Formalization of Construction Sequencing Rationale and Classification Mechanism to Support Rapid Generation of Sequencing Alternatives

Resequencing construction activities is a critical task for project planners for effective project control. Resequencing activities require planners to determine the impact or “role” an activity has on successor activities. They also need to determine the status of activities, i.e., which activities may or may not be delayed. Distinguishing the role and status of activities in turn requires planners to understand the rationale for activity sequences. The current critical path method (CPM) framework, however, represents sequencing rationale using precedence relationships and distinguishes activities only with respect to their time-criticality. Thus, planners find it difficult to keep track of individual sequencing logic, and manually inferring the role and status of activities becomes practically prohibitive in complex project schedules. The research presented in this paper addressed this limitation of the CPM framework by formalizing a constraint ontology and classification mechanism. The ontology allows ...

[1]  J. D. Wiest,et al.  Management Guide to PERT/CPM , 1969 .

[2]  Mark Clayton,et al.  THE CHARRETTE TEST METHOD , 2004 .

[3]  Richard Fikes,et al.  Ontologies: What Are They, and Where's The Research? , 1996, KR.

[4]  David K. H. Chua,et al.  Constraint-Based Planning with Integrated Production Scheduler over Internet , 2003 .

[5]  Kalle Kähkönen Modelling activity dependencies for building construction project scheduling , 1993 .

[6]  Stephen Warshall,et al.  A Theorem on Boolean Matrices , 1962, JACM.

[7]  Boyd C. Paulson,et al.  Value-added assessment of construction plans , 1999 .

[8]  Mark Stefik,et al.  Planning with Constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1) , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[9]  William L. Sanders,et al.  Value-Added Assessment. , 1998 .

[10]  Bin Jiang A suitable algorithm for computing partial transitive closures in databases , 1990, [1990] Proceedings. Sixth International Conference on Data Engineering.

[11]  J W Fondahl,et al.  A non-computer approach to the critical path method , 1962 .

[12]  Robert D. Logcher,et al.  GHOST: Project Network Generator , 1988 .

[13]  Chris Hendrickson,et al.  Hierarchical Rule‐Based Activity Duration Estimation , 1987 .

[14]  Raymond E. Levitt,et al.  OARPLAN: Generating project plans by reasoning about objects, actions and resources , 1988, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[15]  Boyd C. Paulson,et al.  Professional Construction Management , 1978 .

[16]  James E. Diekmann,et al.  Soft Logic in Network Analysis , 1988 .

[17]  David R. Riley,et al.  Patterns of Construction-Space Use in Multistory Buildings , 1995 .

[18]  C. William Ibbs,et al.  Sequencing Knowledge for Construction Scheduling , 1991 .

[19]  George S. Birrell Construction Planning—Beyond the Critical Path , 1980 .

[20]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  PARADE GAME :I MPACT OF WORK FLOW VARIABILITY ON TRADE PERFORMANCE , 1999 .

[21]  Håkan Jakobsson,et al.  Mixed-approach algorithms for transitive closure (extended abstract) , 1991, ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems.

[22]  Boyd C. Paulson PROJECT PLANNING AND SCHEDULING: UNIFIED APPROACH , 1973 .

[23]  Clifford Nass,et al.  A Trajectory for Validating Computational Emulation Models of Organizations , 1999, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[24]  Dragan Z. Milosevic Project Management ToolBox: Tools and Techniques for the Practicing Project Manager , 2003 .

[25]  Bonsang Koo,et al.  Formalizing Construction Sequencing Constraints for Rapid Generation of Schedule Alternatives , 2003 .

[26]  Greg Howell,et al.  Implementing Lean Construction: Stabilizing Work Flow , 1997 .

[27]  Alan D. Russell,et al.  New Generation of Planning Structures , 1993 .