Hymes, S J (2010) Front end specifications and the propagation of construction claims. DSc thesis, Washington University in St. Louis, USA.
Abstract
Front End Specifications represent the administrative, organizational, performance and payment requirements for construction projects. The vast majority of construction contracts use Front End Specifications, either from an independent source or prepared in-house. In spite of the crucial role of Front End Specifications, little is known regarding whether Front End Specifications increase or decrease claims in construction. Further, no published reports to date have investigated whether construction claims are systematically related to Front End Specification complexity, partnering, business size or document authorship. In the present quantitative study, participants (n = 150) from the construction industry, including contractors, subcontractors, designers and owners, completed an on-line survey of sixteen multi-part questions detailing common Front End Specifications and the impact of those specifications on claims. Results indicate that disputes and claims from Front End Specifications impose significant costs on construction projects, with scheduling specifications/requirements, summary (scope) of the work and coordination being the most common causes of claims. Perceptions of claims were not related to business size or document authorship. Partnering participants trended towards perceiving Front End Specifications as decreasing claims. Regulatory Requirements were generally perceived as too complex and participants who perceived Front End Specifications Regulatory Requirements as too complex were significantly more likely to believe that Front End Specifications would cause more claims. Results are discussed in the context of ConsensusDOCS® library of construction forms, practical implications for construction project management, limitations of the present study and areas for future research.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Koch, J E and Browdy, T |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | complexity; coordination; construction claims; disputes; partnering; payment; scheduling; construction project; specification; designer; owner; subcontractor |
| Index terms: | specification, scheduling, survey, construction project, subcontractor, complexity, construction claim, partnering, designer, dispute, owner, construction project management, construction contract, propagation, coordination, construction industry |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, production management, contractual condition, management, systems engineering, industry analysis, sociology, partnership management, payment, practitioner, dispute resolution, contract type, engineering process, data collection methods, profession, operations research |
| Topics: | Procurement, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Time Control |
| 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