Abstract: Partnerships between International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) and local Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are typically unsuccessful, often due to an inability to manage conflicts and disputes. A well-developed governance approach for a partnership ideally includes a process for managing constructively these kinds of situations; often, this is enshrined in a formal partnership agreement. This paper outlines the approach to conflict management used in “Project Alliancing”, a private-sector partnership mechanism common in the construction industry, and uses observations on INGO-local CSO partnerships, to explore how it might be relevant to these development partnerships and to the people who facilitate and manage the partnering process.
Managing conflict in partnerships– lessons from the private construction sector
Introduction
Since the 1980’s, most International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) have shifted from directly implementing their projects in the “Global South”[1] to partnering with local Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). This move has been driven both by the rise of civil society in the Global South, with its growing capacity and increasingly stronger claims to legitimacy, and by a belief that working in partnership would be more effective and efficient.
However, INGO-local CSO partnerships across the world typically fall well short of realising the full potential expected of them.[2] A cause often cited is the failure to manage constructively emerging conflict and disputes between the partners – mainly because NGO staff lack the tools and skills needed to manage inter-partner conflict productively. Whilst the deeply emotional association NGO staff have with their work may be a very positive trait, it can also become a significant obstacle to dispassionate dispute resolution.[3]
Across the private sector, there are various types of partnerships and alliances which are thriving, with clear and robust approaches to inter-partner conflict. Although the uncritical adoption of private-sector practices in the non-profit world is perilous, there may be useful lessons to be learned across these two very different partnership contexts, particularly with regards to dispute management.[4]
This paper outlines the approach to conflict management used in “Project Alliancing”, a private-sector partnership mechanism common in the construction industry, and explores its possible relevance to multi-sector partnerships for development and the people who facilitate and manage the partnering process.
“Project Alliancing” as a conflict resolution paradigm in the Construction Industry
There has been a growing trend towards working in partnership in the Construction Industry, as well as other sectors of the economy.[5] [6] [7] This has been a response to the increased complexity and interconnectedness that characterises our globalised age: the realisation that working in partnership and resolving differences in this context is key to a well-functioning society; and that the “benefits of collaborative, rather than adversarial, working relationships within construction organisations are well documented.”[8]
“Project Alliancing” has been defined as “a relationship based project delivery system … (in which) all parties including the owner expressly agree to resolve all conflict internally, on the spot and without recourse to litigation or arbitration. Its foundations are built on selecting people who have the ability to develop a robust working relationship and who can thrive in a no-blame integrated team culture.” It is “a project delivery system that is compatible with and reflective of the emerging commercial, political and social dynamics of the 21st Century.”[9]
Project Alliancing emerged as a response to the failure of traditional contracting practices as applied to large infrastructure projects. In particular, contracting of large, complex, multi-party construction projects based on cost has generally resulted in budget overruns, project delays, and litigation. Instead of focusing on cost, Project Alliancing contracts primarily on the basis of the ability of stakeholders to build strong relationships and manage conflict.
For instance:
- Relational contracting underpins Project Alliances. “Relational contracting … arrangements aim to minimize disputes by recognizing and developing common interests among contracting parties. Project participants are encouraged to proactively manage and resolve conflicts and problems, targeting common objectives and reduced transaction costs.” [10]
- Relational contracts, “are of significant duration … Close whole person relations form an integral aspect of the relation… The object of exchange typically includes both easily measured quantities … and quantities not easily measured … Future cooperative behaviour is anticipated … The benefits and burdens of the relation are to be shared rather than divided and allocated … The entangling strings of friendship, reputation, interdependence, morality, and altruistic desires are integral parts of the relation… Trouble is expected as a matter of course… Finally the participants never intend or expect to see the whole future of the relation as presented at any single time, but view the relation as an ongoing integration of behaviour which will grow and vary with events in a largely unforeseeable future…” [11]
So, does Project Alliancing work? Are these approaches actually practical and effective?
Project Alliances have been shown to not only provide practical, real-world utility but also better value for money and improved project outcomes for many kinds of major infrastructure projects over several decades [12], and by 2011, projects worth at least $30billion had been either completed or were being implemented in Australia, using the Project Alliancing approach.[13] Crucially, “successful Project Alliances have resulted in project savings exceeding 20% of the estimated gross budget…” of major oil and gas projects in Australia, while significantly reducing project delays and litigation.[14]
Finding parallels Between INGO-local CSO Partnerships and Project Alliancing
| Key Success Factors | |||
| Examples In INGO-local CSO Partnerships | Examples In Project Alliances | Comparison | |
| Compatibility in Values, Mission, etc. [1]
|
Compatibility around shared vision and values.[15]Shared vision and goals.[16] [17]A congruity of vision, goals, interests, and values between the partners. Shared values, purpose, goals and objectives.[18]Values compatibility.[19]Shared vision and mutual values.[20] | Common goals and objectives.[21]Dedication to common goals and shared culture.[22]Mutual objectives[23].Shared vision, common goals, mutual objectives.[24]
|
Very strong evidence of alignment. |
| Respect and Trust | Respect and trust.[25]Genuine respect and increased trust between the different players.[26]Mutual Respect and support.[27] Trust, respect and mutual cooperation.[28] |
The importance of trust among Project Alliance parties is emphasised frequently in the literature. [29] [30] [31] [32] |
Very strong evidence of alignment. |
| Transparency and Accountability | Transparency and accountability.[33] Accountability.[34] Transparency.[35] |
All transactions are fully open-book.[36] Open communications. Open and honest communications. | Very strong evidence of alignment. |
| Long-term Relationship | The relationship is not, itself, a project-based deal, but a long-term – though not indefinite – agreement to journey together.[37] Often longer-term.[38] “Long-term, and generally evolve over an extended period of time”.[39] |
A long-term commitment.Embedded in complex relations.[40] Long-term commitments.[41] | Very strong evidence of alignment. |
| Equality and Balance of Power | There is a demonstrated equality in the influence applied to decisions.[42] Power differences are recognised and worked with.[43] [44] Balance of power.[45] [46] [47] Equality and empowerment of weaker partners | A peer relationship and an equal say in any decision for the project.[48] Decisions are made by project governance structures by unanimity, on a “best for project” basis. One member per organisation sits on Project Management bodies – see below. | Strong evidence of alignment, but Project Alliancing practice contains practical mechanisms for handling power imbalances. |
| Shared Risk-Taking | Joint risk-sharing is allied to co-responsibility and co-accountability for processes and outcomes. | The parties are collectively responsible for performing the work and generally assume collective ownership of all risks.Share risks and rewards collectively. | Strong evidence of alignment in principle, but INGO-local CSO partnership agreements are weak on this point. |
| Careful Partner Identification | “It is worth taking time” identifying partners.“Successful collaborations that advance the strategic goals of the individual partners generally have clear … partner selection criteria.” “Attention to membership selection is critical to ensure the collaborative advantage.” “inadequate attention to selection of partners…” | Team selection is at the heart of the approach.An “eight stage cooperative benchmarking process model to improve the performance on an alliance team”.Early selection of contractors.Relationships are crucial in a Project Alliance.[49] “Its foundations are built on selecting people who have the ability to develop a robust working relationship and who can thrive in a no-blame integrated team culture.” | Strong evidence of alignment in principle. However, INGOs often do not take enough time to get to know potential partners before commencing activities. |
| Good Communication | Good communication, responsiveness and openness.Open and frequent communications. | Open and honest communication, no hidden agendas.“Open, straight and honest communication among all partners.”[50] | Strong evidence of alignment. |
| High Levels of Commitment | Understanding and commitment from both sides to the partnership.[51] Partnerships must be built on “a strong foundation of individual commitment … and to the partnership approach”.[52] | “Ensure all team members understand and empathise with the purpose of the alliance and are committed to the behavioural commitments and objectives set out in the charter”.[53] |
Strong evidence of alignment. |
| Training of Stakeholders | Training in partnering skills is important.[54] |
“…considerable costs… significant training…”[55] | Strong evidence of alignment. |
The surprising similarities in the nature of these two kinds of partnerships, in such different sectors, suggest that NGOs might benefit from considering how Project Alliances handle conflict.
Learning from “Project Alliancing” approaches to conflict management for INGO-local CSO Partnerships
Although the terminology may vary, Project Alliances typically establish two governance entities with two distinct functions: a team handling daily management issues, tasked with implementing the project; and a board governing project implementation and monitoring the partnership, meeting at least monthly and making decisions by unanimity.[56] [57] [58] [59] Frequent personal interaction among the parties involved in Project Alliances has been shown to be key, building the strong relationships that are essential in relational contracting.
While Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods are used increasingly in the for-profit and governmental sectors, and are well-aligned with the values (autonomy, recognition, justice) of the INGO sector, ADR practices are not commonly integrated into INGO-local CSO partnership management practice.
There are a few references to dispute resolution in the NGO literature, mostly outlining a commitment to working to resolve disputes, in principle. For example:
- “Partnership … does not require that partners have a unified perspective, but that they are all committed to resolving their differences, and achieving either consensus or compromise through non-coercive discussion and negotiation. Focusing on this aspect of partnership does not conflict with the existing literature, but it does provide a different emphasis. There is nothing in the definitional literature that says partnerships should involve minimal disagreement, but most critiques of existing partnerships use examples of disagreements to illustrate the failure to realise the rhetoric of partnership. By contrast, the understanding of partnership advanced in this paper suggests the focus should not be on whether disagreements occur but on how they are resolved. If disagreements are not discussed openly or are not resolved on an equitable basis, then the reality would indeed fall short of partnership; on the other hand, contestation through open and equitable discussion would provide evidence of genuine partnership.”[62]
Some NGOs recommend that partnerships “agree on an arbitration or mediation procedure”, or include references to dispute resolution processes and options in partnership agreements.[63] INGO and local partner staff need “… to be highly skilled in multi-stakeholder facilitation, cross cultural mediation and negotiation, as well as being able to mediate across differences in power, gender and other divides…” “… accountabilities need to be negotiated and problems and differences need to be identified and solved. This requires good quality conflict resolution and mediation skills.”[64]
In reality, although a few good practices exist,[65] [66] NGO staff on the whole are not trained in dispute resolution or conflict management,[67] and when disputes are addressed, entry to dispute resolution is through contractual mechanisms which are usually one-sided and likely to be seen as unfair by local CSO partners.
Literature related to Partner Alliances, on the other hand, emphasises that a “no-blame, no litigation” approach is fundamental, and that day-to-day dispute resolution is key. For instance,
- “Frequent, frank, face-to-face talks between parties. Issues or foreseeable problems are often resolved before conflicts arise, allowing relationships between parties to be nurtured and sustained.”[68]
- “A fundamental principle of alliancing is that all issues will be resolved within the alliance”, an express commitment to resolve all issues within the alliance without recourse to litigation except in the case of wilful default.” [69]
- No fault, no blame, no dispute.[70] [71] No fault-no blame, resolve conflicts and disputes internally, agree not to litigate or arbitrate.[72]
- Disputes that arise during project implementation are addressed during the daily project team meetings. “Dispute resolution therefore sits directly within the sphere of the day to day management of the Alliance thereby making it a fundamental term of the Project Alliancing contract. It is something that is incapable of being severed from the rest of the contract.”[73]
ADR clauses are normally not included in Project Alliance contracts, and are in fact seen as “unnecessary, illogical and inappropriate.”[74] This is not because ADR is not seen as important, but rather that dispute resolution is addressed in the day-to-day operation of Project Alliances. To reinforce the importance of ADR practices within these relationships, Project Alliances are typically structured with “no-blame” clauses that seek to avoid disputes being referred to the formal legal system, in an attempt to give strong incentives for using ADR techniques.[75]
Adapting ADR approaches and governance arrangements from “Project Alliancing” for INGO-local CSO Partnerships
Several ADR-related practices have the potential to address many of the causes of INGO-local CSO partnership dysfunction.
Power imbalances in INGO and local CSO partnerships will persist as long as financial contributions are significantly unequal. Governance arrangements similar to those used in Project Alliances can be adopted and included in INGO-local CSO partnership agreements, providing mechanisms that help level the playing field. For example, the institution of two decision-making bodies, one for day-to-day management, the other focused on governance on a monthly basis, both with requirements to reach decisions unanimously, may help.
The experience of Project Alliances is that a firm commitment to resolving disputes without recourse to the formal legal system is very helpful. So, INGO-local CSO partnerships may find it helpful to replace current, formal and legalistic dispute-resolution clauses in their agreements with commitments to a “no-blame” culture, where both sides pledge to resolve disputes internally, except in cases of “wilful default.”
In conclusion, as in Project Alliancing, staff on both sides of the INGO-local CSO partnership relation may benefit from being trained in alternative dispute resolution techniques and skills to support their work with counterparts. This will give them new skills to balance their emotional responses and connections, and perhaps enable them to transform the energy of conflict into energy for innovation, energy that can help overcome human poverty and suffering.
Author
Mark McPeak served as International Program Director at ChildFund Australia until late 2015. His work in international development and social justice began with two years in the Peace Corps in Ecuador in the mid-1980s, after finishing his engineering studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Since then, Mark has held a range of leadership roles in Colombia, Ecuador, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, Ethiopia, and Australia. Before joining ChildFund Australia in 2009, he was Executive Director at UUSC, a human rights and social justice organisation in the United States.
An accomplished facilitator across a wide diversity of contexts and cultures, Mark has particular expertise in policy and strategy development, alignment of organizational design with strategy, and change management in the non-profit sector. He is currently studying conflict management and dispute resolution at the University of New South Wales Law School.
Mark can be reached at www.markmcpeakconsulting.com
[1] The term “Global South” refers to nearly 157 of a total of 184 recognised states in the world which are located in the Southern Hemisphere regions, especially in South and Central America, Africa, and Asia. It includes countries with less developed or severely limited resources as well as medium and low human development-indexes as reported in the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Reports. Also known as the “Third World” or “developing countries.”
[2] Vicky Mancuso Brehm, Promoting Effective North-South NGO Partnerships, A Comparative Study of 10 European NGOs (May 2001) INTRAC http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/45/OPS-35-Promoting-Effective-North-South-NGO-Relationships.pdf
[3] Mark McPeak, “’The Functions of Social Conflict’ by Lewis Coser” (January 2016) https://markmcpeak.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/the-functions-of-social-conflict-by-lewis-coser/
[4] Mark McPeak, ‘A Trojan Horse? International Development Agencies Embrace Business Practices and Mental Models’ in Damien Kingsbury (ed), Critical Reflections on Development (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013) 122.
[5] Bradley K. Googins and Steven Rochlin, ‘Creating the Partnership Society: Understanding the Rhetoric and Reality of Cross-Sectoral Partnerships’ (2000) 105 (1), Business and Society Review.
[6] Fiona Cheung, et al, ‘A Critical Review of the Organisational Structure, Culture and Commitment in the Australian Construction Industry’ (Paper presented at the 2005 CIB W92/T23/W107 International Symposium on Procurement Systems; The Impact of Cultural Differences and Systems on Construction Performance, 7-10 February 2005).
[7] John F.Y. Yeung, et al, ‘The Definition of Alliancing in Construction as a Wittgenstein Family-Resemblance Concept’ (2007) 25, International Journal of Project Management.
[8] Steve Rowlinson and Fiona Cheung, ‘A Review of the Concepts and Definitions of the Various Forms of Relational Contracting’ (Paper presented at the International Symposium of the CIB W92 on Procurement Systems “Project Procurement for Infrastructure Const4uction” 7-10 January, 2004, Chennai, India.)
[9] Greg Rooney, Project Alliancing – The Process Architecture of a Relationship Based Project Delivery System for Complex Infrastructure Projects (11 March 2009) Social Sciences Research Network http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1809267
[10] J. S. J. Koolwijk, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods Used in Alliance Contracts’ (2006) 132, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice.
[11] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory as Sociology: A Reply to Professors Lindenberg and de Vos’ (1987) 143, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics.
[12] Department of Treasury and Finance, State of Victoria, Project Alliancing Practitioners’ Guide (April 2006).
[13] The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Australian Government, National Guide to Alliance Contracting’ (July 2011).
[14] Fabrice Lumineau and Deepak Molhota, ‘Shadow of the Contract: How Contract Structure Shapes Interfirm Dispute Resolution’ (2011) 32, Strategic Management Journal.
[15] Anna Stobart, Approaches to Partnership (22 June 2010) BOND https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/Effectiveness_Programme/comparative_study_of_parterships_final.pdf
[16] Douglas Horton, et al, Perspectives on Partnership: A Literature Review, Working Paper 2009-3, International Potato Center http://cipotato.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/004982.pdf
[17] See “Building Harmonious Communities”, a two-module course provided to Plan International staff through the “Plan Academy” http://www.plan-academy.org/course/index.php?categoryid=44
[18] As evidenced by partnership policies and approaches obtained from, for example, ActionAid, Plan International, WaterAid, World Vision, and WWF – personal communications.
[19] See “Building Harmonious Communities”, a two-module course provided to Plan International staff through the “Plan Academy” http://www.plan-academy.org/course/index.php?categoryid=44
[20] ibid.
[21] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries’ (2000) 94 (3), Northwestern University Law Review.
[22] Construction Industry Institute, ‘SP17-1 – In Search of Partnering Excellence’ (summary) (1991) Construction Industry Institute https://www.construction-institute.org/scriptcontent/more/sp17_1_more.cfm
[23] Based on the author’s personal experience.
[24] ibid.
[25] Micah Network, Micah Network Partnership Guidelines (December 2005) Micah Network http://www.micahnetwork.org/sites/default/files/doc/resources/micah_network_partnership_guidelines.pdf
[26] Inter-Mediation, ‘Improving INGO Effectiveness – Realizing Benefits from Intra-Organizational Conflict’, personal communication.
[27] Based on the author’s personal experience.
[28] Mike Bresnen and Nick Marshall, ‘Motivation, Commitment and the Use of Incentives in Partnerships and Alliances’ (2000) 18, Construction Management and Economics.
[29] Based on the author’s personal experience.
[30] Fabrice Lumineau and Deepak Molhota, ‘Shadow of the Contract: How Contract Structure Shapes Interfirm Dispute Resolution’ (2011) 32, Strategic Management Journal.
[31] Mike Bresnen and Nick Marshall, ‘Motivation, Commitment and the Use of Incentives in Partnerships and Alliances’ (2000) 18, Construction Management and Economics.
[32] Based on the author’s personal experience.
[33] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries’ (2000) 94 (3), Northwestern University Law Review.
[34] Based on the author’s personal experience.
[35] ibid.
[36] Jim Ross, ‘Introduction to Project Alliancing (On Engineering & Construction Projects), April 2003 Update’ (2003) International Centre for Complex Project Management https://iccpm.com/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/Alliancing_30Apr03_D_PCI.pdf
[37] As evidenced by partnership policies and approaches obtained from, for example, ActionAid, Plan International, WaterAid, World Vision, and WWF – personal communications.
[38] Based on the author’s personal experience.
[39] ibid.
[40] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries’ (2000) 94 (3), Northwestern University Law Review.
[41] Greg Rooney, Project Alliancing – The Process Architecture of a Relationship Based Project Delivery System for Complex Infrastructure Projects (11 March 2009) Social Sciences Research Network http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1809267
[42] As evidenced by partnership policies and approaches obtained from, for example, ActionAid, Plan International, WaterAid, World Vision, and WWF – personal communications.
[43] ibid.
[44] Ros Tennyson, The Partnering Toolbook (2011) The Partnering Initiative (IBLF) http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-development/the-partnering-toolbook-english/ToolBook-Eng.pdf
[45] As evidenced by partnership policies and approaches obtained from, for example, ActionAid, Plan International, WaterAid, World Vision, and WWF – personal communications.
[46] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries’ (2000) 94 (3), Northwestern University Law Review.
[47] Based on the author’s personal experience.
[48] Ros Tennyson, The Partnering Toolbook (2011) The Partnering Initiative (IBLF) http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-development/the-partnering-toolbook-english/ToolBook-Eng.pdf
[49] Peter Davis and Peter Love, ‘Alliance Contracting: Adding Value Through Relationship Development’ (2010) 18 (5), Engineering Construction and Architectural Management.
[50] ibid.
[51] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries’ (2000) 94 (3), Northwestern University Law Review.
[52] Gang Chen et al, ‘Overview of Alliancing Research and Practice in the Construction Industry’ (2012) 8, Architectural Engineering and Design Management.
[53] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries’ (2000) 94 (3), Northwestern University Law Review.
[54] Gang Chen et al, ‘Overview of Alliancing Research and Practice in the Construction Industry’ (2012) 8, Architectural Engineering and Design Management.
[55] John Paul Davies, Alliance Contracts and Public Sector Governance (August 2008) Griffith University Research Hub https://experts.griffith.edu.au/publication/n04ebd46c45973ba848552ed9ad15e6c0
[56] The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Australian Government, National Guide to Alliance Contracting’ (July 2011).
[57] Anna Stobart, Approaches to Partnership (22 June 2010) BOND https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/Effectiveness_Programme/comparative_study_of_parterships_final.pdf
[58] Douglas Horton, et al, Perspectives on Partnership: A Literature Review, Working Paper 2009-3, International Potato Center http://cipotato.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/004982.pdf
[59] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries’ (2000) 94 (3), Northwestern University Law Review.
[60] Based on the author’s personal experience.
[61] Partnership Brokers, ‘Tool 6: Collaboration Agreement Check List’, personal communication.
[62] Tom Harrison, ‘The Role of Contestation in NGO Partnerships’ (2007) 19, Journal of International Development.
[63] Based on the author’s personal experience.
[64] Chris Roche and Linda Kelly, ‘Partnerships for Effective Development’ (2014), Australian Council for International Development https://acfid.asn.au/sites/site.acfid/files/resource_document/Partnerships-for-Effective-Development.pdf
[65] Barbara Evens, Joe McMahon and Ken Caplan, ‘The Partnership Paperchase: Structuring Partnership Agreements in Water and Sanitation in Low-Income Communities’ (2004), Building Partnerships for Development http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/42857/
[66] See “Building Harmonious Communities”, a two-module course provided to Plan International staff through the “Plan Academy” http://www.plan-academy.org/course/index.php?categoryid=44
[67] Inter-Mediation, ‘Improving INGO Effectiveness – Realizing Benefits from Intra-Organizational Conflict’, personal communication.
[68] Fiona Cheung, et al, ‘A Critical Review of the Organisational Structure, Culture and Commitment in the Australian Construction Industry’ (Paper presented at the 2005 CIB W92/T23/W107 International Symposium on Procurement Systems; The Impact of Cultural Differences and Systems on Construction Performance, 7-10 February 2005).
[69] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries’ (2000) 94 (3), Northwestern University Law Review.
[70] ibid.
[71] An example is cited in Rooney (2009): Greg Rooney, Project Alliancing – The Process Architecture of a Relationship Based Project Delivery System for Complex Infrastructure Projects (11 March 2009) Social Sciences Research Network http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1809267
[72] Peter Davis and Peter Love, ‘Alliance Contracting: Adding Value Through Relationship Development’ (2010) 18 (5), Engineering Construction and Architectural Management.
[73] Steve Rowlinson and Fiona Cheung, ‘A Review of the Concepts and Definitions of the Various Forms of Relational Contracting’ (Paper presented at the International Symposium of the CIB W92 on Procurement Systems “Project Procurement for Infrastructure Const4uction” 7-10 January, 2004, Chennai, India.)
[74] Ian R. Macneil, ‘Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries’ (2000) 94 (3), Northwestern University Law Review.
[75] An example is cited in Rooney (2009): Greg Rooney, Project Alliancing – The Process Architecture of a Relationship Based Project Delivery System for Complex Infrastructure Projects (11 March 2009) Social Sciences Research Network http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1809267
