Laufer, A; Tucker, R L; Shapira, A and Shenhar, A J (1994) The multiplicity concept in construction project planning. Construction Management and Economics, 12(1), pp. 53-65. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Why plan? Who should plan? What and when should one plan? These fundamental issues of construction planning raised by the authors 5 years ago, are revisited in this paper in the light of studies conducted recently within the construction industry. In the focus of this research program stood mature companies, advanced projects and competent and experienced practitioners of construction planning and management. The findings show that there is no one single answer to any of these basic questions and that in fact a state of multiplicity – of roles and users, plans and formats, timings and time horizons, planning parties and modes of preparation – prevail, calling upon the willing practitioner to resort systematically to situational analysis if effective planning is to be accomplished.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction planning; formats of plans; planning modes; planning roles; timing of planning |
| Index terms: | construction industry, construction planning, construction project, program, practitioner |
| Subjects: | construction planning, practitioner, industry analysis, production management, software systems |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PT |
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