King, A P; Knight, A D and Griffith, A (2001) Understanding the dynamics of novation: A contractor's perspective. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
Design and Build is an increasingly popular form of procurement, which can be characterized by its integrated approach between design and construction. Novation is one variant of design and build, which has received various general research over the years. This paper directs its focus onto understanding design and build through the use of a grounded theory methodology, employing semi-structured interviews of contractors. This qualitative methodology relies on the cyclical interplay of literature with the data collection method. Both pre and post-contract areas of novation are discussed. The main findings revolve around six central themes. These being: Contractor information requests to the architect which are not fully answered by architects owing to lack of time, contractor retaining commercial edge, contractor value engineering exercises being curtailed, contractor's inexperience of novated designer affecting risk and tender price, advantages - learning curve, disadvantage - architect conflict of interest. Novated design and build is believed to be generally disadvantageous by contractors. This is owing to the fact that the contractor has no choice in appointing the novated architect. This results in fragmentation in what is intended as an integrated procurement route. We argue that clients should take a balanced view prior to opting to use novation.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design and build; design development; grounded theory; novation; tendering |
| Index terms: | designer, fragmentation, grounded theory, value engineering, tender price, exercise, interview, integrated approach, design and build, design development, design and construction, architect, methodology, dynamics |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, profession, data collection methods, business, value management, health behaviours and lifestyles, systems engineering, theoretical framing, tendering, research methods, design process |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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