Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368 – 377

www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

An integrated system for change management in construction

I.A. Motawa a,⁎, C.J. Anumba b , S. Lee c , F. Peña-Mora d
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Egypt
b
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, UK
c
Intelligent Engineering Systems Laboratory, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
d
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA
Accepted 25 July 2006

Abstract

Change management in construction is an important aspect of project management, as changes constitute a major cause of delay and
disruption, and it is widely accepted by both owners and constructors that change effects are difficult to quantify and frequently lead to disputes.
The development of change management systems should consider many elements of the project processes and address all internal and external
factors that influence project changes. This paper presents an integrated change management system developed to represent the key decisions
required to implement changes and to simulate the iterative cycles of concurrent design and construction resulting from unanticipated changes and
their subsequent impacts. The system integrates a fuzzy logic-based change prediction model with the system dynamics model of the Dynamic
Planning and control Methodology (DPM), which has been developed to evaluate the negative impacts of changes on construction performance.
The developed system can be used in managing change scenarios on projects and also in evaluating change effects depending on the available
information at the early stages of projects.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Change management; Fuzzy logic; Dynamic planning

1. Introduction Some of these consequences can be relatively easy to measure,

Changes in construction projects are common and likely to
occur from different sources, by various causes, at any stage of a
project, and may have considerable impacts. Based on time,
change could be anticipated or emergent, proactive or reactive,
or pre-fixity or post-fixity. Based on need, change could be
elective or required, discretionary or non-discretionary, or pre-
ferential or regulatory. Based on effect, change could be bene-
ficial, neutral or disruptive. Change management relates all the
internal and external factors that influence project changes. It
seeks to forecast possible changes; identify changes that have
already occurred; plan preventive impacts; and coordinate
changes across the entire project [1]. Inconsistent management
of the change process can result in many disruptive effects.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Ibrahim.Motawa@uwe.ac.uk (I.A. Motawa).
0926-5805/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2006.07.005
while others are more difficult to quantify. Change management
is considered an integral part of project management. This paper
presents the development of an integrated system for improved
change management. The following section reviews the work
done on this topic.
1.1. Literature review
Research on modelling the change process in construction
has tended to focus on the identification of factors affecting the
success of a change process, and resulted in guidance for best
practice in change management. Examples of such guidance
include: a concept for project change management [2], best
practices for managing change efficiently [3], a generic
procedure for issuing a change order request [4], an analysis
method to reduce the overall rate of construction change orders
[5], a best practice guide to present best practice recommenda-
tions for the effective management of change on projects [6],
and an advanced project change management system [7].
 I.A. Motawa et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368–377
Research has also been undertaken on evaluating the change
effects on certain project elements. These studies dealt mainly
with a single factor or a single project element such as: con-
struction change order impacts on labour productivity at the
craft level [8], effect of the size of change and its impact time on
a project [9], a linear regression model that predicts the impact
of change orders on labour productivity [10], the risk of changes
to safety regulations and its effect on a project [11], and decision
tree models to classify and quantify productivity losses caused
by change order impacts [12].
Change management has been the focus of different IT
systems. For example, an integrated environment for computer-
aided engineering was developed by Ahmed et al. [13], which is
a blackboard representation that integrates a global database,
several knowledge modules, and a control mechanism to sys-
temize object changes. Peltonen et al. [14] proposed an
engineering document management system for changes that
incorporated document approval and release procedures. Spoo-
ner and Hardwick [15] developed a system with rules for coor-
dinating concurrent changes and for identifying and resolving
conflict modifications. Ganeshan et al. [16] developed a system
to capture the history of the design process, initiate back-
tracking, and determine the decisions that might be affected
when changes are made in the spatial design of residential
buildings. Krishnamurthy and Law [17] presented an interesting
change management model that supports multidisciplinary
collaborative design environments. Another change manage-
ment system was proposed by Mokhtar et al. [18] for managing
design change in a collaborative environment. The model is
capable of propagating design changes and tracking past changes.
Soh and Wang [19] proposed a constraint methodology based on a
parametric technique to coordinate design consistency between
different geometric models and to facilitate managing design
changes. Hegazy et al. [20] introduced an information model to
facilitate design coordination and management of design changes.
Important dependencies between building components were re-
presented by this model to help identify the ripple effect of
changes between components. Also, a reporting system was used
to view the history of all changes made by all disciplines. A more
generic ITsystem was presented by Karim and Adeli [21] which is
an object-oriented (OO) information model for construction
scheduling, cost optimization, and change order management.
Charoenngam et al. [22] developed a Web-based change order
management system that supports documentation practice, com-
munication and integration between different team members in
the change order workflow.
The above literature on change management and evaluation
mainly focused either on the identification of the change
