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

Construction

Partnering Procurement and the Benefits for the UK Construction Industry from the Quantity Surveyors Perspective. 2007 Ross Bailey MSc Quantity Surveying

Partnering Procurement and the Benefits for the UK Construction Industry from the Quantity Surveyors Perspective.

Submitted by Ross Bailey for the MSc in Quantity Surveying of London South Bank University Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment Department of Property, Surveying and Construction May 2007 Student No. 2402159 Tutor Chris Powell

Restrictions on Use
This dissertation may be made available for the 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.

R. Bailey

Chapter 1
Introduction
This chapter documents the research topic of this dissertation, identifying why the research is being undertaken and the aims and objectives.

Chapter 2
Background Theories of Partnering Procurement
This chapter analyses the theoretical concept of parting in the construction industry, from conception through the initial stages of the process to completion. The chapter also analyses the various forms of partnering and the pros and cons firms entering partnering agreements can expect. The majority of the research for this chapter comprises secondary research from textbooks and academic literature.

Chapter 3
Review of Partnering in Practice
This chapter focuses on reviewing partnering procurement using sources available in the public domain, including research papers and published reports on partnering projects. The key attributes of partnering have been identified and each analysed separately to establish the effect of partnering on the various characteristics of the construction industry.

Chapter 4
Primary Research and Analysis
This chapter deals with the collection of primary data on consultant and contractor quantity surveyors views on partnering procurement through first hand experiences. Data has been collected via a questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews. The data has been analysed with the knowledge of partnering attributes identified in chapters 2 & 3 and the collected primary data used to answer the research questions and assumption identified in chapter 1.

Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter reviews the issues discussed in previous chapters and what conclusions were derived from the primary and secondary research. The dissertation objectives set in chapter 1 have been reviewed to assess whether they were achieved and comments are made on potential future studies and improvement to this research dissertation.

References

Appendix A
Questionnaire and Covering Letter

Appendix B
Questionnaire Issue List

Appendix C
Questionnaire Results Spreadsheets

Appendix D
Interview NotesCONTENTS
Page(s)

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Dissertation Title Rationale Aim Research Questions Assumptions Dissertation Objectives Chapter Summary 1 1 2 2 3 34 4

Chapter 2: Background Theories of Partnering Procurement

2.1 2.2 Initial Literature Review of Partnering Theories Detailed Analysis of Theories of Partnering 2.2.1 Introduction to Partnering in the UK Construction Industry 56 5

2.2.2

The Partnering Process

6 10

2.2.4

Forms of Partnering

10 12

2.2.5

The Pros and Cons of Partnering

12 17

2.3

Chapter 2 Summary

17

Chapter 3: Review of Partnering in Practice

3.1 3.2 3.3 Initial Literature Review of Existing Research Papers Detailed Analysis of Selected Papers and Case Studies Chapter 3 Summary 18 18 32 32

Chapter 4: Primary Research and Analysis

4.1 4.2 Introduction Part 1 - Research Methodology 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.3 4.4 Stage 1 Method of Gathering Data Stage 2 Method of Summarising Gathered Data Stage 3 Method of Analysis of Summarised Data 33 34 35 36 37 - 39 39 - 58 33

Part 2 Analysis of Summarised Data Part 3 Discussion of Results 4.4.1 4.4.2 Introduction to Discussion of Results Survey/Interview Results and Research Questions

58 59 59 - 67 68

4.5

Chapter 4 Summary

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Conclusion of Secondary Research Conclusion of Primary Research Review of Dissertation objectives Recommendations for Improvement/Further Study 69 69 - 70 71 - 73 73 - 74

REFERENCES

R/1 R/2

APPENDICES
Appendix A Questionnaire and Covering Letter Covering Letter Questionnaire

Page(s)

A/1 A/2 A/5

Appendix B Questionnaire Issue List

B/1 B/5

Appendix C Questionnaire Results Spreadsheets Results Analysis Consultants Results Contractors Results All Results Summary All Results Ranking Summary Consultants Ranking Results Contractor Ranking Results C/1 C/2 C/3 C/4 C/5 C/6 C/7 C/8 C/9 C/10 C/11 C/12 C/13 C/14

Appendix D Interview Notes Contractor Quantity Surveyor Interview Consultant Quantity Surveyor Interview D/1 D/3 D/4 D/6

Abstract
This research dissertation investigates the perceived advantages of partnering procurement over traditional forms, such as competitive tendering routes, in the UK construction industry. In particular the research focuses on the quantity surveyors perception of partnering procurement and assess the changes in their roles as a result.

Secondary research has been conducted to establish the theoretical benefits partnering procurement should provide over traditional forms and in depth discussions of government articles and independent research journals have been analysed to assess partnering in practice. Additional to this, primary research has be obtained from UK consultant and contractor based quantity surveyors in the form of a questionnaire survey and interviews to access the professions roles and perceptions of partnering procurement from first hand experiences.

The research discovered positive experiences of partnering as well as some negative responses to certain attributes that many textbooks and journals claim partnering offers significant benefits over traditional forms of procurement. The primary research also uncovered differences in opinions between consultant and contractor quantity surveyors as well as differences in opinions within the same groups.

The primary and secondary research data was analysed and discussed to draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of partnering from the quantity surveyor perspective, whether or not it delivers the claimed benefits and why differences in opinions and experiences exist.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Dissertation Title

Partnering Procurement and the Benefits for the UK Construction Industry from the Quantity Surveyors Perspective.

1.2

Rationale

The past 10-15 years has seen a cultural change in the UK construction industry through firms seeking to achieve a common goal and objective, i.e. improving construction project performance. Many key figures in the industry and government officials have identified partnering of firms to be a solution to the problems the industry has faced for decades (Egan, J. 1998. Latham, M. 1994), the most significant of these being poor coordination, projects running over time and over budget, fitness for purpose of the end product and unstable workloads hindering long-term planning and ability to generate sizable profits.

This research dissertation aims to investigate how partnering arrangements are implemented and the benefits it can bring to firms within the UK construction industry, focusing in particular on the views and experiences of consultant and contractor quantity surveyors towards partnering.

The key issue of this research proposal is to identify if partnering is the solution to the problems that quantity surveyors experience in the UK construction industry. The perceived benefits and pitfalls of partnering are comprehensively covered in textbooks and journals but the particular views and experiences of the quantity surveyors involvement have not been documented.

Professional and contractor quantity surveyors from different sized quantity surveying firms within the industry will experience both advantages and disadvantages from partnering, but are these experiences what the individual surveyors need to achieve

their objectives? Do all quantity surveyors involved in partnering procurement gain the same levels of benefits from partnering as one another? Are the perceived global benefits of partnering benefiting quantity surveyors in the areas they require or are the experiences limited in terms of gain over traditional forms of procurement?

This research proposal will attempt to identify these issues and draw conclusions upon the suitability of partnering for quantity surveyors in the UK construction industry.

1.3

Aim

To investigate and analyse partnering agreements in the UK construction industry through the experiences and views of consultant and contractor quantity surveyors towards the process and assess partnering effectiveness and benefits over traditional forms of procurement.

1.4

Research Questions

1. What are the most significant benefits quantity surveyors experience through partnering?

2. Where does partnering fail to deliver the perceived benefits for the quantity surveyor?

3. What are the significant cultural and organisational changes required by the quantity surveyor when partnering agreements are made?

4. Do consultant quantity surveyors and contractor quantity surveyors perceive different benefits from partnering procurement?

5. Is partnering the solution to the problems regularly experienced by quantity surveyors in traditional forms of procurement?

1.5

Assumptions

Based upon the research questions the following assumptions have been made. These assumptions are what is expected to be proved or disproved from the primary and secondary research.

1. From the quantity surveyor perspective, partnering will improve project performance. 2. Quantity surveyors within partnering agreements will experience cultural and organisational benefits. 3. Partnering procurement will require a cultural change from the quantity surveyors traditional working practices.
4. All quantity surveyors within a partnering agreement will experience the same benefits and limitations.

1.6

Dissertation Objectives

In order to answer the above questions and prove or disprove the assumptions the following objectives need to be addressed.

1. To establish the potential benefits parties within the construction industry can expect over traditional forms of procurement when entering into partnering agreements.

2. To critically assess the view of consultant and contractor quantity surveyors views and attitudes towards partnering

3. Establish the cultural and organisational changes for quantity surveyors who enter into partnering agreements.

4. To examine a comprehensive range of quantity surveyors attitudes towards partnering and assess the scale of correlation of agreements and disagreements.

5. Assess the validity of the potential benefits partnering claims to provide.

1.7

Chapter Summary

This chapter forms the groundwork for the rest of the dissertation. The aims and objectives for the research have been identified and research will progress with the aim of answering the research questions and proving or disproving the assumptions.

Whilst there has been much research on partnering and the benefits it can potentially bring to the construction industry, there has been no research on evaluating partnering procurement from the quantity surveyors perspective. The aims and objectives set in this chapter are therefore unique to this subject group and cover certain noninvestigated areas of partnering procurement.

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND THEORIES OF PARTNERING PROCUREMENT

2.1 Initial Literature Review of Partnering Theories

The theories of the partnering philosophy have been documented in many textbooks. Thomas & Thomas (2005) cover a wide range of issues and reasons for adopting partnering, from the push/pull factors, implementation, benefits and pitfalls. Many of these texts reflect the issues raised in the Rethinking Construction report (Egan, J. 1998) and Constructing the Team (Latham, M. 1994). Follow up reports such as Modernising Construction (NAO, 2001) and Accelerating Change (Egan, J. 2002) monitor and appraise the changes towards partnering procurement. Textbooks on the subject of building procurement contain chapters relating to partnering (Franks, 1998. McGeorge & Palmer, 2002) give balanced theories on partnering in comparison to the other forms of procurements that are available.

With specific relation to Quantity Surveying, Cartlidge, D (2002) offers in depth analysis of the modern dynamic role of the quantity surveyor in the current construction industry, with a chapter specifically on partnering and its perceived pros and cons for the firms involved.

2.2

Detailed Analysis of Theories of Partnering

2.2.1

Introduction to Partnering in the UK Construction Industry

The origins of partnering in the construction industry can be traced back through to the earlier parts of the 20th Century but partnering in the form, as it is known today became common practice in the mid 1980s. It is no coincidence that partnering became more common during a time when the UK construction industry was in a deep recession. The push and pull factors of partnering for clients, contractors and consultants included the securing of workloads and improving profits and efficiency at a time where demand and profit levels were at an all time low. Firms needed to

find a competitive edge over their rivals in order to survive and partnering was seen as an alternative to the traditional forms of procurement, such as competitive tendering, which were too competitive for the fragile market.

The most noticeable kick start for partnering procurement in the UK construction industry was the issue of government reports Constructing the Team (Latham, M. 1994) and subsequently Rethinking Construction (Egan, J. 1998) and Accelerating Change (Egan, J. 2002). The reports were very critical of the performance of the UK construction industry, accusing it as being complacent in is attitudes towards fundamental elements such as time, cost, quality and profit. It was frequently stated in the report that the adoption of partnering procurement was seen as the best solution to solving these problems within the UK construction industry.

Partnering in its simplest form is a method of procurement that involves close teamwork and trust between different parties in the construction process to achieve common objectives. The implementation of a partnering structure is extremely complex and requires a significant cultural change for firms that have traditionally used more competitive forms of procurement.

Partnering involves striking a balance of human relationships, stakeholders interests and power. It is difficult to define partnering but easier to define its goals. Many textbooks and definitions tend to repeat the same key phases, these include relationships, good faith, trust, teamwork, co-operation, benefits and success to name a few. In a nutshell, partnering is the collaborative working of more than one party under a long term contractual or non-contractual agreement to achieve common objectives set by those parties involved. However the length of the agreement and the nature of the objectives will vary upon the nature of the work and the parties involved.

2.2.2

The Partnering Process

The partnering process can be split into four main stages, the pre-project stage, initial partnering workshop, implementation stage and the completion stage.

The following diagram identifies the individuals involved in the partnering process and the stages taken by the team for the duration of the project.

Fig.1 The Partnering Process Diagram (Franks, J. 1998)

Preproject Stage
The decision at this stage is whether or not to partner. The push and pull factors for doing so will vary. The decision to partner may be due external forces, partnering is often a pre-qualification for many government tenders. It may however be internal drivers for improvements in efficiency, quality and time and cost management that pushes clients, contractors and consultants to take the partnering route (McGeorge, D.

Palmer, A. 2002). However once the decision to partner is made the team building exercise is undertaken.

It has been considered that partnering can be compared with a marriage and without common goals and interest the relationship will ultimately fail (Critchlow, J. 1998). Therefore it is fundamental that partners are selected on the basis of mutual interests and desires as well as competence to undertake the task at hand. The mutual interests must be focused on commitment to quality, commitment of resources, commitment towards long term working relationships, willingness to be open and trust others, set goals and objectives and be fully prepared to adopt the necessary working practices to achieve these goals and objectives, have an understanding of commercial interests and long term market and cost commitments.

A key requirement of any partnering structure is competency. Any partner within the partnering agreement must be competent of delivering the above-mentioned requirements to a required standard; otherwise the partnering philosophy is flawed. Ideally when a client, normally the main driver for initiating a partnering agreement, is selecting the team those individuals should have some track record of partnering on previous contracts (McGeorge, D. Palmer, A. 2002). This should be established through a series of interviews, assessing contractors who have particular expertise or interest in partnering procurement strategies.

The decision for a firm to partner is not one to be made on a whim. It will require the involvement of the highest management from the clients, contractors, consultants and supplier organisations. It is a process that requires the up most commitment in order to be successful. It will also require the need for internal education and training of staff as to the required internal and external working procedures (McGeorge, D. Palmer, A. 2002).

Initial Partnering Workshop

The initial partnering workshop involves the bringing together the middle management of the project participants who will be dealing with one another on a day-today basis (McGeorge, D. Palmer, A. 2002). The main objective of the

workshop is to build relationships and improve communication, engage the participants in the building and problem solving process and finally and most importantly to agree a charter detailing the groups goals and objectives for signature of the participants (Carr, F 1999).

In the initial stages of the workshop, ground rules are set in how individual should perform and behave. Such ground rules may be statements that relating to the working culture the team intends to adopt, for example all participate, no one dominates, no criticizing ideas or others, leave your rank at the door or generate light, not heat (Carr, F 1999). Such ground rules should set the tone to the working culture for the duration of the agreement.

The team will then proceed to agree mutual objectives and interests associated with the partnering agreement; objectives such as time, cost and quality will predominately feature. All the agreed goals and objective will feature in a charter, which will be signed by all of the precipitants and is an agreement or oath so that everybody is aware of one another goals and objectives and agreement to work towards achieving those objectives. The charter is not a contractual agreement but a guideline to performance criteria and how it should be measured (McGeorge, D. Palmer, A. 2002).

Implementation Stage
Continual meetings and workshops are held throughout the design and construction process. Team performance is continually evaluated against the agreed criteria in the charter. Performance and relations can be monitored through questionnaires to ensure that all partners are satisfied with one anothers work performance and working relationships.

Completion Stage
The completion stage of a partnering project differs greatly than that of a traditional procurement route. At the completion stage of a partnering agreement the whole process is reviewed in a final workshop. Rather than reviewing performance and working cultures in a bid to improve, team performance is objectively analysed to

assess its performance now that the project is completed (McGeorge, D. Palmer, A. 2002).

The completion workshop is more of a learning exercise rather than an evaluation. It is a check that all the implementation processes and reviews have allowed the team to perform to the standard required and if not lessons are learnt as to why not.

If the partnering agreement was project specific (see project partnering) then the team may also make the decision at this stage to use the same team for future projects (see strategic partnering).

2.2.4

Forms of Partnering

Partnering can exist in several forms, the two main types being strategic partnering or project partnering. Strategic partnering involves collaborative working of parties in the long-term over more than one project. Project partnering on the other hand as the name suggests is the collaborative working of firms for a single project.

Strategic Partnering
Strategic partnering is concerned with the process of selecting a partnering team for use over more than one project. Strategic partnering has the potential to produce a more substantial level of benefits than project partnering without the risks being any higher (McGeorge, D. Palmer, A. 2002). The same principles and processes apply to strategic partnering as they do to project partnering, however the key difference with strategic partnering is that usually the length of the agreement being longer term, thus the scale of the workload and turnover is significantly higher.

It is often the case that strategic partnering is the result of project partnering, where the client may have been impressed by the team performance and decide to use the same team for a number of future projects. Alternatively a whole new team may be constructed from scratch for a long term strategic partnering agreement, this however obviously carries more risk. Aim and objectives will also differ from project partnering, they will be more generic and not project specific (Carr, F. 1999).

The main perceived benefits of strategic partnering over project partnering is the improvements that can be made to efficiency, quality and time and cost management due to the repetitive nature of the works and the design and construction team. Strategic partnering offers the opportunity to transfer knowledge and skill from one project to the other. The continual changing of the team and the nature of the work associated with competitive tendering means that knowledge and experiences are lost every time the team is changed. Strategic partnering involves commitment to the same team over a number of projects meaning valuable lessons learnt help improve the design and construction process in terms of efficiency, quality, time and cost over long periods. The end result ideally is maximising benefits for all in terms of profit levels and the production of a quality product that is fit for purpose.

Project Partnering
Project partnering involves the application of partnering alliances on a single construction project (Carr, F. 1999). Firms may project partner for several reasons, one key reason may be that partnering is a requirement for many government and public funded schemes. Government and public funding requires competitive bidding as alliances are not to be made with a single contractor for all works. Thus as a result a team is built for each project, but unlike traditional forms of competitive tendering procurement the team is constructed with greater care, following the team building and implementation stage as described previously.

It may often be they case that project specific partnering may lead to strategic partnering, i.e. use of the same team on multiple projects, depending upon the clients activities, market place and the performance of the team. However it is difficult to see that the same benefits gained through strategic partnering are achievable through project partnering. As the goals are short term the whole process needs to be more compressed (Carr. F, 1999). Partnering processes can only begin after the contract is awarded and relationships between parties who are unknown to one another are forced to develop quickly at the workshop meeting.

Benefits seen in strategic partnering, such as learning, innovation, cost reductions, improving efficiency etc. are much more difficult to achieve through project partnering than strategic partnering due to the shorter time scales of which the team work together. However it is the partnering philosophy that is applied to a one off project that should help improve the output of the team. Such philosophy being commitment to the clients needs, sharing of risks, improved communication, better teamwork ethics, improved trust, sharing of knowledge etc. It is the emphasis on solving problems and making decisions in the interest of the team and not the individuals to maximise the success of the project. This is theoretically the benefit of project partnering over traditional forms of construction procurement.

2.2.5

The Pros and Cons of Partnering

Clients, contractors, sub-contractors and professional consultants are perceived to experience a number of key benefits when they embark on a partnering orientated project(s). However as with all forms of procurement in the construction industry there are pitfalls associated with partnering that parties need to be aware of.

Perceived Advantages of Partnering

The following sub-headings highlight the key benefits that parties involved in partnering are expected experience (Cartlidge, D, 2002).

Improved Quality
The building of a reliable competent team will increase the consistency of the work output over a number of projects through familiarisation of one another standards and requirements (Barlow, J. 1999). This leads to increase in the quality and reliability of the work out put at all levels. The end result should be a building or structure that is fit for its purposes will less or even zero defects.

Improved Design
The integration of the supply chain and its input in the design stages can lead to improved efficiency of the construction processes and ultimately the design

performance of the building or structure. Design teams receive valuable input from contractors and suppliers offering effective solutions to design problems.

Improved Production
Improvements in the production process are more evident in longer term partnering agreements such as strategic partnering. The continual use of the same team combined with investment in technology, recruitment and training and long term planning strategies can drastically improve efficiency (Barlow, J. 1999). Investment in technology improves performance; an example of this is the use of prefabricated and standardised components reducing the learning curve and scope for defects. Investment in recruitment and training develops multi-skilled labour and specialisation to ensure that the team can design and construct to the required high standards.

Improved Time
Through improvement in design, production and team working the project durations are likely to be shortened as a result and improved project planning increases the certainty of meeting completion dates (Critchlow, J. 1998).

Reduced Costs
The integration of the supply chain reduces life cycle costs and likelihood of disputes meaning zero legal costs. The encouragement of innovation within partnering agreements may increase the value of the project and detailed programming improving time certainty will lead to better cost certainty (Barlow, J. 1999). Partnering arrangements also reduces the costs associated with marketing and tendering.

Better Risk Management

Risk management within partnering agreements is improved and is evident throughout the whole of the supply chain. Risk is shared throughout the supply chain reducing their impacts and eliminating the blame culture.

Increased Value
Better supply chain management and focus on the clients requirements results in a building or structure that is fit for its purpose. As explained earlier improvements in time, cost, quality and risk all contribute to the value of end product. Continual focus on the improvement of management and construction process and the sharing of information is of value to all parties involved (Cartlidge, D, 2002).

Increased Profits
Profits from partnering arrangements have the potential to be significantly higher than that of traditional procurement. The market becomes less competitive, risks and savings are shared and parties involved are assured greater stability in their work load.

Improved Cash Flow

For the contractors and sub-contractors involved cash flow is often less restricted through better working relationships with the client. Retention is often never held due to the contractors commitment and incentive to perform to the highest possible standards for the common good of the team (Cartlidge, D, 2002).

Improved Administration
Partnering in theory improves communication, trust and allocation of resources. As a result less monitoring of contractors activities is required from the consultants and the duplication of resources is reduced. Detailed project planning means more efficient execution of tasks, reducing paperwork and administration resources. The absence of a formal contract reduces the levels of administration for all members of the team who do not need to continually cover all their activities in writing for contractual purposes. All these factors lead to reduced overheads and a more efficient administration process.

Improved Workload Certainty

Contractors in partnering agreements are offered greater certainty as to the medium to long term workloads compared to traditional forms of procurement such as competitive tendering. This allows contractors to be more consistent in their use of resources and ultimately be more profitable.

Perceived Disadvantages/Pitfalls of Partnering

Despite the numerous benefits associated with partnering, as discussed previously, there are a number of pitfalls where the partnering philosophy can fail for the whole team or individual members of the team. As with all procurement strategies, no method of procurement is perfect and some are more suited to certain situations than others. Some of the key pitfalls are as follows.

Lack of Experience
Partnering is still not the main accepted route of procurement in the UK construction industry and as a result those entering into partnering agreements may be completely uneducated in the process and philosophy. This requires a cultural change for the firms within the partnering team and the transition of this cultural change and attitudes towards their working practices will not necessary be as smooth and unproblematic as desired (Cartlidge, D, 2002).

Setting Goals and Objectives

Alignment of attitudes and objectives throughout the team can be difficult where cultural working practices within the individual firms may pull the goals and objectives in a number of directions. Not all team members are likely to agree on the same goals and objectives and it can prove difficult to set goals and objectives that benefit all parties (Cartlidge, D, 2002).

Contracts
As no traditional form of contract for partnering arrangements exists, the use of JCT, ICE, NEC etc, can be problematic as it is seen as a legal tool in the event of the partnering system breaking down. In fact the use of any form of contract does not fit into the partnering philosophy of trust. Clients and contractors therefore run the risk of entering into large value construction projects with no formal contract to protect their interests should relationships breakdown. This reinforces the scale of the requirement for trust at all levels for partnering relationships to succeed.

Commitment
There may be issues with the commitment of resources upfront for certain firms within partnering agreements. Benefits and rewards may not be received until the project is finished and in large schemes this may be a number of years. This is more of a problem in project partnering than strategic partnering where the benefits are more likely to flow more regularly (Cartlidge, D, 2002).

Other difficulties exist in sharing the risk and rewards evenly throughout the supply chain. It has often been criticised in traditional forms of procurement that client tend to pass risk down the chain but not the rewards. Partnering implies that clients have to change their working attitudes and fairly distribute risk and benefits.

Competition
There is a danger with the increased use of partnering that competition will suffer as a result. This has been considered by many to not to be a disadvantage to the construction industry, in particular the Rethinking Construction report (Egan, 1998). However a lack of competition may lead towards a more monopolised market, controlled by those who only have the necessary resources and financial muscle to undertake these partnering commitments, eventually pushing up costs (Cartlidge, D, 2002).

Firms within partnering agreements may become too dependent on the team and not seek work elsewhere in the market, thus losing touch with the market and losing their competitive edge. The lack of new individuals within the partnering team can result in the lack of injection of new ideas; hence the team as a whole may lose touch with the market and lose its competitive edge. Also the open book culture perhaps discloses too much information to competitors and teams run the risk of losing competitiveness through not disclosing effective working practices and financial management.

2.3

Chapter 2 Summary

This chapter has documented the partnering process from the use of academic textbooks and journals available on the subject of partnering and construction procurement. The various stages of the partnering process, from conception to completion, have been identified and the requirements and activities of parties identified at each stage of the process.

The two types of partnering, project and strategic, have been identified and the differences in terms of the process and the benefits compared and contrasted. The most significant benefits of partnering for particular attributes have been discussed, including cost, time, teamwork and quality to name a few. To balance the argument the potential pitfalls of partnering have also been analysed to illustrate the areas when partnering can fail to benefit parties involved.

The findings where that partnering differs greatly from traditional forms of procurement, not just in the structure of the team but in the teams attitude towards the project at hand and the administration of the process. The key attributes to partnering are the emphasis on teamwork and trust. If these two attributes are in place the majority of the other benefits associated with partnering are achievable.

This chapter has covered the basics in terms of the theoretical aspects of partnering procurement for the construction industry and aids the understanding of the more in depth review of partnering in practice in chapter 3.

CHAPTER 3 REVIEW OF PARTNERING IN PRACTICE

3.1 Initial Literature Review

There are many research papers on the subject of partnering available in the public domain. Many of the authors of these papers review the current literature available on partnering, while others have obtained their own primary data an attempted to draw conclusions on the nature of partnering in the construction industry.

The most significant government based sources available on the subject of partnering have been mentioned previously (Latham, M. 1994 & Egan, J. 1998). Bresnen and Marshall have released a number of significant papers on the subject of partnering. They have focused on various issues associated with partnering, from the perceived advantages and disadvantages of partnering to the economic, organisational and technological aspects/behaviours that occur within firms that choose partnering agreements.

The paper that forms the basis of the primary research of this dissertation is An empirical study of the benefits of construction partnering in Hong Kong (Albert, Chan, Chan & Kathy 2002). This paper looks are the perceived advantages for firms within partnering agreements in Hong Kong and analyses primary collected data to assess Clients, Contractors and Consultants views towards these perceived advantages.

This chapter details the various attributes of partnering using the above and a variety of other sources available to the public domain.

3.2

Detailed Analysis of Selected Papers and Case Studies

The variety of literature that exists on partnering covers a wide range of aspects associated with construction projects. In order to systematically assess the information within the literature the main subject elements associated with partnering

have been identified and the key information documented and analysed under these elements.

Teamwork
The core structure of any partnering agreement is the team building element. This occurs at the earliest part of partnering process and it is essential that the right team and individuals within the team are fully competent and committed to achieving the set goals; otherwise the partnering philosophy is flawed.

