International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 10, Issue 04, April 2019, pp. 125-132, Article ID: IJCIET_10_04_014
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=4
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
MEGA CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
COLLABORATION: THE CHALLENGES WITH
COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION
Vahid Aghania, Sara Ramzani and Valliapan Raju
Post Graduate Centre, Limkokwing University,
Cyberjaya. Malaysia.
ABSTRACT
In past research, project communication and collaboration have been shown to have
a positive correlation. Additionally, an increasing level of project complexity has been
observed as having a negative influence on project collaboration. This study attempted
to gain further insights into these relationships by analysing the impact of formal,
informal, willingness to communicate, Structural and dynamic complexity on project
collaboration in building projects in Indonesia.
Key words: Project communication, project complexity, project collaboration,
building project.
Cite this Article: Vahid Aghania, Sara Ramzani and Valliapan Raju, Mega
Construction Project Collaboration: The Challenges with Communication and
Collaboration, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 10(4), 2019,
pp. 125-132.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=4
1. INTRODUCTION
Effective project communication is crucial to overcoming the interfirm task interdependence,
complexity and general uncertainty that forms most construction projects, and effective
communication protocols are becoming increasingly important, accordingly [1].
Another factor that induces project conflict is the diversity of work groups possessing varied
levels and fields of knowledge, and a wide range of needs in terms of job satisfaction,
remuneration and respect, among other cultural values [2].
A good communications protocol provides a solid foundation upon which to build effective
task coordination and reduce associated risks of conflict [3,4].
As construction industry players increasingly try to incorporate multidisciplinary
components and interfirm connections, adaptable communication protocols are required for the
support of timely project delivery [5]. Such protocols empower teams to interpret alternate
perspectives, allowing each member to understand their colleagues’ rights and responsibilities,
facilitating better teamwork [6].
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
125
editor@iaeme.com
Vahid Aghania, Sara Ramzani and Valliapan Raju
Inadequate protocols are more likely to result in information silos and unequal sharing of
data, leading to the potential of confrontational dynamics developing between project teams,
increasing the risk of conflict and ensuing project losses [7].
As Indonesia moves forward, it becomes increasingly needful of better infrastructure, and
due to intense competition between local players, project teams frequently face larger scope or
higher complexity than they have the experience to handle [8]. Indonesia firms also face
increasing pressure to perform tasks more efficiently and with greater flexibility, all the while
needing to work more creatively toward the desired goals [9].
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
More recently, rapid urbanization in Indonesia has led to an urgent increase in mega
construction projects, and generally, these projects have turned out to be relatively complex
[10]. The process of controlling the related factors of risk, uncertainty and ambiguity, falls
under the scope of project collaboration. Faced with events that are unexpected and disturb
successful project delivery, extensive consideration is required. It is particularly interesting
when there are aspects of ambiguity when dealing with unexpected events, as this may also
present opportunities, as well as offer insights on how to improve management practices,
particularly for the delivery of complex projects where unexpected events are considered
normal [11].
For example, the role that collaboration plays, in terms of the dynamic between the owner’s
representative and the project delivery teams in complex infrastructure projects, has revealed
ambiguity as a prominent source of uncertainties and risks [12]. Ambiguity can be considered
to eventuate when someone mistakenly thinks they possess some new understanding of a
received communication, whether that is spoken, written or graphic, and which is not in line
with the intended message sent by the communicator. Such misunderstanding may cause
accidental and undesirable outcomes, such as rework due to misunderstood requirements or
misinterpreted drawings, which then lead to increased cost and potential time extensions [13].
2.1. Project Communication
Communication can be categorized into formal and informal modes, as the stream of studies
into this field conducted by Shohet and Laufer [14] show, while communication is seen as a
phenomenon to be conceptualized as multidimensional with numerous attributes [1]. Within
construction projects, communication also relates to informal meetings and private
conversations among team members and is not only limited to progress meetings, document
transmission, and the regular exchange of information as commonly perceived [15]. Such
informal communication constitutes a significant proportion of communications between
construction project teams and is important to the functioning of those teams [16].
