pm2

PA

PE

RS

Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 8496

2015 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21478

84 February/March 2015 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

ABSTRACT

Implementing any innovation successfully

is a challenge. In addition to commonly

reported climate and values-fit constructs,

this study proposes that communication

behaviors (i.e., monitoring, challenging,

managing, and negotiating) are also vital for

innovation implementation. Via an in-depth

literature review, the study first defines these

metrics. Second, a content analysis of an

integrated project delivery (IPD) case study

report enables the study to explore if these

communication behaviors exist in inter-

organizational architecture, engineering, and

construction (AEC) project teams. Results

provide four key communication metrics for

innovation implementation, supported by

evidence and examples that illustrate these

metrics in AEC teams implementing IPD as

an innovation.

KEYWORDS: Innovation; project teams;

integrated project delivery; communica-

tion; organizations

Communication Behaviors to Implement Innovations: How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?Weida (Aaron) Sun, Former Graduate Assistant, Construction Management Program, School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USASinem Mollaoglu, Associate Professor, Construction Management Program, School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Michigan State University, EastLansing, MI, USAVernon Miller, Associate Professor, Department of Communication and Department of Management, Michigan StateUniversity, East Lansing, MI, USABrian Manata, PhD Candidate, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

INTRODUCTION

Innovation broadly refers to ideas, processes, or products perceived to be new by individuals or organizations (Rogers, 1995; Slaughter, 1998); it is significant in the technology, organization, and economic development of many industries. Process-type innovations are particularly valuable

for organizations in that they enhance existing workflow practices (Vakola & Rezgui, 2000) and also lead to novel and breakthrough products. In a world of rapid commoditization and fierce international competition, innovation is a critical sustainable source of growth, competitive advantage, and new wealth that can keep an organization vibrant (Harris, 2003).

Innovations have long been needed in the AEC industry, especially to overcome problems arising from the adversarial nature of traditional con-tracting (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011) and to improve project performance via team collaboration (Chinowsky, Diekmann, & Gallotti, 2008; Korkmaz, Riley, & Horman, 2010; Pocock, Liu, & Tang, 1997; Swarup, 2010). Every participant of a construction team contributes to a project with different skills; therefore, it is essential to motivate them to adapt, integrate, learn, and accept innova-tive ideas (Chinowsky & Taylor, 2007). Technology innovations such as build-ing information modeling (BIM) improve team collaboration by providing advanced tools (Azhar, Nadeem, Mok, & Leung, 2008). Organizational and contractual innovations can also foster team collaboration by diminishing social obstacles such as cultural boundaries (Davis & Songer, 2009). Bossink (2004) pointed out four drivers of innovation in the construction industry: environmental pressure, technological capability, knowledge exchange, and boundary spanning. Of those, boundary spanning in particular represents the need for innovation to bridge the gap between organizations in project teams and improve collaboration. Recently developed integrated project delivery (IPD) aims to respond to this need for effective collaboration.

The IPD concept, presented by Metthews and Howell (2005) as a construc-tion project contractual structure, promotes risk and profit sharing among project participants to resolve systemic problems of traditional contractual approach. The American Institute of Architects (AIA and AIA California Council, 2007) defines IPD as a project delivery approach that integrates peo-ple, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collabora-tively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project

February/March 2015 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 85

resolve conflicts, and use of daily hud-dles. Building upon this work, Garcia, Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, and Miller (2014) point out that communication mecha-nisms relating to conflict management and information-flow monitoring play an important role in IPD implementa-tion as an innovation.

Recent AEC literature also high-lights the importance of communica-tion mechanisms among team members for effective innovation adoption and implementation (Adler, 1995; Lewis, 2007; Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001), suggesting that the explication of communication behaviors associated with inter-organizational team imple-mentation should be a high priority.

With this motivation, this article aims to further elaborate on the com-munication constructs that play roles in innovation implementation. More spe-cifically, first, the paper aims to identify and define communication behaviors of inter-organizational teams that influ-ence innovation implementation. An in-depth literature review is key to this aim. Second, the article verifies the manifestation of those communica-tion behaviors on IPD implementation in the AEC industry. A content analy-sis of successful IPD cases assists this study in search for evidence to further explore and define the communication behaviors, namely, monitoring, manag-ing, challenging, and negotiating, for innovation implementation. The results provide a foundation for the revisions to the well accepted Klein and Sorra (1996) model in the context of inter-organizational project teams.

MethodsTo achieve its aims, the study first conducted an extended review of communication, organization, and construction management literature related to innovation implementation based on approximately 30 journal arti-cles and book sections. The research-ers used academic indexes, including Google Scholar, ProQuest, and EBSCO Host to find the relevant literature in

values-fit within organizations and proj-ect teams is associated with levels of individuals commitments to the inno-vation; (3) Implementation effectiveness emphasizes team members behaviors toward the innovation and excludes the appropriateness of the innovation for a certain problem in an organization; and (4) Innovation effectiveness underlines the improvements achieved in an orga-nization through the adopted innovation (Klein & Sorra, 1996).

Using Klein and Sorras innovation implementation model (1996), focusing on IPD by contract as an innovation in the AEC industry, Korkmaz, Miller, and Sun (2014) studied a longitudinal eth-nographic AEC case study of a failed IPD implementation. The study defined the metrics of the original model in the con-text of AEC project teams in detail. The study also reported on weak climate and neutral-to-negative innovation-values fit among team member organizations in the case study and supported the use of Klein and Sorras model (1996) in examining innovation implementation in inter-organizational project teams. Additional insights in this article showed that team communication mechanisms might have also contributed to inno-vation implementation failure. More specifically, findings revealed that the following factors all contributed to the impediment of IPD implementation in this case study: (1) the ambiguous role assignment of the project steward who was responsible for coordinating team communication; (2) inactive perfor-mance of general contractor in email and kick-off meeting communications; and (3) owner trespassing communi-cation boundaries across organizations without informing other key parties.

Via a case study of successful IPD implementation, Nofera, Korkmaz, and Miller (2011) point out that active team communication (i.e., promoted by a series of tools and strategies) can fos-ter this innovations implementation. Successful communication practices included an active project steward to orchestrate information exchange and

results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and construction. This definition high-lights the core value that IPD brings to the AEC industryteam integration. A briefer definition found on the AIA web-site identifies IPD as a project delivery method distinguished by a contractual agreement between a minimum of the owner, constructor and design profes-sional that aligns business interests of all parties (AIA, n.d.). This definition emphasizes the multi-party contract as a unique feature of IPD. Although project teams can still benefit from implement-ing IPD features without a multi-party agreement (i.e., usually called IPDish in the industry), the use of a multi-party contract reduces the risk of major dis-putes. This study focuses on IPD proj-ects with multi-party contracts and their implementation in the AEC industry as an innovation.

Although IPD can significantly ben-efit the way construction projects are delivered in the AEC industry (AIA & AIA California Council, 2007), it is chal-lenging to implement this innovation successfully to achieve all its benefits (Klein & Knight, 2005). Therefore, it is important to investigate the factors influencing effective innovation imple-mentation of IPD by contract as an innovation so that: (1) AEC project teams can harness the benefits of IPD starting from its earliest use; and (2) fur-ther insights to innovation implementa-tion phenomenon are gained within inter-organizational project teams.

Point of DepartureKlein and Sorra (1996) posit that an organizations climate to implement an innovation and the level of fit with the organizations values influence the imple-mentation effectiveness and further affect innovation effectiveness (Figure1): (1) A good climate for an innovation can be created by improving members skill lev-els, offering incentives to adopt the inno-vation, and providing easy access to the innovative approaches; (2) Innovation

How Do AEC Teams Communicate in IPD Projects?


PA

PE

RS

In-Depth Review of Key Concepts

Integrated Project Delivery, BIM, and Lean Practices

IPD by contract, as an innovation, ties major project party interests contractu-ally to project success, enhances col-laboration across project teams, and optimizes project performance (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011). The drivers for IPD adoption in the construction industry (Sive, 2009) are: (1) market demands of predictable project outcomes relying on reliable delivery practices; (2) indus-try desires of effective coordination; (3) technology drivers that improve information sharing (e.g., BIM); (4) sus-tainability features demanding inter-disciplinary collaboration; and (5) collaborative working culture as a rising trend. In theory, the collaborative pro-cess via IPD can increase construction productivity, facilitate project teams to achieve higher goals of environmental sustainability, and bring benefits to all major project participants (AIA & AIA California Council, 2007). As an innova-tive delivery method embracing team integration, IPD performs efficiently along with lean construction methods and BIM to synergize project perfor-mance and optimize the interests of all project participants.

BIM is a powerful tool to speed project information flow and provide visual models, which enhance the col-laboration among project participants and make the early involvement of major contractors more efficient in IPD (AIA & AIA California Council, 2007). Reversely, the high level of team col-laboration in IPD project makes BIM implementation easier and more effec-tive (AIA & AIA California Council, 2007) by resolving boundary-transcending issues, such as software interoperabil-ity and document ownership (Ashcraft, 2011). Recently, Alin, Maunula, Taylor, and Smeds (2013) reported via a BIM-focused case study that alignments of task sequence, knowledge-base, and work allocation are important inter-firm

remaining nine IPD cases are located in nine cities in seven states across the United States. The project sizes range from 7,000 square feet to 860,000 square feet. The cases also cover different building typesincluding healthcare facilities and office buildingswithin the scope of new construction, building extension, and interior renovation.

The researchers used ATLAS.ti (2012)qualitative data-analysis soft-wareto code the data in the IPD Case Studies (AIA et al., 2012) report. This software allows users to extract quotes from the report and analyze qualitative data with a self-developed multi-level metrics coding system. This process contributed to the research rigor and reliability. During the coding process, the primary researcher:

1. Created a familya data groupto save content analysis data in ATLAS.ti

2. Established a coding system consist-ing of the communication metrics/behaviors key to innovation imple-mentation (i.e., monitoring, manag-ing, challenging, and negotiating), developed via the in-depth literature review;

3. Selected related sentences/quota-tions from the case study report and matched them with the developed metrics; and

4. Categorized them according to the appropriate levels/scale anchors (i.e., positive, neutral, negative). Table 1 presents an example to demonstrate how quotations in the content analy-sis were coded and matched to one of the communication metrics/behav-iors. The quotations categorized under the positive scale anchor of each metric indicate the strategies that contributed to successful IPD implementation.

5. Interpreted outcomes to generate findings related to Klein and Sorras innovation implementation model (1996) and communication behaviors identified in the literature review in the context of IPD implementation in AEC industry.

main stream journals such as Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-agement, Engineering Project Organiza-tion Journal, Journal of Management in Engineering, Journal of Applied Commu-nication, Journal of Management, and Project Management Journal. Through the literature review, the researchers aim to explore the four communica-tion metrics by identifying the elements existing under each metric that explic-itly illustrate its features, and further investigate how those behaviors foster innovation implementation.

Second, the study presents con-structs and metrics pertinent to the revised Klein and Sorra (1996) model as applied to AEC teams via a content analysis. Archival analysis is an effective approach to answer the what ques-tions in research (Yin, 2003). Content analysis as a way to examine archival data has long been used in organiza-tional studies and construction manage-ment research (Jordan & Javernick-Will, 2012; Yu, Shen, Kelly, & Hunter, 2006; Gransberg & Molenaar, 2004).

Content analysis for this study was conducted using the American Insti-tute of Architects (AIA)s case studies report (AIA, AIA Minnesota, & School of Architecture University of Minne-sota, 2012), which includes 12 IPD case study projects with varying project sizes and locations across the United States. This reported was developed collec-tively by AIA, AIA Minnesota, and the University of Minnesota. In search for a fitting documentation of IPD cases for this study, the researchers looked for detailed and authoritative studies from industry or academic organizations. Among the three recent case-study reports identified in the literature, IPD Case Studies (AIA et al., 2012) was the most recent (i.e., published in March, 2012) and comprehensive one. For the content analysis, this study focused on cases within the selected report that contractually followed IPD as an inno-vation. Due to the lack of a relational contract, three case studies in the report were eliminated from our analysis. The


agents, who have to tailor messages they send to each stakeholder to ensure their effectiveness. Lewis, et al. (2001) argue that to achieve the buy-in of stakeholders in innovation implemen-tation, consensus among the parties of inter-organizational project teams is needed and can be achieved through meetings that emphasize equal partici-pation. They also point out that impos-ing the idea on stakeholders through a sales blitz is not an effective way to achieve true consensus. Similarly, Higgs and Rowland (2011) observe that message-framing behaviors and evidence of supportiveness by orga-nization leaders are necessary to pro-mote the inter-organizational teams expected to collaborate but who hesi-tated to do so. During the collaboration process, team performance is not sat-isfactory when it relates to coalitions, informal status displays, respect by representatives for each others goals and processes, holding others account-able for failure to meet deadlines or quality expectations, or obfuscation

in IPD, (b) BIM, and (c) lean princi-plesalong with team culture and work session organizationsare interrelated, reinforce each others effectiveness, and enhance team integration (Kim & Dos-sick, 2011). One of the three strategies mentioned-above can take the leading role with the support of the other two, depending on the conditions and goals in each project.

The Role of Communication in Innovation Implementation

In an analysis of successful and failed design/manufacturing relationship inno-vations, Adler (1995) finds it neces-sary to have intensive coordination among inter-organizational team members to develop effective alter-native plans and to solve unforeseen problems and disputes. Adler (1995) also emphasizes that increased coor-dination is needed as the processes or product results become more compli-cated. Lewis (2007) highlights that a true buy-in of stakeholders requires the communication skills of change

effects for systemic innovation imple-mentation in project networks. IPD provides a good climate for the inter-organizational communication needed in the alignment process.

Forbes and Ahmed (2011) high-light IPD as a critical project delivery method that facilitates lean project delivery practices. The literature also shows the added value of IPD in con-struction projects that use lean con-struction strategies (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011; Kim & Dossick, 2011; Matthews & Howell, 2005). As an example, target value design is a unique tool of lean construction, used to optimize project scope and design within set budget limits with the assistance of major con-structors involved in the design phase (AIA & AIA California Council, 2007). Like many other lean tools and prac-tices (e.g., daily huddle, pull schedul-ing), this tool is applicable and truly valuable for IPD projects.

A healthcare project case study presents that (a) relational contract among project team members as used

Communication Metric/ Behavior ManagingDefinition Project team members at the management level act cooperatively to resolve differences, communicate with other groups, and

seek to buffer project from external forces (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson etal., 2010; Redding, 1972).

Evaluation Standard The extent of the organizations effectiveness to encourage the project participants to work collaboratively in delivery pro-cesses.

Scale Anchors to Categorize Practices into One of the Levels Below

Management strategies effectively encour-aged team collaboration, with description or example provided in the case study report.

Management strategies effectively encouraged team collaboration, but there is no description or example provided in the case study report or the strategies were reported to be not very effective.

No management strate-gies were used to encour-age collaboration or the strategies were reported to be not effective at all.

Categorization Level Positive Neutral Negative

Example Quotes from the Case Study Report

Leadership was further distributed into a series of cluster groups, which are interdis-ciplinary groups comprised of architects, engineers, and trade partners. Cluster groups were assigned to specific design areas, for example, structural, exterior, interior, and medical equipment. Each cluster was responsible for designing their assigned segment within the target value using what-ever resources required (AIA etal., 2012; Project1, p. 17).

There were also several modifications that redefined responsibility for particular contract requirements from parties or team, in the collective sense, to one party in particular, such as the architect, contractor, or owner. These modifications may seem to compromise the col-laborative intent of the contract by putting in place traditional, isolated decision-making; however, interviews with the team indicate that these con-tractual definitions have not negatively affected collaboration (AIA etal., 2012; Project 2, p. 28).

In this case, during construction the owners project manager was distracted with another, more troublesome project and the team felt that this might have slowed deci-sion making (AIA etal., 2012; Project 7, p. 77).

Table 1: Sample illustrating the data coding process in the content analysis.



PA

PE

RS

team members examining internal and external environments of the work unit for information or events that might influence a project and pointing out problems (Morgeson etal., 2010). Man-aging behaviors refer to team mem-bers on the management level acting cooperatively to resolve differences, communicate with other groups, and seeking to buffer project from exter-nal forces (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson et al., 2010; Redding, 1972). Challenging behaviors pertain to team members suggesting new ways of completing work and contributing to new ideas (Morgeson et al., 2010; Redding, 1972). Negotiating behaviors refer to team members spending time discussing issues and using tradeoffs/concessions to devise workable solu-tions (Meiners & Miller, 2004). These constructs are not explicitly addressed in Klein and Sorras (1996) theoreti-cal model of innovation implementa-tion. Although they could arguably be assumed in their model, it is critical to specify these constructs so that com-municative aspects of change, theorized elsewhere as essential to organizational innovation (Rogers, 1995; Poole, 2011), can be formally examined. Therefore, communication behaviors are proposed as another influencing construct in this framework, as shown in Figure 1.

Findings: Communication Behavior Constructs, Metrics, and IPD Examples In this section, we first present findings of the in-depth literature review related to the communication behaviors con-struct and metrics (i.e., monitoring, managing, challenging, and negotiat-ing). Then, via a content analysis of nine IPD case studies (AIA etal., 2012), the examples from the cases are pro-vided to manifest the validity of the four constructs in AEC project teams. A series of tables (Tables 2 through 5) demonstrates the definition, key ele-ments, and associated examples of each metric.

2 members represent these Tier 1 mem-bers home organizations. Together, Tier 1 and Tier 2 members of a project team are responsible for contacting and man-aging Tier 3 members, such as consul-tants, suppliers, and subcontractors.

Three issues come to light when examining tier boundaries. First, each partys responsibilities per tier place-ment and their unique experiences create differences in the interpretation and importance of events and actions, creating difficulties at times in under-standing. Furthermore, time, status, and geographic differences between differ-ent tier members complicate coordina-tion (Poole, 2011) and communication. Second, Tiers 1 through 3 members become project stakeholders due to the values they create for the project (Lewis, 2007). In this case, all stakeholders need to have their goals aligned and com-mit to them to make the project a suc-cess. Finally, a coordinator is needed to keep members from different tiers on the same page (Di Marco, Taylor, & Alin, 2010; Likert, 1961; Singh, Ver-beke, & Rhoads, 1996). Furthermore, there are circumstances in which a professional coordinator is not enough to attain coordinated action; informal integrators, such as those envisioned by Likerts (1961) idea of linking pins, are needed from Tier 2 and Tier 3 members. Consequently, close coordination and communication appear essential across organizational boundaries to imple-ment IPD and any other innovation effectively in such project-team orga-nizations.

Several recent investigations and research summaries (e.g., Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Yukl, 2012) of leader, managerial, and team member behavior emphasize the several sets of communi-cation-based behaviors that are associ-ated with effective work units. These behaviorsmonitoring, managing, challenging, and negotiatingappear to apply to a variety of organizational contexts. Monitoring behaviors refer to

during decision making (Lewis, Isbell, & Koschmann, 2010).

Collaboration is also very impor-tant in the AEC industry due to the interdisciplinary nature of building projects; however, it is mostly a chal-lenge, because project participants rarely have previous connections, and it is difficult to get to know one another and cooperate closely in a short period of time. In the AEC industry, project team sizes vary depending on project scales. As project scale and team size increase, information exchange among team members can become difficult and complicated due to communication problems related to: missing informa-tion, misunderstanding messages, and confusion in responsibility distribution (Poole, 2011). Chinowsky, Diekmann, and Gallotti (2008) argue that project success requires both management of technical components (e.g., schedule, task, and resource) and effective col-laboration among project participants. Particularly in the AEC industry, the integration and communication of own-ers, designers, contractors, and suppli-ers at the inter-organizational level are as important as for those at the intra-organizational level (Pekericli, Akinci, & Karaesmen, 2003). Interaction manners between members within an organiza-tion or among different organizations of a team can impact the success or failure of a project (Di Marco et al., 2010). Dossick and Neff (2011) point out that messy talk, an informal commu-nication strategy among inter-organi-zational team members, promotes team integration, communication effective-ness, and further contributes to project success by optimizing complex-problem solving.

