Musallami, A A and Assaf, S (1996) Public owners' satisfaction with consultancy practices in Saudi Arabia. Building Research & Information, 24(3), pp. 148-151. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
A fairly moderate satisfaction was indicated in the study on local architectural and engineering firms providing services to the public sector. Areas for improvement are defined, including the need for research into why there are so many changes during the construction process. Between 1970 and 1985 the public expenditure on three development plans in Saudi Arabia amounted to 1940 billion Saudi Riyals. This paper addresses the professional relationship between the public owners and the local architectural and engineering practices which has been measured in the form of overall satisfaction under a five-point scale ranging from excellent to poor, a second aspect identified satisfaction related to the design service and finally, a measure of satisfaction was gained from owners' response to their professional relationship with the practices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural and engineering practices; consultancy service; satisfaction; Saudi Arabia |
| Index terms: | consultancy, construction process, public sector, public owner, engineering firm, owner, satisfaction, Saudi Arabia, public expenditure |
| Subjects: | Geography, firms, sociology, building construction, political science, administrative law, organization, project delivery |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Site Management, Legal Issues, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Geographical Context |
| 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