CHAPTER 6

Findings and Models

Chapter 6 Introduction

In this chapter we present our findings and models of relationship-based procurement forms. This book forms a research report as well as a research book publication. Some readers will be mainly interested in summary findings and models while we anticipate that many others will be interested in the detailed findings that support and underpin our summary findings. Detailed findings are contained in Appendix 2 on Section 2.

Figure 24 illustrates this chapter's structure and content. Through this structure, we present several perspectives on the way that RBP forms and concepts evolve to help make sense of this unfolding evolution in improving value generation through projects.

We first discuss RBP through an emerging geographical influence and adoption of forms of collaboration lens. This leads us to take the perspective of depth of collaboration, and we present that as four orders of collaboration. This leads us to the perspective of relational focus intensity between the project owner and the delivery team and within the project delivery team. While this is useful, it leaves us unsure how to categorize RBP forms, especially as the terms used are not registered trade names and there is no globally agreed nomenclature or standards for them. This leads us to draw upon a useful device from the literature (Nyström, 2005a) that helps us create a model that presents core salient features of the RBP forms we identified in Chapter 2. This model helps us synthesize, albeit in somewhat coarsely grained measures of identified characteristics. This model provides us with the means to map identified features and characteristics against the identified RBP forms. Typologies, taxonomies, and frameworks are useful devices that are used to facilitate closer group and universal understanding of complex concepts. Figure 27 illustrates our model. An RBP Wittgenstein's Idea of Family together with its accompanying explanatory tables with suggested measures of the identified elements for Figure 27 in Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13, enables us to map RBF forms to the family of elements. This device enables us to map the KSAE, elements that we had previously developed to provide a profile of PA excellence (illustrated in Table 6 presented in Chapter 4). This framework illustrates the KSAE requirements of leaders of the delivery team and major constituent supply chain teams such as the design team leaders and first-tier supply chain delivery team leaders.

Emerging Forms of Collaboration Terms

RQ1 sought an answer to the question—what are the fundamental characteristics of emerging RBP forms? RQ2 sought an answer to the question—do these RBP forms vary in different parts of the globe and, if so in what way?

In Chapter 2 we outlined a range of project procurement arrangements. These were illustrated in Figure 3 and summarized into three main groups: traditional (design-bid-build and cost-reimbursable); forms with a focus on integrated design and delivery processes that emphasize planning and control (D&C, integrated SCM and MC; joint venture consortia; and the BOOT family/PFI/PPP arrangements); and forms with a focus on integrated design and delivery processes that emphasises collaboration and coordination (project/strategic partnering, integrated solutions that includes the competitive dialog and integrated project delivery approach, alliancing, ECI, and framework agreements).

Lahdenperä's (2012, p. 62) map of the emergence, dissemination and interaction of different relationship based delivery arrangements across the globe is instructive. He traces the whole system from partnering in the U.S. from 1988, but this was informed and molded from practices developed in Japan relating to quality management and lean production that he describes as “gentlemanly principles” that resonated with Japan's traditional cultural norms of respect for quality delivery and continuous improvement kaizen (Imai, 1986), often undertaken almost as an art form. Lean production and kaizen and other gentlemanly principles emerged in the U.S. and U.K. as partnering from around 1995. Close cultural and economic links between the U.S. and U.K. have long fed a cultural category recognized as the Anglo-world (Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, & Earnshaw, 2002) and so partnering quickly became popular across the Anglo sphere of influence, including countries such as Australia (Lenard et al., 1996; Testi, Sidwell, & Lenard, 1995; Uher, 1999) and Hong Kong (Chan, Chan, & Ho, 2003). Project partnering then developed into project and strategic alliancing from around 1994 in the U.K. and Australia, mainly through the oil exploration and extraction industry, though this was extended to engineering infrastructure projects and further into building construction projects such as the National Museum of Australia cited earlier in this book, and more recently with the completion of extensive renovation and remodeling of the Hamer Hall concert hall in Melbourne completed in late 2012. Partnering together with a revisiting of kaizen and lean production led to the emergence of integrated project delivery in the U.S. around 2005.

Lahdenperä's (2012, p. 62) map does not explain in detail sources of the flows of influence of RBP forms, for example from research that he has been undertaking on recent PAs in Finland (during 2013), which was cited as under development in the Manchester Business School (2009b) report. PAs have also been used in the Netherlands (Laan et al., 2011). These have been modelled on early Australian adaptation of PAs. A range of framework agreements seen in the U.K. (Khalfan & McDermot, 2006) have being extended to adaptation in supply chain integration through absorbing partnering principles, kaizen, and lean production concepts. These have been undertaken in Nordic countries as well as the U.K. (Brady, Davies, Gann, & Rush, 2007; Eriksson, 2010a; Manchester Business School, 2009b).

Table 9 summarizes the family of terms used for RBP in several regions of the world. D&C is extensively used globally, and BOOT/PPP/PFI forms are prevalent for many infrastructure projects. This provides a sound basis for answering RQ1 and RQ2.

This provides a lens through which to trace the development of RBP in the extent to which collaboration reflect contractually binding sink-or-swim-together arrangements, a coalescence of project outcome vision, aims, and objectives expressed through common and joint motivation in a best-for-project mindset illustrated in Figure 25. In essence, it is an “excellence in value delivery” mindset such as that proposed as an evolutionary path of project management by Lechler and Byrne (2011). We can now see four orders of collaboration emerging in project delivery.

Region	Dominant Term and RBP Approach	Characteristics and Comments
U.K.	Partnering, integrated SCM, framework agreements, project alliances (PAs)	Partnering is mainly well known and adopted with a long history, Framework agreements are also used quite extensively, particularly by local authorities and in programs of work. PAs are used rarely but are present in the rail construction, development and maintenance sector. Integrated SCM was pioneered by British Airports and is particularly well known for the T5 Agreement. More recently this has been evolving into a delivery consortia and delivery partner (DC/P) approach (HM Treasury and Infrastructure UK, 2013).
U.S.	Partnering, lean construction, integrated project delivery (IPD)	Partnering has been in use for decades. More recently, IPD is being seen more frequently as a mode of effective collaboration in the health care delivery sector.
Europe	Partnering, PAs	Partnering is often a natural way of doing business in Nordic countries. Finland and The Netherlands are using PAs on a few projects, but not extensively. In Germany, the procurement rules and regulations Vergabe- und Vertragsordnung für Bauleistungen (VOB) strictly prohibit integration of design and delivery and demands competition between bidders at tendering time, which acts as a barrier for integrated project delivery forms (Heidemann & Gehbauer, 2011). However, as Lönngren et al. (2010) report, the Baufairbund (BFB) approach used in North Germany uses a form of partnering. In Norway, the St Olaf Hospital project used some forms of partnering and integrated design with ECI, according to a recent paper (Bygballe, Dewulf, & Levitt, 2013)
Japan and Korea	Integrated SCM as keiretsu (Dyer et al., 1998), an interlocking set of companies with business relationships and cross shareholdings. This is similar to Korea, with its chaebol form of integrated businesses.	The Japanese pioneered use of lean techniques including extensive and deep integrated SCM as keiretsu and in Korea as chaebol. Many of the major contractors are owned by banks, and so the project chain includes development and project owners with the contractor. Subcontractors are closely linked into the main contractor through SCM approaches.
China and Hong Kong	Partnering, joint-venture forms and strategic alliances (Anvuur et al., 2011; Xu, Bower, & Smith, 2005). A single TOC and ECI form for some MTR projects.	In Hong Kong (HK) an initiative, relationally integrated value networks (RIVANS) indicated strong interest and practice in partnering and SCM forms of collaboration. In mainland China in particular, but also in HK (Johannes, 2004), there are many examples of joint ventures being formed to combine Chinese local knowledge and highly cultivated family-business connections (guanxi) with technology, finance. and other assets of foreign entities (Xu et al., 2005). After a recent site visit to an MTR (mass transit railways) project, the construction manager explained that there was much ECI and a negotiated and verified TOC form of agreement used, due to extreme complexity of the project.
India	One pilot case of a PA	A colleague of ours in India (Dr. Ashwin Mahalingam) is currently undertaking a study on a PA for an IT company in India using the Australian contractor Leighton Contractors and a U.K.-based PA facilitator, together with the client, Indian design NOPS, and several subcontractors.

Table 9.   RBP Terms used globally

Collaboration as Four Orders of Project Team Collaboration

Figure 25 illustrates a notional increase in early contractor involvement (ECI) from one order of collaboration to another. The extent to which an incentive contract allows for pain-sharing and gain-sharing varies across the RBP types. For example, in the first order of collaboration there are no formalized incentives and this is limited if at all present in the second order of collaboration. It is more likely in third order collaboration and a strong and defining feature of fourth-order collaboration. The third and fourth orders of collaboration have levels of blurring and overlap.

Figure 25 illustrates four orders of collaboration and each builds upon its antecedents. It also illustrates how the extent of ECI builds across the four orders of collaboration and how the extent of collaboration, sink-or-swim together mindset and coalescing of common and joint motivation intensifies with a deepening level of a POR's “hands-on” involvement with the project delivery team.

The first order was concerned with product, mainly with a dominant efficiency focus but also some consideration of effectiveness, however, cost and just-in-time collaboration to achieve efficiency is predominant in this mindset. In the design and construction (D&C) form, for example, the PO/POR will typically have already developed fixed ideas about the general project design characteristics, so ECI opportunities for being effective are limited and are confined to efficiency advice. Lean production was developed out of ideas of just-in-time delivery that required a close liaison and coordination logistics role. This led to closer form of integrated businesses supply chain and cross-ownership interests in the supply chain, as seen in the keiretsu arrangements within the Japanese context and chaebol in Korea (Dyer et al., 1998). However, the focus is on driving out waste, efficient logistics, and continuous incremental improvement, rather than more radical innovation or invention. Relationships are quite hierarchical and subsidiary supply chain interests or first tier sub-contractors and suppliers tend to work in a more paternalistic and even servile relationship. It can be argued that lean by definition drives out the requisite variety and surplus resources needed for reflection, challenging the norm and out-of-the-box thinking such as that famously cited as been a feature of 3M in the 1970s and 1980s through time to write reflective stories and time to experiment and “tinker” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; von Hippel, Thomke, & Sonnack, 1999).

The second order of collaboration takes a greater focus on processes that deal with team interaction and fairness in dealing with each other while pursuing a clearly stated common purpose. Greater emphasis on effectiveness than efficiency is more clearly evident in this order of collaboration. The various evolutions of the build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) family of procurement forms, including PFIs and PPPs, require high levels of effective collaboration between the design, construction, and financing project teams so that they can translate a PO's brief, respond to the bid proposal, and negotiate with the POR periodically across the life span of the facility to refine KRAs and KPIs as well as the transfer phase of the PPP/PFI/BOOT scheme back to the PO (Akintoye, Beck, & Hardcastle, 2003). Framework agreements open the scope of collaboration so that a range of small business entrepreneurs and firms can prequalify and agree on how to normalize delivery quality standards and remuneration forms so that a larger cluster of actors can combine or work independently within programs to obviate potential problems of domination by a few actors and enhancing diversity in supply of professional and project execution expertise. Partnering forms are another second-order development that emerged from the first-order approaches. Partnering, as discussed in Chapter 2 and with characteristics illustrated in Table 2, critically examines partnering and helps us understand what partnering may look like. Green (1999a; 1999b) cautions us about the rhetoric-reality gap in partnering and points to the many ways that it can be used coercively and in ways that provide advantages for “strong” players within a partnered group, and how it may exploit the weak or naive. Bresnen (2003) discussed seven deadly sins of partnering in a similar vein. These criticisms expose the potential for abuse that a partnering agreement can impose upon unwary participants.

Table 2 can be project-specific or involve strategic partnerships. The essence of partnering is that it moves toward having a charter of behaviors and attitudes that promote collaboration, dispute resolution, and trust building, with an emphasis of performance to enhance project delivery of benefit. However, even long-term strategic partnerships do not guarantee that exploitation between partners may not occur and that charters, while sworn to, are not legally binding. It must be acknowledged, though, that this second order purely advances efficiency-seeking for individual actors’ benefit while attempting to fit into a holistic project-successful outcome, but the weightings on which actor within a network of collaborators wins and which one loses and how much each would relatively gain are not defined through legally binding forms or even by wholehearted mutual agreement.

The third order of collaboration takes a greater focus on effectiveness through the use of common platforms such as those for communication and design development and many using a common BIM technology. Three forms of this order have been identified and illustrated in Figure 25. Integrated supply chain management builds upon the foundations of FAs but moves well beyond that approach. The SCM concept originated in the automotive and aerospace sector, but has more closely developed in recent times (at the time of writing) to approaches taken by Network Rail in the U.K. This is particularly evidenced by the London Cross Rail project (or program of projects) that illustrates examples of enhanced information and communication modeling through a common platform. The Heathrow T5 co-location of contractors project experience (Doherty, 2008), particularly as Gil (2009, p. 151) states, “Inter-firm cooperation and sharing of technical knowledge and confidential information were prerequisites for institutionalizing a production strategy on the T5 project,” illustrates a more highly cohesive relationship that is expected of partnering arrangements as they evolved from the 1980s through the 1990s. While there is no contractual arrangement to ensure a sink-or-swim-together outcome for project actors, the scale and depth of collaboration is intense and appears to be culture-changing. A second type of arrangement, IPD, also can be placed within this grouping of arrangements. The main characteristic of IPD is that fewer actors may participate in collaborating as a single team. IPD has been described as being adopted in three levels of collaboration. Collaboration Level One is described as being “Typical,” collaboration is not contractually required. Collaboration Level Two is described as being “Enhanced,” with some contractual collaboration requirements being evident. Collaboration Level Three is described as being “Required,” collaboration is required by a multi-party contract. Levels 1 and 2 are analyzed as having a collaboration philosophy, whereas Level 3 is described as having collaboration as a contractual basis (NASF, 2010). Not all subcontractors may, however, form an integrated supply chain in an IPD entity, but the major actors, including the client, do collaborate on an arrangement that moves beyond partnering and often includes common information modeling platforms and greater co-location of teams. In this order of collaboration, we also observe moderate evidence of increasing ECI because the PO, major consultants, and contractors and sub-contractors become more intensely engaged in exploring options, gaining more holistic and shared understanding of opportunities and constraints, and more collaborative planning and decision making. The IPD approach has perhaps greater attention to ECI, but examples of integrated SCM as exemplified in the Heathrow T5 project experience (Doherty, 2008) show that considerable ECI was evident. For example, Gil (2009, p. 151) states that “The consultants were tasked to visit the suppliers’ facilities and assist them in improving productivity and quality. BAA did not charge the T5 suppliers for the consultants’ time, but expected suppliers to share confidential data on their production processes and costs. The consultants would then apply value stream mapping to examine the processes and find ways to help the T5 suppliers achieve the following objectives: reduce variability in production and installation rates; identify critical information flows and feedback loops; eliminate non-value-added activities; reduce lead times and batch sizes of manufacturing releases; coordinate work flow between feeder and primary workstations; and maximize the number of deliveries of materials and components just-in-time for assembly on the construction site.” This indicates a step change from the second order of collaboration demonstrated by not only a focus on effectiveness but also on the quality of between-team relationships. Recently, the U.K. Treasury has added another project procurement delivery approach through a delivery partnership and delivery consortium (DP/C). On closer reading, this appears very much like a version of T5 and IDP and alliancing, but as yet there are no published case studies of this approach as the term has only recently been coined (HM Treasury and Infrastructure UK, 2013).

The fourth order of collaboration takes a greater focus on committed relationships and reducing power and information asymmetry. We include alliances in this category, both project and program. The main differences we see between the highly sophisticated third order of collaboration and this collaboration order is the legal framework and form of temporary integrated organization. Some features do overlap. For example, Doherty's (2008) account states that one feature of the T5 Agreement was that there was a common accounting payment and that materials, equipment, and labor used a common set of accounts that can be inspected and probity checked by all parties, and that this was established by the project owner. Also, common project insurance was arranged. Both arrangements are also common on project alliances. The T5 Agreement was legally binding and enhanced governance arrangements to allow assurance that transparency and accountability was established and maintained. This makes this arrangement very similar to alliances and places it at the cusp of the fourth-order collaboration group. Also, Level 3 IPD shares many characteristics with project alliances. Project alliances have specific clear legal agreements for no litigation unless gross negligence or criminality occurs, and this has special implications for reinforcing a no-blame culture when combined with the requirement for unanimous decision making in clarifying relationships and settling disputes. This provides the sink-or-swim clincher of the deal that characterizes this form as truly fourth-order collaboration (Walker et al., 2013b). Program alliances are similar in many ways to project alliances except that they are undertaken as term relationships. Many program alliances last over five years and may be renewed. The relationships on program alliances enable greater embedding of lessons learned so that KPIs and KRAs can be continually refined over the program period. The relationship between the POR and NOPs can be refined and enhanced to mutual benefit.

The above sense of the trajectory and emergence of current trends in RBP approaches helps us gain a sense of evolution of ideas and a sense of reality of the current (as at 2014) snapshot of the dynamic state of play in how project owners engage and recruit other parties to participate in a relational and collaborative process of delivering projects. Figure 25 provides a sense of emergence, but what of the elements that make up those four orders of collaboration? Figure 25 also helps to fill that gap though, as with many such models, a visualization such as this figure can only illustrate a fleeting glimpse of the dynamic way that industry perceives various RMP categories. We particularly see this with the way that the IPD Collaboration Level 3. The T5 Agreement third order of collaboration may be similarly described as a form of integrated SCM but has many characteristics that could been seen as morphing into the fourth order or perhaps forcing a reclassification of it as a third-order collaboration form. Such categorizations and classifications are, after all, only our social constructs to attempt to make sense of a complex and evolving reality of how business is done. We should not pretend that our classifications or categories change anything in the “real world.” Project owners face complex and messy problems and situations about how they should configure the delivery of projects that deliver an identified benefit and they pragmatically go about marshaling practitioners to realize their desired results. Academics come along later, as we do in this book, and merely help practitioners and our scholarly colleagues to make sense of “the reality” so that good ideas are not lost in a miasma of confused history. In this analysis of these RBP forms, we offer some clarity about the development and trend trajectory of each evolving experimental collaborative practice that is illustrated through our models, analysis, and explanations.

One fundamental principle that we can grasp as a starting point to understand the multiple and complex forms of designing or even understanding project procurement collaborative categories, is the extent of integration or segregation of the teams who develop a project brief, design a project delivery system, and then deliver the project. Before we can understand what KSAE are required of project team participants, we need to understand the overall and basic structural possibilities for project delivery.

Figure 3 in Chapter 2 categorized project delivery forms as traditional and integrated forms of project procurement. Each part of the project supply chain may be seen as comprising a host of teams. The PO or POR, for example, will have an internal organizational structure to collaborate with, coordinate, and communicate with internal stakeholders. The design team leader will have various specialist design teams and organizations to collaborate, coordinate, and communicate with, including external stakeholders. Similarly, the project delivery team will be led by a person who collaborates, coordinates, and communicates with specialist suppliers and subcontratcors and also work with external stakeholders.

Traditional segregated forms such as DBB and cost-plus comprise three distinct and separate entities. The segments highlighted in dark grey in Figure 26 indicate that the design team and project delivery team are integrated for the procurement forms under the Figure 3 elements labeled “Focus on integrating design & delivery processes with an emphasis on planning and control” and “Focus on integrated project teams design & delivery teams with an emphasis on collaboration and communication.” Each project team includes the POR, the design team (Des-T) leader, and delivery team (Del-T) leader, and interacts with various specialized project teams as well as with their relevant external stakeholders as illustrated in Figure 26.

The POR has internal stakeholder constituents to deal with, as well as a range of external stakeholders. For example, in healthcare projects there will be clinicians, administrators, facilities managers, faculty members and a host of others concerned with the project outcome and similarly, in a university setting, academics, facility managers, and university administrators. The POR will filter the wants and needs of various project user groups and has to manage these requests and demands in developing the project brief (Barrett & Stanley, 1999). The project design team leader will have teams of specialists to collaborate with, both in-house and outsourced. The project delivery team leader will have teams of suppliers and subcontractors and may be engaged in a JV with other main contractors, and so the range of teams to work with can be highly complex. There may also be an overall project director for integrated design and delivery projects coordinating and managing the leaders of the design and delivery teams. Figure 26 illustrates the complex lines of possible collaboration, coordination, and communication.

When we consider Figure 25 and Figure 26, we see a broad typology of RBP emerging from the literature, and when combined with consideration of Figure 3 under the subheading given as “forms of project procurement,” we start to see a way of better understanding a taxonomy of the relational intensity and characteristics of various identified RBP Forms. Table 10 summarizes their broad characteristics to further refine and provide finer granularity of meaning to answer RQ1. This leads us toward a fuller understanding of the KSAEs needed for the various RBP forms. This helps us move toward an answer to RQ3—what specific KSAEs that are required to deliver RBP forms?

RBP Form Name Tag and Relationship focus intensity	Relationship Characteristics
Design and construct (D&C) PO/POR with delivery team = Low Within the delivery team = varies (depends on the head contractor's workplace culture)	D&C is integrated in a single contract between the project owner (PO) or its representative (POR) and the project delivery entity, which may have an in-house or outsourced design team and a project delivery production team. The relationship between the PO/POR and project delivery entity is purely a “hands-off” business one. The project delivery entity may have its own internal ways of collaborating and coordination, but the PO/POR would not take any intense interest or involvement in that process being concerned more with a solution based on the PO's brief or conceptual design specifications. Collaboration between design and delivery team members at an early stage would occur in developing the D&C bid, but the intensity and quality varies.
Integrated supply chain management (SCM) PO/POR with delivery team = Low (unless leading the approach such as in T5) Within the delivery team = High	This may range from a contractor, acting independently of the PO/POR, managing its supply chain through purposeful and tiered arrangements to minimize the numbers of parties in the supply chain, to an integrated PO/POR and contractor SCM approach similar to that discussed earlier in the way that BAA developed the T5 Agreement. In SCM, the approach, relationships, accountability, and transparency are well defined and expressly stipulated. The recently developed delivery consortia and delivery partner (DC/P) approach shows many shared aspects of T5 combined with that of IDP and PAs.
Management Contracting (MC) PO/POR with delivery team = High Within the delivery team = High	The MC entity may have an agency (fee-based) contract or a direct (profit) contract with the PO. In either case, the work packages are undertaken directly under the POR (for-agency MC) or the head contractor (for-profit MC). The main feature of MC is ECI advice about logistics, project methods and other technical issues that helps to develop a more “buildable” solution. The relationship between POR and the MC is usually close and collaborative and work packages may be undertaken in a similar vein between the sub-contractors and head contractor.
Join venture (JV) consortia PO/POR with delivery team = Low Within the delivery team = Varies	This is very similar to a traditional design-bid-build project, except that the head contractor of the project delivery team will form a contractual arrangement with other contractor(s) to be able to cover all technical, cultural or other needs of the project. The JV may operate in a variety of ways, depending on how well disposed each party is toward building and maintaining relationships.
BOOT family, PPP/PFI PO/POR with delivery team = Medium to Low Within the special purpose vehicle project delivery team = Very High	There is an intense involvement of various parties to the project delivery team but with little involvement of the POR at the early stages beyond acting to clarify any questions and issues and ambiguities presented by the project brief. The project is also in this case a very long term one in that the entity that “owns” the project has possession of it until it is transferred to the commissioning client. Thus the BOOT/PPP/PFI entity can be considered the PO in one sense. A key element in this procurement form is that there is a more distant initial relationship between the PO and special-purpose vehicle entity but there is a far greater immediate and continuing relationship between the design and delivery teams within the special-purpose vehicle as the project proposal develops. In this form, there is also greater engagement between the leading organization within the special purpose vehicle with financial and legal participants.
Project partnering (Proj. Pntrg.) PO/POR with delivery team = Varies Within the delivery team = High	A partnering agreement is established as a form of relational compact rather than contract, in that is somewhat volunteered. This compact provides a charter that helps to establish vision, mission, and objectives, behavioral expectations, and a dispute and issue resolution protocol. It is largely a cultural artifact. It is still possible for the relationship of various parties to break down. This may result in litigation, and there are few if any formal mechanisms to force parties to collaborate. Partnering may include the PO/POR and design/delivery team or may be confined to the project delivery team participants. There are often incentives in terms of parties becoming more efficient and hence gaining profit advantage from that though reduced waste, rework, and less administrative effort devoted to protecting positions to prepare for possible litigation. Value engineering workshops may identify savings and these may be shared among parties.
Strategic partnering (Strat. Pntrg.) PO/POR with delivery team = High Within the delivery team = High	Strategic partnering is an extension to project partnering across a program of work comprising many projects over an extended timeframe. The partners may be a client and contractor and perhaps including selected subcontractors and suppliers, so that a set of protocols are agreed (similar to the above) that may include incentive payments, guaranteed profit margin subjected to open-book scrutiny, and other relational arrangements that build trust and transparency. Relationships develop and all parties in successful strategic partnering arrangements see the value in maintaining these.
Integrated solutions – competitive dialogue (CD) PO/POR with delivery team = Very High Within the delivery team = Varies but is often High	This is a protocol that is used at the pre-tendering stage to canvass opportunities for a CD and during the tendering stage where the PO/POR and potential contractors have an open discussion about developing a solution in a way that each better understands the other's perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses. This allows wider exploration of options and incentives and improved measures of performance with which to negotiate terms. The outcome of a CD may be a fixed price/time traditional contract, D&C, or other form of procurement, including a project alliance.
Integrated project delivery (IDP) PO/POR with delivery team = Medium (for IDP Type 1 and 2) and Very High (for IDP Type3) Within the delivery team = Very High	This RBP form evolved out of the Lean Production and Lean Construction concepts (Ballard, 2008). In its manifestation of IDP emphasis on waste reduction, rework and production efficiency has been enhanced to include a focus on relational integration, incentives for collaboration and a behavioral element to bind parties to an explicit set of behavioral protocols (American Institute of Architects - AIA California Council, 2007; Ashcraft, 2010; Cohen, 2010). The three levels of collaboration explained by NASF (2010) illustrate a partnering like form of IDP through to an alliance type form. This approach has been used for large and complex projects such as healthcare facilities where speed of delivery was paramount and complexity requires enhanced levels of collaboration and coordination (Cohen, 2010).
Alliancing (Project, Program, Service or Design Alliance) PO/POR with delivery team = Very High Within the delivery team = Very High	This RBP form can be understood as a highly evolved form of partnering and further advanced form of IPD. It also shares characteristics of SCM but often not as advanced as the Heathrow Airport T5 Agreement form. What principally distinguishes the alliance from Partnering and IDP is that is has structured, well-articulated, and well-understood contractual commitments based on a commercial contract that stipulates how the work to be done will be parceled up and how it will be paid for. An incentive contract that explicitly states gain-sharing and pain-sharing arrangements, explicitly defines KPIs and KRAs and how they will be measured and assessed. And, in contrast to other forms, there is a behavioral contract that explicitly states the nature of the party's behavior, with a no-blame and no-litigation agreement. This is undertaken with explicit protocols for governance and transparency with an open-book approach. Service alliances and program alliances are interesting in that they are similar to framework agreements in some respects, but with greater formality and specificity of commercial and behavioral expectations. Other emerging alliance forms such as design alliances are formed at the pre-tender stage of projects to draw in expertise (similar to Agency MC) and to help develop project procurement delivery strategy.
Early contractor involvement (ECI) PO/POR with design team = Very High Within the delivery team = Varies, refer to Figure 2	This is more of a general term that encompasses many features of MC with design alliances and other interfaces over the project lifecycle, as illustrated in Figure 2 in Chapter 2, as a graphic representation of ECI. A principal feature of collaboration between PO/POR, design team, and ECI project delivery consultant is based in being engaging in constructability or buildability consulting based on a negotiated fee basis.
Framework agreements (FA) PO/POR with framework entity = High Within the delivery team = Varies	Framework agreements are similar to strategic partnering or service alliances in many respects, but are used broadly for design services, construction and project delivery services as well as for maintenance and facilities management. They are similar to these in that a key set of protocols, selection criteria, performance criteria, etc. are established as a framework to apply over an extended time period, but unlike strategic partnering or service alliances (that appear to be generally continuous as a form of in-sourcing resources and expertise), they enable a pool of providers to be available on demand as and when required. In construction and other sectors such as aerospace, first-tier subcontractors may be included in such agreements. In addition, first-tier supply chain members may extend the framework agreement concept deeper to tier 2.

