Construction Management and Economics Article 2022

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcme20
Construction Management and Economics
ISSN: 0144-6193 (Print) 1466-433X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20
Living the dream? Understanding partnering as
emergent practice
Mike Bresnen
To cite this article: Mike Bresnen (2009) Living the dream? Understanding partnering
as emergent practice, Construction Management and Economics, 27:10, 923-933, DOI:
10.1080/01446190902974145
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190902974145
Published online: 23 Nov 2009.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 316
View related articles
Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Living the dream? Understanding partnering as
emergent practice
MIKE BRESNEN*
Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, MI5 6PB, UK
Received 1 December 2008; accepted 15 April 2009
The ‘practice turn’ in organizational studies has recently emerged as an important set of perspectives which has
implicationsfor understandingprocessesof knowing and learning within and between organizations.
Consisting of a range of different approaches,it emphasizes the situated nature of knowing and learning in
practice and offers an alternative to understanding human action that transcends the dualism of structure and
agency effects on action. The ontological and epistemological underpinnings of a practice-based approach are
explored before attention is directed towards assessing the implications for understanding the knowledge,
learning and change in project-based organizations associated with the emergence of partnering.
Keywords:Partnering, practice-based perspective, organizational learning.
Introduction
Work on partnering and related formsof inter-firm
collaboration in the construction sector has often taken
as its starting point the search for a clear definition of
partnering and the range ofpractices itencompasses
(e.g. Thompson and Saunders, 1998; Nystro¨ m, 2005;
Anvuur and Kumuraswamy,2007; Eriksson and
Pesamaa, 2007). Research effort is then often focused
on understandingany gaps between theseformal
attributes and partnering as enacted in practice (e.g.
Black et al., 2000;Cheng et al., 2000; Liet al., 2001;
Beach et al., 2005; Nystro¨ m, 2008; Yeung et al., 2008).
Arguably, however, partnering is much more informal
and emergent than this (Bresnen and Marshall, 2002;
Bresnen, 2007) and, consequently, greater insights are
possible if partnering isunderstood asan emergent
process thatis not only situated in particular (local)
circumstances and practices,but also actively consti-
tuted through the collective sense-making activity of
those directly involved.
Such an approach to partnering emphasizesthe
value of taking a ‘practice-based’ approach to studying
organizationaland managementprocessesand it is
this perspective—highly influentialin recentyears in
research on knowledge and learning processes(e.g.
Nicolini et al., 2003)—thatforms the conceptual
backdrop to thispaper.Rather than beginning with
theories abstracted from action,theory and research
from a practice-basedperspectivetakes a more
inductive line,in which interestis directed towards
the ways in which practices (and, through them,
structures and systems) are constituted and reconsti-
tuted through the complex and situated use of a
wide array of tools, technologies,objects,languages
and bodies ofknowledge thatpopulate a domain of
activity (e.g.Suchman,2000). Underpinning much
researchin this area is a critical interest in the
importance of power for understanding how practices
are constituted and how they, in turn, relate to broader
social structuresin which action is embedded (e.g.
Giddens, 1990).
Drawing directly upon interview data from a case
study of partnering in the constructionindustry
(Bresnen and Marshall, 2000), this paper explores the
active constitution ofpartnering in practice,focusing
upon the waysin which it emergesthrough sense-
making—partly as a reflection of, but also in juxtaposi-
tion to, models of collaboration thatare prevalent
within wider industry discourses.The result is an
analysis which emphasizesthe situated nature of
knowing and learning associated with partnering and
the importance of(local) power relationsin helping
shape the form that it takes and in effectively*E-mail: [e-mail]
Construction Management and Economics (October–December 2009) 27, 923–933
Construction Management and Economics
ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online # 2009 Taylor & Francis
http://www.informaworld.com
DOI: 10.1080/01446190902974145
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

circumscribing the practices involved and their legiti-
macy.
In assessing the implicationsfor theorizing about,
and researching into,partnering in the construction
context, the paper also takes a reflexive look at the role
of research and theinvolvementof researchersin
contributing towards an understanding ofpartnering
in practice (and,thus, potentially helping legitimize
partnering).Understanding the relationship between
theory and practice is critically important in an age in
which so-called ‘mode 2’ forms of knowledge produc-
tion are considered vitally important(Gibbons etal.,
1994; Nowotny etal., 2003). Yet, rarely does (con-
struction management) research reflexively consider its
own role in the social construction and constitution of
managementknowledge.By examiningthe subject
position of the researcherin research thatwas very
much intended to follow the lines of ‘engaged scholar-
ship’ (Van de Ven and Johnson,2006),a number of
importantmethodologicalimplications arise forcon-
struction management research—not least of which are
the importanceof negotiatedinteractionbetween
researcherand practitionerand the value of ethno-
graphic forms of research and more in-depth methods
(such as observation) for studying construction man-
agement phenomena.
The ‘practice turn’ in organizational studies
Within mainstream organizationaland management
studies,there has been considerable interest in recent
years in ‘practice-based’views of organizations—
particularly in the area oforganizationalknowledge
and learning.In contrast to approachesthat take a
more abstracted or ‘commodified’view ofknowledge
management,innovation,organizationalchange and
learning (treating ‘knowledge’ as an object that can be
shared,transferred and manipulated),practice-based
theorists and researchers have focused attention instead
upon what people actually do—thus, treating processes
of knowing asof more importance (e.g.Orlikowski,
2002). Consequently,a practice-basedperspective
takes a more emergentand inductive approach to
understanding the development of social structures and
systems. It does this by emphasising how practices are
socially constituted and reconstituted through the use
of the varietyof tools and techniques,sourcesof
knowledge and discursive resources available to those
involved in a particularrealm of activity (Blackler,
1993; Suchman, 2000; Gherardi and Nicolini, 2003).
The ‘practiceturn’ in organizationalstudieshas
emerged in recentyearspartly asa response to the
long-standing problem in philosophy and social theory
of the dualism that exists in the relationship between
agency and structure as the basis of human action (e.g.
Giddens,1990). Put simply,the problem is whether
one attaches primacy to individualagency or to social
structure asthe basisof human behaviour.So, for
example,if socialstructures shape or even determine
our behaviour,whatpart does agency play (or can it
play) in the production of socialorder, the enactment
of social systems and the development of social change?
Practice-based approaches are an attempt to transcend
this dualism and overcome the schism between
psychologicaland social approachesthat lies at the
heart ofthe socialsciences by proposing the ‘field of
practice’as the appropriate point of departure for the
study ofhuman behaviour.In contrast with structur-
alist perspectivesthat emphasizethe (determining)
influence of social structure on action and the establish-
ment of custom-like regularities (e.g. routines) and with
individualist approaches that emphasize the importance
of cognitive processes (e.g.reasoning),practice-based
approachesstressthe fluid and unfolding nature of
routines and their active, social constitution (Schatzki et
al., 2001,pp. 6–7,13). Practices themselves are thus
defined as‘embodied,materially mediated arraysof
human activity centrally organizedaround shared
understandings’ (Schatzki et al., 2001, p. 2).
Given the scope offered by such a definition,it is
perhaps not surprising that there is no single unifying
practice-basedtheory or approach.The range of
perspectivesencompassedis tremendouslywide
(including phenomenology,hermeneutics,ethno-
methodology,activity theory (Blackler,1993), actor-
network theory (e.g.Law, 1986,1992) and Bordieu’s
(1990) ‘habitus’ concept). Despite this, there are
importantpoints of convergence,particularly in the
emphasisplaced upon understandingknowing and
learning as unfolding processes centred upon practice
(e.g. Orlikowski,2002). According to Nicolini et al.
(2003, p. 3), organizational knowing is
situated in the system of ongoing practices of action in
ways that are relational,mediated by artefacts,and
always rooted in a context of interaction.Such knowl-
edge is thus acquired through some form of participa-
tion, and is continually reproduced and negotiated; that
is, it is always dynamic and provisional.
Crucially, therefore, practice-based approaches empha-
size the fluidity of knowledge and learning and the
difficulties of codifying knowledge and of representing
it as such (Shatzki et al., 2001, pp. 8–9).
Inevitably,however,there are also important differ-
ences,most notably in the emphasis placed upon the
role of materialobjects. Since practices are ‘materially
mediated’nexusesof activity (Schatzkiet al., 2001,
p. 11), objects play an important part in practice and in
924 Bresnen
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

understandingprocessesof knowing and learning.
Work on ‘boundary objects’, for example (Boland and
Tenkasi, 1995), demonstratestheir importancein
mediatingcommunicationwithin a joint field of
practiceand in providing the ‘tangibledefinitions’
needed to allow knowledge to be shared or transformed
(Bechky,2003;Carlile, 2004).Work within an actor-
network theory perspectivegoes even further by
proposing thatobjects themselves play an active part
in propagating practices—effectively having agency and
behaving as ‘actants’ (Law, 1992). Such a proposition
has,of course,been subjectto considerable criticism
and debate. Nevertheless, it is clear that practice-based
approaches place a strong emphasis on the role and
impact of objects—both material and symbolic
(Nicolini et al., 2003, p. 22).
There are also important differences in the emphasis
placed upon issuesof power and control within a
practice-basedperspective(Nicolini et al., 2003,
p. 24). Where concern is directed more towards
achieving integration within and across complex fields
of practice (e.g.Wenger,1998; Brown and Duguid,
2001; Carlile, 2004), local conditionsof power and
influence are certainly acknowledged, but questions of
control,hegemony and domination in socialrelations
between actors tend to getdownplayed.In contrast,
approachesthat derive from a poststructuralistper-
spective see relationsof power as of centralimpor-
tance in constituting fieldsof practice through their
impact on what constitutesknowledge,meaning,
practice and identity (Foucault, 1980). So, for
example, systems of power within which social
interaction is embedded have an importantinfluence
on practice through the mutualconstitution of power
and knowledge which,in turn, shapesmeaning and
identity through conceptionsof what constitutes
normaland accepted practice.
Consequently,the practice turn in organization
studies pointsto a very differentset of implications
with regard to research approach and method.At an
ontologicallevel, the more relational,constructive,
heterogeneousand situated natureof knowing and
learning, combined with a more indeterminate view of
supposedly fixed elements such as structure, knowledge
and boundary (Tsoukas and Chia,2002) brings into
question any assumptions made aboutthe nature of
‘knowledge production’and the range of stakeholders
involved (cf.Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al.,
2003).As Nicolini etal. (2003,p. 27) put it:‘from a
practice perspective, the world appears to be relation-
ally constituted,a seamlessweb of heterogeneous
elementskept togetherand perpetuated by active
processes ofordering and sense-making’.Whether or
not one takes an approach that emphasizes relations of
power and control,it is clear from this thatknowing
and learning are highly situated in practice,as wellas
continually constructed, reconstructed and contested.
A similar set of issues arises when one considers the
epistemologicalimplications of a practice-based
approach to knowledge and learning.The strength of
a practice-based approach is in getting close to practice
and in exploring action in ‘realtime’—attempting to
ground theory better in what people actually do, rather
than beginning with theories that are abstracted from
practice. At one level, this would appear to dovetail well
with the aim of grounding knowledge in experience and
in effecting changesin practice where needed.An
emphasis on situated learning and greater sensitivity to
what is local and contingent would therefore appear to
introduce more social realism into the research process
(via grounded theorizing) and a corresponding empha-
sis on action-centred and experiential learning.
At the same time, however, the methods implied by a
practice-based perspectivetend to rely more upon
anthropological-ethnographic and sociological-partici-
pant observertechniquesfor conductingresearch.
While such methods are by no means inconsistent with
the level of engagementnecessaryfor conducting
action-based research,they do however proceed from
very differentassumptions from those methods more
commonly used in applied business and management
research (Bryman and Bell,2007).Not only do they
take a much more qualitative, open-ended line for the
study oforganizationalphenomena,they also tend to
eschew any kind of privileged perspective on the issue
at hand, in preference to taking asparamountthe
subjective position of those researched. In other words,
such methods are notparticularly wellsuited to,or
even consistentwith, an agenda forresearch thatis
determined‘top down’ from a purely managerial
perspective (even if that agenda is explicitly concerned
with understandingsubjectiveperceptionsor atti-
tudes).
