The Construction Productivity Problem

To view the figures and tables associated with this article, please refer to the flipbook above.

In 2017, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) published a sobering study showing that construction industry productivity gains have lagged significantly behind those of other industries for many years. In fact, MGI concluded that very little progress has been made in construction productivity for several decades.

In a 2023 report, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found much the same thing. Their work was published in the paper, “The Strange and Awful Path of Productivity in the U.S. Construction Sector.” The report showed that inflation-adjusted productivity, defined as “value creation per worker,” has made no net progress since the 1950s. It further concluded that the construction sector’s deteriorating efficiency in transforming intermediate construction goods—essentially the raw materials of construction—into finished products is largely responsible.

In the wake of these and other critical reports on construction productivity, many individuals and organizations have scoured the data to try to better understand it. And the news is not uniformly bad. Innovative processes and technology have improved many segments of the industry and will continue to do so. Building information modeling (BIM), for example, is revolutionizing design. Modular assembly is doing the same for construction. However, the aggregated data for the industry at large shows that productivity has been in a neutral to negative trend for many years.

MGI and others disagree on the cause of the problem. Many theories have been proposed, including aversion to innovation due to disproportionate risk sharing, contractual roadblocks that discourage teamwork, the fractured nature of the industry that “silos” its players, and deterioration of construction document quality. One thing all agreed on, however, was that structural engineers and other designers have enormous power in setting the stage for productivity improvement. By improving the constructability of design, they can change construction.

In response to the productivity challenge, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) formed PRO: An ACI Center of Excellence for Advancing Productivity, in 2023. PRO is ACI’s third Center of Excellence and focuses on leveraging ACI’s global leadership in concrete materials, design, and construction to help advance industry productivity. Like the other two Centers, PRO is a separate 501(c)(3) entity with its own vision and mission, Board of Directors, and bylaws. Being under the ACI umbrella, however, provides the benefit of the Institute’s vast resources. Instrumental in PRO’s efforts are structural engineers, as they can help pave the way for success.

PRO began work by uniting leaders from across the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry to identify productivity barriers and find solutions. Shortly after its formation, PRO invited a diverse group of structural engineers, contractors, materials suppliers, and others to meet at ACI World Headquarters in Farmington Hills, Michigan. The objective was to identify strategies for attacking the productivity challenge.

Six strategic initiatives resulted from this meeting:

PRO defines constructability as “the effective integration of construction knowledge into the planning and design of a project to optimize its construction cost and schedule and maximize its value to the owner.” The following section begins to explore the first initiative in PRO’s Strategic Plan, with future articles diving deeper into the Center’s other five initiatives.

To create maximum benefit, this integration of construction knowledge must begin early in design, which contrasts with the traditional design-bid-build method of project delivery which can provide low initial costs, but rarely the lowest final cost. Nevertheless, owners and others often use bidding as a cost management tool.

When comparing design-bid-build versus design-build methods, it is important to note the various degrees of design assist available. Examples in section one of PRO’s Constructability Blueprint, “Value of Design Collaboration,” include strategic purchasing and proactive problem solving in the design-assist model as a means for increasing value over the project duration. In contrast, adversarial change orders in the design-bid-build model result in decreasing value over the project duration. The design-assist method is a collaborative effort to enhance common project goals, while design-bid-build silos each group in to focusing on their own self-interest. Although design-build arrangements aren’t always possible, improving trusted design collaboration is key.

Improvements in constructability require changes in this mindset. Maximizing collaboration between designers and contractors is the key to positive change. It improves constructability and, hence, productivity.

Constructable designs ideally include input from owners, materials suppliers, subcontractors, contractors, and others. Solutions are identified early in the design process, which removes roadblocks, reduces later Requests for Information (RFI), and maximizes project value.

At the early stages of design, the design team should include experienced staff who can provide valuable input and insights, even if this staff doesn’t work on the project to its conclusion. Envision a reverse engineering approach where the contractor and designer establish a construction concept before the design begins. The design can then evolve to achieve the construction plan which elevates the productivity of both design and construction. Ideally, design engineers would have spent significant time in the field seeing issues they create which hampered productivity or caused delays. This is where staff mentoring plays an important role. However, due to increasing distances between project locations and designers’ offices, reduced budgets for field services, and other factors, this first-hand experience seems to be less and less likely to occur.

Engineers who wish to include constructability reviews and ideas early in their design process often struggle to obtain access to trusted individuals that add value and needed knowledge. In most situations, the concrete constructor of the project has yet to be decided. Highly valued contractors may be reluctant to spend time and expense providing suggestions or a construction plan for a project they may never be awarded, or they may skew their bids in either direction by providing a level of knowledge about the project that is not consistent among all bidders.

The Harmon Tower in Las Vegas, Nevada, represents an extreme example of a capable structural design lacking constructability and trusted collaboration amongst the project stakeholders. The tower was designed to be a 49-story building; however, the project was stopped, and litigation revealed construction defects and other issues. The unfinished tower only reached 28 floors and was ultimately demolished in 2015. Collaboration and teamwork were relatively nonexistent between project teams. The design was completed and issued to the contractor as both were entrenched in defensive silos, and lack of trust and blame was prevalent. The structural design documents reflected a design that ultimately could not be constructed, such as link beam reinforcement for shear walls that could not be installed. Instead of contactor-designer collaboration to address constructability issues, and with a determination to meet a demanding schedule, construction proceeded with the installation of reinforcement that did not meet the design requirements. The later investigation of 2,800 different areas of the building found that 1,800 of the locations were grossly deficient in reinforcement. Combining legal, consulting, and demolition fees, the total damages from the project were more than $1 billion.

In contrast, The Bellevue in Bellevue, Washington, is a three-tower project highlighting the benefits of ethical, trusting contractor-designer collaboration toward a constructable design. Consisting of hotel, retail, and parking areas, a major structural challenge was minimizing the amount of transfer beams for the columns connecting the three areas. To achieve this, two structural concepts were presented by the designer, one included the use of a large transfer floor while the second presented slant columns as an option for connection. The final proposal was a combination of the two, which presented a messy, expensive, and nearly non-constructable design. To move forward, the project stakeholders united and collaborated on a path forward. To begin, they established a goal to minimize the number of columns within the towers, agreed to let the structural team control the column layout, and sought the architecture to fit. The designer’s result was a decrease from 20 columns to 12, elimination of two outrigger beams, and reduction from 14 column transfers to eight, resulting in a less expensive project for the owner and a desirable aesthetic for the architect due to a constructable design for the contractor.

PRO envisions a concrete industry that quickly and effectively evaluates, shares, and adopts technology, materials, and processes that improve the constructability and productivity of design and construction for concrete structures of all types. PRO and its members can advance new technologies and processes that improve productivity well beyond historic levels. The Center is seeking involvement from all industry stakeholders, especially structural engineers who wish to be industry leaders in advancing concrete design and construction.

Of note to structural engineers: ACI recently launched a new Certificate Program that covers planning, layout, project delivery, project site drivers, and structural system concept design. ACI Certificate Programs, delivered through ACI University, encourage concrete professionals to gain in-depth knowledge about topics in concrete materials, design, and construction by following a defined online course of study. Once a Certificate Program has been completed, participants receive a certificate and digital badge that can be used on résumés, job board profiles, social media, email signatures, and more. The Concrete Constructability Certificate Program reviews structural system selection, specification of concrete, selection of reinforcement, and testing and inspection. The program serves as a great introduction or refresher to constructability issues for designers with various levels of experience.

PRO also released its Constructability Blueprint, which serves as a starting point for improving construction productivity and project value. The Blueprint will be updated, expanded, and modified to ensure the best and most current guidelines for advancing productivity. It represents the recommendations of PRO’s members, who are collectively committed to continually improving the constructability of design and productivity. A PDF copy of the Constructability Blueprint can be obtained from any PRO member or at concreteproductivity.org.

As a catalyst for overcoming barriers to advancing concrete construction productivity, PRO plans to empower and motivate the next generation of structural engineers and constructors to be actively involved in supporting improvements in design and construction methodologies. In addition to the initiatives and resources previously mentioned, the Center’s core functions include:

• Industry outreach and awareness
• Advancing automation
• Interaction with ACI technical committees on constructability
• Technology validation
• Construction productivity resources
• Knowledge transfer and professional development

Several forward-thinking, industry-leading organizations have already joined the Center as members. PRO membership is open to individuals and organizations interested in advancing concrete design and construction. This includes industry leaders, concrete contractors, structural designers, construction companies, concrete producers, manufacturers, federal and state agencies, and more. To learn more about PRO or to become a member, visit concreteproductivity.org.

About the Authors

Phil Diekemper is the Executive Director of PRO: An ACI Center of Excellence for Advancing Productivity. Cary Kopczynski is the CEO of CKC Structural Engineers and is a past ACI President. He chairs the PRO Board of Directors. Mike Tholen is the Senior Managing Director, Technical Operations at the American Concrete Institute. He is a member of the PRO Board of Directors.