An Appraisal of Water Infrastructure Projects’ Financing Challenges in South Africa
10th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization
eISBN: 978-1-83867-051-1
ISSN: 2516-2853
Publication date: 1 May 2019
Abstract
Purpose
Targets set out by state institutions, with respect to supplying water to deprived communities, seem to be idealistic and not realistic. Study envisioned to assess challenges of financing water infrastructure projects, and determines the role of the state towards infrastructure development by holistically planning and engaging with the private sector.
Design/Methodology/Approach
The study adopted a quantitative approach, whereby a questionnaire survey was conducted among different stakeholders involved in water infrastructure projects in South Africa. Data gathered were analysed using percentages, mean item score and standard deviation.
Findings
The study revealed that most challenges affecting the success of the financing of water infrastructure projects in South Africa are corruption, hostility towards private participation, cost recovery constraints, high fiscal deficits by state government, unreliable planning and procurement processes, and a rapid increasing number of municipalities that lack technical and administrative capacity to plan implement, operate and maintain water assets.
Research Limitations/Implications
This research paper investigates projects’ financing challenges with a broad inspection on the role of the public sector. The apparent role of the international structures such as OECD, IMF and World Bank had no influence in the study. From the findings, it is clear that the central government and state institutions lack the necessary resources to accelerate infrastructure development, water infrastructure in particular. The study, thus, recommends a complete expansion and development of state capacity as well as improved collaborations with the private sector to drive the success delivery of services to the public.
Originality/Value
Improved and flexible regulations and legislative guidelines are required to ensure that both sectors fulfil their side of the bargain, with an ultimate goal of meeting the predetermined targets of supplying adequate water to the deprived communities.
Keywords
Citation
Dithebe, K., Aigbavboa, C. and Thwala, D.W. (2019), "An Appraisal of Water Infrastructure Projects’ Financing Challenges in South Africa", Lill, I. and Witt, E. (Ed.) 10th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization (Emerald Reach Proceedings Series, Vol. 2), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2516-285320190000002022
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019, Khotso Dithebe, Clinton Aigbavboa, Didi Wellington Thwala.
License
Published in the Emerald Reach Proceedings Series. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Kudumela (2015) enunciates that infrastructure is critical for the much needed socio-economic benefits in developing countries. Infrastructure is categorised mainly in two forms, namely, economic infrastructure and social infrastructure (World Bank, 2013). Kudumela (2015) articulates that there is a recognisable link between the two forms of infrastructure and the economic growth, the gross domestic product (GDP) of countries that immensely invest in infrastructure has shown a rapid increase. The infrastructure that contribute to the economic growth of any country include physical assets such as water and power infrastructure, railways, distribution pipes, roads and telecommunication networks. While activities that endorse the social wellbeing/welfare of the public include adequate healthcare, water and power supply, sanitation and education (The Presidency Republic of South Africa and Development Bank of Southern Africa, 2012). Among other forms of infrastructure, water infrastructure as one of the critical physical infrastructure assets was assessed in detail. As the late former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela said, “Among the many things that I learned as president was the centrality of water in the social, political and economic affairs of the country, the continent and the world” (National Treasury, 2011).
However, access to safe drinking water is still a challenge in developing countries, especially in South Africa. Challenges encountered concerning the delivery of water to the public include but not limited to miscommunication between different water agencies/boards, limited resources, leakages in official spending and lack of monitoring progress of different water projects (Saxena, 2005; National Treasury, 2011). More so, the experienced increased budgets for the water sector has not alleviated the alarming challenges of adequately supplying adequate water to the public (Saxena, 2005); there is also a cause for concern of the sustainability of the existing resources (ill-equipped infrastructure) (National Treasury, 2011), as well as the general under-pricing of water across the value chain (National Treasury, 2011).
Schneider (2007) alludes that the financing of water infrastructure in South Africa is mainly undertaken by the central government, state-owned entities, as well as the water boards existing in each province. State-owned entities responsible for the financing, operation and maintenance of bulk water infrastructure include the Trans Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA), Water Trading Entity (WTE) and Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA; Calitz and Fourie, 2007). There is a limited involvement of private financing in the water sector in South Africa.
Helm (2010) clearly illustrates that many private companies and investors do not participate fully in water infrastructure financing as it does not offer competitive risk-adjusted returns. There are no models in place to assure investors that their investments will be treated fairly and that returns will be received based on the capital invested (Helm, 2010; Bielenberg et al. 2016). There are institutional investors that may be willing to accept the lower returns but they too still need their investment to be treated fairly and kept safe. Inadequate risk-adjusted returns are highly recognised as a challenge to private funding for water infrastructure projects (Helm, 2010).
For countries to flourish economically and socially, infrastructure development, infrastructure investment in particular, needs to be prioritised; unfortunately, challenges such as cost overruns, rapid occurrence of delays, lack of funding and skills contribute to the deprivation of the much-needed infrastructure. This study only looked at the challenges of funding water infrastructure projects, as well as the role played by the state as to ensure a comprehensive engagement with private corporations for improved financing in the water sector.
2. Challenges of financing water infrastructure projects
Uzuegbunam (2005) enunciates that among other things, the future of developing economies is determined by the success of infrastructure development, and the extent to which economic growth in urban areas is managed. This requires governments to take a leading role in the acceleration and improvement of infrastructure development. Central governments need to perfect infrastructure planning and financing. However, the Presidency in the Republic of South Africa and Development Bank of Southern Africa (2012) shared that financial institutions are key players for infrastructure development, but they are hesitant to provide financial assistance to central governments for public infrastructure projects owing to little or no creditworthiness. This is especially so in low-income countries, where they cannot depend on the history of the municipalities to justify their creditworthiness; however, this can be judged by information provided in the project proposal and the availability of assets put forth by the borrower (Presidency Republic of South Africa and Development Bank of Southern Africa, 2012). Owing to the instability of the developing economies, lenders require security that can be taken as a result of any incidents that may occur, thus increasing risk premiums which end up increasing the cost of financing (Snieska and Simkunaite, 2009; Bond et al. 2012; Friedman, 2016).
More so, challenges affecting the central governments also include corruption. Infrastructure development involves the construction of infrastructure facilities, water plants and distribution pipes; different stakeholders are involved during the procurement processes, government being the primary participant. Other participants include contractors, consulting engineers, suppliers and sub-contractors (Kenny, 2007). Owing to a large number of stakeholders, transparency and accountability is compromised, and as a result, corruption surfaces. According to Bowen et al. (2012), government officials, contractors and sub-contractors are participants likely involved in corrupt activities in construction projects. Bowen et al. (2012) continues to outline forms of corruption as conflict of interest, bribes and tender rigging. Outcomes of corruption produce incomplete projects, delayed projects (owing to arbitration proceedings), misplaced and misused funds, compromised safety methods as well as poor quality products.
Additionally, Bond et al. (2012) emphasises that other startling challenges facing the success financing of water infrastructure include high transactions costs, financial sector impediments, lack of projects development capacity, lack of credit history and cost recovery constraints. Moreover, inadequate funding of public infrastructure projects in India occur because of lack of leadership amongst state personnel, overlapping institutional responsibilities as well as poor urban planning (The High Power Expert Committee, 2011). In addition, inadequate investments in water infrastructure projects, fragmented institutional set up and capacity constraints are also challenges facing the financing of water infrastructure projects, shares HPEC (2011). Cities Development Initiative for Asia (2010) concluded that high fiscal deficit and the dearth of funds in domestic markets enormously affects adequate financing of public assets. Lam (1999) and Hart (1995) on the other hand assert that domestic banks as well as capital markets are not yet developed in developing economies to an extent that they can adequately fund public infrastructure projects to encourage economic prosperity in various communities. Likewise, Investopedia (2017) adds that financial sector impediments occur as a result of licensure laws, capital requirements, regulatory compliance and inadequate access to financing.
