Phillips-Alonge, O K (2017) The influence of partnering on the occurrence and cost of construction conflicts and disputes. PhD thesis, Northcentral University, USA.
Abstract
The objective of the study is to evaluate the influence of partnering on the occurrence and costs of construction conflicts and disputes. Although conflict is similar to dispute, a degree of difference exists between the two. Together, conflict and dispute remain a socio-economic burden on the construction industry with an estimated $40 billion a year in additional costs. The construction sector adopted partnering in the mid-1980s as a relational contracting method to improve collaboration, eliminate adversarial disputes, and save costs. A one sample two-tailed t-test was performed to compare conflict and dispute metrics in partnering projects against industry performance. Effect size ‘r2’ was estimated to determine the strength of the observed performance differences between the sample and the population. The research participants include project management professionals with partnering experience in publicly funded construction projects in the state of California. A non-experimental quantitative online questionnaire survey was used to collect the research data. The research instrument was reliable, α = . 806, and the sample sufficient, KMO = 736. Results showed partnering has no significant effects on conflict occurrence, and the direct settlement costs of construction conflicts and disputes. However, partnering influenced the transaction costs of construction conflicts; conflicts occurrence t(192) = 20. 358, df = 191, p = . 000, and an incredibly large effect size, Cohen’s r 2 = . 685. Similarly, partnering influence the occurrence and the transaction costs of construction disputes. Dispute occurrence t(193) = 23. 593, df = 192, p = . 000, and an incredibly large effect size, Cohen’s r 2 = . 744; transactional costs of construction conflicts and disputes, t(193) = 31. 985, df = 192, p = . 000, and a very large effect size, Cohen’s r 2 = . 842. Partnering is not an antidote for conflict and dispute, but a framework for relationship building, amicable issues resolution, and mutually beneficial contracts implementation. The research contributed to theory and practice and reinforced existing research findings. Future research on the post-construction effects of partnering on the participant's issue resolution practices and the effects of conflicts and disputes on the relational dynamic of partnering participants is recommended.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Luckel, H and Sines, C C |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction sector; population; transaction cost; construction project; collaboration; conflicts; disputes; partnering; relational contracting; professional; experiment; industry performance; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | construction sector, questionnaire, population, construction project, collaboration, experiment, survey, transaction cost, construction dispute, project management, construction industry, implementation, industry performance, resolution, dispute, relational contracting, partnering |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, dispute resolution, conflict resolution, partnership management, industry analysis, management, project management theory and practice, contractual arrangements, demography, financial analysis, production management |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Procurement, Project Management, Legal Issues |
| 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