MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401951023 · doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-14727

Process Mining, Modeling, and Management in Construction: A Critical Review of Three Decades of Research Coupled with a Current Industry Perspective

2024· review· en· W4401951023 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Process (computing)Current (fluid)EngineeringManagement scienceProcess managementComputer scienceConstruction engineeringEngineering ethicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The so-called digital transformation of the construction industry is essential to overcoming long-standing global productivity stagnation. This transformation aims to adopt the latest technological developments and methodologies to improve construction productivity while supporting data-informed decision-making. However, the construction sector has fallen short of meeting the fast-growing population’s demands for sustainable quality infrastructure at the required pace as it has not yet taken full advantage of these advancements. Despite broad experience in managing projects, when it comes to modeling, monitoring, and re-engineering processes, the construction industry has fallen behind several other industries. To overcome these challenges, efficient construction processes and operational strategies are essential to keeping organizations competitive and meeting market demands. In this regard, even though several studies on process modeling and management in construction exist, research on construction process improvement and automation through data-driven process mining remains understudied. Moreover, the literature lacks a comprehensive review of process-oriented studies with practical industry insights. To fill these gaps, this paper aims to provide an exhaustive analysis of process mining, modeling, and management as reported by the most current state of the literature in the architecture, engineering, construction/facility management (AEC/FM) domain coupled with a current industry perspective. As a result, the authors: (1) propose a conceptual process classification framework that considers the broad spectrum of process-oriented studies in the existing literature; (2) identify construction processes commonly present across a project’s life cycle; (3) design and conduct structured interviews with subject matter experts to validate identified processes and get industry insights about them; (4) spot major literature gaps describing future research opportunities; and (5) develop a business process model canvas template that supports construction organizations in improving their corporate memory and pursuing construction productivity growth by better managing, monitoring, and automating construction processes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it