The Constructing the Team report (Latham, M. 1994) is considered one of the key drivers for the increased interest and application of partnering in the UK. The report focused on the need for a cultural change in the industry from a fragmented state into one of integrated teams working towards common goals and objectives, such views are reinforced by the Egan Reports Rethinking Construction (1998) and Accelerating Change (2002).

It was noted in Rethinking Construction (Egan, J. 1998) that 163,000 construction companies were listed on the Department of The Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) statistical register and the majority were employing fewer than eight personnel. Egan believed this to be both an advantage and disadvantage, whilst it shows flexibility and diversity within the changing market the extensive use of subcontracting has hindered continuity of teamwork, thus hindering working efficiency.

Teamwork is essential to achieve the best results out of any business in terms of efficiency, profit and performance. In the world of construction this includes finishing projects on time for the right cost with acceptable levels of profit. The criticism of the UK construction industry from the above mentioned articles is that the industry as a whole is failing to achieve its goals and partnering is the best way forward to address this problem.

Trust Trust within the construction industry is not easy to achieve but it is very easy to lose. It would often appear that the various parties within the construction industry have their own agendas. Clients, consultants, contractors and suppliers are generally suspicious of one another often leading to poor working relationships and disputes. Its a culture that does not lead to success for all, despite everyone having the same goals, i.e. to complete a project on time to the highest quality for the right cost whilst maximising profit levels.

Trust however is commonly believed to be one of the key foundations for a successful partnering arrangement, without it the process and the concept will fail. The issue of trust was frequently discussed in the Constructing the Team report (Latham, M. 1994) who was very critical of current culture of distrust and the severe consequences for the industry.

disputes and conflicts have taken their toll on moral and team spirit. Defensive attitudes are common place (Latham, M. 1994)

Contracts have been seen by the industry as an effective method of reinforcing parties benefits (Wood, G. McDermott, P. No Date) rather than relying on trust and the actions of others. Partnering however requires the design and construction teams to take a different attitude towards trust. Goals and objectives are clearly defined and common to all involved and success depends on the team pulling in one direction. If the project fails due to one weak link in the team then all parties suffer so trust in one anothers competences to perform is paramount.

Wood, G. McDermott, P. carried out structured interviews with professional and organisational groups within the construction industry and identified five key characteristics of trust that the groups expected from one another.

1. Competence/Credibility/Reliability 2. Promise Keeping 3. Confidence 4. Communication 5. Reciprocity

A minimal degree of trust is required in any working relationship, doing so enlightens whether the above five characteristics are in place and determine whether cooperation and success is achievable (Wood, G. McDermott, P. No Date).

Trust, unlike many of the other perceived benefits of partnering, is not generally speaking a tangible benefit such as saving time, lowering cost, improving profits and improving quality (Lau, H.L. No Date). Instead it is seen more as a non-tangible benefit for a harmonious working relationship and maintaining such relations. Trust is certainly required in maintaining long term work arrangements and these have been more evident in history between contractors and sub-contractors rather than client/consultant/main contractor relationships.

The vast majority of the literature available all tend to agree that trust is not necessary a benefit of partnering, it is more of a necessity. Without trust, partnerships are unlikely to succeed and long-term relationships are difficult to achieve.

Costs Costs within the construction industry have traditionally been client driven. Competitive tendering has theoretically been based upon achieving the lowest construction cost possible and consultant quantity surveyors managing the cost during the contract with emphasis on achieving the clients preference of keeping cost increases to a minimum. However the lowest cost does not translate into best value and selecting contractors based upon low tender price can be associated with poor quality and higher risk (Egan, J. 1998).

Adopting partnering arrangements for procuring projects is believed to hold huge potential for driving down costs whilst improving quality and improving the management of cost related risk. However it is not suggested that initially construction costs will tumble as a result of partnering but the progression of long term relationships and the development of close working teams, innovation and problem solving, workload certainty and programme certainty will ultimately reduce design and construction costs in the long term.

Fortune, C. & Setiawan, S. (2005) gives an insight into the post-Egan agenda for delivery of social housing through partnering practices. Partnering leans towards a more open book costing approach, i.e. the sharing of cost information for the benefit of all involved. In the case of social housing market costs are monitored and compared with construction costs supplied by the contractors and suppliers allowing the management of risk and greater predictability of cost and profits (Fortune, C. & Setiawan, S. 2005).

Cost reduction can be achieved through partnering improving innovation, problem solving and learning. Examples of partnering practices between contractors and large corporate retail firm Tesco, fast food chain McDonalds and even the government with social housing developments have proved that strategic partnering can lead to lower design and construction costs. As the nature of the work is more repetitive, skills and lessons learnt are transferable from project to project. Designers and contractors are able to adopt the use of standardised and prefabricated components, reducing construction time, lowering defects and ultimately lowering the costs.

However a problem exists with costs within the construction industry in that a cost that is reasonable to a client may not be reasonable for a contractor and vice versa. Some authors believe that partnering will often not return the tangible benefits to the contractor due to clients deep-routed cost driven agendas (Green, 1999; Taylor 1999; Ng at al., 2002). It is often the clients nature to reduce costs and pass risks down the supply chain, not adopting the win-win attitude associated with partnering.

Programme Certainty A criticism of the UK construction industry from the Rethinking Construction report (Egan, J. 1998) was the continual and unnecessary overrunning of projects, increasing costs and inconvenience for clients. The report set targets for the industry to increase predictability of construction projects finishing on time by 20% per year and claims that leading clients have taken measures over recent years to reinforce this target.

Improved program certainty through partnering can be achieved through a number of avenues. The involvement of all parties and specialist abilities in the design and construction process allows a wider input of knowledge into the programming process (Carr, F, 1999). Programmes can then be created with improved risk assessments built into them. More regular programme meetings allows greater monitoring and identifying potential critical path threatening issues to be highlighted as the earliest possible stages and be addressed with accordingly. Even if issues result in delays to a project, communication of these delays to the client happen at an earlier stage, reducing the shock factor in the latter stages of a project and gives time to adjusted future on and off site works to bring the project back on programme.

Improved efficiency in the construction process through increased use of modern building technology, such as prefabricated and standardised materials and components. Such use of building technology can give greater certainty of construction times through a reduction in potential problems associated with insitu manufacture.

Quality Too often the UK construction industry hands over products to clients that ridden with defects. Poor quality of workmanship can be a result of the incompetence of the contractor or the design team. Partnering charters may often include for providing a finished product for a client with zero defects. Obliviously cowboy contractors will be eliminated from the team during the selection process due to the vetting process of selection ensuring that a required level of competence is proven through past projects

and interviews. However the design team can often be held accountable for not taking steps to reduce the number of possible defects through poor design techniques.

However, even if fully competent contractors and designers are on board, a target of zero defects is a challenging prospect. Achieving this can be possible simply from learning through experience (see learning sub-heading of this chapter). Asda applied the process of learning through mistakes when constructing a new store in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. The partnering team aimed to construct a new store with zero defects at handover. They achieved this by listing all the defects that had occurred on previous projects and then identifying the remedies that had been implemented. Where possible the CAD drawings were revised to incorporate these remedies to eliminate the most common defects associated with previous projects. Consultants were also involved in inspecting and recording defects as soon as they occurred to allow them to be dealt with as early as possible. The result was the completion of the store on time with the minimal amount of defects (Bennet, J. Jayes, S. 1998).

J. Sainsbury has also claimed that partnering has improved the quality of their new build stores. In 1990 they claimed that 70% of their new build stores were handed over with zero defects, increasing to 80% in 1998 (Bennet, J. Jayes, S. 1998). Multiple projects of the same or similar design perhaps lend themselves towards partnering better than one off bespoke projects. Repetition allows the development and use of standardised design and construction processes increasing the scope for achieving buildings with zero defects. The transfer of knowledge from one project the other means that lessons learnt are not discarded when design consultants, contractors and clients undertake a new project and lowers the scope for mistakes to creep into the process, helping to deliver a building that is fit for its purpose and to the highest possible quality.

Communication It can be suggested that improvements in communication through partnering are a result of improved trust. More open communication will help prevent problems growing into disputes and encourages problem solving at early stages (Barlow, J. Cohen, M. Jashapara, A. Simpson, Y. 1997).

Improvements in communication through partnering can be a result of more meetings between clients, contractors and consultants. More face to face communication improves understanding of one anothers activities and has a positive effect on all parties to pull in the same direction. Also communication links are increased, the most significant being the greater involvement of the sub-contractors and suppliers higher up the supply chain. A key benefit of improved communication with suppliers is the expertise they can bring to the design and development stages. Building material manufacturers and suppliers normally have extensive research and development expertise, expertise that be of a great asset to the design stage in improving building quality and reducing time and cost (Bennet, J. Jayes, S. 1998).

Communication between the client and parties normally lower down the supply chain is significantly improved through partnering. Clients become more of a team member, rather than just the customer, and are able to more clearly communicate their requirements to the whole of the team and no just the design team.

Innovation/Problem Solving Major innovations can occur during the design stage of a construction, such innovations may include the use of modern building materials and techniques. The Rethinking Construction report (Egan, J. 1998) states that the UK construction industry should move away from traditional design and building techniques, i.e. insitu manufacture and fixing of components on site by subcontracted specialist trades, toward an integrated construction process making use of prefabricated component manufacture off site and transported to site for assembly only. Pre-manufactured parts should also be standardised aiding designers in specifying reference components for construction.

Partnering is believed to be a catalyst for the use of modern building technologies and techniques for a number of reasons, one of the most significant reasons being the integration of the supply chain into the design process. Suppliers and manufacturers will have greater knowledge of the materials they provide than the designers and will process better knowledge on how to make the best use materials they supply. Direct contact between the designers and the suppliers should allow better use of the materials, meaning a higher quality product and the opportunity to reduce costs and construction times (Critchlow, J. 1998).

The stability of workload also means that designers and contractors can take more short term risks for greater benefits. Such risks may be the use of standardisation, prefabrication and modularisation. There are risks associated with the use of such building technologies due to their use to date not being widely used, despite the vast increase in recent years. Therefore there is many unknown issues associated with the use of standardisation, prefabrication and modularisation, however use in the long term means potential issues can be addressed and quality and construction times can be improved. Such example of modularisation includes McDonalds, who widely used these methods of construction for their new build restaurants. The firm experienced a dramatic increase in on site construction speeds, lower costs and zero defects at hand over.

Partnering is also believed to improve the problem solving processes at both design and construction stages of a project. Partnering has greater emphasis on identifying problems sooner, dealing with them as soon as they occur. Improved communication between the contractor and the consultant ensures that problems are identified early. Through this potential delays to the project are minimised, cost can be saved and quality can be improved.

Learning One of the main criticisms of the construction industry in the Rethinking Construction report (Egan, J. 1998) is the lack of investment for training in methods of construction techniques and organisational management. The nature of traditional forms of procurement, such as competitive tendering, results in the industry becoming fragmented, restricting the transfer of knowledge between firms due to the lack of interaction and close team working ideologies.

Barlow, J. Jashapara, A. (1998) have documented that partnering promotes and is catalyst for the rate learning for all firms in the design and construction process. The article claims that faster learning gives a greater advantage over competitors

It has been argued that partnering encourages and is a catalyst for the rate learning for all firms associated with partnering, as well as changing the traditional nature of learning cultures from single loop to double loop learning. The culture of single loop learning is to identify the internal or external environmental errors and correct these errors to bring them in line with the firms central organisational norms. Double loop learning however approaches the error from a different perspective and involves the firm assessing the best action to take, whether that would be the single point method or making necessary changes to the firms organisational norms to correct the error (Barlow, J. Jashapara, A. 1998).

Barlow, J. Jashapara, A. (1998) also argues that traditional competitive tendering reflects poor working relationships. It is claimed that contractors are not close enough to the clients to fully understand their needs and as a result learning about market changes becomes difficult. Also the continual alterations to the design and construction team by clients makes each project to a certain extent unique. Inconsistency in the team and types of project restricts the transferability of experience and knowledge of problem solving. Again this is a point continually raised within the Rethinking Construction report (Egan, 1998) with specific references that the construction industry has much to learn from manufacturing industries where consistency in the project team and the type of projects undertaken improve the ability to learn.

The key drivers for learning through partnering are the close knit teamwork and the consistency within the team members. Within partnering and other forms of collaborative procurement methods there will generally be more interaction of people and teams at different levels than compared with traditional competitive tendering. Clients will interact more with the contractor and design teams will have input from sub-contractors and suppliers further down the supply chain on a level not normally experienced. Consistency in the type of project and the teams allows experience of knowledge and problem solving to be transferable, ensuring that lessons learnt are not wasted.

Partnering therefore is perceived to increase the rate of learning through the issues discussed and gives firms a competitive advantage through improved knowledge and skills. Commitment Members of the construction industrys commitment to the client were continually brought into question in the Rethinking Construction report (Egan, J. 1998). Partnering requires greater commitment from the team members than traditional forms of procurement. Commitment to the project objectives is required in order build a strong relationship between the contractual parties based upon trust (Bresnen, M. Marshall, N. 2000b)

For one the arrangement of the team is normally for a longer period of time so there needs to be the commitment of resources and willingness to the team for the duration of the agreement (Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. 2000b). The commitment to long term partnering agreements should not be underestimated. All parties need to be committed to ensuring the project performance is as high as possible for the good of the team. A partnering team cannot reap the benefits without dealing with problems at some point during the project.

The commitment required is not just in terms of resources but the commitment to the client to perform to the highest standards possible. If a client is to persevere with a

selected team, the commitment from the team to providing the client with the product they desire is a fundamental requirement. If the partnering team cannot perform to the clients expectations then process is flawed and the team may be disbanded.

Therefore partnering requires commitment to the task at hand and also to the fellow team members. Each team member has a duty to perform to a required high standard and the option of walking away from a partnering agreement is a more difficult proposition compared to other traditional forms of procurement. Workloads Stability of workload has always been an issue with the UK construction industry; in particular the nature of competitive tendering causes uncertainty in securing consistent workloads for contractors. Contractors can spend a great deal of time and money tendering for several contracts and may be unsuccessful in all. Alternatively a contractor could win too much work and resources may become over stretched and quality and commitment can suffer as a result.

The result of inconsistent workloads has a huge impact on the contractor ability to predict and invest in the future. It is estimated that in-house research and development in construction companies has fallen by 80% since 1981 (Egan, 1998). One of the key reasons for this is the increased use of sub-contracting by main contractors. As competitive tendering offers no security in terms of workload for the long term, contractors are reluctant to invest in training of permanent staff. As a result contractors will simply hire the skills when required, reducing the risk of large wage overheads when work is scarce.

This is damaging to the industry in terms of innovation, competitiveness and the development of skills. The nature of competitive tendering is to drive costs down and limit contractors profit margins in order to secure workload and sufficient turnover for the firms.

Partnering offers greater long-term security in terms of workloads. Strategic partnering in particular allows contractor to plan their business activities for longer

periods of time. The benefit to this is the scope to invest in attributes such as skilled labour and modern building technologies in order to make the firm more competitive in the market place through improved efficiency in both on-site and off-site activities (Critchlow, J. 1998). Risk The nature of traditional procurement systems, such as competitive tendering, is to filter risk down the supply chain from the client to the contractor. A contractor will provide a cost to complete the whole of the works specified and will be bound to that cost through formal contracts such as the JCT or NEC standard forms of contract. The contractor is therefore given the difficult task of allowing in its price for the risk elements that it takes on board. These risks are varied and include items such as poor weather conditions, failure to secure materials and labour and allowance for many items that may not be specified in the pricing document to name just a few. This can make certainty to the levels of profit difficult for the contractor and thus inconsistencies in pricing and securing work.

Partnering offers a greater distribution of the risk. For one no formal standardised contract currently exists for partnering arrangements (Cartlidge, D. 2002). This immediately takes certain aspects of risk away from the contractor, as they are not bound to a specific price. However the flipside to this is that they do not have the contractual security that they will receive the payments for the works they complete. The absence of a formal contract moves some of the risk to the client who has no formal tried and tested legal binding agreement from the contractor to complete the works for an agreed price.

The partnering philosophy of a gentlemans agreement to work together for common goals to benefit all should mean that a formal contract is not necessary. The signing of a formal contract in principle undermines the key attribute of trust and so it is therefore deemed unnecessary. Despite this it is difficult deny that there is a significant degree of increased risk associated with contractual positions of parties if

partnering arrangements breakdown for one reason or another. The closest to any form of contract within many partnering arrangements will be the signed charter, outlining the agreement to work together to achieve certain objectives, but these are vague and are by no mean a comparable alternative to a formal form of contact with its extensive terms of agreements (Thomas, G. Thomas, M. 2005).

Partnering is often considered to increase risk due to the high levels of commitment required from the parties involved. Committing to a single client, team and particular market can be a risky decision to take. Parties involved are open to unfavourable changes in the particular market they are committed to and typically for long periods of time in strategic partnering arrangements. Even project partnering can carry huge risks, risks that have been highlighted in several recent projects involving the construction of football stadiums. Such examples include the construction of the Millennium stadium in Cardiff and more recently the construction of the new Wembley stadium. In both cases major contractors ran into serve financial difficulties, in the case of the Millennium stadium the contractor, Laings, previously one of the largest contracting companies in the UK, went into liquidation after the completion of the project. This reinforces the message that large partnering projects can carry huge risks and serve consequences when they go wrong, even for the largest of construction companies. Disputes Traditional forms of procurement are often criticised for failing to prevent disputes. While traditional forms of contract offer protection for both clients and contractors when relationships break down the contract is far too often used as a tool against the other party. It can be suggested that the signing of a contract before works commence instantly installs doubt and mistrust in the other party even before the project is underway. Disputes will often arise over the content of the contract and parties often want to alter standard clauses to protect themselves from potential future disputes.

Partnering is based around trust and a movement away from the blame culture that is evident in traditional forms of procurement. As long a there is a soundly based

relationship between the client and the contractor, there should be no need for formal contracts (Egan, J. 1998).

However partnering offers the potential to reduce disputes at all levels, not just between the client/contractor relationships. The relationships between the contractor and sub-contractor should theoretically be improved with greater involvement of the sub-contractors skills at both design and construction stages of the projects. The greater certainty of cost should also reduce the scope for disputes with sub-contractors who are more reassured with the scale and regularity of their payments.

3.3

Chapter 3 Summary

This chapter has analysed the key attributes of partnering from research papers and other published journal literature available to the public domain. The research included the views of different parties on partnering procurement and case study examples where partnering has improved project performance and outcomes.

The research has uncovered mixed views towards partnering; while there are many benefits experienced there are also examples of the partnering process failing with severe consequences for those involved.

The research in this chapter has also identified the key attributes of partnering procurement. From this the questionnaire survey for the primary research was derived and the areas researched in chapters 2 & 3 aided the critical analysis of the primary data in the following chapter.

CHAPTER 4 PRIMARY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

Independent research was undertaken to obtain information outside the existing public domain to argue the questions and assumptions raised in Chapter 1. Both quantitative and qualitative data was obtained from quantity surveyors in the UK who have been involved in partnering related projects. This chapter explains the method of the data collection and analysis and a full discussion of the results against the questions and assumptions set in chapter 1.

4.2

PART 1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.2.1 Stage 1 Method of Gathering Data

Stage 1 involved the gathering of opinions and perceptions of quantity surveyors towards partnering within the UK construction industry through a questionnaire survey. Questions were derived from the literature research conducted in chapters 2 & 3, focusing on the key economic, organisation and cultural elements associated with partnering.

The questionnaire comprised a list of statements under various sub-headings of the key elements of partnering. A copy of the questionnaire issued can be found in appendix A of this document. Respondents were asked to give an opinion on their agreement on each question using a five point ranking system, 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. From this the data can be analysed to identify the opinions of quantity surveyors perceptions of partnering in comparison with the literature reviewed.

The questionnaire aims to identify views of quantity surveyors opinions on the key areas of partnering. These key areas comprise the following.

Teamwork Trust Cost Programme Certainty Quality Communication Innovation/Problem Solving Learning Commitment Workloads Risk Disputes

Questionnaires shall be issued to both professional consultant quantity surveyors and contractor quantity surveyors so that comparisons can be drawn against the same professions working in different environments of the construction industry. All questionnaires were issued via email with a covering letter explaining the purpose of the questionnaire and instructions on how to complete and return, this can be found in appendix A of this document. Email addresses were obtained from the official websites of the companies and personnel contacts through working in the field of quantity surveying. The full list of company names and email addresses of the individuals who were sent questionnaires can be found in appendix B of this document.

4.2.2 Stage 2 Method of Summarising Gathered Data

Once the data has been obtained, analysis of the results will be required to identify trends in opinions on the perceived benefits of partnering. The mean score method (Chan, Chan & Ho, 2003) will be adopted to establish mean scores in the 5 point ranking system for each question. This mean score then determines the relative ranking of importance for each question/statement to determine which attributes of partnering are perceived as being the most significant for positive and negative reasons.

The mean score for each question/statement shall be computed by the following formula.

MS =

S
N

Where S = score given to each question (1-5) N = total number of response for each question/statement

In addition to the mean score a standard deviation shall be calculated for each question/statement to access the level of consistency in the range of the ranking for each question/statement. The standard deviation was calculated using the following formula.

( x x)
n

Where x = score from respondent

x = Mean score of attribute n = Number of Respondents

In order to focus the analysis on a like for like basis the participants will be split into two groups, these being the professional consultant quantity surveyor group and the contractor quantity surveyor group.

The agreement of respondents between the consultant and contractor quantity surveyor groups shall be measured using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (Chan, Chan & Ho, 2003) and will be computed using the following formula.
6d 2 Rs = 1 N ( N 2 1)

Where Rs = Spearman rank correlation coefficient

d = the difference in rank of two groups

N = total number of response to question/statement

The Spearman rank correlation coefficient shall be analysed to identify any positive or negative sign, scale of strength to establish any significance within the survey results for the individual groups. The closer Spearman rank correlation coefficient is to 1 then the stronger the relationship between the two groups analysed.

Finally the questions/statements will be assessed in terms of positively/importance through a ranking system. As all the questions/statements are positive towards partnering a higher score indicates a positive score towards that particular aspect of partnering. The questions/statements will be ranked according to their mean scores to determine which areas of partnering have been considered to be the most positive. This ranking system will be applied to all respondents and consultant and contractor quantity surveying groups to assess any relationships in the perceived importance of the particular attributes of partnering.

All spreadsheets and calculations for the above analysis can be found in appendix C of this document.

4.2.3

Stage 3 Method of Analysis of Summarised Data

Following the numerical analysis of the returned questionnaire data in appendix C of this document, only the relevant output figures of the data are to be analysed in this section of the document. The relevant output data is a follows.

All Results

Mean Score

Average score for question/statement from all respondents

Standard Deviation The degree of the deviation of all the scores from the mean for all respondents.

Minimum Score -

The minimum score given to a question/statement (1 5)

Maximum Score -

The maximum score given to a question/statement (1 5)

Group Results

Mean Score Consultants QS -

Average score for question/statement from consultant QS respondents

Mean Score Contractors QS -

Average score for question/statement from contractor QS respondents

Range -

Difference between consultant and contractors QS mean scores.

Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient -

A measure of the correlation between the two groups of results.

From the above data it will be possible to determine the level of agreement of the two

groups of quantity surveyors on the significance/insignificance of the perceived benefits of partnering procurement and level of significance in relation to other benefits.

Mean Score Analysis

As a general rule the following conclusions can be made from the following mean scores

4.0 or greater A strong positive agreement throughout the respondents that this working attribute is improved through partnering over traditional forms of procurement

3.4 3.9 A significant number of respondents agree that this working attribute is improved through partnering over traditional forms of procurement

3.0 3.3 There is some positively towards partnering improving this working attribute but the majority of respondents do not believe that partnering offers any significant advantage over traditional forms of procurement.

2.8 2.9 The majority of respondents believe that there is no significant advantage gained over traditional forms of procurement for this particular attribute.

Below 2.8 There is a strong opinion that the particular working attribute is not improved through partnering procurement in comparison to traditional forms of procurement.

Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient

As a general rule the following conclusions regarding the agreement of consultant and contractor quantity surveyors can be made from the Spearman rank correlation coefficient.

Greater than 0.95

Very strong correlation between the respondents opinions.

0.90 0.94

The vast majority of respondents from the two groups show significant correlation

0.80 0.89

While there is generally strong correlation between the two groups of results there is a noticeable level of variations in the respondents levels of agreement.

0.70 0.79

No positive agreement between the groups results can be concluded.

Below 0.70

There is a significant level of disagreement between the two groups.

4.3

PART 2 ANALYSIS OF SUMMERISED DATA

Analysis of Respondents
The table below summarises the percentage of respondents in relation to the number of questionnaires issued.

No. Issued Respondents Respondent % Consultant Quantity Surveyors Contractor Quantity Surveyors Total 104 45 149 17 6 23 16.35% 13.33% 15.44%

As a large proportion of the questionnaires sent out were not specifically issued to quantity surveyors with known partnering experience an overall respondents percentage of 15.44% from the 149 issued can be considered as a reasonable response. Unfortunately only six of the 45 questionnaires issued to contractor quantity surveyors were returned, meaning a more limited range of results than the 17 received from the consultant quantity surveyors. Despite this the pool of data should be wide enough to carryout the required detailed analysis.

Results Ranking and Mean Scores

The following table documents the results of the respondents scoring to all the attributes and are ranked in order of their mean score from highest to lowest.

Rank

Statement Statement No.

Attribute

Total Score Mean Ranking

Teamwork is improved through the use of partnering compared with other traditional forms of procurement

Team Work 92 Communication 91 Commitment 90 3.91 3.96 4.00

11

Communication is improved between parties through partnering

17

Partnering projects require greater levels of commitment than projects of other procurement routes

23

If disputes arise during partnering they are less likely to be resolved through litigation and other legal methods

Disputes 88 3.83

Relationships between parties are stronger within partnering arrangements

Team Work 87 Innovation / Problem Solving 3.78

13

Partnering encourages greater innovation and problem solving

87

3.78

Partnering greatly improves and promotes trust in comparison with traditional forms of procurement

Trust 85 Learning 85 Trust 84 Communication 82 Disputes 81 3.52 3.57 3.65 3.70 3.70

15

Firms are able to a greater understanding of one another's specialisations and activities from close working relationships associated with partnering

Trust is a result of partnering ensuring that competency, credibility and reliability is a fundamental requirement from the team

10

12

Communication is improved internally within the individual parties through partnering

11

24

There is less confrontation between parties within partnering arrangements

Cont Rank Statement Statement No. Atribute Total Score Mean Ranking

12

19

Workload certainty is improved in the medium to long term through undertaking partnering projects

Workloads 80 Programme Certainty 3.48

13

Project completion date certainty is improved through partnering

79 78

3.43 3.39

14 15

22 21

Risk levels are not increased through partnering Risk is more evenly distributed through the parties involved in partnerships

Risk Risk

77 Learning 76 Cost 74 Programme Certainty 73 Innovation/Problem Solving 72 Quality 71

3.35

16

16

Partnering allows greater learning of the markets demands and needs

3.30

17

Cost certainty is improved through partnering procurement

3.22

18

Design and construction durations are reduced within partnering arrangements compared to traditional forms of procurement

3.17

19

14

Partnering offers a greater incentive to use modern building technologies, such as prefabrication and standardisation

3.13

20

Build quality is higher within partnering arrangements

3.09

21

Overall project costs are reduced through partnering compared to traditional forms of procurement

Cost 70 3.04 2.96

22 23

20 18

Workload volume is increased through partnering The levels of commitment of resources for partnering project does not cause other projects within the company to suffer as a result

Workloads Commitment

68

67 Quality 64

2.91

24

10

Zero defects at handover is achievable through partnering

2.78

As the table shows the response to partnering was generally positive with 13 attributes scoring on average higher than 3.43. Only 3 attributes scored below 3.0, the point where partnering is considered to offer no significant benefit over traditional forms of procurement. Each attribute was statically analysed in further detail for discussion.

Individual Question/Statement Results

Each question/statement results have been analysed in greater detail and the results are as follows.

Teamwork

Question 1 - Relationships between parties are stronger within partnering arrangements.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.78 0.95 1 5 5

3.65 4.17 0.52 0.73

5 4

An all respondents mean score of 3.78 indicates that a significant number of respondents agree that partnering arrangements improve the working relationships between the various parties involved. Interestingly the contractors quantity surveyors agree more positively with this than the consultants and as a result the Spearman rank coefficient is relatively low, suggesting a degree of disagreement in the significance of partnering influence on creating stronger relationships. However both groups rank this attribute highly in relation to other attributes, contractors and consultants ranking the improvement of relationships 4th and 5th places out of 24 questions respectively.

Question 2 - Teamwork is improved through the use of partnering compared with other traditional forms of procurement.
Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 4.00 1.04 1 5 1

3.88 4.33 0.45 0.80

2 1

A mean score of 4.00 ranks improvements in teamwork performance through partnering as the most significant benefit. However the high standard deviation suggests that there is a noticeable level of disagreement but closer analysis of the results reveals that only two respondent ranked this attribute below 4. Again contractors have scored this attribute higher than the consultants, hence the relatively low Spearman rank correlation coefficient. However both groups have ranked improvements in teamwork very highly against other attributes, ranking 1st for contractors and 2nd for consultants.

Trust
Question 3 - Partnering greatly improves and promotes trust in comparison with traditional forms of procurement.
Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency 3.70 0.82 2 5 7

3.65 3.83 0.19

6 8

Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation

0.97

Both consultants and contractors have ranked the improvement of trust through partnering reasonably highly, 6th and 8th place respectively. An overall mean score of 3.70 places the attribute ranking in 7th position out of 24 and there is evidence of strong correlation between consultant and contractors views. A reasonable standard deviation also suggests some correlation between the rankings of the scores throughout. Question 4 - Trust is a result of partnering ensuring that competency, credibility and reliability is a fundamental requirement from the team.
Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.65 0.93 2 5 9

3.59 3.83 0.25 0.94

10 9

The survey results indicate a reasonably strong view that trust is a result the partnering process for selecting a competent team. The consultant and contractor group mean scores and ranking show strong correlation in their responses. Overall ranking of this attribute lies just above the middle in relation to other attributes, indicating a reasonably high agreement that partnering improves trust due to the competency, credibility and reliability elements of the team selection process.

Cost

Question 5 - Cost certainty is improved through partnering procurement.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.22 0.95 2 5 17

3.12 3.50 0.38 0.85

18 15

From the background research, partnering has been heavily praised for its improvements in cost control and cost reductions. However despite this the survey results indicate a very different scenario. With a mean score of 3.22 and an overall ranking position of 17 out of 24 it suggests that the respondents believe that partnering does not offer greater cost certainty over traditional forms of procurement. Consultants seem to indicate this slightly more than contractors, with ranking against other attributes 18th and 15th respectively. Question 6 - Overall project costs are reduced through partnering compared to traditional forms of procurement.
Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.04 0.82 2 4 21

2.94 3.33 0.39 0.85

22 17

Like cost certainty, cost reduction also scored poorly. A mean score of 3.04 and an overall ranking of 21 out of 24 suggests that the respondents do not agree that partnering offers significant cost reduction benefits over traditional forms of procurement. Within the groups, again like cost certainty, the contractors have scored this attribute slightly higher, but the difference is not enough to conclude a positive disagreement between the two groups.

A low range between the highest and lowest scores, a low standard deviation and a reasonably high Spearman rank correlation coefficient suggests good correlation throughout all the respondents.

Programme Certainty

Question 7 - Project completion date certainty is improved through partnering.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.43 0.59 2 4 13

3.29 3.83 0.54 0.71

13 10

A reasonable mean score of 3.43, a low min/max score range and a low standard deviation shows a good correlation towards the view that partnering improves project completion date certainty. However the higher mean score for contractors and the low Spearman rank correlation suggests contractors are more strongly in agreement with this attribute than consultants. Ranking of this attribute appears to be mid table in relation to other attributes on partnering within the survey.

Question 8 - Design and construction durations are reduced within partnering arrangements compared to traditional forms of procurement.
Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.17 0.98 1 5 18

3.12 3.33 0.22 0.95

19 18

A low mean score of 3.17 and an overall ranking of 18 out of 24 suggest that the respondents are not in agreement with partnering reducing design periods and contract durations. A strong Spearman rank correlation is evident with a coefficient of 0.95, indicating agreement between the two groups on the attribute and ranking against other attributes is also similarly low.

Quality

Question 9 - Build quality is higher within partnering arrangements.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.09 0.85 2 5 20

3.18 2.83 0.34 0.88

15 23

A low mean score of 3.09 suggests that the respondents are not in agreement that partnering helps improve build quality. Interestingly the contractors quantity surveyors group mean score of 2.83 indicates a strong belief that build quality is not improved and ranked the attribute at 23 out of 24. The consultants mean score of 3.18 is slightly more positive but is not evidence of a conclusive agreement with the statement.

Question 10 - Zero defects at handover is achievable through partnering.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 2.78 1.09 1 5 24

2.65 3.17 0.52 0.73

24 20

With a mean score of 2.78 and an overall ranking of 24 out of 24, the respondents appear to strongly disagree that a zero defect policy through partnering is achievable. Consultants appear to believe this more strongly than contractors, evidence by a much lower mean score and weak Spearman rank correlation. This appears to conflict to a certain degree with the previous attribute where contractors believed that build quality was not improved through partnering and scoring the attribute lower than the consultants. However the contractor mean score and ranking are still in relation to other attributes low, so no positive agreement with this attribute can be made.

Communication
Question 11 - Communication is improved between parties through partnering.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.96 0.77 2 5 2

3.82 4.33 0.51 0.74

3 2

The results of the respondents clearly show an agreement that partnering improves external communication between the various parties of the team. A mean score of 3.96 ranks 2nd amongst all the attributes and has been scored highly by both the consultant and contractor quantity surveyors, however slightly higher by the contractors, hence the relatively weak Spearman rank correlation coefficient. However the reasonably low standard deviation suggests a good correlation of scoring throughout all the respondents.

Question 12 - Communication is improved internally within the individual parties through partnering.
Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.57 0.79 2 5 10

3.41 4.00 0.59 0.65

11 7

The respondents views on the improvement of internal communication through partnering appear to show a noticeable split between the consultants and contractors. The contractors mean score of 4.00 indicates a strong agreement that partnering improves internal communication. Whilst the consultants mean score of 3.41 is not a negative response to the attribute is far off the level of agreement shown by the contractor quantity surveyors and this is reflected the Spearman rank correlation coefficient of 0.65 and the ranking positions of the attribute in relation to others..

Innovation/Problem Solving

Question 13 - Partnering encourages greater innovation and problem solving.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.78 0.85 1 5 6

3.65 4.17 0.52 0.73

7 5

The promotion of innovation and problem solving scored a high 3.78 mean score from the respondents pushing the attribute up to a ranking of 6th place overall. Again, like many of the results analysed, contractors were again more positive towards this attribute than the consultants. Ranking for both groups was high, 7th for consultants and 5th for contractors but a low Spearman rank correlation coefficient highlights the scale of the difference in the consultant and contractor views.

Question 14 - Partnering offers a greater incentive to use modern building technologies, such as prefabrication and standardisation.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.13 0.81 2 5 19

3.12 3.17 0.05 1.00

20 21

A low mean score of 3.13 and overall ranking position of 19 suggests that the respondents are not in agreement with the statement that partnering encourages the use of modern building technology. There is a strong correlation between the contractors and consultants response, evidenced through the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and near identical mean scores and ranking positions. The relatively low standard deviation also suggest strong correlation of score throughout all respondents

Learning

Question 15 - Firms are able to achieve a greater understanding of one another's specialisations and activities from close working relationships associated with partnering.
Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.70 0.82 2 5 8

3.71 3.67 0.04 1.00

4 13

A mean score of 3.70 ranks this attribute highly against others and there is a very strong correlation between the consultants and contractors responses. However the contractors ranking of 13th out of 24 is much lower in comparison with the consultants ranking of 4th. This is a result of the contractor quantity surveyors scoring other attributes generally higher than the consultants. It can be concluded that partnering improves the inter-firm learning from the quantity surveyors perspective.

Question 16 - Partnering allows greater learning of the markets demands and needs.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.30 0.88 2 5 16

3.18 3.67 0.49 0.76

16 14

The results show that the contractor quantity surveyors response to partnering and learning of the markets demands and needs is more positive than the consultant quantity surveyors. However with rankings of 14 and 16 out of 24 neither groups have score the attribute as highly as others, suggesting that partnering does not offer a great significant difference over traditional forms of procurement in identifying market demands and needs.

Commitment

Question 17 - Partnering projects require greater levels of commitment than projects of other procurement routes.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.91 1.00 1 5 3

3.94 3.83 0.11 0.99

1 11

Both groups of respondents agreed that partnering requires a greater level of commitment than other forms of procurement. An overall ranking of 3 out of 24 is a result of the high number of consultant respondents scoring the attribute very highly making it the highest ranking attribute for the consultant surveyors out of the 24 surveyed. There is strong correlation between the consultant and contractor scoring, however the ranking for the contractors is much lower, 11th place, due to the high scoring of other attributes.

Question 18 - The levels of commitment of resources for partnering project does not cause other projects within the company to suffer as a result.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 2.91 0.85 1 4 23

2.76 3.33 0.57 0.68

23 19

The level of commitment of resources for partnering arrangements shows a split in the opinions of the two groups. Consultant surveyors strongly disagree that more resources than normal are not required and that it does have a negative impact on other projects within the firm. However contractors appear to agree to a certain extent that partnering projects do not. However the mean score of 3.33 for the contractor surveyor is not high enough to confirm that this is a positive assumption. Neither groups scoring is high in any case, thus the low ranking of the attribute for both groups, but the difference in the scoring and low Spearman rank correlation coefficient suggests a noticeable difference in opinions.

Workloads

Question 19 - Workload certainty is improved in the medium to long term through undertaking partnering projects.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.48 0.79 2 5 12

3.65 3.00 0.65 0.58

8 22

The improvement of workload certainty through partnering also shows a divide in opinion between the two groups. Consultant surveyors mean score of 3.65 and position ranking of 8 out of 24 is noticeably higher than that of the contractors surveyors mean score of 3.00 and ranking position of 22 out of 24. The low Spearman rank correlation coefficient reinforces this divide in opinion.

Question 20 - Workload volume is increased through partnering.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 2.96 0.77 2 4 22

3.06 2.67 0.39 0.85

21 24

A mean score of 2.96 and an overall ranking of 22 out of 24 highlight the respondents general disagreement that partnering offered significant benefits in increasing workload over traditional forms of procurement. Contractor surveyors generally show a stronger disagreement and the attribute ranks at the bottom of all the attributes in the survey. The low standard deviation indicates strong correlation throughout the respondents and the contractor and consultants scores are also reasonably close.

Risk

Question 21 - Risk is more evenly distributed through the parties involved in partnerships.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.35 0.98 1 4 15

3.18 3.83 0.66 0.57

17 12

The even distribution of risk within partnering agreements also appears divided between the two quantity surveying groups with the contractors scoring the attribute significantly higher than the consultant surveyors. A low Spearman rank correlation coefficient highlights this difference along with the ranking positions of 12 for the contractor and 17 for the consultant. Across the full range of respondents the mean score of 3.35 suggests than partnering does not over greater distribution of risk than traditional forms of procurement to any great extent.

Question 22 - Risk levels are not increased through partnering.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.39 0.84 2 5 14

3.35 3.50 0.15 0.98

12 16

A mean score of 3.39 and an overall ranking of 14 does not suggest that partnering offers significant benefits in capping risk levels in comparison with traditional forms of procurement. There is a strong Spearman rank correlation between the two groups and a low standard deviation, indicating similar views towards the attribute.

Disputes

Question 23 - If disputes arise during partnering they are less likely to be resolved through litigation and other legal methods.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.83 0.89 2 5 4

3.65 4.33 0.69 0.53

9 3

An overall mean score of 3.83 shows a strong agreement that disputes within partnering agreements are less likely to be resolved through litigation and the legal system. However there is a sizable divide between the contractor and consultant quantity surveyors opinions on this, highlighted in the differing mean scores and low Spearman rank correlation coefficient. As a result the contractor quantity surveyors have ranked this attribute in 3rd position while the consultants 9th out of 24.

Question 24 - There is less confrontation between parties within partnering arrangements.

Rank All Results Mean Score Standard Deviation Lowest Score Highest Score Group Results Mean Score - Consultants QS Mean Score - Contractors QS Frequency Contractor/Consultant QS Spearman Rank Correlation 3.52 1.08 1 5 11

3.29 4.17 0.87 0.24

14 6

The statement There is less confrontation between parties within partnering arrangements produced largest difference in opinions between the two groups in the survey. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient of 0.24 was the lowest recorded and ranking position difference of 8 places was the highest. The contractor quantity surveyors opinion is strong towards less confrontation within partnering agreements. While the consultants opinion is not a negative one, it is not strong enough to suggest that they are in agreement with the statement.

