See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235253122

Construction plant and equipment management research: thematic

review

Article  in  Journal of Engineering Design and Technology · July 2009

DOI: 10.1108/17260530910974989

CITATIONS READS
34 34,459

2 authors, including:

David J. Edwards
Birmingham City University
368 PUBLICATIONS   4,517 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Published Journal Papers in 2019 View project

Tidal Turbine Blades View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David J. Edwards on 22 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology
Construction plant and equipment management research: thematic review
David J. Edwards, Gary D. Holt,
Article information:
To cite this document:
David J. Edwards, Gary D. Holt, (2009) "Construction plant and equipment management research:
thematic review", Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 7 Issue: 2, pp.186-206, doi:
10.1108/17260530910974989
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17260530910974989
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 22 April 2017, At: 02:12 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 127 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2094 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2007),"Heavy equipment management practices and problems in Thai highway contractors",
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 Iss 3 pp. 228-241 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980710744881
(2004),"Downtime model development for construction equipment management", Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, Vol. 11 Iss 3 pp. 199-210 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980410535804

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1726-0531.htm

JEDT
7,2 Construction plant and equipment
management research:
thematic review
186
David J. Edwards and Gary D. Holt
The Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Received 1 August 2008
Revised 23 February 2009 Loughborough, UK
Accepted 26 February 2009
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – A literature review is presented in the subject of construction plant and equipment
management (CPeM) to: delineate the subject; consider its development over recent years; and identify
principal themes within it. The paper aims to close the gap in knowledge, by using these objectives as
a mechanism to observe how research themes relate to primary CPeM functions, and to suggest future
research direction.
Design/methodology/approach – A thematic review of CPeM academic literature (in the main,
refereed journal papers published in English-speaking countries over the last decade) is undertaken;
the nature of identified themes is discussed, for instance, regarding why they might have evolved as
they have; and based on the foregone, themes for future research in the field are proffered.
Findings – CPeM is found well established within the broader subject of construction management.
Eight principal themes are identified, namely plant maintenance; downtime and productivity;
optimisation; robotics and automation; health and safety; operators and competence; machine control;
and “miscellaneous”.
Research limitations/implications – It is proffered that based on informational/technological
advancements coupled with growing environmental/financial pressures, future CPeM research will
strive to facilitate even greater plant reliability and safer modes of working. It is suggested that
“optimum production methods” and “minimal resource consumption” will become inherent theme
goals.
Originality/value – This is the first time that CPeM research has been consolidated and reviewed
for publication in this manner.
Keywords Construction industry, Construction equipment, Research work, Plant maintenance
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
For this paper, “construction plant” is defined as self propelled machines designed to
do work such as excavators (in all their configurations), compaction rollers, and
specialist apparatus – like trenchers or telehandlers. It includes machines able to
access the public highway, such as concrete delivery lorries and mobile cranes.
“Equipment” is loosely defined as all other types of mechanised construction work
apparatus such as static cranes, concrete pokers, hand-held tools and specialist
Journal of Engineering, Design and equipment such as floor polishers. For brevity however, the term “plant” may at times
Technology be used to represent “equipment” too, so for example, it could be stated that a plant
Vol. 7 No. 2, 2009
pp. 186-206 manager is responsible for all of the above-mentioned items on a construction site.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1726-0531
(Note: the term “plant manager” is old hat and those responsible for plant on
DOI 10.1108/17260530910974989 construction works are generally termed “construction managers”). For this paper,
 installed mechanical facilities such as air conditioning units, fire protection systems, or CPeM research
mechanised pedestrian circulation are not included in the former definitions.
A natural extension of these definitions is to define “construction plant and
equipment management” (CPeM). Pilcher (1992, p. 8) suggested that a construction
manager’s prime function was to solve problems, while Walker (2002, p. 5) described
several such functions including to plan, co-ordinate and control projects. Langford
and Male (2001) in their treatise cited Newcombe’s (1976) “unorthodox” view of these 187
functions, to comprise estimating, construction and buying; while Cooke and Williams
(2004, p. 47) described seven management roles consisting of planning, organising,
directing, controlling, co-ordinating, motivating and communicating. Harris et al.
(2006, p. 305), while citing Drucker (1999), highlighted that a manager’s primary role is
to achieve optimum resource use but confirmed that ultimately, other aspects such as
environmental, social and ethical issues, will impact upon the management function.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

While one could equally disaggregate CPeM functions in a similar way to that above –
they essentially mirror those already offered – and might be conveniently summarised
therefore as to plan, procure, organise and control the activities of plant and equipment
resources (Edwards et al., 1998a, 2003). Since its being earlier recognised as a discipline per
se (Day, 1973; Harris and McCaffer, 1986), the following review verifies, that CPeM is now
firmly rooted in the construction management literature (Day and Benjamin, 1991; Harris,
1994; Nunnally, 1999; Edwards et al., 2003). Accordingly, CPeM forms a distinct
component of many higher education awards in construction management and its
increased presence in the literature reflects an exponential growth of research in the field. It
is the latter with which this investigation is principally concerned.
The overriding aim of the paper is to discuss the products of published academic
CPeM research over the last decade or so (some flexibility on time window allowing for
inclusion of particularly relevant but earlier work, where necessary). Objectives
emanating from this aim include to:
.
identify prominent themes in this published research;
.
observe the character of these themes;
.
compare work published within each theme; and
.
based on the foregone, broadly suggest CPeM’s future direction.

This is the first time that research on the subject has been brought together in this way
for examination, as a means to looking to the subject’s future and attempting to
provide scope for new and existing researchers to consider possible CPeM directions.
The way in which the paper was undertaken is explained in the following section,
this being followed by discussion and observations on the review and a summary of
what that review yielded. Finally, conclusions are drawn.

2. Method
Academic literature in the field having been published over the last decade or so was
identified principally via online search facilities; such as the ARCOM (2007), EMERALD
(2007) and ASCE (2007) databases. Search terms typically included “construction”
within them (in addition to, for example, “plant” or “equipment”); the intention here
being to minimise identification of static (e.g. building services) plant systems, or
more general (e.g. mechanical reliability in its broadest sense) plant literature.
 JEDT For inclusion in this paper, emphasis was afforded refereed journal papers, mainly
7,2 because these might be considered “robust” insofar as they are normally prone to blind
peer review before publication. It is acknowledged that there are numerous other
sources of CPeM information – such as academic work published in non-English
speaking countries, trade literature, and that produced by professional bodies – but for
reasons of translation and the desire to concentrate an academic outputs only, these
188 were not included in this paper. Nonetheless, some additional (e.g. conference)
literature was included where it was felt that this was especially relevant and/or, it
would reinforce a specific point(s) in the narrative.
The rationale of the literature review herein is perhaps best characterised by
paraphrasing Fellows and Liu (2003, p. 64): “to provide insight, derived from both the
theoretical considerations [of that literature considered] and the completeness of the
review [undertaken]”. Such an approach is well established in the field of construction
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

management. For instance: Hiley and Paliokostas (2001) carried out a review of the
literature on value- and risk-management to help conclude that there was potential for
integration of these concepts; Yates (2003) reviewed the construction conflict literature to
conclude that root causes of conflict were insufficiently understood; while Bagies and
Fortune (2006) developed a conceptual model, from their review of the bid/no bid literature.
Once a sample (relevant, type and amount) of CPeM published works were obtained,
these were each subjectively considered to classify them under one of eight identified
themes. These themes and their respective brief descriptions are shown in Table I.

No. of papers
Themea Brief descriptionb observedc

1. Maintenance The maintenance and repair of plant and

equipment to maintain “productive” and safe
condition and prolong working life 10
2. Downtime/productivity Machine time spent unproductive (downtime)
and any other productivity issues 8
3. Optimization Identifying the most favourable or optimal
CPeM situation or decision given a number of
specified input or decisional parameters 14
4. Robotics/automation Application of robotic or automated concepts
to plant and equipment utilisation 13
5. H&S Preserving health, safety and welfare of any
person that may be affected by plant and
equipment use 18
6. Operators/operator Operators and in particular their competence
competence or skill levels 11
7. Machine control The control of plant and equipment by any
(e.g. direct, indirect or complementary) method 12
8. Miscellaneous Any other issue of CPeM that does not
conveniently fit into any of the above themes 14
Total 100
Notes: aThe name of each theme could be preceded by “Plant and Equipment: [. . .]” but is excluded
Table I. herein for brevity; bthe subject of some papers would arguably span more than one theme, but these
Principal research themes have been assigned to one theme only, to avoid duplication; cthose papers considered in this paper are
identified but a sample and by no means represent an exhaustive thematic listing
 A review of this literature was then undertaken on a theme-by-theme basis; and is CPeM research
described henceforth in the same order as these themes are shown in Table I.

3. The literature review

Many subject themes exhibit elements of overlap among the “sub-themes” they
embrace – see Figure 1 which demonstrates these predominant sub-theme
relationships. For example, Kim et al.’s (2006) work on construction equipment 189
obstacle avoidance holds relevance to Theme 5 health and safety (H&S) (sub-theme,
“contact avoidance”); while also being of consequence to Theme 4 robotics/automation
(sub-theme, “manoeuvrability”). Indeed, some “sub-themes” exhibited several linkages
of this kind such as the relationships shown on Figure 1 between the optimisation
sub-theme “unit/fleet design”; and the downtime/productivity sub-themes of “output”
and “efficiency”.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Given these instances of overlap, papers were subjectively assigned to one principal
theme which although “convenient” facilitated thematic comparisons. However,
because of this inherent “overlap”, some papers may subsequently be referred to within
more than one theme in the following discussion. Of course, not all thematic
relationships of a given paper may be readily apparent.
Similarly, the exact link of a CPeM research paper to construction management in its
broader sense may not always be “direct”. For instance, Zakeri et al. (1996) reported how

Construction plant and equipment research

Theme 1:Maintenance Theme 5: Health and safety

Cost Production Profitability Contact avoidance Hazard avoid..
Strategy CBM Operator’s role Machine failure Training/instruct

Theme 2: Downtime/productivity Theme 6:Operators/competence

Plant utilisation Productivity A. I. Motivation Competence
Operating costs Output Efficiency Knowledge Training methods

Theme 3: Optimisation Theme7: Machine control

Decision making Unit/fleet design Spatial accuracy GPS and location
Spatial design Plant procurement Sensing Hazardous environments

Theme 4: Robotics/automation Theme 8:Miscellaneous

Task automation Manoeuvrability Asset replacement History Theft Figure 1.
Themes, key sub-themes,
Dynamics Kinematics Control Innovation Asset availability
and indicative
relationships
Notes: Only predominant sub-themes are shown, arrowed lines denote principal sub-theme relationships
 JEDT lack of proper tools and equipment significantly constrained construction workers’
7,2 productivity; Haslam et al. (2005) confirmed the contributory link of equipment to
construction accidents; and (for similar reasons of accident causality) Gibb et al. (2005)
called for better management of construction tools and equipment on site.

3.1 Theme 1: maintenance

190 Papers in this theme deal with mechanical upkeep and repair of plant, by which to keep
it in a “productive” and safe operating state, and while helping prolong its working life
and residual value. Cost is a common aspect (Edwards and Holt, 2001) and on this,
Vorster (2007) suggested that managers spend too much time accounting for cost
rather than taking action to minimise or eliminate its causes. Elsewhere, it was
confirmed that a lack of plant maintenance not only leads to the “direct” costs of
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

equipment downtime, but also to “indirect” costs resulting from delays to production,
loss of client goodwill, and ultimately, reduced margins (Edwards et al., 1998a, b).
Regarding industry at large, it has been stated that maintenance activities can
represent up to 40 per cent of production costs (Mobley, 2001, Section 50.1). Edwards
et al. (2000a) suggested such percentage could be accurately forecast for excavators
utilised in opencast mines, by using a neural network model in preference to a multiple
regression one; while confirming that machine weight, industry type and company
“attitude” to maintenance were the best predictors to achieve this (Edwards et al.,
2000b, 2001).
Edwards et al. (1998b) highlighted “recent” developments in CPeM maintenance
strategy that have witnessed a shift from “reactive” approaches, towards determining
the “root” cause of mechanical failure using “condition-based monitoring” technologies
(Edwards et al., 1998b). These technologies are used extensively in the other fields such
as building services (Seaman, 2001). Another, somewhat similar approach described by
Ng et al.(2003) involved risk-based component analysis, in order that maintenance need
not mean “automatic” replacement of components, especially when for example, the
plant item is inaccessible due to its complex working environment (e.g. as with
tunnelling plant).
Ibbs and Terveer (1984) discussed how structured preventative maintenance can
yield many benefits, including reduced breakdowns, better plant utilisation levels,
fewer unnecessary parts damage and plant warranty preservation. Meanwhile, the
case was made by Edwards et al. (2002) of an “inextricable” link between operator
proficiency and good maintenance regimes, who went on to argue that “maintenance
competence” should be an inherent component of all plant operator training.

3.2 Theme 2: downtime/productivity

This theme is concerned with machine utilisation; where downtime represents a
machine unable to work for any reason – such as from breakdown or maintenance –
and maximum utilisation tends to be correlated with maximum plant output. In their
work, Zakeri et al. (1996) ranked equipment breakdown and the lack of proper tools and
equipment as third and fifth, respectively, among the top five reasons for loss of
construction productivity.
The issues related to “indirect” costs introduced under the last theme, were also
apparent in Vorster and de la Garza’s (1990) paper on plant availability and downtime.
They referred to “consequential” downtime costs comprising:
 (1) resource impact costs (where downtime of one machine impacts on others); CPeM research
(2) lack-of-readiness costs;
(3) service level impact costs; and
(4) alternative method impact costs.

The latter two resulting where one machine’s downtime causes others to work
uneconomically (Vorster and de la Garza’s, 1990). Cost implications resulting from
191
equipment failure have also been highlighted by others (Tsimberdonis and Murphree,
1994).
Downtime data analysed by Nepal and Park (2004) were found to represent an
average of 6 per cent of planned working time for equipment (Nepal and Park, 2004,
p. 205), with specific percentages by the highest three equipment types being stone
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

crushers (19.3 per cent), motor graders (9.9 per cent) and trucks (8.6 per cent). They
went on to point out that, “Research on construction equipment downtime is limited”
and that the downtime data they observed was, “chaotic”.
No doubt because of its intrinsic cost ramifications, several researchers have set out
to accurately model plant utilisation and/or productivity, in a variety of ways. For
instance, Edwards and Holt (2000a) introduced a multiple regression model embedded
within a spreadsheet, to forecast excavator cycle time based on three parameters
including excavation dig depth and dipper arm swing angle (Edwards and Holt, 2000b).
Yang et al. (2003) meanwhile, employed a fuzzy model to derive an, “acceptable” result
that, “might be improved given more independent variables” while Seung and Sinha
(2006), used an artificial neural network in attempting to account for modelling the
complexity and changeable nature of excavating (construction) environments.

