Click here to load reader

Longitudenal study of performance in large Australasian public sector infrastructure ... ·  · 2014-02-19in Large Australasian Public Sector Infrastructure Alliances ... Longitudinal

  • View
    217

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

Text of Longitudenal study of performance in large Australasian public sector infrastructure ... ·  ·...

  • LongitudinalStudyofPerformanceinLargeAustralasianPublicSector

    InfrastructureAlliances20082013

    CentreforIntegratedProjectSolutions

    SchoolofPropertyConstruction&ProjectManagement

    RMITUniversity,Melbourne,Victoriawww.rmit.edu.au/pcpm

    ProfessorDerekWalkerDrJamesHarley

    ProfessorAnthonyMills

    December2013

    Withouttheallianceapproach,wewouldhaveendedupinlitigation.

  • i

    TableofContents

    EXECUTIVESUMMARY/ABSTRACT 1

    ABBREVIATIONS 3

    INTRODUCTION 4

    RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY 6

    FINDINGS 7

    SIZEOFPROJECTS 7COST 7OBSERVATION 10TIME 13OBSERVATION 14CATEGORIESOFKEYRESULTAREAS 16OBSERVATION 17VALUE 20OBSERVATION 22PVSDEFINITION 22PVSCOMMUNICATION 23RATINGPVS 23ALLIANCEDELIVERYAPPROACH 24OBSERVATION 24COLLABORATION 25OBSERVATION 27WORKPLACECULTURE 27OBSERVATION 29INNOVATION 30OBSERVATION 31

    TRENDS 32

    CONCLUSIONS 34

    REFERENCES 37

    APPENDIX1 39

    SURVEYINSTRUMENT2012 39

    APPENDIX2 42

    THREEEXPERIENCEANDSEVENCHARACTERISTICS/ATTRIBUTESREQUIREDOFAMS 42

  • ii

    ListofFiguresFigure1:Delta(actualAOCcomparedtoTOCinitial`)..................................................8Figure2:Delta(actualAOCcomparedtofinalTOC).....................................................9Figure3:TOC(initial,final&actual)............................................................................10Figure4:Delta(actualtimecomparedtoproposedtime)..........................................13Figure5:Duration(proposed&actual).......................................................................13Figure6:FrequencyofKRAs........................................................................................16Figure7:PVSdefinedpriortobiddingprocess...........................................................20Figure8:PVScommunicatedtoteams........................................................................21Figure9:RatethealliancesperformanceinmeetingthePVS...................................21Figure10:RatingalliancemethodagainstD&C..........................................................24Figure11:CollaborationQ29.......................................................................................25Figure12:CollaborationQ3032................................................................................26Figure13:CollaborationQ3335..................................................................................26Figure14:WorkplacecultureQ3640..........................................................................28Figure15:WorkplacecultureQ4145..........................................................................28Figure16:Innovation...................................................................................................30

    ListofTablesTable1:ActualtoInitialTOC.......................................................................................10Table2:MostfrequentKRAsinstudy.........................................................................17Table3:TeamcollaborationQ2932.........................................................................26Table4:CollaborationQ3335.....................................................................................26Table5:WorkplacecultureQ3640.............................................................................28Table6:WorkplacecultureQ4145.............................................................................28Table7:InnovationontheprojectQ4650.................................................................30Table8:Surveyinstrument..........................................................................................39Table9:ThreeExperienceandSevenCharacteristics/AttributesRequiredofAMs...41

  • 1

    ExecutiveSummary/Abstract

    "Itwasconsideredtobeoneofthemostcomplexprojectsfortrafficmanagement,andtheresultsexceededexpectationsbyalongway,whichreallysetabenchmarkforfutureprojectsbeingconstructedfortraffic."

    Sincethe late1990smanyAustralianstate,territoryandfederalgovernmentshaveutilised Alliance Contracting as the project delivery structure for complexinfrastructureprojects.AllianceContractinghasbeensignificantlyemployed inthismarket inanattempttoovercomearangeofnegative impactsassociatedwiththetraditionaladversarialapproachtodeliveringinfrastructuredevelopments.Alliancesembodyacooperativeandcollaborativemodeofprojectdeliverythatreliesonthedevelopmentoftrust,sharingandaligninggoalsbetweenprojectpartners.Consolidated results from threeprevious studiesofalliancingundertaken in2008,2010and2012basedon60casestudyalliances (twoof these fromNewZealand)arereanalysed inthisreportasa longitudinalstudyofalliancing.Thoseresultsaresupplemented by reflections and insights from several parallel alliancing studiesrecently undertaken by the researchers. Principal findings indicate that alliancinggenerallyprovidesadvantagesoverotherprojectprocurementforms.Theseinclude:

    Moreeffectiveforeseenandunanticipatedriskmanagement; Improvedmanagementofuncertaintyandambiguityincomplexcontexts; Improvedcost/timedeliveryperformance; Ability to change and adapt design, scope and strategy to accommodate

    changingrealitiesofaprojectcontext; Enhanceopportunitiesforinnovationandlearningfromexperimentation; Opportunitiesforachievingwidersocialandenvironmentaloutcomes; Motivatedandgenuineteamcommitmentforbestforprojectoutcomes;and Nolitigationandnofingerpointing.

    Thisreportprovidesastateoftheartreflectionofalliancing.Ouranalysisprovidesconsiderableevidenceof success inusing this formof infrastructureprocurementwiththemajorityofalliancesdeliveringhighlysuccessfulresults.Whilethepaceofalliancinghasslackenedinrecentyears,alongwithageneraldeclineinconstructioninfrastructureactivity,Australasiaremainsaworld leader inalliancing.This leadingrole is evidencedby interest in theAustralasian experienceof alliancingby thoseengagedinalliancesinFinland,TheNetherlandsandtheUK.Thereportprovidesahistoricalviewoveracriticalperiodofconstruction investment in infrastructure inAustralasia that should be of interest to researchers and practitioners, projectownersandnonownerprojectparticipantsengagedinalliances.Alliancemanagersconsistentlycommentedthatalliancingrequiressophisticatedteamengagementandcollaborationwithaconsiderabledegreeofhandsoninvolvementbytheprojectownersrepresentative.Thealliancingapproachisonein

  • 2

    whichallparticipantsneedtobecommittedtoexercisefarhigherlevelsofrelationalcompetenciesthanbusinessasusual(BAU)procurementapproachesStructuralalliancecomponentsthatdefinealliancerelationshipsinclude:requirementsforwithinandbetweenteambehaviouralprotocols;transparencyandaccountability;andincentivisationarrangements.

    Whencitingthisreport,pleaseciteitas:

    Walker, D. H. T., Harley, J. and Mills, A. (2013). Longitudinal Study of Performance in Large Australasian Public Sector Infrastructure Alliances 2008-2013, Melbourne, RMIT University, Centre for Integrated Project Solutions: 48pp.

  • 3

    Abbreviations

    Abbreviationsareprovidedfortermsusedfrequentlythroughoutthisbooknotallabbreviatedwordsappearhereasthosewordsmaybeusedonlywithafewpagesoffirstbeingused.3BL Triplebottomlinefinancial,environmentalandsocialbottomlinesAAA AlliancingAssociationofAustralasiaALT Allianceleadershipteamthehighlevelboardofallianceparticipant

    sponsorsAOC ActualoutturncostAM AlliancemanagerAMT Alliancemanagementteamtheoperationallevelparticipantexecutive

    teamBAA BritishAirportsAuthorityBAU BusinessasusualD&C DesignandconstructECI EarlycontractorinvolvementIDP IntegratedprojectdeliveryKPI KeyperformanceindicatorKRA KeyresultsareaKSAE Knowledge,skills,attributesandexperienceMCOS MinimumconditionofsatisfactionPVS ProjectsValueStatementNOP NonownerparticipantsinanalliancePO ProjectownerPOR ProjectownerrepresentativeRBP RelationshipbasedprocurementSA ProgramserviceallianceT5 TerminalfiveHeathrowtheBAATerminalfiveHeathrowcontract

    agreementTOC TargetoutturncosttheexpectcostthataprojectwilleventuallycostUK UnitedKingdomofGreatBritainVfM Valueformoney

  • 4

    IntroductionThepurposeofthisreportistoconsolidatedataandtomakeanholisticanalysisofalliancingfromthethreeindividualprojectandprogramalliancereportsconductedin2008(BlismasandHarley,2008),2010(MillsandHarley,2010)and2012(WalkerandHarley,2013).ItprovidesinsightsintothefindingsalsoinformedbyourresearchintoarangeofalliancingstudiesthatRMIThasundertakensince2000.Thisresearchprovidesdeeperinsightsintotheperformanceofalliancesfortheconstructionofroad,railandwaterprojects.Theprincipleobjectiveofanalliancesistomanageriskeffectivelyandalignteammemberexpectationssothattheyworktogetherforthebenefitoftheproject.Todate,thishasbeenachallenge,andassuchthismakesalliancesaninnovativeapproachtoprocurementofinfrastructure.Thepaperreportsonasurveyof60publicinfrastructureprojectsacrossAustraliathatutilisedtheallianceformofprocurement.Theresultswerebasedonallianceteaminterviews,whichaddressedthemostcriticalmanagementissuesimpactingontheperformanceofprocess.TheresearchersidentifiedasampleofstakeholdersfromAllianceLeadershipTeams(ALT)andtheAllianceManagementTeams(AMT)thathadrecentlycompletedamajorinfrastructureprojects.ResultsrevealedthatcommunicationandtrustbetweentheALTandAMTteamswasamajorfactorcontributingtothefunctioningofthealliance.Furthermore,theresearchidentifiesseveralkeyfactorsthatwerenecessarypreconditionsforsuccessfulalliances.

    TheDepartmentofFinanceandTreasuryVictoriadescribesprojectalliancingas,amethodofprocuring[where]Allpartiesarerequiredtoworktogetheringoodfaith,actingwithintegrityandmakingbestforprojectdecisions.Workingasanintegrated,collaborativeteam,theymakeunanimousdecisionsonallkeyprojectdeliveryissues.Allianceagreementsarepremisedonjointmanagementofriskforprojectdelivery.Allpartiesjointlymanagethatriskwithinthetermsofanallianceagreement,andsharetheoutcomesoftheproject(2010,p9).

    Globally,duringtheperiodsince2000themajorityofprojectallianceshavebeencentredinAustraliaandNewZealandbutthisformofprocurementhasbeenexportedtocountriessuchasFinland(Lahdenper,2012)andTheNetherlands(Laan,VoordijkandDewulf,2011)withRailtrackintheUKalsousingprojectalliances.AlliancinginAustralasiahasalsoinfluencedtheUSAhealthservicesproviderSutterHealthintousingasimilararrangementcalledIntegratedProjectDevelopment(IDP)(Cohen,2010).ProcurementarrangementsdevelopedbyBritishAirportsAuthorityforTerminalFive,knownastheT5Agreement,hasalsousedmanyofthefeaturesoftheAustralasianmodelofalliancingbutwithgreatersupplychainmanagementintegration(Brady,Davies,GannandRush,2007;Doherty,2008).Clearlyformsofalliancinghasofferedclientsandtheconstructionindustryaforumofcollaborationtodeliverhighlycomplexandriskyprojectsputtingthespotlightonaviablealternativetoopportunisticactionandwhichcanbeusedtodelivergenuinevalueformoney.

  • 5

    Valuesandalliancingcoreprinciplesthatdefinetheseprojectprocurementanddeliveryarrangementsare:

    Sophisticatedprojectownerhandsoninvolvementinallstagesoftheprojectasanengagedandcontributingparticipant;

    Abehaviouralcontractthatdistinctlyspecifieshowallianceparticipantswillengagewitheachotherwhenconsideringandmakingdecisionsusingaconsensusbasednoblameapproach,takingactiononthesedecisionsandinteractingwithstakeholders;

    Anolitigationcontractclausewiththesoleexceptionofcriminalorgrossnegligencebehaviourbyaparticipant;

    Asinkorswimtogetherculturereinforcedbytheconsensus,noblame,nolitigation;and

    Anincentivisationagreementbasedonwholeofprojectperformanceratherthananyindividualparticipantsperformancethatreinforcesthesinkorswimtogethermindset.

    Itisonlybyrecognisingtheabovebehaviouralvaluesthatsensecanfullybemadeofresearchresultsfromthislongitudinalstudy.Akeyadvantageoftheallianceapproachisthatitembedscollaboration,betterfacilitatesinnovationanddemandstransparencyandaccountability.Thecollaborativenatureofthearrangementsmeansthatthereisfarmoreflexibilityandeffectivenessincopingwithuncertaintythanoccurswithotherprocurementforms.Thisisbecausethepartnerorganisations,beinglockedintothealliancewiththeNonOwnerParticipants(NOPs),allowsprioritiestobeagreedandnewideasandinnovationstobetrialledveryearlyintheprojectinitiationandearlydesignphase.Itreduces,ifnoteliminatesparticipantsenergyexpendedinanypaperchasetocoverpotentialliabilityforriskandsubsequentlitigation.ThispositiveoutcomeofthenolitigationagreementissupportedbyarequirementforconsensusdecisionsmakingbytheAMTandALTthusstructurallyunderminingthesegroundsforlitigation.Thisprocurementapproachrequiresparticularandrareknowledge,skills,attributesandexperience(SKAE)ofparticipantsandteammembers.Thisdemandforrareresourcesproducesastructuralchallengetowidespreadadoptionofalliancing.TimeandenergydemandsplaceduponseniorexecutivesintheALThasplacedalimituponthecapacityofalliancingtobecomecommonplaceandmakesitdifficulttorolloutalliancinggloballyorevenextensivelyinanyonecountryorregion.Expansionofthealliancingconceptisthuslimitedbythetalentpoolcurrentlyavailableandbeingdeveloped.

  • 6

    ResearchMethodologyRMITUniversityhasbeenundertakingresearchintoalliancesonaregularbasissince2008,withthreemajorsurveysbeingconductedin2008(n=30),2010(n=18)and2012(n=12).ThisworkwasundertakenwithstrongsupportandbothafinancialandinkindcontributionfromtheAllianceAssociationofAustralasia(nowincorporatedintoInfrastructurePartnershipsAustralia)resultingingatheringdatafrom60projects,twoofwhichwerefromNewZealand.Theprojectusedastructuredtelephonesurveytechniquetogatherdataoneachofthecases.Allprojectshadrecentlybeencompletedinthepreviousyear,andrespondentswereaskedtoprovideactualdatafromtheproject,orreflectontheirexperience.Somerespondentswereunabletodiscloseorfinddataonseveralquestionsastheyhadmovedonfromthosecompletedprojectsandsodidnothaveaccesstothatdataanylonger.ParticipantsforthesurveyweredrawnlargelyfromthemembershipofAllianceAssociationofAustralia(AAA)andtheAAAChiefExecutiveOfficerprovidedintroductionstothecontacts.Anemailwassenttoallpotentialparticipants,outliningtheresearchapproach,andattachingaPlainLanguageStatementconsentform,andthelistofquestions.Participationinthesurveywasvoluntaryandresponseswereconfidentialtotheinterviewer,andnoparticipantcanbeidentifiedbyhisorherresponse.TheresearchprotocolfollowedallRMITUniversityresearchethicsrequirements.Theresearchutilisedaconsistentsurveyinstrumentoverthisperiod,whichsoughtresponsestoarangeofquestionsregardingTargetOutturnCost(TOC),timeandKeyResultAreas(KRAs).However,newquestionswereaddedin2010touncoverissuesinvalue,collaboration,workplacecultureandinnovation.Forsomequestions,particularlyrelatedtotheTOC,participantswereunabletoprovidefullinformationsothatFigure1forexamplehasresultsfor50ofthe60participantresponses.ParticipantsforthesurveyweredrawnfromthemembershipofAAAandcontactsknowntotheExecutiveofAAA.TheresearchersandAAAExecutiveareconfidentthatthissurveypresentsthemostreliableandrepresentativesurveyofanyundertakenwithinAustraliaorNewZealandofalliancesandourreviewoftheliteratureindicatesthatthislongitudinalstudyrepresentsthemostrealisticstateoftheartsituationandsnapshotofallianceactivitythatcouldbeobtained.Itcertainlycontributesgreatlytoourappreciationofthisprojectprocurementformsevolution.Acopyofthefinal2012surveyinstrumentcanbefoundintheAppendix1.

  • 7

    FindingsSizeofProjectsSixtyprojectsareincludedinthelongitudinalstudy.Theprojectsincludedinthestudyrangeddramaticallyinsizeandoperations.Whilsttherewasoneprojectthatexceededthebilliondollarvalue,approximatelyathirdwerebetween$200600mandtheremainingunder$200m.Projectsarerepresentedfromrail,roadandwaterinfrastructuresectors.Projectsincludedrailduplications,watertreatmentplants,desalinationplants,freewaybypasses,motorwayextensions,electrification,sewertreatmentprojects,tunnelsanddams.Thecommonfactoramongstalloftheseprojectswasadesiretoworkwithinanalliancedeliveryapproachduetoeitheruncertainscope,unknownconditions,pressingtimeframesorarealisationthatacollaborativerelationalmethodologyprovidedanopportunityfortheprojecttodeliveramorethansatisfactoryoutcome.

    "wouldnthavegottheprojectcompletedwithouttheAllianceapproachthepartnershavebeenfirstclass".

    CostOfthetotal60organisationsparticipatinginthestudy,50wereabletoprovidedataontheinitialTargetOutturnCost(TOC)(Figure1).Thishasallowedsomeunderstandingofthedifferencebetweeninitialandactualoutturncost(AOC).Figures2&3providedetailsfromalltheprojects(n=60).TheinitialTOCmaybeinfluencedandamendedthroughauthorisedscopechanges(positiveornegative)toarriveatafinalauthorisedTOC.TheactualdifferencebetweenthefinalauthorisedandAOCwillrepresenttheextentofgainshareandpainsharethatwillbeappliedaspartoftheincentivearrangements(Ross,2013,p9).TheAOCpresentsaninterestingstatistic.IftheAOCissubstantiallylessthanthefinalTOCthencriticsmayarguethattheestimatesandassumptionsusedtodeveloptheTOCweresoftandtooeasytoachieve.Thismaybethecaseoritmaywellbearesultofacombinationofhighlevelsofinnovation,excellentmanagement,excellentteamworkandgoodluck.IftheAOCisgreaterthanthefinalTOCthenthereversemaybetrue.

  • Figu

    %varia

    tion

    ure1:Delta(a

    60.00%

    40.00%

    20.00%

    0.00%

    20.00%

    40.00%

    60.00%

    80.00%

    100.00%

    120.00%

    140.00%

    %variatio

    n

    ctualoutturn

    1 6

    Delta(actual

    ncostAOCcom

    11 16

    outurncostAn

    mparedtoTOC

    21 26

    AOCcomparen=50

    Cinitial`)

    31 36

    edtoinitialTO

    41 46

    OC)

    8

  • Figu

    %veria

    tion

    ure2:Delta(a

    40.00%

    30.00%

    20.00%

    10.00%

    0.00%

    10.00%

    20.00%

    30.00%

    40.00%

    1

    %veriatio

    n

    ctualAOCcom

    1 6 1

    D

    mparedtofina

    11 16

    Delta(actualA

    alTOC)

    21 26

    AOCcomparen=60

    31 36

    edtofinalTOC

    41 46

    C)

    51 56

    9

  • Figu

    ObsSomFirstthancamTablnumpercForprimRes

    ure3:TOC(ini

    servation

    meinitialob

    tly,approxintheinitialmeinoverth

    le1Actualto

    mbercentage

    thosethatmaryreasonpondentsa

    itial,final&ac

    bservations

    matelyhalfTOC.TwooheinitialTO

    InitialTOCUn

    cameinunnforthisreslsonotedthPreGlobal500M

    ctualAOC)

    canbemad

    foftheprojoutofthe5OC.

    nderinitialT26:5052%

    dertheinitsult,innovahefollowingFinancialCr

    deaboutth

    jectswerec50cameino

    TOC

    ialTOCachationwascigreasonsforisisthere

    isdataset.

    completedwonbudgetw

    Even2:504%

    hangetothetedasthesorthechaneweresigni

    withaAOCwhilstthere

    Ov

    escopewassecondhighgeinTOC:ficantsavin

    thatwasleemaining44

    verinitialTO22:5044%

    scitedasthhestreason.

    ngsofabout

    10

    ess4%

    OC

    he.

    t$4

  • 11

    Savingsachievedthroughriskmanagement,acceleratedprocessesandinnovativepractices

    Methodologyimprovementsthatweredevelopedandwhichsubsequentlyimprovedactiononrepetitiveprocesses

    Risksnotbeingrealised Favourableweatherconditions Improvedqualityassurance Minimalbusinessinterruptions Significantreductioninscope

    Ofnote,isthattheterminnovationitisnotconsistentlydefinedbythecompanies,withsomereferringtoinnovationasanimprovedprocessesormethodology,orinoneinstance,itwasdescribedasanyideathatsputintoactionandthatsubsequentlydeliversvalue.AlternativelyreasonsgivenfortheAOCcominginovertheinitialforecastwereduetomanyfactorsincluding:

    Increasedscope Delayedcosts Delayedorextendedapprovalprocesses,especiallywhenheritage

    issueswereinvolved Additionalelementsincludedinthescope Projectdeliveredduringaperiodofmarketvolatilityandeconomic

    boomwhichresultedinreducedavailabilityandhigherpricesforresources

    Thedesignbeingmorecomplexthanoriginallyconsidered Underestimationofdesigneffort DelayedinclusionofaKRA Separateportionofthecontractnegotiatedafterthecommencement

    oftheprojectandsowasnotfactoredintotheinitialTOC.

    Ittooksometimeearly[on]tounderstandtheboundariesofinnovationthattheownerwaswillingtoaccept.Workingthroughthiswasfrustratingfortheteam.Whenthiswasunderstood,wegeneratedawideandextensiverangeofinnovations.Ourinnovationregisterhad396itemsofwhich179wereacceptedandincorporatedintotheproject.

    OneinnovationwentontobeawardedaStateSafetyAward.

    InnovationstartsattheprojectlevelandhasbuyinfromtheAMT.Definition:quicker,cheaperandeasier.

    Akeypointworthmakinghereisthatalliancingbringstogethervaryingperspectivesontheprojectorprogramscope,scaleandcomplexity.Thisshouldenhancetheprocessofidentifyingpotentialdifficulties,problems,risksambiguitythatarepoorly

  • 12

    understoodwithinandbetweensysteminterdependenciesandlinks.WewouldthereforeexpectthefinalTOCtobeclosertotheinitialTOC.IfthefinalAOCissignificantlyundertheinitialTOCthencriticismmaybelevelledthattheinitialTOCwassoftorgenerousthathasunnecessarilyboostedpotentialgainshareforparticipants.IfthefinalAOCissignificantlyovertheinitialTOCthencriticismmaybelevelledthattheinitialassessmentofthesituationwaspoororinept.Bothformsofcriticismmaybeunfair.TheTOCisthebasisforassessingcostsnotvalue.DeepersituationalanalysisandinterpretationoftheprojectsneedsandbriefmayrevealalternativedesignanddeliverysolutionsthatcanresultinjustifiablysignificantvariancesbetweentheinitialTOCandfinalAOC.Thismaybeespeciallytrueinserviceorprogramallianceswhereabestfornetworkratherthanbestforprojectoutcomemayincrease(ordecrease)aTOCbutmayalsoprovidebeneficialimpactonthebroaderoutcomesonroadorutilitiesnetworksforexample.Theprojectsrangedfrom33%(ie.under)theTOCto128%above.Theresultsshowedthatwhilesomewereoverbudget,interestinglyonlynineexceedtheTOCbymorethan10%(Figure1).Thestakeholdersfromtheseprojectswereprobedtodeterminewhatoccurredwhichmayexplaintheoverexpenditure.Therespondentsindicatedthatunsurprisinglythemostpopulararesponsewasincreasestoscope(Scopechange+).Scopeincreasewasoftenresultedfromanexpansionofbenefitsdemandedbytheprojectowner(PO)ortheprojectownersrepresentative(POR).IninstanceswherethefinalTOCcameinundertheinitialTOC,theprimaryreasonforthiswasasaresultofinnovation(identifiedthroughtheconstructionphase)orasaresultofacceleratedprocesses.Otherreasonsincludedfavourableweatherconditionsandhavinggoodqualityassuranceprocessesinplace.InthoseinstanceswheretheprojectcameinovertheinitialTOC,theprimaryreasoncitedwasasaresultof(clientdirected)scopeincrease.RespondentsnotedthatresultsassociatedwithcomparinginitialTOCwithfinalTOCdidnotnecessarilytellthewholepicture,andthoseprojectswithsignificantTOCoverruns,alsoperformedverywellagainsttheotherperformanceindicators,suchasOccupationalHealthandSafetyperformance.Thealliancedeliveryapproachprovidesanopportunityforscopechangeandvariationtooccurwithoutcausingsignificantdelaysorrequiringcontractualrenegotiation.Thiswasnotedinonealliancewheretheclientsweregivenanopportunitytocontributetotheconceptdesignstage,withoutadverselyaffectingthefinalcost.TheDesign&Construct(D&C)approachwouldlikelyhaveincurredcosteachtimethedesignwaschanged,butinthealliance,bringingdesignerandconstructortogetherearlydeliverscontinuingimprovements.ScopechangesadvancethroughaprocessofALTapprovalfollowedbysubmissiontothePOwhodecidesonwhetherornotapprovethem.ThishighlightsafundamentaldifferencebetweenAllianceandotherformsofcontractingincludingD&CandDesignBidBuild(DBB),wheretheformermakes

  • decdec

    TimAppalmorig

    Figu

    Figu

    %varia

    tion

    isionsbasedisionsbased

    me

    proximatelyostonehalginaltimelin

    ure4:Delta(a

    ure5:Duration

    60.00%

    40.00%

    20.00%

    0.00%

    20.00%

    40.00%

    60.00%

    80.00%

    1%variatio

    n

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    1

    Mon

    ths

    donwhatidoncomm

    yonethirdofcameinone.

    ctualtimecom

    n(proposed&

    1 6 1

    Delt

    6 11 1

    sbestforthercial/contr

    oftheprojentime.The

    mparedtopro

    &actual)

    11 16

    ta(actualtim

    16 21 26

    Duration

    heproject,ractualarra

    ectscameineremaining

    oposedtime)

    21 26

    ecomparedtn=59

    6 31 36

    n(proposed&n=59

    whilstthelangements.

    nunderthegquarterw

    31 36

    toproposedt

    41 46

    &actual)

    atterneces

    timeallotteeredelivere

    41 46

    ime)

    51 56

    ssarilymake

    ed,whileedpastthe

    51 56

    Propsedduration(months

    13

    es

    dns)

  • 14

    ObservationAlliancedurationresultsprovideastrongcaseforapplyinganalliancedeliveryapproachtoriskyprojectswithcomplexinterfacestolargersystems.Interfacesvary.Intermsofroadworksforexample,aninterfacecouldberealigningaccessramps,minimisingdisruptionofservicedeliveryorrespondingtoothercomplexunforeseenbrownfieldconditions.Figure4andFigure5especiallyshowsthatthevastmajorityofprojectsweredeliveredeitherunderortoschedule,whichisasignificantresultforprojectsthatareoftencomplexandwhichhaveassociatedlargecomponentsofunknownorunscopedfactors.Thisoutcomeisalsoconvincingwhenviewedalongsidethetotaldurationoftheprojects.Seventysixpercentoftheprojects(n=45:59)werecompletedwithin36months,withonlynineoftheseprojectscominginoutsideofthetimeallocated;61%(n=36:59)oftheprojectsactualdurationwaslessthantheproposed.Theresearchshowsthatdespitesomeincreaseinscopetheprojectswerenotexcessivelyovertime.RespondentsnotedthatapproximatelyonethirdoftheAllianceprojectscameinundertime,andonethirdcameinovertime(Figure4).Theremainingthirdwereontime.Theprojectparticipantswerethenaskedtoexplainthemajorreasonforthetimeoverrun.Inasimilarwaytothecostperformancementionedabove,theprincipalreasonforthetimeoverrunwaspositivescopechange,inotherwords,increasestotheprojectscope.Italsoshouldbenotedthatinsomeinstanceswhereprojectsexceededtheestimatedduration,thiswasnotnecessarilyconsideredafailure,butratheraresultofscopechangethatresultedinanimprovedand/orenhancedfinalproduct.Intheinstanceswhereprojectscameinundertime,innovation(includingacceleratedprocesses)andprojectdeliveryprocurementapproachchangewerecitedasthecontributingfactors.TheAlliancedeliveryapproachwasconsideredbyallrespondentstobeaprocessthathassufficientflexibilitytoaddresschangesinscopeinapositivemanner.Additionally,asmajordecisionsmadebytheALTandAMTmembersareunanimousandembraceanoblamemindset,theoperationalflexibilityisgreatlyimproved.Theprojectteamhasconfidenceinproposingandenactinginnovationandtorapidlyrealigndeliverableprioritieswhenrequiredinresponsetothreatsoropportunities.Thus,benefitsderivedfromscopechangesordeliverablereprioritisationcanbegreaterthanwouldoccurinmorerigidcontractualformsofprocurement.Thereasonsgivenforprojectscominginunder(andover)thetimeallocatedvaried,howeversomethemesemerged,includedscopechange,acceleratedprocessesandinnovation.Thealliancedeliveryapproachallowedforafluidityofprocesses,which

  • 15

    subsequentlyenabledscopetobeexpandedwithoutcontactvariationornecessarilyanincreaseinthefinalTOC.Itmayalsobeimportanttonotethatallrespondentsconsideredthattheirprojectswereasuccess.Whiletheauthorsacknowledgethatitmaybedifficulttobepreciseaboutwhatconstitutesgoodorpoorperformanceinconstruction.Mostoftheprojectsinthisresearchclearlymettheircostandtimeexpectations,andonthislimitedbasis,wereconsideredsuccessful.Underanalliancedeliveryapproach,projectsmayincreaseinscopewithoutavarianceintheTOCortimeframes.Similarly,projectsreportedtheuseofacceleratedapproachestoachievestretchtargetsandasaresult,subsequentinnovationsensued.Acceleratedprocesseswerebothadriverandaresultofinnovation,whereinnovationsweredescribedasprocess,productand/ormethodologicaldevelopments/enhancements.Innovationwasconsideredaproductorprocessthatreturnedvaluebacktotheprojectandwasoftenasaresultofcreativepartnershipsformedtoresolveunexpectedorunforeseencircumstances.ThisisconsistentwiththeOxforddictionarysdefinitionthatnotestoinnovateistomakechangesinsomethingalreadyexisting,asbyintroducingnewmethods,ideasorproducts(ConciseOxforddictionary,10thedition,OxfordUniversityPress,1999).Assuch,alliancingprojectsactivelyprovidescopefortheprojectteamtoberewardedforinnovation,andprojectswilloftenincludeincentives(andpenalties)formeeting(andmissing)targetsthataresharedacrossallparties,knownaspainsharegainshare(Ross,2013).Riskissharedandisproactivelyidentifiedandmanagedasearlyaspossible.Theresultisthattheclientsandcontractorsengageandshareinveryhighlevelsoftrust,whichcanbeeffectiveforprojectswithcorrespondinglyhighlevelsofuncertaintyandthatofscholarlystudiesofinnovation(Slaughter,1998;Winch,1998;Slaughter,2000).Insomeinstancesacombinationofelementscontributedtoanimprovedoutcome,forexampleaprojectthatcitedacceleratedprocessesandimprovedriskmanagementresultedinasignificantsavingintheprojectriskallowance.Inthesameinstance,theprojectsstatisticsshowedtheexpenditureofmanhoursasexpectedbutoutputbeingsignificantlyhigher,resultinginhighworkefficiencyandsuperiorriskmanagementcontrol.Respondentsalsonotedthattheformalarrangementbetweentheclientandpartnersdefinesalliancing.Thesearetypifiedbyrelationalagreementsratherthancontractualpartnershipsthatmandateasharedapproachtoproblemsolvingandriskmitigation.Incollaborativecontractingsituations,itistheclientwhoestablishestheframeworkfortheoveralladministrationoftheproject(Martel,2012).Thealliancingagreementcountersthecontractualtransactionallyboundapproach.Itexterminatesthepossibilityofvariationstothecontract(oralikelyforayintolitigation),andsettingoutcollaborativeprinciplesattheoutset(Ross,2003).Theclientandthecontractor(whichmaybeaconsortium)actasone,toensurethatthe

  • clienachareapptheAlliaMan

    Cat

    Figu

    ntandcontievingtheKesultofeverproachisnomixofacoanceLeadernagementT

    tegorieso

    ure6:Frequen

    KRAcategorie

    s

    tractorhaveKeyPerformryonecomitonlyanelollaborativershipTeamTeam(AMT

    ofKeyRes

    ncyofKRAs

    alliance/rela

    system

    stakeh

    KRAcategorie

    s

    Key

    ealigneddrmanceIndicaingtogetheementofaworkingen(ALT)level).

    sultAreas

    legacy

    sustainability

    connections

    people

    workmanship

    tionshiphealth

    mperformance

    time

    functionality

    OH&S

    schedule

    traffic

    safety

    quality

    holderrelations

    community

    environment

    yResult

    riversandgators(KPIs)erinabidtlliancingbunvironment,andoperat

    s

    0 5 1

    tAreas

    oalsandsh(ibid).Thisoidentifywutisseenas,andonewtionalisedth

    10 15numberofp

    categor

    areresponsworkisoft

    workablesoanessentia

    whichisendhroughthe

    20 25projects

    ries

    sibilityfortenachievedlutions.ThialingredienorsedatthAlliance

    30 35

    16

    dassntine

  • 17

    ObservationTable2MostfrequentKRAsinstudyIncludedin5to10projects Includedin>10projects

    Functionality Time Systemperformance Alliance/relationship

    health Workmanship People Connections Sustainability legacy

    Environment Community Stakeholderrelations Quality Safety Traffic Schedule OH&S

    Table2liststhesetwogroupstohighlighttherangeandalsotoindicatethatthealliancedeliveryapproachstillrequiresquantifiableoutputsthatalsoincludeanassociatedsetofKPIstodetailthesuccessorfailureinmeetingeachindividualKRA.TherangeofKRAswaschartedacrossthetotalnumberofprojects,withFigure6identifyingthemostcommonlyusedKRAs.Therewereseveralthatwereusedinmorethan10projects,including:

    Environment Community Stakeholderrelations Quality Safety Traffic Schedule OH&S

    AsidefromtrafficrelatedKRAs,theinclusionofwhichmostlikelyprovidesanindicationofthenumberoftrafficrelatedprojectsincludedinthesample,theseKRAsrepresentacorebasisofprojectoutcomedefinitions.IfthislistwereextendedtoincludethoseKRAsthatwereusedin5projectsormoreinthestudy,thentherangewouldalsoincludeareasthatcoveroffonfamiliarprojectoutcomesincluding:

    Functionality Time Systemperformance Alliance/relationshiphealth Workmanship People Connections Sustainability

  • 18

    legacyKRAcategoriesthatwerepresentforlessthanfiveinstancescanbegroupedintooperationalcategoriessuchas:operationaleffectivenessforexampleroadsmoothness,railnetworkandothersimilaraspects;socialoutcomestocommunities;andrecognitionandbrandingaspectssuchaswinningawards.Quality,schedule,andsafetyareallpresentinthisrange.Thisistobeexpected,however,thealliancedeliveryapproachpromotesotherareastoahighlevelofimportanceincludingenvironment,communityandstakeholderengagement.TheinclusionoftheseKRAsdemonstratesafocusonattaininganaboveaverageoutcomefortheproject,andforidentifyingexternalfactorsorissuesasbeingcriticaltothesuccessfuldeploymentofaproject.Environmentheadsthelistandshouldbeseenasanewwayofprojectclientsandownersenvisagingtheoutcomeofaprojectasmorethansimplydeliveringonthephysicalrequirementsofthecontract.Itisinterestingtonotethatcostdoesnotappearineitheroftheselists,highlightingthedifferenceinfocusforallianceprojects.TheinclusionofenvironmentasaKRAdemonstratesacommitmentbytheleadershipteamthattheprojectwillproactivelyconsiderandregardtheimportanceoftheenvironmentandensurethattheprojectdeliversbenefitstotheenvironmentasacoreoutcomeoftheproject.Similarly,theprojectsrelationshipwiththecommunityinwhichtheprojectisbeingundertakeniselevatedtoapositionwherecommunityconsultationandstakeholderengagementarekeyfactorsinthedesignoftheprojectandthemethodologyinwhichitisbeingdelivered.Thereareinstanceswherethisengagementhasresultedininnovationsoccurringineitherimprovedprocessesorfreshapplicationsofexistingideas.Weincludeseveralquotesoverthethreeresearchperiodsthatillustratethebroaderrangeofperceivedinnovationsthathaveresultedfromprojectandprogramalliances.

    Weusedaninnovationregister:definitionofaninnovationwasanyideathatisputintoactionandsubsequentlydeliversvalue.Aniceexamplewasrelocatingasolespinyriceflowerthatwasinthewayofthenewalignment(inaD&CIsuspectnoeffortwouldbemadetosuccessfullyrelocateasoleplantofaprotectedspeciesifanapprovalisinplacetoremoveit).(2012)

    TheManagingDirectornotedthat"thegreatestachievementwasthattheAlliancedevelopedsuchanimpressivepieceofengineeringwithsuchanimpressivesafetyrecorditsetanewstandardforsafetyinengineeringandconstructionprojects."(2010)Beingabletodeliverahighlycomplexprojectinsuchashortperiodoftime(wasthekey).Schedulingwastheinnovationhere,aswellasbeinggivenanuninterruptedworksite.Theprojectwasscheduleddowntoalevelof15minuteintervals.(2008)

  • 19

    Finally,thehealthoftheAllianceitselfisconsideredacriticalfactorinthesuccessfuldeliveryoftheproject.Givenalliancingisaformofrelationalcontracting,theALTandAMTarefocussedonensuringthehumanconnectionswithinthemanagementteam(andacrosstheconsortiumofmembers)cascadetothebroaderoperationalenvironment.IntheseinstancestheALTandAMTrespectivelyhavearoletoleadbyexampleandtoquicklyaddressanybehavioursoractionsthataredetrimentaltothecollaborativespiritandvaluesoftheprojectandtheethosofalliancing.MembersoftheALTwouldgenerallybeappointedresponsibilityforasingleKRA.ThiswouldensuretheKRAsremainedvisibleatALTlevel,whilstprovidinganexecutivelinkbetweentheKRAandmanagement.SimilarlytheAMTwouldnormallyberesponsiblefordefiningtheKPIsassociatedwitheachKRA,andthusclosetheloopbetweenoperations,managementandleadershipconsiderations.TheAMTdevelopsasetofKPIsrelatedtoeachKRAatthebeginningoftheproject(althoughtherehavebeeninstanceswherethisprocesstakesmuchlonger),inanefforttolockdowntheindicatorsandassociatedmetrics.Byclarifyingthesedetailsearlyintheproject,theALThasaclearsenseofthelevelofoutputexpectedandtheequationforanypaingainsharescenario.Theuseofthealliancingperformancegradinglevelsofunsatisfactory,poor,minimumconditionofsatisfaction(MCOS),stretchandgamebreakinghasnotbeenfollowedbyalltheprojects,withsomeoptingtouseapercentageapproach.Regardless,eachKRAwasassignedavaluethatwouldsignifythepointfromwhichpaingainsharepaymentswouldbecalculated.KRAsalsoprovidedclarityandtransparencyontheprojectscoredeliverables,whichcouldbeusedtodisseminateandcommunicateinformationontimelinessoftheprojectsdeliverablesthroughouttheworkforce.Inmanyprojects,ALTmembersareencouragedtoattendasmanyonsitemeetingsaspossible,servingseveralpurposesincludingbeingexposedtotheconditionsonsite,providinganopportunitytoshareinsightsandcommentsfromtheALT,andbeingidentifiedasachampionoftheirspecificKRA.ThepresenceoftheALTmembersonthegroundalsoperpetuatesthealliancenotionoftrustandsharingofinformation,whilstallowingforindividualALTmemberstoshowsupportfortheprojectinleadingbyexampleandoperatinginatransparentmanner.ALTmembersareavitallinkbetweentheproject/programallianceandtheirhomeorganisations.TheygenerallyinapositiontoquicklyfacilitateaccesstoveryhighexecutivelevelintheirhomeorganisationandcanthereforegainapprovalofALTrecommendedsolutionstocomplexproblemsrequiringrapidandflexiblecommitmenttoactionbythoseorganisations.Thisisparticularlyrelevanttomattersrelatingtoplannedinterruptionofservicesintransportorwaterinfrastructureprojectstoaccommodateinnovativeapproachestoaccessforconstructionormaintenanceactivities.SurveyresultsindicatethattheprojectsperformedwellagainsttheKRAswiththevastmajorityatMCOSandabove,howeveraspreviouslymentioned,concentratingexclusivelyonoutcomesagainstKRAsdoesnotnecessarilydemonstratethetotaloutputofanallianceproject.Factorssuchasteamandworkplaceculture,

  • comenvtheThedifferelaofthaspenanottripfinarealBodforandphilwithvehindi

    Val

    Figu

    mmitmenttovironment,adrivingfact

    esurveydaterentiatingationshipbaheprojectspublicgoodblerforregsurprisingtlebottomlancial,socialisedforapdwellandGmeasuresadpurposeofosophy.Fighrestrictedicleforidencatorsofpr

    lue

    ure7:PVSdefi

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14

    16

    18

    No.ofrespo

    nden

    ts

    Q

    oquality,beanddeliveritorsbehind

    ta,includingfeatureofpasedprocurusingthisa

    dprojects.Tgionalanduthereforethine(3BL)inlandenviroprojecttoberaves,2002andperformfeachprojegure6highlKRAsasusntifying,merojectoutco

    inedpriortob

    Q21.ProjectVa

    estforprojngafinalpasuccessfu

    ginvitedquprojectandementformapproach(wTheirvalueurbancommhattheseprnature.Theonmentalbeconsidere2;Officeoftmancebetwectbuttheightsalliancedinmosteasuringandomesthrou

    biddingproceyes

    aluestatemen

    ject,collaboproductthatulalliancep

    otesfromrdprogramams.ThisfeatwithintheAistosuppo

    mercial,indurojectsshoue3BLconceenefitshouedsuccessfutheThirdSeeenthethrKRAscanbeceoutcomeBAUcommdcommunighmoreho

    ess

    ntdefinedpr

    orativeandtisconsiderproject.

    respondentslliancesfrotureiscentAustralasianortvariouscustrialandculdhaveKReptmeanstuldberecogul(Elkingtonector,2009)reebottomeseenascoeimperativemercialprojecatingprojeolisticKRAa

    iortobidding

    innovativeredanexce

    s,highlightmBAUandredonthefcontext)cacommunitieculturaldevRAsthatarethatsimultagnised,mean,1997;Wa).Thebalanlinesvaryonsistentwesthatcanects.AlliancectoutputsandKPImea

    no

    gprocess(n=3

    workellentresult

    amajorotherfactthatmanbeclassiesandtobevelopment.eessentiallyaneousasuredandaddock,nceofdemawiththeai

    witha3BLbecontrastcesprovideandleadinasures.

    31)

    20

    are

    ostfiedeanItisy

    andsms

    tedag

  • Figu

    Figu

    No

    ofrespon

    dents

    No

    ofrespon

    dents

    ure8:PVScom

    ure9:Ratethe

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    bef

    No.ofrespo

    nden

    ts

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    No.ofrespo

    nden

    ts

    Q23.R

    mmunicatedto

    ealliancespe

    fore dur

    Q22.Projec

    RatethealliaProje

    oteams

    erformancein

    ing durin(earl

    ctValueState

    nce'sperformct'sValueSta

    nmeetingthe

    ngly)

    during(

    ementcommu

    manceinmeetatement(n=3

    PVS

    late) n/a

    unicatedtote

    tingtheclien1)

    nocommen

    eams(n=31)

    t's

    ntonlyafte

    21

    er

  • 22

    ObservationInthesurveysof2010and2012,respondentswereaskedquestionsabouttheProjectsValueStatement(PVS).ThesequestionsweredesignedtoelicitinformationaboutthepresenceofaPVS,thetimingofwhenitwasintroducedintonegotiations,andhowitmettheclientsownvaluestatement.Somegeneralobservationscanbemadeonthedataavailableagainstthesethreequestions:definition,communicationandrating(Figure7,Figure8,andFigure9).

    PVSdefinitionThePVSwasdefinedpriortothebiddingprocessinthemajorityofcases.However,theseresultsalsoindicatethatalmost40%ofrespondentsnotedthatthePVSwasintroducedafterthebiddingprocesshadcommenced.Thereareseveralfactorscontributingtothis,whichwillbedetailedwhenreviewingresponsestothenextquestion.ThePVSwasdefinedforthisresearchasrepresentingthesummaryoftheValueforMoneypropositionoftheprojecttothespecificgovernmentdepartmentoragencythatjustifiedthegovernmentinvestingintheprojectinthefirstinstance.Thisresultimpliesthatclientshavebeenabletocommenceallianceengagement,throughdefiningTOCandotherconstraints,withoutnecessarilyanarticulationofwhatconstitutesavalueoutcome.Thedatasuggeststhat:

    Somerespondentsmaynotbesufficientlyclearonhowvalueformoney(VfM)forsocialandenvironmental3BLaspectscanbearticulatedinareadilyunderstoodmannerthroughtheproject/programbusinesscase;

    ContinueduseandprimacyofthetermVfMinsteadofbestvalueorproject/programvaluedetractsfromattentiononwhatiscriticalandimportantinvaluetermsandthisunderminesperceivedprojectorprogramsuccessbecauseitislimitedbymonetarydefinitionsofvalue;

    ItwasinevitablethatsomerespondentswerebroughtintotheallianceteamsafterothershadleftandinthissensetheymayhaveinheritedKRAswithoutthesebeingfullyexplainedandjustified;and

    Perhapsallprojectbusinesscaseshouldincludeallthree3BLaspects(cost/commercial;environmental;andsocial)inaVfMtemplate,whileacceptingthatformanyprojectsthecost/commerciallegofthe3BLconceptoftendominatesforpoliticalandbudgetconstraintreasons.

    RespondentsnotethatinsomecasesthePVSwasntproducedinthestrictestsense,butratherincludedaspartofprojectproposaldocumentation.Insomecasesthisappearedmorelikeavaluepropositionthatwouldprovidetheaimsofavaluestatement.InothercasesitwasveryclearthattheVfMstatementwasincludedintheinitial(RFP)documentationwherethealliancesneededtoaddressVfM(aspartoftheirsubmissions)tobeapprovedpriortotheagreementoftheTOC.

  • 23

    PVScommunicationRespondentswerealsoaskedtoidentifyatwhatpointintime,duringthebiddingprocess,thePVSwascommunicatedtothebiddersorallianceteams.Thirtypercentofrespondentsnotedthiscommunicationoccurredbeforethebiddingprocesshadbegun;howeverforalmost40%ofthem,itwasundertakenduringthebiddingprocess.ThePVSwasincludedintheinitialprojectdocumentation(suchasabusinesscase)orwasincludedaspartoftheinitialcompetitivealliancephasepriortothemainalliancecontractbeingawardedforthoseprojectswherecommunicationofthePVSoccurredbeforethebiddingprocessbegan.Insomeinstancesitwasincludedintheinitialindustrybriefingstosupportthecompetitivetenderingprocess.ThePVSmayhavebeendevelopedbytheallianceteamonformationofthealliance,orembeddedinthedefinitionoftheKRAswhichalsoweredevelopedandconfirmedpostawardofthecontractforthoseprojectswhereitwascommunicatedduringthebiddingprocess.IfthePVSwascommunicatedearlyduringthebiddingprocess,thiswasbecausethetermsofreferenceneededtobecreatedinordertounderstandhowvaluewouldbemeasuredandthesubsequentflowoneffectstothealliances.ForthoseprojectswherethePVSwascommunicatedlaterinthebiddingprocess,therewereseveralreasonscitedforthistiming.InoneinstancethePVScameattheendoftheTOCperiodandafterthealliancewasselected,andinanotherthealliancehadtorespondtoaclientsstatementanddemonstratehowitwouldmeetthetargets.Inthisinstance,therespondentalsonotedsomeconfusion(fromtheclientsperspective)regardingtheinterpretationofvalue,notingthat;

    Theclienthaddifficultyinreallyexpressingtheinterpretationofthestatement;itwasratherambiguousandverydifficulttoquantify.IrememberreadingaguidelinefromtheDepartmentofTreasuryatthetimewhichofferedlittleclarification.

    RatingPVSApproximatelythreequartersofrespondentsnotedthatthealliance,ataminimum,mettheclientsexpectationsofPVS.Morethan60%ofrespondentsratedtheoutcomeasoutstanding/veryhighorbetterthanexpectations/highagainstmeetingthePVS.TheredoesnotappeartobeacorrelationbetweentheratingsandwhenthePVSwascommunicatedtotheteam,howeveracrossthetwohighestratings,therewereonlytwoprojectswherethePVSwasdefinedpostbiddingprocess.Manyrespondents,inprovideddetailstothisquestion,citedexampleswheretheprojecthadreceivedindustryrecognitionawards,andhighclientandALTsatisfaction.

    TheperformanceoftheAlliancecanbestbedescribedbytheawardsachievedatstateandnationallevelfromvariousindustrybodies.

  • AlliFiguBAU

    Figu

    ObsRestotvariminflexthatwhi

    Thestakfocu

    No

    ofrespon

    dents

    Superbevidenc

    ianceDel

    ure10illustUD&Cortra

    ure10:Rating

    servation

    pondentsoheD&CorDationsandnimisationoibilityofprotareofhighlstalsoeng

    Theallassociainfrastr

    ealliancedekeholderrequsonbest

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14

    16

    18

    20

    verybet

    No.ofrespo

    nden

    tsb.Recognitcedbythew

    iveryApp

    ratestheraaditionalDB

    alliancemeth

    overwhelminDBB.Reasopossibilityoofdisputesaojectdelivehriskorhavgagingininn

    liancedeliveatedwiththructureproj

    eliveryapprquirementsforproject

    yhigh/farttervalue

    h

    tionbyinduwinningofth

    proach

    atingoftheBBapproac

    hodagainstD

    ngconsidernsmostoftofclaimstuandstoppageryapproacvecomplexnovativepra

    erymethodedesignanectshadres

    oachwasses,whilstbeiandshare

    igh/somewhbettervalue

    Q24Allian

    ustrypeersohreeaward

    alliancedeh.

    D&C

    redthealliatencitedincurningintolges.Responhthattheaunknownfactices.

    dbetteraddndconstructsultedinliti

    eentobeangawareoedcollabora

    hat moderatevalue

    cemethodolo

    oftheexcellds

    liveryappro

    ancedelivercludedaneitigiouscircndentsalsoallianceeffefactors,tob

    dressedthetion.Previouigation.

    bletointerofscopeandativeenviro

    /samee

    les

    ogyVsD&C

    lenceofthe

    oachascom

    ryapproacheradicationocumstances,notedthatectivelyallowbemanaged

    complexitieusendeavo

    connectwitdcostfactornment,and

    ssvalue

    eprojectis

    mparedtoa

    htobesupeofcontract,andtheduetothews,projectdefficiently

    esandrisksoursonsimil

    thcommunrs;ithasadproduces

    nocomment

    24

    a

    eriorual

    s

    lar

    nity

    a

    t

  • mutrath

    ColInthcollaTheininwerspecHowcollasuffThetheachwornoteprojachimpcom

    Figu

    No

    ofrespon

    dents

    tuallycoopeherthanthe

    llaboratio

    he2012suraboration,w

    emajorityofnterteampreprojectswcificallyrefu

    wever,theAaborativepficientlyinfo

    eflexibilityoprocuremeievetheprorkcooperatesthatthejectasaneievethrougplementatiommented:

    TheAMcontinubyuseo

    ure11:Collabo

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    nev

    No.ofrespo

    nden

    ts

    erativeenvieletterofth

    on

    rveyadditioworkplacec

    frespondenproblemsolvwherethisdusedthisre

    AM/AMTwproblemsolormedinor

    ofanalliancentprocess,ojectskeyrivelywithtdevelopmextensionofghcooperatonofaprice

    MTwasextruallychallenofsynergya

    orationQ29

    ver only

    ironmentthhecontract

    onalquestiocultureand

    ntsnotedthving,howevdidnotoccuequest.

    wasconsidevingoccurrrdertosupp

    ceallowspr,butitalsoresults.InpheAMT.Reentofaleadfthemselvetion"wasdeecompetitiv

    remelyfocungedeachoandinnovat

    initially r

    Coll

    hataddresst.

    onswereincinnovation

    hattheAlliaverasurpriuratall(Fig

    eredsuccessred.ResponporttheAM

    rojectparticimpliesthaparticular,iesearchbyLdershipenrisandfeelgeemednecevealliance.

    ussedasagotheronhowtion.

    rarely occ

    laborationQ2n=13

    sestherequ

    cludedtoinn.

    anceManagseinthesegure11).In

    sfulinensudentsnote

    MTinitsrole

    cipantstochattheteamtreliesontLove,MistryichedculturgoodaboutessaryforthOnerespon

    grouponthewtoachieve

    cassionally F

    29

    uirementso

    ncludeareas

    ger(AM)enfindingsistoneprojec

    ringcommudthattheAe.

    hangethesbecomeinntheabilityoyandDavisre"wherepwhattheyphesuccessfndentfrom

    eprojecteextraordin

    Frequently

    oftheprojec

    softeam

    nsuredtrainthattherect,theclien

    unicationaALTwas

    scopelateinnovativetooftheALTto(2010,p94

    peopleviewpersonallyfulthestudy

    andnaryoutcom

    Continually

    25

    ct

    ning

    t

    nd

    n

    o48)wthe

    mes

  • 26

    Figure12:CollaborationQ3032

    Table3:TeamcollaborationQ2932 TeamCollaboration29 HowfrequentlydidtheAMensureformaland/orinformalAMTmembertraining

    anddevelopmentininterteamproblemsolvinganddecisionmaking?30 HoweffectivelydidtheAMensurerelevantformaland/orinformalcommunication

    tosupportAMTproblemsolvinganddecisionmaking?31 HoweffectivewastheAMTincollaborativeproblemsolvinganddecisionmaking?32 HoweffectivelydidtheAMactasabridgetocommunicaterelevantformaland/or

    informalinformationtoandfromtheALTforprovidingleadershipanddirectiontotheAMT?

    Figure13:CollaborationQ3335

    Table4:CollaborationQ3335 TeamCollaboration33 HoweffectivelywastheAMT/ALTrelationshipinsupportingcollaborativeproblem

    solvinganddecisionmaking?34 TowhatextentwasthephysicalproximityoftheAMTacontributortosupporting

    collaboration?35 Towhatextentwerethevirtual(ICT)toolsoftheAMTacontributortosupporting

    collaboration?

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    verylow low moderate high veryhigh

    No..o

    frespo

    nden

    ts

    CollaborationQ30 32n=13

    Q30

    Q31

    Q32

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    verylow low moderate high veryhigh

    No.ofrespo

    nden

    ts

    CollaborationQ33 35n=13

    Q33

    Q34

    Q35

  • 27

    Teampersonalitieswerefocussedondeliveringtheprojectratherthanfosteringegos.Someofthemostmemorablemomentswerethehardmeetingsdealingwithseeminglyintractablechallenges.TheAMregularlycommunicatedandsharedprojectinformationacrosstheprojectteam.TheAMplayedanintegralpartinproblemsolvingontheproject.[The]ALTfocussedongovernanceclearlydefiningrolesandresponsibilitiesfortheAMT[itwas]astrongrelationship. Everyone[was]alltogethersoitwasveryeasy.Wehadsomeprettyhighlevelpeopleworking[together]andtheygotthingsdone.

    ObservationTheAMTandALTwereratedveryhighlyasbeingabletosupportcollaborativeproblemsolvinganddecisionmaking.Thisisakeycharacteristicofalliancing.Thisfeaturestillretainsastrongfocusintheprojectsreviewed.RespondentsnotedtheimportanceofthecompetencyoftheAMandthemakeupoftheAMT/ALT,asthesedirectlyimpactedontheabilityforcollaborationtooccur.Interestedreadersshouldrefertothestudyundertakenonprofilingprofessionalexcellence(WalkerandLloydWalker,2011a;2011b;2011c)andkeyfindingsofthatreportarepresentedinAppendix2Table9.Withoutastrongleadershipandinclusivemanagementstyle,barrierscannotbeovercomeandpeopleresorttoasiloapproachintermsofknowledgesharingandtransfer.Beingcolocatedisalsoconsideredimportantasitassistswitheffectivecommunicationacrossteamsandisnecessaryinordertodealwithissuesastheyemerged.ThismighttaketheformofadhocAMT/ALTforums,orinformalworkshopstodealwithapressingmatter.Theuseofonlinetoolstoassistwithdocumentdistributionandinformationmanagementvariedacrosstheprojects,althoughthereweresomepositiveexperiencesinusingthesetoolstoassistwithdocumentmanagementandgeneralprojectcoordination.

    WorkplaceCultureRespondentsratedtheAMThightoveryhighintheperceptionthatitunderstoodtheconceptthatweallsinkorswimtogetherontheproject.Therewasasenseamongstsomerespondentshowever,thattheAMTmayhaveattimesactedintheirowninterests,eventhoughincontrasttheynotedtheAMTmembersstucktotheirworkcommitments.TheALTandtheAMareseentobesuccessfulinleadingtheprojects.

  • 28

    Figure14:WorkplacecultureQ3640Table5:WorkplacecultureQ3640 WorkplaceCulture36 TowhatextentdidtheAMTperceivethatweallsinkorswimtogether?37 TowhatextentdidAMTmembersprotecttheirowninterestsattheexpenseofother

    AMTmembers?38 TowhatextentdidAMTmemberssticktotheirworkandcommitments?39 TowhatextentdidtheALTpursueacoherentcourseinleadingtheproject?40 TowhatextentdidtheAMpursueacoherentcourseinmanagingtheAMT?

    Figure15:WorkplacecultureQ4145Table6:WorkplacecultureQ4145 WorkplaceCulture41 TowhatextentdidyoufeelthattheAMTandALThadconsistentlyalignedand

    clearlyarticulatedoverallprojectgoalsandexpectations?42 Towhatextentwouldyouwanttoworkonotherprojectalliancesafterthisone?43 TowhatextentwouldyoutrytopersuadequalifiedfriendstoworkonPAs?44 TowhatextentdoyoufeelthatPAsaremorechallengingthanBAUprojects?45 TowhatextentdoyoufeelthatPAsaremorepersonallysatisfyingtoworkonthan

    BAUprojects?

    0123456789

    verylow low moderate high veryhigh n/a

    No.ofrespo

    nden

    ts

    WorkplaceCultureQ36 40n=13

    Q36

    Q37

    Q38

    Q39

    Q40

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    verylow low moderate high veryhigh n/a

    No.ofrespo

    nden

    ts

    WorkplacecultureQ4145n=13

    Q41

    Q42

    Q43

    Q44

    Q45

  • 29

    Theseresultsalignwithanotherrecentstudyundertakenonallianceculturethatoffersinsightsintohowitmayfeeltobepartofanalliance,andtosensetheambienceofanalliance(WalkerandLloydWalker,2014a).

    Aoneteamoneprojectmentalitymeantthatwewereallinthistogetherthisleadtomanyteammembersassistingotherswhenthetimesgottough.AMTmemberswereinitiallyverycommittedtotheirwork.HoweverasthedelayandcostissuesgrewinstatureAMTmembersstartedtoisolatethemselvesandbecamenoncommittal.TheAMTbroughtthemanyversionsoftheALTfortheride. EveryALTmeetingstartedwithasafetyinspection.[It]alwayslookedatgovernanceissuesandincludedpresentationsfromthealliance. TherewasahighlevelofcommunicationattheALTmeetings,inteambriefingsandonteamdevelopmentdays.Thiswasespeciallytruewhenwehadtodealwithchange.GettingtheALTmemberstalkingdirecttoAMTmemberssupportedusinmovingthroughthechange. Thisstyleofprojectdelivery(winwinculture)outperformsadversarialcontractstyles. Alliancesarewithoutadoubtthebestmodelifyouwanttodothings.Alliancestakeefforttosetupatthestartoftheprojecttomakesurethecorrectcultureisinplace.Youthenneedtoconstantlymonitortheculturethroughoutthecourseoftheprojectandtakeimmediateactiontoaddressanynegativebehavioursthisoftentakescouragetohavethechallengingdiscussions.Thetypeofchallengeisdifferent,moreaboutdealingwithchangeandculturedevelopmentinanalliance.BAUprojectsalsoarechallenging,butinthesenseoftryingtoperformwithyourhandstiedbehindyourback(i.e.comparedtowhatyouknowcanbeachievedinamorecollaborativeenvironment).

    ObservationRespondentsratedtheAMTandALThighlywhenconsideringtheextenttowhichtheoverallprojectgoalsandexpectationswerealignedandarticulated.Alliancesareseenasexcitingprofessionalexperienceswithallrespondentsnotingtheywouldworkonanotheroneifgiventheopportunitysomerespondentshadalreadymultipleexperienceswithalliances.Theywouldencourageotherstoconsiderworkingonprojectalliances,asalliancesweremorepersonallysatisfyingthanothertypesofprojects.

  • InnInnothatconsoluasc

    Figu

    Tabl4647484950

    No

    ofrespon

    dents

    novationovationocctinnovationsidered.Innution,andwcientificmet

    ure16:Innova

    le7:InnovatioInnovatTowhatcollaboraTowhatofAMTcTowhatresultofTowhatbacktoATowhatbacktot

    InnovaDefiniti EveryithathaArewamonetagoesalSpecifiprojects

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    very

    No.ofrespo

    nden

    tscupiesacenncanoccurnovationinwhichaddsvthodology.

    ation

    onontheproiononthePextentdidyoation?extentcouldcollaborationextentwasinf AMTcollaboextentwereAMTorganisaextentweretheProjectOw

    ationstartsion:quicker,

    innovationdasinglep

    ardprogramaryvalue(uslongway.

    icnatureofs.

    low low

    ntralroleinasaprocesthissenseivaluetothe

    jectQ4650rojectoufeelthatinyoudemons?nnovationsdoration?innovationsdations?innovationsdwnersorgan

    attheproje,cheaperan

    cameasarpersonsnam

    mwassetupsually$50g

    finnovation

    w moder

    discussionsssoranideisconsidereeproject,ra

    nnovationswstratethatinndevelopmentdevelopedasdevelopedasnisation?

    ectlevelandndeasier.

    resultofAMmeagainst

    ptorewardgiftvoucher

    nnotalways

    rate high

    Innovationn=13

    saboutalliaaorachangedsomethinatherthann

    weredevelopenovationswecelebratedfosaresultofAsaresultofA

    dhasbuyin

    MTcollaborait.

    dinnovativer)butoften

    sreadilytra

    veryhig

    ances.Respogeinhowangthatbrinnecessarilya

    edasaresultredevelopedormallyorinfAMTcollaboraAMTcollabora

    nfromtheA

    ationcann

    ethinking.Iasimplepa

    ansferredto

    gh n/a

    ondentsnoaproblemisngsaboutaastheresu

    ofAMTdasaresultformallyasaationdiffusedationdiffused

    AMT.

    notthinkof

    Itwasntaatontheba

    oother

    Q46

    Q47

    Q48

    Q49

    Q50

    30

    otes

    ltof

    dd

    fone

    highack

    6

    7

    8

    9

    0

  • 31

    ObservationInnovationregisterswereoftenmaintained,withoneprojectincluding396items,ofwhich179wereacceptedandincorporatedintotheproject.Innovationswerecelebratedbothformallyandinformallyacrossprojects,rangingfromteamBBQstoawardceremonies.Theoutputsofinnovationwerefeltacrosstheorganisationsengagedintheallianceswithsomeinnovationsusedinothercontextsmoreeasilythanothers.

  • 32

    TrendsThisreportreflectsonresultsfromthreeseparatebutconnectedsurveysacross2008,2010and2012.Italsobenefitsfrominsightsgainedfromthreeparallelstudiesundertakenoverthisperiod.ThefirstoftheseistheProfilingProfessionalExcellenceinAllianceManagementstudy(WalkerandLloydWalker,2011a;2011b;2011c)fundedbytheAlliancingAssociationofAustralasia(nowpartofInfrastructurePartnershipsAustraliaIPA)thatresultedinacapabilitymaturitymodeldevelopmentforalliancemanagers(seeAppendix2).ItprovidesusefulguidanceontrendsfordevelopingKSAEofalliancemanagers.ThisillustratesKSAEaspirationsnotonlyforallianceteamleadersbutalsootherallianceparticipants.Thedistributedandengagedcollaborativeleadershipmodelcanbedevelopedtoenablealeadershipstyleandprojectworkplaceculturethatresultsinhighlevelsofprojectsuccess.Thesecondstudy,UnderstandingRelationshipbasedProjectProcurement,fundedbytheProjectManagementInstitute(PMI)resultedinabooktobepublishedbytheProjectManagementInstitute(WalkerandLloydWalker,2014b).Thisbookillustrateshowprojectandprogramalliancesfitintoaglobalperspectiveandencompassarangeofcollaborativeprojectprocurementarrangements.Thethirdsurvey(currentlyunderway)involvesasurveyofprogramalliancesacrossthreeinfrastructurecontextsroad,waterandrail.Thisstudyinvestigates(throughsemistructuredinterviewswithprogramalliancedirectorsandalliancemanagers)programalliancesforcapitalexpenditureandongoingservicemaintenancefunctions.Thissurveyprovidesadditionalinsightsthatcanbeusedtosupplementourunderstandingofquantitativedatagatheredinthe2008,2010and2012surveys.Thedatapresentedinthisstudyfrom2008,2010and2012togetherwiththeinsightsreflecteduponfromthethreestudiescanbesummarisedasfollows:

    1. ChangesinStateandCommonwealthGovernmentpolicyhasinfluencedachangeinthepreviousemphasisondemonstratingbestvalueperceivedwithina3BLcontext(cost/commercial;environmental;andsocial)toanemphasisandpriorityonthecost/commerciallegofthe3BLconcept;

    2. ThetrendinemphasisinglowestcosthasshiftedfromasingleTOCconceptbasedonabestteamselectionprocess,towardsacompetitivedualTOCapproach.TheadvantagesformovingtoadualTOCareunclearasaretheassociatedsacrificesthatneedtobemadeinadoptingthisapproach.

    3. Thedataandanalysisofsome60alliances,combinedwithinsightsfromtheotherresearchprojectscitedabove,stronglyindicates(ifnotdemonstrates)thattheallianceapproachissuccessfulindeliveringbroader3BLoutcomesonpublicgoodprojectsthoseinwhichtheoutcomeobjectiveisnotlowestcostdeliverybutwidersocialandenvironmentalbestvalueoutcomes.Thissuggeststhatcontinuedadoptionandadaptationofthisapproachisaneffectivemethodologytomeetsocietalneeds.

  • 33

    4. OthercollaborativeprojectprocurementformsdiscussedandexploredinthePMIstudy(WalkerandLloydWalker,2014b),suchasEarlyContractorInvolvement(ECI),integratedprojectdelivery(IPD)andtheBAAsT5Agreement,mayemergemorestronglyinAustraliaovertimeforprojectswherethefullalliancemodelisnotdeemedsuitable,butwherecollaborationisessential.ThelevelofcloseintegrationbeyondthelimitednumberofmajorTier1contractorsintheAustralasianalliancingtraditioncanbecontrastedwiththegreaterinvolvementofUKTier1suppliers(anomenclatureforbothcontractorsandmaterialsuppliersintheUK).Inthefuture,alliancesmaybeabletoextenddeeperintoTier2and3suppliers.

    5. Benefitsofworkingonprojectandprogramalliances,asmanyconstructionandinfrastructurecompanieshavenowexperienced,hasresultedinanincreasedrecognitionofthevalueofcollaboration.CompaniesnowseektoembedthiscollaborativeaspirationintomanyBAUprojectsasawaytobetterunderstandhowinnovationisenabledthroughembeddedprojectandprogramallianceconcepts.AuniquecasestudyofanalliancebeingincorporatedintoaPPPprojectwasrecentlyreported(JacobssonandWalker,2013)thatmaybeaworldfirstasafuturemodeltodevelopamoreenhancedformofECIthatgainsgreateradvantagesasanalliance.

    6. Respondentsfromthis,andtheothertwostudiescited,stronglyindicatesavaluableupskillingexperienceforsmallandmediumsizedfirmsinregionalandruralareas,asaresultofworkinginprogramalliances.ThisoutcomeprovidesausefulKSAEmodelforproductivityenhancementoftheconstructionindustryworkforce(refertoAppendix2).Wewouldexpecttheprogramalliancemodeltobeattractiveforpublicgoodservicedeliveryinthefuture.

    7. Australiaholdsauniqueplaceintheworldasbeingthemostexperiencedcountryindeliveringinfrastructurealliances.OthercountriessuchasFinland,TheNetherlandsandtheUKhavebeenexperimentingwithsuchallianceswithinaEuropeanUnioncontext(Laanetal.,2011;Lahdenper,2012;WalkerandLloydWalker,2014b).TherearecommercialopportunitiesformajorAustraliancontractorsanddesignconsultantstoprovideexpertisetointernationalalliancesandtobecomegloballeadersinthisprojectdeliveryapproach.SomeoftheprojectownerswhonowhavedeepexperienceofalliancingareinastrongpositiontoofferservicestootherinternationalinfrastructureprojectownersbasedontheKSAEtheyhavegainedthroughthisperiodofintensivealliancinginAustralia.

    8. Finally,asmorecommercialorganisationsfinditnecessarytoadoptcorporatesocialresponsibilitymeasures,the3BLKRAmodelmaytipfromitscurrentdominanceofacommercialoutcome,towardsthesocialandenvironmentalpoles,makingalliancingmorecommonintheprivatesector.Currently,theclosestthingtoprojectalliancingintheUSA(throughtheIntegratedProjectDeliveryasusedbySutterHealthonhospitalprojects)(NASF,2010)indicatesinterestfromthecommercialprivatesectorintheseformsofcollaborativeprojectdelivery.

  • 34

    ConclusionsThisreportprovidesmorethanaconsolidationofthe2008,2010and2012AAAAlliancingsurveys.Itincludesreflectiondrawnfromimportantresearchprojects(undertakenascomplimentarystudies)fromwhichwehavebeenabletoincludeinsightsandtriangulatedata.Itbecomesobviousfromthedata,thatonlyaminorityofallianceprojectsinthesurveydidnotmeettimeandcostexpectations.Italsoseemsclearfromthesurveythatparticipantsbelievethatprojectparticipantsdisplaythenecessarytrustandbestforprojectattitudesthatisapreconditiontosuccessfulalliances.Onerespondentcommentedthat;Becauseofthecompetitiveallianceprocess,theAMTtendedattimestoreverttoaD&Cmentality.Thispresumablymeantthatatcertaintimestheteamwasmotivatedmorebyselfinterest,thanforbestforproject.Thiscaseinparticularhighlightspreconditionsnecessaryforasuccessfulalliance.Projectalliancingisgenerallysuitableforthedeliveryofprojectswithcertaincharacteristics,suchas;highrisk,tighttimeframe,complexstakeholderissuesandcomplexexternalenvironments(Chen,Zhang,XieandJin,2012).Theoretically,alliancingisapromisingdeliverymethodinthosesituations,butthereisnoguaranteethatitwillleadtooptimumoutcomesinpractice(Chenetal.,2012).Instead,Ross(2003)suggeststhatsomealliancesarebeingundertakenbyclients,andtolesserextentcontractors,withoutsufficientcommitmenttounderlyingprinciples.Insomecases,thismayresultinprojectslackingtheattitudesandleadershipskillsneededtoestablishandsustainahighperformingalliance.Atbestthismayleadtosuboptimalalliances,atworstabreakdownincorporaterelationshipsandseriousprojectfailuresthatwoulddamagethereputationofthealliancemodel.Tosummarisetheunderpinningtheoryandliteraturethathasinformedthisresearch,Alliancingrepresentsaheightenedlevelofprojectmanagementwheretheprojectpartnersengagesfullyasaprojectleadershipteamandmanagementinordertotakeonmoredemandingprojects.AccordingtoMills,WalkerandLloydWalker(2012)relationshipbasedprocurement,andalliancinginparticular,isbasedon:collaborationthroughjointproblemframingandsolving;amodelofsuccessiswiderthantime/cost/fitnessforpurpose;andthedriverforalliancesbeingbasedonbestforprojectneedsandmeans.Thetangibleoutcomeoftheprojectisthedeliveryoftheexpectedbenefit.Thiscouldbeafunctioninghospital,transportationinfrastructure,watersupply,orseweragesystem.Theintangiblebehaviouraloutcomeoftheallianceisdemonstratedmutualrespect,collaborativeprocessandaction,andtrustandcommitment.Projectandprogramalliancesrepresentaworldclassandadvancedprocurementchoicethathasbeendemonstratedtoachieveexceptionalresultsandprojectoutcomes.Theapproachhasbeensubjecttocriticism(WoodandDuffield,2009)

  • 35

    butthiswasbasedonasmallsampleoftwocasesofDualTOCoutofatotalcasestudysampleof14projects.However,asCliftonandDuffieldhasargued(2006)allianceprinciplescouldbeofvalueifusedwithinPublicPrivatePartnerships(PPPs).ThispropositionwasdemonstratedasbeingviableinthecasestudyreporteduponbyJacobssonandWalker(2013).Oneconclusiontobedrawnisthatallianceshaveafuturenotonlyintheprojectandprogramcontextbutmaybeembeddedinotherprocurementforms.Fromthedata,whichincludedthreesurveysandthreeparallelstudiesthatentailedqualitativesemistructuredinterviews,wecanclaimfromthesediscussionswithapproximately100respondentsandalliancepractitionersthatitisclearthatalliancesrequirecertainconditionstobeapplicableandsuccessful.Alliancescanbeexpensivetoestablish,includecomplexinterfacesandaregenerallymostsuitedtoprojectswherethereisahighlevelofuncertaintyandambiguityofscope.Assuchthechoiceofprojectprocurementapproachneedstobewellunderstoodbyclientandcontractorsalike.Alliancesalsorequirehighlevelsofrelationalskillswithintheprojectteam(seeAppendix2)whichincludesaclientrepresentative.Theallianceteammustbeabletoworkwithinacultureofmutualrespect,trustandcommitment.Itneedstohavetheflexibilitytomodifyplansinordertoachieveprojectgoals,withoutrecoursetofingerpointingandlitigation.Thisrequires,asillustratedinAppendix2,aspecialskillsetthatisgenerallyuncommonanddifficulttosource.Wereachastarkconclusionthatevenifalliancingweretobemassivelyincreased(globallyandwithinAustralia)therewouldbeamajorshortageofrequisiteKSAEwithintheindustryforallallianceparties.ContinuedinvolvementinalliancingneedstobemaintainedifwearetoprogressivelygrowthenumberofpotentialprojectparticipantswiththenecessaryKSAE.Wecanconcludefromoursurveyandinterviewbase,thatalliancinghasbeensuccessfulacrosstime,cost,functionalityandbroader3BLmeasures.ThedataindicatesthatthereisroomforimprovementandAppendix2illustrateshowallianceteamsmaybenchmarktheirKSAEtoidentifyaspectsforimprovement.Itisnotthepurposeofthisreporttoprobeintohowsuchimprovementcouldbeachieved.Thecontributionthatthisresearchmakesisthatitprovidesacomprehensivebenchmarkstudyofthestateofplayofprojectandprogramalliances.Ithasbreadthanddepthasacompendiumofthe2008,2010and2012studiesandaddsthroughthis,tothestudyundertakenbyWoodandDuffield(2009),particularlyinitsaccesstoinsightsofrecentstudiesonalliancesinAustraliaandoverseas.WebelieveitprovidesthemostcurrentpictureofthenatureofalliancesinAustraliaasatthetimeofwritingattheendof2013.Finally,thisresearchhasinvestigatedtheperformanceof60alliancesinordertocriticallyexaminetheeffectivenessoftheprocurementmethodtodeliversuccessful

  • 36

    projectoutcomes.Theresultsofthecasesinvestigatedshowthatthevastmajorityperformedverywell.Theallianceteamsadoptedtherequiredattitudesandbehaviours,andalsomettimeandcosttargets.Overall,thealliancemethodofprocurementisapositiveinfluenceontheprojectsinthisstudy.

  • 37

    ReferencesBlismas,N.andHarley,J.(2008).AlliancesPerformanceinPublicSector

    InfrastructureAsurveyonalliancesPerformanceinPublicSectorInfrastructureprojectsacrossAustralia,Melbourne,RMIT,UniversityandALLIANCEASSOCIATIONAUSTRALASIA.

    Brady,T.,Davies,A.,Gann,D.andRush,H.(2007).Learningtomanagemegaprojects:thecaseofBAAandHeathrowTerminal5.ProjectManagementPerspectives.XXIX:3339.

    Chen,G.,Zhang,G.,Xie,Y.M.andJin,X.H.(2012).Overviewofalliancingresearchandpracticeintheconstructionindustry.ArchitecturalEngineeringandDesignManagement.8(2):103119.

    Clifton,C.andDuffield,C.F.(2006).ImprovedPFI/PPPserviceoutcomesthroughtheintegrationofAllianceprinciples.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement.24(7):573586.

    Cohen,J.(2010)IntegratedProjectDelivery:CaseStudies,Sacramento,CA,AmericanInstituteofArchitects(AIA)AIACaliforniaCouncil.

    DepartmentofFinanceandTreasuryVictoria(2010).ThePractitionersGuidetoAllianceContracting,Melbourne,DepartmentofTreasuryandFinance,Victoria:161.

    Doherty,S.(2008)Heathrow'sT5HistoryintheMaking,Chichester,JohnWiley&SonsLtd.

    Elkington,J.(1997)CannibalswithForks,London,CapstonePublishing.Jacobsson,M.andWalker,D.H.T.(2013).AlliancingwithinaPublicPrivate

    Partnership.22ndNordicAcademyofManagementConference.SteinthorssonR.S.Reykjavk,IcelandUniversityofIcelandReykjavk14pp.

    Laan,A.,Voordijk,H.andDewulf,G.(2011).Reducingopportunisticbehaviourthroughaprojectalliance.InternationalJournalofManagingProjectsinBusiness.4(4):660679.

    Lahdenper,P.(2012).Makingsenseofthemultipartycontractualarrangementsofprojectpartnering,projectalliancingandintegratedprojectdelivery.ConstructionManagementandEconomics.30(1):5779.

    Love,P.E.D.,Mistry,D.andDavis,P.R.(2010).PriceCompetitiveAllianceProjects:IdentificationofSuccessFactorsforPublicClients.JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement.136(9):947956.

    Martel,A.,Harley,J,Wakefield,RandHorne,R(2012).Hardconditionssoftoutcomes:innovationstrategiesinprocurementofremoteindigenoushousing.6thAustralasianHousingResearchers'Conference(AHRC12),Adelaide,Australia,810February2012,BeerA.,UniversityofAdelaide:120.

    Mills,A.andHarley,J.(2010).AlliancePerformanceandPerceptionSurveyinPublicSectorinfrastructure2010,Sydney,AllianceAssociationofAustralasia:17pp.

    Mills,A.,Walker,D.H.T.andLloydWalker,B.M.(2012).DevelopingInfrastructureProjectsUsingAlliances.2012AACEInternational

  • 38

    Transactions;56thAACEInternationalAnnualMeeting.WhitesideIIJ.D.SanAntonio,Texas,AACEInternational:15pp.

    NASF,C.,APPA,AGCandAIA,(2010).Integratedprojectdeliveryforpublicandprivateowners,standard.IntegratedProjectDeliveryForPublicandPrivateOwners:40pp.

    OfficeoftheThirdSector(2009).AGuidetoSocialReturnonInvestment,London,CabinetOffice,UK:55.

    Ross,J.(2003).Introductiontoprojectalliancing.AllianceContractingConference,Sydney,30April2003,ProjectControlInternationalPtyLtd,

    Ross,J.(2013).Gainshare/painshareRegimeGuidancepaperwithsamplemodel/drafting,http://www.pciaus.com/Downloads/PCI_GainshareGuideModel_A_07Feb2011.pdf,

    Slaughter,E.S.(1998).Modelsofconstructioninnovation.JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement.124(2):226231.

    Slaughter,E.S.(2000).ImplementationofConstructionInnovations.BuildingResearch&Information.28(1):217.

    Waddock,S.A.,Bodwell,C.B.andGraves,S.(2002).Responsibility:Thenewbusinessimperative.AcademyofManagementExecutive.16(2):132148.

    Walker,D.H.T.andHarley,J.(2013).AlliancePerformanceandPerceptionSurveyinPublicSectorinfrastructure2012,Melbourne,AllianceAssociationofAustralasia:20pp.

    Walker,D.H.T.andLloydWalker,B.M.(2011a).ProfilingProfessionalExcellenceinAllianceManagementSummaryStudyReport,Sydney,AlliancingAssociationofAustralasia:36.

    Walker,D.H.T.andLloydWalker,B.M.(2011b).ProfilingProfessionalExcellenceinAllianceManagementVolumeOneFindingsandresults,Sydney,AlliancingAssociationofAustralasia:76pp.

    Walker,D.H.T.andLloydWalker,B.M.(2011c).ProfilingProfessionalExcellenceinAllianceManagementVolumeTwoAppendices,Sydney,AlliancingAssociationofAustralasia:98pp.

    Walker,D.H.T.andLloydWalker,B.M.(2014a).TheambienceofaprojectallianceinAustralia.EngineeringProjectOrganizationJournal.4(1):115.

    Walker,D.H.T.andLloydWalker,B.M.(2014b)CollaborativeProjectProcurementArrangements,ProjectManagementInstitute.

    Winch,G.M.(1998).ZephyrsofCreativeDestruction:UnderstandingtheManagementofInnovationinConstruction.BuildingResearch&Information.26(5):268279.

    Wood,P.andDuffield,C.(2009).InPursuitofAdditionalValueAbenchmarkingstudyintoalliancingintheAustralianPublicSector,Melbourne,DepartmentofTreasuryandFinance,Victoria:191.

  • 39

    Appendix1

    Surveyinstrument2012Table8:SurveyinstrumentNo. Question Fundamentalperformance1 WhatwastheinitialTOCoftheproject?2 WhatwasthefinalapprovedTOCoftheproject?3 WhatwastheactualTOC(attheendoftheproject)?4 WhatwerethereasonscontributingtothechangeinTOC?5 Whatwastheproposeddurationoftheproject?6 Whatwasthefinalapproveddurationoftheproject7 Whatwastheactualdurationoftheproject?8 Whatwerethereasonscontributingtothechangeinduration?9 WhatweretheKRAs(andtheirweightingsifapplicable)fortheproject?10 WhatwastheactualallianceperformanceagainsttheKRAslisted?11 Whataffectedthehighand/orlowperformanceofKRAs?12 DidtheteamhaveanyissuesaddressingeachoftheKRAs? CommitmenttoBestforproject/client13 TheAMTwascommittedtoperformingaboveBusinessasusual14 TheAMTactedaccordingtoBestforproject15 TheALTdemonstratedcommitmenttotheAMT16 TheALTprovidedanenvironmentthatsupportedtheAMTtodeliveragainsttheKRAs17 ThinkingabouttheAMT,werethereareaswhereitperformedABOVEexpectations?18 ThinkingabouttheAMT,werethereareaswhereitperformedBELOWexpectations?19 ThinkingabouttheALT,werethereareaswhereitperformedABOVEexpectationstosupport

    theAMTdeliveritsKRAs?20 ThinkingabouttheALT,werethereareaswhereitperformedBELOWexpectationstosupport

    theAMTdeliveritsKRAs? ValueDelivery21 WasaProjectValueStatementdefinedpriortothecreationofthealliance?22 When,duringthebiddingprocess,wastheProjectValueStatementcommunicatedtothe

    biddersorallianceteams?23 HowwouldyouratetheperformanceoftheallianceinmeetingtheclientsProjectValue

    Statement?24 ComparingusingD&Cordesignbidbuildmethodologytodeliverasimilarproject,howdoyou

    ratethealliancemethodindeliveringvalue?25 WasthisprojectapureortwinTOCallianceprocess?26 TowhatextentdidyoufeelthatVFM/bestvaluewasachieved?27 TowhatextentcouldyoudemonstrateVFM/bestvalue?28 Iftheprojectwastheresultofacompetitivealliance/competitiveECIprocurementprocess,

    howdiditperformindelivering: speedofachievingteamcohesionandintegrationtofacilitatecollaboration? projectteamattitudetofacilitatetrustandperformanceduringworkdelivery? valueformoney?

    TeamCollaboration29 HowfrequentlydidtheAMensureformaland/orinformalAMTmembertrainingand

    developmentininterteamproblemsolvinganddecisionmaking?30 HoweffectivelydidtheAMensurerelevantformaland/orinformalcommunicationtosupport

    AMTproblemsolvinganddecisionmaking?31 HoweffectivewastheAMTincollaborativeproblemsolvinganddecisionmaking?32 HoweffectivelydidtheAMactasabridgetocommunicaterelevantformaland/orinformal

  • 40

    informationtoandfromtheALTforprovidingleadershipanddirectiontotheAMT?33 HoweffectivelywastheAMT/ALTrelationshipinsupportingcollaborativeproblemsolving

    anddecisionmaking?34 TowhatextentwasthephysicalproximityoftheAMTacontributortosupporting

    collaboration?35 Towhatextentwerethevirtual(ICT)toolsoftheAMT acontributortosupporting

    collaboration? WorkplaceCulture36 TowhatextentdidtheAMTperceivethatweallsinkorswimtogether?37 TowhatextentdidAMTmembersprotecttheirowninterestsattheexpenseofotherAMT

    members?38 TowhatextentdidAMTmemberssticktotheirworkandcommitments?39 TowhatextentdidtheALTpursueacoherentcourseinleadingtheproject?40 TowhatextentdidtheAMpursueacoherentcourseinmanagingtheAMT?41 TowhatextentdidyoufeelthattheAMTandALThadconsistentlyalignedandclearly

    articulatedoverallprojectgoalsandexpectations?42 Towhatextentwouldyouwanttoworkonotherprojectalliancesafterthisone?43 TowhatextentwouldyoutrytopersuadequalifiedfriendstoworkonPAs?44 TowhatextentdoyoufeelthatPAsaremorechallengingthanBAUprojects?45 TowhatextentdoyoufeelthatPAsaremorepersonallysatisfyingtoworkonthanBAU

    projects? InnovationontheProject46 TowhatextentdidyoufeelthatinnovationsweredevelopedasaresultofAMTcollaboration?47 TowhatextentcouldyoudemonstratethatinnovationsweredevelopedasaresultofAMT

    collaboration?48 Towhatextentwasinnovationsdevelopmentcelebratedformallyorinformallyasaresultof

    AMTcollaboration?49 TowhatextentwereinnovationsdevelopedasaresultofAMTcollaborationdiffusedbackto

    AMTorganisations?50 TowhatextentwereinnovationsdevelopedasaresultofAMTcollaborationdiffusedbackto

    theProjectOwnersorganisation? EarlyContractorInvolvement(ECI)ontheProject51 Didthisallianceprojectproceedfromanearlycontractorinvolvement(ECI)relationship?

    ifyes,whomcanwecontacttolearnmoreaboutthatrelationshipcontinuity?52 HaveyouhadanyexperiencewithECItypecontracts?

    Ifyes,howdothesecontracttypesdifferfromalliances? Ifyes,whatadvantagesanddisadvantagesdoyouthinkthesecontracttypeshave?

  • 41

    Appendix2ThreeExperienceandSevenCharacteristics/AttributesRequiredofAMs(Source:WalkerandLloydWalker,2011a,p1215)Table9:ThreeExperienceandSevenCharacteristics/AttributesRequiredofAMs

    ThreeskillsandexperiencerequiredofAMsHardSkills

    FoundationalAspiring Nascent Recent DevelopingIntermediate MatureExperienced

    1. TechnicalSkillsandexperience

    Recognisedqualifications,trainingandexperienceintheprojectbasetechnology.

    Recognisedqualifications,trainingandexperienceintheprojectbasetechnology.

    Awarenessofknowledgegapsandwheretoobtainexpertadvicetorespondtothese.

    Recognisedqualifications,trainingandexperienceintheprojectbasetechnology.

    Awarenessofcomplexitiesandknowledgegapsandanalyticalcapacitytoframequestionstoobtainexpertadvicetorespondtothese.

    Recognisedqualifications,trainingandexperienceintheprojectbasetechnology.

    Comfortwiththesureexistenceofknowledgegapsandunclear,ambiguousorunknowntechnicalissuesandtheabilitytoframequestionsandknowledgeofwhereandhowtoobtainexpertadvicetorespondtothese.

    2. PMskillsandexperience

    KnowledgeoftraditionalPMapproachesandmethodsforplanning,controlandteammanagementtodeliverprojects.

    KnowledgeoftraditionalPMapproachesandmethodsforplanning,controlandsoftskillteamleadershipskillstodeliverprojects.

    Understandswhatcausesprojectstobesuccessfulorotherwise.

    AdvancedlevelPMskillstoincludeengagingstakeholdersandfacilitatingcommitmentthrougheffectiveleadershipbyexample.

    Hasexperienceinprojectturnaroundfromdistressedtobackontrack.

    Demonstratedembeddedandnaturalauthenticleadershipthatdrivesprojectperformancethroughcomplimentingandcombiningjudgementabouttheextentanduseofhardandsoftskills.

    Hasbeentestedbydifficultchoicesanddecisionsandlearnedfromtheexperienceaswellasknowtohavesoundjudgement.

    3. Businessskillsandexperience

    Awarenessofbusinessimperativesandtheneedforacoherentbusinesscasetoframeprojectmissionandobjectives.

    Understandingthefundamentalvaluesandbusinesscasefortheprojecttobedeliverbenefits.

    ParticipatingintranslatingthebusinesscaseintoaprojectbriefandsupportingtheprojectevaluationprocessatALTlevel.

    ALTandBoardlevelexperienceofactiveengagementintranslatingandframingthebusinesscaseintoaprojectbriefandevaluatingprojectbenefitrealisation.

    Hasdirectexperienceoflearning

  • 42

    frommistakes(selforothers)inbusinessstrategyanddelivery.

    Sevenauthenticleadershipcharacteristics/attributesofAMsSoftSkills

    FoundationalAspiring Nascent Recent Developingintermediate Matureexperienced

    4. Reflectivenessbeingasystemsthinker,strategicthinkaimactVactthinkaimReflectivenesslevelishighandknowingthecontextascrucial.

    Highlyreactivetochallengesanddependentuponformallearning,textbookadvice,manualsandestablishedprocedures.

    Demonstratesasenseofuncertaintyandisrestrictedtohighlytraditionalresponses.

    Probablyunawareofwiderordeepersituationalcontext.Seeschallengesmoresimplistically.

    Reactivetochallenges,whilesomewhatdependentuponformallearning,textbookadvice,manualsandestablishedprocedures;balancesthiswithlearningfromrecentexperience.

    Demonstratesasenseofcertaintybasedontraditionalresponses.

    Awareofpotentialcomplexityofthesituationalcontext.Unclearonhowsystemsoverlaporinterface.

    Contemplatesandreflectsbeforetakingactiontochallengesbaseduponpastexperienceandadvicefromothers.

    Mayattimesbeoverwhelmedandstruckwithparalysisthroughanalysis.Valuesfactsoverhunchesorintuition.

    Mayovercomplicatethecontext.Seeksexplanatorypatternstojustifyactionbasedondiscussionsandadvicefromexperiencedandtrustedmentors.

    Contemplatesandreflectswhiletakingactiontochallengesbaseduponembeddedpastexperienceandcritiquedadvicefromothers.

    Abletotakedecisiveactionbasedheuristicsandcomprehensiverepertoireofpastexperience.

    Valuesintuitionoverlengthyanalysisofsituations.

    Cansimplifycomplexityincontextthroughrapidpatternmatchingandholisticsolutions.Influencesframingofsituationsandsolutions.

    5. Pragmatismgetsonwiththejob,ispoliticallyastute,workswithinconstraints.Interpretingandreframingrulestocontextandwayinwhichactionisjustifiedascrucial.

    Decisionmakinggovernedbyabilitytonarrowoptionsbasedonavailableknowledgeandapproaches.

    Framesproblemsandsolutionstoimmediateresolutionofissues.

    Decisionmakingdominatedbynarrowingoptionsbasedonavailableknowledgeandapproaches.

    Framesproblemsandsolutionstoshorttermresolutionofissues.

    Decisionmakingdominatedbywideningconsiderationofoptionsbasedonavailableandpotentiallyavailableknowledgeandapproaches.

    Framesproblemsandsolutionstomediumtermresolutionofissues.

    Decisionmakinggovernedbyscreeningmanyoptionsbasedonafewnarrowbutsalientcriteria.

    Framesproblemsandsolutionstomedium/longtermresolutionofissueswhileaddressingimmediatedemands.Shapesandinfluencesinterpretationoftherules.

  • 43

    6. Appreciativenessunderstandingthemotivationsandvaluepropositionofallinvolved(EI)

    Beingabletojudgethemosteffectiveresponsetoteamsandindividualsabouttheirvalueisthekeyininfluencingothersandbeinginfluencedbythem.

    Tendstobeunawareofhowcontextualpressuresinfluencethemotivesandactionsofothers.

    Hasapassiveapproachtoattemptingtoinfluenceotherswithstrongopinions.Lacksawarenessoftheneedtoprobetofindoutwhatothersneedorwant.

    Lacksconfidencetoimposeclosureondecisionmaking.

    Grappleswithhowcontextualpressuresinfluencethemotivesandactionsofothers.

    Lacksconfidencetonegotiateanagendawhenattemptingtoinfluenceotherswithstrongopinions.

    Tendstoallowdiscussiontodriftwhendecisionmakingorclosesoffdiscussiontoosoon.Lacksselfjustificationtoknowwhentoenactclosureondecisionmaking.

    Hasastrongsenseofpersonalidentityandinfluenceinleadingtheopeningupornarrowingofdiscussions.

    Understandstheagendasandvaluepropositionofothersandappreciatesdemandsplaceduponthem.

    Yettodeveloptotalconfidenceindefendingtheirownagendasandpreferredpositionasshortcutstoactionwhenfacingstrongoppositionfromothers.

    Hasastrongsenseofpersonalidentityandexpertlyshapestheagendaineffectivelyopeningupornarrowingdiscussions.

    Respondstotheagendas,valuepropositionanddemandsuponothersbycraftingpriorities.

    Transformsstrongoppositionfromothersintoinnovativeproposalsthroughresolvingparadoxesviaanuncompromisingthirdway.

    7. Resilienceadaptability,versatility,flexibilityandbeingpersistent.Abletoeffectivelylearnfromexperience.

    Therepertoireofskillsandattributesthatcanbedrawnuponiscrucial.Thisisrelatedtoabsorptivecapacitytolearnandadapt.Attitudetohowtodealwithacrisisnexttimeiscritical.

    Showsgreatpromiseinrapidlyabsorbingnewideasandapproachesanddemonstratesexamplesofinitiativeandhardwork.

    Isabletocopewithdisappointmentandsetbacksaspartofalearningexperience.

    Activelyseeksadvicefromotherstomakesenseofexperience,especiallyunexpectedoutcomesfromaction.

    Readilyabsorbsnewideasandapproachesandseeksoutopportunitiestoapplythem.

    Usesdisappointmentandsetbacksaspartofalearningexperience.

    Contributestoandshareswithothersmakingsenseofexperience,especiallyindevelopingexplanationsforunexpectedoutcomesfromaction.

    Seeksnewideasandapproachesandhowtoapplythem.

    Assumesthatthepurposeofdealingwithdisappointmentandsetbacksistolearnfromexperience.

    Leadsaprocesswithotherstomakesenseofexperience,especiallyunexpectedoutcomesfromactionandembedslessonslearnedasapersonalcontinuousimprovementinitiative.

    Proactivelyleadstheimplementationofnewideasandapproachesandhowtoapplythem.

    Championstheoutcomeofsetbacksanddisappointmentaslearningexperiences.Supportscreationoflearningrepositoriesforthosedevelopingleadershipskills.

    Leadsacultureoftransformingsetbacksintopositiveresultsandleadsotherstofindproblemworkaroundsolutionsthatleadtosustainablecontextuallearning.

  • 44

    8. Wisdom

    beingthepersonwithopinionsandadvicethatisvalued,consistentandreliablethatothersinstinctivelyreferto.Tobeeffective,thekeyistobeinfluentialbasedonprovidingsoundadviceandbeingrespectedforthatadviceorbeinganeffectivebrokerofwiseadvice.Judgementofthepersonbrokeringadviceiscrucial.

    Generally,adviceandinformationisnotsoughtofthispersonabouttechnicalorPMaspectsunlessinanarrowspecialisationfield.

    Seekstobecomeagotopersonbyactivelylearningasmuchaspossibleaboutthesystemprojectdetailsetc.andofferingtoassistothersinresearchorfindingoutaboutrelevantissues.

    Proactivelyandenthusiasticallysharesknowledgeandinsightstoclarifycontextandgainconfidencefromothersintheirjudgementandjobspecificknowledge.

    Couldbeasubculturalrepresentativethatothersseektheirviewsfromeg.asayoungerAMorassomebodywithvaluableoutsidegroupperspectives.

    HashighlyrespectedtechnicalandeitherbusinessorPMknowledge/skillsthatothersactivelytapinto.

    Knowledgeandadviceofferedisconsistentlyseenasvaluable,reliableandinfluential.

    Hashighlyrespectedtechnical,businessandPMknowledgeandskillsfromothersactivelytapintoasbeingpivotaltosoundoutcomes.

    Oftenstrongbusinessknowledgeisthecrucialdifferentiatoraswellasstrongunderstandingofthestrengthofotherteammemberstoactionplansanddecisions.

    9. Spirithavingthecouragetoeffectivelychallengeassumptions

    Beingconfidentinthevalueofrefiningknowledgeofcontextthroughquestioningthestatusquoorassumedrealitiesisvitaltobetterunderstandcontexts.

    Lacksconfidenceingettingotherstoopenlydiscusscontentiousissuesortorocktheboat.

    Assumesthatprevailingassumptionsmustbecorrectforthecontextexperienced.

    Confident ingettingotherstoopenlydiscusscontentiousissuesortobescepticalandquestionthestatusquo.

    Testswhetherprevailingassumptionsmaybecorrectforthecontextexperienced.

    Adeptinfacilitatingteammemberstobecourageouslyscepticalwhendoubtingthemajorityopinion.Challengesassumptionstoinspireandfacilitateinnovation.

    Havingthecouragetomakeunpopulardecisionswhencircumstanceswarrantit.

    Providesstretchtargetsforinterpretingthebusinesscasetoarriveatanoptimalsolution.

    Encouragesanddemandsdevilsadvocatepositionsandevidencebasedchallengessothatgroupthinkdoesnotautomaticallyprevail.

  • 45

    10. Authenticityapproachableandtrustworthyandbeingseenasopentoideas,collaboration,discussionandnewwaysofthinking.

    Tobeaneffectivebrokerandgotopersonitisvitalthatthispersonmustbeopenmindedandbeavailablewhenneeded.Themustbecollaborative,haveintegrityandbeingthereforeperceivedastrustworthy.

    Havingareputationforbeingopentosomethingnew,adventurousandeasytocollaboratewithandtodiscussideaswith.

    Beingassumedtobetrustworthybutnotyethadtheopportunitytodemonstratethisindifficultsituations.

    Isgoodatcollaboratingwithothers,engenderstrustandcommitment.Havinganopendoorpolicy,acknowledgingtheneedfordiversityinviewswhentryingtounderstandissues.

    Beingseenassomebodywhowilllistentobadnewswithoutblameorcoverup.

    Beingrespectedassomebodywhohasanopenmindandisswayedbysolidevidenceorsoundreasoningargument.Collaboratesasanaturalstyleandistrustedforthequalityofjudgementandintegrityofapproach.

    Holdingseveralconcurrentconflictingviewsofasituationandinvitingchallengestoanyofthesetoobtainaclearerunderstanding.

    Havehighstandardsofintegrity andanaturalcollaboratorwithothers.

    Peopletrustthemandtheyareknownforconstancyoftheiractionwiththeirrhetoric.

    Havingwidebusines