See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238179289

Simplified CPM/PERT simulation model - Closure

Article  in  Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · May 2000

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:3(219)

CITATIONS READS
71 647

2 authors:

Ming Lu Simaan M. Abourizk

University of Alberta University of Alberta
144 PUBLICATIONS   1,404 CITATIONS    240 PUBLICATIONS   3,724 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Simulation-Based Analytics for Fabrication Quality-Associated Decision Support View project

Sensor-Data-Driven Simulation of Snow Removal Projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ming Lu on 05 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Estimating Highway
Construction Production
Rates during Design:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.152.109.166 on 11/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Elements of a Useful
Estimation Tool
WAI KIONG CHONG, M.ASCE; SANG-HOON LEE, M.ASCE; AND

JAMES T. O’CONNOR, M.ASCE

ABSTRACT: Construction scheduling for highway projects is an important process dur-

ing the design stage. Numerous research studies have attempted to apply new techniques
to improve the accuracy of construction scheduling. Many of these studies, however,
failed to address the practicality of the scheduling methods and the needs of highway
designers. The authors conducted literature reviews, surveys, and interviews to study the
challenges designers face in estimating production rates for highway construction. We
found that estimation tools for production rates should be flexible, user friendly, and
efficient yet comprehensive. Data should be collected from reliable sources and analyzed
appropriately and efficiently before being applied to a production rate tool. This study
suggested that combining designers’ experience and reliable tools is the most effective
way to develop realistic production rates for highway construction scheduling.

C
onstruction schedule development is
a critical process during the design
phase of a highway construction
project. Under- or overestimation of
a project schedule can cripple the
smooth progress of a project; a tight
schedule may increase the chances of excessive claims
and delays, whereas a loose schedule may cause
project idling during construction, increasing the
chances of material and equipment damage by
bad weather and safety hazards for pedestrians and
drivers.
Designers do not have control over many productiv-
ity variables, such as the means and methods of con-
struction and the productivity of equipment and
labor. Instead, they take the “big picture” approach,
seeking an ideal schedule, not an exact one. They
aim to develop a logical and reliable schedule that is
based on the limitations normally faced in highway
construction projects. The contractor’s schedule is nor-
mally more thorough and detailed than the designer’s,
as contractors need total control in every construction
process. As a result, the designer’s approach to schedul-
ing can be very different from the contractor’s approach.

