Jergeas, G and Der Put, J V (2001) Benefits of constructability on construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(4), pp. 281-290. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This study was undertaken to identify the most significant gaps between the potential benefits of applying constructability principles to Alberta, Canada, industrial projects and the benefits typically realized in industry practice. This study also aims to gain an understanding of the barriers that commonly restrict constructability benefits. The data for this survey was obtained by administering a survey based on the Construction Industry Institute's 17 constructability principles. The results of this study indicate collaborative industry effort should be focused in the areas where the largest gaps currently exist between potential and realized benefits. These include among other things, involvement of construction in the design phase, building mutual trust, respect, and credibility between project planners, designers, and constructors. As the examples cited in this study illustrate, significant gains in project cost, schedule, performance, and safety can be achieved when the above prescription is followed. For example, savings of 30-40% in the total installed cost for facilities are quite readily achievable.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | planner, design phase, prescription, constructability, Construction Industry Institute, Canada, designer, savings, construction project, survey, project cost |
| Subjects: | Geography, production management, medical science and clinical practice, economics, construction integration, research organizations, profession, data collection methods, professional practice, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Roles and Professions |
| 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