Content uploaded by Derek H.T. Walker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Derek H.T. Walker on Jul 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
20
2
CHARACTERISTICS OF IPD
A Collaboration Framework overview
Derek H. T. Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the content and context of integrated project delivery
(IPD) through the medium of a framework that identies and explains the basic components
of IPD. This chapter therefore delivers foundational understanding to support this handbook.
Chapter 1 presented the concept of integrated project delivery (IPD) and Table 1.1 contrasted
ten characteristics of IPD with non-IPD forms.
In this chapter we outline recent frameworks describing IPD elements or characteristics. These
help us to not only describe and understand the nature of IPD but they may also be useful for
measuring and visualising how IPD might be delivered. IPD collaboration frameworks are neces-
sary for measuring IPD concepts. They use descriptors to calibrate conceptual elements of IPD so
that a holistic image may be presented that adequately describes a particular IPD configuration,
preferably visually. These frameworks may be used strategically or operationally. Any framework
that can describe and measure IPD elements, even at a coarse-grained level, presents a powerful
tool for IPD strategy and operational management.
IPD collaboration frameworks may be used to assist in the strategic design of project delivery
mechanisms. For example, the way that the trust and commitment of various parties involved
in a project may be shaped or reinforced will have a significant impact on the behaviours of
party members towards each other. It establishes what will be considered appropriate and inap-
propriate. This trust and commitment element of ‘the mix’ of a project delivery ‘system’ will
impact upon other elements. It is very difficult to understand how this element may impact
upon other elements without a way to visualise ‘the system.’ Chapter 6 discusses these aspects
in greater depth.
Similarly, IPD collaboration frameworks may be used in the operational managing of project
delivery mechanisms. For example, in trying to balance the way that ‘trust’ mechanisms may
encourage collaboration with ‘control’ mechanisms designed to monitor actions through a
designed project governance mechanism it would be useful to be able to visualise and measure
how these mechanisms may be represented to compare an ‘as-is’ to a ‘should-be’ situation.
Once we have a way to benchmark an abstract construct within an IPD configuration such
as ‘trust’ or ‘control’, visually presented alongside other related concepts, then it is easier to
understand likely cause-and-effect loops, consequences and opportunities.
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Characteristics of IPD
21
We also provide an overview of the Collaboration Framework developed by Walker and
Lloyd-Walker (2015) to illustrate how IPD Collaboration Framework tools such as this might
be used in practice. The chapter also provides a basis for understanding how other chapters
link together.
How can we begin to understand the IPD concept?
Chapter 1 provided a rationale for engaging in IPD and also detailed ten signicant dierences
between a traditional project delivery form and IPD. The extent of collaboration varies across
the numerous forms of IPD for good reasons and the ability to collaborate depends upon both
personal collaboration competences as well as organisational structural facilitation for collaboration
and organisational collaboration competencies.
An initial categorisation of IPD forms in a model that illustrates four orders of collaboration
supports deeper understanding of IPD (2013, p9; 2015, p108). The first order of collaboration is
characterised by an efficiency focus. The second has an additional focus on fair process and
common purpose. The third order of collaboration extended the focus to common operational
platforms and the fourth added commitment to inter-team relationships. Additionally, across
these four orders of collaboration, increasing levels of early contractor involvement were iden-
tified. Also recognised was the extent of the pain-share/gain-share agreement and a ‘sink-
or-swim-together’ mindset that was in place, with the project owner’s involvement that varied
from being largely contractually ‘hands-off’ at the lowest order of collaboration to being highly
‘hands-on’ at the highest order of collaboration. This framework provides a useful starting point
to understand generic levels of IPD.
Key elements of a framework that makes sense of IPD also characterise collaboration at
two levels:
(1) The nature of the relationship between the owner’s representative participant (OP) the design
team and project delivery team.
(2) The institutional collaborative facilitation mechanisms that are developed and maintained to sup-
port collaboration at the desired level.
IPD institutionalisation may occur at a project level when the extent of collaboration is institu-
tionalised for the duration of a project delivery, or it may extend across a series of projects in a pro-
gramme of work. Program IPD forms such as framework agreements or programme alliances may be
time-based, for example a five-year agreement (Walker and Harley, 2014), or a large project may
be split up into a programme of work comprising a mixture of individual project packages such as the
recently completed Victorian Regional Rail Link programme. The Regional Rail Link programme/
project was a multi-billion Australian dollar project that separated metropolitan and regional services
where they previously intersect in Melbourne’s west. The programme/project built dedicated tracks
for three regional city lines – Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat – so the trains could run through the
metropolitan system from the western suburb Sunshine to the central city Southern Cross Station
(URL http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/transport/rail-and-roads/public-transport/regional-
rail-link). Another example of a mega-programme/project that was split into numerous, very large
project packages within an IPD programme, was London’s Crossrail (www.crossrail.co.uk) and more
recently the Thames Tideway (www.tideway.london). The IPD approach taken in these two mega-
projects was based on experiences gained in the UK from that taken for Heathrow Terminal 5 and for
the London Olympics. Each of these programmes of works was undertaken with a sophisticated PO
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Derek Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker
22
organisation in the form of a government authority established to specifically develop the programme
of work using an IPD approach that incorporated very high levels of collaboration (Gil et al., 2012;
Brady and Davies, 2014; Davies et al., 2016).
We can start to understand IPD in terms of the formation of an institution: be that a project
or programme of projects. The institutional perspective is useful because institutional theory
helps explain how:
1 Organisations form;
2 They are shaped to evolve;
3 How they may be undermined or supported as they evolve; and
4 How they are terminated.
Each project or programme uses the resources from many independent organisations. There is
no adoption of a single dominant participating organisation’s culture, heritage, norms, identity
or structural form. What is observed to happen is that each participating organisation provides
an influence that adapts the way ‘things are done’ from the template provided by the contrac-
tual arrangements specified for the project or programme. Each party is engaged in what may
be described as institutional work in shaping and influencing an organisation’s characteristics
(Battilana and D’aunno, 2009). The aggregate project participant’s norms are shaped by an
evolving and created project identity. Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamilton, and Corley (2013) exten-
sively investigate how organisational identities are created, maintained, and transformed within
a complex and evolving business environment. Projects and programmes of projects involve a
host of organisations that are only in part governed by a common set of values espoused in con-
tract documents and other similar artefacts. Accordingly, an identity is forged through a series of
interacting influences, power structures and cultural perspectives (Gioia et al., 2010).
