Sustainable Development 9781846636714, 9781846636707

Citation preview

ecam cover (i).qxd

08/11/2007

11:35

Page 1

ISSN 0969-9988

Volume 14 Number 6 2007

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Sustainable development through culture and innovation Guest Editor: Dr Mohammed Dulaimi

www.emeraldinsight.com

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management

ISSN 0969-9988 Volume 14 Number 6 2007

Sustainable development through culture and innovation Guest Editor Dr Mohammed Dulaimi

Access this journal online ______________________________

495

Editorial advisory board ________________________________

496

Editorial __________________________________________________

497

Guest editorial ___________________________________________

499

Encounters between foreigners and Chinese: perception and management of cultural differences Florence Yean Yng Ling, Amber Ming Hsia Ang and Shallene Su Yu Lim ____________________________________________

501

Organizational culture: the case of Turkish construction industry Ela Oney-Yazici, Heyecan Giritli, Gulfer Topcu-Oraz and Emrah Acar____

519

Integration of information and communication technology: influence of the cultural environment Thayaparan Gajendran and Graham Brewer ________________________

532

Case studies on knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries Mohammed F. Dulaimi__________________________________________

Access this journal electronically The current and past volumes of this journal are available at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm You can also search more than 150 additional Emerald journals in Emerald Management Xtra (www.emeraldinsight.com) See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

550

CONTENTS

CONTENTS continued

Enhancing commitment through work empowerment Anita M.M. Liu, W.M. Chiu and Richard Fellows ____________________

568

Targeting relationally integrated teams for sustainable PPPS Mohan M. Kumaraswamy, Florence Y.Y. Ling, Aaron M. Anvuur and M. Motiar Rahman _________________________________________

581

Collaborative relationships in construction: the UK contractors’ perception Akintola Akintoye and Jamie Main ________________________________

597

www.emeraldinsight.com/ecam.htm As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant, electronic access to this title via Emerald Management Xtra. Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of your journal subscription.

Structured abstracts Emerald structured abstracts provide consistent, clear and informative summaries of the content of the articles, allowing faster evaluation of papers.

How to access this journal electronically

Additional complimentary services available

To benefit from electronic access to this journal, please contact [email protected] A set of login details will then be provided to you. Should you wish to access via IP, please provide these details in your e-mail. Once registration is completed, your institution will have instant access to all articles through the journal’s Table of Contents page at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm More information about the journal is also available at www.emeraldinsight.com/ ecam.htm

Your access includes a variety of features that add to the functionality and value of your journal subscription:

Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your institution to access your journal electronically, making your subscription more cost-effective. Our web site has been designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or username and password.

E-mail alert services These services allow you to be kept up to date with the latest additions to the journal via e-mail, as soon as new material enters the database. Further information about the services available can be found at www.emeraldinsight.com/alerts

Emerald online training services Visit www.emeraldinsight.com/training and take an Emerald online tour to help you get the most from your subscription.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual articles This facility can be used for training purposes, course notes, seminars etc. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/ copyright Online publishing and archiving As well as current volumes of the journal, you can also gain access to past volumes on the internet via Emerald Management Xtra. You can browse or search these databases for relevant articles. Key readings This feature provides abstracts of related articles chosen by the journal editor, selected to provide readers with current awareness of interesting articles from other publications in the field. Non-article content Material in our journals such as product information, industry trends, company news, conferences, etc. is available online and can be accessed by users. Reference linking Direct links from the journal article references to abstracts of the most influential articles cited. Where possible, this link is to the full text of the article. E-mail an article Allows users to e-mail links to relevant and interesting articles to another computer for later use, reference or printing purposes.

Xtra resources and collections When you register your journal subscription online, you will gain access to Xtra resources for Librarians, Faculty, Authors, Researchers, Deans and Managers. In addition you can access Emerald Collections, which include case studies, book reviews, guru interviews and literature reviews.

Emerald Research Connections An online meeting place for the research community where researchers present their own work and interests and seek other researchers for future projects. Register yourself or search our database of researchers at www.emeraldinsight.com/ connections

Choice of access Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of channels. Our web site www.emeraldinsight.com is the recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully searchable and value added access to the complete content of the journal. However, you can also access and search the article content of this journal through the following journal delivery services: EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service ejournals.ebsco.com Informatics J-Gate www.j-gate.informindia.co.in Ingenta www.ingenta.com Minerva Electronic Online Services www.minerva.at OCLC FirstSearch www.oclc.org/firstsearch SilverLinker www.ovid.com SwetsWise www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support For customer support and technical help contact: E-mail [email protected] Web www.emeraldinsight.com/customercharter Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278 Fax +44 (0) 1274 785201

ECAM 14,6

496

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Professor H. Adeli The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA Professor L. Alarcon Pontificia Universidad, Santiago, Chile Professor Sabah Alkass Concordia University, Montreal, Canada Professor D. Arditi Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA Professor P. Barrett University of Salford, Salford, UK Professor Paul Chinowsky University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado, CO, USA Professor Stephen Emmitt Technical University of Denmark, Denmark Professor Carl Haas University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Dr Mohan Kumaraswamy The University of Hong Kong, China Professor D. Langford University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 p. 496 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988

Assistant Professor Dr Muhd Zaimi Majid Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia Professor G. Ofori National University of Singapore, Singapore Dr S. Ogunlana Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand Dr S. Rowlinson Hong Kong University, Hong Kong Professor N. Smith University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Associate Professor Lucio Soibelman Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Iris D. Tommelein Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Director, Project Production Systems Laboratory (P2SL) Berkeley, USA Dr ir Jos Van Leeuwen University of Madeira, Portugal Professor Ron Wakefield Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

Editorial ECAM, Vol. 14 No. 6 is a special issue publishing selected papers from The Joint Conference on Construction, Culture, Innovation and Management held in Dubai from 26 to 29 November 2006. The conference was sponsored by the British University in Dubai, CIB and CICE from Loughborough University. The sub-title of the conference was “Sustainable Development through Culture and Innovation”. The conference builds on CIB’s working commission on “Culture in Construction”. For this special issue Dr Mohammed Dulaimi of the British University of Dubai has acted as Guest Editor responsible for the selection of the papers and overseeing the refereeing process. There are a total of 19 authors involved in the writing of these seven papers. The distribution are one paper with a single author, two with two authors, two with three authors and two with four authors. It is an international group of authors with two from Australia, four from Singapore, four from Hong Kong, four from Turkey, one from Dubai and four from the UK. One paper has three nations represented, Hong Kong, Singapore and UK and are one paper has two nations Hong Kong and UK. I always like the papers authored from different countries. The tensions of the cultural differences usually generate some creativity. The overwhelming theme of this issue is culture. Reflecting the theme of the conference. So this issue addresses cultural issues between the Chinese and foreigners, the cultural issues of workforce empowerment, the culture of Turkish Construction, cultural issues in implementing ICT, cultural issues in international joint ventures and knowledge sharing and cultural issues in relationally integrated teams and finally cultural issues in collaborative projects. The recurrent theme is trust, lack of it, how to build it, the value of it. It seems that the current unsolved research area in construction management is trust. It also seems that there is a growing research community pursuing this particular Holy Grail. Will there ever be a solution? The papers in this issue are as follows. Ling, Ang and Lim address the issues of cultural differences, in particular the interface between Chinese and foreigners. Using questionnaires to collect data the researcher’s hard-hitting findings include the absence of team spirit in Chinese staff, lack of initiative, distrust and a lack of health and safety. This paper highlights an apparent cultural gap and should be of great interest to international companies operating in China and developing their working knowledge of Chinese culture. Oney-Yazici, Giritli, Topcu-Oraz and Acar examine the organisational culture of Turkish construction. This paper is derived from work by the CIB’s working commission W112. The data from construction and architectural firms was collected by questionnaire. The main finding is that they firms that dominate the Turkish construction industry are a mixture of a clan culture and a hierarchical culture. The paper contributes to the understanding of organisational culture in Turkey.

Editorial

497

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 pp. 497-498 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988

ECAM 14,6

498

Gajendran and Brewer examine the influence of the cultural environment on the use and integration of information and communication technology. The researchers are attempting to develop a framework for analysing organisational culture in respect of implementing ICT in the construction industry. The researchers conclude that if the influence of the organisation’s culture is highlighted on the success of ICT implementation this would lead to a greater shared understanding. The researchers conclude that the deployment of ICT without consideration of the cultural issues will only generate disappointing results. They present a framework for considering the cultural issues. Dulaimi presents some case studies on knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries in respect of international joint ventures. The paper is intended for firms involved in international joint ventures that require the sharing of knowledge with a foreign partner. The conclusion is that there is a weakness at all levels caused by a lack of clear commitment to create an environment for effective knowledge sharing. The major barrier seems to be an incompatibility between the cultures of the different countries. This work needs to be taken further to formulate how we overcome these cultural gaps and generate the commitment needed to share knowledge for the benefit of the project. Liu, Chiu and Fellows explore how to enhance commitment through workforce empowerment. The researchers believe that empowerment of the workforce will give greater commitment than “command and control”. The focus of their investigations was quantity surveyors. They claim their results show that as the perception of work empowerment increases so does organisational commitment. Professional qualifications positively correlate with organisational commitment. Chinese chartered quantity surveyors show more commitment than other nationalities and male quantity surveyors show less commitment. In general, the conclusion is more empowerment more commitment. Interesting but maybe I am a victim of my generation I think my default thinking is based on command and control. Maybe I have spent too much time in University senior management. Kumaraswamy, Ling, Anvuur and Rahman want to develop a comprehensive approach to pre-qualifying teams for Public Private Partnerships. The researchers claim they are building theory by bringing together relational contracting, team building and PPP performance research streams. To do this, the researchers present a conceptualised framework to show linkages from relational contracting, sustainable relationship and sustainable infrastructure. As the researchers say, selecting good teams is essential for successful projects. They hope their research is moving towards making that task more certain. Akintoye and Main describe the UK contractors’ perception of collaborative relationships in construction. Motivated by the increased use of collaborative arrangements Akintoye and Main conducted a UK wide survey. They report that contractors are positive about collaboration and the reasons behind this are risk sharing, access to innovation and technology, response to market efficiency in the use of resources and client requirements. What makes collaboration succeed is commitment, equity of relationships and clarity of objectives. The biggest cause of failure is lack of trust. Trust seems to be the emerging main theme of research in culture and relationships. Ronald McCaffer

Guest editorial The theme of this special issue is “Sustainable development through culture and innovation”. Sustainability here refers not only to environmental sustainability but to sustainable organisational and economic development of groups and firms. All the papers in this issue focused on the latter rather than the former. Almost all papers selected for this special issue focused on the challenge of creating collaborative and integrative working relationships between teams separated alongside corporate and national lines. The increased interest in adopting procurement frameworks that encourages more collaborative working is reflected in the number of papers, in this special issue, that have investigated integration, collaboration and effective team work in international joint ventures and multicultural teams. Such working arrangements challenge the construction industry to integrate and/or facilitate the integration of the different groups. Failing to do so would risk the attainment of performance targets, at project and corporate levels. The papers have highlighted a number of reasons for failure to work in an integrative matter such as lack of trust, lack of commitment and unwillingness to work beyond corporate and national culture boundaries. What we can conclude is that cultural differences are exacerbating an age-old problem of lack of integration in construction. Ling et al. in their paper demonstrated the serious cultural gap, in attitude and practices that are still to be addressed to avoid wasting valuable resources. Similarly, the paper by Dulaimi shows that the objective of knowledge sharing in international joint venture projects, in many cases, is no more than wishful thinking if the partners are not committed to and put the effort to achieve it. Liu et al. have found evidence how different professional qualifications and different nationalities have had led to differing practices and attitude toward work. The work of Ela Oney-Yazici et al. has shown how the corporate culture in most construction firms surveyed in Turkey was not “compatible” with their business environment. The implication, in my view, is that although such attitudes and approaches cannot immediately change, management will have to create the conditions and motivation for individuals and teams to bridge such differences. Evidence from one of the case studies in Dulaimi’s paper shows that when senior management demonstrated the commitment and communicated the benefit and importance of bridging cultural differences more positive working attitude was created. The paper by Gajendran and Brewer showed how the adoption of ICT is influenced by cultural context. They argued that to achieve best-fit ICT integration strategy there should be a clear prior understanding of the cultural context of both the implementing organisation and the project environment into which they are to be deployed. The increased interest in collaborative working arrangements, such as Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), has put greater pressure on the construction industry to integrate teams with different corporate and national cultures. Akintolye and Main study has provided evidence of the importance contractors have attached to adopting collaborative working arrangements. Their study shows that of all the main reasons for contractors to embrace collaborative working arrangements, such as risk-sharing

Guest editorial

499

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 pp. 499-500 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988

ECAM 14,6

500

and access to innovation and technology cannot be achieved without creating teams that are more integrated. The work of Kumaraswamy et al. provided a possible tool for contractors to achieve this. Their paper examined the importance and provided the framework for incorporating relational factors in the selection of PPP’s teams. They presented arguments and evidence that showed that when addressing the compatibility of the different teams, as well as financial and operational capabilities, would contribute to “suitably integrated long-term development”. Mohammed Dulaimi Guest Editor

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Encounters between foreigners and Chinese Perception and management of cultural differences

Foreigners and Chinese

501

Florence Yean Yng Ling Department of Building, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Amber Ming Hsia Ang KPK Quantity Surveyors, Singapore, and

Shallene Su Yu Lim Frisco Technology and Services, Singapore

Abstract Purpose – The aim of this research is to investigate how foreign (non-mainland Chinese) architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) professionals manage cross-cultural encounters with mainland Chinese in the construction industry. The specific objectives are to identify perceived cultural differences between Chinese and foreigners when executing construction projects, based on the perceptions of foreign personnel only; and recommend a framework to manage cross-cultural encounters between foreigners and Chinese. Design/methodology/approach – The data collection instrument was a questionnaire, which had open-ended questions. The data collection method was face-to-face in-depth interviews with 19 foreign AEC practitioners who had worked with Chinese in construction projects in mainland China. The majority of these projects were located in Shanghai. Findings – The main perceived differences were: the absence of team spirit in Chinese staff; the need to micro-manage Chinese staff; the lack of initiative in Chinese staff; difficulty in communicating with Chinese staff; the absence of trust among the Chinese and by Chinese of foreigners; Chinese firms’ attempts at recovery of under-pricing following contract award; ease of settling disputes with Chinese; lack of safety and quality culture; and prevalence of networking culture. Several methods to manage cross-cultural encounters are identified. Among these, most of the interviewees practiced adaptability, mimicry and mindfulness, which involved paying attention, being watchful and attentive. They also relied on their knowledge and experience of Chinese culture. Research limitations/implications – The findings may not be readily generalized because interviews were conducted with only 19 foreign AEC professionals, many of who are from Singapore and had worked primarily in Shanghai. The small number of interviewees may be unrepresentative of the population. Practical implications – Foreign firms could use the findings to help them decide on some of the methods to overcome cultural differences. Originality/value – The research proposed a framework for foreign firms to use when managing cross-cultural encounters with Chinese. It recommends different measures to manage cross-cultural encounters between foreigners and Chinese. Keywords Cross-cultural management, Chinese people, Construction industry, National cultures, Risk management, China Paper type Research paper

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 pp. 501-518 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988 DOI 10.1108/09699980710828987

ECAM 14,6

502

Introduction With China’s high economic growth, more foreign architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) firms are expected to venture into its construction industry. Unfortunately, foreign AEC practitioners may not know how to manage Chinese consultants, contractors, sub-contractors and workers, due to different cultural backgrounds between citizens of China (the Chinese). The word Chinese can mean ethnic Chinese as a race of people who are found in many parts of the world, or citizens of China. In this study, “Chinese” refers to citizens of China, and “foreign” or “foreigner” refers to things and people that are not Chinese. The aim of this research is to investigate how foreign architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) professionals manage cross-cultural encounters with Chinese in the construction industry. The specific objectives are to identify perceived cultural differences between Chinese and foreigners when executing construction projects and recommend a framework to manage cross-cultural encounters between foreigners and Chinese. As more and more foreign AEC firms are expected to work in China, understanding differences in cultures and managing these differences are important for smooth project implementation. Mismanaging cultural differences can render otherwise successful managers and organizations ineffective. If successfully managed, differences in cultures can lead to innovative business practices, faster and better learning within the organization, and sustainable sources of competitive advantage (Hoecklin, 1996). Literature review China’s membership of World Trade Organization (WTO) means that more foreigners would work with Chinese, either in projects in China or other countries which Chinese firms export their services to. With globalization, project teams are likely to comprise people from different cultures. The culture of a society comprises its shared values, understandings, assumptions and goals adopted from previous generations, and resulting in common attitudes, codes of conduct and expectations that mould the behaviour of the people (Loosemore, 1999). Cultural differences International construction projects are those in which contractors, lead consultants or employers are not of the same domicile, and at least one of them is working outside his country of origin. Cultural differences are expected to contribute to conflicts among project team members and increase difficulties in project management. For successful outcomes of international construction projects, AEC practitioners should understand the culture of the host country, and even if they do not know what the similarities between cultures of home and host countries are, they should at least know the differences (Low and Shi, 2002). People from different countries have different cultures. National cultures may be categorized into the following dimensions: power distance; individualism vs. collectivism; masculinity vs. femininity; uncertainty avoidance; and long vs. short term orientation (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). For example, the Chinese (race) is characterized by importance of preserving face, building relationships (guan xi), trust and friendship (Ang and Ofori, 2001). Cultural differences are usually represented by dissimilar language, background, perceptions and mentalities (Swierczek, 1994). Other differences include educational

background, beliefs, art, morals, customs and laws. Ankrah and Langford (2005) found organizational cultural differences between architects and contractors. Cultural differences are also associated with individual characteristics such as gender, age, job experience and race (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004b). These differences lead to problems in communication and working together (Swierczek, 1994). Chua et al. (2003) found that problems arising from cultural differences in international construction are usually related to low productivity and skill levels, poor management, bureaucratic work procedures and disputes. Ngowi (1997) found that in construction projects in which team members are from different cultural backgrounds, there are inhibitions to innovation compared to the ones in which team members have similar cultural backgrounds. Loosemore and Chau (2002) discovered that Asian operatives perceived significant levels of blatant racial discrimination and harassment in the Australian construction industry. Cultural differences are not effectively managed; and Asian operatives are expected to assimilate and integrate into mainstream white society. In the fieldwork, perceived cultural differences between Chinese and foreign AEC professionals in the execution of construction projects are investigated. Cultural intelligence Recognizing and sensibly manipulating cultural differences could allow improvements in efficiency and profitability of international projects (Chan and Tse, 2003). Several studies on managing cultural differences had been conducted. Chevrier (2003) identified openness, patience and self-control as key to cross-cultural management. A successful global manager needs to have cultural intelligence to cope with different national, corporate and vocational cultures (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004a). Earley and Ang (2003) defined cultural intelligence as a person’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts. It reflects a person’s capability to gather, interpret and act upon radically different cues to function effectively in a multicultural situation. Earley and Ang (2003) proposed the cultural intelligence framework that consists of three main components: head (thinking); heart (energizing); and body (action). Head (thinking/cognition). The “Head” component of cultural intelligence refers to cognition or strategic thinking relating to cross-cultural encounters which is stored in an individual’s memory (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004b). The relevant attributes of cultural cognition are: knowledge; experience and adaptation (Earley and Ang, 2003). Cross-cultural knowledge refers to what and how to deal with knowledge gained under a variety of circumstances, while cross-cultural experience relates to what and how to incorporate relevant experiences as a general guide for future interactions (Flavell, 1979). Managers have to be able to adapt by being able to constantly monitor the environment and to select, deploy and modify appropriate strategies in cross-cultural encounters (Thomas and Inkson, 2004). Heart (energizing/motivating). The “Heart” component of cultural intelligence refers to measures that motivate or energize an individual in cross-cultural encounters (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004b). The effective manager must have the confidence and motivation to adapt in cross-cultural encounters, based on: self-efficacy; values congruence; and goal focus (Earley and Ang, 2003). Self-efficacy refers to “a judgment of one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of performance” (Bandura, 1997, p. 391). In cross-cultural context, people with high

Foreigners and Chinese

503

ECAM 14,6

504

self-efficacy believe that they are capable of understanding people from other cultures and will not give up when their efforts fail (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004b). Values congruence takes place when there is similarity between cultures of interacting parties. An individual who is operating in a culturally different (and disliked) environment may disengage from others because of a distaste or dislike of the culture (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004b). The nature and type of goals that people set for themselves are critical for understanding and predicting the outcomes of cross-cultural interactions (Earley and Peterson, 2004). People with high self-efficacy will tend to set challenging goals for themselves to master the cultural quagmire they face (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004a). Body (action/behaviour). The “body” component is the element through which intentions and desires are translated into action (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004b). The relevant measures are: aptitude; self-presentation; and mimicry (Earley and Ang, 2003). A person with high cultural intelligence will have the aptitude to determine where new behaviours are needed and how to execute them effectively, through persistency (Earley and Peterson, 2004). Self-presentation in social interactions is motivated primarily by the need for impression management (Goffman, 1967). A person with high cultural intelligence mimics some of the mannerisms and posturing, verbal and nonverbal cues of the other person so as to create a comfort zone (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004a). In the fieldwork, the appropriateness and completeness of the cultural intelligence framework, comprising cognitive, motivation and action factors, to manage cross-cultural encounters is investigated. Gap in knowledge The literature review revealed that cultural differences arise in many instances. However, hitherto, little research has been done on the cultural differences between foreigners and Chinese when operating in the construction industry. Furthermore, it is not known the extent to which Earley and Ang’s (2003) cultural intelligence framework is applicable to managing cross-cultural encounters between foreign and Chinese AEC practitioners. This study therefore aimed to fill these gaps in knowledge. Research method Research may be quantitative or qualitative in nature. This research adopted the qualitative method because understanding a phenomenon from the point-of-view of the participants and its particular social and institutional context may be lost when textual data are quantified (Kaplan and Maxwell, 1994). Other construction management researchers who adopted qualitative research method include: Ellis et al. (2005); Nystrom (2005); and Leiringer (2006). The qualitative research method adopted was grounded theory. Grounded theory is an inductive, theory discovery methodology that allows the researcher to develop a theoretical account of the general features of a topic while simultaneously grounding the account in empirical observations or data (Martin and Turner, 1986). This method was chosen because there should be a continuous interplay between data collection and analysis, to determine inductively the cultural differences and ways to manage these differences using discovery method.

Data collection for qualitative research includes interviews, participant observation, and archival research (Myers and Avison, 2002). This study adopted the face-to-face interview technique because probing questions were involved, respondents were required to provide in-depth answers and particularly interesting aspects of the responses could be delved into. It also tended to give a higher participation rate since interviewees only need to give verbal comments rather than fill up a questionnaire with long answers. The other data collection methods were not used because the projects in China had been completed (preclude participant observation) and cultural matters are not likely to be recorded (archival research ruled out). The data collection instrument was a specially designed three-part questionnaire that comprised open-ended questions. The first part comprised questions to investigate the perceived cultural differences and problems faced when foreigners work with Chinese. This was developed after exploratory interviews with three foreigners who had worked with Chinese. The second part was based on the constructs in Earley and Ang’s (2003) cultural intelligence framework. The questions were to elicit how cultural differences were overcome and managed. Open-ended questions were provided in the first two parts to allow interviewees to have greater freedom in sharing their experience and knowledge, and gave respondents a chance to answer using their own frame of reference, without undue influence by prefixed alternatives. The third part of the questionnaire comprised general questions to find out the demography of interviewees. The qualitative data collected were analyzed using content analysis. Content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid references from data to their contexts (Krippendorff, 1980). This was chosen because content analysis allowed the qualitative data to be subjected to constant comparative analysis to search for structures and patterned regularities in the text to generate knowledge within interviewees’ experience in managing cross-cultural encounters with Chinese. In this study, the population frame comprised foreign AEC practitioners who had worked with Chinese construction industry participants, and are proficient in English, as the interviews were conducted in English. To build up the sample, Singaporeans who had worked in China were first identified through published reports. Using snowball sampling, other foreigners who had worked in China’s construction industry were identified. E-mails were sent to all those identified. Upon agreement, interviews were conducted at the interviewees’ offices in Singapore or China. Each interview lasted between 45 and 90 minutes. Characteristics of the sample Among the 50 foreign AEC practitioners approached, 19 agreed to be interviewed after much persuasion and follow up telephone calls, giving a response rate of 38 percent. Table I shows that among the 19 interviewees, three (16 percent) were Americans (A), another three were Japanese (J) and the rest were Singaporeans (S). A total of 10 (53 percent) interviewees were conducted in Shanghai and the rest in Singapore. The interviewees had worked between five and 27 years in the construction industry. The average is 15.8 years. Of the interviewees, 79 percent had worked in the industry for at least 10 years, 53 percent of the interviewees were top management, 37 percent were mid-management and 10 percent were professionals. Table I shows that the interviewees worked as project (PM) or construction managers (CN) (47 percent),

Foreigners and Chinese

505

ECAM 14,6

506

Table I. Profiles of interviewees

Code

Interviewees’ country of origin

Designation of interviewee

Experience (years)

A-CN1 A-PM1 A-PM2 J-AR1 J-CN1 J-PM1 S-AR1 S-AR2 S-PM1 S-PM2 S-PM3 S-PM4 S-QS1 S-QS2 S-QS3 S-QS4 S-QS5 S-QS6 S-QS7

USA USA USA Japan Japan Japan Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore

Vice President Director Manager Vice President Senior Manager Dy CEO Senior Manager Vice President Vice President Manager Manager Manager Senior Manager Manager Vice President Manager Manager Professional Professional

27 25 9 24 15 16 20 25 17 15 14 14 18 9 20 10 11 5 6

Service provided by interviewee when interacting with Chinese Construction Manager Project Manager Project Manager Consultant architect Construction Manager Project manager Consultant Architect Consultant Architect Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager Consultant QS Consultant QS Consultant QS Consultant QS Consultant QS Consultant QS Consultant QS

consultant quantity surveyors (QS) (37 percent) and consultant architects (AR) (16 percent) when they interacted with Chinese. All the interviewees confirmed that they had worked with Chinese in previous construction projects. The majority of these projects were located in Shanghai. The 19 interviewees were coded. The first alphabet refers to an interviewee’s country of origin (A, J, or S). The next two alphabets refer to his specialization (AR, CN, QS, or PM). The interviewees are differentiated the last digit. For example, S-QS5 is the fifth Singaporean quantity surveyor who was interviewed. Differences between foreign and Chinese cultures From the 19 interviews, perceived cultural differences between foreigners and Chinese are summarized in Table II. These are now discussed. Team-spirit In construction projects, the presence of team spirit leads to higher collective professional effort and more effective performance (Thamhain and Wilemon, 1987). One of the difficulties faced by foreign AEC practitioners is developing the team’s esprit de corps. Interviewee A-PM1 commented that Chinese staff have high technical competency but they could be calculative and uncooperative. For instance, during meetings, they were encouraged to give their views and opinions. It was common for team members to have differing opinions. The usual practice for foreign firms was for the team to discuss and then come up with a general consensus. However, in some cases, after the meeting, Chinese staff might still hold on to their own views and were reluctant to implement what the team had decided. This is one of the reasons why the American interviewees’ firms had to station expatriate staff (about 15 percent of total staff strength) in their China offices to supervise Chinese staff.

Description Level of technical competency Level of cooperation Need detailed procedures Need for micro-management Need for close supervision Level of initiative Willingness of mid-management to take additional responsibility Competency in English Level of trust for project managers Compliance with written contract Propensity to make claims Ease of settling disputes Safety awareness Quality performance Prevalence of networking

Singapore respondents (S)

American respondents (A)

Japanese respondents (J)

High Medium Yes Yes High Low

High Low Yes Yes High Low

High Low Yes Yes High Low

Low Low Low Low High Easy Low Low High

Medium Low Low Low High Difficult Low Low High

Low Low Low Low High Easy Low Low High

Micro-management The interviewees perceived that Chinese workmen and supervisors needed to be monitored closely. Management on a micro level is required to monitor project progress closely, if not, the deadline would not be met. A-PM2’s firm conducted daily meetings, sometimes twice a day to identify the works for each day. A-CN1 stated that: You have to watch them closely if not they won’t do their job. This kind of behaviour has not changed in all the 18 years that I have been in China.

Besides close monitoring, the interviewees found that their Chinese staff were procedure driven. Historically, they had to obey many rules and regulations and it would be risky to deviate from standard operating procedures. S-QS1 remarked: Chinese staff are obedient and are mostly the “instruction taking employees”. On the working level, staff are always expecting procedures to be given to them so the management cannot give them too much free play in the ways of working. If detailed procedures are not given, most of the staff will be lost, and cannot perform effectively.

Initiative Initiative is volunteering to carry out tasks that are not formally part of one’s own job (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). Many interviewees perceived that Chinese staff lacked initiative in solving problems and mid level managers were unwilling to take additional responsibilities. S-QS2 gave an example that while in developed countries mid-level managers are expected to be proactive, in China, they still expect step-by-step instructions to be given by higher management. They are not used to taking initiative and coming up with their own working methods. It is likely that the perceived lack of initiative and the need for micro-management are a result of China’s significantly high power distance as measured by Hofstede (2003). In this society, the less powerful members (employees) accept and expect that

Foreigners and Chinese

507

Table II. Perceived practices and culture of Chinese firms and workmen

ECAM 14,6

508

power to be distributed unequally. As they perceive that they lack power compared to their supervisors and superiors, they may adopt the mentality of “sitting around and waiting for instructions”. Communication with Chinese staff Communication is the ability to interact effectively with others at all levels within and outside the organization (Gushgari et al., 1997). Effective communication enables projects to be completed faster (Walker, 1998). One of the cultural problems faced is that Chinese employees are not proficient in English and foreigners are not proficient in Mandarin. J-AR1’s firm overcame communication problem by hiring more Chinese staff that spoke Japanese. This also has drawbacks because people of different cultures but speaking the same language may still think in their native tongue; hence communication ability may be hampered by the need to translate from their native idioms and thought processes (Chua et al., 2003). As a result, messages are not brought across and time is wasted on understanding the actual intention. All the interviewees observed that Chinese use very little English in their everyday life. Although they learnt English in school, they are not comfortable speaking and reading English. On the other hand, foreigners are more proficient and comfortable speaking and reading English instead of Mandarin. Communication problems may be managed by engaging someone who understands ones’ mentality and working system. Japanese interviewees shared that they would engage Chinese who have studied or worked in Japan. In engaging sub-contractors, they would choose those who have worked with other Japanese contractors in the past and are familiar with Japanese working culture. In the context of foreign firms in China, it is recommended that foreign firms engage either foreigners who have studied in China, or Chinese who have studied overseas. In addition, staff (foreign and Chinese) should learn whichever language they are less proficient in. Culture of distrust Ang and Ofori’s (2001) found that trust is one of the most important cultural values of Chinese, and has high effect on running of businesses and business relationships. However, this study found that project managers are not fully trusted by Chinese firms that engaged them. The head office controlled many other matters such as budget and quality. J-PM1 shared that in Japan, project managers are given full authority and responsibility on all matters relating to the project because trust exists between project managers and their employers. Japanese systems are known to operate in a “lean way” and in teams to achieve continuous improvement (Womack et al., 2007). A greater degree of trust leads to greater team spirit and higher quality of information exchange among team members, and this gives rise to more effective decision-making and higher productivity (Thamhain and Wilemon, 1987). Culture of ignoring written contracts The interviewees perceived that Chinese firms did not always honour contracts. Admittedly, this may be the practice of other cultures as well, but to a different degree. To overcome this, A-PM2 revealed that he required contractors to read and stamp on every page of the contract documentation because he found that some Chinese sign contracts without paying attention to all their legal duties and liabilities. Sometimes, he

even sat down with Chinese contractors and went through every page of the contract documents with them to explain the contents in detail. This was to ensure that there was no misunderstanding of the specifications. Claims culture While Chinese are known to stress collectivism, “face” and harmony (Yuen, 1992), the interviewees of this study perceived that Chinese have a strong claims culture. This competitive style in which a person pursues his own concerns at the expense of the other party is used when dealing with outsiders or when a party perceives that the other side did not give it “face” (Yuen, 1992). According to several interviewees, claims arose because some Chinese contractors submitted bids that they thought would help them win the job without studying the tender documents in detail. Therefore, the interviewees recommended careful analysis of tender prices, as Chinese contractors’ usual practice is to bid low and later claim for variations. While Chinese contractors were perceived to be claims conscious, many were not able to substantiate their claim, as they generally did not keep proper records. A-PM2 mentioned that there was a Chinese contractor who tried to claim for additional payment on the grounds that it had under priced in the beginning! A-PM2 warned that it is necessary to keep on emphasizing to Chinese contractors their duties and responsibilities under the contract. It is however not easy to change the claims culture because once established, a culture has a dynamic of its own, and does not disappear (Rooke et al., 2003). Rooke et al. (2003) suggested that promoting partnering relationships that contain provision for continuous improvement; and provision that internal partnering should precede partnering between companies, as possible ways to reduce claims culture and improve productivity. Dispute settlement S-PM4 felt that it is easier to resolve a dispute with Chinese contractors than foreign contractors because they are not caught up with contractual procedures and legal requirements. This confirms Kirkbride et al.’s (1991) finding that Chinese adopt high compromising (the middle ground, with neither side having to suffer a loss of “face”) and avoiding behaviours (a strategy used to avoid a possible loss of “face”) to manage conflicts. Usually, Chinese contractors dislike scouring through thick contract documents to find clauses to support their position in a dispute. Chinese are known to be reluctant to resort to legal or procedural settlement (Yuen, 1992) A-PM1 commented: When dealing with Chinese contractors, the first step is to identify how much money they really want. For example, even though a contractor would be satisfied with Renminbi (RMB) 2 million, he would claim RMB 10 million at the first instance. The disputing parties then negotiate towards RMB 2 million, through haggling and wrangling instead of going through the whole tiresome contractual process to substantiate the claim. We usually go through the meeting, quarrel and after that meet up with a few key people to settle the dispute over dinner.