JULY 2011 258 Leadership and Management in Engineering

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 258-266

 The scheduling process in the design phase involves
three key activities: (1) A production rate is calculated
for individual work items, (2) the production rates
from these work items are consolidated and lead–
lag relationships are developed among them, and
(3) a final schedule is developed using the Gantt chart
or critical path method (CPM). Many departments of
transportation (DOTs) do not have sufficient data
to apply computerized and complicated statistical
models to improve the reliability of their estimates,
and designers typically develop estimates within the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.152.109.166 on 11/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
boundaries of their knowledge of construction and
the information they readily possess.
The purpose of the research described in this paper
was to improve the accuracy of production rate esti-
mation for critical highway work items (i.e., the first
activity mentioned above). This paper examines how
designers can improve their production rate estimates
given the boundaries they face. It examines statistical,
computerized, and factor analysis models and the
quality of the data sources and its impact on the reli-
ability of the scheduling estimates. Interviews and sur-
veys were conducted to study the requirements for a
good scheduling tool at the highway design phase.
This research can help schedulers develop a better
understanding of the parameters that affect work item
productivity and that should be considered in calcu-
lating the production rates.
SCHEDULING PRACTICES FOR HIGHWAY
CONSTRUCTION DESIGN
Productivity factors occurring on “normal” and “ab-
normal” production days may be different (Abdul
Majid and McCaffer 1998). Designers seek to estimate
a normal production day, as an abnormal production
day includes variables that cannot be controlled, such
as rain heavy enough to prevent excavation work, a
road accident, or unforeseen utility conflicts or soil
conditions. Excusable delays occur only on abnormal
days, and contractors are normally allowed to claim
time extensions for these delays. As such, productivity
factors on normal and abnormal days are separated,
and designers base their estimates on a normal produc-
tion day.
One of the most common scheduling practices dur-
ing the design phase is to break down construction
work into constituent operations and estimate each op-
eration individually. There is no standard way of
breaking down the operations; it depends on how
detailed the designers wish to be. Breaking down each
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 258-266
work operation into smaller pieces for estimating
purposes may increase schedule reliability; however,
limited knowledge of and control over operations
may prevent designers from doing so. Designers
may not have the luxury of time and information to
estimate their schedule in such detail. Most designers
break operations down into a size that is manageable
enough to increase the schedule’s reliability without
involving too many variables. Hancher et al.
(1992) found that the common practice among design-
ers was to break down their production rates into
work items, each of which has its own productivity
variables.
Schedule estimates are then based on critical work
items on a project. CPM involves identifying the criti-
cal path, which consists of work items that take the
longest overall time to complete on a project and thus
normally extend over the project completion time. Ac-
tivities that fall on the critical path are what designers
need to schedule for. These activities normally include
work items with the highest quantities or those that
require a lot of lead time. A typical highway project
includes more than 100 work items. Given the tight
schedule in most projects, designers do not have the
luxury of estimating every work item. They need to
identify and concentrate only on the critical work
items in their projects.
Highway construction time estimation methods
adopted by different states, agencies, and districts
can be significantly different from one another.
The Texas DOT, for example, adopted the Construc-
tion Time Determination System (CTDS; Hancher
et al. 1992), and the New Jersey DOT adopted the
Capital Program Construction Scheduling Coding
and Procedures for Designers and Contractors
Manual. These scheduling methods are quite different.
For the New Jersey DOT, the production rate for a
cast-in-place (CIP) retaining wall for Type 1 bridge
construction is 20 days/30 meters, given the following
assumptions: (1) 8-hour working day per crew,
(2) 50% added for one bridge and 25% added for
two, (3) separate estimates for bridges built in differ-
ent stages, (4) additional 30 days required for bridges
built over water, and (5) inclusion of concrete curing
time. In contrast, the Texas CTDS production rate for
retaining wall construction is 9.3 to 18:5 m2 per day,
and soil condition is the only adjustment needed.
Thus, the two methods differ in units (area versus
length), productivity factors, and design issues. In
both systems, however, designers’ experiences are
critical in their decisions regarding the ideal produc-
tion rate based on the range given.
259 JULY 2011
 The Transportation Research Board conducted a
series of studies between 1981 and 1995 to investigate
and develop systems to improve the reliability of con-
tract time estimation of highway construction projects
