Friedrich, D R; Daly, J P and Dick, W G (1987) Revisions, repairs, and rework on large projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(3), pp. 488-500. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The effects of revisions, repairs, and rework on large, complex projects are very substantial and are not frequently dealt with in a comprehensive, consistent, or effective manner, even in industries that deal constantly with very large projects, such as the commercial nuclear power industry. Large-scale commercial nuclear projects require multiple work phases and disciplines that result in substantial and significant interdependencies among these work phases and disciplines. These interdependencies and the complex interactions that result are key factors in understanding, controlling, and managing such projects. Of particular relevance are the consequences of these interdependencies upon effective project work scope caused by revisions, repairs, and rework. This study examines these effects using a simplified mathematical model constructed to correspond with intuitive reasoning and empirical observations. A range of hypothetical examples is also provided to illustrate the consequences of these effects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | interaction, complex project, mathematical model, reasoning, nuclear power, rework, repair |
| Subjects: | behavioral psychology, cognitive psychology, maintenance engineering, energy systems, strategic project management, operations management, mathematical modelling |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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