Understanding partnering as emergent
practice
The above discussion suggests, of course, a number of
importantchallenges in attempting to apply practice-
based thinking to the context of the construction sector.
However,it also suggests a number of ways in which
doing so can make a significant contribution towards
understandingorganizationalprocesseswithin the
sector.One such case in point is in the development
of partnering.
It is well over a decade since industry- and govern-
ment-sponsoredreports in the US, the UK and
elsewherefirst identified partneringas a way of
Living the dream 925
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

improving working relationshipsand reducing the
adversarialism commonly associated with construction
contracting.In that time, partnering between clients
and contractors has become commonplace (Beach et
al., 2005; Wood and Ellis, 2005) and a sizeable
literature now exists that has examined in some depth
its main principles,practicesand benefits(Larson,
1995,1997;Holti and Standing,1996;Barlow etal.,
1997; Bresnen and Marshall,2000; Li et al., 2000;
Chan et al., 2003; Naoum, 2003). As with other forms
of relational contracting, partnering involves a commit-
ment by organizations to cooperate to achieve common
business objectives (NEDO,1991, p. 5; Bennettand
Jayes,1995, p. 2). In the construction context,such
cooperation can relate to single projects or extend to
longer-term relationships. In the case of the latter, the
terms ‘strategic partnership’ and ‘strategic alliance’ are
often used interchangeably.
Despite the presumed ability of partnering to
contribute towards better project and industry perfor-
mance,it is by no means as pervasive an approach as
many of its early proponentswould have liked or
predicted.Partnering hascertainlybecomea more
widespread partof global construction management
practice (Chan etal., 2003; Wood and Ellis, 2005).
However,its diffusion hasnot been asextensive as
expected and reports continue to question the extent to
which the principles and practices ofpartnering have
become institutionalized and internalized by construc-
tion companies (Ng et al., 2002; Phua, 2006; Kadefors
et al., 2007). Moreover, research consistently points to
difficulties in being able to implement partnering and/
or problems in being able to unambiguously attribute
improvements in project performance or other perfor-
mance criteria to partnering arrangements(e.g.
Cheung etal., 2003;Beach etal., 2005;Chan etal.,
2006; Nystro¨ m,2008). Moreover, many observers
continue to pose the question of what constitutes
partnering in the construction industry context.Not
only is there stilldebate about whether or not single-
projectpartnering (the dominantmode in practice)
makessense,given the importance ofcontinuity of
work, there is also no one single clear definition and
considerable uncertainty and debate about the range of
mechanismsthat partnering encompasses(Nystro¨ m,
2005).
Thus, there are very different views on the duration
of partnering arrangements,the precise role ofcon-
tracts and incentives,and whether or not formal
workshopsneed to take place (Barlow etal., 1997;
Bresnen and Marshall,2000). Some commentators
take a more pragmatic approach, emphasizing the use
of tools and techniques to ‘engineer’collaboration in
the short and long term.These tools include charters
and dispute resolution mechanisms, appropriate formal
contractsand incentives,continuous improvement
programmesand benchmarking (e.g.NEDO, 1991;
Bennett and Jayes, 1995). Others stressthe more
informal and emergent nature of partnering, suggesting
that it is best conceptualized asmaking progress
towards collaboration across a range oftechnicaland
organizationalfronts (Holtiand Standing,1996,p. 5;
Barlow et al., 1997; Thompson and Sanders, 1998).
There is also considerable variation in the extent to
which the full range of projectteam participantsis
encapsulated within thepartneringarrangementin
practice and/or considered to be part of the partnering
approach in theory.In particular,comparatively few
attemptshave been made to explore the rolesand
perspectivesof subcontractors.Where studieshave
been done, the findings are often mixed and highlight
the ambivalence of subcontractors towards partnering
when the philosophyand rhetoric of collaborative
working fails to transmit further down the supply chain
(Dainty et al., 2001; Green, 2006; Mason, 2007).
Another notable source ofvariation in the scope of
partnering is in the inclusion orexclusion ofdesign
teams(Bresnen and Marshall, 2000). As principal
actors in the wider project team, it is perhaps unusual
that they should not be routinely considered as vitally
importantto partnering.Yet research notonly con-
sistently fails to examine the position of design teams
within partnering arrangements (whether employed on
a design-build or more traditionalbasis), but also
continues to highlight their rather ambivalent attitudes
towards partnering.
Last but not least, recentresearch hasbegun to
highlight important institutional variations in the
experience ofpartnering across different nationaland
cultural contexts (Phua, 2006). It is not surprising that
partnering should manifestitself in differentways in
different national contexts and existing research points
to the ways in which diverse cultural, legaland socio-
economic conditions impact upon the development of
partnering(Kwan and Ofori, 2001; Koraltan and
Dikbas, 2002; Drejer and Vinding,2006). However,
what is missing from existing work is any systematic
comparative research thatsetsout to examine these
cross-culturaldifferences,given the light this could
throw upon the factorsenabling and inhibiting the
developmentof partnering and how these may influ-
ence the differentapproachesfound. Instead,many
analyses continue either to try to apply more abstract
definitionsof partneringto assesshow well local
practices ‘measure up’(e.g. Li et al., 2001;Yeung et
al., 2008);or, instead,extrapolate their own concep-
tions of partnering that tend, inevitably, to be flavoured
by local understandings of the phenomenon (e.g. Chan
et al., 2003).
