Definitely Not a Walk in the Park: Coping with Competing Values in Complex Project Networks

Abstract

Complex project networks confront project actors, with value pluralism originating from a plethora of competing organizational and institutional systems related to the project environment. Using a single urban redevelopment case study, we present a dynamic understanding of the emergence and nature of conflicts in different conflict arenas of collaborative project networks. We identify seven coping patterns to reduce and engage with this complexity in the process of delivering value throughout projects. The coping patterns enable a more dynamic and flexible approach toward conflict management in project networks with a high degree of conflicting project interests.

The balancing act

“…Finding a way to deal with conflicting public values is thus essential for public organizations. The purpose of, and necessity for, balancing the different value systems of the public client organization is to create and maintain sustainable value for organizations and their stakeholders, or in other words: safeguard public values (Kuitert et al, 2019b;Too & Weaver, 2014). Currently the role of public clients is shifting in ways that impact upon the task of public bodies in the public value process (Bao, Wang, Larsen, & Morgan, 2013;Bryson, Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2014; de Graaf, Huberts, & Smulders, 2014).…”

“…In order to realize ambitions, public clients need to develop an integrative way of working and utilize different modes of collaboration. Government bodies call upon the expertise of specialist partners to address precisely this, which also changes the position of these public bodies (Cornforth, 2003b;Kuitert, Volker & Hermans, 2019b). More specifically, it changes the relationship of government bodies to market-based entities and society at large (Clifton & Duffield, 2006;van der Steen et al, 2013).…”

“…Taking accountability for a wide range of public values is increasingly an integral part of the daily practice of public construction clients. To cope with these emergent challenges, such as the demand for adaptability and the need for product and process innovations, public bodies have little choice but to innovate and evolve, both internally and in relation to other institutions (Cornforth, 2003b;Kuitert et al, 2019b;Miozzo & Dewick, 2004). Why?…”

“…One of the reasons for this is that it can be difficult to understand and determine who is ultimately 'in charge', relying as it does on autonomous units operating in a context characterized by demand uncertainty and high interdependence in performing complex tasks (Jones, Hesterly, & Borgatti, 1997;Keast et al, 2006). In order to truly apply public value management in NPG, the role of the public client must change from being the legitimate (TPA) and performing (NPM) government towards a networking and participatory government (Kuitert et al, 2019b;van der Steen et al, 2014). Within this formulation, government acts as a facilitator, negotiator, and collaborator, who works in partnership with private, public, and non-profit sectors to come up with solutions to public problems (Coule & Patmore, 2013).…”

“…It is only when conflicts are not managed -or not managed correctly -that disputes and other disruptions arise. The purpose of, and necessity for, balancing the different value systems is to create and maintain long-term sustainable value for the organization and its stakeholders (Kuitert et al, 2019b). In light of these considerations, our research aim is to understand how collaborative network approaches deliver value through projects, how this influences the type of conflicts that appear and how these conflicts are dealt with by public client organizations with or without the various organizational, project-related and societal actors involved.…”