IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijpoma/v2y2010i2p154-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guidelines for pre-project peer reviews in construction contracting

Author

Listed:
  • S. Burcin Kaplanoglu
  • David Arditi

Abstract

'Pre-project peer reviews' (PPPRs) are conducted by construction companies or CM-at-risk firms prior to committing to a GMP or lump sum to mitigate or reduce their project risk. A company uses the services of internal or external senior managers to review the proposed project. This process is expected to indirectly benefit the owner by improving the level of project success. A literature survey indicates that there are no published studies related to PPPR. The issues that need to be discussed in PPPRs are identified and are formulated as guidelines for the use of construction companies and CM-at-risk firms. These issues relate to leadership, staffing, contracts, budget, subcontractors, schedules, safety, quality, cash flow, owner satisfaction, regulations, and information technology. To support these guidelines, the PPPR practices of a construction company including project selection criteria, the characteristics of third party reviewers and of a facilitator, the departments involved in the process and the work flow of the process are reported. The guidelines proposed in this paper provide information on PPPR processes that is not readily available in the current literature.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Burcin Kaplanoglu & David Arditi, 2010. "Guidelines for pre-project peer reviews in construction contracting," International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(2), pages 154-173.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijpoma:v:2:y:2010:i:2:p:154-173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=33660
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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:ids:ijpoma:v:2:y:2010:i:2:p:154-173. 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=96 .

    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.