Baatz, N (2008) Problem management/dispute resolution in partnering contracts. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 161(3), pp. 115-120. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
Concepts such as cooperation and good faith are at the centre of the partnering idea. Moreover, these concepts are also part of many conventional contracts. Ultimately partnering involves a 'virtual' rather than real partnership because the participants retain their separate legal identities. Therefore if disputes arise their resolution may follow conventional models. The idea of partnering may be useful for certain projects but to enable it to work well careful attention must be paid in advance to risk analysis and risk distribution. It is the combination of the provisions that provide for early risk identification and management and early problem solving and/or dispute resolution that may be crucial to achieving the advantages attributed to partnering.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts and law; disputes and arbitration |
| Index terms: | resolution, arbitration, identity, dispute, partnership, partnering, good faith, risk analysis, cooperation, problem solving, risk identification |
| Subjects: | psychology, environmental hazards, professional ethics, decision-making and reasoning, financial risk, dispute resolution, sociology, partnership management, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Legal Issues, Sustainability |
| 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