Project Management and Green Buildings:

Lessons from the Rating Systems

Peng Wu1 and Sui Pheng Low2

Abstract: Building sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions around the globe. Being green, or sustainable, is one pressing
issue coming from both internal and external drivers for construction and engineering companies. Green building has experienced rapid
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CURTIN UNIVERSITY on 01/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

growth in the past several years. To assess how green, or sustainable, the building is, several green rating systems have been developed.
Among these rating systems, more similarities exist than differences. One noteworthy difference—project management—serves as the
motivation behind this investigation. To identify the role of project management that is less related to technology and engineering in
developing green building rating systems, this research centers on a comparison between the LEED, the Green Globes, and the BCA
Green Mark to obtain an understanding of current practices, and more importantly, to address the significance of project management in
achieving green or sustainable construction. The findings suggest that project management adopted in green building construction involves
both the practice and the process. Although the practice—mainly represented through the project management body of knowledge—is
currently the focus of green building construction, the importance of the process, such as managing people, organizational structure,
building commissioning, performance documentation, and so on, cannot be neglected, as can be seen from the evolution of the green
rating systems. It is recommended that the construction and engineering companies take project management in terms of both the process
and the practice into consideration when fulfilling requirements of being green.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲EI.1943-5541.0000006
CE Database subject headings: Sustainable development; Climate change; Project management; Construction companies.
Author keywords: Sustainable development; Climate change; Project management; Construction companies.

Introduction According to Adler et al. 2006, green building is often devel-

Green building is a way of enhancing the environment, which
benefits human well being, community, environmental health,
and life-cycle costs 共Adler et al. 2006兲. It belongs to the concept
of “sustainable development,” which also serves as the driving
force. However, instead of simply regarding green building as an
assembly of new materials, technologies, and other pieces of
environment-friendly innovations, it should be a holistic solution
to achieve the concept of sustainable development in the project
life cycle including project planning, designing, constructing, and
operating. In the past few decades, green building has been
through a flourishing development due to a growing market de-
mand for environment-friendly solutions and products. The
practices of green building were initiated primarily from the non-
profit sector, federal, state, and municipal building projects
共Smith et al. 2006兲. However, the concept of green building is
now widespread in the construction industry due to the rising
awareness of sustainability.
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Building, School of Design and Environ-
ment, National Univ. of Singapore, 4 Architecture Dr., Singapore 117566,
Singapore 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: g0700346@nus.edu.sg
2
Professor, Dept. of Building, School of Design and Environment,
National Univ. of Singapore, 4 Architecture Dr., Singapore 117566, Sin-
gapore. E-mail: bdglowsp@nus.edu.sg
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 15, 2008; ap-
proved on April 23, 2009; published online on March 15, 2010. Discus-
sion period open until September 1, 2010; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 136,
No. 2, April 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1052-3928/2010/2-64–70/$25.00.
oped under the guideline of a rating system, which provides guid-
ance on the measurements and can supply recognition and
validation of that level of commitment. Rating systems can be
divided by the difference of concentration into two groups: one
which focuses on specific building components or activities, and
the other that centers on regarding the building as a whole entity.
Among the whole-building rating systems, the leadership in en-
ergy and environmental design 共LEED兲 green building rating
system and the Green Globes are the most well-known standards.
The Building and Construction Authority 共BCA兲 Green Mark
was launched in January 2005 as well in Singapore to spur
Singapore’s construction industry toward more environment-
friendly buildings 关Building and Construction Authority 共BCA兲
2008兴. It is obvious that these green building rating systems share
many similarities, including water, energy efficiency, and indoor
environment quality. However, significant questions relating to
how the degree of the differences in the rating criteria among the
rating systems influences performance should focus on the major
differences. This paper aims to take the first step in assessing the
three green building rating systems, mainly focusing on one
major difference, which is project management, to identify the
role of project management in achieving the green agenda or
sustainable construction. Thus, the objectives of this study are:
• To compare the LEED, the Green Globes, and the BCA Green
Mark on a general level, mainly focusing on the measure-
ments;
• To highlight the sections in all three rating systems which
address the role of project management in obtaining the cor-
responding rating credits; and
• To identify the sections which are highlighted above and to
prepare a package for the construction industry to understand

64 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2010

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010.136:64-70.

 the role of project management in achieving sustainable con-
struction in terms of processes and practices.
Green Building
Green building emerged during the late 19th and early 20th cen-
turies 共Cassidy 2003兲. However, it is until recently that green
building has gained widespread development. In the 1980s, under
the cover of sustainable development 共Rees 1989兲 and sustainable
design 共St. John 1992兲, green building has proven to be successful
in contributing toward sustainability. Green building refers to tai-
loring a building and its placement on the site to the local climate,
site conditions, culture, and community to reduce resource con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CURTIN UNIVERSITY on 01/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sumption, augment resource supply, and enhance the quality and
diversity of life 共Adler et al. 2006兲. It is a division under the
umbrella of sustainable development, which is characterized by
Sara Parkin of the British environmental initiative forum for the
future as “a process that enables all people to realize their poten-
tial and improve their quality of life in ways that protect and
enhance the Earth’s life support systems 共Forum for the Future
2008兲.” In accordance with the three aspects of sustainable devel-
opment, which are economic, social, and environmental, green
building can benefit human well being, community, environmen-
tal health, and life-cycle costs 共Adler et al. 2006兲.
Green building rating systems are designed to assess and
evaluate the performance of either the whole building or a spe-
cific division of the building from planning, designing, construct-
ing, and operations. In so far as the assessment and evaluation
criteria are concerned, rating systems, guidelines, and standards
can be categorized into two groups: those which concentrate on
specific building components or areas, and those which identify
the building as a whole evaluation entity 共Adler et al. 2006兲. As
the concentrations of different rating systems vary, the same
building can be green credited by one while failed to be credited
by another at the same time. The rating process seems to be a
more subjective review than it was thought to be.
Among the whole-building rating systems, the LEED, which
was developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, is the most
commonly used whole-building rating system around the world.
This study focuses on the LEED-new construction 共LEED-NC兲
rating system, which is currently the premier and most heavily
used green rating system in the United States 共Haselbach 2008兲.
The LEED-NC rating system is applicable to new commercial
construction and major renovation projects 共USGBC 2008兲. The
LEED includes six categories, all of which carry a specific
amount of rating credits. Different certification from LEED certi-
fied, LEED silver, LEED gold, to LEED platinum is issued to the
project in proportion to the amount of credits that are allocated to
the project.
Due to different market concentrations and its relative new-
ness, the Green Globes, on the other hand, does not attract as
much attention as the LEED does 共Smith et al. 2006兲. It origi-
nated from a British version, which is the building research es-
tablishment assessment method 共BREEAM兲 and was adopted and
introduced into the Canadian market as the BREEAM green leaf
rating system. This system is known as the origin of the Green
Globes. Similar to the LEED, the Green Globes has seven areas
of assessment as well as other supplements. A rating certification
between one and four Green Globes is issued to the project based
on the scores achieved.
The BCA Green Mark is a green building rating system devel-
oped by the BCA and supported by the National Environment
Agency in Singapore. It aims to assess and evaluate a building for
JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 65
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010.136:64-70.
its environmental impact and performance based on five key rat-
ing criteria. Similar to previous rating systems, buildings can be
awarded a platinum, goldplus, gold, or certified rating depending
on the points scored 共BCA 2008兲.
There are relatively few publications that directly compare the
LEED and the Green Globes. The Athena Sustainable Materials
Institute 共2002兲 has completed a study focusing on a comparison
of the LEED and the Canadian version of the Green Globes with
the conclusion that there is a close relationship between the two
systems in terms of contents, goals, and weightings of rating cri-
teria. The Natural Resources Defense Council has released a re-
port to focus on the increased stringency and credibility of
the LEED rating system over the flexibility and ease of use of
the Green Globes system 共Bright, U. “Comparison of the LEED
and Green Globes green building rating systems.” Backgrounder
Report of the Natural Resources Defense Council, 2005兲. In ad-
dition, the Carpenters Industrial Council has conducted a research
to deeply investigate the comprehensiveness, comparability,
and credit/point balance between the LEED and the Green Globes
共Smith et al. 2006兲. The BCA Green Mark was released in Janu-
ary, 2005. There was no previous study which focuses on com-
paring the Green Mark with the other two more popular rating
systems due to its regional limitation. However, the BCA Green
Mark should not be overlooked because of the current eco-
city initiative undertaken jointly by Singapore and China in
Tianjin. The Tianjin ecocity project is likely to be the first and
most significant building project at a macrolevel to focus on
environment-friendly features that could provide valuable ecoles-
sons for other countries worldwide 共BCA 2008兲. This study takes
the first step to investigate the differences between these three
green rating systems to examine if the differences can lead to
further improvement.
Project Management
In the past few years, the concepts of green design and green
construction have been embraced by an increasing numbers of
architects, designers, and building owners to achieve the green
objective 共Cole et al. 2000兲. In the concepts of green design and
green construction, there are many systems that can help to
achieve the green objective, including energy efficiency, quality
management system, using environmentally friendly materials,
etc. Much attention has been paid to components of these sys-
tems, which are often referred to as technical-related issues.
Project management is often regarded as a set of tools which can
help to fulfill the requirements of the systems, such as waste
management, materials management, site management, and so on.
However, due to the long duration, green building is better re-
garded as a process rather than a product. Simply looking at
project management as components of these systems would lead
to problems from loss of efficiency to project failure. The com-
ponents of these systems may be defined by one group, planned
by another group, and executed by yet another group. Therefore,
the project management process which can ensure a smooth flow
of the practices should not be overlooked.
On the other hand, the project management process, which is
often referred to as the nontechnical-related issues, is currently
not being paid enough attention. Hughes and Williams 共1995兲
stated that most organizations implementing a quality system tend
to pay much attention to the technical requirements stipulated in
the ISO 9000 standards as well as understanding how the process
in organizations may achieve ISO 9000 certification. Low 共1998兲
argued that when implementing total quality management sys-
 Table 1. Points Allocation of LEED 2.2, Green Globes, and BCA Green Mark 3.0
Green rating system
Assessment area LEED 2.2 Green Globes BCA Green Mark 3.0
Project management T N/I 100 共10.0%兲 32 共22.9%兲
M 50 Together with water, indoor
environment, and others:
maximum capacity: 50/minimum: 20
Site T 14 共20.3%兲 120 共12.0%兲 N/I
M 24
Energy T 17 共24.6%兲 300 共30.0%兲 79 共56.4%兲 共exclude bonus points兲
M Path A: 150/Path B: 100 Maximum capacity: 50/minimum: 30
Water T 5 共7.3%兲 130 共13.0%兲 14 共10.0%兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CURTIN UNIVERSITY on 01/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

