Alliance employees reported that the alliance was innovative and recognized teamwork as contributing to the alliance's success at the start of the project. In contrast, the most common theme discussed by the board and senior managers was that a lot of effort was put into the early stages of the project to ensure that the alliance partners had an equal say. Another theme focused on the client's desire for more information about connections before starting a project.
As a result of including the Site Z project in the alliance process, customer perceptions of the alliance were negatively affected. The existence of multiple alliance partners also contributed to additional issues in the later stages of the project.
The Research Team
Methodology
The Proposed Research Model
Due to the nature of the project and the difficulties in obtaining production results at this time, this research model uses three of these performance measures, social measures, individual outcomes and innovation. Performance drivers or “process” factors include indicators of how the project team interacts, team norms, and the structure of team communication and networking. That is, the interviewees provided an assessment of the extent to which the alliance project met certain performance objectives identified in Phase 1 of the survey.
Extending the Research Model Strategic Alignment and Performance
The performance indicators include measurements that reflect whether the project team has achieved financial objectives such as operating within budget, social outcomes such as maintaining the health and well-being of staff, and meeting community needs. The issue of developing alliances is of particular importance in the Australian construction industry where there is a need for the use of alliances given the size and complexity of the projects typically undertaken. The primary goal of developing an alliance in the construction industry is to achieve win-win outcomes for a broader range of project stakeholders than is traditionally the case (Department of Industry Science Resources, 1999, cited in Walker & Keniger, 2002; p .307). ).
The stakeholders of the project include not only the organizations and their employees involved in the alliance, but also the end users or operators of the results of the alliance project, the community and the government. One of the areas for development identified by the Australian Building and Construction Industries Action Agenda (1999) includes increasing the use and support for networking and alliances (cited in Walker & Keniger, 2002; p.308). Saad and Hancher (1998) suggest that alliances are an effective tool to navigate the project management process from the planning, design, procurement, construction and commissioning phases as it can be involved in each of the five phases.
Instead of using traditional design processes where the selection of a contractor is based on price, alliance contracting requires high quality and flexible specialists to work with client representatives, the design team and the construction team to complete the project design. Alliances represent a significant conceptual leap in managing high-risk projects compared to traditional project delivery methods used in the construction industry. The end result of developing an alliance is a team made up of employees from several different companies with different cultures, different backgrounds and disciplines, different management styles, different systems and processes, and different ideas.
As a result, alliance contracting requires not only a high level of individual flexibility in coping with these differences and changes, but also a high level of group flexibility in seeking new and innovative solutions to problems that cannot be addressed by traditional approaches. or with a single pair. .
Overview of the findings from Stage 1 of the Research Project Stage 1 Findings in relation to strategic alignment
In particular, each aspect of the project, including design and construction, requires alliance members to be flexible enough to adapt to the needs of each discipline and flexible to innovate within the proposed budget. In Phase 1 of the project, an investigation into the strategic fit between the client and the alliance contracting mechanism showed a relatively good fit. The objective of Phase 2 of the project was to assess the extent to which alliance team members and key stakeholders believed these criteria were met later in the project life cycle.
Furthermore, an important contribution of the Phase 2 research is that a wider range of stakeholder views was collected than in Phase 1. In the back end of most construction projects, there are many factors that put pressure on project performance, including a declining team. identification due to the transfer of contract employees to other projects; reducing capacity to accommodate changes in project completion dates due to staff reductions; less commitment to standards of excellence due to reduced opportunities for training and development in the later stages of the project; and reduced innovation and flexibility of personnel due to reduction in the number of employees and termination of contracts. One of the biggest challenges at the end of construction projects is transferring employees to new projects elsewhere.
As staff leave there is not only a loss of knowledge, but also a reduction in reinforcement of the values that defined the team's culture. A risk is that staff focus on fulfilling their own duties before the end of their contracts and the desired emphasis on flexibility and team communication becomes less important. It is at this time that serious threats to the philosophy of the alliance may emerge and undermine the success of the project.
The primary objective of the Phase 2 component of the project was to identify those factors or processes that maintain or reduce the continued performance of the alliance project.
Overview
Key Result Areas (KRAs) in the BWEA Project
Stakeholders and Community
Overview
As detailed previously, Brisbane Water (BW) required an alliance contracting approach to be taken when calling for tenders to complete the three upgrades to water treatment plants. This approach was advocated by BW in order to create mutually beneficial relationships between all parties involved in order to deliver outstanding project outcomes ("Requests for Proposals from Prospective Alliance Partners". In terms of an alliance, all parties to the alliance take collective ownership of all risks. associated with the delivery of the project, with fair sharing (in fixed pre-agreed ratios) of the "pain or gain" arising from a project, depending on how the outcomes compare to pre-agreed targets.
Given the size of the project and the environmental requirements of the project, an important aspect of the project that the alliance partners had to manage was risk. In general, alliances have risk-reward ratios designed so that exceptional performance will yield excellent returns for all. It should be emphasized that well-understood projects such as residential housing rarely require an alliance because they are easy to plan and execute.
From what we understood and learned from the project, flexibility and innovation become critical to the success of alliance contracts, as there is a need to capitalize on the strengths of the individual alliance partners regarding project challenges.
Selection of Alliance Project Team
On the other hand, innovative or unique public works, especially those involving large capital expenditures, require an entirely different approach to planning and execution. After the selection of the organizations that will participate in the alliance and extensive discussion with the alliance partners, a Project Alliance Agreement (PAA) was signed.
Structure of the Alliance Team
Interview Approach
Affirmation of previous findings
- Project as an alliance
- Progress
- Stakeholder perceptions
- Recommendations for the future
- Site Z Contract – Special Case investigation
- Discussion regarding the Site Z project
The comments suggesting a very high level of commitment to innovation and risk management were central to the implementation of the project. Contains comments that suggested that any construction project requires an ultimate commitment to the designs and processes decided upon in the earlier phases of the project. 1 Significant efforts in the early stages of the project have ensured that alliance partners generally have the same understanding of alliances.
3 Significant effort is required at each stage of the project to ensure consensus is achieved. 4 Site Z is an example of how the process failed in the later phases of the project. 7 How to maintain the 'relationship' in later phases of the project is an interesting challenge.
1 Considerable effort in the early stages of the project ensured that generally the same understanding of alliances. 2 Considerable effort was required at each stage of the project to ensure consensus. 2 A lot of effort in the early stages of the project ensured that generally the same understanding of alliances.
6 Location Z is an example of how the process failed in the later stages of the project. (-) Note: (+) positive theme, (-) negative theme. 3 Significant effort in the early stages of the project has ensured that there is generally a similar understanding of alliances. 4 There has been a loss of momentum and 'relationship' in the later stages of the project.
Discussion
Another major theme was that people are an essential component of alliances and that people need to get the right approach to ensure the success of an alliance approach. Other topics also focused on the necessary ingredients for a successful alliance, including creating and maintaining commitment to alliance processes, ongoing stakeholder education, and careful selection of people to fill all alliance positions. The most frequently mentioned theme of this group was the desire for more transparency from the alliance team about the practices that were carried out and why.
In summary, the analysis and review of the interview data collected in Stage 2 suggests the following points. The very strong focus on developing a culture of alliance that was observed in Stage 1 was maintained (to a large extent) in the later stages of the project. Specifically, construction projects have a limited lifespan with some clear stages (eg, scoping, initiation, design, construction, and handover), while the alliance contracting process itself seeks.
When project staff are moved back to their parent organizations at the end of the project, it becomes difficult to support the development of new proposals. When project staff have moved on to other projects, the morale and enthusiasm of the remaining alliance members becomes an issue, as does how to maintain that energy. When project employees have moved on to other projects, how can the experience and learning from the alliance project be carried on to other projects and should it be.
How can the alliance partners establish a process to veto future proposals without damaging the alliance partnership?
