Next Article in Journal
Unintended Consequences of Productivity Improvement Strategies on Safety Behaviour of Construction Labourers; A Step toward the Integration of Safety and Productivity
Previous Article in Journal
Integrated EDM and 4D BIM-Based Decision Support System for Construction Projects Control
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/buildings12030316
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analytical and Conceptual Perspectives toward Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models in Construction Projects

by
Sina Moradi
*,
Kalle Kähkönen
and
Piia Sormunen
Faculty of Built Environment, Tampere University, 33720 Tampere, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2022, 12(3), 316; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030316
Submission received: 25 January 2022 / Revised: 3 March 2022 / Accepted: 5 March 2022 / Published: 7 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Construction Management, and Computers & Digitization)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Collaborative models and working practices have considerably contributed to the evolution of construction project delivery in the last four decades. The promising performance results of construction projects with collaborative delivery models are mostly attributed to their behavioral elements (e.g., mutual trust), which have been frequently mentioned in the literature. However, the interrelationships between these behavioral elements as well as the enablers of these behavioral elements are two knowledge gaps which need to be addressed. Therefore, this study aims to fill the mentioned knowledge gaps by addressing the behavioral elements of collaborative project delivery models from analytical and conceptual perspectives. To do so, a systematic literature review was undertaken by locating 201 relevant studies and reviewing them. This was followed by the thematic analysis of the obtained research data and the development of a model for meeting this study’s objectives. The findings present a model, illustrating the behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models in construction projects, their interrelationships, as well as their enablers. The model reveals that the establishment of equality and mutual respect between project team members is a fundamental step toward mutual trust and open communication. These findings can be insightful for the research community and project professionals interested in collaborative construction project delivery.

1. Introduction

The successful performance of construction projects is considerably dependent on the delivery model that is employed for undertaking the project [1]. Construction project delivery models have been a means of accomplishing project definition, design, planning, and execution phases by delineating the contractual relationships and allocating the risks and rewards of the project to the key parties (e.g., [2,3,4,5]). This perspective can be helpful in understanding the terminology associated with the traditional construction project delivery models (e.g., design–bid–build; design–build, engineering–procurement–construction) which represent an emphasis on the division. This means that dividing the construction project phases between the key parties based on their contractual responsibilities usually results in their separation and working in their own silos throughout the project [6].
For instance, the contractor in traditional construction project delivery models is usually not involved in the project definition, planning, and design, or at least, this involvement is not early enough. The explained division consequently causes a few disadvantages associated with the traditional delivery models of construction projects. Some of these disadvantages are the late involvement of key project participants, the lack of integration, several design errors and reworks, litigation and claims, cost, and time overrun as well as mistrust and adversarial relationships [7,8,9,10]. It can be argued that the mentioned challenges have been the main drivers of the changes and developments that have happened in construction project delivery in the last four decades (Forbes and Ahmed, 2010).
The mentioned changes and developments, in the holistic view, account for traditional delivery models turning into collaborative ones (e.g., partnering, alliancing, integrated project delivery). The key features of collaborative delivery models include the early involvement of key parties, shared risk–reward, joint project planning and control, jointly developed and validated goals, and trust-based relationships for collaboration and cooperation (e.g., [11,12]). Accordingly, collaborative delivery models are usually characterized by limited change orders, reduced liability exposure, fixed profit, and profit based on project outcome, unlike traditional delivery models (e.g., [13]). In construction projects with collaborative delivery models, project participants work together (collaboration) and exchange information (cooperation) with aligned interests and mutual trust for the best of the project (e.g., [14,15,16]).
In addition to the pure forms of traditional and collaborative deliveries, there has been also a trend in the construction industry whereby traditional delivery models are combined with collaborative practices (e.g., co-located teams). It can be said that this form of construction project delivery implies being collaborative in traditional contracts. In the literature, construction projects with collaborative delivery models (e.g., integrated project delivery, alliance, partnering) and/or traditional ones (e.g., design–bid–build), comprising collaborative practices (e.g., co-located teams), are also called collaborative construction projects (e.g., [17]).
Construction projects with collaborative delivery models have had promising performance results compared to traditional ones, particularly in terms of time, cost, and quality [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. This has led to a growing trend of using collaborative delivery models and working practices in construction projects in many countries (for instance in the USA, UK, Australia, Finland, and Norway) [26]. In Finland, almost 100 construction projects with collaborative delivery models have been launched since 2011 with a total value of EUR 5.5–6 billion [15]. This trend of collaborative delivery models in the industry has in turn caused substantial interest in the research community with regard to the scholarly activities addressing the different aspects of collaborative project delivery (e.g., [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]).
The promising performance results of construction projects with collaborative delivery models are mainly attributed to their different elements and characteristics compared to those of traditional ones (e.g., [13,17]). These elements, which are mostly behavioral (e.g., mutual trust, open communication), have been frequently mentioned in the literature (e.g., [46,47,48]). However, the interrelationships between these behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models as well as the enablers of those behavioral elements are two knowledge gaps which need to be addressed. This study aims to look at these behavioral elements from analytical and conceptual perspectives. Such perspectives, when utilized together, will enable performing a thorough review and identification of the behavioral elements, followed by exploring their enablers and the linkages between them. According to the mentioned gap and purposes, this study aims to answer the following questions:
RQ1. 
What are the behavioral elements in the collaborative delivery models of construction projects?
RQ2. 
How are the interrelationships between the behavioral elements of the collaborative delivery models of construction projects?
RQ3. 
What are the enablers for the behavioral elements of the collaborative delivery models of construction projects?
The resulting article is structured in four sections. The next section presents the theoretical background. Then, the methodology is explained, which is followed by presenting and discussing the findings. Finally, the conclusions, drawn from the findings, are stated.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Definition

“Collaborative delivery model” is one of the umbrella terms which has been utilized by different scholars in reference to alliance, partnering, integrated project delivery, and lean project delivery (e.g., [49]). According to [50,51], alliance, partnering, integrated project delivery, and lean project delivery are the existing pure collaborative delivery models which share some common features, including the early involvement of key parties, transparent financials, shared risk and reward, joint decision making, and a collaborative multiparty agreement. There is also a new form of collaborative delivery in which traditional delivery models (e.g., design–build) are combined with collaborative practices (e.g., co-located and integrated teams) for benefiting from the advantages of both traditional (competitive price, insurance) and collaborative delivery models (e.g., integrated project organization, fair share of risk–reward, the early involvement of key project participants). A recent study [15] has defined collaborative delivery models as the joint design, planning, control, and management of construction projects by its participants based on their early involvement in the project, trust-based relationships, open communication, and fair share of risk–reward. This source has also provided clarification in terms of the differences between collaborative and traditional delivery models which is in line with the one presented by [52]. Table 1 shows the common features of collaborative delivery models and their differences with traditional delivery models.

2.2. Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models

Collaborative delivery models, as the earlier explanations imply, have a significant difference compared to traditional ones. This difference refers to the change of people’s mindset (the established set of attitudes held by someone) and consequently their behavior from working in silo and having adversarial relationships with other project participants toward collaboration (working together) and cooperation (exchanging information) based on mutual trust and aligned commercial interests solely for the common good, which is the project success. Thus, the behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models can be defined as various aspects and forms of human resources’ constructive and continuous interactions for accomplishing something, which cannot be achieved by working in silos with mistrust and out of self-interest.

2.3. Existing Research-Based Knowledge concerning Collaborative Delivery Models

2.3.1. Alliance

The research community has been actively studying the different aspects of alliance construction projects since 2000. Providing a clear definition of alliance construction projects has been one of the main efforts in the previous studies (for instance, [53,54,55,56,57]). Lloyd and Varey [58] stated that the alliance is a fully integrated and congenial environment which provides the possibility for the successful merging of two different organizational cultures. According to [59], alliancing has certain defining elements, which include open book cost management, integrated project team, pain/gain-share, the aligned commercial objectives of the client and project participants, no-disputes clause, unanimous decision making, incentivized cost reimbursement.
Alliance team integration is another topic which has been addressed by different scholars. Ibrahim et al. [60,61] identified the key indicators of alliance team integration, which include team leadership, trust and respect, single team focus on project objectives and key results areas, collective understanding, commitment from project alliance board, the creation of single and collocated alliance team, and free flow communication. They also stated that influencing the leadership for achieving successful integration practice requires a team-centric approach which contains four elements of task and relationship-oriented behaviors; collaborative learning environments; cultivating cross-boundary networks; and collaborative governance. Moreover, a study conducted by [53] found that everyday dynamics are very important for managing integration. They also stated that project complexity and a lack of previous collaboration experience among participants increase the uncertainty of the project and create a need for high levels of integration.
An incentive structure, relationship building and management, and success factors for alliance projects are other major topics which have been studied in the context of alliance construction projects. Regarding the incentive structure, Hauck et al. [7] stated that a constructive incentive system aligns individual interests with the goals of the project team. In addition, it has been mentioned that a fair system of risk–reward sharing between project parties is a driving factor for collaborative behavior, achieving cost efficiencies, and producing innovative design solutions [62]. In this regard, Laan et al. [63] and Hietajärvi et al. [64] identified that an alliance incentive structure reduces opportunistic behavior serving self-interest but creates a willingness for proactive opportunity-seeking when it is combined with idea-generating processes.
Concerning relationship building and management in alliance projects, a study undertaken by [6] identified that trust, adequate resources, open communication, coordination, integration, top management support, creativity, and goal alignment are critical factors for the successful formation, operation and evaluation phases of the relationship. Similarly, Lloyd and Varey [58] emphasized the significance of free-flowing, integrated and bi-directional communication for having good client–contractor relationships in the alliance projects. Moreover, it has been mentioned that having cooperative relationships in the alliance projects requires considerable efforts into the inclinations for opportunistic behavior. Furthermore, a recent study carried out by Aaltonen et al. [65] found that both informal and formal socialization mechanisms are important for creating relational capital. They found that informal socialization mechanisms are useful in both building relational capital (in terms of developing personal relationships, trust, and integration) in the tendering phase and enhancing it in the development phase, whereas formal socialization mechanisms (e.g., co-locational space) are mainly effective in the development phase for maintaining relational capital.
Success factors for alliance construction projects is another major topic which has been addressed in the literature, as mentioned earlier. Young et al. [59] identified 22 success factors such as strong commitment by client and senior management, mutual goals and objectives, dispute resolution process, flexibility and adaptability, open communication, and trust. Moreover, Hietajärvi et al. [66] stated that four groups of contractual, behavioral, relational, and operational skills are critical for the successful initiation and implementation of alliance projects.
In addition to the explained topics, communication, culture, collaboration and cooperation, cost management, control mechanisms, and risk management have also been studied in the context of alliance construction projects [55,67,68,69,70,71,72].

2.3.2. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)

Akin to alliance, integrated project delivery has also been an interesting and focused research topic. Collaboration and integration constitute the area in which most research studies in the context of integrated project delivery have been undertaken. According to Kent and Becerik-Gerber [73], collaboration is influenced by relationships between project stakeholders rather than contracts. A study conducted by Lee et al. [74] found that collaboration contributes toward team integration. Moreover, it has been stated that the frequent interaction of project parties in IPD projects foster mutual trust and improve team collaboration [75,76]. Another study carried out by Mollaoglu-Korkmaz et al. [77] revealed that factors such as the early involvement of the contractor in the project can be useful for team integration. Additionally, a few studies have stated that IPD’s collaborative features considerably contribute toward project success [78,79,80]. According to Rowlinson [81], collaboration and cooperation in projects require a building information model that all can access, comprehend, and handle.
Project performance, incentive system, risk and insurance, and success factors are other major topics which have been studied by different scholars in the context of integrated project delivery. In terms of performance, a few studies have reported that IPD projects outperform traditional construction projects in terms of time, cost, quality, communication, and number of change orders [18,19,22,23,24,82]. Concerning the incentive system, it has been mentioned that financial and nonfinancial motivations are both important to IPD projects and both of them are needed in a constructive incentive system [83,84,85].
Risk allocation and insurance were mentioned in some of the previous studies as a big concern of IPD projects [73,85]. One reason for this problem, according to El-Adaway et al. [86], is that multiparty agreements are not covered by insurance policies or products. In other words, the contracting team is not supported against third-party claims. Consequently, there is still a fundamental lack of connection between the contractual arrangement and the insurance program that is expected to protect the project and its participants’ interests. Thus, relational contract agreements are different in terms of treating insurance and risk issues.
Success factors for IPD projects is the last (but not least) major topic which has been interesting for the research community. Factors such as the symmetrical alignment of shared responsibilities, early involvement of key project participants, financial incentives, collaboration and cooperation, and trust have been frequently mentioned by different scholars [73,85,87,88].

2.3.3. Lean Project Delivery

In the area of lean construction, two major topics can be recognized in the literature which include efforts to define lean construction/project delivery and the combination of lean with other collaborative delivery models and/or working practices (e.g., [89,90,91]). Regarding the former one, Enache-Pommer et al. [92] defined lean as the elimination of waste in design and operational processes. According to Daniel and Pasquire [93], lean production philosophy supports the realization of social value purposes in construction project delivery through helping construction organizations to conceptualize the communities and physical environment where they operate as their customers, rather than mere people and place. Moreover, a recent study conducted by Mesa et al. [51] explained the characteristics of a lean operational system (flow-based approach, predictable and rapid workflow, project optimization, and lean tools), lean behaviors (collaboration, trust, promise based management and continuous improvement) and lean principles (defining customer-oriented value, mapping the value stream, creating flow, pull planning, managing continuous improvement).
As mentioned earlier, the combination of lean with other collaborative delivery models and/or working practices has been addressed by different scholars. For instance, Enache-Pommer et al. [92] conducted a study concerning integration of the lean, green, and building information modeling (BIM) and found that integrating greening strategies, lean principles, and BIM for the delivery of healthcare facilities results in building an optimum healthcare facility. Another research study carried out by Nguyen and Akhavian [94] found that there are six crucial characteristics (e.g., durable value and continuous development, customer satisfaction and waste elimination, communication and achievement metrics) required for an effective coordination between integrated project delivery (IPD), lean construction, and BIM. In addition, Ahuja [95] stated that the combination of lean and green philosophies contributes to achieving sustainability in terms of economic, social, and environmental values. Another study conducted by Mesa et al. [51] addressed IPD and lean project delivery (LPD) as two different delivery models and concluded that the core of IPD and LPD is to facilitate the utilization of integrated project organizations, relational contracting, and integrated process as mechanisms to integrate a project delivery system. This source also clarified that the main difference between LPD and IPD delivery systems originates from the operational system. The IPD system addresses no specific operational system, whereas the LPD system utilizes an operational system based on lean principles and the use of lean tools such as target value design, last planner system, and set-based design.
In addition to the explained topics, several other studies have also been undertaken concerning barriers for adopting lean project delivery [96,97], contractual issues [98,99], cost management [100], green projects [92,101], lean processes [102], last planner system and location-based management system [103], social value [93], and success factors [104].

2.3.4. Partnering

Analyzing the literature on partnering construction projects shows that, among several addressed topics, partnering definition, partnering performance, and partnering success factors have gained considerable attention from the research community.
Partnering has been defined and explained by several scholars (for instance, [105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114]). For instance, it was defined by Brown [115] as a realignment which involves choosing to act vs. react and planning vs. abdicating responsibility and acknowledging that there is greater benefit to resolving the problem than placing the blame. Gransberg et al. [116] defined partnering as a change in business behavior and not a technical change to a contract, and pointed out that high-level trust among the key project participants is required to achieve the positive influence of partnering. Additionally, Conley and Gregory [117] stated that the partnering agreement is not legally binding because it serves as a reminder for commitment to a successful project. Another definition of partnering has been provided by El-Adaway [118,119], which clarifies the required elements of a partnering contract, including duties of fairness, teamwork, mutual cooperation and shared financial motivation, as well as clearly defined roles and duties in a fully integrated document. In a recent study, Hosseini et al. [26] defined partnering as a collaborative procurement form, focusing on the integration of the project design and delivery by weighting collaboration and coordination between involved parties. This study also identified 30 elements of partnering including the early involvement of contractors, target price with bonus or malus, the inclusion of consultants in the partnering group, and the co-location of the partnering group.
In terms of partnering performance, it has been frequently mentioned in the literature that partnering projects are considerably successful in terms of controlling cost and time growth, quality, and working relationships [117,120,121,122,123,124,125]. Moreover, it has been stated that partnering enhances the risk of management, and contributes to mutual trust, collaboration, cooperation, and team integration [126,127].
Regarding partnering success factors, more than 10 studies have been carried out to address the subject of interest. For instance, a study undertaken by Zhang and Kumaraswamy [128] identified seven success factors for partnering projects including a well-established legal system, business-friendly environment, fair and transparent project development system, and clear administration. Another study performed by Chan et al. [129] stated that the establishment and communication of a conflict resolution strategy, willingness to share resources among project participants, a clear definition of responsibilities, commitment to a win–win attitude and the regular monitoring of the partnering process are critical factors for partnering success. Moreover, a few studies have mentioned that factors such as open communication, mutual trust, equity, and the early identification and engagement of all potential stakeholders are critical for partnering success [130,131,132,133,134].
In addition to the explained research efforts, several other studies have also been carried out and addressed topics such as an application of partnering [135,136]; building information modelling [137], barriers to successful partnering [134], conflict management [138], owner–contractor relationships [139,140,141], partnering implementation [142,143], and trust [144,145].

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a systematic literature review for meetings its objectives. Locating the relevant studies from four databases was followed by excluding irrelevant ones and repetitions through abstract review. Finally, the full texts of the relevant studies were reviewed, and the obtained research data were analyzed through thematic analysis method [146]. The whole process of data collection and analysis in this research is illustrated in Figure 1 and explained in detail in the following sub-sections.

3.2. Keyword Selection and the Search for Locating the Relevant Studies

The search for finding relevant studies was performed in January 2021 using six keywords: (i) alliance projects; (ii) lean project delivery; (iii) partnering projects; (iv) integrated project delivery; (v) relational contracting; and (vi) relationship-based procurement. The keywords were selected based on state-of-the-art studies on collaborative delivery models (e.g., [12,49,50]). Then, the ScienceDirect, Emerald, and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) databases were utilized for locating the relevant studies. Since very few studies have been found in the mentioned databases for two of the keywords (relationship-based procurement and lean project delivery), the Google Scholar database was also utilized to search for the relevant studies with those two keywords on their title. In the end, 318 papers were located as a result of searching for the presence of the mentioned six keywords on the title of the publications in four databases. Then, the abstract of all the studies were reviewed to ensure that the identified studies matched the collaborative delivery models of the construction projects. As a result of this effort, 117 studies were excluded, and the remaining 201 relevant studies were analyzed through thematic analysis.

3.3. Descriptive Statistics of the Conducted Search for Locating Relevant Studies

The following Table 2 and Table 3 show the publication type of the analyzed studies and detailed descriptive statistics concerning the conducted search for locating the relevant studies. No specific time span was applied in locating the relevant studies to ensure the comprehensiveness of the search. However, as can be seen in Figure 2, the publication period of 61% of the 201 analyzed studies was between 2011 and 2020. This can be of importance as the relevance of recent publications is usually higher.

3.4. Conceptualization: Thematic Analysis and Model Development

After locating the relevant studies, they were analyzed through thematic analysis [146]. This was undertaken by inductively coding the extracted research data as a result of reviewing the relevant studies. The labels of the codes were data derived by the researcher. According to the purpose of this study, the codes representing behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models were structured under a theme entitled “behavioral elements.” Then, the codes under the developed theme (behavioral elements) were further analyzed for three main purposes: first, to identify and develop a list of the behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models; second, to detect the enablers contributing to the establishment of the behavioral elements; and third, to discover the interrelationships between the behavioral elements (i.e., how they influence each other). Finally, a pyramid model was developed based on the results of the conducted analysis.

4. Results

4.1. Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models

As the first group of findings, Figure 3 presents the behavioral elements of the collaborative delivery models, which have been frequently mentioned in the literature. As can be seen in Figure 3, cooperation, collaboration, mutual trust, and open communication are the top four ones in terms of the ranking. Then, commitment to common goals, equality and mutual respect, and team integration are the next ones in the ranking. In this study, cooperation is defined as exchanging information between the project team members for the good of the project. Similarly, but not the same, collaboration is defined as working together for the best of the project. Team integration, here, is defined as the combination of collaboration and cooperation between project team members, representing different parties. Equality is defined here as the fair share of organizational and contractual authority, responsibility, risk, and reward between the project parties and team members throughout the project.

