Re-thinking stakeholder management in construction: theory & research

From its roots in strategic management theory, stakeholder management has been adopted by the construction management academic community and applied as a valid paradigm around which research work has been generated aiming to improve project effi ciencies and effectiveness. However, academics have argued that stakeholder management should move away from purely theoretical discussions and engage more with the realities of construction project work. This paper re-appraises the stakeholder management concept for the construction domain by re-thinking some of the fundamental principles and ideals present within the more general stakeholder theory literature. It engages with issues which researchers have arguably failed to acknowledge and calls for a re-evaluation of construction stakeholder management research by presenting a review around four distinctive themes: the moral obligations of engaging with stakeholders against the business and efficiency driven imperatives of construction organisations; the contrast between theoretical abstractions and empirically grounded research; the tensions between theoretical convergence versus calls for multiple and divergent perspectives on stakeholder management and the practicalities of conducting stakeholder management in the construction domain. Such a critical re-appraisal of stakeholder management thinking both generates new lines of enquiry and promises to help inform and shape current and future industry practice.

Contemporary organizational theory in the management of construction projects

The level of insolvencies in the construction industry is high, when compared to other industry sectors. Given the management expertise and experience that is available to the construction industry, it seems strange that, according to the literature, the major causes of failure are lack of financial control and poor management. This indicates that with a good cash flow management, companies could be kept operating and financially healthy. It is possible to prevent failure. Although there are financial models that can be used to predict failure, they are based on company accounts, which have been shown to be an unreliable source of data. There are models available for cash flow management and forecasting and these could be used as a starting point for managers in rethinking their cash flow management practices. The research reported here has reached the stage of formulating researchable questions for an in-depth study including issues such as how contractors manage their cash flow, how payment practices can be managed without damaging others in the supply chain and the relationships between companies" financial structures and the payment regimes to which they are subjected.

Understanding construction consortia: Theory, practice and opinions

Firms form consortia in order to win contracts. Once a project has been awarded to a consortium each member then concentrates on his or her own contract with the client. Therefore, consortia are marketing devices, which present the impression of teamworking, but the production process is just as fragmented as under conventional procurement methods. In this way, the consortium forms a barrier between the client and the actual construction production process. Firms form consortia, not as a simple development of normal ways of working, but because the circumstances for specific projects make it a necessary vehicle. These circumstances include projects that are too large or too complex to undertake alone or projects that require on-going services which cannot be provided by the individual firms inhouse. It is not a preferred way of working, because participants carry extra risk in the form of liability for the actions of their partners in the consortium. The behaviour of members of consortia is determined by their relative power, based on several factors, including financial commitment and ease of replacement. The level of supply chain visibility to the public sector client and to the industry is reduced by the existence of a consortium because the consortium forms an additional obstacle between the client and the firms undertaking the actual construction work. Supply chain visibility matters to the client who otherwise loses control over the process of construction or service provision, while remaining accountable for cost overruns. To overcome this separation there is a convincing argument in favour of adopting the approach put forward in the Project Partnering Contract 2000 (PPC2000) Agreement. Members of consortia do not necessarily go on to work in the same consortia again because members need to respond flexibly to opportunities as and when they arise. Decision-making processes within consortia tend to be on an ad hoc basis. Construction risk is taken by the contractor and the construction supply chain but the reputational risk is carried by all the firms associated with a consortium. There is a wide variation in the manner that consortia are formed, determined by the individual circumstances of each project; its requirements, size and complexity, and the attitude of individual project leaders. However, there are a number of close working relationships based on generic models of consortia-like arrangements for the purpose of building production, such as the Housing Corporation Guidance Notes and the PPC2000.

Implementing innovation in construction: Contexts, relative boundedness and actor-network theory

Theoretical understanding of the implementation and use of innovations within construction contexts is discussed and developed. It is argued that both the rhetoric of the 'improvement agenda' within construction and theories of innovation fail to account for the complex contexts and disparate perspectives which characterize construction work. To address this, the concept of relative boundedness is offered. Relatively unbounded innovation is characterized by a lack of a coherent central driving force or mediator with the ability to reconcile potential conflicts and overcome resistance to implementation. This is a situation not exclusive to, but certainly indicative of, much construction project work. Drawing on empirical material from the implementation of new design and coordination technologies on a large construction project, the concept is developed, concentrating on the negotiations and translations implementation mobilized. An actor-network theory (ANT) approach is adopted, which emphasizes the roles that both human actors and non-human agents play in the performance and outcomes of these interactions. Three aspects of how relative boundedness is constituted and affected are described; through the robustness of existing practices and expectations, through the delegation of interests on to technological artefacts and through the mobilization of actors and artefacts to constrain and limit the scope of negotiations over new technology implementation.

Construction management strategies : a theory of construction management

The construction industry has become a truly global network of interconnected stakeholders making demands which require the involvement of skilled workforces from all over the world. Construction Management Strategies sets the foundations for understanding and managing construction’s inherent complexity and uniqueness. It establishes clear definitions of commonly accepted terms like built environment, construction, civil engineering, etc. which are often given confusing and conflicting interpretations. It cuts through the plethora of overlapping role titles currently used in the construction sector that make it difficult to establish how projects are actually managed.

Putting theory to work: the use of theory in construction research

Attention to epistemology, theory use and citation practices are all issues which distinguish academic disciplines from other ways of knowing. Examples from construction research are used to outline and reflect on these issues. In doing so, the discussion provides an introduction to some key issues in social research as well as a reflection on the current state of construction research as a field. More specifically, differences between positivist and interpretivist epistemologies, the role of theory in each and their use by construction researchers are discussed. Philosophical differences are illustrated by appeal to two published construction research articles by Reichstein et al. and Harty on innovation (Reichstein, Salter and Gann, 2005; Harty, 2008). An analysis of citations for each highlights different cumulativity strategies. The potential contribution of mixed research programmes, combining positivist and interpretivist research, is evaluated. The paper should be of interest to early researchers and to scholars concerned with the ongoing development of construction research as an academic field.

Construction management research: a field of application

Research in construction management is diverse in content and in quality. There is much to be learned from more fundamental disciplines. Construction is a sub-set of human experience rather than a completely separate phenomenon. Therefore, it is likely that there are few problems in construction requiring the invention of a completely new theory. If construction researchers base their work only on that of other construction researchers, our academic community will become less relevant to the world at large. The theories that we develop or test must be of wider applicability to be of any real interest. In undertaking research, researchers learn a lot about themselves. Perhaps the only difference between research and education is that if we are learning about something which no-one else knows, then it is research, otherwise it is education. Self-awareness of this will help to reduce the chances of publishing work which only reveals a researcher’s own learning curve. Scientific method is not as simplistic as non-scientists claim and is the only real way of overcoming methodological weaknesses in our work. The reporting of research may convey the false impression that it is undertaken in the sequence in which it is written. Construction is not so unique and special as to require a completely different set of methods from other fields of enquiry. Until our research is reported in mainstream journals and conferences, there is little chance that we will influence the wider academic community and a concomitant danger that it will become irrelevant. The most useful insights will come from research which challenges the current orthodoxy rather than research which merely reports it.

Reactive crisis management in construction projects

Patterns of communication and behaviour emerge within a construction project in response to a construction crisis. This paper investigates, within a grounded theory framework, the nature of these patterns, the sociological and psychological forces which shape them and their relationship with crisis management efficiency. A grounded theory is presented in four parts. The first part conceives a construction crisis as a period of social instability, arising from conflicting interest groups, seeking to exercise power in the pursuit of social structures which suit their political and economic interests. The second part sees a construction crisis as a de-sensitizing phenomenon which results in a period of behavioural instability and conflict which is self-perpetuating. The third part cites social structure as an important influence upon construction crisis management efficiency, in determining the efficiency of information flow, and the level of uncertainty between those affected. The fourth part points to the in-built defence mechanisms which construction crises have and to three managerial ironies which make construction crisis management difficult.

Construction research: a field of application

Research in construction management is diverse in content and in quality. There is much to be learned from more fundamental disciplines. Construction is a sub-set of human experience rather than a completely separate phenomenon. Therefore, it is likely that there are few problems in construction requiring the invention of a completely new theory. If construction researchers base their work only on that of other construction researchers, our academic community will become less relevant to the world at large. The theories that we develop or test must be of wider applicability to be of any real interest. In undertaking research, researchers learn a lot about themselves. Perhaps the only difference between research and education is that if we are learning about something which no-one else knows, then it is research, otherwise it is education. Self-awareness of this will help to reduce the chances of publishing work which only reveals a researcher’s own learning curve. Scientific method is not as simplistic as non-scientists claim and is the only real way of overcoming methodological weaknesses in our work. The reporting of research may convey the false impression that it is undertaken in the sequence in which it is written. Construction is not so unique and special as to require a completely different set of methods from other fields of enquiry. Until our research is reported in mainstream journals and conferences, there is little chance that we will influence the wider academic community and a concomitant danger that it will become irrelevant. The most useful insights will come from research which challenges the current orthodoxy rather than research which merely reports it.