When is construction partnering likely to happen? An empirical examination of the role of institutional norms

Phua, F T T (2006) When is construction partnering likely to happen? An empirical examination of the role of institutional norms. Construction Management and Economics, 24(6), pp. 615-624. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

Despite the vast interest and enthusiasm on the benefits of construction partnering, no apparent trend exists to show that it has become the dominant choice of procurement method across construction industries internationally. Rather, the implementation of construction partnering has been patchy, with varying degrees of success and, in many instances, its adoption is more an exception than the norm. This study argues and sets out to test the proposition that despite the huge advocacy for the use of partnering, its slow uptake and, more importantly, the inconsistent results it yields are due to the lack of systematic investigation into the institutional determinants of partnering. Based on data collected from 526 firms covering various industry disciplines, results show that firms' use of partnering is selective and that this selectiveness is significantly determined by the industry's level of institutional norms and not by the conventional notion that partnering increases a firm's profitability or efficiency. Findings further indicate that firms that perceive there are strong industry norms for partnering are twice as likely to use partnering as firms that do not have such perception. By empirically examining the institutional conditions under which partnering is more likely to occur, this study sheds some light on why the implementation of partnering remains at a conservative rate and suggests avenues for future research.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction partnering; institutional norms; procurement methods
Index terms: profitability, investigation, implementation, determinant, construction industry, efficiency, procurement method, partnering, industry norm, norms
Subjects: data collection methods, risk assessment, business, contractual arrangements, economic analysis, performance management, partnership management, sociology, industry analysis
Topics: Quality Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Procurement
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