Customer Reviews

Project Scheduling and Management for Construction (RSMeans)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Author's response: Both the previous reviewers criticized the text as being overdone for individuals who have years of experience in the trades. I would like to point out that the book was deliberately written for someone who has no experience at all in construction scheduling. It is written around a sample project so that it can be used by an instructor to "walk" a person through the process of planning and scheduling, then updating and project control. For that reason, the subject matter is deliberately limited to the basics, and if it is viewed in that light, the organization of the material will be quite clear. If a person is looking for depth of coverage in all the arcane aspects of scheduling, this is not the book for them. On the other hand, if a reader wants to start with the basics, I can vouch for the fact that I have used it successfully as a text for many years.

This was presented as a text for a continuing education class and I read it cover to cover. For a third edition, it still has a lot of typos and other annoying errors. It just doesn't seem like a professional manual. There is no glossary, and much of the book is taken up by tables and specs for an imaginary project. Also, I an others in the class who have years of experience in the trades found it confusing or worthless. It just isn't a well organized book. I found better information online for free.

I bought this book thinking I would learn all about contract and construction management. Is not a bad read, but the font style is so light as to make it very uncomfortable visually. I'm not a fussy guy, but one has to wonder, after 500 years, why someone would feel the need to get so creative about the font style of a book. the subjset matter is faily limited, goes on and on ad nauseum on how scchedules are formulated , built, managed etc. Other references go at it in a fraction of the pages. Good for the uninitated I suppose, but way overdone for the well aquainted.