Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Engineering Management

ISSN 2095-7513

ISSN 2096-0255(Online)

CN 10-1205/N

Postal Subscription Code 80-905

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Eng    2022, Vol. 9 Issue (2) : 312-325    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-020-0135-z
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Key stakeholders’ perspectives on the ideal partnering culture in construction projects
Gunnar J. LÜHR1(), Marian G. C. BOSCH-REKVELDT2, Mladen RADUJKOVIC1
1. Alma Mater Europaea ECM, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
2. Delft University of Technology, 2600 AA Delft, The Netherlands
 Download: PDF(970 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper examines the current state of project cultures in the German turnkey construction industry and the ideal project cultures in terms of partnering from the perspective of various key stakeholders (i.e., Investors, General Contractors, (Sub-)Contractors and Designers). To investigate the current and ideal cultures, data were gathered among the key stakeholders by means of a survey study with 72 respondents divided over 12 companies. The respondents rated the current and desired cultures by using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, which belongs to the Competing Values Framework. The investigations show many similarities and differences between the stakeholder perspectives of the current and the idealized partnering project cultures. Mainly, the General Contractors desire more cooperative behaviors than the (Sub-)Contractors, and the Investors desire more pronounced flexibility than the General Contractors. All stakeholders desire a cultural change from highly competitive behaviors toward more cooperation. Changes in terms of clear procedures or more flexibility are only desired by the Designers. Defining both the current and an ideal partnering project culture enables academics and project managers to compare their actual project cultures to an ideal situation. With such an approach, academics and project managers could measure whether new tools or changes in resources affect their project cultures toward a partnering project culture.
Keywords project culture      organisational culture      partnering      construction culture      stakeholder perspectives      German     
Corresponding Author(s): Gunnar J. LÜHR   
Just Accepted Date: 31 August 2020   Online First Date: 02 November 2020    Issue Date: 25 May 2022
 Cite this article:   
Gunnar J. LÜHR,Marian G. C. BOSCH-REKVELDT,Mladen RADUJKOVIC. Key stakeholders’ perspectives on the ideal partnering culture in construction projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(2): 312-325.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-020-0135-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2022/V9/I2/312
Fig.1  The construction industry’s global culture (based on Cameron and Quinn (2011)).
Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy
Construction industry’s global culture 22 18 37 23
Tab.1  The construction industry’s global culture (results of the OCAI from Cameron and Quinn (2011))
Is-Clan Is-Adhocracy Is-Market Is-Hierarchy Should-Clan Should-Adhocracy Should-Market Should-Hierarchy
Investor (Fig. 2) 19.0 19.7 36.2 25.1 30.4 23.4 21.4 24.8
General Contractor (Fig. 3) 20.4 16.5 34.8 28.3 35.4 17.2 17.8 29.7
(Sub-)Contractor (Fig. 4) 16.1 18.1 35.9 29.9 28.6 19.6 23.3 28.5
Designer (Fig. 5) 19.8 15.3 32.8 32.2 30.5 22.4 20.1 27.0
Entire stakeholders (Fig. 6) 18.8 17.3 34.9 29.0 31.2 20.5 20.7 27.6
Tab.2  Mean scores of the project culture dimensions from the perspectives of the key stakeholders
Fig.2  Visualization of the mean scores of the stakeholder group of Investors.
Fig.3  Visualization of the mean scores of the stakeholder group of General Contractors.
Fig.4  Visualization of the mean scores of the stakeholder group of (Sub-)Contractors.
Fig.5  Visualization of the mean scores of the stakeholder group of Designers.
Fig.6  Visualization of the mean scores of all the stakeholders.
Is-Clan Is-Adhocracy Is-Market Is-Hierarchy Should-Clan Should-Adhocracy Should-Market Should-Hierarchy
Investor 0.165 0.697 0.639 0.197 0.095 0.422 0.651 0.080
General Contractor 0.882 0.589 0.054 0.752 0.780 0.610 0.377 0.104
(Sub-)Contractor 0.261 0.232 0.512 0.882 0.008* 0.243 0.439 0.368
Designer 0.048* 0.530 0.571 0.725 0.023* 0.071 0.575 0.656
Entire sample 0.033* 0.715 0.418 0.077 0.031* 0.458 0.160 0.057
Tab.3  Results of the Shapiro–Wilk test of normality
Is-Clan Is-Adhocracy Is-Market Is-Hierarchy Should-Clan Should-Adhocracy Should-Market Should-Hierarchy
Cronbach’s alpha 0.76 0.46 0.74 0.56 0.72 0.66 0.67 0.62
Tab.4  Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for various quadrants
Is-Clan vs. Should-Clan Is-Adhoc. vs. Should-Adhoc. Is-Market vs. Should-Market Is-Hierarchy vs.
Should-Hierarchy
Investor 0.000* 0.078 0.001* 0.265
General Contractor 0.001* 0.623 0.003* 0.538
(Sub-)Contractor 0.000* 0.765 0.000* 0.337
Designer 0.003* 0.003* 0.001* 0.044*
Entire sample 0.000* 0.001* 0.000* 0.090
Tab.5  Results of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test to investigate the differences between Is and Should cultures for various stakeholder groups
Is-Clan Is-Adhocracy Is-Market Is-Hierarchy Should-Clan Should-Adhocracy Should-Market Should-Hierarchy
Kruskal–Wallis H 3.473 8.172 3.209 7.410 7.946 11.28 6.391 3.522
Asymp. sig. 0.324 0.043* 0.360 0.060 0.047* 0.010* 0.094 0.318
Tab.6  Results from the Kruskal–Wallis tests
Sample1 – Sample 2 Test statistic Std. error Std. test statistic Sig. Adj. siga
Designer – General Contractor 4.861 6.969 0.698 0.485 1.000
Designer – (Sub-)Contractor 10.856 6.793 1.598 0.110 0.660
Designer – Investor 19.462 7.184 2.709 0.007 0.040
General Contractor –(Sub-) Contractor -5.994 6.793 -0.882 0.378 1.000
General Contractor – Investor 14.601 7.184 2.032 0.042 0.253
(Sub-)Contractor – Investor 8.606 7.013 1.227 0.220 1.000
Tab.7  Pairwise comparison of the stakeholder perceptions of the Is-Adhocracy scores
Sample1 – Sample 2 Test statistic Std. error Std. test statistic Sig. Adj. siga
General Contractor – (Sub-) Contractor –6.150 6.792 –0.905 0.365 1.000
General Contractor – Designer –18.222 6.968 –2.615 0.009 0.054
General Contractor – Investor 20.188 7.183 2.810 0.005 0.030
(Sub-)Contractor –Designer –12.072 6.792 –1.777 0.076 0.453
(Sub-)Contractor – Investor 14.038 7.012 2.002 0.045 0.272
Designer – Investor 1.965 7.183 0.274 0.784 1.000
Tab.8  Pairwise comparison of the stakeholder perceptions of the Should-Adhocracy scores
Sample1 – Sample 2 Test statistic Std. error Std. test statistic Sig. Adj. siga
(Sub-)Contractor – Designer –6.214 6.795 –0.914 0.360 1.000
(Sub-)Contractor – Investor 9.263 7.015 1.320 0.187 1.000
(Sub-)Contractor – General Contractor 18.853 6.795 2.775 0.006 0.033
Designer – Investor 3.049 7.186 0.424 0.671 1.000
Designer – General Contractor 12.639 6.971 1.813 0.070 0.419
Investor – General Contractor –9.590 7.186 –1.335 0.182 1.000
Tab.9  Pairwise comparison of the stakeholder perceptions of the Should-Clan scores
Usual project culture Idealized partnering project culture
1. Dominant characteristics
The project organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves
The project organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks
The project organization is very results-oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done. People are very competitive and achievement-oriented
The project organization is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do
∑ 100 100
2. Organizational leadership
The leadership in the project organization is generally considered to exemplify mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing
The leadership in the project organization is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking
The leadership in the project organization is generally considered to exemplify an aggressive, results-oriented, and no-nonsense focus
The leadership in the project organization is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency
∑ 100 100
3. Management of employees
The management style in the project organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus, and participation
The management style in the project organization is characterized by individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness
The management style in the project organization is characterized by hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement
The management style in the project organization is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships
∑ 100 100
4. Organizational glue
The glue that holds the project organization together consists of loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organization runs high
The glue that holds the project organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge
The glue that holds the project organization together is the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and winning are common themes
The glue that holds the project organization together consists of formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important
∑ 100 100
5. Strategic emphases
The project organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness, and participation persists
The project organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued
The project organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant
The project organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are important
∑ 100 100
6. Criteria of success
The project organization defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people
The project organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or the newest products. It is a product leader and innovator
The project organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key
The project organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low cost production are critical
∑ 100 100
  Table A1 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), slightly adjusted for project organizations
1 O A Akintan, R Morledge (2013). Improving the collaboration between main contractors and subcontractors within traditional construction procurement. Journal of Construction Engineering, 281236
2 B K Baiden, K Agyekum, B T Atuahene (2018). Client-contractor relations on construction projects in Ghana. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 10(4): 333–351
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPOM.2018.095291
3 G Ballard, G Howell (1994). Implementing lean construction: Stabilizing work flow. In: 2nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Santiago
4 J Barlow, M Cohen, A Jashapara, Y Simpson (1997). Towards Positive Partnering: Revealing the Realities in the Construction Industry. Bristol: Policy Press
