Cheng, E W L and Li, H (2004) Development of a practical model of partnering for construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(6), pp. 790-798. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a practical model of partnering, which integrates the processes and associated components for partnering espousal. It intends to use the concept of modeling to integrate the aspects of system and process to form a model for practicing partnering. Therefore, a system-process model that is called the procedural mapping model (PMM) is developed, which adopts a more systematic approach to modeling construction partnering, including the identification of the core practices and activities. The PMM forms the basis for designing the key elements of the practical model of partnering that involves three major establishments including interactive process description, success factors' monitoring, and goals' assessment matrices. Individual components of these establishments have also been described.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; models; partnerships; project management |
| Index terms: | success factor, mapping, construction project, partnering, partnership, monitoring, project management, modelling |
| Subjects: | control systems, analytical methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, project management theory and practice, production management, spatial and geospatial analysis, partnership management |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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