2007 Collins On

London South Bank University Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment Department of Property, Surveying and
Construction
A Conceptual Model into the Formation and Preservation of Trust in Client / Contractor Partnering Agreements
2007
Kate Collinson
MSc Quantity Surveying
Restrictions on use
This dissertation may be made available for consultation within the South Bank University and may be photocopied or lent to other libraries for the purpose of consultation.
Authors declaration
I declare that this dissertation is my own unaided work except where specifically referenced to the work of others.
Kate Collinson
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my gratitude firstly to the case study respondents (un-named for confidentiality reasons) who welcomed my research and spent many hours with me answering my questions and offering their views on the research subject.
I would like to thank my present employers Carillion plc for funding this research and studies contributing to the MSc qualification and to Dr Shamil Naoum for his assistance and advice when writing the dissertation.
Finally, thank you to my partner, Jamie, for offering much needed support throughout the many months.
Abstract
This dissertation analyses the formation and preservation of trust in partnering agreements between clients and main contractors. A critical review of the literature is structured under three main chapters: (1) the nature of partnering relationships in practice; (2) the critical success factors for partnering; and (3) the critical success factor of trust and previous trust fostering frameworks / models.
A conceptual framework to build relationships and foster trust was identified (Jin and Ling, 2005) and this was analysed and developed through case studies and in depth interviews. Five case studies of partnering agreements between clients and medium to large scale construction contractors in the UK were undertaken and interviews held with commercial managers and project managers belonging to the contractors organisations.
Trust cannot effectively evolve in partnering relationships and has to be engineered through frameworks / models. The research identified that there are seventeen major inherent risks which inhibit the effective formation and preservation of trust in client / contractor partnering relationships and these are present throughout the project cycle, from the pre tendering stage to the post construction stage. Twenty two effective trust fostering tools to reduce these inherent risks were identified. The data collected from this research was utilised to modify the conceptual framework created by Jin and Ling (2005) so it is more generalizable and applicable to the UK construction industry.
The conceptual model shows that parties in a partnering agreement must be aware of the many inherent risks in creating trust in the relationship and must be proactive in the identification and reduction of these. The trust fostering tools will reduce the inherent risks and ultimately allow trust to be engineered in the client / contractor partnering relationship and allow a successful project outcome.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3 1.4 Rationale for the Research Research Goals Aim Objectives Research Questions Outline Methodology of the Research Guide to the Dissertation 2 4 4 5 5 6 8
Chapter 2 Partnering in the Construction Industry 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.6 Scope of chapter Definitions of partnering Partnering as a procurement method Partnering as a philosophy Adversarial behaviour in the construction industry Attitude and behaviour Exploitation in partnering arrangements In the spirit of partnering Client still driven by cost and risk Leverage Win / lose relationship Appraisal of chapter 12 13 13 14 16 19 21 23 24 26 26 27
Chapter 3 Critical Success Factors for Partnering 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.3.1 Scope of chapter The measurement of criteria required for successful partnering What are critical success factors? Why are critical success factors required? The critical success factors for partnering The critical success factor of trust Definition of trust 30 31 31 31 32 35 35
3.3.2 3.3.3 3.4
Characteristics of trust Importance of trust in partnering relationships Appraisal of chapter
36 39 41
Chapter 4 Previous Models into Trust Fostering Tools 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4 Scope of chapter What are trust fostering tools? The requirement for trust fostering tools A specific contextual model for building trust Creation of the contextual model Structure of the contextual model Appraisal of chapter 44 45 46 47 47 50 52
Chapter 5 Research Design and Methodology 5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.6 5.7 Scope of chapter Assessment of the trust model (figure 4.3) Limitations of the trust contextual model The modified research contextual model Modification of variables Modification of project development stages Research design and methodology Research aims and objectives Research strategy The case studies Confidentiality Typicality and representativeness Time constraints Interviews Appraisal of chapter 55 56 56 57 57 57 59 59 60 61 62 62 63 65 65
Chapter 6 Descriptive Analysis of the Results 6.1 6.2 6.3 Scope of chapter Method of analysis Analysis and evaluation of the results 67 68 69
6.3.2 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6 6.3.7 6.3.8 6.3.9
Partners incompetence (R1) Partners exploitation (R2) Improper contractual agreement (R3) Unfairness in tendering (R4) Partners project personnel lacking interpersonal skills (R5) Partners distrust and misunderstanding (R6) Insufficient communication among partners (R7) Partners short term focus (R8) Partners breach of contract (R9)
69 76 86 92 98 103 112 117 122 127 133 139 143 148 151
6.3.10 Excessive demands and changes from partner (R10) 6.3.11 Disputes with partner (R11) 6.3.12 Over interference from partners company (R12) 6.3.13 Problems related to social and cultural differences (R13) 6.3.14 Change of personnel in organisation (R14) 6.4 Appraisal of chapter
Chapter 7 Conclusion and Recommendations 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.5 7.6 7.6.1 7.6.2 7.7 Scope of chapter Dissertation aim Research questions Conclusion Question one Question two Question three Recommendations Limitations of the research Strengths Constraints Further research 152 153 153 153 154 155 157 160 161 161 161 162
References and Bibliography References and Bibliography 163
Appendices Appendix A Interview Outline Agenda 167
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2
Conceptual framework for partnering Outline methodology of the research The partnering process Contractual and functional relationships in the conventional system of procurement
3 8 13
17 18
Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4
Partnering system Simplified scenario of owner / contractor interaction based on modified prisoners dilemma strategy
22 35
Model of inter-firm collaboration Cost of trust (Adapted from sketch by Prof. Andrew Van de Ven presented to Academy of Management)
37 38
Fourteen trust attributes for construction partnering The main stages of a typical conceptual framework to develop trust in client / main contractor partnering relationships
45 47 49 58
Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2
Key constructs for building relationships and trust Key constructs for building relationships and trust The research contextual model Use of different types of interview in each of the main research categories
61 131 156 159
Figure 6.1
Three general rules based on strategies of behaviour that clients and contractors can use to optimise relationships Allocation of inherent risks throughout project cycle The modified research contextual model
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Table 5.1 Table 6.3.1 Table 6.3.2 Table 6.3.3 Table 6.3.4 Table 6.3.5
Elements of successful partnering The case studies Inherent Risk R1 - Partner's Incompetence Inherent Risk R2 - Partner's Exploitation Inherent Risk R3 - Improper Contractual Agreement Inherent Risk R4 - Unfairness in Tendering Inherent Risk R5 - Partner's Projects Personnel Lacking Interpersonal Skills
33 64 70 77 87 93
98 104 113 118 123
Table 6.3.6 Table 6.3.7 Table 6.3.8 Table 6.3.9
Inherent Risk R6 - Partner's Distrust and Misunderstanding Inherent Risk R7 - Insufficient Communication among Partners Inherent Risk R8 - Partner's Short Term Focus Inherent Risk R9 - Partner's Breach of Contract
Table 6.3.10 Inherent Risk R10 - Excessive Demands and Changes from Partner Table 6.3.11 Inherent Risk R11 - Disputes with Partner Table 6.3.12 Inherent Risk R12 - Over Interference from Partner's Company Table 6.3.13 Inherent Risk R13 - Problems related to Social and Cultural Differences Table 6.3.14 Inherent Risk R14 - Change of Personnel in Organisation 144 149 128 134 140
List of Appendices
Appendix A Interview Outline Agenda 167
Chapter 1:
Introduction
1.1 Rationale for the Research
At the core of successful partnering agreements is the need for partners to conduct themselves in a way conducive to maintaining co-operation, confidence and trust that will ultimately create benefits for all the parties. The process of creating alliances and the benefits of partnering agreements have been well documented in various guidelines and reports (Bennett and Jayes, 1998; CII, 1991; Egan, 1998; Latham, 1994 and NEDO, 1991). However recent articles have identified a lack of research and critical analysis examining the nature of partnering in practice and whether the claims made for it are consistently justified. In particular the prescriptive nature of the partnering debate and the anecdotal data has been questioned in many studies (Black et al, 2000; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a; Bresnen and Marshall, 2002; Cheng and Love, 2000; Green, 1999; Lazar, 2000; Wood, 2005 and Wood and Ellis, 2005). Therefore the view has emerged that the feasibility of partnering agreements in the construction industry requires empirical testing and critical analysis.
Numerous authors have tried to analyse the critical success factors for partnering relationships (Baden-Hellard, 1995; Bennett and Jayes, 1995; Black et al, 2000; Cheng and Love, 2000; CII, 1991; Lenard et al, 1996; Jin and Ling, 2005; Scott, 2001; Sui Pheng, 1999; Thomas et al, 2002 and Wood and Ellis, 2005) and have created tables listing the criterion and measurement of the factors. In some instances this data has been transformed into conceptual frameworks (Beach et al, 2005 and Jin and Ling, 2005). Beach et al, 2005 produced a conceptual framework to demonstrate the broader issues surrounding the development of partnering relationships:
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework for Partnering [Source: Beach, R., Webster, M. and Campbell, K. (2005), An evaluation of partnership development in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 611-21.]
Recent studies have drawn upon these critical success factors and determined their presence in partnering relationships. In particular, Bresnen and Marshall (2000b) and Wood and Ellis (2005) have tested the presence of critical success factors in partnering projects and analysed the outcomes and perceptions of the various parties involved. Of interest was the opinion and experiences of main contractors. Bresnen and Marshall (2000b) noted that in some cases the contractor was exploited by the client in the partnering relationship. Wood and Ellis (2005) studied the opinions of main contractors and also found that exploitation exists in partnering relationships and ultimately the agreement was driven by a cost driven agenda. The most common missing critical success factor identified in the research literature was trust (BadenHellard, 1995; Black et al, 2000; CII, 1991; Jin and Ling, 2005; Lenard, 1996; Scott, 2001; Thomas, 2002; Wong and Cheung, 2000 and Wood and Ellis, 2005) and it was found that without this factor the parties in the partnering relationship do not adopt the correct behaviour and attitudes in line with the partnering philosophy.
The main issue within the research problem is to investigate further the critical success factor of trust in client / contractor partnering relationships. Jin and Ling (2005) have researched the factor of trust in relationships and have created a conceptual framework identifying inherent risks that reduce the presence of trust and trust fostering tools to reduce these risks. This framework will be tested in this research and the research project will generate a more representative and typical framework by investigating the opinions and experiences of contracting organisations nationally.
Analysis of the experiences and opinions of those participating in partnering arrangements is important for the future success of partnering in the construction industry. At the core of partnering is the belief that all parties work together to create a win-win situation for all. If this is not seen to be happening the adversarial attitudes often contributed to competitive tendering will remain but will be masked by an appearance of co-operation. Therefore the industry will be no nearer to solving the problems outlined by Latham and Egan in 1994 and 1998. Partnering is a new philosophy and procurement strategy and can only be improved by a process of trial and error and modification of its critical success factors. Overall, this study will contribute to the creation and maintenance of trust in partnering relationships in the construction industry.
1.2 Research Goals
1.2.1 Aim
The aim of this research is to test and develop the conceptual framework for building relationships and trust presented by Jin and Ling (2005) in relation to construction contractors.
1.2.2 Objectives
In order to achieve the aim, the following objectives will be used: Analysis the behaviour and attitudes of parties involved in partnering agreements in relation to the partnering philosophy. Assess the presence of exploitation in partnering agreements. Identify the critical success factors for successful partnering. Assess the role of trust and trust fostering tools in partnering agreements. Test the presence of the inherent risks and effect of the trust fostering tools as identified in Jin and Lings (2005) conceptual framework for building relationships and trust, in relation to construction contractors.
1.2.3 Research Questions
This research deals with the presence of trust in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors. In this research the author will determine the following:
1. What are the inherent risks to develop and sustain trust in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors? 2. At what stage in the project development are these inherent risks most significant? 3. What are the trust fostering tools to reduce these inherent risks in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors?
1.3 Outline Methodology of the Research

The following stages will be taken in order to meet the aim and objectives indicated earlier:
Stage 1 Literature Review:
This stage includes the collection of comprehensive review of the relevant literature on the subject of trust in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors, in particular looking at the conceptual framework presented by Jin and Ling (2005). The literature review sets the foundations of the research works and it has provided the background required to carry out most of the work through out this research.
Stage 2 Assessment of Research Contextual Model:
This stage includes the analysis of the conceptual framework presented by Jin and Ling (2005) to build relationships and trust. The limitations of the conceptual framework are recognised and the variables that are to be tested and developed are identified. These variables are: The inherent risks to develop and sustain trust in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors; The project development stage at which each inherent risk are most significant, and The trust fostering tools to reduce the inherent risks in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors.
The research contextual model is then presented which will be used to carry out the research and collect the data.
Stage 3 Case Studies and Interviews:
This stage contains five case studies of client and main contractor partnering agreements and in depth exploratory interviews with the commercial manager and project manager belonging to the contractor from each case study. The aim of the case studies and interviews is to investigate the following issues: Project background (specific industry sector, duration, size, form of contract, incentive arrangements, main contractor selection process, current / end position in terms of programme and cost). Experience of each of the inherent risks identified in the research contextual model. Experience and opinions of each of the trust fostering tools to reduce inherent risks identified in the research contextual model. Experience of other inherent risks and trust fostering tools not identified in the research contextual model.
Given the nature of this research, a qualitative based research methodology was undertaken to conduct this study so that the topics could be explored in depth and the findings could be explained.
Stage 4 Conclusions and Recommendations:
This stage involves the analysis of the data collected from the case studies and interviews and the modification of the research contextual model. Conclusions on the formation and preservation of trust in partnering relationships are then made and recommendations for further research suggested.
Figure 1.2 shows the relationship between the methodologies used in this dissertation.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Critical Success Factor of Trust in Partnering Relationships Identification of Conceptual Frameworks to Build Relationships and Trust
THE RESEARCH CONTEXTUAL MODEL

Identification of limitations and variables to be assessed
Test & Develop
CASE STUDIES & INTERVIEWS
Inherent risks to create and maintain trust in partnering relationships MODIFIED CONTEXTUAL MODEL TO BUILD TRUST IN PARTNERING RELATIONSHIPS
Analysis of results
Project development stages where inherent risk most significant Trust fostering tools to reduce inherent risks to develop trust in partnering relationships
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Key Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Figure 1.2 Outline Methodology of the Research
1.4 Guide to the Dissertation

This section comprises a guide to the dissertation. The dissertation is divided into seven chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 Introduction
This chapter spells out the background of the research and the major issues to be investigated. It contains the aims and objectives of the research and also discusses the
methodology used in conducting the research. Finally it contains the guide to the dissertation.
Chapter 2 Partnering in the Construction Industry
This chapter describes the various aspects of partnering in the construction industry, from definitions of partnering, to the nature of partnering in practice. It discusses the following issues:
Definitions of partnering o As a procurement method o As a philosophy
Adversarial behaviour in the construction industry Attitude and behaviour Exploitation in partnering arrangements
This chapter highlights the need for more empirical study into the nature of partnering in practice. It focuses on the importance of the adoption of the partnering philosophy and the attitude and behaviour of the parties in the partnering relationship and examines the presence of exploitation in partnering arrangements.
Chapter 3 Critical Success Factors for Partnering
This chapter describes the critical success factors for partnering and focuses on the critical success factor of trust. It discusses the following issues:
The measurement of criteria required for successful partnering o What are critical success factors? o Why are critical success factors required? o The critical success factors for partnering
The critical success factor of trust o Definition of trust
o Characteristics of trust o Importance of trust in partnering relationships
The chapter highlights the need for tools to develop and sustain trust between clients and main contractors in partnering agreements. The chapter demonstrates that trust is a fundamental critical success factor that is required for a partnering relationship to be a success. Evidence is then discussed which demonstrates that trust is the most common missing critical success factor.
Chapter 4 Previous Models into Trust Fostering Tools
This chapter discusses the definition and requirement for trust fostering tools in client / main contractor partnering relationships. Previous models into trust fostering tools are presented and a specific contextual model for building trust is highlighted. The chapter investigates the following issues:
What are trust fostering tools? The requirement for trust fostering tools A specific contextual model for building trust o Creation of the contextual model o Structure of the contextual model
Chapter 5 Research Design and Methodology
This chapter assesses the trust model presented in the previous chapter and presents a modified trust model that will be utilized to carry out this research. The chapter then describes the research design and methodology and presents the case studies. The chapter investigates the following issues:
Assessment of the trust model o Limitations of the trust contextual model The modified research contextual model
o Modification of variables o Modification of project development stages The research design and methodology The case studies
Chapter 6 Analysis of the Results
This chapter examines the data collected from the case studies and interviews and determines if modifications are required to the research contextual model. The chapter highlights the following issues:
Method of analysis o Analysis of inherent risks to determine typicality o Analysis of relationship between dominant relationship and inherent risk o Analysis of relationship between inherent risk and trust fostering tool to reduce inherent risk
Analysis and evaluation of the results o Analysis and evaluation of inherent risks R1 to R14 and the associated trust fostering tools T1 to T16
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter concludes the research and gives recommendations and key points for further research.
Chapter 2:
Partnering in the Construction Industry
2.1 Scope of Chapter
This chapter describes the various aspects of partnering in the construction industry, from definitions of partnering, to the nature of partnering in practice.
It is aimed at highlighting the need for more empirical study into the nature of partnering in practice. It focuses on the importance of the adoption of the partnering philosophy and the attitude and behaviour of the parties in the partnering relationship and examines the presence of exploitation in partnering arrangements.
The chapter sets out the following issues:
Definitions of partnering o As a procurement method o As a philosophy
Adversarial behaviour in the construction industry Attitude and behaviour
Exploitation in partnering arrangements
2.2 Definitions of partnering
The research literature does not encapsulate a definitive definition of partnering, and it can be conveyed as either a procurement method or a philosophy.
2.2.1
Partnering as a procurement method
Procurement is the organisational structure adopted by the client for the management of the design and construction of a building project (Masterman, 1992). In simple terms, partnering is the arrangement whereby clients, designers and contractors (and possibly sub contractors and suppliers) enter in to long term agreements over a number of years or a number of projects. There are two categories of partnering: Project partnering, where two or more organisations come together for a single project and strategic partnering, where partnering is used on a longer term basis to undertake more than one project.
P A R T N E R S
CLIENT + CONSULTANTS + CONTRACTOR + SUB-CONTRACTORS + SUPPLIERS
FIRST WORKSHOP
INTERMEDIATE WORKSHOP
FINAL WORKSHOP
PARTNERING CHARTER Incorporating mutual objectives
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT USING CHOSEN PROCUREMENT METHODS
COMPLETION HANDOVER & FEEDBACK
Figure 2.1: The Partnering Process.
[Source: Masterman, J. (2002), Introduction to building procurement systems,
London: Spon Press.] 2.2.2 Partnering as a philosophy
Much of the research literature defines partnering as a philosophy; however there are varying views of the features of this philosophy. Some of the concepts are presented below:
Management Approach:
Any arrangement whereby people are encouraged to work more efficiently together (Turner, 1997).
A commitment by organisations to co-operate to achieve common business objectives (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a).
A concept which provides a framework for the establishment of mutual objectives among the building team with an attempt to reach an agreed dispute resolution procedure as well as encouraging the principle of continuous improvement (Naoum, 2001).
A method to achieve specific business objectives by maximising the effectiveness of each participants resources and establishing ongoing business relationships (Wood and Ellis, 2005).
Shared Culture:
To overhaul the ethics of traditional contracting with the attendant paradigm shift towards co-operative and caring environments (Thomas et al, 2002).
The desire to move beyond narrow self interest towards a spirit of co-operation and trust (Wood and Ellis, 2005).
Trust:
A move away from traditional competitive tendering and arms length contracting and towards relationships and contracts based upon more co-operation and trust (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a).
The establishment of a trust-based relationship between owner and contractor (Lazar, 2000).
Win-Win Outcomes:
To create a win-win situation in which both clients and contractors stand to gain from the performance benefits of partnering (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b).
To eliminate adversarial relationships between client and contractor by encouraging the parties to work together towards shared objectives and achieve a win-win outcome (Black et al, 2000).
Overall, an amenable definition of partnering is:
A management approach used by two or more organisations to achieve specific business objectives by maximising the effectiveness of each participants resources. The approach is based on mutual objectives, an agreed method of problem resolution, and an active search for continuous measurable improvements (Reading Construction Forum, 1995).
2.3 Adversarial behaviour in the construction industry