(National Cooperative Highway Research Program
1981; Herbsman and Ellis 1995). In addition,
Hancher et al. (1992) found in a survey of employees
in 36 DOTs that 44% of the respondents relied on
personal experience to estimate production rates,
30% used standard production rates that were usually
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.152.109.166 on 11/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
provided by the DOTs, and 22% used production
rates from historical records of previously completed
projects from other sources. Data used to develop these
systems were normally collected either from survey re-
turns or documentation from projects. Some DOTs
and several contractors had simplified their production
rate estimates into three values—mean, optimistic,
and pessimistic values for each work item—and
designers determined a realistic rate from these values
based on their experience.
PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS
In production scheduling, productivity factors are
used to establish relationships between fluctuating
production rates and production work items. Design-
ers must identify relevant productivity variables they
can rely on to improve their estimates.
Differing geological locations, site conditions, and
other location variables affect work productivity. Con-
structing a drilled shaft on dry soil may be faster than
constructing one nearer a riverbank, assuming the same
crew is used in both operations. Constructing a road on
a mountain may be much slower than constructing one
on flat land. A sudden change in the weather can dis-
rupt or delay construction operation. Construction
work has to stop during snowstorms in the warmer re-
gions (e.g., Florida and Texas) but can continue in the
colder regions (e.g., Maine and Washington). Rural
highway projects face fewer traffic problems than high-
way projects in metropolitan areas, which face frequent
traffic congestion, strict environmental regulations,
risky traffic safety, and right-of-way issues that reduce
construction productivity. Rural highway construc-
tion, however, may face difficulties in acquiring skilled
workers and highly productive equipment, driving
down productivity (Koehn and Ahmed 2001). Thus,
the location of the project is not a dependable produc-
tivity factor; in a work zone located in a metropolitan
area that has ample work space, highway congestion
may affect only material delivery and may have mini-
mal impact on work operations.
JULY 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 258-266
Various productivity factors have different impacts
on materials and components. For example, off-site
fabricated precast concrete has less productivity vari-
ability during installation but a higher chance of
being delayed during transport, whereas CIP concrete
has a higher chance of being delayed by poor weather
conditions. Other productivity factors include size
of equipment (Bhurisith and Touran 2002; Sawhney
and Mund 2002), controllability of soil condition
(Allouche et al. 2001), weather conditions, and losses
from learning (Thomas et al. 1999; El-Rayes &
Moselhi 2001). For example, it makes sense to link
the productivity of foundation, pipeline, and retaining
wall construction to soil conditions. Alternatively, the
learning curve and poor weather conditions have a
greater effect on highly repetitive work items such
as pavement, multiple drilled shafts, and hot-mix as-
phalt pour. Thomas et al. (1999) found that changing
weather, erroneous work, poorly coordinated material
delivery, and frequent equipment relocation were
more disruptive to long and continuous production
processes than to less repetitive work items. Stoppage
to a process slows down work momentum and leads to
productivity losses of other work, which Thomas et al.
(1999) described as the “ripple effect.” However, be-
cause a highway designer cannot accurately predict the
chances of having disruptions during construction,
such disruptions are normally excluded from the
schedule at the design phase.
Design can significantly affect work productivity
(Poh and Chen 1998). Constructability has been
shown to increase site productivity, and site conges-
tion can be avoided with designs that use smaller
equipment.
Site condition would normally be considered a
productivity factor. Construction on mountainous
regions, in tight work spaces, in extreme cold and heat,
on rough terrain, on congested work zones, and in close
proximity to adjacent structures would normally slow
down workers’ productivity (Koehn and Brown 1985).
Wideman (1994) showed that the productivity of
workers varied during different phases of construction.
His study found that workers’ productivity was slow
during the early phase of construction and slowly sped
up as construction progressed. Productivity continued
to rise and plateau between 25% and 75% of project
completion, and then fell until project completion. He
attributed the initial growth to workers’ learning
effect and the fall nearing project completion to re-
duced work amount. Thus, worker productivity
should not be treated as uniform throughout the
construction phase.
260 Leadership and Management in Engineering
 Most research has found that work productivity is
affected by more than one productivity factor. For ex-
ample, our literature review indicated that foundation
construction is affected by many factors, including soil
type, drill type (size, type, and construction method),
angle of swing, methods of spoil soil removal, pile axis
