4.6 Article

Application of Case-Based Reasoning for Estimating Preliminary Duration of Building Projects

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001072

关键词

Preliminary duration estimation; Case-based reasoning; Early stage planning; Cost and schedule

资金

  1. High-Tech Urban Development Program - Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean Government [07 Urban Renaissance B03]
  2. Basic Science Research Program through National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [2013010660]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2013R1A1A1010660] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The applicability and effectiveness of case-based reasoning (CBR) have been demonstrated in various construction management areas, including bidding, international market selection, safety hazard identification, construction litigation, and preliminary cost estimation. Despite its strong potential as a decision-supporting tool in construction, only a few studies have applied CBR for estimating the preliminary duration that is necessary for the overall success of a construction project. Based on this recognition, this paper develops a CBR model capable of accurately estimating the construction duration in the preliminary stage. The applicability and effectiveness of the developed model are tested through application to 83 multihousing projects. The test results confirm the strong potential of CBR to provide an accurate estimate of construction duration with limited information available in the preliminary stage. This paper is significant in that it provides practitioners with a reliable decision-supporting tool for accurately estimating construction duration, and thus, ultimately increases the possibility of successful project execution. (C) 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据