CII. Constructability

Constructability Implementation Guide
This edition was prepared by

James T. O’Connor, P.E., Ph.D.
under the sponsorship of the Construction Industry Institute
Knowledge Management Committee
Special Publication 34-1, Second Edition

December 2006
© 2006 Construction Industry Institute®.
The University of Texas at Austin.
CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members
are permitted to revise and adapt this work for the internal use provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.
Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed and no modifications made without
prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies. Volume
discounts may be available.
All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member
prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.
Printed in the United States of America.

Contents
Chapter Page
Preface to the Second Edition v

Executive Summary vii
Introduction 1
Constructability: A Mechanism for Success 2
Constructability, Payback, and CII Project Performance Benchmarking 2
Constructability vs. Value Engineering 3
CII Constructability-Related Products 3
Constructability Implementation Roadmap 4
Additional Tools Presented in this Document 4
PART I
Roadmap Milestones to Implement a Corporate-Level Constructability Program 7
Roadmap Milestone 1: Commit to Implementing Constructability 8
Roadmap Milestone 2: Establish Corporate Constructability Program 25
PART II
Roadmap Milestones to Implement a Project-Level Constructability Program 31
Roadmap Milestone 3: Obtain Constructability Capabilities 33
Roadmap Milestone 4: Plan Constructability Implementation 42
Roadmap Milestone 5: Implement Constructability 53
Roadmap Milestone 6: Update Corporate Program 58
PART III
Constructability Implementation Tools 61
Program Implementation Overview and Constructability Concepts
Tool 1: Constructability Implementation Roadmap 62
Tool 2: Constructability Concepts 63
Tool 3: Glossary of Terms 69
Evaluation and Assessment Tools
Tool 4: Corporate Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix 74
Tool 5: Project Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix 76
Tool 6: Owner Corporate Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist 78
Tool 7: Designer Corporate Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist 80
Tool 8: EPC Corporate Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist 82
iii
Tool 9: Project Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist 84
Tool 10: Constructability Barrier Breakers 87
Sample Program Documents
Tool 11: Program Implementation Policy 90
Tool 12: Constructability Organizational Structure 91
Tool 13: Constructability Planning Workshop Agenda 92
Tool 14: Concept Application Plan 93
Tool 15: Constructability Suggestion Form 94
Tool 16: Constructability Idea Log 95
Tool 17: Constructability Contract Clauses 96
PART IV
Case Studies 105
Case Study A: Low Sulfur Gas Project 105
Case Study B: Greenfield Metals Plant Project 116
Appendix A: References 129

Appendix B: Constructability Concept Application Matrices –
Commercial Building Projects 131
Appendix C: Constructability Concept Application Matrices –
Industrial Projects 139
iv
Preface to the Second Edition
This second edition is part of the CII Knowledge Management Committee mission to review and update
CII research topics. In conformance with the committee’s guidelines, enhancements to the original
edition have been incorporated, including the following:
• References to the CII web page (http://www.construction-institute.org/) have been added

throughout to insure that the reader always has access to the latest CII publications.
• The latest data available from CII on project performance through implementation of
constructability principles have been provided.
• Material duplicated elsewhere has been omitted and reference has been made to the original
source to insure that the most current data are available to the reader.
• References to specific document pages have been omitted to avoid confusion when accessing
documents that may have been revised as part of our ongoing efforts to keep all references
current.
• The original publication was updated to reflect user feedback relative to readability, presentation,
and relevance of material presented. The format now presents the material in a logical and
easy-to-follow sequence. Special attention has been given to refocusing Part II, “Roadmap
Milestones to Implement a Project Level Constructability Program” and Part III, “Constructability
Implementation Tools.”
• The original case studies have been replaced with recent robust case studies that reflect in-
depth application of constructability principles and significant project benefits.
Reader comments are welcome. Please contact CII at CIIProductFeedback@austin.utexas.edu.
Manuel A. Garcia, P.E.

Associate Director, Construction Industry Institute
Austin, Texas
December 2006
v
Executive Summary
As demonstrated in the case studies summarized in this publication, when methodically implemented,
front-end constructability efforts are an investment that results in a substantial return. Previous CII
documentation of constructability efforts showed that owners accrued an average reduction in total
project cost and schedule of 4.3 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively. These savings represented a 10
to 1 return on the owner’s investment in the constructability effort. Recent CII Benchmarking studies
based on project performance reported by contractors indicate that Constructability Implementation
is second only to Materials Management in positively impacting project schedules and behind only
Change Management and Zero Accident Techniques in positively impacting project cost.
Yet, the need for tools to facilitate constructability implementation continues to exist. This
Constructability Implementation Guide meets this need by offering a complete set of 17 tools that address
both corporate- and project-level constructability programs. For example, Tool 1, the Constructability
Implementation Roadmap, presents a comprehensive-integrated approach to constructability. Tools
containing assessment forms are provided to identify and eliminate barriers in constructability. A
procedure for the periodic assessment of program effectiveness is also provided and is helpful in
maintaining a commitment to the program and ensuring continuous improvement. The 16 constructability
concepts are also summarized in a tool.
The updated Guide continues to offer comprehensive guidance and specific insights into how project
constructability can be implemented. It is targeted to owners, designers, and construction personnel,
with particular emphasis on the owner. Senior executives and entry-level project personnel, and project
managers in particular, can benefit from the tools provided in the Guide.
vii
Introduction
Who should read this publication? Anyone interested in delivering a higher-quality project for
less money and in a shorter time should become familiar with this document. The target audience is
quite broad, including owner, designer, and constructor personnel (with particular emphasis on the
owner). Virtually everyone from senior executives to entry-level project personnel (project managers
in particular) can benefit from this updated publication. Those unfamiliar with the fundamentals
of constructability are encouraged to read CII Publication 3-1, Constructability: A Primer, prior to
undertaking this document.
Why should you read this? Most knowledgeable and effective project managers agree that
constructability is key to overall project success. This document offers comprehensive guidance and
specific insights into how project constructability can be achieved.
How is this guide structured? The Guide is structured in four parts: Part I – A Corporate-Level
Constructability Program; Part II – A Project-Level Constructability Program; Part III – Constructability
Implementation Tools; and Part IV – Case Studies.
Part I is organized around the Constructability Implementation Roadmap, which is presented as the
recommended comprehensive approach to implementing constructability. Accordingly, the information
presented in Parts I and II follows the milestones outlined in the roadmap:
• Commit to implementing constructability.

• Establish corporate constructability program.
• Obtain constructability capabilities.
• Plan constructability implementation.
• Implement constructability.
• Update corporate program.
Part III includes 17 different tools for use in implementing a constructability program. These address
the roadmap and terminology, program evaluation and assessment, program documentation, and
application of constructability concepts.
Part IV describes two recent case studies that demonstrate highly successful constructability
initiatives.
Appendix A contains a listing of references.
Appendices B and C contain Constructability Concept Application Matrices that can be used to
facilitate constructability implementation.
1
Constructability: A Mechanism for Success
CII defines constructability as “the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in
planning, design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project objectives.”
Why pursue constructability? Constructability efforts can support all project objectives: reduced
cost, shortened schedules, improved quality, security, and safety, and enhanced management of risk.
In addition, constructability is often viewed as an essential element to any Continuous Improvement
Program. Certainly constructability fits well within the context of the other three project “abilities”:
• Maintainability
• Operability
• Reliability
Constructability usually requires that companies, particularly owners, go beyond conventional

approaches to project execution by expanding front-end planning and investing additional effort in
order to anticipate potential problems. In fact, the full benefits of constructability require a proactive
approach, which is generally owner-driven.
Constructability, Payback, and CII Project Performance Benchmarking
Early constructability efforts result in a payback, but how large of a payback is possible? Previous
CII research cited cost reductions of between 6 and 23 percent, benefit/cost ratios of up to 10 to
1, and significant schedule reductions. One of the case studies presented in this Guide cites total
installed project cost savings of 9 percent with a benefit/cost ratio of 13 to 1, and an on-time schedule
performance given an extremely aggressive schedule. These benefits establish a significant motive
for pursuing constructability.
For many years CII has conducted an aggressive project performance benchmarking program for
the purpose of better understanding 1) how the industry is performing, 2) to what extent the industry
is advancing, and 3) what factors – or best practices – are having the greatest influence on project
performance. Constructability implementation has been one of the practices that have been tracked
in CII’s Benchmarking program.
CII’s February 2003 Benchmarking report (BMM2003-4, Benchmarking and Metrics Value of Best
Practices Report) states that, from the contractors’ perspective for both all sectors and the heavy
industrial sector of the industry, Constructability implementation ranks second in schedule reduction
impact, trailing only the Materials Management best practice. Thus, project managers should aggressively
implement Constructability on schedule-driven and schedule-critical projects.
For the same groups of all-sector and heavy industrial sector contractors, Constructability
implementation ranks third in cost savings impact, trailing only the Project Change Management and
Zero Accident Techniques best practices. The message is clear: if cost performance success is an
objective, don’t neglect constructability.
2
The CII Best Practice impact ranking findings are summarized in the table below:
Table 1.1. Highest Ranking CII Best Practices for Project Cost and Schedule Impact
Impact
Project Cost Impact Project Schedule Impact
Type
Industry Contractors: Contractors: Contractors: Contractors:
Group All Sectors Heavy Industrial All Sectors Heavy Industrial
Practice
Ranking
1 Project Change Project Change Materials Materials
Management Management Management Management
2 Zero Accident Zero Accident Constructability Constructability
Technique Technique Implementation Implementation
3 Constructability Constructability Team Building Project Change
Implementation Implementation Management
4 Team Building Team Building Project Change Team Building
Management
While these benchmarking findings pertain most directly to Contractors, Owners should also
heed their guidance, for when Contractors succeed in project cost and schedule performance, so
do Owners.
In fact, it is even more important that Owners press for effective constructability efforts, since many
contractors are accustomed to focusing on Owners’ stated priorities, and may be less informed on the
positive impacts that Constructability Implementation can deliver. Thus, both Owners and Contractors
need to be well informed on the importance of effective Constructability Implementation.
Constructability vs. Value Engineering
How does constructability differ from value engineering (VE)? Constructability and VE can be similar
in effect, but differ in both scope and manner of analysis. VE tends to focus on functional analysis and
life-cycle costs, while constructability is achieved by fully exploiting construction experience in a timely
and structured fashion. Certainly the two thrusts can coexist and even complement one another.
A Word of Caution: some owners who have ongoing VE programs believe that constructability
automatically results from that effort. This is unlikely if discussions and developments do not involve
current construction expertise early in the evolution of a project.
CII Constructability-Related Products
CII research teams conducted focused studies on the topic of constructability in both the mid-1980s
and the early 1990s. In addition, some more recent CII research teams conducted studies on subjects
closely related to constructability or aspects of constructability. Such studies are available online from
the CII website: http://construction-institute.org/know.htm. Readers are particularly encouraged to
review CII Knowledge Areas 1. Front-End Planning and 2. Design.
3
Constructability Implementation Roadmap
The Constructability Implementation Roadmap, shown in Figure 1.0, has been developed to
provide guidance in the planning, development, and implementation of both corporate and project
constructability programs. It is around the roadmap that this entire Guide is structured.
The Constructability Implementation Roadmap provides an overview of the constructability process

by emphasizing six milestones:
• Commit to Implementing Constructability.

• Establish Corporate Constructability Program.
• Obtain Constructability Capabilities.
• Plan Constructability Implementation.
• Implement Constructability.
• Update Corporate Program.
The roadmap is intended to be useful for owners, designers, and contractors. It addresses both
corporate constructability programs and project constructability programs. Each of the six milestones
is discussed in great detail in separate chapters.
As the roadmap depicts, a company ideally will establish both corporate and project constructability
programs. In the early stages of a constructability effort, focus should be placed on those actions
listed above the “Commit to Implementing Constructability” milestone in Figure 1.0. Some companies
may prefer to initiate constructability efforts with a pilot project and follow up with the development of
organizational supports. Such organizations will begin the process by focusing on the actions above
the “Obtain Constructability Capabilities” milestone. One should not ignore, however, the requirements
for commitment to constructability implementation when beginning at the project level.
Additional Tools Presented in this Document
Constructability program tools are presented in Part III of this Guide and include the following
items:
• Tool 2: Summary of Constructability Concepts: A listing and description of all 16

constructability concepts.
• Tool 3: Glossary of Terms
• Tools 4 and 5: Constructability Program Evaluation Matrices: A checklist of
constructability program parameters useful for evaluating program strengths and
weaknesses.
• Tools 6 through 9: Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklists: Checklists of
commonly found barriers to constructability; useful for identifying barriers.
• Tool 10: Constructability Barrier Breakers: A listing of “breakers” useful in combating
constructability barriers.
4
Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
methods, Assemble key constructability
concepts, owner team team and
and barriers members identify/address
barriers
Identify
Perform constructability Put concept
sponsor/ Define
self-assessment constructability Screen the application
and identify champion lessons-learned plans into
objectives
barriers and measures database action Evaluate
corporate
Establish program
functional effectiveness
Assess and support Select project Conduct the Monitor and
recognize organization contracting constructability evaluate
constructability and procedures strategy planning project
benefits workshop program Modify
effectiveness organization
and procedures;
5
Develop and Secure

Develop maintain contractors, Finalize concept update lessons-
implementation lessons-learned vendors, and application Document learned
policy database consultants plans lessons learned databases
Establish
Commit to Obtain Plan Update
corporate Implement
implementing constructability constructability corporate
constructability constructability
constructability capabilities implementation program
program
Corporate Program
Project Program
Figure 1.0. Constructability Implementation Roadmap (Tool 1)

• Tool 11: Program Implementation Policy: A sample statement communicating
management’s commitment to project constructability.
• Tool 12: Constructability Organizational Structure: A diagram illustrating key
constructability positions within both the corporate and project constructability programs.
• Tool 13: Constructability Planning Workshop Agenda: A sample agenda for a project
team-based workshop for form for soliciting and documenting constructability ideas.
• Tool 14: Concept Application Plan: A sample producible for a Constructability
Planning Workshop that lays out how a targeted, high-priority concept will be applied or
implemented in subsequent efforts.
• Tool 15: Constructability Suggestion Form: A form for soliciting and documenting
constructability ideas.
• Tool 16: Constructability Idea Log: A form for tabulating constructability ideas, their
evaluation, and implementation status.
• Tool 17: Constructability Contract Clauses: A listing of sample contract clauses useful
in acquiring constructability services.
6
PART I:
ROADMAP MILESTONES TO IMPLEMENT
A CORPORATE-LEVEL CONSTRUCTABILITY PROGRAM
As stated in the Introduction, it is generally preferred (though not required) to establish a solid
corporate constructability program prior to initiating a project-level program. This approach ensures
that all supports are in place when needed. The existence of a formal strategy with a constructability
“champion” provides the best environment in which a program can flourish.
As the Constructability Implementation Roadmap illustrates, two milestones are involved in developing
the corporate program, as shown in Figure 1.1:
• Commit to implementing constructability.

• Establish constructability program.
Each of these is discussed in detail in the following sections.
Understand
constructability
objectives,
methods,
concepts,
and barriers
Identify
Perform constructability
self-assessment sponsor/
and identify champion
barriers
Establish
functional
Assess and support
recognize organization
constructability and procedures
benefits
Develop and
Develop maintain
implementation lessons-learned
policy database
Establish
Commit to
corporate
implementing
constructability
constructability
program
Figure 1.1. Milestones for Corporate Constructability Program Implementation
7
Roadmap Milestone 1:
Commit to Implementing Constructability
The first activity in constructability implementation is to commit to implementing constructability.

This step is critical to sustaining a successful program. Without a well-developed, widespread,
comprehensive commitment to constructability in the organization, implementation efforts will not be
effective. The steps involved are shown in Figure 1.2 and are described below.
Step 1: Understand Constructability Objectives, Concepts, and Barriers
To solidify organizational commitment to constructability, personnel at all levels in the company

should acquire in-depth familiarization with the objectives, methods, and concepts of constructability.
These efforts should define the long-term expectations of the program. Initial efforts should focus
on senior management in order to secure high-level understanding and corporate commitment.
Company-wide seminars and training courses can then be tailored to spread awareness throughout
the company. Periodic refresher courses for all personnel must be part of any ongoing program so
that new employees and new projects are included in the constructability program. Awareness and
education efforts must cover the following:
• Clear, well-defined organizational goals for the constructability program

• Primary constructability methods that promote discussions on relevant constructability
concerns
• Introduction of the constructability concepts and use of Concept Application Plans
• Explanation of the benefits of comprehensive constructability efforts
• Distinction between constructability and traditional procedures (or value engineering)
• Awareness of the differences between corporate and project efforts
• Discussion of the barriers and problems that may be encountered
• Distribution of this Guide and other related CII documents.
Constructability is a continuous improvement process. Activities, efforts, and results are continuously
evaluated, updated, and improved. The process includes self-assessment, benchmarking against
industry standards, barriers identification, goal setting, and progress measurement.
8
• A wide-spread, in-depth familiarization of personnel is
Understand required, beginning with upper management.
constructability • Ensure that awareness efforts cover all elements.
objectives, methods,
• Conduct ongoing briefings and awareness seminars at
concepts, and barriers all levels
• A comprehensive assessment of current practices leads

Perform to understanding of efforts and identification of needs for
improvement.
self-assessment and
identify barriers • The assessment results aid in clarifying program
objectives and identifying current and potential program
benefits.
• Identification and mitigation of barriers is an integral part
• Set goals for constructability effort.

Assess and
recognize • Set company targets for quantitative
constructability benefits.
constructability
benefits • Realize the significance of intangible benefits.
• Integrate expected benefits into execution plans.
• Ensure that the Implementation Policy includes all

Develop necessary elements.
implementation • Give the program high visibility, and make
policy constructability part of the corporate culture.
• Integrate constructability with other Continuous
Improvement Program activities and efforts.
Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
barriers
Identify
sponsor/ Define
objectives
corporate
Establish program
Develop and Secure and procedures;
Establish
corporate Implement
program
Corporate Program
Project Program
Figure 1.2. Steps to Commit to Implementing Constructability
9
Step 2: Perform Self-Assessment and Identify Barriers
An assessment of current in-house constructability capabilities and practices should be conducted.

This assessment determines the organization’s level of current practices and identifies specific needs
for improvement. The results of self-assessment procedures are invaluable for:
• Clarifying constructability program objectives.

• Identifying current and future program benefits.
• Defining areas for program improvement.
• Benchmarking current status for future reference.
When performed on a periodic basis, self-assessment provides a vital link with program benchmarking,
goal setting, progress measurement, and barrier identification, all of which are bases for continuous
improvement.
Approach to Self-Assessment. The goals of constructability self-assessment are to measure the

scope of program elements (“inputs”) and their effectiveness using performance parameters (“outputs”).
Figure 1.3 shows these constructability inputs and outputs.
“Inputs” encompass all implementation activities at both the corporate and project levels. These
efforts include items such as program designation, program documentation, use of constructability
concepts and lessons learned, presence of barriers and so on. Some of these input items are directly
tied to specific output measures, such as tracking constructability effects. This demonstrates how
ongoing feedback and assessment is integral to the constructability process.
“Outputs” offer both quantitative and qualitative measures regarding program performance
(i.e., effectiveness of inputs). Most quantitative output parameters assess project-level factors;
trending of these items across projects occurs on the corporate level to help track overall program
effectiveness.
10
Constructability Program Inputs Constructability Program Outputs
Corporate Inputs: Project Outputs:

• Corporate recognition/designation of the constructability program • Number of constructability ideas/suggestions collected, implemented, or
• Corporate commitment to constructability expressed in a written, widely- added to lessons-learned database
distributed policy statement • Level of constructability participation from project personnel
• Management support of constructability efforts/activities • Project savings from constructability efforts:
• Corporate recognition of the barriers to constructability implementation – Monetary savings
and identification of barrier breakers – Schedule savings
• Constructability training of personnel – Labor reductions
• Designation of an executive sponsor/champion for constructability • Improved performance due to constructability efforts:
• Corporate personnel assigned to constructability efforts – Qualitative assessments of site layout effectiveness
– Qualitative assessments of procurement/materials planning
• Level of constructability program documentation
– Qualitative assessments of relationships between parties
• Corporate efforts to capture and communicate constructability lessons – Reduction of errors/rework
learned
– Reduction of change orders
• Corporate efforts to promote awareness and implementation of advanced – Reduction of claims
construction technologies – Higher quality of finished product
• Reference to constructability in contract documents
11
• Problems that could have been prevented with proper constructability

• Corporate efforts to track savings/effects of constructability efforts implementation:
– Unrealistic budgets or schedules
Project Inputs: – Contracting or subcontracting difficulties
• Project-level recognition/designation of the constructability program – Double handling of material or equipment
– Specification problems
• Project-level recognition of the barriers to constructability implementation
– Delays
and identification of barrier breakers
– Rigging or access problems
• Constructability training of personnel
– Tolerance problems
• Project personnel assigned to constructability efforts – Problems with physical interferences
• Level of constructability program documentation – Avoidable weather-related problems
• Project efforts to capture and communicate constructability lessons – Not meeting client expectations
learned • Constructability barriers/resistance encountered
• Reference to constructability in contract documents – Number/severity of barriers identified
• Project efforts to track savings/effects of constructability efforts – Effectiveness of barrier breakers
• Nature of project-level efforts and inputs (proactive or reactive) – Number of barriers broken
• Implementation of constructability concepts
Figure 1.3. Constructability Program Inputs and Outputs

Fifteen significant corporate and project parameters for a constructability program are shown in
Figure 1.4. These 15 inputs are divided into four major classifications:
• Corporate Culture:
– High-level recognition and official designation of constructability efforts
– Existence of a highly visible, widespread, written policy stating the organization’s
commitment to constructability
– Management awareness of and support for constructability
– Presence of, recognition of, and efforts to overcome barriers and problems inhibiting
constructability
– Periodic corporate and project training of personnel to understand and implement
constructability
• Personnel:
– Designation of and support from an executive sponsor for constructability
– Existence of an effective corporate constructability support organization
– Constructability roles and responsibilities on particular projects
• Documentation and Tracking:

– Documentation of constructability procedures and efforts on the corporate and
project levels
– Efforts to capture and communicate constructability lessons learned
– Use (and dissemination) of knowledge about advanced construction technologies
– Reference to constructability in contract documents
– Efforts to track the savings or other effects of constructability efforts
• Implementation:
– The nature of project-level implementation efforts and constructability inputs
– Project implementation of the CII constructability concepts.
12
Parameter: Program Classification:
C=Corporate
1 2 3 4 5
P=Project No Program Application of Informal Formal Comprehensive
Selected Supports Program Program Formal Program
Part of standard Part of another program, Recognized on a

such as Quality, or only Stand-alone program
A. Program No designation construction corporate level, but may
identified on a project on same level as
Designation (C/P) management activities be part of another
level Quality or Safety
program
B. Corporate None exists; no need No corporate policy; Statement exists, but may Widely distributed Widely distributed
Constructability seen for such may have on project be part of other policies corporate policy corporate policy
Policy Statement (C) level
I: Corporate Culture
Limited support within Support varies within Management supports Total management
C. Management No recognition of need
company; some company; support on a program; constructability support; actively
Attitude toward for or benefits of understood as a
recognition of benefits project-by-project basis participate in improving
Constructability (C) constructability corporate philosophy program
D. Recognition of Many barriers exist; no Many barriers exist;

Recognize presence of Most barriers gone;
Constructability recognition of barriers or aware of external Actively identify, work to
.barriers/problems; problems caught and
Barriers/Problems problems encountered limiters; may deny document and correct
accept as part of the job corrected quickly
(C/P) internal factors
E. Constructability Part of standard

If any occurs, done as
None Awareness seminars for Part of standard orientation; deeply
Training of Personnel part of on-the-job
specific projects orientation ingrained in corporate
(C/P) training
culture
A. Executive Sponsor identified; role

of sponsor may be Yes; sponsor actively Yes; sponsor actively
Sponsor for No sponsor No sponsor
ambiguous or weak supports program supports program
Constructability (C)
II: Personnel
B. Assignment of Full- or part-time corporate Full-time, high-level

Corporate No corporate personnel May have corporate duties coordinator; corporate corporate coordinator;
None dedicated to as part of other support organization for support organization
Constructability
constructability responsibilities program implementation well developed
Duties (C)
C. Role of Project Full- or part-time position; Full- or part-time position;

Part-time if identified; responsibilities vary by responsibilities vary by Full-time position; plays
Constructability Not identified
very limited project size, type, project size, type, major project role
Coordinator (P) responsibility participants participants
Limited reference in any Project-level program Corporate constructability

A. Constructability manuals; CII documents documents exist; may be manual is thorough, widely
None; CII documents Corporate constructability
Program may be distributed or included in other distributed, and
may be available manual is available
Documentation (C/P) referenced corporate documents periodically updated
B. Tracking of Believe that ideas are Some individual

System exists for Database on lessons
III: Documentation/Tracking
Constructability None adequately conveyed documentation; primarily

via word-of-mouth, post-project reviews and capture and learned involves input
Lessons Learned communication of from all levels
personnel interaction reports
(C/P)
Library may exist; Formalized routing

C. Sharing Advanced New information routed information routinely system; R&D department Formalized system with
Construction Not done occasionally—journals, routed or seminars held identifies and promotes company seminars and
Technologies (C) word-of-mouth pilot applications
D. Constructability Limited reference, on Level of reference varies Standard item in all

No reference specific projects; often by project type, role, or Standard item in all contracts; actively
Referenced in
only at request of other participants contracts promoted to other
Contract Documents
project participants organizations
(C/P)
E. Tracking No tracking or recognition No tracking, limited Track for particular Data kept on all projects;
Constructability Not applicable of program results recognition of program projects or selected items; widespread confidence in
Savings/Effects results on project may track major ideas savings beyond those
across projects measured
(C/P)
Reactive approach, Aware of major benefits Proactive effort on all Aggressive, proactive
IV: Implementation
A. Nature of Project- constrained by review

None proactive approach; efforts projects; routinely consult efforts from beginning of
level Efforts and Inputs mentality, lack of vary project by project lessons learned project; routinely consult
(P) understanding of lessons learned
proactive benefits
Some concepts used Selected concepts applied All concepts consistently All concepts consistently
B. Implementation
None periodically; often regularly; full use, considered; timely considered, continuously
of Constructability considered too late to timeliness of input varies implementation of feasible evaluated, aggressively
Concepts (P) be of use across projects concepts implemented
Figure 1.4. Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix
13
Five levels of program maturity as defined by varying levels of implementation of each of the 15
parameters noted above are shown in Figure 1.4. The figure also displays these classification levels.
Program descriptions are:
• Level 1: No Program
– Lack of awareness or understanding of constructability
– Lack of support for constructability
– No constructability efforts
• Level 2: Application of Selected Supports

– Limited awareness or understanding of constructability
– Limited support for constructability
– The need for proactive constructability involvement is poorly understood
– Constructability efforts are on a project-by-project basis with no corporate support
and limited transfer of ideas between projects
• Level 3: Informal Program

– Awareness of constructability benefits
– Efforts constrained by support within the company and possibly by external limiting
factors (i.e., lack of funding)
– Efforts hindered by a perceived lack of benefit from a comprehensive approach to
constructability
• Level 4: Formal Program

– Comprehensive constructability effort with full-time corporate support
– Some cultural resistance and some barriers to implementation may still exist
– A comprehensive benefits tracking system that may focus overly on quantitative
effects
• Level 5: Comprehensive Formal Program

– Comprehensive, effective, timely implementation of constructability on all projects
– Widespread confidence in the benefits of the proactive efforts
– Constructability is part of the corporate culture
– A comprehensive benefits tracking system focusing on selected “high-value” program
outputs.
Levels 3, 4, and 5 all characterize varied degrees of successful constructability results. Level 5 is
obviously the preferred and recommended level of constructability implementation. Only at this stage
of effort may the full benefits of constructability efforts be realized. For those programs operating at
lower levels, Level 5 implementation may be viewed as a benchmark or “best in class.” Programs at
lower levels will still benefit substantially from a program while striving for Level 5.
14
Table 1.1 shows the research findings from the categorization of 62 companies. These results may
be used as a benchmark of the current level of constructability implementation in the industry by those
companies that claim to implement constructability.
Table 1.1. Tabulation of Categorization Results from Interviews
Application
Program No Informal Formal Comprehensive
of Selected Total
Categorization Program Program Program Formal Program
Concepts
Number of Programs 2 12 33 13 2 62
Percent of Total 3 19 53 21 3 100
Assessment Tools, Procedures, and Level of Effort. Constructability program assessment should
involve a variety of personnel from across organizational functions and from different organizational
levels. By doing so, the assessment can encompass different perspectives, viewpoints, awareness,
and experience, and therefore be truly representative of actual corporate or project implementation
practices.
For a comprehensive assessment, organizations should use a variety of methods and procedures,
such as interviews, questionnaires, post-project reviews, procedure reviews, and other methods.
All methods should be well-defined and properly documented to facilitate consistent evaluation of
responses over time.
When first implementing a constructability program, an intensive review of current practices should
be undertaken. Constructability program assessment requires two levels of evaluation. Figure 1.5
shows the relationship between Step One and Step Two evaluation. Step One is a broad-level appraisal
of all significant parameters identified. Step Two involves selective in-depth evaluation of particular
parameters.
The listing of assessment criteria described previously may be used as a tool for Step One assessment.
Two separate forms (Tools 1 and 2) are included in this publication to allow for the evaluation of both
corporate- and project-level programs. These tools can be used to provide a qualitative assessment
of constructability implementation efforts and their effectiveness. These assessment forms should be
used in conjunction with other assessment methods as mentioned above.
More in-depth data may be required for particular parameters. Step Two, therefore, involves the
significant, quantitative evaluation of selected parameters. Often these items are difficult to measure
precisely. While one could attempt to painstakingly document each and every constructability effort
and related saving, this approach is neither recommended nor necessary once confidence in the
program is achieved. Ideally, tracking efforts should focus only on “high-value” ideas rather than on
exhaustive accounting practices. Figure 1.5 (next page) identifies areas where meaningful, in-depth
evaluation efforts should be focused. This list is not comprehensive. A critical assessment of this
list and of present operations will identify those parameters that possess high value to a particular
organization.
15
Step One: Step Two:
Primary Evaluation Parameters Secondary Evaluation Parameters
Recognition of Constructability Barriers/Problems:

- Number, severity of barriers encountered
- Effectiveness of barriers breakers
Parameter: Program
1 2 3 4 5
C=Corporate No Program Application of Informal Formal Comprehensive
A. Program No
Selected
Part of standard
construction
Program
Part of another
program, such as
Program
Recognized on a
corporate level, but
Formal Program
Stand-alone
program on same
- Recurrence of barriers/problems
Designation management Quality, or only may be part of another
identified on a project level as Quality or
program
B. Corporate
Constructability
Policy Statement
None exists; no
need seen for such
No corporate
policy; may have on
project level
Statement exists, but
may be part of other
Widely
distributed
Widely
distributed
Tracking of Constructability Lessons Learned:
- Number of ideas/suggestions collected
I: Corporate
Limited support Support varies within Management supports Total management

C. Management No recognition of
within company; company; support on program; support; actively
Attitude toward need for or benefits of
some recognition of a project-by-project constructability participate in
Constructability constructability
- Number of ideas applied

understood as a improving program
D. Recognition Many barriers exist; no Many barriers

of Recognize presence of Most barriers gone;
recognition of barriers exist; aware of Actively identify, work to
- Number of new idea contributors

Constructability .barriers/problems; document and correct problems caught
or problems external limiters;
Barriers/Problem accept as part of the and corrected
may deny internal

None If any occurs, done Awareness seminars Part of
Training of orientation; deeply
as part of on-the-job
for specific projects standard ingrained in
Personnel (C/P) training
corporate culture
A. Executive
Sponsor for
Constructability
No No
Sponsor identified;
role of sponsor may
be ambiguous or
Yes; sponsor
actively supports
Yes; sponsor
actively supports Tracking Constructability Savings/Effects:
Cost Savings Quality
B. Assignment Full- or part-time Full-time, high-level
of Corporate No corporate May have corporate corporate coordinator; corporate
None personnel dedicated to duties as part of other
II:
Constructability corporate support coordinator; support

Duties (C) constructability responsibilities organization for program organization well
16
C. Role of
Project
Constructability
Not identified
Part-time if
identified; very
limited responsibility
Full- or part-time
position; responsibilities
vary by project size, type,
Full- or part-time
position; responsibilities
vary by project size, type,
Full-time position;
plays major project role - Absolute dollar or work-hours Rework, changes, claims v.
- % reduction in dollars or historical or expected performance
participants participants
Limited reference in Project-level program Corporate

A. Constructability any manuals; CII documents exist; may constructability manual
Program None; CII Corporate
work-hours - Cost savings

documents may be documents may be be included in other constructability manual is thorough, widely
Documentation distributed or corporate documents distributed, and
Believe that ideas Some individual
- % of project cost
B. Tracking of System exists for Database on lessons
None are adequately documentation;
Constructability capture and learned involves
conveyed via word- primarily post-project
Lessons Learned of-mouth, personnel reviews and reports communication of input from all levels
C. Sharing
Not
New information routed
occasionally—journals,
Library may exist;
information routinely
Formalized routing
system; R&D Formalized system
with company
Schedule Savings - No. of items
III:
Advanced routed or seminars department identifies
Performance v. historical or
Construction word-of-mouth seminars and pilot
D. Constructability Limited reference, on Level of reference Standard item in

Referenced in No specific projects; varies by project type, Standard item in all contracts;
expected Safety
often only at request role, or participants all contracts actively promoted
Contract Documents
(C/P) of other project to other
Track for particular Data kept on all
- % reduction in schedule - OSHA incident rate

E. Tracking No tracking or No tracking, limited
Not recognition of program recognition of projects or selected projects; widespread
Constructability items; may track major confidence in savings
Savings/Effects program results on
ideas across projects beyond those measured
A. Nature of Project-
level Efforts and
Inputs
None
Reactive approach,
constrained by
review mentality, lack
of understanding of
Aware of major benefits
proactive approach;
efforts vary project by
Proactive effort on all
projects; routinely
consult lessons learned
Aggressive, proactive
efforts from beginning
of project; routinely
consult lessons learned
- No. of months saved - No. lost-time accidents
proactive benefits
IV:
Some concepts Selected concepts All concepts consistently All concepts

B.
Implementation of None used periodically; applied regularly; full considered; timely consistently considered,
Constructability often considered too use, timeliness of input implementation of continuously evaluated,
late to be of use varies across projects feasible concepts aggressively
Implementation of Constructability Concepts:

- Number of concepts considered
- Number of concepts implemented
- Timing of concept application
Figure 1.5. Evaluation Parameters Hierarchy

Barriers to Constructability
A “barrier” to constructability is any significant inhibitor that prevents the effective implementation
of the constructability program. Participants from 62 companies were asked to identify the five barriers
to constructability they believed were most prevalent in their company or on projects with which they
were involved. From the initial list of 42 barriers, 18 barriers were consistently identified by participants
as significant. These barriers are shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2. Most Common Barriers to Constructability
Barrier Frequency
Rank Description (n=62) %
1 Complacency with the status quo. 35
2 Reluctance to invest additional money and effort in early project stages. 35
3 Limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting. 31
4 Lack of construction experience in design organization. 23
5 Designer’s perception that “we do it.” 19
6 Lack of mutual respect between designers and constructors. 19
7 Construction input is requested too late to be of value. 19
8 Belief that there are no proven benefits to constructability. 18
9 Owner’s lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts of
16
constructability.
10 Misdirected design objectives and designer performance measures. 15
11 Owner’s perception that “we do it.” 15
12 Lack of genuine commitment to constructability. 15
13 Designer’s lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts of
15
constructability.
14 Poor communication skills of constructors. 15
15 Lack of documentation and retrieval of “lessons-learned.” 13
16 Lack of team-building or partnering. 13
17 Poor timeliness of constructor input. 13
18 The right people were/are not available. 11
Barriers to constructability must be identified and removed for successful constructability

implementation. The identification of barriers occurs during self-assessment procedures. Part III,
Program Tools, contains forms (Tools 6–9) for evaluating the existence of the 18 common barriers
identified within particular corporate- and project-level programs.
Table 1.3 (next page) describes the 18 common barriers identified, shows where they occur, and lists
symptoms that indicate the barrier is present. Constructability barriers are evident in all organizations,
at all levels, within both corporate and project organizations. Four different types of barriers were
noted: cultural, procedural, awareness, and incentive.
17
Table 1.3. Descriptors of Common Barriers to Constructability
Rank Barrier Organization Symptoms

(18 most common barriers identified from Affected (Indicators that the Barrier is present)
research, listed in decreasing order of
Constructor
frequency)
Designer
Owner
1 Complacency with the status quo. • “Oversatisfaction” with performance; lack of interest in new
X X X
approaches, new ideas; no time for strategic thinking
2 Reluctance to invest additional money and • Primary focus on short-term profitability; highly constrained
X
effort in early project stages. funding procedures
3 Limitations of lump-sum competitive • Reliance on lump-sum methods; reluctance to investigate/allow
X
contracting. other strategies; highly restrictive contracting procedures
18
4 Lack of construction experience in design • Construction knowledge not considered valuable for design
X
organization. personnel; few opportunities for site visits by A/E
5 Designer’s perception that “we do it.” • Design review procedures considered adequate for
X
constructability
6 Lack of mutual respect between designers • Adversarial/clannish/disrespectful relationships between
X X
and constructors. personnel; minimal interaction between personnel
7 Construction input is requested too late to be • No construction involvement or understanding of such need in
of value. X X early project stages; focus on construction review of completed
drawings
8 Belief that there are no proven benefits to • Refusal to include constructability efforts in project efforts until
X X X
constructability. cost/benefits proven
9 Owner’s lack of awareness/understanding of • No comprehension of the breadth of constructability efforts and
X
the concepts of constructability. issues
Table 1.3. Descriptors of Common Barriers to Constructability (continued)
Rank Barrier Organization Symptoms

(18 most common barriers identified from Affected (Indicators that the Barrier is present)
research, listed in decreasing order of
Constructor
frequency)
Designer
Owner
10 Misdirected design objectives and designer • Promotion of goals to minimize design costs at project expense
X
performance measures.
11 Owner’s perception that “we do it.” • Satisfaction with current efforts, no desire to improve or increase
X
effectiveness; no benchmarking of performance
12 Lack of genuine commitment to • Use of constructability as a buzzword; constructability outside the
19
X X X
constructability. corporate culture
13 Designer’s lack of awareness/understanding • No comprehension of the breadth of constructability efforts and
X
of the concepts of constructability. issues
14 Poor communication skills of constructors. X • Failure to present ideas to project members in a usable, non-
adversarial fashion
15 Lack of documentation and retrieval of • No system for documenting or ineffective methods for
X X X
“lessons-learned.” documenting lessons; quick to “close the file” on a project
16 Lack of team-building or partnering. X X X • No reference to the team approach
17 Poor timeliness of constructor input. • Lack of proactive efforts; focus on construction review of
X
completed drawings
18 The right people were/are not available. X X X • Casual or non-deliberate assignment of constructability personnel
Once barriers are identified, they may be mitigated or overcome with specific tactics. Barrier “breakers”
have been evaluated for the seven most common barriers. Table 1.4 shows the breakers recommended,
including at least one tactic for each barrier. The table also describes where the barrier is effective,
and lists the type of breaker, corresponding with the four barrier classifications (cultural, procedural,
awareness, incentive). Finally, the table outlines where these techniques should be integrated with the
Constructability Implementation Roadmap. This should assist the user in integrating these breakers
into formal implementation plans. This table is also included in Part III as Tool 10.
In addition to being relatively easy to implement, these tactics are considered to have a high impact
on the barrier. This list is not absolute; other tactics should be developed and assessed for potential
application. A listing of the recommended barrier breakers is included in Part III (Tool 10) for distribution
as an implementation tool.
20
Table 1.4. Summary of High-Impact, Easily-Implementable Barrier Breakers (Tool 10)
Barrier Recommended Barriers Where Roadmap Activities

Type of Breaker
Effective
Procedural
Awareness
Corporate
Incentive
Cultural
Project
1. Complacency • Designate a strong program champion. “Identify constructability sponsor/
X X X
with status quo. champion”
2. Reluctance to • Promote the attitude that constructability “Assess and recognize
invest additional should be viewed as an investment constructability benefits”
X X X
money and effort opportunity with corresponding downstream “Define constructability objectives
in early project payoff. and measures”
stages.
• Include constructability as part of a standard “Select project contracting
bid response and in cost tracking/control X X X strategy”
21
efforts.
3. Limitations • Owner/designer acquire in-house “Assemble key owner team
of lump-sum construction expertise for input during X X X members”
competitive design. “Develop the constructability team”
contracting.
• Develop a short list of contractors who “Select project contracting
offer constructability input in return for the strategy”
X X
opportunity to be on the short list of bidders. “Secure contractors, vendors, and
consultants”
4. Lack of • Communicate construction issues from field “Consult applications matrix and
X X X
construction engineers to office engineers/designers. lessons learned”
experience • Close the “project loop” by getting feedback “Document lessons learned”
in design from the field and by tracking lessons X X X
organization. learned.
• Modify design management practices to “Develop implementation policy”
elevate the visibility of constructability X X X “Define constructability objectives
issues. and measures”
Table 1.4. Summary of High-Impact, Easily-Implementable Barrier Breakers (Tool 10) (continued)

Type of Breaker
Effective
Procedural
Awareness
Corporate
Incentive
Cultural
Project
5. Designer’s • Secure comprehensive understanding of “Understand constructability
perception that what constructability is prior to assessing X X objectives, methods, concepts,
“we do it.” adequacy of efforts. and barriers”
6. Lack of mutual • Aggressively promote effective team-building “Develop the constructability team”
X X
respect between among project personnel.
designers and • Establish constructor presence in design “Develop constructability
constructors. process before pride of authorship develops. procedures and integrate into
X X X project activities”
22
“Select project contracting

strategy”
• Keep the project team focused on common “Orient project constructability
objectives and accepted procedures rather X X team/perform team-building”
than personalities.
7. Construction • Increase awareness of the necessity for early “Understand constructability
input is requested construction involvement. X X objectives, methods, concepts,
too late to be of and barriers”
value. • Include constructability as an early activity All Roadmap Activities
in a formal project activity flow plan or X X X
roadmap.
• Include individuals with significant “Assemble key owner team
construction experience in the project team members”
X X X
from the outset. “Select project contracting
strategy”
Sum of effective breakers in each category: 7 11 7 8 6 1
Step 3: Assess and Recognize Constructability Benefits
Before the implementation strategy for a constructability program may be developed, goals for the
effort should be set. Such goals are intended to:
• Promote a unified vision for the company program.

• Evoke enthusiasm within the organization.
• Act as a source of motivation for constructability efforts.
Company targets should be identified for quantitative program benefits. Such targets are usually
project-specific, high-value items such as percent cost savings, percent work-hour savings, straight
dollar savings, percent reduction of rework, and elimination of delays caused by procurement problems.
These same measures can then be tracked on a corporate level in order to monitor constructability
program effectiveness and overall achievement of program goals over time.
The intangible benefits from constructability are as important as the quantitative benefits, and must
be recognized accordingly. These include more accurate budgets and schedules, improved site layouts,
improved project team relationships, more repeat work, improved security, and many others.
All of the constructability outputs listed in Figure 1.3 are benefits of effective constructability
implementation, and this list is by no means complete. The benefits of effective constructability
implementation can be significant provided that efforts start early in the project. The remainder of this
document discusses particular implementation needs.
As described in CII Publication 3-1, quantitative benefits of effective constructability include:
• Reduction of total project cost ranging from 1 to 11 percent

• Reduction in total project schedule ranging from 5 to 10 percent
• Consistent, documented, quantified benefit/cost ratios of 10:1.
As many constructability benefits were not tracked on these projects, savings went beyond those
items that were documented. Therefore, the documented numbers may underestimate the true
benefits of constructability. Additional qualitative benefits recognized on these projects included
constructability-produced improvements to such items as safety, security, schedule, cost, and quality.
Further discussion of these case studies may be found elsewhere in this publication.
Once identified, methods to achieve all expected constructability benefits are integrated into
the constructability execution plans. Tracking of these benefits, as mentioned above, may then be
incorporated into assessment procedures as discussed under Step 2 above.
23
Step 4: Develop Implementation Policy
The corporate constructability implementation policy raises the visibility of the constructability
program, communicates commitment at a high level, and defines the level of program efforts. The
policy document must contain several key items:
• A statement of program goals for the organization

• Indication of the level of management and corporate commitment
• Identification of the corporate executive sponsor
• Ties to project-level implementation.
Figure 1.6 shows a sample implementation policy statement, also included in Section III as Tool 11.
This example may be used as a guideline for developing a company-specific policy.
Constructability Implementation Policy

The Construction Industry Institute has endorsed the cost savings potential of
constructability efforts, “the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in
The CII publications Constructability Implementation Guide and Constructability: A
Primer are useful reference guides to Constructability.
In view of our continuing efforts to provide the highest degree of quality and cost
effectiveness to our projects, it is our corporate policy to implement Constructability
to the fullest degree possible. This applies to all phases of project planning, design,
and construction. We will ensure that we take full advantage of the high potential of
Constructability to achieve savings during the earliest phases of project planning and
prior to the start of design.
is hereby designated as the Executive Sponsor for
Constructability, and will oversee the constructability program, ensure consistency
with other continuous improvement processes, implement changes, and regularly
report to me on its effectiveness.
President Date
Figure 1.6. Sample Constructability Implementation Policy (Tool 11)
The constructability program requires a high corporate profile to maximize effective implementation.
Constructability ideally should become part of the corporate culture and be integrated into everyday
procedures. To achieve this goal, the implementation policy should be disseminated to all levels of
the organization. This policy should accompany the initial awareness seminars and training courses
as discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Constructability efforts should be integrated with other
continuous improvement programs. In the final analysis, constructability implementation activities should
be consistent and compatible with other activities, and energize the overall improvement process.
24
Establish Corporate Constructability Program
This chapter addresses the steps necessary in establishing a corporate-level constructability

program for either owner, designer, or contractor organizations. Figure 2.1 illustrates the three activities
that comprise this milestone on the Constructability Implementation Roadmap. Program roles and
information support systems are discussed in detail.
• The sponsor’s primary role is to maintain a high level

of awareness and visibility for the constructability
Identify program.
constructability • The sponsor must be a recognized leader, possessing
sponsor/champion proper qualifications.
• The champion must be empowered by the executive
management team.
• The sponsor must be accountable for the success of
the program.
• The support organization provides coordination

Establish and information to facilitate project-level
functional support constructability implementation.
organization and • In addition to the program champion, two other
procedures roles are recommended: a day-to-day program
manager and a database custodian.
• A lessons-learned file or database must be established

Develop and to ensure the continuous improvement of projects.
maintain • Constructability ideas are collected from many different
lessons-learned sources by a variety of mechanisms; a standard form
database aids in documenting ideas collected.
• Ideas should be evaluated for current and future
applicability, with feedback to originators.
• Selected ideas should be organized and maintained in
a system that facilitates future retrieval.
Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
barriers
Identify
sponsor/ Define
objectives
corporate
Establish program
Establish
corporate Implement
program
Corporate Program
Project Program
Figure 2.1. Steps to Establish Corporate Constructability Program
25
Step 1: Identify Constructability Sponsor/Champion
Successful constructability programs require the active support of a designated sponsor or champion
whose primary role is to maintain a high level of awareness and visibility of the constructability program.
Beyond promoting the constructability cause, this “champion” also should be the catalyst for change
by supporting selective trial-and-error implementation efforts at lower levels within the organization.
The program sponsor or champion should be a recognized leader within the organization,
possessing a breadth of project management experience and being capable of ensuring that adequate
resources are applied to the effort. The sponsor must be directly accountable for the success of the
constructability program. In identifying and designating the champion, it is important to understand
the desired qualifications of the position:
• High level of authority and influence

• Dedicated to the cause of constructability
• Time available to provide leadership
• Sensitive to feedback and possessing effective interpersonal skills
• Proper technical and managerial experience for the position.
Once selected, the champion must be empowered with the full support of the corporate executive
management team.
Step 2: Establish Functional Support Organization and Procedures
The purpose of other program personnel and support elements is to facilitate implementation of
constructability at the project level. Coordination from project to project must be ensured. Effective
linkage to needed information and expertise must be provided. To accomplish this, two other important
roles are recommended as the program evolves:
• A program manager responsible for:

– Day-to-day coordination of company-wide constructability efforts
– Selection and briefing of Project Constructability Coordinators
– Program training
– Assessment and continual monitoring of corporate barriers
– Set-up of the lessons-learned database
– Identification and removal of program barriers
– Tracking of corporate program goals
– Ensuring communication of good ideas and success stories across projects
– General assistance to Project Constructability Coordinators.
26
This program manager, like the program sponsor and project-based constructability
coordinators, should have extensive construction and project management experience, a
working knowledge of design needs and requirements, and strong communication skills.
In smaller organizations or for smaller projects, the program manager also may serve as
project constructability coordinator.
• A database custodian who is responsible for the documentation, tracking, and

distribution of constructability ideas and lessons learned. The database custodian may
also assist project coordinators and the program manager (along with other technical
specialists) in the screening or evaluation of constructability ideas. In addition to
construction and project management experience, this individual should possess strong
communication skills and have a working knowledge of computerized data handling,
storage, and retrieval.
Figure 2.2 (Tool 12, next page) illustrates the organization chart for the constructability organization.
Although the corporate constructability team is distinct from project-level constructability teams (one
for each project), the two teams should be closely linked.
For small- to medium-sized organizations, a single individual may serve all three roles of champion,
corporate program manager, and database custodian. These positions also may be split between two
or more individuals. For such organizations, it is unlikely that each of the three roles will require a full-
time position. The constructability program support organization need not be large, burdensome, or
costly—but it must exist formally.
A constructability orientation program for employees also should be a part of corporate program
functional support. CII is developing a Constructability Education Module available for both regional
seminars and in-company training purposes. This module should be offered to key project employees
annually and at the start of every large project.
27
Executive
Committee
Constructability
Sponsor/Champion Project
• High level authority/influence
• Promotes awareness/visibility
• Catalyst for change
• Accountable for program success
Corporate Project Project

Program Constructability Constructability Ad Hoc
Coordinator Team
28
• Coordination of company efforts

• Program training • May be full-time • Construction Manager • Rigging
• Selection/support of project • Frequently becomes a • Owner’s Representatives • HVAC
coordinators member of field staff • Project Engineers • Piping
• Communication across projects • Focal point of • Discipline Engineers • Concrete
constructability • Architects • Instrumentation
coordination
Corporate • Construction • Electrical
• Liaison for Superintendents
Database • Structural
constructability ideas
• Construction Engineers • Welding
• Manages temporary and
• Documentation, tracking, of • Procurement • Transportation
special assignments
ideas and lessons learned • Subcontractors • Equipment
• Organization and distribution of • Quality Control • Coatings
lessons-learned files • Project Controls Manager • Security
Corporate Constructability Program Project Constructability Program
Figure 2.2. Constructability Organizational Structure

Step 3: Develop and Maintain a Lessons-Learned Database
As illustrated in Figure 2.3, the constructability lessons-learned database is one of three mechanisms
for eliciting and documenting constructability ideas. Ideas also may come from project discussions
of constructability concept applications and from a constructability suggestion program (either
corporate- or project-based).
Project
Corporate Project
Discussions of
Lessons-Learned Constructability
Constructability
Database Suggestions Box
Concepts
Project
Constructability
Activities
Figure 2.3. Sources for Improving Project Constructability
The necessity of a lessons-learned database cannot be overemphasized. With such a database,

past failures and successes can be recorded for the benefit of future projects, thereby reinforcing
continuous project improvement.
Constructability ideas can and should be collected from many different sources by a variety of
mechanisms. Potential sources include lead engineers, discipline engineers, procurement personnel,
superintendents, foremen, craftsmen, vendors, inspectors, area coordinators, owner field personnel,
A/E field personnel, and others from all phases of the project cycle. The mechanisms for collecting
constructability ideas include project monthly progress reports, final (closeout) project reports, personal
interviews, job site suggestion box programs, and minutes or notes from project planning meetings.
Personal interviews have been found to be particularly effective.
The recommended form contains information “fields” for evaluation and tracking of the implementation
of ideas. Such information should be documented for each idea or suggestion. Idea evaluation criteria
should be established and should include estimates of impacts on cost, schedule, quality, and safety.
Information pertaining to design or construction work-hours, required management effort, or effects
on risk/uncertainty also may be of value in deciding whether or not to implement a particular idea.
Program participants might suggest an alternative approach to design or construction which, while
not improving on the original approach, may identify a shortcoming in the approach. In such a case,
significant benefits may result from simply identifying a problematic situation. In addition, ideas with
low evaluations or applicability on one project may be beneficial or significant on other projects. For
these reasons it is important not to prejudge ideas, since this may have the effect of discouraging
future contributions to the database.
29
Previous constructability program efforts underscore the importance of timely and responsive
feedback to idea originators, those people who have taken the initiative to “find a better way.” They
need constructive feedback on the merits or value of their proposed alternative solutions. It may be
desirable to establish a highly visible award or recognition system: incentives such as cash awards,
lunch programs, hard hat stickers, parking privileges; even brief, publicized recognition can be effective
in encouraging the submittal of good ideas and in maintaining awareness of the constructability
program.
Once ideas are collected and documented, they should be organized or maintained in a system
that facilitates ready retrieval on future projects. This normally will involve a computerized database
of the ideas categorized by work area or discipline (e.g., civil, piping, instrumentation) and by project
phase (e.g., conceptual planning, detailed design, procurement, construction, and start-up). Suggested
information fields for each record in the database include the following:
• Short descriptive title of the idea

• Detailed idea description
• Discipline/work area category and subcategory (e.g., piping: fabrication, or electrical;
conduit, etc.)
• Pertinent project phase (e.g., detailed design, procurement, field construction, etc.)
• Primary effects on project (e.g., cut cost, shorten duration, reduce work-hours, improve
safety, improve security, eliminate materials, etc.)
• Needs for updating/modifying corporate standard specifications
• Projects using this idea
• Personal contacts for more information
• Referenced manufacturer’s literature.
The database should be available in both hard copy and computer file formats. The hard copy
format should contain a complete, detailed, and accurate table of contents.
30
PART II:
ROADMAP MILESTONES TO IMPLEMENT A PROJECT-LEVEL
CONSTRUCTABILITY PROGRAM
Overview
The constructability process at the project-level consists of three critical milestones: (1) Obtain
constructability capabilities, (2) Plan constructability implementation, and (3) Implement constructability.
These milestones, as well as steps describing each milestones, are presented in Figure 3.1 (next page)
and further described below.
The constructability process should begin shortly after the owner’s conception of the project and
continue through project planning, design, procurement, construction, and start-up. The earlier in the
facility delivery process that the constructability program begins, the higher the potential savings. In
addition, project constructability plays a role in securing contractors, vendors, and consultants.
The following three sections describe each of the steps included in a model project-level
constructability program. Note that the same program applies to all participants on a project (although
some portions are more relevant to specific project participants than others). Information is presented
as a sequential process to provide owners with a starting point in the development and implementation
of a constructability program. Relevant portions of the program may be adopted into an organization’s
constructability program.
31
Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
barriers
Identify
sponsor/ Define
objectives
corporate
Establish program
Secure and procedures;
32
Develop and
Establish
corporate Implement
program
Corporate Program
Project Program
Figure 3.1. Overview of Steps in Project-Level Constructability Program

Obtain Constructability Capabilities
To obtain constructability capabilities for the project, the owner should assess available in-house
expertise and consider the procurement of external design and construction constructability expertise.
As shown in Figure 3.2 (next page), four general steps lead to obtaining constructability capabilities:
(1) Assemble key owner team members, (2) Define constructability objectives and measures, (3) Select
project contracting strategy, and (4) Secure contractors, vendors, and consultants. Each of these
steps is described below.
Step 1: Assemble Key Owner Team Members
The owner’s project manager and team members have a critical influence on the success of
the project’s constructability. Only when the owner’s team is fully committed to planning for and
implementing a constructability program will such a program be of maximum benefit. To enhance the
constructability efforts, the owner should: (1) select a project manager committed to constructability
and (2) establish criteria for selection of other key owner team members. Considerations which must
be addressed during these two activities are described below.
Select owner project manager committed to constructability. The project manager (PM) from
the owner’s organization plays a vital role in the decision to implement a project-level constructability
program. In addition, the emphasis the PM places on the program impacts its effectiveness. Without
the PM’s commitment, making constructability a positive influence will be extremely difficult. The
project manager must be able to lead the team in the following areas:
• Establish a supportive project environment. The roles, responsibilities, actions, and

lines of communication for the project’s team need to provide for early and meaningful
construction knowledge and experience.
• Make a commitment to increased cost effectiveness. Constructability will be enhanced if
the project manager emphasizes the influence that project decisions have on the project’s
cost. The project manager can insist that construction input be provided for in the
project’s major decisions.
• Use constructability to meet other project objectives. Constructability should support
the traditional project objectives of cost, schedule, quality, security and safety.
Constructability also can be used to provide trade-offs between conflicting objectives.
• Involve construction. The project team should actively obtain and retain construction
personnel involved in major management and technical decisions for the project. The
owner’s project manager should provide an objective balance between both design and
construction needs.
33
• Select owner project manager committed to
Assemble constructability.
Key Owner • Establish criteria for selection of key owner team
Team Members members.
• Establish project objectives considering constructability.

