PREVIEW OF CONSTRUCTABILITY

IMPLEMENTATION

Bureau of Engineering Research Publication 34-2

The University of Texas at Austin February 1993
The purpose of this publication is to make available to industry the results of research
conducted by the Construction Industry Institute (CII). The publication does not necessarily
represent the views of ClI member companies, but is offered as a contribution to the industry.

CII was founded in 1983 to improve the cost effectiveness of the nation’s largest industry.
The members, who represent a broad cross-section of owners and contractors, believe that
many of the problems that limit cost effectiveness are common ones, and that real
improvements can be best accomplished in a cooperative environment with the benefits
being shared by the construction industry at large.

CII uses the acronym TOPICS to describe the research effort. TOPICS signifies the six
research thrust areas: Technology, Organization, People, Information, Controls, and Sigma
(meaning others). The current task forces for each area are listed below.

Technology Information
Advanced Technological Systems 3D CAD Link
Computer Integrated Design & International Construction
Construction International Standards
Design for Safety Owner Engineering Organization
Environmental Remediation Technology Project Team Communications
Technology Strategy
Technology Survey Controls
Change Order Impacts
Organization Contracting, Phase II
Partnering II Dispute Prevention and Resolution
Project Change Management International Standards
Pre-Project Planning Predictive Tools
Project Organization II Quality Performance Measurement
Project Team Building Schedule Reduction
Total Quality Management
People
ADA Impacts Sigma
Continuing Supervisory Education Barriers to Implementation
Drug-Free Workplace Insurance
Multi-Skilling Piping Function
Zero Accidents Retrofit Projects
U.S. Navy Demonstration Project
Utility Pilot Projects
Workers Compensation

The Construction Industry Institute

The University of Texas at Austin
3208 Red River
Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78705-2650
(512) 471-4319
FAX (512) 499-8101
Preview of Constructability Implementation

Prepared by
The Construction Industry Institute
Constructability Implementation Task Force

Publication 34-2
February 1993

Reviewed by CII 23Jun04

27
© 1993 Construction Industry Institute™.

The University of Texas at Austin.

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at
no cost to internal recipients. CII members are permitted to revise and adapt this
work for the internal use provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or

distributed and no modifications made without prior written permission from CII.
Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies.
Volume discounts may be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible
to purchase CII products at member prices. Faculty and students at a college or
university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

 Contents

Chapter Page
Executive Summary v
1. Introduction 1
What Is Constructability? 1
2. Constructability Implementation Guide 4
3. Constructability Implementation Roadmap 6
4. Barriers to Implementing Constructability 8
Common Barriers 8
Assessment of One’s Own Barriers 9
Barrier Breakers 9
5. Current Status & Program Assessment 11
Current Status of Industry Implementation 11
Importance of Self-Assessment 11
Fifteen Significant Parameters 11
6. Constructability Concepts 14
7. Case Studies 16
Commercial Office Building 16
Manufacturing Facility Renovation 18
Facility Expansion 20
Industrial Gas Facility 21
8. Conclusions and Recommendations 23
References 24

29
30
 Executive Summary

As demonstrated in the case studies summarized in this

publication, when methodically implemented, front-end
constructability efforts are an investment that result in a substantial
return. Documentation of constructability efforts shows that owners
accrued an average reduction in total project cost and schedule of
4.3 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively. These savings
represented a 10 to 1 return on owners’ investment in
constructability.
The task force feels that industry-wide constructability
implementation is progressing slowly and lacks structure. For
example, based on an assessment of 62 companies with a
constructability program, only two were found to have a
comprehensive, formal program. A need exists for the development
of tools to facilitate constructability implementation.
The Constructability Implementation Guide meets this need
by offering a complete set of 19 tools that address both corporate-
and project-level constructability programs. For example, Tool 1,
the Constructability Roadmap, offers a comprehensive, integrated
overview of constructability. Other tools containing assessment
forms are provided to identify and eliminate barriers in
constructability. A procedure for the periodic assessment of
program effectiveness also is provided. This assessment tool is
helpful in maintaining a commitment to the program and ensures
continuous improvement, thereby providing a bridge with
corporate TQM efforts.
The 14 constructability concepts published in the Concepts
File are summarized here as a tool. Three additional concepts
have been appended to the Concepts File . Other tools include the
concept application matrices that link concepts to project phases
and activities. Individual matrices have been developed for
commercial building and industrial projects.
The Guide offers comprehensive guidance and specific insights
into how project constructability can be implemented. It is targeted
to owners, designers, and construction personnel, with particular
emphasis on the owner. Senior executives, entry-level project
personnel, and project managers in particular can benefit from the
tools provided in the Guide .

