【正文】 ment 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(yè) 第 6 頁(yè) ? 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 required deliverables. The definition of the three primary views and the interrelationships between them defines a threedimensional space, as illustrated in Figure 1. Key to the applicability of this approach is the ability to represent the primary views and their interrelationships in a simple, intuitive manner that all project participants can work with. It would be ideal if this could be achieved in a single, threedimensions format, but it seems unlikely that such a representation is possible (even the simplified representation in figure 1 shows the relationships of each pair of dimensions rather than the relationships between all three dimensions simultaneously). Therefore, it may be necessary to represent the primary dimensions as a set of twodimensional matrices. Each of these matrices may be quite simple and intuitive. For example, the matrix of workflows vs. project lifecycle forms a Gantt chart (bar chart schedule). What is essential (and what would differentiate this approach from current practice) is that the collection of twodimensional matrices is interrelated and kept synchronized, which would require an effective underlying project management tool. Figure 1: Schematic of the dimensions in a unified approach to project management. Additional Views. We have suggested that the three primary views seem to be appropriate for the overall project anization and the coordination of all participants. However, those responsible for managing the project can add several more interrelated views. This would provide a very powerful representation of the project from all of the perspectives that are important for achieving project objectives, along with explicit representations of the interrelationships that exist between these views. Examples of the additional views include 共 18 頁(yè) 第 7 頁(yè) the following: ? Organization View: An anizational view identifies the project participants。 it will be easier to measure progress。 and productivity, cost, and project duration will be improved. Similarly, good practices using the unified approach will improve the project outes through more effective planning, particularly with respect to the interdependencies between project views. The process would be approximately as follows: ? The project management team would define the project views to be used on the project. ? Project planning would be carried out much as on a typical project, except that the results would be represented using the defined project views. This would result in lists or breakdown structures for the project phases, workflows/tasks,deliverables, etc. This would be analogous to a typical project scheduling process, where the results are represented in a CPM work. ? The key interrelationships between the views would be defined. This would be analogous to the way that precedence relationships are captured in a schedule, or the way that a schedule can be mapped to cost accounts, resource plans, or to a building information model (as in the case of 4D CAD). Other than the precedence relationships, this type of mapping is not typically done in current project management practices, so it represents some additional work for project planners. However, it need not be done at a very detailed level, and the use of hierarchical relationships and effective planning tools may minimize the effort required for this task. ? The execution of the resulting plan (., initiating work tasks), project controland feedback (collecting progress information and monitoring results), and replanning activities all take place using the representational framework. Work tasks themselves remain essentially unchanged, but because the planning and management system explicitly captures the interrelationships, the causal links between actions will be better recognized and understood, and the potential negative impacts of any action will be identified earlier and mitigated or avoided more easily. For example, in