ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

For large public organizations, implementing a new project delivery strategy for architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) services requires significant organizational change. A key challenge is how to address the specific needs of multiple individual AEC projects while maintaining organization-wide consistency. Numerous barriers exist to hinder successful implementation, and the delivery of training content to various stakeholder interests must address role-specific modifications to work processes. The Delphi method is employed to develop the framework for delivering organizational training through the utilization of information and communication technologies (ICT) to create a centralized process training tool that can be accessed by multiple distributed AEC project teams. Key aspects of the tool are presented, as well as feedback from experts in the implementation of value-based project delivery regarding the tool’s effectiveness in distributing training content, minimizing key technical barriers to change, and optimizing the allocation of training resources between project- and organizational-level aspects of implementation. Application of the tool within a project delivery change effort was demonstrated to reduce the in-person training requirements needed for project teams to accomplish work tasks. The framework for an ICT-based process training tool is a key contribution of this research and may be considered by industry practitioners.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines]
On: 27 August 2014, At: 12:08
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Construction
Education and Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
Implementing New Project Delivery
Strategies: Development of a Web-
Based Multimedia Tool to Support Owner
Project Team Training
Brian C. Lines Ph.D.a, Anthony Perrenoud Ph.D.b, Kenneth T. Sullivan
Ph.D., MBAc & Jake Smithwick M.S.c
a University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA
b University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA
c Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Published online: 25 Aug 2014.
To cite this article: Brian C. Lines Ph.D., Anthony Perrenoud Ph.D., Kenneth T. Sullivan Ph.D., MBA &
Jake Smithwick M.S. (2014): Implementing New Project Delivery Strategies: Development of a Web-
Based Multimedia Tool to Support Owner Project Team Training, International Journal of Construction
Education and Research, DOI: 10.1080/15578771.2014.930541
To link to this article:
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 00:1–21, 2014
Copyright © Associated Schools of Construction
ISSN: 1557-8771 print/1550-3984 online
DOI: 10.1080/15578771.2014.930541
Implementing New Project Delivery Strategies:
Development of a Web-Based Multimedia Tool
to Support Owner Project Team Training
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
For large public organizations, implementing a new project delivery strategy for
architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) services requires significant orga-
nizational change. A key challenge is how to address the specific needs of multiple
individual AEC projects while maintaining organization-wide consistency. Numerous
barriers exist to hinder successful implementation, and the delivery of training con-
tent to various stakeholder interests must address role-specific modifications to work
processes. The Delphi method is employed to develop the framework for delivering
organizational training through the utilization of information and communication tech-
nologies (ICT) to create a centralized process training tool that can be accessed by
multiple distributed AEC project teams. Key aspects of the tool are presented, as well as
feedback from experts in the implementation of value-based project delivery regarding
the tool’s effectiveness in distributing training content, minimizing key technical barri-
ers to change, and optimizing the allocation of training resources between project- and
organizational-level aspects of implementation. Application of the tool within a project
delivery change effort was demonstrated to reduce the in-person training requirements
needed for project teams to accomplish work tasks. The framework for an ICT-based
process training tool is a key contribution of this research and may be considered by
industry practitioners.
Keywords construction, information and communication technology, organizational
change, project delivery
As market conditions and competition continuously shift, owner organizations that procure
services for the delivery of architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) projects have
become increasingly interested in implementing new project delivery strategies to improve
Address correspondence to Kenneth T. Sullivan, Arizona State University, Urban Systems
Engineering Building, Room #250, 651 E. University Drive, Tempe, Arizona 85281. E-mail:
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
2 B.C. Lines et al.
procurement methods, planning and contracting approaches, and risk and performance
management over the lifetime of their projects (Hallencreutz & Turner, 2011). Yet suc-
cessful implementation of new business processes can be difficult for organizations to
accomplish, and literature sources suggest that more than half of all such efforts ulti-
mately fail to accomplish their original intended goal (Balogun & Hope Haley, 2004;
Maurer, 1996; Pascale, Millermann, & Vakolar, 1997). This high failure rate is a func-
tion of many complex process management challenges that face implementation (Judson,
1991). For an owner organization (defined within the context of this paper as large pub-
lic agencies such as local, city, state, and federal government institutions), the adoption
of a new project delivery strategy requires widespread change that impacts numerous
owner responsibilities, including procurement methodologies, evaluation criteria, standard
contract documentation, contract award procedures, project risk management, and project
organization (Magliaccio, Gibson, & O’Conner, 2008).
One of the key challenges confronting organizations that are implementing a change
initiative is the effective distribution of training content to organizational personnel (Kotter,
1995). Furthermore, many aspects of AEC project delivery make change implementation
inherently difficult for owner organizations to provide adequate training (Magliaccio et al.,
2008). Among the challenging aspects of AEC project delivery is the fact that it is an
industry of high product diversity, making it particularly difficult for owner organizations
to balance the dichotomy between the company-wide standardization and application on
individual projects that each contain a unique set of requirements and constraints (Pheng
& Teo, 2004). Another challenge is the need to develop role-specific project information to
explicitly define the interrelationship between various project stakeholder roles within the
new project delivery system (Froese, 2010). Oftentimes senior leadership and change lead-
ers within the organization underestimate the time and resources that need to be devoted
towards basic training for all participants (Hendersen & Evans, 2000). Lastly, and perhaps
most challenging, is the employee resistance to change because frontline personnel on the
project level have trained for years in one method, so it is difficult to convince and train
them to successfully enact a new approach (Hoff, 2006; Sullivan, 2011).
All these challenges make it extremely important for AEC owner organizations to
utilize effective training frameworks when implementing a new project delivery strategy.
In response to these challenges, this paper presents a framework for providing process-
based training to project-level personnel within AEC owner organizations. A process
training tool (PTT) was developed via a Delphi study of expert groups with experience
as trainers tasked with providing project- and organizational-level training to AEC owner
organizations as well as trainees who had received the training to implement a new project
delivery strategy on their projects. The PTT’s framework made extensive use of informa-
tion and communication technology (ICT), and the specific technologies that were utilized
are presented along with details of the resultant PTT (including screenshots, layouts, and
menu navigation). The framework of the PTT was validated via application within mul-
tiple large public agencies, with feedback from project-level personnel confirming the
tools’ ability to reduce barriers to change implementation. Furthermore, the beneficial
impact of the PTT framework on the allocation of in-person training requirements was
also documented.
Literature Review
The literature review was divided into three sections. First, specific change implementation
considerations were examined with specific emphasis on the challenges faced by owner
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 3
organizations in the AEC industry. Second, commonly encountered technical barriers to
project-level implementation of a new project delivery strategy are identified. Third, the
opportunity presented by information and communication technologies to augment the
delivery of training content to all participants in the AEC project delivery cycle was
explored. Specific types of information technologies are identified in the literature as
possessing the capability to simultaneously assist multiple distributed AEC project teams
while fostering engaging learning platforms.
