Howell, G; Laufer, A and Ballard, G (1993) Interaction between subcycles: One key to improved methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(4), pp. 714-728. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The relationship of one subcycle to another can be complex. Productivity suffers when the output of one subcycle delays a following step or when resources required for one subcycle are engaged in another. Isolating subcycles from immediate interaction with other subcycles is an important principle in the design and improvement of work methods. While interaction cannot be eliminated, the negative effect of immediate interactions can be reduced with careful provision of buffers and shared resources. Five cases demonstrate different aspects of this concept. A review of 31 cases of performance improvement shows that reducing the immediacy of interactions between subcycles is an effective method used by supervisors to cope with the uncertainty. Reducing immediate interaction through the provision of buffers and/or shared resources will be the most effective technique for eliminating performance-reducing interactions until greater control is achieved over the rates of supply and use of resources. A process for the design and improvement of work methods based on these concepts is offered.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | productivity, supervisor, interaction, performance improvement, buffer |
| Subjects: | practitioner, behavioral psychology, financial risk, management, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, 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