Abstract
Purpose
The emergence of collaborative delivery models and working practices in construction industry has created a potential area for project success research. Previous studies have addressed success factors of various collaborative delivery models (e.g. alliance and partnering). However, there is currently very limited research-based knowledge concerning core success factors for different collaborative delivery models, exploring the commonalities. Thus, this study aims to conceptualize a success model for collaborative construction projects by identifying and structuring their core success factors through the lens of project delivery elements.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic literature review was conducted, and thematic as well as content analysis of the relevant studies led to the identification of mentioned success factors in the literature for different collaborative delivery models. Then, those common success factors were structured in a model based on factors' relation to project delivery elements.
Findings
The obtained results present eight core success factors (e.g. equality, mutual trust and commitment to win–win philosophy) for collaborative construction projects, structured in a model based on their contribution toward project organization, contractual relationships, and operational system in construction project delivery. Moreover, the differences between success factors for traditional and collaborative construction projects are discussed.
Originality/value
This study's findings provide insightful theoretical contributions on collaborative construction project success and providing a departure point for future studies based on the discussed differences between success factors of collaborative and traditional construction projects. The findings can be also practically insightful for the project professionals in collaborative construction projects to succeed in managing project organization, contractual relationships, and operational system.
Keywords
Citation
Moradi, S. and Kähkönen, K. (2022), "Success in collaborative construction through the lens of project delivery elements", Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 973-991. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-09-2021-0118
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Sina Moradi and Kalle Kähkönen
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
The emergence of collaborative delivery models and working practices (e.g. lean project delivery, alliance) in construction industry has had substantial impact on success of construction project delivery (Forbes and Ahmed, 2010). This contribution has led to the creation of a working environment (so-called collaborative construction projects) in which key project parties, with aligned interests and mutual trust, work together (collaborate) and exchange information (cooperate) for the good of the project (Chen et al., 2015; Heidemann and Gehbauer, 2010; Ibrahim et al., 2016, 2018; Kent and Becerik-Gerber, 2010; Moradi et al., 2020a; Mesa et al., 2019). Collaborative construction, relational contracting, and relationship-based procurement are the umbrella terms which have been frequently mentioned in the literature and refer to the existing collaborative delivery models (alliance, partnering, integrated project delivery, lean project delivery) and working practices (traditional project delivery equipped with collaborative practices) (Engebø et al., 2020; Lloyd-Walker and Walker, 2015; Moradi, 2021; Rahman and Kumaraswamy, 2005).
In collaborative delivery models, joint design, planning, control and management of construction projects are managed by the key parties based on their early involvement in the project, trust-based relationships, collaboration and cooperation, open communication, and fair share of risk-reward (Fischer et al., 2017; Hosseini et al., 2016, 2017; Hietajärvi et al., 2017a, b, c; Lahdenperä, 2012; Love et al., 2010; Moradi, 2021; MacDonald et al., 2012, 2013; Oakland and Marosszeky, 2017; Walker and Jacobsson, 2014). Collaborative delivery models are different from the traditional ones (e.g. design-bid-build, design-build) in four aspects. First, the focus of the collaborative construction is on the production system, not the transactions and contracts. Second, in collaborative context, design and planning of the product and process are accomplished concurrently and activities are performed at the last responsible moment, not as soon as possible. Third, project team members in collaborative construction make decisions unanimously, not in silos. Fourth, learning in collaborative construction occurs continuously throughout the project, not sporadically. Finally, the commercial interests of the stakeholders in collaborative construction projects are aligned, unlike the traditional construction delivery models (Ballard and Howell, 2003; Ballard, 2008; Moradi et al., 2022). In this study, construction projects with collaborative delivery models and/or working practices are called collaborative construction projects.
Collaborative construction, as an arena, has received considerable attention from the research community, and several topics have been studied in the context of various collaborative delivery models (e.g. Aaltonen and Turkulainen, 2018; Lazar, 2000; Laan et al., 2011a, b; Mollaoglu-Korkmaz et al., 2013; Mihic et al., 2014; Mulholland and Clevenger, 2018; Matinheikki et al., 2019; Darrington and Howell, 2011; Piroozfar et al., 2019; Rowlinson, 2017; Sankaran et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019; Zhang and Hu, 2018). Success of collaborative construction projects is one of the topics which has been addressed by different scholars (e.g. Chan et al., 2004a; Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber, 2011; Lloyd and Varey, 2003; Ling et al., 2020; Zhang and Kumaraswamy, 2001). These studies have specifically addressed construction project success in the context of a certain collaborative delivery model (e.g. alliance, integrated project delivery) (e.g. MohammadHasanzadeh et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016; Young et al., 2016). It means that there is a lack of the holistic view in the previous studies toward success factors of various collaborative delivery models. Although project success is a context-specific setting, it can also be generalized to different collaborative delivery models as they have some common elements and characteristics such as early involvement of key project participants, fair share of risk and reward, profit based on project outcome, trust-based collaboration and cooperation, and unanimous decision-making (Børve et al., 2017; Franz et al., 2017; Gomez et al., 2018; Hauck et al., 2004; Ibrahim et al., 2015a, b; Kent and Becerik-Gerber, 2010; Ke et al., 2015a, b; Lahdenperä, 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Lichtig, 2005; Love et al., 2011; Yeung et al., 2009a, b; Zhang et al., 2016).
According to the earlier explanations, it seems obvious that employing a holistic view toward success factors of various collaborative delivery models is a research gap which needs to be addressed. The importance of such perspective is high as it can be extremely helpful for revealing commonalities between success factors of different collaborative delivery models which are common in certain countries. Exploring these commonalities is essential for developing a frame of reference concerning key enablers of success in collaborative construction. Another research gap concerning success factors of collaborative construction is the absence of project delivery elements as the theoretical lens for modeling the relevant success factors based on their relation to those elements, which include project organization (clear definition of the roles and relationships between the participants), contractual relationships (delivered promises of project parties), and operational system (appropriate timing and sequence of events and practices and techniques of management) (Mesa et al., 2019).
Thus, it is imperative to employ a holistic perspective combined with a novel theoretical lens (focused on project delivery elements) for studying core success factors among collaborative delivery models. Therefore, this study aims to do so through identifying the commonalities between success factors of collaborative delivery models and modeling them based on their relation to the mentioned elements of construction project delivery.
The resultant article is structured in six sections. The next section presents the theoretical background, which is followed by the explanation of the methodology. Then, findings are presented and discussed. Finally, the conclusions are stated.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Definition of success in construction projects
A successful project is the one, realizing technical performance goals and project stakeholders' satisfaction (de Wit, 1986). Baccarini (1999) stated that project success can be defined through its two distinct components which are project management success and product success. Another study conducted by Sanvido et al. (1992) defined project success as the realization of certain expectations for various stakeholders (e.g. owner, planner, engineer, contractor, or operator) of the project. Moreover, project success can be defined through its representing components which include project management success (meeting time, cost, scope, and quality), project execution success (meeting technical requirements and safety goals), business success (reoccurring business and meeting expected commercial success), and stakeholder satisfaction (meeting various expectations of different project stakeholders) (Moradi et al., 2020a, b).
The given definitions of the construction project success in the literature have been mostly focused on the project itself in terms of the lifecycle and efficiency. However, findings of the recent research studies (e.g. Li and Wang, 2016; Oladokun et al., 2020) show that construction projects have also various impacts (both negative and positive) on the local environment and society as well as on the quality of end-users’ lives. Thus, it is imperative to define construction project success with a holistic view so that it can be utilized in different working cultures while being a frame of reference. Accordingly, this study defines construction project success as the realization of specific objectives of the project (the reason(s) for which the project is undertaken) while succeeding in six main challenges: (1) on time completion, (2) on budget completion, (3) meeting quality requirements, (4) stakeholder satisfaction, (5) accident-free construction, (6) low waste generation during construction, and (7) no harm to the local environment and people during and after construction phase.
2.2 Collaborative delivery modes in construction projects and their characteristics
Collaborative delivery models have been defined as the joint design, planning, control, and management of construction projects by the key parties based on their early involvement in the project, trust-based relationships, open communication, and fair share of risk-reward (Moradi, 2021). According to Lahdenperä (2012) and Mesa et al. (2019), it can be said that alliance, partnering, integrated project delivery (IPD), and lean project delivery (LPD) are the existing pure collaborative delivery models. Alliance delivery model promotes collaboration (working together) and cooperation (exchanging information) through a multi-party agreement between two or more entities, thereby fostering fair share of risk-reward, unanimous decision-making, no-blame culture, and trust-based relationships for the common good (e.g. Jefferies et al., 2014; MacDonald et al., 2012; Walker and Jacobsson, 2014). Partnering enables the integration of the project design and delivery by weighting collaboration and coordination between involved parties (e.g. Fortune and Setiawan, 2005; Nyström, 2005; Spang and Riemann, 2014; Thompson and Sanders, 1998; Walker et al., 2002).
The core of IPD and LPD is to encourage the use of integrated project organizations, relational contracting, and integrated process as mechanisms to integrate a project delivery system (Mesa et al., 2019). The main difference between IPD and LPD delivery systems is that IPD addresses no specific operational system, whereas the LPD uses an operational system based on lean principles and the use of lean tools such as target value design, last planner system and set-based design (American Institute of Architecture, 2007; Ballard and Howell, 2003; Ballard, 2008; Mesa et al., 2019; Nguyen and Akhavian, 2019).
In terms of the common characteristics of collaborative delivery models, it has been stated that collaborative delivery models have eight common features: (1) early involvement of key participants, (2) joint planning, design, and control, (3) open cost management, (4) fair share of risk-reward, (5) trust-based relationship, (6) joint decision marking, (7) open communication, (viii) multi-party agreement (e.g. Ballard and Howell, 2003; Lahdenperä, 2012; Moradi, 2021).
2.3 Evolution of success research in the context of collaborative construction projects
Construction project success knowledge has evolved during the recent decades alongside the changes and developments in project delivery models (Moradi, 2021). It has been also argued that both general and context-specific perspectives have been dominant in the previous studies concerning construction project success (Moradi, 2021). In terms of context-oriented studies on construction project success, some of the previous studies have addressed project success in construction projects with collaborative delivery models (alliance, partnering, integrated project delivery, lean project delivery) (e.g. Nevstad et al., 2018; Jefferies et al., 2014; Whang et al., 2019). These studies can be also seen as a response to the changes in construction project delivery models. These efforts for customizing project success knowledge into the context of collaborative construction are explained and discussed in the following.
Construction projects with alliance delivery model is one of the areas in which project success has been addressed by different scholars. For instance, Lloyd and Varey (2003) stated that free-flowing, integrated, and bi-directional communication is an important success factor for alliance construction projects. In addition, a study conducted by Hietajärvi et al. (2017c) identified certain contractual, behavioral, relational, and operational skills as the key success factors for construction projects with alliance delivery model. Moreover, Young et al. (2016) carried out a study which resulted in the identification of 22 success factors (e.g. trust between parties, strong commitment by client and senior management, mutual goals and objectives, cooperative spirit and joint process evaluation) for alliance construction projects.
Construction projects with integrated project delivery (IPD) is another area in which a few research studies have been undertaken. For instance, the study conducted by Kent and Becerik-Gerber (2010), revealed that there are nine success factors for IPD construction projects, including well-defined contractual relationships, early definition of project goals, early team formation, and clearly defined scope of work. In addition, Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber (2011) discovered that proper selection and involvement of all main players, mutual trust between these players, training, procurement ability and collaborative technology are of prime significance for IPD project success. Moreover, Xie and Liu (2017) stated that symmetrical alignment of shared responsibilities, financial incentives, and good communication approach are those factors that considerably contribute toward success of IPD construction projects.
Furthermore, the recent studies conducted by Whang et al. (2019) and Ling et al. (2020) have emphasized on the importance of factors such as collaboration, unanimous decision-making, appropriate staffing, reforming contract law and adopting appropriate IPD agreement form, and early involvement and enhanced role of key participants for success of IPD construction projects. Success of construction projects with lean project delivery has also been addressed in a study conducted by Heidemann and Gehbauer (2010), which identified the following factors critical for the success: (1) a cooperative design phase including cross functional team members, (2) lean project delivery needs to be supported and supplemented by a corresponding contract and a procurement strategy, (3) competence-based selection of the contractor, (4) incorporating behavioral aspects (based on lean principles) into contract should include defined, (5) fair compensation in the commercial strategy combined with an incentive program.
