Scott, S and Assadi, S (1999) A survey of the site records kept by construction supervisors. Construction Management and Economics, 17(3), pp. 375-382. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A number of writers have cited poor records as limiting the ability of supervisors, and indeed of contractors, to carry out some of their most important functions. The study reported in this paper aimed to identify the problems in detail. This was achieved by conducting a mail-shot survey of construction supervisors working for firms of civil engineering consultants. The results indicate that there is considerable room for improvement in the records kept on most sites, where guidelines are said to be inadequate and the problems of enforcing these inadequate guidelines were also recognized. The main source data for progress records was identified as the site diaries kept by individual members of the supervisor's team, and these were found to be particularly difficult to access for a number of reasons. Since the site diaries are such an important source of information, it is argued that most benefit may be gained by taking steps to improve these daily logs which, in turn, will allow better overviews of progress to be produced.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; progress records; site procedures; supervisor's functions |
| Index terms: | diary, engineering consultant, supervisor, survey |
| Subjects: | practitioner, data collection methods, professional |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PE |
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