Mayouf, M and Gilligan, C (2024) Synthesis towards unveiling the complexity underlying underpayment for subcontractors in construction. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 29(1), pp. 168-192. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Purpose: In construction projects, underpayments can be recognised as one of the significant drawbacks that impact the success of a project. Research into underpayments is considered ambiguous and provides a limited reflection of the issue, which makes it complicated to trace how it originates in the first place. This study aims to examine the causes that lead to underpayments and develop a holistic synthesis of underpayments for subcontractors in the lifecycle of a construction project. Design/methodology/approach: An open-ended and closed-ended questionnaire was used to collect the data using purposeful sampling with 28 construction stakeholders who ranged from main contractors, subcontractors and others (Small medium enterprises SMEs, Consultancies, Clients etc.). Data collected was analysed to trace drivers and the impact of underpayment and suggested mitigation strategies to be identified whilst viewing the perspectives of a main contractor and subcontractor. Findings: The findings show that the most prominent driver for underpayments is variation disputes followed by cash flow. The research also suggests mitigation strategies such as collaborative working, more robust budget control and early identification of risks as potential remedies to overcome the underpayment issue. The research concludes with a framework that elicits the complexity underlying underpayments for subcontractors in construction projects. Originality/value: The research evolves the understanding that underpayment is a complex phenomenon, relying heavily on the data/information exchange mechanism between the main contractor and subcontractors. This research provokes the need to understand underpayment further so it can be mitigated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; contractors; drivers; subcontractors; underpayment |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, mitigation, collaboration, construction project, variation, methodology, subcontractor, consultancy, complexity, cash flow, information exchange, strategy, lifecycle, sampling, reflection, main contractor, dispute |
| Subjects: | project delivery, data science, practitioner, dispute resolution, organization, data collection methods, systems engineering, professional development, financial risk, production management, contractual condition, research methods, financial management, management |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Project Management |
| 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