Michell, K; Bowen, P and Cattell, K (2007) Modeling the design team as a temporary management structure: Reality versus theory. Construction Economics and Building, 7(1), pp. 19-28. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The focus of the cost management literature is almost exclusively on technical issues, with scant attention to its social, political and organisational dimensions. In this paper the authors document research examining the design team as a temporary management structure, with emphasis on the efficacy of the cost management system as a vehicle for attaining client objectives with respect to time, cost and quality. Soft systems methodology is used to explore the perceptions of stakeholders to the cost management system, thus developing conceptual models of the theory and practice of cost management. Significant differences were found to exist between the perceptions of individual stakeholders concerning design team participants, participants' roles, and the very purpose of the cost management system. Recommendations are made for structural, attitudinal and procedural changes to the cost management system in order to facilitate its effective functioning in the achievement of the client’s needs and objectives.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cost planning; South Africa; cost management; design team; systems thinking; temporary management structure |
| Index terms: | cost management, cost planning, South Africa, dimension, design team, modelling, soft systems methodology, systems thinking |
| Subjects: | Geography, accounting and finance, research methods, financial management, health monitoring assessment and metrics, analytical methods, professional practice |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, 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