Gibb, A G F and Isack, F (2001) Client drivers for construction projects: Implications for standardization. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(1), pp. 46-58. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
This paper presents the results from interviews of 59 senior personnel from major construction clients. There are two main themes: client drivers for construction projects and their implications for standardization of processes and components. The client sample is described and reasons for procuring construction projects are established along with the extent of their involvement in the construction process and hence their ability to influence the outcomes. Their views on value for money, preconceptions of standardization and their opinion on its future potential are explored. Many clients recognize the need to involve constructors and manufacturers early, although fewer actually achieve this. Misconceptions about standardization exist, but many clients are recognizing the benefits possible from standardization. However, very few actually measure benefits and so are unable to truly evaluate success. There is a future for increased standardization, but only if the industry recognizes the unique aspects of each client and responds positively to meet those needs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | client drivers; components; processes; standardization |
| Index terms: | construction client, standardization, manufacturer, interview, personnel, value-for-money, construction process, construction project |
| Subjects: | evaluation, production management, management, performance measurement, building construction, practitioner, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Human Resources, Value Management, Site Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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