Project change stakeholder communication - Técnico Lisboa ... Project change... · Project change...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpromanInternational Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595

Project change stakeholder communication

Aurangzeab Butt a,⁎, Marja Naaranoja b, Jussi Savolainen c

a Department of Production, University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 34, Vaasa 65101, Finlandb University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 34, Vaasa 65101, Finland

c Tampere University of Technology, Tampere FI-33720, Finland

Received 20 July 2015; received in revised form 20 August 2016; accepted 30 August 2016Available online 16 September 2016

Abstract

This action-based qualitative case study explores how the project communication routines affect stakeholder engagement during changemanagement process and evolve project culture. With an inductive design, this research studies change communication practices in two differentcase contexts. The results underline the fact that an effective communication ensures stakeholder participation in the change management processesthrough teamwork and empowerment, whereas lacking communication routines lead to a rational and straightforward project culture where taskperformance and efficiency are preferred over stakeholder involvement. Theoretical results suggest that project communication planning requiresmore attention on the know-how of stakeholders than the current stakeholder evaluation models instruct.© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project management; Change management; Communication management; Stakeholders; Action research; Project culture; Stakeholder know-how

1. Introduction

During past two decades the infrastructure projects consti-tuted 3.8% of world GDP, and this contribution is estimated toincrease up to 4.1% by 2030 (McKinsey Global Institute,2013). Meanwhile, changes are experienced in almost everyinfrastructure construction project (Ibbs et al., 2007). Thesechanges are among the major reasons for project time delaysand over budget (Hwang et al., 2009). The rate of projectchange increase also the complexity (Zhang, 2013). Most of thecomplex projects involve a large number of stakeholders(Muller and Turner, 2007). Ignoring stakeholders may becomethe main reason for a complex project failure (Kangas, 2011;PMI, 2013b). It is widely accepted that the stakeholderconsensus and satisfaction is achieved through communication(PMI, 2013b). Realistic stakeholder expectations can be spotted

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Butt),

[email protected] (M. Naaranoja), [email protected](J. Savolainen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.0100263-7863/00/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

through effective communication routines (Mok et al., 2015).Insufficient communication and lack of stakeholder integrationare among the most common drivers for unattended changecauses and un-controlled change impacts in a project (Zhao etal., 2010). The development of effective communicationroutines between stakeholders requires considerable attentionand efforts during the project development and planning phase.The stakeholders may have different national and organiza-tional cultures (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005), which affectthe project communications. Loo (2002) identified that theproject cultures are not stable as they change during time (Loo,2002). The effective communication routines (Bakens et al.,2005; Kerzner, 2009) help to maintain stakeholder trust(Turner, 2009) and to keep track on the project culture changes(Marrewijk, 2007) in order to prevent the development ofdysfunctional culture (Bate, 1994).

Researchers have found that organizational culture typescan influence positively or negatively on knowledge sharing,depending on the culture type: clan, adhocracy, market, andhierarchy (Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011) or innovative, competitive,bureaucratic, and community (Cavaliere and Lombardi, 2015). Inthis paper, we have focused on five different types of culture

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.010&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.010




1580 A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595

(compare Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011; Bate, 1994; Prajogo andMcDermott, 2005; Zuo et al., 2009):

• developmental/ innovation culture where the organizationfocuses on developing the task and pursues to find newsolutions to the challenges

• group culture where decisions are reached at lower level• hierarchal project cultures where communication routines arerestrained

• rational culture focuses on reaching the goal as efficiently aspossible

• dysfunctional culture where some of the signs are visible:the internal competition is harder than outside competition;change resistance is hard; people depart from organization;strategies change based on management or culture fad,bureaucracy reigns supreme, innovation is not valued

According to our literature review, most of the proposed changemanagement models do not adequately focus on the role ofknowledge of stakeholders, although many (e.g., Kotter, 2007)recognized the importance of change communication. Changemanagement systems, with lacking communication routines, arepractical, however bureaucratic top level decision-making systems.The objective of this paper is to explore the role of effectivecommunication and stakeholder engagement in project changemanagement process. Engagement of stakeholders necessitatestheir participation and involvement (Deegan and Parkin, 2011).The research questions of this paper are as follows:

Q1: How do the different project communication routines affectstakeholder engagement during the change managementprocess?

Q2: How do the different communication routines andcultures facilitate stakeholder engagement in the changemanagement process?

By answering these questions, this research aims to clarify therole of communication routines during project changemanagementprocesses. The two action-based case studies demonstrate howeffective communication routines specifically designed during theproject planning phase effect on stakeholder engagement duringchange management processes throughout the project life cycle.

This paper begins with a brief overview of changemanagement,communication, and culture, as well as the role of stakeholders inchanges. This is followed by the description of research methodand case study. Communication routines and stakeholder cultureare described for both the cases. Then the role of case-specificcommunication and culture in the change process is discussed. Thepaper concludes with discussion for further research andcontribution of this paper.

2. Literature review

2.1. Change management in projects

Projects, although temporary endeavors, undergo changesduring the life cycle. Most of the time, project changes are caused

due to imperfect planning, lacking stakeholder involvement andimproper integration of project work packages (Zhang, 2013).Still, almost all the construction projects undergo planned orunplanned changes (Ibbs et al., 2007), which is a major reason fortheir cost and time overrun (Hwang et al., 2009). Such changesare considered as variation or modification from the originalscope, cost, time schedule, and agreed quality (Hao et al., 2008).Typically, a project may undergo change due to various factors.Examples of these causes include but are not limited to thefollowing factors: wrong interpretation of scope; conflictingstakeholder expectations or understanding about project func-tionality; change in regulations, laws, and standards; wrongproject assumptions; financial uncertainities; political uncer-tainties; technology improvements; human behavior-relateduncertanities; ommissions during engineering; mistakes duringconstruction; value engineering; delayed deliveries from thesub-contracors and vendors; non-conforming components andequipment; inclement weather and other force majeure condition;and incomplete or conflicting contract clauses (Love et al., 2002;Zhang, 2013; Hao et al., 2008). Concurrent occurrence of anytwo or more of the mentioned cause factors increase theimportance of change in complex project setups (Zhang, 2013)and hence the change impacts. However, the earlier the changecuase factor is identified during project life cycle, the easier itwould be to manage its impact (PMI, 2013c).

Changes have direct and indirect impacts on the projectoutcome (Moghaddam, 2012). Direct impacts of a change mayinclude additional work, deletion of work, demolition of workalready done, re-work, specification change, time lost instopping and restarting current task, revision in project reports,drawings and documents, reschedule to make up for the losttime, etc. Meanwhile, indirect impacts of a change can includethe following: stringent stakeholder relationships, decrease inthe interest and engagement of resources, loss of productivityduring construction, increased risks related to coordination andscope interfacing, change in the cash flows, and increasedcritical tasks in project time schedule. However, identifyingchange causes and minimizing their negative impacts requireconsiderable efforts. Lack of effective communication and lackof stakeholder integration are among the most common driversfor unattended change causes and un-controlled change impactsin a project (Zhao et al., 2010). Therefore, project stakeholdersshould be keen to understand the need for the changes and so tominimize their negative impact. This can be achieved byestablishing change management communication routines fromthe project planning phase.

A list of identified project change cause factors and changeimpacts are included in Table 1.

Project change causes and effects are known already; however,referring to the Engineering and Physical Sciences ResearchCouncil, Moghaddam (2012) mentioned that there are no widelyaccepted standard and comprehensive change managementmethods in construction projects. Likewise, the authors of thispaper believe that project management literature offers severalmethods and systems for the change management (PMI, 2013c:Zhao et al., 2010; Park and Pena-Mora, 2003; Moghaddam, 2012;Hao et al., 2008; Ibbs et al., 2001). For example, Hao et al.'s

Table 1Project change causes and impacts.

Project change cause factors Direct impacts of a project change In-direct impacts of a project change

- Wrong scope interpretations- Conflicting stakeholder about project functionality- Changing regulations, laws, and standards- Wrong project assumptions- Technological improvements- Omissions/mistakes during engineering and constructions- Wrong estimations (e-g resourcing, raw materials, time)- Delayed or non-conforming equipment deliveries- Conflicting contract clauses- Financial, social, and political uncertainties- Human behavior-related uncertainties- Force Majeure conditions (e.g., inclement weather)- Value engineering- Additional features demanded by the owner- Identification and involvement of a new stakeholder- Project management in effectiveness- Scope interfacing decision making- etc.

- Additional work- Deletion of work- Demolition of executed work- Re-work to meet specification- Change in work specifications- Time pressure to complete the work- Revisions in engineering documents,drawings, and reports- Rescheduling of the works- Updated testing procedures- Additional/ reduced criteria for acceptance- Inclusion of new definition in the contractExtension of contract clauses- Demands for extra features or warranties- etc.

- Stringent stakeholder relationship- Lacking interest and engagement of resources- Loss of productivity- Increased risks related to scope interfacingand coordination- Project cash flow changes- Altering critical path and increasing critical path tasks- Consequential losses or gains for the future business.- Stringent clauses for new agreements- Re-evaluation of suppliers, vendors, and contractors.- Updating of standard specifications of future use.- etc.

