Cohenca-Zall, D; Laufer, A; Shapira, A and Howell, G A (1994) Process of planning during construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(3), pp. 561-578. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Following a previous paper, which described the planning process in the construction company at the early stages of prebid and preconstruction, this paper presents the results of a research program that studied the planning process carried out during construction. The paper focuses on the involvement of the various parties participating in the preparation of construction plans and on the characteristics and roles of various types of meetings that take place during construction. Special attention is given to analyzing the rationale of planning by meetings, as well as to examining the limitations of the current practice in construction companies. The data were accumulated through on-site interviews and discussions with selected representatives of leading U.S. construction companies recognized for their progressive planning culture. The findings highlight the complexity and continuity of the planning process during construction, and they underline the importance of meetings as a primary planning mode.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction company, interview, complexity, program, planning process |
| Subjects: | organization, data collection methods, software systems, systems engineering, project controls |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Time Control, Digital Applications |
| 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