Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
International Journal of Construction Management
ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20
Constructability obstacles: an exploratory factor
analysis approach
Samereh jadidoleslami, Ehsan Saghatforoush & Ahad Zare Ravasan
To cite this article: Samereh jadidoleslami, Ehsan Saghatforoush & Ahad Zare Ravasan (2018):
Constructability obstacles: an exploratory factor analysis approach, International Journal of
Construction Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1534044
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1534044
Published online: 03 Dec 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 31
View Crossmark data
Constructability obstacles: an exploratory factor analysis approach
Samereh jadidoleslami
a
, Ehsan Saghatforoush
b
and Ahad Zare Ravasan
c
a
Project and Construction Management, Mehralborz Institute of Higher Education, Tehran, Iran;
b
School of Construction Economics
and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa;
c
Department of Corporate Economy, Faculty of
Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
ABSTRACT
Constructability is a concept with relative and not absolute value to increase optimization cap-
acity of resources such as workforce, time, cost, quality, and working environment conditions.
Given the growing complexity of projects and the increased number of failed and abandoned
projects, the necessity to implement constructability in projects has become more tangible.
Although the effects of lack of quantitative definition of constructability role in the traditional
construction approaches are evident and have led to lack of coordination in performance of
construction projects, so far no comprehensive quantitative approach has been considered to
analyze the obstacles to constructability implementation. This study aims to identify and cat-
egorize the obstacles to facilitating the presence of contractors in the early stages of planning
and design to implement constructability. In this study a comprehensive list of obstacles to con-
structability implementation is developed as a questionnaire. This questionnaire was presented
to the experts, active in the field of construction. Finally, its results were analyzed using explora-
tory factor analysis method. Totally, 63 obstacles were questioned, then they were categorized
by some of the experts of this industry into five categories of macro factors, including contrac-
tual, environmental, managerial, technical, and organizational. The significance of this study is
due to this fact that identifying and categorizing the key obstacles to constructability implemen-
tation provides a useful reference for managers and owners of the construction industry to iden-
tify and develop solutions to resolve them. Identifying the obstacles to the presence of
contractors in the planning and design stage and having a quantitative view toward this issue
affects project implementability. In this regard, one can present more effective solutions to facili-
tate the presence of contractors in the early stages of design and also improves the effective-
ness of constructability.
KEYWORDS
Constructability; construct-
ability obstacles; civil
projects; construction
industry; exploratory factor
analysis (EFA)
Introduction
‘Constructability the extent to which the design of a
building facilitates ease of construction as well as the
extent to which the adoption of construction techni-
ques and processes affects the productivity level of
building works’ (Authority 2017). Constructability is
one of the project management methods to evaluate
the whole construction process. It is defined as a con-
cept with relative, not absolute, value to increase opti-
mization capacity of resources, such as workforce,
time, cost, quality and working environment condi-
tions. During a construction project from the early
stage of planning up to delivery and maintenance
there are many restrictions to implement construct-
ability (Shin et al. 1989). Project success is not
achieved unless through reviewing the construction
process and integrating the design and implementa-
tion stages. Given the growing complexity of projects
and the increased number of failed and abandoned
projects, the necessity to implement constructability
in projects has become more tangible (Wong
et al. 2005).
Due to the designer’s poor executive information,
lack of presence of executive contractors in the early
stages of study and design, leads to duplications,
reduction of executive capacity of the plan, and
increased time and costs (Saghatforoush 2014).
Constructability achievements can be used for meet-
ing future needs, including (Lueprasert 1996) identify-
ing poorly designed structure due to mistakes and
non-executive decisions of the plan in the conceptual
studies phase. Executive engineers have problems with
CONTACT Ehsan Saghatforoush ehsan.saghatforoush@wits.ac.za School of Construction Economics and Management, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1534044
designer engineers during the construction process,
often because it is not possible to implement the plan,
and/or contradictory and non-executive plans (Hui-
Hsuan et al. 2013). With regard to the study of con-
structibility literature, this is a long-term issue and
should be continually pursued, and, as far as possible,
it should be possible to eliminate and mitigate these
problems, as well as facilitate the construction, before
making it, taking into account existing barriers. Focus
on focus (Yustisia 2014)
Studies conducted during 1960 to 1970, indicate
that the origin of many complex problems in the con-
struction industry is due to lack of integration of
knowledge and experience in the framework of design
and construction. This issue directly affects projects’
time, cost and quality. Here, the necessity to apply
constructability became more tangible (IPENZ 2008).
Primary studies to find obstacles to facilitating con-
structability related to the United States construction
industry, were conducted in 1979 by Faculty of
Construction Industry Research using qualitative
methods. Following that, most of the studies were
conducted by qualitative methods and focusing on
case studies e.g. (O’Connor 1994;O’Connor 1995;
Zolfagharian et al. 2012; Saghatforoush 2014;
Jadidoleslami et al. 2016). In addition, since the con-
structability concept is relatively a new idea in devel-
oping countries, most articles in this field are
qualitative studies without quantitative data. Even
though lack of quantitative evaluation related to the
effects of constructability on the traditional approaches
of construction was evident and led to lack of coord-
ination in the performance of construction projects,
till now there is no comprehensive quantitative
approach to analyze the obstacles to constructability
implementation (Zimmer 2006). Project success is not
achieved unless through reviewing the construction
process and integrating the design and implementation
stages. Yet, such an approach provides an appropriate
subjective context for experts and employers in this
field to accept and implement constructability.