Projects are delivered by people, not by robots, contracts or automatic processes and so
there is a need to focus on project work from a reflective practitioner perspective (Crawford
et al., 2006). This is why there has been a recent focus on the need for developing what has
been termed ‘soft skills’ in the project management literature across a range of project types
(Muzio et al., 2007; Pellerin, 2009; Azim et al., 2010; Stevenson and Starkweather, 2010). This
is primarily because people have agency, they decide how to interpret situations in their own
way, based on their individual experience, culture, knowledge and the way that ‘the system’
permits them discretion (Mullaly, 2014;2015).
Projects or programmes can be thought of as being institutions. The dictionary definition of
an institution is ‘a large organisation founded for a particular purpose’ (Oxford, 2011, p736).
While most people might think of institutions as universities, hospitals, prisons, etc. because
they are established for a purpose, it is also logical to consider projects and programmes of
projects and indeed organisations such as design firms, contractors and sub-contractors as insti-
tutions. In doing so this opens up possibilities to more clearly understand how people act and
how they exercise agency.
Taking a contractual form as a starting point, we can begin to understand how organisations
function and behave based upon the contract form and conditions. A more limited view of a
contract is that it determines what is legitimate, but when we take an institutional perspective we
may see that a contract document is merely a raw resource to be interpreted, shaped and used.
Battilana and D’aunno (2009, p48) describe dimensions of agency deployed in institutional work.
They identify how people exercise agency, their free will and decision-making, in creating,
maintaining and disrupting institutions. Looking at IPD from this perspective we can better start
to understand how a presented contractual form (the IPD agreement for example) is adapted in its
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Characteristics of IPD
23
actual use by the many organisations that are parties to a project and how they authenticate their
actions based on ‘what is right’ in terms of the given contract, their home-based organisational
rules and norms and how they are influenced by others they engage with through the project/
program. This agency and institutional work perspective provides us with a useful way to under-
stand how a given project institution is created and evolves. It helps to explain why a standard IPD
agreement form, for example, may produce a variety of performance outcomes and how they
may be influenced by various individual people and organisations that collaborate. Figure 2.1
illustrates collaboration from an institutional perspective.
One of the founding contributors to institutional theory is Scott (1987;2001;2014). According
to Scott, there are three institutional pillars: regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive. The
regulative pillar comprises the rules and regulations. From an IPD perspective, we could see
this as the form of IPD agreement or contract form whether that is a framework agreement,
alliance agreement, or other IPD forms such as the T5 agreement for Heathrow Terminal 5.
All documentation, process handbooks and standard procedures for example forms this pillar as
a reference point.
The normative pillar comprises the organisational culture, the workplace environment and
even, as Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2014) have observed on alliance projects, the ambience of the
project/programme workplace. This normative pillar sets the ‘tone’ and behavioural expectations
for the project/programme. It makes specific behaviours, values and actions legitimate. This pillar
may compliment the regulative pillar or may contradict it at times.
The third pillar is the cultural-cognitive pillar which controls agency and how peo-
ple interpret the regulative framework given their exposure to their home-base normative
influences as well as the evolving project/programme ‘culture and norms.’ People’s agency
is circumscribed by what they feel is possible, desirable and proper, given the context and
circumstances as they understand these.
The institutional work perspective provides a powerful facilitator of understanding how
IPD, whatever form that may take, is actually operationalised. Naturally, it is helpful to identify
Translating strategy into
action
Regulative
pillar: Rules;
governance:
templates:
guides.
Normative
pillar: Culture
(national, group,
organisation)
espoused values,
Perceived praxis
Cultural-cognitive
pillar: Agency, skills,
knowledge, dexterity,
resilience, reective
capacity.
Project /program
owner, design team,
delivery team as a
‘one-team’ group
and individuals
?
How to collaborate to:
Respond
Reect
(Re-)Calibrate
Figure 2.1 Strategy delivery through projects from an institutional perspective
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Derek Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker
24
factors that contribute to successful IPD and also to provide a framework or model that may be
easily visualised. However, identifying factors or characteristics is one valuable contribution but
what is more valuable is to explain how knowledge about the nature of characteristics or factors
may be extended to help explain how these operate in practice and how they may be treated to
result in an optimised outcome. Clearly not only the regulatory institutionalisation pillar needs
to be addressed in operationalising IPD but also the normative and cultural-cognitive pillars.
A framework that analyses what is going on within any IPD project/programme should be able
to offer both strategic and operational insights.
Developing an IPD Collaboration Framework: first steps
One recent attempt to describe how an alliance may operate eectively in practice was oered
by Ibrahim (2014). He undertook a rigorous study of road alliance projects in New Zealand
interviewing ve experienced alliance practitioners (two consultants, two contractors and a client
participant) and validating results using a Delphi technique through participation of 17 highly
experienced alliance experts. His research identied seven key indicators of alliance team inte-
gration and collaboration that were weighted by perceived importance as shown in Table 2.1.
He also tested the framework against three New Zealand road alliance project case studies.
His quantitative measures indicate what each of seven identified key indicators (KIs) mean.
These measures may be only of indicative use in understanding how collaboration works in
alliances but having importance weightings identified for each collaboration indicator is very
valuable in aiding our broader understanding of IPD in practice and which KIs may be more
important than others.
It is interesting to note that the identified KI factors are all of a behavioural nature with-
out any factors that link to the way that the IPD form (alliance in this case) was structured
or how that structure may impact required behaviours. Also, several of these factors do not
seem to quite match their tagged KI, for example KI 1 Team leadership is measured by cost
and time performance measures rather than ‘softer’ measures about how the project was led
or how the organisational structure adopted, supported or hindered leadership. However,
despite any limitations that can be observed from this framework it does provide a step in the
journey of providing a useful framework for understanding and visualising how IPD operates
or should operate.
These seven indicators also support the behavioural factors identified in the second IPD
Collaboration Framework to be discussed in this chapter and throughout the book. Ibrahim
(2014) also discusses how the integrated OP design and delivery contractor participants col-
laborate with the project alliance board, forming part of the governance arrangements. This
board comprises a leadership team of key high-level executives from the non-owner par-
ticipants (NOPs) in an alliance who act as sense-making, coordination and high-level com-
munication links between the project alliance management team (AMT) and the NOPs’
home-base organisations. This governance mechanism allows urgent resource requirements
or other actions that NOPs can take to avert emerging crises as well as providing a potent
cultural-cognitive mechanism for solving unexpected problems that an AMT who have no
direct control or influence over their home organisations may face. This form of board is
referred to as an alliance leadership team (ALT) in Australia (Ross, 2003). Table 2.1 illustrates
the seven KIs identified by Ibrahim.
While the above framework has gaps when viewed from the institutional-theory perspective
in the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars it does offer insights into important
required behaviours of IPD participants that influence the norms of the organisational culture.
