Ibbs, C W (1985) Product specification practices and problems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 111(2), pp. 157-172. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The technical product specifications of construction contracts and the associated submittal review processes are shown to be involved in a major portion of all serious project disputes. A large number of actual publicly-funded water and wastewater treatment facility building projects were examined with subsequent analysis of those reviews indicating that these disputes are detrimental in terms of additional project cost, schedule delays, and overall project disruption and loss of goodwill. In particular, the proprietary “brand name or equal” product specification method is seen to be commonly at the heart of these product disputes. Several different solution strategies were expressed as statistical hypotheses and tested for effectiveness. Among other propositions, the managerial strategies of required bid listing of proposed products, timely dispute resolution, and clarifying the submittal review process proved to be realistic and effective tools for reducing both the incidence and severity of product-related contract disputes. Exact details are put forward along with sensitivity ranges.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | schedule delay, dispute, effectiveness, construction contract, heart, resolution, brand name, specification, strategy, project cost, submittal |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, contract type, business, project controls, conflict resolution, professional development, contractual condition, performance management, economics, management, medical science and clinical practice |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Time Control, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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