31
v
32
 1

Introduction

What Is Constructability?
The original CII Constructability Task Force defined
constructability as “the optimum use of construction knowledge
and experience in planning, design, procurement, and field
operations to achieve overall project objectives” ( Constructability:
A Primer , 1986). The CII Constructability Implementation Task
Force adopted this definition and postulated that maximum benefits
occur when individuals with construction knowledge and
experience become involved in the early stages of a project.
Conceptually the maximum benefits measured by the ability to
influence cost is shown in Figure 1.

High

Planning
Ability To Influence Cost

Design

Procurement

Construction

Start-up

Low
Start Complete
Time

Figure 1. Ability to Influence Final Cost over Project Life

Figure 2 presents a graph of the quantified savings documented

in one of the four case studies conducted by the task force. As
indicated, 73 percent of the constructability savings had been
obtained by the time approximately 20 percent of engineering was
complete. Ninety-one percent of the savings had been accrued by
the time 50 percent of engineering was complete. The largest
savings originated from construction input addressing issues such
as construction methods, sequencing, and procurement strategies.

1
 Documented Savings as % of Total Project Cost (TPC)
100% 1.14

0.95
Engineering @ 50%
91% of Savings
80%
Engineering @ 20%
73% of Savings Engineering @ 100% 0.75
Construction @ 100%
100% of savings
Percent Complete

60%

0.50

40%
2

0.25
20%

0%
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1988 1989 1990

Period

Engineering Savings Construction

Figure 2. Documented Constructability Savings

 The original Constructability Task Force also established that
constructability is not just:
• Determining more efficient construction methods after
field forces have mobilized
• Allowing construction personnel to review engineering
documents periodically during the design phase
• Assigning construction personnel to the engineering
office during design
• A modularization or preassembly program.
These activities are only part of a constructability effort. Only
through the effective and timely integration of construction input
into planning and design as well as field operations can the
maximum benefits of constructability be realized.
Presently many capital projects are separated into individual
phases. The design phase tends to place emphasis on minimizing
design costs. During the construction phase, efforts focus on
minimizing field costs. Constructability integrates these phases
and is an effective means to achieve overall project objectives.

3
 2

Constructability Implementation Guide

The Constructability Implementation Guide , CII Publication

34-1, is a document that facilitates the implementation of both
company- and project-level constructability programs.
W ho should read the Guide? Anyone involved with project
constructability. The targeted audience is quite broad, including
owner, designer, and construction personnel, with particular
emphasis on the owner. Virtually everyone between senior
executives and entry-level project personnel, and project managers
in particular, can benefit from the Guide .
Why should you read the Guide? Most knowledgeable industry
professionals agree that constructability is key to project success.
Based on both research and extensive industry input, this document
offers comprehensive guidance and specific insights into how
project constructability can be implemented.
How is the Guide structured? The Guide consists of four parts.
• Roadmap — Parts I and II are structured according to
the constructability implementation roadmap. Part I
addresses two corporate-level constructability
program roadmap milestones. Part II addresses the
four project-level constructability program milestones.
The information provided within these parts describes
specific steps and activities comprising each of the six
roadmap milestones.
• Tools — Part III includes 19 tools for use in
implementing a constructability program. These tools
address the roadmap and terminology, program
evaluation and assessment, program documentation,
and application of constructability concepts.
Program Implementation Overview
Tool 1: Constructability Implementation Roadmap
Tool 2: Glossary of Terms

