Griffith, A; King, A and Knight, A (2003) Examining the dynamics of novation from the principal contractor's and architect's perspectives. Construction Economics and Building, 3(1), pp. 13-18. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Design and build is a popular form of procurement worldwide. In its conventional form, it is characterised by the integration between design and construction. Novation, a variant of design and build where design responsibility is transferred from designer to contractor as procurement evolves, has gained in popularity. However, the characteristics of the process, although well identified, continue to create confusion and problems for clients and contractors alike. This paper focuses on the dynamics of design and build novation from the principal contractor's and architect's perspectives. It embraces key aspects of both the pre-contract and post-contract environment. Its contribution forms a part of a major UK Government funded research project investigating design and build best practice. The findings presented in this paper broadly indicate that contractors believe novated design and build can be disadvantageous and that considerable fragmentation can be created in what should be an integrated procurement approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; design and build; novation; procurement; tendering |
| Index terms: | architect, design and construction, integration, best practice, dynamics, designer, design and build, fragmentation, principal contractor |
| Subjects: | practitioner, profession, business, contractual arrangements, systems engineering, organizational analysis |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Procurement, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design |
| 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