Hegazy, T; Elbeltagi, E and Zhang, K (2005) Keeping better site records using intelligent bar charts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(5), pp. 513-521. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Daily recording of the actions done by all parties on a construction site is necessary, not only for confirming that work is done according to specifications, but also for analyzing any claims for additional time/cost. Site records, however, are often incomplete and inaccurate, and commercial scheduling software provides little support in this regard. In this paper, a simplified approach for site-data recording and constructing "as-built" schedules is introduced through the use of intelligent bar charts. The proposed bar chart guides the user through progress reporting by observing any conflict with the planned logic of the work. It automatically recognizes the occurrence of delays and asks the user to record the responsible party and the reasons. Based on percent completes and recorded delays, the bar chart recognizes the progress status of activities as being slow, suspended, or accelerated. The paper starts with a description of the types of data that need to be recorded on site. It then provides a description of the automated guidance mechanism of the proposed bar chart, along with details on schedule integration and applicability for claim analysis.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | documentation; graphic methods; information management; project management |
| Index terms: | integration, specification, scheduling, documentation, construction site, project management |
| Subjects: | operations research, work location, contractual condition, project management theory and practice, professional development, organizational analysis |
| Topics: | Information Management, Project Management, Time Control, Contract Administration, Site Management, Organizational Design |
| 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