Heintz, J L (2002) Collaborative design planning networks. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 9(3), pp. 181-191. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Network planning is not often used in architectural design projects, partly because no actor has a realistic overview of the entire project. Despite having a relatively good idea of what their own work will involve, designers often have an inadequate understanding of what their collaborators do. Collaborative Design Planning Networks (CDPN) permit designers from different firms to build a project model in which the plans of each participant are integrated with those of the others. Actors submit partial plans describing what they intend to do. These partial plans are represented in networks composed of tasks and infotems. By representing not only tasks but also their inputs and outputs, it becomes possible to link the partial projects of the collaborating actors and construct a global project plan. The involvement of every actor in the construction of the plan ensures both that the plan more accurately reflects the project and provides a greater degree of commitment to the plan by the individual actors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design collaboration; design coordination; project management |
| Index terms: | collaborative design, coordination, commitment, design collaboration, project management, architectural design, designer |
| Subjects: | management, profession, design practice, project management theory and practice, design methods, psychology |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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