1581A. Butt et al. / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1579–1595

(2008) proposed a comprehensive change management systemfor tracking project change causes and effects. Our furtherobservation is that such models demand an intensive stakeholderengagement without providing detailed guidance about theimplementation. Consequently, an intensive stakeholder engage-ment implies that the decision-making process should beprolonged, especially in hierarchal project cultures wherecommunication routines are restrained. The underlying problemis that change management models fall short to amplify thesignificance of engaged project stakeholders once the actualproblems are occurring concurrently.

Unfortunately, involving stakeholder with appropriate com-munication routines is missing in such change managementmodels. What is the best way out? Is it to characterize the leveland/or type of change with its possible impacts? Then involve thekey stakeholders (Freeman, 1999) (Wang and Huang, 2006), forexample, the core teams, into the change management processes?The answer lies in an evolving practice to organize resources in aproject! For example, Kähkönen et al. (2012) have delineated therole of core teams for focused coordination on the arising issuesin a project. Developing core teams and establishing theircommunication routines facilitate decisionmaking rather at lowerproject hierarchy. This is one possible way for stakeholders tounderstand expectations, responsibility, and power of individualresources during communication. Therefore, disputes arisingfrom the conflict of interest, lacking authority and contractuallimitations are likely to be escalated to higher project hierarchy.

From project management literature, one can identify thatmost of the proposed change management systems areextended from a generic change management model compris-ing the following five sequential processes: identify change →evaluate and propose change → approve change → implementchange → review change. Henceforth, for the generalization ofour findings, we will use this five-step change managementmodel to analyze the stakeholder communication routines in

our two case projects. In the following two sub-sections, weaim to further establish our argument about the need forstakeholder engagement through appropriate communicationroutines. The first sub-section describes the project changeimplementation during construction. The second sub-sectionseeks guidance about project stakeholder communication fromthe organizational change management literature.

2.1.1. Implementation of project changes during constructionPractically, the changes once known during construction

lead to two possible solutions, either (i) re-work or (ii) in situmanagerial decisions (Park and Pena-Mora, 2003). Re-work is aprocess of re-doing those of the already performed work thatdoes not fulfill the agreed quality or functionality criteria forproject acceptance (Sun and Meng, 2009). Vice versa, theconstruction teams also practice in situ decisions (referred asmanagerial decisions) to deviate from original deliverable plan.Either of these two solutions is selected (Re-work or in situdecision), the project may suffer from additional costs, timedelays, low quality, and functionality compromises. Park andPena-Mora (2003) have observed that the construction teamstend to avoid re-work. It is because re-work necessitatesadditional resources resulting in higher time and cost impact onthe project completion. Re-work also accumulates time pressureon the contractors who then compromise on the work quality,and consequently this may result in more re-works. Therefore,with delayed construction the tendency to adopt in situmanagerial decision increases (Park and Pena-Mora, 2003).Alternatively, in situ managerial decision making is althoughpreferred to avoid the schedule and cost pressures duringconstruction, however it is not either free from consequences.

Construction process is a logical and efficient sequence ofwork deliverables. However, an in situ managerial decisionnecessitates alteration in the sequence of consequential works.Such alteration may further require (i) re-work or otherwise


followed by many other consequential in situ managerialdecisions. This dilemma of choosing between re-work andimplementing in situ decision may continue over the construc-tion period. Park and Pena-Mora (2003) further observed thatthe reduced response time, resulting from informed stake-holders, should increase the probability of preferring re-workover in situ managerial decision.

2.1.2. Change management as an inquiryOrganizations endeavor to transform their capabilities

(Barney et al., 2011) through change management guided bywise leadership (Kotter, 2007), flexible change projectstructures, and agile processes (Kerzner, 2009; Turner, 2009;PMI, 2013a). These organizational change managementprocesses, consisting planning, preparing, implementing, ben-efit realizing, and sustaining change, entail an active stake-holder engagement (Kotter, 2007). The change leaders andagents in an organization engage the stakeholders througheffective communication routines (Crawford and Nahmias,2010). Further, a study on managing complex projects directedleadership and communication skills as most significant traitsin managing project changes and uncertainties (PMI, 2013b).Kazmi and Naranoja (2013) observed the important role of thestakeholder communication in a significant organizational change.In Kotter's eight-step change management model, the first foursteps are focusing on the strength of leader's communication forembracing change (Kotter, 2007). Likewise, we have learned thatfor embracing a change and controlling its outcomes thestakeholder engagement through efficient communication routinesare crucial. However, Pettigrew (2001) cautioned that changemanagement processes and deliberate actions undertaken by thechange agents is under-researched in literature. Such shortcomingsin the project management literature became obvious during ourliterature review as well.

2.2. Project communication and culture

Since projects are unique, temporary, giving discontinuouswork contents to personnel, and short-term oriented, theyrequire different ways of communicating (Prencipe and Tell,2001). Multidisciplinary projects require a massive amount ofinformation exchange and communication to enhance theneeded contribution for project success. Especially, in complexand demanding projects, the enormous amount of informationexchange is very typical. Nevertheless, it is practicallyimpossible for each project participant to know everything. Itshould be reassured that all stakeholders are timely communi-cated with the correct and relevant information. For thispurpose, stakeholders deploy three-mode communication: pushcommunication, pull communication, and interactive commu-nication (PMI, 2013c). Push communication aims to send thespecific information to the targeted stakeholder groups, forexample, through letters, memos, and e-mails. Through pullcommunication, stakeholders extract the needed information,for example, from project information repository or intranet.Push and pull communication is the result of individual stake-holder actions; however, interactive communication requires

multidirectional information exchange between project stake-holders. Apparently, interactive communication is the mostefficient way to seek stakeholder common understanding (PMI,2013c). Essentially, the project-specific combination of thesethree modes establishes the effective communication routines.

An effective communication is about availability of correctinformation to the right stakeholders at the “right time and in acost-effective manner” (Kerzner, 2009, p. 232), and it aims tokeep reinstating stakeholders' understanding about the projectdeliverables (Bakens et al., 2005; Davis, 2016). This paper uses“project communication” as the overall term for all aspects ofcommunication (Fig. 1) in a project (Kerzner, 2009; Ramsing,2009):

▪ Project communication is the overall term for all aspects ofcommunication in projects.

▪ External project communication deals with projectstakeholders.

▪ Internal project communication covers all aspects of bothwritten and interpersonal communication in a project.

▪ Documented project communication defines the use ofdocumentation, data, information, design and planning docu-mentation (drawings, photos, models, simulations, etc.), andproject management systems.

▪ Interpersonal project communication defines the personalinteraction in a project between project managers, manage-ment, project team members, project stakeholders and otherindividuals who may, formally or informally, be of animportance to the project. E-mail is seen as a form ofinterpersonal communication due to its character of frequentformal and informal ways of communicating.

▪ Scheduled project-related communication meetings eitherface to face or virtually as well as project documents sent asplanned.

▪ Non-scheduled project-related communication is both face-to-face or virtual meetings and e-mails.

▪ Professional/formal communication, scheduled and unsched-uled, as seen necessary to furnish the project deliverables.

▪ Personal/informal communication, scheduled and unscheduled,as seen necessary to build trust, rapport and to resolve anysituation leading to potential conflict.

Kerzner (2009) cautioned that although a rich exchange ofproject information takes place, still the stakeholders makeconflicting interpretations. These conflicting interpretationsdiminish away the trust among stakeholders and hence theircommitment towards project success erodes. The communica-tion crux is to gain stakeholder commitment for the projectsuccess (Turner, 2009). Hence, communication routines shouldfacilitate stakeholder knowledge sharing in order to learn aboutthe others' perspectives, their expectations and interest in theproject, and their power to shape the project outcomes. Karlsenet al. (2008) pointed out that there is a need to communicate byusing both professional and personal channels (Karlsen et al.,2008). Professional, more formal, communication channel canbe official meetings and discussions. Personal channels are theinformal ways of communication like chatting in corridors or

Fig. 1. Communication in project developed from Ramsing (2009) and Kerzner (2009).

Table 2Project culture components and characteristics adopted from Zuo et al. (2009).

Project culturalcomponents

Cultural characteristics

Integrative Input of many parties is integrated into the project duringthe early phase of project.

Cooperative Though there are conflicts during the projects they areseen as a normal for the process. The objectives of projectparticipants are aligned together. Teamwork is popular.

Goal oriented Results are always given the highest priority while themeans to obtain goals can be allowed. Risk taking isacceptable.

Flexible The way a project is processed is very flexible and easy tochange in the projects within flexible culture. Innovativeapproaches are encouraged and rewarded in the projectprocess. Failure is viewed as an opportunity for learningand improvement.

People oriented Decision making may be passed down. Opportunities aregiven to develop capabilities during the project process.


during dinner. Berkun (2005) demonstrated that throughinformal channel of communication it is easier to gain trust inrelationship building. Misztal (1996) described trust as theparticular vital element for the stable relationship andcooperation building that is needed in daily interaction inprojects. Likewise, an open mind-set is also required becausethrough communication stakeholders will question each other'swork routines, assumptions and believes; if not aligned oroutdated, then already established understandings should bechanged (Baker and Sinkula, 1999).

Our understanding is that project culture has an important rolewhen developing communication routines for change manage-ment processes (Ibbs et al., 2001). Therefore, the followingsub-section is dedicated to review the importance of projectculture types and components and the role of communicationroutines.

2.2.1. Project culture and communicationThe academic literature on organizational culture in project

management has focused on shared cultural values and pursueto solve problems (Henrie, 2005; Wang, 2001; Anderssen,2003; Quinn and Cameron, 1988). Kendra and Taplin (2004)noted that a project culture consists of multiple fragmentedsubcultures. Zuo et al. (2009) have deduced a project cultureframework consisting of major components: integrative,cooperative, goal oriented, flexible, and people oriented. Thedominating characteristics of these components in mentioned inTable 2:

Project stakeholders from varying national and/or organization-al cultures jointly constitute the project culture. Comparableprojects, however, involving different stakeholder nationalitiesmay exhibit different cultural characteristics. For example, in a bigEuropean construction project, the culture included the compo-nents of innovativeness, creativeness, non-traditionalism, andindependency (Marrewijk, 2007). Contrarily, Chinese constructionprojects' culture has dominated by goal-oriented approach (Zuoet al., 2009). Project stakeholders' organizational cultures also

affect the communication. One of the stakeholders might beworking in hierarchical culture and other in an organization withdevelopment culture (Fig. 2). The project participant fromdevelopment culture will have limited understanding about whythe other company representatives just stick to the contractualdocuments and are not willing to find other solutions or delayingthe process. Further, inter-organizational project participants havedifferent backgrounds (education and career paths) that may alsolead to contradicting interpretations. The other stakeholder can beunder pressure and not able to listen or read the message properlyand thus the message is misunderstood. Hence, in order tocommunicate effectively, we need to learn to ask for feedback thatwill enable us to understand how our message is received(Shannon, 1948).

Importantly, project cultures are not static but constantlyevolve during the project life cycle (Loo, 2002). Meanwhile,changing project culture lead to a dysfunctional stage (Bate,

Fig. 2. The organizational culture (modified Prajogo and McDermott, 2005).


1994). In dysfunctional stage, the project is caught in anunpleasant circle of growing frustration, increasing isolation,losing innovativeness, and decreasing ability to adapt to thechanges in the wider environment (Marrewijk, 2007). There-fore, to maintain the stakeholder trust and their participation(Turner, 2009) during change management processes, theproject practitioners should communicate effectively to avoiddysfunctional project culture (Weaver, 2007; Ibbs et al., 2001).

2.3. Project changes and stakeholders communication

Project stakeholder is an individual or group “who can affector is affected by” the outcome of project (Freeman, 1984).Stakeholders are influential players and their role is comprehen-sive, however complicated as well (Littau et al., 2010). Therefore,the management of stakeholders' expectations is important inevery project (Kangas, 2011; Cleland, 1986; Olander and Landin,2005; Davis, 2016) and so in the change management processes(Bourne and Walker, 2005). Stakeholder communication iscritical (PMI, 2013c, b), but it is not sufficient to only informproject changes to the stakeholders (Hao et al., 2008; Davis,2016). Herein, the position of the authors is that stakeholderparticipation should be facilitated (and encouraged) throughoutthe change management process, beginning from the changeidentification. It should be make sure that the messages are timelydistributed and expectations are learned; however, it is merelypossible with ineffective communication routines. This in returndemands focusing on integrative and people-oriented compo-nents of project culture (Zuo et al., 2009). An effective com-munication triggers stakeholder coordination to integrate theirexpectations within high quality work deliveries (Villagarcia andCardoso, 1999) and managing project changes (Griffith-Cooperand King, 2007) at optimum cost and schedule. Practically, itmeans that effective communication routines should lead tojust-in-time stakeholder agreement on the identified/proposed/required changes.

It is a known fact that major chunk of project manager's time isconsumed in communicating with stakeholders. For example,from a stakeholder collaboration study in construction business

success, Ahuja et al. (2009) believed that communicationaccounts for 75–90% of project managers work time. Commu-nicating relevant and irrelevant information to all the stakeholdersis not a wise choice (PMI, 2013c), but it is prudent to seek adifferentiated communication approach for various stakeholdergroups (Ramsing, 2009). Accordingly, the project managementpractitioners and leaders are taught (Thomas and Mengel, 2008)to tailor their communication routines (Muller and Turner, 2010).Accordingly, project communication routines are ramifiedthrough the various stakeholder analysis techniques. For example,project stakeholders based on their power and interest are groupedinto four categories to design customized communication routinesfor each group (Olander and Landin, 2005). Stakeholder groupingthrough salient model (Mitchell et al., 1997) for stakeholderidentification is also a prominent tool used for designing projectcommunication (Yang et al., 2011; Mok et al., 2015). Thecommunication routines based on these models are developed,but only at once, for the stakeholder engagement throughoutproject life cycle (Yang et al., 2011). However, our observation isthat project change communication routines need more consid-erations than the project stakeholder analysis, and should beupdated during project life cycle.

Technological advancements offer several ICT applicationsfor projects (Charoenngam et al., 2003; Naaranoja, 2014).These applications (and tools) offer certain capacity to enhancethe effectiveness in stakeholder communication (Ahuja et al.,2009). However, from an ICT implementation study, Wong(2007) observed that despite its known benefits, the implemen-tation of ICT in construction industry has faced severalchallenges. It is because the project-specific customized ICTapplication is neglected (Charoenngam et al., 2003). On top ofthat, an over empasis on ICT also make communicationrotuines very formal (Bagozzi, 2011; Gorse and Emmitt, 2003)and restrained during the change management process.

3. Methods

Our paper deploys action-based qualitative case studyresearch. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) elucidated that the word“qualitative” entails processes and meanings that are notmeticulously gauged and examined in terms of “quantifiableintensity or frequency” (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998, 2011).Meanwhile, one of case study research strengths is its ability toinvestigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-lifecontext, especially when the boundaries between phenomenonand its context are not distinguishable (Yin, 2003). Accordingly,to study construction projects as research cases, pragmatism isconsidered to be the most favorable paradigm (Naaranoja et al.,2014a). It is because that pragmatism is a problem centeredaction-based research approach where researchers deploy variousdata collection methodologies in real-world settings (Naaranoja,2014), which help in elucidating the context-phenomenarelationship. With pragmatic approach to reality, action re-searchers bring evidence-based models from their fieldwork(Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). Therefore, pragmatists, the actionresearchers, have capacity to address organizational issues as well


as to fulfill the criteria of academic research (Badham and Sense,2006).

Empirical data for this research were gained through authors'contribution in the delivery of two demonstration projects(Naaranoja et al., 2014a), the research cases. They facilitated,designed, implemented, and updated the way of working,including communication routines, in the case projects. There-fore, the data collection is result of their observation, participa-tion, contribution, and reflection on the project deliverables. It isimportant to mention that during this process, the authors couldonly influence the outcome of the projects to the extent of theirlimited (and specific) responsibilities. Henceforth, the analyzeddata for this paper were collected during these contributions to thecase projects, the authors' attendance in project stakeholdermeetings, accessing minutes of meetings (and other relateddocument repositories), preparing and/or otherwise reviewingvarious stakeholder reports, exchanging e-mails, phone calls,participating in brain storming sessions, and also through activelydiscussing day-to-day issues with the project team members andother stakeholders.

The two demonstration projects were both mainly construc-tion projects but purposefully selected to be different when itcomes to the size: a very small project and a mega size project.The mega project had enough resources to invest on commu-nication routines, and the second case although small is animportant project for the owner and end users. These differentkinds of cases enabled the comparison of stakeholder com-munication routines and their impact on change managementprocesses. Table 3 gives an overview of our demonstrationprojects. The following two sub-sections provide the contextualdetails of the cases.

3.1. Case 1: energy infrastructure project

The first case is an engineering procurement and construction(EPC) energy infrastructure project in Asia. The project beingcrucial for the country's energy policy and economic developmentinvolved several stakeholders. A multinational joint ventureconstituted the project owner. Project owner also involved its

Table 3Characteristic comparison between the case projects.

Project characteristics Case 1—Energy infrastructure project

Project objective Energy infrastructureScope setup Engineering, procurement, and constructionProject type Green field projectCapital expenditure ~700 M euroProject duration ~32 months (after formal agreements)Site location AsiaKey stakeholder cultures European (Scandinavia), South East Asian,

and ArabianKey stakeholder education and profession Mainly engineers.

Career progression in energy infrastructureconstruction, and operation and maintenanc

Contract setup Owner–contractor relationship. However, bthe parties established from Joint Venturesetups.