The aim of this study is evaluating the current
obstacles related to the presence of contractors in the
early stages of planning and design, and exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) to implement constructability.
The next section addresses the previous literatures
conducted in this field.
Constructability
Five important rules for effective evaluation of con-
structability are considering project construction
instead of focusing on problems, reviewing the inter-
ference of various applied systems in implementation,
documenting primary information, focusing on sig-
nificant factors, such as qualitative factors and team
designing and finally allocating sufficient time for
detailed reviewing of constructability in the project,
Although, principal review of constructability may
take several weeks and even months, for each time
spent on planning and reviewing, significant amount
of time will be saved in the construction stage. There
is a wrong idea stating that at first, constructability
studies should be done completely, while this is com-
pletely wrong and has a reverse effect (Smith 2013).
Constructability is a project management technique
for reviewing the whole construction process. Before
project implementation, it will reduce or prevent mis-
takes, delays, and overflow costs, through identifying
the obstacles (Primer 1986). Due to constructability
effect on costs and time progress to achieve optimum
conditions, considering plan constructability in the
early stages of project lifecycle is necessary (Griffith
and Sidwell 1995).
Constructability program refers to integrating
engineering design, and executive knowledge and
experience to better achieve project objectives.
However, partial comprehension of designers of con-
struction and implementation requirements, and
resistance of owners to constructability due to extra
visible costs in the project, are main obstacles to its
implementation. Generally, constructability results in
a cost added to other expenses and may harm the
company in the competition. An effective construct-
ability program will begin during the planning phase
and will continue conceptually to the end of construc-
tion (Arditi et al. 2002). Many of the problems and
issues of constructability are because of lack of com-
munication among employers, architects, designers,
and construction companies before starting the pro-
ject (IPENZ 2008).
Architects, engineers and designers—according to
the specific nature of their performance—are not
experts of executive methods. For this reason and also
the reasons for sharing responsibility, most of the per-
formance-based features and programs determine the
final result and applications (Glavinich 1995). Lack of
communication among designers and contractors
cover overtly performance features. By integrating
constructability in the design process in the early
stages of the project, construction contradiction will
be less, and consequently, project delivery will be
more secure (IPENZ 2008). Resolving these obstacles
require changing the methods, organizational culture
2 S. JADIDALESLAMI ET AL.
TABLE 1. The identified codes for constructability obstacles.
Code
(J O’Connor-
1995)
(James
T. O’
Connor-1994)
(George
Jergeas-
2001)
(Zolfagharian.
et al.-
2012)
(James
T. O’
Connor-1988)
(By
Deborah J.
Fisher-
2000)
(Thabet-
2000)
(Franky
et al.
-2007)
(Trigunarsyah
-2003)
(Li Jiang
-2013)
(Eric J.
Hanlon-2001)
(Sheehan
-1991)
(FOX et al.
-2010)
(Russell
-1994)
(Scott D. Williams-
2007)
(Malek-
2011)
(Lewis-
2001)
1. Resistance
to change and
the consent of
the status quo
2. No official
commitment
for
implementing
3. Dishonesty
4. Risk aversion
and distrust
to builders
5. misconception
of this issue
that construct-
ability leads to
delay
in projects
6. Reluctance to
innovation
and creativity
7. Cultural barriers
due to the
traditional view
and flex-
ible vision
8. Lack of mutual
respect
between
designer
and builder
9. Weak sup-
port program
10. Irregular
reports about
the work trend
11. Delegating
responsibilities
to people with
low risk taking
12. No encourag-
ing program for
promoting cre-
ativity and crit-
ical thinking
13. Lack of docu-
menting
(continued)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3
TABLE 1. Continued.
Code
(J O’Connor-
1995)
(James
T. O’
Connor-1994)
(George
Jergeas-
2001)
(Zolfagharian.
et al.-
2012)
(James
T. O’
Connor-1988)
(By
Deborah J.
Fisher-
2000)
(Thabet-
2000)
(Franky
et al.
-2007)
(Trigunarsyah
-2003)
(Li Jiang
-2013)
(Eric J.
Hanlon-2001)
(Sheehan
-1991)
(FOX et al.
-2010)
(Russell
-1994)
(Scott D. Williams-
2007)
(Malek-
2011)
(Lewis-
2001)
experiences
and knowledge
of success-
ful projects
14. Lack of apply-
ing promotional
tools to sell
plans
to employers
15. Inappropriate
methods of
labor
recruitment
16. Lack of
enough infor-
mation
between
designer and
builder (poor
communication
skills)
17. Lack of coord-
ination and
cooperation
in teamwork
18. Lack of focus
of team on
common
objectives
19. Inability in
identifying
problems and
opportunities
20. Lack of integ-
rity among key
members of
project team
21. Separate man-
agerial process
in design and
construction
22. Not paying
attention to
executive abil-
ities
in selecting
(continued)
4 S. JADIDALESLAMI ET AL.
