Chapman, R J (1999) The likelihood and impact of changes of key project personnel on the design process. Construction Management and Economics, 17(1), pp. 99-106. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Both the construction and the risk analysis and management literature have overlooked the highly disruptive influence of the loss of key project personnel. It is clear from other industries involved in managing projects, such as information technology, that the likelihood of this adverse event is openly recognized. The construction literature looks at a series of issues which all relate to communication and information transfer but fails to isolate one of the key issues which, when it materializes, seriously undermines the essence of design - the complete integration of the creative contribution of all the participating design disciplines. The risk analysis and management literature recognizes the significance of risk identification but pays scant attention to discontinuity, and the borrowed identification techniques are reliant solely on subjective judgements. Propositions for examination are tested against a documentary analysis of twenty-two projects to establish the existence of this threat to a project's objectives. Of the sample of projects examined, changes to personnel are commonplace, and clearly lead to project overruns.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design management; key project personnel; risk |
| Index terms: | information technology, documentary analysis, risk analysis, design management, integration, risk identification, overrun, design process, personnel |
| Subjects: | data science, design methods, computing systems, environmental hazards, project controls, organizational analysis, financial risk, design process, management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Cost Management, Sustainability, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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