METHOD STUDY 3
PRODUCTIVITY, BUILDABILITY AND CONSTRUCTABILITY: IS WORK STUDY THE MISSING LINK?
Improving productivity, increasing output for the same inputs, has been a longstanding concern of the UK Construction Industry. The different approaches to improving productivity will be briefly reviewed as will the decline in awareness of classical work study and use by construction firms. Definitions of “buildability” and “constructability” will be considered and reports seeking to improve buildability reviewed. The key results of several questionnaire surveys will be presented and contractual relationships are identified both as a major deterrent to improved buildability and as the means by which buildability problems are being overcome. Suggestions are made for an expansion of the role of the Architectural Technologist.
Keywords: architecture, buildability, construction management, constructability, productivity.
INTRODUCTION
The owners of buildings, particularly when building for investment or speculative gain, invariably seek a better performing product, or larger buildings at a cheaper price. The Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel (CRISP 1996) asserts that “the UK construction industry has one of the highest unit output costs in Europe, despite having one of the lowest unit input costs in terms of labour and materials”. While the validity of these claims cannot be verified and international comparisons of industry performance are notoriously difficult there can be no doubt that major clients are demanding improved value from construction.
The public client, a post- war socialist response to the satisfaction of society’s needs, has been replaced by the private client as the transition from a command economy to a market led free enterprise economy has transformed Britain over the past half century. The Latham report (1994), written from the viewpoint that clients’ needs are paramount, proposed fundamental changes to the culture and
Improving productivity, increasing output for the same inputs, has been a longstanding concern of the UK Construction Industry. The different approaches to improving productivity will be briefly reviewed as will the decline in awareness of classical work study and use by construction firms. Definitions of “buildability” and “constructability” will be considered and reports seeking to improve buildability reviewed. The key results of several questionnaire surveys will be presented and contractual relationships are identified both as a major deterrent to improved buildability and as the means by which buildability problems are being overcome. Suggestions are made for an expansion of the role of the Architectural Technologist.
Keywords: architecture, buildability, construction management, constructability, productivity.
INTRODUCTION
The owners of buildings, particularly when building for investment or speculative gain, invariably seek a better performing product, or larger buildings at a cheaper price. The Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel (CRISP 1996) asserts that “the UK construction industry has one of the highest unit output costs in Europe, despite having one of the lowest unit input costs in terms of labour and materials”. While the validity of these claims cannot be verified and international comparisons of industry performance are notoriously difficult there can be no doubt that major clients are demanding improved value from construction.
The public client, a post- war socialist response to the satisfaction of society’s needs, has been replaced by the private client as the transition from a command economy to a market led free enterprise economy has transformed Britain over the past half century. The Latham report (1994), written from the viewpoint that clients’ needs are paramount, proposed fundamental changes to the culture and
References: Anderson, W. E. and Bailey, P. (1981) Productivity and the Design Team. Building Technology and Management. (Dec): 3-6. Barnes, R. M. (1966) Motion and Time Study- Design and Measurement of Work, (5th Edition) Brennan, M.P.J. (1995) The demise of work study and its application in educational establishments. Unpublished BA dissertation, University of Liverpool. Bishop, D. (1966) Architects and Productivity. RIBA Journal. (Nov): 513- 515. CIRIA (1983) Buildability: an assessment (Special Publication 26). London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association. CRISP (1996). Building productivity and profits in the construction industry. Watford: Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel. Currie, R.M. (1977) rev’d Faraday JE. Work Study. London: Pitman Publishing. Construction Industry Institute (1993) Australian Constructability Principles File. CIIA, University of South Australia, Adelaide. Forbes, W.S. and Stjernstedt, R. (1972) The Finchampstead project. Building. 223(6751): 111-124. Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the team. HMSO McEvoy, J Moore, D. (1996) The Renaissance - the beginning of the end of implicit buildability. Building Research and Information. 24(5): 259-269. Spackman, C. (1997) On the line. Construction Manager. 3(1, Feb): 27. Shaw, A.G. (1960) The Purpose and Practice of Motion Study (2nd Ed). Manchester: Columbine Press. Stevens, A.J. (1987) Housebuilding Productivity in the UK- results of case studies. Whitehead, B. (1970) Facts on Building. An essential aid to productivity. Building, (13 March). Whitehead, B. (1976) Use of Productivity Improvement Techniques in the Building Industry in Great Britain. Proceedings CIB W65 Symposium. Champaign, Illinois. 222-235 280