9.

Construction Planning
9.1 Basic Concepts in the Development of Construction
Plans
Construction planning is a fundamental and challenging activity in the management and
execution of construction projects. It involves the choice of technology, the definition of
work tasks, the estimation of the required resources and durations for individual tasks,
and the identification of any interactions among the different work tasks. A good
construction plan is the basis for developing the budget and the schedule for work.
Developing the construction plan is a critical task in the management of construction,
even if the plan is not written or otherwise formally recorded. In addition to these
technical aspects of construction planning, it may also be necessary to make
organizational decisions about the relationships between project participants and even
which organizations to include in a project. For example, the extent to which subcontractors will be used on a project is often determined during construction planning.
Forming a construction plan is a highly challenging task. As Sherlock Holmes noted:
Most people, if you describe a train of events to them, will tell you what
the result would be. They can put those events together in their minds, and
argue from them that something will come to pass. There are few people,
however, who, if you told them a result, would be able to evolve from
their own inner consciousness what the steps were which led up to that
result. This power is what I mean when I talk of reasoning backward. [1]
Like a detective, a planner begins with a result (i.e. a facility design) and must synthesize
the steps required to yield this result. Essential aspects of construction planning include
the generation of required activities, analysis of the implications of these activities, and
choice among the various alternative means of performing activities. In contrast to a
detective discovering a single train of events, however, construction planners also face
the normative problem of choosing the best among numerous alternative plans.

Moreover, a detective is faced with an observable result, whereas a planner must imagine
the final facility as described in the plans and specifications.
In developing a construction plan, it is common to adopt a primary emphasis on either
cost control or on schedule control as illustrated in Fig. 9-1. Some projects are primarily
divided into expense categories with associated costs. In these cases, construction
planning is cost or expense oriented. Within the categories of expenditure, a distinction is
made between costs incurred directly in the performance of an activity and indirectly for
the accomplishment of the project. For example, borrowing expenses for project
financing and overhead items are commonly treated as indirect costs. For other projects,
scheduling of work activities over time is critical and is emphasized in the planning
process. In this case, the planner insures that the proper precedences among activities are
maintained and that efficient scheduling of the available resources prevails. Traditional
scheduling procedures emphasize the maintenance of task precedences (resulting in
critical path scheduling procedures) or efficient use of resources over time (resulting in
job shop scheduling procedures). Finally, most complex projects require consideration of
both cost and scheduling over time, so that planning, monitoring and record keeping must
consider both dimensions. In these cases, the integration of schedule and budget
information is a major concern.

Figure 9-1 Alternative Emphases in Construction Planning

In this chapter, we shall consider the functional requirements for construction planning
such as technology choice, work breakdown, and budgeting. Construction planning is not
an activity which is restricted to the period after the award of a contract for construction.
It should be an essential activity during the facility design. Also, if problems arise during
construction, re-planning is required.

9.2 Choice of Technology and Construction Method

As in the development of appropriate alternatives for facility design, choices of
appropriate technology and methods for construction are often ill-structured yet critical
ingredients in the success of the project. For example, a decision whether to pump or to
transport concrete in buckets will directly affect the cost and duration of tasks involved in
building construction. A decision between these two alternatives should consider the
relative costs, reliabilities, and availability of equipment for the two transport methods.
Unfortunately, the exact implications of different methods depend upon numerous
considerations for which information may be sketchy during the planning phase, such as
the experience and expertise of workers or the particular underground condition at a site.
In selecting among alternative methods and technologies, it may be necessary to
formulate a number of construction plans based on alternative methods or assumptions.
Once the full plan is available, then the cost, time and reliability impacts of the
alternative approaches can be reviewed. This examination of several alternatives is often
made explicit in bidding competitions in which several alternative designs may be
proposed or value engineering for alternative construction methods may be permitted. In
this case, potential constructors may wish to prepare plans for each alternative design
using the suggested construction method as well as to prepare plans for alternative
construction methods which would be proposed as part of the value engineering process.
In forming a construction plan, a useful approach is to simulate the construction process
either in the imagination of the planner or with a formal computer based simulation
technique. [2] By observing the result, comparisons among different plans or problems
with the existing plan can be identified. For example, a decision to use a particular piece
of equipment for an operation immediately leads to the question of whether or not there is
sufficient access space for the equipment. Three dimensional geometric models in a
computer aided design (CAD) system may be helpful in simulating space requirements
for operations and for identifying any interferences. Similarly, problems in resource
availability identified during the simulation of the construction process might be
effectively forestalled by providing additional resources as part of the construction plan.
Example 9-1: A roadway rehabilitation
An example from a roadway rehabilitation project in Pittsburgh, PA can
serve to illustrate the importance of good construction planning and the
effect of technology choice. In this project, the decks on overpass bridges
as well as the pavement on the highway itself were to be replaced. The
initial construction plan was to work outward from each end of the

overpass bridges while the highway surface was replaced below the
bridges. As a result, access of equipment and concrete trucks to the
overpass bridges was a considerable problem. However, the highway work
could be staged so that each overpass bridge was accessible from below at
prescribed times. By pumping concrete up to the overpass bridge deck
from the highway below, costs were reduced and the work was
accomplished much more quickly.
Example 9-2: Laser Leveling
An example of technology choice is the use of laser leveling equipment to
improve the productivity of excavation and grading. [3] In these systems,
laser surveying equipment is erected on a site so that the relative height of
mobile equipment is known exactly. This height measurement is
accomplished by flashing a rotating laser light on a level plane across the
construction site and observing exactly where the light shines on receptors
on mobile equipment such as graders. Since laser light does not disperse
appreciably, the height at which the laser shines anywhere on the
construction site gives an accurate indication of the height of a receptor on
a piece of mobile equipment. In turn, the receptor height can be used to
measure the height of a blade, excavator bucket or other piece of
equipment. Combined with electro-hydraulic control systems mounted on
mobile equipment such as bulldozers, graders and scrapers, the height of
excavation and grading blades can be precisely and automatically
controlled in these systems. This automation of blade heights has reduced
costs in some cases by over 80% and improved quality in the finished
product, as measured by the desired amount of excavation or the extent to
which a final grade achieves the desired angle. These systems also permit
the use of smaller machines and less skilled operators. However, the use of
these semi-automated systems require investments in the laser surveying
equipment as well as modification to equipment to permit electronic
feedback control units. Still, laser leveling appears to be an excellent
technological choice in many instances.

