Construction Readiness Assessment for Productivity Improvement

RT-DCC-02 Topic Summary
RT DCC 02

Overview

Due to the competitive nature of the construction market and the omnipresent pressures of time and money on large-scale projects, project teams often launch into construction without taking time to adequately assess their construction readiness. As such, this research aims to quantitatively determine what qualifies a project as “construction-ready” while assisting project teams to improve and sustain the readiness level of their projects.

To this end, RT-DCC-02 derived 228 readiness factors from members’ industry expertise, the extant body of literature concerning construction readiness, and the current state of the practice in terms of construction readiness. These factors were divided into 15 categories, including Project Team, Engineering, Planning, and Stakeholder Management. Once the factors were identified, a comprehensive survey was developed which collected data from 80 projects: 41 Construction-Ready (CR) projects, and 39 Construction-Not-Ready (CNR) projects.

Using the collected data, the team developed mathematical and statistical models to weight each factor, highlighting the factors that differentiate CR from CNR projects. From these weights, the Construction Readiness Score (CRS) is computed, which is a single unified metric that can be used to assess the readiness level of a project as a percentage. Furthermore, the collected data was used to benchmark the CRS to classify future projects as CR, Borderline, and CNR, and the performance differences between CR and CNR projects were investigated to quantify the impact of achieving – and sustaining – a readiness status throughout the project.

All of the research findings were incorporated into the Construction Readiness Assessment (CRA) Tool. RT-DCC-02 developed this computer-based tool to integrate the findings of its research into the workflow of industry professionals and to assist them in controlling construction readiness. The CRA tool is built in Microsoft Excel-Visual Basic for Applications. The tool uses the weights of the 228 factors to compute a unified project readiness score, and subsequently compares that score to both the benchmarks identified in this research and user-defined project goals. The CRA tool further identifies leverage areas in which improvement can be made to increase or maintain construction readiness. Repeated use of the tool during the planning and construction phases of a project permits projects to be tracked as they progress toward construction readiness.

The CRA tool was used on 10 projects, 100% of which reported that the tool was:

  • Valuable in assessing construction readiness
  • Valuable in enhancing construction readiness
  • Potentially able to improve project performance
  • User-friendly

More importantly, 100% of the testers reported that they plan to use the tool on their future projects.

Key Findings and Implementation Tools

1 : Developing and Weighting Readiness Factors

RT-DCC-02 derived 228 construction readiness factors spanning 15 categories. Using data collected from 80 projects, the readiness factors were weighted. A higher weight indicates a higher contribution in differentiating CR from CNR projects. The weighted factors were statistically grouped into 10 importance clusters, so that cluster 1 comprises the most important factor(s) followed by cluster 2, etc. It was shown that of the factors that ranked in the top two clusters, the most frequently occurring category was Engineering (four factors), followed by Planning (three factors), and Commissioning (two factors). Also represented in these clusters were Project Team, Procurement and Material Management, and Project Controls.

 
 
Factors Weight Cluster
2.04. Have (issued-for-construction) IFC drawings been issued to the point that supports construction activity? 1.848% 1
3.12. Are the labor productivity rates for major items in line with recent experiences? 1.244% 2
2.05. Is the schedule for design deliverables compatible with the sequence of construction? 1.230%
1.20. Does the project team include representative(s) from the procurement team? 1.174%
2.16. Is the process for reporting RFIs impacting schedule and cost clear? 1.166%
3.18. Have all the hold points/handoffs been identified? 1.166%
3.11. Are planned activities durations in line with project conditions? 1.164%
15.03. Is there a process in place for responding to delay? 1.164%
14.02. Is there a system in place to align construction with commissioning and operations? 1.142%
2.09. Have discipline design interfaces been well coordinated? 1.139%
13.11. Are clear procurement process and supporting systems in place for storage? 1.126%
14.01. Are procedures for turnover (from construction to commissioning) well-defined? 1.073%
Reference: (FR-DCC-02)

2 : Construction Readiness Score

Using the developed weights, the CRS was created, which is a single unified metric that can be used to assess the readiness level of a project as a percentage. The CRS was then benchmarked to be used to classify future projects in one of three categories:

  1. Construction-Not-Ready (CRS between 0% and 75%)
  2. Borderline (CRS between 75% and 85%)
  3. Construction-Ready (CRS between 85% and 100%)
 
Reference: (FR-DCC-02)

3 : Cost Performance Differences

Using data collected from 80 projects, the team showed that CR projects significantly outperform CNR projects, at 95% confidence level, in terms of achieving lower Construction Cost Growth and Project Budget Factor. On average, CR projects had 20% less cost growth and 12% lower budget factor than CNR projects.

Reference: (FR-DCC-02)

4 : Schedule Performance Differences

Using data collected from 80 projects, the team showed that CR projects significantly outperform CNR projects, at 95% confidence level, in terms of achieving lower Project Schedule Growth and Project Schedule Factor. On average, CR projects had 21.5% less schedule growth and 20.6% lower schedule factor than CNR projects.

Reference: (FR-DCC-02)

5 : Productivity Performance Differences

Using data collected from 80 projects, the team showed that CR projects significantly outperform CNR projects, at 95% confidence level, in terms of achieving lower Project Hours Factor. On average, CR projects had 29% lower hours factor than CNR projects.

Reference: (FR-DCC-02)

6 : Quality Performance Differences

Using data collected from 80 projects, the team showed that CR projects significantly outperform CNR projects, at 95% confidence level, in terms of having less rework and lower value of punchlist items. On average, CR projects had 7% less rework than CNR projects.

Reference: (FR-DCC-02)

7 : Change Management Performance Differences

Using data collected from 80 projects, the team showed that CR projects significantly outperform CNR projects, at 95% confidence level, in terms of achieving less change. On average, CR projects had 21% lower project percent change than CNR projects.
 
Reference: (FR-DCC-02)

8 : Profitability Performance Differences

Using data collected from 80 projects, the team showed that CR projects significantly outperform CNR projects, at 95% confidence level, in terms of achieving higher profitability. On average, CR projects had 3 to 5% higher overheads and profit (O&P) percentage than CNR projects.
 
Reference: (FR-DCC-02)

Key Performance Indicators


Presentations from CII Events

Session - Construction Readiness Assessment

Publication Date: 07/2018 Presenter: Number of Slides: 60 Event Code: AC2018


Tags

Keywords