Loosemore, M (1994) Problem behaviour. Construction Management and Economics, 12(6), pp. 511-520. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Unexpected problems are inevitable on construction projects because predictive and preventive techniques can never be perfect. This makes it necessary to understand how construction project organizations react to unexpected problems. Problems are solved by people and this makes the study of human problem-solving behaviour particularly important. This paper describes a research project which is currently investigating reactive problem-solving processes in construction projects. It is doing so from the client’s viewpoint. The conclusions presented are based upon a qualitative analysis of data collected by diaries, observation and semistructured interviews. The research is in its early analytical stages and whilst the findings are based upon the study of a variety of projects they must currently be treated as tentative in nature. The purpose of the paper is to start to identify a range of expected problem-solving behaviours, the conditions that lead to them and their appropriateness.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | behaviour; conflict; control; problem solving; risk |
| Index terms: | diary, interview, problem solving, qualitative analysis, construction project |
| Subjects: | production management, decision-making and reasoning, research design and methodology, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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