【正文】 ve performance in this work. While these techniques are not directly applicable to the AEC/FM industry, some of the approaches and best practices are quite relevant. A Unified Approach to Project Management We have argued that existing project management practices underemphasize the interrelationships between individual work tasks and other project ponents. This leaves the interdependencies underrecognized and undermanaged, and promotes a “ onetime event” thinking that hinders the quest for ongoing performance improvements. We have begun to conceptualize a unified approach to project management that addresses some of the weaknesses and opportunities identified above. The basic approach is to adopt a framework that: 1) explicitly represents the various views that are critical for managing projects, and 2) explicitly represents the interconnections between these views. Examples of project views include the physical view (“what”), the process view (“how, who, when”), the cost view (“how much”), etc. (Russell and Froese, 1997). If the total collection of project information is thought of as a multidimensional information space, then the views define the dimensions. For each view, the overall project can be broken down into smaller elements. The simplest representation of a view would be a list or hierarchical breakdown structure of the elements that make up the view (., a work breakdown structure, WBS). More plex representations would capture additional relationships between the elements, such as a CPM work or an IFC model. Primary Views. There are many views that can be useful for managing projects. To act as a unifying management tool, however, these views should be shared with all participants, and this places a practical limit on the maximum number of views, since it would bee too plex to require all participants to work with numerous, interconnected views. We propose that the following three views to be used as the primary project coordination 共 18 頁 第 5 頁 mechanism for all participants: ? The project lifecycle dimension: The first primary view is timebased, anizing the project into welldefined project phases, which are further refined into iterations. These phases are arranged in sequential chronological order, constituting a logical timeview. This dimension can also provide an absolute timeview by defining the calendar dates for activities that take place within the phases. Unlike current project management practices where project phases are treated “l(fā)oosely”, the phases and iterations have formal management roles. All work requirements, assignments, outputs, etc. are defined relative to a specific project phase, and phases have formal progress review procedures. This approach to phases can be seen, for example, in the Process Protocol approach (Process Protocol, 2021) and in the previouslymentioned Unified Process (Kendall, 2021). ? The workflow dimension: The second primary view is processbased. It anizes the work into the various work disciplines required to plete the project. This is somewhat like the normal division of work into work packages, but rather than describing the tasks as discrete work packages, the work is anized as ongoing workflows, which can be further broken down into sequences or works of sub tasks. Thus tasks are more explicitly placed in the context of the overall workflows than is mon practice today. ? The product/deliverable dimension: The third primary view anizes the outputs or deliverables of work. This view bines two important main elements, the information that describes the construction product (facility) being created, and the physical product itself. During the early phases of the project, the deliverables of design and management tasks are information about the physical facility. The collective sum of all of this information can be thought of as the building information model or virtual building (whether or not an integrated IT environment is used). During later phases, this information drives the physical deliverables of the construction work: the creation of the physical ponents themselves. This view emphasizes a continuum that flows from the virtual facility to the physical one. As a highly simplified example, an AEC project might be anized into the following primary views: ? Project Lifecycle Dimension: ? Inception Phase ? Design Phase ? Construction Phase ? Operation Phase ? Workflow Dimension: ? Architectural workflow ? Structural workflow ? Building Services workflow ? Cost workflow ? Product/Deliverable Dimension: ? IFC Product Model ? Project Documents ? Building Superstructure ? Building Systems and Finishes Integrating and Representing the Primary Views. Given these three primary dimensions, the work can be further anized by expressing the interrelationships between the dimensions: 共 18 頁 第 6 頁 ? Workflows vs. project lifecycle: Placing workflows and their constituent tasks within project lifecycle phases creates a schedule view of the project, showing what should happen when. This can include both the logical schedule (sequencing) and absolute schedule (calendar dates). It can also show that most workflows span multiple phases/iterations, and can indicate the amount of effort expended on each workflow over time, which emphasizes the “ ongoing processes” nature of the work. ? Product/deliverables vs. project lifecycle: Similarly, the various project deliverables can be mapped to the project phases/iterations. The deliverables are generally cumulative, thus this shows how the total project output (the collective body of project information and the physical structure) develops over time. ? Product/deliverables vs. workflows: The assignment of project deliverables to workflows and tasks shows how work processes collaborate to produce the