Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Less Agents, the More Schedule Reliability: Examination of Single-Point Responsibility Model in Design Management

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite its importance, little research, has studied schedule reliability from resource management perspective. This paper studies the association between the task–agent relationship and the reliability of project schedule. Four case studies are presented to examine the effect of task–agent relationships. To do so, the tasks are categorized into two groups according to their relationships with agents: single-agent and multi-agent. The groups are then compared in terms of mean lateness, lateness variance, and schedule reliability. To measure the schedule reliability, the formulations are adapted from the production and manufacturing literature to the context of design and construction. The results show that the schedules of single-agent tasks are more reliable than multi-agent tasks. Statistical tests uphold the significance of this difference, especially in design projects, as well as the projects with similar contexts. It is argued that single-agent tasks take advantage of role clarity, autonomy, and KSA (knowledge, skill, abilities) conformity. In addition, in view of promise theory, single-agent tasks are less subject to agents-in-the-middle effect and benefit from locality. The findings are of practical value to consulting firms, especially design team managers who seek to maximize innovation, competency and quality outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bolviken T, Gullbrekken B, Nyseth K (2010) Collaborative design management. In: 18th Annual conference of the international group for lean construction. International Group for Lean Construction, Haifa, Israel, p 103–112

  2. El. Reifi MH, Emmitt S (2013) Perceptions of lean design management. Archit Eng Des Manag 9(3):195–208

    Google Scholar 

  3. Knotten V, Svalestuen F, Hansen GK, Lædre O (2015) Design management in the building process—a review of current literature. Procedia Econ Financ 21(2212):120–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hwang B-G, Yang S (2014) Rework and schedule performance: a profile of incidence, impact, causes and solutions. Eng Constr Archit Manag 21(2):190–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang W-C, Lin C-L, Wang S-H, Liu J-J, Lee M-T (2014) Application of importance-satisfaction analysis and influence-relations map to evaluate design delay factors. J Civ Eng Manag 20(4):497–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Palikhe S, Kim S, Kim JJ (2019) Critical success factors and dynamic modeling of construction labour productivity. Int J Civ Eng 17(3):427–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Karlsson M, Lakka A, Sulankivi K, Hanna AS, Thompson BP (2008) Best practices for integrating the concurrent engineering environment into multipartner project management. J Constr Eng Manag 134(4):289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Uma Maheswari J, Varghese K, Sridharan T (2006) Application of dependency structure matrix for activity sequencing in concurrent engineering projects. J Constr Eng Manag 132(5):482–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yassine A, Falkenburg D, Chelst K (1999) Engineering design management: an information structure approach. Int J Prod Res 37(13):2957–2975

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Steward DV (1981) The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag EM-28(3):71–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baldwin AN, Austin SA, Hassan TM, Thorpe A (1998) Planning building design by simulating information flow. Autom Constr 8(2):149–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Choo HJ, Hammond J, Tommelein ID, Austin S, Ballard G (2004) DePlan: a tool for integrated design management. Autom Constr 13(3):313–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kara S, Kayis B, Kaebernick H (1999) Modelling concurrent engineering projects under uncertainty. Concurr Eng 7(3):269–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blacud NA, Bogus SM, Diekmann JE, Molenaar KR (2009) Sensitivity of construction activities under design uncertainty. J Constr Eng Manag 135(3):199–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hopp WJ, Spearman ML (2011) Factory physics. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, Long Grove, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goldratt EM, Critical chain. North River Press Great Barrington 1997

    Google Scholar 

  17. Winch GM, Kelsey J (2005) What do construction project planners do?. Int J Proj Manag 23(2):141–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ballard G (2002) Managing work flow on design projects: a case study. Eng Constr Archit Manag 9(3):284–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Freire J, Alarcón LF (2002) Achieving lean design process: improvement methodology. J Constr Eng Manag 128(3):248–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hamzeh FR, Saab I, Tommelein ID, Ballard G (2015) Understanding the role of “tasks anticipated” in lookahead planning through simulation. Autom Constr 49(PA):18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grote G (2009) Management of uncertainty. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Baker KR (1974) Introduction to sequencing and scheduling. Wiley, Michigan State

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lödding H, Kuyumcu A (2015) Modelling schedule reliability. Int J Prod Res 53(9):2871–2884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. AbouRizk SM, Halpin DW (1992) Statistical properties of construction duration data. J Constr Eng Manag 118(3):525–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shahbazi MM (2015) Tetron, task management program. http://omranafzar.com/package/6. Accessed 17 Feb 2019

  26. Batselier J, Vanhoucke M (2015) Construction and evaluation framework for a real-life project database. Int J Proj Manag 33(3):697–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Washington SP, Karlaftis MG, Mannering F (2010) Statistical and econometric methods for transportation data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Hackman JR (1980) Work redesign and motivation. Prof Psychol 11(3):445

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1976) Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16(2):250–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Langfred CW, Moye N (2004) Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. J Appl Psychol 89(6):934–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Miller KI, Monge PR (1986) Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: a meta-analytic review. Acad Manag J 29(4):727–753

    Google Scholar 

  32. Podsakoff PM, Bommer WH, Podsakoff NP, MacKenzie SB (2006) Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: a meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 99(2):113–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Burgess M (2015) Thinking in promises: designing systems for cooperation. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zlot R, Stentz A (2006) Market-based multirobot coordination for complex tasks. Int J Robot Res 25(1):73–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Ron Wakefield at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology for his kind support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran, 16846, Iran

    Mostafa Khanzadi & Mohammad M. Shahbazi

  2. School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Mehrdad Arashpour

  3. The Haskell and Irene Lemon Construction Science Division, College of Architecture, University of Oklahoma, 830 Van Vleet Oval, Room 294GH, Norman, OK, 73019-6141, USA

    Somik Ghosh

Authors
  1. Mostafa Khanzadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad M. Shahbazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehrdad Arashpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Somik Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mostafa Khanzadi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khanzadi, M., Shahbazi, M.M., Arashpour, M. et al. The Less Agents, the More Schedule Reliability: Examination of Single-Point Responsibility Model in Design Management. Int J Civ Eng 17, 1307–1316 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-00389-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-00389-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation