ORCID Profile
0000-0002-4151-3107
Current Organisation
University of South Australia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 27-07-2022
DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-11-2020-0967
Abstract: This study aims to investigate the effect of Australian construction firms' cooperative behavior on reverse logistics outsourcing performance (RLOP). To achieve the aim, a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from construction firms in Australia. Following this, the study used Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze 173 responses for testing seven hypotheses that are related to the positive effects of cooperative behavior on RLOP. The results indicate that three dimensions of customer cooperative behavior (cooperation, commitment and planning) positively influence RLOP in different ways. Cooperation only directly affects RLOP while planning only has an indirect influence on RLOP. Commitment affects RLOP both directly and indirectly. This is the first study examining empirically antecedents of RLOP in the construction industry. Additionally, it reveals the mediating role of cooperation. Cooperation fully mediates the relationship between planning and RLOP, and partially mediates the relationship between commitment and RLOP.
Publisher: University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)
Date: 20-06-2011
Abstract: Since the introduction of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act into New South Wales in 1999, construction industry payment legislation has progressively been enacted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis throughout Australia. Of the eight Australian Acts, two distinct legislative models can be discerned – what have been termed the ‘East Coast’ and ‘West Coast’ models. This article compares the two models with respect to their payment systems and adjudication schemes, procedural justice afforded, incursion upon freedom of contract, uptake rates and efficiency. From this comparison, the strengths and weaknesses of the two models are identified. Finally, a dual process of adjudication based on progress payment claim size is proposed for a harmonised model, developed from previous proposals put forward by other authors, which aims to combine the strengths of the two existing models.
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 06-11-2017
DOI: 10.1108/JFMPC-04-2017-0011
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to identify building contractors’ views as to the need for, impact of and barriers to the use of project bank accounts (PBAs) in the UK construction industry. A cross-sectional research study was carried out by the use of questionnaires to collect quantitative data. The population for the research was of construction professionals working as full-time employees for either main (Tier 1) or specialist contractors (Tiers 2-4). Contractors consider PBAs as an effective initiative to encourage fair payment. There is uncertainty, however, as to whether PBAs will result in project cost savings. Head contractor resistance is perceived to be the biggest barrier to the use of PBAs. Adoption of PBAs in private-sector construction projects is likely to be slow. The relative infancy of PBA usage in the construction industry means that responses are largely based on awareness as opposed to experience. Nevertheless, survey data represent a snapshot of contractors’ perceptions with respect to PBAs, which may be used as a benchmark against which to compare future studies to monitor how contractors’ views and expectations have changed with time. The survey results will be of particular interest to those international jurisdictions who are considering, or who have already embarked on, the path of trialling and/or using PBAs in the public sector.
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2015
Publisher: Inderscience Publishers
Date: 2021
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 06-07-2012
DOI: 10.1108/17561451211242495
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the development of English Law and the Law in New South Wales, Australia in statutory adjudication concerning judicial review of adjudicators' errors in law. This paper adopts a black‐letter law approach focussing on recent decisions and their effect on statutory adjudication. Following the commencement of statutory adjudication in the UK, the English courts swiftly supported the new “pay now, argue later”, rapid form of dispute resolution by holding adjudication to be a private dispute resolution process akin to expert valuation. As such, the English courts have consistently held that adjudicators operate within their jurisdiction even though they may err on points of law, as long as such errors were committed in the course of attempting to answer a question they were contractually authorised to consider. The courts' position in New South Wales (NSW), however, has differed considerably. In NSW, the first Australian State to introduce statutory adjudication, the courts' position with respect to errors of law on the face of the record made by an adjudicator, who had jurisdiction to enter on the inquiry, in the course of making their determination has been somewhat tortuous. Contrary to the initial position following commencement of statutory adjudication, the paper concludes that it may now be more difficult to enforce an adjudicator's determination which contains an error of law in England than in NSW. This paper compares the development of adjudication law in England with that of one state in Australia. The different directions that the law has taken in these jurisdictions will be of interest to academic and practitioners not only in England and Australia but to other jurisdictions where statutory adjudication has been introduced or where legislation is being considered. To the authors knowledge no previous study of this kind has been carried out previously.
No related grants have been discovered for Jeremy Coggins.