Volker, L; Eriksson, P E; Kadefors, A and Larsson, J (2018) A case-based comparison of the efficiency and innovation potential of integrative and collaborative procurement strategies. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Both efficiency and innovation are highly demanded in the construction industry, not least in public procurement in the infrastructure sector. Although competitive tendering and arms-length relationships have long been the norm in this sector, many scholars and practitioners increasingly emphasize the need for more collaborative relationships. The purpose of this paper is to investigate and compare in what ways different types of collaborative procurement strategies may enhance efficiency and innovation in public infrastructure projects. Further, implementation challenges are identified and discussed. Interview-based case studies were performed of nine infrastructure projects in Sweden and the Netherlands. The projects involve four types of collaborative procurement strategies - collaborative Design-Build contracts, early contractor involvement (ECI) agreements, Design-Build-Maintain (DBM) contracts and Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM) contracts. In this research we consider collaboration as a multi-dimensional concept that can be described in terms of the four dimensions of scope, duration, depth, and intensity. The preliminary findings indicate that the duration of the collaboration is fundamental in setting the limits for innovation, and that early involvement as well as long term commitments open up for more innovation. Naturally, the potential for increased efficiency is higher than for innovation, and also occurs in collaborations with limited duration. However, most of the projects studied were pilot projects, and the parties involved experienced considerable and often unexpected difficulties in adjusting to the new ways of working. Misalignments occurred, for example, in the level of specification in the DB-contacts, setting target costs in the ECI contracts, integrating maintenance knowledge in the DBM and DBFM contracts, and risk aversion of private investors in the DBFM contract. Thus, for a public repeat client to realise the full potential of a new strategy, it is important to have a long-term perspective and capabilities to analyse and learn from these difficulties.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | client; collaboration; duration; infrastructure project; innovation; public infrastructure; target cost; tendering; contractor; efficiency; case studies; interview; Netherlands |
| Index terms: | procurement strategy, Sweden, target cost, strategy, Netherlands, early contractor involvement, commitment, specification, case study, competitive tendering, public infrastructure, interview, investor, efficiency, agreements, misalignment, dimension, infrastructure sector, infrastructure project, collaborative design, construction industry, duration, implementation, practitioner, collaboration |
| Subjects: | performance management, economics, tendering, management, Geography, contractual condition, sociology, project controls, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, engineering problems, data collection methods, practitioner, design methods, psychology, contract formation, health monitoring assessment and metrics, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Design Practice, Quality Management, Organizational Design, Time Control, Contract Administration |
| 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