adjustment, depth and size of holes, equipment
power, operator efficiency, weather conditions, spoil
soil removal and space availability, rebar cage instal-
lation procedures, concrete pouring methods, machine
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.152.109.166 on 11/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
availability, job and management conditions, drilling
time activity, other time activities, change orders, and
weather (Zayed and Halpin 2004; Hanna et al. 2002;
El-Rayes and Moselhi 2001). Furthermore, Thomas
et al. (1989) emphasized that productivity factors
should be divided into within-project, between-
project, and regional drivers. Such divisions allow
designers to better identify and allocate significant
productivity drivers for different work zone scenarios.
PRODUCTION RATE DOCUMENTATION AND
ANALYSIS
Developing reliable productivity data documentation
and analysis processes is critical to the development of
a dependable scheduling tool. Data accuracy and
correct analysis are the two critical elements of any
successful and reliable information system. Collected
productivity data should support the following func-
tions: (1) identify significant productivity factors,
(2) examine and establish the relationships between
factors and productivity, (3) develop production rate
models for scheduling, and (4) study productivity
improvement methods. Efficiency of data collection
is also critical, though there is a need to balance effi-
ciency and reliability. Survey forms and existing pro-
ductivity databases are the two most common data
collection methods. Hancher et al.’s (1992) survey
of experienced designers and site personnel in 36
DOTs indicated that many contractors kept and de-
veloped their own production factor and rate informa-
tion. They gathered most of their productivity
information from daily log books, payment and sched-
ule documentation, record books, and information
stored on computers. Some contractors required their
staffs to input information systematically and kept
comprehensive records of all their projects. No proce-
dures or standards have been developed for such
recording processes; thus, the reliability of the infor-
mation may vary greatly across organizations. Like any
research using the survey approach, the reliability of
Hancher et al.’s findings cannot be verified, and most
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 258-266
of the data are based on personal opinion. Although
contractors may collect huge amounts of data from
existing records, we question the reliability and use-
fulness of these data if they are not being recorded for
production rate estimation purposes.
Regression analysis, factor analysis models,
Monte Carlo simulation, fuzzy logic, schedule algo-
rithms, and neural networks have been applied to
scheduling (AbouRizk and Wales 1997; Adeli and
Karim 1997; Ben-Haim and Laufer 1998; Jiang
and Shi 2005; Lee 2005; Lee and Arditi 2006). Several
attempts have been made to integrate some of these
techniques with standard scheduling software, such
as Primavera, Microsoft Project, and SureTrak. Alter-
natively, many designers continue to develop project
schedules using their own experience. Advanced
scheduling techniques may improve a schedule esti-
mate’s accuracy, but many departments of transporta-
tion lack the required infrastructure and information
to use these techniques. In addition, scheduling tools
developed in the past for specific purposes became out-
dated very quickly. Texas DOT’s CTDS (Hancher et al.
1992), for example, became obsolete simply because
there was no way to update the information in the sys-
tem. Thus, any new scheduling tool should support
popular scheduling software, such as Primavera and
Microsoft Project.
Lessons learned from the past have shown that
schedulers tend to resist a complicated information
technology system and prefer a flexible system. Be-
cause most designers use the critical path and Gantt
chart methods to schedule their projects, Primavera
and Microsoft Projects are the most frequently used
scheduling programs. Therefore, production rate esti-
mation tools should not deviate too much from these
techniques and software. Production rate information
that is easily integrated with the software and tech-
niques will allow designers to spend less time learning
new techniques and software and more time improv-
ing the reliability of their estimates. Consequently,
any production rate system should be either com-
pletely independent from or well integrated into
existing software and estimation techniques.
Researchers have successfully applied many tech-
niques to improve the reliability of production
rate estimates. Some of these techniques include re-
gression analysis and models, factor analysis models,
Monte Carlo simulation, and neural networks. Other,
more simplified methods include summing up col-
lected production rates and averaging them into mean,
optimistic, and pessimistic values (Hancher et al.
1992). The techniques an organization adopts depend
261 JULY 2011
 heavily on the types of obtainable and available infor-
mation within the organization, the predictability of
the productivity factors, and the details and accuracy
requirements of the production rate estimates. Neural
network application to estimation requires an exten-
sive amount of information to develop the network to
the point where the network would self-learn and cor-
rect itself.
Lu and AbouRizk (2000) supplemented PERT