Safety culture The interviewees perceived that Chinese workers have low consciousness and poor attitude towards safety at construction sites, confirming Tam et al.’s (2004) finding that

Foreigners and Chinese

509

ECAM 14,6

510

measured by international standards, construction site safety records in China are poor. Tam et al. (2004) found evidence of lack of: provision of personal protection equipment; regular safety meetings; and safety training. The main factors affecting safety performance in China include: poor safety awareness of top management and project managers; lack of training; reluctance to input resources to safety; and reckless operations. The American interviewees said that while their firms provided safety equipment for their Chinese workers, many did not bother to use them. They had to constantly remind Chinese construction workers to use the safety equipment provided. “It is as though they do not care about their lives,” A-PM1 commented. Therefore, implementing safety practices in China is a difficult but important task. Achieving quality outputs The study perceived that Chinese firms were unable to provide high quality products and services. In part, this is due to poor quality control. According to S-PM4: Many things are not done properly or according to the contract. You will have to brace yourself for surprises at all times. Some Chinese will find ways to cut costs and compromise on quality.

To improve quality, A-PM2 recommended close supervision. In addition, much training had to be given to Chinese workers to educate them on what satisfactory level of quality was. This included physical demonstration, viewing photographs or visiting facilities completed to high quality standards. Networking culture All the interviewees perceived that networking culture is strong in China. Networking is conducted at several levels. The first level is to be invited to bid. S-PM1 felt that building an extensive network of contacts enabled his firm to be invited to bid. Foreign firms need to form “guanxi” (relationships) with the right Chinese. When two independent parties form guanxi, they establish a connection to enable a bilateral flow of personal or social transactions from which both parties derive benefit (Yeung and Tung, 1996). S-AR1 noted: “In China, business is settled over the dining table.” Many Singaporean interviewees allocated a large budget for entertaining Chinese clients to foster better future working relationships. The second level of networking is after bids are submitted. The culture is that bidders must contact and communicate with clients after bids are submitted to ensure a higher chance of winning a contract. This is necessary even for foreign clients operating in China. The American interviewees found that it was not because the foreign clients’ culture had changed drastically, but because they had engaged Chinese staff, who had localized their operations. Framework for managing cross-cultural encounters Based on the interview results, a conceptual framework for managing cross-cultural encounters with Chinese is proposed (see Figure 1). This framework is underpinned by Earley and Ang’s (2003) cultural intelligence concept, which comprised three main factors: cognition, motivation and action.

Foreigners and Chinese

511

Figure 1. Framework for managing cross-cultural encounters between foreigners and Chinese AEC practitioners

Cognition factor Under cognition factor, content analysis of the interview findings reveals that the variables can be classified into three attributes which are important in cross-cultural management: knowledge; experience and adaptation (see Figure 1). These are now discussed. Cross-cultural knowledge. The majority of interviewees said that foreign AEC practitioners’ cultural knowledge of China and Chinese would help in cross-cultural encounters. Cultural knowledge should be taught at a young age, continuing into adulthood. At the workplace, cultural perceptions can be changed through training, supported by feedback and assessment (English, 2002). Several interviewees felt that overseas education provides exposure to other cultures which builds an individual’s ability to react appropriately in an unfamiliar setting. J-PM1 found no difficulty working in cross-cultural contexts as he had been exposed to such environment since childhood from studying in various countries from pre-teen onwards.

ECAM 14,6

512

According to several interviewees, foreigners should also acquire the ability to speak Chinese. Such ability helps because conquering the language barrier shows respect for another’s culture (Thomas and Inkson, 2004). Cross-cultural experience. The majority of the interviewees felt that past experience in Chinese culture would help in subsequent cross-cultural encounters. S-PM3 felt that past experiences in working with people from other cultures can make a person more tolerant and patient and give him a different outlook. S-PM4 said that “while technical knowledge can be learnt in books, soft skills are learnt ‘on the spot’ and will be useful for working with people from other cultures in future”. This is consistent with Flavell’s (1979) finding that accumulated past experiences can serve as a general guide for future interactions and give a better understanding on how different cultures work. S-QS5 stated that past cross-cultural experiences shorten the cycle of understanding a new culture, reduce culture shock, reduce difficulties of communicating and dealing with foreigners, and increase a person’s awareness of cultural differences. Many interviewees said that past cross-cultural experiences help people not to commit the same mistake twice and enable them to adapt faster to new cultures in future jobs. S-PM2 gave this example: I learnt from an earlier exposure in Malaysia that a very wrong thing to say is “back home in Singapore, we do it this way”. Now, in China, I start off with “how do you do things here?

S-PM3 felt that in order for a cross-cultural team to work well, the leader must be able to ensure that team members of different cultures blend well together. Past experiences of the leader will help in understanding the needs of these individuals, thus improving efficiency. Adaptation. All the interviewees revealed the importance of being adaptable in cross-cultural settings. Adaptability allows one to accept and understand another culture better. J-AR1 felt that a person could be successful in a cross-cultural encounter if he can readily adjust to changes. Those who are not adaptable are contented with their surroundings and do not allow others to enter their comfort zone. J-PM1 felt that some people failed in cross-cultural settings because they insisted others should follow their own culture. The majority of interviewees said that adaptation can be facilitated by being open-minded. J-PM1 suggested that this involves adjusting one’s view and attitude towards someone from another culture. Several interviewees agreed that keeping an open mind is essential in order to be receptive to others and accepted by others. Open-mindedness contributes to effective cross-cultural teams in the construction industry (Chevrier, 2003). Motivation factor The interview findings confirm that professionals in cross-cultural settings must have motivation to adapt, based on Earley and Ang’s (2003): self-efficacy; value congruence; and goal focus (Figure 1). These attributes are now discussed. Self-efficacy. The majority of the interviewees revealed that when they started working in China, they were confident they could overcome cross-cultural obstacles. This shows that they have self-efficacy, which comprised the spirit of “I can do it!”, resilience and perseverance to overcome cross-cultural obstacles.

However, several interviewees cautioned that too much self-efficacy and over exposure to another culture may desensitise a person, and may cause him to be over-confident in cross-cultural encounters. S-PM4 said that to avoid this, one should not assume the way of doing things in one’s home country is the same in foreign countries. This is consistent with the findings of Thomas and Inkson (2004) where behaviour taken for granted at home may be unacceptable abroad. Value congruence. Value congruence between the people of different countries could be ascertained by comparing Hofstede’s (2003) cultural dimension indices. Singapore and China have similar indices for power distance index, individualism and masculinity (Hofstede, 2003). Consistent with these results, the interviewees perceived value congruence between Singaporeans and Chinese in many areas, as many Singaporeans are Chinese by race, with ancestors hailing from China. The majority of Singaporeans speak Mandarin (besides English). All the Singaporean interviewees tried to communicate in Mandarin with Chinese and avoided speaking English whenever possible. Interviewee S-QS4 mentioned that since the common language between Singapore and China is Mandarin, Singaporeans should capitalize on this and avoid speaking English. Interviewee S-QS4 stated that although Singaporeans and Chinese speak the same language, Mandarin, there might still be communication difficulties due to differences in accent and slang. As a result, messages were not brought across and time was wasted on understanding each other. This is in agreement with Chua et al. (2003), who found that project participants speaking the same language might think in their native tongue; hence, communication problems arise because of the need to translate from their native idioms. Several interviewees cautioned that value congruence might be reduced if regional culture is prevalent. For example, even though Singaporeans and Chinese could communicate in Mandarin, in Shanghai, Shanghainese is spoken, and the majority of interviewees from Singapore are unable to understand this regional dialect. Goal focus. A person would put in more effort to adapt to people from another culture if he has long-term goals in mind. Setting long-term objectives will motivate and push one to overcome cultural quagmire faced in a foreign context (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004a). A-PM2 said that his long-term goal was to have repeat business in China. With this goal, he adopted certain behaviour to ensure that he achieved it. A-PM2 explained: If I’m coming here to do one project, I won’t care too much about the client. I will just take the money at the end of the project and run. But because I want repeat business, I have to satisfy the client. As a contractor, I will adapt my behaviour because I want repeat business from architects and engineers.

Action factor The interview results showed that under action factor, the relevant attributes consistent with Earley and Ang’s (2003) findings: aptitude; self-presentation; and mimicry (Figure 1). Aptitude. To achieve successful cross-cultural management, one must have the aptitude to respond and execute the behaviours appropriate for a new culture (Earley and Peterson, 2004). Otherwise, culture interventions may lead to unintended consequences such as cultural erosion and cultural reinvention, which happens when behaviours appear to be based on the new culture, but in reality merely camouflages the continued adherence to the old culture (Harris and Ogbonna, 2002).

Foreigners and Chinese

513

ECAM 14,6

514

Interviewees reported the importance of having the aptitude to determine the appropriate behaviour needed in cross-cultural encounters. In trying to determine what new behaviours are needed, several interviewees (S-QS3 and S-PM4) spent more time communicating and interacting with Chinese to learn their culture. Consistent with the findings of Earley (2002), A-CN1 and S-QS7 stated that besides being persistent in acquiring new behavioural skills, aptitude is also required to determine where these skills are needed and how to execute them appropriately in the foreign context. It is not enough to execute new behaviours; the execution needs to be carried out quickly. Interviewee S-PM4 mentioned that: By executing new behaviours quickly, less time will be wasted in trying to understand each other and more time can be spent on getting the project moving.

Self-presentation. Interviewees shared about the importance of giving a good impression in cross-cultural encounters through self presentation. S-PM2 shared that: Foreigners should present themselves in such a way that they are not perceived, by Chinese, as being only interested in extracting profits, even though this is a legitimate aim. They should present themselves as being interested in building goodwill with and giving respect to Chinese. This would, in the long run, yield profitability.

Self-presentation also involves adopting behaviour that puts people from another culture at ease. For example, J-PM1 would not adopt some Japanese customs in front of Chinese, but instead would present himself in a way that Chinese are comfortable with. He shared one example: We Japanese slurp loudly when we eat noodles. However, for Chinese, this is considered rude. So, in China, I do not make noise when I eat noodles.

Mimicry. According to interviewee A-CN1, the degree of willingness to mimic another culture shows whether a person is prepared to accept or resist the new culture. He observed that: Some foreigners in China may expect Chinese to adjust to them rather than they adjust to Chinese. It is not possible to expect the majority to follow the minority.

In agreement with Earley’s (2002) finding on mimicry, interviewee J-PM1 said that he had been working in China for so long, and so used to Chinese culture that he found himself behaving like a Chinese sometimes. He added that: When I see Chinese behaving differently from Japanese, I accept that this is their way of doing things. Since I’m in China, I need to follow Chinese style. I strongly believe in “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”.

Mindfulness Besides the factors identified by Earley and his associates (Earley and Ang, 2003; Earley and Mosakowski, 2004b; Earley and Peterson, 2004), the majority of the interviewees consistently brought up the importance of mindfulness in cross-cultural encounters. Some of the interviewees’ comments were as follows: Professionals dealing with other cultures must practice mindfulness in order to break out of their cultural cruise control.

Foreign AEC practitioners should practice mindfulness by constantly monitoring the environment and selecting, deploying and modifying appropriate routines when interacting with Chinese.

Foreigners and Chinese

Foreign AEC professionals should be observant and attentive to the needs of Chinese.

Thomas and Inkson (2004) described mindfulness as paying attention to others, being watchful and attentive. Practicing mindfulness means paying attention in reflective and creative ways to cues in cross-cultural situation encountered (Thomas and Inkson, 2004). The interviewees shared that people should be aware of their own assumptions, ideas and emotions, as well as of the selective perceptions, attributions and categorization that they and others adopt. Part of mindfulness includes taking notice of what is apparent about other parties and tuning in to their assumptions, words and behaviour. Interviewee A-PM1 did this by being sensitive to Chinese culture. This gives him readiness to interact with Chinese. He cautioned that being self-servingly rational and legalistic to the extent of being tone-deaf to local sensitivities would not help foreigners in their business dealings with Chinese. Occupational factor Several interviewees reported that they focused on similar occupational cultures when interacting with Chinese instead of brooding on cultural differences. Interviewee J-AR1 revealed that he tended to forget the nationalities of his team members and focused on technical matters regardless of who the other party is. Occupational cultures act as catalysts facilitating cross-cultural communication such as providing content for exchange and a common language, including technical lexicons (Chevrier, 2003). People are spending shorter periods in any single country and they often move from one location to another, making country-specific knowledge less relevant (Earley and Peterson, 2004). This study found that superior technical knowledge can replace cultural knowledge to some extent. Several interviewees said that if interaction with foreign culture is short, it may not be necessary for a person to prepare extensively in terms of cross-cultural training. Focusing on achieving the objective of the project and applying the technical skills appropriately may be sufficient for a successful project. A professional’s high technical competency can overcome cultural differences. Interviewee J-AR1 gave the example of architectural work: It is not necessary for a foreign architect to speak Chinese or understand Chinese culture. His sound technical knowledge may be sufficient for project success.

Limitations of the study The limitation faced is the relatively small sample size of this research. It would be desirable if more foreign industry practitioners could be interviewed so that the results could be readily generalized. Notwithstanding this, the in-depth interviews of 19 foreign AEC practitioners provided a realistic insight of the cultural differences between foreigners and Chinese in the construction industry, and how cross-cultural encounters with Chinese could be managed. The qualitative data collected precluded statistical analysis of how the framework (Figure 1) to manage cross-cultural encounters worked. It is recommended that a future study be conducted to verify the framework quantitatively, and at a larger scale.

515

ECAM 14,6

516

The next limitation is that the sample is biased towards Singaporean AEC practitioners, and only six US and Japanese practitioners were interviewed. European firms may approach China’s construction industry somewhat differently, and hence attract different cultural risks. Furthermore, only foreigners’ views were sought, without any Chinese citizen being interviewed. A future study could be conducted from Europeans and Chinese points-of-view. Another limitation of this study is that while there are many other categories of risks in China’s construction industry, this research focused only on cultural risks. It is important to point out that the data collected were based on interviewees’ perceptions of cultural differences, which may not be actual differences. Perceptions are nevertheless important because they shape attitudes and behaviours. Conclusion The first objective of this study was to investigate perceived difference in culture between foreign and Chinese AEC practitioners. A total of 15 perceived cultural differences between foreigners and Chinese were identified (see Table II). The main perceived differences are: absence of team spirit in Chinese staff; need to micro-manage Chinese staff; lack of initiative in Chinese staff; difficulty in communicating with Chinese staff; absence of trust among Chinese; claims culture in Chinese partners; ease of settling disputes with Chinese; lack of safety and quality culture; and prevalence of networking culture. The second objective of this study was to develop a framework to manage cross-cultural encounters – the framework shown in Figure 1. It shows that to a large extent, cross-cultural management is based on Earley and Ang’s (2003) cultural intelligence concept, comprising three main factors: cognitive, motivation and action. The study also found that that Earley and Ang’s (2003) cultural intelligence factors are necessary but not sufficient to manage cross-cultural encounters successfully. The additional variables are mindfulness, and focusing on occupational culture. This study contributed to knowledge by developing a framework on cross-cultural management between foreigners and Chinese in the construction industry. The framework shows that to enhance the working relationship across-cultures in international construction projects, it is necessary to acquire cultural knowledge and experience. Relevant personal traits and frequent communication with Chinese are also required to enhance the cultural capabilities of individuals. Lacking these, cross-cultural interaction is unlikely to be successful unless parties focus on technical issues or have superior technical knowledge. References Ang, Y.K. and Ofori, G. (2001), “Chinese culture and successful implementation of partnering in Singapores construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 619-32. Ankrah, N.A. and Langford, D.A. (2005), “Architects and contractors: a comparative study of organizational cultures”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23, pp. 595-607. Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman and Co., New York, NY. Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 71-98.

Chan, H.W. and Tse, Y.C. (2003), “Cultural considerations in international construction contracts”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 375-81. Chevrier, S. (2003), “Cross-cultural management in multinational project groups”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 141-9. Chua, D.K.H., Wang, Y. and Tan, W.T. (2003), “Impacts of obstacles in East Asian cross-border construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 131-41. Earley, P.C. (2002), “Redefining interactions across-cultures and organizations: moving forward with cultural intelligence”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 271-99. Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003), Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2004a), “Cultural intelligence”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 139-46. Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2004b), “Toward culture intelligence: turning cultural differences into a workplace advantage”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 151-7. Earley, P.C. and Peterson, R.S. (2004), “The elusive cultural chameleon: cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 100-15. Ellis, R.C.T., Wood, G.D. and Keel, D.A. (2005), “Value management practices of leading UK cost consultants”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 483-93. English, J. (2002), “Managing cultural differences to improve industrial efficiency”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 196-204. Flavell, J.H. (1979), “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive inquiry”, American Psychologist, Vol. 34, pp. 906-11. Goffman, E. (1967), Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-To-Face Behaviour, Aldine, Chicago, IL. Gushgari, S.K., Francis, P.A. and Saklou, J.H. (1997), “Skills critical to long-term profitability of engineering firms”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 46-56. Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2002), “The unintended consequences of culture interventions: a study of unexpected outcomes”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 31-49. Hoecklin, L. (1996), Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham. Hofstede, G. (2003), “Geert HofstedeTM cultural dimensions”, ITIM International, available at: www.geert-hofstede.com/geert_hofstede_resources.shtml Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Kaplan, B. and Maxwell, J.A. (1994), “Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems”, in Anderson, J.G., Aydin, C.E. and Jay, S.J. (Eds), Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Methods and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 45-68. Kirkbride, P.S., Tang, S.F.Y. and Westwood, R.I. (1991), “Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behaviour: cultural and psychological influences”, Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 365-86. Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Leiringer, R. (2006), “Technological innovations in PPPs: incentives, opportunities and actions”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 301-8.

Foreigners and Chinese

517

ECAM 14,6

518

Loosemore, M. (1999), “International construction management research – cultural sensitivity in methodological design”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 553-61. Loosemore, M. and Chau, D.W. (2002), “Racial discrimination towards Asian operatives in the Australian construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 91-102. Low, S.P. and Shi, Y.Q. (2002), “An exploratory study of Hofstedes cross-cultural dimensions in construction projects”, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 7-16. Martin, P.Y. and Turner, B.A. (1986), “Grounded theory and organizational research”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 141-57. Myers, M.D. and Avison, D.E. (2002), “Overview of qualitative research”, in Myers, M.D. and Avison, D.E. (Eds), Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader, Sage Publications, London, pp. 1-5. Ngowi, A.B. (1997), “Impact of culture on construction procurement”, Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-15. Nystrom, J. (2005), “The definition of partnering as a Wittgenstein family-resemblance concept”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 473-81. Rooke, J., Seymour, D. and Fellows, R. (2003), “The claims culture: a taxonomy of attitudes in the industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 167-74. Swierczek, F.W. (1994), “Culture and conflict in joint ventures in Asia”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-47. Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X. and Deng, Z.M. (2004), “Identifying elements of poor construction safety management in China”, Safety Science, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 569-86. Thamhain, H.J. and Wilemon, D.L. (1987), “Building high performing engineering project teams”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. EM-34 No. 3, pp. 130-7. Thomas, D.C. and Inkson, K. (2004), “Cultivating your cultural intelligence”, Security Management, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 30-3. Walker, D.H.T. (1998), “The contribution of the client representative to the creation and maintenance of a good project inter-team relationships”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 51-7. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (2007), The Machine that Changed the World, Free Press, New York, NY. Yuen, E. (1992), “Conflict-handling process”, in Westwood, R.I. (Ed.), Organisational Behaviour Southeast Asian Perspective, Longman, pp. 362-79. Yeung, I.Y.M. and Tung, R.L. (1996), “Achieving business success in Confucian society: the importance of guanxi (connections)”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 54-65. Further reading Lansley, P. and Riddick, J. (2001), “Chinese culture and successful implementation of partnering in Singapores construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 619-32. Corresponding author Dr Florence Yean Yng Ling can be contacted at: [email protected] To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Organizational culture: the case of Turkish construction industry Ela Oney-Yazıcı, Heyecan Giritli, Gulfer Topcu-Oraz and Emrah Acar

Turkish construction industry 519

Department of Architecture, Division of Project and Construction Management, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey Abstract Purpose – The main stimulus of this study is to examine the cultural profile of construction organizations within the context of Turkish construction industry. Design/methodology/approach – This study is a part of a cross-cultural research, initiated by CIB W112 (Working Commission W112 of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction), concurrently ongoing in 15 different countries. Data were collected from 107 contracting and 27 architectural firms, by means of a questionnaire based on OCAI (Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument), a well-known and widely used measurement tool developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999). Findings – The findings show that the Turkish construction industry has been dominated by firms with a mixture of clan and hierarchy cultures. In addition, the analysis reported here indicates cultural differences at organizational level in terms of firm type, size, and age. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the understanding of organizational culture in the construction industry by providing empirical evidence from the Turkish construction industry. As future research direction, it highlights the need of a cross-cultural comparison among different countries, and an investigation of the effects of cultural profiles of the organizational members on organizational culture. Keywords Organizational culture, Construction industry, Turkey Paper type Research paper

Introduction Understanding of organizational culture is fundamental to examine what goes on in organizations, how to run them and how to improve them (Schein, 1992). Organizational culture is defined as the shared assumptions, beliefs and “normal behaviors” (norms) present in an organization. Most organizational scholars and observers recognize that organizational culture has a powerful effect on the performance and long-term effectiveness of organizations. Cameron and Quinn (1999) propose that what differentiates successful firms from others is their organizational culture. With the worldwide globalization trends, special attention has been given to the study of organizations and their cultures. Empirical studies of organizational culture have been carried out across various countries and industries (Hofstede, 1997; Trompenaars and Hampton-Turner, 1998; Cameron and Quinn, 1999; see among others). In comparison there seems to be a limited number of published studies related The funding for this study was provided by the Istanbul Technical University, Turkey and is gratefully acknowledged.

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 pp. 519-531 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988 DOI 10.1108/09699980710828996

ECAM 14,6

520

to the subject in project-based industries such as construction (Ankrah and Langford, 2005; Low and Shi, 2001; Zhang, and Liu, 2006). After reviewing research on organizational culture, Ankrah and Langford (2005) have concluded that there is a need to become more aware of the importance of this phenomenon and its impact on organizational performance in the construction industry. The main reasons for the growing importance of the organizational culture can be explained by the internationalization of the construction markets (Low and Shi, 2001), and the fragmented nature of the industry (Hillebrant, 2000). It is a well-known fact that international construction firms have faced many problems due to conflicts, confrontations, misunderstandings, and the differences in ways of doing business with other cultures (Gould and Joyce, 2000). On the other hand, the adversarial relations between different project participants are assumed to be influenced by the cultural orientations of the stakeholders (Phua and Rowlinson, 2003). Thus, the study of cultural issues should be addressed when considering the globalization of construction markets. Additionally, it is a common belief that organizations that have developed within similar environments usually have similar cultures and related mindsets with regard to ways of doing business. For this reason, the research reported in this paper, aims to contribute to an understanding of organizational culture in the construction industry using data from a developing country, such as Turkey, where there is no study in this field. Findings of the study may also have implications for other cultures with a similar make-up. Background study Despite different definitions of organizational culture, there is a consensus among organizational researchers that it refers to the shared meanings or assumptions, beliefs and understandings held by a group. More comprehensively, Schein (1992) defined organizational culture as: [. . .] a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems.

Similarly, Deshpande´ and Webster (1989, p. 4) proposed that organizational culture is: [. . .] the pattern of shared values and beliefs that help individuals understand organizational functioning and thus provide them with norms for behaviors in the organization.

There is an extensive body of knowledge in the literature that deals with organizational culture. Many researchers have proposed a variety of dimensions and attributes of organizational culture. Among them, Hofstede has been very influential in studies of organizational culture. Drawing on a large sample of 116,000 employees of IBM in 72 countries, Hofstede identified four dimensions of culture. These four dimensions used to differentiate between cultures are: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity and individualism/collectivism. Beyond these, Hofstede (1997) also identified the process/results oriented, employee/job oriented, parochial/professional, open/closed system, loose/tight control and normative/pragmatic dimensions of culture. These dimensions have been commonly adapted and applied in studies of organizational culture (Sødergaard, 1996).

Other comprehensive studies into organizational culture have been carried out, notably by Trompenaars and Hampton-Turner (1993), who conducted an extensive research into the attitudes of 15,000 managers over a ten-year period in 28 different countries. They proposed five cultural dimensions: (1) universalism/particularism; (2) collectivism/individualism; (3) neutral/affective relationships; (4) diffuse/specific relationships; and (5) achievement/ascription. When dealing with a multitude of dimensions, typologies are usually considered as an alternative to provide a simplified means of assessing cultures. In this regard, typologies are commonly used in the studies of organizational culture. Notable contributors to these typologies include Handy (1993, 1995) who identified the club, role, task and person typologies, and Quinn (1988) who identified the market, hierarchy, adhocracy and clan typologies of culture. Since the culture is regarded as a crucial factor in the long-term effectiveness of organizations, it becomes important to be able to measure organizational culture. Accordingly, a range of tools designed to measure organizational culture have been developed and applied in industrial, educational, and health care settings over the last two decades. All these tools examine employee perceptions and opinions about their working environment (the so-called “climate” of an organization) but only a few, such as the Competing Values Framework and the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI), try to examine the values and beliefs that inform those views (Scott et al., 2003). The majority of the existing studies in the Construction Management field mostly attempt to appropriate the theoretical models and measurement tools of the management literature. For instance, Maloney and Federle (1991, 1993) introduced the competing values framework for analyzing the cultural elements in American engineering and construction organizations. Focusing on the relationship between the organizational culture and effectiveness, Zhang and Liu (2006) examined the organizational culture profiles of construction enterprises in China by means of OCI and Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), the measurement tool of the Competing Values Framework developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999). Rowlinson (2001), using Handy’s organizational culture and Hofstede’s national culture frameworks, investigated the cultural aspects of organizational change in the construction industry. Ankrah and Langford (2005) proposed a new measurement tool after analyzing all cultural dimensions and typologies developed in the literature and highlighted the cultural variability between organizations in the project coalition. Literature review shows that despite the growing importance of organizational culture in construction research, there are few cross-cultural, empirical studies. This may be due to the difficulties of conducting research in several countries. The study reported in this paper forms a part of a cross-cultural research, initiated by CIB W112 on “Culture in Construction”, concurrently ongoing in 15 different countries. The aim of the research project is to develop an international “Inventory of Culture in Construction”. It continues to stimulate new participants from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and America.

Turkish construction industry 521

ECAM 14,6

522

Figure 1. The competing values framework

Research methodology Measurement of culture represents difficulties, particularly in respect of the identification of cultural groups and boundaries. This is further complicated by the nature of the construction industry in which projects are temporary and participants are subject to the values and beliefs of their employing organization, professional groups and project organizations. There is an ongoing debate concerning the study of culture among construction management scholars. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the methodological aspects of studying culture in the construction industry. In order to be compatible with the studies conducted in other countries participating in the CIB W112 research, Cameron and Quinn’s (1999) “Competing Values Framework” (CVF) as well as their measurement tool named “Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument” (OCAI) are adopted as the conceptual paradigm for analysis in this study. The CVF was originally proposed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) to understand organizational effectiveness, and was later applied to explore different issues relative to organizations (Al-Khalifa and Aspinwall, 2001). The CVF is based on two major dimensions. The first dimension emphasizes the organizational focus (internal versus external), whereas the second one distinguishes between the stability and control and the flexibility and discretion. These two dimensions form four quadrants (see Figure 1), each representing a major type of organizational culture: (1) clan; (2) adhocracy; (3) market; and (4) hierarchy.

Theoretically, these four cultural typologies exist simultaneously in all organizations; therefore, archetypes may be used to describe the pattern of the organizational culture (Paperone, 2003). Sampling and data collection Unit of analysis for this study were the contracting and architectural firms operating in the Turkish Construction Industry. A number of 351 firms were contacted, and 134 of them participated in the study giving a response rate of 38.18 per cent. The firms were selected by judgmental sampling procedure. The judgment criteria used for selection were: . origin of nationality, with emphasis on local firms; . size based on number of employees, with emphasis placed on medium and large firms; and . industry position based on market share, with the focus on the 12 largest firms.

Turkish construction industry 523

Sample consisted of a total of 826 respondents (74.9 per cent male, 25.1 per cent female) including both managerial and non-managerial professionals. The questionnaire comprised two parts. Part I included questions regarding the demographic characteristics of the firms and respondents, which are presented in Table I. Although the analysis conducted in this study was at firm level, the characteristics of the respondents are also provided in Table I to reflect a better profile Frequency Characteristics of the firms (N ¼ 134) Number of firms: Contracting Architectural Firm age (years): ,15 16-25 .25 Size of firms (number of full-time employees): Small Medium Large Characteristics of the respondents (N ¼ 826)

107 27

Percentage

79.9 20.1

45 46 39

34,6 35,4 30,0

62 38 34

46,3 28,4 25,4

Number of respondents: Contracting Architectural

723 103

87.5 12.5

Gender: Female Male

207 619

25.1 74.9

Age of respondents (years): 30 and under 31-40 41-50 51 and above

220 292 199 109

26.6 35.4 24.1 13.2

Table I. Characteristics of sample

ECAM 14,6

524

of the sample. As is seen in Table I, contracting firms are representing the 79.9 per cent of the sampled organizations and 87.5 per cent of the respondents. For the purpose of this study, organizations with less than 50 employees were classified as small (46 per cent), those with 51-150 as medium (28 per cent), and those with more than 150 as large (25 per cent). The contracting firms in the survey were generally medium and large-sized whereas the architectural firms were small in size. Searching for the cultural orientations of the firms, Part II was adopted from the “Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)” developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999). OCAI consists of six different questions which are relevant to the key dimensions of organizational culture: (1) dominant characteristics; (2) organizational leadership; (3) management of employees; (4) organizational glue; (5) strategic emphases; and (6) criteria for success. Each question has four alternative statements representing different cultural orientations making a total of 24 questions. All respondents were asked to rate their organizations’ culture on a five-point Likert scale. In this scoring system, for each of the five response categories (completely true, mostly true, partly true, slightly true, never true) a score of 1-5 was assigned, with the highest score of 5 being assigned to “completely true”. The overall cultural profile of an organization was then derived by calculating the average score of all respondents from the same firm. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach alpha) were calculated for each of the different culture types being assessed by the instrument. Coefficients were 0.89 for the clan and adhocracy cultures, and 0.86 for the market and hierarchy cultures, which indicate the fairness of all culture types. Results and discussion A cultural profile score for each organization was obtained by averaging the respondent’s rating for each cultural type across the six dimensions. This provided an indication of the cultural orientation of sampled firms based on the four cultural types. The average scores for all the participating firms are shown in Table II. As is seen from the table, the dominant culture of the sample is clan culture. Respondents identified hierarchy type as the next most dominant in their organizations. These predominant cultures were followed by adhocracy and market, respectively. The sampled firms tend to have values consistent with employee focus or clan culture and internal process or hierarchy culture. The values consistent with external orientation and results focus are emphasized to a lesser extent. This finding contributes to our understanding of the alignment between national and organizational cultures. According to Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) model of national culture, Turkey has been described as being high on the collectivism and power distance value dimensions. This suggests that organizational cultures in Turkish firms are characterized by both unequal (or hierarchical) and harmonious, family-like (clan) relationships. The finding is also consistent with the earlier observations of the

Dimensions of culture

Clan

Dominant characteristics Organizational leadership Management of employees Organization glue Strategic emphases Criteria of success

3.61 3.39 3.84 3.83 3.53 3.66

Cultural profile of the sample

3.64

Culture types Adhocracy Market 3.19 3.38 3.13 3.69 3.75 3.52 Average of the six 3.44

3.58 2.86 3.17 3.09 3.64 3.36 dimensions 3.28

Hierarchy 3.04 3.84 3.66 3.25 3.90 4.04 3.62

Notes: Scale: 1 ¼ Strongly disagree, 2 ¼ Disagree, 3 ¼ Neutral, 4 ¼ Agree, 5 ¼ Strongly agree

Turkish society. Trompenaars and Hampden (1998) found Turkey to have the steepest hierarchy in its organizations. Turkish organizations have been also described as the family-type (Trompenaars and Hampton-Turner, 1998). Another explanation of this finding may be attributed to the nature of state-business relations in the current Turkish context. The state is an important institution in shaping organizational structure of the Turkish private companies. Bugra, in her study, notes that the relations with government authorities, rather than the market, determine the strategic decisions in Turkish organizations. This is also the case for the Turkish construction industry. Even the large company owners manage the company as a family-enterprise, rather than involving the professionals in the major decisions. This may be due to the fact that the relations with the government authorities is not delegated but conducted by the family members (Kabasakal and Bodur, 1998). Independent sample t-tests were conducted on the overall scores for each of the four culture types to compare architectural and contracting firms. Items were randomly pulled from the larger group in order to have equal sample sizes. The results, which are presented in Table III revealed a significant difference for the market culture type between contracting and architectural firms. Market culture is more dominant in the contracting firms than in the architectural practices (t ¼ 3.849, p , 0.0001). This may be attributed to the characteristics of the contracting firms operating in relatively more uncertain and unpredictable markets and environments, where market culture, prevalent in organizations where competitive pricing and market leadership are important (Cameron and Quinn, 1999), might be essential for survival. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was also performed to examine organizational culture differences by firm size and age of the firm. A post hoc Scheffe´ test was used to explore differences among subgroups. Three of the ANOVA results for firm size were found to be significant. Scheffe´ test ( p , 0.05) revealed that the mean scores for large firms for clan and hierarchy cultures were significantly lower than those of small and medium-sized firms. These findings are not supportive of Cameron and Quinn (1999), who related the internal process model to large organizational size, and are inconsistent with many scholars who reported that larger organizations are characterized by numerous hierarchical levels, standardized procedures, increased specialization, limited flexibility and bureaucratic control (Child, 1973; Keats and Hitt, 1988; Lawler, 1997; Mintzberg, 1979). ANOVA results were also significant for adhocracy, or open

Turkish construction industry 525 Table II. Mean scores on the organizational culture dimensions for the sample

ECAM 14,6

526

Table III. Cultural profile scores for firm type, size, and age

Culture types Adhocracy Market

Hierarchy

3,39 3.46 0.590

3,47 3.66 1.671

N

Clan

Firm type Architectural Contracting T-value

27 32

3,75 3.62 21.193

Firm size Small Medium Large F-value

62 38 34

3.72 3.80 3.33 9.201 * * *

3.48 3.55 3.25 3.507 *

3.25 3.41 3.19 1.592

3.65 3.82 3.35 7.553 * *

Firm age #15 16-25 .25 F-value

45 46 39

3.62 3.87 3.47 6.919 * *

3.45 3.69 3.21 9.233 * * *

3.37 3.42 3.06 3.172

3.60 3.86 3.44 5.505 *

2,93 3.37 3.849 * * *

Notes: * p , 0.05 * *p , 0.01 * * *p , 0.001

systems model. The difference was between medium and large sized firms. Adhocracy culture, which is observed in dynamic, innovative and entrepreneur organizations, is more dominant in medium sized firms. This finding supports Gray et al. (2003), who found that organizations with less that 100 employees are significantly more innovative and performance-based organizations than larger ones. Significant differences were also found in terms of organizational age. Scheffe´ tests ( p , 0.05) indicated that 16 to 25 year old organizations scored significantly higher on clan, adhocracy, and hierarchy cultures than older ones. This finding is inconsistent with organizational life cycle theories where it is proposed that more hierarchical and bureaucratic structures emerge as organizations grow and age (Greiner, 1998; Kriesi, 1996). On the other hand, it is possible to explain this finding with a strategic management perspective; since the “growing firms might develop more complex management systems with a number of management functions” (Birley and Westhead, 1990). A k-means cluster analysis was used for combining sampled firms into clusters (groups) that describe cultural configurations of firms with similar cultural characteristics. In order to determine the appropriate number of groups, a hierarchy cluster analysis was first conducted at organizational level, using Ward’s method and squared Euclidean distance as a distance measurement. Results from the hierarchy cluster analysis showed that there are three underlying patterns of cultural types among sampled firms. This number was then used as seed points for the non-hierarchical k-means analysis. Table IV presents the characteristics of each of the groups obtained, using the culture types defined by Cameron and Quinn (1999). The dominancy of culture types in each cluster is determined by the ratio of the mean scores of culture types in clusters to the overall mean scores, where , 1 is low, 1 is moderate, and . 1 is high. Firms of the first cluster obtained low scores on market, and moderate scores in the others. 45 organizations are characterized with cluster 1. Cluster 2 comprised

organizations with moderate scores for market culture and low scores on the others. A total of 25 organizations belong to this group. Cluster 3 contained the largest sample, with 64 organizations. In this group, there was a high emphasis on hierarchy and clan cultures and to a lesser extent adhocracy and market cultures. Table V sets out the descriptive statistics of the cultural clusters. As is seen in the table, 55.6 per cent of the architectural design firms belong to cluster 1 with low scores on market culture, while 52.3 per cent of the contracting firms belong to cluster 3, which are dominated by a mixture of strong hierarchy and clan cultures. This finding supports Ankrah and Langford (2005), who underline that contracting firms in construction industry are quite formal organizations working under formal procedures, where tasks are generally standardized, which are also the characteristics of the hierarchy culture. Searching for the cultural differences among organizations of different sizes, it has been found that 51.6 per cent of the small firms and 52.6 per cent of the medium-sized firms are in cluster 3. Regarding the age of the firms, Table V shows that cluster 3 comprises firms who have been in operation less than 25 years. Graphical presentation of the mean scores in each of the four culture types for the overall sample and cultural clusters is presented in Figure 2, using the competing

Culture types

Overall mean

Cluster 1 (N ¼ 45)

3,64 3,44 3,28 3,62

3.62 3.21 2.92 3.47

Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy

Cultural clusters Cluster 2 Cluster 3 (N ¼ 25) (N ¼ 64) 2.83 2.76 2.79 2.82

N Firm type: Contracting Architectural

108.508 * 167.741 * 102.916 * 182.701 *

3.98 3.87 3.73 4.04

Cultural clusters Cluster 2 (N ¼ 25)

Table IV. Description of the three cultural clusters

Cluster 3 (N ¼ 64)

107 27

30 15

(28,0) (55,6)

21 4

(19,7) (14,8)

56 8

(52,3) (29,6)

Firm size: Small Medium Large

62 38 34

20 16 9

(32,3) (42,1) (26,5)

10 2 13

(16,1) (5,3) (38,2)

32 20 12

(51,6) (52,6) (35,3)

Firm age: #15 16 - 25 .25

45 46 39

14 12 18

(31,1) (26,1) (46,2)

7 4 11

(15,6) (8,7) (28,2)

24 30 10

(53,3) (65,2) (25,6)

Note: N ¼ number of firms in the clusters; Figures in parentheses are percentages

527

F-value

Notes: N ¼ number of firms in the clusters; *p , 0.001

Cluster 1 (N ¼ 45)

Turkish construction industry

Table V. Descriptive statistics of clusters by organizational characteristics

ECAM 14,6

528

Figure 2. The cultural profiles of the clusters

values framework axis and quadrants. A close look at the figure shows that there are similarities between the clusters. Interestingly, the firms in all clusters had higher scores for internally focused culture types (clan and hierarchy) when compared to the externally focused ones (market and adhocracy), regardless from the characteristics of the organizations. Confirming the ANOVA and t-test results presented in Table III, this finding is inconsistent with the assumptions of Dasmalchian et al. (2000) that environmental unpredictability, which is also a common concern in construction industry, has a positive effect on market culture and a negative one on the clan culture. Dasmalchian et al. suggest that organizations operating in more unpredictable and uncertain markets are more likely to develop a value system that emphasizes results orientation and market focus, and de-emphasizes the culture of hierarchy and bureaucracy. Similarly, Al-Khalifa and Aspinwall (2001) have posited that business organizations tend to be less product-driven and more market-oriented in response to dynamic, complex and challenging environments. Conclusion This paper presents the findings of a questionnaire survey conducted among organizations in the construction sector with the view of establishing their current cultural profiles. The results reported in this paper indicate that most of the sampled organizations in the Turkish construction industry have a mixture of clan and hierarchy cultures, which do not match the demands of their competitive environments. Firms operating within the contracting and architectural services sectors put more emphasis on stability and teamwork instead of maintaining productivity and innovation. Yet, they may find it difficult to survive in a fiercely

competitive industry such as construction due to a mismatch between their culture and environment. This study also provided evidence to support the idea that organizational culture is affected by the firm type, organizational size and age, given that: . there is a significant difference between the organizational culture of architectural and contracting firms in the sample, since the market culture is more dominant in the latter, which may be attributed to competitive and unpredictable business environment of the contracting firms; . medium-sized firms have significantly high scores on clan and hierarchy cultures compared to the large firms; . adhocracy culture is more dominant in medium sized firms than the larger ones; and . firms in operation for 16-25 years are scored significantly high on clan, adhocracy, and hierarchy cultures than older ones. In the search of cultural configurations of firms with similar characteristics, the results of the cluster analyses indicated that there exist three underlying cultural orientations in the sample studied. Cluster I, with a low market score; seem to be more appropriate for architectural firms and firms in operation for more than 25 years, while Cluster III, with a high emphasis on clan and hierarchy culture, came over as more suitable for contracting firms, small- and medium-sized firms, and relatively younger firms, in operation for less than 25 years. No distinction has been captured in cluster II, the smallest group in the sample, by firm type and organizational characteristics, except for firm size. Almost 40 per cent of the large firms fall into this group, which has low scores on all culture types, indicating a balanced culture. The results also provide supporting evidence that organizational cultures are partly predetermined by nationality, industry and task; and partly related to the organizational structure and control (Hofstede et al., 1990). However, the conclusion of the study is limited to the sample studied. All firms are Turkey-based; therefore a comparison among different countries would be helpful to prevent the national bias. Moreover, this study does not focus on the cultural profile of organizational members, such as professional cultures of the respondents; therefore it is not possible to ascertain the influence of the cultural characteristics of the respondents on organizational culture. Thus, further research is needed to determine the generalizability of this study’s findings. The study of organizational culture in the construction industry is still in an embryonic stage. We believe that studies of this sort will serve not only to enhance our understanding of organizational culture in the construction industry, but will ultimately point toward several issues that need to be investigated in future research.

References Al-Khalifa, K. and Aspinwall, E.M. (2001), “Using the competing values frameworks to investigate the culture of Qatar industries”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 417-28.

Turkish construction industry 529

ECAM 14,6

530

Ankrah, N.A. and Langford, D.A. (2005), “Architects and contractors: a comparative study of organizational cultures”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 595-607. Birley, S. and Westhead, P. (1990), “Growth and performance contrasts between types of small firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 535-57. Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY. Child, J. (1973), “Predicting and understanding organizational structure”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 168-85. Dasmalchian, A., Lee, S. and Ng, I. (2000), “The interplay between organizational and national cultures: a comparison of organizational practices in Canada and South Korea using the Competing Values Framework”, Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 388-412. Deshpande, R. and Webster, F.E. (1989), “Organizational culture and marketing: defining the research agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 3-15. Gray, J.H., Densen, I.L. and Sarros, J.C. (2003), “A matter of size: does organizational culture predict job satisfaction in small organizations”, working paper, Monash University, Melbourne. Gould, F.E. and Joyce, N.E. (2000), Construction Project Management, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Greiner, L.E. (1998), “Evolution and revolution as organizations grow”, Harvard Business Review, May. Handy, C.B. (1993), Understanding Organizations, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Handy, C.B. (1995), Gods of Management: The Changing Work of Organizations, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Hillebrant, P.M. (2000), Economic Theory and the Construction Industry, 3rd ed., Macmillan, London. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage Publications, London. Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, Sage Publications, London. Hofstede, G., Neujien, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990), “Measuring organizational culture: a quantitative and qualitative study across cultures”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 286-316. Kabasakal, H. and Bodur, M. (1998), “Leaders, values, and institutions: the case of Turkey”, working paper prepared for Globe, Bosporus University, Istanbul. Keats, B. and Hitt, M. (1988), “A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 570-98. Kriesi, H. (1996), “The organizational structure of new social movements in a political context”, in McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D. and Mayer, N. (Eds), Comparative Perspectives On Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lawler, E. III (1997), “Rethinking organization size”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 24-35.

Low, S.P. and Shi, Y. (2001), “Cultural influences on organizational processes in international projects: two case studies”, Work Study, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 267-85. Maloney, W.F. and Federle, M.O. (1991), “Organizational culture and management”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-58. Maloney, W.F. and Federle, M.O. (1993), “Practical models for organizational assessment”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-81. Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Paparone, C.R. (2003), “Appling the competing values framework to study organizational subcultures and system-wide planning efforts in a military university”, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Public Affairs, The Pennsylvania State University, Middletown, PA. Phua, F.T. and Rowlinson, S. (2003), “Cultural differences as an explanatory variable for adversarial attitudes in the construction industry: the case of Hong-Kong”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 777-85. Quinn, J.B. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), “A spatial model of effectiveness: criteria towards a competing values approach to organization analysis”, Journal of Management Science, Vol. 29, pp. 363-77. Quinn, R.E. (1988), Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Rowlinson, S. (2001), “Matrix organization structure, culture and commitment – a Hong-Kong public sector case study of change”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 669-73. Shein, E. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H. and Marshall, M. (2003), “The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: a review of the available instruments – methods”, Journal of Health Services Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 923-45. Sødergaard, M. (1996), “Hofstede’s consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications”, Organization Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 447-56. Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1993), The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: Value, Systems for Creating Wealth in the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands, Doubleday Publishing, London. Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1998), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London. Zhang, S.B. and Liu, A.M.M. (2006), “Organizational culture profiles of construction enterprises in China”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 817-28. Further reading Bug˘ra, A. (1990), “The Turkish holding company as a social institution”, Journal of Economics and Administrative Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 35-51. Corresponding author Ela Oney-Yazıcı can be reached at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Turkish construction industry 531

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

ECAM 14,6

Integration of information and communication technology Influence of the cultural environment

532

Thayaparan Gajendran and Graham Brewer University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia Abstract Purpose – Although the deployment of information and communication technology (ICT) in the construction industry is widespread recent research indicates that the surrounding contextual issues hinder its successful application in many project settings. This paper aims to develop a framework for the analysis of organisational culture in respect of ICT implementation across an organisation in the construction industry. Design/methodology/approach – An re-analysis of critical success factors (CSF) for ICT integration, identified through data from a Delphi study of industry experts and a questionnaire survey of ICT users, using Martin’s three-perspective framework applying both the functional and non-functional approaches to cultural analysis was conducted. Findings – The research revealed the theoretical dimensions and properties of organisational culture that influence CSFs for ICT integration in construction projects teams. This paper concludes by highlighting the influence of the organisation’s culture, manifested though the nature and extent of shared understanding, on the likely success of ICT implementation. Originality/value – The deployment of ICT without appropriate consideration of contextual issues, in particular, organisational culture, will be likely to generate disappointing results. The framework presented in this paper provides a rigorous foundation for consideration of such issues. Keywords Culture, Communication technologies, Critical success factors Paper type Research paper

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 pp. 532-549 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988 DOI 10.1108/09699980710829003

ICT and the construction industry Critical review of the construction industry in the 1990’s revealed it to be unproductive, unsafe and unwilling to change (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998; DIST, 1999; Cole, 2002). Among other strategies the uptake of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) was widely anticipated to increase the effectiveness of project delivery. While it has been established that the uptake of ICT to automate business processes has, to some extent given productivity gains (Finch, 2000; Love et al., 2001; Li et al., 2000; Productivity Commission, 2004) the full potential of ICT to integrate operations within a project is not widespread (Bulmer et al., 2000; DIST, 1999). The challenges in engaging and expanding the use of ICT by construction organisations (term organisations represents both the firms and projects) can emanate from many sources. The success factors/barriers that influence the success of ICT deployment may come from within the firm, within the project or from accepted industry norms (Brewer et al., 2006a). Therefore, understanding the factors that critically influence the success of ICT integration is essential for better ICT management. The issue of “Culture” has gained attention as one of the important factors, influencing both the success of, and barriers to ICT engagement (Bunker, 2001; Manske et al., 2003; Wainwright et al., 2004). However, it is problematic to determine

whether to characterise “culture as one of the aspects” that affect ICT uptake and integration or “as the overarching aspect” that determines successful ICT uptake and integration. The aim of this paper is to identify the Critical Success Factors (CSF) for ICT engagement in project teams, and to contextualise these CSFs in a theoretically constructed cultural analysis framework, to understand the subtle cultural dimensions impacting ICT engagement in project teams. Conceptualising ICT integration Researchers and practitioners have from time to time attempted to classify and group ICT evolution. Keen (1995) classified ICT into three basic uncomplicated categories namely, Computers, Tele-communications and Multimedia data. These categories were predominantly based on hardware and shed little light into the operational process. Brewer and Gajendran (2006b) proposed automated, networked and integrated communications based on ICT engagement tools. These categories based ICT tools that are both hardware and process oriented. Shore (2001) visualised the role of ICT in four stages: . Stage 1: Telecommunication – Hard copy dominated (mail) data but substantial telecommunication (telephones and fax) usage. . Stage 2: Electronic data interchange (EDI) – Automation of information flow eliminating of many labour intensive data entry activities through electronic exchange of routine business transactions from computer to computer. . Stage 3: Integrative strategy (organisation) – Rather than infrastructure comprised of independent applications and separate databases to serve specific business process, enterprise wide systems integrate and coordinate their operations in a centralised manner. Early systems looked at organisation wide integrations and now beyond the organisation. . Stage 4: Integrative strategy (supply chain) – A supply chain is characterized by strategic supplier alliances with extensive two-way information flows. This is to integrate all platforms across project supply chains. Shore’s (2001) categorisation not only takes “business processes” into account but also looks beyond the organisation, to a supply chain perspective. This view is heavily supported by supply chain literature. Supply chain literature identifies the people, process and network integration as being critical for effective supply chain management. Lambert (2000, p. 65) indicated that “one of the most significant paradigm shifts of modern business management is that individual businesses no longer compete as solely autonomous entities, but rather as supply chains. Supply chain management is the integration of key business processes from end user through original suppliers that provides products, services, and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders”. However, managing supply chain integration is not without challenges. Handsfield et al. (1999) pointed to poor alignment of organisation cultures as the factor in adversely affecting supply chain integration. Faniran et al. (2001) recounted the difficulties faced in achieving Design-construction integration in the construction industry.

Integration of ICT

533

ECAM 14,6

534

Literature suggests that ICT engagement by an organisation can be at one of three progressive levels or stages, namely automation, organisation-wide process improvement, or supply chain-wide process improvement (Fujitsu-Centre, 1998; Gajendran et al., 2005) and development through these levels by an organisation may occur over time, as a result of the willing of that organisation to commit to ICT development. The productivity gains though ICT discussed by the Productivity Commission reports (Productivity Commission, 2004) were predominantly at the stage of automation. However, to sustain productivity growth an organisation’s ICT needs to evolve beyond this to a state of “organisation-wide integration”, ultimately, leading to “supply chain-wide integration”. The use of the term “integration” is widespread in supply chain, ICT and culture literature. Although, the term “ICT integration” is widely used and believed to be necessary for optimum level of organisational effectiveness, the meaning of “integration” is less well understood in terms of ICT. Wainwright et al. (2004, p. 329) have carried out an extensive literature review on ICT integration and indicated that “[i]n a broad sense, the meaning of integration has become synonymous with utilitarian goal of greater efficiency, effectiveness and competitiveness in organisations”. They indicated that “integration” as “the ability of computer hardware or software systems to work with previously incompatible systems” (Waring and Wainwright, 2000, p. 136) is limited to technical aspects, and classified integration in a broader sense incorporating four aspects namely: technical, systems, organisational and strategic integration (Wainwright et al., 2004). Figure 1 describes their integration framework. They argue that most ICT systems fail due to a lack of management attention to complex organisational factors, preferring to concentrate solely on technical or strategic matters. According to Wainwright et al. (2004, p 336), organisational integration is articulated by “different IS authors at different times as “structural”, “social and historical”, “power”, “politics”, “culture’ spheres of study”. From a system integration perspective Mize (1987 cf. Wainwright et al., 2004) contextualised interrelationships between subsystems and these interrelationships are interfacing (interacting or communicating with another element) and integrating (organising various traits, relations, attitudes, behaviours, etc., into one harmonious personality). Platts (1995) proposed a strategic framework, which encompasses two basic aspects of strategic integration – external integration (matching organisational objectives to the environment) and internal integration (developing a set of organisational practices which are consistent with the organisational objectives). “Technical” integration deals with physical, data, and schedules, while “organisational” deals with schedules, functions, attitudes, principles and purpose. Integration with the technical and functional areas of the systems is more streamlined and approachable through established analysis tools. Meanwhile, the integration of strategic and organisational domains, which involves functions, attitudes, principles and purpose, represents an unstructured messy domain where people, social, cultural and strategic issues dominate. The focus of this paper is predominantly to structure the analysis of the strategic and organisational domains of ICT integration.

Integration of ICT

535

Figure 1. ICT Integration framework

The framework for integration by Wainwright et al. (2004) presents a systematic framework to discuss ICT integration issues and stressed the need for soft (organisational and strategic) issues to be studied in a proactive manner before implementing ICT Systems. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how participants in the construction industry react to the factors influencing project-wide integration (Faniran et al., 2001). In order to assess the impact ICT has on inter-firm integration in the construction industry, much needs to be understood about the culture of the organisation/project setup. Although it follows that, high levels of ICT integration in an idealised project would lead to major performance improvements, in reality, the complexity involved in achieving integration in terms of system-wide, strategic and organisational issues, when progressing along a continuum from intra-firm automation to project-wide integration is enormous. This complexity is best understood by the cultural analysis.

ECAM 14,6

536

Conceptualising culture The concept of “culture” has been extensively researched and published in the context of anthropology, sociology and organisational management. Although there was an influx of writing in the area of organisational culture in the 1980s, suggesting culture as both a “strong prescription for success” and an “interpretation for better understanding”, this generated no clear agreement as to what culture actually was, or how it could be measured/assessed: academics and practitioners in organisational management are still continuing this discussion (Martin et al., 2004; Willmot, 2000). Although culture is considered to be a complex and inconclusive subject, generating a number of definitions and interpretations, all agree that culture is a dimension that is central to organisational life and operations (e.g. Schein, 1984, 1996, 2004; Martin et al., 2004; Alvesson, 2002; Hofstede, 1998; Smircich, 1983; Willmott, 2000). The view that “culture refers to complex, inaccessible, fuzzy, holistic phenomena” (Alvesson, 2002, p. 15) and it is too soft and complicated to be managed explicitly, cannot relegate culture to a position of insignificance in the life of an organisation. In the recent times the cultural dimension has been highlighted in most branches of contemporary management studies including supply chain management, ICT management, customer relations management and knowledge management. Indeed, some argue knowledge management is actually the management of culture (Davenport and Pruask, 1998). This position is also reflected in the construction management domain and culture in construction has been researched in the context of adversarial attitudes arising out of contractual claims (Rooke et al., 2003, 2004; Phua and Rowlinson, 2003), culture in procurement (Cheng, 2004), national culture (Pheng, 2002), ethics and culture (Liu et al., 2004) cultural change (Price and Chahal, 2006), knowledge transfer (Brochner et al., 2004), professional cultures (Ankrah and Langford, 2005), and corporate culture (Igo et al., 2006). Culture has been conceptualised in the literature in numerous ways. However, all of them can be placed on a continuum where the polar extremes are represented by culture as a “functional/variable” (to be addressed along with other variables such as strategies, structure, etc), and culture as “non-functional/metaphor” (an influence on all of the organisation’s management activities) (Alvesson, 2002; Smircich, 1983). However, this paper provides a framework addressing both ends of the continuum, based on Martin’s (1992, 2002) three perspective theory, to facilitate cultural analysis, to surface the harmony and conflicts, which may arise in ICT integration attempts in the construction project environment. Defining culture A culture emerges from basic tacit assumptions about how the world operates and what a group of people share that determines their perceptions and feelings, and to some degree, their overt behaviour. Schein (2004) defines culture as: [. . .] a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adoption and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be thought to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relating to those problems (Schein, 2004, p. 17).

Although literature on the levels of cultural manifestations is divided, most acknowledge that culture can be extracted at least in three levels: the level of deep tacit

(underlying) assumptions (that are the essence of the culture), the level of espoused values (that often reflect what a group wishes ideally to be and the way it wants to present itself publicly), and the day-to-day artefacts/behaviour (that represents a complex compromise among the espoused values, the deeper assumption, and the immediate requirements of the situation) (Schein, 2004; Rousseau, 1990). It is commonly agreed in literature that deciphering culture through surface level manifestations such as overt behaviour is not a reliable. This is because people may behave in a manner that is inconsistent with their deeper values and assumptions due to situational contingencies (Schein, 2004; Wilkins, 1983). Therefore, one can observe “inconsistencies” or “conflicts” in overt behaviours, or between behaviour and espoused values. Cultural analysis: a framework Due to the complex, interrelated and imprecise nature of culture a tendency exists to engage with it in the form of “cultural analysis”. Cultural analysis gives some delimitation to the culture concept, in that it can be performed on a specific phenomenon in more focused and precise manner. Cultural analysis can be performed on how people think strategically, how they interpret and respond to the acts of a project team members and how they understand the clients. However, the literature on the methodology of cultural analysis is divisive along the lines of ontology – culture as a “variable” or culture as a “root metaphor”. When organisational culture is considered as a “variable” it aligns with traditional objectivist and functionalist views of social reality, with the intention of improving organisational performance. This perspective of the organisation is accompanied by distinct cultural traits, such as values, norms, rituals, ceremonies, and verbal expressions. It is held that these cultural features can be managed to influence the behaviour of managers and employees and promote the effectiveness of an organisation. Martin (2002) names this approach “integration” perspective. On the other hand, the “root metaphor” view of organisational culture suggests that the organisation is a culture and can be seen as if it is a culture. This perspective suggests that organisations can be understood and analysed not only in economic or material terms, but as a function of their expressive, ideational, and symbolic output (Smircich, 1983; Alvesson, 2002; Martin, 2002). At its ideological extreme culture as a root-metaphor “means that the cultural image guides all perception and interpretation of what goes on in organisations. Seemingly, “objective” things, such as numbers of employees, turnover, physical products, customers, etc, become of interest (almost) only in terms of their cultural meanings” (Alvesson, 2002, p. 25). It should be noted that most proponents of the root-metaphor view of culture do not hold this extreme position. However, neither do they take an overly simplistic, objectivist, variable view of culture (i.e. linking culture to performance). The principal consequence of this perspective is that nothing can be clearly relegated to a position “outside” of the group’s culture, as everything that is seen as having any meaning to a group must be seen to lie within that group’s cultural context. Fragmentation perspective by Martin (2002) favours a non-functional approach to culture, which avoids oversimplifying the concept of culture. Both functional and non-functional perspectives, depending on the level of consensus or sharing proposed, can exploit differentiation perspective.

Integration of ICT

537

ECAM 14,6

538

Smircich (1983) has indicated that culture can be used both as a “variable and metaphor”. This “moderate” approach to culture, accommodates some of the “non-cultural” aspects as these are difficult to be reduced to symbolism (e.g. external environment, competition, and performance dimensions not truly reflected by a cultural perspective) (Alvesson, 2002), thus allowing researchers to combine cultural and non-cultural influences during cultural analysis. This paper formulates a cultural analysis framework based on both functional and non-functional approach to culture. Table I summarises the characteristics of the three-perspective cultural analysis framework proposed by Martin (2002). This framework characterises the integration, differentiation and fragmentation perspectives in relation to consistency of shared assumptions of the members and cultural manifestations, degree of consensus, dealing with ambiguity and the nature of operating environment. In summing up: . In the integration perspective (integrated cultural environment) the underlying assumptions of the members an organisation or project are shared and consistent across all units, which provides harmony among members and promotes effectiveness. The projected outcome or the strategy implementation in this cultural environment is based on removal of formal irrationality. . In the differentiation perspective (differentiated cultural environment) sub groups (based on professions, gender, nationality etc) share the same assumptions creating sub cultures. However, assumptions are not shared across groups and therefore conflicts may be observed among groups, but not with in groups. The projected outcome or the strategy implementation in this cultural environment is based on removal of misunderstanding. . In a fragmentation perspective, assumptions of the members are not shared and ambiguity and confusion dominates the environment. The projected outcome or the strategy implementation in this cultural environment is based on removal of socially unnecessary suffering. Research methodology The primary data used to surface the CSFs for ICT mediated construction project supply chains was gathered from two separate sources – a qualitative Delphi study (Brewer et al., 2005) and a quantitative questionnaire survey (Gajendran et al., 2005). The cultural analysis framework employed to identify the influence of culture on the implementation of CSFs for ICT engagement was developed from literature. A comprehensive review of the literature, combined with the results from a Delphi study with international participants (researchers and practitioners) enabled the identification of a full range of possible success criteria for ICT enabled construction project supply chains. Due to the geographical dispersion of participants, a computer mediated Delphi environment that was constructed to allow asynchronous discussion was used. The Delphi panel consisted of thirteen members and their discussion was initiated by responding to seven trigger statements. The seven Delphi triggers were based on the concepts relating to the business case, evaluation of worth, ICT integration – business process re-engineering, supply chain structure, contractual influence, extent of engagement and technological constraint (Brewer et al., 2005).

Highly abstract. Leader is the primary source of cultural content. Leader’s own personal value system is stressed. Culture gives key to organisational control, worker commitment and organisational effectiveness. Here, culture is created within an organization

Lack of consensus and a non-leader centred sources of cultural context. Emphasis is on the sub units, groups and individuals. Culture is formed at multiple levels by the influences from inside and out side the organisation

Channel ambiguity to outside sub Exclude Ambiguity: Culture is defined in a way to deny ambiguity, culture: The culture here is often as it is assumed that culture is clear emphasised disagreement because interpretations and values are shared. Culture here is based on consensus

Sources: Adapted from Martin (1992, 2002) and Martin et al. (2004)

Characteristics of the operating environment

Orientation to ambiguity

Organisation wide consensus among Consensus exists with in sub culture Issue specific consensus, and members of cultures but not between them confusion among individuals. Lack of consensus

Degree of consensus

The confusion emanating from the inconsistent viewpoints, disagreements and confusion makes it difficult to draw cultural and sub cultural boundaries. This makes the cultural boundaries not similar to formal organisational boundaries and boundaries are permeable and “feeder culture from the surrounding environments fade in and out of attention

Acknowledge ambiguity: Ambiguity is accepted and inevitable, and continues usual way of dong business

Lack of clarity of consistency or Consistency and inconsistency among cultural manifestations exists inconsistency among cultural manifestations at different levels. This promotes differentiation and diversity at group and individual level

Consistency exists among cultural manifestations. Various levels in the hierarchy have similar viewpoints. Leader’s values are enacted and followed. Culture is monolith, integrated and homogeneous

Fragmentation

Consistency among assumptions and relationship of manifestations

Differentiation

Integration

Aspect

Integration of ICT

539

Table I. The three perspective cultural analysis framework

ECAM 14,6

540

Altogether, three rounds of panel discussion were recorded and the resulting discussion material was open coded to identify the potential success factors. Establishing the “generic” set of CSFs required obtaining feedback from a significant number of experienced industry practitioners to ascertain what they considered to be the factors critical to success. Therefore, a quantitative methodology employing a questionnaire survey: appropriate statistical techniques were designed and applied to the resulting data. The intention of the questionnaire survey was to extract the values (Hofstede et al., 1990; Hofstede, 1998) of project participants the relating to ICT integration in the project supply chains. A total of 309 questionnaires (309) were returned from 2,000 postal survey questionnaires. However, only 230 survey responses were considered to have the relevant ICT exposure to contribute to CSF identification and they were included in the analysis (Gajendran et al., 2005). Although the sample contained organisations that had been in business for up to 90 years the majority of the responding organisations had been in business for 10-25 years. Employee numbers in the sample organisations ranged from four to 2,000 and average organisational turnover ranges from $0.45 million to $1 billion. Around 20 per cent of the respondents had overseas operations while majority of the firms operated in one or two Australian states. The sample profile indicated an acceptable representation of the population in question. The sample consisted of clients (17), principal contractors (19), sub-contractors (88), architects (58), engineers (19), and quantity surveyors (29). The development of the constructs for the questionnaire was greatly influenced by the literature, and augmented by the findings of the Delphi study. Each construct in the survey was assigned a logical measurement scale. A “0 to 100” Likert scale was used to capture the rating. This was used as it was felt to be convenient for the respondents to relate to a general 1-100 scale. Reliability analysis, a one sample t-test and factor analysis were employed as statistical tests in order to achieve the desired outputs. The response to the questionnaire survey statements from the respondents reflected their values with regard to the factors that influence ICT integration in project teams. Using Martin’s (2002) three perspective cultural framework as a lens it became possible to view the shared nature of these assumptions, which characterised the culture of the project environments in which they had participated. The resulting cultural framework included dimensions of integration, differentiation, and fragmentation. In turn, these would inform the cultural aspects involved in implementing ICT in a range of different cultural environments. Critical success factors and ICT integration perspectives The Delphi study and literature review identified 21 potential success factors for successful ICT engagement (Brewer et al., 2005; Gajendran et al., 2005; Brewer et al., 2006a). Reliability analysis suggested that all statements listed in the instruments as potential success factors were reliable. Thereafter, a one-sample t-test was performed on all 21-survey items and the test identified four items (statistically not significant) as not being critical to the success of ICT enabled project teams. The four non-critical factors were; customer demand driving new technology adoption, an open-minded attitude to share information, introduction of government regulation for minimum ICT requirements and stipulation of industry wide standards. The remaining 17 items were subjected factor analysis and five factors were identified. These factors were

organisational commitment, support and assurance, rights and duties, organisational attitude, investment drive, and communication structure. These factors can be clearly related with the technical/systems, strategic and organisational aspects of integration. The 17 CSF for ICT integration are realigned with ICT integration categories, technical/systems, strategic and organisational (see Table II).

Integration of ICT

Cultural analysis Table II summarises the connections between the cultural perspectives associated with each of the CSFs. Each project environment is different from any other due to the unique nature of its construction process, the procurement/litigation environment, and the particular project team composition. Correspondingly, the nature of the team’s shared assumptions will be distinct and likely not to generate a unitary project culture. Table II characterises the range of possible “shared understanding” (an analogue of “assumptions”) that members of organisations/projects could hold as a result of belonging to one or more of three cultural perspectives, namely integration, differentiation, or fragmentation. The clear implication of the findings is that the implementation of CSFs must be dealt with in a range of different ways depending on the nature of the shared assumptions and ambiguity-handling mechanisms peculiar to the particular project environment under consideration. By way of example and in regard to the particular issue of senior management commitment to ICT engagement the following scenarios would arise depending upon the cultural perspective: . In an integration environment (where shared understanding exists) the strategy would be to conduct an ICT audit to identify any problems and prepare an action plan for overcoming them prior to ICT implementation. . In a fragmentation environment (characterised by inconsistency and ambiguity) a different strategy would be employed, which would involve consultation with various members of the team in order to identify potential problems (in the form of ambiguous or inconsistent policies). Given the organisational fragmentation the strategy’s objective would be to minimise disruption and to obtain some measure of unanimity in regard to the proposed ICT commitment. In such an cultural environment CSF implementation would be unlikely to deliver optimal performance returns, but such a strategy would be expected to maximise returns at a level commensurate with the prevailing level of ambiguity and conflict.

541

It is thus evident that most of the CSFs cannot be successfully implemented without a clear prior understanding of the cultural context of both the implementing organisation and the project environment(s) into which they are to be deployed. A naive approach to implementation is likely to produce a situation where they are regarded as superficial artefacts or espoused values, misleading the observer but not the stakeholders in the firm/project, who lack confidence in them. The cultural analysis framework suggested in Table II will enable each project environment to be culturally profiled in regard to each CSF item, with the result that it will enable a best-fit ICT integration strategy. The cultural profiling of each project will likely result in a varying map of the project environment, including the regions that are predominantly integrated, differentiated or fragmented (see Figure 2). It could reasonably be anticipated that the cultural profile of most projects could be characterised as differentiated or fragmented environments.

(c)

3

4

(b)

2

Transparency and trust among project team participants

The commitment of an organisation’s employees

The commitment of a firm’s senior management

(a)

The identification and sensitive handling of the ownership of the intellectual property generated during a project

Rights and duties Successful ICT implementation requires:

(a)

Members of the team should develop trust and transparency within the project environment

Employees need to commit to engage with ICT tools those support/enhance their personal work environment

Senior management should embrace ICT and commit to implement ICT in their organisation/when there is potential for ICT to support operations

(a)

Contractual arrangements should encompass safeguard on intellectual property rights

The espoused value is that the organisations:

(c)

(b)

(a)

The espoused value is that the organisations:

Organisational integration issues: Organisational commitment Successful ICT implementation requires:

1

Espoused value

Table II. Cultural analysis framework for information and communication technology CSF implementation

Critical success factor

Employees of different sections of a firm and across a project believe in the contribution of ICT and understand the required level of commitment to ICT engagement Members of organisations about developing trust and transparency among themselves

Senior managers of organisations on the potential role of ICT and the required level of their commitment to ICT ventures

(a)

Organisations about the property rights structure and all members adhere to the agreed structure. When there are strong property rights attached to defined actions, the prevailing culture could be more collaborative and open in sharing information

There is a shared understanding and consensus among:

(c)

(b)

(a)

There is a shared understanding and consensus among:

Cultural perspective integration

Projects about the nature working relationship with other members, e.g. an architect group may hold, an assumption of not trusting contractors, meanwhile, trust members of other design sub-groups There is shared understanding and consensus within, but not across, the sub groups or sub cultures on: (a) Intellectual property rights structure. Different groups (organisations’) choose to use different standards in adhering to property rights

(c)

There is shared understanding and consensus within, but not across, the sub groups or sub cultures of: (a) Senior Managers (e.g. managers in charge of – estimating, site administration, human resource, head contractor, sub contractor, Architect etc.) about the ICT commitment (b) Employees (drafting/ architects vs. model building or a specialist vs. trade sub contractor) on commitment level on ICT engagement

Cultural perspective differentiation

Flow of information may be hindered driving preconceived professional notions and developing lack of trust and transparency among members

Employers have conflicting believes on the level support that ICT provides to them

(a)

(continued)

The property rights structure is not clear, and the cultural environment is characterised by distrust and suspicions

Ambiguity and un-clarity prevail in the working environment, therefore:

(c)

(b)

(a)

Ambiguity and un clarity prevail in the working environment, therefore: Senior managers from difference organisations do not have a shared commitment (and conflict) on ICT drive

Cultural perspective fragmentation

542

No

ECAM 14,6

8

7

6

5

No

A powerful ICT “champion” to support the technologically weaker organisations in project teams

(c)

(a)

A “powerful organisation” within the team to impose ICT adoption

Support and assurance Successful ICT implementation requires:

(a)

Could impose “power positions” within the project to encourage appropriate level of ICT use in a project environment

The espoused value is that the organisations’:

(a)

The organisations about the use of power positions in giving ICT directions and they are happy to accept directions imposed

There is a shared understanding and consensus within:

Organisations on importance of continuous employee ICT training and the essential level of investment commitment

(a)

Should continuously invest in their staff ICT development programs and training

(a)

An organisation’s continuous and conspicuous investment in staff development and training

(a)

(a)

About the use of power positions in employing authoritative leadership. Therefore, considerable conflicts may be apparent

There is shared understanding and consensus within, but not across, the sub groups or sub cultures on:

There is shared understanding and consensus within, but not across, the sub groups or sub cultures on: (a) The required level of employee ICT training. E.g. the Planning and Site construction sections may have different value priorities and therefore different investment commitment for their staff training

The power structure and leadership direction. It is possible some of the sub groups can identify their own power structure but not as an organisation

(c)

Organisations’ members on power structure and the level of support each member can expect from the other organisation

(c)

There is a shared understanding and consensus within:

The code of practise/ethics and information sensitivity. Different professions may be bounded by different codes of practice and value codes

(b)

Organisations’ members on the code of practices/ethics and information sensitivity issues

(b)

The espoused value is that the organisations:

Powerful member should support the weaker members through leadership, collaboration or as a result of their positional power

Cultural perspective differentiation

Cultural perspective integration

Strategic integration issues: Organisational commitment Successful ICT implementation requires:

(c)

(b)

The project team members to acknowledge the sensitivity and confidentiality of other participants’ information

(b)

Members are guided by explicit codes of practice and informally held ethics and moral values. The source of these value codes may come from the organisation’s procedures, personal upbringing or by education

Espoused value

Critical success factor

Power structure is unclear. Various groups become part of the structure at different points of times fostering ambiguity. Therefore a clear support structure is difficult to establish

Multiple codes, value systems and interpretations exist, fostering ambiguity in operations

(a)

(a)

(continued)

Power positions are not clear or do not exist

Ambiguity and un-clarity prevail in the working environment, therefore:

It is difficult to plan and invest on ICT training. Different groups/individuals differ in their assumptions on required level of ICT training

Ambiguity and un-clarity prevail in the working environment, therefore:

(c)

(b)

Cultural perspective fragmentation

Integration of ICT

543

Table II.

12

(b)

11

An organisation to be prepared to engage in long-term collaborative relationships

Standard conditions of contracts that specifically accommodate the issues raised by the use of ICT

(a)

Organisations to commit to ICT as a long-term strategic decision

Investment drive Successful ICT implementation requires:

(a)

10

Organisational attitude Successful ICT implementation requires:

A “champion” to support all new technology that is to be used across a project team within a firm/project

(b)

9

Table II.

Critical success factor

Preparedness to engage long-term relationships with trading partners

Need to maintain contractual clarity in ICT employment through stipulating conditions of contract and adherence to the conditions. This also could be viewed as an industry regulators role

(a)

Commitment to engage in long term strategic relationships with trading partners to foster return on large ICT investments

The espoused value is that the organisations’:

(b)

(a)

The espoused value is that the organisations’:

Multi-firm project teams that it is desirable to develop long-term relationships with other trading partners, as this will benefit their individual organisations in long-run

The organisations about apportionment of risk allocation and clarity on contract enforcement

There is a shared understanding and consensus within and across the organisations: (a) To foster long-term relationships to reduce the transactions and costs and improve ICT return on investments (ROI)

(b)

(a)

There is a shared understanding and consensus within:

The organisations on the relative importance of ICT with respect to other priorities. A strong leadership role is evident in fostering values in favour of ICT engagement

(b)

(b)

Leadership structure should engage in giving proactive direction in the use of new ICT tools and techniques

Cultural perspective integration

Espoused value The relative importance of ICT for organisations operation (e.g. Design group vs. trade sub contractor group). Multiple leadership levels are evident fostering ICT vision at a group level

There is shared understanding and consensus within, but not across, the sub-groups or sub-cultures on: (a) The need to foster long run relationship to engage in large ICT investments

There is shared understanding and consensus within, but not across, the sub groups or sub cultures on: (a) The appropriate level of risk allocation and clarity on contractual enforcement. Different sub groups have their won standard conditions and they are applied with some level of consistency with in the sub groups/cultures (b) The need to work in long-term collaborative relationships. However, some members of the project team believe in competitive selection process and short term contracts

(b)

Cultural perspective differentiation

The level of relative importance of ICT is varied across groups and individuals. No apparent leadership role and time-to-time different people take the role of leadership, which creates conflicts and ambiguity

Contractual environment will struggle to adapt to the situation or engage/cope/with opportunistic behaviour. The uncertainty in the environment will make members acting on the basis of short-term profiteering motives

Standards conditions fail to bring clarity

(a)

(continued)

It is not sustainable to foster long term relationships in projects

Ambiguity and un-clarity prevail in the working environment, therefore:

(b)

(a)

Ambiguity and un-clarity prevail in the working environment, therefore:

(b)

Cultural perspective fragmentation

544

No

ECAM 14,6

17

16

15

13

13

No

The organisations to monitor competitor’s ICT adoption

(c)

Support and assurance The security of information is vital in an ICT-enabled project environment

Technical integration issues; Communication structure Organisations try to limit their use of multiple online systems promoted by different project participants

This factor can be considered to be outside the scope of culture, being principally an ICT capability/technical issue. However, this can also relate to the espoused values relating to the level of acceptance of ICT security by members of organisations

This factor can be viewed purely as a technical (interoperability) issue, outside of cultural considerations However, one can relate the espoused values to item 12 above There is a shared understanding and consensus within and among: Organisations on the acceptable level of information security of ICT systems

Organisations about the purpose of the loosely coupled project systems existence and any conflicts are rejected

(a)

Must engage in procurement methods that minimises fragmentation of project teams

(a)

(a)

Addressing the fragmentation issues of the project team for improved performance of ICT-enabled operations

There is a shared understanding and consensus within and across:

That if required, to engage in short term project relationships with the ability to recoup the required ROI To monitor the external environment closely to from strategies to move forward

The espoused value is that the organisations’:

(c)

(b)

Cultural perspective integration

Communication structure Successful ICT implementation requires:

(c)

(b)

Organisations to commit to ICT as a project-based tactical decision

(b)

Commitment to engage with ICT in project to project basis in short run in small ICT investments Need monitor the competitors to gain potential competitive advantage

Espoused value

Critical success factor

The need to monitor competitors’ behaviour. Competition is at different levels with different groups

The need to work on short term relationships to recoup ROI

There is shared understanding and consensus within, but not across, the sub groups or sub cultures of: On the level of acceptable security of ICT systems for them to work without fear of information piracy

There is shared understanding and consensus within, but not across, the sub groups or sub cultures on: (a) About the purpose of the loosely coupled project system

(c)

(b)

Cultural perspective differentiation

The environment is too complex and therefore competitor behaviour is difficult to observe or to be adapted

The short-term relationships are characterised by opportunism

Fragmentation and ambiguous nature of the loosely coupled systems are accepted

Ambiguity and un clarity prevail in the working environment, therefore: There is strong lack of trust in the security level of information systems, and therefore members disengage with ICT systems

(a)

Ambiguity and un-clarity prevail in the working environment, therefore:

(c)

(b)

Cultural perspective fragmentation

Integration of ICT

545

Table II.

ECAM 14,6

546

Figure 2. Development and application of ICT specific three perspective framework

Concluding remarks This paper conceptualised and defined ICT integration and cultural analysis. The Delphi study and questionnaire survey identified seventeen critical success factors for the effective uptake of ICT in construction projects. The cultural contexts within which the CSFs are likely to be implemented were contextualised through a literature based cultural analysis framework. The discussion highlighted a number of cultural sub-environments, and thus a number of underlying assumptions and beliefs, operating at the levels of the individual firm and project team. It has been argued that understanding these underlying assumptions and beliefs is a critical prerequisite to the deployment of ICT in business operations whilst concurrently avoiding or minimising situations of conflict. These underlying assumptions can only be accurately identified through in-situ cultural analysis, on a case-by-case basis. However, the model presented here indicates that the CSFs will generally be deployed in a situation of differentiation or fragmentation due to the complexity and uncertainty inherent in any construction project environment. Thus their implementation cannot be expected to result in a total integration of activities, as most functional paradigms suggest.

References Alvesson, M. (2002), Understanding Organisational Culture, Sage Publications, London. Ankrah, N.A. and Langford, D.A. (2005), “Architects and contractors: a comparative study of organisational cultures”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 595-607. Brewer, G. and Gajendran, T. (2006a), Picturing Success: Critical Success Factors for ICT Integration in the Australian Construction Industry, CRC – Construction Innovation, Brisbane. Brewer, G. and Gajendran, T. (2006b), Picturing Success: Client Leadership of ICT Integration in Project Teams, CRC for Construction Innovation, Brisbane. Brewer, G., Gajendran, T. and Chen, S.E. (2005), “Construction project supply chains and their use of ICT”, in Scherer, R.J., Katranuschkov, P. and Schapke, S.E. (Eds), CIBW78 Information Communication Technology in Construction, Technische Universita¨t, Dresden. Brochner, J., Rosander, S. and Waara, F. (2004), “Cross-border post-acquisition knowledge transfer among construction consultants”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 421-7. Bulmer, T. and Brewer, G. (2000), “Improving the uptake of IT in the industry”, Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference, Brisbane. CIIA. Bunker, D. (2001), “A philosophy of information technology and systems (IT & S) as tools: tool development context, associated skills and the global technology transfer (GTT) process”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 185-97. Cheng, E.W.L., Li, H., Love, P. and Irani, Z. (2004), “A learning culture for strategic partnering in construction”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 53-65. Cole, T.R.H. (2002), Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne. Davenport, T.H., Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), “Successful knowledge management projects”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57. DIST (1999), Building for Growth – an Analysis of the Australian Building and Construction Industries, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, Department of the Environment, London. Faniran, O., Love, P.D.E., Treloar, G. and Anumba, C.J. (2001), “Methodological issues in design-construction integration”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 421-6. Finch, E. (2000), Net Gain in Construction, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Fujitsu-Centre (1998), Information Technology in the Building and Construction Industry: Current Status and Future Directions, Fujitsu Centre & Building and Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney. Gajendran, T., Brewer, G. and Chen, S.E. (2005), “Project teams and ICT: surfacing the critical success factors”, in Scherer, R.J., Katranuschkov, P. and Schapke, S.E. (Eds), CIBW78 Information Communication Technology in Construction, Technische Universita¨t, Dresden. Handfield, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., Petersen, K.J. and Monczka, R.M. (1999), “Involving suppliers in new product development”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 59-82. Hofstede, G. (1998), “Attitudes, values and organisational culture: disentangling the concepts”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 477-92. .

Integration of ICT

547

ECAM 14,6

548

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990), “Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 286-316. Igo, T. and Skitmore, M. (2006), “Diagnosing the organizational culture of an Australian engineering consultancy using the competing values framework”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 121-39. Keen, G.W. (1995), Every Managers’ Guide to Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Lambert, D.M. (2000), “Issues in supply chain management”, International Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83. Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London. Li, H., Love, P.E.D. and Irani, Z. (2000), “The relationship between the use of IT/IS and the productivity of consulting firms in construction”, The International Journal of Construction Information Technology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 21-38. Liu, A., Fellows, R. and Ng, J. (2004), “Surveyors’ perspective on ethics in organisational culture”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 438-49. Love, P.E.D., Irani, Z., Li, H. and Cheng, E. (2001), “An empirical analysis of IT/IS evaluation in construction”, The International Journal of Construction Information Technology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 15-27. Manske, F. and Moon, Y. (2003), “Cultural signature of inter-organisational information system? The development of EDI systems in the Korean automotive industry”, AI & Soc, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-61. Martin, J. (1992), Cultures in Organisations: Three Perspectives, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Martin, J. (2002), Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Martin, J. (2004), Organisational Culture, Research Paper 1847, Research Paper Series, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA. Martin, J., Frost, P.J. and O’neill, O.A. (2004), Organizational Culture: Beyond Struggles for Intellectual Dominance, Stanford Research Paper Series, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Mize, J.H. (1987), “CIM: a perspective for the future of industrial engineering”, Proceedings of the IIE Conference, Nashville, TN, pp. 3-5. Pheng, L.S. and Yuquan, S. (2002), “An exploratory study of Hofstede’s corss-cultural dimensions in construction projects”, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 7-15. Phua, F.T.T. and Rowlinson, S. (2003), “Cultural difference as explanatory variable for adversarial attitudes in the construction industry: the case of Hong Kong”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 777-85. Platts, K.W. (1995), “Integrated manufacturing: a strategic approach”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 18-23. Price, A.D.F. and Chahal, K. (2006), “A strategic framework for change management”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24, pp. 237-51. Productivity Commission (2004), ICT Use and Productivity: A Synthesis from Studies of Australian Firms, Productivity Commission, Melbourne. Rooke, J., Seymour, D. and Fellows, R. (2003), “The claims culture: a taxonomy of attitudes in the construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 167-74.

Rooke, J., Seymour, D. and Fellows, R. (2004), “Planning for claims: an ethnography of industry culture”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 655-62. Rousseau, D.M. (1990), “Assessing organizational culture: the case for multiple methods”, in Goldstein, I.L. (Ed.), Frontiers of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA. Schein, E.H. (1984), “Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 3-16. Schein, E.H. (1996), “Culture: the missing concept in organisation studies”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 229-40. Schein, E.H. (2004), Organisational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., Jossey Bass, San Fransisco, CA. Shore, B. (2001), “Information sharing in global supply chain systems”, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 27-50. Smircich, L. (1983), “Concepts of cultural and organisational analysis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 339-58. Wainwright, D. and Waring, T. (2004), “Three domains for implementing integrated information systems: redressing the balance between technology – strategic and organisational analysis”, International, Journal of Information Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 329-46. Waring, T. and Wainwright, D. (2000), “Interpreting integration with respect to information systems in organisations-image, theory and reality”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 131-48. Wilkins, A.L. (1983), “The culture audit: a tool for understanding organizations”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 2, pp. 24-38. Willmott, R. (2000), “The place of culture in organization theory: introducing the morphogenetic approach”, Organization, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 95-128. Further reading Industry-Science-Resources (1999), Building for Growth: An analysis of the Australian Building and Construction Industries, Industry-Science-Resources, Canberra. Corresponding author Thayaparan Gajendran can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Integration of ICT

549

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

ECAM 14,6

Case studies on knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries

550

Mohammed F. Dulaimi The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Abstract Purpose – The aim of this paper is investigate using case studies, how knowledge is shared across cultural barriers in the context of construction projects executed as international joint ventures. The paper focused on the socio-technical perspective to develop a clear understanding of how knowledge is shared. Design/methodology/approach – The research adopted the case study approach to collect its data. Data was collected through face-to-face interviews with key people on four construction projects executed as joint ventures in Singapore. Findings – The case studies showed weaknesses on all levels of the adopted knowledge-sharing model. The main reason seems to be the lack of clear commitment and intent to create an environment that is conducive to knowledge sharing. Another major barrier to effective knowledge sharing was the incompatibility between the foreign and local cultures. Research limitations/implications – The generalisation of the findings may be limited due to the impact of differing national cultures on knowledge sharing and the fact that in three out of four case studies the foreign firm was Japanese in partnership with a local Singaporean firm. Practical implications – Firms involved in international joint ventures who aim to share knowledge with a foreign partner can use the findings of this research to create opportunities to achieving their aim. Originality/value – The research adapted a research model and provided a research method that can aid researchers examine knowledge management and knowledge sharing in construction projects. The paper provides construction firms with a framework for action to enhance their knowledge sharing. Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge sharing, Joint ventures, Culture, Japan, Singapore Paper type Research paper

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 pp. 550-567 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988 DOI 10.1108/09699980710829012

Introduction Traditionally, the knowledge created through the effort to resolve problems on a project is retained by the project team members who will be able to use and apply this knowledge in future projects. Establishing an effective knowledge management (KM) initiative to capture this knowledge, sharing it and using it even after the disbanding of the project team should be made a priority. It is not surprising for KM to receive significant attention from researchers in construction. However, research into KM in construction have either focused on the technological aspects, mainly IT, or behavioural/management perspective with increased interest in more integrated approach, i.e. both technological and management (Egbu, 2003; Carrillo, 2004). Selvaraj Jenitta’s role in this research is gratefully acknowledged.

Bresnen et al. (2003) study of KM in project-based organisations draw attention to the fact that the process of knowledge capture, transfer and learning in project settings rely very heavily upon social patterns, practices and processes. A review of publications on KM in construction has revealed very few attempts to examine knowledge sharing (KS) in construction projects from the social and behavioural perspectives. Such perspectives become even more critical in international joint venture (JV) projects where knowledge has to be shared across different corporate and national cultures. The aim of this paper is to investigate, using case studies, how knowledge is shared across cultural barriers in the context of construction projects executed as international joint ventures. The paper has examined the social and technical aspects of knowledge sharing and adapted a model that explains the interplay between the technical and organisational aspects of knowledge sharing. The research used case studies to explain how knowledge is shared in international joint ventures (JV). The study investigated JVs between local Singaporean firms and Japanese firms, and one German firm. Joint ventures and knowledge sharing in construction JVs are often used as a strategic tool to exploit foreign market opportunities and to overcome lack of local knowledge of international firms. Such an alliance can offer firms the opportunity to acquire knowledge associated with their partner skills and capabilities and then incorporated into their own systems and structures (Richter and Vettel, 1995; Inkpen, 1996). Most construction companies tend to use overseas contracts to bring some stability to the cyclical nature of the industry and act as a bolster for home country earnings (Briscoe, 1988; Strassmann and Wells, 1988; Hillebrandt and Cannon, 1989; Mohamad, 2003). It is not surprising to find JVs described as tools of convenience used by the parties involved to exploit each other’s strengths (Carrillo, 1994). Construction JVs have also been identified as a vehicle for technology transfer between foreign and local companies that may be either be project specific or of a longer-term nature (Ofori, 1990). However, JV is not seen to be a universally successful transfer vehicle because it is difficult sometimes to match the foreign partner’s commitment to technology transfer with its suitability for the project (Andrews, 1984; Chow, 1985). The local party of the JV is likely to be disappointed if it expected the foreign partner(s) to share valuable knowledge (Ofori, 1994). KS is an essential element of any effort for organisations and individuals to learn and develop. Therefore, it is not surprising that KS has become a key component of knowledge management programmes (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Earl, 2001; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Nonaka, 1994). Knowledge is increasingly recognised as a major source of competitive advantage (Grant, 1997; Meso and Smith, 2000). There is increased confidence that knowledge can help create the competitive edge in today’s global environment (McCampbell et al., 1999). Wenger and Synder (2000) described how firms are capitalising on the power of knowledge through using cross-functional teams, customer or product focused business units, and work groups in order to capture and spread new ideas and know-how. The literature offers several different definitions of knowledge that reflects the different perspectives on this issue. Many researchers provided different definitions of knowledge and organisational knowledge (Sowa, 1984; Wiig, 1993; Brooking, 1996; Spek and Spijkervet, 1997). Davenport and Prusak (1998) defined organisational

Knowledge sharing

551

ECAM 14,6

552

knowledge as a “fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information”. This knowledge is “absorbed” by the organisation and then demonstrated through the organisation’s activities and processes. Similarly, there are many definitions of KM. Several researchers adopted a “process” definition of KM being the process of capturing a company’s collective expertise wherever it resides and distributing it to wherever it can help produce the biggest payoff (Hibbard, 1997; Blake, 1998; Bassie, 1997; Mayo, 1998). The increase importance of KM highlights the challenge to business organisations when the ownership of knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, remains with the individuals. This knowledge will very quickly become outdated without the acquisition of new knowledge and will be lost when this individual leaves the company. The sharing of tacit knowledge among individuals with different backgrounds, perspectives, and motivations is becoming a critical step in developing new knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Meso and Smith (2000) have stressed the importance of a knowledge friendly organisational culture to facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing. Davenport and Prusak (1998) suggest that knowledge project managers and chief knowledge officers should possess technical, psychological and business skills in order to succeed in their roles. The literature reviewed by this research showed interest in how to create knowledge and transfer it across cultural barriers, whether between different companies or different national cultures (Gupta and Godvindarajan, 2000; Inkpen and Dinur, 1998; Kogut and Zander, 1993; Mowery et al., 1996; Simonin, 1999). A number of recent studies have concentrated on the influence of cultural factors KM and KS (Chow et al., 2000; Ford and Chan, 2003; Holden, 2001; Hutchings and Michailova, 2004).

The socio-technical perspective of KS In order to have an effective KS strategy the organisation needs to combine technology with people (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Pasmore et al., 1982; Riege, 2005). Pan and Scarborough (1998) provided a model explaining the social aspects of knowledge within organisations. This model stresses upon the interplay between technology and organisation. It suggests the examination of KS at three layers of KM systems. The first layer is the “Infrastructure” which refers to the hardware/software. The second layer is the formal rules that govern the exchange between the actors on the network, which is referred to as the “Infostructure”. The infostructure provides a set of cognitive resources (metaphors, common languages) that enable people make sense of events on the network. “Infoculture” is the third layer, which represent the background knowledge embedded in the social relations surrounding work group processes (Figure 1). Pan and Scarborough’s model draws attention to the role of management in developing and linking these constituent elements and modulating organisational processes in the way they interact with each other. Hence, the dynamic evolution and the complex interaction between the different elements are crucial in understanding KS in organisations.

Knowledge sharing

553 Figure 1. A socio-technical perspective on knowledge management

Research method This research has adopted Pan and Scarborough’s model to analyse KS in JV projects. The research selected four construction projects operating as JVs in Singapore. The adoption of a case study approach has allowed the research, using open-ended questions with key individuals in the projects, to be able to explore new issues. First, the research needs to develop the operational definition of the three layers to enable the research to form the questions for the case studies.

Knowledge infrastructure Knowledge infrastructure is defined as the physical system of knowledge architecture, which consists of means and repositories that help the storing and disseminating of knowledge. Pan and Scarborough (1998) explain that the main architectural elements of the knowledge infrastructure are humans, organisational entities, documents, books, other knowledge repositories and operating entities. Knowledge can transfer via meetings, telephones, e-mails, faxes etc. The JV’s knowledge infrastructure, and its elements, is judged “Structured” when: . employees know where and in what form a particular expertise and knowledge exist in the JV; and . the knowledge repository in the JV organisation, with all pertinent knowledge, is well organised. The knowledge infrastructure is judged “Flexible” when: . employees are able to reach the required expertise and knowledge without much restrictions, or overcomplicated formal routes, and through any suitable technology, as and when its needed; and . the knowledge repository can be accessed directly without being restricted by hierarchy and with ease (Figure 2). Knowledge infostructure Knowledge infostructure refers to the practices adopted for knowledge exchange by employees in the existing physical system of knowledge infrastructure. Knowledge exchange among JV members, for instance, is governed by the organisational structure

ECAM 14,6

554

Figure 2. Knowledge infrastructure

of that particular JV and adopted practices such as meetings and joint training programs. This research analysed the formal and informal rules of knowledge exchange in a JV based on the following criteria: . when the JV’s partners agree to adopt one set of rules for knowledge exchange for the whole project. Such knowledge infostructure is judged as “organised”; and . when the employees at all levels are well informed with knowledge access rules (like job profiles and updates), trained (by the partners) and the knowledge exchange formal procedures (such as a technology transfer agreements) then the knowledge infostructure is judged “explicit” (Figure 3). Knowledge infoculture An important success factor for KS in any organisation is to have a culture that promotes openness and trust. Bob Buckman stated: “for knowledge-sharing to become

Figure 3. Knowledge infostructure of joint venture

a reality, you have to create a climate of trust in your organisation” (quoted in Pan and Scarborough, 1998). This analysis of the nature of sharing culture in a JV is based on the following criteria: . when JV partners acknowledge, express, and demonstrate the desire to share knowledge then the knowledge infoculture is judged “open”. . when the implementation of KS processes is not crippled by the inability of receiving partner to absorb and learn then the knowledge infoculture is judged “compatible”.

Knowledge sharing

555

The study The data collection involved a number of interviews, using open-ended questions, with key informants (general managers and project managers) from the partner firms of JVs, and series of meetings with project members as well. The research selected four JVs from one major project (to be referred here as NAL). NAL was awarded in thirteen separate contracts packages by one of the public authorities in Singapore (the client). These case studies were chosen as they relate to one construction programme and one client thus reducing the influence of external factors on project dynamics. In addition, the NAL JVs were on going contracts, at the time of the data collection, from which current and dynamic process and product details could be obtained. The interviewees were briefed on the background of the topic of the research. They were also briefed on the research’s adopted framework for analyzing knowledge sharing. The researcher asked interviewees to provide their responses on the questions and express their views on the issues from their experience of working on the current project. The research conducted 11 interviews, including one interview with the project director from the client organisation. At least two interviews were conducted in each JV. Each interview lasted for 45 minutes to one hour (Figure 4). Case study A This JV is between a Japanese firm (A1) and a Singaporean firm (A2) with equity shares of 30 per cent and 70 per cent respectively. The work package includes building

Figure 4. Knowledge infoculture of joint venture

ECAM 14,6

556

two underground stations and approximately 1.6 km twin cut and cover tunnel. The contract value of this package is S$166 million (£1 ¼ S$3). The stated objectives of this JV are: . to share commercial risk; . to fulfil the client’s wish for a local firm to be involved on this project; . to complement foreign partner’s lack of local knowledge; and . to share and utilize each other’s expertise. A1 is a prominent and very large Japanese contractor with a significant experience in building and civil engineering projects, nationally and internationally. A2 is a very large Singaporean contractor with 30 years experience in infrastructure projects in Singapore and the region. Both parties have consolidated their knowledge and expertise in the project method statements. The deputy project manager (A2) described the knowledge architecture in the JV stating: [. . .] we have all [knowledge] as method statements, how surveying is to be done, . . . how to do load testing, how to deal with utility board. Telecom cable routes at site etc. . .employees know where to look for [knowledge].

A well-defined hierarchy, mirroring the organisational structure, was maintained for knowledge flow. The main methods of communication between members of the project team are daily meetings and the use of the telephone. IT contribution to knowledge exchange is limited to the use of e-mail. No central computer database was created as repository for project data and information. The research can conclude that the JV knowledge infrastructure is well structured where employees were clear about knowledge location and the mode of interaction for knowledge flow. However, the JV has been organised to confine the two parties to their own fraction of the work restricting interaction between the employees of the two partners. On this project, company A1 is responsible for the reinforced concrete work and A2 is responsible for the excavation work. The deputy project manager (A2) explains: [. . .] in this joint venture we are quite confined to our own circle, there is not much to share because it is just simple structural work. But in case of a problem, yes that’s usually solved at the daily meeting by site engineers of the partner firms, if problems are unsolved at that level, that will be brought to the next level weekly meetings, if not at this level, the issue will be taken to the executives meeting.

This shows that the JV is quite formal requiring compliance with hierarchy allowing little opportunity for interaction due to confined work area. This situation is reinforced by the indifferent attitude of employees to KS. The infrastructure shows the characteristics of inflexibility. Therefore, Knowledge Infrastructure of this JV is judged structured and inflexible. The procedures to be followed in order to access information are quite formalized allowing each party to work separately but come together to coordinate where the work of both parties intersect. However, there are no formal systems or structures to enable shared learning within the JV. Both parties were not concerned that there are no joint training programmes. Still knowledge transaction is enabled at the managerial

level and down the hierarchy and is highly defined by the confinement of work. Knowledge infostructure is judged organised and implicit. From earlier discussions it seems that the infoculture is much more restricted with each party keeping their own knowledge and expertise from each other unless essential for the works. A general manager (A1) stated in describing his partner: “I think the way of thinking itself is very different . . . They are not so keen to expand their business and also there is lot of risk for such family type companies”. Similarly, the construction manager (A1) commented, “they are not keen to learn technical things”. On the other side of the JV, the general manager of the local firm (A2) explained his views about the foreign partner “[they] are good at technology and very sensitive about that. They won’t let you know everything”. This clearly shows that the infoculture at this JV is stifled with a negative view of each other reinforced by the lack of desire to share knowledge or learn from each other. On the issue of the attitude of the two forms toward learning and their staff development plans there were clear differences between the two. The general manager of the local firm was willing to admit that the Japanese firm was investing in the long-term development of their staff that has inoculated a sense of loyalty towards the company. In contrast, he admits that many local firms are no willing to follow suit. The GM of the Japanese firm held a similar view of the local firm. He relates that to the fact local firms, many family-owned, operate in a limited local market where it maybe difficult to realise a return on serious investment to adopt and operate effectively new technology, such as that used in this project. This research concludes that there is a great deal of incompatibility in the learning ability and the culture of two firms. Knowledge infoculture of the joint venture is stifled and incompatible. Table I provides a summary of the findings for case study A. The JV has set up highly formal hierarchical and rigid systems for knowledge exchange. The infrastructure is structured in a way that the knowledge exchange is formally facilitated at executive and managerial levels. At the operational level, the work packages are separated with little opportunity for informal interaction. The infostructure is organised in such a way that the partners follow their own practices, adjusted for this particular project, with the formal and informal rules of information exchange articulated regularly in meetings. No joint training or feedback programs are available. Thus, the practices are very implicit providing weak opportunity for effective KS. There is evidence of the incompatibility of the learning cultures of two firms. The great difference in size and capacity of the local firm, compared to the foreign firm, and its short-term business view seems to have discouraged cross firm learning leaving little opportunity for sharing tacit knowledge.

Knowledge layer Infrastructure Infostructure Infoculture

Knowledge sharing

557

Characteristics of knowledge layer Structured Organised Stifled

Inflexible Implicit Incompatible

Table I. Summary of case study A

ECAM 14,6

558

Case study B This JV is between a German firm (B1) and a local firm, (B2), with equity share of 45 per cent and 55 per cent respectively. The work of this JV included a two civil defence stations and a 2.5 km twin bored tunnels. It also included two multi-tier interchanges linked by a road viaduct of approximately 1.9 km. The total value of the contract is S$316 million. The stated objectives of this JV are: . combine the JV expertise in order to respond to the technological challenge of this particular project; and . leverage on local firms pricing and market knowledge to support the foreign firm who is new to Singapore. B1 is a very successful German firm with over 120 years experience. It has presence in Europe, North and South America and Africa, however, this is the firm’s first project in Singapore. This firm has developed a reputation of being an innovative firm in tunnelling, bridge construction and environmental technology. B2 is one of the Singapore’s leading engineering and construction firms with significant experience, nationally and internationally, in civil engineering and building projects. Both partners emphasised the importance of keeping proper documentation of the work and making sure that staff are aware of where and how to access these documents, assisted by the project IT system. However, knowledge exchange is guided by the organisational structure to ensure it mirrors the formal hierarchy of the JV. In addition, IT is deployed to facilitate interaction between project members. The research judged knowledge Infrastructure of this JV is structured. Similar to case study A the work responsibility is compartmentalized with the different firms having separate responsibilities hence reducing the need for greater interaction and creating inflexible knowledge infrastructure. Information flow strictly follows the hierarchy and the vertical split in joint venture organisation structure, due to packaged work responsibility prevents the interaction. The knowledge infrastructure is judged inflexible. Therefore, the knowledge infrastructure is structured and inflexible. The formal rules that govern the exchange of information have been highly influenced by client (a public authority) who demanded an “international way” of working. The client insisted on having clear organisational structures, procedures, method statements . . . etc. The local partner had no problem as they already have adopted such systems company wide. The infostructure is organised, as both the partners are comfortable in following the “international” standards. The German firm (B1) was sending its employees to many technical and management related training programmes in Singapore conducted by local training bodies to help its staff acquire local knowledge. The local firm, B2, was also offering in house training courses to its staff. However, there were no shared training programmes to allow both parties to learn and share tacit knowledge. This was surprising, as B1 seems to be eager to acquire relevant local knowledge. Knowledge infostructure is judged organised and explicit. The research examined the attitude of the German firm towards sharing knowledge the local firm. The general manager (B1) stated “yes, we are very open. They can know any of our systems western way of doing things, any special technology”. The local firm’s construction manager acknowledged the opportunity of learning from the German firm and emphasised the value of learning their practices on managing a

project at times of crisis and emergencies. B1 seems to be quite open about their knowledge and willingness to share and B2 clearly valuing such expertise and opportunity. This was helped by B2 top management support for its staff effort to learn from its international partner, thus, creating an open culture within the JV. This was matched by similar commitment from B1. Knowledge infoculture of the joint venture is open and compatible. Table II provides a summary of the findings of case study B. In this JV the partners consciously collated and documented all their relevant expertise for easy access. However, the fragmented work responsibility of partners impeded a more effective interaction by keeping the structure of knowledge infrastructure intact. Because of the inflexibility of infrastructure it can be inferred that the vertical knowledge flow is facilitated better than the horizontal one in the organisational structure. The formal and informal rules of interaction between JV members were established in an organised manner. The practices in JV have been highly influenced by the Western partner with the employees of the local firm adapting to foreign partner’s practice. This was significantly influenced by the perceived direction of the client for Western style practices to be deployed on this particular project. The Western partner felt comfortable fitting into the local industry driven by their desire to acquire local knowledge. This has also motivated them to enrol their staff into training programmes conducted by local institutions. The JV’s well-organised and explicit knowledge infostructure, supported by an open and compatible knowledge infrastructure, extends greater possibility for sharing tacit knowledge at all the levels. Top management of the local firm (B2) drives its learning culture, and it has long-term view to encourage learning among their organisational members. This contributes to better cultural compatibility within the JV.

Knowledge sharing

559

Case study C This JV involved three partner firms; a Japanese firm (C1), with 55 per cent share (the leader of this JV, a local firm (C2) with 45 per cent share and another Japanese firm (C3) with 10 per cent share. C3 was not involved in the construction work and did not have staff on site. The project is a two-level civil defence stations, together with a 2.5 km of cut and cover tunnel. The contract sum is S$ 216 million. The stated objectives of the JV were to: . combine the resources of the members of the jv in order to win the contract; . use the expertise of each other partner; . get specialized technology like tunnelling; and . share the commercial risk.

Knowledge layer Infrastructure Infostrcuture Infoculture

Characteristics of knowledge layer Structured Organised Open

Inflexible Explicit Compatible

Table II. Summary of case study B

ECAM 14,6

560

C1 is one of the largest firms in Japan with major activities ranging from engineering and general construction to real estate and housing. C2 is one of the largest Singaporean building and heavy civil engineering Design and Build (D&B) contractors with significant experience in industrial and process engineering projects. C2 has a distinct in house multi-disciplinary design office. Knowledge architecture in this project was designed with a clear information exchange network consisting of a comprehensive document control system and clear distribution list. IT was used to facilitate interaction among members with a networked system that has encouraged the majority of the employees to use e-mails. The IT network provided clear and easy access to the JV knowledge repository. For example, the special technical know-how on tunnelling of the specialists in Japan can be accessed, by C1 staff, when this particular knowledge is not available on site. The members of the JV are aware of the location of knowledge and its form, which would encourage better knowledge sharing. However, information flow system exposed a horizontal split between the production section and the immediate management: They know how to get the necessary information, but for particular [group] of people (Engineering manager – C1).

Access to such knowledge for supervisory staff was different from that in the construction section. The project organisation has the project director from C1 and his deputy from C2 and all partners were members of the “project supervisory board”. This set up provided opportunities for greater sharing of knowledge at top management levels. The knowledge infrastructure is judged “structured”. Although the IT network of the JV has no web-based system project members were connected to the JV database. However, the IT system restricted access to the C1’s server in Japan to its subsidiary in Singapore and not by the other partners. Similarly, local firm’s server is accessible only to their employees. This was because there was no central database where JV partners can share their knowledge. This hierarchical network restrains access, hinders the easy flow of useful knowledge, and renders the knowledge infrastructure inflexible between partners. The division of work among the partners into independent packages creates further inflexibility where inter-organisational collaboration is low: From the practical point-of-view, C1 provided engineering staffs for the execution of tunnel works. C2 [has] provided commercial staffs to buy services (Engineering manager – C1).

The knowledge infrastructure is judged “inflexible”. The formal rules that guide the interaction between project team members and the practices adopted by the project team are highly influenced by the leading Japanese team: [. . .] the practice here in civil construction is instructed completely by C1, no input from C2 (Engineering manager – C1).

Usually, in JVs the strong party would be the leader in this case Japanese are taking the lead because of their knowledge and expertise in tunnelling. The Japanese firm’s leading team therefore has a dominant role in shaping up the work on site, especially how information is being shared among members. In this D&B contract the Japanese team have provided the project team:

[. . .] with method statement, for a particular work, to be reviewed by the construction manager and myself, Safety department, then all make comments in terms of design, contractual, construction requirements (Engineering manager – C1).

The knowledge infostructure is judged “organised”. The JV has employed a mix of local and foreign staff for this specific project. The foreign staff were recruited from several European and Asian countries. New recruits were offered training courses on safety, first aid and the use of scaffolding. The general staff and labourers were recruited from Thailand and the Philippines, Engineers from UK, and the supervisors were locals. Additional, experienced construction supervisors and machine operators were supplied by labour-only-subcontractors. In addition to the above training programmes the JV offered further on-job-training to its staff. There was evidence that KS was explicit by feedback programmes though it was not on a regular basis. One example was when two members of staff have written and presented a paper in an international conference based on their experience on this project. This same presentation was give to JV staff allowing more explicit and organised KS. Further, the Japanese contractor decided to retain the local staff and later relocated them to another project to benefit from the knowledge gained on this particular project. The knowledge infostructure here is judged explicit. In interviews with the local partner, the Japanese firm was referred to as having a “closed culture”. The Japanese contractor was using the Japanese language rather than English in their communications on site, other than any formal communication with the partners. This has hindered significantly any opportunities for sharing knowledge outside the formal channels. This was disappointing to the local contractor as one of their managers stated that: [. . .] because it is a joint venture we stated clearly that we wanted to learn from them. Whatever we ask, they have to be open. We stated this clearly at first.

The Engineering Manager (C1) who works with the Japanese contractor further reinforced this view by expressing his dissatisfaction of the Japanese contractor lack of willingness to share their knowledge. This problem was related to the commercial sensitivity of the technology used by the Japanese contractor. Therefore, the research judged knowledge infoculture stifled. In terms of existing learning culture in partner firms, Japanese firm has apprenticeship learning culture where young and less experienced staff are assigned to supervisors who are older and more experienced. It was described by one of the interviewees as a seniority-based culture where very few would question their seniors: They start from low level and go to the top. They don’t have formal degree; [their] project managers don’t have formal degrees (Local project manager – C2).

The local contractor has a different learning culture as explained by the local project manager “in Singapore, we have formal degrees. We put people in that place from where they have to proceed themselves”. It can be inferred that there in incompatibility between the two learning cultures. The lack of significant and determined effort to bridge learning culture makes the infoculture incompatible. Table III provides a summary of the finding of case study C. There appears a significant information systems network embedded in the knowledge infrastructure. However, the knowledge Infrastructure is inflexible due to

Knowledge sharing

561

ECAM 14,6

562

the restrained access to partner firm’s knowledge repository and the vertical and horizontal split in the infrastructure. Here, the foreign firm was able to capture useful knowledge through feedback from JV staff and the training programmes. The training programmes for JV staff have helped the foreign firm gain, formal, knowledge related to construction methods, procurement methods, design management practices . . . etc. The infoculture of this JV is stifled and incompatible. The main reason seems to relate to the local firm not making an effort to realize the need for learning. In addition, the split work responsibility and the pure commercial commitment of both partner firms contribute to the stifled culture in JV. Case study D This JV was between a Japanese firm (D1) and a local firm (D2) with shares of 59 per cent and 41 per cent, respectively. Contract sum of the work package is S$ 172 million. The work included a two level underground station and a 1.5 km twin bored tunnel that crosses the river. It is important to note D1 and D2 had the experience of working together for over 15 years before starting this JV. The objectives of this JV were: . to combine the resources and expertise of the partners; and . to create a JV with specialized technology expertise such as tunnelling. D1 is a leading civil engineering and building firm in Japan and an international player of over 120 years. It has an impressive record of accomplishment with range of landmark projects in Singapore. D2 is one of Singapore’s foremost contractors with 50 years of experience in industrial buildings, conventional residential, industrial, and commercial buildings and infrastructure projects. In this JV, the shared knowledge is in the form of documents such as quality plans. IT facilitated the interaction among project members. The research examined this JV knowledge infrastructure and identified a horizontal split in infrastructure between the managerial staffs and the workers. Management staff were aware of where knowledge resides and how they can access it but not the staff at operational level. The knowledge infrastructure is also split vertically due to the divided work responsibility where the foreign partner is responsible for tunnelling work while the local firm is responsible for building work. The justification is that the foreign firm expertise was in tunnelling while the local firm can take care of the building section. Although the infrastructure is structured, the vertical and horizontal spilt did not support interaction at all levels. For example, problems at the workers level were usually resolved, if possible, on site. Unresolved problems were taken to the next level, the project manager. The project manager needs to submit the proposed solution to a “senior management committee” for approval. Knowledge layer

Table III. Summary of case study C

Infrastructure Infostructure Infoculture

Characteristics of knowledge layer Structured Organised Stifled

Inflexible Explicit Incompatible

In examining the infostructure it appears that the interaction between the JV partners, the formal and informal, tends to be initiated by the foreign partner. This foreign firm has an extensive international experience and significant local knowledge from which the local partners would have benefited: All [our] Project Directors have been working here for long time; have worked in Indonesia, Thailand and Bangkok. [The project director] has been working in Singapore for 15 to 20 years. So he is well adapted to Singapore . . . We are quite international . . . [Our] people here are quite comfortable (Project coordinator – D1).

The local partner seems to have agreed to adopt his partner’s way of working especially in major works in which they have expertise. This may well be related to their long-existing relationship: That depends on the nature of work. If it is building work they follow our practices. If it is tunnel work, it is left to completely to D1 (Contracts manager – D2).

Therefore, the knowledge infostructure is organised. There is no formal training program for JV members. It seems the Japanese partner firm has strong training culture. When they work with another organisation, usually they do not find any need to train the local partner due to the divided work responsibility: No formal training is given to the locals, only for the Japanese. They will only train them. We can only follow, whatever they decide we go along with that. We have no people to tell us, what is right or wrong, locals do not have that knowledge. Mostly, they [the Japanese] do not want to disclose the technology (Contracts manager – D2). There is no such structured training program. No formal technology transfer agreement or feedback program exists (Project coordinator – D1).

The knowledge infrastructure of this JV is implicit. The Japanese firm seems to be selective in the elements of their knowledge that are accessible to the local partner. This maybe due to the highly specialised knowledge involved such as tunnelling. In addition, it seems the local firm has difficulties in internalizing the shared knowledge: It depends on the area of work, we are doing. We learn to a certain extent. In technical meetings, we propose to them some construction methods; they will say what the difficulty is, and suggest methods to resolve it. When it comes to tunnelling, it is completely chopped up. They will not even tell you the method. They will not disclose. They discuss themselves. They deal with their head office. They do it themselves (Contracts manager – D2).

However, the foreign partner has a different view: There is no technology that they can learn. D2 has no special technology (Project coordinator – D1).

Such a tension created by the negative views between the partners would stifle the infoculture. In addition, the cultural difference between partners further mitigates the knowledge acquiring ability of local firm. The Japanese firm is dynamic with consistent learning culture, which has made it difficult for the local firm to adapt to

Knowledge sharing

563

ECAM 14,6

their working culture. The Japanese firm has a formal learning program for employees. Their technology exposure is updated regularly with their inventions: They get exposure to new technology, through conference; we don’t participate in that. Through new manuals, they are informed about the new method of construction. We do not have such programs (Contracts manager – D2).

564

The knowledge infoculture of this JV is judged stifled and incompatible (Table IV). The knowledge infrastructure of this JV allows only partial sharing of technically determined and objective knowledge at the top level in organisation structure. This Infrastructure is separated by horizontal and vertical split. The horizontal split separates the management and worker section. The vertical split keeps the work responsibility of the partner firms separate. The knowledge infostructure enabled also partial sharing of inter subjective knowledge between the partners. The local firm has benefited from acquiring certain amount of technical knowledge in construction methods. It seems that the foreign partner carefully releases a limited amount of knowledge over a long period of their association. The motive for the foreign firm to share this limited knowledge is to enable the local partner adopt the foreign firm’s practices to allow work to progress smoothly. The amount of tacit knowledge acquired by the local firm is limited by the incompatibility of the learning cultures and the lack of the motivation to share knowledge. Discussion and conclusion The expectation of a local firm to share knowledge and learn from an international firm has to be one of the key building blocks of a fruitful alliance. At the same time it should not be very surprising to find that foreign firms do not share the urgency to share their knowledge with local firms. The findings of this study showed that knowledge was shared only where the foreign contractor was motivated by the need to learn from the local industry. Hence, there is a need to motivate and enable effective knowledge sharing through purposefully designing JV and project organisational structures, working practices and systems with that objective in mind. The evidence from the case studies shows that JVs have serious problems in all three layers of the KS identified by the research. The organisational structure, IT system and the different practices adopted by the JV were focused on organising the work with little regard of sharing expertise and knowledge. Equally, there was little evidence that the local and foreign partners initiated any effort to address this issue leading the research to conclude that at both individual and corporate level there is little concern for the lack of KS. Although, the local partners stated that their desire to learn form their partner there is no evidence of concrete steps to achieve this objective. The vertical split in the JVs infrastructure, due to the fragmentation of work package, Knowledge layer

Table IV. Summary of case study D

Infrastructure Infostructure Infoculture

Characteristics of knowledge layer Structured Organised Stifled

Inflexible Implicit Incompatible

created little need for technical knowledge sharing and less opportunity for collaborative work environment. In addition, the differing learning cultures, as well having different languages, make any initiative to share knowledge between the different members of the JVs very difficult. The exception in the four case studies was case study B. Here the foreign contractor, a German firm, demonstrated and communicated to all JV staff a commitment to share knowledge and desire to learn from the local industry. This has clearly encouraged a more positive environment within the JV. This demonstrates that a more positive approach to KS requires a clear commitment and leadership from top management of the individual firms and, more importantly, the JV to clearly set the JV’s objectives and intervene to affect a positive KS structure, process, and culture. The local partners should not ignore the fact that the lack of cultural compatibility with the foreign partner will stifle any effort to share knowledge. References Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (2001), “Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-32. Andrews, J. (1984), “Construction project management in joint venture developing countries”, Unibeam, Vol. XV, pp. 43-7. Bassie, L.J. (1997), “Harnessing the power of intellectual capital”, Training and Development, Vol. 51 No. 12, pp. 25-30. Blake, P. (1998), “The knowledge management expansion”, Information Today, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 12. Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2003), “Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 157-66. Briscoe, G. (1988), The Economics of the Construction Industry, Mitchell and CIOB, Ascot. Brooking, A. (1996), Intellectual Capital, International Thomson Business Press, London. Carrillo, P. (1994), “Technology transfer: a survey of international construction companies”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 45-51. Carrillo, P. (2004), “Managing knowledge: lessons from the oil and gas sector”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 631-42. Chow, K.F. (1985), Construction Joint Ventures in Singapore, Butterworth, Singapore. Chow, C., Deng, F. and Ho, J. (2000), “The openness of knowledge sharing within organisations: a comparative study in the United States and the People’s Republic of China”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12, pp. 65-95. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Earl, M. (2001), “Knowledge management strategies: toward taxonomy”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 215-33. Egbu, C. (2003), Knowledge Production, Sources & Capabilities in the Construction Industry, available at: www.knowledgemanagement.uk.net (accessed 1 July, 2007). Ford, D. and Chan, Y. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-27.

Knowledge sharing

565

ECAM 14,6

566

Grant, R.M. (1997), “The knowledge based view of the firm: implications for management practice”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 450-4. Gupta, A. and Godvindarajan, V. (2000), “Knowledge flows within multinational corporations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 473-96. Hibbard, J. (1997), “Knowing what we know”, Information Week, October 20, pp. 46-64. Hillebrandt, P. and Cannon, J. (Eds.) (1989), The Management of Construction Firms: Aspects of Theory, Macmillan, London. Holden, N. (2001), “Knowledge management: raising the spectre of the cross-cultural dimension”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 155-63. Hutchings, K. and Michailova, S. (2004), “Facilitating knowledge sharing in Russian and Chinese subsidiaries: the role of personal networks and group membership”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 84-94. Inkpen, A. (1996), “Creating knowledge through collaboration”, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-40. Inkpen, A. and Dinur, A. (1998), “Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures”, Organisation Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 454-68. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993), “Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 625-45. Mayo, A. (1998), “Memory bankers”, People Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 34-8. McCampbell, A.S., Clare, L. and Gitters, S.H. (1999), “Knowledge management: the new challenge for the 21st century”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 172-9. Meso, P. and Smith, R. (2000), “A resource-based view of organisational knowledge management systems”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 224-34. Mowery, D., Oxley, H. and Silverman, B. (1996), “Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 77-91. Mohamad, S. (2003), “Performance in international construction joint ventures: modelling perspective, ASCE”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129 No. 6, pp. 619-26. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organisational advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66. Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation”, Organisational Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Richter, F.J. and Vettel, K. (1995), “Successful joint ventures in Japan: transferring knowledge through organizational learning”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 37-45. Ofori, G. (1990), The Construction Industry: Aspects of its Economics and Management, Singapore University Press, Singapore. Ofori, G. (1994), “Construction industry development: role of technology transfer”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 379-92. Pan, S.L. and Scarborough, H. (1998), “A socio-technical view of knowledge sharing at Buckman laboratories”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-66. Pasmore, W., Francis, C., Haldeman, J. and Shani, A. (1982), “Sociotechnical systems: a North American refection on empirical studies of the Seventies”, Human Relations, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 179-1204.

Riege, A. (2005), “Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35. Simonin, B. (1999), “Transfer of marketing know-how in international strategic alliances: an empirical investigation of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 463-90. Sowa, J. (1984), Conceptual Structures, Addison-Wesley, GlenView, IL. Spek, R. and Spijkervet, A. (1997), “Knowledge management: dealing intelligently with knowledge”, in Liebowitz, J. and Wilcox, L. (Eds), Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Elements, CRC Press, New York, NY, pp. 31-59. Strassman, W. and Wells, J. (Eds.) (1988), The Global Construction Industry-Strategies for Entry, Growth and Survival, World Industries Studies 7, Unwin Hyman, London. Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K. (1951), “Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall Method of coal-getting”, Human Relations, Vol. 4, pp. 3-38. Wenger, E.C. and Synder, W.M. (2000), “Communities of practice: the organizational frontier”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 139-45. Wiig, K. (1993), Knowledge Management Foundation, Schema Press, Arlington, TX. Further reading Wilderman, J. (1999), Knowledge Management: Moving from Academic Concepts to Fundamental Business Practices, Gartner Group, Stamford, CT. Corresponding author Mohammed F. Dulaimi can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Knowledge sharing

567

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

ECAM 14,6

Enhancing commitment through work empowerment Anita M.M. Liu and W.M. Chiu

568

Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, and

Richard Fellows School of the Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK and Department of Real Estate and Construction, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Abstract Purpose – The research objectives are to investigate the perception of work empowerment of quantity surveyors and to determine whether perceived work empowerment is an antecedent of commitment. Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory study amongst quantity surveyors in four different types of construction industry organisations in Hong Kong is conducted. Data are collected by use of established questionnaires, yielding 136 valid responses. Findings – Organisational commitment comprises dimensions of effectiveness and continuance. It is found that when the perception of work empowerment increases, organisational commitment increases accordingly. Work empowerment is related to affective commitment rather than continuance commitment. Professional qualification and nationality are positively correlated with both dimensions of organisational commitment. Chinese chartered quantity surveyors show more commitment to their organisations. Generally, male QS shows less continuance commitment and the longer the QS has worked for the organisation (particularly in consultancy firms), the less continuance commitment one has. Originality/value – The regression analysis supports the relationship of commitment and work empowerment. Work empowerment enhances self-efficacy and, through motivation and commitment, leads to increased performance and effectiveness. Keywords Empowerment, Business policy, Quantity surveying, Business performance, Hong Kong Paper type Research paper

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 pp. 568-580 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988 DOI 10.1108/09699980710829021

Introduction In this era of rapid change, organisations keep readjusting/adapting to the environment in order to maintain their effectiveness and competitiveness. It is believed that motivating and empowering employees can enhance their productivity and performance (e.g. Schein, 1980; Vroom, 1964). Individuals who are motivated would be more committed to their tasks and, hence, perform better. Committed individuals are also less likely to leave their organisations. Effort to induce commitment can produce long-term benefits for the organisation. Sarantinos (2007) alleges that commitment is directly tied to the psychological contract, which, in essence, describes the implicit agreement between employees and the organisation with regards to their reciprocal obligations and perceived expectations. Group goals and goal commitment predict group productivity and job satisfaction This paper is supported by HKU CRCG research grant.

(Antoni, 2005). Participative group management (Likert, 1961) is believed to achieve higher productivity, greater involvement of employees and so, better relations in an organisation as managers focus on the needs and expectations of subordinates to establish and maintain effective work groups. Vroom’s (1964, 1995) “expectancy theory” recognises the forces within individuals in the environment which affect an individual’s behaviour. It assumes that the employee can decide how much effort he puts in, depending on his motivation, which equals the product of valence (attractiveness of a reward), expectancy (how much a person believes that their effort will result in success) and instrumentality (belief that success will lead to reward). Schein (1980) believes the most important factor in determining an individual’s motivation is the psychological contract, defined as the set of expectations between an employee and some implicit components of an organisation, i.e. pay, dignity, opportunities. In return, the organisation demands loyalty and commitment. Schein’s research illustrates the importance of human resource planning. Work empowerment is a resultant concept developed from these theories. An empowered environment is of particular importance to achieve work effectiveness and influences the values held by a person towards an organisation. The motivational aspect of empowerment (Liu and Fang, 2006) and the effects of individuals’ commitment on performance in construction projects are investigated by Liu and Walker (1998), Dainty et al. (2005), Leung et al. (2004) and Peansupap and Walker (2006). This study focuses on the individuals’ perceptions (quantity surveyors in this sample of study) of the extent of work empowerment and their organisational commitment. The research objectives are to investigate: . the perception of work empowerment of quantity surveyors; and . if perceived work empowerment is an antecedent of commitment by quantity surveyors. Work empowerment and commitment Conger and Kanungo (1988) examine work empowerment as a relational construct and as a motivational construct. As a relational construct, work empowerment concerns influences of managerial practices on employee participation. Empowerment occurs when power of the superior is relinquished to subordinates, and with it authority and responsibility. The subordinates experience a sense of ownership and control over their jobs (Wellins et al., 1991). Kanter (1977) argues that managers may strengthen or weaken the self-determination and efficacy belief of the employees by providing them access to resources, information, support and opportunity. Sullivan (1994) suggests that a working environment encouraging participation, mentoring and training has to be created for joint decision making. In essence, empowerment is similar to the concept of delegation; however, empowerment gives continuous authority in contrast to temporary authority. When reviewing work empowerment as a motivational construct, it refers to the perception of employees on their power, autonomy and control. Employees feel energised (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) and a sense of control of their career (Ripley and Ripley, 1992) if they are empowered. In such sense, power sustains self-determination (Deci et al., 1989), self-worth (Nielson, 1986) and a belief in self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

Work empowerment

569

ECAM 14,6

570

Empowerment is the act of strengthening an individual’s beliefs in his/her sense of effectiveness – a process of changing the internal beliefs of people (Conger and Kanungo, 1987, 1988) or self-efficacy (see Bandura, 1986 on social cognitive theory for self-efficacy) which may lead to increased motivation, productivity and effectiveness (Umiker, 1992; Pfeiffer and Dunlap, 1990; Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Whetton and Cameron (1984) regard empowerment as the process of motivation through enhancement of self-efficacy, the power to produce effects. Therefore, people who have power are more likely to achieve effectiveness. An empowering environment fosters weakening of one’s belief in personal powerlessness by organisational factors (Kanter, 1979, 1983), supervisory style such as training and company policies (McClelland, 1975), reward systems (Bandura, 1997), and job design. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) suggested that, as well as self-efficacy, a sense of impact, meaningfulness and choice are feelings enhanced on successful implementation of empowerment. Vogt and Murrell (1990) maintain that self-efficacy must be realised and internalised by the employees, otherwise efforts by the management to empower employees will not be of use. Work empowerment is, therefore, multi-dimensional in nature, involving delegation of power by managers and how individuals perceive and internalise such power. Menon (1995) defines empowerment as “a cognitive state of perceived control, perceived competence and goal internalisation” (Menon, 1995, p. 30). In this research, a multi-dimensional approach towards work empowerment is taken, following Kanter’s (1977) four-dimensional framework (Access to Opportunity, Information, Resources and Support). The practice of work empowerment has been put forward in different terms by other researchers. Ripley and Ripley’s (1992) suggestions on the activities to be undertaken in an organisation are almost identical to what have been put forward by Conger and Kanungo (1988) for providing self-efficacy. The dimensions include providing leadership, training, recognition, resources allocation, customer focus and teamwork; to achieve goal internationalisation of the employees. Vogt and Murrell (1990) provide six dimensions of empowerment, including education, leading, mentoring, providing, structuring, and a matrix of all; Kirkman and Rosen’s (1999) study of team empowerment dimensions comprise external team leader behaviour, production/service responsibilities, team-based human resources policies and social structure (as described by Spreitzer, 1996). Kanter (1968) and Sheldon (1971) claim that organisational commitment concerns an individual’s affective emotion to the group, as well as their involvement (Mowday et al., 1982). Some researchers look into the concept of commitment from a cost perspective and regard it as a side bet (Becker, 1960), i.e. investment of something that is valuable to the employees such as time, effort and money. To Kanter (1968), commitment to an organisation also relates to the profit from participating, and the cost of leaving the organisation, such as loss of prestige and stability of a working environment. On the other hand, Marsh and Mannari (1977) focus on the moral responsibility one attaches to the organisation as a result of commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991) categorise organisational commitment into three components: affective, continuance, and normative but normative commitment is not well supported as a form of organisational commitment (Morrow, 1993). Affective commitment involves the employee’s emotional attachment, identification with and involvement in the organisation, similar to Mowday et al. (1982) definition of

attitudinal commitment. Continuance commitment involves the employee’s costs associated with leaving the organisation, similar to behavioural commitment. Normative commitment is associated with the employee’s feelings of obligation to stay in the organisation. Employees who experience affective commitment stay in the organisation because they want to stay; those influenced by continuance commitment stay because they need to stay and those influenced by normative commitment feel they ought to stay. Mowday et al. (1982) believe that there is a cyclical relationship between affective and continuance commitment, with one reinforcing the other. However, others believe that they are independent factors, such that employees who are bound to an organisation may not be highly committed to the organisation attitudinally, and vice versa. Organisational commitment also depends on the perception of employees (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Steers (1997) shows that if the employee finds the organisation to be more supportive, a higher level of organisational commitment will result. Allen and Meyer (1990) examine the antecedents of different types of commitment, establishing positive relationships with: job challenge, role clarity, goal clarity, goal difficulty, management receptiveness, peer cohesion, organisation dependability, equity, personal importance, feedback, participation, skills, education, relocate, self-investment, pension, community, alternatives, and commitment norm. These 19 variables fall into the labels of work empowerment; opportunity, information, support and resources. Commitment reflects the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in that organisation (Steers, 1997). Many studies show that high commitment is beneficial to the organisation, although low commitment can be a source of individual creativity and innovation that may be beneficial for the organisation. High commitment facilitates loyalty so a stable workforce can be sustained despite external environment changes. However, high commitment may limit opportunities for mobility, suppressing creativity and innovation (Suliman and Iles, 1999). Generally, previous findings have shown that organisations benefit from a committed workforce because committed employees tend to be absent less often, to make positive contributions and to stay with the organisation (e.g. DeCotiis and Summers, 1987; Beck and Wilson, 2000; Bishop and Scott, 2000). Hence, it is postulated that work empowerment is an antecedent of commitment, i.e. the individual’s perceived extent of work empowerment may increase/decrease the sense of organisational commitment. Such changes in commitment may ultimately affect organisational performance, hence, an understanding of the relationship between work empowerment and commitment is desirable. Research design This paper reports a study of perceived work empowerment and organisational commitment of quantity surveyors (QS) employed in different types of organisations. The case study approach is adopted where four organisations are selected from QS consultancy firms, construction firms, government department (Architectural Services Department) and real estate developers – these being the major types of organisation employing QS in Hong Kong (Rowlinson and Walker, 1994). The organisations are selected on the basis that: . they have the most number of QS employees in their type of organisation; and . they are willing to participate.

Work empowerment

571

ECAM 14,6

572

The number of QS employed in the four organisations are 110 in the QS consultancy, 60 in the construction company, 110 in the government department, and 70 in the real estate developer; giving a total of 350 respondents in the sample. Two sets of questionnaires, based on previous literature, are used. The first set is used to collect information on the perception of the respondents on their job-related empowerment. The empowerment questionnaire was first developed by Chandler (1986) to measure the work empowerment of the nursing profession in Canada. Further improvements on the constructs have been made by the Western Ontario University Research Programme. An acceptable reliability has been established ranging from 0.66 to 0.92 across different studies (Laschinger and Shamian, 1994; Wilson and Laschinger, 1994). A five-point Likert scale is used ranging from 1 to 5 (from low to high perception of work empowerment). Some items are added to the questionnaire according to Spreitzer’s (1995) measurement of information as a dimension of empowerment. The new questionnaire has a total of 33 items under four guiding questions: (1) how much of each kind of opportunity do you have in your present job (eight items); (2) how much access to information do you have in your present job (eight items); (3) how much access to support do you have in your present job (seven items); and (4) how much access to resources do you have in your present job (ten items). The alpha coefficients for the four groups of guiding questions range from 0.80 to 0.93. The second set is used to obtain information on their perception of organisational commitment. The commitment questionnaire originated from Allen and Meyer’s (1990) scale of measurement of organisational commitment – which is regarded as a multi-dimensional construct. After gradual development and improvement after various tests for statistical significance (Meyer and Allen, 1991), the questionnaire adopted for this research is the latest version of Allen and Meyer (2000). The five-point scale is labelled from Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4) to Strongly agree (5). Demographic information on age, tenure, work experience (rank), education level, gender, nationality, and professional qualification status is also collected. Results There are 152 returned questionnaires from a total of 350 in the sample of four selected organisations, giving a response rate of 43.4 per cent. Valid number of responses is 136. To eliminate the problem of multicollinearity, the variables of age, rank and education are dropped in the multiple regression model in order to give a more statistically significant result. The results of the regression analysis are summarised in Table I. The value of the adjusted R-squared is 12.1 per cent in regression 1, which means that organisational commitment can be partially explained by the antecedents included. As an antecedent, work empowerment is attributable to organisational commitment with the coefficient of 0.267 and the t-statistic is large (3.052) and significant ( p , 0.05), i.e. when the perception of work empowerment increases, organisational commitment increases accordingly. The other statistically significant

Constant Work empowerment Tenure Professional qualification Gender Nationality QS Consultancy Contractor Developer

Predictors

0.267 20.066 0.141 20.019 0.028 20.303 20.041 0.005

11.100 3.052 20.633 1.237 20.218 0.295 22.100 20.277 0.045

0.121 0.000 0.003 * 0.528 0.218 0.828 0.768 0.036 * 0.782 0.964

Organizational commitment (Regression 1) b t DR 2 p

0.488 0.018 0.064 0.008 0.015 20.003 0.217 0.021

b 4.298 6.215 0.196 0.631 0.101 0.177 2 0.023 1.628 0.224

0.293

Affective commitment (Regression 2) t DR 2 0.000 0.000 * 0.845 0.529 0.920 0.860 0.982 0.106 0.823

p

20.116 20.117 0.139 20.036 0.025 20.442 20.286 20.015

0.000 0.196 0.277 0.231 0.685 0.793 0.003 * 0.061 0.889

12.108 2 1.301 2 1.092 1.203 2 0.406 0.236 2 3.024 2 1.891 2 0.140

0.088

Continuance commitment (Regression 3) b t DR 2 p

Work empowerment

573

Table I. Regression results on organisational commitment

ECAM 14,6

574

variable at p , 0.05 is the consultancy dummy with a negative coefficient of – 0.303. That means the QS consultancy firm has a lower organisational commitment as compared to other organisations in the study. Further regression equations test the two dimensions of organisational commitment, i.e. affective commitment and continuance commitment. In regression 2, work empowerment is found to be significantly related to affective commitment with a coefficient of 0.488 at p , 0.05 (t-statistics ¼ 6.215; adjusted R-squared ¼ 0.293). At one-unit increase of work empowerment, there is an increase of 0.488 in affective commitment. In regression 3, the adjusted R-squared figure of 8.8 per cent for continuance commitment, with t-statistics of – 1.301 and p ¼ 0.196, is the lowest among the three regression models and shows no significant relationship between work empowerment and continuance commitment. However, the consultancy dummy is statistically significant ( p ¼ 0.003) with t-statistics at – 3.024, i.e. the QS consultancy firm has the lowest level of continuance commitment comparing with other organisations, meaning their cost of leaving is lowest in the sample. Generally, no demographic variables significantly affect commitment – apart from the QS consultancy dummy which is negatively related to continuance commitment (which, subsequently, having a significant effect on organisational commitment). Tenure and Gender are negatively related to organisational commitment but such findings are not statistically significant at 5 per cent. The negative relationships imply that the male surveyors have lower commitment than the females and that the longer one works in the organisation, the lower one’s commitment becomes. The negative sign of tenure does not support the findings of Mathieu and Sajac (1990) and Cohen (1993). Furthermore, Professional Qualification and Nationality are positively, but not significantly, related to organisational commitment – meaning that qualified Chinese surveyors show higher commitment. Since the QS consultancy environment is the only demographic variable which significantly affects organisational commitment, the work empowerment condition of the QS consultancy firm is analysed and compared with the other three organisations. It is found that the QS firm has the lowest score in access to information amongst the four types of organisations and this may cause a sense of powerlessness and de-motivation. However, it is noted that there is no significant difference in the scores of access to information amongst the four organisations. The QS firm scores second highest in the other components of work empowerment, i.e. access to opportunities, access to resources and access to support. There is no explanation from this study of the negative organisational commitment in QS firms – such would be the subject of further research. Discussion Generally, the results can be discussed in three main areas. Perception of work empowerment Work empowerment is found to be positively related to the overall organisational commitment and one of its dimensions, affective commitment, at statistical significance of 5 per cent. It means, generally, the more access of the QS to opportunities, information, resources and support, the more they are committed to their

organisations. Such results support the view of Laschinger and Shamian (1994), Mathieu and Sajac (1990), and Tao et al. (1998). Feeling empowered in the work environment is conducive to the employees having a higher level of commitment towards their organisations. However, work empowerment is not significantly related (and yields a negative relationship) to continuance commitment, i.e. the cost of leaving the organisation is possibly lower for those QS who feel empowered. This aspect is worth further exploration through a larger sample. The present finding is not significant, but it may mean that the QS employed in the consultancy firms find it easy (perhaps due to other opportunities open to them) to leave the consultancy and join other (types of) firms. For instance, QS have higher cost of leaving the government as civil servants are rewarded with stable income and attractive retirement packages. In general, the findings support the argument brought forward by Allen and Meyer (1990) that organisational commitment is not a single construct since the two dimensions (affective and continuance commitment) give different results from the study of their relationships with work empowerment.

Organisation variables The consultancy dummy is statistically significant (of negative relationships) with organisational commitment and continuance commitment, i.e. the QS in consultancy firm have lower organisational and continuance commitment than amongst the other organisations. Team working is particularly stressed by the consultancy firm in this study. The firm is divided into six teams and each specialises in a particular kind of project. Consultancy organisations have a professional organisation structure, while the rest belong to the matrix organisation as analysed by Rowlinson and Walker (1994). The former relies more on team work and the latter relies heavily on the inter-department communication where quantity surveying is only one specialist branch/department of the whole organisation. QS working in consultancy firms may not have higher remuneration any more. For instance, overtime payment is cut in the consultancy organisation whereas the contractors still offer bonuses and overtime payment. Moreover, the general age groups of the respondents in the consultancy firm are younger and, therefore, may be more willing to change jobs as their cost of leaving is generally lower.

Demographic variables None of the demographic variables included (tenure, professional qualification, gender and nationality) shows statistically significant result in attributing to the organisational commitment, affective and continuance commitment of QS in this exploratory sample. The probable reason is that the sample size is not large enough to give a statistically significant result. The findings, thus, support the argument by Kanter (1977), Kirkman and Rosen (1999), Steers (1977) that demographic variables are not central to organisational commitment.

Work empowerment

575

ECAM 14,6

576

Limitations It is encouraging to see that work empowerment, as suggested by literature, is an antecedent of commitment in these organisations. More case studies would be required if this result is to be generalized for the QS employed in the Hong Kong construction industry. Organisational commitment is intended to be investigated on case (organisation) basis, so that the data to be gathered over time are available for more in-depth analyses in future. The explanatory powers of the three multiple regression models (organisational commitment, affective commitment and continuance commitment) vary from 9 per cent to 29 per cent, which means that work empowerment is, but not a very strong, predictor of commitment. There are two possible reasons identified: first, the model constructed is not comprehensive enough to incorporate all possible antecedents of commitment, where the major focus of the authors is on the impact of work empowerment on organisational commitment. Second, this study is exploratory and the sample is not large enough. Though the perceptions of individuals vary in different situations, the adjusted R 2 of the study give similar results compared to some previous studies. The 136 responses are made up of 64 (QS consultancy), 43 (contractor), 24 (government) and 5 (developer). The disappointingly low response from the developer cannot provide a significant discussion on the differences in commitment and empowerment amongst the organisations. For example, a study on the effects of socialisation and demographics, the adjusted R 2 figures range from 4 per cent to 38 per cent. In Tao et al. (1998)’s study of the effects of demographic variables and organisational climates on organisational commitment, less satisfactory results on affective commitment with R 2 (result of adjusted R 2 not available) of 18.3 per cent and on continuance commitment with of R 2 of 3.2 per cent are obtained. Conclusion Commitment reflects the relative strength of a person’s identification with and involvement in that organisation. Work empowerment enhances self-efficacy and, through motivation and commitment, leads to increased performance and effectiveness. In this Hong Kong study, it is found that when the perception of work empowerment increases, organisational commitment increases accordingly. Of the two dimensions (affective and continuance) of organisational commitment, further analysis shows that work empowerment is related to affective commitment rather than continuance commitment. Professional qualification and nationality are positively correlated with both dimensions of organisational commitment, i.e. Chinese chartered QS show more commitment to their organisations. Generally, in Hong Kong, male QS shows less continuance commitment and the longer the QS has worked for the organisation (tenure), the less continuance commitment one has; and such findings are more so for the QS working in consultancy firms. The present regression analysis provides a basis to support the relationship of commitment and work empowerment, but more case studies should be conducted to validate the findings for the Hong Kong QS in general. Further model development is also required to take account of other possible antecedents of effectiveness. It is suggested that a detailed conceptual model of work empowerment – motivation – commitment – effectiveness be tested by means of structural equations modelling based on larger scale data collection.

References Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organisation”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18. Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (2000), “Construct validation in organizational behavior research: the case of organizational commitment”, in Goffin, R.D. and Helmes, E. (Eds), Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at Seventy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp. 285-314. Antoni, C. (2005), “Management by objectives – an effective tool for teamwork?”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 174-84. Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY. Beck, K. and Wilson, C. (2000), “Development of affective organizational commitment: a cross-sequential examination of change with tenure”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 56, pp. 114-36. Becker, H.S. (1960), “Notes on the concept of commitment”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 32-40. Bishop, J.W. and Scott, K.D. (2000), “An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 439-50. Chandler, G.E. (1986), “The relationship of nursing work environments to empowerment and powerlessness”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Cohen, A. (1993), “Age and tenure in relation to organisational commitment: a meta-analysis”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 143-59. Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1987), “Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 637-47. Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-82. Dainty, A., Bryman, A., Price, A., Greasley, K., Soetanto, R. and King, N. (2005), “Project affinity: the role of emotional attachment in construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics., Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 242-4. DeCotiis, T.A. and Summers, T.P. (1987), “A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment”, Human Relations, Vol. 40, pp. 445-70. Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P. and Ryan, R.M. (1989), “Self-determination in a work organization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 580-90. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7. Kanter, R.M. (1968), “Commitment and social organisation: a study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 499-517. Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY. Kanter, R.M. (1979), “Power failure in management circuits”, Harvard Business Review, July/August, pp. 65-75.

Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters, Basic Books, New York, NY. Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999), “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 58-74.

Work empowerment

577

ECAM 14,6

578

Laschinger, H.K. and Shamian, J. (1994), “Staff nurses’ and nurse managers’ perception of job-related empowerment and managerial self-efficacy”, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 30-5. Leung, M.R., Chong, A., Ng, T. and Cheung, M.C.K. (2004), “Demystifying stakeholders’ commitmnet and its impacts on construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 701-15. Likert, R. (1961), “The principle of supportive relationships”, in Shafritz, J.M. and Whitbeck, P.H. (Eds), Classics of Organization Theory, More Publishing Company, Oak Park, IL, pp. 150-60. Liu, A.M.M. and Fang, Z. (2006), “A power-based leadership approach to project management”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 497-508. Liu, A.M.M. and Walker, A. (1998), “Evaluation of project outcomes”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 209-19. Marsh, R.M. and Mannari, H. (1977), “Organisational commitment and turnover: a predictive study”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 57-75. Mathieu, J.E. and Sajac, D.A. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 171-94. McClelland, D.C. (1975), Power: The Inner Experience, Irvington Press, New York, NY. Menon, S.T. (1995), Employee Empowerment: Definition, Measurement and Construct Validation, McGill University, Vancouver. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualisation of organisational commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89. Morrow, P.C. (1993), The Theory and Measurement of Work Commitment, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages, Academic Press, New York, NY. Nielson, E. (1986), “Empowerment strategies: balancing authority and responsibility”, in Srivastra, E. (Ed.), Executive Power, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Peansupap, V. and Walker, D.H.T. (2006), “Information communication technology (ICT), implementation constraints: a construction industry perspective”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 364-79. Pfeiffer, I.L. and Dunlap, J.B. (1990), “Increasing productivity through empowerment”, Supervisory Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 11-12. Ripley, R.E. and Ripley, M.J. (1992), “Empowerment, the cornerstone of quality: empowering management in innovative organisations in the 1990s”, Management Decision, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 20-43. Rowlinson, S.M. and Walker, A. (1994), The Construction Industry in Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong. Sarantinos, V.S.T. and Co, J.S.C. (2007), “Flexibility in the workplace: what happens to commitment?”, Journal of Business and Public Affairs, Vol. 1 No. 2, 10 pp., available at: www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1159.pdf Schein, E.H. (1980), Organizational Psychology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Sheldon, M.E. (1971), “Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to organisation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 143-50.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-65. Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 483-504. Steers, R.M. (1977), “Antecedents and outcomes and organizational commitment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 46-56. Suliman, A. and Iles, P. (1999), “Is continuance commitment beneficial to organizations? Commitment-performance relationship: a new look”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 407-26. Sullivan, K.D. (1994), Empowerment and Control: A New Management Paradigm, Educational Leadership, Seattle University, Seattle, WA. Tao, M., Takagi, H., Ishida, M. and Masuda, K. (1998), “A study of antecedents of organizational commitment”, Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 198-205. Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an interpretative’ model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-81. Umiker, W. (1992), “Empowerment: the latest motivational strategy”, Health Care Supervisor, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 11-16. Vogt, J. and Murrell, K. (1990), Empowerment in Organizations, Pfeiffer and Company, San Diego, CA. Vroom, V.H. (1964), “Motivation – a point-of-view”, in Porter, L.W. and Bigley, G.A. (Eds), Work and Motivation, Human Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 8-23. Vroom, V.H. (1995), Work and Motivation, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Wellins, R.C., Byham, W.C. and Wilson, J.C. (1991), Empowered Teams, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Whetton, D.A. and Cameron, K.S. (1984), Developing Management Skills, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL. Wilson, B. and Laschinger, H.K. (1994), “Staff nurse perception of job empowerment and organisational commitment: a test of Kanter’s theory of structural power in organisations”, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 39-47. Further reading Arslan, M. (2001), “A cross-cultural comparison of achievement and power orientation as leadership dimensions in three European countries: Britain Ireland and Turkey”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 340-435. Barnes, B. (1986), “On authority and its relationship to power”, Power, Action and Belief, Sociological Review Monograph 32, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Bass, B.M. (1960), Leadership Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Block, P. (1987), The Empowered Manager, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. Child, J. (1984), Organization: a Guide to Problems and Practice, Harper & Row, London. Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. Jr and Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness”, Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 643-76. Conger, J.A. (1989), “Leadership: the art of empowering others”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 17-24.

Work empowerment

579

ECAM 14,6

580

Cordery, J.L., Mueller, W.S. and Smith, L.M. (1991), “Attitudinal and behavioural effects of autonomous group working: a longitudinal field study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 464-76. French, J.R.P. and Raven, B. (1959), “The bases of social power”, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Power, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbour, MI. Giddens, A. (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. and Johnson, D.E. (1996), Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Locke, E.A., Scheweiger, D.M. and Lathan, G.P. (1986), “Participation in decision making: when should it be used?”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 65-79. Perrow, C. (1973), “The short and glorious history of organizational theory”, in Shafritz, J.M. and Whitbeck, P.H. (Eds), Classics of Organization Theory, More Publishing Company, Oak Park, IL, pp. 313-23. Pettigrew, A.M. (1973), The Politics of Organisational Decision-Making, Tavistock Institute, London. Sabiston, J.A. and Laschinger, H.K.S. (1995), “Staff nurse work empowerment and perceived autonomy”, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 42-50. Sewell, W.H. Jr (1998), “A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 1-29. Walker, A. and Newcombe, R. (2000), “The positive use of power on a major construction project”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-44. Yukl, G. and Falbe, C.M. (1991), “The importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 416-23. Corresponding author Anita M.M. Liu can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Targeting relationally integrated teams for sustainable PPPS

Targeting teams for sustainable PPPS

Mohan M. Kumaraswamy Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

581

Florence Y.Y. Ling National University of Singapore, Singapore

Aaron M. Anvuur Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China, and

M. Motiar Rahman University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, UK Abstract Purpose – This paper targets the development of comprehensive approaches to prequalifying teams for Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). Design/methodology/approach – Research outcomes from a study into “relationally integrated project teams” (RIPTs) were applied to necessarily longer-term PPP scenarios. A force field model was developed to visualise the importance of stronger relational forces between the many PPP participants for “sustainable RIPTs” (SRITs). A framework was conceptualised to show linkages from relational contracting approaches, through sustainable relationships to sustainable infrastructure. This framework and a basic model for evaluating relational performance, were assessed by a panel of international PPP experts. Findings – The results encouraged the collection of factors facilitating successful relationships to build the proposed knowledge base. Literature review and initial interviews provide examples of priorities and lessons learned in relationship building in ongoing PPPs. Research limitations/implications – Being an integrative theory-building type exercise bringing together relational contracting, teambuilding and PPP performance research streams, this paper summarises and refers to, rather than provides details of, feeder research. Fleshing out the conceptual framework and model will next proceed beyond the initial testing and sample knowledge elements conveyed herein. Practical implications – Selecting good teams is essential for successful projects, and more so for PPP projects, given their complexities and longer timeframes. Increasing reliance on PPPs for infrastructure development and asset management enhances this significance. Originality/value – Synergies are derived from linking relationship-building and sustainability thrusts in the context of PPP performance. Concepts of “sustainable relationships” and “sustainsivity” (sensitivity to sustainability issues) are introduced. Keywords Public sector organizations, Private sector organizations, Partnership, Team working, Teambuilding Paper type Research paper

Grant HKU 7138/05E from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council, as well as the Universitas 21 Fellowship received by the lead author, are acknowledged for assisting in this research, while the questionnaire respondents and interviewees are thanked for sharing their valued knowledge.

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 pp. 581-596 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988 DOI 10.1108/09699980710829030

ECAM 14,6

582

Background and introduction The levels of private sector involvement in infrastructure development and indeed in some elements of national developments have escalated in many countries over the past few centuries. As discussed by Jeffries et al. (2006), the “public vs. private debate” has been going on since Adam Smith’s the “Wealth of Nations” in 1776. Some nations have ventured at various times to entrust their socio-economic development, either entirely to the government through the public sector, or sometimes to totally rely on market forces via the private sector. Drawing on both public and private sector resources together has also been possible i.e. through Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), e.g. looking back to the railroads that opened up the West of the USA; or even further back to the ten year concession for commercial exploration of the Guinea Gulf awarded to a sailor by the King of Portugal in the 15th century in exchange for the “discovery of new lands” (Branco et al., 2006). The popularity of PPPs has fluctuated with the ideologies and needs of the time and place, e.g. since governments must necessarily play a bigger role during both financial and natural crises, as well as during wars and conflicts. However, the marked interest in PPPs that resurfaced in the last two decades has moved PPPs from their “first generation” that essentially chased private funds to finance infrastructure development; to the “second generation” that seeks greater efficiencies and value for money (Duffield, 2005). These efficiencies are expected to result in superior performance levels in creating and managing, and not merely “maintaining”, assets that include not only physical infrastructure such as roads and power stations, but also schools and prisons. Furthermore, those pursuing PPPs must cross dangerous mine fields (Ogunlana, 2005), given the many more variables, risks and lack of experience in dealing with such complex scenarios. Furthermore, the long time frames of most concessions impose extra demands that PPPs should not just be “successful” but sustainable as well. Moreover, it is now clear that high performance levels in infrastructure development and management depend not just on drastically improved structures and systems, but also on enhanced project cultures and integrated teamworking (Construction 21, 1999; CIRC, 2001; Constructing Excellence, 2004). Combining these with the needs for sustainable performance levels in PPPs as above, they point to the requirement for superior teams who can work well together in the long term, in managing the constructed infrastructure product. This paper therefore, applies and adapts findings from research into factors facilitating relationally integrated project teams, to formulate a conceptual framework aimed at developing and sustaining good relationships and performance levels throughout the PPP time frame. Feedback from a group of international PPP experts is summarised to indicate the suitability of the framework and its proposed further development. Furthermore, interviews with PPP players and stakeholders involved in recent and forthcoming PPP initiatives in Hong Kong and Singapore, reinforce the value of the proposed approaches to targeting sustainable relationally integrated project teams. This therefore, is essentially a theory-building type paper that develops and presents integrative concepts and frameworks, drawing on both research that is reported in more detail elsewhere, as well as on samples of new evidence being collected, e.g. the samples of factors that can be injected into the proposed knowledge base of relational success factors and sub-factors.

The needs for the above-mentioned integration and consolidated developments are further reinforced by recent research elsewhere. For example, in Australia: . Cheung (2006) provides examples of culture change through better relationship management in infrastructure supply chains in general. . Jefferies et al. (2006) target the minimising of transaction costs in the bidding process for PPPs, also aiming at more sustainable procurement. . Chen et al. (2006) proposed a decision support model to evaluate the “sustainable performance potential of partner candidates” in terms of environmental consciousness and sustainable performance, as well as the sustainability of such construction partnerships, for construction projects in general. Sustainability is clearly more significant in PPPs, given the much longer time horizon, but little detailed work has been as yet done in this direction itself, while it has not been integrated with the other important dimension of “relationships” for sustainable team-building as well. Team-building imperatives Team working and integration Teams are more than mere working groups. They should be groups with complementary skills, a common purpose and are mutually accountable for their achievements, with members being mutually supportive in working together towards their goals (Constructing Excellence, 2004). Teamworking models indicate how teams can work and perform better in general (e.g. Rippin, 2002; Belbin, 2004). However, in the construction industry, increased specialisation over the past century or so, has led to fragmented project teams. More recently, this has been deplored as unproductive (e.g. Latham, 1994), because the advantages of specialisation have been overwhelmed by the difficulties of co-ordinating inputs and integrating outputs. Recognising this problem, exhortations for integrated teams have resonated across the world in the last two decades (e.g. Egan, 1998; ISR, 1999; CIRC, 2001; Constructing Excellence, 2004). Of course there were differences in detailed recommendations, e.g. calls for integrated teams in Singapore, focused more on organisational or “structural” integration, in terms of linking the functions of design and construction in design and build contracts. On the other hand, the UK, Australia and Hong Kong Reports recognised the need for what has recently been termed “relationally integrated teams (Kumaraswamy et al., 2005a), that require more than mere organisational or functional integration of structures and systems. Building relationally integrated project teams (RIPTs) In the light of the above, selecting suitable teams has been recognised as critical to the success of construction projects in general. To achieve this, there has been a significant shift from the previous “lowest price wins” paradigm to incorporating non-price criteria in selecting contractors (Kumaraswamy and Walker, 1999) and other supply chain partners (Palaneeswaran et al., 2001) and indeed even more so in PPPs, e.g. in selecting BOT concessionaires (Zhang et al., 2002). An increasingly important non-price criterion is the potential for “relational integration” as discussed in the above paragraph.

Targeting teams for sustainable PPPS 583

ECAM 14,6

584

Recommendations for “relational” approaches are: . reinforced by examples from practice, of successful partnering and alliancing arrangements (Bennett and Jayes, 1998; Hauck et al., 2004); and . justified in theory, by the benefits of superseding rigid dispute-generating traditional contracts with relational contracting (Macneil, 1974) that can empower joint risk management between partners (Rahman and Kumaraswamy, 2002). The “Classical contracting Approaches’ (CAs) typical of traditional contracts imply segregated teams, adversarial contracts, a blame culture and a short-term focus; and are in turn blamed for poor performance levels. “Relational contracting Approaches” (RAs) on the other hand, are expected to generate integrated teams, Joint Risk Management (JRM), sustainable relationships and a longer-term focus. Figure 1 is developed to indicate different degrees of “balance” between force-fields of CAs and RAs, that position team members at appropriate “distances” apart in general. In particular, Figure 1(a) illustrates how CAs push team members apart (e.g. through “them vs. us” attitudes) in a two-member scenario, while RAs pull them

Figure 1. Reducing team member “distance” in general

together (e.g. through close collaboration, shared problems and successes). Figures 1(b) and 1(c) compare the net impacts (of fragmentation and segregation) on a three-member team under dominance of CAs and RAs respectively, where the team members gravitate together as in 1(c), rather than apart as in 1(b). A general multi-country survey of cross-sections of Australian, Hong Kong, Dutch, Singaporean and UK construction practitioners, unveiled an awareness of the benefits of relational contracting and integrated team working in their projects (Rahman et al., 2005). There was a clear appreciation of the need for relationally integrated project teams (RIPTs) in Singapore as well (Kumaraswamy et al., 2005), although the Construction 21 (1999) Report had previously focused on structural (functional) integration unlike the Australian, UK and Hong Kong Reports that had stressed integrated relationships. For example in Singapore, 27 factors facilitating integrated project teams and 26 factors deterring integrated project teams were found to be significant out of 28 and 31 hypothesised factors respectively (Kumaraswamy et al., 2005a). Such knowledge could be captured and made available when constructing RIPTs in different regions. RAs harmonise relationships among contracting parties, reducing areas of disagreements and lubricating transactional friction (Rahman and Kumaraswamy, 2002). These are achieved by focusing on common objectives, adopting more cooperative approaches (e.g. in partnering), and introducing more conducive and useful mechanisms over and above classical contracting practices and principles (e.g. through JRM), The latter emphasises clear and equitable allocation of all foreseeable risks, along with RC based contract adjustment mechanisms for addressing any unforeseen events and changes during contract execution. Together, with such mechanisms, RAs foster cooperation among team members with a longer-term mind-set; and can therefore also focus team efforts on whole-lifecycle performance and sustainability issues in infrastructure provision (Kumaraswamy et al., 2006). The pull (i.e. relational) forces are therefore stronger than the push forces (i.e. RAs . CAs) and so reduce the “distances” between multiple team members, as shown in Figure 1(c). Figure 2 extends this concept to larger and more complex PPP teams. It illustrates how the various PPP partners could be drawn together by more dominant integrative forces, to cooperate for mutual long-term benefits with the Project Consortium (PC) which is the “special purpose vehicle”/franchisee formed by the private partners. Such multi-functional teams engaged on multi-objective long-term projects would benefit from sustainable relationships and vice versa. For example, the additional imperatives for asset management, including operation and maintenance, call for a more holistic and sustainable approach from the concept design stage itself. Kumaraswamy et al. (2006) described how the longer time horizon could transform JRM (Joint Risk Management) concerns and efforts into JSRM (Joint Sustainability Risk Management) in order to jointly target asset sustainability. This would demand more durable designs including specifications for materials, constructability, environmentally friendly construction methods, better maintainability and operability. Apart from this sustainability of the physical infrastructure assets, the sustainability of the team relationships themselves is the other crucial aspect to be considered in PPPs.

Targeting teams for sustainable PPPS 585

ECAM 14,6

586

Figure 2. Targeting relational integration in PPP teams

Sustainable relationally integrated project teams (SRITs) Developing an overall framework for a SRIT prequalification model Moving from shorter term RIPTs (relationally integrated project teams) in projects (Rahman and Kumaraswamy, 2004), to longer-term PPP projects, superimposes additional demands, such as for sustainable relationships and JSRM as noted above, and for what may be summarised as SRITs (sustainable relationally integrated project teams). These further demands call for additional selection criteria in the short-listing of PPP teams, e.g. in assessing the potential for sustainable relationships. An example of a possible approach to select SRITs for PPPs was conceptualised and used in a survey of experts in 2005 (Kumaraswamy and Anvuur, 2007). Summarised points from a detailed ten-page description issued along with the questionnaire are presented below. The proposed PPP team prequalification approach ties performance against: . “hard/technical” criteria; . “relational” criteria; and . “sustainsivity” (sensitivity of key team members to important sustainability issues) criteria, to an integrated framework, along with tools for evaluating such performance. High “sustainsivity” implies faster and better responses in dealing with sustainability concerns on the project. It is suggested that such an integrated approach offers great synergies and better assurance of sustainable infrastructure. While many short-listing/prequalification systems have been developed to evaluate against hard/technical criteria, only a few provide for useful assessments of relational criteria, and even fewer consider sustainability factors. It should be noted that the hard/technical criteria include track records of constituent companies and key individuals; as well as resources available for the project. This includes financial capacities, and also possibly, a preliminary proposal on how the consortium would approach this particular PPP project brief. What is discussed in this paper is for the prequalification (or shortlisting) only. It therefore focuses on team capacities and potential, based on track records etc, and not (at this stage) on other criteria needed for evaluating PPP proposals, e.g. the financial and technical packages actually offered for a given project. The proposed prequalification system would provide for: . scoring against important factors under all three categories in the above paragraph; and . combining the resulting scores appropriately in a given scenario. The “relational capability” and “sustainsivity potential” scores, in addition to performance against hard/technical criteria, can be stored in continuously updated databanks of public or large private clients to provide information on a viable supply network. Threshold scores defined by the client organisation can determine eligibility. Candidate consortia who respond to an Expression of Interest (EOI) invitation, may thus be assessed for their eligibility at prequalification stage, by comparing their: . technical capacity (including financial and other resource capacities); . relational capability; and . “sustainsivity”.

