Development Interface Knowledge Management System for the Mass Rapid
Transit System Construction
Hung Kun Ku
Department of Civil Engineering
National Central University
Jhongli, Taiwan, Republic of China
e-mail: hkku@trts.dorts.gov.tw; kuhungkun@gmail.com
Abstract—The construction project of Mass Rapid Transit
(MRT) system is usually very costly as it involves a variety of
interfaces, a series of complicated interface management issues
brought about to affect the construction projects. Due to the lack
of an effective and systematic categorization of interface know-
ledge management system for the practitioners, this study intends
to utilize the quantitative method to sort the common interface
issues in the Taipei MRT construction projects, identify their
significant impacts, and create the architecture of interface
knowledge management system. The results show that six dimen-
sions were highlighted, among which the experience and coordi-
nation/negotiation dimensions are crucial for the performance of
projects. Furthermore, the knowledge database can be estab-
lished based on the specific components of these two dimensions
and it can offer the function of alarm, screen, comparison, solu-
tion, and cost estimation.
Keywords:knowledge management; interface; MRT project
I. INTRODUCTION
MRT system is large and complex infrastructure projects[1].
It involve high-tech characteristics of result in relatively large
budgets for such construction projects. It is difficult for a single
contractor to be solely in charge of the whole project due to the
professional and financial difficulties, and if so, it would highly
increase the associated risk; with the trend of large construction
projects being divided into several parts according to different
professional fields, the relationships between different inter-
faces has become more complex with the advancement of con-
struction methods and the development of new technologies.
Researchers such as Huang[2] point out that interface issues
during construction has been one of the main reasons for con-
struction delays in the Tamsui Line MRT construction project
(responsible for about 18%). Their study on MRT systems fo-
cuses on rail construction because it is closely related to all
aspects of the overall construction project, and many complex
interface relations are produced after the rail construction com-
pleted and the further construction handed over to the subse-
quent mechanical systems construction. The industry has not
produce a method to fully solve the interface management is-
sues so it can only solve problems one by one after they occur -
this solution is time consuming and adds the overall cost of the
project.
Jyh-Dong Lin , Chin-Tien Huang, Ruei-Hung Shiu
Department of Civil Engineering
National Central University
Jhongli, Taiwan, Republic of China
This study analyzes the problems of construction interfaces
from a relatively macroscopic view. The Management issues of
construction interfaces can be divided into external and internal
categories: issues such as historical site preservation and pipe-
line relocation during the beginning phases of the construction
project are referred to as external interfaces; the relocation of
the Le-Shen Medical asylum center during the construction of
the Shing-Chuang maintenance facility construction project is
one of examples; the issues about negotiations and relation-
ships between different portions/units of the MRT system con-
struction project such as civil engineering and internal decora-
tion, civil engineering and electro mechanical engineering,
electromechanical engineering and hydro electric environment
control, and the main contractor and other contractors are re-
ferred to as the internal interface. The construction of the Tai-
pei MRT system began in 1988 and to this day in 2010, it has
not been finished. The project has already spanned more than
20 years, accumulating a great number of interface manage-
ment issues that have not be solved, and it is anticipated that in
the next few decades, even more MRT will be constructed.
Therefore, this study plans to take a quantitative perspective to
find the relative key factors and detailed structures, then import
this information into knowledge base, and through surveys
and investigations, to categorizes and extracts various factors
via statistical and logical methods.
Through this effort/research, we wish to accumulate expe-
riences and knowledge, establish an early phase warning sys-
tem, and a system for filtering and comparing restrictive peri-
meters, develop methods and strategies for solving interface
management issues, and build a management system to eva-
luate interface costs. This study shall be completed in three
phases: quantitative analysis, importing into knowledge data-
base, and knowledge management system establishment. In the
end, the developed interface knowledge management system
can be able to provide services to construction and related in-
dustries, thereby increasing construction quality, reducing con-
struction cost, and achieving the goal of continuously passing
down experience and technologies.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The definitions of “interfaces” in the past studies are al-
ways related to the mutual relationships between two or more
units that need to be negotiated or solved. In this study, the
definition that we used, simply, is the issues between two or
more system’s functionalities and physical characteristics that
need to be mutually negotiated and agreed upon for its quality
meeting the requirements and the project progress continuing
Factor
forward. There are many different methods used in different Factor item Interface problems
loading
documents or books to categorize the interface management
issues. Al-Hammad and Assaf[3] studied the interfaces be- 01. Inconsistent operations planning 0.71
tween developer and contractor, developer and designer, and
main contractor and other contractors. Riley and Sanvido [4] 02. Designed incompatibility 0.72

introduced a method for categorizing construction types and

05. Not enough negotiation during construction management 0.75
working methods via space characteristics: such as central op-
erations and marginal operations, static spaces and working I. Management 07. Developer payment delays 0.68
spaces. Klein [5] introduced professional contract which results
factors
in project much more complex than average/common building 15. Lack of effective communication between participants of the
0.83
construction projects, and consequently results in even more project
interface issues and problems. Lin and Hsiao[6] provided an
0.82
overview of the nine major systems of the Taipei MRT elec- 16. Developer decision delays
tromechanical construction project, and divided interfaces into 0.70
18. Lack of technical and production abilities
central interfaces and derivative interfaces according to the
requirement characteristics which lead to the appearance of 08. Inaccurate project budget forecasts 0.79
interface. Al-Hammad [7] categorized the interfaces into four
parts: finance, contract, environment, and the others, and 09. Inconsistencies between the developers expectations of construc-
0.66
measured the individual effects that these respective categories tion quality and cost
had on the project. Pavitt and Gibb [8] divided interfaces into
21. Limited personal experience and an ability to feed back past data 0.65
physical, contract, and organizational type, and based on these
categories they clarified the different facets of interface man- II. 22. Increased uncertainty and gray areas within interface conflicts 0.62
agement, relative strategy, and decision making issues. Korman
Experience
et al. [9] divided interfaces into five categories: Actual, Func- 23. Inability to forecast problems with new technological methods
0.85
tional, Extended, Temporal, and Future interfaces. factors
and materials

After the non-structural interview of the contractors in the 24. Inability to solve problems caused by a new technologies 0.92
MRT construction project site, this study has discovered: most
contractors only understand their own interfaces and have no 25. Contractors' can’t meet the functionality requirements of the
means of understanding the complete interface conditions of problems between various interfaces with the current product 0.72
the overall construction project, therefore when they run into design standards
interface conflict problems, they can only solve them one by
one after they occur. They haven’t performed any quantitative 17. Contractors’ lack of management 0.69

studies, nor have they tried to innovate their technologies, or 0.71

19. Inadequate planning and scheduling
studied the characteristics of MRT or cultural differences, etc.
Therefore, this study takes advantage of surveys, and SAS 26. Can’t solve problems when the contractors for the various
0.83
software, utilizes multivariate statistical methods, filters out III. Negotiation
interfaces insist on their own views
different facets of interface management issues through reason, factors
explicitly points out the detailed structure of the importance 27. Inability to understand mutual requirement and the key aspects of
0.76
interface management issues, and then further introduces the different interfaces
experience knowledge database and establishes an interface
0.79
management system, in hopes of providing services to the con- 28. Lack of experience with updating real-time management systems
struction related industries reducing the risk of using intuition 0.84
03. Bad contract details
to handle interface issues, and boosting the effectiveness of
management. IV.
04. Cooperate upon construction progress timelines with other units 0.54

Contract
III. RESEARCH METHODS 11. Incomplete construction diagrams 0.89
factors
A. Survey method 12. Modified designs 0.64

The Al-Hammad’s[7] method with a focus on interface

10. Price fluctuations with production factors and materials 0.74
items 1 through 19 has been adopted, and an systematic cate-
gorization was established to serve as the main axis for this V. Unavoidable
13. Climate conditions 0.87
study; After discussion with experts, it is found that technolo- factors
gical innovation, MRT characteristics, and cultural differences 14. Geological conditions 0.82
can produce interface problems, therefore these items were
0.82
included in the research, listed from item 20 to item 28, as VI. 06. Supervision of auditing divisions

shown in Table 1. Law factors 0.55

20. Changes in laws and regulations, or unclear local laws

Table 1 Factor structure

B. SAS software strategy analysis method
The SAS statistical software[10] was used for all statistical
analyses and regression calculations to verify out of the many
different relative if variables are those that can represent the
relationships between these variables. At first, we analyzed 28
interface problem factors, utilizing extraction and rotation to
turn these potential factors into independent variables. Next we
considered “progress” and “quality” factors as the dependent
variables for regression analysis[11], and further/then use the
results to judge the degree of effect they have on the overall
system, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Analysis block diagram for MRT interface management
IV. ANALYSIS RESULTS
A. Overview of samples
The study adopted judgment sampling method for choosing
the right sample. They distributed 100 surveys and got back 75,
with response rate 75%. 59 response surveys were effective,
which made up about 60%. For these 59 effective response
surveys, 22 came from developer, 16 from design company,
and 21 from contractor. Regarding experience, 11 survey par-
ticipants had 10 to 15 years of experience, 47 had 15 years or
more of experience, and one had 5 to 10 years of experience.
Regarding educational background, 15 had professional de-
grees, 15 had bachelor degrees, 27 had master degrees, and 2
had Ph.D. degrees; all of the participants had professional
knowledge and were able to provide credible experience.
B. The analysis process
This study initially took the 59 effective samples into the
main analysis, and then using the Varamax axis rotation method
extracted six variables with Eigen values larger than 1 to pro-
ceed with our research, according to the Kaiser method [12, 13].
The factor loading was listed in Table 1. The explanatory devi-
ations and accumulated explanatory deviation were calculated,
where the value of explanatory deviations amounts to 72.23%,
the first facet is as high as 38%, and the overall factor loading is
above 0.68, showing good explanatory abilities.
As long as the absolute value of the factor loading between
the potential factor and primitive variable is larger than 0.6, the
relationship between them can be viewed as strong[13]. So we
named six item factors according to the relative content. The
first three items - management, experience, and negotiation
factors are viewed as know how technical factors; the latter three
items - contract, unavoidable factors, and laws- are considered
as environment factors, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Diagram of the relationship between interface problem factors
C. reliability and validity analysis
This study uses reliability analysis to analyze two respective
portions. The first portion is to extract the Cronbach's Į[14]
value for the composed items of interface management variables,
and according to the results, the Cronbach’s Į value for man-
agement, experience, negotiation, contract, laws, and unavoid-
able factors are 0.88, 0.90, 0.84, 0.80, 0.80, and 0.69, respec-
tively. They all reach the high reliability standard of 0.7. The
second portion of this study is to use the Cronbach’s Į value to
proceed with reliability analysis for progress and quality aspects.
The results show, the Į value of these two aspects are 0.79 and
0.87, respectively, demonstrating that the two dependent va-
riables are capable of evaluating the concept of “construction
results”.
D. Regression analysis
Use factor analysis to extract the interface problem as the
independent variable, and the construction results (progress and
quality) as the dependent variable, then proceed with regression
analysis to determine the degree of affect that the interface
problem has on the construction results.
when the construction progress is used as the dependent va-
riable, the judgment coefficient(R2) for the regression mode is
0.25, and the adjusted judgment coefficient (adj. R2) is
0.22.when the quality is the dependent variable, the judgment
coefficient (R2) is 0.28, and the adjusted judgment coefficient
is a little bit lower at 0.20.All of these values are greater than
the minimum standard of 0.18[11]. In addition, the P value
for the overall progress regression model is 0.016, the quality P
value is 0.0161, these values are both below 0.05, therefore the
suitability of the overall model is acceptable. In the progress
variance analysis table, for the “experience factor” and “nego-
tiation factor” the P value is 0.03 and 0.04 respectively, both
smaller than 0.05; and their value of regression coefficient are
