Key drivers for informal project coordination among sub-contractors

Abstract

Purpose – Despite good project front-end planning, projects typically need continuous coordination among the participants concerning scope of work, pace, and timing during the execution phase to be accomplished without delays. Coordination can be formal or informal. Research shows that informal coordination of residual and unforeseen interdependencies enhances time saving and facilitates better understandings. Still though, many sub-contractors choose not to coordinate informally. The purpose of this paper is to identify drivers that enhance or inhibit informal coordination among sub-contractors during project execution. Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative, explorative case study approach was applied, involving 15 SME sub-contractors within the offshore wind power energy sector. Findings – Six drivers which enhance informal coordination and three drivers which inhibit informal coordination among sub-contractors in projects were identified. Practical implications – The findings imply that management in project-oriented organizations can enhance informal coordination across project sub-contractors in the project execution phase by facilitating trust building; by emphasizing previous collaboration successes with the sub-contractors and the possibility of future common projects; by being explicit about expectations on informal coordination; and by developing sub-contractor contracts that are not very tight in economic terms, but instead give some leeway in relation to coordination. Originality/value – The paper contributes to a gap on coordination within projects and in the specificity of the context of offshore wind energy in which the concept of informal coordination across sub-contractors is explored.

Understanding how to succeed with project partnering

“…The project must know who their key stakeholders are and involve the appropriate internal and external parties in an early phase. Particularly, it was important to involve subcontractors early, potentially to facilitate informal communication in line with Aagaard et al (2015).…”

Inter-organisational project network integration: a systematic literature review

“…Partnering as a form of promoting collaboration and integration, barriers, and tools to partnering were recognised (Li et al, 2001;Mollaoglu et al, 2015). Altogether, the literature presents collaborative project practices and how collaboration can be enhanced in practice (Aagaard et al, 2014;Gustavsson and Gohary, 2012). In addition, the project management practitioner's perspectives on the importance of collaborative practices were examined and listed (Suprapto et al, 2015b).…”

In the shadow of a negative past: repairing and developing trust in construction projects

“…Relationships between main contractors and second-tier subcontractors are of value for both project delivery and project businesses (Meng, 2012;Aagaard, Eskerod and Madsen, 2015).…”

“…Researchers still lack an understanding of how predesigned mechanisms, such as partnering conditions as established in relational contracts, are implemented in practices (Bresnen, 2009;Eriksson, 2010). Furthermore, formal tools and arrangements are identified as not sufficient for nurturing collaborative relationships and organisations face difficulties in translating these into practices in dynamic contexts (Bresnen, 2009;Aagaard, Eskerod and Madsen, 2015). To counteract this trend, some researchers have proposed a shift of attention towards the temporal, processual and emergent aspects of management practices in construction (Cicmil et al, 2006;Bresnen, 2009;Bygballe and Swärd, 2019).…”