1. business and industrial
2. business operations
3. management
4. project management

II"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
TOWARDS"COLLABORATION"BETWEEN"PRINCIPAL"AND"CONTRACTOR"ON"PROJECT"STAKEHOLDER"MANAGEMENT$
An#explorative#research#towards#better#collaboration#
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Author"
Name$ $
$
Sophie$Annet$Vulink$
Student$number$$
1503774$
Contact$$
$
sophievulink@gmail.com$
Master$program$
Construction$Management$and$Engineering$
University$
$
Delft$University$of$Technology$
$
Graduation"committee"
Chairman$
$
Prof.$mr.$dr.$J.A.$de$Bruijn$!$TU$Delft,$Technology,$Policy$and$Management$$
First$supervisor$$
Dr.$E.M.$van$Bueren$!$TU$Delft,$Technology,$Policy$and$Management$$
Second$supervisor$
Dr.$ir.$M.G.C.$BoschRRekveldt$!$TU$Delft,$Civil$Engineering$and$Geosciences$
External$supervisor$
Ir.$G.A.R.$Pieters$!$Neerlands$Diep$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"III"
$
$
$
IV"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
PREFACE"
$
$
This$ research$ is$ the$ result$ of$ my$ graduation$ research$ as$ part$ of$ the$ master$ degree$ Construction$
Management$and$Engineering$at$Delft,$University$of$Technology.$
$
This$ master$ program$ provided$ me$ understanding$ the$ construction$ industry.$ Almost$ one$ year$ ago$ I$
started$looking$for$a$topic$for$my$thesis.$Since$conducting$this$research$would$take$quite$some$time,$
the$topic$should$have$my$interest.$The$interesting$courses$of$my$study$and$practical$experiences$that$
were$ shared$ during$ project$ visits$ aroused$ my$ interest$ to$ conduct$ research$ about$ the$ collaboration$
between$principal$and$contractor$related$to$project$stakeholder$management.$Neerlands$Diep$gave$
me$ the$ opportunity$ to$ conduct$ this$ research$ under$ their$ authority.$ Members$ of$ their$ network$
recognised$the$importance$of$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$on$project$stakeholder$
management$ and$ illustrated$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ realisation$ is$ an$ actual$
issue.$$
$
This$ research$ would$ not$ have$ been$ possible$ without$ the$ supervision$ of$ my$ graduation$ committee$
and$I$would$like$to$thank$them$for$their$contribution.$First$of$all,$I$would$like$to$thank$Guus$for$giving$
me$ the$ opportunity$ to$ perform$ my$ research$ for$ Neerlands$ Diep.$ Your$ practical$ insights$ and$
knowledge$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ guided$ me$ through$ this$ research.$ Ellen,$ your$
excellent$feedback$enhanced$the$robustness$of$my$findings$and$you$were$very$helpful$with$the$set$
up$of$case$study.$Marian,$you$kept$me$focused$on$the$structure$of$my$report$and$provided$me$with$
excellent$ feedback.$ Hans,$ during$ the$ committee$ meetings$ you$ always$ had$ a$ point$ of$ criticism.$ This$
has$resulted$in$a$better$quality$of$my$research.$So,$thank$you$all.$$$
$
I$also$would$like$to$thank$all$eight$interviewees.$Visiting$these$projects$have$brought$me$all$over$the$
country$and$resulted$in$different$perspectives$on$my$research$topic.$I$gained$insight$in$the$complexity$
of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ This$
made$the$research$really$interesting,$but$also$very$educational$for$my$further$carrier.$
$
A$special$thanks$goes$to$the$participants$of$the$workshop$meeting$who$made$it$possible$to$test$my$
research$findings.$In$addition,$I$would$like$to$thank$the$people$working$at$Neerlands$Diep$who$made$
the$organisation$of$this$workshop$meeting$possible.$
$
Last$ but$ not$ least$ I$ would$ like$ to$ thank$ the$ people$ in$ my$ surroundings,$ who$ have$ supported$ me$
during$ the$ entire$ period$ and$ always$ had$ confidence.$ I$ specifically$ want$ to$ mention$ my$ father,$ who$
has$taken$the$time$to$read$my$report$during$the$whole$process$and$always$had$a$critical$note.$This$
has$benefited$the$quality$of$this$report,$without$his$help$it$would$not$have$this$quality.$
$
Finally,$it$was$a$great$pleasure$to$be$a$student$in$Delft.$I$have$had$a$fantastic$time$with$great$people$
around$me.$$
$
I$hope$you$all$enjoy$reading$this$report,$
$
Sophie$Vulink$
Den$Haag,$April$2015$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"V"
$
$
VI"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
SUMMARY"
$
$
Introduction"
The$ scope$ and$ costs$ of$ these$ days’$ infrastructure$ projects$ have$ increased$ and$ therefore$ the$
realisation$of$these$projects$has$become$more$complex.$The$legal,$organisational$and$social$context$
in$ which$ infrastructure$ projects$ are$ realised$ is$ changing$ and$ there$ was$ dissatisfaction$ about$ the$
functioning$of$the$construction$sector.$Therefore,$the$Ministry$of$Infrastructure$and$Environment$has$
introduced$two$new$policies$to$involve$private$parties$in$order$to$decrease$the$duration$and$costs,$
and$increase$the$quality$of$infrastructure$projects.$As$a$consequence$more$tasks$are$outsourced$to$
market$parties,$while$the$public$principal$is$taking$a$step$back$and$has$fewer$responsibilities.$Besides$
that,$ the$ public$ attention$ for$ the$ realisation$ of$ infrastructure$ projects$ has$ increased.$ In$ case$ these$
stakeholders$are$not$carefully$involved,$this$might$result$in$major$overruns$in$time$and$costs$or$even$
cancellation$ of$ a$ project.$ Therefore$ managing$ the$ parties$ that$ have$ an$ interest$ in$ the$ project$ has$
become$more$important.$
$
Because$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ (Dutch:$ omgevingsmanagement)$ is$ relatively$ new$ as$ an$
individual$ policy$ issue$ within$ project$ management$ of$ infrastructure,$ there$ seems$ to$ be$ little$
coordination$ in$ a$ combined$ approach$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ This$ indicates$ that$ there$ is$ an$
opportunity$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ However,$ this$
collaboration$ has$ to$ be$ improved$ within$ the$ legal$ requirements$ and$ in$ a$ constantly$ changing$ and$
dynamic$ project$ environment.$ Besides$ that,$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$
one$of$the$greatest$challenges$of$these$days’$projects$due$to$the$different$objectives$of$both$parties.$
The$ objective$ of$ this$ research$ was$ to$ gain$ insight$ in$ how$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor$on$project$stakeholder$management$could$be$enhanced.$In$order$to$achieve$this$objective$
the$research$question$was$formulated$as:$
$
Which%possibilities%can%be%defined%to%enhance%the%collaboration%between%principal%and%
contractor%on%project%stakeholder%management%in%large%infrastructure%projects?%
$
This$ research$ contributed$ to$ the$ theoretical$ knowledge$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor$on$project$stakeholder$management$by$providing$insights$to$enhance$this$collaboration.$
The$research$was$executed$under$the$authority$of$Neerlands$Diep.$This$organisation$has$the$aim$to$
exchange$knowledge$from$construction$projects$and$to$create$new$knowledge$for$these$and$future$
projects.$$
"
Literature"
A$ literature$ study$ was$ conducted$ with$ four$ purposes:$ (1)$ to$ see$ what$ is$ known$ about$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ and$ how$ this$ type$ of$ project$ management$ is$ embedded$ in$ public$ and$
private$organisations,$(2)$to$discuss$the$legal$context$in$which$this$research$takes$place,$(3)$to$discuss$
on$ the$ organisational$ context$ of$ this$ research$ and$ to$ show$ which$ factors$ are$ important$ for$ good$
collaboration$ and$ (4)$ to$ discuss$ the$ social$ context$ in$ which$ this$ research$ takes$ place.$ These$ four$
topics$are$elaborated.$$
$
Literature$indicated$different$definitions$for$project$stakeholder$management.$It$was$concluded$that$
project$ stakeholder$ management$ could$ be$ described$ as$ ‘management# that# is# the# link# between# the#
project# organisation# and# the# project# environment# with# its# stakeholders.# The# interests# of# the#
stakeholders#have#to#be#taken#into#account#and#the#aim#is#to#engage#stakeholders#to#the#project,#to#
acquire#support#and#to#make#the#realisation#of#the#project#possible#without#interference.#The#goal#of#
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"VII"
project# stakeholder# management# is# twofold:# satisfaction# of# the# stakeholders# and# the# realisation# of#
the# project# within# scope,# time# and# budget’.$ Within$ the$ organisation$ of$ the$ principal$ the$ project$
stakeholder$manager$is$one$of$the$five$roles$in$the$integrated$project$management$model,$while$not$
all$contracting$parties$have$figured$out$yet$how$to$embed$project$stakeholder$management$in$their$
organisation.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$can$ be$ defined$ by$ the$ components$ communication,$
conditioning,$stakeholder$management$and$traffic$management.$Project$stakeholder$management$is$
conducted$at$strategic,$tactical$and$operational$level.$$
$
Literature$ illustrated$ that$ the$ construction$ sector$ is$ changing$ from$ a$ traditional$ contract$ model$
towards$ a$ soRcalled$ integrated$ contract$ model.$ This$ means$ that$ the$ role$ of$ the$ principal$ is$ more$
limited,$ because$ a$ contractor$ becomes$ responsible$ for$ the$ design$ and$ construction$ of$ the$ project.$
Besides$ these$ new$ types$ of$ contracts,$ there$ was$ dissatisfaction$ about$ the$ functioning$ of$ the$
construction$ sector.$ This$ resulted$ in$ two$ policies$ about$ involving$ private$ parties$ to$ improve$ the$
duration,$ costs$ and$ quality$ in$ the$ realisation$ of$ infrastructure$ projects.$ In$ addition,$ the$ Dutch$ and$
European$ legislation$ has$ become$ more$ complex$ which$ makes$ the$ development$ of$ infrastructure$
projects$more$challenging.$
$
The$new$types$of$contracts$and$the$changing$relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$resulted$
in$ organisational$ changes.$ In$ the$ nineties,$ the$ public$ resources$ were$ not$ sufficient$ to$ meet$ the$
requirements$with$regard$to$the$improvement$of$the$transport$infrastructure.$This$caused$the$rise$of$
the$ integrated$ contracts$ where$ the$ public$ principal$ is$ stepping$ back$ as$ the$ executing$ party$ of$
construction$projects$and$is$focusing$more$on$the$strategic$and$coordinating$role$as$asset$owner.$The$
construction$sector$is$changing$from$a$traditional$supply$driven$market$to$a$demand$driven$market.$
Because$ the$ increased$ scope$ and$ costs$ of$ today’s$ projects,$ contractors$ have$ to$ work$ together$ in$
consortia$ to$ be$ able$ to$ bear$ the$ risks.$ In$ order$ to$ realise$ infrastructure$ projects$ principal$ and$
contractor$have$to$collaborate,$something$that$could$be$difficult$given$the$fundamental$differences$
between$ both$ organisations.$ The$ research$ has$ identified$ six$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ for$ good$
collaboration:$objectives,#trust,#risk,#communication,#attitude$and$project#organisation.$
$
The$ form$ of$ public$ participation$ has$ changed$ over$ the$ last$ decades.$ Citizens$ have$ acquired$ more$
rights$ in$ legislation,$ use$ the$ possibilities$ of$ appeal$ and$ demanded$ a$ greater$ voice$ in$ the$ decision$
making$process.$Public$opposition$due$to$various$factors$has$been$reported$as$the$main$reason$for$
project$ failure.$ Therefore,$ the$ many$ different$ and$ sometimes$ conflicting$ interests$ of$ stakeholders$
must$ be$ considered.$ As$ a$ consequence$ there$ is$ a$ growing$ interest$ in$ management$ of$ these$
stakeholders$and$different$stakeholder$management$process$models$are$developed.$Most$important$
is$ that$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ a$ cyclic$ process,$ because$ the$ needs$ and$ priorities$ of$ the$
stakeholders$are$constantly$changing.$$
$
Collaboration"model"
The$ six$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration$ are$ used$ to$ evaluate$ the$ state$ of$
collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$A$collaboration$model$was$designed$to$compare$the$
points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor,$and$to$compare$the$collaboration$in$different$projects.$The$
state$of$collaboration$for$each$criterion$can$be$positioned$on$one$of$the$four$levels$of$collaboration$
that$ are$ distinguished$ based$ on$ a$ literature$ review.$ The$ four$ different$ levels$ of$ collaboration$ are:$
contractual# relationship,# collaborative# relationship,# project# partnering$ and$ strategic# partnering.$
Based$on$a$questionnaire,$with$a$description$of$the$relationship$at$each$level$for$all$criteria,$the$state$
of$collaboration$can$be$determined$for$each$criterion.$
VIII"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
$
Figure#1:#Radar#chart#for#collaboration#model#(own#ill.)"
$
The$state$of$collaboration$from$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$is$visualised$in$a$radar$chart,$
which$is$illustrated$in$Figure$1.$The$collaboration$visualised$in$the$radar$chart$illustrates$the$level$of$
collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ and$ whether$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$
contractor$are$aligned.$$
"
Methodology"
The$ research$ design$ consisted$ of$ a$ multiple$ case$ study,$ where$ four$ construction$ projects$ from$ the$
network$of$Neerlands$Diep$were$investigated$and$compared$with$each$other.$To$be$able$to$analyse$
the$gathered$data,$a$research$framework$was$designed$based$on$the$literature$research.$The$analysis$
of$the$cases$consisted$of$two$steps.$First,$the$implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$in$
the$ four$ cases$ was$ explained.$ Second,$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$
was$ determined$ from$ both$ points$ of$ view.$ Hereafter$ it$ was$ possible$ to$ explore$ the$ possibilities$ to$
enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ This$ process$ is$ illustrated$ in$ the$
research$framework$in$Figure$2$on$the$next$page.$$
"
Figure#2:#Research#framework#(own#ill.)#
$
In$order$to$obtain$valid$and$reliable$findings,$empirical$data$of$the$case$study$projects$were$gathered$
with$the$use$of$several$research$methods$and$sources.$An$extensive$analysis$of$documents$about$the$
case$ gave$ the$ researcher$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ project$ context.$ SemiRstructured$ interviews$ with$ the$
project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ gave$ insight$ in$ the$ implementation$ of$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"IX"
project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ the$
project.$$
$
By$conducting$a$case$study$research,$a$profound$and$full$insight$in$the$process$of$project$stakeholder$
management$ and$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ gained.$ The$ cases$ that$ are$
studied$ for$ this$ research$ are$ the$ construction$ of$ a$ stacked$ tunnel,$ the$ renovation$ of$ a$ bridge,$
tunnelling$of$a$rail$track$and$road,$and$trenching$forelands.$The$individual$case$analyses$based$on$the$
observations$of$the$researcher$were$used$as$input$for$the$cross$case$comparision.$The$main$findings$
of$ this$ cross$ case$ comparision$ lead$ to$ preliminary$ conclusions.$ This$ research$ reflected$ on$ these$
preliminary$conclusions$based$on$the$literature$study$and$the$discussions$during$a$workshop$meeting$
with$the$respondents$of$the$interviews.$$
"
Conclusions"
Project$stakeholder$management$links$the$project$organisation$with$the$stakeholders$in$the$project$
environment.$ The$ goal$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ twofold:$ satisfaction$ of$ the$ project$
stakeholders$ by$ involving$ them$ and$ creating$ support$ for$ the$ project,$ and$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$
project$ within$ scope,$ time$ and$ budget.$ The$ four$ case$ study$ projects$ recognised$ that$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ consists$ of$ the$ components$ communication,$ conditioning,$ stakeholder$
management$ and$ traffic$ management.$ Workshop$ participants$ indicated$ that$ a$ project$ stakeholder$
manager$has$an$important$fifth$component$‘relation#manager’.$$
$
The$ research$ has$ illustrated$ that$ there$ are$ three$ strategies$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$
principal$and$contractor.$The$first$strategy$is$verification"of"expectations$with$each$other$regarding$
all$kinds$of$issues$before$the$realisation$of$the$project$starts.$It$is$important$that$both$parties$align$
their$ expectations$ and$ make$ sure$ they$ understand$ each$ other$ correctly.$ The$ second$ strategy$ to$
improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ to$ focus" on" the" people.$ Research$
illustrated$that$people$can$make$the$difference$in$a$project,$but$currently$there$is$limited$attention$
for$the$composition$of$project$teams.$The$first$matter$of$importance$is$whether$people$are$willing$to$
collaborate,$if$this$is$not$the$case$the$collaboration$is$likely$to$fail.$The$third$strategy$to$enhance$the$
collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ to$ monitor" the" collaboration.$ This$ research$
illustrated$that$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$are$able$to$reflect$on$their$collaboration,$
without$ being$ judged$ about$ the$ collaboration.$ It$ was$ indicated$ that$ an$ instrument$ is$ needed$ to$
reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ and$ how$ to$ start$ the$ dialogue.$ The$ collaboration$ model$ as$ designed$ in$
this$research$can$be$used$for$this.$
$$
This$ research$ provided$ a$ collaboration$ model$ to$ compare$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$
contractor,$ and$ to$ compare$ the$ collaboration$ in$ different$ projects.$ The$ case$ study$ research$ has$
illustrated$that$the$collaboration$is$better$in$projects$where$principal$and$contractor$have$an$aligned$
point$of$view,$compared$to$projects$where$the$level$of$collaboration$is$higher$but$both$parties$differ$
in$ point$ of$ view.$ Therefore$ this$ research$ concludes$ that$ for$ good$ collaboration$ the$ alignment$ of$
points$of$view$is$more$important$than$reaching$the$highest$level$of$collaboration.$This$conclusion$was$
recognised$ by$ the$ workshop$ participants.$ They$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ have$ a$ successful$
business$relationship$with$limited$collaboration$in$case$the$involved$parties$have$agreed$this.$$
$
There$are$three$possibilities$to$apply$the$collaboration$model$in$practice.$
• The$collaboration$model$can$be$used$before$the$start$of$a$project,$to$decide$which$level$of$
collaboration$principal$and$contractor$want$to$achieve.$
• The$collaboration$model$can$be$used$as$an$instrument$during$the$realisation$of$the$project,$
in$order$to$monitor$the$collaboration$
• The$ collaboration$ model$ can$ be$ used$ after$ completion$ of$ the$ project$ to$ evaluate$ the$
collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$in$this$project.$
$
X"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
This$ research$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ a$ tough$ challenge$ to$ start$ the$ dialogue$ about$ the$ collaboration$
between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ collaboration$ are$ rather$
complex$issues$and$have$various$interrelated$aspects.$This$research$did$not$cover$all$issues,$but$the$
developed$ collaboration$ model$ is$ a$ solid$ foundation$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ and$ to$ initiate$
further$research.$
$
Recommendations"
This$research$illustrated$that$further$research$can$be$conducted$in$the$following$directions:$
• Further$development$of$the$collaboration$model.$Due$to$the$limitations$of$this$research$the$
completeness$of$this$model$cannot$be$ensured,$but$the$first$evaluations$have$illustrated$the$
potential$ of$ the$ model.$ Therefore$ further$ development$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ is$ an$
interesting$direction$for$further$research.$
• Unawareness$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ collaboration$ and$ project$ stakeholder$ management$
within$ project$ organisations$ is$ one$ of$ the$ main$ barriers$ for$ collaboration.$ Therefore$ an$
interesting$direction$for$further$research$is$to$investigate$how$the$entire$project$organisation$
can$become$aware$of$this$importance.$
• The$ perspective$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor$was$not$included$in$this$research.$Due$to$the$limitations$of$the$researcher$in$this$
research$ the$ collaboration$ was$ only$ be$ evaluated$ from$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$
contractor.$ Additional$ research$ about$ the$ perspective$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ on$ the$
collaboration$could$make$the$research$more$complete.$$
Research$ in$ these$ directions$ will$ enrich$ the$ scientific$ knowledge$ about$ project$ stakeholder$
management$and$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"XI"
$
$
$
XII"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
TABLE"OF"CONTENTS"
$
$
Preface .............................................................................................................................. V!
Summary ......................................................................................................................... VII!
Table"of"contents ............................................................................................................ XIII!
1.! Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1!
1.1.! Context ......................................................................................................................................... 1!
1.2.! Challenges$of$collaboration .......................................................................................................... 2!
1.3.! Problem$formulation .................................................................................................................... 3!
1.4.! Thesis$outline ............................................................................................................................... 4!
2.! Research"design .......................................................................................................... 5!
2.1.! Research$objective ....................................................................................................................... 5!
2.2.! Research$question ........................................................................................................................ 5!
2.3.! Research$model ............................................................................................................................ 6!
2.4.! Relevance$of$the$research ............................................................................................................ 6!
2.5.! Research$scope............................................................................................................................. 7!
3.! Literature"review......................................................................................................... 9!
3.1.! Project$stakeholder$management ................................................................................................ 9!
3.1.1.! Definition#of#project#stakeholder#management..................................................................... 9!
3.1.2.! Components#of#project#stakeholder#management .............................................................. 11!
3.1.3.! Different#levels#of#project#stakeholder#management .......................................................... 13!
3.1.4.! Embedment#of#project#stakeholder#management#in#organisations .................................... 14!
3.1.5.! International#review#project#stakeholder#management ...................................................... 15!
3.2.! Legal$context .............................................................................................................................. 15!
3.2.1.! New#policies......................................................................................................................... 16!
3.2.2.! Planning#process.................................................................................................................. 17!
3.2.3.! Integrated#contracts ............................................................................................................ 17!
3.2.4.! International#point#of#view .................................................................................................. 18!
3.3.! Organisational$context ............................................................................................................... 18!
3.3.1.! Changes#in#organisations..................................................................................................... 18!
3.3.2.! Differences#between#public#and#private#parties .................................................................. 19!
3.3.3.! Technical#aspects#of#collaboration ...................................................................................... 19!
3.3.4.! Social#aspects#of#collaboration ............................................................................................ 20!
3.3.5.! Important#criteria#for#good#collaboration ........................................................................... 21!
3.3.6.! Collaborative#relationships .................................................................................................. 22!
3.4.! Social$context ............................................................................................................................. 24!
3.4.1.! Public#participation.............................................................................................................. 24!
3.4.2.! Stakeholder#management ................................................................................................... 24!
3.5.! Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 25!
4.! Conceptual"framework.............................................................................................. 27!
4.1.! Project$stakeholder$management .............................................................................................. 27!
4.2.! Collaboration .............................................................................................................................. 28!
4.2.1.! Defining#collaboration ......................................................................................................... 29!
4.2.2.! Maturity#of#collaboration .................................................................................................... 29!
4.3.! Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 33!
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"XIII"
5.! Research"methodology.............................................................................................. 34!
5.1.! Clarification$of$the$research$methodology................................................................................. 34!
5.2.! Criteria$to$conduct$case$studies ................................................................................................. 35!
5.3.! Case$protocol.............................................................................................................................. 36!
5.4.! Selection$of$the$cases ................................................................................................................. 37!
5.5.! Data$gathering ............................................................................................................................ 38!
5.6.! Data$analysis............................................................................................................................... 38!
6.! Results"of"the"case"studies......................................................................................... 40!
6.1.! Case$report$1:$Construction$of$a$stacked$tunnel ........................................................................ 40!
6.1.1.! Implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management......................................................... 41!
6.1.2.! Collaboration#on#project#stakeholder#management............................................................ 42!
6.1.3.! State#of#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor.............................................. 43!
6.1.4.! Concluding#findings ............................................................................................................. 45!
6.2.! Case$report$2:$Renovation$of$a$bridge........................................................................................ 46!
6.2.1.! Implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management......................................................... 47!
6.2.2.! Collaboration#on#project#stakeholder#management............................................................ 48!
6.2.3.! State#of#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor.............................................. 49!
6.2.4.! Concluding#findings ............................................................................................................. 51!
6.3.! Case$report$3:$A$combined$road$and$railway$tunnel.................................................................. 52!
6.3.1.! Implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management......................................................... 53!
6.3.2.! Collaboration#on#project#stakeholder#management............................................................ 54!
6.3.3.! State#of#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor.............................................. 55!
6.3.4.! Concluding#findings ............................................................................................................. 57!
6.4.! Case$report$4:$Create$space$for$water$in$the$river$by$trenching$the$forelands.......................... 59!
6.4.1.! Implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management......................................................... 60!
6.4.2.! Collaboration#on#project#stakeholder#management............................................................ 60!
6.4.3.! State#of#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor.............................................. 62!
6.4.4.! Concluding#findings ............................................................................................................. 63!
7.! Cross"case"analysis"and"discussion............................................................................. 65!
7.1.! Comparing$the$findings$of$the$four$projects .............................................................................. 65!
7.1.1.! Similarities ........................................................................................................................... 65!
7.1.2.! Differences........................................................................................................................... 66!
7.1.3.! Preliminary#conclusions ....................................................................................................... 67!
7.2.! Comparing$the$implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$in$the$four$projects ...... 69!
7.2.1.! Embedment#of#project#stakeholder#management............................................................... 69!
7.2.2.! Approach#of#project#stakeholder#management................................................................... 70!
7.2.3.! Importance#of#project#stakeholder#management................................................................ 71!
7.2.4.! Preliminary#conclusions ....................................................................................................... 72!
7.3.! Comparing$the$collaboration$in$the$four$projects ...................................................................... 73!
7.3.1.! Cross#case#comparison......................................................................................................... 73!
7.3.2.! Preliminary#conclusions ....................................................................................................... 75!
7.4.! Concluding$findings .................................................................................................................... 75!
8.! Application"collaboration"model ............................................................................... 77!
8.1.! Validity$of$the$collaboration$model............................................................................................ 77!
8.2.! Adjustments$to$the$collaboration$model ................................................................................... 77!
8.3.! Application$of$the$collaboration$model...................................................................................... 78!
8.4.! Added$value$of$a$collaboration$model ....................................................................................... 79!
8.5.! Limitations$of$this$research ........................................................................................................ 80!
"
XIV"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
9.! Conclusion"and"recommendations............................................................................. 81!
9.1.! Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 81!
9.2.! Recommendations$for$further$research..................................................................................... 85!
9.2.1.! Research#direction#one:#Further#development#of#the#collaboration#model ......................... 85!
9.2.2.! Research#direction#two:#Create#more#awareness#for#the#importance#of#collaboration....... 85!
9.2.3.! Research#direction#three:#Include#project#stakeholder#perspective#on#collaboration .......... 86!
10.! Literature ................................................................................................................ 87!
Appendix"A."Clustering"collaboration ............................................................................... 92!
Appendix"B."Types"of"relationships .................................................................................. 95!
Appendix"C."Interview"protocol........................................................................................ 96!
Appendix"D."Project"selection .........................................................................................101!
Appendix"E."Characteristics"of"the"case"study"projects ....................................................102!
Appendix"F."Case"descriptions.........................................................................................108!
Appendix"G."Cross"case"analysis ......................................................................................109!
Appendix"H."Workshop ...................................................................................................114!
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"XV"
"
0"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
1. I
NTRODUCTION"
$
$
“Social% systems% are% more% complex% than% the% weather% system% and% it% is% still% impossible% to%
make%a%good%weather%forecast%for%Western%Europe%over%a%period%of%a%week”."
$Hertogh$and$Westerveld$(2010)$
$
The$scope$and$costs$of$these$days’$infrastructure$projects$have$increased$and$therefore$the$projects$
have$ become$ more$ complex.$ Hertogh$ and$ Westerveld$ (2010)$ mention$ six$ types$ of$ complexity:$
technical,$social,$financial,$legal,$organisational$and$time$complexity.$Because$of$the$increasing$scope$
and$costs$of$the$projects,$the$different$types$of$complexity$are$increasing$as$well.$The$analysis$of$the$
case$ studies$ conducted$ by$ Hertogh$ and$ Westerveld$ (2010)$ showed$ that$ social$ complexity$ is$ the$
centre$ of$ complexity$ and$ dominant$ in$ the$ implementation$ of$ large$ infrastructure$ projects$ (LIPs).$
Social$ complexity$ is$ especially$ high$ when$ there$ are$ conflicts$ of$ interest,$ different$ meanings$ and$
perceptions,$and$when$the$impact$of$the$project$is$large.$Social$complexity$can$be$identified$in$the$
communication$ and$ understanding$ of$ each$ other$ within$ a$ project$ organisation,$ but$ also$ in$ the$
relationship$of$the$project$organisation$with$the$stakeholders.$The$increased$social$complexity$is$in$
line$ with$ the$ developments$ in$ LIPs$ in$ the$ Netherlands,$ where$ stakeholders$ and$ collaboration$ with$
private$contractors$play$an$increasingly$important$role.$$
$
1.1. Context"
The$ assignment$ for$ the$ execution$ of$ LIPs$ often$ comes$ from$ political$ decision$ makers,$ such$ as$ the$
national$ government,$ provinces$ or$ municipalities.$ Organisations$ like$ Rijkswaterstaat$ (RWS)$ and$
ProRail$are$often$responsible$for$the$execution$of$these$projects.$They$detail$the$project$and$tender$
the$ project$ to$ a$ private$ party$ who$ becomes$ responsible$ for$ the$ design,$ construction,$ maintenance$
and/or$ operation$ of$ it.$ These$ private$ parties$ are$ often$ consortia$ consisting$ of$ different$ contracting$
companies.$
$
The$ last$ decades$ the$ public$ attention$ for$ LIPs$ has$ increased$ and$ especially$ projects$ with$ huge$
overruns$ in$ time$ and$ costs$ like$ the$ Betuweroute,$ Noord/Zuid$ line$ Amsterdam$ and$ HSLRsouth$ are$
known$ by$ the$ public.$ Besides$ the$ disappointing$ results$ regarding$ the$ delays$ and$ overruns,$ the$
involved$stakeholders$are$often$not$satisfied$with$the$final$results$of$a$project$(Hertogh,$Baker,$StaalR
Ong,$ &$ Westerveld,$ 2008).$ Fundamental$ changes$ in$ the$ society$ and$ a$ more$ complex$ Dutch$ and$
European$legislation$have$increased$the$number$and$the$influence$of$stakeholders$(Wesselink,$2010).$
This$gives$an$exciting$combination.$The$legal$complexities$in$combination$with$the$highly$educated,$
articulate$ citizens$ might$ lead$ to$ a$ conflict$ with$ the$ stakeholders$ in$ the$ area.$ A$ battle$ will$ become$
more$ intense$ if$ the$ stakeholders$ are$ not$ involved$ carefully$ at$ an$ early$ stage$ of$ the$ process$ and$
ignoring$the$public$can$cause$major$overruns$in$time$and$costs$or$even$the$cancellation$of$a$project.$
Therefore$ management$ of$ the$ parties$ that$ have$ an$ interest$ in$ the$ project$ has$ become$ more$
important.$
$
Project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ relatively$ new$ as$ individual$ policy$ issue$ in$ the$ infrastructure$
sector.$ It$ occurs$ that$ the$ words$ stakeholders,$ environment$ and$ the$ area$ are$ commonly$ used$ to$
describe$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ Not$ surprising$ since$ ‘omgevingsmanagement’$ is$ the$
Dutch$ word$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ A$ direct$ translation$ of$ this$ term$ gives$ the$
somewhat$ confusing$ term$ ‘environment# management’.$ This$ term$ is$ confusing$ because$ the$ word$
environment$ has$ multiple$ meanings.$ Whereas$ environmental$ issues$ like$ the$ changing$ climate,$ the$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"1"
rising$ sea$ level$ and$ the$ depletion$ of$ fossil$ fuels$ are$ high$ on$ the$ political$ agenda,$ the$ meaning$ of$
environment$in$this$case$is$the$area$around$the$construction$project,$the$people$who$live$here$and$
the$people$that$are$influenced$by$the$realisation$of$the$project.$For$this$reason$it$was$chosen$to$use$
the$term$‘project#stakeholder#management’$instead$of$the$direct$translation$of$the$Dutch$term.$
$
This$thesis$focuses$on$the$collaboration$between$the$public$principal$and$the$private$contractor$on$
project$ stakeholder$ management$ within$ large$ infrastructure$ projects$ executed$ in$ the$ Netherlands.$
The$ first$ step$ is$ to$ analyse$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ applied$ in$ different$ projects.$
Hereafter$the$collaboration$within$the$project$organisation$on$project$stakeholder$management$will$
be$analysed.$A$project$organisation$is$responsible$for$the$realisation$of$the$LIP$and$this$organisation$
consists$of$members$from$the$principal$and$contractor.$
"
1.2. Challenges"of"collaboration"
Involving$ the$ stakeholders$ that$ live$ in$ the$ area$ of$ a$ construction$ project$ is$ a$ wellRknown$
phenomenon$in$The$Netherlands,$it$is$a$result$of$the$Dutch$‘poldermodel’$that$dates$from$the$Middle$
Ages$ (Gelder,$ Post,$ Koppenjan,$ Houben,$ &$ Ouwerkerk,$ 2010).$ Management$ of$ stakeholders$ has$
always$been$part$of$project$management,$but$it$is$dealt$with$more$professionally$over$the$last$couple$
of$years.$Besides$that,$there$was$dissatisfaction$about$the$functioning$of$the$construction$sector$in$
general.$The$sector$was$fragmented$and$shortRterm$oriented,$improving$the$sector$should$be$done$
by$integration$of$the$process$and$more$involvement$of$the$market$parties$(Dorée,$2001).$Therefore,$
the$ Ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$ and$ Environment$ asked$ two$ committees$ to$ investigate$ how$ the$
decision$ making$ process$ could$ be$ speeded$ up$ and$ what$ the$ possibilities$ are$ for$ private$ financing.$
These$ researches$ have$ led$ to$ two$ new$ policies$ about$ involving$ private$ parties$ to$ improve$ the$
duration,$ costs$ and$ quality$ of$ LIPs$ in$ the$ Netherlands.$ With$ these$ policies$ the$ Ministry$ of$
Infrastructure$ and$ Environment$ aims$ to$ speed$ up$ the$ decision$ making$ process,$ to$ involve$ private$
contracting$ parties$ in$ an$ early$ stage$ and$ to$ distribute$ responsibilities$ in$ design,$ construction$ and$
operation$to$these$private$parties.$
$
The$ public$ party$ as$ principal$ outsourcing$ tasks$ to$ market$ parties$ has$ introduced$ new,$ integrated$
contracts$in$which$the$principal$takes$a$step$back$and$has$fewer$responsibilities.$In$The$Netherlands$
and$in$other$European$countries$as$well,$integrated$contracts$are$applied$more$and$more$(Eggers$&$
Startup,$ 2006).$ Instead$ of$ the$ government$ who$ was$ traditionally$ responsible$ for$ plan$ making,$
construction$and$maintenance$of$road$infrastructure,$contractors$got$the$liberty$to$apply$innovative$
methods.$ It$ started$ with$ the$ outsourcing$ of$ maintenance$ to$ contractors,$ but$ shortly$ after$ the$
contracts$became$more$and$more$integrated$(Lenferink,$Tillema,$&$Arts,$2013).$Depending$on$what$is$
stated$ in$ the$ contract$ the$ contractor$ and$ principal$ share$ risks$ and$ responsibilities.$ In$ case$ of$ an$
integrated$ contract$ like$ a$ design$ and$ construct$ (D&C)$ contract,$ the$ contractor$ becomes$ fully$
responsible$ for$ both$ the$ delivery$ of$ the$ works$ and$ (most$ of)$ the$ design$ (Ridder$ &$ Noppen,$ 2009).$
These$ integrated$ contracts$ cannot$ be$ considered$ as$ privatisation$ because$ the$ public$ principal$
remains$responsible$for$the$strategic$planning$(Lenferink$et$al.,$2013).$
$
Infrastructure$ planning$ has$ shifted$ from$ a$ traditional$ line$ oriented$ approach$ towards$ an$ area$
oriented$ approach$ (Heeres,$ Tillema,$ &$ Arts,$ 2012).$ With$ extending$ and$ broadening$ the$ scope$ of$
infrastructure$projects,$synergies$can$be$discovered$between$infrastructure$and$their$surroundings.$$
This$can$help$to$improve$the$overall$quality$of$an$area.$Although$project$stakeholder$management$is$
a$ relatively$ new$ as$ an$ individual$ term,$ is$ has$ become$ an$ integral$ part$ of$ today’s$ infrastructure$
projects$(Gelder$et$al.,$2010,$pp.$6R7).$RWS$and$different$contractors$have$great$interest$in$this$field$
of$ project$ management.$ Important$ to$ keep$ in$ mind$ is$ that$ the$ contractor$ will$ become$ part$ of$ the$
project$at$a$later$stage$and$is$basically$always$a$step$behind$(Bolle,$2008).$In$addition,$the$contractors$
experience$that$the$setting$of$the$tender$procedure$are$often$too$strict$for$an$open$communication$
with$ the$ stakeholders$ (Sandee,$ 2009).$ Based$ on$ the$ current$ trends$ it$ seems$ that$ there$ is$ an$
2"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
opportunity$ to$ increase$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ LIPs.$ Collaboration$
between$ these$ parties$ currently$ receives$ little$ attention$ in$ the$ scientific$ debate$ on$ collaboration,$
although$ there$ has$ been$ more$ attention$ for$ public$ private$ partnerships$ in$ the$ last$ decade$ (for$
example$BultRSpiering,$Blanken,$&$Dewulf,$2005;$Ham$&$Koppenjan,$2002).$
$
1.3. Problem"formulation"
The$ public$ principal$ as$ well$ as$ the$ private$ contractor$ is$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$
stakeholder$management,$but$coordination$in$the$approach$of$both$parties$barely$exists.$Tasks$are$
often$shared$between$principal$and$contractor$or$shifted$from$the$one$to$the$other.$Depending$on$
the$type$of$contract,$stages$are$separated$and$there$are$a$number$of$implementation$gaps$in$which$
information$gets$lost$(see$Figure$3).$In$the$infrastructure$planning$procedures$there$seems$a$limited$
interest$ in$ the$ translation$ of$ the$ plans$ into$ project$ and,$ subsequently,$ the$ realisation$ of$ these$
projects$(Lenferink,$2013).$As$a$result,$a$disconnection$exists$between$the$strategic$planning$stages$
and$ the$ operational$ project$ implementation$ stages.$ In$ the$ second$ phase$ new$ actors$ become$
involved,$who$have$other$responsibilities$and$a$different$perspective$on$the$project.$
$
Figure#3:#Implementation#gap#between#strategic#planning#stages#and#operational#project#implementation#
stages#(own#ill.#based#on#Lenferink#(2013);#Lenferink#et#al.#(2013))#
Through$ the$ development$ of$ integrated$ contracts$ the$ different$ project$ stages$ are$ already$ more$
connected.$But$there$is$still$information$that$has$to$be$transferred$from$one$party$to$another,$which$
leaves$room$for$misunderstandings$and$loss$of$information.$A$solution$needs$to$be$found$to$minimize$
this$ room$ for$ misunderstanding,$ to$ reduce$ the$ loss$ of$ information$ and$ to$ stimulate$ collaboration$
between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Because$ misunderstandings$ and$ loss$ of$ information$ can$ lead$ to$
time$and$budget$overruns,$but$it$can$also$be$a$reason$for$citizens$to$outcry$if$agreements$have$been$
forgotten$and$are$therefore$not$fulfilled.$
$
A$ lot$ of$ research$ is$ conducted$ into$ stakeholder$ management$ (Aaltonen,$ 2011;$ Olander$ &$ Landin,$
2005)$and$about$successful$collaboration$(Chan$et$al.,$2004;$Cheung,$Yiu,$&$Chiu,$2009;$Meng,$Sun,$&$
Jones,$ 2011).$ There$ is$ also$ literature$ available$ about$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$
parties$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000a;$Suprapto,$Bakker,$Mooi,$&$Moree,$in$press).$However,$literature$
about$collaboration$between$public$and$private$party$on$project$stakeholder$management$is$lacking.$
The$parties$that$have$to$deal$with$project$stakeholder$management$all$have$their$own$approach$and$
are$all$inventing$the$wheel$in$order$to$deal$with$it.$This$seems$waste$of$money$and$time,$especially$
because$the$different$parties$can$learn$from$each$other$and$can$avoid$duplication.$Neerlands$Diep$is$
one$ of$ the$ initiators$ of$ Platform$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ (Dutch:$ Platform$
omgevingsmanagement),$ this$ platform$ encourages$ interaction$ between$ the$ members$ and$ thereby$
the$ exchange$ knowledge.$ There$ are$ several$ issues$ in$ the$ field$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$
that$ can$ be$ examined.$ Conversations$ with$ different$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ showed$ that$
improving$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase$ and$ more$ clarity$ about$ the$
delineation$of$tasks$between$principal$and$contractor$has$a$high$priority.$Therefore$Neerlands$Diep$is$
interested$in$a$research$on$this$specific$problem.$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"3"
With$the$new$types$of$contracts,$the$public$principal$wants$to$shift$risks$and$responsibilities$towards$
market$parties,$where$possible.$This$also$applies$for$project$stakeholder$management,$where$specific$
responsibilities$ would$ be$ shifted$ towards$ the$ contractor.$ The$ contractor$ is$ willing$ to$ take$ these$
responsibilities,$however$it$is$questionable$if$the$contractor$is$able$to$do$this$in$the$way$the$principal$
prefers.$Besides$that,$RWS$always$stays$responsible$for$certain$tasks$(Hol$&$Risselada,$2013).$These$
tasks$ are$ part$ of$ the$ legal$ responsibility$ of$ RWS,$ thus$ outsourcing$ is$ not$ possible.$ Therefore,$ most$
projects$ have$ a$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ from$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ and$ one$ from$ the$
contractor’s$side.$It$seems$logical$that$both$parties$will$collaborate$in$order$to$improve$the$general$
quality$ of$ the$ project.$ This$ is$ not$ always$ the$ case,$ so$ what$ are$ the$ incentives$ and$ barriers$ for$
intensive$collaboration?$
$
To$ summarise,$ this$ thesis$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ principal$ and$ private$
contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$ realisation$ phase$ of$ large$ infrastructure$
projects$executed$in$The$Netherlands.$Principal$and$contractor$are$becoming$more$and$more$aware$
of$the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management.$Because$this$part$of$project$management$as$
an$ individual$ is$ a$ relatively$ new$ discipline$ within$ project$ management,$ there$ seems$ to$ be$ little$
coordination$in$approaching$project$stakeholder$management$between$both$parties.$This$creates$an$
opportunity$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ but$ is$ intensive$
collaboration$desirable$for$both$parties?$This$research$aims$to$get$insight$in$factors$influencing$the$
collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ the$ field$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ In$
theory$there$is$little$knowledge$about$the$way$client$and$contractor$work$together$in$this$discipline.$
This$makes$this$research$quite$explorative$because$the$framework$in$which$strategies$to$improve$the$
collaboration$can$be$applied$is$unclear$at$the$start$of$this$research.$This$shows$the$importance$of$this$
research,$but$makes$it$difficult$to$come$up$with$hypotheses.$$
$
1.4. Thesis"outline"
This$chapter$has$introduced$the$topic$and$context$of$this$research.$Chapter$2$introduces$the$research$
design$ that$ will$ serve$ as$ guideline$ to$ achieve$ the$ final$ goal.$ The$ following$ chapters$ in$ this$ thesis$
report$will$help$to$come$to$this$final$goal.$The$outline$of$this$thesis$research$is$shown$in$Figure$5.$
Figure#5:#Thesis#outline#(own#ill.)#
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter$2$introduces$the$research$design$that$will$serve$as$guideline$to$achieve$the$final$goal$
of$this$research.$
Chapter$ 3$ contains$ a$ literature$ study$ to$ get$ an$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ there$
will$be$looked$at$the$legal,$organisational$and$social$context$of$LIPs.$
Chapter$4$elaborates$on$the$conceptual$framework$that$will$be$used$to$frame$and$structure$
the$research.$The$literature$study$from$chapter$3$will$be$used$to$create$this$framework.$
Chapter$5$includes$the$clarification$of$the$research$methodology$and$elaborates$on$how$the$
case$study$will$be$conducted.$
Chapter$6$describes$the$chosen$cases$and$will$elaborate$on$them$in$the$form$of$an$analysis$
based$on$the$collected$data$of$the$interviews$and$available$documents.$
Chapter$7$will$compare$the$findings$from$the$different$cases$in$chapter$6,$this$leads$to$some$
first$conclusions.$These$conclusions$are$discussed$and$validated$based$on$literature$findings$
and$findings$of$the$workshop$meeting.$
Chapter$8$will$discuss$the$application$of$the$collaboration$model.$
Chapter$ 9$ presents$ the$ advice$ of$ the$ research$ in$ the$ form$ of$ the$ conclusion$ and$ some$
recommendations$for$further$research.$
4"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
$
2. R
ESEARCH"DESIGN"
$
$
In$ this$ chapter$ the$ research$ design$ is$ presented.$ The$ observations$ in$ the$ previous$ chapter$ have$
illustrated$ the$ knowledge$ gaps$ that$ exist$ and$ this$ will$ be$ used$ to$ define$ the$ research$ objectives.$
Together$these$objectives$form$the$main$objective.$This$main$objective$will$be$achieved$with$help$of$
the$research$question,$which$consists$of$several$sub$questions.$The$research$design$as$described$in$
this$ chapter$ is$ the$ blueprint$ of$ the$ research$ that$ guides$ the$ process$ from$ the$ formulation$ of$ the$
question$to$reporting$the$findings$(Kalaian,$2008).$It$is$a$logic$plan$for$getting$from$here$to$there.$
$
2.1. "Research"objective"
The$ objective$ of$ this$ research$ is$ to$ enhance$ the$ understanding$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$
and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$ realisation$ phase$ of$ LIPs$ in$ The$
Netherlands.$ This$ should$ contribute$ to$ the$ theoretical$ knowledge$ on$ collaboration$ between$ public$
principal$ and$ private$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ by$ providing$ insights$ to$
enhance$this$collaboration.$
$
The$main$objective$can$be$split$up$in$five$(sub)$research$objectives,$which$together$contribute$to$the$
main$objective.$The$five$research$objectives$will$be$described$below.$
• Get$inRdepth$understanding$of$project$stakeholder$management.$
• Get$ inRdepth$ understanding$ of$ the$ factors$ that$ are$ important$ for$ collaboration$ between$
principal$and$contractor.$
• Understand$ how$ the$ state$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ could$ be$
defined.$
• Understand$ the$ complexities$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ and$ find$
opportunities$to$enhance$this$collaboration.$
• Formulate$ a$ strategy$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$
project$stakeholder$management$in$LIPs.$$
$
2.2. Research"question"
To$ achieve$ the$ goal$ of$ this$ research$ as$ described$ above,$ the$ research$ question$ will$ be$ answered$
throughout$the$report$with$help$of$a$set$of$sub$questions.$The$main$question$is$formulated$as:$
$
Which" possibilities" can" be" defined" to" enhance" the" collaboration" between" principal" and"
contractor"on"project"stakeholder"management"in"large"infrastructure"projects?"
