Kurokawa, M; Schweber, L and Hughes, W P (2015) Tracing client interests in the course of the project: Why are some client interests incorporated whereas others are not? In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK.
Abstract
Many construction professionals and policy-makers would agree that client expectations should be accommodated during a building project. However, this aspiration is not easy to deal with as there may be conflicting interests within a client organization and these may change over time in the course of a project. This research asks why some client interests, and not others, are incorporated into the development of a building project. Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is used to study a single building project on a University campus. The building project is analysed as a number of discussions and negotiations, in which actors persuade each other to choose one solution over another. The analysis traces dynamic client engagement in decision-making processes as available options became increasingly constrained. However, this relative loss of control was countered by clients who continued the control over the timing of participants' involvement, and thus the way to impose their interests even at the later stage of the project.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | client organization; actor-network theory; decision-making process; stakeholders |
| Index terms: | client organization, decision-making process, option, construction professional, negotiation |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, professional development, decision analysis, client relations |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Risk Management |
| 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