KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2014) 18(5):1228-1238 Construction Management

Copyright ⓒ2014 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-014-0221-z pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Assessment of CII Best Practices Usage in the Construction Industry

S. B. Kim*
Received April 17, 2013/Accepted August 1, 2013/Published Online May 20, 2014

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

In the increasingly competitive global environments, many organizations recognize that effective use of corporate knowledge helps
improving their performance and consequently provides the competitive advantages over their competitors. This study takes a
fundamental approach in the area of knowledge management by investigating the frequencies and the degrees of knowledge
implementation. The Construction Industry Institute (CII) Best Practices are used as research targets which represent useful
knowledge need to be effectively implemented in the construction industry. This research focuses on how widely and intensively the
CII Best Practices are implemented among CII member organizations using a structured survey. It also attempts to identify the
relationships between the organizational knowledge implementation and the CII Best Practices usage. In terms of the frequencies of
usage, ‘Pre-Project Planning’ is identified as the most widely implemented Best Practice among the organizations while the usages of
‘Dispute resolution’, ‘Design Effectiveness’, and ‘Materials Management’ are relatively low. From the view point of the degree of
CII Best Practice usage, ‘Zero Accident Techniques’ and ‘Material Management’ are the most rigorously implemented when they are
in use, and the degree of usage on ‘Design Effectiveness’ and ‘Team Building’ are relatively rough compared to the others. The
differences between owners and contractors are also investigated in this study and some interesting differences are identified.
Research findings suggest that the level of organizational knowledge implementation is generally consistent with the CII Best
Practice usage among CII member companies.
Keywords: best practices usage, knowledge implementation, knowledge management, construction industry institute
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction from practical research projects. Since the construction industry

In the increasingly competitive global environments, many
organizations recognize that effective use of corporate knowledge
helps improving their performance and consequently provides
the competitive advantages over their competitors (Wu, 2012). In
the context of knowledge management, many researchers try to
find ways to improve the construction industry focusing on
various issues (Demarest, 1997). One of the most common
approaches in the knowledge management area is to develop a
sophisticated system or to adopt an advanced technology. For
example, Candra (2012) addresses the advantages of Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) system in expanding the knowledge
capability and Motawa et al. (2013a; 2013b) tries to apply the
knowledge-based methodology to an emerging technology,
Building Information Modeling (BIM). This type of systematic
approach has been popular in knowledge management studies as
it has employed in many publications (Wu, 2012; Lau et al.,
2003; Dorasamy et al., 2013; Parahoo, 2000).
This study takes a rather simple and fundamental approach in
the area of knowledge management by investigating the frequencies
and the degrees of knowledge implementation which is created
still utilizes many conventional technologies and systems, this
approach may help researchers and practitioners in intuitionally
understanding positive roles of effective knowledge implementation.
Therefore, this study investigates the frequencies and the degrees of
usage of knowledge created from research projects, sponsored by
a well-known research institute, Construction Industry Institute
(CII).
The research products produced by CII are considered as
mostly practical and management-oriented due to that fact that
member organizations lead the various research activities within
CII. Since its establishment in 1980’s, CII has conducted over
100 research projects and some of them has recognized as CII
Best Practices which are proven to provide helps for the success
of member organizations (CII, 1995c). This research focuses on
how widely and intensively the CII Best Practices are
implemented in the construction industry. This study is initiated
by the CII Implementation Strategy Committee (ISC) which
focuses on implementation of CII knowledge within CII member
organizations (CII, 1995a). Some works done by CII ISC
provides the foundation of this study and they are descried in
Chapter 3 (CII, 1995b).

*Member, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Dongguk University, Seoul 100-715, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
kay95@dgu.edu)

