Auchterlounie, T (2006) An example of partnering between a North American speculative housebuilder and their subcontractors. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
This paper looks at the relationships forged by a medium sized private house building company from Indianapolis, Indiana, USA with its subcontractors. It describes the partnering process as it has evolved and then goes on to analyse in detail the intricate and symbiotic relationships that the company, Estridge Homes have formed with all their subcontractors. The paper will demonstrate that this is not pseudo partnering but that the relationship between Estridge and its subcontractors is a true two way process; each partner having the opportunity to have an input into their own work and how it fits into the building process as a whole. It considers the value engineering that the subcontractors do by choice and how this partnership affects contracts they have with other builders and house builders. It will go on to demonstrate how the quality and end cost of the finished house has been materially affected by this partnering process.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | latham; partnering; quality; value engineering |
| Index terms: | partnership, builder, Latham, partnering, housebuilder, subcontractor, building process, value engineering |
| Subjects: | building construction, partnership management, industry policy reports, value management, practitioner |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Site Management, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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