3.3 Theme 3: optimization

Identifying the most favourable CPeM decision given specified input or decisional
parameters is the subject of this theme. Essentially, it is concerned with management
judgments and by definition therefore, covers a multitude of tasks. Work published in
the theme mirrors that diversity. For example, Smith et al. (1995) focussed on earth
moving analysis. They modelled excavator and dump-truck operations – perhaps
somewhat expectedly – concluding that the most important factors to affect
productivity included the number of dump-trucks used, the haul travel time, and the
loading rate. Tantisevi and Akinci (2007) meanwhile embraced aspects of both H&S,
and productivity in their research, which dealt with optimisation of workspace
requirements for spaces occupied by cranes that move during operation. The work
took into account possible conflict between other mobile cranes and building
components.
Optimal site layout on earth moving projects has been attempted via integration of
various models; as a mechanism to provide decision support for site managers and
with resulting models based on both, “traditional mass haul diagrams” and artificial
intelligence (Mawdesley et al., 2004). On a similar theme, Moselhi and Alshibani (2007)
presented a model to plan, track and control earthwork operations that focussed on
crew optimisation using a genetic algorithm and geographic information system; while
Eldin and Mayfield (2005) applied a spreadsheet application to selecting the most
economical scraper for large earth moving operations, given defined job conditions.
 JEDT A popular sub-theme within “optimisation” is selection of the most appropriate
7,2 plant item(s). For example, Cirovic and Plamenac (2006) applied the mathematics of
rough sets and fuzzy sets to optimal choice of construction machine given the decision
(making) environment of uncertain and imprecise information. Other researches have
focussed on selection of: earth moving equipment (Amirkhanian and Baker, 1992);
tower cranes (Proctor, 1995); excavators (Edwards et al., 2001); materials handling
192 equipment (Chan, 2002); and concrete vibrators (Tam et al., 2002). Goldenberg and
Shapira (2007) employed the analytical hierarchy process to take account of qualitative
factors in optimal construction equipment choice, while “soft” considerations in
selection of equipment for building projects have also been reported (Shapira and
Goldenberg, 2007).
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

3.4 Theme 4: robotics/automation

The robotic or automated operation of plant (in preference to using human operators) is
the basis of this theme; a principal catalyst being to remove the need for operator
exposure to dangerous environments (Rooks, 2005) or hazardous, dark or severe
conditions (Koivo, 1994). A sub-theme here deals with kinematics, dynamics and
control – for example – concerning issues of motion planning and collision avoidance
(Kunigahalli et al., 1994), or navigation of construction robots in unknown
environments (Lee et al., 1997).
Robotics applied to excavator activities has been particularly focussed upon. Koivo
(1994) concentrated on backhoe kinematics as a, “[. . .] foundation for engineers to
realize the computer-controlled operations [. . .]” of such excavators; with similar
emphasis on excavator backhoe motion control and path planning being at the heart of
Bernold’s (1993) work. Additional studies have been undertaken by Ha et al. (2000) and
by Vähä and Skibniewski (1993), the latter model of automated excavation intended for
terrestrial, lunar and planetary excavation control system development.
Other studies under this theme have targeted automation and/or robotic
implementation of specific construction tasks or activities. Some examples include:
assembly of rebar cages (Dolinšek and Duhovnik, 1998); robotic crane erection (Kang
and Miranda, 2006); an automated paving system (Krishnamurthy et al., 1998); robotic
trenching and pipe installation (Lee, et al., 1999); and robotic road lane painting (Woo
et al., 2008). Understandably, a common feature of the latter types of work is task
repetition.

3.5 Theme 5: health and safety

This theme relates to preserving the health, safety and welfare of any person that may
be affected by construction plant and equipment use – and because health and safety
(H&S) applies to all work – it is understandably broad in scope and extensively
published. The status of construction H&S generally is well documented in the
literature (Health and Safety Executive, 2003; Holt, 2005) with some researchers having
confirmed the significant contribution of plant operations, to the construction
industry’s somewhat unfortunate H&S record (Edwards and Nicholas, 2002). Failings
relating to operator training are often cited as an underpinning factor for this condition
(Edwards, 2003); whilst other more general aspects of plant and equipment H&S
have included reports on its relationship to accident causality (Gibb et al., 2005; Haslam
et al., 2005).
 H&S risks specific to plant types have been researched, such as regarding the best CPeM research
way to suppress dust hazards generated by dump trucks being used on dry soils
(Gambatese and James, 2001). There is also increased awareness of the risks from
vibration from plant and equipment, since the introduction of new physical agents
legislation in the UK during 2005. Edwards and Holt (2006) studied hand-arm vibration
hazards from construction equipment; while the risks from whole-body vibration and
mobile plant have also been reported (Health and Safety Executive, 2000, 2005; 193
Edwards and Holt, 2005).
Crane safety is well represented in this theme. As Bernhold et al.(1997) asserted in
their work relating to boom failure accidents of truck-mounted cranes, “Safety is
considered to be the most critical issue in the success of any lift operation”; while
Everett and Slocum (1993) suggested cranes are the most important items of plant on a
construction site. Pizarro et al. (1997) dealt with auditory collision warning signals for
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

cranes, albeit more recently, the issue of collision avoidance has received attention
across a range of plant items and workplace settings (Hinze et al., 2005; Kim et al.,
2006) – particularly, with emphasis on avoiding pedestrians (Riaz et al., 2006).
As with certain other themes reported in this review, excavators have attracted
much research. Klaus and Urbaniak (1998) presented a safety algorithm for control of
diesel excavator power plants to, “guarantee” controlled stoppage of the engine in
dangerous states; while Pearson et al. (2004) studied fatigue cracking on excavator
booms, after such cracks were on one occasion able to develop unnoticed such that the
boom fractured. Given the increased awareness of risks from striking live buried
services – for example with excavators (Brayshaw, 2008) – recent research has
studied excavator mounted buried service finding equipment, for detecting metallic
objects (Kolera and Bernhold, 2006). These technologies have also previously been
employed to help detect buried unexploded ordnance by military excavators (Lorenc
and Bernhold, 1998).

3.6 Theme 6: operators/competence

This embraces aspects of operator ability, competence, or skill levels. Within the UK,
certification is the accepted measure of competence – where the satisfactory
completion of any HSE recognised or otherwise accredited scheme normally results in
the operator being awarded a certification “card” – such as under the Construction
Plant Competence Scheme (CITB, 2007); the Powered Access Licence scheme for
powered access plant (IPAF, 2008); the Association of Lorry Loader Manufacturers and
Importers accredited training scheme (ALLMI, 2008); and the Epic Driver Skills Card
for construction and quarrying hauliers (EPIC, 2007; list not exhaustive).
The benefits of competent plant operators have been well documented. These
include better H&S performance (Holt, 2005, p. 182; Health and Safety Executive, 2007)
and savings in plant repair costs (Stewart, 2001); although some disapproval of UK
plant training schemes has been reported (Cabahug and Edwards, 2002). Not all
findings of good operator proficiency or performance are directly related to competence
however, “personal” attributes such as “intelligence” and “motivation” have also been
related to these characteristics (Edwards et al., 2005, 2007).
Some research in this theme has been geographically specific, such Elazouni and
Basha’s (1996) performance evaluation of plant operators; while other researches have
been plant-type specific, such as that of Bernhold (2007) which measured and
 JEDT compared skill levels among backhoe operators. Operator competence enhancement is
7,2 a natural sub-theme here so many researchers have investigated this aspect. For
example, Atkinson et al. (2004) carried out empirical examination of plant and
equipment simulators; Wang and Dunston (2005) considered heavy equipment training
using virtual modelling techniques; and Edwards and Holt (2002) examined artificial
intelligence as an approach to improving operator maintenance proficiency.
194
3.7 Theme 7: machine control
Machine control concerns improving (e.g. spatial accuracy) or aiding (e.g. via
information) the control of plant and equipment. LeBlond et al. (1998) in their paper on
control improvement for advanced construction equipment, stated that better control
can lead to improvements in safety, cost, labour turnover and productivity – going on
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

to suggest – that computer enhanced manual control is favourable to autonomous

control in a typical construction environment.
However, regarding autonomous plant, positioning precision within millimetres has
been demonstrated using global positioning systems (GPS) for dynamic guidance
(Roberts et al., 1999). Other research has focussed on the benefits of graphical control
systems, as a means of combining human intuitive judgment and skills, with
intelligent machine control (Moon and Bernhold, 1998). It has also been reported
that real time graphical representation of work environments can enhance plant
and equipment control, by furnishing improved spatial perception to operators (Seo
et al., 2000).
Particular classes of plant have attracted attention in this theme. Araya et al.’s
(2004) level luffing[1] system for crawler cranes has been put to practical use; while
other examples include the application of real-time kinematic GPS to facilitate
positioning of compactors (Bouvet et al., 2001); and “intelligent soil compaction” aided
by a comprehensive instrumentation system to monitor the three-dimensional
vibration of roller-compactor dynamics (Rinehart and Mooney, 2008). Koivo et al.’s
(1996) work looked at the automation of excavation operations and focussed on a
control system able to describe the motion of the excavator over time, such that on the
basis of their model, a controller was designed able to make an excavation bucket track
a specified trajectory.
Continuing the theme of hydraulic excavators, Budny et al. (2003) looked at their
load-independent control, by applying a system comprising a microcomputer and
hydraulic unit (i.e. pump and load-independent valves). Machine control research for
“alternative” work environments include that published by Lever and Wang (1995)
who stated that their fuzzy logic controller represented a first step towards an
integrated and sensing control system for use in lunar environments; while
Hirabayashi et al. (2006) reported on tele-operation of machines for use in underwater
construction work in port areas.

3.8 Theme 8: miscellaneous

Any issue of CPeM that did not conveniently fit into any of the former themes was
assigned to this one. For some papers, reference to CPeM is “incidental” rather than
direct such as in Adams’s (1997) work, that identified inadequate availability of plant
and equipment as a hindrance to development of Nigerian domestic construction
contractors.
 The issue of plant and equipment evolution has received treatment by some. Arditi CPeM research
et al. (1997) for instance, used the two variables:
(1) number of new plant models introduced per annum; and
(2) technological life of earthmoving equipment, to measure evolution and
innovation over a previous 30-year period.

They found plant innovation to be incremental and in many ways a function of 195
technological advances in other industries. Another study concentrated on
earthmoving equipment and noted innovation during the twentieth century to have
yielded at least seven completely new forms of plant. Perhaps, most notably – given its
anecdotal notoriety as “the greatest ever construction machine” (Anon, 2007) – this
included the loader backhoe (Tatum et al., 2006). Shapira et al. (2007) charted the
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

evolution of cranes in construction, concluding that tower cranes have become the
lifting item of choice, helped more recently by their sophisticated controls and operator
assistance devices to enhance safety and productivity.
Regarding actual CPeM functions, Prasertrungruang and Hadikusumo (2007)
studied heavy equipment management practice and problems, while Vorster and Sears
(1987) concentrated on the management problem of when to retire, replace or reassign
plant assets – highlighting the conflict between older, less productive and unreliable
plant – and new equipment’s significant capital cost. Along similar lines, Lucko et al.
(2006) focussed on residual value (of heavy equipment) with relation to plant
ownership and its replacement. In their paper, Kamat and Martinez (2005) emphasized
that three dimensional animation can be useful in (CPeM) planning and decision
making, whereas “just-in-time” philosophy has also been considered as a tool to aid site
layout and control of mechanised plant and equipment (Pheng and Hui, 1999).
Other miscellaneous work includes that of: Olufa et al. (2003) who discussed
“situational awareness” of plant using GPS, which in some ways is related to the issue
of location and tracking when applied to post-theft plant recovery (Carmichael et al.,
2007); Morledge and Jackson (2001) who argued for greater use of biodegradable oil in
plant when discussing environmental aspects; Marzouk and Mosheli (2002) who
studied simulation optimisation for earthmoving operations; and the work of Thomas
and Li (1996) that considered acoustic measurements to identify equipment types.

4. Discussion and observations on the literature

At the outset of this paper it was identified that the principal functions of a
construction manager (and this by modern definition includes “plant” managers) are
to plan, procure, organise and control. In the present context, this is about making
decisions regarding how to do the proposed work (types, number of plant items and
so on); obtaining the appropriate plant (e.g. via lease, hire or purchase); and being an
operational manager to achieve objectives (organise, and proactively/reactively control
events). These features of CPeM are reflected in those eight themes identified from the
literature (Table I). Discussion of papers published within these themes has shown
elements of (sub-theme) overlap and examples of this kind of association have been
explained.
The eight research themes can be interpreted with respect to the four principal
CPeM functions reiterated above (Figure 2). For instance, the function “planning”
requires managers to make superlative decisions (i.e. achieve optimisation), such as to
 JEDT
Health and safety
7,2 Function 1 Optimisation
plan

Feedback Robotics / automation

196
Function 3b Function 2
control procure
Health and safety

Optimisation
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Machine control