In addition to the alliance, IPD and lean project delivery, success of construction projects with partnering delivery model has also received substantial attention from the research community (e.g. Ahmadabadi and Heravi, 2019; Almarri and Boussabaine, 2017; Dithebe et al., 2019; Famakin et al., 2012; Koutsikouri et al., 2008; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2018; Toriola-Coker et al., 2021). One of the starting efforts in this regard is a study which was conducted by Antonson et al. (2000) and identified six success factors for partnering projects, including early identification and engagement of all potential stakeholders, early negotiations for property acquisition, building mitigation measures into the project to offset the disruption caused by construction, and developing a public information/relations program for the project. This study was followed by complementary research efforts carried out by Zhang and Kumaraswamy (2001) and Ng et al. (2002), which identified critical success factors for partnering projects, including clean administration, centralized decision-making, open markets and competition, stable and supportive public client, and financially strong, technically competent, and managerially outstanding concessionaire consortium.
In addition, success factors such as open communication, commitment to win–win attitude, mutual trust, and learning climate have been found of importance for partnering projects (Chan et al., 2004a, b; Cheng and Li, 2004). Moreover, Cho et al. (2010) stated that there are 10 critical success factors for partnering projects, including owner capacity and organizations, experienced project team, good communication system, early involvement of the designer and contractor, quick decision-making process, and integrated team of all the parties. Furthermore, the undertaken research studies during the past decade have considerably emphasized on the importance of factors such as trust, communication, equality, mutual objectives, team building, collaboration and cooperation, top management support and incentive system (Bellini et al., 2016; Doloi, 2013; MohammadHasanzadeh et al., 2014; Nevstad et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016).
3. Methodology
3.1 Research process
The literature study (systematic literature review (SLR)) behind this article aimed to identify the common success factors among collaborative delivery models and to structure them in a model based on their conceptual relevance to the elements of construction project delivery. SLRs entail the use of a transparent and rigorous approach for the entire research process, in order to reduce bias and enable future replication. A SLR usually relies on the use of databases that contain a large set of research publications as well as effective search mechanisms. Figure 1 shows the research process including data collection and analysis.
The search for finding the relevant studies was completed in December 2020 using six key words: (1) alliance projects, (2) lean project delivery, (3) partnering projects, (4) integrated project delivery, (5) relational contracting, and (6) relationship-based procurement. The keywords were selected based on their high relevance to the collaborative delivery models of construction projects. Moreover, the selected keywords have been frequently mentioned in the state-of-the-art studies on collaborative delivery models (e.g. Engebø et al., 2020; Lloyd-Walker and Walker, 2015; Lahdenperä, 2012). The employed databases for the search included American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Emerald, and ScienceDirect. Among the selected keywords, the search with two of them (relationship-based procurement and lean project delivery) in the mentioned databases was resulted in the identification of very few studies. Therefore, the search with these two keywords were also performed in Google Scholar database. The conducted search included no specific time span to ensure the comprehensiveness of the located studies. As can be seen in Figure 1, the performed search resulted in locating 318 studies of which 117 ones were excluded because of repetitions and/or irrelevant content, and the remaining 201 studies were analyzed (see Table 1 for more details). The time span of those 201 studies was between 1998 and 2021. In terms of the publication period of those 201 studies, 61% of them were published between 2011 and 2020, 33% between 2000 and 2010, and 6% before 2000. Table 1 shows results of the conducted search for locating the pertinent studies.
3.2 Analysis and model development
The result of the full-text review of those 201 located studies provided a basis for undertaking a thematic analysis (Saunders et al., 2019) through coding the extracted research data in order to detect those studies which were specifically focused on the success of collaborative delivery models in construction projects. Accordingly, the codes representing project success factors were identified and analyzed through content analysis for exploring the mentioned success factors in the literature. Then, a content analysis was performed on the findings of those studies, which were focused on the success of collaborative construction. This was accomplished through identifying the mentioned success factors for different collaborative delivery models and detecting the commonalities based on the similarity and/or sameness of the meaning and/or the title. This was followed by matching those common success factors to the elements of construction project delivery based on the conceptual relevance, resulting in the completion of the model.
4. Findings
4.1 Success factors for collaborative delivery models
The findings suggest that there are eight common success factors for construction projects with collaborative delivery models (see Table 2). These success factors are appropriate and relevant contract, commitment to win–win philosophy, collaboration and cooperation, equality, incentive system, open communication, mutual trust, and selecting competent people for the project. These identified success factors were common for construction projects with alliance, IPD (integrated project delivery) and partnering delivery model. Moreover, those success factors which were identified in the data analysis process and were not common between collaborative delivery models can be seen in Appendix. It is important to note that the identified common success factors have a situation-specific nature, meaning that although their presence is common, but their degree/level of appearance in various collaborative delivery models might be different.
It is also important, here, to explain the main reason behind the exclusion of LPD from Table 2 despite of being primarily addressed in this study. Although there have been a few studies in the literature (e.g. Sarhan et al., 2019) addressing success factors for implementation of lean principles in construction projects in a generic manner, the lean project delivery model as a certain topic was found to be rarely addressed among the studies looking into the project success factors. Among those 201 analyzed studies in this research, only one study was found to be fully focused on success factors for lean project delivery (see Appendix). And the mentioned factors in that study showed insufficient amount of commonality with the listed factors in Table 2. This issue, in turn, reveals a potential area for future success research in the context of lean project delivery.
4.2 Success model for collaborative construction projects
The identified commonalities between success factors for various collaborative delivery models provided the basis for developing a success model. The development of this success model (see Figure 2) was accomplished through structuring the identified common success factors between collaborative delivery models (Table 2) based on their conceptual relevance to project organization, contractual relationships, and operational system, as the key elements of construction project delivery.
Among the identified success factors, equality and mutual trust were found to be the fundamental ones for all three elements of collaborative delivery models. These two success factors, in other words, are the underlying constructs for the realization and constructive impact of the other factors in Figure 2, which represent project organization, contractual relationships, and operational system. Regarding project organization, selecting competent people for the project, and commitment to win–win philosophy were found to be crucial for having a collaborative project organization and governance. Concerning contractual relationships, reasonable contract and constructive incentive system, as the success factors, are of prime importance. Finally, a productive operational system requires collaboration and cooperation between participants as well as open communication between them, as they have been presented in the model (see Figure 2). The developed model provides a new departure point in the construction project success research for addressing success factors and criteria through the lens of project delivery elements.
5. Discussion
The obtained results in this study showed that there are eight core success factors for collaborative construction projects. These success factors were then structured in a model based on their relation to the project delivery elements. The findings seem to reflect insightful alignment and difference with previous studies on construction project success. In terms of the alignment, it can be argued that the obtained results in this study are somewhat in line with the identified success factors for collaborative projects in the previous studies. For instance, several research studies have stated that communication (e.g. Chua et al., 1997, 1999; Chan et al., 2004a, b; Whang et al., 2019), reasonable contract (e.g. Phua and Rowlinson, 2004; Sanvido et al., 1992), appropriate staffing (match between competencies and project context) (Das and Ngacho, 2017; Nguyen and Hadikusumo, 2018; Omran et al., 2012; Tsiga et al., 2017), and cooperation (e.g. Doulabi and Asnaashari, 2016; Frödell et al., 2008; Famakin et al., 2012; Maqbool and Sudong, 2019; Zuo et al., 2018) are critical for project success both in traditional and collaborative contexts.
There also seems to be an interesting message in the findings in terms of the differences between the success factors listed in Table 2 and those ones mentioned in the previous studies for traditional construction projects. Comparing the findings of recent studies (e.g. Gunduz and Yahya, 2018;Ramlee et al., 2016) on construction project success with the results of this study shows that there are considerable differences between critical success factors for collaborative construction projects and the traditional ones. Almost four out of eight success factors, identified in this study, have been mentioned in the previous studies as the appropriate success enablers mainly for collaborative delivery models. These factors are commitment to win–win philosophy, equality, mutual trust, and incentive system. These success factors, in the big picture, represent the core elements of collaborative construction projects (e.g. mutual trust, fair share of risk-reward, profit based on project outcome), mentioned by different scholars (Engebø et al., 2020; Fischer et al., 2017; Lloyd-Walker and Walker, 2015; Oakland and Marosszeky, 2017).
The discovered differences can be also explained through highlighting the significant role of elements as well as characteristics of collaborative and traditional delivery models (e.g. trust-based vs. adversarial working relationships), as the antecedents of their success factors. This, in turn, reflects on the importance of addressing success through the lens of project organization, contractual relationships and operational system which are the key components of project delivery. Consequently, it can be stated that project characteristics and elements affect the type of success factors. This hypothesis, which needs to be tested in the future studies, is in line with prior developments in the contingency theory for projects where it has been stated that project type not only affects the selection of the project human resources and their required competencies but also requires defining specific criteria, for measuring project success, and identifying certain factors, for facilitating the realization of project success criteria (Moradi et al., 2020a, b; Shenhar, 2001). Furthermore, the developed hypothesis can be also supported by emphasizing considerable contribution of the project delivery model on project success since delivery model provides a systematic way for accomplishing the project (Alarcón et al., 2013; Mostafavi and Karamouz, 2010).
The findings of this study provide insightful theoretical contributions through employing a novel theoretical lens (project delivery elements) for modeling project success factors in collaborative construction. Moreover, the identified commonalities between success factors of various collaborative delivery models revealed the key enablers for successful collaborative construction. The obtained results also provide a departure point for future studies to test the employed theoretical lens and identified commonalities in case projects. Furthermore, the findings of this study have obvious implications for practice which can be insightful for project professionals. First, the identified success factors support the earlier research findings (e.g. Moradi et al., 2021a, b) concerning the required change in the working culture and mindset of collaborative construction professionals, compared to the typical one in the traditional context. This means that realizing a collaborative working environment and its benefits requires the project professionals to possess certain behavioral competencies (e.g. trustworthiness, optimism, imitative, teamwork, stress tolerance, conflict management, flexibility) which contribute toward establishment of the key characteristics of collaborative construction (e.g. mutual trust, equality, respect and open communication) to work together for the good of the project (Moradi et al., 2021a, 2022). Second, the developed success model provides practical knowledge for utilizing the identified success factors based on their functionality and effect on project organization, contractual relationships, and the operational system.
6. Conclusions
This study aimed to explore the connection between success factors of various collaborative delivery models by discovering the commonalities. This was performed through conceptualizing a success model for collaborative construction projects. This model includes the core success factors for collaborative delivery models, structured based on their conceptual relevance to the project delivery elements. The obtained results in this study, which were discussed earlier, provided a basis for the following conclusions concerning success factors of construction projects with collaborative delivery models (particularly alliance, integrated project delivery and partnering):
Characteristics and elements of construction project delivery models affect the type of relevant success factors.
Project organization, contractual relationships, and operational system, as the key components of project delivery, provide an efficient theoretical lens for addressing success factors.
Appropriate and relevant contract, commitment to win–win philosophy, collaboration and cooperation, equality, incentive system, open communication, mutual trust, and selecting competent people for the project are the core success factors.
Among the above-mentioned success factors, equality and mutual trust are the fundamental ones.
The findings of this study contributed to the existing body of knowledge by exploring the commonalities between success factors of different collaborative delivery models and modeling those common factors based on their conceptual relevance to project delivery elements. As the limitations of this study, it is acknowledged that certain keywords were employed and searched in certain databases for locating the relevant studies, which consequently narrowed its scope and might have affected its reliability and validity. The developed success model, like all new concepts, needs validation in case projects to be considered as a generally accepted model. Thus, this is a potential area for future research and development.
Figures
Results of the conducted search for locating the relevant studies
| Applied keywords | Databases | Located studies | Excluded studies | Criteria for exclusion | Analyzed studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance projects | ASCE | 10 | 1 | Irrelevant to alliance delivery model in the construction context | 9 |
| Emerald | 14 | 1 | 13 | ||
| ScienceDirect | 19 | 13 | 6 | ||
| Integrated project delivery | ASCE | 32 | 8 | Irrelevant to integrated project delivery in the construction context | 24 |
| Emerald | 7 | 1 | 6 | ||
| ScienceDirect | 16 | 1 | 15 | ||
| Lean project delivery | ASCE | 2 | 0 | Irrelevant to lean project delivery in the construction context | 2 |
| Emerald | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| ScienceDirect | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Google Scholar | 32 | 9 | 23 | ||
| Partnering projects | ASCE | 33 | 2 | Irrelevant to partnering delivery model in the construction context | 31 |
| Emerald | 20 | 4 | 16 | ||
| ScienceDirect | 42 | 26 | 16 | ||
| Relational contracting | ASCE | 28 | 8 | Irrelevant to relational contracting in the construction context | 20 |
| Emerald | 13 | 8 | 5 | ||
| ScienceDirect | 36 | 32 | 4 | ||
| Relationship-based procurement | ASCE | 0 | 0 | Irrelevant to relationship-based procurement in the construction context | 0 |
| Emerald | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| ScienceDirect | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Google Scholar | 10 | 1 | 9 | ||
| Total | 318 | 117 | − | 201 | |
Core success factors for collaborative construction projects
List of those success factors which were identified in the data analysis process and were not common between collaborative delivery models
| Keyword | Success factor | Reference | Success factor | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance | Sound relationship | Young et al. (2016) | Shared knowledge | Young et al. (2016) |
| Mutual goals and objectives | Integrated alliance office | |||
| Dispute resolution process | Stretch targets | |||
| Joint process evaluation | Staging of project and stretch targets | |||
| Flexibility and adaptability | Establishing project specific KPIs | |||
| Tight alliance outline | Facilitating on-going workshops that include site personnel | |||
| Alliance structure | Integration of a web-based management programme | |||
| IPD | Early and clearly defined project goals and scope | Kent and Becerik-Gerber (2010) | Improvement and utilization of BIM for collaborative process of IPD | Whang et al. (2019) |
| Early team formation | PMIS for collaborative decision-making and networked sharing system | |||
| Clearly defined roles relationships and responsibilities between the project participants | Training | Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber (2011) | ||
| Early involvement and enhanced role of key participants (including client) | Ling et al. (2020), Whang et al. (2019) | Procurement ability | ||
| Team building and management for collaborative business process | Whang et al. (2019) | Collaborative technology | ||
| Intensified planning and management from early project stage | ||||
| Partnering | The establishment and communication of a conflict resolution strategy | Chan et al. (2004a, b) | Building mitigation measures into the project to offset the disruption caused by construction | Antonson et al. (2000) |
| A willingness to share resources among project participants | Developing a public information/relations program for your project | Antonson et al. (2000) | ||
| Common understanding of roles and responsibilities | Chan et al. (2004a, b), Nevstad et al. (2018) | Including additional funding in the project's budget for an effective partnering | Antonson et al. (2000) | |
| Regular monitoring and control of partnership performance | Chan et al. (2004a, b), Ng et al. (2002), MohammadHasanzadeh et al. (2014) | Involvement of multiple departments and External stakeholders to participant selection | Nevstad et al. (2018) | |
| Effective coordination | Cheng and Li (2004) | Proactive relationship building | Nevstad et al. (2018) | |
| Top management support | Cheng and Li (2004), MohammadHasanzadeh et al. (2014), Bellini et al. (2016) | Preventing opportunistic behavior | Nevstad et al. (2018) | |
| Continuous improvement | Cheng and Li (2004) | Being solution oriented | ||
| Partnering experience | Common understanding | Nevstad et al. (2018), Ng et al. (2002), Memon et al. (2015) | ||
| Learning climate | Cheng and Li (2004), Bellini et al. (2016) | Accurate handover | Nevstad et al. (2018) | |
| Owner capacity and organizations | Cho et al. (2010) | Meeting objectives of client | Hughes et al. (2012) | |
| Experienced project team | Compromising the regulations and organizational structure | Ng et al. (2002) | ||
| Early identification and engagement of all potential stakeholders | Cho et al. (2010), Antonson et al. (2000), Bellini et al. (2016) | Implementing less restrictive tendering agreements | ||
| Quick decision-making process | Cho et al. (2010) | Centralized decision-making | ||
| Integrated team of all the parties | Providing comprehensive training and guidance | |||
| Holding of the design information in common | Integrated team, agreement | MohammadHasanzadeh et al. (2014) | ||
| Effective process of the change orders | Long-term perspective | |||
| establishment of the design criteria at an early stage | Cho et al. (2010) | Selection of an appropriate partner | ||
| Cost efficiency | Doloi (2013) | Incentives-reward system | Bellini et al. (2016) | |
| Mutual objectives | Wang et al. (2016), Bellini et al. (2016) | Commitment-willingness to share | ||
| Early negotiations for property acquisition | Antonson et al. (2000) | Team building activities | ||
| Holding public meetings during and prior to design to get the residents “on your side” | Workshops and meetings | |||
| Co-location | ||||
| LPD | A cooperative design phase including cross functional team members | Heidemann and Gehbauer (2010) | Fair share of risk/reward | Heidemann and Gehbauer (2010) |
| A supportive contract and procurement strategy | Incentive system | |||
| Incorporating behavioral lean-based principles in the contract | A combination of price competition and competence-based criteria for selecting project team | |||
| Relational contracting | Clients and contractors must identify motivational factors | Memon et al. (2015) | Establishing structured interactions | Memon et al. (2015) |
| Developing a collaborative culture | ||||
| Relationship-based procurement | Workshop and facilitator | Raslim and Mustaffa (2017) | Experienced partners | Raslim and Mustaffa (2017) |
| Competence | Early implementation of partnering | |||
| financial capability |
Appendix
References
Aaltonen, K. and Turkulainen, V. (2018), “Creating relational capital through socialization in project alliances”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1387-1421.
Ahmadabadi, A.A. and Heravi, G. (2019), “The effect of critical success factors on project success in Public-Private Partnership projects: a case study of highway projects in Iran”, Transport Policy, Vol. 73, pp. 152-161.
