Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Barriers To Constructability Implementation
Barriers To Constructability Implementation
INTRODUCTION
Development of Barriers
A n initial list of possible or p o t e n t i a l barriers to constructability was
compiled by researchers. This list is b a s e d chiefly o n t h e k n o w l e d g e a n d
previous research of researchers a n d was s u b m i t t e d to a C o n s t r u c t i o n In-
General Barriers
Owner Barriers
Designer Barriers
Constructor Barriers
9 Preassembly limitations
9 Other work restrictions
Vendor Barriers
Researcher Barrier
112
General building 22
Civil 16
Powerplant 13
Other 12
Barrier Frequency
(percent
Rank Description n = 62)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 09/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Where Encountered
The barriers identified occur at either the corporate or project level, or
both. The barriers are well-distributed across c o r p o r a t e and project efforts,
with 13 identified as c o r p o r a t e barriers and 15 identified as project barriers
(9 barriers affect both corporate- and project-level constructability imple-
mentation). This characteristic allows c o r p o r a t e and project-level p r o g r a m
managers to determine which of the c o m m o n barriers they should expect
to encounter.
Type of Barrier
The first of four types of barriers identified by the researchers are cultural
barriers, which are caused by c o m p a n y tradition, inflexible attitudes, frozen
mind-sets, or other ingrained paradigms within the organization. The second
type, procedural barriers, result from established methods or practices con-
sidered "set in s t o n e , " or by a lack of interest in trying new ideas o r sug-
gestions that might force revision or changes to standard operating proce-
dures. The third type of barrier, awareness barriers, include those arising
from a lack of understanding of the goals, concepts, methods, and benefits
of constructability, or a lack of comprehension of the application of these
items to organizational practices. The fourth barrier type is identified as
incentive barriers, caused because no motivation or inducement for con-
structability implementation is present.
These four classification types are not mutually exclusive. F o r example,
"complacency with the status q u o " is considered to fall under several of the
114
TABLE 8. S i g n i f i c a n t B a r r i e r s t o C o n s t r u c t a b i l i t y by M a t r i x R a n k i n g
Barrier PROGRAM CATEGORIZATION OF RESPONDENT ORGANIZATION
Category Category Category
1 or2 3 4or5 All
(n - 14) (n = 33) (n = 15) (n = 62)
A4 5/1-2
NO. Description Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Percent Number Percent
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Complacency with the status quo 5 36 11 33 6 40 4 22 35
Reluctance to invest additional money and effort in e a d y 8 57 10 30 4 27 30 22 35
project stages
Limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting 5 36 12 36 2 13 23 19 31
Lack of construction experience in design organization 3 21 9 27 2 13 8 14 23
--t Designer's perception that "we do it" 2 14 7 21 3 20 6 12 19
Lack of mutual respect between designers and constructors 2 14 8 24 2 13 1 12 19
Construction input is requested too late to be of value 4 29 6 18 2 13 16 12 19
Belief that there are no proven benefits of constructability 2 14 7 21 2 13 1 11 18
O w n e r ' s lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts of 2 14 7 21 1 7 7 10 16
constructability
10 Misdirected design objectives and designer performance 2 14 6 18 1 7 9 15
measures
11 Owner's perceptign that "we do it" 1 7 6 18 2 13 6 9 15
12 Lack of genuine commitment to constructability 1 7 4 12 4 27 20 9 15
O Calg. I ~" 2
U
A Calg. 3
~"30
O Calg. 4 or 5
l lt lll i t
20 - A,L _
invest additional money and effort in early project stages" (ranked No. 2)
is considered more significant than average. In program category 4 or 5,
the barriers "lack of genuine commitment to constructability" (ranked No.
12); "lack of team-building or partnering" (ranked No. 16); and "poor
timeliness of constructor input" (ranked No. 17) are considered more sig-
nificant than average. One barrier considered less significant than average
is "limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting," which is ranked No.
3.
These differences likely arise from differing levels of awareness of con-
structability, differing levels of expectations from implementation efforts,
and varying perceptions of constructability requirements between the high-
level and low-level companies. For example, low-level companies seem to
have more difficulty justifying additional front-end expenditure of effort.
Accordingly, this barrier may be more fundamental or basic in nature. It
is also suspected that some barriers truly affecting low-level companies, such
as the limitations of lump-sum contracting, have likely been overcome by
most high-level organizations. Similarly, high-level organizations may more
readily recognize a lack of genuine commitment to the effort where that
condition exists.
Organization-Type Variations
Companies of different organization type also hold generally different
views on barriers. Table 9 shows the differences in perceived frequency of
barrier occurrence for companies of different organization type. Fig. 2 pre-
sents these same results to allow quick identification of those groups that
significantly disagree with the interviewees as a whole. These findings are
summarized as follows. The barriers are given with the overall rank of
significance.
Owners
No significant differences from overall assessment are noticeable in this
group.
General Contractors
Barriers considered more significant than average by general contractors
include: "Limitations of lump-sum contracting" (No. 3); "lack of construc-
119
611
X Owner I
5~
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 09/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
O GC I
O
~;,4o A Des I
>.
O F.I'C I
~ 2o
c~
111
0 I 1 I I I I -Z-~------+- L L I I I I
Constructability B a r r i e r ( R e f e r e n c e d b y R a n k N u m b e r )
Designers
For designers, barriers considered more significant than average include:
"Lack of construction experience in design organization" (No. 4); "lack of
mutual respect between designers and constructors" (No. 6); "belief that
there are no proven benefits of constructability" (No. 8); "designer's lack
of awareness/understanding of the benefits of constructability" (No. 13);
and "the right people were/are not available" (No. 18).
Barriers considered less significant than average by designers include:
"Complacency with the status quo" (No. 1); "reluctance to invest additional
money and effort in early project stages" (No. 2); "limitations of lump-sum
competitive contracting" (No. 3); "lack of team-building or partnering"
(No. 16); and "poor timeliness of constructor input" (No. 17).
EPC Firms
Barriers considered more significant than average include both "reluc-
tance to invest additional money and effort in early project stage" (No. 2)
and "lack of genuine commitment to constructability" (No. 12). Barriers
considered less significant than average by this group include: "Lack of
mutual respect between designers and constructors" (No. 6); "Poor com-
munication skills of constructors" (No. 14): and "Lack of documentation
and retrieval of lessons learned" (No. 15).
Construction Managers
Construction managers considered "belief that there arc no proven ben-
efits of constructability" (No. 8) and "designer's lack of awareness/under-
standing of the concepts of constructability" (No. 13) more significant than
average. This group considered the following barriers less significant than
average: "Complacency with the status quo" (No. 1); "reluctance to invest
additional money and effort in early project stages" (No. 2); "lack of team-
122
organization") show the need for organizational change within design or-
ganizations. Conversely, the barriers shown as less significant than average
for EPC firms (e.g., "lack of mutual respect between designers and con-
structors") indicate barriers that design/construct companies may be over-
coming more easily than other organization types noted. Constructors read-
ily recognize that their input is often requested too late and that their
communication skills or methods are often lacking. Surprisingly, although
less affected by complacency with the status quo, many construction man-
agers are not yet convinced of the benefits of constructability.
Industrial Projects
No significant differences from overall assessment are noticeable in this
group.
123
o _<$100M
U
A >$100,.~,$56#1M
O >$500 M
P
9 ALl.
~ 20
~ 10
Civil Projects
Barriers considered more significant than average include "lack of mutual
respect between designers and constructors" (No. 6) and "the right people
were/are not available" (No. 18). Barriers considered less significant than
average include "lack of construction experience in the design organization"
(No. 4) and "designer's perception that 'we do it'" (No. 5).
Power-Plant Projects
Barriers considered more significant than average include: "Construction
input requested too late to be of value" (No. 7); "belief that there are no
proven benefits to constructability" (No. 8); "misdirected design objectives
and designer performance measures" (No. 10); "designer's lack of aware-
ness/understanding of the concepts of constructability" (No. 13); "poor
communication skills of constructors" (No. 14); and "lack of team-building
or partnering" (No. 16). Barriers considered less significant than average
include: "reluctance to invest additional money and effort in early project
stages" (No. 2); "lack of construction experience in the design organization"
(No. 4); and "owner's perception that 'we do it'" (No. 11).
As before, several of these findings confirm long-held suspicions. For
example, in the building sector, lack of respect between designers and con-
structors seems to be a more significant problem; utility-project afflictions
often reflect a bureaucratic approach to project management; and civil
project designers appear to exploit construction experience to a greater
extent. Otherwise, utilities remain the most skeptical with respect to con-
structability benefits, but are quick to recognize that design objectives and
performance measures are often misdirected and that team-building or part-
nering are too rarely taken advantage of.
125
~ 51)
raj
40
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 09/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(fenBldg.
>" 30 ~ ! ] ~Civil
I'A
~r o Pwr Plall|
u. 2o
m
I I
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
APPENDIX. REFERENCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 09/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
128