4.2. Pyramid Model for Collaborative Project Delivery

A pyramid model was developed for collaborative project delivery through analyzing the interrelationships of the mentioned behavioral elements in Figure 3. In other words, these elements were analyzed in order to find their linkages with each other and also their enablers. Appendix A includes the details of the explained thematic analysis for developing the pyramid model. The Appendix, in the big picture, provides research evidence concerning the enablers and interplay of the mentioned behavioral elements.
The developed model consists of three components: (i) the pyramid, presenting the behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models and their interrelationships; (ii) common enablers of the presented elements in the pyramid; and (iii) the specific enablers of the presented behavioral elements in the pyramid. This classification of the enablers into “specific” and “common” categories is based on the thematic analysis results (Appendix A), meaning that some enablers contribute towards all of the presented behavioral elements in Figure 4, whereas some of the enablers only contribute to one or two of the behavioral elements.
As can be seen in Figure 4, establishing the equality and mutual respect between project team members provides a basis for mutual trust and open communication. This is particularly important because the significance of equality has been considerably overlooked in previous studies as a critical enabler for trust development and open communication. As explained earlier, equality is the fair share of organizational and contractual authority, responsibility, risk, and reward between participants throughout the project. From this perspective, it can be argued that in a collaborative working environment with the win–win philosophy at its core, mutual trust, respect, and even constructive collaboration would only happen if the project team members see themselves as equal participants.
When equality and mutual respect are combined with mutual trust and open communication, the project team members have all prerequisites in place to work together (collaboration) and to exchange information (cooperation) for meeting common project objectives. Accordingly, team integration is achieved when equality and mutual respects fosters mutual trust and open communication, resulting in the collaboration and cooperation for the best of the project.
As can be seen in Figure 4, there are certain enablers which contribute to the creation of the aforementioned elements. A fair share of risk–reward, collaborative governance, commitment to common goals, and incremental as well as constructive interaction were found to be common contributors for the creation of equality and mutual respect, mutual trust and open communication, and for having collaborative cooperation. A building information model through which all team members can access, understand, and manage project information is another enabler which contribute toward equality and mutual respect, and mutual trust as well as open communication. Finally, an incentive payment structure was found to be of importance for facilitating collaboration and cooperation between project team members.
This developed model provides a new level of understanding regarding the interplay of behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models in construction projects. Although the mentioned behavioral elements of collaborative construction projects have been frequently mentioned in previous studies, such analytical and conceptual perspectives toward them are missing in the literature.

5. Discussion

The obtained results revealed the significance of establishing equality and mutual respect as the fundamental step toward trust development and open communication in collaborative project delivery. Moreover, it became evident that mutual trust and open communication are the prerequisites for constructive collaboration and cooperation, which eventually contribute to team integration. Furthermore, it was clarified that certain enablers contribute toward each of the mentioned behavioral elements. These findings seem to be in line with the previous research.
The findings of the studies conducted by [99,147] imply that when equality and mutual respect exist between project team members, they are encouraged to trust each other and communicate openly. Another reason for this interrelationship would be this fact that the win–win philosophy, which is at the core of collaborative working environment, requires equality and mutual respect as the underlying step toward mutual trust and open communication. Moreover, previous studies have stated that team integration in collaborative construction projects requires project team members to collaborate and cooperate for the best of the project (e.g., [74,99]). Furthermore, it has been shown that project team members can work together and exchange information if they trust each other and there is an open line of communication (for instance, [48,144]).
In addition to the explained scientific logic behind the obtained results, one of the co-authors of this study with over 15 years of experience as an academic and executive expert of lean construction explained that “for example, the contract in alliance construction projects is very clear and each stakeholder is involved in the same contract with clear and agreed responsibilities and share of risk–reward. However, after the development phase, the design team plays a smaller role in the construction phase. Normally, the contactor starts to build and forgets the design team. In this case, the contractor’s failure results in the design team’s failure because equality and possibilities to influence end results in that case are small, and mutual trust and collaboration are weak throughout the project because of the missing equality. On the other hand, when the contractor and design team’s mindset see equality and mutual respect as the fundamental constructs, it facilitates the establishment and continuation of mutual trust, open communication, and consequently, collaboration throughout the project, which eventually results in team integration,” as it has been identified in this study.
In terms of the identified enablers, it has been stated in the previous studies that joint governance, fair share of risk–reward, commitment to common goals and incremental interaction are useful and effective for establishing equality, mutual respect, mutual trust and collaboration as well as cooperation (e.g., [47,63,76,79,148,149,150,151,152]). Moreover, Rowlinson, [81] asserted that equality, mutual trust, and collaboration are contributed through a building information model that all project participants can access, easily understand, and are also able to manage. In addition, the studies carried out by Hauck et al. [7] and Love et al. [62] revealed that a constructive incentive system is of prime importance for the collaboration and cooperation of project team members. According to the earlier explanations and this study’s findings, pure team integration happens when the project team has already achieved equality, mutual trust, and collaboration as well as cooperation (e.g., [74,75]).
Regarding the enablers, it is also worth discussing the possible methods and technologies for their implementation. Among the identified enablers, collaborative governance, fair share of risk–reward, and an incentive payments system can be implemented throughout the project by incorporating these features into the contract in which project parties join. Realizing incremental and constructive interaction between project team members can be accomplished through on site (e.g., the co-location of the project team members) and/or virtual solutions (e.g., platforms such as Teams or Mural). The other identified enabler was a building information model (BIM) through which all team members can access, understand, and manage project information. This is necessary to highlight here that this enabler basically refers to the essence of the existence of BIM as a contributor to the establishment of equality, trust, and open communication, regardless of the challenges and complexities of employing and managing the BIM itself. The building information model data can be collected, updated, shared, and processed in various ways according to the building information modeling process and various BIM tools. Therefore, an in-depth study of the factors behind the success of the BIM as an enabler for equality, trust, and open communication is a potential area for future research.
These findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge and beyond by presenting a novel model which has explanatory capacity for portraying the interrelationships between the behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models in construction projects. The developed model can also be insightful for the research community and project professionals interested in trust development and team integration in temporary organizations.
In terms of practical implications, the study’s findings can be insightful and value-adding for project professionals. First, the developed model (Figure 4) can be employed for facilitating the trust development between project participants and team integration when a collaborative construction project is launched. Second, it can also be utilized as a tool for monitoring, measuring, and enhancing the integration performance of the existing project delivery teams by utilizing the presented enablers in the model as the indicators of equality, trust and open communication, collaboration and cooperation, and team integration.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Studies

This study addressed the interrelationships of behavioral elements in collaborative project delivery and their enablers through developing a pyramid model for collaborative project delivery. The obtained results provided the basis for the following conclusions concerning the collaborative delivery models for construction projects:
  • Establishing the equality and mutual respect between project team members is the fundamental step toward trust development and open communication.
  • Equality is the fair share of organizational and contractual authority, responsibility, risk, and reward between project parties and team members throughout the project.
  • Equality and mutual respect together with mutual trust and open communication seem to be the prerequisites for constructive collaboration and cooperation between project team members.
  • Achieving team integration requires collaboration (working together) and cooperation (exchanging information) between project participants for the best of the project.
These findings contribute to the body of knowledge on collaborative delivery models for construction projects through providing academic and practical insights for establishing integrated teams for productive construction project delivery. The generalizability of the findings of this study may even be beyond the construction projects and the developed model can be adapted for project delivery in other industries as well. As the limitations of this study, it is acknowledged that certain keywords were employed and searched in certain databases for locating the relevant studies, which narrowed its scope and might have affected its reliability and validity. Moreover, the developed model in this study needs to be tested in future studies and real projects in different contexts before it can be considered as generally accepted. Therefore, further studies in various regions and business conditions are a potential area for further research. In this regard, the following recommendations, which are based on the obtained results, can be the starting points for the future studies:
  • Testing the developed model (Figure 4) in construction projects with alliance, partnering, IPD, and lean project delivery models through undertaking a survey among the practitioners of those projects.
  • Exploring any discrepancy in terms of the effectiveness of the developed model (Figure 4) for the addressed collaborative delivery models in this study.
  • Exploring contextual enablers for the presented behavioral elements in the model (Figure 4).
  • An in-depth study of the factors behind the success of the building information modelling (BIM) as an enabler for equality, trust, and open communication.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.; methodology, S.M.; formal analysis, S.M.; curation, S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.; writing—review and editing, S.M., K.K. and P.S.; supervision, K.K. and P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Interrelationships between Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models

Buildings 12 00316 g0a1 550
Buildings 12 00316 g0a1

References

  1. Mostafavi, A.; Karamouz, M. Selecting appropriate project delivery system: Fuzzy approach with risk analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 136, 923–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alarcón, L.F.; Mesa, H.; Howell, G. Characterization of lean Project delivery. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 29 July–2 August 2013. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, Y.Q.; Liu, J.Y.; Li, B.; Lin, B. Project delivery system selection of construction projects in China. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 5456–5462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. (CSI) Construction Specifications Institute. The CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kenig, M.E. An introduction. In Project Delivery Systems for Construction, 3rd ed.; The Associated General Contractors of America: Arlington, VA, USA, 2011; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  6. Love, P.E.; Mistry, D.; Davis, P.R. Price competitive alliance projects: Identification of success factors for public clients. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 947–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hauck, A.J.; Walker, D.H.; Hampson, K.D.; Peters, R.J. Project alliancing at national museum of Australia—Collaborative process. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ibrahim, C.K.I.C.; Costello, S.B.; Wilkinson, S. Application of a team integration performance index in road infrastructure alliance projects. Benchmarking Int. J. 2016, 23, 1341–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Matthews, O.; Howell, G.A. Integrated project delivery an example of relational contracting. Lean Constr. J. 2005, 2, 46–61. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ratajczak, J.; Schimanski, C.P.; Marcher, C.; Riedl, M.; Matt, D.T. Collaborative tool for the construction site to enhance lean project delivery. In International Conference on Cooperative Design, Visualization and Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 192–199. [Google Scholar]
  11. Moradi, S.; Kähkönen, K.; Aaltonen, K. Project Managers’ Competencies in Collaborative Construction Projects. Buildings 2020, 10, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Oakland, J.S.; Marosszeky, M. Total Construction Management: Lean Quality in Construction Project Delivery; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fischer, M.; Khanzode, A.; Ashcraft, H.W.; Reed, D. Integrating Project Delivery; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hosseini, A.; Haddadi, A.; Andersen, B.; Olsson, N.; Lædre, O. Relational base contracts–Needs and trends in Northern Europe. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 121, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moradi, S. Project Managers’ Competencies in Collaborative Construction Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, 2021. Available online: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-03-2002-7 (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  16. Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Rahman, M.M.; Ling, F.Y.; Phng, S.T. Reconstructing cultures for relational contracting. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 1065–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moradi, S.; Kähkönen, K.; Klakegg, O.J.; Aaltonen, K. A Competency Model for the Selection and Performance Improvement of Project Managers in Collaborative Construction Projects: Behavioral Studies in Norway and Finland. Buildings 2021, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. El Asmar, M.; Hanna, A.S.; Loh, W.Y. Evaluating integrated project delivery using the project quarterback rating. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04015046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De Marco, A.; Karzouna, A. Assessing the benefits of the Integrated Project Delivery Method: A survey of Expert opinions. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 138, 823–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Forbes, L.H.; Ahmed, S.M. Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grajek, K.M.; Gibson, G.E.; Tucker, R.L. Partnered project performance in Texas Department of Transportation. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2000, 6, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hanna, A.S. Benchmark performance metrics for integrated project delivery. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hwang, B.G.; Ngo, J.; Her, P.W.Y. Integrated Digital Delivery: Implementation status and project performance in the Singapore construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ibrahim, M.W.; Hanna, A.; Kievet, D. Quantitative comparison of project performance between project delivery systems. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 04020082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, T.; Tang, W.; Du, L.; Duffield, C.F.; Wei, Y. Relationships among risk management, partnering, and contractor capability in international EPC project delivery. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 04016017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hosseini, A.; Wondimu, P.A.; Bellini, A.; Haugseth, N.; Andersen, B.; Lædre, O. Project partnering in Norwegian construction industry. Energy Procedia 2016, 96, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Ballard, G. Rethinking project definition in terms of target costing. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile, 25–27 July 2006. [Google Scholar]
  28. El-adaway, I.; Abotaleb, I.; Eteifa, S. Framework for multiparty relational contracting. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2017, 9, 04517018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Harper, C.M.; Molenaar, K.R. Association between construction contracts and relational contract theory. In Construction Research Congress 2014: Construction in a Global Network; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2014; pp. 1329–1338. [Google Scholar]
  30. Han, J.; Rapoport, A.; Fong, P.S. Incentive structures in multi-partner project teams. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 27, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jagtap, M.; Kamble, S. An empirical assessment of relational contracting model for supply chain of construction projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2019, 13, 1537–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jones, B. Integrated project delivery (IPD) for maximizing design and construction considerations regarding sustainability. Procedia Eng. 2014, 95, 528–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Kayis, B.; Zhou, M.; Savci, S.; Khoo, Y.B.; Ahmed, A.; Kusumo, R.; Rispler, A. IRMAS–development of a risk management tool for collaborative multi-site, multi-partner new product development projects. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2007, 18, 387–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kadefors, A.; Björlingson, E.; Karlsson, A. Procuring service innovations: Contractor selection for partnering projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 375–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mulholland, S.; Clevenger, C. Contracting Methods for Integrated Project Delivery: A Healthcare Case Study. In Construction Research Congress; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2018; pp. 191–201. [Google Scholar]
  36. Matinheikki, J.; Aaltonen, K.; Walker, D. Politics, public servants, and profits: Institutional complexity and temporary hybridization in a public infrastructure alliance project. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 298–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Matthews, J.; Tyler, A.; Thorpe, A. Pre-construction project partnering: Developing the process. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 1996, 3, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mastroianni, R.; Abdelhamid, T. The challenge: The impetus for change to lean project delivery. In Proceedings of the IGLC-11, 11th Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 25–31 July 2003; pp. 418–426. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mihic, M.; Sertic, J.; Zavrski, I. Integrated project delivery as integration between solution development and solution implementation. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 119, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Sarkar, D.; Mangrola, M. Development of lean integrated project delivery model for highway projects. Int. J. Constr. Proj. Manag. 2016, 8, 25. [Google Scholar]
  41. Piñero, J.C.; de la Garza, J.M. Issues related to the assessment of performance-based road maintenance contracts. In Towards a Vision for Information Technology in Civil Engineering; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2004; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  42. Piroozfar, P.; Farr, E.R.; Zadeh, A.H.; Inacio, S.T.; Kilgallon, S.; Jin, R. Facilitating building information modelling (BIM) using integrated project delivery (IPD): A UK perspective. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 26, 100907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sankaran, B.; Nevett, G.; O’Brien, W.J.; Goodrum, P.M.; Johnson, J. Civil Integrated Management: Empirical study of digital practices in highway project delivery and asset management. Autom. Constr. 2018, 87, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wu, P.; Xu, Y.; Jin, R.; Lu, Q.; Madgwick, D.; Hancock, C.M. Perceptions towards risks involved in off-site construction in the integrated design & construction project delivery. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 899–914. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yates, J.K.; Epstein, A. Avoiding and minimizing construction delay claim disputes in relational contracting. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2006, 132, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bellini, A.; Aarseth, W.; Hosseini, A. Effective knowledge transfer in successful partnering projects. Energy Procedia 2016, 96, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Børve, S.; Rolstadås, A.; Andersen, B.; Aarseth, W. Defining project partnering. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2017, 10, 666–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Doloi, H. Empirical analysis of traditional contracting and relationship agreements for procuring partners in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2013, 29, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Engebø, A.; Lædre, O.; Young, B.; Larssen, P.F.; Lohne, J.; Klakegg, O.J. Collaborative project delivery methods: A scoping review. J. Civil Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 278–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lahdenperä, P. Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2012, 30, 57–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mesa, H.A.; Molenaar, K.R.; Alarcón, L.F. Comparative analysis between integrated project delivery and lean project delivery. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 395–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ballard, G.; Howell, G. Lean project management. Build. Res. Inf. 2003, 31, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hietajärvi, A.M.; Aaltonen, K.; Haapasalo, H. Managing integration in infrastructure alliance projects: Dynamics of integration mechanisms. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2017, 10, 5–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hobbs, B.; Andersen, B. Different alliance relationships for project design and execution. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2001, 19, 465–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Halman, J.I.; Braks, B.F.M. Project alliancing in the offshore industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1999, 17, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ibrahim, C.K.I.C.; Costello, S.B.; Wilkinson, S. Making sense of team integration practice through the “lived experience” of alliance project teams. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 598–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pargar, F.; Kujala, J.; Aaltonen, K.; Ruutu, S. Value creation dynamics in a project alliance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 716–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lloyd, H.L.; Varey, R.J. Factors affecting internal communication in a strategic alliance project. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2003, 8, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Young, B.; Hosseini, A.; Lædre, O. The characteristics of Australian infrastructure alliance projects. Energy Procedia 2016, 96, 833–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Ibrahim, C.K.I.C.; Costello, S.B.; Wilkinson, S. Establishment of quantitative measures for team integration assessment in alliance projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ibrahim, C.K.I.C.; Costello, S.B.; Wilkinson, S. Development of an assessment tool for team integration in alliance projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2015, 8, 813–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Love, P.E.; Davis, P.R.; Chevis, R.; Edwards, D.J. Risk/reward compensation model for civil engineering infrastructure alliance projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Laan, A.; Voordijk, H.; Dewulf, G. Reducing opportunistic behaviour through a project alliance. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2011, 4, 660–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hietajärvi, A.M.; Aaltonen, K.; Haapasalo, H. Opportunity management in large projects: A case study of an infrastructure alliance project. Constr. Innov. 2017, 17, 340–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Aaltonen, K.; Turkulainen, V. Creating relational capital through socialization in project alliances. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 1387–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Hietajärvi, A.M.; Aaltonen, K.; Haapasalo, H. What is project alliance capability? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2017, 10, 404–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Baldwin, A.N.; Thorpe, A.; Carter, C. The use of electronic information exchange on construction alliance projects. Autom. Constr. 1999, 8, 651–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chen, G.; Zhang, G.; Xie, Y.M. Impact of transaction attributes on transaction costs in project alliances: Disaggregated analysis. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kok, R.A.; Creemers, P.A. Alliance governance and product innovation project decision making. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2008, 11, 472–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Voordijk, H.; Plantinga, H.; Dorée, A. Procurement strategy formation:(re-) designing rail infrastructure project alliances. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2016, 9, 53–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Harper, D.G.; Bernold, L.E. Success of supplier alliances for capital projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 979–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sillars, D.N.; Kangari, R. Predicting organizational success within a project-based joint venture alliance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 500–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kent, D.C.; Becerik-Gerber, B. Understanding construction industry experience and attitudes toward integrated project delivery. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 815–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lee, H.W.; Tommelein, I.D.; Ballard, G. Energy-related risk management in integrated project delivery. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, A4013001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Franz, B.; Leicht, R.; Molenaar, K.; Messner, J. Impact of team integration and group cohesion on project delivery performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04016088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhang, L.; Cheng, J.; Fan, W. Party selection for integrated project delivery based on interorganizational transactive memory system. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04015089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S.; Swarup, L.; Riley, D. Delivering sustainable, high-performance buildings: Influence of project delivery methods on integration and project outcomes. J. Manag. Eng. 2013, 29, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Choi, J.; Yun, S.; Leite, F.; Mulva, S.P. Team integration and owner satisfaction: Comparing integrated project delivery with construction management at risk in health care projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 05018014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gomez, S.; Naderpajouh, N.; Ballard, G.; Hastak, M.; Weidner, T.J.; Barriga, P. Implications of the Integrated Project Delivery Research in Practice. In Construction Research Congress; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2018; pp. 86–96. [Google Scholar]
  80. Hamzeh, F.; Rached, F.; Hraoui, Y.; Karam, A.J.; Malaeb, Z.; El Asmar, M.; Abbas, Y. Integrated project delivery as an enabler for collaboration: A Middle East perspective. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2019, 9, 334–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rowlinson, S. Building information modelling, integrated project delivery and all that. Constr. Innov. 2017, 17, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhang, Y.; Hu, H. Utilization of a cognitive task analysis for integrated project delivery application: Case study of constructing a campus underground parking facility. Cogn. Syst. Res. 2018, 52, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Elghaish, F.; Abrishami, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Abu-Samra, S.; Gaterell, M. Integrated project delivery with BIM: An automated EVM-based approach. Autom. Constr. 2019, 106, 102907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Liu, K.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, H.; Kou, Y.; Ji, Q.; Li, D. Evolutionary game and numerical simulation of participants’ collaborative behavior in integrated project delivery project. Alex. Eng. J. 2021, 60, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Xie, H.; Liu, H. Studying contract provisions of shared responsibilities for integrated project delivery under national and international standard forms. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2017, 9, 04517009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. El-Adaway, I.H. Promoting the sustainability of relational contracting through addressing third party insurance obstacles. J. Manag. Eng. 2013, 29, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ling, F.Y.; Teo, P.X.; Li, S.; Zhang, Z.; Ma, Q. Adoption of Integrated Project Delivery Practices for Superior Project Performance. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2020, 12, 05020014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Whang, S.W.; Park, K.S.; Kim, S. Critical success factors for implementing integrated construction project delivery. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 2432–2446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Ballard, G. Lean Project Delivery System. White Pap. 2000, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  90. Ballard, G. The Lean Project Delivery System: An Update. 2008. Available online: https://leanconstruction.org/uploads/wp/media/library/id53/The_Lean_Project_Delivery_System_An_Update.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  91. Nanda, U.; Rybkowski, Z.K.; Pati, S.; Nejati, A. A value analysis of lean processes in target value design and integrated project delivery: Stakeholder perception. Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2017, 10, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Enache-Pommer, E.; Horman, M.J.; Messner, J.I.; Riley, D. A unified process approach to healthcare project delivery: Synergies between greening strategies, lean principles, and BIM. In Construction Research Congress: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2010; pp. 1376–1405. [Google Scholar]
  93. Daniel, E.I.; Pasquire, C. Creating social value within the delivery of construction projects: The role of lean approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 1105–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Nguyen, P.; Akhavian, R. Synergistic effect of integrated project delivery, lean construction, and building information modeling on project performance measures: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1267048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Ahuja, R. Sustainable construction: Is lean green. In ICSDEC 2012: Developing the Frontier of Sustainable Design, Engineering, and Construction; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2013; pp. 903–911. [Google Scholar]
  96. Ghassemi, R.; Becerik-Gerber, B. Transitioning to Integrated Project Delivery: Potential Barriers and Lessons Learned. 2011. Available online: https://leanconstruction.org/uploads/wp/media/docs/ktll-add-read/Transitioning_to_Integrated_Project_Delivery_Potential_barriers_and_lessons_learned.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  97. Haarr, K.J.; Drevland, F. A mandated lean construction delivery system in a rehab project—A case study. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Boston, MA, USA, 18–24 July 2016; Volume 1, pp. 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  98. Darrington, J. Using a design-build contract for Lean Integrated Project Delivery. Lean Constr. J. 2011, 2011, 85–91. [Google Scholar]
  99. Lichtig, W.A. Sutter health: Developing a contracting model to support lean project delivery. Lean Constr. J. 2005, 2, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  100. Nguyen, H.V.; Tommelein, I.D.; Ballard, G. Process-based cost modeling to support lean project delivery. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Manchester, UK, 16–18 July 2008; pp. 577–588. [Google Scholar]
  101. Klotz, L.E.; Horman, M.; Bodenschatz, M. A Lean Modeling Protocol for Evaluating Green Project Delivery. 2007. Available online: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/civileng_pubs/9/ (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  102. Lapinski, A.R.; Horman, M.J.; Riley, D.R. Lean processes for sustainable project delivery. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 1083–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Macomber, H.; Howell, G. Linguistic action: Contributing to the theory of lean construction. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the International Group for Lean Construction, IGLC, Virginia, VA, USA, 22–24 July 2003; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  104. Heidemann, A.; Gehbauer, F. Cooperative project delivery in an environment of strict design-bid-build tender regulations. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-18), Perth, Australia, 28–31 July 2010; pp. 590–591. [Google Scholar]
  105. Anderson, L.L., Jr.; Polkinghorn, B.D. Efficacy of partnering on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project: Empirical evidence of collaborative problem-solving benefits. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2011, 3, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Bresnen, M.; Marshall, N. The engineering or evolution of co-operation? A tale of two partnering projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bresnen, M. Deconstructing partnering in project-based organisation: Seven pillars, seven paradoxes and seven deadly sins. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Spang, K.; Riemann, S. Partnering in infrastructure projects in Germany. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 119, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Weston, D.C.; Gibson, G.E., Jr. Partnering-project performance in US Army Corps of Engineers. J. Manag. Eng. 1993, 9, 410–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Walker, D.H.; Hampson, K.; Peters, R. Project alliancing vs project partnering: A case study of the Australian National Museum Project. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J. 2002, 7, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. McIntyre, M. (Ed.) Partnering: Changing Attitudes in Construction; AGC Publication No. 1225; The Associated General Contractors of America: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  112. Nyström, J. The definition of partnering as a Wittgenstein family-resemblance concept. Constr. Manage. Econom. 2005, 235, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Thompson, P.J.; Sanders, S.R. Partnering continuum. J. Manag. Eng. 1998, 14, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Loraine, R.K. Project specific partnering. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 1994, 1, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Brown, J. Partnering to save troubled projects. J. Manag. Eng. 1994, 10, 22–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Gransberg, D.D.; Dillon, W.D.; Reynolds, L.; Boyd, J. Quantitative analysis of partnered project performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1999, 125, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Conley, M.A.; Gregory, R.A. Partnering on small construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1999, 125, 320–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. El-Adaway, I.H. Guidelines for a standard project partnering contract. In Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2010; pp. 919–928. [Google Scholar]
  119. El-Adaway, I.H. Integrated project delivery case study: Guidelines for drafting partnering contract. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2010, 2, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Fortune, C.; Setiawan, S. Partnering practice and the delivery of construction projects for housing associations in the UK. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2005, 12, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Larson, E. Project partnering: Results of study of 280 construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 1995, 11, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. McFadden, E.M.; Ernzen, J.J. Partnered project performance at the city of Phoenix. In Construction Research Congress: Wind of Change: Integration and Innovation; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2003; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  123. Wang, T.; Tang, W.; Qi, D.; Shen, W.; Huang, M. Enhancing design management by partnering in delivery of international EPC projects: Evidence from Chinese construction companies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04015099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Yeung, J.F.; Chan, A.P.; Chan, D.W. A computerized model for measuring and benchmarking the partnering performance of construction projects. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 1099–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Yeung, J.F.; Chan, A.P.; Chan, D.W. Developing a performance index for relationship-based construction projects in Australia: Delphi study. J. Manag. Eng. 2009, 25, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Du, L.; Tang, W.; Liu, C.; Wang, S.; Wang, T.; Shen, W.; Zhou, Y. Enhancing engineer–procure–construct project performance by partnering in international markets: Perspective from Chinese construction companies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Cheng, E.W. Intentions to form project partnering in Hong Kong: Application of the theory of planned behavior. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zhang, X.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. Procurement protocols for public-private partnered projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2001, 127, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Chan, A.P.; Chan, D.W.; Chiang, Y.H.; Tang, B.S.; Chan, E.H.; Ho, K.S. Exploring critical success factors for partnering in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Antonson, D.; Hoffman, B.; Yurovsky, T. Port Chicago Pipeline Project—A Partnering Success Story. In Building Partnerships; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2000; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  131. Cheng, E.W.; Li, H. Development of a practical model of partnering for construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 790–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cho, K.; Hyun, C.; Koo, K.; Hong, T. Partnering process model for public-sector fast-track design-build projects in Korea. J. Manag. Eng. 2010, 26, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Nevstad, K.; Børve, S.; Karlsen, A.T.; Aarseth, W. Understanding how to succeed with project partnering. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2018, 11, 1044–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Ng, S.T.; Rose, T.M.; Mak, M.; Chen, S.E. Problematic issues associated with project partnering—The contractor perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 437–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Crespin-Mazet, F.; Portier, P. The reluctance of construction purchasers towards project partnering. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2010, 16, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Crespin-Mazet, F.; Havenvid, M.I.; Linné, Å. Antecedents of project partnering in the construction industry—The impact of relationship history. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 50, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Porwal, A.; Hewage, K.N. Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework for public construction projects. Autom. Constr. 2013, 31, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Adnan, H.; Shamsuddin, S.M.; Supardi, A.; Ahmad, N. Conflict prevention in partnering projects. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 35, 772–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Drexler, J.A., Jr.; Larson, E.W. Partnering: Why project owner-contractor relationships change. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2000, 126, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Radziszewska-Zielina, E.; Szewczyk, B. Supporting partnering relation management in the implementation of construction projects using AHP and fuzzy AHP methods. Procedia Eng. 2016, 161, 1096–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Sundquist, V.; Hulthén, K.; Gadde, L.E. From project partnering towards strategic supplier partnering. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 358–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. MohammadHasanzadeh, S.; Hosseinalipour, M.; Hafezi, M. Collaborative procurement in construction projects performance measures, case study: Partnering in Iranian construction industry. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 119, 811–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Pena-Mora, F.; Harpoth, N. Effective partnering in innovative procured multicultural project. J. Manag. Eng. 2001, 17, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Lazar, F.D. Project partnering: Improving the likelihood of win/win outcomes. J. Manag. Eng. 2000, 16, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Laan, A.; Noorderhaven, N.; Voordijk, H.; Dewulf, G. Building trust in construction partnering projects: An exploratory case-study. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2011, 17, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Saunders, M.N.K.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students, 8th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  147. Pasquire, C.; Ballard, G.; Darrington, J.W.; Howell, G.A. Motivation and incentives in relational contracts. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Construction 2011, 16, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Raslim, F.M.; Mustaffa, N.E. The success factors of relationship-based procurement (RBP) in Malaysia. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2017, 8, 1616–1625. [Google Scholar]
  149. Swan, W.; Khalfan, M.M. Mutual objective setting for partnering projects in the public sector. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2007, 14, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lloyd-Walker, B.; Walker, D. Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements; Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  151. Walker, D.; Hampson, K. Procurement Strategies: A Relationship-Based Approach; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  152. Walker, D.H.T.; Jacobsson, M. A rational for alliancing within a public-private partnership: Engineering. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2014, 21, 648–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 12 00316 g001 550
Figure 1. The research process including data collection and analysis.
Figure 1. The research process including data collection and analysis.
Buildings 12 00316 g001
Buildings 12 00316 g002 550
Figure 2. Publication period of the analyzed studies.
Figure 2. Publication period of the analyzed studies.
Buildings 12 00316 g002
Buildings 12 00316 g003 550
Figure 3. Behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models identified from the literature.
Figure 3. Behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models identified from the literature.
Buildings 12 00316 g003
Buildings 12 00316 g004 550
Figure 4. Pyramid model for collaborative project delivery.
Figure 4. Pyramid model for collaborative project delivery.
Buildings 12 00316 g004
Table
Table 1. Collaborative delivery models: common features and differences with traditional delivery models.
Table 1. Collaborative delivery models: common features and differences with traditional delivery models.
Collaborative Delivery Models
Common FeaturesDifferences with Traditional Delivery Models
Early involvement of key participantsFocus is on the production system, not the contract
Joint planning, design, and controlDesign and planning priorities joint design of the product and process and pays attention to the completion of the tasks where they are ready, not as soon as possible; contingency reserves are used for reducing system variability, not for self-interest
Joint decision making
Open book approach for cost management
Fair share of risk and reward
Trust-based relationshipDecision making is unanimous, not divided
Open communicationLearning constantly happens throughout the project life cycle, not occasionally
Multi-party agreementStakeholder interests are aligned, not divided
References: [13,15,52]
Table
Table 2. Publication type of the analyzed studies.
Table 2. Publication type of the analyzed studies.
Type of PublicationDatabaseTotal
ASCEEmeraldGoogle ScholarScienceDirect
Journal articles7240193016180%
Conference proceedings15013124020%
Total201100%
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the search for relevant studies in the literature.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the search for relevant studies in the literature.
Utilized KeywordDatabaseNumber of Located StudiesNumber of Excluded StudiesCriteria for ExclusionNumber of Analyzed Articles
Alliance projectsASCE101Irrelevant to alliance delivery model in the construction context9
Emerald14113
ScienceDirect19136
Integrated project deliveryASCE328Irrelevant to integrated project delivery in the construction context24
Emerald716
ScienceDirect16115
Partnering projectsASCE332Irrelevant to partnering delivery model in the construction context31
Emerald20416
ScienceDirect422616
Relational contractingASCE288Irrelevant to relational contracting in the construction context20
Emerald1385
ScienceDirect36324
Relationship-based procurementASCE00Irrelevant to relationship-based procurement in the construction context0
Emerald000
ScienceDirect110
Google Scholar1019
Lean project deliveryASCE20Irrelevant to lean project delivery in the construction context2
Emerald211
ScienceDirect101
Google Scholar32923
Total318117-201
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moradi, S.; Kähkönen, K.; Sormunen, P. Analytical and Conceptual Perspectives toward Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models in Construction Projects. Buildings 2022, 12, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030316

AMA Style

Moradi S, Kähkönen K, Sormunen P. Analytical and Conceptual Perspectives toward Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models in Construction Projects. Buildings. 2022; 12(3):316. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030316

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moradi, Sina, Kalle Kähkönen, and Piia Sormunen. 2022. "Analytical and Conceptual Perspectives toward Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models in Construction Projects" Buildings 12, no. 3: 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030316

APA Style

Moradi, S., Kähkönen, K., & Sormunen, P. (2022). Analytical and Conceptual Perspectives toward Behavioral Elements of Collaborative Delivery Models in Construction Projects. Buildings, 12(3), 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030316

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop