Palaneeswaran, E and Kumaraswamy, M M (2000) Benchmarking contractor selection practices in public-sector construction: A proposed model. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 7(3), pp. 285-299. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Benchmarking of best practices has proved useful in the business and manufacturing sectors. However, benchmarking is not established in the construction industry in general and in government organizations in particular. A study of the contractor selection methodologies used by various clients confirms the multiplicity of approaches in practice. This paper aims at identifying some relevant best' practices and highlighting innovative' contractor selection approaches that have been used by large public clients. A co-operative' and non-competitive' conceptual benchmarking model is formulated and presented with a view to encouraging continuous improvement in contractor selection for construction projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; best practices; continuous improvement; contractor selection; innovative approaches; public-sector |
| Index terms: | contractor selection, continuous improvement, best practice, public client, construction industry, operative, construction project, methodology, benchmarking |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, research methods, tendering, production management, sociology, industry analysis, business, practitioner |
| Topics: | Procurement, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Quality 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