Maintenance Health and safety

Function 3a
organise
Figure 2. Operator competence Downtime / productivity
Some interrelationships
between principal CPeM
functions and identified
research themes Notes: These logically inferred impacts should not to be viewed as exhaustive, for example,
the theme “Miscellaneous” could be related to any of the four functions

design the optimal fleet (e.g. size of excavator, number of dump trucks for an
excavating and haul operation). Meanwhile, the “procurement” function might mean
managers attempting to employ automated or robotic production as solutions to
maximising output and/or minimising worker exposure to hazards. Some themes, such
as H&S, have broader relevance and can potentially impact on most aspects of plant
managers’ responsibilities; or even place parameters (e.g. way of working) or
constraints (limits on working time) on managerial decisions (Figure 2).
The maintenance theme illustrates regular reference to cost issues, which is
understandable in that poorly maintained plant is less productive, unreliable and
ostensively, of lower residual value. Further, regular inspection and maintenance of
plant and equipment is driven by legislative requirements, such as by (The) Provision
and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (1992). The literature in plant maintenance
shows a trend away from traditional cyclic or “fixed-time-to” regimes; towards more
scientific determination (replacement) of plant and equipment components’ safe
working life. The latter saves on resources and is commercially desirable.
Plant productivity issues have an obvious relationship to the last theme (and
therefore to downtime) with similar ramifications on costs of ownership and operation.
Clearly – and as confirmed in the literature viewed here – some types of plant are
more productive and reliable than others, but it appears that much more data would
require analysis, before definitive reliability indicators can be established.
The optimisation theme has to date employed numerous modelling techniques in
striving to make CPeM decision making easier and more reliable. Appropriate selection
of plant type has been shown to be a common sub-theme here. Research into robotics
and automation has embraced a myriad of plant types and work settings, which given
 the ever-present commercial demands of lower production costs for construction CPeM research
projects, looks set to continue.
Occupational H&S is probably now more important than it has ever been and
accordingly, is well represented in the CPeM literature. Equally, for legal as well as
H&S reasons, operator training and competence is also a subject of increasing
importance and therefore attracting greater research effort as well. The subject of
machine control is linked into these two themes; after all greater (decisional) control 197
information and resulting accuracy/plant response, can yield combined benefits of
safer working and increased productivity.

4.1 What of the future?

The authors’ view is that based on this paper, the future for CPeM research will remain
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

vibrant because the use of mechanisation within construction (relative to overall

market activity) can only increase as a result of two superlative commercial drivers:
maximisation of output (relative to input, especially fuel); and minimisation of
operating costs. (Of course, this relative “increase” will be tempered for the short-term
at least, as a result of the present global downturn). On this, machine maintenance
might develop by way of more sophisticated predictive models that enable (further
application of, and even more accurate) “just-in-time” component replacement as a
means of minimising maintenance work, associated costs and machine downtime. This
potential is being explored already by some manufacturers, for example, where
on-board computers continually monitor machine health and warn of incipient
breakdown.
The science of plant location and spatial data, for instance, relating to the
application of the global system for mobile communications facilities, is perhaps not
yet fully utilised to full advantage. In addition to its present use for post-theft plant
recovery (location), it might be expanded to embrace large fleet management at head
office level, or for instance, management of plant fleets on larger projects. There is
scope for much future research here.
The concepts of autonomous machine control, automated systems and robotics
might all be inviting to researchers given the advantages of “unmanned” machines,
which include labour cost savings, almost limitless working periods, and the fact that
such plant can operate in hostile environments without putting humans into high risk
situations (extremes of heat, contaminated environments and so on). Similarly, the
scope for machine control systems to further develop and augment operator decision
making is also related to aspects of safer working, better decision making, and
resulting H&S gains.
Other possible avenues of development may include the adoption of nanotechnology.
Smaller components and the ability to increase computational power of ever smaller
microprocessors will result in more intelligent plant items, representing a
crossover/mating of intelligent algorithms and far more powerful hardware. Also, there
is potential for the “mating” of plant types to produce hybrids; a trend that should gain
momentum given commercial desires to strive for even greater machine reliability and
flexibility in use, safer modes of working and optimum productivity for minimum
resource consumption.
Finally, in the authors’ own experience, there should be stronger links fostered between
industry (manufacturers, owners and users of plant and equipment), and those conducting
 JEDT academic research in the field. At present, there is a clear distinction, almost barrier,
7,2 between research and development (R&D) carried out by manufacturers for example, and
that undertaken in the academic community. While effective partnerships do certainly
exist, there is capacity for greater fusion in this context.

4.2 Limitations and applicability of this study

198 Not all literature in the field (or for the timescale observed) will have been included in
this paper and so other research (e.g. beyond the present boundary of that published in
English; or new findings not yet published) could affect the findings presented here
accordingly. A similar situation prevails if additional forms of research were
additionally embraced; taking into account for example, industrial R&D undertaken
“in-house”. Similarly, the paper could not take account of confidential or commercially
sensitive R&D. The applicability and conclusions of the paper are therefore focussed
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

on academic endeavour within English-speaking countries.

5. Conclusions
The following are the main conclusions of this paper:
(1) CPeM is embedded within the broader subject of construction management,
representing a vibrant research field from which eight principal research
themes have been identified:
.
plant maintenance;
.
downtime and productivity;
.
optimisation;
.
robotics and automation;
.
H&S;
. operators and competence;
.
machine control; and
.
“miscellaneous”.
(2) CPeM themes reflect the real life and commercial demands of the plant and
equipment sector and can all, in some way be related to the principal CPeM
functions of planning, procuring, organising, and controlling.
(3) Many of the themes show elements of commonality while understandably; they
also exhibit complex interrelationships between the sub-themes they contain.
(4) The future for CPeM academic research looks set to remain very active and will
adopt in part to reflect technical advancements in other sectors and industries,
such as most recently demonstrated by use of cutting-edge asset location
technologies.
(5) It is considered that future themes will include further refinement of
time-related maintenance regimes and component life prediction; ongoing
development of complex CPeM optimisation and decision models; growth of
autonomous machine control and associated systems; and optimisation of
machine output vis-à-vis resource consumption. In part, this is because the latter
is becoming increasingly important in the face of environmental/financial
pressures and infinite resources.
 (6) Arguably, an exiting area for future research will be fusion of nanotechnology with CPeM research
automation, to yield intelligent machines that cannot only work independently of
humans, but also work and “communicate” with each other.
(7) Finally, it is proffered that there is scope for greater fusion between the plant
and equipment industry – embracing manufacturers, owners, and users – and
the academic research community.
199
Note
1. Luffing a crane refers to raising or lowering its jib in order to gain extra under-hook distance
(height) and/or to (in comparison to a crane with a fixed horizontal jib) enable the crane to
work in confined spaces.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

