Project Management and Scheduling through National Project Management Phases in Government Construction Agencies

Project Management and Scheduling through National Project Management Phases in Government Construction Agencies

Jesper Kranker Larsen (Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark), Thomas Ditlev Brunoe (Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark), Søren Munch Lindhard (Barslund A/S, Kvistgård, Denmark) and Kim Noergaard Jensen (Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark)
DOI: 10.4018/IJITPM.2017010101
OnDemand PDF Download:
$30.00
List Price: $37.50

Abstract

Effective project coordination and management of time and cost scheduling in public funded construction projects receive a considerable focus from academics, politicians, and the construction industry itself with opposing points of view. The study objective is therefore to investigate the process of time and cost scheduling during the different project stages, and their relationships between critical factors affecting project schedules. Applied data collection was based on semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire survey with publicly agency employed project managers and property managers. A multiple research approach was thus utilized to mix the two dataset. Findings demonstrate that project complications in the execution stage is associated to lack of project requirements and design with too optimistic project deadline and budget from the initial project stages. Moreover, a relationship was found between the presence of experienced consultants and the achievement of project success throughout the project phases as particular vital.
Article Preview

Introduction

Time and cost scheduling in public funded construction projects has been criticized for being too optimistic according to Bhargava, Anastasopoulos, Labi, Sinha, and Mannering (2010) and Flyvbjerg, Holm, and Buhl (2002). The effect of such over-optimistic scheduling approaches are gaps between the strategic and tactical project time plans, where project uncertainties and complications are pushed between project partners and phases (Johansen & Wilson, 2006; Song, Mohamed, & AbouRizk, 2009). The level of project success is therefore dependent on the project manager’s experience and ability to handle critical project issues and their negative effect on the project organization, productivity, timetable, and budget (Ahadzie, Proverbs, & Olomolaiye, 2008; Sun & Meng, 2009). However, Flyvbjerg, Holm, and Buhl (2003), find public funded infrastructure projects often experience severe cost overruns across 20 different nations at five continents. Hedrick (1988) explain this phenomenon as the buy in game as a decision making strategy that’s secure public funded projects reach the execution stage. Project deadline and budget deviations are thus relative common. Nicholas and Steyn (2012) and Love, Holt, Shen, Li, and Irani (2002) argues for cost deviation between 13% to 20% as relative common in projects. According to Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) and Olawale and Sun (2010), deadline deviations between 10% and 40% of the original contract deadline are frequently experienced in construction project.

To addresses such project complications, have previous research focused on the identification of either critical failure factors (Jha & Iyer, 2006) or critical success factors (Chua, Kog, & Loh, 1999) with their effects on time and cost. Some of the most frequently observed factors are uncertain or insufficient project planning (Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer, & Rentala, 2012), late user changes in the project or function, (Odeh & Battaineh, 2002), and the use of inexperienced consultants or construction managers (Long, Ogunlana, Quang, & Lam, 2004). The cost of such critical factors has been estimated by Lopez and Love (2011) and Love et al. (2002) to be 6.4% - 6.9% in the direct cost and 5.5% - 7.4% in the indirect cost of the total budget of an average construction project. Furthermore, factors such as quick decision making, cost reduction, and scope changes along the critical path are also find to destabilize the overall project process and its outcome (Chang, 2002; Chester & Hendrickson, 2005). However, Shane, Molenaar, Anderson, and Schexnayder (2009), conclude no definitive prioritized structure of project failure causes can be made, due to different project types and contexts. Zwikael and Globerson (2006) make a similar suggestion, by arguing critical factors are to general to support the project manager. For that reason, Doloi et al. (2012) argue for the significant importance of looking at the relationships between critical causes.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Open Access Articles: Forthcoming
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2018): 1 Released, 3 Forthcoming
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing