Harmonization Between Main Contractors and Subcontractors: A Prerequisite for Lean Construction?

Miller, Christopher; Packham, Gary; Thomas, Brychan

doi:10.1142/s1609945102000059

Cited by 79 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of empirical studies (e.g., Weston and Gibson, 1993;Larson, 1995;Gransberg et al, 1999) and a plethora of anecdotal evidence support the espoused benefits of partnering. Research highlights the usefulness and benefits of extending the practice of partnering down the entire supply and value chain to include subcontractors (e.g., Mathews et al, 1996;Love, 1997;Kale and Arditi, 2001;Miller et al, 2002;Sze et al, 2003). Partnering forms of contract (e.g., PPC 2000) attempt to prescribe and govern the behavior and relationships of contracting parties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Anvuur

Kumaraswamy

2007

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This item was submitted to Loughborough's Institutional Repository (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions.For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ Conceptual model of partnering and alliancing 1Aaron M. Anvuur and Mohan M. Kumaraswamy, M.ASCE Partnering as a concept has matured in its application and many empirical studies provide evidence of its impact on project performance beyond the rather prescriptive and anecdotal claims of earlier cookbooks on the subject. What has remained elusive, however, is a guiding theory on partnering. Drawing on the literature, partnering is explained within the framework of intergroup contact theory and teamwork in organizations. More specifically, partnering has the potential to create the essential conditions for optimal intergroup contact and hence, to reduce bias and increase cooperation among construction project workgroups and, consequently, IntroductionOver the last decade, partnering has gained considerable popularity. However, several issues raise serious difficulties with the uptake of, understanding of, approach to, and implementation of, partnering within and across different national and organizational settings (Loraine, 1994;Green, 1999;Uher, 1999;Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a;Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b;Li et al., 2000;Fisher and Green, 2001;Bresnen and Marshall, 2002;Naoum, 2003). In time, research has shed light on some of the contentious issues surrounding the concept of partnering. A number of empirical studies (e.g., Weston and Gibson, 1993;Larson, 1995;Gransberg et al., 1999) and a plethora of anecdotal evidence support the espoused benefits of partnering. Research highlights the usefulness and benefits of extending the practice of partnering down the entire supply and value chain to include subcontractors (e.g., Mathews et al., 1996;Love, 1997;Kale and Arditi, 2001;Miller et al., 2002;Sze et al., 2003). Partnering forms of contract (e.g., PPC 2000) attempt to prescribe and govern the behavior and relationships of contracting parties. While the legal status of such express good faith clauses has been questioned and their full practical import is yet unknown (see Cornes, 1996;Cox and Thompson, 1996), these attempts demonstrate a bold commitment to overcome the legal obstacles to the wider adoption of partnering. Some research has considered the potential impact of different cultural and national contexts on partnering performance (e.g., Kwan and Ofori, 2001;Liu and Fellows, 2001;Koraltan and Dikbas, 2002). With 'success stories' of partnering emerging from diverse cultural settings (e.g., Bennett and Baird, 2001;Bayliss et al., 2004;Chan, Chan, Fan et al., 2004), the general view is that partnering is by no means exclusive to any country, continent or culture. 3However, partnering still lacks conceptual-definitional specificity. Partnering is variously defined by its outcomes or the processes involved in its implementation...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Anvuur

Kumaraswamy

2007

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contractors are divided between main contractors and subcontractors (Eccles, 1981;Dubois and Gadde, 2002;Miller et al, 2002). Main contractors are procured by the client and responsible for the overall construction project and to coordinate construction activities in the construction project.…”

Section: Construction Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The subcontractors are the backbone of the organization in a construction project. Most of the construction works are outsourced to them and they perform a lot of different tasks and they all work in different pace, at different phase of the construction project (Miller et al, 2002;Eccles, 1981).…”

Section: Construction Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The outsourcing of construction work to subcontractors has led to a large fragmentation in the construction industry and the industry is depending on many small firms (Segerstedt and Olofsson, 2010;Miller et al, 2002;Dubois and Gadde, 2002;Dainty et al, 2001a;Dainty et al, 2001b;Dubois and Gadde, 2000). Most of the construction work is done by small and medium sized companies.…”

Section: Construction Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The gross work tend to be higher in the construction of new-build projects compared to refurbishment projects since they include more subcontractors (Scholman, 1997;Dainty et al, 2001a). The construction supply chains therefore have a large impact and influence on the success of a construction project (Dubois and Gadde, 2002;Miller et al, 2002).…”

Section: 3 3 1 1 S Sc CM M I In N C Co On Ns St Tr Ru Uc Ct Ti mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exploring Third-Party Logistics and Partnering in Construction : A Supply Chain Management Perspective

Ekeskär¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

L Li in nk kö öp pi in ng g S St tu ud di ie es s i in n S Sc ci ie en nc ce e a an nd d T Te ec ch hn no ol lo og gy y. . T Th he es si is s N No o. . 1 17 75 53 3 L Li ic ce en nt ti ia at te e T Th he es si is s E Ex xp pl lo or ri in ng g T Th hi ir rd d--P Pa ar rt ty y L Lo og gi is st ti ic cs s a an nd d P Pa ar rt tn ne er ri in ng g i in n C Co on ns st tr ru uc ct ti io on n A A S Su up pp pl ly y C Ch ha ai in n M Ma an na ag ge em me en nt t P Pe er rs sp pe ec ct ti iv ve e A An nd dr re ea as s E Ek ke es sk kä är r ii E Ex xp pl lo or ri in ng g T Th hi ir rd d--P Pa ar rt ty y L Lo og gi is st ti ic cs s a an nd d P Pa ar rt tn ne er ri in ng g i in n C Co on ns st tr ru uc ct ti io on n --A A S Su up pp pl ly y C Ch ha ai in n M Ma an na ag ge em me en nt t P Pe er rs sp pe ec ct ti iv ve e AbstractThe construction industry is associated with problems such as low productivity and high costs. This has been highlighted in several government-funded reports in both Sweden and in the UK during the course of over two decades.

show abstract