Table Of ContentCommittee on Advancing the Productivity and Competitiveness of the U.S. Industry Workshop
Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
This report was supported by Sponsor Award No. SB134106Z0011 between the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or
recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-14191-8
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-14191-5
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington
metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and
recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president
of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies
determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government,
the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and
vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
COMMITTEE ON ADVANCING THE COMPETITIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY
OF THE U.S. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
THEODORE C. KENNEDY, BE&K, Inc. (retired), Birmingham, Alabama, Chair
PARVIZ DANESHGARI, MCA, Inc., Flint, Michigan
PATRICIA D. GALLOWAY, Pegasus-Global Holdings, Inc., Cle Elum, Washington
JAMES O. JIRSA, University of Texas, Austin
BEHROKH KHOSHNEVIS, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
FENIOSKY PEÑA-MORA, Columbia University, New York, New York
BENEDICT SCHWEGLER, JR., Walt Disney Imagineering Research and Development, Glendale,
California
DAVID A. SKIVEN, General Motors Corporation (retired), Brighton, Michigan
JORGE A. VANEGAS, Texas A&M University, College Station
NORBERT W. YOUNG, JR., McGraw-Hill Construction, New York, New York
Staff
LYNDA STANLEY, Study Director
HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate
TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator
iv
BOARD ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT
DAVID J. NASH, Dave Nash and Associates, Birmingham, Alabama, Chair
JESUS de la GARZA, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg
BRIAN ESTES, U.S. Navy (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
LUCIA GARSYS, Hillsborough County, Florida
THEODORE C. KENNEDY, BE&K, Inc. (retired), Birmingham, Alabama
PETER MARSHALL, Dewberry Company (retired), Norfolk, Virginia
JAMES PORTER, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (retired), Wilmington, Delaware
E. SARAH SLAUGHTER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
WILLIAM WALLACE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
Staff
GARY FISCHMAN, Director
LYNDA STANLEY, Senior Program Officer
KEVIN LEWIS, Senior Program Officer
HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate
TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator
LAURA TOTH, Program Assistant
v
Acknowledgments
The authoring committee acknowledges the significant contributions made by all of the workshop
participants, who willingly and enthusiastically volunteered their time and ideas.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives
and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s
Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical
comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure
that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study
charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Jack Buffington, University of Arkansas,
G. Edward Gibson, University of Alabama,
Paul Gilbert, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. (retired),
Fletcher “Bud” Griffis, Polytechnic Institute of New York University,
Alex Ivanikiw, Barton Malow Company,
John Kunz, Stanford University,
Egon Larsen, Air Products Inc.,
James Porter, E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company (retired),
Michael Quinlan, Sandia National Laboratories,
Miroslaw Skibniewski, University of Maryland, and
Steve Thomas, Construction Industry Institute.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions,
they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the
report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lloyd Duscha, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain
that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures
and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report
rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
vi
Contents
SUMMARY 1
1 BACKGROUND 9
Characteristics of the Construction Industry, 10
Measuring Construction Productivity, 15
Statement of Task, 17
2 OBSTACLES TO IMPROVING CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTIVITY 19
Limited Use of Automated Equipment and Information Technologies, 20
Attracting and Retaining Skilled Workers and Recent Graduates, 23
Lack of Effective Performance Measures, 24
Lack of Research, 25
3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR BREAKTHROUGH IMPROVEMENTS IN 27
THE U.S. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Identification of Activities That Could Lead to Breakthrough Improvements, 28
Widespread Deployment and Use of Interoperable Technology Applications, 29
Improved Job-Site Efficiency Through More Effective Interfacing
of People, Processes, Materials, Equipment, and Information, 30
Greater Use of Prefabrication, Preassembly, Modularization,
and Off-Site Fabrication Techniques and Processes, 32
Innovative, Widespread Use of Demonstration Installations, 33
Effective Performance Measurement to Drive Efficiency and Support Innovation, 34
4 IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITIES FOR BREAKTHROUGH 37
IMPROVEMENTS: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Driving Change Strategically Through Collaboration, 37
Recommendations for Moving Forward, 39
REFERENCES 41
APPENDIXES
A Biosketches of Committee Members 47
B Workshop Agenda and List of Participants 51
C An International Perspective on Construction Competitiveness 55
and Productivity, by Carl Haas, University of Waterloo
D Technical Change and Its Impact on Construction 76
Productivity, by Paul Goodrum, University of Kentucky
E Creating and Cultivating the Next Generation of Construction 95
Professionals, by Jeffrey Russell, University of Wisconsin-Madison
vii
Summary
In 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requested that the National
Research Council (NRC) appoint an ad hoc committee of experts to provide advice for advancing the
competitiveness and productivity of the U.S. construction industry. The committee’s specific task was to
plan and conduct a workshop to identify and prioritize technologies, processes, and deployment activities
that have the greatest potential to advance significantly the productivity and competitiveness of the capital
1
facilities sector of the U.S. construction industry in the next 20 years.
Because the concept of productivity can be difficult to define, measure, and communicate, the
committee determined that it would focus on ways to improve the efficiency of the capital facilities sector
of the construction industry. It defines efficiency improvements as ways to cut waste in time, costs,
materials, energy, skills, and labor. The committee believes that improving efficiency will also improve
overall productivity and help individual construction firms produce more environmentally sustainable
projects and become more competitive.
To gather data for this task, the Committee on Advancing the Competitiveness and Productivity
of the U.S. Construction Industry Workshop commissioned three white papers by industry analysts and
held a 2-day workshop in November 2008 to which 50 additional experts were invited. A range of
activities that could improve construction productivity were identified in the papers, at the workshop, and
by the committee itself. From among these, the committee identified five interrelated activities that could
lead to breakthrough improvements in construction efficiency and productivity in 2 to 10 years, in
contrast to 20 years. If implemented throughout the capital facilities sector, these activities could
significantly advance construction efficiency and improve the quality, timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and
sustainability of construction projects. Following are the five activities, which are discussed in the section
below entitled “Opportunities for Breakthrough Improvements.”
2
1. Widespread deployment and use of interoperable technology applications, also called
Building Information Modeling (BIM);
2. Improved job-site efficiency through more effective interfacing of people, processes,
materials, equipment, and information;
3. Greater use of prefabrication, preassembly, modularization, and off-site fabrication
techniques and processes;
4. Innovative, widespread use of demonstration installations; and
5. Effective performance measurement to drive efficiency and support innovation.
The five activities are interrelated, and the implementation of each will enable that of the others.
Deploying these activities so that they become standard operating procedures in the capital facilities
sector will require a strategic, collaborative approach led by those project owners who will most directly
benefit from lower-cost, higher-quality sustainable projects, namely, the large corporations and
government agencies that regularly invest hundreds of millions of dollars in buildings and infrastructure
1
The capital facilities sector includes commercial (including high-rise and multifamily residential), industrial,
and infrastructure projects. It does not include single-family and low-rise residential projects.
2
Interoperability is the ability to manage and communicate electronic data among owners, clients, contractors,
and suppliers, and across a project’s design, engineering, operations, project management, construction, financial,
and legal units.
1
