Eriksson, P E (2010) Partnering: What is it, when should it be used, and how should it be implemented? Construction Management and Economics, 28(9), pp. 905-917. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The interest in construction partnering has increased during the last decade. Much research has, however, found that cooperation and its benefits are not easily obtained, partly due to a lack of understanding of the partnering concept and when and how to implement it. The aim is therefore to increase this understanding by investigating three research questions: (1) What is partnering? (2) When should partnering be used and to what extent? (3) How should partnering be implemented? A thorough literature review and four case studies are utilized to develop a definition of partnering and discuss when and how partnering should be implemented through cooperative procurement procedures. Partnering is defined as a cooperative governance form that is based on core and optional cooperative procurement procedures to such an extent that cooperation-based coopetition is facilitated. Mandatory core procedures are: soft parameters in bid evaluation, compensation form based on open books, and usage of the core collaborative tools start-up workshop, joint objectives, follow-up workshops, teambuilding, and conflict resolution techniques. Complementary optional procedures are: early involvement of contractors in concurrent engineering, limited bid invitation, joint selection and involvement of subcontractors in broad partnering teams, collaborative contractual clauses, incentives based on group performance, usage of complementary collaborative tools (e.g. partnering questionnaire, facilitator, joint risk management, joint project office, and joint IT tools), and increased focus on contractors' self-control.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; cooperation; governance; partnering; procurement |
| Index terms: | facilitator, bid evaluation, conflict resolution, workshop, governance, case study, partnering, compensation, risk management, concurrent engineering, literature review, subcontractor, cooperation, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | tendering, engineering methods, conflict resolution, partnership management, construction type, risk assessment, data collection methods, business, dispute resolution, practitioner, psychology, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Governance, Procurement, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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