Latif, H M (2014) Case studies of Malaysian contractors' bidding process: ethical principles and practices. PhD thesis, University of Reading, UK.
Abstract
The issue of unethical behaviour in construction public contracting is not a new phenomenon and many initiatives have been put in place to curb such behaviour. However, ethical behaviour has shown no improvement over the years. Previous studies in the construction industry have focused on the nature of the unethical behaviour that takes place rather than exploring the means and strategies to tackle the problem. This necessitates research to identify the influencing factors of unethical behaviour in bidding in order to improve the business standards/processes in construction contracting. This involves investigating the ethical standards of contractors in preparing bids and the relationship with organisational policies that constitute formal ethical measures. The research was conducted in the Malaysian context, undertaken from a qualitative research design perspective. Data were collected from three case studies through observation, interviews and documentary evidence. The analysis was carried out in three stages: (1) coding, (2) context, mechanisms and outcome and (3) cross-case analysis. Some pre-determined concepts were used but the analysis remained open to emergent findings. This provided an in-depth understanding of how ethical standards come about and how these influence the bid preparation. The findings suggest a relationship between organisational policies and bidding team members' job performance. However, this relationship is more complex in regards to the ethical conduct of the bidding teams. In this regards, middle managers were found to have significant influence on the behaviour of team members and it is inferred that top management seek to control approaches used in the bidding process. Therefore, formalised procedures, such as anti-corruption pledges and standard operating procedures, have no impact on the ethical conduct of the bidding team members, as they do not provide any insight into the actual tasks. Similarly, although the clients' rules have an influence on ethical behaviour in bidding, such rules, however, are project-specific and do not always fit with routine activities. The findings call for more in-depth studies to improve our understanding about the ethical standards of construction organisations in different contexts. This will help regulators and practitioners become acquainted with areas for improvement.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | standards; bidding; ethics; case study; qualitative research; client; interview |
| Index terms: | ethical conduct, construction industry, case study, influencing factor, construction organization, regulator, ethics, evidence, cross-case analysis, corruption, practitioner, qualitative research, top management, bid preparation, bidding, ethical behaviour, routine, standard operating procedure, interview, manager, strategy |
| Subjects: | management, sociology, industry analysis, risk assessment, data collection methods, research design and methodology, ethical issues, data analysis and analytics, health safety and environment, professional ethics, evaluation and assessment methods, organization, process management, practitioner, bidding, ethical practice |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Risk Management, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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