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Characteristics of IPD
25
Table 2.1 Measuring team integration alliance practice in New Zealand
Key Indicator (KIs) Weightings Corresponding Quantitative Measures (QMs)
KI 1 Team leadership 0.250 Variation of actual time/cost against program/budget
expressed as a percentage of the project’s progress.
KI 2 Trust & respect 0.214 Survey of alliance teams’ satisfaction on the level of
trust and respect by using a Likert scale.
KI 3 Single team focus on
project objectives
and key results areas
(KRAs)
0.179 Survey of alliance teams’ understanding of the project
objectives and KRAs by using a Likert scale.
KI 4 Collective understanding 0.143 Percentage of alliance team attendance in weekly
project briefing.
KI 5 Commitment from
project alliance board
(PAB)
0.107 Percentage of PAB members’ (original) attendance in
PAB meetings.
KI 6 Creation of a single and
co-located alliance team
0.071 Number of staff allocated on-site against the overall
number of staff expressed as a percentage of the
single and co-located alliance team.
KI 7 Free-flow
communication
0.036 The turnaround time for Requests for information
(RFI) and design engineering instructions (DEI).
(Source: Ibrahim, 2014, p145)
Two other frameworks have also been developed that assist us in understanding the nature of
collaboration in IPD forms, alliancing in particular. The second framework arose out a quantita-
tive study involving data from completed valid survey responses from 320 Australian construc-
tion organisations arising from 1,688 invitations to participate in the survey (Chen and Manley,
2014). Their survey requested responses to a series of questions relating to collaboration and
innovation on projects nominated by respondents to focus their responses on a specific project
they had been engaged upon. They report that 79% of the responses related to alliance delivery
projects (Chen and Manley, 2014, p5) and the sample was evenly split between contractor,
designer and client organisations, and so this represented a rigorous and unbiased view of experts
experienced in IPD projects. Additionally, 89% of respondents had been part of delivery teams
for at least one collaborative project with 17% having been involved in working on ten or more
collaborative projects. Using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to analyse the
data, their analysis confirmed that ‘both formal and informal mechanisms were perceived by
the practitioners to be attributes of collaborative project governance used to manage complex
infrastructure projects in Australia.’ Their research also confirmed the essential mechanisms that
define formal and informal governance for collaborative infrastructure projects. They identified
‘three market formal governance mechanisms: (1) collective cost estimation, (2) risk and reward
sharing regime, and (3) risk sharing of service providers’ (Chen and Manley, 2014, p10). They
also identified five informal governance mechanisms: ‘(1) leadership, (2) relationship manager,
(3) team workshops, (4) communication systems, and (5) design integration’ (p11). Interestingly,
they discovered that ‘While both formal and informal mechanisms have positive impacts on
performance, the implementation intensity of informal mechanisms is a greater predictor of
project performance variance than that of formal mechanisms.’ This could be seen as influencing
the norms and cultural-cognitive institutional pillars described by Scott (2014). The strength of
this finding was unexpected, and certainly supports more extensive use of collaborative delivery
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Derek Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker
26
systems. Furthermore, the influence of formal mechanisms on project performance was found
to be mediated by informal mechanisms.
Consistent with recent work examining project governance, the study found that
hybrid project governance, which combines both formal and informal mechanisms
with both market and hierarchical transactions, is needed to achieve project per-
formance targets. The study advances the frontier of knowledge by identifying and
explaining the different roles played by the two types of mechanisms. The findings
imply that formal and informal governance are not interchangeable; each has a distinc-
tive role. Thus, they rely on each other to maximize project performance.
(Chen and Manley, 2014, p11)
Insights from Chen and Manley (2014) are useful in light of our earlier discussion on the three
pillars of institutional theory. Rules as formal governance explain one mechanism for the way a col-
lective of organisations engaged on a project create and maintain a single project entity as if it were
an institution. Informal governance mechanisms identied by Chen and Manley (2014) as well as
the KIs from Ibrahim’s (2014) study help explain some of the normative and cultural-cognitive
pillars of institutional theory oered by (Scott, 2014) and how action may be calibrated. However,
both frameworks still do not provide a holistic view of how these three pillars actually operate.
Developing an IPD Collaboration Framework:
identification of a robust model
Both of the above frameworks, together with consideration of institutional theory, highlight
a collaborative capability versus collaborative capacity paradox. Having the capability to take
a particular action does not result in the intended action taking place without a capacity to
do so. Capability is characterised by having the means and essential ability to potentially act.
Organisations and individuals may have knowledge capabilities of how to muster the necessary
resources to eectively collaborate and also have the cognitive ability to do so. However, unless
they have the motivation and are able to secure the resources, supportive leadership and opera-
tional management processes to do so, they will face signicant challenges and blockages that will
thwart converting collaborative intent into action.
A third recent framework was developed independently of Ibrahims (2014) and Chen and
Manley (2014) to address identifying the vital elements of translating collaborative capacity
into capability in IPD project forms. This framework was originally described as a relationship-
based procurement taxonomy (Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2015) but its potential application
was later appreciated as being useful to understand how managing uncertainty may best oper-
ate in complex situations where intense collaboration between project delivery partners offers
multiple perspectives on challenges and potential actions to address identified challenges. The
Collaboration Framework (Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2015) was based on analysis of interviews
with 36 IPD expert practitioners and 14 leading academics in this field of study. This study,
mainly based in Australia, also involved interviews with experts from the UK, the Netherlands,
Scandinavia and the USA. The framework makes no attempt to add weights to identified factors
but it does address all three regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive institutionalisation pil-
lars. The framework presented in Figure 2.2 illustrates the procurement taxonomy (Walker and
Lloyd-Walker, 2015) referred to from now on as the Collaboration Framework.
Figure 2.2 presents the three components of the Collaboration Framework platform facili-
ties, behaviours and processes, routines and means, together with the 16 elements of the
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Characteristics of IPD
27
Regulative
Pillar
Collaborating
through integrated
project delivery
Platform
facilities
1 -Motivation and context
2 -Joint governance structure
3 -Integrated risk mitigation & insurance
4 -Joint communication BIM etc.
5 -Substantial co-location
Behaviours
6 -Authentic leadership
7 -Trust-control balance
8 -Commitment to innovate
9 -Common best-for-projectmindset/culture
10 -No blame culture
Processes,
routines and
means
11 -Consensus decision making
12 –Incentivisation
13 -Focus on learning & continuous improvement
14 -Pragmatic learning-in-action
15 -Transparency & open-book
16 -Mutual dependence and accountability
Cultural-cognitive
Pillar
Normative
Pillar
Figure 2.2 Collaboration Framework
(Source: adapted from Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2016, p5)
framework. In addition it positions the three institutional pillars. The regulative pillar spans
elements from both the platform facilities and processes, routines and means components. The
cultural-cognitive and normative pillars span elements from the behaviours and processes,
routines and means components.
Details of the elements in the Collaboration Framework are discussed in depth in
Chapters 9, 15 and 21 with each chapter devoted to describing each of the elements in the
three components. The next section outlines how the Collaboration Framework may be
used in practice.
IPD Collaboration Framework visualisation tool application
There is nothing quite like a tool to visualise data in an easy-to-read way that allows readers to
readily grasp complex concepts (Geraldi and Arlt, 2015). How, then, might the Collaboration
Framework visualisation tool be used in practice?
Each Collaboration Framework element has specific measures developed to enable facilitate
an overall alliance or project delivery form to be mapped and illustrated to provide a holistic
visualisation tool to be used for:
1 Designing a project delivery approach;
2 Benchmarking projects against the Collaboration Framework 16 elements; and
3 Providing a health check tool where the ‘as intended’ can be compared to the ‘as-is’ per-
ceived situation.
Each element is measurable and so capable of being mapped. This allows a complex concept
such as an IPD form to be visualised, for example in mapping how partnering arrangements of
several contractors may be compared (Børve et al., 2017, p102) or when comparing two distinct
project development phases using different IPD approaches (Walker and Rahmani, 2016).
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Derek Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker
28
Using the Collaboration Framework visualisation tool for benchmarking
We explain in this section how the tool may be used in practice by using a hypothetical example
to illustrate how the tool might be applied to strategic decision-making.
A client with a strong portfolio of alliance-type projects wants to have a review undertaken to
compare how its project alliances were delivered in practice. The objective being to know what,
if any, variation was evident from the nature of the relationships between participant organisations
and if any lessons learned may be gathered to more effectively make strategic future decisions about
their IPD agreement form.
This is essentially a benchmarking exercise to provide information and insights to make a strategic
process improvement decision.
The client (hypothetically) has recently undertaken five rail engineering infrastructure alliances
that are at various stages of completion and this client has a further three alliances about 50%
complete with two recently started. With around ten years of experience in alliancing, this client,
a state instrumentality, has a long pipeline of future projects. The context of these hypothetical
projects is that they are situated in the state of Victoria, Australia, in a large metropolitan transport
centre within a well-connected regional rail network. Each project OP on the client’s alliances is
experienced in having completed several alliances. Similarly the design and delivery non-owner
participants (NOPs) all have staff with direct past experience of working with alliancing. In gen-
eral, past alliances with this state government instrumentality have been regarded as successful with
about 80% of past projects being completed on or below budgeted time and cost and all meeting
their key results areas (KRAs). While this situation looks promising, the client is concerned about
being complacent and feels that further improvements are possible.
The first task in addressing the above review is to identify an appropriate benchmarking
methodology or framework to use. After considering the large amount of effort involved in
developing an in-house benchmarking tool the client decided to adopt the Collaboration
Framework because it was rigorously developed and already has identified elements of an alli-
ance with measures that can be used to map alliance characteristics.
The client decided to undertake a two-day workshop with a team of alliance manag-
ers (AMs) and alliance leadership team (ALT) members from the five near-complete alliance
projects, three half-complete alliance projects and two recently started alliance projects. The
workshop group numbered 32 people: an OP, and a design and delivery representative from
each of the ten projects, plus a facilitator and scribe-recorder to assist with documentation and
managing all resources required for the workshop. A two-day workshop was held, preceded
by a brief introductory evening presentation of the Collaboration Framework – to familiarise
participants with the framework. This presentation informed participants of the elements and
their logic and the measures that would be used to map each project. Workshop participants
had already attended a workshop, several months previously, in which the framework logic
and each element were explained in more detail.
Each project participant group of three people would spend day one of the workshop
discussing each of the 16 elements to arrive at a consensus on the number to be allocated
against each element’s rating, supported by several illustrative examples of supporting evi-
dence. Ratings were to be numbered 1 = very low to 5 = very high. The client considered that
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Characteristics of IPD
29
it would be reasonable to take about 30 minutes for each group to discuss each element with
supportive evidence. Estimates were based on three participants taking five minutes to present
their rating and rationale for that rating and then a further 15 minutes for group discussion to
reach a consensus on a rating number for each element. This required a time commitment of
a full day for rating the 16 elements. The facilitators then prepared the radar diagram as illus-
trated in Figure 2.3 and the following morning the group reconvened and spent a further day
discussing the implications of the patterns and deviations from the pattern that may emerge.
They also identified risks and opportunities and analysed likely causes and impacts based on
the alliance radar figure patterns. This process presented a significant opportunity for shared
learning as well as the development of the benchmark status.
Participants were faced with the challenge of how were they to rate these elements? To
address that challenge we suggest considering the Collaboration Framework example for
Element 2 ‘joint governance structure.’ Two anchor points are illustrated below illustrate how
to rate that element:
Low levels would be related to a laissez-faire approach where each participating project
team has established its own individual stand-alone project governance standards. Little
coherence in alignment of the whole project delivery organisational processes and struc-
ture is evident, with few explicit expectations about what success looks like and how to
define and measure it.
High relates to an effectively structured, uniform, integrated and consistent set of perfor-
mance standards that apply across and within the project delivery teams. All participant
organisations share a common understanding of how to organise for success and what
constitutes valuable project output and outcome success.
Having the OP, and both a design-team and delivery-team perspective available enabled a
reasonably honest and accurate assessment to be made. Notes were also made about anecdotes,
suggested improvements and aspects that were of particular interest for learning from that pro-
ject’s experience. The issues discussed revolved around a common view of how governance
practices are undertaken across the OP and NOPs participant teams. Questions were raised such
as what routines, standard systems (manual or in electronic form) and roles that people play
in setting output and outcome expectations are appropriate? How should these expectations
be operationalised and monitored for control? Other relevant reflections included questioning
the level of agency or discretion that was deemed appropriate. In this way a coherent picture
emerged that informed the discussion taking place about the way that governance was perceived
at the individual and group level that allowed each individual group’s radar figure to be com-
pared and contrasted against those of other groups.
These workshop breakout sessions created a significant buzz of interactive conversation and
unearthed surprising revelations about opinions and experiences by the three representatives for
each project. Many had mistakenly first thought that they all were ‘singing from the same song
sheet’ but in fact they had misunderstood baseline assumptions of other participants.
