Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Construction Engineering

Volume 2013, Article ID 281236, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/281236

Research Article
Improving the Collaboration between Main Contractors and
Subcontractors within Traditional Construction Procurement

Obafemi A. Akintan and Roy Morledge

School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK

Correspondence should be addressed to Roy Morledge; roy.morledge@ntu.ac.uk

Received 11 March 2013; Accepted 11 June 2013

Academic Editor: Edwin Chan

Copyright © 2013 O. A. Akintan and R. Morledge. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

The inability of subcontractors/specialist contractors to contribute meaningfully to the construction process under the traditional
construction procurement hampers the possibilities of improving value on projects and their integration with the rest of the supply
chain. In particular, the main contractors and subcontractors in traditional construction procurement projects pursue their self-
interests to such an extent that collaborative working has been impossible to achieve. In this research, qualitative and quantitative
approaches were used to collect data to explore the problems at the root of the main contractor-subcontractor relationship.
Intending to derive innovative ideas to reinvent the delivery process of traditional construction procurement, the principles of
integrated project delivery (IPD) and the last planner system (LPS) were studied to seek useful ideas that can be employed to improve
collaboration between main contractors and subcontractors. A high point of contention is the debate on the managerial competence
of subcontractors; nevertheless, hope is expressed at the possibility of improving collaboration between the main contractor and
subcontractor within traditional construction procurement work environment.

1. Introduction complex demands [7]. This situation increases the demand

for interdependence of the specialisms and the operating
Traditional construction procurement became the main organisations. According to Kale and Arditi [8], the quality of
route to procure constructed facilities in the UK soon after main contractor-subcontractor relationship affects the main
the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century [1, 2], and contractors’ ability to perform on projects, which inevitably
to date, it remains the dominant procurement strategy in the has direct consequences on project outcomes. This implies
UK [3]. It is mostly preferred by one-off clients, who seldom that as relationships become more harmonious, there is the
engage in construction. However, in recent times, the use of possibility of improving the effectiveness and performance of
the traditional construction procurement strategy to procure the supply chain since project participants are more able to
constructed facilities is falling across the UK [4]. The reason plan and share resources in an atmosphere of collaboration
for this decline is because this approach to construction [1]. But Dainty et al. [9] realised that subcontractors have
procurement engenders adversarial attitudes [5], and as a some misgivings about the sincerity of the much talked about
result, conflicts and disputes, poor collaboration, a lack of collaboration of the supply chain. As such, existing relation-
focus on customers’ requirements, and failure to satisfy ships particularly between them and main contractors are
clients’ needs have become prevalent in the UK construction riddled with mistrusts and scepticisms. They for instance
industry [6]. believe that they are merely used by main contractors to
Today, construction is so specialised that no one firm improve their cash flow and survive the volatility of the
can provide all the specialisms; therefore, many small- construction business [10].
sized specialist firms (subcontractors) with narrow exper- This problem is made worse by the contractual struc-
tise continue to work to meet the industry’s varied and ture of the traditional procurement route, which excludes
2 Journal of Construction Engineering

subcontractors from the main contract. Morledge [11] argues number of these benefits according to Bresnen and Marshall
that the inability of subcontractors and specialist contrac- [24] and Constructing Excellence [25, 26] are that collabora-
tors to contribute meaningfully to the construction process tion on construction projects
under traditional procurement hampers the possibilities of
improving value on projects. Specialist contractors and/or (i) delivers lower building cost for the client and higher
subcontractors, as it is well known, play a significant role profits for the contractor;
in the successful delivery of projects, executing between 80 (ii) improves the chances of capturing clients’ require-
and 90% of the volume of works on building and housing ments [brief] and their eventual satisfaction;
projects [12–15] To have this important group excluded from (iii) recognises and protects the main contractors’ profit
collaborative arrangements in the construction process leaves margin, making them better able to deliver on the
much to be desired. quality requirements of projects;
Owing to their small size and large number, they usually
need main contractors to coordinate their operations to (iv) increases value and predictability of work;
provide focus and integration of the varied parts. However, (v) reduces the number and severity of contractual dis-
even with main contractors coordinating, focus on self- putes;
interests remains unchanged under traditional construction (vi) creates an enabling environment for innovation and
procurement arrangements, because project delivery pro- technical development;
cesses are still largely disconnected. This leaves room for
rivalry amongst project participants, and only the fittest (vii) encourages continuous improvements;
survives [16]. It is the case that, under the traditional approach (viii) results in shorter overall project time.
to construction procurement, contract terms are often so
The chances of achieving performance improvements on
strictly and litigiously applied that little or no consideration is
projects employing collaborative approaches are, in the light
given to sustaining relationships for future business dealings.
of the foregoing, high. Unfortunately, this does not seem to
The desire to seek long term benefits, which comes with
be the case with procurement approaches yet to embrace
collaboration is thus lacking amongst project participants
collaborative principles, as incidences of poor performance
under this approach of project delivery.
are not abating. Bresnen and Marshall [24] however contend
In an effort to address these challenges, two industry-led
that proofs supporting the claimed successes of collaborative
and government-commissioned enquiries were undertaken
projects are doubtful. In support, Briscoe et al. [20] remark
to look into the activities of the UK construction industry.
that it has been difficult to prove that improved manage-
The outcome of these enquires were the Latham [17] and
ment practices result in improved performance and better
Egan [18] reports. Amongst others, the reports identified that
integration on construction projects. Somehow, there is no
practices within the UK construction industry were ineffi-
consensus amongst experts on these claimed benefits, at least
cient, fragmented, and ineffective. They also revealed that
in a practical sense of events. In spite of this debate, there
clients’ expectations were not being met and that industry
is a general perception amongst project participants that
practitioners were making low profits. The reports therefore
collaboration is an appropriate way to overcome problems
called for a change in attitudes and for the integration of
and improve the overall performance of the industry. This
project delivery processes in the hope that projects’ successes
is particularly essential for main contractor-subcontractor
are improved and that clients are better served [19].
relationships, which are mostly plagued by conflicts under
Fragmentation, according to Briscoe et al. [20], has made
traditional construction procurement arrangements.
the development of a unified approach to project delivery and
team continuity between main contractors and key supply
chain members difficult over the years. And on traditionally 3. Conflicts in the Main
procured projects, it is blamed for client’s dissatisfaction Contractor-Subcontractor
with completed projects [5]. To improve performance on Work Relationship
traditionally procured projects therefore, the work relation-
ships between main contractors and subcontractors needs Contractually, main contractors are responsible for the con-
to change. Regrettably, however, the use of collaborative struction of projects, but they rely on subcontractors and/or
tools is nonexistent in traditional procurement [21], and key specialist contractors and suppliers to execute the works [27].
participants continue to endure and not enjoy their work They do this to reduce their overhead and operating costs,
relationship. improve efficiency, and achieve a more economic delivery
of projects [12], which Hatmoko and Scott [13] believe has
helped reduce project delays by 45%. However, to be success-
2. Performance Improvement ful at this, they must develop enduring relationships with key
suppliers and specialist contractors [28, 29]. Unfortunately,
The benefits of integrating the supply chain in order to available information suggests otherwise.
improve project performance have been established in pre- Dainty et al. [9] and Tommelein and Ballard [10] reveal
vious studies [9, 20, 22, 23]. It is no surprise therefore that that main contractors in traditional construction procure-
project participants are increasingly realising that sharing ment are primarily concerned with maximising their profit.
knowledge and information is key to project success [23]. A They select subcontractors on the basis of lowest price (and
Journal of Construction Engineering 3

