Kaya, S; Hinks, J and Alexander, K (2005) Innovation in facilities supply chain. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
This paper reports on research undertaken on behalf of three UK-based facilities management client organisations. It surveys 12 service provider organisations of these three clients to understand the conditions for facilities management service provider (SP) organisations to innovate. The study has been undertaken in two parts. The first part addresses SP's view on: criteria for a successful relationship between client and SP, best practice examples from SPs clientele, the differentiating feature of the best practices. The second part explores the relationships, firstly between contract duration, contract phase and innovation, and secondly between four pre-identified procurement options for facilities management and their relations to innovation.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | innovation; facilities management; service provider-corporate client relations |
| Index terms: | survey, client organization, best practice, facilities management, duration, option |
| Subjects: | business, client relations, data collection methods, management, decision analysis, project controls |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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