Koskela, L and Ballard, G (2006) Should project management be based on theories of economics or production? Building Research & Information, 34(2), pp. 154-163. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
According to adherents of lean construction, project management theorists and practitioners, when drawing from the concepts and principles of economics, have neglected the management of production. The consequences of this neglect are said to include poor control (low reliability) of handoffs between design, supply and construction specialists, and a tendency to promote adversarial relationships - reducing value delivered and increasing waste. There is increasing agreement in the construction community that these problems must be solved and that the production perspective must be integrated into project management theory and practice. But how is it best to do so? Is it a matter of supplementing existing project management theory and practice with an additional perspective, or should we start from a conceptualization of projects as temporary production systems? This paper explores the alternative of subordinating the economics-based theory of project management to the theory of production. A recent synthesis of an economics-based project management approach is critically assessed, and an alternative, production-based approach is outlined.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract management; lean construction; production; production management; project management; risk management; theory of production; theory of project |
| Index terms: | production management, risk management, lean construction, theory of production, construction community, practitioner, production system, contract management, drawing, project management |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, manufacturing engineering, contract management, practitioner, project management theory and practice, building construction, professional development, economic analysis, technical documentation, project delivery |
| Topics: | Project Management, Site Management, Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Information Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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