Mannarino, J A (2001) Evaluation of the construction management delivery system and establishing a model for selection: A qualitative approach. PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA.
Abstract
There are many options in today's market for owners planning a construction project, whether it be renovation of an existing facility to meet the needs of the twenty first century or new construction to grow a business or expand market share. For whatever purpose, there will always be construction, and owners need to be educated in the best methods to achieve their goals in a manner that coincides with their business philosophies, and yet provides them a fair value for the money they spend on their facilities. Construction performance has typically been measured with two devices, the calculator and the calendar. Does the calculator indicate that the cost exceeds the budget? Does the calendar show that work continued beyond the scheduled completion date? Although parameters of budget and schedule are critical to project success, they are insufficient in judging the performance of a construction management firm. Construction Management (CM) is not merely the management of construction. CM is a unique project delivery system that alleviates the adversarial environment common to other approaches. The construction manager is a construction professional with the expertise to maintain the project course from concept to occupancy. This research will explore the CM Delivery System in detail and extract the responsibilities of the construction manager in order to foster successful project outcomes. Project success in the modern construction environment is driven not only by cost and time factors but also quality and safety parameters. The qualitative method of evaluation will be modeled and tested on real projects to determine the expected performance of the construction manager. The decision process will be explained using owner preference toward each of these considerations to predict the fit of the construction management firm for a particular project and to facilitate comparison among multiple construction managers pursuing a project. The study provides critical inquiry into the minds of the decision makers to determine the factors of true importance to the construction buyer. It analyzes the impact of current and potential technologies on the delivery system and considers future areas of research to improve performance and increase the opportunity for success.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Gaus, M P |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | market; construction project; occupancy; project delivery; project success; renovation; safety; owner; professional |
| Index terms: | project success, fair value, market share, project outcome, decision process, owner, qualitative approach, construction performance, renovation, construction professional, project delivery, option, philosophy, qualitative method, construction manager, construction project, preference |
| Subjects: | performance assessment, economic analysis, project delivery, profession, research design and methodology, project completion, market analysis, sociology, decision analysis, philosophical studies, renovation and retrofit, decision-making and reasoning, research methods, production management, project management theory and practice, professional development |
| Topics: | Procurement, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Site Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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