5 R Bayliss, S O Cheung, H C H Suen, S P Wong (2004). Effective partnering tools in construction: A case study on MTRC TKE contract 604 in Hong Kong. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3): 253–263
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00069-3
6 R Beach, M Webster, K M Campbell (2005). An evaluation of partnership development in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 23(8): 611–621
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.04.001
7 C Black, A Akintoye, E Fitzgerald (2000). An analysis of success factors and benefits of partnering in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 18(6): 423–434
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00046-0
8 K S Cameron, R E Quinn (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture—Based on the Competing Values Framework. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
9 W T Chen, H C Merrett, S T Lu, L Mortis (2019). Analysis of key failure factors in construction partnering—A case study of Taiwan. Sustainability, 11(14): 3994
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143994
10 E W L Cheng, H Li, P E D Love, Z Irani (2001). Network communication in the construction industry. Corporate Communications, 6(2): 61–70
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280110390314
11 S O Cheung, T S T Ng, S P Wong, H C H Suen (2003). Behavioral aspects in construction partnering. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5): 333–343
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00052-2
12 A R Cohen, S L Fink, H Gadon, R D Willits (1995). Effective Behavior in Organizations: Cases, Concepts, and Student Experiences. 6th ed. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing
13 K Davis (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2): 189–201
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.02.006
14 H Doloi (2013). Cost overruns and failure in project management: Understanding the roles of key stakeholders in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(3): 267–279
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000621
15 M Eid, M Gollwitzer, M Schmitt (2017). Statistics and Research Methods. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag (in Germany)
16 P E Eriksson, T Nilsson, B Atkin (2008). Client perceptions of barriers to partnering. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 15(6): 527–539
https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980810916979
17 K Eschenbruch (2008). Partnering as a management approach—definition and conceptual classification. In: Eschenbruch K, Racky P, eds. Partnering in the Construction and Real Estate Industry—Project Management and Contractual Standards in Germany. Düsseldorf, Kassel: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1–3 (in Germany)
18 Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (2019). Economic situation and cyclical development. Available at:
19 J L Fernandez-Solis, V Porwal, S Lavy, A Shafaat, Z K Rybkowski, K Son, N Lagoo (2013). Survey of motivations, benefits, and implementation challenges of Last Planner System users. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(4): 354–360
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000606
20 A I Ferreira (2014). Competing Values Framework and its impact on the intellectual capital dimensions: Evidence from different Portuguese organizational sectors. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 12(1): 86–96
https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.62
21 A Field (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. London: Sage Publications
22 J Foley, S Macmillan (2005). Patterns of interaction in construction team meetings. CoDesign, 1(1): 19–37
https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880412331289926
23 Z Hatush, M Skitmore (1998). Contractor selection using multicriteria utility theory: An additive model. Building and Environment, 33(2–3): 105–115
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(97)00016-4
24 C D Helfrich, Y F Li, D C Mohr, M Meterko, A E Sales (2007). Assessing an organizational culture instrument based on the Competing Values Framework: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Implementation Science, 2(1): 13
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-13 pmid: 17459167
25 J Hinze, A Tracey (1994). The contractor–subcontractor relationship: The subcontractor’s view. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(2): 274–287
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:2(274)
26 G Hofstede (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2): 81–99
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733682
27 International Project Management Association (IPMA) (2015). Individual Competence Baseline for Project, Programme & Portfolio Management. Zurich
28 R Johnston, P R Lawrence (1988). Beyond vertical integration—the rise of the value-adding partnership. Harvard Business Review, 1988-07-01
29 E Karahanna, J R Evaristo, M Srite (2005). Levels of culture and individual behavior: An investigative perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 13(2): 1–20
https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.2005040101
30 L Koops, M G C Bosch-Rekveldt, L Coman, M Hertogh, H Bakker (2016). Identifying perspectives of public project managers on project success: Comparing viewpoints of managers from five countries in North-West Europe. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5): 874–889
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.007
31 L Koskela (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction, CIFE Technical Report #72. Stanford: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Stanford University
32 E Larson (1995). Project partnering: Results of study of 280 construction projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 11(2): 30–35
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1995)11:2(30)
33 A Mossman (2015). Last Planner—5+1 crucial & collaborative conversations for predictable design & construction delivery. The Change Business Ltd.
34 R Newcombe (2003). From client to project stakeholders: A stakeholder mapping approach. Construction Management and Economics, 21(8): 841–848
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000072137
35 S T Ng, T M Rose, M Mak, S E Chen (2002). Problematic issues associated with project partnering—The contractor perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 20(6): 437–449
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00025-4
36 J Nyström (2005). The definition of partnering as a Wittgenstein family—resemblance concept. Construction Management and Economics, 23(5): 473–481
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500040026
37 E G Ochieng, A D F Price (2010). Managing cross-cultural communication in multicultural construction project teams: The case of Kenya and UK. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5): 449–460
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.08.001
38 S Olander (2007). Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Construction Management and Economics, 25(3): 277–287
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600879125
39 Y A Olawale, M Sun (2010). Cost and time control of construction projects: Inhibiting factors and mitigating measures in practice. Construction Management and Economics, 28(5): 509–526
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446191003674519
40 P E P Paro, M C Gerolamo (2017). Organizational culture for lean programs. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(4): 584–598
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2016-0039
41 L E Pitfield, A M MacLellan, E K Kelloway (2015). Multicultural diversity and communication in the project context. In: Chiocchio F, Kelloway E K, Hobbs B, eds. The Psychology and Management of Project Teams: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press
42 R E Quinn, G M Spreitzer (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. In: Woodman R W, Pasmore W A, eds. Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 5. Greenwich: JAI Press, 115–142
43 D E Ranf (2010). Cultural differences in project management. Annales Universitatis Apulensis: Series Oeconomica, 12(2): 657–662
https://doi.org/10.29302/oeconomica.2010.12.2.18
44 S A Sackmann (2009). Cultural dynamics in project work. In: Dorn K H, Engstler M, Fitzsimons C J, Kerber G, Wagenhals K, Wagner R, eds. Projects as Cultural Experience. dpunkt-Verlag, 1–16 (in Germany)
45 I Sandrk Nukic, M Huemann (2016). Organizational culture of the Croatian construction industry. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 23(2): 237–260
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2015-0019
46 E H Schein (2017). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass
47 J P Smiley, S Fernie, A Dainty (2014). Understanding construction reform discourses. Construction Management and Economics, 32(7–8): 804–815
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2014.909049
48 M Sochan (2018). The Art of Strategic Partnering: Dancing with the Elephants. Gilroy: NAK Publishing
49 A J Sohi, M Hertogh, M G C Bosch-Rekveldt, R Blom (2016). Does lean & agile project management help coping with project complexity? Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 226: 252–259
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.186
50 M Strack (2012). Organizational culture in the Competing Values Framework: Measuring characteristics in the OCAI’s German adaption. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 3: 30–41 (in Germany)
51 R Turner, R Zolin (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5): 87–99
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21289
52 Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (2019). VDI 2553—Lean Construction. Available at: vdi.de/richtlinien/details
53 G M Winch (1989). The construction firm and the construction project: A transaction cost approach. Construction Management and Economics, 7(4): 331–345
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446198900000032
54 G M Winch (2000). Institutional reform in British construction: Partnering and private finance. Building Research and Information, 28(2): 141–155
https://doi.org/10.1080/096132100369046
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed