Plantinga H E C, D e A G (2013) Project alliances: An investigation into the logic behind the range of a Dutch public sector client's initiatives. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
For fifteen years, the Dutch railway agency (ProRail) has implemented various alliance elements in its procurement strategies. Several project alliancing applications have been developed and applied in succession, ranging from a limited shared risk domain to a directly tendered full alliance model. The progress seems to be evolutionary rather than planned. The emergence of these alliance variants suggests implicit motivations and expectations. Changing the implicit reasoning to explicit logic could help in the evaluation and development of alliance approaches, from project-based evolutionary adaptations to a conscious planned strategy.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | project alliancing; procurement; motivation; decision analysis |
| Index terms: | investigation, emergence, agency, project alliance, adaptation, alliancing, motivation, strategy, public-sector client, reasoning, procurement strategy, decision analysis |
| Subjects: | user focus, contractual arrangements, cognitive psychology, management, systems engineering, data collection methods, decision analysis, sociology, psychology |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Human Resources, Procurement, 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