Relational contracting in Nordic construction – a comparative longitudinal account of institutional field developments

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Anna Kadefors, Kirsi Aaltonen, Stefan Christoffer Gottlieb, Ole Jonny Klakegg, Pertti Lahdenperä, Nils O.E. Olsson, Lilly Rosander, Christian Thuesen
{"title":"Relational contracting in Nordic construction – a comparative longitudinal account of institutional field developments","authors":"Anna Kadefors, Kirsi Aaltonen, Stefan Christoffer Gottlieb, Ole Jonny Klakegg, Pertti Lahdenperä, Nils O.E. Olsson, Lilly Rosander, Christian Thuesen","doi":"10.1108/ijmpb-01-2024-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Relational contracting is increasingly being applied to complex and uncertain construction projects. However, it has proved hard to achieve stable performance and industry-level learning in this field. This paper employs an institutional perspective to analyze how legitimacy for relational contracting has been produced and challenged in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, including implications for dissemination and learning.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>A collaborative case study design is used, where longitudinal accounts of the developments in relational contracting over more than 25 years in four Nordic countries were developed by scholars based in each country. The descriptions are underpinned by literature sources from research, practice and policy.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The countries share similar problem perceptions that have triggered the de-institutionalization of traditional contracting practices. Models and policies developed elsewhere are important sources of knowledge and legitimacy. Most countries have seen pendulum movements, where dissemination of relational contracting is followed by backlashes when projects fail to meet projected outcomes. Before long, however, relational contracting tends to re-emerge under new labels and in slightly new forms. Such a proliferation of concepts presents further obstacles to learning. Successful institutionalization is found to rely on realistic goals in combination with broad competence development at the organizational and industry levels.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>In seeking inspiration from other countries, policymakers should go beyond contract models to also consider strategies to manage industry-level learning.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The paper provides a unique longitudinal cross-country perspective on the field of relational contracting. As such, it contributes to the small stream of literature on long-term institutional change in the construction sector.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-01-2024-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Relational contracting is increasingly being applied to complex and uncertain construction projects. However, it has proved hard to achieve stable performance and industry-level learning in this field. This paper employs an institutional perspective to analyze how legitimacy for relational contracting has been produced and challenged in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, including implications for dissemination and learning.

Design/methodology/approach

A collaborative case study design is used, where longitudinal accounts of the developments in relational contracting over more than 25 years in four Nordic countries were developed by scholars based in each country. The descriptions are underpinned by literature sources from research, practice and policy.

Findings

The countries share similar problem perceptions that have triggered the de-institutionalization of traditional contracting practices. Models and policies developed elsewhere are important sources of knowledge and legitimacy. Most countries have seen pendulum movements, where dissemination of relational contracting is followed by backlashes when projects fail to meet projected outcomes. Before long, however, relational contracting tends to re-emerge under new labels and in slightly new forms. Such a proliferation of concepts presents further obstacles to learning. Successful institutionalization is found to rely on realistic goals in combination with broad competence development at the organizational and industry levels.

Practical implications

In seeking inspiration from other countries, policymakers should go beyond contract models to also consider strategies to manage industry-level learning.

Originality/value

The paper provides a unique longitudinal cross-country perspective on the field of relational contracting. As such, it contributes to the small stream of literature on long-term institutional change in the construction sector.

北欧建筑业的关系契约--机构领域发展的纵向比较研究
目的 国际承包越来越多地应用于复杂和不确定的建筑项目。然而,事实证明在这一领域很难实现稳定的绩效和行业水平的学习。本文采用制度视角,分析了丹麦、芬兰、挪威和瑞典是如何产生和挑战关系型合约的合法性的,包括对传播和学习的影响。这些描述以研究、实践和政策方面的文献资料为基础。研究结果这些国家都有类似的问题认识,这些问题认识引发了传统承包实践的非制度化。其他地方开发的模式和政策是知识和合法性的重要来源。大多数国家都出现了钟摆运动,即在推广关系型合同之后,如果项目未能达到预期成果,就会出现反弹。然而,没过多久,关系型承包往往会以新的标签和略有新意的形式重新出现。这种概念的扩散进一步阻碍了学习。在从其他国家寻求灵感时,政策制定者不应局限于合同模式,还应考虑行业层面的学习管理策略。因此,它为有关建筑行业长期制度变革的少量文献做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信