Conceptual Model of Partnering and Alliancing

Abstract

This item was submitted to Loughborough's Institutional Repository (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions.For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ Conceptual model of partnering and alliancing 1Aaron M. Anvuur and Mohan M. Kumaraswamy, M.ASCE Partnering as a concept has matured in its application and many empirical studies provide evidence of its impact on project performance beyond the rather prescriptive and anecdotal claims of earlier cookbooks on the subject. What has remained elusive, however, is a guiding theory on partnering. Drawing on the literature, partnering is explained within the framework of intergroup contact theory and teamwork in organizations. More specifically, partnering has the potential to create the essential conditions for optimal intergroup contact and hence, to reduce bias and increase cooperation among construction project workgroups and, consequently, IntroductionOver the last decade, partnering has gained considerable popularity. However, several issues raise serious difficulties with the uptake of, understanding of, approach to, and implementation of, partnering within and across different national and organizational settings (Loraine, 1994;Green, 1999;Uher, 1999;Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a;Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b;Li et al., 2000;Fisher and Green, 2001;Bresnen and Marshall, 2002;Naoum, 2003). In time, research has shed light on some of the contentious issues surrounding the concept of partnering. A number of empirical studies (e.g., Weston and Gibson, 1993;Larson, 1995;Gransberg et al., 1999) and a plethora of anecdotal evidence support the espoused benefits of partnering. Research highlights the usefulness and benefits of extending the practice of partnering down the entire supply and value chain to include subcontractors (e.g., Mathews et al., 1996;Love, 1997;Kale and Arditi, 2001;Miller et al., 2002;Sze et al., 2003). Partnering forms of contract (e.g., PPC 2000) attempt to prescribe and govern the behavior and relationships of contracting parties. While the legal status of such express good faith clauses has been questioned and their full practical import is yet unknown (see Cornes, 1996;Cox and Thompson, 1996), these attempts demonstrate a bold commitment to overcome the legal obstacles to the wider adoption of partnering. Some research has considered the potential impact of different cultural and national contexts on partnering performance (e.g., Kwan and Ofori, 2001;Liu and Fellows, 2001;Koraltan and Dikbas, 2002). With 'success stories' of partnering emerging from diverse cultural settings (e.g., Bennett and Baird, 2001;Bayliss et al., 2004;Chan, Chan, Fan et al., 2004), the general view is that partnering is by no means exclusive to any country, continent or culture. 3However, partnering still lacks conceptual-definitional specificity. Partnering is variously defined by its outcomes or the processes involved in its implementation...

Perceptions of status and TMO workgroup cooperation: implications for project governance

“…In this sense, our findings provide support for team--building sessions and other 'partnering' initiatives emphasizing the celebration of both symbolic and substantive joint successes, and the usual exhortations to TMO workgroup members in these contexts to take pride in their achievements (cf. Anvuur and Kumaraswamy, 2007).…”

“…However, an analysis of the renewal strategies shows that, while they may have structural features that distinguish one from the other, they all use (or assume) the team approach as the primary means to execute their respective philosophies (Anvuur and Kumaraswamy, 2007). For clarity, this approach implies, at the very basic level, the existence of collectives consisting of differentiated and interdependent members (Pinto and Pinto, 1990;Katzenbach and Smith, 1993;Mohammed et al, 2010).…”

“…Mathieu et al, 2008 ;Marrone, 2010) show an abundance of conceptual frameworks for and empirical evidence of the outcomes and antecedents of emergent state phenomena in the extant management literature. Similar conceptual frameworks have been developed in construction management research to explain the influences of emergent states, such as 'project chemistry' (Nicolini, 2002), group identification (Anvuur and Kumaraswamy, 2007), and team (psychological) empowerment (e.g. Rowlinson and Cheung, 2008).…”

Implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in Construction: A Comparative Case Study

“…The case studies indicate that the social infrastructure and relationship management are to be developed to underpin the implementation of BIM. As these infrastructures now are starting to coalesce the opportunity for true cooperation is now beginning to emerge [14] .…”

“…Relationship management in construction has its roots in relationship marketing and strategic network competition [12,13] . Relational contracting is based on the concept that self-interest motivates parties to enter into contractual relations but competition between parties is necessarily bounded by acceptance of the need for cooperation [14] .…”