See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269048126

Eliciting Constructability Knowledge for BIM-enabled Automated, Rule-based

Constructability Review: A Case Study of Formwork

Conference Paper · May 2014

DOI: 10.1061/9780784413517.033

CITATIONS READS

6 245

3 authors:

Li Jiang Robert M. Leicht

Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania State University
9 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS    96 PUBLICATIONS   432 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gül Kremer
Iowa State University
319 PUBLICATIONS   2,078 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

BIM Planning View project

Flexible Manufacturing Facilities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Li Jiang on 09 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 319

Eliciting Constructability Knowledge for BIM-enabled Automated, Rule-based

Constructability Review: A Case Study of Formwork
1 2 3
Li Jiang , Robert M. Leicht , and Gül E. Okudan Kremer
1
Graduate Researcher, Dep. of Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA 16802; email: luj122@psu.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dep. of Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

University, University Park, PA 16802; email: rmleicht@engr.psu.edu

3
Professor, Dep. of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA 16802; email: gkremer@psu.edu

ABSTRACT
The concept of “constructability” has been raised to optimize construction
knowledge and experience in the design phase of construction projects to improve
project performance. Previous research demonstrated the feasibility of an automated,
rule-based constructability review through BIM implementation. The current work
investigates the elicitation of constructability knowledge to achieve the automated
process. With a case study, two frequently used knowledge elicitation methods -
interview and document analysis - were applied to collect constructability knowledge
on formwork selection for a concrete building project. Advantages of each technique
indicate the need for combining the two elicitation methods as a means of
triangulation to establish a comprehensive and accurate knowledge base for an
automated, rule-based constructability review.

INTRODUCTION
The constructability concept has been raised and provided substantial
opportunities for optimizing construction knowledge into the design phase. Due to an
increased awareness of the potential benefits in improving constructability, many
construction companies began to conduct constructability reviews at different design
stages to improve the reliability of design and facilitate the construction process. By
capturing constructability knowledge from construction experts, a checklist and a
lessons-learned system are frequently adopted after the design reaches a certain
design stage, 30%, 60%, or 95% design (Hancher and Goodrum 2007). However, the
large amount of required resources (i.e., time and manpower) largely impedes
constructability implementation (Hancher and Goodrum, 2007); the rework caused by
the inefficient process (Pulaski and Horman, 2005) cannot be ignored either.
The idea of implementing integrated design methods to enhance project
performance, notably leveraging Building Information Modeling (BIM), has been
greatly pushed for project design as a shared knowledge resource of a facility among
project participants (Rekola et al., 2010). A recent study of a new dormitory building
at The Pennsylvania State University concluded that BIM has great potential to
perform an automated, rule-based constructability review of a design model (Jiang et
al., 2013). Building on previous study, this paper investigates the knowledge
elicitation process to develop constructability rules and enable the automated review

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 320

process. Based on a case study, two frequently-used elicitation techniques - interview

and document analysis - were implemented to collect the constructability knowledge
for a concrete building structure. By comparing the two approaches, the means of
translating case-based constructability issues into rule checking parameters is
presented. The following sections review previous research, upon which the basis for
the current work was constructed.

KNOWLEDGE CONCEPTS AND ELICITATION

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Knowledge is what we know, the sum of what has been perceived, discovered,
or learned through experience or study (Schubert et al., 1998). Based on a taxonomy
of learning outcomes, knowledge can be categorized into four types: (1) factual, (2)
conceptual, (3) procedural, and (4) metacognitive. The first two types-factual and
conceptual- constitute knowledge of “what;” the latter two types-procedural, and
metacognitive constitute knowledge of “how to” (Anderson et al., 2000). Knowing
“what” helps to solve convergent problems, for example, determining which type of
formwork will be used, given a list of constraints. Knowing “how to” is most useful
for designing a plan or sequence of actions to solve a problem, such as how to make
formwork decisions step-by-step. Acquisition of knowledge on “what” and “how to”
builds the knowledge resources in support of the decision-making for a
constructability review. The first step of acquisition is Knowledge Elicitation (KE)
(Diaper, 1989). The distinction between the four different types of knowledge implies
that various elicitation techniques are needed for soliciting the proper type of
knowledge (Diaper, 1989). To capture the strengths and weakness of each technique,
criteria used can be related to its operation – brevity, productivity, and accessibility of
knowledge source, and its outcome – results validity, breadth of knowledge, and
differential access (Schweickert et al., 1987; Hoffman et al., 1995). Regardless,
interview and document analysis were found to be most frequently used (Cullen and
Bryman, 1988).

