Gruneberg, S and Hughes, W P (2004) Construction consortia: Do they serve any real purpose? In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Construction of large and complex projects is invariably carried out by firms working with others in joint ventures, special purpose vehicles or consortia. Several reasons have been given for the creation of consortia in construction. They enable firms to undertake larger projects than they would be able to consider on their own. They allow firms to take advantage of the expertise of a wider range of specialisms. They spread the risk of large projects over a number of firms. Although consortia provide a useful solution to a number of obstacles facing firms in the development and building processes, are these benefits won at a price? Working as a consortium presents particular difficulties owing to the early and close working relationships often formed between firms at pre-tender stages. The benefits of consortia (i.e. balancing risks, conflicts, gains and losses) are tested against the assertion that only when property and construction firms are vertically integrated in consortia are conflicts reduced. Several interviews with participants in the building production process provide evidence that construction consortia per se are found not to increase or reduce perceived risk to firms or to increase or reduce perceived conflict between them. The real transformation process is the same regardless of the arrangements between the parties.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction consortia; joint ventures; conflict; risk |
| Index terms: | evidence, tender stage, building process, complex project, joint venture, special purpose vehicle, interview, consortium, construction firm, transformation, production process |
| Subjects: | building construction, partnership management, tendering, manufacturing engineering, financial and cost management, strategic project management, organization, business, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Site Management, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice |
| 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