CIVL6021 - PARTNERING

1. Introduction The construction industry has an unenviable reputation for cost overruns, delay, disputation and occasionally incurred in expensive litigation. Stakeholders in the industry have been looking for alternative ways of structuring projects to avoid these outcomes. In the early nineties a concept imported from the United States called "partnering". Before exploring the effectiveness and impacts of partnering on the construction industry, it is necessary to consider more on the common forms of contract being used and the associated risks allocation to determine why they are perceived to have failed the industry. 1.1 The Forms of Contract Commonly used in the Construction Industry There are three basic forms of contracts commonly adopted by stakeholders: (a) Traditional (b) Design and construct (c) Project management In Traditional form, the project owner will engage an independent designer (either a professional engineer or architect) to perform designing the scope of work. This is usually done prior to the contract for construction being awarded. A contractor is appointed for the construction work in accordance with the design, in usually practice, on a lump sum basis. However, it should be noted that the final amount payable unlikely to equal the lump sum agreed. In Design and Construct engagement the contractor is responsible for both design and construction tasks as a package. The contractor in this contract arrangement is often paid on a lump sum basis. And again, it is unlikely that the amount paid to the contractor will equal this lump sum. However, the advocates for this style of contracting argue that subject to good management, there is less potential for cost overruns. In Project Management form of contract, the project manager/contractor is engaged as an agent of the owner. The project manager's obligations included appointing a design professional (engineer/architect) to prepare the design and manage that professional as agent of the owner, and progressively engage trade contractors to perform work as and when the design is completed. These
1

contractors will usually be engaged on a lump sum basis. Again, when engaging such trade contractors, the project manager is acting as agent for the owner. 1.2 Typical risk profiles associated with these forms of contract The generic risks in construction projects are poor design, poor construction, cost overruns, and time overruns. Although the exact risk profile under each form of contract can be adjusted by appropriate drafting, the respective risks associated with each of the traditional forms. 1.2.1 The Traditional form of contract In this form of contract, the risk of poor design lies with the consultant. The capacity of the consultant to take such risk will be dependant upon the adequacy of its insurance policy (professional indemnity). The risk of quality of construction obviously lies with the contractor. Under most standard form contracts, the contractor is obliged to construct in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the project owner's consultant. A failure to do so will constitute a breach of contract often entitling the project owner to instigate a contractual regime requiring the contractor to rectify the works or to pay the costs of the owner so doing; or pay damages associated with the breach. The risk of Cost Overrun in traditional forms of contract, which in majority cases are "lump sum price" contracts, the lump sum price is subject to adjustment will depend upon a number of factors. These factors included the drafting of the contract, the process and the effectiveness of the design consultant as well as the accuracy of information provided by the consultant (e.g. the contractor is given geotechnical information which is incorrect). Failure of such can give rise to breaches of contract entitling the contractor to damages. Change in the scope of work constitutes a variation in which the contractor entitles to further remuneration. Notwithstanding that there are a number of reasons which might give rise to a change in contract price, it is important to understand that margins earned by contractors in are extremely low and the risk profile of those contractors is relatively high. The low profit and significant potential for high risk is one of the main drivers for the adversarial and contentious nature of the relationship between contractors and project owners. The risk of Time Overrun is split into neutral delays, project owner caused delays and contractor caused delays. In neutral delays such as excessive inclement weather and social disruptions (turmoil and strike) unrelated to the
2

