Abukhder, J and Munns, A K (2003) Attributing management problems on construction projects to project information. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
The construction process generates a large quantity of information which is often not integrated, but is developed and owned by different individuals and organizations. This can create problems with keeping information up-to-date, and ensuring that all parties requiring access to the information have the most recent version. In this paper several case studies are examined in order to assess the integration problems that exist in construction projects. Five hypotheses will be tested to show the magnitude of effect on the management of the project, and to assess the impact of any failures in integration on the success of the project. The paper makes recommendations on the integration of project information to improve communication and reduce managerial problems on projects.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; information management; management information systems; project management |
| Index terms: | construction process, integration, construction project, project management, management information system, case study |
| Subjects: | building construction, production management, project management theory and practice, data management, organizational analysis, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Site Management, Organizational Design, Project Management, Digital Applications, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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