Measuring progress and productivity in model-driven engineering for capital project delivery

Garcia, G; Golparvar-Fard, M; De La Garza, J M and Fischer, M (2021) Measuring progress and productivity in model-driven engineering for capital project delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(4): 04021009, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

A key underlying challenge in today's model-driven approach to engineering is how progress and level of effort are being measured and reported. Recent definitions such as level of development enable project teams to track completeness of information in building information modeling (BIM)-driven processes; yet, there are no established processes or metrics to reliably measure progress or track productivity of a model-driven engineering process as a function of the maturity of the model and/or the data that supports the engineering process. To address this gap in knowledge, this paper presents a discrete set of model maturity index (MMI) definitions to measure progress in engineering work, per modeling discipline. Using these MMI definitions, a model maturity risk index (Model MRI) toolkit was created to track maturity of an engineering process at the granularity of work breakdown structure locations. The MMI toolkit also reports risk in achieving certain MMI levels per modeling discipline. To benchmark maturity of the modeling work per project milestone or model review session and to establish workflows for tracking progress, an addendum to the modeling execution plan (ModelXP) is presented. New productivity and project controls metrics for tracking modeling work are also introduced. The developed definitions, toolkit, and addendum to ModelXP were validated through exhaustive surveys and charrette tests with project stakeholders involved in capital projects. The role of the MMI definitions and Model MRI toolkit in providing project controls insight and proactive management opportunities in real-world projects is discussed in detail.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: charrette, project stakeholder, level of development, workflow, toolkit, survey, capital project, project control, project team, modelling, building information modelling, productivity, execution plan
Subjects: control systems, data collection methods, strategic project management, analytical methods, project delivery, design process, software systems, design practice, management, information systems, sociology, project controls
Topics: Digital Applications, Design Practice, Time Control, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management
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