Case Study

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Construction InformationManagement System Implementation: Case Study

Joshua L. Vaughan1; Michael L. Leming, M.ASCE2; Min Liu, A.M.ASCE3; and Edward Jaselskis, A.M.ASCE4

Abstract: In construction projects, construction managers spend a significant portion of their time gathering project data, assessing pro-duction rates, communicating with project participants, and tracking project quality. Executing those tasks manually reduces efficiency andcan result in less effective project management operations. In order to improve efficiency of information process flow, various types ofconstruction information management systems (CIMSs) have been introduced to construction projects. However, due to the difficultyof tracking fragmental and illusive data, measuring the cost and benefit of the implementation and evaluating the trade-off remain a challengefor construction practitioners. This paper’s contributions to the body of knowledge include (1) proposing a framework to assess tangible andsemitangible or intangible costs and benefits of innovative construction technology application, (2) determining costs and benefits of the useof CIMSs by conducting a product-specific case study, and (3) summarizing lessons learned through the application of a CIMS from the first-hand users so that construction managers can avoid pitfalls in other projects. This study provides data collected during real-time immersion inthe project as part of the project team over a 6 month period. The study found that the use of CIMSs, coupled with mobile technologies,increased efficiency and decreased clerical time of operations-level construction personnel, and thereby increased value to the project throughimproved allocation of managerial time. The internal observation and analysis provide a useful guidance to project managers who are in-terested in implementing CIMS in construction projects. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000611. © 2013 American Society of CivilEngineers.

CE Database subject headings: Technology; Information management; Construction management; Computer software; Planning; Casestudies; Benefit cost ratios.

Author keywords: Technology; Construction; Software; Management; Planning.

Introduction

A vital aspect of construction management is to plan, directlyobserve, coordinate, and verify the actions of the various trades in-volved in the project. The time spent in clerical activities reducesthe time spent in project planning, verification, and assessment. Thenumerous meetings that a construction manager (CM) is required toattend can be even more time consuming than necessary due to aninsufficient transfer and transparency of information from the pre-vious work week. Scanlin (1998) reported that communicationconsumes approimately 75% to 90% of a CM’s time and informa-tion therefore needs to be current and available on demand. Poorcommunication is a significant part of project failures and any tool

that can increase communication between parties is desirable(Biggs 2000). Field verification is an important part of a CM’sresponsibility, but CMs often must return to the field office tocreate, edit, and sort data, fill out daily reports, compose as wellas respond to e-mails, upload photo attachments, and gather anynecessary contract documents for clarification or field verification.While these administrative or clerical tasks are necessary for aCM to perform his or her duties, they consume time that couldotherwise be spent on site.

Information technology (IT) implementations have been at-tempted in an effort to improve the performance of operations-levelstaff. Previous research has established guidelines and set forthmetrics for determining cost-benefit analyses of various IT imple-mentations and innovative construction management technologies.Other research has performed such analyses and provided per-ceived benefits but under assumptions of its successful use andsolely from the viewpoint of the CMs. Importance has been placedon the necessity of collecting data in real time (Becerik-Gerber andRice 2010).

The primary objective of this investigation is to determine howthe end user is affected by mobile field management technologies inconstruction projects. This report quantifies the purchasing and im-plementation costs associated with the use of one typical softwareapplication. There are various software platforms aimed at mobileconstruction information management, such as Bluebeam, Latista,and FreightTrain. This paper presents a case study in the implemen-tation of Vela Systems. However, the methodology and the pro-posed framework to measure and evaluate the cost and benefitwill be applicable to other construction information managementsystems (CIMSs). Benefit findings are presented from both quan-titative and qualitative perspectives. The key metrics of efficiency

1Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and EnvironmentalEngineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail:jlvaugha@ncsu.edu

2Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and EnvironmentalEngineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail:leming@ncsu.edu

3Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and EnvironmentalEngineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695 (correspondingauthor). E-mail: min_liu@ncsu.edu

4Jimmy D. Clark Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction,and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh,NC 27695. E-mail: ejjasels@unit.ncsu.edu

Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 14, 2011; approvedon May 21, 2012; published online on May 25, 2012. Discussion periodopen until September 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted forindividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En-gineering and Management, Vol. 139, No. 4, April 1, 2013. © ASCE,ISSN 0733-9364/2013/4-445-455/$25.00.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 445

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

and efficacy are examined to help estimate the costs and benefitsof implementation and to help optimize common managementprocesses. These results can serve as a benchmark for compar-ison on future projects of similar size and scope using similartechnologies.

Literature Review

The terms “innovative construction processes” or “innovativetechnologies” have been misunderstood as being associated witha costly and risky expenditure, although they are often perceivedas an investment rather than as an expenditure from the perspectiveof a construction firm (Robinson 1997). Despite this fact, themajority of IT investments are typically justified on the basis ofeither subjective arguments or acts of faith (Andresen et al.2000). Items to consider when a construction management firmis investing in new and innovative construction management tech-nologies include costs, implementation strategy, project complex-ity, and perceived benefits. Of these, the likely benefits are typicallythe most difficult to measure (Construct IT 1998). Liberatore et al.(2001) determined that 76% of respondents in the construction in-dustry indicated that there is value in future research in the area ofproject management software.

Nuntasunti and Bernold (2006) performed a cost-benefit analy-sis of wireless construction technologies and concluded that its useprovides both monetary savings to the construction firm as wellas reduced time spent in weekly project meetings. This was fora hypothetical project, however, so the benefits cannot be assessedby other firms with any degree of repeatability.

Jang and Skibniewski (2009) studied the effects of an embeddedsensor system for construction materials tracking using a cost-benefit analysis. They concluded that there were both quantitativeand nonquantitative benefits associated with its use. The report alsosuggested that the framework for the research could be extendedinto the field of web-based project management systems. The studywas limited by using various task durations gathered from multipleconstruction and engineering companies and applying these dura-tions to one specific construction project to determine unit laborhour savings.

Previous scholarly articles identified how IT cost-benefit datacan be collected. The evaluation of the cost and benefits likelyto be derived from an IT implementation must be reflected by avail-able data collected at the point of evaluation (Marsh and Flanagan2000). This supports the case study—based research approach usedin this study to evaluate CIMSs for construction project informationmanagement.

Past research has indicated that the use of wireless communica-tion devices such as cellular phones, portable computers, anddigital cameras increase the efficiency of many tasks associatedwith a CM’s daily managerial and observational duties (Jaselskiset al. 2010). Lim et al. (2010) reported that investments in newand innovative technologies often resulted in a loss of competitive-ness of that construction firm due to the competitive nature ofvarious firms to get their final bid price as low as practicallypossible. Their study was limited, however, by the inability to in-corporate the advantages provided to other construction stakehold-ers such as owners, architects, and engineers. They assumed thatall innovations implemented were ultimately successful. Theirresearch approach was primarily qualitative in determining thedirect value of selected innovations.

Cost-benefit research on the building information model (BIM)and other related construction technologies has been attemptedthrough conducted surveys. Becerik-Gerber and Rice (2010)

conducted a cost-benefit analysis of BIM. Due to the difficultyof obtaining empirical data, she conducted a survey and evaluatedthe benefits and costs based on the responses. The study was notable to measure the intangible and semitangible benefits and costsassociated with the technology. Becerik-Gerber and Rice suggesteda better cost-benefit analysis could be performed if examinedthrough a detailed case study with extensive interviews.

In the past decades, research has examined the cost-benefittrade-off of innovative construction processes or technology. Manystudies only considered the qualitative aspects of a cost-benefitanalysis based on survey data after project completion. Otherresearch examined quantitative benefits on partially or whollytheoretical examples. Little research has been conducted using asystematic framework to measure both tangible and intangible costsand benefits based on empirical project data. A need exists to dis-cover the real impact innovation has using a real-world casestudy including collection of survey data during the project ratherthan afterward, and develop a repeatable method to determineefficiency gains provided by construction management software.This paper addresses those needs by providing a framework formeasuring the costs and benefits associated with constructionproject information management software with collected data froman active case study, analyzing the costs and benefits, and assessingthe positive and negative features associated with that constructionmanagement software.

Background of the CIMS

The case study took place on the site of a university library con-struction project. The library is a 250,000 square foot steel structurelocated on a green fields site. Both the Apple iPad application(IACIMS) and the web-based version (WBCIMS) were the primarysoftwares used throughout the research period. The authors’ roleconsisted of helping with implementation, deployment, training,and conducting research.

The particular CIMS used during the case study was VelaSystems, designed for tablet PCs, laptops, other computers, andeven as an application for the Apple iPad. The construction man-ager at risk (CMAR) began its implementation of innovativetechnologies on the project in June of 2010. This paper focuseson the use of WBCIMS and IACIMS.

Released in late 2010, WBCIMS was designed for pen-basedtablet PCs and Windows-based computers with a connection tothe internet. WBCIMS allows project information and reports tobe accessed via a “cloud” (internet-based computing), whicheliminates the need to sync information to and from a remoteCIMS server. This allows for real-time transfer of information fromthe field to all project participants that are CIMS users, but alsonecessitates a wireless network on the jobsite or the use of mobilebroadband cards. Shortly after the release of WBCIMS, the CIMScompany released the IACIMS application for the Apple iPad inMay 2010, and has since had multiple updates to increase userfunctionality and repair programming bugs. Most recently, othercomputer-aided design (CAD) companies have partnered withvarious CIMS for integration of data and documentation withthe three-dimensional (3D) BIM. This allows for data from materi-als management, commissioning, and quality management, gath-ered during the construction process, to be viewed in the model,helping to bridge the gap between the field and office.

Methodology

Case study research typically collects data from a natural setting,with no experimental controls. The goal of a case study is to

446 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

identify primary causes and effects and relationships. Quantitativedata may be limited. The objectives of this study were consistentwith those of the case study approach, and hence a case study wasemployed (Meredith 1998).

The data collected through this case study was then used togenerate a cost-benefit analysis and to establish the differenceson management production before and after technology implemen-tation. Analysis was based on comparing the distribution of timespent in various tasks with a preimplementation baseline efficiencyrating to help quantity the benefits associated with this particularconstruction management technology.

Interviews were conducted to determine how the CMs’ weeklyhours are distributed across the listed activities, both with and with-out the use of a CIMS. Responses were based on the latest 20 weeksof fully functioning CIMS use. To avoid the weekly fluctuationsthat often occur with changes in real-world construction activitiesand reduce the variability of activity durations, average durationswere determined over the 20-week period to capture how a CIMSimpacts certain construction management processes.

The cost-benefit analysis was conducted on data collectedthroughout the 6-month case study. Costs were subdivided into pur-chasing costs and implementation costs. Purchasing costs were thecosts associated with buying the necessary hardware and softwarefor its implementation. Implementation costs includes maintenanceand training associated with the use of CIMSs. These costs weredeveloped in terms of labor-hours and were collected using bothdirect observation and interviews with the CMAR’s CIMS users.

The benefits of using CIMSs were categorized as either quan-titative or qualitative benefits. Quantitative benefits were assessedbased on the useful time each CMAR’s CIMS user spent doingvarious types of work each week, on average. Common managerialtasks were classified as planning, assessment, reaction, and clerical.The pre-CIMS baseline efficiency was estimated as the portion oftime that was nonclerical and nonreaction. Qualitative benefitswere assessed through discussions and interviews with key projectparticipants who used a CIMS, as well as the CIMS company staff(including one of the cofounders).

Project Description

The research was conducted on a university library constructionproject. The project is a CMAR project with a phased guaranteedmaximum price (GMP) of approximately US$100 million. Thescheduled duration of the project is approximately 2 years. TheCMAR does not self-perform any construction tasks becausethe CMAR contract requires a 100% brokered project. The CMARdirectly manages more than 35 individual trades, of which approx-imately five are using CIMSs in substantial fashion. The CMARstaff is composed of seven CMs and three superintendents. Thelibrary is a five-story steel structure with concrete slabs on metaldeck. The library is planned to be certified as a Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver building, utiliz-ing chilled beams and radiant panels for HVAC needs. The uniqueexterior consists of a 100% unitized glass panel curtain wall systemand will more than double the current library seating capacity.

Construction of the library began in October 2009. Afterroughly one year of construction, WBCIMS was incorporated intothe workflow of the field personnel using tablets with an integratedbarcode scanner as well as a built-in camera for documentationand material tracking purposes. An unlimited seats license was pur-chased from the CIMS developer for a monthly subscription fee inorder to maximize the number of participants using the software.In addition to superintendents having tablets, a mobile electronic

resource station (MERS) was developed to provide access to themost recent contract documents, request for informations (RFIs),plans, specs, and shop drawings to both superintendents and tradespersonnel. The MERS also provides employees the ability to print ahard copy and return to their area of work.

Fig. 1 demonstrates how a CIMS serves as a central hub forinformation flow between the key project participants. Four differ-ent modules were employed to help organize gathered project dataand provide a means of classifying information depending onwhich end user is accessing the information. The darker arrowscentered around the central circle signify the transfer of informationboth into and out of the cloud-based WBCIMS. Special charactersare placed at the end of the individual inputs and outputs to denotewhich module is responsible for storing and distributing certaininformation. The gray arrows represent the flow of coordinationwithin the project with the owner coordinating with the CMARand architect/engineer (A/E) and the CMAR coordinating with theA/E, owner, and trades as well.

The owner plays more of an observational role within WBCIMSbecause they receive any and all pertinent project informationbut need not input as much data, aside from owner comments, intoWBCIMS as the other project participants. The CM and A/E are theparticipants responsible for generating the majority of project data,including work lists, punch lists, quality assurance/quality control(QA/QC) test reports, and inspection reports. The trades receiveoutputs from WBCIMS in the form of QA/QC reports and accep-tance, work lists, punch lists, and comments posted by the otherparticipants. The trades’ inputs consist mainly of internally gener-ated QA/QC checklists and generated issues that have been com-pleted or have changed status. This cloud-based medium allows forrapid information flow to all end- users.

Costs

Construction-related software costs include the purchasing costas well as the implementation and maintenance costs. Purchasingcosts are monetary, while the implementation and maintenancecosts are mainly labor costs. Purchasing costs include the pricefor acquiring the software license, the CIMS’s implementationand training services for key users, and the hardware necessaryfor its effective use. Implementation costs equate to the CM’s stafftime required to establish, configure, modify, and maintain such asystem, as well as on-site training for other users (i.e., owner, subs,A/E, and other CM staff). Implementation costs are typically moredifficult to estimate accurately.

Purchasing Costs

The purchasing costs for establishing WBCIMS are summarizedin Table 1. The total cost was approximately US$90,500. TheIACIMS application is free to download but will only function withan active subscription to a CIMS’s services. Much of this cost wastransferred to the trades, primarily mechanical, electrical, plumb-ing, drywall, and curtain wall trades in their perspective contractualscopes of work. These costs are then ultimately transferred tothe owner. Because the majority of the costs ultimately fall to theowner, all trade-purchased hardware becomes the sole property ofthe owner. The intent is for the facilities department to use the in-formation in future maintenance and facility operations.

The CMAR incurred more than US$25,000 or 28% of the totalcosts, while the various trades incurred more than US$46,000 or51% of total costs. The remainder of the costs were carried by boththe tablet manufacturer and CIMS with US$10,000 and US$9,000,

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 447

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

respectively. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of costs between projectparticipants.

It is important to distinguish between the costs that directlyrelate to the web-based project management functionality andthe costs associated with trial and error iterations of new innova-tions. In Table 1, the “Avoidable cost” column is used to identifywhich purchases could be eliminated from future implementations.These costs were the result of examining optimal configurations toprovide wireless internet access across the project site. For exam-ple, wireless network hardware was originally established to coverthe project site with Wi-Fi signal, but it was discovered that thenecessitated use of multiple signal repeaters hindered the band-width speed and data transfer rate as it is inversely proportionalto the number of repeaters installed. Realizing the limits of theWi-Fi hardware, the electrical contractor provided USB mobilebroadband devices that plugged directly into the tablets. TheseUSB devices did not mate fully with the tablets, however, whichresulted in lost internet connectivity and a potential for lost or dam-aged USB devices due to the unsecure connection.

These hardware shortcomings eventually led to the use ofmobile broadband cards that enable the user to connect to the in-ternet while having the card in one’s pocket or other secure personallocation. While this proved to be a sufficient solution to the internetconnectivity issues that plagued the other internet devices, the shortbattery life of 4 h did not provide the optimal solution. Apple iPadswere then acquired. These iPads ran IACIMS and provided off-linefunctionality as well as the ability to use the built-in 3G cellular

service when a wireless signal could not be obtained. Shortly there-after, iPad 2s came to the market and were purchased, whichadditionally allowed the user to capture pictures and video directly.As a result, many of the earlier purchases were classified as avoid-able costs for future applications.

Implementation Costs

The implementation costs included (1) cost of initialization of theCIMS software, and (2) the regular cost of additional trainingand document management. In order to avoid bias introducedby different rates of salary, this research used a CM’s work houras the unit to measure implementation cost.

The initialization of the CIMS software included mass upload-ing of contract documents, establishing the location hierarchy,which is specific to each individual project, creating and uploadingQA/QC checklists, and importing all mechanical equipment andcurtain wall panels to be tracked. A total of 16 CM hours werespent to perform these project initialization tasks.

Online training was provided by the CIMS as part of the paidservice with IACIMS. Two CMAR staff members were selected toprovide the additional training necessary for the rest of the CMARteam. Throughout the 6-month research period, training was heldevery week. The training was gradually tapered off as the numberof new CIMS users and the introduction of major trades began tolevel off. The time spent by each CMAR in training ranged from2 to 4 h per week.

Fig. 1. Flowchart of CIMS’s inputs and outputs in relation to project team members

448 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Two CMs were designated as document managers. The firstdocument manager was responsible for the uploading plan sheetswithin the CIMS (including electronic RFI mark-ups, hyperlinkingRFIs on electronic plan sheets) and replacing outdated plan sheetswith the most current revision. The total amount of time spent bythe first document manager on those tasks was 6–14 h of CM stafftime and varied by the phase of construction as well as the numberof RFIs. For future projects, it is anticipated that this process willbecome a net zero labor-hour change from traditional methods

because it will completely replace hard copy mark-ups. An addi-tional task the CMAR developed to increase the efficiency ofinformation transfer is to create hyperlinks for each electronicallymarked-up RFI using PDF editing software. The electronic mark-up provides a link within a PDF viewing program that any user withinternet access can view through the project team website.

The CMAR delegated another CM to be the on-site documentmanager to oversee the organization and replacement of construc-tion documents. The document manager spent approximately 2.25to 2.5 h per week uploading and renaming plans and contract docu-ments, depending on the amount of revisions received. A summaryof the three recurring weekly costs are provided in Table 2.

