000			02137nam a22002537a 4500
003			ZW-GwMSU
005			20240529065531.0
008			240529b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a01446193
040			_aMSU _bEnglish _cMSU _erda
050	0	0	_aHD9715.A1 CON
100	1		_aGottlieb, Stefan Christoffer _eauthor
245	1	0	_aContradictions and collaboration: _bpartnering in-between systems of production, values and interests _ccreated by Stefan Christoffer Gottlieb and Kim Haugbølle
264	1		_aAbingdon: _bTaylor and Francis, _c2013
336			_2rdacontent _atext _btxt
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc
440			_aConstruction Management and Economics _vVolume 31, number 1-3
520	3		_aFor more than a decade, partnering has been pursued as a promising way of overcoming the drawbacks of the building process. Despite intense and repeated efforts, promises have only to some extent been satisfied. Based on an example case study of a partnering project, activity theory is applied in an analysis of how project outcomes are shaped mutually by the underlying dynamics of construction and innovative initiatives like partnering. The case was studied through a combination of questionnaire surveys, interactive workshops, semi-structured qualitative research interviews and onsite observations. Three main findings are presented. First, that the dynamics of construction can be understood as the interrelation of three activity systems on production, values and interests. Second, partnering as a change strategy is overlaid on existing practice rather than substituting it. Third, partnering may reduce some contradictions but induces others simultaneously. In conclusion, the potential of partnering as a change strategy depends on the ability to understand and manage contradictions in and between existing institutionalized activity systems in construction of production, values and interests.
650			_aActivity theory _vCollaboration _xInnovation
700			_aKim Haugb?lle _eauthor
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.756141
942			_2lcc _cJA
999			_c165722 _d165722