Define • Establish constructability objectives.
Constructability • Identify appropriate measures for objectives.
Objectives and
• Determine level of formality for constructability
Measures
program.
• Identify owner’s available in-house constructability resources.

Select Project • Selection of a contracting strategy impacts project
Contracting constructability.
Strategy • Select organization responsible for constructability.
• Require constructability program as part of contractor

Secure prequalification process.
Contractors, • Use owner Request For Proposal (RFP) and/or project
Vendors, and specifications to obtain constructability input.
Consultants • Consider use of incentive clauses related to
constructability performance.
Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
barriers
Identify
sponsor/ Define
objectives
corporate
Establish program
Establish
corporate Implement
program
Corporate Program
Project Program
Figure 3.2. Steps to Obtain Constructability Capabilities
34
Establish criteria for selection of key owner team members. Similar to the project manager, the
key team members from the owner’s organization should be committed to constructability. If certain
team members are unfamiliar with the constructability philosophy, they should be educated on the
potential benefits. Their level of involvement in the constructability program depends on the contracting
strategy and expertise of the other participants. A clear set of criteria should be developed for selection
of key owner team members. Selection criteria should include the individual’s:
• Work experience
• Construction knowledge
• Communication skills
• Teamwork skills
• Skill to objectively evaluate design and construction trade-offs
• Receptiveness to new ideas.
Step 2: Define Constructability Objectives and Measures
Once the owner’s key team members are selected, the team can then define its constructability
objectives and measures. This step includes the following four activities: (1) establish project objectives
considering constructability, (2) establish constructability objectives, (3) identify appropriate measures
for objectives, and (4) determine level of formality for constructability program.
Establish project objectives considering constructability. Constructability plays an important role

in fulfilling established project objectives. Developing a clear understanding of the project’s objectives
and priorities is the first responsibility of the owner’s team in constructability improvement. The project
objectives typically include cost, schedule, quality, security, and safety. Other objectives for various
projects include: reliability, aesthetics, lease-ability, public image, operability, and maintainability.
As illustrated in the case studies presented in the appendix, constructability programs can reduce
maintenance costs, increase operability, and increase safety.
Traditional project objectives are shown in Figure 3.3 (next page). Each participant should be aware
of the project objectives and attempt to achieve them rather than solely focus on their individual sub-
objectives. For example, a designer that attempts to minimize design effort only may actually cause
an increase in construction effort, which in turn increases the project’s overall life-cycle cost.
The owner’s team should develop a detailed list of project objectives and prioritize each one. Assigning
priorities based on qualitative criteria is as equally important as those based on cost and schedule. It is
important to evaluate the design and construction implications when prioritizing the objectives. These
objectives should be used later in the project to analyze trade-offs between alternatives influencing
both design and construction. As various participants become involved in the project, these objectives
can be mutually agreed upon.
35
Project’s
Project
Life-Cycle
Quality
Cost
• Design Cost • Operability

• Material & Equipment Cost • Functionality
• Construction Productivity • Reliability
Project
• Operation Cost • Aesthetics
Objectives
• Maintenance Cost • Public Image
• Environmental Impact
Project Project
Schedule Safety/Security
• Planning Duration • Construction Safety/

• Design Duration Security
• Construction Duration • Operation Safety
• Start-up Duration • Maintenance Safety
Figure 3.3. Traditional Project Objectives
Establish constructability objectives. Once the design and construction participants are involved,
a specific set of constructability objectives can be developed. This set of objectives can be used to
enable trade-off analysis between constructability and other project considerations, such as security.
A list of constructability-specific objectives may include optimizing:
• Use of standardized elements

• Use of modules/preassembly
• Use of lift equipment
• Material lay-down areas
• Ease of fabrication and erection
• Use of physical models or three-dimensional CAD
• Number of field welds
• Jobsite accessibility
• Develop construction-friendly specifications
• Improve constructor/engineer communications
• Minimizing construction rework
• Minimizing design rework
• Minimizing jobsite congestion
• Minimizing occurrence of labor disputes.
36
In developing constructability objectives, consideration should be given to how the objectives can
be objectively measured by diverse levels of personnel.
Identify appropriate measures for objectives. Often more difficult than establishing objectives
is the development of appropriate performance measures. Cost and schedule performance usually is
the most easily measured. Cost and savings estimates are commonly made for design alternatives and
trade-off analysis. Safety can be measured by comparing lost-time accident rates to similar projects
or national averages. Some sample performance measures for projects are:
• Capital dollars
• Construction dollars
• Direct field labor hours
• Labor productivity (work-hours/unit)
• Number of items nonconforming with owner’s specifications
• Design rework work-hours
• Amount of scope change orders (dollars)
• Lost-time incident rate
• Shut-down duration (hours)
• Personnel and material jobsite accessibility (feet/hour/unit).
Several ways exist to formalize a constructability program. These methods include:
• Provide a budget.
• Develop a constructability manual.
• Prepare procedures for major constructability tasks.
• Issue progress and status reports.
• Track constructability suggestions.
Determine level of formality for constructability program. Several considerations affect the
level of formality of the constructability program. These considerations predominantly consist of
owner and project characteristics. Owner characteristics include owner type, objectives, expertise,
and resources. Project characteristics include construction type, contract type, project size, technical
difficulty, site location, and peculiarities. Project size need not be the only consideration in determining
the formality of the constructability program. Even if a project is relatively small for an owner, a formal
program may still be feasible. One industrial owner has formally tracked constructability suggestions
across projects in the $750,000 range. Many of the constructability lessons learned on such projects
were applicable to other projects.
37
Step 3: Select Project Contracting Strategy
The selection of the contract strategy has a profound impact on the timing and application of
constructability input. A contract strategy consists of two parts: (1) contract arrangement and (2)
contract type. Contract arrangements examples include traditional design-build and design-manage.
These arrangements influence the parties involved and their relationships. Conversely, contract type
dictates the commercial terms in which the parties are contractually bound and paid. Examples of
contract type are fixed price or reimbursable. Contracting strategy also affects the level of formality of
the constructability program. In selecting a strategy, an owner must (1) assess the available in-house
constructability expertise that can either lead or enhance the project constructability effort, (2) recognize
how the selection of a contracting strategy impacts project constructability, and, most importantly,
(3) select the contract organization best suited to be responsible for constructability during the initial
stages of project definition.
Identify owner’s available in-house constructability resources. The owner’s project team should
identify and assess existing in-house resources available to either lead or enhance constructability.
Performing a self-assessment can assist in determining what constructability expertise is available. If
formalized constructability approaches have been previously taken, the project team should obtain first-
hand knowledge of the success of the constructability program and lessons learned. Owners should
seek out and use pre-existing, in-house constructability expertise to the fullest extent possible.
Selection of contracting strategy impacts project constructability. CII Source Document 4,

“Constructability Improvement During Conceptual Planning,” states that “the contractual relationship
between the owner, the designer, and the contractor strongly influences the means and extent of early
construction involvement.” Each owner selects a specific contracting strategy for each project based
on those parameters that are perceived to best meet the project goals. This contracting strategy,
consisting of a contractual approach used for selecting the engineer and construction contractor and
the contract type used for each of these services, takes a variety of forms.
In the traditional contracting arrangement, the owner first selects an engineering or architectural firm
and then selects a single general contractor to be responsible for the construction. The general contractor
can self-perform a portion of the construction and award multiple subcontracts to accomplish the
balance of the work. Generally the contract type used for the selection of the engineering or architectural
firm is of a professional fee type. The contract type with the general contractor is a fixed price. Under
a fixed-price contract type, the constructor is unable to participate early in the planning and design
phases. Hence, the owner must lead the constructability effort. A variation of this approach occurs
when the general contractor is selected early in the project process to act as the owner’s construction
manager (CM). For purposes of identification, this is referred to as the general contractor. The contract
used varies from a reimbursable, professional fee for the CM services to a guaranteed maximum price
for the cost of construction, which is established once the project scope is defined.
In the design-build contracting arrangement, the owner selects a single firm to be responsible for the
engineering/design as well as the construction. A number of variations of the contract types are used in
38
this approach. Many are fixed price based on an owner’s performance or turnkey specification. In this
contract strategy, constructability is best implemented by the design-build contractor. The benefits of
constructability accrue to the design-build contractor, possibly creating substantial cost savings. This
encourages the design-build contractor to utilize constructability tools to the fullest extent possible.
Some owners award a design-build contract with a guaranteed maximum price that is established
after project scope has been determined. Design-construct, a form of the design-build approach, is
usually performed on a cost reimbursable basis with performance-based incentives.
In the design-manage contract arrangement, the owner selects a single firm to be responsible for
the engineering/design and the construction management of the project. The selected firm also is
responsible for implementing constructability. Construction is performed through the utilization of
multiple contract packages, which generally are competitively bid. The contract type may be fixed price
for professional services, containing a ceiling with some type of fee structure, or cost reimbursable
with an incentive program related to performance. A variation of this approach occurs when the owner
awards a separate contract for construction management. This is referred to as the construction
management contract arrangement, and the CM is responsible for implementing constructability. The
contract types under the CM approach are similar to that of the design-manage arrangement.
Each of these contracting arrangements will have different results due to the timing of contractor
construction expertise availability to the project. The traditional approach does not call for selecting
a general contractor until the design package is complete, whereas the design-manage and design-
construct strategies can provide for early construction participation. The other strategies may allow
for early construction participation, depending on how the owner establishes the strategy.
Select organization responsible for constructability. Once a contracting strategy is selected,

the owner should decide which organization (owner, constructor, or design/construction manager) is
responsible for implementing and monitoring the constructability program. Owner-implemented programs
usually maintain their own lessons-learned files that benefit constructability communication between
projects. Such communication can be particularly useful if the owner frequently constructs similar
facility types. Considerations to potential barriers created by assigning constructability responsibilities
to a constructor may need to be addressed. This may occur when a design engineer is not familiar
with participating as part of a team.
Step 4: Secure Contractors, Vendors, and Consultants
Once the owner has selected the contacting strategy to be used on the project, the next step is to
determine how to facilitate early implementation of the constructability process. When the construction
contractor or construction manager has not been selected early enough to contribute to the high cost
impact decisions made during the conceptual planning phase of a project, a surrogate construction
contractor or construction manager may be required to provide the necessary construction knowledge
and experience input. The surrogate may come from the owner, the design organization, a constructor,
a construction manager, or a consultant.
39
Require constructability program as part of contractor prequalification process. When the
contract strategy involves early selection of the constructor or requires the utilization of other resources,
the owner should include in their contractor prequalification process criteria that includes utilization
and effectiveness of the contractors constructability program. Factors to consider are:
• Corporate-level program — Assessment of corporate philosophy and recognition of

program.
• Program documentation — Evaluation of existing manuals, methods used to track
progress, and incorporation of lessons learned.
• Breadth of experience implementing program — Assessment of previous application of
their program and the personnel responsible for its implementation.
• Project-level program supports — Evaluation of tools to assist in implementing
constructability including how they incorporate new technology.
A process to prequalify and evaluate sources of constructability input can be found in the references
under Gugel (1992).
Use owner request for proposal (RFP) and/or project specifications to obtain constructability
input. When owners include constructability requirements in their bid documents, a wide variation in
their level of detail can occur. The constructability requirements may appear in the owner’s “Standard
Terms and Conditions” or “Specification within the Scope of Services” sections. Several excerpts of
inquiry documents for engineering and construction services are provided below.
1. Engineering Inquiry Document for Engineering Services:

• “Constructability – advise how bidder would integrate constructability into the front end of
this project and outline any previous experience the bidder has with such integration.”
• “Prepare a construction plan, including constructability, contract strategy, etc. for each
of the work divisions. This plan will be developed by your construction management
organization.”
• “You shall provide constructability analysis.”
• “Eight general contractors will be invited to review the planning material during the course
of project development. Inclusion of the contractors would occur during the project
initiation meeting, schematic design and design development presentations. Contractors
will be requested to evaluate information offered and respond with value engineering and
constructability suggestions.”
2. Construction Inquiry Document for Construction Services:

• “Furnish experienced construction personnel in the engineering contractor’s home office
to provide constructability and scheduling input.”
40
One owner included in the RFP a document that described the desired relationship between the
owner and construction contractors. Included within this document is a paragraph that states:
• “We normally expect an earlier involvement of some of the contractor’s key personnel
than is customary. For example, in advance of the general job mobilization certain
personnel may be assigned for training on the specific methods to be employed, to
prepare procedures manuals, participate in team development and early planning, and
to provide effective input on constructability of specific details as the engineering design
and schedule are developing.”
One owner included in their Scope Specifications a three-page section titled, Constructability, that
defines:
• “the minimum constructability requirements that shall be implemented on the project.”
The specification requires that a complete constructability program be developed and approved
by the owner early in the design phase.
Tools 17a through 17d in Part III provide sample documents that owners can use as a basis for
defining the project constructability program requirements. Tools 17a and 17b can be used when the
contracting strategy facilitates early construction participation. By including the appropriate tool in
the owner’s RFP (as modified to meet the owner’s specific project needs), the owner can proactively
ensure that personnel with construction knowledge and experience are active participants throughout
the project process. Tool 17c can be used when the contracting strategy requires the use of third party
constructability services. The owner can use this tool to place the constructability responsibility with
the engineer or obtain these services from a contractor, construction manager, or a constructability
consultant. Tool 17d is a clause to be included in the architect’s or engineer’s contract when the owner
places responsibility for managing the project constructability program with a construction contractor,
construction manager, or constructability consultant.
Consider use of incentive clauses related to constructability performance. Well-conceived

incentive clauses can effectively enhance a project’s constructability. On a petrochemical facility
expansion project, an owner effectively integrated incentive programs between the on-site designer
and constructor (see Case Studies). The designer’s and constructor’s incentive programs both included
incentives for milestones, quality, and final completion. The designer also had home office effort-hour
incentives. The constructor had field productivity and safety incentives in addition to other incentives.
To benefit from the incentives, the two organizations (designer and constructor) were dependent upon
one another and had to work jointly to coordinate their efforts. On this project, common goals were
established between the designer and the constructor. These goals encouraged the implementation
of constructability as a means to ensure that common objectives were met. Creating the common
goals also acted as one of the means to provide team building for the project.
41
Plan Constructability Implementation
As shown in Figure 4.1, four steps lead to effective planning for constructability implementation:
(1) Develop the constructability team and identify/address barriers, (2) Screen the Lessons-Learned
database, (3) Conduct the Constructability Planning Workshop, and (4) Finalize concept application
plans.
Timely and thoughtful planning is an action that is critical to effective constructability implementation.
Such planning should begin as soon as possible with respect to the formation of the project team and
with respect to firm project definition and established Owner commitment. In addition, constructability
planning efforts should involve all major project stakeholders and team participants in a timely manner,
exploiting each beneficial “window of opportunity” that can positively affect supportive decision-
making.
Key to substantive constructability planning and implementation are the 16 updated Constructability
Concepts conveyed in Tool 2. As presented in that tool, seven concepts should be initiated during the
conceptual planning phases of projects, eight concepts should be initiated during the detailed design
and procurement phases of projects, and one concept is intended for the field operations phase.
CII’s constructability research and implementation strategy, from the outset, has focused on these
concepts — or premier guiding principles, which have intentionally been devised as challenges to
implementing organizations. That is, as opposed to providing a set of incomplete or dated checklists
of detailed constructability tactics, CII has chosen to provide a collection of higher-level concepts
which can and should be applied in a myriad of unique ways that are responsive to the challenges and
needs of each project. In this way the concepts are really time-proven catalysts intended to maximize
the fruits of the analytical and creative talents of project teams.
42
• Assemble team members and organize team.
Develop • Orient team and disseminate policy statement.
Constructability
Team and Identify/ • Perform team-building exercises.
Address Barriers • Identify barriers and barrier-breaking strategies.
• Establish screening parameters.

Screen the • Conduct the screening.
Lessons-Learned
Database
• Prepare for and conduct the Planning

Conduct the Workshop.
Constructability • Draft Concept Application Plans.
Planning
Workshop
• Refine constructability roles, action

Finalize plans, and responsibilities.
Concept • Integrate constructability deliverables.
Application
Plans
Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
barriers
Identify
sponsor/ Define
objectives
corporate
Establish program
Establish
corporate Implement
program
Corporate Program
Project Program
Figure 4.1. Steps Plan Constructability Implementation
43
Step 1: Develop the Constructability Team and Identify/Address Barriers
The constructability team includes personnel from the Owner, Designer, and Constructor organizations
and the project team. Also included are representatives from subcontractors, vendors, and consultants
as applicable. To ensure mutual interests and to minimize any adversarial relationships, the following
four tasks should be conducted independent of project size.
Assemble constructability team members and organize the constructability team. It is

essential that key individuals selected to lead constructability efforts have construction experience,
strong interpersonal skills, and be open-minded. In selecting key members of the constructability
team, the project manager should consider the following principles.
• Plan early. Planning can assist in overcoming barriers such as justifying the expenditure
to hire construction personnel earlier than traditional project management approaches or
failing to have appropriate personnel available when needed.
• Insist on experienced individuals. It is essential to have experienced contractor personnel
participate in constructability. Selection criteria should be outlined in advance.
• Select cooperative team players. The key team members must be able to openly discuss
issues with other project participants. The individuals must be willing to accept other
points of view from the project’s team members.
• Minimize project team turn-over. The importance of continuity within the project team
is essential to achieve success. Minimizing team turn-over increases the likelihood of
constructability success.
The organizational structure of the constructability team can vary from project to project. An
organizational chart must be drafted identifying the constructability team participants and delineating
their roles. Figure 4.2 (Tool 12) shows a sample organizational chart. With the exception of the project
Constructability Coordinator, project team members participate in the constructability program on a
part-time basis. The involvement of the Constructability Coordinator is dependent upon the formality
of the constructability program implemented. On large capital projects with a formal constructability
program, the Constructability Coordinator may be a full-time position. The individual may reside in the
design office, coordinate constructability activities, and act as a liaison to the corporate Constructability
Manager. On smaller projects, the construction manager or other team member may serve as the
Constructability Coordinator on a part-time basis.
If the constructor for the project has not been selected prior to the start of design, appropriate
construction expertise must be provided. The expertise may come from the Owner, the design
organization, a professional construction manager, or a consultant. Several problems may result
from use of expertise from other than the actual constructor. Lack of continuity or an attempt to shift
the construction approach of the project by the selected constructor may conflict with the previously
obtained constructability input.
44
Project Manager
Project Project
Ad Hoc
Constructability Constructability
Specialists
Coordinator Team
• May be full-time • Construction Manager As needed for particular

• Frequently becomes a • Owner’s Representatives areas; for example:
member of field staff • Project Engineers • Rigging
• Focal point of • Discipline Engineers • HVAC
constructability • Piping
coordination • Architects
• Construction Superintendents • Concrete
• Liaison for
constructability ideas • Construction Engineers • Instrumentation
• Manages temporary • Procurement • Electrical
and special • Subcontractors • Structural
assignments • Quality Control • Welding
• Project Controls Manager • Transportation
• Equipment
• Coatings
• Security
Figure 4.2. Sample Project Organization Structure
The roles and responsibilities of each of the constructability team members should be clearly
defined. The team member’s responsibilities are defined below.
• Project Manager—The owner’s Project Manager should work with the project
Constructability Coordinator on the program’s progress and effectiveness. The Project
Manager is responsible for ensuring that qualified field personnel are made part of the
constructability team. The Project Manager assists the Constructability Coordinator in
identifying and securing various ad hoc constructability specialists as needed.
• Project Constructability Coordinator—The Constructability Coordinator interfaces with the
project team and is the focal point for overseeing and coordinating the project effort on a
full-time or part-time basis. The Constructability Coordinator should consider mobilizing
to the project’s design office during most of conceptual planning and design phases.
The Constructability Coordinator can initiate: (1) orientation of the entire project team to
constructability program, including team building, (2) the integration of constructability
into the project execution plan, (3) the review of constructability lessons-learned file, (4)
the assurance of adequate consideration of constructability concepts, (5) the planning
and scheduling of constructability studies, (6) the gathering of constructability input from
45
various ad hoc specialists, (7) the maintenance of a constructability suggestion log, (8)
evaluating and reporting on constructability progress, (9) the solicitation of appropriate
feedback, and (10) the forwarding of new lessons learned to corporate file. Another key
responsibility is assisting in the development and review of project specifications. The
coordinator may also manage temporary and special assignments as necessary. Thus,
the skills and talents required of Constructability Coordinators makes them truly unique
project resources. However, the project team cannot and should not ever attempt to rely
solely on the Constructability Coordinator for program success. Such success relies upon
a team-wide effort – and the Coordinator is merely the “conductor” of that effort.
• Core Constructability Team—The core constructability team consists of the project’s
construction manager (from constructor’s organization), owner’s facility manager,
and the project design engineer, as a minimum. These members are assigned to the
constructability team during conceptual planning and continue through start-up. The core
constructability team provides constructability input on a continual basis as appropriate.
The core constructability team should be responsible for approval of constructability
suggestions. Through the constructability coordinator, the core constructability team
arranges participation of other constructability team members during appropriate phases
of the project.
• Constructability Team—The remainder of the constructability team is mobilized as
required to provide input into areas requiring specific construction expertise. The
individuals on the constructability team must possess strong communication and
teamwork skills in addition to their technical expertise.
• Ad Hoc Specialists—Various specialists, as identified in Figure 4.2, participate in the
constructability effort on an as-needed basis. These specialists may be assigned to the
project or secured from other sources as necessary. The Constructability Coordinator
and core constructability team members can share in deciding whether particular
specialists are needed at specific points in the facility delivery process.
Orient the constructability team and disseminate the policy statement. A constructability policy
statement is a simple means to emphasize the importance of constructability. This policy statement
can be developed after the constructability team is formed. Most statements identified during the
interview process included:
• Definition of constructability
• A policy that constructability will be used as a tool to enhance achievement of the project
objectives
• A list of the project objectives that will be enhanced by constructability
• An emphasis on teamwork for the project.
The project’s policy statement can be developed from an existing corporate statement or as part
of a team-building activity.
46
The members of the constructability team may require some formal constructability training and
will need to be informed of the project constructability philosophy. Orientation subjects concerning
constructability can include:
• Definition of constructability
• Constructability policy for project
• Importance of teamwork and communication
• Discussion of project status and objectives
• Discussion of project’s critical success factors
• Overview of the 16 Constructability Concepts
• Roles and responsibilities of constructability team members
• General constructability procedures for project.
In addition, the team should refer to the previously developed constructability objectives and
measures defined in Step 2 of Milestone 3. This may facilitate obtaining team commitment to the key
program objectives.
Perform team-building exercises. A constructability program is more successful if the constructability

team has unified project objectives and its members are communicating openly. Specific attention
must be given to building a cohesive team. Formal team-building exercises, such as a team retreat or
sessions with a team-building consultant, enhance and hasten the team-building process. Once the
team is formed, its effectiveness should be evaluated periodically.
On one large project, a concise 11-page guide to developing teamwork was part of the constructability
manual. The guide included: (1) project’s concept of teamwork, (2) definition of team, (3) characteristics
of high performing teams, (4) four natural stages of team development (i.e., orientation, dissatisfaction,
resolution, and production), (5) skills necessary to help teams develop, (6) methods/tools to facilitate
teamwork, (7) implementation plan for building teamwork into constructability, and (8) additional team-
building resources.
Many organizations are reluctant to invest resources to increase early constructability input during
conceptual planning. These same organizations have barriers to constructability. The constructability
team must (1) identify the constructability barriers present within the project team and (2) identify
means to overcome these barriers.
Identify barriers present within project team and define barrier-breaker strategies. A wide
variety of barriers makes implementation of constructability more difficult. Some barriers relate to
obtaining the owner’s commitment to initiate the constructability process: lack of constructability
awareness, reluctance to provide front-end funding, and the perception that constructability is already
being done effectively. Other barriers, however, are related to the team members’ unfamiliarity to the
constructability philosophy and how it works. Some of the perceived barriers include:
• Complacency with status quo

