Relationship between Project Interaction and Performance Indicators
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 122, Issue 2
Abstract
Researchers and practicing engineers have recently paid considerable attention to alternative approaches to project integration, such as partnering, design-build, constructability, and combinations of these. Each approach may improve a project's integration by increasing the quality and/or quantity of interaction between designers and builders. It is generally accepted that project performance can be enhanced when interaction occurs on a regular basis, beginning early in the project, in an open and trusting environment. This paper presents a method for measuring a project's degree of interaction (DOI), and verifies the relationship between DOI and performance indicators such as cost growth, schedule growth, and number of modifications. The writers apply the analytic hierarchy process technique in weighting criteria for measuring DOI. Data were collected from 25 recently completed public-sector projects using traditional and alternative approaches. The projects with low DOI have a wide range of cost and schedule growth and number of modifications, while projects with high DOI tend to have better and more consistent performance indicators.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
ASCE Construction Division, Construction Management Committee.(1991). “Constructability and constructability programs: White Paper.”J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 117(1), 67–89.
2.
Business Roundtable (BR). (1982). “Integrating construction resources and technology into engineering.”A Constr. Industry Cost Effectiveness Proj. Rep. ( B -1), New York, N.Y., 1–18.
3.
Business Roundtable (BR). (1983). “More construction for the money.”Summary Rep. of the Constr. Industry Cost Effectiveness Proj., New York, N.Y., 1–96.
4.
Cohenca-Zall, D.(1994). “Process of planning during construction.”J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 120(3), 561–578.
5.
Construction Industry Institute (CII) Constructability Task Force. (1986). “Constructability, a primer.”CII Publ. 3-1, Austin, Tex., 1–16.
6.
Construction Industry Institute (CII) Constructability Implementation Task Force. (1993). “Preview of constructability implementation.”CII Publ. 34-2, Austin, Tex.
7.
Edmunds, J. (1992). “Design-build gaining ground.”Engrg. New Rec., 228(Feb. 3), 12.
8.
Federal Construction Council (FCC). (1993). “Experiences of federal agencies with the design-build approach to construction.”Tech. Rep. No. 122, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1–70.
9.
Fergusson, K. J., and Teicholz, P.(1994). “Industrial facility quality perspectives in owner organizations.”J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE, 8(2), 89–109.
10.
Nam, C. H., and Tatum, C. B.(1992). “Noncontractual methods of integration on construction projects.”J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 118(3), 577–593.
11.
Ndekugri, I., and Turner, A.(1994). “Building procurement by design and build approach.”J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 120(2), 243–256.
12.
O'Connor, J. T., and Miller, S. J.(1994). “Constructability programs: method for assessment and benchmarking.”J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE, 8(1), 46–64.
13.
Pocock, J. B. (1988). “A model Air Force construction quality management system,” MSc thesis, The Pennsylvania State Univ., State College, Pa.
14.
Russell, J. S., and Gugel, J. G.(1993). “Comparison of two corporate constructability programs.”J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 119(4), 769–784.
15.
Russell, J. S., Swiggum, K. E., Shapiro, J. M., and Alaydrus, A. F.(1994). “Constructability related to TQM, value engineering, and cost/benefits.”J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE, 8(1), 31–45.
16.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation . McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
17.
Saaty, T. L. (1982). Decision making for leaders . Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, Calif.
18.
Sanvido, V. E., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M., and Coyle, M.(1992). “Critical success factors for construction projects.”J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 118(1), 94–111.
19.
Skibniewski, M. J.(1988). “Framework for decision-making on implementing robotics in construction.”J. Comp. in Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 2(2), 188–200.
20.
Skibniewski, M. J., and Chao, L.(1992). “Evaluation of advanced construction technology with AHP method.”J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 118(3), 577–593.
21.
Songer, A. D., Ibbs, C. W., and Napier, T. R. (1994). “Process model for public sector design-build planning.”J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 120(4).
22.
Teicholz, P., and Fischer, M.(1994). “Strategy for computer integrated construction technology.”J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., ASCE, 120(1), 117–131.
23.
Weston, D. C., and Gibson, G. E. Jr.(1993). “Partnering-project performance in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.”J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 9(4), 410–425.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 122 • Issue 2 • June 1996
Pages: 165 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Jun 1, 1996
Published in print: Jun 1996
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.