not on best value) and squeeze them tight on price leaving potential profits may be eroded, and without recourse to the
them struggling to survive. With such attitudes, according long standing relationships between them, such relationships
to Coase cited in Kale and Arditi [8], they fail to realise break up [9].
that price is not an effective mechanism to sustain business The blame culture between main contractors and sub-
transactions, and in no time things turn sour between them contractors is so severe that it inevitably erodes trust in the
and their work partners [10]. relationship. By focusing on their respective self-interests
Another negative attitude main contractors exhibit and rather than on mutual interests, there have been failings
which inhibits effective collaboration on traditional con-
in satisfying clients’ needs [25]. It must be said that trust
struction procurement projects is their use of harsh contract
is fundamental in any relationship since people are more
terms/clauses in subcontract agreements. Ever so often,
likely to work better and freely with those they believe share
clauses to terminate and not to offer damages for delays or
the popular “paid when paid” clause [30] have become regular their values [23]. Where an atmosphere of trust is allowed to
inclusions to standard subcontracts. These clauses are cruelly thrive in any business dealing, parties will definitely reap the
enforced in such a way that long standing relationships benefits of such interactions [32].
can be terminated the moment there is a failing by the Ankrah et al. [33] unearth a key issue affecting openness
subcontractor [9]. This frustrates subcontractors’ attempts and collaboration on construction projects. They noticed that
to seek compensations even in instances where they are groupings exist within projects or in project organisations
genuinely entitled to them. in the form of professional stereotypes or allegiances. Mem-
Similarly, their tendency to transfer enormous project bers of a particular professional group separate themselves
risks to subcontractors, who are typically small and medium from others, within the same work environment, who they
size enterprises (SMEs) with little or no capacity to bear such perceive do not share their professional orientations. These
risks; as well as their reluctance to call on subcontractors’ behavioural stereotypes and structural (contractual) frame-
expertise in resolving issues on site [9], all suggest that main works are apparent in the main contractor and subcontractor
contractors are not truly interested in developing cooperative work setting and form barriers between them, thus making
relationships [22]. For these reasons, subcontractors are effective collaboration difficult [31]. This is why Mignot [34]
suspicious of main contractors and remain unconvinced counsels that project participants have to change their culture
about the genuineness of calls to collaborate. stereotypes/ideologies and do away with their professional
Main contractors on the other hand, according to delineations to be able to implicitly trust one another. Cox
Johansen and Porter [31], complain that subcontractors have et al. [35] are however of the opinion that these problems are
a habit of bringing inadequate workmen to site, a practice not necessarily due to the fact that project participants are
which hampers the works and fuel conflicts. They maintain “malicious or ignorant”, but that they are a consequence of
that in managing their multijob resource pressures from
individuals or group of participants pursuing their respective
different construction sites, subcontractors adopt the attitude
economic self-interests.
of “the loudest shouter [main contractor] gets the resource
The pursuit of self-interests, as it is the case in traditional
today”. This often leaves them struggling to meet up work
programmes on sites resulting in delays. In defence however, procurement, creates a mere transactional and not a relational
subcontractors insist that they have had to adopt an economic work relationship between the parties. But construction
distribution of their workmen, having observed that they are however is actually best delivered by working collaboratively.
often urged to resume to site only to realise that essential For this reason, Franz and Leicht [36] stress that adopting
works that ought to have been completed by main contractors relational attitudes will deliver high performing building
or others prior to their invitation have not been completed. projects because it creates a collaborative system.
The time and resources wasted during these periods of delays Having a more equitable distribution of project risks is
usually have financial implications, which they are often not another way to engender trust between main contractors
able to claim against thus prompting their cautious approach and subcontractors in traditional construction procurement,
[9]. because as Kadefors [32] affirms, fairness is fundamental to
It is also the case that main contractors and subcontrac- trust. By sharing risks, relational atmospheres in which par-
tors working under the traditional construction procurement ties see projects as a “collective enterprises” are created, thus
arrangement do not plan and develop the project programme strengthening the chances of improving project outcomes.
together after the project is let. Johansen and Porter [31] Dainty et al. [9] also identify that there is poor level
opine that this failure to work together unfortunately leads to of information sharing between main contractors and sub-
incorrect and guessed duration of critical activities because contractors. They reveal subcontractors’ unhappiness with
sufficient and broad view information was not gathered. This main contractors’ insensitivity to their need for prompt and
has the potential to cause programmes to fail, resulting in correct information. Therefore, expectedly, subcontractors
delays on projects. are worried that the traditional approach to construction
The blames and counterblames between these key project procurement hinders effective knowledge exchange amongst
participants on traditional construction projects are endless. participating companies. A system that ensures a prompt and
Even on projects where clients buy into the idea of collabo- sustained sharing of information must thus be developed.
ration, main contractors and subcontractors have struggled Main contractors and subcontractors must realise that if
to drive these principles all the way to project completion. information flow is affected or knowledge sharing is hindered
Relationships soon degenerate once it is perceived that [23], it will eventually affect the level of trust between them.
4 Journal of Construction Engineering

Kadefors [32] maintains that there are occasions when can serve to address the relational problems in traditional
project participants jointly resolve problems that arise in the construction procurement. IPD administered projects are
course of the works, but these are often spontaneous and easy to manage because all project participants (the IPD
unplanned. The attempts centre primarily on finding com- team) sign up to a single principal contract with the client.
promises or are simply exchange of services. In reality, the Smith et al. [39] however admit that the administration
resolution processes fall short of developing and establishing of such multiparty system requires considerable experi-
a continuous search for improvements and innovative reso- enced clients and contractors’ involvement. The approach
lution of problems. An established system to seek continuous nonetheless ensures that all members are responsible for
improvements will help contracting organisations develop an all provisions of the contract and that risks and profits are
organisational capability that is informed, experienced, and truly shared [16], which are problems that sit at the heart of
organised [34], which may further help to achieve lasting the adversarial nature of traditional procurement. This will
solutions, and lessons gained can be transferred unto future make main contractors and subcontractors and indeed every
interactions [projects]. other project participant work as friends and look out for the
interest of the client, because they jointly and individually
4. Adopting Relational Approaches in commit themselves to each other to perform all the terms,
conditions, and requirements of the principal contract.
Traditional Construction Procurement Highlighting the enormous commitment required for
One of the very first things supply chain collaboration the successful implementation of IPD ideologies, Mignot
attempts to achieve is to eliminate [process] waste. Vrijhoef [34] maintains that there are challenges with administering
and Koskela [37] suggest that making wastes and problems projects under IPD arrangements. He reports that to have a
visible early during the construction process and identifying successful alliance management team on a project, the sub-
their root help to resolve problems that may develop later. groups which make up the alliance must have collaborative
This process of bringing potential issues of conflicts forward abilities; do away with their stereotypes and organisational
for discussion and the development of alternative strategies or professional delineations; create a management structure
should involve all key players in the supply chain, because, that is informed, experienced, and organized; and implicitly
most often, construction problems have a knock-on effect trust one another. These requirements may well be daunting
across the chain, thus necessitating group resolutions. to achieve across the project subgroups.
To date, four ingrained practices have made it diffi-
cult to implement collaborative principles under traditional 4.2. Last Planner System Approach. Another approach from
construction procurement strategies [16]. They are that the which principles can be learned to manage challenges
strategy between main contractors and subcontractors within the tra-
ditional construction procurement strategy is the last planner
(i) inhibits contribution of valuable ideas, system (LPS). Although LPS centres primarily on project
(ii) restricts risk sharing possibilities, programming and planning, it can yet bring collaborative
and relational commercial terms into one-off-project-based
(iii) hampers effective project coordination,
production [40]. This view is reinforced by Glenn Ballard’s
(iv) creates rivalry. belief cited in Mossman [40] that LPS works in all situations
that require coordination between humans.
An efficient way to resolve these problems [38] entails
LPS is a production tool developed by the Lean Construc-
thinking through the interdependency of tasks (the work
tion Institute to improve planning on construction projects
flow) to eliminate wastes, delays, and extra cost, which is best
[31]. Its essential objective is to build trust amongst project
achieved through the collaborative involvement of all supply
participants in five key ways which Mossman [40] refer to as
chain members.
conversations. They include
To realise performance improvements on traditionally
procured projects therefore, there is a need for less emphasis (i) collective pull-based planning;
on the use of entrenched control mechanisms (i.e., price,
(ii) “make ready”;
process, and contract controls), to relationship building, and
a general commitment to satisfy clients’ needs. Two of such (iii) collaborative production evaluation and planning
relational approaches are briefly discussed in the following to (PEP);
highlight inherent principles within that could be imported (iv) production management;
unto traditional construction procurement to improve main
(v) measurement, learning, and continual improvement.
contractor-subcontractor relationships.
Operating within the framework of these conversations
4.1. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Approach. Smith et al. will ensure processes in the planning, development, and
[39] describe IPD as “. . . a new set of relationships in a execution stages of projects are jointly developed by all key
project.” As argued earlier, projects are more likely to succeed members of the project. But, as with the use of IPD, a
in relational relationships than in mere transactional ones. concern with implementing LPS, as Johansen and Porter [31]
The use of IPD principles which have helped to deliver caution, is that of the contractual structures of the projects
high performing projects by creating a collaborative system where LPS is to be applied and the behavioural stereotypes
Journal of Construction Engineering 5

to its implementors. So, is there a chance of reinventing the Summary of questionnaire responses
traditional construction procurement strategy? This is the key
question this research sought to answer. 16%
32%

5. Problem Statement 30%

22%
The focus of previous studies has been on collaboration
at the precontract stage of projects or collaboration under
partnering arrangements. None has explored the possibilities
of employing collaborative tools within the traditional con-
struction procurement supply chain with the aim of improv-
Main contractors—12 Clients—11
ing the main contractor-subcontractor work relationship.
Subcontractors—8 Consultants—6
Following RICS’s [3] submission that traditional procurement
is the dominant approach in the UK and that it sits at the heart Figure 1: Summary of questionnaire responses.
of the industry’s problems [20], the possibility for achieving
improved performance in traditional procurement needs to
be examined. With these issues in mind, this paper sought to and in an attempt to ensure the credibility of the results, the
examine the working relationship between main contractors questionnaires were only directed to professionals with over
and subcontractors in an effort to improve collaboration in five years’ experience. This criterion was clearly stated in the
the traditional construction procurement supply chain. The solicitation for information notice of the survey. It cannot be
focus on subcontractors is necessary because of the vital role ascertained if this requirement affected the rate of response,
they play in actualising projects and the subordinate position but the desire to receive credible feedbacks was overrid-
they operate within this procurement structure. ing. This poor responses rate of 31.36% notwithstanding is
Essentially, this research investigated the possibilities of within the range of responses from construction management
employing collaborative tools within traditional construction researches like those by Chan et al. [42] and Oladapo
procurement by exploring the suitability of the key principles [43]. Also, three semistructured interviews were conducted
of relational building procurement approaches that is, inte- with senior construction managers to obtain more in-depth
grated project development (IPD) and the last planner system information. Those interviewed had previously participated
(LPS) in traditional construction procurement environments in the questionnaire survey and had worked on projects
to improve the main contractor-subcontractor work relation- where collaborative practices were employed.
ship. In analysing the results, responses were sorted into iden-
tifiable categories: main contractors, specialist contractors,
6. Methodology and Methods clients, and consultants. Then, multiplying the frequency
of responses received for each question against weighted
In the first instance, the relational problems between main rankings, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
contractors and subcontractors were examined, and the agree), scored by the respondents, the variable with the high-
reasons for these problems were then unearthed through est value was chosen to represent the most popular option.
field studies. The research combined the use of quantitative Regarding the interviews, recordings were first transcribed,
and qualitative approaches in which questionnaires and and a content analysis to identify common themes was
interviews were used to obtain relevant information about then undertaken. The results of the research are presented
the subject from professional construction practitioners. This below, and suggestions on how improved collaboration can be
helped to identify the barriers to effective main contractors achieved in the traditional procurement process are offered.
and subcontractors’ collaboration.
Questionnaires have been successfully used in previous 7. Results and Discussions
similar researches. As Bryman [41] states, although this
method of data collection suffers from poor response rate, A breakdown of the 37 returned questionnaires presented
it nonetheless allows views from a wide range of credible in Figure 1 shows that they were answered by 12 main
participants to be obtained. Interviews on the other hand are contractors, 8 specialist contractors (subcontractors), 11 client
great at gathering opinions which questionnaires are unable organisations professionals, and 6 construction consultants.
to reveal. In deploying this tool (interviews), the discussions As shown in Figure 2, there is a general lack of enthusiasm
with the interviewees were analysed [23] to establish common about the idea of adopting collaborative principles within
themes. traditional construction procurement environment. 65% of
118 questionnaires were distributed electronically be- those surveyed strongly disagree, disagree or are completely
tween main contractors, subcontractors/specialist contrac- indifferent to the use of collaborative tools within traditional
tors, consultants, and construction professionals working in procurement.
client organisations, and of which 37 which met a preset Analysing the previous result further (see Table 1) reveals
criterion were accepted for analyses. Envisaging a poor rate of that main contractors are the most sceptical within the group
response due to the current low activity level of the industry, of participants surveyed about the chances of a successful
6 Journal of Construction Engineering

How well do respondents believe it is easy to employ Factors hindering subcontractors-main contractors’ collaboration
collaborative tools in traditional procurement? under traditional construction procurement
3% 3% 3.83
3.53 3.69
24% 32% 3.22 3.32
3.11
2.89

38%

Strongly agree—1 Disagree—9

The nature and conditions

The subordinate position

Delayed payment
of the contract

of subcontractors to. . .

Main contractors’
authoritative attitudes

managerial. . .

main contractors and. . .

