Motawa, I and Kaka, A (2008) Payment mechanisms for integrated teams in construction. Construction Economics and Building, 8(2), pp. 1-10. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The overwhelming consensus for process andteam integration has emerged as an enabler tomanage construction projects. Theperformance of integrated teams is highlyaffected by the adopted payment mechanism.However, the payment mechanisms availablefor a project may need the team tocompromise in order to agree on a fairmechanism for as many members as possible.This paper introduces a methodology tosimulate the profiles of alternative paymentmechanisms. The methodology aims to helpproject teams define the most appropriatemechanism for each member. The proposedmethodology is therefore novel and superior toexisting cash flow models where the focus hasbeen limited to main contractors only. Topromote its use as a performance enablingmechanism, the methodology utilizes “theproject process map”, “the stakeholders &supply chain”, “the pricing method” and “thepayment mechanism”. This will act as an aid todesign or “fine-tune” payment mechanisms toindividual projects characteristics consideringpayment for off-site materials andcomponents, which always concerns projectfabricators and supply chain.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction process; payment mechanisms; pricing methods |
| Index terms: | main contractor, methodology, integration, construction process, cash flow, construction project, pricing, integrated team, payment mechanism |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, organizational analysis, building construction, production management, practitioner, financial management, management, research methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Site Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Cost 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