AN ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR MONITORING PROJECT PERFORMANCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/mjce.v18.15729Keywords:
Productivity, Performance, Evaluation, Assessment, PlanningAbstract
In the past, productivity assessment and performance evaluation were carried out separately due to cost constraints. Performing both simultaneously could significantly improve a project monitoring system. The appropriate use of schedule compression methods to accelerate the work at hand will reduce additional costs. The aim of this study was to develop a project monitoring tool that combines productivity assessment and schedule compression methods for reporting productivity status and evaluating project performance. Factors Affecting Productivity (FAP) and Schedule Compression Methods (SCM) were identified and measured from completed building projects. The capability of using these factors as project assessment tool and project performance predictor was analysed using fuzzy logic inference system. It is found that the Time Performance Ratio (TPR) can be included in a project status report to monitor and predict project performance.References
AGC. (1994) Construction Planning and Scheduling. Publication No. 1107.1.
Al-Hammad, A. M. (2000) Common interface problems among various construction parties. Performance of Constructed Facilities, 14(2): 71-74.
Al-Khalil, M. I. and Al-Ghafly, M. A. (1999) Delay in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia. International Project Management. 17(2): 101-106.
Allmon, E., Haas, C. T., Borcherding, J. D. and Goodrum, P. M. (2000) U.S. Construction labor productivity trends, 1970–1998. Construction Engineering and Management, 126(2): 97-104.
Barraza, G. A., Back, W. E. and Mata, F. (2000) Probabilistic monitoring of project performance using SS-Curves. Construction Engineering and Management, 126(2): 142-148.
Cho, C-S. and Gibson Jr., G.E. (2001) Building project scope definition using project definition rating index. Architectural Engineering, 7(4): 115-125.
CII. (1988) Concepts and Methods of Schedule Compression. Construction Industry Institute. University of Texas at Austin. Publication 6-7.
CII. (1990) Concepts and Methods of Schedule Compression. Construction Industry Institute. University of Texas at Austin. Source Document 55.
Gibson, G. E., and Hamilton, M. R. (1994) Analysis of Pre-Project Planning Effort and Success
Variables for Capital Facility Projects. University of Texas at Austin: Construction Industry Institute.
Griffith, A. F., Gibson, G. E. Hamilton, M. R., Tortora, A. L. and Wilson, C. T. (1999) Project success index for capital facility construction projects. Performance of Constructed Facilities 13(1): 39-45.
Lu, M., AbouRizk, S. M. and Hermann, U. H. (2001) Sensitivity analysis of neural networks in spool fabrication productivity studies. Computing in Civil Engineering, 15(4): 299-308.
Mamdani, E. H. and Assilian, S. (1975) An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. International Man-Machine Studies, 7: 1–13.
Mansur, S. A. (2004) Productivity Assessment and Schedule Compression Index for Construction Project Planning. Ph.D. Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
MATLAB version 6.5.1. Release 13. Copyright 1984-2003. The MathWorks. Inc.
Russell, J. S., Jaselskis, E. J. and Lawrence, S. P. (1997) Continuous assessment of project performance. Construction Engineering and Management, 123(1): 64-71.
Syal, M. G., Grobler, F., Willenbrock, J. H. and Parfitti, M. K. (1992) Construction project planning process model for small-medium builders. Construction Engineering and Management, 118(4): 651-666.