process, best practice recommendations for managing change
during the project life cycle, or on the evaluation of the change
effects on a single project parameter. Much of the discussion is
presented in categorical ways with little attention being paid to
modelling the dependent data or simulating the iterative cycles
of concurrent design and construction that result from unanti-
cipated changes and their subsequent impacts on project per-
formance. Therefore, there is a clear need in the construction
industry for research work to focus on modelling this depen-
369
dency, especially for multi-disciplinary causes and effects, and
planning such iterative tasks.
Some of the IT systems developed for change management are
integrated systems that represent design information, record de-
sign rationale, facilitate design co-ordination and changes, and
notify users of file changes. These systems were developed
mainly to deal with reactive changes, particularly design changes.
The research presented in this paper focuses on both proactive and
reactive changes. Reactive changes represent the events when a
change occurs and the project team starts to take actions to remedy
the consequences of this change. While the proactive changes
represent the events when a change is likely to occur in a later
stage and the project team plans to minimize the disruptive effect
of these changes. Because the effect of changes always concern
practitioners, the concept of change effects in the proposed system
is presented in the following section.
1.2. Change effect on project life cycle
Studying the life cycle of changes and their impact on
construction performance during actual execution shows that
construction projects are inherently complex, dynamic, and
involve multiple feedback processes [23]. The uncertainty and
complexity of design and construction projects are usually
driven by these feedback processes. There are only two types of
feedback processes: reinforcing (that generates other changes or
makes errors) and balancing (that resolves such changes and
errors). Dynamics in a system arise from the interaction of these
two types of feedback processes among the components of the
system, not from the complexity of the components themselves
[24]. Fig. 1 shows the basic simultaneity of the reinforcing and
balancing feedback in design and construction projects. The
control actions to address changes can have the intended effect
of resolving the issues that initiate the control actions, if the
decision is correct and well implemented. At the same time,
they can produce a side effect that may create some unintended
problems, if the decision is incorrect, not well implemented,
exceeds the time frame of its effectiveness or if a project
manager does not realize the impact of the control actions on
other related activities.
In addition, the reconciliation of the gap between the initial
work scope and the actual work scope can also result in these
feedback processes. After the project starts, the actual work
scope may be increased, since additional work is often added to
the project scope in order to deal with changes. Moreover, these
unintended effects become more detrimental when concurrent
engineering techniques are applied. This is because the decision
to take control actions against unanticipated additional work has
to be made within the complex inter-relationships of activities,
even with a lack of complete information about predecessor
activities [25].
Based on this concept, the research presented in this paper
integrates the work done on the stage of “Change identification”,
shown in Fig. 1, and the work done on simulating the uncertainty
resulting from feedback processes caused by change.
A generic change process model was developed to give full
definition for the change over the time of its occurrence and to
370 I.A. Motawa et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368–377

Fig. 1. Multiple feedback processes caused by changes.

represent the key decisions required to implement changes. A should also define the relevant
simulation system was also developed to address the uncertainty project processes and departments
resulting from changes. The Dynamic Planning and control affected by the change or involved
Methodology (DPM) has been adopted to assist in the prepa- in the change decision. The change
ration of robust construction plans and to provide policy management process model re-
guidelines to handle changes [25,26]. The system provides im- quires project teams to keep
proved co-ordination and control over changes, thus helping to records of all relevant information
increase the consistency and productivity of the overall project on change cases to build a case
process. The following sections present a generic change process base for future use. Analysis of
model and a fuzzy-based model for predicting the likelihood and change options is required for
impact of changes. decision-making – whether to go
ahead with any of the change
2. Generic change process model options or to undertake further
investigations. The criteria re-
The developed model is based on a synthesis of the change quired to carry out this analysis
process models reviewed in the literature and the process models may include tangible and intangi-
adopted on a number of case studies undertaken during the ble criteria. The evaluation steps
research project. The process model, shown in Fig. 2, is a generic include options evaluation, impli-
change process model that can be applied to different change cations assessment and optimum
categories, such as pre- or post-fixity changes. The process selection of change options. Dif-
model has four main sections, as shown in Fig. 2. These are: ferent models and decision support
systems can be used to help
Start up: At the “Start Up” stage, the generic decision-makers select an op-
process defines a set of proactive timum solution and evaluate the
requirements that are essential for change options using quantitative
effective change management. and qualitative criteria.
These requirements enable the Approval and propagation: Client approval is an important step
project team to respond readily to in the process while different out-
change, to manage change effec- puts are expected, as shown in
tively, and to facilitate contingency Fig. 2. The client needs to review
plans for any unanticipated change. potential changes against the project
Details of such requirements are baseline using tangible and intangi-
presented elsewhere [27]. ble criteria. In many cases, clients
Identify and evaluate: Change identification should cover need to use decision-making techni-
change causes, types and effects. It ques for evaluation and comparison
I.A. Motawa et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368–377 371

