Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 12 results ...

Akintoye, A (2000) Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 77-89.

Arditi, D and Mochtar, K (2000) Trends in productivity improvement in the US construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 15-27.

Craig, R (2000) Re-engineering the tender code for construction works. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 91-100.

Edwards, D J, Holt, G D and Harris, F C (2000) A model for predicting plant maintenance costs. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 65-75.

Fielden, S L, Davidson, M J, Gale, A W and Davey, C L (2000) Women in construction: the untapped resource. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 113-21.

Fraser, C (2000) The influence of personal characteristics on effectiveness of construction site managers. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 29-36.

Garnett, N and Pickrell, S (2000) Benchmarking for construction: theory and practice. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 55-63.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: benchmarking; process mapping; case study; social constructivism
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/014461900370951
  • Abstract:

    The UK construction industry has identified benchmarking as one of a number of initiatives to assist in the drive for major improvements in efficiency and economy. At the outset, the industry struggled to see how a technique based upon comparison of similar goods and processes could be used effectively in a project based industry where products, processes and teams changed regularly. This paper discusses the development and testing of a benchmarking model and study methodology for use in construction. The model was derived from an extensive literature review which considered the underlying theoretical basis of benchmarking. The case is made that, to be successful, the benchmarking process is as important as the benchmarks themselves, and that it is based upon constructivist foundations, rather than positivist. As such, any methodology for undertaking benchmarking must take place in a similar vein, i.e. be interactive, team based and flexible but with an underlying rigour provided by the benchmarking model. The paper outlines two case studies to test the benchmarking model and study methodology, discusses the learning and benefits that accrued and introduces further developments.

Hughes, W, Hillebrandt, P and Murdoch, J (2000) The impact of contract duration on the cost of cash retention. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 11-4.

Kim, J-C, Kim, D-H, Kim, J-J, Ye, J-S and Lee, H-S (2000) Segmenting the Korean housing market using multiple discriminant analysis. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 45-54.

Treloar, G J, Love, P E D, Faniran, O O and Iyer-Raniga, U (2000) A hybrid life cycle assessment method for construction. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 5-9.

Walker, A and Newcombe, R (2000) The positive use of power on a major construction project. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), 37-44.

Zarkada-Fraser, A and Skitmore, M R (2000) Decisions with moral content: collusion. Construction Management and Economics, 18(01), -11.