Table 1: The rows are organised...

Table 1:

The rows are organised according to influence. The owner is the most influential, while society is the least influential. The columns are organised after temporal breaking points.

Stakeholder	Front-end and construction	Operation within guarantee period	Operation after expiry of guarantee	Risk
Owner	Lowering construction timeLowering cost	Releases funds for other strategic priorities	Releases funds for other strategic priorities	No convictions so far in NorwayPotential for construction breakdown
Main contractor	Lowering construction time (heightening ROI)Competitive advantage	Difficult to hold sub-contractors responsibleNo consequence for the project manager	Construction errors outside contractor’s responsibility No consequence for the project manager	No convictions so far in Norway
Fraudulent sub-contractor	Competitive advantage (time, cost and quality)	Has left the country/closed down/out of market	Construction errors outside contractor’s responsibilityCompetitive advantageNo reputation to lose	Risk increases with frequency of projects within the same organisational structure
End user	Potentially cheap buying/rent opportunityFaults are contractor’s responsibility	Potentially cheap buying/rent opportunity	Faults Uncertainty concerning qualityCan live with lower standards	QualityPotential for construction breakdown
Controlling agencies (HSE, legal, tax, social welfare)	Increased need for services	Increased need for services	Increased need for servicesIncreased reputation	Difficult to prove efficiency of measures – creating the need for more funds. A certain risk for loosing reputation might be envisaged if criminal activities are not hindered effectively
Insurance companies	Hardly any consequences beyond increased turnover	Hardly any consequences beyond increased turnover	Hardly any consequences beyond increased turnover	Long-term damages to buildingsDifficult to link damages to crime
Consultants	Little difference in work layout depending on workforce	Little influence on work carried out	Little influence on service time of buildings	Little risk
Illegal workmen	Work opportunitiesBetter salary than in home countryPotential for exploitation	Potential for long-term exploitation (getting “caught” within the system over time)	Potential for long-term exploitation (getting “caught” within the system over time)Few (if any) rights	Potential for naturalisationSHE-challengesNo risk for legal prosecution
Legal workmen	Unfair competitionDecreased work conditionsLoss of workSHE-related issues	Unfair competitionDecreased work conditionsLoss of workSHE-related issues	Fall in statusUnfair competitionLoss of work	SHE-challenges
FM-personnel	Typically not involved in the construction process	SHE-issuesPotentially increased workload due to reclamationsMaintenance challenges	SHE-issuesMaintenance challenges	SHE-issuesMaintenance challenges
Society	Lack of revenuesSocial challengesPollution	Reduced quality of the built environmentLack of revenuesSocial challengesPollution	Reduced quality of the built environmentLack of revenuesSocial challengesPollution	Social challengesPollutionPotential for construction breakdown

Stakeholder	Front-end and construction	Operation within guarantee period	Operation after expiry of guarantee	Risk
Owner	Lowering construction timeLowering cost	Releases funds for other strategic priorities	Releases funds for other strategic priorities	No convictions so far in NorwayPotential for construction breakdown
Main contractor	Lowering construction time (heightening ROI)Competitive advantage	Difficult to hold sub-contractors responsibleNo consequence for the project manager	Construction errors outside contractor’s responsibility No consequence for the project manager	No convictions so far in Norway
Fraudulent sub-contractor	Competitive advantage (time, cost and quality)	Has left the country/closed down/out of market	Construction errors outside contractor’s responsibilityCompetitive advantageNo reputation to lose	Risk increases with frequency of projects within the same organisational structure
End user	Potentially cheap buying/rent opportunityFaults are contractor’s responsibility	Potentially cheap buying/rent opportunity	Faults Uncertainty concerning qualityCan live with lower standards	QualityPotential for construction breakdown
Controlling agencies (HSE, legal, tax, social welfare)	Increased need for services	Increased need for services	Increased need for servicesIncreased reputation	Difficult to prove efficiency of measures – creating the need for more funds. A certain risk for loosing reputation might be envisaged if criminal activities are not hindered effectively
Insurance companies	Hardly any consequences beyond increased turnover	Hardly any consequences beyond increased turnover	Hardly any consequences beyond increased turnover	Long-term damages to buildingsDifficult to link damages to crime
Consultants	Little difference in work layout depending on workforce	Little influence on work carried out	Little influence on service time of buildings	Little risk
Illegal workmen	Work opportunitiesBetter salary than in home countryPotential for exploitation	Potential for long-term exploitation (getting “caught” within the system over time)	Potential for long-term exploitation (getting “caught” within the system over time)Few (if any) rights	Potential for naturalisationSHE-challengesNo risk for legal prosecution
Legal workmen	Unfair competitionDecreased work conditionsLoss of workSHE-related issues	Unfair competitionDecreased work conditionsLoss of workSHE-related issues	Fall in statusUnfair competitionLoss of work	SHE-challenges
FM-personnel	Typically not involved in the construction process	SHE-issuesPotentially increased workload due to reclamationsMaintenance challenges	SHE-issuesMaintenance challenges	SHE-issuesMaintenance challenges
Society	Lack of revenuesSocial challengesPollution	Reduced quality of the built environmentLack of revenuesSocial challengesPollution	Reduced quality of the built environmentLack of revenuesSocial challengesPollution	Social challengesPollutionPotential for construction breakdown

Note: The rows are organised according to influence. The owner is the most influential, while society is the least influential. The columns are organised after temporal breaking points

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable