Analysis of Techniques Leading to Radical Reduction in Project Cycle Time
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 134, Issue 12
Abstract
Today’s construction business relies on first-to-market product strategies to gain competitive advantages and increase profit margins. This has created an increased demand for a high performance capital project delivery system that can achieve a dramatic reduction in project cycle time. Very few decision tools and guidelines exist to assist owners in choosing appropriate delivery systems and project strategies to radically reduce the project cycle time from the preplanning stage through start up. The research presented in this paper surveyed the construction owners and architectural/engineering/construction firms to identify projects that have achieved greater than 25% reduction in overall project cycle time when compared to current industry standards. The data collected were analyzed to determine the techniques that facilitate radical reduction in project cycle time. These techniques include, best practices and schedule reduction techniques as well as the various management techniques employed on the projects identified by the Construction Industry Institute (CII). This research also identified the barriers to radical schedule reduction. The research concludes that radical schedule reduction well in excess of 25% can be achieved through the selective employment of management techniques, schedule reduction techniques and CII best practices. Almost every construction manager can utilize this research to improve project performance whether for radical reduction or simply more effective execution.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to thank the Construction Industry Institute for sponsoring this research and also all the members of the Radical Reduction in Project Cycle Time research team who contributed greatly to the formulation of the research methodology and its products.
References
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1986a). “Costs and benefits of materials management systems.” Research Summary 7-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1986b). “Evaluation of design effectiveness.” Research Summary 8-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1988). “Concepts and methods of schedule compression.” Research summary 6-7, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1990). “Total quality management: The competitive edge.” Research Summary 10-4, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1993a). “Preview of constructability implementation.” Research Summary 34-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1993b). “Team building improving project performance.” Research Summary 37-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1993c). “Zero injury techniques.” Research Summary 32–1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1994a). “Pre-project planning: Beginning a project: The right way.” Research Summary 39-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1994b). “Project change management.” Special Publication 43-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1995a). “Dispute prevention and resolution techniques in the construction industry.” Research Summary 23-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1995b). “Schedule reduction.” Research Summary 41-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1996a). “An investigation of schedule reduction techniques for the engineering and construction industry.” Research Rep. No. 44-11, Univ. of Texas, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1996b). “Model for partnering excellence.” Research Summary 102–1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1997a). “Determining the impact of information management on project schedule and cost.” Research Rep. No. 125-11, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1997b). “Pre-project planning tools: PDRI and alignment.” Research Summary 113-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1998). “PEpC: A breakthrough project delivery system that improves performance by reforming owner, contractor, and supplier relationships.” Research Rep. No. 130-11, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1999a). “PDRI, project definition rating index for building projects.” Implementation Resources 155-2, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1999b). “Procurement and materials management: A guide to effective project execution.” Implementation Resources 7-3, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2000). “Re-engineering the EPC process.” Research Rep. No. 124-11, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2001). “The field rework index: Early warning for field rework and cost growth.” Research Summary 153-1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (2004). “Radical reduction in project cycle time.” Research Rep. No. PT 193-11, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Hastak, M., Vanegas, J., and Puyana, M. (1993). “Time-based competition: Competitive advantage tool for A/E/C firms.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 119(4), 785–800.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2008 ASCE.
History
Received: Nov 2, 2006
Accepted: Jul 9, 2008
Published online: Dec 1, 2008
Published in print: Dec 2008
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.