This conversation can be valuable as it reveals ambiguity. Walker, Davis and Stevenson (2017)
discuss ambiguity through two lenses. One lens is a people/process ambiguity situation where
people assume that they are mutually following a unified path but in fact their assumptions are
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Derek Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker
30
divergent so they use common terms or a construct that means different things to each party. The
second lens may be that both parties assume that their ‘system’ or ‘process’ is common when dif-
ferent results can emerge from identical starting positions. Pich, Loch and Meyer (2002, p1013)
argue that ‘Ambiguity refers to a lack of awareness of the project team about certain states of the
world or causal relationships’; each party may assume a different starting point condition and so it
is not surprising that an assumed end point is inconsistent without any deep discussion and knowl-
edge sharing about initial assumptions. Walker et al.(2017) show that exposing ambiguity can help
deliver more effective cost and time plans because such emergent ambiguity becomes exposed
through dialogue where assumptions are discussed and unresolved issues become resolved to pro-
vide more accurate estimations. Notwithstanding the potential for developing both a heated and
apparently confusing debate and dialogue, each project’s participants reviewed their assumptions
and developed a shared understanding considered to be ‘reasonable’ or at least ‘dependably valid.’
All ratings for each project were collated and entered onto a spreadsheet (see Chapter 2
Appendix 1 for an example of the measures) at the end of day one. A radar map diagram was
then produced in readiness for the second-day workshop session.
A consolidated graph of all ten projects revealed a very useful global picture. All project
results illustrated in Figure 2.3 are not alike, even when they are all alliances. This conclusion
and its consequences are worthy of some further discussion. What is proposed here by these
workshops is not something that produces ‘the truth’, or a ‘typical’ result. Rather it shows how
the output serves as a very useful vehicle for further reflections. It prompts a number of ques-
tions worthy of the effort to it would take to attempt to answer.
0
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Motivation and context
Joint governance structure
Integrated risk mitigation &
insurance
Joint communication BIM etc
Substantial co-location
Authentic leadership
Trust-control balance
Commitment to innovate
Common best-for-project
mindset/culture
No blame culture
Consensus decision making
Incentivisation
Focus on learning &
continuous improvement
Pragmatic learning-in-action
Transparency & open-book
Mutual dependence and
accountability
Project 1Project 2Project 3Project 4Project 5
Project 6Project 7Project 8Project 9Project 10
0.5
Figure 2.3 Benchmark results from ten hypothetical projects.
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Characteristics of IPD
31
One advantage of using the Collaboration Framework as illustrated in the above hypothetical
example, is that it highlights benchmarking deviations from the established norm. By undertaking
regular benchmarking exercises of this nature a picture of what the ‘norm’ is for alliance participants
can be established and this pattern used to identify how individual framework elements deviate
from this normal pattern. Gap analysis can then be undertaken to investigate likely causes of devia-
tions and these lead to causal analysis (both for positive or negative deviations), providing a basis for
a lessons-learned database as part of an organisational learning strategy.
Using the Collaboration Framework visualisation tool for health checks
Another way of using the Collaboration Framework is for undertaking a health check on a par-
ticular project where a comparison is made of the ‘as-is’ situation against the ‘intended’ position.
The process to be followed is similar to the benchmarking hypothetical example. We
explain how a health check may be undertaken as follows. At the start of any project it should
be possible for the OP and NOPs participating in a collaborative form of IPD to establish the
desired, feasible and expected degree of collaboration against the 16 elements. The health
check could follow the group briefing and workshop format but with one representative from
the OP, design NOP team and delivery team NOP. However, the project owner may prefer
several participants from each of the NOP teams if the project delivery team comprises a con-
sortium of several contractors and major sub-contractors – building services for example, or
if the design NOP team comprises several design disciplines. The group would establish the
baseline ratings for each of the 16 elements through a process of discussion and negotiation
to agree on a number, or rating, for each element. It would be likely that scoring each of the
16 elements could take approximately 30 minutes and so a full day to prepare a baseline could
be expected. The output from that workshop would be a radar map diagram of the ‘intended’
Collaboration Framework map together with a record of important discussion points that
clarify the rationale for the rated numbers and numerous reflections on perspectives that vari-
ous participants held about the agreed ‘shape’ of the radar map diagram and what that may
imply for the project’s delivery.
Several similar element-rating workshops could take place periodically through the project
delivery cycle to maintain collaborative performance tracking and mapping the ‘as-is’ situation.
The result of a hypothetical health check exercise is illustrated in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 indicates that there has been some slippage in collaboration ratings for most ele-
ments, but at a small level, and with greater gaps for three of four elements. It is unlikely that
the ‘intended’ would perfectly match the ‘as-is’ situation. Even if the rating group comprises
subject matter experts who are thoroughly engaged and honest in their assessment of each ele-
ment there is likely to be some level of digression between initial perceptions of a project and
then later experiencing the situation actuality during its delivery. Some ground rules would be
set for determining what constitutes a significant gap. Perhaps that might be a half-point or one
point but the facilitator and group would agree on that limit to ensure that the focus of the
reflection is not on ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ ground but on concentrating on producing results for
understanding how the collaborative relationship dynamics are actually playing out.
The second day of each health check workshop would focus on discussing cause-and-effect
links between one or more elements and/or gaps observed to reflect on how they might be
linked and ways in which any deficiency might be obviated, or on the desirability of any excess
may, perhaps might, be symptomatic of some emerging problem such as ‘gold plating’ (Stingl
and Geraldi, 2017). In a software development context, Shmueli, Pliskin and Fink (2015, p380)
describe gold plating as occurring ‘when a product or a service has been specified beyond the
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Derek Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker
32
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Motivation and context
Joint governance structure
Integrated risk mitigation & insurance
Joint communication BIM et
c
Substantial co-location
Authentic leadership
Trust-control balance
Commitment to innovate
Common best-for-project mindset/culture
No blame culture
Consensus decision making
Incentivisation
Focus on learning & continuous
improvement
Pragmatic learning-in-action
Transparency & open-book
Mutual dependence and accountability
Intended as-is
Figure 2.4 Health check results from a hypothetical project
actual needs of the customer or the market.’ The health check de-briefing conversation and
group reflection provide valuable organisational learning.
Using the Collaboration Framework visualisation tool for designing
delivery systems
Research undertaken into alliancing and reported upon by Walker (2016) revealed that in
some cases an alliance approach may be discarded due to policy inuence, such as competi-
tive tendering. This may occur even though all involved project parties, including the OP,
may wish to engage in a collaborative approach on highly complex projects, believing this to
be the best available delivery solution. On at least one case from this research, the OP noted
that the aim for developing a delivery approach was to arrive at a delivery mechanism that
was a near to an alliance as possible but without actually using an alliance agreement contract
process. Various elements in the Collaboration Framework could not be viably established at
the alliance level. Designing a system in such cases to closely resemble an alliance, but allow-
ing some Collaboration Framework element characteristics to fall short of an alliance norm,
is deemed appropriate. The explanation of this attitude by participants can be explained by
institution theory. They know the governance constraints (no alliance) but they understand that
the alliance norms are what are best for the highly complicated projects that they face. They then
use their cultural-cognitive abilities to interpret a compromise that is acceptable. There may
be other situations where IPD project participants may feel that they cannot gain sucient
organisational support or access to capabilities to be able to engage in an alliance. This may
also require ‘tweaking’ an alliance agreement form to match what can be reasonably expected.
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Characteristics of IPD
33
Chapter 10 discusses cultural inuences on collaboration in greater depth but in the context of
this application of the Collaboration Framework it should be acknowledged that in in certain
cultures and at certain stages of industry development (i.e. cultures exhibiting low power dis-
tance and low uncertainty avoidance) project owners and IPD teams may nd such approaches
appealing by appearing to resist a challenge to the status quo of the institution. At times of
economic stringency the political dimension may well impose constraints: context is always a
contingent factor.
In such cases it may be necessary to start with what would be desired and intended and then
scale elements back to reflect what is politically or organisationally possible. This is essentially a
designing an IPD form exercise as illustrated in Figure 2.5 for a hypothetical project example.
The workshop group would first map out what they feel would be an optimum IPD delivery
form as the intended form, then undertake a conversation about what is reasonably possible given
various constraints that they face and may feel cannot be practicably overcome. The Collaboration
Framework becomes useful in this case as a strategic tool for designing an IPD form that lies on a
continuum between an alliance and something less formally collaborative in nature.
Reflections on the Collaboration Framework visualisation tool
Taking an institutional perspective of the collaboration process using the Collaboration
Framework provides further rigour in critical thinking when benchmarking, strategising or
reviewing project performance. It highlights both the regulative elements in the framework and
the interaction of governance with norms and the cultural-cognitive sense-making processes
that take place, which often help explain gaps or deviations between intention and action. It also
helps to make sense of how a project identity may be shaped, how group dynamics may operate
0
1
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Motivation and context
Joint governance structure
Integrated risk mitigation &
insurance
Joint communication BIM etc
Substantial co-location
Authentic leadership
Trust-control balance
Commitment to innovate
Common best-for-project
mindset/culture
No blame culture
Consensus decision making
Incentivisation
Focus on learning & continuous
improvement
Pragmatic learning-in-action
Transparency & open-book
Mutual dependence and
accountability
Intended Tweaked
1.5
0.5
Figure 2.5 Strategically designing a hypothetical project IPD form
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Derek Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker
34
with a particular culture, and how project participants use their cognitive assets to interpret
regulative aspects, given their perceptions of what the project culture expects.
The costs of undertaking such analysis would be the actually incurred workshops and oppor-
tunity costs of gathering together 3 key participants from each project for 2 days; in the above
example, that would be 32 people for two days at the workshop plus a short evening session and
the cost of holding the workshop.
The benefit of holding such workshops could include:
•General harmonisation of participants’ and organisation’s collaborative capabilities;
•Opportunities for rening the element measure descriptors to meet the evolving needs of
the types of projects undertaken and changes in business and other environmental factors
that may inuence what is seen as ‘high’ or ‘low’ for each element;
•Opportunities for rening the identied elements. These elements were based on analysis
of interviews of around 50 subject matter experts from two studies (Walker and Lloyd-
Walker, 2015; Walker, 2016). Organising the use of this Collaboration Framework should
consider customising it to suit the needs of the user, because it was always meant to provide
a starting point and was not intended to be a rigid and unyielding system;
•Opportunities for sta development, because the scope and depth of critical thinking and
discussion that the workshops require, would potentially stretch participants because their
main debating partners are other high-level professional practitioners. This constitutes a
high-level peer review process;
•Opportunities to unearth, document and contextualise the lived experience of how the
projects are managed and developing closer working relationships between participants,
thus providing a platform for organisational learning; and
•At a more matter-of-fact level, the workshops could be viewed as helping to deliver ‘best
practice’ as a management tool.
Of course there are other benefits and indeed costs besides those mentioned above. One point
that needs to be understood is that most costs and benefits are difficult to monetise and so
tangible outcomes such as costs and savings may be identified but intangible costs and ben-
efits such as the cost of confusion and dealing with ambiguity and the benefit of learning are
somewhat ephemeral.
Conclusion
This section was intended to provide an overview of what IPD may look like in practice. We
introduced the institutional perspective as a way of helping to explain how strategy may be
translated into action within a collaborative project or programme context.
We discussed two frameworks that have been developed to better understand how IPD
collaboration may work and how the Collaboration Framework extends this understanding
more fully. Appendix 1 of this chapter provides detailed measures that are anchored from very
low to very high, enabling the 16 elements of the framework to be assessed against a particular
project or programme of projects.
We also provided an illustration of how tools such as the Collaboration Framework could
be applied in practice. We have found during our research careers that people and organisa-
tions are generally highly innovative when they feel they have a good idea to work with
and can be very innovative in how they adapt frameworks, models and constructs in light
of their practice.
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Collaboration Framework Element
Very low Rating = 1
Collaboration Framework Element
Very High Rating = 5
Element 1: Motivation and context
Low levels would be related to a hostile environment for collaboration.
This may be due to lack of conviction of project participants in the
value of collaboration within this project’s context.
High levels would be related to the procurement choice solution being driven by the
acceptance of project participants in the logic of a clear advantage being gained by
adopting a focus on a supportive and collaborative approach to delivering benefits
that align with the values of participants.
Element 2: Joint governance structure
Low levels would be related to a laissez-faire approach where each
participating project team has established its own individual stand-
alone project governance standards. Little coherence in alignment of
the whole project delivery organisational processes and structure is
evident with few explicit expectations about what success looks like
and how to define and measure it.
High would be related to an effectively structured, uniform, integrated and consistent
set of performance standards that apply across and within the project delivery teams.
All participant organisations share a common understanding of how to organise for
success and what constitutes valuable project output and outcome success.
Element 3: Integrated risk mitigation & insurance
Low levels would be characterised by an immature and confused
individual firm-specific risk management approach and poorly
defined systemic approaches to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity.
High levels would be characterised by consistent and integrated risk assessment
processes being identified, assessed and mitigated against a project-wide and broader
systems-wide impact for the project or network in the case of programmes of
projects.
Element 4: Joint communication BIM, etc.
Low levels of joint communication would be characterised by poor-
quality staff interaction, use of firm-specific rather than project-wide
processes and ICT systems, and weak cross-team mechanisms for
gaining mutual understanding.
High levels would be characterised by well-integrated processes that are well understood
by all participants and advanced communication technologies being used that
seamlessly connect all project parties within a particular procurement arrangement.
Appendix 1
(continued)
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Element 5: Substantial co-location
Low levels would be characterised by firm-specific policy determining
that disparate teams are physically located in dispersed locations.
There may also be a large visibility gap between project leaders and
those at the ‘coal face.’
High levels would be characterised by a project-wide policy that attempts to maximise
participant co-location, on-site where feasible, including the OP. There would also be
high interaction between project leadership groups and the PM and physical delivery-
team members so that engagement enhances communication and mutual perspective.
Element 6: Authentic leadership
Low levels are revealed when espoused principled values are not
demonstrated in action manifested through a gap between the
rhetoric and reality of leading teams.
High levels demonstrate consistency in espoused and enacted values that are genuinely
principled.
Element 7: Trust–control balance
Low balance is demonstrated by extreme naivety by participants about
trusting others implicitly or alternatively by exhibiting high levels
of suspicion and/or unreasonable demands for formal and informal
control and monitoring that implies a cynical attitude towards trust
of others.
High balance is demonstrated by an innate sensibility to juggle transparency and
accountability demands with the need for trust with necessary due diligence. It
also demonstrates a professional understanding of the nature of project participant
accountability constraints and opportunities for resolving and possibly helping to
resolve.
Element 8: Commitment to innovate
Low commitment levels are manifested by inadequate or incomplete
linkage of motivation, ability and facilitation for innovation within
the context of the procurement form.
High commitment levels are manifested by vision, objectives and desire to be
innovative with well-considered instruments to measure and demonstrate
innovation, motivation through rewards and incentives, and demonstrated high
levels of existing absorptive capacity for innovation.
Element 9: Common best-for-project mindset/culture
Low best-for-project mindset levels are manifested by a higher level of
priority for individual benefit realisation at the potential expense of
other project team members and the PO.
High best-for-project mindset levels are manifested by a genuine attitude that ‘we all
sink or swim together’ and a focus on maximising value to the project (or network
in the case of a programme). Contractual arrangements will reinforce pooled gain
or pain based on performance measured by KRAs and KPIs.
(continued)
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
(continued)
Element 10: No-blame culture
Low no-blame culture is manifested by a project participant’s high
propensity to shift blame from themselves to others. These
problems may be attributable to them for unforeseen, unanticipated
or unwanted events that impact adversely upon project delivery.
A low no-blame culture is also palpable in a tendency to avoid
acknowledging potential problem situations in the hope that blame
can be attributed to others.
High no-blame culture is manifested by a culture of open discussion of problems,
unforeseen, unanticipated or unwanted events that may impact adversely upon
project delivery. The purpose of a no-blame culture is to achieve wider team
participation in collaboration and collective management of problems, and to take
responsibility and accountability for developing problem solutions. It may also be
manifested by the PO taking ownership of risk elements that other participants are
unable to bear rather than force them to accept accountability for such risks.
Element 11: Consensus decision-making
Low consensus decision-making is manifested by a highly hierarchical
project team leaders’ leadership style where power and influence
determines how decisions are made and where the expected
response is that decisions are implemented without question or
complaint. It is also manifested by a tendency for a domination of
top-down directives being issued as edicts.
High consensus decision-making is manifested by a low level of hierarchical project
team leaders’ leadership style where shared power and influence based mainly on
expertise determines how decisions are made and where the expected response is
that decision proposals are expected to be rigorously tested and debated. It is also
manifested by a tendency for the domination of respect for expertise and evidence-
based opinion.
Element 12: Focus on learning and continuous improvement
Low focus on learning and continuous improvement is manifested by
actors within collaborative arrangements and a network delivering
a project being blind to, and failing to grasp, the potential
competitive advantage of applying presented learning opportunities.
High focus on learning and continuous improvement is manifested by actors within
collaborative arrangements and a network delivering a project being alert to
and aware of opportunities for improvement, and being successful in grasping
competitive advantage through effectively harvesting lessons learned.
Element 13: Incentivisation
Low levels of incentivisation is manifested by little emphasis being
placed upon encouraging parties to agree to place potential profit
and gain/pain in a risk/reward arrangement subject to a whole-
of-project outcome performance. KRAs and KPIs are absent or
rudimentary.
High levels of incentivisation are manifested by an emphasis on encouraging parties
to agree to place potential profit and gain/pain in a risk/reward arrangement
that is subject to a whole-of-project outcome performance. KRAs and KPIs
are well developed, provide stretch and challenge, and are sophisticated in their
understanding of the project context.
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Element 14: Pragmatic learning-in-action
Low pragmatic learning-in-action is manifested by actors within
a network delivering a project failing to translate learning
opportunities into actual benefits and competitive action. Failed
experiments are punished.
High pragmatic learning-in-action is manifested by actors within a network delivering
a project which capitalises on learning opportunities to achieve competitive
action. This can be also assessed by the weight that these actors place on the value
of experimentation as a way to see issues and solutions in a new light. Failed
experiments are valued for their intellectual stimulation in discovering, for example,
a better understanding of cause–effect loops.
Element 15: Transparency and open book
Low transparency and open-book approaches to project delivery
intensely protect the security of organisations and individuals to gain
access to information about cost structures or the basis of project
plans. It is often exemplified by the code words ‘commercial in
confidence.’ It seeks to hide both good and bad news but this often
results in mistrust that undermines collaboration and opportunities
for constructive change.
High transparency and open-book approaches to project delivery present opportunities
for generating trust by clients and other parties that may access that information.
It is a confronting notion that many organisations cannot face. It requires the
PO’s authorised probity auditors to have free access to their financial books. Thus,
confidence in ethical and legal business conduct is necessary to accept this challenge.
Element 16: Mutual dependence and accountability
Low mutual dependence and accountability refers to an inability or
lack of desire to acknowledge the potential value of team inter-
dependence and accountability. Participants follow individualistic
paths, possibly at the expense of others, and/or do not support
a sink-or-swim-together workplace culture, or they actively
undermine that culture.
High mutual dependence and accountability refers to an ability and keen desire to
acknowledge team inter-dependence and accountability in ways that build inter-
team trust and commitment through actively enhancing a sink-or-swim-together
workplace culture that actively counters any actions that may inhibit this culture.
(continued)
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Characteristics of IPD
39
Figure 2.3 provides an illustration of a radar figure that visualises the benchmarking of ten
alliance projects. Figure 2.4 illustrated the use of this framework for undertaking a project col-
laborative relationship ‘health check’ for comparing an ‘as intended’ versus an ‘as-is’ assessment
of a single alliance that could trigger a valuable reflective conversation. Similarly, Figure 2.5
illustrated how a proposed project IPD approach may be strategically shaped and designed using
the Collaboration Framework to map what could be seen as politically or practically feasible for
a project delivery approach that may adopt some alliance features but not others to help facilitate
greater collaboration that would be the case for example, when using a partnering agreement.
The workshop idea of using the Collaboration Framework in this way promotes the devel-
opment of reflective practitioners (Ayas and Zeniuk, 2001; Raelin, 2007) and this has been
argued as a critical way in which innovative organisations enhance their dynamic capabilities
(Teece, 2010; 2013). The workshops, if well-documented and thought-through from a knowl-
edge management perspective, could deliver significant organisational learning
References
Ayas, K. and Zeniuk, N. (2001). “Project-based learning: Building communities of reective practition-
ers.” Management Learning. 32 (1): 61–77.
Azim, S., Gale, A., Lawlor-Wright, T., Kirkham, R., Khan, A. and Alam, M. (2010). “The importance
of soft skills in complex projects.” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 3 (3): 387–401.
Battilana, J. and D’aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. Institutional
work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Lawrence T. B., R. Suddaby and B. Leca.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 31–58.
Børve, S., Ahola, T., Andersen, B. and Aarseth, W. (2017). “Partnering in oshore drilling projects.”
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 10 (1): 84–108.
Brady, T. and Davies, A. (2014). “Managing Structural and Dynamic Complexity: A Tale of Two
Projects.” Project Management Journal. 45 (4): 21–38.
Chen, L. and Manley, K. (2014). “Validation of an instrument to measure governance and performance on
collaborative infrastructure projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 140 (5): 04014006.
Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J. and Winter, M. (2006). “Practitioner development: From trained
technicians to reective practitioners.” International Journal of Project Management. 24 (8): 722–733.
Davies, A., Dodgson, M. and Gann, D. (2016). “Dynamic capabilities in complex projects: The case of
London Heathrow Terminal 5.” Project Management Journal. 47 (2): 26–46.
Geraldi, J. and Arlt, M. (2015). Visuals Matter! Designing and Using Eective Visual Representations to Support
Project and Portfolio Decisions. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Gil, N., Miozzo, M. and Massini, S. (2012). “The innovation potential of new infrastructure development:
An empirical study of Heathrow airport’s T5 project.” Research Policy. 41 (2): 452–466.
Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L. and Corley, K. G. (2013). “Organizational Identity
Formation and Change.” The Academy of Management Annals. 7 (1): 123–193.
Gioia, D. A., Price, K. N., Hamilton, A. L. and Thomas, J. B. (2010). “Forging an Identity: An Insider-
outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity.” Administrative Science
Quarterly. 55 (1): 1–46.
Ibrahim, C. K. I. B. C. (2014). Development of an assessment tool for team integration in alliance projects.
PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Auckland, New Zealand, The
University of Auckland.
Mullaly, M. (2014). “The role of agency in project initiation decisions.” International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business. 7 (3): 518–535.
Mullaly, M. (2015). Exercising Agency – Decision Making and Project Initiation. Farnham, UK: Gower
Publishing.
Muzio, E., Fisher, D. J., Thomas, R. and Peters, V. (2007). “Soft skills quantication (SSQ). for project
manager competencies.” Project Management Journal. 38 (2): 30–38.
Oxford (2011). The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pellerin, C. J. (2009). How NASA Builds Teams - Mission Critical Soft Skills for Scientists, Engineers and Project
Teams. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Derek Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker
40
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H. and Meyer, A. D. (2002). “On Uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project
management.” Management Science. 48 (8): 1008–1023.
Raelin, J. A. (2007). “Toward an epistemology of practice.” Academy of Management Learning & Education.
6 (4): 495–519.
Ross, J. (2003). Introduction to project alliancing. Alliance Contracting Conference, Sydney, 30 April
2003, Project Control International Pty Ltd: 43 pp.
Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems, Englewood Clis, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations, Thousand Oaks: CA; London: Sage.
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations, Fourth Edition, Thousand Oaks: CA; London, Sage.
Shmueli, O., Pliskin, N. and Fink, L. (2015). “Explaining over-requirement in software development
projects: An experimental investigation of behavioral eects.” International Journal of Project Management.
33 (2): 380–394.
Stevenson, D. H. and Starkweather, J. A. (2010). “PM critical competency index: IT execs prefer soft
skills.” International Journal of Project Management. 28 (7): 663–671.
Stingl, V. and Geraldi, J. (2017). “Errors, lies and misunderstandings: Systematic review on behavioural
decision making in projects.” International Journal of Project Management. 35 (2): 121–135.
Teece, D. J. (2010). “Business models, business strategy and innovation.” Long Range Planning. 43: 172–194.
Teece, D. J. (2013). Competing through Innovation: Technology Strategy and Antitrust Policies. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Walker, D. H. T. (2016). Understanding the alliance target outturn cost process and its implications.
Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Integrated Project Solutions, School of Property, Construction and
Project Management, RMIT University: 77 pp.
Walker, D. H. T., Davis, P. R. and Stevenson, A. (2017). “Coping with uncertainty and ambiguity
through team collaboration in infrastructure projects.” International Journal of Project Management. 35 (2):
180–190.
Walker, D. H. T. and Harley, J. (2014). Program alliances in large Australian public sector infrastructure
projects. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Integrated Project Solutions, RMIT University: 86.
Walker, D. H. T. and Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2013). Making Sense Of Collaborative Forms Of Relationship
Based Construction Procurement. Engineering Project Organization Conference, Devil’s Thumb Ranch,
Colorado July 9–11, 2013, July 9–11, Carrillo P. and P. Chinowsky, Engineering Project Organization
Society: 15pp.
Walker, D. H. T. and Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2014). “The ambience of a project alliance in Australia.”
Engineering Project Organization Journal. 4 (1): 2–16.
Walker, D. H. T. and Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2015). Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Walker, D. H. T. and Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2016). “Understanding collaboration in integrated forms
of project delivery by taking a risk-uncertainty based perspective.” Administrative Sciences. 6 (3): 17pp.
Walker, D. H. T. and Rahmani, F. (2016). “Delivering a water treatment plant project using a collaborative
project procurement approach.” Construction Innovation. 16 (2): 158–184.
<i>Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery</i>, edited by Derek Walker, and Steve Rowlinson, Routledge, 2019. ProQuest Ebook
Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=5840112.
Created from rmit on 2019-08-18 20:35:17.
Copyright © 2019. Routledge. All rights reserved.
