項目管理統一的方法外文翻譯外文文獻英文文獻(編輯修改稿)

　

【文章內容簡介】 Construction and Workflows. There is currently a great deal of attention being paid to the area of lean construction, which spans a wide range of issues that relate to the management of AEC/FM projects (Lean Construction Institute, 2021). Among these issues is the concept that when a project is made up of many interdependent tasks, a focus on optimizing each task independently leads to suboptimization of the overall project. Therefore, project management practices should ensure that tasks are managed with careful consideration of their role within the overall project workflows。 they should not be treated as isolated, independent activities. Software Engineering and the Unified Modeling Language. Although project management has a much longer (and perhaps more successful) history within the field of AEC/FM than in the field of software engineering, there are some valuable lessons that AEC/FM can learn from developments in the software industry, particularly related to integrated information structures for managing projects. Much of the software engineering munity has consolidated around the Unified Modeling Language (UML) (Object Management Group, 2021), a standard language for representing the ponents involved in the design and implementation of software projects. The UML provides a much more uniform and integrated (if less prehensive) view of project requirements, processes, and elements, than parable representations within AEC/FM (., project plans and specifications, construction schedules, etc.). Furthermore, UMLbased software development methodologies have emerged (., the Unified Process, Kendall, 2021) that tightly integrate the various project workflows with the various project artifacts (deliverables) throughout each phase of the project lifecycle. These methodologies also accentuate the cyclical and repetitive nature of the related work tasks that are carried out within workflows as they move through the phases of the project lifecycle. Unlike approaches that treat each activity as an independent, onetime task, this reinforces attempts to continually improve performance in this work. While these techniques are not directly applicable to the AEC/FM industry, some of the approaches and best practices are quite relevant. A Unified Approach to Project Management We have argued that existing project management practices underemphasize the interrelationships between individual work tasks and other project ponents. This leaves the interdependencies underrecognized and undermanaged, and promotes a “ onetime event” thinking that hinders the quest for ongoing performance improvements. We have begun to conceptualize a unified approach to project management that addresses some of the weaknesses and opportunities identified above. The basic approach is to adopt a framework that: 1) explicitly represents the various views that are critical for managing projects, and 2) explicitly represents the interconnections between these views. Examples of project views include the physical view (“what”), the process view (“how, who, when”), the cost view (“how much”), etc. (Russell and Froese, 1997). If the total collection of project information is thought of as a multidimensional information space, then the views define the dimensions. For each view, the overall project can be broken down into smaller elements. The simplest representation of a view would be a list or hierarchical breakdown structure of the elements that make up the view (., a work breakdown structure, WBS). More plex representations would capture additional relationships between the elements, such as a CPM work or an IFC model. Primary Views. There are many views that can be useful for managing projects. To act as a unifying management tool, however, these views should be shared with all participants, and this places a practical limit on the maximum number of views, since it would bee too plex to require all participants to work with numerous, interconnected views. We propose that the following three views to be used as the primary project coordination 共 18 頁 第 5 頁 mechanism for all participants: ? The project lifecycle dimension: The first primary view is timebased, anizing the project into welldefined project phases, which are further refined into iterations. These phases are arranged in sequential chronological order, constituting a logical timeview. This dimension can also provide an absolute timeview by defining the calendar dates for activities that take place within the phases. Unlike current project management practices where project phases are treated “loosely”, the phases and iterations have formal management roles. All work requirements, assignments, outputs, etc. are defined relative to a specific project phase, and phases have formal progress review procedures. This approach to phases can be seen, for example, in the Process Protocol approach (Process Protocol, 2021) and in the previouslymentioned Unified Process (Kendall, 2021). ? The workflow dimension: The second primary view is processbased. It anizes the work into the various work disciplines required to plete the project. This is somewhat like the normal division of work into work packages, but rather than describing the tasks as discrete work packages, the work is anized as ongoing workflows, which can be further broken down into sequences or works of sub tasks. Thus tasks are more explicitly placed in the context of the overall workflows than is mon practice today. ? The product/deliverable dimension: The third primary view anizes the outputs or deliverables of work. This view bines two important main elements, the information that describes the construction product (facility) being created, and the physical product itself. During the early phases of the project, the deliverables of design and man