Examination of relationships between Egan's key drivers of change and mechanical and electrical contractors' profits

Kitschker, A D and Swaffield, L M (2003) Examination of relationships between Egan's key drivers of change and mechanical and electrical contractors' profits. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 8(2), pp. 99-110. ISSN 1366-4387

Abstract

The construction industry had been shown to be under-achieving in many respects and in need of a substantial review of systems, methods and practices. Egan's 'Rethinking Construction' (1998) highlighted the problems and proposed the way forward for the industry. This research investigated, via a postal questionnaire, Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) contractors' attitudes and opinions regarding many of Egan's proposals. The research also looked at the implementation of Egan's recommendations within the M&E sector, and analysed relationships with M&E contractors' profits. There was no suggestion of a direct cause and effect relationship between a positive attitude towards or implementation of Egan's proposals, and an increase in profits; and this research did not examine changes over time in attitudes or profits. The work was a snapshot survey with some interesting results. In some cases, it appeared that the more profitable firms were less likely to be positive towards Egan's recommendations. There was generally a positive response to Egan's report with the M&E sector accepting and using many of the techniques outlined. However, familiar construction industry traits of withholding payment, tender disparity, contract dispute, unequal standing, and poor site facilities were discovered within the M&E sector.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Rethinking Construction, Egan, mechanical and electrical contractors, profit
Index terms: construction industry, implementation, disparity, dispute, questionnaire, survey, profit, proposal
Subjects: contractual arrangements, project planning, economic analysis, social justice, data collection methods, dispute resolution, industry analysis
Topics: Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Procurement, Legal Issues, Ethics
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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