4
 Evaluation & Assessment Tools
Tool 3: Corporate Constructability Program
Evaluation Matrix
Tool 4: Project Constructability Program Evaluation
Matrix
Tool 5: Owner Corporate Constructability Barriers
Assessment Checklist
Tool 6: Designer Corporate Constructability Barriers
Assessment Checklist
Tool 7: EPC Corporate Constructability Barriers
Assessment Checklist
Tool 8: Constructor Corporate Constructability Barriers
Assessment Checklist
Tool 9: Project Constructability Barriers Assessment
Checklist
Tool 10: Constructability Barrier Breakers
Sample Program Documents
Tool 11: Program Implementation Policy
Tool 12: Constructability Organizational Structure
Tool 13: Constructability Suggestion Form
Tool 14: Constructability Idea Log
Tool 15: Constructability Program Quarterly Report
Tool 16: Constructability Contract Clauses
Constructability Concepts & Application Matrices
Tool 17: Summary of Constructability Concepts
Tool 18: Commercial Building Projects
Tool 19: Industrial Projects
• Case Studies — Part IV describes four in-depth case
studies. In addition, an analysis of the case studies is
presented to compare different methods used and
benefits and costs accrued from constructability
implementation.

5
 3

Constructability Implementation Roadmap

The constructability implementation roadmap, presented in

Figure 3, has been developed to provide guidance in the planning,
development, and implementation of a constructability program.
This roadmap is the most significant tool presented in the
Constructability Implementation Guide .
The constructability implementation roadmap provides an
overview of the constructability process by emphasizing six
milestones:
• Commit to implementing constructability
• Establish constructability program
• Obtain constructability capabilities
• Plan constructability implementation
• Implement constructability
• Update corporate program
Each of these milestones is described in a separate section of the
Guide .
As the roadmap depicts, a company ideally will establish both
a corporate- and project- level constructability program and begin
focusing on the steps involving the “ Commit to implementing
constructability ” milestone. Some companies, however, may prefer
to initiate constructability efforts through a pilot project and then
develop corporate supports. Such organizations will begin the
process by focusing on the steps involving the “ Obtain
constructability capabilities ” milestone.

6
 Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
methods, Assemble key constructability
concepts, and owner team team
barriers members

Identify and
Perform Identify address Apply
constructability Define constructability
self-assessment constructability project barriers
and identify sponsor/champion concepts and
objectives procedures
barriers and measures
Consult Evaluate
Establish applications corporate program
Assess and functional matrix and effectiveness
Select project Monitor and
recognize support contracting lessons-learned evaluate project
constructability organization strategy file program
benefits effectiveness Modify
Develop organization and
Secure constructability procedures;
Develop Develop contractors, procedures Document lessons update
7

implementation lessons-learned vendors, and and integrate into learned lessons-learned

policy file consultants project activities database

Commit to Establish Obtain Plan Update

Implement
implementing constructability constructability constructability corporate
constructability
constructability program capabilities implementation program

Corporate Program
Project Program

Figure 3. Constructability Implementation Roadmap

(Source: Constructability Implementation Guide, 1993)
 4

Barriers to Implementing Constructability

Common Barriers
A listing of the 18 most common barriers to constructability is
presented in the Guide. The top four barriers were cited as
problematic by 20 to 33 percent of all study participants. The top
four barriers are:
• Complacency with the status quo
• Reluctance to invest additional money and effort in
early project stages
• Limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting
• Lack of construction experience in the design
organization
In assessing the barriers, the highly ranked constructability
programs take a more critical view of their own success. Leaders
from these programs cite the following as continuing barriers to
constructability:
• Lack of genuine commitment
• Poor timeliness of constructor input
The limitations of lump-sum contracting were cited by this
group as being less significant.
General contractors and designers had differing opinions on
the significance of barriers affecting their respective organizations:
General contractors:
•lump-sum contracting
•l a c k o f c o n s t r u c t i o n e x p e r i e n c e i n d e s i g n
organizations
•construction input is generally requested too late
to be of value
•p o o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s i n t h e i r o w n
organizations

8
 Designers:
•lack of construction experience in their own
organization
•the belief that there are no proven benefits to
constructability or their own lack of awareness of
such benefits
•too often the right people for constructability input
simply are not available

Assessment of One’s Own Barriers

Barriers to implementing constructability are widespread and
quite diverse from organization to organization. Regardless of
what one company’s barriers are, it is imperative that such barriers
be identified and addressed appropriately. To assist in this effort,
barrier assessment checklists have been developed.

Barrier Breakers
Strategies and tactics for eliminating or reducing the effect of
barriers to constructability also were identified. The barrier breakers
for the top seven barriers are presented in Table 1. These barrier
breakers should be both effective in combating barriers and
relatively easy to implement on projects and within organizations.

9
 Table 1. Summary of Effective Barrier Breakers Identified

Barrier Recommended Breakers

1. Complacency with the

• Designate a strong program champion.
status quo

• Promote an attitude that constructability should be

2. Reluctance to invest viewed as an investment opportunity with
additional money & effort corresponding downstream payoff.
in early project stages • Include constructability as part of a standard bid
response and in cost tracking/control efforts.

• Owner/designer acquire in-house construction expertise

3. Limitations of for input during design.
lump-sum competitive • Develop a short list of contractors who offer
contracting constructability input in return for the opportunity to be
on the short list of bidders.

• Communicate construction issues from field engineers

to office engineers/designers.
4. Lack of construction
• Close the “project loop” by getting feedback from
experience in design
the field and by tracking lessons learned.
organization
• Modify design management practices to elevate the
visibility of constructability issues.

5. Designer’s perception • Find out what constructability is before you assess

that, “We do it.” whether or not you are doing it.

• Aggressively promote effective team-building among

project personnel.
6. Lack of mutual respect
• Establish constructor presence in design process
between designers and
before pride of authorship develops.
constructors
• Keep the project team focused on common objectives
and accepted procedures rather than personalities.

• Increase awareness of the necessity for early

construction involvement.
7. Construction input • Include constructability as an early activity in a formal
requested too late to be project activity flow plan or “roadmap.”
of value • Include individuals with significant construction
experience in the project team from the outset;
expect active participation from these individuals.

10
 5

Current Status & Program Assessments

Current Status of Industry Implementation

The task force believes that industry-wide constructability
implementation is progressing slowly and lacks structure. For
example, based on an assessment of 62 companies that have a
constructability program, only two companies (three percent)
were found to have comprehensive formal programs, while 46
companies (75 percent) had formal, yet noncomprehensive
programs. Fourteen of the 62 companies (22 percent) had either
no program or practiced only limited application of selected
concepts. Thus, considerable opportunity exists to exploit a more
structured approach to constructability implementation.

Importance of Self-Assessment
Constructability is a continuous improvement process. As
such, constructability activities, efforts, and results should be
continuously evaluated, updated, and improved. This process
includes goal setting, self-assessment, benchmarking of industry
standard and “best-in-class” programs, barrier identification, and
progress measurement.
Based upon research by the task force, a constructability self-
assessment procedure has been developed. This procedure provides
an objective evaluation of constructability program efforts. The
results of a constructability program self-assessment can be
invaluable for:
• setting and clarifying realistic constructability program
objectives
• identifying current program benefits
• identifying needs for program improvements

Fifteen Significant Parameters

Task force research identified 15 significant parameters that
impact the effectiveness of constructability implementation. The
15 parameters, shown in Table 2, are listed in four groups: (1)
corporate culture, (2) personnel, (3) documentation and tracking,
and (4) implementation.

