Van Marrewijk, A; Veenswijk, M and Clegg, S (2014) Changing collaborative practices through cultural interventions. Building Research & Information, 42(3), pp. 330-342. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
After a parliamentary enquiry into construction industry malpractice, changes occurred in collaborative practices between clients and contractors in megaprojects within the Dutch construction sector. The enquiry meant that both clients and contractors were forced to acknowledge illegal practices of collusion and fraud. For those engaged in public-private relationships, a process followed of attempting to change collaborative practices. Three interventions in collaborative practices are recounted: (1) organizing personal networks between clients and contractors; (2) a competitive dialogue procedure; and (3) the right of withdrawal. These three interventions helped to change first order practice, such as increasing mutual trust between client and contractor, supporting a mutual understanding of role positioning and dilemmas, and creating an understanding of the nature of the conflict but failed to change second order practices. Two contributions to the understanding of project management are provided. New empirical data are presented on the challenges that public and private partners face in their attempt to implement new collaborative practices. It is shown how power is entangled in the emerging of new collaborative practices. The findings are based on a longitudinal ethnographic study of public-private collaboration in the Dutch construction industry in the period 2006-11.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; intervention; megaprojects; power; practices |
| Index terms: | project management, megaproject, construction industry, construction sector, collaborative practice, collaboration, collusion, face, fraud |
| Subjects: | psychology, strategic project management, tendering, management, project management theory and practice, collaborative management, industry analysis, professional ethics |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Procurement, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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