Alliancing in Australia—No-Litigation Contracts: A Tautology?

Abstract

A project alliance is a business strategy whereby client and commercial participants’ objectives are aligned. This paper takes an alliance project between public and private organizations in Queensland, Australia as a case study and reports the critical factors identified that influence the success of the alliance project. Alliancing is a system that provides a collaborative environment and a framework to adapt behavior to project objectives. It is about sharing resources and experiences, exposing the “hidden” risks. The case study suggests that leadership has a strong influence on the alliance climate. Commitment and action by the Project Alliance Board (and, so, parent organizations) have a strong impact on the team and alliance culture, indicating alliancing has a high chance of failure when there is inadequate support from top management. Like all relational contracting approaches, trust between alliance partners is important. This case study project takes a further step toward reinforcing the trust element by placing a No-Dispute clause in the alliance agreement. A review of the effects of the no-litigation clause upon the project team is presented. The writers conclude that without a positive approach to relationship management, a No-Dispute approach is impossible. Hence, they postulate that a “no-litigation” alliancing contract is essentially tautological, and go on to argue that a no-litigation contract cannot exist without the help of a clear relational vision, that leads to both soft and hard infrastructure to assist in decision making and relationship building.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 38 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.