Comparative Analysis of Planning with the Critical Path Method, Last Planner System, and Location-Based Techniques in Brazil, Finland, and the United States

IF 1.9 4区 管理学 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Engineering Management Journal Pub Date : 2022-06-07 DOI:10.1080/10429247.2022.2069981
N. Scala, V. Schiavone, Hylton Olivieri, O. Seppänen, T. Alves, Min Liu, A. D. Granja
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Planning with the Critical Path Method, Last Planner System, and Location-Based Techniques in Brazil, Finland, and the United States","authors":"N. Scala, V. Schiavone, Hylton Olivieri, O. Seppänen, T. Alves, Min Liu, A. D. Granja","doi":"10.1080/10429247.2022.2069981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Critical Path Method (CPM), the Last Planner System (LPS) and location-based methods, such as the Line of Balance (LB), are discussed extensively in the technical literature about schedules. However, no discussion exists focusing on the differences and similarities of these methods in terms of their use in different countries. Using chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests, this research compared three countries (Brazil, Finland, and United States) and the methods to evaluate both intra- and inter-country implementation to gain additional insights about their use. Results suggest statistically significant intra- and inter-country differences regarding how these methods are used, with a specific focus on mechanics in the countries, offering important information to address their various scheduling needs. The results reflect the current state of practice; engineering and construction managers should understand different ways of understanding scheduling. Such understanding can lead to more efficient communication with collaborators and when incorporating foreign teams in projects. The study identifies the need for further scientific explanation as to why these methods are used in the manner they are intra-country as well as adaptions made in inter-country relationships.","PeriodicalId":54353,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Management Journal","volume":"35 1","pages":"237 - 256"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2022.2069981","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract The Critical Path Method (CPM), the Last Planner System (LPS) and location-based methods, such as the Line of Balance (LB), are discussed extensively in the technical literature about schedules. However, no discussion exists focusing on the differences and similarities of these methods in terms of their use in different countries. Using chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests, this research compared three countries (Brazil, Finland, and United States) and the methods to evaluate both intra- and inter-country implementation to gain additional insights about their use. Results suggest statistically significant intra- and inter-country differences regarding how these methods are used, with a specific focus on mechanics in the countries, offering important information to address their various scheduling needs. The results reflect the current state of practice; engineering and construction managers should understand different ways of understanding scheduling. Such understanding can lead to more efficient communication with collaborators and when incorporating foreign teams in projects. The study identifies the need for further scientific explanation as to why these methods are used in the manner they are intra-country as well as adaptions made in inter-country relationships.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巴西、芬兰和美国关键路径法、末次规划系统和基于位置技术的规划比较分析
摘要关键路径法(CPM)、最后计划系统(LPS)和基于位置的方法,如平衡线(LB),在有关时间表的技术文献中进行了广泛讨论。然而,没有讨论这些方法在不同国家的使用方面的差异和相似之处。本研究使用卡方和Fisher精确检验,比较了三个国家(巴西、芬兰和美国)以及评估国内和国际实施的方法,以获得关于其使用的更多见解。结果表明,在如何使用这些方法方面,国家内部和国家之间存在统计上显著的差异,特别关注各国的机制,为满足其各种日程安排需求提供了重要信息。结果反映了目前的实践状况;工程和施工经理应该理解理解进度安排的不同方式。这种理解可以提高与合作者的沟通效率,并将外国团队纳入项目中。这项研究表明,需要进一步科学解释为什么这些方法是以国内方式使用的,以及在国家间关系中进行的调整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Engineering Management Journal
Engineering Management Journal 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: EMJ is designed to provide practical, pertinent knowledge on the management of technology, technical professionals, and technical organizations. EMJ strives to provide value to the practice of engineering management and engineering managers. EMJ is an archival journal that facilitates both practitioners and university faculty in publishing useful articles. The primary focus is on articles that improve the practice of engineering management. To support the practice of engineering management, EMJ publishes papers within key engineering management content areas. EMJ Editors will continue to refine these areas to ensure they are aligned with the challenges faced by technical organizations and technical managers.
期刊最新文献
Lean Office: Proposition and Application of a Process-Mapping Method Based on the Shingo Production Mechanism (SPM) Managing Stakeholder Pressure for Megaproject Success and Green Innovation: The Key Role of Social Responsibility Engineering Management Education: Washington Accord Accreditation Programs The New PAD: A Method to Implement the Lean Construction Principles A Risk Minimization Model for a Multi-Skilled, Multi-Mode Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Problem with Discrete Time-Cost-Quality-Risk Trade-Off
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1