9.3 Defining Work Tasks

At the same time that the choice of technology and general method are considered, a
parallel step in the planning process is to define the various work tasks that must be
accomplished. These work tasks represent the necessary framework to permit scheduling
of construction activities, along with estimating the resources required by the individual
work tasks, and any necessary precedences or required sequence among the tasks. The
terms work "tasks" or "activities" are often used interchangeably in construction plans to
refer to specific, defined items of work. In job shop or manufacturing terminology, a
project would be called a "job" and an activity called an "operation", but the sense of the
terms is equivalent. [4] The scheduling problem is to determine an appropriate set of
activity start time, resource allocations and completion times that will result in

completion of the project in a timely and efficient fashion. Construction planning is the
necessary fore-runner to scheduling. In this planning, defining work tasks, technology
and construction method is typically done either simultaeously or in a series of iterations.
The definition of appropriate work tasks can be a laborious and tedious process, yet it
represents the necessary information for application of formal scheduling procedures.
Since construction projects can involve thousands of individual work tasks, this definition
phase can also be expensive and time consuming. Fortunately, many tasks may be
repeated in different parts of the facility or past facility construction plans can be used as
general models for new projects. For example, the tasks involved in the construction of a
building floor may be repeated with only minor differences for each of the floors in the
building. Also, standard definitions and nomenclatures for most tasks exist. As a result,
the individual planner defining work tasks does not have to approach each facet of the
project entirely from scratch.
While repetition of activities in different locations or reproduction of activities from past
projects reduces the work involved, there are very few computer aids for the process of
defining activities. Databases and information systems can assist in the storage and recall
of the activities associated with past projects as described in Chapter 14. For the
scheduling process itself, numerous computer programs are available. But for the
important task of defining activities, reliance on the skill, judgment and experience of the
construction planner is likely to continue.
More formally, an activity is any subdivision of project tasks. The set of activities defined
for a project should be comprehensive or completely exhaustive so that all necessary
work tasks are included in one or more activities. Typically, each design element in the
planned facility will have one or more associated project activities. Execution of an
activity requires time and resources, including manpower and equipment, as described in
the next section. The time required to perform an activity is called the duration of the
activity. The beginning and the end of activities are signposts or milestones, indicating
the progress of the project. Occasionally, it is useful to define activities which have no
duration to mark important events. For example, receipt of equipment on the construction
site may be defined as an activity since other activities would depend upon the equipment
availability and the project manager might appreciate formal notice of the arrival.
Similarly, receipt of regulatory approvals would also be specially marked in the project
plan.
The extent of work involved in any one activity can vary tremendously in construction
project plans. Indeed, it is common to begin with fairly coarse definitions of activities and
then to further sub-divide tasks as the plan becomes better defined. As a result, the
definition of activities evolves during the preparation of the plan. A result of this process
is a natural hierarchy of activities with large, abstract functional activities repeatedly subdivided into more and more specific sub-tasks. For example, the problem of placing
concrete on site would have sub-activities associated with placing forms, installing
reinforcing steel, pouring concrete, finishing the concrete, removing forms and others.
Even more specifically, sub-tasks such as removal and cleaning of forms after concrete

placement can be defined. Even further, the sub-task "clean concrete forms" could be
subdivided into the various operations:

Transport forms from on-site storage and unload onto the cleaning station.
Position forms on the cleaning station.
Wash forms with water.
Clean concrete debris from the form's surface.
Coat the form surface with an oil release agent for the next use.
Unload the form from the cleaning station and transport to the storage location.

This detailed task breakdown of the activity "clean concrete forms" would not generally
be done in standard construction planning, but it is essential in the process of
programming or designing a robot to undertake this activity since the various specific
tasks must be well defined for a robot implementation. [5]
It is generally advantageous to introduce an explicit hierarchy of work activities for the
purpose of simplifying the presentation and development of a schedule. For example, the
initial plan might define a single activity associated with "site clearance." Later, this
single activity might be sub-divided into "re-locating utilities," "removing vegetation,"
"grading", etc. However, these activities could continue to be identified as sub-activities
under the general activity of "site clearance." This hierarchical structure also facilitates
the preparation of summary charts and reports in which detailed operations are combined
into aggregate or "super"-activities.
More formally, a hierarchical approach to work task definition decomposes the work
activity into component parts in the form of a tree. Higher levels in the tree represent
decision nodes or summary activities, while branches in the tree lead to smaller
components and work activities. A variety of constraints among the various nodes may be
defined or imposed, including precedence relationships among different tasks as defined
below. Technology choices may be decomposed to decisions made at particular nodes in
the tree. For example, choices on plumbing technology might be made without reference
to choices for other functional activities.
Of course, numerous different activity hierarchies can be defined for each construction
plan. For example, upper level activities might be related to facility components such as
foundation elements, and then lower level activity divisions into the required construction
operations might be made. Alternatively, upper level divisions might represent general
types of activities such as electrical work, while lower work divisions represent the
application of these operations to specific facility components. As a third alternative,
initial divisions might represent different spatial locations in the planned facility. The
choice of a hierarchy depends upon the desired scheme for summarizing work
information and on the convenience of the planner. In computerized databases, multiple
hierarchies can be stored so that different aggregations or views of the work breakdown
structure can be obtained.

The number and detail of the activities in a construction plan is a matter of judgment or
convention. Construction plans can easily range between less than a hundred to many
thousand defined tasks, depending on the planner's decisions and the scope of the project.
If subdivided activities are too refined, the size of the network becomes unwieldy and the
cost of planning excessive. Sub-division yields no benefit if reasonably accurate
estimates of activity durations and the required resources cannot be made at the detailed
work breakdown level. On the other hand, if the specified activities are too coarse, it is
impossible to develop realistic schedules and details of resource requirements during the
project. More detailed task definitions permit better control and more realistic scheduling.
It is useful to define separate work tasks for:

those activities which involve different resources, or

those activities which do not require continuous performance.

