Li, Z; Anson, M and Li, G (2001) A procedure for quantitatively evaluating site layout alternatives. Construction Management and Economics, 19(5), pp. 459-467. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Construction site layout decisions affect the effort involved in materials handling, an activity which occupies a substantial portion of working time. Much computer software has been developed enabling construction managers to plan and visualize the layout of a construction site, but at present the lack of an accepted practical technique for evaluating the efficiency of a chosen site layout makes it difficult to choose objectively between possibilities, in the search for a better layout design. The research described in this paper explores the practicability of an evaluation procedure intended to help improve this situation, and effectively describes the use of a quantitative material flow network model as the basis for evaluating the efficiency of a given site layout option. The evaluation measure, 'total material flow time', is calculated as part of an evaluation procedure. A site trial of the procedure is described, and its necessary development into a computer assisted procedure is discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | material flow; quantitative evaluation; site layout |
| Index terms: | construction site, site layout, construction manager, efficiency, option |
| Subjects: | work location, site logistics, profession, decision analysis, performance management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Quality Management, Site 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