11
 Table 2. Constructability Program Assessment Parameters

Corporate Culture
• high-level recognition and official designation of
constructability efforts
• existence of a highly visible written policy advocating
organizational commitment to constructability
• upper management awareness of and support for
constructability
• deliberate efforts to identify and overcome barriers to
constructability
• periodic efforts in briefing, orienting, or training
personnel on the objectives and methods of
constructability
Personnel
• designation of an executive sponsor for constructability
• existence of an effective corporate constructability
support organization
• constructability roles and responsibilities on particular
projects
Documentation & Tracking
• documentation of constructability procedures and
efforts on both the corporate and project levels
• effort to capture and communicate constructability
lessons learned
• tracking and dissemination of developments pertaining
to advanced construction technologies
• references to constructability in contract documents
• tracking of the signinficant effects from good
constructability ideas
Implementation
• nature of project-levels implementation efforts
• implementation of CII constructability concepts

12
 As explained in the Guide , these evaluation parameters form
the basis for the Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix. The
Evaluation Matrix establishes five levels of constructability program
development or maturity by describing each evaluation parameter.
These five levels are:
• Level 1: No Program
• Level 2: Application of Selected Supports
• Level 3: Informal Program
• Level 4: Formal Program
• Level 5: Comprehensive Formal Program
Level 5 programs are the most developed and may be viewed as
“best-in-class.”
For further discussion of the evaluation parameters, procedures
for applying the evaluation matrix, or findings from the industry-
wide evaluation, consult the Guide.

13
 6

Constructability Concepts

The CII constructability concepts are construction principles

that should be applied during the project delivery process. Fourteen
constructability concepts were published in the Constructability
Concepts File . Three additional concepts have recently been
appended to this file. The concepts include the following (the
three new concepts are italicized):
I-1. — Constructability program is an integral part of
project execution plan.
I-2. — P r o j e c t p l a n n i n g i n v o l v e s construction
knowledge and experience.
I-3. — Early construction involvement is considered in
development of contracting strategy.
I-4. — Project schedules are construction-sensitive.
I-5. — B a s i c d e s i g n a p p r o a c h e s c o n s i d e r m a j o r
construction methods.
I-6. — Site layouts promote efficient construction.
I-7. — P r o j e c t t e a m p a r t i c i p a n t s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
constructability are identified early.
I-8. — Advanced information technologies are applied
throughout project.
II-1. — D e s i g n a n d p r o c u r e m e n t s c h e d u l e s a r e
construction sensitive.
II-2. — Designs are configured to enable efficient
construction.
II-3. — Design elements are standardized.
II-4. — C o n s t r u c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y i s c o n s i d e r e d i n
specification development.
II-5. — Module/preassembly designs are prepared to
facilitate fabrication, transport, and installation.
II-6. — Designs promote construction accessibility of
personnel, material, and equipment.

14
 II-7. — Designs facilitate construction under adverse
weather conditions.
II-8. — Design and construction sequencing should
facilitate system turnover and start-up.
III-1. — Constructability is enhanced when innovative
construction methods are utilized.
To assist in applying the constructability concepts, the task
force developed application matrices. The matrices are tools that
link constructability concepts to specific activities within each
phase of the facility delivery process. The matrices can be useful
when developing a project execution plan. The constructability
implementation roadmap shown in Figure 3 incorporates these
matrices in the step “Consult application matrix and lessons-
learned file” within the “Plan constructability implementation”
milestone.
The application matrices contain two levels: (1) an overview
phase level and (2) a detailed activity level for each phase of the
facility delivery process. The overview phase level is useful in
conceptually communicating with owner upper management. The
detailed activity level further describes each phase and is more
useful as a planning tool to assist less-experienced project
participants. Application matrices were developed for two types
of construction: (1) commercial building and (2) industrial. Detailed
activity level application matrices for commercial building and
industrial projects are included in Tools 18 and 19, respectively.

15
 7

Case Studies

Four case studies were conducted to acquire in-depth data

regarding constructability implementation within different project
types, constructability approaches, and total project costs. Table
3 presents the salient characteristics of the case studies which
included one commercial office building development, one
consumer products manufacturing facility, and two petrochemical
projects. Steps taken by the owner to facilitate constructability
and benefit/cost data from program implementation are presented.

Commercial Office Building

The first case study involved a commercial development
project in Cleveland, Ohio. Constructability input was provided
by a construction management firm. The owner took several steps
to implement constructability. The following summarizes these
steps.
• Two Construction Management Firms . This project
used two competing construction management firms
during schematic design and subsequent
preconstruction phases. This motivated the ultimately
successful construction management firm to execute
an informal constructability program to ensure that
their estimates, schedules, and erection strategies, as
well as, the project’s design were feasible.
• Contract Clause. One contract clause addressed
implementation of the constructability concepts. This
five-page clause was used to define the “who,” “what,”
and “when” questions associated with constructability
implementation. This clause defined both the scope
and relative timing of the construction management
firm’s constructability responsibilities.
• Contract Type . The project used a guaranteed
maximum price contract that included shared savings
incentives. The shared savings incentives offered the
construction management firm a fixed percentage of
any project cost underrun.

16
 Additional Estimated Total
Case Estimated Total Phase Duration (Months) Quantified
Construction Effort-Hours (% of Program Cost
Study Facility Type Project Cost Benefit/Cost
Contract Type Design Construction Total Construction (% of Total
Index (Millions of Dollars) Ratio
Field Hours) Project Cost)

Commercial Guaranteed
1 >100 16 32
Office Building Maximum Price

Reimbursable
2 Manufacturing >100 14 16 0.09 10:1
Time and Material
17

Reimbursable
3 Petrochemical Cost Plus Fixed Fee >100 24 24 0.40 0.11 10:1
With Incentives

Reimbursable
4 Petrochemical Time and Material <5 6 11 1.14 1.10 10:1
With Incentives

Table 3. Case Study Characteristics and Benefit/Cost Data

 The constructability approach implemented on this project,
constructability services, did not facilitate documenting a benefit/
cost relationship associated with program implementation.
However, benefits stemming from the constructability effort
enhanced achieving the following project objectives.
• Project Cost . The construction management firm
returned more than 0.5 percent of the original GMP
construction contract amount to the owner after
deducting their portion of the shared savings.
• Project Schedule . The project was completed within
the original schedule duration of 30 months, which
represents a 12 percent reduction when compared to
industry averages.
• Quality. The project was recognized by being awarded
a local builders association’s quality award.
• Safety . The project set precedence for slurry drilling
caissons and use of alternative caisson-bottom
inspection within the geographic area. This reduced
the risk of exposing construction workers to escaping
pockets of methane gas.

Manufacturing Facility Renovation

The second case study involved modernizing two adjacent
soap manufacturing facilities. Constructability input was provided
by a design/construct organization responsible for both design
and construction of the facility. Construction personnel played a
vital role in assisting the owner in establishing the constructability
program’s philosophy, procedures, and tracking systems.
The owner took several steps to facilitate constructability
implementation. The following summarizes these steps.
• Plan Early . The owner planned early to minimize the
affect of two barriers that prevent key construction
personnel from being involved prior to the start of
construction. These barriers were: (1) requirement of
additional money and (2) availability of personnel.
The first barrier was overcome by providing the owner’s
upper management with documented evidence of
benefits stemming from early involvement of
construction personnel. The second barrier was
addressed by a championing resident engineer. Prior

18
 to the start of the design phase, the resident engineer
identified and communicated the needs for obtaining
construction input.
• Insist on Experienced Individuals . The owner
conducted personal interviews of key construction
personnel, including the project’s constructability
coordinator. Approximately 70 percent of the selected
project team had previous experience on the owner’s
projects. The project constructability coordinator had
worked on this owner’s projects for the last 12 years.
• Select Cooperative Team Players . Key construction
personnel were interviewed by the owner’s resident
engineer to investigate their ability to communicate
and adapt to frequent design modifications resulting
from changes in the owner’s business needs.
• Ensure Open Communication. A single temporary
field office was constructed rather than having each
participant in their separate job trailers. The office
was designed to facilitate the exchange of ideas and
enhance project communication.
• No Project Team Turn-Over. The owner’s management
team insisted that turn-over of key construction
personnel be minimal. The result was a team turn-over
rate of less than 10 percent, thereby preserving team
continuity.
In total, documented constructability ideas reduced the total
project cost by 1.1 percent, and achieved the desired project
schedule through implementation of an accelerated program.
Implementation of the acceleration program resulted in a nine-
percent increase in direct construction costs. The owner’s
experience in implementing schedule acceleration programs
without constructability, however, projected an average increase
in direct construction costs of 25 percent.