Table 10. Relationship Intensity of Various RBP Forms

Illustrating the intensity and nature of required collaboration provides a solid start to the task of turning our attention to two aspects of answering our research questions RQ1 and RQ3. First identifying the building block elements of generic RBP forms provides us with a model to address the second aspect, linking identified measures to identify KSAEs required for delivering RBP projects.

An RBP Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance Model

Nyström (2005a) developed a useful model for making sense of complex organizational arrangements where project team elements and features are classified into recognizable components that can describe a ‘system’ or way of working. He applied Wittgenstein's concept of family resemblance to project partnering by emphasising the general components of partnering. The German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein had argued “(…) that complicated concepts cannot be defined in the traditional way by stating necessary and sufficient conditions. There might not be a single or a small number of features, which are common for all variants of a term and therefore it cannot be defined in the traditional way” (Nyström, 2005a, p. 474). Nyström proceeded to argue that there are complex networks of overlapping similarities among the things that fall under a complex concept. It is an interesting idea, because it lies at the core of meaning and nomenclature based on a number of sufficient and necessary conditions to the question of, what it is to be an “X”? This is particularly salient when there may not be general agreement about what an X may be or where there is a range of interpretations that can be made of X based on sufficient and necessary conditions that can be made explicit in some way. Thus it was valid to use Wittgenstein's family resemblance model in which core attributes or characteristics are surrounded by familiar components that are crystallized from analysis of family resemblances. On the one hand, we can say that at time “t” in geographical location “l” (see Table 14) that a particular project may be considered a “partnering” one based on the attributes measures presented in Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13 in a nominalist manner (because people may call the project a partnering one or it may have an artifact such as partnering charter). On the other hand, we can use Wittgenstein's family resemblance concept to describe the project as a form of alliance. One of our participants (A16) who discussed his research study in Sweden, on what was referred to as a partnering project, told us that, on reflection, it was very close to a PA but did not have the artifacts such as a behavioral contract or a no-litigation contract clause but nevertheless the team acted as if there were these artifacts. In this way, the Figure 27 model provides a more rational and perhaps more accurate or supportable approach to both globally labelling RBP forms and temporarily doing so as these labels change and adapt over time.

Instead of “family” traits being a particular shaped nose, familiar gate or speech patterns, or other forms of attributes that typifies somebody as likely to belong to a particular family tree Nyström clumped attributes of partnering to be able to analyze the partnering literature and case study data to be able to construct a “flower” analogy with a core ever-present component and “petals” that represent other components that may be present or have been discarded or had not been fully developed. We see flowers with a variety of petal arrangements, yet the genus is usually easily recognisable even if petals are missing. Yeung, Chan, and Chan (2007) used the same logic to study components of project alliances to understand what is specific about alliancing with a focus on the hard (contractual) and soft (relationship-based) elements. We adapt and refine this approach to present our summary analsyis of RBP approaches drawn from the literature we presented in Chapter 2, 3, and 4 of this book, analysis of interview data from participants, and reflection upon our previous and current research data.

Our approach to developing a model was to gather data and make sense of it to be able to refine and distil a discrete set of factors that could be illustrated as “petals” in a Wittgenstein-style model. In doing so, we answer RQ1 in greater depth and with finer granularity than for example was presented in Figure 25. We discussed in Chapter 5 how we conducted the research that led us to our model that describes the fundamental characteristics, the elements, of various RBP forms. We painstakingly analyzed over 500 pages of transcribed interviews of 50 subject matter experts using NVivo10 to develop themes and subthemes that form the elements and sub-elements of a model that answers RQ1 and provides a platform for a way in which we can identify the required KSAEs for each element to answer RQ3 and lead to a way to assess the presence and application of the identified KSAEs to be able to address and answer RQ4.

Our form of Wittgenstein's family resemblance model concept is illustrated in Figure 27. To make visualizing and understanding the model less confusing, due to the number of elements or “petals” identified, we grouped the petals into three broad categories. We drew upon and adapted ideas proposed by Jacobsson and Roth (2014), who conceptualize partnering as a potential engagement platform, and by using that concept, they explained how the relationship is structurally and logically based and enabled, and the behaviors that sustain it through what they describe as means, foundations, and factors.

The central core in our model, the stamen of the flower, illustrates the project delivery components. These remain stable with some variation in emphasis, for example on the extent of pain and gain sharing. This core element is surrounded by three categories of elements consisting of 16 petals. Various combinations of intensity of presence of theses 16 petals can be used to explain different forms of RBP. Each RBP form has different characteristics of each petal that fall within a general family resemblance, and when visualized holistically, they can help us identify more specific classes of RBP, forms and so can help us to better anticipate expectations of the various parties to that procurement arrangement.

The delivery component of the project is situated at the core of our Figure 27 model. Delivery success is defined by the PO's defined KRAs. KRAs include cost and time performance but they often include other key results as explained in Chapter 2 and elaborated in Table 8 in Appendix 2 for the sub-element 2.3 “Governance best value strategy through KRAs and KPIs.” Performance against KRAs is measured through KPIs For RBP forms, the KPIs are developed based upon the identified benefit that the project is designed to deliver. These KPIs frequently extend beyond traditional cost, time, and fitness for purpose constraints. Differences in the extent and order of collaborative arrangements, as indicated in Figure 25, reflect the extent and manner to which overhead and profit are incentivized (see Chapter 2 discussions relating to project alliances and the range of KPIs and their linkage to performance incentives, or Ross (2003)). The direct-delivery cost component includes direct project specific cost elements such as material, labor, and supply chain input components from suppliers and contractors. The project delivery team's overhead and profit is added to this to form the target outturn cost (TOC). As discussed earlier in Chapter 2, for project alliances in particular, the profit contribution is kept as a separate and discrete “at-risk” fee for service that becomes subject to a pain-share gain-share agreement. For some forms of RBP, the “at risk” profit will be zero, so that all profit goes to the parties individually. The agreement specifies the percentage risk and reward ratio for each participant to the agreement, as well as the percentage of the profit that is at risk. The project is also agreed to be delivered to a set time deadline. Agreed KPIs are used for measuring performance that influence the final quantum and proportion of the pain-share or gain-share at-risk fee for service to be distributed to participants. Surrounding the delivery components core are the 16 “petals” grouped within three clusters or groups of linked factors.

At the base of the Figure 27 model sits five platform foundational facilities that provide infrastructure elements that determines the extent of integration that the RBP form will operate. A core psychological foundational element is the defining motivations and contextual circumstances that shape the logic of the adopted collaborative approach. That base platform element supports the five behavior-shaping factors at the left-hand side of the model that drive normative practices that define the ambience, the workplace cultural sense and feeling experienced by those engaged on the project (for more details on the term ambience refer to Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2014). These behavioral factors drive six processes, routines, and means factors situated on the right hand side of the model that shape how the RBP form will respond to the platform foundational facility factors.

Figure 27 thus illustrates the “petals” that represent other components that may be present or have been discarded or had not been fully developed for various forms of RBP and change as the various labeled RBP forms change over time and through cultural, geographical, historical, and other contextual influences. We generally label these platform facilities, behavioral factors, and process drivers.

We are now in a position to describe in more depth the other elements of Figure 27 and their sub-elements. Platform foundational facilities comprise the integrating features for collaboration. These are explained in Table 11, with behavioral factors explained in Table 12 and the processes, routines and means explained in Table 13.

Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13 share a common format. The first column contains the main themes, the “petal” factors derived from the NVivo analysis of data into themes and sub-theme nodes. For example the motivation and context of the circumstances impacting upon the procurement choice is presented in Table 11 as element and theme 1. In the the next column, we present the subthemes within each element and we provide a summary description of that subtheme. For example, in Table 11, the sub-element Best value – motivational focus is on value not lowest cost. Value is expressed in KRAs and KPIs that link to the project purpose. Often, 3BL issues are of high priority in such cases is presented. The third column contains a suggested measurement scale for the element/theme in general. The scale is fairly course grained ranging from low to high to be evaluated using an approximation of the descriptor presented for low or high rating of motivation and context. For example, in Table 11, we have suggested low and high ratings as:

Low levels would be related to a hostile environment for collaboration. This may be due to lack of conviction of project participants in the value of collaboration within this project's context.

High levels would relate to the procurement choice solution being driven by the acceptance of project participants in the logic of a clear advantage being gained by adopting a focus on a supportive and collaborative approach to delivering benefits that align with the values of participants.

A particular project case study being examined can be analyzed and the closeness of the descriptive measures in column three of Table 11 can assessed. We suggest that a five level scale could be deployed with low, medium-low, medium-high and high rating values. This provides a basis for assessing how the factors can be represented in the Figure 27 model to provide a fairly sophisticated visualization of how the RBP form may fit into the accepted categories of RBP.

We now illustrate how the Figure 27 model can be used to visualize what each procurement form may look like and from that to guide the appropriate level of platform facilities, behaviors and means to achieve the project delivery goals and aims represented by the project procurement form. Visualization can be made to gain an appreciation of what is required for a specific RBP type, for example that illustrated in Figure 28 or across RBP forms as illustrated in Table 14.

Platform Foundational Facilities – Elements and Themes 1-5	Subthemes from the transcript analysis (see Appendix 2 for more details)	Suggested to be measured by a five-point Likert scale
1.   The motivation and context of the circumstances impacting upon a procurement choice. This defines a substrate of circumstances that affects the potential degree of possible collaboration.	Best value—motivational focus is on value not lowest cost. Value is expressed in KRAs and KPIs that are linked to the project purpose. Often, 3BL issues are of high priority in such cases. Emergency recovery—motivation drives a procurement solution that enables recovery from the emergency as quickly and as feasibly as possible. Experimental—motivation drives purposeful exploration of options and the ability to learn and reflect upon experience to accumulate valuable knowledge that advances project objectives. Competitive resource availability environment—motivation drives a sustainable response to the prevailing competitive environment. Economically buoyant times pose a challenge to POs losing key staff to other employers. In challenging economic times, POs could be obliged by their governments to take advantage of their market position to force project delivery teams to accept contract conditions that may be in the PO's short term but not long term interests. Both conditions impose pressures related to economic times. Relational rationale—motivation and context drives the underlying logic of forming and developing relationships with potential project team members to further a longer term interest. Often all parties can benefit from the relationship, perhaps due to high levels of turbulence and change that challenge a BAU approach.	Low levels would be related to a hostile environment for collaboration. This may be due to lack of conviction of project participants in the value of collaboration within this project's context. High levels would relate to the procurement choice solution being driven by the acceptance of project participants in the logic of a clear advantage being gained by adopting a focus on a supportive and collaborative approach to delivering benefits that align with the values of participants.
	Known risks—motivation can be triggered by the PO/POR assessing that a particular procurement form appears most appropriate to respond to risk sharing and responsibility that are known, assessable and best managed by the relevant identified participant to be allocated responsibility for those risks. Unknown risks—motivation is rooted in a context in which uncertainty requires a response of nurturing deep collaboration and trust between parties within a no-blame environment. There is a need for a psychologically safe environment where all participants can experiment with new approaches to respond to uncertainly and extreme ambiguity using teams with the capacity to rapidly evaluate consequences and outcomes and respond accordingly.
2.   The level of joint governance structure. Having a unified way that each project delivery team party legitimizes its actions through rules, standards and norms, values and coordination mechanisms such as organizational routines, and the way that committees, liaison and hierarchy represents a unified or complimentary way of interacting. This impacts the quality of explicit understanding of how teams should collaborate and communicate.	Governance processes—common assumptions and ways of working influences project governance processes and rules. These will vary according to the project procurement delivery form but will be designed to align the strategy, objectives and aims of the project. Process clarity is essential to inform the required behaviors. Governance structure—the structure of the entire project team defines how the level of flexibility/rigidity, power and influence and communication symmetry directly influences the workplace culture. The way that a project's overall leadership and management team is constituted impacts upon who has a voice and how they can express ideas, perspectives and concerns. Governance best value strategy through KRAs and KPIs—the project output and outcome is influenced by the strategy deployed to define, measure and assess success. The way that these are developed and used impacts upon effective project governance.	Low levels would be related to a laisez faire approach, where each participating project team has established its own individual stand-alone project governance standards. Little coherence in alignment of the whole project delivery organizational processes and structure is evident, with few explicit expectations about what success looks like and how to define and measure it. High relates to an effectively structured, uniform, integrated and consistent set of performance standards that apply across and within the project delivery teams. All participant organizations share a common understanding of how to organize for success and what constitutes valuable project output and outcome success.
3.   The extent to which an integrated risk mitigation strategy is organized for all parties as part of the client's proactive risk management system. This has an impact upon the quality of explicit understanding of how to collaboratively manage risk and uncertainty and potentially gain advantage from a project-wide insurance policy.	Risk-sharing conversation—The conversation about risk sharing; who takes responsibility for any class of, or particular risk. The strategy needs to be coherent to ensure that those best able to manage risk do so in a way that aligns the risk strategy to the project objectives and aims. The nature of these conversations differs in emphasis placed upon means to allocate accountability across project procurement forms. Risk mitigation actions—there are a number of ways, ranging from collective to individual, to agree upon and decide how to mitigate risk that vary according to the procurement form. System integration—of the project is structured and managed to provide a platform that is based upon the participant's philosophical stance about relationships between teams. Systems can be integrated to cope with risk, uncertainty and ambiguity to respond to a need for a platform to be developed to address these three related but separate concepts.	Low levels would be characterized by an immature and confused individual firm-specific risk management approach and poorly defined systemic approaches to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity. High levels would be represented by consistent and integrated risk assessment processes being identified, assessed and mitigated against a project-wide and broader systems-wide impact for the project or network in the case of programs of projects.
4.   The level of joint communication strategy platforms such as integrated processes and ICT groupware, including building information modeling (BIM) and other electronic forms of communication. While BIM is more prevalent in recent years, past equivalent forms include groupware ICT, sharing drawings and plans between teams. Joint communication facilitates common communication and understanding.	Common processes and systems—Project participants need to share a common way of working and a common language and communication approach to avoid misunderstanding that can undermine trust and commitment and consequently undermine effective decision making and action. Bridges and interoperability between systems to cope with a lack of a “one system” are also essential. Integrated communication platform—A common ICT platform, including for example common BIM tools can minimize the risk of poor coordination, communication, and misunderstandings between participants.	Low levels of joint communication would be characterized by poor quality staff interaction, use of firm-specific rather than project-wide processes and ICT systems, and weak cross-team mechanisms for gaining mutual understanding. High levels would be characterized by well integrated processes that are well understood by all participants and advanced communication technologies being used that seamlessly connect all project parties within a particular procurement arrangement.
5.   The extent that project teams are substantially co-located within easy physical reach of each other. Close proximity facilitates ad hoc and chance encounters to improve building relationships and facilitating common understanding.	Hierarchal integration mechanisms—Leaders can inspire motivation toward unity of purpose by physically interacting with individuals in the various levels of an organization. Site visits, meetings held on site, and other ritualistic or practical events that are held in the actual workplace can be very important as a platform for integrated joint action. Physical co-location—Project participants can more easily communicate and interact on problem solving, monitoring, and active collaboration when they are in within easy reach of each other. Co-location in a well-considered and conducive environment can facilitate positive interaction.	Low levels would be characterized by firm-specific policy determining that disparate teams are physically located in dispersed locations. There may also be a large visibility gap between project leaders and those at the “coal face.” High levels would be characterized by a project-wide policy that attempts to maximize participant co-location on-site where feasible, including the POR. There would also be high interaction between project leadership groups and the project management and physical delivery team members so that engagement enhances communication and mutual perspective taking.

Table 11. Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance Elements for Foundational Facilities for RBP

We experimented with this mapping approach and illustrate our results in Figure 28 for a specific project partnering RBP type. This figure shows Element 1, motivation and context rated at 5, indicating the procurement choice solution being driven by the acceptance of the logic of a clear advantage being gained by adopting a high level focus on a supportive and collaborative approach to delivering benefits that align with the values of participants. It shows a very high value (5). Several other factors rate medium (3), including joint governance structure, integrated risk mitigation and insurance, incentivization, and consensus decision making.

Graphs such as Figure 28 could be drawn to compare one RBP form with another, or it could be used to design a hybrid RBP project procurement form. Alternatively, this kind of visualization tool can be used as an explanatory tool in benchmarking or project evaluation. Consider an instance of evidence gathered from an audit of a particular project that was designed to be delivered under partnering arrangements but had audit evidence indicated that the appropriate rating for that project was for low levels of focus on learning and continuous improvement. Figure 28 and Table 13 suggests that the expectation for this element is medium (that is, between low and high). This tool could either prompt useful action to improve the focus or prompt further investigation to re-examine the evidence that led to a low rating to ascertain if this is a reasonable judgment.

In this way, the Wittgenstein Family Resemblance Model offers a useful visualization tool for understanding expectations of each project procurement form as well as being a useful benchmarking and auditing tool. We now provide the detailed description of each of the 16 elements.

Behavioral factors driving normative practices—Elements and Themes 6-10	Subthemes from the transcript analysis (see Appendix 2 for more details)	Suggested to be measured by a five-point Likert scale
6.   The degree of authentic leadership, that is, possessing ethical principled values and consistency of action with espoused rhetoric. This would apply across the project delivery team at every level of team leadership, not only for the project lead person(s) but also the supporting design and supply chain team leaders. It speaks to the project culture.	Authentic leadership is present in designated project leaders who hold institutional or organizational power, but it also applies to “followers” within a collective leadership sense. Reflectiveness—Project participants are systems thinkers and often follow a strategic thinking approach about the situational context and know that the situational context is crucial to effective decision making. Pragmatism—Project participants get on with the job, are politically astute, and work within constraints or find ethical and sensible ways around these constraints. Appreciativeness—Project participants understand the motivations and value proposition of influential stakeholders involved in the project. They are consciously engaged with their team members and exhibit signs of having a high emotional intelligence. Resilience—Project participants exhibit adaptability, versatility, flexibility and being persistent when faced with adversity. They are able to effectively learn from experience. Wisdom—Project participants have opinions and advice that is valued, consistent, and reliable that others instinctively refer to. Their judgment abilities make their brokering advice crucial. They are perceived as having high levels of integrity based on inner strength of character, knowledge, and experience. Spirit—Project participants demonstrate the courage and have sufficient influence and respect to effectively challenge assumptions and often offer radical alternative solutions to resolve complex and difficult situations. Authenticity—Project participants demonstrate qualities of being approachable and trustworthy and open to ideas. They encourage and advance collaboration, discussion and new ways of thinking.	Low levels are revealed when espoused principled values are not demonstrated in action manifested through a gap between the rhetoric and reality of leading teams. High levels demonstrate consistency in espoused and enacted values that are genuinely principled.
7.   The trust-control balance of representing and protecting the interests of project leaders with that of other genuinely relevant stakeholders while relying on the integrity, benevolence and ability of all project team parties to “do the right thing” in terms of project performance. It is the ability to be able to understand the value-proposition of “the other” project teams and to assess their capacity to deliver the promise while establishing mechanisms to ensure transparent accountability. Trust balance is also about trust in others to suggest improvement and to discuss sensitive (possibly political) issues.	Autonomy—Project participants have autonomy to respond to the situational context. Their responsiveness is complicated by institutional and cultural norms that may either restrain their autonomy and therefore their capacity to respond to new initiatives and changes to “plan,” or the organizational culture and governance arrangements may leave them with enough autonomy to act somewhat independently. Forms of trust—Project participants’ capacity to experiment, explore options and take action is advanced or constrained by their leadership teams’ perceptions of how various interests are best served. These perceptions are influenced by the nature of that interest, the forms and basis of project participants’ and their leaders’ level of trust in each other and understanding the impact of assumptions about self-interest and shared interest on trust their levels. Safe workplace cultures—Project participants’ trust in their leaders and colleagues is often mediated by their perceived treatment in terms of working in a safe psychological, physical, and intellectual environment. Trust relationship building—Project participants and their leadership teams engage in varying levels of effort to create a balance in trust and control in which trust with caution is tempered with blind faith.	Low balance is demonstrated by extreme naïveté by participants about trusting others implicitly or alternatively by exhibiting high levels of suspicion and/or unreasonable demands for formal and informal control and monitoring that implies a cynical attitude toward trust of others. High balance is demonstrated by innate sensibility to juggle transparency and accountability demands with the need for trust with necessary due diligence. It also demonstrates a professional understanding of the nature of project participant accountability constraints and opportunities for resolving and possibly helping resolve institutional paradoxes so that accountability is consistent with accepted responsibility.
8.   Commitment to be innovative represents the duality of being willing to be innovative within a structured mechanism to enable and empower people to be innovative. This is closely linked to a project team participants’ capacity for learning, reflection, creativity being ambidextrous, and the organiztion's core values of supporting and rewarding questioning the status quo.	Innovation types—Project participants need to understand and adapt to behavioral expectations associated with different types of project procurement forms. They may be engaged in product, process, or behavioral types of innovation within a project or program situational context that could affect how team members’ commitment can be initiated and sustained. Balancing exploration and exploitation of innovation, given the procurement form expectation, is important. Commitment to continuous improvement—Project participants’ purpose for being innovative should be to achieve continuous improvement. The extent to which project participants can be innovative and effect continuous improvement depends upon institutional, governance, and individual motivational and enabling factors. Testing, prototyping and experimenting—Project participants’ innovative actions are usually manifested by testing, prototyping, and experimentation within the context of having and inquiring, curious, and often skeptical mind.	Low commitment levels are manifested by inadequate or incomplete linkage of motivation, ability, and facilitation for innovation within the context of the procurement form. High commitment levels are manifested by vision, objectives and desire to be innovative with well-considered instruments to measure and demonstrate innovation, motivation through rewards and incentives and demonstrated high levels of existing absorptive capacity for innovation.
9.   Common best-for-project mindset and culture relates to the focus being placed on value generated in delivering the project compared with objectives of delivering what was explicitly requested or demanded. It is also about the priority of the project outcome taking precedence above all other considerations (despite inherent paradoxes). A major effort is directed at a positive and successful project outcome rather than individual teams being winners or losers.	Alignment of common goals—Project participants need to be effectively collaborating to a constructive end through sharing common and aligned goals about best-for-project outcomes and how that delivers VfM. Outcomes and performance levels—These should be assessed and judged based upon common best-for-project aligned goals. Challenging for excellence—Project participants need to be constantly challenging their level of outcome and performance through effective collaboration toward a constructive evaluation of achieved outcomes and performance. Value for money reporting—Project participants need to devise ways to recognize, monitor, and effectively diffuse knowledge about how their performance and workplace culture has impacted VfM on their project or program. This is not about “spin-doctoring” but about making a credible and acceptable case for recognizing achievements. Recruiting support—Project participants need to devise ways to effectively recruit support for best-for-project values through an effective PO/POR internal and NOPs recruitment strategy as well as enlisting support for as many members of the project delivery chain as is possible.	Low best-for-project mindset levels are manifested by a higher level of priority for individual benefit realization at the potential expense of other project team members and the project owner. High best-for-project mindset levels are manifested by a genuine attitude that “we all sink-or-swim together” and a focus on maximizing value to the project (or network in the case of a progam). Contractual arrangements will reinforce pooled gain or pain based on performance measured by KRAs and KPIs.
10. No-blame culture relates to the degree to which teams welcome taking responsible accountability for problems as they arise rather than having shirked responsibility in the hope that others take them on who may be vulnerable to being blamed for potential failure. It is also about being “part of the solution” through being part of an overall acceptance of shared-and-several responsibility for understanding. This involves discussing problems in an unprejudiced manner and opening up one's mind to alternative perspectives and seeing issues from multiple perspectives.	Rationale for a no-blame culture—Project participants avoiding a blame-shifting culture having felt pain and hardship through past experience of being blamed. They are determined not to repeat the experience and to thus support a no-blame culture. Facilitating mechanisms for no-blame—Contractual, behavioral and organizational mechanisms that support the establishment and maintenance of a no-blame culture.	Low no-blame culture is manifested by a project participant's high propensity to shift blame from themselves to others. These problems may be attributable to them for unforeseen, unanticipated, or unwanted events that impact adversely upon project delivery. A low no-blame culture is also palpable by a tendency to avoid acknowledging potential problem situations in the hope that blame can be attributed to others. High no-blame culture is manifested by a culture of open discussion of problems, unforeseen, unanticipated, or unwanted events that may impact adversely upon project delivery. The purpose of a no-blame culture is to achieve wider team participation in collaboration and collective management of problems and to take responsibility and accountability for developing problem solutions. It may also be manifested by the PO taking ownership of risk elements that other participants are unable to bear, rather than force them to accept accountability for such risks.

