Quantitative analysis of state transportation agency's experience with constructability reviews

Nikiforos Stamatiadis, Paul Goodrum, Emily Shocklee, Chen Wang

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations


The project development process aims to deliver the most appropriate roadway project given its context. Past work has shown that significant gains are realized when construction expertise is integrated early and throughout the project-delivery process. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has initiated a process that reviews design documents prior to construction to address issues that may result in time delays and cost increases. However, these efforts are not utilizing a systematic review process that would allow detailed documentation of the issues identified and provide a lessons-learned database for future use. The study undertaken classifies the constructability issues that typically impact highway construction projects. This paper first identifies the common constructability categories through a national review and then quantifies the frequency and severity of constructability issues by comment type and category, review year, reviewer, and comment severity. The paper's primary contribution to the body of knowledge is the determination that constructability issues are dynamic and change over time, there is a need for consistency among reviewers, and that team reviews are more appropriate than a single-reviewer approach.

Original languageEnglish
Article number04013043
JournalJournal of Construction Engineering and Management
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 1 2014


  • Constructability reviews
  • Plan reviewers
  • Project design
  • Project planning and design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Building and Construction
  • Industrial relations
  • Strategy and Management


Dive into the research topics of 'Quantitative analysis of state transportation agency's experience with constructability reviews'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this