Harmelink, D J and Rowings, J E (1998) Linear scheduling model: Development of controlling activity path. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(4), pp. 263-268. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
There are several reasons why linear scheduling techniques have not been applied widely to construction projects even though they have been identified as very useful. If we consider the capabilities and the widespread use of critical-path method (CPM) in the construction industry, some of the reasons why linear scheduling is not popular become evident. There is an abundance of highly developed CPM computer applications available today. These applications provide a rich set of capabilities such as resource and cost allocation, progress reporting, and schedule updating, plus the generation of a multitude of reports and graphics. There are no comparable applications for linear scheduling. The reason for the shortage of applications is that linear scheduling typically has been regarded as a visual technique lacking the analytical qualities of the CPM of scheduling. Fundamental to linear scheduling's lack of an analytical perspective is its inability to determine a critical path. This paper documents a method by which a controlling activity path can be determined in a linear schedule. This fundamental ability further forms the basis for the determination of float for noncontrolling activities and provides a means of statusing and updating linear schedules.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | scheduling, critical path, documents, linear scheduling, construction project, computer application, construction industry |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, software systems, production management, professional development, operations research |
| Topics: | Time Control, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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