Action researcher role in the project Project core team member

consulting engineer, plant operator, lending banks and theirengineers, fuel and water suppliers, local communities, andvarious experts from the national authorities. The EPC contractoralso constituted from the consortium of two multinationalcontracting companies. The contract agreement between ownerand contractor was impliedly based on FIDIC Silver Bookstructure and its guiding principles. It means that changes requiredto fulfill “any” of the intended functionality of project was notcommercially compensated by the project owner, but only bycontract variations and value engineering. Hence, the contractorhad to ensure that uncompensated changes should be avoided.Otherwise, an inevitable change should be identified in the earliestpossible stage of project. Thus, the complexity in this project wasdue to the geopolitical significance of project, the involvement ofmultiple project stakeholders, the challenging contractual clauses,and the scope interfaces.

One of the authors, being part of contractor's core team,participated in the development of project execution plans.These plans also included the tools used to manage the complexcommunication with multiple interfaces. For this particularresearch, the tools used to manage communication interfacesbetween owner – contractor – consulting engineers are studied.

3.2. Case 2: dance education facility renovation project

The second demonstration case is a renovation project for aneducational facility in Finland. The complexity of this project wasrelated to satisfy the (partially conflicting) needs of manystakeholder groups during the designing and construction stagesof the project. The project was crucial for end users since theyneeded updated facilities to teach, present, and research music. Theproject owner, the owner of the property, directly involved severalstakeholders mainly including project management consultant,design coordination consultant, architect, other designers, andconstruction company. The construction company then madecontracts with suppliers. Other stakeholders were facility users:professors, researchers, lecturers, individual students, studentorganizations, and even anticipated future students from high

Case 2—Dancing education facility renovation project

Facility development(EPC) Engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC)

Renovation project~300 K euro~9 monthsEurope (Finland)

British, Scandinavian (Finnish)

development,e.

From diverse education backgrounds.Career progression also diversified in field of education,regularities, regularities, and construction.

oth(JV) and consortium

Owner–contractor–user relationship.

Project researchers; project consultant


school, facility management service, and a representative of theFinnish National Board of Antiquities.

Two of the authors had a researcher role in this project andadditionally one of them had a small role as consultant in theproject. The original aim of the research project was to studythe stakeholder involvement during planning and constructionstages. This project has been analyzed in several publishedpapers using different perspectives and different sets of authors(Naaranoja et al., 2014a, 2015).

4. Analysis

4.1. Case 1—energy infrastructure project

4.1.1. Explicating communication routinesThis large project required planned communication routines

for all the key stakeholders. The communication requirementshad to be written down in the contractual agreement due to thecomplex setup. The contract contained information about “whatis to be done” and “why it is to be done”. The communicationtools and practices were agreed during the planning phase as inevery project. These communication tools and practices aremeant to delineate “how to be done” and “when to be done.”Ideally, such decisions between the contracted parties should bepresented in the project plan. This has been the practice in Case1, where the preparation of project plan was initiated ever sincethe (project) development phase. Meanwhile, the communica-tion role of each key stakeholder was also agreed and itincluded the clarification of interfaces and customized imple-mentation of ICT tools. The selection and development ofproject customized ICT tools was a worthwhile effort in thiscase. The success of such a customization requires jointworking of IT experts as well as the project core teams. Forexample, many of the key stakeholders having an understand-ing about project business (Kerzner, 2009, has detailed the typeof organizations for executing a project) had their owndocument management systems (at individual organizationlevel). Therefore, the key for successful communication was toagree on how these different systems should interact. For anexecutable project plan, the following accomplishments estab-lished the praxes of communication routines:

1. Contractual documents: Contract, its appendices, andapplicable standards facilitated in establishing the definitionof each stakeholder's interest, their power to influence theproject outcomes, and hence their role in communication. Thisway the rules for communication interfaces were established.

2. Project core teams: Project core teams were identified andtheir participants were nominated from all key stakeholders.For example, the core team for project time schedule,civil, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and constructionestablished. Due to similarity in their professions, each coreteam participants had shared know-how about the project andits functionality. The development of core teams havingmembers participating from different stakeholders, an increas-ing practice, facilitated the engagement and coordination(Kähkönen et al., 2012; Naaranoja et al., 2014a) by utilizing

effective way of communication. Thus, provided focusedcoordination on the arising issues and minimized theagreement time.The establishment of such teams has also been a complexprocess because of multiple interfaces. Therefore, it isimportant to nominate communication leader for each coreteam. Such a nomination was based on the contractual positionof a party or its scope superiority or otherwise its expertiseknowledge. Profession/experience-based core teams facilitateda group culture where decisions were reached at lower level inthe project organizations. However, there had been fewexceptional events which required decisions to be made athigher level in project organization.

3. Project communication matrix: The communication ma-trix, started to develop during project planning phase,provided the basis for agreeing communication routinesbetween project stakeholders. Many of the communicationroutines in this matrix had links to the contractualrequirement (as applicable). Consequently, the objectivefor each communication routine was then defined. Also, themedium of each routine was defined along with itsoccurrence frequency, including the audience/participantsto be invited. Communication routine owner was specifiedand also the deliverables to be furnished. Worthwhile tomention that although this communication matrix wasdeveloped during the planning phase, however with thework progress and materialization of few risks, some newcommunication routines were also included.Communication matrix played a significant role to patronizethe meeting routines between core teams as well as otherstakeholder groups. The face-to-face meetings had been thepreference; however, online/live meetings were also prac-ticed whenever required to avoid ambiguities and maintainthe trust. To ensure the effectiveness of agreed decisionsamong the stakeholders, rules for conducting the meetingswere developed and followed up. The structure of commu-nication matrix used for this project is shown in Table 4(Representation of actual communication routines but thetext is not exacting the decisions in actual settings.) Tens ofsuch routines were decided, defined, and practiced by thestakeholders.

4. Project database shared server: The development of projectdata server was based on share point platform that proved to bea push and pull communication central point. The communi-cation through the shared server was logged with agreedcommunication numbering with SharePoint server protocol.

5. Project directory: Project directory, a common livingdocument for all the key stakeholders, was developed.Such a document was containing the names, roles, andcontact information about each resource.

6. Design comment sheet: Based on agreed format thesecomment sheets helped in gaining consensus between theowner and the contractor. Initially, these comment sheetswere also very helpful to identify the changes and then alsoto verify the impact of implemented changes.

7. Scope interfacing issue list: One complexity in the projectwas scope distribution among the contractors, which

Table

4Project

communicationmatrixstructurein

energy

infrastructure

project.

Sr.no

.Com

munication

Rou

tine

Objectiv

eMedium

Frequency

Audience

Routin

eOwner

Tim

eline

Deliverable

Contract

reference

1Contractorreview

meetin

gTodiscussthescopedeliv

ery

interfaceobstacles,review

theprogress,discussthe

upcomingtargetsand

challenges.

Atsite

Faceto

face

Monthly

Contractorconsortiu

msite

team

s;consortiu

mteam

leaders;consortiu

mdesign

team

s

Contractor'sconsortiu

mprojectleader

Untilproject

hand

over

Agend

a;minutes

ofmeetin

gsin

electronic

form

at

–

2Daily

constructio

nrepo

rts

Toshow

thestatus

ofdaily

activ

ities

andtheirprogress

Electronicform

at(achievedin

paper

form

atSite)

Daily

Contractorconsortiu

msite

team

sSite

constructio

nmanager

Untilproject

hand

over

Daily

prog

ress

repo

rtContract

clause

no.

3Erectionschedule

Schedules

indicatin

gthe

activ

ities

completed

last

week,

inprog

ress

incurrentweekandwhatto

bedo

nein

next

week

E-m

ail

Weekly

Owner'sengineer

throug

hshared

server

with

copy

toprojectmailgrou

ps

Site

constructio

nscheduler

Untilcompletionof

constructio

nwork

Weeklystatus

report

Contract

clause

no.

4Weeklysite

meetin

gsTodiscusswith

owner'sengineer

abou

tthesite

progress,HSE,

quality

andsecurity-related

issues

Faceto

face

Weekly

Owner'sengineer;

contractor

site

team

Site

constructio

nmanager

Untilcompletionof

constructio

nworks

Minutes

ofmeetin

gbasedon

standard

form

at

–


required continuous follow-up and agreement on interfacingbetween both the contractors. This scope interfacing issuelist had been submitted to the owner and owner's engineerfor their information about the possible discrepancies andrisks that could have led to the possible project changes.

8. Risk log register: Continuous follow-up of project risks aremaintained during the life cycle. This risk log was alsoincluding the schedule critical path analysis.

9. Project quality management system: Project quality man-agement system was developed and followed up properly.Such a system facilitated transparency and developed trustamong the stakeholders that the project outcomes would fulfillthe defined objectives of its investment.

4.1.2. Change communication-culture analysisOur first case describes how to manage a complex project

involving multiple stakeholders from diverse cultures in anorderly way by designing effective communication routines,which also supported change management processes. They hadplenty of tools, for example, communication matrix andwell-organized routines to ensure efficient flow of projectinformation among the stakeholders. The aim of projectcommunication routines was to support stakeholder participa-tion in order to ensure commitment and trust and to have asuccessful project. The establishment of project core teams andthe effective communication routines developed a “groupculture.” In addition, the stakeholders were empowered toparticipate in decision making. However, conflicts appeareddue to unclear contractual definitions. Such contractualconflicts turned project culture more hierarchical and thusdecisions could only be reached with cooperation, though at ahigher level in project organization. Here again, the commu-nication routines helped to elevate conflicts to the level wherecontractual issues were resolved.

