Hanlon, E J and Sanvido, V E (1995) Constructability information classification scheme. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(4), pp. 337-345. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper discusses the development and testing of a generic model that classifies constructability information for reinforced-concrete structural elements. It identifies decisions and factors affecting constructability and classifies them in a constructability information model (CIM). This model is tested with concepts from the literature and an industry survey. A refined structure is developed and evaluated for future work. The resulting CIM is a hierarchical breakdown of constructability concept attributes grouped in categories and subcategories. The major categories include design rules, lessons learned, external constraints, resources constraints, and performance information. Each concept is further classified by associating it with the facility processes and products that it affects. The CIM is found to be useful within the limits of its testing; reinforcedconcrete structural elements. Further classification refinements are required to improve information storage and retrieval efficiency.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | efficiency, testing, lessons learned, survey, constructability |
| Subjects: | professional practice, performance management, data collection methods, construction integration, professional development |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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