Exploring pathways to project success through project delivery team integration: a qualitative comparative analysis

Abstract

Integration within project delivery teams can improve project outcomes in the building construction industry. However, integration across multiple firms and disciplines can be more challenging to manage, when compared to functionally organized, or siloed, teams. Given that resources to manage integration are limited and that most teams are only partially integrated in practice, this research seeks to explore pathways for their success. Using data collected from ten completed projects in the U.S., a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis was performed to identify which combinations of six dimensions of integration were sufficient for improved project performance. The analysis revealed six distinct and highly consistent pathways to success, as evaluated by the criteria of being on-budget, on-time, or achieving the planned sustainable certification. Across all pathways, having a single team focus and equitable team relationships were the only dimensions consistently found in pathways leading to desirable project outcomes. Other dimensions, such as co-location, seamless operation across organizational boundaries, and a no-blame culture were found in pathways to both desirable and undesirable project outcomes, depending on their combination with other dimensions. These results contribute to theories on implementing team integration, suggesting that fully integrated teams are not always necessary for success. Instead, integrated teams that can work collaboratively, while still maintaining organizational separation or autonomy, can be as effective. While the study does not enable the identification of all possible pathways to success, it provides guidance to practitioners by highlighting a small subset of pathways, giving greater flexibility in managing integration within their teams.

Keywords:

• Project delivery
• project performance
• team effectiveness
• collaboration

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be provided with restrictions (e.g. anonymized data). Survey data is available without any project or respondent identifier information.