Reda, R M (1990) RPM: Repetitive project modeling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(2), pp. 316-330. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Repetitive projects are those characterized by repetitive construction activities. Examples are highway, pipeline, high-rise building construction, etc. Many researchers recognized the disadvantages of using traditional network techniques for planning, scheduling, and monitoring such projects. Alternate approaches based on graphical or on analytical techniques have been proposed to model repetitive projects. This paper presents a new approach called the repetitive project model (RPM) that models repetitive construction projects. This model incorporates a network technique, a graphical technique, and an analytical technique in a unified approach to model repetitive projects. Comparisons between RPM and current available models are made and a numerical example is given to illustrate the use of the model.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | pipeline, repetitive project, monitoring, modelling, scheduling, repetitive construction, high-rise building |
| Subjects: | construction type, control systems, operations research, analytical methods, production management, building construction, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Site Management, Time Control |
| 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