333 A. A. E. 0:HunN IuroviNc 8uiLoiNc PcrounNcc :HoucH IN:ccn:iNc CoNs:uc:nsiLi:v iN :Hc...

pp -,
1Hc :noi:ioNnL rocucucN: nrroncHcs couuoNLv noor:co iN
coNs:uc:ioN ro(cc:s nNo :Hc iNvoLvcucN: or uuL:i:uoc or vni-
ous ro(cc: rn:icirnN:s wi:H oivcsc os(cc:ivcs, sxiLLs nNo iN:c-
cs:s :cNoco :o scrnn:c ocsicN rou coNs:uc:ioN. 1his separa-
ticn cbstructs ccntractcrs frcm prcvidin desiners with ccnstructicn
feedback and suesticns fcr desin imprcvement, which ultimately
hampers the imprcvement cf buildin perfcrmance. 8ecause cf the im-
pcrtance cf the desin phase and the vital rcle played by ccntractcrs in
the ccnstructicn industry, this paper aims tc investiate the interaticn
cf ccnstructicn kncwlede and ccntractcrs experience in the desin
prccess as an apprcach fcr imprcvin buildin perfcrmance. In crder
tc achieve this aim, a research methcdclcy is desined tc acccmplish
fcur cb|ectives. Firstly, reviewin the nature cf the ccnstructicn indus-
try; ccnstructability; architecture and the desin prccess and measurin
buildin perfcrmance. 5eccndly, presentin case studies cf successful
prc|ects beneted frcm applyin the ccncept cf ccnstructability dur-
in the desin prccess. 1hirdly, develcpin an inncvative framewcrk
tc facilitate the interaticn cf ccnstructicn kncwlede and ccntractcrs
experience in the desin prccess and establishin the strateies that
suppcrt its applicaticn. Finally, summarisin research ccnclusicns and
reccmmendaticns useful tc ccnstructicn prcfessicnals and further re-
search. Findins cf the research shcwed that interatin the ccncept cf
ccnstructability durin the desin prccess imprcves buildin perfcrm-
ance (e.. reducin ccnstructicn time, ccst and waste as well as imprcv-
in quality and prcductivity) and enhances the relaticnships between
prc|ect participants. 1he research adds a valuable ccntributicn tc the
built envircnment bcdy cf kncwlede thrcuh presentin a practical ap-
prcach fcr interatin ccnstructicn kncwlede and ccntractcrs experi-
ence in the desin prccess.
Improving Building Performance
through Integrating Constructability
in the Design Process
Ayman Ahmed Ezzat 0thman
Architectural Enineerin 0epartment,
Faculty cf Enineerin, the 8ritish
university in Eypt, Eypt
aaecthmanQmail.ccm
00I 1o.zJctmc|.zo11.z.6
kesearch paper
Bilten06.indd 333 13/12/2011 01:01
ocnNi zn:i oN, :ccHNoLocv nNo unNnccucN: i N coNs:uc:i oN nN i N:cNn:i oNnL ( ouNnL ( z) zo11 334
INTRODUCTION
The construction industry is one of the
biggest industries worldwide. It has
signicant contributions towards social
and economic development at national
and international levels. It provides
communities with places for housing,
education, culture, health care, busi-
ness, leisure and entertainment. In ad-
dition, it constructs the infrastructure
projects that are essential for these
facilities to perform their intended func-
tions. Furthermore, it increases the
gross domestic product (GDP), moti-
vates development of other industries
that support the construction process
such as building materials and con-
struction equipment as well as oers
employment opportunities. On the
other hand, the construction industry
is arguably one of the most resource-
intensive and environmentally damag-
ing industries worldwide. Construction
accounts for 40% of the total ow of
raw materials into the global economy
every year. It is a substantial source of
waste, pollution and land dereliction
(Earth watch Institute 2011, Roodman
and Lenssen 1995). Anink et al. (1996)
stated that the construction sector is
responsible for 50% of material re-
sources taken from nature, 40% of
energy consumption and 50% of total
waste generated. Virtually, all modern
buildings now have articial heating or
cooling systems and sometimes both.
Large amounts of energy are wasted in
constructing, heating and cooling large
and impressive glass cladding sky-
scrapers particularly in sunny, hot and
humid countries (Architectural Review
1995, Abdellatif and Othman 2006).
Furthermore, the construction industry
is plagued with a number of problems
that limits achieving its optimum out-
put. One of these important problems
is the creation of division between
designers and contractors through
separating design from construction
(Field and Ofori 1988, Othman 2007,
Mthalane et al. 2008). The traditional
procurement approaches usually used
in construction projects and the large
number of organisations, with dierent
and sometime conicting objectives,
skills and interests took part in creating
a fragmentation and adversarial rela-
tionship between project participants,
which eventually obstructed contrac-
tors from providing designers with con-
struction comments and feedback to
improve the building design (Motsa et
al. 2008). Professional fragmentation
in construction has become the theme
of many research studies carried out
globally. This has triggered the emer-
gence of the concepts of Buildability
and Constructability. Although both
terms are used interchangeably, buil-
dability refers to the extent to which a
building design facilitates ease of con-
struction whilst other clients require-
ments are met. It focuses on the design
of a building. In contrast, constructabil-
ity, which embraces both design and
management functions, is concerned
with a wider scope than buildability. It
deals with the project management sys-
tems that optimally use construction
knowledge and experience to enhance
ecient project delivery. Particularly,
benets become apparent when con-
structability is considered at the earli-
est possible stages (Wong et al. 2006).
The importance of the design process
as many critical decisions are made dur-
ing this phase (e.g., material selection,
standard components, construction
methods) and the key role played by
contractors as the entity responsible for
delivering the designed facility, called
for the early involvement of contractors
in the design process as an approach
for improving building performance.
Research aim and objectives
1he aim cf this paper is tc investiate
the interaticn cf ccnstructicn kncwl-
ede and ccntractcrs experience in
the desin prccess as an apprcach fcr
imprcvin buildin perfcrmance. In cr-
der tc achieve this aim, fcur cb|ectives
have tc be acccmplished:
ccnstructability, desin
manaement, desin
prccess, partnerin,
perfcrmance, quality.
Keywords
Bilten06.indd 334 13/12/2011 01:01
335 A. A. E. 0:HunN IuroviNc 8uiLoiNc PcrounNcc :HoucH IN:ccn:iNc CoNs:uc:nsiLi:v iN :Hc... pp -,
Building a thorough background of
the study topic through reviewing the
state-of-the-art relating to the nature
of the construction industry; con-
structability; architecture and the de-
sign process and measuring building
performance.
Presenting a number of case studies
of successful projects improved their
performance through integrating con-
struction knowledge and contractors
experience in the design process.
Developing an innovative framework
to facilitate the integration of con-
struction knowledge and contractors
experience in the design process and
establishing the strategies that sup-
port its application.
Outlining the research conclusions
and recommendations useful for con-
struction professionals and further
research.
Research methodology
The research methodology designed to
achieve the abovementioned aim and
objectives, consisted of three interre-
lated activities, namely data collection,
data analysis and action required. Dur-
ing the data collection activity, dierent
sources are used to accomplish the rst
and second objectives. This included
textbooks, academic journals, confer-
ence proceedings, dissertations and
thesis, government publications and
related websites. In addition, creative
case studies of successful projects are
presented to show the benets of in-
tegrating construction knowledge and
contractors experience during the de-
sign process. They included the re-de-
sign of the structural system of Lansing
Community College, Michigan, USA and
the integration of contractor in the de-
sign of Cannon beach residence project
Oregon, USA. Collected data was ana-
lysed qualitatively through focusing on
the contractors contribution, methods
and timing of integration during the
design process. As an action for facili-
tating the integration of the concept of
constructability in the design process
as an approach for improving building
performance, an innovative framework
is developed and the strategies that
support its application are established.
Because of the importance of validity
and reliability, this research depended
on facts rather than subjective informa-
tion which increased the reliability and
validity of collected data and research
ndings.
Literature review
The Nature of the Construction Industry
1he ccnstructicn industry is a dynamic
and ever-expandin business. It plays
a sinicant rcle tcwards suppcrtin
cvernments and internaticnal cr-
anisaticns tc achieve their sccial and
eccncmic develcpment prcrammes.
0n the cther hand and due tc its na-
ture, ccnstructicn is a ccmplex, risky,
framented industry and has nea-
tive impacts tc the envircnment. It is a
time-ccnsumin prccess that ccnsists
cf thcusand cf interrelated desin, ccn-
structicn and cperaticn activities. Ccn-
structicn is characterised by hih capital
investment, reliance cn develcpers and
subccntractcrs, an extensive and ccm-
plex reulatcry framewcrk, hih inter-
est ccsts and ccmpetiticn. In additicn,
increasin client expectaticns ccupled
with the technclcical develcpment cf
materials and equipment as well as the
impact cf internal and external inu-
ences made the ccnstructicn industry
sub|ect tc mcre risks than any cther
industry (0thman et al. zoo, 0thman
and Rarinarain zoo). Furthermcre, the
invclvement cf multitude cf participants
(e.. clients, architects, enineers, ccn-
tractcrs, labcurs) with dierent cb|ec-
tives, skills and interests ccupled with
the traditicnal prccurement apprcach
which separates desin frcm ccnstruc-
ticn and creates a divisicn between
desiners and ccntractcrs, made the
ccnstructicn industry a hihly fra-
mented business. 1his inhibited the de-
sin team frcm utilisin and benetin
frcm the ccnstructicn kncwlede and
experience cf cther prc|ect participants,
particularly ccntractcrs. Rence, desin
mistakes, inccmpatible drawins, lack
cf details, inecient ccnstructicn meth-
cds, specicaticn ambiuity and errcrs
are repeated which cbstruct imprcvin
buildin perfcrmance cn the lcn run.
Constructability
Denitions and Concept Development
1he Ccnstructicn Industry Institute (CII
18,) dened Constructability as the
cptimum interaticn cf ccnstructicn
kncwlede and experience in plannin,
desin, prccurement, and eld cpera-
ticns tc achieve cverall prc|ect cb|ec-
tives and imprcve buildin perfcrm-
ance. Ccnstructability, which is alsc
kncwn as Buildability in the UK, is a
prc|ect manaement technique that en-
ccmpasses a detailed review cf desin
drawins, mcdels, specicaticns, and
ccnstructicn prccesses by cne cr mcre
hihly experienced ccnstructicn eni-
neers cr specialists, wcrkin with the
prc|ect team befcre a prc|ect is put cut
fcr bids and alsc pricr tc ccnstructicn
mcbilizaticn (0culas and 0ransber
zoo). It helps identifyin cbstacles be-
fcre a prc|ect is actually built tc reduce
cr prevent errcrs, delays, wastes and
ccst cverrun. Ccnstructability fccuses
the team cn maximizin the simplicity,
eccncmy, and speed cf ccnstructicn,
while ccnsiderin the site ccnditicns,
ccde restricticns, and client require-
ments (Aeck and kuby zoo6) which
increases the prcbability cf prc|ect suc-
cess, reduce ccnstructicn waste and im-
prcve buildin perfcrmance.
1he ccncept cf Ccnstructability was
rst emered in uK and u5A durin the
late 1,os as a result cf studies aimed
tc maximize the eciency, prcductiv-
ity, ccst eectiveness and quality in the
ccnstructicn industry. kesearchers in
the uK had initially fccused their atten-
ticn cn the desin prccess and the early
invclvement cf ccnstructicn expertise.
Bilten06.indd 335 13/12/2011 01:01
ocnNi zn:i oN, :ccHNoLocv nNo unNnccucN: i N coNs:uc:i oN nN i N:cNn:i oNnL ( ouNnL ( z) zo11 336
Later cn, researchers tended tc enlare
the sccpe by enccmpassin manae-
ment practices and prccurement ap-
prcaches as ccntributcrs tc the build-
ability and ccnstructability ccncepts. In
the u5, the CII prcmcted the ccncept cf
ccnstructability and fcrmulated uide-
lines fcr implementaticn. Likewise, CII
Australia prcpcsed 1z principles fcr
puttin the ccncept cf ccnstructability
in acticn. In the 1os, 5inapcre in-
trcduced the rst assessment system
fcr buildability cf desins. 1hese stud-
ies and acticns shcwed that the lack cf
interaticn cf ccnstructicn kncwlede
intc the desin prccess was ccnsidered
as cne cf the main reascns fcr prc|ects
exceedin their budets and schedule
deadlines (1riunarsyah zoo, wcn et
al. zoo6).
Constructability Concepts
z ccncepts have been develcped by
hima et al. (zoo1) tc enhance and facili-
tate the adcpticn and applicaticn cf the
ccnstructability philcscphy thrcuhcut
the dierent phases cf the ccnstructicn
prccess (see 1ables 1, z &)
Table 1: Constructability Enhancement Concepts during Conceptual Planning Phase
Ccncept C1
1he prc|ect ccnstructability prcramme shculd be discussed and dccumented within the prc|ect executicn plan, thrcuh
the participaticn cf all prc|ect team members.
Ccncept Cz
A prc|ect team that includes representatives cf the cwner, enineer and ccntractcr shculd be fcrmulated and maintained
tc take the ccnstructability issue intc ccnsideraticn frcm the cutset cf the prc|ect and thrcuh all cf its phases.
Ccncept C
Individuals with current ccnstructicn kncwlede and experience shculd achieve the early prc|ect plannin sc that
interference between desin and ccnstructicn can be avcided.
Ccncept C
1he ccnstructicn methcds shculd be taken intc ccnsideraticn when chccsin the type and the number cf ccntracts
required fcr executin the prc|ect.
Ccncept C
1he master prc|ect schedule and the ccnstructicn ccmpleticn date shculd be ccnstructicn-sensitive and shculd be
assined as early as pcssible.
Ccncept C6
In crder tc acccmplish the eld cperaticns easily and eciently, ma|cr ccnstructicn methcds shculd be discussed and
analysed in-depth as early as pcssible tc direct the desin acccrdin tc these methcds. 1his cculd include reccvery and
recyclin methcds as well as sustainable and nal dispcsal plannin.
Ccncept C,
5ite laycut shculd be studied carefully sc that ccnstructicn, cperaticn and maintenance can be perfcrmed eciently, and
tc avcid interference between the activities perfcrmed durin these phases.
Table 2: Constructability Enhancement Concepts During Design and Procurement Phases
Ccncept C8
0esin and prccurement schedules shculd be dictated by ccnstructicn sequence. 1hus, the ccnstructicn schedule must
be discussed and develcped pricr tc the desin develcpment and prccurement schedule.
Ccncept C
Advanced infcrmaticn technclcies are impcrtant tc any eld includin the ccnstructicn industry. 1herefcre, the use
cf thcse technclcies will cverccme the prcblem cf framentaticn intc specialized rcles in this eld, and enhance
ccnstructability.
Ccncept C1o
0esins, thrcuh desin simplicaticn by desiners and desin review by qualied ccnstructicn perscnnel, must be
ccnured tc enable ecient ccnstructicn. 1his will help minimise material waste, recyclin and ccst-eectiveness.
Ccncept C11 Prc|ect elements shculd be standardized tc an extent that will never aect the prc|ect ccst neatively.
Ccncept C1z
1he prc|ect technical specicaticns shculd be simplied and ccnured tc achieve ecient ccnstructicn withcut
sacricin the level cr the eciency cf the prc|ect perfcrmance.
Ccncept C1
1he implementaticn cf mcdularizaticn and preassembly fcr prc|ect elements shculd be taken intc ccnsideraticn and
studied carefully. Mcdularizaticn and preassembly desin shculd be prepared tc facilitate fabricaticn, transpcrtaticn
and installaticn.
Ccncept C1
Prc|ect desin shculd take intc ccnsideraticn the accessibility cf ccnstructicn perscnnel, materials and equipment tc
the required pcsiticn inside the site.
Ccncept C1
0esin shculd facilitate ccnstructicn durin adverse weather ccnditicns. Ecrts shculd be made tc plan fcr the
ccnstructicn cf the prc|ect under suitable weather ccnditicns; ctherwise, the desiner must increase the prc|ect
elements that cculd be prefabricated in wcrkshcps.
Bilten06.indd 336 13/12/2011 01:01
337 A. A. E. 0:HunN IuroviNc 8uiLoiNc PcrounNcc :HoucH IN:ccn:iNc CoNs:uc:nsiLi:v iN :Hc... pp -,
Constructability Awareness
and Reviews in Design Firms
1wc internaticnal studies by Arditi
et al. (zooz) in the united 5tates
and Mctsa et al. (zoo8) in 5cuth Af-
rica fcund that mcst desin rms are
aware and perceive the ccncept cf
ccnstructability with .,% and 8%
respectively. o.,% cf respcndents in
the united 5tates indicated that they
have a fcrmalized ccrpcrate philcsc-
phy abcut ccnstructability in their
cranizaticns. where in 5cuth Africa,
,6% cf the desin rms indicated that
they required ccntractcrs experience
in their desin because ccntractcrs
have better kncwlede abcut ma-
terial availability and apprcpriate
technclcy that aects desin and
ccst. In their survey, uhlik and Lcres
(18) indicated that o% cf eneral
ccntractcrs surveyed did nct have
fcrmal ccnstructability prcrammes,
ncr did they take acticn tcwards the
implementaticn cf ccnstructability
prcrammes. 1here seem tc be mcre
explicit ccnstructability prcrammes
in desin rms than in ccnstructicn
ccmpanies. 1his is prcbably caused
by the eneral belief that ccnstructa-
bility review is particularly valuable
in the desin phase (Zimmerman and
Rart 18z, 8urati et al 1z).
Techniques Used in
Constructability Reviews
1here are a number cf techniques used
in ccnstruability reviews. 0culas and
0ransber (zoo) menticned in their
study that peer review and feedback
systems are the mcst pcpular tccls
used in ccnductin ccnstructability
reviews in desin rms with 88% and
8,%, respectively (see Fiure 1). 1his is
because cvernment authcrities (e..
the city cf 8cstcn) mandate peer reviews
fcr specic ccntracts and befcre issuin
buildin permits fcr ccmplex prc|ects.
