NEGOTIATING ACCESS INTO FIRMS: OBSTACLES AND STRATEGIES

NEGOTIATIING ACCESS INTO FIRMS: OBSTACLES AND STRATEGIES

Samuel Laryea, University of Reading, Reading, UK (s.laryea@reading.ac.uk)
Will Hughes, University of Reading, Reading, UK (w.p.hughes@reading.ac.uk)


REFERENCE
Laryea, S. and Hughes, W. (2011) Negotiating access into firms: obstacles and strategies, In: Procs 6th Nordic conference on construction economics and organisation, 13-16 April 2011, Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark, 577-586.

ABSTRACT
Researchers often experience difficulties with the negotiation of access into firms for the purpose of data collection. The question we explore is: What are the main obstacles associated with access negotiation into firms; and what strategies do researchers employ to increase their chances of success? Our research work on the tendering process of contractors took place between 2006 and 2008. We successfully negotiated access into four firms (two each in Ghana and the UK) to observe live examples of tender preparation The techniques we employed in negotiating access were personal contacts, contacting firms through online details and professional institutions, etc. With all of this effort, our average success rate was less than 5 per cent. The main obstacles encountered were firms’ reluctance because of commercial sensitiveness and fear that the data could eventually be divulged to their competitors or end up in the public domain. However, some firms agreed mainly because of the written assurances of confidentiality and anonymity in reporting the study; reputation of the researchers’ academic institution; gatekeepers who spoke to their colleagues on our behalf; academic purpose of the study; and a feedback report which was promised in return for access to the case studies. Although the access through personal contacts is by far the easiest, it is not always possible. Researchers can approach firms as complete strangers, especially in a foreign country, and that could make the firms more likely to assist the research.

KEYWORDS: access negotiation, data collection, Ghana, observation, UK

INTRODUCTION
Researchers often experience difficulties with the negotiation of access into organisations for the purpose of data collection (as explained by Buchanan et al. in Bryman 1988). This is particularly common when the data required is sensitive in nature (Koosimile, 2002). Between 2006 and 2008, we successfully negotiated access into four firms (two each in Ghana and the UK) to observe live examples of tender preparation. The aim here is to discuss our access negotiation experiences. We explore the obstacles associated with access negotiation into firms; and the strategies used by researchers, here and elsewhere in the literature, to increase the chances of success.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A review of the literature revealed seven main points in relation to access negotiation obstacles and strategies. First, there are multiple layers of access negotiation into firms. Second, gatekeepers can be both advantageous and disadvantageous (Clark, 2010). Third, more than one technique often needs to be used to negotiate access. Fourth, a significant amount of sensitivity and skills is required in access negotiation. Fifth, personal contacts are useful but it is not always possible. Sixth, the main strategies for negotiating access in most cases are gatekeepers, making a good first contact, personal contacts, highlighting benefits to participants, and physical follow-ups. Seventh, the main obstacles to negotiating access into firms are layers of gatekeepers to overcome, ethics, confidentiality, informed consent, lack of personal contacts, micropolitics in organisations, suspicion and bureaucratic formalities.

NEGOTIATING ACCESS INTO FOUR FIRMS
The four firms involved in the study are hereafter referred to as Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta. Alpha and Beta are construction firms in Ghana. Gamma and Delta are construction firms in the UK.
The research interest here was the bidding process of contractors, which involves commercially sensitive information including prices and competitors. Past studies of contractors in the UK, for example Skitmore and Wilcock (1994: 142) had showed that gaining access to commercially sensitive information of contractors is difficult. Therefore, one access negotiation strategy was to use personal contacts and gatekeepers.
A number of our industry contacts provided assistance with our access negotiations. One of them suggested that the lead researcher should mention the fact that he was carrying out the research work as a foreigner in the country of study. According to him “…this will make the recipients more likely to assist your research”. We found the advice to be in contrast with suggestions in the literature, which stated that the use of personal contacts would make firms more willing to assist the research. Ultimately, two of the case study firms were firms where we had no personal contacts at all.
The contractors who agreed to our access request mainly did so because of the influential role of the gatekeepers who spoke to their colleagues on our behalf; the academic purpose of the study; the written assurances of confidentiality and anonymity in reporting the study; and a feedback report which was promised in return for access to the case studies. It was also mentioned in the letter that the researcher’s professional background as a Quantity Surveyor could enable him to provide an extra pair of hands to the bid team for some routine tasks.
It was difficult to secure access into the four firms. A wide range of ideas and skills had to be used. Each contractor was clearly concerned about the commercially sensitive nature of the data involved. The access gained into Alpha (Ghana) was achieved with the help of personal contacts in the firm. The access gained into Beta (Ghana) was also achieved with the help of personal contacts in the firm. In both cases, the contacts held high positions in the firms. The access gained into Gamma (UK) was achieved without the help of personal contacts. The contact detail of the gatekeeper was provided to us by the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. The access gained into Delta (UK) was also achieved without personal contacts. Lists of contact details found on the website of firms were approached. Out of 87 firms contacted only one of them responded by providing a case study opportunity.

DISCUSSION
Five points are discussed. First, the main factor that facilitated access negotiation in Alpha and Beta was the use of personal contacts. Personal contacts facilitated the access negotiation process greatly which confirms assertions in Matthiesen and Richter (2007) and Winkler (1987). Second, time taken to negotiate access was longer in the case of Gamma and Delta. Third, access negotiation success rate varied in the four cases. The main concern for most contractors was not intrusion (as suggested in Gill and Johnson, 2010) but commercial sensitiveness of the information involved (as suggested in Skitmore and Wilcock, 1994). Fourth, one of the incentives to Gamma and Delta was the feedback report that was promised in return for the access to case studies. Fifth, the frustration encountered in the access negotiation processes is not unique to this study. Similar situations of frustration have been encountered by other researchers offer suggestions for dealing with frustration and fatigue issues in research.

CONCLUSIONS
The question explored was: What are the main obstacles associated with access negotiation into firms; and what strategies do researchers, here and elsewhere in the literature, employ to increase the chances of success? We successfully negotiated access into four firms between 2006 and 2008 to observe live examples of tender preparation. The techniques we employed in negotiating access were personal contacts, contacting firms through online details and professional institutions, etc. With all of this effort, our success rate was less than 5 per cent. The main obstacles encountered were firms’ reluctance because of commercial sensitiveness and fear that the data could eventually be divulged to their competitors or end up in the public domain. Although the access through personal contacts is by far the easiest, it is not always possible. Contrary to assertions in the literature, researchers can approach firms as complete strangers, especially in a foreign country, and that could make the firms more likely to assist the research.

REFERENCES
Buchanan, D., Boddy, D. and McCalman, J. (1988) Getting in, getting on, getting out and getting back. In A. Bryman (Ed.) Doing research in organizations, London: Routledge
Clark, T. (2010) Gaining and Maintaining Access Exploring the Mechanisms that Support and Challenge the Relationship between Gatekeepers and Researchers, Qualitative Social Work, published online 6 April 2010
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2010) Research Methods for Managers, 4ed, London: Sage
Koosimile, A.T. (2002) Access negotiation and curriculum change: Lessons from Botswana, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2), 205-223
Matthiesen, J.K. and Richter, A.W. (2007) Negotiating access: Foot in the door… or door in the face, The Psychologist, 20(3), 144-147
Skitmore, M. and Wilcock, J. (1994) Estimating processes of smaller builders, Construction Management and Economics, 12, 139-154
Winkler, J. T. (1987) The fly on the wall of the inner sanctum: observing company directors at work, In: Moyser, G. and Wagstaffe, M. (Eds), Research methods for elite studies

Risk and Price in the Bidding Process of Contractors

Risk and Price in the Bidding Process of Contractors

Forthcoming in Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000293

Submitted 4 February 2009; accepted 13 September 2010; posted ahead of print 15 September 2010

Samuel Laryea
Lecturer, School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, P.O. Box 219, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK

Will Hughes
Professor of Construction Management and Economics, School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, P.O. Box 219, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK

Abstract
Formal and analytical risk models prescribe how risk should be incorporated in construction bids. However, the actual process of how contractors and their clients negotiate and agree on price is complex, and not clearly articulated in the literature. Using participant observation, the entire tender process was shadowed in two leading UK construction firms. This was compared to propositions in analytical models and significant differences were found. 670 hours of work observed in both firms revealed three stages of the bidding process. Bidding activities were categorized and their extent estimated as deskwork (32%), calculations (19%), meetings (14%), documents (13%), off-days (11%), conversations (7%), correspondence (3%) and travel (1%). Risk allowances of 1-2% were priced in some bids and three tiers of risk apportionment in bids were identified. However, priced risks may sometimes be excluded from the final bidding price to enhance competitiveness. Thus, although risk apportionment affects a contractor’s pricing strategy, other complex, microeconomic factors also affect price. Instead of pricing in contingencies, risk was priced mostly through contractual rather than price mechanisms, to reflect commercial imperatives. The findings explain why some assumptions underpinning analytical models may not be sustainable in practice and why what actually happens in practice is important for those who seek to model the pricing of construction bids.