For example, the activity "prepare and check shop drawings" should be divided into a
task for preparation and a task for checking since different individuals are involved in the
two tasks and there may be a time lag between preparation and checking.
In practice, the proper level of detail will depend upon the size, importance and difficulty
of the project as well as the specific scheduling and accounting procedures which are
adopted. However, it is generally the case that most schedules are prepared with too little
detail than too much. It is important to keep in mind that task definition will serve as the
basis for scheduling, for communicating the construction plan and for construction
monitoring. Completion of tasks will also often serve as a basis for progress payments
from the owner. Thus, more detailed task definitions can be quite useful. But more
detailed task breakdowns are only valuable to the extent that the resources required,
durations and activity relationships are realistically estimated for each activity. Providing
detailed work task breakdowns is not helpful without a commensurate effort to provide
realistic resource requirement estimates. As more powerful, computer-based scheduling
and monitoring procedures are introduced, the ease of defining and manipulating tasks
will increase, and the number of work tasks can reasonably be expected to expand.
Example 9-3: Task Definition for a Road Building Project
As an example of construction planning, suppose that we wish to develop
a plan for a road construction project including two culverts. [6] Initially,
we divide project activities into three categories as shown in Figure 9-2:
structures, roadway, and general. This division is based on the major types
of design elements to be constructed. Within the roadway work, a further
sub-division is into earthwork and pavement. Within these subdivisions,
we identify clearing, excavation, filling and finishing (including seeding
and sodding) associated with earthwork, and we define watering,
compaction and paving sub-activities associated with pavement. Finally,
we note that the roadway segment is fairly long, and so individual
activities can be defined for different physical segments along the roadway
path. In Figure 9-2, we divide each paving and earthwork activity into

activities specific to each of two roadway segments. For the culvert

construction, we define the sub-divisions of structural excavation,
concreting, and reinforcing. Even more specifically, structural excavation
is divided into excavation itself and the required backfill and compaction.
Similarly, concreting is divided into placing concrete forms, pouring
concrete, stripping forms, and curing the concrete. As a final step in the
structural planning, detailed activities are defined for reinforcing each of
the two culverts. General work activities are defined for move in, general
supervision, and clean up. As a result of this planning, over thirty different
detailed activities have been defined.
At the option of the planner, additional activities might also be defined for
this project. For example, materials ordering or lane striping might be
included as separate activities. It might also be the case that a planner
would define a different hierarchy of work breakdowns than that shown in
Figure 9-2. For example, placing reinforcing might have been a subactivity under concreting for culverts. One reason for separating
reinforcement placement might be to emphasize the different material and
resources required for this activity. Also, the division into separate
roadway segments and culverts might have been introduced early in the
hierarchy. With all these potential differences, the important aspect is to
insure that all necessary activities are included somewhere in the final
plan.

Figure 9-2 Illustrative Hierarchical Activity Divisions for a Roadway Project

9.4 Defining Precedence Relationships Among Activities

Once work activities have been defined, the relationships among the activities can be
specified. Precedence relations between activities signify that the activities must take
place in a particular sequence. Numerous natural sequences exist for construction
activities due to requirements for structural integrity, regulations, and other technical
requirements. For example, design drawings cannot be checked before they are drawn.

Diagramatically, precedence relationships can be illustrated by a network or graph in

which the activities are represented by arrows as in Figure 9-0. The arrows in Figure 9-3
are called branches or links in the activity network, while the circles marking the
beginning or end of each arrow are called nodes or events. In this figure, links represent
particular activities, while the nodes represent milestone events.

Figure 9-3 Illustrative Set of Four Activities with Precedences

More complicated precedence relationships can also be specified. For example, one
activity might not be able to start for several days after the completion of another activity.
As a common example, concrete might have to cure (or set) for several days before
formwork is removed. This restriction on the removal of forms activity is called a lag
between the completion of one activity (i.e., pouring concrete in this case) and the start of
another activity (i.e., removing formwork in this case). Many computer based scheduling
programs permit the use of a variety of precedence relationships.
Three mistakes should be avoided in specifying predecessor relationships for construction
plans. First, a circle of activity precedences will result in an impossible plan. For
example, if activity A precedes activity B, activity B precedes activity C, and activity C
precedes activity A, then the project can never be started or completed! Figure 9-4
illustrates the resulting activity network. Fortunately, formal scheduling methods and
good computer scheduling programs will find any such errors in the logic of the
construction plan.

Figure 9-4 Example of an Impossible Work Plan

Forgetting a necessary precedence relationship can be more insidious. For example,

suppose that installation of dry wall should be done prior to floor finishing. Ignoring this
precedence relationship may result in both activities being scheduled at the same time.
Corrections on the spot may result in increased costs or problems of quality in the
completed project. Unfortunately, there are few ways in which precedence omissions can
be found other than with checks by knowledgeable managers or by comparison to
comparable projects. One other possible but little used mechanism for checking
precedences is to conduct a physical or computer based simulation of the construction
process and observe any problems.
Finally, it is important to realize that different types of precedence relationships can be
defined and that each has different implications for the schedule of activities:

Some activities have a necessary technical or physical relationship that cannot be

superseded. For example, concrete pours cannot proceed before formwork and
reinforcement are in place.
Some activities have a necessary precedence relationship over a continuous space
rather than as discrete work task relationships. For example, formwork may be
placed in the first part of an excavation trench even as the excavation equipment
continues to work further along in the trench. Formwork placement cannot
proceed further than the excavation, but the two activities can be started and
stopped independently within this constraint.
Some "precedence relationships" are not technically necessary but are imposed
due to implicit decisions within the construction plan. For example, two activities
may require the same piece of equipment so a precedence relationship might be
defined between the two to insure that they are not scheduled for the same time
period. Which activity is scheduled first is arbitrary. As a second example,
reversing the sequence of two activities may be technically possible but more

expensive. In this case, the precedence relationship is not physically necessary but
only applied to reduce costs as perceived at the time of scheduling.
In revising schedules as work proceeds, it is important to realize that different types of
precedence relationships have quite different implications for the flexibility and cost of
changing the construction plan. Unfortunately, many formal scheduling systems do not
possess the capability of indicating this type of flexibility. As a result, the burden is
placed upon the manager of making such decisions and insuring realistic and effective
schedules. With all the other responsibilities of a project manager, it is no surprise that
preparing or revising the formal, computer based construction plan is a low priority to a
manager in such cases. Nevertheless, formal construction plans may be essential for good
management of complicated projects.
Example 9-4: Precedence Definition for Site Preparation and Foundation Work
Suppose that a site preparation and concrete slab foundation construction
project consists of nine different activities:
A.
Site
clearing
(of
brush
and
minor
debris),
B.
Removal
of
trees,
C.
General
excavation,
D.
Grading
general
area,
E.
Excavation
for
utility
trenches,
F.
Placing
formwork
and
reinforcement
for
concrete,
G.
Installing
sewer
lines,
H.
Installing
other
utilities,
I. Pouring concrete.
Activities A (site clearing) and B (tree removal) do not have preceding
activities since they depend on none of the other activities. We assume
that activities C (general excavation) and D (general grading) are preceded
by activity A (site clearing). It might also be the case that the planner
wished to delay any excavation until trees were removed, so that B (tree
removal) would be a precedent activity to C (general excavation) and D
(general grading). Activities E (trench excavation) and F (concrete
preparation) cannot begin until the completion of general excavation and
grading, since they involve subsequent excavation and trench preparation.
Activities G (install lines) and H (install utilities) represent installation in
the utility trenches and cannot be attempted until the trenches are
prepared, so that activity E (trench excavation) is a preceding activity. We
also assume that the utilities should not be installed until grading is
completed to avoid equipment conflicts, so activity D (general grading) is
also preceding activities G (install sewers) and H (install utilities). Finally,
activity I (pour concrete) cannot begin until the sewer line is installed and
formwork and reinforcement are ready, so activities F and G are
preceding. Other utilities may be routed over the slab foundation, so
activity H (install utilities) is not necessarily a preceding activity for

activity I (pour concrete). The result of our planning are the immediate
precedences shown in Table 9-1.
TABLE 9-1 Precedence Relations for a Nine-Activity Project Example
Activity Description
Predecessors
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

Site
clearing
Removal
of
trees
General
excavation
Grading
general
area
Excavation
for
utility
trenches
Placing formwork and reinforcement for concrete
Installing
sewer
lines
Installing
other
utilities
Pouring concrete

----A
A
B,C
B,C
D,E
D,E
F,G

With this information, the next problem is to represent the activities in a

network diagram and to determine all the precedence relationships among
the activities. One network representation of these nine activities is shown
in Figure 9-5, in which the activities appear as branches or links between
nodes. The nodes represent milestones of possible beginning and starting
times. This representation is called an activity-on-branch diagram. Note
that an initial event beginning activity is defined (Node 0 in Figure 9-5),
while node 5 represents the completion of all activities.

Figure 9-5 Activity-on-Branch Representation of a Nine Activity Project

Alternatively, the nine activities could be represented by nodes and

predecessor relationships by branches or links, as in Figure 9-6. The result

is an activity-on-node diagram. In Figure 9-6, new activity nodes

representing the beginning and the end of construction have been added to
mark these important milestones.
These network representations of activities can be very helpful in
visualizing the various activities and their relationships for a project.
Whether activities are represented as branches (as in Figure 9-5) or as
nodes (as in Figure 9-5) is largely a matter of organizational or personal
choice. Some considerations in choosing one form or another are
discussed in Chapter 10.

Figure 9-6 Activity-on-Node Representation of a Nine Activity Project

It is also notable that Table 9-1 lists only the immediate predecessor
relationships. Clearly, there are other precedence relationships which
involve more than one activity. For example, "installing sewer lines"
(activity G) cannot be undertaken before "site clearing" (Activity A) is
complete since the activity "grading general area" (Activity D) must
precede activity G and must follow activity A. Table 9-1 is an implicit
precedence list since only immediate predecessors are recorded. An
explicit predecessor list would include all of the preceding activities for
activity G. Table 9-2 shows all such predecessor relationships implied by
the project plan. This table can be produced by tracing all paths through
the network back from a particular activity and can be performed
algorithmically. [7] For example, inspecting Figure 9-6 reveals that each
activity except for activity B depends upon the completion of activity A.
TABLE 9-2 All Activity Precedence Relationships for a Nine-Activity Project
Predecessor
Direct
Successor All
Successor All
Predecessor

Activity

Activities

Activities

Activities

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

C,D
E,F
E,F
G,H
G,H
I
I
-----

E,F,G,H,I
G,H,I
G,H,I
I
I
---------

----A
A
A,B,C
A,B,C
A,B,C,D,E
A,B,C,D,E
A,B,C,D,E,F,G

9.5 Estimating Activity Durations

In most scheduling procedures, each work activity has an associated time duration. These
durations are used extensively in preparing a schedule. For example, suppose that the
durations shown in Table 9-3 were estimated for the project diagrammed in Figure 9-0.
The entire set of activities would then require at least 3 days, since the activities follow
one another directly and require a total of 1.0 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 1.0 = 3 days. If another
activity proceeded in parallel with this sequence, the 3 day minimum duration of these
four activities is unaffected. More than 3 days would be required for the sequence if there
was a delay or a lag between the completion of one activity and the start of another.
TABLE 9-3 Durations and Predecessors for a Four Activity Project Illustration
Activity
Predecessor
Duration (Days)
Excavate
trench --Place
formwork Excavate
trench
Place
reinforcing Place
formwork
Pour concrete
Place reinforcing

1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0

All formal scheduling procedures rely upon estimates of the durations of the various
project activities as well as the definitions of the predecessor relationships among tasks.
The variability of an activity's duration may also be considered. Formally, the probability
distribution of an activity's duration as well as the expected or most likely duration may
be used in scheduling. A probability distribution indicates the chance that a particular
activity duration will occur. In advance of actually doing a particular task, we cannot be
certain exactly how long the task will require.
A straightforward approach to the estimation of activity durations is to keep historical
records of particular activities and rely on the average durations from this experience in
making new duration estimates. Since the scope of activities are unlikely to be identical

between different projects, unit productivity rates are typically employed for this purpose.
For example, the duration of an activity Dij such as concrete formwork assembly might be
estimated as:

(9.1)

where Aij is the required formwork area to assemble (in square yards), Pij is the average
productivity of a standard crew in this task (measured in square yards per hour), and Nij is
the number of crews assigned to the task. In some organizations, unit production time, Tij,
is defined as the time required to complete a unit of work by a standard crew (measured
in hours per square yards) is used as a productivity measure such that Tij is a reciprocal of
Pij.
A formula such as Eq. (9.1) can be used for nearly all construction activities. Typically,
the required quantity of work, Aij is determined from detailed examination of the final
facility design. This quantity-take-off to obtain the required amounts of materials,
volumes, and areas is a very common process in bid preparation by contractors. In some
countries, specialized quantity surveyors provide the information on required quantities
for all potential contractors and the owner. The number of crews working, Nij, is decided
by the planner. In many cases, the number or amount of resources applied to particular
activities may be modified in light of the resulting project plan and schedule. Finally,
some estimate of the expected work productivity, Pij must be provided to apply Equation
(9.1). As with cost factors, commercial services can provide average productivity figures
for many standard activities of this sort. Historical records in a firm can also provide data
for estimation of productivities.
The calculation of a duration as in Equation (9.1) is only an approximation to the actual
activity duration for a number of reasons. First, it is usually the case that peculiarities of
the project make the accomplishment of a particular activity more or less difficult. For
example, access to the forms in a particular location may be difficult; as a result, the
productivity of assembling forms may be lower than the average value for a particular
project. Often, adjustments based on engineering judgment are made to the calculated
durations from Equation (9.1) for this reason.
In addition, productivity rates may vary in both systematic and random fashions from the
average. An example of systematic variation is the effect of learning on productivity. As
a crew becomes familiar with an activity and the work habits of the crew, their
productivity will typically improve. Figure 9-7 illustrates the type of productivity
increase that might occur with experience; this curve is called a learning curve. The
result is that productivity Pij is a function of the duration of an activity or project. A
common construction example is that the assembly of floors in a building might go faster
at higher levels due to improved productivity even though the transportation time up to

the active construction area is longer. Again, historical records or subjective adjustments
might be made to represent learning curve variations in average productivity. [8]

Figure 9-7 Illustration of Productivity Changes Due to Learning

Random factors will also influence productivity rates and make estimation of activity
durations uncertain. For example, a scheduler will typically not know at the time of
making the initial schedule how skillful the crew and manager will be that are assigned to
a particular project. The productivity of a skilled designer may be many times that of an
unskilled engineer. In the absence of specific knowledge, the estimator can only use
average values of productivity.
Weather effects are often very important and thus deserve particular attention in
estimating durations. Weather has both systematic and random influences on activity
durations. Whether or not a rainstorm will come on a particular day is certainly a random
effect that will influence the productivity of many activities. However, the likelihood of a
rainstorm is likely to vary systematically from one month or one site to the next.
Adjustment factors for inclement weather as well as meteorological records can be used
to incorporate the effects of weather on durations. As a simple example, an activity might
require ten days in perfect weather, but the activity could not proceed in the rain.

Furthermore, suppose that rain is expected ten percent of the days in a particular month.
In this case, the expected activity duration is eleven days including one expected rain day.
Finally, the use of average productivity factors themselves cause problems in the
calculation presented in Equation (9.1). The expected value of the multiplicative
reciprocal of a variable is not exactly equal to the reciprocal of the variable's expected
value. For example, if productivity on an activity is either six in good weather (ie., P=6)
or two in bad weather (ie., P=2) and good or bad weather is equally likely, then the
expected productivity is P = (6)(0.5) + (2)(0.5) = 4, and the reciprocal of expected
productivity is 1/4. However, the expected reciprocal of productivity is E[1/P] = (0.5)/6 +
(0.5)/2 = 1/3. The reciprocal of expected productivity is 25% less than the expected value
of the reciprocal in this case! By representing only two possible productivity values, this
example represents an extreme case, but it is always true that the use of average
productivity factors in Equation (9.1) will result in optimistic estimates of activity
durations. The use of actual averages for the reciprocals of productivity or small
adjustment factors may be used to correct for this non-linearity problem.
The simple duration calculation shown in Equation (9.1) also assumes an inverse linear
relationship between the number of crews assigned to an activity and the total duration of
work. While this is a reasonable assumption in situations for which crews can work
independently and require no special coordination, it need not always be true. For
example, design tasks may be divided among numerous architects and engineers, but
delays to insure proper coordination and communication increase as the number of
workers increase. As another example, insuring a smooth flow of material to all crews on
a site may be increasingly difficult as the number of crews increase. In these latter cases,
the relationship between activity duration and the number of crews is unlikely to be
inversely proportional as shown in Equation (9.1). As a result, adjustments to the
estimated productivity from Equation (9.1) must be made. Alternatively, more
complicated functional relationships might be estimated between duration and resources
used in the same way that nonlinear preliminary or conceptual cost estimate models are
prepared.
One mechanism to formalize the estimation of activity durations is to employ a
hierarchical estimation framework. This approach decomposes the estimation problem
into component parts in which the higher levels in the hierarchy represent attributes
which depend upon the details of lower level adjustments and calculations. For example,
Figure 9-8 represents various levels in the estimation of the duration of masonry
construction. [9] At the lowest level, the maximum productivity for the activity is
estimated based upon general work conditions. Table 9-4 illustrates some possible
maximum productivity values that might be employed in this estimation. At the next
higher level, adjustments to these maximum productivities are made to account for
special site conditions and crew compositions; table 9-5 illustrates some possible
adjustment rules. At the highest level, adjustments for overall effects such as weather are
introduced. Also shown in Figure 9-8 are nodes to estimate down or unproductive time
associated with the masonry construction activity. The formalization of the estimation

process illustrated in Figure 9-8 permits the development of computer aids for the
estimation process or can serve as a conceptual framework for a human estimator.
TABLE 9-4 Maximum Productivity Estimates for Masonry Work
Masonry unit
Maximum
produstivity
size
Condition(s)
achievable
8 inch block

None

400 units/day/mason

6 inch

Wall is "long"

430 units/day/mason

6 inch

Wall is not "long"

370 units/day/mason

12 inch

Labor is nonunion

300 units/day/mason

4 inch

Wall
is
"long" 480 units/day/mason
Weather is "warm and dry"
or high-strength mortar is
used

4 inch

Wall
is
not
"long" 430 units/day/mason
Weather is "warm and dry"
or high-strength mortar is
used

4 inch

Wall
is
"long" 370 units/day/mason
Weather is not "warm and
dry"
or high-strength mortar is
not used

4 inch

Wall
is
not
"long" 320 units/day/mason
Weather is not "warm and
dry"
or high-strength mortar is
not used

8 inch

There is support
existing wall

8 inch

There is no support from 750 units/day/mason

existing wall

12 inch

There is support
existing wall

12 inch

There is no support from 550

existing wall

TABLE
9-5
Adjustments
to
Productivities
for

from 1,000 units/day/mason

from 700 units/day/mason

Possible
Maximum
Masonry Condition(s)

Adjustment
magnitude
(%
of

Construction/caption> Impact

maximum)

Crew type

Crew type is nonunion 15%

Job is "large"

Crew type

Crew type is union 10%

Job is "small"

Supporting labor

There are less than 20%

two laborers per crew

Supporting labor

There are more than 10%

two masons/laborers

Elevation

Steel frame building 10%

with masonry exterior
wall has "insufficient"
support labor

Elevation

Solid
masonry 12%
building with work on
exterior uses nonunion
labor

Visibility

block is not covered

Temperature

Temperature is below 15%

45o F

Temperature

Temperature is above 10%

45o F

10

7%

Figure 9-8 A Hierarchical Estimation Framework for Masonry Construction

In addition to the problem of estimating the expected duration of an activity, some

scheduling procedures explicitly consider the uncertainty in activity duration estimates by
using the probabilistic distribution of activity durations. That is, the duration of a
particular activity is assu med to be a random variable that is distributed in a particular
fashion. For example, an activity duration might be assumed to be distributed as a normal
or a beta distributed random variable as illustrated in Figure 9-9. This figure shows the
probability or chance of experiencing a particular activity duration based on a
probabilistic distribution. The beta distribution is often used to characterize activity
durations, since it can have an absolute minimum and an absolute maximum of possible
duration times. The normal distribution is a good approximation to the beta distribution in
the center of the distribution and is easy to work with, so it is often used as an
approximation.

Figure 9-9 Beta and Normally Distributed Activity Durations

If a standard random variable is used to characterize the distribution of activity durations,

then only a few parameters are required to calculate the probability of any particular
duration. Still, the estimation problem is increased considerably since more than one
parameter is required to characterize most of the probabilistic distribution used to
represent activity durations. For the beta distribution, three or four parameters are
required depending on its generality, whereas the normal distribution requires two
parameters.
As an example, the normal distribution is characterized by two parameters,
and
representing the average duration and the standard deviation of the duration, respectively.
Alternatively, the variance of the distribution
could be used to describe or
characterize the variability of duration times; the variance is the value of the standard
deviation multiplied by itself. From historical data, these two parameters can be estimated
as:

(9.2)

(9.3)

where we assume that n different observations xk of the random variable x are available.
This estimation process might be applied to activity durations directly (so that xk would
be a record of an activity duration Dij on a past project) or to the estimation of the
distribution of productivities (so that xk would be a record of the productivity in an
activity Pi) on a past project) which, in turn, is used to estimate durations using Equation
(9.4). If more accuracy is desired, the estimation equations for mean and standard
deviation, Equations (9.2) and (9.3) would be used to estimate the mean and standard
deviation of the reciprocal of productivity to avoid non-linear effects. Using estimates of
productivities, the standard deviation of activity duration would be calculated as:

(9.4)

where
is the estimated standard deviation of the reciprocal of productivity that is
calculated from Equation (9.3) by substituting 1/P for x.

9.6 Estimating Resource Requirements for Work

Activities
In addition to precedence relationships and time durations, resource requirements are
usually estimated for each activity. Since the work activities defined for a project are
comprehensive, the total resources required for the project are the sum of the resources
required for the various activities. By making resource requirement estimates for each
activity, the requirements for particular resources during the course of the project can be
identified. Potential bottlenecks can thus be identified, and schedule, resource allocation
or technology changes made to avoid problems.
Many formal scheduling procedures can incorporate constraints imposed by the
availability of particular resources. For example, the unavailability of a specific piece of

equipment or crew may prohibit activities from being undertaken at a particular time.
Another type of resource is space. A planner typically will schedule only one activity in
the same location at the same time. While activities requiring the same space may have
no necessary technical precedence, simultaneous work might not be possible.
Computational procedures for these various scheduling problems will be described in
Chapters 10 and 11. In this section, we shall discuss the estimation of required resources.
The initial problem in estimating resource requirements is to decide the extent and
number of resources that might be defined. At a very aggregate level, resources
categories might be limited to the amount of labor (measured in man-hours or in dollars),
the amount of materials required for an activity, and the total cost of the activity. At this
aggregate level, the resource estimates may be useful for purposes of project monitoring
and cash flow planning. For example, actual expenditures on an activity can be compared
with the estimated required resources to reveal any problems that are being encountered
during the course of a project. Monitoring procedures of this sort are described in Chapter
12. However, this aggregate definition of resource use would not reveal bottlenecks
associated with particular types of equipment or workers.
More detailed definitions of required resources would include the number and type of
both workers and equipment required by an activity as well as the amount and types of
materials. Standard resource requirements for particular activities can be recorded and
adjusted for the special conditions of particular projects. As a result, the resources types
required for particular activities may already be defined. Reliance on historical or
standard activity definitions of this type requires a standard coding system for activities.
In making adjustments for the resources required by a particular activity, most of the
problems encountered in forming duration estimations described in the previous section
are also present. In particular, resources such as labor requirements will vary in
proportion to the work productivity, Pij, used to estimate activity durations in Equation
(9.1). Mathematically, a typical estimating equation would be:

(9.5)

where Rkij are the resources of type k required by activity ij, Dij is the duration of activity
ij, Nij is the number of standard crews allocated to activity ij, and Ukij is the amount of
resource type k used per standard crew. For example, if an activity required eight hours
with two crews assigned and each crew required three workers, the effort would be R =
8*2*3 = 48 labor-hours.
From the planning perspective, the important decisions in estimating resource
requirements are to determine the type of technology and equipment to employ and the
number of crews to allocate to each task. Clearly, assigning additional crews might result
in faster completion of a particular activity. However, additional crews might result in
congestion and coordination problems, so that work productivity might decline. Further,

completing a particular activity earlier might not result in earlier completion of the entire
project, as discussed in Chapter 10.
Example 9-5: Resource Requirements for Block Foundations
In placing concrete block foundation walls, a typical crew would consist
of three bricklayers and two bricklayer helpers. If sufficient space was
available on the site, several crews could work on the same job at the same
time, thereby speeding up completion of the activity in proportion to the
number of crews. In more restricted sites, multiple crews might interfere
with one another. For special considerations such as complicated
scaffolding or large blocks (such as twelve inch block), a bricklayer helper
for each bricklayer might be required to insure smooth and productive
work. In general, standard crew composition depends upon the specific
construction task and the equipment or technology employed. These
standard crews are then adjusted in response to special characteristics of a
particular site.
Example 9-6: Pouring Concrete Slabs
For large concrete pours on horizontal slabs, it is important to plan the
activity so that the slab for a full block can be completed continuously in a
single day. Resources required for pouring the concrete depend upon the
technology used. For example, a standard crew for pumping concrete to
the slab might include a foreman, five laborers, one finisher, and one
equipment operator. Related equipment would be vibrators and the
concrete pump itself. For delivering concrete with a chute directly from
the delivery truck, the standard crew might consist of a foreman, four
laborers and a finisher. The number of crews would be chosen to insure
that the desired amount of concrete could be placed in a single day. In
addition to the resources involved in the actual placement, it would also be
necessary to insure a sufficient number of delivery trucks and availability
of the concrete itself.

9.7 Coding Systems

One objective in many construction planning efforts is to define the plan within the
constraints of a universal coding system for identifying activities. Each activity defined
for a project would be identified by a pre-defined code specific to that activity. The use of
a common nomenclature or identification system is basically motivated by the desire for
better integration of organizational efforts and improved information flow. In particular,
coding systems are adopted to provide a numbering system to replace verbal descriptions
of items. These codes reduce the length or complexity of the information to be recorded.
A common coding system within an organization also aids consistency in definitions and
categories between projects and among the various parties involved in a project.
Common coding systems also aid in the retrieval of historical records of cost,

productivity and duration on particular activities. Finally, electronic data storage and
retrieval operations are much more efficient with standard coding systems, as described
in Chapter 14.
In North America, the most widely used standard coding system for constructed facilities
is the MASTERFORMAT system developed by the Construction Specifications Institute
(CSI) of the United States and Construction Specifications of Canada. [10] After
development of separate systems, this combined system was originally introduced as the
Uniform Construction Index (UCI) in 1972 and was subsequently adopted for use by
numerous firms, information providers, professional societies and trade organizations.
The term MASTERFORMAT was introduced with the 1978 revision of the UCI codes.
MASTERFORMAT provides a standard identification code for nearly all the elements
associated with building construction.
MASTERFORMAT involves a hierarchical coding system with multiple levels plus
keyword text descriptions of each item. In the numerical coding system, the first two
digits represent one of the sixteen divisions for work; a seventeenth division is used to
code conditions of the contract for a constructor. In the latest version of the
MASTERFORMAT, a third digit is added to indicate a subdivision within each division.
Each division is further specified by a three digit extension indicating another level of
subdivisions. In many cases, these subdivisions are further divided with an additional
three digits to identify more specific work items or materials. For example, the code 16950-960, "Electrical Equipment Testing" are defined as within Division 16 (Electrical)
and Sub-Division 950 (Testing). The keywords "Electrical Equipment Testing" is a
standard description of the activity. The seventeen major divisions in the UCI/CSI
MASTERFORMAT system are shown in Table 9-6. As an example, site work second
level divisions are shown in Table 9-7.
TABLE 9-6 Major Divisions in the Uniform Construction
Index
Finishes
0 Conditions of the contract 9
1
General
requirements 10
Specialties
2
Site
work 11
Equipment
3
Concrete 12
Furnishings
4
Masonry 13 Special construction
5
Metals 14 Conveying system
6
Wood
and
plastics 15
Mechanical
7 Thermal and moisture prevention 16 Electrical
8 Doors and windows

While MASTERFORMAT provides a very useful means of organizing and

communicating information, it has some obvious limitations as a complete project coding
system. First, more specific information such as location of work or responsible
organization might be required for project cost control. Code extensions are then added in

addition to the digits in the basic MASTERFORMAT codes. For example, a typical
extended code might have the following elements:
0534.02220.21.A.00.cf34
The first four digits indicate the project for this activity; this code refers to an activity on
project number 0534. The next five digits refer to the MASTERFORMAT secondary
division; referring to Table 9-7, this activity would be 02220 "Excavating, Backfilling
and Compacting." The next two digits refer to specific activities defined within this
MASTERFORMAT code; the digits 21 in this example might refer to excavation of
column footings. The next character refers to the block or general area on the site that the
activity will take place; in this case, block A is indicated. The digits 00 could be replaced
by a code to indicate the responsible organization for the activity. Finally, the characters
cf34 refer to the particular design element number for which this excavation is intended;
in this case, column footing number 34 is intended. Thus, this activity is to perform the
excavation for column footing number 34 in block A on the site. Note that a number of
additional activities would be associated with column footing 34, including formwork
and concreting. Additional fields in the coding systems might also be added to indicate
the responsible crew for this activity or to identify the specific location of the activity on
the site (defined, for example, as x, y and z coordinates with respect to a base point).
As a second problem, the MASTERFORMAT system was originally designed for
building construction activities, so it is difficult to include various construction activities
for other types of facilities or activities associated with planning or design. Different
coding systems have been provided by other organizations in particular sub-fields such as
power plants or roadways. Nevertheless, MASTERFORMAT provides a useful starting
point for organizing information in different construction domains.
In devising organizational codes for project activities, there is a continual tension
between adopting systems that are convenient or expedient for one project or for one
project manager and systems appropriate for an entire organization. As a general rule, the
record keeping and communication advantages of standard systems are excellent
arguments for their adoption. Even in small projects, however, ad hoc or haphazard
coding systems can lead to problems as the system is revised and extended over time.
TABLE 9-7 Secondary Divisions in MASTERFORMAT for Site Work [11]
and
02-010 Subsurface
investigation 02-350 Piles
02Standard
penetration
tests
02Pile
012
Seismic investigation
355
Driven
0202Bored/augered
016
360
Caissons
0202-050 Demolition
02Building
demolition 370
02060
Selective
demolition
380
02Concrete
removal

caissons
driving
piles
piles

070
02075
02080

02-450 Railroad work

Asbestos removal

02-480 Marine work

02-100 Site
02Site
110
Selective
02Structure moving
115
02120

preparation
clearing
clearing

02-140 Dewatering
02-150 Shoring and underpinning
02-160 Excavation supporting system
02-170 Cofferdams
02-200 Earthwork
Grading
02210
Excavating, backfilling and
02compaction
220
Base
course
02Soil
stabilization
230
Vibro-floatation
02Slope
protection
240
Soil
treatment
02Earth dams
250
02270
02280
02290

02-500 Paving
and
surfacing
02Walk, road and parking
510
paving
02Unit
pavers
Curbs
515
Athletic paving and surfacing
02Synthetic
surfacing
525
Surfacing
02Highway
paving
530
Airfield
paving
02Pavement
repair
540
Pavement marking
02545
02550
02560
02575
02580
02-600 Piped utility materials
02-660 Water distribution
02-680 Fuel distribution
02-700 Sewage and drainage
02-760 Restoration
pipelines

of

underground

02-770 Ponds and reservoirs

02-800 Power and communications

02-880 Site improvements

Tunneling
02-900 Landscaping
Tunnel
ventilation
Tunnel
excavating
Tunnel
lining
Tunnel
grouting
Tunnel support systems

340

9.8 References
1. Baracco-Miller, E., "Planning for Construction," Unpublished MS Thesis, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 1987.
2. Construction Specifications Institute, MASTERFORMAT - Master List of Section
Titles and Numbers, Releasing Industry Group, Alexandria, VA, 1983.
3. Jackson, M.J. Computers in Construction Planning and Control, Allen & Unwin,
London, 1986.
4. Sacerdoti, E.D. A Structure for Plans and Behavior, Elsevier North-Holland, New
York, 1977.
5. Zozaya-Gorostiza, C., "An Expert System for Construction Project Planning,"
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
University, 1988.

9.9 Problems
1. Develop an alternative work breakdown for the activities shown in Figure 9-2
(Example 9-3). Begin first with a spatial division on the site (i.e. by roadway
segment and structure number), and then include functional divisions to develop a
different hierarchy of activities.
2. Consider a cold weather structure built by inflating a special rubber tent, spraying
water on the tent, letting the water freeze, and then de-flating and removing the
tent. Develop a work breakdown for this structure, precedence relationships, and
estimate the required resources. Assume that the tent is twenty feet by fifteen feet
by eight feet tall.
3. Develop a work breakdown and activity network for the project of designing a
tower to support a radio transmission antenna.
4. Select a vacant site in your vicinity and define the various activities and
precedences among these activities that would be required to prepare the site for
the placement of pre-fabricated residences. Use the coding system for site work
shown in Table 9-7 for executing this problem.
5. Develop precedence relationships for the roadway project activities appearing in
Figure 9-2 (Example 9-3).

6. Suppose that you have a robot capable of performing two tasks in manipulating
blocks on a large tabletop:
o PLACE BLOCK X ON BLOCK Y: This action places the block x on top
of the block y. Preconditions for applying this action are that both block x
and block y have clear tops (so there is no block on top of x or y). The
robot will automatically locate the specified blocks.
o CLEAR BLOCK X: This action removes any block from the top of block
x. A necessary precondition for this action is that block x has one and only
one block on top. The block removed is placed on the table top.
For this robot, answer the following questions:
3. Using only the two robot actions, specify a sequence of robot actions to
take the five blocks shown in Figure 9-10(a) to the position shown in
Figure 9-10(b) in five or six robot actions.
4. Specify a sequence of robot actions to move the blocks from position (b)
to position (c) in Figure 9-10 in six moves.
5. Develop an activity network for the robot actions in moving from position
(b) to position (c) in Figure 9-10. Prepare both activity-on-node and
activity-on-link representations. Are there alternative sequences of
activities that the robot might perform to accomplish the desired position?

Figure 9-10 Illustrative Block Positions for Robot Motion Planning

7. In the previous problem, suppose that switching from the PLACE BLOCK action
to the CLEAR BLOCK action or vice versa requires an extra ten seconds.
Movements themselves require 8 seconds. What is the sequence of actions of
shortest duration to go from position (b) to position (a) in Figure 9-10?
8. Repeat Problem 6 above for the movement from position (a) to position (c) in
Figure 9-10.
9. Repeat Problem 7 above for the movement from position (a) to position (c) in
Figure 9-10.
10. Suppose that you have an enhanced robot with two additional commands
capabilities:
o CARRY BLOCKS X-Y to BLOCK Z: This action moves blocks X-Y to
the top of block Z. Blocks X-Y may involve any number of blocks as long
as X is on the bottom and Y is on the top. This move assumes that Z has a
clear top.
o CLEAR ALL BLOCK X TO BLOCK Z: This action moves all blocks on
top of block X to the top of block Z. If a block Z is not specified, then the
blocks are moved to the table top.
How do these capabilities change your answer to Problems 6 and 7?
11. How does the additional capability described in Problem 10 change your answer
to Problems 8 and ?

9.10 Footnotes
1. A.C. Doyle, "A Study in Scarlet," The Complete Sherlock Holmes, Doubleday & Co.,
pg. 83, 1930.
2. See, for example, Paulson, B.C., S.A. Douglas, A. Kalk, A. Touran and G.A. Victor,
"Simulation and Analysis of Construction Operations," ASCE Journal of Technical
Topics in Civil Engineering, 109(2), August, 1983, pp. 89, or Carr, R.I., "Simulation of
Construction Project Duration," ASCE Journal of the Construction Division, 105(2), June
1979, 117-128.
3. For a description of a laser leveling system, see Paulson, B.C., Jr., "Automation and
Robotics for Construction," ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, (111)3, pp. 190-207, Sept. 1985.

4. See Baker, K.R., Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling, John-Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1974, for an introduction to scheduling in manufacturing.
5. See Skibniewski, M.J. and C.T. Hendrickson, "Evaluation Method for Robotics
Implementation: Application to Concrete Form Cleaning," Proc. Second Intl. Conf. on
Robotics in Construction, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA., 1985, for more
detail on the work process design of a concrete form cleaning robot.
6. This example is adapted from Aras, R. and J. Surkis, "PERT and CPM Techniques in
Project Management," ASCE Journal of the Construction Division, Vol. 90, No. CO1,
March, 1964.
7. For a discussion of network reachability and connectivity computational algorithms,
see Chapters 2 and 7 in N. Christofides, Graph Theory: An Algorithmic Approach,
London: Academic Press, 1975, or any other text on graph theory.
8. See H.R. Thomas, C.T. Matthews and J.G. Ward, "Learning Curve Models of
Construction Productivity," ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 112, No. 2, June 1986, pp. 245-258.
9. For a more extension discussion and description of this estimation procedure, see
Hendrickson, C., D. Martinelli, and D. Rehak, "Hierarchical Rule-based Activity
Duration Estimation," ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol
113, No. 2, 1987,pp. 288-301.
10. Information on the MASTERFORMAT coding system can be obtained from: The
Construction Specifications Institute, 601 Madison St., Alexandria VA 22314.
11. Source: MASTERFORMAT: Master List of Section Titles and Numbers, 1983
Edition, The construction Speculations Institute, Alexandria, VA, 1983.