19
Petrochemical Facility Expansion
The third case study involved a fast-track expansion of an
existing chemical processing plant. The constructability effort
was led by a prime constructor beginning at a time when the
detailed design phase was eight percent complete. The prime
constructor had a formal constructability program consisting of
corporate commitment and philosophy statements, procedures to
implement constructability, and a lessons-learned file.
The owner took the following steps to facilitate constructability
implementation.
• Project Organization Structure . A project organization
structure was developed that incorporated construction
input. The project was designed by two different
engineering organizations. Thus, to alleviate
coordination difficulties, one prime constructor was
selected to lead the constructability effort. The
constructor placed one constructability coordinator
in each design office and a third coordinator in the
field after construction began.
• Early Involvement of Constructability Input-Sources.
The project execution plan required that a prime
constructor and constructability consultant be secured
prior to 10 percent completion of detailed design.
Early input from experienced construction personnel
influenced the design by facilitating the selection of
more efficient construction methods and by sequencing
without requiring additional engineering redesign.
• Team Building . Creation of a formalized team building
program proved to be an effective method for obtaining
management support, across organizational lines, to
the constructability process.
• Integrated Incentives. Integrated incentives between
constructor and design engineers were used to link
critical project objectives. These incentives motivated
constructability implementation as a means to ensure
that common objectives would be met.
This case study provides an example of a well-documented
constructability program. Estimates based upon this documentation

20
alone show that the owner accrued a benefit/cost relationship of
10 to 1 and a 1.1 percent reduction in the total project cost. Based
upon this estimate and the total field effort-hours (both direct and
indirect), the constructability program saved $0.91 for every hour
spent in the field. A 10 percent reduction in total project duration
was achieved and an increased level of safety contributed to a
zero lost-time-accident safety record.

Industrial Gas Facility

This project involved constructing an industrial facility that
separates gases from air for use by a steel manufacturer. The
project design and construction management were performed by
the owner’s in-house personnel. The owner’s formal
constructability program consisted of the following four key
elements.
• Owner Commitment. Owner commitment to
constructability included the hiring of a corporate-
level constructability coordinator. In addition, the
organization issued a corporate policy statement
supporting constructability.
• Early Involvement of Contractors. Constructability
input was periodically provided by civil, mechanical,
and electrical subcontractors during the design phase.
Constructability savings generated by each contractor
were divided equally between the owner and
contractor.
• Formalized Constructability Procedures. A prototype
nine-page project-specific manual was used to govern
the constructability process. This manual outlined the
responsibilities of design engineering, project
management, procurement, and contractor personnel.
A flowchart was developed to identify activities in the
process.
• Feedback and Appraisal . Procedures for receiving
contractor feedback (during construction) and
appraisal of the constructability effort were
implemented. These procedures were developed to
compensate for reluctance among contractors in
providing feedback regarding the owner’s design
documents.

21
 The total documented constructability savings resulted in a
10.7 percent reduction in the total project cost of the facility. This
represents a 10:1 return on the owner’s investment in the program.
In addition, the constructability program saved $5.80 for every
direct and indirect field labor hour expended. A five-percent
reduction in total project duration also was achieved.

22
 8

Conclusions and Recommendations

As demonstrated in the case studies, constructability efforts

are an investment that results in a substantial return. Documentation
of the constructability efforts showed that owners accrued an
average reduction in total project cost and schedule of 4.3 percent
and 7.5 percent, respectively. These savings represented a 10 to 1
return on the owner’s investment in the constructability effort.
The Guide offers comprehensive guidance and specific insights
into how a constructability program can be implemented. It is
recommended that a copy of the Guide be obtained and reviewed
so the tools can be integrated within your organization and
applied on future projects.

