Tamburro, N and Wood, P (2014) Alliancing in Australia: Competing for thought leadership. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 167(2), pp. 75-82. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Clients need to be ever vigilant to maintain a central role in thought leadership for the procurement of infrastructure projects. This paper uses the case study of alliancing in Australia as a cautionary tale to illustrate how value for money can be eroded when clients concede thought leadership to suppliers. In the mid-1990s the alliance model of contracting was introduced to Australia. By approximately 2005 this alliancing model was a dominant method of infrastructure procurement. Thought leadership by suppliers (including advisors) quickly evolved a model based on the promise that, 'Clients would receive enhanced value-for-money outcomes and no disputes with a culture-centric procurement model that avoided price competition'. It sounds naive and it was, as evidenced by substantial research sponsored by the various Australian state treasuries. In July 2011 the public sector took a thought leadership role and adopted a new National Alliance Contracting policy and guidelines. This second generation of the alliance model was founded on competition of intellectual effort and price. The story of alliancing in Australia demonstrates that thought leadership in the procurement of infrastructure projects cannot be ignored by clients.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracting; contracts and law; procurement |
| Index terms: | case study, leadership role, alliance contracting, value-for-money, infrastructure project, public sector, competition, alliancing, Australia, dispute |
| Subjects: | evaluation, market analysis, administrative law, Geography, contractual arrangements, infrastructure and transport systems, leadership, data collection methods, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Procurement, Human Resources, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Value Management, Legal Issues, Research Practice |
| 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