Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Key stakeholders’ perspectives on the ideal partnering culture in construction projects

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Engineering Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the current state of project cultures in the German turnkey construction industry and the ideal project cultures in terms of partnering from the perspective of various key stakeholders (i.e., Investors, General Contractors, (Sub-)Contractors and Designers). To investigate the current and ideal cultures, data were gathered among the key stakeholders by means of a survey study with 72 respondents divided over 12 companies. The respondents rated the current and desired cultures by using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, which belongs to the Competing Values Framework. The investigations show many similarities and differences between the stakeholder perspectives of the current and the idealized partnering project cultures. Mainly, the General Contractors desire more cooperative behaviors than the (Sub-)Contractors, and the Investors desire more pronounced flexibility than the General Contractors. All stakeholders desire a cultural change from highly competitive behaviors toward more cooperation. Changes in terms of clear procedures or more flexibility are only desired by the Designers. Defining both the current and an ideal partnering project culture enables academics and project managers to compare their actual project cultures to an ideal situation. With such an approach, academics and project managers could measure whether new tools or changes in resources affect their project cultures toward a partnering project culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akintan O A, Morledge R (2013). Improving the collaboration between main contractors and subcontractors within traditional construction procurement. Journal of Construction Engineering, 281236

  • Baiden B K, Agyekum K, Atuahene B T (2018). Client-contractor relations on construction projects in Ghana. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 10(4): 333–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard G, Howell G (1994). Implementing lean construction: Stabilizing work flow. In: 2nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Santiago

  • Barlow J, Cohen M, Jashapara A, Simpson Y (1997). Towards Positive Partnering: Revealing the Realities in the Construction Industry. Bristol: Policy Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayliss R, Cheung S O, Suen H C H, Wong S P (2004). Effective partnering tools in construction: A case study on MTRC TKE contract 604 in Hong Kong. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3): 253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach R, Webster M, Campbell K M (2005). An evaluation of partnership development in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 23(8): 611–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black C, Akintoye A, Fitzgerald E (2000). An analysis of success factors and benefits of partnering in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 18(6): 423–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron K S, Quinn R E (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture—Based on the Competing Values Framework. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W T, Merrett H C, Lu S T, Mortis L (2019). Analysis of key failure factors in construction partnering—A case study of Taiwan. Sustainability, 11(14): 3994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng E W L, Li H, Love P E D, Irani Z (2001). Network communication in the construction industry. Corporate Communications, 6(2): 61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung S O, Ng T S T, Wong S P, Suen H C H (2003). Behavioral aspects in construction partnering. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5): 333–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen A R, Fink S L, Gadon H, Willits R D (1995). Effective Behavior in Organizations: Cases, Concepts, and Student Experiences. 6th ed. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis K (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2): 189–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doloi H (2013). Cost overruns and failure in project management: Understanding the roles of key stakeholders in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(3): 267–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eid M, Gollwitzer M, Schmitt M (2017). Statistics and Research Methods. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag (in Germany)

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson P E, Nilsson T, Atkin B (2008). Client perceptions of barriers to partnering. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 15(6): 527–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eschenbruch K (2008). Partnering as a management approach—definition and conceptual classification. In: Eschenbruch K, Racky P, eds. Partnering in the Construction and Real Estate Industry—Project Management and Contractual Standards in Germany. Düsseldorf, Kassel: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1–3 (in Germany)

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (2019). Economic situation and cyclical development. Available at: https://bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/economic-development.html

  • Fernandez-Solis J L, Porwal V, Lavy S, Shafaat A, Rybkowski Z K, Son K, Lagoo N (2013). Survey of motivations, benefits, and implementation challenges of Last Planner System users. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(4): 354–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira A I (2014). Competing Values Framework and its impact on the intellectual capital dimensions: Evidence from different Portuguese organizational sectors. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 12(1): 86–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field A (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. London: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley J, Macmillan S (2005). Patterns of interaction in construction team meetings. CoDesign, 1(1): 19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatush Z, Skitmore M (1998). Contractor selection using multicriteria utility theory: An additive model. Building and Environment, 33(2–3): 105–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfrich C D, Li Y F, Mohr D C, Meterko M, Sales A E (2007). Assessing an organizational culture instrument based on the Competing Values Framework: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Implementation Science, 2(1): 13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinze J, Tracey A (1994). The contractor-subcontractor relationship: The subcontractor’s view. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(2): 274–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2): 81–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Project Management Association (IPMA) (2015). Individual Competence Baseline for Project, Programme & Portfolio Management. Zurich