1.08 and 0.99 respectively, both positive values, which indi-
cates that these two types of interface problems have a great
affect on construction progress, and the effects are positive.
From the analysis results we have found that negotiation
and experience factors have a relatively large effect on the re-
sults of the MRT construction project, Moore et al. [15] point
out that the key to the success of the construction project is the
mutual support between the management levels of the various
cooperative units, and problems can be solved through cooper-
ation and sharing, and mutual support has positive effects for
achieving the resources of the overall goal [16]. Besides point-
ing out the key factors for success, this study also lists the de-
tailed structures of the various factors, allowing various prob-
lems and construction interfaces to be clearly analyzed and
categorized.
V. DEVELOP INTERFACES KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
A prerequisite for solving construction interface problems
is having a mutual set of regulations, just like engineers must
solve problems according to project contracts and regulations
in diagrams and illustrations, therefore we need to establish a
platform analogous to diagram instructions for construction
interface management issues negotiation and make the inter-
face problems reaching mutual consensus; For the 28 items of
interface problem, the detailed structure of six items are distri-
buted throughout the MRT Planning manual, design manual,
contract management, and integrated experience and technical
data, therefore by importing the detailed structures into the
knowledge database system, we will be able to forever pass on
these experience and information.
From Figure 3, we can obtain the detailed structure of the
experience and negotiation factors, in which the items 21, 22,
23, and 24 belong to the area of technological innovation, items
25 and 26 belong to the area of the MRT construction charac-
teristics; items 27 and 28 belong to the category of internation-
al and domestic cultural differences, and these are all focused
points for this study. The best way to solve these problems is
immediately establishing a “construction interface Manage-
ment knowledge database system”, as shown in Figure 3 to
highlight its application values. Figure 4 is the developed sys-
tem of MRT Interface knowledge management.
Figure 3 Diagram for importing factor analysis results into the knowledge ʳ
database
Figure 4 The system of MRT Interface knowledge management
A. The Range of the interface Management knowledge
database system
This system utilizes database system design software that is
already familiar to the general public[17], and is based on
Windows operation interface that can be used in any version of
software, both of which will be helpful to achieve popularity of
the construction interface Management System: The system
includes three parts: system stand-alone operation, a page op-
eration, and knowledge database design; that can be further
divided into the establishment of the knowledge database,
alarm system design, problems and strategies, regulatory value
comparison, and cost evaluation and calculations.
B. The Content of the interface Management System
1) Alarm design
The alarm design in this system is mainly based on VBA,
with a built in “input box” design. When the system attains a
variable value X, x= input box (“please enter the milestone
alarm date count”), the data will be listed item by item accord-
ing to their conformity with the alarm day counts, therefore the
design focus would be on the difference between the current
date and the alarm date count. The system will display different
problem fields in different color as a form of alarm.
We could focus our inspection on individual records in the
data sheet, and users can compare the date and the date count
after activating in the “track construction interface Manage-
ment Information Systems”, and when the user queries each
record, a method is used to trigger the alarm inspection system.
The calculation method is as follows:
The date for the data records must be equal to or smaller
than the current system date and the alarm day count, therefore
the design for individual machine will mainly be focused on
how to trigger an inspection event. The one-page portion will
mainly be used to list all of the effective alarm records. Its ex-
ecution screen is shown in Figure 5, and its execution results, if
the alarm date has been exceeded, the results in the effected
portions is marked red.
 Table 2 Track interface problem and solution

Item Problem Solutions

Ground Obtaining construction 1. Schedule deviations and Space considerations

construc- site, construction period pertaining to the entrance of track signals.
tion and controversies, construction 2. Data verification of measurements upon con-
track precision, emptying struction completion, track bed drilling, con-
problems: platform tracting crevices, upper pipelines etc., and plat-
/electric train, evacuation form floor tile integration and control points
pathway, pre-buried pipe
3. Data for pipelines location, Wells, drainage,
Tech lines, drainage,
buffer board, and extra openings provided for the
buffer board, contracting
track divisions
connection heads.

