Unpacking Ambiguity in Building Requirements to Support Automated Compliance Checking
Publication: Journal of Management in Engineering
Volume 39, Issue 5
Abstract
In the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry, manual compliance checking is labor-intensive, time-consuming, expensive, and error-prone. Automated compliance checking (ACC) has been extensively studied in the past 50 years to improve the productivity and accuracy of the compliance checking process. While numerous ACC systems have been proposed, these systems can only deal with requirements that include quantitative metrics or specified properties. This leaves the remaining 53% of building requirements to be checked manually, mainly due to the ambiguity embedded in them. In the literature, little is known about the ambiguity of building requirements, which impedes their accurate interpretation and automated checking. This research thus aims to address this issue and establish a taxonomy of ambiguity. Building requirements in health building notes (HBNs) are analyzed using an inductive approach. The results show that some ambiguous clauses in building requirements reflect regulators’ intention while others are unintentional, resulting from the use of language, tacit knowledge, and ACC-specific reasons. This research is valuable for compliance-checking researchers and practitioners because it unpacks ambiguity in building requirements, laying a solid foundation for addressing ambiguity appropriately.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Amor, R., and J. Dimyadi. 2021. “The promise of automated compliance checking.” Dev. Built Environ. 5 (Mar): 100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100039.
Bach, K. 1998. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy: Index. London: Taylor & Francis.
Beach, T. H., J. L. Hippolyte, and Y. Rezgui. 2020. “Towards the adoption of automated regulatory compliance checking in the built environment.” Autom. Constr. 118 (Oct): 103285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103285.
Beach, T. H., Y. Rezgui, H. Li, and T. Kasim. 2015. “A rule-based semantic approach for automated regulatory compliance in the construction sector.” Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (12): 5219–5231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.02.029.
Berry, D. M. 2007. Ambiguity in natural language requirements documents, 1–7. Berlin: Springer.
Berry, D. M., and E. Kamsties. 2004. “Ambiguity in requirements specification.” In Perspectives on software requirements, 7–44. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Berry, D. M., E. Kamsties, and M. M. Krieger. 2003. “From contract drafting to software specification: Linguistic sources of ambiguity—A handbook.” In Perspectives on software requirements, Springer international series in engineering and computer science, 753. Berlin: Springer.
Birks, M., and J. Mills. 2015. Grounded theory: A practical guide. London: SAGE.
British Standards Institution. 2018. “BS 8300-2:2018: Design of an accessible and inclusive built environment. Buildings—Code of practice.” Accessed October 25, 2022. https://www.thenbs.com/PublicationIndex/documents/details?Pub=BSI&DocID=320547.
Candaş, A. B., and O. B. Tokdemir. 2022. “Automated identification of vagueness in the FIDIC Silver Book conditions of contract.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 148 (4): 04022007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002254.
Cao, D. 2009. “Illocutionary acts of Chinese legislative language.” J. Pragmatics 41 (7): 1329–1340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.003.
Chun Tie, Y., M. Birks, and K. Francis. 2019. “Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers.” SAGE Open Med. 7 (Jan): 1–8.
Collins, H. 2010. Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Department of Health and Social Care. 2021. “Health building notes.” Accessed October 25, 2022. https://www.england.nhs.uk/estates/health-building-notes/.
Dimyadi, J., P. Pauwels, and R. Amor. 2016. “Modelling and accessing regulatory knowledge for computer-assisted compliance audit.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 21 (Nov): 317–336.
Doukari, O., D. Greenwood, K. Rogage, and M. Kassem. 2022. “Object-centred automated compliance checking: A novel, bottom-up approach.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 27 (Apr): 335–362. https://doi.org/10.36680/j.itcon.2022.017.
Eastman, C., J. M. Lee, Y. S. Jeong, and J. K. Lee. 2009. “Automatic rule-based checking of building designs.” Autom. Constr. 18 (8): 1011–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.07.002.
