The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-6099.htm

SASBE
11,4 Construction project planning and
scheduling as a dynamic system:
a content analysis of the current
972 status, technologies and
Received 16 February 2021
Revised 30 March 2021
forward action
6 May 2021
9 May 2021 Okechukwu Bruno-Kizito Nwadigo
Accepted 10 May 2021
Built Environment, Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies,
Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Nicola Naismith
Built Environment Engineering, Auckland University of Technology,
Auckland, New Zealand
Ali GhaffarianHoseini
Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, and
Amirhosein GhaffarianHoseini and John Tookey
Built Environment Engineering, Auckland University of Technology,
Auckland, New Zealand

Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment
Vol. 11 No. 4, 2022
pp. 972-995
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-6099
DOI 10.1108/SASBE-02-2021-0022
Abstract
Purpose – Dynamic planning and scheduling forms a widely adopted smart strategy for solving real-world
problems in diverse business systems. This paper uses deductive content analysis to explore secondary data
from previous studies in dynamic planning and scheduling to draw conclusions on its current status, forward
action and research needs in construction management.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors searched academic databases using planning and
scheduling keywords without a periodic setting. This research collected secondary data from the database
to draw an objective comparison of categories and conclusions about how the data relates to planning and
scheduling to avoid the subjective responses from questionnaires and interviews. Then, applying inclusion and
exclusion criteria, we selected one hundred and four articles. Finally, the study used a seven-step deductive
content analysis to develop the categorisation matrix and sub-themes for describing the dynamic planning and
scheduling categories. The authors used deductive analysis because of the secondary data and categories
comparison. Using the event types represented in a quadrant mapping, authors delve into where, when,
application and benefits of the classes.
Findings – The content analysis showed that all the accounts and descriptions of dynamic planning and
scheduling are identifiable in an extensive research database. The content analysis reveals the need for multi-
hybrid (4D BIM-Agent based-discrete event-discrete rate-system dynamics) simulation modelling and optimisation
method for proffering solutions to scheduling and planning problems, its current status, tools and obstacles.
Originality/value – This research reveals the deductive content analysis talent in construction research. It
also draws direction, focuses and raises a question on dynamic planning and scheduling research concerning
the five-integrated model, an opportunity for their integration, models combined attributes and insight into its
solution viability in construction.
Keywords Construction complex system, Dynamic planning and scheduling, Deductive content analysis,
Optimisation, Multi-hybrid simulation modelling
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Planning and scheduling is a fundamental approach to minimise overruns for a productive
construction project. It calls for the project professionals to devise a proper planning and
scheduling process before project execution to enhance sustainability (Opoku et al., 2019; Dynamic
Rostami et al., 2018). Though a critical process group in construction management, planning planning and
and scheduling is an enterprise asset for accomplishing the project goals. One of the core
facets of a construction project’s integrated phase is planning and scheduling (Davari and
scheduling in
Demeulemeester, 2017; Ren et al., 2012). Construction management applies planning and construction
scheduling from the concept stage to work completion defined in the plan, and its relationship
with the actual project events can be dynamic. A construction project needs a planning
system that supports task management and resource allocation, together with the project 973
disruptions and real-time effects (AlNasseri and Aulin, 2015; Baker and Mahmood, 2012).
The systems can be static and dynamic, with many input data types (Richards and
Marques, 2016). By static, the project is indifferent to the system changes, unlike the dynamic
part that considers changes and time-related events. Operational and contextual variables
affect the system outcomes, despite the importance of planning and scheduling in a project
system (Elhag et al., 2005). The variables are, for instance, process inputs and environment–
system interactions across the system boundaries affecting the system resulting in causes
and effects. A variety of real-world disruptions in the construction projects, within distinct
settings, originate from the variables (Bensalah et al., 2019; Collier and Lambert, 2018).
The system class’s insight, such as its attribute variables, can help define the system
behaviour. Complexity, scale, change and uncertainty are the sources of the parameters
describing a project system state (Lamas and Demeulemeester, 2016; Moshtaghian et al.,
2020). The static planning and scheduling method’s inability to recognise the actual system
characteristics makes it deterministic, which means a single input attribute and behaviour to
a defined outcome at every instance, and insensitive to real-time disruption events (Wilkinson
and Schofield, 2010). Static scheduling technology is a popular starting point for managing a
construction project, even though it has an unrealistic response to project changes (Ashtiani
et al., 2011). This situation emphasises the constraint posed by the static tool and indifferent
to the natural project dynamics in planning and scheduling.
The extensive use of static scheduling, including the predominant project overrun and
infeasible planning, is a primary concern (Martens and Carvalho, 2017). Several studies have
developed diverse planning and scheduling methods to address those project conditions
(El-Abbasy et al., 2016; Francis, 2016; Hsieh and Lin, 2015). There are dynamic procedures for
responding to real-time system changes in various business fields, such as information
technology and manufacturing. Dynamic planning and scheduling, for instance, enhances
the sector’s high productivity in the manufacturing industry (Attia et al., 2019). The benefits
of the dynamic methods in other fields can help understand the dynamic planning and
scheduling techniques in construction management to enhance project decision processes.
Real-time events occur in a construction project that can positively or negatively affect
(Giretti et al., 2009). The negative influences cause project failures because of the disruptions
resulting in enormous overruns in time and cost. An actual construction system, therefore,
demands technologies for static and stochastic appraisal. In other disciplines, dynamic
methods have the robustness to assess the ranges of dynamic and sustainable planning and
scheduling issues. Dynamic planning and scheduling forms a widely adopted and intelligent
strategy for solving real-world problems in diverse business systems. Project efficiency,
which depends on planning and scheduling, drives the sustainability of construction project
enterprise. The resilience of dynamic planning and scheduling raises a question on the status
of its application in construction management (CM) research.
Categorising and integrating the project events and data can help achieve the desired
outputs in a construction project system (Khodakarami et al., 2007). The need for a setting to
capture all the events, both known and unknown, in one platform can support the solution to
real-time events (Bergero and Kofman, 2011), characterising the planning and scheduling
systems. The approach of viewing a construction project’s status from known techniques in
SASBE dynamic planning and scheduling requires analysing others’ data. Therefore, secondary data
11,4 can provide unlimited access to studying planning and scheduling sensitive issues in
construction management. Bryde et al. (2013), Ibem and Laryea (2014), Park and Lee (2020),
Saade et al. (2014), Sexton and Barrett (2003) and Shirowzhan et al. (2020) present the
importance of secondary data in the construction research and similar to diverse research fields.
A researcher can use questionnaires and interviews in the research field to collect subjective
responses based on ethics approval constraint (Alvesson, 1996; Dalton and Metzger, 1992;
974 Randall and Fernandes, 1991). The solution to the limitation relies on the need to employ
secondary data existing at a time from various sources, including academic and professional
journals and reports (Cowton, 1998). Respondents’ biases, lack of attention to theory and failing
to address validity further invalidate the responses (Barley et al., 1988). Describing dynamic
planning and scheduling in construction projects concerning other fields with an advanced
method for dynamic planning motivated the researchers to collect secondary data. Another
factor is the necessity for method precision to evaluate dynamic planning and scheduling in
construction while using the lens of the existing matured systems in planning and scheduling.
Those factors ensure a reality check for the viewpoint presented in this paper. In that
regard, this research employed secondary data by collecting empirical evidence from
academic and professional journals using content analysis. We applied deductive content to
examine how dynamic planning and scheduling offers solutions to dynamic construction
problems. The study then applied deductive content analysis to explore existing secondary
data, such as past studies in planning and scheduling, unlike the inductive content analysis
used when there is no enough knowledge on the subject for examination (Bell et al., 2018). The
content analysis results supported the conclusions on the dynamic planning and scheduling
status and research intensification area. The method comprises various steps to achieve the
research purpose, including the way forward to resilience dynamic planning and scheduling
in construction management.
We structured the article as follows. First, the study introduced an account of dynamic
planning and scheduling elements and the accompanying questions and constructs. Second, we
analyse the studies’ contents in planning and scheduling and the potential approach for
improving dynamic construction planning by reviewing past literature. Third, we appraise and
discuss construction project planning and scheduling as a complex system with content analysis
literature. Fourth, we present the content analysis method to specify the themes and categories.
Fifth, we discuss the identified themes on status, technologies and onward action. With this,
finally, we provided a valuable conclusion and practical implication for research intensification.