$
To$ be$ able$ to$ answer$ the$ main$ question,$ the$ research$ question$ has$ been$ divided$ in$ eight$ sub$
questions$to$keep$the$research$structured.$The$following$research$questions$are$formulated:$$$
1. What$is$project$stakeholder$management?$
2. Which$factors$are$important$for$collaboration?$
3. What$ model$ can$ be$ used$ to$ define$ the$ state$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor?$
4. Which$strategies$can$improve$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor?$
5. How$to$audit$collaboration?$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"5"
2.3. Research"model"
A$research$model$is$set$up$to$answer$the$research$question$and$to$be$able$to$reach$the$objective$of$
this$research.$Figure$6$gives$a$schematic$overview$of$this$model.$Firstly,$a$theoretical$framework$will$
be$created$to$serve$further$research.$This$framework$is$based$on$the$existing$literature$about$project$
stakeholder$ management$ and$ about$ the$ legal,$ organisational$ and$ social$ context$ of$ LIPs.$ With$ this$
information,$it$is$possible$to$answer$the$first$sub$question$‘what#is#project#stakeholder#management’$
and$ the$ second$ sub$ question$ ‘which# factors# are# important# for# collaboration’.$ Secondly,$ a$ research$
perspective$is$created$in$order$to$analyse$the$data$collected$in$the$case$study$research.$This$research$
perspective$ answers$ the$ third$ sub$ question$ ‘what# model# can# be# used# to# define# the# state# of#
collaboration# between# principal# and# contractor’.$ Thirdly,$ information$ about$ how$ public$ and$ private$
parties$ are$ collaborating$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ different$ cases$ will$ be$ collected.$
Chapter$5$will$elaborate$more$on$how$this$information$will$be$collected.$Fourthly,$the$results$of$the$
four$cases$will$be$compared$with$each$other.$Preliminary$conclusions$are$drawn$and$the$validity$of$
these$ conclusions$ is$ discussed$ based$ on$ literature$ findings$ and$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ with$ the$
interview$ respondents.$ Hereafter$ the$ fourth$ sub$ question$ ‘which# strategies# can# improve# the#
collaboration# between# principal# and# contractor’$ can$ be$ answered.$ Fifthly,$ the$ applicability$ of$ the$
collaboration$ model$ will$ be$ checked.$ Therefore,$ this$ model$ will$ be$ discussed$ in$ the$ workshop$
meeting$with$the$interview$respondents.$With$the$outcome$of$this$discussion$it$is$possible$to$answer$
the$ fifth$ sub$ question$ ‘how# to# audit# collaboration’.$ Finally,$ all$ the$ collected$ data$ will$ be$ used$ to$
answer$the$main$question$and$give$some$recommendations$for$further$research.$
Figure#6:#Research#model#(own#ill.#based#on#Verschuren#and#Doorewaard#(2007))#
$
2.4. Relevance"of"the"research"
The$research$is$performed$for$a$twoRfolded$purpose.$On$the$one$hand,$the$research$is$executed$in$
order$ to$ draw$ conclusions$ about$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$
stakeholder$ management.$ These$ findings$ can$ be$ used$ in$ future$ construction$ projects$ and$ project$
stakeholder$ managers$ can$ use$ the$ knowledge$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ in$ project$ that$ are$
already$in$the$realisation$phase.$The$research$is$carried$out$under$the$authority$of$Neerlands$Diep.$
Neerlands$ Diep$ is$ a$ cooperation$ platform$ founded$ by$ Rijkswaterstaat,$ ProRail$ and$ the$ four$ major$
municipalities$ (Amsterdam,$ Rotterdam,$ The$ Hague$ and$ Utrecht).$ This$ platform$ will$ make$ sure$ that$
the$knowledge$about$construction$and$infrastructure$projects$comes$to$the$light$and$remains$there.$
Better$and$more$professionalised$projects$are$the$aim$with$enhancing$and$exchanging$of$knowledge$
as$mean.$
$
6"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
$
On$ the$ other$ hand,$ the$ research$ is$ carried$ out$ for$ a$ scientific$ purpose.$ As$ mentioned,$ there$ is$
currently$ limited$ literature$ available$ about$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ on$
project$stakeholder$management.$This$shows$that$there$is$a$gap$in$the$scientific$knowledge$on$this$
topic.$ Answering$ the$ formulated$ research$ question$ will$ add$ knowledge$ about$ principal$ contractor$
collaboration$ in$ combination$ with$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ to$ the$ existing$ literature.$
Answering$the$research$question$will$also$result$in$some$new$questions,$which$are$recommendations$
for$further$research.$This$can$lead$to$even$more$scientific$research$and$knowledge$about$this$topic.$
$
2.5. Research"scope"
The$ scope$ of$ the$ research$ defines$ the$ boundaries$ of$ a$ project$ in$ order$ to$ create$ room$ for$ the$
solution.$It$is$used$to$determine$what$should$be$taken$into$account$and$what$can$be$neglected.$This$
is$ a$ crucial$ part$ of$ the$ research$ design,$ because$ it$ helps$ to$ keep$ focus$ on$ the$ final$ goal$ of$ the$
research.$
$
The$geographic$scope$of$the$research$will$be$The$Netherlands,$multiple$Dutch$cases$will$be$analysed$
to$collect$information$to$be$able$to$answer$the$research$question.$Chapter$5$will$elaborate$more$on$
the$ chosen$ cases$ and$ why$ this$ methodology$ is$ considered$ to$ be$ representative$ for$ this$ research.$
Although$the$research$will$take$place$in$The$Netherlands,$the$literature$review$will$give$an$overview$
of$ the$ situation$ in$ other$ countries$ as$ well$ to$ show$ the$ international$ point$ of$ view.$ The$ research$
focuses$on$the$collaboration$between$the$public$principal$and$a$private$contractor$and$how$they$deal$
with$the$project$stakeholder$management$during$the$realisation$of$LIPs$with$an$integrated$contract.$
As$ elaborated$ on$ in$ the$ problem$ formulation$ (section$ 1.3),$ improving$ project$ stakeholder$
management$in$the$realisation$stage$has$a$high$priority$for$Neerlands$Diep.$
Figure#7:#Research#focus#(own#ill.)#
$
The$three$green$checkmarks$in$Figure$7$indicate$the$focus$of$this$research.$
• The$relationship$between$the$principal$and$contractor,$so$the$collaboration$between$the$two$
parties$responsible$for$the$construction$of$a$project.$This$is$one$of$the$focus$points$because$
practice$shows$that$the$tasks$that$need$to$be$executed$can$be$demarcated$more$towards$the$
principal$or$contractor.$$
• The$ way$ both$ parties$ deal$ with$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ This$ focus$ point$ follows$
from$the$wish$by$Neerlands$Diep$to$improve$project$stakeholder$management.$$
This$ study$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ the$ contractor$ and$ principal$ and$ how$ they$ work$
together$on$project$stakeholder$management.$$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"7"
The$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ on$ this$ collaboration$ will$ be$ excluded$ from$ this$
research.$ The$ research$ also$ neglects$ the$ relationship$ between$ the$ contractor$ and$ subcontractors$
who$will$execute$parts$of$the$project$commissioned$by$the$contractors.$The$most$important$aspects$
of$the$delineation$of$this$research$and$a$motivation$for$these$choices$are$given$below.$
• D&C$contract:$with$the$Public$Private$Comparator$(PPC)$a$choice$is$made$between$a$D&C$or$
DBFM$ contract,$ therefore$ it$ is$ chosen$ to$ delineate$ this$ research$ to$ one$ of$ both$ contract$
types.$This$research$focuses$on$projects$with$a$D&C$contract,$because$these$contracts$have$a$
limited$ scope$ without$ longRterm$ maintenance$ contracts.$ Design$ and$ construct$ are$ also$
components$ of$ a$ DBFM$ contract$ and$ therefore$ it$ is$ expected$ that,$ with$ some$ additional$
studies,$the$results$of$this$research$can$be$used$for$projects$with$a$DBFM$contract.$
• Collaboration:$there$are$a$lot$of$different$definitions$of$collaboration,$therefore$the$following$
definition$ for$ collaboration$ from$ Bedwell$ et$ al.$ (2012)$ is$ used$ in$ this$ research$ “an# evolving#
process#whereby#two#or#more#social#entities#actively#and#reciprocally#engage#in#joint#activities#
aimed# at# achieving# at# least# one# shared# goal“.$ Since$ collaboration$ occurs$ on$ multiple$ levels$
within$the$organisation$and$at$multiple$stages$of$the$construction$process,$the$research$will$
investigate$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ principal$ and$ private$ contractor$ on$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$ realisation$ stage$ of$ the$ project.$ This$ in$ order$ to$ keep$
the$ research$ executable$ in$ time.$ Thereby$ both$ parties$ are$ most$ working$ together$ in$ the$
realisation$ stage$ and$ some$ exploring$ conversations$ with$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$
indicated$ that$ improving$ the$ collaboration$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$
realisation$ phase$ has$ high$ priority.$ Increasing$ collaboration$ is$ valuable$ to$ organisations,$
because$a$successful$organisational$outcome$requires$collaboration.$Collaboration$is$thus$not$
a$goal$by$itself;$it$is$a$process,$instrumental$to$a$goal.$This$is$in$line$with$the$underlying$goal$
of$the$research$objective$that$project$performance$could$be$enhanced$in$case$principal$and$
contractor$collaborate$more.$$
• (Project)$ stakeholders:$ the$ way$ the$ stakeholders$ experience$ the$ collaboration$ between$
public$and$private$party$has$been$left$out$of$this$research.$Because$the$stakeholders$do$not$
have$ real$ insight$ in$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties.$ Thereby$ it$ is$
possible$ that$ their$ view$ will$ be$ influenced$ by$ the$ experience$ they$ have$ with$ one$ or$ both$
parties.$The$(project)$stakeholders$refer$to$external$stakeholders,$those$being$affected$by$the$
project$ organisation’s$ activities$ in$ a$ significant$ way.$ Examples$ of$ external$ stakeholders$ are$
neighbours,$local$communities,$the$general$public,$road$users$and$local$authorities.$
$
8"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
3. L
ITERATURE"REVIEW"
$
$
A$ theoretical$ framework$ will$ be$ created$ based$ on$ the$ existing$ literature$ about$ the$ topics$ of$ this$
research.$ Chapter$ 1$ already$ introduced$ several$ scientific$ topics$ on$ which$ knowledge$ and$ theories$
exist.$This$chapter$will$elaborate$more$on$these$topics$in$order$to$better$understand$the$context$in$
which$ this$ research$ takes$ place.$ By$ studying$ literature$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$
about$the$legal,$organisational$and$social$context$in$which$a$project$is$realised,$a$research$framework$
can$ be$ created$ that$ will$ serve$ as$ basis$ for$ the$ further$ research.$ It$ was$ chosen$ to$ work$ with$ these$
three$types$of$contexts,$because$these$are$closely$related$to$project$stakeholder$management.$The$
other$three$context$types$as$distinguished$by$Hertogh$and$Westerveld$(2010)$have$less$influence$on$
the$project$environment.$$
$
The$literature$study$focused$on$four$specified$topics$so$that$this$knowledge$could$serve$as$guidance$
through$the$research.$These$four$topics$are$described$below$and$form$the$sections$of$this$chapter.$
Chapter$4$will$use$this$theory$to$create$the$framework$in$which$this$research$will$take$place.$
• A$ better$ understanding$ of$ what$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is.$ This$ section$ refers$ to$
different$theories$about$this$topic$with$the$aim$to$provide$a$clear$formulation$of$what$project$
stakeholder$management$is,$based$on$the$existing$theory.$It$also$gives$an$indication$of$how$
this$ type$ of$ management$ is$ embedded$ in$ public$ and$ private$ organisations.$ This$ knowledge$
should$lead$to$a$better$understanding$of$what$the$term$includes,$so$it$can$be$compared$with$
the$findings$from$practice.$
• A$better$understanding$of$the$legal$context$in$which$this$research$takes$place.$This$includes$
information$ about$ integrated$ contracts,$ the$ legal$ procedure$ before$ the$ construction$ of$ a$
project$ can$ start$ and$ governmental$ policies.$ Knowledge$ on$ these$ topics$ leads$ to$ a$ better$
understanding$ of$ the$ origin$ of$ the$ use$ of$ new$ types$ of$ contracts$ and$ the$ possible$
consequences$of$this.$
• A$ better$ understanding$ of$ the$ organisational$ context,$ this$ refers$ to$ the$ collaboration$
between$the$public$principal$and$private$contractor$on$the$project.$Theory$about$this$topic$
provides$an$overview$of$the$organisations$of$the$collaborating$parties$and$what$the$basis$is$
of$ this$ collaboration.$ This$ knowledge$ should$ lead$ to$ a$ better$ understanding$ of$ the$ reason$
why$there$is$little$collaboration$yet$and$what$factors$are$important$for$good$collaboration.$
• A$sketch$of$the$social$context$of$this$research.$This$section$elaborates$on$the$development$of$
public$ participation$ over$ time$ and$ illustrates$ how$ to$ manage$ the$ project$ stakeholders.$
Knowledge$ on$ this$ topic$ leads$ to$ a$ better$ understanding$ of$ why$ the$ public$ wants$ to$ be$
involved$in$the$realisation$of$a$LIP$and$the$difficulty$of$managing$stakeholders.$
$
3.1. Project"stakeholder"management"
The$ origin$ and$ the$ choice$ for$ the$ term$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ has$ been$ discussed$ in$
section$ 1.1.$ The$ paragraphs$ of$ this$ section$ will$ discuss$ the$ different$ definitions$ of$ the$ term$ project$
stakeholder$ management,$ will$ elaborate$ on$ what$ is$ covered$ by$ the$ term$ and$ there$ will$ also$ be$ a$
review$ about$ the$ embedment$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ public$ and$ private$
organisations.$
3.1.1. Definition%of%project%stakeholder%management%
Project$stakeholder$management$as$an$individual$policy$issue$is$relatively$new$in$the$infrastructure$
sector.$ In$ literature$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ it$ becomes$ clear$ that$ there$ is$ no$ unity$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"9"
about$ the$ content$ of$ this$ concept.$ Each$ organisation$ gives$ its$ own$ interpretation$ to$ project$
stakeholder$ management.$ It$ seems$ to$ be$ a$ kind$ of$ umbrella$ term,$ because$ it$ covers$ a$ number$ of$
aspects.$In$this$paragraph$various$definitions$that$are$available$in$literature$will$be$discussed.$
$
Wesselink$ (2010,$ pp.$ 47R48)$ looks$ at$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ as$ a$ combination$ of$
stakeholder$ management$ and$ issue$ management.$ Stakeholder$ management$ involves$ an$
organisational$ process,$ which$ provides$ a$ company$ developing$ a$ relationship$ with$ its$ stakeholders$
that$suits$the$interests$of$those$stakeholders,$the$company$itself$and$its$business$activities.$Based$on$
mutual$respect$for$each$other's$interests$and$focused$on$achieving$added$value$for$all$parties.$Issue$
management$is$a$term$coming$from$the$business.$It$seeks$to$scan$the$environment$of$a$company$for$
issues$ they$ may$ face$ and$ for$ which$ the$ company$ wants$ to$ be$ prepared.$ Issue$ management$ is$
analysing$ issues,$ followed$ by$ actions$ to$ create$ harmony$ between$ organisation$ and$ society.$ An$
important$concept$in$issues$is$‘future’,$because$predicting$is$one$of$the$main$concerns.$Issues$do$not$
stand$alone,$but$have$grown$from$a$trend$or$have$started$this$trend.$Additionally$Wesselink$(2010)$
developed$ an$ approach$ for$ companies$ to$ set$ up$ the$ dialogue$ with$ stakeholders$ to$ deal$ with$ the$
problems$ proactively;$ strategic$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ (in$ Dutch$ abbreviated$ to$ SOM).$
SOM$ is$ an$ approach$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ based$ on$ the$ mutual$ gains$ philosophy.$
Issues$ are$ the$ starting$ point$ to$ map$ the$ interests$ and$ points$ of$ views$ of$ the$ stakeholders$ and$ to$
develop$a$strategy$to$realise$the$organisation$or$project$goals$and$to$start$a$sustainable$relationship$
with$the$area$at$the$same$time.$The$main$difference$with$the$traditional$look$at$project$stakeholder$
management$is$that$there$will$be$acted$from$sincere$interest$in$the$interests$of$all$parties.$$
$
According$ to$ Lemmens$ (2001,$ pp.$ 261R263)$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ has$ to$ be$ organised$
well.$An$organisation$must$be$in$a$position$to$respond$decisively$to$developments$and$events.$The$
decreasing$ response$ time$ requires$ that$ an$ organisation$ has$ at$ any$ time$ the$ most$ current$ data$ and$
insights$as$well$as$adequate$strategies$available.$Different$levels$of$an$organisation$are$functioning$in$
continuous$ interaction$ with$ the$ environment$ of$ the$ organisation.$ They$ influence$ the$ environment,$
but$ are$ thereby$ affecting$ themselves$ as$ well.$ People$ are$ often$ not$ even$ aware$ of$ this.$ This$
interaction$is$the$essence$of$project$stakeholder$management.$$
$
According$ to$ Kampinga$ (2010)$ the$ goal$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ twofold.$ Achieving$ a$
good$implementation$of$the$project$together$with$the$project$area$(including$internal,$external$and$
public$ partners).$ Unexpected$ resistance$ and$ unnecessary$ delays$ and$ cost$ overruns$ should$ be$
prevented.$Second,$communication$management$is$the$mean$used$to$support$the$implementation$of$
project$stakeholder$management$and$to$inform$internal,$external$and$public$partners.$
$
Neerlands$Diep$(Ark,$2010,$p.$7)$uses$the$following$definition$for$project$stakeholder$management:$
“project# stakeholder# management# focuses# on# the# surrounding# area,# the# relationships# and# the#
process,#bringing#together#the#project#area#and#the#interests#of#the#stakeholders#in#the#area.#Project#
stakeholder# management# is# all# about# acquiring# support,# this# is# essential# for# the# conditioning# of# a#
project.# Conditioning# and# project# stakeholder# management# are# positioned# as# two# independent#
domains,# but# they# are# strongly# interwoven.# Project# stakeholder# management# facilitates# the#
conditioning”.$
$
Also$ the$ parties$ that$ initiated$ Neerlands$ Diep$ have$ different$ definitions$ for$ project$ stakeholder$
management.$
• According$to$RWS$(in$Peletier$and$Post$(2009))$“project#stakeholder#management#is#the#set#of#
activities,#aimed#at#exploring#and#involving#all#interested#parties,#with#the#aim#to#identify#own#
and# shared# goals,# and# to# realise# and# supervise# the# implementation# of# its# own# stakeholder#
management”.$$
• The$ municipality$ of$ Amsterdam$ (in$ Wanningen,$ Schipper,$ Haak,$ and$ Hoog$ (2013))$ has$ the$
following$ definition$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management:$ “actively# approaching,# involving,#
10"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
•
exploring# and# directing# of# the# surrounding# area# of# the# project,# to# make# the# realisation# of# a#
project#possible#and#to#make#this#easier”.$$
ProRail$ employee,$ Harrie$ van$ Helvoort$ (in$ Gelder$ et$ al.$ (2010,$ p.$ 19))$ defines$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ as$ “putting# the# interests# of# the# stakeholders# in# the# surrounding#
area#of#a#project#together#with#the#interests#of#the#project#itself,#as#much#as#possible.#All#this#
with#the#aim#that#the#project#can#continue#with#as#little#interference#as#possible#and#the#area#
can#function#normally.#This#aim#is#twofold:#satisfied#stakeholders#in#the#surrounding#area#of#a#
project#and#achieving#the#project#objectives#within#time,#money#and#scope”.$
$
For$ construction$ companies$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ a$ method$ to$ create$ support$ and$
understanding$for$the$project,$so$the$project$can$be$realised$within$time$and$budget$(Antea$Group,$
2014;$BAM$Infraconsult,$2014).$
3.1.2. Components%of%project%stakeholder%management%
Literature$ illustrates$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ a$ broad$ concept.$ This$ paragraph$ will$
elaborate$on$the$aspects$that$are$included$in$project$stakeholder$management.$Despite$the$different$
definitions$ of$ the$ term,$ the$ opinions$ about$ what$ is$ covered$ with$ project$ stakeholder$ management$
are$quite$similar.$This$paragraph$will$elaborate$on$the$components$that$can$be$distinguished.$
$
Project$ stakeholder$ management$ within$ a$ RWS$ project$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase$ consists$ of$ four$
components:$ stakeholder$ management,$ communication,$ traffic$ management$ and$ conditioning$
(Gelder$et$al.,$2010,$pp.$28R29).$The$municipality$of$Amsterdam$also$distinguishes$these$components$
for$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ (Wanningen$ et$ al.,$ 2013).$ There$ are$ other$ views$ about$ the$
different$ tasks$ of$ a$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ (Antea$ Group,$ 2014;$ Du$ Prie,$ 2013),$ however$ the$
content$ corresponds$ with$ the$ components$ as$ described$ above$ but$ they$ differ$ in$ name.$ The$
components$as$distinguished$by$RWS$will$be$elaborated:$$
$
Stakeholder" management$ focuses$ on$ the$ interested$ parties$ in$ the$ area$ of$ a$ project.$ It$ is$ mapped$
who$ influences$ the$ project,$ on$ which$ people$ the$ project$ has$ influence$ and$ what$ the$ interests$ of$
these$parties$are.$It$is$the$process$to$search$for$and$work$towards$the$realisation$of$common$goal(s),$
compromises$ and/or$ countervailing$ measures$ in$ collaboration$ with$ the$ stakeholders$ of$ the$ project$
area$(Wanningen$et$al.,$2013).$In$general$stakeholders$in$a$project$can$be$divided$into$internal$and$
external$stakeholders$(Aaltonen,$2011).$Internal$stakeholders$are$the$stakeholders$that$are$formally$
members$of$the$project$coalition$and,$hence,$usually$support$the$project.$External$stakeholders$are$
not$formal$members$of$the$project$coalition,$but$may$affect$or$be$affected$by$the$project.$According$
to$ Kam,$ Weustink,$ and$ Cremer$ (2013)$ a$ project$ has$ relations$ with$ four$ worlds$ (see$ Figure$ 8).$ The$
inside$ world$ includes$ the$ internal$ stakeholders,$ but$ the$ external$ stakeholders$ can$ be$ divided$ into$
three$groups:$the$top$world,$the$private$environment$and$the$public$environment.$When$this$thesis$
refers$to$(project)$stakeholders,$the$external$stakeholders,$and$more$specifically,$the$stakeholders$in$
the$ private$ environment$ are$ meant.$ Because$ these$ people$ have$ inconvenience$ caused$ by$ the$
realisation$of$the$project.$In$this$research$about$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor,$
the$relations$between$the$internal$stakeholders$are$investigated.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"11"
$
Figure#8:#Four#types#of#stakeholders,#adapted#from#Kam#et#al.#(2013)#
The$ aspect$ communication$ includes$ the$ internal$ communication$ within$ the$ project,$ but$ also$ the$
communication$ with$ the$ stakeholders.$ Besides$ RWS,$ the$ other$ partners$ (like$ municipalities$ and$
provinces)$and$contractors$working$on$projects$have$their$own$goals$with$the$information$that$they$
want$ to$ communicate$ to$ the$ public.$ It$ is$ necessary$ to$ make$ a$ plan$ about$ who,$ what,$ when$ and$ to$
whom$will$be$communicated$by$which$party$(Peletier$&$Post,$2009).$The$information$communicated$
to$the$public$should$be$clear.$There$are$three$different$options$to$lay$down$the$communication$tasks$
in$a$contract$(Bolle,$2008).$
• The$ client$ is$ responsible$ and$ the$ contractor$ is$ not$ allowed$ to$ communicate$ with$ external$
parties.$
• The$ contractor$ is$ responsible$ for$ the$ communication,$ but$ the$ client$ is$ watching$ over$ the$
shoulders$of$the$contractor.$
• The$client$and$contractor$share$the$responsibility$for$the$communication.$
Contracts$ often$ make$ a$ distinction$ between$ construction$ communication$ (Dutch:$
bouwcommunicatie)$ and$ public$ communication$ (Dutch:$ publiekscommunicatie).$ The$ contractor$ is$
responsible$ for$ the$ construction$ communication$ and$ the$ principal$ is$ responsible$ for$ the$ public$
communication$(Rijkswaterstaat,$2013).$Construction$communication$aims$to$tune$the$construction$
works$with$the$target$groups$and$to$inform$road$and$waterway$users$during$the$work.$For$this$aspect$
communication$ with$ the$ private$ and$ public$ environment$ is$ needed.$ Public$ communication$ aims$ to$
create$ a$ visible$ and$ recognizable$ RWS$ and$ to$ provide$ unambiguous$ information$ about$ RWS,$ the$
construction$works$and$the$inconvenienced$caused$by$the$works.$
$
Traffic" management" is$ the$ process$ that$ has$ to$ ensure$ that$ the$ traffic$ on$ the$ existing$ road$ or$
waterway$ network$ can$ continue$ in$ the$ best$ possible$ way,$ this$ is$ one$ of$ the$ mains$ tasks$ of$ RWS$
(Rijkswaterstaat,$2011b).$It$is$the$task$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$to$reduce$the$disruption$
for$ the$ network$ users$ due$ to$ the$ construction$ activities$ to$ a$ minimum.$ Measures$ to$ reduce$ the$
disruption$ will$ be$ discussed$ with$ the$ stakeholders$ and$ the$ area$ should$ be$ kept$ accessible$ and$
liveable$during$the$construction.$
$
Conditioning"makes$the$realisation$of$the$project$legally$and$physically$possible$and$possible$barriers$
that$might$show$up$will$be$removed$(Peletier$&$Post,$2009).$It$includes$the$following$topics:$creating$
administrative$ agreements$ and$ decisions,$ legislation$ and$ arranging$ of$ the$ necessary$ permits,$ land$
acquisition$and$real$estate,$claim$management,$cables$and$pipelines,$objects$in$the$subsurface$(like$
archaeology,$explosives)$and$management$agreements$(Rijkswaterstaat,$2011b).$
12"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
3.1.3. Different%levels%of%project%stakeholder%management%
As$with$project$management$in$general,$project$stakeholder$management$is$conducted$at$different$
levels.$ Roughly,$ there$ are$ three$ levels$ within$ the$ field$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management:$ the$
strategic,$tactical$and$operational$level$(Wanningen$et$al.,$2013).$$
$
At$the$strategic$level$the$contours$of$the$project$are$set$and$gives$insight$in$the$‘why’$question.$The$
tactical$level$determines$the$organisational$approach$and$it$answers$the$question$‘what$will$we$do’.$
The$operational$level$is$concerned$with$the$executing$tasks,$so$the$question$is$‘how$are$we$going$to$
do$it’.$The$different$components$of$project$stakeholder$management$and$the$different$levels$give$the$
overview$ as$ illustrated$ in$ Figure$ 9$ of$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ could$ be$ organised.$
Other$implementations$are$possible$as$well.$$
$
Figure#9:#Organisation#of#project#stakeholder#management,#adapted#from#Wanningen#et#al.#(2013)#
These$ different$ levels$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ are$ also$ used$ by$ RWS$ to$ distinguish$ the$
tasks$ they$ perform$ by$ themselves$ and$ which$ tasks$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ will$ be$
outsourced$ to$ market$ parties.$ Figure$ 10$ gives$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ different$ levels$ of$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ percentage$ of$ the$ amount$ of$ tasks$ performed$ by$ RWS$ and$ the$
market.$ The$ market$ includes$ all$ tasks$ that$ are$ outsourced$ and$ all$ services$ that$ are$ hired$ (Hol$ &$
Risselada,$ 2013).$ In$ general$ there$ is$ little$ discussion$ about$ who$ will$ perform$ the$ strategic$ and$
operational$tasks,$for$the$most$project$stakeholder$management$tasks$on$these$levels$it$is$clear$what$
is$ done$ by$ RWS$ and$ which$ part$ will$ be$ outsourced.$ The$ issues$ are$ mainly$ at$ the$ tactical$ level.$ The$
starting$ point$ for$ RWS$ is$ to$ outsource$ 50$ to$ 70$ percent$ of$ the$ tasks$ on$ the$ tactical$ level$ to$ the$
market.$ The$ consideration$ if$ a$ task$ will$ be$ outsourced$ or$ not$ is$ based$ on$ a$ risk$ approach$ and$ the$
acquiring$of$knowledge$and$safeguarding$this$knowledge.$$
Figure#10:#Task#division#project#stakeholder#management#in#the#execution#phase,#adapted#from#Hol#and#
Risselada#(2013)#
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"13"
$
There$was$also$a$division$made$for$the$different$aspects$of$project$stakeholder$management$(Hol$&$
Risselada,$2013).$In$this$model$conditioning$is$the$responsibility$of$the$market,$with$an$exception$of$
establishing$ frameworks$ and$ guidelines$ and$ guiding$ research.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$
RWS$ is$ in$ charge$ of$ traffic$ and$ mobility$ management.$ Communication$ is$ the$ responsibility$ of$ RWS,$
except$for$the$construction$communication$this$is$the$responsibility$of$the$market$parties.$RWS$has$
the$ lead$ in$ stakeholder$ management$ as$ well.$ Figure$ 12$ illustrates$ the$ percentage$ share$ in$
responsibilities$of$principal$and$contactor.$$
$
Figure#12:#Division#of#responsibilities#principal#and#contractor#(own#ill.#based#on#Hol#and#Risselada#(2013))#
3.1.4. Embedment%of%project%stakeholder%management%in%organisations%
There$is$a$difference$in$how$the$underlying$thought$of$project$stakeholder$management$is$embedded$
in$ organisations.$ The$ principal$ is$ usually$ dealing$ well$ with$ this$ topic,$ while$ not$ all$ contractors$ have$
figured$out$yet$how$to$deal$with$the$project$stakeholders$(Van$Dam$&$Sheerazi$in$Bijl$(2011)).$
$
Within$ the$ organisation$ of$ RWS$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ is$ one$ of$ the$ five$ roles$
within$the$integrated$project$management$(IPM)$model$(Rijkswaterstaat,$2011a).$The$IPM$model$is$a$
process$model,$in$which$five$different$work$processes$are$identified.$RWS$has$chosen$to$assign$the$
responsibility$ of$ IPM$ to$ five$ role$ holders,$ in$ order$ to$ create$ uniformity$ and$ a$ clear$ organisation$
structure.$ The$ IPM$ model$ was$ introduced$ in$ 2006$ for$ integrated$ project$ management$ in$ the$
execution$phase$and$later$on$this$model$was$also$used$in$the$plan$study$phase.$Besides$the$role$of$
project$ stakeholder$ manager$ the$ following$ four$ roles$ can$ be$ distinguished:$ project$ manager,$
manager$process$control,$contract$manager$and$technical$manager.$Figure$13$gives$an$overview$how$
the$different$roles$are$related$within$the$project$team$and$also$to$external$parties.$$
Figure#13:#Model#for#integrated#project#management,#adapted#from#Rijkswaterstaat#(2010)#
$
Construction$ companies$ have$ all$ different$ approaches$ for$ dealing$ with$ project$ stakeholder$
management,$ so$ there$ is$ no$ general$ model$ in$ which$ there$ is$ a$ role$ for$ the$ project$ stakeholder$
manager.$ Management$ in$ the$ construction$ sector$ is$ project$ driven$ and$ the$ structure$ varies$ by$
14"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
project.$ There$ is$ usually$ a$ project$ manager$ who$ controls$ the$ temporary$ project$ team,$ this$ team$
consists$of$employees$who$work$for$contracting$party.$Because$the$contractor$is$often$a$consortium,$
it$is$possible$that$these$employees$are$working$for$different$companies.$$
3.1.5. International%review%project%stakeholder%management%
The$ typical$ Dutch$ word$ ‘omgevingsmanagement’$ does$ not$ exist$ in$ other$ languages,$ however$ there$
are$a$lot$of$successful$construction$projects$abroad.$The$name$may$be$different,$but$strategic$dealing$
with$stakeholders$is$also$a$key$factor$in$large$European$infrastructure$projects$(Vieter,$2011).$Since$
there$is$no$specific$international$literature$on$the$topic$project$stakeholder$management$itself,$the$
focus$is$on$the$different$aspects$that$are$included$in$the$term.$International$projects$face$a$variety$of$
pressures$ from$ their$ uncertain$ and$ complex$ external$ stakeholder$ environment$ (Aaltonen,$ 2011).$
Heeres$et$al.$(2012)$showed$that$road$infrastructure$planning$requires$careful$consideration$of$the$
area$ surrounding$ the$ project.$ In$ construction$ projects$ many$ different$ and$ sometimes$ discrepant$
interests$ must$ be$ considered$ (Olander$ &$ Landin,$ 2005).$ In$ different$ countries$ public$ opposition$
caused$ by$ several$ factors$ has$ lead$ to$ project$ failures$ (ElRGohary,$ Osman,$ &$ ElRDiraby,$ 2006)$ and$
failing$ to$ manage$ the$ stakeholders$ will$ lead$ to$ project$ failure$ as$ well$ (Rwelamila,$ Fewings,$ &$
Henjewele,$2014).$The$main$challenge$for$the$executing$parties$is$to$prevent$public$marginalisation,$
which$can$lead$to$public$outcry.$$
$
Internationally$ the$ importance$ of$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ known.$ Management$ of$ project$
stakeholders$ and$ taking$ their$ needs$ and$ requirements$ into$ account$ is$ an$ essential$ element$ for$
project$success$(Olander$&$Landin,$2005).$Examples$can$be$found$all$over$the$world$among$others$in$
Australia,$Argentina,$the$United$Kingdom,$SouthRAfrica,$Canada,$the$United$States$of$America,$India$
and$ Greece$ (Rwelamila$ et$ al.,$ 2014).$ An$ example$ comes$ from$ the$ USA,$ where$ the$ Arizona$
Department$of$Transportation$has$set$up$public$relation$requirements$for$the$D&C$contractors.$The$
responses$from$the$contractors$were$evaluated$and$the$team$with$the$best$plan$on$how$to$deal$with$
public$relations$would$get$the$job.$The$contractor$can$stand$out$by$improving$the$relationship$with$
the$(external)$stakeholders$(Ernzen$&$Woods,$2001).$$$$
$
Corporate$ social$ responsibility$ (CSR)$ is$ increasingly$ adopted$ for$ representing$ a$ company’s$
environmental,$ social$ and$ economic$ performance$ (Myers,$ cited$ in$ Tan,$ Shen,$ and$ Yao$ (2011)).$ The$
Commission$for$the$European$Communities$(in$Tan$et$al.$(2011))$defines$CSR$as$“a#concept#whereby#
companies# integrate# social# and# environmental# concerns# in# their# business# operations# and# in# their#
interactions# with# their# stakeholders# on# a# voluntary# basis”.$ The$ client$ increases$ the$ requirements$
towards$contractors,$suppliers$and$business$consultants$to$adopt$sustainable$policies$in$construction$
projects.$ Sustainable$ construction$ refers$ to$ the$ integration$ of$ environmental,$ social$ and$ economic$
considerations$ into$ construction$ business$ strategies$ and$ practices.$ The$ international$ trend$ of$
promoting$ sustainable$ development$ is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ developments$ in$ the$ Netherlands$ and$ the$
transition$ from$ a$ lineRoriented$ approach$ towards$ an$ areaRoriented$ approach$ in$ the$ motorway$
planning$ (Heeres$ et$ al.,$ 2012).$ “The# integration# of# road# infrastructure# planning# and# further# spatial#
planning#sectors#is#not#an#uniquely#Dutch#phenomenon,#at#strategic#policy#level#this#trend#can#also#be#
observed#in#other#Western#countries”$(Heeres$et$al.,$2012).$However,$the$practical$implementation$of$
this$trend$is$strongly$dependent$on$the$context$of$the$individual$projects.$
$
3.2. Legal"context"
In$ the$ nineties,$ the$ Dutch$ government$ was$ not$ able$ to$ meet$ the$ requirements$ with$ regard$ to$ the$
improvement$ of$ the$ transport$ infrastructure.$ The$ public$ resources$ were$ not$ sufficient$ to$ fulfil$ the$
requirements.$In$order$to$realise$projects$that$would$improve$the$infrastructure,$the$public$principal$
needed$private$actors$to$finance$the$project.$Public$and$private$parties$had$to$work$together$to$come$
up$with$solutions$for$the$problems$(BultRSpiering$et$al.,$2005,$p.$11;$Ham$&$Koppenjan,$2002,$pp.$27R
28).$ Therefore$ the$ Dutch$ construction$ sector$ recently$ shifted$ from$ a$ traditional$ contract$ model$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"15"
towards$ a$ soRcalled$ integrated$ contract$ model$ (Bruggeman,$ ChaoRDuivis,$ &$ Koning,$ 2010,$ pp.$ 35,$
111).$ In$ the$ traditional$ contract$ model$ an$ architect$ and$ other$ consultants$ are$ hired$ to$ make$ the$
design$for$the$project,$later$a$contractor$is$selected$to$realise$the$project.$In$this$situation$the$client$
stays$responsible$for$the$design.$In$an$integrated$contract$the$role$of$the$client$is$much$more$limited,$
since$a$consortium$is$responsible$for$the$design$and$construction$of$the$project.$Figure$14$illustrates$
this.$
$
Figure#14:#Traditional#contracts#versus#integrated#contracts,#adapted#from#Bruggeman#et#al.#(2010)#
Besides$ the$ trend$ to$ integrate$ contracts,$ there$ was$ dissatisfaction$ about$ the$ functioning$ of$ the$
construction$ sector$ in$ general.$ The$ sector$ was$ fragmented$ and$ shortRterm$ oriented,$ improving$ the$
sector$ should$ be$ done$ by$ integration$ of$ the$ process$ and$ more$ involvement$ of$ the$ market$ parties$
(Dorée,$ 2001).$ Therefore$ the$ Ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$ and$ Environment$ has$ commissioned$ two$
expert$ panels$ to$ conduct$ research$ into$ the$ efficiency$ and$ effectiveness$ in$ the$ planning$ process$ of$
LIPs.$
3.2.1. New%policies%
The$ Ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$ and$ Environment$ has$ formulated$ two$ new$ binding$ policies$ about$
involving$ private$ parties$ to$ improve$ the$ duration,$ costs$ and$ quality$ in$ the$ implementation$ of$
infrastructure$projects.$These$policies$are$based$on$the$advices$coming$from$the$studies$conducted$
by$ the$ committees$ Ruding$ and$ Elverding.$ The$ report$ ‘On# the# right# track’$ by$ the$ committee$ Ruding$
states$ that$ more$ private$ funding$ should$ be$ used$ for$ the$ realisation$ infrastructure$ projects$
(Commissie$ Private$ Financiering$ van$ Infrastructuur,$ 2008).$ This$ advice$ is$ the$ basis$ for$ the$ ‘Market,#
unless…’#policy,$projects$should$be$financed$with$private$funding$if$this$creates$added$value.$In$case$
of$large$maintenance$and$construction$projects$a$D&C$contract$is$standard$and$if$the$investment$is$
above$ 60$ million$ euros$ the$ Public$ Private$ Comparator$ (PPC)$ will$ be$ used$ to$ decide$ which$ type$ of$
contract$ is$ chosen.$ The$ D&C$ contract$ will$ be$ compared$ to$ a$ Design,$ Build,$ Finance$ and$ Maintain$
(DBFM)$contract$and$the$contract$type$that$creates$the$most$added$value$will$be$chosen.$
$
The$other$policy$‘Faster#&#Better’$is$a$result$of$the$advice$by$the$committee$Elverding.$The$objective$
of$ this$ advice$ is$ to$ accelerate$ the$ decision$ making$ process$ for$ infrastructure$ projects$ (Commissie$
Versnelling$ Besluitvorming$ Infrastructurele$ Projecten,$ 2008).$ The$ report$ states$ that$ market$ parties$
should$be$involved$in$all$stages$of$the$project,$in$order$to$benefit$from$their$expertise$and$creativity.$
The$ general$ advice$ coming$ from$ this$ report$ is$ to$ involve$ stakeholders$ and$ contractors$ early$ in$ the$
project,$ because$ it$ will$ ensure$ a$ smoother$ progress.$ Both$ policies$ are$ designed$ by$ the$ Ministry$ of$
Infrastructure$and$Environment$and$implemented$by$the$department$of$public$works,$better$known$
as$RWS.$
$
In$addition,$in$the$last$decade$the$influence$of$European$and$domestic$regulations$on$the$execution$
of$LIPs$has$further$increased.$The$Dutch$legislation$regarding$environmental$requirements$is$a$result$
of$ International$ protocols$ and$ European$ legislation.$ Examples$ are$ habitat$ legislation,$ fauna$
legislation,$rules$for$compensation,$rules$for$air$quality$and$the$MaltaRtreaty$concerning$archaeology$
(Hertogh$ &$ Westerveld,$ 2010).$ These$ requirements$ are$ the$ consequence$ of$ a$ generally$ increased$
environmental$awareness,$but$this$makes$the$development$of$infrastructure$more$difficult.$
16"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
3.2.2. Planning%process%
The$ planning$ process$ for$ LIPs$ distinguishes$ three$ main$
stages:$ the$ exploration,$ plan$ study$ and$ realisation$ stage$
(see$Figure$15).$$Each$stage$is$linked$to$a$decision$that$is$
the$ basis$ for$ the$ next$ stage,$ it$ includes$ decisions$ about$
the$ progress,$ management$ and$ budget$ of$ the$ project$
(Peletier$&$Post,$2009).$In$general,$the$procedures$in$the$
various$ stages$ are$ carried$ out$ sequentially$ (Arts$ &$
Sandee,$ 2005).$ However$ there$ is$ currently$ a$ trend$ to$
integrate$the$plan$study$and$realisation$stage,$in$that$case$
the$ market$ parties$ will$ be$ involved$ in$ the$ project$ before$
the$ project$ decision$ is$ definitive.$ The$ tender$ procedure$
will$ run$ parallel$ to$ or$ will$ be$ interwoven$ with$ the$
procedure$ to$ come$ to$ the$ project$ decision$ (Arts$ &$
Sandee,$ 2005).$ The$ most$ important$ reasons$ to$ involve$
the$ market$ parties$ at$ an$ earlier$ stage$ are$ time$ savings,$
room$for$creativity$and$financial$security$(Sandee,$2009).$
An$ innovative$ design$ is$ only$ possible$ before$ all$ project$
boundaries$ are$ set$ down$ in$ the$ project$ decision.$
Therefore,$early$involvement$of$market$parties$and$their$
creativity$is$needed$to$deal$with$the$complexity$of$today’s$
projects.$This$trend$is$a$result$from$the$policies$based$on$
the$advices$of$the$Elverding$and$Ruding$committee.$
Figure#15:#Planning#process,#adapted#
from#Lenferink#(2013)#
3.2.3. Integrated%contracts%
Different$ governmental$ projects$ make$ use$ of$ integrated$ contracts$ in$ which$ a$ private$ party$ is$
contracted$ by$ a$ public$ party$ to$ execute$ the$ project.$ This$ form$ of$ collaboration$ is$ referred$ to$ as$ a$
public$ private$ partnership$ (PPP),$ an$ interRorganisational$ collaboration$ for$ a$ temporary$ project$ with$
agreements$ about$ the$ costs$ and$ risk$ division$ (BultRSpiering$ et$ al.,$ 2005,$ pp.$ 20R33).$ In$ literature$
different$ forms$ of$ PPP$ can$ be$ found,$ examples$ are$ outsourcing,$ franchising,$ corporatization,$ joint$
venture,$BOOT$(build,$own,$operate$and$transfer)$or$DBFO$(design,$build,$finance,$operate)$contracts$
(Delmon,$ 2011,$ pp.$ 7R12).$ The$ Dutch$ literature$ has$ reduced$ those$ different$ forms$ to$ just$ two$ main$
forms,$ the$ concession$ and$ the$ alliance$ model$ (BultRSpiering$ et$ al.,$ 2005,$ p.$ 55;$ Ham$ &$ Koppenjan,$
2002,$pp.$23R27).$In$the$concession$model$the$control$is$mainly$in$the$hands$of$the$public$“partner”$
and$ the$ hierarchical$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ remains$ the$ same.$ The$ contract$
between$the$two$becomes$more$integrated,$but$it$is$definitely$not$an$equal$partnership.$In$case$of$
the$alliance$model$a$new$joint$venture$will$be$founded$and$the$partners$have$a$shared$responsibility$
to$ achieve$ the$ goals$ of$ the$ project.$ In$ The$ Netherlands$ the$ concession$ model$ is$ dominant$ in$ the$
infrastructure$sector$(Eversdijk$&$Korsten,$2007).$As$elaborated$on$in$paragraph$3.2.1$integrated$D&C$
and$DBFM$contracts$are$most$used$in$case$of$LIPs$in$The$Netherlands.$Although$a$DBFM$contract$is$in$
the$ Netherlands$ seen$ as$ a$ form$ of$ PPP,$ it$ is$ not$ a$ real$ partnership.$ A$ partnership$ only$ exists$ if$ the$
collaboration$has$the$form$of$the$alliance$model$(Ham$&$Koppenjan,$2002,$p.$25).$With$a$DBFM$or$
D&C$ contract$ the$ relation$ between$ the$ public$ and$ private$ party$ has$ still$ the$ traditional$ form$ of$
principal$ and$ contractor,$ only$ the$ tasks$ of$ the$ contractors$ are$ broadened$ because$ tasks$ of$ the$
principal$are$outsourced$to$the$contractor.$$
$
In$case$of$a$DBFM$contract$the$contractor,$often$a$consortium,$is$responsible$for$the$whole$project.$
So$after$designing,$building$and$financing$the$project,$the$consortium$is$depending$on$the$duration$of$
the$contract$for$20$or$30$years$responsible$for$the$maintenance$of$the$project.$Instead$of$buying$a$
product$as$in$the$past$(for$example$a$road$with$2$x$2$lanes),$RWS$is$now$purchasing$a$service$(a$road$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"17"
that$ is$ available)$ (Rijkswaterstaat,$ 2014b).$ The$ risks$ and$ responsibilities$ are$ arranged$ to$ the$ party$
that$is$best$able$to$manage$and$bear$them.$
$
The$other$type$of$contract$often$used$by$RWS$is$a$D&C$contract,$where$the$contractor$is$responsible$
for$ the$ design$ of$ the$ infrastructure$ and$ the$ construction$ of$ it$ (Rijkswaterstaat,$ 2014c).$ A$ D&C$
contract$ is$ an$ integrated$ contract$ form,$ but$ is$ not$ a$ form$ of$ PPP.$ To$ identify$ the$ most$ attractive$
contract$for$the$execution$of$a$project,$the$PPC$is$used.$This$instrument$makes$a$financial$comparison$
between$ the$ most$ obvious$ variant$ (a$ D&C$ contract,$ with$ separate$ contracts$ for$ the$ maintenance)$
and$a$public$private$execution$of$the$project$with$a$DBFM$contract$(Rijkswaterstaat,$2014a).$With$a$
D&C$contract$RWS$uses$standardized$purchase$documents,$examples$are$the$tender$document$and$
the$contract.$This$is$not$only$efficient$for$RWS,$but$also$for$the$market$parties.$Because$they$get$to$
know$the$RWS$contracts$better$and$are$therefore$better$able$to$anticipate$on$the$wishes$of$RWS.$A$
standard$ D&C$ contract$ is$ based$ on$ the$ legal$ and$ administrative$ conditions$ of$ UAVRGC$ 2005$
(Rijkswaterstaat,$2014c).$
3.2.4. International%point%of%view%
The$wish$for$changes$in$the$construction$sector$does$exist$in$other$countries$as$well.$In$the$United$
Kingdom$ the$ report$ ‘Rethinking# Construction’$ by$ Egan$ (in$ Dorée$ (2001))$ argues$ for$ radical$
improvements$ and$ changes$ in$ the$ construction$ sector.$ Clegg,$ Pitsis,$ RuraRPolley,$ and$ Marosszeky$
(2002)$ describe$ the$ realisation$ of$ construction$ projects$ as$ a$ fragmented$ process$ that$ poses$
difficulties$in$terms$of$controlling$the$project$outcome.$In$order$to$overcome$these$limitations,$D&C$
was$ introduced$ to$ create$ a$ single$ point$ of$ responsibility$ between$ client$ and$ contractor.$ The$ trend$
‘use$of$partnering$in$construction’$has$a$growing$interest$internationally$as$well$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$
2000a).$Partnering$and$related$forms$of$collaboration$have$been$seen$as$a$way$of$dealing$with$the$
fragmentation$and$lack$of$integration$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b).$This$is$in$line$with$the$new$focus$
created$ by$ the$ European$ Union$ on$ private$ sector$ involvement$ (PSI)$ to$ “assist# the# government# in#
meeting# its# priorities,# building# in# the# clear# recognition# that# public# funds# are# limited”.$ PSI$ has$ two$
forms:$outsourcing$and$a$PPP$(Tang,$Shen,$&$Cheng,$2010).$$
$
3.3. Organisational"context"
The$ increased$ use$ of$ integrated$ contracts$ means$ that$ most$ LIPs$ in$ The$ Netherlands$ are$ executed$
with$ a$ DBFM$ or$ D&C$ contract.$ Since$ the$ term$ partnership$ is$ not$ applicable$ in$ most$ cases$ in$ The$
Netherlands,$ the$ term$ ‘collaboration’$ is$ used$ as$ the$ more$ generic$ indication$ of$ collaborative$
arrangements$ between$ clients$ and$ contractors.$ Collaboration$ was$ already$ defined$ in$ chapter$ 2$ as$
“an# evolving# process# whereby# two# or# more# social# entities# actively# and# reciprocally# engage# in# joint#
activities#aimed#at#achieving#at#least#one#shared#goal”$(Bedwell$et$al.,$2012).$Based$on$the$existing$
literature,$ this$ section$ will$ elaborate$ on$ the$ organisational$ context$ in$ which$ the$ collaboration$
between$public$and$private$parties$takes$place.$
3.3.1. Changes%in%organisations%
RWS$is$the$public$principal$in$most$of$the$LIPs$in$the$Netherlands.$The$changes$in$the$construction$
sector$ caused$ by$ the$ increased$ public$ participation$ and$ new$ policies$ have$ caused$ changes$ in$ the$
structure$of$RWS$as$well.$RWS$is$stepping$back$as$the$executing$party$of$construction$projects$and$is$
focusing$on$a$more$strategic$and$coordinating$role$as$asset$owner.$An$extensive$part$of$the$tasks$and$
executive$ responsibilities$ is$ outsourced$ to$ private$ contractors$ (Rijkswaterstaat,$ 2004),$ this$ is$ in$ line$
with$the$advice$of$the$Ruding$committee.$The$corporate$culture$of$RWS$is$also$changing,$a$technical$
culture$ gives$ little$ to$ no$ room$ for$ dealing$ with$ problem$ perceptions$ of$ the$ citizens$ and$ local$
governments$ (Peletier$ &$ Post,$ 2009).$ Therefore,$ RWS$ transformed$ from$ a$ hierarchical,$ closed$ and$
inwardRoriented$ organisation$ with$ a$ technical$ corporate$ culture$ towards$ a$ more$ transparent$ and$
publicRoriented$facilitator$(Lenferink,$Arts,$&$Tillema,$2011).$$$
$
18"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
The$ construction$ sector$ is$ changing$ from$ a$ traditional$ supply$ driven$ market$ to$ a$ demand$ driven$
market$ (Renda,$ 2012;$ Stolk,$ 2014).$ This$ tilting$ of$ the$ market$ causes$ changes$ in$ terms$ of$
responsibility,$quality$and$collaboration.$For$most$construction$companies$collaboration$is$necessary$
in$order$to$construct$LIPs.$Because$of$the$increased$scope$of$the$projects$one$construction$company$
is$ not$ able$ to$ bear$ the$ risks$ anymore$ and$ has$ to$ collaborate$ with$ other$ companies.$ Via$ a$ tender$
procedure$ most$ construction$ projects$ are$ awarded$ to$ a$ consortium$ in$ which$ different$ contractors$
are$ joining$ forces$ and$ work$ together.$ The$ public$ party$ relies$ on$ collaboration$ with$ these$ private$
contracting$parties$because$the$public$party$does$not$have$the$financial$resources$to$construct$LIPs$
(BultRSpiering$et$al.,$2005,$p.$11).$As$a$consequence$of$this$the$relationship$between$the$two$parties$
changes.$The$public$party$is$focusing$on$its$core$competences$and$leaves$the$policy$implementation$
to$the$private$parties.$This$makes$the$boundaries$between$public$and$private$more$vague.$$
3.3.2. Differences%between%public%and%private%parties%
Fundamental$ differences$ in$ interests$ between$ clients,$ contractors$ and$ others$ are$ endemic$ and$
almost$a$defining$characteristic$of$the$construction$sector$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b).$Relationships$
between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ in$ construction$ projects$ are$ often$ adversarial.$ This$ applies$ to$
relationships$governed$by$a$traditional$contract,$but$also$in$case$of$a$more$modern$contract$form$like$
a$D&C$contract$(Laan,$Noorderhaven,$Voordijk,$&$Dewulf,$2011).$There$are$fundamental$differences$
between$ the$ public$ and$ private$ sector.$ They$ differ$ in$ several$ areas,$ both$ have$ different$ interests,$
goals$and$a$different$structure$(Smit$&$Thiel,$2002).$The$theory$of$Jacobs$is$frequently$used$to$show$
that$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ are$ fundamentally$ different$ from$ each$ other$ (Ham$ &$ Koppenjan,$
2002;$Smit$&$Thiel,$2002).$The$public$and$the$private$domain$are$fundamentally$incompatible$ethical$
systems,$mainly$characterised$by$the$different$values$of$both$domains.$These$different$value$systems$
cannot$ be$ mixed$ with$ each$ other$ and$ are$ actually$ mutually$ exclusive.$ Overmeeren$ (2012)$ gives$ an$
example$of$the$different$interests$of$public$and$private$parties.$Both$have$a$financial$interest,$but$the$
public$ party$ also$ has$ a$ social$ interest.$ In$ all$ phases$ of$ the$ project,$ the$ private$ party$ acts$ from$
commercial$interests$and$the$social$interest$is$one$of$the$latest$concerns.$This$will$not$give$problems$
as$long$as$the$project$runs$smoothly,$but$in$case$problems$need$to$be$solved$those$different$interests$
will$ probably$ cause$ difficulties$ in$ finding$ an$ acceptable$ solutions$ for$ both$ parties.$ Besides$ the$
different$ values$ of$ public$ and$ private$ sector$ organisations,$ there$ are$ also$ a$ lot$ of$ values$ that$ are$
crucial$in$both$sectors$(Wal,$Graaf,$&$Lasthuizen,$2008).$So$instead$of$a$focus$on$the$differences,$the$
similarities$can$be$used$as$starting$point.$$
3.3.3. Technical%aspects%of%collaboration%
A$contract,$regardless$its$type,$is$a$division$of$the$risks.$This$means$that$the$risks$are$coupled$to$one$
of$ both$ contract$ partners.$ Collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ requires$ that$ the$ risks$
are$assigned$to$the$contractual$party$that$is$best$able$to$mitigate$them$or$to$bear$them$(Marques$&$
Berg,$2011).$The$allocation$of$risks$to$the$private$party$tends$to$increase$the$price$of$the$project,$so$it$
is$ essential$ to$ ensure$ that$ the$ public$ benefit$ of$ such$ transfers$ outweighs$ any$ increase$ in$ financial$
costs$associated$with$risk$bearing$(Quiggin,$2004).$The$contractor$wants$to$secure$the$costs$of$risks$
and$ uncertainties,$ so$ those$ costs$ are$ passed$ on$ in$ the$ cost$ estimation$ to$ the$ client.$ This$ causes$
unnecessary$high$project$costs.$Kolk$(2012)$describes$this$as$“the#risk#of#avoiding#risks”.$$
$
The$ major$ public$ principals$ (like$ RWS$ and$ ProRail)$ have$ elevated$ integrated$ contracts$ to$ the$
standard.$This$has$implications$for$the$division$of$roles$and$related$responsibilities$between$principal$
and$ contractor.$ The$ reason$ for$ the$ rise$ of$ these$ integrated$ contracts$ is$ that$ both$ parties$ have$
different$advantages$compared$to$the$traditional$contracts$(Veen$&$Dijk,$2007).$
$
Currently$public$and$private$parties$have$some$experience$with$the$interpretation$of$their$new$roles.$
There$ are$ drivers$ for$ change$ in$ the$ construction$ sector,$ however$ it$ is$ not$ too$ difficult$ to$ see$ that$
there$are$other$points$that$represent$major$barriers$to$change$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b).$LargeR
scale$projects$are$constituted$by$contract.$Typically,$these$contracts$are$predicated$on$a$climate$of$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"19"
mistrust$so$contracts$are$written$as$watertight$as$possible.$Contractual$enforcement$is$held$in$place$
by$ governance$ mechanisms$ that$ involve$ high$ degrees$ of$ work$ surveillance$ to$ check$ that$ it$ is$
completed$ in$ accordance$ with$ the$ contract$ (Clegg$ et$ al.,$ 2002).$ The$ formal$ contract$ is$ one$ of$ the$
dimensions$ of$ an$ exchange$ relationship,$ the$ other$ dimension$ is$ the$ actual$ interaction$ that$ takes$
place$ (Dewulf$ &$ Kadefors,$ 2012).$ Formal$ contracts$ are$ imperative,$ but$ not$ only$ because$ of$ their$
effect$ on$ risk$ allocation.$ Other$ important$ aspects$ of$ contracts$ are$ enhance$ perceived$ risk$ sharing,$
entail$cost$transparency$and$introduce$new$arenas$for$communication.$
$
The$principal$typically$chooses$the$type$and$scope$of$a$contract.$Generally,$a$contract$specifies$roles,$
responsibilities,$remuneration$scheme,$payment$terms$and$phases,$incentive$scheme,$distribution$of$
risk$and$dispute$resolution$and$conflict$settlement.$The$research$of$Suprapto$et$al.$(in$press)$showed$
that$ the$ contract$ is$ an$ absolute$ necessity$ in$ business$ and$ commercial$ sense$ but$ not$ an$ effective$
instrument$for$managing$the$working$relationship.$It$is$only$relevant$to$the$working$relationship$to$
set$ the$ performance$ target$ and$ to$ structure$ the$ clarity$ of$ roles$ and$ responsibilities$ among$ parties.$
The$ research$ suggests$ that$ the$ working$ relationship$ cannot$ be$ fully$ prescribed$ by$ contract.$ This$
suggests$ that$ contract$ or$ contractual$ arrangements$ were$ perceived$ to$ be$ relatively$ less$ important$
than$ other$ aspects$ in$ ‘governing’$ the$ relationship$ especially$ during$ realisation$ and$ when$ external$
conditions$ changes.$ However,$ this$ does$ not$ eliminate$ the$ need$ for$ appropriate$ contractual$
arrangements.$ An$ appropriate$ contract$ is$ necessary,$ but$ is$ not$ sufficient$ to$ ensure$ an$ effective$
working$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ reason$ for$ this$ is$ that$ contracts$ are$
designed$to$avoid$initial$ambiguity$but$are$limited$in$guiding$the$parties$to$interpret$problems$that$
emerge$later.$
3.3.4. Social%aspects%of%collaboration%
Besides$the$fact$that$collaboration$is$needed$for$both$public$and$private$parties$as$elaborated$on$in$
chapter$1,$research$has$recognized$that$relations$between$client$and$contractor$play$a$significant$role$
in$ successful$ project$ implementation.$ It$ suggested$ that$ performance$ in$ terms$ of$ cost,$ time,$ quality$
and$ a$ whole$ range$ of$ other$ criteria,$ could$ be$ dramatically$ improved$ if$ participants$ adopt$ more$
collaborative$ ways$ of$ working.$ A$ lot$ of$ attention$ is$ paid$ to$ the$ examination$ of$ conditions$ to$
encourage$collaboration$between$clients$and$their$contractors$ (Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b).$ Public$
construction$ projects$ are$ more$ procured$ and$ managed$ with$ explicit$ intentions$ to$ establish$ closer$
collaboration$between$partners$(Dewulf$&$Kadefors,$2012).$The$interests$of$the$parties$collaborating$
might$ be$ quite$ different.$ However,$ the$ objective$ of$ private$ companies$ has$ become$ increasingly$
aligned$with$public$policy$objective,$whilst$still$operating$commercially.$Bresnen$and$Marshall$(2002)$
highlight$that$current$practices$of$collaboration$in$projects$might$put$too$much$emphasis$on$formal$
mechanisms$ (such$ as$ contracts,$ tools$ and$ techniques).$ Such$ formalisation$ often$ underplays$ the$
important$ social$ dimensions$ of$ collaboration$ in$ practice$ and$ the$ dynamics$ of$ relationships$ among$
different$individuals$within$an$organisation$and$between$different$organisations.$
$
It$ is$ difficult$ to$ define$ this$ softer$ side$ of$ collaboration,$ because$ it$ is$ about$ people$ and$ designing$
relations$between$them.$Features$like$commitment,$communication$and$trust$are$important$in$the$
relation$between$principal$and$contractor,$since$no$contract$can$account$for$every$issue$that$might$
arise.$ The$ different$ goals$ and$ objectives$ of$ the$ partners$ might$ lead$ to$ conflicts$ and$ distrust.$ These$
differences$have$to$be$overcome$in$order$to$continue$with$the$project.$It$is$about$finding$a$balance$
between$ the$ hard,$ technical$ framework$ and$ maintaining$ the$ relations$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$
project$(Figure$17).$A$technical$framework$can$be$the$same$for$different$projects,$but$the$outcome$of$
the$ project$ can$ vary$ enormously.$ This$ is$ because$ the$ implementation$ of$ the$ framework$ is$ project$
dependent$and$the$circumstances$in$each$project$are$different.$The$framework$can$be$that$good,$if$
however$the$implementation$of$it$is$not$there$is$still$a$large$change$of$project$failure.$$
20"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
$
Figure#17:#Finding#the#balance#between#the#hard#and#soft#side#of#collaboration,#adapted#from#Reinking#(2013)#
In$general$there$is$still$a$lot$of$distrust$between$both$parties,$therefore$openness$and$transparency$is$
needed$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration.$ Stimulating$ collaboration$ and$ improve$ the$ soft$ side$ of$
management$should$lead$to$savings$in$time$and$a$decrease$in$the$failure$costs.$In$this$way$the$soft$
side$ becomes$ hard$ in$ a$ certain$ way$ (Reinking,$ 2013).$ According$ to$ research$ on$ trust,$ it$ is$ essential$
that$ parties$ have$ the$ opportunity$ to$ show$ that$ they$ are$ trustworthy$ and$ collaboration$ could$
therefore$ not$ be$ based$ on$ contracts$ alone$ (Dewulf$ &$ Kadefors,$ 2012).$ Also$ Bresnen$ and$ Marshall$
(2000b)$ stated$ that$ relying$ on$ formal$ contracts$ alone$ is$ not$ seen$ as$ sufficient$ to$ promote$
collaboration.$It$is$much$too$simple$to$presume$that$understanding$the$working$of$the$technical$side$
of$collaboration$(contracts,$partnering$schemes,$pricing$formulae,$etc.)$and$the$application$of$these$
tools$and$techniques$is$all$that$is$needed.$Creating$a$collaborative$relationship$should$be$focused$on$
people$ and$ their$ relationships$ in$ addition$ to$ contractual$ arrangement$ and$ the$ practice$ (Suprapto,$
Mooi,$&$Bakker,$2012).$Management$of$relationship$and$trust$building$is$needed$to$engage$people$
from$different$management$levels,$from$and$within$the$contracting$parties.$$
3.3.5. Important%criteria%for%good%collaboration%
A$lot$of$researchers$have$investigated$what$is$important$within$collaboration.$Chan$et$al.$(2004)$for$
example$ have$ identified$ seven$ critical$ success$ factors$ for$ partnering$ projects$ based$ on$ survey$
research,$ interviews$ and$ case$ studies.$ A$ more$ recent$ research$ is$ the$ one$ of$ Cheung$ et$ al.$ (2009),$
which$shows$drivers$that$motivate$cooperation$but$also$elaborates$on$aggressive$drivers$that$have$a$
negative$influence$on$cooperative$behaviour.$These$drivers$are$identified$through$a$comprehensive$
literature$ review.$ Another$ theory$ is$ the$ research$ of$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011),$ eight$ key$ relationship$
indicators$ are$ identified$ with$ the$ use$ of$ three$ research$ methods:$ literature$ review,$ expert$ group$
discussion,$and$questionnaire$survey.$$$
$
Chan"et"al."(2004)"
Adequate$resources$
Support$from$top$management$
Cheung"et"al."(2009)"
Openness$of$contracting$parties$
Good$
relationships$
among$
contracting$parties$
Mutual$trust$
Contract$completeness$
LongRterm$commitment$
Good$teamwork$
Effective$communication$
Incentive$ to$ risk$ sharing$ and$
problem$solving$
Efficient$coordination$
Effective$communication$
Productive$conflict$resolution$
Desire$to$maintain$relationship$
$
$
Table#1:#Factors#influencing#collaboration#
Meng"et"al."(2011)"
Procurement$
Objectives$
Trust$
Collaboration$
Communication$
Problem$solving$
Risk$allocation$
Continuous$improvement$
In$ addition$ to$ the$ mentioned$ researches$ above,$ the$ research$ of$ Gajendran$ and$ Brewer$ (2012)$ is$
interesting,$because$it$provides$an$additional$perspective$towards$collaboration$which$is$not$included$
in$ the$ other$ researches.$ Gajendran$ and$ Brewer$ (2012)$ include$ factors$ regarding$ the$ attitudes$ and$
competences$of$the$team$members,$which$are$underexposed$in$the$other$researches.$The$identified$
dimensions$that$foster$collaboration$are$the$result$of$a$literature$review.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"21"
$Gajendran"and"Brewer"(2012)"
Shared$direction$
Collective$action$
Competence$of$the$members$
Power$distribution$and$equality$
Trust$
Communication$
Table#2:#Dimensions#that#foster#collaboration#
In$ this$ paragraph$ some$ theories$ with$ factors$ that$ influence$ collaboration$ have$ been$ discussed.$ In$
order$to$organise$all$the$collected$information$and$identify$the$most$important$factors,$an$overview$
is$made$with$differences$and$similarities$between$the$theories.$The$identified$factors$in$the$theories$
are$clustered$to$look$for$similarities$within$the$theories.$A$complete$overview$of$the$comparison$of$
all$theories$can$be$found$in$Appendix$A.$It$includes$an$overview$of$the$original$aspects$as$found$in$the$
different$studies,$together$with$an$explanation$about$why$some$factors$are$left$out$of$the$research.$$$$$
$
Figure$ 18$ shows$ the$ outcome$ of$ the$ categorisation$ process$ based$ on$ the$ reviewed$ literature$ on$
collaboration.$After$clustering$the$different$factors$from$all$literature$sources,$six$main$criteria$can$be$
distinguished.$These$are$given$headings,$which$cover$the$content$of$the$category.$
Figure#18:#Categorisation#of#aspects#(own#ill.)#
$
3.3.6. Collaborative%relationships%
It$ has$ been$ argued$ that$ traditional$ contracts$ do$ not$ support$ effective$collaboration$ in$ construction$
projects$ (Kadefors$ in$ Osipova$ and$ Eriksson$ (2011)).$ It$ is$ often$ assumed$ that$ more$ collaboration$
between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ will$ improve$ the$ performance$ of$ construction$ projects,$ several$
studies$showed$that$these$types$of$partnering$arrangements$can$create$more$cooperative,$trusting$
relationships.$Cheung$et$al.$(2009)$suggest$that$contracting$parties$can$either$behave$adversarial$or$
collaborative.$ It$ is$ clear$ that$ an$ adversarial$ relationship$ is$ undesirable,$ while$ a$ collaborative$
relationship$ is$ desirable.$ Suprapto$ et$ al.$ (in$ press)$ define$ the$ principalRcontractor$ collaborative$
relationship$ in$ a$ project$ as$ “the# behavioural# interaction# between# owner# and# contractor# working#
together#for#the#purpose#of#achieving#specific#project#and#business#objective#by#effective#utilisation#of#
each# party’s# specific# resources# and# capabilities# based# on# shared# values# and# norms”.$ However,$ the$
public$ sector$ cannot$ be$ seen$ to$ have$ close$ relationships$ with$ private$ parties$ as$ it$ may$ imply$
cronyism.$ So$ the$ public$ procurement$ regulations$ put$ restrictions$ on$ the$ interaction$ between$ the$
22"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
principal$and$contractor$and,$thereby,$on$many$processes$that$are$generally$considered$essential$to$
establish$trust$and$collaboration$(Dewulf$&$Kadefors,$2012).$Due$to$the$open$tender$procedures$the$
public$ princpal$ cannot$ guarantee$ collaboration$ in$ multiple$ projects$ with$ private$ partners.$ This$
decreased$the$incentive$to$collaborate$for$the$contractor$(Dorée,$2001;$Ning,$2014).$
$
Literature$illustrates$that$the$relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$can$have$various$forms.$
In$ the$ research$ of$Cheung$ et$ al.$ (2009)$ respondents$ were$ asked$ to$ select$ the$ description$ that$ best$
reflects$their$contracting$behaviour$in$completed$construction$projects.$This$has$resulted$in$a$scale$
model$ with$ five$ levels$ that$ illustrates$ the$ degree$ of$ cooperative$ behaviour.$ The$ levels$ that$ can$ be$
distinguished$are$attack,$confront,$neutral,$accommodate$and$cooperate$(Figure$19).$
$
Figure#19:#The#measurement#scale#of#degree#of#aggressiveness/cooperativeness#(Cheung#et#al.,#2009)#
Other$ studies$ on$ collaborative$ relationships$ often$ use$ four$ types$ that$ illustrate$ the$ level$ of$ a$
relationship$ (Ellison$ &$ Miller,$ 1995;$ Humphreys,$ Matthews,$ &$ Kumaraswamy,$ 2003;$ Meng$ et$ al.,$
2011;$ Saad,$ Jones,$ &$ James,$ 2002).$ An$ overview$ of$ the$ four$ relationships$ as$ distinguished$ by$ the$
different$ authors$ can$ be$ found$ in$ Appendix$ B.$ For$ this$ research$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$ work$ with$ the$
following$ four$ types$ of$ relationships$ that$ can$ be$ recognised$ in$ the$ construction$ sector:$ contractual$
relationship,$collaborative$relationship,$project$partnering$and$strategic$partnering.$This$is$illustrated$
in$Figure$20.$$
Figure#20:#Type#of#relationships#(own#ill.)#
$
The$ first$ type$ of$ relationship$ is$ a$ contractual$ relationship.$ This$ relationship$ is$ well$ known$ in$ the$
construction$ sector,$ because$ it$ is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ traditional$ culture$ based$ on$ adversarial$
relationships.$In$these$relationships$everything$is$determined$in$and$based$on$the$contract,$there$is$
price$ competition$ and$ each$ party$ has$ individual$ and$ often$ contradicting$ goals.$ The$ second$ type$ of$
relationship$ is$ a$ basic$ and$ collaborative$ relationship.$ In$ order$ to$ establish$ this$ relationship$ it$ is$
required$that$there$is$trust$between$parties$and$that$parties$communicate$with$each$other$in$order$
to$facilitate$solutions.$Together$these$parties$try$to$realise$the$project$as$best$as$they$can.$The$third$
type$of$relationship$is$project$partnering.$In$this$relationship$parties$in$a$particular$project$work$with$
an$integrated$team$and$want$to$achieve$common$goals.$In$this$type$of$relationship$a$high$degree$of$
trust$is$required.$The$fourth$type$of$relationship$is$a$strategic$partnership$or$alliancing.$This$type$of$
relationship$ requires$ the$ commitment$ of$ parties$ that$ is$ beyond$ the$ success$ of$ a$ particular$ project.$
Parties$anticipate$on$working$together$for$a$longer$term$and$complete$trust$is$required.$
$
There$ are$ opportunities$ to$ develop$ collaborative$ relationships.$ The$ willingness$ to$ collaborate$ is$
essential$for$the$success$of$a$project$(Dorée,$2001).$Partnering$can$have$a$substantial$positive$impact$
on$ project$ performance,$ not$ only$ with$ regard$ to$ time,$ cost$ and$ quality$ objectives,$ but$ also$ with$
regard$ to$ more$ general$ outcomes$ such$ as$ greater$ innovation$ and$ improved$ user$ satisfaction$
(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000a).$In$literature$there$is$a$tendency$to$focus$on$success$stories.$Although$
there$ are$ fewer$ indications$ of$ failure$ projects,$ these$ are$ not$ absent$ (Bresnen$ &$ Marshall,$ 2000b;$
Laan$et$al.,$2011).$There$is$a$high$degree$of$professionalism$and$very$good$knowledge$of$the$project$
needed$on$the$side$of$the$principal$and$the$contractor$to$obtain$the$benefits$of$partnering$(Osipova$
&$ Eriksson,$ 2011).$ Moreover$ people$ should$ bear$ in$ mind$ that$ more$ collaboration$ between$ the$
contractual$ partners$ does$ not$ necessarily$ lead$ to$ effective$ outcomes,$ in$ the$ same$ way$ that$ using$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"23"
traditional$forms$of$contract$does$not$necessarily$result$in$poor$performance$or$conflicts$(Bresnen$&$
Marshall,$2000b).$Collaboration$is$believed$to$have$the$potential$to$produce$great$results,$but$not$all$
collaboration$initiatives$realise$this$potential$(Gajendran$&$Brewer,$2012).$$
$
3.4. "Social"context"
Successful$ completion$ of$ construction$ projects$ is$ dependent$ on$ meeting$ the$ expectations$ of$
stakeholders.$The$failure$to$project$management$teams$to$address$the$concerns$of$stakeholders$has$
resulted$ in$ countless$ project$ failures,$ primarily$ because$ stakeholders$ have$ the$ resources$ and$
capability$ to$ stop$ construction$ projects$ (Atkin$ &$ Skitmore,$ 2008).$ Initiatives$ to$ encourage$ and$
stimulate$the$involvement$of$citizens$but$also$various$social$organisations$in$decision$making$can$be$
seen$in$a$wide$variety$of$European$countries$(Edelenbos$&$Klijn,$2006).$$
3.4.1. Public%participation%
The$ form$ of$ public$ participation$ has$ changed$ over$ the$ last$ decades.$ Citizens$ demanded$ a$ greater$
voice$ in$ the$ decision$ making$ process.$ The$ formal$ public$ participation$ procedures$ with$ no$ binding$
consequences$ for$ the$ government$ did$ not$ give$ the$ citizens$ the$ involvement$ in$ the$ process$ they$
wanted.$This$caused$a$shift$from$‘government’$to$‘governance’$(Kooiman,$1993,$pp.$1R9).$The$form$of$
government$is$changing$from$a$hierarchical,$top$down$approach$towards$a$less$formalized,$bottomR
up$ form$ of$ governance.$ Citizens,$ social$ organisations,$ enterprises$ and$ other$ stakeholders$ are$
involved$at$an$early$stage$of$public$policy$making.$This$trend$is$also$known$as$interactive$governance$
(Edelenbos,$ 1999).$ Today’s$ society$ wants$ to$ be$ involved$ in$ the$ project,$ the$ extent$ to$ which$ the$
parties$can$influence$the$decision$making$process$can$be$displayed$with$a$participation$ladder.$The$
original$ladder$of$citizen$participation$was$created$by$Arnstein$(1969)$and$has$been$adapted$by$many$
since$ then.$ Edelenbos$ and$ Monnikhof$ (2001)$ adapted$ this$ model$ to$ the$ situation$ of$ citizen$
participation$ in$ The$ Netherlands$ and$ distinguish$ five$ levels$ of$ participation.$ The$ higher$ up$ on$ the$
ladder$ the$ greater$ the$ influence$ of$ the$ stakeholder.$ Figure$ 21$ shows$ the$ location$ of$ interactive$
decision$making$on$the$participation$ladder,$between$advising$and$coRproducing$(Edelenbos,$2001).$It$
gives$the$stakeholders$the$opportunity$to$express$opinions$and$to$contribute$to$the$decision$making$
process,$but$it$hardly$gives$them$any$influence$on$the$decision$itself$(Otto,$2007).$
Figure#21:#Location#of#interactive#decision#making#(own#ill.)#
$
3.4.2. Stakeholder%management%
Over$time$the$stakeholders$have$acquired$more$rights$in$legislation$and$they$use$the$possibilities$of$
appeal$ (Peletier$ &$ Post,$ 2009).$ Public$ opposition$ due$ to$ various$ factors$ has$ been$ reported$ as$ the$
main$reason$for$project$failure$(ElRGohary$et$al.,$2006).$Therefore$in$any$project$the$many$different$
and$sometimes$even$conflicting$interests$must$be$considered.$Representatives$of$these$interests$are$
referred$ to$ as$ the$ project$ stakeholders.$ A$ project$ stakeholder$ is$ a$ person$ or$ group$ of$ people$ who$
have$ a$ vested$ interest$ in$ the$ success$ of$ a$ project$ and$ the$ environment$ within$ which$ the$ project$
operates$ (Olander$ &$ Landin,$ 2005).$ These$ interests$ might$ be$ positively$ or$ negatively$ influenced$ by$
the$completion$or$the$performance$of$the$project.$Ignoring$the$project$stakeholders$can$result$in$late$
scope$changes,$cost$overruns,$endless$discussions$about$the$necessity$of$the$project,$delays$in$time$
and$sometimes$cancellation$of$the$project$(Gelder$et$al.,$2010,$p.$9).$Therefore$management$of$these$
project$stakeholders$is$needed.$Different$studies$showed$that$stakeholder$involvement$is$important$
to$project$outcomes$and$recognition$of$the$concept$of$stakeholder$management$has$grown$in$recent$
years$(ElRGohary$et$al.,$2006;$Olander$&$Landin,$2005;$Yang,$Shen,$Ho,$Drew,$&$Xue,$2011).$$
24"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
$
As$ a$ consequence$ of$ the$ growing$ interest$ in$ stakeholder$ management$ different$ stakeholder$
management$process$models$are$developed.$The$research$of$Yang$et$al.$(2011)$illustrated$that$there$
seems$ no$ consensus$ on$ the$ best$ model.$ Therefore$ the$ model$ for$ stakeholder$ management$ as$
illustrated$in$Figure$23$is$based$on$different$theories$(Preble,$2005;$Yang$et$al.,$2011).$For$each$step$
in$the$process$of$stakeholder$management,$different$methods$can$be$used.$The$research$of$Yang$et$
al.$(2011)$elaborates$further$on$the$effectiveness$of$each$method.$The$first$step$of$the$stakeholder$
management$ process$ is$ the$ identification$ of$ the$ stakeholders,$ so$ who$ are$ the$ stakeholders$ in$ a$
project.$The$second$step$is$to$analyse$the$stakeholders$and$understand$their$needs$and$expectations.$
The$ third$ step$ is$ to$ make$ a$ strategy$ or$ plan$ where$ the$ interests$ of$ the$ stakeholders$ are$ compared$
with$ the$ interests$ of$ the$ organisation$ and$ create$ a$ strategy$ to$ minimize$ gaps.$ An$ organisational$
response$where$both$interests$are$combined$has$to$be$developed.$The$fourth$step$is$to$engage$and$
act,$ because$ the$ positions$ of$ stakeholders$ on$ issues$ are$ likely$ to$ change$ over$ time.$ This$ calls$ for$
continuous$ monitoring$ of$ stakeholder$ expectations,$ ensuring$ existing$ stakeholder$ are$ still$ relevant$
and$ that$ new$ stakeholders$ are$ included.$ It$ is$ cyclic$ process,$ because$ needs$ and$ priorities$ of$ the$
stakeholders$are$constantly$changing.$
$
Figure#23:#Model#for#stakeholder#management#(own#ill.)#
$
3.5. Conclusion"
During$ this$ literature$ study$ two$ of$ the$ sub$ questions$ that$ support$ the$ main$ question$ of$ this$ thesis$
were$ answered.$ Firstly,$ the$ sub$ question$ ‘what# is# project# stakeholder# management’$ has$ been$
answered.$ Secondly,$ an$ answer$ was$ given$ to$ the$ sub$ question$ ‘which# factors# are# important# for#
collaboration’.#A$concise$version$of$the$answers$can$be$found$in$this$section.$
$
Project"stakeholder"management""
In$ order$ to$ get$ insight$ in$ how$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ collaborating$ on$ project$ stakeholder$
management$it$is$important$to$have$a$clear$understanding$of$what$project$stakeholder$management$
is.$During$the$literature$research$it$became$clear$that$there$in$no$univocal$definition$for$the$term.$But$
it$can$be$concluded$that$project$stakeholder$management$can$be$described$as$management#that#is#
the# link# between# the# project# organisation# and# the# project# environment# with# its# stakeholders.# The#
interests#of#the#stakeholders#have#to#be#taken#into#account#and#the#aim#is#to#engage#stakeholders#to#
the# project,# to# acquire# support# and# the# realisation# of# the# project# possible# without# interference.# The#
goal# of# project# stakeholder# management# is# twofold:# satisfaction# of# the# stakeholders# and# the#
realisation#of#the#project#within#scope,#time#and#budget.#
$
Project$ stakeholder$ management$ consists$ of$ four$ components$ (stakeholder$ management,$
conditioning,$ traffic$ management$ and$ communication)$ and$ is$ performed$ on$ three$ different$ levels$
(strategic,$tactical$and$operational$level).$$
$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"25"
Important"factors"for"collaboration"
This$ research$ illustrated$ that$ the$ legal,$ organisational$ and$ social$ context$ of$ LIPs$ is$ changing.$ In$ this$
complex$environment$principal$and$contractor$have$to$collaborate$and$balance$competing$claims$on$
resources$between$different$parts$of$the$project$organisation,$between$the$different$organisations$in$
the$project$and$between$the$project$and$its$stakeholders.$$
$
Literature$has$illustrated$that$a$lot$of$research$into$collaboration$has$been$carried$out$and$that$a$lot$
of$ factors$ that$ influence$ the$ collaboration$ have$ been$ identified.$ The$ six$ factors$ that$ have$ been$
determined$ as$ important$ for$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are:$ objectives,# trust,#
risks,#communication,#attitude#and#project#organisation.##
26"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
4.
"CONCEPTUAL"FRAMEWORK"
$
$
Chapter$ 3$ provided$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ theoretical$ context$ in$ which$ this$ research$ takes$ place.$ This$
chapter$ will$ elaborate$ on$ the$ conceptual$ framework.$ This$ is$ important$ because$ it$ helps$ the$
researcher$ to$ demarcate$ his$ or$ her$ research$ subject,$ and$ most$ importantly,$ the$ conceptual$
framework$ supports$ the$ researcher$ to$ formulate$ the$ assumed$ relationships$ between$ the$ core$
concepts$correctly,$and$to$link$the$research$to$an$existing$theory$(Verschuren$&$Doorewaard,$2007).$
A$ starting$ point$ is$ needed$ to$ define$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ implemented$ in$ the$
selected$ cases$ and$ to$ explore$ the$ intensity$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$
The$framework$to$analyse$the$implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$follows$from$the$
conclusion$ in$ the$ previous$ chapter$ and$ is$ further$ explained$ in$ section$ 4.1.$ The$ six$ criteria$ that$
influence$ collaboration$ have$ been$ selected$ and$ are$ the$ starting$ point$ to$ review$ the$ state$ of$ the$
collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ A$ framework$ will$ be$ created$ to$ review$ the$
collaboration$ at$ each$ criterion$ from$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ the$ respondent$ of$ the$ principal$ and$
contractor$in$each$case.$This$chapter$will$elaborate$on$the$model$that$is$used$to$review$the$state$of$
the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ party$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ Based$ on$
this$model$the$collaboration$will$be$analysed.$$
$
4.1. Project"stakeholder"management"
This$research$will$explore$which$factors$play$an$important$role$in$the$collaboration$between$principal$
and$ contractor$ in$ the$ selected$ cases.$ Because$ this$ research$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ in$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ it$ is$ important$ to$ have$ a$ clear$ view$ on$ how$ project$ stakeholder$
management$is$defined.$Therefore$two$approaches$are$used$and$compared$with$each$other.$The$first$
approach$ is$ based$ on$ the$ literature$ review$ (chapter$ 3),$ where$ stakeholder$ management,$
communication,$traffic$management$and$conditioning$were$distinguished$as$components$of$project$
stakeholder$management.$The$second$is$based$on$practice$(chapter$6)$where$more$or$less$the$same$
aspects$were$indicated.$$
$
In$ the$ case$ studies$ it$ will$ be$ investigated$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ was$ applied$ in$ the$
projects.$ Gelder$ et$ al.$ (2010)$ suggest$ that$ the$ relation$ between$ the$ project$ and$ its$ project$
stakeholder$management$can$be$fulfilled$from$three$orientations.$This$is$also$recognized$by$Kam$et$
al.$(2013).$
• A"technicalccontent"orientation"
Scope$is$focus$and$project$stakeholders$have$power$to$delay$legislation.$
• A"strategic"orientation"
The$relation$with$the$project$stakeholders$is$an$instrument$to$realise$the$project.$
• A"communicative"orientation"
Reach$consensus,$create$collectively$and$mutual$trust.$
$
The$technicalRcontent$orientation$approaches$the$project$environment$mainly$regarding$the$content.$
Based$ on$ analyses$ the$ project$ environment$ is$ taken$ into$ account$ in$ the$ design$ and$ there$ is$ little$
reason$ to$ apply$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ Therefore$ Gelder$ et$ al.$ (2010)$ did$ not$ take$ this$
orientation$ into$ account$ as$ an$ orientation$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ The$ strategic$
orientation$sees$project$stakeholder$management$as$an$instrument$to$realise$the$project.$As$long$as$
it$is$beneficial$for$the$project$parties$are$allowed$to$participate$in$the$project.$In$the$third$orientation,$
project$stakeholder$management$is$seen$as$a$way$of$communicating$with$the$different$parties$in$the$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"27"
project$ environment.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ motivated$ by$ a$ strategic$ or$
communicative$ orientation.$ Each$ orientation$ has$ its$ strengths$ and$ weaknesses,$ so$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ approached$ with$ one$ of$ both$ orientations,$ but$ the$ literature$
illustrated$that$in$practice$both$orientations$are$often$combined.$Projects$are$often$communicative$
oriented,$but$their$incentives$are$strategic.$$So,$it$is$the$mission$of$a$project$stakeholder$manager$to$
find$a$compromise$between$both$orientations.$$
$
These$different$orientations$of$project$stakeholder$management$will$be$used$to$analyse$how$project$
stakeholder$ management$ is$ applied$ in$ the$ selected$ cases,$ but$ it$ is$ also$ possible$ that$ a$ project$ has$
developed$ an$ own$ approach.$ These$ own$ approaches$ can$ be$ useful$ to$ make$ the$ framework$ as$
illustrated$in$Figure$25$more$complete$and$can$be$of$support$to$analyse$project$in$the$future.$In$this$
research$this$framework$will$be$used$to$access$the$project$stakeholder$management$as$applied$in$the$
selected$cases.$
$
Figure#25:#Framework#to#access#project#stakeholder#management#(own#ill.)#
$
4.2. Collaboration"
Section$3.3$already$defined$the$term$collaboration$as$‘a#joint#effort#of#different#parties,#to#achieve#a#
shared# goal’,# illustrated$ the$ importance$ of$ collaboration$ and$ the$ organisational$ context$ in$ which$
projects$are$realised.$Since$there$are$a$lot$of$researches$conducted$on$collaboration,$the$number$of$
aspects$that$have$influence$on$collaboration$is$broad.$Therefore$six$criteria$were$selected,$in$order$to$
analyse$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ the$ selected$ cases.$ In$ order$ to$
measure$ the$ collaboration$ on$ the$ different$ criteria$ a$ model$ is$ needed.$ This$ model$ enables$ the$
researcher$to$give$an$overview$of$the$state$of$the$collaboration$in$each$case$and$makes$it$possible$to$
compare$the$outcomes$of$the$different$cases.$This$section$will$elaborate$on$the$model$that$is$used$to$
measure$the$state$of$the$collaboration.$
28"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
4.2.1. Defining%collaboration%
After$ the$ categorisation$ of$ aspects$ that$ influence$ collaboration,$ as$ elaborated$ on$ in$ chapter$ 3,$ six$
main$criteria$can$be$distinguished:$
• Objectives:$‘Objectives’$can$be$described$as$the$alignment$of$goals$and$objective$of$different$
parties$and$focus$on$pulling$efforts$in$the$same$direction.$
• Trust:$‘Trust’$is$the$term$used$to$describe$the$belief$that$the$different$parties$have$that$the$
other$is$reliable$and$is$able$to$fulfil$their$obligations.$$
• Risk:$ The$ term$ ‘risk’$ is$ a$ collection$ of$ aspects$ related$ to$ risk$ allocation$ and$ division$ of$ the$
responsibilities$of$the$risks$between$the$different$parties.$
• Communication:$ ‘Communication’$ is$ characterised$ by$ open$ and$ efficient$ exchange$ of$
information.$It$is$the$core$of$developing$mutual$trust.$
• Attitude:$ ‘Attitude’$ is$ an$ overarching$ term$ for$ the$ willingness$ to$ invest$ in$ the$ (work)$
relationship,$ the$ commitment$ to$ the$ project$ and$ the$ willingness$ to$ constantly$ deliver$ a$
greater$ value$ to$ increase$ the$ mutual$ advantages.$ It$ illustrates$ the$ mindset$ of$ the$ parties$
regarding$collaboration.$$
• Project$ organisation:$ ‘project$ organisation’$ is$ about$ the$ internal$ relationships.$ It$ reflects$ on$
how$problems$are$solved,$the$commitment$to$the$project$and$to$achieve$mutual$objectives,$
the$ alignment$ of$ expectations$ and$ the$ competence$ (to$ collaborate)$ of$ the$ people$ that$ are$
working$on$the$project.$
4.2.2. Maturity%of%collaboration%
The$ previous$ paragraph$ has$elaborated$ on$ the$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ in$ collaboration,$ but$ it$ is$
important$ to$ keep$ in$ mind$ that$ collaboration$ does$ not$ necessarily$ result$ in$ effective$ outcomes.$
According$to$Meng$et$al.$(2011)$the$effectiveness$of$collaboration$depends$to$the$level$of$maturity.$
The$ultimate$goal$is$to$reach$the$highest$level$of$relationship$maturity,$because$the$higher$the$level$
of$maturity,$the$higher$the$effectiveness.$$$
$
Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011)$ have$ adopted$ four$ maturity$ levels$ to$ describe$ the$ progression$ of$ relationship$
improvement$from$confrontation,$through$limited$cooperation$and$shortRterm$collaboration,$to$close$
and$longRterm$collaboration.$Table$3$provides$an$overview$of$the$different$maturity$levels$and$its$sub$
criteria.$ The$ four$ maturity$ levels$ are$ named:$ price# competition,# quality# competition,# project#
partnering#and$strategic#partnering/alliance.#
• Level$1:$price$competition$
The$relationship$at$this$level$represents$an$extreme$position$dominated$by$selfRinterest$and$
mistrust.$ Mutual$ objectives$ do$ not$ exist$ and$ the$ involved$ parties$ are$ selfRcentred.$ Trust$ is$
limited$to$each$other’s$commitment$to$the$formal$contract.$
• Level$2:$quality$competition$
At$this$level$parties$are$mainly$interested$in$their$own$objectives$and$interests,$but$achieving$
some$ mutual$ gains$ enables$ a$ limited$ degree$ of$ cooperation.$ Although$ parties$ rely$ on$ the$
formal$ contract,$ trust$ between$ them$ is$ mainly$ established$ on$ the$ basis$ of$ mutual$
understanding$of$each$other’s$capabilities$to$carry$out$their$tasks.$
• Level$3:$project$partnering$
The$relationship$at$this$level$always$includes$the$alignment$of$objectives$in$a$single$project.$
The$ focus$ is$ on$ the$ overall$ success$ of$ the$ project.$ To$ achieve$ this,$ the$ parties$ work$
collaboratively$together$as$an$integrated$project$team.$
• Level$4:$strategic$partnering$
At$this$level$the$relationship$is$characterised$as$the$alignment$of$objectives$over$a$series$of$
projects,$ which$ focuses$ on$ longRterm$ relationships.$ All$ involved$ parties$ collaborate$ closely$
and$there$is$a$high$degree$of$trust.$
Level$one$and$two$represent$a$more$traditional$relationship$whereas$level$three$and$four$represent$a$
more$collaborative$relationship.$$$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"29"
Table 2. New Maturity Model in a Matrix Format
Main criteria
Procurement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT on 10/01/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Objectives
Trust
Collaboration
Subcriteria
Problem solving
The lowest price
Cost and quality
Procurement route
Form of contract
Single-stage
tendering
JCT
Objectives alignment
Level 4
Two-stage tendering
Multicriteria from longterm perspective
Direct negotiation
JCT/NEC
NEC/PPC 2000/JCT CE
Only self objectives
Mainly self objectives
Benefits
Win-lose
Win-partial win
Continuity of work
No continuity of
work
Contractual trust
Little confidence
Prospect of future work
through tendering
Competence trust
Some confidence
Mutual objectives in a
project
Win-win in a single
project
Preferred suppliers
NEC/TPC 2005/JCT CE/
Bespoke contract
Mutual objectives in the
long-term
Win-win in the long-term
Checking and double
checking
Confrontation or
arms length
Mutual blame
Mutual help
No support for the
weaker
Information
exchange
Sharing learning
Little information is
exchanged openly
No sharing learning
and innovation
No cost transparency
Type of trust
Confidence in others’
behavior
Monitoring others’
work
Working relationship
Cost data
transparency
Early warning
Avoidance of
recurrence
Risk sharing
Allocation principle
Balance of risk and
reward
Continuous
improvement
Level 3
Multicriteria from shortterm perspective
Negotiation or tendering
Effectiveness
Risk allocation
Level 2
Selection criteria
Culture
Communication
Level 1
Joint effort
Performance
measurement and
feedback
Incentives
No risk
identification, no
early warning
Problems often lead
to disputes
Problems often recur
No risk sharing
Guarantee for future work
Short-term goodwill trust
Much confidence
Long-term goodwill trust
Full confidence
Checking somewhat
reduced
Limited cooperation
Checking greatly reduced
Checking almost
unnecessary
Close collaboration
Self defense
Abandon of blame culture
Support only with the
issues related to selfinterest
Some information is
exchanged openly
Little sharing learning
and innovation
Little cost transparency
Often support for a weak
partner
Problem solving focused
culture
Always support for a weak
partner
Much information is
exchanged openly
Sharing learning and
innovation
Open book costing
between two parties
Early warning between
two parties
Most information is
exchanged openly
Continuous sharing
learning and innovation
Open book costing
throughout the whole chain
Early warning throughout
the whole chain
Many problems are timely
resolved at the lowest level
Few problems are repeated
Most problems are timely
resolved at the lowest level
Rare problems are repeated
Common practice for risk
sharing
Risk is allocated to the
party best able to manage it
in the long-term
Always appropriate
rewards for the party taking
the risk
Continuous effort for better
ways of working
Common measures;
formal, regular, and
continuous feedback
Multiple incentives
Informal risk
identification, no early
warning
Problems sometimes
lead to disputes
Sometimes problems
recur
Limited risk sharing
Collaboration
Risk is always
allocated to the weak
party
No rewards for the
party taking the risk
Risk is often allocated to
the weak party
Some rewards for the
party taking the risk
Risk sharing greatly
increased
Risk is allocated to the
party best able to manage
it in a project
Often appropriate rewards
for the party taking the risk
No joint effort for
improvement
No common
measures; No formal
feedback
No incentive
Limited joint effort for
improvement
Limited common
measures; irregular but
formal feedback
Informal incentive
Joint effort for better ways
of working
Common measures;
regular and formal
feedback in a project
Single incentive
$
Table#3:#Maturity#model#(Meng#et#al.,#2011)#
The$ interaction$ among$ contracting$ parties$ in$ a$ construction$ project$ may$ range$ from$ formal$
transaction$on$the$one$end,$to$relational$transaction$on$the$other$end.$In$formal$transaction,$parties$
rely$ strictly$ on$ the$ terms$ and$ conditions$ of$ the$ contract.$ In$ case$ of$ the$ relational$ transaction$
100 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011
partnering,$ relationship$ contracting,$ project$ alliancing$ and$ integrative$ project$ delivery$ are$ included$
(Ning$ &$ Ling,$ 2013).$ Several$ studies$ emphasize$
the$ problem$ of$ establishing$ and$ maintaining$
J. Manage. Eng.that$
2011.27:97-105.
collaboration$ between$ clients$ and$ contractors$ is$ complex$ and$ that$ contracts,$ relationship$
management$ and$ attitudes$ of$ individuals$ interact.$ There$ are$ two$ dimensions$ of$ any$ exchange$
relationship:$ the$ formal$ contract$ and$ the$ actual$ interaction$ that$ takes$ place$ (Dewulf$ &$ Kadefors,$
2012).$Both$dimensions$are$needed$for$a$good$collaboration.$Collaboration$involves$a$combination$of$
formal$ and$ informal$ process$ (Bresnen$ &$ Marshall,$ 2002).$ A$ contract$ provides$ an$ institutional$
30"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
framework$guiding$the$course$of$the$collaboration,$while$collaboration$overcomes$the$adaptive$limits$
of$contracts.$Contracts$and$collaboration$are$interrelated$because$a$contractual$arrangement$serves$
as$a$framework$within$which$collaboration$proceeds$(Luo,$2002).$$
$
This$is$in$line$with$the$two$most$important$findings$in$the$case$study$of$Meng$et$al.$(2011).$First,$the$
case$ study$ illustrated$ that$ the$ relationship$ between$ the$ parties$ is$ often$ dynamic$ during$ the$ whole$
project$lifecycle,$which$means$that$the$relationship$maturity$between$parties$may$change$from$stage$
to$stage.$Second,$different$levels$of$relationship$maturity$may$be$observed$in$ranking$the$different$
aspects.$Especially$this$second$finding$is$interesting$for$this$research,$because$it$implicates$that$the$
level$ of$ maturity$ can$ differ$ for$ each$ criteria.$ The$ radar$ chart$ as$ shown$ in$ Figure$ 26$ will$ be$ used$ to$
visualise$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$ contractor$ and$ principal$ at$ each$ criterion$ in$ the$
different$ cases.$ This$ enables$ the$ researcher$ to$ compare$ the$ four$ cases$ and$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$
principal$and$contractor.$This$figure$will$illustrate$the$criteria$principal$and$contractor$have$to$discuss$
because$their$point$of$view$on$the$collaboration$on$these$criteria$is$not$aligned$and$it$illustrates$for$
which$criteria$it$is$possible$to$enhance$collaborate$to$a$higher$level.$$
$
Figure#26:#Radar#chart#to#visualise#the#state#of#collaboration#(own#ill.)
The$ maturity$ model$ as$ illustrated$ in$ Table$ 3$ is$ used$ as$ questionnaire$ to$ define$ the$ level$ of$
collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ for$ the$ criteria$ objectives,# trust,# risks# and#
communication.$The$criteria$attitude#and$project#organisation$are$not$part$of$this$model.$Therefore$
the$ researcher$ has$ defined$ the$ sub$ criteria$ and$ made$ descriptions$ for$ the$ different$ levels$ of$
collaboration$ for$ these$ criteria.$ This$ is$ partly$ based$ on$ the$ maturity$ model,$ because$ some$ of$ the$
criteria$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011)$ distinguished$ are$ in$ this$ research$ a$ sub$ criteria$ of$ attitude$ and$ project#
organisation.$ The$ remaining$ descriptions$ for$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ are$ based$ on$ the$ other$
theories$about$collaboration$as$elaborated$on$in$chapter$3.$Together$Table$3$and$Table$4$form$the$
questionnaire$that$determines$the$level$of$collaboration,$the$questionnaire$can$be$found$in$appendix$
H.$ The$ outcome$ of$ this$ questionnaire$ can$ be$ visualised$ in$ the$ radar$ chart$ and$ this$ chart$ makes$ it$
possible$to$compare$the$point$of$view$of$multiple$respondents.$
$
Main"criteria"
Attitude$
$
Sub"criteria"
Working$
relationship$
Culture$
Level"1"
Confrontation$
or$arms$length$
Mutual$blame$
Level"2"
Limited$
cooperation$
Self$defense$
$
Joint$effort$
No$joint$effort$
for$
improvement$
Limited$joint$
effort$for$
improvement$
$
Level"3"
Collaboration$
$"
Abandon$of$
blame$culture$
Joint$effort$for$
better$ways$of$
working$
Level"4"
Close$
collaboration$
Problem$solving$
focused$culture$
Continuous$
effort$for$better$
ways$of$working$
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"31"
$
Incentives$for$
collaboration$
Support$from$
management$
LongRterm$
commitment$
$
$
No$incentive$
No$interest$in$
collaboration$
No$interest$to$
invest$in$the$
project$
Problems$often$
lead$to$disputes$
Project$
organisation$
Problem$solving$
$
Performance$
measurement$
No$common$
measures$
$
Competence$of$
the$members$
Team$members$
have$no$interest$
in$collaboration$
$
Efficient$
coordination$
Parties$have$
opposite$
expectations$
No$resources$
are$shared$with$
each$other$
Informal$
incentive$
Reserved$in$
collaboration$
Limited$
investments$in$
the$project$
Problems$
sometimes$lead$
to$disputes$
Limited$
common$
measures$
Some$team$
members$have$
interest$in$
collaboration$
Single$incentive$
Interest$in$
collaboration$
Investments$in$
the$project$
Many$problems$
are$timely$
resolved$at$the$
lowest$level$
Common$
measures$
Team$members$
are$motivated$
to$collaborate$
Multiple$
incentives$
Collaboration$is$
stimulated$
Constantly$
investing$in$the$
project$
Most$problems$
are$timely$
solved$at$the$
lowest$level$
Common$
measures$
Team$members$
want$to$
collaborate$and$
are$team$
players$
Parties$have$the$
same$
expectations$$
All$resources$are$
shared$with$
each$other$
Parties$have$
Parties$have$
different$
similar$
expectations$
expectations$
$
Adequate$
Limited$
Some$resources$
resources$
resources$are$
are$shared$with$
shared$with$
each$other$
each$other$
$
Power$
There$is$
There$is$limited$ The$power$is$
The$power$is$
distribution$and$ inequality$in$the$ equality$in$the$
more$or$less$
equally$
equality$
power$
power$
equally$
distributed$
distribution$
distribution$
distributed$
$
Collective$action$ There$is$no$
There$is$limited$ There$is$interest$ Team$members$
interest$in$
interest$in$
in$achieving$a$
are$committed$
achieving$a$
achieving$a$
shared$goal,$but$ to$the$project$
shared$goal$
shared$goal,$
there$are$still$
and$want$to$
because$own$
own$interests.$
achieve$the$
goals$are$placed$
shared$goal$
first.$
Table#4:#Maturity#model#for#attitude#and#project#organisation#(own#ill.#based#on#Meng#et#al.#(2011))#
To$summarize,$the$radar$chart$as$illustrated$in$Figure$26$will$be$used$to$visualise$the$collaboration$on$
the$different$criteria$according$to$the$respondents$of$the$cases.$The$state$of$the$collaboration$will$be$
determined$ by$ filling$ in$ the$ questionnaire.$ The$ answers$ of$ this$ questionnaire$ are$ based$ on$ the$
available$documentation$and$the$observations$of$the$researcher.$Therefore,$this$illustration$gives$a$
qualitative$view$on$the$state$of$the$collaboration$in$each$project,$but$it$is$a$useful$way$of$visualisation$
to$compare$the$cases$and$it$can$be$useful$for$further$research.$$
$
In$ addition,$ it$ needs$ to$ be$ mentioned$ that$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$ review$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration,$
instead$ of$ the$ maturity$ of$ the$ collaboration$ as$ mentioned$ by$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011).$ This$ was$ chosen$
because$ this$ instrument,$ the$ radar$ chart,$ is$ used$ to$ illustrate$ if$ both$ respondents$ have$ the$ same$
point$ of$ view$ on$ the$ collaboration$ in$ the$ different$ criteria$ and$ to$ compare$ the$ state$ of$ the$
collaboration$ in$ the$ different$ cases.$ This$ instrument$ is$ used$ to$ give$ a$ representative$ view$ on$ the$
collaboration$in$the$different$projects$of$this$research$and$might$be$used$in$the$future$to$review$the$
collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$during$the$realisation$of$the$project.$In$that$case$it$is$
important$ that$ the$ model$ illustrates$ the$ collaboration,$ rather$ than$ judges$ the$ collaboration.$ The$
maturity$ model$ of$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011)$ assumes$ that$ a$ higher$ level$ of$ maturity$ leads$ to$ a$ better$
32"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
collaboration.$This$research$focuses$on$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$where$a$
higher$ level$ of$ maturity$ is$ not$ necessary$ a$ better$ collaboration.$ Because$ it$ is$ more$ important$ to$
illustrate$whether$principal$and$contractor$understand$each$other$and$have$a$similar$point$of$view$
regarding$their$collaboration.$
$
4.3. Conclusion"
With$ the$ literature$ study$ that$ provided$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ theoretical$ context$ and$ the$ conceptual$
framework$as$described$in$this$chapter,$one$of$the$supporting$questions$to$the$main$question$of$this$
thesis$can$be$answered.$The$answer$to$the$question$“what#model#can#be#used#to#define#the#state#of#
collaboration# between# principal# and# contractor”$ is$ recapped$ in$ this$ conclusion.$ First$ of$ all$ it$ was$
concluded$ that$ collaboration$ is$ influenced$ by$ multiple$ factors,$ for$ this$ research$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$
analyse$collaboration$in$the$selected$projects$based$on$six$criteria.$This$are$both$technical$and$social$
criteria,$ because$ is$ appears$ unlikely$ that$ successful$ collaboration$ can$ simply$ be$ ‘engineered’$ by$
technical$ means$ or$ that$ it$ is$ ‘evolves’$ purely$ on$ the$ basis$ of$ relationships.$ Instead,$ collaboration$
inevitability$involves$a$combination$of$technical$and$social$processes.$Successful$partnering$relies$on$
mutual$understanding,$openness$and$good$communication.$But$without$contracts,$collaboration$will$
lack$an$institutional$framework$to$proceed.$So$the$factors$are$all$interrelated$and$can$influence$each$
other$ positively$ or$ negatively.$ The$ state$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ will$ be$
analysed$with$help$of$the$four$maturity$levels$as$distinguished$by$Meng$et$al.$(2011).$
$
Literature$ has$ illustrated$ the$ importance$ of,$ and$ factors$ influencing$ collaboration.$ To$ delineate$ the$
research,$ this$ thesis$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$
stakeholder$management.$This$choice$was$made$because$literature$and$realRlife$experiences$showed$
the$ importance$ and$ influence$ of$ this$ part$ of$ project$ management.$ In$ order$ to$ understand$ how$
project$stakeholder$management$is$implemented$in$existing$projects,$the$interpretation$of$the$four$
aspects$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ will$ be$ analysed$ and$ the$ division$ of$ tasks$ between$
principal$ and$ contract$ in$ this$ field$ of$ project$ management$ will$ be$ examined.$ After$ that,$ it$ will$ be$
analysed$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ applied$ in$ the$ different$ projects.$ Project$
stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ applied$ as$ an$ instrument$ or$ as$ open$ communication.$ It$ is$ also$
possible$ that$ a$ project$ has$ developed$ its$ own$ approach.$ This$ information$ will$ be$ used$ as$ starting$
point$ to$ analyse$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$
management$ in$ the$ selected$ cases$ and$ to$ illustrate$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$
with$ help$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model.$ The$ outcome$ is$ visualised$ in$ a$ radar$ chart,$ which$ makes$ it$
possible$ to$ determine$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ and$ to$ indicate$ points$ that$ can$ be$ improved.$
Figure$ 27$ gives$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ research$ framework$ as$ elaborated$ on$ in$ this$ chapter$ and$ it$
illustrates$the$steps$that$will$be$made$for$the$analysis$the$individual$cases.$
$
Figure#27:#Research#framework#(own#ill.)#
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"33"
5. R
ESEARCH"METHODOLOGY"
$
$
In$the$previous$chapters$background$information$is$gathered$to$create$a$framework$that$gives$a$good$
overview$of$the$context$in$which$this$research$takes$place.$Now$relevant$data$has$to$be$collected,$to$
process$ the$ background$ information$ and$ the$ gathered$ data$ into$ answers$ to$ the$ research$ question.$
This$chapter$will$clarify$the$chosen$research$methodology$in$section$5.1,$will$elaborate$on$the$criteria$
to$conduct$a$case$study$in$section$5.2,$the$case$protocol$in$section$5.3,$and$the$selection$of$the$cases$
in$ section$ 5.4.$ Section$ 5.5$ will$ discuss$ the$ approach$ to$ gather$ the$ data$ and$ this$ chapter$ ends$ with$
section$5.6$where$is$elaborated$how$the$case$studies$will$be$analysed.$
$
5.1. Clarification"of"the"research"methodology"
To$ avoid$ misfits$ in$ the$ chosen$ research$ methodology,$ this$ section$ will$ explain$ why$ the$ chosen$
strategy$ is$ the$ most$ advantageous$ one.$ LIPs$ are$ single$ cases$ and$ collecting$ numerical$ data$ is$ not$
possible.$Since$the$research$question$focuses$on$a$contemporary$event$where$the$behaviour$events$
cannot$ be$ controlled,$ a$ survey$ or$ case$ study$ research$ seems$ most$ suitable$ for$ this$ analysis$ (Yin,$
2003).$ A$ case$ study$ research$ is$ used$ for$ studying$ social$ phenomena,$ the$ researcher$ tries$ to$ gain$
profound$ and$ full$ insight$ in$ one$ or$ multiple$ time$ depended$ processes$ (Verschuren$ &$ Doorewaard,$
2007,$p.$183).$With$a$case$study$factors$influencing$the$project$are$kept$interwoven$and$the$change$
of$one$aspect$can$have$consequences$for$the$whole$project$(Swanborn,$2013).$A$key$difference$with$
other$research$methods$is$that$case$studies$seek$to$study$phenomena$in$their$context,$rather$than$
independent$of$context$(Gibbert,$Ruigrok,$&$Wicki,$2008).$
$
According$ to$ Verschuren$ and$ Doorewaard$ (2007,$ p.$ 184)$ the$ characteristics$ of$ case$ studies$ are:$ A$
small$domain,$consisting$of$a$small$number$of$research$unites,$work$intensive,$more$inRdepth$than$
breadth,$a$selective$sample,$the$assertion$approaches$the$object$as$a$whole,$an$open$observation$on$
location$and$qualitative$data.$
$
A$case$study$fits$this$research,$because$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$is$context$
dependent$and$cannot$be$isolated$from$its$environment.$InRdepth$understanding$is$needed$in$order$
to$ identify$ successful$ strategies$ for$ collaboration$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ With$ the$
findings$from$practice$it$is$tried$to$define$the$difficulties$that$have$to$be$overcome$to$improve$the$
collaboration$and$approaches$that$are$already$effective$are$identified.$The$use$of$open$questions$in$
an$interview$setting$will$help$to$get$insight$in$the$motivations$for$the$taken$actions.$A$survey$study$
would$make$it$harder$to$get$an$inRdepth$understanding$of$the$situation,$because$it$would$have$used$
more$ closed$ questions$ than$ the$ intensive$ and$ faceRtoRface$ interviews$ that$ are$ the$ basis$ for$ this$
research.$
$
Case$studies$may$and$often$do$use$qualitative$data$(Gibbert$et$al.,$2008),$it$is$therefore$impossible$to$
analyse$ this$ data$ with$ a$ quantitative$ research$ method.$ This$ means$ that$ the$ focus$ is$ more$ on$
comparing$ and$ interpreting$ the$ collected$ data$ instead.$ The$ empirical$ findings$ of$ the$ cases$ will$ be$
compared$with$each$other,$this$strategy$is$also$known$as$a$comparative$case$study.$A$comparative$
case$ study$ has$ two$ sub$ variances$ and$ it$ is$ chosen$ to$ conduct$ this$ research$ with$ the$ hierarchical$
method.$ With$ the$ hierarchical$ method$ the$ research$ consists$ of$ two$ phases$ (Verschuren$ &$
Doorewaard,$2007,$p.$187):$
34"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
1. In$ the$ first$ phase$ all$ cases$ are$ examined$ separately,$ like$ a$ set$ of$ single$ case$ studies.$ This$
independent$research$is$based$on$the$analysis$of$the$interviews$and$documents$and$consists$
of$empirical$observations.$This$analysis$for$each$case$can$be$found$in$chapter$6.$$
2. In$ the$ second$ phase$ the$ analyses$ of$ the$ selected$ cases$ are$ compared$ with$ each$ other$ and$
there$will$be$looked$whether$individual$case$findings$are$present$in$other$cases.$This$in$order$
to$get$a$more$complete$view$of$the$research$findings.$This$strategy$facilitates$the$process$of$
finding$ explanations$ for$ the$ similarities$ and$ differences$ that$ occur$ between$ the$ cases.$
Chapter$7$will$elaborate$on$this$crossRcase$analysis.$In$section$5.6$it$will$be$further$discussed$
how$the$collected$data$will$be$analysed.$
$
Conducting$ a$ research$ with$ case$ studies$ is$ very$ time$ consuming,$ the$ number$ of$ analysed$ cases$ is$
therefore$relatively$small.$This$gives$some$difficulties$to$generalise$the$results$and$are$often$a$point$
of$criticism.$Section$5.2$will$elaborate$more$on$the$criteria$for$a$reliable$and$valid$case$study$research$
and$how$the$expressiveness$of$a$case$study$can$be$increased.$$$
$
5.2. Criteria"to"conduct"case"studies"
According$to$Yin$(2003,$p.$3)$there$are$three$types$of$purposes$for$a$case$study,$$an$explanatory,$an$
exploratory$and/or$a$descriptive$purpose.$This$research$has$two$of$these$characteristics:$
• The$explanatory$purpose$is$found$in$explaining$and$getting$a$more$in$depth$understanding$of$
project$stakeholder$management.$Project$stakeholder$management$is$explained$based$on$a$
literature$ study$ and$ practical$ experiences,$ so$ that$ it$ can$ be$ better$ understood$ what$ is$
covered$with$this$term.$An$explanatory$case$study$helps$to$gain$insight$into$the$structure$of$a$
phenomenon$ (project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ this$ case),$ in$ order$ to$ develop$
hypotheses,$models$or$theories.$
• The$ explorative$ purpose$ is$ found$ in$ exploring$ the$ possibilities$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$
between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ An$ explorative$
research$is$used$to$develop$hypothesis$or$propositions$for$further$research.$In$this$research$it$
will$ be$ explored$ what$ the$ possibilities$ are$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$
and$contractor$on$project$stakeholder$management.$
There$ are$ four$ criteria$ that$ are$ commonly$ used$ to$ assess$ the$ quality$ of$ the$ research:$ construct$
validity,$ reliability,$ internal$ validity$ and$ external$ validity$ (Swanborn,$ 2013,$ p.$ 127).$ These$
requirements$ are$ valid$ for$ all$ kinds$ of$ research,$ case$ study$ research$ included.$ Conducting$ a$ case$
study$with$valid$and$reliable$research$findings$requires$meeting$the$criteria$as$described$hereafter.$
$
Construct"validity"
According$to$Denzin$&$Lincoln$(in$Gibbert$et$al.$(2008))$the$construct$validity$refers$to$the$quality$of$
the$ conceptualisation$ or$ operationalization$ of$ the$ relevant$ concept.$ This$ type$ of$ validity$ has$ to$ be$
considered$during$the$data$collection$phase.$As$such,$the$extent$to$which$a$study$investigates$that$it$
claims$to$investigate$is$to$the$extent$to$which$a$procedure$leads$to$an$accurate$observation$of$reality.$
Enhancing$the$construct$validity$can$be$done$by$establishing$a$clear$chain$of$value$and$by$looking$at$
the$same$phenomenon$from$different$angles$using$different$data$collection$strategies$and$different$
data$ sources$ (Yin,$ 2003,$ pp.$ 34R36).$ In$ the$ research,$ the$ construct$ validity$ is$ taken$ into$ account$ by$
using$different$strategies$to$collect$data$and$different$data$sources,$this$has$also$a$positive$influence$
on$the$other$criteria$to$assess$the$research$quality.$$
$
Reliability"
According$ to$ Denzin$ &$ Lincoln$ (in$ Gibbert$ et$ al.$ (2008))$ reliability$ refers$ to$ the$ absence$ of$ random$
error,$enabling$subsequent$researchers$to$arrive$at$the$same$insights$if$they$conduct$the$study$along$
the$same$steps$again.$Transparency$and$replication$are$the$keywords$here.$To$enhance$the$reliability$
of$ the$ research$ a$ case$ study$ protocol$ can$ be$ produced$ in$ order$ to$ enhance$ the$ transparency$ and$
enhancing$ the$ replication$ can$ be$ accomplished$ by$ putting$ together$ a$ case$ study$ database.$ These$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"35"
measures$are$used$so$that$in$the$future$investigators$can$repeat$the$operations$of$a$case$study$with$
the$same$results$(Yin,$2003,$pp.$37R39).$The$reliability$of$this$case$research$was$enhanced$by$the$use$
of$ a$ case$ protocol,$ to$ make$ sure$ the$ researcher$ followed$ the$ same$ procedure$ for$ each$ interview.$
Concise$reports$of$the$interviews$will$be$written$and$verified$by$the$interview$respondents$for$factual$
inaccuracies.$It$must$be$noted$that$the$research$observations$cannot$completely$be$prevented$from$
a$certain$degree$of$twisting$due$to$the$preferences$and$interpretations$of$the$researcher.$
$
Internal"validity"
The$internal$validity$is$also$called$‘logical$or$causal$validity’$(Swanborn,$2013,$p.$128;$Yin,$2003,$p.$36).$
It$ refers$ to$ causal$ relationships$ between$ variables$ and$ results$ (Gibbert$ et$ al.,$ 2008).$ So$ is$ the$
researcher$ able$ to$ provide$ a$ plausible$ causal$ argument,$ logical$ reasoning$ that$ is$ powerful$ and$
compelling$enough$to$defend$the$research$conclusions.$The$validity$of$the$research$findings$has$to$be$
examined,$so$does$‘event#A’$indeed$lead$to$‘event#B’$or$is$there$some$third$factor$that$caused$‘event#
B’# (Yin,$ 2003,$ p.$ 36).$ Internal$ validity$ is$ mostly$ relevant$ in$ the$ data$ analysis$ phase,$ where$ the$
researcher$tries$to$establish$causal$relationships.$In$this$research$project$the$internal$validity$is$taken$
into$consideration$with$the$use$of$multiple$research$methods$and$sources.$For$each$case,$at$least$two$
different$ respondents$ will$ be$ interviewed,$ one$ from$ the$ principal$ and$ one$ from$ the$ contractor.$
Available$documentation$will$be$analysed,$the$approach$to$gather$data$is$further$described$in$section$
5.5.$
$
External"validity"
External$validity$or$‘generalizability’$is$grounded$in$the$intuitive$belief$that$theories$must$be$shown$to$
account$for$phenomena$not$only$in$the$setting$in$which$they$are$studied,$but$also$in$other$settings$
(Gibbert$et$al.,$2008;$Swanborn,$2013).$Neither$single$nor$multiple$case$studies$allow$for$statistical$
generalisation,$for$example,$inferring$conclusions$about$a$population$(Yin,$2003,$p.$37).$This$does$not$
mean,$however,$that$case$studies$are$devoid$of$generalisation.$During$the$research$design$phase$the$
domain$ to$ which$ a$ study’s$ findings$ can$ be$ generalised$ has$ to$ be$ established.$ Section$ 5.4$ will$
elaborate$ on$ the$ selection$ of$ the$ cases$ that$ fit$ within$ this$ domain.$ As$ discussed$ in$ section$ 2.3$ the$
preliminary$ conclusions$ from$ the$ crossRcase$ analysis$ are$ the$ input$ for$ the$ discussions$ in$ the$
workshop$meeting$with$the$interviewees.$The$setRup$of$this$workshop$and$the$panel$members$will$
be$discussed$later$on$in$Appendix$H.$$
$
Importantly,$the$three$validity$types$are$not$independent$of$each$other.$Without$a$clear$theoretical$
and$causal$logic$(internal$validity),$and$without$a$careful$link$between$the$theoretical$conjecture$and$
the$ empirical$ observations$ (construct$ validity),$ there$ can$ be$ no$ external$ validity$ in$ the$ first$ place$
(Gibbert$et$al.,$2008).$Criticism$on$case$studies$mainly$focuses$on$the$aspects$internal$and$external$
validity$ (Swanborn,$ 2013,$ p.$ 130).$ In$ other$ words$ the$ reliability$ of$ the$ causal$ relationships$ is$
questionable$and$generalisation$is$difficult.$In$line$with$the$findings$in$this$section,$Swanborn$(2013)$
gives$the$following$possibilities$to$enhance$the$expressiveness$of$a$case$study:$increasing$the$number$
of$ cases,$ using$ different$ methods$ to$ collect$ data$ and$ presenting$ the$ results$ to$ the$ interview$
respondents.$ The$ following$ sections$ will$ elaborate$ more$ on$ the$ research$ methodology$ of$ the$ case$
study.$
$
5.3. Case"protocol"
Following$a$specified$case$protocol$increases$the$reliability$of$the$case$study$research.$This$protocol$
made$sure$the$researcher$followed$the$same$procedure$for$each$interview$and$is$intended$to$guide$
the$researcher$in$carrying$out$the$data$collection.$$
$
All$ respondents$ were$ notified$ of$ the$ research$ with$ an$ eRmail$ prior$ to$ the$ interviews.$ This$ message$
elaborated$on$the$context$of$the$interview,$gave$a$short$explanation$of$the$research$goal$and$noticed$
the$time$needed$to$conduct$the$inRdepth$interview.$
36"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
$
Prior$the$interview$the$researcher$made$short$descriptions$about$the$project$to$get$a$good$overview$
of$ what$ the$ project$ is$ about.$ These$ descriptions$ include$ factual$ information$ about$ the$ reason$ to$
realise$ the$ project,$ the$ project$ goal,$ the$ project$ scope$ and$ the$ tender$ procedure.$ It$ was$ chosen$ to$
study$ factual$ information$ to$ ensure$ an$ unbiased$ but$ a$ wellRprepared$ interviewer,$ who$ gives$ the$
respondents$the$opportunity$to$tell$their$own$story.$
$
In$each$case$both$project$stakeholder$managers$were$interviewed,$this$was$done$on$the$same$day.$
The$ interview$ consisted$ of$ 30$ open$ questions,$ all$ with$ different$ sub$ questions.$ A$ more$ extensive$
protocol$and$the$interview$questions$can$be$found$in$Appendix$C.$A$distinction$was$made$between$
questions$ that$ needed$ to$ be$ asked$ (mustRhave$ questions)$ and$ questions$ that$ did$ not$ have$ to$ be$
asked$ necessarily.$ Not$ all$ questions$ were$ always$ asked$ on$ all$ respondents$ because$ a$ question$ was$
already$ answered$ in$ another$ question$ or$ there$ was$ not$ enough$ time$ to$ ask$ these$ questions.$ The$
interviews$took$approximately$60$to$90$minutes.$$$
$
During$the$interviews$all$respondent$were$encouraged$to$illustrate$their$answers$with$examples,$to$
make$ a$ situation$ better$ understandable$ for$ the$ researcher.$ Before$ ending$ the$ interview$ all$
respondents$had$the$possibility$to$add$something$to$the$interview$and$were$asked$if$something$was$
missing$that$would$contribute$to$the$research.$
$
All$ interviews$ were$ taped$ with$ the$ permission$ of$ the$ respondents$ and$ elaborated$ on$ in$ interview$
reports.$These$reports$served$as$input$for$the$project$reports.$The$project$reports$include$the$given$
answers$of$the$respondents$of$each$project$and$provide$the$basis$for$the$description$and$analysis$of$
each$case.$These$project$reports$were$checked$with$the$respondents$of$the$specific$project$in$order$
to$verify$if$there$were$no$factual$inaccuracies.$
$
5.4. Selection"of"the"cases"
The$ number$ of$ selected$ cases$ to$ conduct$ the$ case$ study$ is$ dependent$ on$ the$ possibilities$ of$ the$
researcher$(Swanborn,$2013).$There$are$always$some$limitations$that$have$influence$on$the$selection.$
In$this$research$the$limited$time$available$for$the$research$influenced$the$chosen$number$of$cases.$
Four$cases$from$the$network$of$Neerlands$Diep$were$selected$to$conduct$this$research.$The$network$
of$Neerlands$Diep$consists$of$multiple$construction$projects,$which$are$connected$to$the$network$in$
order$to$exchange$knowledge$and$experiences$with$each$other.$This$indicates$that$all$projects$within$
the$network$want$to$learn$from$each$other$and$share$knowledge.$It$is$therefore$expected$that$the$
project$stakeholder$managers$of$these$projects$are$willing$to$cooperate$with$the$research.$$
$
The$cases$were$selected$based$on$a$variety$in$typology,$location$and$contracting$parties$to$enhance$
the$ representativeness$ of$ the$ cases$ for$ the$ Dutch$ construction$ sector.$ Thereby$ every$ following$
homogenous$ case$ is$ less$ informative$ than$ the$ previous$ one$ (Swanborn,$ 2013,$ p.$ 83).$ However$ the$
cases$ have$ to$ meet$ some$ requirements,$ in$ order$ to$ come$ to$ tentative$ conclusions$ within$ this$
research$context.$Some$requirements$are$already$defined$in$the$research$question$and$scope,$so$a$
LIP$with$a$D&C$contract.$The$other$conditions$that$helped$to$select$the$cases$are:$
• All$ cases$ are$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase$ during$ this$ research,$ this$ makes$ sure$ that$ the$
respondents$ are$ still$ working$ on$ the$ project$ and$ are$ dealing$ with$ difficulties$ on$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ at$ the$ time$ of$ the$ interviews$ and$ do$ not$ have$ to$ rely$ on$ their$
memory$for$answering$the$questions.$
• All$cases$are$projects$that$have$a$clear$scope,$one$project$goal$and$do$not$consists$of$a$lot$of$
sub$ projects$ for$ which$ other$ contracting$ parties$ are$ hired$ (like$ for$ example$ the$ public$
transport$terminal$in$Utrecht).$$
An$overview$of$the$selected$projects$to$conduct$the$case$study$with$is$given$in$Table$5$and$Appendix$
D$gives$an$overview$of$the$projects$that$could$have$been$selected.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"37"
$
#"
1$
2$
3$
4$
Project"
Construction$of$a$stacked$tunnel$in$an$urban$area$
Renovation$of$a$bridge$$
Relocation$of$a$rail$track$and$road$in$an$urban$area$
Create$more$space$for$a$river$by$trenching$the$forelands$in$a$rural$area$
Maturity"
2010$R$2015$
2013$R$2015$
2009$R$2014$
2013$R$2015$
Table#5:#Overview#of#the#selected#projects#for#the#case#study#
$
5.5. Data"gathering"
Data$ was$ gathered$ with$ the$ use$ of$ several$ research$ methods$ and$ sources$ for$ a$ valid$ and$ reliable$
research$findings.$This$triangulation$of$research$is$an$effective$instrument$to$get$the$overall$view$on$
how$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ collaborating$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ It$ is$ therefore$
important$that$the$data$is$collected$in$several$ways.$The$data$is$collected$in$the$following$ways:$
• SemiRstructured$individual$interviews$with$the$project$stakeholder$managers$of$the$selected$
projects.$ Depending$ on$ the$ organisation$ of$ the$ project$ the$ participants$ include$ at$ least$ the$
project$stakeholder$managers$of$the$principal$and$contractor.$
• Extensive$ content$ analysis$ of$ documents$ about$ the$ case$ to$ get$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ project$
context$ and$ prevent$ the$ researcher$ from$ asking$ ‘obvious’$ questions$ (questions$ the$
researcher$could$already$have$known).$These$findings$are$compared$with$the$‘real$situation’$
as$sketched$during$the$interviews.$
• A$ workshop$ with$ the$ interviewees$ to$ create$ a$ group$ discussion$ about$ the$ preliminary$
conclusions$of$this$research$in$order$to$check$the$internal$and$external$validity.$$
$
5.6. Data"analysis"
There$are$five$specific$techniques$for$analysing$case$studies:$pattern$matching,$explanation$building,$
timeRseries$analysis,$logic$models$and$crossRcase$synthesis.$(Yin,$2003,$p.$115).$The$data$analysis$as$
performed$ in$ this$ research$ is$ two$ folded,$ which$ is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ two$ folded$ purpose$ of$ the$ case$
study.$An$overview$of$how$the$data$analysis$will$be$conducted$can$be$found$in$Figure$28.$
$
For$ the$ explanatory$ purpose$ of$ the$ case$ study$ the$ collected$ data,$ based$ on$ the$ interviews$ and$
available$ documents,$ will$ be$ analysed$ with$ the$ explanation$ building$ technique.$ This$ technique$ is$ a$
special$type$of$pattern$matching$and$mainly$relevant$for$explanatory$case$studies$(Yin,$2003,$p.$120).$
The$goal$is$to$analyse$the$case$study$data$by$building$an$explanation$about$the$case.$It$starts$with$an$
initial$theoretical$statement$about$the$research$topic$(project$stakeholder$management).$This$initial$
statement$is$then$compared$with$the$findings$of$the$case$to$see$if$the$statement$is$valid$or$not.$Each$
selected$case$is$treated$as$a$separated$and$single$case$study.$
$
$
38"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
Figure#28:#Techniques#for#data#analysis#(own#ill.)#
$
The$ results$ of$ the$ explanation$ building$ can$ be$ used$ as$ input$ for$ the$ crossRcase$ analysis.$ This$
technique$ will$ be$ used$ for$ the$ explorative$ purpose$ of$ this$ research.$ It$ is$ especially$ relevant$ in$ a$
multiple$case$study$and$the$findings$are$likely$to$be$more$robust$than$a$single$case$has$(Yin,$2003,$p.$
133).$ The$ crossRcase$ analysis$ compares$ the$ data$ coming$ from$ the$ four$ case$ studies.$ Afterwards$
preferably$ some$ generalisations$ about$ important$ aspects$ for$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$
private$ parties$ can$ be$ made$ and$ some$ implications$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ on$ project$
stakeholder$management$can$be$derived.$Later$on$these$generalisations$will$be$checked$on$validity$
during$the$interactive$workshop$meeting$where$the$interview$respondents$were$asked$for$feedback.$
$$
The$ interviews$ were$ conducted$ in$ Dutch$ in$ order$ to$ prevent$ falsification$ of$ the$ data$ due$ to$
translation.$To$make$the$collected$data$suitable$for$this$research,$translation$was$only$done$by$the$
researcher$this$decreases$the$chance$of$falsification.$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"39"
6. R
ESULTS"OF"THE"CASE"STUDIES"
$
$
The$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ LIPs$ can$ differ$ from$ one$ project$ to$ another.$
The$ contract$ as$ basis$ for$ the$ collaboration$ can$ be$ the$ same,$ but$ during$ realisation$ problems$ can$
occur$that$can$influence$the$relations.$As$argued$in$the$introduction$it$is$desirable$to$know$why$these$
differences$in$collaboration$occur,$what$are$the$consequences$for$the$project$and$how$are$projects$
managed$to$come$to$a$successful$end.$$
$
The$ case$ study$ set$ up$ is$ described$ in$ chapter$ 5.$ This$ chapter$ will$ provide$ the$ results$ of$ the$ case$
studies$ in$ the$ form$ of$ project$ reports.$ These$ findings$ will$ give$ insights$ in$ the$ project$ scope,$ the$
implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$
principal$and$contractor.$Each$case$report$concludes$with$some$case$specific$findings$that$are$used$to$
make$ the$ following$ research$ steps.$ The$ case$ specific$ findings$ will$ be$ compared$ with$ each$ other$ in$
chapter$7$and$are$the$empirical$foundation$for$the$main$findings$of$this$research.$All$four$cases$are$
analysed$ by$ the$ means$ of$ the$ research$ framework$ as$ elaborated$ on$ in$ chapter$ 4.$ The$ case$ study$
projects$and$points$of$view$of$the$respondents$are$more$extensive$described$in$appendix$F.$
$
6.1. "Case"report"1:"Construction"of"a"stacked"tunnel"
This$ case$ covers$ the$ construction$ of$ a$ stacked$ tunnel$ as$ part$ of$ a$ motorway$ through$ the$ city$ of$
Maastricht.$ In$ this$ project$ the$ construction$ of$ the$ stacked$ tunnel$ is$ combined$ with$ area$
development.$The$construction$of$this$part$of$the$motorway$is$needed,$because$the$motorway$is$a$
minor$road$with$traffic$lights$and$cross$points,$this$causes$traffic$jams.$This$section$of$the$motorway$
cuts$ straight$ through$ the$ city$ leading$ to$ heavy$ traffic$ within$ city$ borders.$ The$ following$ four$ public$
parties$ initiated$ the$ project:$ Rijkswaterstaat,$ two$ municipalities$ and$ the$ province.$ In$ 2003$ these$
parties$ signed$ a$ governance$ agreement.$ Signing$ this$ agreement$ ended$ a$ quarter$ of$ a$ century$
discussion$ about$ the$ approach$ of$ the$ multiple$ problems$ around$ the$ motorway.$ It$ was$ also$ the$
starting$point$for$the$collaboration$between$the$public$parties$in$one$project$organisation$to$prepare$
and$realise$the$project.$In$2006$the$same$parties$signed$a$partnership$agreement,$to$complete$the$
governance$agreement$from$2003.$This$served$as$basis$for$the$tender$procedure$that$started$in$2006.$
In$Appendix$E$some$additional$information$about$the$project$characteristics$can$be$found.$
$
The$ plan$ of$ the$ awarded$ contractor$ includes$ a$ stacked$ tunnel,$ thereby$ 80$ percent$ of$ the$ current$
traffic$flow$will$go$underground.$Above$the$tunnel$a$green$living$area$for$pedestrians$and$cyclists$can$
be$ created.$ This$ plan$ shall$ address$ the$ problems$ and$ shall$ reconnect$ the$ divided$ city$ centre.$ The$
construction$of$the$project$started$in$2010$and$should$be$finished$in$2016.$From$2016$till$2026$real$
estate$ will$ be$ realised$ on$ top$ of$ the$ tunnel.$ The$ project$ was$ tendered$ to$ one$ of$ the$ three$
participating$ consortia$ in$ a$ European$ tender$ with$ competitive$ dialogue.$ The$ procedure$ consists$ of$
three$rounds$and$in$the$second$round,$the$dialogue$phase,$all$parties$presented$a$preliminary$version$
of$the$plan$to$the$public$in$a$consultation$round.$In$June$2009$the$project$was$awarded$to$one$of$the$
three$ consortia$ and$ the$ contract$ was$ signed$ in$ October$ 2009.$ It$ is$ an$ integral$ project$ where$
infrastructure$ and$ real$ estate$ development$ are$ combined.$ For$ the$ infrastructure$ part$ the$ traffic$
system$will$be$renewed$with$the$motorway$as$backbone.$It$includes$the$construction$of$the$tunnel,$
some$junctions$that$will$be$improved$and$a$new$connecting$road.$On$top$of$the$tunnel$a$green$city$
boulevard$will$be$realised.$The$contractor$called$this$the$Green$Carpet$(Dutch:$de$Groene$Loper)$in$
his$plan.$It$is$a$green$route$planted$with$many$trees$that$connects$the$city$with$its$surroundings.$In$
the$real$estate$phase$around$1000$new$dwellings$will$be$constructed$and$some$(older)$dwellings$will$
40"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
be$ demolished.$ Besides$ that$ around$ 18000$ square$ meters$ of$ commercial$ real$ estate$ will$ be$
developed.$ This$ real$ estate$ will$ not$ only$ add$ a$ completely$ new$ aspect$ to$ the$ existing$
neighbourhoods,$ but$ it$ will$ blend$ into$ the$ existing$ environment.$ With$ the$ new$ construction,$ the$
contractor$completes$what$is$already$there$(Avenue2,$2009).$
$
The$project$organisation$consists$of$the$project$management$teams$of$principal$and$contractor.$The$
project$ management$ team$ of$ the$ principal$ has$ the$ IPM$ model$ from$ Rijkswaterstaat,$ with$ an$
exception$ for$ communication.$ It$ was$ chosen$ to$ add$ communication$ as$ a$ separate$ element$ to$ the$
project$ organisation,$ according$ to$ the$ project$ director$ (working$ for$ RWS)$ this$ element$ was$ too$
important$to$make$it$one$of$the$tasks$of$the$other$managers.$The$contractor$followed$the$IPM$model$
for$the$division$of$roles.$$
$
The$ respondents$ for$ this$ case$ were$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ working$ for$
RWS$and$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor.$Both$managers$were$already$involved$in$
this$ project$ during$ the$ tender$ phase.$ In$ the$ beginning$ the$ contractor$ was$ not$ located$ at$ the$
construction$site,$but$later$on$their$project$team$came$to$Maastricht$as$well.$
6.1.1. Implementation%of%project%stakeholder%management%
In$ this$ case$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ communicative$ oriented,$ in$ order$ to$ realise$ the$
project$ together$ with$ all$ its$ stakeholders.$ This$ orientation$ was$ chosen$ to$ be$ able$ to$ realise$ the$
project$ within$ time$ and$ budget,$ so$ there$ is$ a$ strategic$ idea$ behind.$ In$ this$ project$ there$ is$ a$
distinction$ between$ shareholders,$ who$ are$ inside$ the$ project$ organisation,$ and$ stakeholders,$ who$
influence$ the$ project$ from$ the$ outside.$ All$ parties$ are$ approached$ differently,$ but$ everyone$ has$ a$
voice.$The$public$parties$were$already$committed$to$the$project$from$the$start$and$are$represented$
within$ the$ project$ organisation.$ This$ commitment$ of$ the$ public$ parties$ was$ really$ helpful$ for$ the$
component$ conditioning.$ The$ application$ of$ all$ needed$ permits$ went$ really$ well$ due$ to$ the$ good$
collaboration$ between$ public$ parties$ and$ the$ permit$ department$ (Dutch:$ vergunningbureau)$ that$
processes$ the$ permits$ in$ order$ to$ prevent$ a$ work$ overload$ in$ case$ all$ permits$ are$ needed$ at$ once.$
The$private$stakeholders$are$represented$in$two$platforms,$the$A2Rneighbourhoods$platform$and$the$
A2Rcompanies$platform.$There$is$a$certain$amount$of$time$and$money$available$to$realise$the$project,$
therefore$ not$ all$ wishes$ of$ the$ public$ can$ be$ taken$ into$ account.$ To$ manage$ this$ process$ it$ is$
important$that$people$have$the$right$expectations.$Therefore,$the$project$organisation$has$an$open$
and$transparent$attitude$towards$it$stakeholders.$This$openness$and$transparency$is$also$important$
for$the$aspect$traffic$management.$People$can$still$disagree$with$road$closures,$but$they$do$accept$it$
due$ to$ good$ communication.$ This$ has$ limited$ the$ number$ of$ complaints.$ Also$ the$ road$ users$ are$
satisfied$ with$ the$ provided$ information,$ this$ was$ illustrated$ with$ the$ scores$ of$ the$ measurements$
taken$along$road$users.$
$
Both$project$teams$act$together$as$one$project$organisation,$so$the$public$has$one$source$where$the$
information$comes$from.$Therefore$the$goal$of$both$parties$is$quite$aligned,$although$the$contractor$
wants$ to$ invest$ in$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ within$ all$ financial$ reasonableness.$ There$ was$
one$ issue$ where$ both$ parties$ did$ not$ act$ as$ one$ organisation,$ this$ had$ to$ do$ with$ an$ issue$ about$
foreign$workers.$These$foreign$employees$were$working$on$the$project$and$there$was$a$discussion$
about$their$salary$and$workings$conditions.$Both$respondents$illustrated$that$this$was$a$point$where$
it$was$needed$to$act$with$two$project$organisations,$because$there$was$a$conflict$of$interests.$So$two$
statements$were$drawn$up$to$keep$a$clear$distinction$between$the$public$and$private$point$of$view.$
These$ different$ points$ of$ view$ were$ mainly$ for$ the$ public,$ because$ within$ the$ project$ organisation$
both$ teams$ still$ had$ to$ collaborate$ and$ the$ combined$ communication$ department$ was$ responsible$
for$writing$both$statements.$$$
$
Both$project$stakeholder$managers$have$different$tasks$and$responsibilities.$The$project$stakeholder$
manager$ of$ the$ contractor$ is$ mainly$ responsible$ for$ the$ tactical$ and$ operational$ part$ of$ project$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"41"
stakeholder$ management.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ is$ working$ at$ the$
strategic$and$tactical$level,$so$is$more$responsible$for$the$governmental$tasks.$This$division$of$tasks$
has$developed$over$time,$because$the$contract$did$not$specify$this.$Both$respondents$illustrated$that$
they$use$each$other’s$qualities.$The$qualities$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$are$
more$ in$ the$ public$ environment,$ while$ the$ qualities$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$
principal$ are$ more$ at$ the$ operational$ level.$ In$ this$ project$ both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$
complement$each$other$well$in$this.$$
$
The$communication$in$the$project$was,$according$to$the$RWS$standard$for$a$D&C$contract,$divided$in$
public$and$construction$communication.$However,$this$distinction$between$public$and$construction$
communication$did$not$work$out.$This$was$mainly$because$mutual$expectations$did$not$correspond.$
Around$three$years$ago$the$communication$teams$of$both$parties$were$merged$in$one$department.$
The$ principal$ and$ contractor$ combined$ their$ budget$ for$ communication$ and$ from$ then$ all$
communication$tasks$were$organised$together.$There$is$a$sort$of$alliance$model$for$communication,$
but$ there$ is$ no$ specific$ person$ who$ has$ the$ final$ responsibility.$ This$ task$ is$ divided$ between$ the$
project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor$and$the$communication$manager$of$the$principal.$
6.1.2. Collaboration%on%project%stakeholder%management%
The$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ taken$ into$ account$ to$ illustrate$ how$
principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ collaborating.$ In$ this$ project$ an$ intensive$ collaboration$ was$ expected,$
because$both$parties$were$already$collaborating$during$the$tender$phase$and$collaborative$principals$
were$written$down$in$the$contract.$This$collaboration$has$enhanced$over$time.$A$couple$of$months$
after$the$realisation$of$the$project$started$the$project$team$of$the$contractor$moved$to$Maastricht$as$
well,$ and$ from$ that$ moment$ both$ parties$ were$ located$ in$ the$ same$ office.$ This$ made$ it$ easier$ to$
communicate$and$made$it$possible$to$step$by$each$other$in$case$something$needed$to$be$discussed.$
The$points$of$view$on$project$stakeholder$management$of$both$respondents$will$be$discussed.$
"
Respondent"principal"
Although$ some$ people$ were$ sceptical$ about$ the$ intended$ collaboration$ in$ this$ project,$ it$ was$ a$
deliberate$ choice$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ to$ collaborate$ closely.$ To$ be$ able$ to$ collaborate$
investments$ in$ the$ mutual$ relationship$ were$ made$ and$ an$ additional$ collaboration$ paragraph$ was$
part$of$the$contract,$because$collaboration$has$to$grow$over$time.$The$contract$shows$how$damage$
compensation$and$risks$are$divided$between$principal$and$contractor,$elaborates$on$the$escalation$
model$ and$ includes$ a$ plan$ for$ crisis$ situations.$ According$ to$ the$ respondent$ important$ factors$ for$
successful$ collaboration$ are$ openness$ and$ transparency$ towards$ each$ other,$ mutual$ trust,$ the$
people$working$on$the$project$and$having$success.$The$respondent$illustrated$“if#the#collaboration#is#
going# really# well# but# the# external# publicity# is# negative,# it# is# hard# to# keep# the# collaboration# good.#
Besides#that,#the#staffing#of#the#project#is#an#important#factor.#Having#collaborationforiented#people#
working#almost#continuously#on#the#project#is#a#blessing#for#this#project”.$
$
According$ to$ the$ respondent$ the$ collaboration$ right$ now$ is$ going$ really$ well,$ but$ it$ is$ important$ to$
look$ forward.$ “The# start# of# the# real# estate# phase# will# have# consequences# for# the# collaboration.# Our#
organisation# will# decrease,# some# parties# might# leave# the# project# and# other# parties# may# enter# the#
project”.$ Real$ estate$ development$ is$ a$ complete$ other$ discipline$ than$ infrastructure$ development$
and$ not$ all$ the$ parties$ that$ are$ currently$ working$ on$ the$ project$ have$ experience$ in$ this$ discipline.$
The$ respondent$ expects$ that$ the$ tunnel$ will$ be$ opened$ at$ the$ date$ as$ defined$ in$ the$ contract,$ but$
emphasized$that$the$project$is$not$a$success$until$the$tunnel$is$opened.$He$illustrated$this$with$the$
tunnel$ project$ in$ Roermond.$ “In# this# project# everything# went# smoothly,# but# the# installation# of# the#
required# safety# precautions# took# more# time# than# expected# and# therefore# the# opening# of# the# tunnel#
was#postponed”.$This$project$is$successful$for$the$respondent$if$it$will$be$realised$without$stagnation$
and$with$a$satisfied$public.$“I#think#we#have#constructed#something#really#nice#and#I#hope#that#when#I#
look#back#I#am#proud#to#say#that#I#have#contributed#to#this#project”.$
42"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
Respondent"contractor"
The$ respondent$ illustrated$ that$ collaboration$ would$ be$ an$ important$ aspect$ during$ the$ realisation$
phase,$ after$ the$ intensive$ collaboration$ during$ the$ tender$ phase.$ “An# additional# paragraph# with#
collaboration#principals#(Dutch:#samenwerkingsbeginselen)#was#added#to#the#contract.#Besides#that,#
our#directors#are#convinced#that#collaborating#it#the#only#way#to#make#a#project#like#this#successful”.$
The$division$of$responsibilities$has$grown$over$time.$According$to$the$respondent$that$is$the$ultimate$
form$of$collaboration.$“You#should#put#the#contract#in#a#closet#and#you#have#to#do#it#together,#with#
defining#everything#in#a#contract#you#will#not#make#progress”.$It$was$also$illustrated$that$all$problems$
that$occur$have$to$be$solved$within$the$project$organisation$and$that$it$is$important$to$not$muddle$
around$with$problems.$Physical$information$systems$are$not$accessible$for$the$other$party,$but$there$
are$ limited$ discussions$ behind$ closed$ doors$ because$ that$ will$ create$ a$ ‘we/them$ situation’.$ “This# is#
something#that#should#be#prevented#if#you#want#to#collaborate”.$Another$important$factor$for$good$
collaboration$ is$ that$ the$ characters$ of$ people$ have$ to$ match.$ Besides$ that,$ it$ is$ important$ that$ you$
grant$ the$ other$ something$ and$ that$ there$ are$ formal$ and$ informal$ meetings$ with$ each$ other.$ The$
respondent$explained$that$for$each$risk$the$contractor$looks$if$the$principal$has$a$certain$role$in$it.$If$
that$is$the$case,$the$contractor$will$look$if$it$is$possible$to$make$the$principal$responsible$for$a$part$of$
this$risk.$
$
The$respondent$has$the$opinion$that$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$is$good,$but$
he$ thinks$ they$ would$ have$ been$ able$ to$ realise$ more$ if$ both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ were$
located$in$the$same$room.$The$respondent$is$hopeful$that$the$project$will$be$realised$within$time$and$
budget,$ but$ preferably$ the$ tunnel$ can$ be$ opened$ a$ little$ earlier.$ For$ the$ respondent$ the$ project$ is$
successful$ it$ this$ is$ the$ case$ and$ the$ public$ is$ wildly$ enthusiastic.$ It$ was$ also$ mentioned$ that$ some$
negative$ publications$ about$ the$ project$ are$ expected.$ “The# expectation# are# really# high,# so# it# is#
possible#that#people#are#disappointed#with#the#result”.$
6.1.3. State%of%the%collaboration%between%principal%and%contractor%
The$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ be$ different$ for$ each$ criterion$ and$ the$
intensity$ of$ it$ can$ change$ over$ time.$ In$ this$ project$ the$ collaboration$ has$ developed$ to$ high$ levels,$
because$collaboration$was$an$important$factor$from$day$one.$The$respondents$have$illustrated$that$
collaboration$ was$ already$ important$ during$ the$ tender$ phase$ and$ that$ this$ continued$ during$ the$
realisation$ phase.$ Because$ the$ principal$ had$ only$ twelve$ project$ requirements,$ intensive$
consultations$between$principal$and$contractor$were$needed$to$make$sure$the$design$for$the$project$
was$in$line$with$the$expectations$of$the$principal.$For$the$realisation$phase$of$the$project,$principal$
and$ contractor$ agreed$ on$ some$ collaboration$ principals$ and$ these$ were$ added$ as$ additional$
document$ to$ the$ contract$ in$ order$ to$ encourage$ the$ collaboration.$ In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$
contractor$ were$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ collaboration$ in$ order$ to$ complete$ the$ project$
successful,$therefore$both$parties$invested$in$the$collaboration$to$make$sure$the$collaboration$would$
run$smoothly$during$realisation$as$well.$Based$on$the$empirical$findings$as$discussed$in$the$previous$
paragraphs$the$following$overview$of$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$
in$this$project$can$be$given.$In$Figure$30$the$point$of$view$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$
principals$is$illustrated$with$the$orange$line$and$the$viewpoint$of$the$contractors$project$stakeholder$
manager$is$blue.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"43"
$
Figure#30:#Radar#chart#of#the#collaboration,#case#1#(own#ill.)#
The$ radar$ chart$ illustrates$ that$ both$ respondents$ have$ a$ quite$ similar$ view$ about$ the$ intensity$ of$
their$ collaboration,$ there$ is$ only$ one$ criterion$ where$ both$ respondents$ have$ a$ different$ point$ of$
view.$ This$ shows$ that$ both$ respondents$ have$ almost$ the$ same$ experience$ regarding$ their$
collaboration$ and$ it$ illustrates$ that$ their$ expectations$ of$ the$ collaboration$ are$ aligned.$ This$ is$
important$for$a$successful$collaboration,$because$differences$in$points$of$view$can$cause$friction.$The$
focus$ of$ this$ project$ on$ collaboration$ is$ confirmed$ with$ examples$ given$ in$ the$ interviews.$ The$
principal$expected$a$continuation$of$the$collaboration$from$the$tender$phase$and$was$ready$to$start$
with$ the$ realisation$ the$ day$ after$ the$ project$ was$ awarded.$ The$ respondent$ of$ the$ contractor$
explained$ that$ the$ directors$ of$ the$ contracting$ parties$ recognised$ that$ this$ project$ could$ not$ be$
realised$successful$without$collaboration.$So$both$parties$chose$for$an$intensive$collaboration$in$this$
project$and$have$invested$in$this$by$writing$collaboration$principals$and$organising$a$PSU,$PFU’s$and$
informal$meetings.$Towards$the$public$both$parties$act$as$one$project$organisation.$
$
Objectives:$ The$ responses$ of$ the$ respondents$ in$ the$ interview$ indicated$ that$ principal$ and$
contractor$ have$ the$ same$ objective$ regarding$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project.$ This$ objective$ is$
supported$ by$ the$ agreements$ in$ the$ collaboration$ principals.$ This$ criterion$ does$ not$ score$ a$ level$
four,$because$the$contractor$has$to$make$a$profit.$There$is$still$an$individual$financial$interest$for$the$
contractor$and$both$respondents$acknowledge$this.$So$both$parties$have$the$same$objective,$but$the$
contractor$wants$to$realise$this$within$all$financial$reasonableness.$
$
Trust:"In$this$project$mutual$trust$exists$between$principal$and$contractor.$This$is$illustrated$
by$ the$ fact$ that$ both$ respondents$ expect$ that$ the$ project$ will$ be$ completed$ within$ time$ and$ the$
openness$ in$ sharing$ sensitive$ information$ with$ each$ other.$ An$ example$ of$ this$ is$ that$ jokingly$ it$ is$
sometimes$ said$ that$ both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ could$ take$ over$ each$ other’s$ role$ during$
holidays,$even$though$this$is$not$possible$in$reality$due$to$the$differences$in$the$roles.$
$
Risk:$Regarding$the$risks$in$this$project$each$parties$has$its$own$responsibilities$as$divided$in$
the$contract.$However,$the$risks$are$approaches$as$a$team$and$together$both$parties$approach$the$
risk$ proactive.$ Thereby$ a$ joint$ financial$ fund$ was$ created$ to$ pay$ for$ small$ changes$ in$ the$ original$
plans$that$are$beneficial$for$the$project.$
"
Communication:" The$ communication$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ open$ and$
transparent,$but$not$all$the$financial$information$is$shared$with$each$other.$Both$parties$are$located$
in$the$same$office$and$there$is$a$clear$meeting$structure.$Regarding$project$stakeholder$management$
there$are$no$internal$meetings$were$one$of$the$project$stakeholders$is$unwelcome.$
Attitude:" The$ interviews$ have$ illustrated$ that$ both$ parties$ are$ collaborativeRoriented$ and$
have$invested$in$collaboration.$There$is$a$close$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$and$
44"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
both$parties$try$to$solve$problems$as$soon$as$possible.$Besides$that,$there$are$constantly$investments$
in$order$to$improve$the$project.$
Project" organisation:" It$ was$ illustrated$ by$ the$ respondents$ that$ the$ people$ who$ work$ on$ a$
project$are$an$important$factor$in$the$success$of$the$collaboration.$In$this$project$the$staff$exists$of$a$
group$ with$ enthusiastic$ people$ who$ want$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ together.$ There$ have$ been$ some$
changes$ in$ the$ staffing$ to$ create$ this$ group,$ because$ it$ is$ important$ to$ have$ collaborative$ oriented$
people.$ As$ already$ elaborated$ on$ projects$ are$ solved$ beforehand,$ expectations$ correspond$ and$
principal$ and$ contractor$ work$ together$ as$ equal$ partners.$ Because$ there$ is$ a$ difference$ in$ the$
motivation$of$the$employees$of$the$principal$and$the$employees$of$the$contractor$(including$a$lot$of$
subRcontractors)$the$score$of$both$parties$on$this$criterion$differs.$$
$
In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$ contractor$ collaborate$ as$ equal$ partners$ and$ try$ to$ realise$ the$ project$
together.$This$should$lead$to$a$successful$completion$of$the$project.$The$project$is$not$realised$with$a$
strategic$partnership$or$an$alliance$model$where$everything$is$shared$with$each$other,$but$the$state$
of$the$collaboration$can$be$described$as$project$partnering.$It$is$expected$that$the$infrastructure$part$
of$the$project$will$be$completed$within$time$and$budget.$Both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$the$
project$ is$ a$ success$ if$ it$ will$ be$ completed$ without$ stagnation$ and$ with$ an$ enthusiastic$ public.$ The$
radar$chart$has$illustrated$the$state$of$the$collaboration$as$it$was$observed$during$the$interviews,$but$
this$will$probably$change$in$a$year$when$the$infrastructure$part$of$the$project$is$completed.$With$the$
start$of$the$real$estate$phase$other$parties$and$people$will$enter$the$project$and$their$relationship$
has$to$develop$over$time.$
6.1.4. Concluding%findings%
Beforehand$ people$ were$ sceptical$ about$ the$ intended$ collaboration$ in$ this$ project$ and$ also$ the$
public$was$not$completely$convinced$about$the$necessity$of$the$realisation$of$this$project.$However,$
principal$and$contractor$successfully$invested$in$the$mutual$relationship$and$in$involving$the$project$
stakeholders$ in$ order$ to$ make$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ stacked$ tunnel$ a$ success.$ As$ yet,$ this$ is$ going$
really$ well.$ Not$ only$ due$ to$ the$ investments$ in$ the$ project$ and$ the$ collaborative$ attitude$ of$ both$
parties,$but$also$because$both$are$open$and$transparent,$there$exists$mutual$trust,$and$both$parties$
want$best$for$the$project.$The$points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$on$their$collaboration$are$
almost$ completely$ aligned.$ Only$ for$ the$ criterion$ project$ organisation$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$
invest$ to$ align$ their$ point$ of$ view.$ Since$ the$ criteria$ always$ score$ three$ or$ four$ on$ the$ level$ of$
collaboration,$ possibilities$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ are$ limited.$ Most$ important$ is$ that$ both$
parties$keep$in$discussion$about$their$collaboration$to$be$able$to$stay$at$this$state$of$collaboration.$
$
Observing$ this$ case$ lead$ to$ the$ assumption$ that$ it$ is$ important$ to$ make$ agreements$ about$ the$
collaboration$in$advance$and$make$this$part$of$the$contract.$In$that$case$both$parties$have$already$
thought$about$problems$that$might$arise$and$therefore$it$is$clear$who$is$responsible$for$what$during$
the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project.$ As$ a$ consequence$ the$ contract$ is$ barely$ used.$ This$ case$ has$ also$
illustrated$ some$ other$ aspects$ that$ ease$ the$ collaboration.$ All$ are$ based$ on$ the$ idea$ of$ tackling$
problems$in$advance$and$a$proactive$approach.$Parties$in$the$public$environment$already$committed$
themselves$ to$ the$ project$ in$ the$ beginning.$ Thereby$ conflicting$ issues$ between$ these$ stakeholders$
and$ the$ project$ organisation$ are$ avoided.$ This$ is$ something$ that$ is$ very$ useful$ in$ a$ project$ like$ this$
where$ the$ support$ of$ these$ parties$ is$ often$ needed$ for$ a$ smooth$ proceeding$ of$ the$ project.$
Regarding$ the$ stakeholders$ in$ the$ private$ environment$ it$ is$ important$ that$ they$ are$ informed$ well$
and$have$right$expectations.$If$this$is$not$the$case,$people$will$complain$which$causes$tensions$in$the$
collaboration.$ This$ project$ had$ a$ great$ advantage$ that$ these$ stakeholders$ were$ already$ involved$
during$ the$ preparation$ phase$ of$ the$ project.$ Therefore$ there$ was$ already$ some$ support$ for$ the$
project,$especially$compared$to$a$project$where$the$private$stakeholders$are$not$involved$until$the$
realisation$starts.$In$addition,$the$collaboration$in$this$project$profits$by$the$success$of$the$project.$
Maintaining$a$relationship$would$be$much$harder$in$case$a$project$is$not$a$success$and$if$there$are$a$
lot$of$issues$and$complaints.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"45"
In$conclusion$it$can$be$said$that$the$following$aspects$regarding$collaboration$are$interesting$to$take$
into$account$in$future$projects:$
• Make$ agreements$ about$ collaboration$ in$ advance,$ so$ responsibilities$ are$ clear$ during$ the$
project$realisation.$Besides$that,$it$is$important$to$maintain$this$relationship$by$using$formal$
and$informal$instruments.$
• Create$a$joint$financial$fund$to$be$able$to$realise$‘best$for$project’$without$discussions$about$
the$financials.$
• Make$ sure$ higher$ management$ supports$ and$ stimulates$ collaboration,$ to$ make$ everyone$
working$on$the$project$aware$of$the$importance$of$collaboration.$
• Find$support$for$the$project$in$the$public$environment$for$a$smooth$progress$of$the$project.$
In$ case$ these$ stakeholders$ are$ committed$ to$ the$ project$ the$ whole$ legislation$ process$ will$
become$much$easier.$
$
The$ collaboration$ as$ in$ this$ project$ is$ a$ kind$ of$ an$ experiment$ (pilot)$ and$ it$ works$ out$ well$ in$ this$
project,$but$it$is$not$a$guarantee$for$other$projects.$For$the$time$being$the$project$is$a$success,$but$it$
is$important$to$look$forward.$The$all$over$success$of$the$project$is$a$combination$of$the$infrastructure$
realisation$ and$ the$ real$ estate$ development.$ The$ real$ estate$ development$ can$ only$ start$ after$ the$
completion$ of$ the$ infrastructure$ part$ of$ the$ project$ and$ in$ case$ the$ right$ financial$ resources$ are$
available,$but$this$remains$to$be$seen$especially$given$the$current$situation$on$the$real$estate$market.$
$
6.2. "Case"report"2:"Renovation"of"a"bridge"
This$case$covers$the$renovation$of$a$bridge,$which$is$part$of$a$motorway.$The$current$traffic$over$the$
bridge$has$a$higher$number$of$vehicles$than$anticipated$during$the$development$and$also$the$freight$
traffic$has$become$heavier.$This$has$damaged$the$bridge$and$to$guarantee$the$safety$of$the$bridge$in$
the$future$renovation$and$strengthening$of$the$bridge$is$necessary.$The$bridge$will$be$lifted$as$well$
and$ this$ will$ increase$ the$ vertical$ clearance$ for$ shipping$ at$ the$ canal.$ Rijkswaterstaat$ is$ the$ public$
principal$of$the$project.$$
$
The$renovation$of$this$bridge$is$part$of$a$program$that$is$responsible$for$the$renovation$of$fourteen$
bridges$in$the$Netherlands.$For$the$eight$steel$bridges$in$this$program,$three$contractors$have$signed$
a$ framework$ contract$ (Dutch:$ raamwerkovereenkomst)$ with$ RWS$ and$ are$ eligible$ to$ participate$ in$
the$ (mini)$ tender$ for$ these$ bridges.$ In$ 2013$ the$ project$ was$ awarded$ and$ the$ criteria$ price,$
minimization$ of$ traffic$ disruption,$ a$ reliable$ and$ controlled$ realisation,$ chances$ and$ risks$ and$ the$
collaboration$ with$ the$ principal$ were$ important$ in$ the$ tender$ procedure.$ The$ contractor$ accepted$
this$ challenge$ with$ the$ motto$ ‘no$ surprises,$ no$ changes’.$ The$ essence$ of$ this$ motto$ is$ to$ prepare$
everything$in$greater$detail,$reflect$on$it$and$test$it$virtually$with$BIM.$This$is$necessary$because$lots$
of$different$disciplines$are$collaborating$and$there$is$little$freedom,$everything$should$be$right$at$the$
first$go.$It$is$a$project$with$a$high$technical$complexity$in$a$dynamic$environment.$Two$of$the$busiest$
infrastructure$axes$in$the$Netherlands$cross$each$other,$while$both$need$to$be$accessible$for$traffic$
during$ the$ realisation.$ The$ renovation$ started$ in$ 2013$ and$ the$ project$ should$ be$ completed$ at$ the$
end$of$2015.$$
$
In$ the$ bridge$ renovation$ program$ RWS$ is$ experimenting$ with$ managing$ contractors$ from$ market$
parties$to$provide$more$technical$expertise.$These$market$parties$are$responsible$for$the$engineering$
of$ the$ bridges$ and$ for$ the$ management$ of$ the$ project$ during$ realisation.$ RWS$ is$ working$ with$ a$
project$team$according$to$the$IPM$model,$but$only$the$contract$manager$and$the$project$stakeholder$
manager$are$actually$working$for$RWS.$The$other$three$roles$are$fulfilled$by$employees$of$the$market$
parties,$operating$in$this$project$on$behalf$of$RWS.$The$contractor$has$tried$to$create$a$project$team$
that$ is$ mirrored$ to$ the$ team$ of$ the$ principal.$ There$ are$ two$ differences,$ the$ principal$ has$ one$
technical$manager$where$the$contractor$has$two$of$them.$The$other$difference$is$the$role$of$project$
stakeholder$ manager.$ The$ contractor$ has$ a$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ and$ a$ traffic$ manager,$
46"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
because$of$the$scope$and$complexity$of$the$infrastructure$in$this$project.$A$dry$axis$is$crossing$a$wet$
axis.$ At$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ is$ also$ responsible$ for$ the$ traffic$
management.$
$
The$respondents$for$this$case$were$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$and$the$project$
stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor.$The$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$is$working$
for$ RWS$ and$ was$ already$ involved$ at$ an$ early$ stage.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$
contractor$entered$the$project$when$the$realisation$started$and$he$has$been$an$employee$of$RWS$in$
the$past.$
6.2.1. Implementation%of%project%stakeholder%management%
In$this$project$project$stakeholder$management$is$applied$as$an$instrument$and$strategic$oriented.$
Given$ the$ complex$ project$ environment$ it$ is$ needed$ to$ take$ the$ interests$ of$ stakeholders$ into$
account$ in$ order$ to$ be$ able$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ without$ public$ resistance.$ In$ this$ project$ the$
interests$ of$ the$ public$ and$ professional$ stakeholders$ were$ taken$ into$ account.$ The$ last$ group$ of$
stakeholders$ was$ really$ important,$ because$ some$ of$ these$ stakeholders$ have$ short$ lines$ with$ the$
national$ politics$ and$ their$ network$ was$ needed$ to$ inform$ the$ public.$ The$ private$ stakeholders,$ like$
the$ residents$ and$ road$ users,$ on$ the$ other$ hand$ were$ mainly$ informed$ about$ the$ project.$ This$
illustrates$ that$ there$ is$ a$ clear$ distinction$ in$ the$ approach$ of$ public$ and$ professional$ stakeholders$
compared$ to$ the$ approach$ private$ stakeholders.$ The$ public$ and$ professional$ stakeholders$ are$
approached$ as$ equal$ partners$ and$ there$ are$ conversations$ with$ these$ parties,$ this$ indicates$
stakeholder$management.$The$private$stakeholders$on$the$other$hand$are$provided$with$oneRsided$
information,$ which$ indicates$ communication$ rather$ than$ stakeholder$ management.$ The$ contract$
makes$a$distinction$between$public$and$construction$communication.$The$principal$is$responsible$for$
the$ public$ communication$ and$ the$ contractor$ for$ the$ construction$ communication.$ The$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ component$ conditioning$ is$ mainly$ the$ responsibility$ of$ the$ contractor.$
Before$ the$ start$ of$ the$ project$ the$ principal$ only$ executed$ some$ preliminary$ work$ and$ applies$ for$
permits$the$contractor$otherwise$would$not$have$on$time.$The$contractor$worked$with$an$individual$
traffic$manager$who$acts$at$the$management$level.$Most$important$for$this$component$is$that$it$is$
possible$to$use$the$infrastructure$during$the$renovation$of$the$bridge.$The$main$risks$are$related$to$
the$blockings$of$the$canal,$because$there$is$no$alternative$route$available.$For$the$traffic$disruption$
on$the$road$a$reference$model$decides$whether$the$contractor$meets$the$requirements,$and$earns$a$
bonus$or$has$to$pay$a$fee.$
$
Both$project$teams$are$located$in$the$same$office,$but$do$not$operate$as$one$project$organisation.$
This$ was$ illustrated$ with$ examples$ as$ the$ signing$ the$ newsletters$ depends$ on$ the$ type$ of$
communication$ and$ the$ fact$ that$ people$ can$ contact$ principal$ or$ contractor$ for$ complaints.$ The$
respondents$ also$ illustrated$ that$ both$ organisations$ differ$ materially$ from$ each$ other$ and$ have$
different$goals.$$
$
In$ this$ project$ both$ parties$ also$ differ$ in$ the$ interpretation$ of$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$
manager.$For$example,$the$contractor$chose$to$have$an$individual$traffic$manager$due$to$the$scope$
and$complexity$of$the$infrastructure$system.$Each$project$stakeholder$manager$has$his$own$tasks$and$
responsibilities.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ is$ working$ at$ the$ strategic$ and$
tactical$ level.$ His$ function$ is$ mainly$ about$ monitoring$ and$ maintaining$ the$ relations$ that$ exist$ and$
create$ support$ for$ the$ project.$ This$ is$ a$ consequence$ of$ the$ fact$ that$ the$ contractor$ enters$ the$
project$at$a$later$stage$and$that$the$principal$wants$to$stay$the$contact$point$and$the$partner$in$the$
region.$The$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor$acts$mostly$at$the$tactical$and$operational$
level,$so$the$daily$routine$at$and$around$the$construction$site.$He$is$also$better$informed$about$the$
content$ of$ the$ project$ compared$ to$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal.$ Both$
respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$have$different$characters$and$they$make$use$of$each$other’s$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"47"
qualities.$The$division$of$tasks$and$responsibilities$is$quite$strict$and$taking$over$each$other’s$role$is$
therefore$not$possible.$
6.2.2. Collaboration%on%project%stakeholder%management%
The$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ taken$ into$ account$ to$ sketch$ how$
principal$and$contractor$are$collaborating$on$it.$In$this$project$the$collaboration$was$really$intensive$
in$the$beginning$for$the$benefit$of$the$project,$but$right$now$there$are$more$tensions$between$both$
parties.$Certain$issues$that$were$suppressed$in$the$first$place$for$the$benefit$of$the$collaboration,$are$
now$resulting$in$discussions.$It$took$some$time$to$find$a$collective$project$location,$but$a$month$after$
the$realisation$of$the$project$started$both$project$teams$moved$into$one$office$building.$There$is$no$
physical$ distance$ between$ the$ two$ parties,$ because$ both$ project$ teams$ work$ in$ the$ same$ office$ at$
the$ same$ floor,$ without$ passes$ or$ closed$ doors.$ The$ points$ of$ view$ on$ the$ collaboration$ of$ both$
respondents$will$be$discussed.$
$
Respondent"principal"
During$the$ PSU$both$parties$have$agreed$on$some$project$and$behavioural$goals,$since$these$were$
not$ sufficiently$ defined$ in$ the$ contract.$ The$ objectives$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ differ$ and$ with$
financial$ incentives$ the$ principal$ tried$ to$ stimulate$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ at$ the$ side$ of$
the$ contractor.$ Principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ a$ professional$ working$ relationship,$ where$ the$ party$
best$able$bears$a$risk.$There$has$been$one$issue$with$the$placement$of$beams$under$the$bridge.$This$
took$ longer$ than$ expected$ and$ therefore$ a$ crisis$ team$ was$ needed$ to$ manage$ the$ situation.$ This$
delay$resulted$in$a$blockage$of$the$canal$and$was$therefore$not$accessible,$resulting$in$a$lot$of$ships$
at$both$sides$of$the$bridge$and$furious$shipping$companies.$The$respondent$was$really$unhappy$with$
this$situation,$because$regarding$project$stakeholder$management$it$is$really$important$to$be$reliable$
and$predictable$in$such$situations.$$
$
The$respondent$illustrated$that$the$relationship$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$is$good$
and$that$there$are$no$tensions.$Contractual$issues$are$shifted$to$the$contract$managers$in$order$to$
maintain$ the$ relationship$ between$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers.$ For$ project$ stakeholder$
management$ it$ is$ important$ to$ forget$ the$ project$ and$ do$ it$ together.$ According$ to$ the$ respondent$
important$aspects$for$collaboration$are$“the#personalities#of#people,#their#will#to#be#open#and#honest,#
and# the# influence# a# project# stakeholder# manager# has# within# his# or# her# organisation.# If# there# is# no#
support# for# project# stakeholder# management# within# an# organisation,# you# will# not# get# something#
done”.$The$respondent$had$high$expectations$of$the$contractors’$motto,$but$has$been$disappointed$
in$this$several$of$times.$This$has$influence$on$the$trust$the$principal$has$in$the$contractor$and$thereby$
it$influences$the$collaboration.$Right$now$the$contractor$is$making$motions$of$withdrawal$and$has$a$
decreasing$ interest$ in$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ This$ is$ a$ risk$ for$ the$ further$ course$ of$ the$
project.$Besides$that,$the$respondent$will$leave$the$project$in$2015.$This$will$have$consequences$for$
the$ interest$ in$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ as$ well$ and$ for$ the$ collaboration$ with$ the$
contractor.$Important$is$to$keep$focused$on$the$project$stakeholders,$because$in$case$they$are$not$
informed$correctly$and$something$happens$all$established$goodwill$is$gone.$For$the$respondent$the$
project$is$a$success$if$it$will$be$realised$without$further$delays$and$that$there$are$no$surprises$about$
the$quality$of$the$project$after$completion.$$
"
Respondent"contractor"
The$respondent$illustrated$that$in$tense$situations$it$becomes$clear$how$people$deal$with$each$other.$
“Everyone#can#be#friendly#and#keep#to#agreements#if#everything#goes#smoothly,#but#the#moment#there#
are# conflicting# interest# the# real# collaboration# rises# to# the# surface”.$ The$ contract$ is$ a$ fundamental$
element$for$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor,$but$the$respondent$does$not$believe$
this$ directly$ influences$ the$ collaboration.$ This$ is$ more$ dependent$ on$ the$ people$ and$ their$
experiences,$ competences$ and$ character.$ The$ core$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ in$ the$
beginning$of$a$project$and$right$now$the$scope$and$attention$for$it$is$decreasing.$Besides$that,$the$
48"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
project$organisation$will$change$because$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$will$leave$
the$project$and$the$same$might$apply$for$the$respondent$as$well.$These$changes$will$influence$the$
collaboration$ and$ the$ respondent$ illustrated$ that$ “it# is# important# that# project# stakeholder#
management#will#not#completely#disappear,#especially#when#people#will#leave#the#project”.$Most$of$
the$ execution$ risks$ are$ the$ responsibility$ of$ the$ contractor,$ but$ the$ respondent$ indicated$ that$ the$
contractor$ did$ not$ always$ agree$ to$ be$ responsible$ for$ these$ risks$ since$ the$ managing$ contractors$
made$part$of$the$design.$
$
The$respondent$illustrated$that$the$collaboration$between$the$project$stakeholder$managers$is$good$
and$that$they$work$the$most$constructive$together$of$all$managers$in$this$project.$Contractual$issues$
are$shifted$to$the$contract$managers$of$both$parties$to$maintain$the$relationship$between$the$project$
stakeholder$ managers.$ The$ characters$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ match,$ but$ this$ was$
something$that$happened$coincidentally.$The$respondent$has$the$opinion$that$there$should$be$more$
attention$for$the$composition$of$project$teams,$since$these$people$make$a$project.$The$respondent$
has$ work$ experience$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ and$ he$ has$ the$ opinion$ that$ this$ had$ a$ positive$
influence$on$the$collaboration.$$
$
During$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ it$ turned$ out$ that$ it$ is$ hard$ to$ connect$ project$ stakeholder$
management$with$the$people$who$perform$the$work$outside.$Within$the$management$teams$it$can$
be$explained$why$certain$investments$are$valuable,$but$it$is$more$difficult$to$convince$the$people$at$
the$ construction$ site.$ The$ respondent$ also$ illustrated$ that$ it$ is$ hard$ to$ meet$ the$ safety$ and$ health$
requirements$ at$ the$ construction$ site.$ Right$ now$ for$ example$ everyone$ on$ the$ construction$ site$ is$
wearing$ a$ helmet,$ but$ in$ the$ summer$ with$ high$ temperatures$ no$ one$ wears$ one.$ “They# put# their#
helmet#on#if#someone#steps#by#to#control#this.#People#are#aware#of#the#risks#of#not#wearing#a#helmet,#
but#it#is#simply#too#warm#to#wear#them”.$The$project$is$already$a$success$for$the$respondent.$“It#was#
a#challenging#project#regarding#project#stakeholder#management#and#during#the#tensest#period#there#
was#little#negative#attention#for#the#project.#Problems#that#arose#were#well#solved#internally”.$$
6.2.3. State%of%the%collaboration%between%principal%and%contractor%
The$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ vary$ by$ criterion$ and$ the$ level$ of$ it$ can$
change$during$the$course$of$the$project.$The$collaboration$in$this$project$has$developed$to$average$
levels,$ because$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ started$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase$
and$ there$ is$ no$ overarching$ incentive$ to$ collaborate.$ Currently,$ the$ collaboration$ is$ a$ bit$ under$
pressure$and$both$parties$have$to$guard$that$their$collaboration$does$not$deteriorate$with$still$one$
year$ of$ project$ realisation$ to$ go.$ The$ collaboration$ is$ under$ pressure$ because$ the$ scope$ of$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ becomes$ smaller$ and$ therefore$ the$ attention$ of$ the$ contractor$ on$ this$
aspect$ is$ decreasing,$ this$ to$ the$ displeasure$ of$ the$ principal.$ Thereby$ the$ principal$ has$ been$
disappointed$a$couple$of$times$by$the$performance$of$the$contractor$regarding$their$ability$to$realise$
the$project$according$to$their$motto$‘no$surprises,$no$changes’$and$irritations$between$both$parties$
become$more$visible.$Besides$that,$there$are$changes$in$the$staffing$which$makes$the$situation$even$
more$complex.$Taking$the$empirical$findings$of$the$previous$paragraphs$into$account$resulted$in$the$
following$overview$of$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$in$this$project$
according$to$interview$respondents.$The$point$of$view$of$the$respondent$of$the$principal$is$illustrated$
with$the$orange$line$in$Figure$31$and$the$blue$line$illustrates$the$viewpoint$of$the$respondent$of$the$
contractor.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"49"
$
Figure#31:#Radar#chart#of#the#collaboration,#case#2#(own#ill.)#
The$radar$chart$illustrates$the$points$of$view$of$both$respondents$regarding$the$collaboration$in$this$
project$ and$ this$ differs$ on$ three$ of$ the$ six$ criteria.$ So$ on$ some$ criteria$ principal$ and$ contractor$
perceive$ their$ collaboration$ in$ the$ same$ way$ and$ on$ some$ other$ criteria$ they$ have$ a$ different$
perception$ of$ their$ collaboration.$ This$ might$ have$ influence$ on$ the$ collaboration$ because$ the$
expectations$ of$ both$ parties$ are$ not$ always$ aligned.$ This$ was$ already$ illustrated$ in$ the$ interviews$
where$it$became$clear$that$the$principal$had$higher$(or$maybe$other)$expectations$of$the$motto$of$
the$ contractor,$ who$ was$ not$ able$ to$ meet$ these$ expectations$ or$ did$ not$ perform$ as$ agreed$ on.$
Before$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ started$ there$ was$ no$ special$ attention$ for$ the$ collaboration$
between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ but$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ a$ PSU$ and$ PFU’s$ were$
organised.$ Towards$ the$ public$ the$ parties$ do$ not$ act$ as$ one$ organisation,$ but$ they$ act$ more$ as$
individual$parties.$
$
Objectives:$For$both$respondents$serving$the$project$stakeholders$is$the$main$objective,$but$
in$the$interviews$it$was$illustrated$that$the$contractor$as$organisation$has$less$attention$for$project$
stakeholder$ management.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ definitely$ not$ the$ first$ matter$ of$
importance$of$all$employees$of$the$contractor.$Besides$that,$both$respondents$differ$in$their$opinion$
regarding$the$definitions$of$a$successful$project.$For$the$contractor$the$project$is$already$a$success,$
while$the$respondent$of$the$principal$stated:$“The#project#is#a#success#if#the#project#will#be#realised#
without# additional# delays# and# without# surprises# about# the# quality# of# the# work# after# completion”.$
These$differences$resulted$in$differences$in$the$level$of$the$collaboration$on$this$criterion.$
Trust:$Both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$are$collaborating$well$and$that$they$trust$
each$other$with$information.$There$is$no$hidden$agenda$and$there$is$confidence$that$the$project$will$
be$completed$according$to$the$plans.$However,$due$to$past$experiences$and$several$disappointments$
the$principal$has$some$doubts$and$does$not$have$full$confidence$in$the$contractor.$This$resulted$in$a$
lower$level$of$collaboration$on$this$criterion$from$the$point$of$view$of$the$principal.$$
Risk:$This$is$a$criterion$where$principal$and$contractor$have$the$same$point$of$view$regarding$
their$collaboration.$It$was$illustrated$that$the$party$best$able$to$control$the$risk$is$responsible$for$it$
and$this$is$specified$in$the$contract.$It$was$also$noticed$that$the$contractor$tried$to$shift$some$risks$to$
the$ principal$ or$ the$ managing$ contractors,$ in$ case$ the$ managing$ contractors$ made$ that$ part$ of$ the$
design.$The$principal$did$not$directly$approve$these$kinds$of$requests,$but$will$first$look$at$a$request$
from$ a$ business$ point$ of$ view.$ This$ shows$ that$ both$ parties$ want$ to$ minimize$ the$ number$ of$ risks$
they$are$responsible$for$and$it$illustrates$the$professional$position$of$both$in$the$negotiations$of$risks.$
Communication:$The$communication$between$both$parties$is$open$and$transparent,$there$is$
a$weekly$project$stakeholder$management$meeting$and$both$project$teams$are$located$in$the$same$
office.$Because$not$all$information$is$shared$with$each$other$and$both$project$stakeholder$managers$
50"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
are$not$always$present$at$the$office$this$criterion$scores$level$three.$Both$respondents$are$aligned$in$
their$point$of$view$regarding$the$collaboration$on$this$criterion.$
Attitude:" Besides$ a$ PSU$ and$ PFU’s$ there$ are$ no$ specific$ investments$ in$ the$ collaboration,$
thereby$ both$ parties$ act$ more$ individually.$ Right$ now$ the$ attention$ of$ the$ contractor$ for$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ is$ decreasing$ and$ this$ unawareness$ can$ have$ consequences$ for$ the$
progress$ of$ the$ project$ if$ something$ happens$ that$ was$ unexpected.$ The$ limited$ interest$ of$ both$
parties$in$collaboration$resulted$in$a$level$two$score$on$this$criterion.$
Project" organisation:$ In$ this$ project$ the$ respondents$ have$ found$ a$ useful$ solution$ to$ deal$
with$issues$related$to$contractual$issues.$They$do$not$try$to$solve$these$issues,$but$these$issues$are$
shifted$ towards$ both$ contract$ managers.$ This$ has$ a$ positive$ influence$ on$ the$ mutual$ relationship$
between$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers.$ Also$ other$ problems$ are$ solved$ internally$ as$ much$ as$
possible$ and$ there$ is$ a$ good$ working$ model$ in$ case$ an$ issue$ needs$ to$ be$ escalated.$ Regarding$ the$
staffing$of$the$project$there$are$still$possibilities$to$improve$the$level$of$the$collaboration.$In$the$first$
place$it$would$be$better$for$the$progress$of$the$project$that$people$are$involved$from$the$beginning$
until$ the$ end$ of$ the$ project$ and$ both$ respondents$ have$ illustrated$ that$ the$ people$ have$ a$ major$
influence$ on$ the$ success$ of$ the$ project.$ However,$ right$ now$ there$ is$ limited$ attention$ for$ the$
composition$of$the$project$teams$and$this$is$regulated$from$higher$management.$
$
In$this$project$principal$and$contractor$work$together$as$equal$partners$and$help$each$other$if$this$is$
needed.$The$state$of$the$collaboration$can$be$described$as$a$collaborative$relationship,$because$both$
parties$cooperate$with$each$other$because$this$is$needed$to$realise$the$project$but$there$is$no$joint$
action.$ It$ is$ expected$ that$ the$ project$ will$ be$ completed$ as$ planned,$ but$ during$ the$ interviews$ it$
became$ clear$ this$ is$ not$ the$ most$ important$ interest$ of$ the$ respondents,$ this$ is$ probably$ because$
both$will$leave$the$project$before$it$is$completed.$It$seems$that$this$has$decreased$the$interest$of$the$
respondents$in$a$successful$completion$of$this$project.$The$radar$chart$has$illustrated$the$state$of$the$
collaboration$as$it$was$observed$during$the$interviews$with$still$one$year$to$execute.$At$the$moment$
the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ leaves$ the$ project,$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$
between$principal$and$contractor$will$probably$change.$Especially$since$this$new$relationship$has$to$
grow$in$an$environment$with$tensions$between$both$parties.$
6.2.4. Concluding%findings%
In$this$project$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$started$in$the$realisation$phase.$At$
that$ moment$ it$ was$ needed$ to$ take$ immediate$ action,$ because$ the$ most$ important$ parts$ of$ the$
project$ had$ to$ be$ realised$ and$ therefore$ both$ parties$ needed$ each$ other.$ In$ the$ beginning$ of$ the$
realisation$both$parties$aimed$to$realise$best$for$project,$but$right$now$both$parties$have$to$guard$for$
a$ step$ back$ in$ their$ collaboration.$ This$ is$ in$ the$ first$ place$ because$ the$ main$ part$ of$ the$ project$ is$
successfully$ completed$ and$ there$ is$ less$ focus$ on$ collaboration.$ Besides$ that,$ the$ attention$ of$ the$
contractor$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ decreasing$ and$ irritations$ are$ not$ suppressed$
anymore.$This$resulted$in$more$issues$and$tensions$between$both$parties.$Also$the$confidence$both$
parties$have$in$each$other$is$under$pressure,$especially$since$the$contractor$was$not$always$able$to$
be$predictable$and$reliable.$Since$the$point$of$view$of$both$respondents$is$not$aligned$for$the$criteria$
project$organisation,$objectives$and$trust$it$is$important$that$both$parties$discuss$expectations$with$
each$ other.$ In$ case$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ both$ parties$ becomes$ more$ aligned$ on$ these$ criteria,$ the$
collaboration$between$both$can$enhance$as$well.$
$
This$ case$ gave$ reason$ to$ believe$ that$ the$ relationship$ and$ the$ collaboration$ between$ the$ project$
stakeholder$managers$is$more$important$than$the$relationship$and$the$collaboration$between$other$
managers$ in$ the$ project.$ This$ assumption$ is$ supported$ by$ the$ fact$ that$ issues$ between$ the$ project$
stakeholder$managers$are$shifted$to$other$managers$in$order$to$maintain$their$own$relationship.$As$a$
consequence$there$are$differences$in$the$levels$of$the$collaboration$between$the$different$managers.$
Even$ though$ there$ was$ no$ special$ attention$ for$ collaboration$ or$ for$ the$ composition$ of$ the$ staff$ in$
this$project,$both$respondents$have$indicated$that$the$people$and$their$attitude$will$make$(or$break)$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"51"
a$ project.$ In$ this$ project$ everything$ turned$ out$ to$ be$ fine,$ but$ can$ be$ a$ breaking$ point$ in$ the$
collaboration$in$other$projects.$This$case$has$also$illustrated$that$aspects$regarding$collaboration$in$
the$ contract$ are$ not$ sufficient$ and$ that$ additional$ agreements$ regarding$ collaboration$ are$ needed.$
Although$ both$ parties$ focused$ on$ best$ for$ project$ in$ the$ first$ place,$ the$ main$ goal$ right$ now$ is$ to$
complete$the$project$within$time$and$budget$with$some$support$from$the$project$environment.$The$
role$of$the$public$environment$in$this$project$is$minimal,$but$their$interests$were$taken$into$account.$
This$ was$ something$ that$ started$ already$ during$ the$ preparation$ phase$ and$ at$ this$ time$ there$ was$
already$ contact$ with$ the$ professional$ stakeholders$ as$ well.$ The$ stakeholders$ in$ the$ private$
environment$ were$ provided$ with$ oneRsided$ information$ the$ moment$ the$ realisation$ started.$
Maintaining$ the$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ will$ be$ a$ challenge$ because$ the$
staffing$of$the$project$will$change$in$the$coming$time.$
$
In$conclusion$it$can$be$said$that$the$following$lessons$regarding$the$collaboration$between$principal$
and$contractor$can$be$learned$from$this$project:$
• The$mutual$relationship$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$is$really$important$and$
can$be$maintained$by$shifting$discussions$about$contract$and$financials$towards$the$contract$
or$project$managers.$Thereby$the$relationship$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$
will$not$be$harmed,$it$is$questionable$though$what$this$means$for$the$relationships$between$
the$other$managers.$
• A$ contract$ in$ its$ standard$ form$ does$ not$ elaborate$ enough$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$
principal$ and$ contractor.$ So$ an$ additional$ document$ with$ agreements$ about$ the$
collaboration$and$behaviour$of$people$is$advisable.$
• Make$sure$both$parties$have$the$right$expectations$and$for$a$contracting$party$it$is$important$
to$offer$something$that$can$be$realised.$Hereby$it$can$be$useful$to$have$work$experience$by$
principal$ and$ contracting$ parties,$ because$ this$ makes$ it$ easier$ to$ understand$ the$ point$ of$
view$of$the$other$party.$
• Keep$ focused$ on$ the$ project$ and$ invest$ in$ a$ relationship$ for$ the$whole$ course$ of$ a$ project.$
The$relation$between$the$employees$of$the$principal$and$employees$of$the$contractor$might$
improve$by$having$more$attention$for$the$composition$of$project$teams.$$
$
In$this$project$principal$and$contractor$cooperate$with$each$other$to$realise$the$project.$For$now$this$
is$ going$ well,$ but$ there$ are$ developments$ that$ might$ negatively$ influence$ this$ cooperation.$ It$ is$
important$to$take$this$into$account$in$the$further$course$of$the$project,$in$order$to$realise$the$project$
according$to$the$plans.$Time$will$tell$if$principal$and$contractor$are$able$to$realise$this.$
$
6.3. Case"report"3:"A"combined"road"and"railway"tunnel"
In$this$case$a$national$highway$that$currently$crosses$the$city$centre$of$Nijverdal$is$repositioned.$Pub$
owner$Leo$ten$Brinke$was$in$the$seventies$one$of$the$initiators$to$relieve$the$city$centre$of$Nijverdal$
by$directing$car$traffic$through$a$tunnel.$In$1995$it$was$decided$to$relocate$the$road$to$the$north,$but$
the$ financing$ of$ the$ project$ was$ a$ problem.$ In$ 2006$ it$ was$ announced$ that$ the$ project$ would$ be$
realised.$The$plan$included$a$combined$construction$consisting$of$a$partly$sunken$railway$and$road.$
The$ project$ includes$ a$ tunnel$ section$ with$ three$ tubes,$ a$ station,$ four$ bridges,$ two$ crossovers$ and$
two$underpasses$for$pedestrians.$With$the$realisation$of$this$plan$the$existing$road$will$be$relocated$
northwards$over$a$length$of$6$kilometres.$The$goal$of$the$realisation$of$this$project$is$a$better$traffic$
flow$ with$ less$ traffic$ jams$ and$ nuisance,$ thereby$ the$ safety$ and$ accessibility$ of$ the$ station$ area$
should$increase$and$the$train$connection$should$become$more$reliable$and$together$this$all$should$
improve$the$safety$and$liveability$in$the$city.$The$project$was$awarded$in$2007$and$the$construction$
started$ in$ 2008.$ According$ to$ the$ planning$ the$ project$ should$ be$ completed$ in$ 2014,$ but$ due$ to$
problems$with$the$ICT$system$the$opening$is$postponed.$In$Appendix$E$some$additional$information$
about$this$project$and$its$characteristics$can$be$found.$$
$
52"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
Because$ the$ plan$ includes$ the$ construction$ of$ a$ road$ and$ a$ railway$ tunnel,$ there$ are$ two$ public$
principals$ RWS$ and$ ProRail.$ RWS$ is$ the$ principal$ for$ the$ road$ tunnel$ and$ the$ substructure$ of$ the$
railway$ and$ ProRail$ is$ the$ principal$ for$ the$ superstructure$ of$ the$ railway$ and$ manages$ the$
construction$ of$ the$ station.$ The$ requirements$ from$ ProRail$ are$ included$ in$ the$ main$ contract$
between$ RWS$ and$ the$ contractor.$ So$ there$ is$ no$ actual$ relationship$ between$ ProRail$ and$ the$
contractor.$Both$public$organisations$signed$a$collaboration$agreement,$because$both$organisations$
are$ completely$ different$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$ not$ impose$ a$ standard$ method$ and$ therefore$ everyone$
could$work$according$to$their$own$system.$Besides$that,$both$parties$have$to$collaborate$even$after$
the$ completion$ of$ the$ project$ due$ to$ security$ measures.$ A$ calamity$ on$ the$ rail$ shall$ lead$ to$ the$
closure$of$one$road$tunnel.$
$
Besides$RWS$and$ProRail,$the$municipality$and$province$are$important$actors$in$this$project$as$well.$
The$ municipality$ is$ an$ important$ actor$ because$ they$ are$ responsible$ for$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$
infrastructure$ around$ the$ station.$ While$ the$ province$ and$ the$ ministry$ of$ Infrastructure$ and$
Environment$asked$for$a$change$in$the$project$scope$to$ensure$the$infrastructure$would$be$able$to$
handle$the$future$traffic$flows.$
$
The$agreements$between$RWS$and$contractor$are$written$down$in$a$D&C$contract.$All$parties$have$
to$ collaborate$ in$ order$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ goal$ with$ as$ little$ nuisance$ as$ possible$ for$ the$ project$
stakeholders,$ within$ time$ and$ within$ budget.$ After$ the$ completion$ of$ the$ project$ the$ contractor$ is$
responsible$ for$ another$ three$ years$ for$ the$ maintenance,$ this$ is$ actually$ an$ extension$ of$ the$
guarantee$with$three$years.$
$
The$respondents$in$this$case$were$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$and$the$project$
manager$of$the$contractor.$The$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$is$working$for$RWS$and$
entered$the$project$in$2010,$after$a$period$with$a$somewhat$diffuse$view$about$the$role$of$project$
stakeholder$ manager.$ Before$ this$ period$ someone$ else$ fulfilled$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$
manager$at$the$side$of$the$principal.$The$contractor$does$not$have$one$person$who$is$responsible$for$
project$stakeholder$management,$this$task$is$the$responsibility$of$different$functionaries.$The$project$
manager$ has$ the$ final$ responsibility$ and$ was$ therefore$ chosen$ for$ this$ interview.$ The$ project$
manager$ has$ worked$ on$ this$ project$ since$ the$ start$ of$ the$ realisation$ phase$ and$ has$ fulfilled$ three$
different$functions.$In$this$first$place$as$technical$manager,$later$on$as$project$leader$for$the$whole$
project$organisation$of$the$contractor$and$right$now$as$project$manager.$
6.3.1. Implementation%of%project%stakeholder%management%
Project$stakeholder$management$is$in$this$project$strategically$oriented$as$an$instrument$to$realise$
the$project,$as$exemplified$by$the$respondent$of$the$principal$“project#stakeholder#management#does#
not#have#an#own#entity#or#goal,#but#it#is#used#to#support#the#project#as#a#whole”.$$
$
This$ case$ has$ also$ illustrated$ that$ there$ can$ be$ a$ huge$ difference$ between$ the$ stakeholders$ in$ the$
public$and$private$environment$of$a$project.$The$stakeholders$in$the$public$environment$are$actively$
participating$ in$ the$ project$ and$ decision$ making$ process,$ while$ the$ private$ environment$ is$ mainly$
informed$about$the$project.$ Because$ the$number$of$authorities$and$the$ complexity$of$the$decision$
making$ process,$ the$ principal$ has$ the$ major$ responsibility$ on$ the$ component$ stakeholder$
management.$For$this$component$the$role$of$the$contractor$is$more$facilitating.$Most$tasks$that$are$
part$of$the$component$conditioning$are$outsourced$and$the$responsibility$of$the$contractor.$There$is$
one$ exception,$ the$ permit$ for$ the$ opening$ of$ the$ tunnel.$ Due$ to$ new$ legislation$ regarding$ tunnel$
safety$ it$ was$ chosen$ to$ not$ outsource$ the$ application$ for$ this$ permit.$ The$ component$ conditioning$
was$in$this$project$merely$about$permits,$cables$and$pipelines$and$soil$analyses.$Traffic$management$
was$ a$ minor$ component$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ The$ nuisance$ for$ road$ users$ was$
limited,$ because$ the$ project$ was$ realised$ to$ the$ north$ of$ the$ existing$ road.$ The$ realisation$ of$ the$
project$did$resulted$in$some$nuisance$for$the$local$traffic,$because$some$roads$were$close$and$there$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"53"
were$ fewer$ possibilities$ to$ cross$ the$ railway.$ The$ major$ part$ of$ traffic$ management$ was$ the$
responsibility$of$the$contractor.$For$the$components$of$project$stakeholder$management$that$have$
been$discussed$the$distinction$in$responsibility$between$principal$and$contractor$is$quite$clear.$This$is$
much$ harder$ for$ the$ aspect$ communication$ because$ the$ tasks$ and$ different$ levels$ of$ project$
stakeholder$management$have$more$overlap.$Therefore$it$was$decided$to$approach$communication$
as$one$team,$the$motto$here$was$‘speaking$with$one$voice’.$Although$the$responsibilities$within$this$
team$ approach$ were$ still$ distinguished$ based$ on$ the$ division$ of$ public$ and$ construction$
communication.$
$
Both$respondents$illustrated$that$their$organisations$have$different$goals$and$that$the$approach$ of$
project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ completely$ different.$ The$ most$ striking$ difference$ is$ the$
organisation$of$project$stakeholder$management.$The$principal$has$a$project$stakeholder$manager,$
who$is$responsible$for$project$stakeholder$management$together$with$his$team.$The$contractor$on$
the$ other$ hand$ does$ not$ have$ the$ function$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager.$ The$ different$
components$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ are$ the$ responsibility$ of$ different$ managers.$ The$
respondent$of$the$contractor$has$noted$that$he$would$approach$this$differently$in$a$coming$project.$
“The# next# time# I# would# put# the# responsibility# for# project# stakeholder# management# by# a# specific#
person.#If#I#was#RWS,#I#would#maybe#even#require#the#contractor#to#arrange#his#project#organisation#
according#to#the#IPM#model”.$There$is$a$clear$division$in$the$responsibilities$for$project$stakeholder$
management$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Most$ of$ the$ operational$ tasks$ were$ contracted$ to$
the$contractor$if$this$was$possible.$This$is$in$line$with$the$idea$of$RWS$to$control$the$project$from$a$
distance.$$
6.3.2. Collaboration%on%project%stakeholder%management%
Now$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ has$ been$ illustrated,$ it$ is$ possible$ to$
elaborate$ on$ how$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ collaborated.$ This$ project$ was$ a$ pilot$ for$ RWS$ to$
experiment$ with$ ‘controlling$ the$ project$ from$ a$ distance’$ during$ the$ realisation.$ Therefore$ the$
contractor$was$located$in$a$site$office$at$the$construction$site,$while$RWS$had$2$FTE$available$for$this$
project$ to$ control$ the$ project$ at$ a$ distance.$ This$ resulted$ in$ a$ negative$ setting$ for$ collaboration$
between$principal$and$contractor.$This$was$highlighted$several$times$by$the$contractor,$and$after$a$
couple$of$years$it$was$recognised$by$the$principal$as$well.$From$2011,$the$management$teams$of$RWS$
and$ ProRail$ were$ located$ in$ a$ site$ office$ at$ the$ construction$ site.$ In$ the$ period$ 2011R2012$ the$
collaboration$was$still$a$bit$difficult,$but$has$improved$after$the$signing$of$the$‘package$deal’$and$an$
adjustment$of$the$contract$with$incentives$for$collaboration.$The$points$of$view$of$both$respondents$
will$be$discussed.$
$
Respondent"principal"
RWS$and$ProRail$acted$from$a$distance$at$the$start$of$the$realisation$phase$of$this$project.$Later$on$it$
turned$ out$ difficult$ to$ keep$ to$ this$ strategy$ and$ both$ principals$ moved$ to$ the$ construction$ site$ as$
well.$This$made$it$easier$to$step$by$each$other$and$discuss$thing$on$an$adhoc$basis.$According$to$the$
respondent$ collaboration$ is$ possible$ in$ case$ both$ parties$ agree$ about$ the$ fact$ that$ they$ disagree$
about$a$certain$situation$and$in$such$cases$the$contract$becomes$an$important$document.$During$the$
project$realisation$some$adjustments$to$contract$were$made$to$make$collaboration$more$attractive$
for$the$contractor.$The$contract$had$to$be$reviewed$due$to$scope$changes$and$a$financial$incentive$to$
stimulate$ collaboration$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ contractor$ was$ included$ rather$ than$ maximising$ their$
turnover.$There$were$some$long$drawnRout$issues$that$threatened$to$stagnate$the$project$progress.$
In$2012$all$public$parties$agreed$on$a$soRcalled$‘package$deal’.$In$this$deal$every$party$had$to$give$and$
take,$and$within$two$months$there$was$an$agreement$whereby$fifteen$long$drawnRout$issues$were$
solved.$
Regarding$the$collaboration$during$the$whole$project$the$respondent$has$a$somewhat$nuanced$look$
at$the$extent$to$which$both$parties$succeeded$in$filling$in$the$collaboration$in$this$project$and$hold$to$
this$ collaboration$ during$ tense$ moments.$ “Both# parties# had# the# tendency# to# close# the# shutters# at#
54"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
tense#moments#and#at#these#moments#non#of#the#parties#wanted#to#be#disturbed”.$The$project$is$not$
successful$ for$ the$ respondent$ until$ the$ tunnel$ is$ opened.$ Besides$ that,$ the$ satisfaction$ among$ the$
residents$is$mentioned$as$important$indicator$of$the$project$success$and$for$the$coming$period$it$is$
important$ to$ keep$ the$ support.$ “An# enthusiastic# public# will# have# a# positive# influence# on# the#
collaboration.# Collaboration# is# stimulated# for# example# in# case# there# is# a# load# applause# after# an#
information# meeting# for# residents”.$ The$ respondent$ expects$ that$ there$ will$ come$ some$ discussions$
about$the$responsibilities$regarding$the$delay$in$the$opening$of$the$tunnel$and$who$is$going$to$pay$
for$this.#$$$
$
Respondent"contractor"
Because$ the$ principal$ controlled$ the$ project$ from$ a$ distance,$ collaboration$ was$ difficult$ in$ the$
beginning$ of$ the$ project.$ The$ respondent$ has$ the$ opinion$ that$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$
and$contractor$is$going$really$well$at$this$moment.$This$is$due$to$the$fact$that$the$principal$moved$to$
the$construction$site$as$well.$Besides$that,$the$respondent$illustrated$that$this$is$also$because$RWS$
has$in$the$last$couple$of$years$a$quite$consist$project$team$and$the$same$applies$for$the$team$of$the$
contractor.$“Having#a#lot#of#changes#within#the#project#organisation#is#fatal#for#the#collaboration.#We#
could#have#acted#more#together#from#the#beginning.#The#collaboration#for#the#communication#worked#
really#well,#but#this#could#be#improved#by#acting#more#intensively#together”.$Other$difficulties$in$the$
collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ were$ related$ to$ differences$ in$ expectations$ and$
absence$of$trust$at$the$side$of$the$principal.$
$
The$respondent$illustrated$that$although$the$contractor$had$only$a$contract$with$RWS,$they$had$to$
deal$with$ProRail$as$well.$“ProRail#is#not#used#to#be#the#second#fiddle#and#they#did#no#act#as#such#in#
this#project#either.#So#in#reality#we#were#dealing#with#two#principal#parties”.$During$project$realisation$
some$ large$ contractual$ adjustments$ were$ chosen$ as$ basic$ principle$ to$ create$ a$ common$ goal$ with$
mutual$interests.$Right$now$there$are$some$difficulties$with$the$ICT$systems$in$the$tunnel$and$it$will$
take$ some$ time$ to$ fix$ this.$ For$ the$ respondent$ “the# flag# is# not# hanging# out# before# the# tunnel# is#
opened”.##
6.3.3. State%of%the%collaboration%between%principal%and%contractor%
The$level$that$illustrates$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$be$different$for$each$
criterion$and$can$also$change$during$the$course$of$the$project.$In$this$project$the$collaboration$has$
developed$ to$ fairly$ high$ levels$ and$ this$ has$ grown$ over$ time.$ Due$ to$ the$ controlling$ on$ a$ distance$
strategy$of$the$principal$the$collaboration$was$limited$in$the$beginning,$but$this$has$improved$later$
on$when$the$principal$arranged$an$office$at$the$construction$site$and$abandoned$the$controlling$on$a$
distance$ strategy.$ This$ resulted$ in$ investments$ in$ the$ collaboration$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$
project$ and$ both$ parties$ agreed$ on$ some$ behavioural$ rules.$ Although$ the$ collaboration$ has$
developed$over$time,$a$more$intensive$collaboration$would$have$been$desirable$in$the$beginning$of$
the$project.$This$because$the$contractor$had$to$make$a$design$based$on$over$2500$requirements$of$
the$principal.$It$does$require$some$consultations$between$principal$and$contractor$in$order$to$make$a$
feasible$design.$Based$on$the$empirical$findings$of$the$previous$paragraphs$the$following$overview$of$
the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$be$given.$The$point$of$view$of$the$
principal$ is$ illustrated$ with$ the$ orange$ line$ in$ Figure$ 32$ and$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ contractor$ is$
illustrated$with$the$blue$line.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"55"
$
Figure#32:#Radar#chart#of#the#collaboration,#case#3#(own#ill.)#
The$radar$chart$illustrates$that$both$respondents$have$a$different$point$of$view$regarding$the$level$of$
their$collaboration$on$four$of$the$six$aspects.$So$for$the$majority$of$the$criteria$the$respondents$have$
a$different$perception$of$their$collaboration.$This$can$have$influence$on$the$collaboration$because$it$
illustrates$that$both$parties$experience$their$collaboration$differently.$These$differences$in$the$state$
of$ the$ collaboration$ are$ related$ to$ the$ false$ start$ of$ collaboration$ in$ this$ project.$ The$ principal$
expected$ that$ the$ project$ could$ be$ controlled$ from$ a$ distance,$ something$ that$ turned$ out$ to$ be$
impossible.$However,$this$still$influences$the$perception$of$the$principal.$This$is$mainly$illustrated$by$
the$ fact$ that$ the$ principal$ had$ to$ take$ the$ lead$ in$ some$ issues$ although$ they$ prefer$ the$ contractor$
would$do$this.$There$are$still$some$unrealistic$expectations$at$the$side$of$the$principal$regarding$the$
acting$and$behaviour$of$the$contractor.$Besides$some$formals$meetings$there$was$no$attention$for$
the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$at$the$start$of$the$project$realisation.$Later$on$the$
importance$ of$ collaboration$ was$ recognised$ and$ investments$ have$ been$ made$ to$ stimulate$ the$
collaboration$and$principal$and$contractor$acted$as$one$organisation$in$the$communication$towards$
the$public.$
$
Objectives:" This$ project$ has$ two$ milestones$ regarding$ to$ the$ products$ that$ have$ to$ be$
realised,$the$first$objective$was$the$opening$of$the$tunnel$for$the$trains$and$the$second$milestone$will$
be$ the$ opening$ of$ the$ road$ tunnels.$ The$ first$ milestone$ was$ achieved$ and$ right$ now$ principal$ and$
contractor$ are$ looking$ for$ options$ to$ achieve$ the$ second$ one$ as$ well.$ These$ milestones$ have$ to$ be$
achieved$ by$ collaborative$ acting$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Therefore$ principal$ and$ contractor$
signed$ an$ agreement$ with$ a$ financial$ incentive$ for$ the$ contractor.$ The$ respondent$ of$ the$ principal$
focused$on$the$fact$that$it$was$needed$to$stimulate$the$contractor$to$collaborate$more,$something$
that$ was$ preferred$ by$ the$ principal.$ While$ the$ respondent$ of$ the$ contractor$ explained$ that$ this$
agreement$with$its$objectives$have$benefits$for$both$parties.$There$is$a$difference$in$the$perception$
of$both$parties$regarding$this$criterion,$although$the$objectives$of$both$parties$are$aligned$right$now.$
Because$this$was$realised$on$initiative$of$the$principal$(RWS$in$this$case),$they$do$not$experience$this$
as$such.$
$
Trust:$ It$ was$ illustrated$ that$ the$ contract$ contains$ a$ lot$ of$ paper$ work$ with$ over$ 2500$
requirements.$ These$ requirements$ are$ simplified$ by$ the$ contractor,$ which$ sometimes$ resulted$ in$ 4$
requirements$ that$ must$ be$ complied$ with$ instead$ of$ 50.$ Besides$ the$ enormous$ number$ of$
requirements,$ the$ principal$ has$ a$ lot$ of$ procedures$ and$ protocols$ the$ contractor$has$ to$ meet.$ This$
illustrates$that$the$principal$wants$to$keep$control$on$the$actions$of$the$contractor$and$indicates$that$
there$is$no$full$confidence$in$the$contractor.$This$is$remarkable,$especially$since$the$principal$wanted$
to$control$the$project$from$a$distance$by$outsourcing$tasks$to$the$contractor.$Given$this$number$of$
requirements$ and$ protocols$ the$ contractor$ has$ interest$ in$ more$ collaboration$ with$ the$ principal$ in$
56"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
order$to$make$a$design$that$was$in$line$with$their$expectations.$This$difference$in$the$experience$of$
mutual$trust$resulted$in$the$different$scores$on$this$criterion.$
$
Risk:$ The$ collaboration$ on$ this$ criterion$ is$ what$ more$ difficult$ to$ define.$ There$ is$ no$
collaborative$ approach$ regarding$ risks$ and$ the$ contractor$ bears$ most$ of$ the$ risks.$ However,$ the$
principal$ took$ initiative$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ and$ some$ long$ drawnRout$ issues$ that$ might$
hinder$the$project$progress$were$solved$in$a$package$deal.$Therefore$the$principal$scores$higher$on$
this$criterion$compared$to$the$contractor$who$did$not$act$to$solve$these$issues.$
Communication:$ The$ contractor$ wanted$ to$ be$ open$ and$ transparent$ towards$ other$ parties$
and$therefore$shared$most$of$the$information$that$was$relevant$for$other$parties.$The$principal$was$a$
bit$ fearful$ regarding$ the$ amount$ of$ information$ the$ contractor$ shared$ with$ a$ stakeholder$ like$ the$
municipality.$The$communication$between$the$team$members$of$both$parties$improved$the$moment$
the$principal$had$an$office$at$the$construction$site,$because$the$physical$barrier$to$contact$each$other$
disappeared.$$
Attitude:" Attitude$ is$ one$ of$ the$ criteria$ that$ changed$ over$ time,$ because$ especially$ at$ the$
start$of$the$project$there$were$no$incentives$to$collaborate.$Over$time$there$was$more$invested$in$
the$ collaboration$ by$ making$ collaboration$ financial$ attractive$ for$ the$ contractor$ and$ both$ parties$
became$more$interested$in$solving$problems$instead$of$endless$discussions$about$was$agreed$on$in$
the$contract$and$how$things$turned$out$in$reality.$
Project"organisation:$Also$this$criterion$would$have$scored$a$different$level$at$the$start$of$the$
realisation$phase.$During$the$realisation$of$the$project$both$organisations$changed,$the$project$team$
of$the$principal$started$with$2$people$and$now$counts$around$30$people.$Besides$the$changes$in$the$
organisation$itself$the$attitude$of$the$employees$regarding$collaboration$has$positively$changes$and$
there$ is$ interest$ in$ realising$ the$ project$ together,$ because$ it$ turned$ out$ that$ both$ parties$ had$ to$
collaborate$in$order$to$realise$the$project.$
$
Although$ the$ project$ teams$ of$ both$ parties$ were$ not$ integrated,$ something$ that$ was$ probably$
impossible$ due$ to$ the$ start$ of$ the$ project,$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ in$ this$ project$ can$ be$
described$as$a$collaborative$relationship.$Also$considering$the$investments$made$to$remove$barriers$
and$ searching$ for$ opportunities$ to$ improve$ collaboration.$ Despite$ the$ good$ prospects$ it$ appeared$
impossible$to$open$the$road$tunnels$on$time,$this$due$to$problems$with$the$ICT$systems.$Because$this$
is$ a$ recent$ development$ it$ is$ unclear$ when$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ open$ the$ tunnel.$ The$ radar$ chart$ has$
illustrated$the$state$of$the$collaboration$as$it$was$observed$during$the$interviews.$It$is$expected$that$
the$collaboration$in$this$project$will$remain$at$the$levels$it$is$right$now,$but$in$case$there$will$be$tense$
discussions$ about$ which$ party$ will$ pay$ for$ the$ delay$ this$ might$ influence$ the$ state$ of$ the$
collaboration.$$
6.3.4. Concluding%findings%
In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$ contractor$ started$ to$ work$ together$ in$ the$ realisation$ phase.$ At$ the$
moment$ the$ contract$ was$ awarded$ the$ principal$ made$ motions$ of$ withdrawal$ and$ started$ with$
controlling$the$project$at$a$distance.$At$the$same$time$the$contractor$started$at$the$construction$site$
with$preparatory$works$for$the$realisation.$Due$to$the$complexity$of$the$project$and$its$environment$
this$ turned$ out$ to$ be$ an$ impossible$ situation.$ So$ after$ a$ false$ start,$ both$ parties$ invested$ in$
collaboration$and$this$resulted$in$more$openness$towards$each$other,$trust,$and$a$shared$objective$
for$ a$ successful$ realisation$ of$ the$ project.$ The$ analysis$ of$ this$ case$ illustrated$ that$ there$ are$
possibilities$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ in$ this$ project.$ It$ is$
important$that$both$parties$discuss$their$points$of$view$on$the$collaboration$since$their$point$of$view$
is$ not$ aligned$ for$ four$ of$ the$ criteria.$ Is$ questionable$ though$ if$ these$ investments$ are$ worthwhile,$
since$the$project$is$almost$completed.$
$
This$case$showed$that$it$is$never$too$late$to$invest$in$collaboration$if$both$parties$are$interested$and$
are$willing$to$cooperate.$Because$there$was$no$attention$for$collaboration$at$the$start$of$the$project,$
the$relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$is$not$that$intense$and$had$to$develop$over$time.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"57"
Due$to$this$arrears$extra$measures$were$needed$to$develop$the$collaboration.$In$this$project$more$
parties$participated$in$the$collaborative$agreements,$because$the$project$had$some$overlaps.$In$the$
first$place$principal$and$contractor$agreed$on$some$behavioural$rules,$this$made$sure$everyone$acted$
the$ same$ way.$ Besides$ that,$ there$ were$ some$ long$ drawnRout$ issues$ that$ could$ not$ be$ solved$
because$all$parties$hold$to$their$opinion.$In$order$to$make$collaboration$possible$these$issues$needed$
to$be$solved.$Therefore$all$these$issues$were$combined$and$the$parties$had$to$give$and$take$in$this.$
Thereby$the$contractor$was$encouraged$to$collaborate$more$by$making$this$attractive$with$a$financial$
incentive.$ As$ illustrated$ some$ parties$ from$ the$ public$ environment$ were$ already$ involved$ in$ the$
collaboration$ because$ some$ of$ their$ projects$ had$ an$ overlap$ with$ this$ project$ or$ they$ became$
financially$involved$due$to$scope$changes.$This$indicates$the$importance$of$the$actively$involvement$
of$the$principal$in$a$project,$since$these$public$parties$prefer$to$work$together$with$another$public$
party$ instead$ of$ the$ contractor.$ The$ stakeholders$ in$ the$ private$ environment$ were$ involved$ during$
the$preparation$of$the$project$and$had$contact$with$the$principal.$After$the$project$was$awarded,$the$
contractor$ had$ to$ take$ over$ this$ task$ without$ a$ transfer$ phase.$ Later$ on$ principal$ and$ contractor$
started$to$speak$with$one$voice$towards$the$public.$This$project$has$illustrated$that$the$attitude$of$
the$ public$ is$ really$ project$ and$ location$ dependent.$ A$ project$ like$ this$ might$ have$ led$ to$ public$
opposition$in$Amsterdam$for$example.$Positive$about$this$project$is$that$the$realisation$of$it$gives$a$
really$nice$solution$for$an$issue$that$has$been$discussed$for$years.$$$
$
In$conclusion$it$can$be$said$that$the$following$aspects$are$interesting$to$take$into$account$in$future$
projects:$
• It$ is$ never$ too$ late$ to$ start$ with$ collaboration.$ This$ case$ has$ illustrated$ that$ despite$ a$ false$
start$ regarding$ collaboration,$ it$ was$ possible$ to$ complete$ the$ project$ together.$ In$ order$ to$
realise$this$it$is$important$that$both$parties$want$to$collaborate$and$invest$in$this.$This$can$be$
realised$ with$ formal$ and$ informal$ measures,$ but$ also$ by$ agreeing$ on$ behavioural$ rules$ and$
the$absence$of$physical$distance.$Hereby$it$is$important$to$take$into$account$that$a$false$start$
regarding$ collaboration$ will$ always$ leaves$ a$ scar$ and$ it$ is$ preferable$ that$ the$ collaboration$
starts$from$the$beginning.$
• The$ principal$ should$ be$ careful$ with$ the$ outsourcing$ of$ tasks$ to$ a$ contractor,$ because$ a$
contractor$is$not$always$able$to$fulfil$these$tasks$and$for$other$stakeholders$there$is$a$huge$
difference$ in$ communicating$ with$ a$ contractor$ compared$ to$ communicating$ with$ the$
principal.$ In$ case$ it$ is$ chosen$ to$ outsource$ a$ lot$ of$ tasks$ to$ the$ contractor,$ make$ sure$ that$
there$is$a$phase$where$everything$is$transferred$from$one$party$to$the$other.$In$this$phase$
the$principal$has$to$familiarise$the$contractor$with$the$project$and$its$environment.$
• In$ case$ a$ project$ has$ an$ overlap$ with$ another$ project$ and$ different$ public$ parties$ are$
financially$ involved$ in$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project,$ it$ is$ important$ to$ involve$ and$ commit$
these$ parties$ actively$ to$ the$ project.$ This$ makes$ the$ decision$ making$ process$ much$ easier$
and$it$minimises$the$number$of$meetings.$
• It$ is$ possible$ to$ work$ really$ close$ together$ regarding$ one$ aspect$ of$ project$ stakeholder$
management$ (communication$ in$ this$ case),$ while$ there$ is$ more$ distance$ and$ a$ less$ intense$
collaboration$between$both$parties$on$the$other$aspects.$$
$
After$a$false$start$principal$and$contractor$began$to$collaborate$and$other$public$parties$were$actively$
involved$as$well$in$order$to$realise$the$project$successfully.$This$went$quite$well,$but$right$now$there$
is$a$hitch$in$the$progress$of$the$project$due$to$problems$with$the$ICT$systems.$Both$parties$have$to$
find$out$what$causes$these$problems$and$how$to$deal$with$it.$This$delay$in$the$opening$of$the$tunnel$
will$ also$ have$ financial$ consequences,$ regarding$ the$ current$ collaboration$ it$ would$ be$ nice$ if$ both$
parties$have$an$open$attitude$regarding$the$division$of$costs$and$avoid$a$situation$where$both$parties$
blame$each$other.$Time$will$tell$how$both$parties$will$deal$with$this$issue.$
58"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
6.4. Case"report"4:"Create"space"for"water"in"the"river"by"trenching"the"forelands"
With$ the$ realisation$ of$ this$ project,$ the$ water$ in$ the$ river$ the$ Lek$ gets$ more$ space.$ This$ project$
should$decrease$the$water$level$with$8$centimetres$in$case$of$high$water.$It$is$one$of$the$more$than$
thirty$ projects$ that$ are$ part$ of$ the$ RWS$ program$ ‘space# for# water’$ (Dutch:$ Ruimte$ voor$ de$ Rivier).$
This$ program$ started$ in$ 1995$ after$ extreme$ high$ water$ levels,$ evacuations$ of$ citizens$ and$ almost$
flooding$ situations.$ The$ rivers$ in$ the$ Netherlands$ have$ to$ deal$ with$ continually$ increasing$ water$
levels.$They$have$to$process$more$rain$and$melt$water,$while$there$is$limited$space$within$the$dikes.$
Therefore$the$chance$of$flooding$has$increased.$Heighten$dikes$is$not$enough$to$solve$this$problem,$
the$water$level$has$to$decrease$as$well.$Therefore$the$space$for$water$program$was$initiated$by$RWS$
and$together$with$water$boards,$municipalities$and$provinces,$more$space$for$the$water$in$the$rivers$
is$created$at$more$than$thirty$places$in$the$Netherlands.$Examples$to$create$space$for$the$water$are$
repositioning$dikes,$trenching$secondary$channels$and$deepening$the$forelands.$
$
This$project$includes$the$repositioning$of$a$summer$dike,$trenching$secondary$channels$and$lowering$
the$ dam$ that$ gives$ access$ to$ the$ floodRcontrol$ island$ (Dutch:$ stuweiland).$ In$ Appendix$ E$ some$
additional$project$characteristics$can$be$found.$With$the$realisation$of$this$project$the$area$does$not$
only$become$safer,$but$will$become$nicer$for$the$public$as$well.$The$project$gives$an$opportunity$to$
create$an$area$where$nature$and$recreation$come$out$well.$So$the$area$becomes$more$attractive$for$
walkers$and$cyclists.$$
$
As$one$of$the$projects$in$the$space$for$water$program,$this$project$was$initiated$by$RWS.$Within$this$
program$ RWS$ tried$ to$ decentralise$ the$ realisation$ of$ these$ measurements$ as$ much$ as$ possible.$
Therefore$the$province$made$the$plan$for$this$project,$but$they$indicated$that$they$are$not$familiar$
with$the$execution$of$projects$like$this$and$this$task$was$returned$to$RWS.$In$the$further$course$of$
the$project$both$parties$were$involved,$but$RWS$had$the$lead$in$the$realisation$of$the$project.$The$
province$was$responsible$for$the$provincial$implementation$plan$(Dutch:$provinciaal$inpassingsplan),$
therefore$it$was$not$needed$that$all$four$adjacent$municipalities$made$an$new$zoning$plan.$For$the$
realisation$ of$ the$ project$ RWS$ and$ the$ province$ collaborated$ with$ four$ municipalities$ that$ are$
adjacent$to$the$project$and$the$two$water$boards$in$this$area.$Also$the$residents$and$other$interested$
parties$ are$ intensively$ involved$ in$ the$ preparation$ phase.$ In$ the$ first$ place$ there$ were$ plans$ to$
construct$highRrise$buildings$at$the$project$location,$but$these$plans$did$not$fit$within$the$space$for$
water$program$and$were$not$realised.$Instead$of$highRrise$buildings$a$natural$filling$in$of$the$area$is$
realised$with$this$project.$$$
$
In$ 2012$ the$ tender$ phase$ started$ and$ nine$ contractors$ competed$ for$ this$ project.$ In$ December$ of$
that$year$the$project$was$awarded$to$the$contractor.$Nine$parties$took$part$in$the$tender.$The$project$
was$awarded$to$the$party$that$offered$the$best$price,$because$RWS$and$the$province$had$already$a$
detailed$overview$of$the$construction$works.$The$offer$had$to$meet$the$requirements$as$set$by$the$
public$ parties.$ Some$ of$ these$ requirements$ were$ the$ consequence$ of$ the$ input$ from$ the$ residents$
during$the$preparation$phase.$They$preferred$limited$nuisance$and$attention$for$nature$realisation.$
Therefore,$materials$have$to$be$transported$by$water$to$prevent$unsafe$situations$and$construction$
traffic$ through$ the$ cities.$ The$ contractor$ started$ in$ 2013$ with$ preparation$ activities$ like$
archaeological$ and$ ecological$ research,$ investigation$ of$ unexploded$ bombs,$ research$ of$ the$ soil$
quality,$ and$ the$ application$ of$ permits.$ The$ construction$ works$ started$ in$ 2014$ and$ the$ project$
should$be$completed$in$2015.$
$
The$respondents$in$this$case$were$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$and$the$project$
stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor.$The$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$is$working$
for$ RWS$ and$ is$ committed$ to$ this$ project$ from$ the$ initiation$ phase.$ Besides$ to$ the$ role$ of$ project$
stakeholder$manager$in$this$project,$she$has$the$role$of$technical$manager$in$another$project$that$is$
part$of$the$space$for$water$program.$The$project$stakeholder$of$the$contractor$entered$the$project$in$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"59"
the$ beginning$ of$ 2014.$ Before$ that$ some$ else$ fulfilled$ the$ role$ and$ in$ between$ there$ was$ a$
temporarily$solution.$Also$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$contractor$is$not$solely$working$on$
this$project,$she$fulfils$the$role$of$project$stakeholder$manager$as$well$in$another$project$of$the$space$
for$water$program$(this$is$another$project$than$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$is$
working$for).$
6.4.1. Implementation%of%project%stakeholder%management%
In$ this$ case$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ communicative$ oriented,$ in$ order$ to$ realise$ the$
project$ together$ with$ its$ stakeholders.$ This$ project$ was$ approached$ with$ this$ communicative$
orientation$ because$ the$ principal$ understood$ the$ consequences$ it$ might$ have$ if$ the$ opinion$ of$ the$
project$ stakeholders$ was$ not$ taken$ into$ account.$ Especially$ since$ the$ private$ stakeholders$ were$
already$ well$ organised.$ Therefore$ the$ underlying$ idea$ of$ the$ orientation$ project$ stakeholder$
management$is$strategically.$In$this$project$a$distinction$can$be$made$between$public$stakeholders$
and$ the$ private$ stakeholders.$ Both$ groups$ of$ stakeholders$ are$ approached$ differently,$ but$ all$ are$
represented$in$the$feedback$group$(Dutch:$klankbordgroep).$With$the$public$stakeholders$there$are$
meetings$ on$ a$ regular$ basis.$ This$ are$ meetings$ between$ principal$ and$ the$ public$ parties,$ the$
contractor$is$not$present$in$these$meetings.$There$is$contact$with$the$private$stakeholders$during$the$
feedback$ group$ meeting$ and$ thereby$ different$ communication$ means$ are$ used$ to$ inform$ these$
stakeholders.$ The$ principal$ has$ the$ lead$ in$ stakeholder$ management,$ while$ the$ contractor$
participates$ in$ the$ feedback$ group$ meetings$ as$ well.$ According$ to$ the$ contract$ communication$ is$
divided$in$public$and$construction$communication,$this$means$that$most$of$the$communication$is$the$
responsibility$of$the$principal.$The$project$teams$of$both$parties$have$their$own$approach$regarding$
communication$ and$ act$ as$ individual$ parties.$ Conditioning$ was$ a$ quite$ large$ component$ in$ this$
project$and$it$was$almost$completely$the$responsibility$of$the$contractor.$In$case$the$contractor$had$
difficulties$in$contacting$the$municipalities$for$permits$the$principal$would$help$the$contractor$in$this.$
Besides$ that,$ the$ principal$ already$ performed$ some$ soil$ analyses$ before$ the$ start$ of$ the$ project$
because$issues$with$unexploded$bombs$were$expected.$This$was$an$important$issue$in$the$beginning,$
but$it$turned$out$that$there$were$no$bombs$at$all.$The$component$traffic$management$is$really$small$
in$this$project,$because$the$project$does$not$realise$infrastructure$and$the$construction$materials$are$
transported$by$water.$Most$important$for$this$component$is$the$safety.$There$is$one$connection$for$
the$construction$traffic$that$crosses$a$cyclist$connection,$here$a$safe$cross$point$is$most$important.$$
$
Although$both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$support$each$other$in$case$needed,$there$is$no$
real$ collaboration$ and$ acting$ together$ as$ one$ organisation$ in$ this$ project.$ The$ mutual$ relationship$
between$both$parties$is$good,$issues$are$discussible,$and$both$parties$are$able$to$do$their$jobs.$In$a$
certain$ way$ both$ parties$ make$ it$ possible$ for$ each$ other$ to$ complete$ the$ project$ successfully,$ but$
there$is$no$intensive$collaboration.$Regarding$project$stakeholder$management$both$parties$have$the$
same$ interests.$ Both$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ have$ different$ roles$ and$ responsibilities.$ The$
project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$has$a$better$view$on$the$big$picture,$while$the$project$
stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ contractor$ is$ more$ concerned$ with$ operational$ aspects$ of$ project$
stakeholder$ management.$ In$ this$ project$ the$ principal$ has$ the$ lead$ regarding$ project$ stakeholder$
management$ especially$ on$ the$ aspects$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ communication,$ while$ the$
project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ contractor$ is$ responsible$ for$ her$ own$ issues$ regarding$
conditioning$ at$ operational$ level$ and$ the$ construction$ communication.$ In$ this$ project$ traffic$
management$is$a$minor$aspect,$because$the$contract$already$made$clear$that$the$contractor$was$not$
allowed$to$use$the$public$roads$and$therefore$materials$need$to$be$transported$by$water.$$
6.4.2. Collaboration%on%project%stakeholder%management%
The$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ has$ been$ discussed$ and$ is$ taken$ into$
account$to$illustrate$how$principal$and$contractor$are$collaborating$on$it.$This$project$has$a$relative$
small$scope$and$therefore$both$parties$are$not$fulltime$working$on$it.$There$was$no$specific$interest$
in$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ but$ in$ the$ PSU$ both$ parties$ agreed$ on$ a$
60"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
common,$ overarching$ goal$ “realisation# of# the# project# within# time# and# budget# with# mutual# trust,#
openness# and# transparency”.$ This$ statement$ is$ reviewed$ during$ PFU’s.$ In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$
contractor$ have$ their$ own$ responsibilities,$ but$ help$ each$ other$ if$ this$ is$ needed.$ During$ the$
realisation$there$were$no$major$changes$in$the$relationship$between$both$parties.$The$points$of$view$
of$both$respondents$will$be$discussed.$
$
Respondent"principal"
This$ project$ has$ a$ D&C$ contract$ and$ therefore$ a$ lot$ of$ the$ responsibilities$ are$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$
contractor.$The$respondent$indicates$that$contractors$often$ask$the$principal$what$to$do,$but$this$is$a$
responsibility$ the$ principal$ does$ not$ want$ to$ have.$ “I# can# say# what# a# contractor# has# to# do,# but# if#
something#goes#wrong#I#am#the#one#to#blame#and#that#is#not#my#role.#So#you#are#constantly#looking,#
where# do# I# facilitate# the# contractor# and# where# not”.$ There$ is$ an$ overarching$ project$ goal$ and$ both$
project$ stakeholder$ managers$ have$ the$ same$ role$ for$ their$ field$ of$ expertise.$ According$ to$ the$
respondent$it$is$questionable$whether$the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management$is$coming$
through$at$directional$level.$“Especially#by#some#older#owners#of#contractors,#who#anticipate#on#the#
project#environment#because#it#is#a#request#of#RWS”.$The$respondent$illustrated$that$for$collaboration$
it$ is$ of$ major$ importance$ that$ you$ understand$ each$ other$ and$ understand$ the$ underlying$ idea$ of$
what$is$written$is$documents,$because$each$person$can$interpret$a$sentence$differently.$
$
“In#this#project#principal#and#contractor#are#already#working#on#documents#for#the#transfer#phase#that#
starts# after# the# project# is# completed.# The# future# maintainers# of# the# project# are# involved# already,# so#
later#on#they#cannot#say#they#did#not#know”.$The$respondent$has$trust$in$the$contractor,$something$
she$indicated$as$important$for$collaboration.$Another$important$aspect$is$listening$to$each$other$and$
taking$ each$ other$ seriously.$ “The# collaboration# in# this# project# is# going# well.# This# is# something# that#
starts# with# the# project# manager,# because# he# has# an# openfminded# attitude# everything# can# be#
discussed”.$ The$ respondent$ has$ good$ fait$ that$ the$ project$ will$ be$ completed$ within$ time$ and$ that$
everything$will$go$well.$
$
Respondent"contractor"
The$communication$with$the$principal$is$pleasant$and$professional.$Therefore$all$issues$can$be$solved$
with$mutual$agreements.$The$respondent$illustrated$that$over$time$some$irritation$will$grow$and$that$
due$to$busyness$of$people$this$is$not$always$discussed.$“It#is#really#important#for#the#collaboration#to#
take# the# time# to# discuss# these# issues# and# minimise# these# irritations”.$ Both$ project$ stakeholder$
managers$have$the$same$goal$“keeping#the#stakeholders#satisfied”.$The$respondent$has$the$opinion$
that$project$stakeholder$management$focuses$on$people$and$that$it$is$really$collaborationRoriented.$
“In#every#project#the#people#who#are#working#on#it#will#make#or#break#the#project#and#their#ability#to#
work#with#each#other#is#important#as#well.#If#this#goes#well,#it#is#possible#to#improve#a#project.#But#in#
case#two#people#do#not#like#each#other,#it#will#go#completely#wrong”.$During$project$realisation$it$is$
important$ to$ keep$ the$ dialogue$ and$ talk$ about$ each$ other’s$ expectations.$ A$ contractor$ does$ not$
always$ have$ the$ money$ to$ invest$ in$ additional$ measurements$ and$ in$ case$ the$ principal$ has$ this$
possibility$ and$ expects$ the$ same$ from$ the$ contractor$ they$ can$ be$ disappointed.$ “Therefore# it# is#
important#to#understand#each#other’s#interests#and#position,#to#be#able#to#understand#the#reaction#of#
the#other#parties”.$The$respondent$has$the$opinion$that$people$will$make$or$break$a$project$and$that$
it$ might$ be$ interesting$ to$ get$ insight$ in$ each$ other’s$ strengths$ and$ weaknesses$ before$ you$ start$ to$
collaboration.$ “The# attitude# of# people# determines# the# way# principal# and# contractor# collaborate.#
Collaboration#is#a#matter#of#giving#and#taking,#and#looking#where#it#is#possible#to#meet#each#other.#
Important#here#is#to#watch#that#you#will#not#overcharge#the#other#party”.$
$
The$respondent$clarified$that$given$her$position$is$would$be$better$if$she$was$involved$in$this$project$
from$the$beginning,$but$due$to$changes$in$the$staffing$this$was$the$given$situation.$The$respondent$
expects$that$the$project$will$be$realised$within$time.$“There#is#still#a#lot#of#work#to#do,#but#I#do#not#
foresee# things# that# will# hinder# the# progress.# The# project# is# a# success# in# case# both# parties# look# back#
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"61"
satisfied,#with#a#feeling#that#we#have#realised#this#project#nicely#together”.$A$positive$financial$result$
is$important$for$the$contractor,$since$realisation$of$this$project$is$not$a$‘hobby’.#
6.4.3. State%of%the%collaboration%between%principal%and%contractor%
The$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$change$over$time$and$might$be$
on$ a$ different$ level$ for$ each$ criterion.$ In$ this$ project$ some$ criteria$ that$ illustrate$ the$ state$ of$ the$
collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$score$fairly$high,$while$others$score$much$less.$This$is$
because$ the$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ for$ some$ criteria$ rather$ traditional,$
while$there$is$a$more$collaborative$relationship$regarding$some$other$aspects.$Although$both$parties$
do$ not$ act$ as$ one$ project$ organisation,$ the$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ not$
adversarial.$ Both$ parties$ help$ each$ other$ if$ this$ is$ possible$ given$ their$ own,$ personal$ interests$ and$
therefore$investments$have$been$made$in$the$mutual$relationship.$This$resulted$in$a$pleasant$work$
environment$ without$ tensions$ and$ where$ principal$ and$ contractor$ want$ the$ best$ for$ each$ other$ in$
case$this$does$not$interfere$with$own$interests.$Because$there$were$no$major$events$or$issues$in$this$
project,$the$state$of$the$collaboration$did$not$change$much$over$time,$although$the$changes$in$the$
staffing$ of$ the$ project$ might$ have$ resulted$ in$ small$ shifts.$ The$ empirical$ findings$ of$ the$ previous$
paragraphs$resulted$in$the$following$overview$of$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$
contractor$ in$ this$ project$ according$ to$ both$ respondents.$ The$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ principal$ is$
illustrated$ with$ the$ orange$ line$ in$ Figure$ 33$ and$ the$ blue$ line$ illustrates$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$
contractor.$
$
Figure#33:#Radar#chart#of#the#collaboration,#case#4#(own#ill.)#
The$ radar$ chart$ illustrates$ that$ both$ respondents$ have$ a$ similar$ view$ about$ the$ state$ of$ their$
collaboration.$ Although$ the$ collaboration$ does$ not$ reach$ the$ highest$ level,$ it$ is$ illustrated$ that$
principal$and$contractor$have$the$same$expectations$and$perception$of$their$collaboration.$This$was$
indicated$in$the$interviews$as$well,$where$both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$are$satisfied$
with$ the$ course$ of$ the$ project.$ Before$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project$ started$ there$ was$ no$ special$
attention$for$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$During$the$PSU$both$parties$signed$a$
mission$ statement$ and$ the$ goals$ of$ this$ document$ are$ regularly$ mentioned$ and$ discussed$ during$
meetings.$Besides$the$PSU$there$are$PFU’s$as$well$to$discuss$the$progress$of$the$project.$Towards$the$
public$principal$and$contractor$act$as$individual$parties.$$
Objectives:$ The$ empirical$ data$ illustrated$ that$ both$ parties$ have$ a$ shared$ objective.$ During$
the$PSU$both$parties$agreed$to$pursue$this$goal$and$the$progress$of$this$is$regularly$discussed.$This$
also$applies$for$the$goal$regarding$project$stakeholder$management.$
Trust:$In$this$project$mutual$trust$exists$between$principal$and$contractor,$both$parties$have$
confidence$in$each$other$and$know$each$other’s$position.$However,$it$is$important$for$the$principal$
that$this$trust$can$be$supported$by$facts.$$
62"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
Risk:$Regarding$risks$and$financials$each$party$has$its$own$interests$and$therefore$the$state$of$
collaboration$on$this$aspect$scores$poorly.$Especially$the$respondent$of$the$principal$has$illustrated$
that$she$does$not$want$to$be$blamed$for$choices$she$could$have$made$for$the$contractor.$There$is$
also$no$joint$approach$in$controlling$the$risks.$$
Communication:$ In$ the$ communication$ and$ information$ not$ everything$ is$ open$ and$
transparent.$ Not$ all$ information$ is$ shared$ with$ each$ other$ and$ there$ are$ meetings$ behind$ closed$
doors$where$the$contractor$is$not$welcome$to$participate.$It$is$also$important$to$mention$that$both$
project$ teams$ are$ not$ always$ located$ in$ the$ same$ office,$ although$ there$ is$ an$ office$ that$ can$
accommodate$both$project$teams.$Regarding$the$communication$towards$the$feedback$group$there$
is$much$more$openness.$
Attitude:$Both$respondents$have$illustrated$that$they$want$to$work$jointly$together$on$this$
project.$Therefore$it$is$tried$to$solve$problems$as$soon$as$possible$and$there$is$no$blame$culture.$In$
case$there$are$issues$this$is$discussed$with$each$other,$this$is$recognised$by$both$respondents$who$
have$the$feeling$that$everything$can$be$discussed.$Besides$that,$the$contractor$does$not$strictly$keeps$
to$what$has$been$offered$in$the$contract$and$fulfils$some$additional$work$without$discussions.$This$
resulted$ in$ a$ more$ open$ attitude$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ as$ well$ and$ resulted$ that$ both$ parties$
sometimes$give$and$sometimes$take$without$extensive$discussions.$
Project"organisation:$Also$the$members$in$both$project$teams$are$motivated$to$collaborate$
and$ realise$ the$ project$ together.$ Expectations$ are$ aligned$ and$ there$ is$ a$ shared$ goal$ both$ parties$
want$ to$ achieve.$ In$ this$ project$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ invested$ in$ collaboration$ in$ order$ to$
create$a$nice$and$pleasant$work$environment,$where$both$parties$work$together$if$possible$and$have$
a$ more$ traditional$ relationship$ regarding$ some$ other$ aspects.$ In$ this$ project$ both$ parties$ will$ help$
each$ other$ where$ possible,$ but$ a$ real$ intensive$ collaboration$ with$ shared$ resources$ is$ out$ of$ the$
question.$
$
In$this$project$principal$and$contractor$work$jointly$together$as$equal$partners$in$order$to$realise$the$
project.$The$state$of$the$collaboration$can$be$described$as$a$collaborative$relationship,$because$both$
parties$cooperate$with$each$other$to$realise$the$project.$There$is$no$real$joint$action,$but$there$is$no$
competition$ between$ both$ parties$ either.$ Both$ respondents$ have$ illustrated$ that$ they$ expect$ that$
the$project$will$be$completed$within$time$and$in$good$cooperation$with$each$other.$If$the$project$will$
be$delivered$on$time,$both$respondents$have$different$opinions$regarding$the$success$of$the$project.$
The$principal$focuses$more$on$the$transfer$of$the$project$to$the$future$maintainer,$while$the$financial$
result$is$important$for$the$contractor.$The$radar$chart$has$illustrated$the$state$of$the$collaboration$as$
it$was$observed$during$the$interviews$with$still$one$year$to$execute.$It$is$expected$that$the$state$of$
the$collaboration$in$this$project$will$remain$on$the$same$levels$as$illustrated$in$the$figure.$
6.4.4. Concluding%findings%
In$this$project$principal$and$contractor$started$to$collaborate$in$the$realisation$phase$of$the$project.$
At$that$moment$the$team$of$the$principal$was$already$working$on$this$project$for$a$couple$of$years$
and$had$to$familiarise$the$contractor$with$the$project.$Hereafter$both$parties$started$to$collaborate$
with$a$professional$attitude$in$order$to$realise$the$project$and$support$each$other$where$possible.$At$
this$ moment$ this$ seems$ to$ work$ well$ and$ the$ project$ runs$ smoothly.$ This$ is$ a$ consequence$ of$ the$
attitude$of$the$members$in$both$project$teams$and$the$pleasant$working$environment$that$is$created$
together.$ The$ point$ of$ view$ of$ both$ parties$ regarding$ their$ collaboration$ is$ aligned,$ so$ there$ is$ no$
need$ for$ interventions.$ In$ case$ preferred$ by$ both$ parties$ the$ collaboration$ could$ be$ enhanced$ by$
investing$ in$ achieving$ a$ higher$ score$ on$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ for$ different$ criteria.$ Given$ the$
scope$of$this$project$it$is$questionable$whether$the$benefits$outweigh$the$investments.$
$
This$ case$ has$ illustrated$ that$ the$ collaboration$ in$ the$ project$ is$ good,$ although$ the$ level$ of$
collaboration$ does$ not$ has$ the$ highest$ scores.$ This$ led$ to$ the$ assumption$ that$ the$ level$ of$
collaboration$does$not$indicate$whether$a$collaboration$is$good$or$bad.$Because$the$opinion$of$both$
respondents$ is$ aligned$ as$ illustrated$ in$ the$ radar$ chart,$ this$ gives$ reason$ to$ believe$ that$ it$ is$ more$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"63"
important$that$both$parties$have$the$same$point$of$view$regarding$collaboration$and$are$therefore$
able$ to$ anticipate$ on$ the$ behaviour$ of$ the$ other$ party.$ It$ indicates$ that$ it$ is$ not$ always$ needed$ to$
collaborate$closely$as$long$as$both$parties$are$open$about$this,$trust$each$other$and$aim$for$a$shared$
goal.$Thereby$the$collaborative$oriented$attitude$of$the$people$working$in$this$project$had$a$positive$
influence$on$the$collaboration.$The$contractor$did$not$compare$everything$with$what$was$offered$in$
the$contract$and$realised$some$tasks$without$a$request$to$be$paid$for$extra$work.$This$resulted$in$a$
more$open$attitude$at$the$side$of$the$principal$as$well$and$right$now$there$is$a$culture$where$both$
parties$ sometimes$ give$ and$ sometimes$ take.$ The$ plan$ was$ that$ the$ province$ would$ execute$ the$
project$but$during$the$plan$study$phase$the$province$realised$that$they$did$not$have$the$experience$
to$ realise$ a$ project$ like$ this$ and$ RWS$ was$ asked$ to$ take$ the$ lead.$ Before$ the$ project$ was$ awarded$
there$was$already$contact$with$the$stakeholders$in$the$public$environment.$Also$the$stakeholders$in$
the$ private$ environment$ were$ involved$ before$ the$ project$ was$ awarded,$ this$ was$ mainly$ because$
there$was$already$a$group$of$wellRorganised$stakeholders$who$were$involved$by$the$development$of$
the$ real$ estate$ plans$ for$ this$ area$ before$ the$ space$ of$ water$ program$ stepped$ by.$ Later$ on,$ the$
contractor$ needed$ to$ be$ introduced$ to$ these$ stakeholders$ and$ they$ had$ to$ build$ up$ a$ relationship,$
where$the$principal$was$already$a$step$ahead.$The$realisation$of$this$project$leads$to$a$nice$solution$
for$the$stakeholders$who$live$in$this$area$and$all$involved$parties$have$an$interest$in$increasing$the$
water$safety.$Although$there$have$been$some$changes$in$the$staffing$of$the$project,$the$relationship$
is$good$and$in$case$everything$will$go$as$expected$both$parties$are$able$to$maintain$this$relationship.$
$
In$conclusion$it$can$be$said$that$the$following$aspects$are$interesting$to$take$into$account$into$future$
project,$although$the$state$of$the$collaboration$did$not$score$high$on$all$criteria:$
• A$ lower$ level$ of$ the$ collaboration$ does$ not$ necessarily$ mean$ that$ the$ collaboration$ is$ not$
good.$It$is$more$important$that$the$points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$regarding$the$
state$of$their$collaboration$are$aligned.$$
• With$ a$ collaborative$ oriented$ attitude$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ create$ an$ open$ and$ transparent$
working$environment,$even$though$not$everything$is$done$together.$In$order$to$realise$this$it$
is$important$that$both$parties$have$the$same$expectations$and$both$parties$are$willing$to$give$
regarding$some$issues$and$can$take$in$another$situation.$$
• It$ is$ important$ to$ make$ some$ agreements$ regarding$ the$ collaboration$ and$ create$ mutual$
objectives.$The$progress$of$these$agreements$needs$to$be$discussed$on$a$regular$basis$and$in$
general$it$is$important$that$all$issues$can$be$discussed$with$each$other.$
• In$ a$ less$ complex$ project$ it$ is$ easier$ to$ maintain$ a$ relationship,$ because$ the$ chance$ major$
risks$occur$and$result$in$issues$is$smaller.$
$
The$principal$was$already$working$on$this$project$and$had$contact$with$the$stakeholders$the$moment$
this$project$was$awarded.$After$this$the$principal$made$sure$the$contractor$was$able$to$join$in$this$
project$ and$ from$ that$ moment$ on$ both$ parties$ seek$ to$ realise$ the$ project$ together.$ For$ the$ time$
being$this$all$went$quite$well$and$without$further$implications$both$parties$have$to$be$able$to$hold$
this$till$the$project$is$completed.$
$
$
%%
64"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
7. C
ROSS"CASE"ANALYSIS"AND"DISCUSSION"
$
$
The$aim$of$this$chapter$is$to$compare$the$individual$case$analyses$from$chapter$6$with$each$other.$
The$ empirical$ observations$ and$ analysis$ of$ the$ four$ individual$ cases$ resulted$ in$ some$ interesting$
findings$ for$ each$ case.$ This$ chapter$ will$ compare$ the$ individual$ case$ findings$ with$ each$ other$ and$
subsequently$the$findings$of$this$cross$case$analysis$will$be$discussed$based$on$the$existing$literature$
as$elaborated$on$in$chapter$3.$The$preliminary$conclusions$of$each$section$were$used$as$input$for$an$
interactive$workshop$with$the$respondents$of$the$interviews.$The$aim$of$the$workshop$was$to$test$
the$validity$of$the$research$findings.$After$a$presentation$about$the$research$and$an$overview$of$the$
main$findings,$there$were$three$interactive$discussions$sessions.$The$discussions$and$conclusions$of$
this$workshop$meeting$will$be$used$to$reflect$on$the$preliminary$conclusions.$Whether$the$findings$
can$be$regarded$as$valid$is$determined$with$the$involvement$of$the$interview$respondents.$The$setR
up$ of$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ is$ further$ described$ in$ appendix$ H,$ including$ the$ presentation$ as$
presented.$The$first$section$of$this$chapter$will$elaborate$on$remarkable$differences$and$similarities$
regarding$the$findings$of$the$different$cases,$the$second$section$will$discuss$how$project$stakeholder$
management$was$implemented$and$applied$in$the$case$study$projects,$the$third$section$will$compare$
the$radar$charts$that$illustrate$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor,$and$
this$chapter$will$end$with$the$fourth$section$where$the$concluding$findings$will$be$discussed.$$$
$
7.1. Comparing"the"findings"of"the"four"projects"
In$this$section$the$more$general$findings$based$on$the$factual$information$that$was$collected$during$
the$case$study$research$will$be$compared$with$each$other.$The$factual$information$of$the$different$
cases$was$listed$and$resulted$in$an$overview$that$can$be$found$in$Appendix$G.$This$overview$includes$
aspects$ that$ say$ something$ about$ the$ collaboration$ and$ relationship$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor$and$is$a$summary$of$the$empirical$findings$of$chapter$6.$The$information$obtained$in$the$
different$cases$is$compared$with$each$other$and$the$main$findings$regarding$remarkable$similarities$
and$ differences$ will$ be$ discussed$ in$ the$ first$ two$ paragraphs$ of$ this$ section.$ This$ will$ result$ in$ new$
insights$ and$ findings,$ and$ might$ be$ a$ reason$ to$ assume$ that$ a$ finding$ is$ more$ general$ applicable.$
Therefore$in$literature$was$searched$for$theories$and$researches$to$review$these$assumptions.$This$
resulted$in$the$preliminary$conclusions$that$were$reviewed$later$on$during$the$workshop$meeting.$
7.1.1. Similarities%
Analysing$the$factual$information$of$the$cases$and$comparing$the$main$findings$of$each$case,$results$
in$ an$ overview$ of$ a$ number$ of$ similarities$ between$ the$ cases.$ The$ following$ interesting$ and$
remarkable$similarities$can$be$identified:$
• The$ four$ projects$ have$ a$ corresponding$ organisation$ structure$ with$ meetings$ at$
management,$ organisational$ and$ directional$ level$ and$ use$ formal$ instruments$ of$ RWS$ (like$
the$PSU$and$PFU’s)$to$shape$the$collaboration.$In$case$there$are$issues,$an$escalation$model$
is$available$and$there$are$formal$procedures$on$how$to$handle$in$case$something$occurs.$$
• In$ all$ projects$ additional$ agreements$ regarding$ collaboration$ were$ made,$ because$ in$ the$
original$ contract$ this$ was$ not$ described$ sufficiently$ extensive.$ The$ contract$ is$ more$ a$
document$where$all$the$products$the$contractor$has$to$deliver$are$defined.$It$is$questionable$
if$these$agreements$on$collaboration$have$to$become$part$of$the$contract,$because$this$was$
only$the$case$in$one$of$the$projects.$In$the$other$projects$an$additional$document$was$made,$
where$principal$and$contractor$agreed$on$collaborative$agreements.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"65"
•
•
•
It$was$recognised$in$all$projects$that$most$of$the$issues$between$principal$and$contractor$are$
related$to$contractual$and$financial$issues.$These$are$often$issues$that$could$not$have$been$
foreseen,$ so$ there$ is$ no$ clarity$ about$ the$ party$ that$ is$ responsible$ and$ is$ going$ to$ pay.$ The$
projects$gave$some$options$to$deal$with$these$kinds$of$issues,$but$a$general$approach$cannot$
be$found.$
Although$the$foundation$of$the$project$is$good,$in$the$end$the$people$working$on$the$project$
are$the$ones$who$can$make$the$difference.$But$the$projects$illustrated$as$well$that$there$is$
limited$attention$for$the$composition$of$project$teams$and$matching$the$characters$of$team$
members.$
Besides$ the$ regular$ meetings$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ the$ project$ stakeholder$
managers$keep$in$contact$with$each$other$about$the$daily$routine.$Remarkable$is$that$in$case$
something$ occurs,$ often$ ones$ tried$ to$ solve$ the$ issue$ internally$ before$ the$ other$ party$ is$
informed.$ The$ means$ to$ communicate$ with$ each$ other$ are$ the$ same$ in$ all$ the$ projects,$
namely$ contact$ by$ phone,$ mail$ or$ faceRtoRface.$ Relevant$ information$ is$ shared$ with$ each$
other,$although$in$all$projects$it$was$indicated$that$not$all$information$is$openly$shared.$$
$
Literature"reflection"
Most$of$the$findings$related$to$the$similarities$between$the$projects$are$in$line$with$what$is$already$
known$from$literature.$It$illustrates$that$there$is$clarity$about$the$hard$side$of$project$management,$
because$this$is$all$laid$down$in$processes,$procedures$and$real$products.$The$soft$side,$the$side$that$
focuses$more$about$relationships,$is$less$easy$to$formulate$(Reinking,$2013).$This$is$because$this$side$
of$collaboration$is$about$people$and$shaping$the$relationships$between$people.$These$relationships$
are$ the$ basis$ for$ a$ good$ collaboration$ and$ are$ a$ requirement$ in$ order$ to$ achieve$ the$ project$
objective.$ This$ soft$ side$ of$ collaboration$ can$ be$ found$ in$ the$ case$ study$ project$ where$ it$ was$
illustrated$that$people$make$the$difference$and$that$an$open$and$transparent$attitude$toward$each$
other$ is$ important$ as$ well.$ The$ importance$ of$ communication$ has$ been$ illustrated$ in$ several$
researches$(Beach,$Webster,$&$Campbell,$2005;$Black,$Akintoye,$&$Fitzgerald,$2000;$Reinking,$2013).$
Projects$ should$ emphasise$ on$ full$ and$ open$ communication$ with$ a$ need$ to$ work$ together.$ Sharing$
information$and$knowledge$is$needed$and$there$is$no$room$for$hidden$agendas$(Briscoe,$Dainty,$&$
Millett,$ 2001).$ The$ fact$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ make$ additional$ agreements$ regarding$
collaboration$ is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ findings$ in$ literature.$ In$ the$ literature$ was$ already$ noticed$ that$ an$
appropriate$ contract$ is$ necessary,$ but$ that$ this$ is$ insufficient$ to$ ensure$ an$ effective$ working$
relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$(Bresnen$&$Marshall,$2000b;$Suprapto$et$al.,$in$press).$
The$ contract$ is$ limited$ in$ the$ ability$ to$ guide$ parties$ to$ interpret$ problems$ that$ emerge$ later$ on.$
Therefore$ it$ is$ important$ to$ focus$ more$ on$ this$ soft$ side$ of$ people$ and$ relationships$ and$ make$
agreements$ about$ this.$ Here$ it$ is$ important$ to$ remember$ that$ a$ relationship$ cannot$ be$ fully$
described$in$a$contract.$$
7.1.2. Differences%
Analysing$and$comparing$the$collected$information$and$the$main$findings$of$each$case$has$illustrated$
some$differences$between$the$four$cases.$This$resulted$in$the$following$overview$of$remarkable$and$
interesting$differences:$
• The$ use$ of$ informal$ instruments$ is$ needed$ to$ make$ collaboration$ successful.$ As$ elaborated$
on$ in$ the$ previous$ paragraph,$ in$ all$ projects$ are$ formal$ instruments$ used$ to$ structure$ and$
design$the$collaboration.$However,$some$projects$use$informal$instruments$as$well$in$order$
to$improve$the$collaboration.$Examples$of$informal$investments$in$the$collaboration$are$the$
organisation$ of$ a$ barbecue,$ having$ drinks$ or$ visit$ another$ project.$ In$ these$ projects$ this$
informal$ contact$ with$ each$ other$ is$ experienced$ as$ important$ for$ the$ collaboration.$ These$
kinds$ of$ contacts$ are$ important$ in$ order$ to$ understand$ each$ other$ and$ establish$ a$ certain$
level$of$trust.$
• The$ importance$ of$ communication$ is$ recognised$ in$ the$ different$ projects.$ It$ was$ already$
illustrated$ that$ the$ means$ of$ communication$ are$ the$ same$ for$ all$ four$ cases,$ but$ the$ most$
66"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
•
•
•
used$form$of$communication$differs$for$each$project.$This$is$related$to$the$presence$of$the$
project$ stakeholder$ managers$ at$ the$ office$ near$ the$ construction$ site.$ In$ case$ the$ project$
stakeholder$ managers$ are$ not$ always$ presence$ here,$ it$ is$ not$ possible$ to$ have$ faceRtoRface$
contact.$ This$ physical$ distance$ is$ a$ barrier$ to$ contact$ each$ other.$ Apparently$ it$ is$ easier$ to$
step$by$each$other$instead$of$making$a$phone$call.$
The$physical$distance$between$the$parties$is$a$barrier$to$collaborate$as$well.$Not$in$all$cases$
the$project$teams$of$principal$and$contractor$were$located$at$the$construction$site$(from$the$
beginning),$this$made$it$harder$to$collaborate$with$each$other$and$to$work$on$the$principal$
contractor$relationship.$
Regarding$taking$risks$and$issues$about$financials$a$party$can$take$two$positions.$Parties$can$
have$a$really$professional$point$of$view$where$everything$that$is$not$in$the$contract$will$be$
discussed$ with$ each$ other$ or$ there$ is$ more$ openness$ resulting$ in$ a$ situation$ where$ each$
party$gives$and$takes$every$once$in$a$while.$
The$ education$ background$ and$ working$ experience$ of$ all$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$
differs.$ An$ interesting$ finding$ here$ is$ that$ all$ the$ respondents,$ with$ one$ exception,$ have$
worked$ for$ only$ principal$ or$ contracting$ parties.$ The$ exception$ worked$ for$ both,$ principal$
and$ contracting$ parties$ and$ here$ it$ was$ illustrated$ that$ this$ person$ is$ better$ able$ to$ put$
himself$in$the$position$of$the$other$party.$
$
Literature"reflection"
Literature$ already$ illustrated$ that$ collaboration$ or$ partnering$ will$ not$ succeed$ without$ focusing$ on$
teamwork$ and$ continuous$ improvement$ and$ that$ nothing$ will$ change$ without$ considerable$ effort$
from$all$players.$It$was$also$discussed$that$negotiations$based$on$a$contract$indicates$a$lack$of$trust$
and$that$for$successful$collaboration$a$‘gentleRmen’s$agreement’$should$be$used$instead$of$a$formal$
agreement$(Black$et$al.,$2000).$Briscoe$et$al.$(2001)$support$this$by$stating$that$there$should$be$less$
reliance$on$contractual$communications$and$more$emphasis$on$oral$communication.$Reinking$(2013)$
has$ mentioned$ that$ around$ 80$ percent$ of$ communication$ is$ based$ on$ nonRverbal$ communication.$
This$ supports$ the$ fact$ that$ physical$ distance$ can$ be$ a$ huge$ barrier$ and$ disadvantage$ for$
collaboration.$Improving$collaboration$in$practice$can$conflict$with$organisational$culture,$especially$
at$the$start$of$the$collaboration$where$cognitive$levels$of$trust$have$not$been$established$yet$(Beach$
et$ al.,$ 2005).$ Communication$ between$ the$ parties$ is$ important$ here$ in$ understanding$ each$ party’s$
expectations,$attitude$and$limitations.$Conflicts$of$interests$will$almost$inevitably$occur$at$some$stage$
during$a$project.$The$purpose$of$any$resolution$process$should$be$to$resolve$problems$as$quickly$as$
possible$and$at$the$lowest$possible$level$without$legal$processes.$In$current$research$no$attention$has$
been$paid$to$the$work$experiences$and$personalities$of$the$people$working$in$the$project$teams.$This$
research$has$illustrated$that$people$are$of$major$importance$in$the$success$of$a$project$and$therefore$
it$is$interesting$to$pay$more$attention$to$the$people$working$in$a$project$team.$
7.1.3. Preliminary%conclusions%
Comparing$ the$ four$ cases$ and$ analysing$ the$ similarities$ and$ differences$ between$ the$ cases$ as$
described$in$the$previous$paragraphs$leads$to$the$following$preliminary$conclusions:$
• Principal$and$contractor$have$to$make$additional$agreements$regarding$collaboration,$since$
this$ is$ insufficiently$ described$ in$ a$ standard$ contract.$ There$ are$ a$ number$ of$ options$ to$ do$
this,$ but$ it$ is$ preferably$ done$ as$ early$ as$ possible$ in$ order$ to$ establish$ trust$ between$ the$
parties.$ The$ agreements$ regarding$ collaboration$ can$ become$ a$ part$ of$ the$ contract$ or$ it$ is$
independent$document.$It$is$questionable$which$option$is$preferable.$
• Since$ financial$ issues$ are$ often$ a$ point$ of$ discussion,$ it$ is$ important$ to$ find$ a$ way$ to$ solve$
these$issues$beforehand.$Options$to$do$this$are:$making$agreements$in$the$contract,$create$a$
joint$ financial$ fund$ that$ is$ managed$ together$ or$ shift$ issues$ like$ this$ to$ contract$ or$ project$
manager.$ Important$ here$ is$ that$ a$ personal$ relationship$ should$ not$ be$ influenced$ by$ these$
kinds$of$issues.$$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"67"
•
•
•
Establish$ trust$ and$ invest$ in$ the$ collaboration$ by$ getting$ to$ know$ each$ other.$ In$ case$ both$
parties$ understand$ each$ other’s$ expectations,$ attitude$ and$ limitations$ it$ becomes$ easier$ to$
collaborate.$ It$ is$ important$ to$ be$ able$ to$ look$ at$ a$ situation$ from$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$
other$party.$Work$experience$at$principal$and$contracting$parties$helps$in$this.$
