Blyth, K and Kaka, A (1999) The industry's view of stage payments and the Latham recommendations. In: Hughes, W (ed.) Proceedings of 15th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1999, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
Latham suggested that it would be a more favourable system of payment and valuation if payments were based upon stages / milestones. A questionnaire survey was constructed and sent to 180 companies including; clients, contractors, consultants and quantity surveyors. The purpose of the questionnaire was; a) To learn more about stage payments and whether they are becoming more frequently used, b) To see if the industry agrees with the advantages of stage payments as proposed by Latham, and c) To see what the industry thinks about the rest of the relevant Latham proposals. It was found that out of the nine proposed advantages, the industry as a whole, only agreed with three of them. With regard to the other Latham proposals the industry disagreed strongly with four out of the seven proposals.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cash flow; latham; milestones; stages; valuations |
| Index terms: | cash flow, quantity surveying, proposal, becoming, Latham, survey, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, profession, project planning, financial management, philosophical process, industry policy reports |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here