The research literature identifies the confrontational and adversarial culture of the construction industry, and ultimately its inability to meet the needs of its clients, as the main driver of partnering in the industry. Lazar (2000) defines adversarial and opportunistic behaviour as the maximisation of one parties gain at the expense of the other party.
Traditional procurement methods and contractual arrangements have encouraged parties to see themselves as adversaries. Figure 2.2 shows contractual and functional relationships in the traditional procurement methods. It shows that although the client and main contractor have a contractual relationship they do not have a direct functional relationship. The main contractor has functional relationships with the design consultants, architect and quantity surveyor but not a contractual relationship with these parties. Therefore the client and main contractor do not work together at a functional level and this reinforces the differences in values, goals and orientations that exist in the construction project team (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b).
Client
Design consultants
Architect acting as design team leader and project manager
Quantity surveyor
Main Contractor
Direct management and labour force
Nominated / named subcontractors

Key Contractual Relationship Functional Relationship Alternative Relationship
Domestic subcontractors
Figure 2.2: Contractual and functional relationships in the conventional system of procurement.
[Source: Masterman, J. (2002), Introduction to building procurement systems,
London: Spon Press.]
Figure 2.3 demonstrates the partnering process and shows that the relationship between the parties in the partnering arrangement must be based on:
Trust; Dedication to common goals and objectives; An understanding of each others expectations and values.
To achieve this, a cultural change of attitude from the construction industry is required.
Individual firms Client seeks partners
Prospective partners
1
Design team seeks partners
2
Contractor seeks partners
3
Specialist contractor(s) seeks partners
Determine common interests
Create partnership charter
4 5
Specialist supplier(s) seeks partners
Partnership team
Develops trust and teamwork Implements strategies
Educates team
10
11
Makes interim evaluations
Makes final evaluations
12
13
Figure 2.3: Partnering system.
[Source: Franks, J. (1990), Building procurement systems: A clients guide, London: Longman.]
2.4 Attitude and Behaviour
The research literature has identified that there has yet to be a fundamental shift in culture and practice in the construction industry (Black et al, 2000; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a; Jackson, 2006; Jin and Ling, 2005 and Wood, 2005). More specifically, there is no evidence to suggest that there has been a change in attitude and behaviour from self interest adversaries to partners operating on co-operation and trust. Jackson (2006) states this is worrying as paying lip service to partnering actively damages the change that the construction industry is trying to achieve.
This hybrid of operating in a partnering arrangement but retaining the adversarial culture has created reservations about the degree of sincerity in partnering arrangements and led to suspicions about the nature of partnering in practice. Mosey (1999) effectively sums up this hybrid,
Partnering, as the most obvious means to achieve Egan compliance, relies on a fair deal but this is still a deal. Here is where some clients and contractors seem to get confused.
Jin and Ling (2005) show that where the client and main contractor adopt the partnering philosophy and have the right attitudes towards partnering they are able to establish and maintain an interdependent relationship, and achieve a win-win outcome. For example, in their second case study the client made progress payments expeditiously so that the contractor could maximise its profit margin. In return the contractor in some instances took on extra work without asking for compensation, and the contractor did not take advantage of change orders to increase their profit margin.
The importance of adopting the correct attitude and behaviour is also seen in Jin and Lings (2005) first case study. At the start of the project the contractors project managers must-win attitude had reduced the project teams willingness to shoulder extra responsibilities and stopped them from seeking win-win solutions. This was identified and new staff were recruited who understood the necessary behaviour and attitude required for a partnering relationship. As a result of this change in personnel this
project also had a win-win outcome for the client and main contractor. This shows that the correct attitude and behaviour has to be adopted for the partnering relationship to be a success. The partners cannot pay lip service to this as ultimately there will not be a win-win outcome and the client and main contractor will not continue their partnership.
Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) also carried out case studies that examined the attitudes and behaviour of clients and main contractors. They examined a range of projects with various types of partnering arrangements and conventional relationships. All the projects completed within price and schedule and client satisfaction was generally high. All the projects encountered some significant problems; however the partnering projects solved these problems without recourse to claims and litigation, whereas the conventional projects did resort to lengthy and costly claims.
Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) examined the process of main contractor selection and found that the emphasis placed on judging the attitude of the main contractor towards the partnering relationship varied. There was generally less emphasis placed on judging the attitude in closer and longer term relationships. All the respondents acknowledged the difficulty of measuring the attitude of the main contractor. In one case study it was incorporated into a structured selection method. This included questionnaires, presentations, interviews and site visits and overall it took over a year to select the main contractor. Although all the clients stated that the selection of the right partner was of crucial importance, not all clients had the time and resources available to undertake a thorough and lengthy selection process.
The research also highlighted that it is difficult to accurately judge the likely future behaviour of a partner. Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) concluded that their research suggested that well developed systems, where attitudes are assessed and selection criteria extended beyond a narrow concern with price, can produce significant tangible results.
Bresnen and Marshall (2002) also carried out case studies to assess the attitude and behaviour of partners to see if it was more than just a superficial response to partnering. The two case studies completed on time and to budget but when problems were encountered there was reversion at times to more traditional command and control structures. This shows the difficulty in translating the partnering protocol at lower /
project levels, as in practice the partners showed some degree of caution and uncertainty about how the team arrangements would work. Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) also posed the question if the correct attitude and behaviour could be engineered through teambuilding exercises, such as workshops. In two case studies it was viewed enthusiastically, and the partners stated it helped the groups form in the early stages, promoted group identity and cohesion and encouraged the feeling of ownership in the project. However the remaining respondents stated that engineering teambuilding had its limitations and there was no substitute for the actual experience of teamwork. It failed to bring around those not considered to have the right attitude and was not sufficient enough to overcome attitude related problems.
The research literature raises the concern that some partnering arrangements do not reflect the partnering philosophy. A result of this is that the partnering agreement may be used by one party to exploit the other in the partnering relationship.
2.5 Exploitation in Partnering Arrangements
Exploitation in partnering relationships occurs when parties have entered in to the agreement without understanding the partnering philosophy. Therefore the parties do not adapt their adversarial and self interest seeking behaviour. Exploitation of one party by another in the partnering relationship may achieve minor gains on a limited number of occasions, but it generally results in long term damage to the partnering relationship and ultimately to the construction industry. Lazar (2000) studied in depth strategies of behaviour and his research shows that parties mirror each others moves,
as illustrated in Figure 2.4. Therefore if the client exploits the partnering relationship the contractor will respond in the same way, and vice versa.
Move One:
The Owner makes a unilateral offer for partnering on the project (unilateral / collaborative)
There is no adversarial move (competitive / adversarial)
The Contractor accepts the offer to partner (collaborative / cooperative)
The Contractor declines to partner (competitive / adversarial)
Move Two:
The Owner agrees to the Contractors first request for a permissible modification to a requirement in specifications (collaborative / cooperative) There is no adversarial move (competitive / adversarial)
The Contractor agrees to proceed with controversial additional work of limited scope with only a verbal promise of equitable payment without beginning the claim process (collaborative / cooperative)
The Contractor declines to proceed with additional work of limited scope with only a verbal promise of equitable payment without beginning the claim process (competitive / adversarial)
Move Three:
The Owner cooperates with the Contractor to achieve a mutually satisfactory payment for controversial additional work (collaborative / cooperative)
The Owner rejects the Contractors claim for extra cost to perform additional work and defers consideration of payment until the matter is adjudicated by the formal dispute resolution process and / or litigation
(competitive / adversarial)
Figure 2.4: Simplified scenario of owner / contractor interaction based on modified prisoners dilemma strategy.
[Source: Lazar, F. (2000), Project partnering: improving the likelihood of win/win outcomes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 71-85]
The research literature has shown that partnering relationships are fragile and unstable, mainly because there is the underlying belief that the other party will take an unfair advantage given the opportunity to do so. Clients and main contractors seem unwilling to
be locked into long term dependence on an organisation that they have been historically mistrustful and suspicious of.
However, the case of Birse Construction Ltd v St David Ltd (1999) shows that the spirit of partnering can be enforced by court and partners should not do anything to
destroy the co-operation ethos arising from partnering agreements. Partners need to adopt the correct attitude and conduct themselves in a way conducive to maintaining co-operation, confidence and trust (Brown, 2001). However, at this time this is only happening in a limited number of partnering agreements.
The research literature identified that main contractors were more likely to be exploited by clients than vice versa in the partnering relationship. The nature of this exploitation can be depicted in four ways:
1. In the spirit of partnering 2. Cost and risk allocation 3. Used as a leverage 4. A win-lose relationship
2.5.1
In the spirit of partnering
This is where a party acts against a principle of the partnering arrangement and calls for the spirit of partnering to excuse their behaviour (Lazar, 2000). Wood (2005) exposed that in some cases the client feels it is the contractor who needs to change to accommodate the spirit of partnering:
We had the attitude of this is what we want, the industry will change to give us what we want, and if that particular part of the industry doesnt well find somebody else that will. The majority of contractors have actually come round very well to our way of thinking andhave taken on the spirit of the partnership agreement.
Jin and Ling (2005) identified that relationships deepen further into a project and are at a greater risk of a partners self interest seeking behaviour and opportunistic actions. This adversarial and opportunistic behaviour still exists because clients have a
deep seated concern that they might become vulnerable if they relinquish their position of buyer dominance, and contractors do not want to be too open with their costs as they think clients will target their margins (Wood, 2005). Overall, the parties in the partnering arrangement find it difficult to modify their historic confrontational behaviour and interpersonal relationships and transform their organisational cultures.
Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) disturbingly showed that in three of their eight case studies of partnering agreements the main contractor absorbed any extra costs to maintain a good relationship with the client and to increase the chance of gaining future work. In the short term contractors may be willing to absorb any extra costs in order to develop or maintain a relationship. This will not be sustainable in the long term if compensating gains are not forthcoming. Also if clients use partnering to encourage contractors to absorb extra costs and risks, then margins may only be achievable by contractors retracting to adversarial means. In theses circumstances there is the paradoxical danger that partnering could become a victim of its own success (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b).
Lazar (2000) makes the important point that unconditional agreement is not required for co-operative behaviour, and unconditional agreement in a partnering arrangement is a losing strategy. It is self defeating for a client or contractor to make a request that tests the strength of the relationship with no intention of reciprocating, if a strong relationship is truly the objective.
2.5.2
Client still driven by cost and risk
In practice some partnering agreements are still driven by a cost driven agenda (Black et al, 2000; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000; Bresnen and Marshall, 2002; Cheng and Love, 2000; Dozzi et al, 1996 and Wood and Ellis 2005). Therefore the parties focus on their individual objectives rather than the mutual objectives of the partnering agreement. The case studies undertaken by Wood and Ellis (2005) found that financial control was still perceived to be crucial by both the main contractor and the client, and the cost driven
agenda was rated at a high presence and of importance in the relationship throughout the project lifecycle.
Green (1999) and Wood (2005) claim that often partnering literature glosses over the harsh economic realities of the commercial buyer / seller relationships. Green (1999) elucidates that the seductive rhetoric of partnering too often serves only to disguise the crude exercise of buying power. Much of the literature support this view as it was shown that clients use partnering arrangements to minimise their risk and increase their leverage over the main contractor (Black et al, 2000; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000; Dozzi et al, 1996 and Wood, 2005). A contractor interviewed by Wood (2005) stated:
Some of the partnering agreements we see out there are just unfair commercial trading terms with risk dumping.
The use of the term paymaster (Wood and Ellis, 2005) also advocates the view that the client still holds the dominant commercial position in the partnering agreement.
Dozzi et al (1996) illustrated that where the project is profitable for the contractor, there was a greater chance that the client was satisfied. However if unfair and excessive pressures are placed on the project budget and partners margins it is usual for partners to adopt a self protection mode (Thomas et al, 2002). Therefore financial flexibility is required to ensure continuous prioritisation of the project partnering arrangement over individual financial concerns and there is a need for empathy between the parties. The research literature has shown this has not happened yet and conflictingly the perceived lack of commercial edge in the partnering arrangement was a concern of clients and main contractors (Bresnen and Marshall, 2002). This can be attributed to complacency in the industry with the historic adversarial and confrontational behaviour and a deep seated reluctance to embrace change.
2.5.3
Leverage
Clients generally acknowledged that the adoption of partnering arrangements enables them to obtain leverage over their supply chain (Wood, 2005). Wood claims that the assertion that partners should be equal is over optimistic and is overridden by economic realism. The possibility remains that the client may resort to traditional lowest cost tendering if demand falls and the market becomes more competitive. One contractor stated:
Some clients are simply coming in to screw you year on year always market testing the partner and letting you know theres somebody cheaper out there thats the wrong mindset to come into partnering.
There was also the suspicion that clients would wield their greater power and leverage and return to old adversarial habits during difficult times in the project.
Some clients do not believe that contractors should enter into partnerships with clients with whom they have substantial business (Black et al, 2000). It was suggested that this may be because clients prefer the traditional power they have over their suppliers. Bingham, a critic of partnering, suggests that the Egan Report (1998) represents the customer and that in his experience the customer often becomes greedy and sometimes a bully (Naoum, 2003).
2.5.4
Win / Lose relationship
Lazar (2000) defines co-operative and collaborative behaviour as an arrangement where the interests of both parties are put on an equal footing, and this behaviour generally leads to a win-win conclusion. Wood (2005) found that the use of pain / gain sharing mechanisms in partnering arrangements is common, although the nature and equity of the win-win outcomes are variable. One contractor summed up this view:
The pain / gain mechanism for both projects wasnt fair they were set up with 100% pain to us and only 10 20% gain. That we accepted commercially for the
type of project that it is but I really dont believe that its in the partnering spirit.
Black et al (2000) agrees that there is not an equitable sharing of the benefits which are derived from the use of partnering, and clients are believed to be the greatest beneficiaries of the approach. Therefore partnering is still a long way from returning tangible benefits to the contractor because clients still have a deep rooted cost agenda, and as a result they expect to reduce costs, or to pass costs and risks down the supply chain, and thereby do not genuinely adopt a win-win attitude (Wood and Ellis, 2005).
2.6 Appraisal of Chapter
This chapter set out to review the various aspects of partnering arrangements in the construction industry, from the variable definitions and concepts of partnering to the nature of partnering in practice. A further role of the chapter was to investigate the importance of the acceptance of the partnering philosophy and the partners attitude and behaviour. The presence and nature of exploitation in partnering relationships was then explored.
The first part of the chapter looked at the definitions and concepts of partnering arrangements in the construction industry. It was shown that partnering can be defined as either a procurement method or a philosophy. Generally a partnering arrangement has the following features: Is ultimately driven by the desire to eliminate adversarial and confrontational behaviour in the project team; Is aimed at achieving mutual business goals and objectives;
Is aimed at establishing a long term business relationship; Is based on a culture of co-operation and trust; The parties will have an understanding of each others expectations and values; Will have a win-win outcome.
The chapter then went on to look at the adversarial nature of the construction industry. It was advocated that adversarial and self interest seeking behaviour is the main driver for partnering in the construction industry. This historical culture has led to variable results in terms of project duration and cost and ultimately does not benefit the client. It was endorsed by Egan (1998) as one of the main reasons why the construction industry is under achieving. However, it was shown that in some cases the partnering arrangement was a hybrid between a partnering agreement and traditional adversarial and confrontational behaviour.
The third part of the chapter examined the importance of the correct attitude and behaviour in the partnering relationship. It was shown that in some cases the partnering philosophy is not understood and the parties enter in to the agreement with the wrong attitude. The case studies by Jin and Ling (2005) showed that where parties have the correct attitude the partnering agreement is a success, in terms of the parties perceived outcome and objective measures, such as project duration and cost. The case studies by Bresnen and Marshall (2000a and 2002) showed that clients consider the selection of the right partner as crucial but the emphasis and time spent on this selection process varies. They concluded that it is difficult to measure attitude and to accurately judge likely future behaviour. It was also shown that most partners think that the right attitude cannot be engineered.
The final part of the chapter looked at the consequences of the wrong attitude being adopted towards the partnering philosophy and focused on the issue of exploitation. It was shown that exploitation exacerbates suspicion and distrust between clients and main contractors and damages the change that the construction industry is trying to achieve. The importance of the case of Birse Construction Ltd v St David Ltd (1999)
was highlighted, as courts will rule that partners act in accordance with the intended partnering spirit and ethos.
It was discussed that in some cases clients exploit main contractors in the partnering agreement and the nature of this exploitation was seen in four ways. Firstly, clients use the spirit of partnering to excuse behaviour which contradicts the partnering ethos, e.g. the absorption of additional costs and claims. Secondly, it was shown that partnering agreements are still driven by cost and risk allocation and the client maintained the
dominant position in the commercial relationship. Thirdly, it was shown that clients use the partnering agreement as leverage to maintain their position of dominance over the supply chain. Finally, this exploitation resulted in win-lose outcomes in favour of the client.
This chapter has shown that partnering relationships in practice are susceptible to exploitation and distrust. The research will now go on to look at the critical success factors for partnering and specifically look at the critical success factor of trust.
Chapter 3:
Critical Success Factors for Partnering
This chapter describes the critical success factors for partnering and focuses on the critical success factor of trust.
It is aimed at highlighting the need for tools to develop and sustain trust between clients and main contractors in partnering agreements. The chapter demonstrates that trust is a fundamental critical success factor that is required for a partnering relationship to be a success. Evidence is then discussed which demonstrates that trust is the most common missing critical success factor.
The measurement of criteria required for successful partnering o What are critical success factors? o Why are critical success factors required? o The critical success factors for partnering.
The critical success factor of trust o Definition of trust o Characteristics of trust o Importance of trust in partnering relationships
3.2 The measurement of criteria required for successful partnering
3.2.1 What are critical success factors?
In simple terms, critical success factors are factors that are critical for the success of partnering in the construction industry. It has been described in various terms in the research literature:
Critical elements of successful partnering (Black et al, 2001).
Enabling elements of partnering (Bower, 2003).
Identification of issues to develop partnering and contribute to the successful use of partnering (Beach, 2005).
Identification of critical paths conducive to the success of partnering (Cheng and Love, 2000).
3.2.2 Why are critical success factors required?
Much of the partnering literature provides prescriptions for initiating partnering but there is a lack of attention to specific and defined factors that need to be addressed if it is to be successfully implemented (Cheng and Love, 2000). As discussed in chapter two, there is evidence to show that partnering is not being implemented in line with the partnering philosophy and is not producing benefits for all the parties in the partnering relationship. Therefore there is a need to examine the conditions which encourage or inhibit collaboration between clients and main contractors. Identifying critical success factors places parties in a better position to align organisational efforts to achieve them.
Lazar (2000) investigated what constitutes cooperative behaviour and the adoption of the partnering philosophy. He concluded that strategies of behaviour play significant
roles in the development of win-win outcomes or adversarial outcomes. The outcome is not set in stone as adversarial behaviour at any time can ruin a partnering relationship. Partnering relationships are very unstable and there can be no slacking off in the maintenance of a successful partnering relationship. Therefore the partners behaviour has to be directed and this can be done through the identification and adoption of behaviour to achieve the critical success factors. At the moment strategies to develop partnering are applied in a piecemeal and unfocussed manner.
3.2.3 The critical success factors for partnering
There has been recent research into the measurement of specific and defined criteria that is required for a partnering relationship to be successful. (Beach, 2005; Black et al, 2001; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000c; Bresnen and Marshall, 2002; Cheng and Love, 2000; Jin and Ling, 2005; Lazar, 2000; Wong and Cheung, 2004). There is still considerable disagreement in the research literature on the critical success factors. Table 3.1 below represents the views of eleven authors:
[Source: Adapted from Beach et al (2005), An evaluation of partnership development in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 611-21.] There is variation in emphasis but it can be concluded that the concept of true partnering relies on: Co-operation Management commitment Equity and equality Openness and honesty Mutual vision, goals and objectives (teamwork) Trust
Figure 3.1 illustrates these critical success factors at the centre of inter firm collaboration.
Project Type & Size
Organisation A (Client)
Project Objectives
Organisation B (Main Contractor)
Developing a Collaborative Approach: -Co-operation -Management commitment - Equity & equality -Openness & honesty -Mutual vision, goals & objectives = teamwork -Trust
Performance Outcomes Short term (project) Long term (organisational)
Figure 3.1 Model of inter-firm collaboration
[Source: Adapted from Bresnen, M and Marshall, N. (2000b), Building partnerships: case studies of client-contractor collaboration in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 819-32.]
3.3 The critical success factor of trust
3.3.1 Definition of trust
Lazar (2000) describes trust as a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another. It is often associated with situations involving personal conflict, outcome uncertainty and problem solving. Trust is based upon predictability and the expectation of future events. Trust is being able to predict what other people will do and what situations will occur. It is a normal part of the human condition to be
constantly forecasting ahead and predicting the outcome of events (Changing minds, 2007). Varying in intensity, trust is the confidence in and reliance upon the prediction (Wong and Cheung, 2004).
Wong and Cheung (2004) describe three bases of trust that explain why people place their trust in another party in construction projects. They are competence trust; integrity trust and intuitive trust. Competence trust is based on the perception of others ability to perform the required work. Partners competence trust can be gained by observable proofs like track record, experience or connections with professional bodies. Integrity trust is based on the perception of others willingness to protect the interest of their counter parts over the construction project. The level of integrity trust is highly affected by the values, morals, ethics and cultural backgrounds of the parties. Intuitive trust is based upon the partys prejudice, biases or other personal feelings towards the counter part. It is hardly affected by the instant performance of the parties but the long term relationships between them.
3.3.2 Characteristics of trust
Trust is a complex construct with multiple bases, levels and determinants. Trust can emerge, strengthen, weaken or disappear over the life of a relationship. In a relationship where trust has existed and then been destroyed, the relationship becomes even more aggressively adversarial and destructive than relationships in which it had never been allowed to develop. Indispensable conditions for trust to arise are relationships and risks. Risk is the perceived probability of loss and relationship is the condition where one party cannot achieve its interests without reliance upon another. Therefore distrust will not allow a successful relationship to develop (Jin and Ling, 2005).
Lazar highlights that the premature insistence on the presence of organisational trust as a precursor to collaborative behaviour between client and main contractor may actually be fatal to the development of a successful partnering relationship. If trust is coerced the collaborative relationship will stagnate at the low trust / high cost point, as shown in Figure 3.2.
Potential Cost
Cost of Trust
Presence of Trust
Incurred Cost
Level of Trust
Figure 3.2 Cost of trust (Adapted from sketch by Prof. Andrew Van de Ven presented to Academy of Management)
[Source: Lazar, F. (2000), Project partnering: improving the likelihood of win/win outcomes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 71-85].
Coercion sends the message that opportunism or betrayal by the other party to the relationship is anticipated and has been guarded against. This sets up the condition, where if an opportunity for the second party to take advantage of the coercive party arises, it will very likely be acted on.
Bresnen and Marshall (2000b) highlight the role of surrounding economic conditions in inhibiting the development of trust. Market conditions can predispose contractual partners to act in a more traditional, adversarial and sometimes exploitative way. This highlights the importance of constraining influences of economic forces when trying to develop trust in a relationship. Brown (2001) examined the Birse Construction Ltd v St David Ltd (1999) case and concluded that if market conditions make construction more difficult or less profitable than envisaged at the time of the contract, an
insistence on strict compliance with all the contractual terms effectively destroys cooperation. Cheung and Love (2000) identified fourteen trust attributes, i.e. factors that will encourage trust in a relationship:
Trust Attribute
Descriptions
Competence of work (competent)
Project team members will trust each other if both of their behaviours and outcomes are competent.
Problem solving (problem solving)
Construction personnel saw problem solving as an important element in building trust, especially if it is solved at the early stage.
Frequency and effectiveness of communication (communication)
Open and frequent communication and maintaining open door policies to each other results from a willingness of the partners to create transparency in the relationship.
Openness and integrity of communication (openness)
Failure of integrity involves lying; cheating or hiding facts happened in the project team will tarnish trust.
Alignment of effort and rewards (alignment)
Benefits received should be fair and match with the input efforts or mistrust will result.
Effective and sufficient information flow (information flow)
Effective and sufficient information flow would reduce risk and uncertainty of the work.
The sense of unity (unity)
Trust can be built by understanding and appreciating partners requirements and difficulties and looking to meet partners expectation.
Respect and appreciation of the system (respect)
A respect on the mutual dependence project management system is a source of trust.
Compatibility (compatibility)
Project team members will trust each other when they share similar cultures and values.
Long-term relationships (long-term relations)
Long-term relationships among partners will lead to trust.
Trust Attribute
Descriptions
Financial stability (financial)
The financial status of the company affects the decision to trust. Contractors who have a healthy financial status are trustworthy in views of the clients as their risks to make
profits by finding loopholes in contract or applying unreasonable claims are lowered down.
Reputation (reputation)
Companies with higher reputation are more trustworthy as they do not want to lose their valuable asset.
Adoption of alternative dispute resolution techniques (adopt ADR)
The implementation of ADR techniques before litigation as stated in the contract would also gain trust from other parties. These contracting parties will feel that their partners are willing to seek for win/win resolution sincerely without destroying the cooperation harmony.
Contracts and agreements (satisfactory terms)
Equitable agreements or contract terms can help the contracting parties to establish trust and sustain cooperation since their perceived benefits are secured.
Figure 3.3 Fourteen trust attributes for construction partnering
[Source: Cheng, E. and Love, P. (2000), Establishment of critical success factors for construction partnering. Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(2), 84-92].
3.3.3 Importance of trust in partnering relationships
Developing trust has been identified as the most important critical success factor in the research literature (Baden-Hellard, 1995; Black et al, 2000; CII, 1991; Jin and Ling, 2005; Lenard, 1996; Scott, 2001; Thomas et al, 2002; Wong and Cheung, 2000 and Wood and Ellis, 2005). Without trust none of the other critical success factors can
be achieved. Mutual trust is the main prerequisite for changing the traditional client / contractor relationship and therefore changing the behaviours and attitudes of these parties. As discussed in chapter two, the traditional adversarial behaviour and
attitudes of parties in a partnering relationship are the fundamental reasons why a partnering agreement will not be successful. In the construction industry very frequently trust develops as the result of a series of interactions where one party makes themselves vulnerable to some extent to the other partys good will, and the other party does the right thing. Therefore trust can only develop from the right thing being done. However, chapter two has demonstrated that often one party is exploited by another; therefore it is unlikely that trust will evolve in a partnering relationship between the client and main contractor.
The research literature has shown that trust is the most common missing critical success factor in partnering agreements. Wong and Cheung (2004) carried out a postal questionnaire to private and public sector developers, consultant firms and contractor firms. They asked respondents to rate the degree of importance of fourteen trust attributes in affecting partners trust level (as shown in Figure 3.3). The results show that clients rely strongly on satisfactory contract terms to enhance trust. Contractors trust level is more sensitive towards a wide range of actions and behaviour of the client than vice versa. System based trust was ranked as the most important factor to enhance trust by clients and contractors. This is where a formalised system based on legally binding agreements and terms are relied on to formulate trust in the relationship. Therefore this relies on social agents in society, for example, law and contracts, to make partners believe their benefits can be secured in the absence of direct personal experience.
Wong and Cheung (2004) concluded that distrust has been deep seated and long standing and has become the acceptable yardstick upon which to base transactions in the construction industry. Crucially integrity trust is still missing. In the construction industry there is still an underlying belief that the other party will take an unfair advantage given the opportunity to do so (Lazar, 2000).
Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) also concluded that integrity trust was still missing in partnering agreements between clients and main contractors. They showed that respondents still reported a good deal of formal correspondence and paperwork as it is accepted and expected that parties regress to traditional management styles and adversarial behaviour at times of trouble.
Wood and Ellis (2005) found that trust is hard earned in the construction industry. They sent a questionnaire to commercial staff with experience in partnering employed by a leading national contractor. The respondents had to rate a list of partnering characteristics at various stages in the project. When the respondents were asked if they had seen a cultural change in their organisation the median response was disagree. The responses to questions about fairness and equality in the client / contractor relationship also show that integrity trust was still deemed to be missing. 84% of the respondents felt the contractual relationship could be fair and 56% felt the relationship could be equal. However, the comments made indicated that the majority of respondents did not necessarily feel that they were currently fair or equal. The respondents stated that there continued to be difficulties in establishing real trust and this was often attributed to the clients consultants who were thought to accept neither responsibility nor liability. It was also emphasised that suspicion remained that the client might yield their greater power during difficult times and their financial control was perceived to be crucial. Overall the conventional view remained that ultimately the clients and contractors respective objectives were still in conflict. Therefore Wood and Ellis (2005) claim that in reality the claim that partners should be equal is overoptimistic.
This evidence from the research literature shows that trust between clients and contractors is unlikely to evolve and therefore it needs to be engineered. The next chapter will investigate trust fostering tools and suggest a framework for establishing and maintaining the critical success factor of trust.
3.4 Appraisal of chapter
This chapter set out to review the critical success factors for partnering arrangements in the construction industry, from the definition of critical success factors to the advocated critical success factors for partnering. A further role of the chapter was to investigate the critical success factor of trust, from the definition and characteristics of trust to the importance of trust in client / contractor partnering relationships. The aim of the chapter was to show that trust fostering tools are required in client / contractor
partnering relationships.
The first part of the chapter looked at the definition of critical success factors for partnering. It was shown that the research literature agreed that critical success factors were the identification of critical paths / elements conducive to the development and success of partnering. The chapter then went on to look at why critical success factors for partnering are required. The conclusion from chapter two, that partnering is not being implemented in line with the correct philosophy and parties are not adopting the correct behaviour, was reiterated. Therefore it was shown that identification of critical success factors will allow parties to place themselves in a better position to align their organisational efforts to achieve successful partnering relationships.
The third part of the chapter examined the actual critical success factors for partnering between clients and main contractors in the construction industry. It was shown that there is disagreement on these factors but the most important factors were deemed to be: Co-operation Management commitment Equity and equality Openness and honesty Mutual vision, goals and objectives (teamwork) Trust
The chapter then went on to look at the critical success factor of trust. The fourth part of the chapter looked at the definition of trust generally and in the construction
industry. It was shown that generally trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another. It was then shown that the three bases of trust in the construction industry are competence trust; integrity trust and intuitive trust.
The next part of the chapter looked at the characteristics of trust and these characteristics can be summed up as follows:
A complex construct with multiple bases, levels and determinants. It can emerge, strengthen, weaken and disappear over the life of a relationship. Relationships and risks are indispensable conditions for trust to arise. Premature insistence of organisational trust can be fatal for a relationship. Coercion of trust will result in the relationship stagnating at the low trust / high cost point. Coercion can lead to opportunism or adversarial behaviour. Surrounding economic conditions can inhibit the development of trust.
Fourteen trust attributes as identified in the research literature were then recognized.
The chapter then went on to look at the importance of trust in partnering relationships. It was shown that trust has been identified as the most important critical success factor in the research literature. Evidence was then discussed which shows that trust is a common missing factor in partnering relationships.
This chapter has shown that critical success factors for partnering are required and the factor of trust is crucial for a successful client / contractor partnering relationship. It has shown that trust is often missing in the relationship and the research will now go on to investigate trust fostering tools.
Chapter 4:
Previous Models into Trust Fostering Tools

