Edwards, D J and Holt, G D (2008) Protecting capital investment in plant and equipment: Case study observations of post-theft recovery. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 13(2), pp. 96-110. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Purpose Plant and equipment theft (PET) is inherent throughout the construction sector. Its effect places direct financial burden on those who have invested in such assets, but additionally, induces “indirect” costs for many other stakeholders including project owners, plant hirers and construction managers. The paper's objective is to take and discuss a snapshot of PET, the overriding aim being to aid greater understanding of it and in particular, the application of (post-theft) recovery technologies. Design/methodology/approach Descriptive case study data are considered along with informal, anecdotal evidence provided by practitioners. These data are qualitatively considered; observations are discussed; a model representation of PET and recovery is developed; and conclusions are drawn. Findings Plant and equipment thieves are shown to be audacious and determined, but it is identified that in addressing these characteristics, recent advances in plant security and recovery technologies (PSRT) have been significant. Arguably, PSRT are not being adopted as broadly as they should be to offset the PET problem. Research limitations/implications The formal model of PET might help inform future academic endeavour in the subject of plant and equipment management generally and PET specifically. Practical implications The model suggests that more widespread use of PSRT may not only help defeat plant thieves, but additionally help recover stolen assets and identify organised criminal networks. Originality/value The work is novel in setting and will be of interest to both academics and practitioners in the field.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | assets; construction equipment; loss prevention; theft; United Kingdom |
| Index terms: | theft, capital investment, United Kingdom, methodology, evidence, practitioner, construction manager, construction sector, recovery, construction equipment, case study, owner, prevention, plant and equipment |
| Subjects: | operations management, economic analysis, profession, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, practitioner, criminal law, sociology, industry analysis, research methods, manufacturing engineering, financial risk, construction equipment, Geography |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Plant and Equipment, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context |
| 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