Principal$and$contractor$should$pay$more$attention$to$the$composition$of$project$teams$and$
the$ match$ of$ characters$ of$ team$ members,$ since$ people$ are$ the$ key$ in$ collaboration.$
Therefore$ it$ is$ remarkable$ that$ there$ is$ limited$ attention$ for$ this$ right$ now.$ Thereby$ it$ is$
important$that$people$are$willing$to$collaborate,$because$if$people$do$not$support$the$idea$of$
collaboration$ it$ will$ definitely$ not$ work.$ So$ the$ focus$ should$ be$ on$ the$ soft$ side$ of$
collaboration,$since$the$hard$side$is$already$well$developed.$
Work$ at$ the$ same$ location$ as$ much$ as$ possible,$ because$ this$ minimises$ the$ barriers$ to$
collaborate$ and$ contact$ each$ other.$ This$ will$ result$ in$ more$ real$ life$ communication$ and$
makes$it$easier$to$understand$each$other$correctly.$
$
Reflection"experts"
The$preliminary$conclusions$of$this$section$were$the$input$for$the$first$interactive$discussion$session$
with$ the$ interview$ respondents.$ Each$ discussion$ started$ with$ a$ proposition$ based$ on$ one$ of$ the$
findings.$
$
The$participants$agreed$that$besides$the$contract,$additional$agreements$regarding$collaboration$are$
needed$to$align$expectations.$The$point$of$view$whether$these$agreements$should$become$part$of$
the$ contract$ was$ fluctuating$ during$ the$ discussion.$ In$ the$ end$ the$ advice$ was$ given$ not$ to$ make$
collaboration$ agreements$ part$ of$ the$ contract,$ because$ the$ collaboration$ takes$ place$ in$ a$ dynamic$
environment$where$new$people$in$a$project$might$have$a$different$point$of$view.$In$case$a$certain$
form$ of$ collaboration$ is$ required$ by$ the$ contract$ this$ might$ give$ problems.$ Therefore$ it$ is$
recommended$to$lay$down$in$the$contract$that$the$collaborative$agreements$will$be$reviewed$in$case$
there$ are$ changes$ in$ the$ staffing$ of$ the$ project$ and$ in$ other$ situation$ that$ might$ ‘threaten’$ the$
collaboration.$
$
The$participants$agree$that$the$recommendation$‘creating$a$joint$financial$fund’$will$be$really$useful$
to$ finance$ investments$ in$ the$ project$ environment.$ Especially$ in$ case$ the$ budget$ for$ project$
stakeholder$management$is$limited.$A$fund$like$this$gives$the$opportunity$to$make$investments$that$
are$best$for$project$and$it$releases$tensions$caused$by$financial$discussions.$
$
It$was$noticed$that$more$attention$for$the$composition$of$project$teams$is$something$to$work$on,$but$
in$the$end$the$quality,$professionalism$and$competences$of$people$are$more$important.$Focusing$on$
in$ the$ composition$ of$ project$ teams$ turned$ out$ hard$ to$ realise$ in$ practice.$ It$ is$ not$ possible$ to$ lay$
down$something$like$this$in$a$contract,$because$it$cannot$be$expected$that$people$will$work$on$the$
same$ project$ for$ 10$ years.$ At$ this$ moment$ there$ are$ some$ experiments$ with$ the$ composition$ of$
tenders$team,$but$there$is$a$high$risk$that$this$tender$team$will$not$become$the$project$team$during$
realisation.$Therefore$it$is$a$better$idea$to$get$to$know$each$other$after$the$project$is$awarded$and$in$
case$there$are$changes$in$the$staffing$of$project$teams$it$is$important$to$invest$again$in$collaboration.$$
$
The$ participants$ illustrated$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ are$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$
collaboration$and$project$stakeholder$management,$but$that$this$is$not$the$case$for$everyone$who$is$
working$on$a$construction$project.$People$working$at$the$construction$site$for$example$are$not$aware$
of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management,$ because$ this$ is$ not$ part$ of$ their$ way$ of$
thinking.$ The$ main$ goal$ they$ have$ in$ case$ something$ occurs$ is$ solving$ the$ problem.$ It$ was$ also$
indicated$by$the$respondents$that$recent$developments$resulted$in$a$better$verification$process$for$
the$realised$work.$However,$at$the$start$of$the$project$there$is$too$little$attention$for$the$validation$
of$ the$ requirements.$ Discussing$ these$ requirements$ with$ each$ other$ before$ the$ project$ starts$ will$
result$in$more$alignment$of$the$expectations$and$will$decrease$the$number$of$misinterpretations.$$
68"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
$
It$was$recognised$by$the$participants$that$collaboration$is$important$and$therefore$barriers$need$to$
be$ minimised,$ but$ it$ was$ also$ indicated$ that$ not$ everything$ is$ possible$ in$ practice.$ Internally$ the$
collaboration$within$project$teams$could$be$improved$by$starting$a$dialogue$with$the$other$managers$
more$often.$This$was$illustrated$with$an$example$that$the$project$stakeholder$manager$could$have$
more$ contact$ with$ the$ contract$ manager$ about$ compensation$ schemes$ and$ the$ budget$ for$ project$
stakeholder$management.$Also$the$technical$manager$and$project$stakeholder$manager$could$start$
more$ often$ the$ dialogue,$ because$ there$ are$ some$ overlaps$ in$ the$ work$ of$ both$ managers.$ The$
collaboration$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$can$differ$from$the$collaboration$between$
principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ participants$ noticed$ that$ everyone$ should$ be$ able$ to$ collaborate$ and$
that$this$is$not$something$that$is$only$important$for$project$stakeholder$managers.$
"
7.2. Comparing"the"implementation"of"project"stakeholder"management"in"the"
four"projects"
This$section$will$compare$the$application$and$implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$in$
the$ different$ projects.$ There$ will$ be$ illustrated$ how$ the$ role$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ is$
designed$ and$ the$ section$ gives$ an$ overview$ of$ how$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ tasks$ are$
divided$between$both$project$stakeholder$managers$and$potential$other$managers.$This$section$will$
also$ elaborate$ on$ the$ aim$ of$ the$ application$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ different$
cases.$ To$ conclude,$ a$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ a$ general$ approach$ for$ project$ stakeholder$
management$will$be$given.$
7.2.1. Embedment%of%project%stakeholder%management%
The$ four$ case$ study$ projects$ have$ illustrated$ that$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ designed$
differently$in$each$project.$There$are$projects$with$an$additional$manager$for$one$of$the$tasks$of$the$
project$ stakeholder$ manager$ and$ there$ is$ a$ project$ without$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ as$ well.$
Figure$ 34$ gives$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$
different$ cases.$ This$ figures$ illustrates$ that$ at$ the$ side$ of$ the$ principal$ the$ project$ stakeholder$
manager$ is$ responsible$ for$ all$ the$ four$ components$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ with$ one$
exception.$ The$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ of$ the$ principal$ works$ in$ all$ the$ four$ projects$ with$ a$
project$stakeholder$management$team$consisting$of$different$advisors.$It$was$also$illustrated$that$the$
project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$mainly$works$at$the$strategic$and$tactical$management$
level.$$
$
At$ the$ side$ of$ the$ contractor$ there$ is$ more$ diversity$ in$ the$ implementation$ of$ the$ role$ of$ project$
stakeholder$ manager.$ The$ contractor$ does$ not$ work$ with$ a$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ in$ all$
projects$and$in$case$there$is,$the$project$stakeholder$manager$is$often$the$only$one$responsible$for$all$
four$ aspects$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ This$ is$ because$ the$ contractor$ does$ not$ always$
have$ a$ whole$ team$ available$ for$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ At$ the$ side$ of$ the$ contractor$
project$stakeholder$management$is$in$some$cases$more$a$oneRman$business.$The$project$stakeholder$
manager$of$the$principal$acts$mainly$on$the$tactical$and$operational$management$level.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"69"
Figure#34:#Comparing#the#implementation#of#project#stakeholder#management#(own#ill.)#
$
Literature"reflection"
Most$ of$ the$ findings$ this$ paragraph$ has$ elaborated$ on$ are$ supported$ by$ the$ information$ that$ is$
available$in$literature.$Hereby$it$is$important$to$take$into$account$that$most$of$the$literature$about$
project$stakeholder$management$is$written$by$principal$parties.$In$literature$the$same$division$of$the$
components$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ found,$ and$ also$ the$ division$ of$ the$
management$level$at$which$the$manager$of$the$principal$and$the$manager$of$the$contractor$is$acting$
is$ in$ line$ with$ the$ theory.$ The$ cases$ also$ illustrated$ that$ each$ party$ and$ each$ project$ gives$ an$ own$
twist$ to$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ This$ can$ be$ recognised$ in$ the$
literature$as$well,$where$it$became$clear$that$it$is$not$possible$to$give$a$complete$univocal$definition$
of$project$stakeholder$management.$In$case$the$projects$work$with$a$project$stakeholder$manager,$
this$is$the$consequence$of$the$application$of$the$IPM$role$model$of$RWS.$This$model$was$introduced$
in$2006$to$make$sure$every$project$has$a$clear$and$standardised$project$organisation.$Right$now$this$
model$is$even$more$developed$and$it$is$more$often$required$that$the$contracting$parties$design$their$
project$ organisation$ according$ to$ this$ model$ as$ well$ (Krouwel,$ 2014).$ This$ in$ order$ to$ make$ sure$
every$ manager$ has$ an$ equal$ counter$ partner.$ Till$ now,$ the$ desirability$ of$ this$ model$ to$ implement$
project$stakeholder$management$has$been$given$too$little$attention.$
7.2.2. Approach%of%project%stakeholder%management%
Besides$ the$ different$ forms$ of$ how$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ implemented$ in$ the$ four$
cases,$ each$ project$ has$ its$ own$ goal$ or$ aim$ regarding$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ As$
elaborated$ on$ in$ chapter$ 4,$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ orientated$ communicative$ or$
strategically.$ Both$ orientations$ can$ be$ found$ in$ the$ analysed$ cases,$ but$ in$ chapter$ 6$ was$ already$
illustrated$that$the$underlying$idea$of$project$stakeholder$management$is$always$strategically$even$if$
the$orientation$is$communicative.$
$
70"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
All$projects$make$a$distinction$between$public$and$private$stakeholders.$In$some$of$the$projects$the$
public$stakeholders$are$really$committed$to$the$project$because$they$are$financially$involved,$while$in$
other$ projects$ this$ is$ not$ the$ case.$ The$ private$ stakeholders$ can$ be$ divided$ in$ professional$
stakeholders$ and$ citizens.$ This$ division$ is$ not$ present$ in$ all$ cases$ because$ especially$ the$ role$ of$
professional$stakeholders$is$not$that$large$in$all$projects.$The$way$these$stakeholders$are$approached$
depends$ on$ the$ project,$ this$ can$ be$ strategic$ or$ communicative.$ In$ case$ project$ stakeholder$
management$ is$ strategic$ oriented$ the$ private$ stakeholders$ are$ mainly$ provided$ with$ oneRsided$
information,$ while$ in$ case$ it$ is$ communicative$ oriented$ there$ is$ more$ a$ dialogue$ with$ the$ private$
stakeholders.$
$
Literature"reflection"
The$case$study$illustrates$that$it$is$important$to$take$the$stakeholders$in$a$project$into$account,$but$
that$the$real$influence$of$the$project$stakeholders$is$rather$limited.$This$is$in$line$with$the$findings$in$
literature$where$it$was$noticed$that$the$decision$making$process$has$become$more$interactive,$but$
that$ the$ influence$ of$ stakeholders$ is$ between$ advising$ and$ coRproducing$ (Edelenbos,$ 2001).$
Stakeholders$ have$ the$ opportunity$ to$ advice$ on$ some$ topics$ and$ if$ it$ is$ possible$ something$ can$ be$
realised.$However$if$this$is$not$the$case,$stakeholders$have$to$accept$this$because$their$word$is$not$
the$ law.$ The$ respondents$ in$ the$ case$ studies$ have$ illustrated$ that$ it$ is$ important$ that$ the$
stakeholders$are$aware$of$this$and$that$they$have$the$right$expectations$about$their$influence.$This$
was$ confirmed$ by$ literature,$ where$ was$ illustrated$ that$ involving$ project$ stakeholders$ and$
understanding$their$expectations$is$really$important$for$stakeholder$management.$It$was$mentioned$
that$stakeholder$management$is$a$dynamic$process$and$therefore$it$is$important$to$stay$in$tune$with$
the$ currently$ changing$ expectations$ of$ people$ and$ keep$ monitoring$ this.$ It$ was$ also$ observed$ in$
literature$that$it$is$possible$to$influence$the$expectations$of$stakeholders$and$that$different$groups$of$
stakeholders$often$have$conflicting$expectations$(Morsing$&$Schultz,$2006).$It$is$the$job$of$the$project$
stakeholder$manager$to$bring$this$to$a$successful$end.$$
$
A$trend$that$needs$to$be$taken$into$account$regarding$the$future$development$of$project$stakeholder$
management$ is$ the$ changing$ society.$ Edelenbos$ (1999)$ already$ illustrated$ that$ the$ government$ is$
changing$ from$ top$ down$ to$ bottomRup$ and$ that$ stakeholders$ are$ earlier$ involved$ in$ the$ decision$
making$process.$This$is$recognised$in$the$case$study$projects$as$well,$where$was$noticed$that$people$
want$ to$ be$ involved$ in$ the$ projects.$ This$ trend$ will$ probably$ grow$ in$ the$ coming$ years$ since$ the$
population$ is$ ageing$ and$ the$ number$ of$ people$ with$ higher$ educational$ backgrounds$ increases.$
These$ people$ have$ the$ time$ and$ knowRhow$ to$ become$ involved$ in$ the$ realisation$ of$ LIPs.$ Besides$
that,$there$is$a$trend$towards$a$more$sharing$society$and$social$media$is$becoming$more$influential.$$
7.2.3. Importance%of%project%stakeholder%management%%
The$ differences$ in$ the$ approach$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ illustrate$ that$ there$ are$ still$ some$
different$views$on$project$stakeholder$management.$Thereby$it$was$illustrated$during$the$interviews$
that$not$everyone$is$aware$of$the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management.$Especially$people$
working$on$the$construction$site$are$not$aware$of$the$consequences$their$activities$might$have$for$
the$ project$ environment.$ In$ order$ to$ make$ people$ more$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$
stakeholder$ management,$ top$ management$ should$ be$ aware$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$
stakeholder$management$and$stimulate$others$to$collaborate$on$this.$Thereby,$it$is$important$to$take$
into$ account$ that$ projects$ are$ realised$ in$ a$ dynamic$ environment,$ so$ something$ that$ works$ today$
does$not$necessarily$has$to$work$tomorrow$as$well.$Neither$is$the$strategy$as$applied$in$one$project$
successful$ in$ another$ project$ as$ well.$ Most$ important$ is$ to$ minimise$ risks$ coming$ from$ the$ project$
environment$ and$ solving$ problems$ as$ soon$ as$ possible.$ Therefore$ it$ is$ important$ that$ the$ public$ is$
informed$correctly$and$that$complaints$are$taken$seriously.$Constructing$an$infrastructure$project$is$
unfortunately$not$possible$without$some$nuisance.$
$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"71"
Literature"reflection"
The$ model$ for$ stakeholder$ management$ already$ showed$ that$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ a$
dynamical$and$cyclic$process,$that$needs$to$be$monitored$all$the$time$(Yang$et$al.,$2011).$Black$et$al.$
(2000)$have$illustrated$that$commitment$from$senior$management$is$considered$an$important$factor$
for$ collaboration.$ Since$ the$ available$ literature$ about$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ limited,$
there$ is$ no$ literature$ support$ for$ the$ unawareness$ of$ the$ importance$ of$ project$ stakeholder$
management.$
7.2.4. Preliminary%conclusions%
After$ comparing$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$ the$ four$ cases,$ the$
preliminary$conclusions$are$as$follow:$
• All$ projects$ work$ with$ the$ same$ basis,$ the$ division$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ in$
four$components,$but$there$is$no$general$approach$on$how$this$is$implemented$in$practice.$
The$four$components$coming$from$literature$play$an$important$role$in$designing$the$role$of$
project$stakeholder$manager,$but$sometimes$one$of$the$components$is$the$responsibility$of$
another$ manager.$ It$ is$ still$ questionable$ if$ this$ is$ the$ most$ desirable$ model$ to$ implement$
project$stakeholder$management.$
• Regarding$the$orientation$of$project$stakeholder$management$it$can$be$concluded$that$the$
intention$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ always$ strategic,$ this$ means$ that$ realising$
the$ project$ without$ public$ opposition$ is$ the$ main$ goal.$ Although$ the$ orientation$ of$ project$
stakeholder$ is$ strategically$ in$ all$ projects,$ there$ are$ differences$ in$ the$ involvement$ of$ the$
project$ stakeholders$ during$ the$ decision$ making$ process.$ This$ is$ really$ dependent$ on$ the$
project$ stakeholders,$ the$ type$ of$ project$ and$ the$ environment$ in$ which$ the$ project$ will$ be$
realised.$ Also$ regarding$ the$ involvement$ of$ project$ stakeholders$ there$ seems$ no$ general$
strategy,$it$differs$by$project$and$the$strategy$should$be$adapted$to$the$project.$
• For$project$stakeholder$management$it$is$important$to$take$into$account$that$it$takes$place$in$
a$ dynamic$ environment.$ Therefore$ a$ successful$ strategy$ in$ one$ project$ is$ not$ directly$
successful$in$another$project.$Thereby$it$is$important$that$problems$are$solved$quickly,$risks$
are$minimised$and$that$the$public$is$taken$seriously.$Higher$management$should$be$aware$of$
the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management$and$with$a$view$towards$the$future$it$is$
important$that$everyone$who$is$working$on$a$project$becomes$aware$of$the$importance$of$
project$stakeholder$management.$
$
Reflection"experts"
The$ findings$ regarding$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ the$ desirability$ of$ the$ current$
implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ were$ discussed$ during$ the$ second$ workshop$
session.$ Before$ the$ discussion$ started,$ an$ overview$ of$ the$ current$ approach$ of$ project$ stakeholder$
management$was$given.$
$
Regarding$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ the$ participants$ agreed$ that$ the$ four$ components$
(communication,$ conditioning,$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ traffic$ management)$ are$ most$ of$ the$
time$ the$ responsibility$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager.$ However,$ it$ was$ noticed$ that$ this$
function$ also$ has$ a$ more$ soft$ side.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ also$ includes$ the$ component$
‘relation# manager’.$ This$ fifth$ component$ becomes$ more$ important$ in$ case$ the$ scope$ of$ projects$
increases.$ The$ participants$ agreed$ that$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ should$ be$ represented$ in$
the$ management$ team,$ to$ be$ able$ to$ discuss$ at$ the$ tactical$ management$ level$ in$ order$ to$ signal$
problems$ on$ time$ and$ resolve$ them$ quickly.$ Also$ here$ applies$ that$ this$ is$ especially$ relevant$ for$
projects$with$a$large$scope$that$are$more$complex.$
$
The$participants$did$not$agree$on$the$proposition$that$project$stakeholder$management$is$strategic$
oriented$ and$ is$ mainly$ about$ preventing$ opposition.$ The$ general$ point$ of$ view$ is$ that$ project$
stakeholder$ management$ is$ more$ than$ informing,$ it$ is$ also$ about$ creating$ understanding$ and$
72"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
support.$Therefore$it$is$important$to$explain$the$why$question$to$the$project$stakeholders,$so$they$
understand$ the$ necessity$ of$ the$ realisation$ of$ a$ project.$ In$ order$ to$ do$ this,$ it$ is$ important$ that$
principal$and$contractor$have$a$joint$vision$and$an$univocal$story.$$
$
The$ participants$ agreed$ that$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ project$
dependent$and$the$scope$of$a$project$has$influence$on$this.$It$was$indicated$that$the$contractor$could$
be$involved$more$at$the$strategic$management$level.$Especially$in$project$with$a$long$duration$it$is$
considered$important$that$the$contractor$could$think$along$and$participate$at$this$management$level$
to$be$able$to$act$on$time.$Another$suggestion$that$was$given$during$the$workshop$meeting$is$making$
more$connections$between$projects.$There$is$much$more$happening$in$a$project$environment$than$
people$are$aware$of$and$there$are$probably$some$overlaps$with$other$projects$that$are$executed$by$
the$same$or$another$consortium.$This$means$that$stakeholders$can$be$involved$in$multiple$projects$
and$it$would$be$a$missed$opportunity$not$to$make$use$of$this.$It$was$indicated$as$important$to$look$at$
the$ project$ from$ a$ broader$ perspective,$ make$ use$ of$ opportunities$ and$ create$ added$ value$ by$
combining$ projects.$ An$ example$ of$ a$ project$ where$ a$ lot$ of$ perspectives$ are$ combined$ is$ the$
‘Zuidasdok’$ project.$ This$ is$ a$ major$ challenge,$ because$ the$ participants$ also$ illustrated$ that$ not$
everyone$is$aware$of$the$importance$of$project$stakeholder$management.$$
$
7.3. Comparing"the"collaboration"in"the"four"projects"
In$ this$ section$ the$ radar$ charts$ that$ illustrate$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ in$ the$ four$ cases$ are$
compared$ with$ each$ other.$ In$ these$ charts$ the$ level$ of$ the$ collaboration$ on$ the$ six$ criteria$ is$
illustrated$from$the$point$of$view$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$of$the$principal$and$contractor.$
This$comparison$will$illustrate$the$similarities$and$differences$in$the$state$of$the$collaboration$in$the$
four$case$study$projects$and$it$also$illustrates$whether$the$points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$
are$ aligned.$ Figure$ 35$ illustrates$ that$ none$ of$ the$ radar$ charts$ is$ identical$ and$ that$ each$ case$ is$
different.$ This$ section$ will$ elaborate$ further$ on$ the$ findings$ based$ on$ this$ comparison$ and$ this$
section$will$end$with$preliminary$conclusions.$
$
Figure#35:#Comparing#the#collaboration#(own#ill.)#
7.3.1. Cross%case%comparison%%
In$ chapter$ 6$ it$ was$ already$ illustrated$ that$ the$ radar$ charters$ visualise$ whether$ principal$ and$
contractor$ have$ a$ different$ or$ similar$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ the$ collaboration$ on$ a$ criterion.$ The$
cross$ case$ comparison$ illustrates$ that$ there$ is$ only$ one$ criterion$ where$ the$ score$ of$ principal$ and$
contractor$ is$ aligned$ in$ all$ four$ projects.$ This$ is$ the$ case$ for$ the$ criterion$ ‘attitude’.$ On$ all$ other$
criteria$there$is$always$a$project$where$principal$and$contractor$have$a$different$point$of$view.$For$
the$criteria$‘objectives’,$‘project$organisation’$and$‘trust’$there$are$two$projects$where$principal$and$
contractor$ have$ a$ different$ point$ of$ view.$ This$ means$ that$ in$ the$ two$ other$ projects$ they$ have$ an$
aligned$ view$ on$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration.$ For$ the$ criteria$ ‘risk’$ and$ ‘communication’$ the$ point$ of$
view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ aligned$ in$ three$ of$ the$ projects.$ This$ means$ that$ principal$ and$
contractor$ have$ a$ different$ point$ of$ view$ in$ one$ of$ the$ projects.$ These$ findings$ illustrate$ that$ the$
point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ differs$ mostly$ on$ the$ criteria$ ‘objectives’,$ ‘project$
organisation’$and$‘trust’.$Therefore$investing$in$these$criteria$will$lead$to$most$improvements$in$the$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"73"
collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$This$applies$to$a$lesser$extent$for$the$criteria$‘risk’$
and$‘communication’,$where$the$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$is$not$aligned$in$one$case.$
The$criterion$‘attitude’$is$already$well$developed$given$the$aligned$of$points$of$view$in$all$cases.$
$
In$three$of$the$projects$the$scores$differ$only$one$level$and$in$one$of$the$projects$there$are$scores$on$
three$different$levels.$There$is$no$project$where$the$scores$vary$from$one$to$four.$The$same$applies$
for$ the$ different$ criteria,$ there$ is$ no$ criterion$ that$ scores$ level$ one$ in$ project$ A$ and$ level$ four$ in$
project$B.$The$most$occurring$score$is$level$three,$this$point$of$view$is$chosen$28$times.$Level$two$was$
determined$ as$ state$ of$ collaboration$ 13$ times,$ followed$ by$ 5$ times$ level$ four$ and$ level$ one$ was$
chosen$twice.$Level$one$was$scored$twice,$this$illustrates$that$the$relationship$between$principal$and$
contractor$ is$ becoming$ less$ traditional$ and$ shifts$ more$ towards$ a$ collaborative$ relationship$ and$
project$ partnering.$ The$ step$ towards$ strategic$ partnering$ has$ yet$ to$ be$ made.$ The$ scores$ of$ the$
projects$also$illustrate$that$the$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$can$be$somewhat$different,$
but$that$they$never$have$a$complete$opposite$point$of$view$on$their$collaboration.$$
"
This$ cross$ case$ comparison$ also$ indicates$ that$ in$ two$ projects$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ an$
almost$completely$aligned$point$of$view$on$their$collaboration,$while$in$two$other$projects$the$point$
of$view$of$both$respondents$differs$on$three$or$four$criteria.$Case$one$and$case$four,$the$cases$with$
aligned$ points$ of$ view$ regarding$ the$ state$ of$ collaboration,$ are$ judged$ as$ projects$ where$ the$
relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ good.$ The$ other$ two$ projects,$ case$ two$ and$ case$
three,$had$to$deal$with$some$issues$and$therefore$the$relationship$in$these$projects$was$judged$as$
reasonable.$ It$ can$ be$ assumed$ that$ alignment$ of$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$
important$for$good$collaboration.$In$case$four$the$respondents$judge$their$collaboration$as$good.$The$
case$ analysis$ illustrated$ that$ the$ collaboration$ does$ not$ reach$ high$ levels$ according$ to$ the$
observations$of$the$researcher,$but$the$scores$were$aligned.$It$can$be$concluded$that$collaboration$is$
experienced$as$good,$while$the$levels$of$collaboration$are$rather$low.$This$conclusion$is$supported$by$
the$fact$that$case$two$and$three$have$higher$scores$on$the$collaboration,$while$the$collaboration$in$
these$cases$is$judged$as$reasonable$because$principal$and$contractor$do$not$always$have$an$aligned$
point$ of$ view$ regarding$ their$ collaboration.$ Important$ to$ mention$ as$ well$ is$ that$ the$ relationship$
between$the$principal$and$contractor$is$better$in$case$one$compared$to$case$four.$This$illustrates$that$
having$an$aligned$point$of$view$is$important,$but$scoring$higher$levels$will$enhance$the$collaboration$
even$more.$Checking$the$average$score$for$each$criterion$(Table$6)$illustrates$that$the$criteria$‘trust’,$
‘attitude’$ and$ ‘project$ organisation’$ score$ level$ three,$ while$ the$ average$ score$ of$ the$ criteria$
‘objectives’,$‘risk’$and$‘communication’$score$somewhere$between$level$two$and$three.$Therefore$it$
can$be$concluded$that$the$collaboration$benefits$most$from$investments$in$these$criteria.$
$
Criterion"
Average"score"
Objectives$
2,75$
Trust$
3$
Risk$
2,125$
Communication$
2,625$
Attitude$
3$
Project$organisation$ 3$
Table#6:#Average#scores#criteria#
$
Literature"reflection"
The$amount$of$literature$available$on$collaboration$already$illustrates$the$importance$of$this$subject$
(Black$ et$ al.,$ 2000;$ Bresnen$ &$ Marshall,$ 2000b;$ Chan$ et$ al.,$ 2004;$ Cheung$ et$ al.,$ 2009;$ Dewulf$ &$
Kadefors,$2012;$Meng$et$al.,$2011;$Suprapto$et$al.,$in$press).$The$construction$sector$is$changing$and$
there$ is$ more$ focus$ on$ collaboration$ compared$ to$ the$ traditional$ adversarial$ principal$ contractor$
relationship$that$was$standard$in$construction$projects.$This$change$can$be$found$in$the$case$study$
74"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
projects$as$well,$where$it$was$illustrated$that$principal$and$contractor$have$the$same$point$of$view$
regarding$the$criterion$‘attitude’$and$have$invested$in$the$project$to$realise$it$together.$Thereby$the$
cross$case$comparison$illustrated$that$principal$and$contractor$have$not$complete$opposite$views$on$
their$collaboration$and$that$there$is$more$interaction$between$principal$and$contractor.$As$illustrated$
by$ Black$ et$ al.$ (2000)$ there$ are$ some$ requirements$ that$ must$ be$ met$ to$ make$ collaboration$
successful.$Examples$of$requirements$are$trust,$good$communication,$a$clear$understanding$of$roles,$
consistency$and$a$flexible$attitude.$This$corresponds$with$the$findings$of$the$cross$case$comparison$
where$ it$ was$ illustrated$ that$ the$ possibilities$ to$ improve$ collaboration$ can$ be$ found$ in$ the$ criteria$
‘objectives’,$‘risk’$and$‘communication’.$$$$
7.3.2. Preliminary%conclusions%
After$comparing$the$radar$charts$that$illustrate$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$
contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ it$ can$ be$ concluded$ that$ it$ is$ important$ for$
collaboration$that$the$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$is$aligned$and$that$a$high$score$does$
not$necessarily$mean$that$the$collaboration$is$better$compared$to$a$project$where$the$score$is$lower.$
An$aligned$point$of$view$is$the$first$step$that$is$important$for$good$collaboration,$while$higher$scores$
on$the$levels$of$the$collaboration$can$enhance$the$collaboration$even$more.$
$
Reflection"experts"
In$ the$ third$ workshop$ session$ the$ collaboration$ model,$ developed$ in$ this$ research,$ was$ discussed.$
This$ session$ started$ with$ a$ short$ introduction$ about$ the$ model$ to$ make$ sure$ all$ participants$
understood$the$model.$Afterwards$the$completeness$and$validity$of$the$model$was$discussed.$At$the$
end$ of$ this$ workshop$ session$ it$ was$ also$ discussed$ how$ the$ model$ could$ by$ applied$ in$ practice,$
chapter$8$will$elaborate$more$on$this.$
$
The$collaboration$model$was$used$in$this$research$to$illustrate$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$
principal$and$contractor$at$a$certain$moment.$It$indicated$whether$principal$and$contractor$had$the$
same$ point$ of$ view$ on$ their$ collaboration$ and$ at$ which$ level$ they$ were$ collaborating.$ The$
participants$stated$that$an$instrument$to$reflect$on$the$collaboration$is$important$for$collaboration$
and$ they$ could$ agree$ on$ the$ six$ criteria$ that$ were$ chosen$ as$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration.$ A$
point$ for$ improvement$ is$ adding$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ to$ this$ model.$ The$
model$might$illustrate$that$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$is$good,$but$this$does$
not$say$anything$about$the$opinion$of$the$project$stakeholders$about$the$project$and$their$point$of$
view$regarding$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$In$case$the$internal$collaboration$
is$considered$good,$but$the$project$stakeholders$are$not$satisfied$with$the$project$it$is$not$possible$to$
conclude$that$a$project$was$successful.$Therefore$it$is$concluded$that$by$adding$the$point$of$view$of$
the$ project$ stakeholders$ on$ the$ collaboration,$ the$ model$ could$ be$ improved$ and$ this$ might$ also$
enrich$ the$ dialogue.$ Because$ with$ this$ additional$ point$ of$ view$ the$ expectations$ of$ the$ project$
stakeholders$can$become$more$aligned$with$the$expectations$of$the$project$organisation.$
$
7.4. "Concluding"findings"
The$findings$of$the$cross$case$analysis$reviewed$with$research$findings$and$with$practical$experiences$
in$the$workshop$meeting$made$it$possible$to$answer$the$fourth$sub$question$of$this$research$‘which#
strategies# can# improve# the# collaboration# between# principal# and# contactor’.$ The$ answer$ of$ this$ sub$
question$is$described$in$this$section.$
$
Research$has$illustrated$that$projects$where$principal$and$contractor$have$a$traditional,$adversarial$
relation$ become$ rare$ and$ that$ the$ focus$ on$ collaboration$ is$ increasing.$ In$ general$ the$ average$
relationship$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ somewhere$ between$ a$ collaborative$ relationship$
and$project$partnering.$First$matter$of$importance$for$collaboration$is$that$principal$and$contractor$
have$ an$ aligned$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ their$ collaboration.$ If$ that$ is$ the$ case$ the$ collaboration$ is$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"75"
likely$to$be$good,$because$both$parties$have$the$same$expectations$of$each$other$and$can$anticipate$
on$that.$Secondly,$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$be$improved$by$investing$
in$the$criteria$that$do$not$reach$the$highest$level$of$collaboration.$If$this$is$preferable$is$really$project$
and$scope$dependent,$since$the$benefits$of$the$investments$should$outweigh$the$investments.$
$
Besides$ the$ importance$ of$ the$ alignment$ of$ point$ of$ view$ on$ collaboration$ of$ principal$ and$
contractor,$this$research$has$identified$three$main$strategies$to$enhance$the$collaboration$based$on$
the$case$study$findings$and$verification$of$these$findings$in$literature$and$in$the$workshop$meeting.$
The$first$strategy$is$verification"of"expectations$regarding$all$kinds$of$aspects$before$the$realisation$
of$ the$ project.$ This$ research$ illustrated$ that$ currently$ principal$ and$ contractor$ make$ additional$
agreements$ during$ realisation,$ because$ not$ everything$ is$ sufficiently$ described$ in$ the$ contract.$
Besides$ that,$ it$ was$ illustrated$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ have$ a$ different$ interpretation$ of$
what$ is$ in$ the$ contract.$ This$ leads$ to$ misunderstandings,$ undesirable$ discussions$ and$ hinders$ and$
effective$collaboration.$Therefore$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$verify$and$align$their$
expectations$ beforehand,$ make$ sure$ it$ is$ clear$ which$ parties$ is$ responsible$ for$ what$ and$ create$ a$
budget$ for$ joint$ actions.$ This$ because$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ best$ in$ case$ it$ is$
approached$ together.$ The$ second$ strategy$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor$is$focus"on"people.$This$research$has$illustrated$that$collaboration$is$likely$to$fail$in$case$
people$ are$ not$ willing$ to$ collaborate.$ Furthermore$ it$ was$ illustrated$ that$ collaboration$ could$ be$
improved$by$focusing$on$the$composition$of$project$teams,$based$on$the$qualities$and$competences$
of$ individuals,$ and$ the$ complementary$ and$ diversity$ of$ people.$ Currently$ higher$ management$
regulates$ the$ composition$ of$ project$ teams$ and$ there$ is$ limited$ attention$ for$ the$ match$ of$people.$
Therefore$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$focus$more$on$this$soft$side$of$collaboration,$
to$make$sure$the$project$team$has$a$solid$basis$and$the$collaboration$will$not$fail$on$this$aspect.$In$
the$end$people$will$make$a$project.$The$third$strategy$is$monitor"the"collaboration.$This$research$has$
illustrated$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ have$ difficulties$ in$ starting$ the$ dialogue$ about$ their$
collaboration$ without$ being$ judged$ about$ the$ collaboration$ itself.$ For$ good$ collaboration$ it$ is$
important$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ in$ order$ to$ monitor$ the$ signals,$ react$ proactive$ and$ take$
responsibility.$Research$indicated$that$an$instrument$to$start$this$dialogue$was$missing.$This$research$
provided$a$collaboration$model$that$can$be$used$for$this.$
$
This$research$showed$that$it$is$important$to$invest$in$these$strategies$to$enhance$good$collaboration.$
These$strategies$optimise$the$focus$on$the$joint$goal$and$minimise$irritations$between$principal$and$
contractor.$ Both$ parties$ do$ not$ always$ speak$ the$ same$ language$ neither$ have$ they$ a$ joint$ goal$ or$
joint$expectations.$In$order$to$align$points$of$view$it$is$important$that$both$parties$start$this$dialogue.$
Research$ indicated$ that$ there$ was$ no$ instrument$ available$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$
principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ collaboration$ model$ as$ developed$ in$ this$ research$ could$ fill$ this$ gap.$
Chapter$8$will$further$elaborate$on$the$application$of$this$model.$
76"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
8. A
PPLICATION"COLLABORATION"MODEL"
$
$
In$order$to$determine$the$state$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor,$this$research$
has$developed$a$collaboration$model.$The$level$of$collaboration$is$based$on$a$questionnaire,$which$
can$ be$ found$ in$ appendix$ H$ and$ the$ outcome$ of$ this$ questionnaire$ is$ visualised$ in$ a$ radar$ chart$ in$
order$ to$ compare$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ regarding$ their$ collaboration.$ The$
aim$ of$ this$ chapter$ is$ to$ answer$ the$ fifth$ and$ final$ sub$ question$ of$ this$ research$ ‘how# to# audit#
collaboration’.$First,$the$validity$of$the$collaboration$model$was$tested$during$the$workshop$meeting.$
Second,$ some$ adjustments$ to$ the$ model$ were$ discussed.$ Third,$ there$ will$ be$ elaborated$ on$ the$
application$ of$ the$ collaboration.$ Fourth,$ the$ added$ value$ of$ collaboration$ model$ will$ be$ discussed.$
Fifth,$the$limitations$of$this$research$will$be$described.$
$
8.1. Validity"of"the"collaboration"model"
The$ main$ advice$ of$ the$ workshop$ participants$ about$ the$ collaboration$ model$ was$ related$ to$ the$
application$of$the$model.$It$was$recognised$that$it$is$important$to$have$an$instrument$that$makes$it$
easier$to$start$the$dialogue$about$the$collaboration$and$to$evaluate$the$collaboration.$As$discussed$in$
chapter$ 7$ the$ participants$ could$ agree$ on$ the$ six$ criteria$ that$ were$ chosen$ as$ important$ for$ good$
collaboration.$ During$ the$ introduction$ presentation$ in$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ it$ was$ asked$ to$ the$
participants$ to$ fill$ in$ the$ questionnaire.$ This$ questionnaire$ was$ used$ during$ the$ research$ to$
determine$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ from$ both$ points$ of$ view$
based$ on$ the$ observations$ of$ the$ researcher.$ The$ answers$ of$ the$ participants$ made$ it$ possible$ to$
compare$the$point$of$view$of$the$researcher$with$the$real$life$experience$of$the$project$stakeholder$
managers.$ The$ respondents$ of$ the$ interviews$ that$ were$ not$ present$ during$ the$ workshop$ meeting$
were$ asked$ to$ answer$ the$ questionnaire$ digital.$ Based$ on$ the$ given$ answers$ it$ is$ possible$ to$
determine$the$level$of$collaboration$at$each$criterion.$Comparing$the$results$of$the$researcher$with$
the$ results$ of$ the$ participants$ illustrated$ that$ sometimes$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ researcher$ was$
aligned$with$the$point$of$view$of$the$participants,$while$at$other$criteria$the$points$of$view$differ.$In$
case$there$was$a$different$point$of$view,$the$differences$were$small.$Researcher$and$participant$did$
never$have$a$completely$opposite$view$on$the$collaboration.$Differences$in$points$of$view$are$likely$
to$occur$because$the$researcher$reviewed$the$state$of$the$collaboration$at$a$certain$moment$during$
the$ project$ realisation$ based$ on$ the$ collected$ information,$ while$ the$ participants$ have$ a$ complete$
picture$ of$ the$ project.$ Based$ on$ these$ findings$ it$ can$ be$ concluded$ that$ the$ collaboration$ model$ is$
able$ to$ give$ a$ representative$ and$ complete$ overview$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor.$
$
8.2. "Adjustments"to"the"collaboration"model"
The$main$advice$of$the$workshop$participants$was$about$the$application$of$the$collaboration$model.$
It$was$recognised$that$it$is$important$to$have$an$instrument$that$makes$it$easier$to$start$a$dialogue$
about$the$collaboration$and$to$evaluate$the$collaboration.$In$order$to$make$an$instrument$like$this$
useful$in$practice,$the$aim$of$the$instrument$has$to$be$clear.$It$was$indicated$as$important$that$the$
collaboration$ model$ is$ not$ an$ instrument$ to$ judge$ the$ collaboration,$ but$ is$ an$ instrument$ that$
focuses$more$on$the$soft$side$of$collaboration$and$gives$directions$to$improve$the$collaboration.$The$
model$ can$ be$ used$ to$ evaluate$ the$ collaboration$ between$ two$ managers,$ but$ can$ also$ be$ used$ to$
evaluate$the$collaboration$in$the$whole$project.$$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"77"
One$of$the$workshop$participants$mentioned$that$RWS$is$already$using$an$instrument$like$this$to$test$
the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ this$ is$ called$ ‘prestatie# meten’.$ The$ aim$ of$ this$
instrument$is$to$start$the$dialogue,$but$experience$in$practice$indicates$that$the$instrument$is$used$to$
judge$the$performance$of$the$contractor.$Scores$are$saved$in$a$database$and$once$data$are$entered$it$
is$ not$ possible$ to$ change$ them$ anymore.$ The$ scores$ are$ used$ as$ past$ performance$ indicators$ and$
they$will$be$used$to$evaluate$the$contractor$for$future$projects.$It$is$also$possible$that$an$insufficient$
score$ has$ contractual$ consequences,$ for$ example$ the$ contractor$ does$ not$ get$ a$ bonus.$ Because$
scoring$ on$ a$ low$ level$ can$ have$ major$ consequences,$ no$ one$ will$ answer$ questions$ completely$
honest$ and$ therefore$ such$ a$ model$ does$ not$ give$ a$ complete$ view$ on$ the$ collaboration.$ Other$
participants$ supported$ this$ point$ of$ view.$ They$ illustrated$ that$ it$ is$ important$ to$ be$ careful$ with$
numbers$and$scores.$Numbers$and$scores$indicate$that$something$is$judged$and$this$scares$people,$
because$their$answers$might$have$consequences.$The$outcome$of$the$instrument$should$not$be$good$
or$bad,$but$it$has$to$be$a$point$to$start$the$discussion$about$the$collaboration$without$consequences$
for$being$open$and$honest.$The$aim$of$the$instrument$should$be$to$improve$the$collaboration,$rather$
than$ judge$ it.$ It$ should$ illustrate$ possibilities$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration$ by$ identifying$
opportunities$and$measures$that$can$be$taken$to$improve$the$collaboration.$$
$
As$illustrated$in$chapter$7$the$collaboration$model$could$be$improved$by$adding$the$point$of$view$of$
the$project$stakeholders$to$the$model.$Currently$the$collaboration$model$indicates$whether$principal$
and$contractor$have$an$aligned$point$of$view$regarding$their$collaboration,$while$the$point$of$view$of$
the$ project$ stakeholders$ is$ excluded$ from$ this$ model.$ Adding$ this$ perspective$ could$ enrich$ the$
dialogue$and$makes$sure$the$expectations$of$the$project$stakeholders$become$more$aligned$with$the$
expectations$of$principal$and$contractor.$
$
These$ findings$ lead$ to$ some$ adjustments$ before$ the$ application$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ will$ be$
discussed$ in$ section$ 8.3.$ First$ of$ all,$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ not$ confronted$ with$ numbers$ and$
scores$anymore,$because$this$makes$people$cautious$when$filling$in$the$questionnaire.$Therefore$the$
model$ only$ gives$ directions$ on$ which$ criteria$ the$ collaboration$ could$ be$ improved,$ based$ on$ the$
comparison$ of$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ both$ parties.$ In$ that$ case$ the$ collaboration$ model$ has$ the$
function$ of$ mirroring$ a$ project.$ It$ illustrates$ the$ possibilities$ to$ improve$ the$ collaboration.$ As$ a$
remark$the$workshop$participants$noted$that$the$type$of$project,$scope$and$duration$determine$if$an$
instrument$will$be$used.$
$
8.3. Application"of"the"collaboration"model"
During$ the$ realisation$ of$ a$ project$ the$ collaboration$ model$ could$ be$ used$ to$ monitor$ the$ point$ of$
view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ the$ collaboration.$ This$ evaluation$ moment$ illustrates$ whether$
both$ have$ an$ aligned$ or$ different$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ their$ collaboration$ and$ what$ the$ level$ of$
collaboration$is.$In$case$the$points$of$view$are$aligned,$both$parties$can$invest$in$keeping$up$the$good$
work.$In$case$principal$and$contractor$have$some$of$differences$in$their$points$of$view,$the$criteria$
where$improvements$are$needed$will$be$illustrated.$The$level$of$collaboration$gives$directions$for$the$
criteria$where$principal$and$contractor$could$enhance$the$intensity$of$collaboration.$$
$
It$ is$ recommended$ to$ use$ the$ collaboration$ model$ a$ couple$ of$ times$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ a$
project.$ In$ that$ case$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ monitor$ the$ development$ of$ the$ collaboration.$ This$ research$
illustrated$that$the$collaboration$model$is$an$useful$instrument$to$apply$in$practice.$Therefore$three$
possibilities$ have$ been$ identified$ for$ a$ feasible$ and$ meaningful$ application$ of$ the$ model.$ The$ first$
option$ is$ to$ use$ the$ collaboration$ model$ before$ the$ start$ of$ a$ project.$ In$ that$ case$ principal$ and$
contractor$ can$ decide$ which$ level$ of$ collaboration$ they$ want$ to$ achieve.$ Determination$ of$ the$
preferred$level$of$collaboration$beforehand$makes$it$easier$to$reflect$on$and$monitor$the$progress$of$
the$collaboration$during$the$project$realisation.$The$second$option$is$to$use$the$collaboration$model$
as$an$instrument$to$reflect$on$the$collaboration$during$the$realisation$of$a$project.$In$that$case$the$
78"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
collaboration$can$be$monitored$and$adjustments$can$be$made$to$improve$the$collaboration$for$the$
further$course$of$the$project.$The$third$option$is$using$the$collaboration$model$after$the$completion$
of$the$project$to$evaluate$the$collaboration,$in$that$case$lessons$can$be$learned$for$future$projects.$
"
The$collaboration$model$can$be$applied$in$practice$according$to$the$following$steps:$
1. Principal$and$contractor$fill$in$the$questionnaire,$the$answers$of$both$parties$are$compared$
with$each$other$and$it$is$possible$to$illustrate$on$which$criteria$principal$and$contractor$have$
a$different$point$of$view.$This$indicates$on$which$criteria$both$parties$should$start$a$dialogue$
to$ make$ their$ point$ of$ view$ more$ aligned$ and$ on$ which$ criteria$ the$ collaboration$ could$ be$
improved.$
$
Example# of# advice:# The# collaboration# is# likely# to# improve# by# discussing# mutual# expectations# on#
the#following#criteria:#A,#B#and#C.#
$
2. In$ case$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ aligned,$ but$ do$ not$ reach$ the$
highest$ level$ of$ collaboration$ improvements$ can$ be$ made.$ Also$ for$ this$ step$ the$
questionnaire$indicates$at$which$criteria$the$collaboration$could$be$improved.$
$
Example#of#advice:#The#level#of#the#collaboration#can#be#improved#on#the#following#criteria:#X,#Y#
and#Z.#
$
3. Principal$and$contractor$have$to$fill$in$the$questionnaire$on$a$regular$basis,$for$example$every$
six$ months,$ in$ order$ to$ monitor$ the$ progress$ of$ the$ collaboration$ and$ to$ be$ able$ to$ act$ on$
time$in$case$the$collaboration$does$not$meet$the$expectations$and$needs$improvements.$
$
Examples# of# advice:# The# mutual# expectations# regarding# the# collaboration# have# become# more#
aligned#in#the#last#six#months,#so#keep#up#the#good#work.#Another#example#advice:#The#level#of#
collaboration# was# below# expectations# in# the# last# six# months,# so# keep# focused# on# the#
collaboration#on#the#criteria#A#and#B.#
$
The$ three$ steps$ as$ described$ above$ illustrated$ how$ the$ collaboration$ model$ can$ be$ applied$ in$
practice.$ In$ case$ the$ collaboration$ model$ is$ used$ before$ the$ start$ of$ a$ project,$ the$ progress$ of$ the$
achievements$can$be$measured$according$to$these$steps.$The$same$applies$in$case$the$collaboration$
model$is$used$to$monitor$the$collaboration.$In$case$the$collaboration$model$is$used$to$evaluate$the$
collaboration,$ the$ findings$ can$ be$ used$ to$ learn$ from$ practices$ and$ can$ be$ worthwhile$ in$ future$
projects.$
"
8.4. Added"value"of"a"collaboration"model"
In$this$chapter$the$application$of$the$collaboration$model$was$discussed.$It$was$illustrated$how$the$
model$could$be$applied$in$practice.$This$has$answered$the$sub$question$‘how#to#audit#collaboration’.$
Therefore$ this$ section$ will$ discuss$ the$ added$ value$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ for$ principal$ and$
contractor.$
$
This$ research$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ a$ tough$ challenge$ to$ start$ the$ dialogue$ about$ the$ collaboration$
between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Therefore$ this$ research$ has$ developed$ a$ collaboration$ model$ to$
reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$ collaboration$ model$ starts$ with$
filling$ in$ the$ questionnaire$ and$ comparing$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ the$ respondents$ based$ on$ the$
answers$ of$ the$ questionnaire.$ Where$ after$ it$ provides$ directions$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$
between$principal$and$contractor,$and$to$align$expectations$of$both$parties.$The$model$is$not$solely$
focusing$on$the$technical$and$hard$aspects$of$collaboration,$but$also$on$the$social$and$soft$aspects$of$
collaboration.$ Most$ difficulties$ in$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ found$ in$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"79"
this$ soft$ side$ of$ collaboration.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ and$ collaboration$ have$ various$
dimensions$ and$ interrelated$ aspects,$ so$ are$ rather$ complex$ issues.$ This$ research$ did$ not$ cover$ all$
issues,$but$the$developed$collaboration$model$is$a$solid$foundation$to$enhance$the$collaboration$and$
for$further$research.$Good$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$is$of$major$importance$to$
complete$a$project$successful$and$to$communicate$effectively$with$project$stakeholders.$
"
Most$important$in$order$to$make$an$instrument$like$the$collaboration$model$valuable$in$practice$is$
that$it$is$used$to$improve$collaboration,$rather$than$judge$the$collaboration$or$to$assess$each$other.$
To$ use$ this$ instrument$ objective,$ the$ researcher$ recommends$ that$ an$ external$ party$ executes$ the$
collaboration$model$in$practice.$$$$
$
8.5. Limitations"of"this"research"
This$research$resulted$in$some$new$insights$in$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$on$
project$stakeholder$management.$Despite$the$effort$and$care$the$researcher$has$put$in$this$research,$
there$ are$ several$ factors$ that$ limit$ this$ research.$ The$ identified$ limitations$ are$ described$ in$ this$
section.$
$
The$completeness$of$the$developed$framework$cannot$be$ensured.$More$sources$could$have$been$
investigated$ to$ decide$ which$ criteria$ are$ most$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration$ and$ the$ validity$ of$
these$criteria$could$have$been$tested$in$a$qualitative$research.$However,$the$researcher$had$a$limited$
amount$ of$ time$ available$ and$ therefore$ it$ was$ decided$ to$ use$ the$ theory$ of$ Meng$ et$ al.$ (2011)$ as$
basis$to$identify$criteria$that$are$important$for$good$collaboration.$
$
After$ the$ feedback$ from$ the$ participants$ in$ the$ workshop$ session,$ the$ validity$ of$ the$ adjusted$
collaboration$ model$ was$ not$ tested.$ More$ steps$ could$ be$ made$ to$ further$ test$ the$ reliability$ and$
validity$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model.$ After$ the$ feedback$ of$ the$ workshop$ participants$ it$ can$ be$
assumed$ that$ the$ model$ is$ comprehensive$ and$ is$ a$ foundation$ to$ start$ further$ research.$ Before$ an$
instrument$ like$ the$ collaboration$ model$ can$ be$ used$ in$ practice$ some$ pilot$ cases$ are$ needed$ to$
eliminate$the$growing$pains$of$the$model.$$$
$
In$ this$ research$ a$ limited$ amount$ of$ cases$ was$ investigated,$ due$ to$ time$ constraints$ of$ the$
researcher.$There$are$many$more$projects$that$could$have$functioned$as$case$and$this$would$have$
resulted$ in$ additional$ findings.$ Although$ the$ general$ applicability$ of$ the$ research$ findings$ and$ the$
completeness$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ was$ tested$ in$ a$ workshop$ meeting,$ some$ additional$
research$ is$ needed$ to$ give$ a$ more$ complete$ overview$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ infrastructure$ projects$ in$
The$ Netherlands.$ Besides$ that,$ the$ number$ of$ respondents$ per$ case$ was$ limited$ as$ well.$ Managers$
that$ were$ not$ interviewed$ could$ have$ a$ different$ opinion$ and$ also$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ other$
stakeholders$ that$ were$ part$ of$ the$ project$ organisation$ (like$ ProRail,$ municipality$ and$ province$ in$
some$cases)$was$neglected$in$this$research.$
$
This$ research$ focused$ solely$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ and$ therefore$
the$point$of$view$of$the$project$stakeholders$was$left$out$of$the$scope.$It$was$illustrated$during$the$
workshop$meeting$that$adding$this$point$of$view$could$enrich$the$collaboration$model.$Right$now$the$
collaboration$was$only$evaluated$from$the$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor.$Although$they$
might$ experience$ their$ collaboration$ as$ good,$ this$ might$ not$ be$ the$ case$ according$ to$ the$ project$
stakeholders.$ By$ adding$ this$ perspective$ the$ research$ could$ become$ more$ complete.$ However,$
before$the$research$started$it$was$decided$to$not$include$this,$due$to$the$limited$time$available$for$
this$research.$$
$
$
80"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
9. C
ONCLUSION"AND"RECOMMENDATIONS"
$
$
This$research$aimed$to$define$project$stakeholder$management$and$explored$how$the$collaboration$
between$principal$and$contractor$could$be$improved.$The$main$question$was$defined$as$followed:$
$
Which% possibilities% can% be% defined% to% enhance% the% collaboration% between% principal% and%
contractor%on%project%stakeholder%management%in%large%infrastructure%projects?%
$
This$conclusion$will$answer$the$main$question$and$recommend$directions$of$further$research.$
$
9.1. Conclusion"
In$this$conclusion$all$answers$to$the$sub$questions$as$mentioned$at$the$end$of$different$chapters$in$
this$report$are$combined$to$answer$the$main$question.$This$section$will$go$stepRbyRstep$through$the$
content$of$research.$The$sub$questions$are$answered$with$the$findings$of$the$four$case$study$projects$
and$the$workshop$meeting$that$was$organised$to$verify$these$findings.$
$
What#is#project#stakeholder#management?#
Project$stakeholder$management$links$the$project$organisation$with$the$stakeholders$in$the$project$
environment.$ The$ goal$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ is$ twofold:$ satisfaction$ of$ the$ project$
stakeholders$ by$ involving$ them$ and$ creating$ support$ for$ the$ project,$ and$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$
project$ within$ scope,$ time$ and$ budget.$ Project$ stakeholder$ management$ can$ be$ defined$ by$ four$
components:$ communication,# conditioning,# stakeholder# management$ and$ traffic# management.$ The$
respondents$of$the$case$study$projects$recognise$these$four$components$as$described$in$literature.$
Practical$experiences$of$the$workshop$participants$illustrated$that$the$task$of$relation$manager$is$an$
important$ fifth$ component$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ manager$ function.$ This$ fifth$ component$
focuses$ on$ the$ different$ relations$ between$ employees$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ the$ soft$ side$ of$
collaboration.$
$
What#factors#are#important#for#collaboration?#
Based$on$an$extensive$literature$review$the$following$six$factors$are$determined$as$important$criteria$
for$ good$ collaboration:$ objectives,# trust,# risk,# communication,# attitude$ and$ project# organisation.$ A$
more$detailed$description$of$these$criteria$can$be$found$in$paragraph$4.2.$
$
What#model#can#be#used#to#define#the#state#of#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor?#
The$ six$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ for$ good$ collaboration$ are$ used$ to$ evaluate$ the$ state$ of$
collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$A$collaboration$model$was$designed$to$compare$the$
points$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor,$and$to$compare$the$collaboration$in$different$projects.$The$
state$of$collaboration$for$each$criterion$can$be$positioned$on$one$of$the$four$levels$of$collaboration$
that$ are$ distinguished$ based$ on$ a$ literature$ review.$ The$ four$ different$ levels$ of$ collaboration$ are:$
contractual# relationship,# collaborative# relationship,# project# partnering$ and$ strategic# partnering.$
Based$on$a$questionnaire,$with$a$description$of$the$relationship$at$each$level$for$all$criteria,$the$state$
of$collaboration$can$be$determined$for$each$criterion.$The$questionnaire$can$be$found$in$appendix$H.$
The$state$of$collaboration$from$point$of$view$of$principal$and$contractor$is$visualised$in$a$radar$chart,$
which$is$illustrated$in$Figure$36.$After$the$analysis$of$the$case$study$findings$the$researcher$observed$
that$ in$ general$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ somewhere$ between$
level$two,$a$collaborative$relationship$and$level$three,$project$partnering.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"81"
Figure#36:#Radar#chart#for#collaboration#model#(own#ill.)"
$
The$collaboration$visualised$in$the$radar$chart$illustrates$the$level$of$collaboration$between$principal$
and$ contractor,$ and$ whether$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ aligned.$ The$ case$
study$ research$ has$ illustrated$ that$ the$ collaboration$ is$ better$ in$ projects$ where$ principal$ and$
contractor$ have$ an$ aligned$ point$ of$ view,$ compared$ to$ projects$ where$ the$ level$ of$ collaboration$ is$
higher$ but$ both$ parties$ differ$ in$ point$ of$ view.$ Therefore$ this$ research$ concludes$ that$ for$ good$
collaboration$ the$ alignment$ of$ points$ of$ view$ is$ more$ important$ than$ reaching$ the$ highest$ level$ of$
collaboration.$This$conclusion$was$recognised$by$the$workshop$participants.$They$indicated$that$it$is$
possible$ to$ have$ a$ successful$ business$ relationship$ with$ limited$ collaboration$ in$ case$ the$ involved$
parties$have$agreed$this.$For$a$more$detailed$elaboration$on$this$finding$section$7.3$is$recommended.$
$
Which#strategies#can#improve#the#collaboration#between#principal#and#contractor?#
The$research$has$illustrated$that$it$is$most$important$that$principal$and$contractor$have$an$aligned$
point$of$view$regarding$their$collaboration.$Three$main$strategies$to$enhance$the$collaboration$are$
defined$based$on$the$case$study$findings$and$verification$of$these$findings$in$the$workshop$meeting.$
The$first$strategy$is$verification"of"expectations$of$the$collaborating$parties.$Research$illustrated$that$
principal$ and$ contractor$ can$ have$ a$ different$ interpretation$ of$ what$ is$ stated$ in$ the$ contract.$ This$
leads$to$misunderstanding,$undesirable$discussions$and$hinders$an$effective$collaboration.$The$case$
studies$have$illustrated$that$during$project$realisation$it$often$turns$out$that$some$aspects$were$not$
well$defined$in$the$beginning$and$adjustments$or$additional$agreements$are$needed.$Therefore$it$is$
important$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ verify$ and$ align$ their$ expectations$ regarding$ collaboration$
beforehand$in$order$to$prevent$possible$issues.$Focus"on"people$is$the$second$strategy$to$enhance$
the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ Research$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ important$ that$
people$ are$ willing$ to$ collaborate,$ because$ otherwise$ it$ is$ likely$ to$ fail.$ Furthermore$ people$ of$ both$
parties$ have$ to$ understand$ each$ other$ and$ strive$ to$ achieve$ a$ common$ goal$ based$ on$ trust$ and$
equality.$The$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$can$benefit$from$more$attention$for$the$
composition$of$project$teams.$Therefore$it$is$important$that$individuals$have$the$right$qualities$and$
competences,$ but$ also$ the$ complementary$ and$ diversity$ of$ the$ people$ in$ the$ project$ teams$
influences$the$collaboration.$The$participants$of$the$workshop$meeting$mentioned$that$the$people$in$
a$ project$ team$ are$ of$ major$ importance.$ The$ case$ studies$ have$ illustrated$ that$ there$ is$ limited$
attention$for$this.$Therefore$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$focus$more$on$the$people$
working$ on$ a$ project$ and$ the$ composition$ of$ project$ teams.$ The$ third$ strategy$ is$ monitor" the"
collaboration.$This$research$has$illustrated$that$it$is$important$that$principal$and$contractor$are$able$
to$reflect$on$their$collaboration,$without$being$judged$about$the$collaboration$itself.$Therefore$it$is$
82"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
important$that$signals$are$monitored,$both$parties$react$proactive$and$take$responsibility.$Research$
indicated$ that$ an$ instrument$ is$ needed$ to$ start$ the$ discussion$ about$ the$ collaboration$ between$
principal$and$contractor.$The$collaboration$model$as$designed$in$this$research$can$be$used$for$this.$
The$strategies$‘verification$of$expectations$and$‘focus$on$people’$are$useful$before$the$realisation$of$
a$ project$ starts$ and$ therefore$ mainly$ applicable$ in$ future$ projects.$ The$ strategy$ ‘monitor$ the$
collaboration’$can$be$applied$in$future$projects$and$projects$that$are$already$in$the$realisation$phase.$$$
$
This$ research$ concludes$ that$ it$ is$ important$ to$ invest$ in$ these$ strategies$ to$ enhance$ good$
collaboration.$These$strategies$optimise$the$focus$on$the$joint$goal$and$minimise$irritations$between$
principal$ and$ contractor.$ Both$ parties$ do$ not$ always$ speak$ the$ same$ language$ neither$ are$ they$
always$ on$ the$ same$ wavelength.$ Therefore$ it$ is$ important$ that$ both$ parties$ start$ the$ dialogue$ and$
communicate$with$each$other$in$order$to$align$points$of$view.$The$case$studies$have$illustrated$that$
most$ discussions$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ about$ financial$ and$ contractual$ issues.$
Verification$of$expectations$beforehand$could$decrease$the$number$of$discussions$and$improve$the$
collaboration.$ Hereby$ it$ is$ important$ to$ take$ into$ account$ that$ it$ is$ not$ possible$ to$ write$ down$
everything.$ This$ is$ not$ preferred,$ because$ in$ that$ case$ both$ parties$ are$ doing$ all$ the$ paper$ work$
rather$ than$ working$ on$ their$ collaboration.$ The$ contract$ should$ be$ the$ foundation$ and$ the$ real$
implementation$ of$ it$ is$ tasks$ of$ the$ managers.$ The$ case$ studies$ have$ also$ indicated$ that$ there$
currently$is$limited$attention$for$the$people$working$on$a$project.$This$research$showed$that$for$the$
benefit$of$the$collaboration$in$a$project$it$is$important$that$the$people$on$a$project$match,$that$team$
members$ are$ complementary$ and$ that$ people$ have$ the$ right$ expectations.$ The$ composition$ of$
project$ teams$ changes$ over$ time,$ therefore$ it$ is$ important$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ at$ the$
moment$ new$ people$ enter$ the$ project$ and$ to$ align$ expectations$ of$ these$ people$ as$ well.$ This$
research$provided$a$model$to$reflect$on$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$that$was$
currently$ missing.$ The$ case$ study$ respondents$ have$ indicated$ that$ it$ is$ often$ tough$ to$ start$ the$
discussion$ about$ the$ collaboration$ and$ that$ an$ instrument$ to$ start$ this$ discussion$ would$ be$ useful.$
The$developed$collaboration$model$could$fill$this$gap.$If$the$collaboration$model$is$applied$in$practice$
it$is$important$that$the$model$is$used$as$instrument$that$audits$whether$expectations$are$aligned$and$
gives$directions$to$improve$the$collaboration,$rather$than$judge$the$collaboration$or$to$assess$each$
other.$ To$ use$ this$ instrument$ objective,$ the$ researcher$ recommends$ an$ external$ party$ for$ the$
implementation$of$the$collaboration$model$in$practice.$$$$
$
How#to#audit#collaboration?#
This$ research$ provided$ an$ instrument$ to$ evaluate$ the$ state$ of$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$
and$contractor$based$of$the$collaboration$model.$It$turned$out$that$this$model$is$very$useful$to$apply$
in$practice.$Three$possibilities$for$a$feasible$and$meaningful$application$of$the$collaboration$model$in$
practice$are:$
• The$collaboration$model$can$be$used$before"the"project"realisation,$to$decide$which$level$of$
collaboration$principal$and$contractor$want$to$achieve$in$this$project.$In$this$case$the$model$
gives$a$direction$on$what$principal$and$contractor$want$to$achieve$and$these$directions$can$
be$used$to$evaluate$the$progress$of$the$collaboration$during$realisation.$
• The$collaboration$model$can$be$used$during"the"realisation"of"the"project"in$order$to$reflect$
on$ the$ collaboration.$ In$ this$ case$ the$ model$ is$ an$ instrument$ to$ start$ the$ dialogue$ about$
collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ while$ it$ gives$ directions$ to$ improve$ the$
collaboration$ as$ well.$ It$ is$ recommended$ to$ use$ the$ collaboration$ model$ a$ couple$ of$ times$
during$the$realisation$of$a$project$in$order$to$monitor$the$progress$of$the$collaboration.$
• The$ collaboration$ model$ can$ be$ used$ after" completion" of" the" project$ to$ evaluate$ the$
collaboration$ during$ realisation.$ In$ this$ case$ the$ model$ will$ be$ used$ to$ evaluate$ the$
collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$The$findings$of$this$evaluation$can$be$used$
in$future$projects.$$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"83"
This$ model$ indicates$ which$ possibilities$ can$ enhance$ collaboration$ based$ on$ six$ criteria.$ In$ the$ first$
place$ it$ is$ important$ to$ align$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ regarding$ their$
collaboration.$ If$ this$ point$ of$ view$ is$ aligned$ it$ is$ possible$ to$ invest$ in$ the$ collaboration$ in$ order$ to$
achieve$ a$ higher$ level$ of$ collaboration,$ which$ will$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ even$ more.$ Good$
collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$makes$it$easier$to$complete$a$project$successfully.$$
$
Now$all$the$sub$questions$are$discussed,$the$main$question$can$be$answered:$
$Which# possibilities# can# be# defined# to# enhance# the# collaboration# between# principal# and#
contractor#on#project#stakeholder#management#in#large#infrastructure#projects?#
$
This$ research$ provided$ a$ collaboration$ model$ that$ can$ be$ used$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$
between$principal$and$contractor,$and$gives$directions$for$improvements.$This$research$showed$that$
alignment$ of$ the$ points$ of$ view$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ is$ most$ important$ for$ successful$
collaboration.$Strategies$that$will$improve$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$are$(1)$
verification$ of$ mutual$ expectations$ regarding$ the$ collaboration$ and$ financials,$ (2)$ investing$ in$ the$
composition$of$project$teams$and$(3)$monitoring$the$collaboration$process.$In$case$the$points$of$view$
of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ already$ aligned,$ the$ collaboration$ can$ be$ improved$ by$ striving$ to$
achieve$a$higher$level$of$collaboration.$$
$$
Reflection"
This$ research$ resulted$ in$ some$ strategies$ to$ enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ It$ has$ been$ illustrated$ that$ in$ practice$ there$ is$
limited$attention$for$these$strategies,$although$some$of$them$can$be$found$in$literature.$This$is$due$
to$the$fact$that$the$emphasis$is$mainly$on$the$technical$and$hard$aspects$of$collaboration,$while$the$
difficulties$of$collaboration$are$found$in$the$social$and$soft$aspects.$This$research$has$illustrated$that$
there$ is$ limited$ attention$ for$ collaboration$ and$ that$ some$ people$ within$ organisations$ have$ a$
sceptical$ attitude$ towards$ collaboration.$ Principal$ and$ contractor$ do$ not$ always$ understand$ each$
other$correctly$and$not$everyone$speaks$the$same$language.$These$issues$illustrate$that$collaboration$
is$a$complex$and$dynamic$process$with$lots$of$interactions$that$influence$collaboration$and$project$
stakeholder$management.$It$is$the$task$of$the$project$stakeholder$manager$to$fulfil$his$or$her$role$in$
this$complex$and$dynamic$environment.$
$
The$relationship$between$principal$and$contractor$is$important$for$an$effective$communication$with$
the$ project$ stakeholders.$ The$ research$ learned$ that$ communication$ is$ mainly$ focused$ on$ the$
technical$and$hard$aspects$of$the$project,$while$stakeholders$change$their$opinion$and$are$tough$to$
manage.$
$
In$a$project$there$is$interaction$between$the$internal$and$external$relationships.$These$interactions$
influence$ the$ success$ of$ a$ project.$ The$ satisfaction$ of$ the$ project$ stakeholders$ influences$ the$
relationship$and$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$On$the$other$hand$the$relationship$
between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ influences$ the$ relation$ with$ the$ project$ stakeholders.$ Figure$ 37$
illustrates$ the$ interaction$ between$ all$ the$ parties.$ This$ research$ was$ focused$ on$ the$ collaboration$
between$ the$ project$ stakeholder$ managers$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor,$ and$ their$ relation$ towards$
the$ project$ stakeholders.$ Not$ all$ aspects$ of$ internal$ and$ external$ relationships$ are$ investigated,$ so$
there$is$still$a$lot$to$be$investigated$in$further$research.$
$$
84"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
Figure#37:#Interaction#of#relations"
$
$
9.2. Recommendations"for"further"research"
This$ research$ and$ its$ results$ provided$ new$ insights$ into$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$
contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$ The$ conclusions$ of$ this$ research$ can$ be$ used$ to$
enhance$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor$ on$ project$ stakeholder$ management.$
This$research$has$an$explorative$character$and$led$to$additional$directions$for$further$research.$This$
section$will$briefly$discuss$the$possible$directions$for$further$research,$it$is$the$end$of$this$research$
and$includes$this$research’s$final$contribution$to$the$scientific$knowledge.$
9.2.1. Research%direction%one:%Further%development%of%the%collaboration%model%
Improve$ the$ collaboration$ model$ by$ further$ development$ of$ the$ model.$ This$ research$ provided$ a$
collaboration$ model$ to$ reflect$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ principal$ and$ contractor.$ The$
participants$ of$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ confirmed$ that$ the$ model$ can$ be$ used$ in$ practice.$ Research$
directions$for$further$development$of$the$collaboration$model$are:$
• Evaluate$ the$ completeness$ of$ the$ criteria$ that$ are$ important$ for$ collaboration.$ The$
completeness$of$the$criteria$can$be$evaluated$with$an$extensive$literature$research$or$with$a$
practical$research$in$which$participants$select$and$determine$the$most$important$criteria.$
• Determine$ the$ applicability$ of$ the$ collaboration$ model$ by$ testing$ the$ completeness$ and$
feasibility$of$the$model$to$a$larger$group$of$people$and$in$other$projects.$$
• Investigate$ whether$ the$ collaboration$ model$ could$ be$ useful$ in$ project$ with$other$ types$ of$
contracts$and$in$projects$in$other$countries.$
9.2.2. Research%direction%two:%Create%more%awareness%for%the%importance%of%collaboration%
Investigate$ ways$ in$ which$ employees$ of$ principal$ and$ contractor$ become$ more$ aware$ of$ the$
importance$of$project$stakeholder$management$and$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$
Throughout$ the$ interviews$ and$ during$ the$ workshop$ meeting$ as$ well,$ the$ interviewees$ have$
indicated$that$project$stakeholder$managers$are$often$aware$of$the$importance$of$collaboration$and$
project$stakeholder$management,$but$not$all$their$colleagues$are.$It$would$be$helpful$in$their$work$
that$everyone$becomes$aware$of$this.$The$interviewees$explained$that$RWS$is$still$a$bit$hesitant$in$
collaboration$with$contractors,$because$RWS$wants$to$keep$control$over$a$project.$The$contractors$
on$ the$ other$ hand$ do$ not$ always$ see$ the$ (added)$ value$ of$ collaboration$ and$ project$ stakeholder$
management.$Their$main$focus$is$a$successful$realisation$of$the$project$within$time$and$budget.$This$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"85"
illustrates$ that$ principal$ and$ contractor$ are$ still$ bound$ to$ their$ traditional$ division$ of$ roles.$ The$
project$ stakeholder$ managers$ face$ the$ challenge$ of$ collaborating$ with$ each$ other,$ while$ the$
corporate$cultures$of$both$parties$are$not$aligned.$There$is$a$bridge$to$gap.$This$requires$research$on$
how$to$overcome$the$culture$differences$between$principal$and$contractor,$and$understanding$and$
respecting$of$the$positions$of$individuals$in$the$collaboration.$
9.2.3. Research%direction%three:%Include%project%stakeholder%perspective%on%collaboration%
Investigate$how$the$point$of$view$of$the$project$stakeholders$can$be$integrated$in$the$evaluation$of$
the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor.$During$the$workshop$meeting$and$evaluation$of$
the$ collaboration$ model,$ the$ workshop$ participants$ indicated$ that$ the$ point$ of$ view$ of$ the$ project$
stakeholders$should$be$added$for$a$complete$evaluation$of$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$
contractor.$With$the$current$model,$the$collaboration$was$only$evaluated$from$the$point$of$view$of$
principal$and$contractor.$Although$they$might$experience$their$collaboration$as$good,$this$might$not$
be$the$case$according$to$the$project$stakeholders.$This$might$lead$to$problems$since$it$was$illustrated$
that$the$collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$influences$the$project$stakeholders$and$vice$
versa.$Therefore$this$is$an$interesting$direction$for$further$research.$
$
$
$
$
86"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
10.
LITERATURE"
$
$
Aaltonen,$K.$(2011).$Project$stakeholder$analysis$as$an$environmental$interpretation$process.$
International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#29(2),$165R183.$$
Antea$Group.$(2014).$Omgevingsmanagement.$$$Retrieved$30R07R2014,$from$
http://nl.anteagroup.com/thema/omgevingsmanagement$
Ark,$M.$van.$(2010).$Conditionering#van#planvorming#tot#evaluatie.$Nijkerk:$Kennis$in$het$groot$
(KING).$
Arnstein,$S.R.$(1969).$A$Ladder$of$Citizen$Participation.$Journal#of#the#American#Institute#of#Planners,#
35(4),$216R224.$$
Arts,$J.,$&$Sandee,$P.$(2005).$Werkwijzer$vervlechting$tracé/m.e.r.R$en$aanbestedingsprocedure$bij$
infrastructurele$projecten:$Taskforce$PubliekRPrivate$Samenwerking.$
Atkin,$B.,$&$Skitmore,$M.$(2008).$Editorial:$Stakeholder$Management$in$Construction.$Construction#
Management#and#Economics,#26(6),$549R552.$$
Avenue2.$(2009).$Integraal$Plan$A2$Maastricht,$Avenue2,$de$Groene$Loper.$Vanzelfsprekend.$
BAM$Infraconsult.$(2014).$Omgevingsmanagement.$$$Retrieved$30R07R2014,$from$
http://www.baminfraconsult.nl/expertise/omgevingsmanagement$
Beach,$R.,$Webster,$M.,$&$Campbell,$K.$(2005).$An$evaluation$of$partnership$development$in$the$
construction$industry.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#23(8),$611R621.$$
Bedwell,$W.L.,$Wildman,$J.L.,$DiazGranados,$D.,$Salazar,$M.,$Kramer,$W.S.,$&$Salas,$E.$(2012).$
Collaboration$at$work:$An$integrative$multilevel$conceptualization.$Human#Resource#
Management#Research,#22(2),$128R145.$$
Bijl,$H.$(2011).$40#jaar#passie#voor#ondergronds#bouwen.$
Black,$C.,$Akintoye,$A.,$&$Fitzgerald,$E.$(2000).$An$analysis$of$success$factors$and$benefits$of$
partnering$in$construction.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#18(6),$423R434.$$
Bolle,$A.$(2008).$De$attende$aannemer:$Checklist$voor$omgevingscommunicatie.$Woerden:$Van$
Hattum$en$Blankevoort.$
Bresnen,$M.,$&$Marshall,$N.$(2000a).$Building$partnerships:$case$studies$of$client–contractor$
collaboration$in$the$UK$construction$industry.$Construction#Management#and#Economics,#
18(7),$819R832.$$
Bresnen,$M.,$&$Marshall,$N.$(2000b).$Partnering$in$construction:$a$critical$review$of$issues,$problems$
and$dilemmas.$Construction#Management#and#Economics,#18(2),$229R237.$$
Bresnen,$M.,$&$Marshall,$N.$(2002).$The$engineering$or$evolution$of$coRoperation?$A$tale$of$two$
partnering$projects.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#20(7),$497R505.$$
Briscoe,$G.,$Dainty,$A.,$&$Millett,$S.$(2001).$Construction$supply$chain$partnerships:$skills,$knowledge$
and$attitudinal$requirements.$European#Journal#of#Purchasing#&#Supply#Management,#7(4),$
243R255.$$
Bruggeman,$E.M.,$ChaoRDuivis,$M.A.B.,$&$Koning,$A.Z.R.$(Eds.).$(2010).$A#Practical#Guide#to#Dutch#
Building#Contracts.$Den$Haag:$Instituut$voor$Bouwrecht.$
BultRSpiering,$M.,$Blanken,$A.,$&$Dewulf,$G.$(2005).$Handboek#publiekfprivate#samenwerking.$
Utrecht:$Lemma.$
Chan,$A.$P.,$Chan,$D.$W.,$Chiang,$Y.$H.,$Tang,$B.$S.,$Chan,$E.$H.,$&$Ho,$K.$S.$(2004).$Exploring$critical$
success$factors$for$partnering$in$construction$projects.$Journal#of#construction#engineering#
and#management,#130(2),$188R198.$$
Cheung,$S.$O.,$Yiu,$T.$W.,$&$Chiu,$O.$K.$(2009).$The$aggressive–cooperative$drivers$of$construction$
contracting.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#27(7),$727R735.$$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"87"
Clegg,$S.R.,$Pitsis,$T.S.,$RuraRPolley,$T.,$&$Marosszeky,$M.$(2002).$Governmentality$Matters:$Designing$
an$Alliance$Culture$of$InterROrganizational$Collaboration$for$Managing$Projects.$Organization#
Studies,#23(3),$317R337.$$
Commissie$Private$Financiering$van$Infrastructuur.$(2008).$Op#de#goede#weg#en#het#juiste#spoor;#
Advies#van#de#Commissie#Private#Financiering#van#Infrastructuur.$$Den$Haag:$Ministerie$van$
Verkeer$en$Waterstaat.$
Commissie$Versnelling$Besluitvorming$Infrastructurele$Projecten.$(2008).$Sneller#en#Beter;#Advies#
Commissie#Versnelling#Besluitvorming#Infrastructurele#Projecten.$$Den$Haag:$Ministerie$van$
Verkeer$en$Waterstaat.$
Delmon,$J.$(2011).$PublicfPrivate#Partnership#Projects#in#Infrastructure:#An#Essential#Guide#for#Policy#
Makers.$New$York,$NY:$Cambridge$University$Press.$
Dewulf,$G.,$&$Kadefors,$A.$(2012).$Collaboration$in$public$construction$R$contractual$incentives,$
partnering$schema$and$trust.$Engineering#Project#Organization#Journal,#2(4),$240R250.$$
Dorée,$A.G.$(2001).$Dobberen$tussen$concurrentie$en$coRdevelopment;$de$problematiek$van$
samenwerking$in$de$bouw.$$
Du$Prie,$A.$(2013).$Omgevingsmanagement$verdient$meer$aandacht.$Land+Water(5).$$
Edelenbos,$J.$(1999).$Design$and$Management$of$Participatory$Public$Policy$Making.$Public#
Management,#1(4),$569R578.$$
Edelenbos,$J.$(2001).$Interactieve$beleidsvorming$als$inhoudsabsorberend$proces.$Bestuurkunde,#10,$
349R356.$$
Edelenbos,$J.,$&$Klijn,$E.H.$(2006).$Managing$stakeholder$involvement$in$decision$making:$A$
comparative$analysis$of$six$interactive$processes$in$the$Netherlands.$Journal#of#public#
administration#research#and#theory,#16(3),$417R446.$$
Edelenbos,$J.,$&$Monnikhof,$R.$(2001).$Lokale#interactieve#beleidsvorming.#Een#vergelijkend#
onderzoek#naar#de#consequenties#van#interactieve#beleidsvorming#voor#het#functioneren#van#
de#lokale#democratie.$Utrecht:$Lemma.$
Eggers,$W.D.,$&$Startup,$T.$(2006).$Closing$the$infrastructure$gap:$the$role$of$publicR$private$
partnerships.$A$Deloitte$Research$study.$.$Washington$DC:$Deloitte.$
ElRGohary,$N.M.,$Osman,$H.,$&$ElRDiraby,$T.E.$(2006).$Stakeholder$management$for$public$private$
partnerships.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#24(7),$595R604.$$
Ellison,$S.D.,$&$Miller,$D.W.$(1995).$Beyond$ADR:$working$toward$synergistic$strategic$partnership.$
Journal#of#Management#in#Engineering,#11(6),$44R54.$$
Ernzen,$J.,$&$Woods,$J.$(2001).$ContractorRled$public$relations$on$a$designRbuild$highway$project.$
Transportation#Research#Record,#1780,$155R164.$$
Eversdijk,$A.,$&$Korsten,$A.$(2007).$PubliekRprivate$samenwerking$bij$infrastructurele$project:$De$
achterkant$in$beeld.$TPC,$28R33.$
Gajendran,$T.,$&$Brewer,$G.$(2012).$Collaboration$in$public$sector$projects:$unearthing$the$contextual$
challenges$posed$in$project$environments.$Engineering#Project#Organization#Journal,#2(3),$
112R126.$$
Gelder,$H.$van,$Post,$S.,$Koppenjan,$J.,$Houben,$T.,$&$Ouwerkerk,$T.$(2010).$De$zoektocht$naar$het$
vak:$Omgevingsmanagement.$Nijkerk:$Kennis$in$het$groot$(KING).$
Gibbert,$M.,$Ruigrok,$W.,$&$Wicki,$B.$(2008).$What$passes$as$a$rigorous$case$study?$Strategic#
Management#Journal,#29(13),$1465R1474.$$
Ham,$H.$van,$&$Koppenjan,$J.$(2002).$Publiekfprivate#samenwerking#bij#transport#infrastructuur.$
Utrecht:$Lemma.$
Heeres,$N.,$Tillema,$T.,$&$Arts,$J.$(2012).$Integration$in$Dutch$planning$of$motorways:$From$"line"$
towards$"areaRoriented"$approaches.$Transport#Policy,#24(6),$148R158.$$
Hertogh,$M.J.C.M.,$Baker,$S.K.,$StaalROng,$P.L.,$&$Westerveld,$E.$(2008).$Management$of$Large$
Infrastructure$Projects:$NETLIPSE.$
Hertogh,$M.J.C.M.,$&$Westerveld,$E.$(2010).$Playing#with#complexity:#Management#and#organisation#
of#large#infrastructure#projects.$Erasmus$University$Rotterdam.$Retrieved$from$
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18456$$$
88"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
Hol,$P.,$&$Risselada,$J.$(2013).$Handreiking#OM+#en#de#markt.$
Humphreys,$P.,$Matthews,$J.,$&$Kumaraswamy,$M.$(2003).$PreRconstruction$project$partnering:$from$
adversarial$to$collaborative$relationships.$Supply#Chain#Management:#An#International#
Journal,#8(2),$166R178.$$
Kalaian,$S.A.$(2008).$Research$design.$In$P.$J.$Lavrakas$(Ed.),$Encyclopedia#of#Survey#Research#
Methods:$SAGE.$
Kam,$S.$van$der,$Weustink,$T.,$&$Cremer,$R.$(2013).$Samenspel#en#tegenspraak:#Tien#lessen#uit#de#
Noord/Zuidlijn:$Dienst$Metro$and$King.$
Kampinga,$S.$(2010).$Projectplan,$omgevingsmanagement$en$communicatie.$$
Kolk,$H.$van$der.$(2012).$Het$risico$van$risico's$mijden.$
http://www.cobouw.nl/nieuws/algemeen/2012/12/20/hetRrisicoRvanRrisicosRmijden$
Kooiman,$J.$(1993).$Modern#Governance.#New#GovernmentfSociety#Interactions.$London:$SAGE.$
Krouwel,$D.$(2014).$Gedragsontwikkeling$in$de$civiele$techniek.$$
Laan,$A.,$Noorderhaven,$N.,$Voordijk,$H.,$&$Dewulf,$G.$(2011).$Building$trust$in$construction$
partnering$projects:$An$exploratory$caseRstudy.$Journal#of#Purchasing#and#Supply#
Management,#17(2),$98R108.$$
Lemmens,$R.$(2001).$Strategisch#management:#omgevingsmanagement:$Author.$
Lenferink,$S.$(2013).$Market#Involvement#throughout#the#Planning#Lifecycle.$University$of$Groningen.$$$$
Lenferink,$S.,$Arts,$J.,$&$Tillema,$T.$(2011).$Ongoing$public$private$interaction$in$infrastructure$
planning:$an$evaluation$of$Dutch$competitive$dialogue$projects.$Towards#new#horizons#in#
public#procurement,$236R272.$$
Lenferink,$S.,$Tillema,$T.,$&$Arts,$J.$(2013).$Towards$sustainable$infrastructure$development$through$
integrated$contracts:$Experiences$with$inclusiveness$in$Dutch$infrastructure$projects.$
International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#31(4),$615R627.$$
Luo,$Y.$(2002).$Contract,$cooperation,$and$performance$in$international$joint$ventures.$Strategic#
Management#Journal,#23(10),$903R919.$$
Marques,$R.C.,$&$Berg,$S.$(2011).$Risks,$contracts,$and$privateRsector$participation$in$infrastructure.$
Journal#of#construction#engineering#and#management,#137(11),$925R932.$$
Meng,$X.,$Sun,$M.,$&$Jones,$M.$(2011).$Maturity$model$for$supply$chain$relationships$in$construction.$
Journal#of#Management#in#Engineering,#27(2),$97R105.$$
Morsing,$M.,$&$Schultz,$M.$(2006).$Corporate$social$responsibility$communication:$stakeholder$
information,$response$and$involvement$strategies.$Business#Ethics:#A#European#Review,#15(4),$
323R338.$$
Ning,$Y.$(2014).$Quantitative$effects$of$drivers$and$barriers$on$networking$strategies$in$public$
construction$projects.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#32(2),$286R297.$$
Ning,$Y.,$&$Ling,$F.Y.Y.$(2013).$Comparative$study$of$drivers$of$and$barriers$to$relational$transactions$
faced$by$public$clients,$private$contractors$and$consultants$in$public$projects.$Habitat#
International,#40,$91R99.$$
Olander,$S.,$&$Landin,$A.$(2005).$Evaluation$of$stakeholder$influence$in$the$implementation$of$
construction$projects.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#23(4),$321R328.$$
Osipova,$E.,$&$Eriksson,$P.E.$(2011).$How$procurement$options$influence$risk$management$in$
construction$projects.$Construction#Management#and#Economics,#29(11),$1149R1158.$$
Otto,$M.$(2007).$Gemeentelijke$herindeling$en$de$burger.$Openbaar#Bestuur(10),$11R14.$$
Overmeeren,$W.$van.$(2012).$Twee$geloven$op$één$kussen.$$
Peletier,$C.,$&$Post,$T.$(2009).$Omgevingsmanager:$de$onmisbare$schakel$tussen$buiten$en$binnen:$
Rijkswaterstaat.$
Preble,$J.F.$(2005).$Toward$a$comprehensive$model$of$stakeholder$management.$Business#and#
Society#Review,#110(4),$407R431.$$
Quiggin,$J.$(2004).$Risk,$PPPs$and$the$public$sector$comparator.$Australian#Accounting#Review,#
14(33),$51R61.$$
Reinking,$M.$(2013).$Succesvol#samenwerken;#de#zachte#kant#van#projectmanagement:$
Rijksprojectacademie$(King/RPA).$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"89"
Renda.$(2012).$Bouw$versneld$naar$vraaggerichte$markt.$http://www.renda.nl/nieuws/nieuws/bouwR
versneldRnaarRvraaggerichteRmarkt.255115.lynkx$
Ridder,$H.A.J.$de,$&$Noppen,$J.P.$(2009).$Design#and#Construct#in#Civil#Engineering:#Lecture#Notes#
CT5981:$Delft$University$of$Technology.$
Rijkswaterstaat.$(2004).$Ondernemingsplan:#Een#nieuw#perspectief#voor#Rijkswaterstaat.#
Rijkswaterstaat.$(2008).$OM$in$projecten$&$Inspraak$bij$planvorming$(pp.$8):$Rijkswaterstaat$Dienst$
Verkeer$&$Scheepvaart.$
Rijkswaterstaat.$(2010).$Omgevingsmanagement:#zo#werkt#het#in#de#natte#infrastructuur,#van#
planstudie#naar#realisatie#en#beheer#&#onderhoud.$
Rijkswaterstaat.$(2011a).$Werkwijzer#Aanleg,#Deel#1:#Sturing#en#beheer.$Rijkswaterstaat$Dienst$
Infrastructuur.$
Rijkswaterstaat.$(2011b).$Werkwijzer#Aanleg,#Deel#2:#Kaders#per#IPMfproces.$Rijkswaterstaat$Dienst$
Infrastructuur.$
Rijkswaterstaat.$(2013).$Model#vraagspecificatie#proces.$
Rijkswaterstaat.$(2014a).$Afwegingen$rond$publiekRprivate$samenwerking$(PPS).$$$Retrieved$01R08R
2014,$from$
http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/zakendoen_met_rws/werkwijzen/gww/afweegkader_
inkoop/ppc/index.aspx$
Rijkswaterstaat.$(2014b).$DBFM.$$$Retrieved$01R05R2014,$from$
http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/zakendoen_met_rws/werkwijzen/gww/contracten_g
ww/dbfm/$
Rijkswaterstaat.$(2014c).$Design$&$Construct.$$$Retrieved$17R06R2014,$from$
http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/zakendoen_met_rws/werkwijzen/gww/contracten_g
ww/dc$
Rwelamila,$P.D.,$Fewings,$P.,$&$Henjewele,$C.$(2014).$Addressing$the$Missing$Link$in$PPP$Projects:$
What$Constitutes$the$Public?$Journal#of#Management#in#Engineering.$$
Saad,$M.,$Jones,$M.,$&$James,$P.$(2002).$A$review$of$the$progress$towards$the$adoption$of$supply$
chain$management$(SCM)$relationships$in$construction.$European#Journal#of#Purchasing#&#
Supply#Management,#8(3),$173R183.$$
Sandee,$P.$(2009).$Monitor,$Nieuwe$Marktbenadering$/$Vervlechting$2009.$Utrecht:$WB$Consulting.$
Smit,$N.,$&$Thiel,$S.$van.$(2002).$De$zakelijk$overheid:$publieke$en$bedrijfsmatige$waarden$in$publiekR
private$samenwerking.$Bestuurskunde,#11(6),$226R234.$$
Stolk,$P.$(2014).$Visie$op$veranderingen$in$de$bouw.$
http://www.centric.eu/NL/Default/Branches/Bouw/Experts/PeterRStolk/VisieRopR
veranderingenRinRdeRbouw#$
Suprapto,$M.,$Bakker,$H.,$Mooi,$H.,$&$Moree,$W.$(in$press).$Sorting$out$the$esscence$of$ownerR
contractor$collaboration$in$capital$projects$delivery.$International#Journal#of#Project#
Management.$$
Suprapto,$M.,$Mooi,$H.,$&$Bakker,$H.$(2012).$How#far#can#you#go?#Exploring#a#collaborative#
relationship#in#an#engineering#project.$Paper$presented$at$the$EURAM$2012,$Rotterdam.$$
Swanborn,$P.G.$(2013).$Case#studies:#wat,#wanneer#en#hoe?$Den$Haag:$Boom$Lemma.$
Tan,$Y.,$Shen,$L.,$&$Yao,$H.$(2011).$Sustainable$construction$practice$and$contractors’$
competitiveness:$A$preliminary$study.$Habitat#International,#35(2),$225R230.$$
Tang,$L.,$Shen,$Q.,$&$Cheng,$E.W.$(2010).$A$review$of$studies$on$PublicRPrivate$Partnership$projects$in$
the$construction$industry.$International#Journal#of#Project#Management,#28(7),$683R694.$$
Veen,$B.$van$der,$&$Dijk,$S.$van.$(2007).$Kwaliteitsborging#bij#Design#&#Construct#contracten,#
praktische#handleidingen:$Stichting$Research$Rationalisatie$Bouw.$
Verschuren,$P.,$&$Doorewaard,$H.$(2007).$Het#ontwerpen#van#een#onderzoek.$Utrecht:$Lemma.$
Vieter,$V.$de$la.$(2011).$Strategisch$omgaan$met$stakeholders:$(ook)$in$buitenland$sleutelfactor.$De#
Onderbouwing,#4(10),$13R15.$$
90"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
Wal,$Z.$van$der,$Graaf,$G.$de,$&$Lasthuizen,$K.$(2008).$What's$valued$most?$Similarities$and$
differences$between$the$organizational$values$of$the$public$and$private$sector.$Public#
Administration,#86(2),$465R482.$$
Wanningen,$A.,$Schipper,$W.,$Haak,$M.,$&$Hoog,$A.$de.$(2013).$Omgevingsmanagement:$Gemeente$
Amsterdam.$
Wesselink,$M.$(2010).$Handboek#Strategisch#OmgevingsManagement.$Deventer:$Kluwer.$
Yang,$J.,$Shen,$G.Q.,$Ho,$M.,$Drew,$D.S.,$&$Xue,$X.$(2011).$Stakeholder$management$in$construction:$
An$empirical$study$to$address$research$gaps$in$previous$studies.$International#Journal#of#
Project#Management,#29(7),$900R910.$$
Yin,$R.K.$(2003).$Case#Study#Research:#Design#and#Methods:$SAGE.$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"91"
APPENDIX"A."CLUSTERING"COLLABORATION"
$
The$factors$that$influence$collaboration$according$to$the$theories$as$elaborated$on$in$chapter$3$were$
in$ the$ first$ place$ clustered$ with$ the$ use$ of$ post$ its.$ This$ illustrated$ that$ the$ theories$ have$ similar$
factors$or$have$factors$that$are$closely$related$to$each$other.$After$the$clustering$of$the$factors,$the$
researcher$ gave$ the$ clusters$ a$ name$ and$ that$ resulted$ in$ the$ six$ main$ criteria$ to$ determine$ the$
maturity$of$the$collaboration$in$the$different$cases.$
$
Figure#38:#Clustering#factors#
$
Table$7$(on$the$next$page)$gives$an$overview$of$the$clustering$of$the$different$factors$and$illustrates$
the$theories$the$factors$come$from.$This$table$also$illustrates$that$two$factors$are$not$included.$It$was$
chosen$ not$ to$ include$ the$ factors$ contract$ completeness$ and$ procurement,$ because$ these$ factors$
focus$ on$ the$ contract$ and$ tender$ procedure$ of$ the$ project$ while$ this$ research$ focuses$ on$ the$
collaboration$ during$ the$ realisation$ of$ the$ project.$ Besides$ that,$ all$ selected$ projects$ for$ the$ case$
study$have$a$D&C$contract$and$therefore$have$a$same$basis.$This$does$not$mean$that$these$factors$
are$ not$ important,$ because$ literature$ already$ illustrated$ that$ these$ factors$ are$ the$ fundamental$
framework$of$a$relationship.$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
92"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
"Chan"et"al."(2004)"
"Cheung"et"al."
(2009)"
Objectives"
Project"organisation" Productive$conflict$
resolution$
Incentive$to$risk$
sharing$/$problem$
solving$
"Gajendran"and"
Brewer"(2012)"
Shared$direction$
"Meng"et"al."(2011)"
Competence$of$the$
members$
Problem$solving$
Efficient$
coordination$
Power$distribution$
and$equality$
$
Collective$action$
Risk"
Incentive$to$risk$
sharing$/$problem$
solving$
Objectives$
Risk$allocation$
Trust"
Mutual$trust$
Communication"
"
"
"
Effective$
communication$
Attitude"
LongRterm$
commitment$
Good$relationships$
Collaboration$
Support$from$top$
management$
Adequate$resources$
$
$
Good$teamwork$
Continuous$
improvement$
Openness$
Trust$
Trust$
Communication$
Communication$
Effective$
communication$
Desire$to$maintain$
relationship$
Not"included"
Contract$
completeness$
Table#7:#Overview#of#the#clustering#of#factors#and#their#theories#
Procurement$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
Hereunder$ follows$ an$ overview$ with$ explanations$ about$ how$ the$ different$ aspects$ should$ be$
interpreted$according$to$the$research$where$they$are$taken$from.$
$
"Factor"
Explanation"
Adequate"resources" The$willingness$of$involved$parties$to$share$their$resources$with$each$other.$
Support"from"top"
Commitment$and$support$from$top$management$regarding$collaboration.$
management"
Mutual"trust"
Involved$parties$should$belief$that$others$are$reliable$in$fulfilling$their$
obligation.$$
Longcterm"
The$willingness$of$involved$parties$to$integrate$continuously$to$unanticipated$
commitment"
problems.$
Effective"
Timely$communication$of$information$and$the$maintenance$of$open,$direct$lines$
communication"
of$communication$among$all$project$team$members.$
Efficient"
Expectations$of$each$party$from$the$others$in$fulfilling$a$set$of$tasks.$
coordination"
Productive"conflict" The$way$conflicts$are$solved,$is$there$a$winRwin$or$winRlose$situation?$
resolution"
Table#9:#Explanation#factors#theory#Chan#et#al.#(2004)#
$
$
$
$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"93"
"Factor"
Openness"
Good"relationships"
Contract"
completeness"
Good"teamwork"
Incentive"to"risk"
sharing/problem"
solving"
Effective"
communication"
Desire"to"maintain"
relationship"
Explanation"
The$active$involvement$within$project$teams$with$open/honest$
communications,$exchange$of$thoughts$and$feelings.$$
The$relationship$among$the$contracting$parties.$
The$way$the$contract$serves$as$framework$in$the$collaboration.$
$
Teamwork$spirit$among$the$project$team$members.$
The$incentive$to$risk$sharing$and$problem$solving.$
Open$and$efficient$information$exchange$and$interpretation$among$contracting$
parties.$
Desire$of$the$project$team$members$to$maintain$relationships$during$the$
project.$
Table#10:#Explanation#factors#theory#Cheung#et#al.#(2009)#
"Factor"
Shared"direction"
Collective"action"
Competence"of"the"
members"
Power"distribution"
and"equality"
Trust"
Communication"
Explanation"
Team$members$sharing$similar$values.$
The$team$members’$commitment$to$achieve$the$shared$goal.$
The$competency$of$each$team$member$to$perform$his$or$her$duties.$
$
The$distribution$of$power,$and$perceptions$of$equalities$and$fairness$among$the$
team$members.$
The$confidence$team$members$have$in$each$other.$
Communication$is$an$overarching$aspect$that$has$a$bearing$on$all$the$aboveR
mentioned$dimensions.$It$is$critical$in$understanding$each$other$and$lies$at$the$
core$of$developing$trust$and$respect.$
Table#11:#Explanation#factors#theory#Gajendran#and#Brewer#(2012)#
"Factor"
Procurement"
Objectives"
Trust"
Collaboration"
Communication"
Problem"solving"
Risk"allocation"
Continuous"
improvement"
Explanation"
The$type$of$contract$and$the$criteria$to$select$a$contractor.$
Interest$of$parties$in$common$objectives$and$mutual$benefits.$
The$confidence$parties$have$in$other’s$behaviour$and$the$reliability$of$received$
information.$
Reflects$whether$parties$work$collaboratively$together$and$how$close$the$
parties$work$together.$
The$exchange$of$information$and$share$learning$between$the$parties.$
Effectiveness$of$the$problem$solving$process.$
The$allocation$of$risks$and$the$reward$that$is$given$for$this.$
Constantly$delivering$a$greater$value$and$increase$mutual$advantages.$
Table#12:#Explanation#factors#theory#Meng#et#al.#(2011)#
94"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
APPENDIX"B."TYPES"OF"RELATIONSHIPS"
"
Level"
1$
2$
3$
4$
Ellison"and"Miller"
(1995)"
Adversarial$arms$
length$contractual$
relationship$
Collaborative$teamR
oriented$
relationship$
Value$added$
integrated$team$
Synergistic$strategic$
partnership$
Humphreys"et"al."
