Assessing State Transportation Agency Constructability Implementation
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 131, Issue 5
Abstract
Although guidance is available for state transportation agencies to establish constructability review processes (CRPs), nationwide implementation has been slow due, in part, to a lack of clarity regarding related costs and benefits and a perception that CRPs are resource intensive. This study funded by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program reveals that while numerous states have attempted implementation in various forms, obstacles have frequently either hindered or halted progress. Four elements appear to be essential for the successful implementation and continuance of a CRP: (1) institutionalization of the CRP Champion, (2) an emphasis on a quality-driven as opposed to a schedule-driven design process, (3) clear yet flexible guidelines for executing constructability reviews across the broad range of project types and sizes, and (4) a vehicle for meaningful expert input from construction contracting professionals. A benefit-cost model, founded on the proposition that CRP implementation provides efficiencies that result in significant cost and schedule reductions, is demonstrated using case studies. A need for more precise identification of costs and quantification of benefits is noted.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The study described in this paper was funded through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). In addition to the numerous state transportation agencies, the writers gratefully acknowledge input from the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Construction, NCHRP Project Panel 20-07 (Task 124), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS).
References
AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction. (2000). Constructibility review best practices guide, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.
AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction. (2004). Cost/benefits of constructability reviews, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), ⟨http://www.transportation.org/download/ConstructabilityReviews.pdf⟩, Washington, D.C.
Anderson, S. D., and Fisher, D. J. (1997a). “Constructibility review process for transportation facilities.” NCHRP Rep. 390, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Anderson, S. D., and Fisher, D. J. (1997b). “Constructibility review process for transportation facilities workbook.” NCHRP Rep. 391, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Anderson, S. D., Fisher, D. J., and Rahman, S. P. (2000). “Integrating constructability into project development: A process approach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 126(2), 81–88.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1986). Constructability: A primer, Austin, Tex., Publication 3-1.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1987). Constructability concepts file, Austin, Tex., Publication 3-3.
Devore, J. L. (2000). Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences, 5th Ed., Duxbury, Pacific Grove, Calif.
Fisher, D. J., Anderson, S. D., and Rahman, S. P. (2000). “Integrating constructability tools into constructability review process.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 126(2), 89–96.
Gambatese, J. A., and McManus, J. F. (1997). “Constructibility: A quality improvement approach to transportation projects.” Transportation Research Record 1575, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 116–120.
Gugel, J. G., and Russell, J. S. (1994). “Model for constructability approach selection.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 120(3), 509–521.
Jergeas, G., and Van der Put, J. (2001). “Benefits of constructability on construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(4), 281–290.
McIntosh, D., McManus, J. F., and Gambatese, J. A. (1997). A summary report of the constructibility review process, Washington State Department of Transportation.
McManus, J. F., Phillip, N. A., Stanton, J. F., and Turkiyyah, G. M. (1996). “A framework for the constructibility review of projects.” Interim Report, Research Project T9903, Task 34, Washington State Department of Transportation.
O’Connor, J. T., and Miller, S. J. (1994). “Barriers to constructability implementation.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 8(2), 110–128.
O’Connor, J. T., Rusch, S. E., and Schulz, M. J. (1987). “Constructability concepts for engineering and procurement.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 113(2), 235–248.
Russell, J. S., Gugel, J. G., and Radtke, M. W. (1994). “Comparative analysis of three constructability approaches.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 120(1), 180–195.
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Uhlik, F. T., and Lores, G. V. (1998). “Assessment of constructability practices among general contractors.” J. Archit. Eng., 4(3), 113–123.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 131 • Issue 5 • May 2005
Pages: 569 - 578
Copyright
© 2005 ASCE.
History
Received: Feb 10, 2004
Accepted: May 3, 2004
Published online: May 1, 2005
Published in print: May 2005
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.