Langford, D; Martinez, V and Bititci, U (2003) Best value in construction: Towards an interpretation of value from client and constructor perspectives. Journal of Construction Procurement, 9(1), ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
This paper is about the way in which 'best value' may be delivered to and from parties involved in the construction process. It seeks to identify different perspectives of value from an economic, marketing and business strategy schools of thought. It then seeks to model the flow of value between participants in the construction process and how the concept of value has been used in the construction industry. It postulates that value is a social construct and that different firms in the construction supply chain, depending upon their position and power will interpret value in different ways. Here the categorisation of firms is made using hard and soft value proportions. Finally the paper projects a critical review of the familiar instrumental and positivist interpretation of what is meant by value.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | client perspective, best value, constructor perspective |
| Index terms: | construction process, business strategy, marketing, construction supply chain, best value, construction industry |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, construction logistics, business, building construction, bidding |
| Topics: | Site Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Supply Chain Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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