Chapter 2 Characteristics of IPD: A Framework Overview

Derek H.T. Walker and Beverley Lloyd-Walker

[Cite this work as: Walker, D. H. T., & Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2018). Chapter 2 - Charateristics of
IPD: A Framework Overview. In D. H. T. Walker & S. Rowlinson (Eds.), The Routlidge Handbook of
Integrated of Project Delivery (pp. 18pp)]

Chapter introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the content and context of IPD through the media of a
framework that identifies and explains the basic components of IPD. This chapter therefore delivers
foundational understanding to support this handbook. Chapter 1 presented the concept of Integrated
Project Delivery (IPD) and Table 1.1 contrasted ten characteristics of IPD with non-IPD forms.

In this chapter we outline recent frameworks describing IPD elements or characteristics. These help us
not to only describe and understand the nature of IPD but they may also be useful for measuring and
visualising how IPD might be delivered. IPD frameworks are necessary for measuring IPD concepts.
They use descriptors to calibrate conceptual elements of IPD so that an holistic image may be
presented that adequately describes a particular IPD configuration, preferable visually. These
frameworks may be used strategically or operationally. Any framework that can describe and measure
IPD elements, even at a coarse grained level, presents a powerful tool for IPD strategy and operational
management.

IPD frameworks may be used to assist in the strategic design of project delivery mechanisms. For
example the way that trust and commitment of various parties involved in a project may be shaped or
reinforced will have a significant impact on party members behaviours towards each other; it
establishes what will be considered appropriate and inappropriate. This trust and commitment element
of the mix of a project delivery system will impact upon other elements. It is very difficult to
understand how this element may impact upon other elements without a way to visualise the system.
Section 3 Chapter 5 discusses these aspects in greater depth.

Similarly, IPD frameworks may be used in the operational managing of project delivery mechanisms.
For example in trying to balance the way that trust mechanisms may encourage collaboration with
control mechanisms designed to monitor actions through a designed project governance mechanism
it would be useful to be able to visualise and measure how these mechanisms may be represented to
compare an as-is to a should-be situation. Once we have a way to benchmark an abstract construct
within an IPD configuration such as trust or control, visually presented alongside other related
concepts, then it is easier to understand likely cause-and-effect loops, consequences and opportunities.

We also provide an overview of the Collaboration Framework developed by Walker and Lloyd-
Walker (2015) to illustrate how IPD framework tools such as this might be used in practice. The
chapter also provides a basis for understanding how other chapters link together.

How can we begin to understand the IPD concept ?

Chapter 1 provided a rationale for engaging in IPD and also detailed ten significant differences
between a traditional project delivery form and IPD. The extent of collaboration varies across the
numerous forms of IPD for good reasons and the ability to collaborate depends upon both personal
collaboration competences as well as organisational structural facilitation for collaboration and
organisational collaboration competencies.

An initial categorisation of IPD forms in a model that illustrates four orders of collaboration supports
deeper understanding of IPD (2013, p9; 2015, p108). The first order of collaboration is characterised
by an efficiency focus. The second has an additional focus on fair process and common purpose. The
third order of collaboration extended the focus to common operational platforms and the fourth added

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 1

commitment to inter-team relationships. Additionally, across these four orders of collaboration

increasing levels of early contractor involvement were identified. Also recognised was the extent of
the painshare/gainshare agreement and a sink-or-swim-together mindset that was in place, with the
project owners (POs) involvement that varied from being largely contractually hands-off at the
lowest order of collaboration to being highly hands-on at the highest order of collaboration. This
framework provides a useful starting point to understand generic levels of IPD.

Key elements of a framework that makes sense of IPD also characterise collaboration at two levels:

(1) the nature of the relationship between the PO or its designated representative (POR), the design
team and project delivery team; and
(2) the institutional collaborative facilitation mechanisms that are developed and maintained to
support collaboration at the desired level.

IPD institutionalisation may occur at a project level when the extent of collaboration is
institutionalised for the duration of a project delivery, or it may extend across a series of projects in a
programme of work. Programme IPD forms such as framework agreements or programme alliances
may be time based, for example a five year agreement (Walker & Harley, 2014), or a large project
may be split up into a programme of work comprising a mixture of individual project packages such
as the recently completed Victorian Regional Rail Link programme. The Regional Rail Link
programme/project was a multi-billion Australian dollar project that separated metropolitan and
regional services where they previously intersect in Melbourne's west. The programme/project built
dedicated tracks for three regional city lines - Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat so the trains could run
through the metropolitan system from the western suburb Sunshine to the central city Southern Cross
Station (URL http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/transport/rail-and-roads/public-
transport/regional-rail-link). Another example of a mega programme/project that was split into
numerous, very large project packages within an IPD programme, was Londons Crossrail (URL
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/ ) and more recently the Thames Tideway (URL
https://www.tideway.london/ ). The IPD approach taken in these two megaprojects was based on
experiences gained in the UK from the approach taken for the Heathrow Terminal Five and for the
London Olympics. Each of these programmes of works were undertaken with a sophisticated PO
organisation in the form of a government authority established to specifically develop the programme
of work using an IPD approach that incorporated very high levels of collaboration (Brady & Davies,
2014; Davies, Dodgson & Gann, 2016; Gil, Miozzo & Massini, 2012).

We can start to understand IPD in terms of the formation of an institution: be that a project or
programme of projects. The institutional perspective is useful because institutional theory helps
explain how:

1. organisations form;
2. are shaped to evolve;
3. how they may be undermined or supported as they evolve; and
4. how they are terminated.

Each project or programme uses the resources from many independent organisations. There is no
adoption of a single dominant participating organisations culture, heritage, norms, identity or
structural form. What is observed to happen is that each participating organisation provides an
influence that adapts the way things are done from the template provided by the contractual
arrangements specified for the project or programme. Each party is engaged in what may be described
as institutional work in shaping and influencing an organisations characteristics (Battilana &
Daunno, 2009). The aggregate project participants norms are shaped by an evolving and created
project identity.Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamilton, and Corley (2013) extensively investigate how
organisational identities are created, maintained, and transformed within a complex and evolving
business environment. Projects and programmes of projects involve a host of organisations that are
only in part governed by a common set of values espoused in contract documents and other similar

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 2

artefacts. Accordingly, an identity is forged through a series of interacting influences, power

structures and cultural perspectives (Gioia, Price, Hamilton, & Thomas, 2010).

Projects are delivered by people, not by robots, contracts or automatic processes and so there is a need
to focus on project work from a reflective practitioner perspective (Crawford, Morris, Thomas, &
Winter, 2006). This is why there has been a recent focus on the need for developing what has been
termed soft skills in the project management literature across a range of project types (Azim, Gale,
LawlorWright, Kirkham, Khan, & Alam, 2010; Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, & Peters, 2007; Pellerin,
2009; Stevenson & Starkweather, 2010). This is primarily because people have agency, they decide
how to interpret situations in their own way based on their individual experience, culture, knowledge
and the way that the system permits them discretion (Mullaly, 2014, 2015).

Projects or programmes can be thought of as being institutions. The dictionary definition of an

institution is a large organisation founded for a particular purpose (Oxford, 2011, p736). While most
people might think of institutions as universities, hospitals, prisons because they are established for a
purpose it is also logical to consider projects and programmes of projects and indeed organisations
such as design firms, contractors and subcontractors as institutions. In doing so this opens up
possibilities to more clearly understand how people act and how they exercise agency.

Taking a contractual form as a starting point, we can begin to understand how organisations function
and behave based upon the contract form and conditions. A more limited view of a contract is that it
determines what is legitimate but when we take an institutional perspective we may see that a contract
document is merely a raw resource to be interpreted, shaped and used. Battilana and Daunno
(2009,p48) describe dimensions of agency deployed in institutional work. They identify how people
exercise agency, their free will and decision making, in creating, maintaining and disrupting
institutions. Looking at IPD from this perspective we can better start to understand how a presented
contractual form (the IPD agreement for example) is adapted in its actual use by the many
organisations that are parties to a project and how they authenticate their actions based on what is
right in terms of the given contract, their home-based organisational rules and norms and how they
are influenced by others they engage with through the project/program. This agency and institutional
work perspective provides us with a useful way to understand how a given project institution is
created and evolves. It helps to explain why a standard IPD agreement form for example may produce
a variety of performance outcomes and how they may be influenced by various individual people and
organisations that collaborate. Figure 2.1 illustrates collaboration from an institutional perspective.

Figure2.1Strategydeliverythroughprojectsfromaninstitutionalperspective

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 3

One of the founding contributors to institutional theory is Scott (1987, 2001, 2014). According to
Scott, there are three institutional pillars: regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive. The regulative
pillar comprises the rules and regulations. From an IPD perspective, we could see this as the form of
IPD agreement or contract form whether that is a framework agreement, alliance agreement, or other
IPD forms such as the T5 agreement for Heathrow Terminal five. All documentation, process
handbooks and standard procedures for example forms this pillar as a reference point.
The normative pillar comprises the organisational culture, the workplace environment and even as
Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2014) have observed on alliance projects, the ambience of the
project/programme workplace. This normative pillar sets the tone and behavioural expectations for
the project/program. It makes specific behaviours, values and actions legitimate. This pillar may
compliment the regulative pillar or may contradict it at times.

The third pillar is the cultural-cognitive pillar which controls agency and how people interpret the
regulative framework given their exposure to their home-base normative influences as well as the
evolving project/programme culture and norms. Peoples agency is circumscribed by what they feel
is possible, desirable and proper given the context and circumstances as they understand these.

The institutional work perspective provides a powerful facilitator of understanding how IPD,
whatever form that may take, is actually operationalised. Naturally, it is helpful to identify factors that
contribute to successful IPD and also to provide a framework or model that may be easily visualised.
However, identifying factors or characteristics is one valuable contribution but what is more valuable
is to explain how knowledge about the nature of characteristics or factors may be extended to help
explain how these operate in practice and how they may be treated to result in an optimised outcome.
Clearly not only the regulatory institutionalisation pillar needs to be addressed in operationalising IPD
but also the normative and cultural-cognitive pillars. A framework that analyses what is going on
within any IPD project/programme should be able to offer both strategic and operational insights.

Developing an IPD framework: first steps

One recent attempt to describe how an alliance may operate effectively in practice was offered by
Ibrahim (2014). He undertook a rigorous study of road alliance projects in New Zealand interviewing
five (two consultants, two contractors and a client participant) experienced alliance practitioners and
validating results using a Delphi technique through participation of 17 highly experienced alliance
experts. His research identified seven key indicators of alliance team integration and collaboration
that were weighted by perceived importance as shown in Figure 2.1 below. He also tested the
framework against three New Zealand road alliance project case studies.

His quantitative measures indicate what each of seven identified key indicators (KIs) mean. These
measures may be only of indicative use in understanding how collaboration works in alliances but
having importance weightings identified for each collaboration indicator is very valuable in aiding our
broader understanding of IPD in practice and what KIs may be more important than others.

It is interesting to note that the identified KI factors are all of a behavioural nature without any factors
that link to the way that the IPD form (alliance in this case) was structured or how that structure may
impact required behaviours. Also, several of these factors do not seem to quite match their tagged KI,
for example KI 1 Team leadership is measured by cost and time performance measures rather than
softer measures about how the project was led or how the organisational structure adopted supported
or hindered leadership. However, despite any limitations that can be observed from this framework it
does provide a step in the journey of providing a useful framework for understanding and visualising
how IPD operates or should operate.

These seven indicators also support the behavioural factors identified in the second IPD framework to
be discussed in this chapter and throughout the book. Ibrahim (2014) also discusses how the
integrated POR, design and delivery contractor participants collaborate with the project alliance board
forming part of the governance arrangements. This board comprises a leadership team of key high
level executives from the non-owner participants (NOPs) in an alliance who act as sensemaking,

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 4

coordination and high level communication links between the project alliance management team
(AMT) and the NOPs home base organisations. This governance mechanism allows urgent resource
requirements or other actions that NOPs can take to avert emerging crises as well as providing a
potent cultural-cognitive mechanism for solving unexpected problems that an AMT who have no
direct control or influence over their home organisations may face. This form of board is referred to as
an alliance leadership team (ALT) in Australia (Ross, 2003). Table 2-1 illustrates the seven KIs
identified by Ibrahim.
Table 2-1 Measuring team integration alliance practice in New Zealand (Source: Ibrahim, 2014, p145)

While the above framework has gaps when viewed from the institutional theory perspective in the
regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars it does offer insights into important required
behaviours of IPD participants that influence the norms of the organisational culture.

Two other frameworks have also been developed that assist us in understanding the nature of
collaboration in IPD forms, alliancing in particular. The second framework arose out a quantitative
study involving data from completed valid survey responses from 320 Australian construction
organisations arising from 1,688 invitations to participate in the survey (Chen & Manley, 2014). Their
survey requested responses to a series of questions relating to collaboration and innovation on projects
nominated by respondents to focus their responses on a specific project they had been engaged upon.
They report that 79% of the responses related to alliance delivery projects (Chen & Manley, 2014, p5)
and the sample was evenly split between contractor, designer and client organisations and so this
represented a rigorous and unbiased view of experts experienced in IPD projects. Additionally 89% of
respondents had been part of delivery teams for at least one collaborative project with 17% having
been involved in working on 10 or more collaborative projects. Using both exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis to analyse the data their analysis confirmed that both formal and
informal mechanisms were perceived by the practitioners to be attributes of collaborative project
governance used to manage complex infrastructure projects in Australia. Their research also

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 5

confirmed the essential mechanisms that define formal and informal governance for collaborative
infrastructure projects. They identified three market formal governance mechanisms: (1) collective
cost estimation, (2) risk and reward sharing regime, and (3) risk sharing of service providers (Chen
& Manley, 2014,p10). They also identified five informal governance mechanisms (1) leadership, (2)
relationship manager, (3) team workshops, (4) communication systems, and (5) design Integration
(p11). Interestingly, they discovered that While both formal and informal mechanisms have positive
impacts on performance, the implementation intensity of informal mechanisms is a greater predictor
of project performance variance than that of formal mechanisms. This could be seen as influencing
the norms and cultural-cognitive institutional pillars described by Scott (2014). The strength of this
finding was unexpected, and certainly supports more extensive use of collaborative delivery systems.
Furthermore, the influence of formal mechanisms on project performance was found to be mediated
by informal mechanisms. Consistent with recent work examining project governance, the study found
that hybrid project governance, which combines both formal and informal mechanisms with both
market and hierarchical transactions, is needed to achieve project performance targets. The study
advances the frontier of knowledge by identifying and explaining the different roles played by the two
types of mechanisms. The findings imply that formal and informal governance are not
interchangeable; each has a distinctive role. Thus, they rely on each other to maximize project
performance (Chen & Manley, 2014, p11).

Insights from the work of Chen and Manley (2014) are useful in light of our earlier discussion on the
three pillars of institutional theory. Rules as formal governance explain one mechanism for the way a
collective of organisations engaged on a project create and maintain a single project entity as if it were
an institution. Informal governance mechanisms identified by Chen and Manley (2014) as well as the
KIs from Ibrahims (2014) study help explain some of the normative and cultural-cognitive pillars of
institutional theory offered by (Scott, 2014) and how action may be calibrated. However, both
frameworks still do not provide a holistic view of how these three pillars actually operate.

Developing a IPD framework: Identification of a robust model

Both of the above frameworks, together with consideration of institutional theory, highlight a
collaborative capability versus capacity paradox. Having the capability to take a particular action does
not result in the intended action taking place without a capacity to do so. Capability is characterised
by having the means and essential ability to potentially act. Organisations and individuals may have
knowledge capabilities of how to muster the necessary resources to effectively collaborate and also
have the cognitive ability to do so. However, unless they have the motivation and are able to secure
the resources, supportive leadership and operational management processes to do so, they will face
significant challenges and blockages that will thwart converting collaborative intent into action.

A third recent framework was developed independently of Ibrahimss (2014) or that of Chen and
Manley (2014) to address identifying the vital elements of translating collaborative capacity into
capability in IPD project forms. This framework was originally described as a relationship based
procurement taxonomy (Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2015) but its potential application was later
appreciated as being useful to understand how managing uncertainty may best operate in complex
situations where intense collaboration between project delivery partners offers multiple perspectives
on challenges and potential actions to address identified challenges. The collaboration framework
(Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2015) was based on analysis of interviews with 36 practitioner IPD experts
and 14 leading academics in this field of study. This study was based in Australia but also in the UK,
the Netherland, Scandinavia and the USA. The second framework makes no attempt to add weights to
identified factors but it does address all three regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive
institutionalisation pillars. The third framework shown in Figure 2.2 illustrates the procurement
taxonomy (Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2015) referred to from now on as the Collaboration Framework.

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 6

Figure2.2CollaborationFramework(Sourceadaptedfrom:Walker&LloydWalker,2016,p5)

Figure 2.2 presents the three components of the Collaboration Framework platform facilities,
behaviours and processes, routines and means together with the 16 elements of the framework. In
addition it positions the three institutional pillars. The regulative pillar spans elements from both the
platform facilities and processes, routines and means components. The cultural-cognitive and
normative pillars span elements from the behaviours and processes, routines and means components.

Details of the elements in the Collaboration Framework are discussed in depth in Chapters 9, 15 and
21 with each chapter devoted to describing each of the elements in the three components. The next
section outlines how the Collaboration Framework may be used in practice.

IPD Collaboration Framework visualisation tool application

There is nothing quite like a tool to visualise data in an easy to read way that allows readers to readily
grasp complex concepts (Geraldi & Arlt, 2015). How, then, might the Collaboration Framework
visualisation tool be used in practice?

Each Collaboration Framework element has specific measures developed to enable facilitate an
overall alliance or project delivery form to be mapped and illustrated to provide a holistic
visualisation tool to be used for:

1. Designing a project delivery approach;

2. Benchmarking projects against the Collaboration Framework 16 elements; and
3. Providing a health check tool where the as intended can be compared to the as is perceived
situation.

Each element is measurable and so capable of being mapped. This allows a complex concept such as
an IPD form to be visualised for example in mapping how partnering arrangements of several
contractors may be compared (Borve, Ahola, Andersen, & Aarseth, 2017, p102) or comparing two
distinct project development phases using different IPD approaches (Walker & Rahmani, 2016).

Using the Collaboration Framework Visualisation Tool for Benchmarking

We explain in this section how the tool may be used in practice by using a hypothetical situation to
illustrate how the tool might be applied to making a strategic decision making.

A client with a strong portfolio of alliance type projects wants to have a review undertaken to
compare how its project alliances were delivered in practice. The objective being to know what, if

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 7

any, variation was evident from the nature of the relationships between participant organisations and
if any lessons learned may be gathered to more effectively make strategic future decisions about their
IPD agreement form.

This is essentially a bench marking exercise to provide information and insights to make a strategic
process improvement decision.

The client (hypothetically) has recently undertaken five rail engineering infrastructure alliances that
are at various stages of completion and this client has a further three alliances about 50% complete
with two recently started. With around ten years of experience in alliancing this client, a state
instrumentality, has a long pipeline of future projects. The context of these hypothetical projects is
that they are situated in the state of Victoria, Australia, in a large metropolitan transport centre within
a well-connected regional rail network. Each project owner representative (POR) on the clients
alliances is experienced having completed several alliances. Similarly the design and delivery non-
owner participants (NOPs) all have staff with direct past experience of working with alliancing. In
general past alliances with this state government instrumentality have been regarded as successful
with about 80% of past projects being completed on or below budgeted time and cost and all meeting
their key results areas (KRAs). While this situation looks promising, the client is concerned about
being complacent and feels that further improvements are possible.

The first task in addressing the above review is to identify an appropriate benchmarking methodology
or framework to use. After considering the large amount of effort involved in developing an in-house
benchmarking tool the client decided to adopt the Collaboration Framework because it was rigorously
developed and already has identified elements of an alliance with measures that can be used to map
alliance characteristics.

The client decided to undertake a two day workshop with a team of alliance managers (AMs) and
alliance leadership team (ALT) members from the five near complete alliance projects, three half
complete alliance projects and two recently started alliance projects. The workshop group numbered
32 people: a POR, and design and delivery representative from each of the ten projects plus a
facilitator and scribe-recorder to assist with documentation and managing all resources required for
the workshop. A two-day workshop was held, preceded by a brief introductory evening presentation
of the Collaboration Framework - to familiarise participants with the framework. This presentation
informed participants of the elements and their logic and the measures that would be used to map each
project. Workshop participants had already attended a workshop, several months previously, in which
the framework logic and each element were explained in more detail.

Each project participant group of three people would spend day one of the workshop discussing each
of the 16 elements to arrive at a consensus on the number to be allocated against each elements
rating. These were to be numbered 1 = very low to 5 = very high. The client considered that it would
be reasonable to take about 30 minutes for each group to discuss each element. This estimate was
based on three participants taking five minutes to present their rating and rationale for that rating and
then a further 15 minutes for group discussion to reach a consensus on a rating number for each
element. This required a time commitment of a full day for rating the 16 elements. The facilitators
then prepared the radar diagram as illustrated in Figure 2.3 and the following morning the group
reconvened and spent a further day discussing the implications of the patterns and deviations from the
pattern that may emerge. They also identified risks and opportunities and analysed likely causes and
impacts based on the alliance radar figure patterns. This process presented a significant opportunity
for shared learning as well as the development of the benchmark status.

The question that participants faced was how were they to rate these elements? To answer that
question we suggest considering the Collaboration Framework example for Element 2 joint
governance structure. Two anchor points are illustrated below illustrate how to rate that element:

Low levels would be related to a laissez faire approach where each participating project team has
established its own individual stand-alone project governance standards. Little coherence in alignment

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 8

of the whole project delivery organisational processes and structure is evident, with few explicit
expectations about what success looks like and how to define and measure it.

High relates to an effectively structured, uniform, integrated and consistent set of performance
standards that apply across and within the project delivery teams. All participant organisations share a
common understanding of how to organise for success and what constitutes valuable project output
and outcome success.

Having the POR, and both a design team and delivery team perspective available enabled a
reasonably honest and accurate assessment to be made. Notes were also made about anecdotes,
suggested improvements and aspects that were of particular interest for learning from that projects
experience. The issues discussed revolved around a common view of how governance practices are
undertaken across the POR and NOPs participant teams. Questions were raised such as what routines,
standard systems (manual or in electronic form) and roles that people play in setting output and
outcome expectations are appropriate? How should these expectations be operationalised and
monitored for control? Other relevant reflections included questioning the level of agency or
discretion that was deemed appropriate? In this way a coherent picture emerged that informed the
discussion taking place about the way that governance was perceived at the individual and group level
that allowed each individual groups radar figure to be compared and contrasted against those of other
groups.

These workshop breakout sessions created a significant buzz of interactive conversation and
unearthed surprising revelations about opinions and experiences by the three representatives for each
project. Many had mistakenly initially thought that they all were singing from the same song sheet
but in fact had misunderstood baseline assumptions of other participants.

This conversation can be valuable as it reveals ambiguity. Walker Davis and Stevenson (2017) discuss
ambiguity through two lenses. One lens is a people/process ambiguity situation where people assume
that they are mutually following a unified path but in fact their assumptions are divergent so they use
common terms, or a construct that means different things to each party. The second lens may be that
both parties assume that their system or process is common when different results can emerge
from identical starting positions. Pich, Loch and Meyer (2002, p1013) argue that Ambiguity refers to
a lack of awareness of the project team about certain states of the world or causal relationships each
party may assume a different starting point condition and so it is not surprising that an assumed end
point is inconsistent without any deep discussion and knowledge sharing about initial assumptions.
Walker et al.(2017) show that exposing ambiguity can help deliver more effective cost and time plans
because such emergent ambiguity becomes exposed, discussed and resolved to provide more accurate
estimations. Notwithstanding the potential for both heated and apparently confusing debate between
each projects participant review, a shared understanding did emerge that was considered reasonable
or at least to be dependably valid.

All ratings for each project were collated and entered onto a spread sheet (see Chapter 2 Appendix 1
for an example of the measures) at the end of day one. A radar map diagram was then produced in
readiness for the second day workshop session.

A consolidated graph of all 10 projects revealed a very useful global picture. All project results
illustrated in Figure 2.3 are not alike, even when they are all alliances. This conclusion and its
consequences are worthy of some further discussion. What is proposed here by these workshops is not
something that produces the truth, or a typical result. Rather it shows how the output serves as a
very useful vehicle for further reflections. It prompts a number of questions worthy of the effort to it
would take to attempt to answer.

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 9

Figure2.3BenchmarkResultsfrom10HypotheticalProjects.

One advantage of using the Collaboration Framework as illustrated in the above hypothetical
example, is that it highlights benchmarking deviations from the established norm. By undertaking
regular benchmarking exercises of this nature a picture of what the norm is for alliance participants
can be established and this pattern used to identify how individual framework elements deviate from
this normal pattern. Gap analysis can then be undertaken to investigate likely causes of deviations and
these lead to causal analysis (both for positive or negative deviations) providing a basis for a lessons-
learned data base as part of an organisational learning strategy.

Using the Collaboration Framework Visualisation Tool for Health Checks

Another way of using the Collaboration Framework is for undertaking a health check on a particular
project where a comparison is made of the as-is situation against the intended position.

The process to be followed is similar to the benchmarking hypothetical example. We explain how a
health check may be undertaken as follows. At the start of any project it should be possible for the
POR and NOPs participating in a collaborative form of IPD to establish the desired, feasible and
expected degree of collaboration against the 16 elements. The health check could follow the group
briefing and workshop format but with one representative from the POR, design NOP team and
delivery team NOP. However, the project owner may prefer several participants from each of the
NOP teams if the project delivery team comprises a consortium of several contractors and major sub-
contractors - building services for example, or if the design NOP team comprises several design
disciplines. The group would establish the baseline ratings for each of the 16 elements through a
process of discussion and negotiation to agree on a number, or rating, for each element. It would be
likely that scoring each of the 16 elements could take approximately 30 minutes and so a full day to
prepare a baseline could be expected. The output from that workshop would be a radar diagram of the
intended Collaboration Framework map together with a record of important discussion points that
clarify the rationale for the rated numbers and numerous reflections on perspectives that various
participants held about the agreed shape of the radar diagram and what that may imply for the
projects delivery.

Several similar element rating workshops could take place periodically through the project delivery
cycle to maintain collaborative performance tracking and mapping the as-is situation. The result of a
hypothetical health check exercise is illustrated in Figure 2.4.

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 10


Figure2.4HealthCheckResultsfromaHypotheticalProject.

Figure 2.4 indicates that there has been some slippage in collaboration ratings for most elements, but
at a small level, and with greater gaps for three of four elements. It is unlikely that the intended
would perfectly match the as-is situation. Even if the rating group comprise subject matter experts
who are thoroughly engaged and honest in their assessment of each element there is likely to be some
level of digression between initial perceptions of a project and then later experiencing the situation
actuality during its delivery. Some ground rules would be set for determining what constitutes a
significant gap. Perhaps that might be a half point or one point but the facilitator and group would
agree on that limit to ensure that the focus of the reflection is not on winning or losing ground but
on concentrating on producing results for understanding how the collaborative relationship dynamics
are actually playing out.

The second day of each health check workshop would focus on discussing cause and effect links
between one or more elements and/or gaps observed to reflect on how they might be linked and ways
in which any deficiency might be obviated, or on the desirability of any excess may or whether
perhaps it might be symptomatic of some emerging problem such as gold plating (Stingl & Geraldi,
2017). In a software development context Shmueli, Pliskin and Fink (2015, p380) describe gold
plating as occurring when a product or a service has been specified beyond the actual needs of the
customer or the market. The health check de-briefing conversation and group reflection provides
valuable organisational learning.

Using the Collaboration Framework Visualisation Tool for Designing Delivery Systems
Research undertaken into alliancing and reported upon by Walker (2016) revealed that in some cases
an alliance approach may be discarded due to policy influence, such as competitive tendering. This
may occur even though all involved project parties, including the POR, may wish to engage in a
collaborative approach on highly complex projects believing this to be the best available delivery
solution. On at least one case from this research, the POR noted that the aim for developing a delivery
approach was to arrive at a delivery mechanism that was a near to an alliance as possible but without
actually using an alliance agreement contract process. Various elements in the Collaboration
Framework could not be viably established at the alliance level. Designing a system in such cases to

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 11

closely resemble an alliance, but allowing some Collaboration Framework element characteristics to
fall short of an alliance norm, is deemed appropriate. The explanation of this attitude by participants
can be explained by institution theory. They know the governance constraints (no alliance) but they
understand that the alliance norms are what is best for highly complicated projects that they face.
They then use their cultural-cognitive abilities to interpret a compromise that is acceptable. There may
be other situations where IPD project participants may feel that they cannot gain sufficient
organisational support or access to capabilities to be able to engage in an alliance. This may also
require tweaking an alliance agreement form to match what can be reasonable expected. Section 3
Chapter 1 discusses cultural influences on collaboration in greater depth but in the context of this
application of the Collaboration Framework it should be acknowledged that in in certain cultures and
at certain stages of industry development (i.e. cultures exhibiting low power distance and low
uncertainty avoidance) project owners and IPD teams may find such approache appealing by
appearing to resist a challenge to the status quo of the institution. At times of economic stringency the
political dimension may well impose constraints: context is always a contingent factor.

In such cases it may be necessary to start with what would be desired and intended and then scale
elements back to reflect what is politically or organisationally possible. This is essentially a designing
an IPD form exercise as illustrated in Figure 2.5 for a hypothetical project example.

Figure2.5StrategicallyDesigningaHypotheticalProjectIPDForm.

The workshop group would first map out what they feel would be an optimum IPD delivery form as
the intended form, then undertake a conversation about what is reasonably possible given various
constrained that they face that they may feel cannot be practicably overcome. The Collaboration
Framework becomes useful in this case as a strategic tool for designing an IPD form that lies on a
continuum between an alliance and something less formally collaborative in nature.

Reflections on the Collaboration Framework Visualisation Tool

Taking an institutional perspective of the collaboration process using the Collaboration Framework
provides further rigour in critical thinking when benchmarking, strategising or reviewing project
performance. It highlights both the regulative elements in the framework and the interaction of
governance with norms and the cultural-cognitive sensemaking processes that take place that often
help explain gaps or deviations between intention and action. It also helps to make sense of how a

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 12

project identity may be shaped, how group dynamics may operate with a particular culture, and how
project participants use their cognitive assets to interpret regulative aspects given their perceptions of
what the project culture expects.

