Material Management in Confined Site Construction

Spillane, J., Oyedele, L., Von Meding, J., & Konanahalli, A. (2010). Material Management in Confined Site
Construction. Paper presented at COBRA 2010, Paris, France.

Document Version:
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:

Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other
copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated
with these rights.

Take down policy

The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to
ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the
Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.

Download date:23. Jun. 2019

The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of
the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Held at Dauphine Université, Paris, 2-3 September 2010

ISBN 978-1-84219-619-9

© RICS

12 Great George Street

London SW1P 3AD
United Kingdom

www.rics.org/cobra

September 2010

The RICS COBRA Conference is held annually. The aim of COBRA is to provide a platform
for the dissemination of original research and new developments within the specific
disciplines, sub-disciplines or field of study of:

Management of the construction process

• Cost and value management

• Building technology
• Legal aspects of construction and procurement
• Public private partnerships
• Health and safety
• Procurement
• Risk management
• Project management

The built asset

• Property investment theory and practice

• Indirect property investment
• Property market forecasting
• Property pricing and appraisal
• Law of property, housing and land use planning
• Urban development
• Planning and property markets
• Financial analysis of the property market and property assets
• The dynamics of residential property markets
• Global comparative analysis of property markets
• Building occupation
• Sustainability and real estate
• Sustainability and environmental law
• Building performance
The property industry

• Information technology
• Innovation in education and training
• Human and organisational aspects of the industry
• Alternative dispute resolution and conflict management
• Professional education and training

Peer review process

All papers submitted to COBRA were subjected to a double-blind (peer review) refereeing
process. Referees were drawn from an expert panel, representing respected academics from
the construction and building research community. The conference organisers wish to extend
their appreciation to the following members of the panel for their work, which is invaluable to
the success of COBRA.

Rifat Akbiyikli Sakarya University, Turkey

Rafid Al Khaddar Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Ahmed Al Shamma’a Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Tony Auchterlounie University of Bolton, UK
Kwasi Gyau Baffour Awuah University of Wolverhampton, UK

Kabir Bala Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria

Juerg Bernet Danube University Krems, Austria
John Boon UNITEC, New Zealand
Douw Boshoff University of Pretoria, South Africa
Richard Burt Auburn University, USA

Judith Callanan RMIT University, Australia

Kate Carter Heriot-Watt University, UK
Keith Cattell University of Cape Town, South Africa
Antoinette Charles Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
Fiona Cheung Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong
Samuel Chikafalimani University of Pretoria, South Africa
Ifte Choudhury Texas A and M University, USA
Chris Cloete University of Pretoria, South Africa
Alan Coday Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Michael Coffey Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Nigel Craig Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Ayirebi Dansoh KNUST, Ghana

Peter Davis Curtin University, Australia
Peter Defoe Calford Seaden, UK
Grace Ding University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Hemanta Doloi University of Melbourne, Australia
John Dye TPS Consult, UK

Peter Edwards RMIT, Australia

Charles Egbu University of Salford, UK

Ola Fagbenle Covenant University, Nigeria

Ben Farrow Auburn University, USA
Peter Fenn University of Manchester, UK
Peter Fewings University of the West of England, UK
Peter Fisher University of Northumbria, UK
Chris Fortune University of Salford, UK
Valerie Francis University of Melbourne, Australia

Rod Gameson University of Wolverhampton, UK

Abdulkadir Ganah University of Central Lancashire, UK

Seung Hon Han Yonsei University, South Korea

Anthony Hatfield University of Wolverhampton, UK
Theo Haupt Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa
Dries Hauptfleisch University of the Free State, South Africa
Paul Holley Auburn University, USA
Danie Hoffman University of Pretoria, South Africa
Keith Hogg University of Northumbria, UK
Alan Hore Construction IT Alliance, Ireland
Bon-Gang Hwang National University of Singapore

Joseph Igwe University of Lagos, Nigeria

Adi Irfan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
Javier Irizarry Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Usman Isah University of Manchester, UK

David Jenkins University of Glamorgan, UK

Godfaurd John University of Central Lancashire, UK
Keith Jones University of Greenwich, UK

Dean Kashiwagi Arizona State University, USA

Nthatisi Khatleli University of Cape Town, South Africa
Mohammed Kishk Robert Gordon’s University, UK
Andrew Knight Nottingham Trent University, UK
Scott Kramer Auburn University, USA
Esra Kurul Oxford Brookes University, UK

Richard Laing Robert Gordon’s University, UK

Terence Lam Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Veerasak Likhitruangsilp Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
John Littlewood University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK
Junshan Liu Auburn University, USA
Champika Liyanage University of Central Lancashire, UK
Greg Lloyd University of Ulster, UK
S M Lo City University of Hong Kong
Mok Ken Loong Yonsei University, South Korea
Martin Loosemore University of New South Wales, Australia

