Ballard, G (2002) Managing work flow on design projects: A case study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 9(3), pp. 284-291. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Project management has neglected production. Its theory and techniques are devoted for the most part to the formation, award and administration of contracts. Production management has equally neglected projects. Developed in manufacturing, theories and techniques of managing production focus almost entirely on the task of making multiple copies of a single design. Management of project-based production systems lies at the intersection of these two disciplines, is enormously important, and has been until recently almost entirely undeveloped. A new project delivery process is emerging in the architectural/engineering/construction (AEC) industry. Its first module is production control, dedicated to the management of work flow between specialists. A new production control system, termed the Last Planner' system, has been successfully applied both to construction and design phases of AEC projects. The paper presents a case study describing one of the first applications of Last Planner to design, which is considered to be essentially a value generating process.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design; last planner; production control; value; value generation; work flow |
| Index terms: | production system, case study, production control, planner, design phase, project delivery, project management, production management, value generation, module |
| Subjects: | profession, project delivery, financial and cost management, project management theory and practice, professional practice, data collection methods, architectural elements, manufacturing engineering |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Research Practice, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Project Management, 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