See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308352652
Project change stakeholder communication
Article in International Journal of Project Management · November 2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.010
CITATIONS
READS
72
12,852
3 authors:
Aurangzeab Butt
Marja Naaranoja
University of Vaasa
Universtiy of Vaasa (part time)
7 PUBLICATIONS 95 CITATIONS
102 PUBLICATIONS 1,007 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Jussi Savolainen
Tampere University of Applied Sciences
9 PUBLICATIONS 119 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
http://fambus.teithe.gr/ View project
FAMBUS View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Aurangzeab Butt on 05 August 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.)
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the author's
institution and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier's archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
Author's Personal Copy
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579 – 1595
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Project change stakeholder communication
Aurangzeab Butt a,⁎, Marja Naaranoja b , Jussi Savolainen c
a
Department of Production, University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 34, Vaasa 65101, Finland
b
University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 34, Vaasa 65101, Finland
c
Tampere University of Technology, Tampere FI-33720, Finland
Received 20 July 2015; received in revised form 20 August 2016; accepted 30 August 2016
Abstract
This action-based qualitative case study explores how the project communication routines affect stakeholder engagement during change
management process and evolve project culture. With an inductive design, this research studies change communication practices in two different
case contexts. The results underline the fact that an effective communication ensures stakeholder participation in the change management processes
through teamwork and empowerment, whereas lacking communication routines lead to a rational and straightforward project culture where task
performance and efficiency are preferred over stakeholder involvement. Theoretical results suggest that project communication planning requires
more attention on the know-how of stakeholders than the current stakeholder evaluation models instruct.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project management; Change management; Communication management; Stakeholders; Action research; Project culture; Stakeholder know-how
1. Introduction
During past two decades the infrastructure projects constituted 3.8% of world GDP, and this contribution is estimated to
increase up to 4.1% by 2030 (McKinsey Global Institute,
2013). Meanwhile, changes are experienced in almost every
infrastructure construction project (Ibbs et al., 2007). These
changes are among the major reasons for project time delays
and over budget (Hwang et al., 2009). The rate of project
change increase also the complexity (Zhang, 2013). Most of the
complex projects involve a large number of stakeholders
(Muller and Turner, 2007). Ignoring stakeholders may become
the main reason for a complex project failure (Kangas, 2011;
PMI, 2013b). It is widely accepted that the stakeholder
consensus and satisfaction is achieved through communication
(PMI, 2013b). Realistic stakeholder expectations can be spotted
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: t94785@student.uwasa.fi (A. Butt),
marja.naaranoja@uwasa.fi (M. Naaranoja), jussi.savolainen@sumplia.fi
(J. Savolainen).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.010
0263-7863/00/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
through effective communication routines (Mok et al., 2015).
Insufficient communication and lack of stakeholder integration
are among the most common drivers for unattended change
causes and un-controlled change impacts in a project (Zhao et
al., 2010). The development of effective communication
routines between stakeholders requires considerable attention
and efforts during the project development and planning phase.
The stakeholders may have different national and organizational cultures (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005), which affect
the project communications. Loo (2002) identified that the
project cultures are not stable as they change during time (Loo,
2002). The effective communication routines (Bakens et al.,
2005; Kerzner, 2009) help to maintain stakeholder trust
(Turner, 2009) and to keep track on the project culture changes
(Marrewijk, 2007) in order to prevent the development of
dysfunctional culture (Bate, 1994).
Researchers have found that organizational culture types
can influence positively or negatively on knowledge sharing,
depending on the culture type: clan, adhocracy, market, and
hierarchy (Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011) or innovative, competitive,
bureaucratic, and community (Cavaliere and Lombardi, 2015). In
this paper, we have focused on five different types of culture
Author's Personal Copy
1580
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
(compare Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011; Bate, 1994; Prajogo and
McDermott, 2005; Zuo et al., 2009):
• developmental/ innovation culture where the organization
focuses on developing the task and pursues to find new
solutions to the challenges
• group culture where decisions are reached at lower level
• hierarchal project cultures where communication routines are
restrained
• rational culture focuses on reaching the goal as efficiently as
possible
• dysfunctional culture where some of the signs are visible:
the internal competition is harder than outside competition;
change resistance is hard; people depart from organization;
strategies change based on management or culture fad,
bureaucracy reigns supreme, innovation is not valued
According to our literature review, most of the proposed change
management models do not adequately focus on the role of
knowledge of stakeholders, although many (e.g., Kotter, 2007)
recognized the importance of change communication. Change
management systems, with lacking communication routines, are
practical, however bureaucratic top level decision-making systems.
The objective of this paper is to explore the role of effective
communication and stakeholder engagement in project change
management process. Engagement of stakeholders necessitates
their participation and involvement (Deegan and Parkin, 2011).
The research questions of this paper are as follows:
Q1: How do the different project communication routines affect
stakeholder engagement during the change management
process?
Q2: How do the different communication routines and
cultures facilitate stakeholder engagement in the change
management process?
By answering these questions, this research aims to clarify the
role of communication routines during project change management
processes. The two action-based case studies demonstrate how
effective communication routines specifically designed during the
project planning phase effect on stakeholder engagement during
change management processes throughout the project life cycle.
This paper begins with a brief overview of change management,
communication, and culture, as well as the role of stakeholders in
changes. This is followed by the description of research method
and case study. Communication routines and stakeholder culture
are described for both the cases. Then the role of case-specific
communication and culture in the change process is discussed. The
paper concludes with discussion for further research and
contribution of this paper.
2. Literature review
2.1. Change management in projects
Projects, although temporary endeavors, undergo changes
during the life cycle. Most of the time, project changes are caused
due to imperfect planning, lacking stakeholder involvement and
improper integration of project work packages (Zhang, 2013).
Still, almost all the construction projects undergo planned or
unplanned changes (Ibbs et al., 2007), which is a major reason for
their cost and time overrun (Hwang et al., 2009). Such changes
are considered as variation or modification from the original
scope, cost, time schedule, and agreed quality (Hao et al., 2008).
Typically, a project may undergo change due to various factors.
Examples of these causes include but are not limited to the
following factors: wrong interpretation of scope; conflicting
stakeholder expectations or understanding about project functionality; change in regulations, laws, and standards; wrong
project assumptions; financial uncertainities; political uncertainties; technology improvements; human behavior-related
uncertanities; ommissions during engineering; mistakes during
construction; value engineering; delayed deliveries from the
sub-contracors and vendors; non-conforming components and
equipment; inclement weather and other force majeure condition;
and incomplete or conflicting contract clauses (Love et al., 2002;
Zhang, 2013; Hao et al., 2008). Concurrent occurrence of any
two or more of the mentioned cause factors increase the
importance of change in complex project setups (Zhang, 2013)
and hence the change impacts. However, the earlier the change
cuase factor is identified during project life cycle, the easier it
would be to manage its impact (PMI, 2013c).
Changes have direct and indirect impacts on the project
outcome (Moghaddam, 2012). Direct impacts of a change may
include additional work, deletion of work, demolition of work
already done, re-work, specification change, time lost in
stopping and restarting current task, revision in project reports,
drawings and documents, reschedule to make up for the lost
time, etc. Meanwhile, indirect impacts of a change can include
the following: stringent stakeholder relationships, decrease in
the interest and engagement of resources, loss of productivity
during construction, increased risks related to coordination and
scope interfacing, change in the cash flows, and increased
critical tasks in project time schedule. However, identifying
change causes and minimizing their negative impacts require
considerable efforts. Lack of effective communication and lack
of stakeholder integration are among the most common drivers
for unattended change causes and un-controlled change impacts
in a project (Zhao et al., 2010). Therefore, project stakeholders
should be keen to understand the need for the changes and so to
minimize their negative impact. This can be achieved by
establishing change management communication routines from
the project planning phase.
A list of identified project change cause factors and change
impacts are included in Table 1.
Project change causes and effects are known already; however,
referring to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council, Moghaddam (2012) mentioned that there are no widely
accepted standard and comprehensive change management
methods in construction projects. Likewise, the authors of this
paper believe that project management literature offers several
methods and systems for the change management (PMI, 2013c:
Zhao et al., 2010; Park and Pena-Mora, 2003; Moghaddam, 2012;
Hao et al., 2008; Ibbs et al., 2001). For example, Hao et al.'s
Author's Personal Copy
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
1581
Table 1
Project change causes and impacts.
Project change cause factors
Direct impacts of a project change
In-direct impacts of a project change
- Wrong scope interpretations
- Conflicting stakeholder about project functionality
- Changing regulations, laws, and standards
- Wrong project assumptions
- Technological improvements
- Omissions/mistakes during engineering and constructions
- Wrong estimations (e-g resourcing, raw materials, time)
- Delayed or non-conforming equipment deliveries
- Conflicting contract clauses
- Financial, social, and political uncertainties
- Human behavior-related uncertainties
- Force Majeure conditions (e.g., inclement weather)
- Value engineering
- Additional features demanded by the owner
- Identification and involvement of a new stakeholder
- Project management in effectiveness
- Scope interfacing decision making
- etc.
