Managing construction site communication using the responsibility assignment matrix (RAM) system

Shrahily, R; Medjdoub, B; Klalib, H; Chalal, M and Alwetaishi, M (2022) Managing construction site communication using the responsibility assignment matrix (RAM) system. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(15), pp. 2966-2986. ISSN 1562-3599

Abstract

The construction industry in the UK wastes £1 billion per year due to construction defects that are mainly caused by a communication failure between organisations operating on the construction site. Meanwhile, the introduction of the BIM strategy has become a mandatory requirement by the government in order to reduce costs by 33% and speed up project delivery by 50% without sacrificing quality. Since then, the industry has seen a global reaction to the BIM Level 2 programme and a significant cost-saving in the UK of £1.2 billion in 2014/15, rising from £840 million in 2013/14. However, communication remains a major issue to achieve the BIM Level 3 as it requires all organisations involved to use a single platform to facilitate communication. This paper, therefore, fits within the BIM implementation programme by addressing the communication issues and construction defects on-site toward formulating a communication framework for the construction industry in the UK. This will help optimise communication and manage construction defects efficiently. The study takes advantage of the Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM), the widely known management system and uses it to assign communication tools for each organisation in relation to the construction stages throughout two phases of data collection. Phase 1 involves two qualitative data collection methods of an in-depth review of the relevant literature (document analysis) and construction site observation. To facilitate site observation and data collection, the researcher collaborated with GF Tomlinson group, a Derby-based construction company, as the case study. Phase 2 involves an online survey, targeting a total number of 328 participants, including professionals and academics. Results of phase 1 are presented as the Communication Tools Assignment 1 (CTA1) and phase 2 results inform the Communication Tools Assignment 2 (CTA2). The study contribution is to develop a framework that recommends the appropriate communication tools for organisations at different construction stages, and which shows the possible types and causes of construction defects. Moreover, the study found three types of construction defects by applying 3D laser scanning for framework mentoring.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building information modelling; communication tools assignment; construction defects; responsibility assignment matrix; standard organisation breakdown structure; standard work breakdown structure
Index terms: programme, construction company, survey, strategy, construction site, management system, mentoring, laser scanning, document analysis, platform, case study, construction defect, building information modelling, construction stages, project delivery, construction industry, implementation
Subjects: contract obligations, contractual arrangements, data science, analytical methods, project delivery, training, work location, data collection methods, organization, industry analysis, information systems, project controls, digital design, management
Topics: Organizational Design, Site Management, Time Control, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here