Laufer, A (1992) A micro view of the project planning process. Construction Management and Economics, 10(1), pp. 31-43. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The objective was to make a descriptive study of the decision making process in the early stages ofproject planning as it actually takesplace. Data weregathered from 27 managers affiliated with large owners in the USA. Interviewees were questioned about the degree of involvement of client, project manager, project manager’s team, and design engineers, in the technical dejnition, organization and systems, and schedule of the project – once at the conceptual planning stage and again at the engineering design stage. Involvement was assessed also in terms of intensity, relative efforts invested by the parties in the phases of the decision making process, and by type of contract. Other variables studied included extent of disagreement among the parties, degree of interruption during the planning process and sources of uncertainty hindering the decision making process.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | client; conflicts; construction; decision making; interruptions; planning; project; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | planning process, decision-making process, engineering design, engineer, project manager, project planning, manager, owner, decision-making |
| Subjects: | project controls, profession, practitioner, design process, decision analysis, sociology, control systems |
| Topics: | Project Management, Time Control, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Risk Management |
| 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