Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 16 results ...

Aalto, L, Sirola, P, Kalliomäki-Levanto, T, Lahtinen, M, Ruohomäki, V, Salonen, H and Reijula, K (2019) User-centric work environments in modular healthcare facilities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1047–62.

Daniel, E I and Pasquire, C (2019) Creating social value within the delivery of construction projects: the role of lean approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1105–28.

Du, J, Wang, Q and Shi, Q (2019) Description–experience gap under imperfect information. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1151–70.

Edwards, P and Bowen, P (2019) Language and communication issues in HIV/AIDS intervention management in the South African construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 962–88.

Li, L, Li, Z, Li, X and Wu, G (2019) A review of global lean construction during the past two decades: analysis and visualization. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1192–216.

Lingard, H, Zhang, R P and Oswald, D (2019) Effect of leadership and communication practices on the safety climate and behaviour of construction workgroups. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 886–906.

Munir, M, Kiviniemi, A and Jones, S W (2019) Business value of integrated BIM-based asset management. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1171–91.

Seadon, J and Tookey, J E (2019) Drivers for construction productivity. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 945–61.

Shalaby, A and Hassanein, A (2019) A decision support system (DSS) for facilitating the scenario selection process of the renegotiation of PPP contracts. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1004–23.

Shrestha, K, Shrestha, P P and Lidder, M (2019) Life-cycle cost comparison of chip seal and striping: in-house workers versus private contractors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 927–44.

Shrestha, P P, Shrestha, K K and Zeleke, H B (2019) Probability of change orders and the effect on cost and schedule for new public school buildings. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1087–104.

Shurrab, J, Hussain, M and Khan, M (2019) Green and sustainable practices in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1063–86.

Wang, Q and Shi, Q (2019) The incentive mechanism of knowledge sharing in the industrial construction supply chain based on a supervisory mechanism. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 989–1003.

Yalcinkaya, M and Singh, V (2019) Exploring the use of Gestalt’s principles in improving the visualization, user experience and comprehension of COBie data extension. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1024–46.

Zhu, F, Sun, M, Wang, L, Sun, X and Yu, M (2019) Value conflicts between local government and private sector in stock public-private partnership projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 907–26.

Zohrehvandi, S and Khalilzadeh, M (2019) APRT-FMEA buffer sizing method in scheduling of a wind farm construction project. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1129–50.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Optimization; Case study; Project management; Construction planning; Scheduling; Novel model;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0969-9988
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2018-0161
  • Abstract:
    The purpose of this paper is to present an efficient model for project buffer sizing by taking failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) into account to reach a more realistic schedule. Design/methodology/approach In the first phase of the project, several turbines were installed according to the primary schedule with an average duration of 142 days. Then, some of critical chain project management algorithms were separately applied in the implementation and installation of the other wind turbines. The adaptive procedure with resource tightness (APRT) method turned out to be the best method in terms of obtaining a more realistic schedule in this case study. Finally, FMEA was simultaneously applied with APRT. Findings Applying the hybrid method to the scheduling of the wind turbines, yielded the more realistic schedule than traditional. Research limitations/implications The proposed hybrid APRT-FMEA algorithm was implemented on a real wind farm construction project which was completed with 37 percent shorter duration than the initial estimation; in spite of the initial estimation of 142 days, the project completed in 103 days. Practical implications Introducing and implementing a new algorithm which is a combination of buffer sizing algorithms and one of the well-known and mostly used risk assessment methods in order to provide the more realistic project schedule in the construction of wind turbines. Originality/value Introducing and implementing a novel algorithm which is a combination of conventional buffer sizing method and one of the efficient risk assessment methods in order to make the schedule more realistic.