(Program Evaluation and Review Technique) with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.152.109.166 on 11/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
statistical and simulation techniques to develop a
six-value estimation technique: minimum duration
(optimistic), maximum duration (pessimistic), mean,
standard deviation, confidence interval, and probabil-
ity. This technique allows estimators to better under-
stand the risks and confidence of their estimates and
eliminates the need to guess. Regression analysis is one
of the most common methods applied to examine and
quantify the relationships between productivity fac-
tors and rates (Koehn and Brown 1985; Sanders
and Thomas 1993; Hanna et al. 2002). Regression
analysis is useful to illustrate the continuous relation-
ships between numeric productivity factors and
rates. However, it cannot be used to develop relation-
ships between nonnumeric (categorical) productivity
factors and rates. For such factors, Hancher et al.’s
(1992) method is the most common approach; the
contractor determines a productivity rate under nor-
mal conditions (normally, a mean or median) and
two rates for extreme conditions (normally, optimistic
and pessimistic). Other statistical techniques are avail-
able to handle nonnumeric factors (categorical factors),
such as box plots and longitudinal data analysis tech-
niques (commonly used in social science research). The
more advanced techniques require special treatment of
data, like creating artificial variables and splitting data
into different components.
Peña-Mora and Li (2001) proposed using the
GERT (Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique)
diagramming scheme to calculate the probability of
project duration by measuring the variability of differ-
ent branches and loops of each construction activity,
their relationships, and overlaps with other nonrele-
vant activities. They claimed that such a scheme could
better control or even eliminate variability within a
schedule. Park and Peña-Mora (2004) proposed using
reliability control to refine activity buffers and applied
simulation to measure and reduce buffer variability
between activities. However, designers may not have
sufficient control and may lack the ability to predict
buffer variability between activities during design,
and they cannot feasibly apply both techniques at
JULY 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 258-266
the same time. Also, these techniques are applicable
only for measuring relationships between activities
and cannot be used to improve the reliability of
production rates.
Many researchers have applied dynamic and sto-
chastic approaches and developed simulation models
that integrate the construction process network using
activities at the project level to develop production
rate models that can improve the reliability of dura-
tion variability estimates of and between activities.
AbouRizk and Wales (1997) illustrated that such a
project simulation model should consist of three com-
ponents: (1) a project network that maintains schedule
logic, (2) a stochastic and random particles model that
generates uncertain factors, and (3) a productivity
model that relates uncertainty of productivity factors
to generated project conditions. Each activity could be
simulated individually and combined at a later stage
(discrete-event continuous simulation). Discrete
events could be combined for simultaneous and con-
tinuous simulation. Their models relied on historical
data such as weather data from meteorological agen-
cies. Construction processes are broken down into
individual activities based on their relationships with
various productivity factors. The effect of a productiv-
ity factor on an individual activity is measured by the
simulation process and is later combined into a
schedule.
Dzeng and Tommelein (1997) suggested breaking
down construction projects into “cases” and automat-
ing the duration estimating process for each case, and
they found that their schedule estimates were more ac-
curate. The proposed application of neural networks to
construction scheduling (Adeli and Karim 1997),
although seeming to help improve the reliability of
construction scheduling through continuous knowl-
edge learning, has limited application at the design
stage, especially on improving the reliability of
production rate estimates. Adeli and Karim (1997)
stated that neural dynamic models require breakdown
of work into tasks, crews, and segments, and logics and
constraints between repetitive tasks have to be devel-
oped while each task is simulated individually. Exces-
sive amounts of data are required to ascertain the
usefulness of neural dynamic models since the accuracy
of the final estimates heavily depends on inputs to the
system. Such requirements of massive and continuous
information inputs make the neural network ineffi-
cient and impractical to be applied at the design phase.
Bonnal et al. (2004) believed that fuzzy logic had
become sufficiently mature to be applied to project
scheduling in real life. They claimed that fuzzy logic
262 Leadership and Management in Engineering
 could eliminate calculation imprecision, narrow the
probability of estimates, and improve the plausibility
and credibility of calculated values. In most produc-
tion rate estimates at the design phase, uncertainties
during production cannot be predicted, and thus
designers cannot include them in the schedule. Fuzzy
and probabilistic statistical techniques can be
extremely complicated. The need to create new vari-
ables (including dummy ones) to simulate uncertain-
ties of individual activities and between them
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.152.109.166 on 11/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(Vanhoucke 2006; Fan and Tserng 2006) requires de-
signers to look at different ways of treating their data.
In real life, these variables do not exist, so it may be
difficult for designers to understand and appreciate
their meanings and purposes. These techniques also
require extensive algorithms to estimate other resource
constraints (Jiang and Shi 2005). Algorithms are
needed to clarify relationships between activities
and allow schedulers to better control variability be-
tween activities. Refinement and reliability of the
schedules could be enhanced with algorithms.
Construction schedules are dynamic and thus need
to be updated frequently to reflect changes during
construction. El-Shahhat et al. (1995) found that be-
tween 29% and 67% of all construction errors oc-
curred at the design phase, while only 12% to 59%
of errors occurred at the construction phase. Errors
committed at the design phase may be magnified
at the construction phase and cause problems during
construction operations. Thus, designers cannot rely
too much on their personal experience.
A REVIEW OF SCHEDULE ESTIMATION
PRACTICES AND NEEDS
A survey conducted by the Texas Department of
Transportation found that scheduling practices varied
across districts and regions (O’Connor et al. 2005).
Most of the practices were driven by the needs of
the districts, the top management, and the demands
of the engineers in those districts. Some districts even
developed their own system to handle their unique
needs and situations. Each district had authority over
its own scheduling methods, and employees were
given the option to adopt anything that suited them.
Scheduling software used in the Texas DOT included
in-house systems like Primavera, Microsoft Project,
and SureTrak. The type of software used depended
heavily on the preferences of the employees. Several
districts did not use the Texas DOT’s standard system
(i.e., CTDS), as they found that it was inflexible and
that the information was not accurate. They preferred
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 258-266
the flexibility of using any software they chose. Many
districts preferred user-friendly and flexible systems
that could easily integrate into Primavera, Microsoft
Project, and SureTrak. Indeed, most highlighted the
tendencies to use CPM and/or Gantt charts for sched-
uling. They preferred to carry out production rate
calculation manually rather than using the software.
Many respondents suggested they would prefer a
system that would integrate with Microsoft Excel.
They highlighted that because some of the projects
were small, manual calculation helped speed up the
estimation process. The feedback also highlighted that
accurate production rate information was needed that
reflected and represented the situations and conditions
in different districts and regions, like calendar day and
working day contracts, rural areas, soil conditions, and
regional profiles. Many designers highlighted that the
units adopted should be in line with the pay units, as
this would reduce their work to convert the units
between schedule and payment.
We selected eight Texas DOT designers for inter-
view with regard to their needs for a better scheduling
tool. Their feedback included the following seven
points:
1. They hoped to separate the production rates and
scheduling tools from their scheduling software
to make the system more flexible and adaptive
to many situations.
2. They wanted more realistic rates that reflected
actual site conditions. Many of their rates were
unrealistic and were not collected from the site.
3. They wanted a system that was user friendly
and did not hamper the contributions of the
designers. The designers needed to have more
control over the rates and to be able to adjust
the rates accordingly so that they would not
be forced to accept unrealistic rates.
4. They cited the need to know productivity fac-
tors at the design stage and to exclude factors
that cannot be predicted at the design stage.
5. Most agreed that statistical tools can help im-
prove the accuracy of their schedules, but they
preferred these tools to be relatively simple and
practical. They noted that complicated statisti-
cal and simulation techniques make any tool
unfriendly and yield information that may be
difficult to interpret.
6. Because it is impossible to establish good rela-
tionships among the many productivity factors
for any work item, they suggested that a system
should not be restrictive in establishing these
relationships.
263 JULY 2011
 7. The most popular scheduling programs were
Primavera and Microsoft Project, and the most
popular techniques were Gantt chart and CPM.
They did not believe new software was needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A PRACTICAL
SCHEDULING TOOL
We identified the following six key components of a
production rate estimation system:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.152.109.166 on 11/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1. Data collection methodology,
2. Data arrangement,
3. Data analysis methodology,
4. Critical work items analysis,
5. Data recall and information output system, and
6. Factor and driver analysis.
Integrating these components into current schedule
estimation practices is critical; they are consistent with
existing good schedule estimating practices. In addi-
tion, several useful schedule estimation techniques
are available to estimate and analyze production
rates, such as statistical analysis (normally regression),
neural networking, Monte Carlo simulation, and lin-
ear programming.
Most designers surveyed for this research conducted
their scheduling using the CPM and/or Gantt charts.
They often relied on Primavera, MS Project, or Sure-
Trak, so any scheduling tools should be either inte-
grated into or separate from this software. The
designers wanted to retain the functions of CPM
and Gantt charts but needed more reliable and useful
information on production rates and production vari-
ability to develop better estimates. Thus, they were
looking for reliable and useful production rate and
variability estimation tools that could easily be inte-
grated into or applied to existing CPM or Gantt
charts. In addition, because it is impossible to collect
sufficient data to establish good statistical models for
every factor, designers need some freedom to use their
experience to adjust the production rates provided by
these tools in order to estimate more realistic rates.
Relying solely on experience can make production
rates less reliable and unrealistic, as research has shown
that human memory distorts information easily; like-
wise, scheduling tools alone cannot replace experience.
Combining experience with reliable scheduling tools
is the solution to more reliable construction project
scheduling.
Scheduling tools should apply only the less compli-
cated statistical and simulation techniques. It is impos-
sible to collect sufficient and reliable information to
JULY 2011
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 258-266
comply with the requirements of the more advanced
techniques. The designers found that many values
generated by these techniques did not mean anything
to them and noted that schedules do not need to be
accurate, just realistic and reliable. The more advanced
statistical and simulation techniques help improve the
accuracy of models; however, most project schedules do
not require this kind of accuracy.
It is also important to ensure that data are collected
efficiently and reliably. The sources of data are critical,
and sources need to be properly selected and checked
before the data are used to develop scheduling tools.
Although breaking down work processes into greater
detail can help improve the accuracy of estimates, it is
impractical to expect designers to do this. Designers
do not have control over the actual work processes, and
scheduling is one of the many duties they have to do.
Separating the production rates by work items is a
more efficient way for designers to break down work
processes. In addition, factors have to be properly de-
scribed, meaningful to the designers, and foreseeable
at the design stage. The literature reviews also found
that productivity estimation tools may present the
rates in many ways. The designers preferred to have
a tool that presents flexible values or even ranges of
values that they could choose from and would allow
them to adjust according to their own logic. In short,
they demanded controllability, applicability, and flex-
ibility in the estimation tool.
Finally, productivity factors should be categorized
appropriately and integrated when several factors have
to be considered. Historical information without
proper appraisal may not reflect the actual conditions
when they were collected. Historical information on
pipeline production, for example, can document rates
as low as 10 meters per day or as high as 400 meters
per day. Users of such information should have access
to reasons, factors, or models to use in deciding
whether their rates should be 10 or 400. Relying
on personal experience to decide a rate will naturally
incorporate some psychological effects.
CONCLUSION
Literature reviews, surveys, and interviews have high-
lighted important factors to be considered in design-
ing scheduling tools. The results also highlighted
several important requirements by practitioners that
past researchers failed to appreciate. The industry
needs a practical tool to support designers and inte-
grate their experiences, and this research can be used
to inform future work to develop such a tool.
264 Leadership and Management in Engineering
 REFERENCES
Abdul Majid, M. Z., and McCaffer, R. (1998). “Fac-
tors of non-excusable delays that influence contrac-
tors’ performance.” J. Manage. Eng., 14, 42–49.
AbouRizk, S. M., and Wales, R. J. (1997). “Com-
bined discrete-event/continuous simulation for
project planning.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 123,
11–20.
Adeli, H., and Karim, A. (1997). “Scheduling/cost
optimization and neural dynamics model for con-
struction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 123, 450–458.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.152.109.166 on 11/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Allouche, E. N., Ariaratnam, S. T., and AbouRizk, S.
M. (2001). “Application of horizontal characteri-
zation techniques in trenchless construction.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127, 476–484.
Ben-Haim, Y., and Laufer, A. (1998). “Robust reli-
ability of projects with activity-duration uncer-
tainty.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124, 125–132.
Bhurisith, L., and Touran, A. (2002). “Case study
of obsolescence and equipment productivity.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 128, 357–361.
