Liu, A M M and Fellows, R (2001) An eastern perspective on partnering. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(1), pp. 1-19. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Researchers have written extensively on the partnering approach in project procurement. Some emphasize it as a process, i.e. how it works in terms of the project structure, signing of agreements, etc., and others emphasize the nature of the partnering culture dimensions, i.e. how it works in terms of operating in trust and harmony. It is postulated that the Confucian concept of self-cultivation is central to the development of the values of trust and harmony. Western perspectives on the partnering culture are relatively abundant in writing; the intention of this paper is to complement existing literature with an Eastern perspective to develop a behavioural model of partnering. This paper examines the partnering dimensions and postulates that an understanding of (1) the Eastern concept of self and self-cultivation, and (2) the central role of goal setting at strategic and project levels will enhance goal attainment in partnering.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | behaviour; goal setting; partnering; self; trust |
| Index terms: | agreements, dimension, project procurement, partnering |
| Subjects: | partnership management, contract formation, contractual arrangements, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Health and Safety, Contract Administration, Procurement |
| 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