ZEMCH 2015 - International Conference Proceedings | Page 425

(a) Costs, including resources needed, acquisition costs, maintenance costs, supplier diversity,
deadlines, ease of acquisition, import dependence and lifetime guarantee of performance,
(b) Efficiency, including user safety, durability, productivity, observance of deadlines and integration with other subsystems,
(c) Ease of deployment, such as physical space, constructability, dependence on equipment, manpower dependence and interference with schedules.
The practices selected for implementation in this case study are presented in Table 2. It is important to note that despite the effort to be comprehensive in the selection of the practices, due to
the characteristics of the project, a limited number of practices were implemented.
Implementation of best practices
To determine how and when to implement the practices, spreadsheets were used for defining the
Best Practice Deployment Plan according to the construction schedule, setting goals and responsibilities for implementation and indicators for monitoring and control.
Another spreadsheet was developed to assist in determining how to deploy each solution, the
conditions for deployment, necessary resources and current legislation. It was then possible to
define policies to be included into the general contractor´s quality management system; best
practices into the operational and management training program and adjust the construction
site projects accordingly.
The implementation of the good practices was carried out through training workers at daily
health and safety meetings and appointing the safety manager to monitor the implementation
progress. In addition, a visual communication program demonstrating good practices was provided.
Monitoring, Learning and Remedial of the best practices
To monitor the implementation, an operational checklist was developed aimed at assessing the
main good practices previously selected and implemented for each topic - consumption, solid
waste, emissions, temporary facilities, health and safety and outdoor quality. Table 2 presents the
indicators, the main good practices evaluated and the formula for each indicator.
Checklist criterion was evaluated via a 0–1 Scale (1 for compliance and 0 for noncompliance). The
checklist was applied on a weekly basis for 13 weeks from July to October 2013 to ensure effective
implementation of practices. From the checklist, 7 indicators were calculated, as presented at Table 2, allowing for a quantitative analysis of actions for continuous improvement, using previously
raised indicators as a basis of comparison.
At operational level, a weekly report was presented at the daily health and safety meetings conducted by the Safety Technician with site workers, in which the performance of the week was
presented showing photos illustrating sensitive points and opportunities of improvement which
were also discussed with the aim of improving worker education and increasing involvement. At
tactical project level, a monthly environmental balance was elaborated containing a critical analysis of the practices implemented and the results of the indicators.
This was discussed with the project team, construction waste consultancy team and the AQUA
consultancy company via videoconferences and internal audits. As part of the learning process,
reflecting loops were carried out aimed at identifying difficulties encountered, barriers, gaps, and
opportunities for improvement of the methodology applied during the whole project development.

Deployment of sustainable practices on construction sites

423