site, the project owner has taken the risk, the contractor will be entitled to an extension of time and thereby be relieved of the obligation to pay liquidated damages. The contractor will have to bear his own loss in overheads. In project owner caused delays, the contractor will be entitled to an extension of time to relief from liquidated damages and additional remuneration to compensate for the additional overheads. In contractor caused delays, contractor must bear its own overheads costs and will not be entitled to an extension of time and therefore is liable to the owner by way of liquidated or general damages. 1.2.2 The design and Construct The risk profile in design and construct contract in relation to cost, time and construction is usually the same as that taken by a contractor under a "construct only" contract. The contractor is responsible for both design and construction. Therefore any defect in the work the contractor must be responsible. As the contractor is given the task of completing the design to a design brief, the project owners risk is lost of the control over the final design and functional expectation. Most of these projects narrowly defined the aesthetic of the finished product and the performance criteria of novel mechanical or process engineering in a project brief. This form of contract is unsuitable for circumstances where the project owner wants aesthetics effects and special functional requirements. 1.2.3 The Project Management Contract The essential features of project management contract are the project owner appoints a "project manager" to act as his agent to manage both the design process and construction. The project manager undertakes to exercise reasonable care in his management services. However, the project owner still facing the risk on design, construction, cost overrun and time overrun. Because diligence of the project manager it does not definitely warrant that the project will be built to a particular standard and be completed by a particular time at a particular price. The risk of poor design is shared between the project manager and an independent design consultant employed by the project manager (in its capacity as agent for the owner). Primary responsibility for the quality of design rests with the design consultant, except in unusual circumstances, it will not be liable by the project manager. The capacity for the risk to be borne by the designer under professional
3

indemnity insurance in which insurers are notorious for contesting liability. In the project management model, the risk in construction is likely rest with the project owner. The project manager engage a number of trade contractors who are only responsible for their own works and generally enter into a contract where it undertakes to complete works in accordance with the specified standard. Problems do arise where more than one trade contractor is responsible for the end result. It is not uncommon that trade contractors blame one another for any defect that might appear in the final work. Similarly, problems arise where the work of one trade contractor is damaged by the work of another. Any risk in cost overrun is rest with the project owner. The project manager is not responsible for costs, except increases of cost which are a consequence of the project manager's negligence. Generally, the costs will be the aggregate amount paid the design consultants, the trade contractors plus the fees of the project manager. The risk in time overrun is often represented by delays and disruption in co-ordination difficulties between trade contractors. Logically, the primary responsibility of coordinating the trade contractors rests with the project manager. However, even with the best project management, co-ordination difficulties can arise because of non performance of one or more of the trade contractors which interferes with the operations of subsequent trade contractors. Again it is generally the case that the project manager does not take any risk in relation to time, apart from its general obligation to exercise reasonable care in the management function. 2. Why Partnering All stakeholders share the common goal to complete the project successfully with respect to the prescribed time, budget, quality, and its final functional requirement. Partnering reduces dispute and litigation; it would save countless non-productive hours of works by all parties involved in the project. It results 1. Owners money becomes more cost effective 2. Contractor and Designer are more profitable. Stakeholders of the have vested interest in the successful completion of a project in the following perspectives: Project owner success of final product and turn over to user Contractor meet specification, profit and timely payment Subcontractor & Supplier meet specification, profit and timely payment Designer properly implement the design that meets the owners expectations
4

Partnering can essentially be differentiated into two types: (1) Project Partnering (Project-specific or Project-by-Project Partnering), and (2) Strategic Partnering (Multi-project or Long-term Partnering) Project Partnering is the name given to partnering arrangement for one project only, while Strategic partnering takes place when two or more firms use partnering approach on a long-term basis for more than one project or continuing activities.

2.1 Principles of Partnering To achieve the merit of partnering and accomplish the common goal, all parties vested interest in the project should put away all negative cultural characteristics and engage in a more productive and open relationship of honesty, trust and synergy for the project. There are numerous of definitions of partnering have been derived form past studies, definitions that emerged in the early nineties applicable to all industries state that Partnering is one such technique, which attempts to create an effective project management process between two or more organizations. It aims at generating an organizational environment of trust, open communication and employee involvement (Sander and Moore 1992). The definition of partnering developed for the construction industry in CII, 1991 in the USA states A long-term commitment between two or more organizations for the purposes of achieving specific business objectives by maximizing the effectiveness of each participant resources. This requires changing traditional relationships to a shared culture without regard to organizational boundaries. The relationship is based on trust, dedication to common goals, and an understanding of each others individual expectations and values (CII, 1991). In England, the CIB (UK) defined partnering to be: A structured management approach to facilitate team working across contractual boundariesit should not be confused with other good project management practice, or with long-standing relationships, negotiated contracts, or preferred supplier arrangements, all of which lack the structure and objective measures that must support a partnering relationship (CIB, 1997). Partnering is the simple process of establishing good working relationships between contracting parties. When everybody brings his/her real heart towards the common goal; creation of a high-trust culture will develop among the counterparts within the project team gradually. This culture requires that team member accept the mistakes and errors of others and assist them in finding solutions that are mutually agreeable to all of the team members. This is not to say that one or
5

more parties can abrogate their contractual responsibility through the partnering process. On the contrary, each party is faithful to their respective role and takes responsibility for all actions related to the contract. The study of Chan et al (2002) grouped the common benefits of partnering in thirteen headings, namely, reduced litigation, better cost control, better time control, better quality product, efficient problem solving, closer relationship, enhanced communication, continuous improvement, potential for innovation, lower administrative cost, better safety performance, increased satisfaction, and improve culture. Table 1 shows the matrix of the identified benefits and the frequency of their citation.

Table 1. Source of reference for partnering benefits

Source: Chan et al (2002) 6

2.2 Partnering and Total Quality Management (TQM) The theories of TQM and the principles of partnering are mutually compatible to each other. TQM advocates and focuses on customer services. TQM emphasizes continuous improvement in quality of product and service. TQM recommends supplier and customer relationship. Partnering recognizes that construction project is nothing more than compilation of many processes and the effort of many customer and suppliers. TQM theories apply through partnering process enhance customer services thus building up relationships between all involved parties. The project owner, the main contractor, subcontractors and suppliers will find greater success and profitability in their respective roles. 2.3 Benefits of Partnering Partnering benefits all parties including the project owner, the main contractor, subcontractors, supplier and on-site employees. The fundamental principles of partnering in commitment, trust, respect, communication and equality are designed to include proper consideration of the interests of all parties at every level (CII, 1991; Cowan et al, 1992; Badger and Mulligan, 1995). Partnering process empowers all the project personnel to accept responsibility and to do their jobs by delegating decision-making and problem-solving to the lowest possible of authority. The range of common benefits illustrated in Table 1 identified the weighting among the merits. In partnering arrangement, the problems of disputes, claims or litigations are greatly reduced through open communication and improved working relationship. Closer working relationship between the project owner, contractor, and the design consultants provide a better working environment to all parties. Traditional adversarial relationship between parties transforms to a trust based relationship (Lazar, 1997; Drexler and Larson, 2000). Partnering recognizes an implied covenant of good-faith dealing by all parties, within this atmosphere of cooperation and mutual trust, the parties can jointly determine and evaluate the design, engineer and construction approaches. The tools for sharing of gains and risks thus established among parties. Better cost control is another merit of partnering. It is achieved by alleviating rework, lowering change order rate and improving problem-solving. Reduce unnecessary delays by the fair and equitable attitude that resolve many disputes, discrepancies and changed conditions which arose during construction process, thus achieve
7

better time control through the project duration. Partnering facilitates communication on quality issues, enables earlier recognition of potential problem and helps develop a quality consciousness. Problem solving is swiftly responded and handled at all levels within the project team via delegation mechanism down to the lowest possible level in dealing with problems. Partnering provides a way to all parties to develop continuous improvement, encourages introduction of advanced technology and innovation through open communication in design and construction process. Administration cost is lowered by eliminating defensive case building, simplified administrative procedures and reduced unnecessary paperwork. Taking joint responsibility to ensure a safe working environment for all parties reduces the risk of hazardous working conditions and avoids workplace accidents (Matthews and Rowlinson 1999). Partnering enhances customer satisfaction as the customer is closer to the construction process and better informed. Contractors obtain a reasonable and are assured for continued work at predetermined profit margins (Moore et al, 1992; Back and Sanders, 1996). When people work in a conflict-free environment will show distinct improvement in the culture. They concentrate on the job rather than on potential claims, and the morale and effectiveness of the whole work team is improved (Bloom, 1997). 2.4 Barriers of Partnering Misunderstanding of partnering concept is one of the major barriers in partnering implementation. Some project participants failed to understand how the partnering relationship could provide a competitive advantage. Larson and Drexler (1997) advocated that limited experience in partnering approach affected the understanding and knowledge of project participants could cause a failure in partnering. The objective of partnering encourages project participants to change from their traditional adversarial attitude to a more cooperative, team-based approach to prevent disputed attitude. The unchanged traditional adversarial relationship and other inappropriate attitudes hamper the development of good relationship between contracting parties. Many parties do not trust other party due to past experiences; therefore it is difficult to build trust among them. Risk sharing is another barrier to the success of a partnering project. Trying to take full advantage of the partnering approach resulted in parties may be unwilling to share the risk. In some cases, partnering created strong dependency of the partner, Gardiner and Simmon (1998) explained that partnering did not remove or reduce inter-dependencies, it could be used to strengthen the relationship and increase the trust between
8