Table 1. CIMS Purchasing Costs

Category Paid byAmount(US$) Item

Single or recurringpurchase (S/R)

Avoidable cost(trial and error)

Vela Software CMAR 10,000.00 Unlimited user, 24 months at US$1,200 per month RVela (donation) 9,000.00 Project start-up R

Trade cost 95,000.00 Implementation and training on-site (2 days) RTablets Tablet (donation) 4,509.36 Standard tablet ×1 S

Tablet (donation) 5,400.00 Barcoding tablet ×1 SCMAR 4,509.36 Standard tablet ×1 SCMAR 10,800.00 Barcoding tablet ×2 S

Trade cost 5,400.00 Barcoding tablet ×1 STrade cost 10,800.00 Barcoding tablet ×2 S

Wireless accessories Trade cost 4,500.00 WLAN router ×3 STrade cost 400.00 Short-range antenna ×2 STrade cost 300.00 Short-range antenna ×2 STrade cost 400.00 Short-range antenna ×2 S

Wireless broadbandUSB devices

Trade cost 560.00 USB modem ×7 S YesTrade cost 450.00 1-month subscription for each device at US$50

per monthR Yes

Trade cost 450.00 Mobile broadband card ×3 STrade cost 2,100.00 1-month subscription for each device at US$50

per monthR

Apple iPads Trade cost 1,360.00 iPad 64 GB ×2 S YesTrade cost 2,487.00 iPad 2 64 GB ×3 STrade cost 89.95 Protective case (iPad 2) STrade cost 179.00 Protective case (iPad 2) ×2 S

Barcoding Trade cost 945.00 Bluetooth scanner ×3 STrade cost 825.98 Barcode printer ×2 STrade cost 120.00 Barcode labels (1.25 × 2.75 in.) ×2 R

Mobile electronic planstation(s)

Trade cost 2,260.00 Metal field office station STrade cost 199.98 UPS battery backup ×2 STrade cost 119.99 Articulating wall mount ×2 STrade cost 237.08 Laser printer ×2 STrade cost 39.78 Foldable USB keyboard ×2 STrade cost 1,788.20 46 in. 1080p LCD HDTV ×2 STrade cost 799.98 Desktop computer ×2 STrade cost 45.98 6 ft. VGA/SVGA cable ×2 S

Total 90,477.54 US$ 2,270.00

Note: Trade purchases were included into their scope of work and subsequently into their bid price. For this reason, all hardware devices become the soleproperty of the university following completion of the library project.

Trade Cost:51%

CMAR: 28%

Tablet Manufacturer:

11% Vela: 10%

Fig. 2. Percentage of purchasing costs for implementation of a CIMS

Table 2. Summary of Weekly Implementation Costs

Activity

Totalminimumhours/week

Totalmaximumhours/week

Number/type ofpeople involved

Training for new CIMSusers (total)

2 4 2 CMAR trainers

Performing electronicmark-ups

6 14 1 Documentmanager

Uploading contractdocument and plans

2.25 2.5 1 Documentmanager

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 449

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

The implementation costs associated with these activities areconsidered opportunity costs in which the employee is sacrificinghis or her time that could be spent managing the constructionproject instead of training. Currently, the CMAR is working ondeveloping an internal CIMS user’s community website that willprovide training materials, support, standard QA/QC checklist tem-plates, and means and methods for implementation and operation.The purpose of the website is to provide tools and informationnecessary to reduce implementation time and improve trainingand support processes.

An issue that is difficult to quantify, but is certainly significant,is the trial and error process associated with any first iterationoperation, especially on a fast-paced construction project. Thisproject required investments in new mobile platforms as bothsoftware and hardware evolved.

Benefits

The benefits usually associated with successful technological inno-vations in construction are that of increased effectiveness for itsusers, lower staff demands, time savings in common constructionmanagement activities, and monetary savings due to improved CMpractices (Anderson 2000). For this case study, the quantitative andqualitative benefits of using WBCIMS, IACIMA, and their asso-ciated hardware are presented where applicable. Efficacy benefitsmeasured are also presented in this report.

Quantitative Benefits

A list of typical activities encountered by a CM on a weekly basiswas used to assess benefits compiled. The activities were classifiedas (1) assessment, (2) reaction, (3) planning, and (4) clerical.

CMAR staff were selected for interviews based on their extensiveuse of CIMSs on this project. Five interviewees were surveyed: twoassistant project managers, one project engineer, one senior super-intendent, and one assistant superintendent. Their combined expe-rience in the construction sector and experience with constructionmanagement software (including BIM) is 69 years and 21 years,respectively. On average, each participant has 13.8 years of con-struction experience and 4.2 years experience with the previouslymentioned innovative construction technologies.

Reaction time refers to the time spent addressing issues thathave arisen in the field due to inaccurate or incomplete planningor assessment. Reaction takes place when potential conflicts orissues are inadvertently overlooked during the planning and manag-ing phases of construction and must be later corrected. Reactionitems consume the resources usually reserved for planning andassessment and can involve time delays as well as unnecessarilyincurred costs when addressing and correcting them. All too often,these issues detract from the week’s planning time. Assessmentcomprises gathering, organizing, and evaluating the appropriateproject data in order to make informed decisions about the con-struction process. Planning refers to reviewing and confirmingplans, specifications, schedules, and trade and supplier coordinationand communication prior to the actual start of an activity. Finally,clerical duties are ones that do not necessarily directly contributevalue to the project, yet are necessary for communication and thetransfer of information and ideas. These tasks often include, butare not limited to, e-mailing, marking up plans, annotating drawingsand/or pictures, and logging information via spreadsheets or Worddocuments.

The collected data for determining efficiency gains in those fourtypes of activities through CIMSs was aggregated and presented in

Table 3. Durations of Weekly CM Activities

ActivityAverage durationpre-CIMS (hours)

Average durationpost-CIMS (hours)

CM team meeting 1.60 1.60Owner/architect/contractor meeting 1.60 1.60Review plans/specifications/shop drawings/submittals 5.60 5.60Coordinate with project managers of trades for the week’s activities 3.20 3.50E-mail/phone suppliers to verify delivery dates and quantities 1.38 1.13Determine what productivity for following week must be to stay on schedule 1.60 1.60E-mail/phone other trades about coordination issues/construction sequence 1.60 1.60Plan for next week’s construction/installation 2.80 4.00Planning subtotal 19.38 20.13Follow-up statuses of past week’s issues 2.60 1.00Monitor productivity of installation/construction 3.20 2.80Verify last week’s issues have been corrected/addressed 2.00 2.20Conduct meetings with subcontractor and A/E on rolling punch list issues 2.60 1.80Go to field to verify progress and quality 4.20 4.40Assess productivity of past week/month 2.20 1.40Walking with owner/commissioning agent 2.75 2.50Assessment subtotal 19.55 16.10Coordinate with project managers of trades for the week’s activities 2.30 2.50Follow-up statuses of past week’s issues 2.30 1.40Monitor productivity of installation/construction 2.00 1.60Verify last week’s issues have been corrected/addressed 1.20 1.20Conduct meetings with subcontractor and A/E on rolling punch list issues 2.40 1.80Document/photograph unresolved issues and their location 2.00 1.10E-mail/phone other trades about coordination issues/construction sequence 2.80 2.40React to any issues/discrepancies that have arisen in the field 3.80 3.00Reaction subtotal 18.80 15.00Process pay applications 1.80 1.80Update information in the BIM to serve as electronic deliverable to pwner 2.50 1.00Clerical subtotal 4.30 2.80Total weekly hours 62.03 54.53

450 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Table 3. The 25 CM activities and their durations pre-CIMS andpost-CIMS were categorized into the four types of managementcategories. The data pertain primarily to the use of WBCIMSbecause IACIMS was in its infancy at the time of data collection.Records of weekly hours spent in the various categories werecollected from the five observed CMs over a 24-week period oftime, representing approximately one-fifth of the total projectschedule. Each week, the five subjects were asked to segregate theirwork time based on the four management categories, for a total of120 observations. The collected data were then aggregated andaveraged. The data were averaged to avoid the influence causedby the inherent fluctuations of staff performance and productivityfrom day to day or week to week. The immediate benefit canbe seen in the difference in the total weekly hours worked. Theaverage number of hours worked for the interviewed employeeswas 62.03 h without the use of a CIMS. This weekly value wasreduced to 54.53 h with the use of CIMS software, representinga decrease of 7.5 h from 62.03 h without the use of CIMS. A furtheranalysis using ANOVA indicated a strong correlation to CIMS useand a reduction in total weekly hours worked.

The average durations represent a single time span within aconstruction project. It is expected that as various constructionactivities begin and others come to a close and because the speedof construction varies, the allocation of management hours couldchange substantially. In order to eliminate impact from factors otherthan CIMSs, this paper did not attempt to estimate the benefitsassociated with such software for other projects or time framesother than the observational period of the library construction.Instead, the interviewees’ were asked to report their work timefor the same project, the same organization and management teamsetup, and similar phase of the project so that the improvementsin activity durations were truly attributable to the technology im-plementation. The collected data were then summarized in barcharts representing activity durations prior to the use of CIMSs(Fig. 3) and after implementation of CIMS (Fig. 4). Upon furtherinvestigation of weekly durations pre-CIMS, both planning andassessment consume most of the CMs’ time at 31% (19.38 h)and 32% (19.55 h), respectively. Reaction time and clericaltime account for the remaining 37%, with reaction time consum-ing 30% (18.8 h) and clerical duties consuming the remaining7% (4.3 h).

All four management activities durations decreased with the useof CIMS except for planning, which increased in duration throughvalue-added planning time. The reduction in total weekly hoursworked and reaction activity hours post-CIMS showed a statisti-cally significant difference (SSD) from the pre-CIMS data. Assess-ment and clerical activities did not show a SSD between pre-CIMS

and post-CIMS, but the analysis of data did indicate CIMS reducesthe durations of these activities.

Not only was there a reduction in the total amount of timeneeded to complete the CM’s weekly activities, but the distributionof time changed significantly and favorably when CIMS softwarewas used. Assessment time decreased from consuming 32% ofthe week’s activities to 30% of the week’s activities. The reductionin assessment time is a result of the WBCIMS’s ability to storereal-time project data, which can then be quickly sorted, filtered,and evaluated without having to use a separate piece of software toenter, store, and analyze data. By having all project data located in acentralized hub, various project data can be accessed quickly andefficiently, rather than having to locate various files and ensurethat they are up to date and that everyone has the correct version.Clerical time decreased by 2% from 7% to 5%, a reduction of 1.5 h.While WBCIMS provides project data to project participants auto-matically and in real time, e-mail correspondence is still necessaryfor notifying others of the changes in data and directing them toparticular items within WBCIMS.

Other tasks require various other software. Records of phoneconversations, RFIs, and sequences of e-mails to and from varioussuppliers and other CMAR employees may be best managed bysoftware such as Prolog. Processing pay applications was per-formed outside of the WBCIMS program so no benefits weregained in this area with WBCIMS. Program interaction with theseand other packages such as scheduling may be beneficial, butanalysis of these needs is outside the scope of this study. However,with WBCIMS and its BIM integration adaptor, project data relatedto material tracking and commissioning can be synced to the BIMmodel to help provide status updates on various equipment andserve as an electronic deliverable to the owner for use with facilitiesmanagement. Without the use of WBCIMS, this task wouldconsume 2.5 h each week, but with WBCIMS, this duration wasreduced to approximately 1 h each week. Without WBCIMS,material tracking and commissioning would have to be manuallyupdated for one piece of equipment or particular material at a timeand would require the 2.5 h observed pre-CIMS.

A one-way analysis of variance was performed to examine theeffect of Vela Systems on the total weekly hours worked. Althoughthe degrees of freedom (DOFs) are limited, the p value was 0.011for an F ratio of 10.82, indicating a statistically significant differ-ence at a 95% confidence limit between the total duration spent bythe CM before and after Vela Systems use was initialized.

Further investigation into differences with or without VelaSystems in time spent in one of the categories reaction, assessment,planning, and clerical was performed to help assess quantitativeeffects of Vela Systems on classes of management time. Examiningreaction activities, the ANOVA provided a p value of 0.335 for an

18.8 h(30%) 19.6 h (32%) 19.4 h (31%)

4.3 h (7%)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Reaction: Assessment: Planning: Clerical:

Hou

rs P

er W

eek

Activity

Pre-Vela: Distribution of Hours

Total Hours: 62.0

Fig. 3. Distribution of activity duration pre-CIMS

15.0 h (27%)16.1 h (30%)

20.6 h (38%)

2.8 h (5%)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Reaction: Assessment: Planning: Clerical:

Hou

rs P

er W

eek

Activity

Post-Vela: Distribution of HoursTotal Hours:

54.5

Fig. 4. Distribution of activity durations post-CIMS

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 451

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

F ratio of 1.05, indicating no statistically significant difference inhours spent on reaction activities before and after implementationof Vela Systems. The result is similar for assessment activitiesbefore and after Vela Systems, with a P value of 0.423 and anF ratio of 0.71. No statistical significance in weekly hours wasfound due to Vela Systems with a p value of 0.762 for an F ratioof 0.10. Clerical activities were also not affected in a statisticallysignificant manner (p ¼ 0.540). It is important to recall that aportion of the weekly hours saved through the use of Vela Systemsappeared to have been added to planning time, a value-addedactivity, affecting the statistical significance of total weekly hoursworked.

Additional examination of management time pre-Vela Systemsand post-Vela Systems was performed using a paired-t analysis.The analysis supports the conclusion that less time was spent onreaction activities after Vela Systems was introduced. This andthe finding that less total time was worked each week with Velaare critical findings of this study. The paired-t analysis indicateda significantly significant difference for reaction hours pre-VelaSystems and post-Vela Systems with a p value of 0.050. In addi-tion, the paired-t analysis of the total weekly hours worked exhib-ited a statistically significant difference pre-Vela Systems andpost-Vela Systems with a p value of 0.021 with four DOFs.

