【正文】 d 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 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 e