Keywords: bidding, contractor, participant observation, risk apportionment, UK

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JCEMXX000001000001000200000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Quality of tender documents in the UK

Quality of tender documents in the UK

Samuel Laryea
Lecturer, School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, P.O. Box 219, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK

REFERENCE
Laryea, S. (2011) Quality of tender documents: case studies from the UK, Construction Management and Economics, 29(3), 275-286

ABSTRACT
Tendering is one of the stages in construction procurement that requires extensive information and documents exchange. However, tender documents are not always clear in practice. The aim of this study was to ascertain the clarity and adequacy of tender documentation in practice. Access was negotiated into two leading UK construction firms and the whole tender process was shadowed for 6-7 weeks in each firm using an ethnographic approach. A significant amount of tender queries, amendments and addenda were recorded. This showed that quality of tender documentation is still a problem in construction despite the existence of standards like Co-ordinated Project Information (1987) and British Standard 1192 (1984 and 1990) to help in producing clear and consistent project information. Poor quality tender documents are a source of inaccurate estimates, claims and disputes on contracts. Six recommendations are presented to help in improving the quality of tender documentation. Further research is needed into the recommendations to help improve the quality of tender documents, perhaps in conjunction with an industry-wide investigation into the level of incorporation of CPI principles in practice.

Keywords: case study, contractor, tender documentation, tendering, UK

Risk accountability in the tender process of contractors in Ghana and UK

RISK ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE TENDER PROCESS OF CONTRACTORS IN GHANA AND THE UK

Samuel Laryea
School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, P.O. Box 219, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK

Forthcoming in International Journal of Project Organisation and Management

ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the process how the contractors take account of risk when calculating their bids for construction work based on preliminary investigation and case studies in Ghana and UK. Ghana and UK were chosen, more or less arbitrarily, for the purpose of case studies, and to test the idea that there are systematic differences between the approaches in different places. Clear differences were found in the risk pricing approaches of contractors in the two countries. The difference appeared to emanate from the professional knowledge and competence of the bid team members, company policy, corporate accountability and the business environments in which they operate. Both groups of contractors take account of risk in estimates. However, risk accountability was found to be higher on the agenda in the tender process of UK contractors, documented more systematically, and assessed and managed more rigorously with input from the whole bid team. Risk accountability takes place at three levels of the tender process and is dictated strongly by market forces and company circumstances.

Keywords: contractors, Ghana, risk accountability, tendering, UK.

Quality of tender documents in the UK

Samuel Laryea
School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK

Tender documents form the basis of a contractor’s bid proposal upon which a contract may be let and executed. However, they are not always clear in practice. Standards like Co-ordinated Project Information and BS 1192 were introduced in the 1980s to help in producing clear and consistent project information. However, significant shortcomings still characterise tender documents. The whole tender process was shadowed in two of the top 20 UK construction firms using participant observation, interviews and documentary analysis. This helped to investigate the tender process and nature of tender documents. Up to 90 tender query (TQ) responses and nine tender addenda (TA) were issued in response to contractor queries relating to unclear specifications, missing information, errors and incomplete drawings. Most TQ responses and TAs contained changes that had significant implication for tender strategy and submission. However, more than 50% of them were received in the last two weeks of the tender process where contractors had little time to respond effectively. The findings reveal significant differences between prescriptions in standards and reality. Recommendations in the study should be adopted to improve quality of tender documents and thus help in minimizing inaccurate estimates, disputes on contracts and achieving more efficient tendering processes.

Keywords: case study, contracting, tender documents, tendering, UK

Review meetings in the tender process of contractors

Construction procurement research:
Review meetings in the tender process of contractors

Samuel Laryea and Will Hughes
School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Reading, UK RG6 6AW


Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to advance a better understanding of the nature and contents of the review meetings that form a significant part of a construction contractor’s tendering process.

Design/methodology/approach
Two live observational case studies were carried out in two of the top 20 UK construction firms, referred to here as Gamma and Delta. The whole tender process was shadowed using participant observation, interview and documentary analysis.

Findings
Eight review meetings occurred in the six-and-a-half week (i.e. 280.5hours) tender process. The review meetings lasted for 22.2 hours which forms 8% of the tender period. Eight people were involved in the review meetings in each firm, which translates into 178 man-hours. Thus, review meetings constitute a significant proportion of a contractor’s tendering process and clearly contribute to the costs of tendering. Altogether, 17 people were identified as bid team members. However, the significant proportion of work was done by the Bid Manager, Estimator and Planner. The final tender review appeared to have least impact on programme and price contrary to existing knowledge in the literature. This is partly because of accountability procedures such as interim review meetings which take place prior to final tender review. Significant change was found in the traditional role of the estimator. This is due to the emergence of equally important roles played by the Bid Manager and Planner because of other significant factors apart from price that also affect how work is priced, documented and awarded.

Practical implications
The research reveals a significant amount of time and resources involved in tender review meetings. This is one area contractors can tackle to minimize high costs associated with tendering.

Originality/value
The research develops a better understanding of review meetings in the tender process of contractors, in terms of times of occurrence, personnel involved, meeting durations, documents reviewed, issues discussed and key terminologies associated with tender review. The originality of the research lies in the combination of rigorous ethnomethodological fieldwork with results that are highly relevant to construction practitioners.

Keywords: Case studies, estimating, tender review meeting, tendering, UK