Resultados de la prueba LASSI y correlación

2.6.1 Incentives, problem solving and dispute resolution procedures

There have been many claims that financial incentive mechanisms can maximise the benefits of collaborative working and partnering. Many would, however, caveat such claims and opine that these will only be realised if contracting partners are appointed at early stages and tender selections made on value principles rather than lowest costs (Rose and Manley, 2011, pp.765-770). Applying this theory to practice,

partnering contracts such as the NEC3 may support such an approach through being structured around early integration of the supply chain and mutual incentive

provisions (Lann et al., 2011, pp.97-99). There are also opinions from the literature that partnering arrangements which incorporate and utilise ‘gain share pain share mechanisms’ are most influential in maintaining the spirit of partnering as they incorporate financial incentives to encourage performance whilst more fairly allocating risks (RICS, 2009, p.524). Perhaps this explains why government recommendations have encouraged incentives in order to give increased

opportunities for clients and contractors to enhance profits through achievement and performance (House of Commons Business and Enterprise Committee, 2008,

p.294). Such an approach is referred to in literature as ‘incentive-based

compensation’, whereby cost savings, through value engineering inputs, are shared across organisations. This could arguably encourage project performance in pursuit of more suitable and cost effective outcomes (Pesamma et al., 2009, p.554). Further support for the argument came from The Procurement Group of HM Treasury who advised that:

“Team working, partnering and incentives are not soft options that create a ‘cosy’ environment to work within and should be regarded as good

management mechanisms to deliver efficiency and best value” (OGC, 2003). Despite these arguments, however, the notion of incentives has attracted its critics in the past. Arguments have emerged that they may place too much emphasis on cost at the expense of other outcomes related to quality, time, safety, client satisfaction and functionality. Accordingly, they may not be appropriate for all partnering

arrangements (RICS, 2009). Further support comes from Fawcett et al. (2012) in that misaligned incentives can affect performance and commitment, especially when there is an emphasis on short term costs rather than long term beneficial outcomes. Perhaps what can be interpreted from the literature is that incentives have to reflect a diverse range of performance related attributes rather than just related to overall cost to be both appropriate and effective. On this basis, there may certainly be a place for incentivisation in collaborative working arrangements in most instances.

2.6.2 Partner selection processes, key personnel, management skills and training

There are wide ranging arguments which highlight the increasing need for

professional development, education and training, operational and cultural change and commitment to continual improvement if partnering is going to succeed in the future (Beach et al., 2005, pp.611-621). Many would doubt this view, which

reinforces the recommendations of Latham (1994) and Egan (1998), but teaching to furnish property professionals with specific partnering knowledge is crucial

(Wolstenholme, 2009, pp.4-5). When applying such initiatives to professional practice, recommendations from the Construction Industry Council Strategic Forum for Construction have called for the creation of UK regional task forces. Their remit could be to promote collaborative working through, for instance, best practice measures and annual awards for successful procured partnering projects (CIC, 2005, p.20). Such innovative initiatives could be considered a much needed stimulus for encouraging greater collaboration within the UK construction industry.

There has also been a wide ranging opinion that managing the partner selection processes, leading to the appointment of competent organisations experienced in

collaborative working, is one of the most important tasks for construction clients. This being the case, assessment and evaluation methods should be tailored to specific partnering requirements and undertaken in an objective and robust manner with carefully considered criteria, weightings and pre-qualifications to suit particular projects (Jaskowski et al., 2010). Furthermore, it is imperative that the skills of individuals within project teams complement each other as “project success strongly depends on a tight coupling of the activities of all participants” (Lann et al., 2011, pp.97-99). This may explain why the Construction Industry Council Strategic Forum for Construction opined that selection criteria and evaluation should not solely be founded on recruiting the best individuals for each role but in forming well blended teams for particular projects (CIC, 2002, p.1). This would appear to represent a sensible approach and they further recommended a two stage ‘selecting the team’ process to evaluate the merits and abilities of individuals in this pursuit. This two stage process was also supported by Banaitiene and Banaitis (2006), who applying it to contractor selection, advised that the first stage should be focused on meeting minimum requirements for tender short listing with the second stage concentrated on bid evaluation.

Lann et al. (2011, pp.97-99) referred to ‘competency trust’ as the degree of trust that organisations have in the management, technical and organisational competencies of their partners. Where there is a perceived mismatch of effort and rewards or competencies, it can result in mistrust which can present a significant barrier to the effectiveness of partnering arrangements and robust partner selection processes should attempt to highlight such imbalances (Cheung et al., 2003, p.336).

Potential problems for partnering could exist where clients lack knowledge, empowerment, leadership and commitment (Thomas et al., 2002 as cited in Thurairajah et al. 2006, p.6). A contradictory argument has been presented, however, that limited expertise and training of subcontractors that gives rise to the biggest risk in partnering as these tend to be much smaller companies and have limited resources available to them (Humphreys et al., 2003, p.167). It may be for these reasons that recommendations from the Construction Industry Council Strategic Forum for Construction have called for improved training and coaching at both organisational and individual levels for all project team participants (CIC, 2005,

pp.17-20). The National Audit Office supported the argument and advocated that such initiatives need to spearhead improved training in partnering procurement to bridge a gap in knowledge (NAO, 2001, pp.2-7).

2.7 Summary

The lack of government funding for Further Education estates strategies is forcing colleges to implement initiatives designed to reduce their construction procurement costs and deliver efficiencies. Collaborative working through partnering

arrangements has been spearheaded as the means by which such efficiencies can be introduced on capital projects to lower costs, achieve earlier completion dates and increase quality. Other benefits for clients, consultants and contractors include greater innovation and cooperation brought about by integration of project teams. Despite authoritative calls for greater use of partnering, there has been a growing trend over recent years for organisations to move back to traditional procurement routes. Possible explanations come from reports that clients may be feeling the only way to assure themselves that they are not paying too much is to market test their projects in a highly competitive environment. Organisations have felt vulnerable to partnering and reluctant to take unnecessary perceived risks in some cases. The main barriers and challenges for partnering have emerged from a general lack of trust between partners. These have been reportedly brought about through cases of inequitable working relationships, opportunism, lack of commitment and adversarial behaviours. There have also in recent years been reports of scepticism by some practitioners within the UK construction industry about realisable benefits of partnering arrangements. Furthermore, the ‘one-off’ and short term project based nature of the construction industry has hindered the development of trust, precluding the development of good working relationships and future repeat business.

Trust is considered to be a collaborative necessity which could provide the vehicle for changing adversarial practices and behaviours and therein allowing partnering to function more effectively. Finally, trust building mechanisms and initiatives have been identified in the form of incentives, dispute resolution procedures, robust partner selection processes and staff training and development programmes.

Section B: Review of theory and literature

3. Chapter Three: The theory of trust; concept, components and characteristics