Kashiwagi, D T and Byfield, R (2002) Minimizing political influence in performance contracting case studies. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
Political influence on procurement systems was identified at the CIB W92 conference as a major factor in the delivery of performance construction. This research addresses the issues, impacts, and sources of: information, transparency, subjectivity, corruption, and collusion. It also introduces methodologies to minimize political influence. It proposes a process and requirements to identify the opportunity to implement systems that minimize political influences. The measurement of information (IMT) and levels of information are used to provide the theoretical foundation for the methodology and processes. The research compares the political influences of various owners in 300 tests to support the hypothesis.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | political influence; overcoming bureaucracy; maintaining value |
| Index terms: | case study, subjectivity, owner, conference, collusion, methodology, corruption, procurement system, transparency |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, human factors and perception, contractual arrangements, research methods, tendering, professional development, sociology, professional ethics |
| Topics: | Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Legal Issues |
| 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