Hong, Y; Xie, H; Bhumbra, G and Brilakis, I (2021) Comparing natural language processing methods to cluster construction schedules. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(10): 04021136, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The names of construction activities are the only unstructured data attribute in construction schedules, and they often guide construction execution. Activity names are devised to communicate between stakeholders, and therefore often are written using inconsistent terminologies across repetitive activities with omitted contextual information. This presents a challenge for machine learning systems when learning patterns from construction schedules. This paper compared the performance of state-of-the-art text-related clustering methods in identifying repetitive activities. This was achieved by creating a ground truth data set on the basis of the standard construction work classification, and then comparing the precision, recall, and F1 score of latent semantic analysis (LSA), latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), word2vec, and fastText algorithms to group activity names in 27 construction schedules. Results indicated that the F1 score of LSA outperformed LDA (0.84% versus 0.88%), whereas the results of language models-based clustering depended on the quality of word embedding and the paired clustering method. This study provides insight into how to preprocess activity names of construction schedules for further artificial intelligence (AI)-based quantitative analysis. Methodologies described in this study will help researchers who work on natural language-related research in construction (e.g., safety and contract management) to better capture the feature of words, rather than only counting the word frequencies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction schedule; text data; unsupervised learning |
| Index terms: | artificial intelligence, clustering, construction work, construction activity, machine learning, quantitative analysis, state of the art, methodology, unstructured data, contract management |
| Subjects: | operations management, artificial intelligence, data science, construction operations, data analysis and analytics, research dissemination and communication, research methods, contract management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Digital Applications, Contract Administration, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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