Contributions of designers to

improving buildability and

constructability
Patrick T. I. Lam, Franky W. H. Wong and Albert P. C. Chan,
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

This paper highlights that design teams should take the lead to enhance
the buildability and constructability of their projects. Through
a questionnaire survey, the significant factors affecting buildability have
been identified and classified into those related to the design process and
design outcome, respectively. Results show that efforts in (i) carrying out
thorough site and ground investigations prior to design; (ii) coordinating
design documents, components, and working sequences; as well as (iii)
designing for standardisation, repetition, safety and ease of construction,
would enhance buildability and constructability for any given projects.
The ANOVA statistical technique has also identified 3 buildability
attributes associated with (a) below-ground works on nearby buildings,
(b) imports of materials and (c) working space on site, which had
statistically significant differences among the perceptions of Clients,
Consultants and Contractors.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: design management, design process, design practice,

buildability

U
nder the conventional procurement method, the processes of
building development are demarcated by the distinct stages
of design and construction, ‘Design’ here is regarded as an ex-
ercise of providing a solution to a particular set of client’s requirements.
Hence, design is a series of choices and decisions (RICS, 2000). Owing to
the sequential flow of design and construction, it is not uncommon that
builders grumble about the inconsiderate designs which make their con-
struction task difficult. The long-standing problems were first officially
recognised by Emmerson (1962) in the report submitted to the UK gov-
Corresponding author: ernment. It emphasised that the inefficiencies in the construction indus-
Dr. P. T. I. Lam try stemmed from inadequacies of communications and coordination
[email protected] (Emmerson, 1962). Later, the report of the Tavistock (1965) highlighted
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 27 (2006) 457e479
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.10.003 457
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain
 that the causes of the communication problems between contracting
parties could be attributable to the division of responsibilities and the
pattern of relationships. Since then, the need to integrate disparate de-
velopment phases has triggered a large number of studies in different
countries.

Traditionally, building designs focus on aesthetics, spatial layouts and

functionalities, with little emphasis on the production aspects, which
are left to the contractors who are supposed to match the construction
process with design needs (Griffith and Sidwell, 1995). In their attempts
to integrate the design and construction stages involving dissimilar ex-
pertise and disciplines, contractors find it difficult especially when de-
signers are short of construction knowledge and experience and fail to
recognise buildability as an important design consideration.

1 Buildability
Buildability can be referred to the extent to which a building design fa-
cilitates efficient use of construction resources and enhances ease and
safety of construction on site whilst the client’s requirements are met.
Buildability has been correlated to quality of built products, ease of con-
struction, as well as efficient and economical construction (CIRIA, 1983;
Griffith, 1987; Ferguson, 1989; McGeorge et al., 1992; SAB, 1993; BCA,
2004; Low and Abeyegoonasekera, 2001). Constructability, as a concept
similar to buildability, is commonly known as the optimum use of con-
struction knowledge and experience in different project stages to achieve
overall project objectives (CII, 1986; CII Australia, 1996a; Arditi et al.,
2002). This paper highlights that designers have an important role to
play to improve buildability and constructability and identifies the com-
mon problems in design, which, if not addressed properly, can lead to
poor buildability and constructability. It further evaluates specific de-
signer tasks facilitating buildability and constructability through the re-
sults of a questionnaire survey.

2 Studies of buildability and constructability in

different countries
Improving buildability and constructability has long been an issue that
attracts the interests of researchers and scholars, mainly in 5 countries as
follows.

2.1 Buildability of designs in the UK

In the United Kingdom, since the Emmerson Report (1962), numerous
researches had been carried out to identify the causes of buildability prob-
lems and search for solutions for improvement. The fragmented

458 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

 characteristics of the industry (Banwell, 1964) and inefficient designs pro-
duced by designers deficient in construction knowledge without involve-
ment of contractors (Banwell, 1964; NEDO, 1975; CIRIA, 1983; Gray,
1983) were highlighted. In view of these findings, a set of principles tar-
geted at designers under the traditional procurement system was drawn
up by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association
(CIRIA). In addition, Gray (1983) and Griffith (1984) suggested inviting
construction expertise early at the design stage, using contractual ar-
rangements that facilitate the improvement of buildability. Griffith
(1984) further pointed out that the capability of project management em-
bracing suitable procurement approaches would contribute to improved
buildability with concomitant benefits for overall project performance.

More recently, the Egan Report (1998) awakened attentions that the
general buildability performance was far from being satisfactory. Con-
tractors were also found to have little input into the design in the UK’s
construction scene, thus constituting a comparatively lower productivity
figure for the industry (Graham and Bird, 2001).

2.2 The CII in the US

For the United States, the benefits to be gained from good constructability
were identified as ‘approximately 10 to 20 times the cost of achieving it’ by
the Business Roundtable (Business Roundtable, 1982). Subsequently,
the Construction Industry Institute (CII) encouraged construction inputs
for all project stages and the examination of constructability savings at dif-
ferent stages of a project. The stages undergoing study were conceptual de-
signs, engineering, procurement and construction. The CII also published
guidelines for implementing constructability by companies in the form of
the Constructability Concepts File covering 14 defined concepts, i.e. 6
for the conceptual planning phase, 7 for the design and procurement
phases and 1 for the field operations phase (CII, 1987). Hitherto, these con-
cepts have not been taken further for assessment in a quantifiable way.

