. 2007. Identifying right-of-way
requirements during the project development process. Austin, TX:
University of Texas at Austin.
Cerulli C. 2006. Sieving pebbles and growing profiles. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer; p. 277–291.
Cho C-S, Gibson GE. 2001. Building project scope definition using Project
Definition Rating Index. J Archit Eng. 7(4):115–125.
Cho K, Hong T, Hyun C. 2009. Effect of project characteristics on project
performance in construction projects based on structural equation model.
Expert Syst Appl. 36(7):10461–10470.
Chritamara S, Ogunlana SO, Bach NL. 2002. System dynamics modeling
of design and build construction projects. Constr Innov. 2(4):
269–295.
Chritamara S, Ogunlana SO, Luong Bach N. 2001. Investigating the effect of
initial scope establishment on the performance of a project through sys-
tem dynamics modelling. Eng, Const and Arch Man. 8(5/6):381–392.
Coyle RG. 1996. System dynamics modelling: a practical approach. London:
Chapman & Hall.
Fageha MK, Aibinu AA. 2013. Managing project scope definition to improve
stakeholders’ participation and enhance project outcome. Procedia—Soc
Behav Sci. 74:154–164.
Forrester JW. 1961. Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibson E, Gebken R. 2003. Design quality in pre-project planning: applica-
tions of the Project Definition Rating Index. Build Res Inf. 31(5):346–356.
Lee Hansen K, Vanegas J. 2003. Improving design quality through briefing
automation. Build Res Inf. 31(5):379–386.
Mirza MN, Pourzolfaghar Z, Shahnazari M. 2013. Significance of scope in
project success. Procedia Technol. 9:722–729.
Molenaar KR, Songer AD. 1998. Model for public sector design-build project
selection. J Constr Eng Manage. 124(6):467–479.
Othman AAE, Hassan TM, Pasquire CL. 2004. Drivers for dynamic brief
development in construction. Eng, Const and Arch Man. 11(4):248–258.
Parvan K, Rahmandad H, Haghani A. 2015. Inter-phase feedbacks in con-
struction projects. J Oper Manage. 39-40(1):48–62.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13
Poirier E, Staub-French S, Forgues D. 2015. Embedded contexts of innov-
ation: BIM adoption and implementation for a specialty contracting SME.
Constr Innov. 15(1):42–65.
Project Management Institute. 2017. A guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide); Agile practice guide (Sixth ed.).
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
Richardson GP, Pugh AL. 1981. Introduction to system dynamics modeling
with dynamo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sackey E, Tuuli M, Dainty A. 2015. Sociotechnical systems approach to BIM
implementation in a multidisciplinary construction context. J Manage
Eng. 31(1):A4014005.
Sonawane R. 2004. Applying system dynamics and critical chain methods to
develop a modern construction project management system [Master’s
Thesis]. Kingsville (TX): Texas A&M University.
Sterman JD. 2000. Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a
complex world. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Tang L. 2011. Effective and efficient briefing in public private partnership
projects in the construction industry [dissertation]. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong Polytechnic University.
van Ree HJ, van Meel J. 2007. Sustainable briefing for sustainable buildings.
CIB world building congress.
Xia B, Chan A, Molenaar KR, Skitmore M. 2012. Determining the appropri-
ate proportion of owner-provided design in design-build contracts: con-
tent analysis approach. J Constr Eng Manage. 138(9):1017–1022.
Xia B, Chan A, Zuo J, Molenaar KR. 2013. Analysis of selection criteria for
design-builders through the analysis of requests for proposal. J Manage
Eng. 29(1):19–24.
Xia B, Xiong B, Skitmore M, Wu P, Hu F. 2015. Investigating the impact of
project definition clarity on project performance: structural equation mod-
eling study. J Manage Eng. 32(1):04015022. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
5479.0000386.
Yu ATW, Shen GQP. 2015. Critical success factors of the briefing process for
construction projects. J Manage Eng. 31(3):04014045.
Yu ATW, Shen Q, Chan EHW. 2005. An analytical review of the briefing
practice in Hong Kong’s construction industry. Int J Constr Manage. 5(1):
77–89.
Yu ATW, Shen Q, Kelly J, Hunter K. 2006. Investigation of critical success
factors in construction project briefing by way of content analysis. J
Constr Eng Manage. 132(11):1178–1186.