Rethinking the tendering frameworks of construction contractors in the context of a soft systems methodology approach

doi:10.15302/J-FEM-2018019

Front. Eng

2018, Vol. 5

Issue (3) : 369-380 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2018019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Rethinking the tendering frameworks of construction contractors in the context of a soft systems methodology approach

Stephen URQUHART(

), Andrew WHYTE

School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, Western Australia 6102, Australia

Download: PDF(967 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Limited research has been conducted on the internal tendering procedures (ITP) of construction contractors because of the commercially sensitive and confidential nature of the subject matter. This limitation explains the reluctance of contractors to undergo interviews. Existing research (outside bid/no-bid and margin decision factor identification and subsequent decision modeling development) only begins to provide insights into key tendering stages, particularly around risk assessments and corporate review processes. Early research suggested one to three review stages. However, when considering the whole work procurement process from prospect identification to contract execution, five to seven series of reviews can be arguably applied by some contractors, wherein some reviews stepped through several layers of internal senior management. Tendering processes were presented as flowchart models that traditionally follow “hard” system (rectangular shapes and straight line arrows) steps, which suggest that a precise process also leads to precise results. However, given that contractors do not win every tender they submit, the process is less precise than that suggested in rigidly structured flowcharts. Twenty-five detailed semi-structured interviews were held with purposely selected high-profile publicly and privately owned construction companies in Australia with significantly varied turnovers. Analyses show that contractors are concerned about the negative effects of increasing corporate governance demands, with many stating that people involved are the most critical element to tendering success. A new way of presenting the ITP of contractors is assessed using a soft systems methodology (SSM) approach. SSM offers an alternative way of considering human interaction challenges within the ITP of contractors, which needs to be tested with the industry. The format graphics of SSM guidelines are presented as a way of offering contractors a different approach, which may assist individuals who are looking to re-structure their tendering activities in a more humanistic and less rigid procedural approach.

Keywords contractor corporate governance humanistic risk soft systems methodology tendering procedures

Corresponding Author(s): Stephen URQUHART

Just Accepted Date: 02 July 2018 Online First Date: 01 August 2018 Issue Date: 14 September 2018

Cite this article:

Stephen URQUHART,Andrew WHYTE. Rethinking the tendering frameworks of construction contractors in the context of a soft systems methodology approach[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(3): 369-380.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2018019
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2018/V5/I3/369

Fig.1 Flowchart model of tendering procedure of contractors (adapted from ^{Urquhart et al., 2017})

Tab.1 Number and demographics of contractors interviewed by ownership and turnover

Tab.2 Likert rating responses – overall and by demographics

Fig.2 Model of the corporate approval steps during tender stages, as applied by many contractors

Fig.3 Tendering procedure flowchart framework development in a SSM context. Incorporated within this model is an example (specific text shown in brackets) of how the same SSM format graphic could also be adopted by a contractor to present its ITP in a more humanistic and flexible framework (adapted from ^{Checkland and Scholes (1990}, Fig. 10.8) and ^{Checkland (2000}, Fig. A1), then modified to include various ITP steps drawn from the semi-structured interviews)

1	Arowosafe O, Ceranic B, Dean A M (2015). A sustainable infrastructure delivery model: Value added strategy in the Nigerian construction industry. In: Proceedings of 31st Annual ARCOM Conference. Lincoln: 1229–1238
2	Arslan G, Tuncan M, Birgonul M T, Dikmen I (2006). E-bidding proposal preparation system for construction projects. Building and Environment, 41(10): 1406–1413 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.05.024
3	ASX (Australian Securities Exchange) Corporate Governance Council (2014). Corporate governance principles and recommendations (3rd Edition)., 2015–10–24
4	BEIS (Dept for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) (2017). Corporate governance reform: The Government response to the green paper consultation. , 2018–3-1
5	Betts M (1990). Methods and data used by large building contractors in preparing tenders. Construction Management and Economics, 8(4): 399–414 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446199000000032
6	Brook M (2011). Estimating and Tendering for Construction Work.London: Spon Press
7	Cagno E, Caron F, Perego A (2001). Multi-criteria assessment of the probability of winning in the competitive bidding process. International Journal of Project Management, 19(6): 313–324 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00020-X
8	Checkland P (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
9	Checkland P (2000). Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(S1 SUPPL): S11–S58 https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1743(200011)17:1+<::AID-SRES374>3.0.CO;2-O
10	Checkland P (2010). Researching real-life: Reflections on 30 years of action research. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(2): 129–132 https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1019
11	Checkland P, Forbes P, Martin S (1990). Techniques in soft systems practice part 3: monitoring and control in conceptual models and evaluation studies. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 17: 29–37
12	Checkland P, Scholes J (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
13	Checkland P, Tsouvalis C (1997). Reflecting on SSM: The link between root definitions and conceptual models. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14(3): 153–168 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199705/06)14:3<153::AID-SRES134>3.0.CO;2-H
14	Checkland P, Winter M (2006). Process and content: Two ways of using SSM. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(12): 1435–1441 https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602118
15	Cooper R G (2014). What’s next? After stage-gate. Research Technology Management, 57(1): 20–31 https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5606963
16	Davis L, Miles M, Riley M, Pan W (2010). Developing lean supply in construction. In: Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference. Leeds: 705–713
17	de Neufville R, King D (1991). Risk and need-for-work premiums in contractor bidding. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(4): 659–673 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1991)117:4(659)
18	Erkoyuncu J A, Roy R, Shehab E, Kutsch E (2014). An innovative uncertainty management framework to support contracting for product-service availability. Journal of Service Management, 25(5): 603–638 https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2013-0193
19	Farag F, McDermott P, Huelin C A (2016). The development of an activity zone conceptual framework to improve social value implementation in construction projects using human activity systems. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference. Manchester, 2: 975–984
20	Fellows R, Liu A (2008). Research Methods for Construction.Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell
21	Greenhalgh B (2013). Introduction to Estimating for Construction.London: Routledge
22	Krippendorff K (2013). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage
23	Laryea S (2013). Nature of tender review meetings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(8): 927–940 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000662
24	Laryea S, Hughes W (2008). How contractors price risk in bids: Theory and practice. Construction Management and Economics, 26(9): 911–924 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802317718
25	Laryea S, Hughes W (2009). Commercial reviews in the tender process of contractors. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 16(6): 558–572 https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980911002575
26	Laryea S, Hughes W (2011). Risk and price in the bidding process of contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(4): 248–258 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000293
27	Leedy P D, Ormrod J E (2013). Practical Research Planning and Design.Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education
28	Li H, Love P E D (1998). Developing a theory of construction problem solving. Construction Management and Economics, 16(6): 721–727 https://doi.org/10.1080/014461998372015
29	Liu W B, Meng W, Mingers J, Tang N, Wang W (2012). Developing a performance management system using soft systems methodology: A Chinese case study. European Journal of Operational Research, 223(2): 529–540 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.06.029
30	Love P E D, Edwards D J, Irani Z (2012). Moving beyond optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation: An explanation for social infrastructure project cost overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4): 560–571 https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2011.2163628
31	Maqsood T, Finegan A, Walker D (2006). Applying project histories and project learning through knowledge management in an Australian construction company. Learning Organization, 13(1): 80–95 https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470610639149
32	Mochtar K, Arditi D (2001). Pricing strategy in the US construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 19(4): 405–415 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190010020372
33	SAI (Standards Australia International) (2003). AS8000:2003 Good Governance Principles. Sydney: SAI Global Limited
34	SAL (Standards Australia Limited) (2008). AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008, Quality management systems — Requirements. Sydney: SAI Global Limited
35	SAL (Standards Australia Limited) (2016) AS/NZS ISO 9001:2016 ISO 9001:2015, Quality management systems — Requirements.Sydney: SAI Global Limited
36	Scheepbouwer E, Gransberg D D, del Puerto C L (2017). Construction engineering management culture shift: Is the lowest tender offer dead? Frontiers of Engineering Management, 4(1): 49–57 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2017014
37	Sherman D G, Cole A J, Boardman J T (1996). Assisting cultural reform in a projects-based company using systemigrams. International Journal of Project Management, 14(1): 23–30 https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00050-X
38	Shokri-Ghasabeh M, Chileshe N (2014). Knowledge management barriers to capturing lessons learned from Australian construction contractors perspective. Construction Innovation, 14(1): 108–134 https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-06-2013-0026
39	Skitmore M, Smyth H (2007). Pricing construction work: A marketing viewpoint. Construction Management and Economics, 25(6): 619–630 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701280710
40	Smith N J, Merna T, Jobling P (2006). Managing Risk in Construction Projects. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
41	Sutrisna M, Barrett P (2007). Applying rich picture diagrams to model case studies of construction projects. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 14(2): 164–179 https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980710731281
42	Urquhart S, Whyte A (2017). Contractor tendering research: Going beyond bid/no-bid and markup models. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law. 170(6): 255–262
43	Urquhart S, Whyte A, Lloyd N (2017). The development of a more efficient internal tender procedure oframework for Australian construction contractors In: Proceeding of the 33rd Annual ARCOM Conference. Cambridge, 693–702
44	Watson R B (2012). Suggestions for new application areas for soft systems methodology in the Information Age. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 25(5): 441–456 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9233-0
45	Whyte A (2015). Integrated Design and Cost Management for Civil Engineers. Clermont: CRC Press
46	Yean Yng Ling F, Liu M (2005). Factors considered by successful and profitable contractors in mark-up size decision in Singapore. Building and Environment, 40(11): 1557–1565 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.12.001
47	Yeo K T, Tiong R L K (2000). Positive management of differences for risk reduction in BOT projects. International Journal of Project Management, 18(4): 257–265 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00018-6

[1]	Jian LI, Shichao ZHU, Wen ZHANG, Lean YU. Blockchain-driven supply chain finance solution for small and medium enterprises[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(4): 500-511.
[2]	Mahdi JEMMALI, Bassem SALHI. Corporate governance impact on banking risk[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(2): 182-195.
[3]	Zachary A. COLLIER, James H. LAMBERT. Managing obsolescence of embedded hardware and software in secure and trusted systems[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(2): 172-181.
[4]	Ibrahim Yahaya WUNI, Geoffrey Qiping SHEN, Bon-Gang HWANG. Risks of modular integrated construction: A review and future research directions[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(1): 63-80.
[5]	Tsegay GEBREHIWET, Hanbin LUO. Detection of schedule delay risk of empirical construction projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(2): 251-267.
[6]	Hao WU, Igor PEÑARRUBIA, Lin CUI, Jinsong ZHAO. Process safety management considerations for biofuel production[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(3): 357-367.
[7]	Takashi KANETA, Shuzo FURUSAKA, Nisi DENG. Overview and problems of BIM implementation in Japan[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(2): 146-155.
[8]	Bao-quan Yang,Li Yang,Fan-jie Shang,Xin Zhang,Chen-xi Li. Risk Identification and Mitigation Strategies for Deepwater Oilfields Development[J]. Front. Eng, 2016, 3(4): 356-361.
[9]	Hong-quan Kang,Yun-hua Deng,Huai-cun Jia,Tao Cheng,Bo Bai. A Fast Evaluation and Research Method for Exploration Potential of Oversea Basins[J]. Front. Eng, 2016, 3(4): 338-342.
[10]	Ji-liang Zheng,Jun Hu,Xuan Zhou,Ching Yuen Luk. Ecological Risk Management of Drinking Water Project: The Case Study of Kunming City[J]. Front. Eng, 2015, 2(3): 311-319.
[11]	Yang-jie Wang,Xiao-hong Chen. Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions and Risk Responses to Climate Change in China[J]. Front. Eng, 2015, 2(3): 201-210.
[12]	Hong-yong Liu,Ji Guo,Wei-tao He. The Research on Subject Behavioral Risk of Whole Life-cycle Water Conservation Projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2014, 1(4): 348-352.
[13]	Roger Flanagan. Whole-life Thinking and Engineering the Future[J]. Front. Eng, 2014, 1(3): 290-296.
[14]	Xu Dong-ling,Foster Chris,Hu Ying,Yang Jian-bo. Decision Support System for Evaluating Impact of Product Carbon Labeling Scheme[J]. Front. Eng, 2014, 1(1): 89-104.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed