Blismas, N G; Sher, W D; Thorpe, A and Baldwin, A N (2004) Factors influencing project delivery within construction clients' multi-project environments. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(2), pp. 113-125. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The single project paradigm which dominates the literature of both project and construction management research does not accurately reflect the reality of many construction clients, who have large ongoing construction portfolios rather than one-off construction projects. Although several concepts of multi-project environments (MPEs) exist, an investigation of the form and dynamic interactions of components within MPEs of construction clients was lacking. This paper presents the factors identified as exerting greatest influence on project delivery within construction clients' MPEs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case studies; construction operations; project management |
| Index terms: | construction project, construction operation, case study, interaction, construction client, investigation, paradigm, project management, management research, project delivery |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, project delivery, construction operations, project management theory and practice, behavioral psychology, data collection methods, practitioner, production management, education and knowledge transfer |
| Topics: | Site Management, Research Practice, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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