Cheetham, D W and Lewis, J (2001) Productivity, buildability and constructability: Is work study the missing link? In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
Improving productivity, increasing output for the same inputs, has been a longstanding concern of the UK Construction Industry. The different approaches to improving productivity will be briefly reviewed as will the decline in awareness of classical work study and use by construction firms. Definitions of "buildability" and "constructability" will be considered and reports seeking to improve buildability reviewed. The key results of several questionnaire surveys will be presented and contractual relationships are identified both as a major deterrent to improved buildability and as the means by which buildability problems are being overcome. Suggestions are made for an expansion of the role of the Architectural Technologist.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; buildability; construction management; constructability; productivity |
| Index terms: | productivity, construction firm, survey, buildability, construction industry, work study, constructability, contractual relationship, architectural technologist, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | design efficiency, industry analysis, management, construction integration, practitioner, data collection methods, contractual relationship, organization |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| 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