Patel, P. and Sturgill, R. (2026) An interpretive structure modeling approach to assess the value of underground utility as-builts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(10): 04026164, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated utility as-built data significantly hinder underground infrastructure projects, resulting in delays, increased costs, and safety risks. The reliance on paper-based processes for utility documentation further exacerbates these challenges, often resulting in poor-quality as-built data. Recognizing the substantial value of collecting better quality as-built information to enhance planning, improve design, expedite construction, and reduce costs, this study explores the impact of various utility as-built data formats on transportation projects. The objective of this research was to establish the hierarchical relationship among the identified factors (related to utility as-builts) to determine their level of influence/criticality through interpretive structural modeling (ISM) in construction projects. Furthermore, using cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification (MICMAC) analysis, these factors were classified into four categories based on their driving and dependence power. At the end, a survey of state DOTs was conducted to identify the impact of different types of utility as-built data formats on construction projects. The findings illustrate that technical factors, such as utility investigation, positional accuracy/data quality, and the type of utility as-built data format, have a greater influence on construction projects, further affecting operational and decision-related factors like utility coordination, utility risk assessment, and conflict resolution, which ultimately influence overall project cost. The research contributes to developing a framework that models the interdependencies among these factors, providing a decision-making tool for assessing the value of the utility-as-built data format and further guiding the selection of an appropriate data collection format to make an informed choice based on its recognized impact on construction projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | coordination, risk assessment, conflict resolution, construction project, interpretive structural modelling, accuracy, decision-making, survey, modelling, investigation, transportation project, underground infrastructure, project cost, documentation |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, data collection methods, infrastructure and transport systems, data analysis and analytics, analytical methods, conflict resolution, professional development, financial risk, production management, economics, management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Project Management |
| 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