Olivieri, H; Seppänen, O and Denis Granja, A (2018) Improving workflow and resource usage in construction schedules through location-based management system (LBMS). Construction Management and Economics, 36(2), pp. 109-124. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Critical Path Method (CPM), a planning and controlling technique, is widely used in the construction industry. However, CPM is criticized for its lack of workflow and inability to schedule continuous resource usage. Location-Based Management System (LBMS) fill these gaps and has been implemented in many construction projects. We propose that LBMS will improve schedules and project performance, addressing CPM’s main shortcomings. This study is composed of three case studies. CPM schedules were analyzed and were improved using LBMS tools. The resulting schedules show improved workflows, crew balancing, resource usage and had fewer interruptions, without affecting project duration. Furthermore, LBMS schedules were optimized with only a few scheduling operations and fewer planning elements. The computational benefit of LBMS increases with the number of locations and tasks in a schedule. Project managers will benefit from a simpler scheduling process and better resource flow.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; critical path method; location-based management system; resource scheduling; workflow |
| Index terms: | case study, project manager, location-based management system, resource scheduling, project performance, duration, construction industry, scheduling, resource flow, construction project, critical path method, workflow |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, production management, management, industry analysis, project controls, control systems, profession, data collection methods, resource management, operations research |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Site Management, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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