Table 12. Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance Elements for Behavioral Factors for RBP

What do Table 14 and Figure 28 tell us? First, they give us a visualization of identified RBP forms that are known around the world to be compared using the Wittgenstein Family Resemblance concept, adapted to indicate comparative elements in the model presented as Figure 27 and grouped by the order of collaboration indicated in Figure 25. Second, they supplement and compliment the usefulness of Table 10 as a means to illustrate the intensity of the relationship between the PO/POR and project delivery team and the intensity of relationship within the project delivery team. Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13 present each of the elements of the Wittgenstein Family Resemblance model illustrated in Figure 27 in a detailed manner and suggests a way to measure them. When applied to each of the applied RBP forms, these measures present a visualization of similarities and differences in the forms from the perspective of those identified measures. Measures indicated in Table 14 are ‘Low’ = low, ‘Med’ = medium, ‘High’ = high, ‘blnk’ = not applicable, uncertain, or highly variable.

It becomes apparent from our order of collaboration clustering of RMP forms indicated in Figure 25 that this could also help us appreciate similar and different properties of the RBP forms. We added to the four orders of collaboration heading Table 14 both CD and ECI as spanning orders 2 to 4 depending on the extent of ECI involvement. Readers may refer to Figure 2 in Chapter 2 for a visualization of ECI potential involvement and CD which are not an RBP form per se but a way of conducting negotiations between PO/POR and main project design/delivery entity up to the point of tender submission. We include CD in our book, as it is a peculiarly mainland European concept but it is highly relevant to any study of RBP.

Processes, routines, and means driving normative practices – Elements 11-16	Subthemes from the transcript analysis (see Appendix 2 for more details)	Suggested to be measured by a five-point Likert scale
11. Consensus decision making refers to the extent to which there is total agreement on a decision made at the project strategic and project operational executive level. High levels may require extensive time for discussion, exploration and testing mental models, and this may be against the interest of speedy decisions and action to counter crises. Following Langley et al.'s. (1995) consensus decision making view, this may involve purposefully leaving the means vague while keeping the aims crystal clear, and agreeing to navigate solutions by agreeing on end states rather than developing detailed plans.	Cultural drivers—the discussion in Chapter 4 on culture highlighted that some cultures have high-power asymmetry, where it is expected that individuals at higher levels of a hierarchy make decisions and issue orders to those lower in the hierarchy who must accept and act on those decisions. Other cultural dimensions also impact power asymmetry. Uncertainty avoidance leads people to avoid being committed to a risky decision and a collectivist culture encourages, if not requires, that individuals “go along with the crowd” rather than voice concern or opposition to mooted decisions. Some disciplines and workplace settings demand challenges to assumptions, while others demand obedience and discipline. These cultural drivers enhance or impede genuine consensus decision making. Enablers of consensus—organizational, structural, as well as behavioral enablers that facilitate and support consensus decision making and action taking. Inhibitors of consensus—organizational, structural, as well as behavioral enablers that inhibit and suppress consensus decision making and action taking.	Low consensus decision making is manifested by a highly hierarchical project team leader's leadership style under which power and influence determines how decisions are made and where the expected response is on whether decisions are implemented without question or complaint. It is also manifested by a tendency for a domination of top-down directives being issued as edicts. High consensus decision making is manifested by a highly egalitarian and collaborative leadership style of project team leaders. Issues and problems requiring a decision develop out of inclusive knowledge sharing and discussion of perspectives, expected intended and unintended consequences, and implications of decisions. High levels of feedback, good or bad, are sought.
12. Focus on learning and continuous improvement refers to providing a compelling projects-as-learning value proposition and the practice of transforming learning opportunties into continuous improvement. It also implies that emphasis on learning KRAs and KPIs should not only be focused on documenting and publicizing lessons learned from projects, but that project teams should value these KRAs and KPIs to be highly ranked as important PM and project outcome success factors.	Lessons-learned knowledge transfer—participants should be aware of the mechanisms that projects offer for opportunities for learning. They should be aware of the PO's learning and continuous improvement preferences and needs, how other team members operate, and how to best collaborate with them to learn from the project and to gain technical, process, or interpersonal knowledge. Some projects are specifically established as learning laboratories for radical new innovation or for more methodical incremental improvement. A focus on effective lessons-learned knowledge transfer needs to be designed into a procurement form to avoid lessons learned becoming lessons forgotten or ignored. Capacity to adapt to new ideas—participants need to facilitate continuous improvement by prompting learning-oriented ways of thinking and doing. Knowledge transfer, as discussed in Chapter 4 Table 4, is difficult because knowledge is sticky. People who can make the most from continuous improvement are open to the process of “unlearning” and “relearning.” Without this adaptive capacity, lessons learned become lessons ignored, and often context is not considered to wisely consider which lessons should be adopted or adapted depending on the way that the new context emerges. A culture of skills and learning development—participants need to be developing a culture of organizational and individual learning to facilitate lessons-learned knowledge transfer and provide the environment in which this can effectively take place. This goes beyond training and development at the technical and process level. It also entails enabling participants to perceive and understand context and situation and interconnectedness of elements into a whole so that cause and effect links can be understood to enable intelligent adaptation of lessons learned.	Low focus on learning and continuous improvement is manifested by actors within collaborative arrangements, and a network delivering a project being blind to and failing to grasp the potential competitive advantage of applying presented learning opportunities. High focus on learning and continuous improvement manifested by actors within collaborative arrangements and a network delivering a project being alert and aware of opportunities for improvement and being successful in grasping competitive advantage through effectively harvesting lessons learned.
13. Incentive arrangements refer to the pain-sharing and gain-sharing agreement. This refers to how the process was instigated and how it operated. Shared accountability and a desire for innovation require a risk and reward mechanism to create an incentive to excel. At one extreme, all profit margins may be quarantined and pooled and subsequently distributed based on a negotiated and agreed pain and gain sharing formula based on total project performance. Alternatively, profit margins may be based solely on individual team performance.	Incentive arrangements—Project participants are incentivized to perform at exceptional levels of performance and there is a risk/reward system in place to encourage this. Central to incentive arrangements is developing systematic encouragement for innovation and for benefits of that innovation to be transferred to project participants and then onto their base organizations. Clear KRAs and KPIs are developed to monitor and measure performance. Managing tension between innovation and incentivization—participants and project owners need to manage the tension between continuous improvements that keeps raising the performance benchmark and how that is incentivized. It is important to balance providing sufficient incentive and reward for improvement, while avoiding incentive targets being either too easy or too hard, as this may undermine continuous improvement. This also brings in issues about balancing innovation incentivized through a competitive dialogue approach at the front-end of a project before contracts are let, with achieving innovation and improvement by encouraging innovation and continuous improvement progressively throughout the project duration.	Low levels of incentivization is manifested by little emphasis being placed upon encouraging parties to agree to place potential profit and gain/pain in a risk/reward arrangement subject to a whole-of-project outcome performance. KRAs and KPIs are absent or rudimentary. High levels of incentivization is manifested by much emphasis being placed upon encourage parties to agree to place potential profit and gain/pain in a risk/reward arrangement that is subject to a whole-of-project outcome performance. KRAs and KPIs are well developed, provide stretch and challenge and are sophisticated in their understanding of the project context.
14. Pragmatic learning-in-action refers to the active gathering of value through teams collaborating with the strategic aim to learn, and to gain competitive advantage through collective opportunities to learn and adapt. It is about team leaders and members seeing the project as a learning experience, with acceptance that both experimetal success and failure requires discussion and analysis. Often, unexpected opportunities arise out of failed experiments through assumptions being re-framed that lead to promising benefits in other contexts.	Action-learning—participants as individuals, but more so in groups, undertake action-learning in a number of ways. These range from simply trying out things and experimenting to undertaking complicated modeling and simulation exercises. These activities provide the mechanisms to gain knowledge from action. It remains critical that mechanisms should be in place to capture and make usable, experience, and knowledge gained from action-learning initiatives. Coaching and mentoring—another form of pragmatic learning is through coaching and mentoring. This is where experience and insights are shared in a formalized manner through one-on-one interaction between project participants and “wiser” or at least more experienced people who can help their coachees/- mentees to be able to contextualize learning, to refine it through dialogue, and to add value through that knowledge by sharing stories making critical comparisons and exploring meaning and making sense out of that learning.	Low pragmatic learning-in-action is manifested by actors within a network delivering a project to fail to translate learning opportunities into actual benefits and competitive action. Failed experiments are punished. High pragmatic learning-in-action is manifested by actors within a network delivering a project capitalizing on learning opportunities to achieve competitive action. This can be also assessed by the weight that these actors place on the value of experimentation as a way to see issues and solutions in a new light. Failed experiments are valued for their intellectual stimulation in discovering, for example, a better understanding of cause-effect loops.
15. Transparency and open book processes, routines and practices refer to project participants agreeing to be audited and fully open to scrutiny. Actors within the project network would have confidence that they can trust those inspecting their books not to take advantage of that access and information, and those people doing the audits, due diligence, and inspections must be capable and effective enough to understand the implication of what they inspect. Total transparency and accountability is necessary where the project is undertaken on a cost-plus basis, where the project owner is funding all direct, administrative and management costs.	Transparency—the extent to which project participants agree to be fully open about their cost structures, their decision-making process, and their project delivery processes. Accountability—the extent to which project participants agree to be fully open to scrutiny, allowing authorized project owner representatives to audit and inspect books, processes, and decision-making rationale.	Low transparency and open-book approaches to project delivery intensely protect the security of organizations and individuals to gain access to information about cost structures or the basis of project plans. It is often exemplified by the code words “commercial in confidence.” It seeks to hide both good and bad news, but this often results in mistrust that undermines collaboration and opportunities for constructive change. High transparency and open-book approaches to project delivery present opportunities for generating trust by clients and other parties that may access that information. It is a confronting notion that many organizations cannot face. It requires the project owner's authorized probity auditors to have free access to their financial books. Thus, confidence in ethical and legal business conduct is necessary to accept this challenge.
The extent of transparency and accountability is a trade-off between the extent to which the PO plays a “hands-on” or “hands-off” role. There is a fine balance needed between expenditure on direct administrtive and management costs and how processes reinforce a trust-but-verify approach.
16. Mutual dependence and accountability refers to collaboration in projects requiring participants to not only recognize their interdependency but to also honestly respond to a sink-or-swim-together workplace culture when communicating. Governance systems may both support and enhance individual team responsibility and accountability, or alternatively they may inhibit approaches to cross-team collaboration.	Characteristics of mutual dependency—various forms of RBP have specific unique characteristics that have a focus on mutual team dependency where they sink or swim together. Teams may or may not perceive themselves to become a temporary single team entity with perceptions about how participants perceive the workplace supports or inhibits a unified team approach to managing the project. Enhancing enablers of mutual dependency—participants seek to actively leverage processes, routines, and means to facilitate and sustain collaboration. Countering inhibitors to mutual dependency—participants seek to actively counter processes, routines, and means that inhibit and undermine collaboration.	Low mutual dependence and accountability refers to an inability or lack of desire to acknowledge the potential value of team interdependence and accountability. Participants follow individualistic paths, possibly at the expense of others, and/or do not support a sink-or-swim-together workplace culture, or they actively undermine that culture. High mutual dependence and accountability refers to an ability and keen desire to acknowledge team inter-dependence and accountability in ways that build inter-team trust and commitment through actively enhancing a sink-or-swim-together workplace culture, and to actively counter any actions that may inhibit this culture.

