Underground utility infrastructure collaboration: the effect of
organizational structures on collaboration effectiveness
Master’s thesis, Supply Chain Management, MSc
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Marc van der Beek
Student number: 3535053
E-mail:
Marcvanderbeek@gmail.com
Supervisor, University of Groningen: Prof. dr. D.P. van Donk
Co-assessor, University of Groningen: Dr. T.A. de Vries
2
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of three organizational structures on the horizontal collaboration effectiveness in the underground utility infrastructure. The studied organizational structures are the planning-, information sharing-, and power structure. Previous studies have shown that various issues affect cross-sector horizontal collaboration and that understanding the influence of these organizational structure helps in solving them.
Design / Methodology / Approach:A single holistic inductive case study was conducted. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from either the organizations part of or involved with underground utility infrastructure projects. Moreover, a collaboration guideline written by the local government was used as secondary data.
Findings: All three organizational structures affect the effectiveness of collaboration in different ways. With respect to the planning and information structure, this study shows that a lack of leadership, willingness, manpower and unaccountability, differences in the planning horizon and past experiences hamper effective collaboration. It also shows that the national information sharing system and the collaboration guidelines written by the (local) government helps in collaborating effectively. Lastly, while size and legal legitimacy are the main powers affecting collaboration, knowledge power can be used to “challenge” decisions made by the organizations embodying these two powers.
Contribution: This study substantiates and contradicts several elements hampering and enabling cross-sector horizontal collaboration. It also provides insights in on what aspects collaborating organizations should focus in order to align their organizational structures. Keywords: Cross-sector horizontal collaboration, Underground utility infrastructure, Collaboration effectiveness, Organizational structures
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ...4 2. Theoretical Framework ...6 2.1 Horizontal collaboration...6 2.2 Planning...8 2.3 Information sharing ...9 2.4 Power ... 10 2.5 Effective collaboration ... 11 2.6 Conceptual model ... 11 3. Methodology ... 13 3.1 Research design ... 13 3.2 Case selection ... 13 3.3 Data collection ... 14 3.4 Data analysis ... 16 4. Results ... 184.1 Underground utility infrastructure of Groningen ... 18
4.2 Project complexity characteristics ... 19
4.3 Planning... 21 4.4 Information sharing ... 25 4.5 Power ... 28 5. Discussion ... 31 6. Conclusion ... 33 References ... 35
Appendix I. Interview Protocol ... 42
Appendix II. Consent form ... 46
4
1. Introduction
In 2018, Groningen started working on a roadwork project called “Aanpak Ring Zuid” (Operation Southern Beltway). The aim of this project is to increase the accessibility of the city, the road safety and livability by changing the layout of the southern beltway of Groningen (Projectbureau Aanpak Ring Zuid, 2018). As the southern beltway can be seen as the aorta of the city Groningen, it is of utter importance that the activities create as less inconvenience as possible. Recent studies (COB, 2014; COB, 2018) have shown that for such projects collaboration between different stakeholders is crucial. The aim of this research is to get a better understanding of how collaboration between stakeholders’ part of the underground utility infrastructure (UUI), operating at the same level of a supply chain in the public private sector (PPS), works and why it sometimes does not work.
Collaboration between two or more unrelated or competing organizations that operate at the same level of the supply chain is also known as horizontal collaboration (Pomponi, Fratocchi, & Tafuri, 2015; Simatupang, & Sridharam, 2002). Studies on horizontal collaboration are mainly focused on transportation, retail and manufacturing in the private sector (Soosay, & Hyland, 2015; Rodrigues, Harris, & Mason, 2015). However, this does not mean that the public sector is less important. In fact, studies on horizontal collaboration show that governments often collaborate with both public and private organizations to gain access to their resources and the expertise in order to effectively address complex problems (Vangen, Hayes, & Cornforth, 2015; Torfing, Sørensen, & Røiseland, 2016).
Horizontal sector collaboration is subjected to certain problems. For instance, cross-sector collaboration may be impeded or fail due to different goal perspectives (Babiak, & Thibault, 2009) and knowledge among stakeholders (van Buuren, 2009; Edelenbos, van Buuren, & van Schie, 2011), unaccountability (Ryan, & Walsh, 2004), the need to comply with government regulations (Babiak, & Thibault, 2009) and power tensions (Selsky, & Parker, 2005). According to Vangen, Hayes, & Cornforth (2015), such issues are mostly caused by differences in the organizational structures, processes and involved actors and that, in order to solve these issues, it is necessary to understand how they affect the collaboration. Therefore, this research aims to contribute to this question by answer the following research question:
5 This study contributes to existing literature in the following ways. First of all, it answers the call for further investigation on the influence of organizational structures on horizontal collaboration (Jacobsen, 2017). Furthermore, understanding the influence of these structures on collaboration will help stakeholders in aligning their respective organizational structures which will help them with implementing recommendations of the COB (2018). Moreover, this study contributes by extending the scarce number of available papers regarding cross-sector horizontal collaboration.
In order to answer the research question, a holistic single case study involving UUI providers, the local government and organizations involved in UUI projects in Groningen is conducted. This case fits the study as it involves organizations from both the public and private sector who collaborate on a horizontal level. Secondly, due to both a coalition agreement (Gemeente Groningen, 2014) and the foundation of NONed, the organizations part of this case are actively trying to improve the collaboration by combining their planning and activities.
6
2. Theoretical Framework
In the following section the main variables of this paper will be discussed. First an overview is given of what horizontal collaboration entails. Then, a further explanation of the three organizational structures and collaboration effectiveness will be given. Lastly a conceptual model will be presented.
2.1 Horizontal collaboration
According to the European Union (2001), horizontal collaboration refers to either an agreement or concerted practice between organizations operating at the same level(s) in a market. A broader description of collaboration comes from Himes (1995), which, according to Hughes and his colleagues (2012), provides a more clear and thorough explanation of what collaboration comprehends. Himes (1995) describes it as follows: “A long-term commitment
between two or more organizations for the purpose of achieving specific business objectives by maximizing the effectiveness of each participant’s resources. The relationship is based on trust, dedication to common goals, and an understanding of each other’s individual expectation and values” (p. 13). An important addition to this description is the importance of autonomy
between the involved organization. Horizontal collaboration usually only happens when the involved organization voluntary agrees to collaborate with each other, which also implies the importance of commitment (Jung, & Song, 2014). Bedwell and his colleagues (2012) also mentions the it is important that the involved organizations have at least one shared goal. Fiedler and Deegan (2007) have determined that that there are five determinants that explain why collaboration in the construction industry happens. These are asymmetry, reciprocity, stability, economic efficiency and legitimacy.
Table 2.1. Determinants collaboration
Determinant Explanation
Asymmetry “Relationships prompted by the potential to exercise power or control over another organization or its resources” (Oliver, 1990, p243)
Reciprocity “Relationships prompted for the purpose of pursuing common or mutually beneficial goals or interests” (Oliver, 1990, p244)
Stability “Relationships prompted as responds to environmental uncertainty” (Oliver, 1990, p 246)
Economic efficiency “Relationships prompted through the desire to increase its
organizational economic wealth” (Fiedler, & Deegan, 2007, p 420) Legitimacy “Relationships prompted in order to be seen as legitimate by
7 Organizations active in the UUI are characterized by their project-based work. With the UUI, we refer to telecommunication, the supply and disposal of water and lastly the supply of electricity and gas (Grimsey, & Lewis, 2002). While the utility infrastructure is primarily owned by organizations in the public sector, projects are done in collaboration with companies’ part of the private sector in order to deliver the infrastructure services to the public (Delmon, 2011, p.7). Projects in the UUI can vary from small maintenance and renewal projects to big new development projects in which the underground infrastructure of, for example, a residential area is being laid down. Underground projects are considered complex due to various reasons. The environmental and political requirements are complex and the public expectations are high (Koppenjan, & Enserink, 2009; Favari, 2012). Secondly, UUI projects are perceived as costly, difficult to manage and control and they have to be performed in a limited time (Irdemoosa, Dindarloo, & Sharifzadeh, 2015).
Ettorre (2000) estimated that approximately 60% of the collaboration efforts either fail or have performance issues. Unsuccessful collaboration can result in wasted resources, a tarnished reputation or unhappy clients while successful collaboration may result in an increase access to resources or better service delivery to clients (Babiak, 2008). With respect to the UUI, collaboration issues can lead to a longer disturbance of public places and higher financial and social costs. Social cost refers to traffic, pollution impact, ecological and health impact (Ariaratnam, Piratla, Cohen, & Olson, 2013).
8
2.2 Planning
Pipelines and conduits in the UUI have a lifespan of several decades. Generally, the older the infrastructure, the less reliable the system becomes (Dominelli, Rao, & Kundur, 2006). Therefore, as UUI provides have the responsibility to deliver their services in an adequate manner, they have to plan their renewal activities and maintenance accordingly. While maintenance can be seen as the most cost-effective way of dealing with deterioration of the infrastructure, renewal can become the most sensible economic option when maintenance becomes too expensive (Hao, et al., 2012). Besides the maintenance and renewal projects, UUI providers are also responsible for laying down networks in new areas (further known as new development). Together, these three activities form the baseline for the overall planning of each utility network owner.
The planning of a project is typically defined as either strategic, tactical or operational. Strategic planning horizon refers to the plans made at least five years in advance, tactical planning horizon to one to five years in advance and the operational planning horizon to the plans within one year (Kerzner, & Kerzner, 2009, p. 415). Maintenance and renewal projects can mainly be classified as either operational or tactical projects, while projects focused on laying down whole new network generally fall in the category of strategic planning (Bobylev, 2009).
9
2.3 Information sharing
Each organization in a joint project is responsible for their own utility cables or pipelines. However, as all cables have to be laid down according to the required spacing, communication and coordination between the organizations is necessary in order to complete the task (Hsu, Shih, Chiang, & Liu, 2012). If there are communication and coordination problems between the organizations, there is a higher chance that delay or cancellation occurs (Hsu et al., 2012; Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden, 2004). The exchange of opinions, perspectives and knowledge between two parties is known as information sharing and is, in order to lower the coordination risks caused by misunderstandings and confusion, necessary (Hsu, et al., 2012; Kembro, & Näslund, 2014).
Within the literature there is a growing recognition that there are various barriers that hamper information sharing and that this affects collaboration (Curtis, & Edwards, 2019). In 1996, Dawes came up with various categories that are either beneficial or detrimental for information sharing. These categories can be subdivided as either technical, organizational or political issues. In a more recent meta-study of Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar (2016) both the influence of the technical and organizational issues is underlined while also some other categories are added, as can be seen in table 2.2. In order to deal with such barriers, organizations should promote knowledge sharing by making it part of the business strategy (Zhang, & Ng, 2012) and by rewarding employees in order to change their attitude towards sharing (Jeon, Kim, & Koh, 2011).
Table 2.1. Information Sharing Barriers (Dawes, 1996; Asrar-ul-Haq, & Anwar, 2016) Barriers Examples
Technical - Incompatible information technology - Inconsistent data structures (i.e. jargon)
Cultural - Beliefs rooted in either individuals, organization or society. E.g. lack of interpersonal trust, no willingness to share, power distance and uncertainty avoidance
Organizational - Lack of organizational commitment / no support from top management - Organizational self-interest
- Poor leadership
Political - Complexity of decision-making processes of public agencies Employees - Heavy workload
- Lack of absorptive capacity
10 good data is crucial during the planning phase. Singh and Power (2009) add to this that a high level of commitment to information sharing between organizations is critical for collaboration in itself.
2.4 Power
Organizations collaborating with each other are not necessarily equal to each other when it comes to power. Power refers to “the ability to influence decision-making and actions of the
other party” (Kähkönen, 2014, p. 18). Relations with a significant power asymmetry leads to
the more powerful organization having the advantage to make decisions that are more favorable to them than to the other involved parties. They may coerce the weaker party in doing what they normally would not do, they may use it to gain better agreements or they may act opportunistically (Nyaga, Lynch, Marshall, & Ambrose, 2013). However, according to Crook and Combs (2007), the more powerful organization can choose not to make use of their power in order to show that they are reliable and that they value the relationship. Besides, the power distribution is not set in stone. Aime and his colleagues (2014) state in their study that the power distribution is fluid and that the distribution can change, depending on changing situational demands.
The power to influence other actors is also known as social power (French, Raven, & Cartwright, 1959) and the distribution of power among the teams is known as the power distribution (DeChurch, & Zaccaro, 2013). Within the literature, six main sources of social power are identified. These are the power to coerce, reward and explain and the power derived from legal legitimacy, knowledge and reverence (Mittal, & Elias, 2016). Besides these six powers, Jacobsen (2017) also assumes that the overall size of an organization act as a source of power. Powerful actors can, as argued by Henjewele, Fewings and Rwelamila (2013), use their power in three different ways. They can use their power to directly influence the decisions made by another party (overt power), use it to give a range of choices to another party (agenda setting) or they can use it to let the weaker party only consider options acceptable to the stronger party (hegemony).
11 Understanding the distribution helps in solving these issues (Aaltonen, 2011; Aaltonen, & Kujala, 2016).
2.5 Effective collaboration
Determining the effectiveness of collaboration within a project is considered hard (Frisby, Thibault, & Kikulis, 2004; Mladenovic, Vajdic, Wündsch, & Temeltjotov-Salaj, 2013). The reason for this is that effectiveness can be seen as ambiguous. Generally, the main interpretation of effectiveness reflects to which extent goals are accomplished (Mentzer, & Konrad, 1991). This interpretation states that effectiveness can be determined by taking KPIs into account. KPIs are used to evaluate if the goal of the project is reached successfully within a specific time period and if its according to set specifications (Munns, & Bjeirmi, 1996). Thus, considering the paper of Toor and Ogunlana (2009), this means that collaboration can be considered effective if projects are finished on time and under budget. According to Cox, Raja, & Ahrens (2003), construction projects are generally done in time and under budget thus the assumption can be made that collaboration within construction projects is usually considered effective. However, according to Vogelaar and Essens (2007), effective collaboration is more than just accomplishing goals. The processes to achieve the goal is as, or even more important, because it also influences potential collaboration in the future. This interpretation states that effectiveness can be determined by taking the critical success factors (CSF) into account (Toor, & Ogunlana, 2008). CSFs refer to the factors that are critical for the success of a project (Cheong, Nur, & Mustaffa, 2012). Studies (Chan, Scott, & Chan, 2004; Trafford, & Proctor, 2006; Abdel Aziz, 2007; Mladenovic et al., 2013) mention that effective planning efforts, openness, commitment and standardized procedures are important CSFs in construction projects.
2.6 Conceptual model
UUI projects tend to create inconvenient situations for citizens living nearby. Delays or mistakes do not only result in prolonged inconvenience, but also results in extra public costs. Therefore, projects should be finished according to the set KPIs. In order to do so, collaboration between the different stakeholders is crucial. Literature states that especially the planning and information sharing processes are important for projects to succeed.
12 for organizations to make their planning, align the different organizational plannings and to conceptualize and execute joint projects, we study the information sharing structure while taking the information sharing barriers into account. Lastly, as UUI projects involve stakeholders with different expertise, available resources and authority, we take a look at which social powers affect collaboration and if the distribution of power changes during the different phases of UUI projects. Besides social power we also included the power stemming from the size of a stakeholder, as literature mentions that this might affect collaboration as well. Findings will be compared with the main KPIs and CSFs used in construction projects. Figure 2.1 provides a schematic overview of the conceptual model.
13
3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
The aim of this paper is to create a better understanding of how the planning, information sharing and power structures affect the horizontal collaboration effectiveness in an UUI setting. This paper takes a qualitative approach to this question.
The influence of organizational structures on horizontal collaboration in the UUI is an unexplored topic in the literature. Therefore, an explorative approach with the aim to expand the understanding of horizontal collaboration in this context is chosen. In this study an inductive single case study is conducted. Inductive case studies are known for the analysis of rich data gathered from one or more cases to build theory (Eisenhardt, Graebner, & Soneshein, 2016). Secondly, an inductive case study approach helps to explore relatively unknown areas where the availability of literature is limited (Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler., 2014, p.247; Johansson, 2007). As the focus of this study is on the “how” aspect, a case study fits the research. Lastly, the choice is made to perform a single holistic case study as the case is unique in the way it functions and is therefore relatively hard to compare (Coen, & Schnackenberg, 2012).
3.2 Case selection
The unit of analysis for this study is the relationship between organizational structures and collaboration effectiveness in organizations active in the UUI. In this study the organizational structures refer to the information sharing structure, the power structure and the planning structure. The setting of research is in the public private sector.
14 the UUI of Groningen is typical compared with other similar UUI as it comes across the has the same kind of problems mentioned in the theoretical framework (Jansen, & Röell, 2008). Table 3.1 shows an overview of active organizations in the UUI of Groningen
Table 3.1. Underground Utility Infrastructure Groningen Organization Function / responsibilities Enexis Electricity & Gas
Waterbedrijf Groningen Water
KPN & VodafoneZiggo Telecommunication
Department “City management Groningen” City management (permission to dig, planning sewage, street lights et cetera)
Department “City development Groningen” City development (Elaboration technical aspects project planning)
Warmtestad Groningen Heating system using water Housing corporations (Nijestee, Lefier and
several smaller ones)
Building owners and potential project initiators. Contractors (VSHANAB, Haks, Siers Groep
Oldenzaal, Verkley)
Execute planned projects
3.3 Data collection
This study mainly relied on primary data derived from semi-structured interviews. Additionally, one secondary source, the UUI collaboration guidelines provided by the local government of Groningen, was used. The data was gathered in the period from April 2019 until the beginning of May 2019. In total ten interviews were conducted.
15 organizational structures influence the collaboration. Table 3.2 gives an overview of the conducted interviews.
Table 3.2. Conducted interviews
16 Before each interview started, interviewees were asked to sign a consent form, given in Appendix II. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in Dutch. During the interviews follow-up questions were asked to get a better understanding of their answers. Interviews were conducted by one researcher and were recorded with their approval. Afterwards the interviews were transcribed. Interviewees did not feel the need to verify the transcripts due their time shortage and because the interviews were recorded.
Approximately ten years ago the local government wrote a guideline in which the collaboration between the local government and UUI providers is explained. In this guideline an overview is given of the different stages of the projects, which employees should be involved and what documents need to be provided during each stage. It also contains information with respect to permit and quotation procedures and route determination. During projects the UUI providers, the local government and other initiators, such as housing corporations, follow this guideline. In this paper the eleventh version of 2017 is used.
3.4 Data analysis
The obtained data was analyzed by coding the qualitative data retrieved from the interviews with the representatives. The data was coded using the coding software AtlastTi 8.4 and used an inductive approach. Inductive coding is used to condense data into smaller and a more easily analyzable format, to establish links between findings and the research objective and to develop a theory based on the findings (Thomas, 2003). The coding process took a substantive coding approach, which includes open, axial and selective coding (Holton, 2007). Open coding is used to identify categories or themes in the data. For example, interviewee A said “The surroundings were very complex. You have the IKEA, Mac Donalds, Fire station, and everything else is located here”.
17
Table 3.3. Example coding tree
Second order theme First order concept Quotes Past planning system
Experiences - “If there was a renewal or a new development project,
everything laid down separately. Government was initiator, came with a plan without consulting the utility infrastructure providers. First came water, then came Enexis and afterwards came data. It went very chaotic” (A).
- “We put our heads together with the idea that we had to do it different. In the past everyone had their own contractors, so we said that we wanted to use one contractor” (A)
Necessary documentation
Initial draft project
- “During the preliminary stage we can still make decisions
regarding the pipe design. We can say that we want to do this part together. This is part of the preliminary allocation map” (D)
- “In the initial draft we say what is going to happen, what has to
be replaced and how we are going to do that “ (F)
Final design project
“According to the utility infrastructure providers, the final design
document is the most important document. Then they know exactly what they have to do and where they can do this” (A)
Soil & tree tests
- “Eventually I learned that employees from the government have checked the trees in the streets” (F)
- “Based on various tests we make an inventorization. We look at trees, ecology and the soil for example” (H).
- “They will check the trees on the route. If there are a lot of trees on the route or if there are a lot of roots in the ground, we may decide to move the route or take an alternative route” (B)
18
4. Results
Firstly, a thorough description will be given of the characteristics of the UUI of Groningen. This will be used as foundation to explain how the organizational structures influences the collaboration. After the characteristics are described, an overview is given of each organizational structure.
4.1 Underground utility infrastructure of Groningen
Groningen is, both above and undergrounds, a relative compact city. Above ground, especially in the city center, there is a lack of public space due to the many buildings in a close proximity. As Groningen keeps showing a steady population growth, low-rise buildings are converted in high-rise buildings, older buildings are being renovated and new residential areas are being developed. The underground is just as compact. “We have a lot of old junk lying around
undergrounds. Not only bodies, galleons and bombs but the underground is also filled with pipelines and cables from the last century” (H). Sometimes it is not clear if some of these
pipelines and cables are used or who the owner is. Such pipelines are also known as “orphan pipes”. “For a lot of these orphan pipes it is unknown if they are currently in use or not. We
already take them into account when we make our plan, but they still often result in budget increases and longer projects”. (A)
In order to structure the collaboration between the local government and the utility infrastructure providers, the local government wrote, in agreement with the UUI providers, a guideline about the collaboration agreements between the local government and the utility infrastructure providers. Data providers are not necessarily part of this agreements: “For
example, KPN is not part of the combi-contracts. They can however participate in projects”
(C).
As there are many different organizations and activities and because there is a variety in compactness both above and underground, the complexity of projects may vary. In Groningen, the UUI providers recognize the three main reasons for projects: renewal, new development and maintenance. While the maintenance activities are done individually, the renewal and new development projects are, if possible, done together with the other UUI providers. Especially Enexis, Waterbedrijf Groningen and the local government tend to collaborate with each other on projects. KPN and VodafoneZiggo mostly prefer to work solo because that is faster and more cost-efficient, as can be seen in the following quotes: “They prefer to go solo because that is
19
can lay a sewage or gas pipe. They think in a few houses per day while we think in several hundred meters per day” (E). Currently Warmtestad aims to collaborate with Enexis,
Waterbedrijf Groningen and the local government in the future. However, as they have just started their first projects, they do not have the experience yet with what this collaboration entails for them. Lastly, the main reasons for UUI providers and the local government to collaborate is because of the mutual interests and as a response to environmental uncertainty (This is especially the case for Enexis). “The initiator, we, have to replace the cast iron and the
local government wants to replace the street. So, we make contact with them, tell them our plans and then we see if we can align our goals” (J).
4.2 Project complexity characteristics
During the interviews it became clear that there are various characteristics that influences the complexity of a project. An overview of these characteristics is given in table 4.1. Only the most influential characteristics are elaborated upon. The cursive characteristics were mostly influential in the past and are almost entirely solved by the collaboration guidelines. Preferably, all of these factors should be taken care of in the planning stage and it should be communicated clearly how organizations should deal with these characteristics.
Table 4.1. Project complexity characterstics
Potential Collaboration Size project Environment (nature / infrastructure / orphan pipes) Citizens / stakeholders Degree of compactness Condition current infrastructure Dimensions pipelines / cables Future accessibility Number of active contractors
Safety Archeology Given timeframe for execution
Potential collaboration
Interviewees agree that projects where they have to work together with other UUI providers are generally more complex and that this is especially the case for renewal projects. An example of this is given by interviewee F who said “initially we were going to replace the main road, but
now we are also going to replace the trottoir. It will result in higher costs but it will also result in a higher quality”. In this example, interviewee F, states that the local government had the
20 now had to wait for the utility companies to be finished. It also resulted in the local government exceeding its initial budget.
Degree of compactness
Projects taking place in the city center are perceived as more difficult than projects taking place in the suburban, which in turn is perceived as more difficult than unused land. “Projects in the
city center of Groningen can be considered complex pretty fast” (C). Especially projects
performed at unused land are seen as less difficult, due to the fact the planning and budget calculations are easier to deal with as there is a clear goal and no real obstacles. These projects are also seen as less difficult because there are no citizens involved.
Citizens
That citizens are an important factor influencing the complexity became clear during one of the interviews. “Pedestrians and cycles are the greatest drama. We shut down a crossing with
temporary fences and within five minutes those fences were removed” (I). Other interviewees
stated that the involvement of citizens also result in more unexpected activities because of their wishes. For instance: “Citizens want an extra connection to their home or want to split their
connection into two or more connections” (H). These wishes generally lengthens projects and
adds up to the complexity because they are initially not part of the project planning.
Dimensions and accessibility
How the complexity of projects is perceived also depends on the dimensions of the pipelines and cables. “Laying down a water pipeline is something entirely different than laying down a
sewage pipeline, and then especially with respect to dimensions” (D). Besides the difference in
dimensions, there is also a difference in needed accessibility in the future. As result, sewage pipelines are mostly laid under the road, while the other pipelines and cables are usually under the sidewalk. As result, the organization responsible for the sewage pipelines tend to perceive their projects as more complex than the projects or activities of the other organizations. This also means that projects initiated to perform either renewal or new development on sewage pipelines are more interesting to join for the other organizations, because it already means that the road will be opened completely.
Safety
Working underground is dangerous. “You want to replace that water pipeline for sure. If a
21 before the execution of a project, the UUI providers need to be aware of the risks involved in the project in order to implement countermeasures.
4.3 Planning
As projects in the UUI infrastructure involve several stakeholders, are complex due to several characteristics and tend to disrupt daily live, it is necessary that they are performed successfully. In order to do so, planning is crucial. In this section an explanation is given of how the UUI providers plan their activities individually and how they combine their planning. Table 4.2 shows the main findings.
Table 4.2. Overview findings Planning
Planning Findings
Strategic - Collaboration between UUI providers with respect to national influences from either politics / climate does not necessarily take place, unless it results in local projects - Digging prohibitions forces UUI providers to think about whether they want to join projects. Digging prohibitions are however not strictly enforced.
Tactical - Collaboration guidelines aim for five-year planning horizon. Not all UUI providers are able to do this for the third, fourth and fifth year. Generally, the plans of these last years also do not come to fruition.
- Telecom providers are generally not involved due to the nature of their work. - Meetings are used to align the different organizational plannings. Meetings are currently not well structured and are not seen as effective
- Tactical planning is not set in stone as projects will be moved forward or be postponed, as result of project opportunities.
Operational - Not all organizations use a “one project manager for the whole project” system. This leads to frustration.
- Interviewees agree that the meetings are currently not very effective. They do not agree on the reason (e.g. lack of leadership / lack of active participants / unaccountability).
- Participants do not always show up during the meetings or do show up without the needed documents
- Projects sometimes have to start even though the planning is not finished yet. This leads to delay, problems and frustration in the execution phase.
Strategic planning
Between the different organizations there is a difference in the perception of the definition of strategic planning. Where Enexis sees strategic planning as the planning focused on the coming fifty years, the local government sees strategic planning as the planning focused on the coming five years. For the sake of the structure, in this report we use the word strategic as how it is described within the literature.
22
National influences
Only Enexis expressed during the interviews that they are interested in local strategic planning with an eye on the future. The reason for this is that the government of The Netherlands, due to climate change and the problems concerning gas exploitation in Groningen, wants to be less dependent on gas. In return this means that there will be a higher demand in electricity. Secondly, the government is currently pushing for more green energy by subsidizing wind and solar initiatives, which means that Enexis has to make changes to its infrastructure to make it bi-directional. Lastly, around 2009, the governmental body on governmental supervision on mining, quarrying and energy production (SodM) ordered Enexis to change their grey cast iron pipelines due to concerns about the safety issues before 2024. Currently, only the last issue is actively discussed with the local government and other UUI providers, because it concerns citizen safety and it results in potential collaboration projects. “We can do it together and the
local government can join to renew their sewage or something like that. Just to make sure that the citizens only experience nuisance once” (C). The first two issues are not discussed with the
local government and UUI providers.
Local influences
The local government influences the strategic planning of the UUI providers. They do this by prohibiting UUI providers from digging after a project is done for a certain number of years. “This is what we are going to do and if you do not join, you cannot start a project there within
ten years” (D). While, apart from Enexis, the UUI providers generally do not plan further than
five years, they do have to keep such prohibitions in mind. However, according to one interviewee the local government is not always aware of its own prohibition as can be seen in the following quote: “A local government employee A said to my colleague that, after this
project was finished, we were not allowed to dig for the upcoming ten years at that location. We respected that. However, the other day I spoke with local government employee B and he is starting a project at the same location and he wanted to know if we wanted to join”
(Anonymous).
Tactical planning
23
Planning horizon
Individually, all organizations plan their projects based on the state of their network and on the governmental and environmental demands. While the guidelines promote that these projects are planned with an eye on the upcoming four or five years, not all organizations are able to provide a concrete overview for the five years. This is especially the case for the project plans for the third, fourth and fifth year, as there are many uncertainties which might affect the project plan. “We are working on the planning for 2020 and 2021 and I think that’s enough. I have never
seen it happen that five years planning actually came to fruition.” (C). Multiple years planning meetings
At least two times a year, Enexis, the local government, KPN, Warmtestad and Waterbedrijf Groningen come together at the “multiple years planning meeting” to discuss their project plans for the upcoming years. As these plans are still not very concrete, the main goal of this meeting is to recognize potential issues, to find potential opportunities to collaborate and to get a clear view of the project plans for the upcoming year. “In the multiple years planning meeting we
want to know what kind of activities we can expect in the future. It is good to know where the utility providers want to do maintenance and for them it is interesting to know where we, the local government, want to build new houses since those houses also need electricity and water”
(F). Organizations responsible for the telecommunication do have the tendency to not be part of this meeting. The reason for this is because most of their projects stem from citizen requests and are therefore relatively small and not tactical plannable and secondly, because they prefer to work solo. Only since 2019 KPN joined the meetings again due to their plan to lay down an optic fiber network in Groningen, which can be seen as a large project.
Interviewees agree that these meetings are essential for a better collaboration and are needed due to the issues Enexis is facing. However, there is no clear consensus on how often this meeting should take place and what needs to be discussed. “What do you have to do and what
do you wish to do? Where do we want and why do we want this? What is the reason you want to do this?” (J) and “We noticed that we were not able to show any progress” (F). Hence
“Tactical planning is currently underdeveloped” (F)
Shuffling projects
24 Because the local government started a project over there, Waterbedrijf Groningen and Enexis decided to move their plans for this area forward because an opportunity had arisen. As result other projects were postponed for a certain time. This shows that the tactical planning is not set in stone and that planned projects might be shuffled according to circumstances.
Operational planning
The actual formation of renewal and new development projects take place during the operational planning stage. According to the interviewees, this stage is by far the most important, because the foundation of the projects is laid down during this stage. This stage is the stage where time savings can be achieved. “In the preliminary stage there is not yet a clear
design of a project. This is the stage where we can make time savings. Involve us when you make sketches” (J).
Involved project managers
Most of the organizations tend to work with the same format with respect to who is responsible for the project during this stage. Apart from Enexis, a project manager is selected to be responsible for a project, for each respective organization till the project is finished. Enexis uses two managers. One is responsible for the planning and one is responsible for the execution. According to some interviewees this can lead to irritations because the manager responsible for the implementation is often not well-informed or does not agree with the plans made during the planning stage. “Sometimes you have those moments where you think… ‘God, there you have
him again’. We already talked about these things during the planning stage. Sometimes I wonder how they transfer these projects from the engineer to the foreman” (Anonymous). Operational planning meeting effectiveness
During the operational planning stage, the initiator of the project is responsible for leading the project and participating parties are actively involved. Some of the interviewees mentioned that they felt that, as initiator, the other participants take a wait-and-see approach and do not always provided the asked information. “If I do not say anything during the meetings then nothing
happens. I think that is a shame” (Anonymous). On the other hand, other interviewees mention
that they feel that there is a lack of steering and that no one is willing to take the lead “You have
to imagine that we come together every two weeks. UUI providers, local government, stakeholders et cetera. And hardly anything happens.” (Anonymous). As result, some of the
25 incomplete final versions. “During the kick-off meeting for the execution so many unattended
issues come forward. Actually, it is not a kick-off meeting… It is a preparation meeting. But we still have to start.” (Anonymous). Incomplete final versions are, besides the unexpected
circumstances, the main reason projects take longer and are more expensive than planned. Another issue mentioned that hampers the effectiveness of these meetings is that involved project managers are not always able to deliver the needed documents in time or do not show up “Last week we had a kick-off meeting for a project. Of the five involved UUI providers only
three showed up” (I). These two issues might however be related to each other. “If you attend, come with something and not without anything” (Anonymous).
4.4 Information sharing
As shown in the previous section, problems in the information sharing structure results in problems during the planning phase. Therefore, this section aims to provide an overview of how information sharing takes place and what barriers hinder information sharing. An overview of the findings is given in table 4.3.
Table 4.3. Overview findings Information Sharing
Information sharing Findings
Technical - While using the Klic system is mandatory, the provided data is not entirely trustworthy with respect to location.
- Does not provide information with regard to quality of the infrastructure - Formalized documentation helps in overall understanding
Cultural - Old resentment hampers effective collaboration on for example the information sharing process
- Potential culture of fear results in participants not sharing information - Unaccountability leads to employees not showing up at meetings which leads to frustration among other involved employees
Organizational - Collaboration arrangements between Waterbedrijf Groningen, Enexis and the local government gives commitment from top management
- Rigid organizational structures complicates information sharing Political - Housing Act made information sharing in projects initiated by housing
corporations more complex
- Local government sometimes has to make decisions even though they are not fully aware of the situation due to (internal) information sharing issues. Employees - Decrease in staff results in high workload. Participants do not have
enough time to provide documents in time and feel stressed. Technical
26 provide data regarding their infrastructure to anyone who makes a notification. “I can make a
Klic notification myself and then I know beforehand where the cables and pipelines are and what we have to relocate them” (G). However, the shared data is often not fully complete or
completely trustworthy, as pipelines might be laying a bit out of position and because the quality of the respective pipeline is unknown. “It is hard for us to assess the quality of the pipelines
and if something needs to be done with it. Either renewal or relocation” (D), “We don’t blindly trust the provided documents” (H). Especially the problem concerning the quality is
problematic as this can lead to dangerous situation if not taken care of properly. Therefore, organizations always have to verify the provided information. An important benefit of the Klicmelding system is that it results in a consistent data structure. All reports look the same, which makes the received data understandable to everyone.
Cultural
Both the UUI providers and the local government are characterized by having a relative old workforce. “A lot of participants have already been working for twenty or thirty year in this
environment” (J). While this leads to a high level of expertise, it also results in problems if these
participants have had bad experiences with each other in the past. “A lot of things happened in
the past. You notice that some employees still have some old resentments” (J). In the past this
has led to problems in the collaboration and information sharing process. “I am going to make
your life miserable because you don’t agree with my approach” and “Some employees could feed on each other’s blood” (Anonymous). Another problem mentioned is that open
communication is hindered by a potential culture of fear “Sometimes I think that they are afraid
to answer truthfully” (Anonymous). As result, sometimes participants do always not share their
thoughts or concerns “An employee had a problem for over half a year but had the feeling that
he could not share it with anyone” (J). Lastly, some employees do not necessarily see the need
to show up at meetings while it is important for the other involved employees that they show up. This behavior leads to frustration. “I initiated several meetings and some organizations just
did not show up. That gave a lot of frustration” ´ Organizational
The top management of Waterbedrijf Groningen and Enexis have acknowledged the benefits of working together “The higher management of the organizations have recognized the common
interests and have made collaboration arrangements. They did not make a collaboration agreement” (J). Currently interviewees experience that, while there is a commitment from the
27
personnel, each sitting in their own booth instead of sitting together in the changing room” (J).
A potential reason for this is because some of the organizations are, due to their size, relatively complex which hampers the progress of information sharing. “Sometimes it is because, and this
is especially the case with Enexis, that the organization structure is so rigid that there is no room for any flexibility “(G). An example of this is if a housing corporation want to research
potential issues, it cannot get data unless the UUI provider has given it a project number internally “Grid operator who wants to make a fast sketch to see if something is an intelligent
decision… It cannot do this because it does not have its own project number yet. They told me that this is quite problematic” (G).
Political
In the past, if a housing corporation wanted to start a project, the local government would make them entirely responsible for the decision-making process and the municipal tasks in that area. This meant that they would be responsible for the planning, the constructor tender procedure, the execution of a project and all associated matters. The Housing Act changed the situation giving the local government more influence in the process. Nowadays, the housing corporation is responsible for the planning and execution, but the local government is responsible for the other related matters. “It is more cumbersome. Now the local government gives the contractor
the assignment and we have to pay the local government a fee because of some kind of anterior agreement” (G). The Housing Act made the information sharing structure more complex as the
total amount of information that needs to be shared between the organizations increased. Another problem that results from complexity in the information sharing process is that the local government sometimes has to make decisions while they are not completely aware of the situation. An example of this is a project in the Oranjebuurt. Even though the local government was involved in the planning process, they did not communicate their findings internally. As result, the local government did not agree to cut down 200 trees resulting in the project having to be cancelled. “They came to us with the notification that they wanted to start cutting 200
trees in 14 days. We did not agree. Later I found out that our employees have been there to perform tree tests but that was not shared internally” (F).
