This paper reports early results of a study of construction contractors and their experiences of the PFI market. Utilizing material from semi‐structured interviews with three categories of construction contractor, small, medium and large, consideration is given to the barriers to entry which contractors face when approaching the PFI market. The paper highlights six barriers of entry: lack of appropriate skills; high participation costs; high project values; high risk; lack of credibility and contacts; and demands on management time. These barriers affect the three categories of construction contractor in different ways. The findings suggest that the larger the contractor, the more able it is to overcome these barriers and to compete in the PFI market. The findings also suggest that certain barriers to entry will decline as the industry matures, whilst others will remain.

This paper reports early results of a study of construction contractors and their experiences of the PFI market. Utilizing material from semi-structured interviews with three categories of construction contractor, small, medium and large, consideration is given to the barriers to entry which contractors face when approaching the PFI market. The paper highlights six barriers of entry: lack of appropriate skills; high participation costs; high project values; high risk; lack of credibility and contacts; and demands on management time. These barriers affect the three categories of construction contractor in different ways. The findings suggest that the larger the contractor, the more able it is to overcome these barriers and to compete in the PFI market. The findings also suggest that certain barriers to entry will decline as the industry matures, whilst others will remain.

The relative merits of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) over conventional methods of dispute resolution, namely litigation and arbitration, is well documented, but as yet, the various ADR procedures currently available are not being extensively utilized within the construction industry in the UK. The purpose of the present paper was to discover from UK experts in dispute resolution why ADR has not become a more frequently used technique for resolving disputes in the UK construction industry, and to suggest ways in which this problem can be overcome. The findings indicate that there is a lack of understanding of the principles behind ADR and a lack of experience in dispute resolution in general. The findings strongly suggest that the lack of understanding and experience in ADR can best be overcome by educating and training. This should be carried out early on in the working lives of professionals by universities, professional institutions and specialist bodies such as the CEDR.

The relative merits of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) over conventional methods of dispute resolution, namely litigation and arbitration, is well documented, but as yet, the various ADR procedures currently available are not being extensively utilized within the construction industry in the UK. The purpose of the present paper was to discover from UK experts in dispute resolution why ADR has not become a more frequently used technique for resolving disputes in the UK construction industry, and to suggest ways in which this problem can be overcome. The findings indicate that there is a lack of understanding of the principles behind ADR and a lack of experience in dispute resolution in general. The findings strongly suggest that the lack of understanding and experience in ADR can best be overcome by educating and training. This should be carried out early on in the working lives of professionals by universities, professional institutions and specialist bodies such as the CEDR.