Yeh, H H; Hsieh, T Y and Chen, J H (2017) Managing complex engineering interfaces of urban mass rapid transit projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(6): 05017001, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Managing the engineering interfaces of mass rapid transit (MRT) projects is difficult and exhausting work because thousands of complex interrelated construction interfaces are embedded among multiple subworks and subsystems. When these interfaces are not revealed and thoroughly preplanned to achieve timely execution, they generate countless disputes among project parties and delay the overall progress considerably. This paper discusses a stepwise procedure to provide an empirical and comprehensive solution for managing the engineering interface of MRT projects. The proposed procedure involves four steps: (1) identification of the key interface correlation and work scope using a work-breakdown structure; (2) allocation of interface scope responsibilities and criteria using a phase approach; (3) preplanning the interface work items; and (4) setting up interface organizations using veto authorization. The proposed method is suitable for design-build or design-bid-build MRT contracts, thereby benefiting practitioners of interface management in the relevant field.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; contract management; interface management; mass rapid transit; project planning and design |
| Index terms: | contract management, project party, interface management, practitioner, project planning, dispute, design-bid-build |
| Subjects: | business, practitioner, dispute resolution, control systems, contractual arrangements, contract management, sociology |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Business Strategy, Project Management, Contract Administration, Legal Issues |
| 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