2. Research method and materials

In the research field, a researcher can use questionnaires and interviews to collect subjective
responses based on the constraints of ethics approval and respondents’ biases. This research
applied qualitative content analysis as a deductive process to avoid the skewed answers that
rely on questionnaires and interviews and identify planning and scheduling categories to
answer the suggested questions. Using content analysis to provide a systematic procedure,
we explore secondary data (Biswas, 2019; Prakash, 2019; Saade et al., 2014; Sahiti et al., 2018)
to make inferences and meaning of tools and methods attributed to dynamic planning and
scheduling. It has two forms, the qualitative and quantitative method approach (Hsieh and
Shannon, 2005), and the qualitative method analyses text data (Morgan, 2007).
Compared to other literature review methods, content analysis fits diverse research fields
(Attallah et al., 2013; White and Marsh, 2006). In construction management
research, flexibility exists in content analysis to examine secondary data (Chan et al., 2009;
Rodriguez et al., 2019). We selected the qualitative content analysis because of the limited and
fragmented literature on dynamic planning in the construction enterprise (Fahmy et al., 2014).
 The process of deductive content analysis follows seven steps, which is summarised in Dynamic
Table 1 and will be applied to draw conclusions on the status, direction and focus of research planning and
on planning and scheduling.
We identified the secondary data from databases to examine, based on the samples
scheduling in
representing the answer to the account questions. To begin with the database search (first construction
carried out on 8 September 20 and updated on 21 January 2021), we utilised the keywords that
include planning and scheduling. The formation of the keywords focuses on the present
paper subject need to carry out the study goals. Then, we gathered and presented the status 975
of planning and scheduling in construction projects by setting a delimiter of the samples
without a specific timeframe. The non-periodic setting adopted in this research ensures that
the sample collection encompasses an extensive range of publications. Setting a search start
date or end date will create a misrepresentation of the dataset that can cause an inherent bias
in the database (Hardy and Bryman, 2009).
We conducted a database search in Harzing’s Publish or Perish (Pops) using the selected
search keywords. PoP software is an efficient tool for journal search and citation analysis
(Harzing, 2016). We searched the publication databases over diverse disciplines. The
database searched includes Web of Science, Scopus, Engineering Village, ScienceDirect,
ASCE Library, Emerald, Wiley Online Library and Taylor and Francis Online. Figure 1

Deductive content analysis steps

1 Identify texts to examine

2 Specify unit analysis
3 Making sense of the secondary data
4 Develop a structured analysis matrix
5 Data coding according to categories
6 Secondary data comparison using existing studies Table 1.
7 Determine and discuss conceptual categories Content analysis steps

Figure 1.
Summary of secondary
data content analysis
SASBE summarises the process utilised to determine the sample and each step’s components during
11,4 the content analysis.
The keyword search identified the article samples with the initial result of 1275 articles.
The examination of each publication database is necessary to achieve the research goals and
inclusiveness. Considering the data collection that centres on textual information, the study
retrieved peer-reviewed articles because of their quality assurance.
Within the 1275 articles, we selected the samples that meet the inclusion criteria.
976 Determining the data selection or rejection relied on asking some making-sense-of-data
questions. For example, who is telling?; where is the account happening?; when did it happen?;
what is happening and why?. The experiences of the researchers in construction management
enhanced the data immersion. We removed article duplicates and included the articles
published in the English language. At the time of this study, our limited practical skills for
language translation caused the rejection of the samples from other languages. The exclusion
criterion is not a sample bias because of the contexts applied to collect the articles. The authors
selected 349 articles after using the exclusion criteria. The abstracts review developed the need
for further analysis, and we read the abstracts of the 349 articles.
The next part of the analysis entails the need to include those journals with in-depth
scientific research in planning and scheduling. In this stage, we read through the journals
several times to reveal the latent context and make sense of the data to determine the strength
of the journal contents. The journals contain technical and subject language with key subject-
related references. The researchers believed a conclusion could emerge when the articles are
entirely familiar to us. The content analysis and the selection criteria application resulted in
99 relevant papers. We selected an additional five articles after reviewing the references of the
selected journals.
In summary, in the database, we identified the earliest article in 1980 from manufacturing
and engineering journals, retrieved 10% of the paper published before the 2010s and the vast
majority published after the 2010s. The 104 collected samples formed the main content of the
research subject. The results of the content analysis enhanced the formation of the research
topic abstractions. First, we grouped the collected data into themes that form the planning
and scheduling review sections. Then, in Figure 2, we developed the fundamental ideas and
sub-themes that describe the research topic.
The figure shows two core categories, problems and solutions that bounds the study.
Inside the limits are the key themes that explain the research topic. It can also include
construction characteristics, hierarchical planning, system technology, optimisation and
hybrid simulation modelling. Table 2 shows the categorisation matrix formed from the
detailed abstraction of the core category in the data content analysis, described in the results
section with matrix contents.

3. Results
The research presents the result by examining the account of published journals on dynamic
planning and scheduling and shows the tools and accompanying obstacles as categories
while using the event quadrant to discuss the characteristics faced by the account. The
content analysis showed the account of dynamic planning and scheduling is identifiable in an
extensive research database. The narrative can benefit the construction management,
especially the construction researchers who invent a better approach to managing the
construction projects’ real events. We identified the quadrant mapping types, in Figure 3, of
the current status, urgently calling for research action in dynamic planning and scheduling.
The types can then help the researchers identify the area for intensifying dynamic
planning and scheduling research. It can aid various stages in the construction management
decision process. There are multiple barriers to different types, including integrating
 Dynamic
planning and
scheduling in
construction

977

Figure 2.
Themes and categories

Categorisation matrix
Advanced dynamic
planning and
Dynamic planning scheduling in
Advanced and scheduling in construction with
dynamic Dynamic construction with system
planning and planning and system characteristics,
scheduling in scheduling in characteristics, features and
other fields construction components and behaviours integrated
Categories (type I) (type II) behaviours (type III) (type IV)

1 Discrete-event
simulation
modelling
2 Discrete-rate
simulation
modelling
3 Agent-based
simulation
modelling
4 System
dynamics
simulation
modelling
5 Trade-off Table 2.
analysis Categorisation matrix
6 Optimisation from the core
technology categories

components, attributes, multi-inputs and system behaviours in one platform. In examining

the categories, various tools exist for all or some classes in the quadrant. To solve the types,
primarily type IV, there is a possibility of linking the categories; however, the obstacle is the
linking architecture. The study emphasis is type IV, which is the advanced type of other
SASBE
11,4

978

Figure 3.
Dynamic planning and
scheduling events
quadrant

types, which is the primary concern of this research in achieving its purpose. Here, the
researchers abandon the research intensification for a simple method, as observed from the
secondary data. Other results from the data presented dynamic planning and scheduling as
an advanced technique in different fields.
There were differences among the data to create a strategy to solve dynamic planning and
scheduling problems. We stated in the introduction that secondary data could remove
respondents’ biases, lack of attention to theory and neglecting to address validity compared
to questionnaires and interviews. The research applied deductive content analysis to analyse
the secondary data. The generated categories from the textual data described in the next
section enhanced the theoretical concepts. The ideas link the secondary data’s text
information and components using the seven-step content analysis.

3.1 Construction project characteristics for planning and scheduling integration

There is a need to integrate planning and scheduling as an entity for construction project
management (Dave et al., 2016). The integration depends on two significant characteristics of
a construction system: deterministic and non-deterministic. In the non-deterministic
attribute, the system behaviour differs from the input to the output at the various
instances. The features depend on the entities, sub-entities and sub-sub-entities that form the
system (Oppong et al., 2017). Those characteristics and components develop from the system
input or emerge from the system output because of the interaction between many input data
types and the system environment (Zhu and Mostafavi, 2017). The entities’ sum adds
complexities to form a complex system, whereby interconnecting inputs with inputs–
environment–outputs interactions yield multi-input–multi-output system leading to project
outcomes (de Blois et al., 2016; Gijsbers and Lichtenberg, 2014). Integration of the systems
means combining the scheduling and planning attributes to produce the system outcomes,
which is also a complexity source. Although the human mental model can handle complexity
in project environments, the modelling strength declines when the project component
increases in number (Sierra et al., 2018).
Understanding a project environment can enhance dynamic and deterministic planning
and scheduling integration to accomplish project objectives; but depends on the solution
technology (Luo et al., 2017). The benefit of the technology depends on the project
environment, resource allocation and tasks execution. Complex decision-making for resource
assignments to the related activities causes a problem because of tasks and resources
constraints (Artigues et al., 2015). The need to satisfy the project constraints is a critical factor
of a planning solution to achieve the project objectives (Qazi et al., 2016). The project
objectives depend on resources, task characteristics, planning environment and real-time Dynamic
events (Dao et al., 2016). planning and
Real-time events develop from the dynamic planning process, including the system agents
performing fundamental tasks and their features (Goh and Ali, 2016). The agents have
scheduling in
identical or varied actions since each event relating to their features occurs in different levels construction
of abstractions or planning and scheduling hierarchy (Deblaere et al., 2011). Considering the
attributes and behaviours of a construction project, a technology capable of accepting those
characteristics and behaviours from planning and scheduling as an entity can improve the 979
project system. In such a condition, the planning approach requires the system’s partitioning
into phases or levels (Lee et al., 2006). This concept supports quadrant mapping types II, III
and IV because of the included “dynamic” word in construction perspectives.

3.2 Construction project hierarchical planning

Project procurement occurs in stages (Regan et al., 2011), from the tender phase to the post-
construction stage (Naoum and Egbu, 2016; Sanchez et al., 2014). Because a project has
dynamic characteristics, it requires a sequential process such as capacity planning and
detailed scheduling (Heeres et al., 2016; Moore and Elliott, 2016). Hierarchical planning,
including strategic, tactical and operational hierarchical levels, is an approach to manage
project goals and uncertainties both in deterministic and stochastic states (Hans et al., 2007).
The strategic, operational and tactical levels include the plan and control of dynamic projects
in collaborative environments (Lee et al., 2006) and can be defined by type IV. Applying
strategic and operational systems, for instance, as a unit, can improve the decision support for
construction project management.
Strategic planning promotes risk identification and assesses a business opportunity for a
competitive procurement process (Alwan et al., 2017). It supports changes during the project
execution; thus, it requires a tactical method to maintain the strategic goals (Abidin and
Shariffuddin, 2019; Ning et al., 2016). Tactical level planning takes the strategic planning
details into project implementation in the operational phase, both for short-term and long-
term plan considerations (Verheij and Augenbroe, 2006). It also bridges the gap between
project implementation and the strategic objectives of construction enterprise. A tactical-level
applies the project’s strategic part to carry out the operational tasks (Alzraiee et al., 2015). The
operational level focuses on encompassing a broader part of the hierarchy and forms the
central part of most project planning and scheduling (Albrechts, 2006). Each level has a
unique project environment with static and dynamic features, and the understanding of the
attributes determines the state of the dynamic planning and scheduling systems.

3.3 Construction project deterministic and non-deterministic planning characteristics

The baseline schedule is deterministic (Al Nasseri et al., 2016; Giran et al., 2017) and a
fundamental basis for tasks and resources planning (Davari and Demeulemeester, 2017). The
drawback of a deterministic baseline schedule is the lack of a potential to solve uncertainties
in a dynamic project environment (Afshar-Nadjafi, 2016). With the advances in computer
technology, the entire planning and scheduling systems require an interactive computer-
aided technology for responding to project variability. Still, the static project plan forms the
basis for non-deterministic planning and scheduling (Brafman and Shani, 2016; Ren
et al., 2012).
The construction project environment is dynamic and operates in both varying and
steady-state (Huang et al., 2016; Kaveh et al., 2016; Waledzik and Ma
ndziuk, 2018). This
environment can be a unique feature of type III and IV in dynamic planning and scheduling.
The construction project’s attribute requires integrating the construction planning and
scheduling systems with real-time, continuous and discrete events (Elbarkouky et al., 2016).
SASBE There is extensive dynamic planning and scheduling application in other fields, such as the
11,4 manufacturing field, compared to the construction project (Fahmy et al., 2014). The
implication is the likelihood of having the existing construction planning systems in a
deterministic state and influencing project overruns.
Dynamic planning and scheduling can generate construction plans for real-time responses
to project changes (Poshdar et al., 2016). Unlike static planning and scheduling, a dynamic
method can respond to uncertainties and risks while forming decision support to keep the
980 schedule stable. The changes include known knowns (K K), known unknowns (k unk),
unknown knowns (unk k) and unknown unknown (unk unk) (Herroelen, 2005; Jones et al.,
2017). In the actual construction environment, the project plan’s static state is invalid because
it considers minor real-time changes and risks in the project system. Capturing the diverse
events, both static and dynamic, and a single or integrated platform can proffer solutions to
the planning and scheduling: a unique feature of type IV and a significant difference
compared to all other types. The challenge can be the techniques for extracting and
implementing the events in a project system.

3.4 Planning and scheduling system and technology

In a construction project, the problem is how to develop a planning system that generates
alternative and optimal plan and schedule within static and dynamic events (Hanna, 2016).
Planning and scheduling technologies are available for commercial applications in the
construction enterprise. The problem is: if the method can provide the required solution to the
planning and scheduling challenges.
With insight from the construction system characteristic, the planning and scheduling
technique requires inputs, interacting processes, system boundaries and outputs to solve the
project challenges (Tsehayae and Fayek, 2016). The system boundary specifies the system’s
objectives, constraints, assumptions and initial conditions (Cheng and Tran, 2016). The
approach can form the critical element to support the plan and schedule, even though the
project team has inadequate insight into the system components (Zavadskas et al., 2016).
Therefore, the technology elements can be practical when it includes the system components,
uncertainties and known problems.
Solving a dynamic planning and scheduling problem is a challenge in complex projects
(Bakhshi et al., 2016). It forms the primary cause of the existing variety of tools and methods
developed for dynamic systems (Ponz-Tienda et al., 2017). Besides, the techniques encounter a
broad range of challenges and solution difficulties (Zhang and Mostashari, 2011). A non-open
system, real-world events and non-collaborative stakeholders are also among the dilemma.
The primary concern also includes disjointed project objectives, solution convergence, NP
(non-deterministic polynomials)-hard problems and incomplete variables (Deblaere et al.,
2011). NP-problem concerns the computational efficiency and convergence speed when the
method integrates all the components, characteristics and behaviours.
The knowledge gained from those challenges and their inclusion into the development of
the methods can improve the system results. Another resulting outcome is how to engage the
system inputs and outputs with the project environment (Doolittle et al., 2016). The system
definition, performance and attributes need a complete assessment in one tool. Such tools can
suggest the need to consider those challenges as a feature of the potential methods. Trade-off
analysis, simulation modelling and optimisation methods are the fundamental tools for an in-
depth analysis of advancing dynamic planning and scheduling, which is the type IV theory.
The methods’ choice relies on those processes that accept diverse input data, explore
alternatives and suggest the best options depending on the stated criteria.
3.4.1 Trade-off analysis. An essential issue in complex and dynamic systems is the multi-
objective project outcomes (Kerkhove and Vanhoucke, 2017). The objectives are time, cost,
quality, function, safety, profit and goals specific to the project. A balance between the
outcomes is necessary to link the project and the strategic objectives (Golzarpoor et al., 2017). Dynamic
To achieve the project goals, the team can use decision-support systems to assess the option planning and
concerning stakeholders’ needs (Li et al., 2015). If the barriers to achieve those goals exist, then
a balance among the goals can be the option (Eshtehardian et al., 2009).
scheduling in
Trade-off analysis is a technology to access the substitutes among the options (Alsayegh construction
and Hariga, 2012). In that case, it searches for an optimal balance of project time and cost to
reduce the impact of project changes. Robust and alternative baseline schedule development
and schedule updating depend on trade-off analysis (Zhang and Xing, 2010). In a planning 981
and scheduling system, trade-off analysis uses heuristics and meta-heuristics algorithms
(Bakry et al., 2014).
The algorithms include genetic-algorithm (GA) optimisation, fuzzy-particle swarm
optimisation, evolutionary algorithm, simulated annealing and tabu search. For instance, in
schedule updating with event additions, GA-fuzzy optimisation generates the duration
options (Leu et al., 2000). With an evolutionary algorithm, the solutions on task durations that
maximise project profits define the robust plan (Elazouni and Abido, 2011). The simulated
annealing and tabu search approach in time-cost trade-off reduces computing time for a near-
optimal program (Salimi et al., 2018). The time and cost optimisation are a part of the goal
alternative besides the resources trade-off defined using the project cost. An evolutionary
algorithm levels the resources within a planned limit using task splitting during resource
optimisations (El-Abbasy et al., 2016).
The principal constraints to those methods can decide which goal to the trade-off between
many objectives or objectives within a core objective. Evolutionary algorithm and fast
sorting genetic algorithm methods, for example, search for alternatives while satisfying the
project constraints (El-Abbasy et al., 2016). The system analysis gives preference to the
stakeholders’ core goals while seeking quality solutions to the system problem (Ning et al.,
2017). The trade-off analysis can be between time, cost, resources levelling and construction
method (Zhang and Xing, 2010). It considers the balance between profit, cash flow and multi-
project strategic benefits (Elazouni and Abido, 2011). The indirect trade-off between
computing time and solution quality can be a significant interest in the system output. The
trade-off procedure uses a certainty of data compared to the heuristics method, a systematic
approach.
For the actual project, heuristics methods are not reliable because of project system
attributes (Eshtehardian et al., 2009). The meta-heuristic approach, developed to improve on
the heuristics, ensures a sufficient solution search space using the Pareto font process. In
construction project studies, combining the separate units of the system is of considerable
significance than discarding the parts. Cost trade-off vs time and time trade-off against cost,
for instance, rejects several objectives resulting in an incomplete dynamic system. Therefore,
it discards essential quadrant mapping type IV purposes, though implementing dynamic
events within the planning and scheduling system.
3.4.2 Simulation modelling and framework. Assessing a planning system requires a
method that provides insight into the dynamic action of the system while maintaining the
system objectives. The human technique is not robust for complex studies of system
objectives, constraints and assumptions (Fang et al., 2016). Simulation modelling is a method
used for reducing the limitations of human and analytical approaches in a complex system
(Moon, 2017). It includes using a computer-aided process to test the system attributes,
providing it with the qualities to perform “what-if”-experiments (AbouRizk et al., 2011).
Simulation modelling can assess the complexities in planning and scheduling, and controlling
construction tasks (Groesser and Jovy, 2016). Although it has no broad application in
construction, it is a science used in many fields (Jabri and Zayed, 2017). One fundamental aim
of simulation modelling in construction studies is to explore system complexity to improve
decision-making (Kevrekidis et al., 2004).
SASBE Cyclone technology, for example, is a simulation technology used to mimic the tasks and
11,4 resources relationship of a construction project (AbouRizk et al., 2011). The method uses a
flow network diagram to reproduce the repetitive construction process and resource
utilisation in a project. The augmented reality technology is another instance of a simulation
method in construction studies (Chen and Huang, 2013). It also transforms the construction
procedure into a model while assessing the model process with a stroboscope and 3D
visualisation. In the modelling of process-centric operations, for example, building
982 construction, multi-agent movements such as tasks and resource agents form the network.
Extracting the building component can enhance realistic construction system planning and
scheduling, whereby the discrete-event simulation implements the extracted feature from
BIM in the network (Abbasi et al., 2020).
One primary requirement for simulation and modelling is the system property, then the
system behaviour. For system analysis with input–output configuration, the system
behaviour implementation requires system data, and system data specification exists only
with the system characteristics based on the system components (Booch et al., 2008). In
construction and infrastructure projects, the construction elements generate the product,
such as buildings and roads, through planning and scheduling. The attributes of the
components then form the prime data for modelling and simulation. Building Information
Modelling (BIM) is a computer-aided 3D model that contains levels, area, nodes, segments and
relevant information that defines the building components (Jeong et al., 2016).
Integrating BIM with discrete-event simulation can improve construction productivity in
resource allocation and schedule reliability by data exchange (Liu et al., 2015a, b; Lu and
Olofsson, 2014). Linking the 3D digital model and data intelligently with the other part of
models forms and the system information for planning and scheduling can be innovative for
construction project direction (Azhar et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2018; Pan and Zhang, 2021a). 4D
BIM is one technique that provides the approach to connect 3D models and incorporates the
installation visualisation of the construction components vis-a-vis the entire project
(GhaffarianHoseini et al., 2017; Gledson and Greenwood, 2017; Golzarpoor et al., 2017). The
procedure helps risks mitigation, including conflict detection, minimise time and cost overrun
and improved quality: the key strategic goals of every project.
Projects in construction and infrastructure have components with complex geometries
and enormous data that will only be useful for the construction systems if completely applied
and linked to analyse the system in real time. Getuli et al. (2021), for example, integrated BIM
models and computational design for the just-in-time generation of as-built BIM models in a
tunnelling project to reduce time and errors. Although this study did not incorporate an
extensive dataset, there is evidence of extracting the components information and connected
to the computer system. The insight from their research confirms the direction of the present
study on the status and trend of planning and scheduling research.
The nature of construction as a complex and large-scale system emanates from the
interconnection of the system components, which further creates further complexity because
of the interaction of massive data within the system (Pan and Zhang, 2021b). The system
components in a construction project can include the data retrieved from the construction
elements, the participating project agents and data outside the system boundary that
contribute to the complexity source. A computer design to accept the enormous data can aid
project planning, implementation, controlling and monitoring to minimise risks and avoid
errors when handling essential data. In comparison, while the overall data need is ongoing
(Rahimian et al., 2020) pursued a research direction to resolve the vast data integration by
combining image processing, machine learning, BIM and virtual reality in a utility game
engine for automated construction simulation. Though the result is a novel 3D virtual
environment aiding decision-making, there is yet a pressing need to add the attributes from
the system agents and the data crossing the system boundary, causing the project system
behaviour and outcomes. The inferences made from examining the literature are that a way Dynamic
forward requires integrating multiple data with multiple methods for each project milestone planning and
and the overall project.
Towards the goal of using diverse data types integration to enhance project planning,
scheduling in
according to Sheikhkhoshkar et al., (2019), a structural model from Revit can link to dynamic construction
Microsoft (MS) Excel and Matlab spreadsheets in Dynamo software as an integration
platform. The outcome was an innovative solution that integrated structural design
considerations, construction procedures and operational attributes for mitigating human 983
error. In the same vein Rahimian et al. (2019) created a prototype that integrated BIM models
and data into immersive VR and AR environments to provide access to information for
simplifying the design process. Apart from 4D BIM, other types of simulation examined in the
content analysis include discrete-event simulation (DES), discrete-rate simulation (DRS),
system dynamics (SD) and agent-based modelling (ABS) or multi-agent-based simulation
(MAS). Each simulation tool has unique features it evaluates within the system and
integrating the hybrid simulations method can capture diverse system components,
attributes and behaviours.
On the hybrid simulation modelling side, ABS or MAS and discrete event simulation
(DES) can replicate various task executions to enhance dynamic planning and scheduling
(Jabri and Zayed, 2017). MAS can assess the resources and tasks as agents collaborating
independently or collegially to implement the project, even though the construction core
simulation relies on DES. DES and SD simulation modelling can investigate schedule delay
for a construction project (Gonzalez and Echaveguren, 2012). The DES aims to examine the
construction process and SD to explore the project systems’ interacting loops. The joint
simulation approach produces views of the cooperation among the tasks and resources to
establish a comprehensive unit. The identified challenges help to create a response plan and
decision-support to improve project performance. The baseline plan is not final because it
requires activities updating and alternatives exploration.
The potential of simulation modelling lies in the mapping of real-world data into a model.
In construction projects, simulation modelling aims to enhance decision-making for
performance improvement (Wang et al., 2018). The challenge in simulation modelling is
how to develop a model that represents the planning and scheduling system. The level of
project risk, uniqueness of each project and limited time for decision-making in construction
projects are a part of the challenge (Akhavian and Behzadan, 2013, 2015). Time advance and
system architecture are the constraints of construction simulation, even with a developed
modelling framework (Lopez et al., 2015). A method that combines the sub-systems as a unit
with ease of application can form the modelling system’s standard structure. The approach
can aid simulation modelling to reduce the issues limiting its widespread use in construction.
With the proven application of the simulation method in diverse fields, designing a similar
approach for a construction system can be achievable. The potential simulation modelling
system can be a problem-solving tool if it considers unlimited functional components of a
construction project.
The solution to the challenges requires a method capable of mimicking project varying
conditions (Liu et al., 2015a, b). In a simulation, the sensitivity analysis examines the
robustness of the system outputs and trials using “what if scenarios” (Hsu et al., 2016). The
options analysis can then discover the limits that significantly affect the outcome. The system
then compares the alternative control options to improve system performance (Bisogno
et al., 2016).
Considering those requirements, research in simulation modelling can focus on the
methods to solve dynamic planning problems. MAS examines the system objects while DES,
discrete-rate simulation (DRS) and SD investigate system processes and non-linear behaviour
(Goel, 2019; Kim et al., 2016). The assessment of the simulation methods shows their potential
SASBE to study complex and dynamic systems. Each method has distinct features used to assess a
11,4 specific part of the complexity within the system. Simulation modelling offers options to
explore diverse sections of a dynamic project system. Besides, a multi-hybrid simulation
method’s interest supports collecting the multi-systems in multi-model as an entity. The
challenge can then be the technique to integrate the different simulation methods into a
common platform. It also includes the approach to decide on the best results because what-if
scenarios generate alternatives. In all the options, the question is: what is the optimal choice
984 subject to the system objectives, assumptions, constraints and multi-inputs?
3.4.3 Optimisation of a complex and dynamic system. Complexity and uncertainties are the
attributes of a construction project system (Danesh et al., 2018). The system units’
connections result in linear and non-linear association, including feedback loops (Yang et al.,
2016). Studying different schemes of the system units can yield the best solution for the
planning and scheduling challenges. System optimisation, “what best analysis”, is a strategy
to minimise or maximise the core planning requirements and project goals obtained from the
simulation cases (Ning et al., 2016): a significant idea of type IV. The optimisation methods
search for the best result among possibilities, although the procedure depends on the system
constraints and objective function (Rao, 2016). The best analysis relies on system inputs,
environments, uncertainty and constraints.
In complex and dynamic systems, the non-linearity parts can exceed the linearity
components (Rezvani et al., 2016). One barrier to deterministic planning is its linear attributes,
unlike the non-linearity in a complex system (Khan et al., 2016). The existing optimisation
methods can remove system linearity limitations by integrating the non-linearity part of a
project system (El-Abbasy et al., 2017). Heuristics, meta-heuristics, tabu search, black-box
and scatter search are the optimisation methods for complex systems (Guevremont and
Hammad, 2019). According to Laguna (1997), the similarity among the methods is the
strength to optimise a dynamic system’s output functions.
A heuristic method’s objective function describes the system’s linear forms based on the
specified constraints (Liang et al., 2016). Simple heuristics use a canonical matrix method to
examine the objective function (Prayogo et al., 2018). Meta-heuristics, including the black-box
approach and tabu and scatter search, can support heuristic method solutions to mitigate the
linearity barriers (Tran et al., 2016). The meta-heuristics optimisation method improves the
local optima and heuristics ability for memory-based structures, considering a heuristic
method’s limitation.
Scatter search is a population-based meta-heuristic, while black-box is a context-
dependent meta-heuristics algorithm (Guo et al., 2016). Scatter search is a sequential strategy
that relaxes many combinatorial decision problems (Borodin et al., 2018). Those methods can
solve non-linear systems’ issues, even though they have various mechanisms (Li et al., 2017).
The meta-heuristics algorithms combine an iterative procedure with strategies for exploring
search space to produce feasible solutions (Ismail and Halim, 2017). Scatter search builds
system solutions from a subset of the reference set and can combine with a tabu search to
generate quality solutions (Geng et al., 2016). It also examines the multi-objective of a complex
system with less computer time, unlike the other meta-heuristics (Amaran et al., 2016). The
dissimilarity between meta-heuristics and heuristics is the capability of meta-heuristics to
produce a real-world solution.
Contrary to trade-off analysis, Arashpour et al., (2016) used meta-heuristics optimisation
to minimise the changeover time for resource use and production output. Said and El-Rayes
(2013) applied a genetic algorithm (GA) based on the shortest path algorithm to generate
feasible solutions for site layout facilities. A suitable optimisation approach can provide the
solution speed for a systems’ multi-component during experiment runs. Many optimisation
methods are available from several studies to develop the best solution for a complex system.
The planning and scheduling challenges are non-deterministic polynomial (NP) – hard
problem for various real-world systems. The NP-hard problem leads to combinatorial Dynamic
explosiveness because of many solution combinations (Kang and Choi, 2013). It is not feasible planning and
to explore the entire solution space while generating an optimal solution. Scatter search can
be an optimisation algorithm for the best plan and schedule in a dynamic and complex
scheduling in
system. The reason is that the scatter search can produce a quality solution and combine construction
meta-heuristics with hybrid models. Dynamic planning and scheduling in construction with
system characteristics, features and behaviours integrated into one policy, type IV we
suggest, is the core to advancing dynamic planning and scheduling. The techniques can be 985
the multi-hybrid of “what if” and alternatives exploration with robust “what best” method in
one system architecture.

4. Conclusion
Deductive content analysis is an effective tool for analysing secondary sources of data such
as existing literature information. Using content analysis is well-suited for this research
because of the benefits in assessing existing studies and past events in dynamic planning and
scheduling to offer the current status and forward action. First, it provides this study with the
opportunity to analyse large volumes of textual data from various databases. Second, it
supports insight into its application in construction management. Finally, despite its cost-
saving, content analysis has the talent to assess and prove the reliability of the findings,
which enables reproducibility of its inquiry steps.
Though it applies to qualitative research, enormous data interpretations can pose a
significant challenge. However, the researchers defined a set of questions that enhanced the
straightforward approach to making sense of the textual data. The questions include who is
telling?; where is the account happening?; when did it happen?; what is happening, and why?
The research demonstrates its purpose and shows how deductive content analysis explores
textual data of past studies and events from literature databases. The secondary data
keywords appeared in the search and formed a check on the dynamic planning and
scheduling categories accounts. With the strength of the content analysis, the study assesses
the secondary data used for developing the categories concerning the types and the
accompanying questions. The categories further enhanced the study to present the status
and forward action in realistic and dynamic planning and scheduling in construction projects.
Real-world planning and scheduling require the best approach to reduce overruns in
construction projects. This study finds a range of methods for improving planning and
scheduling together with the existing obstacles. The procedures can provide solutions to
multi-objective problems in a project system. The methods have the features to handle a part
of the planning problems without including the system’s entire units. A dynamic approach
can solve both the static and dynamic challenges of a project system. This study presents the
current dynamic planning and scheduling methods while considering the static planning
approach as an obstacle. A construction project’s complex systems can derive an adequate
analysis using trade-off analysis, simulation modelling and optimisation. Within those
methods are heuristics, meta-heuristics, simulation models. Combining planning and
scheduling can be a fundamental approach for managing a construction project, though it is
not the case for the current methods. Diverse factors affect the planning and scheduling
integration for solving a real-world construction project. Those factors are the primary
parameter emphasised in type IV that also seeks research intensification.
This study surveys the challenges relating to real-time analysis, dynamic events and
solution convergence. Selecting a specific planning method relies on the solution quality,
several specific objectives and constraints. A hybrid of simulation models can solve planning
issues in construction projects, but its use in construction is developing. The hybrid method
means that a model can assess each hierarchy of a project plan’s features and merge them as a
SASBE unit. Hybrid simulation and optimisation methods developed with a robust framework and
11,4 diverse inputs can resolve planning and scheduling problems. A research effort increased in
this area can change the present tool’s status and advance dynamic planning and scheduling.
Therefore, this study highlights the need to direct interest and efforts to hybrid simulation
method and optimisation to solve the dynamic planning and scheduling problems. The multi-
method can generate alternative solutions that rely on system constraints and objectives. The
achievement of the system output requires the potential to produce the best solutions. While
986 suggesting those methods, the study assessed trade-off analysis, simulation modelling and
optimisation. The standard framework to integrate the models is a significant concern for the
system units, attributes, behaviour and features. A computing technology with the strength
to combine the various contexts is a crucial challenge to the multi-hybrid simulation
modelling-optimisation (4D BIM-Agent based-discrete event-discrete rate-system dynamics-
optimisation) approach.
The study suggested that the alternative method will reduce project overrun and the
related effects in the construction project. Irrespective of implying that the anticipated
method will reduce project overrun in a construction project, developing and implementing
the model framework is critical. Conducting future research to confirm this study’s discovery,
we acknowledge, will proffer solutions to real-time and dynamic challenges in construction
planning and scheduling. Overall, the research provided dynamic planning and scheduling
status and areas for future research intensification while demonstrating how deductive
content analysis applies in construction management research.

References
Abbasi, S., Taghizade, K. and Noorzai, E. (2020), “BIM-based combination of Takt time and discrete
event simulation for implementing just in time in construction scheduling under constraints”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 146 No. 12, p. 04020143, doi: 10.
1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001940.
Abidin, N.Z. and Shariffuddin, N.A.A. (2019), “Engaging consultants in green projects: exploring the
practice in Malaysia”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 80-94, doi: 10.
1108/SASBE-06-2018-0033.
AbouRizk, S., Halpin, D., Mohamed, Y. and Hermann, U. (2011), “Research in modeling and simulation
for improving construction engineering operations”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 137 No. 10, pp. 843-852, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000288.
Afshar-Nadjafi, B. (2016), “A new proactive approach to construct a robust baseline schedule
considering quality factor”, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 63-72, doi: 10.1504/IJISE.2016.073260.
Akhavian, R. and Behzadan, A.H. (2013), “Knowledge-based simulation modeling of construction fleet
operations using multimodal-process data mining”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 139 No. 11, p. 04013021, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000775.
Akhavian, R. and Behzadan, A.H. (2015), “Construction equipment activity recognition for simulation
input modeling using mobile sensors and machine learning classifiers”, Advanced Engineering
Informatics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 867-877, doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2015.03.001.
Al Nasseri, H.A., Widen, K. and Aulin, R. (2016), “A taxonomy of planning and scheduling methods to
support their more efficient use in construction project management”, Journal of Engineering,
Design and Technology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 580-601, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.009.
Albrechts, L. (2006), “Bridge the gap: from spatial planning to strategic projects”, European Planning
Studies, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 1487-1500, doi: 10.1080/09654310600852464.
AlNasseri, H. and Aulin, R. (2015), “Assessing understanding of planning and scheduling theory and
practice on construction projects”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 58-72,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.00910.1080/10429247.2015.1035963.
Alsayegh, H. and Hariga, M. (2012), “Hybrid meta-heuristic methods for the multi-resource leveling Dynamic
problem with activity splitting”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 27, pp. 89-98, doi: 10.1016/j.
autcon.2012.04.017. planning and
Alvesson, M. (1996), “Leadership studies: from procedure and abstraction to reflexivity and situation”,
scheduling in
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 74, pp. 455-485, doi: 10.1016/s1048-9843(96)90002-8. construction
Alwan, Z., Jones, P. and Holgate, P. (2017), “Strategic sustainable development in the UK construction
industry, through the framework for strategic sustainable development, using building
information modelling”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 349-358, doi: 10.1016/j. 987
jclepro.2015.12.085.
Alzraiee, H., Zayed, T. and Moselhi, O. (2015), “Dynamic planning of construction activities using
hybrid simulation”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 49, pp. 176-192, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2014.
08.011.
Amaran, S., Sahinidis, N.V., Sharda, B. and Bury, S.J. (2016), “Simulation optimisation: a review
of algorithms and applications”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 240 No. 1, pp. 351-380,
doi: 10.1007/s10479-015-2019-x.
Arashpour, M., Wakefield, R., Abbasi, B., Lee, E.W.M. and Minas, J. (2016), “Off-site construction
optimisation: sequencing multiple job classes with time constraints”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 71, pp. 262-270, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.001.
Artigues, C., Leus, R. and Nobibon, F.T. (2015), Robust Optimisation for the Resource-Constrained
Project Scheduling Problem with Duration Uncertainty, Springer, Cham, pp. 875-908, doi: 978-3-
319-05915-0.
Ashtiani, B., Leus, R. and Aryanezhad, M.-B. (2011), “New competitive results for the stochastic
resource-constrained project scheduling problem: exploring the benefits of pre-processing”,
Journal of Scheduling, Vol. 142, pp. 157-171, doi: 10.1007/s10951-009-0143-7.
Attallah, S.O., Senouci, A., Kandil, A. and Al-Derham, H. (2013), “Utilisation of life-cycle analysis to
evaluate sustainability rating systems for construction projects with a case study on Qatar
sustainability assessment system (QSAS)”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 2
No. 3, p. 272, doi: 10.1108/sasbe-03-2013-0017.
Attia, A.M., Ghaithan, A.M. and Duffuaa, S.O. (2019), “A multi-objective optimisation model for
tactical planning of upstream oil & gas supply chains”, Computers and Chemical Engineering,
Vol. 128, pp. 216-227, doi: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.06.016.
Azhar, S., Khalfan, M. and Maqsood, T. (2012), “Building information modelling (BIM): now and
beyond”, Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 15-28, doi: 10.5130/ajceb.
v12i4.3032.
Baker, D. and Mahmood, M.N. (2012), “Developing tools to support complex infrastructure decision-
making”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 59-72, doi: 10.1108/
20466091211227052.
Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V. and Gorod, A. (2016), “Clarifying the project complexity construct: past, present
and future”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1199-1213, doi: 10.
1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.002.
Bakry, I., Moselhi, O. and Zayed, T. (2014), “Optimised acceleration of repetitive construction projects”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 39, pp. 145-151, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2013.07.003.
Barley, S.R., Meyer, G.W. and Gash, D.C. (1988), “Cultures of culture: academics, practitioners and the
pragmatics of normative control”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 24-60, doi: 10.2307/
2392854.
Bell, E., Bryman, A. and Harley, B. (2018), Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 553-560, ISBN: 0-19-880987-5.
Bensalah, M., Elouadi, A. and Mharzi, H. (2019), “Overview: the opportunity of BIM in railway”, Smart
and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 82, pp. 103-116, doi: 10.1108/sasbe-11-2017-0060.
SASBE Bergero, F. and Kofman, E. (2011), “PowerDEVS: a tool for hybrid system modeling and real-time
simulation”, Simulation, Vol. 87 Nos 1-2, pp. 113-132, doi: 10.1177/0037549710368029.
11,4
Bisogno, S., Calabrese, A., Gastaldi, M. and Ghiron, N.L. (2016), “Combining modelling and simulation
approaches: how to measure performance of business processes”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 221, pp. 56-74, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2015-0021.
Biswas, A. (2019), “Why Indian cities are so chaotic? Decoding from the urban development efforts of
Chandigarh”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 5, doi: 10.1108/sasbe-05-
988 2018-0023.
Booch, G., Maksimchuk, R.A., Engle, M.W., Young, B.J., Connallen, J. and Houston, K.A. (2008),
“Object-oriented analysis and design with applications”, ACM SIGSOFT - Software
Engineering Notes, Vol. 33 No. 5, p. 29, doi: 10.1145/1402521.1413138.
Borodin, V., Bourtembourg, J., Hnaien, F. and Labadie, N. (2018), “COTS software integration for
simulation optimisation coupling: case of ARENA and CPLEX products”, International Journal
of Modelling and Simulation, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 178-189, doi: 10.1080/02286203.2018.1547814.
Brafman, R.I. and Shani, G. (2016), “Online belief tracking using regression for contingent planning”,
Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 241, pp. 131-152, doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2016.08.005.
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. and Volm, J.M. (2013), “The project benefits of building information
modelling (BIM)”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 971-980, doi:
10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.001.
Chan, A.P., Chan, D.W. and Yeung, J.F. (2009), “Overview of the application of ‘fuzzy techniques’ in
construction management research”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 135 No. 11, pp. 1241-1252, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000099.
Chen, H.-M. and Huang, P.-H. (2013), “3D AR-based modeling for discrete-event simulation of
transport operations in construction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 33, pp. 123-136, doi: 10.
1016/j.autcon.2012.09.015.
Cheng, M.-Y. and Tran, D.-H. (2016), “An efficient hybrid differential evolution based serial method for
multimode resource-constrained project scheduling”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 20
No. 1, p. 90, doi: 10.1007/s12205-015-0414-0.
Collier, Z.A. and Lambert, J.H. (2018), “Time management of infrastructure recovery schedules by
anticipation and valuation of disruptions”, ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in
Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 2, p. 04018012, doi: 10.1061/AJRUA6.
0000961.
Cowton, C.J. (1998), “The use of secondary data in business ethics research”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 423-434, doi: 10.1023/A:1005730825103.
Dalton, D.R. and Metzger, M.B. (1992), “Towards candor, cooperation, & privacy in applied business
ethics research: the randomised response technique (RRT)”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 207-221, doi: 10.2307/3857571.
Danesh, D., Ryan, M.J. and Abbasi, A. (2018), “Multi-criteria decision-making methods for project
portfolio management: a literature review”, International Journal of Management and Decision
Making, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 75-94, doi: 10.1504/ijmdm.2017.10006139.
Dao, B., Kermanshachi, S., Shane, J., Anderson, S. and Hare, E. (2016), “Exploring and assessing
project complexity”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 5,
p. 04016126, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001275.
Davari, M. and Demeulemeester, E. (2017), “The proactive and reactive resource-constrained
project scheduling problem”, Journal of Scheduling, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 211-237, doi: 10.1007/
s10951-017-0553-x.
Dave, B., Kubler, S., Fr€amling, K. and Koskela, L. (2016), “Opportunities for enhanced lean
construction management using internet of things standards”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 61, pp. 86-97, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2015.10.009.
de Blois, M., Lizarralde, G. and De Coninck, P. (2016), “Iterative project processes within temporary Dynamic
multi-organizations in construction: the self-, eco-, re-organising projects”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 27-44, doi: 10.1002/pmj.21560. planning and
Deblaere, F., Demeulemeester, E. and Herroelen, W. (2011), “Proactive policies for the stochastic
scheduling in
resource-constrained project scheduling problem”, European Journal of Operational Research, construction
Vol. 214 No. 2, pp. 308-316, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.04.019.
Doolittle, E.K., Dranichak, G.M., Muir, K. and Wiecek, M.M. (2016), “A note on robustness of the min-
max solution to multi-objective linear programs”, International Journal of Multicriteria Decision 989
Making, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 343-365, doi: 10.1504/ijmcdm.2016.081390.
El-Abbasy, M.S., Elazouni, A. and Zayed, T. (2016), “MOSCOPEA: multi-objective construction
scheduling optimisation using elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 71, pp. 153-170, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.038.
El-Abbasy, M.S., Elazouni, A. and Zayed, T. (2017), “Generic scheduling optimization model for
multiple construction projects”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 4,
p. 04017003, doi: 10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000659.
Elazouni, A. and Abido, M. (2011), “Multiobjective evolutionary finance-based scheduling: individual
projects within a portfolio”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 755-766, doi: 10.1016/
j.autcon.2011.03.010.
Elbarkouky, M.M., Fayek, A.R., Siraj, N.B. and Sadeghi, N. (2016), “Fuzzy arithmetic risk analysis
approach to determine construction project contingency”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 142 No. 12, p. 04016070, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001191.
Elhag, T.M.S., Boussabaine, A.H. and Ballal, T.M.A. (2005), “Critical determinants of construction
tendering costs: quantity surveyors’ standpoint”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 538-545, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.04.002.
Eshtehardian, E., Afshar, A. and Abbasnia, R. (2009), “Fuzzy-based MOGA approach to stochastic
time–cost trade-off problem”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 692-701, doi: 10.
1016/j.autcon.2009.02.001.
Fahmy, A., Hassan, T.M. and Bassioni, H. (2014), “Questionnaire survey on dynamic scheduling in
construction”, PM World Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 1-20, available at: https://www.pmworldjournal.
net (accessed 12 November 2020).
Fang, D., Zhao, C. and Zhang, M. (2016), “A cognitive model of construction workers’ unsafe
behaviors”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 9, p. 04016039,
doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001118.
Francis, A. (2016), “Simulating uncertainties in construction projects with chronographical scheduling
logic”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 1, p. 04016085, doi:
10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001212.
Geng, J.-C., Cui, Z. and Gu, X.-S. (2016), “Scatter search based particle swarm optimisation algorithm
for earliness/tardiness flowshop scheduling with uncertainty”, International Journal of
Automation and Computing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 285-295, doi: 10.1007/s11633-016-0964-8.
Getuli, V., Capone, P., Bruttini, A. and Rahimian, F.P. (2021), “On-demand generation of as-built
infrastructure information models for mechanised tunnelling from TBM data: a computational
design approach”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 121, p. 103434, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.
103434.
GhaffarianHoseini, A., Zhang, T., Nwadigo, O., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Naismith, N., Tookey, J. and
Raahemifar, K. (2017), “Application of nD BIM integrated knowledge-based building
management system (BIM-IKBMS) for inspecting post-construction energy efficiency”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 72, pp. 935-949, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.061.
Gijsbers, R. and Lichtenberg, J. (2014), “Demand driven selection of adaptable building technologies
for flexibility-in-use”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 3 No. 3, p. 237, doi: 10.
1108/sasbe-01-2014-0005.
SASBE Giran, O., Temur, R. and Bekdaş, G. (2017), “Resource constrained project scheduling by harmony
search algorithm”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 479-487, doi: 10.1007/
11,4 s12205-017-1363-6.
Giretti, A., Carbonari, A., Naticchia, B. and DeGrassi, M. (2009), “Design and first development of an
automated real-time safety management system for construction sites”, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 325-336, doi: 10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.
325-336.
990 Gledson, B. and Greenwood, D. (2017), “The adoption of 4D BIM in the UK construction industry: an
innovation diffusion approach”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 950-967, doi: 10.1108/ecam-03-2016-0066.
Goel, A. (2019), “Sustainability in construction and built environment: a ‘wicked problem’?”, Smart and
Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 2-15, doi: 10.1108/sasbe-06-2018-0030.
Goh, Y.M. and Ali, M.J.A. (2016), “A hybrid simulation approach for integrating safety behavior into
construction planning: an earthmoving case study”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 93,
pp. 310-318, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.09.015.
Golzarpoor, H., Gonz
alez, V., Shahbazpour, M. and O’Sullivan, M. (2017), “An input-output simulation
model for assessing production and environmental waste in construction”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 143, pp. 1094-1104, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.010.
Gonzalez, V. and Echaveguren, T. (2012), “Exploring the environmental modeling of road construction
operations using discrete-event simulation”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 24, pp. 100-110,
doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.011.
Groesser, S.N. and Jovy, N. (2016), “Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy
tool for exploration and decision-making”, Journal of Management Control, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 61-88, doi: 10.1007/s00187-015-0222-1.
Guevremont, M. and Hammad, A. (2019), Defining Levels of Development for 4D Simulation of Major
Capital Construction Projects, Advances in Informatics and Computing in Civil and
Construction Engineering, Springer, Cham, pp. 77-83, 978-3-030-00220-6.
Guo, X., Liu, S., Zhou, M. and Tian, G. (2016), “Disassembly sequence optimisation for large-scale
products with multiresource constraints using scatter search and Petri nets”, IEEE
Transactions on Cybernetics, Vol. 46 No. 11, pp. 2435-2446, doi: 10.1109/tcyb.2015.2478486.
Hanna, A.S. (2016), “Benchmark performance metrics for integrated project delivery”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 1429, p. 04016040, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-
7862.0001151.
Hans, E.W., Herroelen, W., Leus, R. and Wullink, G. (2007), “A hierarchical approach to multi-project
planning under uncertainty”, Omega, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 563-577, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2005.
10.004.
Hardy, M.A. and Bryman, A. (2009), Handbook of Data Analysis, SAGE Publications, California, 978-1-
84860-116-1.
Harzing, A.-W. (2016), “Publish or perish”, available at: https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-
perish (accessed 20 February 2020).
Heeres, N., Tillema, T. and Arts, J. (2016), “Dealing with interrelatedness and fragmentation in road
infrastructure planning: an analysis of integrated approaches throughout the planning process
in The Netherlands”, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 173, pp. 421-443, doi: 10.1080/14649357.
2016.1193888.
Herroelen, W. (2005), “Project scheduling - theory and practice”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 144, pp. 413-432, doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00230.x.
Hsieh, F. and Lin, J. (2015), “Project scheduling based on multi-agent systems”, Journal of Advanced
Management Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, doi: 10.12720/joams.3.3.211-218.
Hsieh, H.-F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”, Qualitative
Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1277-1288, doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
Hsu, S.-C., Weng, K.-W., Cui, Q. and Rand, W. (2016), “Understanding the complexity of project team Dynamic
member selection through agent-based modeling”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 82-93, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.10.001. planning and
Hu, Z.-Z., Tian, P.-L., Li, S.-W. and Zhang, J.-P. (2018), “BIM-based integrated delivery technologies for
scheduling in
intelligent MEP management in the operation and maintenance phase”, Advances in construction
Engineering Software, Vol. 115, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2015.03.008.
Huang, Y., Zou, X. and Zhang, L. (2016), “Genetic algorithm–based method for the deadline problem in
repetitive construction projects considering soft logic”, Journal of Management in Engineering, 991
Vol. 32 No. 4, p. 04016002, doi: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000426.
Ibem, E.O. and Laryea, S. (2014), “Survey of digital technologies in procurement of construction
projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 46, pp. 11-21, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2014.07.003.
Ismail, I. and Halim, A.H. (2017), “Comparative study of meta-heuristics optimisation algorithm using
benchmark function”, International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 3,
p. 1643, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v7i3.pp1643-1650.
Jabri, A. and Zayed, T. (2017), “Agent-based modeling and simulation of earthmoving operations”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 81, pp. 210-223, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.017.
Jeong, W., Chang, S., Son, J. and Yi, J.-S. (2016), “BIM-integrated construction operation simulation for
just-in-time production management”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 11, p. 1106, doi: 10.3390/
su8111106.
Jones, W., Gibb, A., Goodier, C. and Bust, P. (2017), “Managing the unknown–Addressing the potential
health risks of nanomaterials in the built environment”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 122-136, doi: 10.1080/01446193.2016.1241413.
Kang, S.G. and Choi, S.H. (2013), “The multi-agent based beam search method”, Multi-Agent Based
Beam Search for Real-Time Production Scheduling and Control, Springer, London, pp. 51-70,
978-1-4471-4576-9.
Kaveh, A., Khanzadi, M. and Alipour, M. (2016), “Fuzzy resource constraint project scheduling
problem using CBO and CSS algorithms”, International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 325-337, doi: 10.1007/s40999-016-0031-4.
Kerkhove, L.P. and Vanhoucke, M. (2017), “A parallel multi-objective scatter search for optimising
incentive contract design in projects”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 261 No. 3,
pp. 1066-1084, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.043.
Kevrekidis, I.G., Gear, C.W. and Hummer, G. (2004), “Equation-free: the computer-aided analysis of
complex multiscale systems”, AIChE Journal, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 1346-1355, doi: 10.1080/
01446193.2016.1190026.
Khan, K.I.A., Flanagan, R. and Lu, S.-L. (2016), “Managing information complexity using system
dynamics on construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 192-204, doi: 10.1080/01446193.2016.1190026.
Khodakarami, V., Fenton, N. and Neil, M. (2007), “Project scheduling: improved approach to
incorporate uncertainty using Bayesian networks”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 39-49, doi: 10.1177/875697280703800205.
Kim, H., Shen, Z., Moon, H., Ju, K. and Choi, W. (2016), “Developing a 3D intelligent object model for
the application of construction planning/simulation in a highway project”, KSCE Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 538-548, doi: 10.1007/s12205-015-0463-4.
Laguna, M. (1997), Optimisation of Complex Systems with OptQuest, University of Colorado, Colorado,
available at: http://www.decisioneering.com/optquest/complex paper.html (accessed 5
August 2020).
Lamas, P. and Demeulemeester, E. (2016), “A purely proactive scheduling procedure for the resource-
constrained project scheduling problem with stochastic activity durations”, Journal of
Scheduling, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 409-428, doi: 10.1007/s10951-015-0423-3.
SASBE Lee, S.H., Pena-Mora, F. and Park, M. (2006), “Dynamic planning and control methodology for
strategic and operational construction project management”, Automation in Construction,
11,4 Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 84-97, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2005.02.008.
Leu, S.-S., Yang, C.-H. and Huang, J.-C. (2000), “Resource leveling in construction by genetic algorithm-
based optimisation and its decision support system application”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 27-41, doi: 10.1016/s0926-5805(99)00011-4.
Li, T.H.Y., Thomas Ng, S. and Skitmore, M. (2015), “Modeling multi-stakeholder multi-objective
992 decisions during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: a
decision rule approach”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 3,
p. 04015087, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001066.
Li, Z., Kucukkoc, I. and Nilakantan, J.M. (2017), “Comprehensive review and evaluation of heuristics
and meta-heuristics for two-sided assembly line balancing problem”, Computers and Operations
Research, Vol. 84, pp. 146-161, doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2017.03.002.
Liang, X., Shen, G.Q. and Bu, S. (2016), “Multiagent systems in construction: a ten-year review”,
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 6, p. 04016016, doi: 10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-
5487.0000574.
Liu, H., Al-Hussein, M. and Lu, M. (2015a), “BIM-based integrated approach for detailed construction
scheduling under resource constraints”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 53, pp. 29-43, doi: 10.
1016/j.autcon.2015.03.008.
Liu, W., Wang, Q., Mao, Q., Wang, S. and Zhu, D. (2015b), “A scheduling model of logistics service
supply chain based on the mass customisation service and uncertainty of FLSP’s operation
time”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 83,
pp. 189-215, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2015.09.003.
Lopez, R., Chong, H.-Y., Wang, X. and Graham, J. (2015), “Technical review: analysis and appraisal of
four-dimensional building information modeling usability in construction and engineering
projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 1425, p. 06015005, doi: 10.
1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001094.
Lu, W. and Olofsson, T. (2014), “Building information modeling and discrete event simulation:
towards an integrated framework”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 44, pp. 73-83, doi: 10.1016/
j.autcon.2014.04.001.
Luo, L., He, Q., Xie, J., Yang, D. and Wu, G. (2017), “Investigating the relationship between project
complexity and success in complex construction projects”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 2, p. 04016036, doi: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000471.
Martens, M.L. and Carvalho, M.M. (2017), “Key factors of sustainability in project management
context: a survey exploring the project managers’ perspective”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 356, pp. 1084-1102, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.04.004.
Moon, Y.B. (2017), “Simulation modelling for sustainability: a review of the literature”, International
Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 2-19, doi: 10.1080/19397038.2016.1220990.
Moore, K.R. and Elliott, T.J. (2016), “From participatory design to a listening infrastructure: a case of
urban planning and participation”, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 59-84, doi: 10.1177/1050651915602294.
Morgan, D.L. (2007), “Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of
combining qualitative and quantitative methods”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 48-76, doi: 10.1177/2345678906292462.
Moshtaghian, F., Golabchi, M. and Noorzai, E. (2020), “A framework to dynamic identification of
project risks”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 375-393, doi: 10.1108/
sasbe-09-2019-0123.
Naoum, S.G. and Egbu, C. (2016), “Modern selection criteria for procurement methods in construction:
a state-of-the-art literature review and a survey”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 309-336, doi: 10.1108/ijmpb-09-2015-0094.
Ning, X., Ding, L.Y., Luo, H.B. and Qi, S.J. (2016), “A multi-attribute model for construction site layout Dynamic
using intuitionistic fuzzy logic”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 72, pp. 380-387, doi: 10.1016/j.
autcon.2016.09.008. planning and
Ning, M., He, Z., Jia, T. and Wang, N. (2017), “Metaheuristics for multi-mode cash flow balanced
scheduling in
project scheduling with stochastic duration of activities”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 81, construction
pp. 224-233, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.011.
Opoku, D.-G.J., Ayarkwa, J. and Agyekum, K. (2019), “Barriers to environmental sustainability of
construction projects”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 292-306, doi: 993
10.1108/sasbe-08-2018-0040.
Oppong, G.D., Chan, A.P.C. and Dansoh, A. (2017), “A review of stakeholder management performance
attributes in construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 1037-1051, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.015.
Pan, Y. and Zhang, L. (2021a), “A BIM-data mining integrated digital twin framework for advanced
project management”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 124, p. 103564, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.
2021.103564.
Pan, Y. and Zhang, L. (2021b), “Automated process discovery from event logs in BIM construction
projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 127, p. 103713, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.
103713.
Park, S.U. and Lee, J.D. (2020), “Analysing factors that influence the efficiency of airport passenger
terminal by using AHP (analytic hierarchy process) method (case study of Juanda airport—
Surabaya, Indonesia)”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 3856-3865, doi: 10.
1007/s12205-020-0880-x.
Ponz-Tienda, J.L., Salcedo-Bernal, A., Pellicer, E. and Benlloch-Marco, J. (2017), “Improved adaptive
harmony search algorithm for the resource leveling problem with minimal lags”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 77, pp. 82-92, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.01.018.
Poshdar, M., Gonz
alez, V.A., Raftery, G.M., Orozco, F., Romeo, J.S. and Forcael, E. (2016), “A
probabilistic-based method to determine optimum size of project buffer in construction
schedules”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 10, p. 04016046,
doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001158.
Prakash, A. (2019), “Smart Cities Mission in India: some definitions and considerations”, Smart and
Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 322-337, doi: 10.1108/sasbe-07-2018-0039.
Prayogo, D., Cheng, M.-Y., Wong, F.T., Tjandra, D. and Tran, D.-H. (2018), “Optimisation model for
construction project resource leveling using a novel modified symbiotic organisms search”,
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 19, pp. 625-638, doi: 10.1007/s42107-018-0048-x.
Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A. and Kirytopoulos, K. (2016), “Project Complexity and Risk
Management (ProCRiM): towards modelling project complexity driven risk paths in
construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 7,
pp. 1183-1198, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.008.
Rahimian, F.P., Chavdarova, V., Oliver, S., Chamo, F. and Amobi, L.P. (2019), “OpenBIM-Tango
integrated virtual showroom for offsite manufactured production of self-build housing”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 102, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.009.
Rahimian, F.P., Seyedzadeh, S., Oliver, S., Rodriguez, S. and Dawood, N. (2020), “On-demand
monitoring of construction projects through a game-like hybrid application of BIM and
machine learning”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 110, p. 103012, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.
103012.
Randall, D.M. and Fernandes, M.F. (1991), “The social desirability response bias in ethics research”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 11, pp. 805-817, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_9.
Rao, R. (2016), “Jaya: a simple and new optimisation algorithm for solving constrained and
unconstrained optimisation problems”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering
Computations, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 19-34, doi: 10.5267/j.ijiec.2015.8.004.
SASBE Regan, M., Smith, J. and Love, P. (2011), “Infrastructure procurement: learning from private–public
partnership experiences ‘down under’”, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,
11,4 Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 363-378, doi: 10.1068/c10122b.
Ren, Z., Chrysostomou, V. and Price, T. (2012), “The measurement of carbon performance of
construction activities”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 153-171, doi:
10.1108/20466091211260596.
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., Wiewiora, A., Ashkanasy, N.M., Jordan, P.J. and Zolin, R. (2016), “Manager
994 emotional intelligence and project success: the mediating role of job satisfaction and trust”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1112-1122, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijproman.2016.05.012.
Richards, G. and Marques, L. (2016), “Bidding for success? Impacts of the European capital of culture
bid”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 180-195, doi: 10.4324/
9781315181356-6.
Rodriguez, B.X., Simonen, K., Huang, M. and De Wolf, C. (2019), “A taxonomy for whole building life
cycle assessment (WBLCA)”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 190-205, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-06-2018-0034.
Rostami, S., Creemers, S. and Leus, R. (2018), “New strategies for stochastic resource-constrained
project scheduling”, Journal of Scheduling, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 349-365, doi: 10.1002/
9780470611227.ch1.
Saade, M.R.M., da Silva, M.G., Gomes, V., Franco, H.G., Schwamback, D. and Lavor, B. (2014),
“Material eco-efficiency indicators for Brazilian buildings”, Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 54-71, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-04-2013-0024.
Sahiti, A., Ahmeti, S. and Ismajli, H. (2018), “A review of empirical studies on the FDI determinants”,
Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 37-47,
doi: 10.1515/bjreecm-2018-0003.
Said, H. and El-Rayes, K. (2013), “Performance of global optimisation models for dynamic site layout
planning of construction projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 36, pp. 71-78, doi: 10.1016/j.
autcon.2013.08.008.
Salimi, S., Mawlana, M. and Hammad, A. (2018), “Performance analysis of simulation-based
optimisation of construction projects using high performance computing”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 87, pp. 158-172, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.003.
Sanchez, A.X., Lehtiranta, L., Hampson, K.D. and Kenley, R. (2014), “Evaluation framework for green
procurement in road construction”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 153-169, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-05-2013-0028.
Sexton, M. and Barrett, P. (2003), “Appropriate innovation in small construction firms”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 623-633, doi: 10.1080/0144619032000134156.
Sheikhkhoshkar, M., Rahimian, F.P., Kaveh, M.H., Hosseini, M.R. and Edwards, D.J. (2019),
“Automated planning of concrete joint layouts with 4D-BIM”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 107, p. 102943, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102943.
Shirowzhan, S., Sepasgozar, S.M., Edwards, D.J., Li, H. and Wang, C. (2020), “BIM compatibility and its
differentiation with interoperability challenges as an innovation factor”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 112, p. 103086, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103086.
Sierra, L.A., Yepes, V., Garc
ıa-Segura, T. and Pellicer, E. (2018), “Bayesian network method for
decision-making about the social sustainability of infrastructure projects”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 176, pp. 521-534, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.140.
Tran, D.-H., Cheng, M.-Y. and Pham, A.-D. (2016), “Using fuzzy clustering chaotic-based differential
evolution to solve multiple resources leveling in the multiple projects scheduling problem”,
Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 552, pp. 1541-1552, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2016.03.038.
Tsehayae, A.A. and Fayek, A.R. (2016), “System model for analysing construction labour
productivity”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 162, pp. 203-228, doi: 10.1108/ci-07-2015-0040.
Verheij, H. and Augenbroe, G. (2006), “Collaborative planning of AEC projects and partnerships”, Dynamic
Automation in Construction, Vol. 154, pp. 428-437, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2005.06.011.
planning and
Waledzik, K. and Ma
ndziuk, J. (2018), “Applying hybrid Monte Carlo tree search methods to risk-
aware project scheduling problem”, Information Sciences, Vol. 460, pp. 450-468, doi: 10.1016/j.
scheduling in
ins.2017.08.049. construction
Wang, Z., Hu, H. and Gong, J. (2018), “Framework for modeling operational uncertainty to optimise
offsite production scheduling of precast components”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 86,
pp. 69-80, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.026. 995
White, M.D. and Marsh, E.E. (2006), “Content analysis: a flexible methodology”, Library Trends,
Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 22-45, doi: 10.7748/nr.4.3.5.s2.
Wilkinson, S. and Schofield, R. (2010), Management for the New Zealand Construction Industry, 2nd
ed., Prentice Hall New Zealand, Auckland, 978-1-4425-0994-8.
Yang, R.J., Zou, P.X.W. and Wang, J. (2016), “Modelling stakeholder-associated risk networks in green
building projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 66-81, doi: 10.
1016/j.ijproman.2015.09.010.
Zavadskas, E.K., Govindan, K., Antucheviciene, J. and Turskis, Z. (2016), “Hybrid multiple criteria
decision-making methods: a review of applications for sustainability issues”, Economic
Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 857-887, doi: 10.1080/1331677x.2016.
1237302.
Zhang, C. and Mostashari, A. (2011), “Influence of component uncertainty on reliability assessment of
systems with continuous states”, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 542-552, doi: 10.1504/ijise.2011.039674.
Zhang, H. and Xing, F. (2010), “Fuzzy-multi-objective particle swarm optimisation for time–cost–
quality tradeoff in construction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1067-1075, doi:
10.1016/j.autcon.2010.07.014.
Zhu, J. and Mostafavi, A. (2017), “Discovering complexity and emergent properties in project systems:
a new approach to understanding project performance”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.004.

Corresponding author
Okechukwu Bruno-Kizito Nwadigo can be contacted at: okechukwu.nwadigo@aut.ac.nz

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com