Why Contracts: Evidence

Contracts are a ubiquitous part of the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. Despite this, they are poorly understood by practitioners and academics. This paper empirically tests a conceptual model of the contract that seeks to improve our understanding of contracts. This model argues that the contract should be viewed as a managerial tool that provides the structure within which we accomplish the project tasks. The choice of the appropriate contract facilitates a process that allows the parties to achieve superior performance. The model views the contract as a multidimensional instrument that addresses three critical questions: (1) what is the structure of the organizational relationship between firms; (2) what is the disposition of risk and reward for involvement in the project; and (3) how will conflicts between firms be resolved? This paper empirically examines the first two dimensions. In order to address these distinct but intertwined questions, theories from Transaction Cost Economics and Agency Theory are brought to bear. The results of the study suggest that the conceptual model explains some of the variation in project performance, and therefore holds promise as a strategic management tool.

[1]  W. Dugger The Economic Institutions of Capitalism , 1987 .

[2]  O. Williamson Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives , 1994 .

[3]  M. Kumaraswamy Exploring the Legal Aspects of Relational Contracting , 2006 .

[4]  Michael S. Puddicombe The limitations of planning : The importance of learning , 2006 .

[5]  K. Llewellyn,et al.  WHAT PRICE CONTRACT? -AN ESSAY IN PERSPECTIVE , 1931 .

[6]  Andrew D.F. Price,et al.  Performance Measurement in Construction , 2004 .

[7]  Denise Bower,et al.  Finding the Optimal Contractual Arrangement for Projects on Process Job Sites , 2002 .

[8]  O. Williamson Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations , 1979, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[9]  K. Eisenhardt Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review , 1989 .

[10]  Michael H. Kutner Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .

[11]  Tanaya Korde,et al.  State-of-the-Art Review of Construction Performance Models and Factors , 2005 .

[12]  Stanley Baiman,et al.  AGENCY RESEARCH IN MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING: A SECOND LOOK. , 1990 .

[13]  M. C. Jensen,et al.  Harvard Business School; SSRN; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI); Harvard University - Accounting & Control Unit , 1976 .

[14]  Christopher M. Gordon,et al.  Choosing Appropriate Construction Contracting Method , 1994 .

[15]  James E. Diekmann,et al.  Are contract disputes predictable , 1995 .

[16]  Michael S. Puddicombe,et al.  CONTRACTS: A HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE , 2005 .

[17]  P. Majumdar Research Methods in Social Science , 2011 .

[18]  R. Eccles The quasifirm in the construction industry , 1981 .

[19]  G. Baker Incentive Contracts and Performance Measurement , 1992, Journal of Political Economy.

[20]  Heng Li,et al.  Infrastructure of Partnering for Construction Projects , 2001 .

[21]  Stuart D. Anderson,et al.  Relative Effectiveness of Project Delivery and Contract Strategies , 2006 .

[22]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[23]  Michael S. Puddicombe,et al.  Designers and contractors: Impediments to integration , 1997 .

[24]  Patricia D. Galloway Engineers Laugh at Lawyers and Legal Issues, but Should They? , 2004 .

[25]  S. Masten The Organization of Production: Evidence from the Aerospace Industry , 1984, The Journal of Law and Economics.