TY - JOUR
T1 - The gold standard
T2 - developing a maturity model to assess collaborative scheduling
AU - Scala, Natalie M.
AU - Liu, Min
AU - Alves, Thais da Costa Lago
AU - Schiavone, Vincent
AU - Hawkins, Dominique
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was funded by the Construction Industry Institute, as Research Team RT-362, “Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Collaborative Scheduling.” The authors would also like to thank Chuanni He for his assistance with compiling .
Funding Information:
This research was funded by the Construction Industry Institute, as Research Team RT-362, “Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Collaborative Scheduling.” The authors would also like to thank Chuanni He for his assistance with compiling Table 2.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited.
PY - 2023/5/8
Y1 - 2023/5/8
N2 - Purpose: The overall contribution of this work is to provide a usable maturity model for collaborative scheduling (CS) that extends the literature, identifies inconsistencies in schedule development, and improves collaboration in the construction industry. Design/methodology/approach: Via subject matter expert elicitation and focus groups, the maturity model establishes five pillars of collaboration—scheduling significance, planners and schedulers, scheduling representation, goal alignment with owner, and communication. The maturity model is then validated through iterative feedback and chi-squared statistical analysis of data obtained from a survey. The five pillars are tied to the literature and previous work in CS. Findings: The analysis shows that current industry projects are not consistent in collaboration practice implementation, and the maturity model identifies areas for collaboration improvement. The study's contributions to the body of knowledge are (1) developing a maturity model-based approach to define and measure the current level of collaboration and (2) discovering the level of consistency in scheduling collaboration practice implementation. Practical implications: The findings provide a benchmark for self-evaluation and peer-to-peer comparison for project managers. The model is also useful for project managers to develop effective strategies for improvement on targeted dimensions and metrics. Originality/value: The construction engineering and management (CEM) literature does not contain targeted models for scheduling collaboration in the context of maturity and, broadly speaking, neither does the literature at large. The literature also lacks actionable items as presented for the maturity model for collaborative scheduling (MMCS).
AB - Purpose: The overall contribution of this work is to provide a usable maturity model for collaborative scheduling (CS) that extends the literature, identifies inconsistencies in schedule development, and improves collaboration in the construction industry. Design/methodology/approach: Via subject matter expert elicitation and focus groups, the maturity model establishes five pillars of collaboration—scheduling significance, planners and schedulers, scheduling representation, goal alignment with owner, and communication. The maturity model is then validated through iterative feedback and chi-squared statistical analysis of data obtained from a survey. The five pillars are tied to the literature and previous work in CS. Findings: The analysis shows that current industry projects are not consistent in collaboration practice implementation, and the maturity model identifies areas for collaboration improvement. The study's contributions to the body of knowledge are (1) developing a maturity model-based approach to define and measure the current level of collaboration and (2) discovering the level of consistency in scheduling collaboration practice implementation. Practical implications: The findings provide a benchmark for self-evaluation and peer-to-peer comparison for project managers. The model is also useful for project managers to develop effective strategies for improvement on targeted dimensions and metrics. Originality/value: The construction engineering and management (CEM) literature does not contain targeted models for scheduling collaboration in the context of maturity and, broadly speaking, neither does the literature at large. The literature also lacks actionable items as presented for the maturity model for collaborative scheduling (MMCS).
KW - Alignment
KW - Collaboration
KW - Maturity model
KW - Schedule
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124366178&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85124366178&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1108/ECAM-07-2021-0609
DO - 10.1108/ECAM-07-2021-0609
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85124366178
SN - 0969-9988
VL - 30
SP - 1636
EP - 1656
JO - Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
JF - Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
IS - 4
ER -