Chen, Y; Ruikar, K and Carrillo, P M (2008) Electronic procurement benchmarking exercise in the AEC industry sector. In: Dainty, A (ed.) Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
In spite of recognising the potential of electronic commerce (e-commerce), a majority of the architecture-engineering-construction (AEC) industry participants still adopt a 'wait-and-see' approach in their investments of information technologies. Quantitative study and benchmarks can help the industry to have a better understanding and implementation of e-commerce. Research work that focuses on electronic procurement (e-procurement) benchmarking in the Canadian AEC sector makes headway in evaluating the value of e-commerce quantitatively. The initial findings of the research suggest the need for a conceptual e-procurement model. Literature is synthesised to highlight the issues while proposing to take this by undertaking further benchmarking studies of e-procurement in the UK AEC sector.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; construction industry; electronic commerce; electronic procurement |
| Index terms: | benchmarking, information technology, construction industry, implementation, exercise, electronic procurement, industry sector, e-commerce, electronic commerce |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, digital commerce, computing systems, health behaviours and lifestyles, industry analysis, information systems, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Procurement, Research Practice, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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