Selection of subcontractors
Perceived subcontractors’

to subcontractors

through competitive. . .
Lack of trust between
Agree—12 Strongly disagree—1
Indifferent—14

Figure 2: Belief in the possibility of employing collaborative tools

in traditional procurement.

use of collaborative principles in traditional construction

procurement environments, with 75% of them showing a lack Rating average
of belief in the idea.
This result however corroborates Eriksson et al. [22] Figure 3: Factors hindering effective subcontractors-main con-
finding that main contractors are not interested in developing tractors’ collaboration under traditional construction procurement.
Source: Authors’ SurveyMonkey, 2012.
cooperative relationships with subcontractors, at least on
one-off projects.
However, clients show a desire for collaboration to take
root in this age-long procurement practice. This demand thus under traditional construction procurements arrangements.
places a burden on construction professionals to yet seek ways This is followed by the problem of delayed payments to
of achieving this all important client desire. subcontractors, while the authoritarian practices main con-
Construction managers interviewed expressed similar tractors employ against subcontractors come third amongst
doubts about the possibilities of employing collabora- the ranked factors. Although researches by Dainty et al., [9]
tive principles within traditional construction procurement and Thomas and Flynn [30] have similarly identified some
arrangements. They affirm that “. . . it would be very difficult of these factors, they did not unearth the reason for the
to use because people [main contractors] are often looking breakdown of trust. This research establishes a link between
for someone [subcontractor] to take the risks so that they the lack of trust and the problem of delayed payments to
can maintain their fixed price [profit level]”, as “. . . risks are subcontractors by main contractors. In the view of one of the
literally sent down to subcontractors”. They further maintain interviewees, it is because “. . . prime subcontractors don’t get
that “this tendency to transfer risks down the supply chain paid in a timely manner” that trust is eroded.
makes the possibility to collaborate under traditional pro- Unfortunately, efforts at getting main contractors to deal
curement difficult”. A fact also argued by the interviewees is fairly with their chain of subcontractors have mainly been
that “. . . collaboration had worked in framework agreements unsuccessful. Irrespective of the fact that standard contracts
because they [the collaborating companies] will all be long- stipulate periods within which subcontractor should get paid,
term beneficiaries of that arrangement, but talking of one-off those interviewed were unanimous in their opinion that such
projects, it’s very difficult to collaborate because you wouldn’t specified periods are repeatedly ignored, with subcontractors
want to share a potential loss?” often stretched to the limits before getting paid. A lot
This information indicates that the risk management therefore needs to be done to build trust in construction
approach adopted on projects influences the decision to businesses because as Ouchi cited by McDermott et al. [23]
collaborate. For this reason, it is doubtful if subcontractors found, there is a direct relationship between the level of trust
will collaborate under traditional procurement arrangements and the costs of transactions, which in turn has effects on
knowing that main contractors will transfer almost all of the clients.
project risks to them. This disclosure agrees with Bresnen and The findings of this research similarly indicate that
Marshall’s assertion cited in Eriksson et al. [6] that appro- there is a perception amongst some main contractors that
priate project risk management strategy [help] integrates the subcontractors are not managerially competent. Although
supply chain. this view is not seen to be a significant contributor to the
Amongst a range of factors investigated (see Figure 3), the breakdown in relationship, as it is scored the least (Figure 3)
lack of trust ranked highest as the main barrier to integra- amongst the list of suggested hindrances to effective main
tion on construction projects, especially on those procured contractor-subcontractor collaboration, further analyses of
Journal of Construction Engineering 7

Table 1: Breakdown of responses to question 2—It is easy to employ collaborative tools in traditional procurement.

Weighting (1 =
Main Specialist
Variables (level of agreement) strongly disagree, 5 = Clients Consultancy Total score
contractors contractors/subcontractors
strongly agree)
Strongly disagree (frequency) 1 1
Score 0 0 1 0 1
Disagree (frequency) 2 4 2 2 4
Score 8 4 4 8 24
Indifferent (frequency) 3 5 5 3 1
Score 15 15 9 3 42
Agree (frequency) 4 2 4 2 1
Score 8 16 8 4 36
Strongly agree (frequency) 5 1 0
Score 5 0 0 0 5
Score = weighting × frequency.

Table 2: Comparison of scores given by main contractors and subcontractors to the perceived managerial incompetence of subcontractors
as being a hindrance to their collaboration.

Number of Perceived subcontractors’ managerial incompetence rating (1 = least important, 5 = most important)
Respondents
responses 1 2 3 4 5
Main contractors 12 1 0 9∗ 16∗ 20∗
Subcontractors 8 2# 8# 3# 0 5
Consultants 6 0 6 9 0 0
Clients 11 0 10 12 8 0
∗
Upper range score given by main contractors.
#
Lower range score given by subcontractors.

the result, which is presented in Table 2, show contrasting under traditional construction procurement assert authority
main contractors and subcontractors views. The analyses in such a way that they undermine subcontractors’ ability to
reveal that main contractors’ respondents ranked the fact that function effectively and maximise their profits [9].
subcontractors’ managerial incompetence is a hindrance to While the need to keep up to quality assurance require-
effective collaboration at the upper end of the ranking scale. ments is not contested, the use of multilevel approvals
This is perhaps an indication that they doubt subcontractors’ (signoffs) to meet standards has unfortunately become the
ability to manage projects. Understandably, subcontractors’ main focus on most sites and fast resulting in an excess of
rankings were within the lower end of the scale, suggesting procedures and practices, argues another interviewee. This
an assertion of their managerial competence. It comes as no procedural waste may very well have been avoided or at least
surprise therefore that subcontractors complain that main substantially reduced with better collaboration between main
contractors are often reluctant to draw on their expertise contractors and subcontractors built on a strong confidence
when problems occur on site [9]. in not just the technical competence of subcontractors, but
There is a strong indication from the foregoing that this also on their managerial competence.
main contractors’ subtle lack of confidence in subcontractors’ The lack of confidence between main contractors and
managerial ability leads them to unnecessarily interfere in subcontractors has turned out to affect the delivery processes
subcontractors’ operations on site, which has a potential of of traditionally procured projects in a number of ways. Since
resulting in conflicts. One such interference an interviewee the use of common processes is a fundamental collaborative
argues is the many control mechanisms, such as the multilevel principle, its absence in any project delivery process can
approval system, which main contractors have introduced only mean chaos. Presently, on traditional construction
and to which subcontractors must comply. Defending this procurement projects, there is no joint decision process
practice, another interviewee maintains that such controls between main contractors and subcontractors. As depicted
exist to keep with quality control and assurance requirements. in Figure 4, as much as 46% of project participants indicated
“It is important to ensure subcontractors undergo checks at that they were only occasionally part of the decision making
every stage of the project before they are cleared to proceed”, processes on construction sites.
he affirms. This statement only serves to confirm complaints On further analyses of this result shown in Table 3, it
that main contractors in the guise of controlling the project is immediately apparent that the outcry of none inclusion
8 Journal of Construction Engineering

