Kwawu, W E K and Hughes, W P (2007) Are relational and formal contracts implemented as substitutes in the UK construction industry? In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 23rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2007, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Relational contracts have been claimed as substitutes to formal contracts in overcoming adversarial contractual relationships and mistrust in the UK construction industry. This research provides a rich insight into the dynamics of implementing relational contracts as substitutes to traditional contracting. It is argued that as a collaborative working practice is implemented, it often develops in a manner quite different from what was planned or conceptualized in the framework or proposal. Once in operation, innovative programs are frequently changed as practitioners learn what works and what does not, as they experiment, develop and change their priorities. Data was gathered from two case studies and interviews with senior industry figures, exploring their experiences of implementing relational contracts. Findings suggest that aspects of both systems of sanctioning, self-enforcing (relational contracting) and third-party enforcement (formal contracting) are operating in tandem.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaborative working practices; formal contracts; relational contracts; UK |
| Index terms: | traditional contracting, experiment, working practice, case study, proposal, relational contracting, interview, construction industry, enforcement, practitioner, contractual relationship, dynamics, program |
| Subjects: | health safety and environment, management, software systems, industry analysis, systems engineering, practitioner, data collection methods, contractual relationship, project planning, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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