Johansen, E and Wilson, B (2006) Investigating first planning in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 24(12), pp. 1305-1314. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
There is a divergence of research opinion as to the efficacy of detailed front end construction planning (first planning) and its use for strategic or tactical purposes. What really happens in planning construction projects is considered by focusing on comparing the responses of key stakeholders in the construction planning process. Contrasting perspectives of office- and site-based staff upon the accuracy of project timescales are identified together with their dissimilar methods of programme development and preferred first planning detail level. Consistently divergent views are expressed by office-based preconstruction planners and site-based construction project managers, including a reluctance to engage others during first planning held by the former and a limited belief in completion of the project to another's timescale (without their personal input) expressed by the latter. Significant role-based discrepancies in their approach to first planning are revealed and the potential for further research into cultural and behavioural motivators is highlighted.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction planning; first planning; project planning |
| Index terms: | manager, planner, construction planning, project planning, accuracy, motivator, construction project, programme |
| Subjects: | construction planning, project controls, profession, practitioner, psychology, production management, control systems, professional development |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Information Management, Project Management, Site Management, Time Control, Human Resources |
| 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