Empson, W. 1962. Seven types of ambiguity. North Sydney, NSW, Australia: Penguin Books.
Ferrari, A., and S. Gnesi. 2012. Using collective intelligence to detect pragmatic ambiguities, 191–200. New York: IEEE.
Ferrari, A., P. Spoletini, and S. Gnesi. 2016. “Ambiguity and tacit knowledge in requirements elicitation interviews.” Requir. Eng. 21 (3): 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0249-3.
Friedrich, W. R., and J. A. Van Der Poll. 2007. “Towards a methodology to elicit tacit domain knowledge from users.” Interdiscip. J. Inf. Knowl. Manage. 2: 179. https://doi.org/10.28945/108.
Gacitúa, R., L. Ma, B. Nuseibeh, P. Piwek, A. N. De Roeck, M. Rouncefield, P. Sawyer, A. Willis, and H. Yang. 2009. Making tacit requirements explicit, 40–44. New York: IEEE.
Garrett, J. H., Jr., and M. M. Hakim. 1992. “Object-oriented model of engineering design standards.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 6 (3): 323–347. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(1992)6:3(323).
Gervasi, V., R. Gacitua, M. Rouncefield, P. Sawyer, L. Kof, L. Ma, P. Piwek, A. D. Roeck, A. Willis, and H. Yang. 2013. “Unpacking tacit knowledge for requirements engineering.” In Managing requirements knowledge, 23–47. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Gervasi, V., and D. Zowghi. 2010. “On the role of ambiguity in RE.” In Proc., Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 16th Int. Working Conf., 248–254. Berlin: Springer.
Gregory, R. W. 2011. “Design science research and the grounded theory method: Characteristics, differences, and complementary uses.” In Theory-guided modeling and empiricism in information systems research, 111–127. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Hall, D. M., A. Algiers, and R. E. Levitt. 2018. “Identifying the role of supply chain integration practices in the adoption of systemic innovations.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (6): 04018030. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000640.
Han, C. S., J. C. Kunz, and K. H. Law. 1998. “Client/server framework for on-line building code checking.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 12 (4): 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(1998)12:4(181).
Hjelseth, E. 2013. “Experiences on converting interpretative regulations into computable rules.” In Proc., CIB W78 2012: 29th Int. Conf., 1–15. Kanata, ON, Canada: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction.
Hjelseth, E., and N. Nisbet. 2011. “Capturing normative constraints by use of the semantic mark-up RASE methodology.” In Proc., CIB W78-W102 Conf., 1–10. Kanata, ON, Canada: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction.
Huertas, C., M. Gómez-Ruelas, R. Juárez-Ramírez, and H. Plata. 2011. “A formal approach for measuring the lexical ambiguity degree in natural language requirement specification: Polysemes and Homonyms focused.” In Proc., 2011 Int. Conf. on Uncertainty Reasoning and Knowledge Engineering, 115–118. New York: IEEE.
Jiang, L., and R. M. Leicht. 2015. “Automated rule-based constructability checking: Case study of formwork.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (1): A4014004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000304.
Jiang, L., J. Shi, and C. Wang. 2022. “Multi-ontology fusion and rule development to facilitate automated code compliance checking using BIM and rule-based reasoning.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 51 (Jan): 101449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101449.
Kamsties, E., D. M. Berry, B. Paech, E. Kamsties, D. M. Berry, and B. Paech. 2001. “Detecting ambiguities in requirements documents using inspections.” In Proc., First Workshop on Inspection in Software Engineering (WISE’01). Hamilton, Canada: Software Quality Research Lab, McMaster Univ.
Kamsties, E., and B. Paech. 2000. “Taming ambiguity in natural language requirements.” In Proc., Thirteenth Int. Conf. on Software and Systems Engineering and Applications. Paris: Center for Mastering Systems & Software of Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers.
Kim, H., J. K. Lee, J. Shin, and J. Kim. 2017. “Visual language-based approach for the definition of building permit related rules.” In Proc., 34th Int. Symp. on Automation and Robotics in Construction, ISARC 2017, 423–429. Oulu, Finland: International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction.
Li, B., J. Dimyadi, R. Amor, and C. Schultz. 2020. “Qualitative and traceable calculations for building codes.” In Proc., 37th CIB W78 Information Technology for Construction Conf., 69–84. Kanata, ON, Canada: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction.
Li, S. 2017. “A corpus-based study of vague language in legislative texts: Strategic use of vague terms.” Engl. Specific Purposes 45 (Jan): 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.10.001.
Macit İlal, S., and H. M. Günaydın. 2017. “Computer representation of building codes for automated compliance checking.” Autom. Constr. 82 (Oct): 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.018.
Massey, A. K., R. L. Rutledge, A. I. Antón, J. D. Hemmings, and P. P. Swire. 2015. A strategy for addressing ambiguity in regulatory requirements. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Massey, A. K., R. L. Rutledge, A. I. Antón, and P. P. Swire. 2014. “Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements.” In Proc., 2014 IEEE 22nd Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE), 83–92. New York: IEEE.
Matsuoka, J., and Y. Lepage. 2011. “Ambiguity spotting using WordNet semantic similarity in support to recommended practice for software requirements specifications.” In Proc., 2011 7th Int. Conf. on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, 479–484. New York: IEEE.
Morgan, H. P. 1999. “Moves towards performance-based standards in the UK and in the European committee for standardization(CEN).” Int. J. Eng. Perform.-Based Fire Codes 1 (3): 98–103.
Nawari, N. O. 2020. “Generalized adaptive framework for computerizing the building design review process.” J. Archit. Eng. 26 (1): 04019026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000382.
Nigam, A., N. Arya, B. Nigam, and D. Jain. 2012. “Tool for automatic discovery of ambiguity in requirements.” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues 9 (5): 350.
Osborne, M., and C. K. MacNish. 1996. Processing natural language software requirement specifications, 229–236. New York: IEEE.
Otto, P. N., and A. I. Antón. 2007. “Addressing legal requirements in requirements engineering.” In Proc., 15th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conf. (RE 2007), 5–14. New York: IEEE.
Polanyi, M. 2009. “The tacit dimension.” In Knowledge in organizations, 135–146. London: Routledge.
Popescu, D., S. Rugaber, N. Medvidovic, and D. M. Berry. 2007. “Reducing ambiguities in requirements specifications via automatically created object-oriented models.” In Proc., Monterey Workshop, 103–124. Berlin: Springer.
Preidel, C., and A. Borrmann. 2016. “Towards code compliance checking on the basis of a visual programming language.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 21 (25): 402–421.
Reidenberg, J. R., J. Bhatia, T. D. Breaux, and T. B. Norton. 2016. “Ambiguity in privacy policies and the impact of regulation.” Supplement, J. Legal Stud. 45 (S2): S163–S190. https://doi.org/10.1086/688669.
Sennet, A. 2011. “Ambiguity.” In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Shahi, K., B. Y. McCabe, and A. Shahi. 2019. “Framework for automated model-based e-permitting system for municipal jurisdictions.” J. Manage. Eng. 35 (6): 04019025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000712.
Solibri. 2022. “Solibri model checker.” Accessed October 5, 2022. https://www.solibri.com/.
Solihin, W., and C. Eastman. 2016. “A knowledge representation approach in BIM rule requirement analysis using the conceptual graph.” J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 21 (Jun): 370–402.
Solihin, W., N. Shaikh, X. Rong, and K. Lam. 2004. “Beyond interoperatibility of building model: A case for code compliance checking.” In Proc., BPCAD Workshop. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Melon Univ.
Soliman-Junior, J., C. T. Formoso, and P. Tzortzopoulos. 2020a. “A semantic-based framework for automated rule checking in healthcare construction projects.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 47 (2): 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2018-0460.
