Arditi, D; Tokdemir, O B and Suh, K (2002) Challenges in line-of-balance scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(6), pp. 545-556. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The line-of-balance (LOB) method of scheduling is well suited to projects that are composed of activities of a linear and repetitive nature. The objective of this study is to set down the basic principles that can be used in the development of a computerized LOB scheduling system that overcomes the problems associated with existing systems and creates solutions to problems encountered in the implementation of repetitive-unit construction. The challenges associated with LOB scheduling include developing an algorithm that handles project acceleration efficiently and accurately, recognizing time and space dependencies, calculating LOB quantities, dealing with resource and milestone constraints, incorporating the occasional nonlinear and discrete activities, defining a radically new concept of criticalness, including the effect of the learning curve, developing an optimal strategy to reduce project duration by increasing the rate of production of selected activities, performing cost optimization, and improving the visual presentation of LOB diagrams.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; scheduling |
| Index terms: | implementation, strategy, scheduling, cost optimization, acceleration, duration |
| Subjects: | operations research, economics, contractual arrangements, management, project controls |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Procurement, Time Control, 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