Costantino, N and Pietroforte, R (2004) Production arrangements by us building and non-building contractors: An update. Construction Management and Economics, 22(3), pp. 231-235. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The paper presents the results of the first phase of a long-term study that addresses the determinants of the production arrangements by US building (commercial and residential construction) and non-building contractors (transportation, environmental and industrial construction). Empirical and census data are used to understand the subcontracting and self-performance practice of the considered contractors. The significant differences in their production arrangements are explained in terms of range of technological requirements and their relative importance within undertaken projects. Building contractors tend to subcontract much of their production, because of the relatively wider range of technological inputs of building projects and liability concerns. On the contrary, non-building contractors self-perform much of their production, because of the relatively narrower range of technological inputs of their projects and higher fixed investments in dedicated assets.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building contractors; non-building contractors; self-performance; subcontracting; us construction industry |
| Index terms: | subcontract, liability, relative importance, building contractor, subcontracting, residential construction, industrial construction, determinant, construction industry |
| Subjects: | practitioner, risk assessment, contract type, organization, industry analysis, liability law, building construction, construction integration |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Legal Issues, Supply Chain Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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