Walker, D H T; Harley, J and Mills, A (2015) Performance of project alliancing in Australasia: A digest of infrastructure development from 2008 to 2013. Construction Economics and Building, 15(1), pp. 1-18. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Project and program alliances have been an accepted form of project procurement for public infrastructure engineering projects in Australia and New Zealand (Australasia). Alliancing often provides best value and superior value for money when compared to traditional approaches such as Design and Construct, however considerable debate continues about its success and applicability. This paper reports on three studies of completed construction project alliance performance in 2008, 2010 and 2012. Consolidated findings are presented on 61 project alliances, data is analysed and emerging trends discussed. Recent government policy changes in Australia at Federal and State level have led to a decline in the number of project alliances, however, while the volume of alliance activity is declining it still represents billions of dollars of infrastructure construction work being undertaken. Results also revealed that communication and trust between the executive leadership and operational management teams was a major factor contributing to the functioning of the alliance. Furthermore, the research identifies several key factors that were necessary preconditions for successful alliances.Paper Type: Research article
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australian public infrastructure; project alliances; project management. |
| Index terms: | project alliance, infrastructure construction, value-for-money, Australia, infrastructure development, project management, project procurement, alliancing, best value, construction project, program, government policy, public infrastructure, executive, New Zealand |
| Subjects: | bidding, infrastructure and transport systems, contractual arrangements, public policy, infrastructure engineering, project management theory and practice, evaluation, practitioner, production management, Geography, software systems, civil engineering |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Governance, Digital Applications, Value Management |
| 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