Kim, J J and William Ibbs, C (1995) Work-package-process model for piping construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(4), pp. 381-387. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a work-packaging-process model for petrochemical plant piping construction. The model's basic foundation is formed by identifying major decision variables that affect the work-packaging process. The model's main structure is developed by formalizing the evaluation processes of those variables through identification of related work-packaging conventions and associated data items. A series of heuristics are presented that can be used to define the work packages at the most detailed planning level. The model is developed using the data flow diagram (DFD) technique. DFD's are useful as modeling tools prior to automating any process because they help graphically identify conflicts and redundancies in information flow. The example in this paper demonstrates the potential of the work-packaging concept for modeling other planning, design, and construction work processes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | heuristic, package, petrochemical plant, modelling, construction work, information flow, redundancy |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, information systems, management, operations management, contractual arrangements, analytical methods, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Human Resources, Risk Management, Procurement, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| 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