926 Bresnen
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

Given these continued sources of variation in
practice and what appears to be a continued drive to
develop some all-embracing definition (e.g.Anvuur
and Kumuraswamy, 2007), it becomes important to try
to find ways ofunderstanding how the wide range of
manifestations of partnering in practice arise from the
juxtaposition between localinterpretation and wider
industry discourse.The argumentdeveloped in this
paper,however,is that doing so involves dispensing
with the assumption that partnering involves an under-
lying, coherentset of ‘best practices’that, with due
allowance made for local variation, defines the ‘essence’
of partnering.Instead, it is being suggestedthat
partnering isa highly situated phenomenon and a
localized social accomplishment, whose attributes may
well be informed by wider industry discourseand
institutional norms, but whose manifestationsin
practice owe as much to local sense-makingand
situated (experiential) learning processes.These pro-
cesses,in turn, reflect the immediate localconditions
shaping emergentpartnering relationships,how these
are mobilized by the parties concerned to establish and
legitimize particular modes of working and how
‘partnering’ develops and transforms over time as it is
experienced and enacted.In turn, this more compli-
cated picture may help explain some of the continued
difficultiesfound in being able to attribute project
performance to the use ofpartnering arrangements
(Nystro¨ m, 2008).
A vignette of partnering in construction
In order to illustrate the importance ofsense-making
activity to the construction ofa workable form of
partnering in practice, the rest of the paper draws upon
case study data from a wider empirical study of
partneringin construction (Bresnen and Marshall,
2000).The project selected here for examination was
one of severalcase studies ofmedium- to large-scale
projectsundertaken by experienced clientsacrossa
range of sectorswithin the industry.No attempt is
being made to suggest that the project is typical in any
way—the aim instead is to develop analyticalgeneral-
izations and thus contribute towards theory develop-
ment (Eisenhardt,1989; Yin, 1989). Accesswas an
important issue, however, since the project could only
be selected from the company’s currentportfolios of
projects;and also because an attemptwas made to
select cases at the point in time corresponding to the
transition from design to construction—thus enabling
some longitudinal, ‘real time’ study.
Given the need for in-depth analysisof project
circumstances and events, qualitative research methods
were used (Bryman and Bell,2007).Semi-structured
interviewswere the main form of data collection,
supplementedby direct observationand study of
documentation. In total, 17 interviews were conducted,
which included a selection ofteam membersfrom
different departmentsand levels within each main
participating organization (client,ConsultantProject
Manager,architects/design team,main contractor),as
well as interviews with two subcontractors’ representa-
tives (mechanical and electrical, ground works). While
the length and focus of interviews varied, they were all
based upon a nine-page master interview schedule.
The following section presents background informa-
tion about the case, after which attention is focused on
processesof client–contractorinteraction thatwere
significantin attemptsto develop a collaborative
relationship.
The new hotel building project
This project was a £27 million contract for the
construction ofa 392-room,four-starhotel close to
an internationalairport in the UK. It represented the
start of an open-ended partnering agreement between
the client, a large UK-based multinational in the hotel
and leisure sector,and the main contractor,a large
building and civilengineering contractor.The project
was let under a design and build form of contract,
based on a negotiated fixed price with a risk–reward
formula calculated againstthe procurementbudget
(excludingagreed levelsfor the main contractor’s
overheads, margins and preparatory work). The dura-
tion of the project was 76 weeks.
The client had opted for a long-term partnering
arrangement in order to achieve the benefits of better
integration between design and construction processes
and also to coincide with a move towards preferred
supplier or single sourcing procurement arrangements.
For the contractor,the partnering agreementoffered
the prospect of regular and continuing follow-on work
with a prestigious clientand the opportunity to gain
access to an important market area involving relatively
high levels of capital spend and large individual
projects.The main ‘drivers’of this particular project
were clearly commercial, although the planning envir-
onment and influence of localstakeholders (especially
the airport) were also important considerations.
Established technologiesand design solutionswere
used on the project(which included extensive use of
modularization and off-site factory fabrication).
Fieldwork visits continued up until about eight weeks
before the planned completion date and, although the
project was incomplete at that time, it was agreed by all
concerned that it had performed well and was projected
to finish on time and on cost. There had been an
Living the dream 927
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

estimated four to five weeks’ potential delay caused by
design variations resulting from client changes (which
also resulted in £800 000 extra client spend).But the
problems caused to the programme had largely been
absorbed by the main contractor. As a result, not only
was the projectexpected to finish on time,but an
estimated £3 million claim thatboth partiesagreed
would have been pursued on a conventional project was
averted.According to the contractor’s senior manage-
ment, the prospect of an open-ended exclusive partner-
ing relationship with a major client was an important
financial incentive and good reason to forgo any claims
that would otherwise have been made.
Regarding the processesinvolved,there had been
some early contractorinput into design and some
overlap of design-construction stages.User needs,
however,were not fully addressed untilrelatively late
in the projectand some internal‘dithering’(client’s
Property DevelopmentDirector) in decision-making
had led to the delays and extra spend noted above.
Nonetheless, client satisfaction with the overall process
was high: the Property Development Director was ‘very
satisfied’with the outcome and the working relation-
ship with the main contractor was described as ‘first
class’ (client Hotel Manager).
Constructing a partnering relationship
Partnering waschampioned atsenior levels within
the client’sorganization—itsintroduction within the
organization being seen as critically importantto the
future commercial success of the firm as well as being a
radical departurefrom existing ways of working.
According to the client’s Property Development
Director:
You have to start,I think, with creating unhappiness
with the status quo at the highest possible levelof the
organization. The best way of doing that is to
demonstratethat other people can do what you’re
doing better than you are … because they’ve got close
working relationships with people,whereas we haven’t
… So you get them on the hook with that … you start to
create some unhappiness at that level… and then you
reel it in a bit at a time.
Moreover,it was clear that part of the rationale for
introducing partneringwas as much to do with
controlling internal overheads as it was with promoting
external collaboration.
As you move from one-offcompetitive tendering as a
procurement route to partnership sourcing, the employ-
ees within the business start to feel that they’re turkeys
waiting for Christmas… you don’t need the same
administrative set-up asyou previously had with an
adversarial arrangement and they start to sabotage it.
Consequently, introducing partnering was a profoundly
politicalprocess,having asmuch to do with imple-
menting cost savings and overcoming resistance as with
obtaining widespread buy-in to the ‘cultural’differ-
ences associated with the approach.
