1 / 93

Web-based Collaborative Project Management

Web-based Collaborative Project Management. ESM 684 Engineering Management Project University of Alaska Fairbanks. ESM 684 Project Team. Evan Griffith , P.E. Civil Design Engineer PDC, Inc. Consulting Engineers Galen Johnson , P.E. Construction Project Manager GHEMM Company, Inc.

ulric-logan
Download Presentation

Web-based Collaborative Project Management

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Web-based Collaborative Project Management ESM 684 Engineering Management Project University of Alaska Fairbanks

  2. ESM 684 Project Team • Evan Griffith, P.E. Civil Design Engineer PDC, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Galen Johnson, P.E. Construction Project Manager GHEMM Company, Inc. • Rod Stanton, P.E. Construction Project Manager Richard Stanton Construction, Inc. • Mark Wilkinson, Construction Engineer Rockwell Engineering & Construction Services, Inc.

  3. Hypothesis 1 Web-based collaborative project management will improve planning, design and construction performance, efficiency and organization – resulting in reduced construction and administration costs.

  4. Hypothesis 2 Web-based collaborative project management is only applicable to very large (multi-million dollar) projects

  5. Hypothesis 3 Web-based collaborative project management will not work in Alaska due to the remoteness of many project sites.

  6. Associated General ContractorsHouston & Dallas/Ft Worth ChaptersWeb-enabled Project Management “Shootout”

  7. Constructware Meridian

  8. Experience “Relativity”

  9. Perspective Tradition?

  10. Pre-Planning Design Advances

  11. Builder Selected Construction Commences

  12. RFPRequest ForProposal

  13. Change Order

  14. Submittal Summary

  15. Submittal Register

  16. DC/VRDesignClarificationVerificationRequest

  17. RFIRequestforInformation

  18. RFI Tracking Log

  19. Schedule of Values

  20. Construction Progress Schedule

  21. SubstitutionRequest

  22. DailyFieldReport

  23. JobsiteSafetyReviewChecklist

  24. “Traditional Chaos”

  25. Paper-Based? Internet-Based?

  26. METHODS Web Search Contacted Vendors User Survey Literature Review And back again

  27. How Does it Work? Collaborative Project Management Software and Data Internet Users (Owner, Architect, Engineer, General Contractor, Sub-contractors, Suppliers)

  28. RESULTS • Rapidly Changing State of Practice • ASP’s versus Client-Server • Collaborative Project Management is here to stay (Like it or Not!)

  29. RESULTS • Rapidly Changing State of Practice • Much of the reported research has already been surpassed. • Product reviews are not relevant to what is available today. • Many of the vendors no longer exist • ASP’s versus Client-Server • Collaborative Project Management is here to stay (Like it or Not!)

  30. ASP’S versus Client-Server • ASP = Application Service Provider. • Program and data are hosted by a third party (generally the program developer) • Users access the program and data through a web browser • Client-Server. • Program and data are hosted on your own server. • Users access the program and data through a web browser

  31. ASP’s versus Client-Server • Cost • Development and Distribution • Support for older versions • Time to Market • Testing • Individual Enhancements vs Patches • Security • Resources • Design • Confidence • What if ASP fails? • Future Access?

  32. RESULTS • Rapidly Changing State of Practice • ASP’s versus Client-Server • Collaborative Project Management is here to stay (Like it or Not!) • Literature and survey results overwhelmingly positive. • Competition will eventually force the issue.

  33. Total Survey Respondents Private CompaniesPublicOwners 20 15 400+ Potential users contacted Most public owners said they did not currently use products Respondents typically did not answer all questions

  34. Products Used and Number Who Use Each Private CompaniesPublic Owners Constructware 11 3 Meridian 10 0 Other 2 2

  35. Question 1 Why did you start using the software? (advantageous on proposals, potential cost savings, client driven, etc.) What is/was your companies goal for implementing the software?

  36. Private Companies Time/Cost Saving 6 Organization/ Document Control 15 Hold Sub's Accountable 1 Extra Selling Point 2

  37. Public Owners Online Collaboration Function 2

  38. Question 2 Why did you select this software?

  39. Private Companies Selected Constructware Modules 1 Software Maker Stability 2 Most Efficient/Advanced 3 Best Overall Comparison 3 Reputation 1 Worked on initial software development 1

  40. Private Companies Selected Meridian Better Modules 2 Most Efficient/Advanced 4 Reputation 1

  41. Public Owners No specific answers

  42. Question 3 How long has your company been using the software?

  43. Private Companies Less than 1 Year 3 1 to 2 Years 9 Greater than 2 Years 3

  44. Public Owners Less than 1 Year 2 1 to 2 Years Greater than 2 Years

  45. Question 4 What specifically do you use the software for and how often? (in-house organization, document exchange, etc.)

  46. Private Companies Document Management 11 General Communications 4

  47. Public Owners Document Management 2 General Communications 2

  48. Question 5 Who has access to the database? (Client, Subcontractors, Designers, End Users, Permitting Agencies, Public, etc.)

  49. Private Companies Owner 7 Project Team 13 Subcontractors 10 Anybody Needing Info 2

  50. Public Owners Project Team 2 Subcontractors 2

More Related