Zani, C M; Brandalise, F M P; Pedó, B; Formoso, C T; Tommelein, I D; Ortiz-Marcos, I; Viana, D D; Bataglin, F S and Koskela, L (2025) Devising a taxonomy for visual management requirements by considering different purposes and contexts. Construction Management and Economics, 43(7), pp. 518-536. ISSN 0144-6193
Abstract
Visual Management (VM) refers to a sensory system designed to provide information that guides people's actions. VM comprises practices supported by devices that work together through shared conventions tailored to the context. VM is used to serve different purposes, e.g. prevent mistakes, promote team collaboration, or detect deviations in production systems. Although VM has evolved organically in practice, currently no comprehensive conceptual framework exist that links its purposes, contexts, and requirements. Such a framework would help to develop efficient and effective VM practices. Accordingly, the aim of the research presented in this paper was to devise a taxonomy of VM requirements by considering different purposes and contexts. To develop the taxonomy, secondary data of three case studies were used in an iterative process to refine the definitions of different requirements and organise them into categories. The contribution to theory is the synthesis of different conceptualisations of VM to overcome fragmentation in existing knowledge. The contribution to practice is a taxonomy that can guide assessments of VM practices and devices aiding in the design of new VM systems.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | requirements; visual devices; visual management; visual practices |
| Index terms: | team collaboration, production system, fragmentation, conceptual framework, visual management, case study, secondary data, deviation, taxonomy |
| Subjects: | manufacturing engineering, theoretical framing, collaborative management, data collection methods, business, data analysis and analytics, financial and cost management, management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CEA |
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