15 CHAPTER 2 BUILDABILITY AND CONSTRUCTABILITY: A LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Introduction Buildability (constructability) is a huge area of study in the construction industry. The purpose of this literature review is to study areas that have relevance to developing the decision support system for buildable designs. The review of the literature first places an emphasis on buildability principles and conceptual guidelines for buildability implementation since these principles and guidelines are important ways of transferring construction knowledge to designers. Then, the review of the literature concentrates on knowledge management in buildability with respect to how buildability related knowledge and information was classified, acquired, represented and utilized during the life cycle of a project. Finally, the review of the literature focuses on how to apply the available buildability knowledge and information for quantitative and formal buildability review and evaluation. Section 2.2 elucidates the definitions of buildability. Section 2.3 briefly describes the evolution of buildability concepts. Section 2.4 reviews principles (concepts) and organizational approaches to implement buildability. Section 2.5 introduces knowledge management in buildability. Section 2.6 presents the approaches to quantifying buildability. At the end of this chapter, a summary is given. 2.2. Definitions of buildability The two definitions of buildability, which are most widely accepted in research and practice, were developed by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) in the UK and the Constructability Task Force of the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
15
CHAPTER 2 BUILDABILITY AND CONSTRUCTABILITY: A LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
Buildability (constructability) is a huge area of study in the construction industry. The
purpose of this literature review is to study areas that have relevance to developing the
decision support system for buildable designs. The review of the literature first places
an emphasis on buildability principles and conceptual guidelines for buildability
implementation since these principles and guidelines are important ways of
transferring construction knowledge to designers. Then, the review of the literature
concentrates on knowledge management in buildability with respect to how
buildability related knowledge and information was classified, acquired, represented
and utilized during the life cycle of a project. Finally, the review of the literature
focuses on how to apply the available buildability knowledge and information for
quantitative and formal buildability review and evaluation.
Section 2.2 elucidates the definitions of buildability. Section 2.3 briefly describes the
evolution of buildability concepts. Section 2.4 reviews principles (concepts) and
organizational approaches to implement buildability. Section 2.5 introduces knowledge
management in buildability. Section 2.6 presents the approaches to quantifying
buildability. At the end of this chapter, a summary is given.
2.2. Definitions of buildability
The two definitions of buildability, which are most widely accepted in research and
practice, were developed by the Construction Industry Research and Information
Association (CIRIA) in the UK and the Constructability Task Force of the
16
Construction Industry Institute (CII) in the USA, respectively. The CIRIA defined
buildability as follows:
“Buildability is the extent to which the design of a building facilitates ease of
construction, subject to the overall requirements for the completed building (CIRIA,
1983:6)”.
The Constructability Task Force defined constructability as follows:
“Constructability is the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in
planning, design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project
objectives (CII, 1986:2)”.
Other researchers also derived their definitions based on their commitment to
conceptual assumptions and ways to studying buildability. A selected sample of these
definitions is given as follows.
Illingworth (1984) defined buildability as design and detailing which recognize the
assembly process in achieving the desired result safely and at least cost to the client.
Moore (1996:31) modified Illingworth’s (1984) definition as a “design philosophy,
which recognizes and addresses the problems of the assembly process in achieving the
construction of the design product, both safely and without resort to standardization or
project level simplification”.
Ferguson (1989:1) defined buildability as “the ability to construct a building
efficiently, economically and to agreed quality levels from its constituent materials,
17
components and sub-assemblies”. Similarly, Williams (1982) defined buildability as
the most economic and efficient way of putting a building together.
The Construction Industry Institute in Australia (CIIA) (Griffith and Sidwell, 1997:29)
defined constructability as “a system for achieving optimum integration of
construction knowledge in the building process and balancing the various project and
environmental constraints to achieve maximization of project goals and building
performance”. More specifically, Lueprasert (1996:5) defined constructability as “an
important feature of a structural design and the construction project site conditions,
which determines the level of complexity of executing the associated structural
assembly tasks”.
