Search results

This paper introduces the weighting, analysis and validation method used in the development of the Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling (MMCS). The scoring and ranking process introduced by the MMCS fills a gap in the literature by supporting the selection of collaborative scheduling (CS) practices that yield more weight toward the achievement of higher maturity levels in the development and implementation of CS. The ranking process can then be used during pre/post project execution to track collaborative scheduling in practice against the model’s weighting and provide the project team with constructive feedback and actionable steps for reaching the next highest level of collaboration.

The MMCS, which focuses on five pillars (key areas of interest for CS) and related swim lanes (specific attributes), covers a broad range of areas in the construction industry and was coded into a survey. The relative weights of pillars and swim lanes were then established using the Delphi method with the group of subject matter experts (SMEs), analyzed using multi-objective decision analysis (MODA) and validated using 241 answers to a survey with questions drawn from the MMCS, including organizations across the industry in the United States.

The project scoring defines bounds for bronze, silver and gold levels of collaboration in scheduling. Project evaluations can then be used to identify areas for continuous improvement and enhanced collaboration. We offer recommendations and best practices for project improvement.

Two original contributions resulted from this work: (1) a method to elicit weights based on a combination of Delphi, MODA and survey methods was used to develop and validate a scale with three different maturity levels to support the use and continuous improvement of CS practices and (2) a validated model was used to assess the maturity level of CS in construction projects alongside specific recommendations to move upward in terms of maturity. In practice, project leaders can use this model to assess project performance, advance the project’s maturity and guide continuous improvement efforts for enhanced collaboration.

The overall contribution of this work is to provide a usable maturity model for collaborative scheduling (CS) that extends the literature, identifies inconsistencies in schedule development, and improves collaboration in the construction industry.

Via subject matter expert elicitation and focus groups, the maturity model establishes five pillars of collaboration—scheduling significance, planners and schedulers, scheduling representation, goal alignment with owner, and communication. The maturity model is then validated through iterative feedback and chi-squared statistical analysis of data obtained from a survey. The five pillars are tied to the literature and previous work in CS.

The analysis shows that current industry projects are not consistent in collaboration practice implementation, and the maturity model identifies areas for collaboration improvement. The study's contributions to the body of knowledge are (1) developing a maturity model-based approach to define and measure the current level of collaboration and (2) discovering the level of consistency in scheduling collaboration practice implementation.

The findings provide a benchmark for self-evaluation and peer-to-peer comparison for project managers. The model is also useful for project managers to develop effective strategies for improvement on targeted dimensions and metrics.

The construction engineering and management (CEM) literature does not contain targeted models for scheduling collaboration in the context of maturity and, broadly speaking, neither does the literature at large. The literature also lacks actionable items as presented for the maturity model for collaborative scheduling (MMCS).

While much discussion of information literacy in librarianship has focused on the educational roles that librarians play in promoting information literacy among the communities they serve, the information literacy education of librarians themselves has not received much attention. In response to an article written by the authors of this chapter, a surprisingly large number of librarians responded to them to try to contradict the assertions of their article using what was clearly disinformation. Drawing upon these attempts by librarians to spread misinformation in a professional context, this discussion explores the ways in which a lack of critical information literacy among information professionals can impact the ability of libraries and librarians to support their communities. This chapter also considers ways in which the librarians and library professional organizations could work to promote critical information literacy among current and future members of the profession.