Comparative Analysis of Three Constructability Approaches

Abstract

Recent research has identified different approaches owners use to implement constructability. This paper provides a comparative analysis of three such approaches studied in four case studies. The three approaches are: using a construction management firm during preconstruction (referred to as constructability services), specialized‐formal programming, and comprehensive tracking. To conduct the comparison, six attributes are used: initiation of constructability input, documented benefit/cost data, extent of owner participation, formalized procedures, methods to track lessons learned, and designated constructability coordinator(s). For each approach, the quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs are presented and compared. Each approach is presented to assist project managers in understanding implementation of constructability. This understanding can provide project managers with answers to the following questions: Considering owner organization and project characteristics, what approach is most suitable? What are the benefits and costs associated with each approach? What action can the owner take to facilitate constructability input?