Communication willingness has been defined in social psychology as the intention of
members of a project team to share their information [17], yet in various cultural contexts, there
does not always exist a willingness to share information without previously establishing
interpersonal trust [18]. On top of that, a decrease in the willingness of communication may be
contributed by the temporary, uncertainties and fragmented nature of construction projects [19].
2.2. Project complexity
The topic of project complexity is emerging as a critical project management topic in the
construction field. Researchers are increasingly recognizing the importance of complexity
measurement for project diagnosis, particularly for application on mega construction projects
[20]. Despite knowing that project complexity cannot be precisely quantified, many scholars
have still endeavoured to conduct research into complexity measurement factors in an attempt
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
126
editor@iaeme.com
Mega Construction Project Collaboration: The Challenges with Communication and Collaboration
to properly categorize them. Of particular note, Baccarini [21] and Williams [22] both preferred
to define project complexity in terms of interdependency and differentiation.
2.3. Project Collaboration
Okhuysen and Bechky [23] suggested that through the deployment of pre-defined, collaboration
mechanisms, integrative conditions can be produced that facilitate genuine collaboration.
Project participants can generate common understanding of responsibilities for specific parts of
a task, through ongoing interaction. Such interactions gradually become more predictable and
the participants are able to create a shared perspective of how each individual output fits into
the common framework [23].
Other research has highlighted how the manner in which each participant engages in the
collaboration process correlates with the resultant characteristics of the interfirm relationship
such cooperation helps to develop [24]. It follows that in addition to supporting participants in
dealing with collaboration issues, interaction also helps trust and norms of reciprocity to
develop, allowing ongoing collaboration success. Additional relationship characteristics
connected to greater levels of cooperation, such as shared knowledge, goals, and mutual respect,
enable greater adaptability with collaboration approaches [24].
3. METHODOLOGY
Using quantitative data analysis methods, this study analysed 292 surveys, representing a
significant proportion of Indonesian construction companies active in building sector. The
study uses primary data and the collection was done via a description-based questionnaire set.
This method of data collection enables the reliable identification and labelling of variabilities
with the occurrence of different phenomena.
4. FINDING AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 and 2 below show the standardized parameter estimates of the proposed model, AVE,
Cronbach and R square values.
Table 1 AVE, Cronbach and R-square
AVE
Formal
Communication
Informal
Communication
Willingness to
communicate
Dynamic
Complexity
Structural
Complexity
Collaboration
Composite
Reliability
0.6852
0.9157
R
Square
0
Cronbachs
Alpha
0.8975
Communality
Redundancy
0.6852
0
0.638
0.8979
0
0.8597
0.638
0
0.7204
0.9106
0
0.8812
0.7204
0
0.9337
0.9883
0
0.9858
0.9337
0
0.8169
0.9302
0
0.8851
0.8169
0
0.9314
0.976
0.9135
0.9629
0.9314
0.3672
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
127
editor@iaeme.com
Vahid Aghania, Sara Ramzani and Valliapan Raju
Table 2 Standardized Parameter Estimates of Hypothesized Relationships
Original
Sample (O)
Formal -> Col
Informal ->
Col
Will -> Col
Dynamic ->
Col
Structural ->
Col
Sample
Mean (M)
0.1411
-0.0421
0.1335
-0.046
Standard
Deviation
(STDEV)
0.0565
0.0537
Standard
Error
(STERR)
0.0565
0.0537
T Statistics
(|O/STERR|)
0.6053
-0.3054
0.6187
-0.2981
0.06
0.0694
0.06
0.0694
10.0922
4.4015
-0.077
-0.0786
0.0348
0.0348
2.2107
2.4949
0.7828
Hypothesis 1. There is a significant relationship between formal communication and
collaboration in building projects in Indonesia.
Analysis of hypothesis 1 states that formal communication positively affects collaboration. The
results prove the relationship in the predicted direction with β = 0.141 (p < .05).
Hypothesis 2. There is a significant relationship between informal communication and
collaboration in building projects in Indonesia.
Analysis of hypothesis 2 does not support the relationship between informal communication
and collaboration.
Hypothesis 3. There is a significant relationship between willingness to communicate and
collaboration in building projects in Indonesia.
Analysis of hypothesis 3 states that willingness to communicate positively affects project
collaboration. The results prove the relationship in the predicted direction with β = 0.605 (p <
.05).
This study shows two dimensions of team communication that affect project collaboration,
of which communication willingness is indicated as having the strongest effect. This is mainly
due to project performance consisting of both hard indicators like cost, quality, schedule and
safety, as well as soft indicators such as efficiency and effectiveness of project management
and stakeholder satisfaction.
Further to that, the link from informal communication to project performance improvement
was found to be less significant than expected, contrasting with the findings of existing studies
whose focus was on design teams [25]. This is attributable to a lack of controllable, static
relationships that could be analysed for informal communication.
The reality is this type of communication has the potential to cause distortions of the truth,
provoking a feeling of recalcitrance towards established activity arrangements or task
allocations. Distortion of information results in a general misunderstanding of work content and
arrangement of activities. Misalignments in comprehension of activity arrangements can
become expensive and lead to passive feelings between project participants. Confusion over
information may also result in time and cost overruns, affecting the performance of project
stakeholders. With testing hypothesis 4 and 5 in this section the impact of dynamic and
structural complexity on project collaboration has been tested.
Hypothesis 4. There is a significant relationship between dynamic complexity and collaboration
in building projects in Indonesia.
Analysis of hypothesis 4 states that dynamic complexity positively affects collaboration.
The results prove the relationship in the predicted direction with β = -0.305 (p < .05).
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
128
editor@iaeme.com
Mega Construction Project Collaboration: The Challenges with Communication and Collaboration
Hypothesis 5. There is a significant relationship between structural complexity and
collaboration in building projects in Indonesia.
Analysis of hypothesis 5 states that structural complexity positively affects collaboration.
The results prove the relationship in the predicted direction with β = -0.077 (p < .05).
There is a definite correlation between project collaboration and complexity factors,
whereby structural and dynamic complexity both have a negative effect on collaboration. This
relationship implies that perceptions of greater complexity lead to greater efforts for
representation followed by execution of dedicated strategies. This is evidenced by performance
results that account for interaction terms.
Collaboration for managing complex projects can be seen as more appropriate than simply
exploiting existing knowledge and technologies for two main reasons;
Firstly, high complexity increases the need for development of new sets of adaptive
solutions to be deployed when circumstances shift, as the higher the complexity, the higher the
risk for changes occurring [26] and levels of collaboration diminishing. In fact, “in many
complex projects, it is impossible to foresee the actions which will be needed in the future”
[27]. Project teams must engage in collaboration in order to effectively deal with subtle and
unexpected adjustments to objectives and tasks so that they can be better placed to develop
viable alternatives [28].
Secondly, as task and objective diversity expands, higher level experiences and
competencies are needed for the development of effective solutions for emerging problems. In
this way, collaboration “allows knowledge to be organized more comprehensively by
promoting diverse viewpoints and considerations” [29]. This requires the application of
aggregated knowledge to allow easier identification and integration of distant knowledge [30],
and so collaboration becomes crucial to the management of complex project problems as it
brings about the capture of a more eclectic range of experiences and broadens the overall
knowledge base [31].
Wider investigations into new avenues of knowledge and technologies lead to greater
potential for solutions to be found that meet diverse sets of shifting objectives. Earlier studies
have detailed the increased need for innovation and investigation of new knowledge and
technologies in complex projects, as it has been determined that this helps projects deal with
complicated, non-routine tasks [32]. It must therefore be argued that the higher the complexity,
the more that effective collaboration becomes necessary.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Building projects entail a certain level of complexity. Results from this study suggest that joint
undertakings of uncertain tasks leads to better interfirm collaboration, so to manage difficulties
on these projects, team members must strive to establish an early framework within which
collaborative practices such as joint decision-making, information sharing, and incentive
alignment can flourish.
These collaboration exercises demand that project participants communicate frequently and
attempt to resolve those task-related problems inherent to building projects, as a joint
undertaking. For building projects possessing higher levels of complexity, more focus should
be given to the structure of collaborative protocols as higher levels of complexity can lead to
opportunistic behaviours, especially where the ideal project outcome is rendered unattainable
or market conditions turns hostile.
As soon as one party begins to behave opportunistically in this way, the other party will
work to protect its own interests and will likely begin discharging misleading information,
disturb decision-making, or even attempt to delay the works. In order to minimise opportunistic
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
129
editor@iaeme.com
Vahid Aghania, Sara Ramzani and Valliapan Raju
behaviour, project managers should pre-empt such outcomes by stipulating missions, roles and
responsibilities at project inception. It is true that tailored contracts can be very effective in
compelling project participants to collaborate notwithstanding varying levels of uncertainty.
The Project Management Institute [33] proposes communication management as a key
knowledge area within project management practice. Proper management of project
communication facilitates the creation, distribution, receipt, acknowledgement and
understanding of project information.
A well-developed communication management plan instils a collaborative culture that will
nurture a cohesive project team. This kind of environment promotes pro-active participation in
the decision-making process [34] and helps teams to establish platforms for reaping the benefits
of project learning [35]. Ongoing interrogation of ideas and situations ensures greater
understanding and develops the team's knowledge [33].
In complex building projects where unexpected and abrupt changes are inevitable, efficient
communication is critical [36]. In line with the works of Yan and Dooley [37], the findings of
this study expand upon the understanding of project complexity, communication and
collaboration by testing and proving the metrics listed herein, at a higher level of reliability and
validity.
One limitation to the findings presented in this study is related to its quantitative nature of
our study, whereby its statistical validation is based on a relatively large sample size, as opposed
to relying on illustrative details rendered from deep investigation into a small sample. To further
illuminate the practical implications of our model, future qualitative case studies are encouraged
to investigate how key stakeholders can engage in joint explorative learning and adaptation in
complex projects with collaborative arrangements.
REFERENCES
[1]
Badir, Y. F., Buchel, B., & Tucci, C. L., 2012. A conceptual framework of the impact of
NPD project team and leader empowerment on communication and performance: An
alliance case context.
[2]
Buvik, M.P., Rolfsen, M., 2015. Prior ties and trust development in project teams - a case
study from the construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, 1484-1494.
[3]
Kennedy, D.M., McComb, S.A., Vozdolska, R.R., 2011. An investigation of project
complexity's influence on team communication using Monte Carlo simulation. J. Eng.
Technol. Manag. 28 (3), 109-127.
[4]
Reed, A.H., Knight, L.V., 2010. Effect of a virtual project team environment on
communication-related project risk. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 422-427.
[5]
Nielsen, Y., Erdogan, B., 2007. Level of visualization support for project communication
in the Turkish construction industry. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34, 19-36.
[6]
Tai, S., Wang, Y., Anumba, C.J., 2009. A survey on communications in large-scale
construction projects in China. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 16, 136-149.
[7]
Clark, H., Brennan, E., 1991. Grounding in communication. Perspect. Soc. Shar. Cogn. 13,
127-149.
[8]
Paris, C.R., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A., 2000. Teamwork in multi-person systems: a
review and analysis. Ergonomics 43 (8), 1052-1075.
[9]
Thamhain, H.J., 2004. Leading technology-based project teams. Eng. Manag. J. 16 (2), 3542.
[10]
Chan, A.P.C., Chan, A.P.L., 2004. Key performance indicators for measuring construction
success. Benchmark. Int. J. 11 (2), 203-221.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
130
editor@iaeme.com
Mega Construction Project Collaboration: The Challenges with Communication and Collaboration
[11]
Floricel, S., Piperca, S., Banik, M., 2011. Increasing Project Flexibility: The Response
Capacity of Complex Projects. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
[12]
Hagen, M., Park, S., 2013. Ambiguity acceptance as a function of project management: a
new critical success factor. Proj. Manag. J. 44, 52-66.