- Additional work
- Deletion of work
- Demolition of executed work
- Re-work to meet specification
- Change in work specifications
- Time pressure to complete the work
- Revisions in engineering documents,
drawings, and reports
- Rescheduling of the works
- Updated testing procedures
- Additional/ reduced criteria for acceptance
- Inclusion of new definition in the contract
Extension of contract clauses
- Demands for extra features or warranties
- etc.
- Stringent stakeholder relationship
- Lacking interest and engagement of resources
- Loss of productivity
- Increased risks related to scope interfacing
and coordination
- Project cash flow changes
- Altering critical path and increasing critical path tasks
- Consequential losses or gains for the future business.
- Stringent clauses for new agreements
- Re-evaluation of suppliers, vendors, and contractors.
- Updating of standard specifications of future use.
- etc.
(2008) proposed a comprehensive change management system
for tracking project change causes and effects. Our further
observation is that such models demand an intensive stakeholder
engagement without providing detailed guidance about the
implementation. Consequently, an intensive stakeholder engagement implies that the decision-making process should be
prolonged, especially in hierarchal project cultures where
communication routines are restrained. The underlying problem
is that change management models fall short to amplify the
significance of engaged project stakeholders once the actual
problems are occurring concurrently.
Unfortunately, involving stakeholder with appropriate communication routines is missing in such change management
models. What is the best way out? Is it to characterize the level
and/or type of change with its possible impacts? Then involve the
key stakeholders (Freeman, 1999) (Wang and Huang, 2006), for
example, the core teams, into the change management processes?
The answer lies in an evolving practice to organize resources in a
project! For example, Kähkönen et al. (2012) have delineated the
role of core teams for focused coordination on the arising issues
in a project. Developing core teams and establishing their
communication routines facilitate decision making rather at lower
project hierarchy. This is one possible way for stakeholders to
understand expectations, responsibility, and power of individual
resources during communication. Therefore, disputes arising
from the conflict of interest, lacking authority and contractual
limitations are likely to be escalated to higher project hierarchy.
From project management literature, one can identify that
most of the proposed change management systems are
extended from a generic change management model comprising the following five sequential processes: identify change →
evaluate and propose change → approve change → implement
change → review change. Henceforth, for the generalization of
our findings, we will use this five-step change management
model to analyze the stakeholder communication routines in
our two case projects. In the following two sub-sections, we
aim to further establish our argument about the need for
stakeholder engagement through appropriate communication
routines. The first sub-section describes the project change
implementation during construction. The second sub-section
seeks guidance about project stakeholder communication from
the organizational change management literature.
2.1.1. Implementation of project changes during construction
Practically, the changes once known during construction
lead to two possible solutions, either (i) re-work or (ii) in situ
managerial decisions (Park and Pena-Mora, 2003). Re-work is a
process of re-doing those of the already performed work that
does not fulfill the agreed quality or functionality criteria for
project acceptance (Sun and Meng, 2009). Vice versa, the
construction teams also practice in situ decisions (referred as
managerial decisions) to deviate from original deliverable plan.
Either of these two solutions is selected (Re-work or in situ
decision), the project may suffer from additional costs, time
delays, low quality, and functionality compromises. Park and
Pena-Mora (2003) have observed that the construction teams
tend to avoid re-work. It is because re-work necessitates
additional resources resulting in higher time and cost impact on
the project completion. Re-work also accumulates time pressure
on the contractors who then compromise on the work quality,
and consequently this may result in more re-works. Therefore,
with delayed construction the tendency to adopt in situ
managerial decision increases (Park and Pena-Mora, 2003).
Alternatively, in situ managerial decision making is although
preferred to avoid the schedule and cost pressures during
construction, however it is not either free from consequences.
Construction process is a logical and efficient sequence of
work deliverables. However, an in situ managerial decision
necessitates alteration in the sequence of consequential works.
Such alteration may further require (i) re-work or otherwise
Author's Personal Copy
1582
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
followed by many other consequential in situ managerial
decisions. This dilemma of choosing between re-work and
implementing in situ decision may continue over the construction period. Park and Pena-Mora (2003) further observed that
the reduced response time, resulting from informed stakeholders, should increase the probability of preferring re-work
over in situ managerial decision.
2.1.2. Change management as an inquiry
Organizations endeavor to transform their capabilities
(Barney et al., 2011) through change management guided by
wise leadership (Kotter, 2007), flexible change project
structures, and agile processes (Kerzner, 2009; Turner, 2009;
PMI, 2013a). These organizational change management
processes, consisting planning, preparing, implementing, benefit realizing, and sustaining change, entail an active stakeholder engagement (Kotter, 2007). The change leaders and
agents in an organization engage the stakeholders through
effective communication routines (Crawford and Nahmias,
2010). Further, a study on managing complex projects directed
leadership and communication skills as most significant traits
in managing project changes and uncertainties (PMI, 2013b).
Kazmi and Naranoja (2013) observed the important role of the
stakeholder communication in a significant organizational change.
In Kotter's eight-step change management model, the first four
steps are focusing on the strength of leader's communication for
embracing change (Kotter, 2007). Likewise, we have learned that
for embracing a change and controlling its outcomes the
stakeholder engagement through efficient communication routines
are crucial. However, Pettigrew (2001) cautioned that change
management processes and deliberate actions undertaken by the
change agents is under-researched in literature. Such shortcomings
in the project management literature became obvious during our
literature review as well.
2.2. Project communication and culture
Since projects are unique, temporary, giving discontinuous
work contents to personnel, and short-term oriented, they
require different ways of communicating (Prencipe and Tell,
2001). Multidisciplinary projects require a massive amount of
information exchange and communication to enhance the
needed contribution for project success. Especially, in complex
and demanding projects, the enormous amount of information
exchange is very typical. Nevertheless, it is practically
impossible for each project participant to know everything. It
should be reassured that all stakeholders are timely communicated with the correct and relevant information. For this
purpose, stakeholders deploy three-mode communication: push
communication, pull communication, and interactive communication (PMI, 2013c). Push communication aims to send the
specific information to the targeted stakeholder groups, for
example, through letters, memos, and e-mails. Through pull
communication, stakeholders extract the needed information,
for example, from project information repository or intranet.
Push and pull communication is the result of individual stakeholder actions; however, interactive communication requires
multidirectional information exchange between project stakeholders. Apparently, interactive communication is the most
efficient way to seek stakeholder common understanding (PMI,
2013c). Essentially, the project-specific combination of these
three modes establishes the effective communication routines.
An effective communication is about availability of correct
information to the right stakeholders at the “right time and in a
cost-effective manner” (Kerzner, 2009, p. 232), and it aims to
keep reinstating stakeholders' understanding about the project
deliverables (Bakens et al., 2005; Davis, 2016). This paper uses
“project communication” as the overall term for all aspects of
communication (Fig. 1) in a project (Kerzner, 2009; Ramsing,
2009):
▪ Project communication is the overall term for all aspects of
communication in projects.
▪ External project communication deals with project
stakeholders.
▪ Internal project communication covers all aspects of both
written and interpersonal communication in a project.
▪ Documented project communication defines the use of
documentation, data, information, design and planning documentation (drawings, photos, models, simulations, etc.), and
project management systems.
▪ Interpersonal project communication defines the personal
interaction in a project between project managers, management, project team members, project stakeholders and other
individuals who may, formally or informally, be of an
importance to the project. E-mail is seen as a form of
interpersonal communication due to its character of frequent
formal and informal ways of communicating.
▪ Scheduled project-related communication meetings either
face to face or virtually as well as project documents sent as
planned.
▪ Non-scheduled project-related communication is both faceto-face or virtual meetings and e-mails.
▪ Professional/formal communication, scheduled and unscheduled, as seen necessary to furnish the project deliverables.
▪ Personal/informal communication, scheduled and unscheduled,
as seen necessary to build trust, rapport and to resolve any
situation leading to potential conflict.
Kerzner (2009) cautioned that although a rich exchange of
project information takes place, still the stakeholders make
conflicting interpretations. These conflicting interpretations
diminish away the trust among stakeholders and hence their
commitment towards project success erodes. The communication crux is to gain stakeholder commitment for the project
success (Turner, 2009). Hence, communication routines should
facilitate stakeholder knowledge sharing in order to learn about
the others' perspectives, their expectations and interest in the
project, and their power to shape the project outcomes. Karlsen
et al. (2008) pointed out that there is a need to communicate by
using both professional and personal channels (Karlsen et al.,
2008). Professional, more formal, communication channel can
be official meetings and discussions. Personal channels are the
informal ways of communication like chatting in corridors or
Author's Personal Copy
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
1583
Fig. 1. Communication in project developed from Ramsing (2009) and Kerzner (2009).
during dinner. Berkun (2005) demonstrated that through
informal channel of communication it is easier to gain trust in
relationship building. Misztal (1996) described trust as the
particular vital element for the stable relationship and
cooperation building that is needed in daily interaction in
projects. Likewise, an open mind-set is also required because
through communication stakeholders will question each other's
work routines, assumptions and believes; if not aligned or
outdated, then already established understandings should be
changed (Baker and Sinkula, 1999).
Our understanding is that project culture has an important role
when developing communication routines for change management processes (Ibbs et al., 2001). Therefore, the following
sub-section is dedicated to review the importance of project
culture types and components and the role of communication
routines.
2.2.1. Project culture and communication
The academic literature on organizational culture in project
management has focused on shared cultural values and pursue
to solve problems (Henrie, 2005; Wang, 2001; Anderssen,
2003; Quinn and Cameron, 1988). Kendra and Taplin (2004)
noted that a project culture consists of multiple fragmented
subcultures. Zuo et al. (2009) have deduced a project culture
framework consisting of major components: integrative,
cooperative, goal oriented, flexible, and people oriented. The
dominating characteristics of these components in mentioned in
Table 2:
Project stakeholders from varying national and/or organizational cultures jointly constitute the project culture. Comparable
projects, however, involving different stakeholder nationalities
may exhibit different cultural characteristics. For example, in a big
European construction project, the culture included the components of innovativeness, creativeness, non-traditionalism, and
independency (Marrewijk, 2007). Contrarily, Chinese construction
projects' culture has dominated by goal-oriented approach (Zuo
et al., 2009). Project stakeholders' organizational cultures also
affect the communication. One of the stakeholders might be
working in hierarchical culture and other in an organization with
development culture (Fig. 2). The project participant from
development culture will have limited understanding about why
the other company representatives just stick to the contractual
documents and are not willing to find other solutions or delaying
the process. Further, inter-organizational project participants have
different backgrounds (education and career paths) that may also
lead to contradicting interpretations. The other stakeholder can be
under pressure and not able to listen or read the message properly
and thus the message is misunderstood. Hence, in order to
communicate effectively, we need to learn to ask for feedback that
will enable us to understand how our message is received
(Shannon, 1948).
Importantly, project cultures are not static but constantly
evolve during the project life cycle (Loo, 2002). Meanwhile,
changing project culture lead to a dysfunctional stage (Bate,
Table 2
Project culture components and characteristics adopted from Zuo et al. (2009).
Project cultural
components
Cultural characteristics
Integrative
Input of many parties is integrated into the project during
the early phase of project.
Though there are conflicts during the projects they are
seen as a normal for the process. The objectives of project
participants are aligned together. Teamwork is popular.
Results are always given the highest priority while the
means to obtain goals can be allowed. Risk taking is
acceptable.
The way a project is processed is very flexible and easy to
change in the projects within flexible culture. Innovative
approaches are encouraged and rewarded in the project
process. Failure is viewed as an opportunity for learning
and improvement.
Decision making may be passed down. Opportunities are
given to develop capabilities during the project process.
Cooperative
Goal oriented
Flexible
People oriented
Author's Personal Copy
1584
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
Fig. 2. The organizational culture (modified Prajogo and McDermott, 2005).
1994). In dysfunctional stage, the project is caught in an
unpleasant circle of growing frustration, increasing isolation,
losing innovativeness, and decreasing ability to adapt to the
changes in the wider environment (Marrewijk, 2007). Therefore, to maintain the stakeholder trust and their participation
(Turner, 2009) during change management processes, the
project practitioners should communicate effectively to avoid
dysfunctional project culture (Weaver, 2007; Ibbs et al., 2001).
2.3. Project changes and stakeholders communication
Project stakeholder is an individual or group “who can affect
or is affected by” the outcome of project (Freeman, 1984).
Stakeholders are influential players and their role is comprehensive, however complicated as well (Littau et al., 2010). Therefore,
the management of stakeholders' expectations is important in
every project (Kangas, 2011; Cleland, 1986; Olander and Landin,
2005; Davis, 2016) and so in the change management processes
(Bourne and Walker, 2005). Stakeholder communication is
critical (PMI, 2013c, b), but it is not sufficient to only inform
project changes to the stakeholders (Hao et al., 2008; Davis,
2016). Herein, the position of the authors is that stakeholder
participation should be facilitated (and encouraged) throughout
the change management process, beginning from the change
identification. It should be make sure that the messages are timely
distributed and expectations are learned; however, it is merely
possible with ineffective communication routines. This in return
demands focusing on integrative and people-oriented components of project culture (Zuo et al., 2009). An effective communication triggers stakeholder coordination to integrate their
expectations within high quality work deliveries (Villagarcia and
Cardoso, 1999) and managing project changes (Griffith-Cooper
and King, 2007) at optimum cost and schedule. Practically, it
means that effective communication routines should lead to
just-in-time stakeholder agreement on the identified/proposed/
required changes.
It is a known fact that major chunk of project manager's time is
consumed in communicating with stakeholders. For example,
from a stakeholder collaboration study in construction business
success, Ahuja et al. (2009) believed that communication
accounts for 75–90% of project managers work time. Communicating relevant and irrelevant information to all the stakeholders
is not a wise choice (PMI, 2013c), but it is prudent to seek a
differentiated communication approach for various stakeholder
groups (Ramsing, 2009). Accordingly, the project management
practitioners and leaders are taught (Thomas and Mengel, 2008)
to tailor their communication routines (Muller and Turner, 2010).
Accordingly, project communication routines are ramified
through the various stakeholder analysis techniques. For example,
project stakeholders based on their power and interest are grouped
into four categories to design customized communication routines
for each group (Olander and Landin, 2005). Stakeholder grouping
through salient model (Mitchell et al., 1997) for stakeholder
identification is also a prominent tool used for designing project
communication (Yang et al., 2011; Mok et al., 2015). The
communication routines based on these models are developed,
but only at once, for the stakeholder engagement throughout
project life cycle (Yang et al., 2011). However, our observation is
that project change communication routines need more considerations than the project stakeholder analysis, and should be
updated during project life cycle.
Technological advancements offer several ICT applications
for projects (Charoenngam et al., 2003; Naaranoja, 2014).
These applications (and tools) offer certain capacity to enhance
the effectiveness in stakeholder communication (Ahuja et al.,
2009). However, from an ICT implementation study, Wong
(2007) observed that despite its known benefits, the implementation of ICT in construction industry has faced several
challenges. It is because the project-specific customized ICT
application is neglected (Charoenngam et al., 2003). On top of
that, an over empasis on ICT also make communication
rotuines very formal (Bagozzi, 2011; Gorse and Emmitt, 2003)
and restrained during the change management process.
3. Methods
Our paper deploys action-based qualitative case study
research. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) elucidated that the word
“qualitative” entails processes and meanings that are not
meticulously gauged and examined in terms of “quantifiable
intensity or frequency” (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998, 2011).
Meanwhile, one of case study research strengths is its ability to
investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life
context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon
and its context are not distinguishable (Yin, 2003). Accordingly,
to study construction projects as research cases, pragmatism is
considered to be the most favorable paradigm (Naaranoja et al.,
2014a). It is because that pragmatism is a problem centered
action-based research approach where researchers deploy various
data collection methodologies in real-world settings (Naaranoja,
2014), which help in elucidating the context-phenomena
relationship. With pragmatic approach to reality, action researchers bring evidence-based models from their fieldwork
(Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). Therefore, pragmatists, the action
researchers, have capacity to address organizational issues as well
Author's Personal Copy
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
as to fulfill the criteria of academic research (Badham and Sense,
2006).
Empirical data for this research were gained through authors'
contribution in the delivery of two demonstration projects
(Naaranoja et al., 2014a), the research cases. They facilitated,
designed, implemented, and updated the way of working,
including communication routines, in the case projects. Therefore, the data collection is result of their observation, participation, contribution, and reflection on the project deliverables. It is
important to mention that during this process, the authors could
only influence the outcome of the projects to the extent of their
limited (and specific) responsibilities. Henceforth, the analyzed
data for this paper were collected during these contributions to the
case projects, the authors' attendance in project stakeholder
meetings, accessing minutes of meetings (and other related
document repositories), preparing and/or otherwise reviewing
various stakeholder reports, exchanging e-mails, phone calls,
participating in brain storming sessions, and also through actively
discussing day-to-day issues with the project team members and
other stakeholders.
The two demonstration projects were both mainly construction projects but purposefully selected to be different when it
comes to the size: a very small project and a mega size project.
The mega project had enough resources to invest on communication routines, and the second case although small is an
important project for the owner and end users. These different
kinds of cases enabled the comparison of stakeholder communication routines and their impact on change management
processes. Table 3 gives an overview of our demonstration
projects. The following two sub-sections provide the contextual
details of the cases.
