El-Diraby, T E (2006) Web-services environment for collaborative management of product life-cycle costs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(3), pp. 300-313. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
There is an increasing need for effective tools for managing life cycle costs (LCC) of civil products. This paper presents a web-based semantic system for managing products' life cycle costs. The basic architecture of the proposed system represents costs as a hierarchy of cost elements. Each cost element has a dollar value that could be deterministic, probabilistic, or fuzzy. Several factors (also represented in hierarchies) can have a set of impacts on the values of these costs. Through the analysis of different impact possibilities and probabilities, a decision maker can study various alternative scenarios and define the optimum set of costs and their values. A set of web services are used to capture cost elements, factors, and their impacts. The semantic nature of the system allows for it to be an integral part of a corporate memory system, where decision makers will be able to document and access lessons learned about LCC optimization. Finally, the proposed system includes a framework for a LCC-centered supply chain, where all stakeholders can collaborate in optimizing product LCC.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | information technology; internet; knowledge-based systems; life cycle cost; project management |
| Index terms: | internet, collaborative management, information technology, knowledge-based system, life cycle cost, lessons learned, project management |
| Subjects: | professional development, management, artificial intelligence, research methods, computing systems, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Project Management, Digital Applications, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 C |
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