Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 8 results ...

Belayutham, S, Che Ibrahim, C K I, Zulkifli, A R and Ibrahim, N (2019) A dual-functional social innovation process model for low-cost houses through university-enabled initiative. Construction Innovation , 19(02), 126–48.

Dowsett, R, Green, M, Sexton, M and Harty, C (2019) Projecting at the project level: MMC supply chain integration roadmap for small housebuilders. Construction Innovation, 19(02), 193–211.

Echeverria-Valiente, E, Garcia-Alvarado, R, Celis-D’Amico, F and Saelzer-Fuica, G (2019) Integrated design experiences for energy-efficient housing in Chile. Construction Innovation , 19(02), 236–55.

Golizadeh, H, Hosseini, M R, Edwards, D J, Abrishami, S, Taghavi, N and Banihashemi, S (2019) Barriers to adoption of RPAs on construction projects: a task–technology fit perspective. Construction Innovation, 19(02), 149–69.

Mahamadu, A, Mahdjoubi, L, Booth, C, Manu, P and Manu, E (2019) Building information modelling (BIM) capability and delivery success on construction projects. Construction Innovation, 19(02), 170–92.

Mock, B and O’Connor, J T (2019) Owner and contractor solution strategies for industrial commissioning. Construction Innovation , 19(02), 256–79.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Commissioning; Startup; Industrial construction; PICK chart;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 1471-4175
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-09-2018-0079
  • Abstract:
    The purpose of this study is to discover which solution strategies to common industrial commissioning and startup (CSU) problems (Hot Spots) owner and contractor organizations identify as most effective and to identify which strategies are identified by one or both organization types. Design/methodology/approach Ratings for the relative value provided by strategies, and the effort required to implement strategies were solicited from CSU industry experts employed by owner or contractor organizations via a survey. Quantitative modelling using the Possible, Implement, Challenge, Kill (PICK) chart method distinguished high-value, low-effort strategies from other strategies. Findings Owners and contractors identify distinct sets of CSU solution strategies as high value and low effort, with some overlap. Of 178 total strategies, 40 (22.5 per cent) were identified by owners and 34 (19.1 per cent) by contractors, with 19 (10.7 per cent) of those strategies in common. Strategies with the greatest differences in opinions between owners and contractors are also identified. Research limitations/implications Research findings are limited to industrial-type, operational systems-intensive facilities. Similarities may exist with other systems-intensive project types, such as some commercial or infrastructure projects. The survey sample size is relatively small (n = 35), but close to that of other CSU-related surveys. The majority of survey participants were based in North America at the time of participation. Further, the number of contractor and owner participants differed slightly. Practical implications CSU managers and personnel should consider using high-value, low-effort strategies before resorting to other less effective strategies, as applicable on their projects. Depending on which organization is executing CSU, or if both organization types share CSU responsibilities, different solution strategies may be most effective. Originality/value Differences in owner and contractor perspectives and opinions have been noted in other aspects of the project lifecycle but never for CSU solution strategies. Use of the strategies identified will support more effective CSU execution.

Rose, T, Manley, K and Widen, K (2019) Do firm-level barriers to construction product innovation adoption vary according to position in the supply chain?. Construction Innovation , 19(02), 212–35.

Wang, Z and Rezazadeh Azar, E (2019) BIM-based draft schedule generation in reinforced concrete-framed buildings. Construction Innovation , 19(02), 280–94.