Loraine, R K (1994) Project specific partnering. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1(1), pp. 5-16. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The scope of this paper covers the development of partnering since 1985. It starts with the early associations that were formed in the petrochemical and process industries between owners and contractors. This period was amply covered by a National Economic Development Office (NEDO) paper (NEDO 1991). Partnering at that stage was principally considered to be a relationship that lasted for a term and not a single contract. However, in the NEDO paper, there was brief mention of two projects being carried out by the US Army Corps of Engineers where the relationship was for individual contracts only. Since then the real growth of partnering in the USA has been on a project by project basis mainly within the public works sector, and this paper argues that this is the type of partnering arrangement that has the greatest potential. The application of partnering to the UK public works sector is affected by the EU public procurement regulations. As partnering on a project specific basis includes an element of price competition, the paper contends that there will be no difficulty in complying with the regulations. Using recent examples of partnering for specific projects in the USA, the paper concludes by making proposals for developing partnering arrangements in the UK public works sector. In the course of this, particular attention is drawn to the key elements of partnering associations in the USA that have contributed largely to their success.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | continuous improvement; facilitator; quality; safety; workshop |
| Index terms: | proposal, economic development, regulation, competition, engineer, owner, continuous improvement, facilitator, partnering, workshop, public work |
| Subjects: | project planning, construction type, profession, practitioner, market analysis, partnership management, sociology, political science, performance measurement, economic development, infrastructure engineering |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Governance |
| 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