Görsch, C; Seppänen, O; Peltokorpi, A and Lavikka, R (2024) Task planning and control in construction: Revealing workers as early and late planners. Construction Management and Economics, 42(5), pp. 431-450. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Production planning and control are critical to project success. They are conventionally understood as linking planning and production by coordinating tasks prior to installation work. However, research has highlighted workers as autonomous and decentralized planners of installation work, which challenges conventional management perspectives. Performing task-level planning and control requires resources and effort, reducing the time spent on installation work. This study explores workers' planning practices by examining the use of higher-level plans and other information sources and by analyzing workers' information needs and the factors determining them. A survey of Finnish construction workers was conducted. The results show that some workers prefer planning tasks before arriving at the construction site, while others prefer planning tasks during on-site work preparation. Trade- and crew-specific factors influence planning earlier or later and determine the extent to which centralized and decentralized sources and practices are used. Decentralized sources and practices are most often used to meet workers' information needs, although centralized sources and practices are also used. These findings may help construction stakeholders better understand the information sources and practices used by workers. Thus, task planning and control activities can better meet workers' information needs, allowing for more time for installation work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | task planning and control; lean construction; information needs; production planning and control; decentralization; survey; worker; Finland |
| Index terms: | production planning, construction site, decentralization, project success, planner, construction worker, lean construction, Finland, survey, site work |
| Subjects: | project delivery, work location, political science, building construction, project management theory and practice, practitioner, site logistics, data collection methods, profession, Geography |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Governance, Site Management, Geographical Context |
| 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