Puddicombe, M S (1997) Designers and contractors: Impediments to integration. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(3), pp. 245-252. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The adversarial nature of the relationship between designers and contractors is recognized as one of the most serious problems in the building industry. Research in this area has centered on integration issues related to the implementation of partnering and contracts. This paper takes a step back. It argues that the adversarial nature of the designer/contractor dyad may be attributable to differences on a set of perceived project critical dimensions. An understanding of these dimensions and how the dyad members differ is important for the successful implementation of integration methods. In addition, it is suggested that a lack of a holistic conceptualization of the contract and its relation to integration hampers the ability to achieve improved project performance. This paper reports on a large-scale survey and analysis that tests propositions related to these issues.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | designer, partnering, dimension, implementation, project performance, building industry, survey, integration |
| Subjects: | profession, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, health monitoring assessment and metrics, project management theory and practice, organizational analysis, partnership management, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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