Figure 5 Alarm design diagram Track and Deployment of pre buried 1. Signal systems must be included into the track
2) Filtering and comparison of regulatory data signals pipelines for track circuits signals construction and design: Plinth “cor-
This system mainly executes SQL[18] for data filtering de- and signaling equipment, ners”, IRJ insulator head location, upper pipe
sign. Its execution method is first taxing the number of stan- iron track insulation heads Line, electrical pathway, letter trench, track
dard system data items and then uses SQL language to proceed (IRJ). track switching switching device lever, track pressure release,
with data comparisons. devices/ switching tracks. fine adjustment measurements etc., and location

For i = 1 to X step 1 [system data records value x], DoCmd
Run SQL "SELECT data comparison items, compare data.
upper limit, compare data. Lower limit INTO hh0" & i &
"FROM compare data WHERE ((( compare data.
Item)=Forms! primitive! item)AND(( compare data. Upper Track
limit)<Forms! primitive! of Parliament))OR((( compare data. Power
Item)=Forms! primitive! item) AND (( compare data. Lower supply
limit)>Forms! Primitive! lower limit));", -1[ execute SQL pro-
gram] DoCmd. GoToRecord, acNext [ compare item by item]
The above design can allow users to use this system on any
platform, and focuses mainly on how to import the data into the
current system in use, and also allow users to find the records
that comply with data base regulations for filtering, the users Track
must execute the import operation to proceed with the compar- electric
ison operation. In addition, as the SQL language technique is train
used in design, the systems conducts data comparison in the
data base and proceed with comparisons one by one, and final-
ly produces three data sheets containing the execution results.
3) Interface problems and solutions
The problems and solutions design of this system mainly
uses the program described in the Active Server Pages (ASP) Track
Web page[19], and its execution method is (a) activating ASP communi-
back-end database, (b) executing data record search. The fol- cations
lowing is the method used by ASP to connect databases.
Equipment. Signal Instal- verification.
lation 2. Special track base range measurements and
milestone verification and signal requirements.
and The third track, retrieval of 1. Conductor track tip components of power supply
dispersion current, miles- track and location of electric charge collectors.
tone signs, distribution of 2. Power connection to the conduction track should
pre-buried pipe lines. be 70 cm away from the power source connec-
tion head, conduction track/ supportive design
Power supply upper pipelines milestone, Plinth
"corner, measurements of electrical pathway.
and Track design parameters, 1. Track shape, exceeding of height limits, car
electric charge collectors, cleaning and emptying, anti crawling device,
location of third track. connection device to buffer gear/ anti collusion
bumper, the third track, and the location of the
electric charge collectors.
2. Design confirmation for the ramp head of the
third track End-approach
and Communication wires and Plinth “corner”, communications pipeline milestone
pipelines must be in location, electrical power source pathway mea-
correlation which track surements verification, verification of track trans-
signs and electric cabling portation pathway.

The main focus is on how to execute queries for any con- design

struction item problem after the database has been established. Other Water circulation, escala- Ventilation pipes, equipment, Space, track trans-
This system produces case results for solution strategies, the
tors and elevators, me- portation pathway confirmation.
basic design is mainly focused on database queries, and query
chanical facilities, clean-
methods mainly is using document search techniques to com-
plete data searches, for example: to find problem execution ing of car tracks, cutting

results related to " electric train", the system will find the prob- tracks
lem’s all Contents related to electric train and the problem’s
solution strategies, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 6.