Bonnal, P., Gourc, D., and Lacoste, G. (2004).
“Where do we stand with fuzzy project schedul-
ing?” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130, 114–123.
Dzeng, R.-J., and Tommelein, I. D. (1997). “Boiler
erection scheduling using product models and
case-based reasoning.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
123, 338–347.
El-Rayes, K., and Moselhi, O. (2001). “Impact of rain-
fall on the productivity of highway construction.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127, 125–131.
El-Shahhat, A. M., Rosowsky, D. V., and Chen,
W. F. (1995). “Accounting for human error dur-
ing design and construction.” J. Archit. Eng., 1,
84–92.
Fan, S.-L., and Tserng, H. P. (2006). “Object-oriented
scheduling for repetitive projects with soft logic.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132, 35–48.
Hancher, D. E., McFarland, W. F., and Alabay, R. T.
(1992). “Construction contract time determina-
tion.” Research Rep., Texas Department of Trans-
portation, Austin.
Hanna, A. S., Camlic, R., Peterson, P. A., and
Nordheim, E. V. (2002). “Quantitative definition
of projects impacted by change orders.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 128, 57–64.
Herbsman, Z. J., and Ellis, R. (1995). “Determination
of contract time for highway construction proj-
ects.” Rep. 215, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice,
Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, DC.
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 258-266
Jiang, G., and Shi, J. (2005). “Exact algorithm for
solving project scheduling problems under multi-
ple resource constraints.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
131, 986–992.
Koehn, E., and Ahmed, F. (2001). “Production rates
for urban/rural projects in developing areas.”
International Transaction INT.03, Association for
the Advancement of Cost Engineering, Morgan-
town, WV.
Koehn, E., and Brown, G. (1985). “Climatic effects
on construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 111,
129–137.
Lee, D.-E. (2005). “Probability of project completion
using stochastic project scheduling simulation.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131, 310–318.
Lee, D.-E., and Arditi, D. (2006). “Automated stat-
istical analysis in stochastic project scheduling
simulation.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132,
268–277.
Lu, M., and AbouRizk, S. M. (2000). “Simplified
CPM/PERT simulation model.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 126, 219–226.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
(1981). “Contract time determination.” Synthesis
of Highway Practice Rep. 79, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC.
O’Connor, J. T., Chong, W. K., Huh, Y., and
Kuo, Y. (2005). “Development of improved
information for estimating construction time.”
Rep. No. 0-4416-1, Texas Department of Trans-
portation, Center for Transportation Research
(University of Texas, Austin), Austin, TX.
Park, M., and Peña-Mora, F. (2004). “Reliability
buffering for construction projects.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 130, 626–637.
Peña-Mora, F., and Li, M. (2001). “Dynamic planning
and control methodology for design/build fast-
track construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 127, 1–17.
Poh, P. S. H., and Chen, J. (1998). “The Singapore
buildable design appraisal system: A preliminary
review of the relationship between buildability,
site productivity and cost.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
16, 681–692.
Sanders, S. R., and Thomas, R. H. (1993). “Masonry
productivity forecasting model.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 119, 163–179.
Sawhney, A., and Mund, A. (2002). “Adoptive
probabilistic neural network-based crane type
selection system.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 128,
265–273.
265 JULY 2011
 Thomas, H. R., Riley, D. R., and Sanvido, V. E. Wai Kiong Chong is assistant professor, De-
(1999). “Loss of labor productivity due to delivery partment of Civil, Environmental and Architec-
methods and weather.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., tural Engineering, University of Kansas, 2150
125, 39–46. Learned Hall, 1530 West 15th St., Rm. 2134-C,
Thomas, H. R., Smith, G. R., and Sanders, S. R. Lawrence, KS 66049. He can be reached at
(1989). “An exploratory study of productivity oswald@ku.edu.
forecasting using the factor model for masonry.”
Rep. 9005, Pennsylvania Transportation Institute,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA.
Sang-Hoon Lee is assistant professor, Depart-
Vanhoucke, M. (2006). “Work continuity constraints
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.152.109.166 on 11/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ment of Engineering Technology, University of

in project scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
Houston, Houston, TX.
132, 14–25.
Wideman, M. (1994). “A pragmatic approach to
using resource loading, production and learning
curves on construction projects.” Can. J. Civ.
Eng., 21, 939–953. James T. O’Connor is C. T. Wells Professor,
Zayed, T. M., and Halpin, D. W. (2004). “Quantita- Department of Civil, Architectural and Environ-
tive assessment for piles productivity factors.” mental Engineering, University of Texas–Austin,
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130, 405–414. Austin, TX. LME

JULY 2011 266 Leadership and Management in Engineering

View publication stats Leadership Manage. Eng., 2011, 11(3): 258-266