Winch, G M and Carr, B (2001) Processes, maps and protocols: Understanding the shape of the construction process. Construction Management and Economics, 19(5), pp. 519-531. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Process mapping and benchmarking are becoming widely recognized as important management tools for understanding how value is delivered for customers, and their use in the construction industry is growing rapidly. Influenced by research on design project management, and the requirements of developing interfirm IT systems, this work has focused renewed attention on the role of process protocols. The aim of this paper is to explore empirically the use of process maps and protocols within one retail client with a large programme of retail development projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; key performance indicators; process mapping; process protocol; retail clients |
| Index terms: | becoming, key performance indicator, project management, construction industry, maps, programme, mapping, construction process, benchmarking, retail development |
| Subjects: | building construction, project controls, philosophical process, industry analysis, spatial and geospatial analysis, economic development, performance measurement, project management theory and practice, project delivery |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Urban Studies, Site Management, Time Control, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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