Dozzi, P; Hartman, F; Tidsbury, N and Ashrafi, R (1996) More-stable owner-contractor relationships. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(1), pp. 30-35. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents an updated and enhanced version of a study conducted by the task force of the Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA) on 'More-Stable Contractor Relationships.' The purpose of the study was to explore the current contracting philosophies, strategies, methods of execution, tendering processes, and techniques. The purpose of the study was also to identify the problem areas and determinants of success in the execution of projects, and to share these findings with the industry for further improvement. We have found that the industry is somewhat complacent and appears reluctant to embrace change. There is a preoccupation with contract award on the basis of lowest lump-sum bid although most recognize that this often results in a higher end price for the product. There is a need for improvement in the areas of life-cycle costing, contracting process, risk management, teamwork, trust, and cooperation, as well as communication and the use of quality management principles. There are ample opportunities to be more progressive. The survey and subsequent evaluation concluded that any initiatives to formulate more stable contractor relationships must come from construction owners.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | risk management, determinant, cooperation, survey, teamwork, philosophy, costing, quality management, strategy, tendering process, owner |
| Subjects: | psychology, quality assurance, tendering, philosophical studies, accounting and finance, management, sociology, data collection methods, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Quality Management, Procurement, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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