The central government has been solely responsible for planning, financing, operating and maintaining public infrastructure assets over the years, the current rate of urbanisation, corruption and incompetency are among challenges adding to inadequate fiscal budgets made by the central government (Sanusi, 2012). Further, availability of long-term funds between the periods of 10-15 years for investment prospects at reasonable interest continue to be limited for water projects (Ikpefan, 2010). As a result, communities continue to experience no access to water and power supply, no disposal and waste treatment, as well as poor road maintenance and construction.
Asian Development Bank (2010) explains that the central government in China issues unnecessary guarantees and subsidies to corporations that offer their services of building/maintaining public facilities and services across China. Corporations that have experienced such privilege from the municipalities include XIIG, and other sub-contractors that fall under the XIIG got guarantees in the form of purchase contracts and on-lent public loans (Asian Development Bank, 2010). As much as the guarantees serve a good purpose short time, in the long-term, they do not given that the government does not fulfil what is required of them. Baietti et al. (2012) further advise that decision-makers should avoid resorting to implicit agreements on guarantees for various urban projects. Guarantees and subsidies provided should be purely based on the area of the public infrastructure projects and a differentiation between profitable and non-profitable urban projects must take place to ensure that different financing mechanisms are used to finance each project (Asian Development Bank, 2010).
In addition to the bottlenecks experienced by the central government, municipalities fail to undertake reliable and viable projects shares Jerome (2011). Because of the lack of experience within the municipal departments, disjointed planning, poor formulation of costs and revenues contribute to the slow progression of water infrastructure development. However, municipalities are well equipped with identifying facilities and services required in various communities to encourage adequate welfare and growth, but they struggle to identify projects that can be funded by banks or even prepare projects for such financing. Thus, for municipalities to carry out viable and bankable projects there needs to be private sector involvement to provide technical assistance and create project development facilities, to provide financial, technical and managerial support, such as the one developed in South Africa, Municipal Infrastructure Investment Unit (Bond et al., 2012).
3. Research Methodology
A survey approach was adopted were different professionals were sampled. The respondents had to state whether they have been involved in water projects, and if they have, how many. Respondents were inclusive of the Department of Water and Sanitation, water boards, metropolitan, Trans-Caledon Authority Tunnel, building and construction professionals and banks. Respondents were selected as a result of a vast experience on infrastructure development in South Africa.
The research areas were within South Africa, including Mpumalanga, Gauteng and Limpopo. A quantitative approach was adopted to collect data and a structured questionnaire was thus distributed. Google forms were used for areas in which the researcher could not physically distribute. The distribution was undertaken using convenience sampling, which is referred to as a non-random sampling method. Convenience sampling was chosen as a result of limited resources to conduct the study; this includes limited access to specific government officials and executives. Etikan, Musa and Alkassim (2016) share that convenience sampling technique is simple and inexpensive. One hundred and fifty questionnaires (online and physical) were distributed to readily accessible respondents; 96 were returned of which 91 were usable, which represented a 61per cent response rate. Out of 128 questionnaires, only 86 physical copies were returned, while out of 22 questionnaires sent via google form, only 10 were returned. It took 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Face validity was adopted in the study. Prior to data collection, which took eight weeks, a computer software version 24 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to conduct the analysis of the study; the software with the data received provided mean item scores, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages and Cronbach’s alpha values. The Cronbach’s alpha value obtained was 0.945, showing internal consistency. According to Sekaran (2007), the acceptable Cronbach’s alpha value for a consistent questionnaire is from 0.7 upward.
4. Findings and Discussion
4.1. Background information of respondents
The employment organisations of respondents reveal that the building and construction sector was the most represented with 23.1 per cent, public entities 18.7 per cent, metropolitans 13.2 per cent, water boards 11 per cent and the Department of Water and Sanitation with 9.9 per cent. Years of experience of the sampled respondents reveal that 45.1 per cent had experience between 4-8 years; 28.6 per cent had experience between 9-15 years and 19.8 per cent had experience up to 3 years. Furthermore, 47.3 per cent of the respondents participated in water infrastructure projects, while 52.7 per cent did not participate in any water infrastructure projects. Respondents’ involvement in water infrastructure projects show that 52.7 per cent did not take part in any water infrastructure projects, while 14.3 per cent participated in two projects and 11 per cent took part in three projects. Provinces where respondents were involved in water infrastructure projects show that 23.1 per cent of the water infrastructure projects were in Gauteng, 23.1 per cent in Limpopo and 10.9 per cent were in Mpumalanga. The background information of the respondents show that 47.3 per cent of the respondents had knowledge about water infrastructure projects, which is adequate for an informative study. While 52.7 per cent reveals that the respondents have knowledge on other forms of infrastructure projects, which is also critical for the contribution of this study.
4.2. Challenges of water infrastructure financing
Descriptive analysis was used to determine the level of agreement among the respondents with regards to challenges of water infrastructure financing. Table 1 presents the respondents’ ranking of the challenges of water infrastructure financing in South Africa. Corruption, limited private participation, weak project structuring, high fiscal deficits, cost recovery constraints, high credit risk as well as unreliable planning and procurement systems were major challenges affecting water infrastructure financing. Furthermore, insufficient municipal revenues, financial sector obstacles, insufficient subsidies and political instability negatively affected the financing of water infrastructure projects. Additionally, results show that inadequate private inclusion for infrastructure development affect the development of South Africa from economically prospering.
Challenges of water infrastructure financing
| Challenges | x¯ | σX | R |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corruption | 4.49 | 0.705 | 1 |
| Hostile to private participation | 4.29 | 0.764 | 2 |
| Weak project structuring | 4.24 | 0.735 | 3 |
| High fiscal deficits by state government | 4.23 | 0.790 | 4 |
| Cost recovery constraints | 4.23 | 0.857 | 4 |
| High credit risk for private financing | 4.21 | 0.738 | 5 |
| Unreliable planning and procurement processes | 4.20 | 0.897 | 6 |
| Insufficient municipal revenues | 4.18 | 0.838 | 7 |
| Financial sector obstacles | 4.15 | 0.788 | 8 |
| Insufficient subsidies | 4.14 | 0.797 | 9 |
| Lack of political and administrative stability | 4.14 | 0.851 | 9 |
| Dearth of funds in domestic markets | 4.13 | 0.921 | 10 |
| Lack of creditworthiness among municipalities | 4.12 | 0.786 | 11 |
| High development and transaction cost | 4.12 | 0.800 | 11 |
The findings show that corruption in the form of conflict of interest, bribes and tender rigging have significant impact on the financing of water infrastructure projects (Bowen et al., 2012). The implications of corruption produce delays and escalation of costs, as well as compromise methods of safety. Hartig (2008), Jerome (2011), Oyedele (2012) and Verma (2016) coincides with the findings that municipalities lack technical and administrative capacity to plan, implement, operate and maintain public assets. Jerome (2011) thus suggests that municipalities have a major role to play through the expansion and development of state capacity to handle major projects. More so, insufficient municipal revenues, inadequate infrastructure funding and financial sector obstacles affect water infrastructure financing. Snieska and Simkunaite (2009) and Mohanty et al. (2011) highlight that private financing is limited for water infrastructure projects; Helm (2010) shares that this is mainly because public sector institutions do not provide competitive risk-adjusted returns.
The Presidency in the Republic of South Africa and Development Bank of Southern Africa (2012) enunciates that as much as the public sector plays a leading role in the development of infrastructure, private participation is still required. However, the findings concurred with Lam (1999), Hartig (2008), Helm (2010) and HPEC (2011) that financial sector impediments and inadequate funding models prohibit the delivery of water infrastructure assets that will improve the economic and social progression of different communities. Lam (1999) accords that this is because of domestic banks and capital markets not being fully developed to an extent that they can sufficiently finance water infrastructure projects without affecting the financial stability of the institution itself.
