Making sense of team integration practice through the "lived experience" of alliance project teams

Che Ibrahim, C K I; Costello, S B and Wilkinson, S (2018) Making sense of team integration practice through the "lived experience" of alliance project teams. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(5), pp. 598-622. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose: Team integration is a concept that has been widely fostered in alliances as a way of improving collaborative relationships between diverse organisations. However, deeper insights into the practice of high levels of team integration remain elusive. The purpose of this paper is to develop a deeper understanding of team integration through the “lived experience” of practitioners in an alliance. Design/methodology/approach: This study employed a qualitative research methodology. Using a phenomenological examination, via the lived experiences of 24 alliance practitioners, the practice of alliance team integration has been investigated based on the key indicators that foster alliance team integration: team leadership, trust and respect, single team focus on project objectives and key results areas, collective understanding, commitment from project alliance board, single and co-located alliance team, and free flow communication. Findings: The findings highlight that alliancing gives the project teams' flexibility to change and adapt, to advance the collaborative environment and that successful integration of multi-disciplinary project teams requires commitment to the identified indicators. These findings have led to the development of a framework of leadership for successful alliance integrated practices. It is proposed that to influence the leadership for the purpose of achieving successful integration practice, a team-centric approach is required which includes four elements: task and relationship-oriented behaviours; collaborative learning environments; cultivating cross-boundary networks; and collaborative governance. Practical implications: As team integration is the central tenet of alliance projects, greater understanding regarding the leadership of integration practice is of value in leveraging the benefits of outstanding performance. Also, the results of the study are expected to be informative and provide insight for alliance teams to help them proactively recognise how the context of integrated teams is influenced by specific indicators, impacting on the extent of integration practice. Originality/value: This study contributes to the current body of knowledge concerning the insights from the “lived experience” of alliance teams towards achieving a greater understanding of what contributes to the leadership of successful integration practices.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: alliance; construction; lived experience; New Zealand; team integration
Index terms: commitment, project alliance, integration, methodology, qualitative research, practitioner, body of knowledge, integrated team, alliancing, New Zealand, governance, integrated practice, collaborative learning, key indicator, team leadership, project team
Subjects: organizational analysis, research methods, management, Geography, psychology, project delivery, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, business, research design and methodology, learning methods, practitioner
Topics: Roles and Professions, Governance, Procurement, Business Strategy, Information Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Education
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