Cheng, E W L and Li, H (2001) Development of a conceptual model of construction partnering. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(4), pp. 292-303. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
This paper presents the development of a conceptual model of construction partnering. This model aims at exploring the relationship between two types of partnering (project and strategic) by studying the key factors that affect the partnering process stages. It also helps to determine the critical success factors (CSFs) of the two types of partnering. The paper commences by reviewing the literature on project and strategic partnering to develop the conceptual model. A survey was conducted to test the model. Results indicate that there are some critical factors (i.e. top management support, mutual trust, open communication, and effective co-ordination) affecting both types of partnering, while some are specific to project (i.e. facilitator) or strategic partnering (i.e. long-term commitment, continuous improvement, learning climate, and partnering experience). Practical implications are given to advise how to facilitate the implementation of partnering. Future research directions are also given to suggest how to improve our understanding of the concept of partnering.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; critical success factor; model; partnering; project |
| Index terms: | implementation, facilitator, critical factor, continuous improvement, partnering, critical success factor, top management, survey, commitment |
| Subjects: | partnership management, management, performance measurement, contractual arrangements, psychology, control systems, practitioner, data collection methods, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Procurement, Quality Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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