Manavazhi, M R (2004) Assessment of the propensity for revisions in design projects through the dichotomous characterization of designer effort. Construction Management and Economics, 22(1), pp. 47-54. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper defines the concept of the propensity of a design project to encounter rework and discusses its significance within the context of the planning and estimation functions. A formalism for the representation of the concept of rework propensity that could be used in planning and estimation is developed. The representation is facilitated by embodying the notions of magnitude of designer effort and the corresponding probability of occurrence of a sequence of events in a design project that entails the use of a specific level of designer effort. The paper then discusses the mathematical theory that underpins the practical and simplified procedure proposed by this research for the estimation of the propensity of a project to encounter rework. A detailed procedure for the estimation of rework propensity involving the use of an approximated k-Rk (AKR) curve is presented. A sample application that demonstrates the use of the simplified procedure is also presented.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design planning; design process; design revisions; design rework; rework propensity |
| Index terms: | estimation, rework, designer, design process |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, profession, operations management, design methods |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Design Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 P |
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