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.

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.

Type: Journal Article
Keywords: Ethics; relationship management; stakeholder management; utility
ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190801905414
Abstract:
The predominant utilitarian conceptualization of stakeholder management within construction is reviewed. Utilitarianism will be contrasted with an ethics of nurture and care perspective. A credibility gap is identified in the utilitarian approach whereby individual parties in positions of power are unable to maximize net well-being. The relationship management concept will be outlined and located within the ethics of care, showing how aggregated behaviours can be linked to this approach. Behaviours that management can facilitate will be outlined and links made with the ethics of care concerning stakeholder management. The analysis will conceptually establish how the credibility gap in stakeholder management can be bridged. Research into relationships within PPP/PFI projects will be explored. The relationships between the SPV and the public sector will provide a particular focus. Recommendations for practice and future research will draw the analysis to a conclusion.

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.