Partnering Contracts and Conflict Levels in Norwegian Construction Projects

Abstract

The Norwegian construction sector has long struggled with conflict, particularly in large-scale and complex projects, where adversarial practices, rigid procurement systems, and insufficient early collaboration are common. This study explores how partnering contracts, which are collaborative delivery models designed to align stakeholder interests, affect conflict dynamics in real-world settings. Employing a mixed-methods approach, it combines semi-structured interviews with 21 experienced Norwegian construction professionals and a structured survey of 33 industry experts. The findings reveal that partnering can foster trust, improve communication, and reduce adversarial behavior through mechanisms such as early contractor involvement, joint goal setting, and open dialogue. However, participants also identified critical risks: superficial collaboration rituals, ambiguous roles, and unresolved structural inequalities that can exacerbate tensions. Importantly, the study emphasizes that partnering success depends less on the contract itself and more on cultural alignment, stakeholder competence, and long-term relational commitment. These insights contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how collaborative contracting influences conflict mitigation in the Norwegian construction sector.

1. Introduction

The Norwegian construction sector has been dominated to a great extent by conflict, particularly in large and complex projects [1]. Conflicts between clients, contractors, and consultants are reported in the literature and can become costly, particularly in complex construction settings [2]. Such disputes may arise at various stages of a project, from planning and procurement to execution and delivery, and often relate to issues such as ambiguities of responsibility, poor communication, design changes, and adverse ground conditions [3,4]. In others, disputes escalate into full-blown legal disputes, with significant implications for project cost, schedule, and long-term relationship between the parties [5,6].

A number of reports have tried to put a price tag on such conflicts. In 2018, the report Estimation of Costs Associated with Disputes in the Civil Engineering Sector, a memorandum by Samfunnsøkonomisk Analyse AS commissioned by the Norwegian Contractors Association (EBA), approximated that legal disputes and delays in the civil engineering sector alone imposed around NOK 2.2 billion (EUR 189.7 million) annually on Norwegian society [7]. Given that the total annual turnover of the Norwegian civil engineering sector was estimated at approximately NOK 100 billion around the same period, these conflict-related costs represent roughly 2–3% of the sector’s value. This proportion highlights the substantial economic impact that such disputes can have, even when considering just a subset of the overall construction market. This does not reflect the entire construction sector but gives an idea of the extent of the problem. Although the construction sector’s scale and national importance draw significant attention, it is often inefficiencies, such as delays, cost overruns, and low productivity, that precipitate disputes. Conflict thus emerges not simply from the industry’s magnitude, but from underlying systemic and operational weaknesses.

In addition to cost, conflict in construction ventures has far-reaching deleterious effects. It decreases productivity, enhances the risk of a venture, impedes development, and erodes confidence among stakeholders [8]. The Norwegian construction sector has already faced productivity challenges over the past two decades, with some studies showing a decline in productivity in contrast to improvements in other industries [9]. In this context, scholars and practitioners increasingly view conflict reduction not only as a means to improve working relationships but also as a strategy to enhance overall project performance and efficiency.

In response to the occurrence of conflict, different project delivery approaches have emerged over the last few years, with the goal of establishing more cooperative relationships between project stakeholders [10]. They include the use of partnering contracts, or samspillsentrepriser, which seek to enhance cooperation, openness, and mutual objectives [11]. Partnering models would normally involve early contractor involvement, collaborative decision-making frameworks, joint financial incentives, and mutual problem-solving agreements [2]. The key assumption is that through aligning the interests of all parties, partnering contracts can reduce the potential for conflict and lead to improved project performance.

According to national guidelines [12], the underlying assumption of partnering contracts is that aligning the interests of all parties can reduce conflict and enhance project performance. In line with this, joint venture agreements have become common in Norway, particularly in publicly funded projects, and are frequently recommended for managing high-complexity undertakings. All parties, including public clients, contractors, and consultants, have shown optimistic expectations regarding the advantages of partnering. Additionally, industry associations like EBA (Entreprenørforeningen—Bygg og Anlegg) have established templates and tools to facilitate their introduction. In spite of these advances, the real-world impacts of partnering contracts on conflict reduction remain uncertain.

There is little empirical work that explores how partnering contracts affect conflict levels in actual projects [13]. Although numerous studies and reports advocate for partnering in theory, comparatively few look at the real-world experiences of industry practitioners who have operated within such an environment. There is some anecdotal indication that partnering can reduce conflict, although other experiences have shown that conflicts can still occur if the underlying organizational culture remains confrontational or the requirement for successful collaboration are not met [14,15]. For instance, where the conditions of trust, early engagement, and common goals do not exist, the partnering model will not work as it should. This vagueness is a definite research gap in Norwegian as well as global contexts.

To address this gap in knowledge and provide deeper insights into how partnering contracts affect conflict dynamics in real-world projects, this study investigates the lived experiences of Norwegian construction professionals. Specifically, the study seeks to explore when and how partnering contributes to conflict reduction, and under what conditions it may fail or even exacerbate tensions.

Based on this aim, the study is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: What effects do partnering contracts have on conflict in Norwegian construction projects?

RQ2: What are the perceived barriers and risks associated with the use of partnering contracts?

RQ3: How do trust, early involvement, and shared goals influence the effectiveness of partnering in preventing or managing conflict?

RQ4: What individual and organizational cultural and behavioral competencies are necessary for partnering contracts to function effectively in practice?