2.3 Buildability and constructability considerations

in Australia
In Australia, the terms of buildability and constructability were used in-
terchangeably. Buildability, which contributed to reduced construction
time, was viewed as a function of project management (Ireland, 1985;
Hon et al., 1988). Early construction involvement of construction ex-
perts and use of preconstruction planning were regarded essential
(Hon et al., 1988). The scope of buildability was also broadened to cover
the whole life cycle of a building (McGeorge et al., 1992). In the late
1990s, the CII Australia (1996a) published its constructability principles

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 459

 and guidelines in the form of the Constructability Manual for advising
construction project teams on improving constructability. To-date, no
attempt has been made to quantify the concept either.

2.4 The BDAS in Singapore

In the Asian arena, Singapore has pioneered with quantifying buildabil-
ity based on a scheme known as the Buildable Design Appraisal System
(BDAS). It has culminated in statutorily requiring building designs to ful-
fil a Minimum Buildability Score since 2001. Under the Building Control
Act, the requirement is a prerequisite for approval of submitted building
plans. The 3 key design principles based on which a design is judged for
buildability include Standardisation, Simplicity and Single integrated el-
ements. The Buildability Scores are given according to the relative extent
of labour saving that can be achieved by the use of different construction
systems. Designs with higher scores are generally more buildable and
fewer site workers are needed by the same contractor.

The Buildability Score is calculated by adding 4 elements together,

namely Structural System (maximum 50 points), Wall System (maxi-
mum 40 points), Other Buildable Design Features (maximum 10 points)
and Bonus Points to promote single integrated components. The calcu-
lation of the Buildability Score is based on the formula as shown in
Table 1 (BCA, 2004). The BDAS was regarded as successful with
empirical evidence of correlations between productivity and Buildability
Score for residential buildings (Poh and Chen, 1998).

2.5 The CIRC in Hong Kong, China

In Hong Kong, the construction industry has acknowledged a number
of knotty problems that exist in the building process as well as the built
products. Being set up to suggest measures to improve the identified
problems, the Construction Industry Review Committee (CIRC)
(2001) believed that early and greater emphasis on buildability of de-
signs will bring about wider adoption of cost-saving and labour-saving
construction technologies and minimise material wastage. Management
personnel were hence advised to use a total ‘systems’ approach from
conception to project completion, provided that the necessary authority
has been delegated. Fundamentally, the CIRC encouraged more de-
tailed and thoughtful planning at the outset of a project.

3 Focus on design stage for improving

buildability and constructability
In general, buildability is concerned with the influence that a designer
may impart on ‘ease of construction’ on site whilst constructability,

460 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

Table 1 The Buildability Score formula of BDAS of Singapore (BCA, 2004)

Buildability Score of = Buildability Score of Structural System (including Roof System)

Building + Buildability Score of Wall System

+ Buildability Score of Other Buildable Design Features

+ Bonus Points

BScore = 50[ (As x Ss)] + 40[ (Lw x Sw)] + N + Bonus points

(In mathematical
terms)

where As = Asa / Ast

where Lw = Lwa / Lwt
where Aw = Awa / Awt
where As = Percentage of total floor area using a particular structural design
where Ast = Total floor area which includes roof (projected area) and basement
areas
where Asa = Floor area using the particular structural design
where Lw = Percentage of total external & internal wall length using particular
wall system
where Lwt = Total wall length excluding external basement wall for earth
retaining purpose
where Lwa = External & internal wall length using particular wall system
where Aw = Percentage of total external & internal wall areas using particular
wall design
where Awt = Total wall area, excluding perimeter wall of the basement.
All internal walls in the basement are to be considered.
where Awa = External & internal wall areas using particular wall design
where Ss = Labour saving index for structural design
where Sw = Labour saving index for external & internal wall design
N = Buildability Score for other buildable design features
Bonus points = Bonus points for single integrated components

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 461

 which is a management concept, should be instilled into all stages in the
total building process (Griffith and Sidwell, 1997). Studies of buildability
or constructability in different countries have demonstrated their differ-
ent focuses of interest. For examples, researchers in the UK emphasised
the integration of design and construction, introducing construction ex-
perts into the design stage as well as developing procurement structures to
achieve improvement of buildability. In the US and Australia, more prac-
tical approaches were adopted. The CII-US and the CII Australia pub-
lished guidelines for implementing the concept of constructability. In
Singapore, the government has enforced the law to require Minimum
Buildability Scores of submitted building plans before granting approval.

Despite these differences, there are similarities among the studies. It was
the CIRIA (1983) in the UK which first worked out the most widely-
quoted definition of buildability as ‘the extent to which the design of
a building facilitates ease of construction, subject to the overall require-
ments for the completed building’. In the definition, design teams were as-
sumed to bear a great responsibility for integrating good buildability
into an overall design (Adams, 1989). The view is reflected by the cost
influence curve of CII (1995) in the US (Figure 1) which shows that
the ability to influence a project cost decreases rapidly as the project pro-
gresses from feasibility, conceptual design and detailed design, to con-
struction and post construction. In order to maximise the benefits,
measures to enhance constructability should be carried out as early as
possible (CII Australia, 1996b). It was also agreed by the CIRC
(2001) in Hong Kong that detailed planning at the beginning of a project
is essential and that a design that takes full account of practical issues
arising from downstream activities lays a firm foundation for smooth
project delivery. Conversely, the cost, scheduling and performance
problems during construction can result from poor quality designs,
e.g. lack of constructability (Tan and Lu, 1995). If buildability or con-
structability was not considered during the design stage, the builder
has to assume the responsibilities for solving possible construction prob-
lems that could cause delays, inefficient use of resources and out-of-
sequence work, which in turn would affect the project schedule and
budget (Glavinich, 1995).

4 Problems of buildability and constructability

in designs
The effects of design on how a building is constructed are obvious. How-
ever, some building and engineering designs were still inefficient whereas
many design solutions tended to be uneconomic when it came to the

462 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

 High

Feasibility

Ability to influence cost

Conceptual design

Detailed design

Construction

Post construction

Low

Start Completion

Time
Figure 1 Cost influence curve (Source: CII, 1995)

construction phase (Griffith and Sidwell, 1995). The causes of producing

designs that turn out to be unbuildable are multi-faceted.

In practice, construction works are commenced before designs are fully

developed. This may be due to a desire to accelerate the date of comple-
tion or the relatively small portion of investment injected into design
works (accounting for about 3e10% of a project, as suggested by Tan
and Lu (1995)). More often, insufficient time is allowed for design. To-
gether with a lack of understanding of building construction on the part
of designers (Fox et al., 2002), constructability has not received ade-
quate attention, leading to wastage and reworks.

The traditional procurement approach inherently separates design and

construction. One problem this brings about is poor buildability (Mas-
terman, 2002). Ideally, construction advice should be sought in advance
to ensure buildability of a design, given the likely use of certain methods
of construction, etc. However, both the clients and contractors would be
reluctant to disclose too much information before award of contracts
(Ma et al., 2001). Such kind of practice is dysfunctional to the achieve-
ment of good buildability and consequently all of them suffer from un-
coordination, reworks, time and cost overruns.

In designing various systems of a building, problems of buildability or

constructability could also arise from interrelated decisions by

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 463

 specialists from independent disciplines (Mokhtar et al., 2000). This
means that any design change of a building component which has con-
comitant effects on the design of many other building components,
particularly during the detailed design stage, may bring about
incompatibility or errors and potential difficulties during construction
(Mokhtar et al., 2000).

There was also a tendency to consider only plans and specifications and
ignore other contract documents (such as contract conditions and ‘pre-
liminaries’) which have significant impact on the construction methods,
albeit constructability of design is sometimes reviewed by examining the
plans (Glavinich, 1995).

5 Designer tasks to ensure better

buildability/constructability
Design objectives are not complementary but semi-competitive (Nich-
olson, 1996). Trade-offs, preferably optimisation, are therefore required
among different objectives. For a building design, the objectives could
include functionality/performance, aesthetics/impact as well as build-
ability and quality (Ferguson, 1989; Thomson et al., 2003). Designers
should manage both the design product and the process to ensure that
the final outcome will meet all values and performance criteria (Sebas-
tian, 2005).

To develop the best design solution, Uhlik and Lores (1998) advocated
involving the owners, consultants, suppliers, designers and builders in
the design process, allowing exchange of knowledge. For this purpose,
a certain level of mutual understandings of the know-how between dif-
ferent project participants as well as close coordination and communica-
tion are indispensable. Above all, designers should make known to each
other their respective considerations for improving buildability and con-
structability in the course of designing.

In this connection, it is heartening to see many practical guidelines being

developed for designers, such as those by Glavinich (1995), which con-
centrated on the design stage and proposed 2 methods for improving
constructability. They are (i) design-phase scheduling which entails de-
veloping and revising a construction schedule throughout the design
process; and (ii) in-house design-phase constructability review involving
detailed checking of drawings and specifications to eliminate errors and
discrepancies etc. In addition, the authors believe that a continuous

464 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

 dialogue between designers and other project participants will eventually
help in enhancing buildability and constructability.

5.1 Questionnaire survey on factors

affecting buildability
A questionnaire survey aimed at identifying the design attributes affect-
ing buildability was carried out in 2003. Although the survey was tar-
geted at respondents practising in Hong Kong, it is believed that the
results would be equally applicable to other countries with a similar con-
cern on buildability.

A comprehensive review had been carried out to extract the common at-
tributes of buildability from the literature (Table 2). The findings were
refined by a series of interviews with experienced industrial practitioners
with an aim to acquire an in-depth understanding of the current state of
buildability in the local context (Wong et al., 2004). There were 63 at-
tributes of buildability relating to (i) design process; and (ii) design out-
put and together they formed the structure of the questionnaire as
shown in Table 3.

To ensure that each respondent had the same understanding of build-

ability, the definition of buildability was stated at the beginning of the
questionnaire. For each attribute, the respondents were requested to se-
lect a number (1e5) from a 5-point Likert Scale (where 1 ¼ very low im-
portance or impact on buildability and 5 ¼ very high importance or
impact on buildability). It was possible that some attributes were irrel-
evant to buildability from the respondents’ perspective, in which case
they had the liberty to cross them out. In addition, spaces were provided
to allow new attributes to be inserted in each sub-section.

Data were collected in parallel through direct postal delivery to senior

practitioners in the industry and a purpose-built website. Invitations
for filling the web-based questionnaire were placed in the homepages
of the Hong Kong Contractors Association and the Hong Kong Insti-
tute of Architects, respectively. In the end, 91 out of 498 questionnaires
were returned (about 18% response rate) and 20 completed question-
naires were recorded in the website, making a total of 111 valid replies.

Figures 2e5 show the demographic profiles of the respondents. Al-

though contractor respondents accounted for 43.3%, indicating the
keen interest taken by this group of stakeholders, the equally split pro-
portions of clients and consultants (at 27.9% and 28.8%, respectively)
are considered satisfactory. Private sector respondents (66.3%)

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 465

466

Table 2 Summary of buildability attributes as identified by researchers in different countries compared with this survey

Studies on Buildability in various countries

CIRIA CIRIA Adam Ferguson CII CII Hon CII Moore Singapore CIRC (The
(1983) (1985) (1989) (1989) (1986) Concept File (1988) Australia (1998) BDAS Report present
Attributes (1987) (1996) (2000) (2001) survey)
Below Ground
Construction Methods
Detailing
Ease of Construction
Flexibility
Integration
Labour / Skill
Materials
Plant
Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

Prefabrication
Repetition and
Standardisation
Safety
Working Sequence
Simplicity
Site
Tolerance
Weather
Table 3 Attributes of buildability related to design process and design output
Attributes related to design process
A1.0 Site
A1.1 Thorough site/ground investigation (e.g. bore holes, topography survey,
cable detection,survey on adjacent buildings) for urban sites
A1.2 Ditto for sub-urban sites
A2.0 Below Ground
A2.1 Designing for minimum construction time below ground
A2.2 Designing for safe construction below ground
A2.3 Considering effects of below ground work on surrounding buildings,
e.g. destabilising foundations
A3.0 Weather
A3.1 Considering possible timing to avoid carrying out structural work, external
finishes, etc., during rainy/typhoon season for high rise buildings
A3.2 Ditto for low rise buildings
A4.0 Innovations
A4.1 Designing to allow for innovative construction techniques to be proposed by
contractor
A4.2 Suggesting non-obligatory construction methods for contractor to consider
A5.0 Co-ordination and Rationalisation of Design Information
A5.1 Co-ordinating drawings and specifications
A5.2 Updating specifications and removing ambiguities/misunderstandings
A5.3 Dimensional co-ordination
A5.4 Providing/facilitating combined services drawings
A5.5 Showing accurate positions for pipe sleeves and penetrations
A6.0 Detailing
A6.1 Specifying tolerances for as many items as possible
A6.2 Co-ordinating tolerances specifications for interfacing items (e.g. window frame
vis-à-vis window opening)
A6.3 Designing to aid visualisation of finished work
A6.4 Referring to typical/standard details for repetitive items
A6.5 Using blow up details to examine possible clashes in the design, e.g. building
servicesclashing with reinforcements.
A7.0 Flexibility
A7.1 Designing for interchangeability (e.g. left/right orientation of fittings, such as
cabinets, kitchen sinks) and sub-assemblies
A8.0 Tools, Plant and Equipment
A8.1 Designing for optimum use of plant and equipment
A8.2 Designing with knowledge of plant and equipment capacities
A8.3 Designing for temporary plant and equipment anchorages in permanent structure
A9.0 Materials, Fittings, Products and Sub-assemblies
A9.1 Designing for locally available materials/fittings/products/sub-assemblies (including
imports).
A9.2 When imported materials/fittings/products/sub-assemblies are specified, consider
supply conditions (e.g. checking lead-times and foreseeable shortages)
A9.3 Specifying robust and suitable materials/components or giving directions for
protecting fragile items (e.g. precast stairs)
A9.4 Designing to facilitate care and protection of completed works by contractors
(continued)

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 467

Table 3 (continued)
Attributes related to design output
B1.0 Safety
B1.1 Allowing safe sequence of trades (e.g. heavy M&E plant hoisted into position before building
is fully enclosed) for high rise buildings
B1.2 Ditto for low rise buildings
B1.3 Sizes and weights of materials and components are safe for workers to handle using
commonly available plant for high rise buildings
B1.4 Ditto for low rise buildings
B2.0 Site Layout, Access and Environment
B2.1 Allowing sufficient working space for labour and plant
B2.2 Enabling efficient site layout, storage and site access for urban sites
B2.3 Ditto for sub-urban sites
B2.4 Allowing less wet trades on site
B2.5 Causing less environmental nuisance (e.g. noise, vibration, waste water, chemical waste and
dust) to surroundings for urban sites
B2.6 Ditto for sub-urban sites
B2.7 Allowing for early enclosures from weather for high rise buildings
B2.8 Ditto for low-rise buildings
B2.9 Allowing for construction traffic on permanent structure early after erection (e.g. left-in steel
decking on structural steel)
B3.0 Use of Resources
B3.1 Allowing use of plant and equipment available locally
B3.2 Allowing use of know-how and labour skills available locally
B3.3 Allowing economical use of labour and plant (e.g. balancing between labour and plant use to
reduce overall cost)
B3.4 Avoiding as far as possible multiple handling and visits by different trades
B4.0 Material Systems
B4.1 Allowing use of wide range of materials to fulfil required performance
B4.2 Giving rise to lower cutting wastages (e.g. tiles, rebars)
B5.0 Installation
B5.1 Allowing easy connection/interfacing between components
B5.2 Allowing adaptation (e.g. piping around obstacles instead of penetrations) by contractor on
site without extensive re-work
B5.3 Specified tolerances capable of being achieved
B5.4 Allowing easy installation without complicated fixings
B5.5 Allowing flexibility in erection/trade sequences (e.g. G/F slab laid after all upper floors)
B5.6 Allowing for early removal of temporary support to leave clear working space
B6.0 Standardisation
B6.1 Uncomplicated geometry, layout and shape for typical floor buildings
B6.2 Ditto for non-typical floor buildings
B6.3 Allowing modular layout of components
B6.4 Allowing a high degree of standardisation and repetition for typical floor buildings
B6.5 Ditto for non-typical floor buildings
B6.6 Allowing use of standard details with lots of repetitions, thereby facilitating learning curve of
workers to be built up fast for typical floor buildings
B6.7 Ditto for non-typical floor buildings
B7.0 Prefabrication
B7.1 Allowing prefabrication off site for typical floor buildings
B7.2 Ditto for non-typical floor buildings
B7.3 Enabling the adoption of single integrated elements (e.g. whole toilet completed with sanitary
ware, piping & finishes) at the discretion of contractor
B7.4 Optimising the mix of offsite work (e.g. prefabrication, precasting and pre-assembly) and
onsite work (e.g. final levelling and fixing)

468 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

Figure 2 Present roles in the
project team

outnumbered public (20.2%) and quasi-public sector (13.5%) respond-

ents. This is advantageous for this study since a greater variety of
practices can be reflected in the private sector, whereas public and
quasi-public sector design practices are quite standardised. As far as
experience is concerned, only one-third of the respondents had less
than 10 years of experience, whereas the majority (two-thirds) had
over 10 years of experience in the construction industry. Most of the
respondents had experience in building projects, which form the subject
of the survey on buildability.

5.2 Data analysis of the returned questionnaires

Before the analysis, the Cronbach alpha reliability test was carried out
for testing the reliability of the 5-point Likert scale. The Cronbach’s al-
pha coefficient was 0.959, which was much higher than the alpha thresh-
old level of 0.6 suggested for exploratory research (Nunnally, 1978). It
indicates that the 5-point Likert scale used for measuring the buildabil-
ity attributes is reliable and internally consistent.

Figure 3 Major project sec-

tors with which the respond-
ents were involved

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 469

Figure 4 Years of experience
of the respondents in the con-
struction industry

The mean score for each buildability attribute was calculated from the
sample of 111 returned questionnaires. The calculations were based
on the numerical values selected by the respondents in the 5-point Likert
Scale. These attributes were then ranked in the order of the means
achieved. In total, 20 attributes with their respective means higher
than 4.0 (indicating significance of the attributes on a scale of 1e5)
were extracted. The overall means of each of these 20 attributes were
compared with the means for different groups of questionnaire respond-
ents, namely Client, Consultant and Contractor, using Analysis of Var-
iance (ANOVA), which tests the null hypothesis that the means among
the 3 groups of respondents are equal (Table 4).

Results of ANOVA showed that the buildability attributes of ‘Consider-

ing effects of below-ground work on surrounding buildings’ (A2.3), ‘When
imported materials/fittings/products/sub-assemblies are specified, con-
sider supply conditions’ (A9.2) and ‘Allowing sufficient working space
for labour and plant (B2.1)’ had statistically significant (p ¼ 5%) different

Figure 5 Project nature as ex-

perienced by the respondents

470 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability

Table 4 Ranking of attributes according to the mean scores selected by the respondents (N [ 111)
Item Design process / Overall Client Consultant Contractor F
Rank Buildability Attributes Significance
No. output related Means Means Means Means Statistic
1 A5.1 Co-ordinating drawings and specifications Design process related 4.50 4.58 4.31 4.56 1.625 0.202
2 A1.1 Thorough site/ground investigation (e.g. bore holes, topography Design process related 4.40 4.48 4.13 4.52 2.219 0.114
survey, cable detection, survey on adjacent buildings) for urban sites
3 A2.3 Considering effects of below ground work on surrounding buildings, Design process related 4.33 4.65 3.97 4.38 5.566 0.005
e.g. destabilising foundations
3 A5.2 Updating specifications and removing Design process related 4.33 4.47 4.13 4.38 1.721 0.184
ambiguities/misunderstandings
4 B1.1 Allowing safe sequence of trades (e.g. heavy M&E plant hoisted into Design output related 4.30 4.29 4.19 4.38 0.519 0.597
position before building is fully enclosed) for high rise buildings
5 A2.2 Designing for safe construction below ground Design process related 4.19 4.32 3.91 4.29 2.005 0.140
5 B2.2 Enabling efficient site layout, storage and site access for urban sites Design output related 4.19 4.29 3.91 4.31 2.229 0.113
6 B6.4 Allowing a high degree of standardisation and repetition for typical Design output related 4.18 4.29 4.09 4.17 0.396 0.674
floor buildings
7 A5.3 Dimensional co-ordination Design process related 4.17 4.26 4.03 4.21 0.652 0.523
7 A5.4 Providing/facilitating combined services drawings Design process related 4.17 4.39 4.09 4.08 1.431 0.244
8 A1.2 Thorough site/ground investigation (e.g. bore holes, topography Design process related 4.15 4.39 4.03 4.09 1.162 0.317
survey, cable detection, survey on adjacent buildings) for sub-urban
sites
9 A9.2 When imported materials/fittings/products/sub-assemblies are Design process related 4.14 4.32 3.78 4.25 4.893 0.009
specified, consider supply conditions (e.g. checking lead-times and
foreseeable shortages)
10 B2.1 Allowing sufficient working space for labour and plant Design output related 4.12 3.84 3.94 4.42 4.030 0.021
11 B7.1 Allowing prefabrication off site for typical floor buildings Design output related 4.11 4.19 4.06 4.09 0.188 0.829
12 B5.4 Allowing easy installation without complicated fixings Design output related 4.08 4.20 3.87 4.15 1.345 0.265
13 B5.1 Allowing easy connection/interfacing between components Design output related 4.05 4.03 3.84 4.19 1.606 0.205
14 B6.6 Allowing use of standard details with lots of repetitions, thereby Design output related 4.04 4.16 3.88 4.06 0.800 0.452
facilitating learning curve of workers to be built up fast for typical
floor buildings
15 B2.5 Causing less environmental nuisance (e.g. noise, vibration, waste Design output related 4.01 4.00 3.78 4.17 1.638 0.199
water, chemical waste and dust) to surroundings for urban sites
16 B1.3 Sizes and weights of materials and components are safe for workers Design output related 4.00 4.03 3.78 4.13 1.250 0.291
to handle using commonly available plant for high rise buildings
16 B3.4 Avoiding as far as possible multiple handling and visits by different Design output related 4.00 4.16 3.78 4.04 1.879 0.158
trades
471
 mean scores among the 3 groups of respondents. Contractor respond-
ents had more concern with these 3 buildability attributes than consul-
tant respondents as evident by the higher mean scores given by the
former group. For all the other 17 extracted attributes, there was no dif-
ference (at 5% significance level) among the scores given by practi-
tioners representing different roles in a project team. Therefore,
designers should take special note of the concern of contractors towards
buildability, when below-ground works affecting nearby buildings are
undertaken, or where the import of materials and provision of working
space on site are concerned. Even when the differences between the
stakeholders are not so apparent in the other attributes, designers
should still address the needs of contractors regarding buildability as
far as possible.

5.3 Discussion of the survey findings

The top 5 buildability attributes in the order of overall mean (om) ob-
tained are ‘Co-ordinating drawings and specifications’ (om ¼ 4.50),
‘Thorough site/ground investigation for urban sites’ (om ¼ 4.40), ‘Consid-
ering effects of below-ground work on surrounding buildings’ (om ¼ 4.33),
‘Updating specifications and removing ambiguities/misunderstandings’
(om ¼ 4.33) and ‘Allowing safe sequence of trades for high rise buildings’
(om ¼ 4.30). Apart from ‘Allowing safe sequence of trades for high rise
buildings’, the remaining 4 attributes are design-process related. The
finding has substantiated the importance of managing design process
to produce buildable designs. To enhance buildability, most importantly,
discrepancies among design documents should be ironed out whereas
site conditions should be thoughtfully investigated, especially for urban
areas where congested sites are common. In addition, if below-ground
works are expected to affect the surrounding buildings, detailed apprais-
als should be carried out to facilitate smooth construction, whilst
specifications should be updated and free of ambiguities or
misunderstanding.

To enable a concise understanding of the major buildability attributes,

the 20 attributes with overall mean scores greater than 4.0 were categor-
ised under 5 headings. The observations from this ranking exercise are
summarised and discussed in the following.

5.3.1 Site condition

Site conditions could cause delays during construction if not properly
considered in advance (Adams, 1989). As such, thorough site and
ground investigations should be carried out prior to the commencement
of design. This factor was also found to be crucial in reducing

472 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

 contractual variations (Chan and Yeong, 1995). As shown in Table 5,
variables to be carefully examined should include site location (whether
for urban or sub-urban areas), shape of site footprint, access, under-
ground conditions as well as properties and facilities surrounding and
abutting the site, etc. These attributes which received relatively high
rankings of contribution towards buildability are in line with Adams
(1989), Nima et al. (1999) and Ballal and Sher (2003), who claimed to
minimise the time of underground construction, and highlighted the de-
signers’ role in considering actual problems of site access and layout.

5.3.2 Coordination between documents/components/

working sequence
Design documents, e.g. drawings, specifications and schematic dia-
grams, should allow for easy communications for use by builders
(Adams, 1989; Griffith and Sidwell, 1995) (Table 6). Coordination

Table 5 Attributes related to site conditions

Attributes related to site conditions * Rank

Thorough site/ground investigation (e.g. bore holes, topography survey, cable 2

detection, survey on adjacent buildings) for urban sites

Considering effects of below ground work on surrounding buildings, e.g. 3

destabilising foundations

Designing for safe construction below ground 5

Enabling efficient site layout, storage and site access for urban sites 5

Thorough site/ground investigation (e.g. bore holes, topography survey, cable 8

detection, survey on adjacent buildings) for sub-urban sites

Allowing sufficient working space for labour and plant 10

Legend:

* Attributes related to design process are shaded in grey

Attributes related to design output are not shaded

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 473

Table 6 Attributes related to co-ordination between documents/components/working sequence
Attributes related to co-ordination between documents / components / working Rank

sequence *

Co-ordinating drawings and specifications 1

Updating specifications and removing ambiguities/misunderstandings 3

Allowing safe sequence of trades (e.g. heavy M&E plant hoisted into position before 4

building is fully enclosed) for high rise buildings

Dimensional co-ordination 7

Providing/facilitating combined services drawings 7

Avoiding as far as possible multiple handling and visits by different trades 16

Legend:

* Attributes related to design process are shaded in grey

Attributes related to design output are not shaded

among these design deliverables should be conducted with care to erad-

icate any discrepancies, ambiguities and possible misunderstanding be-
fore distribution (Wong et al., 2005). Similarly, ensuring compatibility
between the vast number of components and sub-assemblies in a build-
ing together with the sequence of trades is of critical importance for
a smooth workflow of construction activities and minimal wastage.

5.3.3 Standardisation and repetition

It is worth noting from Table 7 that designing for standardisation and
repetition would facilitate buildability in terms of the economy of scale
and workers’ acquaintance with the skills required (Griffith and Sidwell,
1995; CII Australia, 1996a; Egan, 1998; Nima et al., 1999; BCA, 2004;
Low and Abeyegoonasekera, 2001). The chance of errors is also re-
duced, thereby minimising reworks and time loss.

5.3.4 Safety
Construction safety occupied a fairly high ranking when designing for
buildability was considered. This is obvious, especially from the

474 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

Table 7 Attributes related to standardisation and repetition
Attributes related to standardization / repetition * Rank

Allowing a high degree of standardisation and repetition for typical floor buildings 6

Allowing use of standard details with lots of repetitions, thereby facilitating learning 14

curve of workers to be built up fast for typical floor buildings

viewpoints of contractors. Unsafe designs would slow down progress,

not to mention the possible loss of life, which is unacceptable by any
standard (Adams, 1989; Young III, 1998; Francis et al., 1999; Low
and Abeyegoonasekera, 2001; Trigunarsyah, 2004a, b). Besides, acci-
dents are costly and demoralising (Table 8).

5.3.5 Ease of construction

Surprisingly, detailing of construction components and connections did
not rank high relatively (12th and 13th out of a total scale of 1e16) in this
survey (Table 9). Presumably, respondents found other attributes more
important by comparison. Yet, it cannot be over-emphasised that un-
complicated fixing methods and connection details would enable effi-
cient site operations and cause less reworks due to poor quality.

Table 8 Attributes related to safety

Attributes related to safety * Rank

Allowing safe sequence of trades (e.g. heavy M&E plant hoisted into position before 4

building is fully enclosed) for high rise buildings

Designing for safe construction below ground 5

Sizes and weights of materials and components are safe for workers to handle using 16

commonly available plant for high rise buildings

Legend:

* Attributes related to design process are shaded in grey

Attributes related to design output are not shaded

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 475

Table 9 Attributes related to ease of construction
Attributes related to ease of construction Rank

Allowing easy installation without complicated fixings 12

Allowing easy connection/interfacing between components 13

The last column of Table 2 summarises the similarities and contrasts be-
tween the findings of the present survey and those of the previous studies
on buildability/constructability. Consistency is identified among differ-
ent literatures that Site Condition, Repetition and Standardisation as
well as Working Sequence are commonly regarded as the attributes of
buildability.

6 Conclusion
If adequate considerations are made during the design stage in buildabil-
ity aspects, it would help save wasteful efforts throughout the whole pro-
cess of building development and increase efficiency. In fact, most
studies have confirmed the positive relationships between improved
buildability/constructability and saving in project costs and time, as
well as better safety and quality performance (Geile, 1996; Griffith
and Sidwell, 1997; Francis et al., 1999; Jergeas and Put, 2001; Low
and Abeyegoonasekera, 2001; Trigunarsyah, 2004a, b).

This paper has reviewed the development of buildability and construct-

ability in different countries. The importance of focusing on the design
stage for improving buildability and constructability has been highlight-
ed. Designers, together with other project participants involved in the
design stage, should stay alert to the impact of building designs on the
downstream activities. They should put more efforts to facilitate build-
ability of designs by carrying out thorough site and ground investiga-
tions; coordinating various design documents, components and
working sequences, in addition to designing for standardisation, repeti-
tion, safety and ease of construction.

Acknowledgement
The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from
the Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, China (Project No. PolyU5006/02E).

476 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

 References
Adams, S (1989) Practical buildability Butterworths, London
Arditi, D, Elhassan, A and Toklu, Y C (2002) Constructability analysis in
the design firm Journal of Construction Engineering and Management Vol
128 No 2 pp 117e126
Ballal, T M A and Sher, W D (2003) Artificial neural network for the selec-
tion of buildable structural systems Engineering, Construction and Architec-
tural Management Vol 10 No 4 pp 263e271
Banwell, H (1964) The placing and management of contracts for building and
civil engineering work HMSO, London
Building and Construction Authority (BCA) (2004) Code of practice on build-
able design BCA, Singapore
Business Roundtable (1982) Integrating Construction Resources and Technol-
ogy into Engineering, Report of a Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness
Project Construction Users Roundtable
Chan, A P C and Yeong, C M (1995) A comparison of strategies for reduc-
ing variations The Journal of Construction Management and Economics Vol
13 pp 467e473
Construction Industry Institute Australia (CII Australia) (1996a) Construct-
ability manual CII Australia, Australia
Construction Industry Institute Australia (CII Australia) (1996b) The devel-
opment of constructability principles for the Australian construction industry
CII Australia, Australia
Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1986) A primer CII, Austin, Texas
Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1995) Constructability: executive sum-
mary CII, Austin, Texas
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) (1983)
Buildability: an assessment CIRIA, London
Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1987) Constructability concept file CII,
Austin, Texas
Construction Industry Review Committee (CIRC) (2001) Construct for excel-
lence: report of the Construction Industry Review Committee Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region
Egan, J (1998) Rethinking Construction: the Report of the Construction Task
Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the Scope for Improv-
ing the Quality and Efficiency of UK Construction, Department of the Envi-
ronment, Transport and the Regions, London
Emmerson, H (1962) Survey of problems before the construction industry
Ministry of Works, London
Ferguson, I (1989) Buildability in practice Mitchell Publishing Company
Limited, London
Fox, S, Marsh, L and Cockerham, G (2002) Constructability rules: guide-
lines for successful application to bespoke buildings Construction Manage-
ment and Economics Vol 20 pp 689e696
Francis, V E, Mehrtens, V M, Sidwell, A C and McGeorge, W D (1999)
Constructability strategy for improved project performance Architectural
Science Review Vol 42 pp 133e138
Geile, R J (1996) Constructability, ‘the stretch version’ Transactions of
AACE International pp VE&C.6.1eVE&C.6.5

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 477

 Glavinich, T E (1995) Improving constructability during design phase Jour-
nal of Architectural Engineering Vol 1 No 2 pp 73e76
Graham, W and Bird, C (2001) Benchmarking on-site productivity in
France and the UK: A CALIBRE approach Construction Management
and Economics Vol 19 No 6 pp 577e590
Gray, C (1983) Buildability: the construction contribution The Chartered In-
stitute of Building
Griffith, A (1984) Buildability e the effect of design and management on con-
struction (a case study) Department of Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh
Griffith, A (1987) An Investigation into Factors Influencing Buildability and
Levels of Productivity for Application to Selecting Alternative Design Solu-
tions e A Preliminary Report, The Chartered Institute of Building, London
Griffith, A and Sidwell, A C (1995) Constructability in building and engineer-
ing projects Macmillan Press Ltd., Basingstoke
Griffith, A and Sidwell, A C (1997) Development of constructability con-
cepts, principles and practices Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management Vol 4 No 4 pp 295e310
Hon, S L, Gairns, D A and Wilson, O D (1988) Buildability: a review of
research and practice Australian Institute of Building Papers Vol 3 pp 101e118
Ireland, V (1985) The role of managerial actions in the cost, time and qual-
ity performance of high-rise commercial building projects Construction
Management and Economics Vol 3 No 1 pp 59e87
Jergeas, G and Put, J V D (2001) Benefits of constructability on construc-
tion projects Journal of Construction Engineering and Management Vol 127
No 4 pp 281e290
Low, S P and Abeyegoonasekera, B (2001) Integrating buildability in ISO
9000 quality management systems: case study of a condominium project
Building and Environment Vol 36 No 3 pp 299e312
Masterman, J W E (2002) Introduction to building procurement systems
Spon Press, London, New York
Ma, T, Lam, T I and Chan, A (2001) A study into the barriers to the imple-
mentation of constructability in relation to project procurement process, in
Amarjit Singh (ed) 1st international structural engineering & construction
Conference, A.A. Balkema, Honolulu, USA pp 95e100
McGeorge, D, Chen, S E and Ostwald, M J (1992) The development of
a conceptual model of buildability which identifies user satisfaction as a ma-
jor objective, CIB Conference, Rotterdam
Mokhtar, A, Bedard, C and Fazio, P (2000) Collaborative planning and
scheduling of interrelated design changes Journal of Architectural Engineer-
ing Vol 6 No 2 pp 66e75
Moore, D (1998) Analysis skills for productivity strategies. The use of build-
ability and system tools Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited, England
National Economic Development Office (NEDO) (1975) The Wood report:
the public client and the construction industry HMSO, London
Nicholson, M P (ed) (1992) Architectural management E&F N Spon,
London, New York
Nima, M A, Abdul-Kadir, M R and Jaafar, M S (1999) Evaluation of the
engineer’s personnel’s role in enhancing the project constructability Facili-
ties Vol 17 No 11 pp 423e430

478 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 4 July 2006

 Nunnally, J C (1978) Psychometric theory Mcgraw-Hill, New York
Poh, P S H and Chen, J (1998) The Singapore buildable design appraisal
system: a preliminary review of the relationship between buildability, site
productivity and cost Construction Management and Economics Vol 16
No 6 pp 681e692
RICS (2000) Building services procurement Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors
Sebastian, R (2005) The interface between design and management Design
Issues Vol 21 No 1 pp 81e93
Southeast Asia Building (SAB) (1993) Interviews: Are We Ready for Build-
ability? March, SAB
Tan, R R and Lu, Y G (1995) On the quality of construction engineering
design projects: criteria and impacting factors International Journal of Qual-
ity & Reliability Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 18e37
The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (Tavistock) (1965) Communica-
tions in the building industry: the report of a pilot study Tavistock Publica-
tion, UK
Thomson, D S, Austin, S A, Devine-Wright, H and Mills, G R (2003) Man-
aging value and quality in design Building Research and Information Vol 31
No 5 pp 334e345
Trigunarsyah, B (2004a) A review of current practice in constructability im-
provement: case studies on construction projects in Indonesia Construction
Management and Economics Vol 22 No 6 pp 567e580
Trigunarsyah, B (2004b) Project owners’ role in improving constructability
of construction projects: an example analysis for Indonesia Construction
Management and Economics Vol 22 No 8 pp 861e876
Uhlik, F T and Lores, G V (1998) Assessment of constructability practices
among general contractors Journal of Architectural Engineering Vol 4 No 3
pp 113e123
Wong, F W H, Lam, P T I, Chan, E H W and De Saram Don, D (2004)
Improving buildability in Hong Kong e the practitioners’ views, in
Y J Cheah, P H Chen, A S Chew, S K Ting, L K Tiong, W F Wong,
S F Yap and W K Yip (eds) ICCPM 2004. Nanyang Technological
University and Building and Construction Authority, 4e5 March, Singapore
pp 135e144
Wong, F W H, Lam, P T I and Chan, E H W (2005) Optimising procure-
ment approaches to address ‘Constructability’ problems, in T Sidwell (ed)
QUT Research Week International Symposium 2005, The Queensland
University of Technology, 4e8 July Brisbane, Australia
Young III, J A (1998) Constructability in the design firm Cost Engineering
Vol 40 No 2 pp 33e35

Designers contribution to improve buildability and constructability 479