David Manase Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Donny Mangitung Universitas Tadulako, Malaysia
Patrick Manu University of Wolverhampton, UK
Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa
Hendrik Marx University of the Free State. South Africa
Ludwig Martin Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa
Wilfred Matipa Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Steven McCabe Birmingham City University, UK
Annie McCartney University of Glamorgan, UK
Andrew McCoy Virginia Tech, USA
Enda McKenna Queen’s University Belfast, UK
Kathy Michell University of Cape Town, South Africa
Roy Morledge Nottingham Trent University, UK
Michael Murray University of Strathclyde, UK

Saka Najimu Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Stanley Njuangang University of Central Lancashire, UK

Henry Odeyinka University of Ulster, UK

Ayodejo Ojo Ministry of National Development, Seychelles
Michael Oladokun University of Uyo, Nigeria
Alfred Olatunji Newcastle University, Australia
Austin Otegbulu
Beliz Ozorhon Bogazici University, Turkey
Obinna Ozumba University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

Robert Pearl University of KwaZulu, Natal, South Africa

Srinath Perera Northumbria University, UK
Joanna Poon Nottingham Trent University, UK
Keith Potts University of Wolverhampton, UK
Elena de la Poza Plaza Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain
Matthijs Prins Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hendrik Prinsloo University of Pretoria, South Africa

Richard Reed Deakin University, Australia

Zhaomin Ren University of Glamorgan, UK
Herbert Robinson London South Bank University, UK
Kathryn Robson RMIT, Australia
Simon Robson University of Northumbria, UK
David Root University of Cape Town, South Africa
Kathy Roper Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Steve Rowlinson University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Paul Royston Nottingham Trent University, UK
Paul Ryall University of Glamorgan, UK

Amrit Sagoo Coventry University, UK

Alfredo Serpell Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Winston Shakantu Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa
Yvonne Simpson University of Greenwich, UK
John Smallwood Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa
Heather Smeaton-Webb MUJV Ltd. UK
Bruce Smith Auburn University, USA
Melanie Smith Leeds Metropolitan University, UK
Hedley Smyth University College London, UK
John Spillane Queen’s University Belfast, UK
Suresh Subashini University of Wolverhampton, UK
Kenneth Sullivan Arizona State University, USA

Joe Tah Oxford Brookes University, UK

Derek Thomson Heriot-Watt University, UK
Matthew Tucker Liverpool John Moores University, UK

Chika Udeaja Northumbria University, UK

Basie Verster University of the Free State, South Africa

Francois Viruly University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

John Wall Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland

Sara Wilkinson Deakin University, Australia
Trefor Williams University of Glamorgan, UK
Bimbo Windapo University of Cape Town, South Africa
Francis Wong Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Ing Liang Wong Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
Andrew Wright De Montfort University, UK
Peter Wyatt University of Reading, UK

Junli Yang University of Westminster, UK

Wan Zahari Wan Yusoff Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Malaysia

George Zillante University of South Australia

Benita Zulch University of the Free State, South Africa
Sam Zulu Leeds Metropolitan University, UK

In addition to this, the following specialist panel of peer-review experts assessed

papers for the COBRA session arranged by CIB W113

John Adriaanse London South Bank University, UK

Julie Adshead University of Salford, UK
Alison Ahearn Imperial College London, UK
Rachelle Alterman Technion, Israel
Deniz Artan Ilter Istanbul Technical University, Turkey

Jane Ball University of Sheffield, UK

Luke Bennett Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Michael Brand University of New South Wales, Australia
Penny Brooker University of Wolverhampton, UK

Alice Christudason National University of Singapore

Paul Chynoweth University of Salford, UK
Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong
Julie Cross University of Salford, UK

Melissa Daigneault Texas A&M University, USA

Steve Donohoe University of Plymouth, UK

Ari Ekroos University of Helsinki, Finland

Tilak Ginige Bournemouth University, UK

Martin Green Leeds Metropolitan University, UK
David Greenwood Northumbria University, UK
Asanga Gunawansa National University of Singapore

Jan-Bertram Hillig University of Reading, UK

Rob Home Anglia Ruskin University, UK

Peter Kennedy Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Anthony Lavers Keating Chambers, UK

Wayne Lord Loughborough University, UK
Sarah Lupton Cardiff University

Tim McLernon University of Ulster, UK

Frits Meijer TU Delft, The Netherlands
Jim Mason University of the West of England, UK
Brodie McAdam University of Salford, UK
Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa
Francis Moor University of Salford, UK

Issaka Ndekugri University of Wolverhampton, UK

John Pointing Kingston University, UK

Razani Abdul Rahim Universiti Technologi, Malaysia

Linda Thomas-Mobley Georgia Tech, USA

Paul Tracey University of Salford, UK

Yvonne Scannell Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Cathy Sherry University of New South Wales, Australia
Julian Sidoli del Ceno Birmingham City University, UK

Keren Tweeddale London South Bank University, UK

Henk Visscher TU Delft, The Netherlands

Peter Ward University of Newcastle, Australia

 Material Management within Confined Construction Sites
John Peter Spillane
Queen’s University Belfast
jspillane01@qub.ac.uk

Dr. Lukumon O’ Oyedele

Queen’s University Belfast
l.oyedele@qub.ac.uk

Jason Kyle Von Meding

Queen’s University Belfast
jvonmeding01@qub.ac.uk

Ashwini Konanahalli
Queen’s University Belfast
akonanahalli01@qub.ac.uk

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to identify various managerial issues encountered and resulting strategies
adopted, with regards management of materials on confined construction site. This is achieved through
classifying the various managerial burdens encountered with the numerous strategies adopted, for the
successful management of such confined environments within the realm of materials management.

Through conducting an extensive literature review and detailed interviews, a comprehensive insight
into the materials management concerns within a confined construction site environment is envisaged
and portrayed. The following are the leading issues highlighted; (1)Lack of adequate storage space,
(2)Work place becoming over-crowded, (3)Lack of adequate room for the effective handling of
materials and (4)Difficult to transport materials around site. The leading managerial strategies to the
management of materials on confined construction sites may be listed in order of importance, as
follows; (1)Pre-fabrication and pre-assembly, (2)Providing adequate storage, (3)Space scheduling,
(4)Just-In-Time delivery techniques, and (5)Effective design site layout.

Based on the research conducted, it can be concluded, that through effective management of the issues
identified along with implementing the various strategies highlighted; successful materials
management within a confined construction site environment is attainable.
Innovative Aspect of Paper: An empirical study of three different construction sites in three different
countries (Ireland, England and USA) investigating the managerial issues and strategies relating to
implementation of materials management in confined construction sites.

Keywords: Confined Site Construction. Materials Management. Pre-Fabrication / Pre-Assembly. Just-

In-Time. Space Scheduling.

Introduction

On reviewing the construction industry in the modern era, it may be noted that the majority of
constructions sites are located on brown field sites, often within the confines of a city centre location,
limited by boundaries on three or sometimes four sides (Singer, 2002). Coupled with the considerable
burden of site costs in these central locations (Ellis, 2002), the resulting projects often occupy a
significant proportion of the area of the construction site (Tindiwensi, 2000). Dixon (2009) reported
that in 2001, eighty percent of the population of the United Kingdom lived in urban areas and of this
eighty percent, forty one percent of urban dwellers lived in one of the ten most populous areas. Yet,
eighty percent of the population of the United Kingdom is spread over just nine percent of the country.
Biddy (2009) adds to this by indicating that between 2000 and 2004, the density of urban areas
increased significantly.

As a result of these factors, construction project managers are faced with the challenges of
constructing these sometimes intricate structures, with little room to facilitate and manage the
associated works within the proposed confines of the projected development (Wideman, 1990,
Remington et al., 2007). These factors coupled with the ever increasing burdens of reduced project
program durations, coupled with the need for increased personnel management, lead to an amplified
burden on the health and safety concerns of those made accountable for ensuring project completion
(Winch, 2009).
With the ever increasingly complex designs and countless materials required to construct these often
intricate structures, endless quantities of materials are required at various times and in various
locations, in order to complete a successful project. In the case of confined site construction, where
space is a finite resource, effective management of materials on-site is becoming increasingly difficult
(Thomas, et al., 2005). With the majority of construction projects, materials amount to between 50-
60% of the total contract cost (Song, et al., 2006), thus effective management is essential. Effective
management of this resource can lead to a reduction in costs, resulting in a significant saving. Bell, et
al., (1987) highlights that a potential 6% saving through effective materials management is achievable,
yet Navon, et al., (2006) outlines that the construction industry invests only 0.15% in material
management and control. Based on the possible savings that are achievable, the potential for more
competitive tendering and increased profit margins are evident and becoming increasingly beneficial
in the current economic climate.

Objective and Scope

The main objective of this paper is to highlight the various managerial issues in the management of
materials on confined construction sites. In doing so, a number of issues are outlined along with
documenting numerous strategies that may be adopted, to enable successful materials management
where space is a limited resource. For the purpose of clarity, material management within the
constructed structure and beyond the bounds of the site are not discussed. Due to the broad nature of
the topic, materials management software is also omitted from this paper.

Literature Review

The literature review covers two categories in which the study was conducted. The first covering the
managerial issues, the second covering the managerial strategies to the management of materials on
confined construction sites.

Material Management – Managerial Issues

On analysing the numerous writings on the management of materials in construction, many writers
(Formoso , et al., 2002; Oglesby, et al., 1989; Li, et al., 2001; Tommelein, et al., 1991) have sought to
detail the effects site layout have on both materials and there waste. Thomas, et al., (2005) identifies
that material wastage amounts to a daily reduction in productivity of up to forty percent. Perttula, et
al., (2003) also identifies that the surrounding environment has a significant effect on the management
of materials and the associated level of accidents that occur. The constraints identified by Perttula, et
al., (2003) are many, but the more significant constraint identified is the surrounding environment and
its sporadic nature

On reading several of these articles, many of the writers have stated the significant importance to both
of these areas to that of the site layout. Those writing on waste (Thomas, et al 2005; Sanad, et al.,
2008) highlight the significance of the on-site layout and many attribute it to one of the leading factors
of waste on building sites today. But in contrast to this area of study, many of the researchers highlight
that it is the larger sites that pose the biggest problems due to the long distances for which materials
must be transported, coupled with the additional burden of monitoring materials. Many fail to take the
aspect of confined sites into consideration when looking at material wastage, under such headings as;

 Lack of adequate storage space,

 Lack of adequate room for the effective handling of materials,

 Damage occurring due to poor material management, and

 Lack of adequate room to account for materials. Materials becoming ―buried‖ on-site.

Although there is an abundance of literature on the management of materials on-site, little is given on
the management of sites where space is a finite resource requiring extensive management. This is a
topic of considerable importance, particularly where space is a limited factor. Thomas, et al., (2005)
identifies that effective management of such aspects as delivery, off-loading, storage, handling, on-site
transportation and on-site utilisation of materials is essential to the overall success of any
development, but this is even more accurate in the case of a confined construction site. On analysing
the various literatures on materials and there effective management, little by way of information or
clarity is given with regards space restrictions and the management of materials on-site.

Material Management – Managerial Strategies

The effective management of materials both prior to and when delivered to site is fundamental to the
success of any development. In cases where this process is made more difficult, that is, where space to
accommodate these deliveries is limited, this process becomes even more important. Thomas, et al.,
(2005) identifies that there is a necessity to divide the site into three areas for the allocation of
materials and effectively manage each of these areas as necessary. Through the effective management
of a combination of these storage areas, management can effectively supervise the delivery and
allocation of materials on-site. This is further emphasised by Hendrickson, (2008) who identifies the
benefits of a materials management system on-site.

The use of particular management techniques within the construction industry is wide and varied. One
of the better know techniques is the implementation of Just-In-Time delivery. On reviewing the many
journals and publications written on this topic within the construction industry, many only made
comparisons of the construction industry with that of the automotive industry, where the principles of
just-in-time delivery were first established. This is evident in such articles as drafted by Ballard, et al.,
(2008) where he makes comparisons with the automotive industry but give little insight into its uses
with regards construction sites and the ever changing requirements. Akintoye (1995), identifies the
application and implementation of Just-In-Time management of building materials and encompasses
total business management under the realm of Just-In-Time materials management.

This technique is essential in the management of material, especially in cases where the availability of
space is limited, as in the case of restricted sites. Various articles have been penned with the emphasis
on just-in-time delivery, but none of which detail its importance within the realm of confined site
construction. Opfer (1998) illustrates the principles of just in time construction materials management,
but the considerable benefits to sites of a confined nature are over look by this and many authors on
the subject (Harris 2006; Ballard, et al., 1995; Fang 2004; Thomas, et al., 2005).

A solution being utilised more prominently in the last number of years is pre-fabrication and pre-
assembly. Due to the limited space on-site for the delivery, storage, assembly and transportation to the
job face, in some cases it is more beneficial to acquire the components delivered to site pre-assembled.
A vast array of authors all identify and acknowledge the benefits of pre-fabrication and pre-assembly
in construction projects (Ballard, et al., 1995; Yeung et al., 2005; Hass et al., 2000; Alistair 1999).
Yeung, et al., (2005) continues by identifying the benefits of prefabrication and to the fore is that of
the space saving characteristics of prefabrication due to the reduced requirement to store and manage
excessive amounts of material on-site.

Once materials are successfully delivered to site, they must be accommodated within the bounds of the
site or storied appropriately. The overall site layout is critical to the success of this aspect of materials
management. Chudley, et al., (2006) highlights this point by outlining the importance of a well
designed site layout and its effects on material management. Material storage areas must be located
close to off-loading areas and yet in close proximity to the works area. Harris, et al., (2006) outlines
the importance of material management on-site, including the importance of correct material storage.

Another area within the realm of materials management is waste management. The American Institute
of Architects (1994) gives a brief but concise insight into the management of construction materials
and its effect on the management of its resulting waste. This topic is critical due to the limited space
on-site, therefore any excess material or waste material is occupying space that could be better
allocated to tasks requiring the allotted space.

Research Methodology

On conducting research into the topic proposed, an in-depth literature review was undertaken, to
ascertain all of the various managerial issues and the numerous managerial strategies to the
management of confined site construction. For the purpose of this study, a confined construction site is
defined as a site where the building footprint occupies in excess of 90% of the development site,
within the limits of the site boundary.
An extensive interview procedure followed, so that an exhaustive list of managerial issues and
resulting strategies to materials management, within a confined construction site, were included for
discussion. The interview process encompassed three interviews from three on-site professionals from
three separate case studies adopted. In total, twelve interviewees were approached, with an average of
fifteen years experience within the project management profession.

From the literature review and the interviews from the case studies, the results are combined and
ranked, on the basis of the interviewee’s assessment, to gauge the prevalence and importance of the
various factors highlighted. From these factors identified, possible conclusions and implication for the
industry can be identified.

