Prebid and Preconstruction Planning Process
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 119, Issue 3
Abstract
Construction planning systems have been the subject of research, development, and implementation for the last several decades. Most studies have focused on planning tools and techniques, and not on the planning process itself. This paper presents the results of a research project that examined how construction planning is actually done at the prebid and preconstruction planning stages. The data were gathered through personal in‐depth interviews conducted with experienced, competent project managers and other functionaries in leading, progressive United States construction companies. Construction planning was examined by four principal measures: the degree of involvement in the planning process; the proportion of plan issuance; the relative planning effort in various functional plans; and the formats used for issuing plans. The findings suggest that the practice of construction planning differs from what is commonly accepted and supported by the existing literature.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Birrel, G. S. (1980). “Construction planning: beyond the critical path.” J. Constr. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 106(3), 389–407.
2.
“Closing the gaps in project management systems.” (1984). Systems gap working party report, Association of Project Managers, Butterworth, Surrey, U.K.
3.
Cormican, D. (1985). Construction management: planning and finance. Construction Press, London, England.
4.
Cullen, J. D., and Nankervis, C. W. (1985). “Overcoming the luddite factor: some behavioural aspects of the field supervisor's role in construction planning.” Int. J. Project Mgmt., 3(3), 133–140.
5.
Erskine‐Murray, P. E. (1972). “Construction planning—mainly a question of how.” Occasional Paper No. 2, Institute of Building, Ascot, Berkshire, England.
6.
Laufer, A. (1989). “Owner's project planning: the process approach.” Source Document 45, Constr. Industry Inst., Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
7.
Laufer, A. (1990). “Decision‐making roles in project planning.” J. Mgmt. Engrg., ASCE, 6(4), 416–430.
8.
Laufer, A., Cohenca‐Zall, D., and Howell, G. A. (1992a). “The planner‐manager competence dilemma revisited.” Project Management without Boundaries, Proc., 11th INTERNET World Congress on Project Mgmt., 2, 61–73.
9.
Laufer, A., Shapira, A., and Cohenca‐Zall, D. (1992b). “The process of construction planning and its products: practice in mature companies.” Res: Rep., National Building Research Inst., Haifa, Israel.
10.
Laufer, A., and Tucker, R. L. (1987). “Is construction project planning really doing its job? A critical examination of focus, role and process.” Constr. Mgmt. and Economics, 5(3), 243–266.
11.
Mason, D. (1984). “The CPM technique in construction: a critique.” AACE Trans., Montreal, Canada, E.2.1.–E.2.10.
12.
Mintzberg, H. (1981). “Research notes and communications, what is planning anyway?” Strategic Mgmt. J., 2, 319–324.
13.
Nahapiet, J., and Nahapiet, H. (1985). The management of construction projects: case studies from the USA and UK. Chartered Institute of Building, Ascot, Berkshire, England.
14.
“Report on planning and scheduling.” (1983). Modern Mgmt. Systems, Rep. A‐6, Business Roundtable, New York, N.Y. Appendix A‐6.1.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 119 • Issue 3 • September 1993
Pages: 426 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jun 29, 1992
Published online: Sep 1, 1993
Published in print: Sep 1993
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.