Haymaker, J (2004) The perspective approach: Enabling engineers to construct and integrate views and generate an evolving project model. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.
Abstract
Architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) projects today require the expertise of sometimes thousands of engineers. These engineers conceptualize the project in ways that are suited to their specific tasks. To help them perform these design, planning and execution tasks, they construct task-specific views of the project. The work of an engineer often impacts the work of other engineers; therefore these views must somehow be integrated as the project unfolds through time. Ideally, engineers could automatically construct and integrate task-specific views. Many current project-modeling approaches construct and integrate a predefined central model from which task-specific views are automatically constructed. Others construct and integrate a federation of predefined task-specific views. This thesis presents industry test cases that illustrate that the multi-disciplinary, constructive, iterative, and unique character of AEC projects makes it difficult to implement these approaches and that engineers should be able to formalize and manage the dependencies between views themselves. To address these difficulties, this thesis formalizes the Perspective Approach to enable an engineer to construct a task-specific dependent engineering view, called a Perspective, by formalizing its dependency on source Perspectives. Engineers use composable, subsumable, modifiable reasoning modules, called Perspectors, to specify the nature of the dependency. Engineers can compose Perspectives and Perspectors into directed acyclic graph structures that specify complex transformations of source Perspectives into a dependent Perspective. The Perspective Approach formalizes simple Management Processes that assist engineers to iteratively control the integration of Perspectives. A Project Model emerges as a directed acyclic graph of task-specific Perspectives and dependencies between Perspectives. This thesis retrospectively implements two test cases from the design and construction of the Walt Disney Concert Hall to show how engineers could automatically construct and control the integration of these views more quickly, accurately and completely than possible on this state of the art project. The validation also shows that several of the Perspectors were reused in both test cases: it may be possible to define a small number of reusable Perspectors, potentially a language, which engineers can learn to use. The Perspective Approach is intended to enable engineers to engage in automated, integrated design and analysis.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Fischer, M |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | multi-disciplinary; reasoning; integration; reuse |
| Index terms: | transformation, engineer, modelling, test case, module, design and construction, reasoning, validation, state of the art, integration |
| Subjects: | profession, research dissemination and communication, business, contractual arrangements, professional practice, analytical methods, architectural elements, professional development, organizational analysis, cognitive psychology |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Procurement |
| 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