parties. Furthermore, partnering is culturally opposed to the traditional implementation of construction projects. Established a new culture is difficult or may take time to implement, many organizations are reluctant to change into integrating culture. Particularly the reluctance appears in bureaucratic organizations which impeded the effectiveness of partnering. Partnering requires the commitment of all participants. Participants must have total commitment to the partnering process. However, uneven level of commitment is common in practice due to different goals and objectives among parties. Failure in communication is a common ground which affected the effectiveness of partnering. Communication should be two-way, clear, and open, timely response in the same way is expected. Parties do not normally trust each other completely and are not willing to communicate and exchange information. Issues and problems are allowed to slide and escalate in the partnering process. Conflicts among participants are existed when the partnering team is reluctant to identify, confront and resolve problems. Partnering needs nourishment throughout the life of a project, joint effort in maintaining continuous improvement is important to keep partnering going. After the initial partnering workshop, it is easy to get back to daily activities and ignore the partnering concept. Training is the essential activity to make participants to fully understand the concept of partnering. Insufficient training provided to participants is an obstacle to successful partnering. Top management commitment is essential to the success of the partnering process in any organization. Top management commitment goes beyond signing the partnering charter or writing policy letters. It requires an executive to invest his/her time in early partnering workshops, train staff, and work with industry counterparts. In order to improve the productivity and performance of the project, critical success factors (CSF) in partnering should be identified. They are resources, management commitment and support, mutual trust, continuous commitment and willingness, coordination, creativity, effective communication, conflict resolution, perceived satisfaction of partners expectations and compatible goals.

3. The Process of Partnering The partnering process shall be implemented at the very beginning of the project. The process included the expression of interest, partnering workshop, follow up workshop and final workshop. Figure 1 shows the process of partnering.
9

Figure 1: The Partnering Process

Source: Abudayyeh (1994)

The most important element in the establishing a partnering relationship is commitment from the senior management (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). It must be visible, supportive, ongoing and sensitive to organizational change. 3.1 Partnering Workshop A well-planned initial partnering workshop is a unique opportunity for all participating parties to form a cohesive project team leading to the success of the project. The initial partnering workshop is most important to the partnering process, because it Shows commitments of the parties, Helps building up a cohesive project team from all involved parties, Develops problem resolution scheme, Establishes empowerment in all levels of project members, Expedites problem solving path and time via escalation ladder so as to allow a timely resolution of problem, Supports profit sharing arrangement (when applicable) Ensures the agreed partnering results, all participants sign the partnering charter (an example of partnering charter is shown in Figure 2).

10

Figure 2: Partnering Charter

Participation of CEO/Executive level is an essential element for a successful partnering. The presence of CEO/Executive levels is a clear indication of the commitment of the company in partnering. CEO/Executive levels involvement is related to the establishment of the corporate partnering philosophy. CEO/Executives attendance with their counterparts in the workshop strongly supported the building of relationship and understanding among parties. The spirit that developed will ultimately assist in resolving issues in an equitable manner throughout the course of the project.

11

3.2 Location and Facilities The venue where the workshop takes place should be close to the job site. It should be chosen in the neutral place that does not belong to any participating parties. The reason is that a neutral facility provides an environment where team members can come together in non-threatening surroundings and develop into the project team. It also removes the members from their normal works thus eliminates distraction and interruption. An experienced facilitator is important to assist the key managers from each organization in developing the agenda for the workshop. The facilitator is also responsible to produce the written record of the workshop and furnish it to the team participants. This permanent record can then serve as the basis for future reference should issues arise during the course of the project. 3.3 Team Building Build up a partnering team with all involved parties of a project is built up among different levels of the participants. Parties from various firms do have different cultures and ways of communication. The workshop facilitates identifying the effective communication methods and reporting paths most applicable for the project. Through open discussion in the workshop, participants share experiences and map anticipated problems of the project. Everyone attending the workshop expresses views and ideas to the anticipated problems and suggests solutions via brainstorming. All team members have issues to bring up at the workshop. Ideas are discussed and shared. All emerged resolutions are recorded as reference of implementation. Unresolved problems are also recorded for further action. A Plan of Action is established by setting up ownership and expected time of resolution. The process of experience sharing and brainstorming enhances understanding and communication, forming an atmosphere for everyone to know each other and work together before the commencement of the project. Through an effective initial partnering workshop, a sense of work together as a team will be built up among all. 3.4 Resolutions of Partnering Workshop a) Empowerment Empowerment is the delegation of suitable authority and responsibility to the team members at all levels of the project. Empowerment shall be given to the lowest possible level in the construction site. In this arrangement, members whom are closest to the problem could make timely decision within their
12

scope of their given power. b) Escalation Ladder (Issue Resolution Matrix, Communication Matrix) Establish highest extent of decision-making power to all levels of the project among all partners within the partnering team for problem resolving. Time limit will be set up for all levels to evaluate and resolve their problems. If a problem cannot be resolved within the time frame or the problem is beyond their authority to make decision, it will be reported to their immediate supervisor for further action within the allowable time limit. The problem will therefore be escalated to the suitable decision makers to resolve within a limited time frame. The following table (Table 2) is an example of Escalation Ladder which is fictitiously prepared to illustrate the arrangement and significance.
Client Side Name Position Mr. Chan Executive Director Nancy Project Director Henry Project Manager Mary Engineer John Works Supervisor Contractor Side Name Mr. Lee Robert Tony Jim Michael Time limit for Decision Making Position CEO Director Project Manager Coordinator Foreman One week Four days Two days One day Half day

Table 2: Delegation of Power by means of Escalation Ladder 3.5 Expanding the Partnering Team OwnerContractorDesigner, are not the only key players in the project. Subcontractors and Suppliers play an important role. There are a number of key subcontractors and suppliers have been appointed before the commencement of the project, they are also invited to the workshop and join the cohesive project team as members. Their participation in partnering workshop, joining the project team and signing in the charter signifies their importance in the project. The views and concerns of subcontractors and suppliers are heard and addressed because other members in the project team value their participation as parties of the partnering process and their performance is vital to the success of the project. Of course subcontractors and suppliers are given greater respect to the employer and the contractor as their respond to their participation as team member, they also incur greater expectations and assume responsibilities towards the success of the project. More subcontractors and suppliers will be added as the project goes along, and key subcontractors and suppliers are selected to become members of the project team and invited to join the mid-partnering workshop.
13

4. Value Engineering in Partnering The gain-sharing scheme is an opportunity for contractor to propose alternative means or materials to achieve a product of equal or greater quality and value for a project. Value engineering is not favorable in the construction industry due to reasons as follow: Designers were often offended by the idea that someone would come up with better ideas than that they had spent considerable time designing. Owners have not encouraged the submission of proposals because they do not want to hassle with them. Contractors are reluctant to submit proposals because they may not eventually be benefited contractually, deduction of contract sum often result when the proposals are adopted. The partnering workshop provides an excellent opportunity to allow this synergism to take a hold and produce innovative results. The skills and innovation that contractors, designers and owners bring together and set the stage for exciting value engineering opportunities to the project. In partnering workshop, VE idea is modified to make it consistent with the one-team approach. So that VE proposals are no longer considered solely the contractors idea. A term value engineering joint proposal (VEJP) is given. Contracts performed under partnering mechanism often include arrangement to share some of the savings with the contractor. Usually if a contractor submits an idea and it is implemented, the owner will split the savings based on a predetermined formula such as 50-50 or 40-60 etc. This is VE paradigm. The concept of continuous improvement of TQM is very important to partnering process. To ensure whether the performance of the partnering team is continuous improving mechanism - the Joint Evaluation, must be established for the assessment and evaluation. Performance standard should be established in accordance with the goals and objectives of the partnering charter. Since measurable objectives are established as discussed in previous item (partnering charter portion), an open and candid evaluation should be executed jointly by all the team members in formats and patterns setup to fit those goals and objectives are essential. 5. Mid-project Workshop Any project duration exceeds 12 months should organize mid-project workshop for every key project participants to attend. The main purpose of mid-project workshop is to introduce new comers (new employees of the parties, new subcontractors, and new suppliers) review the performance of the project under partnering with the established joint evaluation mechanism. Bring up the Pros and Cons, and formulate
14

resolution to problems encountered. A facilitator is needed either from outside source or elected within the project. Review and appraise the performance with a true heart is most important; it would help to enhance past successes and rectify shortcomings of the project. 6. Close-out Workshop A close-out partnering workshop to bring the full team together to review and celebrate the success or to learn the lesson of less success objectives. This can be done under the guidance of a facilitator or assigned a team leader from the team. Award should be given to honor the success of the team and also the selected partnering champion. Awards or plaques present to one or several individuals who truly exemplified the principles of partnering on the project. It is advisable that the team members be asked to make one final rating of the team and its performance against the charter. The evaluation or assessment of the teams progress should be a part of the close-out workshop. The ultimate result is that the partnering team moves forward to the next project with a greater resolve for more significant successes. 6.1 Lessons Learned Subsequent to a number of studies on partnering, the followings are points consolidated the experiences of participants who have involved in partnering projects: 1. Use outside facilitation at your partnering workshops until the owner and industry are mature in the process. 2. The partnering workshop is the beginning of the process and should not be seen as the whole of partnering. 3. No project over 12 months in duration should go without having a mid-project workshop. 4. Take time to develop and apply the issue escalation process. 5. Develop and use the team evaluation process with consistency and commitment. 6. Use all partnering tools in every project. 7. Decide early on whether record keeping will be done and then measure only those necessary areas. 8. Top management commitment ultimately determines if an organization is successful and profitable in the partnering process.

15

7. Partnering Experiences in Hong Kong The first two design and construct projects in Hong Kong used partnering approach were the North District Hospital and the Tseung Kwan O Hospital (Chan et al, 2002). Initial partnering workshop for the former was conducted after tender but before contract award. The workshop for the latter was launched by the contractor according to the provisions of the construction contract. Application of partnering was also implemented in the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation (KCR) and Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) in the West Rail and Tseung Kwan O Extensions respectively (Bayliss, 2000). Apart from the infrastructure developments, The Hong Kong Housing Authority (HKHA) and the Hong Kong Housing Society were also actively nurturing a partner culture in the public and semi-public sector residential developments (Chan et al, 2001). Since then another hospital projects the Haven of Hope Hospital used partnering. Both projects are reported successful. Chan et al (2002) tabulated 48 partnering projects of various natures undertaken by public and private sectors at that time in Hong Kong (Table 3).

16

Table 3: Partnering Projects in Hong Kong

Source: Chan et al 2002

The outstanding achievement in the Tseung Kwan O Extension (TKOE) was recorded. The project used partnering approach and resulted in very significant saving in cost. Partnering have contributed to the last $ 4 billion of savings that brought the out-turn cost down to $ 17 billion from the originally budgeted $
17

30.5 billion. The project was completed 16 weeks ahead of schedule. In TKOE, MTRC established a Partnering Steering Group interacted with the contractors consistently. The group arranged a list of partnering activities to handle the project, these activities included: Monthly partnering meetings Performance monitoring according to standardized formats Multi-contract workshops Other opportunities to interact, including shared offices, social events etc.

