Sward, A (2006) Relations as a key resource. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
The construction industry is consistently referred to as fragmented and traditional with procurement methods and contractual arrangements that hamper cooperation between involved parties. There is an increasing emphasis on the benefits of partnering in construction projects as a way to reversing these negative effects. Findings from a pilot study suggest that cooperation and interaction are difficult under today's tendering regime and that there is a need for new models and processes. Partnering projects is said to increase trust, and value can be created in that there is less conflict, better quality, one finishes on time, budgets are kept, and users are more satisfied. Even so, partnering still has its sceptics, the reason being related to the investment necessary for establishing relationships as well as the uncertain financial gains. There is a need for more research on how relational capital accruing from partnering can generate value within and beyond single projects, as it is not clear exactly how partnering creates value and what this value entails. A point of departure for further research is to regard the relationships in partnering as a key resource. Investing in relationships can be a way to generate strategic resources as it by character is tacit know-how and is difficult to imitate. The literature covered indicates that there are several dimensions that have to be explored to understand relations and value creation and that there is a need for a deeper understanding of these relationships and what happens over time.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; key resources; partnering; relationships; value |
| Index terms: | procurement method, partnering, strategic resource, value creation, finishes, construction project, dimension, interaction, cooperation, construction industry |
| Subjects: | health monitoring assessment and metrics, contractual arrangements, building materials, psychology, production management, economics, economic development, behavioral psychology, industry analysis, partnership management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Organizational Design, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Procurement, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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