See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237189076

Factors affecting buildability of building designs

Article in Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · February 2011

DOI: 10.1139/l06-022

CITATIONS READS
17 11,763

4 authors, including:

Patrick T. I. Lam Edwin H W Chan

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
153 PUBLICATIONS 4,183 CITATIONS 211 PUBLICATIONS 4,991 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Francis K. W. Wong
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
88 PUBLICATIONS 1,796 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effects of environment-related experiences on well-being in Hong Kong (Public Policy Research Scheme) View project

Housing Settlement for Migrant Workers in China: A Case Study of Shenzhen View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edwin H W Chan on 06 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 795

Factors affecting buildability of building designs

Franky W.H. Wong, Patrick T.I. Lam, Edwin H.W. Chan, and Francis K.W. Wong

Abstract: By identifying the succinct attributes of design, the abstract concept of buildability can be expressed in a
more defined and tangible way for its improvements. In this research, factor analysis is used to expound the data ob-
tained from a questionnaire survey on buildability attributes. Results show the first three out of nine key buildability
factors for building designs are (i) allowing economic use of contractor resources, (ii) enabling design requirements to
be easily visualized and coordinated by site staff, and (iii) enabling contractors to develop and adopt alternative con-
struction details. Discriminant analysis has been used to identify significant differences amongst the respondent groups.
At the project level, the findings give designers a better understanding of factors affecting the buildability of their out-
puts, thus enabling design solutions leading to more efficient and safe construction. At the industry level, the identified
factors can contribute to sustainable development through the reduction of waste and the economic use of resources.

Key words: design appraisal, buildability improvement, factor analysis, discriminant analysis.
Résumé : En identifiant les attributs succincts de la conception, le concept abstrait de constructibilité peut être exprimé
de manière plus définie et tangible en vue d’améliorations possibles. La présente recherche utilise l’analyse factorielle
pour éclairer les données obtenues lors d’un sondage par questionnaire portant sur les attributs de la constructibilité.
Les résultats ont montré que les premiers trois facteurs de constructibilité, sur neuf, concernant les conceptions de bâti-
ment sont : (i) permettre l’utilisation économique des ressources des entrepreneurs, (ii) permettre une visualisation et
une coordination simples des exigences de conception par le personnel du site, et (iii) permettre aux entrepreneurs de
développer et d’adopter d’autres détails de la construction. L’analyse discriminante a été utilisée pour identifier les
principales différences selon les groupes répondants. Au niveau du projet, les conclusions donnent aux concepteurs une
meilleure compréhension des facteurs touchant la constructibilité de leurs conceptions, permettant ainsi d’obtenir des
solutions de conception pour une construction plus efficace et sécuritaire. Au niveau industriel, les facteurs identifiés
peuvent contribuer au développement durable grâce à la réduction du gaspillage et à l’utilisation économique des res-
sources.
Mots clés : évaluation de la conception, amélioration de la constructibilité, analyse factorielle, analyse discriminante.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Wong et al. 806

1. Introduction widely recognized. One of the major barriers is probably

created by the incapability of designers to grasp the abstract
The construction industry, because of its fragmented concept of buildability. To overcome this barrier, an identifi-
nature, separates practitioners with different expertise and cation of the factors affecting buildability will certainly help
disciplines. This demarcation feature has caused misunder- designers to achieve more buildable designs. Meanwhile,
standing and reduced productivity. This is particularly appar- clients and contractors can also make use of the research re-
ent under the traditional procurement system, whereby sults to optimize the use of construction resources.
contractors are only brought in after design completion. Pro- To achieve this end, a recent research project was initi-
ponents of buildability assert that deliberations made at the ated, starting with interviews and a questionnaire survey
outset of the project will lead to a wider adoption of cost- with construction practitioners. The multivariate techniques
and labour-saving construction technologies and minimi- of factor analysis and discriminant analysis were used to ex-
zation of material wastage (CIRC 2001). For many years, tract the buildability factors and identify any significant per-
notwithstanding numerous studies on improving buildability, ceptual differences among client, consultant, and contractor
the benefits and objectives of buildability have not been respondents.
Received 26 August 2005. Revision accepted 26 January
2006. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at 2. Interpretations of buildability and
http://cjce.nrc.ca on 5 August 2006.
constructability
F.W.H. Wong,1 P.T.I. Lam, E.H.W. Chan, and
F.K.W. Wong. Department of Building and Real Estate, Various definitions of buildability and its related term
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, constructability have been coined in the literature (CIRIA
Kowloon, Hong Kong. 1983; CII 1986; Ferguson 1989; Chen et al. 1991; CII Aus-
tralia 1996; BCA 2005). Figure 1 summarizes the different
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
interpretations of previous researchers and organizations on
received by the Editor until 30 November 2006.
the concepts of buildability and constructability and their
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]). commonalities.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33: 795–806 (2006) doi:10.1139/L06-022 © 2006 NRC Canada
796 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Fig. 1. Interpretations of buildability and constructability by different researchers and organizations.

