Upload
hans-verheij
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EC
dfr
hnolo
platfo
will
and c
s be
plem
tform
ation
applying quality control, establishing trust [2], and estab-
Increased transparency can for instance be achieved
through tools that enable collaborative definition of work-
Effective process mediation requires parties to engage in an
structured dialogue. The resulting project plan will consist
of a rich collection of filled-out dialogue templates that
constitute a comprehensive project plan which then
e paper focuses on
Automation in Construction 15 (lishing mutually agreed upon project planning procedures
between potential partners [3]. Moreover, traditional con-
tracting processes do not reflect the ever more complex,
remote and dispersed nature of business partnerships. More
than in Ftraditional_ affiliations, these new forms ofpartnerships require clear work statements to make
collaborations transparent and more likely to succeed.
active dialogue that results in an explicit model of planned
work, responsibilities, transparent disclosure of risk factors,
incentives, contractual obligations etc.
The PPPM defines the methodical planning steps of
projects by expressing the coordination logic of a
collaborative discussion on joint work and resolution of
planning items which is consequently enforced in a1. Introduction
Recent advances in Internet collaboration offer compa-
nies in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction
industry the opportunity to break out of their traditional
geographical limitations [1]. Yet, the possibility to form
agile remote partnerships that collaboratively plan the
design and construction process via the Internet is still in
its infancy. Some of the reasons for slow adoption of
collaboration technologies in the industry are difficulties in
flows that prepare for dynamic changes and define
contingency plans.
This paper makes a contribution to the evolving repertory
of Web-enabled B2B partnering services that increase the
readiness of AEC firms to engage in e-partnering. The focus
is on the support of remote partnering processes in the
industry, enabled by the introduction of a Project Planning
Process Model (PPPM) which can be regarded as an
expression of the logic rules and discourse items that
govern Fprocess mediation_ between negotiating parties.D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Keywords: Construction industry partnership; Contract negotiation; Internet; Collaborative workflow modeling; Project planning management; Process
mediation; DesignBuild delivery method; Structured dialogueCollaborative planning of A
Hans Verheij, Go
College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Tec
Abstract
This paper discusses the development of novel methods and a
Engineering and Construction (AEC). Through the new approach it
by cultivating and enacting the logic and intelligence of incremental
project planning as the execution of a series of structured dialogue
preparation of a DesignBuild partnership is used as an example im
definition and enactment can be realized through the prototype pla
focuses on the first stage of the research and discusses future evalu0926-5805/$ - see front matter D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2005.06.011
* Correspondi
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Verheij),
[email protected] (G. Augenbroe).projects and partnerships
ied Augenbroe *
gy, 245 4th Str, Atlanta, GA 30332-0155, USA
rm for the support of project planning processes in Architecture,
be possible to systematically generate comprehensive project plans
ollaborative planning strategies. The underlying methodology treats
tween prospective project partners. In the paper, the selection and
entation. It discusses the methodology and shows how workflow
developed in the European e-HUBs research project. The paper
by domain experts to validate the approach.
2006) 428 437
www.elsevier.com/locate/autcondrives operational project execution. Thng author. Tel.: +1 404 894 1686; fax: +1 404 894 1629.the example of DesignBuild partnering scenarios. The
DesignBuild PPPM handles part of the initiation and
on a daily basis. On the other hand, smaller architectural and
engineering companies, start-ups or sector-inexperienced
tion incontractors (e.g. in specialized fields like hospital or school
buildings) might be less well-informed, and therefore
handicapped, in negotiations with large institutional owners.
Many clients and providers of AEC services are not able to
recognize contract provisions or omissions that could
potentially have a negative or even harmful impact to them
e.g. by an unbalanced allocation of risks or unreasonable
performance requirements. Mediation by a brokering agent
human or software can alleviate the inherent
information asymmetries between negotiating parties byplanning phase of construction projects, as defined by the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) put
forward by the US-based Project Management Institute.
Execution of the PPPM is supported by any workflow
enactment engine as long as it is compatible with the
syntax of the eXtensible Process Definition Language
(XPDL) developed for Internet applications by the Work-
flow Management Coalition [4].
The following sections will explain the approach,
evaluate the example case and discuss future steps.
2. Research justification
2.1. The need for better project planning
Few professionals in the design and construction
industry dispute that better project planning leads to better
project deliverables in terms of time, cost and quality. An
enhanced preparation ahead of time can reduce the amount
of change orders, misunderstandings, litigation and delays
later on during project execution. Current project planning
suffers from a lack of methodical support, especially when
multiple stakeholders are involved and the collaborative
nature of project planning needs to be stressed. The lack
of well established practices for collaborative project
planning may be a major road block for the introduction
of integrated project delivery methods with up-front
alliance formation and risk sharing [5]. Research on
human-mediated project planning methods has focused
on meeting management styles, but has not touched upon
a rigorous and transparent basis for the mediation. The
aim of our research is to provide such a basis and supply
it to project planning teams with or without the help of a
human mediator.
2.2. Mediated project planning
Since architectural design or construction is not the core
business of many owners, they are likely to be less
knowledgeable and experienced than their professional
counterparts in AEC firms who deal with contractual issues
H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automabringing in expert knowledge to either party, gained from
many similar project negotiations in the past.Furthermore, facilitation of the partnering process (either
by a collaborative computer system or human agent) is
necessary to ensure speedy execution of the negotiation
process and resulting intermediary agreements, e.g. by
tracking changes, showing deviations from standard con-
tracts, recording an audit trail of planning decisions, or
locking documents to avoid modification after contract
closure.
Managing the project preparation through a meta-
process that suggests the relevant dialogue steps at each
stage, and enforces planning activities and resolution
events, will make for a shared planning burden between
project partners and for a clear, optimized allocation of
planning tasks to the proper, most proficient resource in the
organization of the partners. The meta-process will
guarantee both the timeliness of invoking planning events
and the comprehensiveness of the planning outcome, by
reducing the risk of errors and omissions. It will avoid an
ad hoc approach to every contract definition, and instead
foster knowledge retention in recurring partnering pro-
cesses [6]. Joint project planning through a mediated
process will increase transparency and mutual understand-
ing of project expectations.
2.3. Web-hosted project planning
The multilateral and remote nature that characterizes
many partnerships in current construction projects, calls
for a suitable partnering medium tailored to those
circumstances. Reaching a detailed agreement is the result
of an iterative selection and negotiation process that
involves many participants who may well be dispersed in
time and place for at least part of the project planning
process. The Internet provides the suitable anywhere
anytime connectivity for this situation. Web-facilitation
holds the promise of greater efficiency (faster, cheaper,
repeatable processes), better quality (richer, more com-
plete project preparation), and improved knowledge
preservation in the project planning and negotiation
process, as evidenced by developments in fields such as
e-Business Process Reengineering [7], and Web-facilitated
negotiation.
A wide range of project execution applications is
available today, ranging from stand-alone software to
Web-based products, from generic to AEC-specific, from
academic to commercial, and from simple to highly
complex tools. Stand-alone or Web-enabled applications
may use the Internet to exchange data, but they require
an initial installation of application-specific software on
every work station that needs to run the tool. Web-based
applications on the contrary only require an Internet
connection and a Web-browser. The latter offers an
appealing proposition since it reduces the costs of IT
staff and maintenance by taking away from clients the
Construction 15 (2006) 428437 429continuous burden of having to install software upgrades.
Application Service Providers are software providers that
rate according to this business principle [8]. ASPs that
er Web-hosted project spaces with collaboration and
rmation sharing functions dedicated for the building
ustry are called Project Web Sites, or construction
ranets. Major players in this constantly evolving arena
companies like Buzzsaw, eBuilder, Constructware,
Citadon.
Most of these applications focus mainly on the opera-
al project management aspects during the execution
se, such as project communication, document manage-
nt and, in more advanced systems, accounting and
erprise Resource Planning. They offer no intelligent
to form partnerships and create the more mechanistic
descriptions of the project to be executed, such as
Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMBOK [10,11],
which represents the knowledge of over thirty years of
H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 428437extensive work breakdown structures and project sched-
ules. Most of the knowledge behind the procedures is
unscripted. The premise of explicit project planning
support is that the procedures are made more explicit,
thus increasing transparency, predictability and ultimately
planning effectiveness [9].
The figure positions project planning at the tactical
Partner
Partner
Strategic PartneringObjectives
Project Execution
Project Plan
Operational
Tactical
Strategic
Project Planning
Project Planning Meta Model (PPPM)support for project planning beyond the very basic
document sharing and notification function. Offering
intelligent project planning support requires the explicit
introduction and management of project planning models
which translate the strategic objectives of each of the
partners in a set of tactical dialogues. The next section
explains this in more detail.
3. The tactical planning concept
Currently project planning methods in AEC have no
clear status in the overall initiation and execution of
projects. It is the stage where clients and potential
providers of services find a match between expectations
and fulfillment. This stage is dominated by the experienced
dinosaurs in the industry. There is little recognition of
the fact that project planning is the tactical translation of
the strategic objectives into project execution (Fig. 1).
Current project planning procedures are not explicit.
Experienced champion planners bring partners togetherope
off
info
ind
ext
are
and
tion
pha
me
Ent
430Fig. 1. Strategic, tactical and operational project planning.project management experience spanning multiple indus-
tries worldwide. At the highest level the PMBOK describes
project management as consisting of initiation, planning,
execution, and project closure, with a Fcontrolling_ loopgoing back from execution to planning. During project
initiation the recognition of the need for a project and the
commitment of the (permanent or temporary) organization
to it are assured by defining a project charter, an initial
scope statement, project managers, stakeholders and the
team composition, while assessing constraints and assump-
tions in the cultural context of the endeavor. After
completing project initiation, the PMI suggests a more or
less consecutive development of a series of core planning
processes although recognizing the iterative nature of
project planning in parallel with a series of optional
facilitating processes (Fig. 2). The latter are applied as
deemed necessary based on the characteristics of the
particular project at hand. Core planning processes are for
example activity definition and schedule development,
whereas facilitating processes could be risk identification
and procurement planning. The various planning sub-
processes should result in a consistent and coherent overallmiddle layer between strategic partnering objectives and
actual project execution. Strategic objectives are expressed
as the business rules that govern how an enterprise wants to
engage in a partnering dialogue. The rules are typically the
result of strategic management decisions. They paint the
broad brush strokes of the project planning meta model
which is consequently refined to show all the tactical
negotiation steps and the dialogue templates that each step
is linked to. The resulting PPPM governs the tactical project
planning process, typically conducted by experienced
project planners from all potential partners. The tactical
process leads to a project plan which should be complete
enough to guarantee the successful management of the actual
project execution, conducted by designers, engineers and
project managers from both partners. It is important to note
that the PPPM is not meant to impose a form of process
tyranny on the project planners. Instead, participants may
opt to start or abort any tactical process (represented in the
PPPM) at any time, depending on the need to enter into
improvisation or abort because of perceived lack of support
from the system at a given instance. The next section details
the generation of the PPPM.
4. Methodology
4.1. Project planning governed by a meta-process
An elaborate but abstract series of project planning steps
is proposed by the Project Management Institute in theirproject plan to guide execution and control.
tion inH. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automa4.2. Selection of a project window: planning of construction
project delivery method
A small project window (representing a sub-process out
of the whole project planning process) was selected to test
our approach. It is going to be fully implemented and
evaluated by practitioners with the aim to test our
hypothesis that a controlled, mediated planning process will
result in better project planning. The selected sub-process
focuses on the selection of the project delivery method,
which is an important decision early on in the life of many
construction projects. Although many variations exist, the
main delivery methods are [12]:
& DesignBidBuildseparate design and construction,with a fixed design before construction costs are
known
& Construction Managementa method to guarantee earinfusion of construction knowledge into the desi
process
& DesignBuildintegrated design and construction, tyically with an early fixed budget but a partly undefin
design
& Bridginga method to combine the fixed designDesignBidBuild with the early fixed price of Design
Build.
The main advantages of applying the DesignBu
delivery method, are that it is generally faster, it produc
an early fixed price for the owner, it optimizes t
integration of design and construction knowledge (trad
tionally dispersed across different disciplines and firm
and it internalizes design and construction trade-offs a
potential adversarial relations between architect and co
tractor within the DesignBuild entity [5]. Disadvantag
Fig. 2. PMBOK planning processes [10,11].ly
gn
p-
ed
of
ild
es
he
i-
s),
ndConstruction 15 (2006) 428437 431n-
es
the other hand are the lesser influence by the owner on
ign details, the quality that may be compromised over
early fixed price, and the effect that later design
nges become change orders (which increase the
jects cost). In order to mitigate some of those
advantages, the Bridging method was devised. Bridging
orporates the strength of competitive bidding with
ailed drawings instead of just performance requirements.
ore or less fixed design is generated by the consultant/
ners architect, thus reducing the owners exposure to
r claims (change orders).
Most participants in construction projects are more
iliar with the traditional DesignBidBuild approach.
y are therefore often hesitant to apply potentially more
by predefined data templates [13] where items of concern,
decisions, rationales, parameters, and documents are
captured. These information items together with the
predefined logic of the planning process guide the partners
through the planning process, which is driven by a series
of detailed workflows, such as the example shown in Fig.
4. Every activity in a workflow points to one or more
fields in a dialogue template. Each link between a
workflow and a dialogue field can be qualified as
providing read, write or read/write access. The process
can define concurrent activities which may lead to different
partners having read/write access to the same dialogue
fields. This would represent a synchronous chat dia-
logue. When all workflows have been completed, all
dialogue templates will have been filled with information
H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 428437innovative methods such as DesignBuild variations,
although for certain projects these delivery approaches
may offer significant advantages.
The chosen window on the total project planning process
provides a good case to test our hypothesis. All AEC
projects go through a planning stage where the choice of
delivery method is one of the most important tactical
decisions that has to be made. Moreover, it is a tactical
planning effort that involves a series of potential partners
and consultants and it brings together different companies
that have different strategic objectives. Modeling and
enacting a structured dialogue for the selection of the
delivery method is expected to make the decision making
process more neutral, better informed, and in the best
interest of the project. It enriches tactical decision making
by objectively presenting the available options with the
right background knowledge at the right time in the
projects life cycle.
4.3. Modeling a structured dialogue
In order to achieve better collaborative project planning,
a mediated partnering process is devised in which
participants carry out predefined sets of ordered activities
(Fig. 3). Each of those activities requires the production
and sharing of certain information items. This is supportedon
des
the
cha
pro
dis
inc
det
A m
ow
late
fam
The
432Fig. 3. Structured dialogue between actors with witems that together form a complete project plan. This plan
is a project plan repository that contains the results of all
dialogues. It thus contains information with respect to all
relevant issues such as responsibilities, rewards, quality
control, risks, roles, and so on. Filters can be defined to
process the information in the planning data repository for
downstream use (Fig. 3). These filters can for instance be
set up to provide a detailed work plan for execution, but
can also be set up to generate specific documents for the
project execution as a whole, such as the projects financial
data or task schedule.
4.4. Process validation
The structured dialogue for the selection of a suitable
construction project delivery method is being validated in a
3-tier research effort consisting of:
& Evaluation by domain expertsto determine whether theprocess correctly reflects actual practices, whether it is
complete enough within its domain to be useful, and
whether it needs further calibrating or fine-tuning
& Presentation to practitionersto survey the applicability,usefulness, and value of the system in generalorkflows operating on data templates with filters.
tion in Construction 15 (2006) 428437 433H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automa& Enactment of an actual planning processto measureusability issues and system limitations of the imple-
mented prototype.
Future publications will report on the outcome of the
validation.
5. Implementation in the e-HUBs platform
5.1. e-HUBs platform
The described Project Planning Process Model (PPPM) is
implemented in a web-hosted collaboration environment
that was developed recently as a prototype in the e-HUBs
project (www.e-hubs.org). e-HUBs e-Engineering
enabled by Holonomic and Universal Broker Services
was conducted by a consortium consisting of several
European and Latin-American universities and companies
to establish a brokering medium for outsourcing mechanical
and construction engineering services [14]. The project
defined a so-called e-HUB, a Web-hosted broker site that
offers services to project planners. An e-HUB will act as a
wo-way collaboration and integration broker to establish
engineering partnerships on a project-by-project bas
matching demand and supply for specialized expertise, f
example, to check building code compliance, or seism
structural analysis.
Existing virtual collaboration environments (VC
primarily focus on operational collaboration suppo
offering the basic services for information sharin
community building, virtual meetings etc. e-HUBs a
meant to act as an add-on to a VCE, offering its tactic
partnering instruments on top of the basic collaborati
platform. It is expected that diversified e-HUBs will st
catering to specific industry sectors. The aim of o
research is to validate the assumption that AEC-specific
HUBs may offer a unique value to the constructi
industry.
Good reasons for project consortiums to go through
AEC-specific e-HUB for partnering and tactical proje
planning and outsourcing services will be:
& The large number of dedicated services needed inconstruction project (where the fragmentation of t
industry might have negative scale effects)
Fig. 4. Partial process model for the DesignBuild delivery method in construction projects.e-
is,
or
ic
E)
rt,
g,
re
al
on
art
ur
e-
on
an
ct
a
het -
ion in& The uncertainty and management overhead involvedin contracting services on a one-by-one basis (selec-
tion, certification, pricing, contracting, monitoring,
coordination)
& The lack of available options for increasing competitive-ness and optimizing efficiency, cost and quality once
engineering project consortium partners are bound to
their pre-established contractual relations and provisions.
It should be noted that the expected advantages for a
particular firm might not be obvious within just one project,
but rather during management of multiple projects with an
increasing number of subcontractors.
The mediated process in this paperselecting a con-
struction delivery methodhas the potential to create long-
term, domain-specific partnership, between building owners
and AEC firms as contracting parties within the core of a
project consortium. Such longer-term business relationships
are in contrast with the collaboratively defined short term
working agreements which are the main target for e-HUBs
in the e-engineering outsourcing domain. It may be argued
that the AEC industry, with its complex, interdependent
interactions, have the most to gain from tactical planning
support. The next sections will amplify this when explaining
the developed PPPM.
5.2. Workflow definition
Workflow modeling is defined as the computerized
facilitation or automation of a business process [4]. By
applying workflow management, documents, information,
or tasks are passed from one participant to another in a way
that is governed by rules or procedures. Ideally, processes to
guide project planning should be expressed in a common,
standardized workflow modeling representation, so as to
allow creation and execution in a broad variety of adhering
software packages.
The Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC), founded
in August 1993, is a non-profit, international organization of
workflow vendors, users, analysts and university/research
groups. The Coalitions mission is to promote and develop
the use of workflow through the establishment of standards
for software terminology, interoperability and connectivity
between workflow products. When developing a collabo-
rative workflow model, taking the body of knowledge of the
WfMC as a base is a rational starting point, since the WfMC
represents one of the most comprehensive standardization
efforts in the field of process modeling. A variety of
different tools may be used to analyze, model, describe and
document a business process. In order to provide a common
method to access and describe workflow definitions, a
workflow process definition meta-data model has been
established. This meta-data model identifies commonly used
entities and attributes within a process definition. Based on
H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automat434this model, vendor-specific tools can transfer models via a
common exchange format. It has a version specificallyaimed at Internet applications: XPDL (XML Process
Definition Language) [4]. XPDL uses eXtensible Markup
Language (XML, see: http://www.w3.org) schemas as the
mechanism for process definition interchange. The XML
language allows the workflow model to be expressed in
computer-interpretable data entities, independent of any
particular implementation mechanism such as programming
language, modeling software, data transport mechanism or
Operating System/hardware platform (WfMC 2002). In
order to be XPDL-compliant, a vendor needs to enable
both import and export of workflow definitions as a
character stream into or from its internal representation.
