Teicholz, P and Fischer, M (1994) Strategy for computer integrated construction technology. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(1), pp. 117-131. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a strategy or overall approach to the integration of the design and construction of facilities. This strategy relies on the use of computers to support the members of the design and construction team in the development and communication of project information throughout the project’s life cycle. We propose the use of a shared object-oriented project model as the basis for integration. Networking technology then provides the communication links between project participants and individual applications. The technologies suggested in this paper do not represent radical departures from those employed in other engineering disciplines (e.g., mechanical design); rather, the technologies are presented in a framework that is appropriate for the facility development process. Some of these suggestions have been developed and tested at the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford University over the past four years.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | integration, life cycle, design and construction, construction technology, strategy, networking |
| Subjects: | organizational analysis, contractual arrangements, communication, management, digital engineering, value management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Digital Applications, Procurement, Organizational Design, Business Strategy |
| 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