INTERORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION - CiteSeerX

INTERORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATION: TRANSFORMATION STRATEGIES TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY by Gamal M. Elmarsafi

DR. KATHLEEN HARGISS, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair DR. SAMUAL NATALE, Ph.D., Committee Member DR. PHYLLIS CLAYTON, Ed.D., Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, Ph.D., Interim Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University December, 2008

3339328 Copyright 2008 by Elmarsafi, Gamal M. All rights reserved

2008

3339328

© Gamal M. Elmarsafi, 2008

Abstract The purpose of this descriptive study, using a Delphi pilot and survey design was to investigate causes of construction project disputes, discover interorganizational processes and transformation strategies that could be implemented to decrease construction project disputes. The justification for conducting the study was that there are few current efforts on the part of construction industry stakeholders to solve the dispute problem affecting all stakeholders. The results of the research, shed light on the perspectives and experience of one construction project stakeholder group—engineers. The major findings of this study conducted with construction industry engineers are: 1) the most frequent and most damaging problems occurring in construction projects are caused by deficits in basic management functions; 2) contractors must improve managerial acumen and leadership effectiveness; 3) new business models must be devised that facilitate new types of stakeholder relationships; and 4) improved processes and technologies must be incorporated in the execution of construction projects. The dissertation provides some recommendations based on the findings.

Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Kadria, my daughter Dena and my son Tammer who understood and sacrificed while I was on this journey to complete my Ph.D. With the research and writing now completed, I can only hope to repay these important people in my life for the sacrifices they made on my behalf. My gratitude is extended to Mawlana Shaykh Nazim Al-Haqqani in Cyprus and his devoted representative, Shaykh Hisham Kabbani. The future is bright for all of us and the opportunities are endless in our pursuit of happiness.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my appreciation to the members of my committee, Dr. Phyllis Clayton and Dr. Samuel Natale and my mentor, Dr. Kathleen Hargiss for their direction and guidance. Their willingness to share their time and profound insight into the subject matter contributed to making this study a positive learning experience. My special appreciation is extended to my mentor, Dr. Kathleen Hargiss, for her support throughout the study. Her helpful discussions and comments are gratefully acknowledged and her direction made the task immensely easier and enjoyable. I would also like to thank Capella University staff and my advisor, Ms. Laura Hutt, along with my friend, Dr. Cynthia Loubier for her guidance in the research survey and editing my dissertation. Additionally, I would like to thank all the engineering schools and engineering societies of the west coast of U.S.A. (Appendix C) for assisting me in collecting the survey data. Without their support, this research could not have been successfully accomplished.

iv

Table of Contents Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 4 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 4 Rationale ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Research Question ...................................................................................................................... 5 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 5 Definition of Terms..................................................................................................................... 7 Assumptions and Limitations ..................................................................................................... 8 Nature of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 9 Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study ..................................................... 12 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................13 Construction Industry Overview ............................................................................................... 13 Construction Disputes ............................................................................................................... 16 Interorganizational Collaboration ............................................................................................. 17 Organizational Transformation ................................................................................................. 27 v

Organizational Architectures .................................................................................................... 28 Systems Thinking...................................................................................................................... 32 Complex Environments ............................................................................................................ 33 Complexity Theory ................................................................................................................... 35 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 36 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................38 Research Design........................................................................................................................ 38 Appropriateness of Design ........................................................................................................ 39 Research Question .................................................................................................................... 44 Pilot and Survey Inquiry Questions .......................................................................................... 44 Population ................................................................................................................................. 46 Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 47 Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 48 Sampling Frame ........................................................................................................................ 49 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 50 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 53 Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................. 54 Informed Consent...................................................................................................................... 57 Confidentiality .......................................................................................................................... 58 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................61 Research Question .................................................................................................................... 61 Findings..................................................................................................................................... 61 vi

Pilot Study................................................................................................................................. 62 Data Analysis and Results ........................................................................................................ 64 Demographics of the Survey Research Sample ........................................................................ 69 Findings Related to Research Questions................................................................................... 72 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................................. 72 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................................. 73 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................................. 75 Research Question 4 ............................................................................................................. 76 Research Question 5 ............................................................................................................. 78 Research Question 6 ............................................................................................................. 79 Research Question 7 ............................................................................................................. 80 Research Question 8 ............................................................................................................. 82 Results Summary ...................................................................................................................... 82 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ................................85 Findings..................................................................................................................................... 85 Significance and Implications ................................................................................................... 94 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 94 Recommendations and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 95 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................98 APPENDIX A: PILOT ROUND ONE TEXT DATA.................................................................107 APPENDIX B: ROUND TWO PILOT DATA TABLES ...........................................................109 APPENDIX C: ASSOCIATIONS AND UNIVERSITY ENGINNERING SCHOOLS .............118 APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESEARCH DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FIGURES ..........................119 vii

APPENDIX E: RADAR GRAPHS FOR DATA TABLES 5 – 12 ..............................

viii

122129

List of Tables Table 1. Education Level

69

Table 2. Years of Experience

70

Table 3. Engineering Subfields

71

Table 4. Capacities Worked in Construction Projects

72

Table 5. Question 1 Data Results

73


74


75


77


79


80


81


82

Table B1. Pilot Round Two Data

109


110


111


112


113


114


115


116

ix

List of Figures Figure D1. Education Background

119

Figure D2. Engineering Subfields

120

Figure D3. Construction Types

120

Figure D4. Years in Profession

121

Figure E1. Radar Graph Q.1

122


123


124


125


126


127


128


129

x

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

The construction industry (building construction, infrastructure, and since September 11 2001 security projects) accounts for a major segment of our gross domestic product (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2006). Ostensibly, the construction industry serves as a foundational and essential element in many societies. It is imperative that as a societal building block, the construction industry should operate strategically and successfully and for the good of the communities, it serves. However, more construction projects are now involved in legal disputes than at any other time in history (Gonzales, 2006). According to Zollinger and Leary (2005), the cost of lawsuits is increasing at a rate of 7% per year in the United States totaling $2 billion annually. Disputes arising from commercial and residential construction typically involve a wide variety of legal issues and parties (Gebken, & Gibson, 2006). According to recent reports, contractors increasingly are opting for expediency over merit, meaning that builders fear cost over-runs to such a degree that they will choose to settle as quickly as possible regardless of who is right (Gonzales, 2006; Zollinger & Leary, 2005). In a recent survey, 81% of participating contractors stated that their most important consideration is speedy dispute resolution (Zollinger & Leary, 2005). The insidiousness has reached a level such that many builders perceive themselves to be experts in litigation (Gonzales, 2006). The problem with this perspective is that the industry in general has focused its attention so much on litigation and dispute resolution that it has failed to solve the fundamental problem of preventing construction disputes. Background of the Study Contractors, subcontractors, attorneys, regulators, architects, engineers, consultants, financiers, and more all seem to agree that contracting disputes are spiraling out of control at 1

great cost (Zollinger & Leary, 2005). A review of the literature from the various stakeholder groups involved in the construction industry, reveals that the causal problems of contracting disputes are varied and that all stakeholder groups consistently mentioned that general finding. While there is a plethora of literature addressing and discussing construction claims and disputes from the legal aspects surrounding the various dispute resolution processes, very little literature appears to address the causal factors leading up to construction disputes; moreover, less address prevention. No literature seems to exist which examines the problem across stakeholder groups. What is lacking is a consensus among stakeholder groups and across the industry about causes and remedies. In the section following, the researcher discusses the five main categories of causes found in the literature. In a survey of construction engineers, one researcher found that the number one cause of construction project problems stemmed from poor upfront planning and ineffectual project management (Singh, 2000). From the survey analysis, the researcher concluded that project management skills were lacking as well as a lack of general management knowledge. The Singh survey result is supported by resent research, in which a researcher found that in international contexts project, and general management skills are lacking (Casinelli, 2005). Complexity of postmodern life in the U.S. is another issue considered to cause many construction claims and disputes (Xiao & Proverbs, 2003). More regulations, higher insurance premiums, labor shortages, (in commercial projects) security threats, and lack of cooperative effort between contracted entities all contribute to increases in construction claims and disputes (Chester, & Hendrickson, 2005). More construction projects now include international elements. In considering how construction projects are undertaken, with multiple and changing

2

interorganizational interdependencies, it is clear that few industries deal with the degree of complexity that exists (Xiao & Proverbs, 2003). Another issue facing construction industry efforts is the new and higher level of security needed especially in commercial and infrastructure construction projects. With new security risks worldwide because of terrorism, construction projects cost more. Moreover, because of the new security measures required, many government, public, and commercial sites must be updated or replaced adding to the increase in construction projects, which apparently contributes to delays (Eden, Ackermann & Williams, 2005). Along with many industries in the U.S., rising competition and rising costs now affect the construction business significantly. These two issues paradoxically are linked in a counterintuitive way. The capitalist mantra that competitor decreases cost does not apply in the construction business. In fact, they seem to co-exist whether or not there is causal relationship. Complexity, discussed above, effects construction costs because of increased regulation, higher legal fees and tax, all contribute (Eden et al., 2005). Contracting comprises the final category of causes that appear to send construction projects into dispute. Within the contracting area are a number of prevalent, confounding issues. First, there is the quality of the contract negotiation. Second, there are the contract elements including work schedules, deadlines, procurement, recovery, and allowance for time extensions. Third, a significant contributor to construction claims is information sharing. Fourth, design completeness causes significant delays. Fifth, the element of time appears to be a significant factor in causing problems. On one hand, complex issues cause time delays, and on the other hand, increased demand for speedy completions (larger driven by financial institutions determined to reap the benefits of rent collection) create a squeeze for all stakeholders in 3

construction projects. Six, imbalanced risk allocation constitutes an additional cause of construction problems. Finally, the processes used in arbitrating settlements in construction disputes have also contributed to protracted claims (Eden et al., 2005; Zollinger & Leary, 2005). Statement of the Problem Construction project disputes are increasing at a disturbing rate (Gonzales, 2006; Zollinger & Leary, 2005). From a review of litigation evidence, the probable causes of the rise in construction claims and litigation include increasing project complexity, the escalation in project cost, rising competition, accompanied with decreases in the quality of contract documents (drawings and specification). While some literature exists addressing and discussing construction claims and disputes from the legal aspects surrounding the various dispute resolution processes, very little literature appears to address the causal factors leading up to construction claims; moreover, fewer address prevention. No articles or studies were found exploring interorganizational cooperation within the construction industry, and none was found examining the construction dispute issue across stakeholder groups. What is lacking is a consensus among stakeholder groups and across the industry about causes and more importantly potential remedies. To fill the gap in our understanding, to generate potential solutions, and to facilitate a level of consensus among construction industry professionals, a descriptive Delphi pilot and survey research study to determine the organizational transformation strategies to address the problem was undertaken. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the present descriptive Delphi pilot and survey research study was to explore causes of construction project disputes, discover interorganizational processes and 4

transformation strategies that U.S. construction industry professionals identify are essential to increasing the collaborative interaction of interdependent stakeholder organizations, improving interorganizational relationships, and decreasing construction project disputes. Rationale The justification for conducting the present study was simply that there is little current effort on the part of construction industry stakeholders to solve a destructive problem affecting all of those stakeholders. The present research contributes information, knowledge, and potential solutions in solving the problems. It contributes to our knowledgebase of how to foster and build cooperative and mutually beneficial interorganizational relationships, and may contribute to the knowledgebase about organizational transformation. Research Question The central question guiding the present research study was what cross-organizational transformation strategies are necessary to reduce construction claims and build greater collaboration among construction industry stakeholders? Significance of the Study By facilitating open, anonymous discussion among U.S. construction industry professionals, representing each stakeholder perspective in multiple iterations of a Delphi pilot study, the researcher aggregated their input in an unbiased methodology to uncover and identify causal factors of construction disputes, and what recommendations this group identified as important to improving how construction project stakeholders collaborate in executing contracts. With this information and development of a questionnaire, the researcher then conducted a

5

survey of construction project stakeholders generating new data for a knowledgebase about ways to solve a costly problem in the construction industry. In the highly competitive and complex construction industry, even a slight variance in execution or a slight interruption of interorganizational interface can have momentous and substantial effects on the success or failure of a construction project. Organizations which are able to negotiate these complex relationships, that are able to work collaboratively, and that are able to respond effectively, may be better positioned financially, and ultimately may help stabilize their communities (Parise & Casher, 2003). The contribution of Delphi research methodology employed in a pilot study is that it facilitates discovery of new techniques, tools, or processes that leaders, working collaboratively with other organizations, may be able to integrate, resulting in a stronger competitive offering than acting alone. Without proper collaborative processes, organizations working on projects requiring interorganizational interaction and interdependencies are virtually unproductive. The concepts and strategies that the Delphi panelists identified and the survey respondents verified and confirmed may enable stakeholder groups to design, build, and replicate interorganizational alliance processes to improve the outcomes of construction projects. By forging, strengthening, and increasing alliances among and between construction industry stakeholders, organizations may be able to focus their efforts and resources toward their core business objectives meeting customer needs. Survey research is valuable when researchers desire to understand complex situations and in particular when observational or experimental designs are not feasible (Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger, 2005). It is an approach used to collect primary data about or from people of specific populations. Survey research designs use either interviewing or questionnaires for data 6

collection. Interviews can provide in-depth information from participants but are labor-intensive. Questionnaires, are an economical and efficient method, however the instrument must be tested to ensure that it yields information relevant to the research purpose. A significant research study provides information that is useful to other scholars and, ideally, is of such importance that it alters the thinking of scholars, leaders, and practitioners by adding new perspectives. The present problem- and process-oriented study may help construction industry leaders to develop new interactional approaches to deal with complex interdependencies. The significance of the present study is that it identified new techniques and processes that leaders, working collaboratively with other organizations, may be able to incorporate into their business processes improving the interface, execution, and outcome of construction projects. To address the complex needs of some clients, organizations that work collaboratively with each other may develop solutions that would be difficult for any one organization to offer. Collaborative arrangements will require transformational support from all levels of leadership and management (van Eyk & Baum, 2002). Definition of Terms Construction claim – A construction ‘claim’ as an assertion by a party of a right to money, property or a remedy, which in construction includes ‘extensions of time’. Such claims can be classified as those arising from the contract itself, from a breach of the contract or a common law duty (as in tort), or from a quasi-contractual assertion for quantum merit (deserved) compensation or an ex-gratia settlement. Construction dispute – Disputes arise under the process of construction claims where a claim or assertion made by one party is rejected by the other party and that rejection is not accepted. 7

Construction conflict – Conflicts occur when parties to a construction project disagree about particular provisions. Assumptions and Limitations The data from this study was collected from the Delphi pilot and survey research participants from U.S. based construction industry organizations. The researcher has dealt professionally in the construction industry for twenty years. This experience enabled the researcher to become acquainted with many industry experts in the construction industry including designers, architects, engineers, regulators, builders, and owners. These experts included individuals from all levels that represented a diverse set of ideas for the study. It was assumed the participants understood the confidentiality and anonymity of the study responding candidly and honestly, providing their perspective concerning the issues of the research. The researcher assumed that by selecting industry experts who have a stake in seeing construction projects operate more effectively and efficiently, would provide answers given openly and fairly with no bias or self-motivation to influence the study. With a sufficient sample of industry experts and conducting both the pilot and the survey research in a confidential manner with each panelist responding in a secure format to the questions, the researcher assumed that no individual panelist was able to dominate the research, as could happen in other methodologies. It was assumed that the Internet-based technology used as the primary instrument for data collection and analysis continued to exist during the execution of the research. While there may be similar issues in other industries, government, or nonprofit organizations, the applicability of this research to other markets will require additional research. The present study is therefore limited in its generalizability to other industry and societal segments. 8

The Delphi study technique is a process that allows a group of industry experts to have open, candid, and anonymous forward-looking discussions regarding a given subject to identify critical issues or trends that may impact the group. It was not the intent for the Delphi pilot to generate a consensus on each topic (Linstone & Turoff, 1975), but rather to determine some likely scenarios and possibilities which could be employed in the future. The Delphi pilot was conducted to uncover reliable data to use in developing a questionnaire for the survey research. While there is no sure methodology to predict the future, a Delphi pilot study allows a researcher to obtain the input from a diverse group of industry professionals on a specific topic, which the researcher can use for further research. Survey research can provide valuable information to solve complex issues within specific populations and situations. The present study is limited in that it does not provide enough information for the researcher to predict the future of the construction industry, though the data from the study can be used to assess current trends. Nature of the Study A Delphi pilot study and survey research design were used in the present research. Delphi methodology is exploratory, and utilized where novelty and high complexity prevent exclusive use of quantitative methods (Dajani, Sincoff, & Talley, 1979). Employing the Delphi method involves a series of focused and structured surveys with the objective to reach some level of agreement from a group of participating experts (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). Gould (2003) states that a Delphi study conducted through an Internet portal allows participating experts to interact without being in face-to-face communication. A Delphi conducted through the Internet enables a wider-ranging group of panelists across organizations and geographies such as representatives from various stakeholder groups within the construction industry.

9

Linstone and Turoff (2001), suggest that Delphi methodology is valuable for its consensus-reaching facility. Because of the asynchronous interaction in a Delphi study— particularly those which are Internet-enabled— participating experts can change their opinions when and where relevant (Couper, 1984; McKenna, 1994). Delphi participants also remain anonymous, which prevents dominance or pressure as can happen with groupthink. With its structured and moderated framework, the Delphi method aggregates individual contributions into a “collective human intelligence” (Linstone & Turoff, 1975, p. 5). A Delphi study is justifiable when the problem is difficult to analyze and benefits from subjective, objective, and collective judgment (Linstone & Turoff, 2001), such as exists with identifying the causes and potential remedies of construction disputes. The Delphi method utilizes an iterative process to produce a more rigorous result based on anonymous input. In this way, there is proscribed statistical and aggregate commentary fed back to participants and the results enable a statistical response for the group (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996), which yields a reliable result. Because there is an important need to establish a reliable instrument for measurement to collect data about the causes and potential remedies of construction disputes, the stability of the participants is critical to the value of data collected and the ability to establish a summative knowledge base. A thorough understanding of each expert’s background is critical in ensuring the panel’s collective ability (Linstone & Turoff, 1975, 2002) particularly since, in the present research, the pilot study was used to develop a questionnaire for the focal study which was executed as a survey research. To ensure consistent, timely, and quality input from the Delphi pilot panelists, a secure Internet portal, surveymonkey.com, was utilized which eliminated delays, data loss, and expense of paper-based surveys. Informal sampling of prospective panelists by the researcher indicated 10

that prospective panelists were willing to participate in such a study using Internet-based delivery of multi-phased surveys. To yield a proper Delphi pilot study result, a minimum of ten panelists were required given the goal was to develop and test a survey instrument (Clayton, 1997; Linstone & Turoff, 2002). To ensure the minimum of panelists responded to both iterations of the Delphi pilot, the researcher recruited 20 prospective panelists. Rubin and Rubin (1995) informs us that the design of the study determines who is an appropriate panelist. They noted that the panelists need to be knowledgeable in the subject matter, be willing to contribute, and be open to differing points of view. Linstone and Turoff (2002) noted that although there are no absolute rules in selecting Delphi panelists, they should fill one of the following three roles: (a) stakeholders who are directly involved in the problem, (b) facilitators who assist or support the work of the participants, or (c) experts who are invested in the problem. The stakeholders of construction projects includes that attorneys, judges, mediators, agents of regulatory entities, engineers, construction company owners, building materials suppliers, project supervisors, developers, and architects. However, the one stakeholder group that threads through all aspects of construction projects is engineers and all of the many subfields of engineers involved in construction. Before selecting pilot panelists, it was important to understand the context within which the Delphi method was to be applied including: (a) who were the prospective panelists and where they were located, (b) what kind of group communication was acceptable to discuss the problem, and (c) what alternative techniques were available (Adler & Ziglio, 1996). There are two types of sampling probability (random) and non-probability (purposeful) (Creswell, 2003; Patton, 2002). The present Delphi pilot study and survey research was 11

exploratory and the researcher employed a purposeful sampling procedure. Specifically, selection of a proper panel for a Delphi examining causes of construction disputes was done through mixed purposeful sampling using criteria and snowball, or chain, sampling. In criteria sampling, the researcher selects people non-randomly according to a criteria. Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study The U.S. construction industry is challenged by increased project disputes and lawsuits, and by apparent insufficient cooperation between construction project stakeholder organizations. Abundant information exists across construction industry stakeholder groups identifying a variety of causes for construction project disputes; yet, little evidence exists that stakeholder groups are collaborating to resolve the causes of disputes, or that these groups are attempting to collaborate transform interorganizational relationships. The following chapter discusses the relevant literature on construction project disputes, interorganizational relationships, and organizational transformation.

12

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 2 reviews current literature on the major topics including construction project disputes, intraorganizational collaboration, intraorganizational workflow, and organizational transformation including complex environments, systems theory, and knowledge management. The first group of topics provides an overview of current trends related to construction project disputes and the deleterious role they play in interrupting an industry vital to both domestic and global economies. Virtually all other industries and societal segments (government, financial, telecommunications, health care, transportation, energy, utilities, mercantile, habitat, education, and digital economy) rely on the functioning of construction industry projects to work properly. This section analyzes the various factors reportedly causing construction disputes. It provides an overview of the challenges facing the construction industry including the complexity, design, construction, and regulation. The second group of topics includes a review of the current literature on interorganizational collaboration and interorganizational workflow. Reviews on organizational theory, management theory, leadership theory, and epistemology are interwoven. The third group discusses corporate transformation, including a discussion on complex environments, systems theory and knowledge management. The fourth group of topics discusses the history of the Delphi research applications in preparation for the method chapter following. Construction Industry Overview Before embarking in a discussion about construction industry disputes, it is first important to understand how the construction industry operates. It is predicted that the total employment in the construction industry will reach 7.8 million by 2012, making it a super sector 13

contributing as one of the economy's top 10 largest sources of job growth (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). The U.S. construction industry is enormous and diverse with participants ranging from small “mom and pop” operations that serve individual private residential customers on small repair and building projects to large corporate groups of engineering and construction that design and build massive, complex projects such as bridges, dams, highways and other infrastructure projects. U.S. construction spending (excluding architectural and engineering services) in 2003 was $505.6 billion amounting to 4.6 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), compared to 12 percent spent in manufacturing sector (Thelen, Reid-Brown, Raysman, & Steiner, 2007). The construction sector includes organizations engaged in the construction of buildings, engineering projects (e.g., highways and utility systems), or in preparation of land (site preparation) for building sites. Construction activities include new building, additions, alterations, or maintenance and repairs. Generally, U.S. contractors concentrate their construction services based on the nature and scope and their role in the project (Thelen, et al, 2007). Construction projects can be categorized by two types: Buildings: Contraction projects include homes, schools, hospitals, skyscrapers, high- and low-rise office buildings, apartment and condominiums units or complexes, facilities for light industry (retail shops), theaters, and small shopping centers. Heavy Construction: Contraction projects include large chopping malls, factories, processing plants, refineries, power plants, highways, roads, bridges, airports, ports, dams, railroads, pipelines, power and telecommunications lines and facilities, sewage plants and systems, and water treatment plants and distribution systems.

14

Generally, U.S. contractors specialize in either but rarely both building and heavy construction projects and further specialize within the two major categories, for example, a heavy construction builder may only build airports, and another may concentrate on processing and utility plants (Thelen et al., 2007). There are several other groups of major participants in U.S. construction projects: Architects, Engineers and Other Design Professionals: These people and their firms design the building or system to be built. Architects generally design buildings while engineers design systems for buildings (structural, electrical, mechanical) and nearly all heavy construction. Other design professionals include geologists (addressing, for example, soil conditions affecting foundations), construction managers, land surveyors, building code consultants, landscape architects, environmental consultants, and lead abatement and asbestos abatement specialists (Thelen et al., 2007). Manufacturers and Vendors: These companies sell specialized equipment for projects to contractors, who take contractual responsibility for installation. Vendors, as subcontractors in are under contract to the general contractor. However, they do not supply labor and installation. Suppliers: Supply companies sell bulk materials, such as lumber, concrete, paint, and wire, to projects by contract with all work completed by the contractor. The U.S. construction industry is highly regulated by several agencies because construction involves a number of laws orchestrated by a number of public and governmental agencies. Construction organizations face regulations in a number of areas including, types of allowable business structures, licensing, contracting (all construction projects include contracts), bonding, insurance, building codes, safety, unions, labor relations, environment, taxes, imported materials, foreign investment, and immigration (Thelen et al., 2007). With all of this complexity, 15

construction projects tend to breed conflict, which can lead to construction claims and disputes. Construction claims and disputes slow construction and cost money. Construction Disputes A review of construction law literature and research papers revealed that disputes are more common in the construction industry than other industries (Casinelli, 2005; Hanna & Gunduz, 2005; Harmon, 2003; Singh, 2000; Thelen et al., 2007; Xiao & Proverbs, 2003). The major issues reflected in disputes include late projects, defects, project extensions, project overruns, project disruption and non-payment (Casinelli, 2005; Eden, 2005; Hanna & Gunduz, 2005; Harmon, 2003; Singh, 2000; Thelen et al., 2007; Xiao & Proverbs, 2003). The causes of construction claims and disputes have been studied over the past two decades, little seems to have shifted, and the problem is international. Yogeswarian, Kumaraswamy and Miller (1997) tabulated a cross-section of findings as to common categories, sources and causes of claims and disputes from other countries, as background to the investigations in the United States, Canada, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Their findings mirrored earlier findings in United Kingdom by Heath et al. (1994) that identified five main categories of claims such as variations in quantities, specifications, and drawings and seven main dispute types such as payments and availability of information. Similarly, findings in Canada, by Bristow and Vasilopoulous (1997) who found five primary causes of claims, such as ambiguous contract documents and poor communications in the United States. Diekmann and Nelson (1995) found that ‘design errors’ and ‘discretionary or mandatory changes’ constituted common causes of claims (46% and 76% respectively) in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The bulk of the literature on construction project conflict, claims, and disputes centers on the legal mechanism of the contract document or on project management with virtually no 16

literature addressing, comprehensively, interorganizational remedies or interorganizational collaboration. An analysis of the extant literature on the causes of conflicts, claims, and disputes reveals ten primary causes: 1. Contracts that shift risk to unprepared parties 2. Unrealistic expectations of the parties 3. Ambiguous contract documents 4. Underbidding 5. Poor communication between project participants 6. Inadequate contractor management, supervision, and coordination 7. Failure of participants to deal promptly with changes and unexpected conditions 8. A lack of team spirit or collegiality among participating organizations and their employees 9. A litigious mind-set on the part of some or all project participants 10. Contract administrators who defer to lawyers rather than take responsibility or resolving the problem at the source In considering these ten primary causes, it appears that interorganizational collaboration, even cooperation, lack of partnering experience, lack of systems thinking and underdeveloped business processes underlie the challenges faced by construction organizations. Therefore, each of these areas are discussed in the following sections. Interorganizational Collaboration One means of creating a strategic competitive advantage in any industry is to enhance or perfect inter-organizational collaboration. Strategic alliances are now a common business strategy with more than 10,000 partnerships created each year in the U.S. (Schifrin, 2001). In an 17

industry such as the construction industry, which arguably faces the most complexity of any industry in carrying out its mission, this idea should be of paramount importance. Much of discussion concerning interorganizational collaboration addresses alliance design, regulation, technology use, and performance, with less focus on processes, dynamics, and social contractual aspects (Arino & De la Torre, 1998; Deeds & Hill, 1998; Koza & Lewin 1998; Nicolajsen, 2007; Salk & Shenkar 2001; Shenkar & Van 2002). Interorganizational collaboration has been studied across industries and is shown to increase organizational capabilities and value generation through exchange of resources, thus contributing to an organization’s competitive advantage (McEvily & Zaheer, 1999). Some theorists argue that value creation occurs when novel or new situations create the need for resource exchange, including information (Moran & Ghoshal, 1996). However, the contexts most discussed in such prescriptions are ones in which organizations undertake collaboration to innovate. Other interorganizational collaborations intend to achieve cost minimization (Dyer & Singh, 1998). As with most prescriptions, there are both benefits and detriments of interorganizational collaboration. Additionally, many factors must be implemented for interorganizational collaboration to work. However, in an industry such as construction where there is necessarily a need for, minimally cooperation, it would seem that the conditions for the practice of collaboration are ripe. What is clear in the literature is that each industry and sector must found its collaborative strategies upon context-appropriate framework. While most industries recognize that a postmodern world requires new organizational structures, and new interdependencies, some seem to have lagged behind; such seems to be the case within the construction industry. The one

18

area where the construction industry seems to be converging in collaborative effort is in the work of creating dispute review boards (Zollinger & Leary, 2005). Some organizations find difficulties in configuring alliances for mutually beneficial value creation (Lin, 2006: Parise & Casher, 2003) resulting in nearly half of strategic alliances failing to meet the expectations of organizations involved (Kalmbach & Rouseel, 1999; Lin, 2006: Parise & Casher, 2003). Those organizations that collaborate effectively have a greater influence in the market, outperform other organizations, and tend to be flexible and adapt readily to a changing environment (Beyerlein, Freedman, McGee & Moran, 2003; Lin, 2006). Collaborative partnership, and allied networks are essential to strategic development, yet effective partnerships are still rare in many business sectors (Parise & Casher, 2003). Showkeir (2002) informs that many organizations previously competed in relatively stable markets. However, in today’s global economy stable markets are virtually non-existent, even in industries such as construction, given a continual introduction of new technologies, increasing numbers of competitors, and demands from customers. To be a market leader in volatile markets, theorists suggest that organizations must concurrently manage (a) profitability, (b) quality and reliability, (c) increased response times, and (d) develop unique and differentiated solutions to the market (Showkeir, 2002). However, organizations in the construction industry face special challenges because of how construction projects are undertaken. Harty (2005) observes that the division of labor and the priority of specialization found in the construction industry pose challenges. Specifically, the approach to construction projects is often one of sequential interdependence where each phase presents, at least theoretically, welldefined tasks and clear responsibilities, with success predicated on each phase smoothly giving way to the next. Activity and choices of one company frame the activities and choices of the next 19

company in the sequence. The underlying problem of interorganizational collaboration ostensibly is coordination. As already mentioned the building process is quite complex and requires close cooperation between all partners and as Carlile (2004) noted an understanding of the dependencies and differences between the different domains involved is paramount. Sawhney (2002) describes how collaborative innovation occurs when organizations tap into a user’s expertise, and through collaborative support, are able to reduce their costs and increase satisfaction. A shift from a command-and-control mentality to a connect-andcollaborate strategy is required in this age of information democracy. Conner (2003) suggests that top-performing teams deliver strategic advantage maximize collaborative teamwork by accelerating the innovation process, operations, and problem-solving to meet aggressive business goals. Conner (2003) determined four traits of successful teams including goals, accountabilities, intra-team relationships, and new ways to work. High performing teams have clear goals, objectives, and direction, with realistic priorities, timelines, and resources. The teams are accountable with well-defined roles and responsibilities, divided work, and right-sized teams. The hardest part of providing a clear and concise vision for the team’s objectives is getting people to agree on the causes of current problems and agree that there is a need for change (Kim & Mauborgne, 2003). Having a consistent vision is exacerbated by the increased complexity of systems and the increased responsibility people have as organizations continue to downsize. To be successful, these teams develop open and honest collaborative intra-relationships that incorporate new processes and technologies, enabling them to maximize their virtual interactions. Common team problems identified include being stuck, overly assertive players,

20

passive team members, disregarding the contribution of others, and avoiding conflict (Kim & Mauborgne, 2003). The problem with construction projects is that interorganizational activity does not necessarily require concurrent activity, rather, in many cases the activity is sequential and executed by unrelated teams from different organizations. Therefore, it seems, as though very little about the nature of the current construction process compels each contributing party to care about the preceding or following activity. Additionally, even when organizations do build partnerships based on construction projects, because projects are unique, repeating partnerships does not happen often (Nicolajsen, 2007). Establishing collaborative inter-organizational relationships is a “challenging, long-term and complex process” (van Eyk & Baum, 2002, p. 263). It is even more problematic in certain industries because such alliances or project-based associations feature no unitary center of control. The successful completion of multi-organizational projects rarely involves a very high degree of coherence, unity of purpose and project—even at the management level. Conflict, ambiguity and lack of common purpose have been much more evident, as past research has demonstrated (Cloke & Goldsmith, 2002). Historically, construction projects were executed under the management of only two parties: architects and contractors. The architects were responsible for design and contractors for the building. The two phases are sequenced and the services were rendered by integrated organizations that employed the people needed within each particular phase. As projects became larger, services more complex, and materials and techniques more varied, specialization and fragmentation emerged for other reasons. Fragmentation helped to distribute the financial risks in, as well as the industrial relations risks arising from the large workforce on individual projects. 21

As larger segments of tasks became divided, more highly specialized workers delivered each smaller job task. These smaller workgroups had less work arid consequently, less work flexibility on each site; consequently, they had to move from site to site, simultaneously balancing the demands of several sites (Charue-Duboc, F., & Midler, C. 1998). Such a fragmented process posed challenges in maintaining control of project outcomes delivered by increasingly disparate project teams (Charue-Duboc, F., & Midler, C. 1998). The divide between the two phases of design and construction imposed barriers to the optimization of the entire process, extended the project life and the time-related risks, as well as generating conflict because of the pervasive ambiguity of contractual agreements. Paradoxically, this way of managing traditional construction projects through the contract documents, generated the vary problems it was designed to minimize (Charue-Duboc, F., & Midler, C. 1998). To overcome the limitations of an increasingly fragmented and risk-laden process, the idea of 'design and construct' was introduced to create a single point of responsibility between the client and the principal contractor. The management of conflicting risks during construction projects, continued to affect the business viability of the constructor as well as on the life-cycle costs. Increasingly, the design and construct mode of operation became the dominant method of construction project execution (Charue-Duboc, F., & Midler, C. 1998). Leaders of construction organizations have no jurisdiction over the other organization(s) working on a given construction project. As collaboration becomes more complex, being able to handle divergence (the diversity of ideas), and convergence (the process to reach agreement), becomes much more challenging, particularly when between organizations there is little transparency (Charue-Duboc, F., & Midler, C. 1998).

22

Personal and organizational history create mental models that tend to bias individuals, causing a type of silo thinking that can preclude collaboration across perceived boundaries and territory (Beyerlein et al., 2003). Organizations that collaborate effectively with others have a stronger financial influence than organizations that do not and are more flexible and able to adapt more rapidly to a changing environment (Beyerlein et al., 2003; Macy & Izumi, 1993). Oftentimes, in collaboration, the balance of power is unequal among the organizations and they may have conflicting goals. Along with collaboration, other methodologies of engagement include (a) compliance, (b) contention, and (c) contestation (Hardy & Phillips, 1998). Hardy and Phillips discussed the critical issues addressing inter-organizational arrangements including (a) who has formal authority, (b) who controls the resources, and (c) “who is able to discursively manage legitimacy” (p. 217). Beyerlein (2003) informs that collaborative organizations behave differently from traditional organizations in the way they approach problems, align support systems, are flexible, and encourage personal accountability. Collaboration is required when a correct decision is not known and requires input from a diverse group of people and organizations. Four common traits among organizations that act collaboratively include interdependence, disembodiment, velocity, and power (Child & McGrath, 2001). Key metrics used in determining the effectiveness and performance of these organizations include vision, internal and external communications, a sense of urgency, innovation, knowledge management, collaboration, empowerment, institutionalization, and short-term wins (Kotter, 1996). Beyerlein et al. (2003) derived a definition of Virtual Collaborative Organizations from primary sources (Fisher & Fisher, 1998; Lipnack & Stamps, 2000; Lurey, 1999) as “Groups of individuals working on shared tasks while distributed across space, time, and/or organizational 23

boundaries” (p. 155). Virtual collaborative teams typically are organized for specific projects or long-term tasks (Beyerlein et al., 2003). Establishing collaborative inter-organizational relationships is a “challenging, long-term and complex process” (van Eyk & Baum, 2002, p. 263). Common themes that emerge in organizations that attempt to work collaboratively include adequate resources for change, multidisciplinary work experience, understanding barriers to collaboration, agreed upon goals, agreed upon agendas, and support from senior leadership (van Eyk & Baum, 2002). Collaborative capacity is the measure of how effectively organizations are able to innovate, exchange knowledge and information, act quickly and effectively, and meet customer’s needs (Beyerlein et al., 2003). As the collaborative capacity of an organization increases, so does its competitive position. To increase the capacity of an organization, Beyerlein et al. posed two questions for leaders of organizations to consider: 1. What creates the foundation for achieving effective collaboration in all parts of the organization? 2. What additional practices could companies like HP and Intel design that would take them to the next level of collaborative capacity? (p. 15) In collaborative organizations, to whom a person reports is less important due to the fact that much of the power is in the organization’s systems and culture. With this culture comes the expectation for change allowing for more rapid adaptations for changing environments (Beyerlein et al., 2003). When an organization has a sustained competitive advantage, competitors may be able to install equivalent equipment and hire away key individuals, but it would be much more difficult for them to replicate a complete network of relationships across multiple levels inside and outside of the organization including customers and suppliers 24

(Beyerlein et al., 2003). As collaborative organizations outperform organizations that are more hierarchical in nature, pressure will be placed on the latter to reform, including turning managers into leaders, groups into teams, and form partnerships with other suppliers and customers to address more of their customer’s needs (Cloke & Goldsmith, 2002). Creating such collaborative relationships requires that the all industry stakeholders involve themselves in trust-building and in forming properly defined alliances. According to organizational behavior theory, trust constitutes a willingness between social agents (people) to have openness of communication and information-sharing for value creation through enabling leverage (Nooteboom, Berger, & Noorderhaven, 1997). In the governance structure of interorganizational relationships, trust proffers a social exchange providing flexibility in operation and reducing coordination cost by providing the channel to mitigate conflict. Relational, social contracts, characterized by trust are more likely to facilitate parties in resource exchange, and cooperative interaction (Fukuyama, 1995). Trust is shown to increase the potentiality of a system’s ability to deal with complexity. Of utmost importance in forging these strategic alliances is codifying collaborative processes. Open channels between social actors enables sharing of information, which benefits all parties because it simplifies information access, processing, and reduces processing time. The structural channels, or portals, function as a social device to expand personal connections, collect refined information, and allow mutual information use under calculated trust (Gulati, 1999). Direct channels; build normative cultural experiences, which affect the propensity of on-going relationships and the mode of resource exchange. Therefore, relational channels serve as sources contributing to more detailed, reliable, and longitudinal elements in the process, access and exchange of information (Gulati, 1999). 25

The position of the two organizations within their networks can hinder or facilitate their ability to influence relational and structural collaboration. According to Stuart’s research, allied organizations do better when they develop complementary exchanges with others that are positioned similarly within the network structure (1994). Stuart’s finding corroborates Kogut’s finding that alliance arrangements with structural equivalence facilitate greater interorganizational resource flow because the similar-positioned partner has greater incentive to conduct cooperative-competitive interactions for capturing updated developments, and thereby promote efficient information flow (1988). Similarly, positioned organizations also better understand and evaluate the complementary technologies or resources of their potential partner and consequently, they bargain and negotiate more effectively than dissimilarly positioned organizations. Resource sharing as well as technology and information exchange occurs easier because obstacles do not exist in parties assessing complimentarity (Kogut, 1998). The next preparatory work is in developing organizational structures that enable and facilitate interorganizational collaboration. Structural fluidity enables sharing, as collective social capital, such as norms, sanctions, and identification to lessen the problems caused by coordination difficulties. The social norm of exchange has the power of social obligation patterns (Achrol, 1997) that align divergent behaviors, which reduce the coordination cost of resources exchange. Norms that inhibit cheating and shirking make it possible to put less cost on detecting malfeasance and enable fewer mismatches in deciding how to sort residual rents. Another important social mechanism from structural fluidity between collaborative organizations is collective sanction. Sanction has more indirect, subtle effects on exchange safeguards by supporting the social norm, which in turn reduces metering difficulty. Opportunistic behavior is controlled because coercive power stresses the importance of individual's conformity toward 26

collective expectations; otherwise, there could be penalty (Gulati, 1998). In this way, collective sanctions reduce behavioral uncertainty by increasing the cost of opportunism, decreasing the cost of coordinating and monitoring, and providing incentives to monitor inadequate behaviors. Identification development within a strategic alliance enhances the concern for collective interests and pursuing identical goals, thereby increasing the chance for exchange, which is recognized without redundant coordinating and monitoring processes (Gulati, 1998). Construction projects ensue across different and fragmented contexts where interorganizational factors affect project performance and outcomes (Gibson, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Schwab, 2003). Consequently, the construction industry would greatly benefit from enhanced communication and collaboration. Despite this need, the construction industry lags behind in terms of implementing mechanisms that could foster coordination and collaboration—minimally cooperation—among the parties, in part because of how the industry executes projects. The scarcity of applied research conducted on the construction industry may contribute to the perpetuation of the industry’s lack of remediation in solving the problems associated with interorganizational cooperation (Goczol & Scoubeau, 2003). Organizational Transformation Organizations are effected either directly or indirectly with changes in the political, economic, social, and technical environment they operate. These changes may affect the availability of cost-effective skilled workers, and reliable utilities such as electric, petroleum, and water. The operational challenges that leaders of these organizations face include high employee turnover, reduced staff and training levels, the need for specialization, lack of information sharing, and continued outsourcing (Curtis, 2004).

27

A common difficulty that many organizations face is the ability to transform effectively from their core business when radical new technologies are introduced into a market (Hill & Rothaermel, 2003). With the increasing dynamics and complexities of the political, economic, social, and technological issues facing the construction industry, there seems to be no indications that this trend will decrease over time, which results in additional challenges for leaders in adapting their organizations in complex environments. When large organizations or groups within companies come together, some of them are resistant to change and remain poorly integrated with the overall enterprise. Due to the fragmented and piecemeal nature of knowledge and a lack of a widely accepted theory of organizational change, successful change is rarely adopted (Beer, 2000, p. 30). Fisk discussed how leaders who seek to transform organizations and exempt themselves, or are unable to change themselves, are unlikely to succeed (Fisk, 2002). In organizations, managers may see things the way they are, yet fail to see the full potential of the organization (Young, 2000), while visionary leaders are able to understand the status quo and visualize new paradigms that may result in a corporate transformation (Zohar, 2002). They do this by asking the what and why type questions followed by a willful determination to implement change in an organization, not the how type questions (Bennis, 2002). Successful change initiatives include a thorough analysis of the emotional issues as well as the operational ones. Duck (2001) called this process the change curve consisting of five phases including stagnation, preparation, implementation, determination, and ending hopefully with fruition. Organizational Architectures Business Processes According to Srinivasan, Krishna, & Holmes, (2005), business process management is the manifestation of industry-specific initiatives that bring people, processes, and information to 28

optimize overall system efficiency. The Internet and in many cases, Intranets enable data to be shared between interorganizational and intraorganizational groups by using “intelligent documenting” and gateways that increase efficiency for the organization (Srinivasan et al., 2005). Such technology does not benefit any particular group without it being acted on holistically for participating groups to benefit from the reduced labor costs and cycle times and increased system availability. With many managers in organizations operating with “silo” mental models, they may not be willing to change their organization for the good, which is a limiting factor in corporate transformation. Leaders, in contrast, should have the vision to understand the enterprise-wide issues and be able to adapt accordingly, including communicating to their superiors on changes that may be required for both the short- and long-term (Srinivasan et al, 2005). Some studies have focused on the use of information technologies interorganizationally in the construction industry and the findings suggest that coordination and cooperation can be improved (Rivard, Froese, Waugh, El-Diraby, Mora, Torres, Gill, & O’Reilly, 2004). Zhang (2004) stated, “With the evolution of the Internet, the focus has been shifting from the creation of tangible goods to the flow of information through the value chain, which is critical to a firm’s business processes” (p. 85). The common platform of the Internet enables organizations to focus on improving the productivity of their businesses, including internal and external processes. This seamless flow of information and business process enables organizations to be more competitive and flexible if managed properly (Craig, & Sommerville, 2006; Herness, High, & McGee, 2004). To enable communication between systems that have typically operated in an ad hoc manner, the World Wide Web Consortium (Leymann, Rolier, & Schmidt, 2002) has established standards.

29

Traditional Enterprise Research Planning (ERP) software packages focus on integrated business processes such as Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Supply Chain Management (SCM), and their ability to control processes and provide financial accounting gave organizations insight into their business that was previously unavailable. ERP by itself does not allow organizations to design new products more effectively or manage infrastructure items like facilities effectively (Brown, 2005). Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) applications focus on integrating business processes and information on more of a transactional basis such as designing a new product (Brown, 2005). Combining ERP and PLM enhances an organization’s capability by having processes in place that can handle traditional transactions. By combining the process functionality of ERP, the innovation and collaborative characteristics of PLM, for example, organizations acting in collaboration may be able to optimize designs and improve the flow of information from various entities. However, as some researchers have shown, there seems to be a low acceptance for such mechanisms in the construction industry (Goczol, J., & Scoubeau, C., 2003; Shenhar, 2001). A common difficulty that organizations face is the ability to transform their business processes even when new technologies are introduced or when old processes no longer work (Hill & Rothaermel, 2003). Culture change may be necessary for an organization to break away from its static culture and become more responsive to change (Cook & Hunsaker, 2001; Luthans, 2002; Schein, 1999). Organizations that have many rules may be inefficient in dealing with critical issues and change initiatives as members wait for permission to move forward (Beyerlein et al., 2003). Worse, considering the construction industry is the tendency in some organizations to hold values that specifically preclude progressive outlooks. Ineffective hierarchies and 30

stagnant values are dependent on managers for remediation, yet this traditional command-andcontrol relationship between managers and employees generates institutional blindness, frustrates employees, and reduces the rate and extent of change (Beyerlein et al., 2003). Cloke and Goldsmith (2002) suggest that many employees prefer being told specifically what to do rather than being members of a self-managing team that is responsible for innovative results and concluded that this inability of employees to manage themselves creates the justification for managers to perform this task. Historically, organizations tended to be hierarchical in nature with most of the power, knowledge, and rewards at the top, often preventing an effective two-way exchange of information between levels in the organizations. As a result, decisions are made without the appropriate participation by individuals throughout the organization (Beyerlein et al., 2003). Organizations have evolved from entrepreneurial single owners to hierarchical command-andcontrol type organizations with a single point of accountability to matrixed organizations with multiple reporting structures even within the construction industry. Traditional command-andcontrol hierarchies with formal boundaries dictated that they were able to continually perform the same function rather than adapt to a changing environment due to their simplistic architecture that did not use the knowledge throughout the organization (Beyerlein et al., 2003). When formal boundaries and responsibilities are loosened between managers and their subordinates, a collaborative environment is established that is much more flexible to meet the needs of its customers (Beyerlein et al., 2003). Work teams are developed to improve the effectiveness of the organization, including communication between groups, leveraging expertise, and improving synergies. Peters (1999) discussed work teams with knowledge workers (engineering and consulting firms) who are able to go outside of their traditional boundaries and 31

were able to accomplish complex tasks more effectively while challenging the status quo. Robbins and Finley (1995) discussed some of the reasons that teams did not meet the expectations of their organizations, including how they did not believe in the outcome, that it may not be obtainable, and they did not fully understand what their manager wanted from them. The primary reason these teams failed was due to their being in a hostile environment that neither sanctioned nor demanded collaboration (Beyerlein et al., 2003). The problem is that in the construction industry, the challenges of improving business processes and evolving organizational cultures is not limited to single organizations, it is industry-wide and exacerbated by the fragmentation within the typical construction project event and because of the unique nature of most projects. Systems Thinking According to Checkland (1999), system thinking is about “the use of a particular set of ideas, system ideas, in trying to understand the world’s complexity” (p. 3). The unraveling of the “fundamental nature of reality” and the principle investigation of logic begin by asserting the principle of applying logic in order to “investigate the nature of correct thinking and valid reasoning, including the laws of rational thought” (Horner & Westacott, 2000 1993, pp. 3 & 28). This implies, then, that there is no prescribed practice associated with systems thinking in order to understand the whole. Being able to apply the skills learned in a complex real-world environment is the most widespread value-creating professional skill level. Understanding the know-why is the deep knowledge of the web of cause-and-effect relationships underlying a discipline. It permits professionals to solve larger, more complex problems and create extraordinary value. The

32

ultimate expression of systems understanding is highly trained intuition, including, for example, which projects to do and not do. Many leaders do not see how different issues are interrelated, nor do they recognize how today’s solutions can influence future situations. A common trait of people attempting to understand complex situations is to break the system into its component parts and analyze each part. This strategy often fails to provide the behavior of the system since the individual parts act differently when not part of a system, and many systems show characteristics that are not shown in any of the components (Sherwood, 2002). The problem in the construction industry is that industry leaders must think beyond the boundaries of their individual organization and to thinking about webs of systems. While there have been a few studies on systems thinking in the construction industry (Mawdesely & Qambar, 2000), and some literature calling for the use of systems thinking in the construction industry (Reedy & Andrew, 2006; Staveren, 2006), there is little evidence that the idea has made its way into use within the industry. Complex Environments Successful organizations are complex, adaptive systems that develop, replace, and change their structure, processes, and culture to enhance capability to adapt to a dynamic market. The challenge leaders in the construction industry face is to transform their organizations from a value that is a protectionist to an organization that is a collaborative with devolved decisionmaking and accountability (Morrison, 2002). Keene (2000, p. 15) describes complex environments as “The space of complexity is that state which the system occupies and which lies between order and chaos. One major effect on organizations in applying the concepts of complexity theory is the way in which leadership is seen and the need for change.” Keene also noted that successful leaders are able to recognize the importance of developing relationships 33

(partnerships and alliances) in achieving success and are able to leverage organizational capability in order to do so. Cartesian-Newtonian Model Cartesian science theorists posit that any complex system can be understood by understanding the dynamics of its parts. Economists who incorporate reductionist models that have roots in the philosophies of people such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus from the Mediterranean Sea area and dating as far back as 500 B.C. (Neace, 1997). Philosophers from the Enlightenment period (18th century) such as Bacon, Locke, Descartes, Newton, and Smith, ushered in the scientific revolution (Clegg, Hardy, & Nord, 1996; Neace, 1997). The scientific revolution, which proved Smith’s theory that by using Cartesian logic, output could be produced, came at the expense of philosophy and the overall environment including ontology, and continued through the 19th and 20th centuries (Neace, 1997). Capra (1996) described the paradigm shift that occurred from the mechanistic view of Descartes and Newton to a holistic view that allowed a new view of reality and an understanding of the interrelationships of complex environments allowing leaders to gain new insight into what may be done. This change to quantum thinking is often triggered when a crisis is present (Bennis, 2002). Kuhn (1996) discussed how paradigm shifts do not change on their own, but rather are stimulated by a series of anomalies, conflicts, or dysfunctions, and when they do occur, they usually occur in discontinuous, revolutionary breaks. These paradigm shifts allow individuals and organizations to look at complex situations in a new and different manner, which may allow them to see new and different things and act differently. In the construction industry, such a crisis (or turning point) exists because of the heavy toll on time and finances that disputes are causing. 34

Complexity Theory Complexity theorists shift the thinking away from linear, mechanistic views of the world with cause-and-effect solutions to a view of the world as nonlinear, organic, and unpredictable (Regine & Lewin, 2000). They view organizations as complex adaptive systems with diverse agents who interact with each other, mutually affect each other, and generate a unique behavior for the system (Marion, 1999; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Senge (1990) discussed two types of complexities, detail complexity and dynamic complexity, and how traditional management tools addressed the detail complexity of the environment in a linear fashion. System thinking shifts individual viewpoints from seeing parts to seeing wholes along with the interrelationships in a complex environment and introduces the concept of feedback that illustrates how forces can counteract each other. Jensen (2000) described how employees, when faced with many possible options in a complex environment, may perform actions that focus on short-term results that jeopardize the long-term objectives. Attractors, which describe how complex systems move through time and space act at the systemic level, can either conform or constrain the behavior of discrete components, allowing for finite predictability of complex systems. In complex organizations, there are two primary attractors: (a) changes in the organization’s context such as the market, regulatory impacts, turnover, or significant changes in manpower; and (b) storytelling powerbased on “micro-level hegemony,” or the ability for key individuals to create an on-going dialog to constantly change organizational reality (Luhman & Boje, 2001). The significance of understanding complex environments for organizations is that, if they are to survive, they must be able to continually anticipate the future and develop innovative

35

solutions in a dynamic marketplace. Organizations that are able to understand themselves as complex adaptive systems will be better positioned to optimize change (Regine & Lewin, 2000). In complex adaptive systems, agents interact, and when they have a mutual effect on one another something novel emerges. Anything that enhances these interactions will enhance the potential creativity and adaptability of the system. In human organizations, this translates into agents as people, and interactions with mutual effect as being relationships that are grounded in a sense of mutuality: people have mutual respect and mutual influence and impact on each other. Mutuality lends itself to an appreciation of the wholeness of the other person, which increases the range of responses and possibilities between people (p. 12). The complex approach to problem solving describes the situation where there are no cause and effect relationships; accordingly, you cannot solve complex problems by breaking them into pieces and solving each piece by itself. Conclusion From the analysis presented in this report thus far, it should be clear that the construction industry faces a crisis and that the industry is embroiled in increasingly rancorous and costly litigation. The Delphi method would be useful in overcoming the weighty challenge of bringing stakeholders to participate in analysis of problems where blame and accountability are conferred. Thus far, it appears that the construction industry has failed to address project disputes beyond hyper-focusing on dispute tactics rather than identifying and solving associated causal problems. Specifically, Delphi methodology would be useful in gathering stakeholder perspectives on potential innovations, relationships between stakeholders, value requirements of clients or points in the client/contractor acquisition cycle where costs/problems arise, getting beneath the cultural norms of the construction industry, and perhaps even paving a pathway of collaboration in a 36

normative sense. The attractiveness of Delphi methodology in studying a complex problem such as has been discussed is that it contains within its modality both scholarly rigor and practicality which suits a scholar-practitioner model. In structuring such a research study, several considerations must be kept in mind. First, the research purpose (goals and objectives) must be clearly defined. Second, from the research purpose the central questions for research must be established. Third, the potential for selection and recruitment of panel participants must be weighed. Fourth, the size of the panel (number of participants) must be determined. Fifth, the make-up of the panel must be determined. Sixth, the particular form and construction of the Delphi design itself must be determined in terms of the most accurate. Given the apparent lack of consensus within the construction industry, across stakeholder groups, the lack of integration in the literature between stakeholder and with the only comprehensive investigations into the causes and remedies of construction disputes coming from the legal field; it makes sense that a study be conducted to address these gaps. Chapter 3 presents the details of the methodological approach used for this research study constructed to address the identified gap in our knowledge base.

37

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this descriptive survey research study was to explore causes of construction project disputes, discover interorganizational processes and transformation strategies that U.S. construction industry professionals identify are essential to increasing the collaborative interaction of interdependent stakeholder organizations, improving interorganizational relationships, and decreasing construction project disputes. For the purpose of this study, construction industry professionals are defined as individuals working in U.S. based construction organization sectors. While there are many professional organizations and unions that provide opportunities for construction industry professionals to learn about industry trends, issues, and problems associated with construction few opportunities exist that provide construction organization professionals to discuss the interorganizational challenges they face. This Delphi pilot and survey research study created specific information concerning causes and potential solutions for construction organization leaders. The primary objective was to identify a broad range of critical issues across a diverse group to incite new and creative ideas for the construction industry. Research Design A survey research, preceded by a Delphi pilot, design was employed for this research. A Delphi approach is a formalized process that is designed to obtain unbiased opinions from a panel of experts acting anonymously, equally, and as a whole to solve complex issues, oftentimes which are intangible in nature (Chan, Yung, Lam, Tam, & Cheung, 2001; Linstone & Turoff, 1975). The Delphi process characteristically uses forward looking questions, anonymity, features iteration, controlled feedback, and qualitative and statistical interpretations (Dickey & 38

Watts, 1978). In a Delphi approach, the opinions of a diverse collection of professionals are obtained in an anonymous fashion without particular individuals being able to dominate discussion. The intent of convening a Delphi panel was not to generate a final decision, but rather to gather the opinions and supporting evidence to pilot a suitable data collection instrument (Turoff, 1975). The results of the Delphi pilot study were used to design a questionnaire for use in conducting survey research. Cooper and Schindler (2000) advise that research approaches can be categorized by the means used to collect data and are either observational or communicative. Observational approaches are advantageous when researchers desire to understand behavior, conditions, events, and processes (Cooper & Schindler, 2000). Communicative approaches (survey research) include questionnaires and interviews. In the Cooper and Schindler typology, survey design falls into the category of communicative, since the primary data sought is opinions gathered through administration of a questionnaire (or interview). Interview strategies are advantageous when the researcher desires depth (Cooper & Schindler, 2000; Creswell, 2002; Patton, 2002). Questionnaire administration is typically economical compared with observational strategies (Cooper & Schindler, 2000) and more efficient than interview approaches (Cooper & Schindler, 2000; Patton, 2002). Appropriateness of Design A purely, quantitative research methodology was not used to collect data because the objective of the research was to uncover opinions about which there is not much information and seemingly little agreement. The research purpose required participants to be able to use their own descriptive language and allowed the researcher to make deductions from language instead of statistical data. Yet, an objective of the study was to build some level of agreement and to 39

calculate the most advantageous alternatives. Two approaches were chosen to conduct this study, a Delphi pilot to determine the appropriateness of developed questions and response choices, and administration of a questionnaire, survey research, to gather data across as wide a sample as possible. The combination of the divergent (seeking qualitative data) and then converging information process of Delphi and the broadcasted survey research approaches proved to be the most gainful in answering the research questions given the researcher’s time constraints. Because of time constraints, approaches such as focus groups and in-depth interviews were eliminated. Jones (1980) suggested that the Delphi technique is valuable for its consensus enabling and the mixed qualitative and quantitative approach to data collection and analysis. With its structured and moderated framework, the Delphi method aggregates individual contributions into a “collective human intelligence” (Linstone & Turoff, 1975, p. 5). It is not the intent for all applications of the Delphi technique to generate a consensus (Linstone & Turoff, 2002). For example, Delphi is often used to determine potential scenarios and the probability of each happening at specific times in the future. For another example, Delphi has been employed to solve complex, weighty problems (Linstone & Turoff, 2002). The asynchronous interaction in a Delphi study allows selected participants to change their opinions when and where relevant, thus protecting against groupthink, yet it fosters creative individual conceptualization (Couper, 1984; McKenna, 1994). A Delphi study is justifiable when the problem does not appear easy to analyze but can benefit from subjective and collective judgment (Linstone & Turoff, 1973), such as the case of the issue of construction project disputes. Delphi research affords an effective and efficient approach to capture the input from a diverse group of industry professionals on the subject of construction project conflicts, of interorganizational issues, and potential solutions. The exploratory approach of Delphi research 40

allows the views of a diverse group of participants to be expressed in an unbiased manner to identify major issues and understand the degree of consensus they arrive at on the topics making it quite suitable for a pilot study (Linstone & Turoff, 2002). Turoff and Hiltz (1996) found the effectiveness of the Delphi methodology lay in participant anonymity, collecting accurate data, precise analysis, and enabling the flow of communication between participating experts. Adler & Ziglio (1996) found that the reliability of the Delphi technique is unique compared to experiments with traditional group discussions in obtaining knowledge. Additionally, informed group judgments, achieved through controlled methodologies such as the Delphi method, are more reliable than individual judgments (Adler & Ziglio, 1996). Objectivity and truthfulness of responses remains critical to outcomes of the Delphi method. Creswell (2003) suggests that trustworthiness and verification connote the Delphi method more than traditional validity and reliability methods. Not all opinions about the Delphi method are positive; however, they are instructive. For example, McMurray (1994) opined that the Delphi technique lacks standardized methodological procedures, and expressed concern about panelists shifting their opinions due to the anonymity of the research. However, McMurray qualified these concerns by stating that the benefits of the Delphi method affords that no dominant individuals can unfairly influence group discussions. Rudy (1996) also expressed concerns about anonymity of the panelists, and how it may influence their responses by removing any inhibitions that may be present in face-to-face conversations, and how it may reduce the stimulation of group discussions. The anonymity may also reduce the panelist’s sense of responsibility and the quality of their responses (Goodman, 1987). It is not the intent for the

