Content uploaded by Thayaparan Gajendran
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thayaparan Gajendran on Dec 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Gajendran, T. and G. Brewer (2012). "Collaboration in public sector projects: unearthing the
contextual challenges posed in project environments." Engineering Project Organization
Journal 2(3): 112-126.
2
COLLABORATION IN PUBLIC SECTOR PROJECTS: UNEARTHING THE
CONTEXTUAL CHALLENGES POSED IN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTS
Thayaparan Gajendran
Graham Brewer
ABSTRACT
Collaboration is seen as an essential business trait in the construction industry for effective project
delivery. Collaboration occurs in two stages: stage one is the development of a collective identity
engaged through discursive practices, followed by stage two, where the collective identity translates
the conversations into synergistic action. The antecedent dimensions that foster collaboration are:
shared direction, collective action, competence of the members, power distribution and equality, and
trust and communication. The research methodology employed ethnographic interviews within a single
case study of a healthcare facility construction project. The findings of the case study suggest that
contextual issues arising from the public project setup had profound negative impact on collaboration;
specifically the development of a collective identity and discursive practices. It was identified that the
approach to service provider selection, hierarchical governance mechanisms and the political landscape
influenced by the disposition of the client, contributed to: inadequate fees, unreasonable expectations,
bureaucratic processes, concentrated power structure and strictly controlled communication.
Collectively, this led to a negative impact on the dimensions of collaboration. The findings can assist
project team members, specifically the clients, to proactively recognise how the context specific
dispositions of team members are influenced by specific governance mechanisms and political
landscapes, impacting on the extent of collaboration.
Key words: collaboration, information technology, project governance, formality, and informality
INTRODUCTION
Collaboration is believed to have the potential to produce great results, but not all collaboration
initiatives realize this potential. In the last decade or more the construction industry has been under
significant pressure to adopt initiatives that foster collaborative practices. The nature of collaboration is
a form of interaction between collective groups of people with the intention of delivering a beneficial
outcome. In essence “[c]ollaboration involves individual participants working in [multi disciplinary/
inter disciplinary] teams while representing the interest” (Hardy et al. 2005, p 59) of the organisation
they represent. Collaboration is also distinguished along the inter-organisation and intra-organisational
contexts. The latter form of organisation poses a social dilemma where “parties choose between the
non-cooperative strategy of pursuing their own interests and the cooperative strategy of pursuing the
collective interests” (Leufkens and Noorderhaven, 2011 p 432).
The extent of genuine collaboration between the members of a project team, in a given situation, is
shaped by the evolving nature of relationships influenced by the beliefs held by the members (Schein
2004; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a) and the cultural environment (Martin 2002). Moreover, the project
environments within which team members operate, also impact on effective collaboration. That is
3
whether the project team choose to collaborate or compete can be contextualised through the
nature/complexity of project (Eriksson, 2008), the types of mechanisms used to govern the
relationships (Eriksson and Westerberg 2010; Kadefors, 2011) and the intent of the members to
collaborate (Hardy et al. 2005). A proactive management of relationships between the stakeholders is
key for collaboration (Smyth and Edkins, 2007). Therefore, understanding contextual issues impacting
on collaboration in projects (Lampel, 2001) specifically delivered by multi disciplinary intra-
organisational teams engaging both public and private sectors, is key for making improvements in
project delivery.
Fostering collaboration in loosely united temporary construction project organisations poses significant
challenges. The discontinuing relationships, fragmented processes and litigious attitudes, do not
provide an environment conducive for developing the right ingredients, such as trust and
interdependencies, for collaboration among project team members. In addition, the bureaucratic nature
of public organisations poses significant challenges to effective delivery of public sector projects.
Notwithstanding government initiatives to reducing bureaucracy through creating learner and flexible
public organisations (Arnaboldi et al. 2004), the probity issues faced by the public sector organisations
(Queensland Government, 2006), will not allow flexibility to the extent of private sector organisations
(Domberger et al. 1997; Parker and Gould, 1999).
The aim of this paper is to identify the contextual issues that impact on collaboration in a public sector
project. This paper initially constructs a conceptual position on collaboration which is then used to
analyse a public sector health care project to identify the issues influencing collaboration. The
conceptual position is arrived at through the discourse of ‘integration’ and ‘formal/informal’
perspectives. Moreover, the dimensions of collaboration identified through the literature, namely
shared directions, collective actions, competence of the members, power distribution, trust and
communication, are layered into the conceptual position. The research methodology is underpinned by
constructivist philosophy assuming multiple realties of the world. Ethnographic interviews were
conducted to make data in the context of a single case study. This paper concludes by identifying
contextual challenges faced in fostering collaboration in public sector projects that enable proactive
management of contextual issues impacting upon collaboration.
COLLABORATION IN CONTEXT
Collaboration as ‘integration’
The concept of collaboration is conceptualised through different contexts including project team (Phua
2004; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000b), supply chain (Akintoye et al. 2000), ICT/online engagement
(Alshawi and Ingirige, 2003; Nikas et al. 2007) and knowledge management/learning (Söderlund,
2010; Pemsel and Widén, 2011). Moreover, in the literature, collaboration is synonymous with terms
such as integration (Baiden et al. 2006), partnering/alliancing (Bresnen, 2009; Chan et al. 2003;
Kadefors, 2011), and teamwork (Baiden and Price, 2010).
Baiden and Price (2011) suggest that project team integration occurs where multiple disciplines or
organisations with different goals and cultures “merge into a single cohesive and mutually supporting
unit … with collaborative alignment” (p 129). Martinsuo and Ahola (2010) suggest that integration is a
form of collaboration and control between the project team members. They argue that existing
4
literature does not adequately discuss the interplay between certain contextual contexts and different
integration mechanisms leading to different collaborative outcomes.
The integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) is also argued to foster
collaboration (Fawcett et al. 2008) in the construction industry (Chan et al. 2003). ICT tools have
contributed in addressing some of the information fragmentation issues impacting collaboration
(Alshawi and Ingirige, 2003; Ruikar et al. 2003; Hannus et al. 1999). In the last few decades the
progressive use of ICT in the construction industry has evolved from ‘inter-organisational information
automation’ to ‘supply chain-wide (intra-organisational) information management’ (Fujitsu-Centre,
1998). Arguably this also contributed to the enhanced collaboration in construction project supply
chains (Stewart, 2007). Nevertheless the goal of improving levels of ‘integration’ through the use of
ICT tools remains elusive (Brewer and Gajendran, 2011).
Some form of shared understanding and shared capabilities between project team members is seen as
essential for achieving collaboration (Gajendran and Brewer, 2007). Despite the prospect of enhanced
efficiencies, through some shared alignment, any form of total integration in construction projects is
questioned (Baiden and Price, 2010; Briscoe and Dainty, 2005). The contextual issues surrounding a
particular project setup, and the project governance mechanisms, profoundly impact the extent to
which collaboration is enabled (Peansupap and Walker, 2006; Jacobsson and Linderoth, 2010).
Collaboration through formalisation vs. informalisation
Holt et al. (2000) suggest that collaboration can be paradoxical in nature. While the intention of
collaborative relationships is to deal with complexity, effective collaboration will be least recognisable
when it occurs through team members’ genuine interactions. Often project arrangements stress the
importance of formal configurations of control oriented mechanisms for ‘engineering’ collaboration for
creating different types of relationships, or collaborative behaviour, between team members (Martinsuo
and Ahola, 2010). This approach may hinder genuine collaboration (Holt et al. 2000) as it undermines
the role of social dynamics and informalities on the development of relationships between team
members (Bresnen and Marshall, 2002).
Hardy et al. (2005) suggest collaboration is a cooperative relationship “in which participants rely on
neither market nor hierarchical mechanisms of control to gain cooperation from each other” (p 58).
‘Hierarchical’ or ‘Market’ form of governance is distinguished along the dimensions of authority,
ownership, and incentives (Makadok and Coff, 2009). They concur with Holt et al. (2000) and Bresnen
and Marshall (2002) in suggesting that sole dependence on governance based control cannot secure
true cooperation among team members. Caglio and Ditillo (2008) claim that in highly uncertain
transactions, risky environments and symmetrical partnerships, formal market and hierarchy based
controls are not sufficient and that additionally, informal and collaborative forms of integration (see
also Kapsali, 2011) – including trust and decentralized cooperation – are needed.
However it is imperative that all forms of collaboration occur within the broad context of both markets
and hierarchies (Bresnen and Marshall, 2002; Makadok and Coff, 2009) while some combinations of
these mechanisms can provide a more amenable contextual environment for collaboration. Therefore,
the role of different forms of formal governance mechanisms influencing effective collaboration, may
not necessarily be clear-cut. In this light, simply equating the one form of governance or other to
5
fostering collaborative or non-collaborative practices, needs to be treated with caution (Hardy et al.
2005).
DIMENSIONS OF COLLABORATION
D’Amour et al. (2005) suggest “[C]ollaboration conveys the idea of sharing and implies collective
action oriented toward a common goal, in spite of harmony and trust…” (p 116). They view that
effective collaboration depends on ongoing negotiations and the emergent relationships between the
team members through the life of the collaboration and is closely associated to sharing, partnership,
interdependency and power. A model proposed by Hardy et al. (2005) suggests the process of effective
collaboration results from two stages. This model is constructed based on conversations, including
face-to-face dialogue and other forms of discursive practices, including hard copy and digital
communication. The first stage seeks to establish a discursively constructed collective identity. The
second stage is about how the collective identity translates conversations into synergistic action and
innovation.
In the process of understanding collaboration, it is essential that the dimensions nurturing a collective
identity and synergetic action underpinning collaboration, be deconstructed. Deconstructing
collaboration is critical to robust analysis of the impact of contextual issues in the project environment
and extent of collaboration between project team members. From a construction industry perspective,
constructs including partnering, supply chain integration, project team integration knowledge
management/learning and ICT mediated communication entail collaborative working relationships
between parties (Alderman and Ivory, 2007; Chan et al. 2003). Literature identifies shared direction
(D’Amour et al. 2005; Bresnen, 2007), collective action (Doloi, 2009; Fong and Lung, 2007),
competency (D’Amour et al. 2005; Dainty et al. 2004), trust (Lau and Rowlinson, 2009; Chan et al.
2003) and power distribution (Briscoe et al.) 2001and communication (Doloi, 2009; Chan et al. 2003)
as critical dimensions of collaboration.
Shared direction
To achieve collaboration members of a team need to consciously or unconsciously acknowledge inter
dependencies with other members. The understanding of the interdependency between the team
members (Söderlund, 2010) reinforces shared direction and enables the team to craft shared values and
a desire to deliver synergies. When two actors collaborate over an extended period of time, the
relationship!and! interdependencies between them become increasingly institutionalized. This leads to
the development of shared routines and practices that enable the team members to collaborate more
effectively.
Members sharing similar values can lead to integration (Schein, 2004; Martin, 2002) fostering a
cultural environment conducive for collaboration (Bresnen, 2007). Developing a shared direction also
requires commitment from the team members and the organisations they represent (Muller & Turner,
2007; Eisenhardt, 1989; Akintoye et al. 2000). This makes the agents, generally the roles held by
project manager, project architect, project engineer etc., an important and crucial link between the
organisation and the project. The organisations and their agents need to establish and pursue shared
goals and develop a common desire to deliver synergies (Walker & Newcombe, 2000; Winch, 1989),
and collectively, this enables pursuit of common goals. However significant challenges are posed by
the structure and nature of the construction industry establishing shared direction among the project
team members.
6
Söderlund (2010), Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) and Turner and Muller (2003), argue that the
temporary and fragmented nature of project organisations, often with a large number of new team
members who enter the project at different point in time, pose significant challenges to the
interdependencies. The uniqueness of each project situation typically requires “a new role structure and
new interdependencies, which tend to upset standard operating procedures and conventional routines
… Inherent in many of these organisational processes are the problems of combining diverse
capabilities and interdependent work toward a common goal” (p 134). Nordin et al. (2011) argue that
as partners remain as separate firms, their interests and actions do not automatically converge in
collaborative arrangements and that there is some risk that partners may then act opportunistically.
Although both public and private projects will face similar challenges in establishing a shared direction,
public sector projects with multiple client agencies/representatives subjected to bureaucratic structure,
can pose elevated challenges.
Ruuska and Teigland (2009) suggest that to overcome the issues of conflict due to differing goals,
resource scarcity, and interdependence of tasks, the project team should (a) co-develop a clear project
charter (b) employ a project leader with strong brokering skills, (c) use boundary objects for joint
problem solving, and (d) make the team aware and constantly reminded about the ‘big picture’ through
open and balanced communication.
Collective action
Collective action is interconnected to shared direction and is underpinned by the team members’
commitment to perform their shared responsibilities in a genuine manner (Bresnen, 2007) to achieve
the shared goal. The ‘blame culture’ and passing of responsibilities unduly to other members are not
favourable attributes of collaboration (Rooke et al. 2004). Non-autonomous behaviour embracing
collective planning, intervention and decision-making, is critical for collaboration (D’Amour et al.
2005; Cheng and Li, 2001). Although governance mechanisms formalise team members’ roles,
responsibilities and decision-making processes, fostering genuine commitment among the team
members cannot be easily formalised. Kapsali (2011) argues that flexibility in planning,
communicating and controlling, is critical for any form of innovation and refutes previous theory that
claims formalising is the way to manage complexity and uncertainty.
Collective action can be thwarted by the boundaries created by the fragmented nature of project
organisations (Moore and Dainty, 2001). Pemsel and Widén (2011) argue, that when boundaries
distinguishing internal operations from external activities and controlling flows of information become
too rigid or too loose, they become problematic. Public sector projects could be inclined to create rigid
boundaries, arising from probity/accountability measures and bureaucratic structure, which are
detrimental to collective action.
Ratcheva (2009) indicates that for effective integration of multi disciplinary competencies, the project
team members are required to actively involve in collaboration through boundary spanning roles.
However Holt et al. (2000) argue that knowledge heterogeneity coupled with geographically dispersed
team members, could hinder effective collaboration and sharing of a team’s knowledge and
competencies. They identified three project boundaries namely, project action boundary, project
knowledge boundary and project social boundary, as impacting on collaboration. Moreover,
7
collaboration may be hindered by ‘psychological barriers’ among the team members, “stemming from
the fear that the one may out-learn or de-skill the other” (Holt et al. 2000, p 416).
Competence of the members
Collaboration is highly dependent on the competency of each team member (Dainty et al. 2004).
Collaboration stalls when a team member or members perceive that the other team member or
members are not capable of delivering outcomes. Pemsel and Widén (2011) suggest that when
fostering collaboration for productive knowledge exchange, it is necessary to understand client needs
and to ensure the availability of sufficient competence within and to provide time for the project team
to perform its duties. Lampel (2001) argues that out of four distinct groups of core competencies,
namely entrepreneurial, technical, evaluative, and relational, that the literature on collaboration often
ignores the relational idiosyncrasies of different contexts within which project teams operate.
Power distribution and equality
Distribution of power, and perceptions of equality and fairness among the team members, is a crucial
dimension of collaboration (Briscoe et al. 2001; Kadefors 2005; Akintoye and Main, 2007). True
collaboration materialises when power is embedded within the context of relationships, knowledge and
skills, rather than functions or titles (Hartmann and Caerteling, 2010). Symmetry in the team members’
power positions enables the stimulation of empowerment that fosters effective collaboration (D’Amour
et al. 2005; Liu and Fang, 2006; Cox and Ireland, 2002). On the whole, sharing of risk and associated
reward, also impact on collaboration (Anvuur and Kumaraswamy, 2007; Aibinu et al. 2011).
Trust
Trust is frequently mentioned in literature as a critical dimension of collaboration (Khalfan et al. 2007;
Uden and Naarnoja, 2007). Trust is built through confident collegial, authentic and constructive
relationships, via honest interactions. Potentially, trust can develop mutual respect among members,
however establishing trust in inter-organisational projects is difficult (Maurer, 2010). The expectations
and predictions of the team members’ good intent and subsequent behaviour underpinning trust, makes
it difficult to foster trust in project settings where partners often lack prior collaboration experience.
The discontinuing nature of inter-organisational project organisations creates high levels of conflict
and suspicion among members. In addition, they have limited time and regularly suffer from time
pressure throughout the time span of the project (Nordqvist et al. 2004).
Trust provides a multitude of benefits to collaboration partners that stem from direct or moderating
effects on a variety of desired performance or behavioural outcomes (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). Prior
research has shown that the antecedent factors of trust may refer to individual factors, such as the
agreeableness of partners (Mooradian et al. 2006), contextual factors, such as contractual agreements
(Kadefors, 2004) or relational factors, such as common interests, a shared vision and ideas of
collaborative sharing.
Communication
Communication is an overarching aspect that has a bearing on all the above-mentioned dimensions (see
also Loosemore and Muslman, 1999; Hoogervorst et al. 2004; Doloi, 2009). Communication is critical
for developing a shared direction and forging collective actions. It enables evaluation of the level of
competences and thereby builds confidence (or lack of confidence) in a team. Communication is
critical in understanding and conveying power distribution and equality perceptions and lies at the core
of developing trust and respect.
8
A conceptual position
It is proposed that contextual issues surrounding a particular project setup impacts the extent to which
collaboration is enabled. Moreover, extent of collaboration is influenced by both formal and informal
(governance) contexts within which the project operates. The genuine collaboration is fostered by team
members’ willingness and ability to develop a shared direction and operate collectively through
exercising specific competencies. Fostering effective communication practices to engender trust and
cultivate power based on equality/fairness are essential for genuine collaboration.
RESEARCH METHOD
Collaboration is a complex and paradoxical phenomenon shaped by both formality and informality.
Most paradoxical phenomenon entrenched in social practices are best approached by qualitative post-
positivist approaches (Gajendran et al. 2011). Collaboration studies can be conceptualised through a
cultural lens by which a team’s (non)-collaborative behaviour can be explained, using the underlying
beliefs held by the team members (Gajendran et al. 2012). This is also closely akin to the discourse
perspective on collaboration taken by Hardy et al. (2005). Research has used an exploratory approach
underpinned by a constructivism paradigm that acknowledges multiple realties of the world. This
paradigm approach accommodates consideration of different stakeholder’s realties, facilitating
meaningful interpretation of their beliefs and assumptions on collaboration.
In conjunction with the constructive paradigm the research method used a single case study strategy
contextualised in ethnography. A single case study design aims to develop deep understanding of
contextual issues surrounding a case, or phenomenon, enabling critical reflection on context specific
findings and to make context specific generalisations (Yin 2009; Stake 2005). The choice of single
case study design in the context of this paper is supported by Stake’s (1995, 2005) ‘instrumental’ case
design. The aim of the ‘instrumental’ approach is to develop a general understanding of a particular
phenomenon (e.g. collaboration) through the chosen case study.
The selected case study was a complex expansion of a health care facility for a public Area Health
Service client, secured through construct only procurement. This project was one of the numerous,
hospital expansion projects in the region managed by a Project Management firm (also in charge of
design and contract management) appointed by competitive tendering by the State Government
Agencies in Australia. This project was subject to a considerable level of technical and organisational
complexity. The technical complexity arose due to: (a) construction occurring while the main hospital
was operating; issues associated to managing traffic, parking, noise and pollution levels (b) extensive
integration of specialised (health related) mechanical and electrical services within the new and
existing buildings and (c) phasing of the construction of building and associated civil infrastructure in a
constrained site. The organisational complexities were: (a) managing intricate relationships between a
large number of stakeholders and (b) managing information flows through complex organisational
setup. The project organisation structure was a unique one. The design and construction team members
dealt with a complex (or cumbersome) reporting and approval framework making communication
protocols challenging.
9
In usual terms, such a project will be funded by the treasury and managed by the project pubic works
department (liaising with the hospital management/or client associated stakeholders), with assistance
from the state architects department. However in this case, an external firm was appointed, to project
manage the design and construction performed by numerous external firms. The project team
(specifically the Project Manager) is required to coordinate design and construction issues with at least
four stakeholders associated to the hospital (area health agency, doctors/nurses, facilities management
and community groups). Furthermore, they had go through a stringent approval process during the
design/construction stages. The design approvals had to be obtained initially from the independent
certifiers and then followed by numerous public works agencies. Moreover, the client’s focus on
cost/time certainty, risk minimisation on their part and the desire to have some form of control over the
design process, encouraged them to procure this facility through a traditional procurement path. In
addition, the client body wanted the private sector to manage the public sector organisations to deliver
this public facility. In essence, the levels of technical and organisational complexity of this project
require effective collaboration among the team members. The contextual environment surrounding this
project makes it a relevant case study to explore the aim of this paper.
The boundaries of a project team to contextualise collaboration in a construction project were
identified in the case study while in-depth ethnographic interview technique extracted data from the
project team members. The client, consultants (project manager, project architect, project quantity
surveyor and building services consultant), principal contractor and two sub contractors (one trade and
one specialist), as part of the project organisation, were selected to part take in the study. The
interviews with these eight members, each lasting approximately one hour, took place at a time and
location convenient to the participants. All participants chose to be interviewed in the site office or
their head office. Interviews were recorded and transcribed to perform the analysis.
Semi-structured questions, using a mix of convergent and response guided principles (see Thomas,
(2003) and Spradley, (1979), was employed in designing the ethnographic interviews. This particular
qualitative research approach was suitable for extracting the tacit and deep meanings held by the
project team members in relation to collaboration. The interview transcripts were thematically coded
and abstractions were made (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The analysis focused on emerging themes
from the data relating to contextual issues and dimensions of collaboration. Further analysis established
the influence of the contextual issues on the dimension of collaboration.
RESULTS
The analysis identified a number of key themes characterising the contextual issues impacting on
collaboration. They are: (a) team members understanding of ‘collaboration’, (b) bureaucratic
characteristics and political agenda of the client organisation impacting on collaboration, (c) service
provider appointment and project governance contributing to discontentment, (d) project
communication protocols destructing information flows, (e) the beliefs and actions of project team
members leading to a suspicious communication environment, and (f) perceived and/or actual
unrealistic expectations leading to ‘the blame game’.
Understanding of the concept of ‘collaboration’ among members
Some of the project team members believe that true collaboration translates in a totally integrated
design and construction of building. The successful outcome of collaboration is reflected through the
10
ability of a facility to satisfy the needs of the occupiers even after 15-20 years. In this view, result of
true collaboration, can only be tested through time. Team members argue that although real
collaboration has time and cost implications, if achieved, it pays dividends. One symptom of failure of
collaboration is arising conflicts/arguments among team members about uncoordinated (inadequately
integrated) drawings or inadequate information provided to perform their activities, which impacts
upon project progress. All interviewees concurred, that the best way to minimise uncoordination or
unforeseen issues, is to have adequate time to undertake the design.
Bureaucratic and political characteristics of the client organisation
Although the user of the facility under construction is the area health service provider, the client body
was represented by a number of public sector organisations. The client representative was the first
agent between the project team and Area Health (as well as other government agencies who form the
client body) and the second agent representing the client was the ‘project manager’. The client team
was comprised of several government bodies and agencies and was bureaucratic in nature. This caused
notable delays in the decision-making process that impacted on project progress.
The area health provider, being a public sector organisation, is influenced by state and federal political
environment and the project time frame and budget are sensitive to political agendas. Normally, the
requirement for public accountability influences the service provider selection mechanisms. A quote
from the Architect’s interview to support his claim is presented below.
Architect: “…you are aware of the political ramifications of what you are doing and the
deadlines that are imposed by the client for political reasons, election dates, certainly the work has
to be done by a certain period of time. … in this [project] there was pretty much a unilateral
position on their [PM] part for us to do the project and complete everything over a certain period
of time. Very little flexibility.”
Service provider appointment and project governance contributing to discontentment
The client used predominantly hierarchical governance mechanisms in appointing and managing the
service providers. The client appointed both the consultant team and the principal contractor through
competitive tendering process to ensure public accountability. The fixed fee tendering method was
employed to appoint the consultancy consortium. The project manager, who led the bid for the
consortium, formed it through a relationship approach, as the majority of the design team members had
previously worked together on other healthcare projects.
However the fees for consultancy services were low due to competitive tendering. Low fees along with
tight design timeframes negatively impacted on the quality of design documentation. The consultants
and contractors were critical about the allocation of risks by the client, as the rewards did not match the
risks. Moreover, tight competitive fees scales made the consultants operate in a lean and mean manner.
Quantity Surveyor: For some reason [the] clients decided that they would get a better deal if
they had [fixed fee] competitive tendering of consultants. Not understanding that the amount of
money that they save, or the potential amount of money that they save, relative to the total project
cost . . . is not likely to achieve the returns that they are looking for, if they get an uncoordinated
set of drawings.
11
The governance of the design stage and construction stages were distinguished by their power structure
and communication protocols. The project was predominantly governed by the formal contract with
formal rewards and penalty regimes. The layers of formal power positions / power distribution were
clearly established in terms of what each member can do within their power and authority. The project
manager maintained control over the consultants and principal contractor, while the principal
contractor controlled the construction team. The governance approach to this project created a distance
between the consultant and construction team. This distance was motivated by the belief that strict
formal controls and authority structure can minimise the possible opportunistic behaviours by the
construction team.
The project manager demonstrated a significant level of administrative control over the project through
the contractual power vested in him as the agent of the client. However, the governance structure
contributed significant delays in the follow-up of information and communication (discussed below).
Therefore, the governance structure is believed to have unconstructive power distribution resulting in
team members not feeling empowered by the project organisation setup, impacting on the project
performance.
Architect: Sometimes it might take a couple of weeks to [sent] a reply [to enquiries from
contractors]. By that time I could have answered the bloody RFI [by myself] but I can’t answer it
directly. I’ve got to wait for it [RFI] to come from [the PM]. And then it goes to the [PM] and then
from him to the builder. And the decision making process when making small changes on the
drawings, well the drawings have got to be drawn then issued for approval to the project manager
and then it comes back to us and then we’ve got to issue nine copies and it’s got to be upgraded on
the web. You know it can take quite a long time.”
Project communication protocols destructing information flows
The Project Manager (PM) set up a web portal to manage project documentation and communication to
assist collaboration. The portal was only open to consultants and the principal contractor. Except for
regular monthly site meetings, it was difficult for consultants and the construction team to have face-
to-face communication on an on-demand basis due to geographical dispersion of the consultants.
Additionally, the PM had clearly indicated that all communication should be formal and be
communicated via the online portal using established stringent document handling and communication
protocols.
Communication in design stage was both formal and informal in nature. However, all critical
communications between the consultants, were channelled through the project manager. The PM was
not critical of the informal communication during the design stage due to long-term relationships
between the consultants and PM, prior to this project, enabling them to engage with some level of trust.
This relationship led to friendly communication among the consultants. Despite the flexible and
relatively open communication protocols at the design stage, the tight time frame and consultancy fees
have impacted on the quality of the design coordination. The consultants felt online portals, if not
deployed properly, could almost become a distraction and hindrance to facilitate collaboration.
Contrary to the collaborative solidarity in the consultant team, consultants signalled their distance from
the construction team. This distance was partly created by the communication fragmentation between
these two groups. The flow of information during the construction stage was impeded by highly
formalised communication protocols and the use of an online collaboration platform as the primary
12
means of communication. This was motivated by the belief that strict control of information enables
the reduction of uncertainty and opportunistic behaviours in a project by the construction team, so that
time and cost overruns can be minimised. Therefore, during the construction phase, there was very
little room for informal communication processes between the construction team and consultant team.
It appears that not recognising the limitations of online communication in the construction stage of the
project created an ineffective communication environment.
Inadequate resourcing, in particular insufficient number of employees at the project management
organisation to manage the proposed online communication process, is believed to have added to the
woes of an already inefficient protocol. The project management firm, who were the single point of
contact for information between the construction and consultant/client team, faced information
overload due to understaffing.
Principal Contractor: “We do find a little bit of a bottleneck up at [PM] side of things. They
have one project manager looking after it and he basically has to manage all correspondence and
all RFI’s and we do find it a little frustrating from time to time that things can get clogged in their
system to the point where we’ve got to ring and say ... these RFI’s are now [number of] days old,
you haven’t done anything with it. It’s still sitting on your system, can you please do something
with it. Everything works electronically and obviously I find the best way to resolve problems is to
pick the phone up and talk to them.”