Figure 6 Diagram of query and solutions
4) Cost calculation system
This system is divided into ballasted and non-ballasted
track designs, as the scheduling for the project needs to be
evaluated, and we need to determine if each mission item could
be preceded with the schedule, and to set the number of work-
ing days for one week [the system is designed to rest on Satur-
days and Sundays]. This system will automatically calculate
the ending date of construction after the beginning date is input
detect the date and number of days, forecast the amount of
manpower the total number of days and cost needed for con-
struction, and these functions are the hardest design part, but is
also the most essential part of the system, as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Track construction cost evaluation diagram
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper uses factor analysis and regression statistical
methods to extract the interface problems and key factors, ve-
rify 28 interface problems that are often seen in MRT construc-
tion projects, and divide them into management, experience,
negotiation, contract, law, and unavoidable factors (a total of
six categories). The research result has shown that experience
and negotiation problems have the greatest effect on construc-
tion results, and this information can be used as a reference
during the interface management decision processes.
The experience and negotiation factors in this study are
both know-how characteristics, and through this categorization
we can analyze the detailed structure of interface problems, and
further introduce the "construction interface management
knowledge database system" for use as the negotiations plat-
form for the interface management, allowing participants to
mutually understand the requirements of their counterparts,
effectively reducing goal conflicts and the risk of individuals
trying to solve interface problems through intuition.
This study establishes a “construction interface manage-
ment knowledge database system”, and the milestone alarm
modes for its four main options/function are set, being able to
react to interface problems quickly and find solution strategies,
being able to serve as a data comparison for planning and de-
sign, and calculating and evaluating relative interface costs so
that construction can be on schedule, and quality and cost can
conform with the set goals.
REFERENCE
[1] Phang, S., Urban rail transit PPPs: Survey and risk assessment of
recent strategies. Transport Policy, 2007. 14(3): p. 214-231.
[2] Huang, C.T. The study of MRT track project interface problems
in knowledge management. PhD. Disseration, Department of
Civil Engineering, National Central University, Taiwan,2007.
[3] Al-Hammad, A. and S. Assaf, Design-construction interface
problems in Saudi Arabia. Building research and information,
1992. 20(1): p. 60-63.
[4] Riley, D., Patterns of construction-space use in multistory
buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
1995. 121(4): p. 464-473.
[5] Klein, R., Problems at design interfaces. Proc., M&E Design,
1998: p. 23–24.
[6] Lin, L.-S. and Y.-F. Hsiao, The Taipei MR Key System Electro
Mechanical Construction Interface Overview and Integration.
China Engineers' Society Engineering Periodical, 1999. 72: p.
16-34.
[7] Al-Hammad, A., Common interface problems among various
construction parties. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 2000. 14(2): p. 71-74.
[8] Pavitt, T. and A. Gibb, Interface management within
construction: in particular, building facade. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 2003. 129(1): p.
8-15.
[9] Korman, T., M. Fischer, and C. Tatum, Knowledge and reasoning
for MEP coordination. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 2003. 129(6): p. 627-634.
[10] Stokes, M., C. Davis, and G. Koch, Categorical data analysis
using the SASR system. 2000.
[11] Johnson, R. and D. Wichern, Applied multivariate statistical
analysis. 1998: Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[12] Kaiser, H., The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 1958. 23(3): p. 187-200.
[13] Yang, J., et al., Exploring Critical Success Factors for
Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects. Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management, 2009. 15(4): p. 337-348.
[14] Cronbach, L., Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychometrika, 1951. 16(3): p. 297-334.
[15] Moore, C., D. Mosley, and M. Slagle, Partnering: guidelines for
win-win project management. Project Management Journal,
1992. 22(1): p. 18-21.
[16] Brooke, K. and G. Litwin, Mobilizing the partnering process.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 1997. 13(4): p. 42-48.
[17] Date, C., An introduction to database systems. 2000: Springer.
[18] Petkovic, D., MICROSOFT SQL SERVER 2008 A BEGINNER'S
GUIDE 4/E. 2008: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.
[19] Deitel, H., et al., XML: how to program. 2004: Prentice Hall
Upper Saddle River NJ.