Change Implementation Considerations within AEC Owner Organizations
Implementing a new strategy by which owner organizations procure and deliver AEC
services presents multiple challenges. Perhaps the most fundamental challenge is due
to the project-based nature of the AEC industry: owner organizations must simultane-
ously balance organizational-level implementation efforts with the unique project-level
needs of multiple individual AEC project teams. Migliaccio and colleagues (2008) noted
that project-level components of a new project delivery strategy affect organization-wide
change “because they are used repetitively on every project delivered with the new
approach until the agency becomes familiar with it.” For this reason, AEC owners are
recommended to develop a change implementation approach to consistently and repeti-
tively train their employees in the processes required to implement a new project delivery
strategy across multiple recurring project efforts.
According to Migliaccio and colleagues (2008), the change implementation approach
adopted by owner organizations must address three critical areas within AEC project
delivery: first, organizational-level components govern the long-term strategic aspects
of sustaining a new project delivery strategy, and should include an organization-wide
implementation plan, consideration of the agency’s staff availability for implementing
the change, and consistent training content across the organization. Strategic objectives of
organizational-level components are centered on long-term institutionalization of the new
process as a permanent tool within the organization’s skill set (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992).
Second, project-level components focus on the technical aspects of implementing the new
project delivery strategy on the individual work tasks completed by frontline personnel.
Project-level components include project contractual documentation that is suitable for the
new approach, details of an efficient procurement process, specific approaches to manag-
ing project risks, and well-defined contract administration procedures for facilitating the
new approach. Whelan-Berry and Somerville (2010) further noted that role-specific train-
ing is a key driver of successful implementation of the new approach and suggested that
individual employees should be provided with an understanding of explicit skills needed to
accomplish critical tasks. Finally, the third critical area was consideration of external inter-
face components, which incorporate communication and training avenues to inform AEC
industry providers of the change in project delivery strategy at the owner organization with
the purpose of securing industry support.
Technical Barriers to Project-Level Implementation
AEC owner organizations must consider that the introduction of new business pro-
cesses often leads to employee feelings of stress and insecurity (Denhardt, Denhardt, &
Aristigueta, 2009). Luecke (2003) stated that employees’ first reactions to new business
processes typically consist of shock and insecurity, and Jick (1996) stated that employee
shock stems from natural feelings of uncertainty with completing new technical tasks
which can hinder implementation efforts. Tichy and Ulrich (1984) referred to task-related
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
4 B.C. Lines et al.
barriers as “technical resistance,” which they believed were caused by employee fear of the
unknown aspects of the new process. In the AEC industry, project-level technical barriers
do not necessarily originate from open resistance to the new approach; rather, employees
may simply have trouble changing their day-to-day work practices for technical reasons
(Ott, Parkes, & Simpson, 2008).
The extent to which training resources provide employees with an understanding of
the knowledge, skills, and behaviors to overcome technical barriers has a direct impact on
how well the organization achieves its intended outcome (Schneider, Gunnarson, & Niles-
Jolly, 1994; Alvesson, 2002; Holt, Self, Thal, & Lo, 2003). Armenakis, Harris, & Feild,
(1999) identified two components of the training message, appropriateness and efficacy,
as being essential to overcoming technical resistance. Appropriateness revolves around
the question of “why are we implementing this particular process?” and drives the need
for the organization to describe how individual technical tasks contribute to the overall
strategic sequence and purpose of the process (Walker, Armenakis, & Bernerth, 2007).
Allen-Meyer (2001) explained that training can address concerns over appropriateness by
describing the purpose and intended impact of each technical step within the new process,
thereby providing clear expectations of how overall strategic objectives will be achieved.
The second training component, efficacy, deals with employee uncertainty and feelings that
they do not possess the capability to successfully implement the new process (Armenakis,
Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007). Efficacy barriers stem from the tendency of individuals to
avoid activities they are unsure of or perceive to be above their capabilities and to instead
more readily undertake tasks they deem themselves able to perform (Bandura & Locke,
2003). A summary of the literature around commonly encountered technical barriers to
new process implementation in AEC projects is provided in Table 1.
Distributed Interactive Multimedia Technology for Organization-Wide Training
In order to overcome technical barriers to project-level implementation, owner organi-
zations must provide personnel with the training needed to successfully enact the new
approach; however, the amount of time and resources available to provide organization-
wide training to each individual AEC project group is often limited (Self & Schraeder,
2009). Reports by the U.S. Department of Transportation (2004) have shown that large
Table 1. Technical barriers to change implementation
Barrier Description
B1 Limited time and resources to provide training about how to accomplish
day-to-day tasks.
B2 Uncertainty and confusion about how to complete day-to-day technical tasks
within the new process (“How do I do this?”)
B3 Efficacy considerations regarding discomfort and fear of the unknown (“Can I
be successful in this unfamiliar process?”)
B4 Lack of clarity with how individual tasks or steps are sequenced within the new
process (“What do I do next?”)
B5 Lack of clarity with how individual technical tasks appropriately align with the
overall strategic goal (“What does this individual task accomplish?”)
B6 Discomfort among trainees that a large amount of time is required for education
and training (“Training takes too much time”)
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 5
public agencies that implement new project delivery strategies frequently encounter time
excesses spent on developing and distributing the training content necessary to foster new
organizational routines in support of the project delivery change. Traditional training mod-
els are typically predicated upon in-person interactions between trainers and employee
trainees, yet this approach is limited by the need to match the schedule availability of
trainers and trainee in order to deliver training sessions (Baloian, Pino, & Hoppe, 2000).
In response to this limitation, advancements in information and communication tech-
nology provide unique opportunities to augment traditional training practices by supporting
distance learning via trainee access to a single repository of educational resources (Lee,
2005). Online modes of distance learning provide time and location flexibility by offer-
ing on-demand delivery of training materials, which has the resultant impact of reducing
the time required for in-person training (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). In order to be effective,
training content must be organized in a framework that addresses the role-specific needs
of the various AEC project stakeholders that are impacted by a change in project delivery
strategy (Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010). Training information must also be consistent
across the organization to reduce variability in application over multiple individual project
efforts, while also orienting each project team with how specific project tasks fit within the
overall sequence of the project delivery strategy.
Multimedia technology (MMT) has the unique potential to meet these needs due to its
ability to facilitate many different learning module configurations (Bradley, 2011; Shen,
Li, & Deng, 2001), where MMT is defined as the delivery of information in a computer-
based presentation that integrates two or more forms of media, which may include text,
illustrations, photos, graphics, narrations, sounds, animations, and video (Beckman, 1996).
In fact, AEC industry-connected research has previously shown that distributed interactive
MMT can augment project management training (Hashmi & Guvenli, 2001; Ellis, Wood,
& Thorpe, 2004), which led the authors to consider developing the framework for an ICT-
based training tool that utilizes MMT to deliver role-specific process training for a project
delivery strategy.
Perhaps the main reason that MMT has the potential to augment project delivery train-
ing is its ability to be utilized in an interactive manner such that trainees can “adjust
the instruction to conform to their needs and capabilities” (Haseman, Nuipolatoglu, &
Ramamurthy, 2002). Hofstetter (1995) equated interactivity to trainees’ ability to directly
adjust the nature of verbal, visual, numerical, and audibly display systems, which enables
trainees to control the instructional pace and the sequencing or branching of the infor-
mation being received. Research has shown that MMT can stimulate employee curiosity
and interest due to the “vividness” of presentation (Holmes & Wenrich, 1997; Agius &
Angelides, 1999, Crowley 1999). Additional studies have reported improved learning per-
formance when instructional videos with integrated multimedia formats were employed
(Kelsey, 2000; Wetzel, Radtke, & Stern, 1994).
Another key benefit of ICT is that streaming video playback and multicast capa-
bilities enable the transmission of a single digital video file to multiple users, thereby
fostering a collaborative learning environment that is able to link physically dispersed
trainees (McCloskey, Antonuccia, & Schug, 1998; Alavi & Leidner, 2001). In this man-
ner, delivery of the training content becomes asynchronous, where trainees do not have to
be present at the same time as the trainers and instead are free to learn in a maximally
flexible environment (Barnes & Blackwell, 2004).
Based on the characteristics of MMT to support distributed and interactive training,
the development of a framework for an ICT-based process training tool to assist owner
organizations implement new project delivery strategy is an important contribution to the
AEC industry literature.
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
6 B.C. Lines et al.
Research Objectives
The objectives of this research were threefold: first, to develop and present the frame-
work for a process training tool utilizing information and communication technologies
to improve the training resources available for AEC owner organizations that imple-
ment a new project delivery strategy. The second objective was to craft the framework
of the process training tool in such a way as to reduce technical barriers to project-level
change implementation that confront frontline personnel within AEC owner organizations.
Finally, the third objective was to utilize the PTT to demonstrate a shift in the alloca-
tion of in-person training resources from technical project-level tasks towards strategic
organizational-level aspects of implementation.
Research Context
This section provides a detailed description of the specific participant roles that must be
considered when a new project delivery strategy for AEC services is implemented within
an owner organization. The organizational structure and key participants are illustrated
in Figure 1, where the solid arrows represent the AEC owner organization’s managerial
hierarchy and the dashed lines represent collaborative relationships between various partic-
ipants (both within and external to the AEC owner organization) during the implementation
Facilities & Ops
Executive Sponsors
Change Champions
Frontline Personnel
AEC Owner
Executive Sponsors
Change Champions
Frontline Personnel
Finance & Admin.
Procurement Group
Contracted AEC
External Managers
External Subject
Matter Experts
Process Managers
Figure 1. Stakeholders within a project delivery strategy change effort.
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 7
effort. The specific roles, responsibilities, and involvement of each stakeholder group are
described in the following sections.
Within the context of this study, the new project delivery strategy in question consisted
of value-based project delivery methods. These methods included a best value approach to
procurement of AEC firms (incorporating new contract document templates and proposal
evaluation criteria), a unique pre-contract planning process between the project teams from
each the owner organization and selected AEC firm, and a new risk management system
for the duration of project execution (involving methods of contract administration and
change management documentation).
AEC Owner Organization
AEC owner organizations in this study are considered to be large public agencies, such
as state and city governments, federal governments, and federally funded institutions of
higher education. The AEC owner organizations considered within this study all made
the decision to adopt a new project delivery strategy to procure services for delivery of
architectural, construction, and engineering projects. As shown in Figure 1, two separate
organizational silos are typically involved in the implementation of a new project deliv-
ery strategy: facilities and operations (responsible for the management and delivery of
AEC projects for the owner) and finance and administration (responsible for procurement,
contract documentation, and contract administration). Both silos are critical in the imple-
mentation of new project delivery strategy and associated training content must be crafted
to address their separate project roles.
Executive Sponsors
From an organizational change perspective, it is critical to secure senior management sup-
port for the adoption of a new project delivery strategy (Holt et al., 2003). Within the
AEC owner organization, the senior management within both organizational silos function
as executive sponsors, commonly occupying the organizational positions of vice presi-
dent or assistant vice president. Although these individuals are not often involved with
the day-to-day or project-level implementation of a new project delivery strategy, their
high level support is nonetheless critical to sustainability of the change within the AEC
owner organization. Contained within the executive sponsors’ role is removing strategic-
level organizational barriers to the change as well as being a signal to frontline personnel of
the organization’s long-term commitment to the new project delivery strategy (Armenakis
et al., 2007).
Change Champions
Supervisory personnel function as leaders of the implementation effort for a new project
delivery strategy on both the organizational and project levels. Within an AEC owner orga-
nization, the directorship positions within the departments of facilities and operations and
finance and administration serve as internal change champions to lead and organize the
implementation of a new project delivery strategy. The change champions also fulfill the
strategic role of planning for upcoming project opportunities that may utilize a new project
delivery strategy. They also provide important project-level support to the frontline person-
nel under their supervision on individual AEC projects and ensure these projects contribute
to organizational strategic goals.
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
8 B.C. Lines et al.
Frontline Personnel
Frontline personnel within the AEC owner organization consist of project-level employees.
These employees typically occupy the position of project managers and procurement or
contracting officers. Within the project delivery cycle, procurement officers are responsible
for developing request for proposal documentation, setting selection criteria, compil-
ing contract documents, and conducting contract administration. Project managers are
responsible for scope development, carrying out evaluation procedures, conducting risk
management, and serving as the lead point of contact for the procured AEC firm.
External Process Managers
AEC owner organizations often form a partnership with a separate firm of subject matter
experts in a new project delivery strategy. The subject matter experts provide in-person
training to the owner organization. In this study, the subject matter expert group was an
external research group that specializes in value-based project delivery methods, which
include best value procurement approaches, a unique contract planning and negotiating
process, and risk management systems for the duration of project execution. Individual
members of the subject matter expert group functioned as “process managers” to assist the
AEC owner organization implement the new project delivery strategy. The role of process
managers is to provide in-person training regarding organization- and project-level compo-
nents, including extensive step-by-step training for frontline personnel on each individual
AEC project that utilizes the new project delivery strategy.
External AEC Firm Managers
Representatives from the procured AEC firms function as external managers on each
individual project implemented within the AEC owner organization. External AEC firm
managers are the lead point of contact representing the procured AEC firm. This role
varies based upon the specific project type and scope, but is typically filled by a con-
struction project manager, head design architect, or lead engineer. These individuals must
be trained how to interact with the owner organization within the new project delivery
strategy throughout the procurement process, contract negotiations, and duration of project
Methodology for the Development of the Process Training Tool
A Delphi study was used to develop the content, layout, and delivery platform for a pro-
cess training tool to address project-level components required to assist frontline personnel
implement a new project delivery strategy within an AEC owner organization. The Delphi
method is a structured problem solving process that iteratively collects, reviews, and ana-
lyzes feedback from expert groups (Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Skulmoski & Hartman,
2002). Two expert groups were selected to participate in the Delphi process. The first
group of experts consisted of ten Process Managers who had experience delivering process
training to more than 50 AEC owner organizations. The second expert group consisted of
a panel of nine change champions and frontline employees from seven large public sec-
tor AEC owner organizations who had between one and six years of direct experience
implementing the new project delivery strategy within their respective organizations. The
Delphi method consists of multiple iterative rounds wherein feedback may be solicited
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 9
Confirm Research Objective
AEC Owners
(Champion & Frontline)
Subject Matter Experts
(Process Managers)
Draft 1
Draft 2
PTT Draft 2
Final PTT
Field Testing
AEC Owners
(Champion & Frontline)
Subject Matter Experts
(Process Managers)
Subject Matter Experts
(Process Managers)
AEC Owners
(Champion & Frontline)
Delphi R1Delphi R2
Delphi R3
Delphi R4
Problem Statement:
Tactical Barriers Hinder
AEC Project Implementation
AEC Owners
(Champion & Frontline)
Subject Matter Experts
(Process Managers)
Figure 2. Four-round Delphi method.
via questionnaires, surveys, and phone or in-person interviews. A four round Delphi was
employed in this research to develop the optimal training content, structure, format, and
layout of the PTT, shown in Figure 2. This was in line with the research of Delbecq, Van
de Ven, and Gustafson (1975), who suggested that a minimum of two to three rounds was
sufficient for most Delphi research.
Delphi Round One
The first round began with the initial observation that technical barriers appear to hinder
project-level adoption of new project delivery processes. Members of the two expert groups
individually participated in open-ended phone interviews to obtain their feedback regarding
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
10 B.C. Lines et al.
the challenges they experienced in process implementation. The key finding from Delphi
Round One was that both groups confirmed the research objective to create an ICT-based
process training tool to overcome technical barriers to implementation.
Delphi Round Two
Open-ended phone interviews were conducted with both expert groups regarding the spe-
cific content and delivery platform of the PTT. Emergent categories of key training content
were identified. Consensus feedback suggested the content would most effectively be
hosted on an ICT platform that provided a chronological, step-by-step walkthrough of how
to implement the project delivery processes over the lifetime of an individual AEC con-
tract. The authors functioned as the facilitators of the Delphi study to analyze and combine
the resultant feedback and begin organizing the content to be contained within the process
training tool. Based on the analysis of Delphi Round Two, Draft 1 of the PTT was created
in the form of visual mockups that depicted how the training content would be integrated
into a web-based ICT platform.
Delphi Round Three
The online delivery platform was selected and developed during round three. The selected
platform was a website to support navigation through interactive multimedia training con-
tent. Additional feedback regarding training content and layout was collected, reviewed,
and incorporated into a second draft of the process training tool. The drafted training con-
tent was assimilated into the PTT website platform for the first time for further review and
refinement. Therefore, Delphi Round Three’s main output was revised PTT content that
was incorporated into various MMTs and hosted on the web-based platform.
Delphi Round Four
Another review was conducted by expert groups to provide feedback regarding PTT Draft
2. The collected feedback was reviewed to further refine the training content and delivery
platform, resulting in a final version of the process training tool that was ready for testing
Post-Delphi Test Application of the PTT
After the final process training tool was developed, three forms of data were collected to
validate the tool’s impact on the implementation of new project delivery processes. Data
collection consisted of phone interviews, in-person interviews, and test application of the
PTT in order to triangulate the data and enable multiple levels of analysis.
Framework of an ICT-Based Process Training Tool
Multiple information and communication technologies were incorporated within the pro-
cess training tool. The key ICT characteristics of the PTT are discussed below to highlight
benefits of the online delivery platform and multimedia technology integration to a change
in project delivery strategy.
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 11
Online Delivery Platform
The online delivery platform provided an easily navigable layout of training content as
well as the ability to include of interactive training formats. Navigation within the PTT was
designed to mirror the individual project steps within the project delivery cycle for AEC
projects. The left-hand screenshot in Figure 3 shows the navigation menu included on the
left side of the webpage, providing a chronological road map of the entire AEC contract
lifecycle including procurement and proposal evaluation techniques, contract clarification
and negotiation processes, project management tools for risk minimization and project
closeout. This sidebar menu provides a simple layout to depict how singular steps fit within
the holistic project delivery process, which enables trainees to quickly jump to detailed
training content for any project-level component.
Another key ICT aspect of the online training platform is the ability to integrate
numerous multimedia technologies into a single web page. The screenshots in Figure 3,
for example, incorporate visual graphics, explanatory text, links to downloadable template
documents, and multimedia videos, all on a single webpage. Combining MMT formats
in this manner enhances the effectiveness of training content delivery by providing multi-
ple learning avenues. For example, explanatory text offers a written description of process
tasks, downloadable documents can provide even more detailed process guidance as well as
templates that can be directly utilized by trainees, graphics depict visual representations of
how individual tasks fit together to contribute towards the strategic objectives of the holistic
project delivery process, and videos provide engaging step-by-step training instructions.
Video Multimedia Technology Formats
The wide range of video configurations was perhaps the most important of the MMT train-
ing formats included within the process training tool. Video files were directly embedded
within training web pages such that trainees can access video content with a single click
of their mouse. The video player configuration used within the PTT (shown in Figure 4)
granted trainees full control of video playback, including buttons to stop, start, and pause
the video as well as controls to adjust volume, expand the video to a full-screen view, and
replay portions of the video. These video player controls supported self-paced learning
such that trainees were able to directly interact with the video content.
Multiple screenshots showing the four major video formats utilized in the PTT are
provided in Figure 4. These four video formats were recorded online-choreographed
Figure 3. Sample web pages from the process training tool.
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
12 B.C. Lines et al.
Figure 4. Video technology formats.
presentations (upper left), animations (upper right), lecture-based videos (lower left), and
computer screen-sharing recordings (lower right). Each video format was used to present
training content in a unique manner. For example, recorded online-choreographed presen-
tations accommodated the balance between providing detailed information on individual
process steps, while also presenting appropriate visual representation of how each step was
sequenced in the holistic project delivery process (these videos were done using Prezi, a
cloud-based presentation software and storytelling tool). Animated videos, on the other
hand, were utilized to deliver training content in a less formal yet still visual manner to
display relationships between AEC project participants in the new project delivery strat-
egy. Lecture-based video formats provided a traditional educational setting where a process
manager presents training information in a whiteboard setup. Another lecture-based format
included standard PPT presentations where MMT displayed Power Point slides digitally
such that each slide would move forward automatically to the next corresponding slide. The
fourth video format consisted of direct screen-sharing recordings which enabled process
managers to present detailed training guides on how to properly use certain download-
able template documents that were hosted on the PTT website. For example, the lower
right-hand screenshot in Figure 3 shows a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet where process
managers provided an accompanying narration to walk through the way each tab within
the spreadsheet can be utilized by frontline personnel.
Framework Application within AEC Owner Organizations
When implementing a new project delivery strategy, AEC owner organizations must
deliver process-related training to the frontline employees that comprise their project teams
(including both project management and contracting personnel). Owner organizations that
do not utilize ICT to deliver training must rely upon more traditional modes of distributing
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 13
training content, oftentimes pairing individual Process Managers with individual project
teams. Then during the limited person-to-project-team interaction time that is available,
Process Managers are tasked with delivering both repetitive technical training as well as
strategic, project-specific training (illustrated in Figure 5).