In simple terms, buildability is mainly moulded within the consensus that the design stage is critical for implementing
design stage, whereas constructability covers broader aspects buildability or constructability (Glavinich 1995; Uhlik and
spanning various stages in building development. Both con- Lores 1998; Construction 21 1999; CIRC 2001; Gray and
cepts indeed refer to the optimal use of resources for con- Hughes 2001; Fox et al. 2002; Nima et al. 2002; Zin et al.
struction or ease of construction. Despite the different 2004; BCA 2005). In particular, these studies agree that the
interpretations of buildability and constructability, there is earlier buildability considerations are made, the greater is

© 2006 NRC Canada

Wong et al. 797

Table 1. Profile of the interviewees (pilot stage).

Position of interviewee Type of company or organization
Public sector
Senior structural engineer Public housing department
Senior architect Public housing department
Senior development officer Building control department
Private sector
Deputy senior manager Major building contractor
Senior project manager Major building contractor
Chief resident engineer Major engineering consultant
Senior project manager Developer of information technology (IT) infrastructure and property

the potential to influence the final outcome of a project. In Sixty-three buildability attributes were developed from the
this regard, buildability can be defined as the extent to structured interviews and an extensive literature review (Ta-
which a design would facilitate efficient use of construction ble 2). They have been grouped under 16 headings and sub-
resources and enhance ease and safety of construction on divided into two categories: (i) buildability attributes related
site while the client requirements are met. Buildability con- to the design process; and (ii) buildability attributes related
siderations represent the designers deliberations on how to the design output, which is the product of the design pro-
their designs affect site operations in terms of time, cost, cess.
quality, and safety performance.
4.1. Buildability attributes related to the design process
3. Contextual background Buildability attributes related to the design process in-
clude those given in the following sections.
The research was conducted from 2002 to 2004 in Hong
Kong, an Asian metropolitan city with a sizable construction 4.1.1. Site-specific factor
market (construction spending around US$1200 per capita in Buildability is significantly affected by the choice and
2000, or about one quarter of the construction spending in type of site. Site conditions should be thoroughly investi-
Japan in 2000) and vibrant construction activities. Due to the gated to avoid subsequent delays and alterations after con-
free-market entry policy, there is an unrestricted presence of struction has commenced (Adams 1989).
multinational corporations (including clients, designers, and
contractors) and world-class developers. A large spectrum of 4.1.2. Below ground
construction techniques is deployed, and skyscrapers domi- Where works are to be undertaken below ground, careful
nate the harbour-front skyline. Efficient infrastructure is in considerations should be given to minimizing the time of un-
place, with a constant expansion and renewal program. Like derground construction (Adams 1989) and the effects of
the rest of the world, the traditional design–bid–build pro- works on the surroundings and ensuring safety.
curement approach is the mainstay, supplemented by nontra-
ditional approaches such as design and build and 4.1.3. Weather
management contracting on a less frequent basis. Designs should facilitate the enclosure of building at the
Beset by productivity and quality issues in the construc- earliest possible stage to exclude hindrance and damage be-
tion sector, an industry-wide comprehensive review took cause of bad weather (Adams 1989; Nima et al. 1999). In
place in 2001, concluding, among other things, that Hong Kong, this advantage becomes apparent during the ty-
buildability of designs was poor (CIRC 2001). It is this re- phoon season.
view which prompted the current research.
4.1.4. Innovations
4. Identifying buildability attributes of Innovative ideas could be applied in the sequencing of site
activities, the use of temporary construction materials or sys-
designs
tems, the use of hand tools and temporary facilities directly
In identifying the buildability attributes of designs to form supportive of site methods, etc. (CII Australia 1996).
the criteria for this aspect of design appraisal, reference was Adopting innovative construction methods is intended to re-
made to the literature on both buildability and construct- duce the use of labour on site and increase productivity
ability in relation to the design stage. The attributes were (Low and Abeyegoonasekera 2001).
substantiated and fine-tuned by a series of pilot interviews
with practitioners on buildability-related issues in Hong 4.1.5. Coordination and rationalization of design
Kong. All of the interviewees were experienced profession- information
als (some of them being expatriates) from both the public To facilitate the construction process on site, the design
and private sectors, and they provided balanced and interna- should allow for easy communication with the contractor at
tionally recognized perspectives on buildability attributes. the workplace (Adams 1989; Griffith and Sidwell 1995). In
Table 1 is a summary of the profiles of the interviewees for addition, the use of dimensional coordination would allow
this pilot stage. practical building tolerances to be achieved both in terms of

© 2006 NRC Canada

798 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Table 2. Buildability attributes of designs.