3.1. Case 1: energy infrastructure project
The first case is an engineering procurement and construction
(EPC) energy infrastructure project in Asia. The project being
crucial for the country's energy policy and economic development
involved several stakeholders. A multinational joint venture
constituted the project owner. Project owner also involved its
1585
consulting engineer, plant operator, lending banks and their
engineers, fuel and water suppliers, local communities, and
various experts from the national authorities. The EPC contractor
also constituted from the consortium of two multinational
contracting companies. The contract agreement between owner
and contractor was impliedly based on FIDIC Silver Book
structure and its guiding principles. It means that changes required
to fulfill “any” of the intended functionality of project was not
commercially compensated by the project owner, but only by
contract variations and value engineering. Hence, the contractor
had to ensure that uncompensated changes should be avoided.
Otherwise, an inevitable change should be identified in the earliest
possible stage of project. Thus, the complexity in this project was
due to the geopolitical significance of project, the involvement of
multiple project stakeholders, the challenging contractual clauses,
and the scope interfaces.
One of the authors, being part of contractor's core team,
participated in the development of project execution plans.
These plans also included the tools used to manage the complex
communication with multiple interfaces. For this particular
research, the tools used to manage communication interfaces
between owner – contractor – consulting engineers are studied.
3.2. Case 2: dance education facility renovation project
The second demonstration case is a renovation project for an
educational facility in Finland. The complexity of this project was
related to satisfy the (partially conflicting) needs of many
stakeholder groups during the designing and construction stages
of the project. The project was crucial for end users since they
needed updated facilities to teach, present, and research music. The
project owner, the owner of the property, directly involved several
stakeholders mainly including project management consultant,
design coordination consultant, architect, other designers, and
construction company. The construction company then made
contracts with suppliers. Other stakeholders were facility users:
professors, researchers, lecturers, individual students, student
organizations, and even anticipated future students from high
Table 3
Characteristic comparison between the case projects.
Project characteristics
Project objective
Scope setup
Project type
Capital expenditure
Project duration
Site location
Key stakeholder cultures
Case 1—Energy infrastructure project
Energy infrastructure
Engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC)
Green field project
~ 700 M euro
~ 32 months (after formal agreements)
Asia
European (Scandinavia), South East Asian, British,
and Arabian
Key stakeholder education and profession Mainly engineers.
Career progression in energy infrastructure development,
construction, and operation and maintenance.
Contract setup
Owner–contractor relationship. However, both
the parties established from Joint Venture (JV) and consortium
setups.
Action researcher role in the project
Project core team member
Case 2—Dancing education facility renovation project
Facility development
Engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC)
Renovation project
~ 300 K euro
~ 9 months
Europe (Finland)
Scandinavian (Finnish)
From diverse education backgrounds.
Career progression also diversified in field of education,
regularities, regularities, and construction.
Owner–contractor–user relationship.
Project researchers; project consultant
Author's Personal Copy
1586
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
school, facility management service, and a representative of the
Finnish National Board of Antiquities.
Two of the authors had a researcher role in this project and
additionally one of them had a small role as consultant in the
project. The original aim of the research project was to study
the stakeholder involvement during planning and construction
stages. This project has been analyzed in several published
papers using different perspectives and different sets of authors
(Naaranoja et al., 2014a, 2015).
4. Analysis
4.1. Case 1—energy infrastructure project
3.
4.1.1. Explicating communication routines
This large project required planned communication routines
for all the key stakeholders. The communication requirements
had to be written down in the contractual agreement due to the
complex setup. The contract contained information about “what
is to be done” and “why it is to be done”. The communication
tools and practices were agreed during the planning phase as in
every project. These communication tools and practices are
meant to delineate “how to be done” and “when to be done.”
Ideally, such decisions between the contracted parties should be
presented in the project plan. This has been the practice in Case
1, where the preparation of project plan was initiated ever since
the (project) development phase. Meanwhile, the communication role of each key stakeholder was also agreed and it
included the clarification of interfaces and customized implementation of ICT tools. The selection and development of
project customized ICT tools was a worthwhile effort in this
case. The success of such a customization requires joint
working of IT experts as well as the project core teams. For
example, many of the key stakeholders having an understanding about project business (Kerzner, 2009, has detailed the type
of organizations for executing a project) had their own
document management systems (at individual organization
level). Therefore, the key for successful communication was to
agree on how these different systems should interact. For an
executable project plan, the following accomplishments established the praxes of communication routines:
4.
1. Contractual documents: Contract, its appendices, and
applicable standards facilitated in establishing the definition
of each stakeholder's interest, their power to influence the
project outcomes, and hence their role in communication. This
way the rules for communication interfaces were established.
2. Project core teams: Project core teams were identified and
their participants were nominated from all key stakeholders.
For example, the core team for project time schedule,
civil, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and construction
established. Due to similarity in their professions, each core
team participants had shared know-how about the project and
its functionality. The development of core teams having
members participating from different stakeholders, an increasing practice, facilitated the engagement and coordination
(Kähkönen et al., 2012; Naaranoja et al., 2014a) by utilizing
5.
6.
7.
effective way of communication. Thus, provided focused
coordination on the arising issues and minimized the
agreement time.
The establishment of such teams has also been a complex
process because of multiple interfaces. Therefore, it is
important to nominate communication leader for each core
team. Such a nomination was based on the contractual position
of a party or its scope superiority or otherwise its expertise
knowledge. Profession/experience-based core teams facilitated
a group culture where decisions were reached at lower level in
the project organizations. However, there had been few
exceptional events which required decisions to be made at
higher level in project organization.
Project communication matrix: The communication matrix, started to develop during project planning phase,
provided the basis for agreeing communication routines
between project stakeholders. Many of the communication
routines in this matrix had links to the contractual
requirement (as applicable). Consequently, the objective
for each communication routine was then defined. Also, the
medium of each routine was defined along with its
occurrence frequency, including the audience/participants
to be invited. Communication routine owner was specified
and also the deliverables to be furnished. Worthwhile to
mention that although this communication matrix was
developed during the planning phase, however with the
work progress and materialization of few risks, some new
communication routines were also included.
Communication matrix played a significant role to patronize
the meeting routines between core teams as well as other
stakeholder groups. The face-to-face meetings had been the
preference; however, online/live meetings were also practiced whenever required to avoid ambiguities and maintain
the trust. To ensure the effectiveness of agreed decisions
among the stakeholders, rules for conducting the meetings
were developed and followed up. The structure of communication matrix used for this project is shown in Table 4
(Representation of actual communication routines but the
text is not exacting the decisions in actual settings.) Tens of
such routines were decided, defined, and practiced by the
stakeholders.
Project database shared server: The development of project
data server was based on share point platform that proved to be
a push and pull communication central point. The communication through the shared server was logged with agreed
communication numbering with SharePoint server protocol.
Project directory: Project directory, a common living
document for all the key stakeholders, was developed.
Such a document was containing the names, roles, and
contact information about each resource.
Design comment sheet: Based on agreed format these
comment sheets helped in gaining consensus between the
owner and the contractor. Initially, these comment sheets
were also very helpful to identify the changes and then also
to verify the impact of implemented changes.
Scope interfacing issue list: One complexity in the project
was scope distribution among the contractors, which
Author's Personal Copy
Erection schedule
3
–
Site construction manager Until completion of Minutes of meeting
construction works based on standard
format
Owner's engineer;
contractor site team
4
Daily construction
reports
2
Schedules indicating the
activities completed last
week, in progress in
current week and what to
be done in next week
Weekly site meetings To discuss with owner's engineer Face to face
about the site progress, HSE,
quality and security-related issues
Weekly
Contract
clause no.
Until completion of Weekly status report
construction work
Owner's engineer through Site construction
scheduler
shared server with copy
to project mail groups
Contract
clause no.
Daily progress report
Until project
handover
Electronic format Daily
(achieved in paper
form at Site)
E-mail
Weekly
Contractor consortium
site teams
Site construction
manager
Agenda; minutes of
–
meetings in electronic
format
Until project
handover
Contractor's consortium
project leader
Contractor consortium
site teams; consortium
team leaders; consortium
design teams
Monthly
At site
Face to face
To discuss the scope delivery
interface obstacles, review
the progress, discuss the
upcoming targets and
challenges.
To show the status of daily
activities and their progress
Contractor review
meeting
1
Medium
Objective
Sr. no. Communication
Routine
Table 4
Project communication matrix structure in energy infrastructure project.
Frequency Audience
Routine Owner
Contract
reference
Deliverable
Timeline
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
1587
required continuous follow-up and agreement on interfacing
between both the contractors. This scope interfacing issue
list had been submitted to the owner and owner's engineer
for their information about the possible discrepancies and
risks that could have led to the possible project changes.
8. Risk log register: Continuous follow-up of project risks are
maintained during the life cycle. This risk log was also
including the schedule critical path analysis.
9. Project quality management system: Project quality management system was developed and followed up properly.
Such a system facilitated transparency and developed trust
among the stakeholders that the project outcomes would fulfill
the defined objectives of its investment.
