This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 24 November 2014, At: 12:21Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Engineering Project Organization JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tepo20

The ambience of a project alliance in AustraliaDerek Henry Thomas Walkera & Beverley May Lloyd-Walkerb

a PCPM, RMIT University, Building 8, Level 8, 368 Swanston St, Melbourne 3000, Australiab Business and Law, Victoria University, Footscray Park Campus, Ballarat Road, PO Box14428, Melbourne 8001, AustraliaPublished online: 16 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Derek Henry Thomas Walker & Beverley May Lloyd-Walker (2014) The ambience of a project alliance inAustralia, Engineering Project Organization Journal, 4:1, 2-16, DOI: 10.1080/21573727.2013.836102

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2013.836102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The ambience of a project alliance in Australia

DEREK HENRY THOMAS WALKER1∗ and BEVERLEY MAY LLOYD-WALKER2

1PCPM, RMIT University, Building 8, Level 8, 368 Swanston St, Melbourne 3000, Australia2Business and Law, Victoria University, Footscray Park Campus, Ballarat Road, PO Box 14428, Melbourne 8001,Australia

(Received 21 April 2013; accepted 14 August 2013)

The challenge of delivering construction projects that serve their intended purpose while meeting value-for-money criteria has confronted the construction industry in many countries. The call for a change in culturein project delivery organizations and their clients has also been well documented. The response to these chal-lenges has been a shift from traditional project delivery towards a relational approach that has been gainingmomentum for highly complex and/or highly time-constrained infrastructure construction projects. Anespecially instructive development in this trend has been the growth in project alliancing in Australasia. Litera-ture on project alliancing and related comparable forms of project delivery indicates that this way of performingproject business requires an entirely new set of project management (PM) behaviours and a new working atmos-phere, environment and ambience within which to work. Traditional PM is carried out in a highly competitiveenvironment, with little or no risk sharing between the various professions and trades involved in project delivery.Alliance projects, in the form used in Australasia, depend upon close relationships between all relevant stake-holders and participants from project concept to delivery and this supports a positive workplace ambience.The depth of this relationship and gain/pain sharing is demonstrated through the alliancing principles and alli-ance code of practice developed at the project team-formation stage. Research results presented in this paperdescribe the ambience of alliance projects. They extend our knowledge of project alliancing, the behavioursexpected of project team members and the motivations that drive alliance managers (AMs). Reported findingsalso capture rich insights into the lived experience of project AMs and reveal the nature of the workplaceambience.

Keywords: Ambience, project alliances, project management, uncertainty.

Introduction

Ameta-study of UK government-commissioned reportsranging across the second half of the twentieth century(Murray and Langford, 2003) highlighted poor con-struction industry performance in delivering value formoney and revealed unsatisfactory business relation-ships throughout the supply chain between contractors,suppliers, design consultants and clients. Two of thereports cited (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998) were particu-larly influential not only in the UK but elsewhere in pin-pointing the litigious and strife-torn relationships acrossthe construction industry supply chain that all too oftenresult in inefficiencies, ineffectiveness and wastedopportunities for innovation. In Australia, a similar dis-turbing culture was described and the need for this to

change was established by the National Building andConstruction Council (NBCC, 1989). The NBCC rep-resented the members of the construction supply chainand so it presented a united position that the culture ofthe construction industry and relationships across theentire supply chain needed to change. The reports(NBCC, 1989; Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998) demon-strate a united call for cultural change, and opennessto innovation and collaboration that could triggerimproved value for money in delivering constructionprojects. One significant outcome of that determinationfor change was the trend towards adopting a project alli-ance (PA) approach for complex and/or highly time-constrained projects.Project alliancing has developed as an important pro-

curement option for Australasian infrastructure and

∗Author for correspondence. E-mail: derek.walker@rmit.edu.au

The Engineering Project Organization Journal, 2014Vol. 4, No. 1, 2–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2013.836102

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

construction projects with many $AUD billions of infra-structure projects being delivered over recent years asevidenced by several recent studies (Blismas andHarley, 2008; Wood and Duffield, 2009; Mills andHarley, 2010; Walker and Harley, 2013). Workingwithin these types of procurement arrangements isquite different from other forms of project deliverydemanding a new set of skills as well as unlearning (orputting to one side) highly tuned and aggressive com-mercial behaviours and skills (Ross, 2003). The PAestablishes a new overall workplace culture and,beyond that, each individual PA has its own particularambience.The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon how the

infrastructure project sector in Australasia has devel-oped its own culture through engagement with projectalliancing as a procurement form that has triggered acultural transformation manifested by a specific ambi-ence that can be sensed by those engaged in a PA forconstruction infrastructure projects. We then concen-trate on how this new culture has led to a differentway of working that creates a distinct ambience to thatof other more aggressive commercially driven forms ofproject delivery. We explain how the establishment ofa PA ambience develops within each alliance entitythat is strongly influenced by the alliance entity’spurpose and charter.A result of industry-wide dissatisfaction with the

status quo had led to the emergence of sector-wide cul-tural supportive for and adoption of project alliancing.PAs are based on the principles of shared objectives,trust and transparency developed through the allianceentity charter, resulting in the creation of a specific alli-ance entity ambience. While there are similarities in theambience that exists within each alliance entity there arealso subtle differences. While this ambience concept isevolving, our research suggests that its basic tenets arereasonably stable. This perceived ambience is shapedby the willingness of many projects owners and theirsupply chain to embrace change. Acknowledgement ofthe need for change triggers a willingness to adoptnew ways to address and minimize identified problems(Kotter, 1996). Project alliancing has mainly beenapplied to projects where there is intense complexity,uncertainty and risk around project design and deliverymethods and/or where extraordinary time constraintsare placed upon project delivery that make otherapproaches highly unattractive. This new project deliv-ery form appears to eliminate or at least reduce manyof the problems identified as besetting the constructionindustry.We draw upon empirical results of recent studies of

alliancing in Australasia. Two studies took placeduring late 2010; one into the current state of alliancingin Australasia (predominantly on Australian examples)

(Mills and Harley, 2010) and another study of thesame sample pool which investigated the attraction,recruitment, development and retention of alliancemanagers (AMs) in Australia (Walker and Lloyd-Walker, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). We focus upon theambience of the PA in this paper. We use the term ambi-ence because it represents the mood, feeling and senseof atmosphere generated by this form of project deliverywithin a specific alliance entity. If we used terms such as‘culture’ it would imply hidden values (Schein, 2004)and we wanted to illustrate a more tangible and accessi-ble sense of what we observed and our research projectrespondents described through their interviews. Wetake our point of departure from the established litera-ture to explore this identified project ambiencephenomenon by addressing the reality of PAs as aproject procurement option. Our study of the ambienceexperience is based upon empirical work from ourobservations and the experiences revealed by ourstudy respondents through interview transcript data.The subject of alliancing has been well researched

and written about; differences between PAs and otherrelationship-based procurement options for projectdelivery have been dealt with elsewhere (Walker andLloyd-Walker, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). According toWood and Duffield

Public and private sector expenditure on infrastruc-ture projects in the Australian road, rail and watersectors has grown significantly from 2003 to 2009,increasing from $12 billion per annum in the 2003–2004 financial year to $32 billion per annum in the2008–2009 financial year. (2009, p. 7)

This represents a significant use of PAs given that thepopulation base of Australia is a little over 22 million.This scale of alliancing is corroborated by three recentreports (Blismas and Harley, 2008; Mills and Harley,2010; Walker and Harley, 2013). However, while allthese studies provide statistics of scope and scale of alli-ances and explain their nature and characteristics fewattempt to explain the PA ambience in terms of the‘feel’ or character experienced by those participatingin and managing these types of alliances. This studybuilds upon a focus on PA cultural aspects, forexample in Rowlinson et al. (2008), to extend theconcept by including a broader appreciation thatincludes the ‘feel’ of the atmosphere created byhuman interactions within a PA.The ambience of a PA is the individual atmosphere

created in an alliance entity guided by agreed alliancingprinciples. Each alliance creates a unique characterquite separate from that of the base organizations thatcollaborate to form the alliance. To a large extent, thispalpable ambience is derived from the espoused alliance

The ambience of a project alliance 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

principles and the interaction of people and their result-ing perceptions within the PA. These PA principles areagreed up front and as all project team members agreeto them it is these principles that shape the characterof the distinct entity created to deliver the project. Acritical principle is that alliance participants share thepain or gain from the project as an entire PA teambased upon a holistic view of project success; one thatincorporates more than financial bottom-line measuresand short-term impact results to also embrace social andenvironmental measures of benefit.Our focus is restricted to Australasian infrastructure

and construction projects so findings cannot be auto-matically extrapolated to other industry sectors orcountries, but we do suggest that other industrysectors deploying alliancing may benefit from theinsights presented here.The research question identified and answered in this

paper is:

Q1: What characterises the project ambience experi-enced by participants engaged in Australasian infra-structure project alliances?

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Weoutline some of the salient literature on alliancing toframe the concept of ambience within a PA contextand then we provide a section that explains the researchapproach adopted in the study partially reported uponin this paper. We then present findings followed by dis-cussion of the findings and their implications for theproject management (PM) discipline. We concludewith a summary of the paper.

Supporting concepts

We introduce and explain two supporting concepts thatare critical to understanding PA ambience that may benew to many readers. The first relates to the PAproject deliver approach, and the second relates to theway that a PA delivery mechanism delivers a specificambience, the way it ‘feels’ to be part of such a projectteam.

Project alliances

We first clarify what we mean by a PA so that readerscan better understand any nuances in behavioursrequired of PA participants that differ from otherforms of project delivery. In this section, we argue thatcollaboration behaviours and expectations hold thekey to understanding how a project ambience mightdevelop. An alliance agreement is usually madebetween two or more entities who, in good faith,

commit to working cooperatively, sharing the risk andrewards of the project in order to achieve the stated out-comes (Jefferies et al., 2006). Trust and transparencyare essential components of a PA; therefore, ensuringthat the most compatible possible partners are chosenis important for success (Jefferies et al., 2006). Impor-tant behavioural requirements that are required of PAparticipants are described as follows:

…All parties are required to work together in goodfaith, acting with integrity and making best-for-project decisions. Working as an integrated, colla-borative team, they make unanimous decisions onall key project delivery issues.Alliance agreements are premised on joint manage-ment of risk for project delivery. All parties jointlymanage that risk within the terms of an ‘allianceagreement’, and share the outcomes of the project.(Department of Finance and Treasury Victoria,2010, p. 9)

In 2001, when describing the National Museum of Aus-tralia (NMA) PA, Walker et al. (2001, p. 212) used thephrase ‘sink or swim’ together. In a PA, participants arejointly and severally bound together through perform-ance of the project delivery outcome (rather than indi-vidual team performance). Overall projectperformance outcomes determine a PA painsharing orgainsharing performance allocation. Thus all PA par-ticipants are bound together and treated as a singleentity. This has significant impact on the way they arelikely to collaborate. Key terms in the above quotesuggest the expected behaviours of PA participantsbeing characterized as collaboration, best-for-projectvalues, integrity and shared joint management of risk.The above definition is focused upon a public sectorproject owner (PO) or its representative (POR) but itcan be more broadly applied to private sector PO/PORs.Projects suitable for this procurement choice are

therefore likely to be intellectually and professionallychallenging and stimulating. We now discuss literaturerelating to the key terms alluded to above, and focusthese on PAs rather than the varied range of generalproject procurement forms.Substantial scholarly work has been undertaken on

delivering projects in Australia through PAs. Davis(2006) for example undertook a PhD thesis on relation-ship-based procurement that involved interviewing 49alliancing participants with Australia. Wood and Duf-field (2009) surveyed 82 alliance participants from 46alliances in Australia and also undertook case studieson 14 alliances. Walker and Hampson (2003a) under-took a longitudinal study of the NMA. MacDonald(2011) gathered detailed data from 39 subject matterexperts and reflected upon his own extensive experience

4 Walker and Lloyd-Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

on alliance projects. The defining nature of collabor-ation in alliances in each of these and other studiescan be summarized as joint responsibility for decision-making so that both the PO or POR and non-owner par-ticipants (NOPs) work together by sharing relevantinformation and knowledge. An Alliance LeadershipTeam (ALT) constitutes the project executive levelsupervising the project and an Alliance ManagementTeam (AMT) constitutes the project operational levelof management. Both teams form a consensus ondecisions to be made on a best-for-project basis ratherthan being based on any individual participant’s valuesand interests. The Australian project alliancing experi-ence appears similar to other PAs reported upon inthe UK (Smyth et al., 2009), the Netherlands (Laanet al., 2011), Finland (Lahdenperä, 2009; Heikkinenand Airola, 2013) and China (Xu et al., 2005).PAs involve a very different decision-making process

from that of other forms of collaboration in whichparties contribute relevant information and knowledgeto formation of a position by the various POR andNOP team leaders about their own input into theproject delivery process. The subtle difference is oneof alliances requiring commitment to form a consensusposition rather than contribution to decision-making. Inthis respect the difference can be explained as the differ-ence between a hen and a pig in providing a bacon andeggs breakfast. The hen makes a contribution while thepig makes a commitment.Mills and Harley (2010, p. 14) undertook a survey of

18 PA organizations in 2010 and Walker and Harley(2013) conducted a survey in 2012 of 13 PAs gatheringdata about the extent to which the PAmet the PA agree-ment performance statement. In the 2010 survey no PAperformance was rated poorly, two met expectations,seven were rated as exceeding expectations and twowere rated outstanding; the remaining five recorded‘no comment’. In the 2012 survey, Walker and Harley(2013, p. 1) report that

Key Result Areas (KRAs) consistently met theminimum conditions of satisfaction (MCOS) orabove range, with some projects consistently achiev-ing ‘outstanding’ or ‘game-breaking’ scores. Therange of primary KRAs indicates a standard set ofareas on which projects are planned and assessed.

Collaboration in alliances is geared towards best-for-project outcomes where there is an expectation of integ-rity being demonstrated by all parties towards eachother and this is reinforced by the joint risk sharingarrangements agreed upon in the project alliance agree-ment (PAA) (Department of Finance and Treasury Vic-toria (2010, p. 9). Joint risk taking and decision-makingbased on the PAA means that all alliance parties sink or

swim together providing a built-in governance measurethat encourages and guides this behaviour, contributingto the creation of an ambience where each party takesresponsibility for and is committed to a best-for-project outcome. Their commitment is to the entityand the outcome it has been formed to deliver.Another salient issue that affects a PA ambience is the