Attributes related to the design process

Site-specific factor
Thorough site and ground investigation (e.g., boreholes, topography survey, cable detection, survey of adjacent buildings)
Below ground
Designing for minimum construction time below ground
Designing for safe construction below ground
Considering effects of below-ground work on surrounding buildings (e.g., destabilizing foundations)
Weather
Considering possible timing to avoid carrying out structural work, external finishes, etc., during rainy or typhoon season
Innovations
Designing to allow for innovative construction techniques to be proposed by contractor
Suggesting non-obligatory construction methods for contractor to consider
Coordination and rationalization of design information
Coordinating drawings and specifications
Updating specifications and removing ambiguities and misunderstandings
Dimensional coordination
Providing and facilitating combined services drawings
Showing accurate positions for pipe sleeves and penetrations
Detailing
Specifying tolerances for as many items as possible
Coordinating tolerances specifications for interfacing items (e.g., window frame vis-à-vis window opening)
Designing to aid visualization of finished work
Referring to typical or standard details for repetitive items
Using blow-up details to examine possible clashes in the design, e.g., building services clashing with reinforcements.
Flexibility
Designing for interchangeability (e.g., left–right orientation of fittings, such as cabinets, kitchen sinks) and subassemblies
Tools, plant, and equipment
Designing for optimum use of plant and equipment
Designing with knowledge of plant and equipment capacities
Designing for temporary plant and equipment anchorages in permanent structure
Materials, fittings, products, and subassemblies
Designing for locally available materials, fittings, products and subassemblies (including imports)
When imported materials, fittings, products or subassemblies are specified, consider supply conditions (e.g., checking lead times and
foreseeable shortages)
Specifying robust and suitable materials and components or giving directions for protecting fragile items (e.g., precast stairs)
Designing to facilitate care and protection of completed works by contractors
Attributes related to the design output
Safety
Allowing safe sequence of trades (e.g., heavy mechanical and electrical plant hoisted into position before building is fully enclosed)
Sizes and weights of materials and components are safe for workers to handle using commonly available plant
Site layout, access, and environment
Allowing sufficient working space for labour and plant
Enabling efficient site layout, storage, and site access
Allowing fewer wet trades on site
Causing less environmental nuisance (e.g., noise, vibration, waste water, chemical waste, and dust) to surroundings
Allowing for early enclosures from weather
Allowing for construction traffic on permanent structure early after erection (e.g., left-in steel decking on structural steel)
Use of resources
Allowing use of plant and equipment available locally
Allowing use of know-how and labour skills available locally
Allowing economical use of labour and plant (e.g., balancing between labour and plant use to reduce overall cost)
Avoiding as far as possible multiple handling and visits by different trades
Material systems
Allowing use of wide range of materials to fulfil required performance
Giving rise to lower cutting wastages (e.g., tiles, rebars)
Installation sequence
Allowing easy connection–interfacing between components
Allowing adaptation (e.g., piping around obstacles instead of penetrations) by contractor on site without extensive rework

© 2006 NRC Canada

Wong et al. 799

Table 2 (concluded).
Specified tolerances capable of being achieved
Allowing easy installation without complicated fixings
Allowing flexibility in erection and trade sequences (e.g., ground floor slab laid after all upper floors)
Allowing for early removal of temporary support to leave clear working space
Standardization
Uncomplicated geometry, layout, and shape
Allowing modular layout of components
Allowing a high degree of standardization and repetition
Allowing use of standard details with lots of repetitions, thereby facilitating learning curve of workers to be built up fast
Prefabrication
Allowing prefabrication off site
Enabling the adoption of single integrated elements (e.g., whole toilet completed with sanitary ware, piping, and finishes) at the
discretion of contractor
Optimizing the mix of offsite work (e.g., prefabrication, precasting, and preassembly) and on-site work (e.g., final levelling and
fixing)

material tolerance and working tolerance of craftsmen (Grif- 4.2.1. Safety

fith 1984). Designers should be conscious of job-site safety, which
has strong moral and long-lasting economic effects for the
4.1.6. Detailing project (Young 1998). Designs should facilitate a safe work-
Simplification of design details could lead to more simple ing environment, especially in foundation and earth works,
construction on site, hence improving constructability (Grif- when materials and components are being handled and
fith and Sidwell 1995). Regarding tolerance specifications, wherever traversing for access is necessary (Adams 1989).
standardization and coordination are regarded as conducive For works carried out for buildings in use, caution should be
to developing achievable tolerance (Griffith 1984). In fact, taken to avoid causing damage or nuisance to existing ele-
tolerance compatibility is important for good buildability ments and occupants.
(Ferguson 1989). Apart from sensible differentiation be-
tween factory tolerances and those of site construction, de- 4.2.2. Site layout, access, and environment
signers should allow for the problem of fit at the interfaces Designers must consider the builder problems of access to
between different products (Adams 1989). and around sites or the site layouts, location of material stor-
age and unloading facilities, and distribution of components
4.1.7. Flexibility and materials during construction, especially with congested
Designs specifying desired results which allow contractors sites (Adams 1989; Nima et al. 1999; Ballal and Sher 2003).
to select construction approaches or methods, e.g., formwork Protective measures should be taken to avoid damage and
systems, shoring types, and piling methods, can help im- nuisance caused by dust, noise, and the interruption of ac-
prove constructability (CII Australia 1996). Similarly, adapt- cess and services (Ferguson 1989). The efficient location
able design with interchangeable components provides room and distribution of temporary works and storage areas are
for changes to suit different circumstances. also necessary for good buildability (Ferguson 1989).

4.1.8. Tools, plant, and equipment 4.2.3. Use of resources

Accessibility of personnel, materials, and equipment dur- At the design stage, methods should be sought to improve
ing the design and construction stages of the project is es- buildability or constructability by designing for economical
sential for constructability performance (Adams 1989; CII use of labour and widely available and versatile tools, plant,
Australia 1996). Designers should optimize the use of plant and equipment (Ferguson 1989; Griffith and Sidwell 1995;
and equipment, taking their specific features and capacities Glavinich 1995; Nima et al. 1999; Gray and Hughes 2001).
into account. Attention should also be paid to site restric- Factors affecting the availability of resources and skills, e.g.,
tions that affect layout of cranage (CII Australia 1996). the geographic location of the site, the market conditions,
and the sociopolitical situation, should be taken into consid-
4.1.9. Materials, fittings, products, and subassemblies eration (CII Australia 1996). To suit the skills available lo-
Designers should use widely available and easily con- cally, it was suggested that a realistic assessment of the
verted materials that can be worked on quickly and econom- levels of skill likely to be available from appropriately cho-
ically for optimization of buildability (Ferguson 1989). The sen contractors and specialists could be carried out (Adams
products and materials to be used must be proven suitable 1989). Careful examination and appraisal are also required
for the purposes, with which manufacturers recommenda- for designs to minimize provision for special skills or high
tions should be complied (Adams 1989). labour intensity (CII Australia 1996).

4.2. Buildability attributes related to the design output 4.2.4. Material systems
Attributes concerning the design output are given in the Griffith and Sidwell (1995) proposed that unifying the
following sections. choice of materials can help achieve ease of construction be-

© 2006 NRC Canada

800 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

cause coordination problems were likely to arise from de- high importance or impact and a value of 1 denotes very low
signs that involve many different types of materials. This importance or impact). If an attribute was considered not ap-
does not mean restrictively specifying the range of materials plicable to buildability, respondents should cross the scale
to be used, however. Besides, the dimension of building ele- off as an indication. Throughout the questionnaire, spaces
ments should reflect material sizes and should be designed were provided for respondents to insert comments and sug-
to minimize labour requirements and wastage of material by gest additional attributes that were not included (a sample of
special cutting (Griffith and Sidwell 1995). the questionnaire is available from http://home.bre.polyu.
edu.hk/~bsplam/buildability/Build_Q.pdf).
4.2.5. Installation sequence
Adams (1989) opined that designers should produce the 5.2. Data collection
simplest details compatible with the overall requirements for The target respondents for the questionnaire were senior
the building and particular elements for performing efficient practitioners in the construction industry. A list of target re-
and defect-free works. Task dependence targeted at reducing spondents of different disciplines encompassing architects,
the complexity of task sequence and simplifying the interre- engineers, surveyors, contractors, and developers was devel-
lationship of trades is concerned with the sequence of con- oped based on the information in the yearbooks and web
struction work, including handling of materials and the ways pages of various institutions and the latest builder directory.
in which operations overlap and interrelate, as well as the se- The questionnaires were sent out by mail and a web site was
quencing of different trades (Griffith 1984). Thus, appreciat- set up allowing completion of the same questionnaire
ing the sequence of operations and trade interrelationships through e-mail invitations.
on site can enhance constructability in design (Griffith and
In total, 498 questionnaires were delivered to practitioners
Sidwell 1995).
in their capacities as clients, consultants, or contractors
4.2.6. Standardization working in the public, private, and quasi-government sec-
Standardization is one of the three key principles of the tors. They were given 2 weeks to complete the question-
buildable design appraisal system that was devised to mea- naires.
sure buildability performance of designs in Singapore. Un- Eventually, 91 questionnaires were received by mail, rep-
der this system, standardization refers to the repetition of resenting a response rate of 18%, and 20 were recorded on
grids, sizes of components, and connection details. A re- the web site, giving a total of 111 completed questionnaires.
peated grid layout, for example, will facilitate faster con- Excluding those samples with missing data, 99 valid sam-
struction, whether formwork or precast components are ples were identified. The respondents profile is shown in
used. Similarly, columns or external claddings of repeated Fig. 2.
sizes will reduce the number of mould changes, whether on About 44% of the respondents are contractors, and there
site or in the factory (BCA 2005). are comparable proportions of clients and consultants, total-
Designing for use of standardization and maximization of ling 56%. Over half of the respondents (61.62%) had worked
repetition can contribute to good buildability or con- in the private sector, and those from the public sector and
structability (Griffith and Sidwell 1995; Egan 1998; Nima et quasi-government organizations accounted for 18.18% and
al. 1999; Low and Abeyegoonasekera 2001). Repetition of 13.13%, respectively (note that 7.07% of respondents indi-
simple work activities is highly productive because of re- cated they had worked in more than one sector). With regard
duced man-hours for any given task, whereas dissimila1r to the length of experience, two thirds of the respondents are
activities entail greater requirement and organization of re- indeed experienced. Among them, one third has more than
sources (Griffith 1984). Meanwhile, standardization helps in 20 years experience, one-third has between 10 and 20 years
improving productivity and quality and reducing construc- experience, and 30.30% has less than 10 years experience.
tion duration (CII Australia 1996). Lastly, as over 84% of the respondents has their major expe-
rience in building works, the results are particularly relevant
4.2.7. Prefabrication to the focus of this research.
By making use of precast components, substantial on-site
operations can be reduced, thereby improving site productiv- 5.3. Data analysis
ity (BCA 2005). If prefabrication is to be used, designers The multivariate technique of factor analysis (FA) is used
considerations should focus on the economics of repetition to extract principal factors that present relationships among
and standardization, simplifying the sequence of fixings, and sets of interrelated variables. Being a method of data reduc-
giving sufficient details for all the elements to fit together as tion, FA is an interdependence analyzing tool where all vari-
intended (Ferguson 1989). Furthermore, using standardiza- ables are considered concurrently, each related to all others
tion and prefabrication together would ultimately facilitate (Hair et al. 1998). FA comprises a number of statistical tech-
better management (Gibb 2001). niques for simplifying complex sets of data with a minimum
loss of information (Kline 1994). Figure 3 illustrates graphi-
5. Questionnaire survey cally the procedures for grouping the 63 buildability attrib-
utes into the buildability factors and further consolidating
5.1. Formulation of the questionnaire into the key buildability factors.
Respondents to the questionnaire were requested to indi- As described previously, the large number (63) of
cate their rankings of the degree of importance or impact buildability attributes was identified through literature re-
that each individual attribute has on buildability according to view and structured interviews with experienced practitio-
the five-point Likert scale (i.e., a value of 5 denotes very ners. These buildability attributes were all incorporated into
© 2006 NRC Canada
Wong et al. 801

Fig. 2. Profile of the respondents to the questionnaire.

Others (7.07%) Others (3.03%) Others (6.06%)
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Quasi- Through
Client Government Civil works web
(26.26%) (13.13%) ⱕ10 years (9.09%) (20.20%)
(30.30%)
Public
(18.18%)

Consultant
(29.29%) >10 years
and
ⱕ20 years
(33.33%) Building By post
works (79.80%)
(84.85%)
Private
(61.62%)
Contractor
(44.44%)
>20 years
(33.33%)

Roles Major project Years of Work nature Collection

sectors experience media

the questionnaire to set a comprehensive scene for respon- descending order of the percentage of variance explained)
dents to indicate their relative importance. The technique of are shown in Table 3.
FA is then employed by utilizing the Statistical Package for To provide a more succinct representation of buildability
Social Science (SPSS), which groups the attributes into a for ease of understanding by practitioners, the 16 extracted
smaller number of significant factors, i.e., the buildability buildability factors were further consolidated into nine key
factors, such that these factors together explain most of the buildability factors (key BFs) according to their similarities
variance (i.e., a measure of the deviations from a perfectly in coverage. Table 4 shows the key BFs, which are ranked in
correlated state) of the large number of attributes repre- order of variance explained.
sented by these factors.
Before the analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test, 5.4. Validity of the key buildability factors
which is an index for comparing the magnitudes of the ob- The nine key BFs have been found consistent with the
served correlation coefficients with those of the partial cor- findings of a recent research study on constructability for the
relation coefficients, was used to measure sampling Malaysian construction industry. The six principles of design
adequacy. The KMO value achieved is 0.734 and is within phase constructability principles as identified in the study
the “middling” range (Norusis 1994), thus indicating satis- (Zin et al. 2004) are as follows: (i) design for simple assembly
factory sampling adequacy. (consistent with key BF7); (ii) encourage standardization
Based on the 99 valid samples collected from the ques- and repetition (consistent with key BF5); (iii) design for pre-
tionnaire returns, the buildability factors were extracted with fabrication, preassembly, or modularization (consistent with
Varimax rotation, which is an FA technique of maintaining key BF6); (iv) analyze accessibility of the job site (embraced
independence among the factors. The aim of the technique is in key BF 4); (v) design for the available skills (embraced in
to reduce the number of attributes by grouping together re- key BF1); and (vi) consider the suitability of designed mate-
lated ones. According to Hair et al. (1992), only factor load- rials (embraced in key BF1).
ings (i.e., correlation of the attributes with the factors) of It can be seen that the principles as identified in the inde-
0.55 or above are considered significant, if the number of pendent Malaysian study are all embraced in the key
samples is between 86 and 100. As long as the sample size buildability factors. Similar to Hong Kong, the Malaysian con-
is 100 or larger, this loading is also interpreted as practically struction industry has been undergoing a shift from
significant (Hair et al. 1992). The number of buildability labour-intensive construction to more mechanized methods of
factors extracted was determined based on the percentage of prefabrication to increase productivity and quality (CIRC 2001;
total variance of successive factors achieved (Hair et al. CIDB and Chan 2004). Hence, the validity of the key
1998). The total variance is the sum of the variance of each buildability factors as identified in this study can be supported.
attribute. For 63 attributes, each of which is standardized to
have a variance of 1, the total variance is hence 63. Alto- 5.5. Multiple discriminant analysis
gether, 16 factors were extracted, accounting for more than The technique of multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) is
77% of variance. The loadings and the interpretation of the used to identify if there are significant differences between
extracted factors, i.e., the buildability factors, are reasonably the respondent groups in their perception of buildability at-
consistent. The interpretations of the 16 extracted factors (in tributes. This is the appropriate technique where the depend-
© 2006 NRC Canada
802 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Fig. 3. Procedures of identifying buildability factors and key buildability factors of designs.

Literature review

Identification of Buildability
Attributes of designs Interviews with industry
practitioners

Questionnaire
Survey

Data analysis by
Factor Analysis

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

rrrrrrrrr
Table 3. Buildability factors (BF1–BF16) extracted by factor analysis with Varimax rotation (N = 99).
Cumulative
Variance variance
Buildability attributes making up each factor explained (%) explained (%)
BF1: allowing economic use of plant and labour skills
Allowing use of know-how and labour skills available locally
Allowing use of plant and equipment available locally
Allowing economical use of labour and plant (e.g., balancing between labour and plant used to
reduce overall cost)
Causing less environmental nuisance (e.g., noise, vibration, waste water, chemical waste, and dust)
to surroundings for urban sites
Causing less environmental nuisance (e.g., noise, vibration, waste water, chemical waste, and dust)
to surroundings for suburban sites
Allowing sufficient working space for labour and plant 8.964 8.964
BF2: standardization and repetition
Uncomplicated geometry, layout, and shape for typical floor buildings
Allowing use of standard details with lots of repetitions, thereby facilitating learning curve of
workers to be built up fast for typical floor buildings
Allowing a high degree of standardization and repetition for typical floor buildings
Allowing modular layout of components 7.184 16.148
BF3: allowing optimal mix of prefabricated works and on-site works
Enabling the adoption of single integrated elements (e.g., whole toilet completed with sanitary
ware, piping, and finishes) at the discretion of contractor
Optimizing the mix of offsite work (e.g., prefabrication, precasting, and preassembly) and on-site
work (e.g., final levelling and fixing)
Allowing prefabrication off site for typical floor buildings 6.194 22.342
BF4: allowing adaptation by contractor on site without extensive rework
Allowing adaptation (e.g., piping around obstacles instead of penetrations) by contractor on site
without extensive rework

© 2006 NRC Canada

Wong et al. 803

Table 3 (continued).
Cumulative
Variance variance
Buildability attributes making up each factor explained (%) explained (%)
Allowing flexibility in erection and trade sequences (e.g., ground floor slab laid after all upper
floors)
Allowing easy connection and interfacing between components 6.156 28.497
BF5: updated and coordinated design documents
Updating specifications and removing ambiguities and misunderstandings
Coordinating drawings and specifications
Dimensional coordination
Providing and facilitating combined services drawings 6.014 34.511
BF6: simplifying and streamlining nontypical building designs
Allowing use of standard details with lots of repetitions, thereby facilitating learning curve of
workers to be built up fast for nontypical floor buildings
Allowing a high degree of standardization and repetition for nontypical floor buildings
Uncomplicated geometry, layout, and shape for nontypical floor buildings
Allowing prefabrication off site for nontypical floor buildings 4.963 39.473
BF7: facilitating temporary works
Designing for temporary plant and equipment anchorages in permanent structure
Designing for optimum use of plant and equipment
Designing with knowledge of plant and equipment capacities 4.725 44.198
BF8: designing to suit site conditions
Thorough site and ground investigation (e.g., boreholes, topography survey, cable detection, survey
on adjacent buildings) for urban sites
Designing for safe construction below ground
Thorough site and ground investigation (e.g., boreholes, topography survey, cable detection, survey
on adjacent buildings) for suburban sites
Considering effects of below-ground work on surrounding buildings (e.g., destabilizing foundations) 4.685 48.883
BF9: enabling efficient site layout, storage, and site access
Enabling efficient site layout, storage, and site access for urban sites
Enabling efficient site layout, storage, and site access for suburban sites 4.327 53.21
Factor 10: designing for available materials, fittings, products, and subassemblies
When imported materials, fittings, products or subassemblies are specified, consider supply condi- 4.239 57.449
tions (e.g., checking lead times and foreseeable shortages)
Factor 11: designing to avoid adverse weather
Designing for locally available materials, fittings, products and subassemblies (including imports).
Considering possible timing to avoid carrying out structural work, external finishes, etc. during
rainy or typhoon season for high-rise buildings
Considering possible timing to avoid carrying out structural work, external finishes, etc. during 3.928 61.377
rainy or typhoon season for low-rise buildings
BF12: designing for safe sequence of trades
Allowing safe sequence of trades (e.g., heavy mechanical and electrical plant hoisted into position 3.904 65.281
before building is fully enclosed) for low-rise buildings
BF13: allowing visualization of finished work
Designing to aid visualization of finished work 3.372 68.653
BF14: accurate positioning of pipe sleeves and penetrations
Showing accurate positions for pipe sleeves and penetrations 3.074 71.726
BF15: allowing innovative construction techniques
Designing to allow for innovative construction techniques to be proposed by contractor 2.951 74.677
BF16: allowing for a wide range of materials
Allowing use of wide range of materials to fulfil required performance 2.762 77.439

© 2006 NRC Canada

804 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Table 4. Consolidated key buildability factors (key BF1 – key BF9) ranked in order of variance explained.
Cumulative variance
Encompassed factors extracted by factor analysis explained (%)
Key BF1: allowing economic use of contractor resources
Factor 1: allowing economic use of plant and labour skills
Factor 7: facilitating temporary works
Factor 10: designing for available materials, fittings, products, and subassemblies 17.93
Key BF2: enabling design requirements to be easily visualized and coordinated by site staff
Factor 5: updated and coordinated design documents
Factor 13: allowing visualization of finished work
Factor 14: accurate positioning of pipe sleeves and penetrations 30.39
Key BF3: enabling contractors to develop and adopt alternative construction details
Factor 4: enabling contractors to develop and adopt alternative construction details
Factor 15: allowing innovative construction techniques
Factor 16: allowing for a wide range of materials 42.26
Key BF4: enabling contractors to overcome restrictive site conditions
Factor 8: designing to suit site conditions
Factor 9: enabling efficient site layout, storage, and site access 51.27
Key BF5: enabling standardization and repetition
Factor 2: enabling standardization and repetition 58.45
Key BF6: enabling freedom of choice between prefabricated and on-site works
Factor 3: enabling freedom of choice between prefabricated and on-site works 64.65
Key BF7: enabling simplification of construction details in case of nonrepetitive elements
Factor 6: simplifying and streamlining nontypical building designs 69.61
Key BF8: minimize the impact due to adverse weather by enabling a more flexible construction program
Factor 11: minimize the impact due to adverse weather by enabling a more flexible construction program 73.54
Key BF9: allowing design to achieve safe construction sequence on site
Factor 12: allowing design to achieve safe construction sequence on site 77.44

ent variable is categorical (nominal or non-metric) and the low-ground work on surrounding buildings; Designing for
independent variable is metric (in the form of a scale). It is locally available materials, fittings, products and subassem-
based on the testing of the hypothesis that the group means blies (including imports); When imported materials, fittings,
of a set of independent variables for two or more groups are products or subassemblies are specified, consider supply
equal. The group means are calculated by averaging the conditions (e.g., checking lead times and forseeable short-
discriminant scores, which are obtained by multiplying each ages); Specifying robust and suitable materials and compo-
independent variable by its corresponding weight and then nents or giving directions for protecting fragile items (e.g.,
adding these products together for all the individuals within precast stairs); Designing to facilitate care and protection of
a particular group before dividing by the group size. For completed works by contractors; Allowing use of wide range
testing the statistical significance of the discriminant func- of materials to fulfil required performance; and Giving rise
tion, it is computed by comparing the statistical distributions to lower cutting wastages (e.g., tiles, rebars). As shown in
of the discriminant scores for the groups (Hair et al. 1998). Table 5, by and large, clients ranked these buildability at-
In simple terms, the MDA is used in this study to evaluate tributes higher in terms of their importance or impact on the
the discriminant scores for the three groups of respondents buildability of designs than consultants and contractors did.
representing different roles in a project team, i.e., client, Exceptions are the buildability attributes of Designing for
consultant, and contractor. The results show that there are locally available materials, fittings, products and subassem-
statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among the re- blies (including imports); Allowing use of wide range of ma-
spondents with respect to several buildability attributes as terials to fulfil required performance; and Giving rise to
shown in Table 5. The correlation coefficients between the lower cutting wastages (e.g., tiles, rebars), for which the
buildability attributes and the respective discriminant func- rankings by the contractors were the highest. It seems that
tions in Table 5 highlight those buildability attributes which clients were more concerned with safety issues (in respect of
differentiate among the three groups of practitioners. The workers and adjacent buildings) and uninterrupted construc-
differentiating buildability attributes are Designing for mini- tion. Contractors, on the other hand, seem to be concerned
mum construction time below ground; Designing for safe
construction below ground; Considering effects of be-

© 2006 NRC Canada

Wong et al. 805

Table 5. Significantly different buildability attributes among the respondents using discriminant analysis.
Group mean
Standardized canonical
Buildability attributea discriminant function coefficientb Clients Consultants Contractors
Below ground (p = 0.046)
Designing for minimum construction time below ground 0.306 3.94 3.41 3.60
Designing for safe construction below ground –0.141 4.32 3.91 4.29
Considering effects of below-ground work on surrounding 0.944 4.65 3.97 4.38
buildings, e.g., destabilizing foundations
Materials, fittings, products, and subassemblies (p = 0.009)
Designing for locally available materials, fittings, products 0.584 3.90 3.53 4.13
and subassemblies (including imports)
When imported materials, fittings, products or subassem- 0.575 4.32 3.78 4.25
blies are specified, consider supply conditions (e.g.,
checking lead times and foreseeable shortages)
Specifying robust and suitable materials and components or –0.815 3.87 3.81 3.73
giving directions for protecting fragile items (e.g., precast
stairs)
Designing to facilitate care and protection of completed 0.420 3.74 3.31 3.63
works by contractors
Material systems (p = 0.023)
Allowing use of wide range of materials to fulfil required 1.046 3.65 3.53 4.09
performance
Giving rise to lower cutting wastages (e.g., tiles, rebars) –0.121 3.77 3.56 3.83
Note: The group means represent the mean ranking of the respective groups of respondents according to a Likert scale of 1 (lowest impact) to 5 (high-
est impact) with respect to buildability. The values in bold represent the largest group mean within the respondent groups
a
Statistical significance is given in parentheses.
b
Relative importance of the independent variables to the overall discrimination.

with the availability and flexibility in the use of materials with enhanced buildability. To play a more proactive role,
and minimizing their wastage. contractors can also make use of the research results to as-
sist designers in the pre-construction stage. Not only does
this allow efficient resources allocation, but it also enhances
6. Conclusion the avoidance of any potential buildability problems, since
Buildability is an abstract concept that can underpin the non-fulfilment of the key BFs can be easily spotted in the
sustainable development of building designs as long as the early design stage.
factors affecting it are identified and clearly defined. To
achieve this, a questionnaire survey was carried out on 63 7. Recommended further studies
buildability attributes as identified through a literature re-
view and structured interviews with experienced practitio- With these research findings, designers can further en-
ners. Factor analysis (FA) was used to extract 16 buildability hance their understanding of the buildability concept.
factors representing the broad spectrum of buildability attrib- Through extraction of significant buildability factors (BFs)
utes for building works, which were then consolidated into by the technique of factor analysis (FA), designers should be
nine key buildability factors (BFs) for ease of understanding able to realize the impacts of their designs on the down-
and recall. These key BFs can form a checklist for use by stream activities. Eventually, improvement of buildability
the design team in their attempts to facilitate smooth con- can be achieved, leading to more economic use of resources
struction. The key BF, namely allowing economic use of during construction. Yet, to assess more objectively and sys-
contractor resources, is ranked the highest in terms of the tematically the extent to which designers can contribute to
level of variance explainable by the perceptions of the re- buildability, it is recommended that further studies should
spondents. In other words, to develop a buildable design, focus on establishing a quantification model for the assess-
percipient efforts should be made to ensure economic use of ment of buildability. The model can then be used for setting
contractor resources, which can be effected through allowing up benchmarks of buildability, which will lead to the formu-
economic use of plant and labour skills, facilitating tempo- lation of incentive measures motivating designers to develop
rary works, and designing for available materials, fittings, more buildable designs.
products, and subassemblies.
The nine key BFs can also serve as guidelines in the client Acknowledgement
task of assessing buildability performance of designs. Wher-
ever possible, designers should be given clearly defined The work described in this paper was fully supported by a
guiding principles in their mandates for developing designs grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong

© 2006 NRC Canada

806 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 33, 2006

Special Administrative Region, China (RGC Project Gibb, A.G.F. 2001. Standardization and pre-assembly distinguish-
PolyU5006/02E). ing myth from reality using case study research. Construction
Management and Economics, 19(3): 307–315.
Glavinich, T.E. 1995. Improving constructability during design
phase. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 1(2): 73–76.
References Gray, C., and Hughes, W. 2001. Building design management.
Adams, S. 1989. Practical buildability. Construction Industry Re- Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
search and Information Association (CIRIA), London, UK. Griffith, A. 1984. Buildability: the effect of design and manage-
ment on construction (a case study). Department of Building,
Ballal, T.M.A., and Sher, W.D. 2003. Artificial neural network for
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
the selection of buildable structural systems. Engineering, Con-
Griffith, A., and Sidwell, A.C. 1995. Constructability in building
struction and Architectural Management, 10(4): 263–271.
and engineering projects. Macmillan Press Ltd., Basingstoke,
BCA. 2005. Code of practice on buildable design. Building and
UK.
Construction Authority (BCA), Singapore.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E.,Tatham, R.L., and Black, W. 1992.
Chen, S.E., McGeorge, D., and Varnam, B.I. 1991. Report to the
Multivariate data analysis. 4th ed. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper
Government Architect, New South West Wales, Buildability
Saddle River, N.J.
Stage 1. TUNRA, University of Newcastle.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W. 1998.
CIDB, and Chan, E. 2004. Malaysia. In The construction sector in Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper
Asian economies. Edited by M. Anson, Y.H. Chiang, and J. Saddle River, N.J.
Raftery. Spon Press, London, UK. pp. 325–357. Kline, P. 1994. An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge, Lon-
CII. 1986. Constructability: a primer. Construction Industry Insti- don, UK.
tute (CII), University of Texas, Austin, Tex. Low, S.P., and Abeyegoonasekera, B. 2001. Integrating buildability
CII Australia. 1996. Constructability manual. Construction Indus- in ISO 9000 quality management systems: case study of a con-
try Institute Australia (CII Australia), Adelaide, Australia. dominium project. Building and Environment, 36: 299–312.
CIRC. 2001. Construct for excellence. Report of the Construction Nima, M.A., Abdul-Kadir, M.R., and Jaafar, M.S. 1999. Evaluation
Industry Review Committee (CIRC), Hong Kong. of the engineer personnel role in enhancing the project
CIRIA. 1983. Association buildability: an assessment. Construc- constructability. Facilities, 17(11): 423–430.
tion Industry Research and Information (CIRIA), London, UK. Nima, M.A., Abdul-Kadir, M.R., Jaafar, M.S., and Alghulami,
Construction 21. 1999. Construction 21 steering committee. Minis- R.G. 2002. Constructability implementation: a survey of the
try of Manpower and Ministry of National Development, Singa- Malaysian construction industry. Construction Management and
pore. Economics, 19(8): 819–829.
Egan, J. 1998. Rethinking construction: the report of the construc- Norusis, M.J. 1994. SPSS professional statistics 6.1. SPSS Inc.,
tion task force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on Chicago, Ill.
the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK con- Uhlik, F.T., and Lores, G.V. 1998. Assessment of constructability
struction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Re- practices among general contractors. Journal of Architectural
gions, London, UK. Engineering, 4(3): 113–123.
Ferguson, I. 1989. Buildability in practice. Mitchell Publishing Young, J.A., III. 1998. Constructability in the design firm. Cost
Company Limited, London, UK. Engineering, 40(2): 33–35.
Fox, S., Marsh, L., and Cockerham, G. 2002. Constructability Zin, R.M., Nesan, L.J., and Mohammed, A.H. 2004.
rules: guidelines for successful application to bespoke buildings. Constructability assessment framework. Journal of Building and
Construction Management and Economics, 20(8): 689–696. Construction Management, 9(1): 44–58.

© 2006 NRC Canada

View publication stats