IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery

Listed author(s):
  • Pertti Lahdenperä
Registered author(s):

    Collaborative construction project arrangements have been the subject of many development efforts owing to the frustration felt toward the opportunism inherent in traditional contracting. Globally, three approaches have stood out: project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. These so-called relational project delivery arrangements have much in common. This study aims to clarify the similarities and differences between the arrangements by examining their key concepts and features one by one and in relation to each other; the motivation behind each is also examined. Early involvement of key parties, transparent financials, shared risk and reward, joint decision-making, and a collaborative multi-party agreement are some of the features incorporated in all the arrangements to a varying degree. Beyond the numerous details, divergent applications and constant evolution presented, the study also recognizes project alliancing as a project delivery system in its own right due to its contractual structure that integrated project delivery aims to imitate while introducing some management approaches not included in project alliancing. Project partnering, although developed in leaps and bounds since its introduction, takes a more conservative approach to work scope and liabilities. Similarly, project alliancing takes relational contracting to the extreme compared to the current forms of integrated project delivery and, especially, project partnering.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Construction Management and Economics.

    Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 1 (December)
    Pages: 57-79

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:30:y:2012:i:1:p:57-79
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2011.648947
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:30:y:2012:i:1:p:57-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.