Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present new findings to organizations that acknowledge difficulties in implementing and succeeding with project partnering. Design/methodology/approach The investigation is based on a case study where empirical evidence has been collected via semi-structured interviews of 54 professionals within the construction industry. Findings Based on the research the authors were able to identify three main dimensions vital for project partnering success: 1. who related to participant selection; 2. what related to task clarification; and 3. way related to partnering means. These dimensions give rise to what the authors have termed a 3W (Who, What, Way) model on how to succeed with project partnering in practice. The third dimension, way related to partnering means, was found to consist of the four subdimensions: 3a. partnering attitude; 3b. a collaborative culture; 3c. a holistic perspective; and 3d. an accurate handover. Originality/value The authors found 318 papers focusing on partnering, in these only 19 focused on how to succeed with project partnering. The authors have complemented the limited research on how to succeed with project partnering with 54 interviews of professionals. The majority of the existing research has focused on challenges. This paper contributes to the research gap by presenting a 3W model on how to succeed with project partnering.
Purpose Due to observed problems in real-life projects stemming from the lack of a unified definition, the purpose of this paper is to formulate a new definition of project partnering (PP) through documenting the specific characteristics researchers attribute to this approach. Design/methodology/approach PP definition phrases extracted from a literature review were sorted into a basic framework of who, what, how, when and where. In a web-based survey, a group of experts marked the phrases from the literature review as being specific, generic, or irrelevant to PP. The expert group comprised highly ranked and experienced PP researchers. Based on the survey results, a new definition was formulated. The new definition specifies the participants, the objectives and the knowledge, skills, tools and techniques applied to pursue the objectives in PP. A verification survey of the expert group gave a 78-96 per cent combined approve and support score for each element of the new definition. Findings PP and a partnering project are defined by a framework encompassing three basic dimensions: participants, objectives, knowledge, skills, tools and techniques applied to pursue the objectives. The new definition is: “project partnering is a relationship strategy whereby a project owner integrates contractors and other major contributors into the project”. Through commitment to mutual project objectives, collaborative problem solving and a joint governance structure, partners pursue collaborative relationships, trust and improved performance. The new definition indicates that PP neither varies with early contractor involvement nor gain and pain share, but varies with the degree of mutual project objectives, collaborative problem solving and joint governance structure. Originality/value PP is a complex concept with no widely accepted definition. The basic framework applied to the formulation of the definition in this project can also be applied to define and implement a partnering project and to define and distinguish between other relationship-based procurement forms.
Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to evaluate to which extent partnering practices observed in earlier research focussing on the construction industry are applied in offshore development drilling projects. Design/methodology/approach-The paper reviews earlier research on project partnering and the relationship-based procurement (RBP) taxonomy. The taxonomy is then empirically applied to describe partnering practices in an incentive-based drilling project in Norway. Findings-Many elements of project partnering observed earlier in construction projects were found to characterize offshore development drilling projects. However, as assessed using the RBP framework, the authors found that partnering elements in observed context rated consistently lower than elements previously reported in the construction industry, indicating a lower maturity of partnering practices in the studied context. Practical implications-The present study provides a multi-dimensional and systematic description of partnering practices in offshore drilling projects. Project owners can utilize this information to identify partnering elements requiring particular emphasis when initiating and managing drilling projects. Based on the findings, such elements include transparency and open-book auditing, integrated risk mitigation and insurance practices and establishment of authentic leadership. The findings further imply that partnering models cannot be directly applied across industry boundaries but must be tailored to fit the salient characteristics of each context. Originality/value-The paper systematically describes to which extent specific partnering elements of the RBP taxonomy are applied in offshore drilling projects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.