• Reluctance to invest additional money and effort in early project stages
47
• Limitations of lump-sum competitive contracting
• Lack of construction experience in design organization
• Designer’s perception that “we do it”
• Lack of mutual respect between design and constructors
• Construction input requested too late to be of value.
As an activity, each member of the constructability team should identify the barriers that they
anticipate for the project. By so doing, many of the member’s own internal barriers can be revealed.
Members of the constructability team should also participate in identifying or, when necessary,
developing means to overcome the barriers in order to effectively apply constructability to the project.
This may be included as part of a team-building exercise. Other means of overcoming barriers are
education, the sharing of constructability success stories among constructability team members, and
the review of case studies.
Step 2: Screen the Lessons-Learned Database
Screen ideas from the Lessons-Learned Database. Constructability teams are most effective
when they can readily exploit the lessons and innovations experienced on past projects. Thus, as
discussed in Milestone 2, a Lessons Learned database can be a key ingredient for constructability
success.
True to its definition, a constructability program acts as a vehicle for sharing construction knowledge
and experience. Gaining knowledge from previous experiences is essential to any successful
constructability program. A sample listing of lessons learned is presented below:
• Plan access ways for cranes to be used for both construction and maintenance.
• Maximize ground level construction.
• Issue foundation drawings without anchor bold details when equipment is such that
anchors may be drilled in after the equipment arrives.
• Provide lifting lugs on precast manholes.
• Design and erect permanent stairways, platforms, and ladders as soon as practical.
• Minimize the use of bracing and small members as much as possible.
• Provide shop and field inspection criteria for all process equipment.
• Specify lifting lugs on elevated horizontal vessels.
• Temporary power system should utilize as much of the permanent system equipment as
possible (i.e., transformers, lighting panels, etc.).
• Show conduit sizes on drawings.
• Standardize primer and finished coat paint types as much as possible.
48
A variety of methods exists for communicating historical “lessons.” For example, lessons-learned are
usually communicated at project kick-off meetings, within project meeting notes, and during post-project
review meetings. Ideally, lessons learned are stored in a readily accessible computerized database.
Hard-copy sources usually contain a collection of post-project reports and meeting minutes.
Of course, once lessons-learned are recorded, to be of benefit to another project such ideas must
be appropriately and effectively screened or selected for implementation.
One of the computerized databases identified during the research was that of industrial owner who
constructs many small (i.e., under $20 million) projects that involve similar types of industrial technology
and modules. The database includes lessons learned from the constructability program as part of
the project control system (e.g., budget amounts, change orders, and purchase orders). The lessons
learned are obtained from constructability logs and by soliciting contractor feedback during construction
and are entered into the database by a Constructability Coordinator who participates concurrently on
several projects. The lessons learned contained in the computer files can be retrieved by both project
number and cost center. Their “cost centers” involve approximately 80 cost codes that are commonly
used for work packages on projects. The computerized database has made locating and retrieving
lessons learned more efficient and accessible for design and construction personnel.
For another company, the fields contained within the lessons-learned database related to type
of impact from the lesson; technical discipline of the lesson; type or category of lesson; lesson
implementation history; and lesson source; among others.
Thus, the screening of lessons-learned from a database is an important step in preparing the team
for implementation and application of constructability. The timing of such screening should occur early
in team development in order to maximize the benefits from recorded lessons-learned. As any good
lessons-learned database is actually a dynamic, growing resource, ideally it will be consulted multiple
times during the planning and design phases of a project.
Step 3: Conduct the Constructability Planning Workshop
Prepare for and conduct the Planning Workshop. After the Constructability Team has been provided
with an effective Constructability orientation, after barriers have been identified and addressed, and
after preliminary screening of the Lessons-Learned Database is complete, a Constructability Planning
Workshop should be conducted with all key project stakeholders and team members in attendance.
Schedule-wise, the workshop should be conducted as early as possible after project feasibility analysis
and scoping are complete and once critical project participants are “on board.”
The chief purpose of the Constructability Planning Workshop is to scope-out the primary
constructability efforts and put together plans for their execution within the context of planned project
progress. Thus, the expected outcomes of the workshop are ready-to-implement plans that will facilitate
effective and timely decision-making supportive of constructability goals.
49
Tool 13 outlines the 11 activities that should be included in the workshop. These activities include
the following:
1. Introductions; Safety Briefing; Review of Agenda

2. Project Status Briefing
3. Results/overview of Constructability orientation and assessment of barriers to
implementation
4. Mini-group Break-out Session: Identification of Constructability concerns and
opportunities
5. Reports from Concerns/Opportunities break-out sessions
6. Prioritization of Constructability Concepts and sub-concepts
7. Results of pre-screening of Lessons-Learned Database; Plans for further screening
8. Mini-group Break-out Sessions: Development of Concept Application Plans
9. Reports from Concept Application Plans break-out sessions
10. Path-forward plan for implementing Concept Application Plans
11. Workshop Closure
As indicated, the key steps in the workshop are targeted toward the identification of Constructability-
related concerns and opportunities, the prioritization of Constructability Concepts for implementation,
and the drafting of Concept Application Plans for needed deliverables that support critical decisions.
Many companies refer to such plans as “constructability studies.”
In planning for the Constructability Planning Workshop, some may find the Constructability Concepts
Application Matrices found in Appendices B and C to be of value. These matrices show the notional timing
relationships between the original 17 constructability concepts and the phase activities characteristic
of either commercial or industrial projects. In essence, these matrices provide insight into when each
concept should be considered for application within a project. Certainly practitioners that make use
of the matrices should not feel limited in any way by the guidance provided in these matrices.
Draft Concept Application Plans. As stated, the primary output from the Constructability
Planning Workshop is the preparation of several Concept Application Plans that elaborate on needed
implementation deliverables. As indicated in Tool 14, each Concept Application Plan should be
structured to address the following information elements:
• Concepts targeted
• Concerns/drivers associated with each Concept
• Opportunities/drivers associated with each Concept
• Constructability-related decision(s) to be impacted/supported
• Deliverable(s) needed for each Concept.
50
The intent of action plan deliverables is to positively impact decision-making that supports
constructability. Examples of such deliverables or decision-oriented “studies” that might be identified
through this process include the following:
• Listing of modularization opportunities, including the scoping of packaged units

• Decision analysis for choice of structural system material/configuration
• Preparation and analysis of a startup- and construction-sensitive project milestone
schedule
• Analysis of heavy lifts, including (but not limited to) crane selection, lift sequencing, and
crane siting and accessibility
• Preparation of a plan for temporary construction site facilities
• Identification of technical specifications that are in need of updating
• Analysis of site accessibility challenges and identification of related optional solutions
• Identification of options for maximizing field work progress during the Winter season.
As indicated by the breadth and specificity of the topics of these deliverables, the individual or
teams usually responsible for their preparation tend to be a mix of technical specialists and project
management personnel.
For each decision to be supported with a “study” deliverable, workshop break-out groups should
discuss and document the following issues as parts of each Concept Application Plan:
• Constructability-related decision(s) to be impacted/supported

• Descriptive title of deliverable needed
• Purpose(s) of deliverable
• Sub-components of deliverable
• Targeted customer or user of deliverable
• Needed timing of completion of deliverable and associated timing constraints
• Recommended lead individual responsible for completing deliverable
• Recommended format of deliverable
• Individuals to be consulted in preparing the deliverable.
• Additional key information sources for developing this deliverable.
For smaller projects or for those situations when the workshop duration can be extended to several
days, workshop break-out groups, if properly staffed, can actually initiate the drafting of such deliverables
as previously described. In most cases, such drafts will continue to be refined and completed over
the appropriate “opportunistic schedule windows.” Of course, as stated previously, the intent of the
Concept Application Plans and associated deliverables is to positively impact those critical decisions
which impact constructability – and to do so in a timely manner.
51
Step 4: Finalize Concept Application Plans
As demonstrated by the Concept Application Plans, constructability activities need to be planned

for application during the conceptual planning, design, and construction phases of projects.
The Constructability Coordinator needs to coordinate constructability procedures and integrate
constructability activities into the project schedule. Two specific tasks under this step are described
below.
Refine constructability roles, responsibilities, and action-plans. In the form of Concept Application
Plans, a thorough set of concept-driven action-plans is crucial to the success of the constructability
team. Project constructability program-level procedures should also be prepared. In preparing these
procedures, the constructability program should be based on a forward-looking, integrated planning
philosophy rather than a backward-looking “review” of completed design. This will minimize design
rework and result in higher quality design.
In addition, the constructability team should jointly develop a schedule showing the necessary
timing for the various constructability study deliverables. The schedule must allow for adequate timing
of constructability input so design rework is not necessary.
Integrate constructability deliverables into project activities. Project activities need to allow for
integrating construction knowledge and experience throughout design, procurement, construction, and
start-up phases. Constructability teams need to use a structured means to integrate constructability
knowledge rather than rely solely on one or more ad-hoc methods.
One approach to this task is to use a flowchart or time-line to identify the overall constructability
process as it relates to project progress. Such a time-line was developed for the Low Sulfur Gas
Project case study (see Part IV of this publication). The time-line illustrates the link between “what”
and “when” concerning constructability.
52
Implement Constructability
With adequate constructability planning, the sharing of constructability innovations and solutions
should be integral with the team’s design, construction, and start-up responsibilities. The milestone that
calls for implementing constructability is shown in Figure 5.1. This milestone consists of three steps:
(1) Put concept application plans into action, (2) Monitor and evaluate implementation effectiveness,
and (3) Document lessons learned. Each step is described below.
• Apply constructability concepts.

Put Concept • Execute constructability program
Application procedures.
Plans into
Action
• Maintain records of constructability

Monitor and ideas.
Evaluate Project • Evaluate and report on program’s
Program progress.
Effectiveness • Take corrective action.
• Receive feedback.
Document
Lessons
Learned
Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
barriers
Identify
sponsor/ Define
objectives
corporate
Establish program
Establish
corporate Implement
program
Corporate Program
Project Program
Figure 5.1. Steps to Implement Constructability on Project
53
Step 1: Put Concept Application Plans into Action
Apply Constructability Concepts. Effective Concept Application Plans are the key to effective
implementation of the concepts. At the same time it should be kept in mind that constructability
implementation will be a highly iterative process that peaks out during project planning and detailed
design but can continue well into the construction phase.
Constructability concepts are high-level lessons learned from past projects that have widespread
application and which therefore should become formal within an organization. Many organizations
have focused on the constructability concepts developed by CII. Organizations are encouraged,
however, to further develop more specific concepts (or detailed concept applications) based on their
own project experiences.
Beyond the Concept Application Plans, one method to stimulate the application of the constructability
concepts is to include them as part of the project’s constructability manual. Several project-level
constructability manuals collected during the research for this publication contained “checklists”
of constructability concepts arranged by planning activities or design disciplines. Some samples
of extractions from these manuals are presented in Figure 5.2. The checklists should be used as a
stimulus for early discussion between construction and design personnel rather than as a surrogate
for construction input during planning and design.
Lessons learned can be used as a tool to stimulate discussions between discipline leads, the
Constructability Coordinator, and construction superintendents prior to starting planning and
design activities. This is a powerful means by which to facilitate communication between design and
construction personnel.
Execute Constructability Program Procedures. Constructability team members should be aware

of their responsibilities for providing constructability input and following constructability procedures as
soon as the team is assembled. The constructability procedures detailed in the Concept Application
Plans are a series of detailed actions that should be performed in a timely manner. These actions
should be implemented through the planning and detailed design phases, and beyond. Constructability
feedback should continue until the project close-out meeting is conducted. The Constructability
Coordinator should monitor the implementation of constructability procedures and take corrective
action if necessary.
Some additional guidelines for constructability implementation follow:
• The constructability effort will begin during the conceptual planning phase and continue
through the design, procurement, construction, and start-up phases.
• The constructability coordinator will interface with the project team and be the focal point
for overseeing and coordinating the constructability effort.
• The constructability team will convene on a regular basis to discuss constructability
concepts, share lessons learned from the database, and provide constructability input to
designs.
54
Plot Plan Development
• Plan accessways for cranes to be used for both construction and maintenance.
• Maximize ground level construction.
• Allow parallel work areas by providing a layout that spreads units out.
• Provide adequate egress from units to minimize use of special safety permits.
Civil/Foundations
• Issue foundation drawings without anchor bolt details when equipment is such that
anchors may be drilled in after the equipment arrives.
• Provide lifting lugs on precast manholes.
• When possible avoid excavations below the ground water table.
• Standardize foundation sizes for pumps, piperacks, structures, and miscellaneous
supports.
Structural Steel
• Design and erect permanent stairways, platforms, and ladders as soon as practical.
• Minimize the use of bracing and small members as much as possible.
• Use A325 bolts for all structural connections.
Mechanical Equipment
• Provide shop and field inspection criteria for all process equipment.
• Specify lifting lugs on elevated horizontal vessels.
• When possible, modularize large pieces of equipment.
Electrical
• Temporary power system should utilize as much of the permanent system equipment
as possible (i.e., transformer, lighting panels, etc.).
• Show conduit sizes on drawings.
• Review all vendor equipment to ensure 120 volt and other power requirements have
been designed.
Paint/Insulation
• Standardize primer and finished coat paint types as much as possible.
Figure 5.2. Sample Constructability Ideas from Lessons-Learned File
55
• Particular reliance will be placed on ad hoc project team members to provide
constructability expertise when a specialty area is being considered. Procurement
specialists will be included frequently since they have current specific knowledge of
vendors.
• As new constructability items are identified for consideration, suggestion forms shall be
received and logged in by the Constructability Coordinator who will coordinate technical,
schedule, and cost evaluations.
• Most trade-off analyses and comparisons will be based on the order-of-magnitude cost
and schedule knowledge of the participants involved. This saves time and accelerates
decisions. Professional estimating and schedule support may, however, be necessary
for complex analyses. When necessary, constructability benefit will be ascertained using
cost-estimating and scheduling services provided by the Project Controls Manager.
• The constructability coordinator will monitor and periodically report on progress of the
constructability program.
• At the appropriate time prior to release of a design package, the constructability team
may perform a final constructability review to check for completeness and accuracy of
design details. This review is not intended as an opportunity to modify the design, rather
it will be a final check that approved concepts have been incorporated. Therefore, this
final check is not expected to result in major design rework or changes in scope.
• During the construction phase, an active dialogue with the contractor(s) is maintained
to evaluate the constructability items implemented and account for areas of possible
improvement for future projects. These lessons learned will be incorporated into
the constructability database. To ensure continual improvement, it is essential that
opportunities missed be captured along with good ideas implemented.
• At the conclusion of the project, the constructability team will jointly and objectively
assess the constructability performance and focus on areas of improvement.
Step 2: Monitor and Evaluate Implementation Effectiveness
The Constructability Coordinator should maintain a log (Tool 16) for recording pertinent information
regarding constructability suggestions and studies. The format for the suggestion form can vary. A
sample Constructability Idea Collection Form is provided in Tool 15. The Constructability Coordinator
should coordinate the necessary cost and schedule estimating for the constructability suggestions. The
Constructability Coordinator can also act as the liaison to the corporate lessons-learned database.
Tangible benefits, be they financial, schedule, quality, safety, or operational, may be made available
through quarterly reports outlining the progress of the constructability program and how it is impacting
the project’s objectives. The quarterly reports may also include an evaluation on the progress of the
program. One constructability program stated that “recommended changes to standing specifications,
standards, and procedures which would enhance constructability, or other cost effective improvements,
will also be included in the report.”
56
Based on the program’s progress, corrective action may be necessary to achieve the expected
constructability results. Attention should be given to how effectively the constructability team is
communicating. Additional team building exercises may be necessary to improve the working relationship
of the constructability team. If barriers to constructability still exist on the project, they should be re-
addressed. Action may also be necessary to modify the constructability procedures or activities.
Step 3: Document Lessons Learned
Feedback on the constructability program needs to be received during construction and at the
conclusion of the project. During construction, it is important to obtain an objective assessment of the
design documents from contractors and subcontractors. Specific lessons learned should be documented
during both design and construction rather than at the end of the project. When appropriate, their
assessment can be added to the lessons-learned database for use on future projects. At the conclusion
of the project, the constructability team should objectively assess and evaluate design aspects for
developing additional lessons learned for future projects.
57
Update Corporate Program
Just as project-level constructability programs should be evaluated periodically, so should the

corporate-level constructability program. Such an evaluation should be used to identify areas for
improvement and needs for change. This activity should fall under the responsibility of the corporate
program manager. This is a critical component in the overall corporate continuous improvement
process. Figure 6.1 illustrates the steps in this process.
• Establish and apply corporate-level constructability

program effectiveness criteria.
Evaluate Corporate
Program • Periodically conduct a formal program evaluation.
Effectiveness • Recognize, reward, and announce success at both
corporate program and project program levels.
• As needed, modify the program organization to

Modify Organization broaden expertise, and to guard against recurring
and Procedures; barriers and complacency.
Update Lessons- • As needed, modify procedures and tools used for
Learned Database training, communication, evaluation, etc.
• Continuously expand and update the
lessons-learned database with developments from
each project.
Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
barriers
Identify
sponsor/ Define
objectives
corporate
Establish program
Establish
corporate Implement
program
Corporate Program
Project Program
Figure 6.1. Steps to Update Corporate Program
58
Step 1: Evaluate Corporate Program Effectiveness
Establish and apply corporate-level constructability program effectiveness criteria:
• Are overall corporate constructability program goals and objectives being met?
• Is there a need to establish new program goals?
• Do project-level constructability programs receive all the necessary support from the
corporate program? Recognize that true corporate program success requires program
success at the project level.
• Supplement the Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix (Figure 1.4) with Step Two
(Figure 1.5) parameters pertaining to specific program goals, such as program targets for
project capital cost reduction and benefit-cost ratios.
• Include a re-assessment of both constructability barriers and the effectiveness of barrier
breakers in the overall corporate program evaluation.
Periodically conduct a formal program evaluation and involve employees at a variety of levels and
positions. Conduct the assessment annually as part of a corporate performance benchmarking process.
Recognize, reward, and announce success at both the corporate and project program levels. Integrate
constructability program successes into the annual company award program.
Step 2: Modify Organization and Procedures; Update Lessons-Learned Database
As needed, modify the program and company organization to better serve project
constructability:
• Consider periodically rotating persons serving in the corporate constructability program

manager role to broaden the constructability expertise base.
• Beware of recurring organizational barriers and maintain a vigilance against complacency,
hidden agendas, and resistance to efforts.
As needed, modify program procedures:
• Insure that high-quality constructability program awareness material is included in in-

house training programs.
• Focus on improving the cross-communication of lessons learned at the project level
by evaluating pertinent or potential communication mechanisms (i.e., a constructability
coordination newsletter).
• Review practices for ascertaining program costs and benefits; ensure that the level of
effort is adequate and effective, but not excessive.
• Ensure that program successes receive adequate publicity.
59
Focus on maintaining a high quality file or database of lessons learned:
• Continuously expand and update the lessons-learned database with developments from
each project.
• Periodically review items in the database for completeness, accuracy, consistency,
timeliness, and avoidance of duplication.
• Always be on the lookout for new contributors to the system—subcontractors, suppliers
and others.
• Review the adequacy of idea collection and evaluation—but do not expand these
indiscriminately.
• Ensure that contributors are receiving constructive feedback on their ideas.
• Based upon thorough analysis and discussions, periodically assess the need for new
constructability concepts and seek out new applications to support these.
Updating the corporate program concludes the cycle of the constructability implementation roadmap.
It may be the single most important activity ensuring constructability program effectiveness.
60
PART III:
CONSTRUCTABILITY IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS OVERVIEW
This section contains a number of tools developed to assist in corporate and project level
implementation of constructability. All were either introduced or referenced in Part I. They are grouped
here for easy reference and to facilitate removal and duplication. The tools included in this section
are listed below.
Some tools are self-explanatory or have been fully discussed elsewhere in this document. Where
appropriate, the tool is preceded by a brief explanation of its intended function. For more information
on a particular tool, refer to the chapter referenced for that tool.
61
Tool 1: Constructability Implementation Roadmap
Understand
constructability
objectives, Develop
barriers
Identify
sponsor/ Define
objectives
corporate
Establish program
program
62
benefits workshop Modify

Establish
corporate Implement
program
Corporate Program
Project Program
Tool 2: Constructability Concepts
No. Concept Description
I-1 Constructability implementation plans are an integral part of the Project

Execution Plan.
I-2 Early project feasibility planning takes advantage of construction knowledge

and experience.
I-3 Development of the project contracting strategy involves construction

knowledge and experience.
I-4 Project schedules are construction- and startup-sensitive.
I-5 Important, early design decisions consider modularization/preassembly,

construction automation, and other major construction method options.
I-6 Permanent and temporary site layouts promote efficient construction.
I-7 Advanced information technologies are applied to facilitate efficient

construction.
II-1 Design and procurement schedules are construction-sensitive.
II-2 Designs are configured to enable efficient construction and use of efficient
technologies.
II-3 Design elements are standardized.
II-4 Procurement, construction and startup efficiency are considered in the

development of contract documents.
II-5 Module/preassembly designs facilitate fabrication, transport, and field

installation.
II-6 Designs promote construction accessibility of personnel, material, and

equipment.
II-7 Designs facilitate construction and field productivity under adverse weather
conditions.
II-8 Project plans enhance security during construction.
III-1 Innovative construction management and field methods are applied to

increase construction efficiency.
63
Conceptual Planning Phase
I-1—Constructability implementation plans are an integral part of the Project Execution Plan.
If constructability is to be effectively achieved on a project, the plan for achieving it must be written
as part of the project execution plan. In most cases, these plans are prepared by the Owner’s project
manager at an early stage of the project. The constructability program should become a integral part
of the planning process for the project. The constructability program can contribute to effective project
execution in many ways, including: (1) helping to establish project goals and objectives, (2) providing
a logical and systematic manner for integrating design and construction, (3) providing a mechanism
for obtain field construction experience as needed, and (4) improving the understanding of the design
intent by construction personnel.
I-2—Early project feasibility planning takes advantage of construction knowledge and

experience.
The inclusion of construction personnel in early planning teams can be critical to achieving cost and
schedule benefits. For example, construction knowledge and experience on early project planning
teams can be actively involved in a variety of critical decisions or assessments: (1) establishing project
objectives, (2) selecting project site, (3) analyzing schedule feasibility, (4) establishing productivity
assumptions, (5) preparing estimates and budgets, and (6) identifying sources of long-lead and/or
scarce materials and equipment.
I-3—Development of the project contracting strategy involves construction knowledge and

experience.
The contracting strategy will have a major influence on the availability of qualified construction personnel
to serve on constructability teams. Owners must be particularly cognizant of strategies that limit the
role of the constructor during early phases of the project. For example, if the project delivery system
employs the traditional strategy of separate contracts for the designer and general contractor, the
owner may have primary responsibility for coordinating early construction input. Special arrangements,
such as use of a constructability consultant, may be required to obtain the necessary constructability
input during the conceptual and early design phases. Regardless of which approach is selected, the
appropriate construction personnel must be involved and their expected qualifications must be clearly
specified in the contract documents.
I-4—Project schedules are construction- and startup-sensitive.

This concept establishes the principle that the project completion date and the requirements of the
construction and startup phases should be considered in optimizing the overall project schedule.
The overall project schedule, in allocating durations of time among the major project activities should
achieve an optimal economic balance. To reap the full benefits of constructability, a “backward pass,”
“feed-forward,” or construction-driven approach should be applied in developing the master schedule.
Of course, while using this approach, a proper balance must be sought among the times allocated for
planning, design, procurement, construction, and startup.
64
I-5—Important, early design decisions consider modularization/preassembly, construction
automation, and other major construction method options.
Major construction methods can be defined as the use of construction equipment, labor, and work
sequencing in such a way that the methods become a major design “driver.” Thus, a design-driver is
a construction method, condition, or technique that project designers must address or accommodate,
and which if substituted later in project, could significantly impact cost, time, or performance results.
Major construction methods must be considered during conceptual planning. All members of the
project team should interact and contribute to the decision for selecting such major methods. For many
projects, perhaps there is no method selection option more critical in this respect than that of scoping
modularization and major pre-assembly efforts. In addition, as construction automation devices begin
to play a larger role in project execution, associated design requirements must be considered in a
timely manner for the technologies to deliver their full benefit.
I-6—Permanent and temporary site layouts promote efficient construction.

Construction efficiency is an important criterion in the layout of both permanent and temporary
facilities. Permanent facility layout should be reflective of construction concerns and well coordinated
with temporary facility plans. Construction considerations that should be provided for include: (1)
adequate space for lay-down and fabrication yards, (2) access for construction equipment, materials,
and personnel, (3) avoidance of costly and problematic types of construction such as underground
and elevated work when alternatives exist, (4) temporary construction uses of existing or permanent
facilities, and (5) planning for adequate drainage during all phases of construction.
I-7—Advanced information technologies are applied to facilitate efficient construction.

Constructability can be enhanced by exploiting the capabilities and benefits of advanced information
technologies, which are ever-emerging. The use of advanced technologies has the potential to
revolutionize the methods and processes used by the construction industry. Some of the information
technologies that are benefiting the constructability of projects include the use of three-dimensional
computer modeling for avoidance of physical interferences and “walk-thru” or construction simulation;
relational database systems for lessons-learned systems; work process simulation for optimizing
resource utilization; web-based team collaboration systems for enhancing communications and
information access; bar coding of materials, equipment and workers; field notebook computers
to facilitate progress tracking and inspections; and remote sensing technologies for verifying field
dimensions; among others. Beyond enabling beneficial data manipulation, such technologies provide
opportunities to more effectively apply construction knowledge and experience through enhanced
interfaces between project engineering, construction, and maintenance personnel.
65
Design and Procurement Phase
II-1—Design and procurement schedules are construction-sensitive.

Construction normally is a large cost segment of a project and thus can exert great cost leverage on
a “backward pass” schedule through both procurement and detailed design. Procurement processes,
other than for lead times, may have only a moderate ability to conform to the needs of construction
processes. While design is a complex and demanding process, it frequently is a fruitful area for optimizing
the entire project schedule. Of course, Owners and their project managers should be sensitive to the
cost and schedule trade-offs that exist over the entire period of project activity.
II-2—Designs are configured and permanent equipment is selected to enable efficient

construction and use of efficient technologies.
In order to achieve optimal design configurations, ideas need to be exchanged between construction
and design professionals before “pencil on paper” design activities occur. Designers should be mindful
of such factors as configuration simplicity, minimal number of parts, field flexibility, intuitive methods for
alignment and positioning, tool accessibility, reduction of skill-intensive or resource-limited operations,
etc. Many of these same principles apply in the selection of engineered equipment. Noteworthy, as with
several other concepts, in order to achieve these goals, organizations need to make special efforts to
remain up-to-date on current technologies.
II-3—Design elements are standardized.

This concept addresses the achievement of cost and schedule benefits through the use of Standardization,
which, broadly applied, is a process by which designers seek project elements that are both regularly
and widely used, are available, or are readily supplied. Usually the predominant trade-off is a cost
reduction that results from time savings in construction and volume purchase discounts versus an
increase in materials due to a more conservative design. Additional advantages of standardization
include simplified material procurement and materials management, reduced design time, and greater
interchangeability of spare parts during maintenance operations.
For many organizations parts of this concept have been elevated to the status of a Value Management
Process (or Value Improving Process), often referred to as “Minimum Standards and Practices”. In
addition, the Process Industry Practices (PIP) organization has pursued the standardization of industrial
project design elements in an aggressive manner and offers a large number of standardized technical
practices available for purchase (see http://www.pip.org/).
II-4—Procurement, construction and startup efficiencies are considered in the development

of contract documents.
Construction knowledge and experience can contribute significantly to the generation of specifications
and drawings that promote efficiency in field construction operations. Constructability can be
enhanced when underlying corporate guide specifications offer clear-cut options, when specifications
development occurs with full and early involvement of personnel with appropriate construction
knowledge and experience, and when there is sufficient time to develop complete, consistent, and
66
error-free specifications. Additional effective practices include maintaining specifications so that the
most current cost-effective state-of-the-practice techniques and materials are specified, and avoiding
those approaches where a single item is specified multiple times and “order of precedent” must be
routinely examined in order to determine applicability. Also, the cost saving potential of “or equal”
specifications should be balanced against the management burden and risks involved. Likewise, project
drawings can be prepared in ways that greatly enhance field productivity. As an example, some have
found that separating concrete dimensions for formwork from those for reinforcing steel on two different
drawings can result in significant field productivity gains. As for Startup, planning and field efforts are
greatly facilitated by adding startup system numbers within the title block of all design drawings.
II-5—Module/preassembly designs facilitate fabrication, transport, and field installation.

