Respondents were asked to rate their alliance on a number of project outcomes:
■ Time
■ Cost
■ quality of work
■ functionality
■ safety
■ environment
■ community
■ other stakeholders
■ team dynamics
■ KRA achievement
■ flexibility of approach.
A five-point scale was implemented using alliancing terminology (5-game breaking, 4-above requirements, 3-met requirements, 2-below requirements, 1-poor).
Responses have been grouped into the following categories:
■ owner responses
■ NOP responses.
Graphical representations of the results are provided in Figures 5-8.
Observations on the perceived performance of the alliances include:
■ typically the NOPs tended to have a higher perceived degree of success on most items surveyed than their owner counterparts
■ only 2.7 percent of NOPs believed their alliance did not meet the requirements (aggregated), compared with 4.5 percent of owners
■ NOPs were significantly more positive about time and cost outcomes than owners
- time: 72.3 percent vs 45.7 percent rated their alliance above or game-breaking
- cost: 74.4 percent vs 54.3 percent rated their alliance above or game-breaking.