Russell, A D (1993) Computerized daily site reporting. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(2), pp. 385-402. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper describes a computerized approach for collecting and processing site information that builds on the traditional superintendent’s daily site report. System design considerations and features, lessons learned from field use, and future extensions are highlighted. Goals include improvements in the ease and accuracy with which field data can be recorded and processed to produce fast feedback on project status and problems. Benefits claimed for the approach include development of a coherent picture of the current status of a project and how it got there; faster response time in dealing with problems: integration of the site reporting, project planning, and project scheduling functions: an increased likelihood of schedule updating and speedier updating (thus leading to increased schedule credibility); help in dealing with claims: and documentation of experience in a form useful for future projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | project scheduling, documentation, accuracy, integration, lessons learned, project planning |
| Subjects: | control systems, professional development, organizational analysis, project controls |
| Topics: | Project Management, Information Management, Time Control, Organizational Design |
| 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