This chapter discusses the definition and requirement for trust fostering tools in client / main contractor partnering relationships. Previous models into trust fostering tools are presented and a specific contextual model for building trust is then highlighted.
What are trust fostering tools? The requirement for trust fostering tools A specific contextual model for building trust o Creation of the contextual model
o Structure of the contextual model
4.2 What are trust fostering tools?
Trust fostering tools are conceptual frameworks / models that can be used to foster trust and build successful relationships. The frameworks / models are based upon research undertaken in the field of trust in the construction industry and represent the findings and recommendations of the authors. The first part of a framework identifies the key constructs, i.e. specific reasons why trust is missing in relationships. The key constructs are then operationalised in the second part of the framework and specific ways to foster trust are suggested. The outcome is then defined.
KEY CONSTRUCTS IDENTIFIED Reasons why the critical success factor of trust is missing in client / main contractor partnering relationships
KEY CONSTRUCTS OPERATIONALISED Ways to engineer trust in client /main contractor partnering relationships
OUTCOME A successful partnering relationship (in terms of objective measure e.g. cost and duration, and partners perception) between client and main contractor
Figure 4.1 The main stages of a typical conceptual framework to develop trust in client / main contractor partnering relationships [Designed by the author]
4.3 The requirement for trust fostering tools
The importance of trust in client / main contractor partnering relationships was discussed in chapter three and it was concluded that there is a need to foster and engineer trust in client / main contractor partnering relationships. Trust fostering tools will aid in reducing adversarial relationships and enable clients and contractors to adopt the appropriate behaviours and attitudes to result in the formation and preservation of trust and contribute significantly towards a successful partnering relationship.
Figure 4.2 shows how trust fostering tools contribute towards the creation of trust in a relationship. It shows that the dominant relationship created in a partnering agreement produces inherent risks and this necessitates the requirement for trust fostering tools to develop trust in the relationship. Specific and defined trust fostering tools are effective in diminishing the inherent risks and this encourages behaviour that enables trust to be created. It ultimately stimulates behaviour which allows parties to behave in line with the partnering philosophy.
Project Development Stage

