Holistic Study and Analysis of Factors Affecting

Collaborative Planning in Construction

Amr Elsayegh, S.M.ASCE 1; and Islam H. El-adaway, F.ASCE 2

Abstract: The fragmentation of the construction industry led to the development of innovative approaches including collaborative planning,
relational contracting, integrated project delivery, advancements in technology, and lean construction. Existing research focused on certain
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

aspects of collaborative planning without providing a comprehensive analysis of the factors affecting collaboration. To this end, the goal of
this paper is to provide a holistic list of factors affecting collaborative planning in the construction industry and guiding future research needs.
This study followed an interrelated research methodology. As such, the authors (1) conducted an extensive review and analysis of the liter-
ature on collaboration and collaborative planning in the construction industry within the last 30 years, (2) identified and defined the factors
impacting the effectiveness of construction collaborative planning, (3) performed social network analysis (SNA) to quantify the importance
and impact of each of the identified factors and verified the output using a simple analytic method, and (4) highlighted the gaps in the literature
and created a roadmap for the factors that need further investigation. Consequently, this study provides substantial addition to the body of
knowledge at multifacets. To this effect, the results include (1) presenting 50 factors that could collectively affect collaborative planning in
construction projects; (2) indicating that future research endeavors need to investigate the understudied key factors for collaborative planning
comprising vision, goal alignment and integration, early involvement of key project stakeholders, project parties relationship, and willingness
for collaboration and cooperation; and (3) substantiating the need to develop models that simultaneously incorporate all 50 factors to have
simulation environment that is as close as possible to reality. Ultimately, this research provides a foundation for a broader and more holistic
framework to further advance the utilization of collaborative planning in the construction industry. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0002031. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction relationships between project parties in construction projects are

The construction industry represents a project-based sector with
unique characteristics that distinguish it from other industries such
as fragmentation, complexities, heterogeneity, and performance vari-
ability of different trades (Assaad et al. 2020a; Ratajczak et al.
2018). To address these characteristics, the construction industry wit-
nessed huge transformations regarding the scale of projects, large
investments, the complexity of project procurement processes, the
interconnected processes in project execution, and the advancement
in construction technology (Deep et al. 2019). These transformations
led to the development of innovative approaches such as collabora-
tion, integrated project delivery, alliancing, and partnering.
The planning, design, and execution of construction projects re-
quire a collaborative effort from different project parties including
project owners, architects, civil engineers, construction/project
managers, general contractors, specialty subcontractors, suppli-
ers, and manufacturers (Assaad et al. 2020b). Nevertheless, the
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental
Engineering, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO
65409. Email: amr.elsayegh@mst.edu
2 (Ratajczak et al. 2017). That being said, there exists a critical need
Hurst-McCarthy Professor of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment, Professor of Civil Engineering, and Founding Director of the Missouri
Consortium of Construction Innovation, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and
Environmental Engineering, Dept. of Engineering Management and
Systems Engineering, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla,
MO 65409 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002
-7306-6380. Email: eladaway@mst.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 17, 2020; approved on
November 13, 2020; published online on February 13, 2021. Discussion
period open until July 13, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
known for lack of collaboration and inadequate client involvement
(Costa et al. 2019). Additionally, construction projects are known
to be distinctive in terms of their financial, social, technical, and
political aspects, resulting in difficulties in managing the supply
chain relationships in construction (Costa et al. 2019). Moreover,
the different project parties are required to make interdependent
decisions. As such, a proper flow of information and adequate com-
munication shall be present between the different project stakehold-
ers so they can take mutually compatible decisions (Mokhtar et al.
2000). Nevertheless, this is a difficult task on construction projects
because of the availability of a large amount of information and the
continuous changes associated with such information.
The complexities present in the execution of construction proj-
ects are increased due to a competitive environment and the mutual
relationships present among the different parties involved in con-
struction projects (Sears et al. 2008). The problem is even exacer-
bated in construction projects where the information is still
communicated with paper-based methods such as drawings, con-
struction logs, and scheduling (Ratajczak et al. 2017). This leads
to miscommunication between project parties, errors in construc-
tion, and reduced potential to take rapid and correct actions
to implement effective collaboration, cooperation, and communica-
tion methods on construction sites (Dainty et al. 2006).
Many challenges have been present for decades in the construc-
tion industry and are still not sufficiently addressed by practitioners
and scholars, and collaboration is one of them. To overcome the
difficulties, many construction companies started to adopt new in-
formation and communication technologies, which are based on the
principles of lean construction, agile construction, and effective
supply chain practices devised mainly from the manufacturing in-
dustry. These technologies are often referred to as collaborative

© ASCE 04021023-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023

 planning, scheduling, and execution to represent the practices
where multiple project participants have shared responsibilities in
relation to communicating information regarding project planning
and management, project execution, and performance measure-
ments (Richey et al. 2012). Nevertheless, there are construction
firms that still apply the traditional management concepts and proc-
esses due to the lack of experience and knowledge on lean con-
struction and collaborative planning and the factors that affect
collaboration in the industry (Adegbembo et al. 2016).
The goal of this research is to provide a holistic list of factors
affecting collaborative planning in the construction industry and
guiding future research needs. Eventually, the outcomes of this pa-
per shall facilitate a better understanding of collaborative planning
in the construction industry and the factors affecting it. This should
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
lead to more reliable planning and management practices as well as
enhanced project performance.
Background Information
Collaborative planning is a process that requires the involvement
and integration of different stakeholders on construction projects
to provide more reliable project planning and scheduling, promote
a sense of involvement and ownership, and lead to enhanced project
performance. Many research works have been performed to study
collaboration in construction projects, as detailed in the next
subsections.
Collaborative Planning, Relational Contracting,
Integrated Project Delivery, and Partnering
Previous research work focused on studying collaborative planning
practices related to relational contracting and innovative project de-
livery methods such as integrated project delivery (IPD) and part-
nering (Ma et al. 2018b; Ibrahim et al. 2018; Hall et al. 2018; Costa
et al. 2019; Deep et al. 2019). Collaborative and integrative prac-
tices in the construction industry have been investigated in relation
to whether they are solely ascribed to IPD methods (Koolwijk et al.
2018). In addition, the principles of innovative project delivery
methods—such as alliancing, partnering, relational contracts, and
lean project delivery—have been explored by previous studies, and
a tool has been developed to enhance the relationships between
stakeholders in construction projects (Palacios et al. 2014). Early
contractor involvement procurement has also been studied by mod-
eling its knowledge integration process at the tender stage (Hastie
et al. 2017). Several supply chain integration practices, such as
multiparty contracts and colocation, have been highlighted for their
positive impact on the implementation of systematic innovation in
complex construction projects (Hall et al. 2018). On the other hand,
a research study conducted by Costa et al. (2019) focused on the
critical aspects that hinder collaboration in construction supply
chains. Trust, commitment, and reliability have been highlighted as
the most important facilitators of collaboration in the construction
industry (Deep et al. 2019). In emerging economies, the following
main factors affecting collaboration on construction projects have
been highlighted: project vision, behavior of project participants,
communication, contractual agreements, systematic process, and
relationship definition (Faris et al. 2019).
Lean Construction, Last Planner System, and
Pull planning
Lean construction principles such as the last planner system (LPS)
and pull planning have been closely linked to collaboration in con-
struction projects in previous research (Zhang et al. 2018; Daniel et al.
© ASCE 04021023-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023
2019; Sacks et al. 2010a). In relation to that, previous research high-
lighted the similarities and differences between collaborative planning
practices for project delivery and the LPS principles (Daniel et al.
2017). In addition, a framework has been developed to deal with
the integration challenges of implementing LPS in international meg-
aprojects (El-Sabek and McCabe 2018). The use of BIM as a tool has
been tested to implement the lean construction principles to enhanc-
ing productivity on a construction project (Zhang et al. 2018) which is
a fundamental piece of information and an important metric that pro-
vides feedback about the industry trends and improvements. Also, a
framework has also been developed for assisting project stakeholders
in utilizing the LPS on construction projects (Daniel et al. 2019).
Furthermore, the study conducted by Sacks et al. (2010a) focused
on the interaction and synergy between lean construction principles
and BIM in construction projects.
Collaborative Planning Technologies
There has been extensive research studying collaborative planning
technologies such as mobile applications and nD modeling such as
BIM (Lai et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2017; Park et al. 2017). For ex-
ample, different BIM practices have been explored to highlight
their critical impacts on collaborative design and construction (Liu
et al. 2017). Frameworks based on BIM have been developed to
promote and support collaboration in the project design and man-
agement tasks and to facilitate the interoperability of data (Lai et al.
2019; Zhang et al. 2017). A visualization approach that is web- and
database-supported has been developed to facilitate real-time infor-
mation sharing of daily four-dimensional (3D plus time) BIM (Park
et al. 2017). Moreover, a 5D (4D plus cost) framework has been
developed using BIM tools and capabilities to construct a cash flow
approach (Elghaish et al. 2019).
Knowledge Gap
Existing models addressing collaborative planning in the construc-
tion industry presented different views with different areas of focus
supported by strong theoretical bases. However, research exploring
collaborative planning technologies has focused on BIM. Current
collaborative planning management systems require objective quan-
titative metrics to prioritize factors that affect collaborative planning
in the construction industry. Additionally, research focusing on prac-
tical applications of such models is limited. While a few models do
exist that have studied some of the factors affecting collaborative
planning in the construction industry, they focused on a very specific
area of focus. In addition, there are no studies that developed a
methodology that quantitively analyzes the interrelationships among
a holistic list of factors affecting collaborative planning in the
construction industry. As such, while previous research efforts con-
centrated on different aspects of collaboration and collaborative
planning in the construction industry, no previous research study
has been conducted to provide an all-inclusive list of factors that
affect the efficiency and effectiveness of collaborative planning in
the construction industry. To this end, this paper aims to address
this critical knowledge gap by reviewing the literature related to
collaboration in the construction industry for the last 30 years to
identify a holistic list of factors affecting collaborative planning
in the construction industry and to provide future research direc-
tions for effective collaborative planning in construction projects.
Research Methodology
To realize the goal and objectives of this study, the authors followed
an interdependent multistep methodology as summarized in Fig. 1.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Summary of the followed research methodology (M refers to theoretical discussions of the collaborative planning factors, while S refers to
developed models and frameworks incorporating the collaborative planning factors).
The authors (1) conducted an extensive review and analysis of
the literature on collaboration and collaborative planning in the
construction industry within the last 30 years, (2) identified and
defined the factors impacting the effectiveness of construction col-
laborative planning, (3) performed social network analysis (SNA)
to quantify the importance and impact of each of the identified fac-
tors and verified the output using a simple analytic method, and
(4) highlighted the gaps in the literature and created a roadmap
for the factors that need further investigation. Details on each of
the followed steps are presented in the subsequent subsections.
Literature Review and Systematic Collection of
Previous Studies
The authors reviewed and analyzed the literature related to collabo-
rative planning in the construction industry within the past 30 years
(1990–2019). In relation to that, the authors systematically col-
lected previous collaborative planning studies. Studies considered
in the literature review include:
• Articles that are peer-reviewed and issued in reputable archived
scholarly construction management journals. Table 1 includes
the list of journals considered in this paper and their correspond-
ing publishers. This list of journals is adopted from previous
research work by El-adaway et al. (2019).
• Papers related to the use of collaborative planning in the con-
struction industry rather than articles related to other industries
such as manufacturing, information technology (IT), or others.
The selected articles either developed models, frameworks,
decision-support tools, or qualitatively discussed collaborative
planning in construction.
The authors utilized a systematic keyword search methodology
to retrieve the relevant journal papers. First, the Scopus search en-
gine was utilized to conduct an all-inclusive search within the
© ASCE 04021023-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023
article title, abstract, and keywords fields. Second, the search
was restrained to papers classified as article type. Third, an exten-
sive keyword search of the different aspects of collaborative plan-
ning in the construction industry was performed, including pull
planning, LPS, collaboration, collaborative, collaborative schedul-
ing, and collaborative planning. Fourth, abstracts were examined
and assessed to determine the fitness of the retrieved articles for
the goal and objectives of this study. It should be noted that existing
research work presented valuable knowledge and guidelines by re-
viewing the literature using a keyword search methodology. To
name a few, Costa et al. (2019) conducted a systematic literature
review using a keyword search to study the critical aspects that hin-
der collaboration in construction supply chains. Additionally, Deep
et al. (2019) also conducted a systematic literature review of ena-
blers of collaboration among project participants in the construction
industry using keyword search and citation analysis.
After analyzing and collecting relevant research articles related
to collaborative planning in the construction industry, the authors
Table 1. List of journals
Journal name Publisher
Journal of Construction Engineering and ASCE
Management
Journal of Management in Engineering
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering
International Journal of Project Management Elsevier
Automation in Construction
Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Emerald Publishing
Management
Construction Innovation
Construction Management and Economics Taylor & Francis
International Journal of Construction Management
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

Fig. 2. Illustrative example of a reference matrix.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
classified these articles into three types based on previous similar
studies (Assaad and El-adaway 2020; Abotaleb and El-adaway
2018) as follows:
Type 1: These articles provide theoretical mentions and discus-
sions on the factors affecting collaborative planning in the construc-
tion industry. The term theoretical mentions and discussions means
that the retrieved articles offered theoretical considerations and in-
sights on the factors related to collaborative planning without de-
veloping models or frameworks that could be based on machine
learning techniques, statistical approaches, or any other computa-
tional approaches. In this study, the articles with theoretical discus-
sions were included in reference matrix M. The research work of
Ey et al. (2014) is considered to be of type 1 since it studied the
barriers and challenges of collaborative procurements in the con-
struction industry.
Type 2: These articles focus on the developed models with
little (if any) theoretical discussions on the factors related to col-
laborative planning in the construction industry. In this paper, the
retrieved article that developed models were included in the refer-
ence matrix S. The research work of Meng et al. (2011) is con-
sidered to be of type 2 since it constructed a maturity model for
measuring and enhancing the relationships between project par-
ties in construction supply chains.
Type 3: These articles provide a combination of theoretical dis-
cussions and developed models related to collaborative planning in
the construction industry. As such, this type of articles was included
in both reference matrices M and S. The research work of Heiger-
moser et al. (2019) is considered to be of type 3 since it examined
the synergies between lean construction and BIM and presented a
tool for construction management that combines LPS with 3D
modeling to improve productivity and reduce waste in construction.
Quantitative Analysis of the Literature
After collecting the articles and reviewing the literature, the authors
identified the factors affecting collaborative planning in the con-
struction industry. To analyze the identified factors, the authors de-
veloped two reference matrices M and S. The rows in a reference
matrix represent the identified factors, and the columns represent
Fig. 3. Illustrative example of an adjacency matrix.
© ASCE 04021023-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023
the analyzed articles (i.e., matrix M contains types 1 and 3, and
matrix S contains types 2 and 3). If a factor is mentioned in an
article, a value of 1 is inserted into its corresponding cell; otherwise,
a value of 0 is inserted. Fig. 2 shows an illustrative example to dem-
onstrate the concept of a reference matrix. In this paper, Fi repre-
sents an identified factor. As shown in Fig. 2, factors Fi and Fiþ1 are
mentioned in Article j and Article J; thus, a value of 1 is recorded in
the corresponding cells, while a value of 0 is recorded for cells be-
low the other articles.
As mentioned earlier, the articles that include theoretical discus-
sions about collaborative planning in the construction industry are
reflected in reference matrix M. That is, reference matrix M in-
cludes articles of type 1 or 3. Reference matrix M reflects the points
of view of scholars on collaborative planning in the construction
industry and identifies its main factors. Conversely, the articles that
include developed predictive or explanatory models based on the
identified factors are reflected in reference matrix S. That is, refer-
ence matrix S includes articles of type 2 or 3. Reference matrix S
presents insights on research status regarding developed models on
collaborative planning in the construction industry. To this end, a
comparison between the two reference matrices M and S highlights
the research gap between the factors that have been studied and the
factors that should be studied in the future as related to collabora-
tive planning in the construction industry. Ultimately, this compari-
son will identify the understudied collaborative planning factors in
the construction industry that should be incorporated in future re-
search studies. To this end, the authors conducted quantitative
analysis using SNA approach for the developed reference matrices
M and S and validated the results using a simplified analysis ap-
proach. Further details about these two analysis approaches are pro-
vided in the following subsections.
Social Network Analysis
Reasons for Choosing SNA. One of the main reasons for choosing
the SNA approach is that it accounts for the interconnectivity
among the different factors studied in this research. SNA is a math-
ematical methodology that is based on graph theory to examine
how networks behave while accounting for the interconnectivity
aspect of its components (Otte and Rousseau 2002). SNA com-
prises different nodes (vertices) connected by edges (links).
According to Freeman (1978), centrality is a major characteristic
of SNA and its associated metric, degree centrality (DC), is used
to identify the number of links connected to each node. That is, the
nodes that have the highest number of connections in a network are
considered to have a high DC. While existing analysis approaches
for identifying factors from the literature depend on qualitative
measures, SNA focuses more on quantitative measures (Assaad
and El-adaway 2020). SNA is also known for its practicality in
evaluating the studied factors and their relative importance and
highlighting areas of research that are understudied and need fur-
ther investigation (Abotaleb and El-adaway 2018). Another im-
portant characteristic of the SNA is the cooccurrence, which is
also known as a measurement that identifies objects of interest
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 that appear together (Choudhury and Uddin 2016). Cooccurrence
is perceived as a useful bibliometric technique for determining
relationships between different nodes or factors in the studied net-
work (Waltman et al. 2010).
Developing the Social Network. For this research, degree central-
ity is computed for the reference matrices M and S. For matrix M,
the DC measure reflects the importance of a given factor in terms of
its frequency and being mentioned with other factors in theoretical
discussions. Similarly, for matrix S, the DC measure reflects the
importance of a given factor in terms of its frequency and being
mentioned with other factors in the developed models, decision-
support tools, and frameworks concerned with collaborative plan-
ning in the construction industry.
Calculating the degree centrality for the nodes in the SNA re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
example of how to develop an adjacency matrix. In Fig. 3, letter F
represents factors, and letter A represents articles.
After this step in this research, two adjacency matrices have
been constructed, one for network M and the other for network S.
The degree centrality for each factor for collaborative planning is
calculated from the two adjacency matrices as shown in Eq. 1,
where DCi represents the degree centrality for factor i, and V i;j
represents the value of the cell in row i and column j of the studied
adjacency matrix
X
DCi ¼ Vi;j ð1Þ
j;j≠i
For a given node in a network, degree centrality is computed by

quires the development of an adjacency matrix for the studied net-
work. As such, the authors constructed two adjacency matrices, one
for network M and the other for network S. An adjacency matrix is
developed by multiplying the reference matrix by its transpose and
then removing the values in the diagonal cells from the resulting
matrix and replacing them with zeros. Fig. 3 shows an illustrative
the number of links connected to this node. For the sake of con-
sistency of scores especially between the two networks M and S as
the number of articles used in each matrix is different, a normalized
DCi is calculated by dividing the DCi of each factor over the maxi-
mum DCi obtained by a factor in the same reference matrix. The
equation of the normalized DCi is shown in Eq. (2). That is because

Table 2. List of reviewed articles

Numbers
Year range Used articles of articles
1990–1999 Bröchner and Grandinson (1992), Choo et al. (1999), and Laborde and Sanvido (1994) 3
2000–2009 Akintoye and Main (2007), Alshawi and Faraj (2002), Anumba et al. (2008), Aspin (2007), Bresnen and Marshall (2000a, b), 25
Chan and Leung (2004), Chen and Chen (2007), Choo et al. (2004), Chua et al. (2003a, b), Drexler and Larson (2000),
Erdogan et al. (2008), Eriksson et al. (2009), Hauck et al. (2004), Jergeas and Put (2001), Kang et al. (2007), Karlsson et al.
(2008), Kumaraswamy et al. (2005), Ozorhon et al. (2007), Penã-Mora and Dwivedi (2002), Rahman and Kumaraswamy
(2005), Shelbourn et al. (2007), Yeomans et al. (2006), and Zaneldin et al. (2001)
2010–2019 Abdirad and Dossick (2019), Ahuja et al. (2010), AlSehaimi et al. (2014), Anderson et al. (2011), Arnold and Javernick-Will 72
(2013), Azari and Kim (2016), Chang et al. (2017), Chen and Manley (2014), Costa et al. (2019), Daniel et al. (2019, 2017),
Deep et al. (2019), Di Marco et al. (2010), Elghaish et al. (2019), El-Gohary and El-Diraby (2010), El-Sabek and McCabe
(2018), Enegbuma et al. (2014), Erdogan et al. (2014), Ey et al. (2014), Faris et al. (2019), Farnsworth et al. (2016), Franz et al.
(2017), González et al. (2010), Greenwood and Wu (2012), Guo et al. (2010), Hall et al. (2018), Hamzeh et al. (2015a, b),
Hanna (2016), Hastie et al. (2017), Heigermoser et al. (2019), Herazo and Lizarralde (2015), Hughes et al. (2012), Ibrahim
et al. (2015, 2018, 2013), Isikdag and Underwood (2010), Kent and Becerik-Gerber (2010), Kokkonen and Vaagaasar (2018),
Koolwijk et al. (2018), Koseoglu et al. (2018), Lahdenperä (2012), Lai et al. (2019), Leoto and Lizarralde (2019), Liu et al.
(2017), Ma et al. (2018a, b), Memon et al. (2015), Meng (2012), Meng et al. (2011), Merschbrock et al. (2018), Oraee et al.
(2019), Osipova (2015), Palacios et al. (2014), Park et al. (2017), Pishdad-Bozorgi et al. (2017), Poirier et al. (2016), Priven
and Sacks (2015, 2016), Russell et al. (2015), Sacks et al. (2010b, a), Son and Rojas (2011), Suprapto et al. (2015b, a), Taggart
et al. (2014), Tayeh et al. (2019), Zhang et al. (2017, 2018), Zhou et al. (2012, 2014), and Zimina et al. (2012)

Fig. 4. Articles distribution over the years.

© ASCE 04021023-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023

 © ASCE

Table 3. Identified factors related to collaborative planning in the construction industry

Number Factors Definition
1 Adaptation or resistance to change It refers to the reaction of team members by accepting or resisting upon introducing a change.
2 Willingness for collaboration and cooperation It refers to the willingness of project parties to work together to achieve a common desired outcome.
3 Commitment It refers to that project parties are dedicated to the collaborative planning process and their associated tasks.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4 Influence or dependency between project parties It refers to the influences that some team members can have on the work and decisions of other team members.
5 Leadership It refers to the availability of leadership to guide the project team.
6 Trust, confidence, and respect It refers to the strong belief in other project parties that their work will be satisfactory.
7 Continuous improvement It refers to the ongoing effort to improve the process of collaborative planning.
8 Communication formality, effectiveness, and timeliness It refers to the type and environment of communication in the studied project (e.g., formal/informal and quick / late).
9 Frequency of meetings It refers to the frequency (e.g., daily/weekly/biweekly/monthly) and type (e.g., physical/virtual) of meetings conducted.
10 Sharing of lessons learned It refers to pinpointing previous project experiences in terms of successes and failures and providing recommendations
for team members.
11 Early involvement of key project stakeholders It refers to the phase when key project participants were actively involved in the project especially during project
development and design.
12 Timely reporting and updating It refers to the frequency and timing of reporting project work and such reports shall match management and
stakeholders’ requirements.
13 Constructability feedbacks It refers to getting feedback and insight from construction on the design of the studied project.
14 Stakeholders input in schedule development It refers to input from relevant stakeholders in schedule development of the project and its reliability.
15 Multicultural team members and language barrier It refers to the presence of team members with different cultural backgrounds and difficulty in understanding and
speaking a common language.
16 Project parties relationship It refers to the type, strength, and characteristics of relationships between project parties.
17 Culture (i.e., shared values and beliefs) It refers to the sharing of the same value, and beliefs across the project team.
18 Team and key personnel skill, expertise, and knowledge It refers to the skills, expertise, and knowledge of project participants, especially key personnel conducting
04021023-6

collaborative planning tasks.

19 Vision, goal alignment, and integration It refers to that all project parties agree on the collaboration aims and objectives.
20 Team building, chemistry, and empathy It refers to the ability of team members to get along with one other and work toward the same goal.
21 Team involvement and participation It refers to the direct participation and involvement of different team members whenever their input is required to
achieve project objectives.
22 Team motivation and incentives It refers to the level of motivation among the team members and the inclusion of various kinds of incentives.
23 Orientation/workshops and training/education It refers to the training and education given to project participants about the importance of collaborative planning and
how to properly implement it in the project.
24 Creativity, option generation, and innovation It refers to the opportunity and support given to creativity, idea generation, and innovation in a construction project.
25 Flexibility and coordination of design It refers to coordinating all activities, processes, and teams involved in the design phase for producing a suitable and
consistent design.
26 Stakeholders and management support It refers to that project stakeholders and management are investing time and effort and collaborating to ensure project
success.
27 Colocation/centralized working place It refers to having the project team in the same room or office for in-person, cross-team collaboration.
28 Construction coordination It refers to the sequencing of work between different trades and parties and deals with the day-to-day construction
coordination to ensure continuity of the work and resolving issues quickly.
29 Lean construction adoption and awareness It refers to the adoption and applicability of lean construction concepts and techniques in the studied project.
30 Risk/uncertainty management and sharing It refers to the study and management of project risk and sharing it among project parties.
31 Pull planning effectiveness It refers to the planning process that focuses on the end goal rather than starting from the beginning and it is
characterized by a high degree of collaboration.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

32 Value management/engineering It refers to the adoption of a value management approach to maximize value and minimize cost by achieving “value for
money” (VfM).
33 Availability/sharing of resources It refers to available resources at hand to support collaborative planning in the project (e.g., financial, labor, and
technology).
34 Customer focus, orientation, and understanding of client’s needs It refers to the vision of always prioritizing customer’s needs and best interest while working on the project.
35 Standardization of planning practices and meetings/documentation It refers to following a standard and formal procedure in carrying out the planning process and activities.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023

 It refers to the procurement and prequalification process used in the project and how the project team was selected.
It refers to the use of any multidimensional modeling and/or BIM for better understanding and implementation of the

It refers to the policies and contractual obligations supporting/restricting the implementation of collaborative planning.
It refers to the lack of integration of construction processes and project parties due to the presence of many stakeholders
It refers to various tools and techniques including visual signs, elimination of visual obstacles, and procedures for

It refers to the conflict and dispute resolution definition and procedures and their effect on the implementation of
It refers to the proper planning of activities by removing all constraints and completing predecessors before such
degree centrality relies on the size of the network. As such, the

It refers to the transfer and sharing of information between project stakeholders through media such as reports,
normalized DCi for any collaborative planning factor ranges

It refers to the joint decision making and problem-solving environment and involvement of affected project
from 0 to 1

It refers to the software or technology used for collaboration (e.g., Procore, Touchplan, and PlanGrid).
It refers to the use of key performance indicators for monitoring and controlling the project schedule.
DCi
Normalized DCi ¼ ð2Þ

It refers to how well defined the project scope is and the applicability of accommodating changes.
Maximum DCi in the network

It refers to the effect of project characteristics on the implementation of collaborative planning.

Validation Method: Simplified Analysis

It refers to the choice of a suitable and efficient delivery method for the studied project.
A simplified analysis was used in this study as a validation method

It refers to the performance and suitability of the scheduling tool used in the project.
for the SNA and to test whether the SNA is working as intended. In
the simplified analysis, a score for each identified factor is calcu-
lated by summing all the corresponding cells in the row using
Eq. (3). For example, a score of 15 for collaborative planning factor
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F1 in matrix M means that this factor is mentioned in 15 of the

studied articles in this matrix and suggested by scholars to be a
factor affecting collaborative planning in the construction industry.
Definition

Similarly, if the same factor F1 in matrix S has a score of 10, this

means that it is mentioned in 10 of the studied articles in this matrix
and used in the developed models within these articles. Similar to
the normalization process performed in the SNA, the equation for
the normalized score is shown in Eq. (4). As such, the normalized
score ranges from 0 to 1 for any factor in the same reference matrix
maintaining a clean and orderly workplace.

X
Last article in the matrix
Scorei ¼ W i;x ð3Þ
x¼First article in the matrix

Scorei
Normalized Scorei ¼ ð4Þ
Maximum Scorei in the matrix
collaborative planning.
meetings, and mail.

where Scorei = frequency of mentioning the collaborative planning

and subcontracting.

factor i; and W i;x = value of the cell (either 0 or 1) corresponding to

activity starts.

factor i and the article x in the same reference matrix.

stakeholders.

project.

Results and Analysis

Collaborative Planning Factors in the Construction

Maturity/interoperability of technology or platform used for collaboration

Industry
As detailed in the methodology, the authors retrieved journal papers
related to collaborative planning in the construction industry using
a systematic method based on keyword search. To verify that the
searches were accurately performed and produced what is intended,
Problem solving/critical analysis and decision making

Use of indicators to assess schedule accomplishment

the authors conducted a manual search of two papers as a demon-

Systematic identification and removal of constraints

Effectiveness of scheduling tool used and updates

Procurement, prequalification, and team selection

strative example. In relation to that, the first paper is the study per-
Information sharing, availability, and technology

Scope/workpackages definition and flexibility

formed by Palacios et al. (2014) that presented a tool that aims at

Appropriateness of project delivery method

enhancing the relationships among construction project parties. As

Project fragmentation and subcontracting

such, this study was incorporated in the list of analyzed articles in

Factors

this paper, as shown in Table 2. On the other hand, the second paper
Policies and contractual obligations
Project type, size, and complexity
nD modeling (BIM) effectiveness

is the study performed by Zimring et al. (2001), which, although it

Visualization tools/management

appeared in the search results, it was not included in the analysis

because it developed a website for architecture students to facilitate
sharing their designs and provide better access to online cases. The
reason behind excluding the second paper is that it is not considered
Conflict resolution

to be of significant relevance to the topic of this paper, which is

studying the factors affecting collaborative planning in the con-
struction industry. Thus, the search methods are perceived to pro-
Table 3. (Continued.)

duce what is intended based on the performed manual search. As

such, a total of 100 journal papers were found to fit the require-
ments of this study that are shown in Table 2 and were considered
for further analysis.
The majority of the collaborative planning research studies in
Number

the construction industry were conducted in the last 10-year period

36

37
38

39

40

41
42
43

44
45

46
47
48
49
50

of the study (2010–2019), as shown in Table 2. The rise of interest

© ASCE 04021023-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023

 in the collaborative planning area has increased exponentially com-
pared to the previous 20 years period of the study. The number of
studies were very limited in the first 10 years period (1990–1999)
and amounted to only three papers. The distribution of the articles
over the years of the study period is shown more precisely in Fig. 4.
There is an increasing steady trend since 2016 ending with the year
2019 having the highest number of articles concerned with collabo-
rative planning in the construction industry in one year. A notice-
able rise appears in the number of articles in 2010, which could be
explained by the increased focus of research on collaborative
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
planning in construction projects after the 2008–2009 great reces-
sion period.
By analyzing the articles in Table 2, the authors identified
50 collaborative planning factors in the construction industry,
and they are shown in Table 3. Table 3 lists the 50 identified factors
and their definition in the context of this research. Some of the iden-
tified factors include multiple aspects. For instance, factor 8 (F8)
‘Communication formality, effectiveness, and timeliness’ incorpo-
rates all aspects of communication such as the type of communi-
cation (formal/informal) and timeliness of communication (prompt/

Table 4. Types of reviewed articles and corresponding reference matrices

Corresponding Corresponding
reference matrix reference matrix
Citation of the articles Type M S Citation of the articles Type M S
Abdirad and Dossick (2019) 1 X — Choo et al. (1999) 2 — X
AlSehaimi et al. (2014) 1 X — Choo et al. (2004) 2 — X
Anderson et al. (2011) 1 X — Chua et al. (2003a) 2 — X
Arnold and Javernick-Will (2013) 1 X — Chua et al. (2003b) 2 — X
Bresnen and Marshall (2000a) 1 X — El-Gohary and El-Diraby (2010) 2 — X
Bresnen and Marshall (2000b) 1 X — Elghaish et al. (2019) 2 — X
Bröchner and Grandinson (1992) 1 X — Erdogan et al. (2014) 2 — X
Chen and Chen (2007) 1 X — Franz et al. (2017) 2 — X
Costa et al. (2019) 1 X — González et al. (2010) 2 — X
Daniel et al. (2017) 1 X — Guo et al. (2010) 2 — X
Deep et al. (2019) 1 X — Greenwood and Wu (2012) 2 — X
Drexler and Larson (2000) 1 X — Hamzeh et al. (2015a) 2 — X
Enegbuma et al. (2014) 1 X — Hamzeh et al. (2015b) 2 — X
Erdogan et al. (2008) 1 X — Heigermoser et al. (2019) 2 — X
Eriksson et al. (2009) 1 X — Ibrahim et al. (2018) 2 — X
Ey et al. (2014) 1 X — Isikdag and Underwood (2010) 2 — X
Faris et al. (2019) 1 X — Ma et al. (2018b) 2 — X
Farnsworth et al. (2016) 1 X — Ozorhon et al. (2007) 2 — X
Hanna (2016) 1 X — Pishdad-Bozorgi et al. (2017) 2 — X
Hall et al. (2018) 1 X — Park et al. (2017) 2 — X
Herazo and Lizarralde (2015) 1 X — Penã-Mora and Dwivedi (2002) 2 — X
Hughes et al. (2012) 1 X — Sacks et al. (2010b) 2 — X
Ibrahim et al. (2015) 1 X — Son and Rojas (2011) 2 — X
Jergeas and Put (2001) 1 X — Suprapto et al. (2015a) 2 — X
Kent and Becerik-Gerber (2010) 1 X — Zaneldin et al. (2001) 2 — X
Kokkonen and Vaagaasar (2018) 1 X — Zhang et al. (2017) 2 — X
Koolwijk et al. (2018) 1 X — Zhou et al. (2012) 2 — X
Koseoglu et al. (2018) 1 X — Akintoye and Main (2007) 3 X X
Kumaraswamy et al. (2005) 1 X — Alshawi and Faraj (2002) 3 X X
Laborde and Sanvido (1994) 1 X — Chen and Manley (2014) 3 X X
Lahdenperä (2012) 1 X — Daniel et al. (2019) 3 X X
Meng (2012) 1 X — Di Marco et al. (2010) 3 X X
Merschbrock et al. (2018) 1 X — El-Sabek and McCabe (2018) 3 X X
Osipova (2015) 1 X — Hastie et al. (2017) 3 X X
Priven and Sacks (2015) 1 X — Hauck et al. ( 2004) 3 X X
Rahman and Kumaraswamy (2005) 1 X — Ibrahim et al. (2013) 3 X X
Russell et al. (2015) 1 X — Kang et al. (2007) 3 X X
Sacks et al. (2010a) 1 X — Karlsson et al. (2008) 3 X X
Shelbourn et al. (2007) 1 X — Leoto and Lizarralde (2019) 3 X X
Taggart et al. (2014) 1 X — Lai et al. (2019) 3 X X
Tayeh et al. (2019) 1 X — Liu et al. (2017) 3 X X
Yeomans et al. (2006) 1 X — Ma et al. (2018a) 3 X X
Zhang et al. (2018) 1 X — Memon et al. (2015) 3 X X
Zimina et al. (2012) 1 X — Meng et al. (2011) 3 X X
Ahuja et al. (2010) 2 — X Oraee et al. (2019) 3 X X
Anumba et al. (2008) 2 — X Palacios et al. (2014) 3 X X
Aspin (2007) 2 — X Priven and Sacks (2016) 3 X X
Azari and Kim (2016) 2 — X Poirier et al. (2016) 3 X X
Chan and Leung (2004) 2 — X Suprapto et al. (2015b) 3 X X
Chang et al. (2017) 2 — X Zhou et al. (2014) 3 X X

