Rosander, L and Kadefors, A (2019) From project to policy: Implementing a collaborative procurement strategy in a public client organisation. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
New collaborative contracting models are increasingly used to deliver large infrastructure projects. The models are typically referred to by concepts such as Alliancing, Integrated Project Delivery and Early Contractor Involvement but the design varies depending on national context. In the 1980s, when partnering models first were introduced in the infrastructure sector, organizational measures to enhance and support cooperative behavior were often applied within the traditional contractual governance structure. Newer models also address the formal contracts in addition to cooperative behavior, for example, financial incentive structures. Thereby, they present more substantial challenges to established practices, competence structures and culture within all organizations involved. Further, government policy in many countries has been influenced by the general drift in public management towards greater influence of private sector and market-based solutions. In the Swedish Transport Administration (STA), a suggestion to use Early Contractor Involvement for very large and complex projects was introduced in parallel with general policies for increased use of design-build contracts and a “pure client role”.This paper examines expectations, experiences and lessons learnt in the two first STA projects using a two-stage Early Contractor Involvement model. Altogether 24 interviews were performed in two rounds, capturing both early expectations and experiences gained after the target cost contracts had been signed. Interviews showed that participants expressed positive attitudes to the new collaborative project practices, but also that their pre-conceptions of the practices, roles and resources that would define and constitute the collaborative interaction were vague, fragmented, unspoken and party contradictory. Important challenges pertained to both formal and informal aspects of the relationships, including the pure client policy. We describe these challenges and discuss how top-level policies and long-term organizational learning interact with processes of sense-making and learning on the project and individual levels.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; procurement strategy; policy implementation; public clients; project partnering |
| Index terms: | private sector, integrated project delivery, early contractor involvement, procurement strategy, target cost, organizational learning, interview, alliancing, partnering, cooperative behaviour, financial incentive, governance, large infrastructure project, complex project, infrastructure sector, public client, interaction, competence, government policy, collaboration, policy implementation, collaborative project |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, business, policy studies, contractual arrangements, strategic project management, economic analysis, psychology, public policy, professional development, personnel development, infrastructure engineering, management, economics, industry analysis, behavioral psychology, partnership management, sociology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Human Resources, Procurement, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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