Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Partnering: definition, theory and the procurement phase
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Real Estate and Construction Management, Building and Real Estate Economics.
2005 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other scientific)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH , 2005. , 6, 17, 21, 33 p.
Series
TRITA-BFE, ISSN 1104-4101 ; 05:64
Keyword [en]
Social sciences, partnering, construction, definition
Keyword [sv]
SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-297ISBN: 91-975358-2-6 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-297DiVA: diva2:8711
Supervisors
Note

QC 20141024

Available from: 2005-07-11 Created: 2005-07-11 Last updated: 2014-10-24Bibliographically approved
List of papers
1. The definition of partnering as a Wittgenstein family-resemblanceconcept
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The definition of partnering as a Wittgenstein family-resemblanceconcept
2005 (English)In: Construction Management and Economics, ISSN 0144-6193, E-ISSN 1466-433X, Vol. 23, no 5, 473-481 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article on partnering and family-resemblance makes two contributions to the debate about the definition of partnering in construction. The first is a distinction between general prerequisites , components and goals when discussing the concept. In order to understand what is specific about partnering the focus should be on the components, which are identified through a literature review. The second contribution is to apply Ludwig Wittgenstein's idea of family-resemblance to the partnering concept. His idea is that a complex concept can be understood as a network of overlapping similarities. From the literature review it is concluded that there are two necessary components in partnering -- trust and mutual understanding -- and that a number of different components can be added to form a specific variant of partnering. This provides a new method to define the vague and multifaceted concept of partnering in a flexible and structured way.

Keyword
Components, construction, definition, family-resemblance, general prerequisites, goals, partnering, Wittgenstein
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-27635 (URN)10.1080/01446190500040026 (DOI)2-s2.0-22144484801 (Scopus ID)
Note
QC 20101217Available from: 2010-12-17 Created: 2010-12-17 Last updated: 2017-12-11Bibliographically approved
2. Partnering in a (more) complete contract setting
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Partnering in a (more) complete contract setting
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Partnering is often, by economists, and in construction managerial literature related to moreincomplete contracts. This can be explained by seeing partnering as something that neutralizesopportunism. The first contribution in this paper is to question this view, by identifying thatthe introduction of partnering does not necessarily entail more incomplete contracts. Thisempirical observation can be explained by the advantages of competitive tendering andfurther motivated by the requirement from the public procurement law. The secondcontribution is to motivate partnering in this more complete contract setting, which is donethrough road maintenance examples. Partnering is seen as a way to facilitate the reaching ofmore pareto efficient allocations, by lowering transactions costs for renegotiations throughtrust and reciprocity. Seeing partnering as the willingness to renegotiate complete contractscan reduce the risk for the contractor and lead to lower prices for a given service.

Keyword
Partnering, road maintenance, incomplete contracts, renegotiation, reciprocity, pareto efficiency, transaction costs
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-27636 (URN)
Note
QC 20101217Available from: 2010-12-17 Created: 2010-12-17 Last updated: 2010-12-17Bibliographically approved
3. The public procurement phase with partnering and the actors’perception of the concept – results from a questionnaire
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The public procurement phase with partnering and the actors’perception of the concept – results from a questionnaire
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This paper has the purpose of empirically mapping out the procurement phase withpartnering and investigate how the perception of partnering depend on; age, type of projectand whether the respondent is a client or contractor. The partnering flower (Nyström 2005a)will also be tested empirically. Data were collected through a questionnaire and consists of 18Swedish partnering projects from the construction industry, procured with competitivetendering under the Public Procurement Act. Both clients and contractors from the projectsresponded, summing up to a total of 30 observations. The results show that most projects usedincentive contracts with target costs and included soft parameters in the bid evaluation.Concerning the perception of partnering, the concept seems to have most potential inachieving cost reductions. There was also a large consensus among the respondents thatpartnering did not deteriorate the businesslike relationships nor was a less fun way of workingand that the concept has a future in the construction industry. A few major differences couldbe observed within the divided groups. The clients were more sceptical seeing themselves aswinners of partnering, in comparison to the contractors perception on the same subject.Concerning partnering being a more fun way of working the respondents from maintenanceprojects were not as positive as the respondents from the other types of projects, newinvestmentand re-investment. It could also be seen that the younger respondents were morepositive than the older concerning partnering being a way to resolve conflicts and not seeingthe concept just as a fad. Support for the partnering flower could be found in the materialsince all respondents considered trust and common goals important components of partnering.

Keyword
Partnering, procurement, empirical study, partnering flower
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-27637 (URN)
Note
QC 20101217Available from: 2010-12-17 Created: 2010-12-17 Last updated: 2010-12-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(783 kB)4153 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 783 kBChecksum MD5
5026ed0b3c6d2bead96d7d63b1222c52345e16384c61affa8960f584dc6516cf049627da
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nyström, Johan
By organisation
Building and Real Estate Economics
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 4153 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 905 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf