Evaluation of Alliancing, Partnering and Traditional Contracting in relation to Construction Project Conflicts
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.References
Integrated Slums Development Programme (ISDP), Faisalabad city profile and selection of wards, March 2001.
Commission on Engineering Geological Maps of the International Association of Engineering Geology - CEGM-IAEGC, No. 15, 1976.
Building Code of Pakistan-Seismic Provisions, Ministry of housing and works, Government of Pakistan, 2008.
IsamJardaneh, Geotechnical Map for the City of Nablus – Palestine, An-Naja University journal for research-Natural Sc., Volume 21, 2007.
Bui, E.N., Moran, C.J. and Simon, New geotechnical maps for the Murray-Darling Basin, D.A.P. CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 42/98, Australia, 1998.
Kleinhans I, A critical appraisal of regional geotechnical mapping in South Africa, MSc dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 2003.
Terzaghi, K., and Ralph B. Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1948.
