Watts, N; Watson, P A and Griffith, A (1999) Building procurement: The partnering paradigm. In: Hughes, W (ed.) Proceedings of 15th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1999, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
This paper forms part of the first stage of a three year doctorate research project that focuses upon partnering down the supply chain and it draws upon an in-depth literature review on project partnering concepts. Partnering is reviewed in terms of the various construction procurement options available to clients and contractors. Many within the construction industry see partnering itself as a procurement option. However, this paper explores the possibility that partnering and the partnering paradigm should be considered as a methodology for establishing a non-contractual working relationship in tandem with an established procurement route or contractual relationship. This paper highlights the need for a change in culture and approach to optimize partnering applications.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | culture; partnering; procurement; supply chain |
| Index terms: | building procurement, literature review, partnering, option, construction industry, construction procurement, methodology, contractual relationship, paradigm |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, decision analysis, partnership management, research methods, education and knowledge transfer, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, contractual relationship |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Procurement, Research Practice, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here