Kometa, S T; Olomolaiye, P O and Harris, F C (1995) Quantifying client-generated risk by project consultants. Construction Management and Economics, 13(2), pp. 137-147. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
An assessment procedure has been developed to evaluate the attributes of construction client organizations with respect to their effects on the performance of consulting firms. It consists of quantifying the degree to which each attribute affects the performance of consultants by processing numerical values through two successive levels. Level 1 consists of client attributes of major interest to consultants in the construction process. These are subdivided at level 2 into groups of mutually related attributes (sub-attributes), each requiring simple judgements from consultants based on their experience with clients. Results from level 2 are processed through level 1 into a single non-dimensional value which represents the potential risk exposure of project consultants to their clients which affords the consultants an appreciation of the risk they face in accepting work from their clients and the opportunity to take corrective action. The most important client attributes used for measuring the risk exposure of consultants were found to be: project feasibility, client’s duties, financial stability, past performance, project characteristics and organizational quality.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | client attributes; consultants; risk assessment |
| Index terms: | face, construction process, duty, project feasibility, risk assessment, exposure, construction client, stability |
| Subjects: | financial risk, practitioner, psychology, structural engineering, public and environmental health, building construction, value management, contractual role |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Site Management, Organizational Design, Project Management, Contract Administration, Health and Safety, Cost 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