Innovation in Construction A Project Life Cycle Approach

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachAt the start of design, a partnering charter was producedthat committed all partners to deliver a quality schemefor the public; achieve an exemplary safety record;ensure the achievement of best value for the budget atall times; communicate effectively with all thoseinvolved or affected by the scheme; be considerate tothe community and to the environment; and deliver tothe Council and public without defects.The client recognised that Early ContractorInvolvement (ECI) and integrated working were essential indelivering a successful scheme. The construction teaminvolved were brought together as much as a yearprior to work beginning on site and the contractors weregiven the opportunity to input into the design stage ofthe project. Support was received from the funders ateach stage of the project.Innovation in the Community engagementVisitor experience in the promenade was primeconsideration in the design concept, which incorporatesfeatures to entice the visitor along the length of theredeveloped promenade, providing focal points ofinterest, information, outlook and experience of thehighest quality. Extensive public consultation was heldfrom the very outset of this scheme when the localcommunity were asked what they wanted from aseaside frontage. A design competition was undertakenfor the selection of the architect/designer to prepare amaster plan. Four designs were subject to consultationand a joint decision was made to choose the final designafter they were reviewed by the contractor Birse Coastalfor budget compliance and ‘buildability’.To ensure that the community involvementcontinued through the life of the project, an interest group‘Cleveley’s Seafront Partnership’ was established. Thiswas comprised of local residents, community groupsand representatives from retailers, leisure facilitators,hotels, restaurants, the police and commercialbodies. Their brief was to work with Wyre BC and BirseCoastal, identify any potential problems early-on forresolution and continue input throughout construction.The Seafront Partnership worked alongside the constructionteam to secure additional funding/grants for publicartwork and amenity enhancement features tocompliment the scheme and add to the visitor’sexperience.The level of public interest and involvement inthe scheme led to it being formally brandedas ‘the people’s promenade’. The team used avariety of communication methods to keep an openand informative dialogue with the public including:n An accessible exhibition centre featuring displays ofthe history of the promenade, the design of the newscheme, proposed works, weekly progress reports,a feedback book and an overview of the followingmonths activities.n Activities and competitions were provided for children.n Reporting progress through video, photographs andartists impressions on a dedicated project web site andthrough presentations made throughout work period.n A visitor’s opinion book was made available for visitorsto record their comments. Thousands of commentsboth positive and negative were assessed and a datafrom the feedback book was tabled and executed bythe project board on a monthly basis.n Regular meetings of the community and constructionteam to resolve issues and take forward good ideas.n Community engagements events at constructionmilestones, for example ground breaking andsectional completions.n The local press and radio were also engaged to updatethe public on the progress and aims of the scheme.Innovation in the Construction processBecause of the difficult working environment, anycoastal protection scheme carries inherent risks duringconstruction. The construction team’s solution to thepotential risks of the project was the innovative use ofprecast concrete units as a safe, cost effective, higherquality and more sustainable alternative to traditionalsolutions such as rock armour or in-situ concrete. Itshould be noted that the R&D team has worked ondesign issues particularly with the precast concrete units.Precast units were manufactured using a high strengthconcrete (Tarmac ‘Toproc C75’) in a purpose-builtfacility, just 5 miles away from site. This allowed theteam to take advantage of traditional manufacturingtechniques such as just-in-time delivery and leanconstruction, which resulted in less waste and higherefficiency. It also allowed the team to maximise health,safety, quality and environmental benefits associatedwith off-site construction, whilst the close location ofthe facility significantly reduced haulage costs of thecompleted units to site. An additional benefit ofthis solution was that no pollution occurred in thesensitive coastal environment.18
As concrete is precast off-site, therewas no risk of washout from unsetconcrete and a greatly reduced number of vehiclesrequired on-site.Peat onsite caused unstable ground conditions whichhad not been identified by the original site survey,however, Birse were able to identify an innovative, costeffective and sustainable solution to stabilize the groundthat saved the project up to £1m; this was absorbed intothe main programme so did not cause a time delay.Various low energy and renewable technologies wereused on site including wind turbines were installed toprovide power back the national grid, solar panels wereinstalled to provide power for heating and lighting in theshelter areas, and LED luminaires were used to provideenergy efficient lighting.Strict zero tolerance targets were set to provide safeworking conditions. Weekly safety meetings meant thatany potential health and safety issues could be identifiedand thus prevented at an early stage and responsibilityfor project monitoring and continuing safety of workersand public was given to every member of the team. Thisresulted in there being no reportable incidents onsite.Effective knowledge sharing and then its managementare essential, not only in bringing the right ideas into aproject, but also to ensure that these ideas are knownby the entire project team and are diffused to followingprojects. This project included a range of hard and softmechanisms to promote and enable effective knowledgemanagement [ Give examples for clarity]. One centraldevelopmenty in this respect was the web site ‘cleveleysseawall.co.uk’,which was kept updated with all projectinformation, pictures, progress reports.The diffusion of the ideas and best practicethroughout the project was taken beyond the organisationsdirectly involved. The project was a registered ConstructingExcellence demonstration project (project number 2800).As such, the project team actively participated in thecollection and dissemination of key performanceindicator (KPI) results, which are used to inform theindustry. The team also contributed to the ConstructingExcellence case study document, providing an insightinto the innovative techniques and best practice adoptedon site.It should be noted that local people were employedwhere possible in areas such as administration, securityand skilled labour. In total 75% of staff on the schemelived within approximately 35 miles of the site. Birse alsoendeavoured to employ local suppliers. 76% of supplierswere located within a 25 mile radius.Innovative methods and toolsThe project included a rigorous performance monitoringregime both in terms of efficient delivery of the projectbut also in terms of wider community impacts. To thisend, a customer quality plan of works, combined with aLive Quality Alert System, contributed to the high qualityof the finished project. All partners were incentivised bya pain/gain share arrangement and used an open-bookand live cost monitoring system which could be reviewedand observed by any partner at any time.19
Page 2 and 3: SCRI Research Report4Innovation in
Page 4: SCRI Research Report4Innovation in
Page 8: SCRI Research Report4Innovation in
Page 13 and 14: 4. A Survey of Construction Innovat
Page 15 and 16: 4.3 The research methodologyOne of
Page 17 and 18: Enablers of innovation:This questio
Page 19 and 20: The findings reveal that the major
Page 21 and 22: 5. Case Studies Illustrating a Proj
Page 23: 5.1 The research methodologyFollowi
Page 27 and 28: Conversion of Ideas:A combination o
Page 29 and 30: 5.3 Case study 2: The CastlefieldsE
Page 31 and 32: INNOVATION VALUE CHAINIdea Generati
Page 33 and 34: Table 11: The innovation register f
Page 35 and 36: Innovative Modern Methods of Constr
Page 37 and 38: After finalising the design, the pr
Page 39 and 40: 5.5 Case Study 4: Cheetham HillTesc
Page 41: INNOVATION ACHIEVEMENTSTesco’s cl
Page 56: Professor Mike KagioglouSCRI Direct

Innovation in Construction A Project Life Cycle Approach

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?