Evaluation of Alliancing, Partnering and Traditional Contracting in relation to Construction Project Conflicts

Faizan Shafique, Nadeem A. Mufti

Abstract


Construction Projects are complex in their nature, which makes them very much prone to conflicts. These conflicts, which mainly arise due to contractual reasons, affect the projects in many ways, including delays, cost overruns and poor quality. Recently, the partnering and Alliancing arrangements have been gaining fame. This paper identifies the major contractual factors causing conflicts in the Construction Projects, and then by using a questionnaire based survey for a random sample of 103 construction project stakeholders (Clients, Consultants and Contractors) compares Alliancing, Partnering and Traditional Contracting for each factor. It is observed that majority of professionals are in support of Partnering and Alliancing as compared to the Traditional Contracting. Moreover, Contractors are supporters of Risk Sharing in the Projects, so they are more in favor of Alliancing, while Clients and Consultants share their view, and support Partnering instead.

Full Text:

PDF

References


McManamy, R. (1994). Indusrty pounds away at disputes. Engineering news record, 24,3.

Shapiro, Bryan (2005). Inherent conflicts in the construction industry and the structures of contracts, The Fundamentals of Construction Contracts: Understanding the Issues conference, Vancouver, BC

Whitfield, J. (1994). Conflicts in construction, avoiding, managing and resolving, London: Macmillan Press.

Macneil, I.R. (1974). The many futures of contracts. Southern California. Southern California Law Review, 47(2), 691-816.

Rahman, M. M. and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2005) ‘Relational selection for collaborative working arrangements’. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(10), 1087- 1098.

Walker, D. H. T., Hampson, K. D., and Peter, R. J., Relationship based procurement strategiesfor the 21st century, Canberra: Ausinfo, 2000

Cheung, S. O., & Suen, C. H. (2002). A multiattribute utility model for disputes resolution strategy selection, Construction Management Economy, 20, 557-568.

London,K. and McGeorge,D. (2008) Dispute Avoidance and Resolution: A Literature Review. Research Report No. 1; p. 49. CRC_Construction Innovation, Australia.

Hohns, H. M. (1979). Preventing and solving construction contract disputes. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold

Diekmann, J. E., & Girard, M. J. (1995). Are contract disputes predictable?Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(4), 355-363.

Mitropoulos, P., & Howell, G. (2001). Model for understanding, preventing and resolving project disputes. Journal of Construction Engineering And Management, 223-231.

Chan E. H. W., &Suen H. C. H. (2005). Disputes and disputes resolution systems in sino-foreign joint venture construction projects in China. Journal of Profesional Issues in Engineering Educationand Practice, ASCE (April 2005), 141-148.

Macneil, I.R. (1974). The many futures of contracts. Southern California. Southern California Law Review, 47(2), 691-816

Rahman, M. M. and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2005) ‘Relational selection for collaborative working arrangements’. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(10), 1087- 1098.

Walker, D. H. T., Hampson, K. D., and Peter, R. J., Relationship based procurement strategies for the 21st century, Canberra: Ausinfo, 2000

Albert P. Chan, Daniel W. Chan and John F. Yeung, Relational Contracting for Construction Excellence, Spon Press 2010

Bresnen, M., Marshall, N., (2000). Partnering in construction: a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas. Construction Management and Economics 18, 229–237.

Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the team: Joint review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry. HMSO, London

Manley, K. (2002), Partnering and Alliancing on Road Projects in Australia and Internationally, Road and Transport Research, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp 46-60.






Copyright (c) 2016 Faizan Shafique

Powered By KICS