Russell, A D and Fayek, A (1994) Automated corrective action selection assistant. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(1), pp. 11-33. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Automated daily site reporting coupled with computerized data interpretation as an integral part of a project management system has the potential to be the missing link for effective construction project monitoring and control. This paper describes a schema to perform the automated interpretation of daily site records, to identify activities experiencing difficulties, to identify the source(s) of these difficulties, to identify the types of problems resulting, to find corroborating information from the daily site records, to validate the causes of these problems, and to suggest likely corrective actions. A framework is presented wherein each component of the analysis schema is defined. This framework includes a set of user-assigned activity-interpretation attributes, a set of problem sources, and a set of corrective actions. Expert rules are used to link these components, and fuzzy logic is used to define the imprecise relationships that exist between them. A prototype system has been developed to implement and test the schema (to be presented in a companion paper).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | monitoring, project management, fuzzy logic, construction project, prototype |
| Subjects: | production management, modelling and simulation, data science, project management theory and practice, control systems |
| Topics: | Site Management, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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