مشارکت در صنعت ساخت و ساز؛ مشکلات و فرصت ها

During recent years partnering has been on the top of the management agenda in the construction industry. Despite this attention there is limited and partly contradicting evidence of the impact of these efforts. The objective of this literature-based paper is to explore why it has been difficult to realise potential partnering benefits on the strategic level, while partnering in individual projects has improved construction performance. The analysis builds on a comparison of the features of business relationships in construction with the characteristics of so called ‘high-involvement relationships’ based on close cooperation. It is concluded that prevailing supply arrangements established to handle the particular conditions in the construction industry makes it unlikely for partnering to reach outside the individual project. Taking the step to strategic partnerships would require modification of some of the basic assumptions and norms of industry efficiency. On the basis of this analysis we explore potential consequences of modifications of current behaviour with respect to decentralisation and competitive tendering. The paper is finalised with a suggestion for a differentiated approach to partnering.

Over recent decades huge efforts have been made in order to “stimulate radical improvements in the construction industry in terms of value for many, profitability and reliability” (Beach et al., 2005: 611). These efforts originate from recommendations founded in comprehensive analyses of prevailing conditions in the construction sectors in the US (CII, 1991) and the UK (Latham, 1994 and Egan, 1998). The underlying reason for these prescriptions seems to be a general opinion that construction was characterised by “inefficient business processes which feed through as overheads to total project costs” (Bresnen and Marshall 2000a: 230). According to Wood and Ellis (2005) such criticism put a lot of pressure on construction companies to reorganise their operations. The above advices got widespread attention and resulted in “worldwide efforts of creating significant improvements in the construction industry” (Brown et al., 2001: 192). One of the main aspirations of this reorientation was to introduce processes that successfully had been implemented in other industries, most of which relate to the supply side of companies. For example, Wood and Ellis (2005: 31) claimed that one means of overcoming performance problems would be to apply “radically different approaches to procurement”. In a similar vein it has been argued that the problems with construction efficiency and performance originate from “failure of traditional procurement methods” (Naoum, 2003: 71). The main attention in this reorientation was directed to the nature of the relationships between the various stakeholders in construction. For example, the Construction Industry Institute concluded that successful restructuring “requires changing traditional relationships to a shared culture without regard to organisational boundaries” (CII, 1991: iv). This shared culture is one important feature of the types of relationships that are covered by a common umbrella identified as ‘partnering’. Wilson et al. (1995: 40) described partnering as “an increasingly popular management tool aimed at reversing the negative effects of adversarial relationships in construction”. According to Bresnen and Marshall (2000a: 230) partnering stands in contrast to the adversarial conditions that are said to be typical of the industry and which has “confounded previous attempts to encourage better integration and cooperation between contractual partners”. Through a literature review Bresnen and Marshall identified the following opportunities associated with partnering: • The potential net benefits that stem from increased productivity and reduced costs. • Reduced project times owing to early supplier involvement and team integration. • Improved quality through the focus on learning and continuous improvement. • Improved client satisfaction and enhanced responsiveness to changing conditions. • Greater stability that helps companies deploy their resources more effectively. Considering these potential benefits, it comes as no surprise that partnering received enormous attention and even has been referred to as “the most significant development today as a means of improving performance” (Wood and Ellis, 2005: 317). Several benefits concerning these partnerships arrangements have been reported. According to Bresnen and Marshall (2002: 497) “the literature is replete with case study examples of successful partnerships”. Furthermore, on the basis of a study of 280 construction projects it is concluded that ‘partnered projects’ achieved superior performance in controlling costs, technical performance, and in satisfying customers compared with projects managed in other ways (Larson, 1995). In addition, Wood et al. (2002: 4) found that “‘trust-based partnering’ encourages parties to adopt higher ethical standards, and achieve improved ethical performance”. At the same time, however, several authors claim that there are severe problems with achieving the desired outcomes of partnering in construction (see e.g. Anvuur and Kumaraswamy, 2007, Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a, Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b, Brown et al., 2001, Cheng et al., 2000, Chan et al., 2003, Slater, 1998, Tang et al., 2006 and Nyström, 2008). These contradictory opinions concerning partnering outcomes motivates a further exploration of this phenomenon.

This paper set out to explore why partnering in construction has not lived up to expectations. Other researchers show that collaborative efforts between firms mainly have concerned project partnering, while the strategic partnerships aimed at seems to be more or less lacking. The comparison of construction relationship with the high-involvement relationships in other industrial contexts that served as role models for the strategic partnerships pointed out substantial divergences between the two. Our analysis shows that these differences in terms of adaptation, interaction and mutual orientation are explained by institutionalised norms and behaviour in construction and primarily related to the decentralisation to projects and the competitive tendering featuring purchasing transactions. The first conclusion of the paper is therefore that the expectations of a rapid movement towards strategic partnerships were unrealistic, since this shift would require major modifications of basic conditions established over long time. The second conclusion is that buying firms would benefit considerably from enhanced interaction in time and space among both firms and projects. Such changes require that current decentralisation is somewhat reduced, at the same time as competitive tendering is replaced by collaborative efforts. On this foundation we suggest a differentiated approach to partnering in construction based on extension of current project partnering in terms of partnering on local, intermediate and central levels.