Author
Listed:
- Bryan W. Franz
- Joseph Olopade
Abstract
Integration within project delivery teams can improve project outcomes in the building construction industry. However, integration across multiple firms and disciplines can be more challenging to manage, when compared to functionally organized, or siloed, teams. Given that resources to manage integration are limited and that most teams are only partially integrated in practice, this research seeks to explore pathways for their success. Using data collected from ten completed projects in the U.S., a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis was performed to identify which combinations of six dimensions of integration were sufficient for improved project performance. The analysis revealed six distinct and highly consistent pathways to success, as evaluated by the criteria of being on-budget, on-time, or achieving the planned sustainable certification. Across all pathways, having a single team focus and equitable team relationships were the only dimensions consistently found in pathways leading to desirable project outcomes. Other dimensions, such as co-location, seamless operation across organizational boundaries, and a no-blame culture were found in pathways to both desirable and undesirable project outcomes, depending on their combination with other dimensions. These results contribute to theories on implementing team integration, suggesting that fully integrated teams are not always necessary for success. Instead, integrated teams that can work collaboratively, while still maintaining organizational separation or autonomy, can be as effective. While the study does not enable the identification of all possible pathways to success, it provides guidance to practitioners by highlighting a small subset of pathways, giving greater flexibility in managing integration within their teams.
Suggested Citation
Bryan W. Franz & Joseph Olopade, 2024.
"Exploring pathways to project success through project delivery team integration: a qualitative comparative analysis,"
Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(6), pages 564-581, June.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:42:y:2024:i:6:p:564-581
DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2023.2289040
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:42:y:2024:i:6:p:564-581. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.