The costs of undertaking such analysis would be the actually incurred workshops and opportunity
costs of gathering together three key participants from each project for two days, as in the above
example, that would be 32 people for 2 days at the workshop plus a short evening session and the cost
of holding the workshop.

The benefit of holding such workshops could include:

General harmonisation of participants and organisations collaborative capabilities;

Opportunities for refining the element measure descriptors to meet the evolving needs of the
types of projects undertaken and changes in business and other environmental factors that
may influence what is seen as high or low for each element;
Opportunities for refining the identified elements. These elements were based on analysis of
interviews of around 50 subject matter experts from two studies (Walker, 2016; Walker &
Lloyd-Walker, 2015). Organising the use of this Collaboration Framework should consider
customising it to suit the needs of the user, because it was always meant to provide a starting
point and was not intended to be a rigid and unyielding system;
Opportunities for staff development, because the scope and depth of critical thinking and
discussion that the workshops require, would potentially stretch participants because their
main debating partners are other high level professional practitioners. This constitutes a high
level peer review process;
Opportunities to unearth, document and contextualise the lived experience of how the
projects are managed and developing closer working relationships between participants, thus
providing a platform for organisational learning; and
At a more prosaic level, the workshops could be viewed as helping to deliver best practice
as a management tool.

Of course there are other benefits and indeed costs beside those mentioned above. One point that
needs to be understood is that most costs and benefits are difficult to monetise and so tangible
outcomes such as costs and savings may be identified but intangible costs and benefits such as the
cost of confusion and dealing with ambiguity and the benefit of learning are somewhat ephemeral.

Chapter Summary
This section was intended to provide an overview of what IPD may look like in practice. We
introduced the institutional perspective as a way of helping to explain how strategy may be translated
into action within a collaborative project or programme context.

We discussed two frameworks that have been developed to better understand how IPD collaboration
may work and how the Collaboration Framework extends this understanding more fully. Chapter
Appendix1 provides detailed measures that are anchored from very low to very high enabling the 16
elements of the framework to be assessed against a particular project or programme of projects.

We also provided an illustration of how tools such as the Collaboration Framework could be applied
in practice. We have found during our research careers that people and organisations are generally
highly innovative when they feel they have a good idea to work with and can be very innovative in
how they adapt frameworks, models and constructs in light of their practice.

Figure 2.3 provides an illustration of a radar figure that visualises the benchmarking of ten alliance
projects. Figure 2.4 illustrated the use of this framework for undertaking a project collaborative
relationship health check for comparing an as intended versus an as-is assessment of a single
alliance that could trigger a valuable reflective conversation. Similarly Figure 2.5 illustrated how a
proposed project IPD approach may be strategically shaped and designed using the Collaboration
Framework to map what could be seen as politically or practically feasible for a project delivery

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 13

approach that may adopt some alliance features but not others to help facilitate greater collaboration
that would be the case for example, when using a partnering agreement.

The workshop idea of using the Collaboration Framework in this way promotes the development of
reflective practitioners (Ayas & Zeniuk, 2001; Raelin, 2007) and this has been argued as a critical
way in which innovative organisations enhance their dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2010; 2013). The
workshops, if well documented and thought through from a knowledge management perspective,
could deliver significant organisational learning

Chapter 2 Appendix 1

Collaboration Framework Element Collaboration Framework Element

Very low Rating = 1
Element 1: Motivation and context
Low levels would be related to a hostile environment
for collaboration. This may be due to lack of
conviction of project participants in the value of
collaboration within this projects context.
Element 2: Joint governance structure
Low levels would be related to a laissez faire approach
where each participating project team has established
its own individual stand-alone project governance
standards. Little coherence in alignment of the whole
project delivery organisational processes and structure
is evident with few explicit expectations about what
success looks like and how to define and measure it
Element 3: Integrated risk mitigation & insurance
Low levels would be characterised by an immature
and confused individual firm-specific risk
management approach and poorly defined systemic
approaches to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity
Element 4: Joint communication BIM etc.
Low levels of joint communication would be
characterised by poor quality staff interaction, use of
firm-specific rather than project-wide processes and
ICT systems, and weak cross team mechanisms for
gaining mutual understanding.
Element 5: Substantial co-location
Low levels would be characterised by firm-specific
policy determining that disparate teams are physically
located in dispersed locations. There may also be a
large visibility gap between project leaders and those
at the coal face.
Element 6: Authentic leadership
Low levels are revealed when espoused principled
values are not demonstrated in action manifested
through a gap between the rhetoric and reality of
leading teams.
Element 7: Trust-control balance
Low balance is demonstrated by extreme naivety by
participants about trusting others implicitly or
alternatively by exhibiting high levels of suspicion
and/or unreasonable demands for formal and informal
Very High Rating = 5
High levels would relate to the procurement choice
solution being driven by the acceptance of project
participants in the logic of a clear advantage being
gained by adopting a focus on a supportive and
collaborative approach to delivering benefits that align
with the values of participants.
High relates to an effectively structured, uniform,
integrated and consistent set of performance standards
that apply across and within the project delivery
teams. All participant organisations share a common
understanding of how to organise for success and what
constitutes valuable project output and outcome
success
High levels would be represented by consistent and
integrated risk assessment processes being identified,
assessed and mitigated against a project-wide and
broader systems-wide impact for the project or
network in the case of programmes of projects.
High levels would be characterised by well integrated
processes that are well understood by all participants
and advanced communication technologies being used
that seamlessly connect all project parties within a
particular procurement arrangement.
High levels would be characterised by a project-wide
policy that attempts to maximise participant co-
location, on-site where feasible including the POR.
There would also be high interaction between project
leadership groups and the PM and physical delivery
team members so that engagement enhances
communication and mutual perspective
High levels demonstrate consistency in espoused and
enacted values that are genuinely principled.
High balance is demonstrated by innate sensibility to
juggle transparency and accountability demands with
the need for trust with necessary due diligence. It also
demonstrates a professional understanding of the

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 14

control and monitoring that implies a cynical attitude
towards trust of others
Element 8: Commitment to innovate
Low commitment levels are manifested by inadequate
or incomplete linkage of motivation, ability and
facilitation for innovation within the context of the
procurement form.
Element 9: Common best-for-project mindset/culture
Low best-for-project mindset levels are manifested by
a higher level of priority for individual benefit
realisation at the potential expense of other project
team members and the PO
Element 10: No blame culture
Low no-blame culture is manifested by a project
participants high propensity to shift blame from
themselves to others. These problems may be
attributable to them for unforeseen, unanticipated or
unwanted events that impact adversely upon project
delivery. A low no-blame culture is also palpable by a
tendency to avoid acknowledging potential problem
situations in the hope that blame can be attributed to
others.
Element 11: Consensus decision making
Low consensus decision making is manifested by a
highly hierarchical project team leaders leadership
style where power and influence determines how
decisions are made and where the expected response is
that decisions are implemented without question or
complaint. It is also manifested by a tendency for a
domination of top-down directives being issued as
edicts.
Element 12: Focus on learning & continuous improvement
Low focus on learning and continuous improvement is High focus on learning and continuous improvement
manifested by actors within collaborative
arrangements and a network delivering a project being arrangements and a network delivering a project being
blind to, and failing to grasp, the potential competitive alert to and aware of opportunities for improvement,
advantage of applying presented learning
opportunities.
Element 13: Incentivisation
Low levels of incentivisation is manifested by little
emphasis being placed upon encouraging parties to
agree to place potential profit and gain/pain in a
risk/reward arrangement subject to a whole-of-project
outcome performance. KRAs and KPIs are absent or
rudimentary.
Element 14: Pragmatic learning-in-action
Low pragmatic learning-in-action is manifested by
Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 15
nature of project participant accountability constraints
and opportunities for resolving and possible helping
resolve
High commitment levels are manifested by vision,
objectives and desire to be innovative with well-
considered instruments to measure and demonstrate
innovation, motivation through rewards and incentives
and demonstrated high levels of existing absorptive
capacity for innovation.
High best-for-project mindset levels are manifested by
a genuine attitude that we all sink-or-swim together
and a focus on maximising value to the project (or
network in the case of a programme). Contractual
arrangements will reinforce pooled gain or pain based
on performance measured by KRAs and KPIs.
High no-blame culture is manifested by a culture of
open discussion of problems, unforeseen,
unanticipated or unwanted events that may impact
adversely upon project delivery. The purpose of a no-
blame culture is to achieve wider team participation in
collaboration and collective management of problems
and to take responsibility and accountability for
developing problem solutions. It is may also be
manifested by the PO taking ownership of risk
elements that other participants are unable to bear
rather than force them to accept accountability for
such risks.
High consensus decision making is manifested by a
low level of hierarchical project team leaders
leadership style where shared power and influence
based mainly on expertise determines how decisions
are made and where the expected response is that
decision proposals are expected to be rigorously tested
and debated. It is also manifested by a tendency for a
domination of respect for expertise and evidence based
opinion.
is manifested by actors within collaborative
and being successful in grasping competitive
advantage through effectively harvesting lessons
learned.
High levels of incentivisation are manifested by an
emphasis on encouraging parties to agree to place
potential profit and gain/pain in a risk/reward
arrangement that is subject to a whole-of-project
outcome performance. KRAs and KPIs are well
developed, provide stretch and challenge, and are
sophisticated in their understanding of the project
context
High pragmatic learning-in-action is manifested by

actors within a network delivering a project failing to
translate learning opportunities into actual benefits and
competitive action. Failed experiments are punished.
Element 15: Transparency & open-book
Low transparency and open book approaches to
project delivery intensely protect the security of
organisations and individuals to gain access to
information about cost structures or the basis of
project plans. It is often exemplified by the code
words commercial in confidence. It seeks to hide
both good and bad news but this often results in
mistrust that undermines collaboration and
opportunities for constructive change.
Element 16: Mutual dependence and accountability
Low mutual dependence and accountability refers to
an inability or lack of desire to acknowledge the
potential value of team inter-dependence and
accountability. Participants follow individualistic
paths, possibly at the expense of others, and/or do not
support a sink-or-swim-together workplace culture, or
they actively undermine that culture
actors within a network delivering a project which
capitalises on learning opportunities to achieve
competitive action. This can be also assessed by the
weight that these actors place on the value of
experimentation as a way to see issues and solutions in
a new light. Failed experiments are valued for their
intellectual stimulation in discovering for example, a
better understanding of cause-effect loops.
High transparency and open book approaches to
project delivery present opportunities for generating
trust by clients and other parties that may access that
information. It is a confronting notion that many
organisations cannot face. It requires the POs
authorised probity auditors to have free access to their
financial books. Thus, confidence in ethical and legal
business conduct is necessary to accept this challenge.
High mutual dependence and accountability refers to
an ability and keen desire to acknowledge team inter-
dependence and accountability in ways that build
inter-team trust and commitment through actively
enhancing a sink-or-swim together workplace culture
that actively counters any actions that may inhibit this
culture.

References
Ayas,K.,&Zeniuk,N.(2001).Projectbasedlearning:Buildingcommunitiesofreflective
practitioners.ManagementLearning,32(1),6177.
Azim,S.,Gale,A.,LawlorWright,T.,Kirkham,R.,Khan,A.,&Alam,M.(2010).Theimportanceofsoft
skillsincomplexprojects.InternationalJournalofManagingProjectsinBusiness,3(3),387
401.doi:10.1108/17538371011056048
Battilana,J.,&Daunno,T.(2009).Institutionalworkandtheparadoxofembeddedagency.InT.B.
Lawrence,R.Suddaby&B.Leca(Eds.),Institutionalwork:Actorsandagencyininstitutional
studiesoforganizations(pp.3158).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress

Borve,S.,Ahola,T.,Andersen,B.,&Aarseth,W.(2017).Partneringinoffshoredrillingprojects.
InternationalJournalofManagingProjectsinBusiness,10(1),84108.
Brady,T.,&Davies,A.(2014).ManagingStructuralandDynamicComplexity:ATaleofTwoProjects.
ProjectManagementJournal,45(4),2138.doi:10.1002/pmj.21434
Chen,L.,&Manley,K.(2014).Validationofaninstrumenttomeasuregovernanceandperformance
oncollaborativeinfrastructureprojects.JournalofConstructionEngineeringand
Management,140(5),04014006.
Crawford,L.,Morris,P.,Thomas,J.,&Winter,M.(2006).Practitionerdevelopment:Fromtrained
technicianstoreflectivepractitioners.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,24(8),
722733.
Davies,A.,Dodgson,M.,&Gann,D.(2016).DynamicCapabilitiesinComplexProjects:TheCaseof
LondonHeathrowTerminal5.ProjectManagementJournal,47(2),2646.doi:
10.1002/pmj.21574
Geraldi,J.,&Arlt,M.(2015).VisualsMatter!DesigningandUsingEffectiveVisualRepresentationsto
SupportProjectandPortfolioDecisions.NewtownSquare,PA:ProjectManagement
Institute.

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 16

Gil,N.,Miozzo,M.,&Massini,S.(2012).Theinnovationpotentialofnewinfrastructure
development:AnempiricalstudyofHeathrowairport'sT5project.ResearchPolicy,41(2),
452466.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.011
Gioia,D.A.,Patvardhan,S.D.,Hamilton,A.L.,&Corley,K.G.(2013).OrganizationalIdentity
FormationandChange.TheAcademyofManagementAnnals,7(1),123193.doi:
10.1080/19416520.2013.762225
Gioia,D.A.,Price,K.N.,Hamilton,A.L.,&Thomas,J.B.(2010).ForginganIdentity:AnInsider
outsiderStudyofProcessesInvolvedintheFormationofOrganizationalIdentity.
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,55(1),146.
Ibrahim,C.K.I.B.C.(2014).DevelopmentofanAssessmentToolforTeamIntegrationinAlliance
Projects.(PhD),TheUniversityofAuckland,Auckland,NewZealand.Retrievedfrom
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/22812
Mullaly,M.(2014).Theroleofagencyinprojectinitiationdecisions.InternationalJournalof
ManagingProjectsinBusiness,7(3),518535.doi:doi:10.1108/IJMPB0920130043
Mullaly,M.(2015).ExercisingAgencyDecisionMakingandProjectInitiation.Farnham,Surrey,UK:
GowerPublishing.
Muzio,E.,Fisher,D.J.,Thomas,R.,&Peters,V.(2007).SOFTSKILLSQUANTIFICATION(SSQ)FOR
PROJECTMANAGERCOMPETENCIES.ProjectManagementJournal,38(2),3038.
Oxford.(2011).TheConciseOxfordDictionaryOxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
Pellerin,C.J.(2009).HowNASABuildsTeamsMissionCriticalSoftSkillsforScientists,Engineersand
ProjectTeams.Hoboken,NJUSA:JohnWiley&Sons.
Pich,M.T.,Loch,C.H.,&Meyer,A.D.(2002).OnUncertainty,Ambiguity,andComplexityinProject
ManagementManagementScience,48(8),10081023.doi:doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1008.163
Raelin,J.A.(2007).TowardanEpistemologyofPractice.AcademyofManagementLearning&
Education,6(4),495519.
Ross,J.(2003,30April2003).Introductiontoprojectalliancing.PaperpresentedattheAlliance
ContractingConference,Sydney.
Scott,W.R.(1987).Organizations:rational,natural,andopensystems(2nded.ed.).Englewood
Cliffs,N.J:PrenticeHall.
Scott,W.R.(2001).Institutionsandorganizations(2nded.ed.).ThousandOaks,Calif.;London:
Sage.
Scott,W.R.(2014).Institutionsandorganizations(4thed.ed.).ThousandOaks,Calif.;London:Sage.
Shmueli,O.,Pliskin,N.,&Fink,L.(2015).Explainingoverrequirementinsoftwaredevelopment
projects:Anexperimentalinvestigationofbehavioraleffects.InternationalJournalofProject
Management,33(2),380394.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.003
Stevenson,D.H.,&Starkweather,J.A.(2010).PMcriticalcompetencyindex:ITexecsprefersoft
skills.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,28(7),663671.
Stingl,V.,&Geraldi,J.(2017).Errors,liesandmisunderstandings:Systematicreviewonbehavioural
decisionmakinginprojects.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,35(2),121135.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.009
Teece,D.J.(2010).BusinessModels,BusinessStrategyandInnovation.LongRangePlanning,43,
172194.
Teece,D.J.(2013).Competingthroughinnovation:technologystrategyandantitrustpolicies.
Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgar.
Walker,D.H.T.(2016).UnderstandingtheAllianceTargetOutturnCostProcessanditsImplications
(pp.77pp).Melbourne,Australia:CentreforIntegratedProjectSolutions,Schoolof
Property,ConstructionandProjectManagement,RMITUniversity.
Walker,D.H.T.,Davis,P.R.,&Stevenson,A.(2017).Copingwithuncertaintyandambiguitythrough
teamcollaborationininfrastructureprojects.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,
35(2),180190.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.001

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 17

Walker,D.H.T.,&Harley,J.(2014).ProgramAlliancesinLargeAustralianPublicSector
InfrastructureProjects(pp.86).Melbourne,Australia:CentreforIntegratedProject
Solutions,RMITUniversity.
Walker,D.H.T.,&LloydWalker,B.M.(2013,July911).MakingSenseOfCollaborativeFormsOf
RelationshipBasedConstructionProcurement.PaperpresentedattheEngineeringProject
OrganizationConference,DevilsThumbRanch,ColoradoJuly911,2013.
Walker,D.H.T.,&LloydWalker,B.M.(2014).TheambienceofaprojectallianceinAustralia.
EngineeringProjectOrganizationJournal,4(1),216.doi:10.1080/21573727.2013.836102
Walker,D.H.T.,&LloydWalker,B.M.(2015).CollaborativeProjectProcurementArrangements.
NewtownSquare,PA:ProjectManagementInstitute.
Walker,D.H.T.,&LloydWalker,B.M.(2016).UnderstandingCollaborationinIntegratedFormsof
ProjectDeliverybyTakingaRiskUncertaintyBasedPerspective.AdministrativeSciences,
6(3),17pp.doi:10.3390/admsci6030010
Walker,D.H.T.,&Rahmani,F.(2016).DeliveringaWaterTreatmentPlantProjectusinga
CollaborativeProjectProcurementApproach.ConstructionInnovation,16(2),158184.doi:
10.1108/CI0320150015

Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 18