Kenley, R (2019) CME forum: A response to "construction flow index: A metric of production flow quality in construction". Construction Management and Economics, 37(2), pp. 112-119. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The study of types of flow in construction is a relatively new field. This paper reviews the work of Sacks et al. and reveals that they have applied a production-line metaphor with recognition of two production flows. Process flow: locations are equated with products moving down a production line. Operations flow: work crews are equated to work stations. Their work proposes an index of the quality of production flow in construction, but the research design has three significant flaws: the skilled interpretation of flow-line charts is not in turn applied to the interpretation of their example charts; the conceptual framework does recognize that the underlying metaphor requires levels of detail in both location and task that is not supported in their analysis. The meaning of “quality of flow” in this context is not defined. This debate raises important epistemological questions for those working in lean construction and location-based management. While the concept of “production flow quality” is important, the Sacks et al. methodology does not address the detailed planning of individual crews. It is only possible to apply the production-line metaphor if micro-management is adopted as detailed planning.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building industry; lean construction; location-based management; production process; workflow |
| Index terms: | lean construction, meaning, production process, methodology, conceptual framework, workflow, research design, building industry |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, industry analysis, sociology, building construction, research methods, theoretical framing, manufacturing engineering, management |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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