Constructability: Outline of Past, Present,

and Future Research

Dimosthenis Kifokeris 1 and Yiannis Xenidis 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Constructability has been researched for the last five decades, along with relevant connotations such as buildability and
constructability programs. Definitions and concepts, assessment, computation and implementation methodologies, and techniques and tools
have been qualitatively and quantitatively defined for constructability. A systematic and thorough review and standardization of key con-
struction management concepts, such as constructability, could be the foundation for confronting issues primarily regarding: (1) the increas-
ing complexity of construction projects, (2) the vast information and big data disseminated and accessed by engineers of different disciplines,
and (3) the rapid development and increasing impact of tools such as building information modeling (BIM) and collective project manage-
ment software. This paper presents a thorough literature review of the conceptualization and use of constructability and outlines the relative
past and ongoing research trends and implementation tools, in order to contribute to its reevaluation in contemporary construction man-
agement. Constructability’s value is discussed specifically in connection with risk analysis, and their integration toward the establishment
of an inclusive methodology for the holistic management of technical projects. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001331. © 2017
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Constructability; Construction management; Risk analysis; Buildability; Building information modeling (BIM); Project
planning and design.

Introduction concerning structural integrity, sustainability, and aesthetics), and

The architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry
has always been one of the principal contributors to the global
economy. It involves a vast miscellany of professions (architects,
engineers, managers, laborers, and operators) and consultants, and
production and manufacturing firms (raw construction materials,
prefabricated elements, mechanical equipment for designs, soft-
ware applications, and conceptualization of prototypes). Even after
the particularly jeopardizing field fluctuations and instability that
stemmed from the global financial recession, the AEC industry
continues to be a major proportional generator of gross domestic
product (GDP). Indicative financial reports from countries and fed-
erations with blooming AEC industries, such as the European
Union (EU) (European Commission 2016), the United Kingdom
(Office for National Statistics 2016), the United States (U.S.
Department of Commerce–Bureau of Economic Analysis 2016),
Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012), China (EU SME
Centre 2015), Hong Kong (Census and Statistics Department–The
Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
2015), and Indonesia (Yong 2013) show that the AEC industry
alone generated 4–10% of each country’s or federation’s respective
GDP.
Various construction projects are subject to four distinctive suc-
cess determinants: (1) time (of completion), (2) cost (of develop-
ment), (3) quality (of the deliverables in relation to requirements
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki,
Greece. E-mail: dimoskif@civil.auth.gr
2
Assistant Professor, Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessalo-
niki, Greece (corresponding author). E-mail: ioxen@civil.auth.gr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 20, 2016; approved on
January 19, 2017; published online on March 31, 2017. Discussion period
open until August 31, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En-
gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
(4) client satisfaction (Poon et al. 1999). Whereas the first three
determinants are more traditionally mentioned and set as project
objectives, the fourth one has been defined explicitly more recently
(Poon et al. 1999), although it was always present as a strategic
dimensional output. The key elements of each determinant are
depicted in Fig. 1.
In the early 1960s, the widely reported failure of AEC deliver-
ables in satisfying project objectives was highlighted by various
researchers in the United Kingdom (Emmerson 1962; Banwell
1964). These studies distinguished the disintegration of design
and construction as the primary determining factor for the afore-
mentioned failure. This factor was further complimented by other
aspects, still stemming from these initial findings, but highlighted
in later published research. Such aspects included: (1) the mana-
gerially dysfunctional or not-optimal contractual strategies (Ireland
2006); (2) the profound lack of automation in the AEC industry, in
spite of the tremendous possibilities for it (Fischer and Tatum 1989;
Tatum 1990; Fischer 1991); and (3) the problematic dissemination
of construction knowledge and experience among professionals
(Tatum 1993). For the mitigation or reconsideration of the three
aspects, and the revitalization of the AEC industry, a thorough
multidisciplinary stream of research was conducted for almost
the last 50 years, spearheaded by the overall conceptualization
of and studies on the notions of buildability and, more prominently,
constructability (Tatum 1993). What was collectively emphasized
was that implementing constructability in various ways can im-
prove all aspects of overall project performance, facilitate the opti-
mization of project constraints, and introduce a tightly collaborative
way of managing the whole project lifecycle.
Currently, a change of mind and attitude is underway in the AEC
industry. The aforementioned problems indeed have been mitigated
and their related risks framed or even turned to potential revenue
sources. However, there are still prominent and new, more extreme
challenges, such as: (1) the increasing complexity of construction
projects and the need for innovation (Senescu et al. 2011a, b;

© ASCE 04017035-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Overall project performance success determinants/objectives
Orstavik et al. 2015); (2) the insufficient partition, communication,
and dissemination of the enormous amount of chaotic knowledge
and information accessed by the practitioners (Ganah 2003;
Nielson and Erdogan 2003; Senescu et al. 2011a, b; Khan 2015);
(3) the ongoing, global financial recession that is prominent in the
AEC industry, and the need for robust financial and risk manage-
ment (Haider 2009), (4) the modern, flexible, and interconnected
contractual and social types of relationships between clients, de-
signers, constructors, contractors, subcontractors, procurers, and
the rest of construction projects stakeholders, such as the popular
design-and-build process and all its respective subsystems (Akin-
toye 2006; Haroglu et al. 2010; Tsai and Yang 2010; Lam and
Wong 2011; Rahmani et al. 2013); and (5) the rapidly developed,
yet unequally implemented among professionals, powerful meth-
odological and software tools such as building information model-
ing (BIM) (Abbasnejad and Moud 2013; Jan et al. 2013; Chong
et al. 2014) and novel collective project management (Ko and
Cheng 2003). These are among the key factors that necessitate
the review and refinement, through a systematic and thorough ap-
proach, of key construction project administration and management
concepts. Constructability as a holistic and underlying notion fun-
damentally can be the enclosing factor. In the years since the first
proposal of this concept, the respective research rarely has shed
light on it in a holistic manner; in fact, the most recent comprehen-
sive review of constructability could be considered as dating back to
2007 (Gambatese et al. 2007), whereas more recent works (Gräbner
et al. 2010; Ahmed and Othman 2011; Erman et al. 2011; Malek
2011; Kannan and Santhi 2013; Kaveh et al. 2013; Alinaitwe et al.
2014; Khan 2015; Brennan and Venigalla 2016) strive to meet other
goals, instead of actually reviewing constructability’s theory and
practice.
The objective of this paper is to outline the past and ongoing
trends in constructability research, with a twofold aim: (1) to high-
light the potential of implementing constructability in the context of
© ASCE 04017035-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
construction management under the light of contemporary relevant
technological and conceptual developments, and (2) to provide re-
searchers and practitioners the grounds to identify specific theories
and practices that should be integrated with constructability, and
that currently remain considerably unstudied. To this end, this pa-
per presents the various approaches in the conceptualization and
use of constructability, and proposes its integration with the theory
and practice of risk analysis as an example of potential fields
of further introduction of constructability to contemporary con-
struction management. Through the analysis and synthesis of past,
present, and future ideas, the paper concludes with specific propos-
als for integrating constructability and risk analysis, and forming
an inclusive framework for the interpretation and application of
constructability in construction management and the construction
industry in general.
Research Methodology
The methodology to achieve the research objective was online and
offline literature review. First, the appropriate bibliographical data-
bases that would provide valid and accurate bibliographical sources
for the research subject were identified. High-prestige and high-
visibility databases that included relevant research work were
selected, including both prominent publishers’ and research insti-
tutions’ Web-residing and physical (i.e., libraries) publications
repositories. Then, the appropriate search terms were defined
through a two-step process. The first step was to identify keywords
directly related to the research subject, such as constructability,
constructability program, construction management, and lifecycle.
These keywords were used for investigating the initial set of bib-
liographical sources to study in the identified databases. The sec-
ond step was to identify more specific keywords (e.g., buildability,
constructability concepts, risk analysis, and BIM) in the initial set
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 that would lead to a broader set of bibliographical sources relevant
to the subject under research. After selecting the appropriate bib-
liographical databases and choosing the corresponding search
terms, the literature review went through the following process
phases (Fink 2014):
• Initial core understanding of the subject under research: Funda-
mental notions, such as project performance, constructability,
constructability program, buildability, project management, risk
analysis, and the rest explicitly or implicitly delineated in the
primary body of the text were studied and cognitively cleared
of discrepancies. The primary information source for this phase
was books and reports.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• In-depth review of the researched subject: The historical devel-
opment of the notions understood previously were studied and
critically scrutinized. The notions’ interconnections and connec-
tions with other tangential methodologies were found and high-
lighted. The information primarily was drawn from dissertations,
theses, journal articles, and conference proceedings.
• Specialized research of the subject: Certain aspects requiring
more targeted consideration were researched, namely, the con-
structability tools and the project delivery methods and contrac-
tual types in relation to constructability. As in the previous
process phase, the information primarily was drawn from dis-
sertations, theses, journal articles, and conference proceedings.
• Unification of the research results into a concise deliverable:
The results of the conducted research were coherently unified
and enriched with critical comments and conclusions.
During the research process, care was taken to screen and qualify
the bibliographical sources according to diverse criteria, such as their
explicit relevance to the subject under research, the mode they were
indexed in the corresponding databases, their citation history, the
impact factor (in the case of journal articles), the number of
cross-references, and the existence of relative validation conducted
by other studies (Fink 2014). Furthermore, key point checklists were
created for the qualitative assessment and evaluation in terms of co-
herence, robustness, applicability, and eligibility of the analyses pre-
sented in the studied material (Fink 2014). Finally, because the
current literature review was descriptive and did not feature meta-
analysis, it was designed in a way that can be reproduced and ex-
panded systematically and unambiguously, and it was standardized
in the steps already delineated (Fink 2014). The results of the liter-
ature review are presented throughout the rest of the paper.
Definitions of Constructability and Buildability and
Their Connection to Other Methodological
Approaches
Following the preliminary 1960s’ studies, the term buildability was
defined by the Construction Industry Research and Information
Association (CIRIA 1983) as “the extent to which the design of a
building facilitates ease of construction, subject to the overall re-
quirements for the completed building.” The implementation of
buildability was promoted at a theoretical level to instigate a practical
integration of design and construction for better deliverables and
satisfaction of the project objectives. Such results could be achieved
by: (1) the advanced communication between the stakeholders,
(2) the early construction contractor involvement in the project life-
cycle (and especially the design stage) through appropriate contrac-
tual types and agreements, and (3) the use of methodological,
empirical, and software tools for making the designs more buildable,
namely with fewer structural discrepancies (CIRIA 1983).
The concept of buildability, though, considered only design de-
cisions as the key issues affecting the successful completion of a
© ASCE 04017035-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
project, thus narrowing the scope of the approach and preventing it
from becoming more inclusive (Wong et al. 2007). Technological,
industrial, and field advances were perceived ambiguously by
designers and analysts and, respectively, analytical and specification-
related developments were considered only coarsely by constructors.
Numerous concurrent procedures and considerations in post-
construction phases (e.g., use and maintenance) with a direct impact
on project performance systematically were overlooked because of
an approach that gave prominence to a rather unbalanced and
incomplete design connected only to construction (Wong et al.
2007). A holistic view encompassing the multifarious relationships
between financial management, human resources management, and
what later was called sustainability, was essentially absent. The
need for closer professional, managerial, and scientific cooperation
among all project stakeholders (and not just the architect and the
primary constructor) still was not satisfied. Having taken the first
step with the research on buildability, the construction industry
needed the integration of a definitive and holistic philosophy that
would encompass fully the design, construction, administration, and
management of a technical project—with their concurrent optimiza-
tion—as interconnected elements of a single set to achieve the overall
project objectives. In this effort, the Construction Industry Institute
(CII) contributed significantly by defining constructability as “the
optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning,
design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project
objectives” (CII 1986), and later was complimented by akin
definitions [CII of Australia (CIIA 1996)]. Constructability, having
a broader scope, encompasses the aspect of buildability as a
design-phase related constructability subsystem.
For many years after their definition, constructability and build-
ability were used interchangeably (instead of a holistic and partial
concept, respectively). This resulted in a conceptual confusion with
measurable negative results because methodological and practical
tools largely were developed abstractly and resulted in further frag-
mentation instead of unification of the research efforts. However,
definitive studies (Nima et al. 2001; Trigunarsyah 2004a, b; Ugwu
et al. 2004) in the early 2000s established constructability as the
primary research concept for the better part of the relative field,
with buildability being its implementation branch for design and
early construction phases.
Following the said establishment, the first constructability
definition inducted by CII was still considered to be the most com-
prehensive. However, researchers continued to re-define construct-
ability, frequently distorting its aspects by introducing definition
elements from other managerial methodologies and approaches.
A critical list of such connotations until 2007 is included in Wong
et al. (2007), with no notable distortion cases reported after that
date. Nonetheless, current research on knowledge and information
management (Kanapeckiene et al. 2010; Rezgui et al. 2010) helped
untwine such cognitive discrepancies and led to the reconceptual-
ization of constructability as a holistic approach and not as a mere
toolbox used in conjunction with other managerial and evaluation
methodologies and techniques. Constructability indeed encom-
passes methodological and decision-making aspects of indicative
planning and operations performance evaluation (Ireland 2006;
Tatum 1990), value engineering (Green 1990; Russell et al. 1994),
knowledge management (Tatum 1993; Rezgui et al. 2010), cost/
benefit analysis (Russell et al. 1994; Haider 2009), total quality
management (Russell et al. 1994; Haider 2009), hybrid value en-
gineering (Rwelamila and Savile 1994), object-oriented analysis
(Alshawi and Underwood 1996), the six concepts of the total build-
ing performance framework [namely, spatial performance, acoustic
performance (Low et al. 2008a), visual performance, indoor air
quality (Low et al. 2008b), thermal performance, and building
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Relationships and interconnections between constructability, buildability, constructability program, and relevant scientific concepts
integrity (Low et al. 2008c)], and productivity-oriented regression
analysis (Jarkas 2011; Malek 2011). However, it is the overall clus-
ter approach aimed at satisfying the fundamental project objectives
that makes it the foundation on which all other tools and techniques
are applied, and not vice versa.
Adjunct to the definition of constructability was that of the
constructability program as, “the application of a disciplined, sys-
tematic optimization of construction-related aspects of a project
during the planning, design, procurement, construction, test, and
start-up phases by knowledgeable, experienced construction per-
sonnel who are part of a project team” (Construction Management
Committee of ASCE 1991). The form and methodological aspects
of a constructability program are interconnected strongly to the pro-
curement strategy of a project. Such a program features construct-
ability review procedures, which identify project elements that can
be modified to mitigate construction difficulties and ambiguities,
problems in construction knowledge implementation, change or-
ders, disputes, cost overruns, and delays (Gambatese et al. 2007).
The embodiment of the principles of constructability itself, and the
use and implementation of its concepts, tools, and applications are
described subsequently in this paper.
Notably, constructability and risk analysis seldom are associated
specifically, despite the various areas of construction project man-
agement in which their integration would undoubtedly increase
performance of projects development. Examples of such areas in-
clude, among others, the cooperation and dissemination of knowl-
edge among the project stakeholders (Rahman and Kumaraswamy
2002; Zou et al. 2007); construction procedures (Cho and Kim
2008; Kang et al. 2013); capital investments; implementation of
new and innovative technology (Kang et al. 2013); material supply
chain; site conditions; labor safety; owner-contractor agreement
(Tserng et al. 2009); and contractual, procurement, and administra-
tive procedures (Tserng et al. 2009; Chan et al. 2011; Osipova and
Eriksson 2011). In the aforementioned areas, whereas constructabil-
ity could benefit from the direct implementation of the methodo-
logical and mathematical tools of risk analysis, and risk analysis
explicitly be developed under the guidelines of constructability,
© ASCE 04017035-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
their interconnection is still turbid. However extensive the literature
is on AEC risk analysis and management, constructability in re-
spective studies still is considered primarily as a mere isolated type
of risk among other equally important elements (Uher and Toakley
1999; Rahman and Kumaraswamy 2002; Chan et al. 2011). The
currently developed tools that assess, highlight, and visualize
project-related risks rarely consider constructability as a broad, en-
compassing framework (Cho and Kim 2008; Pishdad and Beliveau
2010; Kaplinski 2013; Kang et al. 2013). Therefore, for a definitive
holistic approach of construction project management that is har-
monically propelled in the philosophy of constructability, a tight
integration of the latter with risk analysis is in order (following
and complimenting the integration of the other methodological as-
pects mentioned in the previous paragraphs), and the development
of a comprehensive respective framework and implementation tool
is of imperative importance.
In Fig. 2, buildability is shown as an integral part of construct-
ability, applicable in earlier stages of the project lifecycle. The as-
pects of total building performance (TBP), planning and operations
performance (POP) evaluation, value engineering (VE) and hybrid
value engineering (HVE), knowledge management (KM), total
quality management (TQM), cost/benefit (C/B) analysis, object-
oriented (O/O) analysis, and productivity-oriented (P/O) regression
analysis provide input to constructability in terms of their respec-
tive methodologies and tools. Finally, the constructability program
is depicted as the product of constructability implementation
(together with the aspects that provided input to constructability).
Constructability Concepts and Tools
Constructability is implemented throughout a project’s lifecycle
through the integration and application of distinctive concepts
and fundamentals. For this implementation, it is crucial that an ini-
tial managerial and procedural coalescence of the project’s lifecycle
phase up to its delivery takes place in real time, aided by contractual
types that promote, as early as possible, the advanced interconnec-
tion and communication among the stakeholders (like the various
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Fig. 3. Discretization of CCs per initiation, execution, and delivery project lifecycle phases
design-and-build contracts). This coalescence leads in three project
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
phases (Nawi et al. 2009; Saghatforoush et al. 2009a): (1) initiation
(feasibility study, design and construction contract procurement,
and conceptual planning), (2) execution (procurement of site sub-
contractors, continuation and/or finalization of designs, and con-
current start of field operations), and (3) delivery (finalization of
designs if not done in the previous phase, finalization of construc-
tion and field operations, and project delivery). The constructability
concepts (CCs) file, comprised of guidelines and strategies to en-
hance the constructability of a project in a holistic way, has been
updated repeatedly and commented upon (CIRIA 1983; Tatum
1987; Adams 1989; CII 1993; CIIA 1993; Griffith and Sidwell
1997; Nima et al. 1999; Nima 2001; Trigunarsyah 2004a, b), with
the 23 concepts (Nima 2001) being the most widely cited in the
relative literature. The concepts are transpired by the following con-
structability principles (CPs) (Adams 1989; CII 1993):
• CP1: Project integration;
• CP2: Implementation of construction expert knowledge;
• CP3: Appropriation of project team skills;
• CP4: Understanding of overall and specific project objectives;
• CP5: Consideration of available resources;
• CP6: External factors and site accessibility;
• CP7: Realistic and construction-sensitive project program and
construction methodology;
• CP8: Transparent specifications;
• CP9: Innovation; and
• C10: Acquirement of post-project information and knowledge
feedback for the creation of best-practices and lessons-learned
databases.
Constructability principles are considered at the outset and are
the general fundamentals that transpire the very notion of construct-
ability, and of the whole implementation of the CCs and the con-
structability program. Their realization may vary and be tailored to
a specific project case (Griffith and Sidwell 1997). Their actual
level of presence in one or more CCs, however, within the delin-
eation of the latter, is largely project-, stakeholder-, and lifecycle-
phase specific (Griffith and Sidwell 1997). Thus, CPs may set the
lowermost basis for the constructability considerations of a project,
but it is through the actual CCs (which form a more specific body of
knowledge regarding methodology and suggestions) that construct-
ability is clearly implemented in the project management strategy
(Nima 2001). Constructability concepts are interconnected per
cycle, content, and context, and are roughly discretized per project
lifecycle phase. Combining the coalescence of the project phases
and their constituent parts mentioned previously, along with the
general CCs grouping provided in the literature (Nima 2001; Nawi
et al. 2009; Saghatforoush et al. 2009a) and the general attributes
of the project lifecycle phases as they are realized in a project man-
agement plan (Darnall and Preston 2010), the CCs can be discre-
tized deductively per project lifecycle phase as indicated in Fig. 3.
The 23 concepts (Nima 2001) are delineated compactly as the
following:
© ASCE 04017035-5
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
• CC1: The constructability program is an integral part of the pro-
ject execution plan and constitutes the output of the conclusive
contribution of the project developers at all hierarchy stages.
• CC2: The project team should include all key stakeholders to
ensure uninterrupted implementation of constructability require-
ments throughout the project’s lifecycle.
• CC3: The effective integration between design and construction
should be achieved through the exploitation of up-to-date con-
struction knowledge and experience brought by practitioners
into the early conceptual planning and design drafts.
• CC4: The contractual framework that governs the project should
align with the applied construction methods.
• CC5: The scheduling goals should be construction-driven and
assigned as early as possible.
• CC6: The early scrutinization and selection of the primary con-
struction methods should frame the design to achieve smooth
field operations.
• CC7: The proper study of the site’s layout should ensure unin-
terrupted and efficient workflows and resources performance
throughout the project’s lifecycle.
• CC8: Planning the construction operations sequence should
precede the rest of the plans (such as the design, the procure-
ment of resources, and others) because it dictates the design and
procurement of equipment and materials.
• CC9: The cooperation of all specialists should be facilitated
through advanced information technologies, thus overcom-
ing the fragmentation of specialized roles during the project
lifecycle.
• CC10: The widest possible simplifications and rationalizations
should be implemented in the designs and the reviews con-
tracted by qualified construction personnel so as the designs
can be configured to enable efficient construction.
• CC11: Standardization of project elements should be selected
whenever possible, but not to an extent of qualitatively worsen-
ing the project outcome.
• CC12: The technical specifications should be simplified and
configured for efficient construction, but not to the extent of
qualitatively worsening the project performance.
• CC13: The modularization and preassembly of structural ele-
ments should be considered, studied carefully, and used when
it can facilitate their efficient fabrication, transportation, and
installation.
• CC14: Exploitable resources (e.g., human, material, and equip-
ment) must be properly positioned at the site at the design stage.
• CC15: Construction should be scheduled for processing under
suitable weather conditions. When not possible, alternatives
such as more extensive prefabrication should be available.
• CC16: Construction activities should be effectively planned for
the prevention of conflicts of resources usage and productivity
reduction.
• CC17: Issues not covered by the design with regard to the im-
plementation of the construction process should be treated with
an innovative and out-of-the-box approach.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 • CC18: Innovation to decrease labor intensity and increase mo-
bility, safety, and site accessibility of the personnel should be
pursued.
• CC19: Innovation in the introduction, use, selection, and mod-
ification of the available equipment (thus increasing site produc-
tivity), should be considered.
• CC20: Optional preassembly should be encouraged to increase
site productivity, safety, and mobility.
• CC21: Innovation in the use, reuse, and postconstruction func-
tion of temporary facilities should be considered.
• CC22: Contractors’ appraisal procedures should be established
to constitute a further and crucial criterion of selection for future
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
collaboration.
• CC23: Constructability program’s appraisal should be estab-
lished and documented per case to enhance knowledge-based
construction management.
With the proper adjustments from case to case, these concepts
can be applied uniformly despite the circumstantial constraints that
may appear in different project cases, thus constituting the sought
after holistic constructability approach that may lead to the general
consolidation of many problematic aspects of the construction
industry. It is evident that the concepts are not doctrines, but rather
guidelines and methodological fundamentals to enhance project
constructability and, consequently, aid to the achievement of
project objectives. A concise mode-of-practice for successful con-
struction projects on the basis of CCs could read as follows:
• In the initiation phase: (1) promote the constructability program
as the initial key managerial approach of the project execution
plan; (2) ensure that knowledge and experience flows through
unhindered communication between stakeholders, and set the
fundamentals for realistic and construction-sensitive methods,
resources, and plans; and (3) generate and evaluate alternative
options as early as the beginning of the feasibility study so that
contractors’ requests for proposal (RFPs) can be conducted on a
clarified basis.
• In the execution phase: (1) consider all aspects of the design and
construction incremental concurrent sequences; (2) provide
guidelines for the implementation of advanced analytical, infor-
mational, and field technologies; (3) promote standardization,
repetition, simplification, modularization, preassembly, sustain-
ability principles, and lean construction (but in a way that the
inspirational and aesthetic criteria of the architects and the de-
signers are not flagrantly violated); and (4) address issues such
as site layout efficiency and accessibility, resources availability,
offsite manufacturing potential, adverse weather conditions,
logistics, and waste management (reducing, reusing, and
recycling).
• In the delivery phase: (1) deal with the operations for the
continuation and completion of field tasks and the project de-
livery, and (2) facilitate a post-construction evaluation that will
enhance the managerial perception of similar future projects
through the documentation of lessons-learned in respective
databases. Such an evaluation should highlight the following
aspects: (a) promotion of innovation in materials, systems, tools,
equipment, temporary facilities, and field task sequencing;
(b) establishment of contractors’ appraisal procedures; (c) as-
sessment of the project goals’ achievement; and (d) best-
practices documentation.
Considerations to extend the scope of constructability to include
the project’s operation and maintenance were noted in some
studies (Griffith and Sidwell 1995; Dunston and Williamson 1999;
Saghatforoush et al. 2011b; Saghatforoush 2014). Such consider-
ations could lead to the delineation and application of postdelivery
CCs, expanding the aforementioned concepts list.
© ASCE 04017035-6
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
The implementation of the CCs is achievable through the use
of the various tools that have been developed over the years to sup-
port the development of construction projects. A number of these
tools have been developed explicitly for constructability purposes,
whereas others were taken from relevant and tangential application
and theoretical fields, such as hybrid value engineering (Rwelamila
and Savile 1994). These tools are used for the CCs’ application
(during the initiation, execution, and delivery lifecycle project
phases), evaluation and assessment (both before and after the
project delivery), and improvement (through the elaboration of
the evaluation and assessment results or prototype studies).
Table 1 discretizes the tools that implement CCs in two different
ways: type-wise and nature-wise. The types of tools identified in
literature (I–V in Table 1) are (1) cognitive, (2) mathematical,
(3) methodological, (4) programming, and (5) software. The nature
of these tools is distinguished in the following six categories (A–F
in Table 1): (1) quantitative project features’ and indices’ assess-
ment tools, (2) qualitative project features’ and indices’ assessment
tools, (3) schedule-cost quality management and decision-making
tools, (4) program review tools, (5) information and knowledge
feedback tools, and (6) acquired knowledge recording, manage-
ment, and dissemination tools. This discretization and format of
presentation clearly highlights the following very interesting issues
with regard to the tools that practically implement the CCs:
• Many tools are classified in more than one type, thus indicating
the multifaceted structure and function that constructability
tools should present. This finding is useful for researchers
and practitioners that design tools to apply to the implementa-
tion of constructability.
• Constructability tools are equally applied to the project’s phases
regardless of their nature, with the exception of quantitative pro-
ject features’ and indices’ assessment tools that prevail in the
execution phase. This finding indicates that the nature of the
tools is not a regulatory factor for selecting them for construct-
ability implementation.
• Constructability tools, regardless of type and nature, primarily
are applied to the execution phase compared with the other
phases of a construction project. This finding highlights the
need for research concerning the further extension of the use
of constructability tools to the initiation and delivery phases.
• Quantitative and qualitative project features’ and indices’ as-
sessment tools are not applied at all in the initiation and delivery
phases. This finding highlights a potential for research concern-
ing the extended use of these tools for the previously mentioned
construction project phases.
These findings indicate that further investigation is required con-
cerning the use of specific tools of different types for the implemen-
tation of CCs in specific phases of construction project development.
This investigation should aim to (1) assess the potential for increas-
ing application of CCs toward a more effective implementation
of constructability, and (2) integrate well-established and critical ap-
proaches (e.g., risk analysis) with the application of constructability.
The latter would lead to an updated novel framework for a definitive
holistic approach for construction management. Given the already
compact nature of many of the reported tools, the development
of this novel framework may require a start-from-scratch approach
or distinctive tool use in specific parts and subareas.
Constructability in Relation to Its Scope, Field of
Application and Applicational Barriers
Constructability pertains to all phases of the project’s lifecycle up to
project delivery and is applicable for all types of technical projects.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Various Tools Implementing Constructability Concepts

Initiation Execution Delivery

© ASCE
Type Nature
Identified tool I II III IV V A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F
Technical reports (Mathes and Stevenson 1991) X — X — — — — — — — — X X — — — — — — — — — —
Three-dimensional (3D), four-dimensional (4D), five-dimensional (5D) computer — — — X X — — — — — — X X — — — — — — — — — —
aided design (CAD), computer aided engineering (CAE), and computer aided
manufacturing (CAM) (Tatum 1990)
Construction knowledge expert (COKE) (Fischer 1991) X — X X X — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X —
Skill concept packages (SCoPs) (Moore 1993) X — X — — — — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
Brainstorming (Russell et al. 1994; Haider 2009) X — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — —
Cost/benefit analysis (Russell et al. 1994; Haider 2009) — X X — — — — X X — — — — X X — — — — X X — —
Model-based constructability analysis (MOCA) (Fischer et al. 1994) X — X X X — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
S-curve function (Rwelamila and Savile 1994) — X X — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — — —
Geographic information systems (GIS) (Lee and Clover 1995) X X X — X — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — —
Automated design aid (ADA) (Moore 1996) X — — X X — — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
Object-oriented analysis framework (OOAF) (Alshawi and Underwood 1996) X X X X X — — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
Building design appraisal system (BDAS) (Poh and Chen 1998) — — X — — — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
Multimedia (Saad and Hancher 1998) — — — X — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X —
Constructability knowledge-intensive database system (Kartam et al. 1999) X — X — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X
Neuro-fuzzy analysis (Yu and Skibniewski 1999a, b) — X X X — — — — — — X X — — — — X — — — — — X
Practices-to-excel and lessons-to-be-learned databases (Poon et al. 1999) X — X — — — — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X
Best practices and lessons-learned databases (Poon et al. 1999) X — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — —
4D TSConAn (4D work planner time-space conflict analyzer) (Akinci et al. 2000) — — X X X — — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
Program evaluation and review technique (PERT) and critical path method (CPM) X X X — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — — —
(Lu and AbouRizk 2000)

04017035-7
ISO 9000 quality management systems (Pheng and Abeyegoonasekera 2001) X — X — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — — —
Questionnaire surveys and interviews of professionals (Nima et al. 2001) — — X — — — — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X
Fuzzy quality function deployment system (Yang et al. 2003) X X X — — — — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — —
Artificial neural networks (ANN) (Ballal and Sher 2003; Zin et al. 2004) X X X X — — — — — — X X — — — — X — — — — — X
Conceptual product process matrix model (CPPMM) (Pulaski and Horman 2005) X X X — — — — — — X — — — — X — — — — X —
Linear programming (Srour et al. 2006) — X X X X — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — — —

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035

Online cloud systems (Kuprenas et al. 2006) — — X X X — — X — — — — — X — — — — X — —
Construction analysis for pavement rehabilitation strategies (CA4PRS) X — X X X — — X — — — X — — — — — — — — — —
(Gambatese et al. 2007)
Implementation responsibility matrix (Gambatese et al. 2007) X X X X — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — — —
Policy and objective statements (Gambatese et al. 2007) — — X — — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — — X —
Design process communication methodology (DPCM) (Senescu et al. 2011b) X — X X X — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — — X —
3D, 4D, 5D structural building information modelling (S-BIM) (Lee et al. 2012) — X X X X — — — — X — X — — — — — — — — — X —
Scheme design models (SDM) (Lam et al. 2012) X X X — — — — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X
3D, 4D, 5D BIM (Abbasnejad and Moud 2013; Jan et al. 2013; Chong et al. 2014) — X X X X — — — X X — X — X X — — — — X X —
Decision support system for the selection of structural materials (DSSSSM) X X X X — — — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
(Zhong 2013)
Utility functions (Kaplinski 2013) — X X — — — — X — — — — — X — — — — — X — — —
BIM-based schedule-workspace conflict optimization system (BIM-SWACOS) — X X — X — — — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
(Moon et al. 2014)
BIM-enabled automated constructability review (Jiang 2016) X X X X X X X X
Note: I = cognitive; II = mathematical; III = methodological; IV = programming; V = software; A = quantitative project features’ and indices’ assessment; B = qualitative project features’ and indices’ assessment;
C = schedule cost-quality management and decision making; D = program review; E = information and knowledge feedback; F = acquired knowledge recording, management, and dissemination.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

 The performance of such an implementation can be measured and
facilitated through distinct indicators (Zhong and Wu 2015); how-
ever, the performance of a constructability program usually is
measured through the processes of its review tools. The use of a
performance indicator (PI) checklist is more profound in aspects
such as sustainability and in all project lifecycle phases (Shen et al.
2007). Nevertheless, because constructability and sustainability are
conceptually interconnected in various aspects (Thomas 2010;
Saghatforoush et al. 2011b; Zhong 2013; Othman and Seoud
2014; Saghatforoush 2014; Brennan and Venigalla 2016), sustain-
ability PIs can be intertwined with CCs, and constructability also
can be extended in segments of post-delivery phases.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Relatively few of the constructability-related research results
and the developed application tools have a general and wide scope
of interest (CII 1986, 1993; Tatum 1987, 1990, 1993; CIIA 1993,
1996; Russell et al. 1994; Griffith and Sidwell 1997; Yu and
Skibniewski 1999a, b; Nima 2001; Nima et al. 2001; Trigunarsyah
2004a, b, Yuanbin 2006; Haider 2009; Nawi et al. 2009; Malek
2011; Senescu et al 2011b; Kuo 2012). Such efforts concentrate
on developing more generalized methodological guidelines and
systemic tools. They offer the advantage of a more holistic ap-
proach, but lack on the refinement of the research results in more
specific practical examples.
Most conducted research efforts concerning constructability
focus on specific aspects and even on specific project types. Exam-
ples are building projects (e.g., residential premises, offices, com-
mercial buildings) that use prefabricated or in situ structural
systems of reinforced concrete, steel, masonry, or other materials
(Ireland 2006; Fischer and Tatum 1989; Griffith and Sidwell 1995;
Hyde 1995; Pheng and Abeyegoonasekera 2001; Fox et al. 2002;
Pulaski et al. 2006; Low et al. 2008a, b, c, Santos et al. 2009; Lam
et al. 2012; Kannan and Santhi 2013); infrastructure projects (Lee
and Clover 1995; CIRIA 1996; Nima et al. 2005; Erman et al. 2011;
Rocher et al. 2011; Saghatforoush et al. 2011a; Kaveh et al. 2013;
Alinaitwe et al. 2014); and distinct structures of either private or
public interest, such as nuclear power plants (Candlish 1988), in-
tegrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants
(Gräbner et al. 2010), biofuel production facilities (Venteris et al.
2014), and encasing energy piles (Park et al. 2015). These studies
are, by definition, coarsely segmental, but their results easily can be
used in practical terms because most software tools used in practice
already are specialized largely in discretized application fields.
Constructability and its implementation can be inhibited by cer-
tain barriers that can be either case-specific or general, but they all
fundamentally hinder the actual realization of the potential benefits
of applying constructability principles in practice, especially in
terms of the up-front involvement of the construction personnel,
the potential efficiency achieved in the construction effort, and
the implementation of advanced technology and informative con-
struction methods (Jergeas and Put 2001). The indeterminacy of
such inhibitors largely is evident as they generally cannot be well
documented. However, certain research efforts (Jergeas and Put
2001; Ahmed and Othman 2011; Windapo and Ogunsanmi 2014)
have managed to consolidate a comprehensive list of barriers that
comprise the following:
• General barriers include stakeholder complacency regarding the
efficiency of the project management procedures as they are,
disbelief in the potential utility of a constructability program,
lack of expert personnel, discontinuity in the involvement of key
stakeholders in the project management team, lack of lessons-
learned documentation, reluctance for innovation, a highly com-
petitive construction market, a highly competitive equipment
rental market, general supply shortages, rigid legislation, and
© ASCE 04017035-8
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
a lack of specific constructability requirements in most building
codes.
• Owner barriers include a lack of concept awareness, false eva-
luation concerning the impact from the implementation of a con-
structability program on the project, reluctance for additional
early project-stage investments, lack of genuine commitment, in-
sistence in separating design and construction management op-
erations, lack of construction experience, lack of team-building
and partnering abilities, disregard of constructability in selecting
contractors and/or consultants, contracting difficulties in the
constructability scope definition, misdirected design objectives
and performance measures, lack of financial incentive, gold-
plated standard specifications, limitations of lump-sum compe-
titive contracting (should it be an aspect of the project delivery
method), and unreceptiveness to contractor innovation.
• Designer barriers include false perceptions of constructability;
a lack of concept awareness; a lack of construction expertise
and awareness for construction technologies; setting personal
goals over project goals; a lack of respect for other stakeholders;
incomplete specifications; nonstandardization of design, faulty,
ambiguous, or defective working designs; perception of increased
designer liability; and untimely requests for construction-
related input.
• Contractor barriers include reluctance of field personnel to offer
advice at the preconstruction period, untimely knowledge feed-
back, poor communication skills, lack of involvement in tools
and equipment development, untimely involvement in the early
project-lifecycle phases, outdated knowledge of construction
methods and techniques, inadequate construction experience,
lack of resources, lack of management skills, low availability
of qualified and skilled labor, lack of time for proper staff training
in the use of software that is frequently subject to constant updates
and may not be user-friendly, inadequate equipment usage, long-
time high amount of material inventory (which the contractor pre-
fers to use because of costly storage), and low work backlog.
• Waste management and recycling barriers include stakeholders’
disbelief in the importance of waste management and recycling,
lack of awareness and integration of the waste management
philosophy in the design process, under and overspecification
of the use of recycled materials, waste-intensive material and
product usage, poor communication with waste management
specialists, and a lack of sustainability considerations from
the beginning of the project.
• Project-specific barriers include adversarial stakeholders’ rela-
tionships, budgetary limitations, extreme project size and com-
plexity, site and facility congestion, inappropriate procurement
method, and strict time constraints.
These barriers also may inhibit the full and fundamental inte-
gration between risk analysis and constructability. Therefore, such
an integration, focusing first on the methodological elements and
then on the development of implementation tools, and targeted pri-
marily at their fundamental aspects because risk analysis pertains to
the whole project lifecycle management (Uher and Toakley 1999;
Rahman and Kumaraswamy 2002; Wang et al. 2004; Zou et al.
2007; Chen and Khumpaisal 2009; Ogunsami et al. 2011; Osipova
and Eriksson 2011; Kang et al. 2013; Kaplinski 2013), should take
the barriers into serious account.
Contractual Procurement Types and Project
Delivery Methods in Relation to Constructability
A contractual procurement type and/or project delivery method is
defined as the process of the optional assignment of the owner’s or
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 client’s project concept, materialization, delivery, and performance
risk to another party or parties (Clough 1981). The choice of an
appropriate and mutually beneficial contractual agreement among
the project stakeholders is of paramount importance and a definitive
step for the achievement of the project objectives. Constructability,
as a holistic managerial approach pertaining the procedural project
phases, therefore is affected greatly by the various procurement and
project delivery methods and strategies, with different levels of
methodological implementation of the constructability program
and the relative tools. The overall project goal achievement and
the capability of the constructability program to be integrated with
the risk management procedures also depend on the strategy and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
contractual choice (Mahdi and Alreshaid 2005).
Procurement methods differ in a number of elements, such
as (Ireland 2006): (1) the provisions for the determination of the
cost (between the two extremes of a fixed price tender and a
cost-reimbursement deal); (2) the contractor selection process
(when not only on the basis of the lowest bid offer, but also on
performance indicators and the confirmed use of best practices);
(3) the roles and involvement of the consultants, constructors, and
the rest of the stakeholders in the project phases; and (4) the inter-
connected issues related to various project-specific details. These
differences have diverse effects on the implementation of a con-
structability program and the satisfaction of its principles and
concepts.
In the modern construction industry, procurement types favoring
immense involvement of and cooperation between all the stake-
holders, especially the designers and the constructors, throughout
the project’s lifecycle are increasingly popular and simultaneously
propitious for constructability.
Relative research efforts conclude explicitly or implicitly that
the key contemporary procurement and project delivery method
that fosters this cooperation and manages the initial related risks
is design-and-build (Akintoye 2006; Nima et al. 1999; Mahdi
and Alreshaid 2005; Ng and Aminah 2006; Haider 2009; Nawi et al.
2009; Saghatforoush et al. 2009b; Haroglu et al. 2010; Pishdad and
Beliveau 2010; Tsai and Yang 2010; Osipova and Eriksson 2011),
otherwise referred to as design-build or design-construct (Griffith
and Sidwell 1995). The design-and-build method is defined as a
contractual arrangement in which a single contracting organization
takes sole responsibility, normally on a lump-sum fixed price basis,
for the design, construction, and delivery of a client’s project
(Masterman 2002). Design-and-build has been discretized in nu-
merous subsystems, most of which have interchangeable properties
and may be simultaneously evident in hybrid form in specific con-
tractual cases. Such subsystems are indicatively pure design-and-
build, integrated design-and-build, fragmented design-and-build
(Rowlinson 1987), package turnkey deals, design-and-manage,
design-manage-construct, novation design-and-build, and develop-
and-construct (Akintoye 2006). The subsystems differ primarily in
terms of: (1) the degree of different stakeholders’ involvement
throughout the project’s lifecycle, (2) the mode that the construc-
tion contractor completes the design of the project (either explicitly
in-house or by also using external consultancy), (3) the risk-
management methodology implemented, (4) the choice of the
involvement (or not) of subcontractors, and (5) the contractors’
payment process. Despite those partial differences among the sub-
systems, design-and-build as a general encompassing method is
characterized by aspects strongly reinforcing the implementation of
a constructability program and the satisfaction of the fundamental
aspects set by the CCs (Mahdi and Alreshaid 2005), and by greater
price certainty because of the shorter lead-in and construction
timetable (Akintoye 2006). Constructability is crucial for design-
and-build because single-point responsibility (meaning that the
© ASCE 04017035-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
contractor is responsible for all the work carried out in the project
and the relative risks, regardless of the actual nature of any occurred
faults) indeed is characterized by the aforementioned benefits, but
also exposes the contractors to potentially hazardous professional
liability because of their high degree of control over the entire project
(Ogunsanmi et al. 2011).
Related constructability research on other contract procurement
and project delivery types largely is absent, or mostly existent in
studies that compare these delivery types with design-and-build.
Notable studies compared other contractual types with design-
and-build, like traditional design-bid-build (Uher and Toakley
1999), construction management at risk (Mahdi and Alreshaid
2005), and build-operate-transfer (Saghatforoush et al. 2009b).
Conclusions
Constructability is a holistic methodological approach to project
management, primarily up to project delivery, with dynamic
individual characteristics and various developed tools. It is inter-
connected closely with both the variations and changes in the
engineering scientific fields, and the conditions and practices of
the engineering and construction market and industry. It is a theo-
retical and applicational link between various cognitive fields
related to the AEC industry. Its holistic managerial approach dic-
tates the active involvement of all project stakeholders and the
neuralgic role of the project managers, aided by various principles,
concepts, tools, and procurement and contractual strategies (such as
design-and-build). The effort for the achievement of the objectives
of various types of construction projects can benefit greatly from
the implementation of a constructability program.
Although researched and reconceptualized for the last five
decades, the usability and verification of constructability is more
timely than ever because of the complexity of projects, the need
for innovation, chaotic and ambiguous amounts of information,
the ongoing financial recession, new stakeholder relationships,
and the disproportionate implementation among professionals of
powerful methodological and software tools. This paper identified
potential fields for further research for the implementation of con-
structability in contemporary construction project management,
both in terms of tools for application and of integration with estab-
lished and emerging theories and practices. Constructability tools
are of multifaceted structure and function, and there is no preva-
lence of a specific type (e.g., cognitive or mathematical) or nature
(e.g., quantitative or qualitative assessments) regarding them.
Currently, the execution phase seems to constitute the primary field
of application of these tools, whereas their expanded use in the ini-
tiation and delivery phases also needs to be investigated. The sys-
tematic interconnection of constructability with risk analysis for a
complete overview and managerial approach of the whole project
lifecycle could be pursued through a methodology of progressive
steps, including, among others: (1) the extraction and mathematical
expression of constructability-related variables from the linguistic
delineation of the CCs; (2) the ordering of the optimal thresholds
of the said variables; (3) the determination of the internal con-
structability risks as the ones of not meeting the aforementioned
thresholds; (4) the identification and clustering of the external
project-related risks; (5) the mathematical integration of the internal
and external risks, and the calculation of the corresponding prob-
abilities; and (6) the visualization of the results, highlighting which
constructability aspect (in the form of the derived variable) is most
affected by the relative risks. Such an approach could lead to
an inclusive framework of risk classification through constructabil-
ity concepts and principles, risk assessment, and mitigation using
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 relative methodological and mathematical tools not used before
in the field of constructability and in conjunction with already in-
tegrated processes, the definition of a novel methodology and, fi-
nally, the automation of this methodology, focusing primarily on its
interconnection with BIM.
What is extremely important is the further cultivation of co-
operation and achieving common project objectives among a proj-
ect’s stakeholders. Thus, project constructability would be greatly
promoted. Inversely, the a priori implementation of a constructabil-
ity program could bring about deeper stakeholder cooperation and
serve as a still much needed paradigm shift in the industry practice.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during the study are included in
the published paper. Information about the Journal’s data sharing
policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28
ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0001263.
References
Abbasnejad, B., and Moud, H. I. (2013). “BIM and basic challenges asso-
ciated with its definitions, interpretations and expectations.” Int. J. Eng.
Res. Appl., 3(2), 287–294.
Adams, S. (1989). Practical buildability, Construction Industry Research
Information Association, Butterworths, London.
Ahmed, A., and Othman, E. (2011). “Constructability for reducing con-
struction waste and improving building performance.” Built Environ.
J., 8(2), 31–54.
Akinci, B., Fischer, M., Levitt, R., and Carlson, R. (2000). “Formalization
and automation of time-space conflict analysis.” Working Paper No. 59,
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Stanford Univ.,
Stanford, CA.
Akintoye, A. (2006). “Design and build: A survey of construction contrac-
tors’ views.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 12(2), 155–163.
Alinaitwe, H., Nyamutale, W., and Tindiwensi, D. (2014). “Design phase
constructability improvement strategies for highway projects in
Uganda.” J. Constr. Developing Countries, 19(1), 127–140.
Alshawi, M., and Underwood, J. (1996). “Applying object-oriented analy-
sis to the integration of design and construction.” Autom. Constr., 5(2),
105–121.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). “1301.0 year book Australia—
Construction industry.” 〈http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf
/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0∼2012∼Main%20Features∼Construction
%20industry∼98〉 (Feb. 24 2016).
Ballal, T. M. A., and Sher, W. D. (2003). “Artificial neural network for the
design of buildable structural systems.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage.,
10(4), 263–271.
Banwell, H. (1964). The placement and management of contracts for build-
ing and civil engineering work, HMSO, London.
Brennan, T. M., and Venigalla, M. (2016). “A constructability assessment
method (CAM) for sustainable division of land parcels.” Land Use
Policy, 56, 47–57.
Candlish, J. R. (1988). “Advances in constructability.” Nucl. Eng. Des., 109
(1-2), 171–179.
Census and Statistics Department–The Government of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region. (2015). “National income.” 〈http://www
.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp250.jsp?tableID=036&ID=0&product
Type=8〉 (Feb. 24, 2016).
Chan, D. W. M., Chan, A. P. C., Lam, P. T. I., Yeung, J. F. Y., and Chan, J.
H. L. (2011). “Risk ranking and analysis in target cost contracts:
empirical evidence from the construction industry.” Int. J. Project
Manage., 29(6), 751–763.
Chen, Z., and Khumpaisal, S. (2009). “An analytical network process for
risk assessment in commercial real estate development.” J. Property
Investment Finance, 27(3), 238–258.
© ASCE 04017035-10
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
Cho, T., and Kim, T. S. (2008). “Probabilistic risk assessment for the
construction phases of a bridge construction based on finite element
analysis.” Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 44(6–7), 383–400.
Chong, H., Preece, C., and Rogers, J. (2014). “BIM update 2013: A mixed
review approach from academia and industry.” Trends Dev. Manage.
Stud., 3(1), 1–21.
CIIA (Construction Industry Institute of Australia). (1993). “Constructabil-
ity principles file, CIIA.” Brisbane, Australia.
CIIA (Construction Industry Institute of Australia). (1996). “Constructabil-
ity manual, CIIA.” Brisbane, Australia.
CII (Construction Industry Institute). (1986). “Constructability: A primer,
CII.” Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
CII (Construction Industry Institute). (1993). “Constructability Implemen-
tation Guide, CII.” Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
CIRIA (Construction Industry research and Information Association)
(1996). “Bridges—Design for improved buildability.” Rep. No. 155,
Westminster, London.
CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association).
(1983). Buildability: An assessment.” London.
Clough, R. H. (1981). Construction contracting, Wiley, New York.
Construction Management Committee of the ASCE. (1991). “Construct-
ability and Constructability programs: White Paper.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 67–89.
Darnall, R., and Preston, J. (2010). Project management from simple to
complex, Flat World Knowledge, Inc., Washington, DC.
Dunston, P., and Williamson, C. (1999). “Incorporating maintainability in
constructability review process.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0742-597X(1999)15:5(56), 56–60.
Emmerson, H. (1962). “Survey of problems before the construction indus-
tries: Report prepared for the Minister of Works.” HM Stationery Office,
London.
Erman, S. B., Muhd, Z. B. A. M., and Rosli, M. Z. (2011). “Constructabil-
ity improvement in seawater intake structure.” Eng. Constr. Archit.
Manage., 18(6), 595–608.
European Commission. (2016). “Construction GROWTH—Internal mar-
ket, industry, entrepreneurship and SMES.” 〈http://ec.europa.eu/growth
/sectors/construction/index_en.htm〉 (Feb. 24, 2016).
EU SME Centre. (2015). The construction sector in China, The European
Commission Publication Authority, Luxembourg.
Fink, A. (2014). Conducting research literature reviews: from the Internet
to paper, 4th Ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Fischer, M. (1991). “Constructibility input to preliminary design of rein-
forced concrete structures.” Technical Rep. No. 64, Center for
Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Fischer, M., Aalami, F., and Evans, M. O. (1994). “Model-based construct-
ability analysis: the MOCA system.” Working Paper No. 34, Center for
Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Fischer, M., and Tatum, C. B. (1989). “Partially automating the design-
construction interface: constructability design rules for reinforced con-
crete structures.” Working Paper No. 4, Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering (CIFE), Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Fox, S., Marsh, L., and Cockerham, G. (2002). “Constructability rules:
guidelines for successful application to bespoke buildings.” Constr.
Manage. Econ., 20(8), 689–696.
Gambatese, J. A., Pocock, J. B., and Dunston, P. S. (2007). Constructability
concepts and practice, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Ganah, A. A. (2003). “The use of computer visualization in communicating
constructability information in UK.” J. Eng. Des. Technol., 1(2),
151–167.
Gräbner, M., Morstein, O. V., Rappold, D., Günster, W., Beysel, G., and
Meyer, B. (2010). “Constructability study on a German reference IGCC
power plant with and without CO2 -capture for hard coal and lignite.”
Energy Convers. Manage., 51(11), 2179–2187.
Green, S. (1990). “The essentials of value engineering.” Facilities, 8(10),
15–17.
Griffith, A., and Sidwell, A. C. (1995). Constructability in building and
engineering projects, MacMillan Press Ltd., London.
Griffith, A., and Sidwell, A. C. (1997). “Development of constructability
concepts, principles and practices.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 4(4),
295–310.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Haider, T. (2009). “Financial management of construction contracts
(constructability and its relation with TQM, Cost Shifting Risk and
Cost/benefit).” Int. Res. J. Finance Econ., 28, 42–51.
Haroglu, H., Glass, J., Thorpe, T., and Goodchild, C. (2010). “Contractors’
influence within the design process of design-build projects.”
Challenges opportunities solutions structure engineering construction,
Taylor & Francis Group, Oxfordshire, U.K., 693–698.
Hyde, R. (1995). “Buildability as a design concept for architects: a case
study for laboratory buildings.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 2(1),
45–56.
Ireland, V. (2006). “The role of managerial actions in the cost, time and
quality performance of high-rise commercial building projects.” Constr.
Manage. Econ., 3(1), 59–87.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Jan, S., Ho, S., and Tserng, H. (2013). “Applications of Building Informa-
tion Modelling (BIM) in knowledge sharing and management in con-
struction.” Int. J. Civ. Archit. Struct. Constr. Eng., 7(11), 486–490.
Jarkas, A. M. (2011). “Buildability factors that influence micro-level
formwork labour productivity of beams in building floors.” J. Constr.
Developing Countries, 16(1), 1–18.
Jergeas, G., and Put, J. V. D. (2001). “Benefits of constructability on
construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2001)127:4(281), 281–290.
Jiang, Li (2016). A constructability review ontology to support automated
rule leveraging building information models, Ph.D. thesis, Penn State
Univ., The Graduate School, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, State
College, PA.
Kanapeckiene, L., Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., and Seniut, M.
(2010). “Integrated knowledge management model and system for
construction projects.” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 23(7), 1200–1215.
Kang, L. S., Kim, S., Moon, H. S., and Kim, H. S. (2013). “Development
of a 4D object-based system for visualizing the risk information of
construction projects.” Autom. Constr., 31, 186–203.
Kannan, R., and Santhi, H. (2013). “Constructability assessment of
climbing formwork systems using building information modelling.”
Procedia Eng., 64, 1129–1138.
Kaplinski, O. (2013). “Risk management of construction works by means
of the utility theory: A case study.” Procedia Eng., 57, 533–539.
Kartam, N., Reshaid, K. A., and Askar, H. (1999). “Constructability knowl-
edge-intensive database system.” Durability Build. Mater. Compon.,
8, 2498–2506.
Kaveh, A., Kataleh-Ahani, M., and Fahimi-Fazam, M. (2013). “Construct-
ability optimal design of reinforced concrete retaining walls using a
multi-objective genetic algorithm.” Struct. Eng. Mech., 47(2), 227–245.
Khan, S. (2015). “An overview of constructability: a management tool for
architects.” Archit. Res., 5(5), 125–139.
Ko, C., and Cheng, M. (2003). “Hybrid use of AI techniques in developing
construction management tools.” Autom. Constr., 12(3), 271–281.
Kuo, V. (2012). “The role of knowledge management in improving con-
structability.” M.Sc. thesis, Stellenbosch Univ., Stellenbosch, South
Africa.
Kuprenas, J. A., Subramanian, M., and Truitt, M. (2006). “Web based con-
structability review system.” Proc., Joint Int. Conf. on Computing and
Decision Making in Civil and Building Engineering, ASCE, Reston,
VA, 1092–1100.
Lam, P. T. I., and Wong, F. W. H. (2011). “A comparative study of build-
ability perspectives between clients, consultants and contractors.”
Constr. Innovation, 11(3), 305–320.
Lam, P. T. I., Wong, F. W. H., Chan, A. P. C., Shea, W. C. Y., and Lau,
J. W. S. (2012). “A scheme design buildability assessment model for
building projects.” Constr. Innovation, 12(2), 216–238.
Lee, H., and Clover, P. (1995). “GIS-based highway design review system
to improve constructability of design.” J. Adv. Transp., 29(3), 375–388.
Lee, S., Bae, J., and Cho, Y. S. (2012). “Efficiency analysis of set-based
design with structural building information modelling (S-BIM) on high-
rise building structures.” Autom. Constr., 23, 20–32.
Low, S. P., Liu, J., and Lim, J. (2008a). “Implications of thermal and build-
ing integrity performance on buildability of a worker dormitories
project.” Struct. Surv., 26(2), 142–164.
© ASCE 04017035-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
Low, S. P., Liu, J. Y., and Oh, K. H. (2008b). “Influence of total building
performance, spatial and acoustic concepts on buildability scores of
facilities.” Facilities, 26(1/2), 85–104.
Low, S. P., Ying, L. J., and Lock, W. H. (2008c). “Relationship between
buildability, indoor air quality and visual performance.” Struct. Surv.,
26(1), 38–54.
Lu, M., and AbouRizk, S. (2000). “Simplified CPM/PERT Simulation
Model.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)
126:3(219), 219–226.
Mahdi, I. M., and Alreshaid, K. (2005). “Decision support system for se-
lecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy
process (AHP).” Int. J. Project Manage., 23(7), 564–572.
Malek, M. (2011). “Model development of constructability.” Manage. Sci.
Eng., 5(2), 1–9.
Masterman, J. W. E. (2002). An introduction to building procurement
systems, 2nd Ed., Spon Press, London.
Mathes, J. C., and Stevenson, D. W. (1991). Designing technical reports:
Writing for audiences in organizations, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Moon, H., Kim, H., Kim, C., and Kang, L. (2014). “Development of a
schedule-workplace interference management system simultaneously
considering the overlap level of parallel schedules and workspaces.”
Autom. Constr., 39, 93–105.
Moore, D. R. (1993). “Buildability and skill concept packages: develop-
ment of a possible design tool.” Build. Res. Inf., 21(2), 117–121.
Moore, D. R. (1996). “Buildability assessment and the development of an
automated design aid for managing the transfer of construction process
knowledge.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 3(1–2), 29–46.
Nawi, M. N. M., Kamar, K. A. M., Abdullah, M. R., Haron, A. T., Lee, A.,
and Arif, M. (2009). “Enhancement of constructability concept: An ex-
perience in offsite Malaysia construction industry.” Proc., Changing
Roles, New Roles: New Challenge Conf., Design- and Construction
Management of the Department Real Estate and Housing, Delft Univ.
of Technology, Delft, Netherlands, 595–606.
Ng, W. S., and Aminah, M. Y. (2006). “The success factors of design and
build procurement method: a literature visit.” Proc., 6th Asia-Pacific
Structural Engineering and Construction Conf., Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
Nielson, Y., and Erdogan, B. (2003). “Expanding the envelope of visuali-
zation in construction.” Proc., 19th Annual ARCOM Conf., Univ. of
Brighton, Association of Researchers in Construction Management,
Brighton, U.K., 685–694.
Nima, M., Bassi, P., Middleton, D., and Spratlin, M. (2005). “Construct-
ability of the North Saskatchewan River Bridge.” Proc., 2005 Annual
Conf. on Transportation Association of Canada, Transportation
Association of Canada, Ottawa.
Nima, M. A. (2001). “Constructability factors in the Malaysian construc-
tion industry.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.
Nima, M. A., Abdul-Kadir, M. R., and Jaafar, M. S. (1999). “Evaluation of
the engineer’s personnel’s role in enhancing project constructability.”
Facilities, 17(11), 423–430.
Nima, M. A., Abdul-Kadir, M. R., and Jaafar, M. S. (2001). “Construct-
ability implementation: A survey in the Malaysian construction
industry.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 19(8), 819–829.
Office for National Statistics. (2016). “Output in the construction industry–
December 2015 and Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2015, statistical bulletin.”
U.K. Statistics Authority, London.
Ogunsanmi, O. E., Salako, O. A., and Ajayi, O. M. (2011). “Risk classi-
fication model for design and build projects.” J. Eng. Project Prod.
Manage., 1(1), 46–60.
Orstavik, F., Dainty, A. R. J., and Abbott, C. (2015). Construction inno-
vation, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Osipova, E., and Eriksson, P. E. (2011). “How procurement options influ-
ence risk management in construction projects.” Constr. Manage.
Econ., 29(11), 1149–1158.
Othman, A. A. E., and Seoud, A. S. H. (2014). “Constructability for sus-
tainability: A waste elimination approach in construction projects.”
Covenant J. Res. Built Environ., 2(2), 99–116.
Park, S., Lee, D., Choi, H. J., Jung, K., and Choi, H. (2015). “Relative
constructability and thermal performance of cast-in-place concrete
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 energy pile: Coil-type GHEX (ground heat exchanger).” Energy, 81,
56–66.
Pheng, L. S., and Abeyegoonasekera, B. (2001). “Integrating buildability in
ISO 9000 quality management systems: Case study of a condominium
project.” Build. Environ., 36(3), 299–312.
Pishdad, P. B., and Beliveau, Y. J. (2010). “Integrating Multi-party
Contracting Risk Management (MPCRM) model with Building
Information Modelling (BIM).” Proc., CIB W78 27th Int. Conf. on
Applications of IT in the AEC Industry and Accelerating BIM Research
Workshop, International Council For Research And Innovation
In Building and Construction, Delft, Netherlands.
Poh, P. S. H., and Chen, J. (1998). “The Singapore buildable design
appraisal system: A preliminary review of the relationship between
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
buildability, site productivity and cost.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 16(6),
681–692.
Poon, J., Potts, K., and Cooper, P. (1999). “Development of a new best
practice model for building projects.” Proc., 15th Annual ARCOM
Conf., Liverpool John Moores Univ., Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, Liverpool, U.K., 705–714.
Pulaski, M., and Horman, M. (2005). “Organizing constructability knowl-
edge for design.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2005)131:8(911), 911–919.
Pulaski, M., Horman, M., and Riley, D. (2006). “Constructability practices
to manage sustainable building knowledge.”J. Archit. Eng., 83–92.
Rahman, M. M., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2002). “Risk management
trends in the construction industry: moving towards joint risk manage-
ment.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 9(2), 131–151.
Rahmani, F., Khalfan, M. M. A., Maqsood, T., Noor, M. A., and Alshanbri,
N. (2013). “How can trust facilitate the implementation of Early
Contractor Involvement (ECI)?” Proc., 19th CIB World Building
Congress, Queensland Univ. of Technology, Queensland, Australia,
74–85.
Rezgui, Y., Hopfe, C., and Vorakulpipat, C. (2010). “Generations of knowl-
edge management in the architecture, engineering and construction in-
dustry: An evolutionary perspective.” Adv. Eng. Inf., 24(2), 219–228.
Rocher, W., Rubio, E., and Morales, N. (2011). “Eight-dimensional
planning—Construction of an integrated model for mine planning
involving constructability.” Proc., 35th APCOM Symp., Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, Australia, 393–406.
Rowlinson, S. (1987). “Design build—Its development and present status.”
Occasional Paper No. 36, The Chartered Institute of Building, Ascot,
U.K.
Russell, J. S., Swiggum, K. E., Shapiro, J. M., and Alaydrus, A. F. (1994).
“Constructability related to TQM, value engineering and cost/benefits.”
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(1994)8:1(31),
31–45.
Rwelamila, P. D., and Savile, P. W. (1994). “Hybrid value engineering:
The challenge of construction project management in the 1990s.”
Int. J. Project Manage., 12(3), 157–164.
Saad, I., and Hancher, D. (1998). “Multimedia for construction project
management: Project navigator.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:1(82), 82–89.
Saghatforoush, E. (2014). “Extension of constructability to include oper-
ation and maintenance for infrastructure projects.” Ph.D. thesis,
Queensland Univ. of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty,
Queensland, Australia.
Saghatforoush, E., Hasim, S., Jaafar, M. S., and Kadir, M. R. A. (2009a).
“Constructability implementation among Malaysian building contrac-
tors.” Eur. J. Sci. Res., 29(4), 518–532.
Saghatforoush, E., Hassim, S., Jaafar, M., and Kadir, M. A. (2009b).
“Assessment of critical constructability activities among Malaysian
building contractors.” Am. J. Sci. Res., 3, 15–25.
Saghatforoush, E., Trigunarsyah, B., Too, E., and Heravitorbati, A.
(2011a). “Effectiveness of constructability concept in the provision
of infrastructure assets.” Proc., 1st Int. Postgraduate Conf. on Engi-
neering, Designing and Developing the Built Environment for Sustain-
able Wellbeing, Queensland Univ. of Technology, Brisbane, QLD,
Australia, 175–180.
Saghatforoush, E., Trigunarsyah, B., Too, E., and Heravitorbati, A.
(2011b). “Extending constructability concept to include operation
© ASCE 04017035-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
and maintenance issues.” Proc., 1st Int. Construction Business and
Management Symp. ICBMS2011, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Santos, F. A. D., Carvalho, M. C. R. D., and Roman, H. R. (2009).
“Architectural conception and design in structural masonry: Some
practices to improve constructability.” Int. J. Hous. Sci., 33(1),
57–67.
Senescu, R., Aranda-Mena, G., and Haymaker, J. (2011a). “Relationships
between project complexity and communication.” Technical Rep. No.
TR196, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ.,
Stanford, CA.
Senescu, R., Haymaker, J., and Fischer, M. (2011b). “Design process com-
munication methodology: Improving the efficiency and effectiveness
of collaboration, sharing and understanding.” Technical Rep. No.
TR 197, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ.,
Stanford, CA.
Shen, L. Y., Hao, J. L., Tam, V. W. Y., and Yao, H. (2007). “A checklist for
assessing sustainability performance of construction projects.” J. Civ.
Eng. Manage., 13(4), 273–281.
Srour, I., Haas, C., and Morton, D. (2006). “Linear programming approach
to optimize strategic investment in the construction workforce.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:11(1158),
1158–1166.
Tatum, C. (1987). “Improving constructibility during conceptual planning.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1987)113:2(191),
191–207.
Tatum, C. B. (1990). “Using CAE to improve construction planning, oper-
ations and quality.” Working Paper No. 8, Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Tatum, C. B. (1993). “Structure and characteristics of knowledge from
construction experience.” Technical Rep. No. 81, Center for Integrated
Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Thomas, M. D. A. (2010). “Optimizing fly ash content for sustainability,
durability and constructability.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Sustainable
Construction Materials and Technologies, Coventry Univ., Coventry,
U.K.
Trigunarsyah, B. (2004a). “A review of current practice in constructability
improvement: case studies on construction projects in Indonesia.”
Constr. Manage. Econ., 22(6), 567–580.
Trigunarsyah, B. (2004b). “Constructability practices among construction
contractors in Indonesia.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2004)130:5(656), 656–669.
Tsai, T., and Yang, M. (2010). “Risk assessment of design-bid-build
and design-build building projects.” J. Oper. Res. Soc. Jpn., 53(1),
20–39.
Tserng, H. P., Yin, S. Y. L., Dzeng, R. J., Wou, B., Tsai, M. D., and Chen,
W. Y. (2009). “A study of ontology-based risk management framework
of construction projects through project life cycle.” Autom. Constr.,
18(7), 994–1008.
Ugwu, O. O., Anumba, C. J., and Thorpe, A. (2004). “The development
of cognitive models for constructability assessment in steel frame struc-
tures.” Adv. Eng. Software, 35(3–4), 191–203.
Uher, T. E., and Toakley, A. R. (1999). “Risk management in the conceptual
phase of a project.” Int. J. Project Manage., 17(3), 161–169.
U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2016).
“GDP-by-industry data.” 〈http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID
=51&step=1#reqid=51&step=51&isuri=1&5114=q&5102=1〉 (Feb. 24,
2016).
Venteris, E. R., McBride, R. C., Coleman, A. M., Skaggs, R. L., and
Wigmosta, M. S. (2014). “Siting algae cultivation facilities for biofuel
production in the United States: Trade-offs between growth rate, site
constructability, water availability, and infrastructure.” Environ. Sci.
Technol., 48(6), 3559–3566.
Wang, S. Q., Dulaimi, M. F., and Aguria, M. Y. (2004). “Risk management
framework for construction projects in developing countries.” Constr.
Manage. Econ., 22(3), 237–252.
Windapo, A. O., and Ogunsanmi, O. E. (2014). “Evaluation of the barriers
to the use of appropriate constructability practices on construction proj-
ects.” J. Constr. Project Manage. Innovation, 4(1), 734–754.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Wong, F. W. H., Lam, P. T. I., Chan, E. H. W., and Shen, L. Y. (2007). “A
study of measures to improve constructability.” Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
Manage., 24(6), 586–601.
Yang, Y. Q., Wang, S. Q., Dulaimi, M., and Low, S. P. (2003). “A fuzzy
quality function deployment system for buildable design decision-
makings.” Autom. Constr., 12(4), 381–393.
Yong, S. J. (2013). Country Rep. Indonesia, International Development
Group, Building and Construction Authority, Singapore.
Yu, W., and Skibniewski, M. J. (1999a). “A neuro-fuzzy computa-
tional approach to constructability knowledge acquisition for construc-
tion technology evaluation.” Autom. Constr., 8(5), 539–552.
Yu, W., and Skibniewski, M. J. (1999b). “Quantitative constructability
analysis with a neuro-fuzzy knowledge-based multi-criterion decision
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 08/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Yuanbin, S. (2006). “Intermediate function analysis for improving
constructability.” Ph.D. thesis, National Univ. of Singapore, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Singapore.
Zhong, Y. (2013). “Decision support system for the selection of struc-
tural frame material to achieve sustainability and constructability.”
Ph.D. thesis, National Univ. of Singapore, Dept. of Building, Singapore.
Zhong, Y., and Wu, P. (2015). “Economic sustainability, environmental
sustainability and constructability indicators related to concrete- and
steel-projects.” J. Cleaner Prod., 108, 748–756.
Zin, R. M., Majid, M. Z. A., Fadhil, C. W., Putra, C. W., and Mohammed,
A. H. (2004). “Neural Network model for design constructability
assessment.” Jurnal Teknologi, 40, 27–40.
Zou, P. X. W., Zhang, G., and Wang, J. (2007). “Understanding the key risks in

support system.” Autom. Constr., 8(5), 553–565. construction projects in China.” Int. J. Project Manage., 25(6), 601–614.

© ASCE 04017035-13 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(8): 04017035