Multicountry Perspectives of Relational Contracting and Integrated Project Teams

Multicountry Perspectives of RelationalContracting and Integrated Project TeamsM. Motiar Rahman, M.ASCE1; and Mohan M. Kumaraswamy, M.ASCE2

Abstract: Worldwide calls for integration in construction translate into needs for relational alignment of both structural and operationalarrangements, in order to successfully streamline the combined efforts of diverse interacting parties, for improved project delivery. Appro-priate applications of relational contracting (RC) principles can help to achieve such integration. As such, the aims of the reported study are toexamine the relative usefulness of various potential factors and strategies and to offer suitable contractual and noncontractual incentives, forbuilding an RC culture and building integrated project teams (IPTs) in construction. Results from statistical analyses of 224 questionnaireresponses from five countries are presented. Trust and trust-based operational arrangements are seen to effectively offer the required in-centives for implementing various RC-based arrangements in construction where top management commitment and their support play avital role. The choices of country-specific approaches suggest various patterns of integration through project-based partnering type RC,e.g., cliental initiative and removing client related barriers in Hong Kong, removing uncongenial organizational and/or system-based barriersfrom the client’s side in Australia, teamworking by cliental initiatives through contractual arrangements in The Netherlands, removing organi-zational and/or system-based barriers in the U.K., importance of trust and communication-related factors in Singapore, with no specificstrategy in this respect. The outcomes also suggest the need for a highly interrelated and consolidated approach for spreading RC. Outcomesof this study are expected to benefit both industry practitioners and researchers in exploring, designing, and implementing various RC-basedworking arrangements. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000463. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.

CE Database subject headings: Contracts; Hong Kong; Partnerships; Procurement; Teamwork; Construction management.

Author keywords: Contracts; Hong Kong; Incentives; Partnering; Procurement; Relational contracting; Teamwork; Teambuilding.

Introduction

The targets of construction industry reports worldwide includedeveloping an integrated relationship based on new culture in orderto achieve appropriate value for money and improve overall perfor-mance in construction. These desired outcomes are approachedthrough integration in both project processes and project teams;wider adoption of teamworking and partnering; and collaborationbetween the industry, government, and academia (CIRC 2001;Construction 21 1999; Construction 2020 2004; Egan 1998). Thesesuggest the need for building and maintaining trusting relationshipsamong all (or at least the major) interacting parties during projectexecution, so that they can effectively mobilize their coordinatingand collaborative efforts to successfully deliver the project. Clearly,traditional contracting systems are inappropriate for managing suchongoing complex relationships. They are static in nature and char-acterized by strong confrontational interactions (Eisenberg 2000).Researchers claim that these traditional contracting systems stiflegood ideas, limit cooperation and innovation, provoke opportun-ism, and severely restrict flexibility in coordination (Rahman andKumaraswamy 2005). Moreover, they do not support contractual

incentives and/or flexibilities that are essential in ever-changingconstruction scenarios, and in the face of uncertainty andcomplexity.

Essentially, a change in contracting approach is necessary,both in contractual (e.g., clear and equitable risk allocation)and noncontractual terms (e.g., change in the attitude for equitablerisk allocation). Contractual approaches should also craft thecollaborative operational arrangements (e.g., the way “open com-munication” will take place) and other necessary flexibilities in thecontract to proactively address the many unknowns. This alignswell with the recommendations in The Netherlands to includethe elements of trust and non-price-based factors, in selecting botha procurement route and the project team (PSIB 2004).

The application of relational contracting (RC) principles is oneof the approaches that trigger such changes and target the much-desired integration. RC principles underpin various approachessuch as partnering, alliancing, joint venturing, teamworking,long-term contracting, and other collaborative working arrange-ments (CWAs) and better risk sharing mechanisms (Rahman andKumaraswamy 2004). RC principles offer contractual flexibility,supply essential elements of teambuilding and forging working re-lationships, lubricate transactional barriers, smooth ongoing con-tractual relationships through suitable operational arrangements,and suggest rationalized selection criteria—in building effectiveproject teams. However, many jurisdictions are apparently hesitantin adopting RC, despite its widespread documentation of benefits,and probably because of the perceived uncertainties, e.g., in pos-sibly unclear responsibility allocations. It is therefore essential toincorporate RC principles in related documents, through “less butmore effective” regulations, to ensure value for money and to buildan RC culture in construction (PSIB 2004).

1Lecturer, Division of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Dundee, DundeeDD1 4HN, United Kingdom (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]

2Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The Univ. of Hong Kong,Pokfulam, Hong Kong. E-mail: [email protected]

Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 29, 2009; approved onAugust 8, 2011; published online on August 10, 2011. Discussion periodopen until September 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted forindividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En-gineering and Management, Vol. 138, No. 4, April 1, 2012. ©ASCE,ISSN 0733-9364/2012/4-469–480/$25.00.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 469

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2012.138:469-480.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000463




Also, the most common teamworking approach of “partnering”connotes various meanings throughout the construction industry(McFadden and Ernzen 2003), and various teamworking ap-proaches (e.g., partnering and alliancing) are clearly different fromeach other (Walker 2002). They share a common core element of“mutual cooperation” to varying degrees, and are demonstrated bythe single RC philosophy that varies from postcontract project part-nering to vertical integration—as if all the project participants be-long to a single (project) organization (Rahman and Kumaraswamy2004). Therefore, RC is considered in this study as a broad andlong-term strategy, which is expected to be implemented throughthe short-term and project-based practice of teamworking or an in-tegrated project team (IPT).

Previous RC-based studies mainly focused on the benefits andcritical success factors of various forms of CWAs, e.g., partnering(e.g., Black et al. 2000; Chan et al. 2004). These studies consideredpartnering from a general perspective only (Kumaraswamy et al.2005). By contrast, the present study delves deeper in an attemptto identify the means of forging working relationships and relatedoperational arrangements in CWAs, and the ways of creatingappropriate mind-sets and cultures and the barriers to be overcomeen route. The focus is on identifying and comparing the suitabilityand/or preference of various contractual and noncontractual ap-proaches/practices, both for RC and building project-based IPTsfor more effective RC. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to iden-tify and asses the key factors (1) facilitating and (2) deterring RC inconstruction, and key factors (3) facilitating and (4) deterring thebuilding of IPTs for more effective RC.

The survey was conducted in five different countries. Country-specific outcomes from Hong Kong (Rahman and Kumaraswamy2008) and Singapore (Rahman et al. 2007) have been reported else-where. The overall summary outcomes are reported in the presentpaper. Such an exercise is expected to benefit industry practitioners,and particularly clients and their representatives, in crafting appro-priate procurement arrangements, devising suitable contract condi-tions incorporating trust and trust-based operational strategies, andexercising various RC-based CWAs. The paper is also expectedto benefit researchers in documenting comparisons of variousRC-based factors and strategies, providing relevant empiricalevidence, adding to the growing body of relevant knowledge,and laying a sound basis for further explorations.

Methodological Approach

Questionnaire Survey

The questionnaire was developed based on findings from aprevious study on “revitalized procurement strategies" that in-cluded extensive literature review on both (1) “contract theory,”in the context of mainstream “socioeconomic” (i.e., transaction costeconomics) and “sociolegal” (i.e., RC) approaches, and (2) practiceof various kinds of contracting approaches for CWAs in construc-tion; the literature review also covered Hong Kong based surveyson risk allocation and CWAs, including assessing the potential forimplementing RC and various RC-based teambuilding protocols,such as joint risk management (Rahman and Kumaraswamy2004, 2005). The present study specifically targets the buildingof a culture of RC and team-building in construction by identifyingvarious RC-based contractual and noncontractual incentives. Ac-cordingly, the individual factors used in the questionnaire were con-solidated and refined from the previously mentioned studies, andtuned to fit the specific purposes of the present study.

The questionnaire was developed in Hong Kong, but the surveywas extended to Australia, The Netherlands, Singapore, and theU.K. These countries were at different stages of implementing theirrespective industry reports. It was expected that such arrangementswould enable interesting comparisons. A total of 1300 question-naires were distributed to the selected cross sections of potentialrespondent groups of consultants, contractors, clients, and academ-ics. The questionnaire was also posted to the Cooperative Networkfor Building Researchers (CNBR) list for any international feed-back. The survey collected perceived importance on a scale from0–6 (varying from lowest to highest) on 24 factors facilitating RC(category 1), 28 factors deterring RC (category 2), 28 factors facili-tating the building of IPTs (category 3), and 31 factors deterring thebuilding of IPTs (category 4). A total of 224 usable responses werereceived (Table 1), with an overall response rate of over 17%, and17.3 years of average experience in construction.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Scien-ces (SPSS) software. The mean scores of individual factors by dif-ferent groups of respondents were ranked and compared. Statisticalt-tests of the mean with a significance level of 0.05 against a test

Table 1. Questionnaire Distribution and Respondent Profile

Items Hong Kong Singapore Australia Netherlands U.K. Total

Questionnaire distributed 400 400 200 100 200 1,300

Responses received: contractor 31 60 6 1 3 101

Responses received: consultant 17 22 2 4 1 46

Responses received: client 30 14 5 49

Responses received: academics 2 1 3 5 11

Did not mention/CNBR/unknown 3 14 17

Total responses received 83 96 23 13 9 224

Response rate (%) 20.75 24 11.5 13 4.5 17.23

Total experience in years: number of responses 73 80 21 10 9 193

Total experience in years: average 19.1 12.7 26.5 18.0 21.9 17.3

Total experience in years: range 1-40 1-23 12-47 4-30 10-40 1-47

Experience in relational contracting (years): number of responses 58 49 17 7 6 137

Experience in relational contracting (years): average 4.7 3.0 6.9 7.7 3.5 4.4

Experience in relational contracting (years): range 0-20 0-23 1-30 3-15 2-6 0-30

Experience in relational contracting (number of projects): number of responses 53 50 17 7 3 130

Experience in relational contracting (number of projects): range 0-200 0-100 1-165 2-100 5-20 0-200

470 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2012


Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

value of 3 were undertaken, for the whole sample and the groups ofdifferent countries, to establish whether each factor is significantlyimportant. ANOVA was carried out at a 95% confidence intervalto examine whether respondents from different countries had differ-ent perceptions on the relative importance of various individualfactors. These results are shown in Table 2 for factors facilitatingRC (category 1), where results from t-tests within individual coun-tries have been excluded, due to space limitations.

Finally, factor analysis was carried out to narrow down the longlist of factors into a smaller number of representative “broad fac-tors” or “components” (e.g., Table 3), taking all the factors in all thefour categories, since they all were seen to be significantly impor-tant in their respective total samples. Observed Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO) values are higher (Tables 3–6) than the acceptable limit of0.6 (Hinton 2004), indicating higher degrees of adequacy for factoranalysis against the linear correlations between different factors.Moreover, results from Bartlett’s test of sphericity show that theunderlying correlation matrices are significantly different fromidentity matrices, which indicate that there are correlations worthinvestigating, and thereby justify the factor analysis exercise.

For the purpose of this exercise, the principal componentmethod of extraction and varimax with Kaiser normalizationmethod of rotation was applied. Eigenvalues ≥ 1:0 for the extractedcomponents of were considered, and factor loadings ≥ 0:30 wereconsidered to show the highest contribution (of 0.39 to component1) from factor b10: lack/absence of scope for innovation (Table 4).In case of contributions to more than one component, factors withthe highest factor loadings were considered “primary” contributors,while other factors were considered as “secondary” contributors.

In the interests of brevity, Tables 4–6 summarize the results offactor analysis along with the means and ranks for the total(n ¼ 224) sample only, for factors of categories two, three, andfour, respectively.

Discussion of Survey Results

Factors Facilitating RC: Relative Importance

Table 2 shows the perceptions of respondents on 24 facilitatingfactors for RC (i.e., category 1). Within the total sample, prioritiesare on mutual trust, open communication, top management support,teamworking spirit and effective coordination (ranks 1–6). Clearand equitable risk allocation/sharing (ranks 7 and 9), and alignmentof diverse “objectives” (ranks 12, 13, and 15) are more importantthan “inclusion of key parties” in “risk-reward plans” under “flex-ible contracts” (ranks 18–20) and “experience in RC approaches”(rank 22). Learning environment in project team organization is theleast important factor with a score of 3.90, which is higher thanthe average of the measuring scale (of 0–6), and relatively close tothe highest (5.25) scored factor. These imply a general importanceof all the factors, with some factors more important than others.

Significance levels obtained from the t-tests showed that all thefactors are significantly important, both within total sample andgroups of different countries, except for one factor in Australia(a05), two factors in The Netherlands (a05 and a09), and fourfactors in the United Kingdom (a05, a11, a16, and a21). These in-consistencies are perhaps due to the smaller sample sizes in these

Table 2. Comparison of Means and Results from t-Test, and ANOVA for Factors Facilitating Relational Contracting

Factorcodeb

Total Hong Kong Singapore Australia Netherlands U.K.

ANOVAMean Ranka Sig.c Mean Ranka Mean Ranka Mean Ranka Mean Ranka Mean Ranka

a07 5.25 1 0.000 5.10 3 5.36 1 5.39 2e 4.77 5 5.89 1 0.029

a06 5.05 2 0.000 4.87 4 5.05 2 5.48 1 5.15 1 5.56 2e 0.015

a04 4.88 3e 0.000 5.20 2 4.56 7 5.00 7e 4.46 9e 5.44 4e 0.000

a10 4.88 3e 0.000 4.69 7 4.88 3 5.39 2e 4.69 6 5.56 2e 0.003

a03 4.83 5 0.000 5.24 1 4.29 10 5.30 4 5.00 2 5.33 6e 0.000

a08 4.79 6 0.000 4.76 6 4.75 4e 5.04 6 4.46 9e 5.33 6e 0.167

a20 4.68 7 0.000 4.57 9 4.66 6 5.00 7e 4.92 3 4.78 8e 0.402

a09 4.56 8 0.000 4.37 16 4.75 4e 4.74 12e 3.85 23 4.78 8e 0.012

a21 4.51 9 0.000 4.53 10e 4.48 8 4.87 10 4.31 16e 4.00 24e 0.264

a01 4.50 10 0.000 4.81 5 4.00 17 5.17 5 4.46 9e 5.44 4e 0.000

a13 4.44 11 0.000 4.46 14 4.30 9 5.00 7e 4.08 20e 4.78 8e 0.015

a15 4.36 12 0.000 4.49 12 4.15 15 4.61 15 4.54 7e 4.44 15 0.131

a17 4.35 13 0.000 4.34 19e 4.18 14 4.78 11 4.85 4 4.56 13e 0.026

a12 4.33 14 0.000 4.34 19e 4.24 11 4.74 12e 4.08 20e 4.67 11e 0.216

a02 4.24 15e 0.000 4.53 10e 3.83 19 4.70 14 4.38 13e 4.56 13e 0.001

a16 4.24 15e 0.000 4.24 21 4.19 13 4.57 16e 3.92 22 4.33 16 0.474

a19 4.24 15e 0.000 4.47 13 3.95 18 4.43 19e 4.54 7e 4.22 17 0.019

a24 4.22 18 0.000 4.35 17e 4.01 16 4.57 16e 4.38 13e 4.11 18e 0.082

a22 4.13 19 0.000 4.43 15 3.74 22 4.57 16e 4.38 13e 4.11 18e 0.000

a23 4.12 20 0.000 4.35 17e 3.81 20 4.43 19e 4.31 16e 4.11 18e 0.003

a11 4.11 21 0.000 4.60 8 3.70 23 4.04 23 4.23 19 4.00 24e 0.000

a05 4.05 22 0.000 4.10 22e 4.21 12 3.43 24 3.69 24 4.00 24e 0.021

a14 3.97 23 0.000 4.10 22e 3.65 24 4.35 22 4.46 9e 4.67 11e 0.001

a18 3.90 24 0.000 3.81 24 3.78 21 4.39 21 4.31 16e 4.11 18e 0.065a“e” signifies equal ranks, whereas the next rank(s) is/are omitted, except the lowest rank, where the previous rank(s) is/are omitted.bSee Table 3 for natural wordings.cSignificance obtained from one-sample t-test.



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

three countries, but the overall result is in agreement with pre-vious studies from Hong Kong (Chan et al. 2004; Rahman andKumaraswamy 2005), Singapore (Kumaraswamy et al. 2005;Rahman et al. 2007), U.K. (Black et al. 2000), and United States(Larson 1995), although importance levels of individual fac-tors vary.

Respondents from Hong Kong emphasize top managementsupport for building trust and using open communication (ranks1–4). They consider enlightened and enthusiastic clients (rank 5)likely to motivate other parties in building teamworking and com-mitment (ranks 7 and 8); and devise appropriate contract with clearand equitable risk allocation/sharing (ranks 9–10). Ranks of indi-vidual factors are different but quite close, and therefore somewhatsimilar to those in the total sample, with considerable deviation offactors for combined responsibility (a09), long-term commitment(a11), and alignment of mutual project and commercial objectives(a17). The pattern highlights critical cliental roles in motivatingother parties to embrace RC.

Respondents from Singapore highlight the importance of mu-tual trust, open communication, teamworking and can do spirit,effective coordination, and combined responsibility (ranks 1–4).Top management support (rank 7) is critical. Alignment of diverseobjectives (ranks 13–15) is more important than “enlightenedand enthusiastic” and “knowledgeable” client (ranks 17 and 19).Thus, the priority is on functional arrangements, with relativelyless importance on flexible contracts (rank 22) and long-term

commitment (rank 23), indicating the tendency toward postcon-tract and project-based partnering type RC approaches. This mightalso be indicative of the requirement for learning about RCapproaches.

Ranks of individual factors within Australia are different butvery close, and therefore similar to those in the total sample.The priority still seems to be on the project-based RC approaches,which highly appreciates cliental roles (rank 5) in devisingRC-friendly strategies like open communication (rank 1) with ef-fective coordination (rank 6). The preference appears to reflect thewidespread understanding and practice of various RC approachesin Australia (Construction 2020 2004).

Priority of the factors in The Netherlands group appears to por-tray a good understanding and use of RC principles. However, theranks of individual factors are considerably different than those inthe total sample. For example, clear allocation of risk is moreimportant (ranks 3 compared to 7), which need not necessarilybe equitable (ranks 16 compared to 9). Moreover, combinedresponsibility (ranks 23 compared to 8) and mutually agreed issueresolution mechanisms (ranks 20 compared to 11) are less impor-tant. These are probably indicative of a strong self-responsibilityand adherence to the contractual obligations. Hence, the preferenceis on project-based approaches, with contracts containing higherdegrees of RC elements and supporting functional arrangements(e.g., open communication). Ranks of individual factors withinthe U.K. sample are also similar to those in the total sample.

Table 3. Factor Analysis Results of Factors Facilitating Relational Contracting

Factorcode Factors

Components

1 2 3 4 5

a14 Mutually agreed performance appraisal mechanisms 0.68

a13 Mutually agreed issue resolution mechanisms 0.60 0.46

a19 Positive attitude towards continuous improvement 0.58 0.36

a11 Long-term commitment to each other: all parties 0.56

a18 Learning environment in project team organization 0.56 0.37

a22 Flexible/adjustable contracts to address uncertainties 0.54 0.49

a03 Client’s top management support 0.82

a04 Top management support of all contracting parties 0.75

a01 Enlightened and enthusiastic client 0.38 0.70

a02 Knowledgeable client (about project processes) 0.50 0.54

a16 Alignment of commercial objectives of different parties 0.70 0.39

a17 Alignment of mutual project and commercial objectives 0.66

a09 Combined responsibility of all contracting parties 0.61 0.37

a15 Alignment of project objectives of different parties 0.39 0.54 0.39

a05 Experience in relational contracting approaches (e.g., partnering) 0.37 0.36 0.51

a12 Adequate resources of all contracting parties 0.47 0.47

a21 Equitable risk allocation/sharing arrangements 0.81

a20 Clearly defined risk allocation/sharing arrangements 0.71

a24 Inclusion of all key parties in risk-reward plans 0.44 0.61

a23 Encouraging and motivating risk-reward plans 0.53 0.55

a07 Mutual trust among all contracting parties 0.77

a06 Open communication among all contracting parties 0.75

a10 Teamworking and “can do” spirit of all contracting parties 0.64

a08 Effective coordination among all contracting parties 0.37 0.62

Eigenvalues 3.72 2.86 2.84 2.83 2.81

Percent of variation explained 15.52 11.90 11.84 11.81 11.71

Cumulative percent of variation explained 15.52 27.42 39.27 51.07 62.79

Note: Rotation converged in 14 iterations. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: 0.888409. Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approximatechi-square = 2,740.327, degrees of freedom = 276, significance = 0.000.



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

However, the U.K. respondents have placed more emphasis oncliental enthusiasm (ranks 4 compared to 10) and mutually agreedperformance appraisal mechanisms (ranks 11 compared to 23). Theoverall focus is still on the project-based RC approaches, as long-term commitment is one of the two least important factors.

The priorities of different factors in five different countriesportray their individual perception on, and different strategies of,practicing RC that are considerably different from each other. Thishas also been reflected through the ANOVA results: respondentsfrom five countries significantly disagree on the relative importanceof 16 factors, indicating considerable differences. This may be dueto the presence of various “local” practices and perceptions of RCapproaches, as many factors are significantly important within allfive countries, but respondents significantly disagree on theirimportance levels, e.g., “enlightened and enthusiastic client” (a01),management support (a03–04), open communication (a06), andmutual trust (a07). This might point to the fact that the fivecountries are at different levels of implementing RC, with differentpriorities. However, the respondents from five countries signifi-cantly agree on the relative importance of the other eight factors.

Factors Facilitating RC: Factor Analysis

Table 3 shows that the factor analysis exercise extracted fivecomponents explaining over 62% of variations, with 14 factorsplaying multiple roles: two factors contribute to three components,and other factors contribute to two components. Secondary contri-butions of four factors (a22, a02, a12, and a23) are close to theirprimary contributions, and either equal to or higher than the lowestprimary contribution of 0.47 (from a12 to component 3). All ofthese indicate a consolidated but interrelated approach to RC,where identified key factors (e.g., trust, management support)should be crafted and distilled in the adopted strategies (e.g., clearand equitable risk allocation) and functional arrangements(e.g., open communication), thereafter consolidating them in aholistic-approach.

Component 1 appears to represent an “encouraging supportingenvironment” for RC, consisting of mutually agreed performanceappraisal and issue resolution mechanisms, long-term commitment,and flexible contracts. These are expected to develop a positiveattitude toward continuous improvement and create a learningclimate in project team organization. Component 2 seems to

Table 4. Importance and Results from t-Test, ANOVA, and Factor Analysis for Factors Deterring Relational Contracting

Factorcodes Factors

Total Componentsb

Mean Ranka 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b28 Incompatible public sector rules and regulations 3.83 24 0.75

b02 Inappropriate procurement/contract strategy 4.32 10 0.74

b01 Inappropriate project planning 4.23 12 0.72

b05 Ambiguous/unclear contract clauses/documents 4.22 13 0.66

b27 Bureaucratic client organization 3.89 21e 0.63 0.53

b13 Interpersonal/cultural clash (individual level) 4.02 19 0.52 0.42 0.36

b10 Lack/absence of scope for innovations 3.67 25 0.39 0.37

b12 Lack of trust/reliability among all contracting parties 5.12 1 0.79

b11 Lack of teamworking attitude among all contracting parties 4.74 3 0.77

b19 Lack of confidence among all contracting parties 4.55 4 0.73

b18 Unwilling/unenthusiastic participation in relational contracting approaches 4.51 5 0.66

b14 Incompatible organizational cultures (corporate level) 4.17 15 0.47 0.48

b15 Inappropriate issue resolution mechanisms 4.19 14 0.45 0.41

b21 Exclusion of major subcontractors in risk-reward plan 3.89 21e 0.85

b22 Exclusion of major suppliers in risk-reward plan 3.65 26 0.85

b20 Exclusion of consultants in risk-reward plan 3.60 27 0.75

b23 Unrelated/separate risk-reward plans for different parties 3.59 28 0.35 0.66 0.40

b25 Commercial pressures of contracting parties 4.09 16 0.79

b24 Potential legal liabilities (in resolving noncontractual issues) 4.06 18 0.70

b26 Win-lose environment among contracting parties 4.40 7 0.57

b08 Lack of client’s initiatives 4.31 11 0.37 0.49 0.42

b04 “Price only” selection methods 4.39 8e 0.80

b06 Absence of risk-reward plan 3.85 23 0.52

b03 Improper/ inappropriate risk allocation/sharing 4.48 6 0.41 0.42

b17 Lack of experience in relational contracting approaches (e.g., partnering) 3.95 20 0.80

b16 Separate coordination and monitoring plans 4.07 17 0.51 0.53

b09 Lack of contractor’s capability 4.39 8e 0.73

b07 Lack of commitment: top management of all contracting parties 4.87 2 0.41 0.39 0.42

Eigenvalues 4.11 3.89 3.22 2.99 1.65 1.57 1.44

Percent of variation explained 14.67 13.88 11.52 10.69 5.88 5.61 5.13

Cumulative percent of variation explained 14.67 28.55 40.07 50.76 56.63 62.24 67.37a“e” signifies equal ranks, whereas the next rank(s) is/are omitted, except the lowest rank, where the previous rank(s) is/are omitted.bRotation converged in 13 iterations. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: 0.906019. Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approximate chi-square =3,449.701, degrees of freedom = 378, significance = 0.000.



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Table 5. Importance and Results from t-Test, ANOVA, and Factor Analysis for Factors Facilitating Integrated Project Teams

Factorcodes Factors

Total Componentsb

Mean Ranka 1 2 3 4 5 6

c04 Learning about relational contracting approaches before

contracting (all parties), e.g., at a workshop, seminar, or training

within the company

4.06 23 0.72 0.37

c05 Learning working in flexible contract/ teamworking

environment before contracting with others (all parties),

e.g., through training

4.14 15e 0.70

c21 More workshops for better interactions to build trust/reliability 3.83 27 0.70

c27 Company training policy to build adaptable individuals for

working with diverse partners (each party)

3.90 25 0.64 0.47

c06 Cooperative learning within project organization 4.14 15e 0.64

c14 Interpersonal relations/cultural harmony (individual level) 4.14 15e 0.43 0.43

c16 Short-listing “capable” (as in items 11-12) and “compatible”(as in items 13-15) potential project partners, instead of “priceonly” considerations

4.37 6 0.83

c19 Selecting the best possible “capable and compatible” project

team from among potential partners (of item 16)

4.46 3 0.69

c17 Disclosing project information to potential partners (as in

item 16) at early stages of project for any optional feedback,

as appropriate

4.30 8 0.67

c20 Bringing contractor, major subcontractors, and major suppliers

into the project team, in appropriate cases, for longer-term

interactions to build trust/reliability

4.31 7 0.46 0.51

c09 Willingness/enthusiasm of involved parties 4.68 1 0.50 0.36 0.40

c24 Role of an independent full-time facilitator in building trust,

teamworking and “can do” spirit, and enhancing cooperative

learning among contracting parties

4.13 18e 0.38 0.66

c23 Group/ combined responsibility, as against individual

responsibility, e.g., responsibility of binding decision making

on “unclear issues” by a preselected group comprising one

person from each major party

4.21 14 0.66

c26 Requirement for an independent full-time facilitator to

supplement project manager as per item 24 above

3.52 28 0.45 0.63

c22 Use of single point responsibility, e.g., only one quantity

surveyor (QS) from the contractor representing all contracting

parties in the project, instead of different QSs for various

contracting parties

3.86 26 0.63

c25 Role of project manager as facilitator as per item 24 above,

given that project manager has the best understanding and

control of the project issues

4.27 10 0.48

c18 Seeking specific inputs on constructibility, construction

methods, materials, etc. from among potential partners (of item

16), for better project planning

4.26 11 0.44 0.44

c28 Corporate strategy of building trust with potential partners by

doing the “right” things and meeting time and cost targets

4.43 4 0.43

c08 Reputation in the industry (each party) 4.09 21 0.78

c07 Familiarity/previous relationships with/among other parties 4.10 20 0.76

c10 Previous experience in relational contracting approaches

(each party)

3.91 24 0.74

c12 Previous performance records on “hard factors,” e.g., time,

quality, safety, etc. (each party)

4.07 22 0.62

c15 Previous performance records on “soft factors”, e.g., jointdecision making, joint problem solving, compromises on

unclear issues, etc. (each party)

4.25 12e 0.53 0.62

c03 Client’s initiative 4.40 5 0.85

c01 Enlightened and enthusiastic client 4.55 2 0.84



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

summarize “cliental role and top management support”. Compo-nent 3 explains “alignment of objectives” (a15–17), to share avail-able resources and/or assume combined responsibility, which isexpected to be enhanced from previous experience in RC ap-proaches. Component 4 outlines an “improved risk management”strategy. Component 5 (“trust and trust-based arrangements”) indi-cates that open communication is better performed with mutualtrust and “teamworking and can do spirit,” if supported by effectivecoordination.

The size of eigenvalues and percent of variations explained bydifferent components indicate a priority of component 1 over theother four very close components of similar importance. However,component 5 has the smallest Eigenvalue, but contains the threetop-ranked factors (a06, 07, and a10), which perhaps make it moreimportant than the others. This suggests that prioritization of (1) thecomponents based on their size alone and (2) their constituentfactors within the components are inappropriate. Relative impor-tance of individual factors (in general, and not within the compo-nents) also need to be considered, may be in the same holistic andconsolidated but interrelated approach—as argued previously. Asseen in this case, in fact, component 5 will form the basis of othercomponents, and hence should be given priority over the othercomponents.

Factors Deterring RC: Relative Importance

Table 4 summarizes the perceptions of respondents on 28 factorsfor deterring RC (i.e., category two). Lack of trust, top managementcommitment, teamworking attitude and confidence, and unwillingparticipation are more important factors than others (ranks 1–5).Price-only selection, lack of contractor’s capability, inappropriateprocurement strategy, and lack of client’s initiative (ranks 8–11)hinder RC approaches more than inappropriate project planning,ambiguous contract documents, inappropriate issue resolutionmechanisms, and incompatible organizational cultures (ranks12–15). Inappropriate risk allocation/sharing (rank 6) critically deterRC, but the ranks of factors exclusion of subcontractors (rank 21),suppliers (rank 26), and consultants (rank 27) in any risk-rewardplan, and the existence of a separate risk-reward plan (rank 28)clearly suggest practicing project-based partnering type RC ar-rangement, and between clients and contractors only. Similar tothe factors facilitating RC, the higher scores of all the factors implytheir general importance, with some factors more important thansome others. On the whole and similar to the factors facilitatingRC, the overall result is in agreement with previous studies (Blacket al. 2000; Chan et al. 2004; Larson 1995; Rahman et al. 2007).

The priorities within the Hong Kong sample are somewhatsimilar to those in the total sample, with the exception of client’sinitiative, bureaucratic client organization, and incompatible public

sector rules and regulations. Ranks of individual factors in theSingapore sample appear to indicate the fledgling nature ofRC, which has not tried many nontraditional selection methodsand/or factors and procurement approaches. Respondents fromAustralia considerably deviate from the total sample on many fac-tors, indicating that contractors proactively pursued RC approachesthere (Construction 2020 2004) and that industry demands morestructured approaches and changes from the public sector.

Respondents from The Netherlands prioritize various factors ina considerably different compared way to those in the total sample,indicating a higher understanding and requirement for more inte-grated but contractually organized RC approaches. Respondentsfrom the U.K. appear to indicate that repeated measures for indus-try development has motivated the clients to take initiatives in craft-ing various elements of RC in their contract and/or procurementstrategies, although the focus is still on the project-based ap-proaches, perhaps due to some obvious reasons, e.g., for consistentpublic sector regulations. The significance levels obtained from thet-test show that all 28 factors are significantly important within thetotal and Hong Kong samples. Only one factor is insignificant inSingapore and Australia, but 11 and 10 factors are insignificantwithin The Netherlands and the U.K. ANOVA results show thatrespondents from five countries significantly agree on the impor-tance levels of 13 factors and disagree on 15 factors (Table 4),indicating diverse priorities on various factors, and confirmingthe discussions and observations made previously.

Factors Deterring RC: Factor Analysis

In the previously described exercise, the factor analysis extractedseven components explaining over 67% of variations (Table 4),with four factors contributing to three components, and six factorscontributing to two components. Similar to the facilitating set offactors, the pattern and size of multiple contributions clearly pointto the requirement for a consolidated but interrelated approach forRC. Component 1 consists of seven factors and appears to explainpersisting adversarial setting, whereas component 2 appears tosummarize six factors relating to lack of trust and attitude, and rel-evant potential consequences. Component 3 seems to explain thatincomplete risk-reward scheme deters RC.

Component 4 indicates that commercial pressure and legalliability deters RC. Component 5 appears to portray the key fea-tures of persisting traditional approach, whereas component 6appears to relate lack of experience and coordination. Component7 (lack of commitment and contractor’s capability) may be consid-ered to explain that the combination of shortfall of capability of anycontracting party and a lack of commitment of top management ofall contracting parties deters RC. The size and sequential differenceof eigenvalues indicate priority of the first four components over

Table 5. (Continued.)

Factorcodes Factors

Total Componentsb


c02 Knowledgeable client (about project processes and relational

contracting)

4.25 12e 0.80

c11 Adequate resources and technical skills (each party) 4.28 9 0.38 0.70

c13 Compatible organizational culture of involved parties 4.13 18e 0.37 0.47

Eigenvalues 3.87 3.30 3.22 3.21 3.07 1.63

Percent of variation explained 13.82 11.79 11.48 11.47 10.97 5.84

Cumulative percent of variation explained 13.82 25.61 37.09 48.56 59.53 65.36a“e” signifies equal ranks, whereas the next rank(s) is/are omitted, except the lowest rank, where the previous rank(s) is/are omitted.bRotation converged in 13 iterations. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: 0.906019. Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approximate chi-square =3,449.701, degrees of freedom = 378, significance = 0.000.



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

the last three of similar importance. However, component 3 con-tains the three least important factors (b22, b20, b23), but compo-nent 7 contains the second most important factor (b07). Thissuggests considering relative importance of individual factors,along with the size of components, in a holistic and consolidatedbut interrelated approach.

Factors Facilitating Building IPTs: Relative Importance

Table 5 summarizes the responses on 28 factors of category three.Willingness/enthusiasm (ranks 1–2) seems to be the most importantfactors, where trust building corporate strategy (rank 4) with clien-tal initiative (rank 5) and knowledge (rank 12) play critical roles.Selecting a capable and compatible team (rank 3) is invaluable, andincludes short-listing potential partners (c16), seeking their feed-back (c20), and bringing major stakeholders into the team (c20)at early project stages (ranks 6–8).

Adequate resources and technical skills (rank 9) is preferredover performance record on hard factors (rank 22), but performance

record on soft factors (rank 12) is preferred over soft skills likeinterpersonal relations (rank 15) and organizational culture (rank18). Respondents also preferred combined responsibility (rank 14)over previous experience in RC approaches (rank 24). Also, re-spondents prefer the project manager (c25, rank 10) to assumethe role of partnering facilitator (c24, equal rank 18), whose re-quirement (c26) is seen as the least important (rank 28) with a scoreof 3.52. Such a high score implies a general importance of all thefactors, with some factors more important than some others.

Respondents from Hong Kong prioritized cliental roles and at-titude/strategy of other parties (ranks 1–5), for building a capableand compatible team at an early project stage under the facilitatingrole of project manager (ranks 6–7). Ranks of individual factors aredifferent but close in comparison to those in the total sample, withconsiderable deviation on cliental knowledge (c2), learning aboutRC approaches (c04) and working in flexible contracts (c05), anddisclosing project information to potential partners for any feed-back before their selection (c17, ranks 22 compared to 8). The trend

Table 6. Importance and Results from t-Test, ANOVA, and Factor Analysis for Factors Deterring Integrated Project Teams

Factorcodes Factors

Total Componentsb


d29 Discontinuation of open and honest communication 4.88 2 0.87

d11 Lack of trust/reliability among contracting parties 5.05 1 0.81

d26 Failure to share information among contracting parties 4.59 6 0.77

d28 Uneven commitment of contracting parties 4.40 8 0.64

d25 Resistance of contracting parties to integrated project culture 4.36 10 0.55

d20 Unfair risk-reward plan 4.30 12 0.55 0.48

d12 Unwilling/unenthusiastic participation of contracting parties 4.72 5 0.54

d08 “Price only” selection methods 4.48 7 0.47

d18 Exclusion of (major) subcontractors in risk-reward plan 3.89 24 0.83

d19 Exclusion of (major) suppliers in risk-reward plan 3.71 29 0.78 0.31

d17 Exclusion of consultants in risk-reward plan 3.63 31 0.71

d15 Absence of any risk-reward plan 4.01 19 0.68 0.30

d16 Separate/unrelated risk-reward plans for different parties 3.70 30 0.66 0.41

d13 Interpersonal/cultural clash (individual level) 4.00 20 0.68

d07 Public sector accountability concerns 3.84 26 0.67 0.50

d14 Incompatible organizational culture (corporate level) 4.16 17e 0.35 0.63

d06 Stringent/incompatible public sector rules and regulations 3.83 27e 0.63 0.53

d10 Opportunistic behavior of one or more contracting parties 4.23 14 0.31 0.52

d27 Persistence of “master” and “slave” concept 4.37 9 0.47 0.48

d09 Commercial pressures on contracting parties 4.19 16 0.30 0.46 0.34

d02 Lack of commitment from top management: client 4.83 3e 0.85

d03 Lack of commitment from top management: other parties 4.83 3e 0.31 0.76

d04 Lack of client”s initiatives 4.26 13 0.65

d05 Bureaucratic client organization 3.94 22 0.54 0.59

d01 Lack of client’s knowledge about project processes and relational contracting 4.16 17e 0.51 0.47

d22 Lack of any relationships between client and major suppliers 3.91 23 0.88

d23 Lack of relationships/communications between consultants and suppliers 3.95 21 0.86

d21 Lack of contractual relationships between client and major subcontractors 3.87 25 0.81

d24 Lack of relationships/communications between subcontractors and suppliers 3.83 27e 0.31 0.69

d31 Potential legal liabilities (in resolving noncontractual issues) 4.34 11 0.71

d30 Improper planning, design errors, and omissions 4.22 15 0.31 0.62

Eigenvalues 4.68 3.78 3.76 3.53 3.43 1.69

Percent of variation explained 15.09 12.20 12.14 11.40 11.07 5.44

Cumulative percent of variation explained 15.09 27.30 39.43 50.83 61.90 67.34a“e” signifies equal ranks, whereas the next rank(s) is/are omitted, except the lowest rank, where the previous rank(s) is/are omitted.bRotation converged in seven iterations. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.905903. Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approximate chi-square =4,691.876, degrees of freedom = 465, significance = 0.000.



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

of preference from Singapore does not indicate any specific pattern,and ranks of individual factors are considerably different for mostfactors, compared to those in the total sample.

The tendency of priority within Australia indicates a similarpattern to that of Hong Kong. However, the priority of individualfactors is different for almost all factors, if compared to the totalsample, with considerable deviation on a number of factors.Respondents from The Netherlands surprisingly top-ranked the roleof project manager (c25) for building IPTs. With no precise pattern,the tendency of priority seems to be on short-listing and select-ing the team (c16 and c19), cliental enthusiasm and knowledge(c01–02), and other team-building protocols. Considerable devia-tion of priority of factors from the total sample include: cooperativelearning within project organization (c06), learning to work in flex-ible contracts (c05), client’s initiative (c03), and trust buildingcorporate strategy (c28). Client’s enthusiasm and willingness ofinvolved parties are the two most important factors in the U.K.Despite the equal priority of other factors in some cases, the pref-erence tends to mainly demonstrate a certain structured pattern ofbuilding IPTs for more effective RC, despite considerable deviationof priority in some of the factors, if compared to those in the totalsample.

However, the significance levels obtained from the t-tests showthat all the factors are significantly important within the total, HongKong, Singapore, and Australia samples. Seven and 11 factors areinsignificant within the U.K. and Netherlands groups, respectively.Although importance levels of individual factors vary, the overallresult is in agreement with previous studies (Larson 1995; Blacket al. 2000; Chan et al. 2004). Nevertheless, the ANOVA resultsconfirmed the diverse priorities within the five countries: they sig-nificantly agree on the relative importance of only six factors, anddisagree on 22 factors. This may be due to the existence of various“local” priorities and practices. This may also point to varyinglevels of importance assigned to exercising teamworking andRC approaches.

For example, the factor “enlightened and enthusiastic client” issignificantly important within all five countries, but with varyingdegrees of importance. It ranks 1 within the U.K. and Hong Kong,3 within Australia and The Netherlands, but 18 within Singapore.The literature suggests that importance of cliental role has alreadybeen identified, verified and emphasized by industry reports, aswell as by many researchers in the U.K., Hong Kong, and Australia.By contrast, Singapore is at the early stage of implementing RC(Rahman et al. 2007), and therefore has yet to identify the impor-tance of cliental role in such approaches.

Factors Facilitating Building IPTs: Factor Analysis

This factor analysis exercise surfaced six components (Table 5)explaining over 65% of the variations, with 11 factors playingmultiple roles with their “primary” and “secondary” contributions,indicating a consolidated and highly coordinated approach. Com-ponent 1 seems to summarize various “learning mechanisms” toemphasize training the team members for building IPTs. Compo-nent 2 seems to outline the “team selection and teambuilding pro-tocols.” Component 3 seems to portray that project manager playsthe central role in “improved responsibility allocation.”

Component 4 seems to combine “familiarity, experience andprevious performance” of team members for better integration.Component 5 summarizes “cliental roles,” whereas component 6(harmonious resource utilization) appears to explain that partieswith compatible organizational culture (c13) can perhaps effec-tively use their resources and technical skills (c11) in furtheringIPTs. The size of eigenvalues suggests a priority of the first fivecomponents over the last one, but the differences between their

sizes are relatively small. Moreover, higher ranked factors areseen to be grouped in smaller sized components (e.g., c01, rank 2,component 5), and vice versa. This in turn suggests consideringthe relative importance of individual factors, along with the sizeof components, in a holistic and consolidated but interrelatedapproach.

Factors Deterring Building IPTs: Relative Importance

Table 6 summarizes the responses on factors of category 4. Prior-ities within the total sample are on factors relating to lack of trust,commitment, communication/information sharing and willingness,and price-only selections, that deter IPTs (ranks 1–8). Master-slavetype of attitude and resistance to integrated project culture (ranks9–10) are more important than opportunistic behavior and lackof client’s initiative (ranks 13–14). Potential legal liabilities andcultural incompatibility (ranks 11 and 17) are more important thanpublic sector issues: cliental knowledge (rank 17), bureaucracy(rank 22), accountability, and stringent rules and regulations (ranks26–27). Except client and contractor, bilateral relationships be-tween other major parties are seen to be less critical (ranks between21 and 27).

Unfair or absence of any risk-reward plan (ranks 12 and 19) ismore important than exclusion of subcontractors (rank 24) in suchplans, but three other risk-reward related factors occupy the bottomof the list (ranks 29–31), suggesting project-based partneringtype teamworking between clients and contractors only. However,relatively higher scores of all the factors imply their generalimportance. The significance levels obtained from the t-testsconfirmed that all the factors are significant within the totalsample. The numbers of insignificant factors in other groups areas follows: zero in Hong Kong, two-in Singapore, three-inAustralia, five-in The Netherlands, and seven-in the U.K. Similarto category three, the overall results of category 4 is in agreementwith previous observations (Larson 1995; Black et al. 2000;Rahman and Kumaraswamy 2005), although importance levelsof individual factors vary.

Priority within the Hong Kong sample is somewhat similar tothose within the total sample, with considerable deviation on fourclient-related factors (d04–d07) and any opportunistic behavior(d10). The preference in the Singapore sample is slightly differentbut close, and therefore similar to those in the total sample, withsomewhat considerable deviation on: top management commitment(d02), lack of client’s initiative (d04), and price-only selections(d08). The sample from Australia considerably deviates on fourclient-related factors (d04–d07), opportunistic behavior (d10),and organizational culture (d14), focusing on removing unconge-nial organizational and/or system-based barriers from the client’sside.

The pattern within The Netherlands sample indicates team-working of a higher degree than other countries, to be contrac-tually triggered by cliental initiatives. The priority within theU.K. sample is on removing organizational and/or system-basedbarriers by the clients, as RC approaches are client driven there.On the whole, priority of different factors (of category 4) in fivecountries is seen to vary considerably. ANOVA results confirmedsuch diverse priority: respondents from five countries significantlyagree on the relative importance of 11 factors, but significantlydisagree on 20 factors. This may be due to the existence of various“local” practices, indicating their levels of exercising teamworkingand RC approaches. For example, responses on the factor “oppor-tunistic behavior” (d10) are significantly important within all fivecountries, but with varying degrees of importance.



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

Factors Deterring Building IPTS: Factor Analysis

Six interrelated factors surfaced in this exercise (Table 6), explain-ing over 67% of variations, with 15 factors playing multiple roles.The lowest primary contribution (0.46 from d09) is less thansecondary contributions of six factors. All these suggest a wellcoordinated and consolidated approach. Component 1 (lack oftrust, commitment and communication) summarizes most of thecommonly known key factors deterring building IPTs. Component2 seems to summarize the features of inappropriate risk-rewardplan. Component 3 appears to contain persistent adversarial set-tings that exist in the industry. Component 4 includes variousimproper cliental roles, and component 5 appears to summarizethe “lack of relationships” between project partners (d21–d24).Component (improper planning and legal liabilities) seems toclarify that concern for potential legal liabilities (d31) arisingout from improper planning, design errors, and omissions (d30)also deters building effective IPTs.

In addition to containing primary contributions of eight of thetop 12 factors, the size of the eigenvalue and its difference fromcomponent 2 indicate a priority of component 1 over the others.Comparatively smaller sequential difference in size of eigenvaluesof the next four components indicate their similar importance,which is far more than component 6. But component 2 with a largereigenvalue contains three least important factors (d19, d16, andd17), and component 4 with a smaller eigenvalue contains the thirdmost important factors (d02 and d03). This implies considering rel-ative importance of individual factors, along with the size of com-ponents, for a holistic and consolidated but interrelated approach.

Analysis of Results

The survey results presented in this paper evaluated a range offacilitating and deterring factors, and compared them between fivecountries, for building IPTs for more effective RC and developing awider culture of RC. The interpretation of the survey outcomes, andconsequent discussions, are based on the results from statisticalanalyses (e.g., t-test and ANOVA). No normalcy tests were con-ducted for the respective sample sizes and responses. This mighthave slightly impacted the interpretation of the results, as the sam-ple sizes from different countries were considerably different, andthe responses were from different countries and diverse contractingaffiliations. However, the overall study recognized some generaltrends and revealed the positive attitudes of the surveyed sampleof industry participants from five countries, both for RC and IPTs.These include:• For category 1 (i.e., factors facilitating RC), all 24 factors/

strategies are significant across the total sample. Trust, top man-agement support, and trust-based operational arrangements aremore important than other factors. Despite the consensus on re-lative importance of eight factors, five countries are seen to be atdifferent levels of implementing RC, with diverse priorities anddifferent strategies, but with overall focus still on the project-based approaches. An exception is seen in Singapore: respon-dents downplayed cliental roles, but identified other factors tobe more important (e.g., trust and open communication), indi-cating their early stage of implementing RC and lacking anyspecific strategy. Factor analysis yielded five interrelated com-ponents. The size of different components, location of indivi-dual factors, and their multiple roles indicate a consolidatedbut inter-related holistic approach for RC, where identifiedkey factors (e.g., trust, management support) should be injectedin the adopted strategies (e.g., clear and equitable risk alloca-tion) and functional arrangements (e.g., open communication).

• For category 2 (i.e., factors deterring RC), lack of trust, topmanagement commitment, and attitude-related factors top thelist, followed by factors related to trust-building mechanismsand arrangements. All 28 factors are significant, but fivecountries indicated diverse priorities on various factors, whileagreeing on the relative importance of only 13 factors. Seveninterrelated components emerged from the factor analysis exer-cise. In addition to the relative importance of individual factors,the eigenvalues appear to suggest a prioritized focus on thefirst four components, in a holistic, consolidated but interrelatedapproach.

• Within category 3, enthusiastic (c09) cliental role (c01, c03)with corporate strategy of building trust (c28) are seen to playthe most critical role in building IPTs. The trend of priority isfollowed by team selection and team-building protocols. Inter-estingly, the project manager is preferred to assume the role offacilitator for building IPTs, against the notion of using an in-dependent facilitator. However, all factors are significant withinthe total sample. Five countries appear to have opted for diversepriorities of factors, but with specific patterns for building IPTs,except Singapore, where no specific pattern was observed.Respondents from five countries significantly agree on the re-lative importance of only six factors. Factor analysis extractedsix interrelated components. When prioritizing the focus areas,the relative importance of individual factors is to be consideredtogether with the size of different components in terms of theireigenvalues, in a holistic-approach.

• Lack of trust and commitment-related factors top the list incategory 4, i.e., factors deterring the building of IPTs, followedby factors relating to attitudinal aspects. The trend of preferencefor individual factors suggests the practice of project-based part-nering type teamworking arrangement, between clients and con-tractors only. All 31 factors are significant in the total sample,with consensus on relative importance by five countries on 11factors only. The results indicate the practice of different levelsof teamworking in different countries. Factor analysis exerciseextracted six interrelated components. Size of the eigenvalueand number of constituting factors suggest a clear priority ofcomponent 1 over the others. However, location and multipleroles of different factors and smaller differences in componentsizes indicate a consolidated but interrelated approach.

• Factors facilitating and deterring RC (categories 1 and 2 playcomplementary roles, since similar factors top the list in bothcategories. The complementary trends support the notion thatany trust-based operational arrangement (e.g., open communi-cation) must be supported by contract documents in order tostrike a balance between flexibility and control and to arrestany opportunistic behavior, e.g., in terms of risk allocation.The two categories of factors tend to show a common focuson coordination, risk allocation, and inclusion of key partiesin risk-reward plans.

• The trend of preference in category 3 may be considered tocomplement that of category 1 (i.e., two “facilitating” cate-gories), in that enthusiastic clients (category 3) can crafttrust-based operational arrangements (category 1: open commu-nication), in clear and equitable contract documents (category 1,in allocating risks), and select capable team members (in cate-gory 3), with top management support (category 1). Contractingparties are then expected to “compatibly” work in such “open”environment (category 3) and assume combined responsibility(category 1).

• The preferences of individual factors/strategies in both deter-ring categories (categories 2 and 4) of factors highlight theimportance of lack of trust and commitment-related factors in



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

deterring building IPTs. A group of factors related to selectionmethods and attitudinal aspects follow the trend. Except for cli-ents and contractors, factors/strategies related to inclusion ofconsultants, subcontractors, and suppliers in a risk-reward planare at the bottom of the lists in both categories. Thus, the twocategories of deterring factors/strategies are complementary.

• For category 3, the preference of individual factors/strategieshighlights enthusiastic cliental role, with trust-building corpo-rate strategy, in building IPTs through partner selection andteam-building exercises, emphasizing ‘availability of resources,skill-sets, and performance records on soft qualities. For cate-gory 4, the priority is on trust and commitment, which alsohighlights certain team-building strategies (e.g., informationsharing) and certain behavior patterns of clients (e.g., masterand slave concept) in deterring the building of IPTs. Withoutaddressing such a behavior pattern, cliental role in improvedteam selection (category 3) and building IPTs can hardly beachieved. Thus, facilitating and deterring factors for buildingIPTs may be considered as complementary. Common interestsin these two categories seem to be trust, building a network ofrelationships (between clients, consultants, contractors, subcon-tractors, and suppliers), and selecting “partners” from amongthem, to assume combined responsibility.

• Factor analysis results show that almost half of the factors playmultiple roles in each category with their primary and secondarycontributions to all the components. Several factors contributeeven to three components. Also, secondary contributions ofsome factors are either equal to or higher than the lowest pri-mary contributions. This suggests a consolidated but interre-lated approach, both for RC and IPTs.

• Factor analysis results and the complementary nature of differ-ent categories of factors suggest a trust-based holistic but con-solidated approach under a cliental pioneering role, which mustbe supported by top management commitment of all parties.

• The general importance of all the factors used in the studyalso testifies to the importance of all the factors that featurecomparisons and contrasts between traditional and RC-basedprocurement methodologies, and so contribute to validatingthe previous observations that RC-based approaches are nowconsidered better than traditional contracting methods (Rahmanand Kumaraswamy 2004, 2005).

Conclusions

Integration in construction implies the effective unification ofcollaborative efforts from the various stakeholders and their respec-tive professional, organizational, operational, and regional/nationalcultures, and harmoniously maintaining the relationships duringproject execution to ensure optimized project outcomes. This re-quires construction contracts to provide appropriate protocols.As such, various factors and strategies were identified, and com-pared in five different countries, to assess their relative importanceand to offer any contractual or noncontractual incentives for design-ing appropriate RC-based project teams.

Data were collected from Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia,The Netherlands, and the U.K., and were statistically analyzed.All factors considered in the four identified categories are foundto be significant, both in the total sample and within the groupsof individual countries, except for a few factors. The respondentgroups from the five countries significantly disagree on the relativeimportance of most of the factors, indicating their diverse prioritiesand highlighting the practice of different levels of RC and team-working. Except Singapore, all countries appear to be at different

levels of implementing RC, with diverse priorities and differentstrategies, but with overall focus still on the project-based ap-proaches. Singapore respondents displayed no clear strategy, down-played cliental roles, but identified other factors to be moreimportant, indicating their early stage of implementing RC. A sim-ilar trend was also observed for any strategy relating to buildingIPTs. The two categories of factors relating to IPTs seem to indicatea common focus on factors relating to trust, building a network ofrelationships among the potential partners, and inclusion of keyparties in risk-reward plans. The common interests in the two cat-egories relating to RC seem to be on coordination, risk allocation,and inclusion of key parties in risk-reward plans.

On the whole, trust and trust-based operational and contractualarrangements can effectively provide the required incentives to ex-ercise various RC-based working arrangements, through extendedattention to “relational” qualities in team selection, where commit-ment, top management support, and cliental initiative are critical. Itwas noted that counterpart categories of factors relating to RC(i.e., categories 1 and 2) and IPTs (i.e., categories 3 and 4) comple-ment each other. Moreover, both the facilitating (i.e., categories 1and 3) and deterring (categories 2 and 4) categories of factorsexhibit a similar broad trend of importance of the various factors,indicating that RC and team-building complement each other.

The factor analysis exercise surfaced five components forrepresenting factors facilitating RC, seven components for factorsdeterring RC, six components for factors facilitating buildingIPTs for RC, and six components for factors deterring buildingIPTs for RC. However, almost half of the factors play multiple roleswith their primary and secondary contributions. Secondary contri-butions of some factors are either equal to or higher than the lowestprimary contribution. Moreover, higher ranked factors are seen tobe grouped in smaller size components, and differences in compo-nent sizes are observed as small in most cases. This suggests aconsolidated but interrelated holistic-approach, both for RC andIPTs, where identified key factors (e.g., trust, management support)should be injected in the adopted strategies (e.g., clear andequitable risk allocation) and functional arrangements (e.g., opencommunication).

Although the reported study was launched from Hong Kongand data were collected from five specific countries/regions, theresearch questions and objectives were based on a wider literaturereview. Furthermore, the overall results of this study are broadly inagreement with relevant previous studies in Hong Kong, Singapore,the U.K., and North America. Therefore, the underlying conceptu-alizations and consequent results and conclusions are generalizable,and may be carefully extended to other countries as well, afteradjustments to suit country-specific contexts and requirements,which may be identified through the use of same or similar researchinstruments.

References

Black, C., Akintoye, A., and Fitzgerald, E. (2000). “An analysis of successfactors and benefits of partnering in construction.” Int. J. Proj. Manage.,18(6), 423–434.

Chan, A. P. C., Chan, D. W. M., Chiang, Y. H., Tang, B. S., Chan, E. H. W.,and Ho, K. S. K. (2004). “Exploring critical success factors for part-nering in construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130(2),188–198.

Construction Industry Review Committee (CIRC). (2001). Constructfor excellence, Rep. of the Construction Industry Review Committee,Hong Kong.

Construction 2020. (2004). Construction 2020: A vision for Australia’sproperty and construction industry. Cooperative Research Centre forConstruction Innovation, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:2(188)


Construction 21. (1999). Re-inventing construction, Ministry of Manpowerand Ministry of National Development, Singapore.

Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking construction, Construction Task Force (CTF)Rep., Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,London.

Eisenberg, M. A. (2000). “The emergence of dynamic contract law.” Calif.Law Rev., 88(6), 1743–1814.

Hinton, P. R. (2004). Statistics explained, 2nd Ed., Routledge, London.Kumaraswamy, M. M., Rahman, M. M., Ling, F. Y. Y., and Phng, S. T.

(2005). “Reconstructing cultures for relational contracting.” J. Constr.Eng. Manage., 131(10), 1065–1075.

Larson, E. (1995). “Project partnering: Results of study of 280 constructionprojects.” J. Manage. Eng., 11 (2), 30–35.

McFadden, E. M., and Ernzen, J. J. (2003). “Partnered project performanceat the city of Phoenix.” Proc., Construction Research Congress—Windsof change: Integration and innovation in construction, K. R. Molenaarand P. S. Chinowsky, ASCE, Reston, VA.

Process and System Innovation in Building and Construction (PSIB).(2004). Inventory of international reforms in building and construction,PSIB Program, Government Building Agency, The NetherlandsGovernment, Hague.

Rahman, M. M., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2004). “Contracting relation-ship trends and transitions.” J. Manage. Eng., 20(4), 147–161.

Rahman, M. M., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2005). “Relational selectionfor collaborative working arrangements.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,131(10), 1087–1098.

Rahman, M. M., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2008). “Relational contractingand teambuilding: Assessing potential contractual and non-contractualincentives.” J. Manage. Eng., 24(1), 48–63.

Rahman, M. M., Kumaraswamy, M. M., Ling, F. Y. Y., and Ling, F. Y. Y.(2007). “Building a relational contracting culture and integrated teams.”Can. J. Civ. Eng., 34(1), 75–88.

Walker, A. (2002). Project management in construction, 4th Ed., BlackwellScience, Oxford.



Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

KM

UT

T K

ING

MO

NG

KU

T'S

UN

IV T

EC

H o

n 04

/27/

14. C

opyr

ight

ASC

E. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly;

all

righ

ts r

eser

ved.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1995)11:2(30)





http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/l06-119

Documents

Multicountry Perspectives of Relational Contracting and Integrated Project Teams