Yogeswaran, K and Kumaraswamy, M M (1999) To instruct or not? The engineer's dilemma. Construction Management and Economics, 17(6), pp. 731-743. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A recent research project explored the sources of relatively higher value and/or more frequent construction claims in civil engineering projects in Hong Kong. Fourteen common sources of claims were cited to seek views from the industry as to the perceived frequencies, magnitudes and avoidabilities of claims from such sources. One of the significant sources was identified as 'instructions not being issued', with reference to the provision in most standard civil engineering contracts that 'the engineer' shall issue necessary instructions for the purposes of completion of the Works. The study reported here focuses on the possible responses of 'the engineer' when the contractor requests instructions/information. Also the study examines the possible generation of construction claims therefrom. Eleven practitioners who were familiar with such matters were issued a questionnaire which described ten typical construction problem scenarios (cases) where contractors may request instructions. The responses are summarized and the basis for reaching each of these decisions is analysed. An example of the eleven detailed responses to one of the cases is presented to demonstrate the divergence of perceptions on each issue and the consequent different recommendations. Strategies to minimize the claims and disputes arising from such scenarios are developed, based on resolving the evident conflicts between the reasons for such divergences.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; Hong Kong; instructions; minimize; sources |
| Index terms: | engineer, dispute, Hong Kong, construction claim, practitioner, questionnaire, strategy |
| Subjects: | payment, management, Geography, profession, data collection methods, dispute resolution, practitioner |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Contract Administration |
| 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