Loosemore, M and Teo, M M M (2002) The crisis management practices of Australian construction companies. Construction Economics and Building, 2(2), pp. 15-26. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Recent world events in the international relations arena and the subsequent knock-on affect on the insurance industry, have sent shock-waves through Australia’s business community, elevating crisis management to the top of the managerial agenda. This paper presents the findings of exploratory research, which investigated the crisis management practices of construction companies. Using a diagnostic model of crisis preparedness which has been developed and tested across a broad range of industries, it concludes that if the sample surveyed is typical, then crisis planning is rudimentary and undertaken in an insular, informal, fragmented fashion, supported by few resources and little strategic guidance. Consequently, many construction companies will have an inadequate understanding of their crisis exposure, of how to cope with crises when they happen and of how to learn and recover from their aftermath.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | international relations; insurance; Australia; crisis management |
| Index terms: | international relation, insurance, crisis management, exploratory research, exposure, construction company, Australia |
| Subjects: | organization, research methods, public and environmental health, international relations, financial risk, Geography, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, International Construction |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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