Architect: “[RFI] goes to [PM]… because that’s where everything has got to go through and
that’s where the problems start. (Name) is the manager of the project but he’s so busy a lot of the
time that for a couple of days he probably doesn’t look at his e-mail and when he comes back and
looks at it, he’s probably got 30 RFI’s. … that’s probably a staffing problem. They probably need
more staff. But they’ve got costs and fee problems as well….
Team members’ beliefs and actions in relation to project communication leading to suspicions
The consultants felt that the construction team deliberately worded some RFIs with ambiguous
language to buy extensions of time. The client felt that the contractor was passing accountability to
consultants. The subcontractor indicated that the principal contractor was not adequately resourced to
manage the work packages. This volatile environment led to a partially confrontational communication
disposition. Additionally, legal considerations are believed to have influenced the need to use the
online communication portal, rather than the necessity to convey information directly.
Client Representative: “it has got to a stage now that you do not talk on the phone … you do not
enter into face to face communication because it is not documented and you cannot use it as
evidence … of course … therefore a lot of companies mandate that any communication via a
traceable system … that is why it has become so big and so cumbersome so much of pain the
backside … people are focused on covering their legal positions … rather than necessarily getting
on with the job… this is a major [cultural change] and detrimental … now people spend time
wording emails not focused on outcomes of the job but focused on outcome in court if ends up in
court”
The client representative believes that firms used the online communication platform to deviously
transfer accountability to other firms. He believes that the principal contractor shied away from their
responsibility, allowing information-related delays to occur by not following up electronic queries
(including RFI) to consultants using other modes of communication (e.g. phone calls, site meetings).
However, the principal contractor indicated that they followed up on all electronic queries that were
13
not responded to by the project manager within the contractually stipulated time frame. Essentially, the
online communication portal meant different things to different members, but was generally not
regarded as a tool for collaboration. In a sense, communication protocols created additional layers of
physiological boundaries.
Perceived and/or actual unrealistic expectations leading to ‘the blame game’
The client indicated that although their expectations were clearly articulated to the so-called ‘specialist’
health design and construction teams, they failed to deliver the project to expectations. Meanwhile, the
design and construction teams indicated that the client had unrealistic expectations and believed that
they had delivered the best outcomes within the constrained time frame and the fee scale offered by the
client. All of the design and construction firms felt that the rewards did not match the risks associated
with the client’s expectations.
The design team indicated that fee competition could lead to inferior quality design (documentation)
and subsequent serious cost implications in the construction stage. However, the quantity surveyor
indicated that unrealistic expectations are not an unconscious but a conscious part of the business
process, when dealing with clients who use service provider selection methods similar to the one used
in this project. Key decisions relating to a project delivery, such as design time frame and design cost,
are made in the absence of service providers. It is common in such situations for service providers to
agree to unrealistic expectations at the tender stage and deal with the consequences once they get the
project.
Each team member developed an understanding of their scope of work in the project through the
formal contract documents. However they did not have a shared understanding of the goals for the
project. The boundaries created by the absence of informal communication to some extent fragmented
the project organisation. This hindered the development of a common language across the project.
Furthermore, members criticized other members of not delivering quality/desired outcomes. The sub
contractor felt that the main contractor was not doing the job in a competent way.
Sub contractor: “… this is not being derogatory It’s all learn as you go, … [Principal
Contractor] should have a bit more foresight... Somebody who could understand all the facets, I
think it’s a position they don’t actually exist within their organisation. Which would have avoided
a lot of trouble.”
The service providers agreeing to undeliverable expectations/targets, particularly stipulated by the
client, created a situation where their capability and credibility being questioned.
Mapping the impact of project contextual environment on dimensions of collaboration
Figure 1 synthesises the findings of the case study by mapping the five issues arising out of the project
context impacting on collaboration. Each issue is then linked to dimensions of collaboration- by
explaining how positively or negatively the issues impact collaboration.
14
Figure 1: Contextual issues impacting on collaboration
The political setup and accountability measures required in managing public expenditure influenced
the behaviour of the client organisation. The client believed that service provider selection, via
competitive (using fixed price) methods and governance via clear hierarchical authority through
multiple agents, would provide the accountability required to complete this project successfully. In
general, the time taken to design and construct the facility by the client organisation led to political
ramifications at state level.
This client setup raised three issues impacting on collaboration: (a) tight fee structure (b) unrealistic
member expectations, and bureaucratic processes at the interface between the client organisation and
project team. The way the project manager, who is an agent of the client, set up the project governance
also raised two issues impacting collaboration: (a) the rigid power structure and (b) strict formal
communication structure.
The competitive consultant selection approach (characterised by tight fees) and limited design duration
contributed to lower than expected documentation quality. Poor quality documentation led to a flood of
RFIs during the construction stage that further led to some form of construction phase disorder.
Moreover, the perception of improper risk allocation had an impact on the collaborative spirit between
and within, the construction and consultant teams. This fixed fee impacted on the collective actions of
the members. The hierarchical client setup led to a bureaucratic and slow decision-making environment.
The consultants and contractor expressed disappointment and frustration with the client’s decision-
making process which led to delays in the construction process. The bureaucratic process significantly
impacted to the lack of collective action between the client and construction team.
The expectations of project members were not met leading to question the competence of the members.
The client felt their expectations of appointing a specialised hospital design team were not met, while
the consultants felt that the client had unrealistic expectations on what could be delivered, for the fee
and design time frame. The project manager did not meet the potential of the contractor’s expectations
in terms of response time to RFI, while the contractor did not meet the expectations of the subcontracts
on the processes of technical/RFI management. The architects’ expectations of the contractor about the
variation management, were also not met. The mismatch of expectations contributed to lack of shared
direction, collective action and trust/disrespect between the members.
The power structure contributed to the establishment of formal protocols that provided a structured,
rational, approach to problem solving and dealing with critical situations. Consequently, the project
was managed by administrative protocols established by those in positions of power, rather than
steered by empowering someone who is best to respond to the situation. Lack of informal approach to
deal with critical situations or complex problems led to a slow response. This appeared to leave an
15
inspirational vacuum to underpin team-based collaboration and informs us that the formal power
structure impacted on the power distribution and equality.
The prior relationships between the consultants contributed to the ease of communication between
design team consultants. However, they blamed the fee and time constraints imposed by the client for
lack of collaboration and the production of poorly coordinated design drawings. The low quality design
documentation created tensions between the design team and the client and disagreement as to who
should take responsibility for such an outcome. Over-emphasis on the online collaboration platform as
the primary communication mode caused some inefficiencies/bottlenecks in the construction processes.
The client and contractor believed that the project management organisation did not adequately
resource the online communication process; this also contributed to the inefficiencies in the
information flow. The belief that the underlying thrust of communication was actually, to keep records
to deal with any litigation with trading partners, undermined the idea of online communication as the
best medium for collaboration. This created limited online communication engagement among trading
partners and distrust among team members. As a result the communication structure led to disrupted
communication flows negatively impacting on the development of shared project goals. Disrupted
communication flow also created ambiguity and conflicts (e.g. variations) leading to lack of collective
action and developing distrust between members
In essence, the issues surrounding the project setup negatively impacted all five dimensions of
collaboration. Members of the project did not develop shared values and lacked shared direction.
