Aldridge, G; Pasquire, C; Gibb, A and Blismas, N G (2001) Methods for measuring the "unmeasurable": Evaluating the benefits of pre-assembly and standardization in construction. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
The decision to use pre-assembly and standardization is often not made early enough in the construction design process. If traditional designs have to be adapted at a later stage, this is clearly inefficient. There is a reluctance among clients and contractors within the construction industry to adopt recent government and industry initiatives and employ new technologies because they cannot see the "Pay Back". This paper describes the research being undertaken to develop a methodology for measuring the benefits of pre-assembly and standardization for construction projects from feasibility, through design and construction, to handover, operation and decommissioning. The paper describes and classifies the benefits of pre-assembly and standardization and then outlines the tools and techniques available in construction and other industries for measuring the benefits. While some benefits are measurable in monetary or non-monetary terms, other benefits have an influence on the success of the project or business, yet are not easily measurable. The work described forms part of the IMMPREST Research Project (Interactive Model for Measuring Pre-assembly and Standardization Benefit across the Construction Supply Chain).
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benefit evaluation; performance indicators; pre-assembly; standardization |
| Index terms: | new technology, design process, performance indicator, construction supply chain, design and construction, construction project, standardization, methodology, decommissioning, construction industry |
| Subjects: | construction logistics, design methods, innovation and technology management, contractual arrangements, production management, renovation and retrofit, performance measurement, research methods, performance management, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Procurement, Supply Chain Management, Quality Management, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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