Jaafari, A and Schub, A (1990) Surviving failures: Lessons from field study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(1), pp. 68-86. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a field study of a sample of 15 projects and an equal number of organizations in the Federal Republic of Germany. The study objectives are firstly to elucidate typical approaches currently taken to technical and technological risks in engineering projects; and secondly to see if the existing concepts and techniques can be improved further. The work indicates that there is a need to radically revise the attitude and approach to identification, assessment of the impacts, and “engineering out” or mitigation of these risks. A major finding not widely recognized concerns the relationship between risk reduction and business profitability. A case is made for the introduction of a proactive management policy to technical and technological risk control involving the entire organization. Case material shows that the acceptance of risks by construction contractors in depressed market conditions is a deadly gamble, as it will inevitably lead to severe cost penalties. An alternative approach based on a higher level of risk assessment and work organization is presented in this paper. For this to be successful, adoption of a different management philosophy is required.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction contractor, mitigation, Germany, market condition, philosophy, field study, penalty, risk reduction, risk assessment, profitability |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, practitioner, economic and policy analysis, regulatory law, philosophical studies, research methods, financial risk, Geography |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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