4.1.2. Change communication-culture analysis
Our first case describes how to manage a complex project
involving multiple stakeholders from diverse cultures in an
orderly way by designing effective communication routines,
which also supported change management processes. They had
plenty of tools, for example, communication matrix and
well-organized routines to ensure efficient flow of project
information among the stakeholders. The aim of project
communication routines was to support stakeholder participation in order to ensure commitment and trust and to have a
successful project. The establishment of project core teams and
the effective communication routines developed a “group
culture.” In addition, the stakeholders were empowered to
participate in decision making. However, conflicts appeared
due to unclear contractual definitions. Such contractual
conflicts turned project culture more hierarchical and thus
decisions could only be reached with cooperation, though at a
higher level in project organization. Here again, the communication routines helped to elevate conflicts to the level where
contractual issues were resolved.
Learned through our literature review, a generic change
process model in construction comprises the following five
sequential stages: identify change → evaluate and propose
change → approve change → implement change → review
change effects. We have used this generic model to delineate
our understanding about the stakeholder involvement in
managing change through effective communication routines.
To facilitate the readers' understanding, the relationship
between change management, stakeholders, and communication routines is presented in Table 5.
In this case project, the staff was encouraged through structural
flexibility and empowerment. Such developmental culture in the
contractor's organization gave enough resources to design sound
communication routines. Then the formation of core teams and
their communication routines helped to maintain the stakeholders'
consensus during the project change processes. These routines also
prevented, to a considerable extent, the overflow of information to
stakeholders and project team members. In difficult situations, like
when there was no consensus about an expensive change approval,
these communication routines expedited (and facilitated) the
decision-making process to attain consensus among the stakeholders. Table 6 summarizes the stakeholder communication and
Author's Personal Copy
1588
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
Table 5
Case 1: Change management processes and role of communication routines.
Change management process Actions by project team
( and core teams)
Communication tools
Communication type
Identify change
design comment sheets; scope
interfacing issue list; quality
management system
Risk log register; design
comment sheets;
interfacing issue list
All three modes of
Project core teams
communications (push, pull,
and interactive communication)
All three modes of
Project core teams
communications (push, pull,
and interactive communication)
Notices and letters list
Interactive communication
The changes were identified
from the design comment
sheets and interfacing issue list.
Evaluate and propose change The evaluation for required
changes had been a tricky
situation as the most the
changes could not be claimed
from owner. Hence, for the
agreed changes, the work and
lifetime responsibilities had to
be agreed between the
contractor consortiums.
Approve/reject change
The acknowledged changes
had to be approved. If so, then
had to be informed to owner for
further remarks or rejection.
Implement change
The design and construction
changes implemented through
the weekly task/work lists.
Review change effects
The review of implemented
changes has been demonstrated
as a routine follow-up of
works, unless the changes
being carried out does not
implied any further risk.
Decision level
Contractor team leader, owner,
and owner's engineer
Project core teams
Project schedule programme; All three modes of
quality management system
communications (push, pull,
and interactive communication)
Interfacing issue list; risk log
Interactive communication
Project core teams and
register;
project
schedule
project team leaders
programme
culture of Case 1 during different project phases and observed
change management practices.
4.2. Case 2—dance education facility renovation project
4.2.1. Explicating communication routines
The project communication plan of our second case
(education facility renovation) can be divided into the initial
co-creation planning phase, technical design phase, and implementation phase (construction phase). The communication
method varied during co-creation planning, technical designing,
and implementation phase of this project. The architect was
selected in the very beginning of the project. The communication
during the three phases is described separately. One of the authors
was involved in the first two (phases) as cost estimator and design
coordination consultant.
4.2.1.1. Co-creation planning phase. During this phase, a
collaborative culture was realized. The collaboration process was
5 days long and had five stages. In planning sessions, the aim was
to get “as many ideas as possible,” and during this stage, more than
40 persons were present at the working sessions and approximately
Table 6
Summarizing the communication, culture and stakeholder participation in Case 1.
Communication and culture
Case 1: project phases
Contract development
Planning and engineering
Execution
Project culture
Developmental culture
Developmental culture
Dominating cultural component
Stakeholder participation
Communication practices
Cooperative
Very active but flexible participation
Interactive and push communication,
with les defined/agreed routines
Stakeholder interactions
Change management practices
Formal
NA
Integrative
Very active and creative participation
Interactive, push, and pull
communication with
defined/agreed routines and tools.
Formal and informal
Change identifications were encouraged
for the integration of work scopes.
Change evaluations were made. The
stakeholders were kept informed about
all the change management process and
expected variations in the project
outcomes.
Group culture; sometimes adjusted to
hierarchal culture
People oriented
Empowered and controlled participation
Interactive, push, and pull
communication with defined/agreed
routines and tools.
Formal and informal
The key stakeholders through core teams
were involved in the identification of
project changes and were responsible to
make change decisions at lower
hierarchal level. The aim was to
minimize the change impacts on the
integrative solution packages and also to
the project cost and schedule.
Author's Personal Copy
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
100 in whole afternoon sessions where the ideas were further
developed and criticized. There were also meetings where the
participants were strictly limited to the steering group. The process
started with vision workshop, where the focus was on the future
activities at the education facility after 20 years. When the vision
was clear, the workshop focused on developing alternative
concepts that supported future activities. Using these concepts,
the plans were developed; these plans were tested with mock-ups
and scale models. The last stage was the refining of the plan and
decision making related to the planning. The process was well
planned, and there was a core team selected who participated in
each session. The positive atmosphere also helped to solve
conflicting interests. Several professionals were invited to give
critics and to further develop the plans after the concepts were
developed and drafts of the plans were created. The stakeholders of
this process were the facility users (professors, students, and even
anticipated future students from high school), owners, architect,
other designers, quantity surveyor, and a representative of the
Finnish National Board of Antiquities. The collaboration was
based on facilitated modified Charrette process (Naaranoja et al.,
2015). At the end of this stage, the facility renovation plan was
created:
(1) The functional and spatial decisions were collected as a
result from the charrette process.
(2) Architect drafted the first version of the complete layout.
(3) The preliminary and very rough cost estimate was created
in 2 weeks.
(4) In addition, guidelines for technical design stage how to
prioritize the objectives if the budget exceeded.
The facility users had not budgeted money for the
renovation, and they were forced to make financing decision
since the realization of the project was based on agreement that
both property owner and facility user would share the costs.
The collaborative process ensured facility users the importance
of this renovation, and they were able to make the decision.
Property owner had already budgeted for this project and the
decision making was easy for them.
4.2.1.2. Technical design phase. Architect and technical
designers created plans. The building permit required architectural plans as well as significantly changed ventilation plans.
The architect took care of museum viewpoint—the requirement
to protect the historical building.
During the technical design, a project management consultant/
coordinator took care that the end users understood the design
documents. This consultant also ensured that improvement
proposals of the end users were adequately merged in the final
design documents. Coincidentally, the project management
consultant/coordinator had to leave the project while the technical
design was still in progress. Consequently, the finalized technical
design was issued for construction while the end users could not
verify that their needs were incorporated.
4.2.1.3. Implementation phase. Contracts specified the role
and aims of each partner. There was written a communication
1589
plan that described the communication media and the contact
person of each stakeholder with addresses.
During construction phase, the construction company made
a plan that contained the following communication practices:
1. Contractual documents: Contract, its appendices, and applicable standards facilitate in establishing the definition of each
stakeholder's role in communication. The main function of
stating the roles in the contract agreement is that it is necessary
to know who has power to order additional work and design
changes during the implementation (building) phase.
2. Implementation group: The general foreman (who represents
the main contractor), responsible designers, and site work
safety organization were nominated in official documents
(agreements and building permit documents). The legal
obligations were stated in writing. Also, the property owner
relations responsibilities were stated in agreements in written.
3. Document delivery: This project delivered documents via
e-mails but also a project document database was used.
However, in urgent situations the documents were sent by
direct e-mails.
4. Project directory: Contact list, as a living document, was
developed. Such a list contained the names, roles, and contact
information about each person who contributed or would
contribute to project.
5. Risks: Risks were discussed in official and in unofficial
meetings. A proper risk management plan was considered
not to be required because of limited scope of this project.
Financial risk was discussed in early phases of the project,
but in the later phases, it was stated in the minutes that
everybody should “stay within the budget.”
6. Project communication routines: The communication of a
small project was rather ad hoc. However, for readers'
understanding, we are presenting these routines in a matrix
form to make it comparable with to the Case 1 (Table 7).
The text and data in the following figure are only indicative,
and it does not represent the actual information about the
project. Communication routines were included based on
contractual requirement as well as practical requirements for
this project. The “communication routine owner” was also
specified with deliverables to be furnished.
During implementation phase, face-to-face meetings were
organized. If somebody was not able to come in person, virtual
participation was organized. These meeting routines were
developed to fulfill the needs of construction core team and
decision makers of the contractual parties. There were also several
official and unofficial meetings. Document exchange happened
via e-mails. The aim was to work efficiently in order to hand over
the project according to the initial plan “on time.” The initiation
stage of contract contained several detailed planning needs that
were documented as well. It is important to mention, that the
project documentation did not contain change needs or variation.
4.2.2. Change communication-culture analysis
The second case study illustrates how the co-creation
planning process might help in the beginning of the project.
Author's Personal Copy
1590
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
Table 7
Communication routines in an educational facility renovation project.
Sr. no. Communication Objective
routine
Medium
Frequency
0
Site discussion
Unofficial
discussion
1
Site team
meetings
(when needed)
2
Daily
construction
operation
3
Schedule
4
Site meetings
To agree on small
alteration in order
to manage the project
completion on time
To discuss the scope of
obstacles, review of
progress, discuss the
targets, and challenges
To show the status of daily
activities and small
agreements with
owners site auditor
Weekly the contractor
documented a progress
report
Routine
owner
Timeline Deliverable
When necessary Site manager
Site supervisor
Site
manager
–
No deliverables
At site
Face to face
When necessary Site manager, site
At least weekly supervisor,
architect
Site
manager
–
Web-based
system
Daily
Contractor and site Site
supervisor
manager
–
Not necessary any if
needed the outcome
is written into daily
construction
operation memo
Daily progress
report and small
agreements
Schedule visible
on wall
Weekly
Site manager, site
checked
supervisor
but the schedule
was not
changed
Not regularly
Owner, site
supervisor,
site team,
end users
The owner representatives At site, face to
invites the meeting and
face
gives each stakeholder
an opportunity to talk about
whatever they have in mind
During the co-creation planning phase, the culture was
developmental where the flexibility, motivation, and creativity
were important. However, during the technical planning and
implementation phases, the project culture had been very
“straightforward.” Through a very straightforward and goaloriented culture, the project is implemented according to
definition of contracts. However, the contact with the end users
and project owner was avoided. Consequently, to implement any
variation managerial decisions using sense making of the site
personnel had chosen. In such a scenario, it appeared that project
would be completed within budget and also on time. However,
such practices make project stakeholders distrustful while the
project functionality lacks.
After the handover meeting the owner and users held an
emergency meeting, where they listed all such work and
installations that needed to be done before the premises could
Audience
Site
manager
–
The site diary
documentation
Owner
–
Agenda, minutes of
meetings
be handed over to students and teachers. The emergency
meeting was needed since the contractor had not understood the
special needs of the users due to inadequate communication
(Table 8).
Unfortunately, during implementation phase, the work
efficiency was preferred over required project functionality. In
addition, considering it a normal small construction project, the
required changes were not recognized or otherwise were not
communicated with the key stakeholders. Therefore, in our
second case, the flexibility focused people-oriented culture
observed during the co-creation planning was lost in the
technical planning and implementation phases. It is because the
project culture converted to more straight forward (and goal
oriented) decision making where due attention to stakeholders'
communication lacked. We observed that such “straight
forward” culture at site does not fit into the Prajogo and
Table 8
Case 2: Change management processes and role of communication routines (according to the observation).
Change management
process
Actions by project team (and core teams)
Communication tools
Communication type
Decision level
Identify change
Oral communication
Interactive communication
End users
Oral communication
Interactive communication
Approve/reject change
Hand over meeting the change needs were
observed and discussed
Emergency meeting where the change
need was discussed
During emergency meeting
Implement Change
Review Change effects
Contractor implemented the changes
A new hand over meeting was arranged
Oral communication
Issue list
Report on the site diary
Issue list
Interactive and push type of
communication
Pull type of communication
Interactive communication
Property owner and end
users
Property owner, end
users
Site
Project core teams and
project team leaders
Evaluate and propose change
Author's Personal Copy
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
1591
Table 9
Summarizing the communication, culture, and stakeholder participation in Case 2.
Communication and culture
Case 2: project phases
Co-creation
Engineering and planning
Execution
Group culture
People oriented
Hierarchal culture
Cooperative
Rational culture
Goal oriented
Active and creative participation
Controlled participation
Communication practices
Mainly interactive communication,
but also push communication
as needed
Interactive, push, and pull communication
with less defined communication routines
especially for upcoming/unplanned situations
Stakeholder interactions
Change management
practices
Formal
NA
Formal
Changes identifications were encouraged
but the timely distribution of information
felt to remain at required level due
to unpracticed communication routines
(mainly due to unavailability of budgeted
resources).
Controlled participation with restricted
contributions
Interactive, push, and pull
communication with less defined
communication routines especially
for upcoming/unplanned situations
Formal
Changes were not openly discussed
because of limited communication
routines and consequently shifting the
project culture. Even, in case of informed
stakeholders, the timely decisions were not
observed and construction contractor
preferred in situ decision making.
Project culture
Dominating cultural
component
Stakeholder participation
McDermott (2005) model about organizational cultures.
Table 9 summarizes the communication and culture of Case 2
during different project phases and observed change management practices.
5. Discussion
This paper attempted to demonstrate the change communication routines and their relevance to the stakeholder engagement and changing project culture. According to Davis (2016),
literature offers sufficient guidance about communication
between the project core teams and stakeholders. According
to our opinion, the available guidance did not sufficiently cover
the change management process. In the literature review part,
the change management models and systems were introduced
to require communication about information flow over time,
coordination, trust, balanced culture, common stakeholder
understanding, and decision making (Zhao et al., 2010; Park
and Pena-Mora, 2003; Hao et al., 2008; Ibbs et al., 2001; PMI,
2013c). Practical guidance and examples of such communication routines focus currently on research projects (Pinnacle,
2012) or give ideas (Harvard University, 2016) or based on
experiences of a person (Gill, 2015). This paper described the
communication routines in two case projects and then analyzed
their implications for the stakeholder engagement and evolving
project culture during the change management processes.
Many change management models (Zhao et al., 2010; Hao
et al., 2008) focus on change management processes during the
execution phase. This paper covered the whole life cycle of two
projects because it is known (PMI, 2013c) that if we find the
change need early, the change will cause less harm and money.
For example, the first case maintained change management
tools from the very beginning to the end like the scope interface
issue list during the contract development phase and when
closing the project.
In the literature review section, we combined in Table 1
various project change causes (Love et al., 2002; Zhang, 2013;
Hao et al., 2008; Moghaddam, 2012) and their impacts
(Moghaddam, 2012; Hao et al., 2008; PMI, 2013c). By
combining the project change causes and impacts, we aim to
encourage that change management should not be limited to the
implementation/construction phase of a project (Zhao et al.,
2010; Hao et al., 2008). Rather, a change causes is also
identifiable in an earlier phase of project, whereas the change
impacts may become only apparent after the completion of
construction work. This was actually the situation in the second
research case of dance education facility renovation project
where the impacts of work scope interpretation by the
contractor became apparent only at the time of final inspection
and acceptance. The cases illustrate that the management of
project changes is important from the beginning of project until
the acceptance of project deliervables. Project change communication routine plan has to take care of change needs
throughout the project life cycle. Effective communication
results in the stakeholder engagement into the change
management process which was realized in the first case.
During the change management process, effective communication facilitated the development of stakeholder understanding
and trust (Bakens et al., 2005). In our first case, the
communication routines gave guidelines for teamwork and
empowered stakeholders, which in return improved
decision-making process within the project core teams even
during tough situations. However, communication routines in the
second research case were only understood to fulfill contractual
obligations during the construction stage, and the change
management processes were not in focus when these communication routines were designed. The first case project invested on
the development of customized way of working durig all project
phases. This supports the earlier findings of the need for sufficient
resources to implement the change management systems (Hao et
al., 2008; Ibbs et al., 2001). It was found important to customize
Author's Personal Copy
1592
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
several communication routines and use all three modes of
communication PMI (2013a)) has already pointed out. As
Kähkönen et al. (2012)) pointed out, it was also found important
that appropriate topics are discussed with correct participant from
the relevant/key stakeholders groups.
A very relevent observation in the case projects was the
evolving project culture (Zuo et al., 2009; Prajogo and
McDermott, 2005). Earleir research (Ibbs et al., 2001) has
identified that a balance project culture is required to mange
project changes. Therefore, in this research, it was also
important to understand how the communcation routines were
practiced within a dominating project culture components
(Tables 6 and 9). The first case about energy infrastructure
project demonstrated comprehensive communication routines.
We observed that in this project, the developmental and group
cultures invited stakeholder participation during change management processes. We also observed that during conflict
situations, the communication routines turned the project
culture more hierarchical. However, in such situation, the
irrelevant information was filtered at core team level through
already established communication routines, and hence decision making at project management team level became more
agile and transparent. This way, their commitment to achieve
the required project functionality remained commendable
throughout the project life cycle. Our observations were
different for the second case where the limited attention and
resources could be allocated to the communication routines.
