Kashiwagi, D; Parmar, D and Savicky, J (2003) Case study of the impact of specifications, construction management and inspection on construction performance. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
The University of Hawaii was searching for modifications to their construction delivery process that would increase the value and performance of construction and the efficiency of their project management group. The University had been plagued by poor construction performance (not on-time, not on-budget, and not meeting quality expectations). Their goal was to do more construction (with fewer project managers) and minimize the risk of construction nonperformance. The University wanted to study the impact of specifications, construction management, inspections, and the existing low-bid process on construction performance. The Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS) was selected due to its documented results in delivering high performance. There were two objectives for implementing the PIPS process. The first objective was to determine if the University could procure higher quality construction projects by minimizing management, regulations, qualifications, user specifications, and inspections. The second objective of the test would be to document the impact of the PIPS process and satisfaction level of the different parties (contractors, designers, procurement personnel, lawyers, facilities engineers and university leaders) involved in this process.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision analysis; information management; performance; procurement system; quality |
| Index terms: | project management, construction project, procurement system, regulation, construction performance, decision analysis, engineer, inspection, designer, lawyer, personnel, efficiency, satisfaction, qualification, specification, project manager, case study |
| Subjects: | profession, data collection methods, project delivery, contractual arrangements, performance assessment, project management theory and practice, contractual condition, production management, educational resources, performance management, management, political science, quality assurance, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Procurement, Governance, Human Resources, Quality Management, Site Management, Education, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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