Lahdenperä, P (2012) Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Construction Management and Economics, 30(1), pp. 57-79. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Collaborative construction project arrangements have been the subject of many development efforts owing to the frustration felt toward the opportunism inherent in traditional contracting. Globally, three approaches have stood out: project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. These so-called relational project delivery arrangements have much in common. This study aims to clarify the similarities and differences between the arrangements by examining their key concepts and features one by one and in relation to each other; the motivation behind each is also examined. Early involvement of key parties, transparent financials, shared risk and reward, joint decision-making, and a collaborative multi-party agreement are some of the features incorporated in all the arrangements to a varying degree. Beyond the numerous details, divergent applications and constant evolution presented, the study also recognizes project alliancing as a project delivery system in its own right due to its contractual structure that integrated project delivery aims to imitate while introducing some management approaches not included in project alliancing. Project partnering, although developed in leaps and bounds since its introduction, takes a more conservative approach to work scope and liabilities. Similarly, project alliancing takes relational contracting to the extreme compared to the current forms of integrated project delivery and, especially, project partnering.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alliancing; comparison; integrated project delivery; partnering; relational contracting |
| Index terms: | integrated project delivery, liability, motivation, opportunism, partnering, traditional contracting, relational contracting, project delivery, evolution, decision-making, construction project, alliancing |
| Subjects: | project delivery, production management, environmental science, contractual arrangements, psychology, business, liability law, decision analysis, partnership management |
| Topics: | Procurement, Sustainability, Human Resources, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Organizational Design, Project Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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