CONSTRUCTABILITY KNOWLEDGE AND TOOLS

Constructability knowledge resides in the heads of construction experts,
dispersedly. Hanlon and Sanvido (1995) classified this constructability knowledge
into five categories of concepts: (1) design rules, (2) resource constraints, (3)
performance, (4) external impacts, and (5) lessons learned. In order to better
incorporate the constructability concepts as project design develops, Pulaski and
Horman (2005) defined constructability knowledge in different levels of detail, from
building/site level to elements level, to gauge what constructability knowledge should
be introduced at each design stage. With the help of information technology, previous
research has developed knowledge-based tools to facilitate constructability
implementation at project design (Fisher, 2007; Jiang et al., 2013). For most tools,
interviews have been used as the elicitation method to collect the related
constructability knowledge, offering a decision making framework for
constructability diagnosis of a given design. However, the lack of comprehensive
analysis from building/site level to element level, “proactive” or “preventive”
feedback at early design, and the visualization support result in confined applications

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 321

in practice (Jiang et al., 2013). Thus, a more powerful tool is needed to improve the
current constructability review process.

BIM POTENTIAL FOR AUTOMATED CONSTRUCTABLITY REVIEW

Since late 1980’s, Building Information Modeling (BIM) has been adopted
and implemented in the AEC industry. As a potential tool towards integrated design
and delivery, BIM is expected to improve the efficiency and to enhance the value
delivered through project lifecycle (Owen, 2009). Based on the technological features
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and emergent practices (Taylor and Bernstein, 2009), Jiang et al. (2013) presented an
approach of using BIM to achieve an automated, rule-based constructability review.
The rule-based approach for automated constructability review of a design model can
be divided into 4 stages: (1) rule interpretation, (2) building model preparation, (3)
rule execution, and (4) constructability feedback (❶-❹ in Figure 1; based on
Eastman et al. 2009). With a case study of a new dormitory building at The
Pennsylvania State University, the design-related constructability knowledge was
captured with related BIM contents, demonstrating the feasibility of the BIM-enabled
approach. The previous investigation was preliminary and introduced the framework
of the innovative approach. The current work is a follow-up study, investigating the
means of obtaining the required constructability knowledge from construction experts
and interpreting them into constructability rule-sets (❶, Figure 1).

❶
Building
Constructability Constructability
Information
Knowledge Rule-sets
Model

❸
❷
❹ Constructability
Rule-based Platform
Feedback

Figure 1. Framework of BIM-enabled Rule-based Constructability Review

CASE STUDY
Based on a cast-in-place concrete project, the current work conducts a case
study with the two most frequently-used KE techniques: interview and document
analysis. The operation and outcomes of both techniques were compared to
investigate their efficacy of acquiring desired constructability knowledge for selecting
the most appropriate construction methods.

Project description
Located in Maryland, the case study project is a community center with 5
buildings interconnected via an underground parking facility, including a mosque.
The complex has a gross floor area of approximately 316,000 square feet, more than
95% of which is constructed with cast-in-place concrete. One of the 5 buildings has a
one-story steel structure, and thus was not considered in this study. Given cultural
concerns, the project design has incorporated traditional mosque features such as
domes and minarets, resulting in a range of different formwork systems used in the
project (Figure 2). The variety of the formwork applied makes this project a good

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 322

case to capture the constructability knowledge for selecting formwork systems for a
given design.