References
Adams, O. (1997), “Contractor development in Nigeria: perceptions of contractors and
professionals”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-108.
ALLMI (2008), The Association of Lorry Loader Manufacturers and Importers, available at:
www.allmitraining.co.uk/ (accessed 23 February 2009).
Amirkhanian, S.N. and Baker, N.J. (1992), “Expert system for equipment selection for
earth-moving operations”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118
No. 2, pp. 318-31.
Anon (2007), “Greatest ever construction machines”, Sub-domain of the Discovery Channel,
available at: www.discoverychannel.co.uk/greatest_ever/construction_machines/index.
shtml (accessed 23 February 2009).
Araya, H., Katuzen, M., Kinugawa, H. and Arai, T. (2004), “Level luffing control for crawler
cranes”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 689-97.
ARCOM (2007) Association of Researchers in Construction Management abstracts, available at:
www.arcom.ac.uk/ (accessed 23 February 2009).
Arditi, D., Kale, S. and Tangkar, M. (1997), “Innovation in construction equipment and its flow
into the construction industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 123 No. 4, pp. 371-8.
ASCE (2007), “The American Society of Civil Engineers research databases”, The American
Society of Civil Engineers, available at: http://pubs.asce.org/research/ (accessed 23
February 2009).
Atkinson, G., Edwards, D.J., Golding, P. and Love, P.E.D. (2004), “Plant and equipment
simulators: an empirical examination”, in Ellis, R. and Bell, M. (Eds), Proceedings of the
Construction and Building Research Conference, 7-8 September, Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
Bagies, A. and Fortune, C. (2006), “Bid/no-bid decision modelling for construction projects”, in
Boyd, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management
Annual Conference, 4-6 September, Birmingham, Vol. 1, pp. 511-21.
Bernold, L.E. (1993), “Motion and path control for robotic excavation”, Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Bernold, L.E. (2007), “Quantitative assessment of backhoe operator skill”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 133 No. 11, pp. 889-99.
Bernold, L.E., Lorenc, S.J. and Luces, E. (1997), “On-line assistance for crane operators”, Journal
of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 248-59.
 JEDT Bouvet, D., Froumentin, M. and Garcia, G. (2001), “A real-time localization system for
compactors”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 417-28.
7,2
Brayshaw, J. (2008), The Geospatial Location of Buried Services, slides of a presentation given by
J. Brayshaw, Director Ordnance Survey, on current work re: buried services, The
Institution of Civil Engineers, available at: www.icenet.org.uk/knowledge/document_
details.asp?Docu_id¼1389&intPage¼1&faculty¼4 (accessed 23 February 2009).
200 Budny, E., Chiosta, M. and Gutkowski, W. (2003), “Load-independent control of a hydraulic
excavator”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 245-54.
Cabahug, R.R. and Edwards, D.J. (2002), “Maintenance skills training of UK construction plant
operatives: a pilot survey”, Structural Survey, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 22-30.
Carmichael, R., Edwards, D.J. and Holt, G.D. (2007), “Plant managers’ perceptions of plant
security systems”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 65-78.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Chan, F.T.S. (2002), “Design of material handling equipment selection system: an integration of
expert system with analytic hierarchy process approach”, Integrated Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 58-68.
Cirovic, G. and Plamenac, D. (2006), “Construction machines: optimal choice of options using
mathematical modelling”, Kybernetes: The International Journal of Systems & Cybernetics,
Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1348-68.
CITB (2007), CPCS Scheme Booklet. Construction Plant Competence Scheme, The Construction
Industry Training Board, May, Document ref: CPCS B2, available at: www.citb.org.uk/pdf/
cardschemes/cpcs/cpcs-scheme-handbook.pdf (accessed 23 February 2009).
Cooke, B. and Williams, P. (2004), Construction Planning, Programming and Control, 2nd ed.,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Day, D.A. (1973), Construction Equipment Guide, Wiley, New York, NY.
Day, D.A. and Benjamin, N.B.H. (1991), Construction Equipment Guide, 2nd ed., Wiley,
New York, NY.
Dolinšek, B. and Duhovnik, J. (1998), “Robotic assembly of rebar cages for beams and columns”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 195-207.
Drucker, P.F. (1999), Practice of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Edwards, D.J. (2003), “Accident trends involving construction plant: an exploratory analysis”,
Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 161-73.
Edwards, D.J. and Holt, G.D. (2000a), “ESTIVATE: a methodology for calculating hydraulic
excavator productivity and output costs”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 52-62.
Edwards, D.J. and Holt, G.D. (2000b), “Quantifying the cost of plant operators’ productivity”,
The Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2,
pp. 85-92.
Edwards, D.J. and Holt, G.D. (2001), “Predicting construction plant maintenance expenditure”,
Building Research and Information – The International Journal of Research, Development
and Demonstration, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 417-27.
Edwards, D.J. and Holt, G.D. (2002), “An artificial intelligence approach for improving plant
operator maintenance proficiency”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 239-52.
Edwards, D.J. and Holt, G.D. (2005), A Guide to Whole-Body Vibration, The Off-highway Plant
and Equipment Research Centre, Loughborough.
 Edwards, D.J. and Holt, G.D. (2006), “Hand-arm vibration exposure from construction tools: CPeM research
results of a field study”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24, February,
pp. 209-17.
Edwards, D.J. and Nicholas, J. (2002), “The state of health and safety in the UK construction
industry with a focus on plant operators”, Structural Survey, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 78-87.
Edwards, D.J., Harris, F.C. and McCaffer, R. (2003), Management of Off-highway Plant and
Equipment, Spon, London. 201
Edwards, D.J., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1998a), Maintenance Management of Heavy Duty
Construction Plant and Equipment, Chandos, Oxford.
Edwards, D.J., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1998b), “Predictive maintenance techniques and their
relevance to construction plant”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Edwards, D.J., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (2000a), “A comparative analysis between the
multilayer perceptron neural network and multiple regression analysis for predicting
construction plant maintenance costs”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
Edwards, D.J., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (2000b), “A model for predicting plant maintenance
costs”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 65-75.
Edwards, D.J., Holt, G.D. and Robinson, B. (2002), “An artificial intelligence approach for
improving plant operator maintenance proficiency”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 239-52.
Edwards, D.J., Malekzadeh, H. and Yisa, S. (2001), “A linear programming decision tool for
selecting the optimum excavator”, Structural Survey, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 113-20.
Edwards, D.J., Yang, J., Cabahug, R. and Love, P.E.D. (2005), “Intelligence and maintenance
proficiency: an examination of plant operators”, Construction Innovation: Information,
Process, Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 243-54.
Edwards, D.J., Yang, J., Wright, B.C. and Love, P.E.D. (2007), “Establishing the link between
plant operator performance and personal motivation”, Journal of Engineering, Design and
Technology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 173-87.
Elazouni, A.M. and Basha, I.M. (1996), “Evaluating the performance of construction equipment
operators in Egypt”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 122 No. 2,
pp. 109-14.
Eldin, N.N. and Mayfield, J. (2005), “Determination of most economical scrapers fleet”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 10, pp. 1109-14.
Emerald (2007), “Emerald insight search facility”, available at: www.emeraldinsight.com
(accessed 23 February 2009).
EPIC (2007), Driver Skills Card Scheme, Sub-domain of the EPIC Training and Consultancy
Services, St Albans, available at: www.epicltd.com (accessed 23 February 2009).
Everett, J.G. and Slocum, A.H. (1993), “CRANIUM: device for improving crane productivity and
safety”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 23-39.
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2003), Research Methods for Construction, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Gambatese, J.A. and James, D.E. (2001), “Dust suppression using truck-mounted water spray
system”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 53-9.
Gibb, A., Hide, S., Haslam, R., Gyi, D., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S. and Duff, R. (2005), “Construction
tools and equipment – their influence on accident causality”, Journal of Engineering,
Design and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 12-23.
 JEDT Goldenberg, M. and Shapira, A. (2007), “Systematic evaluation of construction equipment
alternatives: case study”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 133
7,2 No. 1, pp. 72-85.
Ha, Q.P., Nguyen, Q.H., Rye, D.C. and Durrant-Whyte, H.F. (2000), “Impedance control of a
hydraulically actuated robotic excavator”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 9 Nos 5/6,
pp. 421-35.
202 Harris, F.C. (1994), Modern Construction and Ground Engineering Equipment and Methods,
Prentice-Hall, London.
Harris, F.C. and McCaffer, R. (1986), Construction Plant: Management and Investment Decisions,
Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
Harris, F.C., McCaffer, R. and Edum-Fotwe, F. (2006), Modern Construction Management, 6th ed.,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F., Gyi, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S. and Duff, A.R. (2005),
“Contributing factors in construction accidents”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 401-15.
Health and Safety Executive (2000), Whole-body Vibration: Occupational Exposures and Their
Health Effects in Great Britain, HSE Contract Research Report 233/1999, Health and Safety
Executive, London.
Health and Safety Executive (2003), Causal Factors in Construction Accidents, The Health and
Safety Executive, Research Report 156, HSE Books, London.
Health and Safety Executive (2005), Whole-body Vibration. The Control of Vibration at Work
Regulations 2005. Guidance on the Regulations, HSE Books, London.
Health and Safety Executive (2007), Initial Training, Sub-domain of the Vehicles at Work Health
and Safety Executive, available at: www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/personnel/
initialtraining.htm (accessed 23 February 2009).
Hiley, A. and Paliokostas, P.P. (2001), “Value management and risk management: an examination
of the potential for their integration and acceptance as a combined management tool in the
construction industry”, in Kelly, J. and Hunter, K. (Eds), Proceedings of the Construction
and Building Research (COBRA) Conference, 3-5 September, Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors Foundation, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow.
Hinze, J., Huang, X. and Terry, L. (2005), “The nature of struck-by accidents”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 2, pp. 262-8.
Hirabayashi, T., Akizono, J., Yamamoto, T., Sakai, H. and Yano, H. (2006), “Teleoperation of
construction machines with haptic information for underwater applications”, Automation
in Construction, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 563-70.
Holt, A.S.J. (2005), Principles of Construction Safety, Blackwell, Oxford.
Ibbs, C.W. and Terveer, K.R. (1984), “Integrated construction preventative maintenance system”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 43-59.
International Powered Access Federation (2008), available at: www.ipaf.org/ (accessed 23
February 2009).
Kamat, V.R. and Martinez, J.C. (2005), “Dynamic 3D visualization of articulated construction
equipment”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 356-8.
Kang, S. and Miranda, E. (2006), “Planning and visualization for automated robotic crane
erection processes in construction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 398-414.
Kim, C., Haas, C.T., Liapi, K.A. and Caldas, C.H. (2006), “Human-assisted obstacle avoidance
system using 3D workspace modelling for construction equipment operation”, Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 177-86.
 Klaus, R. and Urbaniak, A. (1998), “Safety algorithms for excavator engine control”, Automation CPeM research
in Construction, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 391-400.
Koivo, A.J. (1994), “Kinematics of excavators (backhoes) for transferring surface material”,
Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Koivo, A.J., Thoma, M., Kocaoglan, E. and Andrade-Cetto, J. (1996), “Modelling and control of
excavator dynamics during digging operation”, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 10-18. 203
Kolera, B.T. and Bernold, L. (2006), “Intelligent utility locating tool for excavators”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 9, pp. 919-27.
Krishnamurthy, B., Tserng, H., Schmitt, R.L., Russell, J.S., Bahia, H. and Hanna, A.S. (1998),
“Autopave: towards an automated paving system for asphalt pavement compaction
operations”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 165-80.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Kunigahalli, R., Russel, J.S. and Skibniewski, M.J. (1994), “Motion planning for automated
construction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-8.
Langford, D. and Male, S. (2001), Strategic Management in Construction, 2nd ed., Blackwell,
Oxford.
LeBlond, D., Owen, F., Gibson, G.E., Haas, C.T. and Traver, A.E. (1998), “Control improvement
for advanced construction equipment”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 124 No. 4, pp. 289-96.
Lee, J., Lorenc, S.J. and Bernold, L.E. (1999), “Saving lives and money with robotic trenching and
pipe installation”, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 43-9.
Lee, S., Adams, T.M. and Ryoo, B. (1997), “A fuzzy navigation system for mobile construction
robots”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 97-107.
Lever, P.J.A. and Wang, F. (1995), “Intelligent excavator control system for lunar mining
system”, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 16-24.
Lorenc, S.J. and Bernold, L.E. (1998), “Excavator-mounted ordnance locating system using
electromagnetic sensing technology”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 243-58.
Lucko, G., Anderson-Cook, C.M. and Vorster, M.C. (2006), “Statistical considerations for
predicting residual value of heavy equipment”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 132 No. 7, pp. 723-32.
Marzouk, M. and Mosheli, O. (2002), “Simulation optimisation for earthmoving operations using
genetic algorithms”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 535-43.
Mawdesley, M.J., Askew, W.H. and Al-Jibouri, S.H. (2004), “Site layout for earthworks in road
projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 83-9.
Mobley, R.K. (2001), The Plant Engineer’s Handbook, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Moon, S. and Bernold, L.E. (1998), “Graphic-based human-machine interface for construction
manipulator control”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 124
No. 4, pp. 305-11.
Morledge, R. and Jackson, F. (2001), “Reducing environmental pollution caused by construction
plant”, Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 191-206.
Moselhi, O. and Alshibani, A. (2007), “Crew optimization in planning and control of earthmoving
operations using spatial technologies”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction,
Vol. 12, pp. 121-37, The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and
Construction, available at: www.itcon.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?2007_7 (accessed 23
February 2009).
 JEDT Nepal, M.P. and Park, M. (2004), “Downtime model development for construction equipment
management”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 3,
7,2 pp. 199-210.
Newcombe, R. (1976), “Evolution and structure of the construction firm”, unpublished MSc
dissertation, University College, London.
Ng, M.F., Tummala, V.M. and Yam, R.C.M. (2003), “A risk-based maintenance management
204 model for toll road/tunnel operations”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 495-510.
Nunnally, S.W. (1999), Managing Construction Equipment, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Oloufa, A.A., Masaaki, I. and Oda, H. (2003), “Situational awareness of construction equipment
using GPS, wireless and web technologies”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 737-48.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Pearson, J.E., Hannen, W.R. and Soderberg, E. (2004), “Development of fatigue monitoring
system for a hydraulic excavator”, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 221-6.
Pheng, L.S. and Hui, M.S. (1999), “Application of JIT philosophy to construction: a case study in
site layout”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 657-8.
Pilcher, R. (1992), Principles of Construction Management, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
Pizarro, D.V., Price, D.L. and Beliveau, Y.J. (1997), “Auditory collision warning signals for crane
operation”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 445-57.
Prasertrungruang, T. and Hadikusumo, B.H.W. (2007), “Heavy equipment management practices
and problems in Thai highway contractors”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 228-41.
Proctor, J.R. (1995), “Selecting tower cranes”, Civil Engineering, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 52-6.
(The) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (1992), Statutory Instrument 1992
No. 2932 (as amended), available at: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19922932_en_1.htm
(accessed 23 February 2009).
Riaz, Z., Edwards, D.J. and Thorpe, A. (2006), “SightSafety: a hybrid information and
communication technology system for reducing vehicle/pedestrian collisions”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 719-28.
Rinehart, R.V. and Mooney, M.A. (2008), “Instrumentation of a roller compactor to monitor
vibration behaviour during earthwork compaction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 144-50.
Roberts, G.W., Dodson, A.H. and Ashkenazi, V. (1999), “Global positioning system aided
autonomous construction plant control and guidance”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 8
No. 5, pp. 589-95.
Rooks, B. (2005), “Robotics outside the metals industries”, Industrial Robot, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 205-8.
Seaman, A. (2001), Condition Based Maintenance: An Evaluation Guide for Building Services,
Building Services Research and Information Association, Bracknell.
Seo, J., Haas, C.T., Saidi, K. and Sreenivasan, S.V. (2000), “Graphical control interface for
construction and maintenance equipment”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 126 No. 3, pp. 210-8.
Seung, C.O. and Sinha, S.K. (2006), “Construction equipment productivity estimation using
artificial neural network model”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 1029-44.
 Shapira, A. and Goldenberg, M. (2007), “‘Soft’ considerations in equipment selection for building CPeM research
construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 133
No. 10, pp. 749-60.
Shapira, A., Lucko, G. and Schexnayder, C.J. (2007), “Cranes for building construction projects”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 133 No. 9, pp. 690-700.
Smith, S.D., Osborne, J.R. and Forde, M.C. (1995), “Analysis of earth-moving systems using
discrete-event simulation”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 121 205
No. 4, pp. 388-96.
Stewart, L. (2001), “Certified operators cut repair costs 18 percent”, Construction Equipment,
Vol. 104 No. 5, pp. 41-2.
Tam, C.M., Tong, K.L. and Lau, C.T. (2002), “ELECTRE III in evaluating performance of
construction plants: case study on concrete vibrators”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 3,
pp. 45-61.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Tantisevi, K. and Akinci, B. (2007), “Automated generation of workspace requirements of mobile

