Construction Innovation

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

Differing perspectives on collaboration in construction

Deborah Hughes Trefor Williams Zhaomin Ren

Article information:
To cite this document:
Deborah Hughes Trefor Williams Zhaomin Ren, (2012),"Differing perspectives on collaboration in
construction", Construction Innovation, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 355 - 368
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14714171211244613
Downloaded on: 20 July 2015, At: 09:48 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1051 times since 2012*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

M. Shelbourn, N.M. Bouchlaghem, C. Anumba, P. Carrillo, (2007),"Planning and implementation of effective
collaboration in construction projects", Construction Innovation, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 357-377
Akintola Akintoye, Jamie Main, (2007),"Collaborative relationships in construction: the UK contractors'
perception", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 Iss 6 pp. 597-617 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699980710829049
Jeroen Bemelmans, Hans Voordijk, Bart Vos, (2012),"Supplier-contractor collaboration in the construction
industry: A taxonomic approach to the literature of the 2000-2009 decade", Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. 342-368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699981211237085

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:534288 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1471-4175.htm

Differing perspectives on
collaboration in construction

Collaboration
in construction

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

Deborah Hughes, Trefor Williams and Zhaomin Ren

Faculty of Advanced Technology,
University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, UK

355

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to identify the key aspects present in collaborative projects
with the objective of producing a clear definition for collaboration within the UK construction
industry. Firstly, the research provided a summary of the different forms of working together that
have become more prevalent since Lathams and Egans work. Partnering was seen as the ultimate
form of collaboration, but due to the recent economic crisis, it has enjoyed diminishing support.
Collaboration was perceived as the new way forward. However, the literature on the subject often used
the term collaboration interchangeably with partnering, alliances, joint ventures, and networks.
Therefore, the aim of this research is to identify what the meaning of collaboration is currently.
Design/methodology/approach Primary research was carried out in order to provide a clearer
picture of what collaboration is. Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected through a
triangulation of questionnaires and interviews. Selective samples of personnel were approached to take
part in interviews to identify aspects of collaboration which were subsequently used to produce a
questionnaire. A larger selected sample of personnel was then approached to complete the
questionnaires. All personnel in the sample were selected as they had been involved in collaborative
construction projects. Semi structured interviews were used to provide a list of aspects to collaboration.
The aspects were then ranked in importance based on the analysis of results from an online
questionnaire. The aspects were then grouped into those that were considered essential; for those that
were considered desirable and those that merely added an extra dimension to collaborative working.
Findings The interviews produced a list of 48 aspects which the participants considered were
relevant to collaboration. Through the use of online questionnaires, the 48 aspects were rank ordered
and the essential aspects to collaboration identified. The rank ordered list of aspects was then used to
inform the definitions of collaboration.
Originality/value The findings of this research indicated that there are a large number of aspects
that are associated with collaborative working. However, the results provide an indication of which of
the many aspects identified are essential if a collaborative environment is to be established.
Keywords Construction, Collaboration, Definition, Partnering, United Kingdom, Construction industry,
Team working
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Since Latham (1994) first looked at performance, efficiency, fairness, and team work,
terms such as partnering, alliancing and joint ventures have become common. The
literature provides many definitions for the terms of partnering, alliancing and joint
ventures. However, collaboration was often used in the literature as an umbrella term for
alliancing, joint ventures, networking, and partnering. The literature did not contain any
comprehensive lists of aspects involved in collaboration. There were several sources
that made reference to aspects but no research was found that established the relative
importance of the aspects to each other. The use of the word collaboration seems to have
changed in the construction industry over time and so the research started by reading

Construction Innovation
Vol. 12 No. 3, 2012
pp. 355-368
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1471-4175
DOI 10.1108/14714171211244613

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

CI
12,3

356

the literature on partnering, alliancing and joint ventures to produce an overview of the
aspects that could be involved in collaboration. Then further primary research was
conducted to identify the current status of the word as understood by construction
professionals.
The aim of the research was to produce a definition for collaboration which is
relevant to the UK construction industry. The research produced a list of aspects
relevant to the UK construction industry and ranked them in order to produce a
definition of collaboration as the term is currently used. Interviews were carried out
with selected personnel that had considerable experience of collaboration within the
UK construction industry. These interviews resulted in a list of 48 aspects which
agreed with the current literature on partnering, etc. The list of aspects produced was
then used in a questionnaire to rank order them to identify the essential aspects of
collaboration within the UK construction industry. With the term collaboration
having altered, the definition produced reflects the current status of the word as
understood by construction professionals. The results showed that the client and
contractor view the term collaboration differently and therefore definitions
representing differing viewpoints were produced.
Literature review
Latham (1994) and Egan (1998) examined the construction industry in order to change
the poor and adversarial image that it portrayed. Partnering was seen as the answer to
the low quality of construction and the lack of client satisfaction (Cheung et al., 2003).
Since Lathams (1994) report, there has been extensive research into collaboration.
The term collaboration was defined by Anon. (2010) as the act of working together;
united labour. Hibbert et al. (2008) described how collaboration was used as a general
term to encompass all forms of situations where different parties worked together.
These situations included partnering, alliancing, joint ventures and networking and
the how the words are occasionally used interchangeably. Fiedler and Deegan (2007)
summarised the reasons why collaboration was adopted in the industry. Some of the
reasons were external pressures such as setting an example, publicity and government
pressure. Other reasons were internal pressures such as: economic efficiency, stability
and stakeholder analysis. Other reasons were asymmetry, expertise, legitimacy, and
reciprocity. Partnering is a major form of collaboration in the industry and there has
been a lot of research into this form of collaboration.
Partnering
There are different types of partnering. For example, strategic partnering is a
voluntary form of partnering that is long term in nature (Ngowi, 2001); short-term
partnering is called project partnering or occasionally tactical partnering (Beach et al.,
2005). However, researchers have discussed that partnering can only form over the
long term and single projects are unsuitable for partnering (Cox and Townsend, 1997).
There are a several key themes of partnering. Some researchers were very positive
about partnering and highlight the financial savings and the opportunity for
innovation (Cox and Townsend, 1997) while others felt it as a chance for exploitation
(Cheung et al., 2003). One criticism levelled in some studies is that partnering
addresses the symptoms, but does not deal with the cause (Chang and Tang, 2005).
Contractors and clients have shown a more positive attitude to partnering than

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

consultants (Black et al., 2000). Olsson and Espling (2004) described partnering as a
way to avoid litigation, keep costs low, complete the project within time, and produce a
better working environment. The possible cost savings ranged from 5 to 30 per cent
and possible time savings ranged from 10 to 40 per cent (Olsson and Espling, 2004).
Ngowi (2001) discussed how the global market had increased competition and how
partnering provided a competitive advantage by the pooling together of resources.
However, this competitive advantage could provide both private and common benefits.
Ngowi (2001) then discussed how a mixture of both private and common benefits could
produce torn loyalties to the organisation and to the partnership. Other potential
advantages to partnering included increased client base, access to new work, reduction
in risk, higher productivity, increased profits, and increase in market share
(Ngowi, 2001). The benefits described in the literature tended to be intangible
benefits and therefore difficult to measure (Emsley, 2005). The literature also stated
that partnering must be worked at if it is to succeed. There are four phases to a
partnership life cycle. These are foundation, implementation, shakedown and
onwards and upwards, according to Maheshwari et al. (2006). There are many aspects
to partnering documented in the literature.
Aspects of partnering
Akintoye et al. (2000) discussed how partnering can occur between the various levels of
the supply chain and that to obtain the most from partnering it is argued that it is
important to include all of the supply chain from the client through to the suppliers in the
partnering arrangement. Supply chain management could offer a competitive
advantage with better lead times and customer satisfaction. For partnering to be
effective, it is important that the partnering relates to the companys corporate strategy
(Olsson and Espling, 2004). Besides, it has the backing of the senior
management (Black et al., 2000). Partnering should be established early in the project
and a partnering session used to aid the formation of a team (Ross, 2009). Bresnen and
Marshall (2002) discussed how partnering had been dealt with as a technical-managerial
problem and ignored the socio-human aspect of partnering. Finally, there was a
need for transparency to demonstrate fairness within the partnering arrangement
(Anon., 2001).
Conflicts will occur during a project and therefore a conflict prevention and
resolution process is essential within a partnering process (Ross, 2009). The choice of
the clients representative is important in the formation of the project team
(Walker, 1998). Evans and Weir (1995) described how a system of checks and balances
can be used to reduce the chances of people using partnering for their own ends.
However, this does go against the need for trust in partnering.
Eriksson et al. (2008) described the barriers to partnering which include traditional
procurement with its organisation of the construction process and procedures, laws,
regulations, labour unions, rules, and standard contracts. They discussed the short-term
focus with adversarial attitudes and the conservative industry culture. They identified
the lack of sub-supplier involvement in specification as an issue with a focus on projects
instead of processes and how new competences are required. These barriers may
indicate other possible aspects to collaboration such as training, relationship
management and processes. The literature also described other forms of collaboration
and how they differ from partnering.

Collaboration
in construction

357

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

CI
12,3

358

Other forms of collaboration

Stanek (2004) stated that many aspects of partnering found in the literature are relevant
to alliancing. Alliances can help share risk and help in a competitive environment.
Alliancing also requires trust and communication. Yeung et al. (2007) described how
support for the alliance should be lead by the management for alliancing to be
successful. A win-win situation for the contractor and the client is important. Alliancing
requires dispute resolution systems and early involvement of personnel. Alliancing can
provide a competitive advantage in the market (Ngowi, 2001). According to Stanek
(2004), alliances are not the easy option and in the USA general industry as a whole,
50-80 per cent of alliances failed. The main reason put forward for this high level of
failure was that expectations were different from results.
Morledge and Adnan (2005) ascertained how joint ventures also share many aspects of
similarity with partnering. It is important that mutual objectives are held by all parties.
Joint ventures can provide market advantage but require trust and open communication.
Collaboration definitions
The literature on the subject used the term collaboration interchangeably with
partnering, alliances and joint ventures as it is used as a term to describe any type of
working together. Himes (1995) stated that partnering can be described as:
[. . .] a long term commitment between two or more organisations for the purpose of achieving
specific business objectives by maximising the effectiveness of each participants resources.
The relationship is based on trust, dedication to common goals and an understanding of each
others individual expectations and values.

This definition however also represented other forms of collaboration. Partnering was
also described by Walker et al. (2002) as reaping rewards at others expense, while in
alliancing, every member is risking any profit. Therefore, everyone profits or everyone
loses in an alliance. Alliancing can be defined as to establish inter-organisational
relations and to engage in collaborative behaviour for a specific purpose (Yeung et al.,
2007). A joint venture was defined by Morledge and Adnan (2005) as two or more
firms pool their resources and create a new legal entity to undertake productive
economic activity.
The only definition which cannot be interchanged with the other collaborative terms
is joint venture because the parties form a new legal entity. Both Bititci et al. (2004) and
Chang and Tang (2005) discussed how partnering and alliances are the same thing
and Bresnen and Marshall (2002) describe alliancing as strategic partnering. Then
Yeung et al. (2007) described joint venture as one end of the alliancing spectrum with
partnering at the other. Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that the
construction industry in the UK is moving away from partnering and instead uses the
term collaboration. However, it is being used in the sense of partnering or alliancing,
not just a term to encompass all working together.
The literature provided various definitions for partnering and alliancing, but not for
the current use of the word collaboration. There were many aspects described between
the various forms of collaboration. The research therefore intended to find out which
of these aspects were relevant to the current use of the word collaboration and what is
meant by collaboration in this context and how is it similar or different to the terms
already in use.

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

Data collection and research methods

The aim of the research was to identify the current meaning of collaboration within
the UK construction industry and the research started through the collection
of secondary data from the literature for use in helping to validate the primary research
that followed. The research design utilised a mixed methods approach, with a
sequential mixed methods strategy of inquiry, using open-ended interviews and closed
ended questionnaires. A mixed method research design was used, as a neither
quantitative nor qualitative method that would be capable of meeting the aim and
objectives of the research. The primary research gathered qualitative data, as the
open-ended questions provided insight into the views of personnel and allowed
exploration of the meaning of the term collaboration. The best way to then analyse
respondents opinions on the relative importance of the aspects (in order to produce an
overall definition) was to use a quantitative approach using a closed ended
questionnaire to rank order the aspects using a Likert scale (so that the aspects could
be compared to each other). Interviews were used to gather data on the aspects of
collaboration from experienced personnel about how they viewed collaboration. The
outcomes of interviews were analysed and a list of aspects for collaboration was
produced. The list of aspects was then used in a questionnaire to rank order the aspects
(Figure 1). The combination of these two results was then used to produce a definition.

Collaboration
in construction

359

Interviews
To produce a list of aspects for collaboration it was important to target the right
audience. Therefore, selective sampling was carried out carefully. Contract managers,
cost managers, clients and project managers were targeted for interviewing with a lot of
experience to make judgments on aspects of collaboration. Seven people
were interviewed: three client representatives, three contractor representatives and
one interviewee who is an advisor and whose views do not come from either perspective.
The personnel interviewed all worked in large organisations across the UK within the
construction industry from a cross section of project types including major construction
projects with associated infrastructure works, civil works to small building projects.
The interviewees had a minimum of ten years of working within a collaborative
environment with four of them having worked for over 15 years on collaborative
projects. It was decided that sufficient interviews had been carried out when no new
aspect was obtained from the final interview.
Interviews were used to explore the interviewees understanding of the term
collaboration. These interviews were semi-structured, and opened; including five
questions covering why both contractors and clients enter into collaborative
arrangements and the benefits they get from collaboration. They were also asked about
their opinion on the difference between collaboration and partnering. These interviews
took about 30 minutes and the interviews were all transcribed. The transcribed

Literature
Review

Interviews
used to gather
data on aspects

Preliminary
questionnaire
distributed

Interviews used
to improve
questionnaire

Questionnaire
used to rank
order aspects

Figure 1.
Research methodology

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

CI
12,3

360

Figure 2.
Example of questionnaire

interviews were then analysed and ranked accordingly. Some aspects were mentioned
more frequently than the others but quantitative data were required in order to rank
order the aspects. The list of aspects was then used to produce the questionnaires.
Questionnaire response
The interviews resulted in a list of 48 aspects which respondents were asked to rank.
An example of how the questionnaire was set out is shown in Figure 2.
A questionnaire was used as it allowed the respondents to provide their opinion on
the relative importance of the aspects of collaboration in the way that it was easily
analysed and also was a suitable method to collect the volume of results required for this
research. In choosing a sample population, some factors like role (both client/contractor
and relevance of the role), experience, type of project and geographical distribution were
taken into account. Therefore, selective sampling was again carried out. To produce a
useful set of data, it was important that the sample have experience of collaboration.
Contract managers, cost managers, clients, quantity surveyors and project managers
were targeted for their understanding of contracts, management and the day-to-day
running of the site to make judgments on the importance of aspects of collaboration. It
was decided to send the questionnaire to people working in both civil and building
projects and from various sizes to get a broad cross section of the UK construction
industry. Out of the 20 initially distributed questionnaires, 13 were returned and resulted
in 65 per cent return rate. However, this sample size was insufficient to draw a full
conclusion from; therefore, the questionnaire was distributed via internet to people
selected based their knowledge of collaboration, until a total of 52 responses had been
obtained.
The personnel targeted had role that made them directly involved in collaboration
projects (Table I). All the participants had a minimum of one year involvement within
collaborative projects and 71 per cent of the participants had over seven years
experience and therefore an experienced sample. Eight of the questionnaires were
completed by people working in an advisory capacity and therefore had less bias
towards the client or contractor perspective. 26 questionnaires were completed by
people representing the client while 18 respondents represented the contractor side.
The respondents therefore fitted within the sample population required.
The questionnaire asked the participants to decide if each of the aspects were
essential to collaboration, desirable, nice to have but not necessary or not applicable to
collaboration. This was a closed form of questioning. This form of questioning was

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

driven by the fact that analysis is made easier if the respondents are not answering
freely because opinions can be directly compared. At the end of the questionnaire there
was an opportunity to offer more possible aspects. The data, once collected, was then
analysed by scoring each answer, so that a rank order of the aspects could be produced.
From the results of this analysis, it was possible to draw conclusions about the
important aspects of collaboration.

Collaboration
in construction

361
Findings
The 52 questionnaires were analysed and the results of the questionnaires were scored
as 3 for essential, 2 for desirable, 1 for nice to have but not necessary within
collaboration.
From the total scores alone, it was difficult to know where to place the boundary
lines for which aspects were essential, desirable or nice to have but not necessary. The
individual scores as well as the total score were used as a guide, to inform the ranges
for essential, desirable and nice to have but not necessary within collaboration. The
ranges were based on over 50 per cent of the respondents having believed the aspect
fitted in that category. The ranges allocated were:
.
Essential 130-156.
.
Desirable 78-129.
.
Nice to have but not necessary 52-77.
The survey therefore identified the 16 essential aspects to collaboration from the score
with a further two being included as they had over 50 per cent of the personnel
choosing essential for the aspect (Table II).
Out of the 18 essential aspects, open dialogue would appear to be the most
important. 16 out of the 18 aspects scored above 130 and the score was made up of over
50 per cent 3s. Early involvement and win/win outcome scored below 130, but was
made up of over 50 per cent 3s and was therefore included in the essential category. All
these aspects have been linked in the literature to forms of collaborative working.
These aspects would have to be present within a project for the project to be
collaborative. There are then 27 desirable aspects to collaboration (Table III).
The most important of the desirable aspects would seem to be that collaboration
encourages long-term relationships, with the least important being team members
demonstrating a record of working on collaborative projects. As there are 27 desirable
aspects, 56 per cent out of the 48 aspects were considered by the respondents as desirable.
Role
Client
Design
Engineer
Project manager
Quantity surveyor
Solicitor
Education
Other

Number of respondents
3
3
4
10
20
1
2
9

Table I.
Role of respondents
questioned

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

CI
12,3

362

Table II.
18 essential aspects
of collaboration

Aspects
An environment of open dialogue exists between all parties
A common aim is shared by all contributors to the project
Early warning systems for any problems are integral to the project
All team members contribute to the project
An environment of mutual trust exists between all parties
Collaboration creates a problem-solving environment
Everyone understands the other team members roles and responsibilities
Team spirit exists between all personnel involved in the project
The contract supports collaboration
Collaborative projects encourage more effective information sharing
Risks are allocated fairly to the parties
There are regular meetings between the various parties (client and supply chain)
The project operates in a non-adversarial environment
Relationships between the parties are managed
The pain share gain share mechanism is fair to both the client and the contractor
Everyone respects the input of the other team members
There is early involvement of key members of the supply chain
Collaboration produces a win/win outcome

Aspects

Table III.
27 desirable aspects

Collaboration promotes long-term relationships

The client and supply chain should achieve a reasonable profit margin
Workshops are held involving all parties (client and supply chain)
Accounts are accessible to both the contractor and the client
The subcontractors are brought into the project at an early stage
Collaboration results in a smaller number of claims
The client takes the lead in the project
The initial time frame for the project is strictly observed
Value engineering is an integral part of the project
Team members are allowed to develop their skills and extend their traditional role input
Work performance is measured using key performance indicators (KPIs)
Collaborative projects provide opportunities for repeat business
The whole supply chain (including suppliers) should be involved in the project as early
as possible
A formal quality assurance mechanism is part of the project
Collaboration allows a holistic view of parties positions
Collaborative projects encourage greater innovation
Collaborative projects provide continuity of work for the supply chain
The initial project budget is strictly adhered to
Collaborative projects produce a design that produces better value
Close supervision of the contractors and subcontractors is undertaken
Collaborative projects streamline administrative processes
The project is delivered in less time than traditional linear procurement
Health and safety standards are set higher than on a traditional procurement route
There is a low turnover of personnel
Waste is reduced in a collaborative project compared to a traditional procurement route
Sustainability performance is increased compared to a traditional procurement route
Team members demonstrate a record of collaborating on previous projects

Score
148
143
142
141
141
141
140
139
139
137
137
137
136
134
134
131
129
125

Score
123
122
119
118
117
116
115
112
112
111
110
109
109
108
108
108
104
104
103
99
97
97
93
91
90
89
88

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

There are then three aspects which would be nice to have in a collaborative project,
based on the percentage of personnel choosing nice to have as well as the overall score.
These aspects can be seen in Table IV.
These three aspects all scored over 50 per cent for 1s and therefore do not appear to
be that important to the collaborative process but may be present occasionally. The
respondents did not seem to think that the projects need to be similar in nature as they
rated this the lowest.
Analysis was carried out on a linear basis. To check the validity of the results,
Spearmans Rho analysis was carried out on the numbers of 3s obtained with regards
to the total score. The p-value obtained was 0.978968, while the critical value was 0.366.
Therefore, as the p-value is significantly greater than critical value the null hypothesis
can be rejected and there is a strong positive correlation between the number of 3s and
the total score. Cronbachs alpha test was also carried out to check the internal
reliability and the results were a mean of 105.226415 with a standard deviation of
18.798476, so an equalled 0.96482217 which is an excellent result using the 50 per cent
rule with the total score it is possible to categorise the aspects.
These rank ordered essential aspects were then used to produce the definition.
However, the opinions of the respondents representing the client or contractor and the
independent representative differed from each other and produced a different list of
essential aspects. The essential aspects for the clients are shown in Table V.
Clients agreed with the essential aspects from the overall data, but also felt that the
client taking the lead, collaboration resulting in a smaller number of claims, and the
accounts being accessible are also essential. The essential aspects for the contractor
can be seen in Table VI.
The contractors agreed with the essential aspects from the overall data, but felt that
value engineering and a long-term relationship are also essential. The essential aspects
for the independent respondents are shown in Table VII.
The independent respondents agreed with most of the essential aspects from the
overall data, but not respecting the input of others; they also felt that the client and
supply chain achieving a reasonable profit is also essential.
These lists of essential aspects showed that whoever represents the construction
team can give the team members a different perspective on what collaboration is.
There is a core of essential aspects present in the lists for the contractor, client and
independent personnel; however each group brought their own interpretation to the
term which influences their definition.

Collaboration
in construction

363

Discussion
By incorporating all the essential aspects of collaboration from the overall data into a
definition, it would read as:
Aspects
The project provides opportunities for the team to get funding for future projects
The rates are renegotiable according to prevailing circumstances
The collaborative projects are similar in nature

Score
84
84
63

Table IV.
Aspects that would
be nice to have

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

CI
12,3

364

Table V.
Essential aspects
for the client

Aspects
An environment of open dialogue exists between all parties
A common aim is shared by all contributors to the project
Collaboration creates a problem-solving environment
Early warning systems for any problems are integral to the project
The project operates in a non-adversarial environment
An environment of mutual trust exists between all parties
All team members contribute to the project
Team spirit exists between all personnel involved in the project
The contract supports collaboration
Collaborative projects encourage more effective information sharing
Everyone understands the other team members roles and responsibilities
Risks are allocated fairly to the parties
Everyone respects the input of the other team members
Relationships between the parties are managed
Accounts are accessible to both the contractor and the client
The pain share gain share mechanism is fair to both the client and the contractor
There are regular meetings between the various parties (client and supply chain)
The client takes the lead in the project
There is early involvement of key members of the supply chain
Collaboration results in a smaller number of claims
Collaboration produces a win/win outcome

Aspects

Table VI.
Essential aspects
for the contractor

Early warning systems for any problems are integral to the project
An environment of open dialogue exists between all parties
There are regular meetings between the various parties (client and supply chain)
All team members contribute to the project
An environment of mutual trust exists between all parties
Collaboration creates a problem-solving environment
A common aim is shared by all contributors to the project
Everyone understands the other team members roles and responsibilities
Team spirit exists between all personnel involved in the project
The contract supports collaboration
Collaborative projects encourage more effective information sharing
Everyone respects the input of the other team members
There is early involvement of key members of the supply chain
Collaboration promotes long-term relationships
Relationships between the parties are managed
Risks are allocated fairly to the parties
The pain share gain share mechanism is fair to both the client and the contractor
The project operates in a non-adversarial environment
Collaboration produces a win/win outcome
Value engineering is an integral part of the project

Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Collaboration within the UK construction industry is a non-adversarial team based

environment, where through the early involvement of key members and the use of the correct
contract, everyone understands and respects the input of others and their role and
responsibilities. The relationships are managed with the help of regular meetings,

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

Aspects
An environment of open dialogue exists between all parties
Everyone understands the other team members roles and responsibilities
Team spirit exists between all personnel involved in the project
An environment of mutual trust exists between all parties
All team members contribute to the project
Risks are allocated fairly to the parties
The pain share gain share mechanism is fair to both the client and the contractor
A common aim is shared by all contributors to the project
The contract supports collaboration
Collaborative projects encourage more effective information sharing
Relationships between the parties are managed
The client and supply chain should achieve a reasonable profit margin
Collaboration creates a problem-solving environment
There are regular meetings between the various parties (client and supply chain)
The project operates in a non-adversarial environment
Early warning systems for any problems are integral to the project

Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

early warning systems, open dialogue and risk sharing to produce an atmosphere of mutual
trust where information is shared, problems can be solved together and everyone contributes
towards a common aim motivated by a fair method of pain share gain share to produce a
win-win outcome.

However, it would appear that the definition of collaboration would differ according to
the persons role within construction and therefore the definition from a clients point of
view would read as:
Collaboration within the UK construction industry is a non-adversarial team based environment,
where through the early involvement of key members and the use of the correct contract,
everyone understands and respects the input of others and their role and responsibilities. The
team/project is led and managed by the client and relationships are managed with the help of
regular meetings, early warning systems, open dialogue and risk sharing to produce an
atmosphere of mutual trust where, information is shared, open book accounting is used, problems
can be solved together, claims are reduced and everyone contributes towards a common aim
motivated by a fair method of pain share gain share to produce a win-win outcome.

The definition from the contractors perspective would read as:

Collaboration within the UK construction industry is a non-adversarial team based
environment, where through the use of the correct contract, there is early involvement of key
members and everyone understands and respects the input of others and their role and
responsibilities. The relationships are managed with the help of regular meetings, early
warning systems, open dialogue and risk sharing to produce an atmosphere of mutual trust,
where information is shared, problems can be solved together with everyone contributing
towards a common aim and value engineering can be used to ensure that everyone is a
winner motivated by a fair method of pain share gain share within a long term relationship.

Finally the definition from people independent within construction would read like:
Collaboration within the UK construction industry is a non-adversarial team based
environment, where through the use of the correct contract with early warning systems
everyone understands other peoples roles and responsibilities. The relationships are

Collaboration
in construction

365

Table VII.
Essential aspects for
independent respondents

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

CI
12,3

managed with the help of regular meetings, open dialogue and risk sharing to produce an
atmosphere of mutual trust, where information is shared, problems can be solved together
and everyone contributes towards a common aim motivated by a fair method of pain share
gain share, so that the client and the supply chain achieve a reasonable profit.

366

Conclusion
The aspects provided by the interviews often mirror the aspects discussed in the
numerous papers to be found in the literature on collaboration and partnering. The list of
aspects produced agreed with Olsson and Esplings (2004) work that it keeps costs
down, reduces litigation, completes within time and is a better working environment.
The results also agreed with Evans and Weir (1995) with regards to supervision and
trust. The results only agreed with part of Fiedler and Deegans (2007) findings of why
collaboration was adopted. The results agreed with asymmetry, economic efficiency,
expertise, reciprocity and stability. However, the results did not agree with legitimacy,
government pressure, publicity, setting an example and stakeholder analysis. There
seems to be less emphasis in the current climate on corporate social responsibility as the
interviewees did not regard external pressures as important to collaboration. Ngowi
(2001) discussed the requirement for dispute resolution systems, whereas the
interviewees opinion was that in a non-adversarial environment it was not necessary.
The interviewees, when asked the difference between the current uses of the word
collaboration and partnering, seemed to indicate that collaboration is the good parts
of partnering. This, in conjunction with the differences between the current research
and previous research, could indicate an evolution of collaborative working within the
UK construction industry.
Further work should be carried out on the essential aspects. The essential aspects
identified by the research could be used in further research to identify how to achieve
successful collaborative projects through the use of possibly Delphi or expert opinion.
This research could expand knowledge of any differences between large and smaller
scale projects and between building and civil projects.
References
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000), A survey of supply chain collaboration and
management in the UK construction industry, European Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 6, pp. 159-68.
Anon. (2001), Construction Contract Incentivisation Schemes: Lessons from Experience, CIRIA,
London.
Anon. (2010), Websters Dictionary.
Beach, R., Webster, M. and Campbell, K.M. (2005), An evaluation of partnership development in
the construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 611-21.
Bititci, U.S., Martinez, V., Albores, P. and Parung, J. (2004), Creating and managing value in
collaborative networks, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 251-68.
Black, C., Akintoye, A. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000), An analysis of success factors and benefits of
partnering in construction, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 423-34.

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2002), The engineering or evolution of co-operation? A tale of two
partnering projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 7,
pp. 497-504.
Chang, Y. and Tang, B. (2005), Trust, partnership and power in construction:
theory and applications in Hong Kong, Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 94-111.
Cheung, S.O., Ng, T.S., Wong, S.P. and Suen, H.C. (2003), Behavioural aspects in construction
partnering, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 333-43.
Cox, A. and Townsend, M. (1997), Latham as half-way house: a relational competence approach
to better practice in construction procurement, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 143-58.
Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking construction, Construction Task Force Report for Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, HMSO, London.
Emsley, M. (2005), A benefits analysis of partnering: a case study of a community primary
school, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 69-79.
Eriksson, P.E., Nilsson, T. and Atkin, B. (2008), Client perceptions of barriers to partnering,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 527-39.
Evans, J. and Weir, C. (1995), Decision processes, monitoring, incentives and large firm
performance in the UK, Management Decision, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 32-8.
Fiedler, T. and Deegan, C. (2007), Motivations for environmental collaboration within the
building and construction industry, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 410-41.
Hibbert, P., McInnes, P., Huxham, C. and Beech, N. (2008), Characters in stories of collaboration,
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 59-69.
Himes, P. (1995), Partnering in the construction process: the method for the 1990s and beyond,
Facilities, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 13-15.
Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London.
Maheshwari, B., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2006), Optimizing success in supply
chain partnerships, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 277-91.
Morledge, R. and Adnan, H. (2005), The importance of trust to the success of joint venture
projects, Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 154-65.
Ngowi, A.B. (2001), The competition aspect of construction alliances, Logistics Information
Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 242-9.
Olsson, U. and Espling, U. (2004), Part I: a framework of partnering for infrastructure
maintenance, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 234-47.
Ross, D. (2009), The use of partnering as a conflict prevention method in large-scale urban
projects in Canada, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 401-18.
Stanek, M. (2004), Measuring alliance value and risk: a model approach to prioritising alliance
projects, Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 182-204.
Walker, D.H.T. (1998), The contribution of the client representative to the creation and
maintenance of good project inter-team relationships, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 51-7.

Collaboration
in construction

367

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

CI
12,3

Walker, D.H.T., Hampson, K. and Peters, R. (2002), Project alliancing vs project partnering: a
case study of the Australian National Museum Project, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 83-91.
Yeung, J.F.Y., Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, D.W.M. (2007), The definition of alliancing in construction
as a Wittgenstein family-resemblance concept, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 219-31.

368
Corresponding author
Deborah Hughes can be contacted at: 04137663@glam.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 09:48 20 July 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Gary D. Holt. 2015. British construction business 1700-2000: proactive innovation or reactive evolution?.
Construction Innovation 15:3, 258-277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Gary D. Holt, Jack S. Goulding. 2014. Conceptualisation of ambiguous-mixed-methods within building
and construction research. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 12:2, 244-262. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]