Tuzmen, A (2002) A distributed process management system for collaborative building design. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 9(3), pp. 209-221. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
This paper presents a research study conducted for evaluating the effectiveness of a conceptual model of a distributed process management environment in the establishment of a collaborative building design. At the highest level, the conceptual model of the distributed process management environment have the following features: (a) enables description of a plan of a design process, (b) enables enactment of a process according to its plan, and (c) enables control and management of the enactment of a design process. The paper also presents the findings of a verification and validation (V & V) study conducted for evaluating the fit between the needs and expectations of collaborating design groups and the solution provided by the conceptual model of the distributed process management environment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | business process management; collaborative building design; distributed process management; project management; teamwork |
| Index terms: | design process, validation, effectiveness, process management, project management, teamwork, building design |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, design methods, performance management, management, professional development, architectural design |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Design Practice, Project Management, Quality Management, Information 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