Phillips, S; Price, A and Dainty, A (2004) Achieving best value in social housing procurement. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
This research into the effectiveness of 'best value' procurement in the social housing sector analyses and critiques current procurement methods and assesses the potential ramifications of legal challenges to the strategic management of the best value process. The overarching aim of the research is to produce a contractor selection method that is; mathematically robust, transparent, open to audit and assists the user in the selection procedure. To date, the research indicates that the inherent problem with best value selection is that the measurement of quality is a subjective process and can therefore be defined and interpreted in numerous ways. In order to formalise a more appropriate measurement system, two case studies were carried out, to assess the pragmatic difficulties being encountered by stakeholders within the social housing sector. The conclusions of this research has laid the foundations to further ongoing research into the formation of an innovative best value contractor selection process based on the mathematical representation of rational preference, with the decision maker's attitude to the uncertainty factor in the selection process being represented by a utility function. When refined, it is anticipated that the model will be generic enough to add value to any construction procurement process within the social housing sector.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | best value; law; procurement; social housing; subjective measurement |
| Index terms: | preference, social housing, foundations, effectiveness, construction procurement, best value, strategic management, audit, critique, case study, procurement method, contractor selection |
| Subjects: | structural engineering, performance measurement, management, tendering, performance management, decision-making and reasoning, housing and residential development, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, contractual arrangements, bidding |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Procurement, Quality Management, Urban Studies |
| 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