Towill, D R (2003) Construction and the time compression paradigm. Construction Management and Economics, 21(6), pp. 581-591. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The total cycle time (TCT) compression paradigm has already come of age in many market sectors, and is widely seen as the route whereby companies attain international competitiveness. However, it is essential that the relevant business processes are skilfully re-engineered to compress total cycle time if the potential benefits of implementing the paradigm are to be achieved in full. As the paper shows, reducing TCT in this way improves all the important business performance metrics. The paper concludes by describing the T40 construction programme, in which 25% cost reduction has been consistently achieved by re-engineering the relevant business process to compress total cycle times by 40%. Reduction in TCT achieved in this way does not compromise safety or quality.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | business processes; business systems engineering; cost reduction; innovation in construction; total cycle time |
| Index terms: | competitiveness, paradigm, systems engineering, cost reduction, business performance, programme, compression |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, market analysis, project controls, material properties and characteristics, economics, education and knowledge transfer, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Time Control, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| 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