Kwofie, T E; Aigbavboa, C O and Machethe, S O (2019) Nature of communication performance in non-traditional procurements in South Africa. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(10), pp. 2264-2288. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Non-traditional procurement is thought to offer enhanced benefits over traditional contracts. However, several factors significantly impacting the optimization of the benefits have been suggested. Even though effective communication is ranked high among these factors, not enough empirical insights have been given to the nature of communication performance in non-traditional procurements in construction project delivery. The purpose of this paper is to focus on understanding the taxonomy of communication performance in non-traditional procurements in the South African Construction Industry, given the centrality of communication to team effectiveness, performance, project success and managerial efficiency. Design/methodology/approach: Adopting a deductive research approach, an empirical questionnaire survey was conducted drawing on the practical communication experience of project teams engaged in projects using non-traditional procurement systems. Findings: Using aggregated mean scores and inter-rater agreement index and Mann‒Whitney tests, the results revealed inaccuracies, barriers and procedural challenges as frequently occurring in the interpersonal and organizational communication in the adopted non-traditional procurement systems. Additionally, untimeliness and distorted information were noted to be occurring occasionally, whereas incomplete communication, misunderstood information and gatekeeping rarely occurred. Lastly, protocol-related communication challenges were deemed to have never occurred in their interpersonal and organizational communication in their project delivery. In the assessment of communication performance, the less frequently occurring assessment indicator is a testament to good communication performance, whereas the frequently occurring indicator represents a poor performance in the communication. Originality/value: This systematic approach toward understanding the taxonomy of the interpersonal and organizational communication performance in non-traditional procurement is very significant toward communication performance improvement in the industry. The insight given by the findings may help construction project practitioners to focus their attention on the necessary aspects of communication in non-traditional procurements to optimize their benefits over traditional procurement models.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication performance; interpersonal communication; non-traditional procurement |
| Index terms: | drawing, survey, construction project delivery, construction project, methodology, questionnaire, practitioner, South Africa, team effectiveness, efficiency, project success, traditional procurement, communication performance, construction industry, taxonomy, project team, project delivery |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, project delivery, technical documentation, practitioner, data collection methods, industry analysis, project controls, production management, Geography, project management theory and practice, communication studies, management, research methods, performance management |
| Topics: | Information Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Design Practice, Quality Management, Organizational Design, Time Control |
| 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