EXPLORING MEDIATING EFFECTS OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES ON PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

Specialization and fragmentation of disciplines in the AEC industry has increased the number of interfaces managed by project teams. Therefore, many project managers are seeking greater collaboration as a means of improving project performance. Borrowing from organizational theory, this research applies the concept of boundaries and boundary spanning practices to project delivery methods. An exploratory model was developed as a research instrument, describing how organizational structure, contractual terms and team selection method may shape the initial physical, social and mental boundaries among project participants. These boundaries provide formal rules and structure to regulate team interaction, and informally the identity and group norms within the project team. Literature suggests that the efforts of project teams to effectively manage inter-organizational boundaries, by emphasizing collaboration and the use of technologies to overcome fragmentation, can also provide opportunities for improving project performance. To verify hypotheses imbedded in the exploratory model, ANOVA and mediation tests were performed on the project database from Konchar and Sanvido’s (1998) delivery method comparison study. Results of ANOVA testing demonstrated that delivery methods have a significant measurable impact on the physical boundary of ‘timing of builder involvement’. Mediation testing, using bootstrapped confidence intervals, identified ‘team chemistry’ as partially mediating (1) the effect of design-build and CM at risk organizational structures on cost growth, and (2) the effect of a negotiated team selection method on cost growth and delivery speed. The presence of significant paths demonstrates the usefulness of mediation analysis in exploring causal gaps in our understanding of the mechanisms by which project delivery impacts project performance. Additionally, the findings support more informed early phase decision-making and validate a methodology for identifying boundary spanning practices that result in effective collaboration among project teams.

[1]  Ellen L. Konrad.  A multidimensional framework for conceptualizing human services integration initiatives , 1996 .

[2]  John Messner,et al.  Comparing procurement methods for design-build projects , 2006 .

[3]  Mark Konchar,et al.  Comparison of U.S. Project Delivery Systems , 1998 .

[4]  M. Sobel.  Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models , 1982 .

[5]  David R. Riley,et al.  Piloting Evaluation Metrics for Sustainable High-Performance Building Project Delivery , 2010 .

[6]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[7]  Jonas Söderlund,et al.  Clients, Contractors, and Consultants: The Consequences of Organizational Fragmentation in Contemporary Project Environments , 2001 .

[8]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure , 1977 .

[9]  Bryan Franz,et al.  Project Impacts of Specialty Mechanical Contractor Design Involvement in the Health Care Industry: Comparative Case Study , 2013 .

[10]  Jennifer S. Shane,et al.  Contract Payment Provisions and Project Performance: An Analysis of Municipal Water and Wastewater Facilities , 2010 .

[11]  Richard Fellows,et al.  Managing organizational interfaces in engineering construction projects: addressing fragmentation and boundary issues across multiple interfaces , 2012 .

[12]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  C. William Ibbs,et al.  Project delivery systems and project change: Quantitative analysis , 2003 .

[14]  Eviatar Zerubavel,et al.  The fine line : making distinctions in everyday life , 1993 .

[15]  A. Somech,et al.  From an Intrateam to an Interteam Perspective of Effectiveness: The Role of Interdependence and Boundary Activities , 2010 .

[16]  Keith R. Molenaar,et al.  A review of critical success factors and performance metrics on construction projects , 2013 .

[17]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. , 1992 .

[18]  Andrew Parker,et al.  The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations , 2004 .

[19]  Mike Bresnen,et al.  The emergence of partnering in construction practice: an activity theory perspective , 2011 .

[20]  Keith R. Molenaar,et al.  PUBLIC-SECTOR DESIGN/BUILD EVOLUTION AND PERFORMANCE , 1999 .

[21]  Tor Hernes,et al.  Studying Composite Boundaries: A Framework of Analysis , 2004 .

[22]  David Greenwood,et al.  Establishing the association between collaborative working and construction project performance based on client and contractor perceptions , 2012 .

[23]  R. Müller,et al.  On the nature of the project as a temporary organization , 2003 .