Lloyd-walker, B M; Mills, A J and Walker, D H T (2014) Enabling construction innovation: The role of a no-blame culture as a collaboration behavioural driver in project alliances. Construction Management and Economics, 32(3), pp. 229-245. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A no-blame culture is widely accepted as a collaboration driver yet we see surprisingly scant literature on the theoretical underpinnings for the construction and project management context. A no-blame culture in project alliances, as conducted in Australasia, promotes innovative thinking in action. Innovation is dependent upon collaboration and true collaboration is inextricably linked with behavioural drivers. Foremost of these is a culture of openness and willingness to share the pain and gain from experimentation, one that requires that collaborators be protected from the threat of being blamed and held accountable for experimental failure. The Australasian project alliance procurement form has a unique 'no-blame' behavioural contract clause that can result in the type of breakthrough thinking crucial in developing a collaborative culture where innovation can evolve through a process of trial and error.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alliancing; Australia; innovation; organizational behaviour; organizational change |
| Index terms: | Australia, pain, collaboration, project alliance, construction innovation, alliancing, project management, organizational change, experiment, organizational behaviour |
| Subjects: | business, project management theory and practice, health conditions and diseases, data collection methods, Geography, building construction, management, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Health and Safety, Procurement, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context |
| 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