Another problem impeding com-munication in construction teams is tier boundaries that exist between different levels of team members (Nofera et al., 2011). Members on project teams from different organizations can be catego-rized into three tiers. Tier 1 members (including owner, designer, and con-tractor) form the core project team. Tier


ing and assessing information. Internal monitoring provides leaders the chance to know team members performance on assigned tasks, identify the issues

monitoring) as a function of team lead-ership is important for a team to reach its goals (Morgeson et al., 2010; Yukl, 2012). Monitoring is a process of collect-

Monitoring

Monitoring internal team performance (i.e., internal monitoring) and external organization environment (i.e., external

Strategic accuracyof innovation

adoption

ImplementationEffectiveness

Innovation Effectiveness

Communication Behavior Monitoring Managing Challenging Negotiating

Climate/Structure forImplementation Innovation-Value Fit

Constructs Sequence of Innovation Implementation Process

Reverse Inuence on Previous Factors

Figure 1: Innovation implementation model adapted from Klein and Sorras (1996) model. (Italicized contents are the proposed additions to the original model and the focus of this study.)

Definitions Team members examine internal and external environments of the work unit for information or events that might influence a project and pointing out problems (Morgeson etal., 2010). Monitoring behaviors consist of monitoring internal team performance and external environment of an organization (Yukl, 2012).

Elements Internal monitoring focuses on collecting information of and assessing the working progress and identifying problems emerging in the task execution process; external monitoring emphases analyzing the peripheral climate and trend of an organization and identify risks it needs to pay attention and the advantage it should take advantage of (Yukl, 2012).

Examples/ Codings for the types of monitoring

Core group continued to engage the team to stay up to date of progress and to observe team performance, making adjustments and improvements when needed. For example, leaders noticed that visual metrics were prevalent around the office, but metrics and formats were not standard between cluster groups. In preparation for construction, leadership requested cluster group leaders coordinate one set of graphic conventions so that a viewer could immediately comprehend the status of each team and the project as a whole, a rule referred to as 30 seconds at 3 feet (AIA etal., 2012, p. 17). > Internal monitoring

Subcontractors also provided valuable feedback based on their expertise. For example, there was a condition where the mechani-cal engineer recommended the removal of a section of the ceiling. Sub-contractors pointed out that removal would require both an inspection and upgrade of the area to bring it up to code. To avoid these additional costs and delays, an alternate solution was found (AIAetal., 2012, p. 32). > Internal monitoring

The Last Planner System also helps to monitor the effectiveness of the team. According to the owners IPD consultant, a University of Pennsylvania study reported that a traditional project delivery approach typically achieves 50% reliability of work completed and that last measurement recorded for this IPD team was 80% (AIA etal., 2012, p. 32). > Internal monitoring

target value design was used in conjunction with the budget flexibility provided by the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA) agreement. Accordingly, cluster groups could make trade-offs between building systems .. [that led to major savings in the budget] (AIA etal., 2012, p. 20). > Internal monitoring

Table 2: Examples for the monitoring metric based on the content analysis.



PA

PE

RS

Definitions Team members at the management level act cooperatively to resolve differences, communicate with other groups, and seek to buffer project from external forces (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson etal., 2010). Managing behaviors includes: managing team boundar-ies and team empowerment.

Elements Managing team boundary refers to (1) representing the teams interests and seek support from other organizations (Draskat & Wheeler, 2003; Johansson etal., 2011; Morgeson etal., 2010) and (2) coordinating with other teams to facilitate the improvement of the entire inter-organizational team (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson etal., 2010). Empowering team pertains to (1) involving team member in decision making, (2) delegating authorities to members, respecting members, (3) providing informal and flexible communication opportu-nities (Draskat & Wheeler, 2003; Johansson etal., 2011; Yukl, 2012).

Examples This project employed individuals at multiple leadership levels to manage the integrated team performance through education of the team on information exchange and process management tools, planning of design and production sequencing, and supporting continu-ous improvement ideas (AIA etal., 2012, p. 19). > Managing team boundary (1)

Leadership was further distributed into a series of cluster groups, which are interdisciplinary groups comprised of architects, engineers, and trade partners. Cluster groups were assigned to specific design areas, for example, structural, exterior, interior, and medical equip-ment. Each cluster was responsible for designing their assigned segment within the target value using whatever resources required (AIA etal., 2012, p. 17). > Managing team boundary (2)

The design and [construction] team was held to an overall budget, but was completely free to move money among line items. Money could be taken from carpeting and added to design fees, for example. The ability of the team to move money between line items also meant that savings could be achieved by pooling resources. For example, one lift could be used by multiple trades. Clean-up could be done by lower wage workers at night rather than by highly paid tradesmen during the work day. Savings from one line item could be placed back into the project in another area (AIA etal., 2012, p. 70). > Managing team boundary (2) & Empowering (2)

Core team met weekly to resolve routine issues. The composition of this team varied, sometimes including one or two of the owner/physicians, sometimes including administrators, but always with the owner, architect and builder represented. The core team [provided direction to] specialized component teams including building enclosure, MEP, interior fit-out, and LEED compliance. The core team would resolve issues that arose between the component teams on a continuing basis (AIA etal., 2012, p. 93). > Empowering (1)

The IPD consultant brought on board by the owner was experienced with fast track projects, lean construction techniques, and early involve-ment. The consultant became integral to the project, coordinating with the owners legal team through the contract negotiation as well as facilitating the IPD process and eventually serving as the owners representative (AIA etal., 2012, p. 30). > Managing team boundary (1)

One major challenge that arose during construction was effectively managed by leveraging the flexibility provided by open, transpar-ent, and cooperative management. After the first elevated floor deck was in place, the field crew discovered a serious conflict between rebar in the flat slab and plumbing sleeves that needed to penetrate the slab to serve the NICU rooms. In the course of a huddle aimed at finding a solution it was realized that the conflict could be avoided by shifting the entire plan 3 with respect to the column grid. How likely are architects and engineers going to volunteer to make that kind of design change in the middle of construction? []. But because the designers were incentivized to be part of the larger team, they were able to make the necessary design and coordina-tion changes in just three days (AIA etal., 2012, p. 83). > Managing team boundary (2) & Empowering (3)

By contract, three levels of collaborative teams were established to manage the project. A Project Implementation Team (PIT) was set up to handle the day-to-day issues of the project. The composition of the PIT included project participants whose work at any given time could impact the projects outcome. A Project Management Team (PMT) with representation of the owner, architect, and builder, was established to manage the project and make decisions by consensus. If issues arose that could not be resolved by the PMT they were taken to a higher level for final resolution: a Senior Management Team, (SMT) again with representation of the three principal parties (AIA etal., 2012, p. 68). > Managing team boundary (1) & Empowering (1)

Formally, the team held a 2-hour weekly design meeting for the [] remodel project. Early on, meetings were formal with the [] manager issuing an agenda and meeting minutes, but this quickly developed into a more casual structure with quick emails to notify the team of topics for which to be prepared. Given the relatively small size of the design and construction community in [.], team mem-bers often interacted three or four times per week throughout the course of normal business, providing many opportunities to discuss issues in-between the regular meeting time (AIA etal., 2012, p. 42). > Empowering (3)

The owners IPD consultant characterized the underlying values of an integrated team as, everyone steps up when they need to step up; whether it is a foreman, project manager, estimator, project engineer, or project architect. Essentially, the project management team needs to set up an environment that allows team members to take leadership as needed and create a culture of distributed leadership and ownership (AIA etal., 2012, p. 30). > Managing team boundary (2)

One of the most difficult cultural changes was to move away from a hierarchical structure to a distributed structure where experts are utilized to lead the process as needed. There is no dictator, which has been a shift for team members accustomed to having a project manager (PM) in design-build delivery. Normally, the PM would identify conflicts, address complaints, and dictate the course of action. In the integrated approach [IPD], the team talks to each other and collectively identifies solutions (AIA etal., 2012, p. 41). > Managing team boundary (1) & Empowering (1)

Table 3: Examples for the managing metric based on the content analysis.


Definitions Team members suggest new ways of completing work and contribute to new ideas (Morgeson etal., 2010).

Elements Challenging behaviors compose of supporting members who challenge existing approaches, known as intellectual stimulation and encouraging members to challenge their performance by providing challenging tasks and mutual respect environment that promoting innovative ideas (Morgeson etal., 2010; Yukl, 2012).

Examples One of the outcomes of the integrated, collaborative culture was a team that was willing to question almost anything. According to the project architect, you dont have to listen to the people who say, you know weve never been able to do that so lets not do it (AIA etal., 2012, p. 22). The open culture of the project team encouraged the members innovative thinking in the innovation implementation process. > Encouraging members

An example of benefit from the interdisciplinary cluster group approach was a new design for patient lifts. The owner decided late in the project that they would like to have a patient lift in every room; however this was not feasible given the structural bracing, space and coordination requirements of the standard system. A junior level project engineer from the contractor asked why they couldnt use the booms already required for the medical monitoring devices. The boom manufacturer agreed it might work and this solution is currently under study, illustrating the teams willingness to explore ideas from any member (AIA etal., 2012, p. 22). In this example, although the project engineer was not specialized in that area, he challenged the standard way and provided a potential solution for the problem. > Supporting members

Table 4: Examples for the challenging metric based on the content analysis.

Definitions Team members spend time discussing issues and use tradeoffs/concessions to devise workable solutions (Meiners & Miller, 2004).

Elements Formal negotiation behaviors facilitate the information exchange and making mutual concessions in negotiation process. Personal relational tones of participants make the negotiating process more direct.

Examples after several months of contract negotiations, the owner acknowledged that their understanding of IPD, particularly with regard to the legal terms, was not aligned with the architect and contractor. To facilitate resolving these differences, the owner brought in an IPD consultant. The owners IPD consultant suggested using the recently released AIA C-191 Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery as the basis for agreement. All parties felt the AIA document represented the majority of what they were trying to do with their custom agreement; however the contract continued to be negotiated for an additional 8 months (AIA etal., 2012, p. 26). > Negotiation

There was a general consensus that a more precise method of distinguishing design refinements from scope changes from contin-gency items was needed. Participants reported several instances in which there was disagreement about which bucket should pay for a particular item. But in the spirit of collaboration and feeling of trust that prevailed these were resolved with frank discussion and give-and-take (AIA etal., 2012, p. 92). > Negotiation

An example of how this collaborative decision making process worked came up during concrete placement. The builder proposed that concrete maturity testing (CMT) be used to measure strength as opposed to the traditional method of successively testing cylinder sam-ples. With CMT, sensors are embedded in the concrete and data is read from the outside. The advantage is that forms can be stripped earlier and time saved. Although this technique has long been used for pavement testing, it was a relatively new concept in structural concrete. Owner, architect, structural engineer, and builder discussed it, weighed the benefits and risks and ultimately decided against it. As .. said: With this process, its important to reach consensus. You just cant push people beyond their comfort level (AIA etal., 2012, p. 83). > Negotiation

Should any claim arise in connection with the agreement, the parties, including all consultants and subcontractors, are required to follow the dispute resolution procedure defined in Article 41 of the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA) (AIA etal., 2012, p. 16). >Formal negotiation

Table 5: Examples for negotiating metric based on content analysis.

existing in the task execution process, and investigate the root cause of the issues, through which the leaders can gain a good understanding of the teams and explore approaches to resolving the issues (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Exter-nal monitoring enables leaders to pay attention to the changes and the oppor-tunities existing around their teams so that they can act proactively to avoid

threats and take advantage of opportu-nities. Table 2 summarizes the key find-ings from the literature and example quotes from our content analysis.

In most case studies, especially inter-nal monitoring was reported to be used in examining team performance and iden-tifying design and construction issues; however, it was not always just the tradi-tional leaders responsibility. Monitoring

in some cases was executed by higher-level management teams, members from different disciplines and organizations in others, and using monitoring tools and mechanisms in many. For example, in one case, higher-level core group members attended some meetings of the lower-level cluster groups to keep up with team progress and provide feedback on team performance. In another case,



PA

PE

RS

of the cases, a structure design con-sulting firms project managers and a mechanical subcontractors leader rep-resented the structural engineers and the mechanical trades, respectively. These external leaders acted as a bridge to connect their own team with others in the inter-organizational project team to ask for resources and provide sup-port. In some other cases, third-party consultants were hired to act as proj-ect coordinators, promote information exchange among team members, and support team members on IPD training. In one case, multi-level team structure described earlier in the monitoring sec-tion supported management especially when conflicts arose. Distributed lead-ership was reported in one of the cases: In this project, team members were able to discuss problems and make decisions collectively without anyone holding the authority. Finally, in cases that involved large AEC projects, cluster groups con-sisting of members from different fields were created to work on certain design areas. These cluster groups reduce the dependency on information exchange, improved team interactions, and con-tributed to team collaboration.

Challenging

Challenging behavior includes sup-porting team members who chal-lenge current systems (i.e., intellectual stimulation) and encouraging them to explore new approaches, is a significant leadership function that contributes to better team performance (Morgeson et al., 2010; Yukl, 2012). Keller (1992) reveals that intellectual stimulation can improve project budget, schedule, and quality; it further shows that intellectual stimulation is positively related to prof-itability of research and development team projects (Keller, 2006). Johansson etal. (2011) highlight the fact that intel-lectual stimulation is a characteristic of transformational leaders who respect team members thoughts and value team collaboration and commitment. A broader form of team leaders chal-lenging behavior proactively creates

team (Draskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morge-son etal., 2010).

Empowering, a critical element of team management, enables team mem-bers to be deeply involved in team dis-cussions and decision making (Yukl, 2012). Two types of empowering exist: (1) consultation (i.e., team members are consulted for suggestions and ideas in decision making); and (2) delegation (i.e., enables team members to make their own decisions for the team) (Yukl, 2012). Empowering is considered as an important leadership function in other literature as well (Draskat & Wheeler, 2003; Johansson et al., 2011; Morgeson et al., 2010). Authority delegation is a stronger empowering approach and requires leaders to give team members the flexibility and know the appropriate situations to delegate authorities (Dras-kat & Wheeler, 2003). Johansson et al. (2011) posit that flexible and informal communication opportunities also help effective team management. Table3 lists the literature review findings and pro-vides supporting examples gained from the content analysis of the case study report (AIA et al., 2012).

Content analysis shows that team boundary management and empower-ing behaviors existed in IPD project teams. Among the strategies used to improve team management, the major-ity of the cases reflect aspects of team boundary management (i.e., seeking external support and coordinating with other teams). In all cases, frequent face-to-face meetings provided opportunities for team members from different back-grounds to collaborate, identify issues, ask for support, and discuss solutions. To make meetings more efficient, some project teams involved relevant consul-tants to help with issue resolution when they occurred. This was reported to encourage team members to take lead-ership and have a sense of ownership.

A variety of team structures also played critical roles in effective IPD team management. Among those, external leadership is manifested with extensive examples. For example, in one

subcontractors got involved early on in the design process and pointed out the problems in design from their perspec-tives. In both situations, timely feedback enabled by monitoring, contributed to project success.

In a considerable number of the cases, lean tools (AIA et al., 2012), such as Last Planner System and Target Value Design, were used to improve team productivity. Last Planner System (LPS) is a lean construction tool that consists of four types of construction schedules to provide reliable workflow (Ballard, 2000). The weekly work plan (i.e., the most detailed schedule) is cre-ated by construction trades and helps monitor the commitment they made on the amount of work they can fin-ish. In addition to monitoring the team internally, the influence of a series of external factors, such as material deliv-ery time, equipment availability, other on-going projects, are also monitored in LPS. Target value design is a strategy that aims to perform the design based on a certain estimate to control project cost and meet owners requirements for design (Forbes & Ahmed, 2011). Table 2 presents examples on how these sys-tems enabled effective internal moni-toring in some of the reported cases.

Managing

Managing boundaries refers to facilitate information exchange and interaction among teams (Morgeson et al., 2010) within an organization and among orga-nizations within an inter-organizational project team; and empowering team members to promote collaboration (Draskat & Wheeler, 2003) enhance team performance. Managing boundaries in a project team is a two-way action. On one hand, team leaders represent their teams interests and seek resources/support from outside of their team to improve organizational performance. On the other hand, team leaders guide their organizations to make appropriate decisions by which teams can coordi-nate with others and bring benefits to the whole inter- organizational project


Project leaders are key to successful managing. With their key roles to eas-ily access both sides of organizational boundaries in inter-organizational project teams and facilitate informa-tion exchange and coordination; team leaders commitment to innovation (i.e., values-fit [Klein & Sorra, 1996]) is vital for the true and constant collabo-ration to happen (i.e., managing).

Comparisons among Tables 2 through5 show that effective managing is a potentially stronger influence on IPD implementation. These tables illustrate relatively higher numbers of managing strategies among all four communica-tion constructs.

Providing a climate where team mem-bers have easy access to the innova-tion (Klein & Sorra, 1996) makes the informal communication easier (i.e., managing-empowering).

IPD aims to facilitate team integra-tion, open goal sharing, and transpar-ent team communication. Therefore, strong climate and values-fit (Klein & Sorra, 1996) for IPD in a project team will provide good conditions for the emerging of challenging behaviors.

The content analysis results reflect that in IPD projects, negotiating is impor-tant to resolving conflicts and disputes and keeping a positive climate for inno-vation implementation. In this case, a mutual-trust team climate (Korkmaz, Miller & Sun, 2012) and team mem-bers commitment to IPD (Klein & Sorra, 1996) ensure effective discus-sions, which leads to decisions for the best interests of project success.

Discussions Study results show that, the significance of management to team collabora-tion and innovation implementation is strongly supported by the literature. The importance of intensive coordination to inter-organizational team performance (Adler, 1995), the positive relationship between organizational leaders support-iveness and team collaboration (Higgs & Rowland, 2011), and the function of

Communication Behaviors in Relation to Climate and Values-Fit Constructs

The integrated setting of IPD and effec-tive tools provide a more flexible climate for management and team interaction. The example below shows how the con-tent analysis in this study revealed the relations among various constructs of innovation implementation and com-munication behaviors. In one of the cases reported (with materials in italics inserted):

target value design [i.e., monitoring, climate] was used in conjunction with the budget flexibility provided by the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA) agreement [i.e., climate, negotiating]. Accordingly, cluster groups [i.e., man-aging] could make trade-offs between building systems [i.e., value-fit/com mitment; managing- empowering; implementation effectiveness]; they spent an additional US$1 million on electrical systems but saved US$5 million on mechanical [i.e., innovation effectiveness]. A non-integrated contract would require contract renegotiation, reductions in scope, and other time consuming obstacles [i.e., innovation effectiveness] (AIA etal., 2012; p. 20).

Because of the flexibility provided by open, transparent, and cooperative management in this case, the project team was able to resolve a serious con-flict quickly with the help of committed designers in the middle of the construc-tion phase.

Other observed relations among the revised innovation implementation model constructs (Figure 1) are as fol-lows:

In most of the reported cases, core project teams hired contractors early on in the process; selected those committed to IPD; and provided rewards for improved project suc-cess and teamwork. These charac-teristics, consistent with the climate and values-fit constructs of Klein and Sorras (1996) innovation imple-mentation model, also contribute to monitoring.

a climate of psychological safety and mutual trust; encourages team mem-bers to think outside the box and use innovative approaches to solving prob-lems (Yulk, 2012). Pratt and Jiambalvo (1981) report that assigning challeng-ing tasks to teams increase team satis-faction, motivation, and performance. Abrief summary of the literature review findings and content analysis examples are listed in Table 4.

Negotiating

Negotiating behaviors aim to resolve conflicts or disputes and provide appro-priate solutions via discussions and mutual concessions (Meiners & Miller, 2004). Mutual concessions, elaboration, and directness of discussions are con-sidered the dimensions of negotiation (Meiner & Miller, 2004). Meiners and Miller (2004) investigate the effect of formality and relational tone on super-visorsubordinate negotiation and they posit that a formal setting is positively related to negotiation elaboration and concession, which means that a formal environment leads to a deeper con-versation and make it easier for par-ticipants to offer concessions. They also conclude that a personalized and friendly relational tone improves the directness of negotiation and makes it more efficient to identify the issues and find effective solutions. In the innova-tion implementation process, effective negotiation is essential considering that more disagreement might emerge in a relative unfamiliar system. Table 5 sum-marizes the key elements of negotiation and supporting examples via IPD case studies content analysis.

To ensure conflicts were resolved effectively, a dispute resolution proce-dure with the involvement of multiple lev-els of leadership was commonly used and reported in the analyzed cases. Although very few disputes arose, formal negotia-tion procedures helped with dispute and conflict resolution and protected teams from falling apart. The content analysis did not bring insights to relational tones and negotiation directness.



PA

PE

RS

This facilitates the innovation imple-mentation at a wider range. Challeng-ing existing mechanisms and/or leaders and encouraging inventive ideas are congruent with the activities of imple-menting innovation. This behavior also cultivates the open culture of respecting and accepting novel thinking. Effective negotiation helps teams resolve con-flicts and reach consensus, especially during the innovation implementation process when relatively more disagree-ments might appear, considering that teams have less experience using the new method.

This article is a theory-based quali-tative study. The researchers identify four communication behaviors and the supporting key elements influencing innovation implementation and provide examples to manifest the proposed theo-ries in the context of the implementation of the innovative IPD method in the AEC industry via a content analysis. There are only nine IPD case studies included in the report used for content analysis, which limits the generalizability of the theories. In addition, due to the use of an existing report, the amount and type of information available are limited as well. For example, the researchers are not able to know how formality and rela-tional tones of negotiation and external monitoring influence IPD implementa-tion due to the lack of information on hand. To investigate the generalizability of the theories in IPD implementation, future research should collect additional data from larger samples. With the foun-dation set up in this study, future studies will continue to shed light on communi-cation behaviors impact on innovation implementation.

AcknowledgmentThis material is based on work sup-ported by the National Science Foun-dation under Grant No. SES-1231206. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

contribute to innovation effectiveness and their potential relationships with climate and innovation-values fit con-structs. The findings are also valuable for industry practitioners because they provide insights with examples of suc-cessful practices to show how inter-organizational team communication can be improved to enhance IPD imple-mentation as an innovation within AEC teams.

ConclusionsThis article aims to identify and define the communication behaviors that influence innovation implementation in inter-organizational teams and mani-fest those behaviors in the context of IPD implementation in the AEC indus-try. Via the in-depth review of commu-nication and other relevant literature and the content analysis of an IPD report on case studies (AIA etal., 2012), the researchers present the following findings: (1) Monitoring, managing, challenging, and negotiating behaviors of team communication can improve team performance and promote inno-vation implementation in inter-orga-nizational teams; (2) In AEC projects, these four behaviors are observed to have a potentially positive relationship with the effective implementation of the innovative IPD method; (3) Among the four behaviors, the managing behavior shows a stronger potential in promoting team collaboration and improved per-formance in IPD projects, exhibited via a higher number of positive examples/quotes in study cases; and (4) Climate and innovation-values fit show a posi-tive relationship potential with the four communication behaviors.

Monitoring team performance and innovation implementation progress helps the team to understand the sta-tus of execution process, assess team performance, and further identify issues or potential improvement space. Managing team boundaries brings the resources teams need for innovation implementation and enhance integra-tion with other teams in the project.

equal communication and participation on enhancing team members commit-ment (Richardson, 2001) are all reflected in the elements (i.e., managing team boundary and empowering) of the man-aging behaviors construct.

From the perspective of AEC project teams, enhancing the team collabora-tion highlighted in the managing con-struct is consistent with the previous literature. Theories indicate that effec-tive inter-organizational collaboration among AEC team members is critical for project success (Chinowsky etal., 2008; Di Marco et al., 2010; Pekericli et al., 2003). Dossick and Neff s (2011) messy talk theory point out the value of informal team communication to team integration. Overall, effective commu-nication as a starting point improves team collaboration, which furthers con-tribute to project success. Our content analysis on IPD cases (AIA et al., 2012) demonstrates that intensive team com-munication and interaction optimized by the integration theme of IPD make the implementation of this innovative project delivery method easier. The content analysis also indicates that pos-itive climate and innovation-values fit facilitate all communication behaviors (i.e., managing, monitoring, challeng-ing, and negotiating). The managing (Draskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson et al., 2010) and challenging (Yulk, 2012) theories support the importance of climate and innovation-values fit to these two behaviors.

Furthermore, as a contribution to the innovation implementation theory, this study clearly presents the four com-munication factors (i.e., monitoring, managing, challenging, and negotiat-ing) that promote innovation imple-mentation in light of the innovative IPD implementation in AEC projects, which was lacking in previous research. The article, continuing on the path of the authors previous work (Korkmaz et al., 2014; Nofera et al., 2011), further revises Klein and Sorras (1996) innova-tion implementation model by detail-ing how communication constructs


ReferencesAdler, P. (1995). Interdepartmental inter-dependence and coordination: The case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), 147167.

AIA and AIA California Council. (2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide. Retrieved from The American Institute of Archtects: http://info.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/IPD_Guide_2007.pdf

AIA, AIA Minnesota, and School of Architecture University of Minnesota. (2012). IPD Case Studies. Retrieved from The American Institute of Architects: http://info.aia.org/aia/ipdcasestudies2011.cfm

Alin, P., Maunula, A. O., Taylor, J. E., & Smeds, R. (2013). Aligning misaligned systemic innovations: Probing inter-firm effects development in project networks. Project Management Journal, 44(1), 7793.

Ashcraft Jr, H. W. (2011). Negotiating an integrated project delivery agreement. Construction Law, 31, 17.

ATLAS.ti. (2012, June). Features Overview. Retrieved from Altas ti.: http://www.atlasti.com/features.html

Azhar, S., Nadeem, A., Mok, J. Y. N., & Leung, B. H. Y. (2008 , August 4-5). Building information modeling (bim): A new paradigm for visual interactive modeling and simulation for construc-tion projects. In, First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC-I).

Ballard, G. (2000). The last planner system of production control. A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Engineering of The University of Birmingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Bossink, B. A. G. (2004). Managing drivers of innovation in construction net-works. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(3), 337345.

Chinowsky, P., Diekmann, J., & Gallotti, V. (2008 , October). Social network model for construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 804812.

Chinowsky, P., & Taylor, J. E. (2007). Project networks; leadership, learning and development, CIB Working

Commission W065 Organisation and Management of Construction.