nature of risk and uncertainty faced by parties to an alli-ance. This is different from other relationship-basedprocurement forms providing a major contributingfactor to the creation of a PA ambience. Wood and Duf-field (2009, p. XVIII) state that alliances are best usedwhere there is significant project complexity and uncer-tainty. Walker and Hampson (2003a, p. 84) in theirstudy of the NMA also found this to be so. The mainmotivation for adopting a PA form for the NMAproject was to complete the project by a fixed date andthat the PO and POR believed that there was no otherform of procurement that could achieve that goal. Theuncertainty present in this project related to fast-track-ing of design detailing to encourage and deliver inno-vation in order to accommodate uncertainty about thefinal configuration of exhibits and other operationalissues. The aim was that the opening of the Museumto the public would directly follow the Prime Minister’sentourage immediately after the opening ceremony. Acritical objective was that people could immediatelyenjoy the museum and all restaurant and café facilitiesand that all other operational aspects would be fullyfunctioning from that opening day. In other projectswhere alliancing is adopted other levels of uncertaintyin both definition and refinement of the brief may beundertaken as design and delivery continues. An alli-ance arrangement ensures that all parties can accommo-date uncertainty and temporary (or even morepermanent) switches in direction and focus. The alli-ance arrangement is also better at coping with otherambiguities in the project context without the need toexpend vast amounts of management energy in re-nego-tiating contract terms or conditions or in negotiatingcompensation for disruption to plans. This agreementto be flexible and adopt a best-for-project mentalitydominates the PA ambience and becomes engrainedin its working culture.Our data strongly indicate PAs are a vehicle suited to

delivering projects through their superior potential formanaging uncertainty. In a previous paper, we ident-ified differences between PAs and other forms ofrelationship-based procurement (Lloyd-Walker andWalker, 2011). We suggested that central to an effectivePA ambience is its support of effective uncertainty man-agement. This implies that AMs emphasize planningand control within an agile, resilient and flexible para-digm as and when the context demands. This hasbeen described as a muddling through (Lindblom,

The ambience of a project alliance 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

1959, 1979; Hällgren and Wilson, 2007) decision-making mode; one of being open to emergent strategyas suggested by Andersen (2008). This is one of thereasons why a PA ambience is different from the prevail-ing culture when using traditional project procurementapproaches.

Ambience

What exactly do we mean by ambience and how mightits meaning differ from culture or atmosphere? Whyshould we use the term ambience in relation to PAs?According to the New Oxford English Dictionary

(2001, p. 52) ambience means ‘the character andatmosphere of a place’. It is derived from the Frenchword ambiant ‘surrounding’. Schein (1985, 1990)describes organizational culture in terms of superficialartefacts as physical and other manifestations of theorganizational identity’s rules, regulations expectations;values or norms and standards that are applied as theway work is done; and assumptions or an underlyingparadigm and belief system in why the norms are validand workable. Culture suggests being a part of thewhole and to recognize it one needs to be acquaintedwith that culture and capable of interpreting it as aculture. Atmosphere suggests the quality of the sur-roundings, sounds, light, smells, but it relates to theactual external situation that everyone would experi-ence. Ambience, we argue, combines the internalfeeling of being within a culture with the external senseof atmosphere. One can enter a café or bar and sensethe ambience through the lighting, sound and settingbut one needs to understand the clientele and their

culture to really understand the nature and nuances ofthis ambience. We argue that one can feel the ambienceof an organization through the senses as well as throughthe raw physical manifestations of the workplace con-ditions. Contextual knowledge is also needed to under-stand its culture. Thus abstract constructs such as aculture of ‘fairness’ or ‘caring’ or ‘functioning collabor-ation’ can be attributed as defining features of ambi-ence. As a respondent in a current study of ours whohas been intimately involved and led several PAsstated to us

To me it’s a vibe or a synergy or something that youget together once your team get focused and oncethey can see where they’re going and once they’vegot a best-for-project, and that focus, it can producesome really really outstanding results. If the team isbuzzing and it is all heading in one direction youcan still get a really good outcome from a businessas usual but you don’t seem to have that same buzzor vibe, that feeling that everybody’s pulling in theone direction.

This illustrates more than culture or atmosphere andsuggests an almost tangible ambience.Fichtner and Freiling (2008, p. 7) use the Italian form

of ambience when writing about organizational knowl-edge and competencies from a resource-based viewmaintaining that ambiente means

Mental and structural couplings of different assetsand resources that are consciously developed orhave emerged over time. These couplings undergopermanent processes of utilization and modificationthat enable the firm to keep pace with external devel-opments affecting firm’s competitiveness.

This applies to both tangible and tacit knowledge andexperience gained by members of an organization(Freiling et al., 2007) that help them build the couplingsthat appear as atmosphere and culture. Therefore, wealso see ambience as a structural characteristic.The term ambience thus embraces culture and

atmosphere together with mental and sensory percep-tions to extend the concept. This infers that the work-place situation prepares and sustains its openness tolearning from explicit and tacit sources, tested byexperiential authentication so that it forms a learninggestalt. Using ambience in this sense suggests thatorganizations that demonstrate or possess this ambi-ence are open minded and consciously integrate(through collaboration and exchange of perspectives)with a holistic view of what they are meant toachieve through the project. The sum is greater thanits constituent parts.

Table 1 Profile of interviewees

Alliance project managers,ALT membersinterviewed and other PAmembers

11 AMs, 6 unit mangers/ALTmembers and 5 PA teammembers

Experience in alliancing 1.5–5 yearsUnit managers interviewed 3Number of organizationsemploying PA

6

Organizations’ level ofinvolvement in alliancing

Varied, up to 75% of incomegenerated through alliances.Alliancing had become thedominant procurementmethod for all participantorganizations

Nature of alliances One building constructionPA, nine infrastructuredevelopment andmaintenance services PAs

6 Walker and Lloyd-Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

The research study approach

This paper focuses upon the alliance ambience but thestudy it is based upon had a more expansive aim. Inthis study, 10 AMs and 2 managers to whom AMsdirectly reported were interviewed. One of the AMswas also a unit manager (a person reports to) and thusable to comment from two perspectives. Each interviewwas recorded and transcribed. Interviews took onaverage just over one hour. In addition a further inten-sive half-day workshop with two unit managers whohad been ALT members was undertaken in Melbournein January 2011 and a further half-day workshop wasundertaken in Auckland, New Zealand, with seven PAteam members including two AMs and two ALTmembers. Over 17 hours of recording were gatheredand over 250 pages of transcript analysed. Table 1 illus-trates the profile of interviewees. We use illustrativequotes in our discussion where nn = interviewnumber; SCn = sub-category derived from contentanalysis.We used a grounded theory approach to analyse the

data gathered following a process where we ‘coded’data, to make sense of the responses to questionsasked, using the transcripts and sound files as our refer-ence along with our knowledge of the literature from theliterature review. Both researchers coded the data separ-ately, then discussed and agreed upon the codes arrivedat using the approach prescribed by Glaser and Strauss(1967). We used NVivo, a sophisticated tool for mana-ging qualitative research data. We were able to accessthe sound files, transcriptions, other relevant datasuch as project reports, web-based information andsundry, less-formal correspondence such as emails.NVivo can be used as a form of document copier andtagging facility. The researcher reads transcripts andlistens to the interview records and codes for meaningof emerging category themes and sub-category, sub-themes. These are then built into more encompassingcategory entities in a continuous sense-making exercise.The process is akin to factor analysis used for quanti-

tative data analysis. The number of interviews chosen isbased on achieving data saturation when each new inter-view reveals fewer ‘new’ categories/themes and withfurther interviewing achieving significantly diminishingreturns for effort involved. Two researchers undertookseparate thematic analysis and compared notes toagree and explore disagreed interpretations. This is awell-established approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967)and requires an open-minded researcher. Sense ismade of data through triangulation of other data suchas documents, web sites and by presenting findings torespondents and other subject matter experts at work-shops inviting critical review. Sound files reveal toneand expression and the researcher-as-interviewer can

also read body language and take contextual notes thatwould be otherwise absent from mere transcripts. Thisapproach can be opinion-based so there is always adanger of bias through ‘group think’ or taking shortcuts in analysing large amounts of data. Opening upresults of analysis to external review is a time-consum-ing and absorbing approach but it has the advantageof deeply immersing researchers into the subjectmatter content, guarding against groupthink and redu-cing bias.The background of researchers is also a factor in the

research process. In this case one researcher is anexperienced professional with direct PM experience insimilar projects and had studied both alliance andmore traditional construction projects over a period ofseveral decades. The second researcher is considered ahighly expert professional in human resource manage-ment (HRM) having a sound knowledge of organiz-ational behaviour and general management and hasbeen involved with this professional area for severaldecades. In this way we were able to better understandthe nuances and jargon that respondents provided andwe were able to seek clarification of ambiguous or unex-pected comments and to closely engage with respon-dents at their comfort level. We guarded against thepossibility of assumptions and bias dominating threadsof discussion by encouraging free range discussionwithin a broad interview semi-structured protocol.This allowed us to prompt participants where necessary.We asked questions about what it felt like to be in thealliance so that we could gain insights from bursts ofenthusiastic voice levels, evasion or reticence, or otherexpressions of emotion.The data from the study provided us with valuable

insights into differences and commonalities expressedby participant PMs of their experience of PAs. Wealso gained intriguing insights into what facilitates andsupports development and retention of participantsworking within alliances. This enabled us to developan understanding of the ambience of the alliancethrough participants’ honest and detailed descriptionsof their experience and perception of alliances,especially in relation to their comparisons with experi-ences of other project procurement forms. Access tonumerous articles and documents about alliances pro-vided further in-depth information and supported com-parisons made.

Discussion of data and results

After carefully coding the data, two main categoriesemerged to help explain the often difficult-to-describeattributes of a PA that led to the development of itsambience. Each category was then further analysed

The ambience of a project alliance 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

into distinct sub-categories. Figure 1 illustrates a modelor representation of the ambience of a PA.Our coding led us to a visualization, presented in

Figure 1, of the mechanisms that provide a key tounderstanding the alliance ambience. Two importantcodes relating to culture are illustrated—Espousedculture and Culture in use. The way that the culture inuse responded to the espoused cultural expectationsshaped the project ambience and the feel of the ambi-ence on any particular PA varied in intensity from par-ticipants working on the PA. Each PA exhibited aunique combination of dynamic contributing influencesbecause the ambience and ‘feel, smell and taste’ of thePA varied with different situational and interpersonalinfluences.

Espoused culture leading to a PA ambience

The espoused and portrayed PA culture is demon-strated by the way that the PA itself is formulated andestablished. The way it is constructed, its aims andobjectives, the selection process and the way it viewsinnovation and changed practices all speak volumesabout a PA’s ambience. The PA establishment and for-mulation process sets the tone of how the PO/POR andNOPs can expect values and assumptions aboutbusiness practice to be viewed. For example an allianceteam selection based upon the best team demonstratedby evidence of achieving excellence in a broad range ofkey result areas (KRAs) will create a different ambience

from that of a team selected on a highly cost-/time-com-petitive priority process adopting narrowly definedKRAs. The PA values, assumptions and the PAA con-ditions all create a certain definable atmosphere.PA governance is represented by rules, organizational

structures and expectations that are enshrined withinthe PAA and these also provide many of the observablecultural artefacts described by Schein (1985, 1990) thatshape a culture and provide a tangible dimension to thePA ambience. PAAs are composed of three commercialcontractual ‘limbs’ (Ross, 2003). Limb 1 stipulates howcosts will be reimbursed and what direct and manage-ment costs are considered valid. Limb 2 stipulates thebasis of the fee for service. Limb 3 defines the incentivi-zation philosophy and the arrangements for sharingpain/gain between PA participants based on definedand measurement performance criteria in terms ofspecific KRAs and key performance indicators (KPIs)and how they will be used for assessing pain/gain inthe incentivization part of the PA agreement. A PAalso includes a behavioural contract guiding how par-ticipants will collaborate and interact. The agreementfollows variations to suit the specific alliance. Readersmay refer to the draft outlined by Ross (2010) or Com-monwealth of Australia Department of Infrastructureand Transport (2011a) for more detail on the form ofcontract and governance arrangements. These aspectsdefine how probity is conducted and what transparencyand accountability measures are prescribed by the PAA.We also observe other governance artefacts of the PA

Figure 1 The key to understanding PA ambience

8 Walker and Lloyd-Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

such as logos, vision statements and even in many casesuniforms in terms of safety equipment such as hard hats,safety vests and other clothing and equipment brandedwith the PA logo which often uses a symbol to representthe feel of the project’s desired outcome such as cleanwater, an uncluttered transport link or communityfacility.Intangible elements of the espoused culture are made

evident through a sense of collegiality that is made expli-cit through the PA’s behavioural rules that contractuallyrequire adherence of the POR and NOPs. These form atangible rather than intangible element of creating a PAambience. They can be felt and guide the way that PAteams work together with a sense of collegiality that isreinforced by the behavioural and performanceclauses. These contractual devices stipulate a ‘we’rather than ‘they’ flavour to the conduct of relation-ships. The hierarchy is reduced through the way thatthe ALT and the AMT is structured, how it is com-posed and its terms of reference. Behavioural clausesrequire the POR, the design team NOPs, project deliv-ery contractor and sub-contractor NOPs to shareresponsibility and accountability for the project. Theircollegial tenor and requirements for unanimous ALTand AMT decision-making in addition to a no-litigationclause (unless total incompetence or criminality can beclearly demonstrated) guide PA parties to an attitude of‘we all sink or swim together’. This combination of gov-ernance and contractual obligation triggers a palpableambience. It has the capacity to fuel high-trust relation-ships between parties through the contractual require-ment for open-book transparency associated withLimb1 arrangements of the PA for cost reimbursementin terms of benevolence and integrity and the intensivePA selection procedure that requires demonstration ofprofessional and technical excellence (Walker andHampson, 2003b; Department of Treasury andFinance Victoria, 2010; Department of Infrastructureand Transport, 2011b). This enhances the chance ofNOPs’ demonstrated project delivery ability toenhance ability elements of trust (Meyer and Allen,1991) including social trust in which a desire to helpanother party through a sense of professionalism orsense of acting ethically is practiced (Smyth andEdkins, 2007, p. 234).A key feature of PAs is the expectation of innovation

and moving beyond business-as-usual (BAU); this ishard-wired into the PAA. It is made explicit throughspecifying innovation stretch targets and demonstratedimprovement in process and task performance. Anypain/gain is pooled and based on project KRAs andKPIs being measured rather than individual NOPs’KRA/KPIs being assessed. This forces a situationwhere it is in every participant’s interest to collaborate,shun playing the ‘blame game’ and share rather than

hoard information and knowledge. This broadlyshared accountability of PA participants and explicitlyspecified KRAs and KPIs that have been collaborativelynegotiated and refined to contributes to an ambience ofcollegiality.Many public sector and infrastructure PAs have a

well-defined triple bottom line (3BL) focus. 3BLmeans that value in terms of cost efficiency, effective-ness and profitability benefit is balanced with a desirefor social and environmental benefits (Elkington,1997). The 3BL focus is now incorporated withinsocial responsibility and sustainability initiatives withinorganizations; those considerations that are not measur-able in bottom-line terms but which will providebenefits to a range of stakeholders over time, includingsociety in general or the environment. Some have advo-cated a sustainable balanced scorecard approach betaken (Hubbard, 2009) and corporate social responsi-bility (CSR) is now used to indicate the need for organ-izations, including PAs, to consider the total impact oftheir actions on society, going beyond the interests ofthe firm alone (Dahlsrud, 2008). The AM also is con-cerned with maintaining the POR and NOP teamswith a best-for-project focus. It is the role of the ALT,AMT and AM to facilitate this maintenance of a best-for-project focus ensuring values alignment while resol-ving any potential stakeholder engagement paradoxes.PAs usually have a best-for-project need that accommo-dates 3BL, sustainability and CSR demands. An over-arching requirement of a PA is the way that eachteam, POR and NOPs, interpret and re-interpret theircommon and shared expectations as active stakeholdersin the project. The literature suggests that viewing a PAin this light helps us better understand the realities andambience of a PA.We now present a series of illustrative quotes from

our study to reveal the PA ambience experienced byinterviewees and relating these to espoused values.

