Ford, D N; Anderson, S D; Damron, A J; De Las Casas, R; Gokmen, N and Kuennen, S T (2004) Managing constructibility reviews to reduce highway project durations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(1), pp. 33-42. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Highway project durations that are longer than necessary delay the delivery of benefits to road users. Budget constraints often preclude the use of additional funds to shorten total project duration. Therefore, state highway agencies seek ways to decrease construction project durations without increasing costs. Research has recommended formal constructibility reviews as an effective approach to meeting this goal. Formalized constructibility reviews have been effective in isolated cases but only about one-quarter of state highway agencies currently have a formal constructibility review program. An inadequate understanding of implementation issues, including the effective use of resources, is a potential cause. The effects of constructibility reviews on the design phase, construction phase, and project durations are modeled and analyzed. Results illustrate and explain how intermediate-sized constructibility reviews reduce project durations more than very large or small reviews and the potential impacts of a design-build approach on constructibility review effectiveness.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | constructibility; design/build; highway construction; project management; scheduling; simulation |
| Index terms: | scheduling, agency, program, construction project, budget constraint, project management, duration, implementation, construction phase, design phase, effectiveness, highway construction |
| Subjects: | operations research, project delivery, financial and cost management, professional practice, contractual arrangements, software systems, performance management, civil engineering, project management theory and practice, production management, sociology, project controls |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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