Davis, K. A., & Songer, A. (2009). Resistance to IT change in the AEC industry: Are the stereotypes true? Journal of Construction Engineering Management, 135, 13241334.

Di Marco, M. K., Taylor, J. E., & Alin, P. (2010, July). Emergence and role of cultural boundary spanners in global engineering project networks. Journal of Management in Engineering, 123132.

Dossick, C. S., & Neff, G. (2011). Messy talk and clean technology: communication, problem-solving and collaboration using Building Information Modeling. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(2), 8393.

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effec-tive leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435457.

Forbes, L., & Ahmed, S. (2011). Modern construction lean project delivery and integrated practices. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Garcia, A. J., Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., & Miller, V. D. (2014). Progress loops in interorganizational project teams: An IPD case. Construction Research Congress 2014, 20112020.

Gransberg, D., & Molenaar, K. (2004). Analysis of owners design and construc-tion quality management approaches in design/build projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 162169.

Harris, C. (2003). Building innovative teams: Strategies and tools for developing and integrating high performance inno-vative groups. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change success-fully? A study of the behavior of successful change leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309335.

Johansson, C., Miller, V., & Hamrin, S. (2011). Communication leadership theo-ries, concepts, and central communication behaviors. Sundsvall, Sweden: CORECommunication, Organization, Research,

Education. Department of Media and Communication. Mid Sweden University.

Jordan, E., & Javernick-Will, J. (2012). Measuring community resilience and recovery: A content analysis of indica-tors. Construction Research Congress. American Society of Civil Engineering.

Keller, R. (1992). Transformational lead-ership and the performance of research-and-development project groups. Journal of Management, 489501.

Keller, R. (2006). Transformational lead-ership, initiating structure, and substi-tutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 202210.

Klein, K., & Knight, A. (2005). Innovation implementation: Overcoming the challenge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 243246.

Klein, K. J. and Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 10551080.

Korkmaz, S., Miller, V., & Sun, W. (2012). Assessing key dimension to effective innovation implementation in inter-organizational teams: An IPD case. Engineering Project Organization Journal.

Korkmaz, S., Miller, V. D., & Sun, W. (2014). Assessing key dimensions to effec-tive innovation implementation in interor-ganizational project teams: an Integrated Project Delivery case. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 4(1), 1730.

Korkmaz, S., Riley, D., and Horman, M. (2010). Piloting evaluation metrics for sustainable high-performance building project delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(8), 877885.

Lewis, L. K. (2007). An organizational stakeholder model of change implemen-tation communication. Communication Theory, 17(2), 176204.

Lewis, L. K., Isbell, M. G., & Koschmann, M. (2010). Collaborative tensions: Practitioners experiences of interorga-nizational relationships. Communication Monographs, 77(4), 460479.



PA

PE

RS

Lewis, L. R., Hamel, S. A., & Richardson, B. R. (2001). Communicating change to nonprofit stakeholders: Models and predictors of implementers approaches. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(1), 541.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of man-agement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Matthews, O., & Howell, G. (2005, April). Integrated project delivery: An example of relational contracting. Lean Construction Journal, 2(1), 4661.

Meiners, E. B., & Miller, V. D. (2004). Communcative and contextual dimensions of superior/subordinate negotiation episodes. Western Journal of Communication, 68(3), 302321.

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understand-ing structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 539.

Nofera, W., Korkmaz, S., & Miller, V. D. (2011, August 9-11). Innovative features of integrated project delivery shaping project team communication. The 2011 Engineering Project Organizations Conference. Denver,CO.

Pocock, J., Liu, L. Y., & Tang, W. H. -I (1997). Prediction of project performance based on degree of interaction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13, 63.

Pekericli, M., Akinci, B., & Karaesmen, I. (2003). Modeling information depen-dencies in construction project network organizations. In, Proceedings, Towards a Vision for Information Technology in Civil Engineering, Nashville, TN: ASCE.

Poole, M. S. (2011). Communication. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of indus-trial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 249270). Washington, DC: APA.

Pratt, J., & Jiambalvo, J. (1981). Relationships between leader behaviors and audit team performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 133142.

Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication with organizations. New York, NY: Industrial.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innova-tions, 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.

Singh, J., Verbeke, W., & Rhoads, G. K. (1996, July). Do organizational practices matter in role stress processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for marketing-oriented boundary spanners. Journal of Marketing, 60, 6986.

Sive, T. (2009). White Paper-Integrated project delivery: Reality and promise, a strat-egists guide to understanding and market-ing IPD, Society for Marketing Professional Services Foundation, July 2009.

Slaughter, S. (1998). Models of con-struction innovation. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 124(3), 226231.

Swarup, L. (2010). Influence of project delivery methods on achieving sustainable high performance buildings (Masters thesis, Michigan State University).

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (third edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yu, A., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., & Hunter, K. (2006). Investigation of critical suc-cess factors in construction project briefing by way of content analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 11781186.

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 6685.

Vakola, M., & Rezgui, Y. (2000). Organizational learning and innova-tion in the construction industry. The Learning Organization, 7(4), 174183.

Weida (Aaron) Sun received a Master of Science degree from Construction Management Program of School of Planning, Design, and Construction at Michigan State University in 2013. His thesis focused on factors influencing effec-tive implementation of integrated project delivery in project team organizations as an innovation in the construction industry. Upon graduation, he started working in the residential construction industry at Mayberry Homes, Lansing, MI. He can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected]

Sinem Mollaoglu (PhD, Penn State) is an Associate Professor of Construction Management at School of Planning, Design, and Construction at Michigan State University. She is the recipient of National Association of Home Builders National Educator of the Year Award, 2013 in out-standing junior faculty category; and the Associated General Contractors of Americas 2014 National Fellowship for faculty intern-ship in the construction industry (among the selected three across the nation). Her leadership roles in academia include serving as a specialty editor of sustainable con-struction at the editorial board of ASCEs Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Her vision is to contribute to the improvement of sustainable project delivery processes through investigation of team integration phenomenon and assess-ment systems for green buildings at the national and international levels. She can be contacted at [email protected]

Vernon Miller (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an Associate Professor in the Departments of Communication and Management at Michigan State University. His research focuses on the communica-tive aspects of the employment interview, organizational entry, and role negotiation and appears in journals such as Journal of Applied Communication Research, Management Communication Quarterly, Human Communication Research, and Academy of Management Review. He is the co-author of two books with Prof. Mike Gordon of Rutgers University, Conversations about Job Performance: A Communication Perspective on the Appraisal Process and Meeting the Challenges of Human Resource Management: A Communication Perspective. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Brian Manata is working towards his PhD in Communication and is in the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. His interests include group dynamics and communication, teams in organizations, and newcomer socialization. He can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected]

pm2

Documents