Research Problem Statement Development, Essay Example

The concept of construction management at risk (CMAR) has fundamentally changed how construction projects are managed in numerous industries (AIA, 1996).  Unlike the methodology prescribed in other popularly used methods such as design-bid-build, CMAR focuses on one individual serving as a building consultant (agent) during the pre-construction phase of the project, who then transitions to a traditional management role during the building phase (Transportation Research Board of National Academies, 2010). The management system has afforded construction managers new flexibility regarding how and when decisions are made in the construction process; construction managers also assume higher levels of risk than they would under another management system (Kenig, 2000). CMAR has introduced a new set of construction management innovations that have not been fully explored in a robust comparative context. (Minchin, 2009; Minchin, Thakkar, Ellis, 2007).

With an increasing number of state governments contemplating whether to consider CMAR bids for construction , the specific problem to investigate is in which industries does CMAR evidence a more cost-efficient and successful building process (Minchin, 2009; Kenig, 2000).  This problem is particularly interesting due to the existing bifurcation between public and private use of CMAR: CMAR has a longer history of use in private projects, while public adoption of the construction model is gradually gaining acceptance (Tulacz, 2002). Greater knowledge about where CMAR has proved successful would be useful in many different circumstances. Construction companies could bid more effectively and competitively in certain industries where the model is used successfully; policymakers could regulate construction bidding more effectively knowing where CMAR bids are likely to be more successful than  other projects (Walewski, Gibson,  Jasper, 2001; Minchin, 2009).

References

AIA (1996).  Handbook on project delivery.  AIA, Sacramento, CA.

Kenig, M. (2000).  Clarifying CM. vs. CM At-Risk.  School Construction News (3) 1 ,12.

Minchin, R.E. (2009).  Fall and rise of the largest construction manager-at-risk transportation  construction ever.  Journal Construction Engineering and Management.  135(9), 930-938.

Minchin, R. E., Thakkar, K., and Ellis, R. D. (2007). “Chapter 3: Miami Intermodal Center—Introducing `CM-at-risk’ to transportation construction.” Alternative project delivery, procurement, and contracting methods for highways, K. R. Molenaar and G. Yakowenko, eds., American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., 46–59.

Sanvido, V., and Konchar, M. D. (1998). Project delivery systems: CM at risk, design-build, design-bid-build, Construction Industry Institute.

Transportation Research Board of National Academies (2010).  Construction manager-at risk project delivery for highway programs.  Policy Paper.  Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_402.pdf.

Tulacz, G. (2002, June 17).  Owners’ risk-shifting boosts CM-at-Risk firms. Engineering News Record. Available at:http://enr.construction.com/features/bizLabor/archives/020617d.asp 

Walewski, J., Gibson, G.E., Jasper, J. (2001).Project delivery methods and contracting approaches available for implementation by the Texas department of transportation.  Texas Department of Transportation.