Kuitert, L; Volker, L and Hermans, M H (2020) The public construction client of the future: Network-based collaborator in a traditional public administrative system. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 36th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-8 September 2020, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
In the increasingly hybrid, integrated and collaborative construction industry in which traditional boundaries between government, society and market are blurring, public construction clients must redefine their roles and responsibilities. With fewer possibilities to directly influence the outcomes of public service delivery, public client organisations increasingly rely on the capabilities of other, often private or societal, organisations to achieve public objectives. In the built environment social-political responsibilities, however, remain with the public. Hence, nowadays the general challenge for public commissioners is to find a new balance between dependency and autonomy when safeguarding public values and cope with the dilemma of often conflicting traditional administrative value systems and new value systems that emerge in the collaborative context of the construction industry of the future. Reflecting on insights from a set of 44 semi-structured interviews, 2 case studies using a combination of interviews, observations and document analysis, and participatory design workshops with Dutch public client organisations we critically discuss our vision on the future of public commissioning in construction. Using concepts and insights from public administration and public value theory we discuss how public construction clients attempt to balance a) their procedural obligations - such as integrity, transparency and lawfulness – by upward accountability towards higher level governmental systems and politics, and b) the need to steer on product related types of values – such sustainability, innovation and quality – by downward accountability towards internal and external. We argue that future 'good' commissioning should be about trust instead of legislation, paradox thinking (engaging with hybridity) instead of trade-off thinking (reducing complexity) and the alignment of the shifted roles and responsibilities with steering mechanisms on organisational level. And provide a preliminary public value safeguarding strategy tool for client organisations in construction.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | public value management; public service delivery; dependency; responsibility; commissioning role |
| Index terms: | complexity, paradox, transparency, boundaries, construction industry, public value, public client, built environment, commissioning, participatory design, public construction, client organization, politics, accountability, document analysis, strategy, integrity, case study, commissioner, society, workshop, service delivery, public value theory, interview, legislation |
| Subjects: | practitioner, design methods, data collection methods, construction type, client relations, data science, social theory and frameworks, legal systems, property law, service delivery, health safety and environment, professional development, management, communities and social development, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, liability law, completion, systems engineering, political science, social economics, building construction, sociology |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Construction Technology, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Quality Management |
| 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