Barriers To Constructability Implementation PDF

BARRIERS TO CONSTRUCTABILITY IMPLEMENTATION
By James T. O'Connor, ~ Member, ASCE, and Steven J. Miller, 2

Associate Member, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 09/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ABSTRACT: Recognition of barriers to constructability is identified as one of 15

significant parameters critical for effective constructability implementation. A bar-
rier to constructability is any significant inhibitor that prevents effective imple-
mentation of the constructability program. The steps of this research are to: (1)
Identify potential barriers to constructability and assess the relative frequency or
severity of these barriers in industry; (2) characterize the prevalent barriers to
constructability; and (3) describe any significant differences in barrier frequency
across sectors of the industry. Constructability barriers are evident in almost all
organizations at both corporate and project levels. Treatment of constructability
barriers should involve a three-phase cycle of identification, mitigation, and review.
Initial efforts should focus on determining the presence of constructability barriers,
and on determining the significance of those barriers identified. There are several
problematic barriers to effective constructability improvement; the severity of these
barriers varies widely from company to company, particularly with respect to con-
structability program ranking, organization type, project type, and annual volume
of work.
INTRODUCTION
Recognition of barriers to c o n s t r u c t a b i l i t y is identified as o n e of 15 sig-

nificant p a r a m e t e r s critical for effective constructability i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
( O ' C o n n o r and Miller 1994). A b a r r i e r to constructability is any significant
inhibitor that p r e v e n t s effective i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the constructability pro-
gram. T h e steps of this research are: (1) T o identify p o t e n t i a l barriers to
constructability'and assess the relative f r e q u e n c y or severity of these barriers
in industry; (2) characterize the p r e v a l e n t barriers to constructability; a n d
(3) describe any significant differences in b a r r i e r f r e q u e n c y across various
organizational characteristics.
IDENTIFICATION OF PREVALENT BARRIERS TO CONSTRUCTABILITY

The identification of the p r e v a l e n t barriers to constructability took place
in three phases. First, p o t e n t i a l barriers were identified a n d r e f i n e d by the
researchers. T h e n , the p r e s e n c e of barriers a m o n g c o m p a n i e s with active
constructability p r o g r a m s was assessed t h r o u g h a n i n - d e p t h i n t e r v i e w pro-
cess. Finally, researchers a n a l y z e d the i n t e r v i e w results to identify the com-
m o n barriers. T h e s e c o m m o n barriers were t h e n characterized a n d cate-
gorized.
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-
~Assoc. Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.

ZTech. Specialist, Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, TX 77001-0003.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on June
11, 1993. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
Vol. 8, No. 2, May, 1994. 9 ISSN 0887-3828/94/0002-0110/$2.00 + $.25 per
page. Paper No. 6336.
110
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

dustry Institute (CII) task force for review. The task force members critiqued
the list for completeness, clarity, redundancy, and perceived applicability
to industry. The final list of barriers for evaluation include 41 distinct items,
as follows:
General Barriers
9 Complacency with status quo

9 "This is just another program"
9 "Right people" are not available
9 Discontinuity of key project team personnel
9 No documentation of lessons learned
9 Failure to search out problems and opportunities
Owner Barriers
9 Lack of awareness of benefits, concepts, and so forth

9 Perception that "we do it"
9 Perception that there are no proven benefits
9 Perception that constructability delays project schedule
9 Reluctance to invest additional money and/or effort in early project
stages
9 Lack of genuine commitment
9 Distinctly separate design management and construction manage-
ment operations
9 Lack of construction experience
9 Lack of team-building or partnering
9 Disregarding of constructability in selecting contractors and con-
sultants
9 Contracting difficulties in defining constructability scope
9 Misdirected design objectives and performance measures
9 Lack of financial incentive for designer
9 Gold-plated standard specs
9 Limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting
9 Unreceptive to contractor innovation
Designer Barriers
9 Perception that "we do it"

9 Lack of awareness of benefits, concepts, etc.
9 Lack of construction experience/qualified personnel
9 Company goals over project goals
9 Lack of awareness of construction technologies
9 Lack of mutual respect between designers and constructors
9 Perception of increased designer liability
9 Construction input is requested too late to be of value
Constructor Barriers
9 Reluctance of field personnel to offer preconstruction advice

9 Poor timeliness of input
111

9 Poor communication skills
9 Lack of involvement in tool and equipment development
Organized Labor Barriers

9 Preassembly limitations
9 Other work restrictions
Vendor Barriers
9 Fragmentation and difficult communication interfaces

9 Restrictions on proprietary designs
Code Authority Barriers
9 Rigid, outdated codes and design standards

9 Nonrigorous approach to establishment of tolerances
Researcher Barrier
9 Difficulty in proving the economics of constructability
This list shows those barriers to constructability considered potentially

significant as inhibitors to effective implementation and includes items that
affect any of the several parties involved in the constructability process.
Determination of Significant Barriers

The presence of barriers was assessed through in-depth interviews of
representatives from 62 companies claiming to have constructability pro-
grams. Accordingly, the findings of this study are useful in characterizing
companies in active pursuit of constructability, and less useful in charac-
terizing the industry or companies in general. Of course, an assessment of
barriers to constructability among companies not even pursuing construct-
ability improvement would be both very difficult (if not impossible) and of
questionable interpretive value. A statistical characterization of these 62
companies is presented in Tables 1-4. Each of the interview participants
was asked to examine the list of 41 barriers and to identify the barriers
encountered most frequently within his or her company or on company
projects.
The number of companies choosing a particular barrier as significant was
tallied, and the barriers rank-ordered by frequency of selection. Of the 41
barriers, 18 were identified as the most significant. These 18 were chosen
TABLE 1. Number of Interview Participants by OrganizationType

Organization type Number
(1) (2)
Owner 26
Designer 8
Design-construction 20
General contractor 14
Construction management 12
112

TABLE 2. Number of Interview Participants by Project Type
Project type Number
(1) (2)
Industrial 55
General building 22
Civil 16
Powerplant 13
Other 12
TABLE 3. Number of Interview Participants by Annual Construction Volume

Annual construction volume Number
(1) (2)
<$20,000,000 2
$20,000,000- $100,000,000 12
$100,000,001- $500,000,000 23
>$500,000,000 25
TABLE 4. Number of Interview Participants by Cll Membership

CII member Number
(1) (2)
Yes 55
No 7
by at least 10% of interview companies. Table 5 shows these barriers and

their frequency of occurrence as determined from the interview results.
Characteristics of Common Barriers

Once the significant barriers to constructability are determined, the next
task is to characterize and describe these barriers. The barriers are described
by three major characteristics: (1) The primary organization affected; (2)
at what level, either company or project, the barrier is encountered; and
(3) the type of barrier. The classification of the 18 common barriers by
these characteristics, listed in decreasing order of frequency, is shown in
Table 6. These three characteristics are described next.
Primary Organization Affected

This characteristic is rather self-evident for most barriers. For example,
"lack of construction experience in design organization" is obviously pri-
marily a designer barrier. Other barriers affect all organizations, such as
"complacency with the status quo."
The common barriers are well distributed across the three organizations.
This shows that no single organization causes a "bottleneck" to construct-
ability implementation. Rather, the entire industry needs to be aware of
these common barriers and work to mitigate their effect. This characteristic
provides an indicator for each organization of which barriers they should
be most aware of within their operations.
113

TABLE 5. Most Common Barriers to Constructability
Barrier Frequency
(percent
Rank Description n = 62)
(1) (2) (3)

Complacency with the status quo 35
Reluctance to invest additional money and effort in early project 35
stages
Limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting 31
Lack of construction experience in design organization 23
Designer's perception that "we do it" 19
Lack of mutual respect between designers and constructors 19
Construction input is requested too late to be of value 19
Belief that there are no proven benefits of constructability 18
Owner's lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts of con- 16
structability
10 Misdirected design objectives and designer performance mea- 15
sures
11 Owner's perception that "we do it" 15
12 Lack of genuine commitment to constructability 15
13 Designer's lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts of 15
constructability
14 Poor communication skills of constructors 15
15 Lack of documentation and retrieval of "lessons-learned" 13
16 Lack of team-building or partnering 13
17 Poor timeliness of constructor input 13
18 The right people were/are not available 11
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 6. Characteristics of Common Barriers to Constructability

Primary Organization Affected Where Encountered Type of Barrier
Rank Barrier Owner Designer Construction Corporate Project Cultural Procedural Awareness Incentive
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
l Complacency with the status q u o Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ycs Ycs
2 Reluctance to invest additional money and Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
effort in early project stages
3 Limitations of lump-sum competitive con- Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No
tracting
4 Lack of construction experience in design No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No
organization
5 Designer's perception that "we do it" No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes
6 Lack of mutual respect between designers No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
and constructors
X 7 Construction input is requested too late to Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
ol be of value
8 Belief that there are no proven benefits to Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No
constructability
9 Owner's lack of awareness/understanding of Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No
the concepts of constructability
10 Misdirected design objectives and designer No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
performance measures
11 Owner's perception that " w e do it" Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No
12 Lack of genuine commitment to eortstructa- Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Yes
bility
13 Designer's lack of awareness understanding No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No
of the concepts of constructability
14 Poor communication skills of constructors No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
15 Lack of documentation and retrieval of Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
"lessons learned"
16 Lack of team building or partnering Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No
17 Poor timeliness of constructor input No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
18 The right people were/are not available Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
E 11 12 9 13 15 9 7 14 6
categories. The barrier types indicate how the barrier affects the organi-
zation and allows the identification of barrier manifestations within the
company. These manifestations or symptoms are discussed in the next sec-
tion.
Most of the barriers (14 of the 18) are typified at least in part as awareness
barriers. This suggests that an immediately effective method of combating

barriers may be awareness and education efforts expounding the concepts
and methods of constructability, as well as on the benefits of constructability
efforts.
The least common category is incentive barriers. This runs contrary to
conventional wisdom by indicating that constructability inhibitors involve
much more than the simple lack of some reward structure.
Descriptors of Common Barriers

Once one understands the characteristics of common barriers, their pres-
ence may be easily established by observing their manifestations, or symp-
toms, as described in Table 7. Recognition of these symptoms is a critical
part of barrier identification. The descriptors listed are not all-inclusive, but
are simply examples of the types of manifestations representative of each
barrier. For reference, Table 7 repeats the organizational classification from
Table 6.
ASSESSMENT OF BARRIERS VARIATION

Constructability barriers vary from company to company. Additional in-
sight may be gained by observing the frequency of barriers among companies
with like attributes or characteristics. For this purpose, the 62 companies
studied are categorized according to four different parameters: Construct-
ability program ranking; organization type; annual volume of work; and
projecttype within the industry.
For each of these four categorizations, significant differences arose re-
garding the relative importance of the 18 significant barriers when compared
with the average values representative of all companies studied.
Constructability Program Ranking Variations

In O'Connor and Miller (1994), a five-level classification system is devised
for the purpose of comparative evaluation of constructability programs (with
level five representing the most advanced or developed programs). This
procedure is useful in both benchmarking the best industrial practices and
in facilitating baseline performance measurement at the corporate or project
level. The classification system is also useful in the present study in deter-
mining how the more sophisticated constructability programs differ in the
nature of barriers from constructability programs that are less developed.
Table 8 shows the differences between the perceived frequency of barrier
occurrence when the interview respondents are classified by constructability
program ranking. Fig. 1 shows these same values, clearly showing the bar-
riers where one group significantly disagree with the interviewees as a whole.
The level 3 programs tracks fairly close to the overall response values.
High-level programs (level 4 or 5) differ from low-level programs (level 1
or 2) on most barriers. While both groups agree in general on the most
significant 18 barriers, significant discrepancies are noted over frequency of
barrier occurrence.
Notably divergent in program category 1 or 2, the barrier "reluctance to
116

TABLE 7, Descriptors of Common Barriers to Constructability

Organization Affected
Rank Barrier Owner Designer Constructor Symptoms (indicators that barrier is present)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1 Compacency with the status quo Yes Yes Yes "Oversatisfaction" with performance; lack of interest in new ap-
proaches, new ideas; no time for strategic thinking
2 Reluctance to invest additional money and effort in Yes No No Primary focus on short-term profitability; highly constrained funding
early project stages procedures
3 Limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting Yes No No Reliance on lump-sum methods; reluctance to investigate/allow other
stategies; restrictive contracting procedures
4 Lack of construction experience in design organiza- No Yes No Construction knowledge not considered valuable for design personnel;
tion few opportunities for site visits by architect/engineer
5 Designer's perception that " w e do it" No Yes No Design review procedures considered adequate for constructability
6 Lack of mutual respect between designers and con- No Yes Yes Adversarial/clannish/disrespectful relationships between personnel;
structors minimal interaction between personnel
7 Construction input is requested too late to be of Yes Yes No No construction involvement or understanding of such need in early
value project stages; focus on construction review of completed drawings
-t 8 Belief that there are no proven benefits to construct- Yes Yes Yes Refnsal to include constructability efforts in project efforts until cost/
ability benefits proven
9 :Owner's lack of awareness/understanding of the con- Yes No No No comprehension of the breadth of constructability efforts and issues
cepts of constructability
10 Misdirected design objectives and designer perfor- No Yes No Promotion of goals to minimize design costs at project expense
mance measures
11 Owner's perception that " w e do it" Yes No No Satisfaction with current efforsts; no desire to improve or increase ef-
fectiveness; no benchmarking of performance
12 Lack of genuine commitment to constructability Yes Yes Yes Use of constructability as a buzzword; constructability outside the cor-

porate culture
13 Designer's lack of awareness/understanding of the No Yes No No comprehension of the breadth of constructability efforts and issues
concepts of constructability
14 Poor communication skills of constructors No No Yes iFailure to present ideas to project members in a usable, nonadversar-
ial fashion
15 Lack of documentation and retrieval of "lessons Yes Yes Yes No system for documenting or ineffective methods for d o c u m e n t i n g
learned" lessons; quick to "close the file" on a project
16 Lack of team building or partnering Yes Yes Yes ]No reference to the team a p p r o a c h
17 Poor timeliness of constructor input No No Yes Lack of proactive efforts; focus on construction review of completed
drawings
18 The right people were/are not available Yes Yes Yes C a s u a l or nondeliberate assignment of constructability personnel
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

13 Designer's lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts 1 7 6 18 2 13 6 9 15
of constructability
14 Poor communication skills of constructors 2 14 5 15 2 13 1 9 15
15 Lack of documentation and retrieval of "lessons-learned" 3 21 4 12 1 7 14 8 13
16 Lack of team-building or partnering 2 14 2 6 4 27 13 8 13
17 Poor timeliness of constructor input 1 7 3 9 4 27 20 8 13
18 The right people were/are not available 2 14 5 15 0 0 14 7 11
40
O Calg. I ~" 2
U
A Calg. 3
~"30
O Calg. 4 or 5
l lt lll i t
20 - A,L _
Conslructability Barrier (Referenced by Rank Number)
FIG. 1. Relative Significance of Barrier by Matrix Rank
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

TABLE 9. Significant Barriers to Constructability by Organization Type

Barrier PROJECTROLEOF RESPONDENTORGANIZATION
Owner Contractor Designer Constructor Manager All
(n = 26) (n = 14) (n = 8) (n = 20) (n = 12) (n = 62)
Number Description Number(3)( ~P eNum(5)(46~
be6rr cPercent
e nNumber]Percent2
(7)(28~
t Number[(10)PercentNumber(11)I
25 (12)2Percent17Number(13)
(14)22
I Percent35
(1) (2)
Complacency with the sta-
tus quo
Reluctance to invest addi- 35
tional m o n e y and effort
in early project stages
O Limitations of l u m p - s u m 31
competitive contracting
Lack of construction expe- 23
rience in design organiza-
tion
Designer's perception that 19
"we do it"

Lack of mutual respect be- 19
tween designers and con-
structors
Construction input is re- 19
quested too late to be of
value
Belief that there are no 18
proven benefits of con-
structability
Owner's lack of awareness/ 12 21 13 20 10 16

understanding of the
concepts of constructabil-
ity
10 Misdirected design objec- 15 21 13 15 15
tives and designer per-
formance measures
11 Owner's perception that 15 0 13 15 15
"we do it"
12 Lack of genuine commit- 12 0 13 25 15
ment to constructability
13 Designer's lack of aware- 8 14 50 15 15
ness/understanding of the
concepts of constructabil-
ity
r, 14 Poor communication skills 12 29 13 5 15
of constructors
15 Lack of documentation and 23 14 13 0 13
retrieval of "lessons-
learned"
16 Lack of team-building or 12 14 0 15 13
partnering

17 Poor timeliness of construc- 15 7 0 15 13
tor input
18 The right people were/are 8 7 25 10 11
not available
70
611
X Owner I
5~
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 )
FIG. 2. Relative Significance of Barrier by Organization Type
tion experience in design organization" (No. 4); "construction input is re-

quested too late to be of value" (No. 7); and "poor communication skills
of constructors" (No. 14). Barriers considered less significant than average
include: "Designer's perception that 'we do it'" (No. 5); "owner's perception
that 'we do it"' (No. 11); and "lack of genuine commitment to construct-
ability" (No. 12).
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

building or partnering" (No. 16); and "Poor timeliness of constructor input"
(No. 17).
In general, these findings reflect the inherent qualities of each particular
organization type. For example, most barriers designated as more significant
than average for designers (e.g., "lack of construction experience in design
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.
Organization Volume of Work Variations

Analysis of a breakdown of interview respondents by volume of work
revealed similar differences, as shown in Table 10 and Fig. 3. The major
differences are as follows.
Annual Volume <- $100,000,000

Barriers considered more significant than average by firms with volumes
of $100,000,000 or less include: "Reluctance to invest additional money and
effort in early project stages" (No. 2); "limitations of lump-sum competitive
contracting" (No. 3); "lack of construction experience in design organiza-
tion" (No. 4); and "construction input is requested too late to be of value"
(No. 7). A barrier considered less significant than average by this size firm
is "designer's perception that 'we do it'" (No. 5).
Annual Volume > $100 Million and >- $500 Million

Considered more significant than average by this middle-volume category
is the barrier "designer's perception that 'we do it'" (No. 5). A barrier
considered less significant than average is "construction input requested too
late to be of value" (No. 7).
Annual Volume > $500 Million

The largest-volume category considered more significant than average the
barrier "complacency with the status quo" (No. 1). This group considered
less significant than average the barriers "lack of construction experience
in the design organization" (No. 4); and "lack of documentation and re-
trieval of lessons learned" (No. 15).
The differences noted here are not surprising. For the most part, they
are reflective of the natural differences between large and small organiza-
tions. For example, one would expect larger organizations to exhibit more
"complacency with the status quo" than smaller organizations, which tend
to suffer more from the limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting.
Industry-Sector Variations
Certain barriers are considered more or less significant by those perform-
ing particular types of work, as shown in Table 11 and Fig. 4.
Industrial Projects
No significant differences from overall assessment are noticeable in this
group.
123

TABLE 10. Significant Barriers to Constructability by Annual Volume of Work

Barrier ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME OF RESPONDENT
<$500 M,
-<$100 M >$100 M >$500 M All
(n = 14) (n = 23) (n = 25) (n = 62)
Number Description Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
(t) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Complacency with the status quo 5 36 6 26 11 44 22 35
Reluctance to invest additional m o n e y and effort in early project 7 50 7 30 8 32 22 35
stages
Limitations of l u m p - s u m competitive contracting 6 43 7 30 6 24 19 31
Lack of construction experience in design organization 6 43 6 26 2 8 14 23
Designer's perception that "we do it" 1 7 7 30 4 16 12 19
Lack of mutual respect between designers and constructors 2 14 5 22 5 20 12 19
Construction input is requested too late to be of value 4 29 2 9 6 24 12 19
Belief that there are no proven benefits of constructability 3 21 3 13 5 20 11 18
Owner's lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts of con- 2 14 2 9 6 24 10 16
structability
i0 Misdirected design objectives a n d designer p e r f o r m a n c e m e a - 2 14 2 9 5 20 9 15
sures
11 Owner's perception that "we do it" 3 21 2 9 4 16 9 15