crane operations to support conflict detection”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 262-76.
Tatum, C.B., Vorster, M. and Klingler, M. (2006), “Innovations in earthmoving equipment: new
forms and their evolution”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132
No. 9, pp. 987-97.
Thomas, H.R. and Li, W. (1996), “Construction equipment identification via acoustical
measurements”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 123-31.
Tsimberdonis, A.I. and Murphree, E.L. (1994), “Equipment management through operational
failure costs”, Journal of Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp. 522-35.
Vähä, P.K. and Skibniewski, M. (1993), “Dynamic model of excavator”, Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 148-58.
Vorster, M.C. (2007), “Actions speak louder than budgets”, Construction Equipment, Vol. 110
No. 11, p. 59.
Vorster, M.C. and de la Garza, J.M. (1990), “Consequential equipment costs associated with lack
of availability and downtime”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 116 No. 4, pp. 656-69.
Vorster, M.C. and Sears, G.A. (1987), “Model for retiring, replacing, or reassigning construction
equipment”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 113 No. 1,
pp. 125-37.
Walker, A. (2002), Project Management in Construction, 4th ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Wang, X. and Dunston, P.S. (2005), “Heavy equipment operator training via virtual modelling
techniques”, in Tommelein, I.D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress
2005, 5-7 April, San Diego, CA.
Woo, S., Hong, D., Lee, W., Chung, J. and Kim, T. (2008), “A robotic system for road lane
painting”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 122-9.
Yang, J., Edwards, D.J. and Love, P.E.D. (2003), “A computational intelligent fuzzy model
approach for excavator cycle time simulation”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 725-35.
Yates, D.J. (2003), “The causes of conflict and disputes in the Hong Kong construction industry”,
RICS Research Papers, Vol. 4 No. 22.
Zakeri, M., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1996), “A survey of constraints on
Iranian construction operatives’ productivity”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 417-25.
 JEDT About the authors
David J. Edwards worked in the construction industry for ten years before joining academia. He
7,2 is currently a Senior Lecturer in Construction Plant Management at the Department of Civil and
Building Engineering at Loughborough University. He is a peer referee for the Health and Safety
Executive, Ministry of Defence, Finning (CAT) UK, the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council, and various construction research journals. He has completed numerous
private sector and government funded research projects; the products of his research being
206 published in over 100 scientific papers. He is a consultant to J.C. Bamford, the Major Hire
Companies Group and many leading power tool manufacturers.
Gary D. Holt’s early career included management of building and civil engineering projects.
He subsequently entered higher education to undertake research and lecture in construction
management. While later directing a university research unit, he successfully supervised to
completion numerous construction management PhD candidates and completed many
government and industry funded research projects. He is currently a Work-based Distance
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

