Chevallier, N J and Russell, A D (2001) Developing a draft schedule using templates and rules. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(5), pp. 391-398. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The effort required for the initial drafting of a plan is often a real barrier to developing a useful and high quality schedule for a construction project. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how an expert system with an editable rule base can be combined with standard templates of modifiable, predefined knowledge within a project management system in order to generate draft schedules based on limited user input. The user can capitalize on past experience by creating a template for each recurring project type. The knowledge contained in the templates is broken down into a physical view (i.e., what is being built), a process view (i.e., how it will be built), and rules for scaling the templates and computing durations based on user input. The physical view is a hierarchical breakdown structure of components that describes (without quantifying) the physical and spatial characteristics of the project type. The process view contains a list of typical activities and the logic relationships that describe their sequencing. The rules serve to link and then expand the two views in order to generate a draft schedule for the project-at-hand once its scale is specified. The feasibility and capabilities of the proposed approach are demonstrated in the context of a full-sized project composed of three buildings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | expert system, drafting, construction project, computing, duration, project management, scaling |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, production management, project controls, project management theory and practice, computing systems, organization, data management |
| Topics: | Time Control, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Project Management |
| 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