Improving project performance by mitigating out-of-sequence work and assessing construction readiness

The Construction industry has been struggling with a persistent and well documented decline in its productivity levels since the 1960s. In the decades since, numerous researchers, corporations, and research institutions have engaged in studies to understand and measure the multitude of causes of productivity loss. One of the realities of this research, though, is that productivity loss is a multifaceted issue and some pieces of the problem have yet to be fully understood, quantified, or explored. These missing pieces in the body of literature represent immediate needs for improvement. Two such pressing issues that are frequently documented by owners and contractors are: 1) out of sequence work (OOS) and 2) inadequate assessments of construction readiness. These two missing pieces are intrinsically linked. Often, OOS is triggered by insufficient construction readiness. In this dissertation, OOS is formally defined as 'an activity or series of activities that are not performed according to a planned logical productive sequence,' while construction readiness is defined as 'the series of activities and procedures that should be completed or substantially completed prior to construction in order that construction can productively start and sustain operations.' Based on these definitions, it is easy to see how inadequate construction readiness can lead to out-of-sequence work, as OOS is the type of unproductive operation that adequate construction readiness can help avoid. Both OOS and lack of construction readiness are industry-wide serious challenges. It was found over the course of this research that around 15% of project activities were performed out-of-sequence, which led to a 33% average increase in schedule and a 25% average increase in cost. OOS can be caused by a multitude of factors, including premature start, design changes, inadequate management of tools, materials, and information, as well as general lack of scope clarity. Many of these factors can be avoided by adequate construction readiness assessment and performing appropriate preconstruction activities. However, due to the competitive construction market and the omnipresent pressures of time and money on large-scale projects, project teams often launch into construction without adequately assessing their construction readiness. As such, numerous projects begin construction before they are ready to do so, leading to OOS, poor productivity, and unsatisfactory project performance. In fact, Construction-Not-Ready (CNR) projects tend to suffer on average from 22% schedule slippage, 29% productivity loss, 20% cost overrun, and 21% more change, relative to Construction-Ready (CR) projects. Clearly, a solution is needed. Therefore, over the course of this dissertation the causes, warning signs, and impacts of OOS were examined. This examination informed the presentation of validated, practical concepts that may proactively or reactively address OOS. Additionally, a comprehensive model for assessing construction readiness was developed to quantitatively determine what qualifies a project as “construction-ready,” while assisting project teams in their efforts to improve and sustain the readiness level of their projects. Three mechanisms were utilized to comprehensively study OOS and construction readiness: 1. The OOS Expert-Based Study (OOS–EBS). 2. The OOS Project-Based Study (OOS–PBS). 3. The Construction Readiness Project-Based Study (CR–PBS). The OOS–EBS surveyed 88 industry experts and the OOS–PBS examined 42 projects, while the CR–PBS investigated 80 projects. Using the collected data, the following was achieved: 1. Identification and ranking of 88 causes of OOS, spanning 11 categories, with respect to their likelihood of occurrence, relative impact, and risk rating 2. Identification and ranking of 54 warning signs of OOS, spanning 11 categories, with respect to their correlation with the occurrence of OOS 3. Identification and ranking of 228 construction readiness factors, spanning 15 categories, with respect to their im ortance weight in differentiating CR projects from CNR projects. 4. Development and benchmarking of an overall Construction Readiness Score (CRS) to assess a project's construction readiness across all the defined factors as a single percentage 5. Investigation of the significant impacts of OOS on project performance 6. Investigation of the significant impacts of achieving readiness status on project performance 7. Development of The Concept File which details 21 concepts, comprised of 181 effective preemptive and responsive actions, to prevent OOS and mitigate its negative impacts 8. Development and validation of two user-friendly computer-based tools to effectively communicate the research findings to industry practitioners. These tools are: a. The OOS Decision Support System–aids practitioners in evaluating the OOS risk of their projects (using OOS gauge) as well as minimizing it through tailoring The Concept File to a project's specific needs. b. The Construction Readiness Assessment (CRA) Tool–aids practitioners in evaluating construction readiness using an overall gauge and a spider chart, as well as improving it by identifying leverage improvement areas and organizing comprehensive action plans. It is recommended that owners and contractors apply the findings of this research collaboratively as early and often as possible to maximize the realized benefit to project performance.