Centre for Research in the Management of Projects, University of Manchester, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK Centre for Research in the Management of Projects, School of Construction and Project Management, The Bartlett University College London, UK Received 8 July 2003; received in revised form 30 January 2004; accepted 15 June 2004
This article is based off a current phase of Value Project research. The article states facts and ideas about the progression of today 's healthcare service. It offers promises of rising reconfiguration of cost structure while changes are being made to the healthcare system. This is brought on with the question being asked who, how and where the health service information is being accessed. The author is sure to make the reader aware that there is a difference between reconfiguring healthcare and reducing the price in healthcare. Along with making the reader aware that work has to be done to sustain the gains of the organization achievements. The key points that will be discussed in this article is, Labor cost and productivity improvements, Supply chain, Investing in the transition to Value, Financing the transition to value and Investing in Innovation.
The project is an 8 month project. The status is being taken after 4 months, thus the project should be 50% complete. According to the project plan, the project is 45% complete. The summary activity Design – Build Engineering Gadget shows the percent complete, duration, start date and finish date for all detail activities below the summary activity.
Contractors, consultants and clients who engage in partnered construction projects in Hong Kong, are surveyed to compare from their diverse perspectives, expectations relating to targeted building project criteria. The differences between the measured results and the performance expectations of the various participants are all analyzed with the goal of promoting more research to ameliorate Hong Kong’s building industry. A research model is built to measure nine carefully selected construction project objectives to the actual results, and questionnaires are designed to compare the
In recent years, there has been a considerable increase of pressure from clients for improvement in the delivery of construction projects. Innovation has been key in improving construction industry performance (Tavistock Institute, 1997).
Beginning a new year of the construction industry with a report of 6% growth (achieved approximately $712 billion) in the financial profit of construction from Dodge Data & Analytics ' 2016 Construction Outlook, many analysts and experts predict that potential values for the construction business will be progressively increased with extensions of modern technologies and state-of-the-art concepts for improving construction performance, especially in project cost and schedule achievements (Peiffer, 2016). Although it is noticeable that diverse tendencies, including prefabrication or offsite constructions, green buildings, remodeling, etc., are taking higher place in the next decades, true collaborations, sophisticated building modeling tools, and practical value-boosted procedures are always bottom lines for a blossoming construction project. It is unquestionable that construction project costs and schedule are spectacularly difficult to predict by reason of complexity of building procedures and presence of thousands of dependent variables throughout a project. As a result, duties and responsibilities of forecasting and envisioning project cost and schedule performance are considered as momentous challenges and complicated issues for all construction experts and professionals (Ai et al., 2015). Growing from these concerns, a suggestion of synergizing components that particular affect the cost and schedule efficiency is becoming an
Project delivery methods allow for distinct allocation of risk and responsibilities within a construction contract. Each unique construction project calls for a defined delivery method and a written contract in order to ensure the success of the venture. “A project delivery option is defined as a method for procurement which the owner’s assignment of ‘delivery’ risk and performance for design and construction has been transferred to another party” (Mahdi 564). After a legal and appropriate contract is signed, contractual privity exists which allows the contracting parties to hold each other responsible for their actions. The design-bid-build delivery method is often referred to the traditional method of contractual relationships in the construction industry. This method allows the owner to select a design professional based off of the quality of their work, whereas the selection of the construction manager is based off competitive bids submitted after the completion of the design. The traditional method may be viewed as the tried and true system of creating successful contractual relationships, but the evolution of the industry has called for this method to take on different forms. One such form is the construction manager-at-risk (CMR) method, which allows for collaboration between the owner, designer, and construction manager during the early stages of the design process and continues throughout the life of the construction project. This agreement “makes up thirty percent
In Hemanta Doloi’s arcticle “Cost Overruns and Failure in Project Management: Understanding the Roles of Key Stakeholders in Construction Projects,” the author suggests project cost management is not the sole responsibility of the project manager, but rather it should also involve key stakeholders of the project such as clients, consultants, and contractors (2013). Project cost management is a process for predicting expenditures, whose success depends on an accurate accounting of all pertinent information, resources, and control over project implementation (Baloi & Price, 2003). It’s paramount for a project’s success that these estimations begin early in the design phase of the project and continue to be managed through the project’s end (Doloi, 2013). Incorrect estimations at the start of the project will lead to cost and schedule overruns which will doom the project, but even good initial estimations need to be adjusted along the project’s path to account for changes and the advent of risk factors (Verzuh, 2012). Controlling changes in cost and time with good estimations, risk assessment, and change control methods will keep the balance of the project management tradeoff between cost, time, and quality so that customers remain satisfied not only with the end result of the project but with the project itself as well.
During 1970 to 1990, a one-dimensional approach was followed. The primary aim of project managers was to reduce the total cost of the construction project. Gradually, ‘Time’ was considered as the second factor in addition to the cost of the project. This was a two-dimensional approach. Quality was introduced as the third dimension by the end of 20th century. More recently, another dimension, scope, has been realized as an equally important factor while carrying out a trade-off analysis to optimize the overall output of the project. See the figure below which graphically shows this evolution of contracting methods.
Atkinson (1999) details the simple processes in order to monitor and control cost, time and quality; this is known as “The Iron Triangle”. It is a structured way to measure project success but it has not lived up to the complexity of the construction industry. Atkinson argues that projects need to go beyond simple processes to be successful (Walker 2007; Atkinson 1999).
Previous research has mainly focused on examining the impacts of risks on one aspect of project strategies with respect to cost (Chen et al., 2000), time (Shen, 1997) and safety (Tam et al., 2004). Some researchers investigated risk management for construction projects in the context of a particular project phase, such as conceptual/feasibility phase (Uher and Toakley, 1999), design phase (Chapman, 2001), construction phase (Abdou, 1996), rather than from the perspective of a project life cycle. Moreover, little research has probed risks from the perspectives of project stakeholders. As part of a much larger project aiming to articulate and manage key risks associated with construction projects, this paper presents the results of a questionnaire survey and seeks to identify the potential key risks from the perspectives of stakeholders and project life cycle.
Introduction Construction Management is not a new idea. The function of the Construction Manager is to work on behalf of the owner to complete a project within the plans and specifications provided. In the last few years construction practices have changed dramatically. Technology, materials, government bureaucracy, financing, design, and engineering have all advanced. With the complexity of the construction process increasing, owners demand accountability and accurate guidance during the entire planning and construction process. The importance of project management to construction derives from the nature of how the industry’s business activities are conducted. Project managers in construction are responsible for the overall success of
This thesis attempts to contribute towards developing a framework that will eventually be useful to increase the competencies of project management in the construction sector. In order to reach this purpose, an exploratory research inquiry was used to identify and analyze best practices related to innovation in