Awuzie, B and McDermott, P (2016) A systems approach to assessing organisational viability in project-based organisations. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(3), pp. 268-283. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose - Extant literature highlights the increasing inability of project-based organisations (PBOs) to meet infrastructure client’s expectations, particularly as it concerns the delivery of socio-economic outcomes during the delivery process. Unclear communication channels and poor processing of information especially as it pertains to client’s strategic objectives results in a misalignment of objectives among participating parties. As its central proposition, the purpose of this paper is to hold that unclear communication channels between parties within infrastructure project PBOs affects their degree of internal cohesion hence posing strong challenges to their overall viability. Design/methodology/approach - Applying the Viable Infrastructure Delivery Systems Model (VIDM); a model premised on the tenets of the Viable Systems Model, this qualitative study proceeds to assess a particular PBO within a developing country to understand its communication and control channels and to identify where gaps likely to affect the internal cohesiveness of the PBO, if any, existed. Whereas semi-structured interviews and project/policy documents were used as data collection tools, data were analysed using pre-set themes. Findings - According the study’s findings, an absence of a prevalent common identity was observed among the various parties to the PBO. Contractors' capabilities to deliver on time and to budget based on their expertise remained pivotal within the PBO thus abandoning the attainment of the client’s pre-defined socio-economic objectives. Cases of faulty and ineffective organisational architecture, functional and communication issues were observed. Research limitations/implications - Based upon these findings, it is recommended that the VIDM be adopted at the commencement of the PBO lifecycle and used at various intervals by project managers and other stakeholders for assessing the levels of organisational viability. Originality/value - The methodology and findings resulting from this study represent information from fieldwork conducted by the author and as such have not been used elsewhere.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Nigeria; implementation; social benefits; infrastructure delivery; organizational viability; project-based organizations; socio-economic benefits; systems analysis |
| Index terms: | interview, developing country, project manager, systems analysis, social benefit, cohesion, infrastructure delivery, qualitative study, project-based organization, Nigeria, methodology, socio-economic benefit, identity, documents, lifecycle, implementation, infrastructure project, organizational viability, misalignment |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, engineering problems, profession, business, research design and methodology, organization, contractual arrangements, analytical methods, strategic project management, project delivery, theoretical framing, structural engineering, research methods, Geography, professional development, development economics, sociology, infrastructure and transport systems, financial analysis |
| Topics: | Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Cost Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions, International Construction, Organizational Design |
| 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