Improving highway specifications for constructibility

O’Connor, J T; Hugo, F and Stamm, E M (1991) Improving highway specifications for constructibility. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(2), pp. 242-258. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Project constructibility, the measure of ease with which a facility can be constructed, is keenly affected by the quality of technical specifications. Poor specifications can cause delays, rework, and claims, as well as restrict contractor innovation and flexibility. This paper explores the nature of specification-related obstacles to the construction of highway projects. In accomplishing this objective, many specific problems are identified and relevant problem details are captured in a formalized structure. A structure of problem types is developed, and problems are analyzed with respect to classification frequencies and apparent causal factors. Highway specification constructibility concerns and corresponding solutions are communicated through a series of hierarchy-of-objective-technique (HOT) diagrams. This technique represents a new, powerful, yet rather simple method of structuring objectives, strategies, tactics, and specific solutions to problems. In addition, a procedure is proposed for the periodic updating of standard highway specifications. Major findings indicate that pavement specifications are most problematic, that specification content is the most common general class of problem, and that “gold plating” or excessive specification requirements is the most frequent specific type of problem.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: strategy, rework, specification, highway construction
Subjects: civil engineering, management, contractual condition, operations management
Topics: Engineering Principles, Project Management, Business Strategy, Contract Administration
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

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