A dedicated JAWE-based Process Modeler (shareware) is
integrated with the e-HUBs platform and generates XPDL-
compliant workflows. The modeler retrieves workflow
participants from a database of e-HUBs users who registered
(and were authorized by the domain administrator) to be
part of a particular construction planning project. Once a
completed process model has been uploaded to the e-HUBs
platform, the participants can log in and trigger the start of
the designed series of activities according to the sequence
and logic defined in the model.
5.3. Implemented process model for DesignBuild/Bridging
project delivery
Fig. 4 shows a graphical representation of (part of) the
workflow model that was developed within the e-HUBs
modeler for the DesignBuild/Bridging delivery methods
in construction projects. The horizontal swim-lanes repre-
sent the possible roles that might be present in the project;
in this case, the building owner organization, its consultant
(owners architect), and the designbuild entity with an
architect-of-record and a general contractor. Dark gray
boxes represent planning activities, such as deciding
whether to apply fast-tracking, selecting the contract
format, etc. Arrows indicate temporal and other logical
dependencies between activities.
The process in Fig. 4 starts with an activity for the owner
to decide whether to hire a consulting architect/criteria
consultant, who may be engaged to perform (later) one or
more of the following functions:
& Support owners decisions (for example in selecting bidsfrom DesignBuilders),
& Assist the owner in requirements engineering andsurveying the building needs of the owner organization,
& Generate an initial preliminary design, laid down inbridging documents, and/or
& Oversee the later work of the selected DesignBuildentity.
When the owner organization indicates its consultancy
needs, by submitting its selections to the system (Fig. 5),
Construction 15 (2006) 428437subsequent activities will be launched accordingly, at the
appropriate timing within the further process. For example,
tion inH. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automaif the owner opts to appoint a consultant for advisory
support, the selected consultancy firm will receive a
notification of its first task, Advising the Owner,
available upon logging in to the e-HUBs platform. As next
three activities, the owner organization needs to decide on:
i) the desired ownership situation for the construction
project; ii) whether to apply fast-tracking or not; and iii)
whether to apply bridging or not. DesignBuild delivery
allows for special ownership arrangements such as Build
OwnOperate or BuildOperateTransfer, where the
designbuilder provides financing and even facility man-
agement to the owner (e.g. on public projects such as toll
roads where a regular stream of revenues can be expected
but where public funds are insufficient to finance initial
construction). Of course the correct timing, sequence,
completeness, and logic of delivery decisions like these
are of critical importance to downstream activities, such as
the later preparation of a Request For Qualifications and the
resulting selection of qualified submitting designbuilders.
The next task for the owner and if hired for this task
owners consultant, is to specify performance requirements
of the needed facility, such as square footages and overall
ppearance, e.g. class A office building. In the case
Bridging, the performance specifications are used
produce and communicate design intent through bridgi
documents. The gathered specifications are later included
the Request for Proposal that will be issued to a (limit
number of) qualified designbuild entities. Following
structured (sub-)process for information gathering c
ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of performan
demands on the building. Before issuing a Request F
Qualifications, the owner needs to select an appropria
procurement method (low-bid, Quality-Based Selectio
sole source, etc.), an appropriate contract type (lump-su
cost-plus, Guaranteed Maximum Price) and an appropria
contract format (e.g. standard contracts from the Americ
Institute of Architects, the DesignBuild Institute
America, Associated General Contractors, etc.). The syste
offers decision support for each of these options by listi
the available alternatives, and by providing task-speci
resources, tools, and knowledge bases. It is important
note that all steps in the planning process are linked to fiel
in dialogue templates that are formalized by a conceptu
data model. Each field can contain typed variables (re
string, binary, enumerated, array). Moreover every field al
Fig. 5. An activity and linked dialogue fields during workflow enactment.of
to
ng
in
ed
a
an
ce
or
te
n,
m,
te
an
of
m
ng
fic
to
ds
ala-
Construction 15 (2006) 428437 435al,
so
presentation parameters, which determine how the field
presented as a form when the planning activities are
cuted. The figures in the next section show some
mples of the appearance of the dialogue fields during
planning process.
. Workflow enactment
Once the above process model (XPDL file) is uploaded
particular project in the e-HUBs platform (e.g. Atlanta
h Museum of Art Expansion), activities will be
nched according to the logic defined in the Process
deler. Upon logging into the platform, the projects
ticipants will not only have at their disposal all the
ular features one might expect in a virtual collaboration
ironmentsuch as document management, communica-
, and calendaring toolsbut they will also see the
ding activities on their desktop, ready for execution. In
case of the process model from Fig. 4, owners would
t see the activity Hire Consulting Architect/Criteria
nsultant.
When executing a particular activity, the performer will
asked to provide relevant information items, whereas the
tem provides the activity-specific (write or read-only)
logue field to the user (Fig. 5). Each activity displays a
ools and resources (Fig. 6). Upon submitting the requested
data, the current performer will launch consecutive activities
for him/herself or other project partners, which may be
based on selected options in previous tasks.
6. Future research
The research is based on the premise that collaborative
project planning is in need of a new support paradigm. The
choice advocated in this paper is one of a managed dialogue
where the logic of the dialogue process and the way the
dialogue is driven by pre-ordered project items is defined in
a meta-model of the project planning process. The current
work delivers a first prototype based on this paradigm
within a small but relevant project window on the total
ownerarchitect project planning process. The outcome of
the validation with practitioners will reveal whether the
chosen paradigm has the promise to lead to more productive
project planning. Future research will develop the metrics
for this validation which has to deal with several dimensions
of project planning effectiveness. Although project sched-
ules describe activities and their dependencies for multiple
actors, paradoxically they are often defined by a single
project manager, analyst, supervisor or consultant, i.e. not
H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 428437link to a dedicated Website with specific instructions on the
task at hand, delivering required background information,
an explanation of the relevant information items, the impact
of selected options to be made, and references to relevant
t -has
is
exe
exa
the
5.4
to a
Hig
lau
Mo
par
reg
env
tion
pen
the
firs
Co
be
sys
dia
436Fig. 6. Corporate planning Websitcollaboratively planned. Enabling joint planning of the
project allows organizations to tap into their collective
knowledge, to actively engage the process participants
ahead of time, and to mitigate the problem of unilaterallye with task-specific instructions.
will need extensive research of the fields of dialogue
analysis and dialogue interaction methods to align the work
struction Information 2 (2002) 115.
[7] O.A. El Sawy, Redesigning Enterprise Processes for e-Business,
2000.
[12] C. Hendrickson, Project Management for Construction: Fundamental
tion in Construction 15 (2006) 428437 437in those areas with the future design of the templates. In
doing so, it should be noted that the face-to-face meeting
and telephone are the main communication channels of the
project planner, and any additional way of communication
should augment rather than replace these channels. Our
work acknowledges the vital role of face-to-face and phone
conversations and supports the multi-channel interaction
that will always occur in practice. For this reason,
synchronous communication is enabled at any moment in
the enacted workflows, in some cases specifically enforced
by their logic. The result of these conversations leads to
the mostly serialized entries in the communication tem-
plates. The latter raises important questions with respect to
registration discipline and personal manager styles. It is
also recognized that any (even moderate) serialization of
the communication leads to a degeneration of the way
that people engage in interaction. It is a topic of future
research to find out how this degeneration affects the
efficiency and user acceptance of the project planning
process.
7. Conclusion
This paper proposed the enactment of a Project Planning
Process Model to guide prospective AEC partners through a
comprehensive preparation of their project plan. This is
accomplished by codifying tactical project planning logic
and adopting a structured dialogue paradigm. Structuring
the dialogue is meant to make the planning process more
intelligent, faster, and easier to control, while reducing risks.
