Recently, there have been some exciting developments in the field of AI construction scheduling platforms – such as the generative “optioneering” platform offered by Alice Technologies*: the promise of generative AI technology into the world of construction scheduling. The only thing that is certain is that there will be extraordinary benefits to be realized in its implementation. Yet, it is unclear exactly if and how the technology will gain market share or adoption. Indeed, at present, Alice is the only player of mention in the game, which raises some interesting possibilities. This post will discuss some potential scenarios.
To be specific, Alice’s “optioneering” approach is quite different from what one could expect from, say, an AI prompt based platform, though that may change in the future. Alice Technologies does not appear to have any competition, which gives one an idea of how specialized – even esoteric – the approach may seem. The expanse between an AI prompt to “create a schedule for a three-story wood frame home” – simple, and “create a schedule for a particle accelerator plant” – complex – both of which would be dependent on the knowledgebases available, is significant.
But then technology for complex prompt generated schedules will take considerably longer to develop than the approach to optimizing uploaded baseline schedules (Alice also can import and export BIM models): for example, it is arguable that a particle accelerator baseline schedule generated from prompts may never be a reality. The good news is that the industry is already making use of Alice in a substantive way – as case studies show.
This is as it should be. However, as project team lay-members become more emboldened, such platforms could theoretically replace the future force of CPM schedulers, or dilute their rank and purpose. Controls should be established and observed to mitigate this potential phenomenon. Such controls (CPM schedule qualifications) may exist in contract project specifications – as they do for other divisions – yet my research did not turn up any such clauses.
“The pride and hubris of upper management overlords invoking schedule sleight of hand for political purposes and negotiating positions will continue to be an existential threat to reliable scheduling work product. – both AI and traditional”
AI generative construction scheduling platforms are not intended to obviate the need for trained schedulers, and are to the contrary – reliant on their expertise. There is already a shortfall of capable CPM schedulers – the last thing we want to do is discourage growth of these operators. Nor are the platforms intended to replace traditional CPM scheduling – as many countertrends – such as Lean – do: they maintain CPM as the primary source for critical calculation.
The collaborative team approach that raises skepticism: my past experience has exemplified that CPM scheduling work product should be controlled by experienced schedulers, in lieu of the prevailing winds of politics: under typical project team hierarchies, it’s often inexperienced executives calling the shots. Team input is welcome, however, it must not encroach on the scheduler’s sovereignty: the control of his work product. This recalls the proverb “too many chefs spoil the broth”: a corruption of the process where more team members of the scheduling team have unfettered input, the likelihood of discontinuity is a strong one. I, for one, would be reluctant to accept that scenario.
Alice Technologies offers a rich video introduction to Alice Core, below – also available on their website:
(source https://www.alicetechnologies.com/alice-core)