Members operated autonomously without much understanding of common goals. This impacted on
delivering synergies as members were working to complete their scope of work without much
understanding of the other team members. Collective action among the members was minimal and
decision-making in the project process was not collective. Members passed responsibilities to other
members in a ‘blame game’.
Consultancy team members showed a level of respect to each other however, significant levels of
disrespect between the client, consultant, contractor and sub contractor teams were evident. The level
of commitment displayed overall, was less than desirable with members questioning the competence of
other members, in the team. The power distribution was formally articulated and was primarily
concentrated on the Project Manager. There was no evidence of empowerment in the project and
overall, the project was characterised by distrust. The project manager seems to have designed the
entire project control mechanism based on the distrust, that is, with the view of curbing opportunistic
behaviour by any team member (particularly any member from the construction team). Confidence in
collegial and constructive relationship, open communication and mutual respect among the design
team members, was not evident between the client, design and construction teams.
It can be argued that many issues impacting collaboration in the case study arouse (arose)? out of the
manner in which the public accountably (accountability)? mechanisms were implemented and the way
the political landscape shaped the project resourcing. The way the project was initiated and managed
did not provide a platform conducive for either establishing a collective identity, nor engaging in
discursive practices. However, public sector projects that can use alternative service provider selection
and governance mechanisms, could provide the desired level of accountability whilst providing a better
environment for collaboration. Equally, with a project manager empowering other team members and
16
loosening the tightly controlled communication process, this may have also assisted in an improved
level of collaboration.
DISCUSSION
The findings identified a number of contextual issues associated to the project initiation and subsequent
project management impacting on collaboration. The findings that indicate the need for collective
identity and discursive practices to deliver successful projects, strike a cord with the view of Hardy et
al. (2005), on first stage of collaboration. Expressing production of a functional building that is
habitable for significant periods of time in the future as ‘the outcome’ of good collaboration, also
agrees with second stage of collaboration. As a consequence, the results of true collaboration, can only
be tested through time.
This study contributed, as supported by Lampel (2001) and Martinsuo and Ahola (2010), to an
improved understanding of interplay between context-based issues impacting on collaboration. It
reinforces the need for proactive management of relationships between the stakeholders to foster
collaboration, as indicated by Smyth and Edkins (2007). It also concurs with Baiden and Price (2011)
and Briscoe and Dainty (2005), that engineering integration to achieve perfect collaboration, may not
be practical.
The accountability measure and political landscape of the client organisation encouraged competitive
service provider selection processes and hierarchical governance mechanisms. The measures adopted
by the project manager to ensure accountability were tainted by extreme formal governance
mechanisms. This setup led to five issues that negatively impacted on collaboration in this project:
tight consultant fees; unrealistic expectations of the team members; bureaucracy in the client
organisation; the concentrated power structure and; stringent formal communication protocols in the
project organisation. All five factors negatively impacted on the antecedent demission for collaboration.
The complex inter-relationships between the contextual issues, can engender different beliefs among
project team members, that can impact on the extent of collaboration (Schein 2004; Martin 2002;
Bresnen and Marshall 2000a). The findings identify two such beliefs held by the project team members
that impacted on collaboration (a) highly formal governance approach can assist in managing
uncertainty and public probity issues and (b) highly controlled communication via the online systems is
more about litigation than collaboration.
Team members’ beliefs can shape the extent of formalisation or in-formalisation of a project. Findings
suggest that high levels of formality negatively impact on collaboration and are motivated by the belief
that strict control of information enables the reduction of uncertainty and opportunistic behaviours,
leading to better management of time and cost overruns. The formalisation can also be associated with
public sector probity requirements. This is contrary to the view of Caglio and Ditillo (2008), Kapsali
(2001), Holt et al. (2000) and Bresnen and Marshall (2002) who argue that high level formalisation is
not the approach to deal with uncertainty and risky environments.
The findings suggest that highly formal project environment with minimal informality can lead to a
partially confrontational communication disposition. Moreover, belief that legal considerations
underpin the use of the formally embedded online communication portal, rather than the necessity to
convey information first hand, negatively impacted on collaboration. This indicated that fear,
17
associated to legally dominated communication protocols, creates additional layers of physiological
boundaries. This physiological barrier is distinctly different from one suggested by Holt et al. (2000)
where fear was about sharing knowledge with other project participants that could make them loose
their competitive advantage. Moreover the finding reinforces the need for social boundary spanning
roles, as identified by Pemsel and Widén (2011) and Ratcheva (2009), to generate collative identity in
order to foster collaboration.
Although both public and private sector projects can face challenges related to low consultant fees and
tight design time frames impacting on collaboration, the issues associated with government political
agendas and probity issues are unique to public sector projects. Irrespective of the previous
relationships between the consultant team members and their intent to collaborate, low fees and tight
design time frames negatively impacted on their collaboration outcomes. However, contrary to the
findings of Michael (2000) the competitive approach taken to select consultants (resulting in lower
service fees) and shortened design time frames, contributed to lower than expected design
documentation quality. This highlights the influence of badly designed, or managed, governance
protocols destroying collaboration despite the intent.
The findings indicate that contextual issues surrounding the project can hinder developing shared
directions and collective action among the team members. Pemsel and Widén (2011) argue that team
members need to understand the clients’ needs and be equipped with required capabilities for
collaboration. Findings suggest that although each team member understood the clients’ needs from
their own perspective (or scope of work), they did not develop a shared understanding of goals for the
project, leading to difficulties in managing expectations. Although the findings indicate that the team
members questioned the technical and evaluative competence of the other team members, the lack of
relational competency as indicated by Lampel (2001), contributed to the lack of collaboration.
The project team’s failure to (a) co-develop a clear project charter (b) employ a project leader with
strong brokering skills (c) use boundary objects for joint problem solving, and (d) make the team aware
and constantly reminded about the ‘big picture’ through open and balanced communication (Ruuska
and Teigland 2009) contributed to this negative outcome. The abovementioned activities are critical for
developed, shared, direction and appreciate interdependencies and managing expectations in temporary
and fragmented project organisations with a large number of new team members entering the project at
different points. (Söderlund, 2010; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a; and Chan et al. 2003)
The findings support the positions taken by Lampel (2001) and Martinsuo and Ahola (2010) on the
need to appreciate the complex interaction of the contextual aspects in fostering collaboration via
multiple contexts including information and communication technology (Peansupap and Walker, 2006;
Jacobsson and Linderoth, 2010; Gajendran and Brewer, 2007) governance mechanisms (Smyth and
Edkins, 2007; Bresnen, 2009) and social dynamics (Holt et al. 2000).
CONCLUSION
Collaboration is a critical facet of construction project teams to deliver successful project outcomes,
yet is seen as hard to foster in project-based organisations. The literature identified five dimensions as
antecedent for collaboration: shared direction, collective action, competence of the members, power
distribution/equality, trust and communication. These theoretical dimensions of collaboration were
18
used as a framework to analyse the case study in order to identify the contextual issues impacting
collaboration.
The findings identified five issues that could negatively impact on collaboration in public project
organisations: (a) tight consultant fees, often an outcome of competitive fee tendering (b) unrealistic
expectations of the team members, at times driven by national/regional political agendas and/or
perceived/actual deception among members (c) bureaucracy in the client organisation, driven by a
disproportionate number of stakeholders, and process inefficiencies (d) the concentrated power
structure, often driven by the need for control and (e) stringent formal communication protocols
assumed necessary to counter uncertainty and opportunistic behaviours.
The findings also identify two beliefs held by the project team members that impacted on collaboration.
One belief associated formal governance mechanisms as an appropriate approach for managing
uncertainty, opportunistic behaviour and public probity issues. The other belief is that highly controlled
communication via the online systems is more about litigation than collaboration. These beliefs create
additional layers of boundaries among project team members, negatively impacting on collaboration.
Therefore, it is imperative that clients or their representatives through their line of command, should
have allowed some level of informal interaction to foster genuine collaboration. Clients and their
representatives should demonstrate leadership and develop clear project charters with a holistic ‘big
picture’ attitude. The dissemination of the project charters and problem solving should be fostered
through boundary spanning roles. However, the key is to ensure that the service provider selection
mechanism, employed to make small savings in consultancy fees, does not foster negative behaviour
during the project execution.
In essence, these five contextual issues arising from public project setup can negatively impact on the
atmosphere for collaboration, specifically the development of a collective identity and discursive
practices. The dynamic interactions between these contextual issues can create different trajectories
leading to varying extent of negative impact on collaboration.
The critical distinction between public and private project setup arises from the political landscape and
probity issues that strive for elevated level of formal governance mechanisms. These could create
additional boundaries contributing to bureaucracy. However, this does not necessarily mean that
collaboration in a public sector project will always be tainted by the above identified contextual issues.
Clients taking leadership and designing conscious and balanced control mechanisms, along with
sensible service provider selection, can create an atmosphere conducive for collaboration in public
sector construction projects.
Just how public sector clients can introduce informalities within traditional procurement systems to
generate collaboration, is an area awaiting academic investigation. The findings of this case study
highlight the need for further research into how different forms of psychological boundaries are created
in the project environment and how they can be managed to minimise the damage to fostering genuine
collaboration.
REFERENCES
Akintoye, A. and Main, J. (2007) Collaborative relationships in construction: The UK contractors’
perception. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 14(6), 597-617.
19
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000) A survey of supply chain collaboration and
management in the uk construction industry. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 6(2000), 159-68.
Alderman, N. and Ivory, C. (2007) Partnering in major contracts: Paradox and metaphor. International
Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 386-93.
Alshawi, M. and Ingirige, B. (2003) Web-enabled project management: An emerging paradigm in
construction. Automation in Construction, 12, 349-64.
Anvuur, A. M. and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2007) Conceptual model of partnering and alliancing.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(3), 225-34.
Arnaboldi, M. Azzone, G. and Savoldelli, A. (2004), "Managing a public sector project: the case of the
Italian Treasury Ministry", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, pp. 213-223.
Baiden, B. K. and Price, A. D. F. (2010) The effect of integration on project delivery team effectiveness
International Journal of Project Management, In press(Available online ).
Baiden, B. K., Price, A. D. F. and Dainty, A. R. J. (2006) The extent of team integration within
construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 13-26.
Baiden, B. K. and Price, A. D. F. (2011), "The effect of integration on project delivery team
effectiveness", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 129-136.
Bresnen, M. (2007) Deconstructing partnering in project-based organisation: Seven pillars, seven
paradoxes and seven deadly sins. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 364-74.
Bresnen, M. (2009) Living the dream? Understanding partnering as emergent practice. Construction
Management and Economics, 27(10), 923-33.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000a) Motivation, commitment and the use of incentives in partnerships
and alliances. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 587-98.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000b) Building partnerships: Case studies of client-contractor
collaboration in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 18,
819-32.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2002) The engineering or evolution of co-operation? A tale of two
partnering projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 497-505.
Brewer, G. and Gajendran, T. (2011) Building information modelling and the culture of construction
project teams: A case study. In: Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment,
Amsterdam: TUDeflt.
Briscoe, G. and Dainty, A. (2005) Construction supply chain integration: An elusive goal? Supply Chain
Management, 10(4), 319-25.
Briscoe, G., Dainty, A. R. J. and Millett, S. (2001) Construction supply chain partnerships: Skills,
knowledge and attitudinal requirements. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,
7, 243-55.
Caglio, A. and Ditillo, A. (2008), "A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm
relationships: achievements and future directions", Accounting, Organizations and Society,, Vol.
33, No. 7-8, pp. 865-898.
Chan, A., Chan, D. and Ho, K. (2003) An empirical study of the benefits of construction partnering in
Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 21(5), 523-33.
Cheng, E. W. L. and Li, H. (2001) Development of a conceptual model of construction partnering.
Engineering , Construction and Architectural Management, 8(4), 292-303.
Cox, A. and Ireland, P. (2002) Managing construction supply chains: The common sense approach.
Engineering , Construction and Architectural Management, 5(6), 409-18.
D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San, L., Rodriguez, M. and Beaulieu, M-D. (2005) The conceptual
basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of
20
Interprofessional Care,, 19(No1s1), 116-31.
Dainty, A. Cheng, M. I. and Moore, D. (2004), "A competency‐based performance model for
construction project managers", Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp.
877-886.
Daugherty, P. J., Richey, G., Roath, A. S., Min, S., Chen, H., Arndt, A. D. and Genchev, S. E. (2006) Is
collaboration paying off for firms? Business Horizons, 49, 61-70.
Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2001), "The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings", Organization
Science, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 450-467.
Doloi, H. (2009) Relational partnerships: The importance of communication, trust and confidence and
joint risk management in achieving project success. Construction Management and Economics,
27(11), 1099-109.
Domberger, S. Farago, S. and Fernandez, P. (1997), "Public and Private Sector Partnering: A Re-
appraisal", Public Administration, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 777-787.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review,
14(1), 57-74.
Eriksson, P. E. (2008) Procurement effects on coopetition in client-contractor relationships. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management (ASCE), 134(2), 103-11.
Eriksson, P. E. and Westerberg, M. (2010) Effects of cooperative procurement procedures on
construction project performance: A conceptual framework International Journal of Project
Management, 26(2), 203-12.
Fawcett, S. E., Megnan, G. M. and McCarter, M. W. (2008) A three-stage implementation model for
supply chain collaboration. Journal of Business Logistics, 29(1), 93-113.
Fong, P. S. W. and Lung, B. W. C. (2007) Interorganizational teamwork in the construction industry.
Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 133(2), 157-68.
Fujitsu-Centre (1998) Information technology in the building and construction industry: Current status
and future directions, NSW: Fukitsu Centre & Building and Research Centre UNSW.
Gajendran, T. and Brewer, G. (2007) Integration of information and communication technology:
Influence of the cultural environment. Engineering , Construction and Architectural Management,
14(6), 532-49.
Gajendran, T. Brewer, G. Runeson, G. and Dainty, A. (2011), "Investigating Informality in
Construction: Philosophy, Paradigm and Practice", Australasian Journal of Construction
Economics and Building, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 84-98.
