II"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ TOWARDS"COLLABORATION"BETWEEN"PRINCIPAL"AND"CONTRACTOR"ON"PROJECT"STAKEHOLDER"MANAGEMENT$ An#explorative#research#towards#better#collaboration# $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Author" Name$ $ $ Sophie$Annet$Vulink$ Student$number$$ 1503774$ Contact$$ $ sophievulink@gmail.com$ Master$program$ Construction$Management$and$Engineering$ University$ $ Delft$University$of$Technology$ $ Graduation"committee" Chairman$ $ Prof.$mr.$dr.$J.A.$de$Bruijn$!$TU$Delft,$Technology,$Policy$and$Management$$ First$supervisor$$ Dr.$E.M.$van$Bueren$!$TU$Delft,$Technology,$Policy$and$Management$$ Second$supervisor$ Dr.$ir.$M.G.C.$BoschRRekveldt$!$TU$Delft,$Civil$Engineering$and$Geosciences$ External$supervisor$ Ir.$G.A.R.$Pieters$!$Neerlands$Diep$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"III" $ $ $ IV"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ PREFACE" $ $ This$ research$ is$ the$ result$ of$ my$ graduation$ research$ as$ part$ of$ the$ master$ degree$ Construction$ Management$and$Engineering$at$Delft,$University$of$Technology.$ $ This$ master$ program$ provided$ me$ understanding$ the$ construction$ industry.$ Almost$ one$ year$ ago$ I$ started$looking$for$a$topic$for$my$thesis.$Since$conducting$this$research$would$take$quite$some$time,$ the$topic$should$have$my$interest.$The$interesting$courses$of$my$study$and$practical$experiences$that$ were$ shared$ during$ project$ visits$ aroused$ my$ interest$ to$ conduct$ research$ about$ the$ collaboration$ between$principal$and$contractor$related$to$project$stakeholder$management.$Neerlands$Diep$gave$ me$ the$ opportunity$ to$ conduct$ this$ research$ under$ their$ authority.$ Members$ of$ their$ network$ recognised$the$importance$of$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$on$project$stakeholder$ management$ and$ illustrated$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ realisation$ is$ an$ actual$ issue.$$ $ This$ research$ would$ not$ have$ been$ possible$ without$ the$ supervision$ of$ my$ graduation$ committee$ and$I$would$like$to$thank$them$for$their$contribution.$First$of$all,$I$would$like$to$thank$Guus$for$giving$ me$ the$ opportunity$ to$ perform$ my$ research$ for$ Neerlands$ Diep.$ Your$ practical$ insights$ and$ knowledge$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ guided$ me$ through$ this$ research.$ Ellen,$ your$ excellent$feedback$enhanced$the$robustness$of$my$findings$and$you$were$very$helpful$with$the$set$ up$of$case$study.$Marian,$you$kept$me$focused$on$the$structure$of$my$report$and$provided$me$with$ excellent$ feedback.$ Hans,$ during$ the$ committee$ meetings$ you$ always$ had$ a$ point$ of$ criticism.$ This$ has$resulted$in$a$better$quality$of$my$research.$So,$thank$you$all.$$$ $ I$also$would$like$to$thank$all$eight$interviewees.$Visiting$these$projects$have$brought$me$all$over$the$ country$and$resulted$in$different$perspectives$on$my$research$topic.$I$gained$insight$in$the$complexity$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ This$ made$the$research$really$interesting,$but$also$very$educational$for$my$further$carrier.$ $ A$special$thanks$goes$to$the$participants$of$the$workshop$meeting$who$made$it$possible$to$test$my$ research$findings.$In$addition,$I$would$like$to$thank$the$people$working$at$Neerlands$Diep$who$made$ the$organisation$of$this$workshop$meeting$possible.$ $ Last$ but$ not$ least$ I$ would$ like$ to$ thank$ the$ people$ in$ my$ surroundings,$ who$ have$ supported$ me$ during$ the$ entire$ period$ and$ always$ had$ confidence.$ I$ specifically$ want$ to$ mention$ my$ father,$ who$ has$taken$the$time$to$read$my$report$during$the$whole$process$and$always$had$a$critical$note.$This$ has$benefited$the$quality$of$this$report,$without$his$help$it$would$not$have$this$quality.$ $ Finally,$it$was$a$great$pleasure$to$be$a$student$in$Delft.$I$have$had$a$fantastic$time$with$great$people$ around$me.$$ $ I$hope$you$all$enjoy$reading$this$report,$ $ Sophie$Vulink$ Den$Haag,$April$2015$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"V" $ $ VI"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ SUMMARY" $ $ Introduction" The$ scope$ and$ costs$ of$ these$ days’$ infrastructure$ projects$ have$ increased$ and$ therefore$ the$ realisation$of$these$projects$has$become$more$complex.$The$legal,$organisational$and$social$context$ in$ which$ infrastructure$ projects$ are$ realised$ is$ changing$ and$ there$ was$ dissatisfaction$ about$ the$ functioning$of$the$construction$sector.$Therefore,$the$Ministry$of$Infrastructure$and$Environment$has$ introduced$two$new$policies$to$involve$private$parties$in$order$to$decrease$the$duration$and$costs,$ and$increase$the$quality$of$infrastructure$projects.$As$a$consequence$more$tasks$are$outsourced$to$ market$parties,$while$the$public$principal$is$taking$a$step$back$and$has$fewer$responsibilities.$Besides$ that,$ the$ public$ attention$ for$ the$ realisation$ of$ infrastructure$ projects$ has$ increased.$ In$ case$ these$ stakeholders$are$not$carefully$involved,$this$might$result$in$major$overruns$in$time$and$costs$or$even$ cancellation$ of$ a$ project.$ Therefore$ managing$ the$ parties$ that$ have$ an$ interest$ in$ the$ project$ has$ become$more$important.$ $ Because$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ (Dutch:$ omgevingsmanagement)$ is$ relatively$ new$ as$ an$ individual$ policy$ issue$ within$ project$ management$ of$ infrastructure,$ there$ seems$ to$ be$ little$ coordination$ in$ a$ combined$ approach$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ This$ indicates$ that$ there$ is$ an$ opportunity$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ However,$ this$ collaboration$ has$ to$ be$ improved$ within$ the$ legal$ requirements$ and$ in$ a$ constantly$ changing$ and$ dynamic$ project$ environment.$ Besides$ that,$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ one$of$the$greatest$challenges$of$these$days’$projects$due$to$the$different$objectives$of$both$parties.$ The$ objective$ of$ this$ research$ was$ to$ gain$ insight$ in$ how$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$on$project$stakeholder$management$could$be$enhanced.$In$order$to$achieve$this$objective$ the$research$question$was$formulated$as:$ $ Which%possibilities%can%be%defined%to%enhance%the%collaboration%between%principal%and% contractor%on%project%stakeholder%management%in%large%infrastructure%projects?% $ This$ research$ contributed$ to$ the$ theoretical$ knowledge$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$on$project$stakeholder$management$by$providing$insights$to$enhance$this$collaboration.$ The$research$was$executed$under$the$authority$of$Neerlands$Diep.$This$organisation$has$the$aim$to$ exchange$knowledge$from$construction$projects$and$to$create$new$knowledge$for$these$and$future$ projects.$$ " Literature" A$ literature$ study$ was$ conducted$ with$ four$ purposes:$ (1)$ to$ see$ what$ is$ known$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ how$ this$ type$ of$ project$ management$ is$ embedded$ in$ public$ and$ private$organisations,$(2)$to$discuss$the$legal$context$in$which$this$research$takes$place,$(3)$to$discuss$ on$ the$ organisational$ context$ of$ this$ research$ and$ to$ show$ which$ factors$ are$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration$ and$ (4)$ to$ discuss$ the$ social$ context$ in$ which$ this$ research$ takes$ place.$ These$ four$ topics$are$elaborated.$$ $ Literature$indicated$different$definitions$for$project$stakeholder$management.$It$was$concluded$that$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ could$ be$ described$ as$ ‘management# that# is# the# link# between# the# project# organisation# and# the# project# environment# with# its# stakeholders.# The# interests# of# the# stakeholders#have#to#be#taken#into#account#and#the#aim#is#to#engage#stakeholders#to#the#project,#to# acquire#support#and#to#make#the#realisation#of#the#project#possible#without#interference.#The#goal#of# $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"VII" project# stakeholder# management# is# twofold:# satisfaction# of# the# stakeholders# and# the# realisation# of# the# project# within# scope,# time# and# budget’.$ Within$ the$ organisation$ of$ the$ principal$ the$ project$ stakeholder$manager$is$one$of$the$five$roles$in$the$integrated$project$management$model,$while$not$ all$contracting$parties$have$figured$out$yet$how$to$embed$project$stakeholder$management$in$their$ organisation.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$can$ be$ defined$ by$ the$ components$ communication,$ conditioning,$stakeholder$management$and$traffic$management.$Project$stakeholder$management$is$ conducted$at$strategic,$tactical$and$operational$level.$$ $ Literature$ illustrated$ that$ the$ construction$ sector$ is$ changing$ from$ a$ traditional$ contract$ model$ towards$ a$ soRcalled$ integrated$ contract$ model.$ This$ means$ that$ the$ role$ of$ the$ principal$ is$ more$ limited,$ because$ a$ contractor$ becomes$ responsible$ for$ the$ design$ and$ construction$ of$ the$ project.$ Besides$ these$ new$ types$ of$ contracts,$ there$ was$ dissatisfaction$ about$ the$ functioning$ of$ the$ construction$ sector.$ This$ resulted$ in$ two$ policies$ about$ involving$ private$ parties$ to$ improve$ the$ duration,$ costs$ and$ quality$ in$ the$ realisation$ of$ infrastructure$ projects.$ In$ addition,$ the$ Dutch$ and$ European$ legislation$ has$ become$ more$ complex$ which$ makes$ the$ development$ of$ infrastructure$ projects$more$challenging.$ $ The$new$types$of$contracts$and$the$changing$relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$resulted$ in$ organisational$ changes.$ In$ the$ nineties,$ the$ public$ resources$ were$ not$ sufficient$ to$ meet$ the$ requirements$with$regard$to$the$improvement$of$the$transport$infrastructure.$This$caused$the$rise$of$ the$ integrated$ contracts$ where$ the$ public$ principal$ is$ stepping$ back$ as$ the$ executing$ party$ of$ construction$projects$and$is$focusing$more$on$the$strategic$and$coordinating$role$as$asset$owner.$The$ construction$sector$is$changing$from$a$traditional$supply$driven$market$to$a$demand$driven$market.$ Because$ the$ increased$ scope$ and$ costs$ of$ today’s$ projects,$ contractors$ have$ to$ work$ together$ in$ consortia$ to$ be$ able$ to$ bear$ the$ risks.$ In$ order$ to$ realise$ infrastructure$ projects$ principal$ and$ contractor$have$to$collaborate,$something$that$could$be$difficult$given$the$fundamental$differences$ between$ both$ organisations.$ The$ research$ has$ identified$ six$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration:$objectives,#trust,#risk,#communication,#attitude$and$project#organisation.$ $ The$ form$ of$ public$ participation$ has$ changed$ over$ the$ last$ decades.$ Citizens$ have$ acquired$ more$ rights$ in$ legislation,$ use$ the$ possibilities$ of$ appeal$ and$ demanded$ a$ greater$ voice$ in$ the$ decision$ making$process.$Public$opposition$due$to$various$factors$has$been$reported$as$the$main$reason$for$ project$ failure.$ Therefore,$ the$ many$ different$ and$ sometimes$ conflicting$ interests$ of$ stakeholders$ must$ be$ considered.$ As$ a$ consequence$ there$ is$ a$ growing$ interest$ in$ management$ of$ these$ stakeholders$and$different$stakeholder$management$process$models$are$developed.$Most$important$ is$ that$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ a$ cyclic$ process,$ because$ the$ needs$ and$ priorities$ of$ the$ stakeholders$are$constantly$changing.$$ $ Collaboration"model" The$ six$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration$ are$ used$ to$ evaluate$ the$ state$ of$ collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$A$collaboration$model$was$designed$to$compare$the$ points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor,$and$to$compare$the$collaboration$in$different$projects.$The$ state$of$collaboration$for$each$criterion$can$be$positioned$on$one$of$the$four$levels$of$collaboration$ that$ are$ distinguished$ based$ on$ a$ literature$ review.$ The$ four$ different$ levels$ of$ collaboration$ are:$ contractual# relationship,# collaborative# relationship,# project# partnering$ and$ strategic# partnering.$ Based$on$a$questionnaire,$with$a$description$of$the$relationship$at$each$level$for$all$criteria,$the$state$ of$collaboration$can$be$determined$for$each$criterion.$ VIII"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ $ Figure#1:#Radar#chart#for#collaboration#model#(own#ill.)" $ The$state$of$collaboration$from$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$is$visualised$in$a$radar$chart,$ which$is$illustrated$in$Figure$1.$The$collaboration$visualised$in$the$radar$chart$illustrates$the$level$of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ and$ whether$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$are$aligned.$$ " Methodology" The$ research$ design$ consisted$ of$ a$ multiple$ case$ study,$ where$ four$ construction$ projects$ from$ the$ network$of$Neerlands$Diep$were$investigated$and$compared$with$each$other.$To$be$able$to$analyse$ the$gathered$data,$a$research$framework$was$designed$based$on$the$literature$research.$The$analysis$ of$the$cases$consisted$of$two$steps.$First,$the$implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$in$ the$ four$ cases$ was$ explained.$ Second,$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ was$ determined$ from$ both$ points$ of$ view.$ Hereafter$ it$ was$ possible$ to$ explore$ the$ possibilities$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ This$ process$ is$ illustrated$ in$ the$ research$framework$in$Figure$2$on$the$next$page.$$ " Figure#2:#Research#framework#(own#ill.)# $ In$order$to$obtain$valid$and$reliable$findings,$empirical$data$of$the$case$study$projects$were$gathered$ with$the$use$of$several$research$methods$and$sources.$An$extensive$analysis$of$documents$about$the$ case$ gave$ the$ researcher$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ project$ context.$ SemiRstructured$ interviews$ with$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ gave$ insight$ in$ the$ implementation$ of$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"IX" project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ the$ project.$$ $ By$conducting$a$case$study$research,$a$profound$and$full$insight$in$the$process$of$project$stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ gained.$ The$ cases$ that$ are$ studied$ for$ this$ research$ are$ the$ construction$ of$ a$ stacked$ tunnel,$ the$ renovation$ of$ a$ bridge,$ tunnelling$of$a$rail$track$and$road,$and$trenching$forelands.$The$individual$case$analyses$based$on$the$ observations$of$the$researcher$were$used$as$input$for$the$cross$case$comparision.$The$main$findings$ of$ this$ cross$ case$ comparision$ lead$ to$ preliminary$ conclusions.$ This$ research$ reflected$ on$ these$ preliminary$conclusions$based$on$the$literature$study$and$the$discussions$during$a$workshop$meeting$ with$the$respondents$of$the$interviews.$$ " Conclusions" Project$stakeholder$management$links$the$project$organisation$with$the$stakeholders$in$the$project$ environment.$ The$ goal$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ twofold:$ satisfaction$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ by$ involving$ them$ and$ creating$ support$ for$ the$ project,$ and$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ within$ scope,$ time$ and$ budget.$ The$ four$ case$ study$ projects$ recognised$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ consists$ of$ the$ components$ communication,$ conditioning,$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ traffic$ management.$ Workshop$ participants$ indicated$ that$ a$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$has$an$important$fifth$component$‘relation#manager’.$$ $ The$ research$ has$ illustrated$ that$ there$ are$ three$ strategies$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$and$contractor.$The$first$strategy$is$verification"of"expectations$with$each$other$regarding$ all$kinds$of$issues$before$the$realisation$of$the$project$starts.$It$is$important$that$both$parties$align$ their$ expectations$ and$ make$ sure$ they$ understand$ each$ other$ correctly.$ The$ second$ strategy$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ to$ focus" on" the" people.$ Research$ illustrated$that$people$can$make$the$difference$in$a$project,$but$currently$there$is$limited$attention$ for$the$composition$of$project$teams.$The$first$matter$of$importance$is$whether$people$are$willing$to$ collaborate,$if$this$is$not$the$case$the$collaboration$is$likely$to$fail.$The$third$strategy$to$enhance$the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ to$ monitor" the" collaboration.$ This$ research$ illustrated$that$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$are$able$to$reflect$on$their$collaboration,$ without$ being$ judged$ about$ the$ collaboration.$ It$ was$ indicated$ that$ an$ instrument$ is$ needed$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ and$ how$ to$ start$ the$ dialogue.$ The$ collaboration$ model$ as$ designed$ in$ this$research$can$be$used$for$this.$ $$ This$ research$ provided$ a$ collaboration$ model$ to$ compare$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ and$ to$ compare$ the$ collaboration$ in$ different$ projects.$ The$ case$ study$ research$ has$ illustrated$that$the$collaboration$is$better$in$projects$where$principal$and$contractor$have$an$aligned$ point$of$view,$compared$to$projects$where$the$level$of$collaboration$is$higher$but$both$parties$differ$ in$ point$ of$ view.$ Therefore$ this$ research$ concludes$ that$ for$ good$ collaboration$ the$ alignment$ of$ points$of$view$is$more$important$than$reaching$the$highest$level$of$collaboration.$This$conclusion$was$ recognised$ by$ the$ workshop$ participants.$ They$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ have$ a$ successful$ business$relationship$with$limited$collaboration$in$case$the$involved$parties$have$agreed$this.$$ $ There$are$three$possibilities$to$apply$the$collaboration$model$in$practice.$ • The$collaboration$model$can$be$used$before$the$start$of$a$project,$to$decide$which$level$of$ collaboration$principal$and$contractor$want$to$achieve.$ • The$collaboration$model$can$be$used$as$an$instrument$during$the$realisation$of$the$project,$ in$order$to$monitor$the$collaboration$ • The$ collaboration$ model$ can$ be$ used$ after$ completion$ of$ the$ project$ to$ evaluate$ the$ collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$in$this$project.$ $ X"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ This$ research$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ a$ tough$ challenge$ to$ start$ the$ dialogue$ about$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ collaboration$ are$ rather$ complex$issues$and$have$various$interrelated$aspects.$This$research$did$not$cover$all$issues,$but$the$ developed$ collaboration$ model$ is$ a$ solid$ foundation$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ and$ to$ initiate$ further$research.$ $ Recommendations" This$research$illustrated$that$further$research$can$be$conducted$in$the$following$directions:$ • Further$development$of$the$collaboration$model.$Due$to$the$limitations$of$this$research$the$ completeness$of$this$model$cannot$be$ensured,$but$the$first$evaluations$have$illustrated$the$ potential$ of$ the$ model.$ Therefore$ further$ development$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ is$ an$ interesting$direction$for$further$research.$ • Unawareness$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ collaboration$ and$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ within$ project$ organisations$ is$ one$ of$ the$ main$ barriers$ for$ collaboration.$ Therefore$ an$ interesting$direction$for$further$research$is$to$investigate$how$the$entire$project$organisation$ can$become$aware$of$this$importance.$ • The$ perspective$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$was$not$included$in$this$research.$Due$to$the$limitations$of$the$researcher$in$this$ research$ the$ collaboration$ was$ only$ be$ evaluated$ from$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Additional$ research$ about$ the$ perspective$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ on$ the$ collaboration$could$make$the$research$more$complete.$$ Research$ in$ these$ directions$ will$ enrich$ the$ scientific$ knowledge$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$and$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"XI" $ $ $ XII"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ TABLE"OF"CONTENTS" $ $ Preface .............................................................................................................................. V! Summary ......................................................................................................................... VII! Table"of"contents ............................................................................................................ XIII! 1.! Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1! 1.1.! Context ......................................................................................................................................... 1! 1.2.! Challenges$of$collaboration .......................................................................................................... 2! 1.3.! Problem$formulation .................................................................................................................... 3! 1.4.! Thesis$outline ............................................................................................................................... 4! 2.! Research"design .......................................................................................................... 5! 2.1.! Research$objective ....................................................................................................................... 5! 2.2.! Research$question ........................................................................................................................ 5! 2.3.! Research$model ............................................................................................................................ 6! 2.4.! Relevance$of$the$research ............................................................................................................ 6! 2.5.! Research$scope............................................................................................................................. 7! 3.! Literature"review......................................................................................................... 9! 3.1.! Project$stakeholder$management ................................................................................................ 9! 3.1.1.! Definition#of#project#stakeholder#management..................................................................... 9! 3.1.2.! Components#of#project#stakeholder#management .............................................................. 11! 3.1.3.! Different#levels#of#project#stakeholder#management .......................................................... 13! 3.1.4.! Embedment#of#project#stakeholder#management#in#organisations .................................... 14! 3.1.5.! International#review#project#stakeholder#management ...................................................... 15! 3.2.! Legal$context .............................................................................................................................. 15! 3.2.1.! New#policies......................................................................................................................... 16! 3.2.2.! Planning#process.................................................................................................................. 17! 3.2.3.! Integrated#contracts ............................................................................................................ 17! 3.2.4.! International#point#of#view .................................................................................................. 18! 3.3.! Organisational$context ............................................................................................................... 18! 3.3.1.! Changes#in#organisations..................................................................................................... 18! 3.3.2.! Differences#between#public#and#private#parties .................................................................. 19! 3.3.3.! Technical#aspects#of#collaboration ...................................................................................... 19! 3.3.4.! Social#aspects#of#collaboration ............................................................................................ 20! 3.3.5.! Important#criteria#for#good#collaboration ........................................................................... 21! 3.3.6.! Collaborative#relationships .................................................................................................. 22! 3.4.! Social$context ............................................................................................................................. 24! 3.4.1.! Public#participation.............................................................................................................. 24! 3.4.2.! Stakeholder#management ................................................................................................... 24! 3.5.! Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 25! 4.! Conceptual"framework.............................................................................................. 27! 4.1.! Project$stakeholder$management .............................................................................................. 27! 4.2.! Collaboration .............................................................................................................................. 28! 4.2.1.! Defining#collaboration ......................................................................................................... 29! 4.2.2.! Maturity#of#collaboration .................................................................................................... 29! 4.3.! Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 33! $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"XIII" 5.! Research"methodology.............................................................................................. 34! 5.1.! Clarification$of$the$research$methodology................................................................................. 34! 5.2.! Criteria$to$conduct$case$studies ................................................................................................. 35! 5.3.! Case$protocol.............................................................................................................................. 36! 5.4.! Selection$of$the$cases ................................................................................................................. 37! 5.5.! Data$gathering ............................................................................................................................ 38! 5.6.! Data$analysis............................................................................................................................... 38! 6.! Results"of"the"case"studies......................................................................................... 40! 6.1.! Case$report$1:$Construction$of$a$stacked$tunnel ........................................................................ 40! 6.1.1.! Implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management......................................................... 41! 6.1.2.! Collaboration#on#project#stakeholder#management............................................................ 42! 6.1.3.! State#of#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor.............................................. 43! 6.1.4.! Concluding#findings ............................................................................................................. 45! 6.2.! Case$report$2:$Renovation$of$a$bridge........................................................................................ 46! 6.2.1.! Implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management......................................................... 47! 6.2.2.! Collaboration#on#project#stakeholder#management............................................................ 48! 6.2.3.! State#of#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor.............................................. 49! 6.2.4.! Concluding#findings ............................................................................................................. 51! 6.3.! Case$report$3:$A$combined$road$and$railway$tunnel.................................................................. 52! 6.3.1.! Implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management......................................................... 53! 6.3.2.! Collaboration#on#project#stakeholder#management............................................................ 54! 6.3.3.! State#of#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor.............................................. 55! 6.3.4.! Concluding#findings ............................................................................................................. 57! 6.4.! Case$report$4:$Create$space$for$water$in$the$river$by$trenching$the$forelands.......................... 59! 6.4.1.! Implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management......................................................... 60! 6.4.2.! Collaboration#on#project#stakeholder#management............................................................ 60! 6.4.3.! State#of#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor.............................................. 62! 6.4.4.! Concluding#findings ............................................................................................................. 63! 7.! Cross"case"analysis"and"discussion............................................................................. 65! 7.1.! Comparing$the$findings$of$the$four$projects .............................................................................. 65! 7.1.1.! Similarities ........................................................................................................................... 65! 7.1.2.! Differences........................................................................................................................... 66! 7.1.3.! Preliminary#conclusions ....................................................................................................... 67! 7.2.! Comparing$the$implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$in$the$four$projects ...... 69! 7.2.1.! Embedment#of#project#stakeholder#management............................................................... 69! 7.2.2.! Approach#of#project#stakeholder#management................................................................... 70! 7.2.3.! Importance#of#project#stakeholder#management................................................................ 71! 7.2.4.! Preliminary#conclusions ....................................................................................................... 72! 7.3.! Comparing$the$collaboration$in$the$four$projects ...................................................................... 73! 7.3.1.! Cross#case#comparison......................................................................................................... 73! 7.3.2.! Preliminary#conclusions ....................................................................................................... 75! 7.4.! Concluding$findings .................................................................................................................... 75! 8.! Application"collaboration"model ............................................................................... 77! 8.1.! Validity$of$the$collaboration$model............................................................................................ 77! 8.2.! Adjustments$to$the$collaboration$model ................................................................................... 77! 8.3.! Application$of$the$collaboration$model...................................................................................... 78! 8.4.! Added$value$of$a$collaboration$model ....................................................................................... 79! 8.5.! Limitations$of$this$research ........................................................................................................ 80! " XIV"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 9.! Conclusion"and"recommendations............................................................................. 81! 9.1.! Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 81! 9.2.! Recommendations$for$further$research..................................................................................... 85! 9.2.1.! Research#direction#one:#Further#development#of#the#collaboration#model ......................... 85! 9.2.2.! Research#direction#two:#Create#more#awareness#for#the#importance#of#collaboration....... 85! 9.2.3.! Research#direction#three:#Include#project#stakeholder#perspective#on#collaboration .......... 86! 10.! Literature ................................................................................................................ 87! Appendix"A."Clustering"collaboration ............................................................................... 92! Appendix"B."Types"of"relationships .................................................................................. 95! Appendix"C."Interview"protocol........................................................................................ 96! Appendix"D."Project"selection .........................................................................................101! Appendix"E."Characteristics"of"the"case"study"projects ....................................................102! Appendix"F."Case"descriptions.........................................................................................108! Appendix"G."Cross"case"analysis ......................................................................................109! Appendix"H."Workshop ...................................................................................................114! $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"XV" " 0"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 1. I NTRODUCTION" $ $ “Social% systems% are% more% complex% than% the% weather% system% and% it% is% still% impossible% to% make%a%good%weather%forecast%for%Western%Europe%over%a%period%of%a%week”." $Hertogh$and$Westerveld$(2010)$ $ The$scope$and$costs$of$these$days’$infrastructure$projects$have$increased$and$therefore$the$projects$ have$ become$ more$ complex.$ Hertogh$ and$ Westerveld$ (2010)$ mention$ six$ types$ of$ complexity:$ technical,$social,$financial,$legal,$organisational$and$time$complexity.$Because$of$the$increasing$scope$ and$costs$of$the$projects,$the$different$types$of$complexity$are$increasing$as$well.$The$analysis$of$the$ case$ studies$ conducted$ by$ Hertogh$ and$ Westerveld$ (2010)$ showed$ that$ social$ complexity$ is$ the$ centre$ of$ complexity$ and$ dominant$ in$ the$ implementation$ of$ large$ infrastructure$ projects$ (LIPs).$ Social$ complexity$ is$ especially$ high$ when$ there$ are$ conflicts$ of$ interest,$ different$ meanings$ and$ perceptions,$and$when$the$impact$of$the$project$is$large.$Social$complexity$can$be$identified$in$the$ communication$ and$ understanding$ of$ each$ other$ within$ a$ project$ organisation,$ but$ also$ in$ the$ relationship$of$the$project$organisation$with$the$stakeholders.$The$increased$social$complexity$is$in$ line$ with$ the$ developments$ in$ LIPs$ in$ the$ Netherlands,$ where$ stakeholders$ and$ collaboration$ with$ private$contractors$play$an$increasingly$important$role.$$ $ 1.1. Context" The$ assignment$ for$ the$ execution$ of$ LIPs$ often$ comes$ from$ political$ decision$ makers,$ such$ as$ the$ national$ government,$ provinces$ or$ municipalities.$ Organisations$ like$ Rijkswaterstaat$ (RWS)$ and$ ProRail$are$often$responsible$for$the$execution$of$these$projects.$They$detail$the$project$and$tender$ the$ project$ to$ a$ private$ party$ who$ becomes$ responsible$ for$ the$ design,$ construction,$ maintenance$ and/or$ operation$ of$ it.$ These$ private$ parties$ are$ often$ consortia$ consisting$ of$ different$ contracting$ companies.$ $ The$ last$ decades$ the$ public$ attention$ for$ LIPs$ has$ increased$ and$ especially$ projects$ with$ huge$ overruns$ in$ time$ and$ costs$ like$ the$ Betuweroute,$ Noord/Zuid$ line$ Amsterdam$ and$ HSLRsouth$ are$ known$ by$ the$ public.$ Besides$ the$ disappointing$ results$ regarding$ the$ delays$ and$ overruns,$ the$ involved$stakeholders$are$often$not$satisfied$with$the$final$results$of$a$project$(Hertogh,$Baker,$StaalR Ong,$ &$ Westerveld,$ 2008).$ Fundamental$ changes$ in$ the$ society$ and$ a$ more$ complex$ Dutch$ and$ European$legislation$have$increased$the$number$and$the$influence$of$stakeholders$(Wesselink,$2010).$ This$gives$an$exciting$combination.$The$legal$complexities$in$combination$with$the$highly$educated,$ articulate$ citizens$ might$ lead$ to$ a$ conflict$ with$ the$ stakeholders$ in$ the$ area.$ A$ battle$ will$ become$ more$ intense$ if$ the$ stakeholders$ are$ not$ involved$ carefully$ at$ an$ early$ stage$ of$ the$ process$ and$ ignoring$the$public$can$cause$major$overruns$in$time$and$costs$or$even$the$cancellation$of$a$project.$ Therefore$ management$ of$ the$ parties$ that$ have$ an$ interest$ in$ the$ project$ has$ become$ more$ important.$ $ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ relatively$ new$ as$ individual$ policy$ issue$ in$ the$ infrastructure$ sector.$ It$ occurs$ that$ the$ words$ stakeholders,$ environment$ and$ the$ area$ are$ commonly$ used$ to$ describe$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ Not$ surprising$ since$ ‘omgevingsmanagement’$ is$ the$ Dutch$ word$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ A$ direct$ translation$ of$ this$ term$ gives$ the$ somewhat$ confusing$ term$ ‘environment# management’.$ This$ term$ is$ confusing$ because$ the$ word$ environment$ has$ multiple$ meanings.$ Whereas$ environmental$ issues$ like$ the$ changing$ climate,$ the$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"1" rising$ sea$ level$ and$ the$ depletion$ of$ fossil$ fuels$ are$ high$ on$ the$ political$ agenda,$ the$ meaning$ of$ environment$in$this$case$is$the$area$around$the$construction$project,$the$people$who$live$here$and$ the$people$that$are$influenced$by$the$realisation$of$the$project.$For$this$reason$it$was$chosen$to$use$ the$term$‘project#stakeholder#management’$instead$of$the$direct$translation$of$the$Dutch$term.$ $ This$thesis$focuses$on$the$collaboration$between$the$public$principal$and$the$private$contractor$on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ within$ large$ infrastructure$ projects$ executed$ in$ the$ Netherlands.$ The$ first$ step$ is$ to$ analyse$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ applied$ in$ different$ projects.$ Hereafter$the$collaboration$within$the$project$organisation$on$project$stakeholder$management$will$ be$analysed.$A$project$organisation$is$responsible$for$the$realisation$of$the$LIP$and$this$organisation$ consists$of$members$from$the$principal$and$contractor.$ " 1.2. Challenges"of"collaboration" Involving$ the$ stakeholders$ that$ live$ in$ the$ area$ of$ a$ construction$ project$ is$ a$ wellRknown$ phenomenon$in$The$Netherlands,$it$is$a$result$of$the$Dutch$‘poldermodel’$that$dates$from$the$Middle$ Ages$ (Gelder,$ Post,$ Koppenjan,$ Houben,$ &$ Ouwerkerk,$ 2010).$ Management$ of$ stakeholders$ has$ always$been$part$of$project$management,$but$it$is$dealt$with$more$professionally$over$the$last$couple$ of$years.$Besides$that,$there$was$dissatisfaction$about$the$functioning$of$the$construction$sector$in$ general.$The$sector$was$fragmented$and$shortRterm$oriented,$improving$the$sector$should$be$done$ by$integration$of$the$process$and$more$involvement$of$the$market$parties$(Dorée,$2001).$Therefore,$ the$ Ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$ and$ Environment$ asked$ two$ committees$ to$ investigate$ how$ the$ decision$ making$ process$ could$ be$ speeded$ up$ and$ what$ the$ possibilities$ are$ for$ private$ financing.$ These$ researches$ have$ led$ to$ two$ new$ policies$ about$ involving$ private$ parties$ to$ improve$ the$ duration,$ costs$ and$ quality$ of$ LIPs$ in$ the$ Netherlands.$ With$ these$ policies$ the$ Ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$ and$ Environment$ aims$ to$ speed$ up$ the$ decision$ making$ process,$ to$ involve$ private$ contracting$ parties$ in$ an$ early$ stage$ and$ to$ distribute$ responsibilities$ in$ design,$ construction$ and$ operation$to$these$private$parties.$ $ The$ public$ party$ as$ principal$ outsourcing$ tasks$ to$ market$ parties$ has$ introduced$ new,$ integrated$ contracts$in$which$the$principal$takes$a$step$back$and$has$fewer$responsibilities.$In$The$Netherlands$ and$in$other$European$countries$as$well,$integrated$contracts$are$applied$more$and$more$(Eggers$&$ Startup,$ 2006).$ Instead$ of$ the$ government$ who$ was$ traditionally$ responsible$ for$ plan$ making,$ construction$and$maintenance$of$road$infrastructure,$contractors$got$the$liberty$to$apply$innovative$ methods.$ It$ started$ with$ the$ outsourcing$ of$ maintenance$ to$ contractors,$ but$ shortly$ after$ the$ contracts$became$more$and$more$integrated$(Lenferink,$Tillema,$&$Arts,$2013).$Depending$on$what$is$ stated$ in$ the$ contract$ the$ contractor$ and$ principal$ share$ risks$ and$ responsibilities.$ In$ case$ of$ an$ integrated$ contract$ like$ a$ design$ and$ construct$ (D&C)$ contract,$ the$ contractor$ becomes$ fully$ responsible$ for$ both$ the$ delivery$ of$ the$ works$ and$ (most$ of)$ the$ design$ (Ridder$ &$ Noppen,$ 2009).$ These$ integrated$ contracts$ cannot$ be$ considered$ as$ privatisation$ because$ the$ public$ principal$ remains$responsible$for$the$strategic$planning$(Lenferink$et$al.,$2013).$ $ Infrastructure$ planning$ has$ shifted$ from$ a$ traditional$ line$ oriented$ approach$ towards$ an$ area$ oriented$ approach$ (Heeres,$ Tillema,$ &$ Arts,$ 2012).$ With$ extending$ and$ broadening$ the$ scope$ of$ infrastructure$projects,$synergies$can$be$discovered$between$infrastructure$and$their$surroundings.$$ This$can$help$to$improve$the$overall$quality$of$an$area.$Although$project$stakeholder$management$is$ a$ relatively$ new$ as$ an$ individual$ term,$ is$ has$ become$ an$ integral$ part$ of$ today’s$ infrastructure$ projects$(Gelder$et$al.,$2010,$pp.$6R7).$RWS$and$different$contractors$have$great$interest$in$this$field$ of$ project$ management.$ Important$ to$ keep$ in$ mind$ is$ that$ the$ contractor$ will$ become$ part$ of$ the$ project$at$a$later$stage$and$is$basically$always$a$step$behind$(Bolle,$2008).$In$addition,$the$contractors$ experience$that$the$setting$of$the$tender$procedure$are$often$too$strict$for$an$open$communication$ with$ the$ stakeholders$ (Sandee,$ 2009).$ Based$ on$ the$ current$ trends$ it$ seems$ that$ there$ is$ an$ 2"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ opportunity$ to$ increase$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ LIPs.$ Collaboration$ between$ these$ parties$ currently$ receives$ little$ attention$ in$ the$ scientific$ debate$ on$ collaboration,$ although$ there$ has$ been$ more$ attention$ for$ public$ private$ partnerships$ in$ the$ last$ decade$ (for$ example$BultRSpiering,$Blanken,$&$Dewulf,$2005;$Ham$&$Koppenjan,$2002).$ $ 1.3. Problem"formulation" The$ public$ principal$ as$ well$ as$ the$ private$ contractor$ is$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$ stakeholder$management,$but$coordination$in$the$approach$of$both$parties$barely$exists.$Tasks$are$ often$shared$between$principal$and$contractor$or$shifted$from$the$one$to$the$other.$Depending$on$ the$type$of$contract,$stages$are$separated$and$there$are$a$number$of$implementation$gaps$in$which$ information$gets$lost$(see$Figure$3).$In$the$infrastructure$planning$procedures$there$seems$a$limited$ interest$ in$ the$ translation$ of$ the$ plans$ into$ project$ and,$ subsequently,$ the$ realisation$ of$ these$ projects$(Lenferink,$2013).$As$a$result,$a$disconnection$exists$between$the$strategic$planning$stages$ and$ the$ operational$ project$ implementation$ stages.$ In$ the$ second$ phase$ new$ actors$ become$ involved,$who$have$other$responsibilities$and$a$different$perspective$on$the$project.$ $ Figure#3:#Implementation#gap#between#strategic#planning#stages#and#operational#project#implementation# stages#(own#ill.#based#on#Lenferink#(2013);#Lenferink#et#al.#(2013))# Through$ the$ development$ of$ integrated$ contracts$ the$ different$ project$ stages$ are$ already$ more$ connected.$But$there$is$still$information$that$has$to$be$transferred$from$one$party$to$another,$which$ leaves$room$for$misunderstandings$and$loss$of$information.$A$solution$needs$to$be$found$to$minimize$ this$ room$ for$ misunderstanding,$ to$ reduce$ the$ loss$ of$ information$ and$ to$ stimulate$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Because$ misunderstandings$ and$ loss$ of$ information$ can$ lead$ to$ time$and$budget$overruns,$but$it$can$also$be$a$reason$for$citizens$to$outcry$if$agreements$have$been$ forgotten$and$are$therefore$not$fulfilled.$ $ A$ lot$ of$ research$ is$ conducted$ into$ stakeholder$ management$ (Aaltonen,$ 2011;$ Olander$ &$ Landin,$ 2005)$and$about$successful$collaboration$(Chan$et$al.,$2004;$Cheung,$Yiu,$&$Chiu,$2009;$Meng,$Sun,$&$ Jones,$ 2011).$ There$ is$ also$ literature$ available$ about$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000a;$Suprapto,$Bakker,$Mooi,$&$Moree,$in$press).$However,$literature$ about$collaboration$between$public$and$private$party$on$project$stakeholder$management$is$lacking.$ The$parties$that$have$to$deal$with$project$stakeholder$management$all$have$their$own$approach$and$ are$all$inventing$the$wheel$in$order$to$deal$with$it.$This$seems$waste$of$money$and$time,$especially$ because$the$different$parties$can$learn$from$each$other$and$can$avoid$duplication.$Neerlands$Diep$is$ one$ of$ the$ initiators$ of$ Platform$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ (Dutch:$ Platform$ omgevingsmanagement),$ this$ platform$ encourages$ interaction$ between$ the$ members$ and$ thereby$ the$ exchange$ knowledge.$ There$ are$ several$ issues$ in$ the$ field$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ that$ can$ be$ examined.$ Conversations$ with$ different$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ showed$ that$ improving$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase$ and$ more$ clarity$ about$ the$ delineation$of$tasks$between$principal$and$contractor$has$a$high$priority.$Therefore$Neerlands$Diep$is$ interested$in$a$research$on$this$specific$problem.$ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"3" With$the$new$types$of$contracts,$the$public$principal$wants$to$shift$risks$and$responsibilities$towards$ market$parties,$where$possible.$This$also$applies$for$project$stakeholder$management,$where$specific$ responsibilities$ would$ be$ shifted$ towards$ the$ contractor.$ The$ contractor$ is$ willing$ to$ take$ these$ responsibilities,$however$it$is$questionable$if$the$contractor$is$able$to$do$this$in$the$way$the$principal$ prefers.$Besides$that,$RWS$always$stays$responsible$for$certain$tasks$(Hol$&$Risselada,$2013).$These$ tasks$ are$ part$ of$ the$ legal$ responsibility$ of$ RWS,$ thus$ outsourcing$ is$ not$ possible.$ Therefore,$ most$ projects$ have$ a$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ from$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ and$ one$ from$ the$ contractor’s$side.$It$seems$logical$that$both$parties$will$collaborate$in$order$to$improve$the$general$ quality$ of$ the$ project.$ This$ is$ not$ always$ the$ case,$ so$ what$ are$ the$ incentives$ and$ barriers$ for$ intensive$collaboration?$ $ To$ summarise,$ this$ thesis$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ principal$ and$ private$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$ realisation$ phase$ of$ large$ infrastructure$ projects$executed$in$The$Netherlands.$Principal$and$contractor$are$becoming$more$and$more$aware$ of$the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management.$Because$this$part$of$project$management$as$ an$ individual$ is$ a$ relatively$ new$ discipline$ within$ project$ management,$ there$ seems$ to$ be$ little$ coordination$in$approaching$project$stakeholder$management$between$both$parties.$This$creates$an$ opportunity$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ but$ is$ intensive$ collaboration$desirable$for$both$parties?$This$research$aims$to$get$insight$in$factors$influencing$the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ the$ field$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ In$ theory$there$is$little$knowledge$about$the$way$client$and$contractor$work$together$in$this$discipline.$ This$makes$this$research$quite$explorative$because$the$framework$in$which$strategies$to$improve$the$ collaboration$can$be$applied$is$unclear$at$the$start$of$this$research.$This$shows$the$importance$of$this$ research,$but$makes$it$difficult$to$come$up$with$hypotheses.$$ $ 1.4. Thesis"outline" This$chapter$has$introduced$the$topic$and$context$of$this$research.$Chapter$2$introduces$the$research$ design$ that$ will$ serve$ as$ guideline$ to$ achieve$ the$ final$ goal.$ The$ following$ chapters$ in$ this$ thesis$ report$will$help$to$come$to$this$final$goal.$The$outline$of$this$thesis$research$is$shown$in$Figure$5.$ Figure#5:#Thesis#outline#(own#ill.)# • • • • • • • • Chapter$2$introduces$the$research$design$that$will$serve$as$guideline$to$achieve$the$final$goal$ of$this$research.$ Chapter$ 3$ contains$ a$ literature$ study$ to$ get$ an$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ there$ will$be$looked$at$the$legal,$organisational$and$social$context$of$LIPs.$ Chapter$4$elaborates$on$the$conceptual$framework$that$will$be$used$to$frame$and$structure$ the$research.$The$literature$study$from$chapter$3$will$be$used$to$create$this$framework.$ Chapter$5$includes$the$clarification$of$the$research$methodology$and$elaborates$on$how$the$ case$study$will$be$conducted.$ Chapter$6$describes$the$chosen$cases$and$will$elaborate$on$them$in$the$form$of$an$analysis$ based$on$the$collected$data$of$the$interviews$and$available$documents.$ Chapter$7$will$compare$the$findings$from$the$different$cases$in$chapter$6,$this$leads$to$some$ first$conclusions.$These$conclusions$are$discussed$and$validated$based$on$literature$findings$ and$findings$of$the$workshop$meeting.$ Chapter$8$will$discuss$the$application$of$the$collaboration$model.$ Chapter$ 9$ presents$ the$ advice$ of$ the$ research$ in$ the$ form$ of$ the$ conclusion$ and$ some$ recommendations$for$further$research.$ 4"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ $ 2. R ESEARCH"DESIGN" $ $ In$ this$ chapter$ the$ research$ design$ is$ presented.$ The$ observations$ in$ the$ previous$ chapter$ have$ illustrated$ the$ knowledge$ gaps$ that$ exist$ and$ this$ will$ be$ used$ to$ define$ the$ research$ objectives.$ Together$these$objectives$form$the$main$objective.$This$main$objective$will$be$achieved$with$help$of$ the$research$question,$which$consists$of$several$sub$questions.$The$research$design$as$described$in$ this$ chapter$ is$ the$ blueprint$ of$ the$ research$ that$ guides$ the$ process$ from$ the$ formulation$ of$ the$ question$to$reporting$the$findings$(Kalaian,$2008).$It$is$a$logic$plan$for$getting$from$here$to$there.$ $ 2.1. "Research"objective" The$ objective$ of$ this$ research$ is$ to$ enhance$ the$ understanding$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$ realisation$ phase$ of$ LIPs$ in$ The$ Netherlands.$ This$ should$ contribute$ to$ the$ theoretical$ knowledge$ on$ collaboration$ between$ public$ principal$ and$ private$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ by$ providing$ insights$ to$ enhance$this$collaboration.$ $ The$main$objective$can$be$split$up$in$five$(sub)$research$objectives,$which$together$contribute$to$the$ main$objective.$The$five$research$objectives$will$be$described$below.$ • Get$inRdepth$understanding$of$project$stakeholder$management.$ • Get$ inRdepth$ understanding$ of$ the$ factors$ that$ are$ important$ for$ collaboration$ between$ principal$and$contractor.$ • Understand$ how$ the$ state$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ could$ be$ defined.$ • Understand$ the$ complexities$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ and$ find$ opportunities$to$enhance$this$collaboration.$ • Formulate$ a$ strategy$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$stakeholder$management$in$LIPs.$$ $ 2.2. Research"question" To$ achieve$ the$ goal$ of$ this$ research$ as$ described$ above,$ the$ research$ question$ will$ be$ answered$ throughout$the$report$with$help$of$a$set$of$sub$questions.$The$main$question$is$formulated$as:$ $ Which" possibilities" can" be" defined" to" enhance" the" collaboration" between" principal" and" contractor"on"project"stakeholder"management"in"large"infrastructure"projects?" $ To$ be$ able$ to$ answer$ the$ main$ question,$ the$ research$ question$ has$ been$ divided$ in$ eight$ sub$ questions$to$keep$the$research$structured.$The$following$research$questions$are$formulated:$$$ 1. What$is$project$stakeholder$management?$ 2. Which$factors$are$important$for$collaboration?$ 3. What$ model$ can$ be$ used$ to$ define$ the$ state$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor?$ 4. Which$strategies$can$improve$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor?$ 5. How$to$audit$collaboration?$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"5" 2.3. Research"model" A$research$model$is$set$up$to$answer$the$research$question$and$to$be$able$to$reach$the$objective$of$ this$research.$Figure$6$gives$a$schematic$overview$of$this$model.$Firstly,$a$theoretical$framework$will$ be$created$to$serve$further$research.$This$framework$is$based$on$the$existing$literature$about$project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ about$ the$ legal,$ organisational$ and$ social$ context$ of$ LIPs.$ With$ this$ information,$it$is$possible$to$answer$the$first$sub$question$‘what#is#project#stakeholder#management’$ and$ the$ second$ sub$ question$ ‘which# factors# are# important# for# collaboration’.$ Secondly,$ a$ research$ perspective$is$created$in$order$to$analyse$the$data$collected$in$the$case$study$research.$This$research$ perspective$ answers$ the$ third$ sub$ question$ ‘what# model# can# be# used# to# define# the# state# of# collaboration# between# principal# and# contractor’.$ Thirdly,$ information$ about$ how$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ are$ collaborating$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ different$ cases$ will$ be$ collected.$ Chapter$5$will$elaborate$more$on$how$this$information$will$be$collected.$Fourthly,$the$results$of$the$ four$cases$will$be$compared$with$each$other.$Preliminary$conclusions$are$drawn$and$the$validity$of$ these$ conclusions$ is$ discussed$ based$ on$ literature$ findings$ and$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ with$ the$ interview$ respondents.$ Hereafter$ the$ fourth$ sub$ question$ ‘which# strategies# can# improve# the# collaboration# between# principal# and# contractor’$ can$ be$ answered.$ Fifthly,$ the$ applicability$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ will$ be$ checked.$ Therefore,$ this$ model$ will$ be$ discussed$ in$ the$ workshop$ meeting$with$the$interview$respondents.