Evidence versus Pragmatism: Unresolved Conflict between Two Construction Management Paradigms for Contingency Project Environments

2. Background

For this study, dynamic project environment defines one in which project conditions are not predictable. Unpredictable project conditions may include unsteady legal and security conditions; a condition of political upheaval, natural or man-made disasters such as war; as well as conditions in which ethical and technological immaturities exist. Examples abound in many developing and emerging countries such as Afghanistan, Nigeria, South Africa, and Brazil. From a scholarly perspective, this inquiry comprises a dual Delphi study approach involving the conduct of independent concurrent and parallel qualitative studies in different cultural constructs, and bringing the results together to seek commonalities in responses from participants.

From a management perspective, these authors will seek to illustrate cross-cultural evidentiary and pragmatic factors necessary for attaining optimal project efficiencies. Project efficiency for the purpose of this study, is defined as the completion of construction projects and attaining primary sponsor mandates within their contracted budgets, contract periods of performance, and specified work scope, and quality. Due to a dearth of studies on the efficacy of evidence-based management (EBMgt) practice in the construction field, scholars and practitioners in the field often resort to quantitative-based studies and subjective management practices respectively. Briner et al. (2009) saw EBMgt as a practice conducted by practitioners, while explaining the role of scholars, is to provide critical infrastructure for its implementation. Briner et al. concur that though the term EBMgt is a new one, the notion of applying research evidence to aid organizational strategies in not. The authors position is similar to those of Reay, Berta and Kohn (2009, p.19) that EBMgt is a “family of practices, not a single rigid formulaic method of making organizational decisions.