Quote 1—IV02—SC 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2—The basicassumption for alliancing is that you’re all on thesame team and if you can keep everybody on aneven keel, then you’ll end up with an excellentproject .… the agreements [PAs] are reached beforeyou even start doing any work .… that’s the importantpart…. We had an alliance PAA. We were all signa-tories to it. A lot of the development of that allianceagreement came out of workshops with the contractorand the client [which they] were prepared to developand agree to. So a lot of the problems that are nor-mally associated with uncertainties within the con-tract have been thrashed out.Quote 2—IV-07 SC 1.3—…we were up to about 250innovations so far I think on this project and we’vebeen really pleased the way we’ve been able to

The ambience of a project alliance 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

innovate during the bid stage and we’ve continuedthat innovation through the TOC process [TargetOutturn Cost, which is the ‘budget’ equivalentterm]. That innovation has continued on after theTOC process. Obviously the more you innovate, theless opportunity later on to innovate because you’resort of getting into the building phase. So some ofthe size of those innovations may have changed butthe whole process continues on and the net effect ofthem is very promising.Quote 3—IV-05—SC 1.2, 1.5—We, our XXX colla-borative agreement that was set, one of the five keyresult areas is sustainability so we have a number ofKPIs [key performance indicators] under that andthat’s around everything from water to power to edu-cation of people; those sorts of things…we’ve takenon two youths in the last two years from detentioncentres and given them employment and one tookon an apprenticeship with us so we continue to dothat and we’ve partnered with XXX Water to dothat so that’s been very good for us; we’re doing thesame thing around indigenous employment.

Culture in use leading to a PA ambience

The driving logic to embrace collaboration that influ-ences the need for a PAs is often based on the exigencyand required response to high complexity or urgency indelivering a project. PAs are generally formed becausecollaboration and risk sharing is the most sustainableto deal with risk and uncertainty associated with theseprojects. This urgency or sense of threat can trigger anambience characterized by high levels of sensitivity torisk accompanied by a fight-or-flight reaction. A goodexample of this would be a highly constrained time todeliver the entire operating project within an immovabletimeframe. Projects with flexible delivery deadlines maybe undertaken in a more traditional manner with theproject concept being developed, followed by a designphase then subsequently moving to a delivery phase ina linear and perhaps segmented way but allowingthorough market testing through an open tender.However, the NMA study reported upon by Walkerand Hampson (2003a, p. 84) found that a PA was theonly feasible choice based on a specific and highly con-strained delivery time.The risk appetite for a PO/POR influences the PA

decision as well as the form that it may take and the atti-tudes, assumptions fears and hopes that it imbues in aPO/POR. This may influence the ambience in a nega-tive way with a sense of fear about being vulnerableand exploited or it may trigger a positive ambience inwhich hope and faith is expressed through the PAAwhile maintaining a reasonable and understandable

level of security through the PA transparency andprobity conditions. NOPs respond to risk sharing withthe PO/POR and their past experience of how to dealwith competitive tensions with their NOP partnersfrom past projects. This will also influence the ambienceof the PA. Espoused cultural values alone are not likelyto sustain a positive PA ambience. Aspirations cannotbe realized unless action follows and is aligned withespoused intentions.The relational knowledge, skills, attributes and

experience (KSAE) of both the PO/POR and NOPsare also factors in shaping the ambience of the PA.The basis and KSAEs required of those being hired ortransferred to the PA is critical as these KSAEs needto match and be consistent with the PA-espousedculture. A selection of key people is often focussed onavoiding recruiting people who do not and cannotlearn to function within a PA. This results in the PAbeing staffed by people who engender the requiredtrust of colleagues and to work collaboratively with thenecessary people skills required of a PA. The PO/PORmust also accept that a PA required considerableresources, time and energy devoted to staff develop-ment to enable them to not understand what the ambi-ence of a PAmight be but to act and behave in the PA ina manner consistent with its espoused values andassumptions.PAs are unusual in their ambience in that they exude

a sense of community because of the need for high levelsof trust, collaboration and both transparency andaccountability for performance. This community oftenextends beyond the internal team stakeholder group tothe community served by the project outcome. Infra-structure projects in particular that are delivered by aPA often have explicit 3BL outcomes, KRAs andKPIs and so a challenge to the culture-in-use ambienceof a PA is its ability to respect legitimate and valid ident-ified stakeholder expectations and to serve those objec-tives and needs through considering balanced financial,environmental and social needs.We now present some more illustrative quotes from

our study relating to values-in-use.

Quote 4—IV06—2.2, 2.1—… the big issue with alli-ances is the idea of the co-location and bringing thatall together, and that certainly does make all thedifference. We’re co-located with the people initiatingthe projects too, who are just a floor apart, and that’sbeen a huge part of improving that, generating theoutcomes that everybody agrees on, we’re not depen-dent on a couple of meetings each month to talkabout that, but people are just popping up anddown and sorting out issues all the time.Quote 5—IV06—2.2, 1.3—…within the alliance it[feedback transfer & innovation] happens a few

10 Walker and Lloyd-Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

different ways, it happens through pre-meetings andthings like that, where we get people to talk aboutthe ideas they’ve come up with and what they’velearnt from projects. We have a project manager’sforum once a month, where we encourage people tobring that kind of information. We have an inno-vations register, where that gets documented, andonce again we’ve got to get a bit better at how we dis-tribute that information, so less of it falls throughcracks.Quote 6—IV-08 SC 2.1, 2.2—It’s your manner, andyour approach, and your ability to relate and demon-strate cohesiveness as a team, so that requires anextreme amount of personal commitment.

PA outcomes and ambience

The PA outcome results in a tangible project deliverablesuch as a road link, a railway line, a hospital, etc. PMdelivery success will be judged using KRA and KPImeasures. A PA also results in a behavioural legacythat is dependent on the way that relationships grew,were maintained and the quality of them. Our datafrom this study revealed some interesting findings. Par-ticipants that we interviewed stressed the importance oflearning about the value proposition of the PO/POR andabout other NOPs. They also were motivated toenhance their learning about technical and relationalaspects as well as gaining absorptive capacity to learnmore about how to work within a PA. There was alsoenthusiasm expressed by interviewees about thelessons learned from PAs helping to transform thebusiness models in use in BAU project work. Skillsgained in improved perception taking and appreciatingissues and challenges faced by other project teams andimproved approaches to negotiating disputes or issuesaround alignment of priorities were seen to be a positiveoutcome of learning from PAs and from emersion in aPA ambience. We concluded from our analysis thatthis learning emphasis was more explicit and pressingfor participants on a PA than was evident in otherforms of project procurement.Our respondents also stressed the advantages gained

from collaboration that allowed them to focus onproblem-solving within a more constructive and no-blame setting that exhibited an ambience of travellerson a collective journey of discovery about a range ofthings many expected but also with unexpected experi-ences. The reduction of energy expended on resolvingdisputes and misunderstandings was clearly evidentfrom our interviews.We now present some illustrative quotes from our

study relating to ambience outcomes.

Quote 7—IV-11 SC3.1, SC3.3—Alliancing hasalmost become part of our business now. So wedon’t necessarily have a different approach to it.Five years ago, I think it was a bit different wherewe did almost quarantine the people that wereworking on this Alliance and they were solelyfocused on that, but business is so diverse in termsof the types of projects we do that we have aformula, and as you say, whether it’s PPP orwhether it’s an alliance, or whether it’s the D & C[design and construct], we try and stick to thatformula as we go through…. Alliances have beenthe making of this business; it’s really opened up pos-sibilities to work more closely with the clients, workmore closely with our consulting partners, and justother members of our industry sector. Before allian-cing came along, we all stuck to our little silos anddidn’t interact; it’s really opened it up.Quote 8—IV-09 SC3.2—… I think the people thatstruggle in going back find the pace of the project,the culture and when I say culture the freedom, theinteraction with the number of different disciplines,all that type of thing, [it] is difficult then to returnand be very narrow in your work.

Expected and confirming results about the PAambience

Observed PA ambience as recounted to us fromresearch respondents provides a sense of the PA beinga safe haven with low information and power asymme-tries that provide a milieu in which trust and confidenceare nurtured and enhanced. This is contrasted withtheir project experience engaged in other procurementforms. PA decision-making becomes more informed;risk can be better managed by those able and preparedto bear it; and participants feel more inclined toexpend energy constructively and positively in makingbest-for-project decisions than is evident in manyalternative procurement forms.This prevailing ambience imbues confidence and

feelings of uniformity in affective commitment toagreed goals, aims and project vision. Meyer andAllen (1991) present a three-level model of commit-ment with continuous being a ‘need-to’ level in order tomaintain a status quo (pay, support, etc.), a normativelevel ‘ought-to’ level which relies on loyalty and obli-gation and affective commitment representing a ‘want-to’ level. Therefore the prevailing ambience appears togenerate a positive environment that is created by thePAA through the agreement to ‘sink or swim’ togetherand through the gainsharing and painsharing pro-visions. Additionally, the selection process thatchooses NOPs and AMs with technical competence,

The ambience of a project alliance 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

sound PM competence and very good ‘soft’ peoplemanagement skills reinforces these ambience settingconditions. Both NOPs and PO/POR teams expressedan appreciation of and recognized the value of whateach party brings to the project in terms of skills, experi-ence and knowledge creating an ambience of anappreciative society. AMs demonstrated that the ambi-ence of a PA was supportive of developing teammembers’ skills and experience.Innovation is expected and valued in PAs, providing

intellectual and professional challenge and stimulation.There is evidence of a focus on continuous improve-ment, with associated stress and stimulation that gener-ates excitement. Innovation thrives in an environmentwhere it is ‘safe’ to experiment, openly and honestlyevaluate results, and to access both internal and externalorganizational knowledge and experience repositories.Research into innovation and knowledge managementby Maqsood (2006) found that the development of anorganizational learning culture was important. Thiswas also discussed in terms of relationship-based pro-curement systems (Walker and Maqsood, 2008). Theambience within studied alliances indicates safety anda readiness to challenge the status quo within anenvironment in which it is felt comfortable and expectedto do so because innovation was assumed to be part ofthe alliancing culture.A focus on performance, through agreed and well-

defined KPIs and KRAs, has become a standardapproach to be used and this was mentioned through-out the interview transcripts. This demonstrates ahigh level of client sophistication in developing up-front expectations of what constitutes success andwhat is valued, as well as what indicates key perform-ance requirements. This removes a lot of uncertaintyabout the project outcome and values while it leavesprecise methods, techniques and approaches as some-thing to be negotiated and worked out in a pragmaticway by parties that are committed to the valuesexpressed by KRAs and monitored through KPIs.While this adds some structure and rigour that mayappear to increase bureaucracy it actually increasesflexibility and responsiveness because it has a focus onthe outcomes and outputs rather than the tasks andthings to be done as per specifications and schedules—these details about the ‘what to do’ plans are notoverlooked, rather they are means to an end that canbe adjusted to accommodate innovation, improvedapproaches, etc. This mindset is consistent with avalue management culture of managing uncertaintyand ambiguity creatively (Thiry, 2002) and creates anambience of excitement about how challenges can becreatively addressed rather than one where a feeling ofdoom may prevail that plans ‘do not work’ or blamewill inevitably follow.

A principal feature of alliancing is that there is a focuson managing uncertainty rather than strictly managingrisk. Risk management takes place in terms of thosebest to deal with and cope with risk taking in thatresponsibility and is concerned with known–knownsand known–unknowns. Uncertainty managementrelates to ways of dealing with the contextual surprisesand unforeseen events or circumstances that impactupon the project and these are usually within therealm of unknown–unknowns. The way to deal withthis kind of complexity, according to Snowden andBoone (2007), is to probe the situation, make sense ofit and respond accordingly. Complex situations areoften ‘messy’ and unordered but do fall within arraysof interwoven systems. Sensemaking helps in under-standing the interconnectedness of interacting systemsand enables some order to be made out of apparentlack of order or disorder. Uncertainty can also lead toapparent chaos, especially with recursive situationswhere gaining certain information leads to an actionwhich requires the situation to be re-evaluated forfurther action. This probe, sense and respond set ofactions requires a great deal of flexibility and negotiationbetween involved parties and a governance frameworkthat allows open, transparent and clear communication,low asymmetry of information and power and the abilityto openly discuss the ‘undiscussables’. The evidencepresented from the interviews confirmed time andagain that openness, collegiality and the joint affectivecommitment of all parties to a best-for-project (asopposed to individual or NOP organization-specificinterest) explains the need for an environment withinwhich the PA ambience we have identified can prevail.This effectively provides an atmosphere where risk man-agement moves to uncertainty management and thepossibility of it providing an opportunity for innovation;moving from a negative to positive disposition towardsuncertainties as they arise.

Unexpected PA ambience results

Often, unintended consequences arise out of actions.This discussion refers to findings that suggest that theambience of alliancing may generate features that wedid not expect. We also include in this section obser-vations from the data we gathered that we did notanticipate.One positive feature that we encountered with PAs is

that they seem to be projects that provide the opportu-nity for team members to develop professionally, man-agerially, and to grow through being challenged bycomplexity and having to deal with uncertainty insolving everyday problems. Team members alsobecome involved partners in developing innovativeways to deliver project outcomes or in making design

12 Walker and Lloyd-Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

decisions. However, the PA structure can neverthelessinhibit team members’ development and positionwithin their base organization. Several respondentsexpressed problems of transience of team membersmoving between alliance and base organization roles,or alliance-to-alliance, with minimal contact with theirbase organization. In this way a problem associatedwith a PA ambience is that it can create an expatriatementality such as that reported upon in the literatureon expatriate reintegration and identity constructionand reconstruction in Sweden (Näsholm, 2011). Söder-lund et al. (2010, p. 3) use the term liminality as beingbetwixt and between; it is a state denoting a transitionfrom one social status to another. Söderlund et al.(2010, p. 3) studied 20 consultants in Sweden toexplore their experience of moving in and out of assign-ments with clients in much the same way that PA teammembers moved between projects in our study. In theSöderlund et al. study, they voice interviewees’ anxietyand concerns about timing issues, such as how longthey should stay on an assignment; when to move on;how to move on in terms of maintaining interestingand challenging work that develops them. Anotherconcern is the possibility of missing other career devel-opment opportunities or roles (Söderlund et al., 2010,p. 3). Baruch and Altman (2002, p. 240) state that‘expatriation poses the intricate task of recruiting, pre-paring, relocating, placement, integration, rewarding,appraising, promoting, and repeating the process forrepatriation thereafter’. PAs can be viewed in a similarway to international organizations attracting talent butthe cultural adaptation and creation or re-creationinvolved occurs intra-organization, rather than in thenational, cultural context. We saw little evidence ofHRM involvement in these alliances, in identificationand selection of PA team staff or in assisting employeesto adjust on return to, for instance, head office roles.This was surprising as several of the AMs interviewedstated that their original discipline was HRM. Whenquestioned, responses provided suggested that manyof the PO organizations, as well as NOP organizations,operate on an operational rather than strategic level.The paradox is that PAs need their highest levelpeople to deal with complexity, uncertainty, requiringexcellent communications skills to create the ambiencewe have been describing. Keegan and den Hartog(2013) suggest that new models are required tosupport new ways of working in today’s organizationand it may be time for project-based organizations toconsider how their practices have been adjusted tosupport their dependence on high-quality professionalsundertaking work within non-traditional organizationalstructures.A related issue is the ‘war for talent’, that is, attracting

the best people to an alliance. It is possible that POs and

PORs are missing an opportunity to present themselvesas a ‘brand’ or to ‘provide opportunities’ in the sameway that some international companies attract expatri-ate specialists. These companies do this through adopt-ing strategies ranging from being a ‘global’ firm with astrong and desirable reputation of offering opportunitieson a global scale or being an ‘emissary’, where thecompany is established internationally ‘with a long-term view as to its international positioning; however,it is firmly rooted in a particular “home” culture andthis serves as its repository ideology, power base, andexpatriate source’ (Baruch and Altman, 2002, p. 243).We saw evidence of some AMs consciously attemptingto brand the PA as a desirable space to work andhaving a conducive ambience. We did not expect thiscompetition for talent to be as crucial as content ofthe transcripts suggests. POs/PORs who have con-sciously thought about using a PA approach for strategicreasons may need to consider the ‘talent’ attraction,development and retention issues more fully if theyare to create a pool of available AMs with the base tech-nical skills, the excellence in PM skills as well as thehigher-level PM skills for stakeholder engagement anddealing with uncertainty and complexity. Using theunique ambience of an alliance entity as an attractionand retention mechanism may be possible.

Conclusions

The purpose of this paper was to reveal the ambience ofPAs to respond to the research question what character-izes the project ambience experienced by participants engagedin Australasian infrastructure PAs? We built upon pre-vious work that defined differences between a PA andother relationship-based procurement systems and wealso built upon several cited recent studies of alliancing,including the study into the attraction, developmentand retention of AMs in Australia. Our paper is basedon a comprehensive survey of AMs yielding 250+pages of transcript from which we selected eight repre-sentative quotes from AMs to support our findings.We summarize the ambience of a PA as being a work

space where complexity and at times chaos, but alwayshigh levels of uncertainty, prevails. It is an environmentin which trust and transparency values dominate. PAteams seek to cope with uncertainty and indeed view itas an opportunity to trigger refining and improving theproject design through innovation and responding to abest-for-project mentality that often encompassesCSR, sustainability and 3BL issues. They do so bydeveloping an open, collegial and appreciative workenvironment that allows alliance teams to jointlyaccept responsibility for project outcomes and makedecisions based on low information and power

The ambience of a project alliance 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

asymmetries. This allows ‘undiscussables’ to be raised,discussed and considered so that uncertainty and riskmanagement is more positively pursued.Finally we found, based upon over a decade of Aus-

tralia PA experience and a decade experience formany of the NOPs interviewed, that PA ambience isvalued as encouraging collegiality, trust andcommitment.This study was restricted to Australasia, including

only one PA from New Zealand. We acknowledge thatwe have cited literature of the use of PAs in the UKand elsewhere that the experiences of those we inter-viewed are confined to Australasia. Further researchcould test whether our findings can be more general-ized. The industry using this procurement approachneeds to transition through a maturity process todevelop in staff the behaviours required of PAs.PA participants may experience varying and variable

degrees of feelings such as warmth, safety and cosiness.At times they may sense an intense and confrontingatmosphere, but the PAA requires that they sink orswim together. This means that those participantsmust use their high-level communication and empathyskills and respect the ideas and expertise of others inorder to capitalize upon diverse opinions. The ambiencecan appear to participants and observers as being ‘tribal’or family like in nature, with co-location and/or sharedcommunication platforms adding to a sense of intimacy.We speculate and suspect that the health and perform-ance of an alliance might be measured by its ambience,but suitable measures are yet to be defined. This is anarea ripe for further research.The principal implications emerging from this study

are that the ambience that we describe has a distinctlycollaborative and knowledge-sharing flavour requiringteam members to behave in a different way fromworking in the traditional highly competitive andclaims-oriented BAU approaches. PAs need to recruitpeople who can function and thrive in the ambiencedescribed in this paper in the manner that HR prac-titioners describe as ‘person–organization culture fit’(De Cooman et al., 2009; Ng and Sarris, 2009). For aPA, that means needing people who can operatewithin an open, sharing and non-competitive environ-ment. Results also suggest that continual staff develop-ment is needed to maintain effective PA team memberbehaviours but sometimes there is a conflict betweenthe PA and home base organization of those engagedon PAs about who should fund and support that devel-opment. This suggests that HRM within these organiz-ations may also need to be reconsidered to allow newways of operating to support the changes in KSAEand to help shape a positive project ambience.An important implication from our findings is that PA

staff, particularly AMs and others in leadership roles,

are a rare breed of talent that often need to un-learnthe combative skills developed in the traditional PMenvironment. While those skills may be seen to be com-mercially valuable in the rough-and-tumble of tra-ditional construction projects (where being able toextract profits from contract variation claims is oftenvalued) they are counter-productive for a constructivePAs ambience.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the Alliancing Association of Austra-lasia for their cooperation and support in this researchand the Project Management Institute (PMI) and Aus-tralian Research Council for funding further researchgrants into this important topic.

References

Andersen, E.S. (2008) Rethinking Project Management—AnOrganisational Perspective, Pearson Education Limited,Harlow.

Baruch, Y. and Altman, Y. (2002) Expatriation and repatria-tion in MNCs: a taxonomy. Human Resource Management,41(2), 239–59.

Blismas, N. and Harley, J. (2008) Alliances Performance inPublic Sector Infrastructure—A Survey on AlliancesPerformance in Public Sector Infrastructure Projects AcrossAustralia, Melbourne, RMIT University and ALLIANCEASSOCIATION AUSTRALASIA, Australia.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008) How corporate social responsibility isdefined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.

Davis, P.R. (2006) The application of relationship marketingto construction, PhD thesis, School of Economics,Finance and Marketing, RMIT University, Melbourne.

De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Hermans, S.,Du Bois, C., Caers, R. and Jegers, M. (2009) Person–organization fit: testing socialization and attraction–selec-tion–attrition hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior,74(1), 102–7.

Department of Finance and Treasury Victoria. (2010) ThePractitioners’ Guide to Alliance Contracting, Department ofTreasury and Finance, Melbourne, Victoria, p. 161.

Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2011a)National Alliance Contracting Guidelines Guide to AllianceContracting, Department of Infrastructure and TransportA. C. G., Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 168.

Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2011b)National Alliance Contracting Policy Principles, Departmentof Infrastructure and Transport A. C. G., Commonwealthof Australia, Canberra, p. 18.

Department of Treasury and Finance Victoria. (2010) ThePractitioners’ Guide to Alliance Contracting, Department ofTreasury and Finance, Melbourne, Victoria, p. 161.

14 Walker and Lloyd-Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction—The Report ofConstruction Task Force, Report, Department ofEnvironment, Transport and the Regions, London, p. 38.

Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks, CapstonePublishing, London.

Fichtner, H. and Freiling, J. (2008) Organizational culture,organizational ambiance & competences: A competence-based theory of the firm, March 27, available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1113860 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1113860

Freiling, J., Gersch, M. and Goeke, C. (2007) On the pathtowards a competence-based theory of the firm, availableat SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1046661 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1046661

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery ofGrounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, AldinePub. Co., New York.

Hällgren, M. and Wilson, T.L. (2007) Mini-muddling: learn-ing from project plan deviations. Journal of WorkplaceLearning, 19(2), 92–107.

Heikkinen, M. and Airola, M. (2013) Towards enhancedvalue co-creation in project-based organisations: a casestudy in Finnish project alliance pilots, in EURAM 13thDemocratising Management, Istanbul, 32 pp.

Hubbard, G. (2009) Measuring organizational performance:beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and theEnvironment, 18(3), 177–91.

Jefferies, M., Brewer, G., Rowlinson, S., Cheung, Y.K.F. andSatchell, A. (2006) Project alliances in the Australian con-struction industry: a case study of a water treatmentproject, in McDermott, P. and Khalfan, M.M.K. (eds.)Symposium on CIB W92: Sustainability and Value ThroughConstruction Procurement, Salford, UK, 29 November–2December, 11 pp.

Keegan, A. and den Hartog, D. (2013) Breaking the chain? Anevaluation of HRM and performance theory from the per-spective of project based organizations, in Söderlund,J. and Müller, R. (eds.) IRNOP 2013, BI NorwegianBusiness School, Oslo, 22 pp.

Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change, Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston, MA.

Laan, A., Voordijk, H. and Dewulf, G. (2011) Reducingopportunistic behaviour through a project alliance.International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(4),660–79.

Lahdenperä, P. (2009) Project Alliance—The Competitive SingleTarget-Cost Approach, VTT, Espoo, p. 79.

Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team, Final Report of theGovernment/Industry Review of Procurement and ContractualArrangements in the UK Construction Industry, HMSO,London.

Lindblom, C.E. (1959) The science of “Muddling Through”.Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

Lindblom, C.E. (1979) Still muddling, not yet through. PublicAdministration Review, 39(6), 517–26.

Lloyd-Walker, B.M. and Walker, D.H.T. (2011) Project alli-ances in Australasia—differences with other forms ofrelationship based procurement, in Martinsuo, M.,Gemünden, H.G. and Huemann, M. (eds.) European

Academy of Management (EURAM) 2011, ManagementCulture in the 21st Century, Tallinn, Estonia, 1–4 June, 40 pp.

MacDonald, C.C. (2011) Value for money in project alli-ances, DPM, School of Property, Construction andProject Management, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Maqsood, T. (2006) The role of knowledge management insupporting innovation and learning in construction, PhDthesis, School of Business Information Technology,RMIT University, Melbourne.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991) A three-component con-ceptualization of organizational commitment. HumanResource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.

Mills, A. and Harley, J. (2010) Alliance Performance andPerception Survey in Public Sector Infrastructure—2010,Alliance Association of Australasia, Sydney, 17 pp.

Murray, M. and Langford, D.A. (2003) Construction Reports1944–98, Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.

Näsholm,M. (2011)Global Careerists’ Identity Construction—ANarrative Study of Expatriates and International Itinerants,Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Umeå.

NBCC. (1989) Strategies for the Reduction of Claims andDisputes in the Construction Industry—No Dispute, NationalBuilding and Construction Council, Canberra.

Ng, C. and Sarris, A. (2009) Distinguishing between the effectof perceived organisational support and person–organis-ation fit on work outcomes. The Australian and NewZealand Journal of Organisational Psychology, 2(1), 1–9.

Oxford. (2001) The New Oxford Dictionary of English, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Ross, J. (2003) Introduction to project alliancing, in AllianceContracting Conference, Project Control International PtyLtd., Sydney, 30 April 2003.

Ross, J. (2010) Draft Project Execution Agreement, available athttp://www.pci-aus.com/Downloads/PCI_PEA-model_B_01Nov2010.pdf

Rowlinson, S., Walker, D.H.T. and Cheung, F.Y.K. (2008)Culture and its impact upon project procurement, inWalker, D.H.T. and Rowlinson, S. (eds.) ProcurementSystems—A Cross Industry Project Management Perspective,Abingdon, Taylor & Francis, pp. 277–310.

Schein, E.H. (1985) Organisational Culture and Leadership,Jossey Bass, San Francisco, NC.

Schein, E.H. (1990) Organizational culture. AmericanPsychologist, 45(2), 109–19.

Schein, E.H. (2004) Organisational Culture and Leadership,Jossey Bass, San Francisco, NC.

Smyth, H. and Edkins, A. (2007) Relationship management inthe management of PFI/PPP projects in the UK.International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 232–40.

Smyth, H., Pryke, S. and Ebooks Corporation. (2009)Collaborative Relationships in Construction—DevelopingFrameworks and Networks, John Wiley & Sons Inc,Chichester.

Snowden, D.J. and Boone, M.E. (2007) A leader’s frameworkfordecisionmaking.HarvardBusiness Review, 85(11), 69–76.

Söderlund, J., Borg, E. and Bredin, K. (2010) Humanresources in project based firms: moving in, moving out,moving on, in Messikomer, C. (ed.) IPMI ResearchConference 2010, Washington, DC, 24 pp.

The ambience of a project alliance 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Thiry, M. (2002) Combining value and project managementinto an effective programme management model.International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 221–7.

Walker, D.H.T. and Hampson, K.D. (2003a) ProcurementStrategies: A Relationship Based Approach, BlackwellPublishing, Oxford.

Walker, D.H.T. and Hampson, K.D. (eds.) (2003b) Projectalliance member organisation selection, ProcurementStrategies: A Relationship Based Approach, BlackwellPublishing, Oxford, pp. 74–102 (Chapter 4).

Walker, D.H.T. and Harley, J. (2013)Alliance Performance andPerception Survey in Public Sector Infrastructure—2012,Alliance Association of Australasia, Melbourne, 20 pp.

Walker, D.H.T. and Lloyd-Walker, B.M. (2011a) ProfilingProfessional Excellence in Alliance Management SummaryStudy Report, Alliancing Association of Australasia,Sydney, p. 36.

Walker, D.H.T. and Lloyd-Walker, B.M. (2011b) ProfilingProfessional Excellence in Alliance Management Volume One—Findings and Results, Alliancing Association ofAustralasia, Sydney, p. 76.

Walker, D.H.T. and Lloyd-Walker, B.M. (2011c) ProfilingProfessional Excellence in Alliance Management Volume Two—Appendices, Alliancing Association of Australasia,Sydney, p. 98.

Walker, D.H.T. and Maqsood, T. (2008) Procurement inno-vation and organisational learning, in Walker, D.H.T. andRowlinson, S. (eds.) Procurement Systems—A CrossIndustry Project Management Perspective, Taylor & Francis,Abingdon, pp. 246–76.

Walker, D.H.T., Peters, R.J., Hampson, K.D. andThompson, M.J. (2001) Achieving a responsive industrialrelations environment for construction industry workers: aproject alliancing case study. Construction Innovation, 1(4),211–25.

Wood, P. and Duffield, C. (2009) In Pursuit of AdditionalValue a Benchmarking Study into Alliancing in theAustralian Public Sector, Department of Treasury andFinance, Melbourne, Victoria, p. 191.

Xu, T., Bower, D.A. and Smith, N.J. (2005) Types of collabor-ationbetween foreign contractors and theirChinese partners.International Journal of Project Management, 23(1), 45–53.

16 Walker and Lloyd-Walker

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

12:

21 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014