These limited communication routines made project culture
very rational during the construction stage where focus was
mostly on task efficiency. However, in a rational culture,
whenever there was a need for change, an in situ ad hoc
decision making was preferred. In time pressure situation, the
lacking communication routines created a feeling that other
stakeholders' involvement would consume more time and
effort. Therefore, the construction team selected not to inform
other stakeholders. Hence, the project culture became more
straightforward (goal oriented) and meanwhile project needs
were sacrificed for work efficiency.
Our data analysis also highlighted the role of project
communication leadership. In our first research case of energy
infrastructure project, the responsibility of communication was
distributed at the core team level. Each core team leader was
made accountable to ensure communication effectiveness and
was empowered to make decisions. Excluding one, the
communication leaders of all other core teams remained
unchanged throughout this project life cycle. In our second
research case, the responsibility of communication lead
remained at higher project hierarchy. Moreover, the responsibility of leading communication also shifted from one project
phase to another. We observed that this change in the
communication leadership also effected the project communication routines. Our understanding is that variation in the
communication leadership affects stakeholder engagement
during change management. Further, this variation was noted
to have adverse effect in case of lacking change communication
routines. This finding is well line, and an extension to the
findings of Mayfield and Mayfield (2002) that leaders'
communication strategies affect the commitment and trust of
their followers.
According to a recent study (Mok et al., 2015), “stakeholder
engagement” has been among the four main researched topics
in the stakeholder management lierature. The importance of
effective communication in ensuring the stakeholder engagement was already found by Bakens et al. (2005). This research
extends these arguments (by Mok et al. (2015) and Bakens et
al. (2005)) to the change management processes. It was
observed that the communication routines in the energy
infrastucture project were designed and practiced to maintain
the stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecyle.
The lacking focus on communication routines in the dance
eductation facility project resulted in changing stakeholder
interest and hence shrinking involvement. Which to our
understanding also contributed to the unsupportive project
culture and meanwhile neither the change causes and nor their
impacts were discussed openly.
Muller and Turner (2010) advised project leaders and
practioners to design the customizable communication routines.
Meanwhile, project management literature utilize the stakholder
analysis and identification results to undergird the communication routines. However, this research extends the recommendations of Yang et al. (2011) and Mok et al. (2015) that designing
the communication routines through the stakeholder identification and analysis models is not sufficient to ensure stakeholder
engagement in the change management process. In this regard,
this study supports the findings of Offenbeek and Vos (2016) that
stakeholder knowledge is important to establish the stakeholder
consensus in difficult situations, for example, arising issues due
to conflicting understanding about the change causes and
impacts. This study further extends their finding that stakeholder
engagement in the difficult situations is more likely if the
communication routines are designed by considering their
know-how (Teece, 1980) about the project. This is based on the
authors' observations from both the research cases that stakeholder know-how influenced the outcomes of communication
routines. The stakeholders with shared experiences were able to
maintain the agreed communication routines more consistently
and beneficially. Such a shared know-how of stakeholders
continued their interest in the project, balanced their power to
impact on project decisions, and hence has been a basic element
for effective communication routines. Whereas, the varying
stakeholder know-how that is often the situation in once in the
lifetime projects (like in the dance education facility project)
yields a lot of communication with growing misunderstandings
about the other stakeholders' expectations. This varying knowhow further leads to lacking stakeholder interest when the project
culture is more rational and straightforward. In such project
culture, change management processes are influenced by the
power of one stakeholder group, whereas the change impacts are
barely surfaced (not timely communicated) until their consequences on project functionality are apprehended.
This importance of stakeholder know-how was apparent
during project change management in both the research cases.
Stakeholders in our first case, energy infrastructure project, had
shared know-how, i.e., basic understanding about the
Author's Personal Copy
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
construction of such a facility as well as the operation of the
facility. Stakeholders in our second case, the education facility
renovation project, represented various professions and hence
had varying level of know-how about the project and its intended
functionality. From the second case, one extreme example of
varying stakeholder know-how is that the final technical design
did not accumulate all the must-requirements from end users. The
end users of education facility had superior know-how about the
project functionality; however, they had limited knowledge
(comparing with the deployed communication routines requirement) to understand the engineering design documents and
drawings. Thus, the extent that their expectations were incorporated in the engineering design was mainly reliant on the
communication through project management consultant. According to our understanding, the communication routines of
project management consultant should have been wisely planned
to facilitate end users understanding about engineering design
and to translate their reservations for the engineers and architects.
Similarly, this varying level of stakeholder know-how also made
communication routines ineffective during the project implementation phase. The sub-contractors evidently overlooked the
end-user opinions considering their lesser know-how about the
construction process. Consequently, one of the authors observed
that the project stakeholder meetings became ineffective while
the in situ decisions were made, but only outside the meetings.
The end users were rarely informed about the project change
decisions and could understand the consequences of those
informed decisions only inadequately.
6. Conclusion
This research has made notable contributions to the project
change management, stakeholder management, and communication management literature. It draws attention to the demand
of project change communication that enables getting stakeholder engagement during project culture changes. This study
demonstrates real-world project change communication routines and explains their utility through a generic model for
change management learned during the literature review. The
two case projects give new insights on how the lack of
communication in change situation created later change needs
and confusion, and how in a large project the focus on
communication effectiveness created a clear change management routine and group culture that supported to find
innovative solutions for problems. This study also concludes
that if the project leader changes it affects the communication
culture and the stakeholder engagement in the change
management process.
This real-world demonstration is a valuable guidance for the
project management practitioners as well. Handful examples
from the project cases will facilitate the practioners in designing
their project communication routines not only to implemnt the
project changes during construction but also to identify change
causes and their effects throughout the project life cycle. This is
possible with a customized but holistic approach towards
stakeholder engagement (involvment and participation) in the
change management process. Their consideration of stakeholder
1593
know-how shall lead to the communication effectiveness during
the evolving project cultures.
7. Limitations and future research
We have concluded that this paper contributes the project
change management, stakeholder engagement, and communication management literature. However, there are certain
limitations of this research that also provide future research
opportunities. One such limitation is that real-time empirical
data could not be captured for this study but were compiled
from the researchers' retrospective observations and case
project repositories. A future research with real-time data
recording from few other cases will be very useful to verify and
extend the implication of this study. Such a study can also be
planned within different case contexts. Such future research can
generalize our findings for the project change management and
communication management literature.
The lack of research papers that focus on the importance of
stakeholder know-how and characteristic of project leader when
project communication routines are designed. In this regard, our
limitation is related to the retrospective data which could only
provide indirect evidences to validate this relationship. We
believe that there is a definite need for a dedicated study to
understand these relationships and extend its application to the
project stakeholder management literature.
Also, we would like to extend the research gap identified by
Davis (2016) that there are not only limited examination about
“how communication is conducted between the project manager
and line management and those at the corporate level,” but the
practical demonstration of project communication routines is
very rare in the literature. Therefore, literature and practitioners
need more contextualized demonstrations of effective communication routines related to the other topics in project management
literature for example, uncertainty and risk management.
References
Ahuja, V., Yang, J., Shankar, R., 2009. Benefits of collaborative ICT adoption
for building project management. Constr. Innov. 9 (3), 323–340.
Anderssen, E., 2003. Understanding your project organization's character. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 34 (4), 4–11.
Badham, R.J., Sense, A.J., 2006. Spiralling up or spinning out: a guide for
reflecting on action research practice. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 9 (5),
367–377.
Bagozzi, R.P., 2011. Measurement and meaning in information systems and
organizational research: methodological and philosophical foundations.
MIS Quarterly. 35 (2), 261–292.
Bakens, W., Foliente, G., Jasuja, M., 2005. Engaging stakeholders in
performance-based building: lessons from the performance-based building
(PeBBu) Network. Build. Res. Innov. 33 (2), 149–158.
Baker, W., Sinkula, J., 1999. The synergistic effect of market orientation and
learning orientation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 27 (4), 411–427.
Barney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J., Wright, M., 2011. The future of resource-based
theory: revitalization or decline? J. Manag. 37 (5), 1299–1315.
Bate, S.P., 1994. Strategies for Cultural Change. Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Berkun, S., 2005. The Art of Project Management. O'Reilly Media, Sebasopol.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H.T., 2005. Visualising and mapping stakeholder
influence. Management Decision. 43 (5), 649–660.
Author's Personal Copy
1594
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
Cavaliere, V., Lombardi, S., 2015. Exploring different cultural configurations:
how do they affect subsidiaries' knowledge sharing behaviors? J. Knowl.
Manag. 19 (2), 141–163.
Charoenngam, C., Coquinco, S.T., Hadikusumo, B.H., 2003. Web-based application
for managing change orders in construction projects. Constr. Innov. 3, 197–215.
Cleland, D.L., 1986. Project stakeholder management. Proj. Manag. J. 17 (4),
36–44.
Crawford, L., Nahmias, A.H., 2010. Competencies for managing change. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 28, 405–412.
Davis, K., 2016. A method to measure success dimensions relating to individual
stakeholder groups. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 480–493.
Deegan, B., Parkin, J., 2011. Planning cycling networks: human factors and
design processes. Proc. ICE Eng. Sustain. 164, 85–93.
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 1998. The Landscape of Qualitative Research:
Theories and Issues. Sage publications, Thousand Osks.
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative
Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Osks.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman,
Boston.
Freeman, R.E., 1999. Divergent stakeholder theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (2),
233–236.
Gill, M.E., 2015. The Process of Communication, a Practical Guide for Project
Managers. CreateSpace, Amazon Publishing.
Gorse, C.A., Emmitt, S., 2003. Investigating interpersonal communication
during construction progress meetings: challenges and opportunities.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 10 (4), 234–244.
Griffith-Cooper, B., King, K., 2007. The partnership between projects
management and organizational change: integrating chnage management
with change leadership. Perform. Improv. 46 (1), 14–20.
Hao, Q., Shen, W., Neelamkavil, J., Thomas, R., 2008. Change management in
construction projects. International Conference on Information Technology
in Construction CIB W78. Santiago, Chile.
Harvard University, 2016. The process of communication, a practical guide for
project managers. Available at http://huit.harvard.edu/presentations/processcommunication-practical-guide-project-managers (Accessed 8/2016).
Henrie, M., 2005. Project management: a cultural library review. Proj. Manag.
Inst. 36, 5–14.
Hwang, B.-G., Thomas, S.R., M., Haas, C.T., M., Caldas, C.H., 2009.
Measuring the impact of rework on construction cost performance.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 187–198.
Ibbs, W., M., Nguyen, L.D., Lee, S., 2007. Quantified impacts of project
change. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 133 (1), 45–52.
Ibbs, W.C., Wong, C.K., Kwak, Y.H., 2001. Project change management
system. J. Manag. Eng. 17 (3), 159–165.
Kähkönen, K., Keinänen, M., Naaranoja, M., 2012. Core project teams as an
organizational approach for projects and their management. 26th IPMA
World Congress. Elsevier, Crete, Greece, pp. 1–8.
Kangas, J.P., 2011. Consider those most affected to create lasting change.
Quality Progress 72–73 (March).
Karlsen, J.T., Græe, K., Massaoud, M.J., 2008. Building trust in projectstakeholder relationships. Balt. J. Manag. 3 (1), 7–22.
Kazmi, S.A., Naranoja, M., 2013. Collection of change management
models—an oppotunity to make the best choice from the various
organizational transformational techniques. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2 (4), 44–57.
Kendra, K., Taplin, T., 2004. Project success: a cultural framework. Proj.
Manag. J. 35 (1), 30–45.
Kerzner, H., 2009. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning,
Scheduling, and Controlling. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Kotter, J.P., 2007. Leading change: why transformation fail. Harv. Bus. Rev.
96–103.
Littau, P., Jujagiri, N.J., Adlbrecht, G., 2010. 25 years of stakeholder theory in
project management literature [1984-2009]. Project Management Journal.
41 (4), 17–29.
Loo, R., 2002. Working towards best practices in project management: a
Canadian study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 93–98.
Love, P., Holt, G., Shen, L., Li, H., Irani, Z., 2002. Using systems dynamics to
better understand chnage and rework in construction project management
systems. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 425–436.
Marrewijk, A.v., 2007. Managing project culture: the case of Environ
Megaproject. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, 290–299.
Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., 2002. Leadership communication strategies critical paths
to improving employee commitment. Am. Manag. J. 20 (2), 89–94.
McKinsey Global Institute, 2013. Infrastructure Productivity: How to Save 1$
Trillion a Year. McKinsey & Company (Retrieved November 02, 2014,
from www.mckinsey.com/~/…/MGI_Infrastructure_Full_report_Jan2013.ashx).
Misztal, B., 1996. Trust in Modern Societies. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Mitchell, K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really
counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 853–886.
Moghaddam, A.G., 2012. Change management and change process model for
the iranian construction industry. Int. J. Bus. Res. Manag. 2 (2),
85–94.Mok, K.Y., Shen, G.Q., Yang, J., 2015. Stakeholder management
studies in mega construction projects: a review and future directions. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 33, 446–457.
Muller, R., Turner, J.R., 2007. Matching the project manager’s leadership style
to project type. International Journal of Project Management. 25 (1), 21–32.
Muller, R., Turner, R., 2010. Leadership competency profiles of successful
project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 437–448.
Naaranoja, M., 2014. Capabilities of Utilisation of Information Systems in
Facilities Management. Tampere University of Technology, Tampere.
Naaranoja, M., Kahkonen, K., Keinänen, M., 2014a. Construction projects as
research objects—different research approaches and possibilities. 27th
IPMA World Congress. Elsevier, pp. 237–246.
Naaranoja, M., Ketola, P., Niemi, O., 2015. Charrette supports facility
development—Case Musica. In: Nenonen, S., Kärnä, S., Junnonen, J.-M.,
Tähtinen, S., Sandström, N., Airo, K., Niemi, O. (Eds.), How to Co-Create
Campus?Univerity Properties of Finland, Tampere.
Offenbeek, M., Vos, J., 2016. An integrative framework for managing project
issues across stakeholder groups. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 44–57.
Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the
implementation of construction projects. International Journal of Project
Management. 23, 321–328.
Park, M., Pena-Mora, F., 2003. Dynamic change for construction: introducing
the chnage cycle into model-based project management. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 19
(3), 213–242.
Pettigrew, A.M., 2001. Studting organizational change and development:
challenges for future research. Acad. Manag. J. 44 (4), 697–713.
Pinnacle, 2012. INTERREG IVC communication guide for projects.
Available at http://www.interreg4c.eu/uploads/media/pdf/resources_Project_
Communication_Guide.pdf (Accessed 8/2016).
PMI, 2013a. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Project
Management Institue, Pennsylvania.
PMI, 2013b. Managing Change in Organizations: A Practical Guide. Project
Management Institute, Pennsylvania.
PMI, 2013c. PMI's Pulse of the Profession In-depth Report: Navigating
Complexity. Project Management Institue, Pennsylvania.
Prajogo, D.I., McDermott, M., 2005. The relationship between total quality
management practices and organizational culture. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management. 25 (11), 1101–11222.
Prencipe, A., Tell, F., 2001. Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes
of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Res. Policy 20,
1373–1394.
Quinn, R.E., Cameron, K.S., 1988. Paradox and Transformation: Towards a
Theory of Change in Organizations and Management. Ballinger Publishing
Company, Cambridge.
Ramsing, L., 2009. Project communication in a strategic internal perspective.
Corp. Commun. Int. J. 14 (3), 345–357.
Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst.
Tech. J. 27, 379–423.
Sun, M., Meng, X., 2009. Taxonomy for change causes and effects in
construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27, 560–572.
Suppiah, V., Sandhu, M.S., 2011. Organisational culture's influence on tacit
knowledge‐sharing behaviour. Journal of Knowledge Management. 15 (3),
462–477.
Teece, D.J., 1980. Economies of scope and the scope of enterprise. J. Econ.
Behav. Organ. 1, 223–247.
Author's Personal Copy
A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595
Thomas, J., Mengel, T., 2008. Preparing project managers to deal with
complexity—advanced project management education. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
26, 304–315.
Turner, J.R., 2009. The Handbook of Project-Based Management: Leading
Strategic Change in Organization. McGraw-Hill, London.
Villagarcia, S., Cardoso, F., 1999. The new supply chain network in Brazil's house
construction industry. 7th Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction IGLC-7. University of California, Berkeley, pp. 171–180
(Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://www.pcc.usp.br/files/text/personal_
files/francisco_cardoso/SVillagarcia&FCardoso(USPBrazil)IGLC-7.pdf).
Wang, X., 2001. Dimensions and current status of project management culture.
Proj. Manag. J. 32 (4), 4–17.
Wang, X., Huang, J., 2006. The relationships between key stakeholder's project
performance and project success: preceptions of Chinese construction
supervising engineers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 253–260.
Weaver, P., 2007. Getting the “soft stuff” right—effective communication is the
key to successful project outcomes! PMI Global Congress (North America),
Atlanta. October 6–9, 2007.
View publication stats
1595
Wong, C.H., 2007. ICT implementation and evolution: case studies of intranet
and extranets in UK construction enterprises. Constr. Innov. 7 (3), 254–273.
Yang, J., Shen, P.Q., Bourne, L., Ho, C.M., Xue, X., 2011. A typology of
operational approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 29, 145–162.
Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications,
California.
Zhang, L., 2013. Managing project chnages: case studies on stage iteration and
functional interaction. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 958–970.
Zhao, Z.Y., Lv, Q.L., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., 2010. Prediction system for change
management in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (6) (659–559).
Zuo, J., Zillante, G., Coffey, V., 2009. Project culture in the chinese
construction Industry: preception of contractors. Aust. J. Constr. Econ.
Build. 9 (2), 17–28.