Navon, R and Haskaya, I (2006) Is detailed progress monitoring possible without designated manual data collection? Construction Management and Economics, 24(12), pp. 1225-1229. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The daily site report (DSR) - A common tool, which contains a lot of valuable data - Is normally used for litigation purposes, i.e. claims and dispute resolution. All these valuable data are rarely used for the management and control of the ongoing project. The purpose of the current research is to develop a tool that uses data taken from a computerized DSR to generate monitoring and control information. We have developed a progress monitoring model, which uses data from a computerized DSR to generate information regarding the actual progress and then transfer it to the scheduling software. The model was developed and implemented in a concept proving prototype using Excel and MS Project. The operation and the usefulness of the prototype are demonstrated with a case study, synthetic, project. The results indicate that the DSR is a useful data collection tool for progress monitoring. The cost of the information generated from these data is low because no additional manual operations are required in order to collect the data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | daily site report; data collection; progress control; project control; site records |
| Index terms: | progress monitoring, scheduling, prototype, monitoring, project control, resolution, case study, litigation, dispute |
| Subjects: | control systems, dispute resolution, data collection methods, modelling and simulation, operations research, project controls, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Site Management, Time Control, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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