Sze, E; Kumaraswamy, M; Fung, A; Palaneeswaran, E and Wong, S (2004) Partnering with the tenants- Hong Kong experience. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
The development of more integrated and collaborative teams has been advocated in construction during the last decade. This notion has generated broad initiatives such as in partnering and alliancing. Such approaches are still evolving, while widely experimented with in the industry and researched in academia. A proliferation of literature is helping to develop a better understanding of their applications in construction projects. As a supplement to this, the paper examines the interplay of stakeholders in partnered refurbishment projects, which in essence involves the participation of tenants (occupants). Drawing upon evidence obtained through interviews of project personnel and a tenant survey in a pilot case study, some practical observations of partnering on refurbishment projects are formulated: first, that partnering can tap more early inputs from the end-users, and thereby increase their satisfaction; second, that feedback and complaints from tenants are tackled more efficiently with partnering arrangements; finally, that some typical problems (e.g. misunderstandings/misinterpretations) still persist despite fairly successful partnering with tenants. The latter is indicative of the same type of partnering hurdles as in construction projects. These observations are also useful in formulating the basis of a more detailed investigation into wider partnering protocols, that closely involve the end-users of occupied refurbishment projects.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; occupied refurbishment projects; partnering; tenants |
| Index terms: | construction project, personnel, evidence, interview, satisfaction, academia, drawing, tenant, survey, Hong Kong, complaint, investigation, refurbishment project, partnering, case study, alliancing |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, project delivery, evaluation and assessment methods, educational institutions, production management, data collection methods, partnership management, Geography, practitioner, contractual arrangements, technical documentation, infrastructure engineering, management |
| Topics: | Procurement, Project Management, Education, Geographical Context, Design Practice, Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles |
| 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