Proposing a Standard Template for Construction Site Layout: A Case Study of a Norwegian Contractor
Having an efficient construction site layout can significantly impact the productivity, cost and safety of a construction project. Construction site layout planning is therefore recognized as a critical step in construction planning by researchers. In literature this is often described as an optimization process where some objectives (e.g. safety, cost savings) are pursued within the constraints of the site and facilities requirements. Such models are usually complex and difficult for practitioners to apply, and usually result in each project having its unique site layout plan. The authors challenge this by proposing a standard layout template that can easily be utilized in planning of multiple construction sites. It is argued that each site should be treated as a factory and that similarity between sites should be pursued due to the nature of the construction industry. The template has been developed in collaboration with a Norwegian contractor, utilizing the action research approach.
KeywordsConstruction site layout planning Standardization
This work has been conducted within the project HPWS.no funded by the Research Council of Norway. The authors would like to thank the participants of the projects for providing valuable empirical data.
- 5.Isaac, S., Andayesh, M., Sadeghpour, F: A comparative study of layout planning problems. In: Hajdu, M., Skibniewski, M.J. (eds.) Creative Construction Conference, pp. 272–282, Budapest, Hungary. Diamond Congress Ltd., Budapest (2012)Google Scholar
- 9.Greenwood, D.J., Levin, M.: Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2007)Google Scholar
- 10.Ballard, H.G.: The Last Planner System of Production Control. The University of Birmingham, Birmingham (2000)Google Scholar
- 14.Zolfagharian, S., Irizarry, J.: Current trends in construction site layout planning. In: Construction Research Congress 2014@ s Construction in a Global Network, pp. 1723–1732. ASCE (2014)Google Scholar