Matthews, J D (1996) A project partnering approach to the main contractor - sub contractor relationship. PhD thesis, Loughborough University, UK.
Abstract
This research describes an investigation into developing closer working relationships through project partnering in order to reduce the occurrence of adversarial practices commonly found between main contractors and subcontractors. A literature review was undertaken that identified two main types of partnering: project partnering; and strategic partnering. One of the main differences between the two types of partnering were identified as being their durations: short term (project partnering); and long term (strategic partnering). It was concluded that the published literature had the following limitations: primarily applicable to the Australian and US construction industries; models and processes identified did not have an adequate practical content; and limited application to the main contractor - SC relationship. After completion of the literature review a research methodology was developed, allowing an alternative approach to project partnering to be developed. The research methodology enabled information to be obtained from both the collaborating contractors personnel and SC personnel. The approach to project partnering was named 'semi project partnering' as it contained an element of SC competition. The approach was implemented on a live commercial project during the preconstruction tendering and estimating stages. The semi project partnering approach utilised both the knowledge gained from the literature review and the conclusions from the empirical research. The approach was validated by the collaborating company's personnel. Further validation of the achievements of the approach took place by interviewing personnel from both the collaborating company and subcontractors. The main outcomes from the research are: identification of what a main contractor's employees want from their dealings with subcontractors; recognition of what subcontractors want from their dealings with main contractors; a comparison of the collaborating companies performance compared to that of its competitors; and a semi project partnering approach that provides: a reduction in the occurrence of adversarial practices used between main contractors and subcontractors; and earlier involvement of subcontractors within the building process promoting mutual understanding.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; building process; commercial; competition; duration; estimating; interview; partnering; personnel; subcontractor; tendering; validation |
| Index terms: | competition, sub-contractor, validation, building process, subcontractor, estimating, interview, personnel, literature review, research methodology, investigation, duration, construction industry, main contractor, partnering, Australia |
| Subjects: | building construction, partnership management, project controls, market analysis, industry analysis, management, professional development, Geography, financial and cost management, data analysis and analytics, research design and methodology, data collection methods, practitioner |
| Topics: | Site Management, Time Control, Human Resources, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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