The influence of a collaborative procurement approach using integrated design in construction on project team performance
Forgues, D and Koskela, LJ 2009, 'The influence of a collaborative procurement approach using integrated design in construction on project team performance' , International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2 (3) , pp. 370-385.
|PDF - Published Version |
Restricted to Repository staff only
|PDF - Submitted Version |
|Microsoft Word - Submitted Version |
Restricted to Repository staff only
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to study the influence of procurement on the performance of integrated design teams. Design/methodology/approach – The research paradigm is based on Russian socio-constructivist approach to activity theory. Activity theory, as opposed to natural or social science, is a design science approach that focuses on the context aspect of project. A triangulation of qualitative research methods is used to investigate the dynamic of integrated teams in two different procurement contexts. Findings – The paper is conclusive regarding the influence of procurement on team efficiency. It demonstrates that traditional procurement processes reinforce socio-cognitive barriers that hinder team efficiency. It also illustrates how new procurement modes can transform the dynamic of relationships between the client and the members of the supply chain, and have a positive impact on teamperformance. Practical implications – The paper demonstrates first that problems with integrated design team efficiency are related to context and not process – they are not technical but socio-cognitive; second that fragmented transactional contracting increases socio-cognitive barriers that hinder integrated design team performance; third that new forms of relational contracting may help to mitigate socio-cognitive barriers and improve integrated design team performance, fourth that changing the context through procurement does not address the problem of obsolete design practices. Originality/value – The paper brings together theories of production in lean construction and social learning as a rival approach to traditional project management theory for demonstrating the importance of context on team performance.
|Uncontrolled Keywords:||Procurement, Team working, Project management, Construction industry|
|Themes:||Subjects / Themes > T Technology > TH Building construction|
Subjects / Themes > T Technology > TS Manufactures > TS155-194 Production management. Operations management
Built and Human Environment
Subjects outside of the University Themes
|Schools:||Colleges and Schools > College of Science & Technology > School of the Built Environment|
Colleges and Schools > College of Science & Technology > School of the Built Environment > Salford Centre for Research & Innovation (SCRI)
|Journal or Publication Title:||International Journal of Managing Projects in Business|
|Depositing User:||LJ Koskela|
|Date Deposited:||10 Jun 2010 11:19|
|Last Modified:||20 Aug 2013 17:18|
|References:||Ancona, D.G., Kochan, T.A., Scully, M. and Maanen, J.V. (2004), Managing for the Future: Organizational Behavior and Processes, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH. Austin, S.A., Baldwin, A., Hammond, J., Murray, M., Root, D., Thomson, D. and Thorpe, A. (2001), Design Chains: A Handbook for Integrated Collaborative Design, Thomas Telford, London. Blackler, F., Crump, N. and Mcdonald, S. (1999), “Managing experts and competing through innovation: an activity theoretical analysis”, Organization, Vol. 6, pp. 5-31. Bucciarell, L. (1996), Designing Engineers, MIT Press, New York, NY. Carlile, P.R. (2002), “A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development”, Organization Science, Vol. 13, pp. 442-55. Carlile, P.R. (2004), “Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries”, Organization Science, Vol. 15, pp. 555-68. Druskat, U. and Kayes, D.C. (2000), “Learning versus performance in short-term project teams”, Small Group Research, Vol. 31, pp. 328-53. Druskat, U. and Pescosolido, A. (2002), “The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing teams: ownership, learning and heedful interrelating”, Human Relations, Vol. 55, pp. 283-314. Dupagne, A. (1991), “Computer integrated building”, Strategic Final Report, Exploratory Action No. 5604, ESPRIT II. Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force, HMSO, London. Engestro¨m, Y., Engestro¨m, R. and Karkkainen, T. (1995), “Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: learning and problem solving in complex work activities”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 5, pp. 319-36. Forgues, D. (2008), Using Boundary Objects to Generate Better Value in the Construction Industry, School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Salford. Glynne, P. (2006), “Benefits management-changing the focus of delivery”, Association for Progress Management Yearbook 2006/07, pp. 45-9. Huovila, P., Koskela, L. and Lautanala, M. (1997), “Fast or concurrent: the art of getting construction improved”, in Alarco´n, L. (Ed.), Lean Construction, Taylor & Francis Group, Rotterdam, pp. 143-60. Koskela, L. (2000), An Exploration Towards a Production Theory and its Application to Construction, Technical Research Center of Finland, Espoo. Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2008), “The underlying theory of project management is obsolete”, IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 36, pp. 22-34. Koskela, L., Howell, G. and Lichtig, W. (2006), “Contracts and production”, paper presented at Symposium on Sustainability and Value through Construction Procurement, CIBW92 Procurement Systems, CIBW, Salford. Koskinen, K. and Makinen, S. (2009), “Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, pp. 31-8. Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 691-710. Larsson, N. (2002), “The integrated design process”, paper presented at Report on a National Workshop, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa. Latham, S.M. (1994), “Constructing the team”, Final Report of the Government/Industry Review of Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the UK Construction Industry, HMSO, London. Lawson, B. (2006), How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, Architectural Press, Oxford. Lo¨hnert, G., Dalkowski, A. and Sutter, W. (2002), “Integrated design process”, A Guideline for Sustainable and Solar-Optimised Building Design, Task 23, IEA, Berlin. Moore, D.R. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2001), “Intra-team boundaries as inhibitors of performance improvement in UK design and build projects: a call for change”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 559-62. Nardi, B.A. (1996), “Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition”, Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 69-102. Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., Hemingway, C., Mohdzain, Z. and Shah, M. (2007), “The importance of context in programme management: an empirical review of programme practices”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25, pp. 41-55. PMI (2003), Organisational Project Management Maturity Model, Project Management Institute, Newton Square, PA. PMI (2004), The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Project Management Institute, Newton Square, PA. Rodrigues, A. and Bowers, J. (1996), “The role of system dynamics in project management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, pp. 213-20. Scho¨n, D.A. (1995), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Ashgate Pub Co., New York, NY. Smulders, F., Lousberg, L. and Dorst, K. (2008), “Towards different communication in collaborative design”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 1, pp. 352-67. Stasser, G. and Titus, W. (1987), “Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 81-93. Thorp, J. (2003), The Information Paradox: Realizing the Business Benefits of Information, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Whitby. Tory, M., Staub-French, S., Po, B.A. and Wu, F. (2008), Physical and Digital Artifact-Mediated Coordination in Building Design, Vol. 17, Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, pp. 311-51. Turner, J.R. and Mu¨ ller, R. (2005), “The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: a literature review”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 49-61. Turner, J.R. and Simister, S.J. (2000), Gower Handbook of Project Management, Gower, Aldershot. van de Ven, A.H. (2007), Engaged Scholarship: Creating Knowledge for Science and Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Walker, D. and Hampson, K. (2003), Procurement Strategies – A Relationship-based Approach, Blackwell Science, Oxford. Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993), “Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 357-81. Winch, G.M. (2002), Managing Construction Projects, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Winter, M. and Szczepanek, T. (2008), “Projects and programmes as value creation processes: a new perspective and some practical implications”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, pp. 95-103. Zager, D. (2002), “Collaboration as an activity coordinating with pseudo-collective objects”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vol. 11, pp. 181-204. Zimmerman, A. (2006), Guide sur le processus de conception inte´gre´e, Socie´te´ canadienne d’hypothe`ques et de logement (SCHL), Toronto.|
Document DownloadsMore statistics for this item...
Actions (login required)
|Edit record (repository staff only)|