Haltenhoff, C E (1987) Construction management performance under dual services agreements. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(4), pp. 640-647. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The standard documents of the American Institute of Architects and the Associated General Contractors of America for construction management projects imply processes and operational procedures that have become customary if not standard since publication in 1975. Adjustments must be made to accommodate the particular form and variation of construction management specifically required by the contract. However, construction management firms have a tendency to customize processes and procedures for their own convenience. This is especially true on projects where a firm is contractually assigned other service responsibilities such as design, contracting, or construction. When a CM process and its procedures exactly match the intent of the project delivery system, owners are positioned to gain from the use of the system. When convenience intervenes, the system cannot function effectively, and the owner may experience negative results. This paper argues that convenient customizing of the CM process and its procedures, especially customizing that mitigates the checks and balances specifically built into the construction management system and implied by established CM practice, represents a detrimental divergence from the fundamental reasons CM is selected for use by owners on their projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | architect, project delivery, agreements, owner, variation, documents, publication, customizing, management system, general contractor |
| Subjects: | contractual condition, professional development, management, sociology, practitioner, profession, research dissemination and communication, project delivery, construction manufacturing, contract formation |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Organizational Design, Contract Administration |
| 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