I. Introduction

Some years ago when partnering burst upon the construction scene, it
was heralded as a miracle cure for dispute-plagued construction projects.
Among other benefits, it was claimed that partnering would avoid
litigation, control costs, facilitate on-time completion, improve functional
and aesthetic quality and create a cooperative and safe working
environment.

Not surprisingly, partnering has become very popular in certain
branches of the construction industry, particularly on larger and more
complex projects. The process has succeeded in opening lines of
communication and enriching the quantity and quality of communication
between parties to the construction process. In this respect, it has
certainly helped avoid disputes.

II. Critic’s Views

But even if partnering’s achievements have been substantial, the
process has not been a uniform success. It is not uncommon to hear
criticism of partnering in interviews with veterans of the process. “The
other side did not seriously participate in the spirit of the sessions.”
“There was no meaningful follow up.” “The people who should have
been there weren’t.” “The partnering sessions were simply job-site
meetings which did not change the attitude of the parties.” “There was no
real commitment to the concept.” These and similar statements reflect