ARCOM

Abstracts – Browse Results

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 30 results ...

Aalto, L, Sirola, P, Kalliomäki-Levanto, T, Lahtinen, M, Ruohomäki, V, Salonen, H and Reijula, K (2019) User-centric work environments in modular healthcare facilities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1047–62.

Chapman, C and Ward, S (2008) Developing and implementing a balanced incentive and risk sharing contract. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 659–69.

Chinyio, E and Akintoye, A (2008) Practical approaches for engaging stakeholders: findings from the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 591–9.

Daniel, E I and Pasquire, C (2019) Creating social value within the delivery of construction projects: the role of lean approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1105–28.

Du, J, Wang, Q and Shi, Q (2019) Description–experience gap under imperfect information. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1151–70.

Fraser, C and Zhu, C (2008) Stakeholder perception of construction site managers' effectiveness. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 579–90.

Galbraith, G H, McLean, R C, Gillespie, I, Guo, J S and Kelly, D (1998) Non-isothermal moisture diffusion in porous building materials. Building Research & Information, 26(06), 330–9.

Layzell, J and Ledbetter, S (1998) FMEA applied to cladding systems: reducing the risk of failure. Building Research & Information, 26(06), 351–7.

Li, H, Love, P E D and Ogunlana, S (1998) Genetic algorithm compared to non-linear optimization for labour and equipment assignment. Building Research & Information, 26(06), 322–9.

Li, L, Li, Z, Li, X and Wu, G (2019) A review of global lean construction during the past two decades: analysis and visualization. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1192–216.

Lingard, H, Zhang, R P and Oswald, D (2019) Effect of leadership and communication practices on the safety climate and behaviour of construction workgroups. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 886–906.

Mathur, V N, Price, A and Austin, S (2008) Conceptualizing stakeholder engagement in the context of sustainability and its assessment. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 601–9.

Moodley, K, Smith, N and Preece, C N (2008) Stakeholder matrix for ethical relationships in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 625–32.

Munir, M, Kiviniemi, A and Jones, S W (2019) Business value of integrated BIM-based asset management. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1171–91.

Ngowi, A B (1998) Is construction procurement a key to sustainable development?. Building Research & Information, 26(06), 340–50.

Olander, S and Landin, A (2008) A comparative study of factors affecting the external stakeholder management process. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 553–61.

Type: Journal Article
Keywords: Customer relations; stakeholder; railways; Sweden
ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701821810
Abstract:
There is a natural tendency for stakeholder groups to try to influence the implementation of construction projects in line with their individual concerns and needs. This presents a challenge for construction project managers in analysing and managing these various concerns and needs in a stakeholder management process falling within the limits of the project. The aim of the research presented here was to show the factors affecting the stakeholder management process positively or negatively from the perspective of project implementation. A comparative study of two railway projects in Sweden was undertaken to analyse these factors. The study showed that the outcome of the stakeholder management process depended mainly upon how well the project managers presented the benefits and negative consequences brought on by the construction project. Techniques and tools exist for this purpose, but must be appropriate, and these are discussed in the context of the two projects. The challenge for project managers is to implement the project in such a way that the effects of negative impacts are minimized and, if possible, the benefits for all stakeholders are maximized. Project managers must communicate and interact with stakeholders so that the perceived benefits and negative impacts are realistically defined.

Rowlinson, S and Cheung, Y K F (2008) Stakeholder management through empowerment: modelling project success. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 611–23.

Seadon, J and Tookey, J E (2019) Drivers for construction productivity. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 945–61.

Shrestha, K, Shrestha, P P and Lidder, M (2019) Life-cycle cost comparison of chip seal and striping: in-house workers versus private contractors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 927–44.

Shrestha, P P, Shrestha, K K and Zeleke, H B (2019) Probability of change orders and the effect on cost and schedule for new public school buildings. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1087–104.

Shurrab, J, Hussain, M and Khan, M (2019) Green and sustainable practices in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1063–86.

Walker, D, Bourne, L M and Shelley, A (2008) Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 645–58.

Ward, S and Chapman, C (2008) Stakeholders and uncertainty management in projects. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 563–77.

Zhu, F, Sun, M, Wang, L, Sun, X and Yu, M (2019) Value conflicts between local government and private sector in stock public-private partnership projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 907–26.

Zohrehvandi, S and Khalilzadeh, M (2019) APRT-FMEA buffer sizing method in scheduling of a wind farm construction project. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1129–50.