Chang, A S and Tien, C C (2006) Quantifying uncertainty and equivocality in engineering projects. Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), pp. 171-184. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Engineering work is intangible and difficult to measure and manage. Engineering project tasks entail various degrees of uncertainty and equivocality (U&E). Quantifying U&E of project tasks helps understand and manage engineering work. This study developed an assessing questionnaire from five sources of U&E and tested it on a large subway design project. Questions were answered by nine discipline managers of 58 tasks and the quantified U&E scores reflect reality. It was found that uncertainty is higher than equivocality for most tasks. The U&E reduction test shows that task U&E decrease over one year and different reduction patterns exist. Task-possessed information contributes the largest decrease. This means information from planning, past projects or experiences is very important to performing new projects. The developed questionnaire can be a useful tool to help managers better understand and plan project tasks.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; information processing; organizational theory; project management; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | information processing, project management, case study, questionnaire, manager, organizational theory |
| Subjects: | practitioner, data collection methods, business, data science, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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