Olopade, J O (2020) Qualitative comparative analysis of causal pathways to successful construction cross-functional teams. PhD thesis, University of Florida, USA.
Abstract
The creation and management of effective construction cross-functional teams (CFTs) are vital to the improvement of performance on complex projects, such as green building projects. This form of team organization, when effective, leverages a diverse set of experts working as one to facilitate integration and execute a project holistically. However, due to the diversity within the team, there is a high likelihood for disfunction. The determination of factors that can be used to keep CFTs effective would improve the repeatability of the success on construction projects. Through a systematic literature review of team effectiveness literature, a list of ten factors commonly was derived from four different industries that commonly employ CFTs. These factors were comprised of both team input and mediator emergent state factors. To determine whether these factors could also benefit CFTs in the construction industry effective, a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) was performed. Using data from 10 case study project, this analysis identified factors necessary for effective construction CFTs, as well as proven pathways (a combination of factors) that reliably lead to improved project performance. Upon conducting the analysis, seven of the ten factors analyzed were deemed necessary for an effective cross-functional team. Of the seven factors, three factors were input factors that reflected the resources required by the team. And four of the factors were mediator emergent state factors needed to regulate the behavior and work functions of the team. Six pathways were also identified by fsQCA to be sufficient for improved project performance on construction projects. These pathways featured unique combinations of both input factors and mediator emergent state factors that resulted in high levels of performance on the ten cases observed. The various pathways, along with a list of proven implementation tactics derived through interviews with the project teams observed, serve as a resource that could assist project practitioners in the creation of effective teams that improves the repeatability of success on construction projects. The necessary factors derived also provides researchers with areas in which further investigation could be conducted to enhance the effectiveness of construction CFTs.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Franz, B |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; fuzzy set; green building; integration; mediator; project performance; qualitative comparative analysis; systematic literature review |
| Index terms: | investigation, complex project, fuzzy set, integration, qualitative comparative analysis, implementation, green building, mediator, case study, construction project, practitioner, project team, project performance, interview, effectiveness, construction industry, systematic literature review, team effectiveness |
| Subjects: | decision-making and optimization, dispute resolution, contractual arrangements, research methods, project delivery, strategic project management, practitioner, organizational analysis, industry analysis, production management, design practice, research evaluation and metrics, performance management, project management theory and practice, data collection methods, management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Organizational Design, Project Management, Research Practice, Procurement, Quality Management, Design Practice |
| 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