DEVELOPMENT OF AN ANDROID-BASED ...

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ANDROID-BASED APPLICATION FOR MANAGING ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORTS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

A Thesis Presented to the Civil Engineering Department Gokongwei College of Engineering De La Salle University – Manila _________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering with Specialization in Construction and Technology Management _________________________________________________

Banlasan, Denver A. Catindoy, Donovan E. Nuñez, Roman M., III

April 2015

RECOMMENDATION SHEET

“DEVELOPMENT OF AN ANDROID-BASED APPLICATION FOR MANAGING ONSITE INSPECTION REPORTS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS”

Prepared and Submitted by:

Banlasan, Denver A. Catindoy, Donovan E. Nuñez, Roman M., III

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering with Specialization in Construction and Technology Management has been examined and is recommended for Oral Defense.

Engr. Jason Maximino C. Ongpeng Thesis Adviser

i

APPROVAL SHEET “DEVELOPMENT OF AN ANDROID-BASED APPLICATION FOR MANAGING ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORTS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS” Prepared and Submitted by: Banlasan, Denver A. Catindoy, Donovan E. Nuñez, Roman M., III

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering with Specialization in Construction and Technology Management has been examined and is recommended for Oral Defense.

The Oral Defense Panel:

Engr. Erica Elice S. Uy Chairman of the Panel

Engr. Cheryl Lyne C. Roxas Panelist

Engr. Ronaldo S. Gallardo Panelist

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree in Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering with Specialization in Construction and Technology Management.

Engr. Jason Maximino C. Ongpeng Chairman, CE Department

Dr. Rosemary R. Seva Dean, College of Engineering

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Although a huge part this research was completed through the group’s collaborative efforts, dedication, and hard work, this study would not have been possible if it were not for some people to which we dedicate this manuscript: To Engr. Jason Ongpeng, our adviser, for enriching our knowledge and providing support, both academically and morally. To Engr. Erica Elice S. Uy, the chairman of the panel and to Engr. Cheryl Lyne Roxas, Engr. Ronaldo Gallardo, and Engr. Irene Olivia UbayAnongphouth, our panelists, for providing constructive feedback which helped us improve the study. To Michael Dominise and Carlo Mansilla, our very good friends from the IT for helping us develop the application. To Engr. Melody Doliente for helping us collect necessary data, gather respondents, and reaching other engineers (who also helped us in this study). To our friends and family, for providing us unrelenting moral support and motivation; for being there when we needed them the most. And last, but not the least, to our God, for His overwhelming presence in our lives that has blessed us more than we could imagine. To everyone who believed, and to everyone who did not. This is for all of you.

iii

ABSTRACT

In a construction project, the occurrence of problems is inevitable. In structural works, particularly, problems concerning the quality of structural components may often be encountered. These problems, when not acted upon, may pose serious problems and impair the progress of the project for an indefinite amount of time, resulting to abrupt changes in schedule, delays, and huge repair costs. In order to detect these problems and prevent construction defects, thorough inspections are done on-site. This indispensable practice of site inspection involves information that is both complex and dynamic – changing, almost on a daily basis, throughout the construction phase. In the past, when information technology has not yet been embraced by the construction industry, construction project managers used conventional means of managing on-site inspection reports. However, these methods are timeconsuming and very prone to human error and loss of information. In the present day, where advanced computing technology is continuously being strengthened and employed in the construction industry, the need for more efficient tools to revitalize the old construction practices are in the interest of many. This paper presents a mobile application given the name “Providi” that functions as a site inspection assistant that integrates the technology imbued in modern-day smartphones including camera, wireless file transfer via local network or web, and cloud sync. In order to ensure the reliability and

iv

functionality of the application, several tests were performed. The application was distributed to contractors and site inspectors to test its usability and learnability in which the application was rated at 4.05, roughly equivalent to easy on the scale used by the researchers. The application was also implemented in actual construction projects to quantify the savings produced, in time and cost, by using the application. It was found out the application was most suitable for high-rise structures due to the complexity of its inspection priocess. The average time and cost saved using Providi was found to be 37.16% and and 74.27% respectively. The benefits of using the application, as well as the barriers hindering it from being fully implemented were also enumerated and discussed. Providi was found to be capable of making the site inspection process paperless, provide visual aid to the inspectors, and provide database for storing and easy reference. However, the full implementation of the application was also found to be hindered by several factors including technological maturity, susceptibility to breach of information, reliance on internet connectivity, generality, and issues on standardization and legality.

Banlasan, Denver A.

Catindoy, Donovan E.

Nuñez, Roman M., III

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

TITLE Problem Setting

PAGE 1-7

Background of the Study

1

Statement of the Problem

2

Objectives

3

Hypothesis

3

Assumptions in the Study

4

Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations

5

Significance of the Study

5

Operational Definition of Terms

6

Review of Related Literature

8-26

Introduction

8

Project Management Information Systems

9

Site Inspection and Quality Control

20

Existing Mobile Applications

24

Frameworks

27-32

Theoretical Framework

27

Conceptual Framework

30

Research Design and Methodology Research Design

vi

33-49 33

Chapter 5

Methodology

33

Data and Results

50-105

Application Development

50

Usability and Learnability

62

Time and Cost

77

Potential Benefits of Using Providi

101

Barriers Hindering the Full Implementation of Providi

103

Chapter 6

Conclusions

107-110

Chapter 7

Recommendations

111-112

Bibliography

113-117

Appendix A

Survey Form

118-122

Appendix B

Inventory of Respondents

123-126

Appendix C

Simulation Screenshots

127-132

Appendix D

Computation of Time and Cost Savings

133-154

vii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

LABEL

TITLE

Figure 2.1

Prototype data Input form for PIS (Deng et al., 2001).

Figure 2.2

Home page of AutCom System (Dawood et al., 2002).

Figure 2.3

10

11

Development of the web-based system (Forcada et al., 2007).

Figure 2.4

PAGE

12

Interface information sharing in the CNIM system. (Lin, 2012)

14

Figure 2.5 Object-oriented MD CAD model. (Chen et al., 2013) 15 Figure 2.6

Proposed checklist for Site Inspection (Mahoney, 1998)

Figure 2.7

21

AR site experiment using mobile device (Kwon et al., 2014)

Figure 2.8

23

PlanGrid user interface. Left: Blueprint annotation and RFI. Right: Blueprint DefectRadar on different devices (source: defectradar.com)database (source: plangrid.com)

Figure 2.9

24

DefectRadar on different devices (source: defectradar.com)

26

viii

Figure 3.1

Schematic Diagram of an Elementary Information System

27

Figure 3.2

Smartphone Technology features

28

Figure 3.3

Efficiency Factors

29

Figure 3.4

Conceptual Flow

30

Figure 3.5

Conceptual framework of cloud technology

31

Figure 3.6

Phone storage as a primary database.

32

Figure 4.1

General Flow of Information

35

Figure 4.2

Program Flow (Initializing the app)

37

Figure 4.3

Program Flow (Adding contacts)

38

Figure 4.4

Program Flow (Creating a report)

39

Figure 4.5

Program Flow (Updating a report)

41

Figure 4.6

Research Design

49

Figure 5.1

Application icon.

51

Figure 5.2

Log-in screen.

52

Figure 5.3

Project creation screen.

53

Figure 5.4

Invitation screen.

54

Figure 5.5

Tile view of plans.

55

Figure 5.6

Screen showing the different display tags.

56

Figure 5.7

Report details.

57

Figure 5.8

Report details (cont’d).

57

Figure 5.9

Discuss screen.

58

ix

Figure 5.10 List view of tags.

59

Figure 5.11 Filter menu of tags

60

Figure 5.12 Upload successful

61

Figure 5.13 A pie chart showing the distribution of responses for task #1.

64

Figure 5.14 Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for tasks #10 (left) and #14 (right). Figure 5.15 Learning curve for the three attempts of logging in.

65 66

Figure 5.16 Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for task #2 (left) and task #3 (right).

67

Figure 5.17 A pie chart showing the distribution of responses for task #4.

68

Figure 5.18 Figure 5.18. Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for tasks #5 (top left), #6 (top right), #7 (bottom left), and #8 (bottom right).

69

Figure 5.19 Learning curve for the four attempts of creating a report.

70

Figure 5.20 Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for task #11 (left) and task #12 (right).

71

Figure 5.21 Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for tasks #15 (left) and #16 (right).

x

72

Figure 5.22 A bar chart showing the differences of mean difficulties in the first and second attempts of receiving reports.

72

Figure 5.23 Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for tasks #13 (left) and #17 (right).

73

Figure 5.24 A pie chart showing the distribution of responses for task #9.

74

Figure 5.25 Traditional inspection procedure for LR-1 and LR-2

78

Figure 5.26 Time comparison for low-rise buildings.

81

Figure 5.27 Cost comparison for Low-rise buildings.

82

Figure 5.28 Time Comparison for Mid-rise buildings.

86

Figure 5.29 Cost Comparison for mid-rise buildings.

87

Figure 5.30 Traditional Inspection Procedure for High-rise structures

88

Figure 5.31 Time comparison for HR-1, HR-2, and HR-3.

93

Figure 5.32 Cost comparison for HR-1, HR-2, and HR-3.

94

Figure 5.33 Time comparison for HR-4.

95

Figure 5.34 Cost comparison for HR-4

95

Figure 5.35 Time savings for all projects

97

Figure 5.36 Cost Savings for all Projects

98

Table 4.1

Naming and information for the structures

45

Table 4.2

Details of Events

48

xi

Table 5.1

Tasks in the survey form with their corresponding numbers.

Table 5.2

63

Summary of responses and mean difficulty of each task.

Table 5.3

75

Time and cost from conventional method in LR-1 and LR-2.

Table 5.4

79

Time and Cost from the Providi simulation in LR-1 and LR-2

80

Table 5.5

Summary of results for low-rise structures.

82

Table 5.6

Time and cost from conventional method for mid-rise structures.

Table 5.7

84

Time and cost from the Providi simulation in mid-rise structures.

85

Table 5.8

Summary of results for mid-rise Projects

88

Table 5.9

Time and cost from Conventional method in High Rise Structures.

Table 5.10

90

Time and cost from the Providi Method in the Highrise Projects

91

Table 5.11

Summary of results for high-rise structures

96

Table 5.12

Summary of Results for Time and Cost Savings

98

Table 5.13

Average Cost and Time Savings for each classification

98

xii

Table 5.14

Time values for the Pilot Test in minutes

99

Table 5.15

Cost values for the Pilot Test in PHP

99

Table 5.16

Time and cost savings

101

xiii

Chapter 1 PROBLEM SETTING 1.1 Background of the Study A multitude of information is required at the different stages of a construction project. A wide range of professionals including civil engineers and architects often use this information through paper forms and documents. This data has been widely accepted to be very dynamic; often changing on a daily basis throughout the duration of the project (Scott, Kwan, Cheong, and Li, 2003). Specifically during inspection, where proper fulfillment of the plans and the code is necessary for the structural stability of a construction project. Proper handling of information not only demands the constant creation, storing, manipulation, transmission, reformatting, application and revision of data, but also doing it in an efficient and effective manner. Failure to uphold these demands in the form of inappropriate or inaccurate data could lead to consequences such as costly and unnecessary delay. The integrity and effectiveness of the information flowing between the inspector, design engineer, equipment manufacturer, contractor, and the facilities management of the construction industry is an extremely large factor for the efficiency of a construction development and operation cycle. A centralized database has been considered to be a vital part of an information framework such as in a construction project. Any changes or modifications to the information are documented and circulated within the system ensuring that every discipline involved has access to updated

1

information. Such a system removes possible error often garnered during duplication of documents making it more efficient. The last two decades has seen Centralized Information Systems being advocated but has not been very effective due to the limitations of technology back then. The introduction of the internet however has revitalized the feasibility of such a system. The Web offers incomparable advantages for the construction industry through communication, particularly its facility to accommodate different type of media such as text, voice, images, etc. To this day, there have been several systems and applications developed to uphold the needs of the construction industry mainly having features such as real-time access to updated information, fast and convenient transmission of data, and effective team communication all possible with the internet.

1.2 Statement of the Problem During the construction phase of a building project, several problems may arise. In structural works, for example, problems concerning compliance and quality control may often be encountered. These problems, when not acted upon, may pose serious problems and impair the progress of the project for an indefinite amount of time and make for greater maintenance and repair costs. In order for these problems to be resolved, well-documented and prompt reports must be submitted first. In the past, conventional means of delivering site inspection reports has been effectively used. However, with today’s technology, these methods are quickly getting obsolete as project managers

2

are continuously seeking for a more efficient way of handling these reports. The present construction industry’s need for more efficient means of handling onsite reports in construction is easily becoming crucial, hence the development of a reliable and efficient site inspection application is of great interest in this study.

1.3 Objectives This study aims to develop an Android-based application for site inspection in construction projects that can support and read different file formats (.pdf for plans and .jpg for images) and utilize smartphone functions including wireless file transfer via local network or web, camera, and real-time cloud syncing to multiple devices. Specifically, with the developed application, this study aims: ● To measure the usability and learnability of the developed application ● To measure the savings in time and cost (if any) when the application is compared against the traditional site inspection processes in various construction projects ● To enumerate the benefits of using the application and the barriers that may hinder it from being fully implemented

1.4 Hypothesis of the Study It is hypothesized that the developed application is usable and easy to learn, provides more convenience, and makes for time and costs savings as

3

compared against the conventional methods of site inspection in construction projects.

1.5 Assumptions in the Study In pursuing this study, the researchers worked under the following assumptions: 

The choice of platform, a handheld device running with Android operating system, has no limiting effect on the usability, functionality, and reliability of the application.



The minor aesthetic details of the developed application (e.g. color palettet, logo, etc.) have no effect on the usability and functionality of the application.



There is no significant difference in the manner of usage of the application among the site inspectors and contractors who will be using it.



In the survey, information including gender, religion, race, ethnicity, cultural upbringing, etc. are insignificant (with respect to the study) and will be considered to have no effect on the results of the study.



The respondents are capable of using a smartphone and able to follow the instructions and tasks in the survey form

4

1.6 Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations This study considers the development of a mobile application that could manage - by delivering and storing - site inspection reports in a construction project. The efficiency of the said application was measured considering different parameters including usability and learnability, and savings in time and cost. This study is limited to incorporating common problems encountered during the construction phase specifically in rebars, concreting and formworks in the application for punch-listing. The application itself is limited to Android phones and tablets only and uses using Android application package file (APK) format. The application was specifically made for building construction projects and so the other types of projects may not be applicable. For the test for usability, the basis for the selection of the repondents of the survey was limited to National Capital Region (NCR). Along with this, the construction projects in which the application was tested were limited to NCR and Greater Manila Area (GMA)

1.7 Significance of the Study Any construction project, regardless of its size, is a complex project. For a construction project to be successful, an effective project management system must be implemented; it must be comprised of carefully planned objectives, properly monitored activities, and well-documented reports. While the documentation may appear to be the least tedious task a project manager is set to do, it can quite easily be the opposite. Keeping track of records,

5

especially when working on bigger projects, demands serious attention. In addition to that, submission of site inspection reports can be rather difficult and time-sensitive. Since these reports are vital to the progress and quality of construction, the inspection and reports are best given utmost attention and priority. When problematic incidents involving defects and shortcomings in structural works are left unreported (and consequently, unresolved), the progress of the whole project may be impaired, resulting to abrupt changes in schedule, delays, and expenses. In this study, the smartphone technology was utilized to develop an efficient and reliable mobile application that can deliver prompt site inspection reports. The application was built in such a way that can support and read different file formats and perform multiple functions including wireless file transfer via local network or web, and real-time cloud syncing to multiple devices.