$With$the$outcome$of$this$discussion$it$is$possible$to$answer$ the$ fifth$ sub$ question$ ‘how# to# audit# collaboration’.$ Finally,$ all$ the$ collected$ data$ will$ be$ used$ to$ answer$the$main$question$and$give$some$recommendations$for$further$research.$ Figure#6:#Research#model#(own#ill.#based#on#Verschuren#and#Doorewaard#(2007))# $ 2.4. Relevance"of"the"research" The$research$is$performed$for$a$twoRfolded$purpose.$On$the$one$hand,$the$research$is$executed$in$ order$ to$ draw$ conclusions$ about$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ These$ findings$ can$ be$ used$ in$ future$ construction$ projects$ and$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ can$ use$ the$ knowledge$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ in$ project$ that$ are$ already$in$the$realisation$phase.$The$research$is$carried$out$under$the$authority$of$Neerlands$Diep.$ Neerlands$ Diep$ is$ a$ cooperation$ platform$ founded$ by$ Rijkswaterstaat,$ ProRail$ and$ the$ four$ major$ municipalities$ (Amsterdam,$ Rotterdam,$ The$ Hague$ and$ Utrecht).$ This$ platform$ will$ make$ sure$ that$ the$knowledge$about$construction$and$infrastructure$projects$comes$to$the$light$and$remains$there.$ Better$and$more$professionalised$projects$are$the$aim$with$enhancing$and$exchanging$of$knowledge$ as$mean.$ $ 6"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ $ On$ the$ other$ hand,$ the$ research$ is$ carried$ out$ for$ a$ scientific$ purpose.$ As$ mentioned,$ there$ is$ currently$ limited$ literature$ available$ about$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ on$ project$stakeholder$management.$This$shows$that$there$is$a$gap$in$the$scientific$knowledge$on$this$ topic.$ Answering$ the$ formulated$ research$ question$ will$ add$ knowledge$ about$ principal$ contractor$ collaboration$ in$ combination$ with$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ to$ the$ existing$ literature.$ Answering$the$research$question$will$also$result$in$some$new$questions,$which$are$recommendations$ for$further$research.$This$can$lead$to$even$more$scientific$research$and$knowledge$about$this$topic.$ $ 2.5. Research"scope" The$ scope$ of$ the$ research$ defines$ the$ boundaries$ of$ a$ project$ in$ order$ to$ create$ room$ for$ the$ solution.$It$is$used$to$determine$what$should$be$taken$into$account$and$what$can$be$neglected.$This$ is$ a$ crucial$ part$ of$ the$ research$ design,$ because$ it$ helps$ to$ keep$ focus$ on$ the$ final$ goal$ of$ the$ research.$ $ The$geographic$scope$of$the$research$will$be$The$Netherlands,$multiple$Dutch$cases$will$be$analysed$ to$collect$information$to$be$able$to$answer$the$research$question.$Chapter$5$will$elaborate$more$on$ the$ chosen$ cases$ and$ why$ this$ methodology$ is$ considered$ to$ be$ representative$ for$ this$ research.$ Although$the$research$will$take$place$in$The$Netherlands,$the$literature$review$will$give$an$overview$ of$ the$ situation$ in$ other$ countries$ as$ well$ to$ show$ the$ international$ point$ of$ view.$ The$ research$ focuses$on$the$collaboration$between$the$public$principal$and$a$private$contractor$and$how$they$deal$ with$the$project$stakeholder$management$during$the$realisation$of$LIPs$with$an$integrated$contract.$ As$ elaborated$ on$ in$ the$ problem$ formulation$ (section$ 1.3),$ improving$ project$ stakeholder$ management$in$the$realisation$stage$has$a$high$priority$for$Neerlands$Diep.$ Figure#7:#Research#focus#(own#ill.)# $ The$three$green$checkmarks$in$Figure$7$indicate$the$focus$of$this$research.$ • The$relationship$between$the$principal$and$contractor,$so$the$collaboration$between$the$two$ parties$responsible$for$the$construction$of$a$project.$This$is$one$of$the$focus$points$because$ practice$shows$that$the$tasks$that$need$to$be$executed$can$be$demarcated$more$towards$the$ principal$or$contractor.$$ • The$ way$ both$ parties$ deal$ with$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ This$ focus$ point$ follows$ from$the$wish$by$Neerlands$Diep$to$improve$project$stakeholder$management.$$ This$ study$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ the$ contractor$ and$ principal$ and$ how$ they$ work$ together$on$project$stakeholder$management.$$ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"7" The$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ on$ this$ collaboration$ will$ be$ excluded$ from$ this$ research.$ The$ research$ also$ neglects$ the$ relationship$ between$ the$ contractor$ and$ subcontractors$ who$will$execute$parts$of$the$project$commissioned$by$the$contractors.$The$most$important$aspects$ of$the$delineation$of$this$research$and$a$motivation$for$these$choices$are$given$below.$ • D&C$contract:$with$the$Public$Private$Comparator$(PPC)$a$choice$is$made$between$a$D&C$or$ DBFM$ contract,$ therefore$ it$ is$ chosen$ to$ delineate$ this$ research$ to$ one$ of$ both$ contract$ types.$This$research$focuses$on$projects$with$a$D&C$contract,$because$these$contracts$have$a$ limited$ scope$ without$ longRterm$ maintenance$ contracts.$ Design$ and$ construct$ are$ also$ components$ of$ a$ DBFM$ contract$ and$ therefore$ it$ is$ expected$ that,$ with$ some$ additional$ studies,$the$results$of$this$research$can$be$used$for$projects$with$a$DBFM$contract.$ • Collaboration:$there$are$a$lot$of$different$definitions$of$collaboration,$therefore$the$following$ definition$ for$ collaboration$ from$ Bedwell$ et$ al.$ (2012)$ is$ used$ in$ this$ research$ “an# evolving# process#whereby#two#or#more#social#entities#actively#and#reciprocally#engage#in#joint#activities# aimed# at# achieving# at# least# one# shared# goal“.$ Since$ collaboration$ occurs$ on$ multiple$ levels$ within$the$organisation$and$at$multiple$stages$of$the$construction$process,$the$research$will$ investigate$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ principal$ and$ private$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$ realisation$ stage$ of$ the$ project.$ This$ in$ order$ to$ keep$ the$ research$ executable$ in$ time.$ Thereby$ both$ parties$ are$ most$ working$ together$ in$ the$ realisation$ stage$ and$ some$ exploring$ conversations$ with$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ indicated$ that$ improving$ the$ collaboration$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$ realisation$ phase$ has$ high$ priority.$ Increasing$ collaboration$ is$ valuable$ to$ organisations,$ because$a$successful$organisational$outcome$requires$collaboration.$Collaboration$is$thus$not$ a$goal$by$itself;$it$is$a$process,$instrumental$to$a$goal.$This$is$in$line$with$the$underlying$goal$ of$the$research$objective$that$project$performance$could$be$enhanced$in$case$principal$and$ contractor$collaborate$more.$$ • (Project)$ stakeholders:$ the$ way$ the$ stakeholders$ experience$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$and$private$party$has$been$left$out$of$this$research.$Because$the$stakeholders$do$not$ have$ real$ insight$ in$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties.$ Thereby$ it$ is$ possible$ that$ their$ view$ will$ be$ influenced$ by$ the$ experience$ they$ have$ with$ one$ or$ both$ parties.$The$(project)$stakeholders$refer$to$external$stakeholders,$those$being$affected$by$the$ project$ organisation’s$ activities$ in$ a$ significant$ way.$ Examples$ of$ external$ stakeholders$ are$ neighbours,$local$communities,$the$general$public,$road$users$and$local$authorities.$ $ 8"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 3. L ITERATURE"REVIEW" $ $ A$ theoretical$ framework$ will$ be$ created$ based$ on$ the$ existing$ literature$ about$ the$ topics$ of$ this$ research.$ Chapter$ 1$ already$ introduced$ several$ scientific$ topics$ on$ which$ knowledge$ and$ theories$ exist.$This$chapter$will$elaborate$more$on$these$topics$in$order$to$better$understand$the$context$in$ which$ this$ research$ takes$ place.$ By$ studying$ literature$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ about$the$legal,$organisational$and$social$context$in$which$a$project$is$realised,$a$research$framework$ can$ be$ created$ that$ will$ serve$ as$ basis$ for$ the$ further$ research.$ It$ was$ chosen$ to$ work$ with$ these$ three$types$of$contexts,$because$these$are$closely$related$to$project$stakeholder$management.$The$ other$three$context$types$as$distinguished$by$Hertogh$and$Westerveld$(2010)$have$less$influence$on$ the$project$environment.$$ $ The$literature$study$focused$on$four$specified$topics$so$that$this$knowledge$could$serve$as$guidance$ through$the$research.$These$four$topics$are$described$below$and$form$the$sections$of$this$chapter.$ Chapter$4$will$use$this$theory$to$create$the$framework$in$which$this$research$will$take$place.$ • A$ better$ understanding$ of$ what$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is.$ This$ section$ refers$ to$ different$theories$about$this$topic$with$the$aim$to$provide$a$clear$formulation$of$what$project$ stakeholder$management$is,$based$on$the$existing$theory.$It$also$gives$an$indication$of$how$ this$ type$ of$ management$ is$ embedded$ in$ public$ and$ private$ organisations.$ This$ knowledge$ should$lead$to$a$better$understanding$of$what$the$term$includes,$so$it$can$be$compared$with$ the$findings$from$practice.$ • A$better$understanding$of$the$legal$context$in$which$this$research$takes$place.$This$includes$ information$ about$ integrated$ contracts,$ the$ legal$ procedure$ before$ the$ construction$ of$ a$ project$ can$ start$ and$ governmental$ policies.$ Knowledge$ on$ these$ topics$ leads$ to$ a$ better$ understanding$ of$ the$ origin$ of$ the$ use$ of$ new$ types$ of$ contracts$ and$ the$ possible$ consequences$of$this.$ • A$ better$ understanding$ of$ the$ organisational$ context,$ this$ refers$ to$ the$ collaboration$ between$the$public$principal$and$private$contractor$on$the$project.$Theory$about$this$topic$ provides$an$overview$of$the$organisations$of$the$collaborating$parties$and$what$the$basis$is$ of$ this$ collaboration.$ This$ knowledge$ should$ lead$ to$ a$ better$ understanding$ of$ the$ reason$ why$there$is$little$collaboration$yet$and$what$factors$are$important$for$good$collaboration.$ • A$sketch$of$the$social$context$of$this$research.$This$section$elaborates$on$the$development$of$ public$ participation$ over$ time$ and$ illustrates$ how$ to$ manage$ the$ project$ stakeholders.$ Knowledge$ on$ this$ topic$ leads$ to$ a$ better$ understanding$ of$ why$ the$ public$ wants$ to$ be$ involved$in$the$realisation$of$a$LIP$and$the$difficulty$of$managing$stakeholders.$ $ 3.1. Project"stakeholder"management" The$ origin$ and$ the$ choice$ for$ the$ term$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ has$ been$ discussed$ in$ section$ 1.1.$ The$ paragraphs$ of$ this$ section$ will$ discuss$ the$ different$ definitions$ of$ the$ term$ project$ stakeholder$ management,$ will$ elaborate$ on$ what$ is$ covered$ by$ the$ term$ and$ there$ will$ also$ be$ a$ review$ about$ the$ embedment$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ public$ and$ private$ organisations.$ 3.1.1. Definition%of%project%stakeholder%management% Project$stakeholder$management$as$an$individual$policy$issue$is$relatively$new$in$the$infrastructure$ sector.$ In$ literature$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ it$ becomes$ clear$ that$ there$ is$ no$ unity$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"9" about$ the$ content$ of$ this$ concept.$ Each$ organisation$ gives$ its$ own$ interpretation$ to$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ It$ seems$ to$ be$ a$ kind$ of$ umbrella$ term,$ because$ it$ covers$ a$ number$ of$ aspects.$In$this$paragraph$various$definitions$that$are$available$in$literature$will$be$discussed.$ $ Wesselink$ (2010,$ pp.$ 47R48)$ looks$ at$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ as$ a$ combination$ of$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ issue$ management.$ Stakeholder$ management$ involves$ an$ organisational$ process,$ which$ provides$ a$ company$ developing$ a$ relationship$ with$ its$ stakeholders$ that$suits$the$interests$of$those$stakeholders,$the$company$itself$and$its$business$activities.$Based$on$ mutual$respect$for$each$other's$interests$and$focused$on$achieving$added$value$for$all$parties.$Issue$ management$is$a$term$coming$from$the$business.$It$seeks$to$scan$the$environment$of$a$company$for$ issues$ they$ may$ face$ and$ for$ which$ the$ company$ wants$ to$ be$ prepared.$ Issue$ management$ is$ analysing$ issues,$ followed$ by$ actions$ to$ create$ harmony$ between$ organisation$ and$ society.$ An$ important$concept$in$issues$is$‘future’,$because$predicting$is$one$of$the$main$concerns.$Issues$do$not$ stand$alone,$but$have$grown$from$a$trend$or$have$started$this$trend.$Additionally$Wesselink$(2010)$ developed$ an$ approach$ for$ companies$ to$ set$ up$ the$ dialogue$ with$ stakeholders$ to$ deal$ with$ the$ problems$ proactively;$ strategic$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ (in$ Dutch$ abbreviated$ to$ SOM).$ SOM$ is$ an$ approach$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ based$ on$ the$ mutual$ gains$ philosophy.$ Issues$ are$ the$ starting$ point$ to$ map$ the$ interests$ and$ points$ of$ views$ of$ the$ stakeholders$ and$ to$ develop$a$strategy$to$realise$the$organisation$or$project$goals$and$to$start$a$sustainable$relationship$ with$the$area$at$the$same$time.$The$main$difference$with$the$traditional$look$at$project$stakeholder$ management$is$that$there$will$be$acted$from$sincere$interest$in$the$interests$of$all$parties.$$ $ According$ to$ Lemmens$ (2001,$ pp.$ 261R263)$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ has$ to$ be$ organised$ well.$An$organisation$must$be$in$a$position$to$respond$decisively$to$developments$and$events.$The$ decreasing$ response$ time$ requires$ that$ an$ organisation$ has$ at$ any$ time$ the$ most$ current$ data$ and$ insights$as$well$as$adequate$strategies$available.$Different$levels$of$an$organisation$are$functioning$in$ continuous$ interaction$ with$ the$ environment$ of$ the$ organisation.$ They$ influence$ the$ environment,$ but$ are$ thereby$ affecting$ themselves$ as$ well.$ People$ are$ often$ not$ even$ aware$ of$ this.$ This$ interaction$is$the$essence$of$project$stakeholder$management.$$ $ According$ to$ Kampinga$ (2010)$ the$ goal$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ twofold.$ Achieving$ a$ good$implementation$of$the$project$together$with$the$project$area$(including$internal,$external$and$ public$ partners).$ Unexpected$ resistance$ and$ unnecessary$ delays$ and$ cost$ overruns$ should$ be$ prevented.$Second,$communication$management$is$the$mean$used$to$support$the$implementation$of$ project$stakeholder$management$and$to$inform$internal,$external$and$public$partners.$ $ Neerlands$Diep$(Ark,$2010,$p.$7)$uses$the$following$definition$for$project$stakeholder$management:$ “project# stakeholder# management# focuses# on# the# surrounding# area,# the# relationships# and# the# process,#bringing#together#the#project#area#and#the#interests#of#the#stakeholders#in#the#area.#Project# stakeholder# management# is# all# about# acquiring# support,# this# is# essential# for# the# conditioning# of# a# project.# Conditioning# and# project# stakeholder# management# are# positioned# as# two# independent# domains,# but# they# are# strongly# interwoven.# Project# stakeholder# management# facilitates# the# conditioning”.$ $ Also$ the$ parties$ that$ initiated$ Neerlands$ Diep$ have$ different$ definitions$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ • According$to$RWS$(in$Peletier$and$Post$(2009))$“project#stakeholder#management#is#the#set#of# activities,#aimed#at#exploring#and#involving#all#interested#parties,#with#the#aim#to#identify#own# and# shared# goals,# and# to# realise# and# supervise# the# implementation# of# its# own# stakeholder# management”.$$ • The$ municipality$ of$ Amsterdam$ (in$ Wanningen,$ Schipper,$ Haak,$ and$ Hoog$ (2013))$ has$ the$ following$ definition$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management:$ “actively# approaching,# involving,# 10"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ • exploring# and# directing# of# the# surrounding# area# of# the# project,# to# make# the# realisation# of# a# project#possible#and#to#make#this#easier”.$$ ProRail$ employee,$ Harrie$ van$ Helvoort$ (in$ Gelder$ et$ al.$ (2010,$ p.$ 19))$ defines$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ as$ “putting# the# interests# of# the# stakeholders# in# the# surrounding# area#of#a#project#together#with#the#interests#of#the#project#itself,#as#much#as#possible.#All#this# with#the#aim#that#the#project#can#continue#with#as#little#interference#as#possible#and#the#area# can#function#normally.#This#aim#is#twofold:#satisfied#stakeholders#in#the#surrounding#area#of#a# project#and#achieving#the#project#objectives#within#time,#money#and#scope”.$ $ For$ construction$ companies$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ a$ method$ to$ create$ support$ and$ understanding$for$the$project,$so$the$project$can$be$realised$within$time$and$budget$(Antea$Group,$ 2014;$BAM$Infraconsult,$2014).$ 3.1.2. Components%of%project%stakeholder%management% Literature$ illustrates$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ a$ broad$ concept.$ This$ paragraph$ will$ elaborate$on$the$aspects$that$are$included$in$project$stakeholder$management.$Despite$the$different$ definitions$ of$ the$ term,$ the$ opinions$ about$ what$ is$ covered$ with$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ are$quite$similar.$This$paragraph$will$elaborate$on$the$components$that$can$be$distinguished.$ $ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ within$ a$ RWS$ project$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase$ consists$ of$ four$ components:$ stakeholder$ management,$ communication,$ traffic$ management$ and$ conditioning$ (Gelder$et$al.,$2010,$pp.$28R29).$The$municipality$of$Amsterdam$also$distinguishes$these$components$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ (Wanningen$ et$ al.,$ 2013).$ There$ are$ other$ views$ about$ the$ different$ tasks$ of$ a$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ (Antea$ Group,$ 2014;$ Du$ Prie,$ 2013),$ however$ the$ content$ corresponds$ with$ the$ components$ as$ described$ above$ but$ they$ differ$ in$ name.$ The$ components$as$distinguished$by$RWS$will$be$elaborated:$$ $ Stakeholder" management$ focuses$ on$ the$ interested$ parties$ in$ the$ area$ of$ a$ project.$ It$ is$ mapped$ who$ influences$ the$ project,$ on$ which$ people$ the$ project$ has$ influence$ and$ what$ the$ interests$ of$ these$parties$are.$It$is$the$process$to$search$for$and$work$towards$the$realisation$of$common$goal(s),$ compromises$ and/or$ countervailing$ measures$ in$ collaboration$ with$ the$ stakeholders$ of$ the$ project$ area$(Wanningen$et$al.,$2013).$In$general$stakeholders$in$a$project$can$be$divided$into$internal$and$ external$stakeholders$(Aaltonen,$2011).$Internal$stakeholders$are$the$stakeholders$that$are$formally$ members$of$the$project$coalition$and,$hence,$usually$support$the$project.$External$stakeholders$are$ not$formal$members$of$the$project$coalition,$but$may$affect$or$be$affected$by$the$project.$According$ to$ Kam,$ Weustink,$ and$ Cremer$ (2013)$ a$ project$ has$ relations$ with$ four$ worlds$ (see$ Figure$ 8).$ The$ inside$ world$ includes$ the$ internal$ stakeholders,$ but$ the$ external$ stakeholders$ can$ be$ divided$ into$ three$groups:$the$top$world,$the$private$environment$and$the$public$environment.$When$this$thesis$ refers$to$(project)$stakeholders,$the$external$stakeholders,$and$more$specifically,$the$stakeholders$in$ the$ private$ environment$ are$ meant.$ Because$ these$ people$ have$ inconvenience$ caused$ by$ the$ realisation$of$the$project.$In$this$research$about$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor,$ the$relations$between$the$internal$stakeholders$are$investigated.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"11" $ Figure#8:#Four#types#of#stakeholders,#adapted#from#Kam#et#al.#(2013)# The$ aspect$ communication$ includes$ the$ internal$ communication$ within$ the$ project,$ but$ also$ the$ communication$ with$ the$ stakeholders.$ Besides$ RWS,$ the$ other$ partners$ (like$ municipalities$ and$ provinces)$and$contractors$working$on$projects$have$their$own$goals$with$the$information$that$they$ want$ to$ communicate$ to$ the$ public.$ It$ is$ necessary$ to$ make$ a$ plan$ about$ who,$ what,$ when$ and$ to$ whom$will$be$communicated$by$which$party$(Peletier$&$Post,$2009).$The$information$communicated$ to$the$public$should$be$clear.$There$are$three$different$options$to$lay$down$the$communication$tasks$ in$a$contract$(Bolle,$2008).$ • The$ client$ is$ responsible$ and$ the$ contractor$ is$ not$ allowed$ to$ communicate$ with$ external$ parties.$ • The$ contractor$ is$ responsible$ for$ the$ communication,$ but$ the$ client$ is$ watching$ over$ the$ shoulders$of$the$contractor.$ • The$client$and$contractor$share$the$responsibility$for$the$communication.$ Contracts$ often$ make$ a$ distinction$ between$ construction$ communication$ (Dutch:$ bouwcommunicatie)$ and$ public$ communication$ (Dutch:$ publiekscommunicatie).$ The$ contractor$ is$ responsible$ for$ the$ construction$ communication$ and$ the$ principal$ is$ responsible$ for$ the$ public$ communication$(Rijkswaterstaat,$2013).$Construction$communication$aims$to$tune$the$construction$ works$with$the$target$groups$and$to$inform$road$and$waterway$users$during$the$work.$For$this$aspect$ communication$ with$ the$ private$ and$ public$ environment$ is$ needed.$ Public$ communication$ aims$ to$ create$ a$ visible$ and$ recognizable$ RWS$ and$ to$ provide$ unambiguous$ information$ about$ RWS,$ the$ construction$works$and$the$inconvenienced$caused$by$the$works.$ $ Traffic" management" is$ the$ process$ that$ has$ to$ ensure$ that$ the$ traffic$ on$ the$ existing$ road$ or$ waterway$ network$ can$ continue$ in$ the$ best$ possible$ way,$ this$ is$ one$ of$ the$ mains$ tasks$ of$ RWS$ (Rijkswaterstaat,$2011b).$It$is$the$task$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$to$reduce$the$disruption$ for$ the$ network$ users$ due$ to$ the$ construction$ activities$ to$ a$ minimum.$ Measures$ to$ reduce$ the$ disruption$ will$ be$ discussed$ with$ the$ stakeholders$ and$ the$ area$ should$ be$ kept$ accessible$ and$ liveable$during$the$construction.$ $ Conditioning"makes$the$realisation$of$the$project$legally$and$physically$possible$and$possible$barriers$ that$might$show$up$will$be$removed$(Peletier$&$Post,$2009).$It$includes$the$following$topics:$creating$ administrative$ agreements$ and$ decisions,$ legislation$ and$ arranging$ of$ the$ necessary$ permits,$ land$ acquisition$and$real$estate,$claim$management,$cables$and$pipelines,$objects$in$the$subsurface$(like$ archaeology,$explosives)$and$management$agreements$(Rijkswaterstaat,$2011b).$ 12"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 3.1.3. Different%levels%of%project%stakeholder%management% As$with$project$management$in$general,$project$stakeholder$management$is$conducted$at$different$ levels.$ Roughly,$ there$ are$ three$ levels$ within$ the$ field$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management:$ the$ strategic,$tactical$and$operational$level$(Wanningen$et$al.,$2013).$$ $ At$the$strategic$level$the$contours$of$the$project$are$set$and$gives$insight$in$the$‘why’$question.$The$ tactical$level$determines$the$organisational$approach$and$it$answers$the$question$‘what$will$we$do’.$ The$operational$level$is$concerned$with$the$executing$tasks,$so$the$question$is$‘how$are$we$going$to$ do$it’.$The$different$components$of$project$stakeholder$management$and$the$different$levels$give$the$ overview$ as$ illustrated$ in$ Figure$ 9$ of$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ could$ be$ organised.$ Other$implementations$are$possible$as$well.$$ $ Figure#9:#Organisation#of#project#stakeholder#management,#adapted#from#Wanningen#et#al.#(2013)# These$ different$ levels$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ are$ also$ used$ by$ RWS$ to$ distinguish$ the$ tasks$ they$ perform$ by$ themselves$ and$ which$ tasks$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ will$ be$ outsourced$ to$ market$ parties.$ Figure$ 10$ gives$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ different$ levels$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ percentage$ of$ the$ amount$ of$ tasks$ performed$ by$ RWS$ and$ the$ market.$ The$ market$ includes$ all$ tasks$ that$ are$ outsourced$ and$ all$ services$ that$ are$ hired$ (Hol$ &$ Risselada,$ 2013).$ In$ general$ there$ is$ little$ discussion$ about$ who$ will$ perform$ the$ strategic$ and$ operational$tasks,$for$the$most$project$stakeholder$management$tasks$on$these$levels$it$is$clear$what$ is$ done$ by$ RWS$ and$ which$ part$ will$ be$ outsourced.$ The$ issues$ are$ mainly$ at$ the$ tactical$ level.$ The$ starting$ point$ for$ RWS$ is$ to$ outsource$ 50$ to$ 70$ percent$ of$ the$ tasks$ on$ the$ tactical$ level$ to$ the$ market.$ The$ consideration$ if$ a$ task$ will$ be$ outsourced$ or$ not$ is$ based$ on$ a$ risk$ approach$ and$ the$ acquiring$of$knowledge$and$safeguarding$this$knowledge.$$ Figure#10:#Task#division#project#stakeholder#management#in#the#execution#phase,#adapted#from#Hol#and# Risselada#(2013)# $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"13" $ There$was$also$a$division$made$for$the$different$aspects$of$project$stakeholder$management$(Hol$&$ Risselada,$2013).$In$this$model$conditioning$is$the$responsibility$of$the$market,$with$an$exception$of$ establishing$ frameworks$ and$ guidelines$ and$ guiding$ research.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ RWS$ is$ in$ charge$ of$ traffic$ and$ mobility$ management.$ Communication$ is$ the$ responsibility$ of$ RWS,$ except$for$the$construction$communication$this$is$the$responsibility$of$the$market$parties.$RWS$has$ the$ lead$ in$ stakeholder$ management$ as$ well.$ Figure$ 12$ illustrates$ the$ percentage$ share$ in$ responsibilities$of$principal$and$contactor.$$ $ Figure#12:#Division#of#responsibilities#principal#and#contractor#(own#ill.#based#on#Hol#and#Risselada#(2013))# 3.1.4. Embedment%of%project%stakeholder%management%in%organisations% There$is$a$difference$in$how$the$underlying$thought$of$project$stakeholder$management$is$embedded$ in$ organisations.$ The$ principal$ is$ usually$ dealing$ well$ with$ this$ topic,$ while$ not$ all$ contractors$ have$ figured$out$yet$how$to$deal$with$the$project$stakeholders$(Van$Dam$&$Sheerazi$in$Bijl$(2011)).$ $ Within$ the$ organisation$ of$ RWS$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ is$ one$ of$ the$ five$ roles$ within$the$integrated$project$management$(IPM)$model$(Rijkswaterstaat,$2011a).$The$IPM$model$is$a$ process$model,$in$which$five$different$work$processes$are$identified.$RWS$has$chosen$to$assign$the$ responsibility$ of$ IPM$ to$ five$ role$ holders,$ in$ order$ to$ create$ uniformity$ and$ a$ clear$ organisation$ structure.$ The$ IPM$ model$ was$ introduced$ in$ 2006$ for$ integrated$ project$ management$ in$ the$ execution$phase$and$later$on$this$model$was$also$used$in$the$plan$study$phase.$Besides$the$role$of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ the$ following$ four$ roles$ can$ be$ distinguished:$ project$ manager,$ manager$process$control,$contract$manager$and$technical$manager.$Figure$13$gives$an$overview$how$ the$different$roles$are$related$within$the$project$team$and$also$to$external$parties.$$ Figure#13:#Model#for#integrated#project#management,#adapted#from#Rijkswaterstaat#(2010)# $ Construction$ companies$ have$ all$ different$ approaches$ for$ dealing$ with$ project$ stakeholder$ management,$ so$ there$ is$ no$ general$ model$ in$ which$ there$ is$ a$ role$ for$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager.$ Management$ in$ the$ construction$ sector$ is$ project$ driven$ and$ the$ structure$ varies$ by$ 14"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ project.$ There$ is$ usually$ a$ project$ manager$ who$ controls$ the$ temporary$ project$ team,$ this$ team$ consists$of$employees$who$work$for$contracting$party.$Because$the$contractor$is$often$a$consortium,$ it$is$possible$that$these$employees$are$working$for$different$companies.$$ 3.1.5. International%review%project%stakeholder%management% The$ typical$ Dutch$ word$ ‘omgevingsmanagement’$ does$ not$ exist$ in$ other$ languages,$ however$ there$ are$a$lot$of$successful$construction$projects$abroad.$The$name$may$be$different,$but$strategic$dealing$ with$stakeholders$is$also$a$key$factor$in$large$European$infrastructure$projects$(Vieter,$2011).$Since$ there$is$no$specific$international$literature$on$the$topic$project$stakeholder$management$itself,$the$ focus$is$on$the$different$aspects$that$are$included$in$the$term.$International$projects$face$a$variety$of$ pressures$ from$ their$ uncertain$ and$ complex$ external$ stakeholder$ environment$ (Aaltonen,$ 2011).$ Heeres$et$al.$(2012)$showed$that$road$infrastructure$planning$requires$careful$consideration$of$the$ area$ surrounding$ the$ project.$ In$ construction$ projects$ many$ different$ and$ sometimes$ discrepant$ interests$ must$ be$ considered$ (Olander$ &$ Landin,$ 2005).$ In$ different$ countries$ public$ opposition$ caused$ by$ several$ factors$ has$ lead$ to$ project$ failures$ (ElRGohary,$ Osman,$ &$ ElRDiraby,$ 2006)$ and$ failing$ to$ manage$ the$ stakeholders$ will$ lead$ to$ project$ failure$ as$ well$ (Rwelamila,$ Fewings,$ &$ Henjewele,$2014).$The$main$challenge$for$the$executing$parties$is$to$prevent$public$marginalisation,$ which$can$lead$to$public$outcry.$$ $ Internationally$ the$ importance$ of$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ known.$ Management$ of$ project$ stakeholders$ and$ taking$ their$ needs$ and$ requirements$ into$ account$ is$ an$ essential$ element$ for$ project$success$(Olander$&$Landin,$2005).$Examples$can$be$found$all$over$the$world$among$others$in$ Australia,$Argentina,$the$United$Kingdom,$SouthRAfrica,$Canada,$the$United$States$of$America,$India$ and$ Greece$ (Rwelamila$ et$ al.,$ 2014).$ An$ example$ comes$ from$ the$ USA,$ where$ the$ Arizona$ Department$of$Transportation$has$set$up$public$relation$requirements$for$the$D&C$contractors.$The$ responses$from$the$contractors$were$evaluated$and$the$team$with$the$best$plan$on$how$to$deal$with$ public$relations$would$get$the$job.$The$contractor$can$stand$out$by$improving$the$relationship$with$ the$(external)$stakeholders$(Ernzen$&$Woods,$2001).$$$$ $ Corporate$ social$ responsibility$ (CSR)$ is$ increasingly$ adopted$ for$ representing$ a$ company’s$ environmental,$ social$ and$ economic$ performance$ (Myers,$ cited$ in$ Tan,$ Shen,$ and$ Yao$ (2011)).$ The$ Commission$for$the$European$Communities$(in$Tan$et$al.$(2011))$defines$CSR$as$“a#concept#whereby# companies# integrate# social# and# environmental# concerns# in# their# business# operations# and# in# their# interactions# with# their# stakeholders# on# a# voluntary# basis”.$ The$ client$ increases$ the$ requirements$ towards$contractors,$suppliers$and$business$consultants$to$adopt$sustainable$policies$in$construction$ projects.$ Sustainable$ construction$ refers$ to$ the$ integration$ of$ environmental,$ social$ and$ economic$ considerations$ into$ construction$ business$ strategies$ and$ practices.$ The$ international$ trend$ of$ promoting$ sustainable$ development$ is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ developments$ in$ the$ Netherlands$ and$ the$ transition$ from$ a$ lineRoriented$ approach$ towards$ an$ areaRoriented$ approach$ in$ the$ motorway$ planning$ (Heeres$ et$ al.,$ 2012).$ “The# integration# of# road# infrastructure# planning# and# further# spatial# planning#sectors#is#not#an#uniquely#Dutch#phenomenon,#at#strategic#policy#level#this#trend#can#also#be# observed#in#other#Western#countries”$(Heeres$et$al.,$2012).$However,$the$practical$implementation$of$ this$trend$is$strongly$dependent$on$the$context$of$the$individual$projects.$ $ 3.2. Legal"context" In$ the$ nineties,$ the$ Dutch$ government$ was$ not$ able$ to$ meet$ the$ requirements$ with$ regard$ to$ the$ improvement$ of$ the$ transport$ infrastructure.$ The$ public$ resources$ were$ not$ sufficient$ to$ fulfil$ the$ requirements.$In$order$to$realise$projects$that$would$improve$the$infrastructure,$the$public$principal$ needed$private$actors$to$finance$the$project.$Public$and$private$parties$had$to$work$together$to$come$ up$with$solutions$for$the$problems$(BultRSpiering$et$al.,$2005,$p.$11;$Ham$&$Koppenjan,$2002,$pp.$27R 28).$ Therefore$ the$ Dutch$ construction$ sector$ recently$ shifted$ from$ a$ traditional$ contract$ model$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"15" towards$ a$ soRcalled$ integrated$ contract$ model$ (Bruggeman,$ ChaoRDuivis,$ &$ Koning,$ 2010,$ pp.$ 35,$ 111).$ In$ the$ traditional$ contract$ model$ an$ architect$ and$ other$ consultants$ are$ hired$ to$ make$ the$ design$for$the$project,$later$a$contractor$is$selected$to$realise$the$project.$In$this$situation$the$client$ stays$responsible$for$the$design.$In$an$integrated$contract$the$role$of$the$client$is$much$more$limited,$ since$a$consortium$is$responsible$for$the$design$and$construction$of$the$project.$Figure$14$illustrates$ this.$ $ Figure#14:#Traditional#contracts#versus#integrated#contracts,#adapted#from#Bruggeman#et#al.#(2010)# Besides$ the$ trend$ to$ integrate$ contracts,$ there$ was$ dissatisfaction$ about$ the$ functioning$ of$ the$ construction$ sector$ in$ general.$ The$ sector$ was$ fragmented$ and$ shortRterm$ oriented,$ improving$ the$ sector$ should$ be$ done$ by$ integration$ of$ the$ process$ and$ more$ involvement$ of$ the$ market$ parties$ (Dorée,$ 2001).$ Therefore$ the$ Ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$ and$ Environment$ has$ commissioned$ two$ expert$ panels$ to$ conduct$ research$ into$ the$ efficiency$ and$ effectiveness$ in$ the$ planning$ process$ of$ LIPs.$ 3.2.1. New%policies% The$ Ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$ and$ Environment$ has$ formulated$ two$ new$ binding$ policies$ about$ involving$ private$ parties$ to$ improve$ the$ duration,$ costs$ and$ quality$ in$ the$ implementation$ of$ infrastructure$projects.$These$policies$are$based$on$the$advices$coming$from$the$studies$conducted$ by$ the$ committees$ Ruding$ and$ Elverding.$ The$ report$ ‘On# the# right# track’$ by$ the$ committee$ Ruding$ states$ that$ more$ private$ funding$ should$ be$ used$ for$ the$ realisation$ infrastructure$ projects$ (Commissie$ Private$ Financiering$ van$ Infrastructuur,$ 2008).$ This$ advice$ is$ the$ basis$ for$ the$ ‘Market,# unless…’#policy,$projects$should$be$financed$with$private$funding$if$this$creates$added$value.$In$case$ of$large$maintenance$and$construction$projects$a$D&C$contract$is$standard$and$if$the$investment$is$ above$ 60$ million$ euros$ the$ Public$ Private$ Comparator$ (PPC)$ will$ be$ used$ to$ decide$ which$ type$ of$ contract$ is$ chosen.$ The$ D&C$ contract$ will$ be$ compared$ to$ a$ Design,$ Build,$ Finance$ and$ Maintain$ (DBFM)$contract$and$the$contract$type$that$creates$the$most$added$value$will$be$chosen.$ $ The$other$policy$‘Faster#&#Better’$is$a$result$of$the$advice$by$the$committee$Elverding.$The$objective$ of$ this$ advice$ is$ to$ accelerate$ the$ decision$ making$ process$ for$ infrastructure$ projects$ (Commissie$ Versnelling$ Besluitvorming$ Infrastructurele$ Projecten,$ 2008).$ The$ report$ states$ that$ market$ parties$ should$be$involved$in$all$stages$of$the$project,$in$order$to$benefit$from$their$expertise$and$creativity.$ The$ general$ advice$ coming$ from$ this$ report$ is$ to$ involve$ stakeholders$ and$ contractors$ early$ in$ the$ project,$ because$ it$ will$ ensure$ a$ smoother$ progress.$ Both$ policies$ are$ designed$ by$ the$ Ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$and$Environment$and$implemented$by$the$department$of$public$works,$better$known$ as$RWS.$ $ In$addition,$in$the$last$decade$the$influence$of$European$and$domestic$regulations$on$the$execution$ of$LIPs$has$further$increased.$The$Dutch$legislation$regarding$environmental$requirements$is$a$result$ of$ International$ protocols$ and$ European$ legislation.$ Examples$ are$ habitat$ legislation,$ fauna$ legislation,$rules$for$compensation,$rules$for$air$quality$and$the$MaltaRtreaty$concerning$archaeology$ (Hertogh$ &$ Westerveld,$ 2010).$ These$ requirements$ are$ the$ consequence$ of$ a$ generally$ increased$ environmental$awareness,$but$this$makes$the$development$of$infrastructure$more$difficult.$ 16"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 3.2.2. Planning%process% The$ planning$ process$ for$ LIPs$ distinguishes$ three$ main$ stages:$ the$ exploration,$ plan$ study$ and$ realisation$ stage$ (see$Figure$15).$$Each$stage$is$linked$to$a$decision$that$is$ the$ basis$ for$ the$ next$ stage,$ it$ includes$ decisions$ about$ the$ progress,$ management$ and$ budget$ of$ the$ project$ (Peletier$&$Post,$2009).$In$general,$the$procedures$in$the$ various$ stages$ are$ carried$ out$ sequentially$ (Arts$ &$ Sandee,$ 2005).$ However$ there$ is$ currently$ a$ trend$ to$ integrate$the$plan$study$and$realisation$stage,$in$that$case$ the$ market$ parties$ will$ be$ involved$ in$ the$ project$ before$ the$ project$ decision$ is$ definitive.$ The$ tender$ procedure$ will$ run$ parallel$ to$ or$ will$ be$ interwoven$ with$ the$ procedure$ to$ come$ to$ the$ project$ decision$ (Arts$ &$ Sandee,$ 2005).$ The$ most$ important$ reasons$ to$ involve$ the$ market$ parties$ at$ an$ earlier$ stage$ are$ time$ savings,$ room$for$creativity$and$financial$security$(Sandee,$2009).$ An$ innovative$ design$ is$ only$ possible$ before$ all$ project$ boundaries$ are$ set$ down$ in$ the$ project$ decision.$ Therefore,$early$involvement$of$market$parties$and$their$ creativity$is$needed$to$deal$with$the$complexity$of$today’s$ projects.$This$trend$is$a$result$from$the$policies$based$on$ the$advices$of$the$Elverding$and$Ruding$committee.$ Figure#15:#Planning#process,#adapted# from#Lenferink#(2013)# 3.2.3. Integrated%contracts% Different$ governmental$ projects$ make$ use$ of$ integrated$ contracts$ in$ which$ a$ private$ party$ is$ contracted$ by$ a$ public$ party$ to$ execute$ the$ project.$ This$ form$ of$ collaboration$ is$ referred$ to$ as$ a$ public$ private$ partnership$ (PPP),$ an$ interRorganisational$ collaboration$ for$ a$ temporary$ project$ with$ agreements$ about$ the$ costs$ and$ risk$ division$ (BultRSpiering$ et$ al.,$ 2005,$ pp.$ 20R33).$ In$ literature$ different$ forms$ of$ PPP$ can$ be$ found,$ examples$ are$ outsourcing,$ franchising,$ corporatization,$ joint$ venture,$BOOT$(build,$own,$operate$and$transfer)$or$DBFO$(design,$build,$finance,$operate)$contracts$ (Delmon,$ 2011,$ pp.$ 7R12).$ The$ Dutch$ literature$ has$ reduced$ those$ different$ forms$ to$ just$ two$ main$ forms,$ the$ concession$ and$ the$ alliance$ model$ (BultRSpiering$ et$ al.,$ 2005,$ p.$ 55;$ Ham$ &$ Koppenjan,$ 2002,$pp.$23R27).$In$the$concession$model$the$control$is$mainly$in$the$hands$of$the$public$“partner”$ and$ the$ hierarchical$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ remains$ the$ same.$ The$ contract$ between$the$two$becomes$more$integrated,$but$it$is$definitely$not$an$equal$partnership.$In$case$of$ the$alliance$model$a$new$joint$venture$will$be$founded$and$the$partners$have$a$shared$responsibility$ to$ achieve$ the$ goals$ of$ the$ project.$ In$ The$ Netherlands$ the$ concession$ model$ is$ dominant$ in$ the$ infrastructure$sector$(Eversdijk$&$Korsten,$2007).$As$elaborated$on$in$paragraph$3.2.1$integrated$D&C$ and$DBFM$contracts$are$most$used$in$case$of$LIPs$in$The$Netherlands.$Although$a$DBFM$contract$is$in$ the$ Netherlands$ seen$ as$ a$ form$ of$ PPP,$ it$ is$ not$ a$ real$ partnership.$ A$ partnership$ only$ exists$ if$ the$ collaboration$has$the$form$of$the$alliance$model$(Ham$&$Koppenjan,$2002,$p.$25).$With$a$DBFM$or$ D&C$ contract$ the$ relation$ between$ the$ public$ and$ private$ party$ has$ still$ the$ traditional$ form$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ only$ the$ tasks$ of$ the$ contractors$ are$ broadened$ because$ tasks$ of$ the$ principal$are$outsourced$to$the$contractor.$$ $ In$case$of$a$DBFM$contract$the$contractor,$often$a$consortium,$is$responsible$for$the$whole$project.$ So$after$designing,$building$and$financing$the$project,$the$consortium$is$depending$on$the$duration$of$ the$contract$for$20$or$30$years$responsible$for$the$maintenance$of$the$project.$Instead$of$buying$a$ product$as$in$the$past$(for$example$a$road$with$2$x$2$lanes),$RWS$is$now$purchasing$a$service$(a$road$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"17" that$ is$ available)$ (Rijkswaterstaat,$ 2014b).$ The$ risks$ and$ responsibilities$ are$ arranged$ to$ the$ party$ that$is$best$able$to$manage$and$bear$them.$ $ The$other$type$of$contract$often$used$by$RWS$is$a$D&C$contract,$where$the$contractor$is$responsible$ for$ the$ design$ of$ the$ infrastructure$ and$ the$ construction$ of$ it$ (Rijkswaterstaat,$ 2014c).$ A$ D&C$ contract$ is$ an$ integrated$ contract$ form,$ but$ is$ not$ a$ form$ of$ PPP.$ To$ identify$ the$ most$ attractive$ contract$for$the$execution$of$a$project,$the$PPC$is$used.$This$instrument$makes$a$financial$comparison$ between$ the$ most$ obvious$ variant$ (a$ D&C$ contract,$ with$ separate$ contracts$ for$ the$ maintenance)$ and$a$public$private$execution$of$the$project$with$a$DBFM$contract$(Rijkswaterstaat,$2014a).$With$a$ D&C$contract$RWS$uses$standardized$purchase$documents,$examples$are$the$tender$document$and$ the$contract.$This$is$not$only$efficient$for$RWS,$but$also$for$the$market$parties.$Because$they$get$to$ know$the$RWS$contracts$better$and$are$therefore$better$able$to$anticipate$on$the$wishes$of$RWS.$A$ standard$ D&C$ contract$ is$ based$ on$ the$ legal$ and$ administrative$ conditions$ of$ UAVRGC$ 2005$ (Rijkswaterstaat,$2014c).$ 3.2.4. International%point%of%view% The$wish$for$changes$in$the$construction$sector$does$exist$in$other$countries$as$well.$In$the$United$ Kingdom$ the$ report$ ‘Rethinking# Construction’$ by$ Egan$ (in$ Dorée$ (2001))$ argues$ for$ radical$ improvements$ and$ changes$ in$ the$ construction$ sector.$ Clegg,$ Pitsis,$ RuraRPolley,$ and$ Marosszeky$ (2002)$ describe$ the$ realisation$ of$ construction$ projects$ as$ a$ fragmented$ process$ that$ poses$ difficulties$in$terms$of$controlling$the$project$outcome.$In$order$to$overcome$these$limitations,$D&C$ was$ introduced$ to$ create$ a$ single$ point$ of$ responsibility$ between$ client$ and$ contractor.$ The$ trend$ ‘use$of$partnering$in$construction’$has$a$growing$interest$internationally$as$well$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$ 2000a).$Partnering$and$related$forms$of$collaboration$have$been$seen$as$a$way$of$dealing$with$the$ fragmentation$and$lack$of$integration$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b).$This$is$in$line$with$the$new$focus$ created$ by$ the$ European$ Union$ on$ private$ sector$ involvement$ (PSI)$ to$ “assist# the# government# in# meeting# its# priorities,# building# in# the# clear# recognition# that# public# funds# are# limited”.$ PSI$ has$ two$ forms:$outsourcing$and$a$PPP$(Tang,$Shen,$&$Cheng,$2010).$$ $ 3.3. Organisational"context" The$ increased$ use$ of$ integrated$ contracts$ means$ that$ most$ LIPs$ in$ The$ Netherlands$ are$ executed$ with$ a$ DBFM$ or$ D&C$ contract.$ Since$ the$ term$ partnership$ is$ not$ applicable$ in$ most$ cases$ in$ The$ Netherlands,$ the$ term$ ‘collaboration’$ is$ used$ as$ the$ more$ generic$ indication$ of$ collaborative$ arrangements$ between$ clients$ and$ contractors.$ Collaboration$ was$ already$ defined$ in$ chapter$ 2$ as$ “an# evolving# process# whereby# two# or# more# social# entities# actively# and# reciprocally# engage# in# joint# activities#aimed#at#achieving#at#least#one#shared#goal”$(Bedwell$et$al.,$2012).$Based$on$the$existing$ literature,$ this$ section$ will$ elaborate$ on$ the$ organisational$ context$ in$ which$ the$ collaboration$ between$public$and$private$parties$takes$place.$ 3.3.1. Changes%in%organisations% RWS$is$the$public$principal$in$most$of$the$LIPs$in$the$Netherlands.$The$changes$in$the$construction$ sector$ caused$ by$ the$ increased$ public$ participation$ and$ new$ policies$ have$ caused$ changes$ in$ the$ structure$of$RWS$as$well.$RWS$is$stepping$back$as$the$executing$party$of$construction$projects$and$is$ focusing$on$a$more$strategic$and$coordinating$role$as$asset$owner.$An$extensive$part$of$the$tasks$and$ executive$ responsibilities$ is$ outsourced$ to$ private$ contractors$ (Rijkswaterstaat,$ 2004),$ this$ is$ in$ line$ with$the$advice$of$the$Ruding$committee.$The$corporate$culture$of$RWS$is$also$changing,$a$technical$ culture$ gives$ little$ to$ no$ room$ for$ dealing$ with$ problem$ perceptions$ of$ the$ citizens$ and$ local$ governments$ (Peletier$ &$ Post,$ 2009).$ Therefore,$ RWS$ transformed$ from$ a$ hierarchical,$ closed$ and$ inwardRoriented$ organisation$ with$ a$ technical$ corporate$ culture$ towards$ a$ more$ transparent$ and$ publicRoriented$facilitator$(Lenferink,$Arts,$&$Tillema,$2011).$$$ $ 18"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ The$ construction$ sector$ is$ changing$ from$ a$ traditional$ supply$ driven$ market$ to$ a$ demand$ driven$ market$ (Renda,$ 2012;$ Stolk,$ 2014).$ This$ tilting$ of$ the$ market$ causes$ changes$ in$ terms$ of$ responsibility,$quality$and$collaboration.$For$most$construction$companies$collaboration$is$necessary$ in$order$to$construct$LIPs.$Because$of$the$increased$scope$of$the$projects$one$construction$company$ is$ not$ able$ to$ bear$ the$ risks$ anymore$ and$ has$ to$ collaborate$ with$ other$ companies.$ Via$ a$ tender$ procedure$ most$ construction$ projects$ are$ awarded$ to$ a$ consortium$ in$ which$ different$ contractors$ are$ joining$ forces$ and$ work$ together.$ The$ public$ party$ relies$ on$ collaboration$ with$ these$ private$ contracting$parties$because$the$public$party$does$not$have$the$financial$resources$to$construct$LIPs$ (BultRSpiering$et$al.,$2005,$p.$11).$As$a$consequence$of$this$the$relationship$between$the$two$parties$ changes.$The$public$party$is$focusing$on$its$core$competences$and$leaves$the$policy$implementation$ to$the$private$parties.$This$makes$the$boundaries$between$public$and$private$more$vague.$$ 3.3.2. Differences%between%public%and%private%parties% Fundamental$ differences$ in$ interests$ between$ clients,$ contractors$ and$ others$ are$ endemic$ and$ almost$a$defining$characteristic$of$the$construction$sector$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b).$Relationships$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ in$ construction$ projects$ are$ often$ adversarial.$ This$ applies$ to$ relationships$governed$by$a$traditional$contract,$but$also$in$case$of$a$more$modern$contract$form$like$ a$D&C$contract$(Laan,$Noorderhaven,$Voordijk,$&$Dewulf,$2011).$There$are$fundamental$differences$ between$ the$ public$ and$ private$ sector.$ They$ differ$ in$ several$ areas,$ both$ have$ different$ interests,$ goals$and$a$different$structure$(Smit$&$Thiel,$2002).$The$theory$of$Jacobs$is$frequently$used$to$show$ that$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ are$ fundamentally$ different$ from$ each$ other$ (Ham$ &$ Koppenjan,$ 2002;$Smit$&$Thiel,$2002).$The$public$and$the$private$domain$are$fundamentally$incompatible$ethical$ systems,$mainly$characterised$by$the$different$values$of$both$domains.$These$different$value$systems$ cannot$ be$ mixed$ with$ each$ other$ and$ are$ actually$ mutually$ exclusive.$ Overmeeren$ (2012)$ gives$ an$ example$of$the$different$interests$of$public$and$private$parties.$Both$have$a$financial$interest,$but$the$ public$ party$ also$ has$ a$ social$ interest.$ In$ all$ phases$ of$ the$ project,$ the$ private$ party$ acts$ from$ commercial$interests$and$the$social$interest$is$one$of$the$latest$concerns.$This$will$not$give$problems$ as$long$as$the$project$runs$smoothly,$but$in$case$problems$need$to$be$solved$those$different$interests$ will$ probably$ cause$ difficulties$ in$ finding$ an$ acceptable$ solutions$ for$ both$ parties.$ Besides$ the$ different$ values$ of$ public$ and$ private$ sector$ organisations,$ there$ are$ also$ a$ lot$ of$ values$ that$ are$ crucial$in$both$sectors$(Wal,$Graaf,$&$Lasthuizen,$2008).$So$instead$of$a$focus$on$the$differences,$the$ similarities$can$be$used$as$starting$point.$$ 3.3.3. Technical%aspects%of%collaboration% A$contract,$regardless$its$type,$is$a$division$of$the$risks.$This$means$that$the$risks$are$coupled$to$one$ of$ both$ contract$ partners.$ Collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ requires$ that$ the$ risks$ are$assigned$to$the$contractual$party$that$is$best$able$to$mitigate$them$or$to$bear$them$(Marques$&$ Berg,$2011).$The$allocation$of$risks$to$the$private$party$tends$to$increase$the$price$of$the$project,$so$it$ is$ essential$ to$ ensure$ that$ the$ public$ benefit$ of$ such$ transfers$ outweighs$ any$ increase$ in$ financial$ costs$associated$with$risk$bearing$(Quiggin,$2004).$The$contractor$wants$to$secure$the$costs$of$risks$ and$ uncertainties,$ so$ those$ costs$ are$ passed$ on$ in$ the$ cost$ estimation$ to$ the$ client.$ This$ causes$ unnecessary$high$project$costs.$Kolk$(2012)$describes$this$as$“the#risk#of#avoiding#risks”.$$ $ The$ major$ public$ principals$ (like$ RWS$ and$ ProRail)$ have$ elevated$ integrated$ contracts$ to$ the$ standard.$This$has$implications$for$the$division$of$roles$and$related$responsibilities$between$principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ reason$ for$ the$ rise$ of$ these$ integrated$ contracts$ is$ that$ both$ parties$ have$ different$advantages$compared$to$the$traditional$contracts$(Veen$&$Dijk,$2007).$ $ Currently$public$and$private$parties$have$some$experience$with$the$interpretation$of$their$new$roles.$ There$ are$ drivers$ for$ change$ in$ the$ construction$ sector,$ however$ it$ is$ not$ too$ difficult$ to$ see$ that$ there$are$other$points$that$represent$major$barriers$to$change$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b).$LargeR scale$projects$are$constituted$by$contract.$Typically,$these$contracts$are$predicated$on$a$climate$of$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"19" mistrust$so$contracts$are$written$as$watertight$as$possible.$Contractual$enforcement$is$held$in$place$ by$ governance$ mechanisms$ that$ involve$ high$ degrees$ of$ work$ surveillance$ to$ check$ that$ it$ is$ completed$ in$ accordance$ with$ the$ contract$ (Clegg$ et$ al.,$ 2002).$ The$ formal$ contract$ is$ one$ of$ the$ dimensions$ of$ an$ exchange$ relationship,$ the$ other$ dimension$ is$ the$ actual$ interaction$ that$ takes$ place$ (Dewulf$ &$ Kadefors,$ 2012).$ Formal$ contracts$ are$ imperative,$ but$ not$ only$ because$ of$ their$ effect$ on$ risk$ allocation.$ Other$ important$ aspects$ of$ contracts$ are$ enhance$ perceived$ risk$ sharing,$ entail$cost$transparency$and$introduce$new$arenas$for$communication.$ $ The$principal$typically$chooses$the$type$and$scope$of$a$contract.$Generally,$a$contract$specifies$roles,$ responsibilities,$remuneration$scheme,$payment$terms$and$phases,$incentive$scheme,$distribution$of$ risk$and$dispute$resolution$and$conflict$settlement.$The$research$of$Suprapto$et$al.$(in$press)$showed$ that$ the$ contract$ is$ an$ absolute$ necessity$ in$ business$ and$ commercial$ sense$ but$ not$ an$ effective$ instrument$for$managing$the$working$relationship.$It$is$only$relevant$to$the$working$relationship$to$ set$ the$ performance$ target$ and$ to$ structure$ the$ clarity$ of$ roles$ and$ responsibilities$ among$ parties.$ The$ research$ suggests$ that$ the$ working$ relationship$ cannot$ be$ fully$ prescribed$ by$ contract.$ This$ suggests$ that$ contract$ or$ contractual$ arrangements$ were$ perceived$ to$ be$ relatively$ less$ important$ than$ other$ aspects$ in$ ‘governing’$ the$ relationship$ especially$ during$ realisation$ and$ when$ external$ conditions$ changes.$ However,$ this$ does$ not$ eliminate$ the$ need$ for$ appropriate$ contractual$ arrangements.$ An$ appropriate$ contract$ is$ necessary,$ but$ is$ not$ sufficient$ to$ ensure$ an$ effective$ working$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ reason$ for$ this$ is$ that$ contracts$ are$ designed$to$avoid$initial$ambiguity$but$are$limited$in$guiding$the$parties$to$interpret$problems$that$ emerge$later.$ 3.3.4. Social%aspects%of%collaboration% Besides$the$fact$that$collaboration$is$needed$for$both$public$and$private$parties$as$elaborated$on$in$ chapter$1,$research$has$recognized$that$relations$between$client$and$contractor$play$a$significant$role$ in$ successful$ project$ implementation.$ It$ suggested$ that$ performance$ in$ terms$ of$ cost,$ time,$ quality$ and$ a$ whole$ range$ of$ other$ criteria,$ could$ be$ dramatically$ improved$ if$ participants$ adopt$ more$ collaborative$ ways$ of$ working.$ A$ lot$ of$ attention$ is$ paid$ to$ the$ examination$ of$ conditions$ to$ encourage$collaboration$between$clients$and$their$contractors$ (Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b).$ Public$ construction$ projects$ are$ more$ procured$ and$ managed$ with$ explicit$ intentions$ to$ establish$ closer$ collaboration$between$partners$(Dewulf$&$Kadefors,$2012).$The$interests$of$the$parties$collaborating$ might$ be$ quite$ different.$ However,$ the$ objective$ of$ private$ companies$ has$ become$ increasingly$ aligned$with$public$policy$objective,$whilst$still$operating$commercially.$Bresnen$and$Marshall$(2002)$ highlight$that$current$practices$of$collaboration$in$projects$might$put$too$much$emphasis$on$formal$ mechanisms$ (such$ as$ contracts,$ tools$ and$ techniques).$ Such$ formalisation$ often$ underplays$ the$ important$ social$ dimensions$ of$ collaboration$ in$ practice$ and$ the$ dynamics$ of$ relationships$ among$ different$individuals$within$an$organisation$and$between$different$organisations.$ $ It$ is$ difficult$ to$ define$ this$ softer$ side$ of$ collaboration,$ because$ it$ is$ about$ people$ and$ designing$ relations$between$them.$Features$like$commitment,$communication$and$trust$are$important$in$the$ relation$between$principal$and$contractor,$since$no$contract$can$account$for$every$issue$that$might$ arise.$ The$ different$ goals$ and$ objectives$ of$ the$ partners$ might$ lead$ to$ conflicts$ and$ distrust.$ These$ differences$have$to$be$overcome$in$order$to$continue$with$the$project.$It$is$about$finding$a$balance$ between$ the$ hard,$ technical$ framework$ and$ maintaining$ the$ relations$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$(Figure$17).$A$technical$framework$can$be$the$same$for$different$projects,$but$the$outcome$of$ the$ project$ can$ vary$ enormously.$ This$ is$ because$ the$ implementation$ of$ the$ framework$ is$ project$ dependent$and$the$circumstances$in$each$project$are$different.$The$framework$can$be$that$good,$if$ however$the$implementation$of$it$is$not$there$is$still$a$large$change$of$project$failure.$$ 20"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ $ Figure#17:#Finding#the#balance#between#the#hard#and#soft#side#of#collaboration,#adapted#from#Reinking#(2013)# In$general$there$is$still$a$lot$of$distrust$between$both$parties,$therefore$openness$and$transparency$is$ needed$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration.$ Stimulating$ collaboration$ and$ improve$ the$ soft$ side$ of$ management$should$lead$to$savings$in$time$and$a$decrease$in$the$failure$costs.$In$this$way$the$soft$ side$ becomes$ hard$ in$ a$ certain$ way$ (Reinking,$ 2013).$ According$ to$ research$ on$ trust,$ it$ is$ essential$ that$ parties$ have$ the$ opportunity$ to$ show$ that$ they$ are$ trustworthy$ and$ collaboration$ could$ therefore$ not$ be$ based$ on$ contracts$ alone$ (Dewulf$ &$ Kadefors,$ 2012).$ Also$ Bresnen$ and$ Marshall$ (2000b)$ stated$ that$ relying$ on$ formal$ contracts$ alone$ is$ not$ seen$ as$ sufficient$ to$ promote$ collaboration.$It$is$much$too$simple$to$presume$that$understanding$the$working$of$the$technical$side$ of$collaboration$(contracts,$partnering$schemes,$pricing$formulae,$etc.)$and$the$application$of$these$ tools$and$techniques$is$all$that$is$needed.$Creating$a$collaborative$relationship$should$be$focused$on$ people$ and$ their$ relationships$ in$ addition$ to$ contractual$ arrangement$ and$ the$ practice$ (Suprapto,$ Mooi,$&$Bakker,$2012).$Management$of$relationship$and$trust$building$is$needed$to$engage$people$ from$different$management$levels,$from$and$within$the$contracting$parties.$$ 3.3.5. Important%criteria%for%good%collaboration% A$lot$of$researchers$have$investigated$what$is$important$within$collaboration.$Chan$et$al.$(2004)$for$ example$ have$ identified$ seven$ critical$ success$ factors$ for$ partnering$ projects$ based$ on$ survey$ research,$ interviews$ and$ case$ studies.$ A$ more$ recent$ research$ is$ the$ one$ of$ Cheung$ et$ al.$ (2009),$ which$shows$drivers$that$motivate$cooperation$but$also$elaborates$on$aggressive$drivers$that$have$a$ negative$influence$on$cooperative$behaviour.$These$drivers$are$identified$through$a$comprehensive$ literature$ review.$ Another$ theory$ is$ the$ research$ of$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011),$ eight$ key$ relationship$ indicators$ are$ identified$ with$ the$ use$ of$ three$ research$ methods:$ literature$ review,$ expert$ group$ discussion,$and$questionnaire$survey.$$$ $ Chan"et"al."(2004)" Adequate$resources$ Support$from$top$management$ Cheung"et"al."(2009)" Openness$of$contracting$parties$ Good$ relationships$ among$ contracting$parties$ Mutual$trust$ Contract$completeness$ LongRterm$commitment$ Good$teamwork$ Effective$communication$ Incentive$ to$ risk$ sharing$ and$ problem$solving$ Efficient$coordination$ Effective$communication$ Productive$conflict$resolution$ Desire$to$maintain$relationship$ $ $ Table#1:#Factors#influencing#collaboration# Meng"et"al."(2011)" Procurement$ Objectives$ Trust$ Collaboration$ Communication$ Problem$solving$ Risk$allocation$ Continuous$improvement$ In$ addition$ to$ the$ mentioned$ researches$ above,$ the$ research$ of$ Gajendran$ and$ Brewer$ (2012)$ is$ interesting,$because$it$provides$an$additional$perspective$towards$collaboration$which$is$not$included$ in$ the$ other$ researches.$ Gajendran$ and$ Brewer$ (2012)$ include$ factors$ regarding$ the$ attitudes$ and$ competences$of$the$team$members,$which$are$underexposed$in$the$other$researches.$The$identified$ dimensions$that$foster$collaboration$are$the$result$of$a$literature$review.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"21" $Gajendran"and"Brewer"(2012)" Shared$direction$ Collective$action$ Competence$of$the$members$ Power$distribution$and$equality$ Trust$ Communication$ Table#2:#Dimensions#that#foster#collaboration# In$ this$ paragraph$ some$ theories$ with$ factors$ that$ influence$ collaboration$ have$ been$ discussed.$ In$ order$to$organise$all$the$collected$information$and$identify$the$most$important$factors,$an$overview$ is$made$with$differences$and$similarities$between$the$theories.$The$identified$factors$in$the$theories$ are$clustered$to$look$for$similarities$within$the$theories.$A$complete$overview$of$the$comparison$of$ all$theories$can$be$found$in$Appendix$A.$It$includes$an$overview$of$the$original$aspects$as$found$in$the$ different$studies,$together$with$an$explanation$about$why$some$factors$are$left$out$of$the$research.$$$$$ $ Figure$ 18$ shows$ the$ outcome$ of$ the$ categorisation$ process$ based$ on$ the$ reviewed$ literature$ on$ collaboration.$After$clustering$the$different$factors$from$all$literature$sources,$six$main$criteria$can$be$ distinguished.$These$are$given$headings,$which$cover$the$content$of$the$category.$ Figure#18:#Categorisation#of#aspects#(own#ill.)# $ 3.3.6. Collaborative%relationships% It$ has$ been$ argued$ that$ traditional$ contracts$ do$ not$ support$ effective$collaboration$ in$ construction$ projects$ (Kadefors$ in$ Osipova$ and$ Eriksson$ (2011)).$ It$ is$ often$ assumed$ that$ more$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ will$ improve$ the$ performance$ of$ construction$ projects,$ several$ studies$showed$that$these$types$of$partnering$arrangements$can$create$more$cooperative,$trusting$ relationships.$Cheung$et$al.$(2009)$suggest$that$contracting$parties$can$either$behave$adversarial$or$ collaborative.$ It$ is$ clear$ that$ an$ adversarial$ relationship$ is$ undesirable,$ while$ a$ collaborative$ relationship$ is$ desirable.$ Suprapto$ et$ al.$ (in$ press)$ define$ the$ principalRcontractor$ collaborative$ relationship$ in$ a$ project$ as$ “the# behavioural# interaction# between# owner# and# contractor# working# together#for#the#purpose#of#achieving#specific#project#and#business#objective#by#effective#utilisation#of# each# party’s# specific# resources# and# capabilities# based# on# shared# values# and# norms”.$ However,$ the$ public$ sector$ cannot$ be$ seen$ to$ have$ close$ relationships$ with$ private$ parties$ as$ it$ may$ imply$ cronyism.$ So$ the$ public$ procurement$ regulations$ put$ restrictions$ on$ the$ interaction$ between$ the$ 22"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ principal$and$contractor$and,$thereby,$on$many$processes$that$are$generally$considered$essential$to$ establish$trust$and$collaboration$(Dewulf$&$Kadefors,$2012).$Due$to$the$open$tender$procedures$the$ public$ princpal$ cannot$ guarantee$ collaboration$ in$ multiple$ projects$ with$ private$ partners.$ This$ decreased$the$incentive$to$collaborate$for$the$contractor$(Dorée,$2001;$Ning,$2014).$ $ Literature$illustrates$that$the$relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$can$have$various$forms.$ In$ the$ research$ of$Cheung$ et$ al.$ (2009)$ respondents$ were$ asked$ to$ select$ the$ description$ that$ best$ reflects$their$contracting$behaviour$in$completed$construction$projects.$This$has$resulted$in$a$scale$ model$ with$ five$ levels$ that$ illustrates$ the$ degree$ of$ cooperative$ behaviour.$ The$ levels$ that$ can$ be$ distinguished$are$attack,$confront,$neutral,$accommodate$and$cooperate$(Figure$19).$ $ Figure#19:#The#measurement#scale#of#degree#of#aggressiveness/cooperativeness#(Cheung#et#al.,#2009)# Other$ studies$ on$ collaborative$ relationships$ often$ use$ four$ types$ that$ illustrate$ the$ level$ of$ a$ relationship$ (Ellison$ &$ Miller,$ 1995;$ Humphreys,$ Matthews,$ &$ Kumaraswamy,$ 2003;$ Meng$ et$ al.,$ 2011;$ Saad,$ Jones,$ &$ James,$ 2002).$ An$ overview$ of$ the$ four$ relationships$ as$ distinguished$ by$ the$ different$ authors$ can$ be$ found$ in$ Appendix$ B.$ For$ this$ research$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$ work$ with$ the$ following$ four$ types$ of$ relationships$ that$ can$ be$ recognised$ in$ the$ construction$ sector:$ contractual$ relationship,$collaborative$relationship,$project$partnering$and$strategic$partnering.$This$is$illustrated$ in$Figure$20.$$ Figure#20:#Type#of#relationships#(own#ill.)# $ The$ first$ type$ of$ relationship$ is$ a$ contractual$ relationship.$ This$ relationship$ is$ well$ known$ in$ the$ construction$ sector,$ because$ it$ is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ traditional$ culture$ based$ on$ adversarial$ relationships.$In$these$relationships$everything$is$determined$in$and$based$on$the$contract,$there$is$ price$ competition$ and$ each$ party$ has$ individual$ and$ often$ contradicting$ goals.$ The$ second$ type$ of$ relationship$ is$ a$ basic$ and$ collaborative$ relationship.$ In$ order$ to$ establish$ this$ relationship$ it$ is$ required$that$there$is$trust$between$parties$and$that$parties$communicate$with$each$other$in$order$ to$facilitate$solutions.$Together$these$parties$try$to$realise$the$project$as$best$as$they$can.$The$third$ type$of$relationship$is$project$partnering.$In$this$relationship$parties$in$a$particular$project$work$with$ an$integrated$team$and$want$to$achieve$common$goals.$In$this$type$of$relationship$a$high$degree$of$ trust$is$required.$The$fourth$type$of$relationship$is$a$strategic$partnership$or$alliancing.$This$type$of$ relationship$ requires$ the$ commitment$ of$ parties$ that$ is$ beyond$ the$ success$ of$ a$ particular$ project.$ Parties$anticipate$on$working$together$for$a$longer$term$and$complete$trust$is$required.$ $ There$ are$ opportunities$ to$ develop$ collaborative$ relationships.$ The$ willingness$ to$ collaborate$ is$ essential$for$the$success$of$a$project$(Dorée,$2001).$Partnering$can$have$a$substantial$positive$impact$ on$ project$ performance,$ not$ only$ with$ regard$ to$ time,$ cost$ and$ quality$ objectives,$ but$ also$ with$ regard$ to$ more$ general$ outcomes$ such$ as$ greater$ innovation$ and$ improved$ user$ satisfaction$ (Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000a).$In$literature$there$is$a$tendency$to$focus$on$success$stories.$Although$ there$ are$ fewer$ indications$ of$ failure$ projects,$ these$ are$ not$ absent$ (Bresnen$ &$ Marshall,$ 2000b;$ Laan$et$al.,$2011).$There$is$a$high$degree$of$professionalism$and$very$good$knowledge$of$the$project$ needed$on$the$side$of$the$principal$and$the$contractor$to$obtain$the$benefits$of$partnering$(Osipova$ &$ Eriksson,$ 2011).$ Moreover$ people$ should$ bear$ in$ mind$ that$ more$ collaboration$ between$ the$ contractual$ partners$ does$ not$ necessarily$ lead$ to$ effective$ outcomes,$ in$ the$ same$ way$ that$ using$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"23" traditional$forms$of$contract$does$not$necessarily$result$in$poor$performance$or$conflicts$(Bresnen$&$ Marshall,$2000b).$Collaboration$is$believed$to$have$the$potential$to$produce$great$results,$but$not$all$ collaboration$initiatives$realise$this$potential$(Gajendran$&$Brewer,$2012).$$ $ 3.4. "Social"context" Successful$ completion$ of$ construction$ projects$ is$ dependent$ on$ meeting$ the$ expectations$ of$ stakeholders.$The$failure$to$project$management$teams$to$address$the$concerns$of$stakeholders$has$ resulted$ in$ countless$ project$ failures,$ primarily$ because$ stakeholders$ have$ the$ resources$ and$ capability$ to$ stop$ construction$ projects$ (Atkin$ &$ Skitmore,$ 2008).$ Initiatives$ to$ encourage$ and$ stimulate$the$involvement$of$citizens$but$also$various$social$organisations$in$decision$making$can$be$ seen$in$a$wide$variety$of$European$countries$(Edelenbos$&$Klijn,$2006).$$ 3.4.1. Public%participation% The$ form$ of$ public$ participation$ has$ changed$ over$ the$ last$ decades.$ Citizens$ demanded$ a$ greater$ voice$ in$ the$ decision$ making$ process.$ The$ formal$ public$ participation$ procedures$ with$ no$ binding$ consequences$ for$ the$ government$ did$ not$ give$ the$ citizens$ the$ involvement$ in$ the$ process$ they$ wanted.$This$caused$a$shift$from$‘government’$to$‘governance’$(Kooiman,$1993,$pp.$1R9).$The$form$of$ government$is$changing$from$a$hierarchical,$top$down$approach$towards$a$less$formalized,$bottomR up$ form$ of$ governance.$ Citizens,$ social$ organisations,$ enterprises$ and$ other$ stakeholders$ are$ involved$at$an$early$stage$of$public$policy$making.$This$trend$is$also$known$as$interactive$governance$ (Edelenbos,$ 1999).$ Today’s$ society$ wants$ to$ be$ involved$ in$ the$ project,$ the$ extent$ to$ which$ the$ parties$can$influence$the$decision$making$process$can$be$displayed$with$a$participation$ladder.$The$ original$ladder$of$citizen$participation$was$created$by$Arnstein$(1969)$and$has$been$adapted$by$many$ since$ then.$ Edelenbos$ and$ Monnikhof$ (2001)$ adapted$ this$ model$ to$ the$ situation$ of$ citizen$ participation$ in$ The$ Netherlands$ and$ distinguish$ five$ levels$ of$ participation.$ The$ higher$ up$ on$ the$ ladder$ the$ greater$ the$ influence$ of$ the$ stakeholder.$ Figure$ 21$ shows$ the$ location$ of$ interactive$ decision$making$on$the$participation$ladder,$between$advising$and$coRproducing$(Edelenbos,$2001).$It$ gives$the$stakeholders$the$opportunity$to$express$opinions$and$to$contribute$to$the$decision$making$ process,$but$it$hardly$gives$them$any$influence$on$the$decision$itself$(Otto,$2007).$ Figure#21:#Location#of#interactive#decision#making#(own#ill.)# $ 3.4.2. Stakeholder%management% Over$time$the$stakeholders$have$acquired$more$rights$in$legislation$and$they$use$the$possibilities$of$ appeal$ (Peletier$ &$ Post,$ 2009).$ Public$ opposition$ due$ to$ various$ factors$ has$ been$ reported$ as$ the$ main$reason$for$project$failure$(ElRGohary$et$al.,$2006).$Therefore$in$any$project$the$many$different$ and$sometimes$even$conflicting$interests$must$be$considered.$Representatives$of$these$interests$are$ referred$ to$ as$ the$ project$ stakeholders.$ A$ project$ stakeholder$ is$ a$ person$ or$ group$ of$ people$ who$ have$ a$ vested$ interest$ in$ the$ success$ of$ a$ project$ and$ the$ environment$ within$ which$ the$ project$ operates$ (Olander$ &$ Landin,$ 2005).$ These$ interests$ might$ be$ positively$ or$ negatively$ influenced$ by$ the$completion$or$the$performance$of$the$project.$Ignoring$the$project$stakeholders$can$result$in$late$ scope$changes,$cost$overruns,$endless$discussions$about$the$necessity$of$the$project,$delays$in$time$ and$sometimes$cancellation$of$the$project$(Gelder$et$al.,$2010,$p.$9).$Therefore$management$of$these$ project$stakeholders$is$needed.$Different$studies$showed$that$stakeholder$involvement$is$important$ to$project$outcomes$and$recognition$of$the$concept$of$stakeholder$management$has$grown$in$recent$ years$(ElRGohary$et$al.,$2006;$Olander$&$Landin,$2005;$Yang,$Shen,$Ho,$Drew,$&$Xue,$2011).$$ 24"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ $ As$ a$ consequence$ of$ the$ growing$ interest$ in$ stakeholder$ management$ different$ stakeholder$ management$process$models$are$developed.$The$research$of$Yang$et$al.$(2011)$illustrated$that$there$ seems$ no$ consensus$ on$ the$ best$ model.$ Therefore$ the$ model$ for$ stakeholder$ management$ as$ illustrated$in$Figure$23$is$based$on$different$theories$(Preble,$2005;$Yang$et$al.,$2011).$For$each$step$ in$the$process$of$stakeholder$management,$different$methods$can$be$used.$The$research$of$Yang$et$ al.$(2011)$elaborates$further$on$the$effectiveness$of$each$method.$The$first$step$of$the$stakeholder$ management$ process$ is$ the$ identification$ of$ the$ stakeholders,$ so$ who$ are$ the$ stakeholders$ in$ a$ project.$The$second$step$is$to$analyse$the$stakeholders$and$understand$their$needs$and$expectations.$ The$ third$ step$ is$ to$ make$ a$ strategy$ or$ plan$ where$ the$ interests$ of$ the$ stakeholders$ are$ compared$ with$ the$ interests$ of$ the$ organisation$ and$ create$ a$ strategy$ to$ minimize$ gaps.$ An$ organisational$ response$where$both$interests$are$combined$has$to$be$developed.$The$fourth$step$is$to$engage$and$ act,$ because$ the$ positions$ of$ stakeholders$ on$ issues$ are$ likely$ to$ change$ over$ time.$ This$ calls$ for$ continuous$ monitoring$ of$ stakeholder$ expectations,$ ensuring$ existing$ stakeholder$ are$ still$ relevant$ and$ that$ new$ stakeholders$ are$ included.$ It$ is$ cyclic$ process,$ because$ needs$ and$ priorities$ of$ the$ stakeholders$are$constantly$changing.$ $ Figure#23:#Model#for#stakeholder#management#(own#ill.)# $ 3.5. Conclusion" During$ this$ literature$ study$ two$ of$ the$ sub$ questions$ that$ support$ the$ main$ question$ of$ this$ thesis$ were$ answered.$ Firstly,$ the$ sub$ question$ ‘what# is# project# stakeholder# management’$ has$ been$ answered.$ Secondly,$ an$ answer$ was$ given$ to$ the$ sub$ question$ ‘which# factors# are# important# for# collaboration’.#A$concise$version$of$the$answers$can$be$found$in$this$section.$ $ Project"stakeholder"management"" In$ order$ to$ get$ insight$ in$ how$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ collaborating$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$it$is$important$to$have$a$clear$understanding$of$what$project$stakeholder$management$ is.$During$the$literature$research$it$became$clear$that$there$in$no$univocal$definition$for$the$term.$But$ it$can$be$concluded$that$project$stakeholder$management$can$be$described$as$management#that#is# the# link# between# the# project# organisation# and# the# project# environment# with# its# stakeholders.# The# interests#of#the#stakeholders#have#to#be#taken#into#account#and#the#aim#is#to#engage#stakeholders#to# the# project,# to# acquire# support# and# the# realisation# of# the# project# possible# without# interference.# The# goal# of# project# stakeholder# management# is# twofold:# satisfaction# of# the# stakeholders# and# the# realisation#of#the#project#within#scope,#time#and#budget.# $ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ consists$ of$ four$ components$ (stakeholder$ management,$ conditioning,$ traffic$ management$ and$ communication)$ and$ is$ performed$ on$ three$ different$ levels$ (strategic,$tactical$and$operational$level).$$ $ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"25" Important"factors"for"collaboration" This$ research$ illustrated$ that$ the$ legal,$ organisational$ and$ social$ context$ of$ LIPs$ is$ changing.$ In$ this$ complex$environment$principal$and$contractor$have$to$collaborate$and$balance$competing$claims$on$ resources$between$different$parts$of$the$project$organisation,$between$the$different$organisations$in$ the$project$and$between$the$project$and$its$stakeholders.$$ $ Literature$has$illustrated$that$a$lot$of$research$into$collaboration$has$been$carried$out$and$that$a$lot$ of$ factors$ that$ influence$ the$ collaboration$ have$ been$ identified.$ The$ six$ factors$ that$ have$ been$ determined$ as$ important$ for$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are:$ objectives,# trust,# risks,#communication,#attitude#and#project#organisation.## 26"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 4. "CONCEPTUAL"FRAMEWORK" $ $ Chapter$ 3$ provided$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ theoretical$ context$ in$ which$ this$ research$ takes$ place.$ This$ chapter$ will$ elaborate$ on$ the$ conceptual$ framework.$ This$ is$ important$ because$ it$ helps$ the$ researcher$ to$ demarcate$ his$ or$ her$ research$ subject,$ and$ most$ importantly,$ the$ conceptual$ framework$ supports$ the$ researcher$ to$ formulate$ the$ assumed$ relationships$ between$ the$ core$ concepts$correctly,$and$to$link$the$research$to$an$existing$theory$(Verschuren$&$Doorewaard,$2007).$ A$ starting$ point$ is$ needed$ to$ define$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ implemented$ in$ the$ selected$ cases$ and$ to$ explore$ the$ intensity$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$framework$to$analyse$the$implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$follows$from$the$ conclusion$ in$ the$ previous$ chapter$ and$ is$ further$ explained$ in$ section$ 4.1.$ The$ six$ criteria$ that$ influence$ collaboration$ have$ been$ selected$ and$ are$ the$ starting$ point$ to$ review$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ A$ framework$ will$ be$ created$ to$ review$ the$ collaboration$ at$ each$ criterion$ from$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ the$ respondent$ of$ the$ principal$ and$ contractor$in$each$case.$This$chapter$will$elaborate$on$the$model$that$is$used$to$review$the$state$of$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ party$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ Based$ on$ this$model$the$collaboration$will$be$analysed.$$ $ 4.1. Project"stakeholder"management" This$research$will$explore$which$factors$play$an$important$role$in$the$collaboration$between$principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ the$ selected$ cases.$ Because$ this$ research$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ in$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ it$ is$ important$ to$ have$ a$ clear$ view$ on$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$is$defined.$Therefore$two$approaches$are$used$and$compared$with$each$other.$The$first$ approach$ is$ based$ on$ the$ literature$ review$ (chapter$ 3),$ where$ stakeholder$ management,$ communication,$traffic$management$and$conditioning$were$distinguished$as$components$of$project$ stakeholder$management.$The$second$is$based$on$practice$(chapter$6)$where$more$or$less$the$same$ aspects$were$indicated.$$ $ In$ the$ case$ studies$ it$ will$ be$ investigated$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ was$ applied$ in$ the$ projects.$ Gelder$ et$ al.$ (2010)$ suggest$ that$ the$ relation$ between$ the$ project$ and$ its$ project$ stakeholder$management$can$be$fulfilled$from$three$orientations.$This$is$also$recognized$by$Kam$et$ al.$(2013).$ • A"technicalccontent"orientation" Scope$is$focus$and$project$stakeholders$have$power$to$delay$legislation.$ • A"strategic"orientation" The$relation$with$the$project$stakeholders$is$an$instrument$to$realise$the$project.$ • A"communicative"orientation" Reach$consensus,$create$collectively$and$mutual$trust.$ $ The$technicalRcontent$orientation$approaches$the$project$environment$mainly$regarding$the$content.$ Based$ on$ analyses$ the$ project$ environment$ is$ taken$ into$ account$ in$ the$ design$ and$ there$ is$ little$ reason$ to$ apply$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ Therefore$ Gelder$ et$ al.$ (2010)$ did$ not$ take$ this$ orientation$ into$ account$ as$ an$ orientation$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ The$ strategic$ orientation$sees$project$stakeholder$management$as$an$instrument$to$realise$the$project.$As$long$as$ it$is$beneficial$for$the$project$parties$are$allowed$to$participate$in$the$project.$In$the$third$orientation,$ project$stakeholder$management$is$seen$as$a$way$of$communicating$with$the$different$parties$in$the$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"27" project$ environment.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ motivated$ by$ a$ strategic$ or$ communicative$ orientation.$ Each$ orientation$ has$ its$ strengths$ and$ weaknesses,$ so$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ approached$ with$ one$ of$ both$ orientations,$ but$ the$ literature$ illustrated$that$in$practice$both$orientations$are$often$combined.$Projects$are$often$communicative$ oriented,$but$their$incentives$are$strategic.$$So,$it$is$the$mission$of$a$project$stakeholder$manager$to$ find$a$compromise$between$both$orientations.$$ $ These$different$orientations$of$project$stakeholder$management$will$be$used$to$analyse$how$project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ applied$ in$ the$ selected$ cases,$ but$ it$ is$ also$ possible$ that$ a$ project$ has$ developed$ an$ own$ approach.$ These$ own$ approaches$ can$ be$ useful$ to$ make$ the$ framework$ as$ illustrated$in$Figure$25$more$complete$and$can$be$of$support$to$analyse$project$in$the$future.$In$this$ research$this$framework$will$be$used$to$access$the$project$stakeholder$management$as$applied$in$the$ selected$cases.$ $ Figure#25:#Framework#to#access#project#stakeholder#management#(own#ill.)# $ 4.2. Collaboration" Section$3.3$already$defined$the$term$collaboration$as$‘a#joint#effort#of#different#parties,#to#achieve#a# shared# goal’,# illustrated$ the$ importance$ of$ collaboration$ and$ the$ organisational$ context$ in$ which$ projects$are$realised.$Since$there$are$a$lot$of$researches$conducted$on$collaboration,$the$number$of$ aspects$that$have$influence$on$collaboration$is$broad.$Therefore$six$criteria$were$selected,$in$order$to$ analyse$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ the$ selected$ cases.$ In$ order$ to$ measure$ the$ collaboration$ on$ the$ different$ criteria$ a$ model$ is$ needed.$ This$ model$ enables$ the$ researcher$to$give$an$overview$of$the$state$of$the$collaboration$in$each$case$and$makes$it$possible$to$ compare$the$outcomes$of$the$different$cases.$This$section$will$elaborate$on$the$model$that$is$used$to$ measure$the$state$of$the$collaboration.$ 28"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 4.2.1. Defining%collaboration% After$ the$ categorisation$ of$ aspects$ that$ influence$ collaboration,$ as$ elaborated$ on$ in$ chapter$ 3,$ six$ main$criteria$can$be$distinguished:$ • Objectives:$‘Objectives’$can$be$described$as$the$alignment$of$goals$and$objective$of$different$ parties$and$focus$on$pulling$efforts$in$the$same$direction.$ • Trust:$‘Trust’$is$the$term$used$to$describe$the$belief$that$the$different$parties$have$that$the$ other$is$reliable$and$is$able$to$fulfil$their$obligations.$$ • Risk:$ The$ term$ ‘risk’$ is$ a$ collection$ of$ aspects$ related$ to$ risk$ allocation$ and$ division$ of$ the$ responsibilities$of$the$risks$between$the$different$parties.$ • Communication:$ ‘Communication’$ is$ characterised$ by$ open$ and$ efficient$ exchange$ of$ information.$It$is$the$core$of$developing$mutual$trust.$ • Attitude:$ ‘Attitude’$ is$ an$ overarching$ term$ for$ the$ willingness$ to$ invest$ in$ the$ (work)$ relationship,$ the$ commitment$ to$ the$ project$ and$ the$ willingness$ to$ constantly$ deliver$ a$ greater$ value$ to$ increase$ the$ mutual$ advantages.$ It$ illustrates$ the$ mindset$ of$ the$ parties$ regarding$collaboration.$$ • Project$ organisation:$ ‘project$ organisation’$ is$ about$ the$ internal$ relationships.$ It$ reflects$ on$ how$problems$are$solved,$the$commitment$to$the$project$and$to$achieve$mutual$objectives,$ the$ alignment$ of$ expectations$ and$ the$ competence$ (to$ collaborate)$ of$ the$ people$ that$ are$ working$on$the$project.$ 4.2.2. Maturity%of%collaboration% The$ previous$ paragraph$ has$elaborated$ on$ the$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ in$ collaboration,$ but$ it$ is$ important$ to$ keep$ in$ mind$ that$ collaboration$ does$ not$ necessarily$ result$ in$ effective$ outcomes.$ According$to$Meng$et$al.$(2011)$the$effectiveness$of$collaboration$depends$to$the$level$of$maturity.$ The$ultimate$goal$is$to$reach$the$highest$level$of$relationship$maturity,$because$the$higher$the$level$ of$maturity,$the$higher$the$effectiveness.$$$ $ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011)$ have$ adopted$ four$ maturity$ levels$ to$ describe$ the$ progression$ of$ relationship$ improvement$from$confrontation,$through$limited$cooperation$and$shortRterm$collaboration,$to$close$ and$longRterm$collaboration.$Table$3$provides$an$overview$of$the$different$maturity$levels$and$its$sub$ criteria.$ The$ four$ maturity$ levels$ are$ named:$ price# competition,# quality# competition,# project# partnering#and$strategic#partnering/alliance.# • Level$1:$price$competition$ The$relationship$at$this$level$represents$an$extreme$position$dominated$by$selfRinterest$and$ mistrust.$ Mutual$ objectives$ do$ not$ exist$ and$ the$ involved$ parties$ are$ selfRcentred.$ Trust$ is$ limited$to$each$other’s$commitment$to$the$formal$contract.$ • Level$2:$quality$competition$ At$this$level$parties$are$mainly$interested$in$their$own$objectives$and$interests,$but$achieving$ some$ mutual$ gains$ enables$ a$ limited$ degree$ of$ cooperation.$ Although$ parties$ rely$ on$ the$ formal$ contract,$ trust$ between$ them$ is$ mainly$ established$ on$ the$ basis$ of$ mutual$ understanding$of$each$other’s$capabilities$to$carry$out$their$tasks.$ • Level$3:$project$partnering$ The$relationship$at$this$level$always$includes$the$alignment$of$objectives$in$a$single$project.$ The$ focus$ is$ on$ the$ overall$ success$ of$ the$ project.$ To$ achieve$ this,$ the$ parties$ work$ collaboratively$together$as$an$integrated$project$team.$ • Level$4:$strategic$partnering$ At$this$level$the$relationship$is$characterised$as$the$alignment$of$objectives$over$a$series$of$ projects,$ which$ focuses$ on$ longRterm$ relationships.$ All$ involved$ parties$ collaborate$ closely$ and$there$is$a$high$degree$of$trust.$ Level$one$and$two$represent$a$more$traditional$relationship$whereas$level$three$and$four$represent$a$ more$collaborative$relationship.$$$ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"29" Table 2. New Maturity Model in a Matrix Format Main criteria Procurement Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT on 10/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Objectives Trust Collaboration Subcriteria Problem solving The lowest price Cost and quality Procurement route Form of contract Single-stage tendering JCT Objectives alignment Level 4 Two-stage tendering Multicriteria from longterm perspective Direct negotiation JCT/NEC NEC/PPC 2000/JCT CE Only self objectives Mainly self objectives Benefits Win-lose Win-partial win Continuity of work No continuity of work Contractual trust Little confidence Prospect of future work through tendering Competence trust Some confidence Mutual objectives in a project Win-win in a single project Preferred suppliers NEC/TPC 2005/JCT CE/ Bespoke contract Mutual objectives in the long-term Win-win in the long-term Checking and double checking Confrontation or arms length Mutual blame Mutual help No support for the weaker Information exchange Sharing learning Little information is exchanged openly No sharing learning and innovation No cost transparency Type of trust Confidence in others’ behavior Monitoring others’ work Working relationship Cost data transparency Early warning Avoidance of recurrence Risk sharing Allocation principle Balance of risk and reward Continuous improvement Level 3 Multicriteria from shortterm perspective Negotiation or tendering Effectiveness Risk allocation Level 2 Selection criteria Culture Communication Level 1 Joint effort Performance measurement and feedback Incentives No risk identification, no early warning Problems often lead to disputes Problems often recur No risk sharing Guarantee for future work Short-term goodwill trust Much confidence Long-term goodwill trust Full confidence Checking somewhat reduced Limited cooperation Checking greatly reduced Checking almost unnecessary Close collaboration Self defense Abandon of blame culture Support only with the issues related to selfinterest Some information is exchanged openly Little sharing learning and innovation Little cost transparency Often support for a weak partner Problem solving focused culture Always support for a weak partner Much information is exchanged openly Sharing learning and innovation Open book costing between two parties Early warning between two parties Most information is exchanged openly Continuous sharing learning and innovation Open book costing throughout the whole chain Early warning throughout the whole chain Many problems are timely resolved at the lowest level Few problems are repeated Most problems are timely resolved at the lowest level Rare problems are repeated Common practice for risk sharing Risk is allocated to the party best able to manage it in the long-term Always appropriate rewards for the party taking the risk Continuous effort for better ways of working Common measures; formal, regular, and continuous feedback Multiple incentives Informal risk identification, no early warning Problems sometimes lead to disputes Sometimes problems recur Limited risk sharing Collaboration Risk is always allocated to the weak party No rewards for the party taking the risk Risk is often allocated to the weak party Some rewards for the party taking the risk Risk sharing greatly increased Risk is allocated to the party best able to manage it in a project Often appropriate rewards for the party taking the risk No joint effort for improvement No common measures; No formal feedback No incentive Limited joint effort for improvement Limited common measures; irregular but formal feedback Informal incentive Joint effort for better ways of working Common measures; regular and formal feedback in a project Single incentive $ Table#3:#Maturity#model#(Meng#et#al.,#2011)# The$ interaction$ among$ contracting$ parties$ in$ a$ construction$ project$ may$ range$ from$ formal$ transaction$on$the$one$end,$to$relational$transaction$on$the$other$end.$In$formal$transaction,$parties$ rely$ strictly$ on$ the$ terms$ and$ conditions$ of$ the$ contract.$ In$ case$ of$ the$ relational$ transaction$ 100 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011 partnering,$ relationship$ contracting,$ project$ alliancing$ and$ integrative$ project$ delivery$ are$ included$ (Ning$ &$ Ling,$ 2013).$ Several$ studies$ emphasize$ the$ problem$ of$ establishing$ and$ maintaining$ J. Manage. Eng.that$ 2011.27:97-105. collaboration$ between$ clients$ and$ contractors$ is$ complex$ and$ that$ contracts,$ relationship$ management$ and$ attitudes$ of$ individuals$ interact.$ There$ are$ two$ dimensions$ of$ any$ exchange$ relationship:$ the$ formal$ contract$ and$ the$ actual$ interaction$ that$ takes$ place$ (Dewulf$ &$ Kadefors,$ 2012).$Both$dimensions$are$needed$for$a$good$collaboration.$Collaboration$involves$a$combination$of$ formal$ and$ informal$ process$ (Bresnen$ &$ Marshall,$ 2002).$ A$ contract$ provides$ an$ institutional$ 30"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ framework$guiding$the$course$of$the$collaboration,$while$collaboration$overcomes$the$adaptive$limits$ of$contracts.$Contracts$and$collaboration$are$interrelated$because$a$contractual$arrangement$serves$ as$a$framework$within$which$collaboration$proceeds$(Luo,$2002).$$ $ This$is$in$line$with$the$two$most$important$findings$in$the$case$study$of$Meng$et$al.$(2011).$First,$the$ case$ study$ illustrated$ that$ the$ relationship$ between$ the$ parties$ is$ often$ dynamic$ during$ the$ whole$ project$lifecycle,$which$means$that$the$relationship$maturity$between$parties$may$change$from$stage$ to$stage.$Second,$different$levels$of$relationship$maturity$may$be$observed$in$ranking$the$different$ aspects.$Especially$this$second$finding$is$interesting$for$this$research,$because$it$implicates$that$the$ level$ of$ maturity$ can$ differ$ for$ each$ criteria.$ The$ radar$ chart$ as$ shown$ in$ Figure$ 26$ will$ be$ used$ to$ visualise$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$ contractor$ and$ principal$ at$ each$ criterion$ in$ the$ different$ cases.$ This$ enables$ the$ researcher$ to$ compare$ the$ four$ cases$ and$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$and$contractor.$This$figure$will$illustrate$the$criteria$principal$and$contractor$have$to$discuss$ because$their$point$of$view$on$the$collaboration$on$these$criteria$is$not$aligned$and$it$illustrates$for$ which$criteria$it$is$possible$to$enhance$collaborate$to$a$higher$level.$$ $ Figure#26:#Radar#chart#to#visualise#the#state#of#collaboration#(own#ill.) The$ maturity$ model$ as$ illustrated$ in$ Table$ 3$ is$ used$ as$ questionnaire$ to$ define$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ for$ the$ criteria$ objectives,# trust,# risks# and# communication.$The$criteria$attitude#and$project#organisation$are$not$part$of$this$model.$Therefore$ the$ researcher$ has$ defined$ the$ sub$ criteria$ and$ made$ descriptions$ for$ the$ different$ levels$ of$ collaboration$ for$ these$ criteria.$ This$ is$ partly$ based$ on$ the$ maturity$ model,$ because$ some$ of$ the$ criteria$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011)$ distinguished$ are$ in$ this$ research$ a$ sub$ criteria$ of$ attitude$ and$ project# organisation.$ The$ remaining$ descriptions$ for$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ are$ based$ on$ the$ other$ theories$about$collaboration$as$elaborated$on$in$chapter$3.$Together$Table$3$and$Table$4$form$the$ questionnaire$that$determines$the$level$of$collaboration,$the$questionnaire$can$be$found$in$appendix$ H.$ The$ outcome$ of$ this$ questionnaire$ can$ be$ visualised$ in$ the$ radar$ chart$ and$ this$ chart$ makes$ it$ possible$to$compare$the$point$of$view$of$multiple$respondents.$ $ Main"criteria" Attitude$ $ Sub"criteria" Working$ relationship$ Culture$ Level"1" Confrontation$ or$arms$length$ Mutual$blame$ Level"2" Limited$ cooperation$ Self$defense$ $ Joint$effort$ No$joint$effort$ for$ improvement$ Limited$joint$ effort$for$ improvement$ $ Level"3" Collaboration$ $" Abandon$of$ blame$culture$ Joint$effort$for$ better$ways$of$ working$ Level"4" Close$ collaboration$ Problem$solving$ focused$culture$ Continuous$ effort$for$better$ ways$of$working$ "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"31" $ Incentives$for$ collaboration$ Support$from$ management$ LongRterm$ commitment$ $ $ No$incentive$ No$interest$in$ collaboration$ No$interest$to$ invest$in$the$ project$ Problems$often$ lead$to$disputes$ Project$ organisation$ Problem$solving$ $ Performance$ measurement$ No$common$ measures$ $ Competence$of$ the$members$ Team$members$ have$no$interest$ in$collaboration$ $ Efficient$ coordination$ Parties$have$ opposite$ expectations$ No$resources$ are$shared$with$ each$other$ Informal$ incentive$ Reserved$in$ collaboration$ Limited$ investments$in$ the$project$ Problems$ sometimes$lead$ to$disputes$ Limited$ common$ measures$ Some$team$ members$have$ interest$in$ collaboration$ Single$incentive$ Interest$in$ collaboration$ Investments$in$ the$project$ Many$problems$ are$timely$ resolved$at$the$ lowest$level$ Common$ measures$ Team$members$ are$motivated$ to$collaborate$ Multiple$ incentives$ Collaboration$is$ stimulated$ Constantly$ investing$in$the$ project$ Most$problems$ are$timely$ solved$at$the$ lowest$level$ Common$ measures$ Team$members$ want$to$ collaborate$and$ are$team$ players$ Parties$have$the$ same$ expectations$$ All$resources$are$ shared$with$ each$other$ Parties$have$ Parties$have$ different$ similar$ expectations$ expectations$ $ Adequate$ Limited$ Some$resources$ resources$ resources$are$ are$shared$with$ shared$with$ each$other$ each$other$ $ Power$ There$is$ There$is$limited$ The$power$is$ The$power$is$ distribution$and$ inequality$in$the$ equality$in$the$ more$or$less$ equally$ equality$ power$ power$ equally$ distributed$ distribution$ distribution$ distributed$ $ Collective$action$ There$is$no$ There$is$limited$ There$is$interest$ Team$members$ interest$in$ interest$in$ in$achieving$a$ are$committed$ achieving$a$ achieving$a$ shared$goal,$but$ to$the$project$ shared$goal$ shared$goal,$ there$are$still$ and$want$to$ because$own$ own$interests.$ achieve$the$ goals$are$placed$ shared$goal$ first.$ Table#4:#Maturity#model#for#attitude#and#project#organisation#(own#ill.#based#on#Meng#et#al.#(2011))# To$summarize,$the$radar$chart$as$illustrated$in$Figure$26$will$be$used$to$visualise$the$collaboration$on$ the$different$criteria$according$to$the$respondents$of$the$cases.$The$state$of$the$collaboration$will$be$ determined$ by$ filling$ in$ the$ questionnaire.$ The$ answers$ of$ this$ questionnaire$ are$ based$ on$ the$ available$documentation$and$the$observations$of$the$researcher.$Therefore,$this$illustration$gives$a$ qualitative$view$on$the$state$of$the$collaboration$in$each$project,$but$it$is$a$useful$way$of$visualisation$ to$compare$the$cases$and$it$can$be$useful$for$further$research.$$ $ In$ addition,$ it$ needs$ to$ be$ mentioned$ that$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$ review$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration,$ instead$ of$ the$ maturity$ of$ the$ collaboration$ as$ mentioned$ by$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011).$ This$ was$ chosen$ because$ this$ instrument,$ the$ radar$ chart,$ is$ used$ to$ illustrate$ if$ both$ respondents$ have$ the$ same$ point$ of$ view$ on$ the$ collaboration$ in$ the$ different$ criteria$ and$ to$ compare$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ in$ the$ different$ cases.$ This$ instrument$ is$ used$ to$ give$ a$ representative$ view$ on$ the$ collaboration$in$the$different$projects$of$this$research$and$might$be$used$in$the$future$to$review$the$ collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$during$the$realisation$of$the$project.$In$that$case$it$is$ important$ that$ the$ model$ illustrates$ the$ collaboration,$ rather$ than$ judges$ the$ collaboration.$ The$ maturity$ model$ of$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011)$ assumes$ that$ a$ higher$ level$ of$ maturity$ leads$ to$ a$ better$ 32"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ collaboration.$This$research$focuses$on$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$where$a$ higher$ level$ of$ maturity$ is$ not$ necessary$ a$ better$ collaboration.$ Because$ it$ is$ more$ important$ to$ illustrate$whether$principal$and$contractor$understand$each$other$and$have$a$similar$point$of$view$ regarding$their$collaboration.$ $ 4.3. Conclusion" With$ the$ literature$ study$ that$ provided$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ theoretical$ context$ and$ the$ conceptual$ framework$as$described$in$this$chapter,$one$of$the$supporting$questions$to$the$main$question$of$this$ thesis$can$be$answered.$The$answer$to$the$question$“what#model#can#be#used#to#define#the#state#of# collaboration# between# principal# and# contractor”$ is$ recapped$ in$ this$ conclusion.$ First$ of$ all$ it$ was$ concluded$ that$ collaboration$ is$ influenced$ by$ multiple$ factors,$ for$ this$ research$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$ analyse$collaboration$in$the$selected$projects$based$on$six$criteria.$This$are$both$technical$and$social$ criteria,$ because$ is$ appears$ unlikely$ that$ successful$ collaboration$ can$ simply$ be$ ‘engineered’$ by$ technical$ means$ or$ that$ it$ is$ ‘evolves’$ purely$ on$ the$ basis$ of$ relationships.$ Instead,$ collaboration$ inevitability$involves$a$combination$of$technical$and$social$processes.$Successful$partnering$relies$on$ mutual$understanding,$openness$and$good$communication.$But$without$contracts,$collaboration$will$ lack$an$institutional$framework$to$proceed.$So$the$factors$are$all$interrelated$and$can$influence$each$ other$ positively$ or$ negatively.$ The$ state$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ will$ be$ analysed$with$help$of$the$four$maturity$levels$as$distinguished$by$Meng$et$al.$(2011).$ $ Literature$ has$ illustrated$ the$ importance$ of,$ and$ factors$ influencing$ collaboration.$ To$ delineate$ the$ research,$ this$ thesis$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$management.$This$choice$was$made$because$literature$and$realRlife$experiences$showed$ the$ importance$ and$ influence$ of$ this$ part$ of$ project$ management.$ In$ order$ to$ understand$ how$ project$stakeholder$management$is$implemented$in$existing$projects,$the$interpretation$of$the$four$ aspects$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ will$ be$ analysed$ and$ the$ division$ of$ tasks$ between$ principal$ and$ contract$ in$ this$ field$ of$ project$ management$ will$ be$ examined.$ After$ that,$ it$ will$ be$ analysed$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ applied$ in$ the$ different$ projects.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ applied$ as$ an$ instrument$ or$ as$ open$ communication.$ It$ is$ also$ possible$ that$ a$ project$ has$ developed$ its$ own$ approach.$ This$ information$ will$ be$ used$ as$ starting$ point$ to$ analyse$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ selected$ cases$ and$ to$ illustrate$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ with$ help$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model.$ The$ outcome$ is$ visualised$ in$ a$ radar$ chart,$ which$ makes$ it$ possible$ to$ determine$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ and$ to$ indicate$ points$ that$ can$ be$ improved.$ Figure$ 27$ gives$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ research$ framework$ as$ elaborated$ on$ in$ this$ chapter$ and$ it$ illustrates$the$steps$that$will$be$made$for$the$analysis$the$individual$cases.$ $ Figure#27:#Research#framework#(own#ill.)# $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"33" 5. R ESEARCH"METHODOLOGY" $ $ In$the$previous$chapters$background$information$is$gathered$to$create$a$framework$that$gives$a$good$ overview$of$the$context$in$which$this$research$takes$place.$Now$relevant$data$has$to$be$collected,$to$ process$ the$ background$ information$ and$ the$ gathered$ data$ into$ answers$ to$ the$ research$ question.$ This$chapter$will$clarify$the$chosen$research$methodology$in$section$5.1,$will$elaborate$on$the$criteria$ to$conduct$a$case$study$in$section$5.2,$the$case$protocol$in$section$5.3,$and$the$selection$of$the$cases$ in$ section$ 5.4.$ Section$ 5.5$ will$ discuss$ the$ approach$ to$ gather$ the$ data$ and$ this$ chapter$ ends$ with$ section$5.6$where$is$elaborated$how$the$case$studies$will$be$analysed.$ $ 5.1. Clarification"of"the"research"methodology" To$ avoid$ misfits$ in$ the$ chosen$ research$ methodology,$ this$ section$ will$ explain$ why$ the$ chosen$ strategy$ is$ the$ most$ advantageous$ one.$ LIPs$ are$ single$ cases$ and$ collecting$ numerical$ data$ is$ not$ possible.$Since$the$research$question$focuses$on$a$contemporary$event$where$the$behaviour$events$ cannot$ be$ controlled,$ a$ survey$ or$ case$ study$ research$ seems$ most$ suitable$ for$ this$ analysis$ (Yin,$ 2003).$ A$ case$ study$ research$ is$ used$ for$ studying$ social$ phenomena,$ the$ researcher$ tries$ to$ gain$ profound$ and$ full$ insight$ in$ one$ or$ multiple$ time$ depended$ processes$ (Verschuren$ &$ Doorewaard,$ 2007,$p.$183).$With$a$case$study$factors$influencing$the$project$are$kept$interwoven$and$the$change$ of$one$aspect$can$have$consequences$for$the$whole$project$(Swanborn,$2013).$A$key$difference$with$ other$research$methods$is$that$case$studies$seek$to$study$phenomena$in$their$context,$rather$than$ independent$of$context$(Gibbert,$Ruigrok,$&$Wicki,$2008).$ $ According$ to$ Verschuren$ and$ Doorewaard$ (2007,$ p.$ 184)$ the$ characteristics$ of$ case$ studies$ are:$ A$ small$domain,$consisting$of$a$small$number$of$research$unites,$work$intensive,$more$inRdepth$than$ breadth,$a$selective$sample,$the$assertion$approaches$the$object$as$a$whole,$an$open$observation$on$ location$and$qualitative$data.$ $ A$case$study$fits$this$research,$because$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$is$context$ dependent$and$cannot$be$isolated$from$its$environment.$InRdepth$understanding$is$needed$in$order$ to$ identify$ successful$ strategies$ for$ collaboration$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ With$ the$ findings$from$practice$it$is$tried$to$define$the$difficulties$that$have$to$be$overcome$to$improve$the$ collaboration$and$approaches$that$are$already$effective$are$identified.$The$use$of$open$questions$in$ an$interview$setting$will$help$to$get$insight$in$the$motivations$for$the$taken$actions.$A$survey$study$ would$make$it$harder$to$get$an$inRdepth$understanding$of$the$situation,$because$it$would$have$used$ more$ closed$ questions$ than$ the$ intensive$ and$ faceRtoRface$ interviews$ that$ are$ the$ basis$ for$ this$ research.$ $ Case$studies$may$and$often$do$use$qualitative$data$(Gibbert$et$al.,$2008),$it$is$therefore$impossible$to$ analyse$ this$ data$ with$ a$ quantitative$ research$ method.$ This$ means$ that$ the$ focus$ is$ more$ on$ comparing$ and$ interpreting$ the$ collected$ data$ instead.$ The$ empirical$ findings$ of$ the$ cases$ will$ be$ compared$with$each$other,$this$strategy$is$also$known$as$a$comparative$case$study.$A$comparative$ case$ study$ has$ two$ sub$ variances$ and$ it$ is$ chosen$ to$ conduct$ this$ research$ with$ the$ hierarchical$ method.$ With$ the$ hierarchical$ method$ the$ research$ consists$ of$ two$ phases$ (Verschuren$ &$ Doorewaard,$2007,$p.$187):$ 34"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 1. In$ the$ first$ phase$ all$ cases$ are$ examined$ separately,$ like$ a$ set$ of$ single$ case$ studies.$ This$ independent$research$is$based$on$the$analysis$of$the$interviews$and$documents$and$consists$ of$empirical$observations.$This$analysis$for$each$case$can$be$found$in$chapter$6.$$ 2. In$ the$ second$ phase$ the$ analyses$ of$ the$ selected$ cases$ are$ compared$ with$ each$ other$ and$ there$will$be$looked$whether$individual$case$findings$are$present$in$other$cases.$This$in$order$ to$get$a$more$complete$view$of$the$research$findings.$This$strategy$facilitates$the$process$of$ finding$ explanations$ for$ the$ similarities$ and$ differences$ that$ occur$ between$ the$ cases.$ Chapter$7$will$elaborate$on$this$crossRcase$analysis.$In$section$5.6$it$will$be$further$discussed$ how$the$collected$data$will$be$analysed.$ $ Conducting$ a$ research$ with$ case$ studies$ is$ very$ time$ consuming,$ the$ number$ of$ analysed$ cases$ is$ therefore$relatively$small.$This$gives$some$difficulties$to$generalise$the$results$and$are$often$a$point$ of$criticism.$Section$5.2$will$elaborate$more$on$the$criteria$for$a$reliable$and$valid$case$study$research$ and$how$the$expressiveness$of$a$case$study$can$be$increased.$$$ $ 5.2. Criteria"to"conduct"case"studies" According$to$Yin$(2003,$p.$3)$there$are$three$types$of$purposes$for$a$case$study,$$an$explanatory,$an$ exploratory$and/or$a$descriptive$purpose.$This$research$has$two$of$these$characteristics:$ • The$explanatory$purpose$is$found$in$explaining$and$getting$a$more$in$depth$understanding$of$ project$stakeholder$management.$Project$stakeholder$management$is$explained$based$on$a$ literature$ study$ and$ practical$ experiences,$ so$ that$ it$ can$ be$ better$ understood$ what$ is$ covered$with$this$term.$An$explanatory$case$study$helps$to$gain$insight$into$the$structure$of$a$ phenomenon$ (project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ this$ case),$ in$ order$ to$ develop$ hypotheses,$models$or$theories.$ • The$ explorative$ purpose$ is$ found$ in$ exploring$ the$ possibilities$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ An$ explorative$ research$is$used$to$develop$hypothesis$or$propositions$for$further$research.$In$this$research$it$ will$ be$ explored$ what$ the$ possibilities$ are$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$contractor$on$project$stakeholder$management.$ There$ are$ four$ criteria$ that$ are$ commonly$ used$ to$ assess$ the$ quality$ of$ the$ research:$ construct$ validity,$ reliability,$ internal$ validity$ and$ external$ validity$ (Swanborn,$ 2013,$ p.$ 127).$ These$ requirements$ are$ valid$ for$ all$ kinds$ of$ research,$ case$ study$ research$ included.$ Conducting$ a$ case$ study$with$valid$and$reliable$research$findings$requires$meeting$the$criteria$as$described$hereafter.$ $ Construct"validity" According$to$Denzin$&$Lincoln$(in$Gibbert$et$al.$(2008))$the$construct$validity$refers$to$the$quality$of$ the$ conceptualisation$ or$ operationalization$ of$ the$ relevant$ concept.$ This$ type$ of$ validity$ has$ to$ be$ considered$during$the$data$collection$phase.$As$such,$the$extent$to$which$a$study$investigates$that$it$ claims$to$investigate$is$to$the$extent$to$which$a$procedure$leads$to$an$accurate$observation$of$reality.$ Enhancing$the$construct$validity$can$be$done$by$establishing$a$clear$chain$of$value$and$by$looking$at$ the$same$phenomenon$from$different$angles$using$different$data$collection$strategies$and$different$ data$ sources$ (Yin,$ 2003,$ pp.$ 34R36).$ In$ the$ research,$ the$ construct$ validity$ is$ taken$ into$ account$ by$ using$different$strategies$to$collect$data$and$different$data$sources,$this$has$also$a$positive$influence$ on$the$other$criteria$to$assess$the$research$quality.$$ $ Reliability" According$ to$ Denzin$ &$ Lincoln$ (in$ Gibbert$ et$ al.$ (2008))$ reliability$ refers$ to$ the$ absence$ of$ random$ error,$enabling$subsequent$researchers$to$arrive$at$the$same$insights$if$they$conduct$the$study$along$ the$same$steps$again.$Transparency$and$replication$are$the$keywords$here.$To$enhance$the$reliability$ of$ the$ research$ a$ case$ study$ protocol$ can$ be$ produced$ in$ order$ to$ enhance$ the$ transparency$ and$ enhancing$ the$ replication$ can$ be$ accomplished$ by$ putting$ together$ a$ case$ study$ database.$ These$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"35" measures$are$used$so$that$in$the$future$investigators$can$repeat$the$operations$of$a$case$study$with$ the$same$results$(Yin,$2003,$pp.$37R39).$The$reliability$of$this$case$research$was$enhanced$by$the$use$ of$ a$ case$ protocol,$ to$ make$ sure$ the$ researcher$ followed$ the$ same$ procedure$ for$ each$ interview.$ Concise$reports$of$the$interviews$will$be$written$and$verified$by$the$interview$respondents$for$factual$ inaccuracies.$It$must$be$noted$that$the$research$observations$cannot$completely$be$prevented$from$ a$certain$degree$of$twisting$due$to$the$preferences$and$interpretations$of$the$researcher.$ $ Internal"validity" The$internal$validity$is$also$called$‘logical$or$causal$validity’$(Swanborn,$2013,$p.$128;$Yin,$2003,$p.$36).$ It$ refers$ to$ causal$ relationships$ between$ variables$ and$ results$ (Gibbert$ et$ al.,$ 2008).$ So$ is$ the$ researcher$ able$ to$ provide$ a$ plausible$ causal$ argument,$ logical$ reasoning$ that$ is$ powerful$ and$ compelling$enough$to$defend$the$research$conclusions.$The$validity$of$the$research$findings$has$to$be$ examined,$so$does$‘event#A’$indeed$lead$to$‘event#B’$or$is$there$some$third$factor$that$caused$‘event# B’# (Yin,$ 2003,$ p.$ 36).$ Internal$ validity$ is$ mostly$ relevant$ in$ the$ data$ analysis$ phase,$ where$ the$ researcher$tries$to$establish$causal$relationships.$In$this$research$project$the$internal$validity$is$taken$ into$consideration$with$the$use$of$multiple$research$methods$and$sources.$For$each$case,$at$least$two$ different$ respondents$ will$ be$ interviewed,$ one$ from$ the$ principal$ and$ one$ from$ the$ contractor.$ Available$documentation$will$be$analysed,$the$approach$to$gather$data$is$further$described$in$section$ 5.5.$ $ External"validity" External$validity$or$‘generalizability’$is$grounded$in$the$intuitive$belief$that$theories$must$be$shown$to$ account$for$phenomena$not$only$in$the$setting$in$which$they$are$studied,$but$also$in$other$settings$ (Gibbert$et$al.,$2008;$Swanborn,$2013).$Neither$single$nor$multiple$case$studies$allow$for$statistical$ generalisation,$for$example,$inferring$conclusions$about$a$population$(Yin,$2003,$p.$37).$This$does$not$ mean,$however,$that$case$studies$are$devoid$of$generalisation.$During$the$research$design$phase$the$ domain$ to$ which$ a$ study’s$ findings$ can$ be$ generalised$ has$ to$ be$ established.$ Section$ 5.4$ will$ elaborate$ on$ the$ selection$ of$ the$ cases$ that$ fit$ within$ this$ domain.$ As$ discussed$ in$ section$ 2.3$ the$ preliminary$ conclusions$ from$ the$ crossRcase$ analysis$ are$ the$ input$ for$ the$ discussions$ in$ the$ workshop$meeting$with$the$interviewees.$The$setRup$of$this$workshop$and$the$panel$members$will$ be$discussed$later$on$in$Appendix$H.$$ $ Importantly,$the$three$validity$types$are$not$independent$of$each$other.$Without$a$clear$theoretical$ and$causal$logic$(internal$validity),$and$without$a$careful$link$between$the$theoretical$conjecture$and$ the$ empirical$ observations$ (construct$ validity),$ there$ can$ be$ no$ external$ validity$ in$ the$ first$ place$ (Gibbert$et$al.,$2008).$Criticism$on$case$studies$mainly$focuses$on$the$aspects$internal$and$external$ validity$ (Swanborn,$ 2013,$ p.$ 130).$ In$ other$ words$ the$ reliability$ of$ the$ causal$ relationships$ is$ questionable$and$generalisation$is$difficult.$In$line$with$the$findings$in$this$section,$Swanborn$(2013)$ gives$the$following$possibilities$to$enhance$the$expressiveness$of$a$case$study:$increasing$the$number$ of$ cases,$ using$ different$ methods$ to$ collect$ data$ and$ presenting$ the$ results$ to$ the$ interview$ respondents.$ The$ following$ sections$ will$ elaborate$ more$ on$ the$ research$ methodology$ of$ the$ case$ study.$ $ 5.3. Case"protocol" Following$a$specified$case$protocol$increases$the$reliability$of$the$case$study$research.$This$protocol$ made$sure$the$researcher$followed$the$same$procedure$for$each$interview$and$is$intended$to$guide$ the$researcher$in$carrying$out$the$data$collection.$$ $ All$ respondents$ were$ notified$ of$ the$ research$ with$ an$ eRmail$ prior$ to$ the$ interviews.$ This$ message$ elaborated$on$the$context$of$the$interview,$gave$a$short$explanation$of$the$research$goal$and$noticed$ the$time$needed$to$conduct$the$inRdepth$interview.$ 36"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ $ Prior$the$interview$the$researcher$made$short$descriptions$about$the$project$to$get$a$good$overview$ of$ what$ the$ project$ is$ about.$ These$ descriptions$ include$ factual$ information$ about$ the$ reason$ to$ realise$ the$ project,$ the$ project$ goal,$ the$ project$ scope$ and$ the$ tender$ procedure.$ It$ was$ chosen$ to$ study$ factual$ information$ to$ ensure$ an$ unbiased$ but$ a$ wellRprepared$ interviewer,$ who$ gives$ the$ respondents$the$opportunity$to$tell$their$own$story.$ $ In$each$case$both$project$stakeholder$managers$were$interviewed,$this$was$done$on$the$same$day.$ The$ interview$ consisted$ of$ 30$ open$ questions,$ all$ with$ different$ sub$ questions.$ A$ more$ extensive$ protocol$and$the$interview$questions$can$be$found$in$Appendix$C.$A$distinction$was$made$between$ questions$ that$ needed$ to$ be$ asked$ (mustRhave$ questions)$ and$ questions$ that$ did$ not$ have$ to$ be$ asked$ necessarily.$ Not$ all$ questions$ were$ always$ asked$ on$ all$ respondents$ because$ a$ question$ was$ already$ answered$ in$ another$ question$ or$ there$ was$ not$ enough$ time$ to$ ask$ these$ questions.$ The$ interviews$took$approximately$60$to$90$minutes.$$$ $ During$the$interviews$all$respondent$were$encouraged$to$illustrate$their$answers$with$examples,$to$ make$ a$ situation$ better$ understandable$ for$ the$ researcher.$ Before$ ending$ the$ interview$ all$ respondents$had$the$possibility$to$add$something$to$the$interview$and$were$asked$if$something$was$ missing$that$would$contribute$to$the$research.$ $ All$ interviews$ were$ taped$ with$ the$ permission$ of$ the$ respondents$ and$ elaborated$ on$ in$ interview$ reports.$These$reports$served$as$input$for$the$project$reports.$The$project$reports$include$the$given$ answers$of$the$respondents$of$each$project$and$provide$the$basis$for$the$description$and$analysis$of$ each$case.$These$project$reports$were$checked$with$the$respondents$of$the$specific$project$in$order$ to$verify$if$there$were$no$factual$inaccuracies.$ $ 5.4. Selection"of"the"cases" The$ number$ of$ selected$ cases$ to$ conduct$ the$ case$ study$ is$ dependent$ on$ the$ possibilities$ of$ the$ researcher$(Swanborn,$2013).$There$are$always$some$limitations$that$have$influence$on$the$selection.$ In$this$research$the$limited$time$available$for$the$research$influenced$the$chosen$number$of$cases.$ Four$cases$from$the$network$of$Neerlands$Diep$were$selected$to$conduct$this$research.$The$network$ of$Neerlands$Diep$consists$of$multiple$construction$projects,$which$are$connected$to$the$network$in$ order$to$exchange$knowledge$and$experiences$with$each$other.$This$indicates$that$all$projects$within$ the$network$want$to$learn$from$each$other$and$share$knowledge.$It$is$therefore$expected$that$the$ project$stakeholder$managers$of$these$projects$are$willing$to$cooperate$with$the$research.$$ $ The$cases$were$selected$based$on$a$variety$in$typology,$location$and$contracting$parties$to$enhance$ the$ representativeness$ of$ the$ cases$ for$ the$ Dutch$ construction$ sector.$ Thereby$ every$ following$ homogenous$ case$ is$ less$ informative$ than$ the$ previous$ one$ (Swanborn,$ 2013,$ p.$ 83).$ However$ the$ cases$ have$ to$ meet$ some$ requirements,$ in$ order$ to$ come$ to$ tentative$ conclusions$ within$ this$ research$context.$Some$requirements$are$already$defined$in$the$research$question$and$scope,$so$a$ LIP$with$a$D&C$contract.$The$other$conditions$that$helped$to$select$the$cases$are:$ • All$ cases$ are$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase$ during$ this$ research,$ this$ makes$ sure$ that$ the$ respondents$ are$ still$ working$ on$ the$ project$ and$ are$ dealing$ with$ difficulties$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ at$ the$ time$ of$ the$ interviews$ and$ do$ not$ have$ to$ rely$ on$ their$ memory$for$answering$the$questions.$ • All$cases$are$projects$that$have$a$clear$scope,$one$project$goal$and$do$not$consists$of$a$lot$of$ sub$ projects$ for$ which$ other$ contracting$ parties$ are$ hired$ (like$ for$ example$ the$ public$ transport$terminal$in$Utrecht).$$ An$overview$of$the$selected$projects$to$conduct$the$case$study$with$is$given$in$Table$5$and$Appendix$ D$gives$an$overview$of$the$projects$that$could$have$been$selected.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"37" $ #" 1$ 2$ 3$ 4$ Project" Construction$of$a$stacked$tunnel$in$an$urban$area$ Renovation$of$a$bridge$$ Relocation$of$a$rail$track$and$road$in$an$urban$area$ Create$more$space$for$a$river$by$trenching$the$forelands$in$a$rural$area$ Maturity" 2010$R$2015$ 2013$R$2015$ 2009$R$2014$ 2013$R$2015$ Table#5:#Overview#of#the#selected#projects#for#the#case#study# $ 5.5. Data"gathering" Data$ was$ gathered$ with$ the$ use$ of$ several$ research$ methods$ and$ sources$ for$ a$ valid$ and$ reliable$ research$findings.$This$triangulation$of$research$is$an$effective$instrument$to$get$the$overall$view$on$ how$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ collaborating$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ It$ is$ therefore$ important$that$the$data$is$collected$in$several$ways.$The$data$is$collected$in$the$following$ways:$ • SemiRstructured$individual$interviews$with$the$project$stakeholder$managers$of$the$selected$ projects.$ Depending$ on$ the$ organisation$ of$ the$ project$ the$ participants$ include$ at$ least$ the$ project$stakeholder$managers$of$the$principal$and$contractor.$ • Extensive$ content$ analysis$ of$ documents$ about$ the$ case$ to$ get$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ project$ context$ and$ prevent$ the$ researcher$ from$ asking$ ‘obvious’$ questions$ (questions$ the$ researcher$could$already$have$known).$These$findings$are$compared$with$the$‘real$situation’$ as$sketched$during$the$interviews.$ • A$ workshop$ with$ the$ interviewees$ to$ create$ a$ group$ discussion$ about$ the$ preliminary$ conclusions$of$this$research$in$order$to$check$the$internal$and$external$validity.$$ $ 5.6. Data"analysis" There$are$five$specific$techniques$for$analysing$case$studies:$pattern$matching,$explanation$building,$ timeRseries$analysis,$logic$models$and$crossRcase$synthesis.$(Yin,$2003,$p.$115).$The$data$analysis$as$ performed$ in$ this$ research$ is$ two$ folded,$ which$ is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ two$ folded$ purpose$ of$ the$ case$ study.$An$overview$of$how$the$data$analysis$will$be$conducted$can$be$found$in$Figure$28.$ $ For$ the$ explanatory$ purpose$ of$ the$ case$ study$ the$ collected$ data,$ based$ on$ the$ interviews$ and$ available$ documents,$ will$ be$ analysed$ with$ the$ explanation$ building$ technique.$ This$ technique$ is$ a$ special$type$of$pattern$matching$and$mainly$relevant$for$explanatory$case$studies$(Yin,$2003,$p.$120).$ The$goal$is$to$analyse$the$case$study$data$by$building$an$explanation$about$the$case.$It$starts$with$an$ initial$theoretical$statement$about$the$research$topic$(project$stakeholder$management).$This$initial$ statement$is$then$compared$with$the$findings$of$the$case$to$see$if$the$statement$is$valid$or$not.$Each$ selected$case$is$treated$as$a$separated$and$single$case$study.$ $ $ 38"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ Figure#28:#Techniques#for#data#analysis#(own#ill.)# $ The$ results$ of$ the$ explanation$ building$ can$ be$ used$ as$ input$ for$ the$ crossRcase$ analysis.$ This$ technique$ will$ be$ used$ for$ the$ explorative$ purpose$ of$ this$ research.$ It$ is$ especially$ relevant$ in$ a$ multiple$case$study$and$the$findings$are$likely$to$be$more$robust$than$a$single$case$has$(Yin,$2003,$p.$ 133).$ The$ crossRcase$ analysis$ compares$ the$ data$ coming$ from$ the$ four$ case$ studies.$ Afterwards$ preferably$ some$ generalisations$ about$ important$ aspects$ for$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ can$ be$ made$ and$ some$ implications$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ on$ project$ stakeholder$management$can$be$derived.$Later$on$these$generalisations$will$be$checked$on$validity$ during$the$interactive$workshop$meeting$where$the$interview$respondents$were$asked$for$feedback.$ $$ The$ interviews$ were$ conducted$ in$ Dutch$ in$ order$ to$ prevent$ falsification$ of$ the$ data$ due$ to$ translation.$To$make$the$collected$data$suitable$for$this$research,$translation$was$only$done$by$the$ researcher$this$decreases$the$chance$of$falsification.$ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"39" 6. R ESULTS"OF"THE"CASE"STUDIES" $ $ The$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ LIPs$ can$ differ$ from$ one$ project$ to$ another.$ The$ contract$ as$ basis$ for$ the$ collaboration$ can$ be$ the$ same,$ but$ during$ realisation$ problems$ can$ occur$that$can$influence$the$relations.$As$argued$in$the$introduction$it$is$desirable$to$know$why$these$ differences$in$collaboration$occur,$what$are$the$consequences$for$the$project$and$how$are$projects$ managed$to$come$to$a$successful$end.$$ $ The$ case$ study$ set$ up$ is$ described$ in$ chapter$ 5.$ This$ chapter$ will$ provide$ the$ results$ of$ the$ case$ studies$ in$ the$ form$ of$ project$ reports.$ These$ findings$ will$ give$ insights$ in$ the$ project$ scope,$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$and$contractor.$Each$case$report$concludes$with$some$case$specific$findings$that$are$used$to$ make$ the$ following$ research$ steps.$ The$ case$ specific$ findings$ will$ be$ compared$ with$ each$ other$ in$ chapter$7$and$are$the$empirical$foundation$for$the$main$findings$of$this$research.$All$four$cases$are$ analysed$ by$ the$ means$ of$ the$ research$ framework$ as$ elaborated$ on$ in$ chapter$ 4.$ The$ case$ study$ projects$and$points$of$view$of$the$respondents$are$more$extensive$described$in$appendix$F.$ $ 6.1. "Case"report"1:"Construction"of"a"stacked"tunnel" This$ case$ covers$ the$ construction$ of$ a$ stacked$ tunnel$ as$ part$ of$ a$ motorway$ through$ the$ city$ of$ Maastricht.$ In$ this$ project$ the$ construction$ of$ the$ stacked$ tunnel$ is$ combined$ with$ area$ development.$The$construction$of$this$part$of$the$motorway$is$needed,$because$the$motorway$is$a$ minor$road$with$traffic$lights$and$cross$points,$this$causes$traffic$jams.$This$section$of$the$motorway$ cuts$ straight$ through$ the$ city$ leading$ to$ heavy$ traffic$ within$ city$ borders.$ The$ following$ four$ public$ parties$ initiated$ the$ project:$ Rijkswaterstaat,$ two$ municipalities$ and$ the$ province.$ In$ 2003$ these$ parties$ signed$ a$ governance$ agreement.$ Signing$ this$ agreement$ ended$ a$ quarter$ of$ a$ century$ discussion$ about$ the$ approach$ of$ the$ multiple$ problems$ around$ the$ motorway.$ It$ was$ also$ the$ starting$point$for$the$collaboration$between$the$public$parties$in$one$project$organisation$to$prepare$ and$realise$the$project.$In$2006$the$same$parties$signed$a$partnership$agreement,$to$complete$the$ governance$agreement$from$2003.$This$served$as$basis$for$the$tender$procedure$that$started$in$2006.$ In$Appendix$E$some$additional$information$about$the$project$characteristics$can$be$found.$ $ The$ plan$ of$ the$ awarded$ contractor$ includes$ a$ stacked$ tunnel,$ thereby$ 80$ percent$ of$ the$ current$ traffic$flow$will$go$underground.$Above$the$tunnel$a$green$living$area$for$pedestrians$and$cyclists$can$ be$ created.$ This$ plan$ shall$ address$ the$ problems$ and$ shall$ reconnect$ the$ divided$ city$ centre.$ The$ construction$of$the$project$started$in$2010$and$should$be$finished$in$2016.$From$2016$till$2026$real$ estate$ will$ be$ realised$ on$ top$ of$ the$ tunnel.$ The$ project$ was$ tendered$ to$ one$ of$ the$ three$ participating$ consortia$ in$ a$ European$ tender$ with$ competitive$ dialogue.$ The$ procedure$ consists$ of$ three$rounds$and$in$the$second$round,$the$dialogue$phase,$all$parties$presented$a$preliminary$version$ of$the$plan$to$the$public$in$a$consultation$round.$In$June$2009$the$project$was$awarded$to$one$of$the$ three$ consortia$ and$ the$ contract$ was$ signed$ in$ October$ 2009.$ It$ is$ an$ integral$ project$ where$ infrastructure$ and$ real$ estate$ development$ are$ combined.$ For$ the$ infrastructure$ part$ the$ traffic$ system$will$be$renewed$with$the$motorway$as$backbone.$It$includes$the$construction$of$the$tunnel,$ some$junctions$that$will$be$improved$and$a$new$connecting$road.$On$top$of$the$tunnel$a$green$city$ boulevard$will$be$realised.$The$contractor$called$this$the$Green$Carpet$(Dutch:$de$Groene$Loper)$in$ his$plan.$It$is$a$green$route$planted$with$many$trees$that$connects$the$city$with$its$surroundings.$In$ the$real$estate$phase$around$1000$new$dwellings$will$be$constructed$and$some$(older)$dwellings$will$ 40"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ be$ demolished.$ Besides$ that$ around$ 18000$ square$ meters$ of$ commercial$ real$ estate$ will$ be$ developed.$ This$ real$ estate$ will$ not$ only$ add$ a$ completely$ new$ aspect$ to$ the$ existing$ neighbourhoods,$ but$ it$ will$ blend$ into$ the$ existing$ environment.$ With$ the$ new$ construction,$ the$ contractor$completes$what$is$already$there$(Avenue2,$2009).$ $ The$project$organisation$consists$of$the$project$management$teams$of$principal$and$contractor.$The$ project$ management$ team$ of$ the$ principal$ has$ the$ IPM$ model$ from$ Rijkswaterstaat,$ with$ an$ exception$ for$ communication.$ It$ was$ chosen$ to$ add$ communication$ as$ a$ separate$ element$ to$ the$ project$ organisation,$ according$ to$ the$ project$ director$ (working$ for$ RWS)$ this$ element$ was$ too$ important$to$make$it$one$of$the$tasks$of$the$other$managers.$The$contractor$followed$the$IPM$model$ for$the$division$of$roles.$$ $ The$ respondents$ for$ this$ case$ were$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ working$ for$ RWS$and$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor.$Both$managers$were$already$involved$in$ this$ project$ during$ the$ tender$ phase.$ In$ the$ beginning$ the$ contractor$ was$ not$ located$ at$ the$ construction$site,$but$later$on$their$project$team$came$to$Maastricht$as$well.$ 6.1.1. Implementation%of%project%stakeholder%management% In$ this$ case$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ communicative$ oriented,$ in$ order$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ together$ with$ all$ its$ stakeholders.$ This$ orientation$ was$ chosen$ to$ be$ able$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ within$ time$ and$ budget,$ so$ there$ is$ a$ strategic$ idea$ behind.$ In$ this$ project$ there$ is$ a$ distinction$ between$ shareholders,$ who$ are$ inside$ the$ project$ organisation,$ and$ stakeholders,$ who$ influence$ the$ project$ from$ the$ outside.$ All$ parties$ are$ approached$ differently,$ but$ everyone$ has$ a$ voice.$The$public$parties$were$already$committed$to$the$project$from$the$start$and$are$represented$ within$ the$ project$ organisation.$ This$ commitment$ of$ the$ public$ parties$ was$ really$ helpful$ for$ the$ component$ conditioning.$ The$ application$ of$ all$ needed$ permits$ went$ really$ well$ due$ to$ the$ good$ collaboration$ between$ public$ parties$ and$ the$ permit$ department$ (Dutch:$ vergunningbureau)$ that$ processes$ the$ permits$ in$ order$ to$ prevent$ a$ work$ overload$ in$ case$ all$ permits$ are$ needed$ at$ once.$ The$private$stakeholders$are$represented$in$two$platforms,$the$A2Rneighbourhoods$platform$and$the$ A2Rcompanies$platform.$There$is$a$certain$amount$of$time$and$money$available$to$realise$the$project,$ therefore$ not$ all$ wishes$ of$ the$ public$ can$ be$ taken$ into$ account.$ To$ manage$ this$ process$ it$ is$ important$that$people$have$the$right$expectations.$Therefore,$the$project$organisation$has$an$open$ and$transparent$attitude$towards$it$stakeholders.$This$openness$and$transparency$is$also$important$ for$the$aspect$traffic$management.$People$can$still$disagree$with$road$closures,$but$they$do$accept$it$ due$ to$ good$ communication.$ This$ has$ limited$ the$ number$ of$ complaints.$ Also$ the$ road$ users$ are$ satisfied$ with$ the$ provided$ information,$ this$ was$ illustrated$ with$ the$ scores$ of$ the$ measurements$ taken$along$road$users.$ $ Both$project$teams$act$together$as$one$project$organisation,$so$the$public$has$one$source$where$the$ information$comes$from.$Therefore$the$goal$of$both$parties$is$quite$aligned,$although$the$contractor$ wants$ to$ invest$ in$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ within$ all$ financial$ reasonableness.$ There$ was$ one$ issue$ where$ both$ parties$ did$ not$ act$ as$ one$ organisation,$ this$ had$ to$ do$ with$ an$ issue$ about$ foreign$workers.$These$foreign$employees$were$working$on$the$project$and$there$was$a$discussion$ about$their$salary$and$workings$conditions.$Both$respondents$illustrated$that$this$was$a$point$where$ it$was$needed$to$act$with$two$project$organisations,$because$there$was$a$conflict$of$interests.$So$two$ statements$were$drawn$up$to$keep$a$clear$distinction$between$the$public$and$private$point$of$view.$ These$ different$ points$ of$ view$ were$ mainly$ for$ the$ public,$ because$ within$ the$ project$ organisation$ both$ teams$ still$ had$ to$ collaborate$ and$ the$ combined$ communication$ department$ was$ responsible$ for$writing$both$statements.$$$ $ Both$project$stakeholder$managers$have$different$tasks$and$responsibilities.$The$project$stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ contractor$ is$ mainly$ responsible$ for$ the$ tactical$ and$ operational$ part$ of$ project$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"41" stakeholder$ management.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ is$ working$ at$ the$ strategic$and$tactical$level,$so$is$more$responsible$for$the$governmental$tasks.$This$division$of$tasks$ has$developed$over$time,$because$the$contract$did$not$specify$this.$Both$respondents$illustrated$that$ they$use$each$other’s$qualities.$The$qualities$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$are$ more$ in$ the$ public$ environment,$ while$ the$ qualities$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ are$ more$ at$ the$ operational$ level.$ In$ this$ project$ both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ complement$each$other$well$in$this.$$ $ The$communication$in$the$project$was,$according$to$the$RWS$standard$for$a$D&C$contract,$divided$in$ public$and$construction$communication.$However,$this$distinction$between$public$and$construction$ communication$did$not$work$out.$This$was$mainly$because$mutual$expectations$did$not$correspond.$ Around$three$years$ago$the$communication$teams$of$both$parties$were$merged$in$one$department.$ The$ principal$ and$ contractor$ combined$ their$ budget$ for$ communication$ and$ from$ then$ all$ communication$tasks$were$organised$together.$There$is$a$sort$of$alliance$model$for$communication,$ but$ there$ is$ no$ specific$ person$ who$ has$ the$ final$ responsibility.$ This$ task$ is$ divided$ between$ the$ project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor$and$the$communication$manager$of$the$principal.$ 6.1.2. Collaboration%on%project%stakeholder%management% The$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ taken$ into$ account$ to$ illustrate$ how$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ collaborating.$ In$ this$ project$ an$ intensive$ collaboration$ was$ expected,$ because$both$parties$were$already$collaborating$during$the$tender$phase$and$collaborative$principals$ were$written$down$in$the$contract.$This$collaboration$has$enhanced$over$time.$A$couple$of$months$ after$the$realisation$of$the$project$started$the$project$team$of$the$contractor$moved$to$Maastricht$as$ well,$ and$ from$ that$ moment$ both$ parties$ were$ located$ in$ the$ same$ office.$ This$ made$ it$ easier$ to$ communicate$and$made$it$possible$to$step$by$each$other$in$case$something$needed$to$be$discussed.$ The$points$of$view$on$project$stakeholder$management$of$both$respondents$will$be$discussed.$ " Respondent"principal" Although$ some$ people$ were$ sceptical$ about$ the$ intended$ collaboration$ in$ this$ project,$ it$ was$ a$ deliberate$ choice$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ to$ collaborate$ closely.$ To$ be$ able$ to$ collaborate$ investments$ in$ the$ mutual$ relationship$ were$ made$ and$ an$ additional$ collaboration$ paragraph$ was$ part$of$the$contract,$because$collaboration$has$to$grow$over$time.$The$contract$shows$how$damage$ compensation$and$risks$are$divided$between$principal$and$contractor,$elaborates$on$the$escalation$ model$ and$ includes$ a$ plan$ for$ crisis$ situations.$ According$ to$ the$ respondent$ important$ factors$ for$ successful$ collaboration$ are$ openness$ and$ transparency$ towards$ each$ other,$ mutual$ trust,$ the$ people$working$on$the$project$and$having$success.$The$respondent$illustrated$“if#the#collaboration#is# going# really# well# but# the# external# publicity# is# negative,# it# is# hard# to# keep# the# collaboration# good.# Besides#that,#the#staffing#of#the#project#is#an#important#factor.#Having#collaborationforiented#people# working#almost#continuously#on#the#project#is#a#blessing#for#this#project”.$ $ According$ to$ the$ respondent$ the$ collaboration$ right$ now$ is$ going$ really$ well,$ but$ it$ is$ important$ to$ look$ forward.$ “The# start# of# the# real# estate# phase# will# have# consequences# for# the# collaboration.# Our# organisation# will# decrease,# some# parties# might# leave# the# project# and# other# parties# may# enter# the# project”.$ Real$ estate$ development$ is$ a$ complete$ other$ discipline$ than$ infrastructure$ development$ and$ not$ all$ the$ parties$ that$ are$ currently$ working$ on$ the$ project$ have$ experience$ in$ this$ discipline.$ The$ respondent$ expects$ that$ the$ tunnel$ will$ be$ opened$ at$ the$ date$ as$ defined$ in$ the$ contract,$ but$ emphasized$that$the$project$is$not$a$success$until$the$tunnel$is$opened.$He$illustrated$this$with$the$ tunnel$ project$ in$ Roermond.$ “In# this# project# everything# went# smoothly,# but# the# installation# of# the# required# safety# precautions# took# more# time# than# expected# and# therefore# the# opening# of# the# tunnel# was#postponed”.$This$project$is$successful$for$the$respondent$if$it$will$be$realised$without$stagnation$ and$with$a$satisfied$public.$“I#think#we#have#constructed#something#really#nice#and#I#hope#that#when#I# look#back#I#am#proud#to#say#that#I#have#contributed#to#this#project”.$ 42"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ Respondent"contractor" The$ respondent$ illustrated$ that$ collaboration$ would$ be$ an$ important$ aspect$ during$ the$ realisation$ phase,$ after$ the$ intensive$ collaboration$ during$ the$ tender$ phase.$ “An# additional# paragraph# with# collaboration#principals#(Dutch:#samenwerkingsbeginselen)#was#added#to#the#contract.#Besides#that,# our#directors#are#convinced#that#collaborating#it#the#only#way#to#make#a#project#like#this#successful”.$ The$division$of$responsibilities$has$grown$over$time.$According$to$the$respondent$that$is$the$ultimate$ form$of$collaboration.$“You#should#put#the#contract#in#a#closet#and#you#have#to#do#it#together,#with# defining#everything#in#a#contract#you#will#not#make#progress”.$It$was$also$illustrated$that$all$problems$ that$occur$have$to$be$solved$within$the$project$organisation$and$that$it$is$important$to$not$muddle$ around$with$problems.$Physical$information$systems$are$not$accessible$for$the$other$party,$but$there$ are$ limited$ discussions$ behind$ closed$ doors$ because$ that$ will$ create$ a$ ‘we/them$ situation’.$ “This# is# something#that#should#be#prevented#if#you#want#to#collaborate”.$Another$important$factor$for$good$ collaboration$ is$ that$ the$ characters$ of$ people$ have$ to$ match.$ Besides$ that,$ it$ is$ important$ that$ you$ grant$ the$ other$ something$ and$ that$ there$ are$ formal$ and$ informal$ meetings$ with$ each$ other.$ The$ respondent$explained$that$for$each$risk$the$contractor$looks$if$the$principal$has$a$certain$role$in$it.$If$ that$is$the$case,$the$contractor$will$look$if$it$is$possible$to$make$the$principal$responsible$for$a$part$of$ this$risk.$ $ The$respondent$has$the$opinion$that$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$is$good,$but$ he$ thinks$ they$ would$ have$ been$ able$ to$ realise$ more$ if$ both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ were$ located$in$the$same$room.$The$respondent$is$hopeful$that$the$project$will$be$realised$within$time$and$ budget,$ but$ preferably$ the$ tunnel$ can$ be$ opened$ a$ little$ earlier.$ For$ the$ respondent$ the$ project$ is$ successful$ it$ this$ is$ the$ case$ and$ the$ public$ is$ wildly$ enthusiastic.$ It$ was$ also$ mentioned$ that$ some$ negative$ publications$ about$ the$ project$ are$ expected.$ “The# expectation# are# really# high,# so# it# is# possible#that#people#are#disappointed#with#the#result”.$ 6.1.3. State%of%the%collaboration%between%principal%and%contractor% The$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ be$ different$ for$ each$ criterion$ and$ the$ intensity$ of$ it$ can$ change$ over$ time.$ In$ this$ project$ the$ collaboration$ has$ developed$ to$ high$ levels,$ because$collaboration$was$an$important$factor$from$day$one.$The$respondents$have$illustrated$that$ collaboration$ was$ already$ important$ during$ the$ tender$ phase$ and$ that$ this$ continued$ during$ the$ realisation$ phase.$ Because$ the$ principal$ had$ only$ twelve$ project$ requirements,$ intensive$ consultations$between$principal$and$contractor$were$needed$to$make$sure$the$design$for$the$project$ was$in$line$with$the$expectations$of$the$principal.$For$the$realisation$phase$of$the$project,$principal$ and$ contractor$ agreed$ on$ some$ collaboration$ principals$ and$ these$ were$ added$ as$ additional$ document$ to$ the$ contract$ in$ order$ to$ encourage$ the$ collaboration.$ In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$ contractor$ were$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ collaboration$ in$ order$ to$ complete$ the$ project$ successful,$therefore$both$parties$invested$in$the$collaboration$to$make$sure$the$collaboration$would$ run$smoothly$during$realisation$as$well.$Based$on$the$empirical$findings$as$discussed$in$the$previous$ paragraphs$the$following$overview$of$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$ in$this$project$can$be$given.$In$Figure$30$the$point$of$view$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$ principals$is$illustrated$with$the$orange$line$and$the$viewpoint$of$the$contractors$project$stakeholder$ manager$is$blue.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"43" $ Figure#30:#Radar#chart#of#the#collaboration,#case#1#(own#ill.)# The$ radar$ chart$ illustrates$ that$ both$ respondents$ have$ a$ quite$ similar$ view$ about$ the$ intensity$ of$ their$ collaboration,$ there$ is$ only$ one$ criterion$ where$ both$ respondents$ have$ a$ different$ point$ of$ view.$ This$ shows$ that$ both$ respondents$ have$ almost$ the$ same$ experience$ regarding$ their$ collaboration$ and$ it$ illustrates$ that$ their$ expectations$ of$ the$ collaboration$ are$ aligned.$ This$ is$ important$for$a$successful$collaboration,$because$differences$in$points$of$view$can$cause$friction.$The$ focus$ of$ this$ project$ on$ collaboration$ is$ confirmed$ with$ examples$ given$ in$ the$ interviews.$ The$ principal$expected$a$continuation$of$the$collaboration$from$the$tender$phase$and$was$ready$to$start$ with$ the$ realisation$ the$ day$ after$ the$ project$ was$ awarded.$ The$ respondent$ of$ the$ contractor$ explained$ that$ the$ directors$ of$ the$ contracting$ parties$ recognised$ that$ this$ project$ could$ not$ be$ realised$successful$without$collaboration.$So$both$parties$chose$for$an$intensive$collaboration$in$this$ project$and$have$invested$in$this$by$writing$collaboration$principals$and$organising$a$PSU,$PFU’s$and$ informal$meetings.$Towards$the$public$both$parties$act$as$one$project$organisation.$ $ Objectives:$ The$ responses$ of$ the$ respondents$ in$ the$ interview$ indicated$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ the$ same$ objective$ regarding$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project.$ This$ objective$ is$ supported$ by$ the$ agreements$ in$ the$ collaboration$ principals.$ This$ criterion$ does$ not$ score$ a$ level$ four,$because$the$contractor$has$to$make$a$profit.$There$is$still$an$individual$financial$interest$for$the$ contractor$and$both$respondents$acknowledge$this.$So$both$parties$have$the$same$objective,$but$the$ contractor$wants$to$realise$this$within$all$financial$reasonableness.$ $ Trust:"In$this$project$mutual$trust$exists$between$principal$and$contractor.$This$is$illustrated$ by$ the$ fact$ that$ both$ respondents$ expect$ that$ the$ project$ will$ be$ completed$ within$ time$ and$ the$ openness$ in$ sharing$ sensitive$ information$ with$ each$ other.$ An$ example$ of$ this$ is$ that$ jokingly$ it$ is$ sometimes$ said$ that$ both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ could$ take$ over$ each$ other’s$ role$ during$ holidays,$even$though$this$is$not$possible$in$reality$due$to$the$differences$in$the$roles.$ $ Risk:$Regarding$the$risks$in$this$project$each$parties$has$its$own$responsibilities$as$divided$in$ the$contract.$However,$the$risks$are$approaches$as$a$team$and$together$both$parties$approach$the$ risk$ proactive.$ Thereby$ a$ joint$ financial$ fund$ was$ created$ to$ pay$ for$ small$ changes$ in$ the$ original$ plans$that$are$beneficial$for$the$project.$ " Communication:" The$ communication$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ open$ and$ transparent,$but$not$all$the$financial$information$is$shared$with$each$other.$Both$parties$are$located$ in$the$same$office$and$there$is$a$clear$meeting$structure.$Regarding$project$stakeholder$management$ there$are$no$internal$meetings$were$one$of$the$project$stakeholders$is$unwelcome.$ Attitude:" The$ interviews$ have$ illustrated$ that$ both$ parties$ are$ collaborativeRoriented$ and$ have$invested$in$collaboration.$There$is$a$close$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$and$ 44"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ both$parties$try$to$solve$problems$as$soon$as$possible.$Besides$that,$there$are$constantly$investments$ in$order$to$improve$the$project.$ Project" organisation:" It$ was$ illustrated$ by$ the$ respondents$ that$ the$ people$ who$ work$ on$ a$ project$are$an$important$factor$in$the$success$of$the$collaboration.$In$this$project$the$staff$exists$of$a$ group$ with$ enthusiastic$ people$ who$ want$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ together.$ There$ have$ been$ some$ changes$ in$ the$ staffing$ to$ create$ this$ group,$ because$ it$ is$ important$ to$ have$ collaborative$ oriented$ people.$ As$ already$ elaborated$ on$ projects$ are$ solved$ beforehand,$ expectations$ correspond$ and$ principal$ and$ contractor$ work$ together$ as$ equal$ partners.$ Because$ there$ is$ a$ difference$ in$ the$ motivation$of$the$employees$of$the$principal$and$the$employees$of$the$contractor$(including$a$lot$of$ subRcontractors)$the$score$of$both$parties$on$this$criterion$differs.$$ $ In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$ contractor$ collaborate$ as$ equal$ partners$ and$ try$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ together.$This$should$lead$to$a$successful$completion$of$the$project.$The$project$is$not$realised$with$a$ strategic$partnership$or$an$alliance$model$where$everything$is$shared$with$each$other,$but$the$state$ of$the$collaboration$can$be$described$as$project$partnering.$It$is$expected$that$the$infrastructure$part$ of$the$project$will$be$completed$within$time$and$budget.$Both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$the$ project$ is$ a$ success$ if$ it$ will$ be$ completed$ without$ stagnation$ and$ with$ an$ enthusiastic$ public.$ The$ radar$chart$has$illustrated$the$state$of$the$collaboration$as$it$was$observed$during$the$interviews,$but$ this$will$probably$change$in$a$year$when$the$infrastructure$part$of$the$project$is$completed.$With$the$ start$of$the$real$estate$phase$other$parties$and$people$will$enter$the$project$and$their$relationship$ has$to$develop$over$time.$ 6.1.4. Concluding%findings% Beforehand$ people$ were$ sceptical$ about$ the$ intended$ collaboration$ in$ this$ project$ and$ also$ the$ public$was$not$completely$convinced$about$the$necessity$of$the$realisation$of$this$project.$However,$ principal$and$contractor$successfully$invested$in$the$mutual$relationship$and$in$involving$the$project$ stakeholders$ in$ order$ to$ make$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ stacked$ tunnel$ a$ success.$ As$ yet,$ this$ is$ going$ really$ well.$ Not$ only$ due$ to$ the$ investments$ in$ the$ project$ and$ the$ collaborative$ attitude$ of$ both$ parties,$but$also$because$both$are$open$and$transparent,$there$exists$mutual$trust,$and$both$parties$ want$best$for$the$project.$The$points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$on$their$collaboration$are$ almost$ completely$ aligned.$ Only$ for$ the$ criterion$ project$ organisation$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ invest$ to$ align$ their$ point$ of$ view.$ Since$ the$ criteria$ always$ score$ three$ or$ four$ on$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration,$ possibilities$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ are$ limited.$ Most$ important$ is$ that$ both$ parties$keep$in$discussion$about$their$collaboration$to$be$able$to$stay$at$this$state$of$collaboration.$ $ Observing$ this$ case$ lead$ to$ the$ assumption$ that$ it$ is$ important$ to$ make$ agreements$ about$ the$ collaboration$in$advance$and$make$this$part$of$the$contract.$In$that$case$both$parties$have$already$ thought$about$problems$that$might$arise$and$therefore$it$is$clear$who$is$responsible$for$what$during$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project.$ As$ a$ consequence$ the$ contract$ is$ barely$ used.$ This$ case$ has$ also$ illustrated$ some$ other$ aspects$ that$ ease$ the$ collaboration.$ All$ are$ based$ on$ the$ idea$ of$ tackling$ problems$in$advance$and$a$proactive$approach.$Parties$in$the$public$environment$already$committed$ themselves$ to$ the$ project$ in$ the$ beginning.$ Thereby$ conflicting$ issues$ between$ these$ stakeholders$ and$ the$ project$ organisation$ are$ avoided.$ This$ is$ something$ that$ is$ very$ useful$ in$ a$ project$ like$ this$ where$ the$ support$ of$ these$ parties$ is$ often$ needed$ for$ a$ smooth$ proceeding$ of$ the$ project.$ Regarding$ the$ stakeholders$ in$ the$ private$ environment$ it$ is$ important$ that$ they$ are$ informed$ well$ and$have$right$expectations.$If$this$is$not$the$case,$people$will$complain$which$causes$tensions$in$the$ collaboration.$ This$ project$ had$ a$ great$ advantage$ that$ these$ stakeholders$ were$ already$ involved$ during$ the$ preparation$ phase$ of$ the$ project.$ Therefore$ there$ was$ already$ some$ support$ for$ the$ project,$especially$compared$to$a$project$where$the$private$stakeholders$are$not$involved$until$the$ realisation$starts.$In$addition,$the$collaboration$in$this$project$profits$by$the$success$of$the$project.$ Maintaining$a$relationship$would$be$much$harder$in$case$a$project$is$not$a$success$and$if$there$are$a$ lot$of$issues$and$complaints.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"45" In$conclusion$it$can$be$said$that$the$following$aspects$regarding$collaboration$are$interesting$to$take$ into$account$in$future$projects:$ • Make$ agreements$ about$ collaboration$ in$ advance,$ so$ responsibilities$ are$ clear$ during$ the$ project$realisation.$Besides$that,$it$is$important$to$maintain$this$relationship$by$using$formal$ and$informal$instruments.$ • Create$a$joint$financial$fund$to$be$able$to$realise$‘best$for$project’$without$discussions$about$ the$financials.$ • Make$ sure$ higher$ management$ supports$ and$ stimulates$ collaboration,$ to$ make$ everyone$ working$on$the$project$aware$of$the$importance$of$collaboration.$ • Find$support$for$the$project$in$the$public$environment$for$a$smooth$progress$of$the$project.$ In$ case$ these$ stakeholders$ are$ committed$ to$ the$ project$ the$ whole$ legislation$ process$ will$ become$much$easier.$ $ The$ collaboration$ as$ in$ this$ project$ is$ a$ kind$ of$ an$ experiment$ (pilot)$ and$ it$ works$ out$ well$ in$ this$ project,$but$it$is$not$a$guarantee$for$other$projects.$For$the$time$being$the$project$is$a$success,$but$it$ is$important$to$look$forward.$The$all$over$success$of$the$project$is$a$combination$of$the$infrastructure$ realisation$ and$ the$ real$ estate$ development.$ The$ real$ estate$ development$ can$ only$ start$ after$ the$ completion$ of$ the$ infrastructure$ part$ of$ the$ project$ and$ in$ case$ the$ right$ financial$ resources$ are$ available,$but$this$remains$to$be$seen$especially$given$the$current$situation$on$the$real$estate$market.$ $ 6.2. "Case"report"2:"Renovation"of"a"bridge" This$case$covers$the$renovation$of$a$bridge,$which$is$part$of$a$motorway.$The$current$traffic$over$the$ bridge$has$a$higher$number$of$vehicles$than$anticipated$during$the$development$and$also$the$freight$ traffic$has$become$heavier.$This$has$damaged$the$bridge$and$to$guarantee$the$safety$of$the$bridge$in$ the$future$renovation$and$strengthening$of$the$bridge$is$necessary.$The$bridge$will$be$lifted$as$well$ and$ this$ will$ increase$ the$ vertical$ clearance$ for$ shipping$ at$ the$ canal.$ Rijkswaterstaat$ is$ the$ public$ principal$of$the$project.$$ $ The$renovation$of$this$bridge$is$part$of$a$program$that$is$responsible$for$the$renovation$of$fourteen$ bridges$in$the$Netherlands.$For$the$eight$steel$bridges$in$this$program,$three$contractors$have$signed$ a$ framework$ contract$ (Dutch:$ raamwerkovereenkomst)$ with$ RWS$ and$ are$ eligible$ to$ participate$ in$ the$ (mini)$ tender$ for$ these$ bridges.$ In$ 2013$ the$ project$ was$ awarded$ and$ the$ criteria$ price,$ minimization$ of$ traffic$ disruption,$ a$ reliable$ and$ controlled$ realisation,$ chances$ and$ risks$ and$ the$ collaboration$ with$ the$ principal$ were$ important$ in$ the$ tender$ procedure.$ The$ contractor$ accepted$ this$ challenge$ with$ the$ motto$ ‘no$ surprises,$ no$ changes’.$ The$ essence$ of$ this$ motto$ is$ to$ prepare$ everything$in$greater$detail,$reflect$on$it$and$test$it$virtually$with$BIM.$This$is$necessary$because$lots$ of$different$disciplines$are$collaborating$and$there$is$little$freedom,$everything$should$be$right$at$the$ first$go.$It$is$a$project$with$a$high$technical$complexity$in$a$dynamic$environment.$Two$of$the$busiest$ infrastructure$axes$in$the$Netherlands$cross$each$other,$while$both$need$to$be$accessible$for$traffic$ during$ the$ realisation.$ The$ renovation$ started$ in$ 2013$ and$ the$ project$ should$ be$ completed$ at$ the$ end$of$2015.$$ $ In$ the$ bridge$ renovation$ program$ RWS$ is$ experimenting$ with$ managing$ contractors$ from$ market$ parties$to$provide$more$technical$expertise.$These$market$parties$are$responsible$for$the$engineering$ of$ the$ bridges$ and$ for$ the$ management$ of$ the$ project$ during$ realisation.$ RWS$ is$ working$ with$ a$ project$team$according$to$the$IPM$model,$but$only$the$contract$manager$and$the$project$stakeholder$ manager$are$actually$working$for$RWS.$The$other$three$roles$are$fulfilled$by$employees$of$the$market$ parties,$operating$in$this$project$on$behalf$of$RWS.$The$contractor$has$tried$to$create$a$project$team$ that$ is$ mirrored$ to$ the$ team$ of$ the$ principal.$ There$ are$ two$ differences,$ the$ principal$ has$ one$ technical$manager$where$the$contractor$has$two$of$them.$The$other$difference$is$the$role$of$project$ stakeholder$ manager.$ The$ contractor$ has$ a$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ and$ a$ traffic$ manager,$ 46"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ because$of$the$scope$and$complexity$of$the$infrastructure$in$this$project.$A$dry$axis$is$crossing$a$wet$ axis.$ At$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ is$ also$ responsible$ for$ the$ traffic$ management.$ $ The$respondents$for$this$case$were$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$and$the$project$ stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor.$The$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$is$working$ for$ RWS$ and$ was$ already$ involved$ at$ an$ early$ stage.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ contractor$entered$the$project$when$the$realisation$started$and$he$has$been$an$employee$of$RWS$in$ the$past.$ 6.2.1. Implementation%of%project%stakeholder%management% In$this$project$project$stakeholder$management$is$applied$as$an$instrument$and$strategic$oriented.$ Given$ the$ complex$ project$ environment$ it$ is$ needed$ to$ take$ the$ interests$ of$ stakeholders$ into$ account$ in$ order$ to$ be$ able$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ without$ public$ resistance.$ In$ this$ project$ the$ interests$ of$ the$ public$ and$ professional$ stakeholders$ were$ taken$ into$ account.$ The$ last$ group$ of$ stakeholders$ was$ really$ important,$ because$ some$ of$ these$ stakeholders$ have$ short$ lines$ with$ the$ national$ politics$ and$ their$ network$ was$ needed$ to$ inform$ the$ public.$ The$ private$ stakeholders,$ like$ the$ residents$ and$ road$ users,$ on$ the$ other$ hand$ were$ mainly$ informed$ about$ the$ project.$ This$ illustrates$ that$ there$ is$ a$ clear$ distinction$ in$ the$ approach$ of$ public$ and$ professional$ stakeholders$ compared$ to$ the$ approach$ private$ stakeholders.$ The$ public$ and$ professional$ stakeholders$ are$ approached$ as$ equal$ partners$ and$ there$ are$ conversations$ with$ these$ parties,$ this$ indicates$ stakeholder$management.$The$private$stakeholders$on$the$other$hand$are$provided$with$oneRsided$ information,$ which$ indicates$ communication$ rather$ than$ stakeholder$ management.$ The$ contract$ makes$a$distinction$between$public$and$construction$communication.$The$principal$is$responsible$for$ the$ public$ communication$ and$ the$ contractor$ for$ the$ construction$ communication.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ component$ conditioning$ is$ mainly$ the$ responsibility$ of$ the$ contractor.$ Before$ the$ start$ of$ the$ project$ the$ principal$ only$ executed$ some$ preliminary$ work$ and$ applies$ for$ permits$the$contractor$otherwise$would$not$have$on$time.$The$contractor$worked$with$an$individual$ traffic$manager$who$acts$at$the$management$level.$Most$important$for$this$component$is$that$it$is$ possible$to$use$the$infrastructure$during$the$renovation$of$the$bridge.$The$main$risks$are$related$to$ the$blockings$of$the$canal,$because$there$is$no$alternative$route$available.$For$the$traffic$disruption$ on$the$road$a$reference$model$decides$whether$the$contractor$meets$the$requirements,$and$earns$a$ bonus$or$has$to$pay$a$fee.$ $ Both$project$teams$are$located$in$the$same$office,$but$do$not$operate$as$one$project$organisation.$ This$ was$ illustrated$ with$ examples$ as$ the$ signing$ the$ newsletters$ depends$ on$ the$ type$ of$ communication$ and$ the$ fact$ that$ people$ can$ contact$ principal$ or$ contractor$ for$ complaints.$ The$ respondents$ also$ illustrated$ that$ both$ organisations$ differ$ materially$ from$ each$ other$ and$ have$ different$goals.$$ $ In$ this$ project$ both$ parties$ also$ differ$ in$ the$ interpretation$ of$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager.$For$example,$the$contractor$chose$to$have$an$individual$traffic$manager$due$to$the$scope$ and$complexity$of$the$infrastructure$system.$Each$project$stakeholder$manager$has$his$own$tasks$and$ responsibilities.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ is$ working$ at$ the$ strategic$ and$ tactical$ level.$ His$ function$ is$ mainly$ about$ monitoring$ and$ maintaining$ the$ relations$ that$ exist$ and$ create$ support$ for$ the$ project.$ This$ is$ a$ consequence$ of$ the$ fact$ that$ the$ contractor$ enters$ the$ project$at$a$later$stage$and$that$the$principal$wants$to$stay$the$contact$point$and$the$partner$in$the$ region.$The$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor$acts$mostly$at$the$tactical$and$operational$ level,$so$the$daily$routine$at$and$around$the$construction$site.$He$is$also$better$informed$about$the$ content$ of$ the$ project$ compared$ to$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal.$ Both$ respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$have$different$characters$and$they$make$use$of$each$other’s$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"47" qualities.$The$division$of$tasks$and$responsibilities$is$quite$strict$and$taking$over$each$other’s$role$is$ therefore$not$possible.$ 6.2.2. Collaboration%on%project%stakeholder%management% The$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ taken$ into$ account$ to$ sketch$ how$ principal$and$contractor$are$collaborating$on$it.$In$this$project$the$collaboration$was$really$intensive$ in$the$beginning$for$the$benefit$of$the$project,$but$right$now$there$are$more$tensions$between$both$ parties.$Certain$issues$that$were$suppressed$in$the$first$place$for$the$benefit$of$the$collaboration,$are$ now$resulting$in$discussions.$It$took$some$time$to$find$a$collective$project$location,$but$a$month$after$ the$realisation$of$the$project$started$both$project$teams$moved$into$one$office$building.$There$is$no$ physical$ distance$ between$ the$ two$ parties,$ because$ both$ project$ teams$ work$ in$ the$ same$ office$ at$ the$ same$ floor,$ without$ passes$ or$ closed$ doors.$ The$ points$ of$ view$ on$ the$ collaboration$ of$ both$ respondents$will$be$discussed.$ $ Respondent"principal" During$the$ PSU$both$parties$have$agreed$on$some$project$and$behavioural$goals,$since$these$were$ not$ sufficiently$ defined$ in$ the$ contract.$ The$ objectives$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ differ$ and$ with$ financial$ incentives$ the$ principal$ tried$ to$ stimulate$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ contractor.$ Principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ a$ professional$ working$ relationship,$ where$ the$ party$ best$able$bears$a$risk.$There$has$been$one$issue$with$the$placement$of$beams$under$the$bridge.$This$ took$ longer$ than$ expected$ and$ therefore$ a$ crisis$ team$ was$ needed$ to$ manage$ the$ situation.$ This$ delay$resulted$in$a$blockage$of$the$canal$and$was$therefore$not$accessible,$resulting$in$a$lot$of$ships$ at$both$sides$of$the$bridge$and$furious$shipping$companies.$The$respondent$was$really$unhappy$with$ this$situation,$because$regarding$project$stakeholder$management$it$is$really$important$to$be$reliable$ and$predictable$in$such$situations.$$ $ The$respondent$illustrated$that$the$relationship$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$is$good$ and$that$there$are$no$tensions.$Contractual$issues$are$shifted$to$the$contract$managers$in$order$to$ maintain$ the$ relationship$ between$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers.$ For$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ it$ is$ important$ to$ forget$ the$ project$ and$ do$ it$ together.$ According$ to$ the$ respondent$ important$aspects$for$collaboration$are$“the#personalities#of#people,#their#will#to#be#open#and#honest,# and# the# influence# a# project# stakeholder# manager# has# within# his# or# her# organisation.# If# there# is# no# support# for# project# stakeholder# management# within# an# organisation,# you# will# not# get# something# done”.$The$respondent$had$high$expectations$of$the$contractors’$motto,$but$has$been$disappointed$ in$this$several$of$times.$This$has$influence$on$the$trust$the$principal$has$in$the$contractor$and$thereby$ it$influences$the$collaboration.$Right$now$the$contractor$is$making$motions$of$withdrawal$and$has$a$ decreasing$ interest$ in$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ This$ is$ a$ risk$ for$ the$ further$ course$ of$ the$ project.$Besides$that,$the$respondent$will$leave$the$project$in$2015.$This$will$have$consequences$for$ the$ interest$ in$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ as$ well$ and$ for$ the$ collaboration$ with$ the$ contractor.$Important$is$to$keep$focused$on$the$project$stakeholders,$because$in$case$they$are$not$ informed$correctly$and$something$happens$all$established$goodwill$is$gone.$For$the$respondent$the$ project$is$a$success$if$it$will$be$realised$without$further$delays$and$that$there$are$no$surprises$about$ the$quality$of$the$project$after$completion.$$ " Respondent"contractor" The$respondent$illustrated$that$in$tense$situations$it$becomes$clear$how$people$deal$with$each$other.$ “Everyone#can#be#friendly#and#keep#to#agreements#if#everything#goes#smoothly,#but#the#moment#there# are# conflicting# interest# the# real# collaboration# rises# to# the# surface”.$ The$ contract$ is$ a$ fundamental$ element$for$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor,$but$the$respondent$does$not$believe$ this$ directly$ influences$ the$ collaboration.$ This$ is$ more$ dependent$ on$ the$ people$ and$ their$ experiences,$ competences$ and$ character.$ The$ core$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ in$ the$ beginning$of$a$project$and$right$now$the$scope$and$attention$for$it$is$decreasing.$Besides$that,$the$ 48"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ project$organisation$will$change$because$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$will$leave$ the$project$and$the$same$might$apply$for$the$respondent$as$well.$These$changes$will$influence$the$ collaboration$ and$ the$ respondent$ illustrated$ that$ “it# is# important# that# project# stakeholder# management#will#not#completely#disappear,#especially#when#people#will#leave#the#project”.$Most$of$ the$ execution$ risks$ are$ the$ responsibility$ of$ the$ contractor,$ but$ the$ respondent$ indicated$ that$ the$ contractor$ did$ not$ always$ agree$ to$ be$ responsible$ for$ these$ risks$ since$ the$ managing$ contractors$ made$part$of$the$design.$ $ The$respondent$illustrated$that$the$collaboration$between$the$project$stakeholder$managers$is$good$ and$that$they$work$the$most$constructive$together$of$all$managers$in$this$project.$Contractual$issues$ are$shifted$to$the$contract$managers$of$both$parties$to$maintain$the$relationship$between$the$project$ stakeholder$ managers.$ The$ characters$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ match,$ but$ this$ was$ something$that$happened$coincidentally.$The$respondent$has$the$opinion$that$there$should$be$more$ attention$for$the$composition$of$project$teams,$since$these$people$make$a$project.$The$respondent$ has$ work$ experience$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ and$ he$ has$ the$ opinion$ that$ this$ had$ a$ positive$ influence$on$the$collaboration.$$ $ During$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ it$ turned$ out$ that$ it$ is$ hard$ to$ connect$ project$ stakeholder$ management$with$the$people$who$perform$the$work$outside.$Within$the$management$teams$it$can$ be$explained$why$certain$investments$are$valuable,$but$it$is$more$difficult$to$convince$the$people$at$ the$ construction$ site.$ The$ respondent$ also$ illustrated$ that$ it$ is$ hard$ to$ meet$ the$ safety$ and$ health$ requirements$ at$ the$ construction$ site.$ Right$ now$ for$ example$ everyone$ on$ the$ construction$ site$ is$ wearing$ a$ helmet,$ but$ in$ the$ summer$ with$ high$ temperatures$ no$ one$ wears$ one.$ “They# put# their# helmet#on#if#someone#steps#by#to#control#this.#People#are#aware#of#the#risks#of#not#wearing#a#helmet,# but#it#is#simply#too#warm#to#wear#them”.$The$project$is$already$a$success$for$the$respondent.$“It#was# a#challenging#project#regarding#project#stakeholder#management#and#during#the#tensest#period#there# was#little#negative#attention#for#the#project.#Problems#that#arose#were#well#solved#internally”.$$ 6.2.3. State%of%the%collaboration%between%principal%and%contractor% The$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ vary$ by$ criterion$ and$ the$ level$ of$ it$ can$ change$during$the$course$of$the$project.$The$collaboration$in$this$project$has$developed$to$average$ levels,$ because$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ started$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase$ and$ there$ is$ no$ overarching$ incentive$ to$ collaborate.$ Currently,$ the$ collaboration$ is$ a$ bit$ under$ pressure$and$both$parties$have$to$guard$that$their$collaboration$does$not$deteriorate$with$still$one$ year$ of$ project$ realisation$ to$ go.$ The$ collaboration$ is$ under$ pressure$ because$ the$ scope$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ becomes$ smaller$ and$ therefore$ the$ attention$ of$ the$ contractor$ on$ this$ aspect$ is$ decreasing,$ this$ to$ the$ displeasure$ of$ the$ principal.$ Thereby$ the$ principal$ has$ been$ disappointed$a$couple$of$times$by$the$performance$of$the$contractor$regarding$their$ability$to$realise$ the$project$according$to$their$motto$‘no$surprises,$no$changes’$and$irritations$between$both$parties$ become$more$visible.$Besides$that,$there$are$changes$in$the$staffing$which$makes$the$situation$even$ more$complex.$Taking$the$empirical$findings$of$the$previous$paragraphs$into$account$resulted$in$the$ following$overview$of$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$in$this$project$ according$to$interview$respondents.$The$point$of$view$of$the$respondent$of$the$principal$is$illustrated$ with$the$orange$line$in$Figure$31$and$the$blue$line$illustrates$the$viewpoint$of$the$respondent$of$the$ contractor.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"49" $ Figure#31:#Radar#chart#of#the#collaboration,#case#2#(own#ill.)# The$radar$chart$illustrates$the$points$of$view$of$both$respondents$regarding$the$collaboration$in$this$ project$ and$ this$ differs$ on$ three$ of$ the$ six$ criteria.$ So$ on$ some$ criteria$ principal$ and$ contractor$ perceive$ their$ collaboration$ in$ the$ same$ way$ and$ on$ some$ other$ criteria$ they$ have$ a$ different$ perception$ of$ their$ collaboration.$ This$ might$ have$ influence$ on$ the$ collaboration$ because$ the$ expectations$ of$ both$ parties$ are$ not$ always$ aligned.$ This$ was$ already$ illustrated$ in$ the$ interviews$ where$it$became$clear$that$the$principal$had$higher$(or$maybe$other)$expectations$of$the$motto$of$ the$ contractor,$ who$ was$ not$ able$ to$ meet$ these$ expectations$ or$ did$ not$ perform$ as$ agreed$ on.$ Before$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ started$ there$ was$ no$ special$ attention$ for$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ but$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ a$ PSU$ and$ PFU’s$ were$ organised.$ Towards$ the$ public$ the$ parties$ do$ not$ act$ as$ one$ organisation,$ but$ they$ act$ more$ as$ individual$parties.$ $ Objectives:$For$both$respondents$serving$the$project$stakeholders$is$the$main$objective,$but$ in$the$interviews$it$was$illustrated$that$the$contractor$as$organisation$has$less$attention$for$project$ stakeholder$ management.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ definitely$ not$ the$ first$ matter$ of$ importance$of$all$employees$of$the$contractor.$Besides$that,$both$respondents$differ$in$their$opinion$ regarding$the$definitions$of$a$successful$project.$For$the$contractor$the$project$is$already$a$success,$ while$the$respondent$of$the$principal$stated:$“The#project#is#a#success#if#the#project#will#be#realised# without# additional# delays# and# without# surprises# about# the# quality# of# the# work# after# completion”.$ These$differences$resulted$in$differences$in$the$level$of$the$collaboration$on$this$criterion.$ Trust:$Both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$are$collaborating$well$and$that$they$trust$ each$other$with$information.$There$is$no$hidden$agenda$and$there$is$confidence$that$the$project$will$ be$completed$according$to$the$plans.$However,$due$to$past$experiences$and$several$disappointments$ the$principal$has$some$doubts$and$does$not$have$full$confidence$in$the$contractor.$This$resulted$in$a$ lower$level$of$collaboration$on$this$criterion$from$the$point$of$view$of$the$principal.$$ Risk:$This$is$a$criterion$where$principal$and$contractor$have$the$same$point$of$view$regarding$ their$collaboration.$It$was$illustrated$that$the$party$best$able$to$control$the$risk$is$responsible$for$it$ and$this$is$specified$in$the$contract.$It$was$also$noticed$that$the$contractor$tried$to$shift$some$risks$to$ the$ principal$ or$ the$ managing$ contractors,$ in$ case$ the$ managing$ contractors$ made$ that$ part$ of$ the$ design.$The$principal$did$not$directly$approve$these$kinds$of$requests,$but$will$first$look$at$a$request$ from$ a$ business$ point$ of$ view.$ This$ shows$ that$ both$ parties$ want$ to$ minimize$ the$ number$ of$ risks$ they$are$responsible$for$and$it$illustrates$the$professional$position$of$both$in$the$negotiations$of$risks.$ Communication:$The$communication$between$both$parties$is$open$and$transparent,$there$is$ a$weekly$project$stakeholder$management$meeting$and$both$project$teams$are$located$in$the$same$ office.$Because$not$all$information$is$shared$with$each$other$and$both$project$stakeholder$managers$ 50"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ are$not$always$present$at$the$office$this$criterion$scores$level$three.$Both$respondents$are$aligned$in$ their$point$of$view$regarding$the$collaboration$on$this$criterion.$ Attitude:" Besides$ a$ PSU$ and$ PFU’s$ there$ are$ no$ specific$ investments$ in$ the$ collaboration,$ thereby$ both$ parties$ act$ more$ individually.$ Right$ now$ the$ attention$ of$ the$ contractor$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ decreasing$ and$ this$ unawareness$ can$ have$ consequences$ for$ the$ progress$ of$ the$ project$ if$ something$ happens$ that$ was$ unexpected.$ The$ limited$ interest$ of$ both$ parties$in$collaboration$resulted$in$a$level$two$score$on$this$criterion.$ Project" organisation:$ In$ this$ project$ the$ respondents$ have$ found$ a$ useful$ solution$ to$ deal$ with$issues$related$to$contractual$issues.$They$do$not$try$to$solve$these$issues,$but$these$issues$are$ shifted$ towards$ both$ contract$ managers.$ This$ has$ a$ positive$ influence$ on$ the$ mutual$ relationship$ between$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers.$ Also$ other$ problems$ are$ solved$ internally$ as$ much$ as$ possible$ and$ there$ is$ a$ good$ working$ model$ in$ case$ an$ issue$ needs$ to$ be$ escalated.$ Regarding$ the$ staffing$of$the$project$there$are$still$possibilities$to$improve$the$level$of$the$collaboration.$In$the$first$ place$it$would$be$better$for$the$progress$of$the$project$that$people$are$involved$from$the$beginning$ until$ the$ end$ of$ the$ project$ and$ both$ respondents$ have$ illustrated$ that$ the$ people$ have$ a$ major$ influence$ on$ the$ success$ of$ the$ project.$ However,$ right$ now$ there$ is$ limited$ attention$ for$ the$ composition$of$the$project$teams$and$this$is$regulated$from$higher$management.$ $ In$this$project$principal$and$contractor$work$together$as$equal$partners$and$help$each$other$if$this$is$ needed.$The$state$of$the$collaboration$can$be$described$as$a$collaborative$relationship,$because$both$ parties$cooperate$with$each$other$because$this$is$needed$to$realise$the$project$but$there$is$no$joint$ action.$ It$ is$ expected$ that$ the$ project$ will$ be$ completed$ as$ planned,$ but$ during$ the$ interviews$ it$ became$ clear$ this$ is$ not$ the$ most$ important$ interest$ of$ the$ respondents,$ this$ is$ probably$ because$ both$will$leave$the$project$before$it$is$completed.$It$seems$that$this$has$decreased$the$interest$of$the$ respondents$in$a$successful$completion$of$this$project.$The$radar$chart$has$illustrated$the$state$of$the$ collaboration$as$it$was$observed$during$the$interviews$with$still$one$year$to$execute.$At$the$moment$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ leaves$ the$ project,$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$principal$and$contractor$will$probably$change.$Especially$since$this$new$relationship$has$to$ grow$in$an$environment$with$tensions$between$both$parties.$ 6.2.4. Concluding%findings% In$this$project$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$started$in$the$realisation$phase.$At$ that$ moment$ it$ was$ needed$ to$ take$ immediate$ action,$ because$ the$ most$ important$ parts$ of$ the$ project$ had$ to$ be$ realised$ and$ therefore$ both$ parties$ needed$ each$ other.$ In$ the$ beginning$ of$ the$ realisation$both$parties$aimed$to$realise$best$for$project,$but$right$now$both$parties$have$to$guard$for$ a$ step$ back$ in$ their$ collaboration.$ This$ is$ in$ the$ first$ place$ because$ the$ main$ part$ of$ the$ project$ is$ successfully$ completed$ and$ there$ is$ less$ focus$ on$ collaboration.$ Besides$ that,$ the$ attention$ of$ the$ contractor$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ decreasing$ and$ irritations$ are$ not$ suppressed$ anymore.$This$resulted$in$more$issues$and$tensions$between$both$parties.$Also$the$confidence$both$ parties$have$in$each$other$is$under$pressure,$especially$since$the$contractor$was$not$always$able$to$ be$predictable$and$reliable.$Since$the$point$of$view$of$both$respondents$is$not$aligned$for$the$criteria$ project$organisation,$objectives$and$trust$it$is$important$that$both$parties$discuss$expectations$with$ each$ other.$ In$ case$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ both$ parties$ becomes$ more$ aligned$ on$ these$ criteria,$ the$ collaboration$between$both$can$enhance$as$well.$ $ This$ case$ gave$ reason$ to$ believe$ that$ the$ relationship$ and$ the$ collaboration$ between$ the$ project$ stakeholder$managers$is$more$important$than$the$relationship$and$the$collaboration$between$other$ managers$ in$ the$ project.$ This$ assumption$ is$ supported$ by$ the$ fact$ that$ issues$ between$ the$ project$ stakeholder$managers$are$shifted$to$other$managers$in$order$to$maintain$their$own$relationship.$As$a$ consequence$there$are$differences$in$the$levels$of$the$collaboration$between$the$different$managers.$ Even$ though$ there$ was$ no$ special$ attention$ for$ collaboration$ or$ for$ the$ composition$ of$ the$ staff$ in$ this$project,$both$respondents$have$indicated$that$the$people$and$their$attitude$will$make$(or$break)$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"51" a$ project.$ In$ this$ project$ everything$ turned$ out$ to$ be$ fine,$ but$ can$ be$ a$ breaking$ point$ in$ the$ collaboration$in$other$projects.$This$case$has$also$illustrated$that$aspects$regarding$collaboration$in$ the$ contract$ are$ not$ sufficient$ and$ that$ additional$ agreements$ regarding$ collaboration$ are$ needed.$ Although$ both$ parties$ focused$ on$ best$ for$ project$ in$ the$ first$ place,$ the$ main$ goal$ right$ now$ is$ to$ complete$the$project$within$time$and$budget$with$some$support$from$the$project$environment.$The$ role$of$the$public$environment$in$this$project$is$minimal,$but$their$interests$were$taken$into$account.$ This$ was$ something$ that$ started$ already$ during$ the$ preparation$ phase$ and$ at$ this$ time$ there$ was$ already$ contact$ with$ the$ professional$ stakeholders$ as$ well.$ The$ stakeholders$ in$ the$ private$ environment$ were$ provided$ with$ oneRsided$ information$ the$ moment$ the$ realisation$ started.$ Maintaining$ the$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ will$ be$ a$ challenge$ because$ the$ staffing$of$the$project$will$change$in$the$coming$time.$ $ In$conclusion$it$can$be$said$that$the$following$lessons$regarding$the$collaboration$between$principal$ and$contractor$can$be$learned$from$this$project:$ • The$mutual$relationship$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$is$really$important$and$ can$be$maintained$by$shifting$discussions$about$contract$and$financials$towards$the$contract$ or$project$managers.$Thereby$the$relationship$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$ will$not$be$harmed,$it$is$questionable$though$what$this$means$for$the$relationships$between$ the$other$managers.$ • A$ contract$ in$ its$ standard$ form$ does$ not$ elaborate$ enough$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ So$ an$ additional$ document$ with$ agreements$ about$ the$ collaboration$and$behaviour$of$people$is$advisable.$ • Make$sure$both$parties$have$the$right$expectations$and$for$a$contracting$party$it$is$important$ to$offer$something$that$can$be$realised.$Hereby$it$can$be$useful$to$have$work$experience$by$ principal$ and$ contracting$ parties,$ because$ this$ makes$ it$ easier$ to$ understand$ the$ point$ of$ view$of$the$other$party.$ • Keep$ focused$ on$ the$ project$ and$ invest$ in$ a$ relationship$ for$ the$whole$ course$ of$ a$ project.$ The$relation$between$the$employees$of$the$principal$and$employees$of$the$contractor$might$ improve$by$having$more$attention$for$the$composition$of$project$teams.$$ $ In$this$project$principal$and$contractor$cooperate$with$each$other$to$realise$the$project.$For$now$this$ is$ going$ well,$ but$ there$ are$ developments$ that$ might$ negatively$ influence$ this$ cooperation.$ It$ is$ important$to$take$this$into$account$in$the$further$course$of$the$project,$in$order$to$realise$the$project$ according$to$the$plans.$Time$will$tell$if$principal$and$contractor$are$able$to$realise$this.$ $ 6.3. Case"report"3:"A"combined"road"and"railway"tunnel" In$this$case$a$national$highway$that$currently$crosses$the$city$centre$of$Nijverdal$is$repositioned.$Pub$ owner$Leo$ten$Brinke$was$in$the$seventies$one$of$the$initiators$to$relieve$the$city$centre$of$Nijverdal$ by$directing$car$traffic$through$a$tunnel.$In$1995$it$was$decided$to$relocate$the$road$to$the$north,$but$ the$ financing$ of$ the$ project$ was$ a$ problem.$ In$ 2006$ it$ was$ announced$ that$ the$ project$ would$ be$ realised.$The$plan$included$a$combined$construction$consisting$of$a$partly$sunken$railway$and$road.$ The$ project$ includes$ a$ tunnel$ section$ with$ three$ tubes,$ a$ station,$ four$ bridges,$ two$ crossovers$ and$ two$underpasses$for$pedestrians.$With$the$realisation$of$this$plan$the$existing$road$will$be$relocated$ northwards$over$a$length$of$6$kilometres.$The$goal$of$the$realisation$of$this$project$is$a$better$traffic$ flow$ with$ less$ traffic$ jams$ and$ nuisance,$ thereby$ the$ safety$ and$ accessibility$ of$ the$ station$ area$ should$increase$and$the$train$connection$should$become$more$reliable$and$together$this$all$should$ improve$the$safety$and$liveability$in$the$city.$The$project$was$awarded$in$2007$and$the$construction$ started$ in$ 2008.$ According$ to$ the$ planning$ the$ project$ should$ be$ completed$ in$ 2014,$ but$ due$ to$ problems$with$the$ICT$system$the$opening$is$postponed.$In$Appendix$E$some$additional$information$ about$this$project$and$its$characteristics$can$be$found.$$ $ 52"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ Because$ the$ plan$ includes$ the$ construction$ of$ a$ road$ and$ a$ railway$ tunnel,$ there$ are$ two$ public$ principals$ RWS$ and$ ProRail.$ RWS$ is$ the$ principal$ for$ the$ road$ tunnel$ and$ the$ substructure$ of$ the$ railway$ and$ ProRail$ is$ the$ principal$ for$ the$ superstructure$ of$ the$ railway$ and$ manages$ the$ construction$ of$ the$ station.$ The$ requirements$ from$ ProRail$ are$ included$ in$ the$ main$ contract$ between$ RWS$ and$ the$ contractor.$ So$ there$ is$ no$ actual$ relationship$ between$ ProRail$ and$ the$ contractor.$Both$public$organisations$signed$a$collaboration$agreement,$because$both$organisations$ are$ completely$ different$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$ not$ impose$ a$ standard$ method$ and$ therefore$ everyone$ could$work$according$to$their$own$system.$Besides$that,$both$parties$have$to$collaborate$even$after$ the$ completion$ of$ the$ project$ due$ to$ security$ measures.$ A$ calamity$ on$ the$ rail$ shall$ lead$ to$ the$ closure$of$one$road$tunnel.$ $ Besides$RWS$and$ProRail,$the$municipality$and$province$are$important$actors$in$this$project$as$well.$ The$ municipality$ is$ an$ important$ actor$ because$ they$ are$ responsible$ for$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ infrastructure$ around$ the$ station.$ While$ the$ province$ and$ the$ ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$ and$ Environment$asked$for$a$change$in$the$project$scope$to$ensure$the$infrastructure$would$be$able$to$ handle$the$future$traffic$flows.$ $ The$agreements$between$RWS$and$contractor$are$written$down$in$a$D&C$contract.$All$parties$have$ to$ collaborate$ in$ order$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ goal$ with$ as$ little$ nuisance$ as$ possible$ for$ the$ project$ stakeholders,$ within$ time$ and$ within$ budget.$ After$ the$ completion$ of$ the$ project$ the$ contractor$ is$ responsible$ for$ another$ three$ years$ for$ the$ maintenance,$ this$ is$ actually$ an$ extension$ of$ the$ guarantee$with$three$years.$ $ The$respondents$in$this$case$were$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$and$the$project$ manager$of$the$contractor.$The$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$is$working$for$RWS$and$ entered$the$project$in$2010,$after$a$period$with$a$somewhat$diffuse$view$about$the$role$of$project$ stakeholder$ manager.$ Before$ this$ period$ someone$ else$ fulfilled$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$at$the$side$of$the$principal.$The$contractor$does$not$have$one$person$who$is$responsible$for$ project$stakeholder$management,$this$task$is$the$responsibility$of$different$functionaries.$The$project$ manager$ has$ the$ final$ responsibility$ and$ was$ therefore$ chosen$ for$ this$ interview.$ The$ project$ manager$ has$ worked$ on$ this$ project$ since$ the$ start$ of$ the$ realisation$ phase$ and$ has$ fulfilled$ three$ different$functions.$In$this$first$place$as$technical$manager,$later$on$as$project$leader$for$the$whole$ project$organisation$of$the$contractor$and$right$now$as$project$manager.$ 6.3.1. Implementation%of%project%stakeholder%management% Project$stakeholder$management$is$in$this$project$strategically$oriented$as$an$instrument$to$realise$ the$project,$as$exemplified$by$the$respondent$of$the$principal$“project#stakeholder#management#does# not#have#an#own#entity#or#goal,#but#it#is#used#to#support#the#project#as#a#whole”.$$ $ This$ case$ has$ also$ illustrated$ that$ there$ can$ be$ a$ huge$ difference$ between$ the$ stakeholders$ in$ the$ public$and$private$environment$of$a$project.$The$stakeholders$in$the$public$environment$are$actively$ participating$ in$ the$ project$ and$ decision$ making$ process,$ while$ the$ private$ environment$ is$ mainly$ informed$about$the$project.$ Because$ the$number$of$authorities$and$the$ complexity$of$the$decision$ making$ process,$ the$ principal$ has$ the$ major$ responsibility$ on$ the$ component$ stakeholder$ management.$For$this$component$the$role$of$the$contractor$is$more$facilitating.$Most$tasks$that$are$ part$of$the$component$conditioning$are$outsourced$and$the$responsibility$of$the$contractor.$There$is$ one$ exception,$ the$ permit$ for$ the$ opening$ of$ the$ tunnel.$ Due$ to$ new$ legislation$ regarding$ tunnel$ safety$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$ not$ outsource$ the$ application$ for$ this$ permit.$ The$ component$ conditioning$ was$in$this$project$merely$about$permits,$cables$and$pipelines$and$soil$analyses.$Traffic$management$ was$ a$ minor$ component$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ The$ nuisance$ for$ road$ users$ was$ limited,$ because$ the$ project$ was$ realised$ to$ the$ north$ of$ the$ existing$ road.$ The$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$did$resulted$in$some$nuisance$for$the$local$traffic,$because$some$roads$were$close$and$there$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"53" were$ fewer$ possibilities$ to$ cross$ the$ railway.$ The$ major$ part$ of$ traffic$ management$ was$ the$ responsibility$of$the$contractor.$For$the$components$of$project$stakeholder$management$that$have$ been$discussed$the$distinction$in$responsibility$between$principal$and$contractor$is$quite$clear.$This$is$ much$ harder$ for$ the$ aspect$ communication$ because$ the$ tasks$ and$ different$ levels$ of$ project$ stakeholder$management$have$more$overlap.$Therefore$it$was$decided$to$approach$communication$ as$one$team,$the$motto$here$was$‘speaking$with$one$voice’.$Although$the$responsibilities$within$this$ team$ approach$ were$ still$ distinguished$ based$ on$ the$ division$ of$ public$ and$ construction$ communication.$ $ Both$respondents$illustrated$that$their$organisations$have$different$goals$and$that$the$approach$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ completely$ different.$ The$ most$ striking$ difference$ is$ the$ organisation$of$project$stakeholder$management.$The$principal$has$a$project$stakeholder$manager,$ who$is$responsible$for$project$stakeholder$management$together$with$his$team.$The$contractor$on$ the$ other$ hand$ does$ not$ have$ the$ function$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager.$ The$ different$ components$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ are$ the$ responsibility$ of$ different$ managers.$ The$ respondent$of$the$contractor$has$noted$that$he$would$approach$this$differently$in$a$coming$project.$ “The# next# time# I# would# put# the# responsibility# for# project# stakeholder# management# by# a# specific# person.#If#I#was#RWS,#I#would#maybe#even#require#the#contractor#to#arrange#his#project#organisation# according#to#the#IPM#model”.$There$is$a$clear$division$in$the$responsibilities$for$project$stakeholder$ management$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Most$ of$ the$ operational$ tasks$ were$ contracted$ to$ the$contractor$if$this$was$possible.$This$is$in$line$with$the$idea$of$RWS$to$control$the$project$from$a$ distance.$$ 6.3.2. Collaboration%on%project%stakeholder%management% Now$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ has$ been$ illustrated,$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ elaborate$ on$ how$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ collaborated.$ This$ project$ was$ a$ pilot$ for$ RWS$ to$ experiment$ with$ ‘controlling$ the$ project$ from$ a$ distance’$ during$ the$ realisation.$ Therefore$ the$ contractor$was$located$in$a$site$office$at$the$construction$site,$while$RWS$had$2$FTE$available$for$this$ project$ to$ control$ the$ project$ at$ a$ distance.$ This$ resulted$ in$ a$ negative$ setting$ for$ collaboration$ between$principal$and$contractor.$This$was$highlighted$several$times$by$the$contractor,$and$after$a$ couple$of$years$it$was$recognised$by$the$principal$as$well.$From$2011,$the$management$teams$of$RWS$ and$ ProRail$ were$ located$ in$ a$ site$ office$ at$ the$ construction$ site.$ In$ the$ period$ 2011R2012$ the$ collaboration$was$still$a$bit$difficult,$but$has$improved$after$the$signing$of$the$‘package$deal’$and$an$ adjustment$of$the$contract$with$incentives$for$collaboration.$The$points$of$view$of$both$respondents$ will$be$discussed.$ $ Respondent"principal" RWS$and$ProRail$acted$from$a$distance$at$the$start$of$the$realisation$phase$of$this$project.$Later$on$it$ turned$ out$ difficult$ to$ keep$ to$ this$ strategy$ and$ both$ principals$ moved$ to$ the$ construction$ site$ as$ well.$This$made$it$easier$to$step$by$each$other$and$discuss$thing$on$an$adhoc$basis.$According$to$the$ respondent$ collaboration$ is$ possible$ in$ case$ both$ parties$ agree$ about$ the$ fact$ that$ they$ disagree$ about$a$certain$situation$and$in$such$cases$the$contract$becomes$an$important$document.$During$the$ project$realisation$some$adjustments$to$contract$were$made$to$make$collaboration$more$attractive$ for$the$contractor.$The$contract$had$to$be$reviewed$due$to$scope$changes$and$a$financial$incentive$to$ stimulate$ collaboration$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ contractor$ was$ included$ rather$ than$ maximising$ their$ turnover.$There$were$some$long$drawnRout$issues$that$threatened$to$stagnate$the$project$progress.$ In$2012$all$public$parties$agreed$on$a$soRcalled$‘package$deal’.$In$this$deal$every$party$had$to$give$and$ take,$and$within$two$months$there$was$an$agreement$whereby$fifteen$long$drawnRout$issues$were$ solved.$ Regarding$the$collaboration$during$the$whole$project$the$respondent$has$a$somewhat$nuanced$look$ at$the$extent$to$which$both$parties$succeeded$in$filling$in$the$collaboration$in$this$project$and$hold$to$ this$ collaboration$ during$ tense$ moments.$ “Both# parties# had# the# tendency# to# close# the# shutters# at# 54"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ tense#moments#and#at#these#moments#non#of#the#parties#wanted#to#be#disturbed”.$The$project$is$not$ successful$ for$ the$ respondent$ until$ the$ tunnel$ is$ opened.$ Besides$ that,$ the$ satisfaction$ among$ the$ residents$is$mentioned$as$important$indicator$of$the$project$success$and$for$the$coming$period$it$is$ important$ to$ keep$ the$ support.$ “An# enthusiastic# public# will# have# a# positive# influence# on# the# collaboration.# Collaboration# is# stimulated# for# example# in# case# there# is# a# load# applause# after# an# information# meeting# for# residents”.$ The$ respondent$ expects$ that$ there$ will$ come$ some$ discussions$ about$the$responsibilities$regarding$the$delay$in$the$opening$of$the$tunnel$and$who$is$going$to$pay$ for$this.#$$$ $ Respondent"contractor" Because$ the$ principal$ controlled$ the$ project$ from$ a$ distance,$ collaboration$ was$ difficult$ in$ the$ beginning$ of$ the$ project.$ The$ respondent$ has$ the$ opinion$ that$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$contractor$is$going$really$well$at$this$moment.$This$is$due$to$the$fact$that$the$principal$moved$to$ the$construction$site$as$well.$Besides$that,$the$respondent$illustrated$that$this$is$also$because$RWS$ has$in$the$last$couple$of$years$a$quite$consist$project$team$and$the$same$applies$for$the$team$of$the$ contractor.$“Having#a#lot#of#changes#within#the#project#organisation#is#fatal#for#the#collaboration.#We# could#have#acted#more#together#from#the#beginning.#The#collaboration#for#the#communication#worked# really#well,#but#this#could#be#improved#by#acting#more#intensively#together”.$Other$difficulties$in$the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ were$ related$ to$ differences$ in$ expectations$ and$ absence$of$trust$at$the$side$of$the$principal.$ $ The$respondent$illustrated$that$although$the$contractor$had$only$a$contract$with$RWS,$they$had$to$ deal$with$ProRail$as$well.$“ProRail#is#not#used#to#be#the#second#fiddle#and#they#did#no#act#as#such#in# this#project#either.#So#in#reality#we#were#dealing#with#two#principal#parties”.$During$project$realisation$ some$ large$ contractual$ adjustments$ were$ chosen$ as$ basic$ principle$ to$ create$ a$ common$ goal$ with$ mutual$interests.$Right$now$there$are$some$difficulties$with$the$ICT$systems$in$the$tunnel$and$it$will$ take$ some$ time$ to$ fix$ this.$ For$ the$ respondent$ “the# flag# is# not# hanging# out# before# the# tunnel# is# opened”.## 6.3.3. State%of%the%collaboration%between%principal%and%contractor% The$level$that$illustrates$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$be$different$for$each$ criterion$and$can$also$change$during$the$course$of$the$project.$In$this$project$the$collaboration$has$ developed$ to$ fairly$ high$ levels$ and$ this$ has$ grown$ over$ time.$ Due$ to$ the$ controlling$ on$ a$ distance$ strategy$of$the$principal$the$collaboration$was$limited$in$the$beginning,$but$this$has$improved$later$ on$when$the$principal$arranged$an$office$at$the$construction$site$and$abandoned$the$controlling$on$a$ distance$ strategy.$ This$ resulted$ in$ investments$ in$ the$ collaboration$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ and$ both$ parties$ agreed$ on$ some$ behavioural$ rules.$ Although$ the$ collaboration$ has$ developed$over$time,$a$more$intensive$collaboration$would$have$been$desirable$in$the$beginning$of$ the$project.$This$because$the$contractor$had$to$make$a$design$based$on$over$2500$requirements$of$ the$principal.$It$does$require$some$consultations$between$principal$and$contractor$in$order$to$make$a$ feasible$design.$Based$on$the$empirical$findings$of$the$previous$paragraphs$the$following$overview$of$ the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$be$given.$The$point$of$view$of$the$ principal$ is$ illustrated$ with$ the$ orange$ line$ in$ Figure$ 32$ and$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ contractor$ is$ illustrated$with$the$blue$line.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"55" $ Figure#32:#Radar#chart#of#the#collaboration,#case#3#(own#ill.)# The$radar$chart$illustrates$that$both$respondents$have$a$different$point$of$view$regarding$the$level$of$ their$collaboration$on$four$of$the$six$aspects.$So$for$the$majority$of$the$criteria$the$respondents$have$ a$different$perception$of$their$collaboration.$This$can$have$influence$on$the$collaboration$because$it$ illustrates$that$both$parties$experience$their$collaboration$differently.$These$differences$in$the$state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ are$ related$ to$ the$ false$ start$ of$ collaboration$ in$ this$ project.$ The$ principal$ expected$ that$ the$ project$ could$ be$ controlled$ from$ a$ distance,$ something$ that$ turned$ out$ to$ be$ impossible.$However,$this$still$influences$the$perception$of$the$principal.$This$is$mainly$illustrated$by$ the$ fact$ that$ the$ principal$ had$ to$ take$ the$ lead$ in$ some$ issues$ although$ they$ prefer$ the$ contractor$ would$do$this.$There$are$still$some$unrealistic$expectations$at$the$side$of$the$principal$regarding$the$ acting$and$behaviour$of$the$contractor.$Besides$some$formals$meetings$there$was$no$attention$for$ the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$at$the$start$of$the$project$realisation.$Later$on$the$ importance$ of$ collaboration$ was$ recognised$ and$ investments$ have$ been$ made$ to$ stimulate$ the$ collaboration$and$principal$and$contractor$acted$as$one$organisation$in$the$communication$towards$ the$public.$ $ Objectives:" This$ project$ has$ two$ milestones$ regarding$ to$ the$ products$ that$ have$ to$ be$ realised,$the$first$objective$was$the$opening$of$the$tunnel$for$the$trains$and$the$second$milestone$will$ be$ the$ opening$ of$ the$ road$ tunnels.$ The$ first$ milestone$ was$ achieved$ and$ right$ now$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ looking$ for$ options$ to$ achieve$ the$ second$ one$ as$ well.$ These$ milestones$ have$ to$ be$ achieved$ by$ collaborative$ acting$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Therefore$ principal$ and$ contractor$ signed$ an$ agreement$ with$ a$ financial$ incentive$ for$ the$ contractor.$ The$ respondent$ of$ the$ principal$ focused$on$the$fact$that$it$was$needed$to$stimulate$the$contractor$to$collaborate$more,$something$ that$ was$ preferred$ by$ the$ principal.$ While$ the$ respondent$ of$ the$ contractor$ explained$ that$ this$ agreement$with$its$objectives$have$benefits$for$both$parties.$There$is$a$difference$in$the$perception$ of$both$parties$regarding$this$criterion,$although$the$objectives$of$both$parties$are$aligned$right$now.$ Because$this$was$realised$on$initiative$of$the$principal$(RWS$in$this$case),$they$do$not$experience$this$ as$such.$ $ Trust:$ It$ was$ illustrated$ that$ the$ contract$ contains$ a$ lot$ of$ paper$ work$ with$ over$ 2500$ requirements.$ These$ requirements$ are$ simplified$ by$ the$ contractor,$ which$ sometimes$ resulted$ in$ 4$ requirements$ that$ must$ be$ complied$ with$ instead$ of$ 50.$ Besides$ the$ enormous$ number$ of$ requirements,$ the$ principal$ has$ a$ lot$ of$ procedures$ and$ protocols$ the$ contractor$has$ to$ meet.$ This$ illustrates$that$the$principal$wants$to$keep$control$on$the$actions$of$the$contractor$and$indicates$that$ there$is$no$full$confidence$in$the$contractor.$This$is$remarkable,$especially$since$the$principal$wanted$ to$control$the$project$from$a$distance$by$outsourcing$tasks$to$the$contractor.$Given$this$number$of$ requirements$ and$ protocols$ the$ contractor$ has$ interest$ in$ more$ collaboration$ with$ the$ principal$ in$ 56"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ order$to$make$a$design$that$was$in$line$with$their$expectations.$This$difference$in$the$experience$of$ mutual$trust$resulted$in$the$different$scores$on$this$criterion.$ $ Risk:$ The$ collaboration$ on$ this$ criterion$ is$ what$ more$ difficult$ to$ define.$ There$ is$ no$ collaborative$ approach$ regarding$ risks$ and$ the$ contractor$ bears$ most$ of$ the$ risks.$ However,$ the$ principal$ took$ initiative$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ and$ some$ long$ drawnRout$ issues$ that$ might$ hinder$the$project$progress$were$solved$in$a$package$deal.$Therefore$the$principal$scores$higher$on$ this$criterion$compared$to$the$contractor$who$did$not$act$to$solve$these$issues.$ Communication:$ The$ contractor$ wanted$ to$ be$ open$ and$ transparent$ towards$ other$ parties$ and$therefore$shared$most$of$the$information$that$was$relevant$for$other$parties.$The$principal$was$a$ bit$ fearful$ regarding$ the$ amount$ of$ information$ the$ contractor$ shared$ with$ a$ stakeholder$ like$ the$ municipality.$The$communication$between$the$team$members$of$both$parties$improved$the$moment$ the$principal$had$an$office$at$the$construction$site,$because$the$physical$barrier$to$contact$each$other$ disappeared.$$ Attitude:" Attitude$ is$ one$ of$ the$ criteria$ that$ changed$ over$ time,$ because$ especially$ at$ the$ start$of$the$project$there$were$no$incentives$to$collaborate.$Over$time$there$was$more$invested$in$ the$ collaboration$ by$ making$ collaboration$ financial$ attractive$ for$ the$ contractor$ and$ both$ parties$ became$more$interested$in$solving$problems$instead$of$endless$discussions$about$was$agreed$on$in$ the$contract$and$how$things$turned$out$in$reality.$ Project"organisation:$Also$this$criterion$would$have$scored$a$different$level$at$the$start$of$the$ realisation$phase.$During$the$realisation$of$the$project$both$organisations$changed,$the$project$team$ of$the$principal$started$with$2$people$and$now$counts$around$30$people.$Besides$the$changes$in$the$ organisation$itself$the$attitude$of$the$employees$regarding$collaboration$has$positively$changes$and$ there$ is$ interest$ in$ realising$ the$ project$ together,$ because$ it$ turned$ out$ that$ both$ parties$ had$ to$ collaborate$in$order$to$realise$the$project.$ $ Although$ the$ project$ teams$ of$ both$ parties$ were$ not$ integrated,$ something$ that$ was$ probably$ impossible$ due$ to$ the$ start$ of$ the$ project,$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ in$ this$ project$ can$ be$ described$as$a$collaborative$relationship.$Also$considering$the$investments$made$to$remove$barriers$ and$ searching$ for$ opportunities$ to$ improve$ collaboration.$ Despite$ the$ good$ prospects$ it$ appeared$ impossible$to$open$the$road$tunnels$on$time,$this$due$to$problems$with$the$ICT$systems.$Because$this$ is$ a$ recent$ development$ it$ is$ unclear$ when$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ open$ the$ tunnel.$ The$ radar$ chart$ has$ illustrated$the$state$of$the$collaboration$as$it$was$observed$during$the$interviews.$It$is$expected$that$ the$collaboration$in$this$project$will$remain$at$the$levels$it$is$right$now,$but$in$case$there$will$be$tense$ discussions$ about$ which$ party$ will$ pay$ for$ the$ delay$ this$ might$ influence$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration.$$ 6.3.4. Concluding%findings% In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$ contractor$ started$ to$ work$ together$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase.$ At$ the$ moment$ the$ contract$ was$ awarded$ the$ principal$ made$ motions$ of$ withdrawal$ and$ started$ with$ controlling$the$project$at$a$distance.$At$the$same$time$the$contractor$started$at$the$construction$site$ with$preparatory$works$for$the$realisation.$Due$to$the$complexity$of$the$project$and$its$environment$ this$ turned$ out$ to$ be$ an$ impossible$ situation.$ So$ after$ a$ false$ start,$ both$ parties$ invested$ in$ collaboration$and$this$resulted$in$more$openness$towards$each$other,$trust,$and$a$shared$objective$ for$ a$ successful$ realisation$ of$ the$ project.$ The$ analysis$ of$ this$ case$ illustrated$ that$ there$ are$ possibilities$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ this$ project.$ It$ is$ important$that$both$parties$discuss$their$points$of$view$on$the$collaboration$since$their$point$of$view$ is$ not$ aligned$ for$ four$ of$ the$ criteria.$ Is$ questionable$ though$ if$ these$ investments$ are$ worthwhile,$ since$the$project$is$almost$completed.$ $ This$case$showed$that$it$is$never$too$late$to$invest$in$collaboration$if$both$parties$are$interested$and$ are$willing$to$cooperate.$Because$there$was$no$attention$for$collaboration$at$the$start$of$the$project,$ the$relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$is$not$that$intense$and$had$to$develop$over$time.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"57" Due$to$this$arrears$extra$measures$were$needed$to$develop$the$collaboration.$In$this$project$more$ parties$participated$in$the$collaborative$agreements,$because$the$project$had$some$overlaps.$In$the$ first$place$principal$and$contractor$agreed$on$some$behavioural$rules,$this$made$sure$everyone$acted$ the$ same$ way.$ Besides$ that,$ there$ were$ some$ long$ drawnRout$ issues$ that$ could$ not$ be$ solved$ because$all$parties$hold$to$their$opinion.$In$order$to$make$collaboration$possible$these$issues$needed$ to$be$solved.$Therefore$all$these$issues$were$combined$and$the$parties$had$to$give$and$take$in$this.$ Thereby$the$contractor$was$encouraged$to$collaborate$more$by$making$this$attractive$with$a$financial$ incentive.$ As$ illustrated$ some$ parties$ from$ the$ public$ environment$ were$ already$ involved$ in$ the$ collaboration$ because$ some$ of$ their$ projects$ had$ an$ overlap$ with$ this$ project$ or$ they$ became$ financially$involved$due$to$scope$changes.$This$indicates$the$importance$of$the$actively$involvement$ of$the$principal$in$a$project,$since$these$public$parties$prefer$to$work$together$with$another$public$ party$ instead$ of$ the$ contractor.$ The$ stakeholders$ in$ the$ private$ environment$ were$ involved$ during$ the$preparation$of$the$project$and$had$contact$with$the$principal.$After$the$project$was$awarded,$the$ contractor$ had$ to$ take$ over$ this$ task$ without$ a$ transfer$ phase.$ Later$ on$ principal$ and$ contractor$ started$to$speak$with$one$voice$towards$the$public.$This$project$has$illustrated$that$the$attitude$of$ the$ public$ is$ really$ project$ and$ location$ dependent.$ A$ project$ like$ this$ might$ have$ led$ to$ public$ opposition$in$Amsterdam$for$example.$Positive$about$this$project$is$that$the$realisation$of$it$gives$a$ really$nice$solution$for$an$issue$that$has$been$discussed$for$years.$$$ $ In$conclusion$it$can$be$said$that$the$following$aspects$are$interesting$to$take$into$account$in$future$ projects:$ • It$ is$ never$ too$ late$ to$ start$ with$ collaboration.$ This$ case$ has$ illustrated$ that$ despite$ a$ false$ start$ regarding$ collaboration,$ it$ was$ possible$ to$ complete$ the$ project$ together.$ In$ order$ to$ realise$this$it$is$important$that$both$parties$want$to$collaborate$and$invest$in$this.$This$can$be$ realised$ with$ formal$ and$ informal$ measures,$ but$ also$ by$ agreeing$ on$ behavioural$ rules$ and$ the$absence$of$physical$distance.$Hereby$it$is$important$to$take$into$account$that$a$false$start$ regarding$ collaboration$ will$ always$ leaves$ a$ scar$ and$ it$ is$ preferable$ that$ the$ collaboration$ starts$from$the$beginning.$ • The$ principal$ should$ be$ careful$ with$ the$ outsourcing$ of$ tasks$ to$ a$ contractor,$ because$ a$ contractor$is$not$always$able$to$fulfil$these$tasks$and$for$other$stakeholders$there$is$a$huge$ difference$ in$ communicating$ with$ a$ contractor$ compared$ to$ communicating$ with$ the$ principal.$ In$ case$ it$ is$ chosen$ to$ outsource$ a$ lot$ of$ tasks$ to$ the$ contractor,$ make$ sure$ that$ there$is$a$phase$where$everything$is$transferred$from$one$party$to$the$other.$In$this$phase$ the$principal$has$to$familiarise$the$contractor$with$the$project$and$its$environment.$ • In$ case$ a$ project$ has$ an$ overlap$ with$ another$ project$ and$ different$ public$ parties$ are$ financially$ involved$ in$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project,$ it$ is$ important$ to$ involve$ and$ commit$ these$ parties$ actively$ to$ the$ project.$ This$ makes$ the$ decision$ making$ process$ much$ easier$ and$it$minimises$the$number$of$meetings.$ • It$ is$ possible$ to$ work$ really$ close$ together$ regarding$ one$ aspect$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ (communication$ in$ this$ case),$ while$ there$ is$ more$ distance$ and$ a$ less$ intense$ collaboration$between$both$parties$on$the$other$aspects.$$ $ After$a$false$start$principal$and$contractor$began$to$collaborate$and$other$public$parties$were$actively$ involved$as$well$in$order$to$realise$the$project$successfully.$This$went$quite$well,$but$right$now$there$ is$a$hitch$in$the$progress$of$the$project$due$to$problems$with$the$ICT$systems.$Both$parties$have$to$ find$out$what$causes$these$problems$and$how$to$deal$with$it.$This$delay$in$the$opening$of$the$tunnel$ will$ also$ have$ financial$ consequences,$ regarding$ the$ current$ collaboration$ it$ would$ be$ nice$ if$ both$ parties$have$an$open$attitude$regarding$the$division$of$costs$and$avoid$a$situation$where$both$parties$ blame$each$other.$Time$will$tell$how$both$parties$will$deal$with$this$issue.$ 58"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 6.4. Case"report"4:"Create"space"for"water"in"the"river"by"trenching"the"forelands" With$ the$ realisation$ of$ this$ project,$ the$ water$ in$ the$ river$ the$ Lek$ gets$ more$ space.$ This$ project$ should$decrease$the$water$level$with$8$centimetres$in$case$of$high$water.$It$is$one$of$the$more$than$ thirty$ projects$ that$ are$ part$ of$ the$ RWS$ program$ ‘space# for# water’$ (Dutch:$ Ruimte$ voor$ de$ Rivier).$ This$ program$ started$ in$ 1995$ after$ extreme$ high$ water$ levels,$ evacuations$ of$ citizens$ and$ almost$ flooding$ situations.$ The$ rivers$ in$ the$ Netherlands$ have$ to$ deal$ with$ continually$ increasing$ water$ levels.$They$have$to$process$more$rain$and$melt$water,$while$there$is$limited$space$within$the$dikes.$ Therefore$the$chance$of$flooding$has$increased.$Heighten$dikes$is$not$enough$to$solve$this$problem,$ the$water$level$has$to$decrease$as$well.$Therefore$the$space$for$water$program$was$initiated$by$RWS$ and$together$with$water$boards,$municipalities$and$provinces,$more$space$for$the$water$in$the$rivers$ is$created$at$more$than$thirty$places$in$the$Netherlands.$Examples$to$create$space$for$the$water$are$ repositioning$dikes,$trenching$secondary$channels$and$deepening$the$forelands.$ $ This$project$includes$the$repositioning$of$a$summer$dike,$trenching$secondary$channels$and$lowering$ the$ dam$ that$ gives$ access$ to$ the$ floodRcontrol$ island$ (Dutch:$ stuweiland).$ In$ Appendix$ E$ some$ additional$project$characteristics$can$be$found.$With$the$realisation$of$this$project$the$area$does$not$ only$become$safer,$but$will$become$nicer$for$the$public$as$well.$The$project$gives$an$opportunity$to$ create$an$area$where$nature$and$recreation$come$out$well.$So$the$area$becomes$more$attractive$for$ walkers$and$cyclists.$$ $ As$one$of$the$projects$in$the$space$for$water$program,$this$project$was$initiated$by$RWS.$Within$this$ program$ RWS$ tried$ to$ decentralise$ the$ realisation$ of$ these$ measurements$ as$ much$ as$ possible.$ Therefore$the$province$made$the$plan$for$this$project,$but$they$indicated$that$they$are$not$familiar$ with$the$execution$of$projects$like$this$and$this$task$was$returned$to$RWS.$In$the$further$course$of$ the$project$both$parties$were$involved,$but$RWS$had$the$lead$in$the$realisation$of$the$project.$The$ province$was$responsible$for$the$provincial$implementation$plan$(Dutch:$provinciaal$inpassingsplan),$ therefore$it$was$not$needed$that$all$four$adjacent$municipalities$made$an$new$zoning$plan.$For$the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ RWS$ and$ the$ province$ collaborated$ with$ four$ municipalities$ that$ are$ adjacent$to$the$project$and$the$two$water$boards$in$this$area.$Also$the$residents$and$other$interested$ parties$ are$ intensively$ involved$ in$ the$ preparation$ phase.$ In$ the$ first$ place$ there$ were$ plans$ to$ construct$highRrise$buildings$at$the$project$location,$but$these$plans$did$not$fit$within$the$space$for$ water$program$and$were$not$realised.$Instead$of$highRrise$buildings$a$natural$filling$in$of$the$area$is$ realised$with$this$project.$$$ $ In$ 2012$ the$ tender$ phase$ started$ and$ nine$ contractors$ competed$ for$ this$ project.$ In$ December$ of$ that$year$the$project$was$awarded$to$the$contractor.$Nine$parties$took$part$in$the$tender.$The$project$ was$awarded$to$the$party$that$offered$the$best$price,$because$RWS$and$the$province$had$already$a$ detailed$overview$of$the$construction$works.$The$offer$had$to$meet$the$requirements$as$set$by$the$ public$ parties.$ Some$ of$ these$ requirements$ were$ the$ consequence$ of$ the$ input$ from$ the$ residents$ during$the$preparation$phase.$They$preferred$limited$nuisance$and$attention$for$nature$realisation.$ Therefore,$materials$have$to$be$transported$by$water$to$prevent$unsafe$situations$and$construction$ traffic$ through$ the$ cities.$ The$ contractor$ started$ in$ 2013$ with$ preparation$ activities$ like$ archaeological$ and$ ecological$ research,$ investigation$ of$ unexploded$ bombs,$ research$ of$ the$ soil$ quality,$ and$ the$ application$ of$ permits.$ The$ construction$ works$ started$ in$ 2014$ and$ the$ project$ should$be$completed$in$2015.$ $ The$respondents$in$this$case$were$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$and$the$project$ stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor.$The$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$is$working$ for$ RWS$ and$ is$ committed$ to$ this$ project$ from$ the$ initiation$ phase.$ Besides$ to$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$manager$in$this$project,$she$has$the$role$of$technical$manager$in$another$project$that$is$ part$of$the$space$for$water$program.$The$project$stakeholder$of$the$contractor$entered$the$project$in$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"59" the$ beginning$ of$ 2014.$ Before$ that$ some$ else$ fulfilled$ the$ role$ and$ in$ between$ there$ was$ a$ temporarily$solution.$Also$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor$is$not$solely$working$on$ this$project,$she$fulfils$the$role$of$project$stakeholder$manager$as$well$in$another$project$of$the$space$ for$water$program$(this$is$another$project$than$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$is$ working$for).$ 6.4.1. Implementation%of%project%stakeholder%management% In$ this$ case$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ communicative$ oriented,$ in$ order$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ together$ with$ its$ stakeholders.$ This$ project$ was$ approached$ with$ this$ communicative$ orientation$ because$ the$ principal$ understood$ the$ consequences$ it$ might$ have$ if$ the$ opinion$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ was$ not$ taken$ into$ account.$ Especially$ since$ the$ private$ stakeholders$ were$ already$ well$ organised.$ Therefore$ the$ underlying$ idea$ of$ the$ orientation$ project$ stakeholder$ management$is$strategically.$In$this$project$a$distinction$can$be$made$between$public$stakeholders$ and$ the$ private$ stakeholders.$ Both$ groups$ of$ stakeholders$ are$ approached$ differently,$ but$ all$ are$ represented$in$the$feedback$group$(Dutch:$klankbordgroep).$With$the$public$stakeholders$there$are$ meetings$ on$ a$ regular$ basis.$ This$ are$ meetings$ between$ principal$ and$ the$ public$ parties,$ the$ contractor$is$not$present$in$these$meetings.$There$is$contact$with$the$private$stakeholders$during$the$ feedback$ group$ meeting$ and$ thereby$ different$ communication$ means$ are$ used$ to$ inform$ these$ stakeholders.$ The$ principal$ has$ the$ lead$ in$ stakeholder$ management,$ while$ the$ contractor$ participates$ in$ the$ feedback$ group$ meetings$ as$ well.$ According$ to$ the$ contract$ communication$ is$ divided$in$public$and$construction$communication,$this$means$that$most$of$the$communication$is$the$ responsibility$of$the$principal.$The$project$teams$of$both$parties$have$their$own$approach$regarding$ communication$ and$ act$ as$ individual$ parties.$ Conditioning$ was$ a$ quite$ large$ component$ in$ this$ project$and$it$was$almost$completely$the$responsibility$of$the$contractor.$In$case$the$contractor$had$ difficulties$in$contacting$the$municipalities$for$permits$the$principal$would$help$the$contractor$in$this.$ Besides$ that,$ the$ principal$ already$ performed$ some$ soil$ analyses$ before$ the$ start$ of$ the$ project$ because$issues$with$unexploded$bombs$were$expected.$This$was$an$important$issue$in$the$beginning,$ but$it$turned$out$that$there$were$no$bombs$at$all.$The$component$traffic$management$is$really$small$ in$this$project,$because$the$project$does$not$realise$infrastructure$and$the$construction$materials$are$ transported$by$water.$Most$important$for$this$component$is$the$safety.$There$is$one$connection$for$ the$construction$traffic$that$crosses$a$cyclist$connection,$here$a$safe$cross$point$is$most$important.$$ $ Although$both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$support$each$other$in$case$needed,$there$is$no$ real$ collaboration$ and$ acting$ together$ as$ one$ organisation$ in$ this$ project.$ The$ mutual$ relationship$ between$both$parties$is$good,$issues$are$discussible,$and$both$parties$are$able$to$do$their$jobs.$In$a$ certain$ way$ both$ parties$ make$ it$ possible$ for$ each$ other$ to$ complete$ the$ project$ successfully,$ but$ there$is$no$intensive$collaboration.$Regarding$project$stakeholder$management$both$parties$have$the$ same$ interests.$ Both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ have$ different$ roles$ and$ responsibilities.$ The$ project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$has$a$better$view$on$the$big$picture,$while$the$project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ contractor$ is$ more$ concerned$ with$ operational$ aspects$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ In$ this$ project$ the$ principal$ has$ the$ lead$ regarding$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ especially$ on$ the$ aspects$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ communication,$ while$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ contractor$ is$ responsible$ for$ her$ own$ issues$ regarding$ conditioning$ at$ operational$ level$ and$ the$ construction$ communication.$ In$ this$ project$ traffic$ management$is$a$minor$aspect,$because$the$contract$already$made$clear$that$the$contractor$was$not$ allowed$to$use$the$public$roads$and$therefore$materials$need$to$be$transported$by$water.$$ 6.4.2. Collaboration%on%project%stakeholder%management% The$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ has$ been$ discussed$ and$ is$ taken$ into$ account$to$illustrate$how$principal$and$contractor$are$collaborating$on$it.$This$project$has$a$relative$ small$scope$and$therefore$both$parties$are$not$fulltime$working$on$it.$There$was$no$specific$interest$ in$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ but$ in$ the$ PSU$ both$ parties$ agreed$ on$ a$ 60"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ common,$ overarching$ goal$ “realisation# of# the# project# within# time# and# budget# with# mutual# trust,# openness# and# transparency”.$ This$ statement$ is$ reviewed$ during$ PFU’s.$ In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ their$ own$ responsibilities,$ but$ help$ each$ other$ if$ this$ is$ needed.$ During$ the$ realisation$there$were$no$major$changes$in$the$relationship$between$both$parties.$The$points$of$view$ of$both$respondents$will$be$discussed.$ $ Respondent"principal" This$ project$ has$ a$ D&C$ contract$ and$ therefore$ a$ lot$ of$ the$ responsibilities$ are$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ contractor.$The$respondent$indicates$that$contractors$often$ask$the$principal$what$to$do,$but$this$is$a$ responsibility$ the$ principal$ does$ not$ want$ to$ have.$ “I# can# say# what# a# contractor# has# to# do,# but# if# something#goes#wrong#I#am#the#one#to#blame#and#that#is#not#my#role.#So#you#are#constantly#looking,# where# do# I# facilitate# the# contractor# and# where# not”.$ There$ is$ an$ overarching$ project$ goal$ and$ both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ have$ the$ same$ role$ for$ their$ field$ of$ expertise.$ According$ to$ the$ respondent$it$is$questionable$whether$the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management$is$coming$ through$at$directional$level.$“Especially#by#some#older#owners#of#contractors,#who#anticipate#on#the# project#environment#because#it#is#a#request#of#RWS”.$The$respondent$illustrated$that$for$collaboration$ it$ is$ of$ major$ importance$ that$ you$ understand$ each$ other$ and$ understand$ the$ underlying$ idea$ of$ what$is$written$is$documents,$because$each$person$can$interpret$a$sentence$differently.$ $ “In#this#project#principal#and#contractor#are#already#working#on#documents#for#the#transfer#phase#that# starts# after# the# project# is# completed.# The# future# maintainers# of# the# project# are# involved# already,# so# later#on#they#cannot#say#they#did#not#know”.$The$respondent$has$trust$in$the$contractor,$something$ she$indicated$as$important$for$collaboration.$Another$important$aspect$is$listening$to$each$other$and$ taking$ each$ other$ seriously.$ “The# collaboration# in# this# project# is# going# well.# This# is# something# that# starts# with# the# project# manager,# because# he# has# an# openfminded# attitude# everything# can# be# discussed”.$ The$ respondent$ has$ good$ fait$ that$ the$ project$ will$ be$ completed$ within$ time$ and$ that$ everything$will$go$well.$ $ Respondent"contractor" The$communication$with$the$principal$is$pleasant$and$professional.$Therefore$all$issues$can$be$solved$ with$mutual$agreements.$The$respondent$illustrated$that$over$time$some$irritation$will$grow$and$that$ due$to$busyness$of$people$this$is$not$always$discussed.$“It#is#really#important#for#the#collaboration#to# take# the# time# to# discuss# these# issues# and# minimise# these# irritations”.$ Both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$have$the$same$goal$“keeping#the#stakeholders#satisfied”.$The$respondent$has$the$opinion$ that$project$stakeholder$management$focuses$on$people$and$that$it$is$really$collaborationRoriented.$ “In#every#project#the#people#who#are#working#on#it#will#make#or#break#the#project#and#their#ability#to# work#with#each#other#is#important#as#well.#If#this#goes#well,#it#is#possible#to#improve#a#project.#But#in# case#two#people#do#not#like#each#other,#it#will#go#completely#wrong”.$During$project$realisation$it$is$ important$ to$ keep$ the$ dialogue$ and$ talk$ about$ each$ other’s$ expectations.$ A$ contractor$ does$ not$ always$ have$ the$ money$ to$ invest$ in$ additional$ measurements$ and$ in$ case$ the$ principal$ has$ this$ possibility$ and$ expects$ the$ same$ from$ the$ contractor$ they$ can$ be$ disappointed.$ “Therefore# it# is# important#to#understand#each#other’s#interests#and#position,#to#be#able#to#understand#the#reaction#of# the#other#parties”.$The$respondent$has$the$opinion$that$people$will$make$or$break$a$project$and$that$ it$ might$ be$ interesting$ to$ get$ insight$ in$ each$ other’s$ strengths$ and$ weaknesses$ before$ you$ start$ to$ collaboration.$ “The# attitude# of# people# determines# the# way# principal# and# contractor# collaborate.# Collaboration#is#a#matter#of#giving#and#taking,#and#looking#where#it#is#possible#to#meet#each#other.# Important#here#is#to#watch#that#you#will#not#overcharge#the#other#party”.$ $ The$respondent$clarified$that$given$her$position$is$would$be$better$if$she$was$involved$in$this$project$ from$the$beginning,$but$due$to$changes$in$the$staffing$this$was$the$given$situation.$The$respondent$ expects$that$the$project$will$be$realised$within$time.$“There#is#still#a#lot#of#work#to#do,#but#I#do#not# foresee# things# that# will# hinder# the# progress.# The# project# is# a# success# in# case# both# parties# look# back# $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"61" satisfied,#with#a#feeling#that#we#have#realised#this#project#nicely#together”.$A$positive$financial$result$ is$important$for$the$contractor,$since$realisation$of$this$project$is$not$a$‘hobby’.# 6.4.3. State%of%the%collaboration%between%principal%and%contractor% The$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$change$over$time$and$might$be$ on$ a$ different$ level$ for$ each$ criterion.$ In$ this$ project$ some$ criteria$ that$ illustrate$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$score$fairly$high,$while$others$score$much$less.$This$is$ because$ the$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ for$ some$ criteria$ rather$ traditional,$ while$there$is$a$more$collaborative$relationship$regarding$some$other$aspects.$Although$both$parties$ do$ not$ act$ as$ one$ project$ organisation,$ the$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ not$ adversarial.$ Both$ parties$ help$ each$ other$ if$ this$ is$ possible$ given$ their$ own,$ personal$ interests$ and$ therefore$investments$have$been$made$in$the$mutual$relationship.$This$resulted$in$a$pleasant$work$ environment$ without$ tensions$ and$ where$ principal$ and$ contractor$ want$ the$ best$ for$ each$ other$ in$ case$this$does$not$interfere$with$own$interests.$Because$there$were$no$major$events$or$issues$in$this$ project,$the$state$of$the$collaboration$did$not$change$much$over$time,$although$the$changes$in$the$ staffing$ of$ the$ project$ might$ have$ resulted$ in$ small$ shifts.$ The$ empirical$ findings$ of$ the$ previous$ paragraphs$resulted$in$the$following$overview$of$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$ contractor$ in$ this$ project$ according$ to$ both$ respondents.$ The$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ principal$ is$ illustrated$ with$ the$ orange$ line$ in$ Figure$ 33$ and$ the$ blue$ line$ illustrates$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ contractor.$ $ Figure#33:#Radar#chart#of#the#collaboration,#case#4#(own#ill.)# The$ radar$ chart$ illustrates$ that$ both$ respondents$ have$ a$ similar$ view$ about$ the$ state$ of$ their$ collaboration.$ Although$ the$ collaboration$ does$ not$ reach$ the$ highest$ level,$ it$ is$ illustrated$ that$ principal$and$contractor$have$the$same$expectations$and$perception$of$their$collaboration.$This$was$ indicated$in$the$interviews$as$well,$where$both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$are$satisfied$ with$ the$ course$ of$ the$ project.$ Before$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ started$ there$ was$ no$ special$ attention$for$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$During$the$PSU$both$parties$signed$a$ mission$ statement$ and$ the$ goals$ of$ this$ document$ are$ regularly$ mentioned$ and$ discussed$ during$ meetings.$Besides$the$PSU$there$are$PFU’s$as$well$to$discuss$the$progress$of$the$project.$Towards$the$ public$principal$and$contractor$act$as$individual$parties.$$ Objectives:$ The$ empirical$ data$ illustrated$ that$ both$ parties$ have$ a$ shared$ objective.$ During$ the$PSU$both$parties$agreed$to$pursue$this$goal$and$the$progress$of$this$is$regularly$discussed.$This$ also$applies$for$the$goal$regarding$project$stakeholder$management.$ Trust:$In$this$project$mutual$trust$exists$between$principal$and$contractor,$both$parties$have$ confidence$in$each$other$and$know$each$other’s$position.$However,$it$is$important$for$the$principal$ that$this$trust$can$be$supported$by$facts.$$ 62"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ Risk:$Regarding$risks$and$financials$each$party$has$its$own$interests$and$therefore$the$state$of$ collaboration$on$this$aspect$scores$poorly.$Especially$the$respondent$of$the$principal$has$illustrated$ that$she$does$not$want$to$be$blamed$for$choices$she$could$have$made$for$the$contractor.$There$is$ also$no$joint$approach$in$controlling$the$risks.$$ Communication:$ In$ the$ communication$ and$ information$ not$ everything$ is$ open$ and$ transparent.$ Not$ all$ information$ is$ shared$ with$ each$ other$ and$ there$ are$ meetings$ behind$ closed$ doors$where$the$contractor$is$not$welcome$to$participate.$It$is$also$important$to$mention$that$both$ project$ teams$ are$ not$ always$ located$ in$ the$ same$ office,$ although$ there$ is$ an$ office$ that$ can$ accommodate$both$project$teams.$Regarding$the$communication$towards$the$feedback$group$there$ is$much$more$openness.$ Attitude:$Both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$want$to$work$jointly$together$on$this$ project.$Therefore$it$is$tried$to$solve$problems$as$soon$as$possible$and$there$is$no$blame$culture.$In$ case$there$are$issues$this$is$discussed$with$each$other,$this$is$recognised$by$both$respondents$who$ have$the$feeling$that$everything$can$be$discussed.$Besides$that,$the$contractor$does$not$strictly$keeps$ to$what$has$been$offered$in$the$contract$and$fulfils$some$additional$work$without$discussions.$This$ resulted$ in$ a$ more$ open$ attitude$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ as$ well$ and$ resulted$ that$ both$ parties$ sometimes$give$and$sometimes$take$without$extensive$discussions.$ Project"organisation:$Also$the$members$in$both$project$teams$are$motivated$to$collaborate$ and$ realise$ the$ project$ together.$ Expectations$ are$ aligned$ and$ there$ is$ a$ shared$ goal$ both$ parties$ want$ to$ achieve.$ In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ invested$ in$ collaboration$ in$ order$ to$ create$a$nice$and$pleasant$work$environment,$where$both$parties$work$together$if$possible$and$have$ a$ more$ traditional$ relationship$ regarding$ some$ other$ aspects.$ In$ this$ project$ both$ parties$ will$ help$ each$ other$ where$ possible,$ but$ a$ real$ intensive$ collaboration$ with$ shared$ resources$ is$ out$ of$ the$ question.$ $ In$this$project$principal$and$contractor$work$jointly$together$as$equal$partners$in$order$to$realise$the$ project.$The$state$of$the$collaboration$can$be$described$as$a$collaborative$relationship,$because$both$ parties$cooperate$with$each$other$to$realise$the$project.$There$is$no$real$joint$action,$but$there$is$no$ competition$ between$ both$ parties$ either.$ Both$ respondents$ have$ illustrated$ that$ they$ expect$ that$ the$project$will$be$completed$within$time$and$in$good$cooperation$with$each$other.$If$the$project$will$ be$delivered$on$time,$both$respondents$have$different$opinions$regarding$the$success$of$the$project.$ The$principal$focuses$more$on$the$transfer$of$the$project$to$the$future$maintainer,$while$the$financial$ result$is$important$for$the$contractor.$The$radar$chart$has$illustrated$the$state$of$the$collaboration$as$ it$was$observed$during$the$interviews$with$still$one$year$to$execute.$It$is$expected$that$the$state$of$ the$collaboration$in$this$project$will$remain$on$the$same$levels$as$illustrated$in$the$figure.$ 6.4.4. Concluding%findings% In$this$project$principal$and$contractor$started$to$collaborate$in$the$realisation$phase$of$the$project.$ At$that$moment$the$team$of$the$principal$was$already$working$on$this$project$for$a$couple$of$years$ and$had$to$familiarise$the$contractor$with$the$project.$Hereafter$both$parties$started$to$collaborate$ with$a$professional$attitude$in$order$to$realise$the$project$and$support$each$other$where$possible.$At$ this$ moment$ this$ seems$ to$ work$ well$ and$ the$ project$ runs$ smoothly.$ This$ is$ a$ consequence$ of$ the$ attitude$of$the$members$in$both$project$teams$and$the$pleasant$working$environment$that$is$created$ together.$ The$ point$ of$ view$ of$ both$ parties$ regarding$ their$ collaboration$ is$ aligned,$ so$ there$ is$ no$ need$ for$ interventions.$ In$ case$ preferred$ by$ both$ parties$ the$ collaboration$ could$ be$ enhanced$ by$ investing$ in$ achieving$ a$ higher$ score$ on$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ for$ different$ criteria.$ Given$ the$ scope$of$this$project$it$is$questionable$whether$the$benefits$outweigh$the$investments.$ $ This$ case$ has$ illustrated$ that$ the$ collaboration$ in$ the$ project$ is$ good,$ although$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ does$ not$ has$ the$ highest$ scores.$ This$ led$ to$ the$ assumption$ that$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$does$not$indicate$whether$a$collaboration$is$good$or$bad.$Because$the$opinion$of$both$ respondents$ is$ aligned$ as$ illustrated$ in$ the$ radar$ chart,$ this$ gives$ reason$ to$ believe$ that$ it$ is$ more$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"63" important$that$both$parties$have$the$same$point$of$view$regarding$collaboration$and$are$therefore$ able$ to$ anticipate$ on$ the$ behaviour$ of$ the$ other$ party.$ It$ indicates$ that$ it$ is$ not$ always$ needed$ to$ collaborate$closely$as$long$as$both$parties$are$open$about$this,$trust$each$other$and$aim$for$a$shared$ goal.$Thereby$the$collaborative$oriented$attitude$of$the$people$working$in$this$project$had$a$positive$ influence$on$the$collaboration.$The$contractor$did$not$compare$everything$with$what$was$offered$in$ the$contract$and$realised$some$tasks$without$a$request$to$be$paid$for$extra$work.$This$resulted$in$a$ more$open$attitude$at$the$side$of$the$principal$as$well$and$right$now$there$is$a$culture$where$both$ parties$ sometimes$ give$ and$ sometimes$ take.$ The$ plan$ was$ that$ the$ province$ would$ execute$ the$ project$but$during$the$plan$study$phase$the$province$realised$that$they$did$not$have$the$experience$ to$ realise$ a$ project$ like$ this$ and$ RWS$ was$ asked$ to$ take$ the$ lead.$ Before$ the$ project$ was$ awarded$ there$was$already$contact$with$the$stakeholders$in$the$public$environment.$Also$the$stakeholders$in$ the$ private$ environment$ were$ involved$ before$ the$ project$ was$ awarded,$ this$ was$ mainly$ because$ there$was$already$a$group$of$wellRorganised$stakeholders$who$were$involved$by$the$development$of$ the$ real$ estate$ plans$ for$ this$ area$ before$ the$ space$ of$ water$ program$ stepped$ by.$ Later$ on,$ the$ contractor$ needed$ to$ be$ introduced$ to$ these$ stakeholders$ and$ they$ had$ to$ build$ up$ a$ relationship,$ where$the$principal$was$already$a$step$ahead.$The$realisation$of$this$project$leads$to$a$nice$solution$ for$the$stakeholders$who$live$in$this$area$and$all$involved$parties$have$an$interest$in$increasing$the$ water$safety.$Although$there$have$been$some$changes$in$the$staffing$of$the$project,$the$relationship$ is$good$and$in$case$everything$will$go$as$expected$both$parties$are$able$to$maintain$this$relationship.$ $ In$conclusion$it$can$be$said$that$the$following$aspects$are$interesting$to$take$into$account$into$future$ project,$although$the$state$of$the$collaboration$did$not$score$high$on$all$criteria:$ • A$ lower$ level$ of$ the$ collaboration$ does$ not$ necessarily$ mean$ that$ the$ collaboration$ is$ not$ good.$It$is$more$important$that$the$points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$regarding$the$ state$of$their$collaboration$are$aligned.$$ • With$ a$ collaborative$ oriented$ attitude$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ create$ an$ open$ and$ transparent$ working$environment,$even$though$not$everything$is$done$together.$In$order$to$realise$this$it$ is$important$that$both$parties$have$the$same$expectations$and$both$parties$are$willing$to$give$ regarding$some$issues$and$can$take$in$another$situation.$$ • It$ is$ important$ to$ make$ some$ agreements$ regarding$ the$ collaboration$ and$ create$ mutual$ objectives.$The$progress$of$these$agreements$needs$to$be$discussed$on$a$regular$basis$and$in$ general$it$is$important$that$all$issues$can$be$discussed$with$each$other.$ • In$ a$ less$ complex$ project$ it$ is$ easier$ to$ maintain$ a$ relationship,$ because$ the$ chance$ major$ risks$occur$and$result$in$issues$is$smaller.$ $ The$principal$was$already$working$on$this$project$and$had$contact$with$the$stakeholders$the$moment$ this$project$was$awarded.$After$this$the$principal$made$sure$the$contractor$was$able$to$join$in$this$ project$ and$ from$ that$ moment$ on$ both$ parties$ seek$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ together.$ For$ the$ time$ being$this$all$went$quite$well$and$without$further$implications$both$parties$have$to$be$able$to$hold$ this$till$the$project$is$completed.$ $ $ %% 64"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 7. C ROSS"CASE"ANALYSIS"AND"DISCUSSION" $ $ The$aim$of$this$chapter$is$to$compare$the$individual$case$analyses$from$chapter$6$with$each$other.$ The$ empirical$ observations$ and$ analysis$ of$ the$ four$ individual$ cases$ resulted$ in$ some$ interesting$ findings$ for$ each$ case.$ This$ chapter$ will$ compare$ the$ individual$ case$ findings$ with$ each$ other$ and$ subsequently$the$findings$of$this$cross$case$analysis$will$be$discussed$based$on$the$existing$literature$ as$elaborated$on$in$chapter$3.$The$preliminary$conclusions$of$each$section$were$used$as$input$for$an$ interactive$workshop$with$the$respondents$of$the$interviews.$The$aim$of$the$workshop$was$to$test$ the$validity$of$the$research$findings.$After$a$presentation$about$the$research$and$an$overview$of$the$ main$findings,$there$were$three$interactive$discussions$sessions.$The$discussions$and$conclusions$of$ this$workshop$meeting$will$be$used$to$reflect$on$the$preliminary$conclusions.$Whether$the$findings$ can$be$regarded$as$valid$is$determined$with$the$involvement$of$the$interview$respondents.$The$setR up$ of$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ is$ further$ described$ in$ appendix$ H,$ including$ the$ presentation$ as$ presented.$The$first$section$of$this$chapter$will$elaborate$on$remarkable$differences$and$similarities$ regarding$the$findings$of$the$different$cases,$the$second$section$will$discuss$how$project$stakeholder$ management$was$implemented$and$applied$in$the$case$study$projects,$the$third$section$will$compare$ the$radar$charts$that$illustrate$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor,$and$ this$chapter$will$end$with$the$fourth$section$where$the$concluding$findings$will$be$discussed.$$$ $ 7.1. Comparing"the"findings"of"the"four"projects" In$this$section$the$more$general$findings$based$on$the$factual$information$that$was$collected$during$ the$case$study$research$will$be$compared$with$each$other.$The$factual$information$of$the$different$ cases$was$listed$and$resulted$in$an$overview$that$can$be$found$in$Appendix$G.$This$overview$includes$ aspects$ that$ say$ something$ about$ the$ collaboration$ and$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$and$is$a$summary$of$the$empirical$findings$of$chapter$6.$The$information$obtained$in$the$ different$cases$is$compared$with$each$other$and$the$main$findings$regarding$remarkable$similarities$ and$ differences$ will$ be$ discussed$ in$ the$ first$ two$ paragraphs$ of$ this$ section.$ This$ will$ result$ in$ new$ insights$ and$ findings,$ and$ might$ be$ a$ reason$ to$ assume$ that$ a$ finding$ is$ more$ general$ applicable.$ Therefore$in$literature$was$searched$for$theories$and$researches$to$review$these$assumptions.$This$ resulted$in$the$preliminary$conclusions$that$were$reviewed$later$on$during$the$workshop$meeting.$ 7.1.1. Similarities% Analysing$the$factual$information$of$the$cases$and$comparing$the$main$findings$of$each$case,$results$ in$ an$ overview$ of$ a$ number$ of$ similarities$ between$ the$ cases.$ The$ following$ interesting$ and$ remarkable$similarities$can$be$identified:$ • The$ four$ projects$ have$ a$ corresponding$ organisation$ structure$ with$ meetings$ at$ management,$ organisational$ and$ directional$ level$ and$ use$ formal$ instruments$ of$ RWS$ (like$ the$PSU$and$PFU’s)$to$shape$the$collaboration.$In$case$there$are$issues,$an$escalation$model$ is$available$and$there$are$formal$procedures$on$how$to$handle$in$case$something$occurs.$$ • In$ all$ projects$ additional$ agreements$ regarding$ collaboration$ were$ made,$ because$ in$ the$ original$ contract$ this$ was$ not$ described$ sufficiently$ extensive.$ The$ contract$ is$ more$ a$ document$where$all$the$products$the$contractor$has$to$deliver$are$defined.$It$is$questionable$ if$these$agreements$on$collaboration$have$to$become$part$of$the$contract,$because$this$was$ only$the$case$in$one$of$the$projects.$In$the$other$projects$an$additional$document$was$made,$ where$principal$and$contractor$agreed$on$collaborative$agreements.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"65" • • • It$was$recognised$in$all$projects$that$most$of$the$issues$between$principal$and$contractor$are$ related$to$contractual$and$financial$issues.$These$are$often$issues$that$could$not$have$been$ foreseen,$ so$ there$ is$ no$ clarity$ about$ the$ party$ that$ is$ responsible$ and$ is$ going$ to$ pay.$ The$ projects$gave$some$options$to$deal$with$these$kinds$of$issues,$but$a$general$approach$cannot$ be$found.$ Although$the$foundation$of$the$project$is$good,$in$the$end$the$people$working$on$the$project$ are$the$ones$who$can$make$the$difference.$But$the$projects$illustrated$as$well$that$there$is$ limited$attention$for$the$composition$of$project$teams$and$matching$the$characters$of$team$ members.$ Besides$ the$ regular$ meetings$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$keep$in$contact$with$each$other$about$the$daily$routine.$Remarkable$is$that$in$case$ something$ occurs,$ often$ ones$ tried$ to$ solve$ the$ issue$ internally$ before$ the$ other$ party$ is$ informed.$ The$ means$ to$ communicate$ with$ each$ other$ are$ the$ same$ in$ all$ the$ projects,$ namely$ contact$ by$ phone,$ mail$ or$ faceRtoRface.$ Relevant$ information$ is$ shared$ with$ each$ other,$although$in$all$projects$it$was$indicated$that$not$all$information$is$openly$shared.$$ $ Literature"reflection" Most$of$the$findings$related$to$the$similarities$between$the$projects$are$in$line$with$what$is$already$ known$from$literature.$It$illustrates$that$there$is$clarity$about$the$hard$side$of$project$management,$ because$this$is$all$laid$down$in$processes,$procedures$and$real$products.$The$soft$side,$the$side$that$ focuses$more$about$relationships,$is$less$easy$to$formulate$(Reinking,$2013).$This$is$because$this$side$ of$collaboration$is$about$people$and$shaping$the$relationships$between$people.$These$relationships$ are$ the$ basis$ for$ a$ good$ collaboration$ and$ are$ a$ requirement$ in$ order$ to$ achieve$ the$ project$ objective.$ This$ soft$ side$ of$ collaboration$ can$ be$ found$ in$ the$ case$ study$ project$ where$ it$ was$ illustrated$that$people$make$the$difference$and$that$an$open$and$transparent$attitude$toward$each$ other$ is$ important$ as$ well.$ The$ importance$ of$ communication$ has$ been$ illustrated$ in$ several$ researches$(Beach,$Webster,$&$Campbell,$2005;$Black,$Akintoye,$&$Fitzgerald,$2000;$Reinking,$2013).$ Projects$ should$ emphasise$ on$ full$ and$ open$ communication$ with$ a$ need$ to$ work$ together.$ Sharing$ information$and$knowledge$is$needed$and$there$is$no$room$for$hidden$agendas$(Briscoe,$Dainty,$&$ Millett,$ 2001).$ The$ fact$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ make$ additional$ agreements$ regarding$ collaboration$ is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ findings$ in$ literature.$ In$ the$ literature$ was$ already$ noticed$ that$ an$ appropriate$ contract$ is$ necessary,$ but$ that$ this$ is$ insufficient$ to$ ensure$ an$ effective$ working$ relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b;$Suprapto$et$al.,$in$press).$ The$ contract$ is$ limited$ in$ the$ ability$ to$ guide$ parties$ to$ interpret$ problems$ that$ emerge$ later$ on.$ Therefore$ it$ is$ important$ to$ focus$ more$ on$ this$ soft$ side$ of$ people$ and$ relationships$ and$ make$ agreements$ about$ this.$ Here$ it$ is$ important$ to$ remember$ that$ a$ relationship$ cannot$ be$ fully$ described$in$a$contract.$$ 7.1.2. Differences% Analysing$and$comparing$the$collected$information$and$the$main$findings$of$each$case$has$illustrated$ some$differences$between$the$four$cases.$This$resulted$in$the$following$overview$of$remarkable$and$ interesting$differences:$ • The$ use$ of$ informal$ instruments$ is$ needed$ to$ make$ collaboration$ successful.$ As$ elaborated$ on$ in$ the$ previous$ paragraph,$ in$ all$ projects$ are$ formal$ instruments$ used$ to$ structure$ and$ design$the$collaboration.$However,$some$projects$use$informal$instruments$as$well$in$order$ to$improve$the$collaboration.$Examples$of$informal$investments$in$the$collaboration$are$the$ organisation$ of$ a$ barbecue,$ having$ drinks$ or$ visit$ another$ project.$ In$ these$ projects$ this$ informal$ contact$ with$ each$ other$ is$ experienced$ as$ important$ for$ the$ collaboration.$ These$ kinds$ of$ contacts$ are$ important$ in$ order$ to$ understand$ each$ other$ and$ establish$ a$ certain$ level$of$trust.$ • The$ importance$ of$ communication$ is$ recognised$ in$ the$ different$ projects.$ It$ was$ already$ illustrated$ that$ the$ means$ of$ communication$ are$ the$ same$ for$ all$ four$ cases,$ but$ the$ most$ 66"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ • • • used$form$of$communication$differs$for$each$project.$This$is$related$to$the$presence$of$the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ at$ the$ office$ near$ the$ construction$ site.$ In$ case$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ are$ not$ always$ presence$ here,$ it$ is$ not$ possible$ to$ have$ faceRtoRface$ contact.$ This$ physical$ distance$ is$ a$ barrier$ to$ contact$ each$ other.$ Apparently$ it$ is$ easier$ to$ step$by$each$other$instead$of$making$a$phone$call.$ The$physical$distance$between$the$parties$is$a$barrier$to$collaborate$as$well.$Not$in$all$cases$ the$project$teams$of$principal$and$contractor$were$located$at$the$construction$site$(from$the$ beginning),$this$made$it$harder$to$collaborate$with$each$other$and$to$work$on$the$principal$ contractor$relationship.$ Regarding$taking$risks$and$issues$about$financials$a$party$can$take$two$positions.$Parties$can$ have$a$really$professional$point$of$view$where$everything$that$is$not$in$the$contract$will$be$ discussed$ with$ each$ other$ or$ there$ is$ more$ openness$ resulting$ in$ a$ situation$ where$ each$ party$gives$and$takes$every$once$in$a$while.$ The$ education$ background$ and$ working$ experience$ of$ all$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ differs.$ An$ interesting$ finding$ here$ is$ that$ all$ the$ respondents,$ with$ one$ exception,$ have$ worked$ for$ only$ principal$ or$ contracting$ parties.$ The$ exception$ worked$ for$ both,$ principal$ and$ contracting$ parties$ and$ here$ it$ was$ illustrated$ that$ this$ person$ is$ better$ able$ to$ put$ himself$in$the$position$of$the$other$party.$ $ Literature"reflection" Literature$ already$ illustrated$ that$ collaboration$ or$ partnering$ will$ not$ succeed$ without$ focusing$ on$ teamwork$ and$ continuous$ improvement$ and$ that$ nothing$ will$ change$ without$ considerable$ effort$ from$all$players.$It$was$also$discussed$that$negotiations$based$on$a$contract$indicates$a$lack$of$trust$ and$that$for$successful$collaboration$a$‘gentleRmen’s$agreement’$should$be$used$instead$of$a$formal$ agreement$(Black$et$al.,$2000).$Briscoe$et$al.$(2001)$support$this$by$stating$that$there$should$be$less$ reliance$on$contractual$communications$and$more$emphasis$on$oral$communication.$Reinking$(2013)$ has$ mentioned$ that$ around$ 80$ percent$ of$ communication$ is$ based$ on$ nonRverbal$ communication.$ This$ supports$ the$ fact$ that$ physical$ distance$ can$ be$ a$ huge$ barrier$ and$ disadvantage$ for$ collaboration.$Improving$collaboration$in$practice$can$conflict$with$organisational$culture,$especially$ at$the$start$of$the$collaboration$where$cognitive$levels$of$trust$have$not$been$established$yet$(Beach$ et$ al.,$ 2005).$ Communication$ between$ the$ parties$ is$ important$ here$ in$ understanding$ each$ party’s$ expectations,$attitude$and$limitations.$Conflicts$of$interests$will$almost$inevitably$occur$at$some$stage$ during$a$project.$The$purpose$of$any$resolution$process$should$be$to$resolve$problems$as$quickly$as$ possible$and$at$the$lowest$possible$level$without$legal$processes.$In$current$research$no$attention$has$ been$paid$to$the$work$experiences$and$personalities$of$the$people$working$in$the$project$teams.$This$ research$has$illustrated$that$people$are$of$major$importance$in$the$success$of$a$project$and$therefore$ it$is$interesting$to$pay$more$attention$to$the$people$working$in$a$project$team.$ 7.1.3. Preliminary%conclusions% Comparing$ the$ four$ cases$ and$ analysing$ the$ similarities$ and$ differences$ between$ the$ cases$ as$ described$in$the$previous$paragraphs$leads$to$the$following$preliminary$conclusions:$ • Principal$and$contractor$have$to$make$additional$agreements$regarding$collaboration,$since$ this$ is$ insufficiently$ described$ in$ a$ standard$ contract.$ There$ are$ a$ number$ of$ options$ to$ do$ this,$ but$ it$ is$ preferably$ done$ as$ early$ as$ possible$ in$ order$ to$ establish$ trust$ between$ the$ parties.$ The$ agreements$ regarding$ collaboration$ can$ become$ a$ part$ of$ the$ contract$ or$ it$ is$ independent$document.$It$is$questionable$which$option$is$preferable.$ • Since$ financial$ issues$ are$ often$ a$ point$ of$ discussion,$ it$ is$ important$ to$ find$ a$ way$ to$ solve$ these$issues$beforehand.$Options$to$do$this$are:$making$agreements$in$the$contract,$create$a$ joint$ financial$ fund$ that$ is$ managed$ together$ or$ shift$ issues$ like$ this$ to$ contract$ or$ project$ manager.$ Important$ here$ is$ that$ a$ personal$ relationship$ should$ not$ be$ influenced$ by$ these$ kinds$of$issues.$$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"67" • • • Establish$ trust$ and$ invest$ in$ the$ collaboration$ by$ getting$ to$ know$ each$ other.$ In$ case$ both$ parties$ understand$ each$ other’s$ expectations,$ attitude$ and$ limitations$ it$ becomes$ easier$ to$ collaborate.$ It$ is$ important$ to$ be$ able$ to$ look$ at$ a$ situation$ from$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ other$party.$Work$experience$at$principal$and$contracting$parties$helps$in$this.$ Principal$and$contractor$should$pay$more$attention$to$the$composition$of$project$teams$and$ the$ match$ of$ characters$ of$ team$ members,$ since$ people$ are$ the$ key$ in$ collaboration.$ Therefore$ it$ is$ remarkable$ that$ there$ is$ limited$ attention$ for$ this$ right$ now.$ Thereby$ it$ is$ important$that$people$are$willing$to$collaborate,$because$if$people$do$not$support$the$idea$of$ collaboration$ it$ will$ definitely$ not$ work.$ So$ the$ focus$ should$ be$ on$ the$ soft$ side$ of$ collaboration,$since$the$hard$side$is$already$well$developed.$ Work$ at$ the$ same$ location$ as$ much$ as$ possible,$ because$ this$ minimises$ the$ barriers$ to$ collaborate$ and$ contact$ each$ other.$ This$ will$ result$ in$ more$ real$ life$ communication$ and$ makes$it$easier$to$understand$each$other$correctly.$ $ Reflection"experts" The$preliminary$conclusions$of$this$section$were$the$input$for$the$first$interactive$discussion$session$ with$ the$ interview$ respondents.$ Each$ discussion$ started$ with$ a$ proposition$ based$ on$ one$ of$ the$ findings.$ $ The$participants$agreed$that$besides$the$contract,$additional$agreements$regarding$collaboration$are$ needed$to$align$expectations.$The$point$of$view$whether$these$agreements$should$become$part$of$ the$ contract$ was$ fluctuating$ during$ the$ discussion.$ In$ the$ end$ the$ advice$ was$ given$ not$ to$ make$ collaboration$ agreements$ part$ of$ the$ contract,$ because$ the$ collaboration$ takes$ place$ in$ a$ dynamic$ environment$where$new$people$in$a$project$might$have$a$different$point$of$view.$In$case$a$certain$ form$ of$ collaboration$ is$ required$ by$ the$ contract$ this$ might$ give$ problems.$ Therefore$ it$ is$ recommended$to$lay$down$in$the$contract$that$the$collaborative$agreements$will$be$reviewed$in$case$ there$ are$ changes$ in$ the$ staffing$ of$ the$ project$ and$ in$ other$ situation$ that$ might$ ‘threaten’$ the$ collaboration.$ $ The$participants$agree$that$the$recommendation$‘creating$a$joint$financial$fund’$will$be$really$useful$ to$ finance$ investments$ in$ the$ project$ environment.$ Especially$ in$ case$ the$ budget$ for$ project$ stakeholder$management$is$limited.$A$fund$like$this$gives$the$opportunity$to$make$investments$that$ are$best$for$project$and$it$releases$tensions$caused$by$financial$discussions.$ $ It$was$noticed$that$more$attention$for$the$composition$of$project$teams$is$something$to$work$on,$but$ in$the$end$the$quality,$professionalism$and$competences$of$people$are$more$important.$Focusing$on$ in$ the$ composition$ of$ project$ teams$ turned$ out$ hard$ to$ realise$ in$ practice.$ It$ is$ not$ possible$ to$ lay$ down$something$like$this$in$a$contract,$because$it$cannot$be$expected$that$people$will$work$on$the$ same$ project$ for$ 10$ years.$ At$ this$ moment$ there$ are$ some$ experiments$ with$ the$ composition$ of$ tenders$team,$but$there$is$a$high$risk$that$this$tender$team$will$not$become$the$project$team$during$ realisation.$Therefore$it$is$a$better$idea$to$get$to$know$each$other$after$the$project$is$awarded$and$in$ case$there$are$changes$in$the$staffing$of$project$teams$it$is$important$to$invest$again$in$collaboration.$$ $ The$ participants$ illustrated$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ are$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ collaboration$and$project$stakeholder$management,$but$that$this$is$not$the$case$for$everyone$who$is$ working$on$a$construction$project.$People$working$at$the$construction$site$for$example$are$not$aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management,$ because$ this$ is$ not$ part$ of$ their$ way$ of$ thinking.$ The$ main$ goal$ they$ have$ in$ case$ something$ occurs$ is$ solving$ the$ problem.$ It$ was$ also$ indicated$by$the$respondents$that$recent$developments$resulted$in$a$better$verification$process$for$ the$realised$work.$However,$at$the$start$of$the$project$there$is$too$little$attention$for$the$validation$ of$ the$ requirements.$ Discussing$ these$ requirements$ with$ each$ other$ before$ the$ project$ starts$ will$ result$in$more$alignment$of$the$expectations$and$will$decrease$the$number$of$misinterpretations.$$ 68"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ $ It$was$recognised$by$the$participants$that$collaboration$is$important$and$therefore$barriers$need$to$ be$ minimised,$ but$ it$ was$ also$ indicated$ that$ not$ everything$ is$ possible$ in$ practice.$ Internally$ the$ collaboration$within$project$teams$could$be$improved$by$starting$a$dialogue$with$the$other$managers$ more$often.$This$was$illustrated$with$an$example$that$the$project$stakeholder$manager$could$have$ more$ contact$ with$ the$ contract$ manager$ about$ compensation$ schemes$ and$ the$ budget$ for$ project$ stakeholder$management.$Also$the$technical$manager$and$project$stakeholder$manager$could$start$ more$ often$ the$ dialogue,$ because$ there$ are$ some$ overlaps$ in$ the$ work$ of$ both$ managers.$ The$ collaboration$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$can$differ$from$the$collaboration$between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ participants$ noticed$ that$ everyone$ should$ be$ able$ to$ collaborate$ and$ that$this$is$not$something$that$is$only$important$for$project$stakeholder$managers.$ " 7.2. Comparing"the"implementation"of"project"stakeholder"management"in"the" four"projects" This$section$will$compare$the$application$and$implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$in$ the$ different$ projects.$ There$ will$ be$ illustrated$ how$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ is$ designed$ and$ the$ section$ gives$ an$ overview$ of$ how$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ tasks$ are$ divided$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$and$potential$other$managers.$This$section$will$ also$ elaborate$ on$ the$ aim$ of$ the$ application$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ different$ cases.$ To$ conclude,$ a$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ a$ general$ approach$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management$will$be$given.$ 7.2.1. Embedment%of%project%stakeholder%management% The$ four$ case$ study$ projects$ have$ illustrated$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ designed$ differently$in$each$project.$There$are$projects$with$an$additional$manager$for$one$of$the$tasks$of$the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ and$ there$ is$ a$ project$ without$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ as$ well.$ Figure$ 34$ gives$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ different$ cases.$ This$ figures$ illustrates$ that$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ is$ responsible$ for$ all$ the$ four$ components$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ with$ one$ exception.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ works$ in$ all$ the$ four$ projects$ with$ a$ project$stakeholder$management$team$consisting$of$different$advisors.$It$was$also$illustrated$that$the$ project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$mainly$works$at$the$strategic$and$tactical$management$ level.$$ $ At$ the$ side$ of$ the$ contractor$ there$ is$ more$ diversity$ in$ the$ implementation$ of$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager.$ The$ contractor$ does$ not$ work$ with$ a$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ in$ all$ projects$and$in$case$there$is,$the$project$stakeholder$manager$is$often$the$only$one$responsible$for$all$ four$ aspects$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ This$ is$ because$ the$ contractor$ does$ not$ always$ have$ a$ whole$ team$ available$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ At$ the$ side$ of$ the$ contractor$ project$stakeholder$management$is$in$some$cases$more$a$oneRman$business.$The$project$stakeholder$ manager$of$the$principal$acts$mainly$on$the$tactical$and$operational$management$level.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"69" Figure#34:#Comparing#the#implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management#(own#ill.)# $ Literature"reflection" Most$ of$ the$ findings$ this$ paragraph$ has$ elaborated$ on$ are$ supported$ by$ the$ information$ that$ is$ available$in$literature.$Hereby$it$is$important$to$take$into$account$that$most$of$the$literature$about$ project$stakeholder$management$is$written$by$principal$parties.$In$literature$the$same$division$of$the$ components$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ found,$ and$ also$ the$ division$ of$ the$ management$level$at$which$the$manager$of$the$principal$and$the$manager$of$the$contractor$is$acting$ is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ theory.$ The$ cases$ also$ illustrated$ that$ each$ party$ and$ each$ project$ gives$ an$ own$ twist$ to$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ This$ can$ be$ recognised$ in$ the$ literature$as$well,$where$it$became$clear$that$it$is$not$possible$to$give$a$complete$univocal$definition$ of$project$stakeholder$management.$In$case$the$projects$work$with$a$project$stakeholder$manager,$ this$is$the$consequence$of$the$application$of$the$IPM$role$model$of$RWS.$This$model$was$introduced$ in$2006$to$make$sure$every$project$has$a$clear$and$standardised$project$organisation.$Right$now$this$ model$is$even$more$developed$and$it$is$more$often$required$that$the$contracting$parties$design$their$ project$ organisation$ according$ to$ this$ model$ as$ well$ (Krouwel,$ 2014).$ This$ in$ order$ to$ make$ sure$ every$ manager$ has$ an$ equal$ counter$ partner.$ Till$ now,$ the$ desirability$ of$ this$ model$ to$ implement$ project$stakeholder$management$has$been$given$too$little$attention.$ 7.2.2. Approach%of%project%stakeholder%management% Besides$ the$ different$ forms$ of$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ implemented$ in$ the$ four$ cases,$ each$ project$ has$ its$ own$ goal$ or$ aim$ regarding$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ As$ elaborated$ on$ in$ chapter$ 4,$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ orientated$ communicative$ or$ strategically.$ Both$ orientations$ can$ be$ found$ in$ the$ analysed$ cases,$ but$ in$ chapter$ 6$ was$ already$ illustrated$that$the$underlying$idea$of$project$stakeholder$management$is$always$strategically$even$if$ the$orientation$is$communicative.$ $ 70"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ All$projects$make$a$distinction$between$public$and$private$stakeholders.$In$some$of$the$projects$the$ public$stakeholders$are$really$committed$to$the$project$because$they$are$financially$involved,$while$in$ other$ projects$ this$ is$ not$ the$ case.$ The$ private$ stakeholders$ can$ be$ divided$ in$ professional$ stakeholders$ and$ citizens.$ This$ division$ is$ not$ present$ in$ all$ cases$ because$ especially$ the$ role$ of$ professional$stakeholders$is$not$that$large$in$all$projects.$The$way$these$stakeholders$are$approached$ depends$ on$ the$ project,$ this$ can$ be$ strategic$ or$ communicative.$ In$ case$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ strategic$ oriented$ the$ private$ stakeholders$ are$ mainly$ provided$ with$ oneRsided$ information,$ while$ in$ case$ it$ is$ communicative$ oriented$ there$ is$ more$ a$ dialogue$ with$ the$ private$ stakeholders.$ $ Literature"reflection" The$case$study$illustrates$that$it$is$important$to$take$the$stakeholders$in$a$project$into$account,$but$ that$the$real$influence$of$the$project$stakeholders$is$rather$limited.$This$is$in$line$with$the$findings$in$ literature$where$it$was$noticed$that$the$decision$making$process$has$become$more$interactive,$but$ that$ the$ influence$ of$ stakeholders$ is$ between$ advising$ and$ coRproducing$ (Edelenbos,$ 2001).$ Stakeholders$ have$ the$ opportunity$ to$ advice$ on$ some$ topics$ and$ if$ it$ is$ possible$ something$ can$ be$ realised.$However$if$this$is$not$the$case,$stakeholders$have$to$accept$this$because$their$word$is$not$ the$ law.$ The$ respondents$ in$ the$ case$ studies$ have$ illustrated$ that$ it$ is$ important$ that$ the$ stakeholders$are$aware$of$this$and$that$they$have$the$right$expectations$about$their$influence.$This$ was$ confirmed$ by$ literature,$ where$ was$ illustrated$ that$ involving$ project$ stakeholders$ and$ understanding$their$expectations$is$really$important$for$stakeholder$management.$It$was$mentioned$ that$stakeholder$management$is$a$dynamic$process$and$therefore$it$is$important$to$stay$in$tune$with$ the$ currently$ changing$ expectations$ of$ people$ and$ keep$ monitoring$ this.$ It$ was$ also$ observed$ in$ literature$that$it$is$possible$to$influence$the$expectations$of$stakeholders$and$that$different$groups$of$ stakeholders$often$have$conflicting$expectations$(Morsing$&$Schultz,$2006).$It$is$the$job$of$the$project$ stakeholder$manager$to$bring$this$to$a$successful$end.$$ $ A$trend$that$needs$to$be$taken$into$account$regarding$the$future$development$of$project$stakeholder$ management$ is$ the$ changing$ society.$ Edelenbos$ (1999)$ already$ illustrated$ that$ the$ government$ is$ changing$ from$ top$ down$ to$ bottomRup$ and$ that$ stakeholders$ are$ earlier$ involved$ in$ the$ decision$ making$process.$This$is$recognised$in$the$case$study$projects$as$well,$where$was$noticed$that$people$ want$ to$ be$ involved$ in$ the$ projects.$ This$ trend$ will$ probably$ grow$ in$ the$ coming$ years$ since$ the$ population$ is$ ageing$ and$ the$ number$ of$ people$ with$ higher$ educational$ backgrounds$ increases.$ These$ people$ have$ the$ time$ and$ knowRhow$ to$ become$ involved$ in$ the$ realisation$ of$ LIPs.$ Besides$ that,$there$is$a$trend$towards$a$more$sharing$society$and$social$media$is$becoming$more$influential.$$ 7.2.3. Importance%of%project%stakeholder%management%% The$ differences$ in$ the$ approach$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ illustrate$ that$ there$ are$ still$ some$ different$views$on$project$stakeholder$management.$Thereby$it$was$illustrated$during$the$interviews$ that$not$everyone$is$aware$of$the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management.$Especially$people$ working$on$the$construction$site$are$not$aware$of$the$consequences$their$activities$might$have$for$ the$ project$ environment.$ In$ order$ to$ make$ people$ more$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management,$ top$ management$ should$ be$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$ stakeholder$management$and$stimulate$others$to$collaborate$on$this.$Thereby,$it$is$important$to$take$ into$ account$ that$ projects$ are$ realised$ in$ a$ dynamic$ environment,$ so$ something$ that$ works$ today$ does$not$necessarily$has$to$work$tomorrow$as$well.$Neither$is$the$strategy$as$applied$in$one$project$ successful$ in$ another$ project$ as$ well.$ Most$ important$ is$ to$ minimise$ risks$ coming$ from$ the$ project$ environment$ and$ solving$ problems$ as$ soon$ as$ possible.$ Therefore$ it$ is$ important$ that$ the$ public$ is$ informed$correctly$and$that$complaints$are$taken$seriously.$Constructing$an$infrastructure$project$is$ unfortunately$not$possible$without$some$nuisance.$ $ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"71" Literature"reflection" The$ model$ for$ stakeholder$ management$ already$ showed$ that$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ a$ dynamical$and$cyclic$process,$that$needs$to$be$monitored$all$the$time$(Yang$et$al.,$2011).$Black$et$al.$ (2000)$have$illustrated$that$commitment$from$senior$management$is$considered$an$important$factor$ for$ collaboration.$ Since$ the$ available$ literature$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ limited,$ there$ is$ no$ literature$ support$ for$ the$ unawareness$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ 7.2.4. Preliminary%conclusions% After$ comparing$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ four$ cases,$ the$ preliminary$conclusions$are$as$follow:$ • All$ projects$ work$ with$ the$ same$ basis,$ the$ division$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ four$components,$but$there$is$no$general$approach$on$how$this$is$implemented$in$practice.$ The$four$components$coming$from$literature$play$an$important$role$in$designing$the$role$of$ project$stakeholder$manager,$but$sometimes$one$of$the$components$is$the$responsibility$of$ another$ manager.$ It$ is$ still$ questionable$ if$ this$ is$ the$ most$ desirable$ model$ to$ implement$ project$stakeholder$management.$ • Regarding$the$orientation$of$project$stakeholder$management$it$can$be$concluded$that$the$ intention$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ always$ strategic,$ this$ means$ that$ realising$ the$ project$ without$ public$ opposition$ is$ the$ main$ goal.$ Although$ the$ orientation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ is$ strategically$ in$ all$ projects,$ there$ are$ differences$ in$ the$ involvement$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ during$ the$ decision$ making$ process.$ This$ is$ really$ dependent$ on$ the$ project$ stakeholders,$ the$ type$ of$ project$ and$ the$ environment$ in$ which$ the$ project$ will$ be$ realised.$ Also$ regarding$ the$ involvement$ of$ project$ stakeholders$ there$ seems$ no$ general$ strategy,$it$differs$by$project$and$the$strategy$should$be$adapted$to$the$project.$ • For$project$stakeholder$management$it$is$important$to$take$into$account$that$it$takes$place$in$ a$ dynamic$ environment.$ Therefore$ a$ successful$ strategy$ in$ one$ project$ is$ not$ directly$ successful$in$another$project.$Thereby$it$is$important$that$problems$are$solved$quickly,$risks$ are$minimised$and$that$the$public$is$taken$seriously.$Higher$management$should$be$aware$of$ the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management$and$with$a$view$towards$the$future$it$is$ important$that$everyone$who$is$working$on$a$project$becomes$aware$of$the$importance$of$ project$stakeholder$management.$ $ Reflection"experts" The$ findings$ regarding$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ desirability$ of$ the$ current$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ were$ discussed$ during$ the$ second$ workshop$ session.$ Before$ the$ discussion$ started,$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ current$ approach$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$was$given.$ $ Regarding$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ the$ participants$ agreed$ that$ the$ four$ components$ (communication,$ conditioning,$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ traffic$ management)$ are$ most$ of$ the$ time$ the$ responsibility$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager.$ However,$ it$ was$ noticed$ that$ this$ function$ also$ has$ a$ more$ soft$ side.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ also$ includes$ the$ component$ ‘relation# manager’.$ This$ fifth$ component$ becomes$ more$ important$ in$ case$ the$ scope$ of$ projects$ increases.$ The$ participants$ agreed$ that$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ should$ be$ represented$ in$ the$ management$ team,$ to$ be$ able$ to$ discuss$ at$ the$ tactical$ management$ level$ in$ order$ to$ signal$ problems$ on$ time$ and$ resolve$ them$ quickly.$ Also$ here$ applies$ that$ this$ is$ especially$ relevant$ for$ projects$with$a$large$scope$that$are$more$complex.$ $ The$participants$did$not$agree$on$the$proposition$that$project$stakeholder$management$is$strategic$ oriented$ and$ is$ mainly$ about$ preventing$ opposition.$ The$ general$ point$ of$ view$ is$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ more$ than$ informing,$ it$ is$ also$ about$ creating$ understanding$ and$ 72"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ support.$Therefore$it$is$important$to$explain$the$why$question$to$the$project$stakeholders,$so$they$ understand$ the$ necessity$ of$ the$ realisation$ of$ a$ project.$ In$ order$ to$ do$ this,$ it$ is$ important$ that$ principal$and$contractor$have$a$joint$vision$and$an$univocal$story.$$ $ The$ participants$ agreed$ that$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ project$ dependent$and$the$scope$of$a$project$has$influence$on$this.$It$was$indicated$that$the$contractor$could$ be$involved$more$at$the$strategic$management$level.$Especially$in$project$with$a$long$duration$it$is$ considered$important$that$the$contractor$could$think$along$and$participate$at$this$management$level$ to$be$able$to$act$on$time.$Another$suggestion$that$was$given$during$the$workshop$meeting$is$making$ more$connections$between$projects.$There$is$much$more$happening$in$a$project$environment$than$ people$are$aware$of$and$there$are$probably$some$overlaps$with$other$projects$that$are$executed$by$ the$same$or$another$consortium.$This$means$that$stakeholders$can$be$involved$in$multiple$projects$ and$it$would$be$a$missed$opportunity$not$to$make$use$of$this.$It$was$indicated$as$important$to$look$at$ the$ project$ from$ a$ broader$ perspective,$ make$ use$ of$ opportunities$ and$ create$ added$ value$ by$ combining$ projects.$ An$ example$ of$ a$ project$ where$ a$ lot$ of$ perspectives$ are$ combined$ is$ the$ ‘Zuidasdok’$ project.$ This$ is$ a$ major$ challenge,$ because$ the$ participants$ also$ illustrated$ that$ not$ everyone$is$aware$of$the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management.$$ $ 7.3. Comparing"the"collaboration"in"the"four"projects" In$ this$ section$ the$ radar$ charts$ that$ illustrate$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ in$ the$ four$ cases$ are$ compared$ with$ each$ other.$ In$ these$ charts$ the$ level$ of$ the$ collaboration$ on$ the$ six$ criteria$ is$ illustrated$from$the$point$of$view$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$and$contractor.$ This$comparison$will$illustrate$the$similarities$and$differences$in$the$state$of$the$collaboration$in$the$ four$case$study$projects$and$it$also$illustrates$whether$the$points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$ are$ aligned.$ Figure$ 35$ illustrates$ that$ none$ of$ the$ radar$ charts$ is$ identical$ and$ that$ each$ case$ is$ different.$ This$ section$ will$ elaborate$ further$ on$ the$ findings$ based$ on$ this$ comparison$ and$ this$ section$will$end$with$preliminary$conclusions.$ $ Figure#35:#Comparing#the#collaboration#(own#ill.)# 7.3.1. Cross%case%comparison%% In$ chapter$ 6$ it$ was$ already$ illustrated$ that$ the$ radar$ charters$ visualise$ whether$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ a$ different$ or$ similar$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ the$ collaboration$ on$ a$ criterion.$ The$ cross$ case$ comparison$ illustrates$ that$ there$ is$ only$ one$ criterion$ where$ the$ score$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ aligned$ in$ all$ four$ projects.$ This$ is$ the$ case$ for$ the$ criterion$ ‘attitude’.$ On$ all$ other$ criteria$there$is$always$a$project$where$principal$and$contractor$have$a$different$point$of$view.$For$ the$criteria$‘objectives’,$‘project$organisation’$and$‘trust’$there$are$two$projects$where$principal$and$ contractor$ have$ a$ different$ point$ of$ view.$ This$ means$ that$ in$ the$ two$ other$ projects$ they$ have$ an$ aligned$ view$ on$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration.$ For$ the$ criteria$ ‘risk’$ and$ ‘communication’$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ aligned$ in$ three$ of$ the$ projects.$ This$ means$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ a$ different$ point$ of$ view$ in$ one$ of$ the$ projects.$ These$ findings$ illustrate$ that$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ differs$ mostly$ on$ the$ criteria$ ‘objectives’,$ ‘project$ organisation’$and$‘trust’.$Therefore$investing$in$these$criteria$will$lead$to$most$improvements$in$the$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"73" collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$This$applies$to$a$lesser$extent$for$the$criteria$‘risk’$ and$‘communication’,$where$the$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$is$not$aligned$in$one$case.$ The$criterion$‘attitude’$is$already$well$developed$given$the$aligned$of$points$of$view$in$all$cases.$ $ In$three$of$the$projects$the$scores$differ$only$one$level$and$in$one$of$the$projects$there$are$scores$on$ three$different$levels.$There$is$no$project$where$the$scores$vary$from$one$to$four.$The$same$applies$ for$ the$ different$ criteria,$ there$ is$ no$ criterion$ that$ scores$ level$ one$ in$ project$ A$ and$ level$ four$ in$ project$B.$The$most$occurring$score$is$level$three,$this$point$of$view$is$chosen$28$times.$Level$two$was$ determined$ as$ state$ of$ collaboration$ 13$ times,$ followed$ by$ 5$ times$ level$ four$ and$ level$ one$ was$ chosen$twice.$Level$one$was$scored$twice,$this$illustrates$that$the$relationship$between$principal$and$ contractor$ is$ becoming$ less$ traditional$ and$ shifts$ more$ towards$ a$ collaborative$ relationship$ and$ project$ partnering.$ The$ step$ towards$ strategic$ partnering$ has$ yet$ to$ be$ made.$ The$ scores$ of$ the$ projects$also$illustrate$that$the$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$can$be$somewhat$different,$ but$that$they$never$have$a$complete$opposite$point$of$view$on$their$collaboration.$$ " This$ cross$ case$ comparison$ also$ indicates$ that$ in$ two$ projects$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ an$ almost$completely$aligned$point$of$view$on$their$collaboration,$while$in$two$other$projects$the$point$ of$view$of$both$respondents$differs$on$three$or$four$criteria.$Case$one$and$case$four,$the$cases$with$ aligned$ points$ of$ view$ regarding$ the$ state$ of$ collaboration,$ are$ judged$ as$ projects$ where$ the$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ good.$ The$ other$ two$ projects,$ case$ two$ and$ case$ three,$had$to$deal$with$some$issues$and$therefore$the$relationship$in$these$projects$was$judged$as$ reasonable.$ It$ can$ be$ assumed$ that$ alignment$ of$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ important$for$good$collaboration.$In$case$four$the$respondents$judge$their$collaboration$as$good.$The$ case$ analysis$ illustrated$ that$ the$ collaboration$ does$ not$ reach$ high$ levels$ according$ to$ the$ observations$of$the$researcher,$but$the$scores$were$aligned.$It$can$be$concluded$that$collaboration$is$ experienced$as$good,$while$the$levels$of$collaboration$are$rather$low.$This$conclusion$is$supported$by$ the$fact$that$case$two$and$three$have$higher$scores$on$the$collaboration,$while$the$collaboration$in$ these$cases$is$judged$as$reasonable$because$principal$and$contractor$do$not$always$have$an$aligned$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ their$ collaboration.$ Important$ to$ mention$ as$ well$ is$ that$ the$ relationship$ between$the$principal$and$contractor$is$better$in$case$one$compared$to$case$four.$This$illustrates$that$ having$an$aligned$point$of$view$is$important,$but$scoring$higher$levels$will$enhance$the$collaboration$ even$more.$Checking$the$average$score$for$each$criterion$(Table$6)$illustrates$that$the$criteria$‘trust’,$ ‘attitude’$ and$ ‘project$ organisation’$ score$ level$ three,$ while$ the$ average$ score$ of$ the$ criteria$ ‘objectives’,$‘risk’$and$‘communication’$score$somewhere$between$level$two$and$three.$Therefore$it$ can$be$concluded$that$the$collaboration$benefits$most$from$investments$in$these$criteria.$ $ Criterion" Average"score" Objectives$ 2,75$ Trust$ 3$ Risk$ 2,125$ Communication$ 2,625$ Attitude$ 3$ Project$organisation$ 3$ Table#6:#Average#scores#criteria# $ Literature"reflection" The$amount$of$literature$available$on$collaboration$already$illustrates$the$importance$of$this$subject$ (Black$ et$ al.,$ 2000;$ Bresnen$ &$ Marshall,$ 2000b;$ Chan$ et$ al.,$ 2004;$ Cheung$ et$ al.,$ 2009;$ Dewulf$ &$ Kadefors,$2012;$Meng$et$al.,$2011;$Suprapto$et$al.,$in$press).$The$construction$sector$is$changing$and$ there$ is$ more$ focus$ on$ collaboration$ compared$ to$ the$ traditional$ adversarial$ principal$ contractor$ relationship$that$was$standard$in$construction$projects.$This$change$can$be$found$in$the$case$study$ 74"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ projects$as$well,$where$it$was$illustrated$that$principal$and$contractor$have$the$same$point$of$view$ regarding$the$criterion$‘attitude’$and$have$invested$in$the$project$to$realise$it$together.$Thereby$the$ cross$case$comparison$illustrated$that$principal$and$contractor$have$not$complete$opposite$views$on$ their$collaboration$and$that$there$is$more$interaction$between$principal$and$contractor.$As$illustrated$ by$ Black$ et$ al.$ (2000)$ there$ are$ some$ requirements$ that$ must$ be$ met$ to$ make$ collaboration$ successful.$Examples$of$requirements$are$trust,$good$communication,$a$clear$understanding$of$roles,$ consistency$and$a$flexible$attitude.$This$corresponds$with$the$findings$of$the$cross$case$comparison$ where$ it$ was$ illustrated$ that$ the$ possibilities$ to$ improve$ collaboration$ can$ be$ found$ in$ the$ criteria$ ‘objectives’,$‘risk’$and$‘communication’.$$$$ 7.3.2. Preliminary%conclusions% After$comparing$the$radar$charts$that$illustrate$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ it$ can$ be$ concluded$ that$ it$ is$ important$ for$ collaboration$that$the$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$is$aligned$and$that$a$high$score$does$ not$necessarily$mean$that$the$collaboration$is$better$compared$to$a$project$where$the$score$is$lower.$ An$aligned$point$of$view$is$the$first$step$that$is$important$for$good$collaboration,$while$higher$scores$ on$the$levels$of$the$collaboration$can$enhance$the$collaboration$even$more.$ $ Reflection"experts" In$ the$ third$ workshop$ session$ the$ collaboration$ model,$ developed$ in$ this$ research,$ was$ discussed.$ This$ session$ started$ with$ a$ short$ introduction$ about$ the$ model$ to$ make$ sure$ all$ participants$ understood$the$model.$Afterwards$the$completeness$and$validity$of$the$model$was$discussed.$At$the$ end$ of$ this$ workshop$ session$ it$ was$ also$ discussed$ how$ the$ model$ could$ by$ applied$ in$ practice,$ chapter$8$will$elaborate$more$on$this.$ $ The$collaboration$model$was$used$in$this$research$to$illustrate$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$ principal$and$contractor$at$a$certain$moment.$It$indicated$whether$principal$and$contractor$had$the$ same$ point$ of$ view$ on$ their$ collaboration$ and$ at$ which$ level$ they$ were$ collaborating.$ The$ participants$stated$that$an$instrument$to$reflect$on$the$collaboration$is$important$for$collaboration$ and$ they$ could$ agree$ on$ the$ six$ criteria$ that$ were$ chosen$ as$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration.$ A$ point$ for$ improvement$ is$ adding$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ to$ this$ model.$ The$ model$might$illustrate$that$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$is$good,$but$this$does$ not$say$anything$about$the$opinion$of$the$project$stakeholders$about$the$project$and$their$point$of$ view$regarding$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$In$case$the$internal$collaboration$ is$considered$good,$but$the$project$stakeholders$are$not$satisfied$with$the$project$it$is$not$possible$to$ conclude$that$a$project$was$successful.$Therefore$it$is$concluded$that$by$adding$the$point$of$view$of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ on$ the$ collaboration,$ the$ model$ could$ be$ improved$ and$ this$ might$ also$ enrich$ the$ dialogue.$ Because$ with$ this$ additional$ point$ of$ view$ the$ expectations$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$can$become$more$aligned$with$the$expectations$of$the$project$organisation.$ $ 7.4. "Concluding"findings" The$findings$of$the$cross$case$analysis$reviewed$with$research$findings$and$with$practical$experiences$ in$the$workshop$meeting$made$it$possible$to$answer$the$fourth$sub$question$of$this$research$‘which# strategies# can# improve# the# collaboration# between# principal# and# contactor’.$ The$ answer$ of$ this$ sub$ question$is$described$in$this$section.$ $ Research$has$illustrated$that$projects$where$principal$and$contractor$have$a$traditional,$adversarial$ relation$ become$ rare$ and$ that$ the$ focus$ on$ collaboration$ is$ increasing.$ In$ general$ the$ average$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ somewhere$ between$ a$ collaborative$ relationship$ and$project$partnering.$First$matter$of$importance$for$collaboration$is$that$principal$and$contractor$ have$ an$ aligned$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ their$ collaboration.$ If$ that$ is$ the$ case$ the$ collaboration$ is$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"75" likely$to$be$good,$because$both$parties$have$the$same$expectations$of$each$other$and$can$anticipate$ on$that.$Secondly,$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$be$improved$by$investing$ in$the$criteria$that$do$not$reach$the$highest$level$of$collaboration.$If$this$is$preferable$is$really$project$ and$scope$dependent,$since$the$benefits$of$the$investments$should$outweigh$the$investments.$ $ Besides$ the$ importance$ of$ the$ alignment$ of$ point$ of$ view$ on$ collaboration$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor,$this$research$has$identified$three$main$strategies$to$enhance$the$collaboration$based$on$ the$case$study$findings$and$verification$of$these$findings$in$literature$and$in$the$workshop$meeting.