Selecting the contractor
On this project—the client’s first incursion into
partnering—therewas a consciousattempt made,
according to seniorclient representatives,to assess
the ‘culturalfit’ between clientand contractor.The
selection of a contractor that was felt to be in the same
cultural ‘mould’ as the client (Consultant Project
Manager),meantthat an emphasison certain core
values was looked for. These included an open
relationship between senior management and the ‘grass
roots’, an emphasis on knowledge sharing and a
commitment to continuous improvement.
The selection mechanisms used were very formal and
detailed, including questionnaires, interviews and pre-
sentations,as well as the pricing ofa specimen job.
Price, technicalcompetence and commercialstability
were all assessed,but emphasis was also puton the
company’s commitment to partnering and their ability
to demonstrate an understanding ofwhat it meant.
According to the ConsultantProject Manager,pre-
sentations and interviews included a focus on ‘body
language’and an emphasison ensuring that the
company was not just ‘talking the language of partner-
ing’.
Efforts were also made to ‘incentivize’the relation-
ship because,according to the Property Development
Director:
We believe that we should incentivize the relationship
between thepartiesand it should be based upon
business performance … That doesn’t mean to say that
we shouldn’t have project bonuses,but I think project
bonuses should be simple and should be about finishing
on time [and] within budget and everyone should be on
much the same sort of arrangement. I think that, for the
relationship as a whole,it oughtto be based on the
business plan.
On this particular project this was reflected in the joint
development of the target cost.
Establishing a target cost
Although the clientimposed a ceiling on the project
budget from the outset, the use of a jointly negotiated
targetcost with a risk–reward elementreflected the
‘give and take attitude’ that both main parties stressed
they were looking for on the project.Any savings (or
losses) againstthe target cost would be shared 50/50
between the client and main contractor (savings/losses
were also ‘uncapped’).
928 Bresnen
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

This formula wasnegotiated with the clientand
ConsultantProject Manager and, importantly,was
seen as not only equitable, but also easy for both parties
to understand. Reflecting the commitment to a partner-
ship, liquidated damages were set at the symbolic level
of £1/day.Yet intense efforts were stillmade by the
contractor to meet the programme end-date and absorb
any delays, in the interests of preserving good relations
with the client.On the client’s part,the likelihood of
design changes being made (e.g. additional rooms) was
recognized from the start and built in as a contingency.
Although it was quite difficult to establish the target
cost in the early stageswhen the projectscope was
undefined, it was not only regarded as possible due to
the collaborative approach being adopted, but also as a
way of gaining the contractor’s commitment to project
objectives(crucially, the target was seen by the
contractoras achievable and the formula equitable).
Significantly,too, the joint negotiation oftargetcost
encouraged efforts to reduce costs and,at the start of
the project, a 24-hour joint value engineering exercise
was set up to challenge the scheme design, as a result of
which a number of changes were introduced.
Risk–reward arrangements were also established with
some first tier subcontractors.For example, the
concrete frame contractor and M&E services contrac-
tor would pick up 25% of any gains and losses made,
with the rest going to the client (50%) and main
contractor(25%). The skewed distribution ofgains/
losses in this case, however, was seen as far less fair and
equitable by the subcontractors.Despite attempts by
the main contractor to foster greater collaboration in
the supply chain,this perceived inequity led to some
misgivingsabout the main contractor’sunderlying
intentions and concern aboutthe effects ofpressure
for continuous improvementon subcontractors’mar-
gins. According to the M&E Site Manager:
I’ve been involved in three partnering projects now and
they’re all the same—it’s driven around cost. ‘How can
we get the job cheaper?’ There are certain things that we
introduced here and this job willbe cheaper. The next
job won’t, because that will be written into the spec …
Next time, everybodywill be pricing for that, so
effectively allyou’ve done is you’ve taken a little bit of
value off the project … The next time,you’ve stillgot
the same pressure on you—‘how are you going to get it
cheaper?’
Choosing a form of contract
The quality of relationshipsbetween client and
contractor was seen as more important on the project
than the form ofcontractand partof the partnering
philosophy included a commitment to an ‘open book’
approach with regard to the sharing of information. As
a result, according to senior client and contractor staff,
the main contractorknew exactly whatthe client’s
budget was for the project.
Nevertheless, the project was also underpinned by a
relatively standardizeddesign and build contract
normally used by the client. Importantly, this provided
‘a reference point against which we can measure how
the job is going, without actually using it’ (Consultant
Project Manager). Under ideal conditions, according to
senior client and contractor staff, it would be possible
to ‘leave it in the bottom draw of the filing cabinet’—
although it was clear too that it provided a fall back in
the event of problems:
We are not at the stage where we could get rid of the
standard contract.We are stillin this to make money
and so there has to remain a hard edge to protect things.
(Contractor Senior Project Manager)
Interestingly,the simplicity of the contract was
seen to be one of its major attractions,because it
was more easily understoodand its implications
generally better appreciated than newer, more
customized (or,according to the contractor’sArea
Manager,‘bastardized’) forms ofcontract.According
to the Area Manager,with regularclientsthe great
benefit was that:
You only have to go through the learning curve once
and you don’t need an army of solicitors each time you
start a job.
Building the project team
With regard to this ‘learning curve’,an important
feature of the early stages of the project was the use of
high levelworkshopsinvolving seniorstaff from the
client, the Consultant Project Manager and main
contractor. At these formalworkshops (which did not
use facilitators), agreementwas reached on the
philosophy and aims and objectives ofthe collabora-
tion, through the medium of a signed charter.
According to the Property Development Director:
We have an overall partnership mission that everybody,
whether they’re a consultant or a contractor, has bought
into and signed up to. We evolve that together at a series
of workshops and away-days in the early days ofthe
partnership … Then, before kicking off any project, we
have a get-together… The project is sort of brain-
stormed,torn apart, looked at by the partiesand,
eventually,a method statement and plan of how we’ll
tackle it emerges.
The partnering arrangement initially established was
therefore a semi-formalagreementthat was refined
further through interaction between the main parties.
According to the Consultant Project Manager:
Living the dream 929
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

Apart from this piece ofpaper,there was no formal
agreement.At this stage,it was not very welldefined
and we had to work it through to add a bit more detail
… We did work on fleshing outthe principles ofthe
relationship and now have a document that sets out the
general processes.
This initiallow level of definition was juxtaposed with
the importance attached to the ‘unwritten’ content and
intent of the framework (which was expected to evolve
more fully over the longer-term relationship).
According to the Consultant Project Manager:
We have moved away from defining the principles and
educating the members ofthe team.I believe that we
now have a fairly good understanding at every level.
Having said that,it was clear that involvement in the
workshops and associated team-building did not extend
beyond senior staff or include other key actors—
notably the design team.The main contractordid
organizegeneralevening and project-specificwork-
shops for their own (site) staff and for subcontractors;
they also produced induction booklets for the work-
force that included general guidance on the importance
of collaboration.However,for the most part,interac-
tion was informaland occurred mainly through social
events.There was also some scepticism expressed—
particularly at site level.For example,one of the key
individualson site (the ground workssubcontractor
Site Manager) considered the project no different from
any other he had experienced.
Discussion
What the above case data attemptto illustrate about
partneringin this particularinstanceis its highly
idiosyncratic grounding in the particular circumstances
of the companies and their relationship to the project
(and to one another more generally).There were
clearly elements within the case that echoed mechan-
isms commonly used elsewhere (and normaldevelop-
mentalprocessesencountered elsewhere).However,
what was particular about this case was the distinctive
flavour of partnering and how itemerged and was
refined through interaction and collective sense-making
among the participantsinvolved (including some
lingering unresolved tensions) and manifested in very
particular localpractices that were developed to meet
project and organizational needs.
Moreover,the coherence ofthe approach in that
specific context dependedas much upon power
relationshipsand the commercialunderpinningsof
the relationship between the parties as it did upon the
mobilization of specific tools and techniques to develop
partnering. Reinforcing efforts to transform the under-
standing and learning involved were powerful commer-
cial motives that helped create the conditions in which
interests could be more easily aligned. In particular, the
contractor was dependent on the client for future work
and the client was, in turn, keen to make its new
partnering strategy a success. Such mutual dependency
was important in motivating the parties to collaborate,
despite the contractualrelationship (cf. Cox, 2004). At
the same time,however,these commercialpressures
were insufficient to ensure that collaboration occurred.
There was still the challenge faced in coming up with a
shared understanding ofwhat partnering meantin
practice.It was here that the mechanismsused to
‘engineer’partnering played a partin solidifying the
approach used and ‘normalizing’interaction around
the parties’ collaborative stance.
So, for example,the contractorselection process
involved what amountedto a co-constructionof
contractoridentity to fit client expectationsthrough
the medium of presentations and interviews involving
key staff.What was particularly significantaboutthe
selection processes—aswell as about the charters/
workshops used and the joint target costing process—
was that they together helped shape and constitute the
particular model of partnering adopted for that project
(and the templatefor the longer-term partnering
arrangement). Partnering as it was defined and enacted
on that project was therefore conditionalupon the
particular configuration of processes, systems, roles and
relationships that emerged with the development and
negotiation ofthe relationship.This, in turn, was
mediated through the particular mechanisms used (the
contract,the interviews,the charter,etc.) that helped
create an integrated, collaborative, yet at the same time
fairly idiosyncratic, approach to the project.
In other words, the development of an approach on
that project that ‘worked’for both parties necessarily
involved the construction and/ornegotiation ofnew
meanings and identities through which the main parties
could relate to one another in ways that were
considerably different from ‘normal’ (cf. Newellet al.,
2003). In turn, this process was not only peculiar to the
circumstances ofthe case,but also reliantupon the
active ways in which the various mechanisms available
were practically and symbolically used (or not used) to
enhanceintegration and to legitimizenew working
practices.So, for example,the production of the
charter was important in creating the joint conception
of partnering needed (atleastat senior management
levels—though it failed to have the same effect across
the whole team). Conversely, mechanisms that might,
in other circumstances,create barriers to integration
(e.g. the formal contract) either presented no practical
impediment because they did not interfere with existing
930 Bresnen
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

practices (cf.Bresnen etal., 2005);or they provided
simpler mechanisms that,nevertheless,had consider-
able value in helping reinforce common understand-
ings.
Consequently,making partnering work in this case
was notonly an ongoing socialaccomplishment,but
was also dependent upon individuals and groups within
each organization providing supportfor the concept
and lending powerfulsymbolic backing to the parti-
cular practices being used (thus lending them greater
credibility—as in the case ofthe liquidated damages
clause,for example).Although the understanding of
partnering as far as senior management was concerned
was undoubtedlyinfluenced by broader industry
discourse and debate (and drew explicitly on those
discursive resources to legitimate localpractice),the
form it took was very much derived from local practices
and shaped by negotiated interaction between the main
parties.In other words,what occurred here was not
simply an attempt to implement an industry-wide ‘top
down’ modelof partnering practice—with due allow-
ance being made for local constraints and contingencies
and difficulties and distortionsin translationand
implementation.Instead, what was witnessed here
was a highly localized,emergentand specific ‘brand’
of partnering, with its own coherent internallogic and
features(some of which were contested),whose
development and operation was mediated through the
mechanismsidentified above which also acted as
powerful legitimating devices.
Whether or not those distinctive local meanings and
mechanisms developed for this project might, in turn,
become more deeply embedded in the general practices
of client and contractor would be likely to be dependent
on a number of factors.These would include con-
tinuities in personal/group relationships, conditions on
other projects and how the partnering relationship was
perceived to influence performance over time (cf. Ring
and Van de Ven,1994).However,what is significant
here is the factthat partnering was situated in local
practices. As such, it would inevitably be continually re-
enacted and re-produced (and perhapsmodified)in
ways that reflected the recursive relationship between
the actionsof key individualsand groups and the
constraining influence of the structural conditions they
themselveshad generated through theirpartnering
practices (cf. Giddens, 1990). It is therefore important
to see partnering asa dynamically evolving concept
situated in practice that, following Giddens, has its own
rules of signification and legitimation thatconstrain
future developmentsor, in the case of unresolved
tensions, open up opportunities for future changes. In
other words, partnering isnot a simple nor static
concept:it has considerable ‘interpretative flexibility’
(Bijker et al., 1987) that allows it to develop (and
evolve) in very differentways—sometimes consistent
with, sometimes at odds with (but always in counter-
point to) wider industry discourse and practice.
Conclusion
The above discussion raisesa number of important
implications for the theory and practice of partnering.
Most importantly, it emphasizes the local and situated
nature ofpartnering and how it is likely to be a very
specific manifestation of localpractices and particular
combination of‘tools and techniques’—albeit inevita-
bly informed by wider discourse and accepted practice
within the sector.Other projectsundertaken under
different circumstances than this case may,of course,
take quite differenttrajectories and be influenced by
their own salient local conditions (e.g. regulatory
influenceson public sector projectsthat may make
partnering difficult). However, the clear general impli-
cation from this analysis is thatabstractand stylized
models of partnering in theory, though they may help
the spread ofpartnering,do not necessarily provide
realisticmodels that clients and/or contractorscan
readily implement in practice (Bresnen, 2007). Instead,
local practices and negotiated interaction are likely to
be much more important in creating a more emergent
conception of partnering that is more closely attuned to
the (varying and changing) needs and practices of the
parties to the relationship. Attempting to come up with
any precise, universal definition of partnering in such a
context is likely to remain a difficult, if not impossible,
exercise. As too may be the establishment of a common
template against which attempts at partnering can be
accurately assessed.
Indeed,such an exercise may be unnecessary and
even undesirable,insofar as it detracts from efforts to
embed partnering in practice and make it a ‘taken-for-
granted’way of working that has its own (local)
relevance,clarity and coherence.The question here,
of course,concerns the complex relationship between
institutionalization processes at the level of the industry
as a whole and the different manifestations of partner-
ing found in practice.As diverse approaches become
embedded in practices that are not only institutionally
very disparate(different sectors of the industry,
for example),but also organizationallydistributed
(Sapsed and Salter, 2004; Bresnen et al., 2005),
knowledge related to the concept of partnering neces-
sarily becomeslocalized,negotiated and provisional
(Nicolini et al., 2003). In this context, although formal
prescriptions have a valuable role to play as touchstones
for debate, guidelines for policy, legitimating devices or
heuristics for assessing progress towards collaboration,
Living the dream 931
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

they are ultimately limited by their failure to capture
the nature of partnering as it is enacted and embedded
in local practices.
Finally, there is a strong methodological implication
of the above discussion thatpoints to the value of
adopting approachesto research that—like more
interpretative and ethnographic methods—are able to
tap into the ‘lived experience’ of partnering as a way of
developing greater understanding aboutthe phenom-
enon. At present,the dominantapproach isthat of
positivism and a good deal of researcheffort is
expended in trying to revealthe underlying processes
and constellation offactors thatpromote (or inhibit)
collaboration through partnering as defined in parti-
cular ways.This paperhas emphasized instead that
there is another way of revealinginsights about
partnering that owes a lot more to understanding how
partnering isconstructed and negotiated in situ and
how the knowing and learning associated with partner-
ing is, consequently, situated in practice.
Acknowledgements
Research in this paper was supported by EPSRC grant
reference GR/L01206. The author would like to thank
Dr Nick Marshall for his contribution to the work.
References
Anvuur, A.M. and Kumuraswamy, M.M. (2007) Conceptual
modelof partnering and alliancing. Journalof Construction
Engineering and Management, 133(3), 225–34.
Barlow, J., Cohen, M., Jashapara, A. and Simpson, Y. (1997)
Towards Positive Partnering, The Policy Press, Bristol.
Beach, R., Webster,M. and Campbell, K. (2005) An
evaluation of partnership development in the construction
industry.InternationalJournalof ProjectManagement,23,
611–21.
Bechky,B.A. (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational
communities:the transformation ofunderstanding on a
production floor. Organization Science, 14(3), 312–30.
Bennett,J. and Jayes,S. (1995) Trusting the Team: The Best
PracticeGuide to Partneringin Construction,Centre for
Strategic Studiesin Construction/Reading Construction
Forum, Reading.
Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. and Pinch, T.J. (1987) The Social
Constructionof TechnologicalSystems, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Black, C., Akintoye, A. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000) An analysis of
success factors and benefits ofpartnering in construction.
International Journal of Project Management, 18(6), 423–34.
Blackler,F. (1993) Knowledge and the theory oforganiza-
tions: organizations as activity systems and the reframing of
management.Journal of ManagementStudies, 30(6),
863–84.
Boland,R.J. and Tenkasi,R.V. (1995) Perspective making
and perspectivetaking in communitiesof knowing.
Organization Science, 6(4), 350–72.
Bordieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice,Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Bresnen,M. (2007) Deconstructing partnering in project-
based organization:seven pillars,seven paradoxesand
seven deadly sins. InternationalJournal of Project
Management, 25(4), 365–74.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000) Building partnerships:
case studies ofclient–contractor collaboration in the UK
construction industry. ConstructionManagementand
Economics, 18(7), 819–32.
Bresnen,M. and Marshall,N. (2002) The engineering or
evolution of co-operation? A tale of two partnering projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 497–505.
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia,A. and Swan, J. (2005)
Organizationalroutines,situated learning and processes
of change in project-based organizations. Project
Management Journal, 36(3), 27–41.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2001) Knowledge and organiza-
tion: a social-practiceperspective.Organization Science,
12(2), 198–213.
Bryman,A. and Bell, E. (2007) BusinessResearch Methods,
2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Carlile, P. (2004) Transferring, translating and transforming:
an integrative framework for managing knowledge across
boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–68.
Chan, A.P.C., Chan, D.W.M. and Ho, K.S.K. (2003) An
empirical study of the benefits of construction partnering in
Hong Kong. ConstructionManagementand Economics,
21(5), 523–33.
Chan, A.P.C., Chan, D.W.M., Fan, L.C.N., Lam, P.T.I. and
Yeung, J.F.Y. (2006) Partnering forconstruction excel-
lence—a reality or myth. Building and Environment, 41(12),
1924–33.
Cheng, E., Li, H. and Love, P. (2000) Establishmentof
critical success factors for construction partnering. Journal
of Management in Engineering, 16(2), 84–92.
Cheung, S., Ng, T., Wong, S.-P. and Suen, H. (2003)
Behavioural aspects in construction partnering.
InternationalJournalof Project Management, 21(5), 333–43.
Cox, A. (2004) The art of the possible: relationship manage-
mentin power regimes and supply chains.Supply Chain
Management: An InternationalJournal, 9(5), 346–56.
Dainty, A.R.J., Briscoe, G.H. and Millett, S.J. (2001)
Subcontractorperspectiveson supply chain alliances.
Construction Management and Economics, 19(8), 841–8.
Drejer, I. and Vinding, A.L. (2006) Organization, ‘anchoring’
of knowledge,and innovativeactivity in construction.
Construction Management and Economics, 24, 921–31.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case
study research.Academy ofManagementReview,14(4),
535–50.
Eriksson,P.E. and Pesamaa,O. (2007) Modelling procure-
ment effects on cooperation. Construction Management and
Economics, 25, 893–901.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge,Gordon, C. (ed.),
Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
932 Bresnen
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016

Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2003) To transfer is to
transform: the circulation of safety knowledge, in
Nicolini, D., Gherardi,S. and Yanow,D. (eds) Knowing
in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach, M.E. Sharpe,
London.
Gibbons,M., Limoges,L., Nowotny,H., Schwartman,S.,
Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of
Knowledge:The Dynamicsof Scienceand Researchin
Contemporary Societies, Sage, London.
Giddens,A. (1990) The Consequences ofModernity,Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA.
Green, S.D. (2006) The managementof projectsin the
construction industry: context, discourse and self-identity,
in Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (eds) Making Projects
Critical, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 232–51.
Holti, R. and Standing,H. (1996) Partnering as Inter-related
Technicaland OrganizationalChange, Tavistock, London.
Kadefors, A., Bjorlingson, E. and Karsson, A. (2007)
Procuring serviceinnovations:contractorselection for
partnering projects. InternationalJournal of Project
Management, 25, 375–85.
Koraltan,S. and Dikbas,A. (2002) An assessmentof the
applicabilityof partneringin the Turkish construction
sector. ConstructionManagementand Economics,20(4),
315–21.
Kwan, A.Y. and Ofori, G. (2001) Chinese culture and
successfulimplementation ofpartnering in Singapore’s
construction industry. ConstructionManagementand
Economics, 19(6), 619–32.
Larson, E. (1995) Project partnering: results of study of 280
construction projects. Journal of Management in Engineering,
11(2), 30–5.
Larson, E. (1997) Partnering on construction projects:a
study of the relationship between partnering activities and
project success. IEEE Transactionson Engineering
Management, 44(2), 188–95.
Law, J. (ed.) (1986) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology
of Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Law, J. (1992) Notes on the theory ofthe actor-network:
ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. System Practice, 5(4),
379–93.
Li, H., Cheng, E. and Love, P. (2000) Partnering research in
construction.Engineering,Constructionand Architectural
Management, 7(1), 76–92.
Li, H., Cheng, E., Love, P. and Irani, Z. (2001) Co-operative
benchmarking: a tool for partnering excellence in construc-
tion. InternationalJournal of ProjectManagement,19(3),
171–9.
Mason, J.R. (2007) The views and experiences of specialist
contractors on partnering in the UK. Construction
Management and Economics, 25, 519–27.
Naoum, S. (2003) An overview into the concept of partnering.
International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 71–7.
NEDO (1991) Partnering:Contractingwithout Conflict,
HMSO, London.
Newell, S., Edelman,L., Scarbrough,H., Swan, J. and
Bresnen, M. (2003) ‘Best practice’developmentand
transfer in the NHS: the importance of process as wellas
product knowledge.Health Services ManagementResearch,
16(1), 1–12.
Ng, T., Rose, T., Mak, M. and Chen, S.E. (2002)
Problematic issues associated with project partnering—the
contractor perspective.InternationalJournal of Project
Management, 20(6), 437–49.
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D. (2003) Knowing in
Organizations:A Practice-Based Approach,M.E. Sharpe,
London.
Nowotny,H., Scott,P. and Gibbons,M. (2003) ‘Mode 2’
revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva, 4(3),
179–94.
Nystro¨ m,J. (2005) The definition of partneringas a
Wittgensteinfamily-resemblanceconcept. Construction
Management and Economics, 23(5), 473–81.
Nystro¨ m,J. (2008) A quasi-experimentalevaluationof
partnering.Construction Managementand Economics,26,
531–41.
Orlikowski, W. (2002) Knowing in practice: enactinga
collective capability in distributed organizing.
Organization Science, 13(3), 249–73.
Phua, F.T.T. (2006) When is construction partnering likely
to happen?An empirical examination ofthe role of
institutional norms. ConstructionManagementand
Economics, 24(6), 615–24.
Ring, P.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1994) Developmental
processes of co-operative inter-organizational relationships.
Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.
Sapsed,J. and Salter,A. (2004) Postcards from the edge:
local communities, global programs and boundary objects.
Organization Studies, 25(9), 1515–34.
Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (2001) The
Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, Routledge, London.
Suchman, L. (2000) Organizing alignment: a case of bridge-
building. Organization, 7(2), 311–27.
Thompson,P.J. and Sanders,S.R. (1998) Partnering con-
tinuum. Journal of Management in Engineering, 14(5), 73–8.
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002) On organizational becom-
ing: rethinking organizational change. Organization Science,
13(5), 567–82.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Johnson, P.E. (2006) Knowledge for
theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4),
802–21.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning
and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wood, G.D. and Ellis, R.C.T. (2005) Main contractor
experiences of partnering relationships on UK construction
projects.Construction Managementand Economics,23(3),
317–25.
Yeung, J.F.Y., Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, D.W.M. (2008)
Establishing quantitative indicators for measuring the partner-
ing performance ofconstruction projectsin Hong Kong.
Construction Management and Economics, 26, 277–301.
Yin, R.K. (1989) Case Study Research:Design and Methods,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Living the dream 933
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 20:33 19 June 2016