Eom, C S J; Yun, S H and Paek, J H (2008) Subcontractor evaluation and management framework for strategic partnering. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(11), pp. 842-851. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Recently, main contractors have shifted their attitudes about subcontract procurement to more strategic and long-term partnering philosophies. The objective of this study was to present a framework for subcontractor evaluation and management to help main contractors develop more strategic and productive relationships with their subcontract partners. As the strategic performance feedback model, the balanced scorecard concept was adopted with modification. A case study was also conducted to evaluate the framework with subcontracting strategy, performance indexes, weighting, evaluation of subcontractor performance data, and feedback methods. The research results obtained can be useful as a guideline of subcontractor management for long-term partnering and also to enhance overall productivity within the construction supply chain.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; partnerships; subcontractors |
| Index terms: | subcontract, balanced scorecard, strategy, subcontractor management, partnership, subcontracting, case study, productivity, partnering, philosophy, main contractor, construction supply chain, subcontractor |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, philosophical studies, partnership management, organization, contract type, management, contract management, data collection methods, construction logistics, practitioner |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Supply Chain Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Quality 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