Rawlinson, S and Raftery, J (1997) Price stability and the business cycle: UK construction bidding patterns 1970-91. Construction Management and Economics, 15(1), pp. 5-18. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Problems of competitive pricing and strategic management in the construction industry are discussed. A statistical analysis of tender spread patterns over the period 1970-91 shows that changing market conditions influence levels of risk exposure and in turn affect the establishment of a market-generated 'going rate' for construction. A pattern of increasing stability of pricing is identified during the 1980s, and this pattern is linked to developments in the strategic management of contracting organizations. Despite trenchant criticism of the sealed bid as a method of price determination, the industry's price levels do respond relatively quickly to changed economic conditions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; business cycles; market prices |
| Index terms: | exposure, contracting organization, bidding, strategic management, stability, market condition, construction industry, statistical analysis, price determination, pricing, economic condition |
| Subjects: | structural engineering, management, tendering, public and environmental health, industry analysis, economic and policy analysis, practitioner, bidding, data science, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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