Zhang, L.; Zhou, J. and Xue, H. (2026) Exploring the configurational effects of contractual and relational governance mechanisms on stakeholder collaboration in prefabricated building projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 33(4), pp. 3220-3239. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – Prefabricated building projects (PBPs) require multiple stakeholder collaboration due to the strong linkages between the design, production and installment of the precast components. Current contractual governance fails to foster a trusting environment for stakeholder collaboration, leading to conflicts of interest, cost overrun and delays in project schedules. Previous studies revealed that terminating shortcomings in contractual governance can be mitigated by implementing relational governance mechanisms. This study aims to explore the configurational effects of contractual and relational governance mechanisms on stakeholder collaboration in PBPs and identifies the practical configurational conditions to achieve high stakeholder collaboration. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 39 experts through semi-structured interviews and analyzed to explore the configuration effects on stakeholder collaboration in PBPs through fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Findings – Our study reveals that stakeholder collaboration requires configurational conditions of multiple governance elements (i.e. historical working experience and risk-sharing, reward, selection, authorization, trust, commitment and communication mechanisms). Four equivalent configurational strategies were identified for achieving high stakeholder collaboration in PBPs. These included three configurational strategies dominated by relational governance mechanisms and one configurational strategy complementary to contractual and relational governance mechanisms. The configurations dominated by relational governance mechanisms were developed with communication mechanisms and historical working experiences as core conditions; the configurational strategy with complementary contractual and relational governance mechanisms was centered on risk-sharing, reward and trust mechanisms as core conditions. Originality/value – Our study enriches the literature on the antecedents of stakeholder collaboration in the PBPs by testing the significance of the relational governance mechanism, which expands the implications of relational contract theory. It also expands the implications of stakeholder theory in PBPs by exploring the asymmetric causal relationship between project contractual governance and stakeholder collaboration. Meanwhile, this study recommends countermeasures for managers to improve stakeholder collaboration by providing four practical configurational conditions in PBPs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | configurational effects; contractual governance; prefabricated building projects; relational governance; stakeholder collaboration |
| Index terms: | manager, interview, commitment, strategy, qualitative comparative analysis, methodology, collaboration, configuration, conflicts of interest, governance, linkage, cost overrun, contract theory, testing, prefabricated building |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, management, financial and cost management, business, data collection methods, building construction, professional ethics, research methods, psychology, legal systems, professional practice, practitioner |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Governance, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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