Eldin, N N (1997) Concurrent engineering: A schedule reduction tool. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(3), pp. 354-362. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A literature review was conducted to identify a number of schedule improvement tools and to determine their benefits, success factors, and implementation barriers. Selection was based on finding tools that lead to the reduction of project delivery time without increasing project overall cost. Concurrent engineering (CE) was identified as a schedule reduction tool (SRT) that met the selection criteria. This study documented successful applications of CE, verified its potential for schedule reduction, and determined its success factors and implementation barriers. The data collected suggested that implementation of CE has the potential of reducing project delivery time by up to 25%, compared to historical data. Success factors, implementation barriers, and lessons learned were found to be related to management, employee, and process issues. These issues were further ranked according to their apparent significance and impact on successful implementation. Such ranking could assist present and future users in obtaining the maximum benefits from their CE efforts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | lessons learned, literature review, success factor, concurrent engineering, implementation, selection criteria, project delivery |
| Subjects: | professional development, engineering methods, tendering, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, project delivery, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Health and Safety |
| 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