Formwork

Special Structure
Horizontal Vertical
(i.e. Dome/Arch)

PERI HARSCO Customed

Styrofoam Customed
SKYDECK decking Spanalls wood stud
Balls Falsework
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

system system system

PERI TRIO wall MEGAFORM Customed wood Flying

panels panels formwork form

Figure 2. Formwork Used in the Case Study Project

Knowledge elicitation
Two KE methods, which were recognized to be the most frequently-used,
were applied independently in the case study: interview and document analysis. For
both methods, two knowledge engineers were involved in the elicitation process. To
better compare the two approaches, both processes were modeled in Unified
Modeling Language (UML) as class diagrams, which employed the representation of
objects with attributes and relationships between to clearly display the elicitation of
the knowledge regarding formwork decision-making. Five UML relationships were
used to develop the model of each elicitation process: direct association,
generalization, aggregation, composition, and dependency (See details in Medina et
al., 2013). Based on the information depicted in the UML class diagram, the
knowledge segments for formwork selection were then represented in a decision tree,
so that the selection rules can be extracted. Associated rule parameters that were
formed by identified attributes and associated values can then be linked with
available BIM content to perform an automated constructability review of a given
structural design.

Interview
Focused, or semi-structured interview was adopted in this case study to allow
the interviewee to offer their ideas and opinions in a given topic (Diaper, 1989). The
entire session was constrained within 60 minutes and recorded for transcription
analysis. Two knowledge engineers carried out the session together, with one leading
the interview and results review while the other performing background tasks such as
operating a digital voice recorder and transcription analysis. With a set of
predetermined open-ended questions, the expert, who was defined to be the project
manager of the concrete subcontractor and has 8 years’ experience of concrete
construction, was asked to “think aloud” during: (a) the general process of formwork
selection (i.e. knowing “how to”); (b) the formwork systems selected for the current
project; and (c) consideration of factors that lead to the selection outcomes (i.e.
knowing “what”). The three parts were expected to collect the experts’ knowledge
and develop formwork selection rules. This three-part “think aloud” protocol was not
conducted in a strictly ordered fashion, but its sections were intermingled.

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 323

Following the standard UML relationships, a process model was developed to

show the elicitation of the constructability knowledge regarding the formwork
selection of a concrete building structure through transcription analysis (Figure 3). As
illustrated, knowledge was collected regarding: the selection process through the
communication among multiple project participants, and the selection of a certain
type of formwork system (Figure 3). Correspondingly, three types of information
were captured and colored in the model (Figure 3): project documents (white), project
participants (light grey), and rule elements (dark grey).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

LEGEND
produces

Formwork 80% Architectural Structural

review Construction Design Design Project Documents
Company
Documents Project Participant
may consult is is
developed by developed by Rule Element
develops
Concrete Project Structural Knowledge regarding
Mgmt. Estimator Supt. Engr. Architect process
Subcontractor Mgr. Engr.
Formwork Systems
documents

Formwork Knowledge regarding

has are from formwork
Shop reviewed by
Drawings
is UML RELATIONSHIPS
documented in Constructability Concern Slab Direct Association -
relates with a verb
Horizontal -Concern: Slab load impacts on -Name: Slab
Generalization –
Formwork formwork system -Depth: 13' “is a” relationship
-Category: Resource Constraints -Material: Concrete Aggregation –
is “has a” relationship
decided by PERI SKYDECK system Composition –
“being part of”
-ProductName: PERI SKYDECK is used for Dependency –
includes -VerticalSupport: Standard props “depends on”

Figure 3: Knowledge Elicitation - Interview

As shown in Figure 3, the concrete subcontractor who made formwork

decision for this project was involved when 80% of construction documents were
completed. Through intra- and inter-organizational communication, formwork shop
drawings were developed and submitted for review and approval. With an example,
Figure 3 also shows the elicitation of knowledge regarding selecting a certain type of
formwork. Related information was extracted from interview transcription for rule
development. These information bits were linked by words such as “because” and
“so” or phrases such as “instead of…use….” They were captured as rule parameters
that can be expressed in terms of “IF…THEN…” statements. In this example, part of
the dialogue between the expert (EX) and the knowledge engineer (KE) is shown as
follows:
EX: …but slab in between is actually supported differently…instead of using
spanalls, on the other side, we have to use a deck tower, which is a 13” slab…
KE: OK. But it was driven by the load of the slab.
EX: Yes.
In context, the “deck tower” refers to the “SKYDECK system” of PERI formwork.
The depth of a slab was identified as the design-related constraint that drove
formwork decisions. Therefore, based on the section of interview provided above, a
rule can be extracted as:
IF the depth of slab is 13”,
THEN “PERI SKYDECK system” is more appropriate as the horizontal
formwork.

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 324

By doing this iteratively, the knowledge regarding formwork selection for a

given design was collected through interview and transcription analysis. Based on the
identified rule parameters, Figure 4 presents the acquired knowledge for horizontal
formwork selection. In addition to design parameters such as slab slope and slab
depth, resource constraints such as crane, labor, and the layout density were also
considered in the decision-making of formwork use. On the other hand, one
formwork – EFCO beam-slab system that was applied in a previous project was
mentioned by the expert as lessons learned to better explain the selection of the PERI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SKYDECK system, due to the flexibility of the semi-structured interview process.

Nevertheless, the information that is captured through interview is lacking precise
description, constraining the application of rules, for example, the criteria of floor
height was described as “high” or “low” without precise definition of “high” or “low”
(Figure 4).
PERI
SKYDECK system
Yes

Yes Dense
HARSCO
Layout?
deck system
Slightly
Less
Crane PERI
Yes Needs SKYDECK system
Relatively
?
High
EFCO
Labor beam-slab
No
Beam-Slab Intensive? system
Relatively
Yes Floor
Low
System?
HARSCO deck system
High
Horizontal PERI SKYDECK system
Formwork Slab Slope = 0 ? Floor with beefier props
Selection No Large
Height PERI SKYDECK system
Slab
Low with standard props
Depth 13"

Spanalls
10"

PERI SKYDECK system

No

Figure 4: Decision Tree for Horizontal Formwork Selection - Interview

Document Analysis
Unlike interview, which has direct interaction with a human knowledge
source, document analysis was defined as an indirect elicitation method of “reviewing
or evaluating documents – both printed and electronic material,…,which required
data be examined and interpreted in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and
develop empirical knowledge” (Bowen, 2009). In this case study, electronic plans and
specifications, and available submittals of formwork shop drawings were defined as
the documentation for knowledge elicitation. The same two knowledge engineers
were involved in the process, with one performing the major analysis tasks and the
other evaluating the results, to maintain the reliability and reduce the bias of the
study.
The model of the elicitation process through document analysis was
developed and displayed in Figure 5. Likewise, knowledge regarding both the process
and the application of a certain type of formwork were illustrated. The three types of
information - project documents, project participants, and rule elements captured
through the analysis of documentation were colored consistently for comparison
(“Legend,” Figure 5). Following the process, the knowledge for horizontal formwork
selection were captured and represented in a decision tree as illustrated in Figure 6.

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 325

Project Design LEGEND

Documents Drawings Structural Architectural
Project Documents
Drawings Drawings
is are issued to Project Participant
stamped by is stamped by is stamped by

document
Rule Element
Formwork CM Project Structural from
Concrete Contractor Architect
Shop Drawings Engr. Engr. Knowledge regarding
Subcontractor
Submittal from process
are reviewed by
Formwork Systems

from Knowledge regarding

is formwork
documented in PERI SKYDECK system
Floor-to-Floor Height
-Layout: 5 x 7.5 Grid
Horizontal is designed for -Name: Floor Height
-ProductName: PERI SKYDECK
Formwork -Location: Parking Garage UML RELATIONSHIPS
-VerticalSupport
include -AllowableBuildingDesign -Height: 13' Direct Association -
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

relates with a verb

Slab Generalization –
Verticalsupport AllowableBuildingDesign -BuildingName: Parking Garage “is a” relationship
-MRKFrame: 1 -BuildingName: Parking -Name: 13" Slab Aggregation –
-ShoreTower: Every 1000 Garage -Level: Plaza Level “has a” relationship
sq.ft -Component:Beam/Slab -Material: Normal Weight Concrete (f'c = 5000 PSI) Composition –
-MPType: MP480 -Depth: =<18" -Depth: 13" “being part of”
-MPExtensionLength: (8' -Clearance(FL-FL): (9' 10 -BaySize: 30' Dependency –
6 1/2", 15'9") 1/2", 17'1") -Reinforcing: #5@12" O.C. EACH WAY “depends on”

Figure 5: Knowledge Elicitation - Document Analysis

Depth of Horizontal
Floor Height (h) Formwork
Components (d)
PERI SKYDECK system
with 48 props of MP 250 and 1 shore tower/1000 sq.ft
d = 12"
4'9" < h ≤ 9' PERI SKYDECK system
with 84 props of MP 250 and 1 shore tower/1000 sq.ft
d = 26"
PERI SKYDECK system
with 48 props of MP 350 and 1 shore tower/1000 sq.ft
d = 12"
9' < h ≤ 11' PERI SKYDECK system
with 84 props of MP 350 and 1 shore tower/1000 sq.ft
d = 26"
PERI SKYDECK system
with 48 props of MP 480 and 1 shore tower/1000 sq.ft
Horizontal d = 12"
Formwork 11'< h ≤ 13' PERI SKYDECK system
Selection d = 26", 28" with 84 props of MP 480 and 1 shore tower/1000 sq.ft

PERI SKYDECK system

with 48 props of MP 625 and 1 shore tower/1000 sq.ft
d = 12"
PERI SKYDECK system
24" ≤ d ≤ 32" with 84 props of MP 625 and 1 shore tower/1000 sq.ft

14'-1 1/4" < h < 18'-10" PERI SKYDECK system

with 80 props of MP 625 and 80 shore towers/1000 sq.ft
d = 42"
PERI Girder-Truss system
with props of MP480 @ 5' o.c. along beam lines
60" ≤ d ≤ 81" and 2 braces
HARSCO deck system
with joist spacing @ 16" o.c.
d = 8"
18'-10" ≤ h ≤ 24'-2"
HARSCO deck system
with joist spacing @ 10" o.c.
d = 37"

Figure 6: Decision Tree for Horizontal Formwork Selection - Document Analysis

In comparison to an interview (Figure 3), document analysis did not capture

enough information for understanding the procedures of formwork selection
performed by the concrete subcontractor, although inter-organizational activities for
formwork review and approval were captured and overlap with the results of
interview transcription analysis. However, more detailed design-related information,
which may impact formwork decisions, can be extracted from project documents,
detailed information about the 13” slab, for instance. On the other hand, instead of
simple description of the selected formwork (Figure 4), the example in Figure 5
indicates the formwork layout, the vertical support detail, and the system
requirements for the structure such as slab depth and allowed maximum floor height.
The detailed and precise information provide strong links to project design and helps

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 326

to develop a range of design-related rule parameters (e.g. slab depth and floor height,
Figure 6). By integrating the rule parameters with BIM content, an automated review
of design model can be enabled to provide consistent constructability feedback
regarding appropriate formwork options for a contractor making decisions.

Discussion
Comparing the operation and outcomes of both elicitation techniques, six
dimensions were used to examine the efficacy to acquire the knowledge regarding
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

formwork selection for automated constructability review of a given design (Table 1;

Schweickert et al., 1987; Hoffman et al., 1995). The advantages and limitations of
each technique have been revealed in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of the Two KE Techniques

Dimensions Description Semi-Structured Interview Document Analysis

60 min. (interview) +
total time to operate
Brevity Approx. 390 min. (transcription Approx. 180 min.
the tasks
analysis) = 450 min.
total number of
Productivity 43 rules/450 min. = 0.096 rule/min. 30 rules/180 min.= 0.167rule/min
rules/total time
Accessibility the difficulty of
Depends on the project team
of having access to Usually easy access to experts in a
and availability of the
Knowledge experts or project team
documents.
Source documentation
The correctness of One method can be used to evaluate results from the other:
Results
the acquired a) inter-organizational activities regarding process are overlapping;
Validity
knowledge b) 13 rules are overlapping.
a) Include non-design parameters, a) Mostly design-related
Breadth of how well the domain such as resource, cost, etc. variables.
Knowledge is covered b) Include related information b) Information only about the
about other projects. project on the documents.
Different types of
Mostly factual knowledge,
Differential knowledge acquired Good for capturing conceptual and
some procedural knowledge in
Access because of different procedure knowledge
the case study.
methods

 Brevity: It describes the duration of the knowledge elicitation. In this case

study, document analysis only took 40% of the time that was consumed by the
elicitation through interview and transcription analysis. The relatively flexible
environment of semi-structured interview results in more efforts on extracting rules
from interview transcription.
 Productivity: It is also considered as the efficiency of an elicitation technique
(Hoffman et al., 1995). Although more rules were extracted from interview
transcription, the elicitation through document analysis with 30 rules generated has
the productivity as almost twice as the elicitation through interview transcription
analysis with 43 rules produced. In other words, document analysis is considered
more efficient.
 Accessibility of knowledge source: It examines the difficulty of gaining
access to the knowledge source, experts or project documents. Compared with
access to experts in a project team, the documents obtained may be incomplete due
to the availability and irretrievability (Bowen, 2009). The expected documents may
not be fully developed at the time of analysis; or the access to some documents may
be blocked given the confidentiality of the data in those documents. Thus, the
information extracted from the documents may be insufficient to a desired

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 327

knowledge base.
 Results validity: It indicates the correctness of the acquired knowledge. In this
case study, parts of the knowledge obtained from both techniques were overlapping,
indicating that one method can be used to validate the other. For example, the
statement of “high floor height” requirement for HARSCO horizontal formwork
from the expert (Figure 4) can be confirmed by the shop drawings (Figure 6).
 Breadth of knowledge: Given the classification of constructability concepts
(Hanlon and Sanvido, 1995), this dimension examines the elicitation outcomes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

about how well the domain is covered with the use of an elicitation technique.
Through semi-structured interview, a relatively wide range of constructability
knowledge can be collected. In addition to design-related parameters, other factors
such as resource constraints and lesson learned from other previous project
experience (Figure 5) can be acquired from experts. With document analysis, mostly
design-related parameters that can impact formwork decisions in the current project
were collected. However, the detailed design-related information extracted from
project documents, can rarely be obtained in an interview.
 Differential access: It indicates different elicitation techniques are able to
obtain different types of knowledge. In this case study, the knowledge of both
“what” and “how to” can be captured by either KE technique. Document analysis
was demonstrated as an effective approach to capture detailed design-related factual
knowledge; while interview was recognized as a good elicitation technique for
conceptual and procedural knowledge.
The different strengths of each elicitation technique indicate the need of
combining two methods as a means of triangulation to develop a comprehensive set
of constructability rules for an automated constructability review. In general,
document analysis can be used as a first step to help the knowledge engineer more
efficiently gain sufficient background knowledge regarding the project design. The
detailed design-related rule parameters obtained from document analysis can be
easily read by BIM tools and performed in a logical manner as human reasoning.
However, the accessible documents may be incomplete to extract sufficient
knowledge for a comprehensive constructability review. Interview will then provide a
good opportunity to acquire the missing knowledge. Similarly, interview could be
used first to develop the necessary elements for decision-making, followed by
document analysis to refine the parameters and specific rules.

CONCLUSION
By comparing two most frequently-used KE methods – interview and
document analysis, this paper investigates the knowledge elicitation for an automated,
rule-based constructability review regarding formwork selection of concrete structure
elements. Six dimensions are used to examine both the procedures and the outcomes
of the two KE techniques: brevity, productivity, accessibility of knowledge source,
results validity, breadth of knowledge, and differential access. The different strength
of each technique indicates the need for combining the two methods as a means of
triangulation to establish a comprehensive and accurate knowledge base for an
automated, rule-based constructability review. Future work can focus on more case
studies with the suggested elicitation process to create the desired knowledge base of

Construction Research Congress 2014

 Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 328

formwork selection. External validation of the outcomes will help demonstrate the
applicability of the automated constructability review.

REFERENCES
Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airasian, Kathleen A.
Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C.
Wittrock. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing, Abridged
Edition, 2nd ed. Pearson.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 12/08/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bowen, Glenn A. (2009). “Document analysis as a qualitative research method.”

Qualitative Research Journal 9 (2): 27–40.
Cullen, J., and A. Bryman. (1988). “The knowledge acquisition bottleneck: time for
reassessment?” Expert Systems 5 (3): 216–225.
Diaper, D. (1989). Knowledge elicitation: principles, techniques, and applications.
Halsted Press.
Eastman, C., Jae-min Lee, Yeon-suk Jeong, and Jin-kook Lee. (2009). “Automatic
rule-based checking of building designs.” Autom. Constr. 18(8): 1011–1033.
Fisher, Deborah J. (2007). “An overview of constructability tools.” Constructability
concepts and practice, ASCE, 82-101.
Hancher, Donn E., and Paul M. Goodrum. (2007). “Constructability issues and
review processes.” Constructability concepts and practice, ASCE, 38-60.
Hanlon, Eric J., and Victor E. Sanvido. (1995). “Constructability information
classification scheme.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 121 (4): 337–345.
Hoffman, R. R., Shadbolt, N. R., Burton, A. M., and Klein, G. (1995). “Eliciting
knowledge from experts: a methodological analysis.” Organ. Behav. Hum.
Dec. 62(2): 129-158.
Jiang, Li, Ryan L. Solnosky, and Robert. M. Leicht. (2013). “Virtual prototyping for
constructability review.” Proc., 4th Construction Specialty Conference,
CSCE, Montreal, Canada.
Medina, Lourdes A., Gül E. Okudan Kremer, and Richard A. Wysk. (2013).
“Supporting medical device development: a standard product design process
model.” J. Eng. Design 24 (2): 83–119.
Owen, R. L. (2009). “White paper on IDDS.” Pub. 328, C1B, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
Pulaski, Michael H, and Michael J Horman. (2005). “Organizing constructability
knowledge for design.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (8): 911–919.
Rekola, Mirkka, Jun Kojima, and Tarja Mäkeläinen. (2010). “Towards Integrated
Design and Delivery Solutions: pinpointed challenges of process change.”
Architectural Engineering and Design Management 6 (4): 264–278.
Schubert, Petra, D. Lincke, and Beat Schmid. (1998). “A global knowledge medium
as a virtual community: the NetAcademy concept.” Proc., 4th Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Baltimore, Md., 618-20.
Schweickert, R., A. M. Burton, N. K. Taylor, E. N. Corlett, N. R. Shadbolt, and A. P.
Hedgecock. (1987). “Comparing knowledge elicitation techniques: a case
study.” Artificial Intelligence Review 1 (4): 245–253.
Taylor, John E., and Phillip G. Bernstein. (2009). “Paradigm trajectories of building
information modeling practice in project networks.” J. Manage. Eng. 25 (2):
69–76.

View publication stats Construction Research Congress 2014