In construction, the most relevant systems used for project management (PM) and project production management (PPM) in the planning and control phases are: Critical Path Method (CPM), Last Planner System ® (LPS ®), and Location-Based techniques (LB). Studies have addressed these systems, mostly in isolated fashions. This study aims to compare and contrast their use in terms of PM and PPM and clarify industry benefits in order to eliminate potential misunderstandings about their use. A survey was administered to construction professionals in Brazil, China, Finland, and the United States. No single system addresses all needs of PM and PPM. CPM is the dominant system when considering these characteristics: primary industry types, type of organization, size of organization, professional position within the organization, and area of work. Contributions to knowledge include that CPM is a contract requirement with perceived benefits associated with critical path analysis; LB and LPS have perceived benefits regarding continuous flow and use of resources, treatment of interferences, and improving production control. All systems were found to have a similar level of benefits for management of contracts, delay and change, and evaluation of the root causes of delays. The industry can benefit from aligning project scheduling methods with project needs.
PurposeThe overall contribution of this work is to provide a usable maturity model for collaborative scheduling (CS) that extends the literature, identifies inconsistencies in schedule development, and improves collaboration in the construction industry.Design/methodology/approachVia subject matter expert elicitation and focus groups, the maturity model establishes five pillars of collaboration—scheduling significance, planners and schedulers, scheduling representation, goal alignment with owner, and communication. The maturity model is then validated through iterative feedback and chi-squared statistical analysis of data obtained from a survey. The five pillars are tied to the literature and previous work in CS.FindingsThe analysis shows that current industry projects are not consistent in collaboration practice implementation, and the maturity model identifies areas for collaboration improvement. The study's contributions to the body of knowledge are (1) developing a maturity model-based approach to define and measure the current level of collaboration and (2) discovering the level of consistency in scheduling collaboration practice implementation.Practical implicationsThe findings provide a benchmark for self-evaluation and peer-to-peer comparison for project managers. The model is also useful for project managers to develop effective strategies for improvement on targeted dimensions and metrics.Originality/valueThe construction engineering and management (CEM) literature does not contain targeted models for scheduling collaboration in the context of maturity and, broadly speaking, neither does the literature at large. The literature also lacks actionable items as presented for the maturity model for collaborative scheduling (MMCS).
The Critical Path Method (CPM), the Last Planner System (LPS) and location-based methods, such as the Line of Balance (LB) are discussed extensively in the technical literature about schedules. However, no discussion exists focusing on the differences and similarities of these methods in terms of their use in different countries. Using chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests, this research compared three countries (Brazil, Finland, and United States) and the methods to evaluate both intra-and inter-country implementation to gain additional insights about their use.Results suggest statistically significant intra-and inter-country differences regarding how these methods are used, with a specific focus on mechanics in the countries, offering important information to address their various scheduling needs. The results reflect the current state of practice; engineering and construction managers should understand different ways of understanding scheduling. Such understanding can lead to more efficient communication with collaborators and when incorporating foreign teams in projects. The study identifies the need for further scientific explanation as to why these methods are used in the manner they are intracountry as well as adaptions made in inter-country relationships.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.