What Constructability Review Practices Help Projects Most?

Independent Project Analysis (IPA) has been measuring Constructability Review use since the mid-1990s. Constructability Reviews have emerged as the most used Value Improving Practice and are applicable to every type of capital project. Over the years, our measure has been binary: done vs. not done. Our new metric, based on decades of IPA research, has further identified Constructability Review (CR) practices that improve outcomes for those projects that use CRs.

What Is Constructability?

The Construction Industry Institute defines constructability as, “The optimum integration of construction knowledge and experience in planning, engineering, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project objectives.” Achieving this optimum integration requires:

• Proper staffing of project teams
• Established constructability programs
• Structured Constructability Reviews

What Is a Constructability Review and Why Is It Important?

A Constructability Review is a systematic assessment of a construction project’s design, specifications, and execution strategy to identify potential issues that could affect its feasibility, efficiency, and cost effectiveness during construction.

When IPA evaluates a project, the Constructability Review must meet these five requirements to be considered complete:

• Done using facilitated working sessions
• Participation of a multifunctional team, including construction input
• Conducted during FEL, prior to authorization
• Concepts applied to the entire project scope
• Documented results, including a list of proposed actions

IPA research has long shown that CR use is correlated with better project definition (Figure 1), which is the primary driver of improved predictability and execution competitiveness.

Moreover, CR use is correlated with more competitive targets and better outcomes (Figure 2).

What Does a Constructability Program Include?

A constructability program is an ongoing effort implemented through appropriate staffing of projects, training, tools, and corporate support. Experienced construction professionals provide input into the project design and execution plan following a structured, repeatable work process.

Constructability programs guide engineering to focus on construction requirements. Because construction personnel function as part of the project’s early planning and design team, an effective constructability program changes the focus of engineering. Engineering and construction work are planned together with the construction needs driving the engineering approach. Engineering details are designed with immediate construction input to more closely optimize project costs and schedule. Engineering schedules are crafted based on optimal construction sequences, as opposed to construction schedules based on the promised drawing issue and material delivery dates.

Constructability Reviews generate ideas for improvement. Proposed ideas that target construction cost, time, or safety are documented, prioritized, and assigned for follow-up, including:

• Design sequence to facilitate construction
• Modifications to designs to avoid difficulties or inefficiencies in construction
• Changes to the execution strategy that consider construction
• Modifications to site layouts to provide crane access, adequate laydown space, and access for materials and personnel
• Modifications to methods of construction to improve safety, cost, and/or schedule
• Modifications to schedules that improve efficiency during construction

How Does IPA Measure the Quality of Constructability Reviews?

Following IBC 2022, IPA began gathering data to measure the quality of Constructability Reviews. While maintaining our existing yes/no measure of CR use, which has been a reliable predictor of project results for over 30 years, we will now measure the depth of CR Best Practices (see Figure 3) in individual project evaluations, including pacesetter, prospective, and closeout evaluations, and in our site and system benchmarkings. Our research allows us to provide recommendations to implement these identified Best Practices.

What Does a High Quality Constructability Review Look Like?

Our research identified seven additional practices that go beyond the minimum requirements for a good CR and result in measurable improvements to project outcomes:

• Constructability Reviews conducted in both FEL 2 and FEL 3
• Project team includes the Owner Construction Manager
• Project team conducted a site visit as part of the review process
• Robust documentation was provided to the team prior to the review
• Robust analysis/review that covers a range of issues
• Assignment of responsibility for identified action items
• Documented estimated benefits of each idea

These practices all contribute to high‑quality CRs and improve project outcomes above and beyond basic CR use. CRs provide value in FEL 2 and FEL 3, and projects that use them in both phases have better outcomes, although only about 50 percent of projects using CRs do them in both phases. Having an owner construction manager on the team for the last review is a more common practice, used by about 80 percent of projects that did CRs. Having this function on the team and participating in the CR helps ensure important topics are addressed and minimizes changes during construction. Conducting a site visit, though not always possible, was also used by 80 percent of projects that used CRs and is another important characteristic of high‑quality CRs.

Among the additional practices, those used the least are robust documentation and robust analysis/review. The elements comprising robust documentation and review are outlined in Figure 4.

Another commonly missing element of a high‑quality CR is the estimate of benefits derived from implementing the identified CR recommendations. Identified actions that have clear benefits, especially those requiring low effort to complete them, are more likely to be implemented than those with unclear benefits. Finally, while two-thirds of projects that did CRs named a specific responsible party for each idea generated, that means that one-third did not, increasing the possibility that the recommendations will not be executed and the identified benefits will not be delivered.

Why Does It Matter?

As mentioned earlier, IPA research has highlighted the value of conducting Constructability Reviews. Continuing research to identify Best Practices for higher‑impact CRs shows additional ways to make this key practice even better—and to get even better results in schedule duration (Figure 5) and cost and schedule predictability (Figure 6), important project metrics that have faced performance declines in recent years.

As challenges to project execution—including supply chain issues, labor shortages, and staffing concerns—increase, fine tuning the use of this important practice gives capital projects organizations another tool to drive continuous improvement.

Learn More About Constructability Best Practices

Complete the form below to learn more about how improved Constructability Reviews practices can boost your projects’ outcomes.