Russell, J S; Gugel, J G and Radtke, M W (1994) Comparative analysis of three constructability approaches. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(1), pp. 180-195. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Recent research has identified different approaches owners use to implement constructability. This paper provides a comparative analysis of three such approaches studied in four case studies. The three approaches are: using a construction management firm during preconstruction (referred to as constructability services), specialized-formal programming, and comprehensive tracking. To conduct the comparison, six attributes are used: initiation of constructability input, documented benefit/cost data, extent of owner participation, formalized procedures, methods to track lessons learned, and designated constructability coordinator(s). For each approach, the quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs are presented and compared. Each approach is presented to assist project managers in understanding implementation of constructability. This understanding can provide project managers with answers to the following questions: Considering owner organization and project characteristics, what approach is most suitable? What are the benefits and costs associated with each approach? What action can the owner take to facilitate constructability input?
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | comparative analysis, lessons learned, programming, owner, case study, project manager, constructability, cost data, implementation |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, profession, data collection methods, programming, sociology, accounting and finance, construction integration, professional development |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Cost Management, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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