Partnering: A Team Building Approach to Quality Construction Management

Abudayyeh, Osama

doi:10.1061/(asce)9742-597x(1994)10:6(26)

Cited by 55 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These include industry sponsored research into partnering (e.g., CII, 1991;Bennett and Jayes, 1995;Lenard et al, 1996;Chan, Chan, Fan et al, 2004), as well as general research on partnering (e.g., Cook and Hancher, 1990;Larson and Drexler, 1997;Conley and Gregory, 1999;Black et al, 2000;Cheng et al, 2000;Glagola and Sheedy, 2002;Ng et al, 2002;Chan, Chan, Chiang et al, 2004;Fisher, 2004), alliancing (Barlow et al, 1997;Halman and Braks, 1999;Barlow, 2000;Hauck et al, 2004;Rowlinson et al, 2006) and relational 16 contracting (e.g., Hampson and Kwok, 1997;Davis, 1999;Rahman and Kumaraswamy, 2002). Many studies also highlight the roles of partnering as a team-building mechanism and as a catalyst for cultural change (e.g., Mosley et al, 1991;Moore et al, 1992;Abudayyeh, 1994;Albanese, 1994;Brown, 1994;Wilson Jr et al, 1995;Miles, 1996;Gardiner and Simmons, 1998;Winch, 2000;Nicolini, 2002;Beach et al, 2005).However, these studies also create problems, which stand in the way of uniform understanding of the partnering concept. These issues are next discussed and clarified in the context of the proposed model of partnering in Figure 1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Anvuur

Kumaraswamy

2007

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

120

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

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides, if trust were a pre-requisite, then the introduction of partnering would not even be necessary in the first place. Therefore, trust is more a consequence of, than a means for, the achievement of cooperation (see also Katzenbach and Smith, 1993;Abudayyeh, 1994;Albanese, 1994;Lazar, 2000;Wood and McDermott, 2001). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Anvuur

Kumaraswamy

2007

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…En los últimos tiempos como indica G. Crane et al (1997), las relaciones de alianzas se han ido incrementando paulatinamente en empresas de ingeniería y construcción. Asimismo muchas investigaciones se han realizado para describir el concepto de partenariado, y como se deben estructurar los grupos de trabajo y los beneficios del mismo (Abudayyeh 1994;Brown1993;In Search 1991;Crane 1995;Liska 1993;Poirier and Houser 1993). Estas publicaciones han demostrado que las relaciones de partenariado creadas en entornos armoniosos, han facilitado la reducción de costes y litigios legales, incrementando la calidad de la productividad y los beneficios.…”

Section: Modelo Para La Creación De Una Relación De Partenariadounclassified

Propuesta De Un Modelo De Integración Para La Gestión De La Cadena De Suministro en El Sector De La Construcción

Ureña¹,

Francisco²

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regarding the competitive nature of the construction industry, Abudayyeh (1994), Larson (1995) and Fong and Lung (2007) claim that partnering aims to resolve problems between the participants, transform confrontational relationships into cooperative ones, establish continuous development, provide on-time and within-budget delivery, enhance communication, increase the quality of the product and provide better customer satisfaction. However, evidence in favor of partnering is not always convincing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Success Factors Of Partnering In The Building Design Process

Doğan¹,

Çalğici²,

Arditi³

et al. 2015

METU JFA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction industry is vertically fragmented because of the inherent nature of construction projects, which require planning, design, letting, construction, and operation in distinct phases (Fellows and Liu, 2012;Fong and Lung, 2007). The construction industry is also horizontally fragmented because of the general tendency of participants to work independently in all phases of the project (Fellows and Liu, 2012;Saram and Ahmed, 2001). Given the increasing number of construction projects in the current global environment, geographical fragmentation is caused by project participants that are frequently geographically separated. The construction industry is also temporally fragmented, as the phases of construction projects diverge over an estimated time period (Luck, 1996). According to Evbuomwan and Anumba (1998), the fragmentation in the industry results in costly engineering changes and design iterations, time and cost increases, poor communication between project participants, neglect of the application of sustainability principles throughout the life cycle of the building, and inadequate coordination and integration of the various participants. The root cause of much of these problems encountered in the management of building projects can be traced back to the design phase.The building design process typically involves the participation of architects, engineers (structural, mechanical, electrical, and environmental engineers) and material suppliers. In some project delivery systems, contractors are also involved in the design process. The lack of effective coordination among different disciplines in the building design process may affect not only the design but also the construction processes and the final product, creating problems related to schedule, quality, manpower, materials used, and cost. The interaction of the project participants is vital for the success of the project. Architects and engineers must recognize the collaborative nature of the building design process and support

show abstract

Partnering: A Team Building Approach to Quality Construction Management

Cited by 55 publications

References 3 publications

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Propuesta De Un Modelo De Integración Para La Gestión De La Cadena De Suministro en El Sector De La Construcción

Critical Success Factors Of Partnering In The Building Design Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About