Poh, P S H and Chen, J (1998) The Singapore buildable design appraisal system: A preliminary review of the relationship between buildability, site productivity and cost. Construction Management and Economics, 16(6), pp. 681-692. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper presents preliminary findings of a study to examine the relationship between site productivity, construction costs and the 'buildable score' of a buildable design appraisal system recently developed by the Singapore Construction Industry Development Board. The buildable score for a building is a numerical figure computed by taking into account the level of standardization, simplicity and extent of integrated elements used in the design of a building. The stated objective of the appraisal system is 'to promote more buildable designs in the industry through assessing the contribution of design to site efficiency and productivity'. Empirical results from 37 completed building projects provide support for the appraisal system's proposition that 'a design with a higher buildable score will result in more efficient labour usage in construction and therefore higher site labour productivity'. However, the relationship between construction costs and buildable score is less distinct.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildability; buildable score; construction costs; site labour productivity |
| Index terms: | appraisal, buildability, labour productivity, standardization, efficiency, Singapore, construction industry development, productivity, construction cost |
| Subjects: | design efficiency, management, factor and component analysis, performance measurement, performance management, Geography, development economics, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Design Practice, Quality Management, International Construction, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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