Table 3: How often project participants take decisions jointly.

Weighting (1 =
Main Specialist
Variables (level of occurrence) strongly disagree, 5 = Clients Consultancy Total score
contractors contractors/subcontractors
strongly agree)
Never (frequency) 1
Score 0 0 0 0 0
Occasionally (frequency) 2 6 4 5 2
Score 12 8 10 4 34
Do not know (frequency) 3 4
Score 12 0 0 0 12
Often (frequency) 4 5 3 2
Score 0 20 12 8 40
Very often (frequency) 5 2 2 2
Score 10 10 0 10 30
Score = weighting × frequency.

Figure 5: Informing main contractors about other project com-

mitments—subcontractors’ view. Source: Authors’ SurveyMonkey,
2012.

Figure 4: Frequency of involvement in decision making. Source:

Authors’ SurveyMonkey, 2012.
Other lines of enquiry reveal that not only are subcon-
tractors prevented from decision making processes, but they
are more or less also forced to comply. A significant number
in decision making processes is a complain predominant of main contractors indicate that they allow subcontractors
amongst subcontractors. Although some main contractors little or no flexibility to debate or challenge their decisions.
did indicate that they are also left out of decision making The results in Figure 5 show that subcontractors are not
processes, this is however doubtful because it is expected transparent in their dealings with main contractors. 47% of
that they control the flow of information. The disconnect in them admit that they do not inform main contractors of their
sharing information and in the management of construction other projects’ commitments because they either believe it is
processes, especially under traditionally procured projects unnecessary or because they think it will affect the [existing]
which this investigation reveals, is disturbing regardless work relationship. This practice demonstrates a lack of trans-
of who is making the complaint. This finding contradicts parency and does not also encourage collaboration, which
McDermott et al. [23] conclusion that project participants further breaks down trust.
are increasingly realising the benefits of information sharing. Partners in a work relationship, who are desirous of
An interviewee sheds light on the reason for the disconnect collaborating, must be open about all of their other work
putting it down to adherence to stereotypes. He argues commitments. Concealing such important information has
that “. . . it’s just a culture thing . . . for instance it’s just the potential of affecting resource planning and allocation on
QSs’ [quantity surveyors] looking at the upfront cost and current projects, thereby hampering work progress.
seeing it [subcontractors’ inputs] as a cost rather than as Perhaps a factor which frustrates attempts at employ-
something to add value . . .”. It also emerged that consultants ing collaborative strategies within traditional construction
do not often follow subcontractors’ suggestions for fear of the procurement in spite of best intentions is the contract of
consequence, should problems arise, and not wanting to be engagement. When main contractors were asked for the rea-
held professionally negligent. sons for the negative and unfriendly practices that run under
Journal of Construction Engineering 9

