Functional Evaluation of Change Order and Invoice

Management Processes under Different Procurement

Strategies: Social Network Analysis Approach
Soroush Shabani Ardakani 1 and Mazdak Nik-Bakht, Aff.M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: As construction projects become more complex, making strategic decisions such as selecting the appropriate delivery method and
the right type of contract becomes more convoluted. Several studies have realized that delays in progress payments and change orders during
construction projects are among the main causes of overruns in megaprojects. Using social network analysis (SNA), the present paper ex-
amines the effect of different types of project delivery methods and contract types on these factors through an organizational lens. The three
main research objectives of the study include (1) finding the most prominent actors who control the change and invoice processing pro-
cedures; (2) examining the contribution of different delivery methods to these workflows; and (3) evaluating the effect of contract type on the
behavior and characteristics of project’s key actors. Two project delivery methods (design–bid–build and design–build) and three contract
types [unit price, lump sum, and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC)] are examined. Correlations were identified among the
roles (rather than actors) and strategic positions in the networks. The constructive involvement of the owner in the invoice process of an EPC
contract was also identified as an advantage of such a procurement strategy. On the other hand, although traditional delivery methods have
more egocentric and hierarchical social networks, it became apparent that regular periodic meetings in such projects reduce the number of
bridges between individuals/clusters and hence can decrease the risk of bottlenecks in the processes. The main contributions of the paper
include providing an analytical tool for the analysis of projects’ actor networks; as well as performing a functional comparison among
the three common delivery methods and contract types through the behavior of actor networks in three case-study projects. Besides laying
out an approach for owners to decide on the project delivery method, this study sheds some light on the multilayer structure of project social
networks and promotes SNA as a fruitful technique for analyzing project behavior. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001974. © 2020
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Social network analysis; Project delivery method; Project procurement; Change order; Invoice management.

Introduction The increasing complexity of construction megaprojects urges

Selecting the appropriate procurement strategy in construction proj-
ects is one of the most challenging decisions ahead of the project
management team and a key contributor to project success (Luu
et al. 2003). Although globally, the majority of projects are run
through the traditional design–bid–build (DBB) delivery method,
more modern techniques such as design–build (DB), construction
manager at risk (CMAR), and integrated project delivery (IPD) are
becoming common in the industry. The rigid separation between
designer and builder teams in the traditional DBB delivery method
leads to challenges with the communication, flow of information,
and integration of work processes. The scattered nature of the con-
struction supply chain imposes an organizational disintegration on
the construction industry. This impedes close collaboration and ef-
ficient information sharing among teams due to differences in their
priorities, knowledge domains, and professional skills (Malisiovas
and Song 2014).
1
Regional Manager, Banaye Rastin Co., Naderiniya St., No. 4 Unit 2,
Tehran, Iran.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Building, Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering, Concordia Univ., Montreal, QC, Canada H3G 1M8 (correspond-
ing author). Email: mazdak.nikbakht@concordia.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 21, 2020; approved
on August 24, 2020; published online on November 6, 2020. Discussion
period open until April 6, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En-
gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
clients to seek alternative procurement routes/contracts to over-
come the drawbacks of traditional methods. Accordingly, in recent
years, there has been an increase in the adoption of various forms of
package contracts, including engineering, procurement, and con-
struction (EPC). In this type of contract, the same entity (referred
to as the EPC contractor) is responsible for design and execution of
an engineering project by carrying out all the engineering, procure-
ment, and construction processes and finally providing the client
with a fully equipped facility ready for the operation (Luu et al.
2003). The EPC contractor is usually in one contract with the
owner, as well as several contracts with subcontractors, suppliers,
and entities providing engineering and/or consultant services.
Many construction megaprojects, particularly in developing coun-
tries, suffer cost overruns and delays (Heravi and Mohammadian
2017). Although several factors can bring about cost and time
overruns, many studies have identified progress payment delays
(cash-flow problems) and change orders among the main causes
of delays in large building projects (Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006;
Koushki et al. 2005; Pourrostam and Ismail 2012). There have
been, however, fewer studies to date on the impact of project
procurement/contract type on these causes of delay and budget
overruns. Most studies in this regard have used qualitative methods
such as survey questionnaires and aggregated statistics (at the in-
dustry scale rather than a project level). They do not provide for-
mal analytical methods that can be used by owners and/or project
management teams to monitor, control, or benchmark the work-
flow of progress payment/change orders in individual projects.

© ASCE 04020155-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155

 The present study aims to investigate the effect of procurement
strategy (with a focus on the comparison of project delivery meth-
ods and contract types) on the team integration and communica-
tions throughout the workflows related to progress payment
approval and change orders. Social network analysis (SNA) is
the tool used for exploring the strength and quality of connections
among the project teams in these workflows under different project
delivery methods. The ultimate goal is to offer SNA as a formal/
quantitative tool for benchmarking and evaluating the functional
performance of construction projects. In this regard, three main ob-
jectives are followed: (1) identify the most prominent actors in the
processes under the governance of different delivery methods and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
contract types; (2) detect the strengths and weaknesses of different
delivery methods and contract types with respect to the progress
payment and change order workflows; and (3) evaluate the effect
of contract type on the behavior and characteristics of certain key
actors of the projects.
In this regard, social networks were formed in which nodes re-
present the project actors and edges represent interactions among
them (concerning progress payment and/or change orders). Analyt-
ics derived from such social networks in case-study projects were
then analyzed with different procurement strategies. Because no
two projects are the same, the comparisons and conclusions of this
study may not be prescriptive; nevertheless, the proposed method
lays out an approach for project managers to better evaluate the
dynamics of interactions for the most sensitive workflows in their
projects.
Related Works
A social network is defined as a finite set of actors with defined
relations among them (Wasserman and Faust 1994). Social network
analysis is a combination of mathematics, information technology
(IT), and sociology (Pryke 2012), which explores the social struc-
ture of a system through social networks (Kereri and Harper 2018).
An analysis of the literature in construction engineering and man-
agement (CEM) by Kereri and Harper (2018) showed exponential
growth in the number of publications using SNA in the field of
construction over the last decade. SNA is used to classify, visualize,
and analyze complex systems in CEM (Pryke 2017). Particularly,
after identifying limitations and issues in the structure of a network,
SNA allows modifying the system to design an altered version of
the network and improve information sharing and communication
among the project team. This subsequently brings about a balance
between the social and scientific aspects in the management of proj-
ects (Ruan et al. 2011).
A construction project can be considered as a temporary net-
work in which complex interprofessional and interorganizational
contractual and working relationships govern the interactions
among project actors. Construction project teams are decentralized
and heterogeneous because they normally consist of a mixture of
actors from different professional and organizational backgrounds
(Di Vincenzo and Mascia 2012). The construction industry is
facing a growing complexity in different aspects (organizational,
technological, and informational, among others), and appropriate
tools and mechanisms are needed to successfully manage complex
construction projects (Baccarini 1996). Using SNA can provide
insights about actors’ participation in different activities by illus-
trating how they perform and collaborate in their roles (Pryke
2012). It can also provide indicators for knowledge integration,
work collaboration, and effective communication (Ruan et al.
2011).
© ASCE 04020155-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155
Theorizing SNA for CEM has roots in representing (and sub-
sequently analyzing) projects as sets of transactions classified into
groups of value-adding activities (Pryke 2012). One of the best-
known models for SNA in construction comes from Chinowsky
et al. (2008). The two fundamental components of their model
are dynamics (addressing the interaction and exchange motivators
among team members) and mechanics (addressing the information
and knowledge exchanged to execute the project). In fact, this so-
cial network model altered the focus of construction project man-
agement from the efficiency of projects to the individuals within the
team and their ability to collaborate and create a higher standard of
success for the entire team (Chinowsky et al. 2008).
Beyond a modeling technique, SNA can be used for diagnostics
to identify issues in the communication and information sharing
performance of actors/teams (Malisiovas and Song 2014). For in-
stance, Pryke (2012) suggested the similarity in the level of central-
ity for project actors within various social networks of a project
(i.e., contract, performance incentive, and communication net-
works) as a measure of the project management system’s maturity.
Accordingly, Abbasian-Hosseini et al. (2019) studied the influence
of social network conditions on the performance of individuals
within the social network of crews through the analysis of centrality
for each individual. Correlation analysis between centrality and
work-plan variations of each crew in their study showed a positive
association between the levels of influence individuals receive from
the network and their deviation from the work plan (Abbasian-
Hosseini et al. 2019).
Case-based analysis of project networks using SNA is a
common practice in the literature. Several researchers have previ-
ously studied the dynamics of social networks at an individual
(i.e., node), or network level in case-study projects, to compare the
performances under different conditions (e.g., Wambeke et al.
2012; Di Marco et al. 2010; Akgul et al. 2017; Nik-Bakht and
El-Diraby 2017; Abbasian-Hosseini et al. 2019). Pryke (2012)
visualized and analyzed the social networks formed based on dif-
ferent types of relationships (including contractual, cost manage-
ment, instruction, progress management, performance incentive,
and information exchange) in four case studies. By calculating dif-
ferent measures in those networks, he successfully compared the
overall efficiency of traditional versus modern project governance.
Methodology
Fig. 1 shows the general method of this study. At the highest
level, the proposed method involves the formation, analysis, and
interpretation/comparison of social networks for projects running
under the three different procurement routes.
Data Collection
Given the data-driven nature of SNA, proper and sufficient data are
known as the heart of related studies. The procedure of gathering
data about the flow of interactions among actors can significantly
affect the study outcomes. Some challenges involved in the data
collection include dynamics and variations of the information ex-
change through different phases of the project; adoption of unfit
data collection tools; and disinterest of interviewees (when inter-
views are used as the data acquisition technique). The quantitative
representation of relationships among the actors, referred to as soci-
ometry, is widely dependent on interviewing individuals or analyz-
ing project documents (as the source of data to form social network
graphs). Sociometric data verify the presence (or absence) of inter-
actions between individuals, which are then represented as edges of
the social graph (Tichy et al. 1979).
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

Literature Survey Project Correspondence
Review Actors Analysis
Survey
Questionnaire Form Networks
Network
Formation Interviews to validate
Networks
Network Analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Network
Analysis Node-level Network-level
Analytics Analytics
Interpretation &
Comparison of Results
Validation
Survey Questionnaire to
Validate the Results
Fig. 1. High-level research methodology.
This study’s data collection entailed three major phases:
(1) survey questionnaire; (2) scrutinizing the contract documents/
meeting minutes and project correspondences; and (3) validation of
the collected information. First, structured questionnaires were cir-
culated among the projects’ participants to identify the existence
and frequency of communications among them. In these forms,
the individuals were asked to think back and provide a list of
all actors with whom they have had interactions for specific activ-
ities related to the change order and progress payment (invoice
processing) procedures. The results were then mapped and cross-
checked. Contradictory information and mismatches in the re-
sponses were corrected through a second round of inquiries from
the project participants.
In the next phase, the contract documents and organization
charts of the projects were analyzed. Letters, meeting minutes, in-
spected invoices, site instructions, daily and monthly reports, and
other formal documents of the projects were reviewed to verify the
results of the survey, and more importantly, to quantify edge
weights of social graphs. Finally, for validation of the collected
data, face-to-face interviews and discussion sessions were con-
ducted with project managers along with a careful review of the
completed forms and the extracted information from project
documents.
Network Formation
To form the social networks using the collected data, significant
time and attention must be allocated to network attributes, includ-
ing parameters and participants. Two primary concerns in this re-
gard include (1) network boundaries, and (2) network type.
Defining the boundaries of a network entails the selection of actors
and the type of connections, and varies according to the research
design, focus, and objective. The other concern pertains to the
decision on whether the whole network or a part of dyadic ties
(edges) should be studied to address the key research question
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155
(Monaghan et al. 2017). In the following section, this study’s ap-
Projects' proach with respect to these two aspects is explained.
Documents
Archive
Nodes, Edges, and Network Boundaries
A social network’s nodes can be defined at the level of individuals,
groups, or organizations. Communication networks, however, are
best observed if they are visualized among individuals (Pryke
2012). Establishing the boundaries of a network for a study is often
a challenging task (Pryke 2017). In the present study, networks
contain interpersonal relationships. To better benefit from the net-
work analytics, this study’s social networks are kept limited to indi-
viduals with either some level of decision-making power or an
effective role in the procedure of providing, processing, or trans-
ferring the information related to the network’s themes (i.e., change
or invoice). These individuals were mostly employees or represent-
atives of the general contractor, client (i.e., owner), consultant, op-
erator (end user), and suppliers. As a result, certain individuals
were excluded from the social network models, despite having
roles in the projects. Some of those individuals include subcontrac-
tors, crews, equipment operators, and guards, among others. They
were neglected because they did not have any effective role in pro-
viding, spreading, or approving the information regarding change
orders and/or progress payment invoices.
In this study, graph edges represent some form of communica-
tions within the social network boundaries. The term communica-
tion here applies to any form of interpersonal interaction within the
theme of the network under the study. This may include any types
of information exchange instances such as (1) queries and requests
for information (RFIs) or clarification; (2) seeking/giving/receiving
advice; (3) provision or spread of information or instructions; and
(4) discussions or similar actions for data approval.
Criteria for Selected Types of Networks
During a project, a wide range of interactions are normally formed
among actors around various construction-related issues. Those
interactions give rise to several types of social networks with differ-
ent temporal natures, and studying each of them can help to under-
stand the project-related organizational behavior from a different
angle. In this study, social networks formed around the invoice
and change management are scoped. Nevertheless, the proposed
method can be applied to the analysis of several other actor net-
works in construction.
Invoice Networks
In this study, an invoice is defined as a document that itemizes a
transaction between the contractor and the owner to support the
progress payment. It is a bill to the client requesting payment in
exchange of materials delivered and/or services provided. In con-
tractual relationships, there are normally certain workflows in place
for submitting/receiving invoices, reviewing/approving them, and
making the payment. These workflows usually involve several
actors including technical and financial staff of the contract parties.
In this study, an invoice network concerns the communications
associated with the process that starts from the data collection to
develop progress payment requests throughout the last stage,
i.e., making the payment. The main assumptions in developing
invoice networks include the following:
• Any form of communication related to the invoice process (in
the broadest sense) has been included and reflected in the net-
works. That includes formal letters, verbal reports, conversa-
tions, and meetings or negotiations toward the approval of
the invoice, among others.
04020155-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 • The weight of an edge between two nodes (actors) is assigned
according to the total duration of communications between
those actors. One unit of weight represents 1 h of meeting in
person or online and/or writing an email or a letter.
• The number of invoices in different phases of each case-study
project was different. To provide a similar context for compari-
son, the edge weights were normalized to the average duration
of invoice-related communications between actors in three dif-
ferent stages of each project, i.e., the beginning (the second
progress payment), middle, and end (the second last progress
payment) of the construction phase.
Change Networks
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and additional information, advice, and even queries and requests
for clarifications shall be provided in writing. All relationships in
this regard throughout the project in the forms of giving/receiving
advice, RFI, information exchange, and discussion are modeled in
the proposed change networks as edges. Archived documents were
inspected to retrieve and quantify such relations.
The main assumptions in the formation of change networks in-
clude the following:
1. For consistency in the assessment of change networks of differ-
ent projects, the evaluation of change order instances was lim-
ited to those for which the corresponding costs were at least
0.1% of the contract price.

Any additions, deletions, or modifications to the scope of the work
(i.e., the contractual agreement) are considered as a change (Hwang
and Low 2012). Similar to the invoice approval, change orders fol-
low certain processes starting from the need realization to the RFI,
redesign, valuation, recalculation, and finally, issuing a change
order (or change directive). The process involves several actors
and includes different instances of communication among them
(referred to here as a change network). Normally, all instructions
2. The strength of communication ties (i.e., weight of graph edges)
can vary according to the number of items exchanged among
two nodes (i.e., the number of change instructions brought about
in all communication instances between two certain actors).
Because the numbers are drastically different in different con-
tract types, the total number of change orders (instructions) be-
tween actor pairs is normalized by the total number of change
orders in the project that satisfy Condition 1, i.e., as follows:

Number of change orders that cause the corresponding relation

Edge weight ¼ × 100
Total number of change orders

In other words, edge weights in the change networks represent
the percentage of change orders that involve the two nodes at either
end of the edge. All edges in both invoice and change networks are
directed. Double edges are used for reciprocal relationships.
In order to validate the findings regarding the change and in-
voice networks and to compare them with the real data, the main
findings of the three case-study projects were turned into clauses,
and a survey was developed asking the opinion of project partic-
ipants (using a Likert-scale format) as well as their additional inputs
and insights. The questionnaire was circulated among the main ac-
tors of the three projects and was completed by 20 participants.
After aggregating the responses, a few statements that showed
the opinion bifurcation were set aside from the results.
Case-Study Projects
To investigate the performance of the invoice and change networks
under different project delivery methods, three case-study projects
were selected from the Iranian construction industry implemented
under three contract types, i.e., lump sum, unit price, and EPC.
Due to the confidentiality considerations, they will be here referred
to as Projects A, B, and C. Indeed, no two projects are identical,
but an attempt was made to select the case studies so that they
would be comparable. Projects were chosen such that they have
the same general contractor and similar client organization types/
organizational culture, and are focused on the same construction
activities (only in civil, mechanical, and electrical fields) for all
three projects. Table 1 introduces the general attributes of the
case-study projects.
A considerable challenge in SNA-based studies is how to nor-
malize the effects of personal (and interpersonal) characteristics
of the involved social entities in the process of generalizing results
of an experiment. In this study, as well, in addition to the project
procurement type, different characteristics of project actors may
affect the network structure of the projects. Choosing projects with
the same contractor and client organizational culture helped to con-
trol these variables to some extent. In this situation, many roles in
the different projects had been performed by the same individuals.
In many cases, different individuals from the same organization
who take the same (or similar) roles in different projects follow
the same or similar organizational culture and work ethics, which
can be translated into similar ranges of productivity and/or work-
related characteristics. Furthermore, organizations usually set some

Table 1. Case-study projects and their general information

Case-study Construction project Contract
project Building type Project size Budgeta duration (years) type
A Health care (hospital) GFA = 35,000 m2 , 9 stories (280 beds) $40M 3 Unit price
B Healthcare (emergency medical center) GFA ¼ 6,000 m2 , 8 stories $7.5M 2 Lump sum
C Industrial (oil and gas) GFA ¼ 7,000 m2 (processing capacity: 8,000 m3 ) $3.7M 2 EPC
Note: GFA = gross floor area.
a
Exchange rate between USD and IRR has been considered at 33,315 as of December 2016.

© ASCE 04020155-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155

 constraints to control their employees’ productivity (e.g., allowable
time to be spent on each invoice meeting/preparation of docu-
ments), which help with the uniformity of behavior of different ac-
tors in the same role/situation.
Project A: Unit-Price Contract
Project A is a hospital building, including therapeutic, administra-
tive, and public areas, a powerhouse and power substation infra-
structure, and the landscape of external areas. Construction ran
from 2011 to 2016, and the network data gathered for this case
study belong to the late phases of construction. The client (owner
and ultimate operator) was a public authority (a university) who had
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
an agreement with a consultant for professional services such as
project management, engineering design services [in different dis-
ciplines including architectural, structural, and mechanical, electri-
cal, and plumbing (MEP)] as well as supervising construction
activities according to the design specifications. The general con-
tractor was appointed through a two-stage tender process (prequa-
lification and the lowest bid). The construction work was procured
using a unit-price contract. Financial invoices of the contractor
were processed based on the unit cost of each item, as indicated
in the contract, and the quantities of work completed, as taken
off on the site.
Project B: Lump-Sum Contract
The second project is an institutional and health care building
scheduled to be handed over within 24 months (excluding the land-
scaping). The project used a traditional lump-sum contract where
financial invoices were created and submitted according to the
work breakdown structure (WBS). Consultants were employed
in this project for the liability of structural, architectural, landscap-
ing design, and installation. Supervision of the field activities was
the duty of the consultants. The client, a public agency, used a com-
petitive bidding mode, and the contractor had submitted the lowest
bid and hence was awarded the contract.
Project C: EPC
The scope of this project has been the design, procurement, and
installation of an oil industry facility. According to this contract,
the designer-builder provided EPC services for buildings and in-
stallation of other facilities for a volatile organic compound (VOC)
recovery unit. Apparently, this EPC project did not have a consul-
tant as a separate entity, and the general contractor was the main
authority responsible for the design. Supervision activities were
performed by in-house engineers of the client.
In all three case studies, clients have been public entities. Also,
data collections were performed during the same construction
phases: (1) late construction phase (the last third of the project
schedule); and (2) when similar activities were ongoing (i.e., fin-
ishing, landscaping, piping, and wiring works). The general con-
tractor of these three projects was the same entity, applying the
same organizational culture, which makes the projects more
comparable.
Project Networks
The number of change instructions with a cost of at least 0.1% of
the contract price is indicated for each project in Table 2. The num-
bers in this table are imbalanced, i.e., the number of change instruc-
tions in Project C is far fewer than in Projects A and B. That is due
to the nature of EPC contracts. However, normalizing edge weights
of change networks in each project to these numbers helped to
© ASCE 04020155-5
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155
Table 2. Number of reviewed change instructions for case studies
Number of reviewed
No. Name Contract type change-order instructions
1 Project A Unit price–traditional 430
2 Project B Lump sum–traditional 142
3 Project C EPC 16
make the change networks comparable. Because EPC contracts
bestow design liabilities to the contractor, costs related to design
changes (unless being a client’s order) will be imposed on the con-
tractor. Moreover, because the builder and designer are merged to
the same entity, constructability issues are normally better handled
in the design phase.
However, unlike the traditional contracts, change orders in the
EPC would not be considered a source of making additional profit
by the contractor. As a result, such a delivery method is generally
involved in fewer change instances during the construction, and
many changes would be internal processes of the design-builder
party. The study of documents confirmed that most change in-
structions in Project C were related to alterations in the client’s
requirements.
Social Networks of Change and Invoice
Management
SNA helps to examine complex systems in both qualitative (visual/
graphical) and quantitative (analytical) manners. Fig. 2 visualizes
change and invoice networks for the three case-study projects.
Open-source software Gephi version 0.9.2 (Bastian et al. 2009)
is used for visualizing and analyzing social networks in this study.
In this figure, the standard convention of representing directed con-
nections with curved edges is used, i.e., all curves are in a clock-
wise direction.
Social networks normally structure themselves in clusters of no-
des that are densely connected within each cluster and sparsely con-
nected between different clusters. These clusters are referred to as
communities and can be a representative of construction coalitions
formed (on purpose or unintentionally) through communications
(Nik-Bakht and El-Diraby 2016). In Fig. 2, the edge shadings show
the community membership of the nodes that they connect. Those
edges connecting two nodes of the same community follow the
shade of that community. Additional shades are used for edges that
connect members of two different communities.
Invoice Networks
For Projects A and B [Figs. 2(a and b)], the invoice networks are
egocentric around the technical office manager (TOM), who is a
personnel of the general contractor, creating invoices under both
unit-price and lump-sum contracts. This actor coordinates with
the civil, mechanical, and electrical surveyors to take-off and the
quantity of completed works during the report interval. As men-
tioned previously, invoices in lump-sum contracts are provided
based on the WBS and are much briefer compared with unit-price
contracts (hence, they involve far fewer resources and less time, and
communications for providing and checking the invoices). Among
some other nodes, it is notable that the superintendent (S) in the
lump-sum contract, unlike the case of unit-price contract, is an iso-
lated actor (an orphan), showing that they have not been involved in
the process.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Graphs of invoice and change networks in the three case-study projects: (a) Project A; (b) Project B; and (c) Project C. Node size indicates the
degree centrality, edge thickness indicates the weight of communication between nodes, node/edge shading indicates the communities, and edge
curves indicate connection directions (clockwise).

The comparison of communities in invoice networks for the
two traditional contracts [Figs. 2(a and b)] shows a fewer num-
ber of coalitions in the lump-sum contract (two communities in
Project B, one dominated by the actors who work onsite and
another formed by the office staff, versus four communities in
Project A). The clustered nature of the invoice network in the case
of unit-price contract suggests an intradisciplinary process, involv-
ing technical experts (mechanical, civil, and electrical) communi-
cating among their own teams on the one hand and with the
financial management on the other hand.
The invoice network for Project C, on the other hand, is the sim-
plest among the three case studies [Figs. 2(c)]. Three reasons for
this simplicity can include (1) the absence of a consultant from
the process; (2) the reduced number of actors involved; and
(3) the simplified process of developing, checking, and approving
the invoices. Providing invoices in EPC contracts is a simple and
straightforward procedure, so is the associated invoice network.
This network holds a different pattern of centrality (in comparison
with Projects A and B). Instead of a single central node (an ego), in
this network, there are three central nodes [project control officer
(CO), project manager (PM), and the civil engineer (CE) of the
client’s team]. This distribution of the centrality is an indicator
of higher resilience for the network.
Change Networks
The change network of Project A is represented in Fig. 2(a). The
central actors of this network are project managers (of the contrac-
tor and consultant) and civil engineer of the client’s team; who form
a multidisciplinary core representing the three main players of the
project. All actors with technical roles (except the land surveyor)
are involved in this network, and the isolated nodes are mainly the
financial actors. The archived documents of this project show
weekly review meetings in the superintendent’s office, attended