Alarcón, L.F., Mesa, H. and Howell, G. (2013) “Characterization of lean Project delivery”, in Formoso, C.T. and Tzortzopoulos, P. (Eds), 21st Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Fortaleza, Brazil..
Almarri, K. and Boussabaine, H. (2017), “Interdependency of the critical success factors and ex-post performance criteria of PPP projects”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 546-556.
American Institute of Architecture (2007), Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, AIA National and AIA California Council, Sacramento, CA.
Antonson, D., Hoffman, B. and Yurovsky, T. (2000), “Port Chicago pipeline project--A partnering success story”, in Building Partnerships, pp. 1-5.
Baccarini, D. (1999), “The logical framework method for defining project success”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 25-32.
Ballard, G. (2008), “The lean project delivery system: an update”, Lean Construction Journal, pp. 1-19, available at: https://leanconstruction.org/pages/learning/publications/lean-construction-journal/lcj-back-issues/2008-issue/.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (2003), “Lean project management”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 119-133.
Bellini, A., Aarseth, W. and Hosseini, A. (2016), “Effective knowledge transfer in successful partnering projects”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 96, pp. 218-228.
Børve, S., Rolstadås, A., Andersen, B. and Aarseth, W. (2017), “Defining project partnering”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 666-699.
Chan, A.P., Chan, D.W., Chiang, Y.H., Tang, B.S., Chan, E.H. and Ho, K.S. (2004a), “Exploring critical success factors for partnering in construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 2, pp. 188-198.
Chan, A.P., Scott, D. and Chan, A.P. (2004b), “Factors affecting the success of a construction project”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 153-155.
Chen, G., Zhang, G. and Xie, Y.M. (2015), “Impact of transaction attributes on transaction costs in project alliances: disaggregated analysis”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 4, 04014054.
Cheng, E.W. and Li, H. (2004), “Development of a practical model of partnering for construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 6, pp. 790-798.
Cho, K., Hyun, C., Koo, K. and Hong, T. (2010), “Partnering process model for public-sector fast-track design-build projects in Korea”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 19-29.
Chua, D.K.H., Loh, P.K., Kog, Y.C. and Jaselskis, E.J. (1997), “Neural networks for construction project success”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 317-328.
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C. and Loh, P.K. (1999), “Critical success factors for different project objectives”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 142-150.
Darrington, J.W. and Howell, G.A. (2011), “Motivation and incentives in relational contracts”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Das, D. and Ngacho, C. (2017), “Critical success factors influencing the performance of development projects: an empirical study of Constituency Development Fund projects in Kenya”, IIMB Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 276-293.
de Wit, A. (1986), “Measuring project success: an illusion”, Proceedings of Project Management Institute, Montreal, Canada, pp. 13-21.
Dithebe, K., Aigbavboa, C.O., Thwala, W.D. and Oke, A.E. (2019), “Factor analysis of critical success factors for water infrastructure projects delivered under public–private partnerships”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 338-357, doi: 10.1108/JFMPC-06-2019-0049.
Doloi, H. (2013), “Empirical analysis of traditional contracting and relationship agreements for procuring partners in construction projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 224-235.
Doulabi, R.Z. and Asnaashari, E. (2016), “Identifying success factors of healthcare facility construction projects in Iran”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 164, pp. 409-415.
Engebø, A., Lædre, O., Young, B., Larssen, P.F., Lohne, J. and Klakegg, O.J. (2020), “Collaborative project delivery methods: a scoping review”, Journal of Civil Engineering in Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 278-303.
Famakin, I.O., Aje, I.O. and Ogunsemi, D.R. (2012), “Assessment of success factors for joint venture construction projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 153-165, doi: 10.1108/13664381211246606.
Fischer, M., Khanzode, A., Ashcraft, H.W. and Reed, D. (2017), Integrating Project Delivery, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Forbes, L.H. and Ahmed, S.M. (2010), Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Fortune, C. and Setiawan, S. (2005), “Partnering practice and the delivery of construction projects for housing associations in the UK”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Franz, B., Leicht, R., Molenaar, K. and Messner, J. (2017), “Impact of team integration and group cohesion on project delivery performance”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 1, 04016088.
Frödell, M., Josephson, P.E. and Lindahl, G. (2008), “Swedish construction clients' views on project success and measuring performance”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Ghassemi, R. and Becerik-Gerber, B. (2011), “Transitioning to integrated project delivery: potential barriers and lessons learned”, Lean Construction Journal, pp. 32-52, available at: https://leanconstruction.org/pages/learning/publications/lean-construction-journal/lcj-back-issues/2011-issue/.
Gomez, S., Naderpajouh, N., Ballard, G., Hastak, M., Weidner, T.J. and Barriga, P. (2018), “Implications of the integrated project delivery research in practice”, in Construction Research Congress 2018, pp. 86-96.
Gunduz, M. and Yahya, A.M.A. (2018), “Analysis of project success factors in construction industry”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 67-80.
Hauck, A.J., Walker, D.H., Hampson, K.D. and Peters, R.J. (2004), “Project alliancing at national museum of Australia—collaborative process”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 143-152.
Heidemann, A. and Gehbauer, F. (2010), “Cooperative project delivery in an environment of strict design-bid-build tender regulations”, Proceeding 18th Annual Conference International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-18), pp. 591-590..
Hietajärvi, A.M., Aaltonen, K. and Haapasalo, H. (2017a), “Managing integration in infrastructure alliance projects”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-31.
Hietajärvi, A.M., Aaltonen, K. and Haapasalo, H. (2017b), “Opportunity management in large projects: a case study of an infrastructure alliance project”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 340-362.
Hietajärvi, A.M., Aaltonen, K. and Haapasalo, H. (2017c), “What is project alliance capability?”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 404-422.
Hosseini, A., Wondimu, P.A., Bellini, A., Haugseth, N., Andersen, B. and Lædre, O. (2016), “Project partnering in Norwegian construction industry”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 96, pp. 241-252.
Hosseini, A., Haddadi, A., Andersen, B., Olsson, N. and Lædre, O. (2017), “Relational base contracts–needs and trends in Northern Europe”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 121, pp. 1088-1095.
Hughes, D., Williams, T. and Ren, Z. (2012), “Is incentivisation significant in ensuring successful partnered projects?”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 306-319, doi: 10.1108/09699981211219625.
Ibrahim, C.K.I.C., Costello, S.B. and Wilkinson, S. (2015a), “Establishment of quantitative measures for team integration assessment in alliance projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 5, 04014075.
Ibrahim, C.K.I.C., Costello, S.B. and Wilkinson, S. (2015b), “Development of an assessment tool for team integration in alliance projects”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 813-827.
Ibrahim, C.K.I.C., Costello, S.B. and Wilkinson, S. (2016), “Application of a team integration performance index in road infrastructure alliance projects”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 1341-1362.
Ibrahim, C.K.I.C., 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, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 598-622.
Jefferies, M., Brewer, G.J. and Gajendran, T. (2014), “Using a case study approach to identify critical success factors for alliance contracting”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 465-480.
Ke, Y., Ling, F.Y. and Zou, P.X. (2015a), “Effects of contract strategy on interpersonal relations and project outcomes of public-sector construction contracts in Australia”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 4, 04014062.
Ke, Y., Gajendran, T. and Davis, P.R. (2015b), “Relational contracting in the construction industry: mapping practice to theory”, in AEI 2015, pp. 175-184.
Kent, D.C. and Becerik-Gerber, B. (2010), “Understanding construction industry experience and attitudes toward integrated project delivery”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 8, pp. 815-825.
Koutsikouri, D., Austin, S. and Dainty, A. (2008), “Critical success factors in collaborative multi-disciplinary design projects”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 198-226.
Laan, A., Voordijk, H. and Dewulf, G. (2011a), “Reducing opportunistic behaviour through a project alliance”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 660-679.
Laan, A., Noorderhaven, N., Voordijk, H. and Dewulf, G. (2011b), “Building trust in construction partnering projects: an exploratory case-study”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 98-108.
Lahdenperä, P. (2012), “Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 57-79.
Lazar, F.D. (2000), “Project partnering: improving the likelihood of win/win outcomes”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 71-83.
Lee, H.W., Tommelein, I.D. and Ballard, G. (2013), “Energy-related risk management in integrated project delivery”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139 No. 12, p. A4013001.
Li, W. and Wang, X. (2016), “Innovations on management of sustainable construction in a large earthwork project: an Australian case research”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 145, pp. 677-684.
Lichtig, W.A. (2005), “Sutter health: developing a contracting model to support lean project delivery”, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 105-112.
Ling, F.Y., Teo, P.X., Li, S., Zhang, Z. and Ma, Q. (2020), “Adoption of integrated project delivery practices for superior project performance”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 12 No. 4, 05020014.
Lloyd, H.L. and Varey, R.J. (2003), “Factors affecting internal communication in a strategic alliance project”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 197-207.
Lloyd-Walker, B. and Walker, D. (2015), Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Love, P.E., Mistry, D. and Davis, P.R. (2010), “Price competitive alliance projects: identification of success factors for public clients”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 9, pp. 947-956.
Love, P.E., Davis, P.R., Chevis, R. and Edwards, D.J. (2011), “Risk/reward compensation model for civil engineering infrastructure alliance projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137 No. 2, pp. 127-136.
MacDonald, C., Walker, D.H. and Moussa, N. (2012), “Value for money in project alliances”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 311-324.
MacDonald, C., Walker, D.H. and Moussa, N. (2013), “Towards a project alliance value for money framework”, Facilities, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 279-309.
Maqbool, R. and Sudong, Y. (2019), “Critical success factors for renewable energy projects; empirical evidence from Pakistan”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 195, pp. 991-1002.
Matinheikki, J., Aaltonen, K. and Walker, D. (2019), “Politics, public servants, and profits: institutional complexity and temporary hybridization in a public infrastructure alliance project”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 298-317.
Memon, S.A., Hadikusumo, B.H. and Sunindijo, R.Y. (2015), “Using social interaction theory to promote successful relational contracting between clients and contractors in construction”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 6, 04014095.
Mesa, H.A., Molenaar, K.R. and Alarcón, L.F. (2019), “Comparative analysis between integrated project delivery and lean project delivery”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 395-409.
Mihic, M., Sertic, J. and Zavrski, I. (2014), “Integrated project delivery as integration between solution development and solution implementation”, Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 557-565.
MohammadHasanzadeh, S., Hosseinalipour, M. and Hafezi, M. (2014), “Collaborative procurement in construction projects performance measures, case study: partnering in Iranian construction industry”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 811-818.
Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Swarup, L. and Riley, D. (2013), “Delivering sustainable, high-performance buildings: influence of project delivery methods on integration and project outcomes”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 71-78.
Moradi, S. (2021), “Project managers' competencies in collaborative construction projects”, Doctoral Dissertation, Tampere University, available at: https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-03-2002-7.
Moradi, S., Kähkönen, K. and Aaltonen, K. (2020a), “Project managers' competencies in collaborative construction projects”, Buildings, Vol. 10 No. 50, doi: 10.3390/buildings10030050.
Moradi, S., Kähkönen, K. and Aaltonen, K. (2020b), “From past to present-the development of project success research”, Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, doi: 10.19255/JMPM02301.
Moradi, S., Kähkönen, K., Klakegg, O.J. and Aaltonen, K. (2021a), “A competency model for the selection and performance improvement of project managers in collaborative construction projects: behavioral studies in Norway and Finland”, Buildings, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 4, doi: 10.3390/buildings11010004.
Moradi, S., Kähkönen, K., Klakegg, O.J. and Aaltonen, K. (2021b), “Profile of project managers' competencies for collaborative construction projects”, Annual Association of Researchers in Construction Management Conference: Recover, Rebuild and Renew, pp. 350-359.
Moradi, S., Kähkönen, K. and Sormunen, P. (2022), “Analytical and conceptual perspectives toward behavioral elements of collaborative delivery models in construction projects”, Buildings, Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 316, doi: 10.3390/buildings12030316.
Mostafavi, A. and Karamouz, M. (2010), “Selecting appropriate project delivery system: Fuzzy approach with risk analysis”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 8.
Mulholland, S. and Clevenger, C. (2018), “Contracting methods for integrated project delivery: a healthcare case study”, Construction Research Congress 2018, pp. 191-201.
Nevstad, K., Børve, S., Karlsen, A.T. and Aarseth, W. (2018), “Understanding how to succeed with project partnering”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1044-1065.
Ng, S.T., Rose, T.M., Mak, M. and Chen, S.E. (2002), “Problematic issues associated with project partnering—the contractor perspective”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 437-449.
Nguyen, P. and Akhavian, R. (2019), “Synergistic effect of integrated project delivery, lean construction, and building information modeling on project performance measures: a quantitative and qualitative analysis”, Advances in Civil Engineering, doi: 10.1155/2019/1267048.
Nguyen, H.T. and Hadikusumo, B.H. (2018), “Human resource related factors and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) project success”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 24-39.
Nyström, J. (2005), “The definition of partnering as a Wittgenstein family-resemblance concept”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 235, pp. 473-481.
Oakland, J.S. and Marosszeky, M. (2017), Total Construction Management: Lean Quality in Construction Project Delivery, Routledge, Abingdon.
Oladokun, M.G., Isang, I.W. and Emuze, F. (2020), “Towards sustainability practices deployment in building construction projects in nigeria”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment.
Omran, A., Abdulbagei, M.A. and Gebril, A.O. (2012), “An evaluation of the critical success factors for construction projects in Libya”, International Journal of Economic Behavior, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P. (2018), “Evaluating the project success index of public-private partnership projects in Hong Kong: the case of the Cross Harbour Tunnel”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 371-391.
Phua, F.T. and Rowlinson, S. (2004), “How important is cooperation to construction project success? A grounded empirical quantification”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 45-54.
Piroozfar, P., Farr, E.R., Zadeh, A.H., Inacio, S.T., Kilgallon, S. and Jin, R. (2019), “Facilitating building information modelling (BIM) using integrated project delivery (IPD): a UK perspective”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 26, 100907.
Rahman, M.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (2005), “Relational selection for collaborative working arrangements”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 10, pp. 1087-1098.
Ramlee, N., Raja Mohd Noor, R.N.H., Ainun Musir, A., Abdul Karim, N., Chan, H.B. and Mohd Nasir, S.R. (2016), “Critical success factors for construction project”, AIP Conference Proceedings, Aip Publishing Llc, Vol. 1774, No. 1, p. 030011.
Raslim, F.M. and Mustaffa, N.E. (2017), “The success factors of relationship-based procurement (RBP) in Malaysia”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 1616-1625.
Rowlinson, S. (2017), “Building information modelling, integrated project delivery and all that”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-49.
Sankaran, B., Nevett, G., O'Brien, W.J., Goodrum, P.M. and Johnson, J. (2018), “Civil Integrated Management: empirical study of digital practices in highway project delivery and asset management”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 87, pp. 84-95.
Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M. and Coyle, M. (1992), “Critical success factors for construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 94-111.
Sarhan, J.G., Xia, B., Fawzia, S., Karim, A., Olanipekun, A.O. and Coffey, V. (2019), “Framework for the implementation of lean construction strategies using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique: a case of the Saudi construction industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2018-0136.
Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2019), Research Methods for Business Students, 8th ed., Pearson Education, Harlow.
Shenhar, A.J. (2001), “One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains”, Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 394-414.
Spang, K. and Riemann, S. (2014), “Partnering in infrastructure projects in Germany”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 219-228.
Thompson, P.J. and Sanders, S.R. (1998), “Partnering continuum”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 73-78.
Toriola-Coker, L., Owolabi, H., Alaka, H., Bello, W.A. and Pathirage, C. (2021), “Critical success factors (CSFs) for motivating end- user stakeholder’s support for ensuring sustainability of PPP projects in Nigerian host communities”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, doi: 10.1108/JEDT-04-2021-0202.
Tsiga, Z., Emes, M. and Smith, A. (2017), “Critical success factors for projects in the petroleum industry”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 121, pp. 224-231.
Walker, D.H.T. and Jacobsson, M. (2014), “A rational for alliancing within a public-private partnership”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 648-673.
Walker, D.H., Hampson, K. and Peters, R. (2002), “Project alliancing vs project partnering: a case study of the Australian National Museum Project”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 83-91, doi: 10.1108/13598540210425830.
Wang, T., Tang, W., Du, L., Duffield, C.F. and Wei, Y. (2016), “Relationships among risk management, partnering, and contractor capability in international EPC project delivery”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 6, 04016017.
Whang, S.W., Park, K.S. and Kim, S. (2019), “Critical success factors for implementing integrated construction project delivery”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 2432-2446.
Wu, P., Xu, Y., Jin, R., Lu, Q., Madgwick, D. and Hancock, C.M. (2019), “Perceptions towards risks involved in off-site construction in the integrated design and construction project delivery”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 213, pp. 899-914.
Xie, H. and Liu, H. (2017), “Studying contract provisions of shared responsibilities for integrated project delivery under national and international standard forms”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 9 No. 3, 04517009.
Yeung, J.F., Chan, A.P. and Chan, D.W. (2009a), “A computerized model for measuring and benchmarking the partnering performance of construction projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 1099-1113.
Yeung, J.F., Chan, A.P. and Chan, D.W. (2009b), “Developing a performance index for relationship-based construction projects in Australia: delphi study”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 59-68.
Young, B., Hosseini, A. and Lædre, O. (2016), “The characteristics of Australian infrastructure alliance projects”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 96, pp. 833-844.
Zhang, X. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (2001), “Procurement protocols for public-private partnered projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127 No. 5, pp. 351-358.
Zhang, L., Cheng, J. and Fan, W. (2016), “Party selection for integrated project delivery based on interorganizational transactive memory system”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 3, 04015089.
Zhang, Y. and Hu, H. (2018), “Utilization of a cognitive task analysis for integrated project delivery application: case study of constructing a campus underground parking facility”, Cognitive Systems Research, Vol. 52, pp. 579-590.
Zuo, J., Zhao, X., Nguyen, Q.B.M., Ma, T. and Gao, S. (2018), “Soft skills of construction project management professionals and project success factors: a structural equation model”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 425-442.
Acknowledgements
Data availability statement: All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article.