IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v16y1998i2p221-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting a suitable procurement method for a building project

Author

Listed:
  • P. E. D. Love
  • M. Skitmore
  • G. Earl

Abstract

Building procurement has become a fashionable term with industry practitioners and researchers. It determines the overall framework and structure of responsibilities and authorities for participants within the building process. It is a key factor contributing to overall client satisfaction and project success. The selection of the most suitable procurement method consequently is critical for both clients and project participants, and is becoming an important and contemporary issue within the building industry. The problem, nevertheless, lies in the fact that there has been limited empirical research in this field of study. Postal questionnaire surveys of 41 clients and 35 consultants were carried out, and were used to obtain experience of and attitudes to a variety of procurement methods and the criteria used for selection. The findings indicate that a simple set of the criteria generally is adequate and sufficient for procurement path selection, and that there is a reasonable consensus on the appropriate weighting for each path. Moreover, it is shown that, contrary to expectations, similar clients generally do not have similar procurement needs.

Suggested Citation

  • P. E. D. Love & M. Skitmore & G. Earl, 1998. "Selecting a suitable procurement method for a building project," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 221-233.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:16:y:1998:i:2:p:221-233
    DOI: 10.1080/014461998372501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/014461998372501
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/014461998372501?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:16:y:1998:i:2:p:221-233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.