this procurement route, they were definite that the nature plan, their exclusion from decision making processes, and the
and conditions of contracts are a key influence. Indeed, the inclusion of harsh contract terms in subcontract agreements
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and the Joint Contracts by main contractors. Perhaps the most controversial debate
Tribunal (JCT) standard forms are notorious for being adver- is that which centres on the managerial competence of
sarial, whereas the New Engineering Contract Engineering subcontractors. These, as well as main contractors’ tendencies
and Construction Contract (NEC ECC) seeks to have more to transfer enormous project risks to subcontractors, make
power swing relationships amongst stakeholders. Confirming a truly relational relationship under traditional construction
this, an interviewee expresses that it is not uncommon to see procurement a wish, rather than a reality. Majority of the
main contractors treat the same subcontractors differently on research respondents are thus sceptical about the possi-
the different projects they are both engaged on as it is the bility of employing collaborative principles on traditional
contract that determines the flow of things. construction procurement projects. The research found that
This research set out to investigate the possibility of most of the problems identified above emanate because
employing the collaborative principles of the Integrated of the standard form of contract employed in traditional
Project Delivery (IPD) approach and the Last Planner construction procurement.
System (LPS) within traditional construction procurement. Irrespective of these obstacles, particularly regarding
But, with the majority of respondents unconvinced about the form of contract in use, this research advocates that
the application of collaborative principles within traditional these challenges are not insurmountable and there is yet a
construction procurement and their quick reference to the possibility for participants [main contractors and subcon-
nature of contract used under this form of procurement, there tracts in particular] to collaborate and overcome their rela-
is little hope of introducing a single standard form of contract tional problems under traditional construction procurement
to bind all participants to the client, as used in IPD. However, projects. Looking to more relational procurement strategies,
improvements using the LPS to break down barriers in the that is, integrated project delivery (IPD) and the last planner
main contractor-subcontractor relationship are achievable. system (LPS), proved that collaborations are achievable. An
LPS’s recognition of construction as a social process and immediate challenge for the introduction of IPD principles in
its use in managing relationships makes it a viable tool to traditional construction procurement is the impracticability
reinventing the traditional construction procurement system. of using a single contract to bind all the project participants
Respondents are in agreement on the need for collective to the client because of the structure of the procurement
planning and production processes, and so useful lessons strategy. The possibility of improving relationships within the
from LPS, which addresses these issues, can be applied to procurement strategy, using the ideologies of LPS, remains
traditional construction procurement arrangements. very much achievable.
The inability of the existing traditional construction This offers some hope that the UK’s traditional construc-
procurement contractual structure to encourage collabora- tion procurement approach to project delivery can indeed be
tion between main contractors and subcontractors is clear. reinvented. LPS’s adaptability to any standard form and its
Coupled with a range of main contractors’ negative attitudes applicability to address waste, delays, and lack of coordination
towards subcontractors, the possibility of achieving true in construction processes means it will not only breakdown
collaboration under this construction procurement approach adversarial tendencies known with traditional procurement,
will still take some time to achieve. Nevertheless, to foreclose but will ensure commitments on projects, thereby allowing
any possibility for improved collaboration under traditional collaborative programming and production planning deci-
construction procurement undermines the goal to improve sions to be more easily made. This claim however needs
performances in the UK construction industry. further practical verification. A suggestion for future research
should seek the practical application of the Last Planner
System’s five conversations within a traditional construction
8. Conclusions procurement environment to ascertain the veracity of the
claim reached in this research that its application within
This paper examined some of the relational problems traditional construction procurement will improve collabo-
between main contractors and subcontractors, and the prac- ration between main contractors and subcontractors.
tices engendering them have been identified. It established Finally, true collaboration within traditional construction
that there is a general lack of enthusiasm between main con- procurement supply chain is only achievable if parties com-
tractors and subcontractors to adopt collaborative processes mit to the ideals of collaboration. They must seek not only to
within traditional construction procurement projects, which transact but to relate in order to build trust. Main contractors
is due largely to the mistrust between them. It revealed on and subcontractors in particular must be ready to place some
the other hand that construction clients are willing to see of their profits at risk, rather than seek to reap rewards at each
collaborative processes adopted, since the majority of them other’s expense.
still prefer this route (traditional procurement) to procure
their constructed facilities.
Amongst other things, the main reasons for the break-
References
down of trust between main contractors and subcontractors [1] S. Rowlinson and P. McDermott, Procurement Systems: A Guide
on traditional construction procurement are the issues of to Best practice in Construction, E & EN Spon, London, UK,
delayed payments to subcontractors, disruption to work their 1999.
10 Journal of Construction Engineering

[2] M. Saad, M. Jones, and P. James, “A review of the progress [21] P. E. Eriksson and A. Laan, “Procurement effects on trust
towards the adoption of supply chain management (SCM) and control in client-contractor relationships,” Engineering,
relationships in construction,” European Journal of Purchasing Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 14, no. 4, pp.
and Supply Management, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 173–183, 2002. 387–399, 2007.
[3] RICS, Survey of Building Contracts in Use During 2007, The [22] P. E. Eriksson, M. Dickinson, and M. M. A. Khalfan, “The
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London, UK, 2007. influence of partnering and procurement on subcontractor
[4] CIOB [Chartered Institute of Building], Procurement in the involvement and innovation,” Facilities, vol. 25, no. 5-6, pp. 203–
Construction Industry, CIOB, West Berkshire, UK, 2010. 214, 2007.
[5] X. Xue, Y. Wang, Q. Shen, and X. Yu, “Coordination mecha- [23] P. McDermott, M. M. A. Khalfan, and W. Swan, “An exploration
nisms for construction supply chain management in the Inter- of the relationship between trust and collaborative working in
net environment,” International Journal of Project Management, the construction sector,” Construction Information Quarterly,
vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 150–157, 2007. vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 140–146, 2004.
[6] P. E. Eriksson, T. Nilsson, and B. Atkin, “Client perceptions of [24] M. Bresnen and N. Marshall, “Partnering in construction: a
barriers to partnering,” Engineering, Construction and Architec- critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas,” Construction
tural Management, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 527–539, 2008. Management and Economics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 229–237, 2000.
[7] J. Bennett and D. Ferry, “Specialist Contractors: a review [25] Constructing Excellence, “Partnering in Practice.
of issues raised by their new role in building,” Construction Construction Excellence,” 2004, http://www.constructingex-
Management and Economics, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 521–532, 1990. cellence.org.uk/download.jsp?url=%2Fpdf%2Fcase studies%2
[8] S. Kale and D. Arditi, “General contractors’ relationships with Fwestern challenge.pdf.
subcontractors: a strategic asset,” Construction Management [26] Constructing Excellence, “Supply Chain Partnering. Con-
and Economics, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 541–549, 2001. struction Excellence,” 2004, http://www.constructingexcellence
[9] A. R. J. Dainty, G. H. Briscoe, and S. J. Millett, “Subcontractor .org.uk/download.jsp?url=/pdf/case studies/taylor wood-row
perspectives on supply chain alliances,” Construction Manage- sap.pdf.
ment and Economics, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 841–848, 2001. [27] L. Clarke and G. Herrmann, “Cost vs. production: disparities
[10] D. Tommelein and G. Ballard, “Coordinating specialists,” Jour- in social housing construction in Britain and Germany,” Con-
nal of Construction Engineering and Management (ASEC), pp. struction Management and Economics, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 521–532,
1–11, 1998. 2004.
[11] R. Morledge, “A review of the value of the main contractor,” [28] J. Hook, “Industry issues. PWC,” 2012, http://www.pwc.co
in Proceedings of the Construction and Building Research Con- .uk/engineering-construction/issues/index.jhtml.
ference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (COBRA
[29] L. S. Pheng and C. J. Chuan, “Just-in-time management in
’08), London, UK, September 2008.
precast concrete construction: a survey of the readiness of main
[12] D. Arditi and R. Chotibhongs, “Issues in subcontracting prac- contractors in Singapore,” Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
tice,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. vol. 12, no. 6-7, pp. 416–429, 2001.
131, no. 8, pp. 866–876, 2005.
[30] H. R. Thomas and C. J. Flynn, “Fundamental principles of
[13] J. U. D. Hatmoko and S. Scott, “Simulating the impact of
subcontractor management,” Practice Periodical on Structural
supply chain management practice on the performance of
Design and Construction, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 106–111, 2011.
medium-sized building projects,” Construction Management
and Economics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 35–49, 2010. [31] E. Johansen and G. Porter, “An experience of introducing
last planner into a UK construction project,” in Proceedings
[14] K. D. Hampson and T. Kwok, “Strategic alliances in building
of the 10th Annual Conference of the International Group for
construction: a Tender evaluation tool for the public sector,”
Lean Construction, International Group for Lean Construction,
Journal of Construction Procurement, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 28–41,
Virginia, Va, USA, July 2003.
1997.
[15] J. Hinze and A. Tracey, “Contractor-subcontractor relationship: [32] A. Kadefors, “Trust in project relationships-inside the black
the subcontractor’s view,” Journal of Construction Engineering box,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 22, no.
and Management, vol. 120, no. 2, pp. 274–287, 1994. 3, pp. 175–182, 2004.
[16] O. Matthews and G. A. Howell, “Integrated project delivery an [33] N. A. Ankrah, D. Proverbs, and Y. Debrah, “Factors influencing
example of relational contracting,” Lean Construction Journal, the culture of a construction project organisation: an empiri-
vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 46–61, 2005. cal investigation,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural
[17] S. M. Latham, Constructing the Team: Final Report of the Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 26–47, 2009.
Government/Industry Review of Procurement and Contractual [34] A. Mignot, “Alliancing benefits and challenges in infrastructure
Arrangements in the UK Construction Industry, HMSO, Lon- projects. Project Manager,” 2011, http://projectmanager.com
don, UK, 1994. .au/managing/cost/alliancing-benefits-and-challenges-in-in-
[18] S. J. Egan, Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construc- frastructure-projects/3/.
tion Task Force on the Scope for Improving the Quality and [35] A. Cox, P. Ireland, and M. Townsend, Managing in Construction
Efficiency of UK Construction, HMSO, London, UK, 1998. Supply Chains and Markets, Thomas Telford, London, UK, 2006.
[19] A. Wolstenholme, Never Waste a Good Crisis: A Review of [36] B. Franz and R. M. Leicht, “Initiating IPD Concepts on
Progress Since Rethinking Construction and Thoughts for Our Campus Facilities with a “Collaboration Addendum”. Con-
Future, Constructing Excellence, London, UK, 2009. struction Research Congress 2012 ASCE,” 2012, http://rebar
[20] G. Briscoe, A. R. J. Dainty, and S. Millett, “Construction .ecn.purdue.edu/crc2012/papers/pdfs/-81.pdf.
supply chain partnerships: skills, knowledge and attitudinal [37] R. Vrijhoef and L. Koskela, “Roles of Supply Chain Man-
requirements,” European Journal of Purchasing and Supply agement in Construction. Proceedings of the Seventh Annu-
Management, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 243–255, 2001. al Conference ofthe International Group for Lean Construc-
Journal of Construction Engineering 11

tion (IGLC-7) Berkeley, Calif, USA,” 1999, http://www.ce.berke-

ley.edu/∼tommelein/IGLC-7/PDF/Vrijhoef&Koskela.pdf.
[38] G. Ballard, “Improving Work Flow Reliability. Proceedings of
the Seventh Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction (IGLC-7) Berkeley, Calif, USA,” 1999, http://
www.ce.berkeley.edu/∼tommelein/IGLC-7/PDF/Ballard.pdf.
[39] R. E. Smith, A. Mossman, and S. Emmitt, “Lean and integrated
project delivery. Special Issue,” Lean Construction Journal, pp.
1–16, 2011.
[40] A. Mossman, “Last Planner: collaborative conversations
forpredictable design & constructiondelivery. The Change Busi-
ness Ltd,” 2012, http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/2631/1/Johansen%
20E%20and%20Porter%20G%20An%20experience%20of%20
introducing%20last%20planner%20into%20a%20UK%20con-
struction%20project.pdf.
[41] A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 2008.
[42] A. P. C. Chan, D. W. M. Chan, and K. S. K. Ho, “Partnering
in construction: critical study of problems for implementation,”
Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 126–135,
2003.
[43] A. A. Oladapo, “An investigation into the use of ICT in the Nige-
rian construction industry,” Electronic Journal of Information
Technology in Construction, vol. 12, pp. 261–277, 2007.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014