Conversely, utilizing an ICT-based PTT helps shift the manner in which individual
project teams receive training content relating to the new project delivery strategy. Process
Managers can organize the repetitive technical training content on a cloud-based, online
platform to be accessed by any project team, at any point in time. Application of the
PTT in this manner then shifts the Process Managers’ roles to spending their person-
to-project-team interaction time addressing strategic and project-specific training that is
non-repetitive and unique across each project (Figure 6).
Technical Training (repetitive across all projects)
ic Trainin
(non-repetitive, pro
Manager A
Manager B
Manager C
Manager D
Team 1
Team 2
Team 3
Team 4
Figure 5. Traditional training distribution typically employed within AEC owner organizations.
Technical Training (repetitive across all projects)
ic Trainin
(non-repetitive, pro
Manager A
Team 1
Team 2
Team 3
Team 4
Manager B
Manager C
Manager D
Figure 6. Application of PTT framework within AEC owner organizations.
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
14 B.C. Lines et al.
Validation of the Process Training Tool
The impact of the ICT-based process training tool was validated via the three data col-
lection methods: phone interviews, in-person surveys, and test application of the process
training tool. Results of these three methods were triangulated to permit multiple levels
of analysis, including the PTT’s ability to minimize technical barriers to implementa-
tion of project-level components, favorably impact training resource allocation, and reduce
repetitive in-person training interactions for technical aspects.
Minimizing Technical Barriers to Implementation
The ability of the process training tool to minimize the types of technical barriers com-
monly encountered during implementation of project-level components was investigated.
Two expert groups participated in interviews in order to obtain feedback from the two
critical perspectives that would directly utilize the PTT: process managers and frontline
employees to represent the perspectives of trainers and trainees, respectively. Both groups
conducted an extensive review of the tool’s online delivery platform, navigation tools,
content layout, and use of multimedia technology. The participants were then interviewed
via teleconference to assess the impact they perceived the ICT-based process training tool
addressed the technical barriers to project-level components based upon their extensive
personal experiences with implementing new project delivery processes. A ten-point Likert
scale was used where 1 =a strongly negative impact and 10 =a strongly positive impact
on process implementation. The impact of the PTT was compared against the reference
point of the participants’ experience with traditional methods of process implementation
that lacked the benefit of ICT-based training tools and instead relied almost entirely on
in-person training.
The results shown in Table 2 indicated strong consensus among the two expert groups.
Their perception was that the PTT has a highly positive impact in reducing the technical
barriers that hinder process implementation on the project-level. The participants rated
Table 2. Impact of PTT on technical barriers
Key Factors of Process Implementation
Ease of initially implementing the technical aspects of the
project delivery process within a project setting.
8.0 8.3
Comfort level and ability to become self-sufficient with
implementation of technical aspects of the process.
8.5 8.6
Ability to support internal training of project-level personnel
who have not yet been exposed to the technical changes.
8.8 9.1
Ability to address the process implementing organization’s
specific needs, constraints, and requirements in
7.3 7.5
Overall value of utilizing a process training tool to support
organizational implementation of new project delivery
10.0 9.1
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 15
the impact of PTT utilization on reducing technical aspects of project delivery process
implementation as an average 8.1 out of 10. The results clearly demonstrate expressed their
belief that the PTT would improve the ability of Owner organizations to deliver internal
training and ultimately improve project-level personnel’s comfort level with enacting new
project delivery processes.
Impact on Training Resource Allocation
Project-level technical training resources traditionally consist of in-person support by pro-
cess managers to frontline personnel on each AEC owner project team. The traditional
training methods included in-person interactions between process managers and frontline
personnel via meetings or teleconferences. After applying the PTT within multiple AEC
owner organizations, process managers were asked to measure the shift in their work
time spent providing technical training on project-level components, strategic training on
organizational-level components, and other administrative functions. Technical work time
was defined as implementation support delivered directly to frontline employees on sin-
gular project efforts. Strategic work time was characterized as support provided towards
planning and coordinating organizational objectives across multiple AEC projects. Lastly,
administrative work time was labeled as any remaining support not included in the first
two categories, such as updating and maintaining the contractual partnership between the
process managers (as the subject matter experts) with the owner organization.
A baseline measurement was established by recording process managers’ work time
distribution while applying traditional training methods without assistance of the ICT-
based process training tool. The results, shown in Table 3, revealed that process managers
spent the vast majority of their time (71%) addressing technical issues on the level of
individual AEC contracts. Once this baseline was established, the process managers were
surveyed to assess the work role shift they expected to result from deploying the pro-
cess training tool to increase the availability and distribution of technical training content.
Feedback indicated an expected shift in training resources from technical to strategic com-
ponents by nearly 40%. These results demonstrated that incorporation of a technically
focused PTT would likely have a significant impact in supporting the technical training
process for individual AEC project teams.
Reduction of Repetitive Technical Training Interactions
Further evidence of the process training tool’s effectiveness in delivering training content
was documented via direct test application on AEC projects at a large public owner orga-
nization. The PTT was directly applied on seven separate AEC contracts as a supplement
Table 3. Impact of the PTT on training resource allocation
Process Manager Work Time
Shift in
Work Ti m e
Technical (Project-Level Components) 71% 32% 39%
Strategic (Organization-Level Components) 8% 47% 39%
Administrative 21% 21% 0%
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
16 B.C. Lines et al.
Table 4. Test application – Minimization of repetitive technical training interactions
Technical Task
Reduction of
Training Effort
Create a Full Project Delivery Schedule
of Activities
3.9 1.2 70%
Develop and Release a Complete RFP
7.3 2.8 61%
to in-person training interactions between process managers and the owner’s frontline per-
sonnel. These test applications were compared against traditional training procedures that
utilized fully in-person training for project-level implementation. Two role-specific tasks
were specifically observed to document the number of in-person interactions required for
task completion: the establishment of a project-specific procurement schedule for the new
project delivery process and the development of the Request for Proposal (RFP). These
two tasks were selected for observation due to fact that they occur on every type of AEC
contract and are among the first technical tasks that project-level personnel are exposed
to within a new project delivery process, which means that high levels of confusion and
uncertainty are typically related with task accomplishment.
Each in-person interaction was defined as a distinct communication event between
a process manager and project-level employee, where the primary purpose was to make
progress towards completing one of the two tasks selected for observation. In-person
training interactions were considered to be real-time, person-to-person communications
conducted via any median, whether face-to-face or over a teleconference. A baseline
comparison was selected via random sampling of 13 AEC contracts that implemented
the new project delivery via traditional training methods without utilizing the PTT. The
results, shown in Table 4, demonstrate that application of the PTT to distribute techni-
cal training information corresponded with a 70% reduction in the number of in-person
training interactions required to create a procurement schedule and a 61% reduction for
RFP development. Thus test application of the PTT appears to indicate the potential for
ICT-based training content to drastically reduce the amount of management effort required
to accomplish certain technical tasks during the implementation of new project delivery
The use of information and communication technology in the AEC industry has the
opportunity to greatly improve the training resources required for successful implemen-
tation of new project delivery strategy. The following sections discuss potential benefits
of utilizing an ICT-based process training tool beyond its ability to minimize technical
barriers to implementation. The first section discusses the potential to provide greater stan-
dardization of project delivery strategy within AEC owner organizations, and the second
section discusses residual benefits of shifting training resources from technical to strategic
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 17
Potential for Greater Standardization of Project Delivery Strategy
Overcoming the technical barriers to project delivery implementation (such as employee
feelings of uncertainty, negative self-efficacy, and a lack of clarity regarding task appro-
priateness and sequencing) requires clear and consistent training communication to be
provided to frontline personnel. Yet a key challenge within the AEC industry is that one-
time communication of training materials is not sufficient; rather, training content must be
consistently delivered across multiple project repetitions across the AEC owner organiza-
tion. Training content not only must be delivered to separate project teams over time, but
must even be repeatedly provided to refresh the habits of frontline personnel who have pre-
vious experience with the new project delivery strategy due to the potentially long durations
of AEC projects. Augmenting training content through the utilization of information and
communication technologies holds a unique potential to address these challenges by facil-
itating standardization of technical training content that is continuously-available across
numerous distributed AEC projects simultaneously. Standardization of new project deliv-
ery strategy is critical because AEC owners cannot afford variability in the application of
new project delivery strategies across each individual project effort due to the unpredictable
project performance that would result.
Benefits of Shifting Training Resources from Technical to Strategic Components
Deployment of ICT-based training content has a significant impact on the working relation-
ship between process managers and frontline personnel, which has the potential residual
benefit of optimizing process-based delivery of individual AEC projects. The basis of this
working relationship is predicated on two major aspects of technical training that process
managers must deliver to each AEC project team: the first aspect is to provide step-by-step
explanatory training to answer the basic “How to?” concerns held by frontline personnel
who are attempting to perform new work tasks, and the second technical training aspect is
to address the project-specific considerations of how to best apply the new project delivery
processes to meet the unique set of requirements for each AEC project. While the first tech-
nical training aspect is virtually identical for each AEC project, the second requires project
managers to address the specific needs of each individual project, which is challenging due
to the limited amount of in-person training time that is available for process managers to
devote to each of the multiple AEC projects they are assisting simultaneously.
Process managers must prioritize their managerial effort in order to maximize the
training content received by each AEC project team. From process manager’s perspec-
tive, providing step-by-step explanatory training becomes repetitive because the content
is largely the same on a project-by-project basis. Prior to using ICT to distribute train-
ing content, much of the in-person interaction time between process managers and AEC
project teams was spent explaining step-by-step aspects of how to carry out individual tasks
within the new project delivery process. Interview feedback indicated that this type of train-
ing occupied the majority of project manager work time, which had the negative impact
of limiting the amount of time devoted to answering more detailed and project-specific
implementation questions.
Information and communication technologies provide the solution to address this chal-
lenge in multiple ways. First, hosting training material on a single web-based platform
creates a central repository for frontline employees to access technical training content.
Online accessibility of the content via a web-based platform also enables continuous avail-
ability of training content, which provides self-paced and repeatable training access to
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
18 B.C. Lines et al.
frontline personnel. Process managers are able to utilize the online training content to
fundamentally shift their working relationship with frontline personnel by utilizing the
PTT content to answer nearly all initial technical questions prior to in-person interac-
tions. A result is that frontline employees may be better prepared for in-person training
sessions, which can be more focused on providing greater depth and detail regarding the
project-specific applications. This shift in training focus optimizes the managerial efforts
of process managers, which has the potential to increase the effectiveness of in-person
training interactions to maximize the performance of each individual AEC project within
the larger organizational change effort.
Many public organizations are changing the fundamental methods by which they are
procuring, planning, awarding, and delivering architectural, engineering, and construction
services. Continuing challenges in the economic climate have led movement towards alter-
native project delivery strategies, such as best value procurement and other value-based
project delivery techniques. Yet changing from a traditional project delivery environment
is difficult to accomplish, and implementation of this change is met with many barriers
from an organizational change perspective.
The research objectives of this study were (1) to develop the framework of an ICT-
based process training tool to assist owner organizations with the implementation of a new
project delivery strategy, (2) to validate the framework of the ICT-based process training
tool in reducing technical barriers to implementation, and (3) to enable the amount of in-
person training resources to be shifted from technical project-level components towards
strategic organizational-level aspects of implementation. These objectives were met via
(1) a detailed description and screenshots of the PTT, the multimedia technologies utilized
within it, and organization of training content, (2) survey feedback from expert groups
suggesting the positive impact of the PTT on reducing technical barriers to the imple-
mentation of a new project delivery strategy, and (3) a shift in process manager work
time from in-person responsibilities towards strategic-level efforts and test applications
that demonstrated a 61% reduction in in-person training effort.
Applications for Industry Practitioners
Contributions of the study include a framework for a process training tool to support imple-
mentation of a new project delivery strategy within owner organizations that purchase
AEC services, including the information and communication technologies utilized within
the tool. Industry practitioners are recommended to develop a central repository of train-
ing content to assist their individual project teams with role- specific information at each
stage of the project delivery process. The training content can be effectively organized via
the use of information and communication technologies, such as online platforms, easily
navigable web pages, and distributed interactive multimedia technology. Key barriers that
commonly impact AEC organizations were also described in addition to the key participant
roles involved that must be addressed within the implementation effort.
Applications for the Classroom
This study presents a useful illustration of how AEC owner organizations are impacted
by change and the difficulties associated with spreading change-related training across
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 19
multiple disparate project teams. Oftentimes the scope of classroom education regarding
the AEC industry is focused on the elements within an individual project timeline; whereas
this research provides an opportunity to demonstrate a more long-term, organizational per-
spective of how multiple projects must be consistently delivered over a longer time horizon
in order for the organization to be successful. In this manner, the presented findings may
benefit instructors who are interested in addressing organizational-level challenges beyond
the project-level in the AEC industry.
Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
One limitation of the study is evident in that user satisfaction holds the potential to intro-
duce bias in the responses from the industry participants when evaluating the process
training tool’s effectiveness. The authors note that user satisfaction was only one of mul-
tiple measures used to quantify PTT effectiveness and chosen due to its relation with the
technical barrier of efficacy (comfort level in one’s ability to enact a change). However, it
must be noted that user satisfaction ratings may include participant bias. Another limita-
tion is that the study did not account for the potentially different cultural environments of
the various organizations that participated in the validation study. Cultural differences do
have the potential to impact how organizations and their personnel perceive and respond to
organizational change.
Further research is recommended to apply similar ICT-based process training tools
across multiple AEC owner organizations. Documentation of the specific implementa-
tion approaches will be valuable to understand the relationship between implementation
approach, training content delivery, and specific organizational characteristics that may
be unique, or broadly consistent, across various public owners. Future research is recom-
mended to follow a longitudinal case study methodology to better define the dynamics
involved in sustaining a new project delivery strategy over numerous project-level appli-
cations. Longitudinal research designs are recommended to track individual participant
behavior across the entire project timeline in order to begin mapping the behavioral
responses that are encountered when changing project delivery strategy within an AEC
owner organization.
Agius, H., & Angelides, M. (1999). Developing knowledge-based intelligent multimedia tutoring
systems using semantic content-based modeling. Artificial Intelligence Reviews,13, 55–83.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Technology-mediated tutoring systems using semantic content-
based modeling. Information Systems Research,12(1), 1–10.
Allen-Meyer, G. (2001). What’s in a name? Approaching organizational change. Strategy &
Leadership,29(6), 4–7.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Armenakis, A., Harris, S., & Feild, H. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institu-
tionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and Development,12,
Armenakis, A., Bernerth, J., Pitts, J., & Walker, J. (2007). Organizational change recipients’ beliefs
scale: Development of an assessment instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
43, 481–505.
Balogun, J., & Hope Hailey, V. (2004). Exploring strategic change,2nd Edition. London: Prentice
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
20 B.C. Lines et al.
Baloian, N., Pino, J., & Hoppe, H. (2000). A teaching/learning approach to CSCL. Proceedings of
the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 447–456.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied
Psychology,88, 87–99.
Barnes, F., & Blackwell, C. (2994). Taking business training online: Lessons from academe. Journal
of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship,9(1), 3–20.
Bradley, W. (2011). A conceptual framework for the design and evaluation of online learning mod-
ules in professional training and academic education in business. The Business Review,18(1),
Beckman, M. (1996). The web goes interactive. Macworld,13(7), 92–99.
Burnes,B. (2004). Managing change in organizations,4th Edition. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall.
Crowley, A. (2000). Is multimedia ready for mainstream? PC Week,16(5), 69.
Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A
guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Denhardt, R., Denhardt, J., & Aristigueta, M. (2009). Managing human behavior in public and
nonprofit organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ellis, R., Wood, G., & Thorpe, T. (2004). Technology-based learning and the project manager.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,11(5), 358–365.
Froese, T. M. (2010). The impact of emerging information technology on project management for
construction. Automation in Construction,19(2010), 531–538.
Hallencreutz, J., & Turner, D. (2011). Exploring organizational change best practice: are there any
clear-cut models and definitions? International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences,3(1),
Haseman, W., Nuipolatoglu, V., & Ramamurthy, K. (2002). An empirical investigation of the influ-
ences of the degree of interactivity on user-outcomes in a multimedia environment. Information
Resources Management Journal,15(2), 31–48.
Hashmi, M., & Guvenli, T. (2001). Multimedia content on the web: Problems and prospects.
Managerial Finance,27(7) 34–41.
Hendersen, K. M. & Evans, J. R. (2000). Successful implementation of six sigma: Benchmarking
General Electric Company. Benchmarking,7(4), 260–281.
Hiltz, E., & Wellman, B. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom.
Communications of the ACM,40(9), 44–49.
Hoff, C. (2006). Why lean manufacturing is no get-rich-quick program. Retrieved January 31,
2014, from
Hofstetter, F. (1995). Multimedia literacy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holmes, G., & Wenrich, J. (1997). Revisiting cable TV in the classroom. Educational Media and
Technology Yearbook,22, 138–144.
Holt, D., Self, D., Thal Jr., A., & Lo, S. (2003). Facilitating organizational change: a test of leadership
strategies. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,24,5.
Jick, T. (1996). Note on recipients of change. Harvard Business School Background Note.(Revised
from original November 1990 version).
Judson, A. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change.
Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Kanter, R., Stein, B., & Jick, T. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How companies
experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.
Kelsey, K. (2000). Participant interaction in a course delivered by interactive compressed video
technology. American Journal of Distance Education,14(1), 63–74.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,52,
Lee, H. (2005). Enhancing education through technology? Journal of American Academy of
Business,7(1), 327–330.
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
New Product Delivery Strategies 21
Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. London:
Addison Wesley.
Luecke, R. (2003). Managing change and transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Magliaccio, G., Gibson, G. E., & O’Conner, J. T. (2008). Changing project delivery strategy: An
implementation framework. Public Works Management & Policy,12(3), 483–502.
Maurer, R. (1996). Beyond the wall of resistance: Unconventional strategies that build support for
change. Ausin, TX: Bard Books, Inc.
McCloskey, D., Antonucci, Y., & Schug, J. (1998, July). Web-based vs. traditional course develop-
ment: Identifying differences in user characteristics and performance outcomes. Proceedings of
the International Business Schools Computing Association Annual Conference,Denver,CO.
Ott, S., Parkes, S., & Simpson, R. (2008). Classic readings in organizational behavior,4thEdition.
Belmont CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning.
Pascale, R., Millemann, M., & Vakolar, M. (1997). Changing the way we change. Harvard Business
Review,75(6), 127–139.
Pheng, L., & Teo, J. (2004). Implementing total quality management in construction firms. Journal
of Management in Engineering,20(1), 8–15.
Piotrow, P., Khan, O., Lozare, B., and Khan, S. (2000). Health communication programs: A
distance-education class within the John Hopkins University School of Public Health and
Distance Education Program. Web-based learning and teaching technologies: Opportunities
and challenges. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Schneider, B., Gunnarson, S., & Niles-Jolly, K. (1994). Creating the climate and culture of success.
Organizational Dynamics, (Spring), 7–19.
Shen, Q., Li, H., & Deng, Z. (2001). Intelligent multimedia for expertise-intensive training in
construction. Logistics and Information Management,14(5/6), 386–392.
Self, D., & Schraeder, M. (2009). Enhancing the Success of Organizational Change: Matching
Readiness Strategies with Sources of Resistance. Leadership & Organization Development,
30(2), 167–182.
Skulmoski, G., & Hartman, F. (2002, May). The Delphi method: Researching what does not exist
(yet). Proceedings of the International Research Network on Organization by Projects, IRNOP
V Conference, Renesse,The Netherlands.
Sullivan, K. (2011). Quality management programs in the construction industry: Best value compared
with other ethodologies. Journal of Management in Engineering,27(4), 210–219.
Tichy, N., & Ulrich, D. (1984). The leadership challenge—A call for the transformational leader.
MIT Sloan Management Review,26, 59–68.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (2004). Report to Congress
on public-private partnerships. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from
Walker, J., Armenakis, A., & Bernerth, J. (2007). Factors influencing organizational change efforts:
An integrative investigation of change content, context, process and individual differences.
Journal of Organizational Change Management,20(6), 761–773.
Wetzel, C., Radtke, R., & Stern, H. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Whelan-Berry, K., & Somerville, K. (2010). Linking change drivers and the organizational change
process: A review and synthesis. Journal of Change Management,10(2), 175–193.
Downloaded by [University of Kansas Libraries], [Brian Lines] at 12:08 27 August 2014
... APDMs have been used to increase the project's stakeholder integration and eventually enhance project performance (Konchar and Sanvido 1998;El Asmar et al. 2016). Yet successful implementation of the APDMs can be difficult to owner organizations to achieve and require organizational change effort Lines et al. 2014a). The existing literature in the field of AEC has primarily investigated and compared benefits of using APDMs on project performance (e.g., Konchar and Sanvido 1998;Shane et al. 2013;Francom et al. 2014), with limited focus on the organizational change management context. ...
... Today, an increasing number of owner organizations are implementing APDMs to procure and deliver AEC projects. However, changing from a DBB, low-bid approach to APDMs is difficult and requires significant organizational change management efforts to facilitate the change Lines et al., 2014a). To successfully implement an APDM, it may be necessary to modify work processes, organizational structures, and personnel roles and responsibilities . ...
... Today, an increasing number of owner organizations are implementing APDMs to procure and deliver AEC projects. However, changing from a DBB, low-bid approach to APDMs is difficult and requires significant organizational change management (OCM) efforts to facilitate the change (Migliaccio et al., 2008;Lines et al., 2014a). To successfully implement an APDM, it may be necessary to modify work processes, organizational structures and personnel roles and responsibilities (Migliaccio et al., 2008). ...
Full-text available
Purpose: Although numerous studies have examined alternative project delivery methods (APDMs), most of these studies have focused on the relationship between these methods and improved project performance. Limited research identifies how to successfully add these methods within architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) organizations. The purpose of this paper is to identifying organizational change management (OCM) practices that, when effectively executed, lead to increased success rates of adopting APDMs in owner AEC organizations. Design/methodology/approach: Seven OCM practices were identified through a comprehensive literature review. Then, through a survey of 140 individuals at 98 AEC organizations, the relationships between OCM practices and organizational adoption of APDMs were established. Findings: The findings indicate that OCM practices with the strongest relationship to successful APDM adoption are realistic timeframe, effective change agents, workloads adjustments, senior-leadership commitment and sufficient change-related training. Practical implications: Adopting APDMs can be extremely difficult and requires significant organizational change efforts to ensure the change is a success. Organizations that are implementing APDMs for the first time should consider applying the OCM practices that this study identifies as most related to successful APDM adoption. Originality/value: This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by identifying the OCM practices that are most significantly associated with successfully adopting APDMs.
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) has the potential to overcome inefficiencies of traditional delivery methods by enhancing collaboration among project participants, and is therefore gaining popularity in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. For owners considering an IPD approach and are incapable or unprepared to pursue a “pure” IPD project, an IPD-ish approach could be an alternative option. IPD mode is featured by implementing a range of fundamental principles. However, investigations on application of IPD-ish principles to actual construction projects are highly limited. This research mainly focused on a Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) of the application of IPD principles to the design and construction of an IPD-ish project, and presenting a case study on an underground campus-parking facility. A case study for CTA was designed in this study: a project progress map was developed, wherein seven project phases were defined; by analyzing the project goals and technical measures in each project phase, six key IPD elements was summarized, and a few specific work measures for addressing these elements were discussed. For owners or participants intending to plan an IPD-ish project, the results of the study provide a few references on the selection and application of IPD principles in each project phase.
Full-text available
For organizations such as departments of transportation, other public agencies, and private companies, adopting a new approach to procure services for delivery of construction projects requires significant organizational changes; modifications to both their work processes and existing organizational structures may be needed. Building on findings from a study of public owner organizations that have implemented the design-build method for delivering highway projects, the have developed a conceptual framework for helping owner organizations implement a change in their project delivery strategy. They further refined this framework by comparatively studying four transportation projects in the United States. In addition, many experts in the implementation of the design-build method for transportation projects participated in a Delphi study to validate the developed framework. In this article, the authors present findings from these studies, including application to the construction industry and to other industries.
The drive to maintain competitiveness by increasing performance has been an ever-present goal of industries within the global market. Although many industries have benefited from classical quality management programs such as total quality management (TQM), lean production, and six sigma, the construction industry has remained primarily unaffected. This paper analyzes these three popular programs, the basis for their success and failures, and their documented level of susceptibility in the construction industry. These programs are then contrasted to the best value system, an owner-driven quality program that has been tested recently in the construction industry and documented to produce encouraging results. On the basis of the findings, it is proposed that most quality management programs are designed to be instigated by the vendor, by improving the company's ability to deliver a quantifiable, replicable product or service. This is significant because it indicates that although the underlying principles of the classic quality management programs are relevant to all markets, the processes and methods of application may be inappropriate for an industry that dispenses highly diverse or integrated products or services, such as construction. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000054. (C) 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Based on research conducted by organizational scientists dating to the 1940s, the authors identified five important precursors that determine the degree of buy-in by organizational change recipients. The authors assembled these independent precursors into a framework labeled organizational change recipients' beliefs and developed a psychometrically sound self-report questionnaire that can be used to gauge progress of organizational change efforts. The authors describe a series of four studies used to develop a 24-item assessment tool that can be administered at any stage of the change process. The information obtained can serve as (a) a barometer of the degree of buy-in among change recipients, (b) an assessment of deficiencies in specific beliefs that can adversely impact the success of an organizational change, and (c) a basis for planning and executing actions to enhance buy-in among organizational change recipients.
Fully interactive learning environments have been demonstrated to increase student satisfaction, learning, and retention in the educational environment. Using Moore's (1989) framework for interaction in distance education settings, this study investigated participant interactions in a course delivered to five sites by interactive compressed video (ICV) technology. The purpose of this study was two‐fold—to determine the extent to which participants took advantage of opportunities for interaction and to note their perceived barriers to interaction. The participants failed to take full advantage of the opportunities for interaction provided in the course context. Seven barriers to interaction, which focused on ICV technology limitations and student situational and dispositional characteristics, were identified. Implications for practice and future research are discussed at the conclusion of the study.
The Six Sigma phenomenon has followed the TQM movement as the latest thrust for many companies seeking to improve their performance and effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to review the basic concepts of Six Sigma, its benefits, and successful approaches for implementation. In particular, we benchmark the practices of the General Electric Company, one of the leaders and innovators in implementing the process. We conclude that keys for successful implementation include upper management support and involvement, organizational infrastructure, training, tools, and links to human resources-based actions.
Businesses hoping to survive over the long term will have to remake themselves into better competitors at least once along the way. These efforts have gone under many banners: total quality management, reengineering, rightsizing, restructuring, cultural change, and turnarounds, to name a few. In almost every case, the goal has been to cope with a new, more challenging market by changing the way business is conducted. A few of these endeavors have been very successful. A few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale. John P. Kotter is renowned for his work on leading organizational change. In 1995, when this article was first published, he had just completed a ten-year study of more than 100 companies that attempted such a transformation. Here he shares the results of his observations, outlining the eight largest errors that can doom these efforts and explaining the general lessons that encourage success. Unsuccessful transitions almost always founder during at least one of the following phases: generating a sense of urgency, establishing a powerful guiding coalition, developing a vision, communicating the vision clearly and often, removing obstacles, planning for and creating short-term wins, avoiding premature declarations of victory, and embedding changes in the corporate culture Realizing that change usually takes a long time, says Kotter, can improve the chances of success.