Schedules and Schedulers: A Study in the U.S. Construction Industry

Alves, Thaís da C. L.; Liu, Min; Scala, Natalie M.; Javanmardi, Ashtad

doi:10.1080/10429247.2020.1738878

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, significance exists between one's own personal job role within the schedule and approaching the project schedule with a planning mindset . This finding underscores the importance of schedulers approaching the scheduling task with a planning mindset and having the team recognize the scheduler's role as an active participant in schedule development, alongside the rest of the team and not in an isolated fashion (Alves et al. , 2020).…”

Section: Survey Results—analysis Discussion and Model Validationmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The definition supports the move away from schedules being developed by isolated individuals toward a collaborative process that engages project Maturity model for collaborative scheduling stakeholders to deliver the project expected by the owner. Along these lines, this literature review is categorized into five main areas of interest regarding collaborative schedules, which have been preliminarily investigated by Alves et al (2020); this study builds from that work. These areas emerged during the study, through development of and inputs from focus groups, and are later used in the development of the MM, namely: schedules and planners, schedule representation, schedule significance, communication and goal alignment with owner.…”

Section: Toward the Development Of Collaborative Schedules In Constru...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Typically, the scheduler is detached from the construction site and might not be fully aware of the project details necessary to produce a schedule that properly captures the reality of the work to be done (Alves et al. , 2020).…”

Section: Toward the Development Of Collaborative Schedules In Constru...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AIA, 2017). Typically, the scheduler is detached from the construction site and might not be fully aware of the project details necessary to produce a schedule that properly captures the reality of the work to be done (Alves et al, 2020). The planner is usually on the front lines of the project close to where activities are developed and has direct knowledge of the work being put in place (Ballard, 2000).…”

Section: Schedulers and Plannersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The schedule can serve as a basis for payment, subcontractor coordination and project control (Mubarak, 2015), and, due to its close link to project performance (Kog et al, 1999), scheduling ECAM 30,4 1636 is vital in construction management. Unfortunately, despite a distinctive interdisciplinary nature, which includes work from multiple project participants, schedules are traditionally developed in an isolated fashion by a single individual, who often holds the title of "scheduler" and is frequently based at the headquarters of construction companies and owner organizations in charge of capital project development (Alves et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The gold standard: developing a maturity model to assess collaborative scheduling

Scala

Liu

Alves

et al. 2022

ECAM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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).

show abstract

Section: Survey Results—analysis Discussion and Model Validationmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Toward the Development Of Collaborative Schedules In Constru...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Toward the Development Of Collaborative Schedules In Constru...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Schedulers and Plannersmentioning

confidence: 99%