Deepen: The level of dominant relationship depends on project development stage
Necessitate
Dominant Relationship
Inherent Risks
Produce: The type of inherent risk depends on the level of dominant relationship
Trust-Fostering Tools
Develop
Diminish: Specific trust fostering tools are effective in diminishing an inherent risk
Trust
Figure 4.2 Key constructs for building relationships and trust
[Source: Jin, X and Ling, F. (2005), Constructing a framework for building relationships and trust in partnering organisations: two case studies of building projects in China. Construction Management and Economics, 23, 685-696].
4.4 A specific contextual model for building trust
4.4.1 Creation of the contextual model
Jin and Ling (2005) created a contextual model that can be used to explain the development of relationships; the existence of different types of inherent risks and the types of tools to foster trust and thereby reduce inherent risks in a project. Overall the
model can be used to foster trust and build relationships in construction project organisations in China. Their specific objectives were to identify inherent risks and trust-fostering tools in each project development stage. They focussed on relationship related matters rather than technical aspects as the aim of the model is to aid in reducing adversarial behaviour and relationships by suggesting ways to foster trustworthy relationships. They suggest that international architectural, engineering and construction firms in China may use the framework to collaborate harmoniously with Chinese parties.
Jin and Ling (2005) based their contextual model on the results of two in depth case studies of two projects in China. These two projects were identified as successfully completed, and this was defined as having completed within budget and on schedule. Therefore these projects were chosen as they were deemed more likely to demonstrate how trust and relationships could be built. The first project was developed by a stateowned enterprise and the second project was owned by a private foreign firm. Jin and Ling (2005) carried out interviews with twelve project participants from different organisations for each project. In each project the interviewees comprised two from the client organisation, two consultants, and two from the main contracting firm. These professionals were chosen as they were identified as having major roles in the projects. This range of profiles allowed rich data and conflicting views to be collected.
Based on the findings of the case studies the key constructs were operationalised into specific variables and the interrelationships of the variables were established and the framework presented.
4.4.2 Structure of the contextual model Project development stage
The project development stage is shown in column one of the contextual model. Jin and Ling (2005) identified four project development stages: Pre-tendering (1); tendering (2); construction (3) and post construction (4).
Dominant relationship
It is then shown how the relationship develops through the four project development stages, as identified in column two of the contextual model. Jin and Ling (2005) state that the dominant relationship begins as shallow dependence at the pre-tendering stage and this then develops to deep dependence in the tendering stage. This is because the parties are trying to coordinate their behaviour to achieve the desired goals. This develops to shallow interdependence during the construction phase. During this phase the parties are dependent on the other parties in the project to achieve their specific organisational and project aims. Jin and Ling describe this state as a loose form of reciprocity. If there is a series of projects this develops further to deep interdependence where each party needs to anticipate the others needs or actions without specific instructions.
Therefore it was concluded that further into a project, relationships deepen and are at greater risk of partners self interest seeking behaviour and opportunistic actions. The
inherent risks are defined for each project stage in the next section of the conceptual framework. Inherent risks
Inherent risks are identified in column three of the conceptual framework. An inherent risk is the risk which is intrinsic in a certain relationship and is measured by its seriousness. Jin and Lings (2005) case studies showed that inherent risks are dependent on the dominant relationship. Risks appear when parties initiate interaction and develop their relationships and the inherent risks necessitate trust fostering tools.
Trust fostering tools to reduce inherent risks
Trust fostering tools to diminish inherent risks are identified in column four of the contextual framework. Sixteen tools are presented that project participants can use to build trust and diminish inherent risks. The contents within brackets following each tool indicate which risks this tool may be effective in diminishing.
Counterbalance of trust to risks
The link between trust and risk is show in column five of the contextual framework. Jin and Ling (2005) describe that if there are no dealings between parties no risk exists, as shown at the vertex of the isosceles triangle. As there is complete certainty with no risk, trust would be unnecessary. Risk appears when parties initiate interaction and develop their relationships, and trust fostering tools are used to produce trust to counterbalance these risks. When more risk exists, more trust would need to be fostered.
Jin and Ling (2005) go on to explain that risks are accumulative and the maximum amount of risks appears in the later stages of the relationship. Therefore the maximum amount of trust is required at the later stages of the project. This explains why sustained commitment to trust is necessary. Jin and Ling (2005) describe that if inadequate trust is fostered at the post construction stage the relationship will
deteriorate even though a great amount of trust had been developed in the previous project stages. This is because trust is not enough to offset the power of newly produced risks accumulated at the later stages. The amount of risks may increase through the project life cycle, but the seriousness of certain risks appearing at the earlier stages will decrease in the later stages.
Jin and Ling (2005) admit that the process of accumulation of risks and trust may not be linear as is shown in column five of the contextual framework. They state that the pace of accumulation may be quick in the beginning but slower later, or vice versa. This should not be an abrupt process under ideal circumstances.
Successful relationship outcome
If adequate trust is fostered by effective tools to counterbalance the inherent risks, the relationship will develop smoothly and project success will be achieved. This success can be measured in objective terms, i.e. project duration and cost, and on partners perceptions. This successful outcome is shown in column six of the contextual framework.
This chapter set out to introduce a contextual model that will be utilized to carry out the research. The definition and requirement for trust fostering tools in client / main contractor partnering arrangements was reviewed and the formulation and structure of the contextual model was investigated.
The first part of the chapter looked at the definition of trust fostering tools. It was shown that trust fostering tools are conceptual frameworks / models that can be used to foster trust and build successful relationships, and is the means by which trust
would be built. The main stages of a typical conceptual framework / model to develop trust was then illustrated and it was revealed that the main stages are:
Identification of key constructs Operationilization of key constructs Outcome objective and subjective.
The chapter then went on to look at the requirement for trust fostering tools in client / main contractor partnering arrangements. It was explained that the conclusions of chapter three have shown that there is a need to foster and engineer trust in client / main contractor partnering relationships. A framework was then presented which shows how trust fostering tools contribute towards the creation of trust in a relationship. This framework showed that the dominant relationship created in a partnering agreement produces inherent risks and this necessitates the requirement for trust fostering tools to develop trust in the relationship. Therefore specific and defined trust fostering tools are effective in diminishing the inherent risks and this encourages behaviour that enables trust to be created.
The third part of the chapter examined a specific contextual model created by Jin and Ling (2005). Firstly, the aim of the framework was discussed and it was shown that the model will enable parties to foster trust and build successful partnering relationships. The creation of the model was then investigated and the research design and methodology of Jin and Lings study was discussed.
The chapter then went on to describe the six stages of the contextual model, as listed below:
Project development stage Dominant relationship Inherent risks Trust fostering tools to reduce inherent risks Counterbalance of trust to risks Successful relationship outcome
This chapter has shown that there is a need for trust fostering tools in client / main contractor relationships and presented a specific contextual model to foster trust and build relationships. The research will now go on to explain how this model will be utilised to carry out the research.
Chapter 4:
Previous Models into Trust Fostering Tools

This chapter discusses the definition and requirement for trust fostering tools in client / main contractor partnering relationships. Previous models into trust fostering tools are presented and a specific contextual model for building trust is then highlighted.
What are trust fostering tools? The requirement for trust fostering tools A specific contextual model for building trust o Creation of the contextual model
o Structure of the contextual model
4.2 What are trust fostering tools?
Trust fostering tools are conceptual frameworks / models that can be used to foster trust and build successful relationships. The frameworks / models are based upon research undertaken in the field of trust in the construction industry and represent the findings and recommendations of the authors. The first part of a framework identifies the key constructs, i.e. specific reasons why trust is missing in relationships. The key constructs are then operationalised in the second part of the framework and specific ways to foster trust are suggested. The outcome is then defined.
KEY CONSTRUCTS IDENTIFIED Reasons why the critical success factor of trust is missing in client / main contractor partnering relationships
KEY CONSTRUCTS OPERATIONALISED Ways to engineer trust in client /main contractor partnering relationships
OUTCOME A successful partnering relationship (in terms of objective measure e.g. cost and duration, and partners perception) between client and main contractor
Figure 4.1 The main stages of a typical conceptual framework to develop trust in client / main contractor partnering relationships [Designed by the author]
4.3 The requirement for trust fostering tools
The importance of trust in client / main contractor partnering relationships was discussed in chapter three and it was concluded that there is a need to foster and engineer trust in client / main contractor partnering relationships. Trust fostering tools will aid in reducing adversarial relationships and enable clients and contractors to adopt the appropriate behaviours and attitudes to result in the formation and preservation of trust and contribute significantly towards a successful partnering relationship.
Figure 4.2 shows how trust fostering tools contribute towards the creation of trust in a relationship. It shows that the dominant relationship created in a partnering agreement produces inherent risks and this necessitates the requirement for trust fostering tools to develop trust in the relationship. Specific and defined trust fostering tools are effective in diminishing the inherent risks and this encourages behaviour that enables trust to be created. It ultimately stimulates behaviour which allows parties to behave in line with the partnering philosophy.
Project Development Stage

Deepen: The level of dominant relationship depends on project development stage
Necessitate
Dominant Relationship
Inherent Risks
Produce: The type of inherent risk depends on the level of dominant relationship
Trust-Fostering Tools
Develop
Diminish: Specific trust fostering tools are effective in diminishing an inherent risk
Trust
4.4 A specific contextual model for building trust
4.4.1 Creation of the contextual model
Jin and Ling (2005) created a contextual model that can be used to explain the development of relationships; the existence of different types of inherent risks and the types of tools to foster trust and thereby reduce inherent risks in a project. Overall the
model can be used to foster trust and build relationships in construction project organisations in China. Their specific objectives were to identify inherent risks and trust-fostering tools in each project development stage. They focussed on relationship related matters rather than technical aspects as the aim of the model is to aid in reducing adversarial behaviour and relationships by suggesting ways to foster trustworthy relationships. They suggest that international architectural, engineering and construction firms in China may use the framework to collaborate harmoniously with Chinese parties.
Jin and Ling (2005) based their contextual model on the results of two in depth case studies of two projects in China. These two projects were identified as successfully completed, and this was defined as having completed within budget and on schedule. Therefore these projects were chosen as they were deemed more likely to demonstrate how trust and relationships could be built. The first project was developed by a stateowned enterprise and the second project was owned by a private foreign firm. Jin and Ling (2005) carried out interviews with twelve project participants from different organisations for each project. In each project the interviewees comprised two from the client organisation, two consultants, and two from the main contracting firm. These professionals were chosen as they were identified as having major roles in the projects. This range of profiles allowed rich data and conflicting views to be collected.
Based on the findings of the case studies the key constructs were operationalised into specific variables and the interrelationships of the variables were established and the framework presented.
4.4.2 Structure of the contextual model Project development stage
The project development stage is shown in column one of the contextual model. Jin and Ling (2005) identified four project development stages: Pre-tendering (1); tendering (2); construction (3) and post construction (4).
Dominant relationship
It is then shown how the relationship develops through the four project development stages, as identified in column two of the contextual model. Jin and Ling (2005) state that the dominant relationship begins as shallow dependence at the pre-tendering stage and this then develops to deep dependence in the tendering stage. This is because the parties are trying to coordinate their behaviour to achieve the desired goals. This develops to shallow interdependence during the construction phase. During this phase the parties are dependent on the other parties in the project to achieve their specific organisational and project aims. Jin and Ling describe this state as a loose form of reciprocity. If there is a series of projects this develops further to deep interdependence where each party needs to anticipate the others needs or actions without specific instructions.
Therefore it was concluded that further into a project, relationships deepen and are at greater risk of partners self interest seeking behaviour and opportunistic actions. The
inherent risks are defined for each project stage in the next section of the conceptual framework. Inherent risks
Inherent risks are identified in column three of the conceptual framework. An inherent risk is the risk which is intrinsic in a certain relationship and is measured by its seriousness. Jin and Lings (2005) case studies showed that inherent risks are dependent on the dominant relationship. Risks appear when parties initiate interaction and develop their relationships and the inherent risks necessitate trust fostering tools.
Trust fostering tools to reduce inherent risks
Trust fostering tools to diminish inherent risks are identified in column four of the contextual framework. Sixteen tools are presented that project participants can use to build trust and diminish inherent risks. The contents within brackets following each tool indicate which risks this tool may be effective in diminishing.
Counterbalance of trust to risks
The link between trust and risk is show in column five of the contextual framework. Jin and Ling (2005) describe that if there are no dealings between parties no risk exists, as shown at the vertex of the isosceles triangle. As there is complete certainty with no risk, trust would be unnecessary. Risk appears when parties initiate interaction and develop their relationships, and trust fostering tools are used to produce trust to counterbalance these risks. When more risk exists, more trust would need to be fostered.
Jin and Ling (2005) go on to explain that risks are accumulative and the maximum amount of risks appears in the later stages of the relationship. Therefore the maximum amount of trust is required at the later stages of the project. This explains why sustained commitment to trust is necessary. Jin and Ling (2005) describe that if inadequate trust is fostered at the post construction stage the relationship will
deteriorate even though a great amount of trust had been developed in the previous project stages. This is because trust is not enough to offset the power of newly produced risks accumulated at the later stages. The amount of risks may increase through the project life cycle, but the seriousness of certain risks appearing at the earlier stages will decrease in the later stages.
Jin and Ling (2005) admit that the process of accumulation of risks and trust may not be linear as is shown in column five of the contextual framework. They state that the pace of accumulation may be quick in the beginning but slower later, or vice versa. This should not be an abrupt process under ideal circumstances.
Successful relationship outcome
If adequate trust is fostered by effective tools to counterbalance the inherent risks, the relationship will develop smoothly and project success will be achieved. This success can be measured in objective terms, i.e. project duration and cost, and on partners perceptions. This successful outcome is shown in column six of the contextual framework.
This chapter set out to introduce a contextual model that will be utilized to carry out the research. The definition and requirement for trust fostering tools in client / main contractor partnering arrangements was reviewed and the formulation and structure of the contextual model was investigated.
The first part of the chapter looked at the definition of trust fostering tools. It was shown that trust fostering tools are conceptual frameworks / models that can be used to foster trust and build successful relationships, and is the means by which trust
would be built. The main stages of a typical conceptual framework / model to develop trust was then illustrated and it was revealed that the main stages are:
Identification of key constructs Operationilization of key constructs Outcome objective and subjective.
The chapter then went on to look at the requirement for trust fostering tools in client / main contractor partnering arrangements. It was explained that the conclusions of chapter three have shown that there is a need to foster and engineer trust in client / main contractor partnering relationships. A framework was then presented which shows how trust fostering tools contribute towards the creation of trust in a relationship. This framework showed that the dominant relationship created in a partnering agreement produces inherent risks and this necessitates the requirement for trust fostering tools to develop trust in the relationship. Therefore specific and defined trust fostering tools are effective in diminishing the inherent risks and this encourages behaviour that enables trust to be created.
The third part of the chapter examined a specific contextual model created by Jin and Ling (2005). Firstly, the aim of the framework was discussed and it was shown that the model will enable parties to foster trust and build successful partnering relationships. The creation of the model was then investigated and the research design and methodology of Jin and Lings study was discussed.
The chapter then went on to describe the six stages of the contextual model, as listed below:
Project development stage Dominant relationship Inherent risks Trust fostering tools to reduce inherent risks Counterbalance of trust to risks Successful relationship outcome
This chapter has shown that there is a need for trust fostering tools in client / main contractor relationships and presented a specific contextual model to foster trust and build relationships. The research will now go on to explain how this model will be utilised to carry out the research.
Chapter 5:
Research Design and Methodology
This chapter assesses the trust model presented in chapter four (figure 4.3) and presents a modified trust model that will be utilized to carry out this research.
The chapter will then describe the research design and methodology and present the case studies.
Assessment of the trust model (figure 4.3) o Limitations of the trust contextual model Individuality of the Chinese culture Typicality of the research data Reliability of the research data
The modified research contextual model o Modification of variables o Modification of project development stages
The research design and methodology The case studies
5.2 Assessment of the Trust Model (figure 4.3)
5.2.1 Limitations of the trust contextual model
Jin and Ling (2005) identify that there are three main limitations to their contextual model to foster trust and build relationships (Figure 4.3).
- Individuality of the Chinese culture
The model is based upon the results of two in depth studies of two projects in China; therefore the individuality of the Chinese culture has to be considered. The Chinese culture comprises certain core values that influence Chinese business operations and the relationships with others because of its emphasis on trust, relationship, mutuality, respect and harmony. This culture may be different from other countries and therefore the inherent risks and trust fostering tools described in the contextual model may be different for other countries.
- Typicality of the research data
As only two case studies were used to construct the model it has to be considered that the model may not be typical. Jin and Ling (2005) recognise that more rigorous research needs to be carried out to validate the model so that it is generalizable.
- Reliability of the research data
The degree of reliability of the data collected also has to be questioned. Reliability is concerned with whether alternative researchers would have revealed similar information (Saunders et al, 2003). Jin and Ling (2005) gathered data from projects that were completed successfully and where cooperative relationships were present. Jin and Ling (2005) therefore deemed that these projects had adopted trust fostering tools and were selected as they would present data on how trust based relationships could be built. However this may cause the problem of trust fostering and relationship
building being credited for project successes even when there was no tangible evidence.
5.3 The Modified Research Contextual Model

To overcome the limitations of the contextual model described above the contextual model will be modified.
5.3.1 Modification of variables
The model constructed by Jin and Ling (2005) was based on two case studies; but the variables they have identified can be adapted to other similar projects because they are not defining how things were in the cases. Therefore the research will test the inherent risks and trust fostering tools to reduce inherent risks described in the framework and modify if necessary.
5.3.2 Modification of project development stages
The model needs to be altered so that it takes account of strategic partnering, i.e. where partnering is used on a longer term basis to undertake more than one project. Therefore a link has been created between the post construction stage and the pre tendering stage.
Figure 5.1 The research contextual model
[Source: Adapted from Jin, X and Ling, F. (2005), Constructing a framework for building relationships and trust in partnering organisations: two case studies of building projects in China. Construction Management and Economics, 23, 685-696].
5.4 Research Design and Methodology
5.4.1 Research Aims and Objectives
The overall aim of the research is to test and develop the research contextual model (Figure 5.1) to establish if trust can be successfully formed and preserved in client and main contractor partnering relationships.
The specific objectives are:
1. To examine and analysis the inherent risks (column three of the research contextual model) to determine if they are typical risks in client and main contractor partnering relationships and to determine if other inherent risks exist.
2. To examine and analysis the relationship between the dominant relationship and inherent risks (columns two and three of the research contextual model) to determine if the relationship is as the model suggests.
3. To examine and analysis the relationship between the inherent risks and trust fostering tools (columns three and four of the contextual models) to determine if the specific trust fostering tools are successful in reducing the specific inherent risks.
Testing the research contextual model in more depth will determine if the conclusions ascertained by Jin and Ling (2005) are typical and therefore generalizable. The results
from this research will either validate the research contextual model or suggests whys in which it can be modified.
5.4.2 Research strategy
To achieve the research aims and objectives a qualitative based research methodology was undertaken. The nature of this research is to analysis the research contextual model by exploring respondents attitudes and opinions, based on their experience of partnering between clients and main contractors, to the variables and relationships in the model. Qualitative research allows rich and detailed data to be collected as it is subjective, therefore topics can be explored in depth and findings can be explained. Qualitative data also allows the reasons for respondents attitudes and opinions to be explored and understood (Saunders et al, 2003).
An exploratory research method was chosen. Exploratory research is used where there is a limited amount of knowledge about the research topic and is conducted to diagnose a situation, screen alternatives and to discover new ideas (Naoum, 2004). To obtain the exploratory data case studies were undertaken and the data was collected through in depth interviews. The purpose of exploratory interviews is to develop ideas and research hypotheses rather than to gain facts and statistics (Oppenheim, 1996). It is concerned with trying to understand how people think and feel about the topics of concern to the research. The purpose of the in depth interview is to collect perceptions and ideas and to improve the conceptualization of the research problem (Oppenheim, 1996).
The table below shows the use of different types of interview in each of the main qualitative research categories. This table was employed to determine the research method.
Exploratory Structured
Descriptive
Explanatory
Semi-Structured In Depth = more frequent = less frequent
Figure 5.2 Use of different types of interview in each of the main research categories
[Source: Saunders, M, Lewis, P and Thornhill, A. (2003), Research methods for business students. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited].
5.5 The Case Studies
Yin (1993) describes a case study as an empirical inquiry that:
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.
A descriptive case study presents a complete description of a phenomenon within its context (Yin, 1993) and it was decided that the collection of exploratory data through multiple descriptive case studies was the most appropriate method for this research.
Medium and large scale main contractors in the UK were contacted and their experience with partnering agreements with clients was established. The main contractors with partnering experience were then investigated further to establish the number and type of partnering projects undertaken in the last five years and at present. Four current projects and one completed project were then chosen to study and the main contractors contacted to arrange interviews. The commercial manager and project manager responsible for the project were interviewed, and this allowed
detailed data to be collected on the financial perspective and day-to-day management of the actual site.
The choice of case studies was influenced by the following conditions: Confidentiality Typicality and representativeness Time constraints
5.5.1 Confidentiality
Confidentiality was a key issue, as the data collected was based on the main contractors perceptions of their client. Therefore throughout the investigation confidentiality and high ethical standards were maintained. The main contractors and the projects have not been identified here and will be referred to using the project references as shown in Table 5.1. This was stressed to the respondents beforehand so that spontaneous reactions and not carefully thought out positions were provoked and this made the data collected more reliable.
5.5.2 Typicality and Representativeness
The case studies were chosen so that a good spread of respondent characteristics was achieved. As shown in Table 5.1 the following characteristics are significantly different for each project studied:
Project industry sector from civil engineering to support services facilities to new build construction. Main contractors turnover in the specific project industry sector from 70m to 9.1bn. The partnered workload in the specific project industry sector from 25% to 100%.
The number of partnered clients in the specific project industry sector from 1 major client to 15 clients. Project / strategic partnering in the specific project industry sector four of the five case studies involved strategic partnering. Type of contract four of the five case studies had bespoke forms of contract. Selection procedure this varied immensely from a specific client audit to traditionally based formal selection procedures. Project duration from 2 years to 15 years. Project cost from 100m to 7bn. Current project position four of the five case studies were not completed but were reporting programme on time and cost to budget and the completed case study completed on time with a 4% saving on costs. Successful projects were chosen as these are more likely to have utilized some of the trust fostering tools detailed in the research contextual model.
5.5.2 Time Constraints
The case studies had to be limited to five and based on the UK construction industry due to the research time period. It was considered that the rich and detailed exploratory data obtained from a limited number of case studies will allow more substantive conclusions and recommendations to be made than elusive results obtained from a larger number of case studies.
The case studies are presented in Table 5.1 below:
Table 5.1: The case studies
[Designed by the author]
5.6 Interviews
The data was collected through in depth exploratory interviews with the commercial manager and project manager responsible for the specific project investigated in the case study. For each project the commercial manager and project manager had been involved from the pre tender stage and had been involved in the contract negotiations. The people interviewed were based on site and therefore had in depth experience and knowledge of the day to day issues faced on site.
Due to the nature of the interview, there were no fixed questions and the interview was conducted around a list of general topics and areas, as shown in Appendix A. The majority of the questions were open ended and a non directive approach was taken. The respondents were also given a chance to add their own experiences and views on trust in partnering arrangements between clients and main contractors.
This chapter set out to assesses the trust model presented in chapter four (Figure 4.3) and present a modified trust model that will be utilized to carry out this research. The second aim of the chapter was to describe the research design and methodology and present the case studies.
The first part of the chapter assessed the trust model presented in chapter four (Figure 4.3). It was concluded that there were three main limitations of the model. Firstly, it was constructed based on data collected from the Chinese construction industry and therefore the Chinese culture may have influenced the results, and this may make it less applicable to other countries. Secondly, it was described that the model was based on the results of two case studies, and is therefore unlikely to be typical. Thirdly it was explained that there was no tangible evidence to suggest that the case studies
undertaken by Jin and Ling (2005) had been successful as a result of trust fostering tools.
The second part of the chapter presented the research contextual model and the modifications were explained. It was described that the variables of the inherent risks and the trust fostering tools and the project development stages for strategic partnering are to be investigated in the research.
The chapter then went on to describe the research design and methodology. Firstly, the research aim and objectives were presented. The overall research aim is to test the research contextual model (Figure 5.1) to establish if trust can be successfully fostered / engineered in client and main contractor partnering relationships and if this leads to a successful partnering relationship. Three specific objectives related to the testing of the research contextual model were then listed. Next the research strategy was depicted. It was explained that qualitative data was to be collected through an exploratory research method. The chosen method was to undertake case studies and to collect the data through in depth interviews.
The fourth part of the chapter presented the case studies. The process of selecting the appropriate projects and respondents to interview was described and the conditions influencing this selection were expressed to be: confidentiality, typicality and representativeness and time constraints. The case studies were then presented in a table. Finally the interview process was briefly explained and the interview outline presented in Appendix A.
This chapter has described the research design and methodology and the research will now go on to analysis the data collected from the case studies and interviews.
Chapter 6:
Descriptive Analysis of the Results

This aim of this chapter is to analysis the data collected from the case studies and interviews to determine if modifications are required to the research contextual model.
Method of analysis o Analysis of inherent risks to determine typicality o Analysis of relationship between dominant relationship and inherent risk o Analysis of relationship between inherent risk and trust fostering tool to reduce inherent risk
Analysis and evaluation of the results o Analysis and evaluation of inherent risks R1 to R14 and the associated trust fostering tools T1 to T16
6.2 Method of Analysis
The data is presented in accordance with the specific research aims and objectives described in chapters one and five. For each inherent risk and its associated trust fostering tools (columns three and four of the research contextual model) the relevant comments made by the respondents are presented in tables. The tables include a results column which identifies if modifications should be made to the research contextual model. If this was found, the inherent risk or trust fostering tool was then analysed further, in line with the research contextual model and in comparison to research data and conclusions of previous research papers. The method of analysis will be descriptive.
Analysis of inherent risks to determine typicality
The respondents were asked if they had encountered the various inherent risks on their project and if so, to comment on this and to give examples.
Analysis of relationship between dominant relationship and inherent risk
The respondents were asked if they found the inherent risk to be most significant at the specific project development stage, as shown in the research contextual model.
Analysis of relationship between inherent risk and trust fostering tool to reduce inherent risk
Next the respondents were asked if they had encountered the various trust fostering tools, as identified in the research contextual model, and to comment on their significance in reducing the inherent risk. Finally, the respondents were asked for comments on any other trust fostering tools which may reduce the risk.
The respondents have been abbreviated to CM for Commercial Manager and PM for Project Manager followed by the project letter, as identified in Table 5.1.
6.3 Analysis and Evaluation of the Results
The inherent risks, R1 to R13, and their associated trust fostering tools, T1 to T16, as described in the research contextual model (Figure 5.1) were tested through case studies and in depth exploratory interviews and the data collected are presented below. Each section is accompanied by the table of results detailing the respondents answers to each question.
6.3.1 Partners Incompetence (R1)

Table 6.3.1 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of partners incompetence and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of partners incompetence (R1) on their project?
This was not found to be a typical risk as nine of the ten respondents in this research stated that their partner was not incompetent; the only exception was the opinion of CM-D.
The clients indecision was highlighted as a problem in Projects A and E but overall the respondents did not consider this to equate to incompetence. In Project A the client was indecisive regarding programme issues and in Project E the client was slow in issuing variations and this caused some short term tension and frustration between the partners.
Only CM-D described their partner as incompetent. This was due to a perceived lack of financial control by the PQS and the problems this caused the contractor in forecasting cashflows. CM-D gave the example that monies were paid on account for several major variations and then the next month this was significantly reduced without warning or adequate reason. Lazar (2000) highlighted the importance of consistent, co-operative behaviour and described this as the vehicle for establishing the foundations for a fair and equal and ultimately trustful relationship. CM-D was suspicious that the PQS was waiting until the final account to agree the major variations. At this point the client possesses more leverage as the contractor will not want a lengthy final account agreement period which will have a negative affect on cashflow, and to also keep the client satisfied in the interest of the strategic relationship. Black et al (2000) stated that he does not believe that contractors should enter into partnerships with clients with whom they have substantial business as clients prefer the traditional power they have over their suppliers.
Jin and Ling (2005) found that where partners were described as incompetent this was due to a lack of technical experience and local construction knowledge. Partners inexperience was described as a problem in Projects D and E, therefore the inherent risk of Partners Inexperience is to be added to column three (inherent risks) of the research contextual model with the same trust fostering tools as for risk R1 and allocated throughout the project development stages.
Overall, the inherent risk of partners incompetence was not found to be typical in this research as only one of the ten respondents described their partner as incompetent. However, this is a subjective measure and the risk has been found to exist in the research literature, therefore it is to remain in the research contextual model.
Q2 Is the inherent risk of partners incompetence (R1) most significant at pretendering stage?
The majority of the respondents found that this inherent risk was present throughout the project cycle and was not limited to the pre-tendering stage. PM-A and PM-E stated that this is because there could be a change in the partners personnel during any of the project phases, and the buoyancy of the current construction market was cited in relation to this. CM-C and PM-D described that any incompetence or wrong decisions at any of the project stages would have a great impact on the project outcome. However, CM-B and PM-B described that this risk was most significant at pre-tendering stage. This is because the Service Level agreement was drawn up at this stage and this formed the basis of their contract.
Based on these results, this inherent risk will be allocated to the four project development stages and not limited to the pre-tendering stage as in the research contextual model.
Q3 Will seeking a partner with good collaboration experience (T1) reduce the risk of partners incompetence?
Five of the ten respondents found that this tool would have some affect in reducing the risk of partners incompetence. In Project B the clients collaboration experience led to the formation of the Service Level agreement which formed the basis of the successful partnering relationship. PM-D commented that good collaboration experience is important as shows that the client understands and implements the partnering philosophy and therefore will be more likely to form integrated teams.
However, PM-C, PM-D and PM-E all raised the point that it cannot be assumed that there is a relationship between collaboration experience and competency. PM-D and PM-E commented that the competency of one person i.e. the specific clients representative for a project can vary greatly within each organisation. PM-D stated:
Even if the organisation has years of collaboration experience, it only takes one non believer to ruin the relationship. And it is not a simple answer of getting rid of them as these people often have invaluable experience and knowledge in what they do and you cant afford to lose them.
Therefore it cannot be assumed that collaboration experience means that everybody in the organisation displays the appropriate behaviour and acts in line with the partnering philosophy. PM-E distinguished between partnering relationship skills and collaboration skills and stated this varies from person to person and is not necessarily influenced by collaboration experience.
Overall, half of the respondents agreed that this trust fostering tool would have an affect in reducing the risk of partners incompetence and it will remain in the research contextual model.
Q4 Will establishing a good relationship with local partners (T2) reduce the risk of partners incompetence?
All the respondents stated that the nature of the various industry sectors did not lend themselves to the selection of local partners and this would decrease their scope of clients and projects. PM-B and PM-E also stressed that a partners competence at project level is dependent on the individual and this is not affected by locality.
Jin and Ling (2005) added this inherent risk to the research contextual model as one of their respondents, a Singaporean developer, was worried about social and cultural differences when making overseas investments and therefore chose to invest in China because of the similar culture. This problem was not encountered in this research as all the organisations in the case studies are UK based.
This research has shown that this is not a typical or effective tool in reducing the inherent risk of partners incompetence and this tool is to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q5 Will involving the contractor in the project at an early stage (T3) reduce the risk of partners incompetence?
A strong emphasis was placed on the integrated team in relation to partners competence. In Project A the contractor was involved at the concept and design stages and this allowed a greater integrated team. The importance of the contractors early involvement in the project was stated by Jin and Ling (2005) as it could improve constructability and value engineering and compliment other parties weaknesses. The integrated team allowed more open communication and this was seen in Projects B and D where the clients were willing to seek and act upon the contractors advice. PM-C stated that he has day to day dealings with the clients representative and he is easy to get hold of. This is different to some traditional relationships where significant contact is only made between the client and contractor when problems arise.
Based on these results this trust fostering tool is to be modified to Involving the contractor in the project at an early stage and establishing an integrated team.
Q6 Do you think there are any other trust fostering tools that would reduce the risk of partners incompetence?
The respondents from Projects A and B stated that continuous benchmarking; measurement and feedback mechanisms would reduce this risk. To ensure competence the performance of the contractor and client was continually monitored against specified benchmarks in Projects A and B. A sophisticated Service Level agreement was established in Project B. Subjective and objective targets were set, e.g. budget and programme targets and partners perception on communication and responsiveness of their partner etc The client and contractor meet every three months to discuss the performance of both parties and the results against the Service
Level agreement are displayed in the clients and contractors office. The agreement is also included in inductions for new facilities management staff employed by the contractor.
Therefore the trust fostering tool of Implementing a progress evaluation system (T14) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R1 is a risk in the pre-tendering, tendering, construction and post construction stages, and (2) R15 (Partners inexperience) also exists at these stages, and (3) T1, T3 (modified to Involving the contractor in the project at an early stage and establishing an integrated team) and T14 may be effective in reducing R1 and R15 risks (see Figure 7.2), and T2 is to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to R1 and R15 risks.
6.3.2 Partners Exploitation (R2)

Table 6.3.2 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of partners exploitation and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of partners exploitation (R2) on their project?
Exploitation by the client had not been encountered in Projects A, B and C but various forms of exploitation were seen in Projects D and E.
Although the respondents in Project A stated they did not feel they were being exploited by the client, it was acknowledged that the client does not consistently act in accordance with the partnering philosophy. The project manager highlighted that the client had made late decisions regarding programme and this caused the contractor problems in programming and sequencing the works:
He feels he is entitled to make decisions late and we have to then make it work and not complain because we are partners.
Therefore the contractor was expected to absorb the problems caused by the clients late decisions in the spirit of partnering. Wood (2005) and Lazar (2000) also concluded that in some cases the client feels it is the contractor who needs to change to accommodate the spirit of partnering.
The respondents for Project D stated that they are being exploited as it is not a winwin outcome. PM-D stated that the client does not view them as equals in the partnering relationship:
At times it seems that it is all one way, we undertake variations without instructions and sometimes payment, but receive nothing in return. And although the client has not stated this, I feel that he thinks this is acceptable and is the basis of the partnering agreement.
CM-D also held this view and commented that the payments are hit and miss as the PQS does not feel that he has to be thorough or fair in his valuations. Wood and Ellis (2005) and Black et al (2000) also concluded that clients still have a deep rooted cost agenda, and as a result they expect to reduce costs, or to pass costs and risks down the supply chain, and thereby do not genuinely adopt a win-win attitude. Exploitation also existed in Project E as the contractor had to absorb extra costs in the form of claims. A two hundred and fifty thousand pound disruption claim was
received by the contractor from their concrete frame subcontractor. This delay and disruption was partly caused by pre start demolition works not completed by the client. The client responded that the concrete frame should have been started later and the works accelerated. However, due to the tight programme this was not possible and would have caused the project to be completed late and substantial LADs to be incurred. The respondents commented that is was a no win situation for them. PM-E also commented that there was little understanding from the client and it was a huge struggle at the end.
Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) also found that in three of their eight case studies of partnering agreements the main contractor absorbed any extra costs to maintain a good relationship with the client and to increase the chance of gaining future work. CM-C commented that due to the high contract LADs they could not afford to finish any section of the works late, therefore if the client choose to exploit the contractor they would have to accept any additional costs in the short term and seek remedy under the contract later. However, the client holds the dominant position due to strategic alliances and the possibility of future work. Lazar (2000) states that unconditional agreement is not required for co-operative behaviour, and unconditional agreement in a partnering arrangement is a losing strategy.
Overall, exploitation has been found to be evident in two of the five case studies and this inherent risk will remain in the research contextual model.
Q2 Is the inherent risk of partners exploitation (R2) most significant at the tendering stage?
The majority of the respondents stated that exploitation is most evident during the construction stage. This is because exploitation is closely linked with project problems and the most significant and costly problems are most likely to occur during the construction phase. PM-A and PM-D stated that this is because of the long construction phase in comparison to the other phases. It was acknowledged that the feasibility of exploitation was determined in the tendering stage, as this is when the contract is drawn up, and this was especially significant for Projects B and C as this
was a contract / charter that underpins the partnering philosophy and the way the parties will behave in the partnering relationship.
Based on these results, this inherent risk will be allocated to the tendering and construction stages in the research contextual model.
Q3 Will seeking a partner with good collaboration experience (T1) reduce the risk of partners exploitation?
Only CM-E and PM-E agreed that seeking a partner with good collaboration experience will reduce the risk of partners exploitation. They stated that the PQS and clients representative on their project had little collaboration experience and this was evident through their behaviour and attitudes towards the contractor. CM-E stated:
They did not understand what partnering in practice was and used it as a tool to reduce their costs.
PM-E commented that even though the client now has more collaboration experience, his experience is of an unfair partnering agreement where he exploited the contractor. Therefore PM-E stated that this trust fostering tool should be clarified to a good collaboration experience and understanding and implementation of the partnering philosophy. CM-C, CM-D and PM-D also supported this view.
The other respondents from Projects A to D did not agree that there was a relationship between collaboration experience and exploitation and PM-C commented that exploitation often depends on the specific circumstances of the project. This view is supported by the research literature as it was found that there was the suspicion that clients would wield their greater power and leverage and return to old adversarial habits during difficult times in the project (Black et al, 2000; Wood, 2005; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a; Jackson, 2006; Jin and Ling, 2005).
Jin and Ling (2005) and Cheng et al (2000) concluded that exploitation did not occur where suitable partners were sought with cooperative experiences and careful
examination of the values, capabilities and backgrounds of potential candidates must be carried out to obtain an appropriate partner. The selection procedure for each project was studied and all the projects involved a formal selection procedure with an emphasis on the candidates attitudes on partnering. However, Project E saw the most organised selection procedure, lasting one year, but this project encountered the most problems in terms of exploitation. This shows that contractors have limited power in vetting clients, and due to the size and duration of the strategic partnering projects, the client can maintain leverage over its supply chain. Wood (2005) also claims that the assertion that partners should be equal is over optimistic and is overridden by economic realism.
Overall, it was found that seeking a partner with good collaboration experience does not reduce the risk of partners exploitation and this trust fostering tool is to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q4 Will drafting a clear and unambiguous contract (T4) reduce the risk of partners exploitation?
The respondents from Projects B and C agreed that a clear and unambiguous contract reduced the risk of partners exploitation but the other six respondents did not agree that there was a relationship between this inherent risk and trust fostering tool.
The main contract in Project C is an Alliance Agreement that combines target cost with gain share and relies on working in a no claims environment. There is also an element of combined risk share and risk management. The comments made by the respondents in Project C show that this unambiguous form of contract has allowed the parties to adopt the correct attitudes and behaviour in line with the partnering philosophy. The Service Level agreement in Project B forms the basis of the contract and this has reduced the risk of exploitation. Jin and Ling (2005) also concluded that unambiguous contracts prohibited any behaviour that bore short term benefits. It should also be noted that CM-A attributed the lack of exploitation to the good relationship with the client and not the partnering agreement. This shows that there is
little confidence in the partnering agreement unless it is supported by an unambiguous contract that underlines the partnering philosophy. The respondents from Project D agreed that the contract should incorporate the partnering ideals, and this trust fostering tool should be clarified to include this.
CM-A stated in reality the contract is often side stepped in negotiations:
In practice any disagreements are always subject to a deal at the end of the project, because no-one wants to go to adjudication or litigation, especially not in a partnering agreement as this would be seen by the outside world as a massive failure.
PM-A stated they had already experienced this as they had accepted late programming decisions, without compensation, in the interest of keeping the client happy and securing future work. Exploitation in a clear and unambiguous contract was also seen in Project E.
Based on these results this trust fostering tool is to be modified to A clear and unambiguous contract which incorporates the partnering philosophy.
Q5 Will gaining the support of top management (T5) reduce the risk of partners exploitation?
Only the respondents from Project C agreed that the support of top management will reduce the risk of partners exploitation. Due to the large size and complexity of their project a dedicated management business was set up and this enabled the business to focus on the partnering philosophy and ensure everyone understood it and was compliant with it.
However, this is an unusual situation, and the other respondents cited that due to the large size of their organisations it is difficult to filter top management views down to project level. This was especially evident in Project E where there was a one year selection period as the clients top management was committed to partnering, but this
commitment was not evident at project level. Bresnen and Marshall (2002) also found that partnering commitments were not seen in all levels of organisations.
This research has shown that this is not a typical or effective tool in reducing the inherent risk of partners exploitation and this tool is to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q7 Do you think there are any other trust fostering tools that would reduce the risk of partners exploitation?
There was some scepticism that exploitation could be reduced and this was supported in the research literature where there was still suspicion about clients power and leverage over the contractor (Wood, 2005 and Black et al, 2000). Overall the conventional view remained that ultimately the clients and contractors objectives were still in conflict. However, CM-C, CM-D and CM-E all suggested that a true understanding of the partnering philosophy and the attitudes and behaviour that have to be adopted to achieve it would reduce the risk of exploitation. Therefore a new trust fostering tool of Hold formal workshops for partnering philosophy understanding (T17) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
PM-B also added that continuous benchmarking and feedback facility would reduce this risk, therefore the trust fostering tool of Implement a progress evaluation system (T14) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R2 is a risk in the tendering and construction stages, and (2) T4 (modified to A clear and unambiguous contract which incorporates the partnering philosophy), T6, T14 and T17 may be
effective in reducing R2 risk (see Figure 7.2), and T1 and T5 are to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to R2 risk.
6.3.3 Improper Contractual Agreement (R3)

Table 6.3.3 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of an improper contractual agreement and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of an improper contractual agreement (R3) on their project?
All the respondents stated that there was a proper contractual agreement on their project but there were variances as to the satisfaction with the contractual agreement once construction had started.
The respondents from Projects A, B and C stated that they are satisfied with the contractual terms of the main contract. In Project A the client and main contractor have worked together for the last ten years and all the important contractual terms were negotiated and agreed. PM-A also stated that it is not an overly complicated contract and allows them to get on with the job in hand. This again shows that there is a fully integrated team between all the parties on this project and the main aim is to complete the project on time and to budget, and the parties actions are not ruled by individual organisational aims, that would have resulted in a more complex contract.
The contract in Project B is based on the Service Level agreement and this was based on the experiences of the previous projects between the client and contractor. Again, there is an emphasis on the project itself, and the agreement focuses on the scope of contract deliverables. The contract in Project C is a bespoke step-down contract from the client and rail provider. The contract combines target cost with gain share and relies on integrated working in a no claims environment and there is also an element of combined risk share and risk management. This contract was also stepped down to the subcontracts and there have been no problems with the subcontracts to date.
The contracts in Projects D and E are also based on partnering agreements but the respondents from these projects stated that in hindsight, based on the problems they have encountered, there should also have been a partnering charter that described the behaviour the parties would have to adopt and the expectations of the parties. PM-D highlighted that a lot of time was spent during the selection process on the attitudes of the contractor towards partnering and how the partnering agreement would work but this was not incorporated into the contract:
I have not witnessed a partnering attitude from the client. In fact, it is difficult to say how this is fundamentally different to traditional contracts.
The contract in Project E had pain / gain share mechanisms but this was not properly implemented. PM-E stated that a partnering charter should have been included that stated the parties expectations and he would have included being paid for all disruption and delay caused by the client, and not to be made to feel unreasonable that we are claiming the extra costs.
Wood (2005) agrees that the use of pain / gain sharing mechanisms in partnering arrangements is common, although the nature and equity of the win-win outcomes are variable. Black et al (2000) took this further and agreed that there is not an equitable sharing of the benefits which are derived from the use of partnering, and clients are believed to be the greatest beneficiaries of the approach. The results from this research support Wood and Elliss (2005) conclusion that partnering is still a long way from returning tangible benefits to the contractor because clients still have a deep rooted cost agenda, and as a result they expect to reduce costs, or to pass costs and risks down the supply chain, and thereby do not genuinely adopt a win-win attitude.
Overall, an improper contractual agreement has been found to be evident in two of the five case studies and this inherent risk will remain in the research contextual model.
Q3 Will seeking a partner with good collaboration experience (T1) reduce the risk of an improper contractual agreement?
The respondents from Project A to D agreed that their clients collaboration experience contributed to the proper contractual agreement. The respondents from Project E disagreed, as their client had little collaboration experience but overcame this by undertaking a lengthy selection process and seeking advice on the partnering agreements and incentives to be incorporated into the contract. Therefore collaboration experience was not vital for a proper contractual agreement to be drawn up. Based on these results, this trust fostering tool will remain in the research contextual model.
Q4 Will drafting a clear and unambiguous contract (T4) reduce the risk of an improper contractual agreement?
All the respondents agreed that a clear and unambiguous contract will reduce the risk of an improper contractual agreement. However, CM-D and CM-E commented that the contractual terms were thoroughly negotiated and a proper contractual agreement was in place but they still encountered problems, as the client did not act in line with the contract. Therefore these projects could have benefited from a partnering charter incorporated into the contract to define the behaviour and attitudes of the parties. Much of the research literature supports the view that partnering behaviour cannot effectively evolve and has to be engineered (Black et al, 2000; Wood, 2005; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a; Jackson, 2006; Jin and Ling, 2005). The case of Birse Construction Ltd v St David Ltd (1999) shows that the law is moving towards a position where co-operation between the contracting parties imposes other obligations, and courts may imply a duty to act in good faith and to conduct behaviour in a way conducive to maintaining confidence and trust in partnering contracts to preserve the reasonable expectations of the parties (Brown, 2001).
This trust fostering tool will remain in the research contextual model, but a new trust fostering tool of Partnering charter to define partners behaviour (T18) will be added in relation to this inherent risk.
Q5 Will adhering to the mutual goals and objectives (T6) reduce the risk of an improper contractual agreement?
All the respondents agreed that mutual goals and objectives reduce the risk of an improper contractual agreement. Again, CM-D and PM-E commented that a partnering charter will help the parties to define and align their goals and partnering behaviour. PM-D stated that the client has his own aims for this project and this has made us revert back to our own organisational aims in defence. Lazar (2000) studied in depth strategies of behaviour and concluded that parties mirror each others moves (see Figure 2.3). Therefore if the client exploits the partnering relationship the contractor
will respond in the same way, as has happened in Project D. Wong and Cheung (2004) also found that satisfactory terms will encourage contractors to adopt a more cooperative approach and therefore it is crucial for partners to formulate agreed and equitable contract terms at the beginning of the project. This did not happen in Project D and this shows that some partnering relationships are fragile and unstable, mainly because there is the underlying belief that the other party will take an unfair advantage given the opportunity to do so, and some clients are unwilling to be locked into long term dependence on an organisation that they have been historically mistrustful and suspicious of.
Based on these results this trust fostering tool is to remain in the research contextual model and the new trust fostering tool of Partnering charter to define partners behaviour (T18) will be added in relation to this inherent risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R3 is a risk in the tendering stage, and (2) T1, T4, T6 and T18 may be effective in reducing R3 risk (see Figure 7.2).
6.3.4 Unfairness in tendering (R4)

Table 6.3.4 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of unfairness in tendering and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of unfairness in tendering (R4) on their project?
All the respondents stated that they did not encounter any unfairness in the tendering procedure. Project A was an exceptional case, as they won a chartered institute of purchasing and suppliers award for best partnership. This was because this client and main contractor have worked together for the last ten years and the tendering process was based on the partners previous projects and contracts.
This research has shown that an unfair tendering process is not a typical inherent risk, but there is still a chance it could be encountered, as shown in Jin and Lings (2005) case study where government intervention led to a main contractor being awarded the contract even though it had no experience in housing construction, and it will be kept in the research contextual model.
Q3 Will seeking a partner with good collaboration experience (T1) reduce the risk of unfairness in tendering?
The general consensus was that good collaboration experience can reduce the risk, but if the client does not possess this experience advice can be sought from elsewhere to ensure it is a fair tendering process.
PM-B and PM-C commented that a client with good collaboration experience can still be unfair in the tendering process. PM-C added this was dependent on his economic constraints at the time. Green (1999) and Wood (2005) also claim that often partnering literature glosses over the harsh economic realities of the commercial buyer / seller relationships.
CM-D and PM-D also highlighted the importance of their early involvement in the tendering process and the opportunities they had to give advice to the client, e.g. regarding construction methods and programme. Based on these results this trust fostering tool is to remain in relation to this inherent risk, and a new trust fostering tool of Partner seeks collaboration advice (T19) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q4 Will drafting a clear and unambiguous contract (T4) reduce the risk of unfairness in tendering?
The respondents did not agree that a clear and unambiguous contract reduced the risk of an improper contractual agreement. The majority of the respondents thought that the tendering process and contractual negotiations were separate project development stages and PM-A and PM-C added that this trust fostering tool is more appropriate for the inherent of an improper contractual agreement (R3).
Based on these results, this trust fostering tool is to be removed in relation to this inherent risk.
Q5 Will adhering to the mutual goals and objectives (T6) reduce the risk of unfairness in tendering?
All the respondents agreed that adhering to mutual goals and objectives will reduce the risk of unfairness in tendering. CM-A, PM-A and PM-B commented that it is important that all the parties understand that partnering is based on best value and not lowest cost. PM-C stated that the tendering process for partnering agreements is fairer than traditional contracts because of the aligned objective of best value:
On more traditional tendering processes it has been a case of well contractor B is offering it for a million less, can you match that. I am glad to be away from that stressful environment.
Beach et al (2005) agree that much continues to depend on the willingness of clients to accept that best value and not cost minimisation represents a more effective and efficient means of achieving a projects goals. The results here show that Wood and Elliss (2005) assertion that the commercial imperative and competitive ethos remains is not representative of all partnering projects.
CM-B and CM-D added that mutual goals and objectives meant that there were no hidden agendas in the tendering process and this made it fairer.
Based on these results, this trust fostering tool will remain in the research contextual model in relation to this inherent risk.
Q6 Will instituting practices to prevent corruption (T7) reduce the risk of unfairness in tendering?
All the respondents commented that the Office of Fair Trading already exists in the UK for this. Jin and Ling (2005) added this trust fostering tool as the respondents in their first case study were concerned about unfairness in tendering because government intervention led to the main contractor being awarded the contract even though it had no experience in housing construction. This is a unique situation and therefore this trust fostering tool will be removed from the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R4 is a risk in the tendering stage, and (2) T1, T6, T19 may be effective in reducing R4 risk (see Figure 7.2), and T4 and T7 are to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to R4 risk.
6.3.5 Partners Project Personnel Lacking Interpersonal Skills (R5)

Table 6.3.5 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of partners project personnel lacking interpersonal skills and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of partners projects personnel lacking interpersonal skills (R5) on their project?
The risk of partners project personnel lacking interpersonal skills was encountered on Projects B, D and E but not Projects A and C. CM-A and PM-A have developed a close relationship with the PQS and clients representative respectively and they maintain regular contact. In Project C a dedicated contract management business was
set up to deliver the huge project and the respondents commented that due to the complex nature of the project, total co-operation and understanding is demanded and expected at all times.
Problems relating to the clients personnel lack of interpersonal skills were evident in Projects B, D and E. In Project B this was stated as a lack of clients patience and understanding when problems arose outside of the contractors control. PM-D described that the client avoided discussing and agreeing problems:
When there was a problem with the quality of concrete column finishes I suggested we meet on site and discuss and agree the solution there and then but he was not interested.
Similarly in Project E the client avoided commitment to agreement on variations and solutions of problems on site and this caused tension and frustration between the parties.
These problems could be attributed to a lack of integrity trust in the relationship. The client may still belief that the contractor is taking an unfair advantage and exaggerating the variation cost or problem (Lazar, 2000). Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) also concluded that integrity trust was still missing in partnering agreements between clients and main contractors. They showed that respondents still reported a good deal of formal correspondence and paperwork as it is accepted and expected that parties regress to traditional management styles and adversarial behaviour at times of trouble.
Overall, the research has shown that this is a typical inherent risk and it will remain in the research contextual model.
Q2 Is the inherent risk of partners projects personnel lacking interpersonal skills (R5) most significant at the construction stage?
All the respondents agreed that this risk was most significant at the construction stage. CM-A, CM-B and CM-D stated that is a risk throughout the project cycle as interpersonal skills form the basis of any relationship and the client and contractor maintain a relationship throughout the project. Based on these results this risk will be allocated to each of the project development stages.
Q3 Will seeking a partner with good collaboration (T1) reduce the risk of partners project personnel lacking interpersonal skills?
Only the respondents in Projects A and C agreed that seeking a partner with good collaboration experience would reduce this inherent risk. The other respondents stated that this trust fostering tool will not necessarily reduce the risk as it ultimately depends on the interpersonal skills of the individual. PM-B, CM-D and PM-D stated that their clients had many years of collaboration experience, but the individual at site level, either the PQS or clients representative did not have interpersonal skills in line with the partnering philosophy. PM-E stated that:
The client's representative had interpersonal skills that were more appropriate to traditional control and command structures as he did not have any collaboration experience.
Bresnen and Marshall (2002) also found that when problems were encountered there was reversion at times to more traditional command and control structures. This shows the difficulty in translating the partnering protocol at lower / project levels, as in practice the partners showed some degree of caution and uncertainty about how the team arrangements would work. Based on these results this trust fostering tool is to remain in the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q5 Do you think there are any other trust fostering tools that would reduce the risk of partners project personnel lacking interpersonal skills?
PM-A, CM-B and PM-E suggested that the client should be trained in how the contractor expects him to behave in the partnering agreement, such as an expectations exchange incorporated into a partnering charter. Therefore the new trust fostering tool of Hold formal workshops for partnering philosophy understanding (T17) is to be added to the research contextual model.
Also, based on CM-C and CM-Ds comments the trust fostering tools of Adhere to the mutual goals and objectives (T6) and Seek partner with similar culture (T10) are to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R5 is a risk in the pre-tendering, tendering, construction and post construction stages, and (2) T1, T6, T9, T10 and T17 may be effective in reducing R5 risk (see Figure 7.2).
6.3.6 Partners Distrust and Misunderstanding (R6)

Table 6.3.6 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding (R6) on their project?
Only two of the partnering projects (Projects A and C) had not experienced clients distrust and misunderstanding. The other projects had experienced problems which the respondents attributed to a lack of trust and understanding in the relationship.
PM-B, PM-D, CM-E and PM-E all commented that they feel the client does not trust them and is suspicious of their motives. PM-E stated:
He (the Clients Representative) felt he had to check everything that we told him, like he suspected us of taking an unfair advantage given the opportunity to do so.
Jin and Ling (2005) also found that that there was an underlying belief by the client that the contractor would take an unfair advantage given the opportunity to do so, and the most commonly cited example of this was contractors taking advantage of change orders to increase their profit margin. Wood and Ellis (2005) commented that this distrust still exists because clients and main contractors seem unwilling to be locked into long term dependence on an organisation that they have been historically mistrustful and suspicious of.
The results show that this is a common inherent risk and it is therefore to remain in the research contextual model.
Q3 Will seeking a partner with good collaboration (T1) reduce the risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding?
Only PM-B, CM-D and PM-D stated that seeking a partner with good collaboration experience would not reduce the risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding. The other respondents in Projects A, B and C stated that their many years collaboration experience with their client had allowed a trustful relationship to develop. CM-E and PM-E partnered with a client with no previous collaboration experience and stated that this was evident through his behaviour. CM-E explained:
I think he (the PQS) was suspicious of our motives and did not believe that we were truly committed to partnering and we were paying lip service to it.
Therefore even though the contractor went through a lengthy one year selection process and was assessed thoroughly on his attitudes and commitment to partnering
there were still suspicions regarding his motives. The research literature identified that there has yet to be a fundamental shift in culture and practice in the construction industry (Black, 2000; Wood, 2005; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a; Jackson, 2006; Jin and Ling, 2005) and there is the suspicion that some partners are paying lip service to the partnering philosophy (Jackson, 2006 and Mosey, 1999).
Overall, the majority of the respondents agreed that this trust fostering tool would have some affect in reducing the inherent risk and it is to remain in the research contextual model.
Q4 Will establishing a good relationship with local partners (T2) reduce the risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding?
All the respondents stated that this trust fostering tool would not reduce the risk, either because the specific industry sector is not regionally defined, or it would limit their scope of clients and projects. Therefore this trust fostering tool is to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q6 Will adhering to mutual goals and objectives (T6) reduce the risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding?
The respondents on Projects A, B and C agreed that adhering to mutual goals and objectives had reduced the risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding on their projects, but this view was not held by the respondents on Projects D and E. Projects A and B had specific vehicles for defined project goals and objectives. On Project A the client and contractor worked towards agreed KPIs and this led to a Best Partnership award. On Project B the parties worked towards the objectives set out in the Service Level agreement and this made it patent that projects aims were put above organisational aims. PM-C added that mutual goals and objectives made it clear there were no hidden agendas.
However the respondents on Projects D and E stated that they had mutual goals and objectives but this did not stop the client distrusting them. PM-D commented that:
The client must therefore think that we have our own separate agendait will take time to dispel the view of the traditional adversarial contractor.
PM-E stated that although the client and contractor work towards mutual objectives on their project, there was still an air of suspicion about it. Thomas et al (2002) interviewed industry experts and concluded that clients were still instinctively suspicious in partnering relationships and this leads to adversarial win-lose attitudes. This theory also complies with Lazars (2000) strategies of behaviour theory.
Beach et al (2005) concluded that partnering will take time and is more likely to be successful when old organisational cultures are eliminated. Bresnen and Marshall (2000c) also conclude that partners need to foster a culture where organisations aim to achieve separate yet complimentary objectives. Therefore the trust fostering tool of Seek partner with similar culture (T10) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this inherent risk.
Overall this has been an effective trust fostering tool on three of the projects and will remain in the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q9: Will adopting joint problem solving philosophy (T12) reduce this risk?
All the projects had adopted a joint problem solving philosophy but the effectiveness of this in reducing the inherent risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding varied. The respondents from Projects A to C stated that it did reduce the inherent risk. On Projects A and B joint problem solving philosophy aided openness between the parties and halted the escalation of problems. CM-B added that it allows trust to develop as neither party is suspicious that the other has a claims file ready. The
respondents from Project C stated it allowed them to focus on the project and not worry about incurring LADs; therefore they did not have to adopt a self protection mode. Thomas et al (2002) had found that partnering participants regularly adopted a self protection mode due to the pressures placed on the budget and a lack of trust in each others motives.
The respondents from Projects D and E stated that a joint problem solving philosophy had not stopped the client distrusting them. PM-E explained that he did not want to address the problem of the clients distrust as it would have made the relationship awkward. Dozzi et al (1996) concluded that many contract disputes are known about by at least one party for a long time before they are dealt with and contractors save claims until the project is complete or almost complete because they do not want to destroy the relationship with the client.
Overall, this has been found to be an effective trust fostering tool in three of the five case studies and it will remain in the research contextual model in relation to this inherent risk.
Q10: Will adhering to defined roles and responsibilities (T13) reduce the risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding?
All the case studies had client and contractor defined roles and responsibilities but the effectiveness of this in reducing the risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding varied.
The respondents on Projects A and C agreed that the defined roles and responsibilities reduced waste and conflict of resources and this reduced the risk of misunderstanding. PM-A commented that some overlap, e.g. advice on programming and sequencing of works, helped build an integrated team based on trust. However in Project B the client and contractor had roles as defined in the Service Level agreement but in one instance the client did not believe that the contractor was being truthful in regards to lead in times on vending machines that needed replacing. Therefore the client checked this with the suppliers. PM-E stated this really got my back up and led to a short
term breakdown in trust. Lazar (2000) describes that in a relationship where trust has existed and then been destroyed, the relationship becomes even more aggressively adversarial and destructive than relationships in which it had never been allowed to develop. Therefore this one act by the client could have long term consequences for the partnering relationship.
The respondents from Projects D and E stated that defined roles and responsibilities had not stopped the client distrusting them. These results conflict with Bresnen and Marshalls (2002) research which showed that the division of labour between clients and contractors was still quite traditional as evidenced by continuing overlap in key roles.
Overall, this has been found to be an effective trust fostering tool in three of the five case studies and it will remain in the research contextual model in relation to this inherent risk.
Q11: Do you think there are any other trust fostering tools that would reduce the risk of partners distrust and misunderstanding?
The respondents from Project E stated that the support of all personnel in the partners organisations would reduce the risk, therefore a new tool of Gain support of all partners personnel (T20) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R6 is a risk in the construction stage, and (2) T1, T5, T6, T8, T10, T11, T12, T13 and T20 may be effective in reducing R6 risk (see Figure 7.2), and T2 is to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to R6 risk.
6.3.7 Insufficient Communication among Partners (R7)

Table 6.3.7 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of insufficient communication among partners and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of insufficient communication among partners (R7) on their project?
Three of the ten respondents stated that they had encountered the inherent risk of insufficient communication among partners on their projects. PM-D and PM-E commented that they had tried to communicate freely and openly with the clients representative but he is not interested. PM-E stated:
When there was a problem with the party wall I suggested we meet on site and resolve it immediately, but he preferred to correspond about the problem instead.
Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) also found that in some cases clients still insisted on their right to make decisions late or slowly. Brown (2001) studied the case of Birse Construction Ltd v St David Ltd (1999) and concluded that if the parties have agreed to co-operate they must not do anything inconsistent with this obligation to cooperate. Therefore partners need to conduct themselves in a way conducive to maintaining co-operation, confidence and trust and should not do anything to destroy the co-operation ethos arising from partnering agreements. This research has shown that this has yet to be acknowledged and implemented in all partnering agreements.
Overall, this research has shown that this inherent risk exists in partnering agreements and it will remain in the research contextual model.
Q3 Will seeking a partner with good collaboration experience (T1) reduce the risk of insufficient communication among partners?
The respondents from Projects A and D stated that seeking a partner with good collaboration experience would not necessarily reduce the risk of insufficient communication among partners.
CM-A and PM-E commented that on their projects communication skills were down to the individuals involved and this was seen in Project D where the clients representative and PQS were reluctant to communicate openly with the contractor. Wood (2005) agrees that the behaviour of individuals has a large impact on the partnering agreement and suggests that this behaviour needs to be monitored on a project by project basis. Therefore the new trust fostering tool of Gain support of all partners personnel (T20) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, this has been found to be an effective trust fostering tool in three of the five case studies and it will remain in the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q7 Will seeking a partner with a similar culture (T10) reduce the risk of insufficient communication among partners?
The respondents from Projects B to E agreed that seeking a partner with a similar culture had, or would have, reduced the risk of insufficient communication among partners on their project. Therefore this trust fostering tool is to remain in the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
However, the respondents from Project A stated that seeking a partner with the same background and expertise would be more effective in reducing this risk. PM-A and the clients representative on Project A had the same technical background and this was found to be more effective in aiding communication.
Wood (2005) found that effecting cultural and behavioural changes within large and complex organisations is difficult and therefore in the short term seeking a partner with similar experiences would be more effective in reducing this risk. Therefore a new trust fostering tool of Seek partner with similar construction experiences (T21) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R7 is a risk in the construction stage, and (2) T1, T3, T8, T9, T10, T11, T12, T20 and T21 may be effective in reducing R7 risk (see Figure 7.2).
6.3.8 Partners Short Term Focus (R8)

Table 6.3.8 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of partners short term focus and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of partners short term focus (R8) on their project?
Only the respondents from Project E stated that their client had a short term focus. This was seen by the clients focus on cost as the contractor had to absorb a large claim from a subcontractor, part of which was recoverable from the client under the contract. CM-E explained:
It was obvious that it was project partnering and not strategic partnering and this made us question if we would want to work with this client again as I think he used the fact that we were partners to take advantage of us.
Therefore the effects of the clients short term focus displays similarities to the effects of exploitation. Thomas et al (2002) also found that contractors perceived that clients did not recognise the requirement for compromise and the long term team approach especially when heavy financial burdens were encountered. Lazar (2000) studied strategies of behaviour and concluded that if a client demands that a contractor absorbs a claim, i.e. assume a short term vulnerable position as a token of trust, then this builds a false collaborative relationship that frequently precedes opportunism. Therefore Lazar (2000) suggested that behaviour monitoring and a feedback mechanism is needed, and based on these results a new trust fostering tool of Implement a behaviour evaluation system (T22) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q2 Is the inherent risk of partners projects short term focus (R8) most significant at the construction stage?
All the respondents agreed that this risk was most significant at the construction stage but it was also found to be evident at the tendering and post construction stages. CMA and CM-C stated it was significant at the tendering stage as a clients short term focus could influence contractual terms, especially risk allocation. CM-B and PM-B found that short term focus could also be a risk at the post construction stage in strategic alliances. Based on these results this risk is to be allocated to the tendering, construction and post construction stages in the research contextual model.
Q8: Do you think there are any other trust fostering tools that would reduce the risk of partners short term focus?
PM-A, PM-C, PM-D, CM-E and PM-E all found that a lack of support from the clients personnel at site level increased the risk of partners short term focus. CM-E stated:
The clients top management supported the partnering agreement but this attitude and behaviour was not filtered down to the lower levels.
Based on this results the new trust fostering tool of Gain support of all partners personnel (T20) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
CM-D and CM-E also commented that a partnering charter incorporating the long term objectives of both parties would have reduced this risk. CM-E explained:
The long term benefits that both parties wanted to gain from the partnership should have been included in a charter in the contract and then we could have pulled the client up on his behaviour in relation to this.
Based on these results the new trust fostering tool of Partnering charter to define partners behaviour (T18) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R8 is a risk in the tendering, construction and post construction stages, and (2) T1, T5, T6, T11, T12, T18, T20 and T22 may be effective in reducing R8 risk (see Figure 7.2).
6.3.9 Partners Breach of Contract (R9)

Table 6.3.9 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of partners breach of contract and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of partners breach of contract (R9) on their project?
A partners breach of contract was experienced on Projects D and E. In Project D the PQS did not value the monthly applications for payment by the contractor fairly and kept on insisting for more information even though all the relevant information had been submitted. In Project E the contractor was forced to absorb a delay and disruption claim, part of which was recoverable from the client under the contract.
Wood (2005) also concluded that clients sometimes resort to cost driven behaviour and adopt partnering arrangements to obtain leverage over their supply chain. Bresnen and Marshall (2002) also found this to be evident as a main concern of clients was a perceived lack of commercial edge to partnering arrangements.
Based on these results, this inherent risk is to remain in the research contextual model.
Q2 Is the inherent risk of partners breach of contract (R9) most significant at the construction stage?
All the respondents agreed that this risk was most significant at the construction stage but it was also found to be evident at the post construction stage. CM-B, PM-B and PM-D commented it was significant at the post construction stage in terms of issue of completion certificates and release of retention. Based on these results this risk is to be allocated to the construction and post construction stages in the research contextual model.
Q3 Will seeking a partner with good collaboration experience (T1) reduce the risk of partners breach of contract?
Five of the ten respondents from the five case studies found that seeking a partner with good collaboration experience would reduce the risk of partners breach of contract. However, CM-A, PM-A, PM-B, CM-D and PM-D stated that it depends more on the individuals professionalism than their collaboration experience. The risk of a partner acting unprofessionally is not addressed in the research literature, because it is assumed that all professionals will act in a professional manner.
Based on these results, this trust fostering tool is to remain in the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q6 Will holding formal workshops for relationship building (T11) reduce the risk of partners breach of contract?
Five of the ten respondents from the case studies found that holding formal workshops for relationship building would not reduce the risk of partners breach of contract. Regular meetings were held in Projects D and E but the client did not use it as an opportunity to commit to decisions and PM-D commented that this is because they had not come into it with an open mind. Black et al (2000) also concluded that a flexible attitude was needed for partnering relationships to be a success.
Based on these results, this trust fostering tool is to remain in the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q8: Do you think there are any other trust fostering tools that would reduce the risk of partners breach of contract?
CM-D, PM-D and CM-E all found that a lack of support from the clients personnel at site level increased the risk of partners breach of contract. Based on this results the new trust fostering tool of Gain support of all partners personnel (T20) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
CM-D and CM-E also commented that a partnering charter incorporating the long term objectives of both parties would have reduced this risk. Based on these results the new trust fostering tools of Partnering charter to define partners behaviour (T18) and Implement a behaviour evaluation system (T22) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R9 is a risk in the construction and post construction stages, and (2) T1, T4, T5, T11, T12, T18, T20 and T22 may be effective in reducing R9 risk (see Figure 7.2).
6.3.10 Excessive Demands and Changes from Partner (R10)

Table 6.3.10 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of excessive demands and changes from partner and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of excessive demands and changes by partner (R10) on their project?
The respondents from Projects A to D stated that they had not experienced partners excessive demands and changes but this risk was experienced on Project E. CM-E stated:
We absorbed a delay and disruption claim but it is not like the client demanded this. We felt we had to do it to maintain the relationship. We could
have taken things further, i.e. adjudication, but it was felt that a short term gain would do more long term harm to our partnering reputation.
Jin and Ling (2005) also found that short term opportunistic behaviour will destroy a cooperative relationship in the long term. Lazar (2000) formulated three general rules based on strategies of behaviour that clients and contractors can use to optimise relationships, as shown in Figure 6.1.
3. If during the project the relationship turns adversarial there is a need to act at that point and not at the end of the relationship.
1. The partner should not make a request in the spirit of partnering that puts the other party at risk unless and until they are prepared to reciprocate at a similar level.
2. If unable to reciprocate, the client or contractor should clearly communicate why no reciprocation was possible and whether it can take place in the future.
Figure 6.1 Three general rules based on strategies of behaviour that clients and contractors can use to optimise relationships.
[Source: Adapted from Lazar, F (2000), Project partnering: improving the likelihood of win / win outcomes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 71, 7183].
Based on these results this inherent risk will remain in the research contextual model.
Q2 Is the inherent risk of excessive demands and changes by partner (R10) most significant at the construction stage?
The majority of the respondents stated that this was a risk throughout all the project stages and not just limited to the construction stage. PM-B said this was because as long as there is a relationship there is a risk of excessive demands and exploitation. CM-A explained that at the pre-tendering and tendering stages there can be pressure on the contractor to reduce their bid cost and at post construction to return to site to remedy defects which may not be the contractors responsibility. This pressure and leverage from the client has been found to be a typical factor of exploitation in the research literature (Black et al, 2000; Wood, 2005; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a; Jackson, 2006; Jin and Ling, 2005).
Based on these results, this risk is to be allocated throughout all the project stages in the research contextual model.
Q10: Do you think there are any other trust fostering tools that would reduce the risk of excessive demands and changes from partner?
PM-B found that a lack of support from the clients personnel at site level increased the risk of excessive demands and changes from their partner. Based on this results the new trust fostering tool of Gain support of all partners personnel (T20) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
CM-E and PM-E also commented that a partnering charter incorporating the long term objectives of both parties would have reduced this risk. Based on these results the new trust fostering tools of Partnering charter to define partners behaviour (T18) and Implement a behaviour evaluation system (T22) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R10 is a risk in the pre-tendering, tendering, construction and post construction stages, and (2) T1, T4, T5, T6, T12, T13, T14, T18, T20, and T22 may be effective in reducing R10 risk (see Figure 7.2).
6.3.11 Disputes with Partner (R11)

Table 6.3.11 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of disputes with partners and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of disputes with partner (R11) on their project?
Disputes with partners were encountered on three of the case studies. On Project A minor disputes in the form of late release of information from the clients design team was an issue. However, major disputes were encountered in Projects D and E. This involved disagreement over the valuation of the contractors interim applications for payment, the absorption of a significant claim and the late issue of variation orders.
Thomas et al (2002) concluded that disputes occurred in partnering agreements when there was a transformation of priorities from emphasis on partnering to the control of the contractors budget. This showed that clients were not committed to alternative methods and stuck to tried and tested traditional adversarial attitudes and adopted a self protection mode when financial difficulties were encountered. This occurred in Project D as the PQS has not committed to unforeseen variations and is leaving all the disputed items for resolution in the final account. CM-D commented that therefore we are going to have a huge struggle at the end of the project in agreeing this final account. Bresnen and Marshall (2002) also found that partners will resort to adversarial ways when problems are encountered.
Based on these results, this has been found to be a typical risk and will remain in the research contextual model.
Q4 Will establishing a good relationship with local partners (T2) reduce the risk of disputes with partner?
Q13: Do you think there are any other trust fostering tools that would reduce the risk of disputes with partner?
PM-A and CM-A found that formal workshops reduced the risk of disputes with partners on their project and also provided the opportunity for the progress evaluation system to be discussed. Therefore the trust fostering tool of Hold formal workshops for relationship building (T11) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
CM-B found that support of all the partners personnel, not just top management (T5) reduced this risk, therefore the new trust fostering tool of Gain support of all partners personnel (T20) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
CM-E and PM-E also commented that a partnering charter incorporating the long term objectives of both parties would have reduced this risk. Based on these results the new trust fostering tools of Partnering charter to define partners behaviour (T18) and Implement a behaviour evaluation system (T22) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R11 is a risk in the construction stage, and (2) T1, T5, T6, T8, T9, T11, T12, T13, T14, T15, T18, T20 and T22 may be effective in reducing R11 risk (see Figure 7.2), and T2 is to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to R11 risk.
6.3.12 Over Interference from Partners Company (R12)

Table 6.3.12 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of over interference from partners company and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of over interference from partners company (R12) on their project?
The risk of over interference was encountered in Projects A and C. PM-A described that the clients representative is limited in what he can do:
It was frustrating at the time because we called a meeting to resolve the issue, but he was not able to make the decision and it took another week for the decision to be made, which was valuable time lost for us.
PM-C described a similar situation where the rail provider refused to believe that a certain deadline could be met:
In instances like that you spend more time talking about the problem than actively solving it.
Jin and Ling (2005) also found that over interference from the partners company was a risk in partnering agreements and in one of their case studies it actually bought the project to a halt. Overall this has been found to be a typical risk and will remain in the research contextual model.
Q3 Will gaining support of top management (T5) reduce the risk of over interference from partners company?
All the respondents found that gaining the support of top management would reduce the risk of over interference from the clients company and this trust fostering tool is to remain in the research contextual model in relation to this risk. However, CM-D
and CM-E commented that more interference from top management would have helped resolve some of the problems they experienced as the PQS and clients representative at site level were not willing to make decisions.
Jin and Ling (2005) also found that in their case study where the project came to a halt, top management from all sides got involved and provided support to resolve the issues. However, the problem should not be allowed to escalate to this point therefore a new inherent risk of Lack of commitment and interference from partners company (R16) is to be added to the research contextual model in the construction stage and a new trust fostering tool of Active involvement of top management (T23) will be added in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R12 and R16 are a risk in the construction stage, and (2) T5, T13 and T15 may be effective in reducing R12 risk (see Figure 7.2), and (3) T23 may be effective in reducing R16 risk (see Figure 7.2).
6.3.13 Problems related to social and cultural differences (R13)

Table 6.3.13 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of problems related to social and cultural differences and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of problems related to social and cultural differences (R13) on their project?
The research has identified that problems related to social and cultural differences were encountered on Projects D and E. CM-D commented:
Our project team is very hands on and up front, whereas the client appears more cagey.
PM-D added that the clients representative does not seem to buy into this partnering culture. The same view was held by the respondents from Project E.
Jin and Ling (2005) added this inherent risk to the research contextual model as one of their respondents, a Singaporean developer, was worried about social and cultural differences when making overseas investments and therefore chose to invest in China because of the similar culture. This problem was not encountered in this research as all the organisations in the case studies are UK based, and the main concern highlighted in this research was the clients commitment to the partnering philosophy. Therefore a new inherent risk of Problems related to different levels of commitment to the partnering philosophy (R17) is to be added to the research contextual model, and allocated to the four project development stages and with the same trust fostering tools as for risk R13.
The contractor and client on Project A have won a Best Partnership Award and the good relationship was built up over ten years of collaboration experience together. PM-A stated that they did not have a pure partnering spirit but worked towards achieving the same project goals and this fostered / engineered social and cultural similarities. Therefore the trust fostering tools of Adhere to the mutual goals and
objectives (T6) and Hold formal workshops for relationship building (T11) are to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
In Projects B and C a specific vehicle was set up to engineer social and cultural similarities. On Project B this was in the form of the Service Level agreement and in Project C a dedicated contract management business was set up by the contractor to deliver the large and complex project. This was not addressed in the research literature and the new trust fostering tools of Partnering charter to define partners behaviour (T18) and Implement a behaviour evaluation system (T22) will be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Q2 Is the inherent risk of problems related to social and cultural differences (R13) most significant at the construction stage?
The majority of the respondents stated that this was a risk throughout all the project stages as disputes caused by social and cultural differences could occur at any time in the partnering relationship. Based on these results this risk will be allocated to each of the project phases.
Q3 Will establishing a good relationship with local partners (R2) reduce the risk of problems related to social and cultural differences?
Q6: Do you think there are any other trust fostering tools that would reduce the risk of problems related to social and cultural differences?
CM-A found that organising project social events would reduce this risk. On Project A a project quiz night was organised at the start of the project including the client, PQS, design team, contractor and subcontractors, including top management. Therefore a new trust fostering tool of Informal project team social events (T24) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
PM-A found that having a similar technical background and experience as the clients representative helped to foster social and cultural similarities. Therefore the new trust fostering tool of Seek partner with similar construction experiences (T21) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
CM-B found that their previous collaboration experience with the client had reduced the risk of problems related to social and cultural differences. Therefore the trust fostering tool of Seek partner with good collaboration (T1) is to be added to the research contextual model in relation to this risk.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R13 and R17 are risks in the pretendering, tendering, construction and post construction stages, and (2) T1, T6, T8, T9, T10, T11, T18, T21, T22 and T24 may be effective in reducing R13 and R17 risks (see Figure 7.2), and T2 is to be removed from the research contextual model in relation to R13 risk.
6.3.14 Change of Personnel in Organisation (R14)

Table 6.3.14 presents the respondents experiences and comments for the inherent risk of change of personnel in organisation and the associated trust fostering tools.
Q1 Has the respondent encountered the inherent risk of change of personnel in partners organisation (R14) on their project?
A change of partners personnel was experienced in Projects A, B and C but this did not cause the project or the partnering relationships any problems. In Projects A and C selection was based on experience in the specific industry sector and experience in partnering agreements. Project B experienced a major change in personnel as the organisation to which the contractor provided the facilities management services to were taken over by another organisation. The respondents commented that this did not cause any problems because everyone bought into the Service Level agreement.
Jin and Ling (2005) created this inherent risk because their research highlighted that partners were concerned about change of personnel from one project to the next in strategic partnering arrangements. This risk was not highlighted in this research as the strategic projects were for long project durations and the main personnel had remained the same. Bresnen and Marshall (2002) found as a result of the disruptive relationship the efficiency of communication may be affected negatively and the benefits of a shorter learning curve may not be gained.
Based on these results this inherent risk will remain in the research contextual model.
Q2 Is the inherent risk of change of personnel in partners organisation (R14) most significant at the post construction stage?
The majority of the respondents stated that this was a risk in the construction and post construction stages for project and strategic partnering arrangements. Based on these results this risk will be allocated to the construction and post construction phases.
Overall, the findings suggest that: (1) R14 is a risk in the construction and post construction stages, and (2) T16 may be effective in reducing R14 risk (see Figure 7.2).

This chapter set out to analysis the data collected through the case studies and in depth exploratory interviews, to determine if modifications were necessary to the research contextual model.
The first part of the chapter looked at the method of analysis and described that for each of the inherent risks, R1 to R14, and their associated trust fostering tools, T1 to T16, the respondents answers are presented in tables. If the results identified that modifications were required to the research contextual model, this was analysed further, in comparison to Jin and Lings (2005) findings and research data and conclusions of previous research papers.
It was then described that the analysis was divided into three sections: Analysis of inherent risks to determine typicality; Analysis of relationship between dominant relationship and inherent risk, and Analysis of relationship between inherent risk and trust fostering tool to reduce inherent risk.
The second part of the chapter set out the findings for each of the inherent risks, R1 to R14, and their associated trust fostering tools, T1 to T16. At the end of each section the modifications for each of the inherent risks and their associated trust fostering tools were presented in conclusion boxes.
This chapter has analysed the data collected from the case studies and interviews and established that the research contextual model needs to be modified based on this
analysis of the research results. The research will now go on to present the modified research contextual model and present conclusions and recommendations.
Chapter 7:
Conclusion and Recommendations
This aim of this chapter is to give conclusions and recommendations on this research in relation to the research aims and objectives described in chapter one and the analysis of the research data described in chapter six.
The chapter will then recommend possible future research to reinforce this research. Finally the chapter will discuss the limitations of this research in terms of strengths and constraints.
7.2 Dissertation Aim
The aim of this research is to test and develop the conceptual framework for building relationships and trust presented by Jin and Ling (2005) in relation to construction contractors (see Figure 4.3).
The research has been carried out in order to achieve all the objectives indicated in chapter one, and ultimately, the research aim above.
7.3 Research Questions
This research deals with the formation and preservation of trust in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors. In this research the author will determine the following:
4.
What are the inherent risks to develop and sustain trust in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors?
5. At what stage in the project development are these inherent risks most significant? 6. What are the trust fostering tools to reduce these inherent risks in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors?
7.4 Conclusion
The following sections will clarify the conclusion.
7.4.1 Question One
What are the inherent risks to develop and sustain trust in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors?
The data obtained from the case studies indicates that there are seventeen inherent risks in developing and sustaining trust in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors:
1. Partners incompetence (R1) 2. Partners exploitation (R2) 3. Improper contractual agreement (R3) 4. Unfairness in tendering (R4) 5. Partners project personnel lacking interpersonal skills (R5) 6. Partners distrust and misunderstanding (R6) 7. Insufficient communication among partners (R7) 8. Partners short term focus (R8) 9. Partners breach of contract (R9) 10. Excessive demands and changes from partner (R10) 11. Disputes with partners (R11) 12. Over interference from partners company (R12) 13. Problems related to social and cultural differences (R13)
14. Change of personnel in organisation (R14) 15. Partners inexperience (R15) 16. Lack of commitment and interference from partners company (R16) 17. Problems related to different levels of commitment to the partnering philosophy (R17)
The research showed that the fourteen inherent risks (R1 to R14) identified by Jin and Ling (2005) are typical inherent risks and will remain in the research contextual model. However, three additional inherent risks (R15 to R17) were found to exist and will be added to the research contextual model.
7.4.2 Question Two
At what stage in the project development are these inherent risks most significant?
The data obtained from the case studies indicates that the inherent risks are spread throughout the four project development stages as follows:
1. Pre-tender stage 6 inherent risks (R1, 5, 10, 13, 15 and 17) 2. Tender stage 10 inherent risks (R1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 17) 3. Construction stage 15 inherent risks (R1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17) 4. Post construction stage 9 inherent risks (R1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 17)
Figure 7.1 illustrates the presence of these inherent risks throughout the project cycle.
Presence of Inherent Risks in Project Cycle
Post Construction 23%
Pre Tender 15%
Construction 37%
Tender 25%
Figure 7.1 Allocation of inherent risks throughout Project Cycle
[Designed by author]
The research shows that the occurrence of inherent risks in developing and sustaining trust in partnering relationships increases from the pre tender to the construction stage. There is the highest occurrence of inherent risks in the construction stage, and this is due to the depth of the relationship and the length of the construction period in strategic projects. The research also demonstrates that there is still a significant occurrence of inherent risks in the post construction stage. This is significantly different to Jin and Lings (2005) research which only allocated one inherent risk (R14) to the post construction period.
7.4.3 Question Three
What are the trust fostering tools to reduce these inherent risks in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors?
The data obtained from the case studies indicates that there are twenty two trust fostering tools to reduce the inherent risks in partnering agreements in relation to construction contractors:
1. Seek partner with good collaboration (T1) 2. Involve contractor in the project early and establish an integrated team (T2) 3. Draft a clear and unambiguous contract which incorporates the partnering philosophy (T3) 4. Gain support of top management (T4) 5. Adhere to the mutual goals and objectives (T5) 6. Maintain effective communication (T6) 7. Appoint staff with interpersonal skills (T7) 8. Seek partner with similar culture (T8) 9. Hold formal workshops for relationship building (T9) 10. Adopt joint problem solving philosophy (T10) 11. Adhere to the defined roles and responsibilities (T11) 12. Implement a progress evaluation system (T12) 13. Empower staff with authority (T13) 14. Cultivate learning climate (T14)
15. Hold formal workshops for partnering philosophy understanding (T15) 16. Partnering charter to define partners behaviour (T16) 17. Partner seeks collaboration advice (T17) 18. Gain support of all partners personnel (T18) 19. Seek partner with similar construction experiences (T19) 20. Implement a behaviour evaluation system (T20) 21. Active involvement of top management (T21) 22. Informal project team social events (T22)
The research showed that of the sixteen trust fostering tools identified by Jin and Ling (2005), fourteen were found to be typical trust fostering tools (R1 to R14) and will remain in the research contextual model. The trust fostering tools of Establish good relationships with local partners (T2 in Jin and Ling (2005) framework) and Institute practices to prevent corruption (T7 in Jin and Ling (2005) framework) were not found to be typical or effective trust fostering tools in reducing any of the inherent risks and will be removed from the research contextual model. Eight additional trust fostering tools (R15 to R22) were found to exist in relation to identified inherent risks and will be added to the research contextual model.
In accordance with the data explored in chapter six (see separate conclusion boxes for each inherent risk) and the results indicated above, the modified research contextual model is presented:
Figure 7.2 The modified research contextual model
[Source: Adapted from Jin, X and Ling, F. (2005) Constructing a framework for building relationships and trust in partnering organisations: two case studies of building projects in China. Construction Management and Economics, 23, 685-696].
7.5 Recommendations
The recommendations below are the result of the problems examined throughout the research and they are practical for the formation and preservation of trust in partnering relationships between clients and main contractors:
Parties in a partnering agreement need to be aware that trust cannot effectively evolve in partnering relationships, and will need to be engineered to foster a successful relationship. Parties in a partnering agreement can use the modified research contextual model to engineer trust in the following ways: Be aware and proactive to the inherent risks that exist at each of the project development stages. If an inherent risk is found to exist, the appropriate trust fostering tool(s) can be adopted to diminish the risk and ultimately foster trust and create a successful partnering relationship.
7.6 Limitations of the Research
Like any similar type of research, this dissertation has some strengths and constraints, which can be useful to point out to those considering possible direction for future research:
7.6.1 Strengths The main strength of this research is this it was based on a strong case study design, which was well researched and structured. Five significantly different cases studies were explored (e.g. in terms of project industry sector, form of partnering agreement, size and duration of project etc), and the commercial manager and project manager belonging to each contractor from each case study were interviewed to allow data to be collected on the financial and management area of the project. The research design provided valuable and rich contextual evidence on relationship building and trust fostering, and allowed the research contextual model to be thoroughly explored. Respondents of this research had significant experience in partnering and had been involved on the specific project from the pre tender stage to the construction / post construction stage.
7.6.2 Constraints
Due to time constraints, the following points can be used as advice for those researchers who are conducting similar types of research: To undertake more rigorous research to validate further the framework so that it is more generalizable. This can be achieved by:
Undertaking further case studies in the UK of different industry sectors and different main contractors involved in partnering agreements. Undertaking further case studies and interview clients and consultants involved in the partnering agreements. Undertaking further case studies in different countries to examine if the framework is UK specific or if it can be readily applied to international partnering agreements.
7.7 Further Research
Further research regarding the subject could be carried out as follows:
Extending the case studies to other UK contractors in various construction industry sectors. This research could be taken further by investigating the views of clients and consultants in relation to the fostering of trust in partnering agreements. Extending the case studies to contractors in other countries, to show if there are specific inherent risks or trust fostering tools applicable only to the UK construction industry.
Appendix A:
Interview Outline Agenda
1.0 Organisational Background

Construction industry sector(s) Annual turnover % workload partnered Project or strategic partnering Number of partnered clients Process of selection Period of review Process of allocating contracts
2.0 Project Background

Project industry sector Organisational annual turnover in project industry sector in 2006 Partnered workload in project industry sector (%) Number of partnered clients in project industry sector Project / strategic partnering in project industry sector Project type Contract type Contractor selection process Project location Project duration Project cost Current project position programme and cost
3.0 Research Contextual Model Questions
3.1 Inherent Risks

List out the fourteen inherent risks and ask the respondent if they have encountered these risks. Ask the respondent if they have encountered any other risks not described in the contextual model.
3.2 Project Development Stage

List out the fourteen inherent risks and ask the respondent if the risk is most significant at the project development stage as identified in the research contextual model.
3.3 Trust Fostering Tools to Reduce Inherent Risks

List out the sixteen trust fostering tools and ask the respondent if they have used these tools on their project, and how effective they are in reducing the specific inherent risk. Ask the respondent if they have used any other trust fostering tools not described in the contextual model.
4.0 Any other comments

Further issues not already raised / prompted by interviewer.
References and Bibliography
Baden-Hellard, R. (1995), Project partnering: principle and practice, London: Thomas Telford.
Beach, R., Webster, M. and Campbell, K. (2005), An evaluation of partnership development in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 611-21.
Bennett, J. and Jayes, S. (1995), Trusting the team: the best practice guide to partnering in construction, Reading: Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction, University of Reading.
Bennett, J. and Jayes, S. (1998), The seven pillars of partnering, London: Reading Construction Forum, Thomas Telford.
Berry, J. (1994), The research project: how to write it, London: Routledge.
Black, C., Akintoye, A. and Fitzgerald, E. (2001), An analysis of success factors and benefits of partnering in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 18, 423-34.
Bower, D. (2003), Management of procurement, London: Thomas Telford.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000a), Partnering in construction: a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 22937.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000b), Building partnerships: case studies of clientcontractor collaboration in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 819-32.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000c), Motivation, commitment and the use of incentives in partnerships and alliances. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 587-98.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2002), The engineering or evolution of co-operation? A tale of two partnering projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 497-505.
Brown, D. (2001), After the divorce problems with partnering agreements. Society of Construction Law, 1-9.
Cain, C. (2003), Building down barriers: A guide to construction best practice, London: Spon Press.
Changing Minds. (2007), Definition of trust, [http://changingminds.org/explanations/trust], January.
Cheng, E.W.L., Li, H. and Love, P.E.D. (2000), Establishment of critical success factors for construction partnering. Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(2), 8492.
CII (1991), In search of partnering excellence, CII Special Publication, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.
Construction Industry Board, Working Group 12. (1997), Partnering in the team, London: Thomas Telford.
Dozzi, P., Hartman, F., Tidsbury, N. and Ashraf, R. (1996), More stable ownercontractor relationships. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 122(1), 30-5.
Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction. London: Department of the Environment Transport and Regions, [http://www.rethinkingconstruction.org], December.
Franks, J. (1990), Building procurement systems: a clients guide, London: Longman / CIOB.
Green, S.D. (1999), Partnering: the propaganda of corporatism?, in Ogunlana, S.O. (ed.), Profitable Partnering in Construction Procurement, London: E. & F.N. Spon, pp. 3-13.
Jin, X. and Ling, F. (2005), Constructing a framework for building relationships and trust in project organisations: two case studies of building projects in China. Construction Management and Economics, 23, 685-696. Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the team, London: HMSO.
Lazar, F. (2000), Project partnering: improving the likelihood of win/win outcomes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 71-85.
Lenard, D, Bowen-James, A, Thompson, M and Anderson, L. (1996), Partnering models for success,. Adelaide: Construction Industry Institute.
Maguire, J. (1997), Partners rely on trust, Property Week, 60, 12.
March, D. (2004), The harder parts of partnering, Construction Law Review, 4, 20-4.
Masterman, J. (2002), Introduction to building procurement systems, London: Spon Press.
Morledge, R. (2006), Partnering only good for a few? RICS Construction Bulleting, 5.
Mosey, D. (1999), An end to shafting, Building, 8 Oct, 66-7.
Naoum, S. (2003), An overview into the concept of partnering. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 71-6.
Naoum, S (2004), Dissertation research and writing for construction students, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
NEDO (1991), Partnering: Contracting without conflict, London: HMSO.
Oppenheim, A. (1996), Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitudinal measurement, London: Pinter Publication.
Thomas, S., Rose, T., Mak, M. and Chen, S. (2002), Problematic issues associated with project-partnering the contractor perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 437-49.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000), Research methods for business students, Harlow: Financial Times / Prentice Hall. Scott, B. (2001), Partnering in Europe incentive based alliancing for projects, London: Thomas Telford.
Sui Pheng, L. (1999), The extension of construction partnering for relationship marketing. Market International Plan, 17, 155.
Sullivan, M. (2006), An open relationship, Construction Journal, June, 10-11.
Turner, A. (1997), Building procurement, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Wong, P. and Cheung, S. (2004), Trust in construction partnering: views from parties of the partnering dance. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 437-446.
Wood, G. (2005), Partnering practice in the relationship between clients and main contractors, RICS Research, 5, 2.
Wood, G. and Ellis, R. (2005), Main contractor experiences of partnering relationships on UK construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 23, 317-325.
Yin, R. (1993), Applications of case study research, London: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. (1994), Case study research design and methods, London: Sage Publications.

2007 Collins On

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2007 Collins On

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

London South Bank University Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment Department of Property, Surveying and

MSc Quantity Surveying

3.3.2 3.3.3 3.4

Characteristics of trust Importance of trust in partnering relationships Appraisal of chapter

6.3.2 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6 6.3.7 6.3.8 6.3.9

References and Bibliography References and Bibliography 163

Appendices Appendix A Interview Outline Agenda 167

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2

Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3 Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2

61 131 156 159

Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2

98 104 113 118 123

Table 6.3.6 Table 6.3.7 Table 6.3.8 Table 6.3.9

1.1 Rationale for the Research

1.2 Research Goals

1.2.3 Research Questions

1.3 Outline Methodology of the Research

Stage 1 Literature Review:

Stage 2 Assessment of Research Contextual Model:

Stage 3 Case Studies and Interviews:

Stage 4 Conclusions and Recommendations:

THE RESEARCH CONTEXTUAL MODEL

Test & Develop

CASE STUDIES & INTERVIEWS

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 1.2 Outline Methodology of the Research

1.4 Guide to the Dissertation

Chapter 2 Partnering in the Construction Industry

Definitions of partnering o As a procurement method o As a philosophy

Chapter 3 Critical Success Factors for Partnering

The critical success factor of trust o Definition of trust

o Characteristics of trust o Importance of trust in partnering relationships

Chapter 4 Previous Models into Trust Fostering Tools

Chapter 5 Research Design and Methodology

Chapter 6 Analysis of the Results

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations

Partnering in the Construction Industry

2.1 Scope of Chapter

The chapter sets out the following issues:

Definitions of partnering o As a procurement method o As a philosophy

Adversarial behaviour in the construction industry Attitude and behaviour

Exploitation in partnering arrangements

2.2 Definitions of partnering

Partnering as a procurement method

PARTNERING CHARTER Incorporating mutual objectives

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT USING CHOSEN PROCUREMENT METHODS

COMPLETION HANDOVER & FEEDBACK

Figure 2.1: The Partnering Process.

[Source: Masterman, J. (2002), Introduction to building procurement systems,

London: Spon Press.] 2.2.2 Partnering as a philosophy

Overall, an amenable definition of partnering is:

2.3 Adversarial behaviour in the construction industry

Architect acting as design team leader and project manager

Direct management and labour force

Nominated / named subcontractors

[Source: Masterman, J. (2002), Introduction to building procurement systems,

London: Spon Press.]

Individual firms Client seeks partners

Determine common interests

Create partnership charter

Makes interim evaluations