Sarah Slaughter, E (1999) Assessment of construction processes and innovations through simulation. Construction Management and Economics, 17(3), pp. 341-350. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The objectives of this research are to represent construction activities accurately, and to provide a means for assessing the impacts from using innovations. The research approach is the detailed characterization of construction processes, and the development of system and material specific dynamic process simulation models. The ongoing research program is developing a set of specific models, based on extensive empirical data, to enable the accurate modelling of all of the construction processes for a complete facility construction project. A specific process model, glass/metal curtainwall erection, demonstrates the approach, with an analysis of the impacts from a related innovation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction innovation; construction process improvement; dynamic process simulation; estimates of cost; simulation models; worker safety |
| Index terms: | construction innovation, estimate, construction activity, program, construction process, construction project, metal, process simulation, modelling |
| Subjects: | traditional and composite building materials, building construction, production management, financial and cost management, analytical methods, management, software systems, construction operations |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Site Management, Digital Applications, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Construction Materials, Project 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