Sutrisna, M and Potts, K (2002) Analysing typical factors for the early prediction of variations. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
Within the standard forms of construction contracts, there are provisions allowing the client to make changes. In practice, in the construction phase, many problems can occur following the issue of variations resulting in delays, disruption, additional expenses and potential disputes. Therefore it was considered important to develop a methodology enabling the early prediction of unexpected variations that would allow the parties involved to take any necessary actions in anticipation of these events. This paper aims to identify and analyse the typical project factors that could be used as indicators for the early prediction of variations occurring in construction projects. The typical project factors were identified and developed from a literature research and a pilot questionnaire which was sent to a representative samples of practitioners. These typical project factors will be discussed and analysed as an initial finding in order to develop a methodology for the early prediction of variations.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | early prediction; model; variations |
| Index terms: | construction phase, practitioner, questionnaire, construction contract, methodology, variation, construction project, dispute |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, contract type, dispute resolution, practitioner, project delivery, research methods, contractual condition, production management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Contract Administration, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PTA |
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