ºÃÉ«ÏÈÉúTV

Headlines in the construction press at the beginning of last year extolled the benefits of partnering. This was the way the industry was going, said the soothsayers. Academia was busily prescribing the future direction of partnering, and lawyers were frantically looking for a role.

But, now that the first flush of partnering has passed, the doom and gloom brigade is out in full force: the industry's cut-throat culture will never adapt to partnering; if something goes wrong, everybody will fall back on their contracts; with recession on the horizon, partnering looks less attractive; contractors are using the partnering ethos to rip-off their clients and vice versa.

Well, I am not going to indulge in speculation about whether these claims and counterclaims are right. The real problem is that the cynics are well placed to disparage partnering because the concept is generally clouded by a lexicon of waffle and jargon.

Traditionally, construction has been bedevilled by contractual defensiveness and conflict. Some would argue that conflict is healthy in a contracting environment. But a construction contract is not like a contract for the purchase of a newspaper. A contract for the latter does not require that the purchaser has a relationship with the seller. Clients, contractors and consultants have to develop a relationship in order to achieve an outcome that is within time and budget.

It is often forgotten that the law implies a term in construction contracts to the effect that the parties must co-operate to realise the requirements of the contract. Partnering endeavours to promote a more positive relationship between all the parties, making it more certain that clients' needs are met and that all those who have contributed to the process feel adequately rewarded.

Let us examine matters at a very practical level. X is an M&E contractor. He has supplied a boiler which, when installed, does not meet some of the criteria in the performance specification. He goes back to his supplier only to discover the supplier has become insolvent. Nobody is partnering on his project. He begins to look at ways of avoiding buying another boiler. He doesn't tell anybody and hopes the problem is not picked up. But, on testing and commissioning, it is discovered.

• Partnering applies not only to costs but to a willingness to share responsibility
• It works only if all parties are open at the outset
• All members of the team must be involved

Then, our contractor studies the fine print of the performance specification and concludes that responsibility primarily rests with the consultant who drafted the specification. The consultant denies this and argues that even if he was at fault, the contractor should have warned him of any deficiencies. So, here we go on the merry-go-round of avoiding responsibility and protecting one's contractual backside. The stage is set for the claims and counterclaims that will flow from having the boiler replaced. Many simply accept this state of affairs as perfectly normal.

But it should not be the norm. Everybody is dragged into these kind of problems and we all know that there are no winners. What would have happened if this project had been subject to partnering arrangements? The contractor would have owned up. Other participants in the project would have worked with it to overcome the problem. It might be that the specification could be redrafted to allow the contractor to obtain another boiler, possibly at a reduced cost. This is what is meant by partnering being open and transparent. It applies not just to costs but also to a preparedness to take responsibility. The focus is on solving problems.

My own explanation for the failure of partnering relationships is three-fold. First, so-called partners are not open at the outset about what each wishes to gain from the process. The consultant/contractor/subcontractor will expect a certain margin as their return on the job. Clients will also have their expectations. These need to be clearly identified and spelt out to the other partners. Once accepted by all the partners, work can begin to realise the expectations of all.

Second, partnering does not work if only a few members of the team are involved. If, for example, consultants and subcontractors are not brought into the process, the partnering effort is diluted and becomes a waste of time. Worse still, the "I am the dominant party" mentality still applies in some so-called partnering arrangements. Main contractor to subcontractor: "We are partners now. Good, isn't it? By the way, I want you to do job X on our next project." Subcontractor to main contractor: "But job X is too small – it's not economic for me to do it." Main contractor: "You can't say that; you are now my partner!" Last, teamwork can be achieved only if all members of the team feel they have a stake in the project. They need to be treated equally in having access to the information flow on a project. All participants should have a window on the project which can easily be provided by the current technology. This has not been achieved on many projects.