Kangari, R (1995) Risk management perceptions and trends of U.S. Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(4), pp. 422-429. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper discusses the current attitude of large U.S. construction firms toward risk, and determines how these contractors conduct construction risk management. The paper is based on a survey of the top 100 large U.S. contractors. After discussion of the current views, the results are compared with a risk survey conducted by ASCE. The study shows that in recent years, contractors have been more willing to assume risks that accompany contractual and legal problems in the form of risk sharing with the owner. Risks of this type include change-order negotiations, third-party delays, contract delay resolutions, and indemnification and hold harmless. The survey also found that contractors currently assume the risk associated with actual quantities of work, a notable difference from the findings of the ASCE survey. Finally, the attitude of contractors toward the practice of defensive engineering is determined. This is significant, as no previous survey has addressed or sought to quantify allocation or importance of this task.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | survey, construction firm, owner, resolution, negotiation, risk management |
| Subjects: | sociology, conflict resolution, organization, risk assessment, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PE |
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