Employees
An important trend seen both by UUI providers and the local government is that “in recent
years, the staff has decreased due to, for instance, retirement” (H). Not only did this result in a
28
are not enough employees” (J). Employees experience stress and do not always have enough
time to do things asked of them “It is not necessarily hard to talk about these things, but finding
employees who have the time to sit down and talk about it is hard” (H) and “Employees are already walking on their toes due to the workload” (J). This might also be the reason why
project managers are not always able to give the needed documents in time.
4.5 Power
In this section a more thorough overview is given of the influence of power on the effectiveness of collaboration. While some interviewees mention that the involved organizations intend to communicate and plan with each with the idea that they are equal to each other, they do agree that this is not the case “We say that we are equal, but I feel that the local government has the
upper hand” (J). An overview of the findings is given below. Table 4.4. Overview findings Power
Power Findings
Legal legitimacy - Local government is the owner of the public space and is thus the most powerful organization (overt power).
- Lack of legitimacy negatively affects collaboration as arrangement do not necessarily find foothold within organizations
Size - Data providers have “abused” their power in the past in an unethical way - Bigger organizations have different tender rules than smaller organizations. As result, smaller organizations usually have to use the contractor chosen by the bigger organization (hegemony).
Coercion - Only the local government and Waterbedrijf Groningen are able to use coercion power. This is because they are the main stakeholders of Warmtestad and can thus cancel projects or reject plans (overt power).
Reward - Does not influence the collaboration between organizations Explanation - Does not influence the collaboration between organizations Referent - Does not influence the collaboration between organizations
Knowledge - Provides power to circumvent decisions made by the local government because UUI providers knows what is best for their infrastructure (overt power)
Power distribution
- Interviewees do not recognize a noteworthy change in the power distribution during projects
Legal legitimacy
All interviewees agree that the local government has the most power due to its legal authority to provide the necessary licenses and that this affects the collaboration. In other words, the local government decides if a project happens or not. “It is because we are the owner of the public
space. When they start a project, they have to ask us for permission because without our permission they are not allowed to dig in the ground” (D). Secondly, the lack of legitimacy
29 improving the tactical planning. However, as both of them did not have the legitimate power to change anything, their ideas did not find any foothold within the organizations “We sit together
with the aim to align our organizations but whatever we agree upon has no status within our own organizations” (F).
Size
Enexis, KPN and ZiggoVodafone operate on a national level, while Warmtestad, Waterbedrijf Groningen and the local government operate more at a regional or local level. “I think that
bigger organizations operating at a national level, like Enexis, are stronger than a Waterbedrijf Groningen because they operate provincial” (C). KPN and ZiggoVodafone tend to work solo
so their size does not necessarily influence the collaboration on a daily basis.
There are examples that data providers “abuse” their power and that it is relatively hard to let them take responsibility “If a data provider puts a cable in the ground, they just mess around.
The depth, where and how does not seem to bother them. Bundles of cables just three centimeters below the paving stones” (Anonymous). Another example is that they took
advantage of projects initiated by other organizations by using their routes without paying the costs. This causes nuisance to other UUI providers and this has led to serious talks in the past “We have told them that we do not business with each other this way” (Anonymous). A bigger size generally also means that these companies have to comply to different rules in the tender process. “We have the authorization to go to a certain amount of money but for Enexis this is
higher. Enexis also has the freedom to approach contractors themselves. We usually have to follow them” (C).
Coercion
In Groningen there is only one organization influenced by the coercion power of other organizations. Warmtestad is a young organization established by the local government and Waterbedrijf Groningen to heat buildings in a sustainable way. Due to the fact that these two organizations are the main stakeholders, they have the power to cancel projects if they, for instance, do not agree with the budget calculations or with a project in general “Then it goes to
the stakeholders and they have to give their approval” (B). Knowledge
30
no foothold to withhold us because we, as UUI providers, have a better understanding of the risks involved” (J). For example, the local government can hinder activities of Enexis because
it does not agree with the plan, even though Enexis has to obligate to the demands of the SodM. If it comes to a lawsuit, Enexis stands stronger due to its knowledge of its own network and the risks involved in not accomplishing the demands of the SodM.
Power distribution changes
Generally, interviewees do not necessarily recognize a shift in the power distribution during projects. Involved UUI providers and the local government generally follow the collaboration guidelines which means that it is relatively clear how the power is distributed. Even when, during the final stages of the project planning phase, the contractor becomes involved, the power distribution does not show a noteworthy change. “It will catch up to me one day… I can
31
5. Discussion
The main objective of this study is to explore how organizational structures affect the effectiveness of horizontal collaboration between organizations active in the underground utility infrastructure. Similar to other studies concerning cross-sector horizontal collaboration, findings of this study show that horizontal collaboration is complex due to various reasons. Findings show that horizontal collaboration is affected by power differences, knowledge among stakeholders, the need to comply with government regulations and unaccountability. This is in line with studies mentioned in the introduction (Ryan, & Walsh, 2004; Selsky, & Parker, 2005; van Buuren, 2009; Babiak, & Thibault, 2009; Edelenbos, van Buuren, & van Schie, 2011). Secondly, findings show that main reasons to collaborate stem from common interests and to deal with environmental uncertainty. These two determinants are in line with the determinants mentioned by Fiedler and Deegan (2007).
32 organizations on one hand and the collaboration between teams on the other hand, is that the article of Vogelaar and Essens is focused on collaboration at large while the other articles focus specifically on construction projects. However, as the findings of this study represent the opinion of individuals instead of organization, we are more inclined to agree with the article of Vogelaar and Essens.
Lastly, while the organizations do not abide the collaboration guidelines completely, they do agree that it helps collaborating in an effective manner. This is in line with findings of Abdel Aziz (2007).
33
6. Conclusion
This study aims to get a better understanding of how certain organizational structures affect collaboration in an underground utility infrastructure MTS. In order to do so, the following research question is answered: “How do organizational structures affect the effectiveness of
horizontal collaboration between organizations in the underground utility network infrastructure? More specifically, this study focuses on the planning-, information sharing- and
power structure because literature has shown that these play an important role in such projects.
The first finding of this study is that difficulties in the planning structure hampers effective collaboration. While the UUI providers recognize the importance of collaborating on a tactical level, the unclear expectations and misalignments on for example the planning horizon leads to the inability to effectively collaborate. On operational level, effective collaboration is mainly hampered by a lack of leadership, a lack of willingness and unaccountability to actively participate. As result, the planning process takes longer than planned which in turn increases the chance of delays in the execution phase. The second finding is that, even though the national information sharing system (Klic) helps effective collaboration by standardizing the data and making it more accessible, information sharing barriers have an important impact on the effectiveness of collaboration. Especially past experiences and the lack of manpower resulting in a high workload have a tendency to hamper information sharing. The third finding is that legal legitimacy and the size of an organization are the two main elements affecting collaboration. However, organizations lacking these two powers are not entirely powerless. If they have a better understanding of the circumstances, thus knowledge power, they have the ability to challenge decisions made by other organizations. Although, in most cases the “weaker” organizations just tend to follow.
34 highly influential in the collaboration. Managers should focus on building trust among participating employees in order to boost the willingness to collaborate.
A limitation of this study is the sample size. By conducting semi-structured interviews with one or two interviewees per organization, this study provides a broad overview of how collaboration between UUI providers and the local government works. However, by choosing such a design, repeating studies may result in different findings when interviewing multiple interviewees per organization. Therefore, while this study explores horizontal collaboration within this context, it might not be entirely generalizable. Secondly, a downside of qualitative studies is that does not quantitively substantiates findings with respect to linkages between the organizational structures and effective collaboration. While semi-structured interviews provide opinions showing a potential link, it does not necessarily mean that there is an actual correlation between the variables.
35
References
Aaltonen, K. (2011). Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental interpretation process,
International Journal of Project Management, 29: 165 – 183.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26: 381 – 397.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J. (2016). Towards an improved understanding of project stakeholder landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34: 1537 – 1552.
Abdel Aziz, A. M. (2007). Successful delivery of public-private partnerships for infrastructure development. Journal of construction engineering and management, 133(12): 918 – 931. Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D. S., Paul, J. B. (2014). The riddle of heterarchy: power transitions in cross-functional teams, Academy of Management Journal, 57(2): 327 – 352. Ariaratnam, S. T., Piratla, K., Cohen, A. Olson, M. (2013). Quantification of sustainability index for underground utility infrastructure projects, Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 139(12):
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., Anwar, S. (2016). A systematic review of knowledge management and knowledge sharing: trends, issues, and challenges, Cogent business & management, 3: 1127744 Babiak, K. M. (2008). Criteria of effectiveness in multiple cross-sectoral interorganizational relationships, Evaluation and Program Planning, 32: 1 – 12.
Babiak, K., Thibault, L. (2009). Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships, Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1): 117 – 143.
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 Review, 22: 128 – 145.
Blumberg, B. F., Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business Research Methods, Berkshire: Mcgraw-Hill Education.
Bobylev, N. (2009). Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city’s master plan: a case of urban underground space use, Land Use Policy, 26: 1128 – 1137.
36 Cheong, Y., Nur, Y., Mustaffa, E. (2012). Analysis of factors critical to construction project success in Malysia, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(5): 543 – 556.
COB. (2014). Kabels, leidingen en mensen: een verkenning naar samenwerking. Retrieved from https://www.cob.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Kabels-Leidingen-Mensen_CROW-COB_okt2014.pdf
COB. (2018). Anders verlegd: innovatieve aanpak en samenwerking bij de verlegging van
Kabels & Leidingen. Retrieved from
https://www.cob.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Anders-verlegd_OBSP-Leiden_web.pdf
Coen, C. A., Schnackenberg, A. (2012). Complex systems methods for studying multiteam systems, Multiteam systems: An organizational form for dynamic and complex environments, 453 – 479
Cox, R. F., Issa, R. R., Ahrens, D. (2003). Management’s perception of key performance indicators for construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 129(2): 142 – 151.
Curtis, S., Edwards, J. (2019). Improving public services by sharing the right information,
Public Money & Management, 39(5): 355 – 358.
Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: expected benefits, manageable risks.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3): 377 – 394.
DeChurch, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J. (2013). Innovation in scientific multiteam systems: confluent and countervailing forces. National Aacademy of Sciences Committee on Team Science.
Washington DC: National Aacademy of Sciences.
Delmon, J. (2011). Public-private partnership projects in infrastructure: an essential guide for policy makers, Cambridge University Press, p.7
Dominelli, N., Rao, A., Kundur, P. (2006). Life extension and condition assessment: techniques for an aging utility infrastructure, IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 4(3): 24 – 35.
Edelenbos, J., van Buuren, A., van Schie, N. (2011). Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects,
37 Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges, Academy of Management Journal, 1: 25 – 32.
Ettorre, B. (2000). Alliances multiply, but most fail to deliver, Management Review, 89(1): 7 European Union (2001), “Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to Horizontal Cooperation Agreements”, European Commission Notice Official Journal C003: 2 – 30.
Favari, E. (2012). Reducing complexity in urban infrastructure projects, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 53: 9 – 15.
Fiedler, T., Deegan, C. (2007). Motivations for environmental collaboration within the building and construction industry. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(4): 410 – 441.
French, J. R., Raven, B., Cartwright, D. (1959). The bases of social power. Classics of
organization theory, 7: 311 – 320.
Frisby, W., Thibault, L., Kikulis, L. (2004). The organizational dynamics of under-managed partnerships in leisure service departments, Leisure Studies, 23(20: 109 – 126.
Gemeente Groningen. (2014) Coalitieakkoord 2014 – 2018 D66 PvdA Groenlinks VVD: voor de verandering, Gemeente Groningen, p. 13
Grimsey, D., Lewis, M. K. (2002). Evaluating the risks of public private partnership for infrastructure projects, International Journal of Project Management, 20: 107 – 118.
Hao, T., et al. (2012). Condition assessment of the buried utility service infrastructure,
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 28: 331 – 344
Henjewele, C., Fewing, P., Rwelamila, P. (2013). De-marginalising the public in PPP projects through multi-stakeholders management, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction,18(3): 210 – 231.
Himes, P. E. (1995). Partnering in the construction process: the method for the 1990s and beyond. Facilities, 13(6): 13 – 15.
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: a longitudinal study, Organization
