Is construction project planning really doing its job? A critical examination of focus, role and process

Laufer, A and Tucker, R L (1987) Is construction project planning really doing its job? A critical examination of focus, role and process. Construction Management and Economics, 5(3), pp. 243-266. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

There is growing concern over the failure of construction planning to achieve its goals in spite of the considerable resources allocated to it. Deficient planning techniques are commonly blamed for this state. This view is challenged here following analyses of observations and studies by researchers and practitioners. The paper discusses normative planning vis a vis a deficient reality, and its probable causes. Planning effectiveness can be expected only after management modifies planning policy and prevailing practices are fundamentally changed. Future research should address planning from a wider, holistic perspective to include organizational, human and information-handling aspects, in addition to planning techniques as such.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction control; information handling; planning deficiencies; planning techniques; purpose of planning
Index terms: construction project, planning policy, effectiveness, construction planning, planning technique, practitioner
Subjects: practitioner, urban planning, construction planning, production management, performance management, public policy
Topics: Roles and Professions, Project Management, Quality Management, Site Management, Governance
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

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