Once decisions have been made to modularize or preassemble major project components, special
factors must be addressed during design and procurement to ensure successful implementation.
Designers should first consider where fabrication will occur and when the vendor’s shop is under
controlled conditions, tolerances can be made more stringent. Also, module/preassembly designs add
requirements for transporting and handling large assemblies and raise questions about equipment
availability, sequence, and access. Finally, module field installation methods must be considered
early because they affect module design, overall plot layout, and design of underground services,
foundations, and inter-connecting systems.
II-6—Designs promote construction accessibility of personnel, material, and equipment.

Difficult access for personnel, material, and equipment on a project can negatively impact the
achievement of project objectives. Difficult access for personnel can severely impact productivity
and difficult access routes frequently present unsafe working conditions. Similarly, difficult access
routes for high volume commodity materials can adversely impact cost and schedule. Accessibility
studies for major pieces of equipment and temporary erection access openings are as important as
those for personnel and commodities. For example, specific issues that should be considered include:
(1) sequencing of work, (2) delivery schedules for major pieces of equipment, (3) lay-down areas on
congested sites, (4) delivery routes, (5) use of permanent elevators for personnel lifts, (6) installation
and location of underground work to be traversed later by heavy equipment, and (7) type, location,
and required opening size for equipment.
II-7—Designs facilitate construction and field productivity under adverse weather

conditions.
Adverse weather conditions can have significant impacts on construction cost and schedule. In
many cases, however, the effects of adverse weather can be alleviated with proper considerations
during design, such as the following: (1) planning an accessible site layout, (2) providing protection to
personnel, (3) selecting non-weather-sensitive construction materials, (4) use of offsite preassembly,
(5) judicious scheduling of design, (6) planning construction lighting, (7) planning for adequate site
drainage, (8) scheduling and controlling delivery of equipment and materials to avoid unnecessary
protection requirements, and (9) providing adequate temporary protected storage areas.
67
II-8—Project plans enhance security during construction.
In this era, it is particularly important that capital projects be secure to enable effective and safe project
progress during construction and safe and dependable facility operations after project completion. In
order to accomplish this, project planners should examine opportunities during planning, design, and
procurement that can lead to a more secure site and that can ensure secure field progress and related
work processes. Planning must include site access control, personnel surety investigations and control,
and attention to document and information technology security. Appropriate security measures will be
dependent on the results of a vulnerability assessment of specific project circumstances. Examples of
related tactics include careful site selection, “hardening” the design, provisions for temporary protection
of vulnerable features or project components, tamper-proof details where critical, perimeter security
during construction, and specifying security checks during off-site fabrication and transport.
Field Operations
III-1—Innovative construction management and field methods are applied to increase

construction efficiency.
There is also a need to apply construction knowledge and experience to improve the effectiveness
of field operations. Construction method innovations are typically “small” advances yet can be
numerous. Thus, they should not be overlooked. Collectively, the potential benefit can be substantial.
Innovative construction methods may “come in many forms”: (1) the sequencing of field tasks, (2) use
of temporary construction materials/systems, (3) use of hand tools, (4) use of construction equipment,
(5) constructor-optional preassembly, and (6) post-bid constructor preferences relevant to the layout,
design, and selection of permanent materials (similar to a Value Engineering Change Proposal). To
be most successful in applying this concept, contractors must become “learning organizations” that
promote “bottom-up” innovations and go a step further in communicating such innovations.
68
Tool 3: Glossary of Terms
3-D CAD – Computer aided drafting system that provides three-dimensional views for checking
physical interferences in addition to providing two- and three-dimensional drafting capabilities.
Architect/Engineer (A/E) – The organization that generally has responsibility for a project’s
detailed design/engineering. They may have additional responsibility including overall project
cost, scheduling, procurement, and construction or construction management (Houston
Business Roundtable, 1990).
Commissioning – The testing of a plant’s system with test medium in the lines. After
commissioning the plant is ready for introduction of feedstocks and other normal operating
liquids and gasses in the lines (“Planning construction activity,” 1990).
Conceptual Planning Phase – The stage of a project during which the scope and definition of
the project are developed. In general, this phase includes site selection, facility layout, overall
project planning schedule, cost feasibility, and a detailed definition of design and construction
guidelines for the project. The phase completes with the commencement of detailed design
(Houston Business Roundtable, 1990).
Conceptual Project Layout – Preliminary plans for location of both permanent and temporary
facilities that should include consideration of site accessibility, lay down areas, and surface
runoff/drainage plans as well as an economic evaluation of the facilities’ layout.
Constructability – The optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning,

design/engineering, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project objectives.
Constructability Consultant – A firm or individual, other than the architect/engineer or

constructor, contracted by the owner to provide construction knowledge and experience during
planning, design, and procurement activities.
Constructability Coordinator – The individual designated to oversee and facilitate implementing

the constructability program at the project level. Typical responsibilities include: arranging
meetings, soliciting constructability comments from field personnel, maintaining a lessons
learned file, and tracking the savings attributable to the constructability program if required.
Constructability Review – an ongoing review process of design documents concurrent with

design activities. This review process is different from post-facto design reviews.
Construction Feedback – The process in which results of specific actions performed in the
field are systematically reported to the owner and/or architect/engineer to improve the
constructability of current or future projects.
Construction Management Activities – Managerial responsibilities for successful project

completion including cost and schedule estimation, contract administration, coordination
and conflict resolution among project team, and construction monitoring and control.
Constructability is often considered a subset of construction management activities.
Construction Sensitive (backward-pass) Scheduling – A practice of scheduling that fixes an end

date for construction and proceeds sequentially backward to determine the available duration
of each activity prior to completion of construction. This procedure frequently allows the
construction schedule to dictate the design and procurement schedules.
69
Constructor or Contractor – The organization contractually responsible for construction of the
facility.
Contract Clause – Any method by which contracting parties obtain constructability expertise.
Such methods include requests for proposals (RFPs) and replies to RFPs, as well as references
made to constructability in the contract documents.
Contractor Evaluation – The process of screening contractors by the project owner, according to
a given set of criteria, in order to determine their competence to perform the work if awarded
the contract. The organizations’ constructability programs or accomplishments may be a factor
that is considered in this evaluation.
Cost of Constructability Input – Cost of all activities related to constructability effort such as
salaries of constructability personnel (e.g., constructability coordinator and other participants),
out-of-town living expenses required for early involvement, and other costs required to support
the constructability program.
Crafts (Trades) – Construction workers segregated by vocational skills, i.e., pipefitter, steelworker,
and others (Houston Business Roundtable, 1990).
Critical Path Method (CPM) – A planning and scheduling technique using construction activity
durations and their precedent relationships to determine those activities affecting the total
project duration.
Detailed Design Phase – Actual design and development of construction plans and specifications.
Disciplines – Design groups classified by type of work, i.e., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical,
piping, and instrumentation.
Documented Savings – Savings are estimated by comparing, in dollars, constructability ideas

identified with traditional methods normally used. An order of magnitude estimate may be used
to determine the amount of savings.
Effort Expended on Constructability – Total number of hours expended on constructability

effort. Based upon project participants’ estimates of time expended on activities related to
constructability. These estimates can include a portion of time a participant expended on
constructability in addition to other duties assigned (e.g., 500 hours @ 50% = 250 hours).
Engineering – Procurement – Construction (EPC) – A contract arrangement where an owner

hires an engineer/constructor firm to completely design and build a facility.
Execution Phase – The stage of a project during which both design/engineering, procurement, and
construction are accomplished (Houston Business Roundtable, 1990).
Executive Sponsor – An executive senior to construction and engineering managers who actively
sponsors, promotes, and oversees constructability implementation.
Fast Track – Project execution strategy whereby design and construction activities are performed
concurrently.
Formal Constructability Program – A constructability program for use during project planning,
design, procurement and field activities that includes written guidelines, designated
implementers, and feedback mechanisms to facilitate improvement of program.
70
Lessons Learned File – An organized collection of design and construction knowledge and
experiences gained from past projects that is kept current and readily accessible for
incorporation into the constructability program.
Maintainability – The optimum use of facility maintenance knowledge and experience in the
design/engineering of a facility that meets project objectives.
Modularization – Partitioning of a facility into modules that are assembled at a remote location and
transported to the site as a unit to be integrated into the final constructed facility.
Operability – The optimum use of operating knowledge and experience in the design/engineering
of a facility that meets the project objectives.
Operating Factor – The ease of operation of a facility in terms of efficiency measured as a percent
of operating time. Such factors are generally stated as project objectives and are evaluated in
terms of functional requirements of the facility.
Optional Preassembly – Economic choice constructor makes to preassemble certain components

originally designed for field assembly.
Optional Prefabrication – Economic choice constructor makes to prefabricate certain components

originally designed for field fabrication.
Outage – Time or occurrence when a facility is not in service (Houston Business Roundtable, 1990).
Owner – The organization providing the project’s funding, need, and final approval and acceptance.
Owner-Builder – A contract arrangement where the owner assumes the risk in constructing the
facility. The owner usually has in-house construction personnel either perform or manage the
construction of the new facility.
Partnering Program – A program through which owners, design professionals, constructors, and
suppliers focus on developing a contract administration relationship that creates a project
team of “stakeholders” united by a common mission and objective. Thus, communication is
enhanced and adversarial relationships eliminated. The relationship may be either on a long-
term or project by project basis.
Post Facto Design Review – A scheduled activity when construction personnel review and
comment on completed or partially completed products from design. This type of post facto
review includes checks for ambiguities, accessibility, standardization of components, and
required methods of construction.
Preassembly – A process by which various materials, prefabricated components, and/or

equipment are joined together at a remote location for subsequent installation as a sub-unit to a
facility.
Pre-Detailed Design Phase – Activities performed prior to detailed design. Example activities
include: (1) conceptual planning, (2) process design, (3) preliminary engineering, (4) conceptual
design, (5) pre-schematic design, (6) schematic design, and (7) design development sub-
phases.
Prefabrication – A manufacturing process, generally taken place at a specialized shop where

various materials are joined to form a component part of a final installation (e.g., precast
concrete, switch gears, manifold valves).
71
Procurement – The process of bidding, evaluating, and purchasing the services, equipment, and
material necessary to complete a project. Depending on the contract arrangement, the project’s
owner, architect/engineer, or constructor may be responsible for procurement activities.
Professional Construction Manager – An organization with construction knowledge that provides

specific services to the owner. These services include raising constructability issues, assisting
in contract document development, preparing schedules, acting as coordinating consultant to
owner procurement activities, and managing construction contracts.
Project Execution Plan – An integrated and coordinated program for completing all project
activities and achieving all project objectives. In order to be effective, such a plan should be
prepared by the owner or their representative during the conceptual planning phase of the
project.
Project Manager – The person from either the owner’s or the contractor’s organization having the
authority and responsibility for overall project execution.
Retrofit (Remodel) – A project that involves additions or modifications to existing facilities.
Rework – Effort expended to redesign or reconstruct portions of project due to scope change,
design error, and/or field error.
Security – includes all measures taken to guard against malevolent, intentional acts, both internal
and external (e.g., sabotage, crime, and attack), that result in adverse impacts such as project
cost growth, schedule extension, operability degradation, safety concerns, transportation
delays, emergency response, and offsite effects.
Shutdown – A planned or accidental stoppage in operations of a facility (Houston Business

Roundtable, 1990).
Start of Constructability Input – Consists of two parts: (1) the phase in which the constructability
program began and (2) percent of phase complete at start of constructability input.
Start-up – The initial addition of feedstock and operation of a complete stage of the plant
(“Planning construction activity,” 1990).
Standardization – The attempt to design elements of a facility in a consistent manner in such a

way to promote repetition, increase productivity, and reduce field errors.
Subcontractor – A specialized contractor that performs a well-defined task that is a portion of the
prime contractor’s responsibilities as specified under contract with the prime contractor.
Tolerance – The range of variation permitted in a specified dimension or location without impacting
structural integrity, operating capability, or abutting components.
Traditional Arrangement – A contractual arrangement where the owner has separate contracts
with a design/engineering firm and a constructor. Generally, the construction work is
competitively bid after the design documents clearly define the scope.
Turnaround – Term used in the process and manufacturing industries for a planned shutdown of an
existing facility to perform testing, repair, and/or replacement of facility components, or to add
new components (Houston Business Roundtable, 1990).
72
Turnkey – A project arrangement where a single organization performs the engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) (Houston Business Roundtable, 1990).
Turnover – The point in time when the owner accepts care, custody and control of a system or
combination of systems (“Planning construction activity,” 1990).
Value Engineering – A branch of engineering whose objective is to effect economy in the cost of
constructing a project. Evaluating any object’s function and bettering the object in terms of cost
measured in dollars and fulfilling functional objectives.
Vendor – An individual or organization that furnishes materials, supplies, and/or fabricated

equipment. Vendors can both design and fabricate such items.
Work Packaging – Logical, well-defined division of construction tasks based on construction

specialty, location within the project site, ease of contract administration, and “bid-ability” of
contracts.
73
EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Tool 4 Instruction Sheet:

Corporate Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix
This form shows the 12 critical parameters identified for assessing corporate constructability
implementation. These parameters have been defined by a five-level program classification. Level 5
is considered the highest level of implementation of constructability.
To perform the self-assessment, distribute the Evaluation Matrix to a variety of experienced personnel
throughout the organization. Separate assessments from different organizational levels should be
solicited for the evaluation to be effective. Within the boxes, each participant should mark the level at
which he or she feels the organization is operating for each of the 12 parameters.
A review of the evaluations from all personnel surveyed will allow the program manager to determine
areas where the constructability program is successful, and also to identify areas where improvement
is required. A baseline number for comparison and evaluation may be obtained using a simple average
of the rankings for the parameters. The 12 parameters are each given equal weight, as all are of
paramount importance for effective constructability implementation; however, particular organizations
may desire to emphasize particular items and to weight the parameters accordingly.
An initial assessment provides a baseline for program improvement. Periodically, the Evaluation
Matrix should be used to reassess constructability procedures for corporate effectiveness.
74
Tool 4: Corporate Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix
Program Classification:
1 2 3 4 5
No Program Application of Informal Formal Comprehensive
Part of standard Part of another program, Recognized on a Stand-alone program on
A. Program Designation No designation construction management such as Quality, or only corporate level, but same level as Quality or
activities identified on a project may be part of another Safety
level program
B. Corporate
None exists; no need No corporate policy; may Statement exists, but Widely distributed Widely distributed
Constructability
seen for such have on project level may be part of other corporate policy corporate policy
Policy Statement
policies
Support varies within Management supports Total management

C. Management No recognition of need Limited support within company; support on program; constructability support; actively
Attitude Toward for or benefits of company; some a project-by-project understood as a participate
Constructability constructability recognition of benefits basis corporate philosophy in improving program
D. Recognition of Many barriers exist; no Many barriers exist; aware Recognize presence of Most barriers gone;
Constructability recognition of barriers of external limiters; barriers/problems; Actively identify, work to problems caught and
Barriers/Problems or problems encountered may deny internal factors accept as part of the job document and correct corrected quickly

Training of Personnel None If any occurs, done as Awareness seminars Part of standard orientation;
part of on-the-job training for specific projects orientation deeply ingrained in
corporate culture
II: Personnel
A. Executive Sponsor Sponsor identified; role

for Constructability of sponsor may be Yes; sponsor actively Yes; sponsor actively
No sponsor No sponsor
ambiguous or weak supports program supports program
B. Assignment of Full- or part-time Full-time, high-level

Corporate No corporate personnel May have corporate corporate coordinator;
None corporate coordinator;
Constructability dedicated to duties as part of other corporate support support organization
Duties constructability responsibilities organization for program well developed
implementation
A. Constructability manuals; CII documents documents exist; may be
None; CII documents Corporate constructability manual is thorough,
Program may be distributed or included in other
may be available manual is available widely distributed, and
Documentation referenced corporate documents periodically updated
Believe that ideas are Some individual

B. Tracking of System exists for capture Database on lessons
None adequately conveyed via documentation;
Constructability and communication of learned involves
word of mouth, personnel primarily post-project
Lessons Learned lessons learned input from all levels
interaction reviews and reports
C. Sharing Advanced New information routed Library may exist; Formalized routing Formalized system with
Construction Not done occasionally – journals, information routinely system; R&D department company seminars and
Technologies word-of-mouth routed or seminars held identifies and promotes pilot applications
D. Constructability Limited reference, on Standard item in all

Level of reference Standard item in
Referenced in No reference specific projects; often contracts; actively
varies by project type, all contracts
Contract Documents only at request of other promoted to other
role, or participants
project participants organizations
No tracking or recognition Track for particular Data kept on all projects;

E. Tracking No tracking, limited projects or selected widespread confidence
Not applicable of program results
Constructability recognition of program items; may track major in savings beyond those
Savings/Effects results on project ideas across projects measured
75
Project Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix
This form shows the 10 critical parameters identified for assessing project constructability
implementation. These parameters have been defined by a five-level program classification. Level 5
is considered the highest level of implementation of constructability.
To perform the self-assessment, distribute the Evaluation Matrix to a variety of experienced

personnel throughout the project team, including representatives of all companies involved. Separate
assessments from different levels should be solicited for the evaluation to be effective. Within the
boxes, each participant should mark the level at which he feels the project team is operating for each
of the 10 parameters.
A review of the evaluations from all personnel surveyed will allow the program manager to determine
areas where the constructability program is successful, and also to identify areas where improvement
is required. A baseline number for comparison and evaluation may be obtained using a simple average
of the rankings for the parameters. The ten parameters are each given equal weight, as all are of
paramount importance for effective constructability implementation; however, particular project teams
may desire to emphasize particular items and to weight the parameters accordingly.
An initial assessment provides a baseline for program improvement. Periodically, the Evaluation
Matrix should be used to reassess constructability procedures for project effectiveness.
76
Tool 5: Project Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix
Program Classification:
1 2 3 4 5
No Program Application of Informal Formal Comprehensive
Part of another program, Recognized on a
Part of standard such as Quality, or only corporate level, but Stand-alone program
A. Program Designation No designation construction on same level as
identified on a project may be part of another
management activities level program Quality or Safety
D. Recognition of Many barriers exist; no Many barriers exist; Recognize presence of Most barriers gone;
recognition of barriers or aware of external limiters; barriers/problems; Actively identify, work to problems caught and
Constructability
problems encountered may deny internal factors accept as part of the job document and correct corrected quickly
Barriers/Problems
Part of standard
E. Constructability
None If any occurs, done as Awareness seminars Part of standard orientation; deeply
Training of
part of on-the-job training for specific projects orientation ingrained in corporate
Personnel
culture
II: Personnel
C. Role of Project Full- or part-time Full- or part-time
Constructability Part-time if identified; position; responsibilities position; responsibilities Full-time position;
Not identified
Coordinator very limited responsibility vary by project size, type, vary by project size, type, plays major project role
participants participants
A. Constructability Corporate
None; CII documents manuals; CII documents documents exist; may be manual is thorough,
Program constructability
may be available may be distributed or included in other widely distributed, and
Documentation manual is available
referenced corporate periodically updated
documents
Library may exist; Formalized routing Formalized system with

C. Sharing Advanced New information routed information routinely system; R&D department company seminars and
Construction Not done occasionally - journals, routed or seminars held identifies and promotes pilot applications
Technologies “word-of-mouth”
Limited reference, on
D. Constructability Level of reference Standard item in all
specific projects; often Standard item in
Referenced in No reference varies by project type, contracts; actively
only at request of other all contracts
Contract Documents role, or participants promoted to other
project participants
organizations
Track for particular Data kept on all projects;

E. Tracking No tracking or recognition No tracking, limited
Not applicable projects or selected widespread confidence
Constructability of program results recognition of program
items; may track major in savings beyond those
Savings/Effects results on project
ideas across projects measured
IV: Implementation
Reactive approach, Aware of major Proactive effort on all Aggressive, proactive
A. Nature of constrained by benefits proactive projects; routinely efforts from beginning of
None
Project-level review mentality, lack approach; efforts vary consult lessons learned project; routinely consult
Efforts & Inputs of understanding of project by project lessons learned
proactive benefits
Some concepts used Selected concepts All concepts consistently All concepts consistently
B. Implementation of
None periodically; often applied regularly; full use, considered; timely considered, continuously
Constructability
considered too late to timeliness of input varies implementation of evaluated, aggressively
Concepts
be of use across projects feasible concepts implemented
77
Owner Corporate Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist
Eighteen barriers to constructability implementation are discussed elsewhere in this document. For
a constructability program to be effective, these barriers must be recognized and overcome. Barriers
were determined by research to affect owner, designer, or contractor organizations, or all three; they
were also classified as either corporate or project barriers. Seven of the barriers identified affect an
owner organization on the corporate level. Tool 6 presents a checklist for determining the prevalent
barriers identified that affect an owner’s corporate constructability program.
To perform the self-assessment, distribute the Barriers Checklist to a variety of personnel; multiple
assessments from varied levels must be solicited for the evaluation to be effective. Each participant
should determine whether each particular barrier is significant and needs to be addressed and
overcome.
This checklist is not a comprehensive listing of all potential barriers; other barriers may be significant
within a particular organization or on a specific project; respondents should not hesitate to identify
additional barriers they feel warrant attention.
The Barriers Checklists should be periodically re-evaluated to determine if those barriers that were
identified have been mitigated, or if new barriers have appeared that need to be addressed.
78
Tool 6: Owner Corporate Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist
Significance of
Barrier:
Insignificant
Significant
Significant
Very
• Complacency with the status quo

– resistance to change
– conservative, non-innovative approaches
– risk-averse attitudes towards trying something new
– no rewards for intelligent risk-taking
– a “not invented here” syndrome
• Lack of documentation and retrieval of “lessons learned”

– no formal system for documenting lessons learned
– reliance on word-of-mouth and experienced personnel to transfer
innovative ideas
• Lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts of constructability;

no procedural “roadmap” is available
– constructability used as a buzzword
– efforts ineffective due to lack of coordination, direction
• Perception that “we do it”

– “routine design practices fully exploit constructability”
– “we already pay for it”
– “we do value engineering; value engineering equals
constructability”
• There are no proven benefits of constructability

– “too expensive”
– senior management is not convinced of the cost-benefits
• Reluctance to invest additional money, effort, and time in early project

stages
– inability to acquire additional front-end funding
– inflexible design fee structure/inflexible scope of design services
– expectation of free advice/consulting from contractors and
consultants
• Lack of genuine commitment to constructability

– constructability is a low priority
– no policy statement exists, no champion
– “There are higher priorities”; “There are bigger fish”
• Other:
79
Designer Corporate Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist
Eighteen barriers to constructability implementation are discussed elsewhere in this document. For
a constructability program to be effective, these barriers must be recognized and overcome. Barriers
were determined by research to affect owner, designer, or contractor organizations, or all three; they
were also classified as either corporate or project barriers. Seven of the barriers identified affect a
design organization on the corporate level. Tool 6 presents a checklist for determining the prevalent
barriers identified that affect a designer’s corporate constructability program.
overcome.
80
Tool 7: Designer Corporate Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist
Significance of
Barrier:
Insignificant
Significant
Significant
Very


– reliance on word-of-mouth and experienced personnel to transfer
innovative ideas
• Perception that “we do it”; very narrow view of constructability
• Lack of awareness/understanding of constructability concepts and/or

benefits
• Lack of construction experience/qualified personnel
• Lack of mutual respect between designers and constructors

– resentment of outsiders
– pride of “authorship”
• Contractor or construction input is requested too late to be of value

– belief design personnel can provide construction input during
early stages
– reluctance to allow construction into review processes
• Other:
81
EPC Corporate Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist
Eighteen common barriers to constructability implementation are discussed elsewhere in this

document. For a constructability program to be effective, these barriers must be recognized and
overcome. Barriers were determined by research to affect owner, designer, or contractor organizations,
or all three; they were also classified as either corporate or project barriers. Eight of the barriers
identified affect an engineer-procure-construct (EPC) organization on the corporate level. Tool 8
presents a checklist for determining the presence of the prevalent barriers identified that affect an
EPC organization’s corporate constructability program.
overcome.
82
Tool 8: EPC Corporate Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist
Significance of
Barrier:
Insignificant
Significant
Significant
Very
General Organization Barriers


– reliance on word-of-mouth and experienced personnel to
transfer innovative ideas
Designer Barriers
• Lack of awareness/understanding of constructability concepts

and/or benefits


early stages
– reluctance to allow construction into review processes
• Other:
Construction Barriers
• Poor communication skills; design criticism is often non-

constructive or communicated in a offensive, tactless manner
• Other:
83
Project Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist
Eighteen common barriers to constructability implementation are discussed elsewhere in this

document. For a constructability program to be effective, these barriers must be recognized and
overcome. Barriers were determined by research to affect owner, designer, or contractor organizations,
or all three; they were also classified as either corporate or project barriers. Fifteen of the barriers
identified affect constructability efforts on the project level. Tool 9 presents a checklist for determining
the presence of the prevalent barriers identified that affect a project-level constructability program.
overcome.
84
Tool 9: Project Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist
Significance of
Barrier:
Insignificant
Significant
Significant
Very
General Project Barriers

• The “right people” were/are not available
Owner Project Barriers
• Lack of awareness/understanding of the concepts of

constructability; no procedural “roadmap” is available
• Perception that “we do it”

– “routine design practices fully exploit constructability”
– “we already pay for it”
– “we do value engineering; value engineering equals
constructability”
• Lack of team-building or partnering

– client-contractor relationships/communications are not
respected and nurtured
– adversarial relationships are free to develop (expected,
accepted, and perhaps even subconsciously promoted)
• Misdirected design objectives and designer performance measures

– mentality is design-driven vs. construction-driven
– design process is design-cost driven
– design process is design-schedule driven
• Use of lump-sum competitive contracting, leading to:

– limited opportunity for involvement of construction contractor
up-front
– a false sense of economy with a low bid, with constructability
viewed as an “accessory”
– requirement for complete plans and specs, precluding a fast-
track approach
– adversarial relationships on changes
– not wanting to give a competitive bidding advantage to
reviewers
85
Tool 9: Project Constructability Barriers Assessment Checklist (continued)
Significance of
Barrier:
Insignificant
Significant
Significant
Very
Owner Project Barriers (continued)
• Reluctance to invest additional money, effort, and time in early

project stages
– inability to acquire additional front-end funding
– inflexible design fee structure/inflexible scope of design
services
– expectation of free advice/consulting from contractors and
consultants
• Other:
Designer Project Barriers

• Lack of awareness/understanding of constructability concepts and/or

benefits


early stages
– reluctance to allow construction into the review processes
• Other:
Constructor Project Barriers

• Poor timeliness of input
• Poor communication skills; design criticism is often non-constructive

or communicated in a offensive, tactless manner
• Other:
86
Constructability Barrier Breakers
The listing of barrier breakers presents methods for overcoming the seven most prevalent barriers to
constructability. Tool 10 presents the barrier breakers in the form of a reference chart that also shows
where the barrier breaker should be applied, and how the barrier breaker affects the barrier.
This tool supplements Tools 5–9. Once barriers have been identified, corporate or project staffs
may use these high-impact strategies as a starting point for mitigation efforts. In addition to being
effective tactics for addressing particular barriers, these barrier breakers may serve as examples for
identifying additional effective methods to overcome barriers.
87
Tool 10: Constructability Barrier Breakers

Type of Breaker
Effective
Procedural
Awareness
Corporate
Incentive
Cultural
Project
1. Complacency with • Designate a strong program champion. “Identify constructability sponsor/
X X X champion”
status quo.
2. Reluctance to invest • Promote the attitude that constructability should “Assess and recognize constructability
additional money be viewed as an investment opportunity with benefits”
X X X
and effort in early corresponding downstream payoff. “Define constructability objectives and
project stages. measures”
• Include constructability as part of a standard “Select project contracting strategy”
88
bid response and in cost tracking/control X X X

efforts.
3. Limitations of lump- • Owner/designer acquire in-house construction “Assemble key owner team members”
sum competitive expertise for input during design. X X X
“Develop the constructability team”
contracting.
• Develop a short list of contractors who “Select project contracting strategy”
offer constructability input in return for the X X “Secure contractors, vendors, and
opportunity to be on the short list of bidders. consultants”
4. Lack of construction • Communicate construction issues from field “Consult applications matrix and
X X X
experience in engineers to office engineers/designers. lessons learned”
design organization.
• Close the “project loop” by getting feedback “Document lessons learned”
X X X
from the field and by tracking lessons learned.
• Modify design management practices to elevate “Develop implementation policy”
the visibility of constructability issues. X X X “Define constructability objectives and
measures”
5. Designer’s • Secure comprehensive understanding of what “Understand constructability
perception that “we constructability is prior to assessing adequacy X X objectives, methods, concepts, and
do it.” of efforts. barriers”
Tool 10: Constructability Barrier Breakers (continued)

Type of Breaker
Effective
Procedural
Awareness
Corporate
Incentive
Cultural
Project
6. Lack of mutual • Aggressively promote effective team-building “Develop the constructability team”
X X
respect between among project personnel.
designers and
• Establish constructor presence in design “Develop constructability procedures
constructors. and integrate into project activities”
process before pride of authorship develops. X X X
89
“Select project contracting strategy”

• Keep the project team focused on common “Orient project constructability team/
objectives and accepted procedures rather than X X perform team-building”
personalities.
7. Construction input • Increase awareness of the necessity for early “Understand constructability
is requested too late construction involvement. X X objectives, methods, concepts, and
to be of value. barriers”
• Include constructability as an early activity in a All Roadmap Activities
X X X
formal project activity flow plan or roadmap.
• Include individuals with significant construction “Assemble key owner team members”
experience in the project team from the outset. X X X
“Select project contracting strategy”
Sum of effective breakers in each category: 7 11 7 8 6 1
SAMPLE PROGRAM DOCUMENTS
Tool 11: Program Implementation Policy
Constructability Implementation Policy

The Construction Industry Institute has endorsed the cost savings potential of
constructability efforts, “the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in
The CII publications Constructability Implementation Guide and Constructability: A
Primer are useful reference guides to Constructability.
In view of our continuing efforts to provide the highest degree of quality and cost
effectiveness to our projects, it is our corporate policy to implement Constructability
to the fullest degree possible. This applies to all phases of project planning, design,
and construction. We will ensure that we take full advantage of the high potential of
Constructability to achieve savings during the earliest phases of project planning and
prior to the start of design.
is hereby designated as the Executive Sponsor for
Constructability, and will oversee the constructability program, ensure consistency
with other continuous improvement processes, implement changes, and regularly
report to me on its effectiveness.
President Date
90
Tool 12: Constructability Organizational Structure
Executive
Committee
Constructability
Sponsor/Champion Project
• High level authority/influence
• Promotes awareness/visibility
• Catalyst for change
• Accountable for program success
Corporate Project Project

91
Program Constructability Constructability Ad Hoc

Coordinator Team
• Coordination of company efforts
• Program training • May be full-time • Construction Manager • Rigging
• Selection/support of project • Frequently becomes a • Owner’s Representatives • HVAC
coordinators member of field staff • Project Engineers • Piping
• Communication across projects • Focal point of • Discipline Engineers • Concrete
constructability • Architects • Instrumentation
coordination
Corporate • Construction • Electrical
• Liaison for Superintendents
Database • Structural
constructability ideas
• Construction Engineers • Welding
• Manages temporary and
• Documentation, tracking, of • Procurement • Transportation
special assignments
ideas and lessons learned • Subcontractors • Equipment
• Organization and distribution of • Quality Control • Coatings
lessons-learned files • Project Controls Manager • Security
Corporate Constructability Program Project Constructability Program

Tool 13: Constructability Planning Workshop Agenda
1. Introductions; Safety Briefing; Review of Agenda

2. Project Status Briefing
3. Results/overview of Constructability orientation and assessment of barriers
to implementation
4. Mini-Group Break-out Sessions: Identification of Constructability concerns
and opportunities
5. Reports from Concerns/Opportunities break-out sessions
6. Prioritization of Constructability Concepts and sub-concepts
7. Results of pre-screening of Lessons-Learned Database; Plans for further
screening
8. Mini-Group Break-out Sessions: Development of Concept Application Plans
9. Reports from Concept Application Plans break-out sessions
10. Path-forward plan for implementing Concept Application Plans
11. Workshop Closure
92
Tool 14: Concept Application Plan
A. Concept Targeted:
B. Concerns/drivers associated with the Concept:
C. Opportunities/drivers associated with the Concept:
Repeat Items “D” through “M” for Each Deliverable Needed
D. Decision to be Impacted/Supported:
E. Deliverable #1 Needed:
F. Purpose of deliverable:
G. Sub-components of deliverable:
H. Targeted customer or user of deliverable:
I. Needed timing of completion of deliverable and associated timing constraints:
J. Recommended lead individual responsible for completing deliverable:
K. Recommended format of deliverable:

L. Individuals to be consulted in preparing the deliverable:
M. Additional key information sources for developing this deliverable:
93
Tool 15: Constructability Suggestion Form
Topic:
Discipline(s)/Craft(s) Affected:
Description and Illustration:
Originated by: Date:
Assessment of Impact to Project: (to be completed by the Constructability Coordinator)

• Cost:
• Schedule:
• Quality:
• Safety:
• Engineering/Procurement:
• Need to change/update corporate standard specs?
• Other:
Approvals:
Comments:
94
Tool 16: Constructability Idea Log
Project:
Item Initiator Initiating Estimated Effort-Hour A–Approved

No. Date Description Name Company Savings Savings R–Rejected
95
Constructability Contract Clauses
Tool 17 ties the relationship between contract type and the appropriate sample contract clause
documents. Sample contract clauses that owner’s can use as a basis for defining the project
constructability program requirements are shown in Tools 17a-d.
Tools 17a and 17b can be used when the contracting strategy facilitates early construction participation.
By including the appropriate tool in the owner’s request for proposal (as modified to meet the owner’s
specific project needs), the owner can proactively facilitate the active involvement of personnel with
construction knowledge and experience throughout the facility delivery process.
Tool 17c can be used when the contracting strategy acts against early construction participation.
The owner can use this document when they decide to place the constructability responsibility with
their own engineer or if they decide to obtain these services from a contractor, construction manager,
or a constructability consultant.
Tool 17d is a clause to be included in the architect’s or engineer’s contract when the owner places
responsibility for managing the project constructability program with a construction contractor,
96
Tool 17: Constructability Contract Clauses
Tool 17a
To be used (modify to suit project requirements) when responsibility for design and construction/
construction management is assigned to different companies and the construction/construction
management contract can be awarded early in the project life.
Owner’s Commitment to Constructability

The owner is convinced that major cost savings and schedule improvement can result from the
effective implementation of the principles of constructability where constructability is defined as the
optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement, and field
operations to achieve overall project objectives. The owner expects its engineer/contractor (or engineer/
constructor or engineer/construction manager) to include as part of its project management process
on this project a Project Constructability Program, which is tailored to meet the requirements of the
project scope. The objectives of this program shall encourage teamwork, creativity, new ideas, new
approaches, and should emphasize total project integration, not optimization of individual parts.
Constructability Program Scope

The engineer/contractor (or engineer/constructor or engineer/construction manager) shall develop
a Project Specific Constructability Program. The minimum requirements for this program are:
1. Development of the construction execution plan for integration into the project execution
plan.
2. Participation in the development of the project contracting and procurement strategy with
the other members of the project team and develop the contracting/subcontracting plan
which results from this strategy.
3. Identification of major or special construction methods for incorporation into the basic design
approach.
4. Development of construction logic and activity durations for the project plan in order to
achieve a construction driven project schedule.
5. Participation in the development of project estimates and budgets.
6. Development of a site logistics plan.
7. Participation in site arrangement studies, when required, to insure access for plant equipment
and construction equipment.
8. Participation in building arrangement studies, when required, to insure access for construction
personnel, materials, and plant equipment.
9. Development of the methods for constructability input into the design process.
10. Consideration of site security plan, as it may affect construction and ongoing operations.
(This list is not intended to be all-inclusive. Scope items specific to a type of project should be
added.)
97
Organizational Requirements
The engineer/contractor (or engineer/constructor or engineer/construction manager) shall identify
one person on its project team to be responsible for managing the project constructability program.
This person is considered a key individual by the owner and shall be committed to the project for the
duration of the project constructability program. It is recognized that based on the scope of the project
constructability program and the phase of the project, full time participation by this key individual may
not be required. Where appropriate, personnel with specialized construction knowledge will be utilized
by the project team to provide constructability input in addressing specific issues.
Reporting
A record shall be kept which lists constructability issues that have been considered, cost reduction
achieved (when identifiable) and schedule impacts. As defined by project procedures, a regular report
to the owner shall be issued showing these results.
98
Tool 17b
To be used (modify to suit project requirements) when responsibility for design and construction/
construction management is assigned to different companies and the construction/construction
management contract can be awarded early in the project life.

operations to achieve overall project objectives. The owner will include as part of the owner’s project
management process on this project, a project constructability program which is tailored to meet
the requirements of the project scope. The objectives of this program shall encourage teamwork,
creativity, new ideas, new approaches, and will emphasize total project integration, not optimization
of individual parts.

The construction contractor (or construction manager) shall develop a project specific constructability
program. The minimum requirements for this program are:
1. Development of the construction execution plan for integration into the project execution
plan.
2. Participation in the development of the project contracting and procurement strategy with
3. Identification of major or special construction methods for incorporation into the basic design
approach.
4. Development of construction logic and activity durations for the project plan in order to
achieve a construction drive project schedule.
5. Participation in the development of project estimates and budgets.
6. Development of a site logistics plan.
7. Participation in site arrangement studies, when required, to insure access for plant equipment
8. Participation in building arrangement studies, when required, to insure access for construction
9. Development of the methods for constructability input into the design process.
10. Consideration of site security plan, as it may affect construction and ongoing operations.
added.)
99
Organizational Requirements
The construction contractor (or construction manager) shall identify one person on its project
team to be responsible for managing the project constructability program. This person is considered
a key individual by the owner and shall be committed to the project for the duration of the project
constructability program. It is recognized that based on the scope of the project constructability
program and the phase of the project, full time participation by this key individual may not be required.
Where appropriate, personnel with specialized construction knowledge will be utilized by the project
team to provide constructability input in addressing specific issues.
The construction contractor (or construction manager) is a key member of the owner’s team which
includes also the architect-engineer (and other members, if any). In order to met the owner’s objectives
relative to constructability which encourage teamwork and emphasis total project integration, it is essential
for the construction contractor (or construction manager) to select members of its constructability
team who can work effectively in a team work setting.
Reporting
A record shall be kept which lists constructability issues that have been considered, cost reduction
shall be submitted to the owner showing these results.
100
Tool 17c
To be used when the construction contract is not awarded until after design has been completed
and the owner elects to retain a constructability surrogate to manage the project constructability
program through the preconstruction phase.

creativity, new ideas, new approaches, and will emphasize total project integration, not optimization
of individual parts.

The constructability surrogate shall develop a project specific constructability program. The minimum
requirements for this program are:
a. Development of the construction execution plan for integration into the project execution
plan.
b. Participation in the development of the project contracting and procurement strategy with
c. Identification of major or special construction methods for incorporation into the basic design
approach.
d. Development of construction logic and activity durations for the project plan in order to
achieve a construction drive project schedule.
e. Participation in the development of project estimates and budgets.
f. Development of a site logistics plan.
g. Participation in site arrangement studies, when required, to insure access for plant equipment
h. Participation in building arrangement studies, when required, to insure access for construction
i. Development of the methods for constructability input into the design process.
j. Consideration of site security plan, as it may affect construction and ongoing operations.
added.)
101
Organization Requirements
The constructability surrogate will be key member of the owner’s team during the preconstruction
phase of the project and will interface directly with the owner’s project manager and the architect-
engineer’s key project team members. The constructability surrogate shall identify the manager
responsible for directing the project constructability program and shall commit this individual for the
duration of the preconstruction period. Depending on the scope of the project constructability program
and the phase of the project, full time participation by this key individual may not be required. The
constructability surrogate will be required to furnish personnel with specialized construction knowledge
to provide constructability input when addressing specific issues.
Reporting
A record shall be kept which lists constructability issues that have been considered, cost reductions
prepared by the constructability surrogate shall be submitted to the owner showing these results.
102
Tool 17d
The following clause should be included in the architect-engineer’s contract when the owner
places responsibility for managing the project constructability program with a construction contractor,

creativity, new ideas, new approaches, and will emphasize total project integration, not optimization of
individual parts. Responsibility for developing and managing the project constructability program will
be assigned to (name of contractor). In order to meet the owner’s objectives, relative to constructability,
it is essential that all members of the owner’s project team encourage teamwork and emphasize total
project integration.
103
PART IV: CASE STUDIES
Case Study A: Low Sulfur Gas Project
Introduction
There are challenges and obstacles faced on every project. Many projects face tight schedules and
seemingly unrealistic budgets. This project was no exception. What makes this project special was
the response to these challenges. For example, Constructability and design-construction integrated
planning were vigorously pursued, there was team unity to stay focused on the mission, high morale
was maintained throughout the project, and there was an overwhelming response by craft personnel
to accept the challenges of upgrading their skills in safety and their chosen crafts.
Description
Flint Hills Resources, LP (FHR) selected Jacobs Engineering Group to study its clean fuels programs
to meet the EPA-mandated requirements for producing cleaner-burning fuels in their refineries. The Low
Sulfur Gasoline (LSG) Program was an initiative of FHR to produce cleaner-burning fuels ahead of the
federally-mandated compliance date. The process was designed to remove sulfur compounds from
light and heavy fractions. Light fractions are cut by means of Caustic Extraction Technology. The heavy
fractions are cut through a hydrotreating facility employing state-of-the-art technology. This technology
provided the desirable capability of selectively removing sulfur while minimizing octane loss.
The total throughput for this unit is 63 MBPD. The technology used was the first domestic application
as well as the largest such unit designed. This configuration and innovative design increased gasoline
throughput, maximized operations flexibility, and provided an economic return on an environmentally-
mandated project. Since this project also provided an economic return, FHR recognized a window of
opportunity and established an early startup date.
After completion of the feasibility study, Jacobs was retained as the Engineer for this program,
responsible for both design and procurement services. Due to the fast-track nature of this project
and known team, Jacobs was also selected as the Construction Contractor, thereby making this an
engineering/procurement/construction (EPC) or design-build contract for Jacobs. The contract was
of the cost-reimbursable type.
The LSG Program is located in Corpus Christi, Texas, at the Flint Hills Resources Mid-Plant West
Refinery, which is four miles from an accessible port. It is comprised of a:
• Grass Root Hydrotreater and Caustic Treating Area

• Revamp Distillate Hydrotreating Area
• Off-sites Area consisting of two new storage tanks and ancillary equipment.
105
Key Constructability issue to overcome included a craft shortage, several major pieces of long-lead
equipment, and the challenges pertaining to modular construction, including the transport of large
modules.
To support the entire project including the Constructability efforts, the client created a “SECOMA”
team. This client group included representatives in six different disciplines:
S: Safety
E: Environmental
C: Construction
O: Operations
M: Maintenance
A: Ad hoc
Beyond the SECOMA team, the client also created the position of Event Commander. This person
owned the project through the transition from construction through operations.
Project Expectations
The goals on the Low Sulfur Gasoline Program were:
• No OSHA recordable incidents

• No environmental reportable incidents
• Rework at 2% or less of construction cost
• Mechanical completion within 23 months (100 weeks) of project initiation
• Start-up within 24 months (104 weeks) of project initiation.
In addition to the project goals itemized above, Flint Hills challenged the construction team with
developing a long-term “Legacy Program” to achieve the following:
• A world-class safety standard promoting zero accidents

• Employees with proactive safety mindsets and local craft personnel that maintain a safety
mentality
• Local subcontractors trained to meet FHR safety expectations
• A fully trained craft work force.
106
Project Performance
The overall project schedule was established three years prior to the planned startup date, and the
LSG Program was completed essentially on time despite having 27 rain-out days over a 13-month
(56-week) period.
The team met or exceeded all of the project goals:
Safety: 1,605,000 work hours with Zero recordable injuries
Environmental: Zero reportable incidents
Cost: Over 8% below budget
Field Productivity: 5% better than plan
Schedule: On-time Mechanical Completion and Start-up
Rework: Total engineering and construction rework slightly above 2%
Client Satisfaction: Confidence for pursuing future similar projects
In addition, all non-client stakeholders had a profitable experience on this project.
Overview of Project Constructability Challenges
There were several challenges experienced through this project. Among the challenges faced
were:
Personnel Management and Labor Quality Control – Due to other recently started projects in
the area and a previously suppressed construction market, there was a shortage of skilled craftsmen
required for a “stick built” construction approach. Contractor labor surveys indicated there would be
difficulty in staffing the project to meet the peak work force requirements of 650 craft personnel.
Aggressive Construction and Startup Schedule – Making the Mechanical Completion date called
for an aggressive schedule plan.
Delays – Although the project team worked diligently in planning the work, they still encountered
their share of obstacles. For example, they experienced a six-week delay in steel and pipe deliveries
and a total of 27 rain days, both of which affected the ability to make progress.
Additional Constructability challenges pertained to maximizing standardization of components such

as foundation types, and maximizing the scope of prefabrication and modularization.
107
Solutions to the Challenges
Many solutions to these challenges were implemented through the use of industry “Best Practices”
and these were certainly vital to overall project success. Among the best practices used that were
closely related to Constructability were the following:
• Constructability • Personnel Management

• Modularization • Labor and Work Quality Control
• Electronic PDS Modeling • Aggressive Construction Schedule
and Systems Turnover.
• Virtual Office
• Value Engineering
Beyond the Constructability-related strategies listed above, the team also implemented other
industry “Best Practices” that influenced the project outcome:
• Zero Accident Safety Planning

• Project Definition Rating Index
• Low-Cost Engineering Center (located in Mumbai, India)
• Craft Skills Assessment and Skills Enhancement Training.
Through the implementation of key best practices, such as technology selection, energy optimization,
value engineering, procurement innovation, and constructability, client-approved cost avoidance and
savings there was a significant life cycle cost savings.
The Constructability-related Best Practice implementations are discussed individually below.
Constructability
The constructability program went beyond traditional constructability reviews. A Constructability

Manager was assigned to the project at the outset of the project. He coordinated issues such as
framing site workforce requirements and limits, developing schedules, establishing modular and field
construction limits, estimating input, transportation studies, module transport coordination, subcontract
scope development, heavy lift planning, and several other activities, ensuring total construction
involvement throughout engineering.
In addition to having a full-time Constructability Manager on the engineering team, a key component
of the aggressive construction plan was early construction integration. Project management engaged
the entire construction staff (site manager, safety manager, material manager, subcontract manager,
chief field engineer, office manager, QA/QC manager, project controls manager, general superintendent,
craft superintendents, and personnel manager) three to five months before field mobilization. The
construction team was matched up with their engineering counterparts and was immediately engaged
at providing input into design, developing craft-specific execution plans, learning to use PDS models,
sequencing engineering deliverables, planning temporary facilities, and more. This time in the office
108
afforded the opportunity to completely set up project systems and execution plans, and to better
understand project requirements. When the team mobilized in the field, they hit the ground running
hard and fast!
Additional specific Constructability innovations and tactics are described here:
• Constructability plans were thoroughly addressed in the Project Execution Plan.

• The contract between Owner and EPC Contractor was incentivized at three performance
levels: safety, cost, and schedule. For safety, the incentive required achieving an EMR of
0.6 or less.
• The Contractor’s Lessons Learned System was employed early-on for identifying
opportunities for efficiency.
• For underground elements, mass excavation and stair-stepped back-fill sequences were
planned and implemented.
• All foundation sizes were standardized in terms of shape and dimension.
• Several permanent structures were planned and used for temporary construction
purposes, such as warehousing, equipment maintenance, and a craft recruiting/training
functions.
• Craft training was also incentivized: both attendance in ABC’s “Wheels of Learning”
program and achievement of the “A” Mechanic minimum cut-off score each resulted in
a $0.50/hour wage increase, while a 90% or higher score resulted in another $0.50/hour
increase.
• All piping supports were pre-fabricated to the maximum length and then field-cut
to accommodate needed site flexibility and variation. Unattached components were
purchased, bagged, and tagged to ensure proper care and timely availability.
• Whenever possible, physical work packages were palletized, bagged, tagged, and shrink-
wrapped to avoid damage and loss.
• A full-time safety trainer with a background in adult education was brought on-board as
part of the field management team.
• A training retention survey program was put in place to determine training challenges and
needed corrective actions.
• A heat stress prevention program was implemented to deal with extreme Summer
temperatures.
• Project-wide holidays around Thanksgiving and Christmas/New Years and selective use
of overtime served to reduce craft absenteeism to less than three percent for the project.
• Foreman planning effectiveness was tracked and feedback was provided on a weekly
basis. All requests for overtime had to be thoroughly documented and justified to ensure
appropriate payback for premium time expended.
• “JEM” latches were employed. These are safety devices to allow for easy but safe
disconnection of rigging after lifting operations.
109
Modularization
Modularization was a major Constructability strategy for this project. The team implemented an
aggressive off-site modular component effort to reduce the workforce peak by 74,000 work hours on
the 13-month (56-week) construction schedule. A total of 20 large equipment cube modules located
in three different process units were fabricated and shipped to the site. The modules were built by
Jacobs’ sister company, Jacobs Applied Technology in Charleston, South Carolina. With engineering
being performed in two different countries (U.S. and India) and construction being performed in two
locations (Corpus Christi, Texas, and Charleston, South Carolina) coordination of deliverables and
scheduling was crucial for this program.
The total effort to complete this project was 1,677,000 work hours consisting of the following:
Work-Hours % of Work
Engineering Houston and Mumbai 371,000 22%
Jacobs Managed Modular Fabrication 74,000 5%
Jacobs Direct Hire Construction 980,000 58%
Jacobs Field Subcontractors 252,000 15%
Total Work Hours 1,677,000 100%
There were a total of 1,232,000 field construction work hours, 80 percent of which was self-performed
construction and 20 percent of which was construction management of sub-contractors. All 1,677,000
work hours were performed with zero OSHA recordable incidents.
The LSG Program consisted of the following quantities for installation and checkout:
Description Units Construction

On-site Modular Total
Earthwork cy 40,196 40,196
Concrete cy 9,207 9,207
Fireproofing sf 8,481 8,481
Structural Steel t 1,315 552 1,867
Piping lf 115,686 18,063 133,749
Electrical (Wire/Cable) lf 710,805 36,448 747,253
Instruments loops 935 935
Equipments ea 141 32 173
Equipment Cube Modules ea 20 20
Tanks, 150,000 Barrel Capacity ea 2 2
Process Systems ea 82 82
Process Test Packages ea 401 401
The average weight of each of the 20 equipment cubes was approximately 140 tons.
110
In addition to the local shortage of welders and electricians and improved safety, the tight project
schedule was also a prime driver for using the Modularization approach. This approach allowed for
concurrent underground construction at the project site while modules were being fabricated in South
Carolina.
Gulf winds can present a challenge in the Corpus Christi area. Erection safety was also a key driver
in modularization/prefabrication of pipe racks. With this approach it was easier to take advantage of
weather enclosures around the rack modules as they were being fabricated.
A Construction Engineer was assigned to the Charleston office to coordinate with engineering,
procurement, and the field construction team. Thorough planning went into the “cubing” of the equipment
modules, taking into consideration weight, shipping size and orientation. For plant maintainability and
operability benefits, the module configuration densities were intentionally designed to a less congested,
less dense standard.
Key superintendents made shop visits to ensure an understanding of erection sequence and
physically review system packages, erection tolerances, tagging, instrumentation, paint/insulation
limits and review “leave out” components for field installation.
The Construction Engineer followed the modules from the shop to barge to off-loading and setting,
ensuring construction ownership of the modules from “cradle to grave”. The module installation and
installation of ship-loose pieces went flawlessly.
Fortunately, the Modularization effort benefited from some early effective planning in plant layout.
Years earlier, the plant master plan contemplated the need for logistic infrastructure that would be
supportive of a modularization approach. Roadway dimensions, height clearances, and turning radii
had been planned to accommodate access requirements for this approach.
However, overhead power lines presented obstacles to the Modularization approach. The project
team worked with the Corpus Christi power authority 12 months in advance to plan for the local transport
of large modules. Approximately 20 feet of extended height were added to some transmission towers,
while others had to be temporarily relocated.
Approximately 40% of rack piping was preloaded and pre-insulated. An innovative approach to
connecting piping laterals to pre-loaded straight-run rack piping was devised: lateral line splice-in
locations were field-located and field-cut to maximize location flexibility and minimize fabrication
error.
Roll-off barges were used to allow for easy roll-on/roll-off of modules. Unfortunately, the schedule
required that all barge-transported modules from South Carolina be shipped in November during
hurricane season. As a result, the project team prepared hurricane contingency plans – which fortunately
never had to be implemented.
In order to maximize work efficiency, column-mounted beam plate extensions were fabricated on the
preassembled structural modules outward from columns in order to allow for maximum pre-assembled
fireproofing in addition to clean, accessible fireproofing of field connections.
111
Key modularization dates in context of the project were as follows:
Weeks from Initiation

• Project initiated
• Constructability Manager on board at Project Initiation
• First draft of the Project Execution Plan 31
• Scoping of Modularization committed to 35
• Field mobilization 44
• First module shipped from South Carolina 65
• Last module installed at job site 78
• Project achieved Mechanical Completion 100
• Plant startup 104
Electronic PDS Modeling
All piping within the ISBL was designed and modeled in 3-D CAD. The team also used a PDS model
in the field to accelerate planning and to identify potential problems early. Some of the major activities
that project superintendents and field engineers performed with PDS included the following:
• Inter-discipline Planning – recognizing interferences in schedule work areas.