Analysis

To highlight the underlying prevalence of the various managerial issues and strategies to the
management of materials within confined construction sites, a qualitative analysis was conducted. This
qualitative analysis encompassed three separate case studies, located in Ireland, England and the
United States of America. Each of the case studies was chosen due to the noted difficulty in the
management of the various resources due to the increased spatial restrictions present on-site. Each of
the interviewees approached highlighted that there was a need for increased managerial intervention in
the management of the available space on-site due to the limited space available. Within each of these
case studies conducted, three individuals from each project were interviewed and questioned in
relation to their relevant confined construction site.

From the data obtained along with the information retrieved from the literature review, it was then
possible to gauge the prevalence and significance of the various factors highlighted. The following
table illustrates the order of importance, the various issues highlighted, as perceived by those
interviewed.

Managerial Issues

1. Lack of adequate storage space

2. Workplace becoming over-crowded
 3. Lack of adequate room for the effective handling of materials
4. Difficult to transport materials around site
5. Lack of available space on-site to facilitate the effective storage and removal of material waste from site
6. The increased difficulty in getting large material deliveries onto site
7. Damage occurring due to confined space in which materials are to be handled
8. The storage space for materials on-site is not sufficient, resulting in poor quality materials
9. Increased security risks due to the lack of adequate space to safely facilitate the storage of materials
10. Lack of adequate room to account for materials. Materials becoming ―buried‖ on-site
Table 1 – Material management issues on confined construction sites

The table illustrates, in order of importance, the numerous managerial issues highlighted from the
literature review and the case studies undertaken, as perceived by the interviewees questioned. The
leading issues are discussed, as follows;

Lack of storage space

The first issue that came to the fore is the lack of adequate storage space. Thomas, et al., (2005)
identifies storage as the first step in materials management. Thomas, et al., (1989) continues by
identifying that failure to accommodate materials results in poor productivity and waste. Enshassi, et
al., (2007) also outlines the effect of unsuitable storage locations, as a leading factor in labour
productivity, thereby indicating that not only is the presence of adequate storage space essential, but
correctly located storage is also a factor in the overall productivity within a project. Sanders, et al.,
(1991) continues by highlighting the negative effect of inadequate/inappropriate material storage on
masonry productivity through identifying that the storage of materials can have a positive or negative
effect on the productivity of masonry crews on a construction project.

Thomas, et al., (2006) outlines that mismanagement of material storage is a leading factor in spatial
congestion and as a result, reduced levels of productivity on a construction project. Resulting from
this, the lack of adequate storage space is directly linked to inadequate spatial management,
particularly where space is a limited resource, as is the case in confined construction sites.
Horman, et al., (2005) indicates that ensuring an adequate stockpile of materials on-site is essential in
the management of production. Where there is a lack of storage space, this inventory may become
compromised, resulting in further negative results in productivity and materials .management.

Overcrowded workplace

The second issue highlighted is that of an overcrowded workplace. Thomas, et al., (2006) highlights
this issue with congested work areas and concludes that congestion and overcrowding on construction
sites is directly correlated to poor project productivity. Horman, et al., (2005) continues by indicating
that an overcrowded construction site leads to double handling of materials, again, reducing
productivity and increasing damage to materials. Inadequate management of materials through over
allocation also has been identified as impeding progress, workflow and overall productivity, due to
over crowding the limited work space available (Horman, et al., 2005).

Poon, et al., (2004) outlines that in the nature of confined sites, material waste may increase. Bossink,
et al., (1996) estimates that on average, 1 to 10% of materials entering site, leave site as waste, due to
improper management. Formoso, et al., (2002) may consider this estimate conservative as he reports
the range of material waste to fall between 2-15%. Formoso, et al., (2002) also highlights that the total
building waste in urban areas is reported to be as much as 30%; an environment which is
predominantly characterised by confined construction sites.

Lack of adequate room for the effective handling of materials

The third material management issue is that of a lack of room to handle materials. Resulting from this,
materials become damaged; require double handling and are misplaced, due to inadequate
management of the limited available space on-site. This, as outlined by Jang, et al., (2003), may be
classified and detailed under the title of material flow. In a study conducted by Jang, et al., (2003),
material flow management was classified as the second most important critical factors in project
management’s level of satisfaction in construction logistics.
Mitropoulos, et al., (2005a), explains that inadequate working conditions leads to increased material
handling, resulting in possible injury to personnel. Mitropoulos, et al., (2005b) also outlines that the
―unpredictability generates hazardous situations‖ results in ―chaos and confusion‖.

Furthermore, Elbeltagi, et al., (2004) outlines the benefit of an effective site layout to contribute to the
flow of materials, through providing adequate spatial considerations. This is highlighted further where
adequate planning is required to avoid excessive movement of materials on-site, thereby, reducing the
probability of double handling materials in adverse conditions. Thomas, et al., (2002) concludes by
explaining that ―Any interruption to the normal flow of materials will result in causing serious
degradations on performance and labour productivity‖. Resulting from this, it can be concluded that
inadequate room for the effective handling of materials is a significant issue in materials management
in confined site environments.

Managerial Strategies

1. The utilisation of pre-fabrication and pre-assembly of materials prior to reaching site

2. Providing adequate storage of materials on-site
3. The utilisation of space scheduling so as to maximise the usage of the available space
4. The use of Kanban or Just-In-Time delivery techniques to minimise the volume of materials on-site
5. The effective design site layout so as to aid in the management of materials on-site
6. Implementation of a materials management program to assist in the movement/storage of materials on-site
7. Implement a traffic management program to aid in the overall management of the construction process
8. Executing a traffic management plan to aid in the movement of materials on-site
9. The effective management of material waste on-site
10. The installation of tower cranes on-site to aid in the movement of materials
11. The installation of material hoists on-site to aid in the movement of materials
Table 2 – Material management strategies on confined construction sites

The second table illustrates, in order of importance, the numerous managerial strategies highlighted
from the literature review and the case studies undertaken, as perceived by the interviewees
questioned. The leading strategies will be discussed, as follows;
Pre-Fabrication and Pre-Assembly

The leading strategy highlighted in the effective materials management on confined construction sites
is pre-fabrication and pre-assembly. Egan, (1998) outlined the need to improve the construction
industry in a number of areas with pre-fabrication being one of these areas. Leading authors (Yeung, et
al., 2005; Blismas, et al., 2006; Gibb, 2001) all highlight the importance of such a technique in
relation to materials management. The leading benefit was identified as ―savings in space allocated to
materials storage‖. Due to the reduced material storage requirements, more space is made available to
other tasks which require additional spatial considerations.

Blismas et al., (2006) summarises the benefits of pre-fabrication and pre-assembly through time, cost,
quality, productivity, people and process groupings. Through pre-fabrication techniques, the time
spent locating various materials on-site are removed, therefore making the process more productive.
Bell, et al., (1987) reported that material management foremen often exceed 20% of their time in
locating material on-site and an additional 10% of their time tracking purchase orders. Through
substituting traditional material purchasing with pre-assembly, this non-productive time is reduced
dramatically.

Providing adequate storage of materials on-site

Effective storage of materials on-site is essential to the overall productivity of personnel on-site.
Inadequate storage leads to congested workspaces, where space is a limited factor, resulting in
significantly reduced productivity (Thomas, et al., 2006). To over come such issues, management
must ensure that adequate storage space is assigned for the various material requirements. Providing
sufficient storage arrangements coincide directly with the design site layout, which invariably occurs
prior to commencing on-site. It is at this stage that storage space for the various materials required, are
accommodated. Elbeltagi, et al., (2004) outlines that where specific site layouts are not considered
prior to commencing on-site, the possibility of increased material waste and extra handling/double
handling is more likely to occur.

Space Scheduling
Space scheduling aids in the management of materials and the available space on-site. Elbeltagi, et al.,
(2004) outlines that space scheduling optimises the site layout paying particular attention to the inter-
relationship of the other facilities on-site. Resulting from this, on-site storage is critically accessed and
located accordingly, to benefit the end user on-site, thereby, reducing travel distances,
improper/inadequate storage and incorrectly located storage facilities. Elbeltagi, et al., (2004)
continues by indicating that effective space scheduling and materials management will incur an initial
cost but inevitable result in greater direct cost and time savings over the duration of a project.

Winch, et al., (2006) furthers outlines the importance of space scheduling and materials management
by indicating that materials management is one of the core ―task execution― spaces requiring attention
in construction project planning. This is further illustrated when analysed in comparison with ―spatial
loading‖, where the ratio of available space and the required space is compared. The following figure
illustrates the space capacity factor, as taken from Thabet, et al., (1994);

If the space capacity factor remains at 1 or above, the work area is not congested and productivity is
said to be at 100%. If this figure falls below 1, it is said that the work area is congested due to the need
for space surpassing the available space (Thabet, et al., 1994).

Just-In-Time Delivery Techniques

Opfer, (1998) defines Just-In-Time materials management simply as ensuring materials only arrive to
site just as they are needed. The benefits of Just-In-Time delivery techniques are widely acknowledged
but seldom practiced, mainly due to the intricate and diverse nature of the construction industry
(Ballard, et al., 1995). The benefits of just-in-time materials management are significant; especially
where the space required for the materials is greater than the space available on-site. Furthermore,
significant savings in both monetary and time may be gained through Just-In-Time delivery, through
saving on double handling and minimising accommodating large quantities of materials that are
required at a later date (Bertelsen, et al., 1997).
Poppendieck, (2000) details that Just-In-Time not only organises the materials management of a
project but co-ordinates the overall flow of work and the associated materials required rather than
assess individual work packages and there corresponding needs.

Discussion
As many of the authors outline, materials management is core to the successful management of a
construction project (Kini, 1999; Formoso, et al., 2002). Where environments are restricted as in the
case of confined construction sites, the difficulty and importance of materials management increases
significantly due to the numerous issues outlined. Bibby, (2009) emphasizes that, contra to belief,
urban areas within the United Kingdom are not increasing but much of the new developments are
being built within the existing urban environment. Furthermore, Biddy (2009) outlines that the
transformation of green field sites to development land is estimated at five thousand hectares per
annum, a drop of two thirds compared to 1975. This has been aided by government policies that are
encouraging inner city development of brown field sites and thus, increasing the urban density of
many cities around the country. Home (2009) points out that the United Kingdom is also one of the
most populated countries in the world, with a population density of 246 people per square kilometre.

The increasing number of urban developments suggests that confined site construction is rapidly
becoming the norm within the industry. Therefore, confined site construction must be acknowledged
as an important aspect of project management in today’s modern construction industry and therefore
given adequate research to effectively manage this spatially restricted environment accordingly.

Implication for Practice

Due to the increasingly confined nature in which many of today’s projects are located, it is to the
benefit of all concerned to acknowledge the numerous issues outlined and manage these issues
accordingly through utilising one or more of the proposed strategies highlighted in this study. Based
on the research conducted, through exploiting a number of these strategies, there are significant
financial and programme benefits present, to help ensure that a project whose environment mirrors
that of a confined construction site, may be completed successfully.

Conclusions and Recommendations

On analysing the numerous writings on the increasing urban development trends, both in the United
Kingdom and around the world, the reality of confined site construction becoming the norm is quickly
becoming a reality for the majority of developers and project managers around the globe. Based on the
extensive literature review conducted and the opinions of the interviewees from the case studies, the
issues and strategies to the effective management of materials on confined construction sites are many
and diverse. Through analysing the results of the issues highlighted, it is evident that effective
management is to the core of the majority of the issues highlighted. Though identifying the numerous
issues and counteracting these issues with one or more of the strategies outlined, project management
professionals can successfully manage the countless materials required in these restricted site
environments.

As identified, urban development is quickly becoming the norm within the built environment,
resulting in sites that are spatially challenging for all concerned. To acknowledge and understand these
restricted environments, it is recommended that further research be conducted into spatial management
and confined site construction within urban areas, to distinguish and counteract the issues identified
and formulate appropriate strategies to aid in the management of confined site construction.
References

Akintoye, A. (1995) ―Just-In-Time Application and Implication for Building Material Management‖
Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp 105-114.

Alistair, G., F., G. (1999) “Off-Site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-assembly and Modularisation”
3rd Ed. John Wiley and Sons.

American Institute of Architects (1994) “Construction Materials Management Guidelines – For

Economy and Ecology in Design and Construction” AIA Houston for the Governor’s Energy
Office

Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (1995) ―Towards Construction JIT‖ Proceedings of the 1995 ARCOM
Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Sheffield, England

Ballard, G and Howell, G. (2008) ―Toward Construction JIT‖ Lean Construction Journal, Lean
Construction Institute, Issue 1

Bell, L. C. and Stukhart, G. (1987) ―Cost and Benefits of Materials Management Systems‖ Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp 222-234.

Bertelsen, S. and Nielsen, J. (1997) ―Just-In-Time Logistics in the Supply of Building Materials‖ 1st
International Conference on Construction Industry Development: Building the future Together,
Singapore

Biddy, P. (2009) ―Land Use in Britain‖ Land Use policy, Vol. 26, No.1, pp 2-13

Blismas, N., Pasquire, C. and Gibb, A. (2006) ―Benefit Evaluation for off-site production in
Construction‖ Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp 121–130

Chudley, R. and Greeno, R. (2006) ―Advanced Construction Technology‖ 4th Ed UK, Pearson
Education.

Dixon, T. (2009) ―Urban Land and Property Ownership Patterns in the UK: Trends and Forces for
Change‖. Land Use Policy, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp 43-53.

Egan, J. (1998) “Accelerating Change – A report by the strategic forum for construction - Chaired by
Sir John Egan” The report of the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John
Prescott, on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction, Strategic
forum for construction, Department of trade and Industry, Crown Copyright. England.

Elbeltagi, E., Hegazy, T. and Eldosouky, A. (2004) ―Dynamic Layout of Construction Temporary
Facilities Considering Safety‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130,
No. 4, pp 534-541.

Ellis, M. (2002) ―Regional Land Values - The price of residential land for sale in the UK has increased
a staggering eight-fold over the last 20 years‖

Fang, T, Hg, S. T. and Skitmore, R. M. (2004) ―Modelling the Logistics of Construction Materials
through the Peri Net Techniques‖ QUT Facilities and Division

Formoso, C. T., Soibelman, L., De Cesare, C. and Isatto, E. L. (2002) ―Material Waste in Building
Industry: Main Causes and Prevention‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 316-325.

Gibb, A. (2001) ―Standardization and Pre-Assembly – Distinguishing Myth from Reality using Case
Study Research‖ Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp 307–315
Haas, C., O’Connor, J., T., Tucker, R., L., Eickmann, J., A. and Fagerlund, W., R. (2000)
“Prefabrication and Pre assembly – Trends and Effects on the Construction Workforce” Centre
for Construction Industry Studies, Report Number 14, The University of Texas, Austin, USA.

Harris, F., McCaffer, R. and Edum-Fotwe, F. (2006) “Modern Construction Management” 6th Ed.
England, Wiley-Blackwell

Hendrickson, C. (2008) “Project Management for Construction” Version 2.2 Prentice Hall,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Home, R. (2009) ―Land Ownership in the United Kingdom: Trends, Preferences and Future
Challenges‖ Land Use policy, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp 103-108.

Horman, M. J. and Thomas, R. H. (2005) ―Role of Inventory Buffers in Construction Labour

Performance‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 7, pp 834–
843.

Jang, H., Russell, J. S. and Yi, J. S. (2003) ―A Project Manager’s Level of Satisfaction in Construction
Logistics‖ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Wisconsin-
Madison, 2320 Engineering Hall, 1415 Enineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site.

Li, Z, Anson, M. and Li, G., (2001) ―A Procedure for Quantitatively Evaluating Site Layout
Alternatives‖ Construction Management and Economics, Vol 19, No. 5, pp 449-467

Mitropoulos, P., Howell, G. A. and Abdelhamid (2005a) ―Accident Causation Strategies: Causation
Model and Research Objectives‖ American Association of Civil Engineers - Construction
Research Congress 2005.

Mitropoulos, P., Abdelhamid, T. S. and Howell, G. A. (2005b) ―Systems Model of Construction

Accident Causation‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 7,
pp 816–825.

Navon, R. and Berkovich, O. (2006) ―An Automated Model for Materials Management and Control‖
Construction Management and Economics, Vol 24, No. 6, pp 635–646

Oglesby, C.H., Parker, H.W., and Howell, G.A. (1989) ―Productivity Improvement in Construction”
McGraw-Hill Inc, New York, NY

Opfer, N. (1998) ―Just-In-Time Construction Materials Management‖ AACE International

Transactions, Morgantown, PC05.1, pp10-15

Perttula, P., Merjama, J., Kiurula, M. and Laitinen, H. (2003) ―Accidents in Materials Handling at
Construction Sites‖ Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp
729-736.

Poon, C. S., Yu, A. T. W., Wong, S. W. and Cheung, E. (2004) ―Management of Construction Waste
in Public Housing Projects in Hong Kong‖ Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22
No.7, pp 675–689.

Poppendieck, M. (2000) ―The Impact of Logistics Innovations on Project Management‖ Proceedings

of Project Management Institute Seminars & Symposium, Houston, Texas, Copyright
Poppendieck, pp 1-7.

Remington, K. and Pollack, J. (2007) ―Tools for Complex Projects‖ Gower publishing limited. 2007.
Sanad, H. M., Ammar, M. A., Ibrahim, M. (2008) ―Optimal Construction Site Layout considering
Safety and Environment‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No.
7, pp 536-544.

Sanders, S. T. and Thomas, R. T. (1991) ―Factors Affecting Masonry-Labour Productivity‖ Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp 626-644.

Singer, B. (2002) ―Building on Confined Sites Poses Construction Challenges‖ BNET United
Kingdom – Real Estate Weekly.

Song, J., Haas, C. T. and Caldas, C. H. (2006) ―Tracking the Location of Materials on Construction
Job Sites‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp 911-918.

Thomas, H. R., Riley, D. R. and Messner, J. I. (2005) ―Fundamental Principles of Site Material
Management‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management Vol. 131, No. 7, pp 808-
815.

Thomas, H. R. and Riley, D. R. (2006) ―Fundamental Principles for Avoiding Congested Work
Areas—a Case Study‖. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp 197-205.

Thomas, H. R., Sanvido, V. E., and Sanders, S. R. (1989). ―Impact of Material Management on
Productivity — a Case Study‖ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 115,
No. 3, pp 370–384

Tindiwensi, D. (2000) ―Integration of Buildability Issues in Construction Projects in Developing

Economies‖ Department of Civil Engineering, Makerere University P. O. Box 7062, Kampala,
Uganda.

Tommelein, I.D., Levitt, R.E., Hayes-Roth, B. and Confrey, T. (1991) "SightPlan experiments:
alternate strategies for site layout design" Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 42-63.

United Nations (2008) ―Urban Agglomerations, 2007‖ United Nations, Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, NY, USA.

Winch, G. M. and North, S. (2006) ―Critical Space Analysis‖ Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 132, No. 5, pp 473-481.

Wideman, R. M. (1990) ―Total Project Management of Complex Projects Improving Performance

with Modern Techniques‖ Presentation to the Construction Industry in the cities of Bangalore,
Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and New Delhi on behalf of the Consultancy Development Centre
New Delhi, India.

Winch, G. (2009) ―Managing Construction Projects: An Information Processing Approach‖ John

Wiley and Sons.

Yeung, N. S. Y., Chan, A .P. C. and Chan, D. W. M. (2005) ―Application of Prefabrication in

Construction – A New Research Agenda for Reform by CII-HK‖ Proceedings of the
Conference on Precast Concrete Building Systems, 26-27 November 2002, Hong Kong, Paper
No. 3.