Rahman, M M and Kumaraswamy, M M (2005) Relational selection for collaborative working arrangements. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(10), pp. 1087-1098. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Procurement arrangements for collaborative working arrangements (CWAs) should arguably provide suitable protocols under which different project partners can interact effectively and maintain harmonious relationships and mobilize their collective efforts towards common project objectives. Technical abilities of different project partners for carrying out the works are important. Also critical are their "soft" or "relational" qualities to work jointly and synergistically in the project team. The aims of the reported study are to examine the importance of a single set of different factors for selecting consultants, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and clients for CWAs; and to assess the relative importance of various factors and strategies for building CWAs. Data were collected internationally from 17 countries through a questionnaire survey and statistical analyses were conducted. Results attribute varying degrees of importance to various factors for selecting different project partners and suggest an interrelated and consolidated selection approach in general, except for "selecting" clients. The study confirms that trust and business ethics related factors and strategies are more helpful for CWAs than some others. Outcomes of this study are expected to benefit both industry practitioners and researchers, in exploring, designing, and implementing suitable CWAs and selecting appropriate project partners.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; contracts; Hong Kong; partnerships; procurement; teamwork |
| Index terms: | subcontractor, practitioner, questionnaire, survey, business ethics, strategy, relative importance, project team, project partner, statistical analysis, partnership, teamwork, Hong Kong |
| Subjects: | Geography, management, partnership management, sociology, practitioner, risk assessment, data collection methods, professional practice, data science, project delivery |
| Topics: | Ethics, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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