M 26 See project management

Resources/materials T 13 共18.8%兲 145 共14.5%兲 N/I
M 29
Emissions and storage T N/I 45 共4.5%兲 N/I
of hazardous materials M 9
Indoor environment T 15 共21.7%兲 160 共16.0%兲 8 共5.7%兲
M 32 See project management
Others Innovation and design process: 5 points 共7.3%兲 N/I Other green features: 7 points 共5%兲
Note: Path A = performance design option; Path B = prescriptive design option; T = total possible points; and M = minimum points required.

tems, nontechnical or human behavioral attributes should never
be overlooked. Gray and Larson 共2008兲 stated that project man-
agers are exposed to so many project management softwares that
they become infatuated with network charts, Gantt diagrams, and
performance variances and consequently attempt to manage a
project from a distance. In fact, Czuchry and Yasin 共2003兲 men-
tioned traditional project management as closed system where the
technical aspects of project management are highlighted. Instead
of relying solely on the practices, project managers should be able
to adapt to an open system where both the technical and nontech-
nical aspects of project management are balanced.
Systems Overview
To reflect the more common practice, the most popularly adopted
versions are chosen for comparison, which are the LEED for NC
and major renovations version 2.2 共referred to as LEED 2.2兲, the
GBI-proposed American National Standard 01-2008P 共referred to
as the Green Globes兲, and the BCA Green Mark for nonresidential
building version 3.0 共referred to as the BCA Green Mark 3.0兲. At
first sight, it seems that all three rating systems share a lot of
common areas in terms of rating categories and allocation of
points. As can be seen from Table 1, the allocation of credits/
points to different categories is only a few percentages off when
comparing these three systems, among which energy takes up the
highest weighting. In addition, although LEED 2.2 does not set
the minimum credits required to achieve certification, there is a
certain amount of prerequisites under each area that must be
implemented without being allocated with credits.
From Table 1, it seems that no credits have been allocated to
the section on project management in LEED 2.2. However, this is
not true because the same entry may be classified into different
categories. For example, both LEED 2.2 and the Green Globes
put public transport under the heading of site while the BCA
Green Mark 3.0 addresses the same criteria in the section on
environmental protection. Previous studies carried out by Smith
et al. 共2006兲 reallocated the assessment areas to form a system
based on eight generic “sustainability” categories, including 共1兲
energy use; 共2兲 water use; 共3兲 pollution; 共4兲 material/product in-
puts; 共5兲 indoor air quality and occupant comfort; 共6兲 transport;
共7兲 site ecology; and 共8兲 other sustainable design. Adopting the
same consideration, in this research, rating criteria are reallocated
accordingly. However, only those related to project management
are reorganized, in accordance with the objectives of this study.
Comparison of LEED 2.2, Green Globes, and BCA
Green Mark 3.0
At first sight, it would seem that the Green Globes offers a better
package which identifies project management process as one
major rating area. Evaluation points are allocated from predesign,
construction, to postconstruction stage. In the predesign stage, the
Green Globes suggests that individuals that represent different
disciplines, which include the owner’s representative, green de-
sign and delivery coordinator, architect, contractor, civil engineer,
and other stakeholders, are to be involved in a planning session to
discuss and establish performance goals and measurements. The
planning session can be in the form of a meeting, charrette, or
workshop 关Green Building Initiative 共GBI兲 2008兴. The perfor-
mance goals and measurements that are decided in the predesign
planning sessions are to be applied in the construction and post-
construction stage. In addition, there are 48 points, which repre-
sents nearly 50% of the credits in the project management process
that will be allocated to the commissioning process, which in-
cludes the structural system, heating, ventilation and air condi-
tioning 共HVAC兲 system, electrical system, etc. The reason is that
with the commissioned systems, quality is assured and environ-
mental protection practice is applied from the start.
In a similar fashion, the BCA Green Mark 3.0 identifies sus-
tainable construction and environmental management practice as
important rating criteria when allocating credits. Project manage-
ment takes up to 21 points, which represents 13.2% of the total
credits. However, instead of allocating credits to the processes
which stimulate sustainable or green practices, the BCA Green
Mark 3.0 focuses on allocating credits to these practices them-
selves, such as using concrete more efficiently and introducing

66 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2010

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010.136:64-70.

 Table 2. Comparison of LEED 2.2, Green Globes, and BCA Green Mark 3.0 in the Area of Project Management

Bold = Major credits PM Project Management IDP Innovation and Design Process GDDC Green Design and Delivery Coordination
Bold italics = Subdivisions of credits or strategies employed EA Energy and Atmosphere MR Materials and Resources EM Environmental Management
= No equivalent PR Prerequisite SS Sustainable Site MRT/LRT Mass Rapid Transit/Light Rapid Transit

LEED 2.2 % of PM % of total Green Globes % of PM % of total BCA Green Mark 3.0 % of PM % of total

Project management process 3.0 21.4% 4.3% Project management process 106.0 62.7% 10.6% Project management process 6.0 28.6% 3.8%

6.1 Coordination and benchmarking 28.0

GDDC pre-design green design meetings 4.0
GDDC performance goals 10.0
GDDC progress meetings for design 6.0
GDDC progress meetings for construction 8.0
Project Management Process

Suggested documentation 0.0

6.2 Environmental management during construction 16.0
Environmental management systems 5.0
Building materials and building envelope 2.0
Indoor air quality 9.0
Suggested documentation 0.0
EA, IDP and MR 3.0 6.3 Whole building commissioning 48.0 3-1/3-3 Sustainable construction/EM practice 6.0
Pre-commissioning 3.0
Fundamental commissioning of the Developer, main building, etc. that are ISO
EA PR 1 0.0 3-3 c 1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CURTIN UNIVERSITY on 01/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

building energy system 14000 certificated

EA 3 Enhanced commissioning 1.0 Certificated Green Mark Manager or Certificated
Whole building commissioning 39.0 3-3 b 3.0
IDP 2 LEED accredited professional 1.0 Green Mark Professional
Building quality assessed under Construction
3-3 d 1.0
Quality Assessment System
Environmental friendly products certificated
MR 7 Certificated woods 1.0 10.3.2 Certification of wood-based products 6.0 3-1 c(i) 1.0
under The Singapore Green Labelling Scheme
Suggested documentation 0.0
6.4 Environmental management- post construction 14.0
Operations and maintenance manuals 14.0
% of PM % of total Suggested documentation 0.0 % of PM % of total % of PM % of total

Project management practice 11.0 78.6% 15.9% Project management practice 63.0 37.3% 6.3% Project management practice 15.0 71.4% 9.4%
Project Management Practice

Public transport 2.0 Public transport 8.0 Public transport accessibility 2.0
SS 4.1 Public transport access 1.0 7.1.1.2 Located within a 0.25mi of a public transport 5.0 3-4 a Good access to MRT/LRT or bus stops 1.0
SS 4.2 Bicycle storage and changing rooms 1.0 7.1.1.3 Bicyle path, bicyle rack, sidewalk access 3.0 3-4 b Adequate bicycles parking lots 1.0
Materials and Resources 9.0 Materials/Resources 55.0 Environmental protection 13.0
10.1.2/ Recycled content (assemblies/furnishings, finishes
MR 4.1-4.2 Recycled content 2.0 21.0 3-1 c(ii) Products with at least 30% recycled content 4.0
10.2.3 and fit-outs)
10.1.3-4/ Transportation (assemblies/furnishings, finishes and
MR 5.1-5.2 Regional materials 2.0 14.0
10.2.4-5 fit-outs)
3-1 a More efficient concrete usage 4.0
MR 1.1-1.3 Building reuse 3.0 10.4 Reuse of existing structures 18.0 3-1 b Conservation of existing building structure 2.0
Provision of facilities for collection and storage
MR PR 1 Storage and collectin of recyclables 0.0 10.5.2 Operations-related recycling programs 2.0 3-3 f 1.0
of recyclable waste
MR 2.1-2.2 Construction waste management 2.0 10.5.4 Suggested documentations-waste minimization 0.0 3-3 a Implement environmental friendly programmes 1.0
10.5.4 Suggest documentations-other 0.0 3-3 f Provision of building users' guide 1.0

Note: Bold= major credits; PM= project management; IDP= innovation and designed process; GDDC= green design and delivery coordination; bold
italics= subdivisions of credits or strategies employed; EA= energy and atmosphere; MR= materials and resources; EM= environmental management;
NE= no equivalent; PR= prerequisite; SS= sustainable site; and MRT/ LRT= mass rapid transit/light rapid transit.

sustainable materials and products in building construction. address the problem that a project might be certified without con-
LEED 2.2 for NC and major renovations, published in October sidering the whole-building performance. In addition, instead of
2005, seems to have many similarities with the BCA Green Mark using the all-or-nothing approach which is adopted by LEED 2.2,
3.0, both of which intend to highlight sustainable practices rather the Green Globes offers grant the possibility to gain partial credits
than the process to achieve these practices. In addition, the sus- for implementing certain technologies which might lower the as-
tainable construction and environmental management practice sessment levels 共Smith et al. 2006兲. However, this does not pre-
adopted in LEED 2.2 and the BCA Green Mark are quite similar. vent the newly reviewed Green Globes from being regarded as
Both encourage building reuse, if there are existing building one of the leading whole-building rating systems that takes both
structures, as well as construction waste management plans. the process and the practice into consideration.
When evaluating the LEED 2.2 and the BCA Green Mark 3.0, In summary, as shown in Table 2, the Green Globes allocates
there may be a problem of point chasing from project manage- 62.7% of the credits to project management process, where LEED
ment credits which have lower investment costs over the other 2.2 and the BCA Green Mark 3.0 only allocate 20–30% of the
credits that are more difficult to obtain. Project management in credits to project management. It seems that the Green Globes
LEED 2.2 and the BCA Green Mark 3.0 takes around 20% of the embraces the strategy that it is better to do something instead of
whole project management credits. Other than that, few credits nothing at all, which is quite similar to previous findings 共Smith
have been allocated to interaction, communication, and collabo- et al. 2006兲. LEED 2.2 and the BCA Green Mark 3.0 seem to
ration during the project life cycle. The problems are even worse have a lot of strategies and gray areas 共as shown in Table 2兲 in
in the BCA Green Mark 3.0, even though it has a similar section common. Both rely heavily on project management practice
on mandatory requirements as the prerequisites in LEED 2.2. 共78.6% for LEED 2.2 and 71.4% for Green Mark兲 and yet show a
A minimum of 20 points is allocated to parts 2, 3, 4, and 5 as a lack of the processes to achieve sustainable construction. All the
whole, which are water efficiency, environmental protection credits in the project management process are taken by commis-
共project management practice兲, indoor environmental quality, and sioning and certification activities.
other green features, respectively. The project can fulfill the mini-
mum point requirements by simply obtaining the credits from
project management practice, which is allocated up to 21 points. Project Management and Sustainable Construction
Thus, a project can be Green Mark certified even if the areas of
water efficiency and indoor environmental quality are overlooked. Although green building is better regarded as a process rather
This would obviously harm the development, especially when than a product due to the long duration, much attention has been
the BCA Green Mark 3.0 is identified as a whole-building rating paid on green design and green construction rather than on the
systems. complete project life cycle. Even if green construction is consid-
On the other hand, the Green Globes sets a minimum percent- ered in project life cycle, as explained in LEED 2.2 and BCA
age of points required for each environmental assessment area to Green Mark 3.0, it is the practice rather than the process that are

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 67

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010.136:64-70.

 being focused upon. As shown earlier, project management takes
around 20% of the credits in the rating systems. This route is easy
and has a low investment cost to implement during the project life
cycle. This section investigates the project management area to
achieve sustainable construction, in terms of both the process and
the practice.
As discussed previously, in LEED 2.2 and BCA Green Mark
3.0, project management practices, including waste management,
environmental management programs, materials management,
site management, and so on, are allocated with most of the points
in the project management section 共78.6% in LEED 2.2 and
71.4% in BCA Green Mark 3.0兲. The results clearly indicate the
importance of project management practice in current construc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CURTIN UNIVERSITY on 01/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion projects to achieve the green agenda. However, the Green
Globes, on the other hand, allocates most of the credits in the
project management section 共62.7%兲 to processes such as coordi-
nation, building commissioning, documentation, etc. If the project
intends to obtain certification under the Green Globes, this allo-
cation strategy will force the project manager to be more balanced
between the process and the practice.
Although the green building rating systems may not be 100%
credible to evaluate how green the building is, they do provide
useful information on the good practices and measures to achieve
green objectives. In fact, each rating system provides a certain
level of information that can help project managers to balance
between the process and the practice. An effective project man-
agement package to fulfill the requirements of green building
should include:
• Project management process in the project life cycle to achieve
sustainable construction;
• Delivery of relevant aspirations to different project parties
without the sustainability baton, which is referred to as the
“green baton” being dropped at key points in the process;
• Construction management practice during the construction pe-
riod to achieve the green objective; and
• Feedback and documentation of the project life cycle for con-
tinuous improvement.
Project Management Process
In the predesign stage, the level of understanding of, and commit-
ment to, sustainability vary with different parties, including client,
architect, engineers, and other stakeholders 共Halliday 2008兲. Indi-
viduals that represent the disciplines listed above should be in-
volved in a planning session to discuss green issues and
performance goals 共GBI 2008兲. The planning session during the
predesign stage is of critical importance to realize the goal of
sustainability because it is the starting point to achieve sustain-
ability. The client has to clearly identify the needs; architects,
engineers, and project managers have to figure out the project
envelope; and environmental engineer and quantity surveyor
should research into sustainability issues and life-cycle costing.
Different parties contribute their knowledge into the process to
identify the performance goals, such as site issues, water effi-
ciency, indoor environmental quality, environmentally responsible
construction activities, etc.
As stated previously, the construction life cycle can be divided
into a few set periods from briefing to handover of the project.
Problems exist when the project team transfers the performance
goals into the following period. Varied interests always lead to the
green baton. According to Liddel 共2006兲, green baton means that
at each stage in the project life cycle, where there is a high risk of
the sustainability baton being dropped throughout the process, the
68 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2010
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010.136:64-70.
sustainability agenda is vulnerable. Hence, as construction moves
on, more and more green performance goals are dropped. At the
end of the construction period, when the project is handed over to
the client, it may be far from what have been expected, in a
negative manner. To safeguard the green baton during the project
life cycle, Halliday 共2008兲 proposed that the project should start
with high aspirations, or green performance standards, and in-
volve the widest range of interests in the design process. In addi-
tion, a smoother flow or handover of the baton, which can be
realized by regular progress meetings during the project life
cycle, is of critical importance to the success of green building.
The project management process is highlighted in the Green
Globes by allocating 62.7% of the project management points to
progress meetings, coordination, benchmarking, commissioning,
and documentation. Although LEED 2.2 and BCA Green Mark
3.0 allocate 20–30% of the project management points to the
process, most of the points are allocated to commissioning and
certification activities. No points are allocated to planning and
coordination which may lead to problems such as green baton
which will hinder LEED 2.2 and BCA Green Mark 3.0 from
reaching their full potential.
Construction
The construction period is often lengthy and easily exposed to all
kinds of pollutions, which can influence both the local and na-
tional environments, depending on the nature of the project. Three
types of inputs are discussed in this section, which are labor,
equipment, and material. All inputs are of critical importance to
improve the overall productivity and reduce waste in the con-
struction period. Basically, green construction is about planning
and scheduling. Other than introducing the low-emission vehicles
and improving fuel efficiency, green construction aims at plan-
ning and scheduling to fulfill the green project requirements,
which is always less technology and design related and is often
overlooked by the industry. According to Glavinich 共2008兲, an-
other consideration is the need to minimize site disturbance dur-
ing construction or to protect materials and equipment from
contamination during the construction process. Hence, planning
and scheduling is about fulfilling the green project requirements
with high efficiency and low interruption 共sometimes referred to
as “waste”兲.
• Labor. Projects are carried out by people. As skilled workforce
is a must for the success of a project, this workforce must be
cared for and preserved just like any other resource used in the
construction industry 共Glavinich 2008兲. Training is essential to
raise awareness of sustainable construction and reduce waste.
According to EPA 共2004兲, if driven carelessly, even a perfectly
maintained vehicle will pollute more than necessary. Thus, it is
necessary and beneficial for the operators to understand and
follow the sustainable operating conventions. In the Green
Globes, training and awareness is also allocated up to 5 points
under the heading of environmental management system with
action plan, communication, and emergency preparedness and
response. Being treated with equity and respect in terms of
training, learning, and meaningful jobs, collaboration of differ-
ent parties can be achieved. However, the importance of labor
is only addressed in the Green Globes by providing training,
action plan, and raising awareness of the employees. Both
LEED 2.2 and BCA Green Mark 3.0 highlight the adoption of
