Abstract
Construction projects are criticised for overrunning time and cost. Previous studies have identified ineffective planning and scheduling as the most frequently cited cause of delay. Moreover, earlier research debated that network-based planning methods are not suitable for projects with repeating activities. Linear scheduling was argued to be a better tool for simulating projects with repeating activities, such as railways, tunnels, roads and infrastructure. Research efforts on schedule quality and development measurement were devoted to network-based scheduling methods. This study critically reviews current programme quality evaluation models in the literature; the review outcomes are used in interviews with four industry experts to identify suitable criteria for assessing linear schedules. There were 23 criteria confirmed that were then arranged into six groups. Based on the interviews, a questionnaire was distributed, and responses were obtained from 125 participants. Results indicated a high level of agreement on the importance of the defined criteria. They are subsequently ranked according to relative importance. The results show that contractual measures are ranked highest and duration estimation second. In addition, a relationship between level of knowledge and importance of using linear schedules was identified. The study proposes a framework for assessing development level and quality of linear schedules.