Chen, L; Manley, K; Lewis, J; Helfer, F and Widen, K (2018) Procurement and governance choices for collaborative infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(8): 04018071, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Collaborative approaches to infrastructure procurement are increasingly popular around the world due to their potential to provide improved project performance compared with more traditional approaches. The problem is that project outcomes continue to be unpredictable. Previous research has shown that this is the case regardless of whether the chosen procurement approach is based on price or nonprice selection of the project team. This is a major choice that clients make, but the presented research shows that governance choices for project execution are more important. This is significant because clients tend to focus more on procurement choices and typically do not differentiate governance based on those choices. This needs to change, and the authors show that optimal governance configurations vary on the basis of the chosen type of team configuration. For example, three specific governance arrangements for workshops are highlighted for single teams, and two specific governance arrangements for risk/reward sharing are highlighted for multiple teams. This study identifies governance actions that are associated with superior time and cost outcomes on collaborative infrastructure projects in Australia run by experienced public-sector clients under the two procurement scenarios. Based on a survey of 320 senior managers, independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare the application of governance actions among three distinct groups of projects, based on type of team selection and type of project outcome. The study provides evidence of the most effective approaches to project governance in a country that is a world leader. The results provide much needed recommendations for improved project performance based on large-scale quantitative analysis, which before now has not existed. Overall, the study recommends more attention be paid to noncontractual governance under both approaches to team selection, although the specific actions recommended vary.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; early contractor involvement; infrastructure; integrated project delivery; partnering; procurement; project alliance; relational governance |
| Index terms: | project alliance, project outcome, integrated project delivery, public-sector client, partnering, project team, project performance, governance, infrastructure project, survey, manager, evidence, configuration, early contractor involvement, procurement choice, quantitative analysis, workshop, Australia |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, contractual arrangements, Geography, construction type, systems engineering, data collection methods, sociology, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, data analysis and analytics, business, partnership management, project management theory and practice, project completion, project delivery |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Geographical Context, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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