These questions aim to uncover the contextual, relational, and organizational factors that mediate the success or failure of partnering arrangements in construction projects. By answering them, the study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of collaborative contracting and its potential role in reducing conflict within the Norwegian construction sector.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Conflict in Construction: Causes and Impact

Conflict is widely acknowledged as an ongoing and expensive issue in the construction sector. The project-based nature of the industry, its high complexity, and fragmented organizational arrangements render it highly susceptible to conflicts [16]. A number of studies have outlined the main sources of conflict as uncertain contracts, ambiguous roles, confrontational procurement methods, unrealistic targets, and stakeholder communication issues [17,18]. Specifically, common procurement approaches that encourage competition over cooperation tend to lead to defensive attitudes, mistrust, and lack of openness.

For Norway, the conflict level is unusually high. As estimated in 2018 by the report Estimation of Costs Associated with Disputes in the Civil Engineering Sector (Samfunnsøkonomisk analyse), conflicts in public infrastructure projects were estimated to be costing the sector billions of kroner per annum [7]. While conflicts in construction projects are frequently portrayed as economically and relationally damaging, leading to cost overruns, time delays, and weakened long-term partnerships [19]. It is important to recognize that not all conflicts are inherently detrimental. As some scholars argue, conflict can serve as a functional mechanism for surfacing hidden issues, renegotiating expectations, and driving innovation. The short-term and fragmented nature of many construction projects may indeed limit trust and long-term learning [20], but this also underscores the need for better conflict management strategies rather than conflict elimination altogether. Just as democracy thrives on managed disagreement, the construction industry may benefit from a more nuanced understanding of conflict as both a challenge and a potential driver of improvement.

The effects of conflict extend beyond overt cost overruns. Conflict can degrade trust, inhibit innovation, decrease productivity, and promote adversarial cultures [16]. As per a recent study, “Lack of trust remains one of the most pressing and enduring issues in the construction sector”. Considering these effects, increasing attention exists in both theoretical and practical communities regarding identifying ways of effective conflict mitigation [21].

2.2. Conflict Management Theory

Classic conflict resolution theory has traditionally emphasized prevention, reduction, and resolution through formal mechanisms such as arbitration, litigation, mediation, and negotiation [21,22,23,24]. In construction, this has translated into a focus on dispute settlement tools aimed at minimizing disruptions. However, emerging perspectives challenge the notion that all conflict must be eliminated. Drawing from permissive theories of conflict, some scholars argue that not all conflict is dysfunctional, and that, when managed constructively, it can promote transparency, innovation, and renegotiation of misaligned interests.

Relationship-focused approaches, such as relational contracting, reflect this shift by fostering early-stage collaboration, mutual trust, and shared risk-reward arrangements [25,26]. These models align with psychological theories of trust and cooperation, where trust is defined as a willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of others [27]. Likewise, the Theory of Planned Behavior [28] offers a framework for understanding individual willingness to engage in collaborative behavior, although its application at the organizational level remains limited.

Ultimately, effective conflict management in complex project environments may lie not solely in eliminating disputes but in cultivating the behavioral and cultural conditions, such as explicit communication, aligned goals, and ethical conduct, that enable conflict to serve a productive function rather than a destructive one [17].

2.3. Partnering Contracts: Definitions and Characteristics

Partnering, or samspill in Norwegian, is a collaborative contracting approach that focuses on trust, openness, early engagement, and mutual goals [29]. It was developed as a countermeasure to the adversarial approach of conventional construction practices [14,18]. In a partnering agreement, stakeholders collaborate from the initial design phase to delivery, ideally aligning incentives and establishing joint decision-making frameworks.

Key characteristics of partnering include

• Early contractor involvement;
• Joint risk and reward mechanisms;
• Shared goals and KPIs;
• Open-book financial transparency;
• Conflict resolution built on dialogue rather than legal escalation.

Regardless of the attractive principles, there are implementation issues. Collaboration is efficient at the project level, it does not easily scale up into strategic partnerships as a result of industry structural norms, including decentralized purchasing and prioritization of competitive tendering [18]. Policy conflicts and institutional momentum in public sector clients inhibit uniform use of relational models [30].

2.4. Prior Research on Partnering and Conflict

Much of the early literature on partnering emphasizes its potential to minimize conflict [14,25]. Some studies suggest that partnered projects may outperform conventional contracts in terms of cost control and client satisfaction [31]. More recent work also highlights that effective partnering can improve planning, foster trust, and enhance information exchange, which are factors often associated with reduced conflict [17,25,29,32,33].

But not all studies offer partnering as a sure bet. Procurement and structural barriers may erode long-term collaboration [18]. Opportunistic behavior could still happen even in the presence of formal partnership agreements [26]. Partnering is typically symbolic unless it is accompanied by genuine cultural change and commitment [14], as per a recent study. Studies describe situations where partnering might fail or even heighten conflict [34]. For instance, if trust is not truly established, or if project culture is still antagonistic, the partnering system is reduced to ritual rather than an operational tool [27,35]. Cultural misalignment, incompetence, and shallow commitment may cause disillusionment among the participants as well as heightened conflicts [36,37].

Another stream of literature considers enablers of effective collaboration [29]. A recent study found that the collaborative Planning Index is founded upon 50 determinants, including alignment among stakeholders, leadership buy-in, and quality of communication [25]. According to their findings, project performance is less reliant on contract type and more on the way collaboration is exercised and nurtured during the project duration [35,38].

In addition, various studies emphasize the need for boundary spanners, people or positions that span organizational boundaries and mediate communication between teams [20,39,40]. These players play a crucial role in avoiding conflict, particularly in complex or multi-party projects [30,37].

2.5. Identified Gap

Although there is a growing body of theoretical and empirical literature suggesting that partnering can reduce conflict, much of this research is either purely qualitative, limited quantitative, or case-based, and often indicative rather than conclusive [14,27]. Perhaps most critically, few studies examine under what specific conditions partnering successfully alleviates conflict [35].

While this study contributes insight into the underexplored Norwegian context, it also offers a more integrated perspective by combining in-depth qualitative interviews with a complementary quantitative survey. In contrast, much of the existing literature remains fragmented and based on small, single-method studies [30]. Robust longitudinal or large-scale quantitative evidence is still notably scarce.

Furthermore, in fields such as lean construction where partnering approaches are frequently promoted, the boundary between research and consultancy can sometimes become blurred. This raises concerns that aspirational narratives may influence academic work at the expense of critical reflection and empirical neutrality [41].

While this article does not claim to resolve all of these broader limitations, it contributes to a more grounded understanding of how partnering is experienced in practice by Norwegian construction professionals, including its potential, its pitfalls, and the contextual conditions that shape its outcomes.

3. Interview Design and Guide

3.1. Research Design: Qualitative Approach

This research employs a qualitative research approach to investigate the extent to which partnering contracts impact levels of conflict within the Norwegian construction sector. Considering the research interest in the understanding of professional experience, perceptions, and meanings, a qualitative research approach is well suited [42,43]. Qualitative approaches are well established in construction management studies where the focus is to examine intricate social interactions, organizational conduct, and project dynamics that cannot be simply elicited by quantitative means [44].

The study is interpretivist in approach and views that interpretivism is concerned with the meanings people attach to their everyday experiences [45]. Here, the investigation is concerned with how professionals make sense of their partnering and conflict experiences. Instead of seeking to test a hypothesis or statistically generalize findings, the research aims to produce rich, context-specific insights that can inform both practice and theory [46].

3.2. Interview Design and Guide

Semi-structured interviews were selected as the main method of data collection [47]. This format is one that balances structure and flexibility: a set of core questions repeated consistently ensures comparability between interviews, and open-ended follow-up questions permit investigation of topics participants consider especially relevant [48].

The guide for the interview was prepared following a review of the conflict, partnering, and collaborative project delivery literature. The guide consisted of questions that aimed to examine

• Individuals’ overall experience of conflict during construction projects;
• Their knowledge and perception of partnering contracts;
• Specific situations where partnering had a bearing (positive or negative) on conflict levels;
• Factors that they feel aided or hindered the success or failure of partnering in minimizing conflict;
• Presumed requirements for successful collaboration.

Pilot testing of the guide was performed with two industry practitioners who were not part of the final sample. The process assisted in clarifying the wording and order of the questions to enhance clarity and flow as recommended by [49].

3.3. Participant Profile and Selection Criteria

Twenty-one participants were interviewed. The sample was selected purposefully to consist of people with significant experience in construction projects in Norway, especially those who have been working under traditional and partnering contracts. Purposeful sampling is often applied in qualitative research where the aim is to gain rich and pertinent information rather than statistical representativeness [46,50].

Participants were drawn from five key groups:

• Project owners (public and private);
• Main contractors;
• Consultants (architects and engineers);
• Legal experts specializing in construction contracts;
• Project managers with experience in multiple delivery models.

The interviewees were selected to provide broad coverage of key stakeholder perspectives in the Norwegian construction sector. Their roles included project managers, senior advisors, legal professionals, and executives from both public and private organizations. Most participants had substantial industry experience, typically ranging from 15 to over 30 years, and had worked on a wide range of infrastructure and building projects. This breadth of professional background ensured that the data captured reflected a grounded and practice-based understanding of conflict and collaboration.

Participant recruitment involved professional networks, industry contacts, and snowball sampling, a valuable method in qualitative research for accessing expert participants [51]. The first participants were recommended by others of relevance in the profession, who were subsequently approached and invited to participate. All participants gave informed consent and were guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity according to ethical principles [52].

3.4. Data Collection Process

Interviews took place from March to May 2022, either face-to-face or using video conferencing tools like Zoom and Microsoft Teams, depending on participant location and preference. All interviews were between 45 and 75 min in duration and recorded with the informed consent of the participants.

The interviews were conducted in Norwegian to enable the participants to speak freely in their own language. This was especially necessary considering the subtlety and possible sensitivity of speaking about project conflict and organizational issues [53]. The interviews were transcribed word for word and translated into English where necessary for publication.

Recordings and transcripts of interviews were kept confidential and available only to the research team. Institutional ethics board approval was secured for conducting the study.

3.5. Analytical Strategy

The data were analyzed with thematic analysis, a versatile and common approach to identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns in qualitative data [54]. The process adhered to their six-phase framework: familiarization with the data, initial code generation, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report.

The coding process was supported by NVivo software (NVivo Release 1 (QSR International, 2020)), which facilitated the systematic management of data [55]. The coding was inductive and deductive. Codes were created initially using the research questions and literature themes (e.g., trust, early engagement, culture, communication), but codes were created inductively as new themes emerged within the data, as was also noted by [56].

Thematic categories were further consolidated into larger conceptual themes, e.g.,

• Perceived benefits of partnering;
• Barriers to effective collaboration;
• Conflict escalation and de-escalation mechanisms;
• Contextual factors influencing partnering outcomes.

These themes are presented and discussed in the Findings and Discussion sections.

3.6. Survey Design and Data Collection

To explore expert perspectives on collaboration and conflict resolution in building and infrastructure projects, a structured survey was developed and administered during autumn 2024. The survey was created using Google Forms and distributed via email to a curated list of 107 experts from the Norwegian building and construction sector. These individuals were selected based on their experience with complex infrastructure projects involving public and private actors. A total of 33 responses were received.

Among the respondents, 64% were project managers from the private sector, 18% were project managers representing public-sector owners, 7% were consultants, and 11% were lawyers or personnel with legal expertise. This distribution ensured a professionally diverse sample, with the majority being directly involved in planning, execution, and dispute resolution in infrastructure projects.

The survey included both quantitative and qualitative questions designed to capture measurable opinions and detailed reflections. To assess how collaboration is perceived as a conflict mitigation strategy, respondents were asked the following:

“How would you rate the effectiveness of collaboration in improving cooperation and reducing conflicts in infrastructure projects?”

Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (low effectiveness) to 5 (high effectiveness). The responses to this question were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the distribution of answers is illustrated in Figure 1. This visual representation highlights the predominance of positive ratings among respondents.

To complement the numerical data and uncover deeper insights, the survey also included a qualitative, open-ended question:

“What do you believe are the most important factors for ensuring successful collaboration in infrastructure projects?”

This question invited respondents to reflect on their professional experience and express their views in their own words. A thematic synthesis approach was applied to analyze the responses. Recurring themes were identified and categorized into eight distinct areas reflecting the most frequently cited success factors. The resulting themes and their synthesized summaries are presented in Table 2.

4. Findings

This paper reports results from 21 qualitative interviews of Norwegian construction industry professionals. These participants were project owners, contractors, consultants, and legal experts with a range of experience, both in traditional projects and partnering projects. Thematic analysis identified five overarching themes that were pertinent to addressing the relationship between partnering contracts and conflict in construction: ref. [1] reasons for conflict in projects, ref. [2] perceived beneficial impacts of partnering, ref. [3] perceived adverse impacts and threats, ref. [4] prerequisites for successful partnering, and ref. [5] the significance of culture and competence.

Theme 1.

Causes of Conflict in Construction Projects.

Respondents characterized the Norwegian construction sector as “rigid” and “conflict-prone,” and identified a number of recurring causes of disputes. Among those best known is the adversarial culture, which is part of both organizational practice and contract structures. Specifically, most respondents referred to rigid procurement systems, “price-driven competition,” and limited early involvement as important structural drivers.

“The problems usually start already in the bidding phase. Everything is about price, and there’s no room to talk about collaboration or risks.” (Contractor 1)

The lack of mutual understanding between project parties, particularly when designs are partially missing or expectations are divergent, was another frequently cited reason. Participants noted ambiguous responsibilities, “hurried project planning,” and “last-minute changes” as sources of tension. “Conflicts escalate quickly when the scope isn’t well-defined or when the owner has unrealistic expectations. That’s a recipe for mistrust.” (Consultant 2)

The third driver was lack of communication and trust. Some participants identified “silo thinking” and information withholding, where parties serve individual interests by sacrificing mutual understanding. “You end up with a lot of ‘us vs. them’ thinking. It’s like everyone’s just waiting to say ‘I told you so’ instead of solving the problem together.” (Contractor 3)

More broadly, participants affirmed that conflict on construction projects tends not to result from technical issues but from relational and structural ones, namely how projects are organized and handled.

Theme 2.

Perceived Positive Effects of Partnering.

The majority of respondents concurred that partnering contracts can minimize conflict if used in the appropriate situations. Interviewees characterized partnering as a “collaborative framework” that can facilitate openness, minimize adversarial behavior, and allow early problem-solving. “Partnering helps create trust from day one. You sit at the same table, talk about risks, and you’re encouraged to be honest. That’s a big contrast to traditional models.” (Project Owner 1)

Core characteristics that were viewed as valuable were early contractor engagement, collaborative goal-setting, and open budgeting and decision-making. These tools enabled mutual understanding and better coordination throughout planning and implementation.

“When the contractor is involved early, potential constructability issues can be identified and addressed before they become major delays. That alone can prevent so many disputes.” (Consultant 1)

A number of participants also mentioned the application of soft mechanisms, including facilitated workshops, conflict resolution ladders, and alignment meetings on a regular basis, as especially effective tools inherent in the partnering process. “It’s not just the contract; it’s the process around it that makes partnering work. Regular dialogue sessions and shared KPIs help build a sense of team.” (Contractor 4)

Partnering was also given credit for establishing a psychological safety net, in which people felt comfortable bringing up issues without fear of being blamed instantly. “There’s more room for being proactive. You don’t wait until it’s too late, you bring issues up early because you trust the other party won’t use it against you.” (Consultant 3)

Theme 3.

Perceived Negative Effects and Risks.

Though the outlook is generally optimistic, most participants also noted very serious risks and disadvantages with partnering, especially if the underlying conditions or mindset are not favorable.

One of the most frequently quoted problems was that collaboration can be a ritual, a “checkbox exercise”, instead of a true collaborative process. “Some clients say they’re using partnering, but in reality, everything is decided in advance. The workshops are symbolic. That’s not partnering, that’s pretending.” (Contractor 2)

Others indicated that unless one is adequately trained and facilitated, collaborative projects can become muddled or ineffective if roles and expectations are not explained clearly.

“We’ve seen projects where the contractor expects freedom and flexibility, while the client still acts like they’re in a traditional model. That creates frustration and disappointment.” (Legal Advisor 1)

Yet another recurrent theme was uneven risk and responsibility. In theory, partnering encourages shared risk, but in practice, this frequently relies on the actions of individual actors. “Some clients say the risk is shared, but when things go wrong, it’s always the contractor who gets the blame. Partnering only works if both sides are committed.” (Contractor 5)

Certain participants cautioned that collaboration could suppress or postpone conflict instead of solving it. Through focusing on harmony and “positive language,” groups may be evading confrontation on challenging but crucial discussions at the beginning. “The desire to be nice and collaborative can lead to avoidance of difficult conversations. That’s dangerous because small issues grow in silence.” (Consultant 4)

Theme 4.

Preconditions for Effective Partnering.

One key finding of the interviews was that collaboration is only possible to be successful under certain preconditions. These involve both structural and behavioral elements.

First, a number of participants stressed the need for early engagement of key stakeholders, particularly contractors and consultants, in the planning and design stage. “Without early involvement, you’re just slapping a partnering label on a traditional process. It doesn’t work.” (Project Owner 2)

Second, respondents referred to the necessity of explicit and mutual role understanding, such as what exactly the partnering process is. This implies explicit onboarding and training. “Most conflicts in partnering projects arise because people assume different things about what ‘collaboration’ means.” (Facilitator 1)

Third, some participants identified contractual and economic incentives that align interests between parties. Common KPIs and pain/gain mechanisms were regarded as useful instruments when implemented correctly. “It’s easier to collaborate when everyone benefits from project success. That’s why financial alignment is crucial.” (Contractor 6)

Lastly, time and continuity were viewed as being necessary. Collaborating takes long-term consideration and stable teams, which is not easy in rapidly changing or frequent project shifts. “You can’t build trust overnight. Partnering takes time and repetition, if people keep changing roles, the collaboration resets every few weeks.” (Consultant 5)

Theme 5.

The Importance of Culture and Competence.

Throughout all the interviews, respondents stressed that partnering success hinges less on the contract vehicle and more on the project culture and the proficiency of people.

“The partnering contract is just a piece of paper. What really matters is whether the people involved know how to collaborate.” (Project Owner 3)

A number of them highlighted that conventional thinking, particularly by clients or high-level managers, can destroy teamwork even if the contractual model itself is well executed. “If the client insists on micromanaging or hides behind formalities, no contract can resolve that.” (Contractor 7)

Also, relational and communication skills proficiency were consistently brought up. Technical proficiency alone was not viewed as adequate for coping with the challenges of collaborative projects. “We need professionals who are good at listening, at building trust, not just solving technical problems. That’s the missing piece in many teams.” (Consultant 6)

Interviewees underlined the significance of outside facilitation in developing partnering cultures, particularly during the initial stages of a project. Outside facilitators may assist in managing tough conversations and setting norms for openness and respect. “Having a neutral party in the room during the first meetings helps build trust and structure. Without that, it’s easy to fall back into old habits.” (Legal Advisor 2)

In order to present an overview of the empirical findings,

Table 1. Summary of key themes and focus areas from interview analysis.

Theme	Description	Illustrative Focus	Conceptual Focus	Respondent Distribution
Conflict Context
1. Causes of conflict	Systemic and relational drivers of disputes under traditional procurement and delivery models	Lack of early involvement, adversarial mindset, fragmented communication	Conflict sources in traditional project culture	Majority emphasized systemic causes; some noted relational factors
Partnering Dynamics
2. Positive effects of partnering	Perceived benefits of partnering in promoting trust, openness, and proactive problem-solving	Early contractor involvement, shared goals, transparency, joint decision-making	Collaborative mechanisms and relational contracting	Most viewed partnering positively; a few expressed skepticism or mixed experiences
3. Negative effects and risks	Challenges and unintended consequences when partnering is superficially or poorly implemented	Role ambiguity, symbolic partnering, hidden conflict	Implementation failure, role misalignment	About half highlighted risks or failures linked to implementation
4. Preconditions for success	Structural, procedural, and organizational factors that enable effective partnering	Clear roles and incentives, structured workshops, facilitation, mutual understanding	Success enablers and governance conditions	Majority stressed importance of clear conditions and facilitation
5. Culture and competence	Cultural and interpersonal foundations that sustain genuine collaboration	Trust-building, communication skills, leadership behavior, collaborative mindset	Relational competence and organizational culture	Most underscored culture and competence as critical; a few were neutral

presents the five main themes based on the analysis of the interviews. The themes capture both the conflict context factors prevalent in traditional construction projects and the partnering contract dynamics influencing their efficacy. The table makes a distinction between the context of conflict and the partnering mechanisms and presents each theme’s description, focus areas with illustrative references, as well as underlying conceptual significance. This format facilitates the understanding of how different conditions affect one another to mitigate or worsen conflict in reality.

As Table 1 illustrates, the themes are grouped into two broad categories: the underlying conflict context of conventional construction practices and the dynamics of partnering as a suggested solution. Theme 1 sets the baseline, highlighting the structural and relational drivers of conflict, such as adversarial attitudes and fragmented communication, that partnering aims to resolve. Themes 2 to 5 then elaborate on respondents’ perceptions of the effects of partnering, its risks, and success factors. While Theme 2 documents observed benefits of partnering, Theme 3 provides a cautionary note, indicating that unless applied appropriately, partnering may result in role ambiguity, symbolic behavior, or even hidden conflict. Themes 4 and 5 explore the structural supports (e.g., aligned incentives, facilitation, clear roles) and the more fundamental interpersonal and cultural competencies required to support collaboration over time. Combined, these themes provide a sophisticated explanation of how partnering contracts interact with organizational behavior, leadership, and project delivery culture, suggesting the conditions under which partnering will reduce or intensify conflict.

Figure 1 presents the distribution of responses to the question on the perceived effectiveness of collaboration in improving cooperation and reducing conflict in infrastructure projects. Respondents were asked to rate this on a 5-point scale, where 1 indicated low effectiveness and 5 indicated high effectiveness.

Figure 1. Perceived effectiveness of collaboration in reducing conflict in construction projects.

Figure 1. Perceived effectiveness of collaboration in reducing conflict in construction projects.

As shown in Figure 1, a large majority of respondents rated collaboration as an effective mechanism for improving cooperation and reducing conflict in infrastructure projects. Specifically, 16 respondents selected a rating of 4, and 8 selected the highest rating of 5. In contrast, only a small minority expressed skepticism, with two respondents selecting 1 and one selecting 2. The remaining five respondents chose the middle value of 3, indicating moderate effectiveness. These results suggest a strong consensus among experienced practitioners that collaboration plays a critical role in conflict mitigation. The concentration of high scores implies that collaborative approaches are not only valued in theory but are also seen as effective in practice, likely based on direct experience with project implementation and stakeholder engagement.

The open-ended responses regarding key factors for successful collaboration were analyzed using a thematic synthesis approach. Eight recurring themes were identified across the responses, each reflecting a distinct but interrelated aspect of effective collaboration in infrastructure projects. These themes are summarized and presented in

Table 2. Synthesized themes of key success factors for collaboration in construction projects.

Theme Code	Theme Name	Synthesized Summary (English)
T1	Trust and Respect	Building trust between parties, mutual respect, and avoiding blame culture.
T2	Clear and Open Communication	Frequent, clear, and open communication; sharing information honestly.
T3	Competence and Experience	Technical knowledge, industry experience, and professional skills are vital.
T4	Common Goals and Understanding	Aligning on goals and expectations; shared understanding of project purpose.
T5	Defined Roles and Structure	Defined roles, responsibilities, and structured frameworks for interaction.
T6	Collaborative Attitude	Openness to collaboration, willingness to listen, and constructive mindset.
T7	Strong Leadership	Active and competent leadership that supports dialogue and early problem-solving.
T8	Early Involvement	Involving key actors early in planning to build alignment and reduce friction later.

.

As shown in Table 2, the responses were grouped into eight main themes based on recurring ideas and terminology. Each theme is assigned a theme code (T1 to T8) for reference and comparison. The Theme Name column provides a descriptive label for each category, while the Synthesized Summary offers a concise explanation of what the respondents emphasized under each theme.

The most frequently mentioned success factors include trust and mutual respect (T1), clear and open communication (T2), and competence and experience (T3). These reflect the interpersonal and professional foundations of effective collaboration. Other respondents highlighted the need for common goals and shared understanding (T4), as well as clearly defined roles and structures (T5) to avoid ambiguity in project execution. In addition, a number of responses stressed the importance of a collaborative mindset (T6), strong leadership (T7) to guide the process, and early involvement of key stakeholders (T8) to establish alignment from the outset. Overall, the thematic structure reveals that collaboration is perceived not only as a technical process but as a relational and behavioral approach requiring commitment, clarity, and active engagement from all parties involved.

5. Discussion

This part explains the results within the framework of the existing literature and addresses their general implications for theory and practice. The research investigated whether and how partnering contracts can decrease conflict in Norwegian construction projects. Although most interviewees recognized the potential of partnering to resist conflict, their experiences also uncovered a variety of challenges and contradictions. This discourse explores these challenges within five general categories.

5.1. Interpretation of Findings in Light of Existing Literature

The findings of this study confirm much of what has been suggested in prior research: that conflict in construction projects often stems from adversarial attitudes, low trust, rigid procurement practices, and fragmented communication [14,17]. These are rooted deeply in the design of traditional contracts, which prefer individual responsibility and risk transfer to collective problem-solving.

Collaboration has been extensively marketed as a remedy for these problems [18,57]. In line with this, the interviews in this study confirmed that when partnering is well implemented, characterized by early involvement, shared goals, open communication, and aligned incentives, it can lead to reduced conflict, greater trust, and a more collaborative project environment. While this study focuses specifically on the Norwegian construction sector, these principles of collaboration reflect broader dynamics relevant to society at large, market economies, and public procurement systems in general. Future research could explore how these collaborative mechanisms function and face challenges across different contexts beyond construction projects.

But the study also highlights that the contractual framework alone is insufficient. Partnering only reduces conflict when it is supported by a facilitative project culture, effective leadership, and mutual understanding. This reinforces the wider argument in the literature that collaboration needs to be managed actively, not presumed to occur automatically as a result of a specific contract type [26,30].

5.2. Explaining Contradictions: Why Partnering Can Also Increase Conflict

One of the more surprising results was that partnering contracts can also create new types of conflict when the conditions for cooperation are not met. This resonates with concerns raised in the literature, primarily by researchers, about the risk that shallow implementation of partnering models (what some interviewees referred to as “partnering in name only”) can result in confusion, mismatched expectations, and even heightened frustration [14,18]. These concerns often reflect findings from earlier empirical studies, in which practitioners similarly reported frustration when the collaborative model was not fully or sincerely applied.

This contradiction can be explained by the gap between formal and informal collaboration. Although partnering contracts formally prescribe cooperation, several participants emphasized that this does not guarantee individuals or organizations are actually prepared to collaborate in practice. They described situations where partnering frameworks were introduced without adequate training, trust-building efforts, or clarity of roles, conditions that often led to misunderstandings, misaligned expectations, and disappointment.

Another cause of conflict stems from role ambiguity and asymmetry of power. Collaborative partnering takes for granted that all parties can contribute on an equal basis and operate openly, but actually, some parties (e.g., consultants or contractors) might perceive that clients always have unilateral power over choices. If these tensions are not resolved, they might culminate in latent conflict, which will recur later in implementation.

This is consistent with more general criticisms of collaborative contracting: although these models minimize formal conflict, they can suppress underlying conflict unless care is taken to create an authentic collaborative culture [58]. The evidence from this research does not support a blanket assumption that partnering will always reduce conflict. Rather, interviewees emphasized that partnering tends to be more successful when it is meaningfully introduced and consistently implemented, with clear roles, shared understanding, and mutual commitment. While a majority of participants (approximately two-thirds) expressed that partnering had the potential to reduce conflict under the right conditions, others raised concerns about superficial application and persistent power imbalances. Therefore, the findings suggest that the effectiveness of partnering is highly contingent on context and execution.

To synthesize these insights and situate them within a broader theoretical perspective, a conceptual framework was developed to illustrate the conditions and dynamics that influence the conflict-mitigating potential of partnering models. This demonstrates the conditional relationship between partnering contracts and conflict resolution outcomes on construction sites. It tracks the essential mediating factors identified in the interviews, such as trust, early engagement, and role clarity, and links them to established theoretical frameworks. The model also captures the way in which the absence of these conditions can lead to more conflict and contains a learning/adaptation feedback loop to represent learning and adaptation over time. The full framework is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework: Conditions influencing the conflict-reducing effects of partnering contracts.

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework: Conditions influencing the conflict-reducing effects of partnering contracts.

Figure 2 displays the conceptual framework built from empirical results of this research, supported by well-known theoretical models. Central to the framework is the introduction of a partnering contract, commonly taken to minimize conflict by virtue of its collaborative form. Yet the framework points out that the effect of partnering will be contingent upon whether key preconditions exist. Among the most important are mutual trust and common objectives (as highlighted under relational contracting theory), early contractor and consultant engagement (collaborative planning texts), and specified roles with convergent incentives (governance and project delivery theory).

Once these prerequisites are in place, partnering facilitates a robust collaborative culture and enhances stakeholder capability, ultimately contributing to less conflict and improved project performance. This route illustrates the positive potential of partnering but also its dependence on mindful application and cultural readiness.

Conversely, when such conditions are absent, partnering may lead to misaligned expectations, role ambiguity, and superficial collaboration. These risks, commonly described as implementation gaps, can result in escalating tension and conflict, as explained in conflict escalation theory [59]. In this pathway, what begins as a collaboration initiative may end in greater dysfunction, particularly if the partnering model is adopted as a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive process.

Notably, the model does include a learning cycle based on organizational learning theory [60] to recognize that conflict or failure of a project can still generate useful lessons. If organizations apply reflective learning, they can reinstate and refine their partnering practice in subsequent projects. If not, the cycle ends with little knowledge transfer, and the systemic causes of conflict may persist.

By integrating empirical data with theory, this framework not only explains the varied outcomes of partnering in practice but also offers a structured lens for project stakeholders to assess, plan, and improve their collaboration strategies in future projects.

5.3. The Role of Early Involvement, Trust, and Shared Goals

Throughout the interviews, early involvement, trust, and common objectives persisted as essential enablers to effective partnering throughout. This research finding is extremely well-supported by existing research literature. For example, several studies highlight the importance of early contractor involvement in improving constructability, defining scope, and aligning stakeholder interests [25,61].

Trust, meanwhile, is seen in both literature and this study as the foundation of collaboration. It enables open communication, early problem-solving, and risk sharing. Without trust, even the most well-structured partnering agreements can become dysfunctional. This is consistent with other research studies, which found that trust must be continuously nurtured through joint activities, transparency, and fair treatment [26,61].

Common objectives, in terms of defined KPIs, success indicators, or mutually shared project values, provide alignment against which everyone can reference. When people all agree on a definition of “success,” then they will also be more cooperative and less contentious or blaming in their interactions.

5.4. Comparison with Similar Studies Internationally

Globally, the same trends have been observed in nations that have practiced partnering and relational contracting. In the UK, for instance, partnering was universally encouraged after the Egan Report [62], but outcomes have been variable, with some studies finding that anticipated benefits were not always delivered because of cultural opposition and incompetence [14].

In Sweden and Finland, collaboration has been applied more discriminately, with significant backing from public clients and formalized structures. In these environments, studies also highlight the need for policy coherence and organizational maturity [30,63].

Australian and Dutch studies, especially in infrastructure, highlight the success of models like Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) and Alliance Contracting, again stressing that success depends on context, culture, and leadership rather than on the model alone [20,58].

In contrast to global examples, the Norwegian situation faces similar challenges but appears less advanced in terms of institutional support. Several interviewees highlighted a lack of clear guidance and training in partnering within Norway, along with confusion among public clients about managing relational contracts. This underscores the need for stronger institutional support and capacity development to enable broader and more effective adoption of partnering. Emphasizing this theme earlier and more centrally could provide valuable focus, and a deeper analysis through a specifically Norwegian lens, compared with other countries, would enrich understanding and strengthen the study’s contributions.

5.5. Practical Implications for Project Stakeholders

The conclusions of this research have a number of practical implications for stakeholders of a project:

• For Clients: The mere choice of a partnering model is not enough. Clients need to invest in facilitation, training, and relationship management. They also need to be willing to share control and permit contractors and consultants to meaningfully contribute from the beginning.
• For Contractors: Partnering provides an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the design process and eventually lower risk, but it necessitates a change in attitude from defensive contracting to open collaboration. Contractors need to acquire skills in communication, negotiation, and building trust.
• For Consultants: Design professionals have an important role to play in bridging clients and contractors. Their skill in promoting mutual understanding and linking technical choice with collaborative aims is central to effective partnering.
• For Legal Advisors and Facilitators: Neutral facilitators are needed who can lead teams through the partnering process, particularly in the initial stages. This involves assisting in setting common objectives, defining roles, and creating psychological safety.
• For Policymakers: Institutionalization of partnering in the public sector requires public-sector support. This can involve national guidelines, templates, training schemes, and public client incentives to utilize collaborative models.

Lastly, the research highlights the importance of a cultural shift within the construction sector. Effective collaboration appears to rely on norms such as openness, respect, and mutual success, values emphasized both in participant reflections and existing literature. While this perspective reflects the researchers’ interpretive stance, it is grounded in observed challenges related to mistrust and adversarial attitudes that can hinder partnering efforts.

