Ling, Y Y (2000) A theoretical framework for selection of consultants by design-build contractors. Journal of Construction Procurement, 6(2), ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
This paper suggests a theoretical framework for the selection of design consultants by design-build (DB) contractors. Grounded theory procedure was used to build the theoretical framework. Data were collected from secondary data search and in-depth interviews with seven contractors in Singapore who have extensive experience in DB projects. The framework was constructed based on economic Theory of the Firm, social psychology's Network Theory of Embeddedness, and personnel psychology's theories on selection of employees. The framework proposes four main factors that determine whether a consultant is suitable to be selected or not: 'task performance factor', 'contextual performance factor', 'relationship factor', and 'price factor'. Further criteria were developed from these four main factors. The criteria previously used by the interviewees to select consultants could be classified under the first three factors identified from the literature search. They did not identify any criteria under the 'price factor'. The contribution of this paper is that the constructed framework and the possible criteria may be used for the purpose of procuring the services of consultants for DB projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | procurement, consultant selection, design-build, task performance, contextual performance, relationship, fees |
| Index terms: | interview, Singapore, personnel, secondary data, psychology, grounded theory, design-build contractor, embeddedness, economic theory |
| Subjects: | practitioner, economic analysis, sociology, data collection methods, behavioral psychology, management, theoretical framing, Geography |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Human Resources, Business Strategy, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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