Bresnen, M (2010) Keeping it real? Constituting partnering through boundary objects. Construction Management and Economics, 28(6), pp. 615-628. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Despite the wealth of research on partnering in construction, comparatively little work has attempted to understand partnering as a socially constructed and emergent phenomenon (Bresnen, 2009). Taking a practice-based approach, this paper deploys the concept of boundary object (e.g. Star and Griesemer, 1989) to explore the mechanisms associated with partnering in the construction industry context. Building upon the observations that such objects are themselves emergent phenomena and can either enable or hinder communication/knowledge sharing, the paper uses exploratory case study research to examine the ways in which the mechanisms used to initiate and develop a partnering relationship (charters, contracts, selection mechanisms and the like) are used to achieve integration across organizational boundaries. The analysis emphasizes the highly situated and localized nature of partnering in practice and assesses the implications for attempts to develop more generic and precise definitions and guidelines for implementing partnering in the industry more widely.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | boundary objects; partnering; practice |
| Index terms: | organizational boundary, integration, boundary object, knowledge sharing, construction industry, partnering, case study |
| Subjects: | knowledge management, data collection methods, partnership management, organizational analysis, sociology, industry analysis, collaborative management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Information Management |
| 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