Search results

Guided by a conceptual model developed by Davison and Wright, the research was conducted to determine which types of contract administration problems (e.g., delays) were perceived as most likely for seven types of contracts (e.g., small supplies and purchases). The survey was sent electronically to all members of the National Institute of Government Purchasing (NIGP). Postcards with the survey URL were also distributed to a random sample of members of the Institute for Supply Management (ISM). Data were obtained from 557 respondents. The results for the perceived relationship of the occurrence of contract administration problems for the various contract types provided partial support for the conceptual model. The results also showed that construction contracts were perceived as having the most problems overall and delay was perceived as the most common contract administration problem. The implications and limitations of the research are discussed.

The contracting process is fraught with difficulties. While successful completion of a contract is the goal, problems and challenges often arise. This requires skills in negotiation or mediation. Dealing with these problems, even if it means recommending contract termination, is part of the job of the contract representatives who oversee the specific projects. Data from the Contracting Officer Representatives survey conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (2005) is used. An index of perceived outcomes (deliverables or services were timely, of high quality, complete, contributed to the agency mission, fair and reasonable, and of good value) was constructed. Roughly, half the respondents indicated that they had had to deal with a problem or challenge. Problem-solving actions (discussions with contactors and other governmental officials, the submission of official documentations, and the recommendation of non-payment or termination sanctions) were submitted to a regression analysis (R² = .19). From a dozen options, only discussion of the problem with contractors and with their own supervisors along with the recommendation of contract termination registered some meaningful importance (Standardized Betas .1 to .2).

Guided by a conceptual model developed by Davison and Wright (2004), Davison and Sebastian (2009) surveyed National Institute of Government Purchasing (NIGP) and Institute of Supply Management (ISM) members to determine empirically which types of contract administration problems (e.g., delays) were perceived as most likely for seven types of contracts (e.g., small supplies and purchases). The mean ratings of the perceived occurrence of the ten problems for each contract problem were reported. The types of contract that had the greatest overall perceived occurrence of problems across all problem types and the types of problem that were perceived to be the most common across all contract types were also reported. This research extends these analyses by examining specifically which types of contract administration problems were perceived to be most common for each of the seven contract types and by examining which contract types were perceived to be most affected by the ten contract administration problems. The implications of the research results for procurement professionals and the limitations of the research are discussed.

To help procurement professionals identify the root causes of contract administration problems, we present an organizational behavior problem solving conceptual framework which consists of a comprehensive exposition of potential personal (e.g., personality) and environmental (e.g., technology) causes of behavior. We then illustrate how the causal factors from the framework can be mapped to the procurement process and its problems. We expect that procurement professionals will be able to use the framework to identify root causes in post-mortem analyses of contracts or elsewhere in the procurement process to mitigate risks. We also expect that management will use the framework to address the organizational behavior root causes of problems, thereby improving the systems and processes it controls or influences and, in turn, minimizing or eliminating contract administration risks. Future research can evaluate the usefulness of the framework.

This paper considers the impact that contractual procedures have upon the client's control system's ability to deal with unexpected problems. An analysis is made of the relevant procedures set out in the New Engineering Contract (NEC) and a comparison is made to those set out in the Standard Form of Building Contract 1980 Edition (JCT 80). The comparative analysis is based upon a model of problem solving which identifies four critical stages in the problem solving process. The objective of the paper is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of JCT 80 and NEC in relation to the stages of this model. The aim of the paper is to make some recommendations which could be incorporated into future contracts to improve problem solving effectiveness. This work is a continuation of a research project which is considering the communication and behavioural aspects of the problem solving process in construction projects.

The purpose of this article is to describe a method for activating the contact‐contract‐action model, and to present findings based on its adaptation and integration into a formal library instruction course. Contact‐contract‐action, borrowed from social work practice, is used to promote strategic behavior change or “intervention” resulting from careful assessment of what the user needs (contact), what the user is willing to do to meet his or her information need (contract). After completing the contact and contract phases, the user engages in behavior to actually meet the need (action). Its theoretical bases are client self‐determination and problem solving.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.