Ibrahim, K I; Costello, S B; Wilkinson, S and Walker, D (2016) Project alliancing: The case of road infrastructure projects in New Zealand. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
In recent years, alliance contracting has emerged as a popular procurement route for large complex infrastructure developments. In New Zealand public sector applications, there are primarily two variants to the procurement of a project alliance, known as a pure alliance and a competitive alliance. As part of a wider study to understand the extent of alliance contracting in the New Zealand construction industry, the basic features of an alliance, the alliance development process, the risk/reward compensation framework, and the governance structure of these two variants are discussed based on three case studies. The analysis revealed differences in the reasoning why a particular alliance approach was implemented, how the alliance selection process was conducted and what kind of structure was adopted for the governance of the alliances. Interestingly, a number of unique and innovative practices to alliancing were also highlighted, such as the construction phase starting during the interim project alliance agreement (iPAA) phase, alliance partners being chosen extremely early in the process and working as part of an interim alliance from the option development phase and, finally, the alliance manager not being from one of the consortium members but is instead an independent. The findings provide a basis and platform for discussion, especially for academics and practitioners, to gain more understanding in managing different alliance contracting projects in the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | project alliance; infrastructure; New Zealand. |
| Index terms: | New Zealand, case study, platform, governance, reasoning, manager, alliancing, consortium, alliance contracting, infrastructure development, public sector, project alliance, practitioner, option, construction industry, compensation, infrastructure project, construction phase |
| Subjects: | business, data collection methods, dispute resolution, practitioner, project delivery, contractual arrangements, digital design, infrastructure engineering, Geography, decision analysis, cognitive psychology, partnership management, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, administrative law |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Procurement, Governance, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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