CHAPTER 5: PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTING PARTNERING ARRANGEMENT
5.3.2 Discussion on factor analysis result
5.3.2.1 Unsuitability of partnering application
This component has explained a variance of 34.92%. It comprises of five problems like partners unsuitable for specific project; poor attitude of client
authority; unsolved arguments (ignoring or allowing issues to slide and escalate); problems with blueprints and regulations; and partners' lack of win-win attitude. Since partnering is to employ and maximize each
participant’s resources or strength to achieve project goal, having a partner who is unsuitable to project characteristics may endanger partnership and project the implementation process. Partnering requires changing traditional relationships (Chan et al., 2003) so the poor attitude of client authority makes the other parties, such as contractors, lack confidence in current working relation. The other problem was the inadequate behaviour towards argument arising during the process. If any argument is not properly addressed it can escalate and break up the partnership. It is necessary that all related-works in a partnering must be communicated to and reviewed by all partners. Partners should aim at win-win attitude. Problems with blueprints and regulations are common thus they need to be taken care of. The owner and slave attitude spoils partnering as well.
5.3.2.2 Lack of commitment to partnering
The second component has explained 10.79% of the total variance of problems. Attributes of this component focus on the deficient commitment to partnering. Close relationship not being established in a partnership deterred parties to express opinions in an integrating culture. Participants felt that they did not work for a partnering organization but they worked for their original
organizations as representatives. After all, partners had no commitment to
this cooperation mission. Participants did not think about common
objectives. The two possible reasons for this are unfair sharing of risks or
rewards and lack of experience with the partnering approach.
5.3.2.3 Unfamiliarity with partnering concept
This component consists of three problems regarding the unfamiliarity in practicing the partnering concept. 9.62% of variance is explained by this component. Adopting the partnering form requires the adaptation of new techniques and concepts. Training and guidance works are necessary for personnel to become familiar with this new working style and environment.
Lack of training and guidance provokes a possibility of collapse of
multilateral organization. Mutual trust is a fundamental issue for inter-firm like partnering projects (Lui and Ngo, 2004). Failing to build a trust
relationship in any alliance affects its outcomes. To achieve a successful
partnering project, imprint of managerial related contribution is significant.
Incompetent leaders will ruin even a complete mechanism. Problem with
manager’s lack of knowledge about driving partnering project should be
given serious attention.
5.3.2.4 Poor communication between partners
Communication is an important concern not only in partnering projects but in all types of projects. In this paper, component, namely poor communication which accounts for 8.97% of variance, consists of three items such as partners failed to share information; dealing with large bureaucratic
organization(s); and lack of continuous, open and honest communication. It
behavior and attitudes in developing a working culture. Skepticism should be excluded thanks to continuous, open and honest communication. Moreover, timely sharing of information helps to resolve any conflict effectively.
Dealing with large bureaucratic organizations will impede the project partnering arrangement in terms of their ability to form open and honest working relationships (Ng et al, 2002).
5.3.2.5 Lack of key stakeholders’ involvement
This component is named ‘lack of key stakeholders’ involvement’
because it consists of two problems related to exclusion of relevant parties during the partnering process. These two problems are key subcontractor(s)
not involved in partnering process and designer and other consultant(s) not included in partnering process. Partnering does not only exist between
owners and contractors but also involves many parties such as subcontractors, consultants, suppliers, designers etc. (Chan et al 2003). They are likely to embrace the partnering philosophy as a much more productive and profitable way of doing business than the adversarial approach (Love, 1997). Moreover, stakeholders’ commitment could be reduced due to the lack of involvement of relevant subcontractors in the partnering process (Ng et al, 2002). This component explained 7.28% of the variance.
5.3.2.6 External constraint issues
This component consists of partners' attitudes governed by commercial
pressure and flexibility restricted by bidding approach which explains 6.30%
of the variance. Commercial pressure affects the attitudes of counterparts in a partnership, mostly their commitment. According to Ng et al (2002), reduction of contractor’s commitment to project could originate from the
client’s implementation of the competitive tendering approach, which in turns puts pressure on the margins of contractors. Chan et al (2003) suggested that project stakeholders need to reach a balance between commercial interests and partnering attitudes. Partnering process is an innovative arrangement that differs much from traditional delivery methods. Choosing a wrong bidding approach to apply for partnering restricts the advantages of this concept.
5.3.2.7 Failure to compromise
This component contains only one problem related to compromise. The amount of variance explained by this component is 5.32%. Partners’ failure to compromise possibly breaks mutual trust based relationship. The commitment to partnering weakens. As reported by Ng et al (2002), the unwillingness of client to compromise its financially detrimental administrative procedures to achieve increased commitment from the contractor should be perceived as a lack of commitment to project partnering.