Gajendran, T. Brewer, G. Dainty, A. and Runeson, G. (2012) A conceptual approach to studying the
organisational culture of construction projects. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics
and Building, 12 (2), pp. 1-26.
Hannus, M, Luiten, G.T., Watson, A.S., Deguine, M., Sauce, G., Van Rijn, T.P. J. (1999) Ict tools for
improving the competitiveness of the lse industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 6(1), 30-7.
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. and Grant, D. (2005) Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations
and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 58-77.
Hartmann, A., Ling, F. Y. Y. and Tan, J. S. H. (2009) Relative importance of subcontractor selection
criteria: Evidence from singapore. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 135(9),
826-32.
Holt, G. D. Love, P. E. D. and L, H. (2000), "The learning organisation: toward a paradigm for mutually
beneficial strategic construction alliances", International Journal of Project Management, Vol.
18, pp. 415-421.
Holt, G. D. Love, P. E. D. and L, H. (2000), "The learning organisation: toward a paradigm for mutually
21
beneficial strategic construction alliances", International Journal of Project Management, Vol.
18, pp. 415-421.
Hoogervorst, J., Flier, H. v d and Koopan, P. (2004) Implicit communication in organisations: The
impact of culture, structure and management practices on employee behaviour. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 19(3), 288-311.
Jacobsson, M. and Linderoth, H. D. J. (2010) The influence of contextual elements, actors' frames of
reference, and technology on the adoption and use of ict in construction project: A swedish case
study. Construction Management and Economics, 28(13-23).
Jin, X-H. and Ling, F. Y. Y. (2005) Model for fostering trust and building relationships in china’s
construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 131(11), 1224.
Kadefors, A. (2004) Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. International Journal of
Project Management, 22(3), 175-82.
Kadefors, A. (2011) Organising coloboration in construction projects-formal models meeting
practitioners perspetives. In: Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment,
Wamelink, H, Geraedts, R and Volker, L, Eds.), Amsterdam, The Netherlands: TUDeflt.
Kadefors, A. (2005), "Fairness in inter-organizational project relations: norms and strategies",
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23, pp. 871-878.
Kapsali, M. (2011), "Systems thinking in innovation project management: A match that works",
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 396-407.
Khalfan, M. M. A., McDermott, P. and Swan, W. (2007) Building trust in construction projects. Supply
Chain Management: An international Journal, 12(6), 385-91.
Lampel, J. (2001), "The core competencies of effective project execution: the challenge of diversity",
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19, pp. 471-483.
Lau, E. and Rowlinson, S. (2009) Interpersonal trust and inter‐‐firm trust in construction projects.
Construction Management and Economics, 27(6), 539-54.
Leufkens, A. S. and Noorderhaven, N. G. (2011), "Learning to collaborate in multi-organizational
projects", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 432-441.
Loosemore, M. and Muslmani, H. S. A. (1999) Construction project management in the persian gulf:
Inter-cultural communication. International Journal of Project Management, 17(2), 95-100.
Makadok, R. and Coff, R. (2009) Both market and hierarchy: An incentive-system theory of hybrid
governance froms. Academy of Management Review, 34(2), 297-319.
Martin, J. (2002) Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Martinsuo, M. and Ahola, T. (2010), "Supplier integration in complex delivery projects: Comparison
between different buyer–supplier relationships", International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 28, pp. 107-116.
Maurer, I. (2010), "How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: The impact of project staffing and
project rewards on the formation of trust, knowledge acquisition and product innovation",
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28, pp. 629-637.
Mooradian, T. Renzl, B. and Matzler, K. (2006), "Who Trusts? Personality, Trust and Knowledge
Sharing", Management Learning, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 523-540.
Moore, D. R. and Dainty, A. R. J. (2001), "Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of performance
improvement in the UK design and build projects: a call for change", Construction Management
and Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 559-562.
Morse, J. M. and Richards, L. (2002) Read readmeme first for a user's guide to qualitative methods.
California: Sage Publications.
Muller, R. and Turner, J. R. (2007) Matching the project manager's leadership style to project type.
International Journal of Project Management, 25, 21-32.
22
Nikas, A., Poulymenakou, A. and Kriaris, P. (2007) Investigating antecedents and drivers affecting the
adoption of collaboration technologies in the construction industry. Automation in Construction,
16(5), 632-41.
Nordin, F. Öberg, C. Kollberg, B. and Nord, T. (2011), "Building a new supply chain position: an
exploratory study of companies in the timber housing industry", Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 28, No. 10, pp. 1071-1083.
Parker, L. and Gould, G. (1999), "Changing public sector accountability: critiquing new directions",
Accounting Forum, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 109-135.
Peansupap, V. and Walker, D. H. T. (2006) Information communication technology (ict)
implementation constraints: A construction industry perspective. Engineering , Construction and
Architectural Management, 13(4), 364-79.
Pemsel, S. and Widén, K. (2011), "Bridging boundaries between organizations in construction",
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 495-506.
Phua, F. T. T. (2004) The antecedents of co-operative behavior among project team members: A
alternative perspective on an old issue. Construction Management and Economics, 22, 1033-45.
Queensland Government (2006), Ethics, Probity and Accountability in Procurement, Queensland
Purchasing, D. o. P. W., Crime and Misconduct Commission, Queensland Government, Vol.
Ratcheva, V. (2009), "Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning processes – The case
of multidisciplinary project teams", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, pp.
206-215.
Rooke, J., Seymour, D. and Fellows, R. (2004) Planning for claims: An ethnography of industry culture.
Construction Management and Economics, 22(6), 655-62.
Ruikar, K, Anumba, C J and Carrillo, P M (2003) Reengineering construction business process through
electronic commerce. The TQM Magazine, 15(3), 197-212.
Ruuska, I. and Teigland, R. (2009), "Ensuring project success through collective competence and
creative conflict in public–private partnerships – A case study of Bygga Villa, a Swedish triple
helix e-government initiative", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, pp. 323-
334.
Schein, E. H. (2004) Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smyth, H. and Edkins, A. (2007), "Relationship management in the management of PFI/PPP projects in
the UK", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25, pp. 232-240.
Söderlund, J. (2010), "Knowledge entrainment and project management: The case of large-scale
transformation projects", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28, pp. 130-141.
Spradley, J. P (1979) The ethnographic interview. New York: Rinehart and Winston.
Stewart, R. A. (2007) It enhanced project information management in construction: Pathways to
improved performance and strategic competitiveness. Automation in Construction, 16, 511-7.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of qualitative research. 2 ed. California: SAGE Publications.
Turner, J. R. and Muller, R. (2003), "On the nature of the project as a temporary organisation",
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, No. 2003, pp. 1-8.
Uden, L. and Naarnoja, M. (2007) The development of online trust among construction teams in Finland.
ITcon, 12, 306-23.
Walker, A. and Newcomb, R. (2000) The positive use of power on major construction project.
Construction Management and Economics, 18(1), 37-44.
Winch, G. M. (1989) The construction firm and the construction project: A transaction cost approach.
Construction Management and Economics, 7, 331-45.
Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research : Design and methods. 4 ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
23
Figure 1
24