Developments on the above partnering model, including clearer gain-share pain-share agreements were later incorporated in the Tsim Sha Tsui station extension project and the Tung Chung Cable Car project. Partnering is mandatory on Housing Authority projects, and it is worth studying its influence on project outcomes. Some other Government Works Departments have reportedly had different types of experiences on their initial partnered projects. Some said that partnering was good, until there was a major problem, after which relationships were spoiled and parties reverted to adversarial contractual approaches. Observations on the applicability and potential benefits from partnering and the possible obstacles in the Hong Kong project revealed inadequate partnering culture developed among participants. It can be reflected by the attitudes of inadequate trust and communication which have been rooted deeply under the experiences of adversarial traditional contracting system.

8. Differences between Partnership, Joint Venture and Partnering

Partnership Partnership is a relationship in which two or more people, organizations, or countries work together as partners; they carry on a business in common with a view of profit. Under partnerships losses will have to be shared as well as profits. Partnership is a legal binding agreement between parties. It is often long term and dissolution is complex. Joint venture Individuals or companies may enter into a joint venture agreement to work cooperatively on a project or contract. A joint venture shares common elements of a
18

partnership agreement. With joint ventures there must be joint management and control, although not necessarily equal. There must be contribution to the enterprise, some property, money, effort, skill and knowledge. As distinguished from a partnership, a joint venture commonly has a single purpose. Partnering Partnering attempts to create an environment where trust, team work and prevention of disputes, foster a cooperative bond to everyones benefit to facilitate the completion of a successful project. The major difference between partnering and partnership or joint venture is, partnership and joint venture are legal binding relationship while partnering is non-legal binding and voluntary relationship.

19

Reference
Abudayyeh, O. (1994), Partnering: a team building approach to quality construction management, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 10(6), 1994, pp.26-29 Badger, W.W. and Mulligan, D.E. (1995), Rationale and benefit associated with international alliances, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 12(1), pp.100-111 Bayliss, R.F. (2000), Project partnering a case study on MTR Corporation Ltds Tseung Kwan O Extension, Proceedings of the Millennium Conference on Construction Project Management Recent Developments and the Way Forward 2000, Hong Kong Back W.E. and Sanders, S.R. (1996), Partnering in a unit price environment, Project Management Journal, 27(2), pp. 18-25 Bloom, M.J. (1997), Partnering A better way for doing business, 1997, The MITRE Corporation, Badford, Massachusetts. Cowan, C., Gray, C., and Larson, E. (1992), Project partnering, Project Management Journal, 22(4), pp. 5-12 Chan, A.P.C., Cheng, E.W.L. and Li, H., (2001), Full Report on Construction Partnering in Hong Kong, The Hong Kong Housing Society Chan, A.P.C., Chan, D.W.M., Ho, K.S.K., (2002), Research Monograph: An Analysis of Project Partnering in Hong Kong, Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2002, ISBN 962-367-363-9 Construction Industry Board (CIB) (1997), Partnering in the team: a report by Working Group 12 of the Construction Industry Board, Thomas Telford Pub, London, 1997 Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1991), In search of partnering excellence, Publication no. 17-1, Report CII, Austin, Texas, USA Drexler, J.A. and Larson, E.W. (2000), Partnering: why project owner-contractor
20

relationships change. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCR, 126(4), pp. 239-297 Gardiner, P.D. and Simmons, J.E.L. (1998), Conflict in small and medium sized project: case of partnering to the rescue, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 14(1), pp. 35-40 Larson, E. and Drexler, J.A. (1997), Barriers to project partnering: report from the firing line, Project Management Journal 28(2), pp.46-52. Lazar, F.D. (1997), Partnering new benefits from peering inside the black box, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE 13(6), pp. 75-83 Mathews, J. and Rowlinson, S. (1999), Partnering: incorporating safety management, Engineering, Construction and Architectural management, 6(4), pp. 347-357 Mohn, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), Characteristics of partnering success: partnering attributes, communication behaviour and conflict resolution techniques, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 1994, pp. 135-152 Moore, C., Mosley, D. and Slagle, M. (1992), Partnering guidelines for win-win project management, Project Management Journal 22, pp.18-21 Sander, S.R. and Moore, M.M. (1992), Perceptions on partnering in the public sector, Project Management Journal, 22(4), 13-19, 1992

21