Contradictions and collaboration: Partnering in-between systems of production, values and interests

Gottlieb, S C and Haugbølle, K (2013) Contradictions and collaboration: Partnering in-between systems of production, values and interests. Construction Management and Economics, 31(2), pp. 119-134. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

For more than a decade, partnering has been pursued as a promising way of overcoming the drawbacks of the building process. Despite intense and repeated efforts, promises have only to some extent been satisfied. Based on an example case study of a partnering project, activity theory is applied in an analysis of how project outcomes are shaped mutually by the underlying dynamics of construction and innovative initiatives like partnering. The case was studied through a combination of questionnaire surveys, interactive workshops, semi-structured qualitative research interviews and onsite observations. Three main findings are presented. First, that the dynamics of construction can be understood as the interrelation of three activity systems on production, values and interests. Second, partnering as a change strategy is overlaid on existing practice rather than substituting it. Third, partnering may reduce some contradictions but induces others simultaneously. In conclusion, the potential of partnering as a change strategy depends on the ability to understand and manage contradictions in and between existing institutionalized activity systems in construction of production, values and interests.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: activity theory; collaboration; innovation; partnering; practice
Index terms: building process, questionnaire, collaboration, qualitative research, survey, strategy, interview, dynamics, project outcome, activity theory, workshop, case study, onsite, partnering
Subjects: theoretical framing, management, partnership management, building construction, systems engineering, construction type, data collection methods, research design and methodology, project completion
Topics: Organizational Design, Site Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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