Reszka, M and Edwards, P J (1997) Joint ventures: A construction project case study. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 2(2), pp. 5-20. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
A major Australian construction project is used as a basis for comparing the theory and practice of joint venture enterprises. The case study shows that in general, the principles and procedures advocated in the literature are supported. In addition, joint ventures may be a means of ensuring that existing client bases can be maintained, and that partner company growth is not compromised. The joint venture partner selection process may be informal as much as formal For personnel recruitment, in terms Of employee motivation it may be more advantageous to second people from the parent companies rather than break existing employees' service conditions. The case study also indicates how joint ventures can be used domestically as well as internationally.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building procurement, joint venture, partnering |
| Index terms: | construction project, motivation, building procurement, personnel, recruitment, partner selection, partnering, joint venture, case study |
| Subjects: | management, partnership management, data collection methods, business, production management, contractual arrangements, psychology |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Procurement, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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