− 1228 −
 Assessment of CII Best Practices Usage in the Construction Industry
2. Research Objectives and Methodology
The three primary objectives for this research are as follows.
One is to evaluate the overall and individual CII Best Practices
defined by the CII Knowledge Structure in terms of the number
of the CII Best Practices implementation. In trying to archive the
first objective, the frequencies of 11 CII Best Practices usage are
investigated based on the data collected from a structured survey
using some statistical techniques. In addition, differences
between owners and contractors in terms of CII Best Practice
usage are analyzed to identify the implications of CII Best
Practice usage based on the organizational roles in construction
projects. The second objective is to identify how intensively the
CII Best Practices are implemented among survey participants.
In order to assess this degree of the implementation, indices for
the 11 CII Best Practices are developed and compared with each
other. The last is to investigate relationships between the CII Best
Practices usage and the organizational knowledge implementa-
tion. The CII Knowledge Implementation Index (CKII) is used
as the indicator representing the level of the organizational
knowledge implementation (Kim, 2002a).
The survey measures not only which best practices are
implemented but also how they are implemented at the organi-
zational level within participating organizations. It contained 165
questions in 11 different sections which corresponded to the 11
CII Best Practices that were defined in the initial CII Knowledge
Structure. Each section comprised a set of questions to assess the
level of organizational implementation of each practice rather
than focusing at the individual project level. Questions presented
in the survey include both objective and subjective measures in
quantifying the individual practice usage. It is envisioned that
this careful combination of subjective and objective measures
would yield a more realistic assessment of the organizational CII
Best Practice usage. Additionally, the survey questionnaire was
developed to provide an organization with a method to assess its
level of organizational implementation effort. The overall
structure of the survey is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Survey Structure
Vol. 18, No. 5 / July 2014
The best practice usage information evaluated using the survey
instrument concentrated on the 11 CII Best Practices although it
was attempted to investigate other best practices implemented
within the participating organizations. In addition, all of the
survey respondents for this study were CII member organi-
zations. Applying the research methodology used in this study to
non CII member organization may yield different results and
thus generalizing the results of this study to the whole industry
may not reflect the accurate implementation status. Analysis
results in this study reflect the current status of 41 survey
respondents out of 88 total contacted organizations. In analyzing
the survey data, various statistical techniques are employed
including summary statistics, independent samples t tests, and
Analysis of Variances (ANOVA).
3. Research Background
3.1 Construction Industry Institute (CII) Knowledge Struc-
ture
CII is a research institute comprised of over 100 construction
related organizations including owners, general contractors,
specialty contractors, engineering/design firms and suppliers
(CII, 2013). CII has developed the CII Knowledge Structure in
order to enhance the knowledge implementation among member
organizations, which is defined as “the overall body of CII
knowledge arranged in topological form” (Kim, 2002a). The CII
Knowledge Structure initially consisted of 13 Knowledge Areas
at the highest level. A Knowledge Area is defined as a “logical
grouping of CII topical areas and may be a project phase or
specific topic, or project management techniques or issues” (Kim
et al., 2001). The 13 CII Knowledge Areas are “1. Front-End
Planning, 2. Design, 3. Procurement, 4. Construction, 5. Startup
and Operation, 6. People, 7. Organization, 8. Project Processes,
9. Project Controls, 10. Contracts, 11. Safety, Health and
Environment, 12. Information/Technology Systems, and 13. Glo-
balization Issues” (Kim et al., 2002b).
Each Knowledge Area is further broken into Focus Areas and
supported by CII products as illustrated in Fig. 2. A Focus Area
Fig. 2. Base Structure of CII Knowledge Structure
− 1229 −
 S. B. Kim
is defined as “a distinct area of CII research emphasis that has led
to research publications/products” (Kim et al., 2002b). All
existing CII products including research summaries, research
reports, implementation resources, education modules, bench-
marking publications, and videotapes are categorized into
appropriate Focus Areas under the CII Knowledge Structure.
Each Focus Area is generally supported by tools, supporting
products, and/or references. Tools are products supporting
implementation that requires user interaction and result in decisions,
conclusions and/or outcomes. Supporting Products are summaries
of research or educational materials that support implementation
or understanding of the subject. Research Summaries predominate
under this classification. References include source or background
materials that provide information about the topic including
Research Reports and videos. Research Reports typify CII
Products that are considered references. Based on the characteristics
and intensity of the previous CII research efforts within a Focus
Area, the area may or may not contain all three kinds of
publications.
3.1.1 Breakdowns of Focus Areas on the CII Knowledge
Structure
Among the Focus Areas identified, some are more often
implemented by CII member companies than others. Accor-
dingly, it can be assumed that those practices that are commonly
utilized typically have greater impact on organizational success,
at least at present. Therefore, three categories of Focus Areas
were established based on product support, usage, and impact,
which are Best Practices, Proposed Best Practices – Pending
Validation, and Information.
A CII Best Practice is defined as “A process or method that,
when executed effectively, leads to enhanced project perfor-
mance”. Each Best Practice is generally considered a macro-
level process and may have many associated/recommended tasks
or steps (CII, 2002b). A CII Proposed Best Practice — Pending
Validation is defined as “a process or method that may become a
CII Best Practice, but has not yet completed the validation
process”. An Information Focus Area includes “investigation
results that provide findings and/or reports, but do not provide
processes or methods”. To determine which Focus Area falls into
one of these three areas, the Knowledge Team developed the
Best Practice Screening Process that outlines the method of
qualifying best practices (Kim et al., 2002b). The process is
explained later in Section 3.1.2.
Each of the Best Practices and Proposed Best Practices –
Pending Validation are supported by tools, products, and
references while each Information Focus Area is supported by
products and references. In order to implement the Best
Practices, an organization must have access to and an
understanding of the associated tools and products. Fig. 3 gives
an example of one of the 13 Knowledge Areas, Front-End
Planning. Within each Focus Area, the products are listed in
reverse chronological order; that is, the most recently published
material is listed first, followed by older materials, in order of
− 1230 −
Fig. 3. Example Knowledge Area: Front-End Planning
publication. Each of the 13 Knowledge Areas is supported by
Focus Areas that are further supported by tools, products, and/or
references. If an organization wishes to implement pre-project
planning, for instance, the tools are listed first including process
maps, checklists, etc., followed by research summaries and
education materials and then any research report and videos. The
knowledge user can quickly identify useful information to assist
with incorporation of the Best Practice by effectively utilizing
the Knowledge Structure.
The CII Knowledge Structure initially had 13 Knowledge
Areas which were broken into 51 Focus Areas: 11 CII Best
Practices, 13 CII Proposed Best Practices - Pending Validation,
and 27 Information Areas as summarized in Table 1. CII Best
Practices identified to date are: “1. Pre-Project Planning, 2.
Alignment, 3. Constructability, 4. Design Effectiveness, 5.
Materials Management, 6. Team Building, 7. Partnering, 8. Quality
Management, 9. Change Management, 10. Disputes Resolution,
and 11. Zero Accidents Techniques”. The Knowledge Structure
is expected to be reviewed annually and revised as appropriate
by the Knowledge Committee, which was launched as a standing
committee to maintain the CII Knowledge Structure. It is
envisaged that the fundamental overall structure will remain the
same and only the details will change over time.
3.1.2 Best Practice Screening Process
The best practice screening process starts with investigating
whether a Focus Area includes a defined process or a method
that describes steps and activities that have been published in CII
documents. If not, the Focus Area is categorized under
‘Information’. If it includes a process or method, the question of
whether there has been comprehensive and overwhelming
research study is examined. If the answer is no, it also falls under
‘Information’. To become a CII Best Practice, it has to be
validated through either one of three criteria. If it passes any one
of these criteria, then it is considered a CII Best Practice. Three
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Assessment of CII Best Practices Usage in the Construction Industry

Table 1. Initial CII Knowledge Structure

Knowledge Areas Best Practices Proposed Best Practices Information
1.1 Pre-Project Planning
1. Front-End Planning 1.3 Early Estimating
1.2 Alignment
See 12.3
2.1 Constructability 2.3 Piping Design
2. Design See 8.6, 5.2, 11.3
2.2 Design Effectiveness 2.4 Design Standards
2.5 Cost Effective Engineering
3.1 Materials 3.2 Supplier Relationships
3. Procurement
Management, See 12.1
4.1 Competition
See also 3.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 8.4, 8.5,
See 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, See 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 7.4, 8.2, 8.3,
4. Construction 9.2, 9.3, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6,
9.1, 10.1, 11.1 10.2, 8.6
12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6,
13.1, 13.2
5.1 Planning for Startup
5. Startup and Operation
5.2 Design for Maintainability
6.3 Attract & Maintain
Skilled Workers
6.1 Employee Incentives
6.4 Craft Productivity
6. People 6.2 Management of Education
6.5 Multi-Skilling
and Training
6.6 Engineering Productivity
Measurement
7.1 Team Building 7.3 Organizational Work Structure
7. Organization 7.5 Project Teams
7.2 Partnering 7.4 Leader Selection
8.4 Small Projects
8.2 Implementation of Products
Execution
8. Project Processes 8.1 Quality Management 8.3 Lessons Learned
8.5 Benchmarking
8.6 Work Process Simulation
and Metrics
9.2 Work Packaging
9. Project Controls 9.1 Change Management
9.3 Cost & Schedule Control
10.3 Project Delivery Strategies
10.2 Managing 10.4 Contract Strategies
10. Contracts 10.1 Disputes Resolution
Workersagingpensation 10.5 Use of Project Incentives
10.6 Risk Management
11.2 Environmental Remediation
11. Safety, Health, and Environment 11.1 Zero Accidents Techniques Management 11.4 Annual Safety Data
11.3 Design for Safety
12.1 Automated Identification
12.2 Electronic Data Interchange
(EDI)
12. Information Management / 12.3 Computer
Technology Systems -Aided Design/Drafting
12.4 FIAPP
12.5 Wireless Technology
12.6 Automation and Robotics
13.1 International Standards
13. Globalization Issues
13.2 Global Construction Industry

ways of validating products are: been identified. Indeed, each area has been the subject of at least
1. Benchmarking and Metrics (BM&M) validation one CII research investigation.
2. Member acceptance, use and validation
3. Rigorous post research-validation 4. Frequency of CII Best Practices Usage

If a Focus Area fails to pass this step, it is categorized under
‘CII Proposed Best Practice – Pending Validation’. All Focus
Areas falling into this category may become a ‘CII Best Practice’
or move back to the ‘Information’ category based on an annual
review. It is important to note that the three categories, CII Best
Practices, CII Proposed Best Practices — Pending Validation,
and Information Knowledge Areas are related to the extent of
development and usage within CII. This characterization does
not diminish the importance of any of the Focus Areas that have
The survey for this study was developed to measure the
number of best practices implemented within a participating
organization as well as the degree of best practices implementation
at the organizational level. In this chapter, the numbers of best
practices implemented by respondents are analyzed to identify
the frequencies of CII Best Practice usage. In analyzing the
number of CII Best Practices implemented, both overall and
individual CII Best Practice usages are examined. In addition,
the differences between owners and contractors in terms of CII

Vol. 18, No. 5 / July 2014 − 1231 −

 S. B. Kim

Fig. 5. Number of Best Practices Implemented

Fig. 6. Best Practices Usage: Owners vs Contractors

Structure, which is approximately 50 percent of the available

Fig. 4. CII Best Practice Screening Process
Best Practices implementation are highlighted. The degree of
implementation for each of 11 Best Practices is discussed in
Chapter 5.
4.1 Overall Best Practices Usage
From the survey data, it was identified that participating
organizations were implementing different numbers of best
practices at the organizational level. Fig. 5 summarizes the
number of best practices being implemented by individual
organizations that participated in this study.
Figure 5 shows that there were extremes on both ends of the
distribution. Some organizations were implementing none or a
very small number of CII Best Practices and eight organizations,
which represent approximately 20 percent of survey participants,
were only utilizing two or fewer CII Best Practices out of 11
available. In contrast, other organizations were implementing
most of the available CII Best Practices and 27 percent of
participating organizations were using nine or more Best
Practices. On average, participating organizations implemented
5.5 CII Best Practices out of the 11 defined in the CII Knowledge
Best Practices. Considering the fact that the potential of these
Best Practices are proven by the CII Best Practice screening
process, organizations should probably try to implement more
Best Practices as they are applicable to their business processes.
4.1.1 Comparison between Owners and Contractors by
Frequency
An independent-samples t test was used to assess the differences
between owners and contractors in terms of the number of CII
Best Practices implemented within organizations. Among 41
organizations that participated, 22 were owner firms and 19 were
contractors. Fig. 6 shows the differences between owners and
contractors in terms of the average number of Best Practices that
implemented. Participating contractor organizations implemented
approximately 0.7 more Best Practices on average as compared
to owners.
In order to test the statistical significance of the differences
between owners and contractors, an independent-samples t test
was conducted. Table 2 presents the results of the test and the
significance value from the test was 0.47 which was greater than
0.05. Therefore, the mean difference between owners and con-
tractors in terms of the number of CII Best Practices
implemented is not statistically significant.

Table 2. Independent t Test: Number of Best Practices Implemented: Owners vs Contractors

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances (L) t Test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df. Sig. (2-Tailed)
Equal Variances Assumed * 0.029 .866 -.73 39 .468
Equal Variances Not Assumed -.73 37.64 .470
* ‘Equal Variances Assumed’ used since L = 0.866 > 0.05

− 1232 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Assessment of CII Best Practices Usage in the Construction Industry

4.2 Individual Best Practice Usage by Frequency ment, and dispute resolution. In particular, dispute resolution was
In the last section, overall best practice usage was assessed implemented by only 15 percent of the participating organizations.
based on the total number of Best Practices implemented within There could be many reasons for some of the CII Best
the organization. In this section, the popularity of each of 11 CII Practices not being used extensively, such as limited applicability
Best Practices is described in terms of the number of of the practices, lack of awareness, and availability of related
organizations that implemented the specific Best Practices. resources. In addition, there might have been some interactions
Differences between owners and contractors are also described between implementation of CII Best Practices; for example,
based on their use of the 11 individual practices. proper use of partnering and team building could reduce
The first section of the survey was used to measure which of potential for disputes and some organizations might not need a
11 CII Best Practices were implemented by the organizations. comprehensive dispute resolution process. However, implemen-
Survey participants were asked to indicate all the Best Practices tation of those practices with low use should be promoted
that were being implemented within their organizations. Based because the CII Best Practice screening process has proven the
on 41 survey responses, the individual usage of the 11 CII Best value of all CII Best Practices.
Practices are summarized in Table 3. Fig. 7 shows the distri-
bution of the number of organizations that implemented specific 4.2.1 Comparison between Owners and Contractors
CII Best Practices. Owners and contractors play different roles in executing
As described in Table 3 and Fig. 7, pre-project planning was construction projects and their focus is different, although the
identified as the most widely implemented practice among the ultimate goal of the both parties is to have successful projects. As
CII member organizations that participated. Zero accident their roles and areas of concentration are different, it was
techniques and constructability were also popular and approxi- predicted that there would be different sets of Best Practices in
mately 64 percent of participants responded that they were which owners or contractors would be more interested. In other
implementing them. However, some of the Best Practices were words, there might be some Best Practices that were mainly
rarely implemented among the organizations. Those practices implemented by either the owners or contractors. In order to
with low use included design effectiveness, materials manage- evaluate the differences between owners and contractors, the
number of owners and contractors that indicated they were
implementing specific CII Best Practices were investigated as
Table 3. CII Best Practices Usage
summarized in Table 4. Fig. 8 graphically shows the differences
Number
CII Best Practice
of Organizations
Percentage* between the two sample groups in terms of their usage of
Pre-Project Planning 33 80.5% individual practices.
Zero Accident Techniques 26 63.4% Differences between the two groups in terms of CII Best
Constructability 26 63.4% Practices implementation did appear as shown in Table 4. For
Team Building 24 58.5% example, while 60 percent of owners were implementing align-
Partnering 24 58.5% ment, only 32 percent of contractors used it. Design effectiveness
Change Management 23 56.1% was also implemented mainly by owners. In contrast, materials
Alignment 20 48.8% management was implemented by 53 percent of contractors that
Quality Management 20 48.8% participated in the survey but by only 9 percent of owners.
Design Effectiveness 13 31.7%
Materials Management 12 29.3%
Dispute Resolution 6 14.6% Table 4. Individual CII Best Practices Implementation: Owners
(N=22) vs Contractors (N=19)
* Percentage of participants that implemented the practice.
CII Best Practice #of O’s*1 %of O’s*2 #of C’s*3 %of C’s*4
Pre-Project Planning 18 82% 15 79%
Alignment 13 60%*5 7 32%
Constructability 14 64% 12 63%
Design Effectiveness 9 41%*5 4 18%
Materials Management 2 9% 10 53%6
Team Building 13 60% 11 58%
Partnering 13 60% 11 58%
Quality Management 9 41% 11 58%
Change Management 11 50% 12 63%
Dispute Resolution 1 5% 5 23%6
Zero Accident Techniques 11 50% 15 79%6
1. Number of Owners 2. Percentage of Owners
3. Number of Contractors 4. Percentage of Contractors
Fig. 7. Frequencies of CII Best Practices Usage 5. Mainly implemented by Owners 6. Mainly implemented by Contractors

Vol. 18, No. 5 / July 2014 − 1233 −

 S. B. Kim

also tested by using a series of independent-samples t tests in

order to evaluate their statistical significance. The results of the
tests summarized in Table 6 show that materials management,
dispute resolution, and zero accident techniques are significantly
different between owners and contractors. Differences in the
other Best Practices turned out to be not statistically significant.
Based on the findings presented in this section, it is
recommended that organizations focus implementation support
toward owners’ or contractors’ Best Practices based on its role in
construction projects.

5. Degree of CII Best Practices Usage

Fig. 8. Frequencies of CII Best Practices Usage: Owners vs Con-
tractors
The survey consisted of 11 sections, which correspond to the
11 Best Practices defined in the CII Knowledge Structure. Each
Table 5. Top Best Practices for Owners and Contractors
section of the survey had the same types of the questions for each
Owners Contractors
Best Practice and the first two questions in every section were to
Rank CII Best Practice (%*1) Rank CII Best Practice(%*2)
measure of whether a Best Practice was implemented at the
1 Pre-Project Planning (82%) 1 Zero Accident Techniques (79%)
organizational level and/or at the project level. Questions on the
2 Constructability (64%) 1 Pre-Project Planning (79%)
frequency of the implementation and duration of the imple-
3 Alignment (60%) 3 Constructability (63%)
mentation since first implementation were followed as the third
3 Team Building (60%) 3 Change Management (63%)
and fourth questions. The rest of the questions in each section
3 Partnering (60%)
* 1. Percentage of owners that implemented the practice.
were designed to measure general issues that need to be
* 2. Percentage of contractors that implemented the practice. addressed to effectively implement the CII Best Practice.
In each of the 11 following subsections, the first four questions
Table 6. Independent t Tests Results in CII Best Practice Imple- in each section of the survey were analyzed first, including
mentation: Owners vs Contractors
organizational implementation, project level implementation,
t-test for Equality of Means and frequency and the duration of implementation of specific
CII Best Practice Sig. Mean
t df Best Practices. The rest of the questions in each section of the
(2-tailed) Difference
Pre-Project Planning .23 39 .82 .03
survey were used in developing an implementation index for the
Alignment 1.42 39 .16 .22
corresponding Best Practice, which quantifies the degree of
Constructability .031 39 .97 .00
implementation of a Best Practice ranging in value from 0 to
Design Effectiveness 1.38 39 .176 .20 100. The index was developed by following the process as given
Material Management* -3.26 39 .01 -.44 in Fig. 9. The Figure also includes an example of calculating one
Team Building .076 39 .94 .01 of the 11 Best Practice implementation indices, which is the pre-
Partnering .076 39 .94 .01 project planning implementation index. Implementation indices
Quality Management -1.07 39 .29 -.17 for the other 10 CII Best Practices were calculated following the
Change Management -.83 39 .41 -.13 same procedures illustrated in Fig. 9.
Dispute Resolution* -1.92 39 .05 -.22 Finally, since the same types of questions were asked for 11
Zero Accident Techniques* -1.99 39 .05 -.29 CII Best Practices, the implementation indices for 11 Best
* Statistically significant Practices were compared and analyzed in terms of relative
intensities of implementation among the participating organi-
zations and the results are provided in the following sections.
Dispute resolution and zero accident techniques were also Due to the limitation of this publication pages, the analysis
implemented by more contractors than by owners. There were results on the degree of ‘Pre-Project Planning’ usage are only
also some practices that were almost evenly implemented by provided in section 5.1. A similar process is used in analyzing
owners and contractors such as pre-project planning, team each of the other 10 CII Best Practice usages.
building, partnering and constructability. Table 5 lists the top CII
Best Practices for owners and contractors based on the 5.1 Example on Degree of CII Best Practices Usage Anal-
percentage of organizations that implemented specific practices ysis: Pre-Project Planning
within each group. Note that change management is within the Pre-Project Planning (PPP) was utilized by 33 among the 41
top 3 ranks for contractors, while alignment, team building, and organizations that participated and was identified as the most
partnering are only listed under owners. widely used CII Best Practice as previously discussed. PPP has
Differences between the two groups presented in Table 5 were been one of the most popular CII process/product during the past

− 1234 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Assessment of CII Best Practices Usage in the Construction Industry

Fig. 11. Frequency of Implementation - Pre-Project Planning

Fig. 12. Implementation Duration - Pre-Project Planning

Fig. 9. Pre-Project Planning Implementation Index Calculation
Process

Fig. 10. Organizational and Project Level Implementation - Pre-

Project Planning
Fig. 13. Pre-Project Planning Implementation Index

few years and the nature of the respondents involved in planning Table 7. Summary Statistics - Pre-Project Planning Implementa-
tion Index
may have contributed to obtaining this result. As shown in Fig. 10,
21 of 33 PPP implementers were implementing it at the Mean 72
organizational level while 32 organizations implemented at the Median 75
Standard Deviation 15.01
project level. Nineteen of 33 PPP implementers were using PPP
Skewness -0.35
in most projects while some organizations implemented PPP on
Range 55
all projects as illustrated in Fig. 11. Fig. 12 shows that most
Minimum 40
organizations had implemented PPP for more than one year with
Maximum 95
the exception of four organizations.
Sample Size 33
PPP implementation indices for 33 organizations that imple-
*Confidence Level (CL) (95%) 5.32
mented PPP were calculated with the data from the survey and
* 95 % of values are within mean ± CL.
they are summarized in Table 7. The average PPP imple-
mentation index for 33 organizations was 72 out of a maximum
of 100. The distribution of the PPP implementation index is participated in this study are provided in Table 8. In calculating
illustrated in Fig. 13. the degree of each CII BP usage, the process in Fig. 9 was
utilized.
5.2 Summary on Degree of Individual CII Best Practices As presented in Table 8, zero accident techniques, pre-project
Usage planning, materials management, and change management had
In order to assess the degree of each Best Practice, an relatively higher implementation scores than the other Best
implementation index for each Best Practice was also developed. Practices. In contrast, alignment, and design-effectiveness, team-
Average degrees of individual practices implementation based building and partnering were identified as the ones with lower
on their implementation indices among the organizations that implementation scores. In order to test the statistical significance

Vol. 18, No. 5 / July 2014 − 1235 −

 S. B. Kim

Table 8. Degree of CII Best Practices Implementation Table 10. CII Best Practice Implementation (Organization-Level vs
Average Degree of Frequencies of Project Level)
CII Best Practice CII BP Usage* CII BP Usage (%) Organization-Level Project-Level
(Min.=0, Max.=100) (N=41) CII Best Practice Implementation Implementation
Zero Accident Techniques 85 26 (63%) (Min:0, Max:100) (Min:0, Max:100)
Materials Management 74 12 (29%) Zero Accidents Techniques 85 86
Pre-Project Planning 72 33 (80%) Change Management 72 81
Change Management 72 23 (56%) Pre-Project Planning 72 67
Quality Management 67 20 (49%) Constructability 66 46
Constructability 66 26 (63%) Team Building 52 35
Dispute Resolution 63 6 (15%)
Partnering 59 24 (59%)
Alignment 53 20 (32%) of CII Best Practices. Project-level indices were converted into
Design-Effectiveness 53 13 (49%) zero to 100 scales for the convenience of comparison. As shown
Team Building 52 24 (59%) in Table 10, the two measures have similarities especially in
* Based on the implementation index for each Best Practice when imple- terms of the order of the implementation intensities. This implies
mented that organizations having better organizational-level support for
CII Best Practices implementation usually implement those
Table 9. ANOVA Analysis - Degree of CII BP Usage practices more rigorously on individual projects. This positive
Sum of Mean relationship also shows the validity of the organizational CII
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Best Practices implementation indices.
Between Groups 23842.550 10 2384.255 6.609 .00001
Within Groups 77197.912 214 360.738
6. Correlations between CII Best Practices Usage
Total 101040.46 224
and the Organizational Knowledge Implemen-
tation
of the mean differences, an ANOVA test was conducted using
SPSS® and its results are provided in Table 9. The p value from In order to identify the relationships between the CII Best
the test was much less than 0.05, thus the mean among the 11 CII Practices implementation with the organizational knowledge
Best Practices in terms of the degree of implementation are implementation, the organizations that participated were divided
statistically significant. into three different groups based on the number of CII Best
Practices implemented within their organizations. The organi-
5.3 Degree of CII Best Practices Usage at Organization zations implementing 9 or more Best Practices were categorized
Level vs Project Level as aggressive implementers and those implementing 3 or less
As discussed in the previous section, the degree of Best Practices were classified as passive implementers. The
organizational CII Best Practices implementation was measured organizations in between were grouped as average implementers. In
by using data from the survey. CII also keeps track of the degree order to compare the CII Best Practice usage with the
of CII Best Practices implementation at the individual project organizational knowledge implementation, the CKII was utilized
level within its internal database (CII, 2002a). However, CII as the index quantifying the level of knowledge implementation
collects this project-level Best Practices implementation data on (Kim, 2002a). Once groupings of the organizations were
only five out of 11 CII Best Practices including pre-project completed, the organizational implementation status of each
planning, constructability, change management, team building, group was examined in terms of its average CKII score and the
and safety. These project-level indices have zero to 10 scales results are summarized in Table 11.
based on the intensity of particular CII Best Practice As shown in Table 11, organizations with higher CKII scores
implementation at the project level. generally implemented more CII Best Practices than those with
Table 10 presents comparison information between organi- lower scores. To test the statistical differences of these mean
zational-level implementation and project-level implementation differences of CKII among the three groups, an ANOVA test was

Table 11. Number of Best Practices Implemented vs CKII

CKII No. of BPs4 N5 Mean Stdev. Min. Max. Range
1
1 9-11 11 132 21.56 98 158 70
22 4-8 16 114 26.45 76 167 91
33 0-3 14 102 20.54 56 133 77
Total 0-11 41 114 26.09 56 167 111
Notes 1: Aggressive Implementers 2: Average Implementers
3: Passive Implementers 4: Number of Best Practices Implemented 5: Number of organizations in each group.

