Atkins, J and Wild, A (2000) Automotive facilities procurement and the new construction paradigm. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
This article evolves ideas about 'conventional wisdom' on the role of construction clients, reporting research on large, recurrent automotive clients. It is based on MBA projects and a dissertation by Atkins; research by the Business Round Table; a survey of high level managers from construction; ideas about the incorporation of manufacturing supply chain practices into procurement and comparisons of large car companies. Criticism of Latham and Egan is developed into a "New construction Paradigm". The complexity of the large manufacturing client justifies retention of a Construction Engineering Organisation to manage the instabilities and uncertainties of projects and processes . The distinction between consulting to the uncertainty in the client and managing the uncertainty in the project is accepted but large clients need to internalise these processes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | procurement; manufacturing; automobile industry; project team; client; supply |
| Index terms: | paradigm, construction engineering, dissertation, automobile industry, complexity, project team, manager, retention, Latham, survey, construction client |
| Subjects: | practitioner, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, project delivery, management, education and knowledge transfer, engineering methods, industry analysis, systems engineering, industry policy reports |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Governance, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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