© ASCE 04021023-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023

 late). To this end, the authors provided a brief definition of each
factor and what it incorporates.
Classification of Analyzed Articles and Development of
Reference Matrices M and S
The authors developed two reference matrices M and S according
to the categorization step provided in the research methodology
section. To this end, Table 4 shows the type of each reviewed
article and which matrix it is included in. There are 44 articles
with Type 1 concerned with theoretical discussions, 33 with
Type 2 concerned with developed models, simulations, and
decision-support tools, and 23 with Type 3 concerned with a com-
bination of theoretical discussions and developed models. As
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
such, matrix M consists of 67 articles (type 1 and 3), creating
a matrix of dimensions 50 by 67 (50 factors and 67 articles). Sim-
ilarly, matrix S consists of 56 articles (type 2 and 3), creating a
matrix of dimensions 50 by 56. This simple comparison of several
articles indicates that there are more theoretical discussions than
developed models on factors affecting collaborative planning in
the construction industry and thus highlights the need for more
models, simulations, and decision-support tools to study the effect
of such factors on collaborative planning.
Quantitative Analysis of the Literature
The authors conducted SNA on the reference matrices M and S and
validated the results of the SNA using the simplified analysis ap-
proach as described in the research methodology.
Social Network Analysis
Fig. 5 shows the normalized scores for the SNA. that F8 (i.e., com-
munication formality, effectiveness, and timeliness) and F41
(i.e., maturity/interoperability of technology or platform used
for collaboration) have approximately equal normalized DCs
for networks M and S. This indicates that F8 and F41 are the fac-
tors that are equally mentioned in theoretical literature discussions
and utilized as well in developed models, simulations, and
decision-support tools. For instance, the communication
formality, effectiveness, and timeliness factors have been men-
tioned in the research work of Ma et al. (2018b) which developed
a collaboration platform for IPD. On the other hand, the concep-
tual model presented in the study of Oraee et al. (2019) considered
interoperability of the platform used for collaboration as one of
Fig. 5. Normalized scores for the SNA (Rectangles are for factors having much bigger normalized score for matrix M, while arrows are for factors
having bigger normalized score for matrix S).
© ASCE 04021023-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023
the technological factors/barriers in BIM-based construction
networks.
Furthermore, the results of Fig. 5 present insights on the liter-
ature gaps between the theoretical discussions shown in matrix M
and the developed models and frameworks shown in matrix S. The
largest common literature gaps present in the SNA are found in F19
(i.e., vision, goal alignment, and integration) and F11 (i.e., early
involvement of key project stakeholders), respectively. There is
an additional large literature gap found in F2 (i.e., willingness
for collaboration and cooperation). These gaps indicate that these
collaborative planning factors are understudied given the consider-
ation obtained in the theoretical discussions. In other words, more
models are needed to study the impact and effect of these factors on
collaborative planning in the construction industry. It should be
noted that F10 (i.e., sharing of lessons learned) has the lowest nor-
malized scores for matrix S in SNA, indicating the lack of devel-
oped models incorporating this factor. On the other hand, some
factors have been overstudied or incorporated in many developed
models and frameworks. As such, the top three factors found are
F12 (i.e., timely reporting and updating), F40 [i.e., nD modeling
(BIM) effectiveness], and F49 (i.e., project type, size, and complex-
ity), interchangeably. In fact, BIM is one of the most prominent
technological advancements.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the results of the SNA for networks
M and S, respectively. In both figures, the network diagram
reflects the computed normalized DC of each collaborative
planning factor in terms of radial position. The radial position
of the node is inversely proportional to the normalized DC of
the corresponding factor. That means that as the node becomes
closer to the center, the normalized DC of this factor becomes
higher than other nodes that are further from the center. The fac-
tors having the highest normalized DC are highlighted in Figs. 6
and 7, respectively.
It can be seen that both networks are dense in terms of a high
number of nodes and links. For that reason, the color-coded ma-
trices reflect the depth of the links between different nodes. Both
rows and columns in the matrices represent the collaborative plan-
ning factors. It is noted that the matrices are color-coded based on
the depth of the link between any two corresponding collaborative
factors. The darker color of the cell in the matrix indicates stronger
links between factors.
There are some observed commonalities and differences in the
normalized DC for both networks M and S in Figs. 6 and 7, respec-
tively. For example, F39 (Information sharing, availability, and
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 technology) and F8 (Communication formality, effectiveness, and
timeliness) have significant and approximately equal normalized
DC values in both networks M and S. That reflects that both factors
have been included in developed models and decision-support tools
in the same proportion they were incorporated in the theoretical
literature discussions. The largest normalized DC in network M
is present in F19 (vision, goal alignment, and integration), as shown
in Fig. 6. This indicates that this factor is mentioned and recom-
mended in theoretical discussions as well as being comentioned
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with other collaborative planning factors in a high rate of recur-
rence. On the other hand, F39 (Information sharing, availability,
and technology) has the highest normalized DC in network S,
as shown in Fig. 7. This indicates that there are extensive studies
performed on this factor through developed models, simulations,
and decision-support tools while being modeled with other col-
laborative planning factors. It is noted that the color-coded matrix
M is much dense and darker than the color-coded matrix S. This
can be interpreted in a way that theoretical discussions usually

Fig. 6. Results of the SNA for network M.

© ASCE 04021023-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023

 mention a list of factors together affecting the studied topic, while
the developed models, frameworks, and decision-support tools
usually focus on a limited number of factors to better understand
its effect.
To properly visualize and grasp the literature gap presented in
earlier figures, the authors developed Fig. 8 to better visualize the
derived differences of normalized DC (M-S) for collaborative plan-
ning factors in the construction industry.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A large positive value in Fig. 8 indicates a deficit in the number
of developed models and decision-support tools compared to the
theoretical discussions mentioning such factors. Conversely, a large
negative value implies an excess of the number of developed mod-
els, frameworks, and decision-support tools compared to the
theoretical discussions made on the same factor. The top four fac-
tors with positive value are F19 (vision, goal alignment, and inte-
gration), F11 (early involvement of key project stakeholders), F2

Fig. 7. Results of the SNA for network S.

© ASCE 04021023-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Derived differences in the scores of M and S matrices.
(willingness for collaboration and cooperation), and F16 (project
parties relationship).
Validation
The simplified analysis was used in this study to validate the results
of the SNA. After getting the normalized scores from both M and S
matrices, as described in the research methodology, the authors de-
rived the differences between the two normalized scores (M-S) to
provide a clear comparison between the results of the SNA and the
simplified analysis. Table 5 shows the obtained differences in the
normalized scores for the SNA and the simplified analysis.
Table 5 reflects that the obtained results of the simplified analy-
sis are close to the results of the SNA. The small differences in the
results between the two analysis approaches can be attributed to the
fact that the SNA incorporates more advanced measures as related
to the interconnectivity and the relationship between the different
factors. On the other hand, the simplified analysis relies mainly on
the simple frequency of cooccurrence of factors in the analyzed
articles. As such, the small differences are considered to be within
an acceptable range considering the inherent characteristics of the
two analyses. Thus, the obtained results in Table 5 verify that the
SNA is working as intended. Nevertheless, to have an in-depth val-
idation of the findings, the authors recommend future research
work to further study the interrelated relationships between the
50 factors based on actual case studies or other data collection
methods.
Research Guidelines and Recommendations
Building on the insights from the performed literature analysis in
this research, the authors concluded some helpful guidelines and
recommendations that assist in knowledge advancement in collabo-
rative planning in the construction industry. That is performed by
highlighting areas where there is abundant research work and
directing future research toward areas that require further investi-
gation. As such, the guidelines and recommendations of this study
are presented as follows:
• Existing models include, analyze, and concentrate on the effect
of certain collaborative planning factors in the construction in-
dustry and disregard other essential factors that have been iden-
tified by the literature and mentioned the interconnectivity
between them. A visual illustration of this issue can be found
by comparing the matrices in Figs. 6 and 7. It can be seen that
network M is denser than network S with respect to the number
of links and the darkness of the color of its matrix. As such, this
© ASCE 04021023-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023
supports the motivation behind and significance of this study as
the outcomes indicate that current research incorporates or fo-
cuses on specific collaborative planning factors such as timely
reporting and updating, nD modeling (BIM) effectiveness, and
project type, size, and complexity, while disregarding other im-
portant factors such as vision, goal alignment and integration,
early involvement of key project stakeholders, and project par-
ties relationship.
• Researchers are recommended to shift their future research
endeavors to study vision, goal alignment and integration, early
involvement of key project stakeholders, project parties’ rela-
tionship, and willingness for collaboration and cooperation.
These factors have been characterized by a wider gap between
matrices M and S, as shown in Fig. 8. F19 (Vision, goal align-
ment, and integration) refers to that all project parties agree on
the collaboration aims and objectives to achieve successful
project completion. F11 (Early involvement of key project
stakeholders) refers to the phase when key project participants
are keen on engaging in the project especially during project
development and the design phase. F2 (willingness for collabo-
ration and cooperation) refers to the willingness of parties to act
together to reach a common desired outcome. F16 (project par-
ties relationship) refers to the type, strength, and characteristics
of relationships between project parties. Although these factors
have been noted by many research studies for their significance
and impact in achieving efficient collaborative planning in con-
struction projects (Abdirad and Dossick 2019; Costa et al. 2019;
Daniel et al. 2017; Leoto and Lizarralde 2019), the incorpora-
tion of these factors in developed models is considered minia-
ture compared to its expected or desired level. This stresses the
knowledge gap existing in collaborative planning factors in the
construction industry with respect to vision alignment, early
involvement of key project stakeholders, project parties’ rela-
tionship, and willingness for collaboration and cooperation.
• Researchers are also advised to direct their work toward two
factors namely, F10 (Sharing of lessons learned) and F50
(Conflict resolution), which have been identified as the lowest
mentioned in both matrices M and S, meaning they are the least
incorporated in developed models and theoretical discussions,
as shown in Fig. 5. Sharing of lessons learned refers to pinpoint-
ing previous project experiences in terms of successes and
failures and providing recommendations for team members.
Conflict resolution refers to the conflict and dispute resolution
definition and procedures and their effect on the implementation
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 5. Validation of the SNA results by comparing the derived differences in the M and S scores with the simplified analysis
Difference in normalized scores (M-S)
Code Factor SNA Simplified analysis
F19 Vision, goal alignment, and integration 0.350 0.511
F11 Early involvement of key project participants 0.311 0.360
F2 Willingness for collaboration and cooperation 0.276 0.228
F16 Project parties relationship 0.244 0.319
F44 Appropriateness of project delivery method 0.241 0.278
F30 Risk/uncertainty management and sharing 0.232 0.274
F23 Orientation/workshops and training/education 0.210 0.214
F26 Stakeholders and management support 0.204 0.234
F22 Team motivation and incentives 0.192 0.192
F6 Trust, confidence, and respect 0.182 0.361
F32 Value management/engineering 0.156 0.129
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F18 Team and key personnel skill, expertise, and knowledge 0.152 0.168
F48 Policies and contractual obligations 0.149 0.211
F21 Team involvement and participation 0.149 0.203
F1 Adaptation or resistance to change 0.137 0.170
F7 Continuous improvement 0.136 0.170
F3 Commitment 0.136 0.229
F27 Colocation/centralized working place 0.134 0.105
F20 Team building, chemistry, and empathy 0.122 0.167
F13 Constructability feedbacks 0.118 0.062
F36 Problem solving/critical analysis and decision making 0.102 0.142
F9 Frequency of meetings 0.101 0.128
F35 Standardization of planning practices and meetings/documentation 0.091 0.106
F10 Sharing of lessons learned 0.082 0.043
F46 Scope/workpackages definition and flexibility 0.079 0.086
F34 Customer focus, orientation, and understanding of client’s needs 0.077 0.085
F45 Project fragmentation and subcontracting 0.073 0.079
F4 Influence or dependency between project parties 0.070 0.084
F17 Culture (i.e., shared values and beliefs) 0.058 0.167
F37 Use of indicators to assess schedule accomplishment 0.056 0.085
F5 Leadership 0.051 0.124
F47 Procurement, prequalification, and team selection 0.031 0.083
F43 Visualization tools/management 0.030 −0.005
F28 Construction coordination 0.025 0.018
F15 Multicultural team members and language barrier 0.020 0.040
F25 Flexibility and coordination of design 0.015 −0.008
F14 Stakeholders input in schedule development 0.004 −0.003
F41 Maturity/interoperability of technology or platform used for collaboration 0.000 −0.057
F31 Pull planning effectiveness −0.017 −0.028
F8 Communication formality, effectiveness, and timeliness −0.017 0.002
F38 Systematic identification and removal of constraints −0.019 −0.026
F29 Lean construction adoption and awareness −0.019 −0.050
F42 Effectiveness of scheduling tool used and updates −0.030 −0.007
F50 Conflict resolution −0.031 −0.001
F24 Creativity, option generation, and innovation −0.037 −0.005
F33 Availability/sharing of resources −0.051 −0.051
F39 Information sharing, availability, and technology −0.085 −0.109
F40 nD modeling (BIM) effectiveness −0.112 −0.119
F49 Project type, size, and complexity −0.145 −0.070
F12 Timely reporting and updating −0.152 −0.186

of collaborative planning. It is contended by the few studies that
mention these two factors that they enable saving time and
money on future projects and enhancing project performance
(Faris et al. 2019; Hastie et al. 2017; Palacios et al. 2014; Suprapto
et al. 2015b). As such, incorporating these two factors in future
research works, either in theoretical discussion or in models and
decision-support tools, can have positive impacts on the collabo-
rative planning practices in construction projects. In fact, equip-
ping decision-makers with effective predictive tools is crucial in
ensuring successful results.
• Scholars are urged to include the 50 factors presented in this
study related to collaborative planning in the construction industry
in future research models and decision-support tools to better
understand its effect and impact on collaborative planning prac-
tices. It was found that there are no existing comprehensive
frameworks in the literature that simultaneously incorporate
the 50 identified collaborative planning factors. As such, there
is a shortage in the literature in gauging models that can capture
the factors affecting collaborative planning in the construction
industry comprehensively and holistically. This indicates there
is a dire need to develop unprecedented models and frameworks
that simultaneously incorporate the 50 factors affecting collabo-
rative planning in the construction industry. Most previous stud-
ies mostly focused on one aspect of collaborative planning such

© ASCE 04021023-13 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023

 as BIM-based models, lean construction-based models, and re-
lational contracting-based models that were usually restricted in
reaching their full capabilities by the availability of data and
other various limiting causes. This resulted in the lack of com-
prehensive and innovative models. Moreover, the guidelines and
results shown in this study portray the current position of re-
search as many researchers pointed out the necessity of a holistic
model or framework for the identification of collaborative plan-
ning factors in the construction industry (Ibrahim et al. 2018;
Liu et al. 2017; Meng et al. 2011; Oraee et al. 2019).
Limitations
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A limitation of this research is reflected in the possibility of a col-
laborative planning factor being present in analyzed articles but
having a minor effect on the decision-making processes in con-
struction projects and vice versa. There is also a limitation in the
implementation of SNA analysis with respect to studying the con-
nectivity among the different collaborative factors in terms of their
cooccurrences in a research article. However, the scope of this re-
search is restrained to identifying collaborative planning factors ac-
cording to the existing literature, highlighting the understudied
collaborative planning factors, and guiding or directing future re-
search to address the identified literature gaps concerned with fac-
tors affecting collaborative planning in the construction industry.
Since collaboration is such an interactive activity, some of the iden-
tified factors may be considered by researchers as affecting or af-
fected by collaborative planning in the construction industry. To
this end, a thorough analysis of the interconnectivities between col-
laborative planning factors in the construction industry could be
conducted in future research studies based on the results of this
research and the availability of data.
Conclusion and Future Work
This study provided an extensive systematic review of existing
literature concerned with collaborative planning in the construc-
tion industry and actively guides future research works into
addressing research needs and literature gaps. As such, this paper
presented 50 factors that could collectively affect collaborative
planning in construction projects. Moreover, the findings of this
research indicated the necessity of investigating the understudied
factors affecting collaborative planning in the construction indus-
try such as vision, goal alignment and integration, early involve-
ment of key project stakeholders, project parties relationship, and
willingness for collaboration and cooperation. Although the liter-
ature mentions these factors in the theoretical discussions, there
are far fewer studies incorporating such factors in the developed
models and frameworks and studying their impacts on collabora-
tive planning practices in construction projects. To this end, the
attention of future research should be directed toward studying the
dynamics of the aforementioned factors affecting collaborative
planning in construction projects. Further, the absence of holistic
models and frameworks incorporating all the identified factors
affecting collaborative planning is another key finding of this re-
search. As such, future research endeavors should develop mod-
els, frameworks, and decision-support tools that incorporate all of
the 50 collaborative planning factors so as to have a simulation
environment that is as close as possible to reality. Ultimately, this
research provides a foundation for a broader and more holistic
framework to further advance the utilization of collaborative plan-
ning in the construction industry.
© ASCE 04021023-14
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study ap-
pear in the published article.
Acknowledgments
This study was conducted through the financial support provided
by the Missouri Consortium for Construction Innovation (MO-CCI)
as represented by its member companies including McCarthy Build-
ing Companies, Brinkman Constructors, Arco Construction, Clayco,
BJC Healthcare, Alberici, and Greensfelder.
References
Abdirad, H., and C. S. Dossick. 2019. “Restructuration of architectural
practice in integrated project delivery (IPD): Two case studies.” Eng.
Const. Archit. Manage. 26 (1): 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM
-05-2018-0196.
Abotaleb, I. S., and I. H. El-Adaway. 2018. “Managing construction proj-
ects through dynamic modeling: Reviewing the existing body of knowl-
edge and deriving future research directions.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (6):
04018033. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000633.
Adegbembo, T. F., O. P. Bamisaye, and D. O. Aghimien. 2016. “Assessment
of lean construction practice in the Nigerian construction industry.”
In Proc., Joint Int. Conf. (JIC), on 21st Century Habitat: Issues, Sus-
tainability and Development, 21–24. Akure, Nigeria: Federal Univ. of
Technology.
Ahuja, V., J. Yang, M. Skitmore, and R. Shankar. 2010. “An empirical test
of causal relationships of factors affecting ICT adoption for building
project management: An Indian SME case study.” Constr. Innovation
10 (2): 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171011037174.
Akintoye, A., and J. Main. 2007. “Collaborative relationships in construc-
tion: The UK contractors’ perception.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage.
14 (6): 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980710829049.
AlSehaimi, A. O., P. T. Fazenda, and L. Koskela. 2014. “Improving construc-
tion management practice with the last planner system: A case study.”
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 21 (1): 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1108
/ECAM-03-2012-0032.
Alshawi, M., and I. Faraj. 2002. “Integrated construction environments:
Technology and implementation.” Accessed February 14, 2020. https://
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/ci/2002/00000002/00000001
/art00004.
Anderson, S., J. S. Shane, and C. Schexnayder. 2011. “Strategies for planned
project acceleration.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 137 (5): 372–381. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000289.
Anumba, C. J., J. Pan, R. R. A. Issa, and I. Mutis. 2008. “Collaborative
project information management in a semantic web environment.”
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 15 (1): 78–94. https://doi.org/10
.1108/09699980810842089.
Arnold, P., and A. Javernick-Will. 2013. “Projectwide access: Key to ef-
fective implementation of construction project management software
systems.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (5): 510–518. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000596.
Aspin, R. 2007. “Supporting collaboration, in colocated 3D visualization,
through the use of remote personal interfaces.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
21 (6): 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2007)
21:6(393).
Assaad, R., and I. H. El-Adaway. 2020. “Enhancing the knowledge of con-
struction business failure: A social network analysis approach.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 146 (6): 04020052. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001831.
Assaad, R., I. H. El-Adaway, and I. S. Abotaleb. 2020a. “Predicting project
performance in the construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
146 (5): 04020030. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001797.
Assaad, R., A. Elsayegh, G. Ali, M. Abdul Nabi, and I. H. El-Adaway.
2020b. “Back-to-back relationship under standard subcontract
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 agreements: Comparative study.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng.
Constr. 12 (3): 04520020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943
-4170.0000406.
Azari, R., and Y. W. Kim. 2016. “Integration evaluation framework for in-
tegrated design teams of green buildings: Development and validation.”
J. Manage. Eng. 32 (3): 04015053. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000416.
Bresnen, M., and N. Marshall. 2000a. “Motivation, commitment and the
use of incentives in partnerships and alliances.” Construct. Manage.
Econ. 18 (5): 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461900407392.
Bresnen, M., and N. Marshall. 2000b. “Building partnerships: Case studies
of clientcontractor collaboration in the UK construction industry.”
Construct. Manage. Econ. 18 (7): 819–832. https://doi.org/10.1080
/014461900433104.
Bröchner, J., and B. Grandinson. 1992. “R&D cooperation by Swedish
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
contractors.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 118 (1): 3–16. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1992)118:1(3).
Chan, S.-L., and N.-N. Leung. 2004. “Prototype web-based construction
project management system.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 130 (6):
935–943. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:6(935).
Chang, C.-Y., W. Pan, and R. Howard. 2017. “Impact of building information
modeling implementation on the acceptance of integrated delivery sys-
tems: Structural equation modeling analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
143 (8): 04017044. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001335.
Chen, L., and K. Manley. 2014. “Validation of an instrument to measure
governance and performance on collaborative infrastructure projects.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (5): 04014006. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000834.
Chen, W. T., and T.-T. Chen. 2007. “Critical success factors for construction
partnering in Taiwan.” Int. J. Proj. Manage. 25 (5): 475–484. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.12.003.
Choo, H. J., J. Hammond, I. D. Tommelein, S. A. Austin, and G. Ballard.
2004. “DePlan: A tool for integrated design management.” Autom. Constr.
13 (3): 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2003.09.012.
Choo, H. J., I. D. Tommelein, G. Ballard, and T. R. Zabelle. 1999. “WorkPlan:
Constraint-based database for work package scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 125 (3): 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(1999)125:3(151).
Choudhury, N., and S. Uddin. 2016. “Time-aware link prediction to explore
network effects on temporal knowledge evolution.” Scientometrics
108 (2): 745–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2003-5.
Chua, D. K. H., L. J. Shen, and S. H. Bok. 2003a. “Constraint-based plan-
ning with integrated production scheduler over internet.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 129 (3): 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2003)129:3(293).
Chua, D. K. H., A. Tyagi, S. Ling, and S. H. Bok. 2003b. “Process-param-
eter-interface model for design management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
129 (6): 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)
129:6(653).
Costa, F., A. Denis Granja, A. Fregola, F. Picchi, and A. Portioli
Staudacher. 2019. “Understanding relative importance of barriers to im-
proving the customer–supplier relationship within construction supply
chains using DEMATEL technique.” J. Manage. Eng. 35 (3): 04019002.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000680.
Dainty, A., D. Moore, and M. Murray. 2006. Communication in construc-
tion: Theory and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Daniel, E., P. Christine, and G. Dickens. 2019. “Development of approach
to support construction stakeholders in implementation of the last plan-
ner system.” J. Manage. Eng. 35 (5): 04019018. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000699.
Daniel, E. I., C. Pasquire, G. Dickens, and H. G. Ballard. 2017. “The re-
lationship between the last planner® system and collaborative planning
practice in UK construction.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 24 (3):
407–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-07-2015-0109.
Deep, S., T. Gajendran, and M. Jefferies. 2019. “A systematic review
of ‘enablers of collaboration’ among the participants in construction
projects.” Int. J. Construct. Manage. 2019 (Mar): 1–13. https://doi.org
/10.1080/15623599.2019.1596624.
© ASCE 04021023-15
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023
Di Marco, M. K., J. E. Taylor, and P. Alin. 2010. “Emergence and role of
cultural boundary spanners in global engineering project networks.”
J. Manage. Eng. 26 (3): 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000019.
Drexler, J. A., and E. W. Larson. 2000. “Partnering: Why project owner-
contractor relationships change.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 126 (4):
293–297. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:4(293).
El-Adaway, I. H., G. Ali, R. Assaad, A. Elsayegh, and I. S. Abotaleb. 2019.
“Analytic overview of citation metrics in the civil engineering domain
with focus on construction engineering and management specialty area
and its subdisciplines.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (10): 04019060.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001705.
Elghaish, F., S. Abrishami, S. A. Samra, M. Gaterell, M. R. Hosseini, and
R. Wise. 2019. “Cash flow system development framework within
integrated project delivery (IPD) using BIM tools.” Int. J. Constr. Man-
age. 2019 (Mar): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019
.1573477.
El-Gohary, N. M., and T. E. El-Diraby. 2010. “Dynamic knowledge-based
process integration portal for collaborative construction.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 136 (3): 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0000147.
El-Sabek, L. M., and B. Y. McCabe. 2018. “Framework for managing in-
tegration challenges of last planner system in IMPs.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 144 (5): 04018022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001468.
Enegbuma, W. I., U. G. Aliagha, and K. N. Ali. 2014. “Preliminary building
information modelling adoption model in Malaysia: A strategic informa-
tion technology perspective.” Constr. Innovation 14 (4): 408–432. https://
doi.org/10.1108/CI-01-2014-0012.
Erdogan, B., C. J. Anumba, D. Bouchlaghem, and Y. Nielsen. 2008.
“Collaboration environments for construction: Implementation case stud-
ies.” J. Manage. Eng. 24 (4): 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0742-597X(2008)24:4(234).
Erdogan, B., C. J. Anumba, D. Bouchlaghem, and Y. Nielsen. 2014.
“Collaboration environments for construction: Management of organi-
zational changes.” J. Manage. Eng. 30 (3): 04014002. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000231.
Eriksson, P. E., B. Atkin, and T. Nilsson. 2009. “Overcoming barriers
to partnering through cooperative procurement procedures.” Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manage. 16 (6): 598–611. https://doi.org/10.1108
/09699980911002593.
Ey, W., J. Zuo, and S. Han. 2014. “Barriers and challenges of collaborative
procurements: An exploratory study.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 14 (3):
148–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2014.922725.
Faris, H., M. Gaterell, and D. Hutchinson. 2019. “Investigating underlying
factors of collaboration for construction projects in emerging economies
using exploratory factor analysis.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 2019 (Jun):
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1635758.
Farnsworth, C. B., R. O. Warr, J. E. Weidman, and H. D. Mark. 2016.
“Effects of CM/GC project delivery on managing process risk in trans-
portation construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (3): 04015091.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001091.
Franz, B., R. Leicht, K. Molenaar, and J. Messner. 2017. “Impact of team
integration and group cohesion on project delivery performance.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (1): 04016088. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001219.
Freeman, L. C. 1978. “Centrality in social networks conceptual clarifica-
tion.” Social Networks 1 (3): 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378
-8733(78)90021-7.
González, V., L. F. Alarcón, S. Maturana, F. Mundaca, and J. Bustamante.
2010. “Improving planning reliability and project performance using
the reliable commitment model.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (10):
1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000215.
Greenwood, D., and S. Wu. 2012. “Establishing the association between
collaborative working and construction project performance based on
client and contractor perceptions.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 30 (4):
299–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.666801.
Guo, H. L., H. Li, and M. Skitmore. 2010. “Life-cycle management of con-
struction projects based on virtual prototyping technology.” J. Manage.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Eng. 26 (1): 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2010)
26:1(41).
Hall, D. M., A. Algiers, and R. E. Levitt. 2018. “Identifying the role of
supply chain integration practices in the adoption of systemic innova-
tions.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (6): 04018030. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000640.
Hamzeh, F. R., I. Saab, I. D. Tommelein, and G. Ballard. 2015a. “Under-
standing the role of ‘tasks anticipated’ in lookahead planning through
simulation.” Autom. Constr. 49 (Jan): 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.autcon.2014.09.005.
Hamzeh, F. R., E. Zankoul, and C. Rouhana. 2015b. “How can ‘tasks made
ready’ during lookahead planning impact reliable workflow and project
duration?” Construct. Manage. Econ. 33 (4): 243–258. https://doi.org
/10.1080/01446193.2015.1047878.
Hanna, A. S. 2016. “Benchmark performance metrics for integrated project
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
delivery.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (9): 04016040. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001151.
Hastie, J., M. Sutrisna, and C. Egbu. 2017. “Modelling knowledge integra-
tion process in early contractor involvement procurement at tender
stage—A Western Australian case study.” Constr. Innovation 17 (4):
429–456. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-04-2016-0021.
Hauck, A. J., D. H. T. Walker, K. D. Hampson, and R. J. Peters. 2004.
“Project alliancing at national museum of Australia—Collaborative pro-
cess.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 130 (1): 143–152. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:1(143).
Heigermoser, D., B. García de Soto, E. L. S. Abbott, and D. K. H. Chua.
2019. “BIM-based last planner system tool for improving construction
project management.” Autom. Constr. 104 (Aug): 246–254. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.019.
Herazo, B., and G. Lizarralde. 2015. “The influence of green building
certifications in collaboration and innovation processes.” Construct.
Manage. Econ. 33 (4): 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193
.2015.1047879.
Hughes, D., T. Williams, and Z. Ren. 2012. “Differing perspectives on col-
laboration in construction.” Constr. Innovation 12 (3): 355–368. https://
doi.org/10.1108/14714171211244613.
Ibrahim, C., I. C. Khairil, S. B. Costello, and S. Wilkinson. 2013. “Devel-
opment of a conceptual team integration performance index for alliance
projects.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 31 (11): 1128–1143. https://doi
.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.854399.
Ibrahim, C. K. I. C., S. B. Costello, and S. Wilkinson. 2015. “Establishment
of quantitative measures for team integration assessment in alliance
projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (5): 04014075. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000318.
Ibrahim, C. K. I. C., S. B. Costello, and S. Wilkinson. 2018. “Making sense
of team integration practice through the ‘lived experience’ of alliance
project teams.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 25 (5): 598–622. https://
doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-09-2016-0208.
Isikdag, U., and J. Underwood. 2010. “Two design patterns for facilitating
building information model-based synchronous collaboration.” Autom.
Constr. 19 (5): 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.006.
Jergeas, G., and J. V. der. Put. 2001. “Benefits of constructability on con-
struction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 127 (4): 281–290. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:4(281).
Kang, J. H., S. D. Anderson, and M. J. Clayton. 2007. “Empirical study on
the merit of web-based 4D visualization in collaborative construction
planning and scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 133 (6): 447–461.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:6(447).
Karlsson, M., A. Lakka, K. Sulankivi, A. S. Hanna, and B. P. Thompson.
2008. “Best practices for integrating the concurrent engineering environ-
ment into multi partner project management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
134 (4): 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)
134:4(289).
Kent, D. C., and B. Becerik-Gerber. 2010. “Understanding construction
industry experience and attitudes toward integrated project delivery.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (8): 815–825. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000188.
Kokkonen, A., and A. L. Vaagaasar. 2018. “Managing collaborative space
in multi-partner projects.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 36 (2): 83–95.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1347268.
© ASCE 04021023-16
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023
Koolwijk, J. S. J., C. J. van Oel, J. W. F. Wamelink, and R. Vrijhoef. 2018.
“Collaboration and integration in project-based supply chains in the
construction industry.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (3): 04018001. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000592.
Koseoglu, O., M. Sakin, and Y. Arayici. 2018. “Exploring the BIM and lean
synergies in the Istanbul Grand Airport construction project.” Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manage. 25 (10): 1339–1354. https://doi.org/10.1108
/ECAM-08-2017-0186.
Kumaraswamy, M. M., M. M. Rahman, F. Y. Ling, and S. T. Phng. 2005.
“Reconstructing cultures for relational contracting.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 131 (10): 1065–1075. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2005)131:10(1065).
Laborde, M., and V. Sanvido. 1994. “Introducing new process technologies
into construction companies.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 120 (3): 488–508.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:3(488).
Lahdenperä, P. 2012. “Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrange-
ments of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project
delivery.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 30 (1): 57–79. https://doi.org/10
.1080/01446193.2011.648947.
Lai, H., X. Deng, and T.-Y. P. Chang. 2019. “BIM-based platform for
collaborative building design and project management.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 33 (3): 05019001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943
-5487.0000830.
Leoto, R., and G. Lizarralde. 2019. “Challenges for integrated design (ID)
in sustainable buildings.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 37 (11): 625–642.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1569249.
Liu, Y., S. Van Nederveen, and M. Hertogh. 2017. “Understanding effects
of BIM on collaborative design and construction: An empirical study in
China.” Int. J. Proj. Manage. 35 (4): 686–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2016.06.007.
Ma, X. Z., A. P. C. Chan, H. Q. Wu, F. Xiong, and N. Dong. 2018a.
“Achieving leanness with BIM-based integrated data management in
a built environment project.” 2018 (Oct): 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI
-10-2017-0084.
Ma, Z., D. Zhang, and J. Li. 2018b. “A dedicated collaboration platform for
integrated project delivery.” Autom. Constr. 86 (Feb): 199–209. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.024.
Memon, S. A., B. H. W. Hadikusumo, and R. Y. Sunindijo. 2015. “Using
social interaction theory to promote successful relational contracting
between clients and contractors in construction.” J. Manage. Eng.
31 (6): 04014095. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000344.
Meng, X. 2012. “The effect of relationship management on project perfor-
mance in construction.” Int. J. Proj. Manage. 30 (2): 188–198. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.04.002.
Meng, X., M. Sun, and M. Jones. 2011. “Maturity model for supply chain
relationships in construction.” J. Manage. Eng. 27 (2): 97–105. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000035.
Merschbrock, C., M. R. Hosseini, I. Martek, M. Arashpour, and G.
Mignone. 2018. “Collaborative role of sociotechnical components in
BIM-based construction networks in two hospitals.” J. Manage. Eng.
34 (4): 05018006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000605.
Mokhtar, A., C. Bédard, and P. Fazio. 2000. “Collaborative planning and
scheduling of interrelated design changes.” J. Archit. Eng. 6 (2): 66–75.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2000)6:2(66).
Oraee, M., M. R. Hosseini, D. J. Edwards, H. Li, E. Papadonikolaki, and D.
Cao. 2019. “Collaboration barriers in BIM-based construction net-
works: A conceptual model.” Int. J. Proj. Manage. 37 (6): 839–854.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.05.004.
Osipova, E. 2015. “Establishing cooperative relationships and joint risk
management in construction projects: Agency theory perspective.”
J. Manage. Eng. 31 (6): 05014026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000346.
Otte, E., and R. Rousseau. 2002. “Social network analysis: A powerful
strategy, also for the information sciences.” J. Inf. Sci. 28 (6): 441–453.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800601.
Ozorhon, B., I. Dikmen, and M. T. Birgonul. 2007. “Using analytic net-
work process to predict the performance of international construction
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 joint ventures.” J. Manage. Eng. 23 (3): 156–163. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2007)23:3(156).
Palacios, J. L., V. Gonzalez, and L. F. Alarcón. 2014. “Selection of third-
party relationships in construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (4):
B4013005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000701.
Park, J., H. Cai, P. S. Dunston, and H. Ghasemkhani. 2017. “Database-
supported and web-based visualization for daily 4D BIM.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 143 (10): 04017078. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001392.
Penã-Mora, F., and G. H. Dwivedi. 2002. “Multiple device collaborative
and real time analysis system for project management in civil engineer-
ing.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 16 (1): 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0887-3801(2002)16:1(23).
Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., R. B. Austin, and J. M. de la Garza. 2017. “Network
analysis of flash-track practices.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (1): 04016024.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Georgia Tech Library on 02/19/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000466.
Poirier, E., D. Forgues, and S. Staub-French. 2016. “Collaboration through
innovation: Implications for expertise in the AEC sector.” Construct.
Manage. Econ. 34 (11): 769–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193
.2016.1206660.
Priven, V., and R. Sacks. 2015. “Effects of the last planner system on social
networks among construction trade crews.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
141 (6): 04015006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000975.
Priven, V., and R. Sacks. 2016. “Impacts of the social subcontract and last
planner system interventions on the trade-crew workflows of multistory
residential construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (7):
04016013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001102.
Rahman, M. M., and M. M. Kumaraswamy. 2005. “Assembling integrated
project teams for joint risk management.” Construct. Manage. Econ.
23 (4): 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500040083.
Ratajczak, J., C. P. Schimanski, C. Marcher, M. Riedl, and D. T. Matt.
2017. “Mobile application for collaborative scheduling and monitoring
of construction works according to lean construction methods.” In
Proc., Int. Conf. on Cooperative Design, Visualization and Engineer-
ing, 207–214. Berlin: Springer.
Ratajczak, J., C. P. Schimanski, C. Marcher, M. Riedl, and D. T. Matt.
2018. “Collaborative tool for the construction site to enhance lean
project delivery.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Cooperative Design, Visuali-
zation and Engineering, 192–199. Berlin: Springer.
Richey, R. G., F. G. Adams, and V. Dalela. 2012. “Technology and flex-
ibility: Enablers of collaboration and time-based logistics quality.”
J. Bus. Logist. 33 (1): 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0000-0000.2011
.01036.x.
Russell, M. M., M. Liu, G. Howell, and S. M. Hsiang. 2015. “Case studies
of the allocation and reduction of time buffer through use of the last
planner system.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 141 (2): 04014068. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000900.
Sacks, R., L. Koskela, B. A. Dave, and R. Owen. 2010a. “Interaction of
lean and building information modeling in construction.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 136 (9): 968–980. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0000203.
Sacks, R., M. Radosavljevic, and R. Barak. 2010b. “Requirements for
building information modeling based lean production management sys-
tems for construction.” Autom. Constr. 19 (5): 641–655. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.010.
Sears, K. S., G. A. Sears, and R. H. Clough. 2008. Construction project
management, a practical guide to field construction management.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
© ASCE 04021023-17
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(4): 04021023
Shelbourn, M., N. M. Bouchlaghem, C. Anumba, and P. Carrillo. 2007.
“Planning and implementation of effective collaboration in construction
projects.” Constr. Innovation 7 (4): 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1108
/14714170710780101.
Son, J., and E. M. Rojas. 2011. “Evolution of collaboration in temporary
project teams: An agent-based modeling and simulation approach.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 137 (8): 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000331.
Suprapto, M., H. L. M. Bakker, and H. G. Mooi. 2015a. “Relational factors
in owner–contractor collaboration: The mediating role of team work-
ing.” Int. J. Project Manage. 33 (6): 1347–1363. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.015.
Suprapto, M., H. L. M. Bakker, H. G. Mooi, and W. Moree. 2015b. “Sorting
out the essence of owner–contractor collaboration in capital project de-
livery.” Inter. J. Project Manage. 33 (3): 664–683.
Taggart, M., L. Koskela, and J. Rooke. 2014. “The role of the supply chain
in the elimination and reduction of construction rework and defects: An
action research approach.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 32 (7–8): 829–842.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2014.904965.
Tayeh, B. A., K. A. Hallaq, H. Zahoor, and A. H. Al Faqawi. 2019.
“Techniques and benefits of implementing the last planner system in
the Gaza Strip construction industry.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage.
26 (7): 1424–1436. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2018-0039.
Waltman, L., N. J. van Eck, and E. C. M. Noyons. 2010. “A unified
approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks.” J. Infor-
metrics 4 (4): 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002.
Yeomans, S. G., N. M. Bouchlaghem, and A. El-Hamalawi. 2006.
“An evaluation of current collaborative prototyping practices within
the AEC industry.” Autom. Constr. 15 (2): 139–149. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.autcon.2005.02.011.
Zaneldin, E., T. Hegazy, and D. Grierson. 2001. “Improving design co-
ordination for building projects. II: A collaborative system.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 127 (4): 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2001)127:4(330).
Zhang, S., F. Pan, C. Wang, Y. Sun, and H. Wang. 2017. “BIM-based col-
laboration platform for the management of EPC projects in hydropower
engineering.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (12): 04017087. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001403.
Zhang, X., S. Azhar, A. Nadeem, and M. Khalfan. 2018. “Using building
information modelling to achieve lean principles by improving effi-
ciency of work teams.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 18 (4): 293–300. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1382083.
Zhou, W., P. Georgakis, D. Heesom, and X. Feng. 2012. “Model-based
groupware solution for distributed real-time collaborative 4D planning
through teamwork.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 26 (5): 597–611. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000153.
Zhou, W., D. Heesom, P. Georgakis, and J. H. M. Tah. 2014. “User-centred
design for collaborative 4D modelling.” Constr. Innovation 14 (4):
493–517. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-01-2014-0008.
Zimina, D., G. Ballard, and C. Pasquire. 2012. “Target value design: Using
collaboration and a lean approach to reduce construction cost.” Construct.
Manage. Econ. 30 (5): 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012
.676658.
Zimring, C., S. Khan, D. Craig, S. U. Haq, and M. Guzdial. 2001. “CoOL
Studio: Using simple tools to expand the discursive space of the design
studio.” Autom. Constr. 10 (6): 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926
-5805(00)00092-3.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.