Loosemore, M and Hughes, K (1998) Emergency systems in construction contracts. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(2), pp. 189-198. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
During a construction crisis, traditional contracts are inflexible, restrictive and counter-productive. Consequently, project participants tend to opt out of contract procedures which, in turn, leads to a disjointed organization and a loss of managerial control. To avoid this problem, drafters of traditional construction contracts need to embrace the principles that underlie contemporary crisis management thinking. However, the construction industry culture is likely to represent a barrier to the successful implementation of more managerially astute contracts such as the Engineering and Construction Contract. As an intermediate step, emergency procedures are suggested. These could be easily incorporated into the existing traditional forms of contract, providing temporary flexibility during a crisis, while at the same time, affording an element of managerial control.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract; control; crisis management; emergency; flexibility |
| Index terms: | crisis management, form of contract, construction contract, implementation, construction industry, traditional construction |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, heritage and conservation, financial risk, contractual arrangements, contract type |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Procurement, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| 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