Targeting teams for sustainable PPPS 587

ECAM 14,6

588

Figure 3. Structuring the compilation of a consolidated prequalification score

The combined score for the past performance of each tenderer is the sum of the weighted scores in the technical, relational and sustainsivity evaluations. Then the Past Performance Score, P, of each applicant consortium can be computed as shown in Figure 3 as WCC þ WRR þ WSS. WC, WR and WS are the chosen weightings applied to the technical, relational and sustainsivity score components respectively, as in Figure 3; and WC þ WR þ WS ¼ 1. The weightings would depend on the relative importance of the C, R and S priorities on any given project and should be assigned by the project decision-makers. The unweighted

component scores are based on the assessments of each of the applicants. Furthermore, each applicant is assumed to be a consortium of companies including financiers, designers, constructors and operators. The combined “Team Criteria” scores (e.g. c1. . . cm and r1. . . rm) are therefore, the weighted averages of the technical, relational and sustainsivity scores respectively, of the individual companies constituting the respective applicant consortium, depending on their contributions on the corresponding aspects. The final Past Performance Scores would be the basis for pre-qualifying consortia who would next be issued formal Requests for Proposals (RFP). Since each prequalified tendering consortium should have the minimal relational capacities, their proposals at this stage could be assessed based on how well they respond to the project specific criteria outlined in the RFP, the price tendered for the range of services required and their proposed value contributions to the development and management of the asset. After the selection of the preferred bidders, structured team building workshops can be organised to promote cooperative interactions between the contracting parties and to align their respective project objectives as in Figure 4. During these workshops, contractual adjustment mechanisms, issue resolution protocols, incentive mechanisms and team interaction protocols can be negotiated. Agreed project objectives comprising technical (e.g. schedule and quality/performance levels as well as financial and socio-economic), relational (e.g. teamwork and openness) and sustainability (e.g. reducing environmental impact) targets can then be agreed in a Partnering Charter or Alliance Agreement. The PC (Project Consortium) will be expected to mobilise their various relational strengths to synergistically interact among themselves as well as to co-operate with the

Targeting teams for sustainable PPPS 589

Figure 4. Framework for mobilising relational contracting approaches and sustainable relationships in sustainable infrastructure development

ECAM 14,6

590

rest of the PPP team as in Figure 2, in order to deliver a “sustainable” infrastructure product as Figure 4. The envisaged joint problem solving initiatives can then be extended to cover both risk and sustainability issues. This integrated approach contributes directly to sustainable infrastructure and indirectly through the longer-term and wider contributions via “sustainable relationships”. For example, relationship building also leads to “knowledge-building” of critical success factors that will then be incorporated in the “knowledge base” in Figure 4. Through this approach, it is expected to focus more attention on increasingly important considerations such as efficient use of resources, supporting desirable natural environments, improving value for money, providing customer satisfaction, facilitating flexibility for user changes and enhancing the quality of life. A focus on these considerations will clearly contribute to more sustainable infrastructure and ultimately, sustainable development as also shown in the overarching broad framework in Figure 4. Assessing the framework and proposed SRIT prequalification model An example of the proposed operationalisation of the above framework was indicated in a basic model that focused on the relational aspects, and thus included examples of relational factors and sub-factors. These details, with further descriptions, were included in the ten-page document issued for the survey of experts in 2005. These are described by Kumaraswamy and Anvuur (2007), and therefore excluded here in deference to space limitations and the undesirability of repetition. However, it should be noted that the proposed basic SRIT prequalification model includes examples of relational criteria or factors, e.g. values or attitudes; each of which links to a number of interdependent key relational sub-factors, e.g. the “values” factors link to consistency, openness, fairness etc.; and the “attitudes” factors link to receptivity, commitment, care, readiness for joint decision-making etc. The relational factors may be weighted to reflect different priorities of the project and/or client. Each relational sub-factor is then assigned a score of 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 representing “unacceptable”, “below average”, “acceptable”, “good” and “excellent” respectively. Guidance notes verbalise the interpretation of each point of the Likert scale. The relational score is the sum of the weighted scores earned for each relational sub-factor. This will allow a less subjective comparison of the relational qualities of various potential team players based on measurements of their “relational capability” on previous projects. A rating system classifies the relational scores into bands/intervals of “relational capabilities” defining “excellent”, “good”, “acceptable”, “below average” or “unacceptable”. Decision rules, formulated on the basis of a suitable multi-attribute decision-making model can also specify a minimum “relational capability” required for prequalification, in case a client wishes to only shortlist teams with “good” relational qualities, whatever their other scores. Table I summarises the consolidated scores given by the 11 expert respondents to the survey, as described by Kumaraswamy and Anvuur (2007). Survey and analysis details are not repeated here due to space limits and also because the present paper focuses more on integrative theory building, based on a cluster of evidence from feeder studies. It may be noted that the respondents were internationally well experienced in PPPs; with two based in Australia, three in Hong Kong, one in Singapore, one in Thailand and four in the UK; and include engineering, financial, legal and construction experts. The high average scores and broad consensus of the experts encouraged

Criterion Number

Description

Average Standard score deviation

Assessment of overall framework that incorporates relational, technical and sustainability factors for sustainable infrastructure: 01 Clarity 02 Validity in reflecting real needs 03 General coverage of macro-level critical performance factors 04 Applicability 05 Adaptability to different scenarios 06 Potential reliability after expansion 07 Suitability for further development

3.82 3.64 3.45 3.36 3.64 3.11 4.20

0.87 0.92 0.69 1.21 0.92 1.05 0.79

Assessment of basic model for evaluating relational performance: 08 Coverage of relational factors 09 Coverage of relational sub-factors 10 Potential reliability after expansion 11 Suitability for further development

3.73 3.82 3.13 4.00

0.65 0.60 0.99 1.00

Notes: Average (Arithmetic Mean) of scores assigned by 11 experts on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “poor” and 5 being “excellent”

further development of the overall conceptual framework, a basic evaluation model and pilot knowledge bases. Sustainable relationships: building up knowledge bases The following provide some examples of how useful knowledge can be collected for expanding and finalising the structure and populating the planned knowledge bases of critical factors and sub-factors, by drawing on recent strategies and experiences in the new waves of PPPs in both developed and developing countries. Examples of experiential knowledge from Singapore PPPs are seen as “part of the Best Sourcing framework” and as “a long-term partnering relationship” (Singapore Ministry of Finance, 2007). The Public Private Partnership Handbook issued in October 2004, summarises “key factors in a successful relationship” as: . mutual respect and understanding; . open communication; and . recognition of mutual aims. It also summarises “key factors in the management structure” presumably aiming to convey the importance of relationships, for example: “the relationship at the senior management level sets the tone of the PPP relationship” and “clear roles and responsibilities should be set and the staff empowered for the different structures in place to manage the relationship at different levels”. A total of eight interviews were conducted with Government officials, legal and financial experts, a PPP Client/Promoter and three Project Consortium (PC) partners/potential partners, with two on the “design & construction” side and the third on the “operations & maintenance” in November 2006 and January 2007.

Targeting teams for sustainable PPPS 591

Table I. Consolidated assessment scores of experts

ECAM 14,6

592

Interviewees indicated the need for accelerating the learning curves and PPP awareness of lower level staff of stakeholders. Some felt that many banks and developers in Singapore were still wary of the PPP model. Many saw a need for “champions”/”driving” personalities in both public (Client) and private (PC) sector groups of a PPP project team. They could drive the vast changes in mind-sets and working arrangements that were seen to be critical for any PPP success, given the innovative thinking needed. It was also seen that approaches must change from reactive to proactive, e.g. to preventive rather than “fix-it” in operations management. Interesting examples of benefits from knowledge transfers across functions, disciplines and indeed sectors, were noted and could be used to populate the planned knowledge base. For example, a facilities management team was pleased to have learned some planning and control techniques, including for inventory optimisation, from the CEO of a Client, and were now applying these techniques on other projects, providing an example of effective knowledge transfers. Examples of experiential knowledge from Hong Kong In comparison with the above, the introductory guide to PPPs of the Hong Kong SAR Government (Efficiency Unit, 2003) highlights that PPPs: [. . .] are based on a partnership approach, where the responsibility for the delivery of services is shared between the public and private sectors, both of which bring their complementary skills to the enterprise. PPPs bring together public and private sectors in a long-term relationship”, with the private sector moving on to become a “long-term service provider” rather than a “simple upfront asset builder.

Furthermore, the handbook highlights relevant objectives such as: . “partnership attitude”, “right skills mix at the right times”, and “desire to make partnership work in practice”; and . “select a private partner that you will be able to work well with throughout the life of the project”. These ideas clearly justify some of the strategies proposed in this paper. A recent initiative for a mega cultural complex cum property development was studied with a view to learn from the “false start” initially suffered in this planned PPP. 18 interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders were conducted to identify critical success factors (CSFs) for such projects (Lo, 2006). Potential CSFs were derived from the international literature and the local interviews, and grouped into five elements in a CSF framework. These broad “elements” are: (1) macro environment; (2) government-project relationship; (3) construction-project relationship; (4) government-consortium relationship; and (5) project; and the number of CSFs identified within each element were 8, 8, 5, 7 and 3 respectively.

It is useful to refer back to Figures 2 and 4 when noting that some of the above CSFs, as identified in the above study supervised by the lead author, involved team building not just within the PC team, but also with the public stakeholders such as environmental groups. Examples of factors that led to the “suspension” of the above project were said to include: inadequate communication with stakeholders, inappropriate sharing of skill-sets and risks, lack of protection of public interest, and social opposition. From this it is seen that team building for PPPs should be approached in a wider context. It should commence up-front with the Client, and involve key stakeholders at the overall project level, before moving into the selection of a “winning” PC team. In fact the latter could be considered as a key sub-team within the overall PPP project team, as seen in Figure 2. Examples of relevant findings from the UK and in general In the context of the above section, it is noted that certain aspects of the importance of team relationships in PPPs, have been appreciated, studied and documented to some extent, in the past. For example, in the UK, Smyth and Edkins (2006) called for a proactive “relationship management” approach, which they found was needed to replace reactive behavioural adjustments to the new procurement conditions in the PFI/PPP landscape in the UK. Also, in the UK, a recent report conveyed the results of a survey of operational PFI projects (including non-construction projects) that covered many aspects (Partnerships UK, 2006). It is relevant that 66 per cent of public sector respondents rated the performance of these service providers as either “very good” or “good”; while 72 per cent of public sector contract managers rated their relationships with the service providers as either “very good” or “good”, and 25 per cent as “satisfactory”; and 79 per cent of users were satisfied “always” or “almost always” with services received. It is also relevant that, a “clear correlation” was noted between “good” or “very good” relationships and high levels of performance. Although not so strong, a positive link was also discerned between good relationships and user satisfaction. Key factors that influence relationships between public sector and private sector teams were said to include “communication” (by over 30 per cent of respondents), trust (20 per cent), shared objectives (17 per cent). However, high levels of staff turn over on either side, were one of the factors straining relations. In general, Pantouvakis and Vandoros (2006) conducted a review of internationally published research in PFI/PPPs in construction. They found that of 78 PPP journal papers in four selected leading journals over the period 1996-2006, although 42 per cent were on stakeholder relationships at the contractual level, there had been a shift of interest towards financial management related issues after the late 1990s. It was also noted that the emphasis seems to have been on contractual relationships, which could be more on the structural and legal arrangements, rather than the relational integration which arises from “relational contracting” type approaches (Kumaraswamy et al., 2005). The foregoing examples confirm the needs for more relationally integrated as well as sustainable teams in PPPs, and for deeper research to identify the best ways forward in this direction. Concluding observations More informed team selection is clearly more critical for sustainable PPPs and the basic prequalification approach proposed here incorporates relational factors into the

Targeting teams for sustainable PPPS 593

ECAM 14,6

594

shortlisting process. While previous research justifies evaluating relational capabilites, the overview in this paper highlights a need to integrate this relationship dimension with considerations of technical competence and sustainsivity (sensitivity to sustainability issues). This paper also develops an integrated conceptual framework, while drawing on findings from the teambuilding, relational contracting and PPP performance research streams, which include previous contributions from these authors. For example, while KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and related assessment tools for evaluating technical competence have been developed over many decades, sustainability KPIs are being focused upon in many regions in the last few years (e.g. Ugwu et al., 2006). “Relationally integrating” factors for construction project teams have been identified from the literature and the reported multi-country survey. Applying and adapting selected relational factors along a PPP timeline, as piloted in the proposed model, was seen to be useful by the surveyed experts. Further examples may be drawn from the tools developed by Cheung et al. (2006) to assess the “degree of relationalism” of relational contracts in construction through a “relational index”. Fresh approaches would of course be needed to adapt and apply such methods to the evaluation of the “strengths” of actual relationships, which would have many dimensions. Further development of this prequalification model is envisaged along the relational, as well as sustainability dimensions, whereas knowledge bases abound for “technical” evaluation. The proposed model can be next integrated with the overall PPP team selection system that would incorporate the evaluation of proposals from prequalified consortia, that will include assessments of financial and infrastructure operational proposals as well. Examples of PPP teambuilding exercises and the importance ascribed to teamworking criteria in Hong Kong and Singapore, indicate how the proposed knowledge bases may be built up. Also, the overall framework presented in this paper indicates how relational contracting approaches and sustainable relationships can contribute to more sustainable infrastructure, and in turn to suitably integrated long-term development. While PPPs can be valuable in mobilising and synergising such forces, it must be noted that PPPs are certainly not appropriate for all scenarios. Parallel research initiatives (e.g. Anvuur and Kumaraswamy, 2006) are directed at developing decision support for distinguishing scenarios that are suited for PPPs, and indeed for different types of PPPs. Taken together, these initiatives will help in deciding where PPP can yield better value overall, and help in selecting better and more sustainable PPP teams that can help increase such value. References Anvuur, A. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (2006), “Making PPPs work in developing countries: major issues and challenges”, CIB W107 Construction in Developing Economies Internationa. Symposium, 18-20 January 2006, Santiago, Chile, CD-ROM, 10 pp. Belbin, R.M. (2004), Management Teams – Why They Succeed or Fail, 2nd ed., Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam. Bennett, J. and Jayes, S. (1998), The Seven Pillars of Partnering: a Guide to Second Generation Partnering, Reading Construction Forum, Thomas Telford, London.

Branco, F., Ferreira, J. and Branco, M. (2006), “Specifications to achieve quality in B.O.T. projects”, CIB W107 Construction in Developing Economies Intnl. Symposium, 18-20 January 2006, Santiago, Chile, CD-ROM 10 pp. Chen, Z., Li, H., Kong, S.C.W. and Xu, Q. (2006), “A decision support model for partner selection in sustainable construction”, BEAR Conference, Hong Kong, April 2006, CD-ROM, 10 pp. Cheung, S.O. (2006), “How relational are relational contracts?”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 48-56. Cheung, Y.K.F. (2006), “Supply chain sustainability – the role of trust and relationship”, Conference on Construction Culture, Innovation & Management, Dubai, 26-29 November, British University in Dubai, pp. 710-719. CIRC (2001), Construction Industry Review Committee Report, HKSAR Government, Hong Kong. Constructing Excellence (2004), “Strategic forum sets new targets for change”, available at: www.constructingexcellence.org.uk (accessed 20 June, 2006). Construction 21 (1999), Reinventing Construction, Ministry of Manpower and Ministry of National Development, Singapore. Duffield, C.F. (2005), “PPPs in Australia, Public Private Partnerships – Opportunities and Challenges”, Proceedings of the CICID, 22 February, The University of Hong Kong, pp. 5-14. Efficiency Unit (2003), Efficiency Unit Serving the Community – By Using the Private Sector, Government of the HKSAR, Hong Kong, 70 pp. Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, HMSO, London. Hauck, A.J., Walker, D.H.T., Hampson, K.D. and Peters, R.J. (2004), “Project alliancing at National Museum of Australia – collaborative process”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 143-52. Jefferies, M.C., McGeorge, D., Chen, S.E. and Cadman, K. (2006), “Sustainable procurement: a contemporary view on Australian public private partnerships (PPPs)”, Conference on Construction Culture, Innovation & Management, Dubai, 26-29 November, British University in Dubai, pp. 556-64. ISR (1999), Building for Growth – An Analysis of Australian Building and Construction Industries, ISR (Department of Industry, Science and Resources), Canberra. Latham (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London. Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Anvuur, A.M. (2007), “Selecting sustainable teams for PPP projects”, Journal of Building & Environment, Vol. 36 No. 3. Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Walker, D.H.T. (1999), “Multiple performance criteria for evaluating construction contractors’”, in Rowlinson, S. and McDermott, P. (Eds), Procurement Systems in Construction: A Guide to Best Practice in Construction, Routledge, London. Kumaraswamy, M.M., Ling, F.Y.Y., Rahman, M.M. and Phng, S.T. (2005), “Constructing relationally integrated teams”, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 10, pp. 1076-86. Kumaraswamy, M.M., Ugwu, O.O., Rahman, M.M., Ekambaram, P. and Ng, T.S.T. (2006), “Relational contracting for sustainable infrastructure”, Conference on Built Environment Sustainability in the New Economy, Hong Kong, HKU SPACE, pp. 88-95. Lo, C.M. (2006), “Critical success factors for public private partnerships at West Kowloon cultural district project”, unpublished final year project Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Targeting teams for sustainable PPPS 595

ECAM 14,6

596

Macneil, I.R. (1974), “The many futures of contracts”, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 691-816. Ministry of Finance (2007), Public Private Partnerships, available at: www.mof.gov.sg/policies/ ppp.html (accessed January 19, 2007). Ogunlana, S. (2005), “Investment in PPPs: gold digging in partially cleared minefields”, paper presented at the Conference on Public Private Partnerships – Opportunities and Challenges, February 22, Hong Kong, CICID, HKU, available at: www.hku.hk/cicid Palaneeswaran, E., Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Zhang, X.Q. (2001), “Reforging construction supply chains: a source selection perspective”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 165-78. Pantouvakis, J.P. and Vandoros, N. (2006), “A critical review of published research on PFI/PPPs in construction”, Proceedings of the CIB W92 Conference, Salford, November 2006, pp. 410-419. Partnerships UK (2006), Operational PFI Projects, Report, March 2006, 127 pp. Rahman, M.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (2002), “Joint risk management through transactionally efficient relational contracting”, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 45-54. Rahman, M.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (2004), “Potential for implementing relational contracting and joint risk management”, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 178-89. Rahman, M.M., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Karim, K., Ang, G. and Dulaimi, M. (2005), “Cross-country perspectives on integrating construction project teams”, 6th Construction Specialty Conference of the CSCE, 2-4 June, 2005, Toronto, Canada, CD-ROM, 10 pp. Rippin, A. (2002), Teamworking, Capstone Publishing, Oxford. Smyth, H. and Edkins, A.J. (2006), “Relationship management in the management of PFI/PPP projects in the UK”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25, pp. 232-40. Ugwu, O.O., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Wong, A. and Ng, S.T. (2006), “Sustainability appraisal in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 1”, Development of Indicators and Computational Methods, Automation in Construction, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 239-51. Zhang, X.Q., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Palaneeswaran, E. and Zheng, W. (2002), “Concessionaire selection of BOT tunnel projects in Hong Kong”, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 155-63. Further reading Phua, F.T.T. and Rowlinson, S. (2004), “How important is co-operation to construction project success? A grounded empirical quantification”, Engineering, Construction & Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 45-54.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Collaborative relationships in construction: the UK contractors’ perception Akintola Akintoye

Collaborative relationships in construction 597

School of the Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow,UK, and

Jamie Main Capita Symonds, Glasgow, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe UK contractors’ perceptions of collaborative relationships in construction. Design/methodology/approach – Based on a UK wide postal questionnaire survey, the opinions of contractors were assessed on reasons for collaborative relationships and the factors that are responsible for the success and failure of collaborative relationships in construction development. The respondents were split into two groups (SME’s and large) based on their number of employees, to determine whether their responses varied with size as part of the analysis. Statistical analyses, based on Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and factor analysis technique were used to investigate the cluster of relationships. Findings – The research shows that UK contractors are positive about collaboration and are engaged in collaborative relationships for construction developments. Factor analysis shows that the principal reasons why contractors are involved in collaborative relationships are for risk sharing, access to innovation and technology, response to market, resource efficiency and client requirements. The principal success factors are commitment of adequate resources from the partners, equity of relationship, recognition of the importance of non-financial benefits and clarity of objectives while the principal failure factors are lack of trust and consolation and lack of experience and business fit. Practical implications – Drawing from the findings, the study confirms that construction collaborative relationships are customer driven with very little consideration for competitors, suppliers and subcontractors although a a true collaborative relationship should take into account all the parties involved in construction development supply and demand chains to reap the full benefits. Originality/value – The paper makes an original contribution of exploring the area of relationships in construction in the UK from the contractors point-of-view. The contents within the paper will be of interest to those working within the field. Keywords Strategic alliances, Partnership, Critical success factors, Supplier relations, Factor analysis, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

Introduction In recent times, the landscape for construction development delivery has been fast changing with emphasis on partnering, joint venture, public/private partnership, strategic alliances, etc. In the UK, the need for private sector delivery of public sector construction facilities and services is on the increase, with the use of the Private Finance Initiative. In other countries, the use of project financing strategy such as Build Operate, Transfer (BOT), is recognised as important to deliver public sector services such as

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 14 No. 6, 2007 pp. 597-617 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-9988 DOI 10.1108/09699980710829049

ECAM 14,6

598

roads, rails, telecommunications, electricity, water and waste treatment, etc. These innovative procurement methods demand higher level of cooperation between the public sector and private sector and within private sector stakeholders The early 1990s saw the increase in collaboration between companies in the manufacturing industry. This arose from commercial pressures relating to increased competition, higher research and development (R&D) costs, increasing pace of product innovation and technological development and the increasing internationalisation of industries (Leverick and Littler, 1993). To stay not only in business but to remain competitive, manufacturing firms had to look at ways that would improve performance and profits. For many manufacturing firms this was achieved by using collaborative processes. In the summary report of their conference on “Collaboration for Competitive advantage: the changing world of alliances and partnerships”, Stiles (1995) identified the need that spurred collaboration across the world to include: increasing globalisation, competitiveness, risk and uncertainty within the business environment, businesses as diverse as insurances, airlines and computers are recognising the need to collaborate in order to survive. He noted that companies considering new market ventures or planning long-run research and development programmes are finding that collaboration offers the opportunity to spread the risks of this form of investment. Crouse (1991) indicated that the demand from customers has been responsible for the push for partnerships given that they have become more knowledgeable and are faced with more choices over a shorter period of time. In addition he argued that customers want the best solutions for the best price without being locked in with any one vendor. Consequently, the response to this demand by industry while at the same time meeting the objectives of getting products to market faster, increase market share, improve quality and service, improve productivity, reduce cost and improved profitability has brought about the need for partnerships. The survey by the Economic Intelligence Unit in 2003 (cited by Anslinger, 2004) noted that the main reason cited by Chief Executive Officers for increasing dependence on external relationships are the need for fast and low-cost expansion into new markets and greater control/influence of the customer relationship. In the UK construction industry, two government reports have specifically addressed the need for change to improve the industry: the Latham report (1994) and the Egan report (1998). These reports have a recurring theme in that they both suggest the industry could achieve expected improvement through greater teamwork not only at site level and organisational level but also with clients and suppliers. Recommendations within these reports have led to an increasing use of collaborative arrangements such as long-term/strategic arrangements, partnering, joint venture, public private partnerships, prime contracting and supply chain management in order to improve the construction development process. However, it may be anticipated that not all the collaborative relationships in construction developments will be successful. This paper therefore addresses reasons for the use collaborative relationships in construction development and the factors that may be responsible for the success (or failure) of construction collaborative relationships. The research that formed the basis for the paper replicated a survey undertaken on collaborative relationships in the manufacturing sector by Leverick and Littler (1993).

General overview on collaborative relationships Latham (1994) and Egan (1998) highlighted the inefficiency of the construction industry and suggested that the construction industry needs to reflect the best practices of the manufacturing industry to provide a satisfactory product and meet customer needs. Consequently, they advocated the use of collaborative relationships for construction development. However, despite the industry reports highlighting these inefficiencies the construction industry still has the tendency to rely mostly upon traditional methods of selecting construction contractors although according to Naoum (2003). Black et al. (2000) however, shows that the use of collaborative relationship procurement strategies has been increasingly embraced by industry players since the publication of the Latham and Egan reports. The use of collaborative relationships to deliver goods and service has been a subject of much research in the manufacturing and service industries. For example, Douma et al. (2000) tackled collaborative relations from a strategic alliances angle and noted that due to the ever-increasing pace of technological developments and access to new technologies, alliances have become a key success factor in many industries. In addition, they found that there is now a shift from “traditional” cost driven alliances to knowledge-intensive alliances, where inter-partner learning is a major objective. Spekman et al. (1996) concluded from their study, based on in-depth interviews with managers on both sides of five strategic alliances, that successful alliances have their origin at the top of the organisation. Even those alliances of lesser stature and which are managed at lower levels within the organisation must have the blessing and support of the top management. Brouthers et al. (1995) identified 4Cs under which strategic alliances should be utilised; this they termed the major forces involved in helping assure success: complementary skills are offered by the partners, cooperative cultures exist between the firms; the firms have compatible goals; and commensurate levels of risk are involved. Medcof (1997) also identified different 4Cs for successful alliances: capability (are the prospective partners capable of carrying out their role in the alliance?); compatibility (are they compatible operationally); commitment (are they committed to the alliance and its strategic aims); control (are the control arrangements for the coordination of the alliance appropriate?). The conference report on collaboration by Stiles (1995) indicated that successful collaborative partnerships and strategic alliances need to be developed as part of the overall strategy of an organisation that requires initial identification of clear goals and objectives, and significant attention to the choice and type of partner. Crouse (1991), on the power of partnerships, enumerated the clear advantages of a balanced partnership relationship: partnering provides the ability to leverage internal investments; focus on core competencies; leverage core competencies of other organisations; reduce capital needs, broaden products offerings; gain access or faster entry to new markets; share scarce resources; spread risk and opportunity; improve quality and productivity; having access to alternative technologies; provide competition to in-house developers; use a larger talent pool and satisfy the customer. Anglinger and Jenk (2004) identified five forms of alliances that have application to the various forms of collaborative relations: (1) Invasive where the partners share a significant amount of technology, personnel and strategy and derive value from a true combination of

Collaborative relationships in construction 599

ECAM 14,6 (2)

600 (3)

(4)

(5)

perspectives and resources, often accompanied by co-location. However because partners objectives are varied, it is noted that it is harder to gauge success or monitor success hence this requires more elaborate governance and senior management involvement for this form of alliance to be successful. Multi-function which encompasses multiple spots on the value chain and brings together R&D functions or development and market with the aim to maintain or build momentum for commercialisation, improve approval chances and speed time to market. Multi-project which involves existence of multiple alliances within a single company to reduce transaction costs and give partners a first look at each other’s products or right of first refusal. Coopetition which involves cooperating with competitors with the benefit of sharing development costs, along with access to cross-pipeline expertise and reduce transaction costs. Networks which is a case of multiple partners grouped in a single alliance to access diverse technologies and skills, share costs, build market momentum and bundle related products into a full customer solution.

Douma et al. (2000) are of the view that the need to cooperate is determined by pressure on continuity, market opportunities, time pressure or the number of alternative options (such as autonomous development or acquisitions). They identify the six drivers for strategic fit in collaboration: (1) that cooperation is only advisable when partners have a shared vision of future development within the industry in which an alliance will be formed, and of the impact that these developments will have on their individual positions; (2) that precondition for strategic fit is compatibility of strategies; (3) that the alliance partners will only be prepared to make concessions when the alliance is of strategic importance to them; (4) a successful alliance requires mutual dependency; (5) any alliance should have added value for the partners and/or their customers; and (6) partners must carefully consider whether the market will accept that alliance. It was noted by Draulans et al. (2003) that rather than a strategic fit between the partners and the characteristics of alliance, the capacity which an organisation has been built up in managing alliances (including alliance training, cross-alliance evaluation, use of alliance specialists) makes an important contribution towards enhancing alliance success. Sonnenbery (1992) identified ten principles of a solid partnership as follows: both partners gain from the relationship; each party should be treated with respect; promise only what can be delivered; specific objectives should be defined before the relationship is firmly established, striving for a long-term commitment is important to both parties; each side should take the tie to understand the other’s culture; each side should develop champions of the relationship; line of communication should be kept open; the best decision is one made together and preserve the continuity of the relationship.

Lorange and Roos (1991) came up with two political considerations (stakeholder blessing and internal support) and two analytical considerations (strategic match and delineation of strategic plan) as the foundation of a successful strategic alliance). Shaughnesy (1995) on the other hand argued that the most important prerequisite for success in international joint ventures is that the parties should share the same objectives without ensuring that each partner’s total objectives and goals match, which is to invite disaster. He therefore identified pre-contract partner training needs to look at five factors for managing successful collaborations: communication goals (comprises training in interpersonal relationships and conflict management); performance goals (shared goals are identified and developed); dispute resolution (consideration is given to the need for timely resolution of disputes); evaluation (both parties agree a continuing evaluation of the team’s performance during the length of the contract); and commitment (to a partnering agreement that embodies the spirit of collaboration and which is separate from the venture contract). Spekman et al. (1996) are of the view that successful collaborative relationship must implement blameless review processes at scheduled intervals to ensure that the relationship is on course despite those internal/external pressures that might affect its direction. This review of previous publications has shown that collaborative relationships are used in many industries including manufacturing, retailing, construction and service sectors. Although, collaborative relationships can take different forms the literature review has drawn mainly from strategic alliance where this has been utilised to help assure success and complement skills. The review has shown that some of the factors responsible for the use of collaboration in the recent times are access to new technologies, fierce competition, the need to focus on core business, risk sharing, and market opportunities. However, there are different reasons for adopting collaboration relationships for business ventures. In addition, there are different factors responsible for the success or failure of collaborative relationships. The success factors identified include top management support, complementarities of skills, cooperative culture, shared goals and objectives; etc. The extent to which these factors are relevant to collaborative relationships in the construction environment are explored in the study that formed a basis for this paper. Research method The use of collaboration to deliver construction development involves different operators or parties in the construction industry. This could involve collaboration between a contractor and another contractor or with a client, subcontractor, supplier or consultant involving partnering, project or long term strategic alliance or joint venture. It could also be a relationship between construction clients and consultants, suppliers and construction clients. For example, in a public private partnership project, this could involve a consortium comprising a supply chain that includes main contractors, facilities management firm, sub-contractors, suppliers, designers, financial institutions, etc. This paper only presents the views of the UK contractors on construction collaborative relationships given that they have pivotal role in collaborative relationship upstream with clients and clients’ representatives and downstream with suppliers and subcontractors. It presents the reasons for their use of collaborative relationships by the UK construction contractors and the perceived success and failure factors and how the success should be measured. This is part of a questionnaire survey that sought UK contractor’s opinions on the risks and rewards of collaboration in construction

Collaborative relationships in construction 601

ECAM 14,6

602

development. A four-page questionnaire, accompanied by a covering letter, was sent to managing directors of sample firms. The letter indicated the objectives of the research and requested that the questionnaire should be completed by a senior member of staff involved in construction development in the firm. The questionnaire design was based on a combination of an extensive review of literature dealing with collaboration in construction, the researcher’s general knowledge of collaboration in UK construction and Leverick and Littler (1993) survey on the manufacturing industry. The overall aim of the research was to establish whether collaboration can be used to improve the construction industry. The main limitation of the current study is that the research is based on the survey instrument derived from Leverick and Littler (1993) study. However, more recent literature on the collaborative relationships tend to suggest that the practice involved in collaborative relationships in terms of influencing factors have not changed much and that the factors identified by Leverick and Littler are still very much relevant in many industries where collaborative relationships have received continuous growth in usage. In an attempt to reflect on the validity of the current study the results were compared with Leverick and Littler findings. In addition, open-ended questions were included for the respondents to supply missing gaps. The questionnaire was divided into six sections exploring collaboration in construction. Contractors were asked their opinion on the reasons for collaboration in construction, the role of collaboration in construction and the risks of collaboration. The questionnaire also looked at success and failure factors in construction collaboration. The final section of the questionnaire looked at the use of information technology within construction collaboration. The questionnaire used the five-point Likert scale with “5” indicating “great extent” or “most important” and “1” indicating “insignificant extent” or “least important”. The questionnaire was sent to 250 companies of which 63 responded giving a response rate of 25.2 per cent. With the exception of two respondents, the questionnaire was completed by senior members of the industry. All the respondents firms have engaged in a form of collaborative relations involving various construction stakeholders (clients, other contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, manufacturers and consultants). For example 68.25 per cent of the contractors have had long-term strategic collaborative relationships with clients compared with 23.81 per cent with another contractor, 41.27 per cent with subcontractors, 39.70 per cent with suppliers and 28.57 per cent with consultants. In addition, 69.84 per cent of the contractors have had project collaborative relationship with clients, 38.19 per cent with another contractor, 63.49 per cent with sub-contractors, 38.10 per cent with suppliers and 57.14 per cent with consultants. The respondents were split into two groups (SME’s and Large) based on their number of employees, to determine whether their responses varied with size as part of the analysis. Watts (1980) highlights that the size of a company can be measured in terms of number of employees, net assets (capital employed), value added (net output) and Turnover. Table I shows the grouping of firms based on number of employees according to the UK Department of Trade and Industry that categorises as Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) as firms with less than 250 employees. The Table includes the number in each group, the mean number of employees and the standard deviation for each. Statistical analyses, based on Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) F-statistics and associated probability values ( p), were undertaken on the basis of the size of the companies (SME and large) to show if the two groups share the same views and

reasons for the use of collaborative relationships and the success and failure factors. Where p is less than 0.05 it means that the two groups have different opinion on that particular factor, otherwise their views are similar. To capture the multivariate relationships in the reasons for collaborative relationships, success factors and failure factors, factor analysis technique was used to investigate the cluster of relationships. Various tests are required for the appropriateness of factor analysis for factor extraction; this include Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling accuracy, anti-image correlation, measure of sampling activities (MSA) and Barlett Test of Sphericity. The reasons for collaborative relationship variables, success factors and failure factors included in the questionnaire were subject to factor analysis, with principal component analysis and varimax rotation. The first stage of the analysis is to determine the strength of the relationship among the variables based on either correlation coefficient or partial correlation coefficients of the variables. According to Norusis/SPSS (1992) the partial correlations should be close to zero when factor analysis assumptions are met and that if the proportion of large coefficients are high, the use of a factor model should be reconsidered. The Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) i.e. the value of MSA must be reasonably high for a good factor analysis.

