Kashiwagi, D and Savicky, J (2003) A case study of the transaction cost and value of the delivering of construction. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
The State of Hawaii was introduced to performance-based procurement in 1998. Four years later, the State of Hawaii used a transaction cost analysis of performance-based procurement to identify if the State was receiving the best value (construction performance and price). The transaction cost analysis used relative differences in the delivery component costs of the best value system and the low bid system. The study identified that the relative transaction costs of the performance-based procurement were lower than the transaction costs of the design-bid-build costs. The analysis was possible due to the same organization running both procurement systems, negating the need to identify every possible activity related to the transaction costs. Due to the number of projects, budget figures, construction cost figures, design costs, and construction times, the State was able to identify relative transaction costs and performance for both processes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | financial management; transaction cost |
| Index terms: | construction performance, construction cost, design cost, design-bid-build, financial management, case study, transaction cost, performance-based procurement, construction time, best value, procurement system |
| Subjects: | project controls, financial analysis, economics, economic analysis, financial and cost management, contractual arrangements, performance assessment, bidding, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Site Management, Time Control |
| 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