Consoli, G G S (2006) Correctional management attitudes to private prison design and construction briefs in Australia. Journal of Construction Research, 7(1), pp. 99-109. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
Interviews with private correctional management ('operators') involved in the submission of design and construction tender documents during the 'Request for Proposal' (RFP) stage of private prison projects in Australia highlighted a number of problematic issues. These included (1) the content of design and construction briefs – in which the scant information and 'grey areas' in the briefs created uncertainty, impeded progress and caused operators to feel inadequate and unprepared (2) assembling the design bids – was problematic as operator's wished to challenge and deviate from the brief (3) methods of research - which included revisiting their own schemes, existing State facilities and those of competitors, while simultaneously adding to their body of knowledge, and (4) difficulties faced in the management of the tender bid – such as there being inadequate time to brief architects and contractors, managing personalities, protecting commercial interests in design, defining expectations, and maintaining team momentum. The study found that conflicts between government and private sector stakeholder expectations, commercial confidentiality, motivational issues and misunderstandings, adversely impacted upon the derivation of tender documents and affected the resultant product.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | request for proposal; prison design and construction; design briefs; private prison |
| Index terms: | interview, proposal, prison, confidentiality, design brief, tender document, body of knowledge, private sector, personality, Australia, architect, design and construction |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, profession, data collection methods, industry analysis, administrative law, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, project planning, behavioral psychology, professional ethics, Geography, tendering |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Information Management, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Procurement, Project Management, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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