Rwelamila, P D; Talukhaba, A A and Ngowi, A B (1999) Tracing the African project failure syndrome: The significance of 'ubuntu'. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 6(4), pp. 335-346. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The lack of ubuntu' (African group solidarity) between project stakeholders in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) public building sector has been surrounded by controversy and strongly held opinions. The work reported in this paper attempts to indicate some salient issues affecting the relationships between project stakeholders. The Botswana public building sector is used as a main case study and follow-up studies are carried out involving another eight SADC countries. The paper addresses two propositions. First, that the lack of ubuntu' between project stakeholders is primarily due to an inappropriate project organizational structure. Second, that a default traditional construction procurement system (TCPS), provides a poor relationship management system. Information is obtained on the research areas through questionnaires to construction firm executives, contract managers, site managers, trade foremen and skilled tradespersons on the dominant procurement system used in Botswana. Furthermore, senior technical officers of Public Works Ministries of another eight SADC countries are interviewed as a follow-up to the Botswana study. The primary conclusion to be drawn is that the building procurement system purported to be in use in the SADC public building sector differs significantly from that recommended in the theory, resulting in poor relationships between project stakeholders. This is primarily due to the use of inappropriate building procurement systems. In general, the TCPS in the SADC public building sector is used as a default system'. This has led to a situation where project management is a fire fighting' activity, where group solidarity between project stakeholders is out of reach. Salient steps are proposed with a proviso that the SADC public building sector should establish appropriate methods of selecting building procurement systems as a prerequisite in formulating appropriate project organizational structures which will bring the spirit of real co-operation between project stakeholders towards project success.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Botswana; South Africa; construction procurement system; culture; project management |
| Index terms: | project management, site manager, relationship management, public work, procurement system, construction procurement, executive, Botswana, traditional construction, project failure, case study, Africa, project success, South Africa, public building, project organizational structure, questionnaire, project stakeholder, building procurement, construction firm, contract manager, default |
| Subjects: | management, infrastructure engineering, project management theory and practice, Geography, sociology, organizational analysis, heritage and conservation, organization, project completion, data collection methods, construction type, practitioner, dispute resolution, regions and continents, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Design Practice, Human Resources, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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