Tenah, K A (1984) Management information organization and routing. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 110(1), pp. 101-118. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Numerous studies and research have attempted to collect, organize, and disseminate information to the various managers and supervisors in the construction industry. Most efforts have not been successful because of the limited scope of their objective functions. Results are presented of a field study conducted to determine, among other things, construction management information organization and flow. A description is given of how the information required by each construction manager or supervisor is organized into reports (by information type and by management level), the contents of these reports, the purposes these reports serve, how often they are issued, and who receives and prepares these reports. Also described are information flow, report organization by information type and by management level, and information processing. A typical organization structure is identified in the study and used as an illustration. It is also concluded that information should flow in all directions (i.e., upward, downward, and laterally) within the organization.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction industry, supervisor, information processing, construction manager, information flow, manager, field study |
| Subjects: | profession, practitioner, data science, research methods, information systems, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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