1here are twc types cf peer reviews,
namely prc|ect manaement and prc|ect
desin. 1he rst fccuses cn the plannin
cr manaement aspects cf a prc|ect;
whereas the latter evaluates the tech-
nical aspects cf a prc|ect. Peer reviews
may invclve bcth cf these reviews tc
imprcve the quality cf a prc|ect pricr tc
enterin the ccnstructicn phase. A ma|cr
advantae cf peer reviews is benetted
frcm the accumulated ccnstructicn ex-
perience tc unccver and ccrrect desin
inccnsistencies and specify alternative
ccnstructicn methcds that the desiner
may nct be familiar with. 1he feedback
prccess invclves the capture and trans-
fer cf past lesscns learned usin either
hard ccpy reccrds cr multimedia tccls.
In the latter, the ccmputer tccl captures,
reccrds, and stcres ccnstructability ccn-
cepts and lesscns learned, while prcvid-
in desin prcfessicnals with easy ac-
cess and raphical retrieval cf ccncepts
and lesscns tc deepen their understand-
in cf ccnstructability issues (Multime-
dia Ccnstructability 1ccl 18 cited in
Arditi et al. zooz).
Table 3: Constructability Enhancement Concepts During Field Operations Phases
Ccncept C16
Field tasks sequencin shculd be ccnured in crder tc minimize damaes cr rewcrk cf scme prc|ect elements,
minimize scacldin needs, fcrmwcrk used, cr ccnesticn cf ccnstructicn perscnnel, material and equipment.
Ccncept C1,
Inncvaticn in tempcrary ccnstructicn materialsJsystems, cr implementin inncvative ways cf usin available
tempcrary ccnstructicn materialsJsystems that have nct been dened cr limited by the desin drawins and technical
specicaticns will ccntribute pcsitively tc the enhancement cf ccnstructability.
Ccncept C18
Inccrpcratin inncvaticn cf new methcds in usin c-the-shelf hand tccls, cr mcdicaticn cf the available tccls, cr
intrcducticn cf a new hand tccls that reduce labcur intensity, increase mcbility, safety cr accessibility will enhance
ccnstructability at the ccnstructicn phase.
Ccncept C1
Intrcducticn cf inncvative methcds fcr usin the available equipment cr mcdicaticn cf the available equipment tc
increase their prcductivity will lead tc a better ccnstructability.
Ccncept Czo
In crder tc increase the prcductivity, reduce the need fcr scacldin, cr imprcve the prc|ect ccnstructability under
adverse weather ccnditicns, ccnstructcrs shculd be enccuraed tc use any cpticnal preassembly.
Ccncept Cz1 Ccnstructability will be enhanced by enccurain the ccnstructcr tc carry cut inncvaticn cf tempcrary facilities.
Ccncept Czz
0ccd ccntractcrs, based cn quality and time, shculd be dccumented, sc that ccntracts fcr future ccnstructicn wcrks
wculd nct be awarded based cn lcw bids cnly, but by ccnsiderin cther prc|ect attributes, i.e. quality and time.
Ccncept Cz
Evaluaticn, dccumentaticn and feedback cf the issues cf the ccnstructability ccncepts shculd be maintained
thrcuhcut the prc|ect tc be used in later prc|ects as lesscns learned.
Figure 1: Ccnstructability keview 1echniques
Bilten06.indd 337 13/12/2011 01:01
ocnNi zn:i oN, :ccHNoLocv nNo unNnccucN: i N coNs:uc:i oN nN i N:cNn:i oNnL ( ouNnL ( z) zo11 338
5mall-scale physical mcdels are ccn-
sidered the least ccmmcn tccl used in
ccnstructability analysis. 1his ndin
indicates that this cnce pcpular tccl
used tc visualize the prc|ect is cn its
way tc beccmin cbsclete except fcr
hihly scphisticated structures like
petrcchemical plants. 0esin rms
appear tc rely mcre cn ccmputer en-
erated mcdels tc pursue ccnstructa-
bility cf desin than buildin physical
mcdels, prcbably because cf ccst and
time ccnsideraticns. It is wcrth men-
ticnin here that desin rms utilize
varicus dierent tccls in their pursuit
cf ccnstructability, dependin cn the
characteristics cf the prc|ects under-
taken. 0ther techniques included dis-
cussicns with ccntractcrs, clients, and
suppliers; quality assuranceJquality
ccntrcl after each desin stae; the
ccnstructicn manaer participatin in
desin reviews; and desin checklist
reviews.
When to Apply
Constructability Reviews?
8ecause cf its ability tc imprcve build-
in perfcrmance, ccnstructability cculd
be applied at any phase cf the prc|ect
life cycle. 8ut due tc the dierent na-
ture cf every phase in terms cf the in-
vclved parties, technical requirements,
inputs, tccls and techniques as well as
expected cutput, the pctential ccntri-
buticn cf ccnstructability varies (see
1able ) (0culas and 0ransber zoo)
Table 4: Constructability Contributions During Project Phases
Prc|ect Phase Phase Characteristics and Ccnstructability Ccntributicn
Feasibility Phase
0ften clients cf prc|ects dc nct have any in-hcuse capability fcr ccnstructicn services, sc they prccure the services
cf a ccnsultin rm tc perfcrm the initial feasibility phase ccnstructability review. 1he ccnsultin rm wcrks frcm
the preliminary desin dccuments and prcvides useful suesticns (e.., selectin sustainable and recyclable
materials, reducin desin ccmplexity, etc.) that are inccrpcrated intc the desin packae. 1he fccus cf a feasibility
phase ccnstructability review is tc enerate alternatives that can be expanded by ccnceptual desin decisicns in
a manner that permits the necessary nancial and schedule ccnsideraticns fcr each alternative tc be determined
with the requisite deree cf certainty by ccst enineerin specialists cr equivalent. Essentially, the ccnstructability
reviewerJccnsultant will furnish the client with cpticns that were nct ccntemplated by the desiner. 1he results cf the
ccnstructability review can literally make cr break a prc|ects viability.
Early 0esin
Phase
As the architectsJenineers develcp the prc|ect desin; the client typically retains a seccnd team cf specialists
whc specialize in prcvidin ccnstructicn manaement (CM) services. 1he ccnstructability review takes place as the
ccnstructicn dccuments are bein develcped. 1his CM team will perfcrm a detailed ccnstructability review (Ck) cf the
prcpcsed prc|ect dccuments: desin drawins, technical specicaticns includin specied ccnstructicn materials,
the prcpcsed site laycut and if available; the ccnstructicn ccst estimate and prc|ect milestcne schedule. 1his review
ecrt will fccus cn whether the prc|ect can be built as desined. 1his CMJCk team ecrt will prcvide suesticns cn
ways tc imprcve the prc|ect: such as a mcre ecient site laycut, alternate ccnstructicn materials includin recycled
cnes, identies pcssibly detrimental desin specicaticns that cculd result in lcn lead time prccurements cr exctic
ccnstructicn techniques, usin standard ccmpcnents as well as ease cf desin and disassembly.
Prccurement
Phase
when the cverall prc|ect desin is apprcximately 6o%-o% ccmplete, the client retains a ccnstructicn manaement
rm tc prepare the prc|ect fcr the prccurement phase that prepares the subccntracts and prccurement bid packaes,
pre-qualicaticn cf vendcrs, suppliers and trade ccntractcrs. 1hese prccurement bid packaes must be ccmplete
desin packaes in crder tc prcvide the qualied bidders with the infcrmaticn necessary tc make intellient ccst
prcpcsals fcr the cverall success cf the prc|ect. 0urin the subccntractcr prccurement prccess, after receipt cf the
request fcr prcpcsal (kFP), the varicus biddin ccntractcrs will ncrmally ccnduct their cwn ccnstructability reviews
pricr tc biddin. Ccnstructability claricaticn questicns are frequently transmitted tc the clients representative whc
prcvides additicnal infcrmaticn abcut site ccnditicns, ambiucus cr missin ccnstructicn details, and cften the
biddin ccntractcrs may prcpcse alternate ccnstructicn methcds fcr ccnsideraticn.
Ccnstructicn
Phase
Ccnstructability ccntinues tc be a viable tccl fcr the success cf the prc|ect after the award cf the ma|cr ccntracts
and purchase crders. Fcr example, a mechanical ccntractcr, emplcyin ccnstructability reviews, may determine that
certain pipin ccmpcnents cculd be fabricated in their shcp and eccncmically transpcrted by truck tc the prc|ect site,
thereby imprcvin bcth labcur prcductivity and reduce the eld ccsts fcr that lare ccmpcnent cf the wcrk cn a prc|ect.
1he client, the enineer, and the CM must remember that trade subccntractcrs are the technical experts in their
eld and must include ccnstructicn ccntract lanuae that enccuraes ccnstructability imprcvement suesticns as
well as requests fcr material and means substituticns. 1he submittal review prccess must be established tc identify
pctential ccnstructability imprcvements and then analyze the impact cf implementin them cn bcth prc|ect budet
and schedule.
After Acticn
keviews
Ccnstructability dces nct end when the prc|ect is ccmpleted. 0ften the prc|ect participants are in a hurry tc clcse cut
the prc|ect and mcve cn tc ancther assinment. Either there is happiness cver the success cf the prc|ect, cr there is a
strcn desire tc put their bad experiences behind them and mcve cn. In either case, there shculd be a fcrmal review
tc capture the ccnstructability lesscns learned cn the prc|ect. 1he ccrpcraticn shculd establish a ccnstructability
database.
Bilten06.indd 338 13/12/2011 01:01
339 A. A. E. 0:HunN IuroviNc 8uiLoiNc PcrounNcc :HoucH IN:ccn:iNc CoNs:uc:nsiLi:v iN :Hc... pp -,
1he interaticn cf the ccncept cf ccn-
structability thrcuhcut the prc|ect life
cycle is suppcrted by Arditi et al. (zooz)
whc indicated that 8,% cf the surveyed
desin rms used ccnstructability re-
views durin the develcped desin
stae. In additicn, Mctsa et al. (zoo8)
ccnrmed that 8% cf 5cuth African
desin rms use ccnstructability dur-
in the cutline prcpcsal stae and o%
durin the detailed prcpcsal stae.
1his means that mcst desin rms
surveyed treat ccnstructability intera-
ticn as part cf an cverall ccntinucus
prc|ect imprcvement prccess, which
is the reccmmended by mcst research-
ers (0Ccnncr and Miller 1). Ravin
ancther apprcach, Mendelschn (1,)
stated that it is enerally believed that
implementin ccnstructability reviews
shculd be ccnducted after plans are
ccmpleted tc a certain level in crder fcr
reviewers tc have scmethin tc wcrk
with. Alternatively, ccnstructicn kncwl-
ede and expertise must be brcuht in
befcre any desin is put cntc paper.
1his apprcach enables desiners tc
bein their wcrk with certain key issues
in mind, issues that can frequently be
acccmmcdated withcut adverse ccst tc
the desin.
Professionals Involved
in the Constructability
Reviews
Althcuh achievin ccnstructability
cb|ectives is the respcnsibility cf all
prc|ect participants, nct all prcfessicn-
als have the same chance tc be invclved
in the desin prccess. Mctsal et al.
(zoo8) menticned in their studies that,
the surveyed desin rms were asked
tc indicate the prcfessicnals that are
usually invclved in the desin prccess.
All respcndents indicated that structur-
al enineers were the mcst ccmmcnly
invclved prcfessicnals, while .,% cf
the respcndents stated that specialist
subccntractcrs were the least ccmmcn-
ly invclved (see 1able ). 1his cculd be
attributed tc the percepticn that scme
prc|ect participants can ccntribute
mcre than cthers tcwards achievin
ccnstructability cb|ectives. In additicn,
time ccnstrains, client enccuraement
and participants willinness cculd be
cther reascns tc be ccnsidered.
Constructability Reviews
and Procumbent Methods
There are a number of procurement
methods used in construction projects
namely traditional routes (e.g. design-
bid-build) and non-traditional routes
Table 5: Professionals involved in the Constructability Reviews
Prcfessicnals hc. cf respcndents % kespcnse
uantity 5urveycrs 6 .,
Main Ccntractcrs 18 ,.
5ubccntractcrs 18 ,.
5pecialist 5ubccntractcrs 1, .,
5tructural Enineers 8 1oo
Electrical Enineers 86.8
Mechanical Enineers 86.8
Land 5urveycrs z8 ,.,
Construction Engineers
Involvement in Design
Arditi et al. (zooz) menticned in their
study that % cf the respcndents
are cf the cpinicn that ccnstructicn
enineers shculd be invclved in the
desin phase in additicn tc cther prc-
fessicnals that are already participat-
in in this stae. 1his ndin indicates
that desiners are aware cf the need
fcr a ccnstructicn expert tc prcvide
the desin team with insihts intc the
ccnstructicn phase cf the prc|ect. Al-
thcuh ,% cf the respcndents believe
that ccnstructicn enineers shculd be
invclved reardless cf prc|ect ccndi-
ticns, 8% indicated that the invclve-
ment cf ccnstructicn enineers shculd
depend cn the size, ccmplexity, and
type cf prc|ect. 5everal respcndents
made remarks like scmetimes cur cf-
ce enineers dc nct see thins as cur
ccnstructicn pecple dc. 1his kind cf
remark indicates that the desiners are
nct aainst the pctential adviscry rcle
that experienced ccnstructicn perscn-
nel miht play in their cranizaticns.
It emphasizes the fundamental dier-
ences between desiners and ccntrac-
tcrs that a desiner has a ccnceptual
mind that relates tc intanibles and a
ccntractcr has a practical mind that re-
lates tc tanibles.
(e.g. design and build). Tam (2007)
stated that the traditional procurement
method is the most typical method
used in the construction industry.
One of the main burdens in using this
method in construction projects is the
lack of contractor involvement in the
design stage. It should be noted that
separation between designers and
contractors in handling design and
construction activities largely aects
project constructability. The traditional
procurement method lacks co-ordi-
nation between design and construc-
tion phases of the project, in which
individual parties mainly concern on
their own interests. Therefore, other
procurement approaches are highly
encouraged for construction projects to
utilise the construction knowledge and
contractors experience to deliver bet-
ter construction projects and develop
common interests between project par-
ticipants. An interviewed main contrac-
tor highlighted that the involvement of
contractors at the early design stage in
a project can bring advantages in con-
sidering construction methods (such as
the use of prefabrication in major ac-
tivities including concreting, plastering
and formworking, rather than wet-trade
Bilten06.indd 339 13/12/2011 01:01
ocnNi zn:i oN, :ccHNoLocv nNo unNnccucN: i N coNs:uc:i oN nN i N:cNn:i oNnL ( ouNnL ( z) zo11 340
Table 6: The Opportunities for Implementing Constructability Reviews
0evelcpin better relaticnships with clients and ccntractcrs z.,
8ein invclved in fewer lawsuits z.
8uildin a ccd reputaticn z.
Prcfessicnal satisfacticn z.
Ecient 0esin z.
construction activities) before project
commencement on site and to improve
project constructability.
Barriers to Constructability
0Ccnncr (1) identied barriers tc
ccnstructability as sinicant inhibi-
tcrs that prevent eective implementa-
ticn cf a ccnstructability prcramme.
1he barriers tc ccnstructability are (CII
18,, Abdellatif and 0thman zoo6,
0culas and 0ransber zoo).
Owner Barriers
Lack of awareness and resistance to
formal constructability programmes.
Perception that constructability
delays project schedule
Reluctance to invest additional
money and/or eort in early project
stages
Lack of genuine commitment
Distinctly separate design
management and construction
management operations
Lack of construction experience
Lack of team-building or partnering
Disregard of constructability in
selecting contractors and consultants
Contracting diculties in dening
constructability scope
Misdirected design objectives and
performance measures
Lack of nancial incentive for
designer
Gold-plated standard specications
Limitations of lump-sum competitive
contracting
Unreceptive to contractor innovation
Designer Barriers
Perception that they have considered
it.
Lack of awareness of benets,
concepts, etc.
Lacks of construction experience/
qualied personnel.
Setting company goals over project
goals.
Lack of awareness of construction
technologies.
Lack of mutual respect between
designers and constructors.
Perception of increased designer
liability.
Construction input is requested too
late to be of value.
Faulty, ambiguous, or defective
working drawings.
Incomplete specications and
budgetary limitations.
Contractor Barriers
Reluctance of eld personnel to oer
preconstruction advice.
Poor timeliness of input.
Poor communication skills.
Lack of involvement in tool and
equipment development.

Waste Management and Recycling
Barriers
Lack of understanding the
importance and benets of managing
and recycling waste,
Lack of awareness and integration of
the waste management philosophy in
the design process.
Not specifying the use of recycled
materials in design.
Over specication.
Using materials / products that
generate waste.
Poor communication with waste
management specialists who need
to be integrated early in the design
process.
Lack of considering life cycle cost and
specify non-durable or sustainable
materials results in replacing
materials / products many times
during the project life span.
Benefits of Constructability
in the Design Process
Ccnstructability shculd be applied at
the early stae and ccnsidered as an
impcrtant cb|ective in all staes cf the
ccnstructicn prccess. 1his is because
cf its ability tc inuence prc|ect ccst
and add better value fcr mcney. 8ased
cn their ccnstructicn kncwlede and
experience, ccntractcrs can play a ma-
|cr rcle in reducin ccnstructicn waste
and enhancin buildin perfcrmance
durin the desin stae (hima et al.
zoo1). 0n a scale cf 1-, Mctsa et al.
(zoo8) identied and ranked the ben-
ets cf implementin ccnstructability
(see Fiure z). In additicn, Arditi et al.
(zooz) Identied and ranked the ben-
ets cf ccnstructability tc desin rms
(see 1able 6).
Figure 2: 8enets cf Implementin Ccnstructability
Bilten06.indd 340 13/12/2011 01:01
341 A. A. E. 0:HunN IuroviNc 8uiLoiNc PcrounNcc :HoucH IN:ccn:iNc CoNs:uc:nsiLi:v iN :Hc... pp -,
Architecture and the Design
Process
Denitions
8y referrin tc webster 0icticnary,
Architecture has cne cf the fcllcw-
in meanins:
The art of making plans for
buildings, the work of an architect.
The style or styles of building that
an architect produces or imitates;
as a church or modern architecture.
It cculd be dened as the science and
the art cf buildin. It is understccd tc
be the whcle cf the envircnment built
by humans, includin buildins, urban
spaces, and landscape (kcth 1).
1he Architect is dened as the perscn
whc desins buildins. 1he rcle cf the
architect is tc desin buildins within
the framewcrk cf the naticnal buildin
bylaws and the lccal plannin restric-
ticns and tc dccument and supervise
the erecticn therecf in crder that it will
meet the client requirements (Raupt-
eisch zoo).
An Introduction to Design
Every ccnstructicn prc|ect starts with
a plan. 1he plan identies all the de-
tails cf the prc|ect. It is develcped by
many dierent pecple, such as archi-
tects, enineers, drauhtsmen, and
specicaticn writers. 0esin is the
rst step in a ccnstructicn prc|ect. It
cculd be dened as the prccess cf
decidin what a structure will lcck like
and hcw it will functicn. 0esinin a
prc|ect can be entirely new cr it can be
a result cf several ideas ccmbined tc-
ether tc meet the needs cf a specic
prc|ect (Fales 11).
Design Theories
1here are twc cppcsin views cf the
thecries cf desin. In cne view, termed
the 0lass 8cx 1hecry, desin is taken
tc be a raticnal, explicable decisicn
makin prccess, while the cppcsin
view, the 8lack 8cx 1hecry, hclds
desin ability tc be a talent which can-
nct as yet be raticnally explained. 1he
0lass 8cx 1hecry, assumes that the
prccess is a transparent and raticnal
cne where cb|ectives are xed in ad-
vance, infcrmaticn relevant tc the prcb-
lem is athered, this data is analysed,
a pcssible scluticn is synthesised and
then evaluated aainst the cb|ectives.
If it is thcuht that the attempt at the
scluticn can be imprcved upcn, then a
re-iterative prccess fcllcws where the
scluticn is rened until scme cptimum
is achieved. 1he 8lack 8cx 1hecry
maintains that the mcst impcrtant part
cf the desin prccess is the creative act
cn the part cf the desiner. 1hey pcint
cut that the unpredictable, assccia-
tive abilities cf the human mind which
prcduce an idea cannct be acccunted
fcr by any raticnal mcdel. It is tc this
thecry that many practisin desiners
subscribe, they cend the attempts tc
explain their abilities and arue that
desiners cannct always ive ccnvinc-
in reascns fcr their desin decisicns.
0esin prcblems are extremely ccm-
plex, requirin the desiner tc deal
interrelaticnship between many sub-
prcblems. when dealin with prcblems
requirin the manipulaticn cf mcre
than cne a few parameters then, the
desiner must initially fccus cn a well-
structured sub-prcblem as a pcint cf
entry tc the desin prcblem. 1he envi-
rcnment in which the desin prcblem is
bein sclved brins varicus pressures
tc bear cn the desiner. Principals
amcn these pressures are lack cf time
and increasin prcfessicnalism. It is ar-
ued that architects ain mcre esteem
frcm peer apprcval than frcm the satis-
facticn cf the client cr users. It is there-
fcre in their interest at times tc pursue
their cwn aims in desinin a buildin,
particularly frcm the aesthetic pcint
cf view, and deny the client rcup the
cppcrtunity cf interferin with his cwn
ideas cf hcw the buildin shculd be de-
sined (kcth 1, 0thman zoo8).
The RIBA Plan of Work
In 16 the kcyal Institute cf 8ritish
Architects (kI8A) published the kI8A
Randbcck in which was published a
mcdel prccedure fcr methcdical de-
sin prccess, termed the kI8A plan cf
wcrk. 5ubsequently, the plan cf wcrk
was revised in zooo and then updated
in zoo, tc ccpe with the ever-chanin
business envircnment, meet clients
and users expectaticns as well as
technclcy enhancement. 1he prccess
is typically brcken dcwn intc main
phases namely, preparaticn, desin,
pre-ccnstructicn, ccnstructicn and
use. 0etailed descripticn cf the activi-
ties tc be carried cut in each phase is
menticned in 1able , (kI8A zo11).
Measuring Building
Performance
Denitions and Background
0enerally speakin, perfcrmance is
dened as the acticn cr prccess cf per-
fcrmin. Rence, measurin buildin
perfcrmance cculd be dened as the
evaluaticn cf the ability cf a buildin tc
acccmplish its intended functicn and
satisfy its users. It is an cncin prcc-
ess which aims tc identify what is cin
well and why and what is cin wrcn
cr cculd be imprcved, and why. In addi-
ticn, ccrrective acticns have tc be tak-
en in crder tc cverccme shcrtccmins
and enhance perfcrmance. Perfcrm-
ance measurement can cnly be eec-
tive if it is carried cut aainst specic
aim and cb|ectives (Pettiner zoo1). In
the past, the perfcrmance cf ccnstruc-
ticn prc|ects was typically evaluated
infcrmally and in terms cf ccst, time,
and quality. 1his type cf evaluaticn
was perhaps sucient at that time be-
cause buildin prc|ects were relatively
less ccmplex and the level cf techncl-
cy in desin was lcw. 8ut thins have
chaned dramatically and the three
catecries cf prc|ect evaluaticn cf time,
ccst and quality have been described
as insucient. 8uildin perfcrmance
evaluaticn has tc be imprcved tc ccpe
with the ever-increasin prcliferaticn
and specialisaticn in the ccnstructicn
industry in terms cf buildin types,
services, technclcy, ccde and reula-
tcry requirements, enery ccnserva-
Bilten06.indd 341 13/12/2011 01:01
ocnNi zn:i oN, :ccHNoLocv nNo unNnccucN: i N coNs:uc:i oN nN i N:cNn:i oNnL ( ouNnL ( z) zo11 342
ticn, re safety, envircnmental health,
and safety ccnstraints (Kaiclcu et al.
zoo1, Lanstcn and 0in zoo1).
Building Performance Criteria
In crder tc imprcve buildin perfcrm-
ance it is cf prime impcrtance tc estab-
lish the criteria tc be used fcr evaluat-
in buildin perfcrmance. 1his will help
desin rms tc utilise the ccnstructicn
kncwlede and experience cf prc|ect
participants, ccntractcrs in particular,
tc achieve these criteria as an apprcach
fcr imprcvin buildin perfcrmance.
8uildin perfcrmance criteria cculd be
carried cut at three levels.
Health, safety and security
performance;
Functional, eciency and work ow
performance;
Psychological, social, cultural and
aesthetic performance (Preiser and
Vischer 2005).
Benets of Measuring Building
Performance
Althcuh measurin buildin perfcrm-
ance helps understandin current build-
in perfcrmance and end-users require-
ments, it is an impcrtant tccl fcr mana-
in and plannin fcr new facilities. 1he
benets cf measurin buildin perfcrm-
ance rane frcm shcrt term tc lcn term
(8arrett 1).
1) At the short-term
Measurin buildin perfcrmance allcws
clients and facility manaement team tc
have a better understandin cf the func-
ticnality and perfcrmance cf their build-
ins ccmpared with the stated criteria
durin desin. In additicn, active user
Table 7. The RIBA Plan of Work
Preparation
(A) Appraisal
Identicaticn cf Clients needs and cb|ective, business case and cf pcssible ccnstraints cn develcpment.
Preparaticn cf feasibility studies tc enable the client tc decide whether tc prcceed.
(B) Design Brief
0evelcpment cf initial statement cf requirements intc the desin brief by cr cn behalf cf the Client ccnrmin
key requirements and ccnstraints.
Identicaticn cf prccurement methcd, prccedures, cranisaticnal structure and rane cf Ccnsultants and cthers
tc be enaed fcr the Prc|ect.
Design
(C) Concept
Implementaticn cf desin brief and preparaticn cf additicnal data.
Preparaticn cf Ccncept 0esin includin cutline prcpcsals fcr structural and buildin services systems, cutline
specicaticns and preliminary ccst plan.
keview cf prccurement rcute.
(D) Design Development
0evelcpment cf ccncept desin tc include structural and buildin services systems, updated cutline
specicaticns and ccst plan.
Ccmpleticn cf Prc|ect 8rief.
Applicaticn fcr detailed plannin apprcval.
(E) Technical Design
Preparaticn cf 1echnical desin(s) and specicaticns sucient fcr cc-crdinaticn cf all ccmpcnents and elements cf
the Prc|ect.and infcrmaticn fcr statutcry standards and ccnstructicn safety.
Pre - Construction
(F)Production Information
F1 Preparaticn cf detailed infcrmaticn fcr ccnstructicn.
Applicaticn fcr statutcry apprcvals.
Fz Preparaticn cf further infcrmaticn fcr ccnstructicn required under the buildin ccntract. keview cf
infcrmaticn prcvided by specialists
(G) Tender documentation
Preparaticn and ccllaticn cf tender dccumentaticn in sucient detail tc enable a tender cr tenders tc be
cbtained fcr the ccnstructicn cf the Prc|ect.
(H) Tender action
Identicaticn and evaluaticn cf pctential ccntractcrs andJcr specialists fcr the ccnstructicn cf the Prc|ect.
0btainin and appraisin tenders and submissicn cf reccmmendaticns tc the Client.
Construction
(J) Mobilisation
Lettin the buildin ccntract, appcintin the Ccntractcr.
Issuin cf prcducticn infcrmaticn tc the Ccntractcr.
Arranin site handcver tc the Ccntractcr.
(K) To practical completion
Administraticn cf the buildin ccntract up tc and includin practical ccmpleticn.
Prcvisicn tc the Ccntractcr cf further infcrmaticn as and when reascnably required.
keview cf infcrmaticn prcvided by ccntractcrs and specialists.
Use
(L) Post Practical Completion
L1 Administraticn cf the buildin ccntract after Practical Ccmpleticn and makin nal inspecticns.
Lz Assistin buildin user durin initial cccupaticn pericd
L keview cf prc|ect perfcrmance in use
Bilten06.indd 342 13/12/2011 01:01
343 A. A. E. 0:HunN IuroviNc 8uiLoiNc PcrounNcc :HoucH IN:ccn:iNc CoNs:uc:nsiLi:v iN :Hc... pp -,
participaticn in the evaluaticn prccess
plays an impcrtant rcle in denin and
ccnsiderin their needs and require-
ments in the desin cf new buildins.
2) At the medium-term
1he data ccllected durin the assess-
ment cf buildin perfcrmance can be
used as a scurce cf kncwlede fcr plan-
nin new buildins cf similar type. 0e-
siners equipped with user feedback
are helped tc desin future buildins
that mcre clcsely meet the needs cf the
users.
3) At the long term
Measurin buildin perfcrmance helps
establishin databases, enerates plan-
nin and desin criteria fcr specic
buildin types and enables desiners tc
ccnsider dccumented past experience.
1his is impcrtant tc avcid repeatin past
errcrs and reccnise past success. 1he
accumulated infcrmaticn plays a pivctal
rcle in imprcvin the quality cf future
buildins and services tc the client and
users. Assessment results may alsc im-
prcve desin practice by makin desin-
ers aware that their buildins may be
sub|ect cf scrutiny. 1hus desin cf future
buildins may lead tc better value fcr
mcney tc clients and scciety. 1his ccn-
cern nct cnly issues cf functicnality, but
cverall sustainability, enery eciency
and envircnmental impact.
Case studies of successful
projects benefited from
integrating constructability
in the design process
The Lansing Community College,
Michigan, USA
5ince the ccst cf the new campus build-
in exceeded the allccated budet,
Lansin Ccmmunity Ccllee (LCC) de-
cided tc redesin the prc|ect cr scrap
part cf it. LLC was established in 1, tc
meet the rcwin demand fcr technical
and specialized educaticn in the 0reat-
er Lansin area, Michian, u5A. 1he
LCC Realth and Ruman 5ervices Career
8uildin was criinally desined as a
three stcry buildin with a future fcurth-
ccr expansicn. 1he expansicn exceed-
ed the $z. millicn budet fcr steel fab-
ricaticn and erecticn by $zoo,ooo. kuby
and Asscciates Ccnsultin 5tructural
Enineers entered the prc|ect and ap-
plied the ccnstructability principles tc
ccmpletely re-desin the structural steel
fabricaticn. utilisin their ccnstructicn
kncwlede and the practical experience
cf 0culas 5teel Fabricaticn Ccrpcra-
ticn, the re-desin prccess included:
Increasing the deck thickness from 2
to 3 allowed the oor beams spacing
to increase by 10. This reduced the
number of oor beams by 78%.
Changing the mixed lateral load resist-
ing system to moment frames in both
directions and the connections were
designed as eld-bolted moment con-
nections using the actual moments
and stiness required. This reduced
eld labour required and simplied
shop fabrication.
Reducing construction hours and la-
bour needed for the structure through
moving the fabrication from the eld
to the shop which enhanced the qual-
ity and increased work eciency.
usin Infcrmaticn technclcy in ccm-
municaticn and exchane cf les and
infcrmaticn reduced the re-desin
time and enhanced ccmmunica-
ticn between dierent parties. 1he
new desin maintained desin in-
tent and made the prc|ect easier tc
build. ,oo steel members and 1,oo
ccnnecticns were eliminated, while
shear studs were reduced by 11,ooo.
0verall, apprcximately oo tcns cf
steel were saved. 1his saved encuh
mcney tc enable LCC tc ccnstruct the
fcurth ccr upfrcnt while brinin the
prc|ect in apprcximately $1oo,ooo un-
der budet and cn schedule (see Fi-
ure ) (Aeck and kuby zoo6).
Cannon Beach Residence, Oregon,
USA.
The owners request to the architect
was for a small home that will pro-
vide shelter, comfort, and rejuvena-
tion. The request continued, We
will need for it to be equally comfort-
able when inhabited by just the two
of us as when a gathering of family
and friends joins us. Our new home
should reect the character of Cannon
Beach and capture our love of mate-
Figure 3: Applyin ccnstructability facilitates ccnstructicn and reduces ccst
Bilten06.indd 343 13/12/2011 01:01
ocnNi zn:i oN, :ccHNoLocv nNo unNnccucN: i N coNs:uc:i oN nN i N:cNn:i oNnL ( ouNnL ( z) zo11 344
rials and forms found in nature. We
prefer for it to be low prole and un-
derstated. The home should be dura-
ble for generations and require little
maintenance. Our goal is to build a
home that is healthy to live in using
materials and systems with a dramati-
cally reduced impact on the environ-
ment. The projects integrated de-
signteam included the owners, archi-
tect, interior designer, and landscape
architect. The contractor joined the
team after schematicdesignwas com-
plete. The team held several meet-
ings to establish clear and concise
goalsfor the project (see Figure 4).
During the design process, the project
team conducted ve half-day eco-
charrettes, each composed of the core
team, content experts, and guests
ofthe owners, including artists, neigh-
bours, and friends. Involving the con-
tractorearly in thedesignprocess was
paramount, as the contractor contrib-
uted expertise to all aspects of the
design process. The contractors con-
tribution to conducting three abbrevi-
ated life-cycle cost assessments was
critical to the selection ofbuilding sys-
tems and materials. Thecontractoralso
contributed to thedesignfor durability,
low maintenance, reducing waste and
longevity. Based upon the contrac-
tors opinion that the local knowledge
of green building was less than ad-
equate to achieve the aggressive green
goals for this project, the design team
and owners conducted a six-hour green-
building seminar open to subcontrac-
tors, building ocials, trades people,
and the public (Cascadia 2009).
Discussion
Literature review and case studies
shcwed that imprcvin buildin perfcrm-
ance cculd be acccmplished thrcuh
applyin the ccnstructability ccncept
early in the prc|ect life cycle. 1he diverse
experience cf prc|ect participants (i.e.
clients, architects, enineers, ccntrac-
tcrs, suppliers, etc.) represents a reat
cppcrtunity tc achieve the prc|ect cb|ec-
tives at the mcst ccst-eective manner
and in a way that saves the envircnment,
enhances the scciety and prcspers the
eccncmy. 8ein the entity respcnsible
fcr ccnstructin the desined facility,
ccntractcrs have a sinicant rcle that
cculd be played tcwards imprcvin
buildin perfcrmance durin the desin
phase. As case studies shcwed, utilis-
in ccnstructicn kncwlede and ccn-
tractcrs experience durin the desin
phase, helped reducin ccst, facilitatin
ccnstructicn, reducin waste, resclvin
ccnicts, reducin delays and selectin
sustainable materials and better build-
in systems. Ccntractcrs were invclved
in the early staes cf the prc|ect life cy-
cle and the peer review and feedback
methcds were adcpted fcr ccnstructa-
bility review. 1he main issue is hcw tc
make better utilisaticn and use cf the
invclvement cf prc|ect participants dur-
in the desin stae. 1his necessitated
the develcpment cf a framewcrk that set
the rules and establish the rcunds that
cranise the invclvement cf ccnstructicn
prcfessicnals, ccntractcrs in particular,
durin the desin staes as an apprcach
fcr imprcvin buildin perfcrmance.
Improving building perform-
ance framework (IBPF)
Denition and Justication of
Developing the Framework
Framework is dened as a structure for
describing a set of concepts, methods
and technologies required to complete
a product process and design (EDMS
2010). The Improving Building Perform-
ance Framework (IBPF) (hereinafter
referred to as the Framework or the
IBPF) is a proposed framework devel-
oped by this research to facilitate the
integration of construction knowledge
and contactors experience in the design
process as an approach for improving
building performance. The justication
of developing the framework is a number
of folds:
Using natural resources and energy
in an ecient way that reduces
construction waste, reduces building
Figure 4: Early ccntractcr invclvement in desin helps reducin life-cycle ccst assessment,
selectin sustainable materials and ecient buildin system (Rcme 0esin Rcme zo1o).
Bilten06.indd 344 13/12/2011 01:01
345 A. A. E. 0:HunN IuroviNc 8uiLoiNc PcrounNcc :HoucH IN:ccn:iNc CoNs:uc:nsiLi:v iN :Hc... pp -,
and operating costs and enhances
the reputation of the building
industry.
Improving building performance in
terms of enhancing health, safety,
security, function, eciency, work
ow, psychology, society and culture
and aesthetic.
Utilising the construction knowledge
and contractors experience to
support the government initiatives
towards achieving their strategies
and plans for social and economic
development.
Enhancing the performance of
organizations operating in the
construction industry by creating
partnership between project
participants, especially designers
and contractors.
Adding value to the built
environment and achieving
customer satisfaction.
The Aim and Objectives of the
Framework
1he develcped framewcrk is a busi-
ness imprcvement tccl desined tc
interate ccnstructicn kncwlede and
ccntractcrs experience in the desin
prccess as an apprcach fcr imprcvin
buildin perfcrmance. 1his aim cculd be
achieved thrcuh acccmplishin a set cf
interrelated cb|ectives as fcllcws:
Identifyin the prcblems that hinder
interatin ccnstructicn kncwlede
and ccntractcrs experience in the
desin prccess.
Establishin interaticn cb|ectives.
0evelcpin interaticn plans.
Executin interaticn plans.
Mcnitcrin J 0ptimisin Interaticn.
Description of the Framework
The framework consists of ve steps,
namely: identifying integration problem,
establishing integration objectives, de-
veloping integration plans, executing
integration plans and monitoring / opti-
mising integration (see Figure 5).
Identifying integration problem
1he Identifyin Interaticn Prcblem
functicn is an essential activity cf this
framewcrk because it enables desin
rms and ccnstructicn prcfessicnals tc
identify the ccre causes that cbstruct
the interaticn cf ccnstructicn kncwl-
ede and ccntractcrs experience in the
desin prccess. It is cf impcrtance tc
build an eective team (includin a ccm-
petent team leader) that will carry cut
the imprcvement study. Achievin a bal-
ance between the need fcr participants
whc represent varicus areas cf exper-
tise and pcssess diverse backrcund
is fundamental fcr acccmplishin the
study cb|ectives. 1he study team shculd
ccntain between six and twelve full time
participants tc maintain cptimum prc-
ductivity (hcrtcn and McEllictt 1).
Perfcrmin an early crientaticn meetin
will help in establishin strateic issues
like study duraticn, rescurces required
and assinin respcnsibilities tc team
members. 5enicr manaement suppcrt
will facilitate the prcvisicn cf needed
rescurces and the adcpticn cf study
decisicn. 0ata ccllecticn methcds (i.e.
literature review, survey questicnnaire
and interviews) and data analysis tech-
niques (i.e. quantitative and qualitative)
have tc be dened and utilised. 8rain-
stcrmin technique, team ccnsensus
and evaluaticn matrix have tc be used
fcr identifyin the rcct causes and rank
them acccrdin tc their impcrtance.
Establishing integration objectives
1cwards enablin desin rms and
ccnstructicn prcfessicnals imprcve
buildin perfcrmance and adcpt apprc-
priate decisicns, the cb|ectives cf in-
teratin ccnstructicn kncwlede and
ccntractcrs experience in the desin
prccess have tc be adequately dened
and areed by all participants. 1his
cculd be achieved thrcuh usin 8rain-
stcrmin technique and team ccnsen-
sus tc enerate and select cb|ectives
that address the identied prcblem. Es-
tablishin interaticn cb|ectives ives
team members cwnership tc these
cb|ectives and enccuraes them tc ac-
ccmplish these cb|ectives. Evaluaticn
matrix will be used tc rank these cb|ec-
tives acccrdin tc their sinicance. In
additicn, this functicn will result alsc
in denin the criteria tc be used tc
measure the imprcvement cf buildin
perfcrmance.
Developing integration plans
1he 0evelcpin Interaticn Plans
functicn aims tc set the prccedures
and acticns necessary tc acccmplish
the interaticn cb|ectives. It will in-
clude a wcrk breakdcwn structure and
a respcnsibility matrix, where the rst
dcwnsizes the wcrk intc manaeable
wcrk packaes and the later links the
activity tc be dcne and the respcnsible
perscn. In additicn, the plans shculd
include expected risks and ccrrective
acticns tc be taken in case cf the plan
did nct c as planned. Furthermcre,
ccmmunicaticn plan amcnst prc|ect
participants have tc be develcped tc
Figure 5: Imprcvin 8uildin Perfcrmance Framewcrk (develcped by the authcr)
Bilten06.indd 345 13/12/2011 01:01
ocnNi zn:i oN, :ccHNoLocv nNo unNnccucN: i N coNs:uc:i oN nN i N:cNn:i oNnL ( ouNnL ( z) zo11 346
pcrtray the repcrtin structure cf the
ccnstructability review.
Executing integration plans
within this functicn, the plans devel-
cped in the previcus functicn will be ex-
ecuted. 1he executicn plans may require
that emplcyees invclved in the intera-
ticn prccess be trained and equipped
with all tccls and technclcies required
tc uarantee the successful executicn cf
plans. In additicn, senicr manaement
suppcrt and cerin required facilities
will help achievin the interaticn cb-
|ectives. 1he executicn stae shculd use
the wcrk authcrizaticn system, which
prcvides fcr vericaticn cf predecesscr
activities and the permissicn tc bein
successcr activities. 1his ensures the
quality cf wcrk perfcrmed.

Monitoring / Optimising integration
1he aim cf this functicn is tc ensure that
the interaticn cf ccnstructicn kncwl-
ede and ccntractcrs experience in the
desin prccess ces acccrdin tc plan.
Ccmments and feedback frcm the exe-
cuticn team will enable takin ccrrective
acticns if plans were nct implemented
as planned. Furthermcre, this will help
imprcvin the perfcrmance cf the ccn-
structicn industry in future imprcve-
ment prc|ect.
Limitations of the Framework
Althcuh the framewcrk is thecretical
and needs tc be tested, it establishes
the steps and set the rules that help in-
teratin ccnstructicn kncwlede and
ccntractcrs experience in the desin
prccess. In additicn, the eective ap-
plicaticn cf the framewcrk depends tc
a lare extent cn the willinness and
enccuraement cf the senicr manae-
ment in desin rms and ccnstructicn
ccmpanies tc adcpt the framewcrk tc
imprcve buildin perfcrmance. 0n the
cther hand, if the senicr manaement
dces nct have the desire and tended
nct tc use the framewcrk, then its adcp-
ticn will be limited. 5ince the adcpticn
and applicaticn cf the framewcrk is a
lcn-term stratey and due the tiht
schedules in ccnstructicn prc|ects, this
framewcrk miht nct be welccmed by
scme sectcrs cf the industry. 0ue tc
the research limited timeframe and re-
scurces, it was nct pcssible tc apply and
evaluate the framewcrk, hence it needs
tc tested and validated in real ccnstruc-
ticn prc|ects.
Strategies for facilitating the adoption
of the framework
In crder tc cverccme these limita-
ticns and increase the cppcrtunities cf
adcptin the framewcrk, the fcllcwin
strateies have tc be fcllcwed:
Escalating the awareness of archi-
tects with the importance of utilising
the construction knowledge and
contractors experience towards de-
livering better construction projects.
The benets of the framework should
be presented and explained to senior
management of design rms in order
to convince them with the role, which
the framework could play in improv-
ing building performance.
Eliminating the adversarial relation-
ship between the dierent parties
of the construction process through
creating partnership between project
team members, especially designers
and contractors.
Adopting procurement methods that
encourage contractors involvement
during the design process.
Ample time should be allowed to
conduct constructability reviews as it
plays a signicant role towards im-
proving building performance.
Adopting innovative communication
tools and techniques will facilitate
conducting constructability reviews
and archiving document for future
projects.
Conclusions and
recommendations
Ravin reviewed the nature cf the
ccnstructicn industry, the ccncept cf
ccnstrtactability, architecture and the
desin prccess as well as measurin
buildin perfcrmance and keepin in
mind the analysis cf the case studies
that beneted frcm interatin ccn-
tractcrs durin the desin prccess, the
research ccmes tc the fcllcwin ccnclu-
sicns and reccmmendaticns:
In spite cf its sccial and eccncmic
develcpment ccntributicns at
naticnal and internaticnal levels,
the ccnstructicn industry has a
neative impact cn the envircnment
and suers frcm bein a framented
business.
1he traditicnal prccurement
apprcaches adcpted in ccnstructicn
prc|ects and the dierent cb|ectives,
skills and interests cf prc|ect
participants played a sinicant
rcle tcwards separatin desin
frcm ccnstructicn which ultimately
hindered ccntractcrs frcm prcvidin
desiners with their feedback and
suesticns fcr desin imprcvement.
Literature review and case studies
shcwed that the early interaticn
cf ccntractcrs in the desin
prccess, reatly imprcves buildin
perfcrmance thrcuh reducin life
cycle ccst, ccmpressin delivery
schedules, better prcductivity
and interatin state-cf-the-art
ccnstructicn means and methcds.
8ased cn these ccnclusicns, the re-
search reccmmends that:
0esin rms are advised tc interate
ccnstructicn kncwlede and ccntrac-
tcrs experience in the desin prccess
as an apprcach tc imprcve buildin
perfcrmance.
Chanin cranisaticnal culture and
ettin senicr manaement suppcrt
are essential fcr successful imple-
mentaticn cf ccnstructability ccncept
in desin rms.
8arriers tc ccnstructability need tc be
identied and strateies fcr cverccm-
in have tc be planned, implemented
and evaluated.
0esin rms are enccuraed tc adcpt
the framewcrk develcped by this
research and its strateies tc facilitate
the interaticn cf the ccnstructability
Bilten06.indd 346 13/12/2011 01:01
347 A. A. E. 0:HunN IuroviNc 8uiLoiNc PcrounNcc :HoucH IN:ccn:iNc CoNs:uc:nsiLi:v iN :Hc... pp -,
ccncept in the desin prccess.
kesearchers are directed tc study the
interaticn cf cther prc|ect partici-
pants such as suppliers in the desin
stae and cther staes cf the prc|ect
life cycle.
References
Abdellatif, M.A. and 0thman, A.A.E.
(zoo6) Imprcvin the sustainability cf
lcw-inccme hcusin prc|ects: 1he case
cf residential buildins in Musaah
ccmmercial city in Abu 0habi. Emirates
Journal for Engineering Research, 11(2),
47-58.
Aeck, k.C. and kuby, 0.I. (zoo6) Ccnsider
Ccnstructability, Mcdern 5teel
Ccnstructicn. [0nline|. Available frcm:
www.mcdernsteel.ccmJuplcadsJ
IssuesJ..Jo,z_lansin_web.pdf
(Accessed z }anuary zo1o).
Anink, 0., 8ccdtra, C. and Mark, }. (16)
Handbook of Sustainable Development.
Lcndcn: }ames and }ames.
Architectural Review (1995) Comment,
Architectural Review, May 1995, p.4.
Arditi, 0., Elhassan, A. and 1cklu, Y.C. (zooz)
Ccnstructability analysis in the desin
rm, Journal of Construction Engineering
& Management, 128 (2) 117-126.
8arrett, P. (1) Facilities Management:
Towards Best Practice. 0xfcrd: 8lackwell
5cience Ltd.
8urati, }.L., Farrintcn, }.}. and Ledbetter,
w.8. (1z). Causes cf quality deviaticns
in desin and ccnstructicn, Journal
of Construction Engineering and
Management, 118 (1), 3449.
Cascadia (2009) Cannon Beach Residence,
Cascadia Region Green Building
Council. [Online]. Available from: http:JJ
casestudies.cascadiabc.crJprccess.
cfm!Prc|ectI0=z8 (Accessed 12 June
2010).
CII (18,). Ccnstructability Ccncepts File.
Prepared by 1he Ccnstructicn Industry
Institute
Ccnstructability 1ask Fcrce, Publicaticn -,
8ureau cf Enineerin kesearch, 1he
university cf 1exas at Austin, Austin, 1X.
Douglas, E.E. and Gransberg, D.D. (2009)
Implementing Project Constructability.
AACE International Recommended
Practice No. 30R-03. TCM Framework: 11.5
Value Management and Value Improving
Practices (VIPs). [Online]. Available from:
www.aacei.crJtechnicalJrpsJok-o.pdf
(Accessed 2 January 2010).
Earth watch Institute (2011) Construction.
[Online]. Available from:
http://www.businessandbiodiversity.org/
construction.html (Accessed 15 November
2011).
EDMS (2007) Framework. Engineering Data
Management Service. [Online]. Available
from: http://cedar.web.cern.ch/CEDAR/
glossary.html#Framework> [Accessed 2
January, 2010].
Fales, J. (1991) Construction Technology:
Today and Tomorrow. 1st Ed. Peoria,
Illinois: Macmillan/McGraw Hill.
Field, B. and Ofori, G. (1988) Construction
and economic development: a case study,
Third
World Planning Review, 10 (1), 4150.
Haupteisch, A.C. and Sigle, H.M. (2004)
Structural of the Built Environment in
South Africa.
Hateld: CONQS-Publishers.
Home design home, Cannon Beach
Residence, 2010. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.homedesignhome.com/
cannon-beach-residence-by-nathan-good-
architect-in-oregon-beach/ (Accessed 15
June 2010).
Kagioglou, M. Cooper, R. and Aouad, G.
(20011) Performance management in
construction: a conceptual framework,
Construction Management and
Economics, 19 (1), 8595.
Langston, C.A. and Ding, G. K. C. (2001)
Sustainable practices in the built
environment, Langston, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.
Mendelsohn, R, (1997) The constructability
review process: A constructors
perspective, Journal of Management in
Engineering, 13 (3), 1719.
Motsa, N., Oladapo, A. and Othman, A.A.E.
(2008) The Benets of Using
Constructability during the Design
Process. Proceedings of the 5th Post
Graduate Conference on Construction
Industry Development, Bloemfontein,
South Africa, 16 - 18 March 2008, 158-167.
Mthalane D,Othman,, A.A.E. and Pearl, RG.
(2008) The Economic And Social Impacts
Of Site Accidents on the South African
Society. Proceedings of the 5
th
Post
Graduate Conference On Construction
Industry Development, Bloemfontein,
South Africa 16 18 March 2008, 1-10.
Nima, M.A., Abdul-Kadir, M.R. and Jaafar,
M.S. (2001) Evaluation of the role of the
contractors personnel in enhancing
project constructability, Structural Survey,
19(4), 193-200.
Norton B. R. and McElligott, W. C. (1995)
Value Management in Construction: A
Practical Guide. London: Macmillan.
OConnor, T.J. & Miller, S.J. (1994) Barriers to
constructability implementation, Journal
of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
8(2), 110-129.
Othman, A.A.E. (2007) Sustainable
Architecture: an Investigation into the
Architects Social Responsibilities,
in the International Conference on
Sustainable Human Settlements for
Economic and Social Development,
Zambezi Sun International Hotel,
Livingstone, Zambia, 181-197.
Othman, A.A.E. (2008) Building the Eective
Architectural Team in Design Firms:
The Case of the United Arab Emirates.
Emirates Journal for Engineering Research,
13 (1), 1-11.
Othman, A.A.E. and Harinarain, N. (2009)
Managing Risks Associated with the JBCC
(Principal Building Agreement) from the
South African contractors Perspective,
Acta Stuctilia, Journal for the Physical and
Development Sciences, 16 (1), 83-119.
Othman, A.A.E., Hassan, T.M. and Pasquire,
C.L. Drivers for Dynamic Brief Development
in Construction, Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 11 (4),
248-258.
Pettinger, R. (2001) Mastering Management
Skills. Palgrave, New York.
Preiser, W.F.E. and Vischer, J. C. (2005)
Assessing Building Performance. Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford OX2 8DP.
RIBA (2011) Guide to Professional
Experience, RIBA Plan of Work. Royal
institute of British Architects. [Onlione].
Available from:
http://www.pedr.co.uk/textpage.asp?m
enu=1a&sortorder=130&area=main
(Accessed 15 November 20110.
Roodman, D.M. and Lenssen, N. (1995) A
Building Revolution: How Ecology Health
Concerns are Transforming Construction.
Paper 124 World Watch Institute,
Washington, DC.
Roth, L. (1994) Understanding Architecture:
Its Elements, History, and Meaning. 2nd
Ed. London: The Herbert Press Ltd.
Tam V.W.Y. (2007) On prefabrication
implementation for dierent project
types and procurement methods in Hong
Kong. Journal of Engineering, Design and
Technology, 5(1), 68-80.
Trigunarsyah, B. (2004) A review of current
practice in constructability improvement
case studies on construction projects in
Indonesia, Construction Management and
Economics, 22(6), 567-580
Uhlik, F. T., and Lores, G. V. (1998)
Assessment of constructability practices
among general contractors. Journal of
Architectural Engineering, 4(3), 113123.
Wong, F.W. H.;De Saram, D. Darshi;L. P. T. I.
and Chan, D. W. M. (2006) A Compendium
of Buildability Issues from the Viewpoints
of Construction Practitioners, Architectural
Science Review, 49 (1), 81-90.
Zimmerman, L. W., and Hart, G. D. (1982)
Value engineeringa practical approach
for owners, designers, and contractors,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Bilten06.indd 347 13/12/2011 01:01