Franz, B; Leicht, R; Molenaar, K and Messner, J (2017) Impact of team integration and group cohesion on project delivery performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(1): 04016088, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry is often criticized for its fragmented approach to project delivery. Traditional procurement and contracting intentionally serves to isolate designers from contractors to provide checks and balances, but limits opportunities for collaboration. This research presents a structural modeling approach to studying the role of integration in the performance of building construction projects. A sample data set of 204 completed projects was collected to compare cost, schedule, and quality performance under different delivery methods. Integration of project teams was proposed and tested in the form of two latent constructs - team integration and group cohesion - that mediate the link between delivery methods and performance. More integrated teams interacted with more participants from all levels of the building construction process, from designers to specialty trade contractors. These interactions included design charrettes, joint goal setting, and multidisciplinary building information modeling (BIM) uses. The selected project delivery method had a significant effect on team integration. Delivery methods that involved the builder and specialty trade contractors before schematic design achieved higher levels of integration and were more equipped to control project schedule growth. Cohesive teams were characterized by better chemistry, goal commitment, and timeliness of communication. Project delivery methods that included cost transparency with open-book contracts and qualification-based selection of the builder resulted in more cohesive teams and a lower average project cost growth. Additionally, the owner's perception of their turnover experience and building system quality was rated higher for cohesive teams. Understanding how delivery decisions influence the integration and development of their project teams will make building owners more aware of how those decisions ultimately affect the project's performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; contracting; integrated project delivery; structural equation modeling |
| Index terms: | turnover, project cost, builder, building construction, commitment, cohesion, integrated project delivery, structural equation modelling, charrette, integration, collaboration, trade contractor, integrated team, qualification, building information modelling, designer, traditional procurement, owner, delivery method, schedule growth, building system, quality performance, structural modelling, project delivery, transparency, project team, interaction |
| Subjects: | profession, practitioner, engineering systems, psychology, project delivery, analytical methods, business management, contractual arrangements, educational resources, economics, management, structural engineering, professional development, design process, building construction, sociology, organizational analysis, project controls, delivery method, information systems, behavioral psychology, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Education, Time Control, Quality Management, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Construction Technology, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here