A comparative study of buildability perspectives between clients, consultants and contractors

A comparative study of buildability perspectives between clients, consultants and contractors Purpose – This paper aims to highlight the similarities and differences in the buildability perspectives held by the client and the design team (collectively known as the design decision‐making group) and the contractor (known as the execution group). Design/methodology/approach – Buildability attributes were identified through a questionnaire survey, followed by factor analysis to consolidate them into nine buildability factors. These were then presented to 31 construction experts (comprising clients, consultants and contractors), who ranked the buildability factors in association with common construction systems using the analytical hierarchy process. Findings – Whilst the consensus was on “enabling design requirements to be easily visualised and co‐ordinated by site staff” to make designs buildable, clients and design teams differed from contractors in perspectives such as overcoming site restrictions, achieving standardisation and flexibility. When applied to construction systems, clients and design teams ranked precast systems higher than contractors, who favoured in situ systems. Research limitations/implications – Since the research was conducted in Hong Kong, the interpretation of the findings should be based on this contextual background as described in the paper. Originality/value – This paper highlights the common and different perspectives of the design decision‐making group and the execution group in evaluating buildability and the reasons underlying their decisions. It paves the way for meaningful benchmarking of an important attribute affecting all construction stakeholders. The results form part of the development of a Buildability Assessment Model for use in Hong Kong, which is a useful tool for benchmarking buildability of designs, as in other countries (e.g. Singapore) which see the benefits of this important attribute on project performance. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management Emerald Publishing

A comparative study of buildability perspectives between clients, consultants and contractors

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/a-comparative-study-of-buildability-perspectives-between-clients-ei2haiZaw6
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1471-4175
DOI
10.1108/14714171111149025
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to highlight the similarities and differences in the buildability perspectives held by the client and the design team (collectively known as the design decision‐making group) and the contractor (known as the execution group). Design/methodology/approach – Buildability attributes were identified through a questionnaire survey, followed by factor analysis to consolidate them into nine buildability factors. These were then presented to 31 construction experts (comprising clients, consultants and contractors), who ranked the buildability factors in association with common construction systems using the analytical hierarchy process. Findings – Whilst the consensus was on “enabling design requirements to be easily visualised and co‐ordinated by site staff” to make designs buildable, clients and design teams differed from contractors in perspectives such as overcoming site restrictions, achieving standardisation and flexibility. When applied to construction systems, clients and design teams ranked precast systems higher than contractors, who favoured in situ systems. Research limitations/implications – Since the research was conducted in Hong Kong, the interpretation of the findings should be based on this contextual background as described in the paper. Originality/value – This paper highlights the common and different perspectives of the design decision‐making group and the execution group in evaluating buildability and the reasons underlying their decisions. It paves the way for meaningful benchmarking of an important attribute affecting all construction stakeholders. The results form part of the development of a Buildability Assessment Model for use in Hong Kong, which is a useful tool for benchmarking buildability of designs, as in other countries (e.g. Singapore) which see the benefits of this important attribute on project performance.

Journal

Construction Innovation: Information, Process, ManagementEmerald Publishing

Published: Jul 12, 2011

Keywords: Design; Buildability assessment model; Construction systems; Stakeholders

References

  • Identifying the critical success factors for target cost contracts in the construction industry
    Chan, D.W.M.; Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I.; Wong, J.M.W.
  • Quantifying the relationships between buildability, structural quality and productivity in construction
    Low, S.P.
  • Integrating buildability in ISO 9000 quality management systems: case study of a condominium project
    Low, S.P.; Abeyegoonasekera, B.
  • A fuzzy quality function deployment system for buildable design decision‐makings
    Yang, Y.Q.; Wang, S.Q.; Dulaimi, M.; Low, S.P.
  • Enhancing buildability in China's construction industry using Singapore's buildable design appraisal system
    Ying, L.J.; Low, S.P.
  • Constructability assessment framework
    Zin, R.M.; Nesan, L.J.; Mohammed, A.H.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off