Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Standard Progress Measurement for Integrated Cost Paper | All Paper

At the top of your paper provide the reference to your Journal Article. Use a scholarly source as described above. Utilizing a non-scholarly/non-peer-reviewed source will result in significant point deduction.IntroductionGive a brief overview of the chapter 3 of Kloppenborg covered for the week. Be sure to cite any reference to the text. Include the text in a reference section at the end.Summary (cite article when appropriate)Give a summary of the article or case study.Relevant Points (cite article when appropriate)Identify the relevant points of the article or case study that coincide with the chapter covered for the week.CritiqueProvide a balanced criticism of the article or case study. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study? How do the findings support the field of project management? How could it have been altered to better support the field?Application of Concept(s)Apply the concept(s) to your career, field, industry, etc. Provide a real world application not a general statement. This section should demonstrate how you can take the findings of this article or case study and utilize them in a practical way in your career, field or practice. Make the application specific to your own experience. Do not just provide a general overview of the usefulness of the findings. Be specific; not general.References (this does not count toward the required paper length)Every paper typed in this course should be in APA formatting (title page, reference page, NO abstract page, in-text citations, running head, page numbers, Times New Roman 12 font, 1 inch margins, double-spacing, etc…).


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Knowledge-Based Standard Progress Measurement
for Integrated Cost and Schedule Performance Control
Youngsoo Jung, A.M.ASCE1; and Seunghee Kang2
Abstract: Though the progress of construction projects is most often used as a critical index for effective project management, the
method, structure, data, and accuracy of detailed progress measurement may vary depending on specific characteristics of a project. This
situation can lead to misinterpretation of the project status, especially under a multiproject management environment. It is also a daunting
task for the inexperienced engineers to formulate and monitor the project-specific work packages. At the same time, maintaining very
detailed and highly accurate progress information requires excessive managerial efforts. In order to address this issue, this study proposes
the concept of standard progress measurement package. Issues for standardization of the work breakdown structure that can embody
distinct characteristics of different construction projects are investigated. The proposed methodology facilitates automated formulating of
work packages by using a historical database and also automates the gathering of progress information through the use of standardized
methods and tools. A case-study project is evaluated in order to examine the practicability of the proposed system.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9364共2007兲133:1共10兲
CE Database subject headings: Cost control; Scheduling; Integrated systems; Information systems; Project management;
Knowledge-based systems; Automation; Standardization.
Cost, schedule, and quality are the three major indicators for construction project performance. Accordingly, integration of cost
and schedule control systems has been an issue of great concern
for researchers and practitioners as these two important control
systems are closely interrelated, sharing numerous common data
共Rasdorf and Abudayyeh 1991; Jung and Gibson 1999; Jung and
Woo 2004兲 in their controlling processes.
In recent efforts to systemize construction management
processes, standard methods and procedures coupled with information technology have been widely adapted. The earned value
management system 共EVMS兲, which integrates cost and schedule
control, is a good example. Two important features of EVMS are
the combination of two different construction business functions
共i.e., cost and schedule兲 into a unified perspective and the provision of highly detailed standard methods and procedures so as to
compulsorily maintain data integrity among many different
project participants 共Jung and Woo 2001兲.
The progress 共or earned value兲 is key information in the integrated cost and schedule control as it provides a baseline for
comparison with the planned schedule and/or actual costs. However, the method, structure, data, and accuracy of detailed
Associate Professor, College of Architecture, Myongji Univ., Yongin
449-728, South Korea. E-mail:
Ph.D. Candidate, College of Architecture, Myongji Univ., Yongin
449-728, South Korea. E-mail:
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 2007. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on December 19, 2005; approved on July 10, 2006. This
paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 133, No. 1, January 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2007/
progress measurements may vary depending on the characteristics
of a project, organization, or location. Regardless of the variation
in the methods utilized, in terms of accuracy, ideally the progress
data should be analyzed and maintained in a highly detailed form.
Nevertheless, the excessive workload required to manipulate very
detailed progress data is also a critical issue 共Deng and Hung
1998; Rasdorf and Abudayyeh 1991; Jung and Woo 2004兲 for
effective cost and schedule control.