Learned through our literature review, a generic changeprocess model in construction comprises the following fivesequential stages: identify change → evaluate and proposechange → approve change → implement change → reviewchange effects. We have used this generic model to delineateour understanding about the stakeholder involvement inmanaging change through effective communication routines.To facilitate the readers' understanding, the relationshipbetween change management, stakeholders, and communica-tion routines is presented in Table 5.

In this case project, the staff was encouraged through structuralflexibility and empowerment. Such developmental culture in thecontractor's organization gave enough resources to design soundcommunication routines. Then the formation of core teams andtheir communication routines helped to maintain the stakeholders'consensus during the project change processes. These routines alsoprevented, to a considerable extent, the overflow of information tostakeholders and project team members. In difficult situations, likewhen there was no consensus about an expensive change approval,these communication routines expedited (and facilitated) thedecision-making process to attain consensus among the stake-holders. Table 6 summarizes the stakeholder communication and

Table 5Case 1: Change management processes and role of communication routines.

Change management process Actions by project team( and core teams)

Communication tools Communication type Decision level

Identify change The changes were identifiedfrom the design commentsheets and interfacing issue list.

design comment sheets; scopeinterfacing issue list; qualitymanagement system

All three modes ofcommunications (push, pull,and interactive communication)

Project core teams

Evaluate and propose change The evaluation for requiredchanges had been a trickysituation as the most thechanges could not be claimedfrom owner. Hence, for theagreed changes, the work andlifetime responsibilities had tobe agreed between thecontractor consortiums.

Risk log register; designcomment sheets;interfacing issue list


Project core teams

Approve/reject change The acknowledged changeshad to be approved. If so, thenhad to be informed to owner forfurther remarks or rejection.

Notices and letters list Interactive communication Contractor team leader, owner,and owner's engineer

Implement change The design and constructionchanges implemented throughthe weekly task/work lists.

Project schedule programme;quality management system


Project core teams

Review change effects The review of implementedchanges has been demonstratedas a routine follow-up ofworks, unless the changesbeing carried out does notimplied any further risk.

Interfacing issue list; risk logregister; project scheduleprogramme

Interactive communication Project core teams andproject team leaders


culture of Case 1 during different project phases and observedchange management practices.

4.2. Case 2—dance education facility renovation project

4.2.1. Explicating communication routinesThe project communication plan of our second case

(education facility renovation) can be divided into the initialco-creation planning phase, technical design phase, and imple-mentation phase (construction phase). The communicationmethod varied during co-creation planning, technical designing,

Table 6Summarizing the communication, culture and stakeholder participation in Case 1.

Communication and culture Case 1: project phases

Contract development Plann

Project culture Developmental culture Deve

Dominating cultural component Cooperative IntegStakeholder participation Very active but flexible participation VeryCommunication practices Interactive and push communication,

with les defined/agreed routinesInteracommdefin

Stakeholder interactions Formal FormChange management practices NA Chan

for thChanstakeall thexpecoutco

and implementation phase of this project. The architect wasselected in the very beginning of the project. The communicationduring the three phases is described separately. One of the authorswas involved in the first two (phases) as cost estimator and designcoordination consultant.

4.2.1.1. Co-creation planning phase. During this phase, acollaborative culture was realized. The collaboration process was5 days long and had five stages. In planning sessions, the aim wasto get “as many ideas as possible,” and during this stage, more than40 persons were present at the working sessions and approximately

ing and engineering Execution

lopmental culture Group culture; sometimes adjusted tohierarchal culture

rative People orientedactive and creative participation Empowered and controlled participationctive, push, and pullunication withed/agreed routines and tools.

Interactive, push, and pullcommunication with defined/agreedroutines and tools.

al and informal Formal and informalge identifications were encouragede integration of work scopes.ge evaluations were made. Theholders were kept informed aboute change management process andted variations in the projectmes.

The key stakeholders through core teamswere involved in the identification ofproject changes and were responsible tomake change decisions at lowerhierarchal level. The aim was tominimize the change impacts on theintegrative solution packages and also tothe project cost and schedule.


100 in whole afternoon sessions where the ideas were furtherdeveloped and criticized. There were also meetings where theparticipants were strictly limited to the steering group. The processstarted with vision workshop, where the focus was on the futureactivities at the education facility after 20 years. When the visionwas clear, the workshop focused on developing alternativeconcepts that supported future activities. Using these concepts,the plans were developed; these plans were tested with mock-upsand scale models. The last stage was the refining of the plan anddecision making related to the planning. The process was wellplanned, and there was a core team selected who participated ineach session. The positive atmosphere also helped to solveconflicting interests. Several professionals were invited to givecritics and to further develop the plans after the concepts weredeveloped and drafts of the plans were created. The stakeholders ofthis process were the facility users (professors, students, and evenanticipated future students from high school), owners, architect,other designers, quantity surveyor, and a representative of theFinnish National Board of Antiquities. The collaboration wasbased on facilitated modified Charrette process (Naaranoja et al.,2015). At the end of this stage, the facility renovation plan wascreated:

(1) The functional and spatial decisions were collected as aresult from the charrette process.

(2) Architect drafted the first version of the complete layout.(3) The preliminary and very rough cost estimate was created

in 2 weeks.(4) In addition, guidelines for technical design stage how to

prioritize the objectives if the budget exceeded.

The facility users had not budgeted money for therenovation, and they were forced to make financing decisionsince the realization of the project was based on agreement thatboth property owner and facility user would share the costs.The collaborative process ensured facility users the importanceof this renovation, and they were able to make the decision.Property owner had already budgeted for this project and thedecision making was easy for them.

4.2.1.2. Technical design phase. Architect and technicaldesigners created plans. The building permit required architec-tural plans as well as significantly changed ventilation plans.The architect took care of museum viewpoint—the requirementto protect the historical building.

During the technical design, a project management consultant/coordinator took care that the end users understood the designdocuments. This consultant also ensured that improvementproposals of the end users were adequately merged in the finaldesign documents. Coincidentally, the project managementconsultant/coordinator had to leave the project while the technicaldesign was still in progress. Consequently, the finalized technicaldesign was issued for construction while the end users could notverify that their needs were incorporated.

4.2.1.3. Implementation phase. Contracts specified the roleand aims of each partner. There was written a communication

plan that described the communication media and the contactperson of each stakeholder with addresses.

During construction phase, the construction company madea plan that contained the following communication practices:

1. Contractual documents: Contract, its appendices, and appli-cable standards facilitate in establishing the definition of eachstakeholder's role in communication. The main function ofstating the roles in the contract agreement is that it is necessaryto know who has power to order additional work and designchanges during the implementation (building) phase.

2. Implementation group: The general foreman (who representsthe main contractor), responsible designers, and site worksafety organization were nominated in official documents(agreements and building permit documents). The legalobligations were stated in writing. Also, the property ownerrelations responsibilities were stated in agreements in written.

3. Document delivery: This project delivered documents viae-mails but also a project document database was used.However, in urgent situations the documents were sent bydirect e-mails.

4. Project directory: Contact list, as a living document, wasdeveloped. Such a list contained the names, roles, and contactinformation about each person who contributed or wouldcontribute to project.

5. Risks: Risks were discussed in official and in unofficialmeetings. A proper risk management plan was considerednot to be required because of limited scope of this project.Financial risk was discussed in early phases of the project,but in the later phases, it was stated in the minutes thateverybody should “stay within the budget.”

6. Project communication routines: The communication of asmall project was rather ad hoc. However, for readers'understanding, we are presenting these routines in a matrixform to make it comparable with to the Case 1 (Table 7).The text and data in the following figure are only indicative,and it does not represent the actual information about theproject. Communication routines were included based oncontractual requirement as well as practical requirements forthis project. The “communication routine owner” was alsospecified with deliverables to be furnished.

During implementation phase, face-to-face meetings wereorganized. If somebody was not able to come in person, virtualparticipation was organized. These meeting routines weredeveloped to fulfill the needs of construction core team anddecision makers of the contractual parties. There were also severalofficial and unofficial meetings. Document exchange happenedvia e-mails. The aim was to work efficiently in order to hand overthe project according to the initial plan “on time.” The initiationstage of contract contained several detailed planning needs thatwere documented as well. It is important to mention, that theproject documentation did not contain change needs or variation.

4.2.2. Change communication-culture analysisThe second case study illustrates how the co-creation

planning process might help in the beginning of the project.

Table 7Communication routines in an educational facility renovation project.

