Hong, X and Proverbs, D (2003) Contractor relationships: A comparison in Japan, the UK and the US. Journal of Construction Procurement, 9(2), pp. 52-64. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
International comparisons of contractor performance and practice allow contractors in different countries to distinguish their own strengths and weaknesses and improve their competitiveness accordingly. Based on a survey of contractors in Japan, the U.K. and the U.S., contractor relationships with other participants in the process are investigated. These relationships are important as they have a significant impact on the performance of contractors. Results indicate that partnering is reasonably well established in the three countries and that a wide range of participants including clients, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers are likely to be involved. In the U.K. and U.S., contractors focus on client relationships, while Japanese contractors tend to work more closely with their subcontractors. Evidence suggests that in regard to claim resolution methods, an exchange of ideas between firms in the East and West is developing.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | international comparison, contractor, relationship, analysis of variance |
| Index terms: | international comparison, survey, Japan, evidence, subcontractor, partnering, variance, contractor performance, competitiveness, resolution |
| Subjects: | partnership management, conflict resolution, measurement and scaling, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, market analysis, Geography, contract management, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, 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