green-certificated project managers and professionals but do
not allocate credits to the site workers who are doing the actual
work. In fact, Low and Choong 共2001兲 stated that the site
 workers usually have a lower level of motivation than the site
engineers. More programs should be organized for the general
employees in green building construction.
• Equipment. The most commonly adopted option to restrict
equipment movement to prevent site disturbance is a proper
site layout. One target of green construction is to minimize site
disturbance either to preserve the natural environment or to
cause minimum interruption to local environment around the
project, which requires restricting equipment movement. In
addition, as equipment consumes energy in terms of electricity
or fuel to maintain operations, restricting equipment involve-
ment can bring economic and environmental benefits, both of
which are essential to the success of a green project. This is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CURTIN UNIVERSITY on 01/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the situation where the just-in-time 共JIT兲 concept can be ap-
plied with minimum alterations. By applying the concept, in
the predesign stage, all the deliveries of the materials, con-
struction, and installation activities are taken into consider-
ation so that no unnecessary movements happen on site. The
right parts needed are delivered to site at the time they are
needed and only in the amount needed 共Ohno 1988兲. While the
implementation of the JIT concept in traditional projects is not
mandatory at the moment, it is always good practice to apply
this in green projects, based on the fact that most rating sys-
tems do take minimum energy usage into consideration. By
appropriately managing equipment, minimum energy usage
and energy efficiency can be achieved, which will help to
achieve the corresponding credits in the three rating systems,
such as EA credit 1 to optimize energy performance in LEED
2.2, Section 6.1.2 to achieve energy efficiency in Green
Globes, and Section 3-3 to minimize energy usage in BCA
Green Mark 3.0.
• Material. Generally speaking, a material plan can be divided
into three phases: selection, conservation, and usage. When
selecting the materials for the project, other than fulfilling the
project requirements, there are some other considerations that
cannot be neglected. Prefabricated materials are widely
adopted right now because of their easy installation, fire pro-
tection, and so on. In addition, prefabricated materials and
products are manufactured in factories within a closed envi-
ronment where quality management can be better applied to
fulfill the requirement of being environment friendly. Adopting
materials with recycled contents is one similarity that all three
rating systems share. Location of the supplier is another con-
sideration especially when all rating systems allocate a certain
amount of credits to regionally extracted, processed, and
manufactured materials. Both LEED 2.2 and Green Globes
take transportation into consideration by advocating regionally
manufactured materials. When using regionally manufactured
materials is not viable, it is always a good practice to try to
combine possible deliveries together to reduce delivery cost,
which is often referred to as the rim delivery system. As stated
previously, if the JIT concept is applied to the construction
stage, materials will be immediately used at the time when
they reach the site. It is not necessary to provide storage area
for materials. However, if storage area is needed on site, as the
Green Globes proposed, building materials made of organic
matter as well as steel should be protected on site and in tran-
sit. Managing equipment and materials through the JIT con-
cept in green building construction can save both energy
consumption and costs. However, it requires a stable relation
between the suppliers and the contractors so that no last
minute changes would be made. However, the contractors by
far are obscured by the initial price and may have generally
JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2010 / 69
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010.136:64-70.
overlooked the potential benefit of JIT management 共Low and
Choong 2001兲.
Postoccupancy
Green building is better regarded as a process rather than a prod-
uct due to the long postconstruction operational duration. Being
a process, operations and maintenance need to be taken into
consideration. Green building may be different with regard to
operations and maintenance, contractual issues, defects control,
etc. There will be daily, weekly, seasonal, and annual routines
共Halliday 2008兲. It is especially important for the building to be
commissioned if the client is seeking green certification. Accord-
ing to Glavinich 共2008兲, the purpose of building commissioning is
to ensure that building systems operate and can be maintained in
accordance with the owner’s project requirements as expressed in
the facility program that defines the owner’s operational require-
ments, which include:
• Building systems have been installed properly and operate
correctly;
• Each building system being commissioned interacts well with
other building systems;
• Complete equipment and system documentation, including op-
erations and maintenance, is provided to the client and final
users; and
• Client and final users have been properly trained to perform
reliable, efficient, and sustainable building operations.
In fact, operations and maintenance are the areas that green
rating regulatory bodies have taken into consideration when re-
vising the rating systems. Building and Construction Authority
共2008兲 proposed the provision of a building users’ guide that in-
cludes details of the environmental friendly facilities and features
within the building and their uses in achieving the intended envi-
ronmental performance during building operations. Green Build-
ing Initiative 共2008兲 also mentioned the importance of operations
and maintenance manuals to the success of the green building,
which, like other products, have running problems.
As stated above, the demand for green buildings is growing.
Yudelson 共2004兲 forecasted green building growth rates in the
double digits until 2007. However, this does not erase the fact that
green building is in its infancy and it is still a niche market.
Continuous improvement based on previous experience is essen-
tial for the development of green buildings. The feedback review
can be carried out by different parties in different stages. After the
completion of the building, the project team can investigate the
building performance to draw lessons. At the same time, feedback
can be documented by final users in the following years after
completion. Finally, the performance can be assessed by third
parties to highlight both generic and technical lessons for further
improvement. However, it should be noted that documentation for
continuous improvement is not allocated any credit at the current
versions of all three rating systems. It remains a “better-do” rather
than a “must-do” activity. Although documentations for continu-
ous improvement are not allocated with credits in green rating
systems right now, there remains a good chance that this will
happen in the near future because of the benefits this can bring to
the construction industry.
Conclusions
Green building is not a simple fusion of green design, techniques,
and materials. It is a holistic solution to achieve the concept of
 sustainable development in the project life cycle including project
planning, designing, constructing, and operating. Although this
life-cycle concept is adopted by a majority of the professionals,
most concentration has been focused on design and technical-
related areas that can be applied in the design and construction
stage. However, by comparing LEED 2.2 published in 2005 with
the Green Globes and BCA Green Mark 3.0, which were both
published in 2008, there is a trend that project management pro-
cess can offer a low-cost low-barrier avenue. Through the com-
parison of the three rating systems, this research is able to address
the importance of project management, in terms of both the prac-
tice and the process, which is allocated around 20% of the credits.
In the predesign stage, defining and planning sessions are or-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CURTIN UNIVERSITY on 01/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ganized to take as wider a range of interests as possible into
consideration to prevent the green baton phenomenon from hap-
pening. Brainstorming and periodic meetings serve as the internal
process to achieve the green objectives. In addition, periodic
meetings are a precautionary measure to make sure that the build-
ing is resilient enough for changes. The execution strategies to
achieve the green agenda in the construction stage are currently
the focus of the construction industry and is allocated with most
of the credits in the project management section in both LEED
2.2 and BCA Green Mark 3.0 共78.6% in LEED 2.2 and 71.4% in
BCA Green Mark 3.0兲. Even in the construction stage, not enough
attention is paid to human resources, which is less technical re-
lated and may have great potential to help the project to achieve
the green objective. For example, facilities managers and opera-
tors have great influence on the energy consumption level of the
project because facilities, devices, equipment, and vehicles form
the largest source of energy consumption. Workers should be pro-
vided with appropriate training leading to a high awareness of
sustainability. Equipment should be organized in a JIT fashion so
that minimum involvement is achieved, thus leading to a mini-
mum interruption to the local environment around the building.
Regionally manufactured materials, if possible, should be deliv-
ered to site under the rim delivery system and be used immedi-
ately to avoid storage. This strategy saves energy consumption
and requires no storage area.
Finally, green building is not a simple building. It is rather a
process with long operational duration that has to be continually
improved because green building is still a niche market represent-
ing only 2% of the market share in the United States in 2005
共NBN 2006兲. This supports the importance of building commis-
sioning and performance documentation. As with the changes and
continuous improvements in the green building rating systems,
such a scenario is also expected in the physical construction of
green building to keep pace with recent development in the
former. Project managers should not limit themselves to the cur-
rent focus of the project management practice but also to both the
internal and external processes to achieve the green objective.
References
Adler, A., Armstrong, J. E., Fuller, S. K., Kalin, M., Karolides, A.,
Macaluso, J., and Walker, H. A. 共2006兲. Green building: Project plan-
ning and cost estimating, 2nd Ed., R.S. Means, Kingston, Mass.
70 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2010
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2010.136:64-70.
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. 共2002兲. “LEED Canada adaptation
and BREEAM/green leaf harmonization study.”
Building and Construction Authority 共BCA兲. 共2008兲. “BCA green mark
scheme.” 具http://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/green_mark_buildings.
html典 共Aug. 12, 2008兲.
Cassidy, R. 共2003兲. “White paper on sustainability: A report on the green
building movement.” Reed Business Information, Building Design &
Construction, Clearwater, Fla.
Cole, R. J., Lindsey, G., and Todd, J. A. 共2000兲. “Assessing life cycles:
Shifting from green to sustainable design.” C. Boonstra, R. Rover,
and S. Pauwels, eds., Proc., Int. Conf. Sustainable Building, Maas-
tricht, The Netherlands, 22–24.
Czuchry, A. J., and Yasin, M. M. 共2003兲. “Managing the project manage-
ment process.” Ind. Manage. Data Syst., 103共1兲, 39–46.
EPA. 共2004兲. “Exhaust and crankcase emission factors for nonroad engine
modeling—Compression-ignition.” 具http://www.epa.gov/otaq/典 共Aug.
16, 2007兲.
Forum for the Future. 共2008兲. “Formal definitions of sustainable devel-
opment.” 具http://www.forumforthefuture.org/node/327典 共Aug. 15,
2008兲.
Glavinich, T. E. 共2008兲. Contractor’s guide to green building construc-
tion: Management, project delivery, documentation and risk reduc-
tion, Wiley, New York.
Gray, C. F., and Larson, E. W. 共2008兲. Project management: The mana-
gerial process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Green Building Initiative 共GBI兲. 共2008兲. The Green Globes system,
具http://www.thegbi.org/commercial/典 共Aug. 29, 2008兲.
Halliday, S. 共2008兲. Sustainable construction, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Stoneham, Mass.
Haselbach, L. 共2008兲. The engineering guide to LEED—New construc-
tion: Sustainable construction for engineers, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Hughes, T., and Williams, T. 共1995兲. Quality assurance: A framework to
build on, 2nd Ed., Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
Liddel, H. 共2006兲. “Eco-minimalism—Less is more.” Green building
bible, Vol. 1, Green Building Press, Llandysul, U.K., 具http://www.
seda2.org/articles/Ecominimalism.html典 共Aug. 29, 2008兲.
Low, S. P. 共1998兲. “Managing total service quality: A systemic view.”
Manag. Serv. Qual., 8共1兲, 34–45.
Low, S. P., and Choong, J. C. 共2001兲. “Just-in-time management in pre-
cast concrete construction: A survey of the readiness of main contrac-
tors in Singapore.” Integr. Manuf. Syst., 12共6兲, 416–429.
NBN. 共2006兲. “Green building barrels into the mainstream market.” Na-
tion’s Building News, March 20, 2006, 具http://www.nbnnews.com/
NBN/issues/2006-03-20/Front⫹Page/ind ex.html典 共July 8, 2006兲.
Ohno, T. 共1988兲. Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale produc-
tion, Diamond, Inc., Tokyo.
Rees, W. E. 共1989兲. Planning for sustainable development: A resource
book, UBC Centre for Human Settlements, B.C., Canada.
Smith, T. M., Fischlein, M., Suh, S., and Huelman, P. 共2006兲. “Green
building rating systems: A comparison of the LEED and Green Globes
systems in the U.S.” 具http://www.usgbc.org/docs/LEEDdocs/LEED_
RS_v2-1.pdf典 共Aug. 12, 2008兲.
St. John, A. 共1992兲. The sourcebook for sustainable design: A guide to
environmentally responsible building materials and processes, Archi-
tects for Social Responsibility, Boston.
United States Green Building Council 共USGBC兲. 共2008兲. “LEED for new
construction.” 具http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID
⫽220典 共Aug. 18, 2008兲.
Yudelson, G. 共2004兲. “Forecasting market demand for green buildings
2004–2007.” Environ. Des. Construct., 12, 34–35.