Sr. no. Communicationroutine

Objective Medium Frequency Audience Routineowner

Timeline Deliverable

0 Site discussion To agree on smallalteration in orderto manage the projectcompletion on time

Unofficialdiscussion

When necessary Site managerSite supervisor

Sitemanager

– No deliverables

1 Site teammeetings(when needed)

To discuss the scope ofobstacles, review ofprogress, discuss thetargets, and challenges

At siteFace to face

When necessaryAt least weekly

Site manager, sitesupervisor,architect

Sitemanager

– Not necessary any ifneeded the outcomeis written into dailyconstructionoperation memo

2 Dailyconstructionoperation

To show the status of dailyactivities and smallagreements withowners site auditor

Web-basedsystem

Daily Contractor and sitesupervisor

Sitemanager

– Daily progressreport and smallagreements

3 Schedule Weekly the contractordocumented a progressreport

Schedule visibleon wall

Weeklycheckedbut the schedulewas notchanged

Site manager, sitesupervisor

Sitemanager

– The site diarydocumentation

4 Site meetings The owner representativesinvites the meeting andgives each stakeholderan opportunity to talk aboutwhatever they have in mind

At site, face toface

Not regularly Owner, sitesupervisor,site team,end users

Owner – Agenda, minutes ofmeetings


During the co-creation planning phase, the culture wasdevelopmental where the flexibility, motivation, and creativitywere important. However, during the technical planning andimplementation phases, the project culture had been very“straightforward.” Through a very straightforward and goal-oriented culture, the project is implemented according todefinition of contracts. However, the contact with the end usersand project owner was avoided. Consequently, to implement anyvariation managerial decisions using sense making of the sitepersonnel had chosen. In such a scenario, it appeared that projectwould be completed within budget and also on time. However,such practices make project stakeholders distrustful while theproject functionality lacks.

After the handover meeting the owner and users held anemergency meeting, where they listed all such work andinstallations that needed to be done before the premises could

Table 8Case 2: Change management processes and role of communication routines (accord

Change managementprocess

Actions by project team (and core teams) Com

Identify change Hand over meeting the change needs wereobserved and discussed

Oral

Evaluate and propose change Emergency meeting where the changeneed was discussed

Oral

Approve/reject change During emergency meeting OralIssu

Implement Change Contractor implemented the changes RepReview Change effects A new hand over meeting was arranged Issu

be handed over to students and teachers. The emergencymeeting was needed since the contractor had not understood thespecial needs of the users due to inadequate communication(Table 8).

Unfortunately, during implementation phase, the workefficiency was preferred over required project functionality. Inaddition, considering it a normal small construction project, therequired changes were not recognized or otherwise were notcommunicated with the key stakeholders. Therefore, in oursecond case, the flexibility focused people-oriented cultureobserved during the co-creation planning was lost in thetechnical planning and implementation phases. It is because theproject culture converted to more straight forward (and goaloriented) decision making where due attention to stakeholders'communication lacked. We observed that such “straightforward” culture at site does not fit into the Prajogo and

ing to the observation).

munication tools Communication type Decision level

communication Interactive communication End users

communication Interactive communication Property owner and endusers

communicatione list

Interactive and push type ofcommunication

Property owner, endusers

ort on the site diary Pull type of communication Sitee list Interactive communication Project core teams and

project team leaders

Table 9Summarizing the communication, culture, and stakeholder participation in Case 2.

Communication and culture Case 2: project phases

Co-creation Engineering and planning Execution

Project culture Group culture Hierarchal culture Rational cultureDominating cultural

componentPeople oriented Cooperative Goal oriented

Stakeholder participation Active and creative participation Controlled participation Controlled participation with restrictedcontributions

Communication practices Mainly interactive communication,but also push communicationas needed

Interactive, push, and pull communicationwith less defined communication routinesespecially for upcoming/unplanned situations

Interactive, push, and pullcommunication with less definedcommunication routines especiallyfor upcoming/unplanned situations

Stakeholder interactions Formal Formal FormalChange management

practicesNA Changes identifications were encouraged

but the timely distribution of informationfelt to remain at required level dueto unpracticed communication routines(mainly due to unavailability of budgetedresources).

Changes were not openly discussedbecause of limited communicationroutines and consequently shifting theproject culture. Even, in case of informedstakeholders, the timely decisions were notobserved and construction contractorpreferred in situ decision making.


McDermott (2005) model about organizational cultures.Table 9 summarizes the communication and culture of Case 2during different project phases and observed change manage-ment practices.

5. Discussion

This paper attempted to demonstrate the change communi-cation routines and their relevance to the stakeholder engage-ment and changing project culture. According to Davis (2016),literature offers sufficient guidance about communicationbetween the project core teams and stakeholders. Accordingto our opinion, the available guidance did not sufficiently coverthe change management process. In the literature review part,the change management models and systems were introducedto require communication about information flow over time,coordination, trust, balanced culture, common stakeholderunderstanding, and decision making (Zhao et al., 2010; Parkand Pena-Mora, 2003; Hao et al., 2008; Ibbs et al., 2001; PMI,2013c). Practical guidance and examples of such communica-tion routines focus currently on research projects (Pinnacle,2012) or give ideas (Harvard University, 2016) or based onexperiences of a person (Gill, 2015). This paper described thecommunication routines in two case projects and then analyzedtheir implications for the stakeholder engagement and evolvingproject culture during the change management processes.

Many change management models (Zhao et al., 2010; Haoet al., 2008) focus on change management processes during theexecution phase. This paper covered the whole life cycle of twoprojects because it is known (PMI, 2013c) that if we find thechange need early, the change will cause less harm and money.For example, the first case maintained change managementtools from the very beginning to the end like the scope interfaceissue list during the contract development phase and whenclosing the project.

In the literature review section, we combined in Table 1various project change causes (Love et al., 2002; Zhang, 2013;Hao et al., 2008; Moghaddam, 2012) and their impacts(Moghaddam, 2012; Hao et al., 2008; PMI, 2013c). Bycombining the project change causes and impacts, we aim toencourage that change management should not be limited to theimplementation/construction phase of a project (Zhao et al.,2010; Hao et al., 2008). Rather, a change causes is alsoidentifiable in an earlier phase of project, whereas the changeimpacts may become only apparent after the completion ofconstruction work. This was actually the situation in the secondresearch case of dance education facility renovation projectwhere the impacts of work scope interpretation by thecontractor became apparent only at the time of final inspectionand acceptance. The cases illustrate that the management ofproject changes is important from the beginning of project untilthe acceptance of project deliervables. Project change commu-nication routine plan has to take care of change needsthroughout the project life cycle. Effective communicationresults in the stakeholder engagement into the changemanagement process which was realized in the first case.

During the change management process, effective communi-cation facilitated the development of stakeholder understandingand trust (Bakens et al., 2005). In our first case, thecommunication routines gave guidelines for teamwork andempowered stakeholders, which in return improveddecision-making process within the project core teams evenduring tough situations. However, communication routines in thesecond research case were only understood to fulfill contractualobligations during the construction stage, and the changemanagement processes were not in focus when these communi-cation routines were designed. The first case project invested onthe development of customized way of working durig all projectphases. This supports the earlier findings of the need for sufficientresources to implement the change management systems (Hao etal., 2008; Ibbs et al., 2001). It was found important to customize


several communication routines and use all three modes ofcommunication PMI (2013a)) has already pointed out. AsKähkönen et al. (2012)) pointed out, it was also found importantthat appropriate topics are discussed with correct participant fromthe relevant/key stakeholders groups.

A very relevent observation in the case projects was theevolving project culture (Zuo et al., 2009; Prajogo andMcDermott, 2005). Earleir research (Ibbs et al., 2001) hasidentified that a balance project culture is required to mangeproject changes. Therefore, in this research, it was alsoimportant to understand how the communcation routines werepracticed within a dominating project culture components(Tables 6 and 9). The first case about energy infrastructureproject demonstrated comprehensive communication routines.We observed that in this project, the developmental and groupcultures invited stakeholder participation during change man-agement processes. We also observed that during conflictsituations, the communication routines turned the projectculture more hierarchical. However, in such situation, theirrelevant information was filtered at core team level throughalready established communication routines, and hence deci-sion making at project management team level became moreagile and transparent. This way, their commitment to achievethe required project functionality remained commendablethroughout the project life cycle. Our observations weredifferent for the second case where the limited attention andresources could be allocated to the communication routines.These limited communication routines made project culturevery rational during the construction stage where focus wasmostly on task efficiency. However, in a rational culture,whenever there was a need for change, an in situ ad hocdecision making was preferred. In time pressure situation, thelacking communication routines created a feeling that otherstakeholders' involvement would consume more time andeffort. Therefore, the construction team selected not to informother stakeholders. Hence, the project culture became morestraightforward (goal oriented) and meanwhile project needswere sacrificed for work efficiency.

Our data analysis also highlighted the role of projectcommunication leadership. In our first research case of energyinfrastructure project, the responsibility of communication wasdistributed at the core team level. Each core team leader wasmade accountable to ensure communication effectiveness andwas empowered to make decisions. Excluding one, thecommunication leaders of all other core teams remainedunchanged throughout this project life cycle. In our secondresearch case, the responsibility of communication leadremained at higher project hierarchy. Moreover, the responsi-bility of leading communication also shifted from one projectphase to another. We observed that this change in thecommunication leadership also effected the project communi-cation routines. Our understanding is that variation in thecommunication leadership affects stakeholder engagementduring change management. Further, this variation was notedto have adverse effect in case of lacking change communicationroutines. This finding is well line, and an extension to thefindings of Mayfield and Mayfield (2002) that leaders'

communication strategies affect the commitment and trust oftheir followers.

