An Inquiry to Move an Underutilized Best Practice Forward: Barriers to Partnering in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry

Abstract

There is an obvious need in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry for improved project team integration through project delivery to ensure improved project outcomes. The literature reports that, among other methods, project partnering, when followed successfully, provides a great opportunity to improve project performance via improved collaboration among key project stakeholders (e.g., owner, designer, contractor) and reduce claims as a result while letting all project members stay in their traditional roles and work under any contractual framework, including design‐bid‐build. Despite its potential and history in the United States since the late 1980s and being classified as one of the best practices by the Construction Industry Institute in 1996, partnering continues to be underutilized. Existing research on partnering is mostly limited to public projects such as mega roadway and bridge projects. Guided by the literature, the aim of this research is to understand and report barriers to project partnering in the United States from both vertical/horizontal and public/private construction sectors. Via a comprehensive literature review, followed by a Delphi survey of partnering experts, this study systematically classified barriers to project partnering. In study results, implementation barriers to partnering during project delivery are more frequently pronounced than the barriers to its adoption. Of the top reported barriers to project partnering, the majority are cultural; project team related barriers show the greatest area of potential for improvement; and contrary to the literature, none is legislative. The study contributes to the body of knowledge by drawing attention to project delivery and management practices in the AEC industry to improve team collaboration and chances of successful implementation and adoption of integrative practices.

Collaborative Project Delivery Methods: A Scoping Review

“…On a more strategic level, Crespin-Mazet and Portier (2010) suggest that the lack of diffusion and understanding of construction partnering may be due to the resistance of purchasers who feel threatened by the structural changes in their purchasing habits. According to Mollaoglu et al (2015), of the top reported barriers to project partnering, the majority are cultural; and contrary to the literature according to them, none are legislative. On the other hand, factors such as "Faster construction time", "Improvement of relationship amongst project participants" and "Improvement in communication amongst project participants" have been stated as significant benefits (Chan et al, 2003a).…”

Understanding how to succeed with project partnering

“…Factors specific to project partnering include early involvement of contractors and dialogues to manage conflicts with the purpose of building trust (Mollaoglu et al, 2015, Eriksson, 2010, Lahdenperä, 2012, and joint objectives and joint risk mitigation between client and contractor in pursuit of improved performance (Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2015). In this paper, we use the definition by Børve et al (2017): "Project Partnering is a relationship strategy whereby a project owner integrates contractors and other major contributors into the project.…”

Collaborative Project Delivery Models and the Role of Routines in Institutionalizing Partnering

“…Similarly, in a recent study of barriers to partnering, Mollaoglu et al (2015) found that cultural barriers were the common obstacles listed by respondents. These attitudinal barriers included lack of trust, misunderstanding of partnering among the members, and communication problems.…”

“…Partnering represents a fundamental shift away from the traditional adversarial and short-term relationships in construction (Barlow & Jashapara, 1998; Bresnen & Marshall, 2000; Bygballe, Jahre, & Swärd, 2010; Crespin-Mazet, Havenvid, & Linné, 2016; Gadde & Dubois, 2010; Wood & Ellis, 2005). However, despite the perceived benefits of partnering and the identification of a range of critical success factors (Black, Akintoye, & Fitzgerald, 2000; Chan et al, 2004), partnering remains an elusive concept (Bresnen & Marshall, 2000) and its impact on performance ambiguous (Beach, Webster, & Campbell, 2005; Bresnen, 2010; Bresnen & Marshall, 2010; Hartmann & Bresnen, 2011; Jacobsson & Roth, 2014; Mollaoglu, Sparkling, & Thomas, 2015; Nystrom, 2005). By examining the role of routines in partnering, we aim to contribute to the understanding of partnering and what might explain how and why it is likely to succeed.…”