Why Partner in Construction?

Over the years, Construction Partnering has been researched to determine the benefits of using a formal Partnering approach on construction projects. Following are some of the results of this research.


Project Partnering:
Results of Study of 280 Construction Projects

Project Partnering Degree of Success

Erik Larsen, Professor of Project Management at Oregon State University, conducted a 1994 study on the effects of Construction Partnering on 280 construction projects (see above). The study compared the effectiveness of controlling costs, schedule, technical performance, customer satisfaction, avoiding litigation, and project team satisfaction rates under four different approaches to managing the owner-contractor relationship: adversarial, guarded adversarial, informal partnering, and formal partnering.

The findings showed formal Partnering on projects produced results that are superior to all of the other approaches in every researched category. In addition, the relationship between Partnering and project success was not affected by whether the contract was awarded on a low-bid or non-low-bid (i.e. negotiated) basis.

Construction Industry Institute

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) in conjunction with the University of Texas at Austin, researched nearly 300 projects that were completed using the partnering approach and found significant benefits:

•  TOTAL PROJECT COSTS were reduced by 10%
•  PROFITABILITY increased by 25%
•  Overall PROJECT COMPLETION TIME was reduced by 20%
•  SCHEDULE CHANGES were reduced by 48%
•  The number of CLAIMS were reduced by 83%
•  Lost-time ACCIDENTS were 1/83rd of industry standard
•  CHANGE ORDERS were reduced by 80%
•  JOB SATISFACTION increased by 30%

International Partnering Institute

The International Partnering Institute (IPI) held its 4th Annual IPI Awards Ceremony on May 16, 2013 in San Francisco California. The winning projects ranged from a $1.725 billion Utah Department of Transportation highway project on Route I-15 – which came in $260 million under budget and two years ahead of schedule – to a $3.8 million fire station project – required to remain fully operational during construction – in Laholm, Sweden.

The 2013 IPI Award recipients:

•  Saved $343 Million (11.7% average savings)
•  85% of their projects were completed on time or early
•  65% of the jobs were completed without a Time Loss Incident
•  There were 2004 Change Orders – but Zero Claims
•  Using figures submitted with the projects: $1 spent on Partnering: $93 Saving

 Other Study Results:






























Study References Cited Above:

1.  CII: Partnering – Its Benefits, Implementation and Measurement, CII RR102-11, 1996 (CII Benchmarking/Partnering)
2.  Gransberg, D. et al., Quantitative Analysis of Partnered Project Performance, JCEPM, 1999 (TxDOT Partnering Study)
3.  Anderson, L. and Polkinghorn, B. Efficacy of Partnering on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, ASCE, 2011 (Woodrow Wilson
Partnering Study)
4.  SFO Results ($800M built – Total Program $5B), 2014 (SFO: Terminal Program)
5.  Caltrans Excellence in Partnering Award Winners stats (2012 – 2014) and Caltrans Partnering Program
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/partnering/ (Caltrans Partnered Projects)
6.  International Partnering Institute: Partnered Projects of the Year, 2013-2014
7.  Utah Transit Authority: 2015 Frontlines Program Results (UTA Frontlines 2015)
8.  Maryland State Highway Administration: Partnering Program, 2000-2010
9.  Grajeck, K. et al., Partnered Project Performance in Texas DOT, Journal on Infrastructure Systems: 2000 (Grajek TxDOT study)
10. Ohio DOT Partnering Program Status Report, 2010 (Ohio DOT)

What types of projects can benefit from Construction Partnering?

Almost any construction project can benefit from using the Partnering process. However, the benefits of formally Partnering on a construction project increase with the project’s risk. The risk can be evaluated in terms of design and construction complexity, the numbers of major stakeholders involved, budget constraints, public impact, location and many other factors.

(Back to Top)