Conley, M A and Gregory, R A (1999) Partnering on small construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(5), pp. 320-324. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Application of partnering concepts on small construction projects by owners or government functionaries could result in substantial savings for private owners and public exchequers annually. This paper develops a concept for partnering for small construction projects based on recent management research and theories being developed in universities with the lessons learned from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers experiences on partnering for large projects. The discussion addresses current attitudes toward partnering, particularly, in small (i.e., up to $3,000,000) private or government sponsored projects. An objective of this paper is to share the benefits of partnering on small construction projects, based on practices and experiences of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A final objective is to develop a primer for construction practitioners.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | savings, engineer, owner, partnering, construction practitioner, management research, lessons learned, construction project |
| Subjects: | production management, professional development, partnership management, sociology, profession, research design and methodology, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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