Laufer, A; Shapira, A; Cohenca-Zall, D and Howell, G A (1993) Prebid and preconstruction planning process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(3), pp. 426-444. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Construction planning systems have been the subject of research, development, and implementation for the last several decades. Most studies have focused on planning tools and techniques, and not on the planning process itself. This paper presents the results of a research project that examined how construction planning is actually done at the prebid and preconstruction planning stages. The data were gathered through personal in-depth interviews conducted with experienced, competent project managers and other functionaries in leading, progressive United States construction companies. Construction planning was examined by four principal measures: the degree of involvement in the planning process; the proportion of plan issuance; the relative planning effort in various functional plans; and the formats used for issuing plans. The findings suggest that the practice of construction planning differs from what is commonly accepted and supported by the existing literature.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | project manager, planning process, construction planning, implementation, construction company, interview, United States |
| Subjects: | Geography, project controls, data collection methods, profession, organization, contractual arrangements, construction planning |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Procurement, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Site Management, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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