Reda, R and Carr, R I (1989) Time-cost trade-off among related activities. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 115(3), pp. 475-486. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper describes the typical pragmatic approach that construction planners taken in performing time-cost trade-off (TCT). In general, projects have major dominant characteristics, operations, or resources whose planning affects or dominates planning of other operations and resources. Planning focuses first on the dominant characteristics and is then fine-tuned in its details. Planners typically cycle between plan generation and cost estimating at ever finer levels of detail until they settle on a plan that has an acceptable cost and duration. Computerized TCT methods do not follow this cycle. Instead, they separate the plan into activities, each of which is assumed to have a single time-cost curve in which all points are compatible and independent of all points in other activities' curves and that contains all direct cost differences among its methods. In general, these assumptions are not true for construction. Construction activities are related because they share methods and resources. Crashing activities usually require changes from normal, least-cost methods and resources. Changes in one activity are not independent of changes in related activities. Therefore, normal computerized TCT techniques are conceptually wrong for construction and they are not useful in practice.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction planner, cost estimating, crashing, planner, time-cost trade-off, duration, direct cost, construction activity |
| Subjects: | profession, practitioner, financial and cost management, construction operations, economics, quantity surveying, project controls |
| Topics: | Site Management, Time Control, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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