23
 References

1. C o n s t r u c t a b i l i t y : A P r i m e r , P u b l i c a t i o n 3 - 1 ,
Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1986.
2. Constructability Concepts File , Publication 3-3,
Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1987.
3. Constructability Implementation Guide , Publication
34-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas,
1993.

24
NOTES

25
Constructability Implementation Task Force
Membership
D. H. Andrew, James River Corporation
Peter L. Bretz, Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc.
J. J. Cameron, JE Merit Constructors Inc.
William P. Egan, Sordoni Skanska Construction Co.
Ernest P. Eichen, Stone& Webster Engineering Corp.
Mark J. Hancher, Marshall Contractors, Inc.
Edwin P. Hyde, The M. W. Kellogg Company
B. R. Jones, Eastman Chemical
T. L. Norvelle, Amoco Production Company
* James T. O’Connor, The University of Texas at Austin
Stanely J. Piechota, Texaco, Inc.
Allen R. Pilz, The Lathrop Company
W. A. Quade, Jr., Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Chairman
* Jeffrey S. Russell, University of Wisconsin, Madison
John C. Vassiliou, Mobil Corp.
Art Washburn, Shell Oil Corp.

Past Members
Anthony W. Cicero, James River Corporation
Earl E. Dague, Amoco Production Company
Stephen K. Fritschle, JE Merit Constructors Inc.

* Principal Author

Editor: Rusty Haggard

26
 Construction Industry Institute
AT&T ABB CE Services, Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. ABB Lummus Crest Inc.
Aluminum Company of America AMEC Holdings, Inc.
American Cyanamid Company Guy F. Atkinson Company of California
Amoco Corporation BE&K Construction Company
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. The Badger Company, Inc.
Atlantic Richfield Company Bechtel Group, Inc.
BP Oil Company Belcan Engineering Services, Inc.
Chevron Corporation Black & Veatch Engineers-Architects
Consolidated Edison Company Bovis, Inc.
of New York, Inc. Brown & Root, Inc.
Dow Chemical USA John Brown E&C
E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc.
Eastman Chemical Company CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc.
Elf Atochem North America, Inc. CUH2A Architects/Engineers/Planners
Exxon Research & Engineering Company Cherne Contracting Corporation
FMC Corporation Cianbro Corporation
General Electric Company Day & Zimmermann, Inc.
Glaxo Inc. Ebasco Constructors Inc.
Hoechst Celanese Corporation Eichleay Holdings Inc.
Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. Fletcher Construction Company, Ltd.
Houston Lighting & Power Company Fluor Daniel, Inc.
ICI Americas Inc. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc.
International Paper Company Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc.
Lever Brothers Company Fru-Con Corporation
Eli Lilly and Company Gilbane Building Company
Merck & Co., Inc. Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc.
Mobil Corporation Graycor, Inc.
Monsanto Company Gulf States, Inc.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command International Technology Corporation
Northern States Power Company Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Ontario Hydro J. A. Jones Construction Co.
Pfizer, Inc. The M. W. Kellogg Company
Phillips Petroleum Company Korte Construction Company
The Procter & Gamble Company Litwin Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
Shell Oil Company Marshall Contractors Inc.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Morrison Knudsen Corporation
Tennessee Valley Authority North Bros. Company
Texaco Inc. The Parsons Corporation
U.S. Department of Defense Rust International Corporation
U.S. Department of State S&B Engineers and Constructors Inc.
Union Carbide Corporation Sargent Electric Company
Weyerhaeuser Company Sordoni Skanska Construction Company
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
Torcon, Inc.
Turner Construction Company
United Engineers & Constructors International
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
H. B. Zachry Company

Participating Academic Institutions

Arizona State University
Carnegie Mellon University
Clemson University
Colorado School of Mines
Colorado State University
East Carolina University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Iowa State University
Lehigh University
Louisiana Tech University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
North Carolina State
Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania State University
Polytechnic Institute of New York
Purdue University
Stanford University
Texas A&M University
University of California, Berkeley
University of Colorado
University of Houston
University of Illinois
University of Kentucky
University of Michigan
University of New Mexico
The University of Texas at Austin
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Not printed with state funds.