Nahapiet, H and Nahapiet, J (1985) A comparison of contractual arrangements for building projects. Construction Management and Economics, 3(3), pp. 217-231. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper considers contracts from an organizational perspective, comparing the major forms of contracts available for building projects and examining the factors influencing their selection. The analysis is based on the findings of a study of ten building projects, six in the USA and four in the UK, together with the results of a survey of those prominent in the industry. A comparison of five different contractual arrangements indicates that they establish different patterns of responsibilities and relationships between clients and the various parties involved in building projects. In so doing, they are regarded as offering clients differing combinations of expertise, risk, flexibility and costs. For the projects studied, three factors were found to be related to contract selection: the characteristics of clients, particularly their experience and expertise in construction, the level of performance required by clients and the construction complexity of projects. These findings, together with previous research, suggest that it is unlikely that there is one 'best' form of contract for building projects. Rather, which is the appropriate contractual arrangement varies according to the particular set of project circumstances, especially the type of client, his time and cost requirements and the characteristics of the project.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building; contract management; organization |
| Index terms: | form of contract, complexity, survey, contract management |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, data collection methods, systems engineering, contract management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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