Dang, T and Bargstädt, H J (2016) 4D relationships: The missing link in 4D scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(2): 04015072, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Four-dimensional (4D) schedules have proven successful in planning with their visualization capabilities allowing for coordination and time-space conflict detection. However, when considered in depth, internal aspects of 4D scheduling techniques have not made significant advances from traditional two-dimensional (2D) scheduling. What is missing from 4D scheduling? Why has the interaction between activities, their relationships, and three-dimensional (3D) components not been flexible and adaptive enough? In light of these questions, this paper analyzes the current state of 4D scheduling. The missing element in 4D scheduling is found to be 4D relationships (4DRs). A prototype of 4DRs has therefore been developed to improve 4D scheduling. Finally, guidance on the application of 4DRs in 4D scheduling is presented to help the users come to a thorough understanding of its advantages and disadvantages and potential applications.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cost and schedule |
| Index terms: | scheduling, coordination, interaction, visualization, prototype |
| Subjects: | design practice, management, operations research, modelling and simulation, behavioral psychology |
| Topics: | Time Control, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, 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