According to a recent study (Mok et al., 2015), “stakeholderengagement” has been among the four main researched topicsin the stakeholder management lierature. The importance ofeffective communication in ensuring the stakeholder engage-ment was already found by Bakens et al. (2005). This researchextends these arguments (by Mok et al. (2015) and Bakens etal. (2005)) to the change management processes. It wasobserved that the communication routines in the energyinfrastucture project were designed and practiced to maintainthe stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecyle.The lacking focus on communication routines in the danceeductation facility project resulted in changing stakeholderinterest and hence shrinking involvement. Which to ourunderstanding also contributed to the unsupportive projectculture and meanwhile neither the change causes and nor theirimpacts were discussed openly.

Muller and Turner (2010) advised project leaders andpractioners to design the customizable communication routines.Meanwhile, project management literature utilize the stakholderanalysis and identification results to undergird the communica-tion routines. However, this research extends the recommenda-tions of Yang et al. (2011) and Mok et al. (2015) that designingthe communication routines through the stakeholder identifica-tion and analysis models is not sufficient to ensure stakeholderengagement in the change management process. In this regard,this study supports the findings of Offenbeek and Vos (2016) thatstakeholder knowledge is important to establish the stakeholderconsensus in difficult situations, for example, arising issues dueto conflicting understanding about the change causes andimpacts. This study further extends their finding that stakeholderengagement in the difficult situations is more likely if thecommunication routines are designed by considering theirknow-how (Teece, 1980) about the project. This is based on theauthors' observations from both the research cases that stake-holder know-how influenced the outcomes of communicationroutines. The stakeholders with shared experiences were able tomaintain the agreed communication routines more consistentlyand beneficially. Such a shared know-how of stakeholderscontinued their interest in the project, balanced their power toimpact on project decisions, and hence has been a basic elementfor effective communication routines. Whereas, the varyingstakeholder know-how that is often the situation in once in thelifetime projects (like in the dance education facility project)yields a lot of communication with growing misunderstandingsabout the other stakeholders' expectations. This varying know-how further leads to lacking stakeholder interest when the projectculture is more rational and straightforward. In such projectculture, change management processes are influenced by thepower of one stakeholder group, whereas the change impacts arebarely surfaced (not timely communicated) until their conse-quences on project functionality are apprehended.

This importance of stakeholder know-how was apparentduring project change management in both the research cases.Stakeholders in our first case, energy infrastructure project, hadshared know-how, i.e., basic understanding about the


construction of such a facility as well as the operation of thefacility. Stakeholders in our second case, the education facilityrenovation project, represented various professions and hencehad varying level of know-how about the project and its intendedfunctionality. From the second case, one extreme example ofvarying stakeholder know-how is that the final technical designdid not accumulate all the must-requirements from end users. Theend users of education facility had superior know-how about theproject functionality; however, they had limited knowledge(comparing with the deployed communication routines require-ment) to understand the engineering design documents anddrawings. Thus, the extent that their expectations were incorpo-rated in the engineering design was mainly reliant on thecommunication through project management consultant. Ac-cording to our understanding, the communication routines ofproject management consultant should have been wisely plannedto facilitate end users understanding about engineering designand to translate their reservations for the engineers and architects.Similarly, this varying level of stakeholder know-how also madecommunication routines ineffective during the project imple-mentation phase. The sub-contractors evidently overlooked theend-user opinions considering their lesser know-how about theconstruction process. Consequently, one of the authors observedthat the project stakeholder meetings became ineffective whilethe in situ decisions were made, but only outside the meetings.The end users were rarely informed about the project changedecisions and could understand the consequences of thoseinformed decisions only inadequately.

6. Conclusion

This research has made notable contributions to the projectchange management, stakeholder management, and communi-cation management literature. It draws attention to the demandof project change communication that enables getting stake-holder engagement during project culture changes. This studydemonstrates real-world project change communication rou-tines and explains their utility through a generic model forchange management learned during the literature review. Thetwo case projects give new insights on how the lack ofcommunication in change situation created later change needsand confusion, and how in a large project the focus oncommunication effectiveness created a clear change manage-ment routine and group culture that supported to findinnovative solutions for problems. This study also concludesthat if the project leader changes it affects the communicationculture and the stakeholder engagement in the changemanagement process.

This real-world demonstration is a valuable guidance for theproject management practitioners as well. Handful examplesfrom the project cases will facilitate the practioners in designingtheir project communication routines not only to implemnt theproject changes during construction but also to identify changecauses and their effects throughout the project life cycle. This ispossible with a customized but holistic approach towardsstakeholder engagement (involvment and participation) in thechange management process. Their consideration of stakeholder

know-how shall lead to the communication effectiveness duringthe evolving project cultures.

7. Limitations and future research

We have concluded that this paper contributes the projectchange management, stakeholder engagement, and communi-cation management literature. However, there are certainlimitations of this research that also provide future researchopportunities. One such limitation is that real-time empiricaldata could not be captured for this study but were compiledfrom the researchers' retrospective observations and caseproject repositories. A future research with real-time datarecording from few other cases will be very useful to verify andextend the implication of this study. Such a study can also beplanned within different case contexts. Such future research cangeneralize our findings for the project change management andcommunication management literature.

The lack of research papers that focus on the importance ofstakeholder know-how and characteristic of project leader whenproject communication routines are designed. In this regard, ourlimitation is related to the retrospective data which could onlyprovide indirect evidences to validate this relationship. Webelieve that there is a definite need for a dedicated study tounderstand these relationships and extend its application to theproject stakeholder management literature.

Also, we would like to extend the research gap identified byDavis (2016) that there are not only limited examination about“how communication is conducted between the project managerand line management and those at the corporate level,” but thepractical demonstration of project communication routines isvery rare in the literature. Therefore, literature and practitionersneed more contextualized demonstrations of effective communi-cation routines related to the other topics in project managementliterature for example, uncertainty and risk management.

References

Ahuja, V., Yang, J., Shankar, R., 2009. Benefits of collaborative ICT adoptionfor building project management. Constr. Innov. 9 (3), 323–340.

Anderssen, E., 2003. Understanding your project organization's character. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 34 (4), 4–11.

Badham, R.J., Sense, A.J., 2006. Spiralling up or spinning out: a guide forreflecting on action research practice. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 9 (5),367–377.

Bagozzi, R.P., 2011. Measurement and meaning in information systems andorganizational research: methodological and philosophical foundations.MIS Quarterly. 35 (2), 261–292.

Bakens, W., Foliente, G., Jasuja, M., 2005. Engaging stakeholders inperformance-based building: lessons from the performance-based building(PeBBu) Network. Build. Res. Innov. 33 (2), 149–158.

Baker, W., Sinkula, J., 1999. The synergistic effect of market orientation andlearning orientation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 27 (4), 411–427.

Barney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J., Wright, M., 2011. The future of resource-basedtheory: revitalization or decline? J. Manag. 37 (5), 1299–1315.

Bate, S.P., 1994. Strategies for Cultural Change. Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford.

Berkun, S., 2005. The Art of Project Management. O'Reilly Media, Sebasopol.Bourne, L., Walker, D.H.T., 2005. Visualising and mapping stakeholder

influence. Management Decision. 43 (5), 649–660.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0263-7863(16)30085-0/rf0005























Cavaliere, V., Lombardi, S., 2015. Exploring different cultural configurations:how do they affect subsidiaries' knowledge sharing behaviors? J. Knowl.Manag. 19 (2), 141–163.

Charoenngam, C., Coquinco, S.T., Hadikusumo, B.H., 2003.Web-based applicationfor managing change orders in construction projects. Constr. Innov. 3, 197–215.

Cleland, D.L., 1986. Project stakeholder management. Proj. Manag. J. 17 (4),36–44.

Crawford, L., Nahmias, A.H., 2010. Competencies for managing change. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 28, 405–412.

Davis, K., 2016. A method to measure success dimensions relating to individualstakeholder groups. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 480–493.

Deegan, B., Parkin, J., 2011. Planning cycling networks: human factors anddesign processes. Proc. ICE Eng. Sustain. 164, 85–93.

Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 1998. The Landscape of Qualitative Research:Theories and Issues. Sage publications, Thousand Osks.

Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2011. The Sage Handbook of QualitativeResearch. Sage Publications, Thousand Osks.

Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman,Boston.

Freeman, R.E., 1999. Divergent stakeholder theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (2),233–236.

Gill, M.E., 2015. The Process of Communication, a Practical Guide for ProjectManagers. CreateSpace, Amazon Publishing.

Gorse, C.A., Emmitt, S., 2003. Investigating interpersonal communicationduring construction progress meetings: challenges and opportunities.Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 10 (4), 234–244.

Griffith-Cooper, B., King, K., 2007. The partnership between projectsmanagement and organizational change: integrating chnage managementwith change leadership. Perform. Improv. 46 (1), 14–20.

Hao, Q., Shen, W., Neelamkavil, J., Thomas, R., 2008. Change management inconstruction projects. International Conference on Information Technologyin Construction CIB W78. Santiago, Chile.

Harvard University, 2016. The process of communication, a practical guide forproject managers. Available at http://huit.harvard.edu/presentations/process-communication-practical-guide-project-managers (Accessed 8/2016).

Henrie, M., 2005. Project management: a cultural library review. Proj. Manag.Inst. 36, 5–14.

Hwang, B.-G., Thomas, S.R., M., Haas, C.T., M., Caldas, C.H., 2009.Measuring the impact of rework on construction cost performance.J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 187–198.

Ibbs, W., M., Nguyen, L.D., Lee, S., 2007. Quantified impacts of projectchange. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 133 (1), 45–52.

Ibbs, W.C., Wong, C.K., Kwak, Y.H., 2001. Project change managementsystem. J. Manag. Eng. 17 (3), 159–165.

Kähkönen, K., Keinänen, M., Naaranoja, M., 2012. Core project teams as anorganizational approach for projects and their management. 26th IPMAWorld Congress. Elsevier, Crete, Greece, pp. 1–8.

Kangas, J.P., 2011. Consider those most affected to create lasting change.Quality Progress 72–73 (March).

Karlsen, J.T., Græe, K., Massaoud, M.J., 2008. Building trust in project-stakeholder relationships. Balt. J. Manag. 3 (1), 7–22.

Kazmi, S.A., Naranoja, M., 2013. Collection of change managementmodels—an oppotunity to make the best choice from the variousorganizational transformational techniques. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2 (4), 44–57.

Kendra, K., Taplin, T., 2004. Project success: a cultural framework. Proj.Manag. J. 35 (1), 30–45.

Kerzner, H., 2009. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning,Scheduling, and Controlling. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Kotter, J.P., 2007. Leading change: why transformation fail. Harv. Bus. Rev.96–103.

Littau, P., Jujagiri, N.J., Adlbrecht, G., 2010. 25 years of stakeholder theory inproject management literature [1984-2009]. Project Management Journal.41 (4), 17–29.

Loo, R., 2002. Working towards best practices in project management: aCanadian study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 93–98.

Love, P., Holt, G., Shen, L., Li, H., Irani, Z., 2002. Using systems dynamics tobetter understand chnage and rework in construction project managementsystems. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 425–436.

Marrewijk, A.v., 2007. Managing project culture: the case of EnvironMegaproject. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, 290–299.

Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., 2002. Leadership communication strategies critical pathsto improving employee commitment. Am. Manag. J. 20 (2), 89–94.

McKinsey Global Institute, 2013. Infrastructure Productivity: How to Save 1$Trillion a Year. McKinsey & Company (Retrieved November 02, 2014,from www.mckinsey.com/~/…/MGI_Infrastructure_Full_report_Jan2013.ashx).

Misztal, B., 1996. Trust in Modern Societies. Polity Press, Cambridge.Mitchell, K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder

identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what reallycounts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 853–886.

Moghaddam, A.G., 2012. Change management and change process model forthe iranian construction industry. Int. J. Bus. Res. Manag. 2 (2),85–94.Mok, K.Y., Shen, G.Q., Yang, J., 2015. Stakeholder managementstudies in mega construction projects: a review and future directions. Int.J. Proj. Manag. 33, 446–457.

Muller, R., Turner, J.R., 2007. Matching the project manager’s leadership styleto project type. International Journal of Project Management. 25 (1), 21–32.

Muller, R., Turner, R., 2010. Leadership competency profiles of successfulproject managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 437–448.

Naaranoja, M., 2014. Capabilities of Utilisation of Information Systems inFacilities Management. Tampere University of Technology, Tampere.

Naaranoja, M., Kahkonen, K., Keinänen, M., 2014a. Construction projects asresearch objects—different research approaches and possibilities. 27thIPMA World Congress. Elsevier, pp. 237–246.

Naaranoja, M., Ketola, P., Niemi, O., 2015. Charrette supports facilitydevelopment—Case Musica. In: Nenonen, S., Kärnä, S., Junnonen, J.-M.,Tähtinen, S., Sandström, N., Airo, K., Niemi, O. (Eds.), How to Co-CreateCampus?Univerity Properties of Finland, Tampere.

Offenbeek, M., Vos, J., 2016. An integrative framework for managing projectissues across stakeholder groups. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 44–57.

Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in theimplementation of construction projects. International Journal of ProjectManagement. 23, 321–328.

Park, M., Pena-Mora, F., 2003. Dynamic change for construction: introducingthe chnage cycle into model-based project management. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 19(3), 213–242.

Pettigrew, A.M., 2001. Studting organizational change and development:challenges for future research. Acad. Manag. J. 44 (4), 697–713.

Pinnacle, 2012. INTERREG IVC communication guide for projects.Available at http://www.interreg4c.eu/uploads/media/pdf/resources_Project_Communication_Guide.pdf (Accessed 8/2016).

PMI, 2013a. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. ProjectManagement Institue, Pennsylvania.

PMI, 2013b. Managing Change in Organizations: A Practical Guide. ProjectManagement Institute, Pennsylvania.

PMI, 2013c. PMI's Pulse of the Profession In-depth Report: NavigatingComplexity. Project Management Institue, Pennsylvania.

Prajogo, D.I., McDermott, M., 2005. The relationship between total qualitymanagement practices and organizational culture. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management. 25 (11), 1101–11222.

Prencipe, A., Tell, F., 2001. Inter-project learning: processes and outcomesof knowledge codification in project-based firms. Res. Policy 20,1373–1394.

Quinn, R.E., Cameron, K.S., 1988. Paradox and Transformation: Towards aTheory of Change in Organizations and Management. Ballinger PublishingCompany, Cambridge.

Ramsing, L., 2009. Project communication in a strategic internal perspective.Corp. Commun. Int. J. 14 (3), 345–357.

Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst.Tech. J. 27, 379–423.

Sun, M., Meng, X., 2009. Taxonomy for change causes and effects inconstruction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27, 560–572.

Suppiah, V., Sandhu, M.S., 2011. Organisational culture's influence on tacitknowledge‐sharing behaviour. Journal of Knowledge Management. 15 (3),462–477.

Teece, D.J., 1980. Economies of scope and the scope of enterprise. J. Econ.Behav. Organ. 1, 223–247.

































http://huit.harvard.edu/presentations/process-communication-practical-guide-project-managers

http://huit.harvard.edu/presentations/process-communication-practical-guide-project-managers





































http://www.mckinsey.com/~/.../MGI_Infrastructure_Full_report_Jan2013.ashx


































http://www.interreg4c.eu/uploads/media/pdf/resources_Project_Communication_Guide.pdf

http://www.interreg4c.eu/uploads/media/pdf/resources_Project_Communication_Guide.pdf




























Thomas, J., Mengel, T., 2008. Preparing project managers to deal withcomplexity—advanced project management education. Int. J. Proj. Manag.26, 304–315.

Turner, J.R., 2009. The Handbook of Project-Based Management: LeadingStrategic Change in Organization. McGraw-Hill, London.

Villagarcia, S., Cardoso, F., 1999. The new supply chain network in Brazil's houseconstruction industry. 7th Conference of the International Group for LeanConstruction IGLC-7. University of California, Berkeley, pp. 171–180(Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://www.pcc.usp.br/files/text/personal_files/francisco_cardoso/SVillagarcia&FCardoso(USPBrazil)IGLC-7.pdf).

Wang, X., 2001. Dimensions and current status of project management culture.Proj. Manag. J. 32 (4), 4–17.

Wang, X., Huang, J., 2006. The relationships between key stakeholder's projectperformance and project success: preceptions of Chinese constructionsupervising engineers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 253–260.

Weaver, P., 2007. Getting the “soft stuff” right—effective communication is thekey to successful project outcomes! PMI Global Congress (North America),Atlanta. October 6–9, 2007.

Wong, C.H., 2007. ICT implementation and evolution: case studies of intranetand extranets in UK construction enterprises. Constr. Innov. 7 (3), 254–273.

Yang, J., Shen, P.Q., Bourne, L., Ho, C.M., Xue, X., 2011. A typology ofoperational approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement. Constr.Manag. Econ. 29, 145–162.

Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications,California.

Zhang, L., 2013. Managing project chnages: case studies on stage iteration andfunctional interaction. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 958–970.

Zhao, Z.Y., Lv, Q.L., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., 2010. Prediction system for changemanagement in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (6) (659–559).

Zuo, J., Zillante, G., Coffey, V., 2009. Project culture in the chineseconstruction Industry: preception of contractors. Aust. J. Constr. Econ.Build. 9 (2), 17–28.






http://www.pcc.usp.br/files/text/personal_files/francisco_cardoso/SVillagarcia&FCardoso(USPBrazil)IGLC-7.pdf

http://www.pcc.usp.br/files/text/personal_files/francisco_cardoso/SVillagarcia&FCardoso(USPBrazil)IGLC-7.pdf























Project change stakeholder communication - Técnico Lisboa ... Project change... · Project change...

Documents

Transcript of Project change stakeholder communication - Técnico Lisboa ... Project change... · Project change...