Lynch, T D (1996) A transaction cost framework for evaluating construction project organizations. PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University, USA.
Abstract
A project delivery system is a set of contracts and commitments that defines the organizational relationships and responsibilities of the different entities involved in designing and constructing a facility. Many alternative project delivery systems exist today, but there is no objective means for comparing them. This research presents a Project Delivery Cost Impact Framework that identifies and describes the specific cost impacts of project delivery systems so that comparisons may be made. This framework was developed through the application of organization theory, primarily transaction cost economics, to construction project organizations. The main premise of transaction cost economics is that, in addition to the costs of production, there are costs of transactions between parties. The choice between alternative project delivery systems should depend on the relative efficiency of each mode. Trade-offs between production and transaction costs must be weighed. Transaction cost economics identifies a set of environmental factors which when combined with a set of human factors explains the circumstances under which transactions may become costly. Firms may then decide to bypass the market and move the transactions within a single firm. Several levels of analysis within a construction project organization are identified: individual, group, firm, inter-firm, and project levels. Each of these levels may be organized in numerous ways. There are varying organization and transaction costs associated with each organization choice at each of the different levels of the project organization. At the project level, several transaction costs are identified: project procurement, contract administration, information communication, and firm interactions. Detailed path models (based on transaction cost economics) demonstrate the impact of project delivery systems on the four transaction costs as well as production costs. The path model demonstrating the relationship between project delivery systems and project procurement cost is evaluated with expert interviews and case studies of United States Postal Service projects. Most of the variables and relationships in the model are supported by the data, but several modifications are suggested.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Sanvido, V E and El-Bibany, H |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | efficiency; market; transaction cost; organization theory; construction project; communication; contract administration; project delivery; project organization; United States; case studies; interview |
| Index terms: | case study, contract administration, service project, efficiency, project delivery, interaction, transaction cost, production cost, interview, United States, project organization, commitment, construction project, project procurement, human factor, environmental factor |
| Subjects: | contract management, production management, organizational theory, Geography, performance management, manufacturing engineering, behavioral psychology, financial analysis, occupational health and safety management, data collection methods, project delivery, contractual arrangements, environmental science, psychology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Quality Management, Procurement, Sustainability, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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