Anvuur, A M and Kumaraswamy, M M (2007) Conceptual model of partnering and alliancing. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(3), pp. 225-234. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Partnering as a concept has matured in its application and many empirical studies provide evidence of its impact on project performance beyond the rather prescriptive and anecdotal claims of earlier cookbooks on the subject. What has remained elusive, however, is a guiding theory on partnering. Drawing on the literature, partnering is explained within the framework of intergroup contact theory and teamwork in organizations. More specifically, partnering has the potential to create the essential conditions for optimal intergroup contact and hence, to reduce bias and increase cooperation among construction project workgroups and, consequently, favorably impact on project performance. Demonstrating a close fit with the published literature on partnering provides useful support for the proposed model. The model can clearly help project managers to focus their attention on the necessary aspects of workgroup processes that lead to high cooperation and performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alignment; cooperation; partnership; teamwork |
| Index terms: | drawing, evidence, bias, construction project, cooperation, teamwork, project manager, alliancing, partnering, partnership, project performance, empirical study |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, profession, technical documentation, psychology, contractual arrangements, research methods, management, probability and distributions, project management theory and practice, production management, partnership management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Organizational Design |
| 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