Problems challenging the philosophy of partnering; the influence and

Despite the aforementioned arguments in support of collaborative procurement strategies, such approaches have attracted their critics. There are, for instance, views that partnering practices within the UK construction industry have failed to realise the full extent of benefits and positive effects that they have experienced in sectors such as manufacturing (Morgan, 2009, pp.7-9; Miller et al., 2002; Winch, 2000 as cited in Bygballe et al., 2010, pp.240-245). This was reiterated by Gadde and Dubois (2010, p.262) who stated simply that “partnering has not lived up to expectations”. Perhaps this could partly explain the reported downward trend in popularity and participation of what was heralded as a major breakthrough in

construction management and a rather unwelcome return to traditional procurement based on lowest cost tenders (RICS, 2012). According to Thurairajah et al. (2006, p.7) this trend could have been exacerbated by the economic austerity of 2008-2012, and its consequential effects on the UK construction industry. Notwithstanding the causes and influences, this is certainly a worrying trend for the UK construction industry and the severity of the problem has been previously articulated by Sir Michael Latham:

“At the present time, a number of clients are being led by their construction cost consultants to abandon frameworks and go back to lowest price

tendering. This is a mistake. Partnering and close collaboration between the client and the whole construction team will mean that projects will come in to quality, time and costs. But if lowest price is demanded by the client, the tender price will not be the actual financial outturn at the end of the project, because the supply side will be looking for claims and variations to make up for what was not in the tender” (Wolstenholme et al., 2009, p.2).

There is a wide ranging consensus that potential barriers in the construction industry could have hindered successful partnering which include fear of the unknown,

perceived loss of control, uncertainty and the lack of understanding of how to change the way one works (Thurairajah et al., 2006, pp.1-4). Within the context of these potential barriers, some participants may be displaying acted behaviours to

Accordingly, they may be only “pay lip service to the principles of partnering” (Gadde and Dubois, 2010, pp.260-262). Certainly Boes and Doree (2013) corroborate this view and their findings indicate that partnering can frequently be classified as superficial and be used to disguise traditional adversarial power relationships and attitudes. There is, however, a careful balance required, in and around these arguments, rather like competitiveness versus cooperation, in how construction related organisations behave, linked very much to predictability and confidence in the other party brought about by trust (Cheung et al., 2001). Perhaps the

aforementioned attitudes and behaviours demonstrate that partnering principles and philosophies are still not being fully embraced by the UK construction industry. In trying to understand why collaborative working has not been fully committed to in this respect, many would argue that there is still a considerable gap in the

comprehension of partnering. For instance, some would argue that most previous research has focused on the positive effects that it has on the performance of projects rather than measures to improve its efficiency (Wu and Udeaja, 2008). Other studies have articulated arguments around behavioural factors in building relationships being essential to partnering success (Drexler and Larsen, 2000; Crespin-Mazet and Guari, 2007) and regard these as the catalyst for such

collaborative working relationships to succeed in practice (Larson, 1997; Walker, 2009). Despite these views Wong et al. (2008) articulated a perspective that “trust appears to be a stranger in construction contracting where confrontation remains the prevalent environment”. Although some could regard this as controversial and potentially provocative it does not appear to be an isolated opinion. For instance, it gathers support from Ng et al. (2002) who identified that failure to realise successful outcomes on projects had resulted from poor commitment of stakeholders to

partnering arrangements largely through lack of trust. To reinforce this argument, there have been other views that, although there is an appreciation across the construction industry about the benefits of partnering, including project team integration, the level of trust in practice is still relatively low when compared with other sectors (Kumaraswamy et al., 2000; Kumaraswamy et al., 2005; Chow et al., 2012). This potential lack of trust in collaborative working practices could therefore possibly explain the downward trend in favour of more market-based approaches to construction procurement (Ross, 2011).

In consideration of the aforementioned problems, many in the past have attempted to explain where this apparent lack of trust has derived from. One such example comes from Rawlinson (2006, pp.60-66) who opined that in certain cases contractors can use collaborative procurement processes to further their own gains and

objectives in terms of increased influence on projects. He argued that contractors’ key priorities revolve around maximisation of profits and their early involvement have brought little in the way of added value in design terms and adversely affected quality. Perhaps it gives some insight to explain why clients and consultants are sometimes reluctant to trust contractors in their affairs. Despite this dilemma, Strahorn et al. (2014) proclaim that, in the context of partnering in the UK

construction industry, there is still “minimal evidence of any proactive strategies for developing and maintaining trust as part of standard project management practice”. Given the scale and potential impact of the problem, it could be regarded as rather surprising given the government encouragement for more collaborative strategies in recent years. In considering the potential means to address such an overriding problem, the first step could be to create the context where construction procurement partners trust one another (Maurer, 2010). Anvuur and Kumaraswamy (2006)

certainly agreed with this premise and advocated the use of intrinsic motivational factors as a potential means to generate trust in this way. They viewed such measures as the major stimulus for changing behaviours and encouraging

cooperation. Conversely they were opposed to extrinsic motivational factors on the basis that such initiatives were founded on winning rewards or avoiding punishment for non-compliance. These findings have informed the main objective (Objective One) for this thesis in ‘determining whether trust building strategies, employing such measures, influence the quality of trust in partnering arrangements’.

Much academic literature has been written on trust as a collaborative necessity (Larson, 1997; Chan et al., 2004, p.230; Walker, 2009; Morrell, 2011) and this has largely focused on the advantages and merits of collaborative working and practice. Whilst findings from such previous studies have indicated that greater levels of collaborative working can increase the successful performance of projects (Wong et al., 2008; Pinto et al., 2009), there is still limited research to investigate and analyse the specific impact of trust within partnering practices (Wu and Udeaja, 2008). There has also been an overwhelming lack of empirical studies with regard to building

collaborative trust in procurement strategies and the influence of certain critical factors or constructs on collaborative trust (Pinto et al., 2009). In the context of Further Education this problem is even more profound with no previous studies in this area of research conducted in the past. Such deficiencies have become

apparent despite findings from Adams (2009) which indicated that the overall levels of trust constructs and attributes influence the level of ‘trust intensity’. Trust

constructs in this sense are “the foundation or production processes upon which trust intensity can be established” and trust attributes relate to situations and

circumstances where trust can be developed (Kadefors, 2004; McKnight et al., 1998, as cited in Adams, 2009).

In consideration and reflection of the aforementioned problems this study seeks to focus ‘upstream’ on those constructs, attributes, factors, mechanisms and initiatives which could influence trust in the context of partnering practices. It will identify and evaluate trust ‘generators’, which the study refers to as ‘trust building mechanisms’, and ‘inhibitors’ or barriers in this respect. This is designed to facilitate greater

understanding of how trust building initiatives can be designed and implemented in developing a framework for improving public sector procurement strategies,

specifically in the Further Education sector. The flowchart in Figure 1.1 illustrates the variables (independent and dependent) and the relationships between trust,

collaboration and performance in securing more successful project outcomes.

introduction of trust framework initiative as a 'toolkit' for procurement strategies trust building mechanisms as part of estates strategies to build trust in partnering increase in quality/intensity of trust in contracting relationships greater degree of collaboration in partnering more successful project outcomes IV DV Preceding variable Succeeding variables

Figure 1.1 Flowchart to illustrate the influence of trust on improved project performance (developed from Wong et al., 2008; Pinto et al., 2009;Fukuyama, 1995 and Wu and Udeaja, 2008)

The model is supported by findings by Fukuyama (1995, as cited in O’Hara, 2006), which advocated that relationships which generate trust will flourish and bring with them economic and social advantages beneficial for organisations and society at large. It is the understanding of trust building mechanisms around improving partnering procurement strategies at the start of the process that will generate an original contribution to knowledge. This is referred to again in Section 1.3 of this thesis. It is regarded as an important contribution given that the literature has

identified the lack of trust as the main deficiency and ‘root problem’ for collaboratively procured projects in the UK. In addition to knowledge, the research in this area will make an important contribution to professional practice in providing an investigative insight into how trust can be developed in construction procurement strategies, specifically in Further Education. It is intended that the findings could be used as a ‘toolkit’ for the construction industry to maintain trust status at the highest levels, through innovative interventions and initiatives. This will be based on the

aforementioned trust framework, which will be developed in the study, and incorporate those factors and attributes that are determined to influence trust.