article summary on design-build case study
ASSESSMENT :1 ARTICLE SUMMARY Due date: Week 3 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 700 Words Weighting: 10% Article Summary Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArticle choice (10% Marks) 10.0 to >8.4 pts Excellent The article directly discusses the main concepts suggested by the lecturer and is highly relevant, scholarly and recently published 8.4 to >7.4 pts Very Good The selected article is in the field of the subject and covers the concepts suggested by the lecturer and is scholarly and relatively current. 7.4 to >6.4 pts Good The selected article is in the field of the subject, covers the main concepts suggested by the lecturer but may not be current or scholarly. 6.4 to >4.9 pts Satisfactory The selected article is in the field of the subject and reflects one/some of the main concepts suggested by the lecturer. 4.9 to >0 pts Not Satisfactory The selected article does not reflect the subject’s main concepts. 10.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten communication skills (20% marks) 20.0 to >16.8 pts Excellent Writing shows excellent clarity and cohesion. Points have been skilfully paraphrased. There are no or very few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. 16.8 to >14.8 pts Very Good Writing shows good clarity and cohesion. Points have been paraphrased well. There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. 14.8 to >12.8 pts Good Writing is clear and coherent. Most points have been paraphrased well. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. 12.8 to >9.8 pts Satisfactory Writing is generally clear with some lapses in coherence. Some points have been paraphrased well. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. 9.8 to >0 pts Not Satisfactory Writing lacks clarity and coherence. Points have not been paraphrased well. There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. 20.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent (40% marks) 40.0 to >33.6 pts Excellent The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly, accurately and precisely, providing an excellent overview of the original article. 33.6 to >29.6 pts Very Good The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly and accurately, providing a good overview of the article with minimal irrelevant or inaccurate information. 29.6 to >25.6 pts Good The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised accurately in most parts. Some information may be irrelevant or inaccurate. 25.6 to >19.6 pts Satisfactory The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are generally evident, but may be vague, incomplete, or have some inaccuracies. 19.6 to >0 pts Not Satisfactory The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are missing, unclear, inaccurate and/or irrelevant. 40.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary (20% marks) 20.0 to >16.8 pts Excellent The summary shows coherent and logical organisation and has clear, well-structured points. 16.8 to >14.8 pts Very Good The summary shows coherent and logical organisation and most points are easy to follow. 14.8 to >12.8 pts Good The summary shows coherent and logical organisation and most points are easy to follow. 12.8 to >9.8 pts Satisfactory The summary shows some organisation, but some parts may not flow logically and are difficult to follow. 9.8 to >0 pts Not Satisfactory The summary is not well organised, does not flow logically and is difficult to follow. 20.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyle (10% marks) 10.0 to >8.4 pts Excellent The article is accurately referenced in Harvard referencing style. Reporting verbs and connecting words are used very well to create flow and cohesion. 8.4 to >7.4 pts Very Good The article is referenced in Harvard referencing style with few errors. Reporting verbs and connecting words are used well to create flow. 7.4 to >6.4 pts Good The article is referenced in Harvard referencing style but may contain some minor errors. Some reporting verbs and connecting words are used. 6.4 to >4.9 pts Satisfactory The article is referenced but contains errors or does not follow Harvard referencing style. Limited reporting verbs and connecting words are used. 4.9 to >0 pts Not Satisfactory The article is not referenced. Reporting verbs and connecting words are not used. 10.0 pts Total Points: 100.0 Facility Design Design-Build Case Study: Lessons Learned From Developing a Neighborhood Spray Park Tricia Jordan Paula Upright Fred Gibson Western Kentucky University Abstract Design-build construction is now more common in the sport and recreation industry. De- sign-build is when a single entity is responsible for design and construction (Jergeas & Fahmy, 2006). This method may be used for a variety of projects and is becoming a popular choice for sport facility managers. Benefits of design-build construction include cost savings, quicker completion speeds, and unification of recommendations by designers and contractors (DBIA, 2014). Design-build projects include professional, collegiate, and community facilities, showing the potential for use in all market sizes. In this case study, we provide an in-depth description of design-build as used by a community during the construction of a spray park. We describe the process and provide suggestions for those considering design-build construction. Keywords: design-build; park; recreation; sport; facilities 75 Tricia Jordan is an assistant professor of sport management, School of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport, Western Kentucky University. Paula Upright is an assistant professor/coordinator of sport management, School of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport, Western Kentucky University. Fred Gibson is an associate professor/director of recreation & sport administration and the grad- uate program/coordinator of facility & event management concentration & certificate, School of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport, Western Kentucky University. Please send author correspon- dence to Tricia Jordan, School of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport, Western Kentucky Uni- versity, 1906 College Heights Blvd., Bowling Green, KY 42101. E-mail:
[email protected] Journal of Facility Planning, Design, and Management Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 75–89 76 Jordan, Upright, Gibson Recreation and sport professionals are often responsible for overseeing the design and con- struction of a variety of facility types. Many professionals feel unprepared for the ultimate ac- countability that is often associated with these construction projects. Costs, competition, and the highly technical aspects of construction can leave professionals feeling ill-equipped and overex- tended. The purpose of this case study was to describe the design-build method, a construction strategy that may be a viable option in recreational and sport settings. The traditional method for planning and constructing facilities involves selecting archi- tects and general contractors based on submission of a lowest bid price. This process, known as the design-bid-build method, has been used for most of the 20th century (Perkins, 2009). The architectural firm then works with the facility owner to conceptualize and create construction documents for the project. A general contractor or construction manager is then responsible for selecting construction materials and subcontractors. The negative aspect of this approach, often referred to as lump-sum contracting, is the extreme amount of control given to the general con- tractor (Sawyer & Hypes, 2009). Philosophical and communication problems can also emerge because architects and contractors are on separate payrolls. A potential alternative, known as the design-build approach, allows owners and manag- ers to have single points of contact for design and construction with professionals employed by the same company. This creates an opportunity for integrated communication and accelerated schedules. Potential costs can often be identified earlier in the process, allowing owners to have influence over the scope of projects. Through this method, a fixed price is set, interaction is en- couraged, and costs of design changes are reduced. Design-build is not a good fit for every situation and can present challenges. Owners may still experience the loss of control and quality that often plagues traditional approaches. They may also realize a decrease in checks and balances that comes naturally when independent com- panies are employed. Some owners may even find it difficult to identify prospective design-build professionals when projects involve competitive bids and maximum prices (Selby & Bottomley, 2009). As with any method, disagreements will arise between owners and construction profes- sionals. The purpose of this case study was to describe the experience of one community that used the design-build project delivery method in constructing a spray park in an existing neigh- borhood park. The lessons learned from this case provide insight for other recreation and sport managers beginning construction projects in their parks and facilities. Literature Review There are several definitions for the design-build delivery system, but all are focused on a method in which a single entity is responsible for design and construction of any given project (Jergeas & Fahmy, 2006). The design-build method has been used extensively around the world and has become more popular over the last 10–15 years (Ernzen & Schexnayder, 2000; Lam, Chan, & Chan, 2008). Benefits typically associated with design-build project delivery include cost savings, quicker construction and project completion speeds, and unification of recommen- dations by designers and contractors (DBIA, 2014). The design-build method is also being used more frequently in the sport and recreation industry. Recent use of the concept in recreational and sport facilities includes Denver’s Invesco Field at Mile High, the Hofstra University Arena, and the Academic and Student Recreation Center (ASRC) at Portland State University (Cohen, 2001; Koller, 2013). Cohen (2001) credited the design-build concept with meeting budget and timeline expectations. Koller (2013) noted that although the Portland State University project presented challenges associated with multiple users and user needs, the design-build project met expected timelines, met budget specifications, and exceeded LEED energy usage expectations. A clear understanding of the project scope is critical to the success of a design-build project (Lam et al., 2008; Songer & Molenaar, 1997). Jergeas and Fahmy (2006) cited the three most Design-Build Case Study 77 common concerns in design-build as a lack of understanding of the process, a lack of educa- tion and training, and a lack in the quality of the request for proposals by owners. They further suggested the keys to successful application of the model lie in understanding 10 principles or strategy areas. These include understanding the process; selecting the correct project and best team to deliver the project; developing a thoroughly prepared request for proposals (RFP); as- sessing RFPs on value versus selecting the lowest price; understanding how flexibility, trust of the system, cooperating, and being open-minded assist