Meng"et"al."(2011)"
(2003)"
Traditional$approach$ Price$competition$
Saad"et"al."(2002)"
SemiRproject$
partnering$
Quality$competition$
Closer$project$based$
Project$partnering$
Project$partnering$
Strategic$partnering$
Strategic$
partnering/alliance$
Full$partnership$
alliance$
Strategic$
relationship$
Contractual$
relationship$
Table#13:#Different#theories#about#types#of#relationships%
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"95"
APPENDIX"C."INTERVIEW"PROTOCOL"
#
1. Background"information"
This$ case$ protocol$ is$ used$ to$ conduct$ the$ interviews$ for$ this$ graduation$ research$ of$ Sophie$ Vulink,$
student$ Construction$ Management$ &$ Engineering$ at$ the$ University$ of$ Technology$ in$ Delft.$ The$
research$ focuses$ on$ the$ collaboration$ between$ public$ and$ private$ parties$ on$ project$ stakeholder$
management$ in$ large$ infrastructure$ projects$ in$ The$ Netherlands$ executed$ according$ to$ a$ D&C$
contract.$ The$ field$ of$ knowledge$ in$ which$ this$ research$ takes$ place$ is$ already$ defined$ with$ the$
theoretical$framework$in$the$main$part$of$this$research.$
$
2. Goal"of"the"interviews"
The$ main$ goal$ of$ the$ interviews$ is$ to$ collect$ empirical$ data$ that$ will$ help$ to$ answer$ the$ research$
questions.$These$research$questions$aim$to$answer$the$objective$of$this$research.$Understanding$the$
difficulties$and$opportunities$in$collaboration$between$public$and$private$parties$and$how$to$improve$
the$ collaboration$ between$ both$ parties.$ In$ the$ longer$ run$ answering$ these$ research$ questions$ can$
provide$a$better$collaboration$between$public$and$private$parties$and$will$add$information$to$existing$
literature.$
$
3. Result"of"the"interviews"
The$ interview$ should$ provide$ information$ coming$ from$ managers$ in$ the$ field$ about$ how$ they$
experience$and$deal$with$the$following$topics:$
• Project$stakeholder$management$
• Collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$
The$interviews$will$be$used$for$this$research$only.$Important$findings$and$results$of$these$interviews$
can$be$found$the$in$main$part$of$this$report.$
"
4. Strategy"per"interview"
A. All$respondents$were$notified$of$the$research$with$an$eRmail$prior$to$the$interviews.$This$message$
elaborated$ a$ little$ about$ the$ context$ of$ the$ interview,$ gave$ a$ short$ explanation$ of$ the$ research$
goal$and$noticed$the$time$needed$to$conduct$the$inRdepth$interview.$
B. Prior$ the$ interview$ the$ researcher$ made$ short$ descriptions$ about$ the$ project$ to$ get$ a$ good$
overview$of$what$the$project$is$about.$These$descriptions$include$factual$information$about$the$
reason$to$realise$the$project,$the$project$goal,$the$project$scope$and$the$tender$procedure.$It$was$
chosen$ to$ study$ factual$ information$ to$ ensure$ an$ unbiased$ but$ a$ wellRprepared$ interviewer,$ in$
order$to$prevent$losing$time$with$asking$questions$that$could$have$been$looked$up$in$documents.$
The$respondents$have$the$opportunity$to$tell$their$own$story.$
C. When$ the$ appointment$ for$ the$ interview$ was$ made,$ some$ important$ characteristics$ of$ the$
interview$were$mentioned.$
• The$interview$is$semi$structured.$
• Focus$is$on$the$project$the$manager$is$currently$working$on.$
• The$interview$should$take$approximately$1$hour,$with$a$maximum$of$1,5$hours.$
• The$interview$will,$in$case$there$is$no$objection,$be$recorded$for$the$further$details$of$the$
report.$ The$ records$ and$ other$ notes$ will$ not$ be$ used$ for$ a$ context$ other$ than$ this$
research.$
• After$the$interview$some$minutes$are$made,$these$are$send$to$the$respondents$to$check$
them$for$factual$inaccuracies.$$
• The$respondent$will$receive$a$management$summery$with$the$most$important$findings$of$
this$research.$
• The$interview$consists$of$four$parts:$
o Introduction$(+/R$10$minutes)$
96"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
o Theme$I:$Collaboration$between$principal$and$contractor$(+/R$20$minutes)$
o Theme$II:$Implementation$of$project$stakeholder$management$(+/R$25$minutes)$
o Closure$(+/R$5$minutes)$
D. During$ the$ interview$ it$ is$ the$ responsibility$ of$ the$ researcher$ to$ collect$ all$ the$ must$ have$
information.$ At$ the$ end$ of$ the$ interview$ all$ the$ respondents$ had$ the$ possibility$ to$ add$ missing$
information$they$thought$would$contribute$to$the$research.$
E. All$interviews$were$taped$with$the$permission$of$the$respondents$and$elaborated$on$in$interview$
minutes.$ The$ respondents$ checked$ these$ minutes$ in$ order$ to$ prevent$ them$ for$ factual$
inaccuracies.$Afterwards$these$minutes$will$be$used$for$the$case$analysis.$
$
5. Set"up"interviews"
The$ interview$ starts$ with$ an$ introduction,$ consists$ of$ two$ main$ parts$ and$ ends$ with$ a$ closing.$
Because$the$interview$will$be$in$Dutch$the$interview$design$is$in$Dutch$as$well.$
$
Interview"set"up"
Interview$samenwerking$opdrachtgever$en$opdrachtnemer$m.b.t.$omgevingsmanagement.$$
Interviewer:$Sophie$Vulink$
"
Enkele"persoonlijke"instructies"voor"het"afnemen"van"het"interview"
• Vermijd$moeilijke$zinsconstructies$
• Openheid,$vermijd$het$geven$van$een$mening$
• Laat$de$geïnterviewde$vertellen,$niet$te$veel$inbreken$op$een$verhaal$
• Vraag$door,$vraag$naar$concrete$ervaringen$
• Etc.$
"
• Middels$ dit$ interview$ wil$ ik$ inzicht$ verkrijgen$ in$ hoe$ jullie$ als$ opdrachtgever$ en$
opdrachtnemer$ samenwerken$ op$ het$ gebied$ van$ omgevingsmanagement$ bij$ dit$ project"
[ABC].$
• Ik$ voer$ dit$ onderzoek$ uit$ in$ opdracht$ van$ Neerlands$ Diep,$ voor$ het$ schrijven$ van$ mijn$
afstudeerscriptie$aan$de$TU$Delft$
• De$projecten$zijn$geselecteerd$met$als$doel$een$representatief$beeld$te$geven$van$de$sector,$
het$type$project$is$dan$ook$heel$gevarieerd$met$als$extra$doel$van$elkaar$leren.$
• Gaat$ u$ ermee$ akkoord$ dat$ er$ van$ het$ interview$ audio$ opnamen$ gemaakt$ worden$ om$ de$
antwoorden$later$ terug$te$luisteren$en$uit$te$werken.$Ikzelf$heb$als$enige$toegang$tot$deze$
opnamen$en$na$het$onderzoek$zullen$ze$vernietigd$worden.$
• Na$vergelijkend$onderzoek$tussen$de$projecten$zal$ik$verschillende$conclusies$trekken,$deze$
zijn$ gebaseerd$ op$ een$ wetenschappelijke$ analyse$ en$ kunnen$ dus$ niet$ als$ goed$ of$ fout$
beschouwd$worden.$
• Ik$ zal$ straks$ het$ interview$ beginnen$ met$ vragen$ over$ uw$ persoonlijke$ achtergrond$ om$
vervolgens$ verder$ te$ gaan$ op$ verschillende$ facetten$ van$ samenwerking$ en$
omgevingsmanagement.$
• Dit$ interview$ zal$ ongeveer$ een$ uur$ duren$ en$ de$ informatie$ die$ ik$ van$ u$ verkrijg$ zal$
vertrouwelijk$en$tot$op$zekere$hoogte$anoniem1$verwerkt$worden$in$het$onderzoek.$$
• Ik$ben$enorm$geholpen$met$de$antwoorden$die$u$mij$kan$verstrekken$en$als$er$van$uw$kant$
geen$verdere$vragen$zijn$zal$ik$beginnen$met$het$daadwerkelijke$interview.$
"
A. Inleiding"–"achtergrondinformatie"
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
1
$Voor$andere$betrokkenen$kan$het$duidelijk$zijn$met$wie$een$interview$is$afgenomen.$In$dit$onderzoek$gaat$de$
aandacht$ uit$ naar$ hoe$ omgevingsmanagement$ wordt$ aangepakt$ en$ hoe$ opdrachtgever$ en$ opdrachtnemer$
hierin$samenwerken.$Het$gaat$er$vooral$om$inzicht$te$verkrijgen$in$en$te$leren$over$omgevingsmanagement$aan$
de$hand$van$concrete$projecten,$de$ervaringen$van$de$geïnterviewden$helpen$daarbij.$$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"97"
$
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allereerst# nog# wat# feitelijke# informatie# over# uzelf.# Deze# gegevens# worden# gebruikt# om#
eventuele# verbanden# aan# te# tonen,# maar# komen# niet# persoonlijk# herkenbaar# terug# in# het##
onderzoek.#
Wat$is$uw$rol$binnen$dit$project$en$sinds$wanneer$vervult$u$deze?$
Korte$omschrijving$functie$en$taken$
Opleiding$
Professionele$werkervaring$
Organisatie$waarvoor$u$werkt$
Eerdere$ervaringen$
B. Thema"I"–"samenwerking"opdrachtgever"en"opdrachtnemer"
Dan# gaan# we# nu# verder# met# de# set# vragen# over# de# samenwerking# tussen# opdrachtgever# en#
opdrachtnemer.#Hoe#ziet#deze#samenwerking#eruit?#
#
1. Allereerst$een$algemene$vraag$over$het$project$zelf,$hoe$zou$u$het$project$kenmerken?$
2. Wat$is$het$doel$van$de$samenwerking?$
a. Komt$dit$voort$uit$de$projectmissie$
b. Is$er$sprake$van$een$hoger$doel$
c. Hoe$wordt$dit$getoetst$
3. Kunt$u$voor$mij$de$samenwerkingsvorm$(zoals$in$dit$project$toegepast)$karakteriseren?$
4. Wat$zijn$de$verwachtingen$van$deze$samenwerking?$
a. Persoonlijke$verwachtingen$
b. Gedeelde$verwachtingen$
c. Hebben$deze$verwachtingen$invloed$gehad$op$het$proces$
5. Hoe$wordt$de$samenwerking$georganiseerd?$
a. Hoe$is$de$samenwerking$van$start$gegaan$
b. Is$dit$de$eerste$keer$dat$er$wordt$samengewerkt$of$zijn$er$eerdere$ervaringen$
c. Was$het$een$keuze$om$met$elkaar$samen$te$werken$(kon$je$als$individu$inschrijven$
op$dit$project)$of$is$dit$vanuit$hogere$hand$aangestuurd$(en$zijn$jullie$min$of$meer$tot$
elkaar$veroordeeld)$$
d. Hoe$kom$je$samen$van$begin$tot$eind$
e. Welke$investeringen$zijn$er$gedaan$in$onderlinge$persoonlijke$verhoudingen$
f. Omgangsregels,$documenten$
6. Hoe$is$het$doel$vertaald$naar$de$rollen$van$de$OG$en$ON?$
a. Vervullen$OG$en$ON$dezelfde$rol$of$verschillende$rollen$
b. Hoe$zijn$de$taken$verdeeld$$
c. Wat$is$hierover$vastgelegd$
7. Hoe$zijn$risico’s$en$eventuele$winst$of$verliezen$verdeeld$tussen$OG$en$ON?$
a. Gelijkwaardig$
b. Op$basis$van$kunnen$
8. In$welke$mate$wordt$projectinformatie$gedeeld$tussen$OG$en$ON?$
a. Voor$wie$is$welke$informatie$beschikbaar$
b. Waarom$is$hiervoor$gekozen$
9. In$welke$mate$bent$u$afhankelijk$van$de$andere$partij?$
a. Middelen$
b. Besluitvorming$
10. Hoe$wordt$er$gewoonlijk$gecommuniceerd$met$elkaar?$
a. Face$to$face,$telefoon,$mail,$etc.$
b. Gezamenlijk$project$kantoor$
11. In$hoeverre$hebben$formele,$juridische$documenten$invloed$op$de$samenwerking?$
a. Waarom$vindt/denkt$u$dat?$
12. Wat$vindt$u$van$de$samenwerking$tot$nu$toe?$
98"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
a. Is$dit$de$beste$manier$
b. Mate$ van$ samenwerking$ (informeren,$ kennis$ delen$ of$ samen$ nieuwe$ kennis$
verwerven)$
c. Hoe$komt$dit$volgens$u$
d. Verbeterpunten$
e. Voordelen$
f. Onderlinge$verhoudingen$
13. Welke$factoren$hebben$volgens$u$een$positieve$invloed$op$de$samenwerking?$
a. Eventueel$verder$toelichten$
14. Welke$factoren$hebben$volgens$u$een$negatieve$invloed$op$de$samenwerking?$
a. Eventueel$verder$toelichten$
$
C. Thema"II"–"toepassing"omgevingsmanagement"
Nu# gaan# we# verder# met# een# set# vragen# over# de# interactie# tussen# de# projectorganisatie#
(bestaande# uit# werknemers# die# vanuit# de# opdrachtgever# en# opdrachtnemer# aan# dit# project#
werken)#en#de#omgeving.#Hoe#gaat#de#projectorganisatie#hier#mee#om,#kortom#hoe#managet#
de#projectorganisatie#de#omgeving?#
$
1. Heeft$de$projectorganisatie$een$helder$doel$met$betrekking$tot$omgevingsmanagement?$
a. Wordt$er$als$projectorganisatie$naar$buiten$getreden$
b. Heeft$ omgevingsmanagement$ voor$ de$ [OG/ON]$ een$ ander$ doel$ dan$ voor$ de$
projectorganisatie$
2. Hoe$wordt$omgevingsmanagement$toegepast?$
a. Welke$strategieën,$methoden$worden$gebruikt$
b. Heeft$de$[OG/ON]"dezelfde$visie$en$aanpak$
3. Hoe$manage$je$het$proces$om$tot$goed$omgevingsmanagement$te$komen?$$
a. Hoe$zorg$je$hiervoor$
b. Invloed$samenwerken$
c. Welke$strategieën,$instrumenten$of$$interventies$worden$hierbij$gebruikt$
4. Hoe$wordt$de$omgeving$bij$het$project$betrokken?$
a. Worden$alle$actoren$op$dezelfde$manier$benaderd$
b. Middelen$(brieven,$bijeenkomsten,$etc.)$
c. Mate$van$participatie$
5. In$welke$mate$wordt$er$geïnvesteerd$in$relaties$met$de$omgeving?$
a. Hoe$en$hoe$vaak$
b. Wie$horen$bij$deze$omgeving$
6. In$welke$mate$wordt$er$rekening$gehouden$met$risico’s$uit$de$omgeving?$
a. Wat$waren,$zijn$of$worden$cruciale$momenten$
b. Verschillende$scenario’s$
7. Wat$zijn$jullie$belangen$met$betrekking$tot$omgevingsmanagement?$
a. Gezamenlijke$belangen$
b. Belangen$[OG/ON]$
8. Op$welke$wijze$is$er$gestuurd$op$belangen$en$verschillen?$
a. In$welke$mate$zijn$uw$belangen$gerespecteerd$ten$opzichte$van$de$belangen$van$de$
omgeving$en$[OG/ON]$
b. In$welke$mate$kunt$u$zich$verplaatsen$in$de$belangen$van$de$omgeving$en$[OG/ON]$
9. Kunt$u$de$belangen$van$de$omgeving$benoemen?$
a. Zijn$deze$belangen$getoetst$
b. Zo$ja,$hoe$
10. Wat$wordt$er$gedaan$met$klachten/meldingen$uit$de$omgeving?$
a. Worden$deze$besproken,$gevolgd,$door$wie$
b. Risicodossier$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"99"
c. Weet$iedereen$wat$te$doen$met$meldingen$
11. Wat$gebeurt$er$wanneer$er$een$crisissituatie$ontstaat?$
a. Rolverdeling$
b. Weet$iedereen$hoe$er$gehandeld$moet$worden$
c. Plan$
d. Wat$als$hogere$hand$erbij$komt$
12. Wat$is$het$plan$van$aanpak$wanneer$jullie$er$samen$niet$meer$uitkomen?$
a. Escalatiemodel$
13. Wat$zijn$uw$verwachting$voor$het$verdere$verloop$van$het$project?$
a. Wanneer$is$het$project$geslaagd$
b. Hoe$wordt$dit$getoetst$
c. Hoe$zie$je$de$toekomst$
d. Nog$plannen$om$zaken$te$veranderen$
14. Hoe$denkt$u$dat$de$andere$partner$de$samenwerking$en$het$gehele$proces$ervaart?$
a. Waarom$
15. Welke$aspecten$hebben$een$positieve$invloed$op$omgevingsmanagement?$
a. Eventueel$verder$toelichten$
16. Welke$aspecten$hebben$een$negatieve$invloed$op$omgevingsmanagement?$
a. Eventueel$verder$toelichten$
$
D. Afronding"
We#zijn#bijna#aan#het#einde#gekomen#van#dit#interview.#Resten#mij#nog#2#vragen.#
• Is$er$een$vraag$die$u$verwacht$had,$maar$niet$gesteld$is?$
• Heeft$u$verder$nog$iets$toe$te$voegen?$
#
Hiermee# wil# ik# het# interview# graag# afsluiten# en# u# hartelijk# bedankt# voor# uw# antwoorden.#
Nogmaals# deze# antwoorden# zullen# verwerkt# worden# in# het# rapport# van# mijn#
afstudeeronderzoek# en# een# individueel# case# rapport,# dit# laatste# kunt# u# medio# februari#
verwachten# om# te# controleren# op# feitelijke# onjuistheden.# In# de# loop# van# het# komende# jaar#
zullen# de# resultaten# gepresenteerd# worden# in# een# gezamenlijke# sessie,# hiervoor# ontvangt# u#
ter#zijnde#tijd#een#uitnodiging.#
$
100"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
APPENDIX"D."PROJECT"SELECTION"
$
Project"
Product"
Type"I"
Type"II"
Contract"type" Projectfase"
A2"Maastricht"
Tunnel"
Infra"
Droog"
D&C"
Realisatie"
Renovatie"Stalen"Bruggen"
Weg"
Infra"
Droog"
D&C"
Realisatie"
A15$MaasvlakteRVaanplein$
Weg$
Infra$
Droog$
DBFM$
Realisatie"
A4$DelftRSchiedam$
Weg$
Infra$
Droog$
D&C"
Realisatie"
Rotterdamsebaan$
SchipholRAmsterdamRAlmere$(SAA)$
Zuidasdok$
Tweede$Coentunnel$/$Westrandring$
IJsei$
$
Amsterdam$Centraal$
Arnhem$Centraal$
Station$Breda$
Tunnel$
Weg$
Tunnel$
Tunnel$
Divers$
$
Station$
Station$
Station$
Infra$
Infra$
Infra/Rail$
Infra$
Infra$
$
Rail$
Rail$
Rail$
Droog$
Droog$
Droog$
Droog$
Droog$
$
Droog$
Droog$
Droog$
DBM$
D&C"
D&C"
DBFM$
?$
$
?$
UACRGC$
?$
X$
X$
X$
X$
Realisatie"
$
Realisatie"
Realisatie"
Realisatie"
Den$Haag$Nieuw$Centraal$
Station$
Rail$
Droog$
UAV$
Realisatie"
Spoorzone$Delft$
Station$
Rail$
Droog$
D&C"
Realisatie"
Station$Eindhoven$
Station$
Rail$
Droog$
?$
Realisatie"
Combiplan"Nijverdal"
Combinatie"
Rail/Infra"
Droog"
D&C"
Realisatie"
Station$Tilburg$
Station$
Rail$
Droog$
?$
Realisatie"
OV$Terminal$Utrecht$
Station$
Rail$
Droog$
?$
Realisatie"
ZwolleSpoort$
Station$
Rail$
Droog$
D&C"
Realisatie"
Randstadspoor$
SchipholRAmsterdamRAlmereRLelystad$(OV$SAAL)$
SAA$Spoorkruisingen$
$
Afsluitdijk$
Nieuw$Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma$
Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma$2$
Rail,$stations$
Rail$
Rail$
$
Water$
Water$
Water$
Rail$
Rail$
Rail$
$
Infra$
Infra$
Infra$
Droog$
Droog$
Droog$
$
Nat$
Nat$
Nat$
?$
Alliantie$
?$
$
DBFM$
?$
?$
?$
Realisatie"
?$
$
X$
Realisatie"
Realisatie"
Maaswerken$
Water$
Infra$
Nat$
?$
Realisatie"
Ruimte"voor"de"Rivier"
Water"
Table#14:#Projects#in#the#network#of#Neerlands#Diep#
Infra"
Nat"
D&C"
Realisatie"
Table$14$selected$the$project$in$the$network$of$Neerlands$Diep$that$are$in$the$realisation$phase$and$
have$a$D&C$contract.$The$table$illustrates$that$there$are$5$projects$and$2$programs$with$interesting$
project$ that$ could$ be$ taken$ into$ account.$ Because$ the$ researcher$ has$ limited$ time$ available$ it$ was$
chosen$to$conduct$the$case$study$with$four$cases.$The$project$A4$DelftRSchiedam$was$not$selected$
because$there$were$plans$for$this$project$since$the$fifties$and$due$to$many$procedures$and$changes$
of$the$plan$the$realisation$did$not$begin$until$2012.$Therefore$the$project$stakeholders$had$already$a$
certain$ point$ of$ view$ regarding$ the$ project$ and$ the$ project$ is$ not$ started$ with$ a$ clean$ sheet.$ The$
project$Spoorzone$Delft$was$not$chosen$because$the$researcher$lived$to$the$project$boundaries$and$
could$ therefore$ be$ prejudiced$ regarding$ the$ project.$ The$ project$ ZwolleSpoort$ was$ not$ chosen$
because$ the$ contractor$ that$ started$ the$ project$ does$ not$ complete$ it$ due$ to$ a$ conflict$ with$ the$
principal$ regarding$ the$ costs$ for$ extra$ work.$ Therefore$ some$ parts$ of$ the$ project$ were$ retendered$
and$new$parties$entered$the$project$halfway.$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"101"
APPENDIX"E."CHARACTERISTICS"OF"THE"CASE"STUDY"PROJECTS"
$
Case"1:"project"characteristics"
Richting Eindhoven
(A2)
Beatrixhaven
Richting
Heerlen
(A79)
Limmel
A2
Nazareth
Viaductweg
St Maartenspoort
Wyckerpoort
Amby
Geusselt
A2-Passage
Wittevrouwenveld
Wyck
Scharn
Europaplein
Plangrens
Heer
Heugemerveld
Aankoopbeleid te slopen woningen
Randwyck
Eyldergaard
Heugem
Vastgoedontwikkeling voor
stedelijke vernieuwing
De Heeg
Onderzoek leefkwaliteit
Vroendaal
Richting Eijsden
(A2)
Extra ruimte om te bouwen
Hergebruik grond
Verbinding Beatrixhaven
Figure#39:#Overview#project#plan#A2#Maastricht#
102"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
$
RUIMTELIJKE ORDENINGSPROCEDURE
TRACÉ / MERPROCEDURE
VOOR:
- OMBOUW HUIDIGE A2-PASSAGE TOT
AUTOSNELWEG
- KNOOPPUNT A2/A79 (inclusief aansluitingspunt nieuwe ontsluitingsweg
naar bedrijventerrein Beatrixhaven)
AANBESTEDINGSPROCEDURE
TRACÉ / MER
PROCEDURE
VOOR:
- OMBOUW HUIDIGE A2-PAS
AUTOSNELWEG
- KNOOPPUNT A2/A79 (inclu
sluitingspunt nieuwe ontsl
naar bedrijventerrein Beat
VOOR:
- VASTGOEDLOCATIES
- NIEUWE ONTSLUITINGSWEG NAAR
BEDRIJVENTERREIN BEATRIXHAVEN
BEVOEGD GEZAG
BEVOEGD GEZAG
BEVOEGD GEZAG
MINISTERIE VROM EN
GEMEENTE MAASTRICHT EN
VERKEER EN WATERSTAAT
EVENTUEEL MEERSSEN
BEVOEGD GEZ
AANBESTEDENDE PARTIJ:
MINISTERIE VROM
MINISTERIE VAN VERKEER EN WATERSTAAT
VERKEER EN WATER
GEMEENTE MAASTRICHT
STARTNOTITIE
STARTNOTITIE
2004
inspraak
ins
NOTA
RUIMTE ROND DE A2
ADVIES COMMISSIE MER
RICHTLIJNEN
onderzoek 1e fase
onderzoek
ADVIES COMMISSIE
RICHTLIJNEN
2005
consultatie
ond
CONCEPT
PROGRAMMA VAN EISEN
ÉÉN PLAN VOOR STAD EN SNELWEG:
ÉÉN PLAN VOOR STAD EN
- CONCLUSIES EN AANBEVELINGEN INTEGRAAL A2-PROJECT MAASTRICHT
- CONCLUSIES EN AANB
- ONDERZOEK ALTERNATIEVEN EN VARIANTEN A2-PASSAGE MAASTRICHT
consultatie
- ONDERZOEK ONTSLUITING BEDRIJVENTERREIN BEATRIXHAVEN VANAF A2
BESLUIT RAAD
ONTSLUITING BEATRIXHAVEN
- ONDERZOEK ONTSLUI
2006
consultatie
TRECHTERINGSBESLUIT
(voorheen: richtinggevend standpunt)
- ONDERZOEK ALTERNA
2005
TRECHTERINGSBE
(voorheen: richtinggeven
PROGRAMMA VAN EISEN
SAMENWERKINGSOVEREENKOMST
juni 2006
TRECHTERINGSBESLUIT
A2-TUNNEL STADSTRACÉ
BESLUIT TRACÉ
VERBINDING BEATRIXHAVEN
TRECHTERINGSBE
A2-TUNNEL STADS
2006
START AANBESTEDING
dec. 2006
juni 2006
dec. 2006
- PROGRAMMA VAN EISEN
- AMBITIEDOCUMENT
2007
2007-2008
DIALOOGPROCES
- vertrouwelijk planvormingsproces
- met meerdere marktpartijen
- in concurrentiegerichte dialoog
- consultatie
- meerdere plannen marktpartijen
- getoetst & beoordeeld
- doorgerekend op effecten
INTEGRAAL GEBIEDSONTWERP
BESLUITVORMING en GUNNING
ONTWERP
TRACÉBESLUIT
inspraak
TRACÉBESLUIT
beroep
10 dec 2010 t/m 20 jan 2011
RECHTSKRACHT
16 nov. 2008 t/m 16 jan. 2009
- het ‘beste’ plan wint de wedstrijd
- de marktpartij die dat plan heeft
opgesteld, gaat het project uitvoeren
INSCHRIJVING
2009
2009
BESLUITVOR
ONTWERP
BESTEMMINGSPLAN
inspraak
ONTWERP
TRACÉBESLUI
VOORBEREIDING
UITVOERING
insp
6 ju
+
BESTEMMINGSPLAN
beroep
27 dec 2010 t/m 7 feb 2011
2010
TRACÉBESLUI
VOORBEREIDENDE
WERKZAAMHEDEN
bero
RECHTSKRACHT
RECHTSKRACH
vanaf 2011
UITVOERING
= afgehandeld
= afgehandeld
MER = Milieu-Effectrapport
MER = Milieu-Effectrapport
$
Figure#40:#Procedure#schedule#
$
$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"103"
is ligt
h.
is ligt
elijk
ord
centrum
eg en
eers-
Viaduct-
3.1.5 Kruising Viaductweg / Meerssenerweg Avenue2
s Uitvoering viaduct
Doorgaand verkeer richting Maastricht-centrum
wordt ongelijkvloers (met 2 gescheiden viaducten)
over de Meerssenerweg geleid. Deze rijbanen klimmen richting het spoorviaduct
Verkeersuitwisseling
In$this$project$there$was$no$detailed$plan$available$for$the$market$parties.$The$market$parties$were$
s Uitwisseling van verkeer tussen de Viaductweg en
de Meerssenerweg vindt plaats op maaiveld met
involved$ at$ an$ early$ stage$ of$ the$ project$ (also$
illustrated$ in$ the$ procedure$ schedule)$ to$ challenge$
een geregeld kruispunt (verkeerslichten)
them$to$come$with$maximal$creativity,$specialism$and$enthusiasm.$Three$parties$participated$in$the$
Kenmerkende elementen Unie van Maastricht
tender$ procedure,$ but$ the$ award$ advisory$ committee$ (Dutch:$ gunningsadvies$ commissie)$ did$ not$
access$ one$ of$ the$ three$ plans$ because$ it$ had$ additional$ requirements.$ The$ other$ two$ plans$ are$ of$
high$quality,$but$differ$from$each$other$on$many$points.$The$winning$plan$of$Avenue2$and$the$related$
3.1.6 Tunnel Avenue2
Configuratie:2x2x2
tunnel$configuration$creates$to$almost$all$aspects$more$added$value.$$
Aantal lagen: 2
3.3.6 Tunnel Unie van Maastricht
Scheiding doorgaand verkeer / lokaal verkeer
s Bovenste tunnel voor bestemmingsverkeer verbindt
Geusselt en Europaplein, met een maximale snelheid van 80 km/h
Onderste tunnel voor doorgaand verkeer, met een
maximale snelheid van 100 km/h
Transport gevaarlijke stoffen:
in bovenste tunnel categorie 1 toegestaan,
in onderste tunnel alle stoffen toegestaan
(categorie 0)
Weven
s In de bovenste tunnelbuis weefbewegingen van
divers bestemmingsverkeer. In de onderste tunnelbuis geen weefbewegingen, hier rijdt uitsluitend
transitverkeer
Opstuwing grondwater
s Handhaven van huidige grondwaterstroming door
Figure#41:#Tunnel#proposal#'Avenue2'#(left)#and#'Unie#van#Maastricht'#(right)#
met behulp van hevels het grondwater van de oostzijde van de tunnel naar de westzijde van de tunnel
te transporteren
azareth
per
en van
rweg,
rklaan
oor
groene
voorzien
tra
men.
en de
tgs de
d
Municipality
Maastricht
State (RWS)
Municipality
Meerssen
s Scheiding doorgaand verkeer / lokaal verkee
Rechter rijstrook is bestemd voor lokaal verk
is gescheiden van de 2 rijstroken voor doorg
verkeer
Ontwerpsnelheid 100 km/h
Transport gevaarlijke stoffen:
alle categorieën van vervoer gevaarlijke stof
zijn toegestaan (categorie 0)
s Weven
Geen weefbewegingen in de tunnel in noord
richting
richting is rijstrookwisseling m
$ Inin zuid-noord
het rechte deel van de tunnel
s Opstuwing grondwater
Een pompsysteem beheerst zowel opstuwen
grondwater als mogelijke pieken in watertoe
tenNedam
gevolge van klimaatverandering
Strukton Civiel Strukton Bouw Ballast Nedam Ballast
Province
Limburg
Projecten
Steering group
A2 Maastricht
& Vastgoed
Avenue2
D&C contract
Technical manager
Project director
infra
Project director real
estate
Avenue 2 Infra
Avenue 2 Real
Estate
Daily routine
Communication
manager
Contract manager
Ontwikkeling
Board of
directors
Avenue2
Project
director
A2 Maastricht; drie plannen
op een
rij
Project stakeholder
manager
Infra
Directors
meeting
A2 Maastricht
27
Configuratie:2x3 rijstroken
Aantal lagen: 1
Manager process
control
Construction team infra
Construction team real estate
Construction team
#
Figure#42:#Project#organisation,#case#1#
$
Case"2:"project"characteristics"
"
Arup
Greisch
Royal Haskoning
Program Renovation Bridges
KWS
Hollandia
Mercon
CT - de Boer
48
Managing
contractors
Contract
RWS
D&C contract
Directors
meeting
Project directors
Contract manager
Technical manager
Traffic manager
Contract manager
Manager integrated
preparation
Manager integrated
realisation
Manager process
control
Construction team
$
Figure#44:#Project#organisation,#case#2#(own#ill.)#
$
Project manager
Project stakeholder
manager
Manager process
control
Construction team
104"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
Project directors
Daily routine
Project manager
Project stakeholder
manager
Combinatie Galecom
"$
In$ this$ project$ the$ managing$ contractors$ made$ already$ the$ major$ part$ of$ the$ design,$ therefore$ the$
contractor$had$more$a$role$of$engineering$and$construct.$The$project$is$awarded$to$one$of$the$three$
parties$ that$ signed$ the$ framework$ agreement.$ The$ project$ is$ awarded$ based$ on$ EMVI$ (or$ MEAT)$
criteria$ and$ (past)$ performances$ on$ one$ of$ the$ other$ projects$ that$ are$ part$ of$ the$ framework$
agreement$are$taken$into$account$with$EMVI.$The$principal$prefers$a$more$or$less$equal$division$of$
the$project$among$the$contractors,$because$in$that$case$all$three$parties$gain$knowledge$regarding$
the$renovation$of$these$types$of$project$and$they$gain$experience$in$working$with$the$new$type$of$
concrete$as$applied$in$these$projects.$$$$
$
Case"3:"project"characteristics"
"
$
Figure#46:#Project#overview,#Combiplan#Nijverdal#
Figure#47:#Timeline#contracting#process#
$
In$this$project$the$principal$did$not$have$a$detailed$design$for$the$project$or$a$clear$view$about$the$
solution$in$this$project.$Five$contracting$parties$participated$in$the$tender$procedure.$Although$these$
parties$ had$ the$ opinion$ the$ degree$ of$ freedom$ was$ limited,$ because$ there$ were$ around$ 2500$
requirements$that$indicates$that$the$principal$has$a$quite$clear$view$about$what$the$project$has$to$
look$like.$The$tender$procedure$resulted$in$five$significantly$different$offers$in$design$as$on$the$EMVI$
score$ as$ well$ (especially$ the$ scores$ on$ the$ EMVI$ criterion$ ‘price’$ are$ significantly$ different$ in$ each$
offer).$$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"105"
Province
Overijssel
Region Twente
Control team
RWS
D&C contract
Project directors
Contract manager
Contract manager
KWS
Vialis
Combinatie Leo ten Brinke
Control on
contract goals
Daily routine
Project manager
Project stakeholder
manager
Hegeman
Van Hattum en
Beton- en
Blankevoort
Industriebouw
Administrative
agreement
Collaboration
agreement
ProRail
Municipality
Hellendoorn
Board of
directors
Construction team
Manager process
control
Construction team
$
Figure#48:#Project#organisation,#case#3#(own#ill.)#
Merwed
ekanaa
l
Lek
kan
a
al
"
Case"4:"project"characteristics"
"
Vianense Waard
LE
K
aal
LEK
ekan
Merwed
Bossenwaard
‘t Waalse Waard
Pontwaard/
Mijnsherenwaard
Stuweiland
$
Figure#50:#Project#overview,#Ruimte#voor#de#Lek#
$
$
Figure#51:#Project#plan#
$
106"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
Martens en Van
Oord
Program Space for Water
RWS
Directors
meeting
Contract manager
Technical manager
Project directors
Daily routine
Project manager
Project stakeholder
manager
Combinatie Ruimte voor de Lek
D&C contract
Project directors
Manager process
control
Construction team
Heijmans
Project manager
Project stakeholder
manager
Contract manager
Technical manager
Manager process
control
Construction team
$
Figure#52:#Project#organisation,#case#4#(own#ill.)#
In$this$project$RWS$and$the$province$already$designed$the$major$part$of$the$project,$and$therefore$
the$ project$ was$ awarded$ based$ on$ the$ lowest$ price.$ Nine$ contracting$ parties$ participated$ in$ the$
tender$ procedure.$ The$ possibilities$ for$ the$ contractor$ were$ mainly$ related$ to$ the$ chose$ for$ the$
working$ method.$ Besides$ the$ completion$ of$ the$ project$ within$ time$ and$ budget,$ the$ sales$ of$ the$
materials$ is$ important$ for$ the$ contractor$ as$ well.$ The$ materials$ that$ are$ removed$ from$ the$
construction$site$are$sold$to$external$parties,$which$is$part$of$the$financial$model$of$the$contractor.$
So$in$case$this$is$not$possible,$this$has$financial$consequences$for$the$contractor.$
$
$
$
$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"107"
APPENDIX"F."CASE"DESCRIPTIONS"
$
$
This$is$the$public$version$of$this$report.$
108"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
APPENDIX"G."CROSS"CASE"ANALYSIS"
$
"
"
How$is$the$project$
organisation$
organised?$
Case"3"
The$project$teams$
act$as$individual$
teams,$but$speak$
with$one$voice$
regarding$
communication.$
How$are$the$public$ Public$
Public$
Public$
stakeholders$
stakeholders$have$ stakeholders$are$
stakeholders$are$
involved?$
committed$
not$committed$to$ committed$to$the$
themselves$to$the$ the$project.$
project$at$a$later$
project$in$the$start$
stage,$but$they$are$
and$are$part$of$the$
not$part$of$the$
project$
project$
organisation.$
organisation.$
How$are$the$
Private$
Private$
Private$
private$
stakeholders$are$
professional$
stakeholders$are$
stakeholders$
represented$in$two$ stakeholders$have$ represented$in$a$
involved?$
platforms$and$
a$voice,$but$the$
feedback$group$
different$
other$private$
and$different$
communication$
stakeholders$are$
communication$
methods$are$used$ provided$with$oneR methods$are$used$
to$inform$these$
sided$information.$ to$inform$these$
stakeholders.$
stakeholders.$
Where$are$the$
The$realisation$of$
Both$project$teams$ Both$project$teams$
project$teams$
the$project$started$ are$located$in$the$
are$located$at$the$
located$and$since$
and$both$project$
same$office,$a$
construction$site,$
when?$
teams$had$a$
month$after$the$
but$each$party$has$
location$in$the$
realisation$started.$ an$own$site$office.$
same$office$after$a$
The$contractor$had$
couple$of$months.$
an$office$here$from$
the$start$of$the$
realisation,$while$
the$principal$came$
here$2$years$after$
the$start$of$the$
realisation.$
Are$there$any$
Yes,$both$parties$
Yes,$during$the$
Yes,$both$parties$
agreements$
signed$the$
PSU$both$parties$
formulated$some$
regarding$
collaboration$
defined$some$
behavioural$rules.$
collaboration?$
principals.$
behavioural$rules.$$
Are$there$any$
agreements$
regarding$goals$
$
Case"1"
The$project$teams$
act$together$as$one$
project$
organisation.$
Yes,$both$parties$
signed$the$
collaboration$
Case"2"
The$project$teams$
act$as$individual$
teams.$
Yes,$during$the$
PSU$a$document$
with$project$goals$
No.$
$"
Case"4"
The$project$teams$
act$as$individual$
parties.$
Public$
stakeholders$are$
actively$involved$in$
the$project,$but$
they$are$not$part$
of$the$project$
organisation.$
Private$
stakeholders$are$
represented$in$two$
feedback$groups$
and$different$
communication$
methods$are$used$
to$inform$these$
stakeholders.$
Both$project$teams$
have$to$possibility$
to$work$from$the$
same$office.$
Yes,$both$parties$
signed$a$shared$
mission$statement$
that$was$
formulated$during$
the$PSU.$$
Yes,$both$parties$
want$to$realise$a$
successful$project$
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"109"
and$objectives?$
principals.$
$
and$behavioural$
rules$is$designed.$
Where$these$
agreements$
already$in$the$
contract?$
Yes,$these$
agreements$were$
an$additional$
paragraph$of$the$
contract.$
Are$there$any$
investments$in$the$
mutual$
relationship?$
Besides$formal$
meetings$like$a$
PSU$and$PFU’s,$
there$are$informal$
meetings$like$
Christmas$drinks$
and$a$barbecue$in$
the$summer.$
No,$but$later$on$
some$aspects$
regarding$
collaboration$were$
added$to$the$
contract.$
There$are$only$
formal$meetings$
like$the$PSU$and$
PFU’s.$
Who$can$people$
contact$in$case$of$
complaints?$
There$is$a$service$
line$people$can$
call.$The$
communication$
department$is$
responsible$for$this$
phone$line.$
People$can$call$the$
0800$line$of$RWS$
and$there$is$a$cell$
phone$number$to$
contact$the$
contractor$24/7.$
Which$means$are$
used$to$inform$the$
public?$
There$are$progress$
messages,$pages$in$
local$and$regional$
newspapers,$
commercial$on$
regional$television,$
project$website,$
press$event$and$
information$
centre.$$
There$is$one$
communication$
department.$
There$are$
newsletters,$
resident$meetings,$
possibility$to$visit$
the$construction$
site,$website$
(controlled$by$the$
principal)$and$
social$media.$
How$communicate$
principal$and$
contractor$to$the$
public?$
How$is$information$ Around$90$percent$
internally$shared?$ of$the$information$
both$parties$share$
with$each$other.$
$
$
$
Communication$is$
divided$in$public$
and$construction$
communication.$
There$is$a$
SharePoint$
environment$
where$all$
documents$are$
filed$and$this$is$
accessible$for$both$
parties.$
How$do$both$
Mainly$by$phone,$
Stepping$by$at$the$
110"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
No,$but$later$on$a$
financial$incentive$
was$created$to$
stimulate$the$
contractor$to$
collaborate.$
There$were$formal$
meetings$like$a$
PSU$and$PFU’s,$but$
there$are$also$
informal$meetings$
like$a$Christmas$
market$for$
employees$and$the$
public.$$
People$can$call$or$
mail$the$principal$
and$contractor,$or$
can$step$by$at$the$
site$office.$
and$this$is$defined$
in$the$mission$
statement.$
No.$
There$are$only$
formal$meetings$
like$a$PSU$and$
PFU’s.$
In$the$first$place$
people$should$call$
the$contractor.$It$is$
also$possible$they$
call$the$0800$line$
or$call$the$project$
stakeholder$
manager$of$the$
principal$directly.$$
There$are$
There$are$digital$
newsletters$(digital$ newsletters,$
and$hardcopy),$
advertisements$in$
excursions$to$the$
local$newspapers,$
construction$site$
excursions$to$the$
and$resident$
construction$site$
meetings.$
and$both$parties$
have$a$website.$
All$parties$speak$
with$one$voice$to$
the$public.$
There$is$a$
ProjectPlace$
environment$
where$documents$
are$shared$
between$parties$
(contractor,$RWS,$
ProRail$and$the$
municipality).$
Stepping$by$at$
Communication$is$
divided$in$public$
and$construction$
communication.$
There$is$an$online$
platform$where$
information$is$
shared$between$
both$parties.$
During$the$psm$
parties$
communicate$with$
each$other?$
What$kinds$of$
meetings$are$
there?$
How$is$the$
progress$of$the$
project$controlled$
and$managed?$$
How$to$deal$with$
issues?$
project$office,$by$
phone$and$
sometimes$by$
mail.$
R$Once$every$two$
weeks$the$psm*$
team$of$the$
principal$has$a$psm$
meeting$where$the$
project$
stakeholder$
manager$is$joining.$
R$Once$every$four$
weeks$there$is$a$
directional$
meeting$where$the$
project$
stakeholder$
managers$join$if$
there$are$issues$
regarding$psm.$
$
$
There$was$a$PSU$
and$there$are$
PFU’s,$at$the$start$
both$parties$
agreed$on$some$
KPI’s$(but$that$is$
not$used$anymore)$
and$the$project$
used$construction$
reflectors.$
Issues$are$solved$
internally$and$
preferably$as$soon$
as$possible.$
$
What$are$the$steps$ In$case$both$
in$case$an$issue$
parties$have$a$
cannot$be$solved?$ different$point$of$
view$at$an$issue,$
this$issue$will$be$
escalated.$In$the$
first$place$both$
faceRtoRface$during$
meetings$and$
sometimes$by$
mail.$
R$There$is$a$weekly$
psm$meeting$with$
the$psm$teams$of$
both$parties$
R$Once$every$four$
weeks$there$is$
construction$
meeting$with$both$
management$
teams.$
each$other’s$site$
office,$by$phone$
and$by$mail.$
There$was$a$PSU$
and$there$are$
PFU’s$every$three$
months$and$the$
contractor$has$
some$KSI’s$that$are$
tested$monthly.$
There$was$a$PSU$in$
the$beginning$and$
there$have$been$
PFU’s$with$the$
contractor,$RWS,$
ProRail$and$the$
municipality.$
The$project$
stakeholder$
managers$can$
solve$most$issues$
and$issues$
regarding$the$
contract$are$
shifted$to$the$
contract$managers.$
There$is$an$
escalation$model$
that$describes$
which$people$will$
talk$with$each$
other$in$case$an$
issue$cannot$be$
Fifteen$long$
drawnRout$issues$
were$solved$in$a$
package$deal,$
other$issues$
(mainly$financial)$
are$solved$in$the$
meetings$of$the$
directing$group.$
There$is$an$
escalation$model.$
In$the$first$place$
the$contract$
manager$of$the$
principal$is$the$
contract$point$for$
R$Regarding$psm$
there$is$a$
communication$
and$a$traffic$
management$
meeting.$
R$There$is$a$
construction$
meeting$
R$There$are$
meetings$with$the$
directing$team$
(Dutch:$
regieteam).$This$
team$is$discussing$
escalated$issues.$
meetings,$by$
phone,$by$mail$and$
sometimes$at$the$
project$location.$
R$Once$every$two$
weeks$both$project$
stakeholder$
manager$have$a$
meeting$with$each$
other.$
R$There$is$a$
monthly$
construction$
meeting$
R$The$direction$
meets$two$a$four$
times$a$year.$
The$project$started$
with$a$PSU$and$
there$have$been$
PFU’s$afterwards.$
During$meetings$
points$that$are$
going$well$and$
things$that$could$
be$improved$are$
discussed.$
Issues$are$solved$
internally$and$
most$issues$are$
related$to$financial$
or$legal$aspects.$
The$project$has$an$
escalation$model.$
In$the$first$place$
both$project$
stakeholder$
managers$try$to$
come$to$a$solution,$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
*
$project$stakeholder$management$
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"111"
project$
stakeholder$
managers$try$to$
come$to$a$solution$
together$and$if$this$
is$not$possible$a$
decision$will$be$
made$at$
directional$level.$
solved.$In$case$the$
project$
stakeholder$
managers$cannot$
come$to$a$solution,$
the$issue$will$be$
escalated$to$both$
project$managers.$
If$they$cannot$
come$to$a$solution$
either$a$decision$
will$be$made$at$
directional$level.$
Are$there$any$
In$a$crisis$situation$ In$case$a$crisis$
plans$in$case$
there$is$crisis$
situation$occurs$a$
something$occurs?$ management$plan$ crisis$team$will$try$
and$this$includes$
to$solve$the$
the$organisation$of$ problem.$Besides$
the$crisis$
that,$the$
communication$
contractor$makes$
team.$
scripts$for$all$
critical$phases$and$
the$principal$made$
scenarios$‘what$to$
do’$in$case$the$
motorway$is$
blocked.$$
What$are$the$main$ Inconvenience$
Blockage$of$the$
risks?$
caused$by$
canal$(and$
removing$the$
motorway)$and$
sheet$pilings.$$
diving$the$sheet$
pillars$into$the$
ground$turned$out$
to$be$a$forgotten$
risk.$$
How$are$the$risks$
All$risks$are$filed$in$ All$risks$are$filed$in$
controlled?$
a$document$that$is$ a$shared$document$
accessible$for$both$ and$risks$regarding$
parties$and$this$file$ the$project$
is$updated$all$the$
environment$
time.$
should$be$
discussed$during$
the$psm$meetings,$
but$this$is$not$
always$done.$
Who$will$pay$for$
Both$parties$have$
There$is$no$specific$
unforeseen$issues?$ put$some$money$
plan$for$this,$the$
they$reserved$for$
contract$managers$
risks$in$a$joint$
have$to$arrange$
financial$fund$to$
this$together.$
pay$for$certain$
112"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
the$project$
manager$of$the$
contractor.$If$they$
cannot$come$to$a$
solution$together$
the$issue$will$be$
discussed$in$the$
directing$group.$
but$in$case$this$is$
not$possible$the$
issue$will$be$
discussed$during$
the$construction$
meetings$or$both$
project$managers$
will$discuss$it.$The$
third$option$is$to$
discuss$the$issue$at$
directional$level.$
There$is$a$protocol$
in$case$a$certain$
crisis$situation$
occurs.$
In$case$there$is$an$
emergency$plan$
with$protocols$
about$‘what$to$do’.$
Damages$to$
dwellings$and$
inconvenience$
caused$by$the$
construction$of$the$
project.$
Safety$at$the$
construction$site$
and$the$transfer$of$
the$project$to$the$
future$maintainers.$
Tried$to$control$
the$risks$by$
informing$the$
public$intensively.$
There$is$a$risk$file$
where$all$possible$
risks$are$described$
and$potential$new$
risks$are$added$to$
this$file.$This$file$
also$includes$
approaches$to$
control$the$risk.$
There$is$no$specific$ There$is$no$specific$
plan$for$this,$15$
plan$for$this.$
long$drawnRout$
issues$were$solved$
in$a$package$deal$
were$all$parties$
unforeseen$issues.$
How$are$the$
project$teams$
made$up?$
At$the$side$of$the$
principal$a$lot$of$
people$had$
interest$to$work$on$
this$project.$The$
employees$at$the$
side$of$the$
contractor$are$
managed$from$
above.$
At$the$side$of$the$
principal$there$is$a$
combination$of$
RWS$employees$
and$managing$
contractors.$The$
employees$at$the$
side$of$the$
principal$are$
managed$from$
above.$
According$to$what$
criteria$was$the$
project$awarded?$
Competitive$
dialogue$with$
EMVI.$
What$is$
educational$
background$of$the$
respondent?$
P:$traffic$
management$
C:$geoRengineering$
EMVI$with$traffic$
disruption$as$most$
important$
component.$
P:$
environmentology,$
some$additional$
communication$
trainings$$
C:$urban$planning$
What$is$the$
working$
experience$of$the$
respondent?$
P:$public$party$
C:$contracting$
party$and$selfR
employed$person$
P:$different$public$
parties$
C:$different$public$
parties$and$a$
contractor$
had$to$give$and$
take.$$
At$the$side$of$the$
principal$the$
project$team$has$
grown$over$time,$
while$all$the$
employees$of$the$
contracting$parties$
were$located$at$
the$construction$
site$from$the$
beginning$and$this$
is$managed$from$
above.$
Competitive$
dialogue$with$
EMVI.$
P:$traffic$
management$and$
later$on$public$
administration$
C:$civil$engineering$
and$business$
administration$
P:$different$public$
parties$and$a$
function$in$politics$
C:$different$
contracting$parties$
At$the$side$of$the$
principal$the$
managers$are$
working$for$RWS,$
but$most$team$
members$are$hired$
from$external$
parties.$The$
employees$at$the$
side$of$the$
principal$are$
managed$from$
above.$
Lowest$price.$
P:$physical$
geography$
C:$business$
administration,$
some$additional$
communication$
trainings$
P:$different$public$
parties$
C:$different$
contracting$parties$$
Table#15:#Comparison#of#facts#of#the#four#cases#(own#ill.)#
$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"113"
APPENDIX"H."WORKSHOP"
Risico"
Vertrouwen"
Doel"
$
A$workshop$session$was$held$on$the$6th$of$March$2015$with$four$of$the$respondents$of$the$interview$
in$the$case$study.$The$other$four$respondents$were$unable$to$participate$in$the$workshop.$The$aim$of$
the$workshop$was$to$test$the$validity$of$the$research$findings$and$the$applicability$of$the$designed$
model$for$collaboration$based$on$the$(practical)$expertise$of$the$participants.$The$meeting$consisted$
of$ three$ interactive$ discussion$ sessions$ and$ was$ structured$ as$ follows:$ first$ a$ short$ presentation$
about$ the$ research$ was$ give,$ during$ this$ introduction$ it$ was$ asked$ to$ the$ participants$ to$ fill$ in$ a$
questionnaire$on$which$the$intensity$of$the$collaboration$was$determined$in$the$case$study$research.$
With$the$answers$of$the$participants$it$is$possible$to$compare$the$point$of$view$on$the$collaboration$
of$the$project$stakeholder$managers$with$the$point$of$view$of$the$research.$The$workshop$continued$
with$ a$ discussion$ about$ propositions$ that$ followed$ from$ the$ main$ findings$ of$ the$ research.$ After$ a$
short$ break$ the$ implementation$ of$ project$ stakeholder$ management$ was$ discussed,$ to$ end$ with$ a$
discussion$session$about$the$collaboration$model.$The$questionnaire$the$participants$had$to$fill$in$can$
be$found$in$this$appendix.$The$main$findings$of$the$workshop$meeting$were$already$discussed$in$the$
chapters$7$and$8.$
$
Questionnaire"
Aan$ de$ hand$ van$ een$ literatuurstudie$ zijn$ er$ 6$ criteria$ geselecteerd$ om$ de$ intensiteit$ van$ een$
samenwerking$ tussen$ opdrachtgever$ en$ opdrachtnemer$ weer$ te$ geven.$ Deze$ 6$ criteria$ zijn:$ doel,$
vertrouwen,$ risico,$ communicatie,$ gedrevenheid$ en$ project$ organisatie.$ Deze$ 6$ criteria$ hebben$
verschillende$ sub$ criteria$ die$ een$ samenwerking$ illustreren.$ Aan$ u$ de$ vraag$ of$ u,$ op$ grond$ van$ uw$
eigen$ervaringen,$$voor$ieder$sub$criterium$de$optie$kunt$aankruizen$welke$$de$samenwerking$op$het$
gebied$ van$ omgevingsmanagement$ in$ jullie$ project$ het$ beste$ illustreert.$ Dit$ kunt$ u$ doen$ door$ een$
kruisje$te$zetten$bij$de$best$passende$optie$in$het$onderstaande$overzicht.$
$
Criteria" Sub"criteria"
Optie"1"
Optie"2""
Optie"3"
Optie"4"
Doelen#liggen#
Enkel$
Voornamelijk$
Gezamenlijke$
Gezamenlijke$
op#één#lijn#
individuele$
individuele$
doelen$in$het$
doelen$op$de$
doelen$
doelen$
project$
lange$termijn$
Voordelen#
Win$voor$de$
Win$en$verlies$ Win$R$win$in$
Win$R$win$op$de$
één,$verlies$
een$enkel$
lange$termijn$
voor$de$ander$
project$
Type#
Contractueel$
Vertrouwen$
Korte$termijn$
Lange$termijn$
vertrouwen#
vertrouwen$
gebaseerd$op$
vertrouwen$
vertrouwen$
competenties$
gebaseerd$op$
gebaseerd$op$
van$de$ander$
goodwill$
goodwill$
Vertrouwen#in#
Weinig$
Enig$
Veel$
Volledig$
de#andere#partij# vertrouwen$
vertrouwen$
vertrouwen$
vertrouwen$
Het#monitoren#
Alles$wordt$
Controles$zijn$
Controles$zijn$
Controles$zijn$
van#elkaars#
gecheckt$en$
iets$verminderd$ enorm$
bijna$onnodig$
werk#
dubbel$
verminderd$
gecheckt$
Delen#van#
Er$worden$geen$ Er$worden$
Het$aantal$
Er$is$een$heel$
risico’s#
risico’s$gedeeld$ enkele$risico’s$
risico’s$dat$
systeem$voor$
gedeeld$
gedeeld$wordt$ het$delen$van$
is$enorm$
risico’s$
toegenomen$
$
114"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$
Communicatie"
$
Verdeling#van#
risico’s#
Risico’s$zijn$
altijd$
ondergebracht$
bij$de$zwakke$
partij$
Risico’s$zijn$
vaak$
ondergebracht$
bij$de$zwakke$
partij$
Beloning#voor#
het#beheersen#
van#een#risico#
Er$is$geen$
beloning$voor$
de$partij$die$
het$risico$op$
zich$neemt$
Er$zijn$geringe$
beloningen$
voor$de$partij$
die$het$risico$
op$zich$neemt$
Informatie#
uitwisseling#
Er$wordt$zeer$
weinig$
informatie$
open$
uitgewisseld$
Er$is$geen$
transparantie$
in$de$kosten$
Er$wordt$enige$
informatie$
open$
uitgewisseld$
Werk#relatie#
Er$zijn$veel$
confrontaties$
Er$is$enige$
samenwerking$
Cultuur#
Elkander$de$
schuld$geven$
Gezamenlijke#
inspanning#
Geen$
gezamenlijke$
inspanning$
voor$
verbetering$
Enige$
gezamenlijke$
inspanning$
voor$
verbetering$
Gedrevenheid#
om#het#doel#te#
realiseren#
Support#vanuit#
hoger#
management#
Focus#op#de#
lange#termijn#
Geen$
gedrevenheid$
Enige$
gedrevenheid$
Geen$interesse$
voor$
samenwerking$
Geen$interesse$
om$te$
investeren$in$
het$continue$
verbeteren$van$
de$
samenwerking$
Enige$interesse$
in$
samenwerking$
Enige$interesse$
om$te$
investeren$in$
het$continue$
verbeteren$van$
de$
samenwerking$
Gedrevenheid"
Transparantie#
kosten#
$
Risico’s$zijn$
ondergebracht$
bij$de$partij$die$
het$beste$in$
staat$is$deze$te$
managen$in$dit$
project$
Er$is$vaak$een$
passende$
beloning$voor$
de$partij$die$
het$risico$op$
zich$neemt$
Er$wordt$
redelijk$veel$
informatie$
open$
uitgewisseld$
Kosten$zijn$een$
open$boek$
tussen$twee$
partijen$
Er$is$enige$
transparantie$
in$de$kosten$
Er$wordt$
redelijk$veel$
samengewerkt$
Zelfverdediging$ Afwezigheid$
van$een$schuld$
cultuur$
Redelijk$veel$
gezamenlijke$
inspanning$om$
te$kijken$naar$
opties$om$
beter$samen$te$
werken$
Redelijk$wat$
gedrevenheid$
Risico’s$zijn$
ondergebracht$
bij$de$partij$die$
het$beste$in$
staat$is$deze$te$
managen$op$de$
lange$termijn$
Er$is$altijd$een$
passende$
beloning$voor$
de$partij$die$
het$risico$op$
zich$neemt$
$
$
Vrijwel$alle$
informatie$
wordt$open$
uitgewisseld$
Kosten$zijn$een$
open$boek$voor$
de$gehele$
organisatie$
Er$wordt$
intensief$
samengewerkt$
Cultuur$
gefocust$op$het$
oplossen$van$
problemen$
Continue$
inspanning$om$
te$kijken$naar$
opties$om$
beter$samen$te$
werken$
Heel$veel$
gedrevenheid$
Interesse$in$
samenwerking$
Samenwerking$
wordt$
aangemoedigd$
Er$wordt$
Er$wordt$
redelijk$veel$
constant$
geïnvesteerd$in$ geïnvesteerd$in$
het$continue$
het$continue$
verbeteren$van$ verbeteren$van$
de$
de$
samenwerking$ samenwerking$
$"
"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink"!!"115"
Oplossen#
problemen#
Problemen$
leiden$vaak$tot$
discussies$
Meten#van#
prestaties#
Geen$
gezamenlijke$
maatregelen$
De$teamleden$
hebben$geen$
interesse$om$
samen$te$
werken$
Project"organisatie"
Competentie#
van#de#
teamleden#
Efficiënte#
coördinatie#
(m.b.t.#de#
performance#
van#de#ander)#
Delen#van#
bedrijfsmiddelen#
Verdeling#van#
macht#en#
gelijkheid#
Gezamenlijke#
actie#
Partijen$
hebben$
tegengestelde$
verwachtingen$
Middelen$
worden$niet$
met$elkaar$
gedeeld$
Er$is$
ongelijkheid$
tussen$partijen$
Er$is$geen$
interesse$om$
een$
gezamenlijk$
doel$na$te$
streven$
Problemen$
Veel$
leiden$soms$tot$ problemen$
discussies$
worden$tijdig$
opgelost$op$het$
laagste$niveau$
Enkele$
Redelijk$veel$
gezamenlijke$
gezamenlijke$
maatregelen$
maatregelen$
Enkele$
De$teamleden$
teamleden$
zijn$
hebben$
gemotiveerd$
interesse$om$
om$samen$te$
samen$te$
werken$
werken$
Partijen$
Partijen$
hebben$
hebben$redelijk$
verschillende$
dezelfde$
verwachtingen$ verwachtingen$
De$meeste$
problemen$
worden$tijdig$
opgelost$op$het$
laagste$niveau$
Veel$
gezamenlijke$
maatregelen$
De$teamleden$
willen$
samenwerken$
en$zijn$echte$
‘teamplayers’$
Middelen$
worden$soms$
met$elkaar$
gedeeld$
Partijen$zijn$
niet$geheel$
gelijkwaardig$
Er$is$interesse$
om$een$
gezamenlijk$
doel$na$te$
streven,$maar$
het$eigen$
belang$staat$
voor.$
Alle$middelen$
worden$met$
elkaar$gedeeld$
Middelen$
worden$vaak$
met$elkaar$
gedeeld$
Partijen$zijn$
gelijkwaardig$
Er$is$interesse$
om$een$
gezamenlijk$
doel$na$te$
streven,$maar$
er$zijn$ook$
eigen$belangen$
Partijen$
hebben$
dezelfde$
verwachtingen$
Alles$is$eerlijk$
verdeeld$
tussen$partijen$
Alle$partijen$
streven$er$naar$
om$het$
gezamenlijke$
doel$te$
realiseren.$
$
Met$behulp$van$de$ingevulde$gegevens$zal$de$onderzoeker$de$onderstaande$‘radar$chart’$invullen$om$
zo$ de$ samenwerking$ tussen$ de$ opdrachtgever$ en$ opdrachtnemer$ te$ illustreren,$ zoals$ in$ het$
betreffende$project$wordt$ervaren$door$de$persoon$die$dit$formulier$ingevuld$heeft.$
$
$
116"!!"MSc$Thesis$S.A.$Vulink""
$
"$