Some researchers believed that constructability differs markedly from buildability in
terms of its much wider boundaries (e.g., Griffith and Sidwell, 1997). The difference is
seen mainly in that buildability is a design-oriented concept but constructability is
concerned with the whole project process. Others believed that there is no difference
between the two concepts, except that buildability is usually used in the UK but
constructability is often used in the USA. Generally, although there is a different
nuance in their connotation, the two concepts are used interchangeably in most
situations. Thus, this research does not make any difference between the two concepts.
Further, buildability has been adopted in this research since it is an official term used
in Singapore.
18
For the purpose of this research, the CIRIA’s definition is used as the working
definition since it focuses more specifically on design and consequently is more
consistent with the aim of this research.
2.3. Evolution of concepts of buildability
2.3.1. Development of concept
The awareness of buildability can be traced back to a UK governmental report in the
early 1960’s (Emmerson, 1962). This report implied that vertical fragmentation of the
project process has led to many problems in the construction industry and
recommended the improvement of coordination and communication among the
architects, consultants and contractors. A subsequent report (Banwell, 1964) further
suggested that design and construction must be considered together and that the
contractor is too far removed from the design stage in the traditional contracting
situation, at which his/her specialized knowledge and techniques could be put to
invaluable use. The report also highlighted that integration of design and construction
leads to clearly defined client requirements, promotion of cooperation between
designers and contractors, and improved interdisciplinary relationships.
Following the Banwell (1964) Report, several further studies (Economic Development
Council, 1967; National Economic Development Office, 1975, 1983) suggested that
alternative forms of contractual arrangements, such as design and build, construction
management, and design and management, should be sought to implement the
recommendations made in the Banwell (1964) report. These reports also further
recommended that design has to facilitate progress on site, take account of buildability
19
and obtain contributions from specialist consultants, the contractors, subcontractors
and suppliers.
Based on the above-mentioned reports, the members of CIRIA (1983), who were
building contractors, initiated a study to investigate what they regarded as the main
problems of building practices. The research interests concentrated on buildability,
which implied that building designs did not enable the industry’s clients to obtain their
best value for money in terms of efficiency with which the building was carried out.
The CIRIA (1983) report defined buildability (see Section 2.2) and gave two
implications of the definition, which include that, firstly, buildability is a dynamic
concept, which exists on a scale from very good to very bad, and secondly, every
building has overall requirements that may necessitate the acceptance of less than very
good buildability.
Compared with the development of buildability in the UK, the concept of
constructability emerged in the late 1970’s as a result of research into promoting
quality efficiency, productivity and cost effectiveness in the construction industry of
the USA (Construction Management Committee, ASCE Construction Division, 1991).
A relevant report (Business Roundtable, 1982) concluded that the benefits to be gained
from good constructability throughout the building process are approximately ten to
twenty times the costs to achieving them. The conclusion stimulated the establishment
of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) based at the University of Texas at Austin
in 1983 in the USA (Griffith and Sidwell, 1997). The CII constructability concept
emphasized the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning,
design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project objectives, and the
20
constructability program was also extensively implemented in practice in the USA (see
Section 2.4).
2.3.2. Design for Buildability
In order to change and enhance the fragmented design and construction process, new
production philosophies were recently applied to improve and innovate the project
delivery process (e.g., Koskela, 1992; Low and Chan, 1997; Egan, 1998). Compared
with the concept of design for manufacture (DFM) or design for manufacture and
assembly (DFMA) in the manufacturing industry, design for buildability, which is also
termed as design for construction (DFC) or design for constructability method
(DFCM), is adopted as an element of new production philosophies in the construction
industry (e.g., De la Garza, et al., 1994; Skibniewski and Arciszewski, 1997; Egan,
1998; Luiten and Fischer, 1998; Fox, Marsh and Cockerham, 2001).
For instance, Skibniewski and Arciszewski (1997) proposed a two-stage method of
design for constructability and suggested that information technology has provided a
foundation to implement and develop the design for constructability method in
construction. Luiten and Fischer (1998) described a framework that helped researchers
and practitioners to approach computer-aided design for construction systematically.
They further argued that information technology provides a promising opportunity for
the building industry to integrate design for construction into its linear facility delivery
process and to approach a more cyclical process. Fox, Marsh and Cockerham (2001)
stated that it was possible to apply the fundamental principles of design for
manufacture, such as standard production design improvement rules and standard
production design evaluation metrics, to all buildings and building components. A
21
recent report (Egan, 1998) pointed out that a design for construction concept should be
developed in the construction industry as an equivalent concept of design for
manufacture in the manufacturing industry to achieve an annual reduction of 10% in
construction cost and construction time.
2.3.3. Phases of development in concepts
Generally, the development of buildability concepts can be divided into three phases
(Fig. 2.1). In the early phase, buildability is regarded as a design rationale that
narrowly focuses on providing design rationalization for ease of construction and
improving site productivity (e.g., CIRIA, 1983). In the developing phase, buildability
is regarded as a total project concept that embraces the whole life cycle of a
construction project (e.g., CII, 1986; CIIA, 1993). In its present phase, buildability is
integrated with new production philosophy, for instance, as design for construction
(Egan, 1998). This concept is integrated with the developed methodology of new
production philosophies, such as total quality management (TQM) (Anderson, Fisher,
and Gupta, 1995; Russell, et al., 1994).
Design rationale As a narrowly focused concept with emphasis on
design for ease of construction and site productivity
A life-cycle concept As a total project concept, embracing the planning, design,
procurement, field operations, and maintenance
A methodology of new production philosophy Integration with philosophies, such as lean construction, concurrent construction and TQM
Fig. 2.1 Evolution of buildability concepts Source: Author
22
2.4. Buildability implementation
With the development of the buildability concept, various buildability concept
guidelines and principles were developed to integrate construction knowledge and
experience into different phases of a project development process. The practical
implementation of buildability was subject to the “push” and “pull” aspects that may
vary from one organization to another. The “push” aspect or the organizational aspect
(Section 2.4) placed the emphasis on management systems and the team-based
approaches. The “pull” aspect or the technical aspect focused on the IT-based
approaches (Sections 2.5 and 2.6) and attempted to combine these approaches with
organizational approaches to help design and construction organizations to fully
benefit from buildability implementation.
Various approaches and models were constructed to facilitate its implementation in
practice. Empirical studies were also conducted to examine the benefits and barriers to
implement the buildability concept guidelines, principles, approaches and models in
the practices developed, as well as gaps between potential and realized benefits of
buildability implementation.
2.4.1. Concept guidelines and principles
The CIRIA’s report (1983) identified seven categories of buildability principles in the
form of provisional design guidelines and as the basis for further research, discussion
and development. These principles included carrying out thorough investigation and
design; planning for essential site production requirements; planning for a practical
sequence of building operations and early enclosure; planning for simplicity of
assembly and logic sequences; detailing for maximum repetition and standardization;
23
detailing for achievable tolerances; and specifying robust and suitable materials.
Adams (1989) further developed the seven principles above into sixteen more definite
ones, which included: thorough investigation; considering access at the design stage;
considering storage at the design stage; designing for minimum time below ground;
designing for early enclosure; using suitable materials; designing for the skill
available; designing for simple assembly; planning for maximum
repetition/standardization; maximizing the use of plant, allowing for sensible
tolerances; allowing for practical sequence of operations, avoiding return visits by
trades; planning to avoid damage to work and subsequent operations; designing for
safe construction; and communicating clearly.
The CII of the USA conducted three research studies to investigate the ways that
construction knowledge and experience can enhance constructability during the
conceptual planning phase of a project (Tatum, Vanegas and Williams, 1986), the
engineering and procurement phase of a project (O’Connor, Rusch and Schulz, 1986a),
and the field operations phase of a project (O’Connor and Davis, 1988). Based on the
three studies, the CII of the USA (CII, 1987a) published fourteen constructability
concepts, which included the following across the three phases:
• Constructability concepts during the conceptual planning phase, including
constructability programs are made an integral part of project execution plans;
project planning actively involves construction knowledge and experience; the
source and qualifications of personnel with construction knowledge and experience
varies with different contracting strategies; overall project schedules are construction
sensitive; basic design approaches consider major construction methods; and site
layouts promote efficient construction.
24
• Constructability concepts during the engineering and procurement phase, including
project constructability is enhanced when design and procurement schedules are
construction sensitive; designs are configured to enable efficient construction;
constructability is enhanced when design elements are standardized; project
constructability is enhanced when construction efficiency is considered in
specification development; constructability is enhanced when module/preassembly
designs are prepared to facilitate fabrication, transportation and installation; designs
promote construction accessibility of personnel, material and equipment; and designs
facilitate construction under adverse weather conditions.
• Constructability concepts during the field operations phase, including
constructability is enhanced when innovative construction methods are utilized.
The Construction Industry Institute, Australia (CII Australia) also developed twelve
constructability principles within the Australian context with the help of the CII of the
USA (CII Australia, 1993). These principles included: integration, construction
knowledge, team skills, corporate objectives, available resources, external factors,
program, construction methodology, accessibility, specifications, construction
innovation, and feedback.
Generally, the review of principles and guidelines provides the practical background
and general knowledge for developing the decision support system for buildable
designs.
25
2.4.2. Organizational approaches to buildability implementation
2.4.2.1.Total buildability management system
The CII of the USA (CII, 1987b) developed a total constructability management
system, which emphasized the commitment and adoption of a constructability program
and cost curve for the implementation of a constructability program. The total
constructability system includes three parts – a constructability program, the cost-
influenced curve and the constructability concepts. Within this system, the cost-
influenced curve emphasizes that the constructability program has to be started as early
as possible. The constructability program is the application of a disciplined, systematic
optimization of the construction-related aspects of a project during the planning,
design, procurement, construction, test, and start-up phases by knowledgeable,
experienced construction personnel who are part of the project team (Construction
Management Committee, ASCE Construction Division, 1991). This program
comprises of seven components: self-assessment, policy, executive sponsor,
organization, procedure, appraisal and database.
2.4.2.2.Program assessment, barriers and benefits
O’Connor and Miller (1994a) identified fifteen significant corporate and project
parameters that reflect effective constructability program implementation and further
developed a Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix that defines five distinct
levels of project maturity – no program, application of selected supports, informal
program, formal program, and comprehensive formal program. O’Connor and Miller
(1994b) also identified eighteen prevalent barriers to implementing a constructability
program at both the corporate and project level and provided a three phase cycle,
including identification, mitigation, and review, to treat constructability barriers.
26
Russell, Gugel and Radtke (1992a) conducted a comparative analysis of three different
approaches, which were used by clients to implement constructability programs. This
study concluded that the four elements, including client involvement and support, early
incorporation of construction knowledge and experience, contracting strategy and team
building are keys to successfully implementing constructability programs. This study
resulted in the development of a framework, which can calculate a cost/benefit ratio
reflecting the effectiveness and/or maturity of a constructability program, to measure
costs and benefits from implementing constructability.
2.4.2.3.Implementation guide
Based on the previous studies (O’Connor and Miller, 1994a, 1994b; Russell, Gugel
and Radtke, 1992a, 1992b), CII (1993) developed a constructability implementation
roadmap. The roadmap offered nineteen constructability implementation tools to aid in
acquiring early client commitment and support, developing efficient and effective
teamwork, and building and sustaining effective constructability management systems.
2.4.2.4.Other studies
Apart from the above-mentioned CII research, the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program of the USA also initiated a research to develop a systematic
approach and methodology for constructability review for transportation facilities. A
constructability review process (CRP) was developed by the IDEF0(1) modeling
technique (Anderson, Fisher and Rahman, 2000). Twenty-seven selected tools and
twenty-one constructability functions were integrated into the final CRP model and
(1) IDEF0 is a structural analysis and design technique.
27
road maps were provided to indicate the linkage between basic and future tools and the
constructability functions these tools support (Fisher, Anderson and Rahman, 2000).
Glavinich (1995) discussed the use of design-phase scheduling and in-house design-
phase constructability review to increase the efficiency of a design and achieve
improved constructability. Low and Abeyegoonasekera (2001) used ISO 9000 quality
management systems as a working platform for implementing buildability principles at
both the design and construction stage of a project.
2.4.3. Surveys on implementation
Vardhan and Yates (1992) concluded that the methods of buildability were minimally
practiced by the building industry and the need for the use of constructability has not
yet been fully realized. However, most of the research showed that buildability
concepts and approaches were practiced and their practical implementation had
reported a variety of benefits. An early survey by the University of Wisconsin of 56
contractors indicated that 71% had a buildability program and estimated savings of
6.4% (CII Australia, 1993). Uhlik and Lories (1998) found that contractors applied
buildability concepts and participated in the earliest phase of the projects more often
than is thought. Eldin (1999) implied that adopting buildability concepts has the
potential for significantly reducing the project delivery time, for instance, up to 30%
without overall cost increase. Eldin (1999) also identified success factors,
implementation barriers and lessons learned for buildability implementation in
practice.
Previous studies also examined the gaps between the viewpoints of buildability
concepts and their practical applications. Nima, et al. (2001) revealed that the
28
Malaysian construction professionals had a wide understanding of the majority of
buildability concepts but they seldom applied these concepts in practice. Jergeas and
Van der Put (2001) indicated that the gaps between potential and realized benefits of
buildability implementation existed in the involvement of contractors in the design
phase, building mutual trust, respect and credibility between project planners,
designers, and contractors, willingness to adopt approaches that bring contractors into
the project from the very beginning, and willingness to try new approaches in the
interest of achieving significant gains in project cost, schedule, performance, and
safety. They further implied that significant gains in project costs, schedule,
performance, and safety could be achieved when the above gaps are filled.
2.5. Knowledge management in buildability
The studies reviewed in section 2.4 placed emphasis on concept guidelines and
principles, management systems, teamwork, client involvement and provision of tools
and methods. Along with these studies, recently researchers have focused much of
their research on the applications of information technology (IT) in practical
buildability implementation (e.g., Skibniewski and Arciszewski, 1997; Luiten and
Fischer, 1998; Yu and Skibniewski, 1999a, 1999b). In particular, IT is able to aid in
knowledge management in construction through acquiring, processing and utilizing
buildability knowledge and information (Skibniewski and Arciszewski, 1997). Thus,
research in this domain is divided into and reviewed as four topic areas: knowledge
classification, knowledge acquisition and knowledge representation and computerized
systems for knowledge management.
29
2.5.1. Knowledge classification
Knowledge classification is the starting point of knowledge management in
buildability. Several knowledge and information classification systems were developed
in this area with different emphasis.
In the arena of construction technology, Tatum (1988) proposed a classification system,
which includes the four major components: material and equipment resources;
construction-applied resources; construction processes; and project requirements and
constraints. Each of these components is further defined by elements and attributes.
This classification system provides a useful tool to measure technological change and
analyze specific operations for potential improvement. Ioannou and Liu (1993)
developed the Advanced Construction Technology System (ACTS). This technology
system provided classification of new technologies based on the Construction
Specification Institute’s CSI Master format in a database with facilities for searching
keywords.
In the arena of structural designs, Fischer (1991) and Fischer and Tatum (1997)
developed a framework of constructability factors for preliminary design of reinforced
concrete structures. These factors are grouped into endogenous and exogenous factors.
Endogenous factors were related to design variables (e.g., the dimensions of a beam)
and were under the control of the designer. Exogenous factors are beyond the control
of the designer (e.g., route restrictions of site). To make the design-relevant
constructability knowledge available to designers at the right time during design
development, Fischer (1991) and Fischer and Tatum (1997) further divided this body
of knowledge into the following five groups: application heuristics, layout knowledge,
30
dimensioning knowledge, detailing knowledge, and exogenous knowledge. Lueprasert
(1996) and Skibniewski, Arciszewski and Lueprasert (1997) developed a knowledge
classification space for conceptual structural design. The knowledge was classified into
two major categories: (1) structural data, which was further classified into three