Nassar, K M and Hegab, M Y (2006) Developing a complexity measure for project schedules. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(6), pp. 554-561. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Several factors contribute to the complexity of project schedules, including the number of activities, the level of detail, and the shape of the project network. This paper presents a measure that assesses the complexity of project schedules in terms of the connectivity of the activities. Unlike similar complexity measures, the proposed complexity measure does not consider redundant relationships in the project's schedule. In addition, the measure is expressed as a percentage and therefore has the advantage of being intuitively understand by project managers. The measure considers the degree of interrelationships between the activities in the project's schedule. The measure has been implemented in a computerized tool to help managers assess the complexity of their projects. The tool is developed as an add-in to popular commercial scheduling software like MS Project.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | project management; scheduling |
| Index terms: | complexity, project network, level of detail, scheduling, manager, connectivity, project management, project manager |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, networking, project management theory and practice, project planning, technical documentation, operations research, practitioner, profession |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Time Control, Digital Applications, Design Practice |
| 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