No previous research or professional practice has comprehensively addressed the issues of standard progress measurement
methodology in terms of its practicability, accuracy, efficiency,
and potentiality for automation. In this context, the purpose of
this study is to develop an effective progress measurement system
utilizing standard progress measurement packages 共SPMPs兲, as
depicted in Fig. 1. A prime objective of developing SPMPs is to
identify manageable work packages with reliable progress measurement 共enhancing accuracy兲.
Even though those are not addressed in detail, this study also
discusses applying standard measures and procedures to as many
projects as possible so as to attain a corporate-wide index 共making
standards兲, facilitating the process of work breakdown structure
共WBS兲 formulation by using a prestructured historical database
共alleviating workload兲, and accommodating self-evolving features
of standard packages by analyzing the changes of managerial
policy under an ever-changing business environment 共sustaining
A case study is used throughout this paper in order to illustrate
and examine the proposed methodology. The case-project is a
research center constructed by a case-company. The research center is basically comprised of an eleven-story office building 共two
stories underground and nine stories above ground兲 and a laboratory. Specifics of the project include: 17,087 m2 of total floor
area, 19-month project duration. A general contractor’s viewpoint
as a case-company is applied in this case-study, and the architectural work alone is analyzed excluding earthwork, mechanical,
Fig. 1. Objectives and issues for SPMPs
Table 1. Details of Case-Project
共a兲 Case-project outlines
Main use
Project delivery method
Contract type
Construction duration
Site area
Building area
Number of stories
Total floor area
Construction budgetb
Number of subcontract packagesb
Percent of subcontractb
Number of staff members on siteb
Research center
Suwon City, South Korea
Lump sum and unit price
January 19, 2000 to July 31, 2001 共19 months兲
481,264 m2
2,347 m2
2 共underground兲 +9 共above ground兲
17,087 m2
Reinforced concrete
Precast steel reinforced concrete
An office building and a laboratory
At Sungkyunkwan University
With a third party supervisor
Composite precast members used for the superstructure
in the office building
Construction only
Civil and architectural 21, electrical 1, mechanical 5
Amount of subcontracts/total budget
General contractor only
共b兲 Progress measurement package evaluation outlinesc
Number of standard PMPs
Number of standard budget items
Number of PMPs
Case-project, without locators
Number of PMP activities
Case-project, with locators
Number of budget items
Case-project, without locators
Case-project, with locators
Number of budget items allocated
Accuracy score 共PAI兲
Out of 10.00
The same case-project is also used in Jung and Woo 共2004兲, where details for a workload evaluation are presented.
Descriptions are represented from the general contractor’s viewpoint.
Further details are described later in this paper.
Some assumptions are applied for the purpose of simulation.
and electrical. Details of the case-project are summarized in
Table 1.
Progress Measurement in Construction
By definition, “progress” refers to the “advance toward a specific
end.” The degree of “advance” for a construction project can be
determined in many different ways. In their study for measuring
construction productivity, Thomas and Mathews 共1986兲 assert
that the “progress in terms of work unit completed” and “the
associated cost in terms of man-hours or dollars” are typically
tracked in order to measure productivity. For the purpose of construction payment, progress can be explained as the “percentages
of direct cost incurred plus a portion of overhead and profit”
共Stokes 1978兲. From the viewpoints of cost engineers or scheduling engineers, somewhat different considerations for progress
may also be inferred.
Nevertheless, the most commonly perceived concept of
progress implies the “work completed” and the “associated cost.”
Therefore, progress in this study is defined as the “actual work
completed in terms of budgeted cost.” This definition is identical
to the meaning of “earned value,” or budgeted cost for work
performed 共BCWP兲 in EVMS.
Progress in Earned Value Management
Benefits from integrating cost and schedule control 共EVMS兲 have
been asserted by numerous researchers and practitioners since this
idea was first promoted in the 1960s. The basic concept utilizes
the focal point for the integration of scope, cost, and scheduling
共Rasdorf and Abudayyeh 1991; Fleming and Koppleman 1996兲.
According to a document of the American National Standard
Institute 共ANSI兲 for EVMS, a “control account” 共CA兲 as the focal
point acts for “a management control point at which budgets and
actual costs are accumulated and compared to earned value for
management control purposes” 共EIA 1998兲.
The progress 共earned value, or BCWP兲 is used as a baseline to
which the planned schedule 共budgeted cost for work scheduled,
BCWS兲 and the actual cost 共actual cost of work performed,
ACWP兲 are compared in order to measure the schedule
performance and cost performance, respectively. The results of
performance variances and indices are used for further analysis,
including estimating cost at completion, identifying latent risks,
and replanning for remaining work packages.
The level of progress measurement packages is a critical issue
in terms of the “workload” 共i.e., manageability兲 required to maintain the control system and the “accuracy” of the packages 共Jung
et al. 2001兲. In other words, it is ideal if very detailed progress
data can be gathered and analyzed for any project. However, this
situation may require an excess of managerial effort with limited
usage of the data. At the same time, it is very likely that less
detailed packages would provide more inaccurate information. In
order to address this issue, the level of detail for progress measurement should be carefully selected as a trade-off between the
workload and accuracy, incorporating strategy, objectives, and
management policy of construction projects.
Progress Measurement Workload
The most significant part of workload is collecting and maintaining data that is generated throughout the project life cycle. In
particular, EVMS requires more complex data structures and additional management efforts as it integrates two different aspects
of business functions 共cost and schedule兲.
Therefore, optimizing 共or minimizing兲 the workload is the
critical success factor for practical implementation. This optimization can be achieved 共1兲 by automating data acquisition; 共2兲 by
reengineering the cost and scheduling control processes; and/or
共3兲 by adjusting the level of details 共Jung 2005兲.
Automating data acquisition can be obtained by applying such
data acquisition technologies as RFID, GPS, or 3D laser scanning
共Navon 2005兲 or by electronically interconnecting databases from
relevant business functions 共e.g., material management or daily
work report兲. However, utilizing IT is less specific to a project or
a company. Rather, it is industry-specific, as similar tools and
methods can be generally applicable to any type of project 共P1 in
Fig. 1兲. On the contrary, the scheme of reengineering varies extensively depending on the organization 共Jung et al. 2000兲. Practical solutions are very different for each company, as they are
organization-specific 共P2 in Fig. 1兲. Finally, adjusting the level of
detail is a project-specific issue 共P3 in Fig. 1兲. Basically, the level
of detail is determined by the managerial requirements of each
project. However, common characteristics within the same type of
facilities in a company can be identified in order to effectively
utilize the standardized methods.
The three schemes discussed previously should be deliberated
in a comprehensive manner, because they complement each other.
However, this paper focuses on “adjusting the level of details” by
using standardized progress measurement packages that can alleviate the workload for initial WBS formulation 共planning兲, data
entries 共controlling兲, and historical data retrieval 共reusing兲. This
usage is depicted as U1, U2, and U3 in Fig. 1.
Progress Measurement Accuracy
Several different progress measurement methods are developed
and used in construction projects. Definitions and classifications
may vary slightly. This study utilizes three major types of measurement methods categorized by Thomas and Mathews 共1986兲:
estimated percent complete method, earned value method, and
physical measurement method. As listed in Table 2, each method
has strengths and weaknesses.
Among these three measurement methods, the earned value
method may utilize various techniques for different type of work
packages. Fleming and Koppleman 共1996兲 specify seven techniques including percent complete estimate, weighted milestones,
fixed formula by task, percent complete and milestone gates,
earned standards, apportioned relationships to discrete work, and
level of effort. Note that Fleming and Koppleman categorize “percent complete estimate” as one of the earned value techniques
whereas Thomas and Mathews 共1986兲 separate it, as described in
Table 2.
Standards Making
Standardization of WBS or CA seems extremely difficult in practice, because each construction project is unique and has different
managerial requirements. However, this standardization would
significantly contribute to reduce the workload and enhance the
accuracy of the progress measurement if properly applied.
In their research exploring a process model of standardization
in the information and communication technology 共ICT兲 industry,
Fomin et al. 共2003兲 define three recursive activities of “design
共creating and choosing design alternatives兲, sense-making 共attach-
Table 2. Progress Measurement Methods 共Adapted from Thomas and Mathews 1986; Fleming and Koppleman 1996兲
Estimated percent complete • Percent complete estimate Simple
Relying exclusively upon an individual’s ability
• Percent complete
Relatively small effort required
and milestone gates
Suitable for straightforward items
Earned value
• Weighted milestones
Greater detail and objectivity than the Not detailed as the “physical measurement method”
“estimated percent complete” method
• Fixed formula by task
• Earned standards
• Apportioned relationships
to discrete work
• Level of effort
Physical measurement
The most detailed and reliable
Lack of timely information
Relatively objective
High cost of data collection
Easy to audit
The techniques are defined by Fleming and Koppleman 共1996兲 and regrouped here by the writers.
The advantages and disadvantages discussed by Thomas and Mathews 共1986兲.
ing meaning to design alternatives兲, and negotiation 共agreeing between designs, fixing the actor network兲,” which can be a good
point of departure for construction WBS standardization.
Managerial similarity within a specific type of construction
project 共e.g., office buildings兲 or within a company makes it
possible to develop reasonable standard progress measurement
packages 共“design”兲. An ever-changing business environment and
construction technology may require seamless modification of the
standards 共“sense-making”兲. Finally, the standards must incorporate conflicting interests between different projects and different
actors 共“negotiation”兲. Again, conflicting interests simultaneously
occur between the workload and accuracy in terms of
Standard Progress Measurement Package
In order to incorporate different interests 共the workload, accuracy,
and standards issues discussed previously兲, the SPMP proposed in
this study pursues corporate-wide standard packages which are
self-evolving. Major features of the proposed methodology are
illustrated in the following, and the conceptual components are
depicted in Fig. 2 and Table 3.
Alleviating Workload
A work package or a CA is typically composed of two major
properties 共e.g., first-floor concrete work兲; one is the classification
of commodity breakdown 共budget accounts兲, and the other is arrangement of physical breakdown 共locators, e.g., facility, space,
or element兲. Therefore, a small increase in the number of CAs or
budget accounts 共BAs兲 under integrated control systems can
cause enormous expansion of workloads. In addition, physical
breakdown is generally more project specific than commodity
breakdown 共Jung and Woo 2004兲.
In order to effectively address this issue, this paper defines a
progress measurement package 共PMP兲 as “a major work package
composed of assigned budget accounts.” A PMP with a physical
breakdown 共a locator兲 is then defined as a “PMP activity,” which
is used as an activity for the CPM schedule or as a CA for EVMS.
For example, a commodity group of budget accounts 共e.g., concrete, reinforcing bars, and forms兲 constitutes a PMP 共e.g., con-
Fig. 2. Components of a SPMP
Table 3. Structure of a Progress Measurement Package
PMP title
Assigned budget
Locator type
Duration type
Complexity type
Formwork 共BC3020兲
Wood Form, Material 共7411兲
Steel Form, Material 共7430兲
Formwork, labor—Wood
form 共7412兲
Formwork, labor—steel
Form 共7431兲
Sum of the four
above mentioned items
共7411, 7430, 7412, 731兲
By one floor: 共50兲
Less than 1 week 共1兲
One major work item,
partial progress
not accepted 共Al兲
Weighted milestone 共5兲
4 items
from the predefined standard PMPs in order to reduce the workload. A flexible WBS concept 共Jung and Woo 2004兲 is adopted to
easily reduce the total number of PMPs. Finally, the standard
earned value measurement method described in Table 2 is also
widely adapted in the case-study.
Enhancing Accuracy
One floor
D ⬍ 1 week
Workers’ locationsb
GPS technology
for tracking
movement of workersb
PMP scores
weighting score
共type: above 5%兲
SD—duration score
共type; 1兲
SC—complexity score
共type; A1兲
score= SD⫻ SC= 1.0⫻ 10
SAw—weighted accuracy score
score= SA⫻ W = 10⫻ 11.49
Relevant information
dates 共ES, EF, LS, LF, AS, AF兲;
earned value; costs
progress curve
共planned versus actual兲; and others
The letters and numbers in parentheses indicate the code numbers of a
relational database.
For an advanced example, the concept of automated labor monitoring
共Navon and Goldschmidt 2003兲 is introduced.
The complete list of 61 PMPs for the case-project and meanings of the
values are presented in Tables 3 and 4.
crete work兲. The group of budget accounts assigned to a specific
locator 共e.g., first-floor兲 forms a PMP activity 共e.g., first-floor concrete work兲. Therefore, many PMP activities can stem from each
PMP 共e.g., ten PMP activities for a concr …
Purchase answer to see full

error: Content is protected !!