Construction management contracts: law and practice

The context of construction management (CM) reveals that this method of procurement is as much a management philosophy as a contract structure. It is important to consider legal and contractual issues in this context. The interplay between management and law is complex and often misunderstood. Before considering specific issues, the use of contractual remedies in business agreements is discussed. In addition, the extent to which standardising a form of contract detracts or contributes to the success of projects is also considered. The dearth of judicial decisions, and the lack of a standard form, render it difficult to be specific about legal issues. Therefore, the main discussion of legal issues is centred around a recently completed research project which involved eliciting the views of a cross-section of experienced construction management clients, consultants and trade contractors. These interviews are used as the basis for highlighting some of the most important legal points to consider when setting up CM projects. The interviews revealed that the advantage of CM is the proximity of the client to the trade contractors and the disadvantage is that it depends on a high degree of professionalism and experience; qualities which are unfortunately difficult to find in the UK construction industry.

Learning across business sectors: Knowledge sharing between aerospace and construction

This report addresses the extent that managerial practices can be shared between the aerospace and construction sectors. Current recipes for learning from other industries tend to be oversimplistic and often fail to recognise the embedded and contextual nature of managerial knowledge. Knowledge sharing between business sectors is best understood as an essential source of innovation. The process of comparison challenges assumptions and better equips managers to cope with future change. Comparisons between the aerospace and construction sectors are especially useful because they are so different. The two sectors differ hugely in terms of their institutional context, structure and technological intensity. The aerospace sector has experienced extensive consolidation and is dominated by a small number of global companies. Aerospace companies operate within complex networks of global interdependency such that collaborative working is a commercial imperative. In contrast, the construction sector remains highly fragmented and is characterised by a continued reliance on small firms. The vast majority of construction firms compete within localised markets that are too often characterised by opportunistic behaviour. Comparing construction to aerospace highlights the unique characteristics of both sectors and helps explain how managerial practices are mediated by context. Detailed comparisons between the two sectors are made in a range of areas and guidance is provided for the implementation of knowledge sharing strategies within and across organisations. The commonly accepted notion of ‘best practice’ is exposed as a myth. Indeed, universal models of best practice can be detrimental to performance by deflecting from the need to adapt continuously to changing circumstances. Competitiveness in the construction sector too often rests on efficiency in managing contracts, with a particular emphasis on the allocation of risk. Innovation in construction tends to be problem-driven and is rarely shared from project to project. In aerospace, the dominant model of competitiveness means that firms have little choice other than to invest in continuous innovation, despite difficult trading conditions. Research and development (R&D) expenditure in aerospace continues to rise as a percentage of turnovers. A sustained capacity for innovation within the aerospace sector depends crucially upon stability and continuity of work. In the construction sector, the emergence of the ‘hollowed-out’ firm has undermined the industry’s capacity for innovation. Integrated procurement contexts such as prime contracting in construction potentially provide a more supportive climate for an innovation-based model of competitiveness. However, investment in new ways of working depends upon a shift in thinking not only amongst construction contractors, but also amongst the industry’s major clients.

Managing multiple markets: big firms and PFI contracts

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is frequently portrayed as a vehicle for change for the UK construction sector. Significant change in the working practices of construction companies is predicted as new business models based on whole-life value creation emerge. This paper shifts the focus of discussion from projected ideals and possible developments to the current situation. More specifically, it focuses on the challenges that large firms participating in both PFI and traditional markets face. The analysis focuses on the relations between business units and on day-to-day challenges to greater long-term commitment, through life-service provision and increased integration between construction and service provision. The paper offers insights into the effects of PFI on construction practice and their implications for theorizing on organizational and strategic change. It suggests abandoning a simplistic model of the centralized, homogenous firm and instead capturing the dynamics of decentralized, large firms working in multiple markets on a variety of projects. This would assist in the provision of more realistic and fruitful models of how to realize the PFI vision.

The cost of choice: how corporate real estate managers evaluate business space options

Firms are faced with a wider set of choices when they identify a need for new office space. They can build or purchase accommodation, lease space for long or short periods with or without the inclusion of services, or they can use “instant office” solutions provided by serviced office operators. But how do they evaluate these alternatives and are they able to make rational choices? The research found that the shortening of business horizons lead to the desire for more office space on short-term contracts often with the inclusion of at least some facilities management and business support services. The need for greater flexibility, particularly in financial terms, was highlighted as an important criteria when selecting new office accommodation. The current office portfolios held were perceived not to meet these requirements. However, there was often a lack of good quality data available within occupiers which could be used to help them analyse the range of choices in the market. Additionally, there were other organisational constraints to making decisions about inclusive real estate products. These included fragmentation of decisions-making, internal politics and the lack of assessment of business risk alongside real estate risk. Overall therefore, corporate occupiers themselves act as an interial force to the development of new and innovative real estate products.