بررسی اثر روش های تأمین تجهیزات مشارکتی بر عملکرد پروژه ساختمانی: چارچوب مفهومی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|17007||2011||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6670 کلمه|
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله شامل 6670 کلمه می باشد.
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 29, Issue 2, February 2011, Pages 197–208
In this paper, we develop a testable holistic procurement framework that examines how a broad range of procurement related factors affects project performance criteria. Based on a comprehensive literature review, we put forward propositions suggesting that cooperative procurement procedures (joint specification, selected tendering, soft parameters in bid evaluation, joint subcontractor selection, incentive-based payment, collaborative tools, and contractor self-control) generally have a positive influence on project performance (cost, time, quality, environmental impact, work environment, and innovation). We additionally propose that these relationships are moderated or mediated by the collaborative climate (i.e. the trust and commitment among partners) in the project and moderated by the overall project characteristics (i.e. how challenging the project is in terms of complexity, customization, uncertainty, value/size, and time pressure). Based on our contribution, future research can test the framework empirically to further increase the knowledge about how procurement factors may influence project performance.
Since construction projects and/or their outcomes heavily affect our modern society, the importance of a well-functioning construction industry is beyond doubt (Cheung et al., 2001). In many countries the construction industry has, however, attracted criticism for inefficiencies in outcomes such as time and cost overruns, low productivity, poor quality, and inadequate customer satisfaction (Egan, 1998, SOU, 2000, Yasamis et al., 2002 and Chan et al., 2003). Practitioners, researchers, and society at large have, therefore, called for a change in attitudes, behaviour, and procedures in order to increase the chances for project success and improved end products (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). The client is proposed to act as a change agent in such a change (Egan, 1998 and SOU, 2000). The way the client deals with procurement determines responsibilities and authorities in the entire construction process, affecting the degree of integration and cooperation among project participants (Love et al., 1998 and Briscoe et al., 2004). Since traditional procurement procedures cause adversarial relationships and many problems in all stages of the buying process, this is a vital improvement area that can contribute substantially to project success (Cheung et al., 2003 and Eriksson and Laan, 2007). Although procurement procedures need to be tailored to enhance the fulfillment of different project performance objectives (Cox and Thompson, 1997 and Wardani et al., 2006), clients tend to choose those procurement procedures that they have a good knowledge of and a habit of using, regardless of any differences between projects (Love et al., 1998 and Eriksson, 2008b). For a new procurement procedure to be implemented, clients need to feel confident of how to use it and have positive attitudes towards its effect on outcomes (Tysseland, 2008). Hence, the key to a change of practice lies in an increased understanding of how different novel procurement procedures actually work and affect project performance. Even though issues relating to procurement procedures seem highly important for accomplishing project success, earlier research on this topic is limited. The few conducted investigations focused on how only one or a few procurement related factors affect a few project outcomes. Examples are how bid evaluation affects cost and schedule growth (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006 and Wardani et al., 2006), how technology usage (joint IT-tools) affects cost and time performance (Yang, 2007), and how the use of partnering tools affects partnering success (Tang et al., 2006). In order to achieve successful governance of construction projects, a holistic and systemic approach to procurement procedures is crucial (Cox and Thompson, 1997, Eriksson, 2008a and Pesämaa et al., 2009). The purpose of this study is therefore to develop a testable holistic procurement framework that examines how a broad range of procurement related factors affects project performance criteria. By doing this, the paper will contribute with both a holistic perspective on procurement effects on performance and a detailed perspective, discussing specific procedures’ effect on certain performance criteria. By using this framework in future empirical investigations, it will be possible to analyse if and how different factors and criteria interact and affect one another. To fulfil the aim, a comprehensive literature review of procurement related success factors and success criteria reflecting construction project performance is carried out.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The framework developed and presented in this paper proposes three possible relationships among procurement procedures and project performance. First, there are many research efforts supporting the view that cooperative procurement procedures (joint specification, selected tendering, soft parameters in bid evaluation, joint subcontractor selection, incentive-based payment, collaborative tools, and contractor self-control) have direct positive effects on project performance (cost, time, quality, environmental impact, work environment, and innovation), as suggested in propositions P1–P7. As suggested in P10, the degree to whether the project characteristics are challenging will affect the relationships in P1–P7 indicating that when project characteristics are far from challenging, some of the relationships in P1–P7 may even be negative. However, as most projects today are rather challenging, we hold that the propositions generally are positive. Secondly, we suggest that a collaborative climate is required for project success and that this collaborative climate can be established through the use of cooperative procurement procedures. Hence, in proposition P8 we propose that collaborative climate works as a mediator between cooperative procurement procedures and project performance. However, there is also another perspective on collaborative climate, which underpin our third alternative. This other perspective on collaborative climate proposes that the direct effects are moderated as displayed in proposition P9. Then the direct relationships between cooperative procurement procedures and project performance are positively influenced by the collaborative climate, that is, the stronger the collaborative climate, the stronger the positive relations among cooperative procurement procedures and project performance. Due to the systemic and holistic perspective and the comprehensive literature review, we are able to provide several potentially significant theoretical contributions in this paper. First, we propose testable relationships among a broad range of cooperative procurement procedures and six aspects of project performance including not only the short-term focused “iron triangle” of cost time, and quality but also environmental impact, work environment, and innovation, which are crucial success criteria in terms of long-term competitive advantage and sustainable development. The holistic perspective is illustrated in Table 2, summarising all proposed relationships among procurement procedures and performance criteria and presenting the references on which the propositions are based. Furthermore, we pinpoint the important role of collaborative climate, affecting the relationships between these success factors and success criteria. In order to highlight the importance of balancing cooperation and competition (i.e. coopetition) in buyer–supplier relationships we also introduce project characteristics as a moderating factor, indicating that increased use of cooperative procurement procedures is warranted only when project characteristics are challenging. In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the use of partnering in order to improve collaboration among project actors (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b). However, Cox and Thompson (1997) think that confusion exists between the means and the ends in much of the partnering literature. There is a danger that collaboration becomes the objective rather than a vehicle for achieving successful project performance (Cox and Thompson, 1997 and Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b). By including project characteristics as a moderator, we contribute to theory as we propose that the appropriateness of cooperative procurement procedures are contingent on project characteristics and that cooperation thus may be detrimental in some situations. Another theoretical contribution is that the framework proposes that collaboration should not be discussed in terms of a success criterion, but as a mediator or moderator between cooperative procurement procedures and project performance. From a practical perspective, the framework can serve as a guide, increasing clients’ understanding of how the implementation of cooperative procurement procedures can enhance various aspects of project performance. It also highlights the importance of establishing a collaborative climate among the project actors. Furthermore, the inclusion of three additional success criteria can guide considerate clients about how to enhance sustainable development through a wider range of project objectives. Although the six identified success criteria are discussed individually in this paper, connections and even trade-off relationships may exist among them. Increased time pressure, leading to overtime for project staff, may increase costs and accidents while decreasing quality and innovation. Nevertheless, to avoid a too complex conceptual framework we do not focus on potential trade-off relationships in this paper. The connections among independent variables and among dependent variables are more important to address in future work when the developed framework is empirically tested (where some form of structural equation modelling probably is suitable). In fact, the empirical test may find that certain specific procurement procedures can result in positive outcomes in terms of many different criteria. In organisational research the focus on trade-off relationships has been shifted to paradoxical thinking, which is the simultaneous existence of two inconsistent states (Eisenhardt, 2000). This paradoxical thinking is pinpointed in research about organisational ambidexterity, which broadly refers to an organisation’s ability to pursue two disparate things at the same time (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004 and Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). In the ambidexterity literature the ability to balance both short-term and long-term strategies (e.g. alignment and adaptability) is key to sustained performance (Raisch et al., 2009). In line with this reasoning, finding ways to execute procurement in such ways that the client manages to pursue several project performance objectives at the same time would enhance sustainable development. Hence, the framework developed in this paper can serve as a starting point for research about ambidexterity at the project level within the project management field. To increase the practical impact of this research, we encourage other scholars to put the proposed framework to test in different contexts. Most of the concepts we discuss are easily operationalized as there exist scales (e.g. trust and commitment), or the concept can fairly easily be adequately measured (e.g. level of use of the different procurement procedures). The main challenge is perhaps to collect data from a large enough number of projects. We hope the challenges will not deter researchers from testing the framework. The value of having this framework tested is potentially great, as the project management literature has many indications that increased cooperation may be a good strategy for achieving project success, but empirical evidence delineating this in a more holistic way is lacking.