$ The$first$strategy$is$verification"of"expectations$regarding$all$kinds$of$aspects$before$the$realisation$ of$ the$ project.$ This$ research$ illustrated$ that$ currently$ principal$ and$ contractor$ make$ additional$ agreements$ during$ realisation,$ because$ not$ everything$ is$ sufficiently$ described$ in$ the$ contract.$ Besides$ that,$ it$ was$ illustrated$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ have$ a$ different$ interpretation$ of$ what$ is$ in$ the$ contract.$ This$ leads$ to$ misunderstandings,$ undesirable$ discussions$ and$ hinders$ and$ effective$collaboration.$Therefore$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$verify$and$align$their$ expectations$ beforehand,$ make$ sure$ it$ is$ clear$ which$ parties$ is$ responsible$ for$ what$ and$ create$ a$ budget$ for$ joint$ actions.$ This$ because$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ best$ in$ case$ it$ is$ approached$ together.$ The$ second$ strategy$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$is$focus"on"people.$This$research$has$illustrated$that$collaboration$is$likely$to$fail$in$case$ people$ are$ not$ willing$ to$ collaborate.$ Furthermore$ it$ was$ illustrated$ that$ collaboration$ could$ be$ improved$by$focusing$on$the$composition$of$project$teams,$based$on$the$qualities$and$competences$ of$ individuals,$ and$ the$ complementary$ and$ diversity$ of$ people.$ Currently$ higher$ management$ regulates$ the$ composition$ of$ project$ teams$ and$ there$ is$ limited$ attention$ for$ the$ match$ of$people.$ Therefore$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$focus$more$on$this$soft$side$of$collaboration,$ to$make$sure$the$project$team$has$a$solid$basis$and$the$collaboration$will$not$fail$on$this$aspect.$In$ the$end$people$will$make$a$project.$The$third$strategy$is$monitor"the"collaboration.$This$research$has$ illustrated$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ difficulties$ in$ starting$ the$ dialogue$ about$ their$ collaboration$ without$ being$ judged$ about$ the$ collaboration$ itself.$ For$ good$ collaboration$ it$ is$ important$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ in$ order$ to$ monitor$ the$ signals,$ react$ proactive$ and$ take$ responsibility.$Research$indicated$that$an$instrument$to$start$this$dialogue$was$missing.$This$research$ provided$a$collaboration$model$that$can$be$used$for$this.$ $ This$research$showed$that$it$is$important$to$invest$in$these$strategies$to$enhance$good$collaboration.$ These$strategies$optimise$the$focus$on$the$joint$goal$and$minimise$irritations$between$principal$and$ contractor.$ Both$ parties$ do$ not$ always$ speak$ the$ same$ language$ neither$ have$ they$ a$ joint$ goal$ or$ joint$expectations.$In$order$to$align$points$of$view$it$is$important$that$both$parties$start$this$dialogue.$ Research$ indicated$ that$ there$ was$ no$ instrument$ available$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ collaboration$ model$ as$ developed$ in$ this$ research$ could$ fill$ this$ gap.$ Chapter$8$will$further$elaborate$on$the$application$of$this$model.$ 76"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 8. A PPLICATION"COLLABORATION"MODEL" $ $ In$order$to$determine$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor,$this$research$ has$developed$a$collaboration$model.$The$level$of$collaboration$is$based$on$a$questionnaire,$which$ can$ be$ found$ in$ appendix$ H$ and$ the$ outcome$ of$ this$ questionnaire$ is$ visualised$ in$ a$ radar$ chart$ in$ order$ to$ compare$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ regarding$ their$ collaboration.$ The$ aim$ of$ this$ chapter$ is$ to$ answer$ the$ fifth$ and$ final$ sub$ question$ of$ this$ research$ ‘how# to# audit# collaboration’.$First,$the$validity$of$the$collaboration$model$was$tested$during$the$workshop$meeting.$ Second,$ some$ adjustments$ to$ the$ model$ were$ discussed.$ Third,$ there$ will$ be$ elaborated$ on$ the$ application$ of$ the$ collaboration.$ Fourth,$ the$ added$ value$ of$ collaboration$ model$ will$ be$ discussed.$ Fifth,$the$limitations$of$this$research$will$be$described.$ $ 8.1. Validity"of"the"collaboration"model" The$ main$ advice$ of$ the$ workshop$ participants$ about$ the$ collaboration$ model$ was$ related$ to$ the$ application$of$the$model.$It$was$recognised$that$it$is$important$to$have$an$instrument$that$makes$it$ easier$to$start$the$dialogue$about$the$collaboration$and$to$evaluate$the$collaboration.$As$discussed$in$ chapter$ 7$ the$ participants$ could$ agree$ on$ the$ six$ criteria$ that$ were$ chosen$ as$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration.$ During$ the$ introduction$ presentation$ in$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ it$ was$ asked$ to$ the$ participants$ to$ fill$ in$ the$ questionnaire.$ This$ questionnaire$ was$ used$ during$ the$ research$ to$ determine$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ from$ both$ points$ of$ view$ based$ on$ the$ observations$ of$ the$ researcher.$ The$ answers$ of$ the$ participants$ made$ it$ possible$ to$ compare$the$point$of$view$of$the$researcher$with$the$real$life$experience$of$the$project$stakeholder$ managers.$ The$ respondents$ of$ the$ interviews$ that$ were$ not$ present$ during$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ were$ asked$ to$ answer$ the$ questionnaire$ digital.$ Based$ on$ the$ given$ answers$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ determine$the$level$of$collaboration$at$each$criterion.$Comparing$the$results$of$the$researcher$with$ the$ results$ of$ the$ participants$ illustrated$ that$ sometimes$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ researcher$ was$ aligned$with$the$point$of$view$of$the$participants,$while$at$other$criteria$the$points$of$view$differ.$In$ case$there$was$a$different$point$of$view,$the$differences$were$small.$Researcher$and$participant$did$ never$have$a$completely$opposite$view$on$the$collaboration.$Differences$in$points$of$view$are$likely$ to$occur$because$the$researcher$reviewed$the$state$of$the$collaboration$at$a$certain$moment$during$ the$ project$ realisation$ based$ on$ the$ collected$ information,$ while$ the$ participants$ have$ a$ complete$ picture$ of$ the$ project.$ Based$ on$ these$ findings$ it$ can$ be$ concluded$ that$ the$ collaboration$ model$ is$ able$ to$ give$ a$ representative$ and$ complete$ overview$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ $ 8.2. "Adjustments"to"the"collaboration"model" The$main$advice$of$the$workshop$participants$was$about$the$application$of$the$collaboration$model.$ It$was$recognised$that$it$is$important$to$have$an$instrument$that$makes$it$easier$to$start$a$dialogue$ about$the$collaboration$and$to$evaluate$the$collaboration.$In$order$to$make$an$instrument$like$this$ useful$in$practice,$the$aim$of$the$instrument$has$to$be$clear.$It$was$indicated$as$important$that$the$ collaboration$ model$ is$ not$ an$ instrument$ to$ judge$ the$ collaboration,$ but$ is$ an$ instrument$ that$ focuses$more$on$the$soft$side$of$collaboration$and$gives$directions$to$improve$the$collaboration.$The$ model$ can$ be$ used$ to$ evaluate$ the$ collaboration$ between$ two$ managers,$ but$ can$ also$ be$ used$ to$ evaluate$the$collaboration$in$the$whole$project.$$ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"77" One$of$the$workshop$participants$mentioned$that$RWS$is$already$using$an$instrument$like$this$to$test$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ this$ is$ called$ ‘prestatie# meten’.$ The$ aim$ of$ this$ instrument$is$to$start$the$dialogue,$but$experience$in$practice$indicates$that$the$instrument$is$used$to$ judge$the$performance$of$the$contractor.$Scores$are$saved$in$a$database$and$once$data$are$entered$it$ is$ not$ possible$ to$ change$ them$ anymore.$ The$ scores$ are$ used$ as$ past$ performance$ indicators$ and$ they$will$be$used$to$evaluate$the$contractor$for$future$projects.$It$is$also$possible$that$an$insufficient$ score$ has$ contractual$ consequences,$ for$ example$ the$ contractor$ does$ not$ get$ a$ bonus.$ Because$ scoring$ on$ a$ low$ level$ can$ have$ major$ consequences,$ no$ one$ will$ answer$ questions$ completely$ honest$ and$ therefore$ such$ a$ model$ does$ not$ give$ a$ complete$ view$ on$ the$ collaboration.$ Other$ participants$ supported$ this$ point$ of$ view.$ They$ illustrated$ that$ it$ is$ important$ to$ be$ careful$ with$ numbers$and$scores.$Numbers$and$scores$indicate$that$something$is$judged$and$this$scares$people,$ because$their$answers$might$have$consequences.$The$outcome$of$the$instrument$should$not$be$good$ or$bad,$but$it$has$to$be$a$point$to$start$the$discussion$about$the$collaboration$without$consequences$ for$being$open$and$honest.$The$aim$of$the$instrument$should$be$to$improve$the$collaboration,$rather$ than$ judge$ it.$ It$ should$ illustrate$ possibilities$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ by$ identifying$ opportunities$and$measures$that$can$be$taken$to$improve$the$collaboration.$$ $ As$illustrated$in$chapter$7$the$collaboration$model$could$be$improved$by$adding$the$point$of$view$of$ the$project$stakeholders$to$the$model.$Currently$the$collaboration$model$indicates$whether$principal$ and$contractor$have$an$aligned$point$of$view$regarding$their$collaboration,$while$the$point$of$view$of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ is$ excluded$ from$ this$ model.$ Adding$ this$ perspective$ could$ enrich$ the$ dialogue$and$makes$sure$the$expectations$of$the$project$stakeholders$become$more$aligned$with$the$ expectations$of$principal$and$contractor.$ $ These$ findings$ lead$ to$ some$ adjustments$ before$ the$ application$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ will$ be$ discussed$ in$ section$ 8.3.$ First$ of$ all,$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ not$ confronted$ with$ numbers$ and$ scores$anymore,$because$this$makes$people$cautious$when$filling$in$the$questionnaire.$Therefore$the$ model$ only$ gives$ directions$ on$ which$ criteria$ the$ collaboration$ could$ be$ improved,$ based$ on$ the$ comparison$ of$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ both$ parties.$ In$ that$ case$ the$ collaboration$ model$ has$ the$ function$ of$ mirroring$ a$ project.$ It$ illustrates$ the$ possibilities$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration.$ As$ a$ remark$the$workshop$participants$noted$that$the$type$of$project,$scope$and$duration$determine$if$an$ instrument$will$be$used.$ $ 8.3. Application"of"the"collaboration"model" During$ the$ realisation$ of$ a$ project$ the$ collaboration$ model$ could$ be$ used$ to$ monitor$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ the$ collaboration.$ This$ evaluation$ moment$ illustrates$ whether$ both$ have$ an$ aligned$ or$ different$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ their$ collaboration$ and$ what$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$is.$In$case$the$points$of$view$are$aligned,$both$parties$can$invest$in$keeping$up$the$good$ work.$In$case$principal$and$contractor$have$some$of$differences$in$their$points$of$view,$the$criteria$ where$improvements$are$needed$will$be$illustrated.$The$level$of$collaboration$gives$directions$for$the$ criteria$where$principal$and$contractor$could$enhance$the$intensity$of$collaboration.$$ $ It$ is$ recommended$ to$ use$ the$ collaboration$ model$ a$ couple$ of$ times$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ a$ project.$ In$ that$ case$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ monitor$ the$ development$ of$ the$ collaboration.$ This$ research$ illustrated$that$the$collaboration$model$is$an$useful$instrument$to$apply$in$practice.$Therefore$three$ possibilities$ have$ been$ identified$ for$ a$ feasible$ and$ meaningful$ application$ of$ the$ model.$ The$ first$ option$ is$ to$ use$ the$ collaboration$ model$ before$ the$ start$ of$ a$ project.$ In$ that$ case$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ decide$ which$ level$ of$ collaboration$ they$ want$ to$ achieve.$ Determination$ of$ the$ preferred$level$of$collaboration$beforehand$makes$it$easier$to$reflect$on$and$monitor$the$progress$of$ the$collaboration$during$the$project$realisation.$The$second$option$is$to$use$the$collaboration$model$ as$an$instrument$to$reflect$on$the$collaboration$during$the$realisation$of$a$project.$In$that$case$the$ 78"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ collaboration$can$be$monitored$and$adjustments$can$be$made$to$improve$the$collaboration$for$the$ further$course$of$the$project.$The$third$option$is$using$the$collaboration$model$after$the$completion$ of$the$project$to$evaluate$the$collaboration,$in$that$case$lessons$can$be$learned$for$future$projects.$ " The$collaboration$model$can$be$applied$in$practice$according$to$the$following$steps:$ 1. Principal$and$contractor$fill$in$the$questionnaire,$the$answers$of$both$parties$are$compared$ with$each$other$and$it$is$possible$to$illustrate$on$which$criteria$principal$and$contractor$have$ a$different$point$of$view.$This$indicates$on$which$criteria$both$parties$should$start$a$dialogue$ to$ make$ their$ point$ of$ view$ more$ aligned$ and$ on$ which$ criteria$ the$ collaboration$ could$ be$ improved.$ $ Example# of# advice:# The# collaboration# is# likely# to# improve# by# discussing# mutual# expectations# on# the#following#criteria:#A,#B#and#C.# $ 2. In$ case$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ aligned,$ but$ do$ not$ reach$ the$ highest$ level$ of$ collaboration$ improvements$ can$ be$ made.$ Also$ for$ this$ step$ the$ questionnaire$indicates$at$which$criteria$the$collaboration$could$be$improved.$ $ Example#of#advice:#The#level#of#the#collaboration#can#be#improved#on#the#following#criteria:#X,#Y# and#Z.# $ 3. Principal$and$contractor$have$to$fill$in$the$questionnaire$on$a$regular$basis,$for$example$every$ six$ months,$ in$ order$ to$ monitor$ the$ progress$ of$ the$ collaboration$ and$ to$ be$ able$ to$ act$ on$ time$in$case$the$collaboration$does$not$meet$the$expectations$and$needs$improvements.$ $ Examples# of# advice:# The# mutual# expectations# regarding# the# collaboration# have# become# more# aligned#in#the#last#six#months,#so#keep#up#the#good#work.#Another#example#advice:#The#level#of# collaboration# was# below# expectations# in# the# last# six# months,# so# keep# focused# on# the# collaboration#on#the#criteria#A#and#B.# $ The$ three$ steps$ as$ described$ above$ illustrated$ how$ the$ collaboration$ model$ can$ be$ applied$ in$ practice.$ In$ case$ the$ collaboration$ model$ is$ used$ before$ the$ start$ of$ a$ project,$ the$ progress$ of$ the$ achievements$can$be$measured$according$to$these$steps.$The$same$applies$in$case$the$collaboration$ model$is$used$to$monitor$the$collaboration.$In$case$the$collaboration$model$is$used$to$evaluate$the$ collaboration,$ the$ findings$ can$ be$ used$ to$ learn$ from$ practices$ and$ can$ be$ worthwhile$ in$ future$ projects.$ " 8.4. Added"value"of"a"collaboration"model" In$this$chapter$the$application$of$the$collaboration$model$was$discussed.$It$was$illustrated$how$the$ model$could$be$applied$in$practice.$This$has$answered$the$sub$question$‘how#to#audit#collaboration’.$ Therefore$ this$ section$ will$ discuss$ the$ added$ value$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ for$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ $ This$ research$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ a$ tough$ challenge$ to$ start$ the$ dialogue$ about$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Therefore$ this$ research$ has$ developed$ a$ collaboration$ model$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ collaboration$ model$ starts$ with$ filling$ in$ the$ questionnaire$ and$ comparing$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ the$ respondents$ based$ on$ the$ answers$ of$ the$ questionnaire.$ Where$ after$ it$ provides$ directions$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$principal$and$contractor,$and$to$align$expectations$of$both$parties.$The$model$is$not$solely$ focusing$on$the$technical$and$hard$aspects$of$collaboration,$but$also$on$the$social$and$soft$aspects$of$ collaboration.$ Most$ difficulties$ in$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ found$ in$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"79" this$ soft$ side$ of$ collaboration.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ collaboration$ have$ various$ dimensions$ and$ interrelated$ aspects,$ so$ are$ rather$ complex$ issues.$ This$ research$ did$ not$ cover$ all$ issues,$but$the$developed$collaboration$model$is$a$solid$foundation$to$enhance$the$collaboration$and$ for$further$research.$Good$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$is$of$major$importance$to$ complete$a$project$successful$and$to$communicate$effectively$with$project$stakeholders.$ " Most$important$in$order$to$make$an$instrument$like$the$collaboration$model$valuable$in$practice$is$ that$it$is$used$to$improve$collaboration,$rather$than$judge$the$collaboration$or$to$assess$each$other.$ To$ use$ this$ instrument$ objective,$ the$ researcher$ recommends$ that$ an$ external$ party$ executes$ the$ collaboration$model$in$practice.$$$$ $ 8.5. Limitations"of"this"research" This$research$resulted$in$some$new$insights$in$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$on$ project$stakeholder$management.$Despite$the$effort$and$care$the$researcher$has$put$in$this$research,$ there$ are$ several$ factors$ that$ limit$ this$ research.$ The$ identified$ limitations$ are$ described$ in$ this$ section.$ $ The$completeness$of$the$developed$framework$cannot$be$ensured.$More$sources$could$have$been$ investigated$ to$ decide$ which$ criteria$ are$ most$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration$ and$ the$ validity$ of$ these$criteria$could$have$been$tested$in$a$qualitative$research.$However,$the$researcher$had$a$limited$ amount$ of$ time$ available$ and$ therefore$ it$ was$ decided$ to$ use$ the$ theory$ of$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011)$ as$ basis$to$identify$criteria$that$are$important$for$good$collaboration.$ $ After$ the$ feedback$ from$ the$ participants$ in$ the$ workshop$ session,$ the$ validity$ of$ the$ adjusted$ collaboration$ model$ was$ not$ tested.$ More$ steps$ could$ be$ made$ to$ further$ test$ the$ reliability$ and$ validity$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model.$ After$ the$ feedback$ of$ the$ workshop$ participants$ it$ can$ be$ assumed$ that$ the$ model$ is$ comprehensive$ and$ is$ a$ foundation$ to$ start$ further$ research.$ Before$ an$ instrument$ like$ the$ collaboration$ model$ can$ be$ used$ in$ practice$ some$ pilot$ cases$ are$ needed$ to$ eliminate$the$growing$pains$of$the$model.$$$ $ In$ this$ research$ a$ limited$ amount$ of$ cases$ was$ investigated,$ due$ to$ time$ constraints$ of$ the$ researcher.$There$are$many$more$projects$that$could$have$functioned$as$case$and$this$would$have$ resulted$ in$ additional$ findings.$ Although$ the$ general$ applicability$ of$ the$ research$ findings$ and$ the$ completeness$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ was$ tested$ in$ a$ workshop$ meeting,$ some$ additional$ research$ is$ needed$ to$ give$ a$ more$ complete$ overview$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ infrastructure$ projects$ in$ The$ Netherlands.$ Besides$ that,$ the$ number$ of$ respondents$ per$ case$ was$ limited$ as$ well.$ Managers$ that$ were$ not$ interviewed$ could$ have$ a$ different$ opinion$ and$ also$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ other$ stakeholders$ that$ were$ part$ of$ the$ project$ organisation$ (like$ ProRail,$ municipality$ and$ province$ in$ some$cases)$was$neglected$in$this$research.$ $ This$ research$ focused$ solely$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ and$ therefore$ the$point$of$view$of$the$project$stakeholders$was$left$out$of$the$scope.$It$was$illustrated$during$the$ workshop$meeting$that$adding$this$point$of$view$could$enrich$the$collaboration$model.$Right$now$the$ collaboration$was$only$evaluated$from$the$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor.$Although$they$ might$ experience$ their$ collaboration$ as$ good,$ this$ might$ not$ be$ the$ case$ according$ to$ the$ project$ stakeholders.$ By$ adding$ this$ perspective$ the$ research$ could$ become$ more$ complete.$ However,$ before$the$research$started$it$was$decided$to$not$include$this,$due$to$the$limited$time$available$for$ this$research.$$ $ $ 80"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 9. C ONCLUSION"AND"RECOMMENDATIONS" $ $ This$research$aimed$to$define$project$stakeholder$management$and$explored$how$the$collaboration$ between$principal$and$contractor$could$be$improved.$The$main$question$was$defined$as$followed:$ $ Which% possibilities% can% be% defined% to% enhance% the% collaboration% between% principal% and% contractor%on%project%stakeholder%management%in%large%infrastructure%projects?% $ This$conclusion$will$answer$the$main$question$and$recommend$directions$of$further$research.$ $ 9.1. Conclusion" In$this$conclusion$all$answers$to$the$sub$questions$as$mentioned$at$the$end$of$different$chapters$in$ this$report$are$combined$to$answer$the$main$question.$This$section$will$go$stepRbyRstep$through$the$ content$of$research.$The$sub$questions$are$answered$with$the$findings$of$the$four$case$study$projects$ and$the$workshop$meeting$that$was$organised$to$verify$these$findings.$ $ What#is#project#stakeholder#management?# Project$stakeholder$management$links$the$project$organisation$with$the$stakeholders$in$the$project$ environment.$ The$ goal$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ twofold:$ satisfaction$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ by$ involving$ them$ and$ creating$ support$ for$ the$ project,$ and$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ within$ scope,$ time$ and$ budget.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ defined$ by$ four$ components:$ communication,# conditioning,# stakeholder# management$ and$ traffic# management.$ The$ respondents$of$the$case$study$projects$recognise$these$four$components$as$described$in$literature.$ Practical$experiences$of$the$workshop$participants$illustrated$that$the$task$of$relation$manager$is$an$ important$ fifth$ component$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ function.$ This$ fifth$ component$ focuses$ on$ the$ different$ relations$ between$ employees$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ the$ soft$ side$ of$ collaboration.$ $ What#factors#are#important#for#collaboration?# Based$on$an$extensive$literature$review$the$following$six$factors$are$determined$as$important$criteria$ for$ good$ collaboration:$ objectives,# trust,# risk,# communication,# attitude$ and$ project# organisation.$ A$ more$detailed$description$of$these$criteria$can$be$found$in$paragraph$4.2.$ $ What#model#can#be#used#to#define#the#state#of#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor?# The$ six$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration$ are$ used$ to$ evaluate$ the$ state$ of$ collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$A$collaboration$model$was$designed$to$compare$the$ points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor,$and$to$compare$the$collaboration$in$different$projects.$The$ state$of$collaboration$for$each$criterion$can$be$positioned$on$one$of$the$four$levels$of$collaboration$ that$ are$ distinguished$ based$ on$ a$ literature$ review.$ The$ four$ different$ levels$ of$ collaboration$ are:$ contractual# relationship,# collaborative# relationship,# project# partnering$ and$ strategic# partnering.$ Based$on$a$questionnaire,$with$a$description$of$the$relationship$at$each$level$for$all$criteria,$the$state$ of$collaboration$can$be$determined$for$each$criterion.$The$questionnaire$can$be$found$in$appendix$H.$ The$state$of$collaboration$from$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$is$visualised$in$a$radar$chart,$ which$is$illustrated$in$Figure$36.$After$the$analysis$of$the$case$study$findings$the$researcher$observed$ that$ in$ general$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ somewhere$ between$ level$two,$a$collaborative$relationship$and$level$three,$project$partnering.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"81" Figure#36:#Radar#chart#for#collaboration#model#(own#ill.)" $ The$collaboration$visualised$in$the$radar$chart$illustrates$the$level$of$collaboration$between$principal$ and$ contractor,$ and$ whether$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ aligned.$ The$ case$ study$ research$ has$ illustrated$ that$ the$ collaboration$ is$ better$ in$ projects$ where$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ an$ aligned$ point$ of$ view,$ compared$ to$ projects$ where$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ is$ higher$ but$ both$ parties$ differ$ in$ point$ of$ view.$ Therefore$ this$ research$ concludes$ that$ for$ good$ collaboration$ the$ alignment$ of$ points$ of$ view$ is$ more$ important$ than$ reaching$ the$ highest$ level$ of$ collaboration.$This$conclusion$was$recognised$by$the$workshop$participants.$They$indicated$that$it$is$ possible$ to$ have$ a$ successful$ business$ relationship$ with$ limited$ collaboration$ in$ case$ the$ involved$ parties$have$agreed$this.$For$a$more$detailed$elaboration$on$this$finding$section$7.3$is$recommended.$ $ Which#strategies#can#improve#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor?# The$research$has$illustrated$that$it$is$most$important$that$principal$and$contractor$have$an$aligned$ point$of$view$regarding$their$collaboration.$Three$main$strategies$to$enhance$the$collaboration$are$ defined$based$on$the$case$study$findings$and$verification$of$these$findings$in$the$workshop$meeting.$ The$first$strategy$is$verification"of"expectations$of$the$collaborating$parties.$Research$illustrated$that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ have$ a$ different$ interpretation$ of$ what$ is$ stated$ in$ the$ contract.$ This$ leads$to$misunderstanding,$undesirable$discussions$and$hinders$an$effective$collaboration.$The$case$ studies$have$illustrated$that$during$project$realisation$it$often$turns$out$that$some$aspects$were$not$ well$defined$in$the$beginning$and$adjustments$or$additional$agreements$are$needed.$Therefore$it$is$ important$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ verify$ and$ align$ their$ expectations$ regarding$ collaboration$ beforehand$in$order$to$prevent$possible$issues.$Focus"on"people$is$the$second$strategy$to$enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Research$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ important$ that$ people$ are$ willing$ to$ collaborate,$ because$ otherwise$ it$ is$ likely$ to$ fail.$ Furthermore$ people$ of$ both$ parties$ have$ to$ understand$ each$ other$ and$ strive$ to$ achieve$ a$ common$ goal$ based$ on$ trust$ and$ equality.$The$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$benefit$from$more$attention$for$the$ composition$of$project$teams.$Therefore$it$is$important$that$individuals$have$the$right$qualities$and$ competences,$ but$ also$ the$ complementary$ and$ diversity$ of$ the$ people$ in$ the$ project$ teams$ influences$the$collaboration.$The$participants$of$the$workshop$meeting$mentioned$that$the$people$in$ a$ project$ team$ are$ of$ major$ importance.$ The$ case$ studies$ have$ illustrated$ that$ there$ is$ limited$ attention$for$this.$Therefore$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$focus$more$on$the$people$ working$ on$ a$ project$ and$ the$ composition$ of$ project$ teams.$ The$ third$ strategy$ is$ monitor" the" collaboration.$This$research$has$illustrated$that$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$are$able$ to$reflect$on$their$collaboration,$without$being$judged$about$the$collaboration$itself.$Therefore$it$is$ 82"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ important$that$signals$are$monitored,$both$parties$react$proactive$and$take$responsibility.$Research$ indicated$ that$ an$ instrument$ is$ needed$ to$ start$ the$ discussion$ about$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$and$contractor.$The$collaboration$model$as$designed$in$this$research$can$be$used$for$this.$ The$strategies$‘verification$of$expectations$and$‘focus$on$people’$are$useful$before$the$realisation$of$ a$ project$ starts$ and$ therefore$ mainly$ applicable$ in$ future$ projects.$ The$ strategy$ ‘monitor$ the$ collaboration’$can$be$applied$in$future$projects$and$projects$that$are$already$in$the$realisation$phase.$$$ $ This$ research$ concludes$ that$ it$ is$ important$ to$ invest$ in$ these$ strategies$ to$ enhance$ good$ collaboration.$These$strategies$optimise$the$focus$on$the$joint$goal$and$minimise$irritations$between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Both$ parties$ do$ not$ always$ speak$ the$ same$ language$ neither$ are$ they$ always$ on$ the$ same$ wavelength.$ Therefore$ it$ is$ important$ that$ both$ parties$ start$ the$ dialogue$ and$ communicate$with$each$other$in$order$to$align$points$of$view.$The$case$studies$have$illustrated$that$ most$ discussions$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ about$ financial$ and$ contractual$ issues.$ Verification$of$expectations$beforehand$could$decrease$the$number$of$discussions$and$improve$the$ collaboration.$ Hereby$ it$ is$ important$ to$ take$ into$ account$ that$ it$ is$ not$ possible$ to$ write$ down$ everything.$ This$ is$ not$ preferred,$ because$ in$ that$ case$ both$ parties$ are$ doing$ all$ the$ paper$ work$ rather$ than$ working$ on$ their$ collaboration.$ The$ contract$ should$ be$ the$ foundation$ and$ the$ real$ implementation$ of$ it$ is$ tasks$ of$ the$ managers.$ The$ case$ studies$ have$ also$ indicated$ that$ there$ currently$is$limited$attention$for$the$people$working$on$a$project.$This$research$showed$that$for$the$ benefit$of$the$collaboration$in$a$project$it$is$important$that$the$people$on$a$project$match,$that$team$ members$ are$ complementary$ and$ that$ people$ have$ the$ right$ expectations.$ The$ composition$ of$ project$ teams$ changes$ over$ time,$ therefore$ it$ is$ important$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ at$ the$ moment$ new$ people$ enter$ the$ project$ and$ to$ align$ expectations$ of$ these$ people$ as$ well.$ This$ research$provided$a$model$to$reflect$on$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$that$was$ currently$ missing.$ The$ case$ study$ respondents$ have$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ often$ tough$ to$ start$ the$ discussion$ about$ the$ collaboration$ and$ that$ an$ instrument$ to$ start$ this$ discussion$ would$ be$ useful.$ The$developed$collaboration$model$could$fill$this$gap.$If$the$collaboration$model$is$applied$in$practice$ it$is$important$that$the$model$is$used$as$instrument$that$audits$whether$expectations$are$aligned$and$ gives$directions$to$improve$the$collaboration,$rather$than$judge$the$collaboration$or$to$assess$each$ other.$ To$ use$ this$ instrument$ objective,$ the$ researcher$ recommends$ an$ external$ party$ for$ the$ implementation$of$the$collaboration$model$in$practice.$$$$ $ How#to#audit#collaboration?# This$ research$ provided$ an$ instrument$ to$ evaluate$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$contractor$based$of$the$collaboration$model.$It$turned$out$that$this$model$is$very$useful$to$apply$ in$practice.$Three$possibilities$for$a$feasible$and$meaningful$application$of$the$collaboration$model$in$ practice$are:$ • The$collaboration$model$can$be$used$before"the"project"realisation,$to$decide$which$level$of$ collaboration$principal$and$contractor$want$to$achieve$in$this$project.$In$this$case$the$model$ gives$a$direction$on$what$principal$and$contractor$want$to$achieve$and$these$directions$can$ be$used$to$evaluate$the$progress$of$the$collaboration$during$realisation.$ • The$collaboration$model$can$be$used$during"the"realisation"of"the"project"in$order$to$reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration.$ In$ this$ case$ the$ model$ is$ an$ instrument$ to$ start$ the$ dialogue$ about$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ while$ it$ gives$ directions$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ as$ well.$ It$ is$ recommended$ to$ use$ the$ collaboration$ model$ a$ couple$ of$ times$ during$the$realisation$of$a$project$in$order$to$monitor$the$progress$of$the$collaboration.$ • The$ collaboration$ model$ can$ be$ used$ after" completion" of" the" project$ to$ evaluate$ the$ collaboration$ during$ realisation.$ In$ this$ case$ the$ model$ will$ be$ used$ to$ evaluate$ the$ collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$The$findings$of$this$evaluation$can$be$used$ in$future$projects.$$ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"83" This$ model$ indicates$ which$ possibilities$ can$ enhance$ collaboration$ based$ on$ six$ criteria.$ In$ the$ first$ place$ it$ is$ important$ to$ align$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ regarding$ their$ collaboration.$ If$ this$ point$ of$ view$ is$ aligned$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ invest$ in$ the$ collaboration$ in$ order$ to$ achieve$ a$ higher$ level$ of$ collaboration,$ which$ will$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ even$ more.$ Good$ collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$makes$it$easier$to$complete$a$project$successfully.$$ $ Now$all$the$sub$questions$are$discussed,$the$main$question$can$be$answered:$ $Which# possibilities# can# be# defined# to# enhance# the# collaboration# between# principal# and# contractor#on#project#stakeholder#management#in#large#infrastructure#projects?# $ This$ research$ provided$ a$ collaboration$ model$ that$ can$ be$ used$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$principal$and$contractor,$and$gives$directions$for$improvements.$This$research$showed$that$ alignment$ of$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ most$ important$ for$ successful$ collaboration.$Strategies$that$will$improve$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$are$(1)$ verification$ of$ mutual$ expectations$ regarding$ the$ collaboration$ and$ financials,$ (2)$ investing$ in$ the$ composition$of$project$teams$and$(3)$monitoring$the$collaboration$process.$In$case$the$points$of$view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ already$ aligned,$ the$ collaboration$ can$ be$ improved$ by$ striving$ to$ achieve$a$higher$level$of$collaboration.$$ $$ Reflection" This$ research$ resulted$ in$ some$ strategies$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ It$ has$ been$ illustrated$ that$ in$ practice$ there$ is$ limited$attention$for$these$strategies,$although$some$of$them$can$be$found$in$literature.$This$is$due$ to$the$fact$that$the$emphasis$is$mainly$on$the$technical$and$hard$aspects$of$collaboration,$while$the$ difficulties$of$collaboration$are$found$in$the$social$and$soft$aspects.$This$research$has$illustrated$that$ there$ is$ limited$ attention$ for$ collaboration$ and$ that$ some$ people$ within$ organisations$ have$ a$ sceptical$ attitude$ towards$ collaboration.$ Principal$ and$ contractor$ do$ not$ always$ understand$ each$ other$correctly$and$not$everyone$speaks$the$same$language.$These$issues$illustrate$that$collaboration$ is$a$complex$and$dynamic$process$with$lots$of$interactions$that$influence$collaboration$and$project$ stakeholder$management.$It$is$the$task$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$to$fulfil$his$or$her$role$in$ this$complex$and$dynamic$environment.$ $ The$relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$is$important$for$an$effective$communication$with$ the$ project$ stakeholders.$ The$ research$ learned$ that$ communication$ is$ mainly$ focused$ on$ the$ technical$and$hard$aspects$of$the$project,$while$stakeholders$change$their$opinion$and$are$tough$to$ manage.$ $ In$a$project$there$is$interaction$between$the$internal$and$external$relationships.$These$interactions$ influence$ the$ success$ of$ a$ project.$ The$ satisfaction$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ influences$ the$ relationship$and$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$On$the$other$hand$the$relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ influences$ the$ relation$ with$ the$ project$ stakeholders.$ Figure$ 37$ illustrates$ the$ interaction$ between$ all$ the$ parties.$ This$ research$ was$ focused$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ and$ their$ relation$ towards$ the$ project$ stakeholders.$ Not$ all$ aspects$ of$ internal$ and$ external$ relationships$ are$ investigated,$ so$ there$is$still$a$lot$to$be$investigated$in$further$research.$ $$ 84"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ Figure#37:#Interaction#of#relations" $ $ 9.2. Recommendations"for"further"research" This$ research$ and$ its$ results$ provided$ new$ insights$ into$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ The$ conclusions$ of$ this$ research$ can$ be$ used$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ This$research$has$an$explorative$character$and$led$to$additional$directions$for$further$research.$This$ section$will$briefly$discuss$the$possible$directions$for$further$research,$it$is$the$end$of$this$research$ and$includes$this$research’s$final$contribution$to$the$scientific$knowledge.$ 9.2.1. Research%direction%one:%Further%development%of%the%collaboration%model% Improve$ the$ collaboration$ model$ by$ further$ development$ of$ the$ model.$ This$ research$ provided$ a$ collaboration$ model$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ participants$ of$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ confirmed$ that$ the$ model$ can$ be$ used$ in$ practice.$ Research$ directions$for$further$development$of$the$collaboration$model$are:$ • Evaluate$ the$ completeness$ of$ the$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ for$ collaboration.$ The$ completeness$of$the$criteria$can$be$evaluated$with$an$extensive$literature$research$or$with$a$ practical$research$in$which$participants$select$and$determine$the$most$important$criteria.$ • Determine$ the$ applicability$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ by$ testing$ the$ completeness$ and$ feasibility$of$the$model$to$a$larger$group$of$people$and$in$other$projects.$$ • Investigate$ whether$ the$ collaboration$ model$ could$ be$ useful$ in$ project$ with$other$ types$ of$ contracts$and$in$projects$in$other$countries.$ 9.2.2. Research%direction%two:%Create%more%awareness%for%the%importance%of%collaboration% Investigate$ ways$ in$ which$ employees$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ become$ more$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$of$project$stakeholder$management$and$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$ Throughout$ the$ interviews$ and$ during$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ as$ well,$ the$ interviewees$ have$ indicated$that$project$stakeholder$managers$are$often$aware$of$the$importance$of$collaboration$and$ project$stakeholder$management,$but$not$all$their$colleagues$are.$It$would$be$helpful$in$their$work$ that$everyone$becomes$aware$of$this.$The$interviewees$explained$that$RWS$is$still$a$bit$hesitant$in$ collaboration$with$contractors,$because$RWS$wants$to$keep$control$over$a$project.$The$contractors$ on$ the$ other$ hand$ do$ not$ always$ see$ the$ (added)$ value$ of$ collaboration$ and$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$Their$main$focus$is$a$successful$realisation$of$the$project$within$time$and$budget.$This$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"85" illustrates$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ still$ bound$ to$ their$ traditional$ division$ of$ roles.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ face$ the$ challenge$ of$ collaborating$ with$ each$ other,$ while$ the$ corporate$cultures$of$both$parties$are$not$aligned.$There$is$a$bridge$to$gap.$This$requires$research$on$ how$to$overcome$the$culture$differences$between$principal$and$contractor,$and$understanding$and$ respecting$of$the$positions$of$individuals$in$the$collaboration.$ 9.2.3. Research%direction%three:%Include%project%stakeholder%perspective%on%collaboration% Investigate$how$the$point$of$view$of$the$project$stakeholders$can$be$integrated$in$the$evaluation$of$ the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$During$the$workshop$meeting$and$evaluation$of$ the$ collaboration$ model,$ the$ workshop$ participants$ indicated$ that$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$should$be$added$for$a$complete$evaluation$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$ contractor.$With$the$current$model,$the$collaboration$was$only$evaluated$from$the$point$of$view$of$ principal$and$contractor.$Although$they$might$experience$their$collaboration$as$good,$this$might$not$ be$the$case$according$to$the$project$stakeholders.$This$might$lead$to$problems$since$it$was$illustrated$ that$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$influences$the$project$stakeholders$and$vice$ versa.$Therefore$this$is$an$interesting$direction$for$further$research.$ $ $ $ $ 86"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ 10. LITERATURE" $ $ Aaltonen,$K.$(2011).$Project$stakeholder$analysis$as$an$environmental$interpretation$process.$ International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#29(2),$165R183.$$ Antea$Group.$(2014).$Omgevingsmanagement.$$$Retrieved$30R07R2014,$from$ http://nl.anteagroup.com/thema/omgevingsmanagement$ Ark,$M.$van.$(2010).$Conditionering#van#planvorming#tot#evaluatie.$Nijkerk:$Kennis$in$het$groot$ (KING).$ Arnstein,$S.R.$(1969).$A$Ladder$of$Citizen$Participation.$Journal#of#the#American#Institute#of#Planners,# 35(4),$216R224.$$ Arts,$J.,$&$Sandee,$P.$(2005).$Werkwijzer$vervlechting$tracé/m.e.r.R$en$aanbestedingsprocedure$bij$ infrastructurele$projecten:$Taskforce$PubliekRPrivate$Samenwerking.$ Atkin,$B.,$&$Skitmore,$M.$(2008).$Editorial:$Stakeholder$Management$in$Construction.$Construction# Management#and#Economics,#26(6),$549R552.$$ Avenue2.$(2009).$Integraal$Plan$A2$Maastricht,$Avenue2,$de$Groene$Loper.$Vanzelfsprekend.$ BAM$Infraconsult.$(2014).$Omgevingsmanagement.$$$Retrieved$30R07R2014,$from$ http://www.baminfraconsult.nl/expertise/omgevingsmanagement$ Beach,$R.,$Webster,$M.,$&$Campbell,$K.$(2005).$An$evaluation$of$partnership$development$in$the$ construction$industry.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#23(8),$611R621.$$ Bedwell,$W.L.,$Wildman,$J.L.,$DiazGranados,$D.,$Salazar,$M.,$Kramer,$W.S.,$&$Salas,$E.$(2012).$ Collaboration$at$work:$An$integrative$multilevel$conceptualization.$Human#Resource# Management#Research,#22(2),$128R145.$$ Bijl,$H.$(2011).$40#jaar#passie#voor#ondergronds#bouwen.$ Black,$C.,$Akintoye,$A.,$&$Fitzgerald,$E.$(2000).$An$analysis$of$success$factors$and$benefits$of$ partnering$in$construction.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#18(6),$423R434.$$ Bolle,$A.$(2008).$De$attende$aannemer:$Checklist$voor$omgevingscommunicatie.$Woerden:$Van$ Hattum$en$Blankevoort.$ Bresnen,$M.,$&$Marshall,$N.$(2000a).$Building$partnerships:$case$studies$of$client–contractor$ collaboration$in$the$UK$construction$industry.$Construction#Management#and#Economics,# 18(7),$819R832.$$ Bresnen,$M.,$&$Marshall,$N.$(2000b).$Partnering$in$construction:$a$critical$review$of$issues,$problems$ and$dilemmas.$Construction#Management#and#Economics,#18(2),$229R237.$$ Bresnen,$M.,$&$Marshall,$N.$(2002).$The$engineering$or$evolution$of$coRoperation?$A$tale$of$two$ partnering$projects.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#20(7),$497R505.$$ Briscoe,$G.,$Dainty,$A.,$&$Millett,$S.$(2001).$Construction$supply$chain$partnerships:$skills,$knowledge$ and$attitudinal$requirements.$European#Journal#of#Purchasing#&#Supply#Management,#7(4),$ 243R255.$$ Bruggeman,$E.M.,$ChaoRDuivis,$M.A.B.,$&$Koning,$A.Z.R.$(Eds.).$(2010).$A#Practical#Guide#to#Dutch# Building#Contracts.$Den$Haag:$Instituut$voor$Bouwrecht.$ BultRSpiering,$M.,$Blanken,$A.,$&$Dewulf,$G.$(2005).$Handboek#publiekfprivate#samenwerking.$ Utrecht:$Lemma.$ Chan,$A.$P.,$Chan,$D.$W.,$Chiang,$Y.$H.,$Tang,$B.$S.,$Chan,$E.$H.,$&$Ho,$K.$S.$(2004).$Exploring$critical$ success$factors$for$partnering$in$construction$projects.$Journal#of#construction#engineering# and#management,#130(2),$188R198.$$ Cheung,$S.$O.,$Yiu,$T.$W.,$&$Chiu,$O.$K.$(2009).$The$aggressive–cooperative$drivers$of$construction$ contracting.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#27(7),$727R735.$$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"87" Clegg,$S.R.,$Pitsis,$T.S.,$RuraRPolley,$T.,$&$Marosszeky,$M.$(2002).$Governmentality$Matters:$Designing$ an$Alliance$Culture$of$InterROrganizational$Collaboration$for$Managing$Projects.$Organization# Studies,#23(3),$317R337.$$ Commissie$Private$Financiering$van$Infrastructuur.$(2008).$Op#de#goede#weg#en#het#juiste#spoor;# Advies#van#de#Commissie#Private#Financiering#van#Infrastructuur.$$Den$Haag:$Ministerie$van$ Verkeer$en$Waterstaat.$ Commissie$Versnelling$Besluitvorming$Infrastructurele$Projecten.$(2008).$Sneller#en#Beter;#Advies# Commissie#Versnelling#Besluitvorming#Infrastructurele#Projecten.$$Den$Haag:$Ministerie$van$ Verkeer$en$Waterstaat.$ Delmon,$J.$(2011).$PublicfPrivate#Partnership#Projects#in#Infrastructure:#An#Essential#Guide#for#Policy# Makers.$New$York,$NY:$Cambridge$University$Press.$ Dewulf,$G.,$&$Kadefors,$A.$(2012).$Collaboration$in$public$construction$R$contractual$incentives,$ partnering$schema$and$trust.$Engineering#Project#Organization#Journal,#2(4),$240R250.$$ Dorée,$A.G.$(2001).$Dobberen$tussen$concurrentie$en$coRdevelopment;$de$problematiek$van$ samenwerking$in$de$bouw.$$ Du$Prie,$A.$(2013).$Omgevingsmanagement$verdient$meer$aandacht.$Land+Water(5).$$ Edelenbos,$J.$(1999).$Design$and$Management$of$Participatory$Public$Policy$Making.$Public# Management,#1(4),$569R578.$$ Edelenbos,$J.$(2001).$Interactieve$beleidsvorming$als$inhoudsabsorberend$proces.$Bestuurkunde,#10,$ 349R356.$$ Edelenbos,$J.,$&$Klijn,$E.H.$(2006).$Managing$stakeholder$involvement$in$decision$making:$A$ comparative$analysis$of$six$interactive$processes$in$the$Netherlands.$Journal#of#public# administration#research#and#theory,#16(3),$417R446.$$ Edelenbos,$J.,$&$Monnikhof,$R.$(2001).$Lokale#interactieve#beleidsvorming.#Een#vergelijkend# onderzoek#naar#de#consequenties#van#interactieve#beleidsvorming#voor#het#functioneren#van# de#lokale#democratie.$Utrecht:$Lemma.$ Eggers,$W.D.,$&$Startup,$T.$(2006).$Closing$the$infrastructure$gap:$the$role$of$publicR$private$ partnerships.$A$Deloitte$Research$study.$.$Washington$DC:$Deloitte.$ ElRGohary,$N.M.,$Osman,$H.,$&$ElRDiraby,$T.E.$(2006).$Stakeholder$management$for$public$private$ partnerships.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#24(7),$595R604.$$ Ellison,$S.D.,$&$Miller,$D.W.$(1995).$Beyond$ADR:$working$toward$synergistic$strategic$partnership.$ Journal#of#Management#in#Engineering,#11(6),$44R54.$$ Ernzen,$J.,$&$Woods,$J.$(2001).$ContractorRled$public$relations$on$a$designRbuild$highway$project.$ Transportation#Research#Record,#1780,$155R164.$$ Eversdijk,$A.,$&$Korsten,$A.$(2007).$PubliekRprivate$samenwerking$bij$infrastructurele$project:$De$ achterkant$in$beeld.$TPC,$28R33.$ Gajendran,$T.,$&$Brewer,$G.$(2012).$Collaboration$in$public$sector$projects:$unearthing$the$contextual$ challenges$posed$in$project$environments.$Engineering#Project#Organization#Journal,#2(3),$ 112R126.$$ Gelder,$H.$van,$Post,$S.,$Koppenjan,$J.,$Houben,$T.,$&$Ouwerkerk,$T.$(2010).$De$zoektocht$naar$het$ vak:$Omgevingsmanagement.$Nijkerk:$Kennis$in$het$groot$(KING).$ Gibbert,$M.,$Ruigrok,$W.,$&$Wicki,$B.$(2008).$What$passes$as$a$rigorous$case$study?$Strategic# Management#Journal,#29(13),$1465R1474.$$ Ham,$H.$van,$&$Koppenjan,$J.$(2002).$Publiekfprivate#samenwerking#bij#transport#infrastructuur.$ Utrecht:$Lemma.$ Heeres,$N.,$Tillema,$T.,$&$Arts,$J.$(2012).$Integration$in$Dutch$planning$of$motorways:$From$"line"$ towards$"areaRoriented"$approaches.$Transport#Policy,#24(6),$148R158.$$ Hertogh,$M.J.C.M.,$Baker,$S.K.,$StaalROng,$P.L.,$&$Westerveld,$E.$(2008).$Management$of$Large$ Infrastructure$Projects:$NETLIPSE.$ Hertogh,$M.J.C.M.,$&$Westerveld,$E.$(2010).$Playing#with#complexity:#Management#and#organisation# of#large#infrastructure#projects.$Erasmus$University$Rotterdam.$Retrieved$from$ http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18456$$$ 88"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ Hol,$P.,$&$Risselada,$J.$(2013).$Handreiking#OM+#en#de#markt.$ Humphreys,$P.,$Matthews,$J.,$&$Kumaraswamy,$M.$(2003).$PreRconstruction$project$partnering:$from$ adversarial$to$collaborative$relationships.$Supply#Chain#Management:#An#International# Journal,#8(2),$166R178.$$ Kalaian,$S.A.$(2008).$Research$design.$In$P.$J.$Lavrakas$(Ed.),$Encyclopedia#of#Survey#Research# Methods:$SAGE.$ Kam,$S.$van$der,$Weustink,$T.,$&$Cremer,$R.$(2013).$Samenspel#en#tegenspraak:#Tien#lessen#uit#de# Noord/Zuidlijn:$Dienst$Metro$and$King.$ Kampinga,$S.$(2010).$Projectplan,$omgevingsmanagement$en$communicatie.$$ Kolk,$H.$van$der.$(2012).$Het$risico$van$risico's$mijden.$ http://www.cobouw.nl/nieuws/algemeen/2012/12/20/hetRrisicoRvanRrisicosRmijden$ Kooiman,$J.$(1993).$Modern#Governance.#New#GovernmentfSociety#Interactions.$London:$SAGE.$ Krouwel,$D.$(2014).$Gedragsontwikkeling$in$de$civiele$techniek.$$ Laan,$A.,$Noorderhaven,$N.,$Voordijk,$H.,$&$Dewulf,$G.$(2011).$Building$trust$in$construction$ partnering$projects:$An$exploratory$caseRstudy.$Journal#of#Purchasing#and#Supply# Management,#17(2),$98R108.$$ Lemmens,$R.$(2001).$Strategisch#management:#omgevingsmanagement:$Author.$ Lenferink,$S.$(2013).$Market#Involvement#throughout#the#Planning#Lifecycle.$University$of$Groningen.$$$$ Lenferink,$S.,$Arts,$J.,$&$Tillema,$T.$(2011).$Ongoing$public$private$interaction$in$infrastructure$ planning:$an$evaluation$of$Dutch$competitive$dialogue$projects.$Towards#new#horizons#in# public#procurement,$236R272.$$ Lenferink,$S.,$Tillema,$T.,$&$Arts,$J.$(2013).$Towards$sustainable$infrastructure$development$through$ integrated$contracts:$Experiences$with$inclusiveness$in$Dutch$infrastructure$projects.$ International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#31(4),$615R627.$$ Luo,$Y.$(2002).$Contract,$cooperation,$and$performance$in$international$joint$ventures.$Strategic# Management#Journal,#23(10),$903R919.$$ Marques,$R.C.,$&$Berg,$S.$(2011).$Risks,$contracts,$and$privateRsector$participation$in$infrastructure.$ Journal#of#construction#engineering#and#management,#137(11),$925R932.$$ Meng,$X.,$Sun,$M.,$&$Jones,$M.$(2011).$Maturity$model$for$supply$chain$relationships$in$construction.$ Journal#of#Management#in#Engineering,#27(2),$97R105.$$ Morsing,$M.,$&$Schultz,$M.$(2006).$Corporate$social$responsibility$communication:$stakeholder$ information,$response$and$involvement$strategies.$Business#Ethics:#A#European#Review,#15(4),$ 323R338.$$ Ning,$Y.$(2014).$Quantitative$effects$of$drivers$and$barriers$on$networking$strategies$in$public$ construction$projects.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#32(2),$286R297.$$ Ning,$Y.,$&$Ling,$F.Y.Y.$(2013).$Comparative$study$of$drivers$of$and$barriers$to$relational$transactions$ faced$by$public$clients,$private$contractors$and$consultants$in$public$projects.$Habitat# International,#40,$91R99.$$ Olander,$S.,$&$Landin,$A.$(2005).$Evaluation$of$stakeholder$influence$in$the$implementation$of$ construction$projects.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#23(4),$321R328.$$ Osipova,$E.,$&$Eriksson,$P.E.$(2011).$How$procurement$options$influence$risk$management$in$ construction$projects.$Construction#Management#and#Economics,#29(11),$1149R1158.$$ Otto,$M.$(2007).$Gemeentelijke$herindeling$en$de$burger.$Openbaar#Bestuur(10),$11R14.$$ Overmeeren,$W.$van.$(2012).$Twee$geloven$op$één$kussen.$$ Peletier,$C.,$&$Post,$T.$(2009).$Omgevingsmanager:$de$onmisbare$schakel$tussen$buiten$en$binnen:$ Rijkswaterstaat.$ Preble,$J.F.$(2005).$Toward$a$comprehensive$model$of$stakeholder$management.$Business#and# Society#Review,#110(4),$407R431.$$ Quiggin,$J.$(2004).$Risk,$PPPs$and$the$public$sector$comparator.$Australian#Accounting#Review,# 14(33),$51R61.$$ Reinking,$M.$(2013).$Succesvol#samenwerken;#de#zachte#kant#van#projectmanagement:$ Rijksprojectacademie$(King/RPA).$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"89" Renda.$(2012).$Bouw$versneld$naar$vraaggerichte$markt.$http://www.renda.nl/nieuws/nieuws/bouwR versneldRnaarRvraaggerichteRmarkt.255115.lynkx$ Ridder,$H.A.J.$de,$&$Noppen,$J.P.$(2009).$Design#and#Construct#in#Civil#Engineering:#Lecture#Notes# CT5981:$Delft$University$of$Technology.$ Rijkswaterstaat.$(2004).$Ondernemingsplan:#Een#nieuw#perspectief#voor#Rijkswaterstaat.# Rijkswaterstaat.$(2008).$OM$in$projecten$&$Inspraak$bij$planvorming$(pp.$8):$Rijkswaterstaat$Dienst$ Verkeer$&$Scheepvaart.$ Rijkswaterstaat.$(2010).$Omgevingsmanagement:#zo#werkt#het#in#de#natte#infrastructuur,#van# planstudie#naar#realisatie#en#beheer#&#onderhoud.$ Rijkswaterstaat.$(2011a).$Werkwijzer#Aanleg,#Deel#1:#Sturing#en#beheer.$Rijkswaterstaat$Dienst$ Infrastructuur.$ Rijkswaterstaat.$(2011b).$Werkwijzer#Aanleg,#Deel#2:#Kaders#per#IPMfproces.$Rijkswaterstaat$Dienst$ Infrastructuur.$ Rijkswaterstaat.$(2013).$Model#vraagspecificatie#proces.$ Rijkswaterstaat.$(2014a).$Afwegingen$rond$publiekRprivate$samenwerking$(PPS).$$$Retrieved$01R08R 2014,$from$ http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/zakendoen_met_rws/werkwijzen/gww/afweegkader_ inkoop/ppc/index.aspx$ Rijkswaterstaat.$(2014b).$DBFM.$$$Retrieved$01R05R2014,$from$ http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/zakendoen_met_rws/werkwijzen/gww/contracten_g ww/dbfm/$ Rijkswaterstaat.$(2014c).$Design$&$Construct.$$$Retrieved$17R06R2014,$from$ http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/zakendoen_met_rws/werkwijzen/gww/contracten_g ww/dc$ Rwelamila,$P.D.,$Fewings,$P.,$&$Henjewele,$C.$(2014).$Addressing$the$Missing$Link$in$PPP$Projects:$ What$Constitutes$the$Public?$Journal#of#Management#in#Engineering.$$ Saad,$M.,$Jones,$M.,$&$James,$P.$(2002).$A$review$of$the$progress$towards$the$adoption$of$supply$ chain$management$(SCM)$relationships$in$construction.$European#Journal#of#Purchasing#&# Supply#Management,#8(3),$173R183.$$ Sandee,$P.$(2009).$Monitor,$Nieuwe$Marktbenadering$/$Vervlechting$2009.$Utrecht:$WB$Consulting.$ Smit,$N.,$&$Thiel,$S.$van.$(2002).$De$zakelijk$overheid:$publieke$en$bedrijfsmatige$waarden$in$publiekR private$samenwerking.$Bestuurskunde,#11(6),$226R234.$$ Stolk,$P.$(2014).$Visie$op$veranderingen$in$de$bouw.$ http://www.centric.eu/NL/Default/Branches/Bouw/Experts/PeterRStolk/VisieRopR veranderingenRinRdeRbouw#$ Suprapto,$M.,$Bakker,$H.,$Mooi,$H.,$&$Moree,$W.$(in$press).$Sorting$out$the$esscence$of$ownerR contractor$collaboration$in$capital$projects$delivery.$International#Journal#of#Project# Management.$$ Suprapto,$M.,$Mooi,$H.,$&$Bakker,$H.$(2012).$How#far#can#you#go?#Exploring#a#collaborative# relationship#in#an#engineering#project.$Paper$presented$at$the$EURAM$2012,$Rotterdam.$$ Swanborn,$P.G.$(2013).$Case#studies:#wat,#wanneer#en#hoe?$Den$Haag:$Boom$Lemma.$ Tan,$Y.,$Shen,$L.,$&$Yao,$H.$(2011).$Sustainable$construction$practice$and$contractors’$ competitiveness:$A$preliminary$study.$Habitat#International,#35(2),$225R230.$$ Tang,$L.,$Shen,$Q.,$&$Cheng,$E.W.$(2010).$A$review$of$studies$on$PublicRPrivate$Partnership$projects$in$ the$construction$industry.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#28(7),$683R694.$$ Veen,$B.$van$der,$&$Dijk,$S.$van.$(2007).$Kwaliteitsborging#bij#Design#&#Construct#contracten,# praktische#handleidingen:$Stichting$Research$Rationalisatie$Bouw.$ Verschuren,$P.,$&$Doorewaard,$H.$(2007).$Het#ontwerpen#van#een#onderzoek.$Utrecht:$Lemma.$ Vieter,$V.$de$la.$(2011).$Strategisch$omgaan$met$stakeholders:$(ook)$in$buitenland$sleutelfactor.$De# Onderbouwing,#4(10),$13R15.$$ 90"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ Wal,$Z.$van$der,$Graaf,$G.