Tryggestad, K; Hugosson, M and Søberg, P (2018) Managing risk and uncertainty in sustainable construction innovation: The role of the partnering contract. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Construction management-, economics- and organization research have pointed to the pervasiveness of adversarial relations between contracting parties. We aim to contribute to the extant literature by exploring the role of the partnering contract in managing risk and uncertainty in projects characterized by innovation in sustainable construction. Drawing upon actor-network theory and the twin concepts framing/overflowing by Michel Callon (1998), we explore how the partnering contract frame actors' interactions, and eventually becomes a conduit for overflows generating new uncertainties and risks. Our method use a case study of the design and construction of a cross-laminated timber campus building in Inland Norway, a building that media have also labelled 'the world’s most sustainable building'. The case analysis show how a partnering contract played unexpected hybrid roles. The partnering contract is inscribed with assumptions about uncertainty, risk and roles in construction that promotes collaboration, which can be useful in innovative projects with extraordinary demands for new knowledge. Initially, the project owner followed these assumptions by devising a partnering contract in order to facilitate innovation in sustainable construction, collaboration and risk sharing among project stakeholders. Yet, the contract unexpectedly became a conduit of overflow as it delimited the action space for joint exploration, undermined trust and collaboration, shaped and triggered guarding behaviors, self-interest and controversy. Eventually, the contractual mechanism 'change request' also triggered difficult negotiations between project owner and construction management over the previously agreed target price and further concerns and prolonged negotiations over construction design, responsibility and distribution of unexpected costs, which in turn spilled over and challenged the project’s innovative sustainability ambition. We conclude that the partnering contract did not stay faithful to its expected collaborative and innovative role, but also played a more hybrid, surprising and unfaithful role because it added new unexpected uncertainties and risks to the project.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | partnering contract; trust; risk management; innovation; actor-network theory |
| Index terms: | sustainable construction, sustainable building, actor-network theory, drawing, owner, overflow, media, partnering, cross-laminated timber, contracting party, Norway, change request, collaboration, framing, negotiation, project stakeholder, exploration, design and construction, interaction, case study, risk management |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, practitioner, Geography, sociology, technical documentation, partnership management, sustainable construction, conceptual models, risk assessment, building materials, scope management, environmental resource management, contractual arrangements, management, fluid mechanics, behavioral psychology, theoretical framing, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Roles and Professions, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Design Practice, Project Management, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Risk Management |
| 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