− 1236 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Assessment of CII Best Practices Usage in the Construction Industry
Table 12. ANOVA Analysis: CKII vs Number of Best Practices Implemented
Sum of Squares df
Between Groups 5648.921 2 2824.460
Within Groups 20624.863 38
Total 26273.784 40
conducted and the results are presented in Table 12. The p value
drawn from the ANOVA test was 0.01 which was less than 0.05.
Thus, the mean differences of CKII among the three groups were
statistically significant. The analysis of CKII with the number of
Best Practices implemented provided insight on the impact of the
overall implementation effort on the CII Best Practices usage and
also a means of validating CKII itself. A regression analysis was
also conducted to further analyze the relationship between the
CKII and organizational CII Best Practice implementation.
However, the results are not included in this study since the level
of correlation between the two measures was relatively low.
7. Conclusions
This study analyzes the frequencies of CII Best Practices usage
as well as the degrees of implementation among participating
organizations based on the data from the survey. In terms of the
frequencies of usage, ‘Pre-Project Planning’ is identified as the
most widely implemented Best Practice among the organizations
while the usages of ‘Dispute Resolution’, ‘Design Effectiveness’,
and ‘Materials Management’ are relatively low. There are statistically
significant differences identified between owners and contractors in
terms of the CII Best Practices implementation and the two
groups are interested in different sets of Best Practices to some
extent.
From the view point of the degree of CII Best Practice usage,
analyses are performed to compare the implementation indices
of 11 different CII Best Practices based on the survey data. ‘Zero
Accident Techniques’ and ‘Material Management’ are the most
rigorously implemented when they are in use, and the degree of
usage on ‘Design Effectiveness’ and ‘Team Building’ are relatively
rough compared to the others. The level of the organizational CII
Best Practice implementation derived from the survey data is
also compared with that of the project implementation data from
the internal CII database. There are some similarities identified
between the two especially on the order of implementation
intensities, which validates the analysis results.
Finally, The CII Best Practice usage data is compared with the
organizational knowledge implementation level using the CKII
which quantifies the organizational CII knowledge implementation
level. General consistencies were identified between the
organizational knowledge implementation and the number of
Best Practices used within individual organizations. In general,
organizations that put substantial emphasis on the organizational
knowledge implementation have tendencies to apply more CII
Best Practices to their internal business processes, which was
proven to be statistically significant.
This study is to assess the current status of CII Best Practices
Vol. 18, No. 5 / July 2014
Mean Square F Sig.
5.204 0.010
542.760
usage among CII member organizations in terms of the
frequencies and the degrees of usage. Although, it is hard to
generalize the results to all the construction-related firms without
future studies with some expanded samples, this study successfully
identifies trends on the knowledge implementation in terms of
the CII Best Practice usage. Further research related to actual
project performance data would generate interesting finding to
identify relationships between the knowledge implementation and
their impacts on project successes.
References
Demarest, M. (1997). “Understanding knowledge management.” Long
Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 374-384.
Ibrahim, M. and Abdulkareem, A. (2013a). “A knowledge-based BIM
system for building maintenance.” Automation in Construction, Vol.
29, No. 1, pp. 173-182.
Ibrahim, M. and Carter, K. (2013b). “Sustainable BIM-based evaluation of
buildings.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 74, No.
1, pp. 419-428.
Kim, S. B. (2002a). Assessment of CII knowledge implementation at the
organization level dissertation, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX 2002, USA.
Kim, S. B. and Gibson, G. E. (2001). “A guide to the CII imple-
mentation model and knowledge structure.” CII Implementation
Resource 166-2, Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin.
Kim, S. B. and Gibson G. E. (2002b). Assessment of CII knowledge
implementation at the organization level, A Report to the Construction
Industry Institute, Research Report 166-11, The University of Texas
at Austin, September 2002.
Lau, H. C. W., Wong, C. W. Y., Hui, I. K., and Pun, K. F. (2003). “Design
and implementation of an integrated knowledge system.” Knowledge-
Based System 16, pp. 69-76.
Magiswary, D., Murali, R., and Maniam, K. (2013). Knowledge
management systems in support of disasters management: A two
decade review, Technological Forecasting & Social Change.
Parahoo, K. (2000). “Barriers to, and facilitators of research utilization
among nurses in northern ireland.” Journal in Advanced Nursing,
Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 89-98.
Sevenpri, C. (2012). “ERP implementation success and knowledge
capability.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 65, No. 1,
pp. 141-149.
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1995a). Guideline for
implementation of cii concepts: Best practices for the construction
industry, Implementation Resource 42-2, Austin, Texas: Construc-
tion Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1995b). Barriers to imple-
mentation of CII concepts: An overview, Research Summary 42-1,
Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX, August 1995.
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1995c). Guideline for imple-
mentation of CII concepts: Best practices for the construction
− 1237 −
 S. B. Kim

industry, Implementation Resource 42-2, Austin, Texas: Con- Texas at Austin.

struction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) (2002a). CII BM & M summary,
Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas
at Austin.
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) (2002b). Implementation of
CII best practices: A self-assessment toolkit, Implementation Resource
166-3, Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, University of
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) (2013). Construction Industry
Institute, htps://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/index.cfm
(Accessed March 29, 2013).
Wu, W. W. (2012). “Segmenting critical factors for successful knowledge
management implementation using the fuzzy DEMATEL method.”
Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 527-535.

− 1238 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering