对 "快车道 "活动造成的施工风险的看法重叠

Eng Pub Date : 2023-11-17 DOI:10.3390/eng4040162
Claudia Garrido Martins, S. Bogus, Vanessa Valentin
{"title":"对 \"快车道 \"活动造成的施工风险的看法重叠","authors":"Claudia Garrido Martins, S. Bogus, Vanessa Valentin","doi":"10.3390/eng4040162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Concurrent engineering through overlapping of activities (i.e., fast-tracking) has been used as a schedule acceleration technique. Fast-track construction projects are generally recognized as riskier and subject to risks arising due to the concurrency of work. This work reports the risk perception of construction professionals to three different degrees of overlapping. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect the data, and the analysis applied data transformation and descriptive statistics. The risks were mainly perceived in the middle degree of overlapping and in activities occurring earlier in the schedule. The low and high degrees of overlapping were mainly perceived as having no risk or not being feasible, respectively. The four risk types accounted for most of the perceived threats: construction error, design change, crew interference, and poor construction productivity. The findings of this study suggest that construction professionals perceive risks differently based on the amount of activity overlapping. It is consistent with previous studies that found that risks decrease as the project advances and that fast-track projects face additional risks.","PeriodicalId":502660,"journal":{"name":"Eng","volume":"53 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions of Construction Risks Due to Fast-Track Activity Overlapping\",\"authors\":\"Claudia Garrido Martins, S. Bogus, Vanessa Valentin\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/eng4040162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Concurrent engineering through overlapping of activities (i.e., fast-tracking) has been used as a schedule acceleration technique. Fast-track construction projects are generally recognized as riskier and subject to risks arising due to the concurrency of work. This work reports the risk perception of construction professionals to three different degrees of overlapping. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect the data, and the analysis applied data transformation and descriptive statistics. The risks were mainly perceived in the middle degree of overlapping and in activities occurring earlier in the schedule. The low and high degrees of overlapping were mainly perceived as having no risk or not being feasible, respectively. The four risk types accounted for most of the perceived threats: construction error, design change, crew interference, and poor construction productivity. The findings of this study suggest that construction professionals perceive risks differently based on the amount of activity overlapping. It is consistent with previous studies that found that risks decrease as the project advances and that fast-track projects face additional risks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":502660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eng\",\"volume\":\"53 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eng\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/eng4040162\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eng","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/eng4040162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过活动重叠(即快速跟踪)进行的并行工程已被用作一种加快进度的技术。快速施工项目一般被认为风险较高,会因工作重叠而产生风险。这项工作报告了建筑专业人员对三种不同重叠程度的风险认知。采用半结构式访谈收集数据,并运用数据转换和描述性统计进行分析。风险主要体现在中度重叠和工期较早的活动中。低重叠度和高重叠度分别被认为没有风险或不可行。四种风险类型占据了大部分被感知到的威胁:施工错误、设计变更、施工人员干扰和施工效率低下。本研究的结果表明,建筑专业人员对风险的感知因活动重叠量的不同而不同。这与之前的研究结果一致,即风险随着项目的推进而降低,而快速通道项目则面临更多风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perceptions of Construction Risks Due to Fast-Track Activity Overlapping
Concurrent engineering through overlapping of activities (i.e., fast-tracking) has been used as a schedule acceleration technique. Fast-track construction projects are generally recognized as riskier and subject to risks arising due to the concurrency of work. This work reports the risk perception of construction professionals to three different degrees of overlapping. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect the data, and the analysis applied data transformation and descriptive statistics. The risks were mainly perceived in the middle degree of overlapping and in activities occurring earlier in the schedule. The low and high degrees of overlapping were mainly perceived as having no risk or not being feasible, respectively. The four risk types accounted for most of the perceived threats: construction error, design change, crew interference, and poor construction productivity. The findings of this study suggest that construction professionals perceive risks differently based on the amount of activity overlapping. It is consistent with previous studies that found that risks decrease as the project advances and that fast-track projects face additional risks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Eng
Eng
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信