Development of 4D based performance indicators in construction industry

Abstract

Purpose

Despite its benefits, the uptake of 4D planning in the construction industry is slow and therefore there is a need to demonstrate its value over traditional planning technologies. The aim of this paper is to develop a novel approach that demonstrates the value of 4D tools to the construction industry.

Design/methodology/approach

The research strategy utilised draws on several social science research methods. The data collection methods employed included a literature review, an open‐ended questionnaire, surveys, semi‐structured interviews and the analysis of historical site records. The data collected were analysed using qualitative and quantitative techniques in order to identify, develop and quantify 4D‐based key performance indicators.

Findings

This paper identifies and quantifies 4D‐based key performance indicators using case study analysis. In the case studies it was found that, on average, a 17 per cent increase in planning efficiency were achieved by the use of 4D technology, while the communication efficiency measure illustrated that, on average, a 30 per cent reduction in the time used for meetings was achieved by the use of 4D planning.

Practical implications

The complexity and rapid pace of development in today's construction projects are challenging the industry to find new innovative approaches to delivering projects. 4D tools are emerging as a construction planning technology that addresses some of these challenges. 4D planning has the potential to improve the visualisation of building design and construction, but its implementation in the industry has yet to reach maturity.

Originality/value

The paper highlights technology that enables clients, contractors, planners and sub‐contractors to visualise and understand design and scheduling issues at the early stages of a project.

Citation

Dawood, N. and Sikka, S. (2009), "Development of 4D based performance indicators in construction industry", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 438-458. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980910988357