4.4

PART 3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.4.1

Introduction to Discussion of Results

Following the analysis of the collected survey data the results will be discussed in order to collate the data into a conclusive argument and answer the questions and assumptions raised in chapter 1 of this research study. To assist the discussion of survey data, follow up semi-structured interviews with a consultant quantity surveyor and a contractor quantity surveyor, who both submitted surveys for this research study, took place. Both quantity surveyors were asked to expand on the answers given in the survey questionnaire and their opinions were recorded for use in the discussion section of this chapter.

The consultant quantity surveyor interviewed was Andrew Longmire, a senior quantity surveyor who had been involved in a partnering agreement while working for a small consultancy practice based in London called Philip Pank Partnership. The partnering project involved the development of social housing for the local authority with Willmot Dixon as the main contractor. The scheme started out as a project partnered scheme which developed into strategic partnering as a result of a positive performance from the team.

The contractor quantity surveyor interview was Dean Richardson who had previously worked for contracting firm Wiltshires, who entered into a partnering agreement for a period of 4 years with Boots to provide 60 pharmacist outlets within Sainsburys supermarket stores across the UK.

Notes of the interviews and contact details for the interviewees have been included in appendix D of this document.

4.4.2

Survey/Interview Results and Research Questions

Discussion of the results of the survey and interviews will be used to attempt to answer the research questionnaires and assumptions set in chapter 1.

Question 1

What are the most significant benefits quantity surveyors experience through partnering?

The survey and the interviews suggested that partnering offered many avenues for improvement. Survey results ranked attributes such as improvements in teamwork, communication, commitment to the project and the reduction of legal involvement and disputes as some of the more significant benefits experienced through partnering arrangements. Such benefits were greatly praised by the interviewees of both the consultant and contractor quantity surveyors. Teamwork was frequently praised during the interviews and other benefits were often perceived to be as a result of improvements in teamwork attitudes.

Partnering encourages all team members to pull in the same direction for a common benefit and better teamwork means all involved will benefit. Improved teamwork goes hand in hand with better communication at all levels. The interviewees agreed that the involvement of sub-contactors and suppliers, normally lower down the supply chain, in the design and development process provided significant benefits in term of quality, cost and construction techniques. Also the open book approach encouraged

the sharing of information at all levels, improving communication and ensuring problems were never hidden and ignored.

The interviewees often stated that partnering encouraged the team to get things right first time and that there was an increased level of commitment towards the project in order to achieve this. The knock on effect of this is improvements in build quality and less scope for disputes when things go wrong. The survey results and interviews clearly stressed that disputes are significantly reduced through partnering, mainly due to the team working culture and attitudes to sorting out problems early rather than ignoring them until the problem worsens and blame culture starts to take effect.

The survey results in general were positive towards partnering procurement. An average mean score of 3.44 for all attributes reinforces this and visual inspection shows that very few attributes were given negative responses. However it should not be ignored that their were some significant variations in the responses to some of the highly ranked attributes, highlighted in high standard deviations, suggesting that the respondents to the questionnaires may have had varying experience towards partnering.

Question 2
Where does partnering fail to deliver the perceived benefits for the quantity surveyor?

Very few attributes within the survey results were negative towards partnering. However the research conducted in chapters 2 and 3 highlighted several attributes that should be significantly improved through partnering but scored very poorly in the survey. Such attributes included the prospect of achieving zero defects for handover of the completed project to the client. The survey results scored this attribute the lowest out of all and the interviewees strongly disagreed with the claim that zero defects is achievable. However this is should not be taken as a negative towards partnering as having the goal of achieving zero defects, even though not achievable, can help reduce the level of defects normally associated with non-partnered construction projects.

Other attributes that were expected to score highly but failed to do so included the reduction of contract durations and the use of modern building technologies, such as prefabrication and standardisation of building components. The interviewees were slightly more positive, the contractors quantity surveyor more so, that the increased use of standardisation/prefabrication and general improvements in teamwork, communication and consistency in the team member did help reduce contract durations over long periods. However it was not a benefit that was experienced in the initial stages of the process due to the learning curve and familiarisation with the process.

The key benefit that was expected to score highly was the attributes relating to the reduction of costs and improved cost certainty. However they ranked 17th and 21st respectively out of 24, suggesting that the respondents by no means agreed that cost certainty was improved and costs reduced through partnering. This is surprising as much of the research conducted prior to the issue of the questionnaire highlighted cost reduction as one of the key drivers for undertaking partnering.

The interviewees gave some insight into partnering and cost. The contractor quantity experienced a reduction of costs in the region of 20% over the 4 year period of the agreement, mainly through the consistent use of the same team and the repetitive nature of the work, allowing a significant increase in efficiency. The consultant quantity surveyor agreed that there was scope to reduce costs and increase cost certainty but from experience this did not transpire. This may have been due to the nature of house building being less repetitive and slightly more complex and fitting out shop units.

It may therefore be concluded that cost reduction and cost certainty improvement may be significantly affected by the nature of the work. While some partnering agreements may experience great benefits in these areas, other may experience very little difference to that of traditional forms of procurement.

Question 3

What are the significant cultural and organisational changes required by the quantity surveyor when partnering agreements are made?

It is evident that cultural and organisation changes will have to be made from the quantity surveyor when involved in a partnering based project in comparison with projects executed under traditional forms of procurement. The high scoring of teamwork and communication attributes requires a different working attitude from any member of the various parties involved. While it is very difficult to assess changes in cultural attitudes and organisational structures from the quantitative data of the questionnaire survey, the interviews gave greater insight into the effects of partnering on the firms and the employees.

Both of the interviewees confirmed that there has to be an attitude toward working together to achieve a common goal. The open book approach is unfamiliar to those who have not partnered before and some quantity surveying firms may not always be willing to disclose information regarding their activities and position within the team to others.

From a quantity surveyors perspective, confrontation and disputes have almost been accepted to a certain degree to be part of the process, i.e. consultant surveyors will dispute high costs to lower the overall cost and contractor surveyors will argue from the other perspective. This is where trust and honesty is a fundamental requirement for partnering, especially when costs are evolved. All parties need to receive a reasonable level of benefits but defining what a reasonable level of benefits is for each party is difficult to quantify.

Often quantity surveying firms will have to change their organisational structures to accommodate these new partnering agreements. In the case of the contractor interviewee the client, Boots, closed down one of the regional offices and moved their personnel connected with the partnered project into the contractors office. While this helped communication the interviewee claimed that normal working practices were disrupted for both parties and there was a period of trust and working relationship building that was forcefully put upon the employees.

Question 4
Do consultant quantity surveyors and contractor quantity surveyors perceive different benefits from partnering procurement?

As previously discussed in the analysis of the survey data, while consultant and contractor quantity surveyors have shown strong correlation in the opinions on the various attributes of partnering, there are areas where the two group appear to disagree on the perceived benefits of partnering.

Interestingly, the contractors quantity surveyors overall mean scoring for all attributes of 3.66 was higher than that of the consultants quantity surveyors mean score of 3.37, suggesting that the contractors were more positive towards partnering than consultants. When analysing the results for the individual attributes there are several key areas when the two groups appear to disagree.

The results for the cost reduction and cost certainty differences in opinions have been discussed previously and while the Spearman rank correlation of the results are not particularly low there was a noticeable difference in the scoring in an attribute which was expected to be conclusively positive. The interviewees also gave split opinions on the cost issues surrounding partnering. While the contractor quantity surveyor experienced a reduction in costs over the duration of the partnering agreement, the consultant quantity surveyor experienced little difference in cost reduction and cost certainty over traditional forms of procurement.

The two interviewees also gave split opinions on programme reduction and certainty, where the contractor believed that construction durations were reduced and completion dates were more certain. However the consultant quantity surveyor again did not agree that there were any significant benefits over traditional forms of procurement. However this differences in opinion may be project specific and the fact that the contractors project of pharmacist fit outs being more repetitive in nature than the construction of social housing.

Other differences in opinions were the reduction of disputes through partnering, as the contractors quantity surveyors from the survey results seemed to indicate more strongly that disputes were reduced than the consultants. The contractor interviewee claimed that generally the relationships with sub-contractors were much improved, mainly due to the certainty of cost and their greater involvement within the team. As the consultant quantity surveyors are not generally involved with sub-contractors this may explain why this benefit did not affect them. However the consultant quantity surveyor interviewee did agree that disputes were reduced due to the improvements in teamwork and trust.

An interesting result from the survey was the difference in opinion of workload certainty. The contractor respondents scored and ranked this attribute relatively low in comparison with the consultant surveyors while the secondary research suggested that workload certainty is a key benefit that partnering offers for contractors. This result appears to be an anomaly in the results and the contractor interviewee agreed that partnering improved workload certainty. This anomaly may simply be a result of the lack of contractor quantity surveyor respondents and not a true reflection of the groups opinions.

Despite the differences of opinions for certain attributes discussed there was generally strong correlation between the opinions of contractor and consultant quantity surveyors towards the benefits of partnering procurement.

Question 5
Is partnering the solution to the problems regularly experienced by quantity surveyors in traditional forms of procurement?

All the statements in the survey were designed to extract from the respondent their views on whether partnering procurement offered benefits over traditional forms, such as competitive tendering routes. From the results, 13 attributes had higher mean scores than 3.40 and these were considered to indicate a positive benefit for partnering over traditional procurement for these attributes. Only 3 attributes had a lower mean score than 3.00, indicating that the respondents believed partnering did not provide any sort of benefit in only a small number of areas.

The general response from both the interviewees were positive towards partnering. Generally the were in agreement in the majority of the benefits that partnering provided from their past experiences. However it cannot be concluded that partnering will provide the benefits analysed in this research dissertation for all construction projects. In many respects the application of partnering is limited to certain markets within the construction industry.

The majority of the benefits from the strategic partnering perspective are mainly achieved through multiple new build projects of a repetitive nature. This does not really lend its self to most renovation projects where the problems and solutions are often unique and repetition is limited. However this does not mean that that partnering methods cannot be applied to the team selection process and the way the team executes the project, approaching the project from the project partnering angle.

It can be argued that members of the construction industry have been partnering for years and the terms and philosophys of project and strategic partnering procurement is nothing more than documenting a process that already existed. This is true to a certain extent, even though competitive tendering and standard forms of contracts are used this does not mean that some form of partnering is not taking place. Clients, contractors and consultants within the industry have been using the same teams for

many years. The absence of a charter or workshops and other associated features of partnering does not exclude what members of the industry are doing from the partnering process. It is unreasonable to suggest that because your not partnering that the trust, commitment and teamwork attributes, that are vital for successful working relationships, are not there.

It is difficult to ignore the positive attitudes towards partnering in both the background and primary research conducted. The UK construction industry at the present is still experiencing a boom and looks set to continue in this manner for some years to come with huge urban regeneration projects across the country and the build up to the London Olympics in 2012. It can therefore be argued that partnering it not necessary essential at this point in time for both clients, contractors and consultants who have healthy workloads and are making acceptable levels of profit. Government reports such as Rethinking Construction (Egan, 1998) acknowledge this but have rightly stated that there is always room for improvement and the UK construction industry should keep striving to improve and not become complacent.

Assumptions

The assumptions set in chapter 1 have been proved or disproved by the secondary research. The following briefly states the case for each assumption; the majority of the details have been covered previously.

5. From the quantity surveyor perspective, partnering will improve project performance.
From the secondary research, interviews and survey it can be confirmed that quantity surveyors have expressed that partnering does generally improve project performance in many areas, including teamwork, programme and cost.

6. Quantity surveyors within partnering agreements will experience cultural and organisational benefits.
The research has highlighted how communication and trust was improved through partnering, improving the cultural and organisation relationships with other team members.

7. Partnering procurement will require a cultural change from the quantity surveyors traditional working practices.
The interviewees highlighted some of the cultural and organisation changes that had to be made to adopt the partnering process, most noticeably how the team communicated and interacted with one another and the merging of personnel from client and contractor parties.

8. All quantity surveyors within a partnering agreement will experience the same benefits and limitations.

While the quantity surveyors, in the majority of cases, appeared to share the same benefits there were certain areas that were found not to benefit all, namely improvements in cost and programme control. It could be concluded that the benefits may be project specific and not generic to all partnering agreements.

4.5

Chapter 4 Summary

This chapter has detailed the process of the primary data collection via a questionnaire survey, the statistical analysis of the respondents results and the conclusions drawn from the data presented. The results of both the questionnaire survey and interviewees were critically analysed and discussed with the partnering issues documented in chapters 2 & 3 to give balanced arguments to the answering of the research questions and assumptions.

The response from the questionnaire survey and interviews towards partnering procurement was generally positive. The majority of the quantity surveyor respondents were in agreement that partnering improved the various attributes associated with construction projects. However there were certain key attributes, namely cost and programme reduction and certainty, where the respondents generally and consultant interviewee disagreed that partnering offered significant benefits over traditional forms of procurement. This certainly conflicted with the theories discussed in the secondary research and is also a key attribute in the role of the quantity surveyor.

There were several key areas where the consultant and contractor quantity surveyors appeared to disagree, these were documented and analysed and suggested conclusions for the differences in opinions stated.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion of Secondary Research

For this research dissertation two forms of secondary source research were undertaken. Chapter 2 focused on the theoretical aspects of partnering document in academic textbooks and literature. Chapter 3 focused more on opinions and research into partnering from various sources such as government reports and research papers which investigated the effectiveness of partnering in practice and the various benefits experienced through partnering.

The research uncovered the majority of the main benefits associated with partnering from economical, technological, organisational and cultural perspectives. Key areas of partnering that can prove less beneficial or areas of potential pitfalls were also identified and documented.

The research provided a good basis for the primary research undertaken in chapter 4. However it was particularly difficult to identify sources related to partnering and quantity surveyors specific. The only dedicated source for this was New Aspects of Quantity Surveying Practice (Cartlidge, D. 2002) which dedicated a chapter to partnering and the quantity surveyors role in the process.

5.2

Conclusion of Primary Research

The primary research was undertaken as a questionnaire survey to identify the perceived benefits partnering offers over traditional forms of procurement from the perspective of consultant and contractor quantity surveyors working in the UK construction industry. Additional to this follow up semi-structured interviews with one consultant quantity survey and one contractor quantity surveyor, who had both been involved in partnered projects, took place to gain a greater insight into their experiences that the survey could not provide.

As discussed in the later stages of chapter 4, the general response to partnering from both the survey and the interviews were positive towards partnering procurement. There were very few areas that the respondents and interviewees disagreed that partnering provided some sort of benefit of traditional forms of procurement, indicating that experiences of the quantity surveyors role in partnering had been beneficial to the projects they were undertaking.

However it should be noted, as with questionnaires/surveys of this type the information extracted from the results cannot always give the true reflection of the respondents views towards partnering. The follow up interviews were beneficial in that points could be discussed outside the confides of the question asked and much was learnt from the interviews as to how the partnering process was contrived and executed.

The primary research unveiled some unexpected results. The major point, from a quantity surveyors perspective, is that partnering driving down and controlling costs was not considered to be one of the most noticeable benefits of partnering. Both interviewees were split their opinions towards this attribute, suggesting that experiences within partnering, while most report positive views towards the experience this positively differed in scale and areas.

5.3

Review of Dissertation objectives

The dissertation objectives in chapter were designed to give direction to the primary and secondary research in order to answer the proposed questions and prove or disprove the assumptions.

6. To establish the potential benefits parties within the construction industry can expect over traditional forms of procurement when entering into partnering agreements.

As previous discussed the potential benefits of partnering were discussed in chapter 2 & 3 and primary research in chapter 4 attempted of prove or disprove theoretical benefits from the perspective of the quantity surveyor. This dissertation satisfied this objective and conclusions appearing to confirm the benefits of partnering were made from the primary research.

7. To critically assess the view of consultant and contractor quantity surveyors views and attitudes towards partnering

The questionnaire survey included respondents from both the consultant and contractor quantity surveying professions. Comparisons were made between the two groups using mean scores and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The results show good correlation in the responses for many attributes. There were a few attributes where the two groups appeared to disagree to variable extents. These were analysed to assess why these differences had occurred and what the implications were for the individuals involved.

8. Establish the cultural and organisational changes for quantity surveyors who enter into partnering agreements.

Throughout the background research the organisation and cultural changes associated with choosing the partnering route over traditional forms of procurement have been identified. Certain survey questions, specifically questions relating to teamwork, trust

and commitment, attempted to address issues where changes in organisation and cultural attributes needed to be made for partnering. The interviewees expressed how the approach to teamwork, trust and commitment differed from traditional forms of procurement and how disputes and confrontation was tackled from different perspectives. The research, both from the theoretical side and the experiences of quantity surveyors, indicated that partnering certainly improved teamwork, trust and commitment and reduced the scale of disputes and confrontation between team members.

Experiences of organisation changes were highlighted through the contractors interview were the client team merged with contractor team. Both problems and benefits were highlighted within the interview and the effect on project performance analysed.

9. To examine a comprehensive range of quantity surveyors attitudes towards partnering and assess the scale of correlation of agreements and disagreements.

The range of questionnaires included both consultant and contractor based quantity surveyors from and range of small and large companies, including Davis Langdon, EC Harris, Gleeds, Edmund Nutall and McBains and Cooper to name just a few. Respondents were also received from various locations of the UK giving some diversity to pool of data.

As discussed previously the two groups views were compared via their mean scores and Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Critically the lack of respondents from the contractor group may have hindered the scope and diversity of the groups result. A greater response from the contractor group would have contributed in providing more accurate data on the views of this group and would have allowed a more even comparison between the two groups.

10. Assess the validity of the potential benefits partnering claims to provide.

Academic textbooks document in great deal the generic benefits that partnering provides to the construction industry as a whole. While the primary research focused on the benefits of partnering from the quantity surveyors perspective, many of the benefits are generic to all parties in some form or another.

The primary research reinforced the view of the secondary research, being that partnering has the potential to deliver the discussed benefits to all parties within the team. However it was discussed that it was unlikely that partnering would be transferable to all construction projects, namely refurbishment projects. So while partnering may not be suitable for all constructions projects it should always be considered by the clients at the project conception stage as a potential procurement route due to the benefits it can offer.

5.4

Recommendations for Improvement/Further Study

The primary and secondary research has been fairly comprehensive in assessing partnering from the perspective of all parties involved in partnering agreements and more specifically the quantity surveyors perspective. In terms of future study, the subject matter of this dissertation could be extended to cover all parties involved in the partnering process. However this has been covered in several research papers available in the public domain and would offer little new in unavailable information.

There is scope for improvement in the primary research conducted, the most noticeable being a greater response to the survey, particularly from the contractor quantity surveyors. A larger response from this group would have provided a better balance in terms of opinions and comparison with the consultant quantity surveying group. Additional to the two groups surveyed there are other groups of quantity surveyors that could have added further insight into the experiences of partnering. Such groups include those who work in local authorities, who commonly use partnering as a form of procurement, and also freelance or client based surveyors.

This research dissertation focused on quantity surveyors attitudes towards partnering in the UK. Further research could include contrasting UK based quantity surveyors

views with those outside the UK to establish any differences in working practices and view towards partnering procurement and identify any lessons that can be learnt for the UK construction industry.

The interviews with quantity surveyors also had potential for further research. Both their experiences in their partnering related projects could have been documented a full case studies for a more in depth insight into the attributes of partnering and the differing views from the consultant and contractor perspectives

End of dissertation. Word count (from cover to this page) 19,250

REFERENCES
Barlow, J. Jashapara, A. (1998) Organisational learning and inter-firm partnering in the UK construction industry, The Learning Organisation, Volume 5 (2), 86-98, MCB University Press Barlow, J. Cohen, M. Jashapara, A. Simpson, Y. (1997) Towards Positive Partnering Revealing the Realities in the Construction Industry, The Policy Press Bennet, J. Jayes, S. (1998) The Seven Pillars of Partnering A Guide to Second Generation Partnering, The University of Reading, Tomas Telford

Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000a) Building partnerships: case studies of the client-contractor collaboration in the UK construction industry, Construction Management and Economics, 18, 819-832 Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000b) Motivation, commitment and use of incentives in partnerships and alliances, Construction Management and Economics, 18, 587-598
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000c) Partnering in construction: a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas, Construction Management and Economics, 18, 299237 Carr, F. Hurtado, K. Lancaster, C. Markert, C. Tucker, P. (1999) Partnering in Construction, American Bar Association Cartlidge, D. (2002) New Aspects of Quantity Surveying Practice, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann Chan, A.P.C. Chan, D.W.M. Ho, K.S.K (2003) An empirical study of the benefits of construction partnering in Hong Kong, Construction Management and Economics, 21, 523-533 Critchlow, J. (1998) Making Partnering Work In The Construction Industry, Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited

Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. London, Department of the Environment Transport and Regions. Available

from:<http://www.rethinkingconstruction.org/> [Accessed 2 September 2006]

Egan, J. (2002) Accelerating Change. London, Department of the Environment Transport and Regions. Available from:<http://www.rethinkingconstruction.org/> [Accessed 2 September 2006]

References Cont

Fortune, C. & Setiawan, S. (2005) Partnering Practice and the Delivery of Construction Projects for Housing Association in the UK, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Volume 12 Number 2, p181-193 Franks, J. (1998) Building Procurement Systems Third Edition, Longman, Harlow. Green, S.D. (1999) Partnering: the propaganda of corporatism?, in Ogunlana, S.O. (ed.) Profitable Partnering in Construction Procurement, CIB W92 and CIB TG23 Joint Symposium, E&FN Spon, London, p. 3-14. Kwan, A.Y. Ofori, G. (2001) Chinese culture and successful implementation of partnering in Signapores construction industry, Construction Management and Economics, 19, 619-632 Lau, H.L. (No Date), Trust as a human factor in management in general and in construction, Division of Building Science and Technology, City University of Hong Kong Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team, HMSO, London. McGeorge, D. Palmer, A. (2002) Construction Management: New Directions Second Edition, Blackwell Publishing. NAO (2001) Modernising Construction, The Stationary Office, London Ng, S.T., Rose, T.M., Mak, M. and Chen, S.E. (2002) Problematic issues associated with project partnering the contractor perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 437-49 Taylor, S (1999) Can Partnering Work for You?, Contract Journal, 13 January, 1819 Thomas, G. Thomas, M. (2005) Construction Partnering and Integrated Teamworking, Blackwell Publishing.

Wood, G. McDermott, P. (No Date), Searching for trust in the UK construction industry: An interim review, University of Salford Wood, G. and Ellis, R. (2005) Main contractor experiences of partnering relationships on UK construction projects, Construction Management and Economics, 23, 317-325

Partnering Interview Notes Consultant Quantity Surveyor

Thursday 26th April 007 Name: Andy Longmire Contact Details Halstead Associates Ltd 0208 445 7721 Company: Ex employee of Philip Panks Partnership (Consultancy QS)

Nature of Partnering Project

Project partnering led to strategic partnering for the construction of social housing for local authorities with Wilmot Dixon on board as contractors.

Team Work

Trust

Definite focus on teamwork that traditional procurement. Client more focused as a team member. Encouragement of sharing info, open book attitudes.

Costs

Less suspicion as working towards the same agenda. Working relationship builds over a longer period so trust improves Contractor selection over two stage tendering, more emphasis on interviewing contractor and selecting on reputation, credibility and attitude as opposed to cost alone. Greater involvement of subcontractors.

No clear benefits with cost certainty in initial stages. Perhaps greater certainty when projects are repetitive as unknowns are addressed. Repetition can help reduce cost Looked into manufacturing off site in greater detail. More thought given to value engineering. End of job seminar held to access performance and lesson learnt for next job.

Programme Certainty

As with cost, no immediate benefits. Better teamwork helps design, contract tended to be more proactive in requesting information required as early as possible.

Quality

Overall effect of partnering on striving to improve quality is positive. However could work other way, if next project is secure then the may be a lack of emphasis on producing higher quality product, as the need to impress is not as important. Zero defects not realistically achievable but is a positive goal to have. More of an emphasis on getting things right first time and handed over with zero defects.

Communication

Communication generally improved, more open book. However can often be let down by individuals, certain personalities may under perform in terms of communication. No difference in term of internal communication within the firm.

Innovation/Problem Solving

Contractor more involved in offering design solutions, unsure if that was common to all contractors. Definite greater incentive to look at off site fabrication and use of standardised components.

Leaning

More round the table discussions allowed greater understanding of one anothers activities. Clients learn more about consultant and contractors activities and vice versa. No real benefit in learning market needs and demands. If anything is learnt it is only in the specific areas in relation to the project i.e. social housing.

Commitment

Partnered projects did require greater commitment of resources and attitude towards the client. Emphasis on going the extra mile. Commitment of resources did not generally affect other projects within the company. However this would be specific to individual firms. Dependant of level of fees may not require many other jobs is fees high.

Workload

Risk

Workload certainty improved. Workload volume would be specific to the individual firms and projects.

Agreed that risk in traditional forms of procurement pushed towards the contractor. Partnering does encourage all parties to share the risk. Risk is increase generally if firms are committing high levels of resources to a partnering project. Risk of putting all eggs in one basket Some firms may take on staff specifically for a partnering project.

Disputes

Partnering philosophy to sort out problems as soon as they occur, nip all disputes in the bud. Less of a blame culture, work together to sort out problems Less confrontational. Less contractual

Partnering Interviews Contractor Quantity Surveyor

Tuesday 24th April 2007 Name: Dean Richardson Contact Details: Kingswood Construction (London) Plc 01689 821 212 Company: Ex QS employee of Wiltshire (Contractors)

Nature of Partnering Project

Strategic partnering for Boots chemists. Involved the installation of 60 pharmacist outlets within Sainsburys stores across the UK. 4 year strategic partnering agreement.

Team Work

Trust

Most definite improvement in teamwork attitudes More emphasis on co-operating together to get the tasks done.

Client shut down office and moved employees into contractors office, integrated office. No improvement of trust in initial stages. A period of 6 months for the team to familiarise with one another. Improved through more team bonding sessions. Important to selected competent individuals for the team. Architect no longer contract administrator/leader Less distrust.

Costs

Cost certainty improved Framework for pricing by sub contractors for different areas of the country developed different rates for different areas. Able to drive down costs by 20% over 4 years due to improved efficiency of sub-contractors.

Programme Certainty

As using the same team results and performance were not unexpected, as seen with selecting new contractors. Trust and efficiency improved over time, meaning greater programme certainty and lower construction and design periods.

Quality

Using same teams for repetitive construction process allow refining of skills. Aware of team being used an expectancy of quality. Improvement in consistency of quality. Very difficult to achieve zero defects, however by raising the bar you can lower the level of defects.

Communication

Greatly improved externally and internally. More face-to-face communication at all levels i.e. client, contractor, subcontractor and consultants.

Innovation/Problem Solving

Culture not to hide problems when they occur, be open and find the best solution. Greater use of standardisation, all store constructed of the same or similar design. Fixtures and fittings the same from store to store, allowing repetitive construction processes.

Leaning

More aware of clients and consultants activities and the problems that they face. Understanding of one anothers activities benefits cost and time.

Commitment

More of a commitment to team working ethics.

Not a them and us attitude. Levels of commitment of resources high at start but once up and running the partnering process tended to run its self.

Workload

Partnering huge benefit in predicting work load in medium to long term. Guaranteed turnover of 6 million a year for the duration of the partnering agreement. Allows planning of workload with greater certainty. Workload not necessary increased, just secured.

Risk

Risk definitely more evenly distributed throughout the team than compared to traditional forms of procurement. Risk levels increased to a certain degree as commitment to the work undertaken. Can be a burden if work is not a profitable and predicted.

Disputes

From the contractors point of view there were less disputes with subcontractors due to greater certainty of their costs. Far less confrontation between all parties, more emphasis on the team working together.

Partnering Interview Notes Consultant Quantity Surveyor

Thursday 26th April 007 Name: Andy Longmire Contact Details Halstead Associates Ltd 0208 445 7721 Company: Ex employee of Philip Panks Partnership (Consultancy QS)

Nature of Partnering Project

Project partnering led to strategic partnering for the construction of social housing for local authorities with Wilmot Dixon on board as contractors.

Team Work

Trust

Definite focus on teamwork that traditional procurement. Client more focused as a team member. Encouragement of sharing info, open book attitudes.

Costs

Less suspicion as working towards the same agenda. Working relationship builds over a longer period so trust improves Contractor selection over two stage tendering, more emphasis on interviewing contractor and selecting on reputation, credibility and attitude as opposed to cost alone. Greater involvement of subcontractors.

No clear benefits with cost certainty in initial stages. Perhaps greater certainty when projects are repetitive as unknowns are addressed. Repetition can help reduce cost Looked into manufacturing off site in greater detail. More thought given to value engineering. End of job seminar held to access performance and lesson learnt for next job.

Programme Certainty

As with cost, no immediate benefits. Better teamwork helps design, contract tended to be more proactive in requesting information required as early as possible.

Quality

Overall effect of partnering on striving to improve quality is positive. However could work other way, if next project is secure then the may be a lack of emphasis on producing higher quality product, as the need to impress is not as important. Zero defects not realistically achievable but is a positive goal to have. More of an emphasis on getting things right first time and handed over with zero defects.

Communication

Communication generally improved, more open book. However can often be let down by individuals, certain personalities may under perform in terms of communication. No difference in term of internal communication within the firm.

Innovation/Problem Solving

Contractor more involved in offering design solutions, unsure if that was common to all contractors. Definite greater incentive to look at off site fabrication and use of standardised components.

Leaning

More round the table discussions allowed greater understanding of one anothers activities. Clients learn more about consultant and contractors activities and vice versa. No real benefit in learning market needs and demands. If anything is learnt it is only in the specific areas in relation to the project i.e. social housing.

Commitment

Partnered projects did require greater commitment of resources and attitude towards the client. Emphasis on going the extra mile. Commitment of resources did not generally affect other projects within the company. However this would be specific to individual firms. Dependant of level of fees may not require many other jobs is fees high.

Workload

Risk

Workload certainty improved. Workload volume would be specific to the individual firms and projects.

Agreed that risk in traditional forms of procurement pushed towards the contractor.

Partnering does encourage all parties to share the risk. Risk is increase generally if firms are committing high levels of resources to a partnering project. Risk of putting all eggs in one basket Some firms may take on staff specifically for a partnering project.

Disputes

Partnering philosophy to sort out problems as soon as they occur, nip all disputes in the bud. Less of a blame culture, work together to sort out problems Less confrontational. Less contractual

Partnering Interviews Contractor Quantity Surveyor

Tuesday 24th April 2007 Name: Dean Richardson Contact Details: Kingswood Construction (London) Plc 01689 821 212 Company: Ex QS employee of Wiltshire (Contractors)

Nature of Partnering Project

Strategic partnering for Boots chemists. Involved the installation of 60 pharmacist outlets within Sainsburys stores across the UK. 4 year strategic partnering agreement.

Team Work

Trust

Most definite improvement in teamwork attitudes More emphasis on co-operating together to get the tasks done.

Costs

Client shut down office and moved employees into contractors office, integrated office. No improvement of trust in initial stages. A period of 6 months for the team to familiarise with one another. Improved through more team bonding sessions. Important to selected competent individuals for the team. Architect no longer contract administrator/leader Less distrust.

Cost certainty improved Framework for pricing by sub contractors for different areas of the country developed different rates for different areas. Able to drive down costs by 20% over 4 years due to improved efficiency of sub-contractors.

Programme Certainty

As using the same team results and performance were not unexpected, as seen with selecting new contractors. Trust and efficiency improved over time, meaning greater programme certainty and lower construction and design periods.

Quality

Using same teams for repetitive construction process allow refining of skills. Aware of team being used an expectancy of quality. Improvement in consistency of quality. Very difficult to achieve zero defects, however by raising the bar you can lower the level of defects.

Communication

Greatly improved externally and internally. More face-to-face communication at all levels i.e. client, contractor, subcontractor and consultants.

Innovation/Problem Solving

Culture not to hide problems when they occur, be open and find the best solution. Greater use of standardisation, all store constructed of the same or similar design. Fixtures and fittings the same from store to store, allowing repetitive construction processes.

Leaning

More aware of clients and consultants activities and the problems that they face. Understanding of one anothers activities benefits cost and time.

Commitment

More of a commitment to team working ethics. Not a them and us attitude. Levels of commitment of resources high at start but once up and running the partnering process tended to run its self.

Workload

Partnering huge benefit in predicting work load in medium to long term. Guaranteed turnover of 6 million a year for the duration of the partnering agreement. Allows planning of workload with greater certainty. Workload not necessary increased, just secured.

Risk

Risk definitely more evenly distributed throughout the team than compared to traditional forms of procurement.

Risk levels increased to a certain degree as commitment to the work undertaken. Can be a burden if work is not a profitable and predicted.

Disputes

From the contractors point of view there were less disputes with subcontractors due to greater certainty of their costs. Far less confrontation between all parties, more emphasis on the team working together.

Questionnaire Covering Letter

Dear Sir/Madam, I am a quantity surveyor undertaking a postgraduate masters at London South Bank University. As part of my dissertation I am required to collect primary data relating to my subject. My dissertation is on partnering procurement and focusing in particular on the quantity surveyors views of partnering. If your firm has been involved in any form of partnering arrangements for construction projects I would be most grateful if this email were forwarded to quantity surveyors in your firm for completion of a questionnaire survey attachment. Please appreciate that due to the high number of questionnaires I am issuing I cannot contact each individual directly. The questionnaire comprises 24 questions/statements on the key elements of partnering. In order to complete the questionnaire, please carry out the following instructions. 1. 2. 3. 4. Open the Microsoft Excel worksheet attachment. Mark each of the questions/statements with an X in the cells in accordance with the ranking scale. Click the save icon and close the questionnaire document. Forward back to my email address.

If your firm has not been involved in any partnering related projects then I would appreciate a short reply stating so, so I can record this in my results. Thank you for your co-operation and contribution. Ross Bailey BSc

QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUE LIST

Questionnaires were electronically sent out to the following email address. Each questionnaire was reference number corresponds to those received and analysed on the spread sheets in appendix B

Company

Questionnaire Ref.

Consultant Quantity Surveyors

AYH
info@ayh.co.uk 001

Berkeley Consulting
info@berkeley-consulting.com 002

Bucknall Austin
Birmingham Bristol Liverpool London Manchester Sheffield Wokingham Hertfordshire County Durham russell.lloyd@bucknall.com mark.williamson@bucknall.com steve.power@bucknall.com tony.catchpole@bucknall.com nick.priestley@bucknall.com graham.hastie@bucknall.com simon.kerton@bucknall.com andrew.reynolds@bucknall.com ian.ridley@bucknall.com 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011

Davis Langdon
Birmingham Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Edinbourgh Leeds Liverpool London Maidstone Manchester Milton Keynes Norwich Oxford Peterbourgh Plymouth Southampton Stevenage david.daly@davislangdon.com alan.francis@davislangdon.com laurence.brett@davislangdon.com paul.edwards@davislangdon.com sam.mackenzie@davislangdon.com duncan.sissons@davislangdon.com andrew.stevenson@davislangdon.com simon.johnson@davislangdon.com nick.leggett@davislangdon.com paul.stanion@davislangdon.com kevin.sims@davislangdon.com mike.ladbrook@davislangdon.com paul.coomber@davislangdon.com stuart.bremner@davislangdon.com gareth.steventon@davislangdon.com peter.boote@davislangdon.com nick.schumann@davislangdon.com 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028

EC Haris

Basildon Belfast Birmingham Bristol Cardiff Edinbourgh Exeter Glasgow Hull Inverness Leeds Leicester Liverpool London Manchester Marlow Milton Keynes Newcastle Nottingham Sutton Teeside York

richard.jones@echarris.com jim.mcclean@echarris.com philip.black@echarris.com nick.cryer@echarris.com robert.evans@echarris.com graham.hill@echarris.com andrew.jeffery@echarris.com Glasgow@echarris.com mark.willett@echarris.com shona.weir@echarris.com chris.hinton@echarris.com frank.tidman@echarris.com alan.brookes@echarris.com simon.kolesar@echarris.com jonathan.moore@echarris.com steve.jessup@echarris.com andrew.tuck@echarris.com david.hern@echarris.com kevin.chrisp@echarris.com trevor.evason@echarris.com paul.stapleton@echarris.com mark.redgard@echarris.com

029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050

Franklin + Andrews
General Enquires susan.nash@franklinandrews.com 051

Gardiner & Theobold

p.gulley@gardiner.com 052

Gleeds
birmingham@gleeds.co.uk bristol@gleeds.co.uk cambridge@gleeds.co.uk cardiff@gleeds.co.uk energy.energy@gleeds.co.uk edinburgh@gleeds.co.uk glasgow@gleeds.co.uk gloucester@gleeds.co.uk london@gleeds.co.uk leeds@gleeds.co.uk Liverpool tim.lunt@gleeds.co.uk manchester@gleeds.co.uk newcastle@gleeds.co.uk newcastle@gleeds.co.uk nottingham@gleeds.co.uk sheffield@gleeds.co.uk tunbridgewells@gleeds.co.uk warrington@gleeds.co.uk winchester@gleeds.co.uk 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071

Maitland QS birmingham@maitlandqs.com bristol@maitlandqs.com 072 073

farnborough@maitlandqs.com gateshead@maitlandqs.com manchester@maitlandqs.com sheffield@maitlandqs.com

074 075 076 077

McBains Cooper
Birmingham London l.lloyd@mcbainscooper.com a.bish@mcbainscooper.com a.muse@mcbainscooper.com r.merchant@mcbainscooper.com m.lawless@mcbainscooper.com a.southgate@mcbainscooper.com k.whitehead@mcbainscooper.com info@mcbainscooper.com 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085

Manchester

Oxford Windsor General

Ridge
General markn@ridge.co.uk 086

Systech Group
London Birmingham Bristol Leeds Liverpool bchapman@systechgroup.net schew@systechgroup.net bristol@systechgroup.net leeds@systechgroup.net liverpool@systechgroup.net 087 088 089 090 091

Turner & Townshend

London Bristol Birmingham Norwich Sheffield Manchester Leeds Teeside Newcastle Edinbourgh Glasgow Belfast lon@turntown.co.uk bri@turntown.co.uk bir@turntown.co.uk not@turntown.co.uk she@turntown.co.uk man@turntown.co.uk lee@turntown.co.uk tee@turntown.co.uk new@turntown.co.uk edi@turntown.co.uk gla@turntown.co.uk belfast@turntown.com 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103

Contractor Quantity Surveyors

Kingswood
drichardson@kingswood-london.co.uk 104

Balfour Beatty
info@balfourbeatty.com 105

Costain Group
Building PFI Civils jenny.taylor@costain.com alistair.handford@costain.com mike.napier@costain.com 106 107 108

Edmund Nuttall Ltd

scotland.office@edmund-nuttall.co.uk newcastle@edmund-nuttall.co.uk mike.tweedle@edmund-nuttall.co.uk ritchies.north@edmund-nuttall.co.uk Hagley@edmund-nuttall.co.uk nick.balmer@edmund-nuttall.co.uk jmcl@jmcl.co.uk wales@edmund-nuttall.co.uk ritchies.clevedon@edmund-nuttall.co.uk southampton@edmund-nuttall.co.uk ashlyns@edmund-nuttall.co.uk headoffice@edmund-nuttall.co.uk finchpalm@edmund-nuttall.co.uk ritchies.crayford@edmund-nuttall.co.uk seao@edmund-nuttall.co.uk hynes@edmund-nuttall.co.uk 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124

Fitzpatrick
western@fitzpatrick.co.uk southern@fitzpatrick.co.uk southwest@fitzpatrick.co.uk derby@fitzpatrick.co.uk fclpaving@fitzpatrick.co.uk midlands@fitzpatrick.co.uk enquiries@mewsltd.co.uk highwayservices@fitzpatrick.co.uk enquiries@fitzpatrick.co.uk 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

Interserve Project Service Ltd

info.investments@interserve.com 134

Kier Group
viv.chesterfield@kier.co.uk info@kier.co.uk 135 136

Laing ORouke
info@laingorourke.com 137

Mace Limited
mace@mace.co.uk 138

Taylor Woodrow
steve.sams@uk.taylorwoodrow.com 139

Wates Group Limited

info@wates.co.uk 140

Willmott Dixon
head.office@willmottdixon.co.uk construction.birmingham@willmottdixon.co.uk construction.turner@willmottdixon.co.uk construction.cobham@willmottdixon.co.uk construction.hitchin@willmottdixon.co.uk construction.bristol@willmottdixon.co.uk construction.nottingham@willmottdixon.co.uk construction.leeds@willmottdixon.co.uk 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

Andy Longmire (Consultant) andyl@halsteads.co.uk

149