5. Conclusions
Using a survey approach, the study has been able to ascertain the perceived challenges prohibiting the success of financing water infrastructure projects. The perceived challenges affecting water infrastructure financing is corruption, in the form of conflict of interest, bribes and tender rigging/collusion. Moreover, other challenges include hostile to private financing, inadequate financial viable projects, non-transparent financial management of local governments and high noticeable credit risk for private financing. It is, therefore, recommended that central governments play a leading role towards infrastructure investments; this can be through the evaluation and monitoring of the existing models/frameworks of financing mega projects. Projects should also be prioritised according to their actual investments to allow investors to make informed decisions. The expansion and development of state capacity to allow for adequate planning, financing and delivery of public assets should be encouraged through a comprehensive and holistic engagement with private corporations.
The study has brought to light the perceived challenges affecting the success of financing public infrastructure in South Africa, water infrastructure assets in particular, with a view to provide possible solutions mainly for central governments on how they can improve their technical and administrative capacity to plan, implement, operate and maintain public assets. The introduction of private participation towards providing financial resources to deliver the necessary facilities can go a long way in providing the required services to different communities and the country at large. Central governments are expected to play a leading role towards developing and ensuring the sustainability of the partnership between the public and private sector. Public–private partnerships, are among the few initiatives to gear up collaborations between the two parties; this further includes assuring political will from the central governments, and better rates imposed by private utilities to the public for the services provided.
References
Asian Development Bank, 2010Asian Development Bank. (2010), “Local government finance and municipal credit markets in Asia”. Asian Development Bank, pp. 1–122.
Baietti, Andrey Shlyakhtenko, Roberto La Rocca, and Urvaksh, 2012Baietti, A., Andrey Shlyakhtenko, Roberto La Rocca, and Urvaksh D. P. (2012), “Green infrastructure finance: Leading initiatives and research”, World Bank, pp. 1–19.
Bielenberg, Kerlin, Oppenheim, and Roberts, 2016Bielenberg A., Kerlin, M., Oppenheim, J. and Roberts, M. (2016), “Financing change: How to mobilize private sector financing for sustainable infrastructure”, McKinsey Center for Business and Environment. Available at: http://2015.newclimateeconomy.report/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Financing_change_How_to_mobilize_privatesector_financing_for_sustainable-_infrastructure.pdf. [Accessed 20 April 2017].
Bond, Platz, and Magnusson, 2012Bond, D. L., Platz, D. and Magnusson, M. (2012), “Financing small-scale infrastructure investments in developing countries”, Economics and Social Affairs, DESA working paper no. 114. New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Bowen, Edwards, and Cattell, 2012Bowen, P., Edwards, P. and Cattell, K. (2012), “Corruption in the South African construction industry”, A mixed methods study, In Smith, S.D. (ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 521–531.
Calitz, and Fourie, 2007Calitz, E. and Fourie, J. (2007), “Infrastructure in South Africa: Who is to finance and who is to pay”, Stellenbosch Economics Working Papers: 15/07, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, pp. 1–21.
Cities Development Initiative for Asia (CDIA), 2010Cities Development Initiative for Asia (CDIA). (2010), “City infrastructure investment programming and prioritisation toolkit”, User Manual, CDIA, pp. 1–58.
Etikan, Musa, and Alkassi, 2016Etikan, I., Musa, S. A. and Alkassi. R. S. (2016), “Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling”, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1–4.
Friedman, 2016Friedman, C. (2016), “How credit rating agencies affect municipal issuers”, Available at: https://learn.neighborly.com/investing/credit-rating-agencies-affect-municipal-issuers/. [Accessed 20 April 2017].
Hart, 1995Hart, O. (1995), “Firms, contracts and financial structure”, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–223.
Hartig, 2008Hartig, P. (2008), “Innovative financial instruments for cities”, Germany, KFW Bankengruppe.