Learning Coordinator at the Department of Civil and Building Engineering at Loughborough

University. He has published approximately 150 refereed academic journal and international
conference papers and several textbooks. He is a frequent journal, conference, and research
proposal peer referee, and provides consultant services to industry. Gary D. Holt is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: g.d.holt@lboro.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. David J. Edwards, Erika Pärn, Peter E.D. Love, Hatem El-Gohary. 2017. Research note: Machinery,
manumission, and economic machinations. Journal of Business Research 70, 391-394. [CrossRef]
2. HoltGary D. Gary D. Holt Professor Gary D. Holt is a Chartered Builder, Professor of Construction
Management and Economics at the University of Central Lancashire, UK and Proprietor of
GaryDHolt.com. His research findings have been widely disseminated through publication in numerous
refereed academic journal and international conference proceedings, several textbooks, a suite of industry-
facing technical guidance documents and several other multi-media outlets. Gary Holt is a frequent
journal, conference, book, and research proposal reviewer and provides consultant services to industry and
academia. He is an Editorial Advisory Board Member to five construction management journals and the
Construction Editor of The Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction (Emerald).
School of Engineering, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK . 2016. Opposing influences on
construction plant and machinery health and safety innovations. Construction Innovation 16:3, 390-414.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Ilias Naskoudakis, Kleopatra Petroutsatou. 2016. A Thematic Review of Main Researches on Construction
Equipment Over the Recent Years. Procedia Engineering 164, 206-213. [CrossRef]
4. Gary D. Holt The Grenfell-Baines School of Architecture, Construction and Envirnonment, University of
Central Lancashire, Preston, UK David Edwards Department of Industrial Innovation, Birmingham City
Business School, Birmingham, UK . 2015. Analysis of interrelationships among excavator productivity
modifying factors. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 64:6, 853-869.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Yuanshen Ji, Fernanda LeiteInformation Representation Schema for Tower Crane Planning in Building
Construction Projects 363-370. [CrossRef]
6. Lingard Helen School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Cooke Tracy School of Property, Construction and Project Management,
RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Gharaie Ehsan Sustainable Built Environment National
Research Centre, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia . 2013. A case study analysis of
fatal incidents involving excavators in the Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management 20:5, 488-504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Helen LingardSchool of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia Tracy CookeSchool of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia Ehsan GharaieSustainable Built Environment National Research Centre,
Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia. 2013. The how and why of plant‐related fatalities in the
Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 20:4, 365-380.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Gary D. Holt, David J. Edwards. 2013. Analysis of United Kingdom Off-Highway Construction
Machinery Market and Its Consumers Using New-Sales Data. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 139:5, 529-537. [CrossRef]
9. Gary D. HoltThe Centre for Business, Innovation and Enterprise, Birmingham City University,
Birmingham, UK David J. EdwardsThe Centre for Business, Innovation and Enterprise, Birmingham
City University, Birmingham, UK. 2012. Innovation or business survival?. Construction Innovation 12:1,
99-122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 10. Zainab RiazNational University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan David J.
EdwardsCentre for Business, Innovation and Enterprise, Birmingham City University, Birmingham,
UK Gary D. HoltCentre for Business, Innovation and Enterprise, Birmingham City University,
Birmingham, UK Tony ThorpeDepartment of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough
University, Loughborough, UK. 2011. Data flow analysis of plant and equipment health and safety
management. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 9:2, 178-203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. David J. EdwardsDepartment of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK Gary D. HoltDepartment of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough
University, Loughborough, UK. 2010. Case study analysis of construction excavator H&S overturn
incidents. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 17:5, 493-511. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 02:12 22 April 2017 (PT)

View publication stats