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms Site Inspection – monitoring of the progress and checking if the undergoing construction conforms to the plans and structural standards. Efficiency - measure of performance that produces the greatest amount of output while using the lowest amount of input such as time and cost. Usability – the measure of the ease of usage of a particular function of the application or of the application as a whole.

6

Learnability – the manifestation of increased ease of usage of a particular function of the application or of the application as a whole through repeated trials. Convenience – the state of being able to complete a task using minimal effort. A tool that is usable and learnable provides convenience. Android Application - a software application specifically run on the Android platform; a platform built for mobile devices. Smartphone - a mobile cellular phone capable of more advanced computing and connectivity features than the regular cellphone. Cloud Syncing – real-time synchronization of all files through all connected desktop and mobile devices with the use of the internet. Rectification – the process of correcting an unsatisfactory structural member.

7

Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Introduction An effective project management system is significant to the growth and success of any construction project and a huge part of this system is attributed to quality control and site inspection. In the past, when the use of computers and mobile phones in the construction industry has not yet been embraced, the work process for site inspection used to be tedious and prone to human errors. Fortunately, in the present day, the advanced computing technology instilled in computers and mobile phones are now being utilized to improve construction works. This leap was made possible by the studies of the researchers who have made significant contribution in incorporating information technology in the construction industry. These studies will be explored in this chapter as it is aimed to fill the gaps, if any, and improve these previous works while collecting significant and useful information in the process. This chapter will also discuss the advancements made in construction, more specifically in site inspection and quality control, through the emerging technological benefits of mobile phones and the Internet.

8

2.2 Project management information systems 2.2.1 Desktop-based project management information systems Computer-based information systems have become a significant part of project management in the construction industry. Ever since the advanced computer technology has been fortified, desktop-based software packages for construction management have been steadily making the rounds in the market. These programs, sometimes referred to as construction management information systems (CMIS), are designed to collect, retrieve, process, store, and distribute data to support planning, control, and decision-making (Caldas & Soibelman, 2003). Most of today’s CMIS are built to utilize the Internet as a medium for information flow. Deng, Li, Tam, Shen, and Love (2001) made one of the earliest efforts to implement an Internet-based project management system called “Total Information Transfer System” or TITS. The system was employed in a small residential project and was proven to be capable of handling information sharing efficiently between the various parties in a construction project. The system also offered many benefits such as improved efficiency, better management and decision-making, and enhanced performance to construction firms. Prior to the development of TITS, Tam (1999) managed to prove the advantages of using it over the conventional means of handling construction papers by comparing the cost needed to implement the system against the cost

9

needed to maintain the existing system. It had been found out initial cost of setting-up TITS and the corresponding Internet fees were cheaper than the projected monthly fees of continuing the existing system.

Figure 2.1. Prototype data Input form for PIS (Deng et al., 2001). Similarly, the group of Dawood, Akinsola, and Hobbs (2002) developed an automated communication (AutCom) system for managing site information using Internet technology. The software had been proven to provide storage and immediate access to project for viewing, printing or downloading for

10

modification or changes. Time and cost saving evaluations were also done to assess the efficiency of the system. The findings had shown that using automated communication system, 98% of time allotted for the drawing distribution process was saved. The implementation of the system was found to have eliminated the need to produce copies of the drawings for distribution, thus saving huge amounts of money.

Figure 2.2. Home page of AutCom System (Dawood et al., 2002).

Forcada, Casals, Roca, and Gangolells (2007) also adopted the use of web databases for document management in construction. The output had been proven to be beneficial to the performance of the project management

11

team as it was found to be capable of improving both external and internal document organization. For the validation of the web-based document management system, a survey was conducted among 30 Spanish construction companies. It had been found out that from the perspective of the participants, the system performed well in all of its intended functions except the respondents remained untrusting of the Internet’s capability to manage the documents with utmost security. Chassiakos & Sakellaropoulos (2008) initiated a similar undertaking wherein a web-based database management system was deployed

to

facilitate

construction

information

management

and

communication. The assessment showed that the implementation of the webbased database management had led to enhanced communication, which consequently provided more time for decision making, hence improving the quality of construction while increasing savings in the process.

Figure 2.3. Development of the web-based system (Forcada et al., 2007).

12

Lin (2012) proposed a new and practical methodology to manage and track interface events by using Network-based Interface Maps (NBIM) wherein users can get an overview of previous and current interface events then take appropriate advanced control. They developed a web Construction Networkbased Interface Management (CNIM) system for information sharing and tracking efficiency. The system was applied in a selected case study of a building project in Taiwan. They sought to verify their proposed methodology and show its effectiveness. The case study was undertaken for an 11-month construction project. Afterwhich, questionnaires were distributed to the different engineers involved in the project varying in work experience. The questions seeked to ask about the functionality and capability to make work more convenient.The results show that the CNIM system was effective in managing interface events for building projects. The system significantly enhanced process management of construction events, and it minimized ineffective communication during events. Through their study, they found that most engineers need to handle the issues on site thus their CNIM system will be developed for smart phones or Tablet PC’s for direct onsite editing.

13

Figure 2.4. Interface information sharing in the CNIM system. (Lin, 2012)

S. Chen, Griffis, P. Chen, and Chang (2013) developed a BIM-based framework with the function of developing the near-optimum schedule plan according to project objectives and project constraints for project scheduling and management that will be validated by a N-Dimensional project Scheduling and Management system (NDSM). To validate the effectiveness of the integrated project scheduling and management system, a case study was conducted at Columbia University in New York City wherein a series of steps is

14

to be followed (Create a 3D computer model, Generate project quantities, Data integration, Develop the activity network, Import object attributes to the simulation system (ISS), Assign available resources, space, resource productivity and unit costs, simulate a construction process, Analyze simulation results, create MD CAD model, evaluate construction process, mport optimum schedule outputs). Based from the results of the tests, NDSM has proved that it has the capabilities to facilitate many of the features offered by the advanced systems. In addition, the proposed framework can be utilized in all phases of the project lifecycle from conception and feasibility analysis, through design and construction, and to facility management.

Figure 2.5. Object-oriented MD CAD model. (Chen et al., 2013)

15

Ozorhon, Karatas, and Demirkesen (2014) also developed a web-based database system called “WEB-CONS” for managing construction projects. The system was tested on one of the largest companies in Turkey; 9 senior managers and 3 junior engineers were asked to test the system. These people were then asked their opinions about the system through interviews. The proposed system garnered mostly positive feedback from all respondents. One of the respondents said it was more useful than e-mail’s document size limits and slow uploading and downloading. Generalizing the opinion of the users, the web-based system offers an advantage when compared to other styles of communication and data sharing because of less time and money spent for data transfer and communication. However, it was also stated that it is going to take some time before the system truly becomes effective because the workers are already used to their traditional means. 2.2.2 Mobile-based project management information systems Although the use of the aforementioned systems delivered promising results, the platforms in which they were created in are now outdated and most likely obsolete as compared to the present technology. The potential imbued in today’s technology is capable of producing more advanced programs that can easily surpass the outputs of the past decade. With the introduction of smartphone technology, especially, the computational power and memory that used to be found exclusively in bulky computers can now be found in handheld

16

devices. In light of this, a whole new dimension of possibilities has been opened for the development of a more efficient CMIS. Bowden, Dorr, Thorpe, and Anumba (2006) made an initial contribution to this new field of research by correlating past studies on the traditional methods of handling information in construction projects, present available technology specifically mobile technology in the form of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), and several researchers’ visions for the construction site scenario in the future. The researchers examined different case studies about ICT in construction citing different positive effects such as reduction in construction time, capital cost, defects, accidents, waste, operation and maintenance costs and also increase in predictability and productivity. Also with a future scenario in mind, they recorded different industry representatives’ reactions about the matter and made conclusions from that. Their study has proven that most of the sought after improvements in the construction industry can be attained by using ICT for knowledge management. Although this is not the only solution, it has shown to give positive significant improvements where the traditional system is weak. Furthermore, the industry has shown great enthusiasm for the future vision of ICT in the construction industry; some companies were already looking to implement the proposed solutions. Chen and Kamara (2011) also developed a framework that explores how mobile computing technology can be used in construction site environments with respect to the retrieval and transfer of on-site information. In this study, the researchers followed a series of steps to accomplish their objectives. First, they

17

investigated the concept of construction information management and then the state of the art of mobile computing technologies and their practices in the construction industry. After which they developed a framework for exploring the use of mobile computing in construction site information management. Lastly, they validated the framework through a case study on the hospital redevelopment project in the North East of England (UK). Based on the case study findings, the developed framework helped users in identifying the desired objectives of onsite information management while providing guidance in the selection of appropriate mobile computing technologies suitable for a specific project. The framework also made it certain that the capabilities of mobile computing for on-site information management can be explored. Nourbakhsh, Zin, Irizarry, Zolfagharian, and Gheisari (2012) made a contribution to this development by creating a mobile application prototype for on-site information management in the construction industry. The group tested the usability of the application by gathering participants from different construction companies and conducting a test that required the participants to send a report and create forms while on-site. The test had proven the application to be user-friendly and easy to learn. The prototype was also further evaluated by collecting feedback from the participants regarding the importance and function of the included features. The result of the survey had shown that there was no significant difference between the included features and the demand of the contractors. C. Kim, Park, Lim, and H. Kim (2013) further

18

explored the thriving mobile computing technology by developing an on-site construction management system that focused on site monitoring, task management, and real-time information sharing. The study showed that the system was capable of implementing an intelligent on-site management and had demonstrated a strong potential for performance improvements in a construction project. In a study by Chi, Kang, and Wang (2013) the trends in Augmented Reality (AR) applications for architecture, engineering, construction, and facility management which focuses on four technologies: localization, natural user interface (NUI), cloud computing, and mobile devices was explored. The group analysed the findings and results of previous studies and journals in order to come up with the four essential technologies which they reviewed to come up with the future trends for AR. The researchers also managed to identify four technologies that can be safely integrated into AR applications: natural user interface, cloud computing environment, localization, and portable and mobile devices. In addition, they provided trends of future AR developments for the future based from the four technologies they identified: field exploration based on hybrid localization, accessing field information using ubiquitous services, context-aware AR in AEC/FM fields, gesture or kinesthetic control of AR interfaces in the field, and integration with domain specific information.

19

2.3 Site inspection and quality control Site inspection and quality control have always been regarded as a crucial part of any construction project. These practices do not only minimize construction defects and human errors but also support project team members making strategic decisions at critical points throughout the construction phase (Leung et al., 2008). Research shows that up to 12.4% of construction cost is wasted due to rework of defective components that are detected late in the construction phase (Josephson and Hammarlund, 1999). An effective site inspection system and quality control must be implemented thoroughly in a construction project to prevent unwanted losses (in time and money). 2.3.1 Conventional method of site inspection The construction inspector’s basic function is to make sure compliance with the construction documents is attained. Traditionally, site inspection uses a checklist system as shown in Figure 2.6 to verify whether the different elements of the constructed part of the project coincides with the plans and the code. Said process implies that the inspector is required to bring the plans onsite for direct comparison. After this successful coordination among the different disciplines must be achieved; this requires proper communication so that construction can proceed in an orderly manner. A schedule is then prepared by either the construction manager or the general contractor to be corresponded by a specific construction participant. Furthermore, the changes require forms

20

for proper documentation such as Application for Payment or Change orders. (Mahoney, 1998)

Figure 2.6 Proposed checklist for Site Inspection (Mahoney, 1998)

21

Although the conventional methods of site inspection have been effectively used in the past, the need for a more efficient site inspection system is in the great interest of the construction industry where time has become greatly valued and delays due to poor site management would mean greater losses and impaired progress. 2.3.2 Advancements in site inspection Boukamp and Akinci (2007) made an effort to automate the processing of construction specifications in order to support a more efficient site inspection and quality control in construction. In their study, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) standards were incorporated in a computer-interpretable construction-specification model. The developed specification reasoning approach was seen as a stepping stone towards automated defect detection on construction sites. Gordon, Akinci, and Garett (2008) pursued a similar study where they developed an approach for automating planning support for on-site construction inspection. Although both studies were found to have brought significant benefits on planning support for site inspection, further research involving more advanced approaches are still being sought to improve the current site inspection practices. A more advanced defect management system that utilizes Building information model (BIM), image-matching, and augmented reality was developed by Kwon, Park, and Lim (2014) to increase the efficiency of site

22

monitoring. The researchers developed two separate systems - an imagematching system to enable quality inspection without visiting the real work site and a mobile defect management - augmented reality application which enables the workers and managers to detect errors in dimensions. The systems were evaluated and the results had proven their effectiveness.

Figure 2.7 AR site experiment using mobile device (Kwon et al., 2014)

23

2.4 Existing mobile applications

Figure 2.8. PlanGrid user interface. Left: Blueprint annotation and RFI. Right: Blueprint database (source: plangrid.com) As the efficiency of the project management information systems are continuously strengthened by research, many desktop-based and mobilebased software developers have already made a run on utilizing the cloud syncing technology, a feature that has become more prolific with the dawn of smartphones. These developers have made big names across different platforms and mobile operating systems. PlanGrid, for example, is one of the most notable applications in the market and has been tagged as “the #1 construction app”. Despite this, PlanGrid remains to be more focused to managing and annotating blueprints and handling requests for information (RFI) and less on on-site inspection and compliance reports.

24

Procore is another cloud-based construction software that boasts efficient management of construction documents. However, acquisition of the whole software package that comes with a registered account, which can be used to access Procore in all available devices (including desktop computers), does not come for free. Procore is also often reviewed to be containing too many unnecessary elements, hence making the application complicated to use. Aside from these two applications, there are several more others available in the market. Some of these applications are designed to fit the general practices of contractors around the world; hence these applications may include functions and features that may not be of significant use in the Philippines. Another construction management application, which shares similarities with the application the group is trying to develop through this study, is DefectRadar. DefectRadar, however, is more focused on punch-listing issues involving facilities in real estate projects and not on structural works like concrete and rebars. Since the application gives less concern on these matters, it’s interface is designed to be able to handle general reports, i.e., not incorporating a specific set of standards (like the NSCP, for example).

25

Figure 2.9. DefectRadar on different devices (source: defectradar.com) This study looks into developing an efficient and reliable Android-based site-inspection application that is patterned to the already existing applications in terms of the interface and program flow. The application was evaluated through different measures of efficiency. The test for usability and learnability of the application was based on the methods of Forcada et al. (2007) and Nourbakhsh et al. (2012) which both utilizes the quantitative data that can be gained from surveys. The methods used by Tam (1999), Deng et al. (2001), and Dawood et al. (2002) will also be adopted in order to measure the time and cost savings in using the application. While other existing applications are widely available in the market, it is hoped to develop an improved mobile application equipped with multiple features that is structured and based on the practices of the contractors in the Philippines so as to ensure that it can fulfill the need for an efficient mobile site inspection system in the construction sector of the country.

26

Chapter 3 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 3.1 Theoretical Framework

Figure 3.1. Schematic Diagram of an Elementary Information System

Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) are made to properly handle the tedious procedures involved in the construction phase of a construction project. This cycle, with a logical flow of information, is crucial to properly manage cost and time. Figure 3.1 shows a simple diagram of the flow information starting with the data, which is processed to usable information, and is finally presented to top management for feedback. Data can also be stored for retention or transformed for a later time. Primitive PMIS handled these data using physical means with paper forms and folders which was very prone to discrepancies and errors which affected the time, convenience, and cost factors of a project.

27

User Inputs •Photos •Text •Voice Notes •Videos

Android Platform

Smartphone Technology

Versatile File Opener

Internet Access •Cloud Syncing •External Database Accessibiliy

Figure 3.2. Smartphone Technology features

Efforts have been made to utilize the advancing technology specifically in computers, the internet, and mobile phones. Developers like Dawood et al. (2002) and Forcada et al. (2007) have proven that using these mediums greatly improved the efficiency of database management. In light of this, the recent improvements in technology has given PMIS a greater potential to be more effective and convenient. One of this is Smartphone Technology which has now potentially put the processing power of a desktop computer in a compact mobile device. Figure 3.2 shows the different capabilities a smartphone possesses including the ability to get different types of user input such as pictures and video, and open different file types. Perhaps the most important feature of a smartphone is its ability to access the internet which not only lets the user

28

access a wide range of external sources but also allows cloud syncing or real time updates of a database across different computers and smartphones.

Qualitative •Usability •Learnability •Convenience

Efficiency Quantitative •Time •Cost

Figure 3.3. Efficiency Factors

Ultimately, the goal of using PMIS is to increase the efficiency of the users utilizing the android application while performing the different tasks during a construction project as opposed those using traditional means. Efficiency is a very broad concept thus the researchers have chosen to measure this using both the qualitative data gathered from surveys utilized by Forcada et al. (2007) and Nourbakhsh et al. (2012) and also the quantitative data from the past studies of Tam (1999), Deng et al. (2001), and Dawood et al. (2002). Figure 3.3 shows the groups of data that can be used to measure efficiency mainly

29

usability, learnability and convenience as quantitative data and time and cost as qualitative data.

3.2 Conceptual Framework

Construction Phase

Project Management Information Systems

Site Inspection

Cloud Syncing

Smartphone Technology

Measuring Efficiency

Figure 3.4. Conceptual Flow

Project management during the construction phase has vastly been systemized with the introduction of PMIS but leaves room for optimization. Centralized databases have always been dependent on handling physical forms of data which often lead to errors which ultimately delays the schedule and increases the cost of the project. Figure 3.4 shows the aim of this study

30

which is to utilize smartphone technology and develop an Android application for handling Site Inspection reports.

Figure 3.5. Conceptual framework of cloud technology

The convenience of using the powerful features of a smartphone can possibly remove the nuisances conventional site inspection methods produce. Using a smartphone provides a more reliable and convenient mode for handling the data in Site Inspection like using pictures to compare the actual site from the designed plans. Figure 3.5 illustrates Cloud Syncing which allows real-time updates from the inspector to the top managers which can greatly reduce Time factors. Efficiency was dependent on the quality of the application; a better

31

application would yield less time constraints due to faster response times. Similarly, costs would also be lessened as less days would be needed and printing would be non-existent because of the digital nature of the files.

Figure 3.6. Phone storage as a primary database.

Smartphones are also capable of handling large amounts of data through their internal memory or with the use of an external memory accessory. This is a large factor that makes smartphones more convenient. Figure 3.6 shows the two main components the inspector should have at hand when doing site inspection: the plans and the NSCP standards. Utilizing the smartphone’s memory will allow the inspector to easily carry and handle these documents without the inconvenience of physical paper works.

32

Chapter 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 4.1 Research Design The study involved collection of information from engineers with significant experience in site inspection. The information gathered was used to develop the application with a defined program flow and interface. The development process involved a series of test runs and troubleshooting. The developed application was distributed so that it could be tested for its efficiency in terms of its usability and the savings (in time and cost) incurred in using the app in lieu of the traditional site inspection process. These processes are discussed, in-depth, in Chapter 4.2, Methodology. An overview of the research flow can be seen at the end of the chapter in Figure 4.6. 4.2 Methodology 4.2.1 Data Collection The process of gathering basic information for the development of the application was streamlined by gathering information from studies of researchers including Mahoney (1998), Josephsan and Hammurland (1999), Boukamp and Akinci (2007), and Leung et. al. (2008) among many others. Additionally, site inspection reports from different construction companies were also gathered so as to parallelize the features of the application to the site

33

inspection practices in the Philippines. Furthermore, all of the information gathered were

validated by conducting interviews

with

construction

practitioners who are involved in site inspection work in the industry.

4.2.2 Development of the Application 4.2.2.1 Development of the Interface and Program Flow The application was built and coded using the Unity engine published as an Android application package (APK) for easier distribution to android smartphones. To make sure that the application can provide excellent security, a feature that only gives the primary user (site inspector) the ability to add people involved in the project was integrated. In addition, the secondary users (contractor, subcontractors, client, etc.) involved in the project must log in with their respective accounts (in the application) so that they may be given (or request) access to a project.

34

Figure 4.1. General Flow of Information

35

Figure 4.1 shows the general flow of information within the application among the involved users and also their hierarchy and what each party can or cannot do. The figure is divided into four parts, the preparation process, the inspection cycle, tagging, and completion. The preparation process is done only once per project and is initiated and controlled by the Site Inspector. This is where all the necessary users are invited and should download the plans uploaded by the Site Inspector. The tagging process shows that only the Site Inspector can place tags and everyone within the project may view the details within the tag. However, only the assigned contractor/s have access to the discussion. Next, the inspection cycle involves on-site processes such as the Rectification and Inspection of a certain part of the project. This process has the potential to be go on until the site inspector deems the member rectified and satisfactory. The Site inspector then can mark the tag as “Done” completing the tag and closing the discussion.

Figure 4.2 is an in-depth flow of how the application will be initialized by the primary user. The application normally starts with a login screen. First-time users will have to sign-up using an existing and valid e-mail address and by supplying the other necessary information including the name and contact number. After successfully logging in, the app would display a project database where the user can either choose to open an existing project or create a new one. Creation of a project will require the user to provide the necessary information including the project name, location, and date started.

36

Figure 4.2. Program Flow (Initializing the app) Since the application is also intended to be an efficient medium of communication between the involved parties in the project management team, a feature that would allow the primary user to “add people” in a project was incorporated. By adding people into a project, the primary user is giving the secondary users (limited) access to the project and the reports contained in it. When adding people, important information including e-mail address, name, position/role, and contact number will have to be inputted. For security and ease

37

of work distribution, the primary user will have the ability to limit the access of the secondary users to the project. Some users will only be capable of updating a report and some will only be capable of viewing them. This process is shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3. Program Flow (Adding contacts) Figure 4.4 describes the process involved in creating a certain report for the problem encountered during inspection. First, the inspector selects the plan and then tags the problematic areas and then fills out the report for the specific problem. When the report is filled out, it will either be automatically synced to the cloud when Internet is accessible or stored in the phone memory when the device is not connected to the Internet. The application also provides the option

38

of sending a text message to the “assignee” as an additional notification for a newly-created report.

Figure 4.4. Program Flow (Creating a report)

The application has the ability to display the reports in list view or plan view. The list view provides an easy access to the reports tagged on the plans.

39

When an item in the list is selected, the user will see a more detailed view of the report. In this detailed view, the user will be able to edit or view (or both, depending on the limitations set by the primary user) a report. The application gives the user the ability to include comments and attachments (pictures) in the report. The updated report will either be automatically synced to the cloud when Internet is accessible or stored in the phone memory if the device is not connected to the Internet. The application also provides the option of sending a text message back to the primary user (the one who created the report) as an additional notification for an updated report. This process is demonstrated in Figure 4.5.

40

Figure 4.5. Program Flow (Updating a report)

4.2.2.2 Troubleshooting and Distribution The functionality and the completeness (in terms of function) of the application was validated and verified by performing multiple runs. Troubleshooting procedures were done as required. After the application was verified, it was installed in mobile phones provided by the researchers. These mobile phones were used for the evaluation of the efficiency of the application, the detailed process of which is discussed in section 4.1.3.

41

4.1.3 Evaluation and Assessment The objectives of the study was to measure the usability and learnability of the application, and quantify the time and cost savings produced in using it. Following this, a series of tests and analysis were conducted by the group.

4.1.3.1 Test for Usability and Learnability 4.1.3.1.1 Selection of Respondents For this test, it was assumed that a single construction project, regardless of size, corresponds to three involved members: one (1) site inspector, one (1) general contractor, and one (1) owner. The number of respondents was based on a representative sample of on-going projects in National Capital Region (NCR) during the time of the study (2014) in order to represent the number of site inspectors and general contractors who are currently working during the same time frame.

4.1.3.1.1.1 Population Size For the purpose of determining the population size, information regarding the on-going projects during the first quarter of 2014 (based on approved building permits) was obtained from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). According to the preliminary records of PSA, a total of 29,468 projects were initiated during the quarter. For this test, the scope of the population will be limited to the number of on-going projects in the NCR which comprise about 10.3% of the total projects nationwide. Additionally, only residential

42

condominiums and commercial building projects were considered in the study to account for the larger projects (as compared to apartments and small residential buildings) assuming that these projects are the only ones requiring site inspection. From the records of PSA, during the first quarter of 2014, the construction of 27 residential condominiums and 2,239 commercial buildings were initiated. Following the limitations set by the group, only 10.3% - 3 residential condominiums and 224 commercial buildings - was considered for the test totaling to 227 construction projects, hence the representative sample was taken from this population.

4.1.3.1.1.2 Sample Size For this study, the researchers set an acceptable margin of error of 5% and a confidence interval of 90%. Furthermore, a response distribution of 80% was chosen because it was expected that 80% of the respondents will agree that said application is user friendly and learnable. With a population size of 227 site inspectors in NCR, the computed sample size was 99. In light of this, at least ninety-nine (99) construction practitioners with experience in site inspection of building projects and experience and/or knowledge on the practices of a general contractor were considered as respondents for this particular test. The researchers selected a total of one hundred (100) respondents.

43

4.1.3.1.2 The Survey The respondents were asked to perform an initial run of the application and complete several tasks as indicated in the sample survey form that can be found in Appendix A. The tasks were chosen in accordance to the interface flow and the features of the proposed application. A likert-type scoring system for measuring difficulty was also included in the form, which would allow the users to rate how easily the tasks were done. For ease of the process, the survey was administered under the supervision of the researchers. The responses of the participants were consolidated for analysis.

4.1.3.2 Time and Cost Analysis In order to quantify the advantages (or disadvantages) of using the application in terms of man-hours and money against the conventional method of managing site inspection reports, time and cost analysis was done. For this test, the construction projects that were used as subjects were categorized as either low-rise, mid-rise, or high-rise. Simulations of the inspection processes were done to translate the contents of the site inspection reports into the application, and interviews were conducted to collect information regarding the traditional site inspection process being implemented in the aforementioned projects.

44

4.1.3.2.1 Classification of Construction Projects The application was used in 9 construction projects (2 low-rise, 3 midrise, and 4 high-rise) which is further detailed in Table 4.1. Given that there is no existing credible information that clearly defines the criterion/a for these structure classifications, the researchers classified the projects as per the classification set by the project management team on the side of the owner. Table 4.1. Naming and information for the structures Project Project Height Owner Classification Nature of Naming Mgt. (Stories) by Owner Building Team A PM-A 4 Private Low-rise Institutional LR1 B 3 Private LR2 C PM-B 5 Government Mid-rise Residential MR1 D 5 Government MR2 E 5 Government MR3 F PM-C 47 Private High-rise Commercial HR1 G 47 Private HR2 H 58 Private HR3 I 51 Private HR4

4.1.3.2.2 Interviews Interviews were conducted in order to collect necessary information regarding the expenses and the amount of time spent in conventional means of site inspection so as to have a point of comparison between the time and expenses incurred in shifting to the use of the application. Along with this, comments, remarks, and suggestions raised by the interviewees were also gathered and consolidated.

45

4.1.3.2.3 Simulation Given the impracticality of using the application as a total replacement for the current site inspection practices being observed by the respective project management teams handling these projects, a series of simulations were done as an alternative. In the simulation, the group gathered site inspection reports from the 9 construction projects, the details of which can be found in Table 4.1 The contents of which were then translated into tags (reports) and pictures in the application. The images of the screenshots from the application can be found in Appendix C. For the purpose of analyzing the data, several assumptions were made based on current laws and commercially available products. The researchers calculated the cost of a smartphone per day using the cost of the phone used in the simulation divided by the average lifespan of a smartphone multiplied by the no. of users as shown in Equation 4.1. Similarly, Equation 4.2 shows the calculation of the salary of the Document Controller per day by dividing the DOLE minimum non-agricultural wage rate per month over the total working hours per month. For the use of internet, local 3G fees for were used for calculating the cost from the simulation as an assumption that users had no working wireless internet connection on-site, this is shown in Eqn. (4.3) 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒

𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒.𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑥 𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠 =

10,000 𝑝ℎ𝑝 𝑥(4 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠) 365 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 4.6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 ( 1 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 )

46

(4.1)

47 = 23.82 php/day for 4 users 𝐷𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 = =

𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝐻𝑃/𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦

(4.2)

466 𝑃𝐻𝑃/𝑑𝑎𝑦 8 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 ( ) 𝑑𝑎𝑦

= 58.25 𝑃𝐻𝑃/ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 5 𝑃𝐻𝑃

𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 3𝐺 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒 = 15 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠

(4.3)

= 0.33 𝑃𝐻𝑃/𝑚𝑖𝑛

4.1.3.2.3 Pilot Test In order to quantify the savings produced in time and cost when Providi is used in lieu of the traditional site inspection process, the group implemented the application on an actual construction project. The pilot test was performed during an actual site inspection process and not in simulated conditions to ensure that all of the factors affecting the traditional site inspection are considered. The subjects used for the pilot test was the high-rise project, HR1; please refer to Table 4.1 for more detailed information on the project. HR-1 was selected in particular considering the applicability of high-rise projects as shown in the results of the simulation. Three (3) actual events of inspection before pouring were tested using Providi which can be seen in Table 4.2. Contrary to the simulation, the Pilot Test only considered the inspection, commenting, and submission of the report from the side of the Project Management Team. Again, for the purpose of comparison, the assumptions from the Time and Cost Simulation were used for

47

the values of the phone cost per day, document controller salary per hour, and cost of 3G Internet per minute, which can be found in Equations 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 respectively. Please refer to Appendix D for a more detailed computation.

Naming Event 1 Event 2 Event 3

Table 4.2. Details of Events Member Quantity State of Member Inspected Columns 4 Rebarworks Slab and 1 Beam Shear Wall 2

48

Details Inspected Hooks, Bends, Splicing, Spacing and Arrangement, Cleanliness

Figure 4.6. Research Design

49

Chapter 5 DATA AND RESULTS 5.1 Application Development The first objective of the study was to develop a reliable Android-based application for site inspection. This was done using Unity as the engine of choice. The main function of the app was devised by knowing the actual practice of site inspection and this was collected by gathering information from studies of researchers including Mahoney (1998), Josephsan and Hammurland (1999), Boukamp and Akinci (2007), and Leung et. al. (2008) among many others. Additionally, site inspection reports from different construction companies were also gathered so as to parallelize the features of the application to the site inspection practices in the Philippines. After thirteen (13) weeks of development, the app was able to support and read different file formats (.pdf for plans and .jpg for images), perform multiple functions including wireless file transfer via local network or web, provide easy access to the inspector, contractor, and other involved members, provide sufficient storage and easy reference to important documents and generally had the following:

5.1.1 Branding After efforts of brainstorming and researching, the developers have finally agreed to name the application “Providi”. It comes from the two latin phrases “Proficio” and “Pervideo Pervidi Pervisum” which means “Assist” and “Inspect” respectively when translated to

50

English.The product of the phrases also came out similar to the word “Provide” which is what this app intends to do; provide an assistance to site inspectors. The application will be complemented by a logo of a white hard hat with a green background striking the La Sallian colors of green and white which will be seen at the home screen of the mobile devices.

Figure 5.1. Application icon. 5.1.2 Completed Features 5.1.2.1 Log-in and Sign up When the application is initialized, the user will see a log-in screen where he/she can either use an existing account or sign up for a new one. In the sign up screen, the needed information will be asked from the users which include the email address, name, and mobile phone number. For ease, the group decided not to add the verification process for the email address anymore as this requires more time and effort from the users. The application also limits the use of a particular e-mail address to one user only.

51

Figure 5.2. Log-in screen.

5.1.2.2 Project Creation The project list will be the first scene that will greet the user after the user logs in. This screen will be empty if it’s the user’s first time. The user can create a “Project” by tapping on the “+” button on the upper right. The user will then be greeted by a window where he/she will be able to fill up the “Project Name” and its “Location”

52

Figure 5.3. Project creation screen.

5.1.2.3 Invitation The application allows the project manager to “invite” other people in the project. For simplicity and ease, all invited members will be, by default, unable to edit anything in the projects unless a particular task is assigned to them. The invitation function also improves the communication among the team as this allows a more efficient relay of information, by synchronizing the contact details of each member in the application’s database.

53

Figure 5.4. Invitation screen.

5.1.2.4 Importing of Building Plans The application allows the importing of building plans to a selected project. These building plans are where the inspector/project manager checks for defects on-site and assigns them to the engineer who will take action. The feature will take the user to the storage of its mobile device to choose the plan (in .pdf format) to be imported to the project. Imported building plans can be seen either in the local or in the cloud.

54

Figure 5.5. Tile view of plans.

5.1.2.5 Placement of Tags In the plan view where the user can view the actual plans, tags can now be placed on the plans by dragging the corresponding symbols on to the spot where one would like to make a report on. There are five types of tags mainly for rebars, concrete, line and grade, formworks, and others. The only unique tag is for formworks because unlike the other four pinpoint locations, the tag for Formworks is a rectangular area. The developers found it more practical to use

55

an area for Formworks rather than a singular point, as formworks are more applicable to areas than points.

Figure 5.6. Screen showing the different display tags.

5.1.2.6 Creation/ Filing of Reports The heart of the application’s functionality lies within here. The main purpose of the app is to provide easy management of site inspection reports, hence this feature. Once a tag is placed on the plan, the user will be able to file a report consisting of different significant information including: type (of problem), priority (Normal, Medium, High),

56

detailed description of the problem, reference document (NSCP), assignee and sub-assignee, and attachments (pictures). The report can also be marked as “done” or “on-going” depending on its current status.

Figure 5.8. Report details (cont’d).

Figure 5.7. Report details.

5.1.2.7 Discuss For the communication between the project manager and the site inspector, there is a feature where they can go to a private lobby to discuss the state of the report. Only the selected assignee and the

57

project manager can put comments on the discuss screen. Attachments can also be placed to verify or help the discussion.

Figure 5.9. Discuss screen.

5.1.2.8 List View and Tag Filtering To give the users ease when viewing or finding specific tags, the developers also added an option where tags can be viewed in list view and can also be filtered by their status: either done or on-going. As a built-in feature of the list view, the tags are arranged from highest priority

58

down to the lowest. The details of the tags can easily be viewed by tapping on the specific tag.

Figure 5.10. List view of tags.

59

Figure 5.11. Filter menu of tags

5.1.2.9 Cloud Sync Cloud sync enables the changes made to be stored in the cloud to be made available for download. This feature plays an important role in saving changes made in tags and reports.

60

Figure 5.12. Upload successful

61

5.2 Usability and Learnability

A total of one hundred (100) respondents were gathered as subjects for testing the usability and learnability of the application. As per methodology, the test was carried out using the survey form that can be found in Appendix A. For ease of the process, the survey was administered under the supervision of the researchers. The inventory of respondents containing information including respondent identification number, years in practice, smartphone ownership, and smartphone operating system can be found in Appendix B. The survey form consisted of seventeen (17) tasks that were selected by the researchers. These tasks were selected based on their significance to the key features of the application. The tasks were grouped into six (6) clusters: Logging in, Initiation, Creation of Reports, Delivering Reports, Receiving Reports, and Deleting Reports. Each task has a corresponding Likert-type scale that measures its difficulty based on the responses of the participants. The summary of tasks with their corresponding numbers is presented in Table 5.1.

62

Table 5.1. Tasks in the survey form with their corresponding numbers. Task Number 1 10 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 15 16 13 17 9

Task Logging in Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Initiation Project Creation Invitation Uploading of Plan Creation of Reports Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Receiving Reports Downloading Project 1 Downloading Plan 1 Downloading Project 2 Downloading Plan 2 Updating Reports Trial 1 Trial 2 Deleting Reports

5.2.1 Logging in

All one hundred (100) respondents were asked to login in the application using the e-mails and passwords provided by the researchers which were registered and prepared beforehand. Throughout the whole run of the test, each respondent was asked to log in at least three (3) times, two of which using

63

the same login details. It was found out that initially, only 37% of the respondents believed that logging in was very easy, 51% said it was easy and the remaining 12% said that the difficulty of the task was not easy nor difficult, hence “neutral”. The recorded mean difficulty of the task based from the responses is 4.25, falling between “Easy” and “Very Easy”. 12%

37%

5 - Very Easy 4 - Easy

4.25

3 - Neutral

AVE

2 - Difficult 1 - Very Difficult

51%

Figure 5.13. A pie chart showing the distribution of responses for task #1.

In the second attempt of logging in, however, the number of respondents who said the task was very easy increased to 59%; respondents who said it was easy decreased to 40% and only 1 of the 100 respondents said the difficulty was neutral. In the third attempt, where the respondents were asked to log back in using the same account details used in task number 1, the users who said the task was very easy dramatically increased to 79%, while the remaining 21% of the respondents said the task was easy.

64

1%

21% 5 - Very Easy

40%

4 - Easy

4.58

4.79

AVE

AVE

3 - Neutral 2 - Difficult

1 - Very Difficult 59%

79%

Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for tasks #10 (left) and #14 (right).

From the data gathered, it was observed that there was a gradual increase in the number of respondents saying logging in was “Very Easy” from the first trial to the third trial, showing that the task gets easier with several attempts and that the task can be easily learned. The mean ease of logging in, based on responses, increased from 4.25 in the first attempt, to 4.58 and 4.79 in the second and third attempts respectively. A learning curve was plotted to represent this progression. This is represented in Figure 5.15.

65

5 4.9

Mean Difficulty

4.8

4.79

4.7

4.6

4.58

4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2

4.25

4.1 4 1st attempt

2nd attempt

3rd attempt

Trials

Figure 5.15. Learning curve for the three attempts of logging in.

5.2.2 Initiation

This cluster is further divided into three tasks: Project Creation (task number 2, Sending Invites (task number 3), and Uploading of Plan (task number 4). To create a project, the respondents were asked to tap the button that would prompt a floating window box. The users were then required to supply the necessary info, project name and location, in their designated fields as indicated in the survey questionnaire. The users were also asked to send invites to at least three (3) people by asking them to tap the gear icon on the upper right corner of the created project and input the email addresses of the invitees in the dialogue box. Finally, the users were asked to upload the plan provided by the group. This activity required the respondents to access the internal

66

memory of the smartphone where the Portable Document Format (.pdf) copy of the plan is located.

44% of the respondents said that project creation was very easy, 36% said it was easy, and the remaining 20% believed the difficulty of the task was neutral. On the other hand, only 15% of the respondent said that sending invites was very easy; 41% easy; 41% neutral; and 2 out of the 100 respondents said that the task was difficult. The mean difficulty of project creation was found to be 4.24, falling between “Easy” and “Very Easy”. The mean difficulty of sending invites, on the other hand, was found to be 3.69, falling between “Neutral” and “Easy”.

2% 20%

15% 5 - Very Easy

44%

4 - Easy

4.24

3.69

AVE

AVE

3 - Neutral 2 - Difficult

36%

1 - Very Difficult 42% 41%

Figure 5.16. Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for task #2 (left) and task #3 (right).

Additionally, 8% of the respondents found it very difficult to upload the given plan; 19% found it difficult; 54% found it neutral, while only 13% found it

67

easy and the remaining 6% found it very easy. The mean ease of use of this feature was found to be lower than those of the previous tasks at 2.9, falling between “Difficult” and “Neutral”. This shows that this is the most difficult task in this cluster. 8%

6% 13% 5 - Very Easy

19%

4 - Easy

2.9

3 - Neutral

AVE

2 - Difficult 1 - Very Difficult

54%

Figure 5.17. A pie chart showing the distribution of responses for task #4.

5.2.3 Creation of Reports The respondents were also asked to create reports, i.e., to place tags on the uploaded plan and fill out the required fields in the report as stated in the questionnaire. Throughout the whole run of the test, each respondent was asked to create four (4) different reports following the same procedures but with varying report details. Along with this, the users were also asked to “Upload” whatever changes have been made in the plan (creating a report or placing a tag is considered a “change”) for the succeeding tasks. It was found out that on

68

the first attempt, the mean ease of using the feature was only 2.96, falling short of “Neutral”. In the succeeding attempts, however, it was observed that the mean progressed to 2.89, 4.15, and 4.47 for the second, third, and fourth attempts respectively. This progression shows that the task gets easier with several attempts and that the task can be easily learned. A learning curve for the task was plotted to represent this progression. 3%

6%

5% 22%

19%

17%

23%

2.96

3.89

AVE

AVE 50%

55%

16%

6%

31%

53%

4.47

4.15

AVE

AVE

41% 53%

5 - Very Easy

4 - Easy

3 - Neutral

2 - Difficult

1 - Very Difficult

Figure 5.18. Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for tasks #5 (top left), #6 (top right), #7 (bottom left), and #8 (bottom right).

69

5

Mean Difficulty

4.5

4.47 4.15

4

3.89

3.5 3

2.96

2.5 1st attempt

2nd attempt

3rd attempt

4th attempt

Trials

Figure 5.19. Learning curve for the four attempts of creating a report.

5.2.4 Receiving Reports

In the application, the receiving end after uploading the changes in the plan is the contractor. To materialize the process of information flow in the app, the users were asked to, first, login with a different account (i.e., as a contractor). After which, the users were asked to “Download” the changes made previously in the project. Doing so required them to download the project and the plan from the cloud altogether. Initially, the responses on the difficulty of the task varied: only 15% of the respondents found it very easy to download the project from the cloud, 16% for the plan. On the other hand, 9% and 1% of the respondents found it difficult to do the same tasks respectively. The mean

70

ease of downloading the project was low at 3.53 while the mean ease of downloading the plan was a little bit higher at 3.87. 9%

15%

1% 27%

16% 5 - Very Easy 4 - Easy

3.53

3.87

AVE

AVE

3 - Neutral 2 - Difficult 1 - Very Difficult

44%

56%

32%

Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for task #11 (left) and task #12 (right).

For the second attempts in both tasks, the reponses yielded more consistent results, having been only splitted between “Easy” and “Very Easy”. Of the 100 users, the respondents who said downloading the changes in the project was very easy increased to 74% while the remaining 26% said it was easy. On the other hand, the users who said downloading the changes in the plan was very easy increased as well. In the second attempt, 84% of the users said that the task was very easy while the remaining 16% said it was easy.

71

16%

26%

5 - Very Easy 4 - Easy

4.74

4.84

AVE

AVE

3 - Neutral 2 - Difficult 1 - Very Difficult

74%

84%

Figure 5.21. Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for tasks #15 (left) and #16 (right).

The increase in mean difficulty of the tasks for the second attempts were plotted in a bar chart for visual representation.

5

4.84

4.74

4.5

Mean Difficulty

4

3.87 3.53

3.5 3

1st attempt

2.5

2nd attempt

2 1.5 1 Downloading Plan

Downloading Project Task

Figure 5.22. A bar chart showing the differences of mean difficulties in the first and second attempts of receiving reports.

72

5.2.5 Updating Reports

When the contractor, the receiving end, receives the report, he gets a visual cue of the problematic areas in the plan. The contractor is bound to rectify these problems and send an update or report progress back to the site inspector. To simulate this activity in the application, the users were asked to use the built-in “Discuss” feature in the app. In the test, each user was asked to use the feature twice: once as a contractor and once as a site inspector – technically different functions, but similar processes. Based on the responses, it was found out that during the first try, only 14% of the respondents found it very easy; 16% easy; 52% neutral; and 18% difficult. On average, the diffculty of the task was rated at 3.26. In the second attempt, the users who found the task very easy to do increased to 58%, 35% said it was easy and the remaining 7%, neutral. The mean ease of doing the task also increased to 4.51 in this attempt. 7%

14%

18%

5 - Very Easy

3.26

4 - Easy

16%

4.51

AVE

AVE

3 - Neutral 58%

2 - Difficult 1 - Very Difficult

35% 52%

Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing the distribution of responses for tasks #13 (left) and #17 (right).

73

5.2.6 Deleting Reports

To accommodate the possible occurrence of human error when creating reports, the delete feature was added in the application. In this task, the respondents were simply asked to delete tags they initially placed when they created reports. 6% 17%

5 - Very Easy 36%

4 - Easy

3.69

3 - Neutral

AVE

2 - Difficult

1 - Very Difficult 41%

Figure 5.24. A pie chart showing the distribution of responses for task #9.

5.2.7 Summary and FIndings

The summary of all the responses gathered from the survey is presented in Table 5.2.

74

Table 5.2. Summary of responses and mean difficulty of each task. Task Number

Task Logging In

1 10 14

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Initiation

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 15 16 13 17 9

Project Creation Invitation Uploading of Plan Creation of Reports Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Receiving Reports Downloading Project Trial 1 Downloading Plan Trial 1 Downloading Project Trial 2 Downloading Plan Trial 2 Updating Reports Trial 1 Trial 2 Deleting Reports

Mean Difficulty 4.54 4.25 4.58 4.79 3.61 4.24 3.69 2.9 3.87 2.96 3.89 4.15 4.47 4.47 3.53 3.87 4.74 4.84 3.89 3.26 4.51 3.69

From the table, it can be observed that the most difficult task, according to the respondents is the uploading of plan having only a mean of 2.9. This low mean value can be attributed to the respondents not being able to do the task easily. Based on the observations of the researchers while administering the survey, most of the respondents had difficulties locating the plan in the phone memory, hence the low rating. On the contrary, the easiest tasks, according to

75

the users, are logging in and receiving reports, having mean values of 4.54 and 4.47 respectively. Considering the interface flow of the application, it can be said that, overall, the application is usable having all six (6) clusters of activities fall above neutral on the scale of the difficulty provided by the researchers; while two (2) of these clusters fell between “Easy” and “Very Easy” on the same scale. The mean difficulty of using the application, i.e., the average of the mean difficulties of the six clusters, is 4.03 which is roughly equivalent to “Easy” on the Likert scale. Furthermore, the learnability of the application can be vouched by the learning curves presented in Figure 5.3 (Logging in) and Figure 5.7 (Creation of Reports), and the progression bars shown in Figure 5.10 (Receiving Reports). These evidences show that these key features of the application become easier with repeated trials.

76

5.3 Time and Cost As per methodology, the researchers found nine (9) construction projects, detailed in Table 4.1., comprised of 4 high-rise, 3 mid-rise, and 2 lowrise structures for the analysis of the efficiency of the app in terms of cost and time savings. Small interviews were conducted to gather the required information for the conventional method, while the researchers simulated the method of inspection per Project Management Team (PMT) using Providi.

5.3.1 Low Rise Structures: LR-1 and LR-2 Projects LR-1 and LR-2 were both considered low rise institutional structures by their height of four (4) and three (3) storeys respectively. These structures were both on the substructure stage of construction when the interview and simulation were done. On-site engineers from the project management team were interviewed to find out their inspection process and gather the time and cost for one round of inspection. Figure 5.25 shows the procedure of site inspection for LR-1 and LR-2. The process starts with the contractors constructing the necessary task as per schedule. The contractors then submit a “Request for Inspection” along with an “Inspection Report” or IR containing a punch list of all the accomplishments done by the contractors along with photocopies of the necessary plans. Initial inspection is then done by the PMT inspecting if each item is satisfactory and conforms to the plan,

77

notifying the contractors if there are inadequacies. Depending on the nature of problem, the PMT can either request the contractors to perform “On-the-spot” rectification scheduling a second inspection at a later time within the day, or they can mark the item unapproved transferring the IR with comments as to why it is unsatisfactory. The procedures henceforth have the potential to become a cycle between rectification and inspection along with the IR circulating between both parties until the PMT deems the member rectified.

Figure 5.25. Traditional inspection procedure for LR-1 and LR-2

From Figure 5.25, the researchers were able to enumerate the necessary time and cost values needed in one round of inspection for comparison. Table 5.3 shows the processes along with the time and cost needed for each activity in the inspection process. A more detailed

78

breakdown can be found in Appendix D. For the cases of both rounds of inspection the researchers gathered information from LR-1 and LR-2, the inspections did not involve any rectifications thus both inspections were immediately approved.

Table 5.3 Time and cost from conventional method in LR-1 and LR-2. LR1 LR2 Activity Time (mins) Cost (PHP) Time (mins) Cost (PHP) Construction not considered Prepare Inspection Report 28 60 58 36 Deliver to PMT 5 28.47 5 54.36 Inspection not considered Write Comments 20 0 10 0 Deliver to Contractors 5 21.57 5 12.94 Total 58 110.05 78 103.31

The researchers simulated the same traditional process using Providi with the same amount of workload from preparing and sending the IR as the contractors, to writing comments and sending it back, approved, as the PMT. Table 5.4 enumerates the steps the researchers took during the simulation along with the time it took. A more detailed breakdown can be found in Appendix D.

79

Table 5.4. Time and Cost from the Providi simulation in LR-1 and LR-2 LR1 Activity Smartphone Construction Initialization of Project Downloading Project and Plan Files by Contractors Inspection Creation of Report/s (Tagging and adding Descriptions) Delivery of Report Loading Screens Total

Time (mins) n/a

LR2

13.5 10

Cost Time (PHP) (mins) 23.82 n/a not considered 4.50 13.5 3.33 10

38.75

not considered 8.92 10

0.12 5 67.37

0.04 1.67 42.28

33.75 5 78

Cost (PHP) 23.82 4.50 3.33

0 11.25 1.67 103.31

Figure 5.26 shows the detailed comparisons among the Time values for the Low-rise structures, LR-1 and LR-2. It can be observed that it actually takes more time using Providi for LR-1 while there is a 22.27% saving in time for LR-2. This was largely due to the commenting stage being of greater value for Providi. However, the initialization is lessened using the app giving a saving in time. Cost values for the Lowrise structures is also detailed in Figure 5.27. It can be observed that there is a large cost saving for LR-1 but only minimal for LR-2. This can be attributed to the Initialization stage which constitutes the printing of the physical papers and plans, and the salary of the document controller. The digital nature of the app gave the process no requirement for printing. The only cost accumulated for the app was the 3G cost which

80

was very minimal. Due to the larger amount of pages for the Inspection Form in LR-1, it contributed to more savings. Overall, it was observed that for Low-rise structures, given the process of PM-A, there were minimal time savings with an average of 3.13 minutes or 3.66% whereas there was a large saving in cost with an average of 26.12 PHP or 33.49% savings in cost. A summary of results can be found in Table 5.5.

80

Time Comparison for Low-Rise Buildings 78 5

67.37

70 60

1.37

58

10

62.37 1.37

5

Time (minutes)

5 50

40

20

35

40 30

5

58

20

11.25

11.25

14.75

14.75

28 10 0 LR-1 Traditional Initialization

LR-1 Providi Delivery

LR-2 Traditional Commenting

LR-2 Providi Delivery

Figure 5.26. Time comparison for low-rise buildings.

81

Cost Comparison for Low-Rise Buildings

58

90.00 4.31 80.00 17.26 70.00 4.31

Time (minutes)

60.00 50.00

0.12

67.37

0.08 40.00 60.00 30.00

8.96

78

8.63

0.06

62.37

11.25

4.31

3.33

3.38

20.00 36.00

28.37

28.74

10.00 0.00 LR-1 Traditional Initialization

LR-1 Providi Delivery

LR-2 Traditional

Commenting

LR-2 Providi Delivery

Figure 5.27 Cost comparison for low-rise buildings

Table 5.5. Summary of results for low-rise structures. Time Savings Cost Savings mins % PHP % LR1 -9.37 -14.95% 43.61 50.77 LR2 15.63 22.27% 8.63 16.20 3.13 3.66% Average 26.12 33.49

82

5.3.2 MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3 Projects MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3 were considered mid-rise residential structures due to their height of five (5) stories. All these structures were on the substructure stage of construction when the interview and simulation were done. On-site engineers from the project management team were interviewed to find out their inspection process and gather the time and cost for one round of inspection. The PMT for the mid-rise structures was PM-B which was operated by the government. After interviewing engineers from the PMT, it was observed that their process for inspection was very similar from PM-A which was the PMT for the low-rise structures which can again be found in Figure 5.25. The main difference was the quantity of pages of the Inspection report. For the case of PM-B, they only made use of 1 page per round of inspection. From Figure 5.25, the researchers were able to enumerate the necessary time and cost values needed in one round of inspection for comparison. Table 5.6 shows the processes along with the time and cost needed for each activity in the conventional inspection process. A more detailed breakdown can be found in Appendix D. For the cases of both rounds of inspection the researchers gathered information from MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3, the inspections did not involve any rectifications thus both inspections were immediately approved.

83

Table 5.6. Time and cost from conventional method for mid-rise structures. MR-1 Time Cost (mins) (PHP)

Activity Construction Prepare Inspection Report Deliver to PMT Inspection Write Comments Deliver to Contractors Total

MR-2 Time Cost (mins) (PHP) not considered

MR-3 Time Cost (mins) (PHP) 16.04

7 5

16.04 4.31

30 5

25.89 4.31

47

50.56

7 16.04 5 4.31 not considered 30 25.89 5 4.31 47

50.56

7 5

4.31

21 5

25.89 4.31

38

42.79

The researchers simulated the same traditional process using Providi with the same workload from preparing and sending the IR as the contractors, to writing comments and sending it back, approved, as the PMT. Table 5.7 enumerates the steps the researchers took during the simulation along with the time it took. A more detailed breakdown can be found in Appendix D.

84

Table 5.7. Time and cost from the Providi simulation in mid-rise structures.

Activity

Smartphone Construction Initialization of Project Downloading Project and Plan Files by Contractors Inspection Creation of Report/s (Tagging and adding Descriptions) Delivery of Report Total

MR-1 Time Cost (mins) (PHP) n/a

23.82

14.75 11.25

MR-2 Time Cost (mins) (PHP)

MR-3 Time Cost (mins) (PHP) n/a

23.82

28.74 3.75

n/a 23.82 not considered 14.75 28.74 11.25 3.75

13.5 10

28.74 3.75

38.75

5.42

not considered 12.5 4.17

15

5.42

5 47

0.47

5 38

0.47

5 47

0.47

A detailed chart of the cumulative time and cost values for both the traditional method of inspection and the simulated Providi method can be seen in Figure 5.28 and Figure 5.29 respectively. Table 5.8 contains a summarized list of values for the Time and Cost savings for the mid-rise structures. It can be seen that both MR-1 and MR-2 show little time savings while MR-3 yielded more time using Providi. This can be attributed to the oversimplified process of PM-B when it comes to inspection reports with the PMT only preparing one (1) sheet for their inspection without any attached copies of the plans. It can be observed that for Providi, the commenting stage was lessened but the preparation of the report itself took more time. For the cost savings, it was shown

85

that all mid-rise projects had savings in time, but they were minimal with the lowest at MR-3 with 10.87% of the cost saved. This can be again attributed to their process of one (1) page per round of inspection. Overall, the mid-rise projects under PM-B showed minimal savings for time with an average of 3.30 minutes or 7.77% time saved and 10.01 PHP or 20.32% of the cost saved.

Time Comparison for Mid-Rise Buildings 50

47

47 43.62

43.62

45

5

1.25

34.87

5 2.62

40

Time (minutes)

38 16.25

5

16.25

35

30

1.37

12.5 30

30 21

25

1.25

2.62

1.37

20

15

10

5

5

5

14.75

7

7

14.75

5

14.75

7

0 MR-1 Traditional Initialization

MR-1 Providi

MR-1 Traditional

Delivery to PMT

MR-2 Providi

Comments

MR-3 Traditional

MR-3 Providi

Delivery to Contractors

Figure 5.28. Time Comparison for Mid-rise buildings.

86

Cost Comparison for Mid-Rise Buildings 55.00

50.56

50.56 4.31

4.31 45.00

42.79 0.47

25.89 5.42

35.00

4.31

38.38

37.13 0.47

25.89

4.17

3.75

Time (minutes)

38.38 0.47 5.42

3.75

18.12

3.75

25.00 28.74

4.31

4.31

4.31

28.74

28.74 15.00 16.04

16.04

16.04

5.00

MR-1 MR-1 Providi MR-2 MR-2 Providi MR-3 MR-2 Providi Traditional Traditional Traditional -5.00 Initialization

Delivery to PMT

Comments

Delivery to Contractors

Figure 5.29. Cost Comparison for mid-rise buildings.

87

Table 5.8. Summary of results for mid-rise Projects

Projects MR1 MR2 MR3 Average

Time Savings mins % 3.38 7.46 12.13 29.63 -5.62 -13.77 3.30 7.77

Cost Savings PHP % 12.18 24.09 13.43 26.56 4.41 10.31 10.01 20.32

5.3.3 High Rise Structures Projects HR-1, HR-2, HR-3, and HR-4 were all considered highrise commercial structures by their height of five (5) stories. HR-1 was still on its substructure stage when the researchers commenced their data gathering while the remaining projects were on their superstructure stage. On-site engineers from the project management team were interviewed to find out their inspection process and gather the time and cost for one round of inspection.

Figure 5.30. Traditional Inspection Procedure for High-rise structures

88

The PMT for the high-rise structures was PM-C which was privately operated. After interviewing engineers from the PMT, the researchers found out their process for inspection in their projects which can be seen Figure 5.30. The process starts with a Work Inspection Request (WIR) prepared by the Operations department from the contractors. It is then submitted to the Quality Assurance and Quality Control department (QA/QC) so they may proceed with the initial inspection. After inspecting, the QA/QC write their comments and submits it to the PMT so they may proceed with their own inspection. This begins the possible cycle of checking for inadequacies, writing comments and submitting the WIR back to Operations, Rectification then submitting it back to the PMT. This process involves duplicates of the plan view, in the case of the data the researchers gathered, one page per column. This is intended as to make the comments clearer and less prone to lack of space. From Figure 5.30, the researchers were able to enumerate the necessary time and cost values needed in one round of inspection for comparison. Table 5.9 shows the processes along with the time and cost needed for each activity in the inspection process. A more detailed breakdown can be found in Appendix D. For the cases of both rounds of inspection the researchers gathered information from HR-1, HR-2, HR3, and HR-4, the inspections did not involve any rectifications thus both inspections were immediately approved.

89

Table 5.9. Time and cost from Conventional method in High Rise Structures.

Activity Construction Prepare Inspection Report Deliver to Operations Inspection by Contractors Write Comments Deliver to PMT Inspection by PMT Write Comments Deliver to Contractors Total

HR-1 Time Cost (mins) (PHP) 57

5

HR-2 HR-3 HR-4 Time Cost Time Cost Time Cost (mins) (PHP) (mins) (PHP) (mins) (PHP) not considered 129.89 48 111.42 60 146.78 61 152.64

4.31

5

4.31

5

4.31

5

4.31

not considered

9

7.77

57

49.19

27

23.3

100

86.30

5

4.31

5

4.31

5

4.31

5

4.31

not considered 9

7.77

57

49.19

27

23.3

100

86.30

5

4.31

5

4.31

5

4.31

5

4.31

90

157.67

177

222.74

129

206.32

276

338.17

The researchers simulated the same traditional process using Providi with the same workload from preparing and sending the WIR as the contractors to the QA/QC, to writing comments and sending it to the PMT, and writing comments and sending it back to the contractors approved as the PMT. Table 5.10 enumerates the steps the researchers took during the simulation along with the time it took. A more detailed breakdown can be found in Appendix D.

90

Table 5.10. Time and cost from the Providi Method in the High-rise Projects

Activity Smartphone Construction Loading Screens Initialization of Project Downloading Project and Plan Files by Contractors Inspection Creation of Report/s (Tagging and adding Descriptions) Delivery of Report Total

HR-1 Time Cost (mins) (PHP) 23.82

HR-2 HR-3 Time Cost Time Cost (mins) (PHP) (mins) (PHP) 23.82 23.82 not considered 10 3.33 10 3.33

10

3.33

13.5

4.50

13.5

4.50

13.5

10

3.33

10

3.33

10

HR-4 Time Cost (mins) (PHP) 23.82 10

3.33

4.50

13.5

4.50

3.33

10

3.33

14.25

156.75

52.25

14.25

2.75

90.25

not considered 30.08 42.75

0.12

0.04

0.12

15.833

0.12

0.067

0.12

0.04

47.87

37.78

123.87

65.11

75.45

48.97

192.37

87.95

Figures 5.31 and 5.32 show the Time and Cost comparison respectively for projects HR-1, HR-2, and HR-3 while Figures 5.33 and 5.34 provides a separate graph for HR-4 for ease of reading. It can be seen that there is a large saving for both time and cost. The high rise building yielded the largest values for time saved with the lowest being 30.02% time saved. As can be observed from figures 5.31 and 5.33, every stage of the whole process was done faster with the help of

91

Providi. Similarly, the Cost had an immense value of savings with all high rise structures saving more than a 70% with the lowest saving 70.77 %. This was again largely due to the amount of paper forms the PMT had to print out and plans they needed triplicate. With the use of Providi, cost had a significant value for savings because there was no printing required. Overall, high rise structures had large values for time with an average of 58.11 minutes or 37.16% of time saved and 171.27 PHP or 74.27% cost savings as summarized in Table 5.11.

92

Time Comparison for HR-1, HR-2, and Hr-3 Initialization

Delivery to Operations

Comments

Delivery to PMT

Comments

Deliver to Contractors

177

180

5 160

57

140

123.87 1.79

120

Time (minutes)

5

129 5 27

46.79

100

90

5

5 57

80 9

27

6.67

5 9

5

60 5

47.87 1.79

5

23.04 60

6.67 57

8.79

20

6.67

23.04

5.67

46.79

8.79

40

75.45

1.87

48

6.67 15.17

5.67 16.17

15.17 0 HR-1 Traditional

HR-1 Providi

HR-2 Traditional

HR-2 Providi

HR-3 Traditional

HR-3 Providi

Figure 5.31 Time comparison for HR-1, HR-2, and HR-3.

93

Cost Comparison for HR-1, HR-2, and Hr-3 177 4.31

129 200.00

4.31

49.19

23.30 4.31

4.31

90

23.30

4.31 150.00

4.31

7.77 4.31

49.19

Time (minutes)

7.77 4.31

4.31 100.00

146.78 111.42

129.19

123.87

47.87 0.60 50.00

0.60 15.60 2.22

1.93 2.22 1.93 2.22

75.45 0.51 7.68 1.89 7.68 1.89

15.60 2.22

28.88

28.88

29.10

0.00

HR-1 Traditional

HR-1 Providi

HR-2 Traditional

Initialization Comments Comments

HR-2 Providi

HR-3 Traditional

HR-3 Providi

Delivery to Operations Delivery to PMT Deliver to Contractors

Figure 5.32. Cost comparison for HR-1, HR-2, and HR-3.

94

Time Comparison for HR-4 300

276 5

250

Time (minutes)

100

192.37

200 5

150

80.04

100

100

6.67 80.04

5

50

1.79

61

6.67 17.17

0 HR-4 Traditional

HR-4 Providi

Initialization

Delivery to Operations

Comments

Delivery to PMT

Comments

Deliver to Contractors

Figure 5.33. Time comparison for HR-4.

Cost Comparison for HR-4 338.18

350.00

4.31

Axis Title

300.00

86.30

250.00

4.31

200.00

86.30

150.00

4.31

87.95

100.00

152.64

50.00 0.00 HR-4 Traditional

0.60 26.68 2.22 26.68 2.22 29.55

HR-4 Providi

Axis Title Initialization

Delivery to Operations

Comments

Delivery to PMT

Comments

Deliver to Contractors

Figure 5.34 Cost comparison for HR-4

95

Table 5.11. Summary of results for high-rise structures

Projects HR1 HR2 HR3 HR4 Average

Time Savings mins % 42.13 46.81 53.13 30.02 53.55 41.51 83.63 30.30 58.11 37.16

Cost Savings PHP % 119.89 76.04 157.63 70.77 157.35 76.26 250.23 73.99 171.27 74.27

5.3.6 Summary and Findings Nine (9) projects composed of 2 low-rise, 3 mid-rise, and 4 high rise structures were analyzed for the purpose of finding any possible savings in time and cost. Figures 5.35 and 5.36 show consolidated graphs for the time and cost savings respectively; comparing values from the traditional method and Providi. The structures were grouped by their classification and height and analyzed accordingly. Table 5.12 enumerates the results for the comparison while Table 5.13 gives the average values for each structure classification. Through analysis, the researchers have made several findings. Firstly, there were minimal to no time savings for low and mid-rise structures due to the nature of the structures being relatively simple which constituted to a simpler process for inspection. Second, high rise structures, due to their more complex process, gave off a larger saving in time with an average of 37.16% difference in time. Third, cost savings were minimal for mid-rise structures with an average of 20.32%

96

difference. This was largely due to the amount of pages for the physical paper forms and plans; mid-rise structures used only one page per round of inspection making their process very cheap. And lastly, Providi showed a large potential for cost savings in high-rise structures with an average of 74.27% difference in cost. Given the process of high-rise structures producing large amounts of papers and a more complex process, a large amount of cost can be lessened by removing the cost of printing and paper, and the labor cost for the document controller.

Time Spent 300

Time (minutes)

250 200 150 100 50 0 Traditional Providi

LR1

LR2

MR1

MR2

MR3

HR1

HR2

HR3

HR4

58

78

47

47

38

90

177

129

276

67.37

62.37

43.62

34.87

43.62

47.87 123.87 75.45 192.37

Projects

Traditional

Providi

Figure 5.35 Time spent for all projects .

97

Cost Incurred 400.00 350.00

Cost (pesos)

300.00 250.00

200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00

LR1

LR2

MR1

MR2

MR3

HR1

HR2

HR3

HR4

Traditional 85.89 53.26 50.56 50.56 42.79 157.67 222.74 206.32 338.18 Providi

42.28 44.63 38.38 37.13 38.38 37.78 65.11 48.97 87.95 Traditional

Projects Providi

Figure 5.36 Cost incurred for all Projects

Table 5.12 Summary of Results for Time and Cost Savings

LR1 LR2 MR1 MR2 MR3 HR1 HR2 HR3 HR4

Time Savings mins % -9.37 -16.16 15.63 20.04 3.38 7.19 12.13 25.81 -5.62 -14.79 42.13 46.81 53.13 30.02 53.55 41.51 83.63 30.30

Cost Savings PHP % 43.61 50.77 8.63 16.20 12.18 24.09 13.43 26.56 4.41 10.31 119.89 76.04 157.63 70.77 157.35 76.26 250.23 73.99

Table 5.13. Average Cost and Time Savings for each classification Projects Low-rise Mid-rise High-rise

Time Savings mins % 3.13 1.94 3.30 6.07 58.11 37.16

98

Cost Savings PHP % 26.12 33.49 10.01 20.32 171.27 74.27

5.3.7 Pilot Test Three (3) actual events of inspections from PM-C, those handling projects HR-1, HR-2, HR-3, and HR-4, were selected for the Pilot testing of Provdi. Table 5.14 shows the different time values that were used as basis for the computation of the times spent for the three (3) events of site inspection. Table 5.15, on the other hand, presents the different cost values used for the computation of the cost incurred in doing the inspection. The detailed computation of the results can be found on Appendix D Table 5.14. Time values for the Pilot Test in minutes Traditional Providi Traditional Providi Traditional Providi Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Receive Reports/and Initialize Inspection and Draft Comments/Tag ging Return to Office Finalize Comments Submit to Contractor Total Time

Total Cost

0

14

0

12

0

14

42

58

22

30

44

58

8

0

12

0

12

0

28

4

15

3

31

5

4 82

1 77

6 55

2 47

4 91

1 78

Table 5.15. Cost values for the Pilot Test in PHP Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Traditional Providi Traditional Providi Traditional Providi 35.62 26.94 26.12 16.44 38.21 27.29 Figure 5.37 shows a more detailed comparison of the Providi and

Traditional values for time. It can be seen that time was saved using Providi

99

due to the inspector’s ability to prepare and send the reports immediately on site without the need to go back to the office contrary to the Traditional Method. Similarly, Figure 5.38 shows that all three events have yielded savings in cost. This can again be attested to the removal of a document controller in the inspection process with the introduction of Providi. Overall, the test showed that using the App can yield savings for both time and cost which can be seen in Table 5.16 but was significantly less than the results from the simulation given this Pilot test’s scope did not consider the initialization from the side of the contractor.

Time Spent for Pilot Test 100

91 90

4

82 77

80 4

Time (mins)

70 28

78 1

4

31

0

60

0

55

50 8

58

40 30 42

6

47

15

0

12

12 2 3

5…

30 44

20 10 0

1 5

14 0

22

14

12 0

0

Event 1

Event 2

Event 3

Traditional Providi

Traditional Providi

Traditional Providi

Inspection and Draft Comments/Tagging

Return to Office

Finalize Comments

Submit to Contractor

Figure 5.37. Stacked Time Spent for the Pilot Test

100

Cost Incurred for Pilot Test 45.00 40.00

38.21

35.62

Cost (PHP)

35.00

26.94

30.00

27.29

26.12

25.00

16.44

20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00

0.00 Traditional Providi

Event 1

Traditional Providi

Traditional Providi

Event 2

Event 3

Figure 5.38. Total Cost Incurred for the Pilot Test

Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Average

Table 5.16. Time and cost savings Time Cost mins % PHP 5 6.10 8.68 8 14.55 9.68 13 14.29 10.91 8.67 11.64 9.76

% 24.36 37.05 28.57 29.99

5.4 Potential Benefits of Using Providi The application was developed by the researchers in line with the objectives of improving the existing site inspection practices in the construction industry. The application was developed with key features that, collectively, could provide significant benefits to construction practitioners. These potential benefits were gathered based on observations of the group, the survey respondents, and the engineers involved in the construction projects that were used as subjects in the study. These benefits are enumerated and discussed below.

101

5.4.1 Paper-less Site Inspection Process In using the application, the need for printing site inspection requests and forms is lessened if not totally eliminated. The application makes it possible for the smartphone to hold the information originally contained in the bulk of papers used in conventional methods of site inspection.

5.4.2 Real-time Delivery of Information Utilizing the cloud syncing technology imbued in modern-day smartphones, the information can be transferred from one party to another effortlessly and wirelessly. This technological benefit makes the delivery and receipt of information, through the application, very easy and efficient. The time needed to deliver and receive the reports is significantly lessened.

5.4.3 Visual Aid In the conventional means of site inspection, inadequacies of structural components are usually reported as comments. Sometimes, these comments can be vague and difficult to understand. With Providi, these comments can be accompanied with attachment in the form of images. These images can be taken directly from the internal memory

102

of the smartphone. With visual cues of the problems, the reports can easily be understood; hence the issue can be easily resolved.

5.4.4 Data Storage and Ease of Reference In the construction industry, normally, pertinent documents including site inspection reports are kept for future reference. As the construction progresses, these documents accumulate as well. The papers will begin to stack in succession up until to a point that the purpose of keeping them or storing them for easy reference becomes defeated. When the papers pile up, it gets much more difficult to locate individual documents and, consequently, the task starts to take up time. With Providi, the reports and all of their details, including the pictures and time stamps, can be stored for an indefinite amount of time. This storing capability gives the users the benefit of keeping all of the important site inspection reports that have been made since the project has commenced. This benefit also goes hand in hand with the paperless site inspection process.

5.5 Barriers Hindering the Full Implementation of Providi Besides the benefits that the application may provide, some important barriers to its full implementation as a replacement for the conventional method of site inspection still exist and should not be overlooked. These barriers need to be addressed in order to increase the chances of the application being

103

adopted in construction projects. These barriers and limitations were also gathered based on observations of the group, the survey respondents, and the engineers involved in the construction projects that were used as subjects in the study.

5.5.1 Technological Maturity Providi, needless to say, is one of the newest technological tools to be implemented in the construction industry. Being a new technology, it follows that it has not yet reached maturity. Lynd and Larson (2003) defines a mature technology as something that has been in use for a long period of time where in which its initial flaws and disadvantages have

already

been

reduced

or

removed

through

continuous

development. This study is the first one to explore the potential benefits of the application; hence there has been neither further development nor studies at this point. Although Providi has been successfully used for several tests and runs, it may still possess flaws that can be only uncovered through future undertakings. These possible flaws are hindering the use of the application as a total replacement for the existing site inspection practices of today.

5.5.2 Reliance on Internet Connectivity Because the Internet is the primary medium of information flow in Providi, it relies heavily on Internet connection. In the event that there is

104

no reliable connection outside or in the vicinity of the construction site, the system becomes unreliable in terms of its capability to deliver information effectively across different parties.

5.5.3 System Security Although the application provides security by allowing access to users with unique and password-protected log in details, it does not exempt it from breach of information through deliberate means (i.e., hacking), this problem on security may reduce the credibility of the application in terms of securing confidential information. This susceptibility may hinder the full implementation of Providi in construction projects. 5.5.4 Generality Project management teams of different construction projects used as test subjects for the study follow different processes in doing site inspection. It is the one of the application’s greatest challenges to be built in a manner that it could cater to all, or majority, of the project management teams in the industry. However, doing so is both impractical and impossible because of the limitations (time and other resources) of the study. In light of this, Providi cannot still be fully implemented as a replacement for the traditional site inspection methods used by these project management teams.

105

5.5.5 Legality and Issues with Standardization Generally, paper is still very widely used in site inspection. This may be because using paper provides one significant advantage over using the application: it can be produced and reproduced as physical copies enclosed with valid signatures. While the unique accounts created by the users can be technically considered as signatures, there may still be issues regarding its legality. Before Providi can be fully implemented, standards must first be implemented regarding the practice of digital transactions in the construction industry.

