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.
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.
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.
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.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: Construction; Project management; Design-bid-build; Construction site; Change orders;
- ISBN/ISSN: 0969-9988
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2018-0017
- Abstract:
Change orders (COs) adversely affect the cost and schedule of projects, specifically during the construction phase. COs of 95 new public school building projects contracted by the Clark County School District (CCSD) of Nevada were analyzed to quantify the cost and schedule growth as well as to determine the effect of COs on cost and schedule growth. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approach The data were collected from CCSD through questionnaire survey. Descriptive statistics and statistical tests were conducted to determine the effect of COs on cost and schedule growth.Findings It was found that the average amount of COs as well as cost and schedule overruns were 5.9, 3.0 and 7.4 percent, respectively. Statistical tests showed that the amount of COs had an adverse effect on schedule growth; schedule overruns in projects with less than 4 percent COs were significantly lower than projects with more than 4 percent COs. Cost overruns did not significantly differ in those two types of projects. The primary contribution of this study is that it provides the tools and the framework for school district engineers to determine the probability of the occurrence of COs as well as the optimum percentage of COs for a minimum effect on cost and schedule growth of new public school buildings. Probability curves were also developed to determine the likelihood of the occurrence of COs, cost growth and schedule growth in these projects. These findings could be used by school districts to avoid or reduce COs in future projects, minimizing the effect on cost and schedule growth during the construction phase.Research limitations/implications The findings and the probabilities curves developed in this study should be used carefully in other cases. These data were specific to the owner, location and types of buildings and generalizing these findings may have negative consequences.Practical implications The practical implications are that this study could provide a tool to school building administrators to determine the probability of having COs as well as cost and schedule overruns and the effects of COs on cost and schedule overruns. To the authors’ best knowledge, no other studies of this type have been conducted previously.Social implications The social implication of this study is it will help to efficiently use the tax payers’ money while building new school buildings.Originality/value This study has collected the hard data of COs, cost and schedule data of CCSD new school building projects. Therefore, the data are from the projects completed by CCSD. So, the paper is written from the original data received from CCSD.
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.
Smyth, H (2008) The credibility gap in stakeholder management: ethics and evidence of relationship management. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 633–43.
Walker, D, Bourne, L M and Shelley, A (2008) Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 645–58.
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.
Ward, S and Chapman, C (2008) Stakeholders and uncertainty management in projects. Construction Management and Economics, 26(06), 563–77.
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.
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.