Dorward, D R (2006) The effect of selected output modifications on facilitating the assessment of PDM schedules. PhD thesis, Indiana State University, USA.
Abstract
The purpose of this experimental study was to compare the time and accuracy of evaluating a project schedule under two conditions; using currently-available outputs provided by scheduling software programs and using output modifications that were developed during this investigation. Thus, the study focused on the following five research objectives: (1) Substantiate that schedules developed using software features identified in the literature review are difficult and time-consuming to assess by users. (2) Determine what currently-available outputs are used to assess schedules using the software features. (3) Determine how currently-available outputs can be modified to improve the analysis of project schedules using the software features. (4) Develop an output modification to improve the accuracy and efficiency of assessing project schedules. (5) Validate the output modification by means of experimentation. The results of this research indicate that utilization of modified PDM schedule outputs could decrease assessment time and increase accuracy. Recommendations are given that may provide benefits to the teaching and practice of scheduling.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Beach, D P |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accuracy; scheduling; teaching |
| Index terms: | investigation, efficiency, program, scheduling, accuracy, experiment, literature review |
| Subjects: | software systems, performance management, professional development, data collection methods, operations research, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Time Control, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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