The gold standard: Developing a maturity model to assess collaborative scheduling

Scala, N M; Liu, M; Alves, T C L; Schiavone, V and Hawkins, D (2023) The gold standard: Developing a maturity model to assess collaborative scheduling. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(4), pp. 1636-1656. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose: The overall contribution of this work is to provide a usable maturity model for collaborative scheduling (CS) that extends the literature, identifies inconsistencies in schedule development, and improves collaboration in the construction industry. Design/methodology/approach: Via subject matter expert elicitation and focus groups, the maturity model establishes five pillars of collaboration—scheduling significance, planners and schedulers, scheduling representation, goal alignment with owner, and communication. The maturity model is then validated through iterative feedback and chi-squared statistical analysis of data obtained from a survey. The five pillars are tied to the literature and previous work in CS. Findings: The analysis shows that current industry projects are not consistent in collaboration practice implementation, and the maturity model identifies areas for collaboration improvement. The study's contributions to the body of knowledge are (1) developing a maturity model-based approach to define and measure the current level of collaboration and (2) discovering the level of consistency in scheduling collaboration practice implementation. Practical implications: The findings provide a benchmark for self-evaluation and peer-to-peer comparison for project managers. The model is also useful for project managers to develop effective strategies for improvement on targeted dimensions and metrics. Originality/value: The construction engineering and management (CEM) literature does not contain targeted models for scheduling collaboration in the context of maturity and, broadly speaking, neither does the literature at large. The literature also lacks actionable items as presented for the maturity model for collaborative scheduling (MMCS).

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: alignment; collaboration; maturity model; schedule
Index terms: methodology, collaboration, body of knowledge, scheduler, scheduling, focus group, strategy, survey, self-evaluation, construction engineering, planner, implementation, construction industry, dimension, project manager, maturity model, owner, statistical analysis
Subjects: data collection methods, profession, practitioner, operations research, data science, contractual arrangements, knowledge management, evaluation methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, management, research methods, engineering methods, evaluation, sociology, industry analysis
Topics: Organizational Design, Time Control, Quality Management, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here