$de,$&$Lasthuizen,$K.$(2008).$What's$valued$most?$Similarities$and$ differences$between$the$organizational$values$of$the$public$and$private$sector.$Public# Administration,#86(2),$465R482.$$ Wanningen,$A.,$Schipper,$W.,$Haak,$M.,$&$Hoog,$A.$de.$(2013).$Omgevingsmanagement:$Gemeente$ Amsterdam.$ Wesselink,$M.$(2010).$Handboek#Strategisch#OmgevingsManagement.$Deventer:$Kluwer.$ Yang,$J.,$Shen,$G.Q.,$Ho,$M.,$Drew,$D.S.,$&$Xue,$X.$(2011).$Stakeholder$management$in$construction:$ An$empirical$study$to$address$research$gaps$in$previous$studies.$International#Journal#of# Project#Management,#29(7),$900R910.$$ Yin,$R.K.$(2003).$Case#Study#Research:#Design#and#Methods:$SAGE.$ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"91" APPENDIX"A."CLUSTERING"COLLABORATION" $ The$factors$that$influence$collaboration$according$to$the$theories$as$elaborated$on$in$chapter$3$were$ in$ the$ first$ place$ clustered$ with$ the$ use$ of$ post$ its.$ This$ illustrated$ that$ the$ theories$ have$ similar$ factors$or$have$factors$that$are$closely$related$to$each$other.$After$the$clustering$of$the$factors,$the$ researcher$ gave$ the$ clusters$ a$ name$ and$ that$ resulted$ in$ the$ six$ main$ criteria$ to$ determine$ the$ maturity$of$the$collaboration$in$the$different$cases.$ $ Figure#38:#Clustering#factors# $ Table$7$(on$the$next$page)$gives$an$overview$of$the$clustering$of$the$different$factors$and$illustrates$ the$theories$the$factors$come$from.$This$table$also$illustrates$that$two$factors$are$not$included.$It$was$ chosen$ not$ to$ include$ the$ factors$ contract$ completeness$ and$ procurement,$ because$ these$ factors$ focus$ on$ the$ contract$ and$ tender$ procedure$ of$ the$ project$ while$ this$ research$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project.$ Besides$ that,$ all$ selected$ projects$ for$ the$ case$ study$have$a$D&C$contract$and$therefore$have$a$same$basis.$This$does$not$mean$that$these$factors$ are$ not$ important,$ because$ literature$ already$ illustrated$ that$ these$ factors$ are$ the$ fundamental$ framework$of$a$relationship.$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 92"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ "Chan"et"al."(2004)" "Cheung"et"al." (2009)" Objectives" Project"organisation" Productive$conflict$ resolution$ Incentive$to$risk$ sharing$/$problem$ solving$ "Gajendran"and" Brewer"(2012)" Shared$direction$ "Meng"et"al."(2011)" Competence$of$the$ members$ Problem$solving$ Efficient$ coordination$ Power$distribution$ and$equality$ $ Collective$action$ Risk" Incentive$to$risk$ sharing$/$problem$ solving$ Objectives$ Risk$allocation$ Trust" Mutual$trust$ Communication" " " " Effective$ communication$ Attitude" LongRterm$ commitment$ Good$relationships$ Collaboration$ Support$from$top$ management$ Adequate$resources$ $ $ Good$teamwork$ Continuous$ improvement$ Openness$ Trust$ Trust$ Communication$ Communication$ Effective$ communication$ Desire$to$maintain$ relationship$ Not"included" Contract$ completeness$ Table#7:#Overview#of#the#clustering#of#factors#and#their#theories# Procurement$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ Hereunder$ follows$ an$ overview$ with$ explanations$ about$ how$ the$ different$ aspects$ should$ be$ interpreted$according$to$the$research$where$they$are$taken$from.$ $ "Factor" Explanation" Adequate"resources" The$willingness$of$involved$parties$to$share$their$resources$with$each$other.$ Support"from"top" Commitment$and$support$from$top$management$regarding$collaboration.$ management" Mutual"trust" Involved$parties$should$belief$that$others$are$reliable$in$fulfilling$their$ obligation.$$ Longcterm" The$willingness$of$involved$parties$to$integrate$continuously$to$unanticipated$ commitment" problems.$ Effective" Timely$communication$of$information$and$the$maintenance$of$open,$direct$lines$ communication" of$communication$among$all$project$team$members.$ Efficient" Expectations$of$each$party$from$the$others$in$fulfilling$a$set$of$tasks.$ coordination" Productive"conflict" The$way$conflicts$are$solved,$is$there$a$winRwin$or$winRlose$situation?$ resolution" Table#9:#Explanation#factors#theory#Chan#et#al.#(2004)# $ $ $ $ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"93" "Factor" Openness" Good"relationships" Contract" completeness" Good"teamwork" Incentive"to"risk" sharing/problem" solving" Effective" communication" Desire"to"maintain" relationship" Explanation" The$active$involvement$within$project$teams$with$open/honest$ communications,$exchange$of$thoughts$and$feelings.$$ The$relationship$among$the$contracting$parties.$ The$way$the$contract$serves$as$framework$in$the$collaboration.$ $ Teamwork$spirit$among$the$project$team$members.$ The$incentive$to$risk$sharing$and$problem$solving.$ Open$and$efficient$information$exchange$and$interpretation$among$contracting$ parties.$ Desire$of$the$project$team$members$to$maintain$relationships$during$the$ project.$ Table#10:#Explanation#factors#theory#Cheung#et#al.#(2009)# "Factor" Shared"direction" Collective"action" Competence"of"the" members" Power"distribution" and"equality" Trust" Communication" Explanation" Team$members$sharing$similar$values.$ The$team$members’$commitment$to$achieve$the$shared$goal.$ The$competency$of$each$team$member$to$perform$his$or$her$duties.$ $ The$distribution$of$power,$and$perceptions$of$equalities$and$fairness$among$the$ team$members.$ The$confidence$team$members$have$in$each$other.$ Communication$is$an$overarching$aspect$that$has$a$bearing$on$all$the$aboveR mentioned$dimensions.$It$is$critical$in$understanding$each$other$and$lies$at$the$ core$of$developing$trust$and$respect.$ Table#11:#Explanation#factors#theory#Gajendran#and#Brewer#(2012)# "Factor" Procurement" Objectives" Trust" Collaboration" Communication" Problem"solving" Risk"allocation" Continuous" improvement" Explanation" The$type$of$contract$and$the$criteria$to$select$a$contractor.$ Interest$of$parties$in$common$objectives$and$mutual$benefits.$ The$confidence$parties$have$in$other’s$behaviour$and$the$reliability$of$received$ information.$ Reflects$whether$parties$work$collaboratively$together$and$how$close$the$ parties$work$together.$ The$exchange$of$information$and$share$learning$between$the$parties.$ Effectiveness$of$the$problem$solving$process.$ The$allocation$of$risks$and$the$reward$that$is$given$for$this.$ Constantly$delivering$a$greater$value$and$increase$mutual$advantages.$ Table#12:#Explanation#factors#theory#Meng#et#al.#(2011)# 94"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ APPENDIX"B."TYPES"OF"RELATIONSHIPS" " Level" 1$ 2$ 3$ 4$ Ellison"and"Miller" (1995)" Adversarial$arms$ length$contractual$ relationship$ Collaborative$teamR oriented$ relationship$ Value$added$ integrated$team$ Synergistic$strategic$ partnership$ Humphreys"et"al." Meng"et"al."(2011)" (2003)" Traditional$approach$ Price$competition$ Saad"et"al."(2002)" SemiRproject$ partnering$ Quality$competition$ Closer$project$based$ Project$partnering$ Project$partnering$ Strategic$partnering$ Strategic$ partnering/alliance$ Full$partnership$ alliance$ Strategic$ relationship$ Contractual$ relationship$ Table#13:#Different#theories#about#types#of#relationships% $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"95" APPENDIX"C."INTERVIEW"PROTOCOL" # 1. Background"information" This$ case$ protocol$ is$ used$ to$ conduct$ the$ interviews$ for$ this$ graduation$ research$ of$ Sophie$ Vulink,$ student$ Construction$ Management$ &$ Engineering$ at$ the$ University$ of$ Technology$ in$ Delft.$ The$ research$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ large$ infrastructure$ projects$ in$ The$ Netherlands$ executed$ according$ to$ a$ D&C$ contract.$ The$ field$ of$ knowledge$ in$ which$ this$ research$ takes$ place$ is$ already$ defined$ with$ the$ theoretical$framework$in$the$main$part$of$this$research.$ $ 2. Goal"of"the"interviews" The$ main$ goal$ of$ the$ interviews$ is$ to$ collect$ empirical$ data$ that$ will$ help$ to$ answer$ the$ research$ questions.$These$research$questions$aim$to$answer$the$objective$of$this$research.$Understanding$the$ difficulties$and$opportunities$in$collaboration$between$public$and$private$parties$and$how$to$improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ both$ parties.$ In$ the$ longer$ run$ answering$ these$ research$ questions$ can$ provide$a$better$collaboration$between$public$and$private$parties$and$will$add$information$to$existing$ literature.$ $ 3. Result"of"the"interviews" The$ interview$ should$ provide$ information$ coming$ from$ managers$ in$ the$ field$ about$ how$ they$ experience$and$deal$with$the$following$topics:$ • Project$stakeholder$management$ • Collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$ The$interviews$will$be$used$for$this$research$only.$Important$findings$and$results$of$these$interviews$ can$be$found$the$in$main$part$of$this$report.$ " 4. Strategy"per"interview" A. All$respondents$were$notified$of$the$research$with$an$eRmail$prior$to$the$interviews.$This$message$ elaborated$ a$ little$ about$ the$ context$ of$ the$ interview,$ gave$ a$ short$ explanation$ of$ the$ research$ goal$and$noticed$the$time$needed$to$conduct$the$inRdepth$interview.$ B. Prior$ the$ interview$ the$ researcher$ made$ short$ descriptions$ about$ the$ project$ to$ get$ a$ good$ overview$of$what$the$project$is$about.$These$descriptions$include$factual$information$about$the$ reason$to$realise$the$project,$the$project$goal,$the$project$scope$and$the$tender$procedure.$It$was$ chosen$ to$ study$ factual$ information$ to$ ensure$ an$ unbiased$ but$ a$ wellRprepared$ interviewer,$ in$ order$to$prevent$losing$time$with$asking$questions$that$could$have$been$looked$up$in$documents.$ The$respondents$have$the$opportunity$to$tell$their$own$story.$ C. When$ the$ appointment$ for$ the$ interview$ was$ made,$ some$ important$ characteristics$ of$ the$ interview$were$mentioned.$ • The$interview$is$semi$structured.$ • Focus$is$on$the$project$the$manager$is$currently$working$on.$ • The$interview$should$take$approximately$1$hour,$with$a$maximum$of$1,5$hours.$ • The$interview$will,$in$case$there$is$no$objection,$be$recorded$for$the$further$details$of$the$ report.$ The$ records$ and$ other$ notes$ will$ not$ be$ used$ for$ a$ context$ other$ than$ this$ research.$ • After$the$interview$some$minutes$are$made,$these$are$send$to$the$respondents$to$check$ them$for$factual$inaccuracies.$$ • The$respondent$will$receive$a$management$summery$with$the$most$important$findings$of$ this$research.$ • The$interview$consists$of$four$parts:$ o Introduction$(+/R$10$minutes)$ 96"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ o Theme$I:$Collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$(+/R$20$minutes)$ o Theme$II:$Implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$(+/R$25$minutes)$ o Closure$(+/R$5$minutes)$ D. During$ the$ interview$ it$ is$ the$ responsibility$ of$ the$ researcher$ to$ collect$ all$ the$ must$ have$ information.$ At$ the$ end$ of$ the$ interview$ all$ the$ respondents$ had$ the$ possibility$ to$ add$ missing$ information$they$thought$would$contribute$to$the$research.$ E. All$interviews$were$taped$with$the$permission$of$the$respondents$and$elaborated$on$in$interview$ minutes.$ The$ respondents$ checked$ these$ minutes$ in$ order$ to$ prevent$ them$ for$ factual$ inaccuracies.$Afterwards$these$minutes$will$be$used$for$the$case$analysis.$ $ 5. Set"up"interviews" The$ interview$ starts$ with$ an$ introduction,$ consists$ of$ two$ main$ parts$ and$ ends$ with$ a$ closing.$ Because$the$interview$will$be$in$Dutch$the$interview$design$is$in$Dutch$as$well.$ $ Interview"set"up" Interview$samenwerking$opdrachtgever$en$opdrachtnemer$m.b.t.$omgevingsmanagement.$$ Interviewer:$Sophie$Vulink$ " Enkele"persoonlijke"instructies"voor"het"afnemen"van"het"interview" • Vermijd$moeilijke$zinsconstructies$ • Openheid,$vermijd$het$geven$van$een$mening$ • Laat$de$geïnterviewde$vertellen,$niet$te$veel$inbreken$op$een$verhaal$ • Vraag$door,$vraag$naar$concrete$ervaringen$ • Etc.$ " • Middels$ dit$ interview$ wil$ ik$ inzicht$ verkrijgen$ in$ hoe$ jullie$ als$ opdrachtgever$ en$ opdrachtnemer$ samenwerken$ op$ het$ gebied$ van$ omgevingsmanagement$ bij$ dit$ project" [ABC].$ • Ik$ voer$ dit$ onderzoek$ uit$ in$ opdracht$ van$ Neerlands$ Diep,$ voor$ het$ schrijven$ van$ mijn$ afstudeerscriptie$aan$de$TU$Delft$ • De$projecten$zijn$geselecteerd$met$als$doel$een$representatief$beeld$te$geven$van$de$sector,$ het$type$project$is$dan$ook$heel$gevarieerd$met$als$extra$doel$van$elkaar$leren.$ • Gaat$ u$ ermee$ akkoord$ dat$ er$ van$ het$ interview$ audio$ opnamen$ gemaakt$ worden$ om$ de$ antwoorden$later$ terug$te$luisteren$en$uit$te$werken.$Ikzelf$heb$als$enige$toegang$tot$deze$ opnamen$en$na$het$onderzoek$zullen$ze$vernietigd$worden.$ • Na$vergelijkend$onderzoek$tussen$de$projecten$zal$ik$verschillende$conclusies$trekken,$deze$ zijn$ gebaseerd$ op$ een$ wetenschappelijke$ analyse$ en$ kunnen$ dus$ niet$ als$ goed$ of$ fout$ beschouwd$worden.$ • Ik$ zal$ straks$ het$ interview$ beginnen$ met$ vragen$ over$ uw$ persoonlijke$ achtergrond$ om$ vervolgens$ verder$ te$ gaan$ op$ verschillende$ facetten$ van$ samenwerking$ en$ omgevingsmanagement.$ • Dit$ interview$ zal$ ongeveer$ een$ uur$ duren$ en$ de$ informatie$ die$ ik$ van$ u$ verkrijg$ zal$ vertrouwelijk$en$tot$op$zekere$hoogte$anoniem1$verwerkt$worden$in$het$onderzoek.$$ • Ik$ben$enorm$geholpen$met$de$antwoorden$die$u$mij$kan$verstrekken$en$als$er$van$uw$kant$ geen$verdere$vragen$zijn$zal$ik$beginnen$met$het$daadwerkelijke$interview.$ " A. Inleiding"–"achtergrondinformatie" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 1 $Voor$andere$betrokkenen$kan$het$duidelijk$zijn$met$wie$een$interview$is$afgenomen.$In$dit$onderzoek$gaat$de$ aandacht$ uit$ naar$ hoe$ omgevingsmanagement$ wordt$ aangepakt$ en$ hoe$ opdrachtgever$ en$ opdrachtnemer$ hierin$samenwerken.$Het$gaat$er$vooral$om$inzicht$te$verkrijgen$in$en$te$leren$over$omgevingsmanagement$aan$ de$hand$van$concrete$projecten,$de$ervaringen$van$de$geïnterviewden$helpen$daarbij.$$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"97" $ • • • • • • Allereerst# nog# wat# feitelijke# informatie# over# uzelf.# Deze# gegevens# worden# gebruikt# om# eventuele# verbanden# aan# te# tonen,# maar# komen# niet# persoonlijk# herkenbaar# terug# in# het## onderzoek.# Wat$is$uw$rol$binnen$dit$project$en$sinds$wanneer$vervult$u$deze?$ Korte$omschrijving$functie$en$taken$ Opleiding$ Professionele$werkervaring$ Organisatie$waarvoor$u$werkt$ Eerdere$ervaringen$ B. Thema"I"–"samenwerking"opdrachtgever"en"opdrachtnemer" Dan# gaan# we# nu# verder# met# de# set# vragen# over# de# samenwerking# tussen# opdrachtgever# en# opdrachtnemer.#Hoe#ziet#deze#samenwerking#eruit?# # 1. Allereerst$een$algemene$vraag$over$het$project$zelf,$hoe$zou$u$het$project$kenmerken?$ 2. Wat$is$het$doel$van$de$samenwerking?$ a. Komt$dit$voort$uit$de$projectmissie$ b. Is$er$sprake$van$een$hoger$doel$ c. Hoe$wordt$dit$getoetst$ 3. Kunt$u$voor$mij$de$samenwerkingsvorm$(zoals$in$dit$project$toegepast)$karakteriseren?$ 4. Wat$zijn$de$verwachtingen$van$deze$samenwerking?$ a. Persoonlijke$verwachtingen$ b. Gedeelde$verwachtingen$ c. Hebben$deze$verwachtingen$invloed$gehad$op$het$proces$ 5. Hoe$wordt$de$samenwerking$georganiseerd?$ a. Hoe$is$de$samenwerking$van$start$gegaan$ b. Is$dit$de$eerste$keer$dat$er$wordt$samengewerkt$of$zijn$er$eerdere$ervaringen$ c. Was$het$een$keuze$om$met$elkaar$samen$te$werken$(kon$je$als$individu$inschrijven$ op$dit$project)$of$is$dit$vanuit$hogere$hand$aangestuurd$(en$zijn$jullie$min$of$meer$tot$ elkaar$veroordeeld)$$ d. Hoe$kom$je$samen$van$begin$tot$eind$ e. Welke$investeringen$zijn$er$gedaan$in$onderlinge$persoonlijke$verhoudingen$ f. Omgangsregels,$documenten$ 6. Hoe$is$het$doel$vertaald$naar$de$rollen$van$de$OG$en$ON?$ a. Vervullen$OG$en$ON$dezelfde$rol$of$verschillende$rollen$ b. Hoe$zijn$de$taken$verdeeld$$ c. Wat$is$hierover$vastgelegd$ 7. Hoe$zijn$risico’s$en$eventuele$winst$of$verliezen$verdeeld$tussen$OG$en$ON?$ a. Gelijkwaardig$ b. Op$basis$van$kunnen$ 8. In$welke$mate$wordt$projectinformatie$gedeeld$tussen$OG$en$ON?$ a. Voor$wie$is$welke$informatie$beschikbaar$ b. Waarom$is$hiervoor$gekozen$ 9. In$welke$mate$bent$u$afhankelijk$van$de$andere$partij?$ a. Middelen$ b. Besluitvorming$ 10. Hoe$wordt$er$gewoonlijk$gecommuniceerd$met$elkaar?$ a. Face$to$face,$telefoon,$mail,$etc.$ b. Gezamenlijk$project$kantoor$ 11. In$hoeverre$hebben$formele,$juridische$documenten$invloed$op$de$samenwerking?$ a. Waarom$vindt/denkt$u$dat?$ 12. Wat$vindt$u$van$de$samenwerking$tot$nu$toe?$ 98"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ a. Is$dit$de$beste$manier$ b. Mate$ van$ samenwerking$ (informeren,$ kennis$ delen$ of$ samen$ nieuwe$ kennis$ verwerven)$ c. Hoe$komt$dit$volgens$u$ d. Verbeterpunten$ e. Voordelen$ f. Onderlinge$verhoudingen$ 13. Welke$factoren$hebben$volgens$u$een$positieve$invloed$op$de$samenwerking?$ a. Eventueel$verder$toelichten$ 14. Welke$factoren$hebben$volgens$u$een$negatieve$invloed$op$de$samenwerking?$ a. Eventueel$verder$toelichten$ $ C. Thema"II"–"toepassing"omgevingsmanagement" Nu# gaan# we# verder# met# een# set# vragen# over# de# interactie# tussen# de# projectorganisatie# (bestaande# uit# werknemers# die# vanuit# de# opdrachtgever# en# opdrachtnemer# aan# dit# project# werken)#en#de#omgeving.#Hoe#gaat#de#projectorganisatie#hier#mee#om,#kortom#hoe#managet# de#projectorganisatie#de#omgeving?# $ 1. Heeft$de$projectorganisatie$een$helder$doel$met$betrekking$tot$omgevingsmanagement?$ a. Wordt$er$als$projectorganisatie$naar$buiten$getreden$ b. Heeft$ omgevingsmanagement$ voor$ de$ [OG/ON]$ een$ ander$ doel$ dan$ voor$ de$ projectorganisatie$ 2. Hoe$wordt$omgevingsmanagement$toegepast?$ a. Welke$strategieën,$methoden$worden$gebruikt$ b. Heeft$de$[OG/ON]"dezelfde$visie$en$aanpak$ 3. Hoe$manage$je$het$proces$om$tot$goed$omgevingsmanagement$te$komen?$$ a. Hoe$zorg$je$hiervoor$ b. Invloed$samenwerken$ c. Welke$strategieën,$instrumenten$of$$interventies$worden$hierbij$gebruikt$ 4. Hoe$wordt$de$omgeving$bij$het$project$betrokken?$ a. Worden$alle$actoren$op$dezelfde$manier$benaderd$ b. Middelen$(brieven,$bijeenkomsten,$etc.)$ c. Mate$van$participatie$ 5. In$welke$mate$wordt$er$geïnvesteerd$in$relaties$met$de$omgeving?$ a. Hoe$en$hoe$vaak$ b. Wie$horen$bij$deze$omgeving$ 6. In$welke$mate$wordt$er$rekening$gehouden$met$risico’s$uit$de$omgeving?$ a. Wat$waren,$zijn$of$worden$cruciale$momenten$ b. Verschillende$scenario’s$ 7. Wat$zijn$jullie$belangen$met$betrekking$tot$omgevingsmanagement?$ a. Gezamenlijke$belangen$ b. Belangen$[OG/ON]$ 8. Op$welke$wijze$is$er$gestuurd$op$belangen$en$verschillen?$ a. In$welke$mate$zijn$uw$belangen$gerespecteerd$ten$opzichte$van$de$belangen$van$de$ omgeving$en$[OG/ON]$ b. In$welke$mate$kunt$u$zich$verplaatsen$in$de$belangen$van$de$omgeving$en$[OG/ON]$ 9. Kunt$u$de$belangen$van$de$omgeving$benoemen?$ a. Zijn$deze$belangen$getoetst$ b. Zo$ja,$hoe$ 10. Wat$wordt$er$gedaan$met$klachten/meldingen$uit$de$omgeving?$ a. Worden$deze$besproken,$gevolgd,$door$wie$ b. Risicodossier$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"99" c. Weet$iedereen$wat$te$doen$met$meldingen$ 11. Wat$gebeurt$er$wanneer$er$een$crisissituatie$ontstaat?$ a. Rolverdeling$ b. Weet$iedereen$hoe$er$gehandeld$moet$worden$ c. Plan$ d. Wat$als$hogere$hand$erbij$komt$ 12. Wat$is$het$plan$van$aanpak$wanneer$jullie$er$samen$niet$meer$uitkomen?$ a. Escalatiemodel$ 13. Wat$zijn$uw$verwachting$voor$het$verdere$verloop$van$het$project?$ a. Wanneer$is$het$project$geslaagd$ b. Hoe$wordt$dit$getoetst$ c. Hoe$zie$je$de$toekomst$ d. Nog$plannen$om$zaken$te$veranderen$ 14. Hoe$denkt$u$dat$de$andere$partner$de$samenwerking$en$het$gehele$proces$ervaart?$ a. Waarom$ 15. Welke$aspecten$hebben$een$positieve$invloed$op$omgevingsmanagement?$ a. Eventueel$verder$toelichten$ 16. Welke$aspecten$hebben$een$negatieve$invloed$op$omgevingsmanagement?$ a. Eventueel$verder$toelichten$ $ D. Afronding" We#zijn#bijna#aan#het#einde#gekomen#van#dit#interview.#Resten#mij#nog#2#vragen.# • Is$er$een$vraag$die$u$verwacht$had,$maar$niet$gesteld$is?$ • Heeft$u$verder$nog$iets$toe$te$voegen?$ # Hiermee# wil# ik# het# interview# graag# afsluiten# en# u# hartelijk# bedankt# voor# uw# antwoorden.# Nogmaals# deze# antwoorden# zullen# verwerkt# worden# in# het# rapport# van# mijn# afstudeeronderzoek# en# een# individueel# case# rapport,# dit# laatste# kunt# u# medio# februari# verwachten# om# te# controleren# op# feitelijke# onjuistheden.# In# de# loop# van# het# komende# jaar# zullen# de# resultaten# gepresenteerd# worden# in# een# gezamenlijke# sessie,# hiervoor# ontvangt# u# ter#zijnde#tijd#een#uitnodiging.# $ 100"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ APPENDIX"D."PROJECT"SELECTION" $ Project" Product" Type"I" Type"II" Contract"type" Projectfase" A2"Maastricht" Tunnel" Infra" Droog" D&C" Realisatie" Renovatie"Stalen"Bruggen" Weg" Infra" Droog" D&C" Realisatie" A15$MaasvlakteRVaanplein$ Weg$ Infra$ Droog$ DBFM$ Realisatie" A4$DelftRSchiedam$ Weg$ Infra$ Droog$ D&C" Realisatie" Rotterdamsebaan$ SchipholRAmsterdamRAlmere$(SAA)$ Zuidasdok$ Tweede$Coentunnel$/$Westrandring$ IJsei$ $ Amsterdam$Centraal$ Arnhem$Centraal$ Station$Breda$ Tunnel$ Weg$ Tunnel$ Tunnel$ Divers$ $ Station$ Station$ Station$ Infra$ Infra$ Infra/Rail$ Infra$ Infra$ $ Rail$ Rail$ Rail$ Droog$ Droog$ Droog$ Droog$ Droog$ $ Droog$ Droog$ Droog$ DBM$ D&C" D&C" DBFM$ ?$ $ ?$ UACRGC$ ?$ X$ X$ X$ X$ Realisatie" $ Realisatie" Realisatie" Realisatie" Den$Haag$Nieuw$Centraal$ Station$ Rail$ Droog$ UAV$ Realisatie" Spoorzone$Delft$ Station$ Rail$ Droog$ D&C" Realisatie" Station$Eindhoven$ Station$ Rail$ Droog$ ?$ Realisatie" Combiplan"Nijverdal" Combinatie" Rail/Infra" Droog" D&C" Realisatie" Station$Tilburg$ Station$ Rail$ Droog$ ?$ Realisatie" OV$Terminal$Utrecht$ Station$ Rail$ Droog$ ?$ Realisatie" ZwolleSpoort$ Station$ Rail$ Droog$ D&C" Realisatie" Randstadspoor$ SchipholRAmsterdamRAlmereRLelystad$(OV$SAAL)$ SAA$Spoorkruisingen$ $ Afsluitdijk$ Nieuw$Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma$ Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma$2$ Rail,$stations$ Rail$ Rail$ $ Water$ Water$ Water$ Rail$ Rail$ Rail$ $ Infra$ Infra$ Infra$ Droog$ Droog$ Droog$ $ Nat$ Nat$ Nat$ ?$ Alliantie$ ?$ $ DBFM$ ?$ ?$ ?$ Realisatie" ?$ $ X$ Realisatie" Realisatie" Maaswerken$ Water$ Infra$ Nat$ ?$ Realisatie" Ruimte"voor"de"Rivier" Water" Table#14:#Projects#in#the#network#of#Neerlands#Diep# Infra" Nat" D&C" Realisatie" Table$14$selected$the$project$in$the$network$of$Neerlands$Diep$that$are$in$the$realisation$phase$and$ have$a$D&C$contract.$The$table$illustrates$that$there$are$5$projects$and$2$programs$with$interesting$ project$ that$ could$ be$ taken$ into$ account.$ Because$ the$ researcher$ has$ limited$ time$ available$ it$ was$ chosen$to$conduct$the$case$study$with$four$cases.$The$project$A4$DelftRSchiedam$was$not$selected$ because$there$were$plans$for$this$project$since$the$fifties$and$due$to$many$procedures$and$changes$ of$the$plan$the$realisation$did$not$begin$until$2012.$Therefore$the$project$stakeholders$had$already$a$ certain$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ the$ project$ and$ the$ project$ is$ not$ started$ with$ a$ clean$ sheet.$ The$ project$Spoorzone$Delft$was$not$chosen$because$the$researcher$lived$to$the$project$boundaries$and$ could$ therefore$ be$ prejudiced$ regarding$ the$ project.$ The$ project$ ZwolleSpoort$ was$ not$ chosen$ because$ the$ contractor$ that$ started$ the$ project$ does$ not$ complete$ it$ due$ to$ a$ conflict$ with$ the$ principal$ regarding$ the$ costs$ for$ extra$ work.$ Therefore$ some$ parts$ of$ the$ project$ were$ retendered$ and$new$parties$entered$the$project$halfway.$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"101" APPENDIX"E."CHARACTERISTICS"OF"THE"CASE"STUDY"PROJECTS" $ Case"1:"project"characteristics" Richting Eindhoven (A2) Beatrixhaven Richting Heerlen (A79) Limmel A2 Nazareth Viaductweg St Maartenspoort Wyckerpoort Amby Geusselt A2-Passage Wittevrouwenveld Wyck Scharn Europaplein Plangrens Heer Heugemerveld Aankoopbeleid te slopen woningen Randwyck Eyldergaard Heugem Vastgoedontwikkeling voor stedelijke vernieuwing De Heeg Onderzoek leefkwaliteit Vroendaal Richting Eijsden (A2) Extra ruimte om te bouwen Hergebruik grond Verbinding Beatrixhaven Figure#39:#Overview#project#plan#A2#Maastricht# 102"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ $ RUIMTELIJKE ORDENINGSPROCEDURE TRACÉ / MERPROCEDURE VOOR: - OMBOUW HUIDIGE A2-PASSAGE TOT AUTOSNELWEG - KNOOPPUNT A2/A79 (inclusief aansluitingspunt nieuwe ontsluitingsweg naar bedrijventerrein Beatrixhaven) AANBESTEDINGSPROCEDURE TRACÉ / MER PROCEDURE VOOR: - OMBOUW HUIDIGE A2-PAS AUTOSNELWEG - KNOOPPUNT A2/A79 (inclu sluitingspunt nieuwe ontsl naar bedrijventerrein Beat VOOR: - VASTGOEDLOCATIES - NIEUWE ONTSLUITINGSWEG NAAR BEDRIJVENTERREIN BEATRIXHAVEN BEVOEGD GEZAG BEVOEGD GEZAG BEVOEGD GEZAG MINISTERIE VROM EN GEMEENTE MAASTRICHT EN VERKEER EN WATERSTAAT EVENTUEEL MEERSSEN BEVOEGD GEZ AANBESTEDENDE PARTIJ: MINISTERIE VROM MINISTERIE VAN VERKEER EN WATERSTAAT VERKEER EN WATER GEMEENTE MAASTRICHT STARTNOTITIE STARTNOTITIE 2004 inspraak ins NOTA RUIMTE ROND DE A2 ADVIES COMMISSIE MER RICHTLIJNEN onderzoek 1e fase onderzoek ADVIES COMMISSIE RICHTLIJNEN 2005 consultatie ond CONCEPT PROGRAMMA VAN EISEN ÉÉN PLAN VOOR STAD EN SNELWEG: ÉÉN PLAN VOOR STAD EN - CONCLUSIES EN AANBEVELINGEN INTEGRAAL A2-PROJECT MAASTRICHT - CONCLUSIES EN AANB - ONDERZOEK ALTERNATIEVEN EN VARIANTEN A2-PASSAGE MAASTRICHT consultatie - ONDERZOEK ONTSLUITING BEDRIJVENTERREIN BEATRIXHAVEN VANAF A2 BESLUIT RAAD ONTSLUITING BEATRIXHAVEN - ONDERZOEK ONTSLUI 2006 consultatie TRECHTERINGSBESLUIT (voorheen: richtinggevend standpunt) - ONDERZOEK ALTERNA 2005 TRECHTERINGSBE (voorheen: richtinggeven PROGRAMMA VAN EISEN SAMENWERKINGSOVEREENKOMST juni 2006 TRECHTERINGSBESLUIT A2-TUNNEL STADSTRACÉ BESLUIT TRACÉ VERBINDING BEATRIXHAVEN TRECHTERINGSBE A2-TUNNEL STADS 2006 START AANBESTEDING dec. 2006 juni 2006 dec. 2006 - PROGRAMMA VAN EISEN - AMBITIEDOCUMENT 2007 2007-2008 DIALOOGPROCES - vertrouwelijk planvormingsproces - met meerdere marktpartijen - in concurrentiegerichte dialoog - consultatie - meerdere plannen marktpartijen - getoetst & beoordeeld - doorgerekend op effecten INTEGRAAL GEBIEDSONTWERP BESLUITVORMING en GUNNING ONTWERP TRACÉBESLUIT inspraak TRACÉBESLUIT beroep 10 dec 2010 t/m 20 jan 2011 RECHTSKRACHT 16 nov. 2008 t/m 16 jan. 2009 - het ‘beste’ plan wint de wedstrijd - de marktpartij die dat plan heeft opgesteld, gaat het project uitvoeren INSCHRIJVING 2009 2009 BESLUITVOR ONTWERP BESTEMMINGSPLAN inspraak ONTWERP TRACÉBESLUI VOORBEREIDING UITVOERING insp 6 ju + BESTEMMINGSPLAN beroep 27 dec 2010 t/m 7 feb 2011 2010 TRACÉBESLUI VOORBEREIDENDE WERKZAAMHEDEN bero RECHTSKRACHT RECHTSKRACH vanaf 2011 UITVOERING = afgehandeld = afgehandeld MER = Milieu-Effectrapport MER = Milieu-Effectrapport $ Figure#40:#Procedure#schedule# $ $ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"103" is ligt h. is ligt elijk ord centrum eg en eers- Viaduct- 3.1.5 Kruising Viaductweg / Meerssenerweg Avenue2 s Uitvoering viaduct Doorgaand verkeer richting Maastricht-centrum wordt ongelijkvloers (met 2 gescheiden viaducten) over de Meerssenerweg geleid. Deze rijbanen klimmen richting het spoorviaduct Verkeersuitwisseling In$this$project$there$was$no$detailed$plan$available$for$the$market$parties.$The$market$parties$were$ s Uitwisseling van verkeer tussen de Viaductweg en de Meerssenerweg vindt plaats op maaiveld met involved$ at$ an$ early$ stage$ of$ the$ project$ (also$ illustrated$ in$ the$ procedure$ schedule)$ to$ challenge$ een geregeld kruispunt (verkeerslichten) them$to$come$with$maximal$creativity,$specialism$and$enthusiasm.$Three$parties$participated$in$the$ Kenmerkende elementen Unie van Maastricht tender$ procedure,$ but$ the$ award$ advisory$ committee$ (Dutch:$ gunningsadvies$ commissie)$ did$ not$ access$ one$ of$ the$ three$ plans$ because$ it$ had$ additional$ requirements.$ The$ other$ two$ plans$ are$ of$ high$quality,$but$differ$from$each$other$on$many$points.$The$winning$plan$of$Avenue2$and$the$related$ 3.1.6 Tunnel Avenue2 Configuratie:2x2x2 tunnel$configuration$creates$to$almost$all$aspects$more$added$value.$$ Aantal lagen: 2 3.3.6 Tunnel Unie van Maastricht Scheiding doorgaand verkeer / lokaal verkeer s Bovenste tunnel voor bestemmingsverkeer verbindt Geusselt en Europaplein, met een maximale snelheid van 80 km/h Onderste tunnel voor doorgaand verkeer, met een maximale snelheid van 100 km/h Transport gevaarlijke stoffen: in bovenste tunnel categorie 1 toegestaan, in onderste tunnel alle stoffen toegestaan (categorie 0) Weven s In de bovenste tunnelbuis weefbewegingen van divers bestemmingsverkeer. In de onderste tunnelbuis geen weefbewegingen, hier rijdt uitsluitend transitverkeer Opstuwing grondwater s Handhaven van huidige grondwaterstroming door Figure#41:#Tunnel#proposal#'Avenue2'#(left)#and#'Unie#van#Maastricht'#(right)# met behulp van hevels het grondwater van de oostzijde van de tunnel naar de westzijde van de tunnel te transporteren azareth per en van rweg, rklaan oor groene voorzien tra men. en de tgs de d Municipality Maastricht State (RWS) Municipality Meerssen s Scheiding doorgaand verkeer / lokaal verkee Rechter rijstrook is bestemd voor lokaal verk is gescheiden van de 2 rijstroken voor doorg verkeer Ontwerpsnelheid 100 km/h Transport gevaarlijke stoffen: alle categorieën van vervoer gevaarlijke stof zijn toegestaan (categorie 0) s Weven Geen weefbewegingen in de tunnel in noord richting richting is rijstrookwisseling m $ Inin zuid-noord het rechte deel van de tunnel s Opstuwing grondwater Een pompsysteem beheerst zowel opstuwen grondwater als mogelijke pieken in watertoe tenNedam gevolge van klimaatverandering Strukton Civiel Strukton Bouw Ballast Nedam Ballast Province Limburg Projecten Steering group A2 Maastricht & Vastgoed Avenue2 D&C contract Technical manager Project director infra Project director real estate Avenue 2 Infra Avenue 2 Real Estate Daily routine Communication manager Contract manager Ontwikkeling Board of directors Avenue2 Project director A2 Maastricht; drie plannen op een rij Project stakeholder manager Infra Directors meeting A2 Maastricht 27 Configuratie:2x3 rijstroken Aantal lagen: 1 Manager process control Construction team infra Construction team real estate Construction team # Figure#42:#Project#organisation,#case#1# $ Case"2:"project"characteristics" " Arup Greisch Royal Haskoning Program Renovation Bridges KWS Hollandia Mercon CT - de Boer 48 Managing contractors Contract RWS D&C contract Directors meeting Project directors Contract manager Technical manager Traffic manager Contract manager Manager integrated preparation Manager integrated realisation Manager process control Construction team $ Figure#44:#Project#organisation,#case#2#(own#ill.)# $ Project manager Project stakeholder manager Manager process control Construction team 104"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" Project directors Daily routine Project manager Project stakeholder manager Combinatie Galecom "$ In$ this$ project$ the$ managing$ contractors$ made$ already$ the$ major$ part$ of$ the$ design,$ therefore$ the$ contractor$had$more$a$role$of$engineering$and$construct.$The$project$is$awarded$to$one$of$the$three$ parties$ that$ signed$ the$ framework$ agreement.$ The$ project$ is$ awarded$ based$ on$ EMVI$ (or$ MEAT)$ criteria$ and$ (past)$ performances$ on$ one$ of$ the$ other$ projects$ that$ are$ part$ of$ the$ framework$ agreement$are$taken$into$account$with$EMVI.$The$principal$prefers$a$more$or$less$equal$division$of$ the$project$among$the$contractors,$because$in$that$case$all$three$parties$gain$knowledge$regarding$ the$renovation$of$these$types$of$project$and$they$gain$experience$in$working$with$the$new$type$of$ concrete$as$applied$in$these$projects.$$$$ $ Case"3:"project"characteristics" " $ Figure#46:#Project#overview,#Combiplan#Nijverdal# Figure#47:#Timeline#contracting#process# $ In$this$project$the$principal$did$not$have$a$detailed$design$for$the$project$or$a$clear$view$about$the$ solution$in$this$project.$Five$contracting$parties$participated$in$the$tender$procedure.$Although$these$ parties$ had$ the$ opinion$ the$ degree$ of$ freedom$ was$ limited,$ because$ there$ were$ around$ 2500$ requirements$that$indicates$that$the$principal$has$a$quite$clear$view$about$what$the$project$has$to$ look$like.$The$tender$procedure$resulted$in$five$significantly$different$offers$in$design$as$on$the$EMVI$ score$ as$ well$ (especially$ the$ scores$ on$ the$ EMVI$ criterion$ ‘price’$ are$ significantly$ different$ in$ each$ offer).$$ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"105" Province Overijssel Region Twente Control team RWS D&C contract Project directors Contract manager Contract manager KWS Vialis Combinatie Leo ten Brinke Control on contract goals Daily routine Project manager Project stakeholder manager Hegeman Van Hattum en Beton- en Blankevoort Industriebouw Administrative agreement Collaboration agreement ProRail Municipality Hellendoorn Board of directors Construction team Manager process control Construction team $ Figure#48:#Project#organisation,#case#3#(own#ill.)# Merwed ekanaa l Lek kan a al " Case"4:"project"characteristics" " Vianense Waard LE K aal LEK ekan Merwed Bossenwaard ‘t Waalse Waard Pontwaard/ Mijnsherenwaard Stuweiland $ Figure#50:#Project#overview,#Ruimte#voor#de#Lek# $ $ Figure#51:#Project#plan# $ 106"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ Martens en Van Oord Program Space for Water RWS Directors meeting Contract manager Technical manager Project directors Daily routine Project manager Project stakeholder manager Combinatie Ruimte voor de Lek D&C contract Project directors Manager process control Construction team Heijmans Project manager Project stakeholder manager Contract manager Technical manager Manager process control Construction team $ Figure#52:#Project#organisation,#case#4#(own#ill.)# In$this$project$RWS$and$the$province$already$designed$the$major$part$of$the$project,$and$therefore$ the$ project$ was$ awarded$ based$ on$ the$ lowest$ price.$ Nine$ contracting$ parties$ participated$ in$ the$ tender$ procedure.$ The$ possibilities$ for$ the$ contractor$ were$ mainly$ related$ to$ the$ chose$ for$ the$ working$ method.$ Besides$ the$ completion$ of$ the$ project$ within$ time$ and$ budget,$ the$ sales$ of$ the$ materials$ is$ important$ for$ the$ contractor$ as$ well.$ The$ materials$ that$ are$ removed$ from$ the$ construction$site$are$sold$to$external$parties,$which$is$part$of$the$financial$model$of$the$contractor.$ So$in$case$this$is$not$possible,$this$has$financial$consequences$for$the$contractor.$ $ $ $ $ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"107" APPENDIX"F."CASE"DESCRIPTIONS" $ $ This$is$the$public$version$of$this$report.$ 108"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ APPENDIX"G."CROSS"CASE"ANALYSIS" $ " " How$is$the$project$ organisation$ organised?$ Case"3" The$project$teams$ act$as$individual$ teams,$but$speak$ with$one$voice$ regarding$ communication.$ How$are$the$public$ Public$ Public$ Public$ stakeholders$ stakeholders$have$ stakeholders$are$ stakeholders$are$ involved?$ committed$ not$committed$to$ committed$to$the$ themselves$to$the$ the$project.$ project$at$a$later$ project$in$the$start$ stage,$but$they$are$ and$are$part$of$the$ not$part$of$the$ project$ project$ organisation.$ organisation.$ How$are$the$ Private$ Private$ Private$ private$ stakeholders$are$ professional$ stakeholders$are$ stakeholders$ represented$in$two$ stakeholders$have$ represented$in$a$ involved?$ platforms$and$ a$voice,$but$the$ feedback$group$ different$ other$private$ and$different$ communication$ stakeholders$are$ communication$ methods$are$used$ provided$with$oneR methods$are$used$ to$inform$these$ sided$information.$ to$inform$these$ stakeholders.$ stakeholders.$ Where$are$the$ The$realisation$of$ Both$project$teams$ Both$project$teams$ project$teams$ the$project$started$ are$located$in$the$ are$located$at$the$ located$and$since$ and$both$project$ same$office,$a$ construction$site,$ when?$ teams$had$a$ month$after$the$ but$each$party$has$ location$in$the$ realisation$started.$ an$own$site$office.$ same$office$after$a$ The$contractor$had$ couple$of$months.$ an$office$here$from$ the$start$of$the$ realisation,$while$ the$principal$came$ here$2$years$after$ the$start$of$the$ realisation.$ Are$there$any$ Yes,$both$parties$ Yes,$during$the$ Yes,$both$parties$ agreements$ signed$the$ PSU$both$parties$ formulated$some$ regarding$ collaboration$ defined$some$ behavioural$rules.$ collaboration?$ principals.$ behavioural$rules.$$ Are$there$any$ agreements$ regarding$goals$ $ Case"1" The$project$teams$ act$together$as$one$ project$ organisation.$ Yes,$both$parties$ signed$the$ collaboration$ Case"2" The$project$teams$ act$as$individual$ teams.$ Yes,$during$the$ PSU$a$document$ with$project$goals$ No.$ $" Case"4" The$project$teams$ act$as$individual$ parties.$ Public$ stakeholders$are$ actively$involved$in$ the$project,$but$ they$are$not$part$ of$the$project$ organisation.$ Private$ stakeholders$are$ represented$in$two$ feedback$groups$ and$different$ communication$ methods$are$used$ to$inform$these$ stakeholders.$ Both$project$teams$ have$to$possibility$ to$work$from$the$ same$office.$ Yes,$both$parties$ signed$a$shared$ mission$statement$ that$was$ formulated$during$ the$PSU.$$ Yes,$both$parties$ want$to$realise$a$ successful$project$ "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"109" and$objectives?$ principals.$ $ and$behavioural$ rules$is$designed.$ Where$these$ agreements$ already$in$the$ contract?$ Yes,$these$ agreements$were$ an$additional$ paragraph$of$the$ contract.$ Are$there$any$ investments$in$the$ mutual$ relationship?$ Besides$formal$ meetings$like$a$ PSU$and$PFU’s,$ there$are$informal$ meetings$like$ Christmas$drinks$ and$a$barbecue$in$ the$summer.$ No,$but$later$on$ some$aspects$ regarding$ collaboration$were$ added$to$the$ contract.$ There$are$only$ formal$meetings$ like$the$PSU$and$ PFU’s.$ Who$can$people$ contact$in$case$of$ complaints?$ There$is$a$service$ line$people$can$ call.$The$ communication$ department$is$ responsible$for$this$ phone$line.$ People$can$call$the$ 0800$line$of$RWS$ and$there$is$a$cell$ phone$number$to$ contact$the$ contractor$24/7.$ Which$means$are$ used$to$inform$the$ public?$ There$are$progress$ messages,$pages$in$ local$and$regional$ newspapers,$ commercial$on$ regional$television,$ project$website,$ press$event$and$ information$ centre.$$ There$is$one$ communication$ department.$ There$are$ newsletters,$ resident$meetings,$ possibility$to$visit$ the$construction$ site,$website$ (controlled$by$the$ principal)$and$ social$media.$ How$communicate$ principal$and$ contractor$to$the$ public?$ How$is$information$ Around$90$percent$ internally$shared?$ of$the$information$ both$parties$share$ with$each$other.$ $ $ $ Communication$is$ divided$in$public$ and$construction$ communication.$ There$is$a$ SharePoint$ environment$ where$all$ documents$are$ filed$and$this$is$ accessible$for$both$ parties.$ How$do$both$ Mainly$by$phone,$ Stepping$by$at$the$ 110"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ No,$but$later$on$a$ financial$incentive$ was$created$to$ stimulate$the$ contractor$to$ collaborate.$ There$were$formal$ meetings$like$a$ PSU$and$PFU’s,$but$ there$are$also$ informal$meetings$ like$a$Christmas$ market$for$ employees$and$the$ public.$$ People$can$call$or$ mail$the$principal$ and$contractor,$or$ can$step$by$at$the$ site$office.$ and$this$is$defined$ in$the$mission$ statement.$ No.$ There$are$only$ formal$meetings$ like$a$PSU$and$ PFU’s.$ In$the$first$place$ people$should$call$ the$contractor.$It$is$ also$possible$they$ call$the$0800$line$ or$call$the$project$ stakeholder$ manager$of$the$ principal$directly.$$ There$are$ There$are$digital$ newsletters$(digital$ newsletters,$ and$hardcopy),$ advertisements$in$ excursions$to$the$ local$newspapers,$ construction$site$ excursions$to$the$ and$resident$ construction$site$ meetings.$ and$both$parties$ have$a$website.$ All$parties$speak$ with$one$voice$to$ the$public.$ There$is$a$ ProjectPlace$ environment$ where$documents$ are$shared$ between$parties$ (contractor,$RWS,$ ProRail$and$the$ municipality).$ Stepping$by$at$ Communication$is$ divided$in$public$ and$construction$ communication.$ There$is$an$online$ platform$where$ information$is$ shared$between$ both$parties.$ During$the$psm$ parties$ communicate$with$ each$other?$ What$kinds$of$ meetings$are$ there?$ How$is$the$ progress$of$the$ project$controlled$ and$managed?$$ How$to$deal$with$ issues?$ project$office,$by$ phone$and$ sometimes$by$ mail.$ R$Once$every$two$ weeks$the$psm*$ team$of$the$ principal$has$a$psm$ meeting$where$the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$is$joining.$ R$Once$every$four$ weeks$there$is$a$ directional$ meeting$where$the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$join$if$ there$are$issues$ regarding$psm.$ $ $ There$was$a$PSU$ and$there$are$ PFU’s,$at$the$start$ both$parties$ agreed$on$some$ KPI’s$(but$that$is$ not$used$anymore)$ and$the$project$ used$construction$ reflectors.$ Issues$are$solved$ internally$and$ preferably$as$soon$ as$possible.$ $ What$are$the$steps$ In$case$both$ in$case$an$issue$ parties$have$a$ cannot$be$solved?$ different$point$of$ view$at$an$issue,$ this$issue$will$be$ escalated.$In$the$ first$place$both$ faceRtoRface$during$ meetings$and$ sometimes$by$ mail.$ R$There$is$a$weekly$ psm$meeting$with$ the$psm$teams$of$ both$parties$ R$Once$every$four$ weeks$there$is$ construction$ meeting$with$both$ management$ teams.$ each$other’s$site$ office,$by$phone$ and$by$mail.$ There$was$a$PSU$ and$there$are$ PFU’s$every$three$ months$and$the$ contractor$has$ some$KSI’s$that$are$ tested$monthly.$ There$was$a$PSU$in$ the$beginning$and$ there$have$been$ PFU’s$with$the$ contractor,$RWS,$ ProRail$and$the$ municipality.$ The$project$ stakeholder$ managers$can$ solve$most$issues$ and$issues$ regarding$the$ contract$are$ shifted$to$the$ contract$managers.$ There$is$an$ escalation$model$ that$describes$ which$people$will$ talk$with$each$ other$in$case$an$ issue$cannot$be$ Fifteen$long$ drawnRout$issues$ were$solved$in$a$ package$deal,$ other$issues$ (mainly$financial)$ are$solved$in$the$ meetings$of$the$ directing$group.$ There$is$an$ escalation$model.$ In$the$first$place$ the$contract$ manager$of$the$ principal$is$the$ contract$point$for$ R$Regarding$psm$ there$is$a$ communication$ and$a$traffic$ management$ meeting.$ R$There$is$a$ construction$ meeting$ R$There$are$ meetings$with$the$ directing$team$ (Dutch:$ regieteam).$This$ team$is$discussing$ escalated$issues.$ meetings,$by$ phone,$by$mail$and$ sometimes$at$the$ project$location.$ R$Once$every$two$ weeks$both$project$ stakeholder$ manager$have$a$ meeting$with$each$ other.$ R$There$is$a$ monthly$ construction$ meeting$ R$The$direction$ meets$two$a$four$ times$a$year.$ The$project$started$ with$a$PSU$and$ there$have$been$ PFU’s$afterwards.$ During$meetings$ points$that$are$ going$well$and$ things$that$could$ be$improved$are$ discussed.$ Issues$are$solved$ internally$and$ most$issues$are$ related$to$financial$ or$legal$aspects.$ The$project$has$an$ escalation$model.$ In$the$first$place$ both$project$ stakeholder$ managers$try$to$ come$to$a$solution,$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ * $project$stakeholder$management$ $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"111" project$ stakeholder$ managers$try$to$ come$to$a$solution$ together$and$if$this$ is$not$possible$a$ decision$will$be$ made$at$ directional$level.$ solved.$In$case$the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$cannot$ come$to$a$solution,$ the$issue$will$be$ escalated$to$both$ project$managers.$ If$they$cannot$ come$to$a$solution$ either$a$decision$ will$be$made$at$ directional$level.$ Are$there$any$ In$a$crisis$situation$ In$case$a$crisis$ plans$in$case$ there$is$crisis$ situation$occurs$a$ something$occurs?$ management$plan$ crisis$team$will$try$ and$this$includes$ to$solve$the$ the$organisation$of$ problem.$Besides$ the$crisis$ that,$the$ communication$ contractor$makes$ team.$ scripts$for$all$ critical$phases$and$ the$principal$made$ scenarios$‘what$to$ do’$in$case$the$ motorway$is$ blocked.$$ What$are$the$main$ Inconvenience$ Blockage$of$the$ risks?$ caused$by$ canal$(and$ removing$the$ motorway)$and$ sheet$pilings.$$ diving$the$sheet$ pillars$into$the$ ground$turned$out$ to$be$a$forgotten$ risk.$$ How$are$the$risks$ All$risks$are$filed$in$ All$risks$are$filed$in$ controlled?$ a$document$that$is$ a$shared$document$ accessible$for$both$ and$risks$regarding$ parties$and$this$file$ the$project$ is$updated$all$the$ environment$ time.$ should$be$ discussed$during$ the$psm$meetings,$ but$this$is$not$ always$done.$ Who$will$pay$for$ Both$parties$have$ There$is$no$specific$ unforeseen$issues?$ put$some$money$ plan$for$this,$the$ they$reserved$for$ contract$managers$ risks$in$a$joint$ have$to$arrange$ financial$fund$to$ this$together.$ pay$for$certain$ 112"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ the$project$ manager$of$the$ contractor.$If$they$ cannot$come$to$a$ solution$together$ the$issue$will$be$ discussed$in$the$ directing$group.$ but$in$case$this$is$ not$possible$the$ issue$will$be$ discussed$during$ the$construction$ meetings$or$both$ project$managers$ will$discuss$it.$The$ third$option$is$to$ discuss$the$issue$at$ directional$level.$ There$is$a$protocol$ in$case$a$certain$ crisis$situation$ occurs.$ In$case$there$is$an$ emergency$plan$ with$protocols$ about$‘what$to$do’.$ Damages$to$ dwellings$and$ inconvenience$ caused$by$the$ construction$of$the$ project.$ Safety$at$the$ construction$site$ and$the$transfer$of$ the$project$to$the$ future$maintainers.$ Tried$to$control$ the$risks$by$ informing$the$ public$intensively.$ There$is$a$risk$file$ where$all$possible$ risks$are$described$ and$potential$new$ risks$are$added$to$ this$file.$This$file$ also$includes$ approaches$to$ control$the$risk.$ There$is$no$specific$ There$is$no$specific$ plan$for$this,$15$ plan$for$this.$ long$drawnRout$ issues$were$solved$ in$a$package$deal$ were$all$parties$ unforeseen$issues.$ How$are$the$ project$teams$ made$up?$ At$the$side$of$the$ principal$a$lot$of$ people$had$ interest$to$work$on$ this$project.$The$ employees$at$the$ side$of$the$ contractor$are$ managed$from$ above.$ At$the$side$of$the$ principal$there$is$a$ combination$of$ RWS$employees$ and$managing$ contractors.$The$ employees$at$the$ side$of$the$ principal$are$ managed$from$ above.$ According$to$what$ criteria$was$the$ project$awarded?$ Competitive$ dialogue$with$ EMVI.$ What$is$ educational$ background$of$the$ respondent?$ P:$traffic$ management$ C:$geoRengineering$ EMVI$with$traffic$ disruption$as$most$ important$ component.$ P:$ environmentology,$ some$additional$ communication$ trainings$$ C:$urban$planning$ What$is$the$ working$ experience$of$the$ respondent?$ P:$public$party$ C:$contracting$ party$and$selfR employed$person$ P:$different$public$ parties$ C:$different$public$ parties$and$a$ contractor$ had$to$give$and$ take.$$ At$the$side$of$the$ principal$the$ project$team$has$ grown$over$time,$ while$all$the$ employees$of$the$ contracting$parties$ were$located$at$ the$construction$ site$from$the$ beginning$and$this$ is$managed$from$ above.$ Competitive$ dialogue$with$ EMVI.$ P:$traffic$ management$and$ later$on$public$ administration$ C:$civil$engineering$ and$business$ administration$ P:$different$public$ parties$and$a$ function$in$politics$ C:$different$ contracting$parties$ At$the$side$of$the$ principal$the$ managers$are$ working$for$RWS,$ but$most$team$ members$are$hired$ from$external$ parties.$The$ employees$at$the$ side$of$the$ principal$are$ managed$from$ above.$ Lowest$price.$ P:$physical$ geography$ C:$business$ administration,$ some$additional$ communication$ trainings$ P:$different$public$ parties$ C:$different$ contracting$parties$$ Table#15:#Comparison#of#facts#of#the#four#cases#(own#ill.)# $ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"113" APPENDIX"H."WORKSHOP" Risico" Vertrouwen" Doel" $ A$workshop$session$was$held$on$the$6th$of$March$2015$with$four$of$the$respondents$of$the$interview$ in$the$case$study.$The$other$four$respondents$were$unable$to$participate$in$the$workshop.$The$aim$of$ the$workshop$was$to$test$the$validity$of$the$research$findings$and$the$applicability$of$the$designed$ model$for$collaboration$based$on$the$(practical)$expertise$of$the$participants.$The$meeting$consisted$ of$ three$ interactive$ discussion$ sessions$ and$ was$ structured$ as$ follows:$ first$ a$ short$ presentation$ about$ the$ research$ was$ give,$ during$ this$ introduction$ it$ was$ asked$ to$ the$ participants$ to$ fill$ in$ a$ questionnaire$on$which$the$intensity$of$the$collaboration$was$determined$in$the$case$study$research.$ With$the$answers$of$the$participants$it$is$possible$to$compare$the$point$of$view$on$the$collaboration$ of$the$project$stakeholder$managers$with$the$point$of$view$of$the$research.$The$workshop$continued$ with$ a$ discussion$ about$ propositions$ that$ followed$ from$ the$ main$ findings$ of$ the$ research.$ After$ a$ short$ break$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ was$ discussed,$ to$ end$ with$ a$ discussion$session$about$the$collaboration$model.$The$questionnaire$the$participants$had$to$fill$in$can$ be$found$in$this$appendix.$The$main$findings$of$the$workshop$meeting$were$already$discussed$in$the$ chapters$7$and$8.$ $ Questionnaire" Aan$ de$ hand$ van$ een$ literatuurstudie$ zijn$ er$ 6$ criteria$ geselecteerd$ om$ de$ intensiteit$ van$ een$ samenwerking$ tussen$ opdrachtgever$ en$ opdrachtnemer$ weer$ te$ geven.$ Deze$ 6$ criteria$ zijn:$ doel,$ vertrouwen,$ risico,$ communicatie,$ gedrevenheid$ en$ project$ organisatie.$ Deze$ 6$ criteria$ hebben$ verschillende$ sub$ criteria$ die$ een$ samenwerking$ illustreren.$ Aan$ u$ de$ vraag$ of$ u,$ op$ grond$ van$ uw$ eigen$ervaringen,$$voor$ieder$sub$criterium$de$optie$kunt$aankruizen$welke$$de$samenwerking$op$het$ gebied$ van$ omgevingsmanagement$ in$ jullie$ project$ het$ beste$ illustreert.$ Dit$ kunt$ u$ doen$ door$ een$ kruisje$te$zetten$bij$de$best$passende$optie$in$het$onderstaande$overzicht.$ $ Criteria" Sub"criteria" Optie"1" Optie"2"" Optie"3" Optie"4" Doelen#liggen# Enkel$ Voornamelijk$ Gezamenlijke$ Gezamenlijke$ op#één#lijn# individuele$ individuele$ doelen$in$het$ doelen$op$de$ doelen$ doelen$ project$ lange$termijn$ Voordelen# Win$voor$de$ Win$en$verlies$ Win$R$win$in$ Win$R$win$op$de$ één,$verlies$ een$enkel$ lange$termijn$ voor$de$ander$ project$ Type# Contractueel$ Vertrouwen$ Korte$termijn$ Lange$termijn$ vertrouwen# vertrouwen$ gebaseerd$op$ vertrouwen$ vertrouwen$ competenties$ gebaseerd$op$ gebaseerd$op$ van$de$ander$ goodwill$ goodwill$ Vertrouwen#in# Weinig$ Enig$ Veel$ Volledig$ de#andere#partij# vertrouwen$ vertrouwen$ vertrouwen$ vertrouwen$ Het#monitoren# Alles$wordt$ Controles$zijn$ Controles$zijn$ Controles$zijn$ van#elkaars# gecheckt$en$ iets$verminderd$ enorm$ bijna$onnodig$ werk# dubbel$ verminderd$ gecheckt$ Delen#van# Er$worden$geen$ Er$worden$ Het$aantal$ Er$is$een$heel$ risico’s# risico’s$gedeeld$ enkele$risico’s$ risico’s$dat$ systeem$voor$ gedeeld$ gedeeld$wordt$ het$delen$van$ is$enorm$ risico’s$ toegenomen$ $ 114"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$ Communicatie" $ Verdeling#van# risico’s# Risico’s$zijn$ altijd$ ondergebracht$ bij$de$zwakke$ partij$ Risico’s$zijn$ vaak$ ondergebracht$ bij$de$zwakke$ partij$ Beloning#voor# het#beheersen# van#een#risico# Er$is$geen$ beloning$voor$ de$partij$die$ het$risico$op$ zich$neemt$ Er$zijn$geringe$ beloningen$ voor$de$partij$ die$het$risico$ op$zich$neemt$ Informatie# uitwisseling# Er$wordt$zeer$ weinig$ informatie$ open$ uitgewisseld$ Er$is$geen$ transparantie$ in$de$kosten$ Er$wordt$enige$ informatie$ open$ uitgewisseld$ Werk#relatie# Er$zijn$veel$ confrontaties$ Er$is$enige$ samenwerking$ Cultuur# Elkander$de$ schuld$geven$ Gezamenlijke# inspanning# Geen$ gezamenlijke$ inspanning$ voor$ verbetering$ Enige$ gezamenlijke$ inspanning$ voor$ verbetering$ Gedrevenheid# om#het#doel#te# realiseren# Support#vanuit# hoger# management# Focus#op#de# lange#termijn# Geen$ gedrevenheid$ Enige$ gedrevenheid$ Geen$interesse$ voor$ samenwerking$ Geen$interesse$ om$te$ investeren$in$ het$continue$ verbeteren$van$ de$ samenwerking$ Enige$interesse$ in$ samenwerking$ Enige$interesse$ om$te$ investeren$in$ het$continue$ verbeteren$van$ de$ samenwerking$ Gedrevenheid" Transparantie# kosten# $ Risico’s$zijn$ ondergebracht$ bij$de$partij$die$ het$beste$in$ staat$is$deze$te$ managen$in$dit$ project$ Er$is$vaak$een$ passende$ beloning$voor$ de$partij$die$ het$risico$op$ zich$neemt$ Er$wordt$ redelijk$veel$ informatie$ open$ uitgewisseld$ Kosten$zijn$een$ open$boek$ tussen$twee$ partijen$ Er$is$enige$ transparantie$ in$de$kosten$ Er$wordt$ redelijk$veel$ samengewerkt$ Zelfverdediging$ Afwezigheid$ van$een$schuld$ cultuur$ Redelijk$veel$ gezamenlijke$ inspanning$om$ te$kijken$naar$ opties$om$ beter$samen$te$ werken$ Redelijk$wat$ gedrevenheid$ Risico’s$zijn$ ondergebracht$ bij$de$partij$die$ het$beste$in$ staat$is$deze$te$ managen$op$de$ lange$termijn$ Er$is$altijd$een$ passende$ beloning$voor$ de$partij$die$ het$risico$op$ zich$neemt$ $ $ Vrijwel$alle$ informatie$ wordt$open$ uitgewisseld$ Kosten$zijn$een$ open$boek$voor$ de$gehele$ organisatie$ Er$wordt$ intensief$ samengewerkt$ Cultuur$ gefocust$op$het$ oplossen$van$ problemen$ Continue$ inspanning$om$ te$kijken$naar$ opties$om$ beter$samen$te$ werken$ Heel$veel$ gedrevenheid$ Interesse$in$ samenwerking$ Samenwerking$ wordt$ aangemoedigd$ Er$wordt$ Er$wordt$ redelijk$veel$ constant$ geïnvesteerd$in$ geïnvesteerd$in$ het$continue$ het$continue$ verbeteren$van$ verbeteren$van$ de$ de$ samenwerking$ samenwerking$ $" "MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"115" Oplossen# problemen# Problemen$ leiden$vaak$tot$ discussies$ Meten#van# prestaties# Geen$ gezamenlijke$ maatregelen$ De$teamleden$ hebben$geen$ interesse$om$ samen$te$ werken$ Project"organisatie" Competentie# van#de# teamleden# Efficiënte# coördinatie# (m.b.t.#de# performance# van#de#ander)# Delen#van# bedrijfsmiddelen# Verdeling#van# macht#en# gelijkheid# Gezamenlijke# actie# Partijen$ hebben$ tegengestelde$ verwachtingen$ Middelen$ worden$niet$ met$elkaar$ gedeeld$ Er$is$ ongelijkheid$ tussen$partijen$ Er$is$geen$ interesse$om$ een$ gezamenlijk$ doel$na$te$ streven$ Problemen$ Veel$ leiden$soms$tot$ problemen$ discussies$ worden$tijdig$ opgelost$op$het$ laagste$niveau$ Enkele$ Redelijk$veel$ gezamenlijke$ gezamenlijke$ maatregelen$ maatregelen$ Enkele$ De$teamleden$ teamleden$ zijn$ hebben$ gemotiveerd$ interesse$om$ om$samen$te$ samen$te$ werken$ werken$ Partijen$ Partijen$ hebben$ hebben$redelijk$ verschillende$ dezelfde$ verwachtingen$ verwachtingen$ De$meeste$ problemen$ worden$tijdig$ opgelost$op$het$ laagste$niveau$ Veel$ gezamenlijke$ maatregelen$ De$teamleden$ willen$ samenwerken$ en$zijn$echte$ ‘teamplayers’$ Middelen$ worden$soms$ met$elkaar$ gedeeld$ Partijen$zijn$ niet$geheel$ gelijkwaardig$ Er$is$interesse$ om$een$ gezamenlijk$ doel$na$te$ streven,$maar$ het$eigen$ belang$staat$ voor.$ Alle$middelen$ worden$met$ elkaar$gedeeld$ Middelen$ worden$vaak$ met$elkaar$ gedeeld$ Partijen$zijn$ gelijkwaardig$ Er$is$interesse$ om$een$ gezamenlijk$ doel$na$te$ streven,$maar$ er$zijn$ook$ eigen$belangen$ Partijen$ hebben$ dezelfde$ verwachtingen$ Alles$is$eerlijk$ verdeeld$ tussen$partijen$ Alle$partijen$ streven$er$naar$ om$het$ gezamenlijke$ doel$te$ realiseren.$ $ Met$behulp$van$de$ingevulde$gegevens$zal$de$onderzoeker$de$onderstaande$‘radar$chart’$invullen$om$ zo$ de$ samenwerking$ tussen$ de$ opdrachtgever$ en$ opdrachtnemer$ te$ illustreren,$ zoals$ in$ het$ betreffende$project$wordt$ervaren$door$de$persoon$die$dit$formulier$ingevuld$heeft.$ $ $ 116"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"" $ "$