  • Johnston R, Lawrence P R (1988). Beyond vertical integration—the rise of the value-adding partnership. Harvard Business Review, 1988-07-01

  • Karahanna E, Evaristo J R, Srite M (2005). Levels of culture and individual behavior: An investigative perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 13(2): 1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koops L, Bosch-Rekveldt M G C, Coman L, Hertogh M, Bakker H (2016). Identifying perspectives of public project managers on project success: Comparing viewpoints of managers from five countries in North-West Europe. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5): 874–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskela L (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction, CIFE Technical Report #72. Stanford: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Stanford University

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson E (1995). Project partnering: Results of study of 280 construction projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 11(2): 30–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossman A (2015). Last Planner—5 + 1 crucial & collaborative conversations for predictable design & construction delivery. The Change Business Ltd.

  • Newcombe R (2003). From client to project stakeholders: A stakeholder mapping approach. Construction Management and Economics, 21(8): 841–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng S T, Rose T M, Mak M, Chen S E (2002). Problematic issues associated with project partnering—The contractor perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 20(6): 437–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyström J (2005). The definition of partnering as a Wittgenstein family—resemblance concept. Construction Management and Economics, 23(5): 473–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ochieng E G, Price A D F (2010). Managing cross-cultural communication in multicultural construction project teams: The case of Kenya and UK. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5): 449–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olander S (2007). Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Construction Management and Economics, 25(3): 277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olawale Y A, Sun M (2010). Cost and time control of construction projects: Inhibiting factors and mitigating measures in practice. Construction Management and Economics, 28(5): 509–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paro P E P, Gerolamo M C (2017). Organizational culture for lean programs. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(4): 584–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitfield L E, MacLellan A M, Kelloway E K (2015). Multicultural diversity and communication in the project context. In: Chiocchio F, Kelloway E K, Hobbs B, eds. The Psychology and Management of Project Teams: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn R E, Spreitzer G M (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. In: Woodman R W, Pasmore W A, eds. Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 5. Greenwich: JAI Press, 115–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranf D E (2010). Cultural differences in project management. Annales Universitatis Apulensis: Series Oeconomica, 12(2): 657–662

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackmann S A (2009). Cultural dynamics in project work. In: Dorn K H, Engstler M, Fitzsimons C J, Kerber G, Wagenhals K, Wagner R, eds. Projects as Cultural Experience. dpunkt-Verlag, 1–16 (in Germany)

  • Sandrk Nukic I, Huemann M (2016). Organizational culture of the Croatian construction industry. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 23(2): 237–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein E H (2017). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiley J P, Fernie S, Dainty A (2014). Understanding construction reform discourses. Construction Management and Economics, 32(7–8): 804–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sochan M (2018). The Art of Strategic Partnering: Dancing with the Elephants. Gilroy: NAK Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohi A J, Hertogh M, Bosch-Rekveldt M G C, Blom R (2016). Does lean & agile project management help coping with project complexity? Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 226: 252–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Strack M (2012). Organizational culture in the Competing Values Framework: Measuring characteristics in the OCAI’s German adaption. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 3: 30–41 (in Germany)

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner R, Zolin R (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5): 87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) (2019). VDI 2553—Lean Construction. Available at: https://vdi.de/richtlinien/details

  • Winch G M (1989). The construction firm and the construction project: A transaction cost approach. Construction Management and Economics, 7(4): 331–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winch G M (2000). Institutional reform in British construction: Partnering and private finance. Building Research and Information, 28(2): 141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alma Mater Europaea ECM, 2000, Maribor, Slovenia

    Gunnar J. Lühr & Mladen Radujkovic

  2. Delft University of Technology, 2600 AA, Delft, The Netherlands

    Marian G. C. Bosch-Rekveldt

Authors
  1. Gunnar J. Lühr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marian G. C. Bosch-Rekveldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mladen Radujkovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunnar J. Lühr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lühr, G.J., Bosch-Rekveldt, M.G.C. & Radujkovic, M. Key stakeholders’ perspectives on the ideal partnering culture in construction projects. Front. Eng. Manag. 9, 312–325 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-020-0135-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-020-0135-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation