Fan, S L and Tserng, H P (2006) Object-oriented scheduling for repetitive projects with soft logics. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(1), pp. 35-48. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The application of network techniques of project scheduling to repetitive projects has been criticized for the inability of network techniques to help maintain work continuity. Moreover, current network techniques require a large number of activities to represent a repetitive project and presume that there is only one logical sequence. This makes schedules time consuming to develop as well as maintain. Further, the logic chosen by the planner might be far from the shortest possible duration. This paper, utilizing the soft logic sequencing principles developed by Fan et al., develops a system which provides an easy input module in addition to scheduling and work-continuity-maintenance modules. The system eases the network generation and update processes, which in turn provides the shortest possible duration logics and the start and finish dates required to maintain work continuity.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | computer aided scheduling; computer applications; scheduling |
| Index terms: | scheduling, planner, duration, repetitive project, module, computer application, project scheduling |
| Subjects: | architectural elements, profession, project controls, operations research, software systems, production management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Project Management, Design Practice, Time Control |
| 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