The reduction in assessment time and clerical time allows plan-ning time to increase from 31% to 38%. Although not statisticallysignificant, a 7% increase in planning time would provide anopportunity for more thorough scheduling or coordination withvarious trades, and could result in identifying important issues ear-lier and on paper in plans, specifications, or bid documents, beforesuch issues arise in the field. The additional value-added planningtime resulted in more efficient management time as average reac-tion time was reduced from 18.8 h per week to 15.0 h per week.

Efficiency gains are usually associated with gains resulting inmoney or other resources that a CM values. Using the data gatheredin this study, an efficiency metric can be developed to help quantifythe increased CM productivity provided by CIMS. Applying thismetric to construction management in other projects requires deter-mining the management activities that typically occur in a specificphase of construction and estimating the time allocated to eachof those activities. Because a primary job function of a CM is tomanage field operations and construction processes, any activitythat detracts from this activity should be examined for relativevalue. For the purposes of this case study, these value-addingactivities are project planning and assessment and are listed as“Value-Adding Activities” in Table 3. By summing the total earnedvalue-adding activity hours and dividing by the actual amount ofhours spent on those activities, an efficiency can be calculatedbased on a pre-CIMS baseline of 1.00.

The average earned value of planning and assessment time post-CIMS was 19.38 and 19.55 h, respectively. In addition, 1.5 h wereadded to the earned planning time because the use of a CIMS wasfound to save time throughout the work week by reducing clerical,reaction, and assessment times. For example, Table 3 shows theincrease in activity duration post-CIMS with the planning activitiesof “Coordinate with Project Managers (PMs) of trades for theweek’s activities” and “Plan for next week’s construction/installa-tion” for a total additional 1.5 h. Simple review shows a differencein total planning hours between pre-CIMS and post-CIMS of 0.75 hon average. However, this is due to the reduction in time of theplanning activity “Email/phone fabrication shop to verify sequenceand number of units,” which decreased from 1.38 to 1.13 h onaverage. Therefore, the earned value of that activity is still 1.38 hbecause the same amount of planning is taking place, just in a moreefficient and productive manner.

Summing the total earned value of planning and assessmentpost-CIMS yields 40.43 h per week on average (19.55þ 19.38þ1.5 h ¼ 40.43 h). Summing the total actual hours spent onplanning and assessment results in 36.23 h per week on average.Dividing the earned value hours by the actual hours results in anefficiency value of 1.116. This finding indicates that the use ofCIMS results in an efficiency increase of 11.6% from the baselineestablished without using CIMS.

Using the same approach, the earned value of the assessmenttime post-CIMS is equivalent to the pre-CIMS hours spent onassessment. Earned planning time is therefore the post-CIMS totalplanning hours plus the 1.5 h of additional planning gained. Table 4summarizes the earned and actual values along with an estimate ofimproved efficiency with CIMS.

The logistics and layout of the library are such that the fieldoffice is located approximately 1,200 ft (365.76 m) from the projectsite with no direct line of sight to the project due to existing build-ings. For this reason, golf carts and other utility vehicles are used totravel between the project and field office. One-way travel is ap-proximately 4 to 5 min. This time was based on the average of fourtimed runs to and from the job site. Superintendents were asked toestimate the number of trips to retrieve construction documentsthroughout the day. Responses ranged from two to five times aday in most circumstances. With the use of WBCIMS or IACIMS,superintendents have access to all construction documentationon the tablets or iPads. With a mobile platform, superintendents canuse CIMS to access the most recent versions of documents.

Not only does the superintendent not have to return to thefield office for documents, but the superintendent can carry alldocuments to the site at once, a procedure not convenient onmoderate-sized projects or practical for large-sized projects withpaper files. It is possible to calculate the amount of time that wouldpotentially be lost due to unnecessary travel assuming a completiondate of September 2012. Table 5 shows the intermediate calcula-tions used to determine both a maximum and minimum time indays that could potentially be saved over the remaining durationof the project based solely on the time saved through the elimina-tion of travel to and from the job site from the site office. Theprojected time savings of between 36 and 114 total accumulateddays demonstrates the reason every project participant interviewedfelt that the second most important feature provided by the tandem

Table 4. Observed Gains in Efficiency for Total CM Effort

Metric Pre-CIMS Post-CIMS

Earned value-adding hours 38.93 40.43Actual value-adding hours 38.93 36.23Contributory adding hours 23.10 15.00Efficiency Base 1.116

Table 5. Estimated Time Savings through Gained Travel Efficiency

Quantity Maximum Minimum

Number of trips/day 5 2Time back/forth 10 8Working days/year 260 260Years left in project 1.75 1.75Total minutes 22,750 7,280Total hours 379 121Total days 38 12×3 Superintendents 114 36

Note: Time does not include vacation times.

452 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

use of CIMS software and mobile devices was having up-to-datedocuments readily available during the project. The calculation oftime savings is based on the total number of working days fromWBCIMS implementation in January 2011 to project completionin September 2012. Weekends, all major observed holidays, andvacation time throughout the year were excluded.

Qualitative Benefits

In addition to the quantitative benefits associated with improvedefficiency, supplementary qualitative benefits result from the useof CIMS coupled with a mobile communication platform. Thesequalitative benefits can be categorized into four sectors: communi-cation, operation, clerical, and quality. A summary of the varioussectors along with specific qualitative benefits of each sector ispresented in Table 6. This list was developed in part from discus-sions with one of the CIMS’s cofounders and through discussionsand interviews with key project participants using CIMS. Qualita-tive benefits may be subjective, but for the CMAR’s employeesthese benefits were considered to be an important list of attributesassociated with CIMS’s use by construction firms.

Many of the qualitative aspects listed in Table 6 help increasethe efficiency that was determined quantatively. This is due in partto the qualitative benefit related to the increased speed at whichinformation is transferred from one party to another and infor-mation transparency. CIMS helps to improve the efficacy of itsusers by standardizing various construction management processes.

One aspect that encompasses all categories of benefits listed inTable 6 is the standardization of various activities.

It is important to distinguish between efficacy and efficiencyas it relates to WBCIMS and other construction management soft-ware benefits. Efficacy or effectiveness is defined as doing the rightthings, whereas efficiency is doing things right (Helms 2006).Efficacy is qualitative in nature but can profoundly affect Construc-tion Management Firms at the operations level.

Often times, using a standardized program for managing con-struction projects requires reengineering current business practices,focusing on IT implementations. This standardization of businesspractices and workflows leads to increased effectiveness of theusers, meaning that end users are not simply performing their dutiesbut performing their duties in a structured and organized mannerthat can be replicated throughout the construction firm. For thesereasons, CIMS helps promote a robust quality management pro-gram for the project. An organized workflow helps establish trans-parency across multiple project teams. Using the same constructionmanagement software, project teams act less independently of oneanother with fewer differences between regional offices. These fea-tures of mobile cloud-based CM software promote more effectiveproject participants, and hence a more effective project team.

It may be difficult to precisely quantify monetary savings ortime delays if outdated project information was never initiallycirculated, and many potential benefits cannot be quantifiedbecause of the nature of construction, for example, if up-to-date,real-time information prevents or reduces rework, or minimizesdelays. The indirect benefit of CIMS’s time savings can be signifi-cant in providing the CM an opportunity to stay one step ahead ofconstruction activities in progress as well as ones scheduled to startin the near future. The CM does this by allocating a portion of theavailable management time to additional planning and assessmentrather than reaction and clerical activities. One important impactCIMS has on the CM staff is that of reduced overtime. If CIMScan reduce the total weekly hours worked, it can equate to reducedstress placed on CMs and increase the percentage of retainedemployees for the CMAR staff as a result of the reduced stress.

Reaction and rework are wasteful activities that should beavoided. The Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA)identified five causes of rework in its Fishbone Rework CauseClassification diagram pictured in Fig. 5 (2004). All of the fivecauses of rework are addressed by IACIMS for the iPad andWBCIMS for computers and tablets.

Specifically, CIMS addresses the aspects of unclear instructionsto workers, inadequate supervision and job planning, and excessiveovertime under “Human Resource Capability.”Unclear instructionsto workers is addressed by providing trades with automaticallygenerated e-mail notifications with the ability to view and changethe status of issues using iPads provided from the CMAR on aproject-by-project basis, or through the MERS located on site.

Inadequate supervision and job planning and excessive overtimeare also addressed by the CIMS. The additional planning time andreduced total weekly hours worked by the CM clearly affect thosetwo factors, contributing to rework and delays. Poor documentcontrol and errors and omissions listed under “Engineering andReviews” are two issues addressed by the ability of CIMS to lever-age the instantaneous information transfer provided by the Internet.In doing so, all participants have the most current set of plans, spec-ifications, RFIs, and Architect’s Supplemental Instructions avail-able as they are released for distribution. Hyperlinked RFIs onPDF plan sheets aid in the effort to provide further transparencyand speed information flow to the field. The CIMS also helps inthe category of “Leadership & Communications” in all subcatego-ries except “Lack of Operations (End-user) Persons Buy-in.”

Table 6. Qualitative Benefits of Using CIMS

Category Qualitative benefits

Communication Improved transparency of informationTrades notified daily of work list items/qualitydeficiencies via e-mailAll necessary parties can observe and communicateon issuesInstant status updates on issues in VelaCentralized hub for project information/plans/issues/qualityReplaces having to send e-mails with a largenumber of carbon copies and attachments

Operation Reduction in clerical timeMobile platformVela is both tablet and iPad compatibleAbility to quickly sort and filter issuesLess effort for organization of QA/QC checklists,work list, punch listsVela generates reports for distribution with photoand comments attachedAudit trail for risk mitigation

Clerical Plans/specifications/RFIs available to projectmembers in a mobile electronic formatNo longer need to transfer hand-written notesto electronic formatVela cloud archives and stores all project data,saving physical space and paper usage

Quality QA/QC deficiencies automatically create actionitems for responsible tradesOwner can verify that issues are being addressedand closed out in a timely mannerPromotes a robust quality management programStreamlined integration of photo and plan sheetattachments to issues for documentationAbility to document construction issues in the fieldeliminates unnecessary future rework

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 453

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Communication is a major driving factor of IACIMS andWBCIMS. The analytical reporting feature found in CIMSsoftware also improves management and project performancemeasures. CIMS’s material tracking and commissioning featurescoupled with the integrated barcode scanners of the tablets orBluetooth barcode scanners for use with iPads addresses the aspectof materials not in the right place when needed in the “Material &Equipment Supply” category. A case study of the Syncrude Aurora2 Project in Alberta, Canada, found that human resource capability,engineering and reviews, and material and equipment supply issuesaccounted for more than 97% of rework on construction projects.The distribution of rework costs was allocated equally, with humanresource capability, engineering and reviews, and material andequipment supply representing just under 97% of rework costs(Fayek et al. 2004). WBCIMS and IACIMS address those reworkcauses in at least some capacity and can therefore potentially reducethe amount of rework costs encountered on a project throughimproving the project controls listed.

Conclusions

The contributions to the body of knowledge lies in (1) developing aframework to assess tangible and semitangible or intangible bene-fits and costs of innovative construction technology application,and (2) summarizing lessons learned through the application ofa CIMS from the firsthand users so that construction managerscan avoid pitfalls in other projects. These results can serve as abenchmark for comparison on future projects of similar size andscope using similar technologies.

Through this case study, the cost and benefit of applyinga CIMS in a construction project has been measured and evaluated.This innovative technology trial cost approximately US$90,000dollars to implement. While that is a substantial investment,given the complexity of the project and the number of differenttrades on the project, it was an investment that can potentiallypay for itself by preventing unnecessary and expensive reworkor delays due to issues with inadequate information transfer. Alongwith the purchasing cost, an initial investment of 16 h was neededto customize the software for the particular project. Additionalweekly implementation costs were observed to be between 10.25

and 20.5 h of labor burden to the CMAR. These implementationcosts accounted for training, document control, and managing newRFIs and ASI mark-ups electronically.

This study did conclude that operations-level constructionpersonnel can increase their efficiency through decreasing clerical,reaction, and assessment time while increasing planning time andimproving the effectiveness of project team operations. In doing so,increased value to the owner and the project is achieved throughimproved allocation of managerial time, communication, and im-proved information and project data transfer. The benefits ofimplementation include (1) the use of CIMS had a positive effecton many construction management activities—on average, CMsexhibited a gain of 11.6% in management efficiency; (2) totalweekly hours worked and reaction activity hours decreased withthe use of CIMS by a statistically significant amount; (3) CIMSreduced weekly hours worked by 9 h, with 1.5 (16.7%) ofthose hours being returned to the project in the form of value-addedplanning time; and (4) not having to constantly return from thefield to gather documents can potentially save 12 to 38 daysworth of travel time for each user on a 2-year project. Theintangible benefits, which are evaluated using the qualitative analy-sis method, include (1) CIMS could possibly increase employeeretention and reduce stress by reducing the total amount ofweekly hours worked, and (2) CIMS addresses in at least somecapacity the root causes that account for more than 97% of reworkinstances.

This investment makes financial sense on a high profileUS$100 million project in which the use of a substantial qualitycontrol and construction management program is equivalent to lessthan 1/1,000 of the total project cost. There are economies of scalewith such implementations and on much smaller and less criticalprojects it becomes more difficult to justify such an investment(even though the scale of the investment would be smaller as well).The broader implications of such an investment are as follows: in-creased project data for analytic reporting by the CM firm’s corpo-rate executives; given industrywide adoption of such software, it isexpected that projects would see a decrease in overall costs througha reduction in rework due to trades not receiving important projectinformation in a timely manner (this would decrease the buffer orcontingency placed in bid packages, translating to a lower priceto the owner); and establishment of systematic processes through

Contribute

to Re-Work

Lack of Operations

(End User) Persons Buy-in

Poor Communication

Lack of Safety and

QA/QC Commitment Ineffective Management

of Project Team

Leadership &

Communications

Inadequate Supervision &

Job Planning

Unclear Instructions to

Workers

Insufficient

Skill Levels

Excessive

Overtime

Human Resource

Capability

Scope Changes

Errors &

Omissions

Poor Document

Control

Late Design

Changes

Engineering &

Reviews

Unrealistic

Schedules

Constructability

Problems

Late Designer

Input

Construction

Planning & Scheduling

Insufficient

Turnover &

Commissioning

Resourcing

Non-compliance

with SpecificationPrefab. &

Constr. not to

Project Req.

Untimely

Deliveries

Materials not in Right

Place when needed

Material &

Equipment Supply

Fig. 5. COAA’s Fishbone Rework Cause Classification (Fayek et al. 2004, © 2008 Canadian Science Publishing or its licensors. Reproduced withpermission.)

454 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

the use of CIMS and similar software that could be replicatedcompanywide.

Limitations

While the results of the study indicated CIMS was promising, it isimportant to recognize the limitations of this type of study. With therapid pace of technology development, hardware used in this casestudy was modified during the study. The hardware became betterand use of the software became easier. The software also improved.It was not possible to clearly differentiate between the versions or toprovide qualitative assessment of the value of each modification.The overall findings, however, clearly demonstrate the value of thistype of software/hardware combination.

Some of the activities listed in Table 3 refer to project-specifictasks and activities that might not occur on other projects, depend-ing on how and to what extent new construction technologies arebeing used. For this reason, it is entirely possible the efficiency gainresulting from this case study could have little validity to projectswith varying levels of staff, different technologies, and differentmanagement practices. This case study is based on a CMAR’s im-plementation of CIMS. It will be interesting and useful to investi-gate the cost and benefit performance from a specialty trade’sperspective. However, the proposed framework to measure andevaluate cost and benefit of CIMS implementation is applicableto general construction projects for both general contractors andspecialty trades. Another limitation is that responses from limitedinterviewees are collected within a limited duration. Collecting datafrom more practitioners in a longer duration will be desirable forthe future studies.

Discussions

Further investigation is needed to identify which projects are mostsuited for such innovative technologies. To benefit, the cost ofimplementation and maintenance of CIMS and associated hardwareshould not outweigh the benefits provided. Determination shouldbe based on, but not limited to, project size, complexity level,duration, criticality, contract type, A/E/owner/Subcontractors in-volved, project team dynamics and size, as well as what technologyor hardware is already in possession of the CM firm.

It is important to realize that as further research on the topic ofCM—based technologies is conducted, multitudes of new soft-ware, hardware, and implementation strategies will have been de-veloped as new programs and mobile platforms continue to arriveon the market at a rapid pace. However, with future case studiesspecializing in this research, it will greatly improve the assessmentof new technologies and provide further analysis of CM time andcost savings that can be used to further evaluate CM technologyimplementations.

Many innovations require some form of investment. This invest-ment may pertain to the time necessary to learn new means,methods, and construction practices or to spending money onnew innovative construction technologies. Such innovations aredeemed investments because of the belief that spending resourcesinitially will result in gains in resources that outweigh the initial

investment within a certain time frame. By establishing an effec-tive hour based on a pre-CIMS baseline, a scalable metric is estab-lished that may be used as a framework by other CMs working onsimilar-sized projects to evaluate their use of mobile constructionand information management software.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Skanska Building, USA, which generouslyprovided financial aid and support for data collection for this re-search, which allowed one of the authors to immerse himselfinto their construction project for the entire CIMS implementationprocess. We would like to thank Will Senner for his contributionsand guidance throughout the implementation and research.

References

Andresen, J., et al. (2000). “A framework for measuring IT innovationbenefits.” ITcon, 5(1), 57–72.

Becerik-Gerber, B., and Rice, S. (2010). “The perceived value of buildinginformation modeling in the U.S. building industry.” ITcon, 15,185–201.

Biggs, M. (2000). “Technology won’t end project failures; communicationis key.” InfoWorld, 22(5), 70–72.

Construct IT. (1998).Measuring the benefits of IT innovation, Construct ITCentre of Excellence, Salford.

Fayek, A., Dissanayake, M., and Campero, O. (2004). “Developing a stan-dard methodology for measuring and classifying construction fieldrework.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 31(6), 1077–1089.

Helms, M. (2006).“Effectiveness and efficiency.” ⟨http://www.enotes.com/management-encyclopedia/effectiveness-efficiency⟩ (Jul. 25, 2011).

Jang, W., and Skibniewski, M. (2009). “Cost-benefit analysis of embeddedsensor system for construction materials tracking.” J. Constr. Eng.Manage., 135(5), 378–386.

Jaselskis, E., Ruwanpura, J., Becker, T., Silva, L., Jewell, P., and Floyd, E.(2010). “Innovation in construction engineering education using twoapplications of Internet-based information technology to provide real-time project observations.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 110(3), 311–323.

Liberatore, M., Pollack-Johnson, B., and Smith, C. (2001). “Project man-agement in construction: Software use and research directions.”J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(2), 101–107.

Lim, J. N., Schultmann, F., and Ofori, G. (2010). “Tailoring competitiveadvantages derived from innovation to the needs of construction firms.”J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(5), 568–580.

Marsh, L., and Flanagan, R. (2000). “Measuring the costs and benefits ofinformation technology in construction.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage.,7(4), 423–435.

Meredith, J. (1998). “Building operations management theory through caseand field research.” J. Oper. Manage., 16(4), 441–454.

Nuntasunti, S., and Bernold, L. (2006). “Experimental assessment ofwireless construction technologies.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(9),1009–1018.

Robinson, P. M. (1977). “The Construction and Estimation of ContinuousTime Models and Discrete Approximation in Econometrics.” J. Econo-metrics, 6(2), 173–197.

Scanlin, J. (1998). “The Internet as an enabler of the Bell Atlantic projectoffice.” Project Manage. J., 29(2), 6–7.

Vela Systems [Computer software]. Vela Systems, Inc., Burlington, MA.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 455

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:445-455.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

UN

IV I

N S

T L

OU

IS o

n 03

/14/

13. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.