Tang, W; Duffield, C F and Young, D M (2006) Partnering mechanism in construction: An empirical study on the Chinese construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(3), pp. 217-229. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Partnering and its principles have increasingly been introduced to the construction industry to improve the efficiency of project delivery. However, little research outlines the mechanism behind its application. This paper presents the findings of a study that was conducted to develop and test a partnering model that reveals the relationships between the critical success factors (CSFs) of partnering and demonstrates their importance to construction. With support of data collected from the Chinese construction industry, this study has revealed strong correlations among partnering CSFs, risk management, total quality management (TQM), use of incentives, and project performance. It is concluded that project success is the outcome of the interaction between a variety of techniques, and that partnering, associated with incentives, is a basic management method through which risk management and TQM can be strongly improved.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | China; partnerships; quality control; risk management |
| Index terms: | project performance, risk management, empirical study, project delivery, construction industry, interaction, quality control, project success, partnering, efficiency, partnership, management method, China, critical success factor, total quality management |
| Subjects: | project delivery, evaluation methods, control systems, risk assessment, industry analysis, behavioral psychology, partnership management, Geography, project management theory and practice, management, research methods, performance management |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Risk 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