Case study for the development of an analysis structure for the collaborative environment on project companies

Pina, Patrícia da Silva Fiuza; Blumenschein, Raquel Naves

doi:10.1590/0104-530X4764-20

Patrícia da Silva Fiuza Pina

Universidade de Brasília – UnB, Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo – FAU, Programa de Pós-graduação – PPG, Laboratório do Ambiente Construído, Inclusão e Sustentabilidade – LACIS, Brasília, DF, Brasil. E-mail: patricia.fiuza@hotmail.com; raquelblum@terra.com.br

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9907-0839

Raquel Naves Blumenschein

Universidade de Brasília – UnB, Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo – FAU, Programa de Pós-graduação – PPG, Laboratório do Ambiente Construído, Inclusão e Sustentabilidade – LACIS, Brasília, DF, Brasil. E-mail: patricia.fiuza@hotmail.com; raquelblum@terra.com.br

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9700-5649

Figures (3)
Tables (4)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Expanding the study of bottlenecks. Source: Adapted from Fiuza (2015)Fiuza, P. (2015). Diagnóstico da qualidade do processo do projeto com foco na comunicação e integração entre agentes: FAPP - uma ferramenta de apoio (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.. Note: The broadening of this study changed the comprehension of bottleneck G4 (information flow), formerly analysed separately for project production process. Now, G4 is the structuring element of project management, whose focus is information management (domain of the process, the project, and alignment with market for growth and technological solutions).

Thumbnail

Figure 2
FAPP diagnostic framework. Source: Adaptation of Fiuza (2015)Fiuza, P. (2015). Diagnóstico da qualidade do processo do projeto com foco na comunicação e integração entre agentes: FAPP - uma ferramenta de apoio (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.. Sub-groups: DP – documents in the project plan. I – initiation. P – planning; EMC – execution, monitoring and control; E – closing; I – design process information flow. II – information flow – feedback. III – project team. IV – project control. V - project presentation standards. VI - VI – Quality management. Bottlenecks: G1 – technical training. G2 – schedule. G3 – decision-making. G4 – information flow. G5 – integration between agents. Dn: General guidelines built from the inter-relationships and inferences established in the construction of FAPP.

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Partial Diagnosis of company A. Source: Adaptation of Fiuza (2015)Fiuza, P. (2015). Diagnóstico da qualidade do processo do projeto com foco na comunicação e integração entre agentes: FAPP - uma ferramenta de apoio (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade de Brasília, Brasília..

Thumbnail

Table 1
Aspects of cooperation and collaboration process applicable to project companies.

Thumbnail

Table 2
General guidelines.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Variables of analysis' components.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Related variables and guidelines.

Important factors in the cooperation and collaboration between companies.	Important factors for the collaborative network in design companies.
Compatibility of objectives (Bronder & Pritzl, 1992Bronder, C., & Pritzl, R. (1992). Developing strategic alliances: a conceptual framework for successful cooperation. European Management Journal, 10(4), 412-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(92)90005-O. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(92)9... ; Franco, 2007Franco, M. J. B. (2007). Tipologia de processos de cooperação empresarial: uma investigação empírica sobre o caso português. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 11(3), 149-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552007000300008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552007... )	Alignment of the objectives of the company and the projects/ portfolio of projects.
Partners' needs (Baird et al., 2007Baird, K., Harrison, G. & Reeve, R. (2007). The culture of Australian organizations and its relation with strategy. International Journal of Business Studies., 15, 15-41.)	Expectations and demands are converted into project requirements; attributes are translated into performance requirements.
Mutual trust and commitment (Bhattacharya, Devinney & Pillutla, 1998Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M., & Pillutla, M. M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 459-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926621. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.92662... )	Strengthening the collaborative network; Collaborative Approach in design process; Formal and informal communication channels.
Balance of power and control (Inkpen & Beamish, 1997Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. W. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 177-202, from https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180263. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180263. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465... )	Make it clear which are the systems of authority and influence; The alignment of the objectives of the company and of the project; Control the arbitrary nature of decisions; Aspects of management, operation and feedback.
Cultural similarities (Bronder & Pritzl, 1992Bronder, C., & Pritzl, R. (1992). Developing strategic alliances: a conceptual framework for successful cooperation. European Management Journal, 10(4), 412-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(92)90005-O. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(92)9... ; Hennart & Zeng, 2002Hennart, J., & Zeng, M. (2002). Cross-cultural differences and joint venture longevity. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(4), 699-716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.... )	More flexible companies; Agents acquire the knowledge, skills, techniques, and identification to act as a team.
Balance of forces between the partners (Bleeke & Ernst, 1991Bleeke, J., & Ernst, D. (1991). The way to win in cross-border alliances. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 127-135. PMid:10114925.; Osland & Cavusgil, 1996Osland, G. E., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1996). Performance issues in U.S. - China joint ventures. California Management Review, 38(2), 106-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165835. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165835... )	Analysis of needs of external and internal agents; Individual and collective consciousness of the influences and impacts
Governmental support (Baird et al., 2007Baird, K., Harrison, G. & Reeve, R. (2007). The culture of Australian organizations and its relation with strategy. International Journal of Business Studies., 15, 15-41.)	Legal requirements, processes for review and approval by the public power; Clear identification and update of technical standards; Compliance with Norma de Desempenho [performance standards]; Support for implementation of BIM platform; SNA.

G	Compatible values	Basic guidelines	Suggestion for actions	Suggestion to actions' focus
G1	Project management	D1 – Register agents and their assignments, and definition of the responsibility matrix.	Project team	Critical analysis of the project team
G1	Lessons learned - innovation, training.	D5 – Data record of lessons learned from project	Administration of documents	Provide project guidelines, R&D
G5	Focus on internal client and end user	D7 – Identify the customers' needs; Selection of lessons learned historical data to transform them into new guidelines; Feedback of quality management as a whole.	Market research, R&D, project process.	Domain of the product generated and market; proposals of technological solutions.
G1	Quality, creativity and technique (constructive rationalization, technical standards, ways to change).	D11 – Systemic understanding of the project process, interactions and interfaces between agents, activities and environments; Interpretation and application of Norma de Desempenho [performance standards]; Constructive rationalization in the project.	Quality policy and the relationship between agents and the work environment.	Constant concern with meeting the end user needs.

Diagnosis	Functional Analysis
Variables	G	Positive aspects	Weaknesses	Sub-variables
Critical analysis	G1	Essential activities are formal.	Differentiated activities are informal	Activities
		Small and cohesive team.	With no self-evaluation of the managers and the team.	Self-evaluation
		Seek support in BIM tool.	BIM Underutilization	BIM/collaboration
R&D	G1	Managers' feeling.	Fragile G3, degrades the performance of G1 with this focus.	Decisions
		General Technical training.	Do not know how to relate PP with the bank of historical data.	Information
		Managers' feeling.	Application of resources.	Resources
Technological solutions	G5	Strong execution stage.	BIM - Collaborative Environment	BIM/collaboration
End user	G1	Expertise in the market in which it operates.	Declared values of design process are not compatible with the values obtained in the diagnosis, in order and degree of importance.	Values
		Standardizes deliveries.	BIM Underutilization	BIM/collaboration
		Training for the general development of the projects.	Compatibility process is still fragmented; underuse of BIM.	BIM/information modelling
		Initiation, planning, and execution segments strengthened.	Fragile segments: monitoring, control and closing.	Values

Variables	Sub-variables	Management general guidelines
Critical analysis	Activities	Formalize the differentiated data.
	Self-evaluation	Evaluate the project team's and managers' performance in conflict resolution, resource allocation and individual and collective physical deliveries.
	Self-evaluation	Developing trust between agents. Learning is the result of sharing and disseminate information, management of information modelling and tacit and explicit knowledge.
	BIM/ collaboration	The BIM tool is a “tool” to assist in the learning process. The focus must be a collaborative environment.
R&D	Decisions	Adjust design solutions from the project documentation, lessons learned, and manager feeling.
	Information	Transform bank of historical data and lessons learned in requirements to be used as feedback in the next projects.
	Resources	Focus and investment in technical training, technology, and project's aesthetics (they are values associated with PP in practice, and they have room for improvement).
Technological solutions	BIM/ collaboration	Align and link projects decisions with consultants’ technical advice.
End user	Values	Implement and support policies and strategies to align declared values and practised values.
	BIM/ collaboration	Establish goals for the development of BIM platform.
	BIM / information modelling	Add value to the information generated by PP coordination in BIM - coordination of disciplines.
	Values	Focus and investment in technical training, technology, and project's aesthetics (they are values associated with PP in practice, and they have room for improvement).

[1] Source: Adaptation of Fiuza (2015)Fiuza, P. (2015). Diagnóstico da qualidade do processo do projeto com foco na comunicação e integração entre agentes: FAPP - uma ferramenta de apoio (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade de Brasília, Brasília..

Brasil

Brasil

Case study for the development of an analysis structure for the collaborative environment on project companies

Estudo de caso para o desenvolvimento de uma estrutura de análise para o ambiente colaborativo em empresas de projeto

Abstract: