Holt, G D (2018) Let's change tack, not wind direction: A response to Kog and Yaman (2016). Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(3), pp. 335-341. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to field a critical response to Kog and Yaman (2016) specifically; and more widely, to strengthen debate on contractor selection (CS) research. Design/methodology/approach: Critical narrative and opinion based on personal worldview, experiential knowledge and future insight/vision. Findings: It is argued that enduring CS research has become somewhat stagnated. It has over-emphasised selection process models vis-à-vis the reliability and currency of their processing components, and has inadequately focused on achieving real-life impact. Research limitations/implications: The principal implication is to engender constructive debate in the field and encourage a change of direction in CS research. The limitation is that this response reflects a personal view and so will be open to “challenge”. Practical implications: Potential to encourage increased practicability, accessibility and generalisability of CS research products, leading to their increased real-life take-up and improved impact on practice. Social implications: For society, the optimal implications would be improved project outcomes; healthier stakeholders' financial interests; and an enhanced constructed environment. Originality/value: The content is entirely original insofar as it comprises a personal viewpoint.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | management; risk management |
| Index terms: | contractor selection, accessibility, project outcome, risk management, society, narrative, methodology |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, project completion, communities and social development, qualitative and interpretive research, research methods, tendering, inclusive design |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Procurement, Project Management, Research Practice, Design Practice |
| 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