Partnering in construction has been an interesting field of study in recent decades. According to Wilson et al. (1995), the partnering philosophy must become a strategic part of everyday life in every construction firm if it is to assist in changing the industry’s adversarial nature; however, planning alone is not enough and setting plans into motion requires diligence, resilience, and an extreme amount of patience. Gardiner and Simmons (1998) provided a finding that partnering can also be applied to small and medium sized projects to reduce conflicts. With the suggestion that partnering measures allow participants to assess the current status of partnering arrangement, Crane et al. (1999) discussed the use of measures at various levels of the partnering relationship. In a conceptual paper, Naoum (2003) provided an
concluded that there were identifiable ingredients of good partnering practice. Lu and Yan (2007a) reviewed factors influencing the use of partnering through literature and presented a model that supported a systematic process to evaluate the applicability of partnering use in China.
The experience in practicing partnering process was also shared in the construction management community. Bayliss et al. (2004) reported a case study on the MTRC TKE contract 604 in Hong Kong. Through interviews with the key contract participants and data collected throughout the contract period, the effective partnering tools were identified. Kaluarachchi and Jones (2007) made an attempt to identify key criteria that were relevant in the partnering process and draw out lessons which could benefit the housing industry through the experience of Amphion Consortium. Bresnen and Marshall (2002) used two projects cases to draw out a number of key implications for understanding partnering in practice. Of the implications, attributing project success/failure to partnering is by no means a straightforward exercise; and wider organisational structures and cultures often have an impact upon partnering relationships.
Ozorhon et al. (2008a) pointed out the significance of the quality of partners relations for successful international construction joint ventures.
Findings of the study also suggest that the level of organizational fit between the partners had the moderate influence on the joint venture performance. In the other work, Ozorhon et al. (2008b) suggested that differences in organizational culture had a greater impact on international joint venture performance than differences in national and host country culture. The analysis failed to provide evidence that the joint venture performance is
affected by differences between the culture of the host country and the culture of a partner.
Problem exists in partnering process. One reason is that this type of procurement method remains in an evolutionary phase (Naoum, 2003). There is a need to identify the issues emerging during implementation. Bresnen and Marshall (2000) have contributed to the debate about the nature and merits of a partnering approach by exploring the presumed link between partnering and cultural change within the industry. They concluded that it was only by fully appreciating the effects of such complexity that a more realistic and practical approach to the development and implementation of partnering would emerged.
Ng et al. (2002) identified fifteen problematic issues from six contractors involved in unsuccessful project partnering relationships in Australia. The results indicate that the unwillingness of the client to fully commit to the partnering agreement was the main reason for ineffective project partnering.
Most problematic issues experienced in project partnering with the government construction procurement involve the failure of stakeholders to develop the required attitudes to make project partnering effective. The financial procedures adopted by the clients were detrimental to the commitment of stakeholders to the partnering. The client’s lack of compromise, a lack of intimacy in relationship between the client and contractor could also have a negative influence on project partnering.
Chan et al. (2003) conducted a questionnaire survey to measure the problems faced by parties implementing partnering in Hong Kong. Thirty
client, contractor, consultant, agreed that parties were faced with commercial pressure which compromised the partnering attitude, parties had little experience with partnering approach, and uneven levels of commitment among project participants were the three most important problems in partnering projects. It was also concluded that the construction culture should be changed to openness, trust, communication, and commitment and establish a win-win attitude among practitioners in order to fully implement partnering concept in the Hong Kong construction industry.
< Table 2.2 > Summary of some previous studies
Gardiner and Simmons
(1998)
Koraltan and Dikbas (2002)
Ng et al (2002)
Chan et al (2003a)
Chan et al (2006)
Mason (2007)
Kaluarac hchi and
Jones (2007)
Chen et al (2008)
Partner concept unfamiliarity
* * * * * *
Relationship
problems * * * *
Trust problems * * * * *
Communication problems
* * * * *
Culture problems * * * * *
Insufficient
problem solving * * * *
Commitment
problems * * * * * * *
Inadequate involvement in partnership
* * * * *
Training and educating problems
* * * * * *
Empowerment
problems * * * *
Regulations and
laws problems * * * *
Chan et al (2006) in a work to find answer for question “partnering for construction excellence – a reality or myth?” pointed out nine difficulties of
partnering projects. Bresnen (2007) sought to redress a dearth of critically informed work that attempted to understand the problems and limitations of partnering in practice, by taking a critical approach that inverted some commonly-held assumptions about the relationship between partnering and organization. Chen et al. (2008) introduced critical factors related to not only partnership success but partnership failure in Taiwan.
Table 2.2 presents a summary of several previous studies about some problems in implementing partnering in construction.