Hegazy, T (2006) Computerized system for efficient delivery of infrastructure maintenance/repair programs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(1), pp. 26-34. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper discusses three common approaches used by owner organizations to deliver infrastructure maintenance/repair (M/R) programs that involve multiple distributed sites: using in-house resources, outsourcing to contractors, and a combination of both. A scheduling model is then introduced that uses genetic algorithms to suggest the optimum combination of in-house crews and outsourcing that meet execution constraints. The scheduling model considers all the variables that relate to in-house delivery, such as available crews, methods of construction, sequence of work sites, and the time and cost of moving resources among sites. In addition, it incorporates a mechanism to examine the feasibility of replacing in-house resources by outsourcing to delegate execution risks, at minimum additional cost. Details of model development are discussed and an example application is presented to demonstrate the planning and control features of the proposed model. The model presents practitioners and researchers with a practical tool for realistic what-if assessment and greater level of control over the execution of infrastructure M/R plans.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | computer applications; delivery; infrastructure; optimization; scheduling |
| Index terms: | computerized system, scheduling, model development, owner, practitioner, program, computer application, outsourcing, genetic algorithm, repair |
| Subjects: | maintenance engineering, practitioner, computing systems, sociology, algorithms, business, software systems, analytical methods, operations research |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Time Control, Business Strategy, Procurement |
| 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