Emam, H; Farrell, P and Ahmed, S (2016) Formulating a linear scheduling development index. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 169(5), pp. 188-198. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Construction projects are criticised for overrunning time and cost. Previous studies have identified ineffective planning and scheduling as the most frequently cited cause of delay. Moreover, earlier research debated that network-based planning methods are not suitable for projects with repeating activities. Linear scheduling was argued to be a better tool for simulating projects with repeating activities, such as railways, tunnels, roads and infrastructure. Research efforts on schedule quality and development measurement were devoted to network-based scheduling methods. This study critically reviews current programme quality evaluation models in the literature; the review outcomes are used in interviews with four industry experts to identify suitable criteria for assessing linear schedules. There were 23 criteria confirmed that were then arranged into six groups. Based on the interviews, a questionnaire was distributed, and responses were obtained from 125 participants. Results indicated a high level of agreement on the importance of the defined criteria. They are subsequently ranked according to relative importance. The results show that contractual measures are ranked highest and duration estimation second. In addition, a relationship between level of knowledge and importance of using linear schedules was identified. The study proposes a framework for assessing development level and quality of linear schedules.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure planning; planning & scheduling; project management |
| Index terms: | planning method, estimation, infrastructure planning, project management, duration, scheduling, tunnel, interview, relative importance, programme, linear scheduling, questionnaire, construction project |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, risk assessment, data collection methods, infrastructure and transport systems, project controls, project management theory and practice, strategic project management, operations research, urban planning, production management |
| Topics: | Time Control, Governance, Cost Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| 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