Tommelein, I D; Levitt, R E and Hayes-Roth, B (1992) Site-layout modeling: How can artificial intelligence help? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(3), pp. 594-611. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Using the site-layout task as an example to compare existing practices and tools used in industry and research environments, this paper puts artificial intelligence (AI) modeling techniques in perspective. The site-layout task is characterized, field practice is described, and a thorough review of available tools for layout product modeling (including physical models and computer-aided design tools) and process modeling (using AI as well as operations research methods) is presented. A rationale is provided for why many such tools have failed to gain widespread use in the construction industry. Comparing the capabilities as well as the data and knowledge needs of computer programs with those of construction practitioners reveals a large discrepancy, which is also apparent when fitting the layout literature in a comprehensive table. This paper argues that AI-based systems can reduce this discrepancy by better matching model capabilities with industry needs, and, therefore, suggests that such models will become valuable decisionsupport tools for construction management.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | artificial intelligence, construction industry, modelling, computer program, operations research, computer aided design, construction practitioner, process modelling, physical model |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, professional development, software systems, manufacturing engineering, analytical methods, artificial intelligence, design analysis, design methods, computational design |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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