Olivieri, H; Seppänen, O; Alves, T D C L; Scala, N M; Schiavone, V; Liu, M and Granja, A D (2019) Survey comparing critical path method, last planner system, and location-based techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(12): 04019077, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In construction, the most relevant systems used for project management (PM) and project production management (PPM) in the planning and control phases are critical path method (CPM), last planner system (LPS), and location-based techniques (LB). Studies have addressed these systems, mostly in isolated fashions. This study aims to compare and contrast their use in terms of PM and PPM and clarify industry benefits in order to eliminate potential misunderstandings about their use. A survey was administered to construction professionals in Brazil, China, Finland, and the United States. No single system addresses all needs of PM and PPM. CPM is the dominant system when considering the following characteristics: primary industry types, type of organization, size of organization, professional position within the organization, and area of work. Contributions to knowledge include that CPM is a contract requirement with perceived benefits associated with critical path analysis; LB and LPS have perceived benefits regarding continuous flow and use of resources, treatment of interferences, and improving production control. All systems were found to have a similar level of benefits for management of contracts, delay and change, and evaluation of the root causes of delays. The industry can benefit from aligning project scheduling methods with project needs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; critical path method; last planner system; location-based systems; scheduling |
| Index terms: | construction professional, causes of delay, critical path analysis, project management, production control, Finland, last planner system, China, critical path method, United States, scheduling, project scheduling, production management, Brazil, survey |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, project delivery, operations research, professional development, project management theory and practice, Geography, project controls |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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