Collaborative relationships in construction 603

Reasons for collaboration in construction development Construction contractors can be involved in collaborative relationships for various reasons as shown in Table II. The Table shows that the large contractors rated reasons for using collaboration in construction development higher than the SMEs. The fact Group

Employees

SME Large

Less than 250 Greater than 250 Total

Frequency

%

Mean

Std Dev.

32 31 63

50.8 49.2 100

109.53 3873.84 3983.87

67.28 9473.41 9540.69

Factor In response to customer needs In response to market opportunity To reduce construction development risks To reduce construction development costs To achieve continuity with prior developments Due to collaborative corporate culture To be more innovative in construction development To broaden construction development range To improve time to market construction product In response to a management initiative To be more objective in construction development In response to competitors To conform to standards required for construction In response to technology changes In response to key supplier needs

Table I. Employment

Overall SME Large F Stat. P-value Rea1 Rea2 Rea4 Rea6 Rea14 Rea13 Rea10 Rea5 Rea7 Rea9 Rea11 Rea8 Rea12 Rea3 Rea15

4.111 3.825 3.825 3.651 3.476 3.429 3.397 3.349 3.302 3.175 3.175 3.048 3.048 2.968 2.889

3.969 3.719 3.688 3.500 3.250 3.375 3.313 3.375 3.156 3.188 3.156 3.094 3.188 2.781 2.938

4.258 3.935 3.968 3.806 3.710 3.484 3.484 3.323 3.452 3.161 3.194 3.000 2.903 3.161 2.839

1.365 0.862 1.182 1.533 2.804 0.122 0.423 0.044 0.953 0.010 0.025 0.127 0.812 1.265 0.151

0.247 0.357 0.281 0.220 0.099 0.728 0.518 0.835 0.333 0.920 0.874 0.723 0.371 0.265 0.699

Table II. Reasons for collaboration in construction development

ECAM 14,6

604

that the large contractors rated the factors higher than the SMEs may suggest that large contractors enter into more collaborative arrangements than SMEs. More collaborative types of procurement method such as Pubic Private Partnerships and Framework Agreements tend to be undertaken by larger contractors due to the complexity and size of the contract. SMEs would probably not have the resources to enter into these types of procurement arrangements. Despite large contractors rating the reasons for using collaboration in construction generally higher than the SMEs, the responses did not differ on each of the reasons for collaboration in construction development at the 5 per cent level of significance. The most important reason identified by the contractors for collaborative relationship in construction development is “in response to customers needs”, which corroborates with Bennett and Jayes (1998) and Bennett et al. (1996). Collaboration can have a substantial positive impact on project performance, not only with regard to time, cost and quality objectives, but also with regards to more general outcomes such as greater innovation and improved client satisfaction. According to Hinks et al. (1996), collaboration can have many benefits like improved working relationships, effective information exchange, less conflicts and risks, higher productivity, cost savings, improved quality, faster processes and better customer responsiveness. Like the first main reason, the second reason for collaborative relationship in construction is customer driven: in response to market opportunity. This could lead to economic and technical opportunities or timely use of expertise available within the firm to respond to the opportunity created. The incentive to be more innovative in construction development (reason 7) could depend to a large extent on the existence of strong demand for new construction product development which is was customer-driven) Construction development risks are ranked third. Under collaborative arrangements such as joint ventures and PPP’s parties have mutual interest in sharing and spreading the risk associated with large, complex or long-term contracts (Cheatham, 2004). According to the National Audit Office (2003) risk transfer in contracts such as PFI encouraged construction companies to manage construction risks effectively. Innovation in construction is ranked seventh out of 15 factors by the contractors. However, Lenard (1996) argues that by adopting a more innovative approach and improving links in the whole industry supply chain to undertake research and development, the construction industry would be better placed to innovate and as a consequence capitalise on the challenges and opportunities presented by the national and global market. Innovation can lead to larger scales of growth and provide the ingredients for increased competitiveness and can enhance competitive advantage exponentially. Two factors in response to competitors and “in response to technology changes” were not ranked highly as reasons for collaboration in construction development. This may tend to suggest that the contractors are not that “bothered” by how their competitors carry out their business. This is not surprising given that the construction industry is highly competitive and its participants are used to the high level of competitive environment such that competition is no longer considered a major reason to enter into collaborative relationship. The survey has shown that the main reasons for construction collaborative relationships are customer-driven (response to market opportunity and customer need) rather than competitor-driven (pressure of competition

forcing firms to react) or supplier-driven (interactions with suppliers). The respondents are more interested in the opportunities (ranked high) presented by collaborative relationships rather than the threats (ranked low) from the competitors suggesting that they are willing to balance the risks and rewards involved. The reasons for entering into collaboration by the contractors are vastly similar to the results of Leverick and Littler (1993) study into collaboration in the manufacturing industry. The top two reasons in this current survey of UK contractors are the same as their survey over ten years ago of the reasons for collaboration in the manufacturing sector i.e. in response to customer needs and in response to market opportunity. Not only was the top two reasons in each survey the same but the lowest response was also the same “in response to key supplier needs”. Similarly, Leverick and Littler (1993) study rates reducing development risks and costs as highly important reasons for collaboration as the respondents in this survey, showing that organisations in manufacturing and construction enter into collaboration to reduce research and development risks and costs. Leverick and Littler (1993) study showed that internal factors, such as collaborative corporate culture or responding to a management initiative, did not appear to prompt collaborative ventures as does this survey by its similar low rating. By comparing the results of the two surveys it could be stated that the construction industry now and manufacturing industry about ten years ago have similar reasons for entering into collaboration relationships. Table III shows the partial correlation coefficient (same as the matrix of anti-image correlation) between the reasons for collaborative relationship. The results of the partial correlation matrix show that the variables share common factors, as the partial correlation coefficients between pairs of variables are small when the effect of the other variables are eliminated. The Table also displays the Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) on the diagonal of the matrix. The value of MSA are reasonably high for a good factor analysis; this ranged between 0.521-0.802. Barlett’s test of spericity tests the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. In this case the value of the test statistic for spericity is large (Barlett Test of Sphericity ¼ 268.642) and the associated significant level is small ( p ¼ 0.000, df ¼ 105), suggesting that the population correlation matrix is an identity. Observation of the correlation matrix of the risk factors shows that they all have significant correlation at 5 per cent level suggesting no need to eliminate any of the variables for the principal component analysis. The value of the KMO statistic is 0.688, which according to Kaiser (1974) is satisfactory for factor analysis. In essence, these tests show that factor analysis is appropriate for the factor extraction. Principal component analysis was undertaken, which produced a five-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than 1, which explains 64.014 percent of the variance. Varimax orthogonal rotation of principal component analysis is then used to interpret these factors. The factor loading based on varimax rotation is shown in Table IV. Each of the variables loads heavily on to only one of the factors, and the loadings on each factor exceed 0.5. The principal factors for the use of collaborative relationships by the contractors and associated variables are readily interpretable as: risk sharing strategy (factor 1), access to innovation and technology (factor 2), response to market (factor 3), resources efficiency (factor 4) and client requirement (factor 5).

Collaborative relationships in construction 605

Table III. Anti-image correlation Matrix (the MSA is shown on the diagonal) for reasons for collaborative relationship

0.636 20.284 0.073 0.201 20.063 20.131 20.043 20.148 20.077 20.001 0.040 20.122 20.082 20.138 0.060

0.521 0.018 2 0.136 2 0.134 2 0.097 0.019 0.051 2 0.037 2 0.094 0.111 0.030 0.128 0.074 2 0.009 0.686 20.099 20.047 0.048 20.517 20.247 20.230 20.136 0.090 20.319 0.100 0.035 0.086

Rea3

0.737 20.127 0.105 0.059 0.120 0.098 20.292 20.134 0.146 20.317 20.250 20.172

Rea4

Note: Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA)

8Rea1 8Rea2 8Rea3 8Rea4 8Rea5 8Rea6 8Rea7 8Rea8 8Rea9 8Rea10 8Rea11 8Rea12 8Rea13 8Rea14 8Rea15

Rea2

0.752 2 0.237 0.078 0.114 2 0.039 0.129 0.053 2 0.196 2 0.125 2 0.092 2 0.036

Rea5

0.633 20.261 20.131 0.357 20.315 20.215 0.249 20.316 0.135 20.111

Rea6

0.633 0.205 0.095 0.051 2 0.101 0.176 2 0.173 2 0.009 2 0.205

Rea7

0.653 20.209 0.009 20.012 20.028 0.102 20.311 20.267

Rea8

Rea10

Rea11

Rea12

Rea13

Rea14

0.625 20.329 0.744 20.114 2 0.327 0.802 0.100 0.009 20.373 0.604 20.327 0.168 20.114 2 0.089 0.720 0.156 2 0.174 0.088 2 0.075 20.198 0.736 20.158 0.195 0.009 2 0.160 0.227 20.150

Rea9

606

Rea1

0.567

Rea15

ECAM 14,6

Reasons To reduce construction development risks Due to collaborative corporate culture To broaden construction development range In response to a management initiative To be more innovative in construction development To be more objective in construction development In response to technology changes To conform to standards required for construction In response to key supplier needs In response to competitors To achieve continuity with prior developments To improve time to market construction product To reduce construction development costs In response to customer needs In response to market opportunity Eigen value Total Cumulative %

Principal factors

Risk sharing strategy

Access to innovation and technology

Response to market

Resources efficiency

Clients requirement

8Rea1 8Rea2

8Rea7 8Rea6

8Rea15 8Rea8 8Rea14

8Rea9 8Rea10 8Rea11 8Rea3 8Rea12

8Rea4 8Rea13 8Rea5

Code

4.208 28.05

0.778 0.691 0.578

1

1.813 40.14

0.781 0.658 0.583 0.574 0.454

2

1.376 49.31

0.782 0.683 0.558

Component 3

1.121 56.78

0.892 0.629

4

0.784 0.752 1.085 64.01

5

Collaborative relationships in construction 607

Table IV. Varimax rotated matrix for reasons for construction collaborative relationship

ECAM 14,6

608

Factors responsible for successful collaboration in construction Table V shows the contractor’s opinions on the factors responsible for successful collaboration. The most important factor is senior management’s close involvement in the collaboration process, followed by the relationship being perceived as very important to the partners coupled with the benefits between collaborators being perceived as ’evenly’ distributed. These factors are generally rated higher by large contractors compared with the SMEs. The results corroborate a study by Bresnen and Marshall (2000) that found senior management support very vital in making a collaborative approach both credible and legitimate. In all cases, partnering or alliancing had been championed at the highest levels of the organisation and the general perception was that goal alignment and good relationships at these levels were crucial. Spekman et al. (1996) noted the importance of senior management support as they bear responsibility for several key aspects of the alliance formulation process: they ensure that the alliance is tied to the strategic intent of the firm; and must drive the alliance vision down through the organisation. In support of this Anslinger (2004) emphasised that a successful alliance must take one of two forms of structure: have a strong structure with centralised leadership or provide clear rules for decision-making. For any collaborative arrangement to work, relationships between parties need to be good. Luck et al. (1996) consider teambuilding within construction project companies essential for achieving performance improvement, and successful construction projects. Teambuilding is performed by co-ordination and integration of project organisations to increase productivity, efficiency, motivation, goal attainment, group dynamics and dispute minimisation (Kumaraswamy, 1996). The issue is that such teams become acquainted and familiar with those working around them. However, the temporary nature of construction projects and role ambiguity are barriers and Factor

Table V. Factors responsible for successful collaboration in construction

Senior management were closely involved in the collaboration The collaborative relationship was perceived as being very important to the collaborators Benefits between collaborators were perceived as “evenly” distributed Corporate systems and management style was flexible There was clear project planning with defined task milestones A long-term view of strategic benefits was taken Adequate staff resources were made available to the collaborators Sufficient time resources were made available to the collaboration Sufficient budgetary resources were made available to the collaboration Purely financial measures of progress in the collaboration were avoided The product or concept being developed was highly innovative

Code

Overall SME Large F Stat. P-value

Suc7

4.063

4.031 4.097

0.063

0.803

Suc2

4.016

3.750 4.290

5.565

0.022

Suc1

3.778

3.688 3.871

0.642

0.426

Suc9

3.778

4.000 3.548

5.491

0.022

Suc4 Suc3

3.714 3.683

3.688 3.742 3.688 3.677

0.056 0.002

0.814 0.966

Suc5

3.635

3.625 3.645

0.008

0.929

Suc8

3.619

3.531 3.710

0.632

0.430

Suc6

3.603

3.688 3.516

0.662

0.419

Suc10

3.365

3.344 3.387

0.030

0.864

Suc11

2.778

2.781 2.774

0.001

0.980

constraints to such teambuilding in construction (Luck et al., 1996). Given the deficiency of the current practice Sa¨rkilahti (1996) has proposed that the performance of construction project organisations could be improved if the temporary nature of project organisations could be changed by entering into collaborative arrangements to encourage repeated working among a number of firms beyond the scope of one-off construction projects. Generally, however, large contractors rated the reasons for successful collaboration in construction development higher than SME’s. The reason for this could be that large contractors tend to work in more collaborative arrangements than SME’s due to their workload and the complexity of projects they undertake. With the exception of “the relationship was perceived as being very important to the collaborators” and “corporate systems and management style was flexible” the ANOVA analysis shows, however, that the opinions of the SME and large contractors did not differ on each of the factors at the 5 per cent significance level. The rating given to “corporate system and management style flexibility” by SME was significantly higher than large contractors; this is probably because SME’s tend to be smaller partners or sub-contractors in the construction development process and therefore are more used to being managed than managing. The factors responsible for successful construction collaboration in the development process are similar to Leverick and Littler (1993) study into collaboration in the manufacturing industry. Both surveys rate the “importance of the relationship” and “benefits being evenly distributed” high in their responses. However, the role of senior management in collaboration was not perceived to be a significant factor in the success of collaboration in the manufacturing industry. The reason for high importance of senior management support for collaborative relationships success in the construction industry compared with the manufacturing industry could be the nature of the construction industry: its renowned fragmented nature and therefore for collaboration to work in construction there needs to be effective communication between parties, with senior management taking control and responsibility for key decisions. The two factors rated lowest in both surveys for successful collaboration were “purely financial measures” and “the product was innovative”. Generally, the results of both surveys are similar which might suggest that the construction industry and manufacturing industry agree on what are needed for successful collaboration relationships. The respondents were further asked open-ended question to the identify factors that mostly contributed to success of collaboration in the construction environment. A high level of commitment and trust were the most frequently mentioned factors for successful collaboration. Other factors mentioned in an order of importance are shared risk; responding to clients needs; good communication; sufficient resources; improved efficiency; and understanding individual roles of the partners. Table VI shows the partial correlation coefficient and suggests that the variables share common factors, as the partial correlation coefficients between pairs of the variables are small when the effect of the other variables are eliminated. The value of MSA are reasonably high for a good factor analysis; this ranged between 0.408-0.747. The value of the test statistic for spericity is large (Barlett Test of Sphericity ¼ 138.981) and the associated significant level is small ( p ¼ 0.000), suggesting that the population correlation matrix is an identity. The correlation matrix

Collaborative relationships in construction 609

ECAM 14,6

610

of the risk factors are significant at the 5 per cent level suggesting no need to eliminate any of the variables for the principal component analysis. The value of the KMO statistic is 0.629, which is satisfactory for factor analysis. Principal component analysis produced a four-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than 1, which explains 62.14 percent of the variance. Varimax orthogonal rotation of principal component analysis is shown in Table V. Each of the variables loads heavily on to only one of the factors, and the loadings on each factor exceed 0.5. The only exception to this is Suc 10 that is loaded to factors 1 and 3. The factors and associated variables are readily interpretable as Commitment of adequate resources (time, cost and human) from the partners (factor 1), equity of relationship (factor 2), Recognition of the importance of non-financial benefits (factor 3) and clarity of objectives (factor 4) (Table VII). Factors responsible for unsuccessful collaboration in construction Anglisger and Jenk (2004) reported the Accenture research that about half of all alliances fall well of expectations due to the following causes in order of importance: shift in partners strategic direction, senior management attention wanders; champions move on; lack of career path and shortage of staff; and clash of corporate cultures. Sconnenbery (1992) identified important reasons why partnerships fail as lack of commitment, cultural differences, poor management, poor communication, and failure of individual relationships (i.e. where individuals involved in the partnership lack interpersonal skills or personal chemistry may be missing). Table VIII shows the UK contractors’ opinions on the factors that are responsible for unsuccessful collaboration. The most important factor is collaborating partners’ failure to contribute to the partnership needs, goals and objectives as expected. This is followed by lack of trust between the collaborating partners and lack of frequent consultation between them. Lack of Trust was rated the second highest failure factor which supports Barlow et al. (1997) that relationships fail to work without trust. Lorange and Roos (1991) assert the reasons often emphasised for failure of collaborative relationship are “lack of trust” and “incompatible personal chemistry”. Trust is said not only to reduce transaction costs, make possible the sharing of sensitive information, permit joint projects of various kinds, but it also provides a basis for expanded moral relations in business (Brenkert, 1998). Latham (1994) commented: “ . . . . disputes and conflicts have taken their toll on moral and team spirit. Defensive attitudes are commonplace . . .”

Table VI. Anti-image correlation Matrix (the MSA is shown on the diagonal) for success factors

Suc1 Suc2 Suc3 Suc4 Suc5 Suc6 Suc7 Suc8 Suc9 Suc10 Suc11

Suc1

Suc2

0.747 20.163 20.086 20.323 0.023 20.027 20.214 20.065 20.203 0.027 20.161

0.644 20.376 0.012 20.236 0.277 20.084 20.118 0.047 20.145 20.064

Suc3

Suc4

Suc5

Suc6

Suc7

Suc8

Suc9

Suc10

Suc11

0.660 20.050 0.695 0.095 20.185 0.590 20.146 0.025 20.471 0.565 0.023 0.047 20.364 0.075 0.653 20.002 0.055 20.014 20.177 20.271 0.741 20.046 0.017 20.017 20.182 0.190 20.304 0.660 0.026 20.056 20.283 0.120 0.148 0.060 20.169 0.496 20.006 0.101 0.325 20.135 0.010 20.140 0.076 20.389 0.408

Purely financial measures of progress in the collaboration were avoided The product or concept being developed was highly innovative There was clear project planning with defined task milestones Adequate staff resources were made available to the collaborators

Recognition of the importance of non-financial benefits

Clarity of objectives

Total Cumulative %

Benefits between collaborators were perceived as “evenly” distributed The collaborative relationship was perceived as being very important to the collaborators A long term view of strategic benefits was taken Senior management were closely involved in the collaboration

Equity of relationship

Eigen values

Sufficient budgetary resources were made available to the collaboration Sufficient time resources were made available to the collaboration Corporate systems and management style was flexible

Commitment of adequate resources from the partners

Success factors

Suc5

Suc4

Suc11

3.009 27.36

. 1.521 41.19

0.634 0.558

Suc3 Suc7 Suc10

0.805

Suc2

0.671

Suc9 0.542

0.694

Suc8

1.289 52.90

0.700

0.712

Component 2 3

Suc1

0.787

1

Suc6

Code

1.015 62.12

0.557

0.817

4

Collaborative relationships in construction 611

Table VII. Varimax rotated matrix for collaborative relationship success factors

ECAM 14,6

612

Table VIII. Factors responsible for unsuccessful collaboration in construction

Factor The collaborating partners failed to contribute as expected in the partnership charter There was little trust between the collaborating partners There was a lack of frequent consultation between the collaborating partners Little attention was given to the issues involved in the collaboration Specific roles and responsibilities were not clearly defined There was little consultation between the personnel involved in the collaboration There was little previous experience of collaboration management The construction development did not fit naturally with existing businesses

Code Overall SME Large F-stat. P-value Fail1

4.016

3.813 4.226

3.704

0.059

Fail3

3.952

3.844 4.065

0.708

0.403

Fail2

3.714

3.906 3.516

2.340

0.131

Fail5

3.571

3.750 3.387

1.936

0.169

Fail6

3.571

3.750 3.387

2.131

0.149

Fail4

3.429

3.375 3.484

0.155

0.695

Fail8

2.984

3.313 2.645

6.113

0.016

Fail7

2.714

2.938 2.484

2.614

0.111

Latham’s (1994) report attempts to re-build trust in the construction industry by advocating partnering. Co-operation among construction project participants requires mutual trust, commitment, involvement, common targets, good communication and joint problem solving (Marosszeky et al., 1997). According to Cooper et al. (1996a) the success of long-term co-operation is highly dependent on cultural and attitudinal factors displayed by the participants. In addition, the success is also dependent on the achievement of identifiable and sustainable performance improvements, and mutual benefits for all collaborating participants (Cooper et al., 1996b). A critical step towards collaboration in construction is to overcome the common culture of conflict, and adopt more ethical behaviour marked by honesty and integrity. Therefore, collaboration could be seen as a process of improving relationships, and a means for encouraging cultural shift from adversarial to non-adversarial behaviour (Hellard, 1995). Gambetta (1998) described reputations are a key to trust in relationships, reputations are expectations others hold of your likely behaviour in a partnering relationship; a partner with a “good” reputation is more likely to be trusted. Another failure factor that the contractors rated high was “a lack of consultation between partners”. Poor design consultation/management is a primary factor that contributes to poor quality (Love et al., 1999) and time cost overruns in projects (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997). In a partnering relationship involving client, design and construction teams, such poor quality and time and cost overruns could emanate from lack of consultation and poor communication practices between the team members. Undefined roles and responsibilities was the fifth highest contributing factor to unsuccessful collaboration. Collaboration requires clear understanding and distribution of responsibilities, authorities and roles. It requires adequate information flows and communication of these authorities and roles among the collaborating organisations and reliable access to the latest technological and management knowledge (Yashiro, 1996). With the exception of the first two top failure factors, the SMEs rated the reasons for unsuccessful collaboration in construction development higher than the large

contractors. This is not unexpected as in practice, the smaller partners or sub-contractors (representing SMEs) tend to have subordinate roles in collaborating arrangements and are often ignored. Nonetheless, with the exception of “the collaborating partners failed to contribute as expected” and “there was little previous experience of collaboration management” the ANOVA analysis shows that the opinions of contractors did not differ on each of the factors at the 5 per cent significance level. Comparisons show that the factors responsible for unsuccessful construction collaboration are similar to the results from Leverick and Littler (1993) study into collaboration in the manufacturing industry. Both surveys rate “failure to contribute as expected”, “lack of frequent consultation” and “little trust” as the top three factors responsible for unsuccessful collaboration. The two factors rated lowest in both surveys for unsuccessful collaboration were “little experience” and “did not fit within existing business”. The results of both surveys are similar which might suggest that the construction industry and manufacturing industry share similar views on the factors that do contribute to unsuccessful collaboration. The respondents were asked an open-ended question to identify the factors that most contribute to the failure of collaboration in construction project development. This generated many responses which are summarised in the order of significance from the highest to the lowest as: lack of trust; communication breakdown; lack of belief in the system; clash of organisational cultures; unchanging attitudes; lack of planning; varying financial objectives; lack of appreciation for contractual risks; client interference; clash of personalities; disputes not being resolved; and lack of senior management support. This might suggest that the major criteria by which respondents assessed failure of construction development collaborations is behavioural; these measures were mentioned by over half of the respondents as the major criteria for the failure of collaboration. Surprisingly though, lack of senior management support was not mentioned as a major criteria for assessing collaboration failure given that this was listed as the top reason for successful collaboration (see Table II). Factor analysis of the factors responsible for failure in construction development collaborations produced two principal component factors. Table IX shows that the partial correlation coefficient between pairs of the variables are small while the value of MSA ranged between 0.617-0.770 suggesting there is no need to eliminate any variable from the analysis. The value of the test statistic for spericity is large (Barlett Test of Sphericity ¼ 100.747) and the associated significant level is small ( p ¼ 0.000, df ¼ 28). The value of the KMO statistic is 0.685 suggesting that factor analysis is appropriate

Fail1 Fail2 Fail3 Fail4 Fail5 Fail6 Fail7 Fail8

Fail1

Fail2

Fail3

Fail4

Fail5

0.617 0.032 20.183 20.209 20.104 20.038 0.309 0.063

0.677 20.308 20.302 20.241 20.410 0.083 20.007

0.690 0.030 0.069 20.129 20.113 0.163

0.677 20.177 0.075 20.009 0.161

0.770 20.091 20.122 20.156

Fail6

0.714 20.269 20.169

Fail7

0.636 20.223

Collaborative relationships in construction 613

Fail8

0.667

Table IX. Anti-image correlation matrix (the MSA is shown on the diagonal) for failure factors

ECAM 14,6

614

for the factor extraction. The principal component produced a two -factor solution with eigenvalues greater than 1 and explains 53.99 percent of the variance. Table X based on Varimax orthogonal rotation of principal component analysis show the two-factor loading. The principal failure factors and associated variables are interpretable as lack of trust and consultation (FACTOR 1) and lack of experience and business fit (factor 2). Conclusions The literature review included in the paper have shown that there is an abundance of new and existing thinking on how various forms of collaborative relationships are and should be used in the business environment. The study has highlighted that the UK contractors enter into collaboration with the hope of financial gains from reductions in development costs and risks. The results also suggest that contractors would only enter into collaboration if it is a viable proposition for them and not as a result of what their competitors are doing. The reasons for entering into collaborative relationships in the construction industry are generally the same as the manufacturing industry. These reasons are mainly in response to customer needs and market opportunity and to reduce construction development risks. The factor analysis of the reasons for the use of collaborative relationships in construction shows that these are to achieve risk sharing, access to innovation and technology, response to market, resource efficiency and client requirements. The paper also identified the success and failure factors of collaboration within the construction environment. The principal success factors are commitment of adequate resources from the partners, equity of relationship, recognition of the importance of non-financial benefits and clarity of objectives while the principal failure factors are lack of trust and consolation and lack of experience and business fit. Collaborating

Lack of trust and consultation

Lack of experience and business fit Table X. Varimax rotated matrix for collaborative relationship failure factors

Component 1 2

Failure factors

Code

There was a lack of frequent consultation between the collaborating partners Little attention was given to the issues involved in the collaboration Specific roles and responsibilities were not clearly defined There was little trust between the collaborating partners There was little consultation between the personnel involved in the collaboration

Fail2

0.836

Fail5

0.628

Fail6

0.667

Fail3

0.618

Fail4

0.596

The construction development did not fit naturally with existing businesses There was little previous experience of collaboration management The collaborating partners failed to contribute as expected in the partnership charter

Fail7

0.748

Fail8

0.717

Fail1

2 0.621

Eigen value

Total Cumulative %

2.51 31.31

1.82 53.99

relationships have been prescribed by various reports from the construction industry as an important tool for dealing with conflicts and adversarial relationships in the construction environment and for attaining and maintaining a competitive advantage. Stiles (1995) concluded that:

Collaborative relationships in construction

During the life time of a partnership, key skills associated with relationship building, trust and flexibility need to be developed and applied. If done well, the benefits can be significant, not simply in respect of the current operation, but also in terms of learning that can be achieved and drawn upon in future collaborations.

615

This is a major advantage that can come from collaboration. However, while such relationships can pay off, it is important that collaborations are carefully considered to ensure that they fit into the business plans of the organisations that are considering entering into partnerships. The failure factors that the construction industry should consider carefully and address before entering into collaboration are possibilities of lack of trust; communication breakdown; lack of belief in the system; clash of organisational cultures; unchanging attitudes; lack of planning; varying financial objectives; lack of appreciation for contractual risks; client interference; clash of personalities; disputes not being resolved; and lack of senior management support. Some of the factors that are known to contribute to the success of partnerships in construction are a high level of commitment and trust, ability and willingness to share risks amongst partners; responding to clients needs; good communication; sufficient resources; improved efficiency; and understanding individual roles of the partners. Finally, the reasons, success factors and failure factors in collaborative relationships in the construction industry are not particularly different from that experience by the manufacturing sector. This may suggest that there are generic collaborative relationship practices that are independent of industry set-up. References Anslinger, P. and Jenk, J. (2004), “Creating successful alliances”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 18-23. Barlow, J. and Cohen, M. (1997), Towards Positive Partnering, The Policy Press, Cambridge. Brenkert, G. (1998), “Trust, business and business ethics: an introduction”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 195-203. Bennett, J. and Jayes, S. (1998), The Seven Pillars of Partnering, Reading Construction Forum, Reading. Bennett, J., Ingram, I. and Jayes, S. (1996), Partnering for Construction, Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction, Reading University, Reading. Black, C., Akintoye, A. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000), “An analysis of the success factors and benefits of partnering in construction”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 423-34. Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000), “Building partnerships: case studies of client-contractor collaboration in the UK construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18, pp. 819-32. Brouthers, K.D., Brouthers, L.E. and Wilkinson, T.J. (1995), “Strategic alliances: choose your partners”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 18-25.

ECAM 14,6

616

Chan, D.W.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1997), “A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 55-63. Cheatham, W. (2004), Surety bonding joint ventures, Construction Executive Surety Bonding, November. Cooper, R., Hinks, J., Allen, S. and Carmichael, S. (1996a), Best Practice for Partnering in Construction, University of Salford, Salford. Cooper, R., Hinks, J., Allen, S. and Carmichael, S. (1996b), Adversaries or partners? A Case Study of an Established Long-Term Relationship Between a Client and a Major Contractor, University of Salford, Salford. Crouse, H.J. (1991), “The power of partnerships”, The Journal of Business Strategy, November/December, pp. 4-8. Douma, M.U., Bilderbeek, J., Idenburg, P.J. and Looise, J.K. (2000), “Strategic alliances: managing the dynamics of fit”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33, pp. 579-98. Draulans, J., deMan, A. and Volberda, H.W. (2003), “Building alliance capacity: management techniques for superior alliance peformance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 36, pp. 151-66. Egan, J. Sir (1998), Rethinking Construction, Department of the Environment, London. Gambetta, D. (1988), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Hellard, R.B. (1995), Project Partnering: Principle and Practice, Thomas Telford Publications, London. Hinks, A.J., Allen, S. and Cooper, R.D. (1996), “Adversaries or partners? Developing best practice for construction industry relationships”, in Langford, D.A. and Retik, A. (Eds), The Organisation and Management of Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice, Vol. 1, E & FN Spons, London, pp. 222-8. Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Pschometrika, Vol. 39, pp. 31-6. Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1996), “Construction dispute minimisation”, in Langford, D.A. and Retik, A. (Eds), The Organisation and Management of Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice, Vol. 2, E & FN Spon, London, pp. 447-57. Lenard, D.J. (1996), Innovation and Industrial Culture in the Australian Construction Industry: A Comparative Benchmarking Analysis of the Critical Cultural Indices Underpinning Innovation, University of Newcastle, Cullaghan. Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team: Joint review of Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the United Kingdom Construction Industry, HMSO, London. Leverick, F. and Littler, D. (1993), Risks and Rewards of Collaboration, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester. Lorange, P. and Roos, J. (1991), “Why some strategic alliances succeed and others fail”, The Journal of Business Strategy, January/February, pp. 25-30. Love, P.E.D., Smith, J. and Li, H. (1999), “The propagation of rework benchmark metrics for construction”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 6-7. Luck, R. (1996), Construction Project Integration Strategies, Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Reading. Marosszeky, M., Jaselskis, E., Smithies, T. and McBride, A. (1997), “Re-engineering the construction process using ‘first tier’ suppliers”, in Mohamed, S. (Ed.), Construction Process Re-Engineering, School of Engineering, Griffith University, Brisbane, pp. 661-70.

Medcof, J.W. (1997), “Why too many alliances end in divorce”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 718-32. Naoum, S. (2003), “An overview into the concept of partnering”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 71-6. National Audit Office (2003), PFI: Construction Performance. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 371 Session 2002-2003, 5 February. Norusis, M.J. and SPSS (1992), SPSS for Windows, Profession Statistics, Release 5, SPSS, Chicago, IL. Sa¨rkilahti, T. (1996), “Long term co-operation between main contractor and its suppliers in construction”, in Langford, D.A. and Retik, A. (Eds), The Organisation and Management of Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice,Vol. 2, E & FN Spons, London, pp. 404-13. Shaughnessy, H. (1995), “International joint ventures; managing successful collaborations”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1-9. Sonnenbery, F.K. (1992), “Partnering: entering the age of cooperation”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 49-52. Spekman, R.E., Isabella, L.A., MacAvoy, T.C. and Forbes, I.I.I.T. (1996), “Creating strategic alliances which endure”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 346-57. Stiles, J. (1995), “Collaboration for competitive advantage: the changing world of alliances and partnerships”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 8-9. Watts, H.D. (1980), The Large Industrial Enterprise, Croome Helm, London. Yashiro, T. (1996), “Methodology of specialist contractors’ involvement in design development for construction”, in Langford, D.A. and Retik, A. (Eds), The Organisation and Management of Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice,Vol. 3, E & FN Spons, London, pp. 135-41. Corresponding author Akintola Akintoye can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Collaborative relationships in construction 617