Kong, A T and Gray, J (2006) Traditional procurement is too slow. Construction Economics and Building, 6(1), pp. 51-62. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
This paper reports on an exploratory interview survey of construction project participants aimed at identifying the reasons for the decrease in use of the traditional, lump-sum, procurement system in Malaysia. The results show that most people believe it is too slow. This appears to be in part due to the contiguous nature of the various phase and stages of the process and especially the separation of the design and construction phases. The delays caused by disputes between the various parties are also seen as a contributory factor - the most prominent cause being the frequency of variations, with design and scope changes being a particular source of discontent. It is concluded that an up scaling of the whole of the time related reward/penalty system may be the most appropriate measure for the practice in future.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | procurement; buildability; cost uncertainty; disputes; fragmentation; time; traditional system; variations |
| Index terms: | fragmentation, dispute, contributory factor, survey, scaling, traditional procurement, scope change, variation, construction project, Malaysia, interview, buildability, penalty, design and construction, procurement system |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, risk assessment, business, organization, production management, contractual condition, Geography, scope management, dispute resolution, design efficiency, regulatory law, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Risk Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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