106

Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS

Due to the fast advancement of technology, the need for a more efficient way of handling and delivering on-site reports is crucial for the development of the construction industry, hence the need for a reliable and efficient site inspection tool. Through this study, the group was able to develop an application that has features (which includes the ability to: upload plans and references in .pdf format, attach images in .jpg, utilize the use of cloud syncing and wireless file transfer, provide sufficient cloud storage and create accounts with ease) to carry out the inspection process in the different construction projects. The application was tested for usability and learnability. In the test, it was found out that overall, the application is user-friendly having all six (6) clusters of activities fall above neutral on the scale of the difficulty provided by the researchers; while two (2) of these clusters fell between “Easy” and “Very Easy” on the same scale. For the three attempts of logging in, the mean difficulty increased from 4.25 for the first attempt to 4.58 on the second and then to 4.79 on the third. Same can be said for the learning curve of the four attempts of creating a report, the mean gradually increased from 2.96 on the first attempt to 3.89 to 4.15 and then to 4.47 on the last attempt. Moreover, the progression chart, revealed that there is also a significant increase in mean difficulty for downloading the project and the plan which garnered 3.53 on the first attempt

107

and then 4.74 on the final attempt for the project and 3.87 to 4.84 for the plan. The overall difficulty of the application, i.e., the average diffculty of the six clusters, was rated at 4.03 which is roughly equivalent to “Easy” on the Likert scale. In light of these results, it can be said that Providi is easy to use and easily learnable with continuous use. Additionally, the savings in time and cost produced by using the application in light of the conventional methods were quantified. Nine (9) building projects composed of two (2) low rise, three (3) mid-rise, and four (4) high-rise structures were analyzed. Overall, it was found out that for the time savings, Providi was only applicable for High-rise projects given the complexity of their process and the amount of paper works. The time saved for low-rise and mid-rise projects were very low at 1.94% and 6.07% respectively while the High-rise projects yielded an average of 37.16% time difference. High-rise structures required a lot of time for setting up the forms and commenting which was lessened with the use of the app. For the cost, it was found out that the mid-rise projects, given the conservative nature of their process when it comes to cost, showed very small cost savings at 33.49%. The app was only applicable for low-rise structures with an average cost difference of 20.32% and 74.27% for high-rise structures. For the pilot test, the time and cost savings were reduced to 11.64% and 29.99% respectively. Overall, it could be concluded that the mobile app Providi is user-friendly and can be learned with ease but its use is only highly recommended for high rise buildings because of how high the time and cost the conventional

108

inspection process makes compared to using Providi which saves an average of 37.16% of the total time and 74.27% of the total cost. Both low and mid-rise projects do not need the use of Providi as much as high rise projects because of how low the cost and time it requires for an inspection process to be done in these type of projects. Generally, the researchers found out that the use of Providi on projects having only a small amount of paperworks and problems encountered in the checklist is irrelevant due to how close the values for the time and cost is. The benefits of using Providi and the barriers hindering it from being fully implemented were also enumerated and discussed. The benefits that the group learned that could potentially improve the current site inspection processes include the mobile app being able to provide a paperless site inspection process, a visual aid to the users through the attached images, a data storage, an easy access to references and a real-time delivery of information. Hindrances and limitations were also discovered together with the mobile application’s potential benefits. Due to Providi being a new tool to be implemented in the site inspection process, it is not yet close in achieving its technological maturity where its initial flaws and disadvantages have already been reduced or removed through continuous development. The group also noted that the mobile app relies on internet connectivity for it to fully function. A proper security system for the app is also missing as it is still susceptible to hacking due to its lack of security measures for the accounts of the users. Providi being a general app for site inspection, also caters to the general site

109

inspection process which can cause problems because normally, companies have different site inspection processes.

110

Chapter 7 RECOMMENDATIONS

Though the mobile application’s current features is suitable for the purpose of the study, it still has a lot of room for improvement. A notification function that would notify the users about new reports, deadlines and discussion replies could improve the overall functionality of the app. A feature that could convert the reports into word documents that has signatories ready for printing or export would also be beneficial. For the attachments (pictures), it would be more convenient if the feature can be modified wherein pictures can be taken using the app itself, i.e., the built in camera application of the mobile phone can be accessed from the application, so as to remove the difficulty of having to exit from the application screen to take pictures.

Additionally, there are also several things to be improved as far as the methods of testing the reliability of the application is concerned. For future studies, the group recommends doing the following: 

Explore different classifications of construction projects to be tested



Explore other parameters in which the efficiency of the application can be quantified

111



Establish and/or use metrics in order to quantify the “efficiency” of the application



Test the application from the contractor’s side

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boukamp, F., & Akinci, B. (2007). Automated processing of construction specifications to support inspection and quality control. Automation in Construction, 17, 90-106.

Caldas, C., & Soibelman, L. (2003). Automating hierarchical document classification for construction management information systems. Automation in Construction, 395-406.

Chassiakos, A., & Sakellaropoulos, S. (2008).

A web-based system for

managing construction information. Advances in Engineering Software, 39, 865-876.

Chen, S., Griffis, F., Chen, P., & Chang, L. (2013). A framework for an automated and integrated project scheduling and management system. Automation in Construction, 35, 89-110.

Chen, Y., & Kamara, J. (2011). A Framework for Using Mobile Computing for Information Management on Construction Sites. Automation in Construction, 20, 776-788.

113

Construction Inspection Manual: Mahoney, W. (1998). Coordination. In Construction Inspection Manual (Revised/Expanded ed., Vol. 7, pp. 207212). Los Angeles: BNI Publications.

Dawood, N., Akinsola, A., & Hobbs, B. (2002). Development of automated communication of system for managing site information using internet technology. Automation in Construction, 11, 557-572.

Deng, Z., Li, H., Tam, C., Shen, Q., & Love, P. (2001). An application of the Internet-based

project

management

system.

Automation

in

Construction, 10, 239-246.

Ely, C. (2014, September 16). The Life Expectancy of Electronics. Retrieved February

20,

2015,

from

http://www.ce.org/Blog/Articles/2014/September/The-Life-Expectancyof-Electronics

Forcada, N., Casals, M., Roca, X., & Gangolells, M. (2007). Adoption of web databases for document management in SMEs of the construction sector in Spain. Automation in Construction, 16, 411-424.

Gordon, C., Akinci, B., & Garrett, J. (2008). Automated planning support for onsite construction inspection. Automation in Construction, 17, 705-718.

114

Josephson, P. & Hammarlund, Y. (1999). The causes and costs of defects in construction: a study of seven building projects. Automation in Construction, 8(6), 681–687.

Kim, C., Park, T., Lim, H., & Kim, H. (2013). On-site construction management using mobile computing technology. Automation in Construction, 35, 415-423.

Ko, C., & Li, S. (2014). Enhancing submittal review and construction inspection in public projects. Automation in Construction, 44, 33-46.

Kwon, O., Park, C., & Lim, C. (2014). A defect management system for reinforced concrete work utilizing BIM, image-matching and augmented reality. Automation in Construction,46, 74-81.

Lin, Y. (2012). Construction network-based interface management system. Automation in Construction, 30, 228-241. Lin, Y. (2012).

Leung, S., Mak, S., & Lee, B. (2008). Using a real-time integrated communication system to monitor the progress and quality of construction works. Automation in Construction, 17, 749-757.

115

Nourbakhsh, M., Zin, R., Irizarry, J., Zolfagharian, S., & Gheisari, M. (2012). Mobile Application Prototype for On-Site Information Management in Construction Industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19, 474-494.

Scott, D., Cheong, M., Li, H. (2003) Web-based construction information management systems. The Australian Journal of

Construction

Economics and Building, 3(1), 43-52.

Tam, C. (1999). Use of the Internet to enhance construction communication: Total Information Transfer System. International Journal of Project Management, 17, 107-111.

Tan, E. (2008, December 27). How to switch to Time based browsing in Globe 3G/EGDE/GPRS.

Retrieved

March

1,

2015,

from

https://globetelecomquickguide.wordpress.com/2008/12/27/how-toswitch-to-time-based-browsing-in-globe-3gegdegprs/

Wang, L. (2008). Enhancing construction quality inspection and management using RFID technology. Automation in Construction, 17, 467-479.

116

Construction Statistics from Approved Building Permits : First Quarter 2014 (Preliminary Results). (2014, May 13). Retrieved August 19, 2014, from http://www.census.gov.ph/content/construction-statistics-approvedbuilding-permits-first-quarter-2014-preliminary-results

Lynd L. & Larson E Memo to RBAEF Participants. 4 December 2003. Retrieved March

3,

2015,

http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/rbaef/documents/mature.pdf

117

from

APPENDIX A Survey Form

118

PART 1 - SITE INSPECTOR Name: _________________________________ Years in practice ____ Do you own a smartphone? Yes or No If yes, on what operating system is your smartphone running? iOS (apple), Android, Windows, Others (Please specify:_____________) Instructions: Read and perform every task mentioned below and then rate the difficulty of the task as follows by crossing out the box corresponding to the number. 1 – Very Difficult, 2 – Difficult, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Easy, 5 – Very Easy

1.) Open the app and log in using the following account details:

1 2 3 4 5

Email: [email protected] (n = number to be provided) Password: abcde12345 2.) Create a project with the following information:

1 2 3 4 5

Project name: DLSU Location: Manila 3.) Add (“Invite”) the following people to the project:

1 2 3 4 5

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 4.) Upload plans of the project from phone memory Filename: plan.pdf 5.) Create a report for defective line and grade anywhere on the plan. Choose any title/description. Attach any picture. Assign the task to Donovan Catindoy. Set any deadline. “Upload” changes.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

6.) Create a report for defective reinforcements anywhere on the 1 2 3 4 5 plan/s. Choose any title/description. Attach any picture. Give high priority to the report. Assign the task to Maru Nunez. Set any deadline. “Upload” changes.

7.) Create a report for a defective concrete anywhere on the plan/s. Choose

119

1 2 3 4 5

any title/description. Attach any picture. Assign any priority. Assign the task to Denver Banlasan Set any deadline and send him an SMS alert. “Upload” changes.

8.) Create a report for a defective formwork anywhere on the 1 2 3 4 5 plan/s. Choose any title/description. Attach any picture. Assign any priority. Assign the task to Maru Nunez and set any deadline and send him an SMS alert. “Upload” changes. 9.) Delete the four reports you just created.

1 2 3 4 5

PART 2 - CONTRACTOR (if the same person who answered part 1 answers this as well, no need to provide personal information; otherwise, please do so)

10.) Open the app and log in using the following account details:

1 2 3 4 5

Email: to be provided Password: abcde12345 11.) Download the project (from the “Cloud”) with the following information:

1 2 3 4 5

Project name: DLSU Location: Manila 12.) Download the plan (from the “Cloud”)

1 2 3 4 5

Afterwards, access the project and the plan from “Local” drive. 13.) Tap a tag (depending on the email account used, see list below) on the plan and supply the following information on “Discuss” view: Account used and corresponding tag to tap: [email protected] - “LG” [email protected] - “R” [email protected] - “C” On the chat bar, supply any comment by typing (ex: please check) By tapping the clip icon, attach any picture.

120

1 2 3 4 5

Send the comment. Upload Changes

PART 3 – SITE INSPECTOR (APPROIVAL AND/OR COMMENTS ON CONTRACTOR’S WORK)

14.) Open the app and log in using the following account details:

1 2 3 4 5

Email: [email protected] (n = number to be provided, same as used in part I) Password: abcde12345 15.) Download the project (from the “Cloud”) with the following information:

1 2 3 4 5

Project name: DLSU Location: Manila 16.) Download the plan (from the “Cloud”)

1 2 3 4 5

Afterwards, access the project and the plan from “Local” drive. 17.) Tap a tag (depending on the email account used, see list below) on the plan and supply the following information on “Discuss” view:

Account used and corresponding tag (to tap): [email protected] - “LG” [email protected] - “R” [email protected] - “C” On the chat bar, supply any comment by typing (ex: ok, approved) Send the comment. Upload Changes. Mark the tag as done.

121

1 2 3 4 5

---

I, the respondent, is certifying the validity and truthfulness of the responses than can be found herein. This is also to prove the legitimacy of my participation in the study “Development of an Android-Based Application for Managing On-Site Inspection Reports in Construction Projects”. Along with this is the understanding that my responses will be used for the purposes of the study alone and my personal information will be treated with utmost confidentiality by the researchers. ___________________________________ Signature over printed name ___________________________________ Date

Research Group: _________________ Denver Banlasan

_________________ Donovan Catindoy

122

_________________ Maru Nuñez

APPENDIX B Inventory of Respondents

123

Responden t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Years in Practice 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 7 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 6 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 4

Smartphone User Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

124

Smartphone Operating System Android Android Android Windows Android Windows Android iOS Windows Android Blackberry Android Blackberry iOS iOS iOS iOS Android Android Android Android iOS Android iOS iOS Windows Android Blackberry Android iOS Android Android iOS iOS iOS iOS

Responden t 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Years in Practice 4 1 3 2 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 4 3 3 3 3 8 8 2 2 3 4 2 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 1

Smartphone User Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

125

Smartphone Operating System iOS Android iOS Android iOS iOS iOS Windows iOS iOS Android iOS Android iOS Android Android Android Android Blackberry iOS Windows Android Android iOS Android Android iOS Android Android Android Android iOS Android iOS Android Android

Responden t 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Years in Practice 1 3 2 1 4 2 4 4 1 3 2 1 2 4 4 1 3 7 7 4 2 4 4 1 3 2 1 2

Smartphone User Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

126

Smartphone Operating System Android iOS Android Android iOS Android iOS Android Android iOS iOS Android Android Android Windows Windows iOS Android iOS iOS Android iOS Windows Android Android iOS Android iOS

APPENDIX C Simulation Screenshots

127

Low Rise 1 – Clean Building

Low Rise 2 - Hangar

128

Mid Rise 1 – Model B1

Mid Rise 2 – Model A2

129

Mid Rise 3 – Model A3

High Rise 1 – Proscenium 1

130

High Rise 2 – Proscenium 2

High Rise 3 – Proscenium 3

131

High Rise 4 – Proscenium 4

132

APPENDIX D Computation of Time and Cost Saving

133

Appendix D

TRADITIONAL

LR 1 Clean Building

Activity

TOTAL TIME: TOTAL COST: Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

Prepare Inspection Report

58 110.052 Item/Material

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

28 Printing of plans and shop drawings Prepare Checklist

Print Form

5

Total Cost

60 Paper and Printing fee (per page)

5

15

Paper and Printing fee (per page)

5

45

51.78

28.48

20

3

5

Deliver to PMT

Document Controller (salary per hour)

28.48

INSPECTION BY PMT Prepare Inspection Report

20 Check adequate items (8) Write comments for (1) inadequate members

Deliver to Contractors

10

17.26 Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

17.26

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

4.31

10

5

134

4.31

PROVIDI

TOTAL TIME TOTAL COST Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION 13.5

LR 1 Clean Building Activity

Quantity

Initiation

Logging In Project Creation

0.5 1

Uploading of Plan/s Invite users Allowance for Loading Screens Download Project and Plans

67.37 42.28 Item/Material

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

4.50

3G internet

0.33 0.33

0.17 0.33

10

0.33

3.33

2

0.33

0.67

0.33

1.67

1.67

0.33

3.33

3.33

5

5

10 INSPECTION BY PMT

10

Creation of Report

3G Internet

38.75 Placement of Tags

9

2.25

Prepare adequate tags

8

Prepare inadequate tags Upload Picture

1

8.92 3G Internet

0.33

0.75

12

0.33

4

2 22.5

0.33 0.33

0.67 7.5

Delivery of Report

0.12 Upload Changes

Total Cost

0.12

0.04 0.33

0.04 23.83

Initial Phone Cost

135

TRADITIONAL

TOTAL TIME: TOTAL COST:

LR 2 Hanger

Activity

Quantity

78 103.31

Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

Prepare Inspection Report

Item/Material

mins php Unit Cost

Quantity

Subtotal Cost

Total Cost

58 Printing of plans and shop drawings Prepare Checklist

36 Paper and Printing fee (per page)

6

3

3

9

47

Print Form

0 Paper and Printing fee (per page)

5

5

Deliver to PMT

Document Controller (salary per day)

3

51.78

9

27

54.37

54.37

INSPECTION BY PMT Prepare Inspection Report

10 Check adequate items

Deliver to Contractors

9

10

5

8.63 Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

8.63

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

4.31

136

4.31

PROVIDI

TOTAL TIME TOTAL COST

LR 2 Hanger

Activity

Quantity

Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

62.37 44.63 Item/Material

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

13.5

Initiation

Logging In Project Creation

0.5 1

Uploading of Plan/s

4.5 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33 0.33

0.17 0.33

10

0.33

3.33

2

0.33

0.67

Invite users Allowance for Loading Screens

5

Download Project and Plans

10

10

Total Cost

1.67

0.33 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

3.33

3.33

INSPECTION BY PMT 33.75

Creation of Report Placement of Tags

9

2.25

Prepare adequate info for tags

9

13.5

Prepare inadequate info for tags Upload Picture

0

11.25 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

18

0.33

0.75

0.33

4.5

0.33

6

0.12

Delivery of Report Upload Changes

0.056

0.17

0.33 Phone

137

0.06 23.83

TRADITIONAL

TOTAL TIME: TOTAL COST: Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

MR 1

Activity Prepare Inspection Report

47 50.56 Item/Material

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

7

Print Checklist and IR

Prepare Checklist

2

5

Deliver to PMT

16.041 Paper and Printing fee (per page)

5

Total Cost

Paper and Printing fee (per page) Document Controller (salary per day) Document Controller (salary per day)

5

10

51.78

6.041

51.78

4.31

4.31

51.78

25.89

25.89

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY PMT Prepare Inspection Report

30 Check adequate items (all adequate) Signatories

4 0

10 20

5

Deliver to Contractors

138

Document Controller (salary per day)

PROVIDI

TOTAL TIME TOTAL COST Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION 13.5

MR 1 Activity

Quantity

Initiation

Logging In

Uploading of Plan/s

Invite users

Allowance for Loading Screens Download Project and Plans

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

0.33

0.17

1

0.33

0.33

10

0.33

3.33

2

0.33

0.67

5

5

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

1.67

1.67

10 INSPECTION BY PMT

10

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

3.33

3.33

15

Creation of Report Placement of Tags Prepare tags (all adequate) Upload Picture

4

1

4 4

6 8

5 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

0.33

0.33 0.33

2 2.677

0.12

Delivery of Report Upload Changes

Total Cost 4.5

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.5

Project Creation

43.62 38.38 Item/Material

0.17

0.056 0.33

0.06 23.82

Phone Cost

139

TRADITIONAL

TOTAL TIME: TOTAL COST: Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

MR 2

Activity Prepare Inspection Report

47 50.56 Item/Material

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

7

Print Checklist and IR

Prepare Checklist

2

5

Deliver to PMT

16.041 Paper and Printing fee (per page)

5

Total Cost

Paper and Printing fee (per page) Document Controller (salary per day) Document Controller (salary per day)

5

10

51.78

6.041

51.78

4.31

4.31

51.78

25.89

25.89

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY PMT Prepare Inspection Report

30 Check adequate items (all adequate) Signatories

3 0

10 20

5

Deliver to Contractors

140

Document Controller (salary per day)

PROVIDI

TOTAL TIME TOTAL COST Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION 13.5

MR 2 Activity

Quantity

Initiation Logging In

34.87 35.46 Item/Material

Subtotal Cost

0.33

0.17

1

0.33

0.33

Uploading of Plan/s

10

0.33

3.33

Invite users

2

0.33

0.67

0.33

3.33

Project Creation

Total Cost 4.5

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.5

mins php Unit Cost

Allowance for Loading Screens Download Project and Plans

10

10 INSPECTION BY PMT

Creation of Report

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

11.25 Placement of Tags Prepare tags (all adequate) Upload Picture

3

0.75

3 3

3.75 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

0.25

4.5

0.33

1.5

6

0.33

2

Delivery of Report

0.12 Upload Changes

0.056

0.17

0.33 Phone

141

3.33

0.06 23.82

TRADITIONAL

MR 3

TOTAL TIME: TOTAL COST: Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

Activity Prepare Inspection Report

38

mins

42.79

php Item/Material

Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

7

Print Checklist and IR

Prepare Checklist

2

5

Deliver to PMT

16.041 Paper and Printing fee (per page)

5

Total Cost

Paper and Printing fee (per page) Document Controller (salary per day) Document Controller (salary per day)

5

10

51.78

6.041

51.78

4.31

4.31

51.78

18.12

18.12

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY PMT Prepare Inspection Report

21 Check adequate items (all adequate) Signatories

4 0

1 20

5

Deliver to Contractors

142

Document Controller (salary per day)

PROVIDI

TOTAL TIME TOTAL COST Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION 13.5

MR 3 Activity

Quantity

Initiation Logging In

38.62 36.71 Item/Material

Subtotal Cost

0.33

0.17

1

0.33

0.33

Uploading of Plan/s

10

0.33

3.33

Invite users

2

0.33

0.67

0.33

3.33

Project Creation

Total Cost 4.5

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.5

mins php Unit Cost

Allowance for Loading Screens Download Project and Plans

10

10 INSPECTION BY PMT

Creation of Report

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

15 Placement of Tags Prepare tags (all adequate) Upload Picture

4

1

4 4

5 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

0.33

6

0.33

2

8

0.33

2.67

Delivery of Report

0.12 Upload Changes

0.056

0.17

0.33 Phone

143

3.33

0.06 23.82

TRADITIONAL

HR 1 Activity

TOTAL TIME: TOTAL COST: Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

Prepare Work Inspection Request

90 157.67 Item/Material

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

57 Printing of plans and shop drawings Prepare Checklist and Signatories

5 49

Print Form

3

Deliver to Operations

5

Total Cost

129.19 Paper and Printing fee (per page) Paper and Printing fee (per page) Paper and Printing fee (per page) Document Controller (salary per day) Document Controller (salary per day)

5

55

5

25

51.78

49.19

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY QA/QC Prepare Work Inspection Request

9 Write Comments

9 5

Deliver to PMT

7.77 Document Controller (salary per day) Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

7.77

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY PMT Prepare Work Inspection Request

9 Write Comments for Inadequate and Adequate items

9

Deliver to Contractors

5

144

7.77 Document Controller (salary per day) Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78 51.78

7.77 4.31

4.31

PROVIDI

TOTAL TIME TOTAL COST Time (mins)

HR 1 Activity

Quantity

47.87 37.78 Item/Material Phone

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

Total Cost 23.82

CONSTRUCTION 13.5

Initiation Logging In Project Creation Uploading of Plan/s

0.5

Invite users Allowance for Loading Screens Download Project and Plans

4.50 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

0.17

1

0.33

0.33

10

0.33

3.33

2

0.33

0.67

0.33

3.33

3.33

0.33

3.33

3.33

10

10

10 INSPECTION BY PMT

10

3G Internet

14.25

Creation of Reports Placement of Tags Prepare adequate tags Prepare inadequate tags Upload Picture

3

0.75

0

0

3

6

3

7.5

2.75 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

0.25

0.33

2

0.33

2.5

0.12

Delivery of Report Upload Changes

0.04

0.12

0.33 Phone

145

0.04 37.78

TRADITIONAL

TOTAL TIME: TOTAL COST:

HR 2

Activity

Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

Prepare Work Inspection Request

177 222.74 Item/Material

mins php

218.43 Subtotal Cost

Unit Cost

48 Printing of plans and shop drawings Prepare Checklist and Signatories Print Form

111.42

5

Paper and Printing fee (per page)

40

Paper and Printing fee (per page)

3

Paper and Printing fee (per page)

5

Deliver to Operations

Total Cost

5

50

5

20

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

41.42

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY QA/QC Prepare Work Inspection Request

57 Write Comments

57 5

Deliver to PMT

49.19 Document Controller (salary per day) Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

49.19

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY PMT Prepare Work Inspection Request

57 Write Comments for Inadequate and Adequate items

57

5

Deliver to Contractors

146

49.19 Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

49.19

4.31

4.31

PROVIDI

TOTAL TIME TOTAL COST Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION 13.5

HR 2 Activity

Quantity

Initiation Logging In

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

Total Cost 4.50

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.5

Project Creation

123.87 80.91 Item/Material

0.33

0.17

1

0.33

0.33

Uploading of Plan/s

10

0.33

3.33

Invite users

2

0.33

0.67

0.33

3.33

3.33

0.33

3.33

3.33

Allowance for Loading Screens Download Project and Plans

10

10

10 INSPECTION BY PMT

10

Creation of Report

3G Internet

90.25 Placement of Tags Prepare adequate tags Prepare inadequate tags Upload Picture

19

4.75

0

0

19

30.083 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

1.58

38

0.33

12.67

47.5

0.33

15.83

Delivery of Report

0.12 Upload Changes

15.83

47.5

0.33 Phone

147

15.83 23.82

TRADITIONAL

HR 3

Activity

TOTAL TIME: TOTAL COST: Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

Prepare Work Inspection Request

129 206.32 Item/Material

mins php Unit Cost

202.0074 Subtotal Cost

60 Printing of plans and shop drawings Prepare Checklist and Signatories Print Form

146.78

5

Paper and Printing fee (per page)

51

Paper and Printing fee (per page)

4

Paper and Printing fee (per page)

5

Deliver to QA/QC

Total Cost

5

75

5

20

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

51.78

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY QA/QC Prepare Work Inspection Request

27 Write Comments

27 5

Deliver to PMT

23.3 Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

23.3

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY PMT Prepare Work Inspection Request

27 Write Comments for Inadequate and Adequate items

27

5

Deliver to Contractors

148

23.3 Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

23.3

4.31

4.31

PROVIDI

TOTAL TIME TOTAL COST Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION 14.5

HR 3 Activity

Quantity

Initiation Logging In

75.37 48.97 Item/Material

Subtotal Cost

Total Cost 4.83

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.5

mins php Unit Cost

0.33

0.17

1

0.33

0.33

Uploading of Plan/s

12

0.33

4.00

Invite users

1

0.33

0.33

0.33

3.33

3.33

0.33

2.67

2.67

Project Creation

Allowance for Loading Screens

10

10

8

8

Download Project and Plans

3G Internet

INSPECTION BY PMT Creation of Report

42.75 Placement of Tags Prepare adequate tags

9

2.25

0

0

Prepare inadequate tags

9

Upload Picture

9

14.25 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

0.75

18

0.33

6

22.5

0.33

7.5

Delivery of Report

0.12 Upload Changes

0.067

0.2

0.33 Phone

149

0.067 23.82

TRADITIONAL

HR 4

Activity

TOTAL TIME: TOTAL COST: Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION

Prepare Work Inspection Request

276 338.18 Item/Material

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

61 Printing of plans and shop drawings Prepare Checklist and Signatories

Print Form

152.64 Paper and Printing fee (per page)

5

5

53

80 n/a

Paper and Printing fee (per page)

3

5

Deliver to Operations

Total Cost

Document Controller (salary per day)

5 51.78

20 52.64

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY QA/QC Prepare Work Inspection Request

100 Write Comments

100

5

Deliver to PMT

86.30 Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

86.30

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

4.31

4.31

INSPECTION BY PMT Prepare Work Inspection Request Write Comments for Inadequate and Adequate items Deliver to Contractors

86.30

100

100 5

150

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

86.30

Document Controller (salary per day)

51.78

4.31

4.31

PROVIDI

TOTAL TIME TOTAL COST Time (mins) CONSTRUCTION 15.5

HR 4 Activity

Quantity

Initiation

Logging In

Uploading of Plan/s Invite users

mins php Unit Cost

Subtotal Cost

Total Cost 5.17

3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.5

Project Creation

192.37 87.95 Item/Material

0.33

0.17

1

0.33

0.33

12 2

0.33 0.33

4.00 0.67

0.33

3.33

3.33

0.33

3.33

3.33

Allowance for Loading Screens

10

10

Download Project and Plans

10

10

3G Internet

INSPECTION BY PMT Creation of Report

156.75 Placement of Tags Prepare adequate tags Prepare inadequate tags Upload Picture

33

8.25

0 33

52.25 3G Internet = 5php/15mins

0.33

2.75

0

0.33

0

66

0.33

22

82.5

0.33

27.5

Delivery of Report

0.12 Upload Changes

0.044

0.133333333

0.33 Phone

151

0.044 23.82

EVENT 1

MEMBER TYPE

Columns (4) Traditional TIME (minutes)

1 2 3 4 5

Receive Reports Inspection and Draft Comments Return to Office Finalize Comments Submit to Contractor

0 1 42 2 8 3 28 4 4 5 82 COST (PHP)

TOTAL Paper for Additional Inspection 1 Report Document Controller Salary per 2 Minute TOTAL

8 27.62 35.62

152

Providi Receive Reports and Initialization Inspection and Tagging Return to Office Finalize Comments Submit to Contractor

14 58 0 4 1 77

1 Mobile Data Cost

25.67

2 Phone Cost per Minute

1.27 26.94

EVENT 2

MEMBER TYPE

Slab and Beam (1) Traditional TIME (minutes)

1 2 3 4 5

Receive Reports Inspection and Draft Comments Return to Office Finalize Comments Submit to Contractor

0 1 22 2 12 3 15 4 6 5 55 COST (PHP)

TOTAL Paper for Additional Inspection 1 Report Document Controller Salary per 2 Minute TOTAL

8 18.12 26.12

153

Providi Receive Reports and Initialization Inspection and Tagging Return to Office Finalize Comments Submit to Contractor

12 30 0 3 2 47

1 Mobile Data Cost

15.67

2 Phone Cost per Minute

0.78 16.44

EVENT 3

MEMBER TYPE

Shear Wall (2) Traditional TIME (minutes)

1 2 3 4 5

Receive Reports Inspection and Draft Comments Return to Office Finalize Comments Submit to Contractor

0 1 44 2 12 3 31 4 4 5 91 COST (PHP)

TOTAL Paper for Additional Inspection 1 Report Document Controller Salary per 2 Minute TOTAL

8 30.21 38.21

154

Providi Receive Reports and Initialization Inspection and Tagging Return to Office Finalize Comments Submit to Contractor

14 58 0 5 1 78

1 Mobile Data Cost

26.00

2 Phone Cost per Minute

1.29 27.29