• Resolving engineering errors in the field without having to recycle information back to the
Houston office.
• Evaluate lift plans in a 3-D environment. This approach enabled all heavy lifts to be
executed with just two different crane placements.
• Field route conduit, cable tray, and small bore piping.
• Interface with modular fabrication to establish field installation limits.
Personnel Management
The project’s personnel management approach addressed four different “fronts”:
• Known Subcontractor Resources – Understand any work limitations of subcontractors

and develop work packages that don’t push such limitations.
• Reduce Workforce Peak – By utilizing the modular approach, the team was able to
reduce the workforce peak by over 100 craft personnel.
• Control Workforce Build-up – The team established a plan that created a front-loaded
crew build-up for piping and mechanical that peaked prior to installing modules. This plan
maximized key craft duration on the project and allowed for selecting the best craftsmen
for the workforce turndown during module installation.
• Reduce Voluntary Turnover – Previous project experience in the Corpus Christi area
showed a turnover rate of 15–20 percent. Through incentive and training plans, the team
held turnover of qualified craftsmen to less than eight percent — approximately one-half
of that otherwise anticipated.
112
Labor and Work Quality Control
The approach to quality focused on training at all levels. All craft personnel, including superintendents,
took the National Center for Construction Education Research (NCCER) craft skills assessments. Prior
to supervising a crew, all supervisors went through a project plan and schedule orientation, Leading
Safety Excellence, and Supervising for Safety training. A work planning session and execution plans
for their assigned areas completed the training for supervisors prior to being assigned work crews.
A skills-based compensation program was implemented to establish a baseline between skill level
and pay. All craftsmen were required to go through NCCER skills assessment. A total of 537 craft
skills assessments were made.
Work quality results were exceptional. The field work was completed with a rework rate of less than
two percent. The welding reject rate was less than three percent. Although more cost was expended on
training than budgeted, the project reaped the benefits of increased productivity of over five percent.
The project also benefited from increased retainage of loyal craft, many of which took classes in other
trades to further increase their longevity on the project.
Aggressive Construction Schedule and System Turnover
The table below presents a comparison of the field construction performance against the planned
schedule:
Milestone Plan Achievement

Mobilization Week 44 Week 44
Field Construction Duration 56 weeks 57 weeks
Mechanical Completion Week 100 Week 101
Startup Week 104 Week 105
The LSG team of FHR and Jacobs had approximately 15 months to complete detailed engineering,
procurement and construction. In order to achieve the target Mechanical Completion and startup
dates, the team developed a fast-track engineering approach which utilized the Jacobs’ Mumbai, India
engineering office to work design on an “around the clock,” 24-hour basis. A project engineer from
the Houston team coordinated this effort, ensuring that this “virtual office” approach maintained the
proper sequence of work release for construction.
Construction work also had to be creative in its approach. The team had to perform field construction
on a fast-track basis, breaking ground at only 30% engineering complete.
As previously described, through a Modularization effort 74,000 peak work hours were moved off-
site to the Jacobs module fabrication facility in Charleston, South Carolina. Of course, this effort had
a dramatic impact on schedule performance.
113
The aggressive schedule also called for an aggressive turnover plan. Prior to detailed design, an
operations coordination meeting was held to identify the start-up sequence. Once this was developed,
this information was fed back to the design team in the form of area and system priorities. This
formed the basis for the “Start-up Driven, Construction Sensitive” schedule. In this manner, all steel,
equipment, piping, electrical and instrumentation components were prioritized for engineering and
procurement.
The Jacobs System Turnover Database (JSTD) managed a wide variety of information (e.g., line,
equipment, isometric, instrument and loop lists, along with imported information form the PDS design
model) to enable project systems to be scoped and appropriate elements to be tagged with system
identifiers. The JSTD allowed system turnover engineers to quickly analyze each system and guide
superintendents to systematically release the systems needed by operations for commissioning. Using
this approach, the team turned over a total of 82 process systems consisting of: 401 test packages;
169 pieces of equipment; 2,118 instruments; 935 instrument loops, and 96 relief valves; all in an 11-
week time frame.
In addition, an Interactive Planning process was used to address delays. When required, the project
team was able to work with the engineering and procurement teams to re-prioritize field work activities,
develop work-around plans, and instituted selective overtime when material backlogs existed in order
to effectively achieve efficient and economic progress.
Critical Success Factors for the Effort
An effort of this magnitude and complexity required extreme dedication and commitment to
maintaining focus on program goals. The key management personnel from Flint Hills Resources
included the following roles: Project Manager, SECOMA Coordinator, Construction Supervisor, Event
Commander, Plant Manager, and VP Refining.
Key Jacobs. management personnel responsible for EPC execution included the following roles:
Site Manager, General Superintendent, Chief Field Engineer, Program Manager, Project Manager,
Project Manager, Process Manager, Project Engineer, Controls Manager, Procurement Manager,
Constructability Manager, Modular Coordinator, Manager of Construction, Modular Project Manager,
and the Project Executive.
Constructability Effort Measures
Approximately $1 million was spent in up-front staffing of the leadership team for Constructability.
This included all staff support from the Constructability Manager down to the craft superintendent
level. This investment amounted to just 0.7% of the TIC budget but contributed significantly to the
nearly 9% project TIC savings.
114
Conclusions
Many projects perform well and attain their planned goals, but only a few take hold and embody
the principles of Constructability. The construction approach laid a foundation for a better way of
executing the overall project. In accomplishing this, the team delivered the following:
• Strong safety commitment for the client, workforce and subcontractors. All were left with
improved processes and were taught effective behavioral-based safety, safety leadership
and hazard recognition. The effectiveness of the program was proven by OSHA’s
recognition of the project as a “STAR VPP” work site.
• A design-build team that focused on making work happen through continued forward
progress. Through careful planning, coordination, and strong EPC integration, a strong
team dedicated to client satisfaction was developed.
• Legacy: a stronger, more skilled and safety-aware craft workforce for future construction
in the Corpus Christi area. This impact on the local workforce and community resulted
from the vision set by FHR and Jacobs’ management.
• An organized approach to teaching local ABC subcontractors how to better implement
the ABC craft training process. This was accomplished using a direct-hire skills-based
compensation program.
115
Case Study B: Greenfield Metals Plant Project
Introduction
This case study is intended to further illustrate how successful Constructability efforts can be
effectively implemented on projects. Like many projects, constructability played a very significant role
in ensuring the overall success of the Fjarðaál Project.
The Project and Site
Alcoa, the world’s leading producer of primary aluminum, fabricated aluminum, and alumina, has
whole or partial ownership of 27 smelting facilities worldwide with an annual manufacturing capacity
of four million metric tons. The company is currently expanding to meet increasing demand, and the
Fjarðaál Project was part of this growth. The Greenfield project involved construction of a 341,000
metric ton/year aluminum smelter in the municipality of Fjarðabyggð, located on the east coast of
Iceland. As part of a national initiative for economic diversity, the project was coupled with a MWe
hydroelectric station developed by Landsvirkjun (the national power company), and a new harbor
facility constructed by the Fjarðabyggð municipality. There were also improvements to roads and other
community infrastructures in the region. Upon completion, the project represented one of the largest
private-sector investments in Iceland’s history and one of the cleanest aluminum production facilities
in the world, incorporating new technologies to promote sustainability and minimize environmental
impact.
A day’s drive from Reykjavik, the aluminum plant is located five kilometers east of Reyðarfjörður,
which is comprised of 670 inhabitants and is located adjacent to eastern Iceland’s largest fjord, offering
prime conditions for Panamax-class vessels moving alumina to the smelter and aluminum products to
market. Approximately 3,000 inhabitants live within the municipality of Fjarðabyggð, which encompasses
Reyðarfjörður and has an economy driven by fishing, tourism and farming. The Fjarðaál site slopes
from steep mountains into the fjord, and was once used for farming and grazing of Icelandic horses.
Aluminum smelting is the process of extracting aluminum metal from aluminum oxide (alumina)
through electrolytic reduction. The fundamental component of a smelting operation is the electrolytic
cell, or “pot” in which this reaction takes place. During smelting, large amounts of current pass through
molten alumina dissolved in a 950° C cryolite bath. This process separates out aluminum metal for
removal and casting. Smelters typically operate hundreds of pots, linked electrically in configurations
called “potlines.” Thus, efficient and economical power plays an important role in the business case
for smelting, along with access to deep water as both raw materials and finished products traditionally
ship by marine transport.
Alcoa Fjarðaál’s goal was to design and operate an aluminum smelter at the leading edge of
environmental performance. The completed project met meet new European environmental standards
years before they came into effect. Alcoa also designed the plant so as to eliminate all discharge of
117
process water into the sea, as the importance to Iceland of safeguarding its marine environment cannot
be overemphasized. Spent pot lining, which is a by-product of sustained pot operation, contains
hazardous materials and is being recycled in purpose-built facilities outside of Iceland. From among
more than 2,000 worldwide corporations Alcoa was recognized in the Global 100 Most Sustainable
Corporations in the world by Corporate Knights of Toronto for their ability to meet the “triple bottom line,”
a measure of value that balances the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a business.
Scope and Objectives for Constructability on Fjarðaál
Constructability is a work process where members of the construction group work closely with their
engineering and procurement partners to assess best practices, innovations and new technologies
while creating the most efficient project execution strategy. On any new project, and especially for
large complex capital developments, Constructability is an essential process for identifying value and
is part of the project “toolbox” for delivering predictable results.
Constructability is an interactive practice that drives value by finding execution options during the
window of optimum influence (such as before detailed engineering accelerates to full production), and
can be distilled into the components of acquiring data, evaluating consequences, and incorporating
beneficial ideas.
Constructability was an integral part of the Fjarðaál Project from its inception. The Fjarðaál
Constructability Program was designed using Bechtel corporate standards, Six Sigma, CII Practices,
and the principles of Alcoa Business Systems. Through this comprehensive effort the program identified
significant capital reduction opportunities for the project through optimization, construction efficiencies,
preassembly, standardization, and cycle time reduction.
The constructability program objectives for the Fjarðaál Project were targeted as follows:
• Enhance the integration of engineering, procurement, and construction from initial

planning to mechanical completion and turnover.
• Develop the optimum path of construction considering the critical path, major equipment,
climatic influences, and best use of construction resources.
• Incorporate safety in design considering the risks of smelter construction, unique site
conditions and customs/practices of a diverse workforce.
• Incorporate lessons learned, “best practices,” and suggestions from past and present
projects as well as from the Fjarðaál team.
• Develop a plan to recycle, reuse, or eliminate construction by-products and set a new
standard for waste minimization.
• Reduce the complexity of construction through workforce planning and effective logistics
that compliment performance.
• Optimize construction indirects through common use of services, facilities, and
equipment across the site.
118
• Explore construction techniques and technologies that create value in terms of safety,
quality, cost, schedule, and sustainable development.
• Support other related value efforts such as the EPC Integrated Schedule and plans for
Preassembly, Logistics, Work Packages, and Pre-commissioning.
• Build teamwork and shared expectations that enhances performance throughout the
project.
Program Responsibilities
The Project Manager and Site Manager were responsible for enabling Constructability on the
Fjarðaál Project. A program plan was developed and all team members were provided an orientation
reflecting processes and benefits, and were subsequently encouraged to participate throughout their
realm of expertise.
The heart of Constructability was conducted during the project’s planning phase which enveloped
the optimum window of influence. A dedicated Constructability Coordinator was responsible for
implementing the process to nurture, harvest and deliver results that could be readily incorporated
into engineering and procurement streams without hindering the production of detailed design or
equipment/material acquisitions.
Upon completion of the planning phase and after the authorization to proceed with project execution,
the Project Field Engineer carried Constructability forward and was responsible for the program
through the balance of detailed design and onto the jobsite. Although this stage of the program offers
less opportunity as it resides outside of the optimum window of influence, it nonetheless is essential
towards sustaining robust communication regarding the details of construction, as well as enabling
the use of best practices and evaluation of new work processes.
The progress of Constructability was routinely communicated to the project team in order to status
advancement towards goals and objectives, while also recognizing the efforts and employees that
generated recognizable value to the project. The importance of acknowledging team accomplishments
cannot be understated, and is proportional to harvesting new ideas and optimizations. On the Fjarðaál
Project, The Constructability Coordinator and Project Field Engineer were accountable for effecting
timely acknowledgements throughout their respective program responsibilities.
Work Process Overview
To initiate the process a dedicated Constructability Coordinator designed the program objectives
with the project’s Leadership Team (i.e., Alcoa and Bechtel Project Managers and responsible managers
for engineering, procurement, construction and controls) and set specific goals that were appropriately
resourced. The Constructability Coordinator then meet with functional teams to review lessons-
learned and best practices relating to each discipline using sources such as Alcoa/Bechtel Knowledge
Banks and other industry related data sources. A Constructability Input Form (see Attachment A) was
119
developed to provide a platform to mine ideas from the team, and a Constructability Log (Attachment
B) was maintained for capturing idea descriptions, initiators, potential value, and status.
A review of design documents was conducted throughout this effort and the Constructability
Coordinator initialed check prints as reviews were completed. To effectively support all disciplines,
Field Engineers and/or Craft Superintendents with specific expertise were frequently brought into the
team to enable Constructability reviews while supporting the progress of detailed design.
Sponsors of the Constructability Program included the project Leadership Team and select others
with particular knowledge or experience. These sponsors were responsible for providing the energy
for Constructability in a manner that encouraged team participation while in parallel sustained the
progress of project planning and detailed design. To that end, Constructability on Fjarðaál was intended
to complement the design process through integration of construction processes and innovations, while
precluding the recycling engineering – as the downstream consequences from revisiting completed
design are usually more costly than the potential savings.
The process for evaluation and approval of Constructability input resided with the Leadership
Team, with the overall authority resting with the Project Manager. Evaluation of input was focused on
forecast value (or related benefit), ease of incorporation, and addition or reduction of risk. Emphasis
was also placed on:
• Designing and planning to reduce field erection hours

• Dividing work into packages to optimize construction efficiency
• Incorporating Environmental, Safety & Health (ES&H) requirements, resources, and
logistics
• Mitigation of climate/weather influences (e.g., wind, precipitation, and the swing of
daylight from summer to winter)
• Increasing the probability of delivering predictable results.
Other key elements to support Constructability included the following:

• Constructability Meetings, where both planned and ad hoc sessions were conducted to
review facilities layout, construction processes, standard details and specifications, and
applicability of new ideas and innovations.
• Review of Design Documents, with a focus on construction efficiencies that result from
standardization, preassembly, and consideration of field erection logistics such as
interface with adjacent work operations and optimization of construction indirects.
• Participation in the creation and review of Purchase Orders in order to apply
constructability objectives and opportunities to supplier products and services, such as
exploring options for shop assembly and testing, and determining optimum logistics for
material transport and staging. Supplier engagement and participation were integral to
this effort.
120
• Testing the flow of EPC products by working from “required at site” dates back through
each upstream cycle to assure suitable time was allowed for each stage including design,
purchase, and delivery to site.
• Close integration with the ES&H Management Plan to incorporate safety and
environmental considerations into design, including identification of probable by-product
generators and work processes for reuse or recycle.
• Identification of bulk materials that provided the best value to the project, considering
initial cost, ease of installation, cycle time from suppliers and known high value products.
Examples include fasteners, anchors, pipe fittings, electrical connections, raceway, and
supports.
• Periodic recognition of team members who contributed to the success of the
Constructability Program.
Program Timeline
A summary relative timeline for implementation of the Fjarðaál Constructability Program is provided
below:
Issue Constructability Plan
Conduct expectation setting
Begin Constructability reviews at the EPC discipline level
Constructability Program window of principal influence
Roll up program value for EPC Estimate
Conclude Planning Phase Constructability Program
Transfer Program to EPC Execution Phase
Constructability Coordinator accountability
Program transition to the Project Field Engineer
121
Select Constructability Program Elements
A more detailed review of a few key value operations follows.
Discipline Workshops
To achieve alignment on preferred EPC practices while evaluating new ideas and technologies, the
Fjarðaál Project conducted a series of workshops with engineering, procurement and construction
representatives at the discipline level (i.e., civil, electrical and mechanical). This tight focus allowed for
specific details to be worked out that in turn drove timely decisions that mitigated recycle. Different from
more global constructability reviews (e.g., industry-based lessons learned), the Discipline Workshops
allowed the respective team members to identify and resolve issues/opportunities on a task level.
To facilitate these reviews without interrupting the daily production of work, Discipline Workshops
were typically conducted during off hours in a setting appropriate for seeding new ideas. Although this
initiative required an investment of additional hours and a facility, the corresponding value harvested
by the project more than offset the cost, thus confirming that good work processes deliver tangible
results.
A common theme was used for these workshops, based on the following principles:
• Simplicity and Standardization – repeatable work operations enhance efficiency and

fewer field assemblies equal fewer work-hours
• On the Ground – performing work on the ground is safer and more efficient than in the air,
and can also be cheaper due to fewer demands for indirects.
• Build Off Site – site labor costs and field conditions in Iceland can be more costly than
within an controlled shop or yard (off site)
• Permanent for Construction – utilizing permanent facilities for construction prevents
duplication and disruption
• Construction Sequencing – aligning construction continuity, seasonal influences and
labor availability maximizes efficiency and productivity
• Material Management – efficient control of materials is critical to success, and especially
so for remote sites
In addition to these common principles, target focal points were developed for each discipline to
enable the EPC team to advance the planning of work before detailed design passed the window of
influence. Examples of these targets include:
Civil
✔ Concrete ✔ Coatings ✔ Fasteners ✔ Formwork ✔ Rebar

✔ Cladding ✔ Embeds ✔ Flashing ✔ Penetrations ✔ Steel
122
Electrical
✔ Cable ✔ Circuits ✔ Grounding ✔ Lighting ✔ Preassembly

✔ Cable Pulls ✔ Equipment ✔ Fasteners ✔ Penetrations ✔ Terminations
Mechanical
✔ Cranes ✔ Modules ✔ Preop ✔ Shipping ✔ Tolerances

✔ Lubrication ✔ Preassembly ✔ Rigging ✔ Testing ✔ Vendor Reps
By all accounts, the Discipline Constructability Meetings were very successful. The engineers gained a
better understanding of what they could do to make construction more efficient, and Construction better
understood the challenges facing engineering. As a result, the team gleaned a host of constructability
input suggestions via the process.
Preassembly
Traditionally, the preassembly of components for aluminum smelters is not at a level common to other
processes such refineries, however due to the high cost of construction in remote locations an early
project initiative sought to maximize preassembly and hence the relocation of work from the site.
The basic premise driving preassembly is reduction of site labor hours that by nature also reduces
the high cost of indirects germane to a remote site, specifically the costs associated with transportation
and accommodation of the workforce. Preassembly also decreases the impact of construction on the
community, including the reduction of waste by-products. It also lessens the risk encountered by skilled
resources, as the work is performed in shops or regions where labor is readily available. The project
took an aggressive approach to preassembly in order to reduce the demand for onsite resources while
optimizing cost efficiency. Through development and use of an interactive Preassembly work process,
the Fjarðaál Project evaluated, planned, scheduled and tracked each potential preassembly package
until a suitable business case could be determined. This effort resulted in all project groups working
in concert to support the initiative of maximizing the size and assembly of equipment, frames, skids
and modules to the site.
The results of this effort allowed a noteworthy volume of construction hours to be performed offsite,
which in turn reduced project cost, preserved schedule contingency (through parallel progress), and
lowered the risk in acquiring, transporting and accommodating skilled resources.
EPC Integration
There is no substitute for becoming involved with the Engineering, Procurement and Construction
(EPC) process when it comes to integrating constructability into the project. An active constructability
program allows crisp definition of the handoffs between engineering, procurement and construction,
which in turn increases the probability of efficient, cost-effective and on-time project completion.
Considering that today’s projects are executed in a global EPC environment, integration of the
123
development team is essential to meeting customer business objectives. In response, constructability
can act as the integrator of project deliverables up to the handoff of care, custody and control to the
facility operator.
Attributes of EPC integration derived from constructability included the following:
• Defining standard and project specific deliverables from the engineering and procurement
teams to construction.
• Delineating key project milestones that support an efficient path of construction that
consider both global and site specific influences to performance.
• Establishing a robust pipeline for communication between EPC partners, that is seeded
early in project planning and harvested throughout construction.
• Expanding the prospect of value adding options through interactive EPC reviews of new
processes, technologies and solutions to old problems.
• Incorporating opportunities such as preassembly or process modeling to overcome site
and project specific challenges to the business case.
• Participating in the formation of material requisitions to ensure that constructability
expectations are understood by bidders including the use thereof in determining total
installed cost (TIC), and evaluation of bids.
• Identification of and contribution to the development of standardized specifications that
would enhance constructability of the design.
• Contribution to planning and scheduling to ensure that constructability initiatives were
embraced by the engineering and procurement partners.
To queue up constructability for success, the Constructability Coordinator must be supported by

EPC management as well as other project-specific stakeholders, such as Area Managers, preassembly
sponsors and the site construction team. An experienced constructability team made up of Construction
Supervision, Field Engineering, Material Management and others must interlock with the engineering
and procurement organizations to deliver integration within the EPC project. This teamwork develops
over time and creates “Constructability Converts” rather than imposing one part of the organization
over the other.
Constructability Suggestion Program

Through the course of project planning on Fjarðaál the Constructability Suggestion Program netted
over 140 constructability suggestions covering a range of opportunities from optimization of standards
to leading edge innovations. Examples of the ideas harvested from the suggestion program include:
• Standardized formwork • Precast concrete

• Standardized fastener sizing • Narrow gap welding
• Composite Claustra walls • Pre-engineered buildings
• Simplified Raceway hangers • Rebar spacing and cover
• Extensive Busbar preassembly • Bolted hanger clips.
124
The Fjarðaál Constructability Newsletter served as an excellent device for communicating innovations
and sharing recognition with deserving participants. As the project moved into execution and throughout
construction, fresh ideas continued to be harvested.
Top 12 Value Initiatives
Coalescing input from previous aluminum smelter projects, suggestions from team members, and
actions derived from the discipline constructability meetings, a prioritized roster of project specific
opportunities was developed based on their value to capital and urgency related to the incorporation
cycle time. This input was distilled into the “Top 12 Fjarðaál Value Initiatives,” that by definition represented
opportunities to bring substantial value to the Fjarðaál Project through saving field hours, enabling a
safer work environment, improving efficiency and mitigating risk.
The Top 12 Value Initiatives for Fjarðaál included:
1. Permanent for Construction Task Force

– reducing indirects through use of permanent facilities and systems for construction.
2. Utility installation parallel with earthworks

– creating the optimum process for installing utilities.
3. Pot lining Task Force

– detailing a highly repetitious work process for cycletime improvements.
4. Preassembly integration
– designing for preassembly instead of adding a layer on top of standard practices.
5. Power and Free Conveyor Installation

– optimizing the installation of a highly complex material conveyance system.
6. Constructability Guide initiative

– instructions on how to incorporate value while not interrupting production.
7. Cladding installation
– selection of roofing and siding systems than minimize at height work and optimize
mechanical fastening.
8. Concrete work process

– enabling a fresh view of concrete placement to maximize labor efficiency.
9. Coating specification
– similar to concrete, selecting coating products and systems that minimize onsite labor
requirements.
10. Hydraulic packages

– standardizing the design of hydraulic power units and related piping systems.
11. Ductwork standardization

– reducing the cost of installation through repetition.
12. Constructability and Material Requisitions

– incorporating constructability expectations into the material requisitioning process.
125
It was decided to energetically pursue these Top 12 Value Initiatives at the project level, and the Area
Project Managers were assigned as sponsors of the initiatives within their geographical jurisdiction.
Each of the Top 12 was also assigned a champion who was involved in the actions and led the initiative
through to completion.
The Top 12 were published as large graphic posters that were displayed on the walls around the
project and site offices. These posters listed the plan, the goals and the measurement of success to
be used in managing this important project initiative.
Conclusions
Constructability was an integral part of the Fjarðaál Project as both the facility owner, Alcoa, and
the project developer, Bechtel, envisioned the value that could be derived from an early and robust
program. As outlined here, constructability was embedded during inception of the planning effort,
a choice that resulted in the process being seamlessly integrated without interruption to the vital
production of design documents and procurement activities.
The Fjarðaál Constructability Program delivered results measured at several million dollars in direct
savings, and substantially more through mitigation of risk. The primary areas for which added value
was realized included the following:
• Cost of construction: approximately 10% reduction in direct and distributable field costs
was realized by implementing the full suite of constructability elements described within
this case study.
• Mitigation of safety and health risk: Early planning and process review substantially
contained the potential for exposure.
• On-time delivery of production facilities: Constructability was key to allowing the owner/
operator to enter the marketplace as planned.
• Protection of contingency: Solutions were created that responded to specific site
challenges, such as weather, where interruptions at peak staffing could have affected
construction progress at a cost of approximately $1 million per day.
Such added value was achieved through such constructability program elements as preassembly,
standardization and cycle time reduction, all by a team focused on delivering at the next level of
performance. If a dedicated constructability program had not been initiated on the Fjarðaál Project such
opportunities would not have been realized and the high cost of variable risk would have encroached
upon the capital business case.
Acknowledgements
The author and the Construction Industry Institute gratefully acknowledge the significant contributions
of the Alcoa and Bechtel Fjarðaál Project constructability program participants and project managers
in sharing this project case study and in assisting in its preparation.
126
Attachment A: Constructability Input Form
Number:
Fjarðaál Project
Constructability Input Date:
Initiator: Drawing/Spec Reference:
Existing Condition:
Suggested Alternative:
Rationale:
Attachments or Reference Documents:
Forecast Value: $ Reduced Hours (state E, P, or C): hrs
Ease of Incorporation:
☐ ☐
No Impact Impact to be evaluated
(identify plan below)
Risk:
☐ ☐ ☐
None Decrease Increase
(identify plan below)
Impact or Risk Mitigation Plan (ES&H, Schedule, Cost, Quality, Climate):
Suggestion Approved:
Engineering Procurement Construction PM
Suggestion Incorporated:
By Date
127
Attachment B: Constructability Log
Fjarðaál Project Constructability Log
Number Date Initiator Description Value Status
Forecast Value This Page: $
128
Appendix A: References
Arditi, D., Elhassan, A., and Toklu, Y. C. (2002), “Constructability Analysis in the Design Firm,” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 2, March/April, pp. 117–126.
Construction Industry Institute (1998), Implementing Project Constructability, Education Modules 11
and 11A, Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (2004), Implementing Prefabrication, Preassembly, Modularization,
and Off-site Fabrication, Education Modules 171-21 and 171-21A, Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (1986), Constructability: A Primer, CII Research Summary 3-1,
Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (1986), “Constructability Improvement During Conceptual Planning,”
Source Document 4, Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (1994), Emerging Construction Technologies and the Advanced
Construction Technology System (ACTS), Research Summary 15-1, Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (1996), Piping: Improving P&IDs, Supplier Data, and Packaged Units,
Research Summary 47-1, Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (1997), Tools for Enhancing the Piping Engineering Process,
Implementation Resource 47-2, Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (1998), Planning for Startup, Implementation Resource 121-2,
Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (1998), Reforming Owner, Contractor, Supplier Relationships: A
Project Delivery System to Optimize Supplier Roles in EPC Projects, Research Summary 130-1,
Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (2003), “Implementing Development of a Decision-Support Tool for
Prefabrication, Preassembly, Modularization, and Offsite Fabrication,” Research Report 171-12,
Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Institute (2003), Design Practices to Facilitate Construction Automation,
Research Summary 183-1, Austin, TX.
East, E. W., and Fu, M. (1996), “Abstracting Lessons Learned from Design Reviews,” Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 10, No. 4, October, pp. 267–275.
Fisher, D. J., and Rajan, N. (1996), “Automated Constructability Analysis of Work-Zone Traffic Control
Planning,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 1,
January/February, pp. 36–43.
Glavinich, T. E. (1995), “Improving Constructability During Design Phase,” Journal of Architectural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 1, No. 2, June, pp. 73–76.
Goodrum, P. M., Hancher, D. E., and Yasin M. (2003), “A Review of Constructability Barriers and Issues
in Highway Construction,” Construction Research Congress – Wind of Change: Integration and
Innovation, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Gugel, J. G. (1992), “Methods to Assess Constructability Approaches and Sources,“ University of
Wisconsin–Madison.
Houston Business Roundtable (1990). Model Plan for Constructability. Houston, Texas.
129
O’Connor, J. T., and Norwich, W. T. (1993), “Fossil Power Plant Constructability: Application of CII
Concepts,” Journal of Energy Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 1, April, pp. 55–73.
O’Connor, J. T., and Miller, S. J. (1994). “Barriers to Constructability Implementation,” Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 8, No. 2, May, pp. 110–128.
O’Connor, J. T., and Miller, S. J. (1995). “Overcoming Barriers to Successful Constructability
Implementation Efforts,” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 2,
May, pp. 117–128.
O’Connor, J. T., Rusch, S. E., and Schulz, Martin J. (1987), “Constructability Concepts for Engineering
and Procurement,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 113,
No. 2, June, pp. 235–249.
O’Connor, J. T., and Davis, V. S. (1988), “Constructability Improvement During Field Operations,”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 4, December,
pp. 548–564.
Navon, R., Shapira, A.,, and Shechori, Y. (2000), “Automated Rebar Constructability Analysis,” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 5, September/October,
pp. 389–397.
Pulaski, M. H., and Horman, M. J. (2005), “Organizing Constructability Knowledge for Design,” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 8, Aug. 2005, pp. 911–919.
Russell, J. S., Gugel, J. G., and Radtke, M. W. (1993), “Documented Constructability Savings for
Petrochemical Facility Expansion,” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE,
Vol. 7, No. 1, February, pp. 27–45
Uhlik, F. T., and Lores, G. V. (1998), “Assessment of Constructability Practices Among General
Contractors,” Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 4, No. 3, September, pp. 113–
123.
130
Appendix B:
Constructability Concept Application Matrices – Commercial Building Projects
This tool consists of 15 matrices that characterize activities performed within each phase of the
facility delivery process for commercial building projects. These phases are overviewed in Figure B-1.
Their corresponding activities are graphically represented in Figures B-2 through B-16. Each matrix
represents one phase during the facility delivery process. The purpose of these Application Matrices
is to guide the project management team in the application and use of the constructability concepts
at the appropriate time during the course of the project. The application of a given concept to specific
activity is denoted by shading where the two intersect. Emphasis is directed towards the earliest
application of a particular concept in order to gain its maximum cost benefit for the project.
PLANNING PHASE
– Strategic Plan F-1
– Preliminary Feasibility F-2
– Final Feasibility F-3
DESIGN PHASE
– Program or Conceptual Phase D-1
– Pre-Schematic Phase D-2
– Schematic Phase D-3
– Design Development Phase D-4
– Construction Documentation Phase Fast
Track D-5
PROCUREMENT PHASE
Phase
– Prior to Completion of Contract

P-1
Documents
– After Completion of Contract Phased
P-2 Procurement
Documents Plan
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
– Sitework Fast Track C-1
– Shell Fast Track C-2
– Interior C-3
OCCUPANCY PHASE
– Prior to Completion of Contract
O-1
Documents
– After Completion of Contract Special
O-2
Documents Systems
Time
Figure B-1. Facility Delivery Process—Commercial Building Construction
131
PLANNING PHASE – STRATEGIC PLAN
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Project Management
Preliminary Revenue
Contracting Method
Set Time Horizons
Critical Objectives
Establish Quality
Establish Cost
Conceptualize
Project Scope
Identify Other
Identify Need
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Master Plan
Parameters
Projections
Objectives
CONCEPTS
Level
Plan
Index Name
I-1. Constructability implementation plans are an integral part of the Project Execution Plan.
I-2. Early project feasibility planning takes advantage of construction knowledge and
experience.
I-3. Development of the project contracting strategy involves construction knowledge and
experience.
I-4. Project schedules are construction- and startup-sensitive.
I-5. Important, early design decisions consider modularization/pre-assembly, construction

I-6. Permanent and temporary site layouts promote efficient construction.
132
I-7. Advanced information technologies are applied to facilitate efficient construction.
II-1. Design and procurement schedules are construction-sensitive.
II-2. Designs are configured to enable efficient construction and use of efficient technologies.
II-3. Design elements are standardized.
II-4. Procurement, construction and startup efficiency are considered in the development of
contract documents.
II-5. Module/preassembly designs facilitate fabrication, transport, and field installation.
II-6. Designs promote construction accessibility of personnel, material, and equipment.
II-7. Designs facilitate construction and field productivity under adverse weather conditions.
II-8. Project plans enhance security during construction.
III-1. Innovative construction management and field methods are applied to increase
Figure B-2. Applications Matrix for Planning Phase—Strategic Plan (F-1)

PLANNING PHASE – PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Identify Site Options
Technical Feasibility
Preliminary Project
Preliminary Project
Preliminary Owner
Future Expansion
Identify Building
Considerations
Equipment List
Programming
Cost Models
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Preliminary
Preliminary
Preliminary
Regulatory
Schedules
Feasibility
CONCEPTS
Options
Index Name
experience.
experience.

133
contract documents.
Figure B-3. Applications Matrix for Planning Phase—Preliminary Feasibility (F-2)

PLANNING PHASE – FINAL FEASIBILITY
Finalize Responsibility
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Owner Programming
to Furnish and Install

Environmental Study
Project Cost Control

Technical Feasibility
Project Critical Path
Finalize Equipment
Method Schedule
Future Expansion
Space Planning
Logistics Plan
Site Selection
Geotechnical
Develop Site
Investigation
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Traffic Study
Utility Study
Site Survey
Regulatory
Equipment
Feasibility
CONCEPTS
Estimate
List
Index Name
I-1. Constructability implementation plans are an integral part of the Project Execution
Plan.
experience.
experience.

134
II-2. Designs are configured to enable efficient construction and use of efficient
technologies.
II-4. Procurement, construction and startup efficiency are considered in the development
II-7. Designs facilitate construction and field productivity under adverse weather
conditions.
Figure B-4. Applications Matrix for Planning Phase—Final Feasibility (F-3)

DESIGN PHASE – PROGRAM OR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Construction Cost
Method Schedule
Building Systems
Control Estimate
Facility Planning
Master Planning
Building Quality
Space Planning
Conceptualize
Conceptualize
Conceptualize
Building Form
Programming
CONSTRUCTABILITY
– Update
– Update
CONCEPTS
Index Name
experience.
experience.

135
contract documents.
Figure B-5. Applications Matrix for Design Phase—Program or Conceptual Design (D-1)
DESIGN PHASE – PRE-SCHEMATIC
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Building Solution Alternatives
Construction Cost for Design
Wall, and Vertical Circulation
Project Critical Path Method

Site Logistics Plan – Update
Select Engineered, Exterior
Vertical Circulation Options
Major Engineered Building
Construction Cost Control

Site Development Options
Establish Critical Program
Select Design Solutions

Exterior Wall Options
Schedule– Update
Estimate – Update
(Form and Layout)
CONSTRUCTABILITY
System Options
Relationships
CONCEPTS
– Mechanical
– Structural
– Electrical
Solutions
Options
Index Name
experience.
experience.

136
technologies.
contract documents.
Figure B-6. Applications Matrix for Design Phase—Pre-Schematic (D-2)

DESIGN PHASE – SCHEMATIC
Programmed Area vs. Actual
Routings for Mechanical and

Outline Specification Review
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Site Logistics Plan – Update

Locate Major Items of Fixed
Remaining Building System
Select Remaining Building

Identify Program Space
Progress Drawings and
Project CPM Schedule
General Requirements
Building Form Refined
Renderings or Models
Establish Preliminary
Establish Preliminary
Outline Specification
Preliminary Site Plan
Building Floor Plans
General Conditions
on Floor Plans with
Building Elevations
Estimate – Update
Code Compliance
Select Equipment
Building Sections
CONSTRUCTABILITY
System Options
Detail Reviews
CONCEPTS
Equipment
Electrical
– Update
Options
Index Name
I-1. Constructability implementation plans are an integral part of the Project
Execution Plan.
I-2. Early project feasibility planning takes advantage of construction
I-3. Development of the project contracting strategy involves construction
I-5. Important, early design decisions consider modularization/pre-

assembly, construction automation, and other major construction
method options.
137
I-7. Advanced information technologies are applied to facilitate efficient

construction.
II-2. Designs are configured to enable efficient construction and use of

efficient technologies.
II-4. Procurement, construction and startup efficiency are considered in the

II-5. Module/preassembly designs facilitate fabrication, transport, and field
installation.
II-6. Designs promote construction accessibility of personnel, material, and
equipment.
II-7. Designs facilitate construction and field productivity under adverse
weather conditions.
III-1. Innovative construction management and field methods are applied to

Figure B-7. Applications Matrix for Design Phase—Schematic (D-3)

DESIGN PHASE – DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Finalize General Conditions

Method Schedule – Update
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Finalize Building Elevations
Major Engineered Systems
Finalize Site Logistics Plan

Preliminary Specifications
Finalize Schedule Options
Review Process Drawings

Finalize Building Sections
Locate Equipment on the

Preliminary Specification
Sub System Options for
Mechanical Equipment
Finalize Building Form
Plans and Sections of

Engineered Systems

Locate Lighting and
Select Finishes and
Finalize Floor Plans
Estimate – Update
Finalize Site Plan
Finalize General
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Requirements
CONCEPTS
and Details
Schedule
Review
Plans
Index Name
Execution Plan.
I-5. Important, early design decisions consider modularization/pre-assembly,

138

construction.
technologies.

installation.
equipment.
weather conditions.

Figure B-8. Applications Matrix for Design Phase—Design Development (D-4)

DESIGN PHASE – CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Method Schedule – Update

Review Progress Drawings
Finalize Coordinated Plans
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Final Coordinated General
Final Coordinated General

Control Estimate – Update
Control Estimate – Update

100% Construction Cost
Finalize Building Details
60% Construction Cost

Finalize Coordinated
Finalize Mechanical/

Site Plan – Update
Review Progress
Design Approval
Finalize Finishes
Electrical Plans
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Specifications
Specifications
Requirements
Select Colors
CONCEPTS
and Details
Conditions
Index Name
Plan.
experience.
experience.

139
technologies.
II-4. Procurement, construction and startup efficiency are considered in the development
conditions.
Figure B-9. Applications Matrix for Design Phase—Construction Documents (D-5)

PROCUREMENT PHASE – PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Identify Special Requirements
Required During Construction

Identify Specialty Consultants
Coordinate Procurement Plan

Considerations (Weight, Size,
Identify Early Purchase Trade

Develop A Procurement Plan
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Determine Owner-Furnished
Identify Warehousing Needs

Determine Trade Availability
Confirm Material Availability
Identify Long Lead Material
Determine Trade Skill Level

Identify Items with Special
Requiring Early Purchase
Match Design Effort with
Identify Laydown Needs

Determine Procurement
Identify Prequalification
Establish Bid Packages

Responsibility (Owner,
with Project Schedule

and Equipment Items
of Foreign Purchases
Procurement Plan
Contractor, etc.)
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Vibration, etc.)
Requirements
CONCEPTS
Contracts
and Price
Items
Index Name
I-1. Constructability implementation plans are an integral part of the
Project Execution Plan.
I-5. Important, early design decisions consider modularization/pre-

assembly, construction automation, and other major construction
method options.
140

construction.
II-2. Designs are configured to enable efficient construction and use of

efficient technologies.

installation.
equipment.
weather conditions.

Figure B-10. Applications Matrix for Procurement Phase—Prior to Completion of Construction Documents (P-1), page 1
PROCUREMENT PHASE – PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Purchase Early Trade Contracts

Clarify Scope of Early Purchase
Regulatory Approvals Required
Coordinate Design Completion
Unit Prices for Early Purchase

ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Purchase Long Lead Material

Identify Maintenance Manual
Prequalify Trade Contractors

Required During Installation
of Early Purchase Contracts
Considerations Relative to
Identify Extent of Spare or

Determine Inspection and
Required During Start-Up
for Early Trade Contracts
Determine Bid Package

Coordinate Design and
Testing Requirements
Establish Alternatives
or Equipment Items
Evaluate Cash Flow
Procurement Plans
Contract Clauses
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Stock Materials
Requirements
and Suppliers
CONCEPTS
Items
Items
Index Name
Execution Plan.

141

construction.
technologies.

installation.
equipment.
weather conditions.

Figure B-10. Applications Matrix for Procurement Phase—Prior to Completion of Construction Documents (P-1), page 2
PROCUREMENT PHASE – AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Clarify Bid Package Contract

ACTIVITIES IN PHASE

Receive and Review Trade
Issue Trade Contracts for
Construction Documents
Establish Additional Unit
Final Construction Cost

Award Trade Contract
Issue Clarifications to
Review Construction
Clarify Scope of Bid
Clarify Construction
Establish Additional
Schedule –Update
Contract Pricing
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Building Permit
CONCEPTS
Sequencing
Alternatives
Documents
Packages
Estimate
Clauses
Pricing
Prices
Index Name
Execution Plan.

142

construction.
technologies.

installation.
equipment.
weather conditions.

Figure B-11. Applications Matrix for Procurement Phase— After Completion of Construction Documents (P-2)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE – SITEWORK
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Construction Permit
Site Improvements
Construction Cost
Method Schedule
Hazardous Waste
Control Estimate
Pavements and
Change Order
Management
Landscaping
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Clarification
Site Utilities
Demolition
Document
Earthwork
Removals
– Update
– Update
CONCEPTS
Index Name
Execution Plan.
I-2. Early project feasibility planning takes advantage of construction knowledge
and experience.

143

construction.
technologies.

installation.
equipment.
conditions.

Figure B-12. Applications Matrix for Construction Phase—Sitework (C-1)

CONSTRUCTION PHASE – SHELL
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Exterior Wall System
Construction Permit
Foundation System
Systems, Including
Core Facilities and
Construction Cost
Structural System
Major Mechanical
Method Schedule
Control Estimate
Change Order
and Electrical
Management
Roof System
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Equipment
– Update
– Update
CONCEPTS
M and E
Index Name
Execution Plan.
and experience.

144

construction.
technologies.

installation.
equipment.
conditions.
Figure B-13. Applications Matrix for Construction Phase—Shell (C-2)

CONSTRUCTION PHASE – INTERIOR
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Owner Acceptance
Mechanical Fit-Up
Construction Cost
Method Schedule
Interior Partitions
Control Estimate
Special Systems
Electrical Fit-Up
Interior Finishes
Change Order
Management
Construction
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Completion
Specialities
Substantial
– Update
– Update
CONCEPTS
Special
Index Name
Execution Plan.
and experience.

145

construction.
technologies.

installation.
equipment.
conditions.
Figure B-14. Applications Matrix for Construction Phase—Interior (C-3)

OCCUPANCY PHASE – PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Establish Preliminary Start-Up
Establish Preliminary Start-Up

ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Establish Furniture, Fixtures,

Maintenance Requirements
and Equipment Installation

Establish Occupancy Plan
Select Furniture Systems
Identify Operational and
Identify Systems to Be
Establish Certification
Establish Certification
Schedule –Update
Estimate – Update
Select Equipment
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Select Fixtures
CONCEPTS
Procedures
Schedule
Schedule
Schedule
Certified
Plan
Index Name
Execution Plan.
and experience.

146

construction.
technologies.

installation.
equipment.
conditions.
Figure B-15. Applications Matrix for Occupancy Phase—Prior to Completion of Construction Documents (O-1)
OCCUPANCY PHASE – AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Equipment Final Mechanical/
Change Order Management
Other Closeout Procedures

Finalize Start-Up Schedule
Provide As-Built Drawings

Install Furniture, Fixtures,
Operational/Maintenance
Start-Up Equipment and
Furniture, Fixtures, and
Electrical Connections
Finalize Start-Up Plan
Complete Punch List
Occupancy Permit
Final Project Cost

Final Acceptance
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Clarify Systems
and Equipment
CONCEPTS
Instruction
Systems
Index Name
Execution Plan.
and experience.

147

construction.
technologies.

installation.
equipment.
conditions.

Figure B-16. Applications Matrix for Occupancy Phase—After Completion of Construction Documents (O-2)
Appendix C:
Constructability Concept Application Matrices – Industrial Projects
This tool consists of five matrices that characterize activities performed within each phase of the facility
delivery process for industrial projects. These phases are overviewed in Figure C-1. Their corresponding
activities are graphically represented in Figures C-2 through C-6. Each matrix represents one phase
during the facility delivery process. The purpose of these Application Matrices is to guide the project
management team in the application and use of the constructability concepts at the appropriate time
during the course of the project. The application of a given concept to specific activity is denoted by
shading where the two intersect. Emphasis is directed towards the earliest application of a particular
concept in order to gain its maximum cost benefit for the project.
Concepts and
Feasibility Phase
Process Design
Phase
Preliminary
Phase
Engineering Phase
Detailed Design and

Procurement Phase
Construction and
Installation Phase
Time
Figure C-1. Facility Delivery Process—Industrial Construction
149
CONCEPTS AND FEASIBILITY PHASE
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Feasibility of Project
Conceptual Design
Estimate/Schedule
Conceptual Cost
Reduce Options
Conceptual Job
Identify Options
and Site Layout
Execution Plan
Begin Project
Identify Need
CONSTRUCTABILITY
CONCEPTS
Scope
Index Name
experience.
experience.

150
contract documents.
Figure C-2. Applications Matrix for Concepts and Feasibility Phase

PROCESS DESIGN PHASE
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Process Data Sheets
Contracting Strategy
Project Objectives
Project Schedules
Value Engineering
and Heat/Material
General Process
Control Strategy
Review/Analyze
Factored Cost
Process Flow
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Diagrams
Balances
CONCEPTS
Estimate
Strategy
Options
Index Name
experience.
experience.

151
contract documents.
Figure C-3. Applications Matrix for Process Design Phase

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PHASE
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
P&ID’s and Electrical
Prelim. Decisions on
Identify Materials by
Plot Plan and Model

Decisions on Major/
Operability Analysis
Project Procedures
Prefab./Assembly
Requirements for
Owner’s Material
Update Factored
Requisitions and
Long Equipment
Better Definition
Bid and Procure
Develop Project
Review/Analyze
Preliminary Job
Spec. Materials
Engineering for
Finalize Project
Micro Modules
Execution Plan
Environmental
Offsite Design
Specifications
Specifications
Cost Estimate
Review Value
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Engineering
Hazard and
Site Layout
Schedules
One Lines
CONCEPTS
Options
Permits
Owner
Scope
Index Name
I-1. Constructability implementation plans are an integral
part of the Project Execution Plan.
I-2. Early project feasibility planning takes advantage of
I-3. Development of the project contracting strategy
involves construction knowledge and experience.
I-4. Project schedules are construction- and startup-
sensitive.
I-5. Important, early design decisions consider
modularization/pre-assembly, construction automation,
and other major construction method options.
I-6. Permanent and temporary site layouts promote
efficient construction.
152
I-7. Advanced information technologies are applied to

facilitate efficient construction.
II-1. Design and procurement schedules are construction-
sensitive.
II-2. Designs are configured to enable efficient construction
and use of efficient technologies.
II-4. Procurement, construction and startup efficiency are

considered in the development of contract documents.
II-5. Module/preassembly designs facilitate fabrication,
transport, and field installation.
II-6. Designs promote construction accessibility of
personnel, material, and equipment.
II-7. Designs facilitate construction and field productivity
under adverse weather conditions.
III-1. Innovative construction management and field methods

are applied to increase construction efficiency.
Figure C-4. Applications Matrix for Preliminary Engineering Phase

DETAILED DESIGN AND PROCUREMENT PHASE
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Materials and Equipment
Review Vendor Drawings

Definitive Cost Estimate
Materials by Engineer
Prepare Construction
Value Engineering on
Finalize Decisions on
Operating Personnel
Pre-fabrication and
Cost and Schedule

Revise Contracting
Develop Operating
Documentation of
Material Supplied
Prepare Start-Up
Bid and Procure
Requisitions for
Prepare Design
Inspection and
Bid and Award

CONSTRUCTABILITY
(Engineer and
Bid Packages
Construction
Preassembly
Micro Scale
Procedures
Contractor)
CONCEPTS
Expediting
Drawings
Strategy
Training
Control
Manual
Design
Index Name
I-1. Constructability implementation plans are an integral part of
the Project Execution Plan.
I-2. Early project feasibility planning takes advantage of
I-3. Development of the project contracting strategy involves
I-5. Important, early design decisions consider modularization/

pre-assembly, construction automation, and other major
construction method options.
I-6. Permanent and temporary site layouts promote efficient
153
construction.
I-7. Advanced information technologies are applied to facilitate
efficient construction.
II-1. Design and procurement schedules are construction-
sensitive.
II-2. Designs are configured to enable efficient construction and
use of efficient technologies.
II-4. Procurement, construction and startup efficiency are

considered in the development of contract documents.
II-5. Module/preassembly designs facilitate fabrication, transport,
and field installation.
II-6. Designs promote construction accessibility of personnel,
material, and equipment.
II-7. Designs facilitate construction and field productivity under
adverse weather conditions.
III-1. Innovative construction management and field methods are

applied to increase construction efficiency.
Figure C-5. Applications Matrix for Detailed Design and Procurement Phase
CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION PHASE
ACTIVITIES IN PHASE
Field Subcontracting
Constructor Drawing
and Field Inspection
and Commissioning
Schedule and Cost
Site Queries (RFIs)
Precommissioning
Connect Modules
Expediting Shop
Site Preparation
and Procedures
Fabrication and
Change Orders
(Services and
Construction
Construction
Construction
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Equipment
CONCEPTS
Process)
Material
Control
Index Name
Plan.
experience.
I-3. Development of the project contracting strategy involves construction knowledge
and experience.

154
technologies.

conditions.
Figure C-6. Applications Matrix for Construction and Installation Phase

Notes
155
Second Edition Contributors
J. J. Cameron, Jacobs
George R. Delgado, Jacobs
Bruce Ford, Bechtel Corporation
* James T. O’Connor, The University of Texas at Austin
* Principal Author
Editor: Manuel A. Garcia, P.E.

CII Member Organizations
3M ABB Lummus Global

Abbott ALSTOM Power
Air Products and Chemicals AMEC
Alcoa AZCO
Amgen Inc. Aker Kværner
Anheuser-Busch Companies Autodesk
Aramco Services Company BE&K
BP America Baker Concrete Construction
Biogen Idec Bechtel Group
CITGO Petroleum Corporation Black & Veatch
Cargill Burns & McDonnell
Chevron CB&I
Codelco-Chile CCC Group
ConocoPhillips CDI Engineering Solutions
Dofasco CH2M HILL
The Dow Chemical Company CSA Group
DuPont Day & Zimmermann International
Eastman Chemical Company Dick Corporation
ExxonMobil Corporation Dresser-Rand Company
Genentech Emerson Process Management
General Motors Corporation Fluor Corporation
GlaxoSmithKline Fru-Con Construction Corporation
Intel Corporation Grinaker-LTA
International Paper Harper Industries
Kraft Foods Hatch
Eli Lilly and Company Hilti Corporation
Marathon Oil Corporation Hyundai Engineering & Construction
Merck JMJ Associates
NASA Jacobs
NOVA Chemicals Corporation Kellogg Brown & Root
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Kiewit Construction Group
Ontario Power Generation J. Ray McDermott
Petroleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras M. A. Mortenson Company
Praxair Mustang Engineering, L.P.
The Procter & Gamble Company R. J. Mycka
Progress Energy The Nielsen-Wurster Group
Rohm and Haas Company Parsons
Sasol Technology Pathfinder LLC
Shell Oil Company Perot Systems Corporation
Smithsonian Institution Primavera Systems
Solutia S&B Engineers and Constructors
Southern Company The Shaw Group
Sunoco Technip
Tennessee Valley Authority Victaulic Company
U.S. Architect of the Capitol Walbridge Aldinger Company
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington Group International
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation WorleyParsons Limited
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/ Yates Construction
Building and Fire Research Laboratory Zachry Construction Corporation
U.S. Department of Energy Zurich
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
U.S. Department of State
U.S. General Services Administration
U.S. Steel
Weyerhaeuser Company

CII. Constructability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CII. Constructability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constructability Implementation Guide

This edition was prepared by

Special Publication 34-1, Second Edition

The University of Texas at Austin.

Printed in the United States of America.

Preface to the Second Edition v

Appendix A: References 129

• References to the CII web page (http://www.construction-institute.org/) have been added

Reader comments are welcome. Please contact CII at CIIProductFeedback@austin.utexas.edu.

Manuel A. Garcia, P.E.

• Commit to implementing constructability.

Appendix A contains a listing of references.

Constructability usually requires that companies, particularly owners, go beyond conventional

Constructability, Payback, and CII Project Performance Benchmarking

Constructability vs. Value Engineering

CII Constructability-Related Products

The Constructability Implementation Roadmap provides an overview of the constructability process

• Commit to Implementing Constructability.

Additional Tools Presented in this Document

• Tool 2: Summary of Constructability Concepts: A listing and description of all 16

Develop and Secure

Figure 1.0. Constructability Implementation Roadmap (Tool 1)

• Commit to implementing constructability.

Each of these is discussed in detail in the following sections.

Figure 1.1. Milestones for Corporate Constructability Program Implementation

The ﬁrst activity in constructability implementation is to commit to implementing constructability.

Step 1: Understand Constructability Objectives, Concepts, and Barriers

To solidify organizational commitment to constructability, personnel at all levels in the company

• Clear, well-deﬁned organizational goals for the constructability program

• A comprehensive assessment of current practices leads

• Set goals for constructability effort.

• Ensure that the Implementation Policy includes all

Figure 1.2. Steps to Commit to Implementing Constructability

An assessment of current in-house constructability capabilities and practices should be conducted.

• Clarifying constructability program objectives.

Approach to Self-Assessment. The goals of constructability self-assessment are to measure the

Corporate Inputs: Project Outputs:

• Problems that could have been prevented with proper constructability

• Implementation of constructability concepts

Figure 1.3. Constructability Program Inputs and Outputs

• Documentation and Tracking:

Part of standard Part of another program, Recognized on a

D. Recognition of Many barriers exist; no Many barriers exist;

E. Constructability Part of standard

A. Executive Sponsor identified; role

B. Assignment of Full- or part-time corporate Full-time, high-level

C. Role of Project Full- or part-time position; Full- or part-time position;

Limited reference in any Project-level program Corporate constructability

B. Tracking of Believe that ideas are Some individual

Constructability None adequately conveyed documentation; primarily

Library may exist; Formalized routing

D. Constructability Limited reference, on Level of reference varies Standard item in all

A. Nature of Project- constrained by review

Figure 1.4. Constructability Program Evaluation Matrix

• Level 2: Application of Selected Supports

• Level 3: Informal Program

• Level 4: Formal Program

• Level 5: Comprehensive Formal Program

Table 1.1. Tabulation of Categorization Results from Interviews

Percent of Total 3 19 53 21 3 100

Recognition of Constructability Barriers/Problems:

Limited support Support varies within Management supports Total management

- Number of ideas applied

D. Recognition Many barriers exist; no Many barriers