Lahdenperä, P (2001) An analysis of the statistics on project procurement methods in Finland, 1989-1998. Journal of Construction Procurement, 7(1), pp. 27-41. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
The project procurement system is a key means by which the owner creates preconditions for successful realization of a project. Thus, it is of interest to discover the different systems used in different instances. This paper aims to increase general knowledge in this area by introducing the results of a statistical analysis of data on over twenty thousand projects that have been implemented in Finland during the last ten years. Firstly, the paper presents the changes in the use of different procurement systems for various building types and as share of total production. Secondly, it studies the influence of the project's client type and size. The paper also sheds light on the key factors underlying the choice of procurement method and reports discrepancies in relation to general beliefs. It shows that the separate contracts method is used the most while the share of construction management is minor. In-house construction, design-build and the traditional comprehensive contract are used roughly to the same extent.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Finland, owner type, procurement systems, project delivery methods, project size |
| Index terms: | procurement system, statistics, project delivery, procurement method, owner, Finland, statistical analysis, house construction, project procurement |
| Subjects: | data science, project delivery, mathematical modelling, sociology, contractual arrangements, construction type, Geography |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Procurement, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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