Dispute Avoidance and Resolution (literature review) - Construction ...

For the purposes of this project the distinction which was made in the mid ‘80’s betweenformal and informal partnering (‘Partnering without Partnering’ – (Kubal, 1994)) is useful inthat it represents the first attempt at developing a formalised procedure for dealing withhuman relationships and stakeholders interests.There are a number of definitions in circulation on the goals of partnering. Some of these arevery broad, for example ‘partnering is a process for improving relationships among thoseinvolved on a construction project to the benefit of all’ (New South Wales Department ofPublic Works and Services, 1995). Others are much more detailed but share the samephilosophy, for example:‘Partnering is not a contract but a recognition that every contract includes a covenant of goodfaith. Partnering attempts to establish working relationships among stakeholders through amutually developed formal strategy of commitment and communication. It attempts to createan environment where trust and teamwork prevent disputes, foster a co-operative bond toeveryone’s benefit and facilitate the completion of a successful project’ (Stevens, 1993).Cowan, (1992) one of the principal architects of the modern partnering movement stressesthat ‘Partnering is more than a set of goals and procedures; it is a state a mind, a philosophy.Partnering represents a commitment of respect, trust, co-operation, and excellence for allstakeholders in both partners’ organisations.’Partnering attempts to create a win-win situation for stakeholders by creating an environmentof mutual trust. There is no guarantee however that all signatories to a partnering charter willbe winners.7.3 AlliancingThe lack of a guarantee of being a winner has lead to the development of alliancingcontracting which might be described as ‘partnering underpinned by economic rationalism’.Alliancing adheres to the basic philosophy of partnering whilst at the same time attempting toguarantee a win-win situation for stakeholders by the creation of a virtual corporation with anindependent management structure and board (Woods, 1997). Howarth et al. (1995)express the view that ‘the inculcation of an attitudinal shift from adversarial to one of mutualtrust and harmony can only be achieved through full co-operation and alliancing between thekey participants in the industry’.The scope and nature of alliances is reflected in the range of definitions which are incommon currency:These definitions can be extremely broad such as “A relationship between two entities, largeor small, domestic or foreign, with shared goals and economic interests.” (United StatesTrade Centre, 1998) or “…organisations with capabilities and needs come together to dobusiness and add value to the other partner, at the same time working to provide a productwhich enhances society and the capability of the ultimate client” (Nicholson, 1996). .Otherauthors are more specific for example:“…a cooperative arrangement between two or moreorganisations that forms part of their overall strategy, and contributes to achieving their majorgoals and objectives.” (Kwok and Hampson, 1996) or “…a commercial collaborationbetween two or more unrelated parties whereby they pool, exchange or integrate certain oftheir respective resources for mutual gain while remaining independent. Perhaps theclearest and most specific definition of the alliance process is given by Gerybadze (1995)who describes the project alliance process as “…the client and associated firms will joinforces for a specific project, but will remain legally independent organisations. Ownershipand management of the cooperating firms will not be fully integrated although the risk of theproject is shared by all participants.”Project 2007-006-EP Page 42 of 62