Constructability assessment of social housing projects in Brazil: a quantitative benchmarking system

Abreu, João Paulo Maciel de; Marchiori, Fernanda Fernandes; Signor, Regis

doi:10.1590/s1678-86212025000100935

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

Special issue: the best papers of SIBRAGEC 2025 • Ambiente Construído 25 • 2025 • https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-86212025000100935 linkcopy

Constructability assessment of social housing projects in Brazil: a quantitative benchmarking system

Avaliando a construtibilidade de projetos de habitação de interesse social no Brasil: um sistema de benchmarking quantitativo

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Social Housing Projects (HIS) are essential for reducing Brazil’s housing deficit. However, constructability problems can undermine the efficiency achieved in those projects, negatively affecting the purpose of having low cost. One approach for reducing constructability issues is to use constructability assessment systems (CAS). Existing CAS lack data that allow for setting goals, or even studies that provide an overview of constructability in HIS in each country. Thus, the aim of this research study is to develop a quantitative benchmarking constructability system for HIS. This study was based on data from 394 projects. The development of this quantitative benchmarking system pointed out the potential for improving constructability in those projects, by adopting different measures, such as the use of BIM, changing construction processes, and achieving appropriate levels of standardization. This system can support companies that wish to improve the constructability in HIS projects, by reducing the bias of evaluating only their own data, or Brazilian HIS financial institutions. This benchmarking system represents a theoretical-practical advance in the knowledge about constructability, given that similar studies are limited or non-existent in other countries.

Keywords
Constructability; Quantitative assessment; Performance management and measurement; Benchmarking; Social housing

According to…	Types	Comparison
Objects	Product	Among a company’s own products and those of its competitors.
	Process	Among business processes, either within the same sector or across different sectors.
	Strategies	Strategies aimed at obtaining new competitive advantages.
Parameter	Performance	Objective, based on indicator systems.
Parameter	Best practices	Lists of best practices and their frequency of occurrence.
Application	Sectorial	Across different sectors (e.g., supermarkets and automotive industry).
	Internal (company)	Data from the same company, both current and historical.
	External (company)	Among different companies, with a competitive focus.
	Structural	Among companies in different locations, economic contexts or production chains.

Category	Code (I.N)	Indicator name	Reasoning	Weight* (1 – 5)	Calculation/Attribution
Design (Buildability)	I.01	Project modeling	Considers the difference CAD - BIM	3.99	Attribution: BIM = 1.00, CAD = 0.83, mixed designs in CAD and BIM authoring tools = 0.83.
	I.02	Cloud use	Considers compatibility in different design disciplines and integration in design teams	3.75	Attribution: Yes = 1.00, No = 0.00.
	I.03	Perimeter/GFA ratio	Considers the façade’s influence (lower constructability than internal walls)	3.52	4*square root of perimeter/area
	I.04	Standardization ratio of GFA	Considers the building’s standardization (standard pavements number)	4.06	number of typical floor plans / total number of pavements
	I.05	Presence of a design coordinator	Considers the reduction of clashes in design and construction	4.68	Attribution: Presence = 1.00, Absence = 0.00.
	I.06	Absence of curve elements in façades/frames	Considers the presence/absence of elements with low constructability	3.40	Attribution: Absence = 1.00, Presence = 0.00.
	I.07	Complete specification	Considers the influence of design specifications on quality, productivity and constructability	4.48	Attribution: Complete = 1.00, Incomplete or insufficient = 0.00.
	I.08	Quality of blueprints	Blueprints are still common in building works (despite digital documents): misunderstandings reduce constructability	3.30	Sum of four criteria: content clarity (QC1), text readability (QC2), scale adequacy (QC3) and paper size (QC4). All have maximum attribution of 0.25
	I.09	Wall workforce productivity	Considers using the workforce depending on the wall system	4.72	Attribution based on an improved table of constructability from BDAS system
	I.10	Transportation equipment	Considers the difference between productivity among transportation equipment	4.65	Attribution: Crane = 1.00, Elevator = 0.41, Winch = 0.16, Rope and pulley = 0.00.
	I.11	Structure workforce productivity	Considers using the workforce depending on the structural system	4.61	Attribution based on an improved table of constructability from BDAS system
	I.12	Frames’ standardization	Considers the standardization of windows/doors	4.53	Sum of SD and SW. SD Attribution: when more than 90 % of doors have up to three different types = 0.50, when the three main door types represent between 75 % and 90 % of total = 0.38, when the three main door types represent less than 75 % of total = 0.00. SW Attribution has the same criteria.
	I.13	Columns’ standardization	Considers the standardization in columns	4.36 (if no pillars, weight = 0)	Same criteria of I.13 in terms of standardization range.
	I.14	Slab thickness’ standardization	Considers the standardization of the slab thickness	4.05	area of predominant thickness in the standard floor / the whole area of the standard floor
	I.15	Constructability databases	Considers the presence of constructability databases in the construction company	2.94	Attribution: Presence = 1.00, Absence = 0.00.
Production planning	I.16	Place influence	Considers the building location in relation to building materials and specification	3.56	Attribution: construction site does not preclude any material or technology use = 1.00, Precludes = 0.00.
	I.17	Building site layout planning	Considers the existence of layout planning in the construction space	4.01	Attribution: Exists = 1.00, Does not exist = 0.00.
	I.18	Production planning	Considers the existence of production planning (e.g., formwork, positioning of tiles)	3.93	Attribution: The production planning (e.g., formwork, position of tiles, and others) exists = 1.00, Does not exist = 0.00.
	I.19	Space at the construction site for unloading	Considers that space constraints reduce constructability	3.98	Attribution: 18-wheeler truck space: 1.00, concrete-mixer truck space: 0.77, trucks need to load and unload outside the construction site: 0.00.
	I.20	Deposit space	Considers the presence of adequate storage space	3.90	Attribution: Adequate space, dedicated only for the construction site itself = 1.00, Insufficient space or shared with other construction sites = 0.00.
Execution	I.21	Organized construction site, health and safety-prone	Considers the influence of construction site organization, health, and safety on constructability	4.40	Attribution: Safe and organized site = 1.00, Unsafe/unorganized = 0.00.
	I.22	Construction team meetings	Considers the importance of meetings to reduce constructability problems in parallel with the execution phase	4.22	The number of monthly meetings with the construction team (R) is compared with the number of months in construction (M). When R ≥ M, attribution = 1.00. When R < M, I.22 = R/M
	I.23	Construction method standardization	considers the importance of standardization in operational construction methods	2.50	Attribution: Exists = 1.00, Does not exist = 0.00.

Procedures	Theoretical Description	Assessment (this research)
Instantiation	Lacerda et al. (2013) point out that this evaluation can be conducted through instantiations, which allows for the analysis of the qualities of this artifact.	Presented in the Results chapter.
Reliability Analysis	Reliability refers to characteristics associated with obtaining consistent results, regardless of the researcher (Basso Júnior et al., 2016). Another definition of reliability concerns the extent to which a measurement instrument can reflect the true result, meaning that it is free from variance caused by random errors.	Dichotomous indicators or those based based solely on reading information such as the construction process are invariable (e.g., I.06).
		For indicators based on CAD tools, the test-retest technique was applied (Vituri, 2013) to verify reliability, resulting in an R² of 0.94 between readings.
		For questionnaires, a technique that demonstrates reliability and internal consistency regarding a concept or construct is the Cronbach’s alpha test (Selitto; Ribeiro, 2004). The calculated Cronbach’s alpha for the questionnaire data was 0.69, which falls within the optimal range for reliability. A value below 0.60 indicates low reliability, while a value above 0.90 may suggest redundancy or duplication among the indicators (Ribeiro et al., 2021).
Validity Analysis	Martins (2006) states that validity represents the extent to which an instrument is capable of accurately measuring a given magnitude. In this study, validity was qualitatively evaluated.	Apparent validity: used indicators and weights used have already been validated in Abreu (2020).
Validity Analysis		Content validity: the indicators used are based on the constructability principles listed by Kifokeris and Xenidis (2017), ensuring that no important aspect was excluded within the overall context of the constructability assessment (Martins, 2006).

Phase	Partial indicator	Structural typology	Benchmark (0 – 1)	Source (Eq)
Design	PID	Columned construction processes (e.g., cast-in-situ reinforced concrete structures)	0.636	1
Design	PID	Column-free construction processes (e.g., structural masonry or concrete walls)	0.685	1
Production planning	PIPP	All structural typologies	0.823	2
Execution	PIE	All structural typologies	0.914	3
Project	IC	Columned construction processes (e.g., cast-in-situ reinforced concrete structures)	0.710	4
Project	IC	Column-free construction processes (e.g., structural masonry or concrete walls)	0.745	4

Category	Code	Indicator name	n*	Minimum	Maximum	Benchmark
Design	I.01	Project modeling	69	0.830	1.000	0.832
	I.02	Cloud use	67	0.000	1.000	0.418
	I.03	Perimeter/GFA ratio	278	0.314	1.000	0.648
	I.04	Standardization ratio of GFA	225	0.500	1.000	0.863
	I.05	Presence of a design coordinator	67	0.000	1.000	0.791
	I.06	Absence of curve elements in façades/frames	386	0.000	1.000	0.984
	I.07	Complete specification	68	0.000	1.000	0.691
	I.08	Quality of blueprints	5	0.250	0.783	0.392
	I.09	Wall workforce productivity	191	0.050	1.000	0.435
	I.10	Transportation equipment	99	0.000	1.000	0.486
	I.11	Structure workforce productivity	191	0.214	0.920	0.633
	I.12	Frames’ standardization	68	0.380	1.000	0.804
	I.13	Columns’ standardization	0	0.000	0.000	0.000
	I.14	Slab thickness’ standardization	5	1.000	1.000	1.000
	I.15	Constructability databases	67	0.000	1.000	0.612
Production planning	I.16	Place influence	67	0.000	1.000	0.716
	I.17	Building site layout planning	62	0.000	1.000	0.887
	I.18	Production planning	64	0.000	1.000	0.750
	I.19	Space at the construction site for unloading	316	0.000	1.000	0.977
	I.20	Deposit space	66	0.000	1.000	0.773
Execution	I.21	Organized construction site, health and safety-prone	135	0.000	1.000	0.837
	I.22	Meetings with a construction team	62	0.000	1.000	0.952
	I.23	Standardization in the construction method	62	0.000	1.000	0.984

Project	Construction process (structure + walls)	Indicators
Project	Construction process (structure + walls)	I.01	I.02	I.03	I.04	I.05	I.06	I.07	I.08	I.09	I.10	I.11	I.12	I.13	I.14	I.15	I.16	I.17	I.18	I.19	I.20	I.21	I.22	I.23	PID	PIPP	PIE	IC
01	Cast in situ reinforced concrete with masonry walls	0.83	0.00	0.81	0.93	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.75	0.05	0.00	0.35	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	65.14	59.03	100.00	68.08
02	Structural masonry	0.83	1.00	0.81	1.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.71	1.00	0.46	0.89		1.00	0.00	1.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	76.49	79.31	100.00	80.11
03	Cast in situ reinforced walls	0.83	1.00	0.87	1.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	0.50	0.71	1.00	0.86	0.38		1.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	73.16	79.72	100.00	78.04
04	Cast in situ reinforced concrete with masonry walls	0.83		0.68	1.00		1.00			0.05		0.33	0.00	1.00	1.00				1.00
05	Structural masonry	1.00	1.00	0.69	1.00		1.00			0.10		0.38	0.50		1.00
06	Structural masonry	1.00	1.00	0.75	0.75	1.00	1.00			0.10		0.41	1.00		1.00					1.00
07	*			0.71	0.87								0.50		1.00					1.00
08	*	0.83		0.65	0.75				0.13				0.88
09	Cast in situ reinforced concrete with masonry walls. Prefabrication in the slabs			0.38	0.80		1.00			0.05	1.00	0.45								1.00
10	Structural masonry	0.83	0.00	0.34	1.00		1.00		0.31	0.10		0.38	0.88		1.00					1.00
11	Metal structure with ceramic masonry walls			0.65	1.00		1.00			0.05		0.74			1.00					1.00
12	*	0.83		0.67	1.00		1.00		0.06						1.00					1.00
	Benchmarks – construction process with columns	0.83	0.42	0.65	0.86	0.79	0.98	0.69	0.39	0.44	0.49	0.63	0.80	0.00	1.00	0.61	0.72	0.89	0.75	0.98	0.77	0.84	0.95	0.98	63.62	82.34	91.35	70.95
	Benchmarks – construction process without columns	0.83	0.42	0.65	0.86	0.79	0.98	0.69	0.39	0.44	0.49	0.63	0.80		1.00	0.61	0.72	0.89	0.75	0.98	0.77	0.84	0.95	0.98	68.51	82.34	91.35	74.50
	Legend:
	More or equal to benchmark
	Less than benchmark
	unavailable / not evaluated

vertical_align_top show_chart

more_horiz close
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Associação Nacional de Tecnologia do Ambiente Construído - ANTAC Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 93, 3º andar, 90035-190 Porto Alegre/RS Brasil, Tel.: (55 51) 3308-4084, Fax: (55 51) 3308-4054 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
E-mail: ambienteconstruido@ufrgs.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Source: Abreu (2020).

[2] Note:

[TFN01] ^*
the procedure for defining the weights was explained in the Literature Review.