BUS605: Strategic Project Management

In the interviews, the project definition process (Figure 2) was introduced to the interviewees. The basic idea of RPDM was introduced in order to make sure that they understood the difference between the traditional and integrative project delivery methods. After that, they were asked to place the identified project stakeholder in the stage that they felt was the first moment that the contribution of the stakeholder would be proper. In addition, we took advantage of the other interview material to derive results that were as reliable as possible. The results are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Early stakeholder involvement in the case project.

The results show that the renovation projects touch various stakeholders that should be involved early in order to find out their constraints or contributions. The deviation between the interviews was small. Generally, only the main designer's (architect) and the other designers' positions caused some deviation. If an alteration of a city plan is sought in advance, there is no need to involve the main designer in the first stage, because the construction consultant should have enough know-how to carry out the first stage. If there is not an alteration of a city plan, the main designer must be involved in the first stage, because he/she draws up the amendments to the city plan. Because rezoning can take a long time (sometimes 1-2 years), it is recommended that the alteration is requested long before the project begins.

The positions of the "other" designers caused some confusion. However, if some matters need special planning or notifications, the expert in that field should be involved. For example, in the case project, the instability of the local soil caused the structural engineer to be included in the project.

The late involvement of sponsors and other authorities was slightly surprising, because it could be supposed that their opinions should be checked at least tentatively during the project definition. Apparently, the customer supposed that the planning division would inform them if other authorities might be interested in the project. In addition, according to the interviews, a common impression was that getting the funding was not a problem in the current market situation. These results align with the previous studies that found that the customer, main contractor, and main designer are the most salient project stakeholders. Basically, they are the ones who form and set up the big picture, which is then combined with the contributions of the other stakeholders.

When it came to the project definition process itself, the interviews almost unanimously stated that a project definition process (or the whole project delivery process) that strictly follows the original IPD or alliance processes would probably not work in small projects, or at least, they were not willing to participate in such projects. They found that the biggest problems were connected with finalizing the agreement, because the multi-party agreements have relatively tightly bound participants executing the project together. Therefore, the interviewees hoped that the agreement would be more like a letter of intent, where the customer and the other contracting parties commit gradually to execute the project by following the terms, rules, and process of the RPDM, with the condition that the parties can pull out of the project if they are not capable of working on it.

The interviewees stated that if various stakeholders are wanted to be involved in the project definition, the time and resources that they expended on the project must be compensated for with "a consulting fee" – at least for those who were not ultimately selected for the actual project implementation. This would encourage and motivate the stakeholders to join in the project definition process, even if they were not selected for the rest of the project.

Generally, most of the interviewees saw that better possibilities of creating and defining value streams are essential. It was also believed that if the key stakeholders are identified and committed to the project as early as possible, synergic benefits can be achieved. That is why they perceived that RPDM could be worth trying, because it seriously seeks a "win-win" situation and enables natural and fair collaboration. However, there are culture-bound problems (i.e., accustomed habits, prejudice, and mistrust) prevailing in the construction industry that slow down the change towards RPDMs.