© ASCE 04020155-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155

 by the major project actors. Reviewing those meetings’ minutes
shows various frequent items on the agenda, including progress
report review, investigating progress barriers, coordination for on-
going activities, and discussing the required changes (in drawings
or specifications). Change order requests, along with the justifica-
tions, were being sent by the contractor to the consultant for a re-
view after each meeting.
In comparison with the change network of Project A (unit-price
contract), the change network of Project B [Fig. 2(b)] is sparser.
The nature of lump-sum contracts, calling for a precise scope
and detailed drawings and specifications prior to the bid submission
and/or during preconstruction, decreases the rate of change orders
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
during the construction phase. On the other hand, the change in-
struction process in Project B (lump sum) is simpler than Project
A (unit price).
The change network graph in Project B demonstrates a con-
struction coalition composed of four communities. The largest
community has the PM (consultant) as its central node, joined with
other consultant actors (i.e., designers, supervisors, and estimators,
among others). This community also includes the operator’s
representative (OR), which indicates close cooperation and com-
munication between the consultant and operator in this project.
The representative of the operator (RO) in Project B is poorly con-
nected to the project coalition. A lower number of change orders in
lump-sum contracts reduces regular coordination meetings between
contract parties, and because there are no legal or contractual rela-
tionships between the RO and the project team, the former’s par-
ticipation has diminished.
The analysis of information exchange frequency shows that
around 84% of all reviewed change instructions in Project B
(i.e., weight of the directed edge between the PM and contractor
and PM and consultant) are proposed and requested by the contrac-
tor. One of the most interesting communities in this network is the
one composed of the contractor’s engineering personnel [i.e., elec-
trical (EE), mechanical (ME), and civil (CE) engineers], making a
complete graph hinged to the rest of the network through the super-
intendent (S). The superintendent in this case is a gatekeeper
(a hinge) who will be capable of controlling the flow of information
to and from these actors. Similar to Project B, the client, consultant,
and contractor’s site personnel have separate communities in the
change network of Project A.
The change network of the EPC project [Fig. 2(c)] has fewer
orphans than its invoice network (only the financial manager
and accountant are orphans in this network). Unlike Projects A
and B, in Project C, the operator (end user) and the client are not
separate entities. The considerably lower number of change instruc-
tions in this project [1/9 of the number for the lump sum and 1/27 of
those for the unit price (Table 2)] indicates the low emphasis on
instructions as a means of applying variations in the project.
The actual number of change incidents could have been more than
the quantity of the instructions reported, but many of those were
deemed internal processes (of the designer-builder) and were not
documented as instructions.
Table 3. Global metrics of the networks
Invoice network
Metric Project A Project B
Number of nodes (edges) 38 (81) 29 (37)
Average degree (average weighted degree) 2.132 (5.737) 1.276 (2.103)
Average path length (network diameter) 3.097 (8) 2.815 (7)
Graph density 0.058 0.046
Average clustering coefficient (modularity) 0.185 (0.297) 0.028 (0.222)
© ASCE 04020155-7
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155
Based on Fig. 2(c), the change network of the EPC project is
composed of four communities, three of which have at least one
of the high centrality nodes of the network [i.e., project manager
of contractor (PM), technical engineer manager (TEM), and super-
intendent (S)] as a community leader. Because meetings between
the client and contractor are not as frequent as in traditional pro-
curement strategies, connections between their experts are mini-
mum in this network. The PM (contractor) has an extremely
strategic position in this network as a bridge between the contractor
and client teams.
Analysis Results and Discussion
Beyond a visual/qualitative comparison among the networks de-
picted in Fig. 2, SNA employs various metrics to quantitatively ex-
plain different social networks. Those metrics were examined to
compare the behavior of networks in our projects at two different
levels, i.e., the network and node levels. This study aims to identify
the metrics that could best help project managers evaluate the func-
tional performance of their projects under various procurement
strategies. The results, which are discussed in the following sub-
sections, were validated through a survey involving the main actors
of the three case-study projects.
Network-Level Analytics
Network statistics map a graph’s structure to a simple numerical
space, in which standard statistical methods can be applied. The
most primitive examples of network statistics are first-order analyt-
ics, i.e., the number of nodes and edges, but there are more complex
metrics that can better highlight different behavioral aspects of a
network. Network statistics applied in this study include (1) average
degree and average weighted degree, (2) diameter and average
path length, density, and (3) modularity and clustering coefficient.
Details on the definitions and calculations of these measures have
been given by Nik-Bakht and El-Diraby (2017) among others.
Table 3 showcases the values of these metrics for the invoice
and change networks of the three case-study projects.
In the case of invoice networks, the unit-price contract shows the
highest numbers with all metrics. The statistics show that in Project
A, on average, an actor has communicated with 2.132 other actors
and has spent 5.737 h for communications regarding the progress
payment per each invoice. The average communication times spent
on the invoice process in Projects B and C have been about 2 h and
under 1 h, respectively. The process under the unit-price contract
involves a considerably large number of actors and involved actors
can be up to eight steps away from one another in the process. This
not only shows the larger size and higher density (compared with
other procurement routes) but also a higher dispersion for the net-
work of actors involved.
As seen in the table, merging the consultant’s role in the design-
build entity (represented by the contractor in Case study C), has not
Change network
Project C Project A Project B Project C
25 (18) 38 (92) 29 (64) 25 (47)
0.72 (0.84) 2.421 (73.47%) 2.207 (82.35%) 1.88 (73.08%)
2.581 (5) 2.552 (5) 2.619 (5) 2.827 (5)
0.03 0.065 0.079 0.078
0.111 (0.277) 0.17 (0.344) 0.449 (0.333) 0.088 (0.376)
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 only had a significant impact on the processing time (average
weighted degree) of invoices, but also has decreased the distance
between the client and contractor. Both average path length and
diameter of the invoice network for Project C are the lowest among
the three projects. One may argue that this is an expected and trivial
observation for EPC contracts to have simpler social networks,
hence a smaller diameter and average path length. However, that
is not the case for the change network because in the case of change
orders, traditional responsibilities of the consultant are redistributed
among other actors (unlike the invoice processing, where not only
the consultant but also their responsibilities are removed from the
process). The clustering coefficient is considered as an indicator of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
group cohesion, as well as a measure for redundancy (because re-
moving the nodes with clustering of 1 will not affect the structure of
a network). Thus, networks of Project C show lower levels of re-
dundancy. The strict monitoring of activities and the adversarial
approach between contract parties in traditional contracts are the
main reasons for the higher cohesion in their networks.
The average clustering coefficient for the change network of
Project B has a considerably greater value than the other two proj-
ects. This is attributed to the better-established scope and precise
drawings/specifications at the bid stage of lump-sum contracts. The
change process in this kind of project is stricter and more compli-
cated in a way that any change should be investigated and approved
by different teams and groups of experts, making a greater number
of triadic closures among the nodes. Only 15% of participants in the
validation survey (i.e., 3 out of 20 respondents) disagreed with the
clause that reflected this finding, i.e., that “a considerably stricter
monitoring is applied by the owner (and consultants) within the
change process in lump-sum projects, compared to unit-price
and EPC projects,” Among possible reasons that were provided
to the participants, 85% (17 out of 20) selected the item stating
“the nature of lump-sum contract reduces instances of design
change” as the root cause for this phenomenon.
Another important indicator of connections’ density is modular-
ity (evaluating the relative density of within- and between-
community connections). Notably, change networks generally have
higher modularity than invoice networks. Usually, the change order
processes involve more technical considerations compared with the
invoice cases, and hence engage more specialties and create more
linkages within different communities. High modularity and low
average clustering for the change network of the EPC project are
indicators of a star-shaped network with relatively poor interactions
across the communities. In contrast, the high average clustering co-
efficient, and comparatively low modularity in change network of
the lump-sum project indicate the vast spread and a broadly con-
nected network. These two patterns can be the two ends of a spec-
trum in terms of the complexity of the processes they represent.
Together with the low level of average clustering, both networks
of the EPC contract are of the least density among the case studies.
More relationships between experts from different disciplines and
more widespread communications among the teams would lead to a
better flow of information. Thus, the change networks with higher
Table 4. Most central actors of projects’ networks
Invoice network
Metric Project A Project B
Degree centrality TOM TOM
Weighted degree centrality TOM TOM
Betweenness centrality TOM PM (contractor)
Closeness centrality TOM TOM
Eigenvector centrality CE (client) TOA
© ASCE 04020155-8
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155
density (Projects B and C based on Table 1) will be more desirable.
It must be noticed again, that the change network of Project A has
the most actors involved and the shortest average path length
among all projects. Hence, its low density can be best explained
due to the relatively large number of isolated actors (i.e., orphans,
which totaled 8 eight in Project A in comparison with three and two
in Projects B and C, respectively). The orphans are mostly financial
experts of the client or administrative individuals who are unfamil-
iar with the change process at a technical level.
Node-Level Analytics
In addition to the metrics that reveal the overall behavior of a net-
work, SNA provides analytics for the evaluation of individuals’
behavior. Different variants of centrality, as well as transitive mea-
sures, such as authority, hub, and page rank, are widely used in the
literature to evaluate the importance level of nodes in a network
from different aspects. Due to the popularity of centrality in the
CEM literature, this study uses different centrality measures (de-
gree, betweenness, closeness, and eigenvector centrality) to com-
pare the actors’ roles and positions in change and invoice networks
of different projects. In general, centrality is the state of being cen-
tral in a network structure and is an indicator of the potential im-
portance, influence, and prominence of an actor in a network
(Hossain 2009) calculated from the distribution of relationships
through the network. A complete explanation of centrality mea-
sures and methods of their calculation has been given by Pryke
(2012) and Nik-Bakht and El-Diraby (2017), among others.
Table 4 lists prominent actors for the two networks in each
case-study project. As seen, the TOM has the highest level of power
in the invoice network of projects with traditional contracts
(i.e., Projects A and B). In the case of the unit-price contract, this
actor is the unique central node (from all aspects). This is an in-
dicator of lower redundancy and can increase the risk of opportun-
istic behaviors by such an actor in the network. Generally, the actor
who has the role of preparing invoices is usually the most promi-
nent individual in terms of degree centrality [the role bestowed
on the control officer (CO) in the EPC project and is giving them
the same position in that network]. In the lump-sum project, the
project manager (PM) of the contractor, despite having a compa-
ratively low degree centrality, is a bridge among many other actors
[Figs. 2(b)], which gives them a high betweenness. The consider-
ably greater in-degree (than out-degree) for this actor explains how
they can control the flow of the process (or even hinder it and cause
delays). The technical office administrator (TOA) in the EPC
project has the highest betweenness and closeness. Being an em-
ployee of the client, the central role of the client party in the invoice
network of this project is noticeable. On the same basis, it is also
noticeable that in all three projects, actors with the highest eigen-
vector centrality are individuals from the client’s team.
A glance at the central nodes of change networks reveals the
shift of centrality to PMs in the change order workflows. The only
exceptions are observed in the EPC project, where the technical
Change network
Project C Project A Project B Project C
CO PM (consultant) PM (consultant) TEM
CO PM (consultant) PM (contractor) PM (contractor)
TOA PM (consultant) PM (contractor) PM (contractor)
TOA PM (contractor) PM (consultant) PM (contractor)
CE (client) PM (consultant) PM (consultant) TEM
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 engineer manager (TEM), an employee of the design-builder with
similar duties as the PM of consultant in traditional projects, has the
highest degree and eigenvector centrality. Both the PM of the con-
sultant and TEM are coordinators of designers in their networks, a
role that, according to this study’s results, can be known as the es-
sence of workflows in change networks.
Unlike Project A, in Projects B and C, actors with the highest
weighted and unweighted degree centralities are different, sug-
gesting that actors communicating with most individuals are not
necessarily the ones influencing the most percentages of change
instructions. The comparison of nodes with high betweenness
and closeness in traditional projects (A and B) is also insightful.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Whereas the consultant PM is more strategically positioned in
the change network of the unit-price contract, this actor is the most
centrally positioned (i.e., most accessible) in the lump-sum con-
tract, and the case is vice versa for the PM of the contractor.
Figs. 3 and 4 compare some of the top influential nodes from the
invoice and change networks, respectively, in the three case-study
projects. Taking such a perspective will be helpful in better under-
standing the effect of contract type on characteristics of the key
actors/roles. Four roles are showcased here (in the interest of
space), and the full comparison of roles in different contract types
in detail will be presented elsewhere. From a holistic view, as
shown in Fig. 3, the project manager, superintendent, and control
officer, as employees of the contractor in the unit-price contract, are
the most active actors in comparison with similar roles from other
Fig. 3. Comparison of the same roles in different projects (case of invoice networks): (a) project manager of contractor (PM); (b) superintendent (S);
(c) control officer (CO); and (d) technical office administrator (TOA).
© ASCE 04020155-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155
contracts. Also, the TOA of the client in Project C has the most
effective role, which is due to the consultant’s absence. The dia-
gram related to designers in Fig. 4 demonstrates that the designers
have an important impact on the change process of EPC contracts.
That is an advantage for these contracts because changes are tech-
nical issues in all the projects.
Although some of the results from the node-level analysis may
sound trivial and expected, some cases could not be easily per-
ceived without taking advantage of the analytics. As an example,
nodes with the highest betweenness centrality in the three projects
(for both invoice and change networks) can be mentioned. For the
invoice network, it is not far from the expectation that the TOM (as
the provider of invoices, who collects data from the personnel and
presents them to the consultant and client) will be at the most stra-
tegic position (as is the case for Project A). However, in the case of
lump-sum contract, the contractor PM (who is not by the definition
the invoice provider) has the highest betweenness centrality and is
in the position of controlling the information flow.
Most surprisingly, in Project C, the prominence of the TOA
(top-level management of engineering department at the client
organization, acting as an administrator to coordinate the client’s
engineers with the finance, budget, and contracting departments)
suggests that the client’s importance in the invoice process of
EPC contracts can dominate the invoice providers.
Another interesting insight regarding the betweenness comes
from the change network of traditional contracts. Consultants, as
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Comparison of the same roles in different projects (case of change networks): (a) project manager of contractor (PM); (b) superintendent (S);
(c) control officer (CO); (d) technical office administrator (TOA); and (e) designers’ average.

entities who set/coordinate technical relationships between the
owner and contractor, are in the position of bridging between the
two clusters of actors in technical issues. Because a change order is
a technical issue, the consultant is expected to be at the most stra-
tegic position in the change network. However, in the unit-price
project, the consultant PM (as the senior technical representative
of this entity) has the highest betweenness centrality; in Project B,
it is the contractor PM who owns such a position. Fig. 2(b) shows
that in this project, three representatives from the three parties
(i.e., consultant PM, contractor PM, and TOA) form a dense central
core within the network. However, when quantitatively comparing
the values of betweenness, it is revealed that in the case study, the
contractor PM has been overshadowing the other two actors. During
the validation phase, experts involved in that project commented
that due to the nature of the lump-sum contract, the consultant (un-
like the contractor) did not have enough incentives and was not as
active in moving forward the change process. Hence, in practice,
this role was (unofficially) assigned to the contractor.
More case examples of this type will be provided elsewhere.
Beyond specific observations in the case studies, however, an
emphasis on the capability of the introduced method/metrics as per-
formance measures in a construction project is of the present pa-
per’s intention. The results confirm that although centrality can be
used as a performance measure to control the flow of various work
processes (and subsequently, the roles involved). Firstly, various
centrality measures can highlight the influential nodes of a project
from different perspectives. Secondly, most project networks are
process-dependent phenomena; hence, instead of studying one
whole social network for the entire project, it would be more ben-
eficial to analyze theme-specific networks corresponding to various
functional evaluations.
Concluding Remarks
This study introduced the application of SNA as a strong tool for a
functional comparison among different construction procurement
strategies by scoping project delivery method and contract type
and focusing on cases of change orders and progress payments
(as two of the main causes for delays and overruns in construction
projects). This method can be readily applied to other aspects of
construction projects such as risk management and quality control,
among others. The results showed how the analytics derived from
SNA (at two levels of the network and individuals involved) can
offer to project managers and owners an additional control tool
in the management of their construction teams.
At a high level, the study has two major contributions:
• This study offers a useful technique and analytical tool to project
managers, engineers, consultants, and contractors for analyzing

© ASCE 04020155-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155

 projects’ actor-networks behavior. In this approach, a construc-
tion project is defined as a set of functional workflows, each of
which is translated into the information flow and social network
formed around it by individual actors. The approach and meth-
ods presented can particularly help owners to flesh out which
procurement route better fits their goals and conditions.
• The study provided a functional comparison of three common
procurement methods for managing the project’s payment and
change order process through an objective organizational analy-
sis. The results helped to highlight the strengths and weaknesses
of different delivery methods/contract types with respect to the
scoped workflows.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Despite the contributions, there are some limitations to the
study. First, although an attempt was made to make the case studies
as comparable as possible, there are still some essential differences
in the projects’ nature, which may challenge the generalization of
the results. The effect of project participants’ characteristics on the
performance of the project’s social network is a specific example in
the case. Edge weights in the invoice networks, for example, were
set as the time spent on communication (i.e., meetings or writing
letters/emails), which is highly dependent on individuals’ personal
and interpersonal qualifications. Although it was tried to minimize
the effect of such factors by selecting projects that involve the same
individuals for different roles and have owners with similar organi-
zational culture, the context-dependency of results is not deniable.
Moreover, similar to several other data-driven studies, challenges
associated with data collection impose additional limitations on
the reported study. The large number of individuals involved in the
projects and the complication of setting network boundaries can be
mentioned among other challenges in this regard. To draw conclu-
sions on attributes of different procurement strategies that can be
applicable at the industry scale, not only a greater number of
representative projects must be analyzed over longer durations, but
also more aspects of projects must be taken into the consideration.
In addition to addressing these limitations, ongoing and future re-
search will compare the behavior of networks at different phases of
construction projects. Future studies can also quantify the weight of
social networks through other measures such as the dollar value of in-
voices or monitory impact of changes that two actors have worked on.
Furthermore, other forms of procurement routes [such as public, private
partnership (PPP) and IPD) can be included in future comparisons.
Appendix. Nomenclature
Personnel of the Contractor
Contractor personnel include PM (contractor), superintendent, AS,
CO, TOM, TEM, civil surveyor (CS), mechanical surveyor (MS),
electrical surveyor (ES), land surveyor (LS) (topographer),
accountant (A), contractor administrative officer (AO), purchasing
officer (PO), and warehouse worker (WM).
Personnel of the Consultant
Consultant personnel include PM (consultant), mechanical de-
signer (MD), electrical designer (ED), civil designer (CD), struc-
tural designer (SD), civil supervisor (site) (CSup), mechanical
supervisor (site) (MSup), electrical supervisor (site) (ESup), con-
tracts officer (COFF), and estimator (E).
Personnel of the Client
Client personnel include TOA, CE (client), ME (client), EE (client),
OR, financial supervisor (FS), financial officer (FO), budget officer
(BO), AO, and financial manager (FM).
© ASCE 04020155-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance received
from the management and personnel of Banaye Rastin Company
(Tehran, Iran) during different steps of data collection and
validation.
References
Abbasian-Hosseini, A., M. Liu, and S. M. Hsiang. 2019. “Social network
analysis for construction crews.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 19 (2):
113–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1389642.
Akgul, B., B. Ozorhon, I. Dikmen, and M. Birgonul. 2017. “Social network
analysis of construction companies operating in international markets:
Case of Turkish contractors.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 23 (3): 327–337.
https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1073617.
Assaf, S., and S. Al-Hejji. 2006. “Causes of delay in large construction
projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 24 (4): 349–357. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010.
Baccarini, D. 1996. “The concept of project complexity—A review.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 14 (4): 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863
(95)00093-3.
Bastian, M., S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy. 2009. “Gephi: An open source
software for exploring and manipulating networks.” In Proc., Int. AAAI
Conf. on Weblogs and Social Media. Menlo Park, CA: Association for
the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
Chinowsky, P., J. Diekmann, and V. Galotti. 2008. “Social network model
of construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 134 (10): 804–812. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:10(804.
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.
Di Vincenzo, F., and D. Mascia. 2012. “Social capital in project-based or-
ganizations: Its role, structure, and impact on project performance.” Int.
J. Project Manage. 30 (1): 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman
.2011.03.006.
Heravi, G., and M. Mohammadian. 2017. “Cost overruns and delay in
municipal construction projects in developing countries.” AUT J.
Civ. Eng. 1 (1): 31–38. https://doi.org/10.22060/ceej.2017.12189
.5163.
Hossain, L. 2009. “Effect of organisational position and network centrality
on project coordination.” Int. J. Project Manage. 27 (7): 680–689.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.11.004.
Hwang, B. G., and L. Low. 2012. “Construction project change manage-
ment in Singapore: Status, importance and impact.” Int. J. Project Man-
age. 30 (7): 817–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.11.001.
Kereri, J., and C. M. Harper. 2018. “Trends in social network research in
construction teams: A literature review.” In Proc., Construction
Research Congress 2018, 115–125. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Koushki, P., K. Al-Rashid, and N. Kartam. 2005. “Delays and cost in-
creases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait.”
Constr. Manage. Econ. 23 (3): 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1080
/0144619042000326710.
Luu, D., S. Ng, and S. Chen. 2003. “Parameters governing the selection of
procurement system—An empirical survey.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Man-
age. 10 (3): 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980310478458.
Malisiovas, A., and X. Song. 2014. “Social network analysis (SNA) for
construction projects’ team communication structure optimization.”
In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2014, 2032–2042. Reston,
VA: ASCE.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Monaghan, S., J. Lavelle, and P. Gunnigle. 2017. “Mapping networks:
Exploring the utility of social network analysis in management research
and practice.” J. Bus. Res. 76 (Jul): 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jbusres.2017.03.020.
Nik-Bakht, M., and T. El-Diraby. 2016. “Communities of interest–interest
of communities: Social and semantic analysis of communities in infra-
structure discussion networks.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng.
31 (1): 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12152.
Nik-Bakht, M., and T. El-Diraby. 2017. “Project collective mind: Unlock-
ing project discussion networks.” Autom. Constr. 84 (Dec): 50–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.026.
Pourrostam, T., and A. Ismail. 2012. “Causes and effects of delays in
Iranian construction projects.” Int. J. Eng. Technol. 4 (5): 598–601.
https://doi.org/10.7763/IJET.2012.V4.441.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by San Francisco State University on 11/12/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pryke, S. 2017. Managing networks in project-based organizations.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ruan, X., E. G. Ochieng, and A. D. F. Price. 2011. “The evaluation of social
network analysis application’s in the UK construction industry.”
In Proc., 27th Annual ARCOM Conf., edited by C. Egbu and
E. C. W. Lou, 5–7. Bristol, UK: Association of Researchers in Con-
struction Management.
Tichy, N., M. Tushman, and C. Fombrun. 1979. “Social network analysis
for organizations.” Acad. Manage. Rev. 4 (4): 507–519. https://doi.org
/10.5465/amr.1979.4498309.
Wambeke, B. W., M. Liu, and S. M. Hsiang. 2012. “Using Pajek and cen-
trality analysis to identify a social network of construction trades.” J.
Constr. Eng. Manage. 138 (10): 1192–1201. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000524.

Pryke, S. 2012. Social network analysis in construction. Hoboken, NJ: Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and
Wiley. applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

© ASCE 04020155-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(1): 04020155