Roles in construction projects: analysis and terminology

Standard form contracts are typically developed through a negotiated consensus, unless they are proffered by one specific interest group. Previously published plans of work and other descriptions of the processes in construction projects tend to focus on operational issues, or they tend to be prepared from the point of view of one or other of the dominant interest groups. Legal practice in the UK permits those who draft contracts to define their terms as they choose. There are no definitive rulings from the courts that give an indication as to the detailed responsibilities of project participants. The science of terminology offers useful guidance for discovering and describing terms and their meanings in their practical context, but has never been used for defining terms for responsibilities of participants in the construction project management process. Organizational analysis enables the management task to be deconstructed into its elemental parts in order that effective organizational structures can be developed. Organizational mapping offers a useful technique for reducing text-based descriptions of project management roles and responsibilities to a comparable basis. Research was carried out by means of a desk study, detailed analysis of nine plans of work and focus groups representing all aspects of the construction industry. No published plan of work offers definitive guidance. There is an enormous amount of variety in the way that terms are used for identifying responsibilities of project participants. A catalogue of concepts and terms (a “Terminology”) has been compiled and indexed to enable those who draft contracts to choose the most appropriate titles for project participants. The purpose of this terminology is to enable the selection and justification of appropriate terms in order to help define roles. The terminology brings an unprecedented clarity to the description of roles and responsibilities in construction projects and, as such, will be helpful for anyone seeking to assemble a team and specify roles for project participants

On Verifying Resource Contracts using Code Contracts

In this paper we present an approach to check resource consumption contracts using an off-the-shelf static analyzer. We propose a set of annotations to support resource usage specifications, in particular, dynamic memory consumption constraints. Since dynamic memory may be recycled by a memory manager, the consumption of this resource is not monotone. The specification language can express both memory consumption and lifetime properties in a modular fashion. We develop a proof-of-concept implementation by extending Code Contracts' specification language. To verify the correctness of these annotations we rely on the Code Contracts static verifier and a points-to analysis. We also briefly discuss possible extensions of our approach to deal with non-linear expressions.Comment: In Proceedings LAFM 2013, arXiv:1401.056

Final Report, 1983-1984

Final annual report from the Office of Research, Grants and Contracts at Morehead State University for 1983-1984

TreatJS: Higher-Order Contracts for JavaScript

TreatJS is a language embedded, higher-order contract system for JavaScript which enforces contracts by run-time monitoring. Beyond providing the standard abstractions for building higher-order contracts (base, function, and object contracts), TreatJS's novel contributions are its guarantee of non-interfering contract execution, its systematic approach to blame assignment, its support for contracts in the style of union and intersection types, and its notion of a parameterized contract scope, which is the building block for composable run-time generated contracts that generalize dependent function contracts. TreatJS is implemented as a library so that all aspects of a contract can be specified using the full JavaScript language. The library relies on JavaScript proxies to guarantee full interposition for contracts. It further exploits JavaScript's reflective features to run contracts in a sandbox environment, which guarantees that the execution of contract code does not modify the application state. No source code transformation or change in the JavaScript run-time system is required. The impact of contracts on execution speed is evaluated using the Google Octane benchmark.Comment: Technical Repor

Fairness and Contract Design

We show experimentally that fairness concerns may have a decisive impact on the actual and optimal choice of contracts in a moral hazard context. Bonus contracts that offer a voluntary and unenforceable bonus for satisfactory performance provide powerful incentives and are superior to explicit incentive contracts when there are some fair-minded players. But trust contracts that pay a generous wage upfront are less efficient than incentive contracts. The principals understand this and predominantly choose the bonus contracts. Our results are consistent with recently developed theories of fairness, which offer important new insights into the interaction of contract choices, fairness and incentives