Jang, J (2008) Improving the make-ready process and forecasting project performance using performance of the make-ready process. PhD thesis, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, USA.
Abstract
The primary goal of this research was to assess the effectiveness of the make-ready process in the project planning and control process. As modern construction projects become increasingly complex, dynamic, and time sensitive, the number of specialized parties involved in each project has increased. As a project gets more complex, dynamic and fast-paced, there is a need to develop a formal means of predictive and reactive production planning and control that promotes reliability. However, traditional project planning and control has been focused on after-the-fact detection of variances. This research adopted the Last Planner System, and improved its make-ready process by adding Organizational Hierarchy Constraint Analysis (OHCA), a systematic approach to the make-ready process. Also, in this research was developed a performance measurement of the make-ready process, Percentage Constraint Removal (PCR). The author conducted ten case studies to test the hypothesis that project performance depends on successful implementation of the make-ready process. Statistical analyses verified that the performance of the make-ready process was correlated to project performance and workflow reliability, and was also a leading indicator. A systematic approach to the make-ready process improved both workflow predictability and reliability. As this offers tremendous potential improvements in engineering and construction performance, it is appropriate to focus research objectives on improving the make-ready process confident of its benefits to project performance. The tracking of PCR helps to determine whether the make-ready process has been performed successfully. This research has shown that informational transparency is improved by OHCA in the make-ready process, which gives relevant information to stakeholders and helps to resolve constraints before the start of work. Keywords: Construction management, lean construction, last planner system, make-ready process, Constraint analysis, Case study.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Kim, Y-W and Tiss, K J |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | effectiveness; liability; measurement; reliability; construction project; lean construction; production planning; project planning; stakeholders; project performance; workflow; case studies; case study |
| Index terms: | variance, performance measurement, case study, forecasting, construction performance, statistical analysis, effectiveness, project performance, implementation, transparency, lean construction, liability, production planning, last planner system, construction project, workflow, project planning |
| Subjects: | prediction and forecasting, project delivery, contractual arrangements, data science, performance assessment, data collection methods, control systems, measurement and scaling, building construction, project controls, liability law, performance management, performance measurement, management, project management theory and practice, professional development, production management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Quality Management, Procurement, Project Management, Site Management, Time Control, Business Strategy, 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