41

Delphi method merely to generate consensus on each topic (Linstone & Turoff, 1975), but rather to determine scenarios, causes, predictive probabilities and potential mitigation. Other issues that Linstone and Turoff (1975) cite as common reasons for Delphi study failures include the injection of the researcher’s views and perceptions, inadequate summarizing of each round of Delphi, and ignoring or not exploring disagreements among the participants. To ensure the researcher’s bias is minimized, the researcher employed an independent professional to review the summaries before they were presented to the Delphi panelists for ranking. Despite the limitations of the Delphi method, it affords an effective and efficient means of capturing the input from a diverse group of stakeholders as influencers, contributors, and experts on the subject of construction disputes and potential industry transformation. The exploratory methodology of Delphi research allows the views of a diverse group of industry experts to be expressed in an unbiased manner to identify major issues and understand the degree of consensus they arrive at on the topics Linstone & Turoff, 1975, 2001). Through preliminary discussions with leaders in U.S. construction industry organizations, the researcher observed a broad interest in understanding how the complexity of construction projects could be managed more effectively, particularly across organizations. To ensure consistent, timely, and quality input from the Delphi pilot panelists, a secure Internet portal was used to eliminate the delays and expense of conducting interviews. Preliminary sampling of prospective panelists by the researcher indicated that an Internet-based delivery was the preferred manner with which busy industry professionals desired to communicate. To advise the pilot panelists when they were required to respond to surveys during the pilot, an e-mail notification was sent to them advising the due date of their input. Information, such as the tone of voice, gestures, or the way people look at each other are not part 42

of electronic communications such as Internet portals (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). The researcher felt that face-to-face interaction was not an important element of this study because it was the content of the message that was important and not, nonverbal cues. Delphi research is a proven methodology for the scenario where experts, industry executives, influencers, and scholars have an understanding of the environment, are stakeholders in the subject, and have a desire to see quality research performed to address the issues they are facing. A Delphi pilot study was chosen as the best method to develop and test a questionnaire for use in conducting survey research to discover causes and potential solutions related to construction project disputes. Survey research asks large numbers of people questions about their opinions, attitudes, and behaviors (Fowler, 2001). The use of survey research is broad, ranging from descriptive to correlational studies and is most useful when researchers desire to collect data about phenomena that cannot be observed easily and is used across many disciplines (Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger, 2005). In survey studies, researchers sample particular populations: groupings of people with one or more common characteristic(s). Questions are used to inquire about topics, administered as either interviews or questionnaires. Opinions, attitudes, and behaviors, of respondents are sought to illuminate specific issues, which are internal to the respondent (Cooper & Schindler, 2000). Researchers must determine the type of survey approach based on which way best to collect the most meaningful data. To maximize the size of the database from which conclusions could be drawn about construction project dispute causes and potential solutions, the researcher broadcasted an electronically delivered questionnaire to forty-three professional associations and university alumni groups for distribution to their members (Appendix C).

43

Research Question The central question guiding the present research study was what cross-organizational transformation strategies are necessary to reduce construction claims and build greater collaboration among construction industry stakeholders? Pilot and Survey Inquiry Questions A Delphi study is unique because it is conducted in a series of surveys or iterations. The round 1 pilot survey asked each panelist to complete and return to the researcher a questionnaire, which was composed of open-ended questions. The researcher compiled, analyzed, and then developed a round 2 fixed-choice questionnaire sent back to the panelists to collect responses which required ranking. The round 1 pilot survey consisted of the following provocative questions: 1. What stakeholder groups have been involved in the construction projects in which you were involved? 2. What is the most frequent problem that has occurred in the construction projects in which you were involved? 3. What are the most damaging problems that have occurred in the construction projects in which you have been involved? 4. In consideration of all stakeholder groups (e.g. contractors, engineers, suppliers, regulators, designers, architects), from which group does most of the problems leading to construction project disputes seem to originate? 5. What do you think will be required over the coming years to optimize the cooperation among and between construction project stakeholder groups?

44

6. What leadership traits, skills, and experience, do you believe will be needed by construction project stakeholders in the future to transform the industry to reduce construction project disputes? 7. What types of skills will personnel from stakeholder organizations need over the coming years to support collaboration among construction project stakeholders? 8. What changes could be initiated among and between stakeholder organizations to increase collaboration? 9. What types of collaborative relationships (i.e. alliances, affiliations, partnerships) do you perceive would be mutually beneficial to construction project stakeholders? 10. What are your perspectives on collaborative innovation (i.e. shared development, or improvement, for mutual benefit) as a way to sustain a competitive edge? The researcher made slight changes to the question set based on the results of the round 1 pilot data analysis and the following questions were used for round 2 of the pilot and were subsequently developed for use as the final questionnaire instrument for the survey study with the sample of construction industry professionals. 1. Relative to the most frequent problem that occurred in construction projects in which you were involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 2. Relative to the most damaging problem that occurred in the construction projects in which you have been involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes.

45

3. Relative to the stakeholder groups, from which the most problems leading to construction project disputes originate; please rank each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 4. Relative to what will be required over the coming years to optimize the cooperation among and between construction project stakeholder groups; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 5. Relative to what leadership traits, skills, and experience will be needed by construction project stakeholders in the future to transform the industry to reduce construction project disputes; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 6. Relative to the types of skills needed by personnel from stakeholder organizations in the future to support collaboration among construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 7. Relative to what changes could be initiated among and between stakeholder organizations to increase collaboration; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 8. Relative to what types of collaborative relationships would be mutually beneficial to construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. Population To have an adequate Delphi study, methodologists indicate that a panel of from 6 – 12 participants is appropriate (Clayton, 1997; Westbrook, 1997). Rubin and Rubin (1995) discuss how the design of the study will determine who is an appropriate panelist. They note that the panelists need to be knowledgeable in the subject matter, be willing to engage, and be able to 46

respond to differing points of view. Linstone and Turoff (1975) note that although there are no absolute rules in selecting Delphi panelists, they would fill one of these three roles: (a) stakeholders who are directly involved in the problem, (b) facilitators who assist or support the work of the participants, or (c) experts who are invested in the problem. In the present study, the Delphi pilot panelists consisted of engineers working as leaders, owners, executives, regulators and arbitrators within U.S. construction industry that have an interest in improving the effectiveness of construction projects. Converse and Presser (1986) argue that a minimum of two pretests of a questionnaire are necessary, administered to a group 12 – 25 respondents similar in profile to those who will be in the final sample. The first pretest may need to have probing type questions to illicit information that is unknown to the researcher. The population for the survey research, the main study consisted of engineers working in any of the sub-fields associated with construction, including the following: civil, aeronautic, mechanical, electrical, geotechnical, environmental, biochemical, structural, systems, architectural, construction, industrial, safety, and telecommunications, who belonged to professional or university alumni associations within the Western region of the United States. Forty-three associations and university engineering schools were contacted through email (Appendix C). Setting The potential Delphi panelists and survey respondents identified for this study included engineers of all fields and subfields associated with the construction industry and included members of professional and academic organizations in the Western region of United States. The diverse group of panelists was constituted with participants located around the country, potentially, given that the associations have branches beyond the Western region of the U.S. and 47

therefore, the process was sensitive to time and required an easy, reliable, and secure method of communication that the Internet enables. Instrumentation Instrumentation for the study included a ten-item pilot questionnaire with an open-ended response structure and an eight-item pilot questionnaire with a fixed-choice response structure, and an adapted eight-item questionnaire with a fixed-choice response structure based on the pilot analyses, delivered through a secure Internet survey portal. Prior to the initiation of the survey research study, the researcher finalized a secure Internet portal design and performed beta tests with a select group of pilot panelists to ensure the reliability of the research instrument and that the technology operated properly. This included ensuring user identification was confirmed with passwords, the problem statement was clear, and the response from the panelists were properly tagged and logged for later evaluation. The decision to administer the survey instrument via the Internet-delivered survey portal was based the need for efficiency, ease of use, speed and the effectiveness of the survey creation tools available. Decisions about such data collection aspects as question design (response structure), type (open-ended, fixed-choice), and survey layout (number of pages, number of questions per page, etc.) were easily made with the available tools. For example, methodologists recommend that survey designs should consider that most people are right-handed, and that in the case of Internet delivered surveys, consistent font use, and avoidance of distracting multicolor schemes (Denscombe, 2006). Internet or computer surveys are less expensive to administer, can be administered speedily, and to a large population. They support complex survey designs with elaborate branching, skip patterns, and forced responses. The primary drawback to Internet-delivered surveys is the difficulty of drawing random samples. 48

Sampling Frame There are two types of sampling, probability (random), and non-probability (purposeful). The objective of probability, or random sampling, is to ensure that everyone in the population has an equal chance of being sampled, and that selecting particular people does not affect the chances of any other people being selected (Creswell, 2002; Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger, 2005; Patton, 2003). When researchers are faced with constraints, such as time, proximity, resources, and for other reasons such as the size of the population is unknown, and a probability sample is unfeasible, they turn to a sample of convenience, a non-probability sample (Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger, 2005; Patton, 2003). The present study employed non-probability, or purposeful, sampling because of time and resource constraints, and because the size and exactitude of the membership of all the identified associations and alumni associations was unclear. Within purposeful sampling routines, there are several strategies, each with its advantages and disadvantages. The selection of a sampling strategy depends on the research purpose and resources (Creswell, 2002). A criteria sample is simply the potential source of participants that is easily accessible to the researcher that meets a predetermined standard. Snowball sampling involves identifying persons of interest from sampled people who know other people who would be rich information sources. For the pilot study, a mixed purposeful approach including criteria and “snowball” sampling was used. The researcher contacted construction industry professionals known from previous construction projects, some of who were asked to refer other industry professionals that might be willing to participate in the pilot. Then, for the survey research, the main study, the researcher selected a number of professional associations and universities known to have highly regarded engineering schools within the Western region of the U.S. (Appendix C). 49

An email request for participation, which included the link for the Internet-delivered survey, was sent to all of the source associations and university engineering schools, for member participation. The survey research study was executed during winter 2008 delivered through the SurveyMonkey.com Website. The pilot and survey study unfolded over the course of 10 weeks. Before selecting the Delphi pilot panelists, it is important to understand the context within which the study was conducted (Adler & Ziglio, 1996). With over 20 years of professional experience in the engineering field working with construction industry stakeholder organizations, the researcher selected the Delphi pilot panelists from a broad spectrum of leaders in the industry, influencers, and academia. The researcher asked associates and other industry professionals for recommendations and references for panelists, ensuring that the panel included personnel representative of the construction industry (Scheele, 1975). The researcher selected and contacted 20 potential pilot panelists initially selected for the study to ensure an adequate number of respondents throughout the multiple iterations. Data Collection To initiate the study, stage one was to prepare the instrument and survey portal and then to conduct a Delphi pilot study with a panel of 12-20 construction industry professionals from U.S. construction industry organizations. With the results of the pilot study, stage two was to prepare and conduct the survey research study of several hundred U.S. construction industry professionals recruited through criteria sampling of respondents from various professional and university associations. The researcher determined that a secure Internet-based survey research study was appropriate based on the need to obtain candid input on a wide range of topics from a diverse 50

group of industry professionals. To minimize the time required for the Delphi pilot panelists, the questions were available electronically for them to respond. The researcher called each of the individuals and advised them that an e-mail and an information packet was sent to their attention. The information packet included the following items: (a) an introduction letter with personal information of the researcher; (b) an overview of the Delphi pilot study methodology; (c) an abstract of the research study on the construction industry, corporate transformations, and collaborative partnerships; (d) the objectives, timeline, and an overview of their fellow panelists in the study; (e) their role and commitment needed in the study; (f) the extranet portal address, user identifications, instructions, and where to inquire for additional information: and (g) a statement of release. The panelists were asked to respond to the questions within one week of receipt of the email. Stimulating responses from Delphi panelists and creating interactions can be a challenging task (Scheele, 1975). The researcher mitigated these issues by involving pilot panelists who were intimately involved with construction projects, and were willing and able to participate through the iterations (Robinson, 1991). To ensure the panelists participated in the research, it was important that the secure Internet portal was robust yet simple, the objective of the Delphi and the roles and responsibilities for the panelists was clear, and that the research unfolded in a timely manner. The planned timeframe for the research was two weeks for the panelists to respond, with one week for the researcher to compile the responses and post the conclusions for the next round of Delphi pilot. To help ensure the panelists were responding in a timely manner, the researcher monitored the progress of the study daily, and forwarded email reminders to the respondents after one week. If no response was received (including reading the email notice via a read receipt) was received within three additional days, a telephone call was 51

placed to the panelist respectfully asking for input. The first round of the Delphi study was closed after ten days from the initial posting, assuming the minimum response from 12 panelists was received. Once the panelists answered the questions, they were prompted to submit their input to the portal that was tagged to each specific user via the user identification, and logged on the extranet portal. An email was sent to each Delphi pilot panelist immediately following submission of the data confirming receipt of the data thanking them for their participation in that portion of the study and advising them what the next phase was include and when. A backup of the data was made on CD along with a printout of all information to ensure data integrity. Upon closure of the first round of the Delphi study, the researcher aggregated the data, analyzed it in an unbiased manner, and themed the findings. The data was analyzed for common themes and a second round fixed-choice questionnaire was developed. Similar to the first round, the panelists received an email notification when the second round of the Delphi study would begin. When the second iteration of the Delphi study was initiated, the panelists were given an opportunity to reevaluate their positions on the topics-based on the groups input, and through responding to the second round questionnaire. Once the pilot study was completed, the data analyzed, the questionnaire assessed and finalized, a new survey was created for the main study and prepared for delivery on the Internet survey portal. The survey site included an information page that explained the study, its purpose, and contained the consent letter and a required question for participation in the study. An informational email was created including a link to the survey site, and was sent to the selected professional associations and university engineering schools.

52

Data Analysis Linstone and Turoff (1975) identified six phases in the Delphi Research communication process: 1. Formulation of the issues. What is the issue that really should be under consideration? How should it be stated? 2. Exposing the options. Given the issue, what are the policy options available? 3. Determining initial positions on the issues. Which are the ones everyone already agrees upon and which are the unimportant ones to be discarded? Which are the ones exhibiting disagreement among the respondents? 4. Exploring and obtaining the reasons for disagreements. What underlying assumptions, views, or facts are being used by the individuals to support their respective positions? 5. Evaluating the underlying reasons. How does the group view the separate arguments used to defend various positions, and how do they compare to one another on a relative basis? 6. Reevaluating the options. Reevaluation is based upon the views of the underlying “evidence” and the assessment of its relevance to each position taken. (p. 84) The researcher incorporated these phases into the Delphi pilot study by means of presenting the problem statement and presenting forward-looking questions, analyzing the data to determine where agreement was obtained, summarizing, and recasting the data in a neutral manner for the panelists to reevaluate, and after two iterations, prepared the conclusions of the study. The unbiased summation and ranking by the researcher of the collaborative knowledge from the Delphi panelists uncovered some new concepts, strategies, and processes that could improve how these construction projects unfold today and in the future.

53

As methodologists indicate, if research is conducted with proper rigor in alignment with the research purpose, then the data has the potential to answer the central research question (Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger, 2005; Patton, 2002). The type of statistics generated by survey research can range from descriptive to, central tendency and dispersion, measurements of association, and inferential. Descriptive statistics typically are used to describe the data characteristics. The question responses were analyzed by using a Mann-Whitney relative ranking formula calculated by using Excel. Validity and Reliability Establishing validity and trustworthiness in qualitative research is difficult to ascertain (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998), and is referred to as the legitimating crisis (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 11). Lincoln and Guba (1985) criticized the term validity, and discussed the need to have credibility, trustworthiness, and transferability in qualitative research. To test the credibility of the research, they challenged researchers to rule out rival hypotheses. When evaluating future scenarios in complex and turbulent environments, the Delphi Research Technique allows researchers to obtain the thoughts of industry experts on their opinion of what may happen in the future. While this technique does not ensure correct prediction of the future, it does provide a methodology to elicit input from industry experts and discuss most likely scenarios. Additionally, Delphi method is considered by many methodologists to be a mixed method approach, which strengthens validity (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001; Linstone & Turoff, 2002). Internal Validity Internal validity is the extent that the design of the research and the subsequent data may be used to draw accurate conclusions related to the central research question (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). In survey research, internal validity—the ability of the design to rule out alternative 54

explanations—is not as an important consideration because the goal is not about testing hypotheses. The typical threats to internal validity include history unfolding at the time of the study or previously, participant maturation related to time passing, changes in the instrument, selection bias, attrition of participants, unforeseen variables. In the current study, history was, in fact, an important aspect of the issue under investigation because participants were queried about their historical experiences. For this reason, the research questions were phrased to uncover degrees of importance. This framing of the questions also interacts with each participant’s maturation relative to the issues. In other words, the question framing, which asked participants to consider all of their experience and to illuminate all of it and then to prioritize it. In the present study, there was no shift in the questionnaire; it was administered to all participants in precisely the same way and included the exact elements across respondents. Selection bias was an unknown variable in this study because participants were all assumed members of the various associations and university alumna groups. It is possible that someone other than a construction industry professional obtained the link and completed the questionnaire. Relatedly, since participants self-selected, there could be an associated bias and this reality must be accepted for this type of research project. In this survey, participant attrition was not a factor, such as it would be in an experimental design, for example. Since the study was not concerned with controlling for variability, but rather was focused on uncovering variability of experience, unforeseen variables was not an issue. The Delphi pilot panel of U. S. construction industry professionals provided data through two survey iterations as one means of ensuring internal validity. External Validity External validity concerns whether research findings can be generalized to different populations, settings, treatment variables, and measurement variables (Creswell, 2003; Patton, 55

2002). While there may be many similar issues in other dynamic and unpredictable industries, the data and conclusions drawn in this study may not generalize to other settings and populations without additional research. The initial selection of the panelist is an important component of the process to ensure the researcher has a fair, unbiased, open, and enduring group to conduct the research (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). The researcher targeted approximately 20 engineering professionals, owners, and contractors in the construction industry. With such a highly qualified group of experts, the relatively small sample size will not negatively effect the research (Hertz & Imber, 1995; Ragin, 1994; Yeager & Kram, 1995). Grunig (1992) defined panels constituted of members such as in the present research as the dominant coalition, which is relatively small and difficult to attain. Such a panel of experts are principle architects of their respective organizations who can shape policies, procedures, processes and alliances and direct implementation of new standards that may transform the industry (Spicer, 1997). In survey research, external validity concerns the degree to which research results generalize to other populations or situations (Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger, 2005). The interest in generalizing the survey results of the present study to other industries was not a primary or even secondary goal. Rather, the present study focused on a specific industry, and the intention was to improve conditions within the construction industry and other interests were beyond the scope of the study. Reliability Reliability is the consistency with which instrumentation measures and scores responses over time (Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger, 2005). McMurray (1994) states that the Delphi approach lacks standardized methodological procedures, and expressed concern about panelists 56

shifting their opinions due to the anonymity of the research. McMurray qualified these concerns by acknowledging the benefits the Delphi method affords with no dominant individuals being able to unfairly influence group discussions. Rudy (1996) noted concerns about anonymity of the panelists, and how it may influence their responses by removing any inhibitions that may be present in face-to-face conversations, and how it may reduce the stimulation of group discussions. The anonymity may also reduce the panelist’s sense of responsibility and the quality of their responses (Goodman, 1987). Other issues that Linstone and Turoff (1975) cite as common reasons for Delphi study failures include the injection of the researcher’s views and perceptions, inadequate summarizing of each round of Delphi, and ignoring or not exploring disagreements among the participants. To ensure the researcher’s bias is minimized, the researcher employed an independent rater to review the summaries before being presented to the Delphi panelists for comment. In the same fashion, the researcher consulted an independent professional to review the data from the ranking measurements. Informed Consent Leedy and Ormrod (2001) posit, “Any participation in a study should be strictly voluntary” (p. 107). The issue of informed consent in web-delivered surveys is important. To address informed consent, a consent form was developed and inserted on page one of each pilot iteration and similarly for the survey administration. For a Delphi study to be effective, it is essential that panelists understand the confidentiality of the study, provide sincere input, and ensure there is a neutralized feedback methodology that guarantees no one individual dominates the discussions and understands that any commentary he or she would make would not include any identifying information about themselves or their organization. As part of the qualification 57

process to be on the Delphi panel, was required to sign, electronically, a form letter that summarized these parameters, including rights. A similar procedure was executed for the survey administration. Confidentiality The Delphi panelists needed to understand the confidentiality of the study, and that any commentary they make would not include any identifying information of themselves or their organization. The participants received an aggregate of responses, which prevented identification of individual responses. All data remained confidential until its deletion upon publication of the study’s results. No financial incentives were offered to either the Delphi pilot panelists, or the survey participants; however, the researcher offered to share the findings of the Delphi study with the panelists in appreciation for their efforts. Summary The construction industry stakeholder organizations that were involved in this pilot and survey research study face increasing competition, stringent regulations, and costly project disputes that demand that changes are made. Too frequent construction project disruption can be devastating for clients, organizations, and communities. The focus of this study was to ascertain if leaders and members from select U.S. based construction industry stakeholder organizations could identify critical issues, remedies, and strategies that organizations could develop by working collaboratively to improve construction projects. The participants of the pilot and survey research provided the leadership for their organization and have a stake in understanding the complexities across construction industry organizations and developing new ways to improve project outcomes. Participants also have a 58

stake in advancing the technologies, relationships, and processes used to executive construction projects. Understanding how other construction organizations view these scenarios may enable collaborative efforts to be developed and problems solved that any one organization may not be able to solve. Typically, a Delphi study begins with a set of first round open-ended questions asked individually of experts on the researched subject who respond with their perspectives. The results of the first round responses analyzed for themes. Results are used to formulate second round questions and then are presented to the panelists for further data collection. The second round invites panelists to reevaluate their original responses in light of the average estimates calculated from round 1 (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001; Linstone and Turoff, 1975). Constructing the survey requires that the researcher ensure that questions provide proper operationalization of the concepts under research. Linstone & Turoff (1975) recommend researchers use interval or ordinal measures to facilitate returning measures of central tendency to the experts in subsequent rounds. The use of scales structured for responses is common practice and was employed in the present study (Patton, 2002). In round 2, the researcher provided the panelists with the aggregate data representing the frequent themes from the first round questions formulated into a new survey. Then, the researcher asked panelists to rank second round responses differ from the measures of central tendency found in round 1. The researcher conducted two rounds for the pilot study that focused on identifying probable causes and to potential solutions. The pilot study results were used to refine and prepare a questionnaire for use in a broadcasted survey. The survey was created and uploaded to the Internet-enabled survey portal. The researcher identified a large number of professional engineering associations and university 59

engineering school alumni groups and contacted them through email to request that they broadcast the email invitation to their membership. The email included a link to the survey portal, which was set up to enable multiple respondents. The survey was administered over a three week period, analyzed and interpreted. In chapter 4, results are presented, and finally chapter 5 will discuss the findings and their meaning.

60

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

The purpose of this descriptive study, using a Delphi pilot and survey design was to investigate causes of construction project disputes, discover interorganizational processes and transformation strategies that could be implemented to decrease construction project disputes. The justification for conducting the study was that there are few current efforts on the part of construction industry stakeholders to solve a destructive problem affecting all of those stakeholders. While there are many professional organizations and unions that provide opportunities for construction industry professionals to learn about industry trends, issues, and problems associated with construction few opportunities exit that provide the construction leaders and owners to discuss the interorganizational challenges they face. The results of the research, shed light on the perspectives and experience of one construction project stakeholder group—engineers. Research Question The central question guiding the research study was what are the causes of construction project conflicts, claims and disputes, and what cross-organizational transformation and improvement strategies are necessary to reduce construction conflicts, claims, and disputes and build greater collaboration among construction industry stakeholders? Findings This chapter is organized in four sections. The first section is devoted to description of the Delphi pilot study, including the procedures used to conduct it, the results, and how the study was used to develop the instrument for the actual research study. The second section describes 61

the procedures of the data analysis. Section three is devoted to the demographic data. Lastly, the findings related to each research question are presented. Pilot Study Pilot studies are administered as small-scale preliminary studies as rehearsals for procedures, calibrate measures, and test instruments (Patton, 2002). A Delphi study is one appropriate way to conduct a pilot study when the objectives are to gather divergent data on a complex subject and to develop a questionnaire for an exploratory study (Linstone, & Turoff, 2002). Prior to the initiation of the research study, the researcher finalized a secure Internet portal (SurveyMonkey.com) to perform the two-round pilot test with a criteria sample (Patton, 2002) of pilot panelists to develop an appropriate instrument to collect data for the research study. The pilot process included ensuring the clarity of instructions, the clarity of the questions, as well as determining whether the questions generate the data needed to answer the research questions. To be chosen as a pilot panelist, potential participants had to have proper academic degrees and professional certifications in the field of engineering (related to construction) with a minimum of five years of experience. Twenty-two individuals were approached, and eighteen people agreed, informally, to participate. The 18 participants received electronic enrollment invitations and people responded to the ten item open-ended questionnaire. The round 1 questions posed were: 1. What stakeholder groups have been involved in the construction projects in which you were involved? 2. What is the most frequent problem that has occurred in the construction projects in which you were involved? 62

3. What are the most damaging problems that have occurred in the construction projects in which you have been involved? 4. In consideration of all stakeholder groups (e.g. contractors, engineers, suppliers, regulators, designers, architects), from which group does most of the problems leading to construction project disputes seem to originate? 5. What do you think will be required over the coming years to optimize the cooperation among and between construction project stakeholder groups? 6. What leadership traits, skills, and experience, do you believe will be needed by construction project stakeholders in the future to transform the industry to reduce construction project disputes? 7. What types of skills will personnel from stakeholder organizations need over the coming years to support collaboration among construction project stakeholders? 8. What changes could be initiated among and between stakeholder organizations to increase collaboration? 9. What types of collaborative relationships (i.e. alliances, affiliations, partnerships) do you perceive would be mutually beneficial to construction project stakeholders? 10. What are your perspectives on collaborative innovation (i.e. shared development, or improvement, for mutual benefit) as a way to sustain a competitive edge? To analyze the round 1 pilot data, the following steps were undertaken to ensure proper rigor. First, a database was created in Microsoft Excel, containing all of the text from the panel participant’s responses, to conduct a thematic analysis. After the first procedure of categorization according to themes, the next phase was to reduce the data further by searching for cross themes. None were found; the thematic categories were discreet. The themes that emerged from the 63

qualitative data provided content items for the question set prepared for the second round of data collection. Although the first round instrumentation presented open-ended questions to generate breadth and depth of input (divergence), the second round initiated the process of convergence. The second round question set was identical to Pilot Round 1 and a fixed alternative questionnaire using a rating and ranking scale was created from the from Round 1 data. The themes from the round 1 questions became the choices for each Round 2 question. In Round 2, each pilot panelist then rated items for each question. The results of the second pilot round yielded data related to the priority, or importance given to items associated with the posed question; items that the panel members generated. The data from the second pilot round were analyzed through relative ranking calculations. Since the goal of a pilot study was to ensure that the data-gathering instrument or protocol was viable, it was important to test the delivery mechanism as well as to ensure that the questions were as free of bias as possible. Although the pilot group was small, it did yield interesting data, which informed the development of a questionnaire for the actual research study. Data Analysis and Results This section presents answers to the above questions and includes the results from data collection of the two-round Delphi pilot study conducted over a 3-week period to gain consensus among the panelists on questions related to construction project disputes. Analysis of the round 1 data results provided the question set and items for the round 2 fixed-choice survey. Two important results are noteworthy from the round 1 analysis; one, related to the questions themselves, a second related to the themes generated by the panelists. First, two of the questions posed were problematic. Question one was judged redundant because question posed the more 64

important inquiry. Question ten received enough negative comments from the panelists that the researcher chose to eliminate because the panelists either misperceived its meaning, or refused to answer it. Second, even though the pilot study group numbered 12, either there were not enough participants to generated repeated themes, or the complexity of the problem is such that the number of causes exceeded the number of panelists. Given this result, all of the issues, as well as the potential remedies, were deemed necessary for round 2. The following questions were included in the round 2 survey instrument. 1. Relative to the most frequent problem that occurred in construction projects in which you were involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 2. Relative to the most damaging problem that occurred in the construction projects in which you have been involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 3. Relative to the stakeholder groups, from which the most problems leading to construction project disputes originate; please rank each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 4. Relative to what will be required over the coming years to optimize the cooperation among and between construction project stakeholder groups; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 5. Relative to what leadership traits, skills, and experience will be needed by construction project stakeholders in the future to transform the industry to reduce construction project disputes; please rank each of the following in order of its importance.

65

6. Relative to the types of skills needed by personnel from stakeholder organizations in the future to support collaboration among construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 7. Relative to what changes could be initiated among and between stakeholder organizations to increase collaboration; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 8. Relative to what types of collaborative relationships would be mutually beneficial to construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. Analysis of the round 2 survey data consisted of calculating relative ranking. The analysis assisted in determining the items for which the respondents reached consensus (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The average of the importance levels assigned by group participants to each category appeared, and the relative ranking was calculated using the Mann-Whitney formula in Microsoft Excel. If the panel reached consensus in ranking an item least significant, the researcher planned to eliminate it from the actual research study instrument. Relative ranking occurs extensively in the nominal group technique and Delphi processes to reach consensus (Schiebie, Skutsch, & Schaefer, 1975). The specific results of the round 2 survey analysis follow (Tables included in Appendix A). Q1. Relative to the most frequent problem that occurred in construction projects in which you were involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. No items garnered consensus for least importance and all items are included in the research questionnaire.

66

Q2. Relative to the most damaging problem that occurred in the construction projects in which you have been involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. No items garnered consensus for least importance and all items are included in the research questionnaire. Q3. Relative to the stakeholder groups, from which the most problems leading to construction project disputes originate; please rank each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. The panel reached consensus that “inspection teams” was least important and is eliminated for the research study questionnaire. Q4. Relative to what will be required over the coming years to optimize the cooperation among and between construction project stakeholder groups; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. No items garnered consensus for least importance and all items are included in the research questionnaire. Q5. Relative to what leadership traits, skills, and experience will be needed by construction project stakeholders in the future to transform the industry to reduce construction project disputes; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. The panel reached consensus that “communication skills” was least important. However, because the researcher has many years of experience in the construction industry working as a civil engineer and knows communication to be an issue, the question item will be included in the study questionnaire.

67

Q6. Relative to the types of skills needed by personnel from stakeholder organizations in the future to support collaboration among construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. No items garnered consensus for least importance and all items are included in the research questionnaire. Q7. Relative to what changes could be initiated among and between stakeholder organizations to increase collaboration; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. No items garnered consensus for least importance and all items are included in the research questionnaire. Q8. Relative to what types of collaborative relationships would be mutually beneficial to construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. The panel reached consensus that “formal partnerships” was least important and is eliminated for the research study questionnaire. In summary, the Delphi Pilot Study provided the means to prepare a suitable data collection instrument to use in a broader investigative research study. Through conducting a two round Delphi pilot study, the researcher was able to identify specific causes and potential solutions to construction project conflicts and disputes from the open-ended questions of round 1 and validation and a level of consensus from the fixed-alternative questions of the round 2 survey. An eight-question survey was developed and administered through an Internet survey platform to collect data from the population of engineers who are members of either, professional organizations, or university alumni associations (see participation institution list in Appendices C). The results of the research study are described in the following sections 68

beginning with a discussion of the demographic information of the respondents and continuing with a discussion of the study findings.

Demographics of the Survey Research Sample The population for this study included professional engineers who were working in the construction industry in the Western United States during September 2008. The engineers who participated in the study were employed in three construction industry segments, private, commercial, and/or infrastructure. Only certain information pertaining directly to the central research question was collected including, the participants’ education and types of degrees, years of engineering experience, their subfield of engineering, the capacity in which they work on construction projects, and the construction segment. Among the 264 respondents, 206 responded to the inquiry of education (Table 1).

Table 1 Education by highest degree reached in field Engineering Field

N

Bachelors

Masters

Doctorate

Civil Aeronautic Mechanical Electrical Geo Environmental Biomedical Structural Systems Architectural Construction Industrial/Safety Telecom

43 4 17 23 8 12 2 34 9 7 31 10 6

29 4 14 23 5 12 1 34

10

4

Totals

206

166

1 28 9 6

69

3 2

1

1 9 6 3 1

35

5

All 264 respondents answered the question related to their years of experience as engineers (Table 2). Table 2 Engineers experience in years Range (Years)

Years as Engineer

1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 30+

N 33 74 49 39 26 32 11

Total

264

% 13 28 18 15 10 12 04 100%

Of the 264 respondents, 250 answered the question related to the type of engineering subfield in which they work. Table 3 shows the numbers by category. The researcher also collected data about the category of construction in which each respondent worked, and the related question required a response before the participant could proceed. Of the three categories of construction, 101 worked on projects categorized as “private,” 139 worked in the “commercial” area and 67 checked “infrastructure.” These categorical answers also were not exclusive, so the respondent to check all that applied. No responded checked all three areas; however, 35 checked two areas. Respondents, who checked “infrastructure” and one other area, did not check “private.”

70

Table 3 Participants engineering subfields Subfield N=250 43 34 17 23 10 12 8 14 4 14 17 4 7 19 3 21

Civil Structural Mechanical Electrical Industrial Environmental Giotechnical Infrastructure Aviation Safety Quality Control Contract Feasibility Field Inspection Codes

The researcher was interested in knowing the capacities for which each respondent worked in the construction industry to gain an understanding of the breadth of knowledge of the respondents as a group. The question posed to respondents related to the capacities in which they worked on construction projects allowed for multiple responses to capture the broad experience that some engineers might have had. To ensure that all of the respondents would answer the question related to capacities, the survey was prepared in a way that forced respondents to answer this particular question before they could move on to the next question. Of the 264 survey respondents, 22% checked three areas, 44% checked two areas, and the remaining checked one. Table 4 shows the specific capacities reflected in the respondent’s experience.

71

Table 4 Participant’s capacity worked on construction projects Capacity Construction Arbitration Project Management Control (Schedule) Contract and Specifications Expert Witness Design Quality Assurance Safety Codes, Policies & Zoning Auditing Construction Management

103 19 77 43 36 12 29 40 34 29 18 21

Findings Related to Research Questions Research Question 1 Q1: Relative to the most frequent problem that occurred in construction projects in which you were involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. The question responses were analyzed by using a Mann-Whitney relative ranking formula calculated by using Excel. The question’s answer choices required the responded to rank (prioritize) each choice along a scale (based on the number of choices) from 1 most important, to 9 least important. The results of the relative ranking were that the survey respondents selected “change order disagreements” as the most frequent, followed by “regulatory agency delays”, then “discrepancies between contract specifications and field conditions”, then “accountability for changes”, “contract quality”, “differences in contract interpretation”, “client delays”, eighth “skilled labor”, and ninth “site safety” (Table 5).

72

Table 5 Question 1 Data Table Relative to the most frequent problem that occurred in construction projects in which you were involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 1 = Most Important 9 = Least Important

client delays regulatory agency delays differ contract interpretation change order disagreements accountability for changes discrepancy between contract specs/ field conditions site safety skilled labor contract quality

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Rank

12.1% (32) 17.4% (46) 7.6% (20) 21.4% (56) 14.4% (38) 12.1% (32)

7.6% (20) 14.4% (38) 13.0% (34) 14.5% (38) 9.1% (24) 15.9% (42)

9.8% (26) 11.4% (30) 7.6% (20) 12.2% (32) 16.7% (44) 10.6% (28)

9.8% (26) 8.3% (22) 14.5% (38) 6.9% (18) 14.4% (38) 15.9% (42)

9.8% (26) 9.8% (26) 15.3% (40) 10.7% (28) 9.8% (26) 16.7% (44)

14.4% (38) 10.6% (28) 13.7% (36) 9.2% (24) 8.3% (22) 8.3% (22)

12.9% (34) 12.9% (34) 11.5% (30) 4.6% (12) 9.8% (26) 9.1% (24)

15.2% (40) 9.1% (24) 8.4% (22) 11.5% (30) 8.3% (22) 9.8% (26)

8.3% (22) 6.1% (16) 8.4% (22) 9.2% (24) 9.1% (24) 1.5% (4)

5.18

1.5% (4) 5.3% (14) 7.6% (20)

6.1% (16) 7.6% (20) 11.5% (30)

5.3% (14) 12.9% (34) 13.0% (34)

10.7% (28) 7.6% (20) 11.5% (30)

5.3% (14) 12.1% (32) 10.7% (28)

6.9% (18) 12.9% (34) 16.0% (42)

9.9% (26) 15.2% (40) 14.5% (38)

19.1% (50) 9.8% (26) 9.2% (24)

35.1% (92) 16.7% (44) 6.1% (16)

6.79

4.44 4.96 4.29 4.57 4.49

5.62 4.95

Research Question 2 Q2: Relative to the most damaging problem that occurred in the construction projects in which you have been involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. The question responses were analyzed by using a Mann-Whitney relative ranking formula calculated by using Excel. The question’s answer protocol forced respondents to rank (prioritize) each choice along a scale (based on the number of choices) from 1 = most important, to 10 = least important, for question two. The results of the relative ranking were that the survey respondents selected “project schedule and cost overruns” as the most damaging, followed by 73

“conflicts of interest”, then “change orders”, then “delays in permits”, “(not) using materials as specified”, “client inability to pay at project conclusion”, “differences in interpretations of contract language”, eighth “site safety”, ninth “quality”, and tenth (or least damaging) “adherence to regulations“ (Table 6).

Table 6 Question 2 Data Table Relative to the most damaging problem that occurred in the construction projects in which you have been involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 1 = Most Important 10 = Least Important

delay in permits client inability to pay difs in interpt of contract cnflts of interest quality use materials as specified project schdl/$ overruns change orders site safety adhere to regs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rank

9.1% (24) 8.3% (22)

15.2% (40) 12.1% (32)

12.1% (32) 9.1% (24)

9.8% (26) 12.1% (32)

11.4% (30) 12.9% (34)

14.4% (38) 16.7% (44)

10.6% (28) 6.8% (18)

7.6% (20) 9.1% (24)

5.3% (14) 8.3% (28)

4.5% (12) 4.5% (12)

4.86

3.0% (8)

8.3% (22)

9.8% (26)

8.3% (22)

11.4% (30)

13.6% (36)

15.9% (42)

12.9% (34)

8.3% (22)

8.3% (22)

5.94

22.7% (60) 3.8% (10) 9.8% (26)

9.8% (26) 8.3% (22) 9.1% (24)

9.1% (24) 5.3% (14) 10.6% (28)

10.6% (28) 6.8% (18) 15.9% (42)

10.6% (28) 3.8% (10) 16.7% (44)

7.6% (20) 10.6% (28) 9.1% (24)

6.1% (16) 15.2% (40) 9.1% (24)

8.3% (22) 15.9% (42) 8.3% (22)

9.1% (24) 18.2% (48) 6.8% (18)

6.1% (16) 12.1% (32) 4.5% (12)

4.62

28.0% (74)

9.8% (26)

9.1% (24)

7.6% (20)

10.6% (28)

6.8% (18)

8.3% (22)

8.3% (22)

9.1% (24)

2.3% (6)

4.29

8.3% (22) 3.1% (8) 3.1% (8)

15.2% (40) 7.1% (18) 5.4% (14)

17.4% (46) 10.2% (26) 7.8% (20)

13.6% (36) 7.1% (18) 7.8% (20)

9.1% (24) 10.2% (26) 3.9% (10)

9.1% (24) 7.1% (18) 3.9% (10)

6.1% (16) 11.8% (30) 10.1% (26)

10.6% (28) 8.7% (22) 8.5% (22)

6.1% (16) 17.3% (44) 12.4% (32)

4.5% (12) 17.3% (44) 37.2% (96)

4.73

74

5.14

6.64 4.98

6.51 7.33

Research Question 3 Q3: Relative to the stakeholder groups, from which the most problems leading to construction project disputes originate; please rank each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. The question responses were analyzed by using a Mann-Whitney relative ranking formula calculated by using Excel. The question’s answer choices required the respondents to rank (prioritize) each choice along a scale (based on the number of choices) from 1 = most important, to 7 = least important, for question three. The results of the relative ranking were that the survey respondents selected “contractors” as the most problematic stakeholder group, followed by “designers”, then “regulators”, then “clients”, “engineers”, and seventh “upper management” (Table 7).

Table 7 Question 3 Data Table Relative to the stakeholder groups, from which the most problems leading to construction project disputes originate; please rank each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 1 = Most Important 6 = Least Important

regulators clients upper management contractors engineers designers

1

2

3

4

5

6

Rank

17.4% (46) 12.1% (32) 6.8% (18) 28.8% (76) 11.4% (30) 23.7% (62)

18.2% (48) 12.9% (34) 8.3% (22) 19.7% (52) 15.9% (42) 25.2% (66)

19.7% (54) 19.7% (54) 12.9% (34) 16.7% (44) 16.7% (44) 14.5% (38)

15.9% (42) 21.2% (56) 22.7% (60) 8.3% (22) 18.2% (48) 13.7% (36)

17.4% (46) 20.5% (54) 15.9% (42) 15.9% (42) 21.2% (56) 9.2% (24)

11.4% (30) 13.6% (36) 33.3% (88) 10.6% (28) 16.7% (44) 13.7% (36)

3.32

75

3.66 4.33 2.95 3.72 3.01

Research Question 4 Q4: Relative to what will be required over the coming years to optimize the cooperation among and between construction project stakeholder groups; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. The question responses were analyzed by using a Mann-Whitney relative ranking formula calculated by using Excel. The question’s answer choices required the respondents to rank (prioritize) each choice along a scale (based on the number of choices) from 1 = most important, to 12 = least important, for question four. The results of the relative ranking were that the survey respondents selected “a fund set up for change orders” as the most important requirement, followed by “improved selection review process for contractors” second, then “permits issued according to schedule” third, then “greater cost and schedule control” fourth, “rewards for innovation” fifth, “frequent meetings between stakeholders” sixth “specifications followed” seventh, “design review and problem resolution before bidding” eighth, “increased quality of contract documents” ninth, “shared resources” tenth, “partnerships” eleventh and twelfth and the least important requirement “authority given to lower project managers” (Table 8).

76

Table 8 Question 4 Data Table Relative to what will be required over the coming years to optimize the cooperation among and between construction project stakeholder groups; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 1 = Most Important 12 = Least Important 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Rank

permits

9.8% (26)

5.3% (14)

9.1% (24)

6.8% (18)

9.8% (26)

6.1% (16)

7.6% (20)

5.3% (14)

7.6% (20)

8.3% (22)

1.5% (4)

6.1% (16)

9.9% (26)

5.3% (14)

9.2% (24)

9.2% (24)

8.4% (11)

9.9% (26)

fund

21.2 % (56) 8.4% (22)

9.1% (24)

8.3% (22)

7.6% (20)

7.6% (20)

6.8% (18)

6.8% (18)

9.1% (12)

6.1% (16)

13.7 % (36) 3.8% (10)

11.5 % (30) 6.8% (18)

6.1% (16)

5.3% (14)

3.8% (10)

7.6% (20)

4.6% (12)

7.6% (20)

7.6% (10)

11.5 % (30) 3.8% (10)

specs

7.6% (20)

9.8% (26)

7.6% (20)

11.5 % (30) 9.1% (24)

11.5 % (30) 7.6% (20)

9.2% (24)

5.3% (14)

10.7 % (28) 4.6% (12)

6.9% (9)

prtnrs

12.2 % (32) 6.1% (16)

7.6% (20)

8.3% (11)

9.1% (24)

review

4.5% (12)

6.8% (18)

8.3% (22)

7.6% (10)

mtngs

6.8% (18)

8.3% (11)

slctn review

12.1% (32)

shr res

7.6% (20)

10.6 % (28) 15.2 % (40) 6.1% (16)

12.9 % (34) 10.6 % (28) 8.3% (22)

12.1 % (32) 8.3% (22)

cost & sch cntrl rewards innov

8.3% (22) 6.8% (18)

6.1 % (16) 12. 2% (32) 6.8 % (18) 6.9 % (18) 19. 8% (52) 5.3 % (14) 7.6 % (20) 7.6 % (20) 6.1 % (16) 9.2 % (24) 4.5 % (12) 7.6 % (20)

5.95

auth

18.2 % (48) 3.1% (8)

contr

9.1% (42)

10.7 % (28) 5.3% (14)

9.8% (26)

6.1% (16)

9.8% (26)

4.5% (12)

9.1% (24)

9.8% (26)

9.8% (26)

3.8% (10)

12.1 % (32) 9.8% (26)

11.4 % (30) 6.1% (16)

6.8% (18)

9.1% (24)

4.5% (6)

6.1% (16)

8.4% (22)

6.9% (18)

6.1% (16)

9.2% (24)

9.1% (24)

9.8% (26)

8.3% (22)

7.6% (20)

11.4 % (30)

10.6 % (28)

10.6 % (28) 7.6% (20)

9.1% (24)

10.6 % (28)

14.4 % (38) 5.3% (14)

11.5 % (15) 8.3% (11)

77

12.1 % (16)

10.7 % (28) 9.1% (24) 6.8% (18)

8.3% (22)

6.1% (16)

7.6% (20)

6.8% (18)

6.1% (16)

9.2% (24)

5.3% (14)

6.8% (18)

13.7 % (36) 6.8% (18)

6.8% (18)

7.6% (20)

4.5% (12)

7.75

5.43

6.89

7.34

6.50

6.77

6.43

5.76

7.06

5.98

6.13

Research Question 5 Q5: Relative to what leadership traits, skills, and experience will be needed by construction project stakeholders in the future to transform the industry to reduce construction project disputes; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. The question responses were analyzed by using a Mann-Whitney relative ranking formula calculated by using Excel. The question’s answer choices required the respondents to rank (prioritize) each choice along a scale (based on the number of choices) from 1 = most important, to 8 = least important, for question five. The results of the relative ranking were that the survey respondents selected “honesty” as the most important leadership factors, followed by “integrity” second, then “interest in mutual benefit for all” third, then “accountability” fourth, then “communication skills” fifth, “conceptual skills” sixth, “diplomacy” seventh, and the least important leadership factor assessed as “knowledge of construction science” eighth (Table 9).

78

Table 9 Question 5 Data Table Relative to what leadership traits, skills, and experience will be needed by construction project stakeholders in the future to transform the industry to reduce construction project disputes; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 1 = Most Important 8 = Least Important

diplomacy accountability honesty integrity knwldg const science cncptl skills mutual benefit com skills

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Rank

3.0% (8) 6.1% (16) 29.5% (78) 25.0% (66) 3.8% (10) 6.2% (16) 21.2% (56) 5.3% (14)

3.8% (10) 4.5% (12) 29.5% (78) 36.4% (96) 5.4% (14) 4.7% (12) 11.4% (30) 3.8% (10)

4.5% (12) 6.1% (16) 15.2% (40) 12.9% (34) 8.5% (22) 5.4% (14) 35.6% (94) 12.1% (32)

12.1% (32) 28.0% (74) 3.8% (10) 4.5% (12) 10.0% (26) 14.0% (36) 15.2% (40) 12.9% (34)

18.2% (48) 18.9% (50) 5.3% (14) 4.5% (12) 10.0% (26) 14.0% (36) 5.3% (14) 23.5% (62)

22.0% (58) 9.8% (26) 6.8% (18) 4.5% (12) 13.8% (36) 21.7% (56) 4.5% (12) 16.7% (44)

18.9% (50) 13.6% (36) 6.1% (16) 8.3% (22) 16.2% (42) 15.5% (40) 5.3% (14) 15.9% (42)

17.4% (46) 12.9% (34) 3.8% (10) 3.8% (10) 32.3% (84) 18.6% (48) 1.5% (4) 9.8% (26)

5.67 4.98 2.89 2.93 5.85 5.45 3.14 5.08

Research Question 6 Q6: Relative to the types of skills needed by personnel from stakeholder organizations in the future to support collaboration among construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. The question responses were analyzed by using a Mann-Whitney relative ranking formula calculated by using Excel. The question’s answer choices required the respondents to rank (prioritize) each choice along a scale (based on the number of choices) from 1 = most important, to 6 = least important, for question six. The results of the relative ranking were that the survey respondents selected “management skills for engineers and contractors” as the most important personnel skills, followed by “greater use of technology” second, then “proper 79

authority to make decisions” third, then “personnel need some knowledge of engineering science” fourth, then “persuasion skills” fifth, and assessed as the least important “knowledge of regulations” (Table 10).

Table 10 Question 6 Data Table Relative to the types of skills needed by personnel from stakeholder organizations in the future to support collaboration among construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 1 = Most Important 6 = Least Important 1

2

3

4

5

6

Rank

16.7% (44) 19.7% (52) 15.9% (42)

20.5% (54) 15.2% (40) 13.6% (36)

11.4% (30) 16.7% (44) 18.2% (48)

21.2% (56) 15.2% (40) 9.8% (26)

10.6% (28) 16.7% (44) 16.7% (44)

3.30

engineers and contractors need management skills

19.7% (52) 16.7% (44) 25.8% (68)

personnel need some knowledge of engineering science

17.4% (46)

13.6% (36)

16.7% (44)

19.7% (52)

19.7% (52)

12.9% (34)

3.49

knowledge of regulations

10.7% (28) 9.8% (26)

14.5% (38) 19.7% (52)

14.5% (38) 19.7% (52)

16.0% (42) 18.2% (48)

18.3% (48) 15.2% (40)

26.0% (68) 17.4% (46)

3.95

greater use of technology proper authority to make decisions

persuasion skills

3.44 3.20

3.61

Research Question 7 Q7: Relative to what changes could be initiated among and between stakeholder organizations to increase collaboration; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. The question responses were analyzed by using a Mann-Whitney relative ranking formula calculated by using Excel. The question’s answer choices required the respondents to rank (prioritize) each choice along a scale (based on the number of choices) from 1 = most important, to 7 = least important, for question seven. The results of the relative ranking were that 80

the survey respondents selected “increase interaction between stakeholders working on projects” as the most important changes required, followed by “ways to increase and streamline cash flow” second, then “reward system for all groups for successful, timely completion of milestones” third, then “collaborative online scheduling” fourth, then “alternative designs” fifth, “publish dispute resolutions in trade magazines” sixth and assessed as the least important as “using case studies in schools to educate” (Table 11).

Table 11 Question 7 Data Table Relative to what changes could be initiated among and between stakeholder organizations to increase collaboration; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 1 = Most Important 7 = Least Important 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Rank

18.9% (50) 25.8% (68)

16.7% (44) 13.6% (36)

15.9% (42) 15.2% (40)

18.2% (48) 18.2% (48)

6.8% (18) 7.6% (20)

6.1% (16) 3.0% (8)

3.43

ways to increase and streamline cash flow

17.4% (46) 16.7% (44)

publish dispute resolutions in trade magazines

3.1% (8)

3.8% (10)

7.6% (20)

8.4% (22)

10.7% (28)

32.8% (86)

33.6% (88)

5.53

use case studies in schools to educate how to avoid disputes

2.3% (6)

5.4% (14)

4.6% (12)

8.5% (22)

3.8% (10)

32.3% (84)

43.1% (112)

5.75

increase interaction between stakeholders working on projects

23.7% (62)

15.3% (40)

16.0% (42)

18.3% (48)

16.0% (42)

4.6% (12)

6.1% (16)

3.26

alternative designs

18.9% (50) 18.2% (48)

11.4% (30) 16.7% (44)

17.4% (46) 24.2% (64)

21.2% (56) 12.9% (34)

18.9% (50) 14.4% (38)

7.6% (20) 9.1% (42)

4.5% (12) 4.5% (12)

3.51

collaborative online scheduling

bonus/reward system for all groups for successful, timely completion of milestones

81

3.27

3.34

Research Question 8 Q8: Relative to what types of collaborative relationships would be mutually beneficial to construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. The question responses were analyzed by using a Mann-Whitney relative ranking formula calculated by using Excel. The question’s answer choices required the respondents to rank (prioritize) each choice along a scale (based on the number of choices) from 1 = most important, to 3 = least important, for question eight. The results of the relative ranking were that the survey respondents selected “alliances between regulators, suppliers, and contractors” as the most important changes required, followed by “affiliations” second, and assessed as the least important type of relationships as “joint ventures” (Table 12).

Table 12 Question 8 Data Table Relative to what types of collaborative relationships would be mutually beneficial to construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 1 = Most Important 3 = Least Important

alliance between regulators, suppliers and subcontractors joint ventures affiliations

1

2

3

Rank

60.6% (160) 11.6% (30) 25.8% (68)

24.2% (64) 13.2% (34) 62.9% (166)

15.2% (40) 75.2% (194) 11.4% (30)

1.55 2.64 1.86

Results Summary The purpose of the present survey research study was to investigate causes of construction project disputes, discover interorganizational processes and transformation 82

strategies that may be implemented to decrease construction project disputes. The results of the survey data analysis reveals that for each of the eight posed questions, the 264 respondents reached a level of agreement in ranking causes and potential remedies for construction project disputes. Relative to causes of construction project disputes, respondents reached a level of agreement on the top three most frequent and damaging problems. Disagreements about change orders, regulatory agency delays, and discrepancies between contract specifications and field conditions are the top causes for conflicts and disputes. Project schedule and cost overruns, conflicts of interests, and change orders topped the causes identified by respondents as the most damaging to construction projects. The respondents identified contractors as the most problematic stakeholder group involved in construction project disputes. To begin addressing the potential solutions that could be initiated, respondents identified a large number of options, the top six of which were a fund for change orders, an improved contractor selection review process, commitment of regulators to issue permits according to schedules, greater cost and schedule control, rewarding innovations, and holding frequent meetings among stakeholders to resolve issues. Important skills and attributes of leaders identified by participants were honesty, integrity, mutual benefit, and accountability. Important skills for personnel were management skills for engineers, greater use of technology, and proper authority given to make decisions. Additional solutions identified related to enhancing collaboration between and among stakeholders were increased interaction between stakeholders, increasing and streamlining cash flow, and again the idea of bonuses and rewards for successful completion of projects. The pilot study respondents proposed three types of relationships, affiliations, joint ventures, and alliances between regulators, suppliers, and contractors that were 83

ranked by the research study respondents and the top was alliances, followed by affiliations, and lastly joint ventures. In chapter 5, the researcher discusses the findings further, relative to the theoretical frameworks of transformational leadership, systems theory, interorganizational cooperation, and knowledge management. A discussion of implications, recommendations, and future research is discussion, as well as concluding remarks.

84

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter, first, each of the findings is discussed with comments on how each builds on or deviates from current literature and whether the finding appears to be a new contribution. The study findings are examined in terms of the implications for the construction industry leaders, engineers, and organization theorists. The limitations of the research are then discussed; including comments on implications for future research and finally recommendations are made for future study. Findings While it is reasonably clear from the literature about what causes construction project disputes, much less research and information exists that establishes potential solutions and preventative measures, and scant literature was found addressing interorganizational collaboration. The present study sought verification of and clarity about causal factors and sought solutions from the same participants. A pilot study conducted provided guidance in the development of a survey instrument to collect data from construction industry professionals. Results from the survey data analysis revealed both expected and some unexpected findings discussed in the following sections. Findings are discussed according to the research survey question. The questions posed to the study participants were created by the researcher from extensive experience in the civil engineering field and significant work in the construction industry. The questions were used in the pilot study and verified as important through analysis of the pilot study qualitative and quantitative data. The major findings of this study conducted with construction industry engineers are: 1) the most frequent and most damaging problems occurring in construction projects are caused by 85

deficits in basic managerial functions; 2) contractors must improve managerial acumen and leadership effectiveness; 3) new business models must be devised that facilitate new types of stakeholder relationships; and 4) improved processes and technologies must be incorporated in the execution of construction projects. Frequent Problems The first question posed to the respondents concerned the most frequent problem encountered in construction projects in which they had worked. The results of the relative ranking in order were: 1) change order disagreements; 2) regulatory agency delays; 3) discrepancies between contract specifications and field conditions; 4) accountability for changes; 5) contract quality; 6) differences in contract interpretation; 7) client delays; 8) skilled labor; and 9) site safety. These results compare and support previous research investigating the causes of construction project disputes. Casinelli (2005), Eden (2005), and Thelen et al. (2007) all found similar results in studying construction project disputes. The frequent problems identified seem to be caused by design flaws, unclear contracts and contracting, unsynchronized activities, and underdeveloped processes. Such an interpretation is similar to research conducted by Yogeswarian, Kumaraswamy and Miller (1997) and recent studies by Xiao and Proverbs (2003) in which meta-analyses demonstrated a pattern of design variations, inaccurate specifications in the contract documents, ambiguous communication and information and discrepancies in change documents. Studies reviewed for the present research did not differentiate between those problems that were frequent versus those that were most damaging. The present study sought to differentiate between frequent and damaging problems to investigate further. In no other research reviewed, was there any mention of delays associated with regulatory agencies (permits, etc.), skilled labor, or safety. All of the research studies reviewed were conducted using data obtained 86

from parties involved in construction project disputes. The present study obtained data from engineers, working in the filed, and not necessarily involved in disputes. Damaging Problems A related question to the one concerning frequency of construction project problems was one created to uncover the most damaging problem the engineers faced in their experience working on construction projects. The results of the relative ranking in order were: 1) project schedule and cost overruns; 2) conflicts of interest; 3) change orders; 4) delays in permits; 5) not using materials as specified; 6) client inability to pay at project conclusion; 7) differences in interpretations of contract language; 8) site safety; 9) quality; and 10) adherence to regulations. In consideration of the most damaging problems identified also seem to be associated with design flaws, unclear contracts and unclear contracting, coordination, underdeveloped processes, and managerial deficiencies. The one exception may be the problem of conflicts of interest. It should be noted that this terminology “conflicts of interest” was a moderately repeated theme in the pilot study and was assessed as being important enough to include in the development of the survey instrument used to conduct the larger study. It is possible that participants in the main study perceived the term differently. Specifically, the term could have been assumed to mean a legal, contractual conflict of interest, where one party violates a provision of accepted norms, or legal restrictions on a professional acting in a capacity. It could have been interpreted as the parties involved in a construction project, simply having differing, and perhaps undeclared, expectations of the project outcomes. In the first example, the meaning attributed would indicate the possibility of corrupt business practices, while the other meaning, which would have the potential to cause damage, although differently.

87

Most Problem-causing Stakeholder The researcher sought to uncover whether a particular construction project stakeholder group could be identified as most problematic. The results of the relative ranking for this question in order were: 1) contractors; 2) designers; 3) regulators; 4) clients; 5) engineers; and 7) upper management. This result supports what the researcher found in the legal literature concerning construction project disputes (e.g. Thelen, et al., 2007, Xiou & Proverbs, 2003). Contractors, as both construction project managers and sub-contractors hold the most significant role in construction project execution and ostensibly would be the stakeholder with the greater responsibility and the greater requirement of managerial acumen. Optimizing Cooperation One of the areas of conflict documented in the literature in construction project disputes related to the interdependence of stakeholder groups working to complete construction projects. The interdependence between stakeholders relates to factors such as communication, project management, and cooperation. The researcher posed a question to the participants related to what they thought is required to optimize and strengthen cooperation between and among stakeholder groups involved in construction projects. The results of the relative ranking in order were: 1) a fund set up for change orders; 2) improved selection review process for contractors; 3) permits issued according to schedule; 4) greater cost and schedule control; 5) rewards for innovation; 6) frequent meetings between stakeholders; 6) specifications followed; 8) design review and problem resolution before bidding; 9) increased quality of contract documents; 10) shared resources; 11) partnerships; 12) authority given to lower project managers. The result obtained for this question was surprising to the researcher as an experienced industry professional. It is a 88

typical practice in contracting to build a contract document that allows sufficient fund allocation for contingences such as design error or omissions, administrative changes, or changes in field conditions not anticipated. The researcher’s review of the construction project dispute literature did uncover documentation of dispute litigation that indicated a similar issue. For example, Thelen, et al, (2007), Xiou, and Proverbs (2003) documented several cases of contract disputes in which financial risk was shifted to unprepared parties. Recently Groton and Rubin (2004) published an industry “best practices” article in which they outline techniques in contracting to allow for proper risk allocation and recommend the use of a fund for project changes and financial incentives for such things as cooperation. Improving the selection review process for contractors has some support in the literature. For example, Slaughter (2004) recommends a process for predetermining the construction project delivery before bidding. Several articles and conference documents make recommendations for project improvement processes, types of partnerships, and project management (e.g. Groton and Rubin, 2004). Leadership Requirements Much of the literature reviewed on organizational transformation and change indicates that leaders need expertise in the processes of change including a clear vision for the new paradigm, a value for the change, which they are able to communicate to followers and attention to the emotional aspects of change. For change to occur in the construction industry, industry leaders face transforming their own leadership expertise. A question related to the leadership requirements for transforming the construction industry was posed to the participants. The results of the relative ranking in order were: 1) honesty; 2) integrity; 3) interest in mutual benefit for all; 4) accountability; 5) communication skills; 6) conceptual skills; 7) diplomacy; and 8) knowledge of construction science. The literature reviewed for the current chapter concerning effective 89

leadership and management of construction projects differs slightly in focus. Some recommendations focus exclusively on project and process management skills (Pesamaa, 2007), while others focus on both leadership and management aspects (Gharenbaghi and McMannus, 2003; Santoso and Tali 2004). Those that focus on both leadership and (project and process) management highlight the importance of, what is typically referred to in the leadership literature, as social intelligence. Social intelligence and behavioral integrity—when behavior consistently matches espoused values—involve all of the top six leadership skills identified by the study participants. For example, Gharenbaghi and McMannus (2003) advocate for a situational leadership style because of the nature of construction projects; however, they propose that certain traits and behaviors must be present throughout the construction project life cycle. Specifically, the authors highlight as desirable that the leader demonstrates consistency, the ability to establish rapport and trust quickly, and the ability to interpret the work construction environment, conceptualize and communicate to a variety of people. Santoso and Tali (2004) discuss the balance of task management with relationship leadership skills; being able to compel diverse teams of people to perform to their best abilities. Personnel Requirements Along with the leadership requirements in the construction field, the researcher sought to discover what industry engineering professionals felt was needed by construction project personnel to support a cooperative climate on projects. The results of the relative ranking in order were; 1) management skills for engineers and contractors; 2) greater use of technology; 3) proper authority to make decisions; 4) some knowledge of engineering science; 5) persuasion skills; and lastly 6) knowledge of regulations. Of no surprise to the researcher, the study participants took the opportunity to recommend management skills for engineers and contractors. 90

Among management scholars the consensus is that, there are four functions of management: leading, planning, organizing and monitoring (Robbins, 2005; Schermerhorn, 2003). Of the identified problematic causes for construction project conflicts, unclear contract documents and contracting, unsynchronized activities, and underdeveloped processes, all are attributable to management deficiencies. The sheer complexity of designing and building new structures of any kind require a high level set of both technical and managerial skills. Much of the emphasis in the construction industry has been about resolution of disputes, rather than on prevention. Some recent attention has begun to shift the focus to prevention. For example in a 2004 conference cosponsored by the U.S. Federal Facilities Council and the National Academy of Construction, conferees focused some effort in presenting best practices most of which were managerial in nature. Of the recommendations made by the study participants all are in some way related to the responsibilities of management including knowledge of regulation and greater use of technology. Potential Changes to Increase Collaboration The results of the relative ranking in order were: 1) increase interaction between stakeholders working on projects; 2) ways to increase and streamline cash flow; 3) reward system for all groups for successful, timely completion of milestones; 4) collaborative online scheduling; 5) alternative designs; 6) publish dispute resolutions in trade magazines; 7) using case studies in schools to educate. The researcher posed two questions, which were similar in focus, yet slightly different in degree. The first of these questions, discussed above related to cooperation between stakeholders sought recommendations to improve what the researcher considers the minimum requirement for harmonious construction projects. The second question sought to elicit recommendations for a higher level of stakeholder relationship during construction projects, namely collaboration. The participants’ responses support research about 91

interorganizational collaboration. Solid research from the past posits that the common reasons why organizations seek to collaborate are to innovate, and/or to achieve cost minimization (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Ghoshal, 1996; McEvily & Zaheer, 1999). Recent research underscores the need to improve the outcomes of interorganizational collaboration by increasing the value creation, articulating clear expectations and by building processes that facilitate interaction (Evans, & Hamm, 2006; Lin, 2006; Parise & Casher, 2003). In the present study, participants’ responses support all of these prior findings. Recent conference agendas held by construction industry and government agencies demonstrate a new awareness that construction stakeholders must learn to conduct business in ways that foster mutual benefit (Ren, Anumba, & Ugwu, 2003). Another recent development, especially prominent in UK and Europe, is the integration and greater use of IT and other software programs to improve design and overall construction project performance (Hamm, 2006). The participants also made two recommendations (publishing dispute resolutions and using case studies in school), which would increase the spread of information and best practices. The researcher knows of several legal firms and professional organizations that provide such resources on their websites. Collaborative Relationships The results of the relative ranking in order were: 1) alliances between regulators, suppliers, and subcontractors; 2) affiliations; and 3) joint ventures. The result of the study related to the types of relationships was a surprise to the researcher, whose experience is that the most common and accepted type of collaborative relationship, currently, is joint ventures. One explanation for the study results could be that since joint ventures are the common practice, the participants, who were responding to items identified by the pilot study participants (a different group from the main study participants), chose the other two options in order of their preference 92

as new ideas that could improve the industry. Recently, in California a new organization—The Construction Industry Partnership—formed as a coalition between government, communities, education, trades and professional associations to address challenges of competiveness and collaboration in the industry. Their goal is to facilitate new types of relationships between industry stakeholders that promote collaboration, healthy competition, and ethical practices. In a recent article, Pesamaa (2007) concludes that new types of relationships among construction industry stakeholders are developing in Europe, especially networks. The common characteristics of these networked, interorganizational collaborations are reciprocity, trust, loyalty, and commitment. Some of these network alliances endure, while other alliances form and collapse around the delivery of construction projects. In reviewing the recent studies emerging from Europe, construction industry stakeholders in other countries seem to be further ahead than in the Untied States. As Holmen, Pederson and Torvatn (2004), point out the concept and practice of alternative organizational structures and business models is new to the construction industry and not without challenges, specifically because of the fluctuating nature of construction projects. In a just published article, Moodley, Smith and Preece (2008), discuss the ethical challenges of past construction industry relationships in United Kingdom, and propose a stakeholder management tool to assist organizations as they endeavor new types of associations to enhance stakeholder mutual interests. Of the twenty research articles reviewed concerning types of relationships in the construction industry, none were written about the U.S. construction industry. In summary, the major findings of the present study are: 1) the most frequent and most damaging problems occurring in construction projects are caused by deficits in basic management functions; 2) contractors must improve managerial acumen and leadership 93

effectiveness; 3) new business models must be devised that facilitate new types of stakeholder relationships; and 4) improved processes and technologies must be incorporated in the execution of construction projects. Significance and Implications While the present study is not the first to examine construction project disputes from the perspective of stakeholder groups, it is one of the first to collect data from stakeholders not necessarily involved in litigation, and in particular not involved in the same litigation as other participants, at the time of the study. The present study was larger than all of those reviewed. The study results both support and enhance previous research. The implications of the study to construction industry stakeholders mirror the findings. The education and training of construction industry contractors should include basic management functions, with emphasis on processes, project coordination and execution, and technology use. Cooperative innovation by the industry as a whole should include investment in shifting the values and practices by all stakeholder groups away from adversarial to collaborative. Primary industry stakeholders should shift focus away from an overreliance on attorneys as problem-solvers in disputes, and create new business models and interorganizational alliances to foster collaboration for mutual benefit. Standardized processes and technological tools must be devised to provide the same types of efficiencies found in other industries. The implication for academic institutions is that specialties in construction management, including certification programs, should be offered. Limitations This investigation into the causes of and potential solutions to construction project disputes was conducted with one stakeholder group, namely engineers. Engineers are only one of 94

several stakeholders in construction projects, yet comprise one of the largest professional groups within the construction industry because there are many subfields and many capacities in which engineers serve in the execution of construction projects. Methodologists, such as Rudestam and Newton (2001) posit that limitations show the variability in research, especially nonexperimental, over which the researcher has little ability to control. The present study has several limitations, beyond the obvious one related to stakeholders. The population sample was obtained through establishment of criteria and then through the researcher having contacted several professional organizations and university alumni associations. The membership of each of the organizations contacted is not known, neither is the potential number of engineers working in the construction industry. A response of 264 is quite small compared to the population of construction industry engineers. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2006 census states that the number of engineers in eight of the fifteen subfields included in the present study in the United States is 1,031,100. The number of engineers employed in the construction field is approximated at 11 percent. The associations and universities contacted to participate in the study were located in the state of California or were western affiliates. However and obviously, the alumnus, of even western region universities, is not limited to the western region of the United States. The final limitation of the study is that the survey instrument used to collect data was derived from the input of a small group of pilot study participants and has not been validated. As such, the present study can only be considered exploratory. Recommendations and Conclusions Future research should focus on several areas. First, research should expand to include all stakeholder groups. Second, research should expand to a larger population. Third, research should compare construction project management to other industries with similar characteristics 95

that have developed models that facilitate interorganizational collaboration. Fourth, research should examine construction project excellence. Fifth, research should be conducted across countries to examine best practices and to assess the competiveness of U.S. construction compared with other countries given the increasing global economy. Despite the global economic problems apparent at this writing, the potential for the construction industry is greater now than at any time because of the twofold effect of globalization and the need to create sustainability and environmental-conserving ways of life. Few industries seem less effective than the construction industry. For the U.S. construction industry to remain competitive, it must improve its efficiency, reduce costs, modernize, and change the fundamental value system that currently results in greed.

96

97

REFERENCES

Achrol, R. S. (1997). Changes in the theory of inter-organizational relations in marketing: toward a network paradigm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1). Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley. Arino, A. & De la Torre, J. (1998). Learning from failure: Towards an evolutionary model of collaborative ventures. Organizational Science, 8(3), pp. 306-325. Beer, M. (2000). Research that will break the code of change. In Breaking the code of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Bennis, W. G. (2002). Become a tomorrow leader. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Beyerlein, M. M., Freedman, S., McGee, C., & Moran, L. (2003). Beyond teams: Building the collaborative organization. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bristow, D.J., & Vasilopoulos, R. (1995). The new CCDC 2: Facilitating dispute resolution of construction projects. Construction Law Journal, Sweet and Maxwell, U.K. (11)95-117. Brown, J. (2005). The complimentary roles of ERP and PLM: Leveraging enterprise applications to maximize product profitability. Retrieved Mar 19, 2005, from http://www.3ds.com/uploads/tx_user3dsplmxml/s514_ERP_PLM_WP.pdf Bureau of Economic Analysis, (2006). Gross domestic product and current estimates and changes. Retrieved August, 2007 from http://bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. New York: Anchor Books. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science 15(5). Casinelli, M. (2005). Project schedule delay vs. strategic project planning AACE International Transactions. Morgantown: PS191. Chan, A. P. C., Yung, E. H. K., Lam, P. T. I., Tam, C. M., & Cheung, S. O. (2001). Application of Delphi method in selection of procurement systems for construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 19, 699-718.

98

Charue-Duboc, F., & Midler, C. (1998) .Beyond advanced project management: Renewing engineering practices and organizations in Projects as arenas for renewal and learning processes. Rolf A. Lundin and Christofe Midler (eds.). Boston, MA: Kluwer. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: A 30 year retrospective. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chester, M., & Hendrickson, C. (2005). Cost impacts, scheduling impacts, and the claims process during construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(1), pp. 102-107. Child, J., & McGrath, R. G. (2001). Organizations unfettered: Organizational form in an information-intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1135-1149. Clayton, M. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373-387. Clegg, S., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (1996). Handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. Cloke, K., & Goldsmith, J. (2002). The end of management and the rise of organizational democracy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cook, C., & Hunsaker, P. (2001). Management and organizational behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin Publications. Conner, J. (2003). Gaining the advantages of team intelligence. Human Resource Planning, 26(3). Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series No. 63. Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2000). Business research methods. New York: Irwin, McGraw-Hill Publications. Couper, M. R. (1984). The Delphi technique: Characteristics and sequence model. Advances in Nursing Science. (7) p. 72–77. Craig, N., & Sommerville, J. (2006). Information management systems on construction projects: case reviews. Records Management Journal, 16(3), p. 131. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 99

Curtis, P. M. (2004). Integrating intellectual property and Internet technology to promote reliability in today's critical infrastructure. Paper presented at the Datacenter Dynamics Conference, New York City, NY. Dajani, J. S., Sincoff, M. Z., & Talley, W. K. (1979). Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, (13), 83– 90. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science. ( 9) p. 458–467. Deeds, D. & Hill, C. (1998). An examination of opportunistic action within research alliances: evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of Business Venturing. Denscombe, M. (2006). Web-based questionnaires and the mode effect: An evaluation based on completion rates and data contents of near-identical questionnaires delivered in different modes. Social Science Computer Review 24(2), 246-254. Dickey, J., & Watts, T. (1978). Analytics techniques in urban and regional planning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Diekmann, J.E., & Nelson, M.C. (1995). Construction claims: Frequency and severity, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, p. 74-81. Duck, J. D. (2001). The change monster: The human forces that fuel or foil corporate transformation and change. New York: Crown Business. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management Journal 23(4) 660679. Eden, C., Ackermann, T., & Williams, A. (2005). The amoebic growth of project costs. Project Management Journal, 26(2). Pp. 15-28. Evans, G., & Hamm, J. (2006). Transforming the construction industry and education practitioners’ examples of the revolutionary virtual construction TM solution, BEECON, 2006 Fisher, K., & Fisher, M. (1998). The distrusted mind. New York: AMACOM. Fisk, P. (2002). The making of a digital leader. Business Strategy Review, 13(1), 43-50. Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2001). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

100

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. The Free Press, New York, NY, Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. (6th ed.). Boston: Longman. Gebken, R. J., & Gibson, G. E. (2006). Quantification of costs for dispute resolution procedures in the construction industry. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 132(3) 264. Gibson, C. B., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Schwab, D. P. (2003) Team effectiveness in multinational organizations: Evaluation across contexts. Group & Organization Management, 28(4): 444-474. Goczol, J., & Scoubeau, C. (2003). Corporate communication and strategy in the fields of Projects. Corporate Communications, 8(1), 60-66. Gonzales, G. (2006). Rising litigation trends increase demand for E&O coverage. Business Insurance Magazine. Goodman, C. M. (1987). The Delphi technique: A critique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 12(6), pp. 729-734. Gould, D. (2003). Virtual organization. Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://www.seanet.com/~daveg/chapter3.htm Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4) 293-317. Gulati, R. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493. Hanna, A., & Gunduz, M. (2005). Early warning signs for distressed projects. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, (32)5, p. 796 – 802. Harmon, K. (2004). Construction conflicts and dispute review boards: Attitudes and opinions of construction industry members. Dispute Resolution Journal, 58(4) p. 66-76 Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganization domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217-230. Harty, C. (2005). Innovation in construction: A sociology of technology approach. Building Research & Information, 33(6), 512-522.

