ARCOM

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 16 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.

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.

Edwards, P and Bowen, P (2019) Language and communication issues in HIV/AIDS intervention management in the South African construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 962–88.

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.

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.

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

Shalaby, A and Hassanein, A (2019) A decision support system (DSS) for facilitating the scenario selection process of the renegotiation of PPP contracts. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1004–23.

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.

Wang, Q and Shi, Q (2019) The incentive mechanism of knowledge sharing in the industrial construction supply chain based on a supervisory mechanism. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 989–1003.

Yalcinkaya, M and Singh, V (2019) Exploring the use of Gestalt’s principles in improving the visualization, user experience and comprehension of COBie data extension. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(06), 1024–46.

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.

• Type: Journal Article
• Keywords: Stakeholder; Value management; Case study; Project management; Social network analysis; Value conflicts; Stock public–private partnership project;
• ISBN/ISSN: 0969-9988
• URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2018-0330
• Abstract:
  The complexity caused by conflicting values of stakeholders is a critical issue influencing the performance and sustainability of stock public–private partnership (SPPP) projects, which is a special type of public–private partnership (PPP) project in China. The purpose of this paper is to focus on value conflicts between local government and private sector, which are two major stakeholders in SPPP projects, and investigate exchange rules to resolve value conflicts. Using a mixed method approach, 55 semi-structured interviews were conducted for 15 stakeholders involved in a representative SPPP project. Social network analysis was then adopted to outline the value conflict network based on data drawn from focus group discussions. Finally, 24 value conflicts between local government and private sector were analyzed through another 13 semi-structured interviews in an abductive approach. Results show that value conflicts between local government and private sector are dynamic and intertwined within and across three project phases, based on which six exchange rules, rationality, Altruism, power consistency, competition, group gain and reciprocity, are identified. Two sets of situational factors which potentially influence exchange rules adopted by the two parties are revealed, namely, urgency and professionality for local government and short-term interests and long-term interests for private sector. A summary of paired exchange rules is provided to predict if value conflicts between the two major stakeholders will be resolved or not. Theoretical implications are twofold. First, the results provide a contribution to PPP project management by investigating value conflicts between local government and private sector, which deepen the understanding on the unique characteristics of SPPP projects. Second, the findings contribute to a comprehensive understanding of social exchange theory by suggesting a summary of condition-based and pair-based exchange rules. One strength of the study is in the concentrated analysis of a single case which allows for a deep understanding of value complexity between local government and private sector in SPPP projects from a dynamic and networked perspective. A guideline is provided for both parties when a value conflict is found hard to resolve. Besides, this study is also among the first that addresses value issues in SPPP projects.

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.