Fig. 2. Generic change process model.

372 I.A. Motawa et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368–377
in order to decide on a change
option. The rest of the process stages
in Fig. 2 involve integration between
documentation and communication
facilities.
Post change: When dispute resolution is applica-
ble, it requires the investigation of
direct and indirect causes of change.
In this situation, the analysis of the
effect of multiple change causes
could be prepared.
This process model has been studied further. The study paid
much attention to the link between project implementation and
the role of change. From this study the term ‘stability’ has been
defined. Change depends on the stability of the given initial
scope of an activity. Stability indicates the degree to which the
given work scope would be performed without a request for
change. High stability means that only a small number of
changes would be expected during the execution of a particular
activity, while low stability represents the possibility that a great
number of changes would be requested.
The internal iterative sub-processes entailed in the imple-
mentation of the generic change process, as shown by the bold
links in Fig. 2, increase the effects of change on the project life
cycle as denoted above for the feedback processes in Fig. 1.
Identified changes are usually approved based on their
feasibility in the project through the claim and change manage-
ment process. For instance, if the identified change is perceived
to require a significant investment or there are other options to
replace it, it can be rejected. If a change is approved, the
corresponding additional work scope is introduced to that
particular activity. A rejected change may either become a
permanently rejected change or it can be designated as a latent
change in terms of its potential for reconsideration later in the
process, as shown by the bold links in Fig. 2.
Based on the above change concept, an IT system has been
developed to help in managing the change process effectively.
This paper presents two main functions of the system. The first
aims to predict the level of stability, defined above, by predicting
the likelihood of change occurrence. The second function aims
to simulate the potential iterations that may occur during change
implementation. The level of stability, determined by the first
function, is among the basic data required to run the simulation
system, developed to implement the second function. Fig. 3
illustrates the application logic of the system, which shows how
the system components, presented in this paper, work together.
The following sections describe how the system operates
conceptually.
3. Change prediction system
The main purpose of this component is to help in estimating
the level of stability defined above. The estimation is based on
investigating the information available at the early stages of
projects and using such information to predict change events.
Aggregating such events will help in defining the level of stability
Fig. 3. Application logic of the system.
for a project. This prediction will also help in taking appropriate
actions to minimize the disruptive effects of changes. To develop
this component, it was important to identify what project char-
acteristics lead to change causes and what these causes are, and
then to understand how these causes are related to effects. Some of
the key questions were: How does one factor relate to another?
What are the internal mechanisms by which a particular factor
causes a change in another factor?
Fig. 4 gives an example of how the change prediction system
relates these factors to one another for a change case. Multiple
causes can lead to a change case, and the effects of this change
case cannot be added linearly (i.e. different causes of change
may be responsible for a certain effect or a set of effects). In
other words, the effect of a change cause C1 and C2, occurring
together, may in general result in more or less impact than the
sum of the effect of change cause C1 occurring on its own and
the effect of change cause C2 occurring on its own. An analysis
is required to find out the possibility of occurrence of each cause
of change (Cm) with respect to each project characteristic (Fn).
Multiple causes of change are a complex issue to determine the
corresponding impacts (El) on projects. Lists of Fn, Cm, and El,
were identified through case studies, details can be found else-
where [28]. This helps project teams check their project against
these lists.
Fuzzy systems were found more suitable to describe the
relationship between the above variables for the following reasons:
• The information, if available, for the change cases is always
vague. When little or no information is available, fuzzy
systems are appropriate to represent the human perception on
a specific issue based on a variety of assumptions which may
be numerically or linguistically formatted.
• Change consequences might lead to dispute, therefore, de-
tailed analyses and investigation of the change causes and
effects are required. This needs close observation for the
simulation route of cause–effect relationships.
 I.A. Motawa et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368–377
Fig. 4. A dependency diagram for a change case.
Two different fuzzy approaches were investigated; namely
building a fuzzy rule-based model to simulate the cause and
effect relationships of a change event or establishing fuzzy
relations between the prediction elements of change. The first
approach is part of any general fuzzy logic system which, in
addition to the fuzzy rule base, includes fuzzy inference process,
fuzzification process, and defuzzification process. Developing a
fuzzy rule-based system requires identification of different rules
that link the prediction elements in IF–THEN format. The main
difficulty in this approach is about the complexity of the prob-
lem in hand, as the list of prediction elements collected for the
proposed model initially includes: 30-elements of project
characteristics, 20-elements of change causes, and 29-elements
of change effects. A further approximation may be used to
simplify building such rule-based system. This is by assuming
predefined fuzzy-sets to fire the IF–THEN rules. This is also a
controversial solution and the justifications for such assump-
tions are always questioned. Therefore, the proposed system
adopted the fuzzy relation approach considering the most
appropriate methods for improving the model accuracy. This
approach gives flexibility for the practitioners to express their
belief about the problem with limited calculation assumptions.
The relationship between the elements are formed and
combined to produce the cumulative relation, as shown by Eq.
(1):
!

Xk¼l i¼n;
 j¼m; X j¼m
f Fi ; Rij ; Rjk ¼ Fi 4Rij ο Rjk ð1Þ
j; k¼1 i; j¼1
where:
n no. of the project characteristics
m no. of the change causes
l no. of the change effects
Rij the sensitivity of a change cause ( j) occurrence to
variations in the project characteristics (i);
Rjk the sensitivity of the change impact (k) to variations in
the change causes ( j).
All units used to quantify the variables in Eq. (1) are based
on a 0–10 scale. It is assumed that all variables have the value of
“0” when no change occurs. In case of predicting a change case,
373
the values for “Fn” will be given a weight on this scale to
represent its contribution, then the Rij will have another weight
on a 0–10 scale to represent the sensitivity of the change cause
to variations in the Fn and so for the Rjk.
The system enables the user to estimate the level of stability
of the studied project, i.e. the degree to which the given work
scope would be performed with changes. Fig. 5 shows an
example of the system output.
3.1. Simulating the iterative cycles caused by changes
Based on the level of stability obtained, the impact of iter-
ative cycles caused by changes on construction performance is
estimated by the Dynamic Planning and control Methodology
(DPM) [26,29]. DPM aims to provide policy guidelines for
unexpected events by supplementing network-based tools with
mechanisms to represent the dynamics of a project.
To identify the impact of iterative change cycles on
construction performance, the DPM incorporates the system
dynamics based design and construction process model [29], as
seen in Fig. 6. It aims to address the iterative change cycles, their
settlement through Requests For Information (RFI), the change
decision process, and the corresponding work amount increased.
Managing changes in design and construction usually have
two major components, the Scope Management (SM) process
and the Claim and Change Management (CCM) process. The
SM process is the review process and the CCM process is the
decision making process for change adoption o rejection.
Specifically, before the execution of a task, the SM process is
applied to WorkToDo (WTD) stock, as denoted by A in Fig. 7.
The SM process aims to make sure that the given scope of work
and the corresponding work setting are the same, as planned.
Thus, if this WTD stock differs from the originally planned
WTD stock, those tasks in WTD stock are sent to the stock of
WorkAwaitingCCMGDecision (WACCMGD – B in Fig. 7),
which needs the decision or analysis of Claim and Change
Management (CCM) group.
However, some potential changes may not be identified (i.e.
latent changes) during the SM process. In this sense, Scope
Management THoroughness (SMTH) is defined as the degree to
Fig. 5. Output of the change prediction system.
 374
I.A. Motawa et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368–377
Fig. 6. Design and construction process model [based on Pugh–Roberts Associates; Ford and Sterman, 1998].
 I.A. Motawa et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368–377 375

Fig. 7. Modelling change management with system dynamics.

which the potential changes have been identified during the SM
process. Based on SMTH, changes could be identified (i.e.
identified change) or not (i.e. latent change). In the model, tasks
that flow from WTD stock to WACCMGD stock are identical to
identified changes (C in Fig. 7). Then, these identified changes
can be approved (i.e. approved change) or rejected (i.e. rejected
change), based on the decision of the CCM group. In the model,
if a change is rejected, tasks that have been suspended would
flow back to WTD and will be performed (D in Fig. 7). If a
change is approved, tasks would also flow back to WTD,
however, in this case, with additional work generated by this
approved change (E in Fig. 7). The detailed model structure is
presented elsewhere [29].
An example of the simulation results generated by the DPM
is presented in Fig. 8. The typical relationships between
activities, such as the finish-to-start (FS) relationship between
final design activity and the shop drawing submittal activity in
Fig. 8, do not make the following construction activities start
until the design activities are completed. While in concurrent
design and construction processes, the design work may be

Fig. 8. Simulation results generated by the DPM.

376 I.A. Motawa et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368–377
forced to proceed without the establishment of a detailed work
scope by the owner. Thus, requests for design clarification and/
or changes are often made by the contractor. Design omissions
and errors may also be committed by the design group of the
team. These are the main reasons for the delay.
The simulation results exactly capture the aforesaid reality.
For the studied example, a large coordinating work amount,
caused by waiting for a RFI reply and the CCM decision, was
observed (column A in Fig. 8). In addition, a significant work
amount was newly introduced to deal with changes in the final
design (column B in Fig. 8) and also contributed to delay.
Furthermore, a large fraction of the changes was not identified
and became latent changes (column B in Fig. 8). This situation
also required much effort in coordinating with the predecessor
activity through RFIs. Identifying such detrimental impacts
caused by changes, DPM explicitly captures the negative im-
pact of iterative change cycles. More results about the studied
example can be found elsewhere [29].
4. Discussion and conclusion
An integrated change management system has been presented
in this paper. It was developed to enable AEC professionals
manage changes more effectively. The system covers the life
cycle of changes within construction projects. A change process
model was developed first to represent the key decision points
required to implement changes. In support of this model, an
integrated system was developed. Two components of the system
were presented in the paper; a Dynamic Planning and control
Methodology (DPM) and a change prediction system. DPM has
been developed to overcome the uncertainties and complexities
resulting from changes in concurrent design and construction by
focusing on iterative cycles caused by changes and their impacts
on construction performance. Among the main data required to
simulate such iterative cycles, there is the level of project stability.
The stability of a project can be predicted by studying the
available information of the project at the early stages. Therefore,
the change prediction system aimed to determine the likelihood of
change occurrence, which is a measure of the project stability. The
integrated system can help in:
• providing robust planning and control actions,
• identifying various dynamic impacts of construction feed-
backs and iterative cycles,
• planning projects with allowances for the potential changes,
• exploring the cause-and-effect relationships of change
events, and
• examining the impact of changes on different project
parameters.
Although the current system has established the potential for
proactive change management, there is a need for significant
effort to ensure its realistic implementation. Thus, further simu-
lation and experimentation are required to establish robust math-
ematical relationships between other variables of the change
process. Additional case studies would be required in order to
validate the effectiveness of the developed system. In this way, the
system could enhance its practical simulation capability and
provide more reliable and realistic implementation.
References
[1] V. Voropajev, Change management – a key integrative function of PM in
transition economies, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 16 (1) (1998) 15–19.
[2] Construction Industry Institute (CII), Project Change Management
Research Team, Special Publication, vol. 43-1, The University of Texas
at Austin, US, 1994.
[3] Construction Industry Institute (CII) conference, Project Change Manage-
ment – Implementation Feedback Report, The University of Texas at
Austin, US, 1996.
[4] I.D. Cox, J.P. Morris, J.H. Rogerson, G.E. Jared, A quantitative study of
post contract award design changes in construction, J. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 17 (1999) 427–439.
[5] S.N. Stocks, A. Singh, Studies on the impact of functional analysis concept
design on reduction in change orders, J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 17 (1999)
251–267.
[6] Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA),
Managing Project Change – a Best Practice Guide, CIRIA, UK, 2001.
[7] C.W. Ibbs, C.K. Wong, Y.H. Kwak, Project change management system,
J. Manage. Eng. ASCE 17 (3) (2001) 159–165.
[8] W.T. Hester, J.A. Kuprenas, T.C. Chang, Construction changes and change
orders: their magnitude and impact, Construction Industry Institute (CII),
Source Document, vol. 66, CII, Austin, Tex, 1991.
[9] C.W. Ibbs, Quantitative impacts of project change: size issues, J. Constr.
Eng. Manag., ASCE 123 (3) (1997) 308–311.
[10] A.S. Hanna, J.S. Russell, P.J. Vandenberg, The impact of change orders on
mechanical construction labour efficiency, J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 17
(1999) 721–730.
[11] T.M. Williams, Safety regulation changes during projects: the use of
system dynamics to quantify the effects of change, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 18
(1) (2000) 23–31.
[12] M. Lee, A.S. Hanna, W. Loh, Decision tree approach to classify and
quantify cumulative impact of change orders on productivity, J. Comput.
Civ. Eng., ASCE 18 (2) (2004) 132–144.
[13] S. Ahmed, D. Sriram, R. Logcher, Transaction-management issues in
collaborative engineering, J. Comput. Civ. Eng., ASCE 6 (1) (1992) 85–105.
[14] H. Peltonen, T. Mannisto, K. Alho, R. Sulonen, An engineering document
management system, Proc. ASME Winter Annu. Meeting, 1993.
[15] D. Spooner, M. Hardwick, Using persistent object technology to support
concurrent engineering systems, Concurrent Engineering: Methodology
and Applications, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 205–234.
[16] R. Ganeshan, J. Garrett, S. Finger, A framework for representing design
intent, Des. Stud. 15 (1) (1994) 59–84.
[17] K. Krishnamurthy, K. Law, A data management model for design change
control, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl. 3 (4) (1995) 329–343.
[18] A. Mokhtar, C. Bedard, P. Fazio, Information model for managing design
changes in a collaborative environment, J. Comput. Civ. Eng., ASCE 12
(2) (1998) 82–92.
[19] C. Soh, Z. Wang, Parametric coordinator for engineering design,
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., ASCE 14 (4) (2000) 233–240.
[20] T. Hegazy, E. Zaneldin, D. Grierson, Improving design coordination for
building projects: I. Information model, J. Constr. Eng. Manag., ASCE 127
(4) (2001) 322–329.
[21] A. Karim, H. Adeli, CONSCOM: an OO construction scheduling and change
management system, J. Constr. Eng. Manag., ASCE 125 (5) (1999) 368–376.
[22] C. Charoenngam, S.T. Coquince, B.H.W. Hadikusumo, Web-based
application for managing change orders in construction projects, J. Constr.
Innov. 3 (2003) 197–215.
[23] J. Sterman, System Dynamics Modeling for Project Management, Sloan
School of Management, MIT, On-line Publication, 1992 bhttp://web.mit.
edu/jsterman/www/N, Last Visit: October, 2002.
[24] J. Sterman, Business Dynamics: System Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World, McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY (2000) pp. 55–61,
469–511, 563–567, and 587–595.
 I.A. Motawa et al. / Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 368–377
[25] S. Lee, F. Peña-Mora, M. Park, Dynamic quality and change management
framework for concurrent design and construction, ASCE Construction
Research Congress, March 19–21, 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii, ASCE,
Reston, 2003, pp. NA (Electronic Book).
[26] M. Park, F. Peña-Mora, Dynamic change management for construction:
introducing change cycle into model-based project management, System
Dynamics Review, vol. 19, No. 3, System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY,
2003, pp. 213–242.
[27] I.A. Motawa, C.J. Anumba, A. El-Hamalawi, P.W.H. Chung, M. Yeoh,
Modelling change processes within construction projects, Proceedings of
377
the Second International Conference on Structural and Construction
Engineering (ISEC-02), Rome, Italy, Sep. 2003, pp. 2185–2190.
[28] I.A. Motawa, C.J. Anumba, A. El-Hamalawi, P.W.H. Chung, M. Yeoh, An
innovative approach to the assessment of change implementation in
construction projects, Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, Loughbor-
ough University, UK, June 2003, pp. 729–740.
[29] S. Lee, Dynamic quality and change management for large scale
concurrent design and construction projects, MIT Master Thesis, 2003.