Nassar, K (2003) Construction contracts in a competitive market: C3M, a simulation game. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(3), pp. 172-178. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Simulation games provide practical decision-making and strategy development experiences to students in a classroom setting. Having the ability to develop a bidding strategy that secures work and increases market share is vital in a competitive market. This paper presents a simulation game, called C3M (Construction Contracts in a Competitive Market), which mimics a bidding situation and allows users to experiment with different strategies. It is aimed at upper undergraduate students taking courses in construction management or cost and bid analysis, but can be utilized also in a professional training program. The game introduces the principles of competitive bidding through a series of simulated bidding decisions and provides for interaction between the bid prices of the competing teams over a simulated period of time. It can be implemented on any commercial spreadsheet, as described. Trial runs are provided to test the interlocking nature of the decisions made.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; competitive advantage; construction industry; games; management; simulation |
| Index terms: | program, classroom, decision-making, bidding, competitive bidding, experiment, strategy, construction contract, undergraduate, interaction, construction industry, market share, competitive advantage, spreadsheet |
| Subjects: | construction type, data collection methods, contract type, curriculum development, bidding, data science, management, software systems, market analysis, decision analysis, industry analysis, behavioral psychology |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Procurement, Digital Applications, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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