Shipton, C (2012) Understanding post-contract changes in partnering projects: An ethnographic approach. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Partnering continues to be widely used in the UK. However, the partnering literature often presents polarized views of reality, which has stunted our understanding of the enactment of partnering as an informal and emergent practice. Power permeates social interactions and potentially affects partnering relationships in ways that contradict best practice guidance. However, understandings of power in partnering projects are limited. Post-contract changes (PCCs) are a common source of conflict on projects around which to explore interactions. Power relations and interactions are embedded practices that must be understood within the context of the project. Therefore, the aim is to adopt an ethnographic approach to explore how individuals interact on projects when managing PCCs and to explore how power affects these interactions. As part of ongoing doctoral research, preliminary findings from a public sector partnering project are discussed. There is a strong reliance on the contract to manage PCCs, which partly removes the power from individuals to negotiate changes. However, PCCs involving specialist information are less constrained by the contract. There is evidence of the Client adapting the contract to their preference and the Contractor opportunistically using the Client’s dependency to overprice PCCs, despite claiming to have amiable relations. These seemingly contradictory behaviours emphasize the complexity of interactions around different PCCs, involving different individuals.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ethnography; partnering; post-contract changes; power; procurement |
| Index terms: | partnering, ethnography, public sector, best practice, evidence, preference, interaction, complexity, social interaction |
| Subjects: | business, evaluation and assessment methods, qualitative and interpretive research, decision-making and reasoning, behavioral psychology, systems engineering, administrative law, sociology, partnership management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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