Table 13. Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance Elements for Processes, Routines and Means for RBP

We summarize Table 14 in light of our clustering these RBP forms and the rationale that helps explain differences and similarities in Table 15.

Table 14, together with models illustrated in Figure 25, Figure 27, and Figure 28 present the means to suggest and recommend KSAE required for effective performance within the RBP approach. Note that ECI activities are mainly taken prior to and during the tender stage, thus element ratings need to be assessed on the interaction of POR, design team members, and any of the supply chain invited to participate prior to project tender and award. CD negotiations occur at tender through to project delivery decision.

Details of Collaborative Arrangements Skills

Using our analysis of the collaborative forms discussed in Chapter 2 and our categorization illustrated in Figure 25, Figure 26, Figure 27, and Figure 28, we now focus on presenting summary KSAE findings. We only consider procurement forms that require an intense level of collaboration and building sustainable relationships in this book, therefore, we will not be discussing traditional, partially integrated procurement forms, or consortia any further. This despite, as stated in the Chapter 2 section on forms of project procurement, the fact that all procurement forms require building a relationship because projects tend to be long (often many years) and are fraught with uncertainty, so they are not suited to a purely transactional approach.

Collyer (Collyer, 2013; Collyer & Warren, 2009; Collyer, Warren, Hemsley, & Stevens, 2010) studied dynamism in PM, drawing upon interviews, focus groups, and cases from a broad range of complex project types including disaster recovery, space exploration, construction, venture capital, documentary TV/film, and IT. His study spans an interesting range of project experiences and provides one way in which to assess the KSAE required of project teams and individuals. We also arrive at a useful way to address the need for KSAE for various RBP forms through combining ideas proposed about the impact of project dynamism and the environment changing a project and its speed, together with the Cynefin Framework (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003; Snowden, 2002; Snowden & Boone, 2007) discussed in Chapter 3.

Based on our analysis of our study's participant transcripts, reflection upon prior and parallel research in this area that we undertook (see Appendix 1, Table A1 and Table A2 in Section 2), and the literature, we identify four sets of KSAE that are required in varying intensity across the board in RBP. These are technical, PM, business solution, and relational. These are explained more fully below.

Technical KSAE

Technical skills are applied across the spectrum of first to fourth order collaboration in projects, and it is to be expected that high levels of technical skills are required for all procurement forms, including the range of RBP forms that this book focuses upon. Discussion of procurement forms, beginning at the section headed “Focus on Integrated Design and Delivery Procurement Arrangements – Emphasizing Planning and Control” and ending at the Section “Beyond the Iron Triangle Performance Implications” presented in Chapter 2 are highly relevant here. Figure 21 and Table 6 are also particularly relevant. The discussion on complexity in Chapter 3, and in particular Figure 11, informs this section on required KSAE for RBP forms.

RBP Cluster	Main Focus is on:	Within-Cluster Major Differences and Similarities
1st Order Collaboration Modes D&C, MC, and JV Dominant efficiency and flexibility logic	The PO/POR establishing an RBP form that adopts a dominant efficiency logic of the individual teams. Collaboration is about creating flexibility. D&C places a single entity responsible for coordination of design and construction to more efficiently translate design into delivery led by a single team leader. MC allows flexibility in packaging main chunks of the work under several contract packages that the MC entity coordinates and manages as an agent to the POR. The way that these are packaged is flexible and efficiency oriented. JVs are groups of contractors (two or more) that combine to offer their specialized resources to maximize project delivery efficiency of the design or delivery or both design and delivery within a single entity to be managed by the POR.	Similarities: The focus is on efficiently bringing together the necessary resources to deliver the project. D&C assumes that by integrating the design and delivery lead team that knowledge transfer between the designers and the lead delivery team results in more buildable solutions. MC highlights efficient packaging of the work that can be tendered and let in a flexible manner in terms of timing (fast-tracked) or procurement form (D&C packages, cost reimbursable, fixed price, FA, etc.). A JV has a focus on efficiency through drawing together partners with specific resources and competencies that they can excel at to combine to offer more than they could as individual entities. Differences: D&C includes both design and delivery in one package, while for JV, the JV is a single project delivery entity, and for MC, the MC manages a number of separate work package delivery entities that are contractually linked to the PO. The nature of, and need for, POR involvement and relationship with delivery entity varies. For a D&C, the POR deals with one project delivery entity for both design and delivery. For MC and JV, the design and delivery roles are separate. An MC handles the whole project delivery in a pragmatic way using a number of work packages, and is accountable to the POR, and the work package entities have direct contractual accountability to the POR but are accountable for coordination and management control to the MC. For a JV, the JV forms an entity comprised of partners with a stake and obligations that is governed by the JV agreement/contract and is accountable to the POR for project delivery but not project design.
2nd Order Collaboration Modes FA, Partnering (project and strategic), BOOT family PPP/PFI Dominant process logic for fairness in behaviors and integrated and aligned common purpose	There is a greater and more explicit focus on collaboration within this cluster, with an emphasis on fairness of treatment of parties and explicit common purpose, often with an agreed project charter. FA have negotiated long-term agreed conditions, protocols for coordination, communication, monitoring and control, and remuneration. Partnering forms have agreed-upon protocols for inter-team working behaviors and responsibilities. The BOOT/PPP/PFI modes integrate entire project delivery, operational, and financing teams, and so the special purpose vehicle for the project defines the project purpose and alignment of parties within that entity to achieve the purpose.	Similarities: There is close collaboration among elements of the supply chain in delivering a project. The collaborative and relational arrangements are explicit and negotiated before project delivery to minimize misunderstanding and negotiation transaction cost. There is an emphasis on fairness in the way that parties can expect to be treated to avoid the transaction cost of conflict and to engender great commitment. FA and partnering alliances agree long-term conditions and protocols to facilitate working together over multiple projects for the same PO and to reduce transaction costs in tendering for projects. BOOT family forms of RBP integrate teams and companies into a special-purpose vehicle to design and deliver the project solution in a way to which each constituent team aligns its objectives. Differences: FA and partnering aligns many individual entities through a culture of fair processes and united vision through a project charter. The BOOT family and PPP/PFI entity projects undertake this alignment internally and present a single special-purpose vehicle (SPV) to design, deliver, and operate the facility being delivered. The SPV becomes the PO until that ownership is handed back to the client that commissioned the SPV through the terms of its concession to operate.
3rd Order Collaboration Modes SCM, IPD, DC/P Dominant logic for common platforms	These extend the focus applied in 1st and 2nd order modes with the addition of greater intensity of coordination and alignment and use of common platforms. SCM reduces the numbers of sub-contractors and groups them into tiers (1st, 2nd, etc.) that take responsibility for project delivery chunks. The T5 SCM mode took this concept further into deeper integration using a range of common platform elements and including features of the 3rd order of collaboration. IDP uses aspects of SCM developed and evolved from Lean production principles combined with relational behavior and integration principles. DC/P drives deeper into collaboration beyond the 1st tier main contractor participants.	Similarities: There is a high level of focus on collaboration through common platforms. Both SCM, in its normal and more intensive form such as the T5 Agreement, and IDP stress use of shared and common approaches and systems. In the case of SCM, there is a rationalization of subcontractors into elemental tiers that take control and responsibility for a common and joint delivery of the project based on logical subsystems of the whole project as an integrated system, common tools, processes, and understanding shape an integration culture focused on the delivery of the subsystems. IDP and DC/P integrates the design team and delivery team via agreed protocols and incentives. Differences: SCM is highly delivery focused and while it may take responsibility for elements of design this is more of an operational rather than conceptual design. IDP is more integrative of the design and delivery teams as separate but non-contractually linked entities (such as that found in BOOT/PPP/PFI). IDP moves toward project pain-share and gain-share incentives in their contracts with the PO. There may also be a no-litigation clause in operation and a requirement for close collaboration and agreement on strategic decisions. This contrasts with normal SCM but not with the T5 Agreement which shares more similarities with IDP. DC/P moves further down the supply chain to encourage collaboration and innovation.
4th Order Collaboration Modes Project alliancing forms PA/SA/DA Dominant logic of all parties being committed to all share pain/gain for project incentives as a group rather than individually.	This form takes the preceding focus on collaboration and common platforms to a higher level and introduces specific explicit and contracted commercial and behavioral elements with a sink-or-swim-together mentality. The defining difference between alliancing and IPD and the T5 Agreement, which are the closest RBP forms to alliancing, is the commitment level of joint and several accountability. There is a specific no-litigation and unanimous-agreement behavioral contract clause to ensure collaboration as a single team, and there is a project single collective insurance policy for the project to ensure collective responsibility and accountability.	Similarities: Project, service, and design alliances all share the same triple legs of a contract. They each have a commercial leg of the contract to specify how the cost of direct project resource costs will be reimbursed and what management fee will be placed at risk to agreed performance criteria, and the detail specification of KRAs and KPIs. They have an incentive contract that specifies the pain-sharing and gain-sharing arrangements and conditions. Finally, they have a specific behavioral contract that defines the collaboration form to be expected. Differences: A DA takes place before a project will be delivered, and its purpose is to establish the project design and delivery procurement strategy. A project alliance takes place across design, usually after a high-level conceptual design has been agreed upon by the PO as the project outcome objective, through the delivery of a project. An SA is an alliance that crosses the boundaries of multiple projects within a program or portfolio to encompass operation and maintenance, renewal, and capital investment.
CD Moves beyond a purely efficiency logic to that evident in 2nd to 4th forms in this table	Competitive dialogue as noted earlier is a collaborative competitive discussion that takes place between a PO/POR and a potential project delivery team to fully understand the scope, possibilities, and limitations of the project brief to provide a proposal that may end up as either a traditional bid or any of the RBP forms indicated in this table.
ECI Moves beyond a purely efficiency logic to that evident in 1st to 4th forms in this table	ECI as illustrated in Figure 2 in Chapter 2 can involve a range of phases of the project with collaboration within MC, FAs to alliancing. It is about providing input on the feasibility of design through practicality of project delivery as an equal party within the project team.

Table 15. Major RBP Clusters Similarities and Differences by Order of Collaboration

For many projects, and in particular construction projects, much of the technical task is translating a PO/POR brief into a feasible design solution that is usually delivered in the form of a product. In the case of BOOT/PPP/PFI, however, it is a service that is offered via a concession agreement awarded to a special-purpose vehicle to take that brief and deliver the service. Cognitive and communication skill elements are needed to understand the brief, question and clarify assumptions, translate responses into plans (including visualization and other graphical tools), and then translate a plan into action to deliver the required project outcome. Planning (the design) and doing (delivering) activities require technical KSAE in order to:

1. Understand the objectives and considering opportunities, constraints, and making appropriate decisions to take action based on what is technically feasible.
2. Access and marshaling the necessary resources, tools, and processes to enable technically feasible solutions to be proposed that may be validated and tested.
3. Judge which technical rules, routines, processes, and approaches might impact timing and feasibility of their use.

As Collyer (2013, Table 8.10) has argued, there is a clear set of different application of skills within a static as opposed to dynamic environment. For example, in a static environment, the world is relatively straightforward to predict, whereas in a dynamic environment, the world is difficult to predict. This means that planning and action need a focus on methodical, measured, and consistent approach in the static situation, but agility, ambidexterity, flexibility, and adaptability are needed in volatile and dynamic environments. Figure 29 illustrates a typical project decision-making situation.

Numerous options will present themselves or be presented for consideration from the briefing stage through the design and delivery stages on all projects. As illustrated in Figure 29, there will be a period of instability in knowing what to do, when and how to do it, as various options unfold, emerge, and are considered. Collaboration results in a filtering process that explores, tests, and examines alternatives so that a plan that is fixed or frozen can be adopted, and this produces a period of stable conditions when the task direction is clear. The accomplishment and progress of the plan leads to a new situation, such as facing the next part of the project to be addressed, or the need for rework, or the “plan” is found to be no longer functional. The project navigates through a series of islands of stable conditions within a sea of unstable conditions.

Most projects, particularly engineering infrastructure projects, take a long time to develop and deliver and much can change during that time. It is for this reason that such projects are often delivered with aspects, closest to the delivery horizon, having details finalized and frozen during the stable conditions indicated in Figure 29 to allow delivery of those portions, acknowledging that any subsequent changes about what needs to be delivered will result in rework and wastage. This is the price of being flexible to change. However, much of the broad strategy planning can be left with options for refinement and/or change open on these kinds of projects until a decision has to be made. Technical skills that help make sound decisions about when to freeze or keep options open is an important characteristic of the purely technical side of delivering projects. Managing this tension on purely technical grounds is one dimension of the skills required of these types of projects. This can be compared to dynamic situations in which goals and objectives, methods and approaches, politics and agendas may constantly change and fluctuate quite quickly.

Summarizing in simple terms what is meant by technical KSAE, we can state that:

• It is about knowing in a practical and pragmatic sense what works, why it works, how it works in various contexts, and how it impacts upon other parts of a system, and where it can be applied (i.e., in what circumstances, for what purpose), and when it should be adopted (timing in relation to impact on other parts of a system).
• Knowledge is not just about what is known. It is also knowledge about what is unknown but knowable (triggering a need to collaborate with others who may know what is unknown), and be aware of what is unknown but is currently unknowable (a form of sixth-sense alertness to unlikely or unusual possibilities).
• Knowledge is both explicit (gained through qualification, study, and accreditation) and tacit (gained through experience, experimentation, and application in a reflective manner).
• Required attributes relate to being pragmatic about the context and having enough sensitivity to understand technical interface issues associated with the technology.
• Experience is not limited to number of years’ exposure but is also qualitative in nature in terms of the quality of supervision and mentoring, as well as reflection that took place to position experience firmly within its context.

Project Management KSAE

We tend to associate PM KSAE with aspects of planning and control, coordination, and working with people in teams when delivering projects.

PM KSAE relating to project work can be summarized as including but not being limited to:

• Understanding and analyzing the project context and situation;
• Knowing what tasks/processes can be done;
• Knowing how tasks/processes can be done;
• Understanding risks and consequences involved;
• Understanding interconnections and dependencies about what needs to be done;
• Understanding time, cost, and quality (i.e., in general – performance – implications);
• Understanding and exercising the extent, degree, and depth of room to maneuver;
• Understanding and exercising the optimum or feasible level of planning, monitoring and control to exercise within the environmental context;
• Coordinating activities with other project teams to synergize and ensure the desired outcome is achieved;
• Collaborating with others with and between teams to gather information and marshal knowledge to make valid sensible decisions and to recover from unexpected setbacks; and
• Reflecting upon and learning from experience of both procedural PM aspects and the human interaction aspects, including stakeholders who may have little direct involvement with the project.

1 - Planning and control: Many D&C projects require early freezing of design and planning with acceptance by the PO/POR of the proposed solution—variation of the D&C package after that freezing process results in negotiations about contract variations often requiring extra money, time, and resources. Much energy is expended during these negotiations in making a case, defending a case, and deciding upon “fair” compensation. While gains and losses may be experienced in this process, the managerial energy expended detracts from “getting on with the job.” The fiduciary duty of both the PO/POR and project delivery entity is to maximize their advantage and to compromise only to gain longer-term benefit, whether that be in terms of reputation or remuneration.

MC involves high-level coordination and system integration in the same way that D&C does, and JVs require parties to be complementary in their combined KSAEs. FAs partnering and BOOT/PPP/PFI as well as SCM in both “normal” and T5 contexts, together with alliancing, require technical skills with varying emphasis. All these forms require sophisticated PM planning KSAE so that the teams have sufficient information and knowledge about salient issues relating to the way systems can be seen as interrelated components and subsystems. Knowledge about how elements interact and what options exist for their assembly and configuration is vital, as are resource implications, safety, quality of the outcome, and impact upon stakeholders on the way that they are assembled or configured.

Managing risk can be included in this aspect of planning and control. Plans need to take into account risk factors to be viable and pragmatic. The rationale for risk mitigation shapes the procurement choice. For example, D&C draws the design and delivery team under one team leader to maximize design/delivery interface but in a way that the PO/POR hands over most of the responsibility and accountability to that team and take an oversight role. MC (as with ECI) tends to allow the PO/POR to retain accountability and responsibility. With the MC entity, the work packages may be let and managed by the MC as agent to allow the PO/POR great influence and responsibility, and it may also be about timing and bundling up of work packages to suit the project context. ECI usually is similar to MC in that the ECI entity provides valuable advice and knowledge and may or may not be responsible for PM in the form of MC (see Figure 2). In a JV situation, the parties in the JV supply specialized resources and expertise and act in the way specified for planning and control and to assume risk as dictated by the contract form. BOOT/PPP/PFI projects assume all risk and also consider operational risk of the completed project as part of any concession agreement. Partnering, SCM, IDP, and alliancing involves close collaboration, information and knowledge sharing to identify and apportion risk. The CD process involves high level of KSAE in risk aspects to be able to intelligently and constructively identify risk items and negotiate with the PO/POR the risk assumption and mitigation measures that provides best value for money (Hoezen, 2012; Hoezen et al., 2012a).

2 – Collaboration and coordination is necessary to share insights and consolidate technical and PM project expertise for the project delivery entity. Various orders of PM collaboration assume the legitimacy of priority of the other party's consideration quite differently. There needs to be a governance structure (as explained earlier in Chapter 3, and parties need to consider trust and commitment as outlined in Chapter 4). Collaboration is seen as an enabler to reduce transaction costs by minimizing waste bound up in conflict resolution and a narrow self-referential agenda for action.

Collaboration is needed for project teams to gather relevant, salient, and timely information for planning and decision making. Orders of collaboration (refer to Figure 25) suggest varying levels of interaction. First-order collaboration is basically about getting on with the job, the tasks at hand. Collaboration is focused upon teams in the immediate vicinity resolving any issues, whether that is a design problem, preparing plans, resolving translating design into delivery, etc., so there is little collaboration outside those immediately involved. Second-order collaboration involves first agreeing protocols through a FA, partnering agreement, or BOOT/PPP/PFI submission, for example. The terms of those arrangements guide the level and intensity of interaction. The influence of senior management within the organizations but not specifically engaged in the project is highly relevant to organizations engaged in first- and second-order collaboration. D&C, MC, and JV will have incentives to perform well in a project, but this is strictly tempered by the priorities, goals, and aims of the base organization. Naturally they will wish to exercise a professional attitude and approach, but commercial pressures may turn their attention elsewhere unless the procurement agreement has incentives (pain-share/gain-share) that focus their attention more on the project than their other business activities. Similarly, third-order collaboration forms (SCM and IPD) are highly process influenced and common-platform influenced. Collaboration and coordination is also governed and influenced by enabling platforms such as being co-located, sharing a common IT platform, having a common insurance that may require specific collaboration conditions, and the project governance arrangements. For alliancing, the collaboration requirements are clearly spelled out in the alliance agreement and reinforced through the project team selection process and associated KRAs and KPIs.

KSAEs for collaboration and the type types of skill, attribute, etc., was illustrated in Table 6 in detail for project alliances but are also relevant to other orders of collaboration to a varying extent. Table 16 summarizes in simple terms how PM KSAE impacts upon the management of projects.

Business Solutions KSAE

These KSAE relate to the business solution focus on a project. Failure of IT projects due to a lack of business knowledge or consideration was identified as a serious flaw in many study reports (for example, Standish, 2003) where a priority on technical excellence has overwhelmed that of delivering a solution that meets the business need. This is particularly true of the need to deliver new products to market before competitors (Collyer et al., 2010; Lindkvist, Söderlund, & Tell, 1998). Further, business does not just mean making a financial return because it also (and in meta-terms) means fulfilling the rationale or need: the business of a hospital is health or a school education, etc.(Artto & Wikström, 2005).

Projects should be based on developing a solution to a particular need (Office of Government Commerce, 2007a; 2007b; Victorian Auditor-General's Office, 2008). Project leaders need to maintain a focus on why the project was sanctioned and approved in the first place. The business case is usually the fundamental document that outlines the rationale for the project and provides insights or specific identification of underlying assumptions and cost/benefit ratio, and this document forms the basis for approval through a gateway system to ensure that the project is a valid solution to a clearly identified problem or situation (Office of Government Commerce, 2007a; 2007b).

The PO/POR should make the vision, aims and objectives of a project crystal clear so that all parties involved know what they should be delivering, its importance, and how their efforts can contribute to a successful outcome (Christenson & Walker, 2003). The project leader and all project team leaders should ensure that the business outcome and its importance is clearly in each team member's mind so that they can visualize their role in the outcome, and that this motivates them to maximize their contribution. It is also important for the business solution to be clearly understood when team members interpret decisions made and what exactly they should be doing. Langley et al. 1995 make the interesting observation that decisions may be sequential and logical, but more often are anarchic with the impetus being driven by reaction to external events or as an iterative sequence. They also note that many complex decisions are iterative, so it is not easy to be clear when a decision was made or if it was remade many times. There are types of projects where the business case cannot be clearly made or approved because the dynamics of the context changes so radically and frequently that it is difficult to assign identity to a particular decision (i.e., why did decision X subsequently reappear as Y or Z?). Additionally, strategy and decision making is a highly socially interpretive process, and according to Denis et al. (2007, p. 197) “…strategy is fabricated by situated and local practices of strategizing using strategic tools and models which are mobilized through tacit and collective knowledge regarding the future of the enterprise.” This may be why decisions appear time and again in morphed guises as context and stakeholder pressures change and supply leverage. Having strong business KSAE is important in volatile situations and useful in more stable situations as well to better understand the purpose and raison d’être for a project.

Characteristic – Highest Focus Levels	Notes on RBP Application
Emphasis on planning and control with high levels of freezing plans	D&C, MC, JV – plan and freeze as many “facts” as possible for those aspects that are well known
Role of coordination to fine-tune details	Coordinate to manage interfaces to optimize the plan
Role of collaboration to learn more, converting known-unknown to known	Collaboration to access knowledge, mainly for monitoring and fine-tuning plans
Belief in the validity of “the plan”	Applying skills and expertise to create greater certainty and reliability of a plan
Emphasis on planning and control with high levels of protocol definition, templates with agreed expectations for responsibilities, accountabilities, remuneration, and incentives	FA, partnering, SCM, IPD DC/P and Alliancing– planning and control to institutionalize interaction, routines, learning, and a shared knowledge space, and as a means to understand rationale and processes for assigned roles responsibilities and accountabilities
Role of coordination to facilitate collaboration and align objectives, sketch out broad plans, and fine-tune short-term detailed plans	Coordination to manage mutual adjustment, information sharing, risk appropriation, assignment of responsibility and accountability
Role of collaboration to cope with the unexpected, share insights, help resolve unknown-unknown “surprises” toward known-unknowns that can be resolved with more information, knowledge, or time, and to resolve toward known-knowns	Collaboration is the lubricant that allows knowledge and information transfer, and is the glue that binds teams together in joint decision making about issues that impact them
Belief in the validity of “a flexible agreed plan”	Applying skills and expertise to create greater flexibility and guidance for a plan and resilience to respond to the unexpected

Table 16. PM KSAE Summary of Emphasis by RBP Approach

In complex and dynamic contexts, the project leader needs to be mindful of not only the project sanction decision and what assumptions, knowledge, and circumstances that it was based upon, but they also need to interpret signals about decisions, non-decisions or partial decisions to judge how to respond. This is why collaboration is essential for complex projects because the project leader needs multiple perspectives with which to triangulate and make sense of the meaning of situations so that appropriate and effective action follows (even if that is inaction in a wait-and-see manner).

Other business KSAE factors come into play for the more intensively collaborative project forms. If we focus on 3^rd and 4^th order collaboration forms such as T5, IPD, and Alliancing, we see that stakeholder engagement is a vital characteristic. Obvious stakeholders include those that are project-internal such as the supply chain and the many project teams that are brought together to design and deliver a project. Less-obvious stakeholders may be project-external and their influence may have severe impact upon gaining permits, permissions, commitment to the project, and other emotional drivers such as the example of intensive partnering that was required in Sweden for a major rebuild of power transmission lines and facilities over a several-year project (or program of projects) as described by Jacobsson (2011) in his study. In this and other studies of stakeholder management (Aaltonen, 2010; Bourne, 2005; 2011b), it becomes clear that stakeholder management is a critical skill. This skill is not exploitation-focused but focused through collaboration to co-discovery and co-calibration of the project meaning and purpose.

PM politics is often considered as a negative aspect of management that should not be discussed. It has been until recently taboo. However, Machiavelli, one of the most famous early writers on politics and management (Machiavelli & Bull, 1961), had many useful lessons that he imparted that are useful for project managers, and many of these are presented by Lisch (2012). From this seminal source, and from literature on the concept of the value proposition (Anderson et al., 2006), we see that political agenda are also bound up with what is considered important by the person “being political.” Having political skills is seen by Pinto (2000) and others (Bourne, 2005; Crawford & Da Ros, 2002; Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2007) as being critical and as Peled (2000, p. 28) argues, “…there are several steps senior managers can take to improve the political skills of their project leaders. They can provide leaders with courses on the political aspects of project management such as influence, negotiation, and cooperation. They can assign politically skilled mentors to tutor novice project leaders. They can also balance the management skills of a project team. For example, if the designated project leader is technologically strong, the organization can assign to him an analyst whose strength lies in organizational politics.”

Several of the attributes identified by Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2011a) and illustrated in Table 6 includes being a reflective systems thinker (Attribute 4, Table 6) to understand and evaluate the context, and to frame strategies that appeals to the value proposition of influential and powerful constituencies while guiding the agenda and action toward fulfilling the project goals and to be sufficiently appreciative (attribute 6, Table 6), with sufficient emotional intelligence to take the perspective of others (Parker et al., 2008). These may be considered as political skills.

Summarizing in simple terms, we can state that business KSAE is about:

• Knowing in a practical and pragmatic sense what the vision and purpose of the project is so that project managers can focus on ensuring that what needs to get done, is done rather than allowing the project to drift into being what may be technically or aesthetically excellent but fails to deliver what was needed.
• Understanding the business case and rationale in that above context.
• Having sound stakeholder (internal and external) engagement and management abilities beyond “managing through manipulation,” but managing through co-calibration of the project outcome.
• Having sufficient political ability to understand the political context and to be able to engage in political activity that is project-centered rather than self-centered so that counterproductive political moves can be deflected, and that politics is used in a positive and fair way to guide and shape the direction in which the project is designed and delivered.
• Reflecting upon and learning from experience gained from a variety of business contexts and demands.

Relational KSAE

We have argued that projects that require an RBP approach tend to be complex and often have an element, if not core feature, of services and product delivery. Remington (2011) stresses the need for high-level relational skills for complex projects, with many examples that she illustrates from an extensive study undertaken on leaders of complex projects in a number of business sectors. And Snowden and Boone (2007) provide concrete advice on leadership and management styles appropriate to projects of varying complexity that were characterized using the Cynefin Framework that we have discussed earlier in this book. Crawford and Pollack (2004, p. 647) argue that “soft methods acknowledge any goal ambiguity, focusing on learning, exploration and problem definition. […] The emphasis then becomes one of negotiation, debate and accommodation.” This shifts the emphasis of PM from an iron triangle view of time/cost/quality performance to a far greater scope and depth requiring these “soft skills” and attributes. We illustrate specific relational skills in Figure 21 and in our analysis from our AAA study on profiling excellence in the management of alliance projects (Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2011c, p. 56–62). These specific KSAEs are provided and explained within the context of PA leadership excellence in Table 6.

These skills form a subset of those KSAE required of the behavioral factors of the Wittgenstein Family Resemblance Figure 27 (factors 5-9) explained in Table 12. They are essential to be able to effectively engage in the processes, routines, and means illustrated as drivers 10-14 in Figure 27 and explained in detail in Table 13. Table 14 illustrates the levels of application of these KSAE across the RBP spectrum. Of particular saliency to focus a discussion on here is that while most if not all of these KSAEs are useful across the RBP spectrum, as generally facilitating efficiency through collaborated and coordinated effort, a number of these are essential to the higher collaboration forms such as T5 and IDP in the 3^rd order RBP forms and for alliancing in the 4^th order RBP form.

In all our previous research, in most of the literature cited in this book, and research undertaken for the PMI to write this book, and for a parallel study that we are engaged in as part of an Australian Research Council grant, the terms “trust” and “leadership” are frequently used. It is frustrating that practitioners often loosely use these terms as if everyone shared the meaning of these words and that these terms are fully understood by everyone. We see terms such as “politics” and “being political” as equally prevalent in being loosely used but not explained. When we probed those we interviewed for the meaning of “politics” and “being political,” we find that “trust and leadership” is the Holy Grail of PM in general and RBP in particular. We add a further term here, commitment to innovate, because our analysis of interviews conducted with academic experts as well as reflective practitioners as part of this study highlighted innovation as a defining priority in 3^rd and 4^th order RBP forms.

Without laboring points made throughout this book about the need for projects to be viewed as experimental sites of new knowledge generation, it is important to understand that when we study Table 14, for example, that the more collaborative the environment, the more that innovation is evident. We rated FA, project and strategic partnering, T5, IDP, and alliancing as “High” on commitment to innovate. Organizations that engage in FAs generally need to provide proof and demonstrated innovation in their workplace culture and leadership to retain their place in an FA. Innovation commitment is often built into partnering charters and also is the case with the FA. Strategic partnering also usually requires that partners have a continuous improvement demonstrated track record. IPD and T5 as well as alliancing forms required evidence of innovation to exceed BAU levels of performance. Other RBP forms value and appreciate a commitment to innovation, but not as prominently as those indicated in Table 14 to require high commitment to innovate.

To summarize this discussion of relational KSAE, we can state the following:

1. Trust lies at the core of relationships and, as illustrated in Figure 13, trust is composed of several core constructs. It is essential for people and institutions to have the ability (individual, group, and institutional), benevolence, and authenticity to perform in a trustworthy manner and do what was promised and/or committed. Trust can be monitored-through governance systems that have accountability and responsibility clearly defined and measured but socially-oriented trust in which the enforcement mechanisms are social can be potentially a more powerful motivator for being trustworthy.
2. Authentic leadership is the overarching enabler and mechanism to allow trust to flourish. This is because authenticity means that words and deeds are matched, and it provides the foundation of ethical and appreciative behaviors to allow the workplace culture to support experimentation, learning, and open transfer and questioning of ideas.
3. A defining difference in RBP forms is the attitude toward BAU. Forms such as D&C, MC, BOOT/PPP/PFI, and SCM seek efficient results, but this may be BAU or marginally better than BAU, whereas other RBP forms demand innovation that delivers results beyond BAU. RBP forms such as alliancing, IPD, and T5 have developed KRAs and KPIs beyond the iron triangle to measure and provide evidence of innovation. Practicing being innovative builds absorptive capacity to become more competent innovators.
4. Relational capabilities also require experience in reflection upon the many facets of people's nature and the circumstances they are placed that affect the way they act and react. Each person and situation must be unique, but common threads emerge about cause-and-effect loops that help explain the way that relationships evolve.

Core Relational KSAE	Associated Terms and Concepts	Comments
Trust	Credibility, ability, ethics, integrity, benevolence, professionalism, predictability, interdependence	Chapter 4 discussed the theoretical background. When we reflect upon an important trust element of the Wittgenstein Family Resemblance Figure 27, we are drawn toward the “defining substrate of motivations and circumstances to collaborate.” Some of the most lucid reasons given for high levels of collaboration were a critical requirement for improving on BAU performance. Achieving that demanded collaboration, and for collaboration to be effective, trust is needed to be demonstrated through all the associated terms given here. A striking theme was interdependence that forced people to need to trust each other.
Leadership	Authenticity, systems thinker, wise and reflective, pragmatic, resilient, courage, appreciative, visionary	Clearly, “good” leadership is far beyond compliance to do what is expected as BAU. We found interviewees (and the literature) sought leaders who knew what was needed to be done, had the ability to gather collective wisdom to develop a plan, had the courage to challenge assumptions and resilience to recover when trouble looms, and had the wisdom and pragmatic attitude to recognize poor performance and to react appropriately to overcome that. Further, leaders need to be authentic and match rhetoric with action to remain credible.
Innovative	Challenging norms, out-of-the-box thinking, brave, open minded, playful workplace culture	Being innovative is impossible without trust and sound leadership. Mediocre leaders do not challenge the status quo and so do not set stretch goals that can be understood, aspired to, and trigger plans and ways to be achieved. In our section in Chapter 4 on collaboration frameworks and in particular on organizational learning as well as throughout this book, we stress the need for supportive leadership to help shape and support a workplace culture where experimentation is “safe” and does not result in blame, and that people are facilitated and encouraged to share ideas so that they can continuously improve and perhaps achieve breakthrough innovation. In alliancing, IDP and T5, this was a specified expectation and demand of those RBP forms.

Table 17. Relational KSAE Summary of Emphasis by RBP Approach

In summarizing the details of KSAE required for RBP forms and how this links to the identified elements in the Wittgenstein model in Figure 27 and subelements in Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13, we developed an additional refinement to these tables by including detailed illustrations in Appendix 2 in Section 2 for each subelement a table that provides the following data:

• description of each subelement to clarify how it fits with its relevant element;
• examples of high-level thinking about that subelement to illustrate how those with the most advanced KSAE may view the purpose of that subelement within the context of the element;
• examples of high levels of KSAE required to perform at the highest level of performance; and
• illustrations of quotes from the SME experts interviewed that illuminate their lived reality of that subelement.

We provide an extract of Appendix 2 here to illustrate the how the analysis of data has delivered a comprehensive and linked detailed exploration of the Wittgenstein model elements, subelements, and the KSAEs required to deliver these sub-elements in Table 18.

Readers who wish to better understand the Wittgenstein Family Resemblance model adapted and developed for RMP options and their associated KSAEs should refer to Section 2 and Tables A7 to Table A22.

Theme and Subtheme	Notes, Examples, and KSAE Quotes
1.5 Relational rationale	RBP forms inherently imply that there is perceived need to create, nurture, and maintain a form of a relationship, the extent of commitment may vary. Some choices may be based upon negative past experiences and the need to overcome problems caused or at least exacerbated by the chosen project procurement form. Other choices are based on positive past experience with use of a specific form of procurement that worked well within that context. Experience can form the basis for rationalizing any given procurement choice within its given context.
Examples of high levels of relational context thinking	Understanding the causes for past positive or negative experience based on institutional drivers driven by the forms of project delivery contract. Understanding and appreciating how trust and commitment can be shaped by the form of project delivery procurement and behavioral requirements or habits based on specific project procurement forms. Understanding the big picture and how a more holistic approach to project delivery may improve value delivered.
High-level KSAE needed for relational needs	Technical and PM KSAE – High levels relative to the deficit in KSAE that parties wishing to engage in a closer relationship perceive that they need to gain through the relationship. Most likely perceived highly complex projects need a relational approach. Business solutions KSAE – High levels of ability to understand the value proposition of various parties be able to perceive how the relationship could be of value to the other party(ies) and how to frame a response to that need that can be justified through meeting a sound business case. Relational KSAE – High levels of ability to be able to visualize broad relationship networks and how value to other party(ies) can be enhanced and how to frame a constructive response to that need.
Illustrative quote	A relational rationale can be based upon filling skills, competence, and knowledge gaps through collaboration in a way that provides sufficient incentive for all involved parties. As P17 and A10 comment:
P17	[relating to a PA] You've got to have something of significance, substance, you know, a hundred million or more. Probably the biggest flag for me really concerns cultural and some of the personalities, far more so than in a normal alliance.
A10	…they've learned through the previous periods that the best way to achieve better outcomes is through greater levels of collaboration, so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's just turn that around and use that to try and drive costs down by working together. So that's one thing that's come out of it. And another thing that's come out of it is that, to be more efficient from their own point of view of the operations, a lot of the project managers that I interviewed said that they, “Preferred collaborative working. It was more efficient as well as more effective in the long run.”

Table 18. Wittgenstein Model Theme 1: Motivation and Context Extract

Chapter 6 Summary

This chapter summarized our findings. In the section on emerging forms of collaboration terms, we answer research questions 1 and 2: Q1 – What are the fundamental characteristics of emerging relationship-based forms of project procurement? Q2 – Do these forms vary in different parts of the world and, if so, in what way?

We present Table 9 to illustrate these collaboration terms and where they are globally applied. We also illustrated through Figure 25 how these forms integrate the gradation of early contractor involvement, and in Figure 26, which illustrates forms of integration of the PO/POR, the project design team leader and delivery team leader.

We answered research Q3 – What specific skills, attributes and experience required to deliver such projects are currently underdeveloped or missing from traditional project managers’ knowledge and skills sets? We did this through first presenting a table of relationship intensity of various identified RBP forms identified from answers to research question 1 and 2 in Table 10 and then developing a model of possible RBP forms in Figure 27. This informed and allowed us to then provide measures of each of the identified elements in Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13. This, in turn, allowed us to map the characteristics of the developed model of possible RBP forms in Table 14, and also to provide analysis and findings on the details of collaborative arrangements with detail discussion of technical, PM, business, and relational KSAE. We also provided an extract from Section 2, Appendix 2, Table A7 as an illustration of the comprehensive analysis undertaken and presented in this book.

We provide specific detailed findings from our interviews with academics, practitioners, and our validation workshop feedback from our study in Appendix 2 because we felt that many readers may find the details cluttering the book so far. Those with an interest in these findings will find Appendix 2 rewarding to read.