Rho, J-J (1994) A systems engineering model for implementing automation technology into a construction process. PhD thesis, University of Houston, USA.
Abstract
This research endeavor is focused on the development of a Systems Engineering Model for Automation (SEMA) to aid the contractor's decision-making process regarding the implementation of automation technology into a construction process. SEMA is composed of a three-step analysis: productivity analysis, feasibility analysis, and economic analysis. In productivity analysis, the productivity of the current conventional process is analyzed through field data collection and productivity ratings. If the productivity is lower than the desired level, then a feasibility analysis is performed. Through the Time-Benefit-Technology (TBT) method, an Automation Need Index (ANI) is computed to quantify the automation potential of each task in the process. The TBT method is composed of three factors: the time portion factor, the benefit level factor, and the technology availability factor an economic analysis is performed for the alternatives of the task with the highest ANI. The Total Expected Profit (TEP) method, modified from the net present value method, is adopted to justify the automated technology from an economical perspective. SIMBASE is a project-based simulation model integrated with a database system. It was developed in order to incorporate the TEP method. SIMBASE simulates contractors' actual cash flows over the life cycle period by calculating total expected profit based on expected income from the project bids and expected costs of the technology. A database system maintains all information pertaining to projects and the technology. SEMA was applied to the drilled shaft foundation process for highway bridge construction in the Texas Gulf Coast region. Productivity ratings of the current technology was 33%, which is below average (40%) for the construction industry as a whole. ANI evaluation revealed that, among the original 36 tasks, three tasks had the greatest need to be automated. These were 'Excavating (ANI: 8.0),' 'Inspection (ANI: 5.5),' and 'Slurry (ANI: 5.4)' tasks. An alternative semi-automated technology for the 'Excavating' task was selected and then was evaluated from an economical standpoint. The TEP for the selected alternative varied, depending on a geologic conditions and assumed contractor's project bid winning ratio.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | systems engineering; bridge; highway; income; automation; bridge construction; cash flows; decision making; inspection; life cycle; net present value; productivity; economic analysis; simulation |
| Index terms: | life cycle, productivity, decision-making process, inspection, net present value, systems engineering, database, income, automation, implementation, construction industry, cash flow, profit, construction process, decision-making, bridge construction, economic analysis |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, contractual arrangements, design analysis, value management, systems engineering, quality assurance, industry analysis, decision analysis, building construction, data management, infrastructure engineering, automation and robotics, financial management, management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Procurement, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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