• Home
• Conference Photographs
• Workshop Minutes
• Keynote Lectures
• Preliminary Program
• Speakers Information
• Important Dates
• Registration Information
• Social Meeting and Conference Activities
• Conference Venue
• Accommodation in Amsterdam
• Amsterdam
• Sponsors and Exhibitors
• General Information
• Organization Committees
• Contact Details

Mobile Program

14:00   TG78 - Workshop Deconstructing organizational paradoxes Chair: Paul Chan Developing interactions, disentangling contradictions: examining paradoxes of inter-organisational relations in constructing collaborations Paul Chan, Eric Johansen, Rachel Moor Abstract: The positive nature of partnering to resolve adversarial relationships in the construction industry has been well-rehearsed. However, critics argued that espoused benefits of partnering have not materialised because business-as-usual prevails. Furthermore, scholars have insisted that more needs to be done to analyse emerging practices in inter-organisational collaborations. This study examines an emerging collaboration. Basically, the research sought to investigate effective knowledge sharing during the early stages of a real-life collaborative venture between three infrastructure companies. The case study was informed by participant observations and interviews with key people involved in forming the collaborative venture. Findings reveal a number of paradoxes that are perplexing on the one hand, yet generative in terms of actions on the other. These paradoxes relate to the three areas of sensemaking, formal methods and time synchronicity. NEGOTIATING STRATEGIC-MANAGEMENT CONTRADICTIONS IN PRACTICE: AN ACTIVITY-BASED APPROACH Christine Raisanen, Ann-Charlotte Stenberg, Martin Lowstedt Abstract: Managing organisational activities challenges actors’ abilities to negotiate contradictions and paradoxes inherent in much human practice. Organisational theorists have suggested ways in which managers may address such contradictions, e.g. embracing them (Beech et al 2004; Smith and Tushman 2005) or separating and transcending them (e.g. Poole and van der Ven 1989). Price and Newson (2003) consider paradoxes from the construction-management literature perspective, and suggest that strategic-management success depends on strategists’ ability to create balance between paradoxical strategies such as rational versus creative strategies and strategy versus organisational effectiveness. However, much of the literature on organisational paradoxes so far remains theoretical. To test the offered models, there is a need for empirical studies of how paradoxes and contradictions are negotiated in situated practice. There is also a need to explore innovative approaches and frameworks for such empirical studies. One such approach, proposed in this paper, is Strategy-as-Practice Over the last decade Strategy-as-Practice has grown as a distinctive field of strategic-management study (e.g. Whittington 2006; Jarzabkowski et al 2007), grounded in the broader social sciences’ “practice turn” (e.g. Schatzki et al 2001). Strategy-as-Practice focuses on strategising as situated, social practice constructed through interactions of multiple actors embedded in institutional contexts. In these situated practices, content, process, intention, emergence, talk and action are intricately intertwined, as are inherent contradictions that are part and parcel of dynamic activity systems (e.g. Engeström et al 1999). The purpose of this paper is to explore how tensions and contradictions arise and are negotiated in strategy-management meetings in a large construction company. In 2008, the company revised its environmental strategies, focusing on one particular strategy: to be a sustainable builder of society. What did this strategy actually mean? What did management intend it to mean, and how was it made sense of by employees as the meetings unfolded? To answer these questions, we observed, recorded and analysed four strategy revision meetings with several actors across different levels in the organisation. This paper discusses how micro-level strategic activities are linked with broader institutional practices. The interpretations of “sustainable development” were imbued with tensions, ambiguities and contradictions reflecting, among others, the paradox between rational versus creative strategies and that between strategy versus organisational effectiveness. The actors invoked different meanings that have been (re)negotiated and (re)conceptualised over time and across several institutional and organisational boundaries and levels. These meanings were used as rhetorical resources to pit opposing groups against each other or to align them, using the same “green” label. REFERENCES Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MackIntoch, R., and MacLean, D. (2004) Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human relations, 57(1), 1313-1332. Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., and Ludvigsen, S. (2010) Activity Theory in Practice: promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London: Routledge Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., and Punamäki, R. (eds) (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press. Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), 5-27. Poole, M.S. and van der Ven, A.H. (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review, 14(4), 562-578. Price, A.D.F and Newson, E. (2003) Strategic management: consideration of paradoxes, processes, and associated concepts as applied to construction. Jurnal of management in engineering, 19(4), 183-192. Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (2000). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge. Smith, W.K. and Tushman, M.L. (2005) Manageing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536. Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613-634. A SPATIOTEMPORAL PERSPECTIVE ON EMPOWERMENT IN PROJECTS Enoch Sackey, Martin Tuuli, Andrew Dainty Abstract: The complex and dynamic nature of project environments presents both opportunities and challenges for the empowerment of individuals and teams. Yet, empowerment is a complex concept in its own right, taking on multiple forms across people, is contextually embedded and shifts over time. As research on empowerment in projects continues to grow, pertinent questions are emerging aimed at promoting the growth of empowerment theory and its applicability in practice. For example, how do organizations empower employees at different levels and still be able to achieve goal congruence across the organization?; how does empowerment manifest itself across project phases?; and how does empowerment manifest across co-located or geographically/physically spaced individuals on the same or different projects/teams across the same organization? The multiplicity and dynamism of empowerment in projects across three aspects - space, time and levels, and their intersections are examined within the context of the complex, dynamic and uncertain operational realities of projects. It is argued that such a spatiotemporal agenda is better understood through the lens of chaos and complexity theory, a perspective that reveals the way in which empowerment is intertwined with other managerial interventions and business strategies for the successful delivery of projects. Keywords: chaos theory; complexity theory; empowerment; spatiotemporal A NEW PROFESSIONAL IN NEIGHBORHOOD APPROACH Ton van der Pennen Abstract: In policy and governmental scientific discourses the statement is more and more heard that an effective approach to neighborhood renewal calls for a typical kind of professional, a so called ‘new professional’. This person must be given policy freedom to capitalize on his special capabilities in planning and decision making in neighborhood renewal. These professionals are not main stream; they ‘make a difference’. They are not detained by the systematic and logic of their organization or by bureaucratic rationality. Characteristics of the new professional were found in the relevant literature. Because of that we typed them ‘the exemplary urban practitioner’. What they have in common is their attention to every day life (in neighborhoods) and a pragmatic problem orientation. They take part in relevant governance processes of policy making. In the actual neighborhood renewal this ‘exemplary urban practitioner’ gets a new, integrated task to solve complex problems bottom up, and finds challenges in the everyday life in urban communities. In their problem orientation they no longer regard housing, living, poverty, health, education, safety, etc. as separate issues. The question we work out in the paper/lecture is how these ‘new professionals’ obtain and create their policy freedom, and fill in this constructed policy context. We illustrate this practice with an empirical case study in the so called ‘krachtwijken’ of The Hague. We presents portraits of a ‘new professional’ operating in these districts. Qualities of the ‘new professionals’ have to do with personal qualities as engagement, guts, creativity, innovativeness, flexibility, and the necessary social skills. But they also have organizational skills such as strategically insight, policy networking skills, and entrepreneurship, to be able to be a ‘good’ governance partner. RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES FOR STUDYING THE INFORMAL ASPECTS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ORGANIZATIONS Thayaparan Gajendran, Graham Brewer, Goran Runeson, Andrew Dainty Abstract: It has been argued that the informal aspects of construction projects play a significant role in the way the project coalesces and subsequently operates. These informalities (e.g. practices, systems, clans) may be real and visible, or simply perceived and thus invisible; commonly encountered in projects or specific to a particular project’s context; ethical/legal or unethical/illegal. These dimensions suggest a framework within which to describe the emergence of a project’s organizational behaviour. Non-functionalists and subjectivists argue that the informal issues can be best understood by using an emancipatory framework of investigation. This paper presents an approach to the design of research methods appropriate to such tasks. In doing so it accommodates various philosophical points of departure, and the blending of various methods, to construct rigorous analysis to deliver context specific outcomes. ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Per Erik Eriksson Abstract: Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization’s ability to both exploit existing knowledge, assets, and positions for short-term profits and also explore new knowledge, technologies, and markets to enhance long-term development. Ambidexterity research has mostly focused on firm or business unit levels. Studies dealing purely with project or alliance levels in project-based industries are non-existent. The purpose of this conceptual paper is to examine if it is a useful concept for discussing sustainability and competitive advantage in the construction industry, to what degree ambidexterity is present, and how it may be affected by procurement procedures and project governance. Short-term project focus and decentralization inhibits learning from one point in time and space to another, making it more difficult to reap the benefits of exploration than of exploitation. Due to strong path dependence there is an apparent risk that construction industry actors may be trapped in suboptimal stable equilibrium by focusing too heavily on exploitation and too little on exploration. This paper discusses how procurement procedures and project governance can affect the possibilities to achieve ambidexterity in construction projects. Joint specification, partner selection, incentive-based payment, and collaborative tools are important means to affect ambidexterity so that a suitable balance between exploitation and exploration can be obtained in construction projects. STANDARDIZING KNOWLEDGE: A DIALECTIC VIEW ON ARCHITECTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND ITS MANAGERS Pernilla Gluch Abstract: Many organizations within the construction industry are currently developing standardized practices. Increased standardization involves new ways of organizing construction projects, changing interrelations between professional groups, setting a new culture, i.e. challenging the institutionalized way of being. It, for instance, leads to a concentration of key knowledge into specific knowledge networks and artifacts. This in turn creates new and/or strengthened roles of expertise within the organizations leading to a reallocation of knowledge, as well as power, from the project setting to centrally organized functions, specialist consultancies and knowledge networks. Based on a case study of one Architect Company, this paper examines the tensions and paradoxes inherent in these ‘new’ roles. In the study, 13 persons were interviewed; actors responsible for changing practices, developing tools and ensuring learning among employees. The study contributes to theory building within a research field that examines the emergence of new roles and practices in construction and the contradictions which arise leading to tensions and possible conflict. Many of the assumptions that underlie these new practices run counter to the established norms and local practices as well as to construction practitioners’ ‘intuitions’. PARADOXES OF INNOVATION AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: A MODEL OF DESIGN KNOWLEDGE GENERATION IN ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICES. Peter Raisbeck Abstract: What are the organisational paradoxes that beset the design process in architectural firms? As innovative knowledge workers and system integrators architects are often called upon to produce innovative and custom designed buildings. Architects can be characterized as knowledge intensive professionals which help to lead innovation. However, most of the research conducted in design innovation and organisational paradoxes has had a product portfolio focus. For example, it has been claimed that product innovation relies on two seemingly contradictory and paradoxical processes in product development organisations: the exploitative and the exploratory. How might these concepts be related to architectural firms and design teams? Using the above concepts an initial model was developed and then tested in order to understand the paradoxical processes that architects employ when designing? How might design processes in service firms differ from either linear or dichotomous models of innovation with its origins in product development? An initial model is proposed which is then tested and refined. These questions are tested in a broader survey of 73 Australian architectural practices. The survey aimed to identify the linkages between exploitative and exploratory design processes in the firms and the organisational paradoxes which surround these A survey framework was developed which defined and highlighted to what degree architects instigate Radical or Incremental design changes in projects. The survey identified the extent to which Australian architects generate new design solutions after a particular design has been mandated. It concludes that these architects deliberately sought to foster highly paradoxical processes within their firms in the early stages of a project in order to create new design knowledge. Highly paradoxical processes, which oppose exploitative and exploratory design activities, tend to diminish as the project proceeds. Further research is needed to clarify if design processes with a high degree of paradox are where project innovation occurs. The paper concludes by outlining a model of exploitative and exploratory innovation and organisational paradox in knowledge intensive design firms. Information TG78 - Workshop Deconstructing organizational paradoxes