101

Heath, B.C., Hills, B. & Berry, M. (1994). The nature and origin of conflict within the construction process. P. Fenn (ed.), Proceedings of CIB. Herness, E. N., High, R. H., Jr., & McGee, J. R. (2004). WebSphere application server: A foundation for on demand computing. IBM System Journal, 43(2). Hill, C., W. L., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257-274. Holmen, E., Pederson, A., & Torvatn, T. (2005). Building relationships for technological innovation. Journal of Business Research, (58)9, pp. 1240-1250. Horner, C., & Westacott, E. (2000). Thinking through philosophy: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jensen, M. C. (2000). Value maximization and the corporate objective function. In Breaking the code of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Keene, A. (2000). Complexity theory: The changing role of leadership. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(1), pp. 15-18. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 60-69. Kogut, B. (1998). Joint venture: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4) pp. 319-332. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Koza, P. Mitchell, T., Arie Y., & Lewin (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances Organization Science, 9(3), 255-264. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ 102

Luhman, J. T., & Boje, D. M. (2001). What is complexity science? A possible answer from narrative research. Emergence, 3(1). Luthans, F. (2002). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin Publications. Lurey, J. S. (1999). Five key strategies to improve your virtual teams. Paper presented at the International Conference for Advances in Management. Macy, B. A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design, and work innovation. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 7, 235-313. Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D. & Festinger, D. (2205). Essentials of research design and methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389-418. McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), pp.1133-1156. McKenna, H. P. (1994). The Delphi technique: A worthwhile approach for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, (19), 1221–1225. McMurray, A. R. (1994). Three decision-making aids. Journal of Nursing Staff Development, (10)2, 62-65. Moodley, K., Smith, N., & Preece, C. (2008). Stakeholder matrix for ethical relationships in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, (26)6, pp. 625-632. Moran, P., & Ghoshal, S. (1996). Value creation by firms. Academy of Management Review, 1996 21(1) p 58-72. Morrison, K. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory. London: Routledge Falmer. Neace, M. B. (1997). Local culture: A key to attainment of sustainable development. Journal of American Culture, 20(2), 105-120. Nicolajsen, H. (2007). ICT use in inter-organizational collaboration: the field of construction. Proceedings of the 30th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia IRIS.

103

Nooteboom, B., H. Berger & N.G. Noorderhaven (1997), Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), pp. 308-339. Parise, S., & Casher, A. (2003). Alliance portfolios: Designing and managing your network of business-partner relationships. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 25-40. Pesämaa, O. (2007). Development of relationships in interorganizational networks: studies in the tourism and construction industries. MPRA, Munich, pp. 1-303. Patton, M. Q. (2002).Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peters, T. (1999). Reinventing work: Service projects. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Regine, B., & Lewin, R. (2000). Leading at the edge: How leaders influence complex systems. Emergence, 2(2), 5-24. Ren, Z., Anumba, C. J., & Ugwu, O. (2003). Multiagent system for construction claims negotiation. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 17(3), pp. 180-188. Rivard, H., Froese, T., Waugh, L. M., El-Diraby, T., Mora, R., Torres, H., Gill, S. M., & O’Reilly, T. (2004). Case studies on the use of information technology in the Canadian construction industry. Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 9(http://itcon.org/2004/2/), 19-34. Robbins, H., & Finley, M. (1995). Why teams don't work: What went wrong and how to make it right. Princeton, NJ: Petersons/Pacesetter Books. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers. Rudy, S. F. (1996). A review of Delphi surveys conducted to establish research priorities by specialty nursing organizations from 1985 to 1995. ORL - Head and Neck Nursing, 14(2), 16-24. Salk, J., & Shenkar, O. (2001). Social identities in an international joint venture. Organization Science, 12(2), 161-178. Sawhney, M. (2002). Don't just relate - collaborate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 96. Schein, E. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schifrin, M. (2001). Partner or perish. Forbes, 167(12) 26–28.

104

Shenkar, O. & Van, A. (2002). Failure as a consequence of partner politics: Learning from the life and death of an international cooperative venture. Human Relations, 55(5) pp. 565601. Sherwood, D. (2002). Seeing the forest for the trees: A manager's guide to systems thinking. London: Nicholas Brealy Publishing. Showkeir, J. D. (2002). The business case for servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Singh, R. (2000). Be prepared for construction claims—globally, AACE International Transactions, Morgantown, pp 154-157. Slaughter, J. (2004). Reducing construction costs: uses of best dispute resolution practices by project owners. Government Industry Forum. Conference Proceedings. Srinivasan, S., Krishna, V., & Holmes, S. (2005). Web-logic-driven business activity monitoring. Computer, 38(3). Stuart, T. E. (1998). Network positions and properties to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, pp. 668-698. Thelen, T., Reid-Brown, M., Raysman, M., & Steiner, P. (2007). U.S. construction, architecture and engineering industry: An overview. Retrieved July 7, 2006 from http://www.hierosgamos.org/hg/db_lawfirms.asp?action=page2&pcomp=51710. Turoff, M. (1975). The policy Delphi. In 1975 (Ed.), The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Turoff, M., & Hiltz, S.R. (1996). Computer based Delphi process. Retrieved December 19, 2006, from http://eies.njit.edu/~turoff/Papers/delphi3.html#Introduction van Eyk, H., & Baum, F. (2002). Learning about interagency collaboration: trialing collaborative projects between hospitals and community health services. Health and Social Care in the Community, 10(4), 262-269. Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Xiao, H., & Proverbs, D.G. (2003) Factors influencing contractor performance: an international investigation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(5), 322-3

105

Yogeswaran K., Kumaraswamy, M.M., & Miller, D.R.A. (1997). Perceived Sources and Causes of Construction Claims, Journal of Construction Procurement, U.K, 3, 3-26. Young, D. (2000). Foresight: The lead that the leader has. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Zhang, D. (2004). Web services composition for process management in e-business. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(2) 83-92. Zohar, D. (2002). Servant-leadership and rewiring the corporate brain. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Zollinger, W. & Leary, M. (2005). Does sharing project data create claims? AACE International Transactions.

106

APPENDIX A: PILOT ROUND 1 TEXT DATA

Delphi Pilot Study Round 1 Text Data Question One Client delays Regulatory agency Differing contract interpretation Disagreements in change order Accountability for changes Discrepancy between contract specs & field conditions Site safety Skilled labor Quality of contract documents

Question Two Delay in permits Client inability to pay Differing interpretations of contract Conflicts of interest Quality Use of materials as specified Project schedule/cost overruns Change orders Site safety Adherence to regulations

Question Three Regulators Clients Upper management Contractors Engineers Designers

107

Question Four Regulators providing permits to schedules Authority given to lower project managers A fund in each contract to pay for change orders Increased quality of contract documents Partnerships Closer adherence to contract specifications Design review and problem resolution before bidding Frequent meetings among stakeholders to resolve issues Improved contractor selection review process Shared resources Greater emphasis on cost and schedule control Rewards for innovation

Question Five Diplomacy Accountability Honesty Integrity Knowledge of construction science Conceptual skills Interest in mutual benefit of all parties Communication

Question Six Greater use of technology Proper authority to make decisions Engineers and contractors need management skills Personnel need some knowledge of engineering science Knowledge of regulations Persuasion skills

Question Seven Collaborative online scheduling Increase and streamline cash flow Publish dispute resolutions Use case studies in schools to educate Increase interaction between stakeholders Alternative designs Bonuses for successful goal completion

Question Eight Alliances between regulators, suppliers and subcontractors Joint ventures Affiliations

108

APPENDIX B: ROUND TWO PILOT DATA TABLES

Table B1 Pilot Round 2 Question Data Table Q1:Relative to the most frequent problem that occurred in construction projects in which you were involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 1 = Most Important 9 = Least Important

a. client delays b. regulatory agency delays c. differences in contract document interpretation d. disagreements in change order e. accountability for changes f. discrepancy between contract drawings/specs with field conditions g. site safety h. having skilled labor i. quality of contract documents

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Rank

0.0% (0) 33.3% (3) 11.1% (1)

36.4% (4) 11.1% (1) 22.2% (2)

45.5% (5) 11.1% (1) 0.0% (0)

18.2% (2) 22.2% (2) 11.1% (1)

0.0% (0) 11.1% (1) 22.2% (2)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (1)

0.0% (0) 11.1% (1) 11.1% (1)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (1)

2.82

12.5% (1) 10.0% (1) 25.0% (2)

0.0% (0)) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 12.5% (1)

37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1)

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 25.0% (2)

25.0% (2) 30.0% (3) 0.0% (0)

25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1)

5.75

12.5% (1) 9.1% (1) 0.0% (0)

12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 18.2% (2)

0.0% (0) 18.2% (2) 18.2% (2)

0.0% (0) 18.2% (2) 9.1% (1)

12.5% (1) 9.1% (1) 9.1% (1)

0.0% (0) 9.1% (1) 18.2% (2)

25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

37.5% (3) 18.2% (2) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 18.2% (2) 27.3% (3)

5.75

109

3.11 4.56

5.00 5.00

5.45 5.27

Table B2 Pilot Round 2 Question Data Table Q2: Relative to the most damaging problem that occurred in the construction projects in which you have been involved; please rank the significance of each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 1 = Most Important 11 = Least Important

a. delay in permits b. client inability to pay at project cmpltn c. difs in interpt of contract lnge d. cnflts of interest e. greed f. quality g. use materials as specified h. project schdl/$ overruns i. change orders j. site safety k. adhere to regs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Rank

0.0% (0)

22.2 % (2)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

11.1 % (1)

11.1% (1)

11.1 % (1)

0.0% (0)

11.1 % (1)

5.22

11.1% (1)

33.3 % (3) 11.1 % (1)

11.1 % (1)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

11.1 % (1)

22.2 % (2)

33.3 % (3)

7.56

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

16.7 % (1)

16.7 % (1)

16.7 % (1)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

50.0 % (3)

0.0% (0)

7.50

28.6% (2)

0.0% (0)

14.3 % (1)

42.9 % (3)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

14.3 % (1)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

3.71

12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (1)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 11.1 % (1)

25.0 % (2) 10.0 % (1) 0.0% (0)

12.5 % (1) 0.0% (0) 11.1 % (1)

25.0 % (2) 30.0 % (3) 0.0% (0)

12.5 % (1) 20.0 % (2) 22.2 % (2)

0.0% (0) 10.0 % (1) 22.2 % (2)

0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 0.0% (0)

12.5 % (1) 0.0% (0) 11.1 % (1)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 11.1 % (1)

0.0% (0) 10.0 % (1) 0.0% (0)

4.50

11.1% (1)

22.2 % (2) 20.0 % (2) 10.0 % (1) 0.0% (0)

11.1 % (1)

0.0% (0)

22.2 % (2)

0.0% (0)

11.1 % (1)

11.1% (1)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

11.1 % (1)

4.89

20.0 % (2)

10.0 % (1)

0.0% (0)

10.0 % (1)

20.0 % (2)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

10.0 % (1)

0.0% (0)

4.50

0.0% (0) 9.1% (1)

0.0% (0) 9.1% (1)

10.0 % (1) 0.0% (0)

10.0 % (1) 9.1% (1)

20.0 % (2) 9.1% (1)

40.0 % (4) 9.1% (1)

0.0% (0) 27.3 % (3)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

10.0 % (1) 0.0% (0)

7.00

10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 27.3 % (3)

110

6.40 5.78

5.27

Table B3 Pilot Round 2 Question Data Table Q3: Relative to the stakeholder groups, from which the most problems leading to construction project disputes originate; please rank each of the following for its contribution to construction project disputes. 1 = Most Important 7 = Least Important

a. regulators b. clients c. upper management d. contractors e. engineers f. inspection teams g. designers

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Rank

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 44.4% (4) 11.1% (1) 10.0% (1) 33.3% (3)

12.5% (1) 11.1% (1) 10.0% (1) 22.2% (2) 33.3% (3) 20.0% (2) 0.0% (0)

12.5% (1) 11.1% (1) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (1) 10.0% (1) 41.7% (5)

12.5% (1) 44.4% (4) 30.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 8.3% (1)

25.0% (2) 22.2% (2) 20.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (1) 10.0% (1) 8.3% (1)

37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 11.1% (1) 22.2% (2) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 11.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 22.2% (2) 11.1% (1) 40.0% (4) 8.3% (1)

4.63

111

4.22 4.00 3.11 3.78 4.70 2.92

Table B4 Pilot Round 2 Question Data Table Q4: Relative to what will be required over the coming years to optimize the cooperation among and between construction project stakeholder groups; please rank each of the following in order of its importance.

a. reg b. auth c. pay d. contr e. prtnrs f. specs g. rvw h. mtngs i. slctn review j. shr res k. cost & sch cntrl

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Rank

37.5% (3) 14.3% (1) 14.3% (1) 14.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (1) 10.0% (1)

0.0% (0) 14.3 % (1) 28.6 % (2) 14.3 % (1) 10.0 % (1) 0.0% (0) 12.5 % (1) 0.0% (0) 10.0 % (1)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 28.6 % (2) 28.6 % (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 22.2 % (2) 10.0 % (1)

12.5 % (1) 28.6 % (2) 0.0% (0) 14.3 % (1) 10.0 % (1) 0.0% (0) 12.5 % (1) 11.1 % (1) 20.0 % (2)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 30.0 % (3) 37.5 % (3) 12.5 % (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

25.0 % (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 12.5 % (1) 12.5 % (1) 22.2 % (2) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 14.3 % (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 30.0 % (3) 0.0% (0) 12.5 % (1) 0.0% (0) 40.0 % (4)

0.0% (0) 14.3 % (1) 14.3 % (1) 14.3 % (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 22.2 % (2) 10.0 % (1)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 14.3 % (1) 0.0% (0) 30.0 % (3) 0.0% (0) 12.5 % (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 14.3 % (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 37.5 % (3) 12.5 % (1) 11.1 % (1) 0.0% (0)

25.0 % (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 14.3 % (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 12.5 % (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

5.13

0.0% (0) 18.2% (2)

30.0 % (3) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 27.3 % (3)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

20.0 % (2) 9.1% (1)

10.0 % (1) 9.1% (1)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

10.0 % (1) 9.1% (1)

20.0 % (2) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 9.1% (1)

10.0 % (1) 18.2 % (2)

112

5.14 4.00 4.57 6.30 6.50 6.75 5.44 5.00

5.90 5.64

Table B5 Pilot Round 2 Question Data Table Q5: Relative to what leadership traits, skills, and experience will be needed by construction project stakeholders in the future to transform the industry to reduce construction project disputes; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 1 = Most Important 9 = Least Important 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Rank

0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1)

12.5% (1) 20.0% (2) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1)

12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1)

12.5% (1) 10.0% (1) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0)

12.5% (1) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 37.5% (3)

25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 12.5% (1)

4.88

f. rewards for innovation

25.0% (2) 10.0% (1) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0)

g. knwldg const science

10.0% (1)

10.0% (1)

10.0% (1)

10.0% (1)

20.0% (2)

10.0% (1)

10.0% (1)

20.0% (2)

0.0% (0)

4.90

h. cncptl skills

10.0% (1) 25.0% (2)

10.0% (1) 0.0% (0)

10.0% (1) 16.7% (2)

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1)

20.0% (2) 0.0% (0)

10.0% (1) 25.0% (2)

20.0% (2) 0.0% (0)

10.0% (1) 16.7% (2)

10.0% (1) 8.3% (1)

5.30

a. diplomacy b. accountability c. honesty d. integrity e. com skills

i. mutual benefit

113

3.60 4.13 3.00 6.25 6.13

4.67

Table B6 Pilot Round 2 Question Data Table Q6: Relative to the types of skills needed by personnel from stakeholder organizations in the future to support collaboration among construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 1 = Most Important 6 = Least Important 1

2

3

4

5

6

Rank

50.0% (5) 11.1% (1) 25.0% (2)

10.0% (1) 44.4% (4) 0.0% (0)

10.0% (1) 22.2% (2) 37.5% (3)

0.0% (0) 11.1% (1) 0.0% (0)

20.0% (2) 11.1% (1) 0.0% (0)

10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 37.5% (3)

2.60

d. personnel need some knowledge of engineering science

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

36.4% (4)

63.6% (7)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

3.64

e. knowledge of regulations

20.0% (2) 18.2% (2)

20.0% (2) 36.4% (4)

10.0% (1) 0.0% (0)

10.0% (1) 9.1% (1)

30.0% (3) 18.2% (2)

10.0% (1) 18.2% (2)

3.40

a. greater use of technology b. proper authority to make decisions c. engineers and contractors need management skills

f. persuasion skills

114

2.67 3.63

3.27

Table B7 Pilot Round 2 Question Data Table Q7: Relative to what changes could be initiated among and between stakeholder organizations to increase collaboration; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 1 = Most Important 7 = Least Important 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Rank

11.1% (1) 25.0% (2)

22.2% (2) 12.5% (1)

11.1% (1) 25.0% (2)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0) 12.5% (1)

33.3% (3) 0.0% (0)

3.89

b. ways to increase and streamline cash flow

22.2% (2) 25.0% (2)

c. publish dispute resolutions in trade magazines

10.0% (1)

10.0% (1)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

20.0% (2)

50.0% (5)

10.0% (1)

5.00

d. use case studies in schools to educate how to avoid disputes

0.0% (0)

11.1% (1)

22.2% (2)

0.0% (0)

22.2% (2)

22.2% (2)

22.2% (2)

4.89

e. increase interaction between stakeholders working on projects

20.0% (2)

20.0% (2)

0.0% (0)

20.0% (2)

10.0% (1)

0.0% (0)

30.0% (3)

4.00

f. alternative designs

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4)

16.7% (2) 8.3% (1)

25.0% (3) 16.7% (2)

25.0% (3) 16.7% (2)

25.0% (3) 16.7% (2)

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1)

8.3% (1) 0.0% (0)

3.92

a. collaborative online scheduling

g. bonus/reward system for all groups for successful, timely completion of milestones

115

2.88

3.00

Table B8 Pilot Round 2 Question Data Table Q8: Relative to what types of collaborative relationships would be mutually beneficial to construction project stakeholders; please rank each of the following in order of its importance. 1 = Most Important 4 = Least Important

a. alliance between regulators, suppliers and subcontractors b. joint ventures c. affiliations d. formal partnerships

116

1

2

3

4

Rank

70.0% (7) 10.0% (1) 9.1% (1) 16.7% (2)

10.0% (1) 60.0% (6) 9.1% (1) 25.0% (3)

20.0% (2) 10.0% (1) 45.5% (5) 16.7% (2)

0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 36.4% (4) 41.7% (5)

1.50 2.40 3.09 2.83

117

APPENDIX C: ASSOCIATIONS AND UNIVERSITY ENGINNERING SCHOOLS University of Colorado, Colorado Springs School of Engineering Arizona State University Polytechnic Engineering University of Arizona College of Engineering California Institute of Technology Oregon State University College of Engineering Washington State University College of Engineering University of Washington School of Engineering California State Polytechnic University (Pomona & San Luis) University of Southern California School of Engineering California Institute of Technology UC Irvine School of Engineering Santa Cruz School of Engineering UC Berkeley School of Engineering UC Los Angeles School of Engineering Stanford University School of Engineering Santa Clara University San Jose State University College of Engineering Association for Facilities Engineering, (local and national) American Society of Civil Engineers, (local and national) American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (local and national) American Society of Quality, California Engineering and Technology Alliance, California Society of Professional Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Society for the Advancement of Materials and Process Engineers, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Society of Women Engineers, American Public Works Association, American Society for Engineering Education, American Society of Safety Engineers, Engineers Club of Santa Clara Valley, Engineers’ Council, Global Institute For Technology and Engineering, Institute of Industrial Engineers, Orange County Engineering Council, Order of The Engineer, AASHTO (transportation) Completion Engineering Association American Association of Engineering Societies Structural Engineering Portal American Council of Engineering Companies ANSI The Heavy Engineering Construction Association 118

APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESEARCH DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FIGURES

Figure D 1

119

Figure D 2

Figure D 3 120

Figure D 4

121

APPENDIX E: RADAR GRAPHS FOR DATA TABLES 5 – 12

Figure E 1

122

Figure E 2

123

Figure E 3

124

Figure E 4

125

Figure E 5

126

Figure E 6

127

Figure E 7

128

Figure E 8

129