Application of MDM for Scheduling Iteration in Construction Projects

  • J. Uma Maheswari
  • S. P. Sreenivas PadalaEmail author
  • Srijan Sharma
  • Suchita Sariyal
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 135)


Design phase of any construction project is associated with multiple information exchanges among and across several entities such as teams, components, deliverables, or parameters. When these information exchanges occur along the cycles/loops, it is termed as iteration. In general, the information exchanges traversing within and across several entities in any direction throughout the design phase were referred to various ways such as interdependent, overlaps, two-way information exchanges. In this study, these information exchanges were referred to as interdependent or beelines. If this interdependency and iteration are not identified early and planned properly, it can lead to unnecessary changes which ultimately results in time and cost overruns. To date, researchers had identified the beeline diagramming method (BDM) as the potential method to model the beelines. Also, multiple domain matrix (MDM) is a powerful emerging methodology for capturing iterations across multiple entities. In the present study, an attempt is made to utilize the potential features of MDM in modeling and scheduling beelines in construction projects. To demonstrate the proposed concept, the design of underground metro construction project data was used. The preliminary results of this study were found noteworthy, and it was observed that the MDM has adequate potential to model beelines.


Beelines Two-way multiple information exchanges Iteration Beeline diagramming method (BDM) Multiple domain matrix (MDM) 


  1. 1.
    Mujumdar, P.: Modeling design iteration for multiple two way information exchanges in construction projects. Ph.D. Thesis, IIT Delhi (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prasad, B.: Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals: Integrated Product and Process Organization. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yassine, A.A.: An introduction to modeling and analyzing complex product development processes using the design structure matrix method. Quad. di Manag. (Italian Manag. Rev.) 9, 1–17 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim, S.G.: Advanced Networking Technique. Kimoondang, South Korea (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S.D., Whitney, D.E.: A model-based framework to overlap product development activities. Manage. Sci. 43(4), 437–451 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fondahl, J.W.: A non-computer approach to the critical path method for the construction industry. Technical Report, No. 9, Stanford University, USA (1961)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hajdu, M.: Continuous precedence relations for better modelling overlapping activities. Proc. Eng. 123(1), 216–223 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mujumdar, P., Maheswari, J.U.: Alternate beeline diagramming method network analysis for interdependent design entities. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. (2018).
  9. 9.
    Steward, D.V.: The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 28(3), 71–74 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Austin, S.A., Baldwin, A.N., Li, B., Waskett, P.: Analytical design planning technique (ADePT): a dependency structure matrix tool to schedule the building design process. Constr. Manag. Econ. 18(2), 173–182 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, W.C., Liu, J.J., Liao, T.S.: Modeling of design iteration through simulation. Autom. Constr. 15(5), 589–603 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maheswari, J.U., Varghese, K.: Modeling of design iteration using DSM and simulation. In: 24th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Construction Automation Group, 19–21 Sept 2007, IIT Madras (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maurer, M.: Structural awareness in complex product design. Ph.D. Thesis, Technology University of Munich (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kreimeyer, M., Braun, S., Gürtler, M., Lindemann, U.: Extending multiple domain matrices to allow for the modeling of Boolean operators in process models. In: International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’09, pp 24–27. The Design Society, Stanford, CA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eichinger, M., Maurer, M., Pulm, U., Lindemann, U.: Extending design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices by multiple design structure matrices. In: 8th Biennial ASME Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, pp. 889–898 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hickethier, G., Tommelein, I.D., Gehbauer, F.: Reducing rework in design by comparing structural complexity using a multi-domain matrix. In: Proceedings of 20th Annual Conference International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, CA, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mujumdar, P., Muraleedharan, P., Maheswari, J.U.: Structured methodology for applying MDM (multiple domain matrix) to construction projects. In: Marle, F., Jankovic, M., Maurer, M., Schmidt, D.M., Lindemann, U. (eds.) 16th International Dependency and Structure Modeling Conference, 2–4 July 2014, pp. 299–308. Paris, France (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Browning, T.R., Eppinger, S.D.: Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 49(4), 428–442 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research Design, and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Uma Maheswari
    • 1
  • S. P. Sreenivas Padala
    • 1
    Email author
  • Srijan Sharma
    • 2
  • Suchita Sariyal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.LivspaceNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations