Author
Listed:
- Gunnar Lucko
- Thaís Da C.L. Alves
- Vanessa Lira Angelim
Abstract
Despite theoretical advancements in alternative project planning methods the extent of their practical implementation varies strongly; it has been limited especially in the US construction industry. The family of linear, repetitive, and location-based scheduling techniques holds significant but barely substantiated promise by containing multiple variables of interest for integrated analysis and optimization. Yet it is necessary to provide empirical evidence that using such techniques can improve productivity to increase credibility and acceptance by practitioners, because claims of conceptual superiority are only sporadically supported with detailed measures. An analysis is performed to identify relevant decision-making variables, extract challenges that currently limit the corpus of quantitative productivity studies on alternative scheduling to its insufficient size, and reveal opportunities to expand it in breadth and depth. Variables are categorized by their relevance to time, activity, resource and location, as well as the managerial approach. Challenges include the diverse definitions of productivity itself, issues related to achieving generalizability, and the detailed steps of data collection, preparation, and analysis. Opportunities include the guidance from existing but rare studies and well-established research methods such as case studies that can be applied. This is illustrated with a sample project of a high-rise apartment building in Brazil. If alternative methods can be proven to be measurably better for specific applications, there might be a paradigm shift from merely defaulting to traditional but problematic network-based scheduling toward consciously choosing the planning method based on its potential benefits for a project.
Suggested Citation
Gunnar Lucko & Thaís Da C.L. Alves & Vanessa Lira Angelim, 2014.
"Challenges and opportunities for productivity improvement studies in linear, repetitive, and location-based scheduling,"
Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 575-594, June.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:32:y:2014:i:6:p:575-594
DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2013.845305
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:32:y:2014:i:6:p:575-594. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.