Appendix 1– Resource Sources

Table A1 details publications arising out of this research project.

Table A1. Validation and Feedback from Publication Sources Developed from this Research

Dissemination event	Citation/Details of Source	Salient comments
Book chapter Book-CH1	Walker, D. H. T., & Lloyd-Walker, B. (2013). Project alliances– A new direction in temporary organisation forms. In Lundin R. & Hällgren, M., Projects and Temporary Organizations – Theory and Practice. Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School Press.	A refined idea from previous conference papers, some of the detail has been discussed earlier in this book in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. The book chapter was peer reviewed.
Journal papers Jour-1	Lloyd-Walker, B., & Walker, D. (2011). Authentic leadership for 21st century project delivery. International Journal of Project Management, 29, 383–395.	This paper refined details of a previous paper presented at the EURAM in Rome 2010 and while based upon the AAA research identified in Table 3. It provided an opportunity to reflect upon that work, further journal referee feedback and SME feedback at the start of this present research reported upon here.
Jour-2	MacDonald C, Walker, D.H.T., & Moussa, N. (2013). Towards a project alliance value for money framework. Facilities, 27, in press	This paper focuses on the key results of Dr. Charles MacDonald's doctoral thesis. It is highly relevant to this book and Dr. MacDonald was co-supervised by Professor Derek Walker. It provides highly salient expert opinion of the way that value for money can be designed into the PM practice and illustrates required skills needed.
Jour-3	Walker, D. H. T., Lloyd-Walker, B. M., & Mills, A. (2014). Facilitating a no-blame culture through project alliancing. Project Perspectives, 8, 58–63.	This paper uses a case study of a major upgrade of a city Arts and Concert Hall complex using an alliance form of project delivery to investigate the project's no-blame culture.
Jour-4	Walker, D. H. T., Lloyd-Walker, B. M., & Mills A. (2013). Enabling construction innovation – the role of a no-blame culture as a collaboration behavioural driver in project alliances. Construction Management and Economics (under review for a SI in 2013).	This paper further develops Conf-2 paper (see below) using a case study of a major upgrade of a city Arts and Concert Hall complex, using an alliance form of project delivery to investigate a process improvement innovation.
Conference papers Conf-1	Walker, D. H. T., & Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2012). Understanding Early contractor involvement (ECI) Procurement Forms. Twenty-Eighth ARCOM Annual Conference, Edinburgh, 5–7 September, Smith S., Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 2, 877–887.	These papers were presented in academic conferences and peer reviewed. Further reflection, response to feedback from reviewers and conference participants is leading to journal papers in review, production or being currently written.
Conf-2	Walker, D. H. T., Lloyd-Walker, B. M. and Mills, A. (2013). Innovation through alliancing in a no-blame culture. World Building Congress, Brisbane, CIB: 12pp.	This paper focuses on the no-blame culture and its impact upon the delivery of a PA on the Hamer Hall project in Melbourne. Presented in May 2013.
Conf-3	Walker D.H.T., & Lloyd-Walker, B.L. (2013). Making sense of collaborative forms of relationship based construction procurement. EPOC. Winter Park, Colorado	This paper draws upon several studies mentioned in this book and provided an opportunity for academic review and feedback by primarily U.S. academics
Conf-4	Walker D.H.T., & Jacobsson M. (2013). Alliancing within a Public–Private Partnership: Consequences and Challenges for Construction Projects. NFF conference Iceland	This paper draws upon a study of a PA within a PPP project and represents a unique case study of a PA and provided an opportunity for review and feedback from Nordic academics.
Practitioner feedback workshop	Validation and feedback presentation to SME practitioners in Oxford and London in October 2013	The U.K. has several decades of experimenting with a range of RBP approaches. The input from these workshops provided clarification of concepts as well as challenging their global interpretation.

Table A2 provides coded details of the interviews undertaken for the research. Coded by academic (IA-Number) and practitioner as (IP-Number) plus name initials.

 

Table A3 provides insights from complementary research that we were engaged in that supplements our research for this book.

Table A3. Insights from Complimentary Research Projects

Research Project	Nature of Research	Notes, relevance and linkages
National Museum of Australia PA	Longitudinal study over its construction (completed in 2001) Surveys of participants and embedded researcher for approximately 50% of the time during the late 1999 to March 2001 period.	This project was a pure PA and the first building PA that we were aware of in the world as most PAs had been (and usually are) engineering construction infrastructure projects. The outcome from this research project was significant that included a book, Walker, D. H. T., & Hampson, K. D. (2003) Procurement strategies: A relationship based approach. Oxford,:Blackwell Publishing, and many papers including one cited widely in the U.S.—Hauck, A. J., Walker, D. H. T., Hampson, K. D., & Peters, R. J. (2004). Project alliancing at National Museum of Australia—Collaborative process. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 130(1), 143–153.
Background research for an RBP book published in 2008	Research for the book (Walker & Rowlinson, 2008a) including access to two doctoral theses: 1 - Arroyo, A. C. (2009). The role of the Atlantic Corridor Project as a form of strategic community of practice in facilitating business transformations in Latin America. Doctorate, School of Property, Construction and Project Management. Melbourne: RMIT University. 1 - Davis, P. R. (2006). The application of relationship marketing to construction. PhD, School of Economics, Finance and Marketing. Melbourne: RMIT University.	The book contains 14 chapters that informed literature discussed in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this book. Further, it directly drew upon two doctoral theses, Chapters 12 from Arroyo (2009) and 14 from Davis (2006) that one of the authors supervised, and results gained from research undertaken and from case studies researched under the collaborative research center for construction innovation (Chapters 8 and 11). Links to the Doctoral theses: Arroyo - http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:7891 Davis - http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:6190
Profiling Professional excellence in alliance management (2010–2011)	We interviewed 10 alliance managers (AMs) of varying experience levels and professional background and each interview took between 1 hour and 1.5 hours in length. Additionally, three managers of AMs were interviewed between 0.5 and 1 hour using the same approach and research tools to provide their perspective of what constitutes excellence in being an AM and how to best attract, retain and develop AMs. Two further validation focus group workshops tookplace. First, in January 2011 with two senior current and former Alliance Leadership Team members for 3 hours. The second took place in early February 2011 with 7 AMs.	The report of the research is available upon request from the Alliancing Association of Australasia on URL http://www.a3c3.org/ the RMIT University research repository or from the authors: Walker, D. H. T., & Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2011). Profiling professional excellence in alliance management summary study report. Sydney: Alliancing Association of Australasia, 36. Walker, D. H. T., & Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2011). Profiling professional excellence in alliance management, volume one – Findings and results. Sydney: Alliancing Association of Australasia, 76. Walker, D. H. T., & Lloyd-Walker, B. M. (2011). Profiling professional excellence in alliance management, volume two – Appendices. Sydney: Alliancing Association of Australasia, 98. The report was based on 250+ pages of transcripts and other data that was gathered by both authors of this research. who had all of this at their disposal to contribute toward this book.
Maximizing the value of alliances in delivering infrastructure projects: A mixed methods management study. (2011–2014)	An Australian Research Council (ARC) grant between Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and RMIT University – one of this book's authors is a chief investigator on that project. It involves surveying current PA and other forms of early contractor involvement through an extensive (52 question) survey interview instrument and selected case studies. The second phase of this research involved undertaking case studies of project alliances, a form of design alliance and a series of interviews on program alliances.	This research project directly informs current PA and related activity in Australia for this book and contributed to the literature review chapters 2, 3. and 4. It also allowed informing this book's content with respect to case studies of evolving forms of RBP. The ARC research project allowed direct access to several case studies as well as surveys on the state of the art of PAs and program alliances in Australia undertaken by one of the researchers to provide additional insights for this project and book.

Ethic Plain Language Statement and Questions Asked

Design and Social Context Portfolio School of Property Construction and Project Management. Date 21st May 2012 Dear Sir(s)

RMIT University Building 8, Level 8 360 Swanston Street Melbourne VIC 3001 Australia GPO Box 2476V Melbourne VIC 3001 Australia Tel. +61 3 9925 2230 Fax +61 3 9925 1939 • www.rmit.edu.au

Understanding Relationship-Based Project Procurement

My name is Derek Walker. I am managing a research project to develop new knowledge about relationship-based forms of project procurement and the skills needed of project managers for those projects. The project will provide a baseline picture of the various forms of relationship-based project procurement and your participation in this study is crucial. We are undertaking a global literature review of the relevant literature and we will develop from this a typology of relationship-based procurement systems. Our literature data comprises characteristics, cited authors and insights. It has been approved by the RMIT College (DSC) Ethics committee.

The data collection and analysis will be undertaken by RMIT University's School of Property, Construction and Project Management. The main data collection will be done by me and my research associate Dr Beverley Lloyd-Walker, both of us are experienced researchers. In order to successfully gauge the trend in relationship-based project procurement we require some qualitative data from respondents such as you in the form of insights based on your expertise in this area as demonstrated through your publications on this subject.

You have been identified as a researcher who has published on relationship-based project procurement, and is therefore able to provide us with very useful insights into what was reported upon in your studies and what you have subsequently reflected upon relating to those studies. Your details were obtained from papers you have published and our personal knowledge of your work. We only require 20–30 minutes of your time to conduct a telephonic interview about your published work. Professor Derek Walker will contact you on your preferred telephone number at a mutually agreed time. I have attached the kind of questions we intend to ask for your information.

The advantage to participating is that this allows us all to better understand the current state of relationship-based project procurement and its demands upon a range of competencies needed of project managers on this kind of project. You will, if you request, have subsequent access to published reports stemming from the research via industry magazine sources and access indirectly through academic sources.

Your responses will not be directly attributable to you or your organisation unless you wish to be cited. You may withdraw at any time, and any unprocessed data may also be withdrawn at your request. RMIT will only reveal summary data in papers which will have no reference to persons, organisations or projects, and as such will ensure anonymity of data. The data and analysis will by used by RMIT to present and publish the findings through research papers and industry magazine or similar publications.

If you are willing to participate in this research, kindly complete and return the attached consent form by email ([email protected]). We look forward to your participation in the survey and thank you in advance for taking part in this important research.

Professor Derek Walker

Meta study Interview Instrument

Note participants should feel free to offer examples and insights that can be quoted as qualitative data.

Project Details

Participant Name
Participant contact details:	phone Email

About your Paper

We would be interested to know what interesting insights relating to relationship-based procurement forms that you wrote about ended up being omitted that you would like to share with us.

About the context

Can you expand a little more on the global context of your paper? We are trying to compare the concept and construct of various types of relationship-based procurement and so terms you used or context assumed may be perceived differently outside that context. Could you expand on anything that we should know about that issue?

About changes over time

We all know that the research-reporting lifecycle can be quite long and things change from the time of publication. Can you provide us with some updates on how you see things have changed and/or evolved?

About the relevance of findings

We all know that sometimes we only really see the relevance of some of our findings after publication. Is there any added insights you can share with us about your paper that we can include in our meta study?

Case Study Interview Guide

Note: Being an interview guide, the questions are brief and will require some explanation when presenting them to interviewees.

Context:

From what context is this interview undertaken?

Demographics: experience; no. of years in type of business(es), position(s), types of projects.

Fundamental definitional questions

We have presented you with a typology of relationship-based procurement forms that stretches globally in its reach. Different regions use different definitions for each category of procurement form and these legitimately differ with the context. Can you tell us what you feel is reliable and therefore an accurate description in our presentation and where you feel we may be either wrong or where we could fine-tune our categories or descriptions further?

In what way do you feel that these categories vary (in description and content) by region or over time?

Specifically About Team Collaboration, Skills and Attributes

We have presented a capability maturity model that expresses the knowledge, skills, attributes and experience that we propose is needed for each of the categories of relationship-based procurement. Given your expertise in this area, what do you feel is reliable and therefore an accurate description and where you feel we may be either wrong or where we could fine-tune our categories or descriptions further?

How do you feel that the identified knowledge, skills, attributes and experience best be obtained?

Additional Points

Is there anything that you feel we missed that was worth exploring either as part of this study or for future studies?

How do you think the ALT could have improved their performance in terms of barriers and drivers experienced from your perspective?

Case Study Interview Guide – Program Alliance Leaders

Note: Being an interview guide, the questions are brief and will require some explanation when presenting them to interviewees.

Context:

From what context is this interview undertaken?

Demographics: experience; no. of years in type of business(es), position(s), types of projects.

Program Alliance Role questions

What exactly was your role in the programme alliance? Was it a leadership of several concurrent or serial alliances? How would you say that programme of works alliance procurement process worked?

Program performance questions

How would say this programme met or is meeting its original expectations of strategic intent while fitting in with cost/time/fitness for purpose? How well did you feel that the alliance component KPIs/KRAs were conceptualised and/or had evolved?

Commitment to Best for Project / Best for Client

To what extent do you feel that the ALT and AMT members on the PAs have demonstrated a best for programme attitude across the alliance that you were involved in? Can you provide some examples of how working relationships developed (+ ve or – ve) over time?

Value Delivery

To what extent was there a clear statement of value to be generated from this programme arrangement? How was value for money (VfM) expressed? Did it link to any specific strategic KRAs for learning?

Specifically About Team Collaboration – For Program Alliances

How well did the AMT collaborate on this project relative to a business as usual approach? How did the AMT and ALT collaborate in shaping the way the programme delivery took place? To what extent does the collaboration style extend to project teams outside the alliance that were part of your supply chain?

Specifically About the Program Management Culture

To what extent did a ‘sink or swim together’ attitude prevail? How did this manifest itself?

To what extent did this extend to project teams outside the alliance that were part of your supply chain?

How did the ALT influence the programme culture through their relationship with the AMT for their projects?

Can you name 3 aspects about the workplace culture in this alliance that differentiates it from business as usual experience you have had on past programmes or projects?

Specifically about Innovation on the Program

It is often said that programme alliances spur more innovation than business as usual projects over time. Can you provide any examples of how continuous improvement/innovation was encouraged/facilitated?

Skills and Attributes

What specific skills, attributes or experience do you think is needed for alliance programmes that is different to business as usual projects you have experience of?

Possible Improvements

How do you think the AMT could have improved their performance in terms of barriers and drivers experienced? How do you think the ALT could have improved their performance in terms of barriers and drivers experienced from your perspective?

Case Study Interview Guide Project Alliances

Note: Being an interview guide, the questions are brief and will require some explanation when presenting them to interviewees.

Context:

From what context is this interview undertaken?

Demographics: experience; no. of years in type of business(es), position(s), types of projects.

Fundamental performance questions

How would say this project met its original expectations of cost/time/fitness for purpose?

If there has been any scope creep in cost time etc. has this been the result of identifying greater value delivery opportunities that explains any cost/time etc creep? (note Charles mentioned something about UGL undertaking some building/civil works where appropriate)

Commitment to Best for Project / Best for Client

To what extent do you feel that the ALT and AMT members have demonstrated a best for project attitude? Can you provide some examples?

Value Delivery

To what extent was there a clear statement of expected value to be delivered for this project and how was this expressed and recorded in a value statement or record of value generated? How was value for money (VfM) expressed during the bidding process and subsequently through the project delivery phase? Did it link to KRAs for example?

Specifically About Team Collaboration

How well did the AMT collaborate on this project relative to a business as usual approach? How did the AMT and ALT collaborate in shaping the way the project delivery took place?

Did the collaboration style extend to project teams outside the alliance that were part of your supply chain?

Specifically About the Project Culture

To what extent did the ‘sink or swim together’ attitude prevail? How did this manifest itself?

To what extent did this extend to project teams outside the alliance that were part of your supply chain?

How did the ALT influence the project culture through their relationship with the AMT?

Can you name 3 aspects about the workplace culture in this alliance that differentiates it from business as usual experience you have had on past projects?

Specifically about Innovation on the Project

It is often said that project alliances spur more innovation than business as usual projects. Can you provide 3 examples of how innovation was encouraged and facilitated on this project?

Skills and Attributes

What specific skills, attributes or experience do you think is needed for alliance projects that is different to business as usual projects you have experience of?

Possible Improvements

How do you think the AMT could have improved their performance in terms of barriers and drivers experienced?

How do you think the ALT could have improved their performance in terms of barriers and drivers experienced from your perspective?