Riley, M J (2001) Re-engineering the construction procurement process. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, UK.
Abstract
This thesis describes the research carried out to create a new contract procurement strategy called Project Delivery Process (PDP). Project Delivery Process is a new way of selecting and then managing parties to the project that creates an integrated collaborative way of working based on a systems approach. This systems approach uses both hard and soft systems ideas. Research focusing on hard systems only - including IT - is described. Research focusing on soft systems ideas, including culture, trust and team working is reported. Research and case studies are described showing that projects managed using both hard and soft systems approaches produce more successful outcomes than those managed by the use of either hard or soft systems only. It is also shown that a collaborative working relationship produces significant benefits for the project. The proposed new contract procurement strategy called Project Delivery Process, PDP, is described. Case studies of its successful implementation are included.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | culture; trust; soft systems; hard systems; case studies |
| Index terms: | construction procurement, implementation, project delivery, case study, procurement strategy |
| Subjects: | project delivery, contractual arrangements, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CE |
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