Lam, P T I and Wong, F W H (2009) Improving building project performance: How buildability benchmarking can help. Construction Management and Economics, 27(1), pp. 41-52. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Although the buildability of building designs has not been commonly taken as an important parameter in design quality assessment, previous studies have linked buildability to time, cost, quality and safety performance in many ways. Based on this observation, the question arises of how buildability can be benchmarked and which aspects of project performance can be improved. After identifying available benchmarking tools, the relative correlations are investigated between different buildability attributes and construction performance in terms of time, cost, quality and safety. Based on a questionnaire survey, it was found that construction time performance has strong positive correlations with buildability in the design of external wall elements, simplicity of assembly and installation considerations, while other design attributes affect cost, quality and safety performance to varying degrees. With this understanding, it is postulated that best practice can be promoted among design teams for enhancing buildability, which would in turn raise project performance. Three experienced practitioners have been interviewed for verifying the practicality of buildability benchmarking. As an incentive to improve buildability, benchmarking would help construction stakeholders reap their desired benefits by focusing on the related design attributes in the pre-construction stage, particularly for functionally oriented buildings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; best practice; buildability; project performance |
| Index terms: | construction time, project performance, best practice, pre-construction, construction performance, building design, benchmarking, safety performance, questionnaire, practitioner, survey, design team, design quality, buildability |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, project controls, design efficiency, performance measurement, project management theory and practice, performance assessment, professional practice, project delivery, architectural design, data collection methods, business, practitioner |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Design Practice, Time Control, Site 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