Helm, 2010Helm, D. (2010), “Infrastructure and infrastructure finance: The role of the government and the private sector in the current world”, European Investment Bank Papers, Vol. 15, No 2, pp. 8–27.
Ikpefan, 2010Ikpefan, O. A. (2010), “Challenges of public-private partnership in infrastructural financing in Nigeria”, Ogun State, Department of Banking and Finance, Covenant University.
Investopedia, 2017Investopedia. (2017). What barriers to entry exist in the financial services sector? Available at: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/031015/what-barriers-entry-exist-financial-services-sector.asp. [Accessed 20 April 2017].
Jerome, 2011Jerome, A. (2011), “Infrastructure, economic growth and poverty reduction in Africa”, Journal of Infrastructure Development, Vol. 3, No 2, pp. 127–151.
Kenny, 2007Kenny, C. (2007), “Construction, and developing countries”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4271.1–32.
Kudumela, 2015Kudumela, F. P. (2015), “Risks and mitigations associated with infrastructure development projects in South Africa”. Master’s thesis, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg.
Lam, 1999Lam, P. T. I. (1999), “A sectoral review of risks associated with major infrastructure projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, No 2, pp. 77–87.
Mohanty, Misra, Goyal, and Jeromi, 2007Mohanty, P. K., Misra, B. M., Goyal, R. and Jeromi, P. D. (2007), “Municipal finance in India: An assessment”, Mumbai: Reserve Bank of India, pp. 1–214.
National Treasury, 2011National Treasury. (2011), “Chapter 8: Water and Sanitation. Local government budgets and expenditure review”, South Africa.
Oyedele, 2012Oyedele, O. A. (2012), “The challenges of infrastructure development in democratic governance”, Knowing to manage the territory, protect the environment, evaluate the cultural heritage, Italy, Rome pp. 1–15.
Sanusi, 2012Sanusi, L. S. (2012), “The role of development finance institutions in infrastructure development: What Nigeria can learn from BNDES and the Indian infrastructure finance company”, 3rd ICRC PPP Stakeholders Forum, Central Bank of Nigeria.
Saxena, 2005Saxena, N. C. (2005), “Drinking water and sanitation status in India. Coverage, financing and emerging concerns”, WaterAid India, India, New Delhi.
Schneider, 2007Schneider, M. (2007), “Floods of investment”, Supplement to the Financial Mail, Special Report: Infrastructure.
Sekaran, 2007Sekaran, U. (2007), “Research methods for business”, A skill building approach (4th Ed.), New York, USA, John Wiley & Sons.
Snieska, and Simkunaite, 2009Snieska, V. and Simkunaite, I. (2009), “Socio-economic impact of infrastructure investments”, Engineering Economics, Vol. 63, No 3, pp. 16–25.
The High Powered Expert Committee, 2011The High Powered Expert Committee. (2011), “Report on Indian urban infrastructure and services. Government of India”, Available at: http://icrier.org/pdf/FinalReport-hpec.pdf [Accessed 02 June 2017].
The Presidency of the Republic of South Africa and Development Bank of Southern Africa, 2012The Presidency of the Republic of South Africa and Development Bank of Southern Africa. (2012), “The State of South Africa’s economic infrastructure: Opportunities & challenges”, Development Bank of Southern Africa.
Uzuegbunam, 2005Uzuegbunam, A. O. (2005), “Population and development in Nigeria: Inter relations”, Enugu: Magnet Business Enterprises.
Verma, 2016Verma, M. (2016), “Role of the state in partnerships with the private sector”, Journal of Development Policy and Practice, Vol. 1, No 1, pp. 53–70.
World Bank, 2013World Bank. (2013), “Planning, connecting, and financing cities—Now: priorities for city leaders”, Washington DC, World Bank.
- Prelims
- THE ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION
- Updating and Cleaning Out: The “Make or Buy” Decision in Construction Revisited
- Bispevika Project: Research for Constructing a Collaborative Value Chain
- Social Considerations in the Procurement of Road and Railroad Projects in Sweden
- Standardization and Industrialized Construction of Special Purpose Building
- Identifying Contradictions of Integrating Life-Cycle Costing in Design Practices
- Advancing Networking-Based Business Management in Construction Markets
- Contracts and Culture in a Partnering Project
- Sub-Contractors’ Perception of Contracting: The Case of Crime
- Project Managers: Gatekeepers or Inside Men?
- The Hybridity of Strategic Partnerships and Construction Supply Chain Management
- Dynamic Capabilities and Risk Management: Evaluating the CDRM Model for Clients
- An Opposite Design-Build Procurement Method: Competing on Quality with a Fixed Price
- CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
- An Appraisal of Water Infrastructure Projects’ Financing Challenges in South Africa
- The Soft Factors in Design Management: a Hidden Success Factor?
- Room to Manoeuvre: Governing the Project Provisions
- A Longitudinal View of Adopting Project Alliancing: Case Finland
- A Simulation-Based Optimization for Contractors in Precast Concrete Projects
- Governed by Municipal Land Allocations: Implications for Housing Developers
- Situation Picture Through Construction Information Management
- Who Benefit from Crime in Construction? A Structural Analysis
- Quality Evaluation of Contractor’s Schedule in the Bidding Phase
- Activity Cruciality as Measure of Network Schedule Structure Resilience
- Construction Programmes and Programming: A Critical Review
- Procurement Research: Current State and Future Challenges in the Nordic Countries
- Exploitative Learning in Inter-Organizational Projects: Evidence from Dutch Infrastructure Practices
- The Transition from Design-Bid-Build Contracts to Design-Build
- Exploring the Dynamics of Supplier Innovation Diffusion
- Understanding Collaborative Working in a Facilitated Interdisciplinary Environment
- Ensuring Successful Knowledge Transfer in Building Renovation Projects
- Public Private Collaboration in the Context of Zero Emission Neighbourhood
- Strategizing and Project Management in Construction Projects: An Exploratory Literature Review
- BUILDING INFORMATION, DATA AND DIGITALIZATION
- BIM-Enabled Education: a Systematic Literature Review
- A BIM-Enabled Learning Environment: a Conceptual Framework
- “I Work All Day with Automation in Construction: I am a Sociomaterial-Designer”
- Developing Smart Services to Smart Campus
- An Overview of BIM Adoption in the Construction Industry: Benefits and Barriers
- BIM for Construction Education: Initial Findings from a Literature Review
- Model for Smart, Self-learning and Adaptive Resilience Building
- Investigating the Drop-Out rate from a BIM Course
- INNOVATIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
- Senior Residence Concepts in Norway: Challenges and Actions for a Sustainable Development
- 3D-Printing Technology in Construction: Results from a Survey
- Product and Manufacturing Systems Alignment: a Case Study in the Timber House Building Industry
- Opening the Black Box of Accessibility Regulation
- Orchestrating Multi-Actor Collaborative Innovation Across Organizational Boundaries
- SUSTAINABILITY AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
- Social Sustainability in Modelling of Value Creation in Housing Refurbishment
- Reviewing the Role of Sustainability Professionals in Construction
- Exploring the Evolution and Impact of Building Environment Assessment Methods in Achieving Green Building
- STAKEHOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE
- Challenging the Rhetoric of Construction Briefing: Insights from a Formula 1 Sports Venue
- Underlying Causes for Risk Taking Behaviour Among Construction Workers
- Towards Developing a Framework for User-Driven Innovation in Refurbishment
- Reconstructing Knowledge Integration in the Norwegian AEC-Industry
- Institutional Complexity for Chinese International Contractors
- BUILT ENVIRONMENTS
- BIM Related Innovation in Healthcare Precinct Design and Facilities Management
- Location is Crucial in Retrofit: Strategy Selection in Different Regions
- CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
- From Theoretical to Practical Competence on Health and Safety
- A Test Platform of Viable Methods to Improve Production and Learning on Construction Sites