East, E W and Kim, S (1993) Standardizing scheduling data exchange. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(2), pp. 215-225. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
One of the major inefficiencies in the use of the critical path method (CPM) in the construction industry is the large number of proprietary and commercially available software scheduling systems. This inefficiency is due, in part, to the amount of data reentry required when progress data is exchanged between members of a project team. To solve this problem, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers coordinated the development of a data-exchange standard with eight vendors, several construction managers, and Corps of Engineer field-office representatives. The standard was tested on a limited basis and has been officially requiredby the Corps of Engineers since March of 1990. To use the data-exchange features currently provided by software vendors, it is necessary for all participants in the data exchange to spend considerable time anticipating inconsistencies between software systems. A revised version of the format is expected to be released to vendors in early 1993. The revised version is expected to considerably reduce the time required by users to implement the exchange of project scheduling data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | project scheduling, scheduling, critical path method, construction manager, engineer, data exchange, construction industry, project team |
| Subjects: | operations research, project delivery, profession, project controls, industry analysis, data exchange |
| Topics: | Time Control, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Research Practice |
| 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