Russell, J S and Gugel, J G (1993) Comparison of two corporate constructability programs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(4), pp. 769-784. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In an attempt to formalize the integration of construction knowledge and experience into the planning and design phases, many organizations have developed constructability programs. For many such organizations, development of a formalized program is viewed as a work process. This paper presents a comparison of two formal corporate constructability programs. The first program is part of the construction division of a design/construct organization (constructor performed), while the second is within the project management group of an owner organization (owner performed). The attributes of the two formal programs are described and compared. Documented results regarding program performance including costs and benefits for both the corporate and project levels are provided. The constructor-performed program relates to the constructor functioning as both the facilitator and source of constructability. The owner-performed program, however, facilitates construction input by managing and tracking program progress while constructability input is provided through feedback from constructors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, and the owner’s field construction manager. Benefit/cost ratios for both programs show the potential return on investment in a formal program.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | owner, facilitator, design phase, return on investment, constructability, project management, program, integration, construction manager, subcontractor |
| Subjects: | profession, practitioner, economic analysis, professional practice, software systems, construction integration, project management theory and practice, sociology, organizational analysis |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Project Management, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| 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