A Web-based, mediated process platform is used to enable
control and oversight of planning activities, and to enforce
the timeliness and completeness of planning deliverables.
Workflows are modeled in the neutral process definition
language XPDL, to be able to run them in any workflow
enactment engine compliant with the standards of thedesigned and thus potentially misrepresented work
plans, with underestimated resources, end-user resistance,
bias towards the business interests of the modeler, and so
on. Collaborative work planning of AEC projects can lead
to more comprehensive, mutually understood agreements, a
better process of reaching such agreement, and consequently
a better implementation of agreements. Research that
develops adequate process metrics to verify these expect-
ations must be conducted.
In the current stage of the work the design of the dialogue
templates is mainly driven by the creative thought
processes of the PPPM designer, driven by a sound
understanding of the roles and activities involved in the
planning process at hand. It is obvious that this approach is
not sustainable for the design of future large scale PPPMs. ItWorkflow Management Coalition. An initial prototype isConcepts for Owners, Engineers, Architects and Builders
(http://www.ce.cmu.edu/pmbook/), 2000.
[13] R. Watson, S.R. Lockley, S. Shaaban, Creating usable models for re-
usable data managing electronic project specification information,
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 9 (3) (2002)
272283.
[14] G. Augenbroe, e-HUBs: e-Engineering enabled by Holonomic and
Universal Broker Services, Proc. e-Challenges, Vienna, 2004, IOS
Press, Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 1530.Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2001.
[8] S.R. Lockley, R. Watson, S. Shaaban, Managing e-commerce in
constructionrevolution or e-business as usual?, Engineering Con-
struction and Architectural Management 9 (3) (2002) 232240.
[9] V. Allee, The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational
Intelligence, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA, 1997.
[10] PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
Edition v 1.3, Project Management Institute, Philadelphia, PA, 2000.
[11] PMI, Construction Extension to a Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge, Project Management Institute, Philadelphia, PA,implemented focusing on the selection and preparation of
the DesignBuild delivery method in construction projects.
Early observations indicate that the selected planning
process provides sufficient detail to provide meaningful
support to practitioners who want to plan DesignBuild
partnerships. More extensive testing and surveying will
follow in order to validate the approach.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jeff Beard, past President of the DesignBuild
Institute of America, for providing feedback on the accuracy
of the process described in this paper. Thanks also to Arol
Wolford, past President of the Construction Market Data
Group, for his generous long-time support of the AEC
research at Georgia Tech.
References
[1] R. Johnson, M. Clayton, G. Xia, JH. Woo, Y. Song, The strategic
implications of e-commerce for the design and construction industry,
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 9 (3) (2002)
241248.
[2] R. Zaghloul, F. Hartman, Construction contracts: the cost of mistrust,
International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 419424.
[3] S.A. Austin, A.N. Baldwin, J.L. Steele, Improving building design
through integrated planning and control, Engineering Construction
and Architectural Management 9 (3) (2002) 249258.
[4] WfMC, Workflow Process Definition InterfaceXML Process Def-
inition Language (WFMC-TC-1025), 2002 (Lighthouse Point, FL)
(accessed from http://wfmc.org/standards/docs.htm).
[5] J. Beard, M.C. Loulakis, E.C Wundram, DesignBuildPlanning
Through Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2001.
[6] J.M. Kamara, G. Augenbroe, C.J. Anumba, P.M. Carillo, Knowledge
management in the A/E/C industry, International Journal of Con-H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automa
Collaborative planning of AEC projects and partnershipsIntroductionResearch justificationThe need for better project planningMediated project planningWeb-hosted project planning
The tactical planning conceptMethodologyProject planning governed by a meta-processSelection of a project window: planning of construction project delivery methodModeling a structured dialogueProcess validation
Implementation in the e-HUBs platforme-HUBs platformWorkflow definitionImplemented process model for Design-Build/Bridging project deliveryWorkflow enactment
Future researchConclusionAcknowledgementsReferences