Gransberg, D D; Dillon, W D; Reynolds, L and Boyd, J (1999) Quantitative analysis of partnered project performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3), pp. 161-166. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Partnering is a technique that has become the construction industry's application of total quality management and enjoys widespread use throughout the industry. This paper details the results of a statistical analysis of over 400 Texas Department of Transportation construction projects worth a total investment of nearly $2.1 billion. Half the projects were completed under partnering agreements. After comparing the two groups of projects, the paper concludes that partnering promises to furnish a means to control the two prime project performance indicators - cost growth and time growth. Additionally, in a large construction program the continuous application of partnering will result in improved project performance across the entire program.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction industry, agreements, project performance, statistical analysis, partnering, quantitative analysis, construction project, program, total quality management |
| Subjects: | software systems, production management, project management theory and practice, partnership management, industry analysis, contract formation, data science, data analysis and analytics, evaluation methods |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Contract Administration, Research Practice, Project Management, Stakeholder Management |
| 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