12 Lack of genuine c o m m i t m e n t to constructability 1 7 4 17 4 16 9 15
13 Designer's lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts of 2 14 5 22 2 8 9 15
constructability
14 Poor communication skills of constructors 2 14 5 22 2 8 9 15
15 Lack of documentation and retrieval of "lessons-learned" 3 21 4 17 1 4 8 13
16 Lack of team-building or partnering 1 7 2 9 5 20 8 13
17 Poor timeliness of constructor input 1 7 4 17 3 12 8 13
18 The right people were/are not available 1 7 3 13 3 12 7 11
b
4N
o _<$100M
U
A >$100,.~,$56#1M
O >$500 M
P
9 ALl.
~ 20
~ 10
Constructabilily Barrier (Referenced by Rank Number)
FIG. 3. Relative Significance of Barrier by Annual Volume of Work
General Building 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: "Reluctance to invest additional money and effort in early
project stages" (No. 2); "designer's perception that 'we do it'" (No. 5);
"lack of genuine commitment to constructability" (No. 12); and "poor
timeliness of constructor input" (No. 17).
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

TABLE 11. Significant Barriers to Constructability by Industry Sector

Barrier TYPICAL PROJECT TYPE OF RESPONDENT
Industrial General Building Civil Powerplant All
(n = 55) (n = 22) (n = 16) (n = 13) (n = 62)
Number Description Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
(t) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1 Complacency with the status quo 20 36 7 32 6 38 4 31 22 35
2 Reluctance to invest additional money and effort in 21 38 6 27 5 31 5 38 22 35
early project stages
3 Limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting 17 31 8 36 5 31 3 23 19 31
4 Lack of construction experience in design organiza- 13 24 4 18 2 13 1 8 14 23
tion
5 Designer's perception that "we do it" 10 18 2 9 1 6 3 23 12 19
6 Lack of mutual respect between designers a n d con- 11 20 7 32 5 31 3 23 12 19
structors
7 Construction input is requested too late to be of 10 18 4 18 4 25 4 31 12 19
value
8 Belief that there are no proven benefits of construct- 9 16 4 18 4 25 4 31 ll 18
ability
9 Owner's lack of awareness/understanding of the con- 9 16 5 23 3 19 2 15 10 16
cepts of constructability
10 Misdirected design objectives and designer perfor- 8 15 2 9 2 13 4 31 9 15
mance measures
11 Owner's perception that " w e do it" 8 15 2 9 2 13 0 0 9 15
12 Lack of genuine commitment to constructability 9 16 1 5 2 13 2 15 9 15

13 Designer's lack of awareness/understanding of the 7 13 3 14 3 19 3 23 9 15
concepts of constructability
14 Poor communication skills of constructors 7 13 3 14 2 13 3 23 9 15
15 Lack of documentation and retrieval of "lessons- 7 13 2 9 l 6 l 8 8 13
learned"
16 Lack of team-building or partnering 6 11 3 14 2 13 3 23 8 13
17 Poor timeliness of constructor input 7 13 f 5 1 6 2 15 8 13
18 The right people were/are not available 7 13 5 23 4 25 2 15 7 11
611
~ 51)
raj
40
(fenBldg.
>" 30 ~ ! ] ~Civil
I'A
~r o Pwr Plall|
u. 2o
m
I I
ConstruetabilityBarrier(referenced by Rank Number)

FIG. 4. Relative Significance of Barrier by Industry Sector
CONCLUSIONS
Constructability barriers are evident in almost all organizations at both

corporate and project levels. Treatment of constructability barriers should
involve a three-phase cycle: identification, mitigation, and review.
Barriers to constructability must be identified and removed for successful
constructability implementation. Initial efforts should focus on determining
the presence of constructability barriers and on determining the significance
of those barriers identified. The identification of barriers is facilitated with
self-assessment procedures. Effective self-assessment efforts should involve
multiple assessments from a variety of personnel at varied levels and from
varied organizational functions. Those asked to participate in the assessment
should be familiar with both the characteristics and the symptoms of the
common barriers, as presented earlier in this paper.
The present study indicates that the most problematic barriers to effective
constructability improvement among companies claiming to have active con-
structability programs are: (1) Complacency with status quo; (2) reluctance
to invest additional money and effort in early project stages; (3) limitations
of lump-sum competitive contracting; (4) lack of construction experience in
design organizations; (5) designer's perception that "we do it;" (6) lack of
mutual respect between designers and constructors; (7) construction input
is requested too late to be of value; and (8) belief that there are no proven
benefits of constructability. The severity of these barriers varies widely from
company to company, particularly with respect to constructability program
ranking, organization type, annual volume of work, and project type.
After mitigation efforts have been applied, barriers should be reevaluated
to determine if those barriers that are identified have been overcome, or if
new barriers have appeared that need to be addressed. This ongoing cycle
should become part of standard practice within the constructability program.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers are extremely appreciative of the Construction Industry In-

stitute for funding this research and of the CII Constructability Implemen-
127

tation Task Force; and J. S. Russell, M. W. Radtke, and J. G. Gugel of
the University of Wisconsin-Madison for their assistance and feedback.
APPENDIX. REFERENCE
O'Connor, J. T., and Miller, S. J. (1994)."Constructability programs: a method for

assessment and industry benchmarking." J. Perf. of Constr. Fat., ASCE, 8(1),
46-64.
128

Barriers To Constructability Implementation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barriers To Constructability Implementation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BARRIERS TO CONSTRUCTABILITY IMPLEMENTATION

By James T. O'Connor, ~ Member, ASCE, and Steven J. Miller, 2

ABSTRACT: Recognition of barriers to constructability is identified as one of 15

Recognition of barriers to c o n s t r u c t a b i l i t y is identified as o n e of 15 sig-

IDENTIFICATION OF PREVALENT BARRIERS TO CONSTRUCTABILITY

~Assoc. Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

9 Complacency with status quo

9 Lack of awareness of benefits, concepts, and so forth

9 Perception that "we do it"

9 Reluctance of field personnel to offer preconstruction advice

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

Organized Labor Barriers

9 Fragmentation and difficult communication interfaces

Code Authority Barriers

9 Rigid, outdated codes and design standards

9 Difficulty in proving the economics of constructability

This list shows those barriers to constructability considered potentially

Determination of Significant Barriers

TABLE 1. Number of Interview Participants by OrganizationType

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

TABLE 3. Number of Interview Participants by Annual Construction Volume

TABLE 4. Number of Interview Participants by Cll Membership

by at least 10% of interview companies. Table 5 shows these barriers and

Characteristics of Common Barriers

Primary Organization Affected

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

(1) (2) (3)

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

TABLE 6. Characteristics of Common Barriers to Constructability

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

barriers. This suggests that an immediately effective method of combating

Descriptors of Common Barriers

ASSESSMENT OF BARRIERS VARIATION

Constructability Program Ranking Variations

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

TABLE 7, Descriptors of Common Barriers to Constructability

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

Conslructability Barrier (Referenced by Rank Number)

FIG. 1. Relative Significance of Barrier by Matrix Rank

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

TABLE 9. Significant Barriers to Constructability by Organization Type

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

Owner's lack of awareness/ 12 21 13 20 10 16

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

FIG. 2. Relative Significance of Barrier by Organization Type

tion experience in design organization" (No. 4); "construction input is re-

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

Organization Volume of Work Variations

Annual Volume <- $100,000,000

Annual Volume > $100 Million and >- $500 Million

Annual Volume > $500 Million

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

TABLE 10. Significant Barriers to Constructability by Annual Volume of Work

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

Constructabilily Barrier (Referenced by Rank Number)

FIG. 3. Relative Significance of Barrier by Annual Volume of Work

General Building Projects

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

TABLE 11. Significant Barriers to Constructability by Industry Sector

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1994, 8(2): 110-128

ConstruetabilityBarrier(referenced by Rank Number)