Lucko, G; Araújo, L G and Cates, G R (2016) Slip chart-inspired project schedule diagramming: Origins, buffers, and extension to linear schedules. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(5): 04015101, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Linear schedules continue to hold significant potential for planning and control in construction project management, where work progress of activities is often repetitive in nature. However, linear schedules are limited in graphical comparisons. A slip chart from the aerospace industry, which recorded launch dates on two axes of time, is rediscovered as inspiration for an improved tool. However, whereas its original form could only track points in time, schedule activities must be represented as ranges across time. Therefore, additional theory is needed to extend slip charts toward being able to handle linear schedules. To create such a layout, this research systematically extends its conventions and capabilities. A conversion algorithm for linear schedules is derived. New features are introduced for a comprehensive approach. In particular, buffers that represent minimum and also maximum constraints between activities are investigated and converted. Criticality and float are defined.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | buffer, aerospace industry, conversion, construction project management |
| Subjects: | manufacturing engineering, industry analysis, project management theory and practice, financial risk |
| Topics: | Project Management, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research 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