Soliman-Junior, J., B. Pedo, P. Tzortzopoulos, and M. Kagioglou. 2020b. “The relationship between requirements subjectivity and semantics for healthcare design support systems.” In Proc., 18th Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering: ICCCBE 2020 2021, 801–809. New York: Springer.
Soliman-Junior, J., P. Tzortzopoulos, J. P. Baldauf, B. Pedo, M. Kagioglou, C. T. Formoso, and J. Humphreys. 2021. “Automated compliance checking in healthcare building design.” Autom. Constr. 129 (Sep): 103822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103822.
Soliman-Junior, J., P. Tzortzopoulos, and M. Kagioglou. 2022. “Designers’ perspective on the use of automation to support regulatory compliance in healthcare building projects.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 40 (2): 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2021.2022176.
Sun, G., J. Sun, and F. Li. 2022. “Influencing factors of early termination for PPP projects based on multicase grounded theory.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 148 (11): 04022120. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002388.
Sydora, C., and E. Stroulia. 2020. “Rule-based compliance checking and generative design for building interiors using BIM.” Autom. Constr. 120 (Dec): 103368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103368.
Tan, X., A. Hammad, and P. Fazio. 2010. “Automated code compliance checking for building envelope design.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 24 (2): 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2010)24:2(203).
Wu, H., B. Zhong, H. Li, J. Guo, and Y. Wang. 2021. “On-site construction quality inspection using blockchain and smart contracts.” J. Manage. Eng. 37 (6): 04021065. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000967.
Yadav, A., A. Patel, and M. Shah. 2021. “A comprehensive review on resolving ambiguities in natural language processing.” AI Open 2 (Jan): 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiopen.2021.05.001.
Zhang, J., and N. M. El-Gohary. 2016. “Semantic-based logic representation and reasoning for automated regulatory compliance checking.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 31 (1): 04016037. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000583.
Zhang, Z., L. Ma, and T. Broyd. 2022a. “Towards fully-automated code compliance checking of building regulations: Challenges for rule interpretation and representation.” In Proc., 2022 European Conf. on Computing in Construction. Rhodes, Greece: Univ. of Turin.
Zhang, Z., N. Nisbet, L. Ma, and T. Broyd. 2022b. “A multi-representation method of building rules for automatic code compliance checking.” In Proc., eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction: ECPPM 2022. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Zhang, Z., N. Nisbet, L. Ma, and T. Broyd. 2023. “Capabilities of rule representations for automated compliance checking in healthcare buildings.” Autom. Constr. 146 (Feb): 104688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104688.
Zheng, Z., Y. C. Zhou, X. Z. Lu, and J. R. Lin. 2022. “Knowledge-informed semantic alignment and rule interpretation for automated compliance checking.” Autom. Constr. 142 (Oct): 104524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104524.
Zhou, Y.-C., Z. Zheng, J.-R. Lin, and X.-Z. Lu. 2022. “Integrating NLP and context-free grammar for complex rule interpretation towards automated compliance checking.” Comput. Ind. 142 (Nov): 103746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103746.
Zhou, Z., J. Irizarry, Q. Li, and W. Wu. 2015. “Using grounded theory methodology to explore the information of precursors based on subway construction incidents.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (2): 04014030. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000226.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Management in Engineering
Volume 39 • Issue 5 • September 2023
Copyright
© 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Nov 6, 2022
Accepted: Apr 25, 2023
Published online: Jul 4, 2023
Published in print: Sep 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Dec 4, 2023
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Architectural engineering
- Automation and robotics
- Bibliographies
- Buildings
- Business management
- Construction engineering
- Construction industry
- Construction management
- Employment
- Engineering fundamentals
- Information management
- Labor
- Measurement (by type)
- Metric systems
- Personnel management
- Practice and Profession
- Structural engineering
- Structures (by type)
- Systems engineering
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.