Hsieh, T Y (1998) Impact of subcontracting on site productivity: Lessons learned in Taiwan. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(2), pp. 91-100. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In the past decade, considerable research effort has been devoted to alleviating site productivity problems in Taiwan's construction industry. However, the results generated so far are frustrating. A school of academic debates are raised concerning the elements missing from the research framework adopted. The disregard of the crucial role played by subcontractors in the construction process is the main missing element. To gain a thorough understanding of the subcontracting practice in construction, an extensive questionnaire survey targeting more than 1,000 general contractors, selected at random, was conducted in 1995. Major findings of the survey are reported briefly in this paper. The relationship between subcontracting and site productivity was investigated. A conceptual model for analyzing productivity barriers due to subcontracting was developed and various aspects of this model were also examined. Based on the insights gained from the survey and the follow-up interviews, three promising institutional strategies for overcoming the identified productivity barriers are presented and discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction industry, productivity, subcontracting, questionnaire, construction process, subcontractor, lessons learned, Taiwan, interview, survey, general contractor, strategy |
| Subjects: | management, professional development, Geography, building construction, industry analysis, organization, data collection methods, practitioner |
| Topics: | Site Management, Supply Chain Management, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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