[13]
Dalcher, D., 2012. The nature of project management. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5, 643-660.
[14]
Shohet, I., Laufer, A., 1991. What does the construction foreman do? Constr. Manag. Econ.
9, 565-576.
[15]
Butt, A., Naaranoja, M., Savolainen, J., 2016. Project change stakeholder communication.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 1579-1595.
[16]
Shohet, I.M., Frydman, S., 2003. Communication patterns in construction at construction
manager level. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 129, 570-577.
[17]
Ding, Z., Ng, F., Cai, Q., 2007. Personal constructs affecting interpersonal trust and
willingness to share knowledge between architects in project design teams. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 25, 937-950.
[18]
Henderson, L.S., Stackman, R.W., Lindekilde, R., 2016. The centrality of communication
norm alignment, role clarity, and trust in global project teams. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 17171730.
[19]
Christensen, S., McNamara, J., O'Shea, K., 2007. Legal and contracting issues in electronic
project administration in the construction industry. Struct. Surv. 25, 191-203.
[20]
Frizelle, G.D.M.,Gregory, M.J., 2000. Complexity and the impact of introducing new
products. Complexity and Complex Systems in IndustryUniversity of Warwick, Warwick,
UK, pp. 247-259.
[21]
Baccarini, D., 1996. The concept of project complexity - a review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 14
(4), 201-204.
[22]
Williams, T., 1999. The need for new paradigms for complex projects. Int. J. Proj.Manag.
17, 269-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00047-7.
[23]
Okhuysen, G.A., Bechky, B.A., 2009. 10 Coordination in organizations: an integrative
perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 463-502.
[24]
Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., Whelyazkov, P., 2012. The two facets of collaboration:
cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Acad. Manag. Ann. 6 (1), 531-583.
[25]
Otter, A. Den, Prins, M., 2002. Architectural design management within the digital design
team. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 9, 162-173.
[26]
Bröchner, J., Badenfelt, U., 2011. Changes and change management in construction and IT
projects. Autom. Constr. 20 (7), 767-775.
[27]
Pollack, J., 2007. The changing paradigms of project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25
(3), 266-274.
[28]
Senaratne, S., Sexton, M., 2009. Role of knowledge in managing construction project
change. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 16 (2), 186-200.
[29]
Eriksson, P.E., Patel, P.C., Rönnberg-Sjödin, D., Frishammar, J., Parida, V., 2016.
Managing interorganizational innovation projects: mitigating the negative effects of
equivocality through knowledge search strategies. Long Range Plan. 49 (6), 691-705.
[30]
Tippmann, E., Mangematin, V., Sharkey Scott, P., 2013. The two faces of knowledge
search: new solutions and capability development. Organ. Stud. 34 (12), 1869-1901.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
131
editor@iaeme.com
Vahid Aghania, Sara Ramzani and Valliapan Raju
[31]
Mom, T., Van Den Bosch, F., Volberda, H., 2007. Investigating managers' exploration and
exploitation activities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge. J.
Manag. Stud. 44 (6), 910-931.
[32]
Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex
products and systems? Res. Policy 29 (7-8), 871-893.
[33]
PMI., 2013. The Standard For Portfolio Management Third Edition. Pennsylvannia: Project
Management Institite.
[34]
Anantatmula, V. S., 2015. Strategies for enhancing project performance. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 31(6), 04015013.
[35]
Schindler, M., Eppler, M.J., 2003. Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project
learning methods and success factors. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 219-228.
[36]
Eriksson, P.E., Szentes, H., 2017. Managing the tensions between exploration and
exploitation in large construction projects. Constr. Innov..
[37]
Yan, T., Dooley, K.J., 2013. Communication intensity, goal congruence, and uncertainty in
buyer-supplier new product development. J. Oper. Manag. 31, 523-542.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
132
editor@iaeme.com