5.6. Discussion of Survey Findings

The survey results indicate that collaboration is widely perceived as an effective approach to reducing conflict and enhancing cooperation in infrastructure projects. As shown in Figure 1, the majority of respondents rated the effectiveness of collaboration highly, with nearly 75% selecting scores of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. This strong endorsement suggests that collaborative methods are not only theoretically appealing but also grounded in the practical experiences of project professionals across both public and private sectors. The low number of respondents who rated collaboration as ineffective further reinforces this view and may reflect growing maturity in the use of collaborative practices within the Norwegian construction industry.

While the quantitative data offers a clear indication of support for collaboration, the open-ended responses provide deeper insight into why collaboration is seen as effective. These responses, synthesized and categorized in Table 2, reveal a multifaceted understanding of successful collaboration. Trust and mutual respect (T1), clear communication (T2), and professional competence (T3) were the most frequently emphasized factors, highlighting the importance of both relational and technical foundations. In addition, respondents underlined the importance of aligning goals (T4), defining roles and responsibilities (T5), and fostering a collaborative attitude (T6). The emphasis on strong leadership (T7) and early involvement (T8) points to the role of project structure and timing in shaping collaborative outcomes.

Together, Figure 1 and Table 2 present a consistent narrative: collaboration is viewed as an essential strategy for conflict mitigation, but its success depends on a combination of interpersonal dynamics, structural clarity, and early, inclusive engagement. These findings are in line with previous research suggesting that trust, communication, and competence are critical enablers of successful collaboration in construction projects. They also underline the need for project frameworks that support transparent interaction and shared responsibility among stakeholders from the outset.

6. Conclusions

This research aimed to investigate whether and why partnering contracts are successful in reducing conflict in the Norwegian construction sector. By means of qualitative interviews with 21 professionals from various stakeholder positions, including project owners, contractors, consultants, and lawyers, and a complementary structured survey of 33 industry participants, the research has gained insights into how partnering is practiced in reality. Although these partnering contracts are usually promoted as a means to enhance cooperation and diminish disputes, the findings of the study confirm that their use is strongly contingent upon context.

Perhaps the most recurring message among participants was that conflict on construction sites is seldom due to purely technical issues. Rather, the underlying causes tend to be adversarial culture, fragmented communication, and conflicting expectations. Conventional procurement strategies, which focused on price competition and risk transfer were routinely viewed as reinforcing these trends. By contrast, partnering was widely viewed as a hopeful alternative, having the potential for early engagement, trust, and collaborative problem-solving, if the correct conditions are set.

The findings can be distilled into five themes. Firstly, conflict arises due to issues at the system level such as non-early involvement, mis-matched expectations, and inadequate communication. Secondly, partnering can prevent these conflicts by promoting openness, transparency, and collaboration. Third, the model is not risk-free, if used superficially or unsupported, partnering can indeed increase confusion and dissatisfaction. Fourth, partnering success relies on certain preconditions, including early involvement of key players, well-defined roles, aligned incentives, and ongoing facilitation. Lastly, partnering effectiveness relies more on the competence and culture of the project participants than on the contractual form itself.

These results add to theoretical and practical knowledge in a number of ways. Theoretically, the research supports the emerging consensus in the literature that collaborative construction outcomes cannot be produced by contract design alone. While partnering contracts bring benefits such as useful structures and incentives, they need to be complemented by behavioral and relational mechanisms. This work contributes to existing scholarship that calls for the consideration of trust, shared objectives, and organizational culture as mediating elements in determining the success of a project.

On a pragmatic note, this work provides instruction to stakeholders on how to carry out or enhance partnering approaches. For the clients, these results emphasize making investment in upfront involvement, in-house coalescence, and facilitation. For consultants and contractors, the research emphasizes the need to craft soft skills surrounding communication and relationship management. Legal advisors and industry facilitators are also instrumental in steering the process and maintaining clarity and equity during the project. Notably, the research recommends that partnering success is not merely a matter of adopting a new form of contract, but about establishing and sustaining a collaborative environment over time.

One of the main conclusions of this research is that contract takes second place to culture. Partnering is not a magic solution; it is a relationship-based system that needs commitment, patience, and skills. Organizations that view partnering as a procedural or symbolic activity will not obtain the desired advantages. Rather, successful partnering involves a paradigm shift, from transactional to relational thinking, and the courage to establish trust prior to the occurrence of problems.

Like all research, this study has its limitations. First, it is based on a relatively small sample of professionals working primarily in Norway, and the findings may not be generalizable to all contexts or countries. Second, the data is based on self-reported experiences, which may be influenced by recall bias or subjective interpretation. Third, while the study provides rich qualitative insights, it does not include direct observation of project dynamics or quantitative performance data.

Subsequent studies could overcome these weaknesses by using longitudinal studies that trace partnering projects across time and against conventional delivery mechanisms. Additional exploration of the functions of facilitators, leadership practices, and teamwork in partnering projects may also prove insightful. Comparative studies between different national contexts could determine which institutional arrangements facilitate relational contracting most effectively. And lastly, research is needed to investigate the ways in which digital tools and technologies could help to support or subvert partnering initiatives.

This study contributes original insights into the complex role of partnering contracts in reducing conflict within the Norwegian construction sector by emphasizing that their success is highly context-dependent and intertwined with relational and cultural factors. While providing a nuanced understanding grounded in qualitative data from diverse professionals, the research acknowledges limitations such as the modest sample size, geographic focus, and reliance on self-reported experiences, which may affect generalizability. The findings reinforce existing theory that contract mechanisms alone are insufficient without trust, shared goals, and active collaboration. Future research should extend this work by employing longitudinal designs, comparative cross-national analyses, and exploring the impact of leadership, facilitation, and emerging digital tools to deepen understanding and provide practical guidance in fostering effective partnering.