Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ehancng Trust Based Interface Management
Ehancng Trust Based Interface Management
net/publication/318272091
CITATIONS READS
69 2,537
6 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Wenxin Shen on 17 October 2017.
Abstract: The engineering-procurement-construction (EPC) method is gaining more acceptance worldwide as a project delivery strategy
due to the construction efficiencies gained through making one organization responsible for integration of the processes of design, procure-
ment, and construction. Such EPC projects are not without their difficulties—for example, the time pressures frequently brought by over-
lapping design, procurement, and construction increase uncertainty and complexity in managing the multiple interfaces between different
interacting stakeholders. This paper aims to quantitatively and systematically examine how trust, openness, and communication interrelate to
improve interface management performance in international EPC projects. A conceptual model is developed and tested with data collected
from a questionnaire survey and interviews. The path analysis demonstrates that trust not only can be directly conducive to interface
management but also has a positive impact on interface management through enhanced interorganizational openness and communication.
Social network analysis visualizes contractors’ industrial relations and reveals different impacts of stakeholders in trust and interface net-
works of international EPC contractors. This study advances previous research by developing a systematic framework on the basis of trust
for understanding and promoting interface management. Understanding the in-depth underlying interrelations of trust, openness, and com-
munication can contribute to improving alignment between stakeholders and to appropriately applying interface management in practice.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001351. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Engineer-procure-construct; Interface management; Trust; Information sharing; Communication; Social network;
Organizational boundary; Contracting.
Literature Review these ideals on the theoretical basis of previous studies (Ceric
2016, 2015; Manu et al. 2015; Brewer and Strahorn 2012;
An interface is formed in the course of interrelation and interaction Jäger 2008; Tang et al. 2006; Kadefors 2004; Crowley and
among different organizations and stakeholders. An organizational Karim 1995; Williamson 1979), as shown in Fig. 1. The objective
interface is a reciprocal relation between interdependent entities of this model is to improve interface management by achieving a
(Brown 1983). Interfaces have been classified into different cat- greater level of trust, openness, and communication among
egories such as internal, external, physical, contractual, organiza- stakeholders.
tional, static, and dynamic (Chen et al. 2007; Pavitt and Gibb
2003; Morris 1983). The focus in this research will be on inter-
organizational interfaces in EPC projects. Previous studies have Trust
identified inaccurate and inefficient information exchange as the In the construction industry, the ideal of trust between stakeholders
main reason for interface issues (Huang et al. 2008; Miles and is receiving more and more attention (Ceric 2015; Manu et al. 2015;
Ballard 2002; Al-Hammad 2000). Insufficient and inefficient com- Kadefors 2004; Bonet et al. 2000; Sarker et al. 1998). Trust, com-
munication hinders interface information from effectively flowing munication, and commitment are of great importance in developing
and being exchanged across organizational boundaries, which a collaborative culture in construction (Gorse and Emmitt 2003).
can result in poor interface management performance (Chen Trust can even be thought of as a route to successful project man-
et al. 2008). agement (Brewer and Strahorn 2012). One important objective of
Network theory is another way to consider interface manage- interface management is to reduce risks and transaction costs
ment in EPC projects. Diverse project stakeholders, such as own- caused by information asymmetry between parties in business in-
ers, contractors, designers, engineers, suppliers, local government, teractions (Jäger 2008). Specifically, EPC project contracts are nor-
financial organizations, and local residents (Wang et al. 2013; mally signed on the basis of conceptual design, leaving high
Tang et al. 2008), with their complicated interfaces are fundamen- uncertainties, and EPC activities in project implementation are
tally a social network. In this network, members’ close interac- reciprocally interdependent. In this circumstance, in which uncer-
tions can enhance free flow and exchange of resources (such tainty and interdependency coexist, a critical driver for project par-
as information, knowledge, technologies, money, and materials). ticipants to effectively interact is trust (Schoorman et al. 2007).
This entails the establishment of links that are not constrained Thus, trust is one of the most important strategies for addressing
by organizational boundaries to ensure the efficient transmission information asymmetry existing between parties (Ceric 2016),
of the required resources among organizations (Nadler and and can be considered an essential component in managing inter-
Tushman 1997). organizational relationships and developing satisfactory working
The networks of construction projects, however, tend to be less boundaries among interdependent project parties (Rousseau et al.
cohesive and unstable because they are mainly one-off and tempo- 1998).
rary, being disbanded at the end of a project (Kadefors 2004). It is From the perspective of the principal-agent theory, dealing with
therefore a challenge to increase the cohesion of an EPC project’s information asymmetry is closely related to aligning the interests of
social network. To deal with the complex interface issue, it is both agents and principals (Akerlof 1970; Stiglitz and Weiss 1981;
essential to improve interorganizational activities and govern the Eisenhardt 1989). Trust among owners, contractors, designers, and
relationships and interactions between parties, which can be pro- suppliers in construction projects can be explained by this theory
moted by partnering (Tang et al. 2006). With the core concept (Turner and Müller 2004; Jäger 2008). The establishment of trust
of win-win, partnering allows the active and effective exchange can help develop confidence among parties and encourage them to
of resources through diverse channels (Hong et al. 2012). By es- exchange ideas and resources. A climate of trust enables project
tablishing a long-term commitment among project participants, actors to make their organizational boundaries more flexible and
partnering creates the potential for development of a shared culture permeable, which allows active interorganizational exchange and
and a cooperative atmosphere that disregards organizational boun- communication (Crowley and Karim 1995). Within an environment
daries. Developing partnering relationships should be based on of trust, project participants can spontaneously engage in sharing
trust, openness, communication, common interests, and a mutual useful information and working cooperatively to realize their
understanding of the individual expectations of project participants common goals, which can considerably reduce transaction costs
(CII 1991). and avoid opportunistic behavior during the process of interaction
Nevertheless, the specific aspects of partnering that directly im- (Williamson 1979). The benefits of trust can be achieved through
prove interface management have not been comprehensively stud- promoting communication among stakeholders and thus improving
ied. There is a need to better understand how trust, openness, and project performance—for example, saving construction costs and
communication are interrelated to improve interface management reducing project risks (Cheung et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2007). Trust
performance in EPC projects. Thus, a conceptual model has been is also the base for project participants to form long-term partnering
Kumaraswamy 2007; Bresnen and Marshall 2000). Different from Compared with the traditional method of design-bid-build (DBB),
trust, which is attitudinal in nature (Cheung et al. 2003), openness more uncertainties and complexities remain in the EPC approach,
focuses on unrestricted and transparent access to information and which may make it riskier, especially for contractors (Öztaş and
knowledge (Peter and Deimann 2013). Tightly organized interfaces Ökmen 2004). Interface management is a proven approach em-
with closed external boundaries not only limit project participants ployed to respond to dynamic changes, reduce risks (Chen et al.
from interacting with each other freely and openly; they also pre- 2007), and mitigate the adverse influence of project complexity in
vent information from being transmitted accurately and in a timely EPC projects (Ahn et al. 2016). Good interface management
way, which is detrimental to smooth implementation of projects performance not only aids uncertainty reduction by standardizing
(Crowley and Karim 1995). handling processes and workflows for diverse interfaces but also
An open climate makes organizational boundaries more per- enhances complex relationships in the social network by improv-
meable and flexible. Openness is an ideal condition for efficient ing coordination and cooperation of project stakeholders. Poor
communication and for sharing information and resources,
interface management performance and interface mismatches
thereby encouraging project participants to cooperatively deal with
are often responsible for delays and excessive rework (Chen
interface-related issues (Amabile et al. 2004). Openness gives peo-
et al. 2007).
ple from different organizations access to the necessary resources
It is expected that trust, openness, and communication will assist
and information to execute the project, thus preventing interface
in achieving good interface management performance in terms of
issues from arising.
quality, time, and cost. Trust between parties is the cornerstone of
As one of the benefits of openness, exchange of integration in-
interface management. Based on trust and mutual commitment,
formation across organizational boundaries can contribute to sav-
project participants are more likely to be open to sharing their val-
ing time and money (Back and Moreau 2000). The open sharing of
information also discourages people from behaving opportunisti- ued resources, enabling more permeable and flexible organizational
cally (Hargadon and Sutton 1997), resulting in reduced project risk boundaries. But having the willingness to be open is not sufficient
and uncertainty projects (Wong and Cheung 2005). Project defini- to realize good interface management performance. Actions such as
tion in EPC contracts is normally unclear because such contracts establishing effective communication channels that adapt to organi-
are prepared on the basis of conceptual design and incomplete in- zational structure and characteristics are required to convey accu-
formation, leaving many internal uncertainties (Love et al. 2011). rate and comprehensive interface information and to facilitate
Open sharing of information between contractors and designers is efficient information exchange. Designing moderate interface
essential to keeping design documents accurate and uniform. This mechanisms for multidisciplinary and multiorganizational commu-
mutual information feedback between contractors and designers nication among parities is essential to achieving timely communi-
can help optimize design, minimize rework, and improve construct- cation, coordination, and cooperation.
ability (Wang et al. 2016). Information sharing among project par-
ticipants leads to substantial transaction cost reduction because less
Empirical Research Questions
money is spent to obtain necessary information for decision
making. Exploring factors that have an impact on interorganization interface
management, and how they interact to promote high interface man-
agement performance, is the central aspect of the model concept.
Communication Specifically, this study aims to examine the following research
Communication refers to the flow of data, information, knowledge, questions:
experience, and ideas between project participants, which requires • What is the level of trust between contractors and the interface-
management of various interfaces and interconnections (Tang et al. related stakeholders in EPC projects?
2006). Communication is considered to be vital for delivering proj- • What is the degree of openness between contractors and the
ects successfully and has a great impact on the performance of con- interface-related stakeholders in EPC projects?
struction projects (Bakens et al. 2005). Because valued information • What is the level of communication efficiency between
and resources exist in different organizations involving project de- contractors and the interface-related stakeholders in EPC
livery, establishing links across organizational boundaries to ensure projects?
that they flow efficiently between organizations is essential (Nadler • What is the level of interface management performance in EPC
and Tushman 1997). projects?
Efficient communication promotes cooperation and collabora- • What are the interrelations among these themes?
tion among project participants on the basis of trust (Sarker Answering these questions can broaden existing, currently lim-
et al. 1998), which is critical to interface management (Shokri ited, understanding of how these factors interrelate with the inter-
et al. 2012). Sound communication assists in preventing interface organizational interfaces in EPC projects.
openness with stakeholders, (3) level of communication with stake- Referring to the table, Cronbach’s alpha value for the level of
holders, and (4) performance of interface management with trust is 0.868, which indicates that the internal consistency reliabil-
stakeholders. ity of the data is good (Sharma 1996). The top three scores are
Because Chinese contractors are becoming more and more ac- given to trust between contractors and owners, trust between
tive in the international market [65 were listed as among the top 250 contractors and suppliers, and trust between contractors and design-
international contractors in 2015 (ENR 2015)], they were chosen as ers, which demonstrates that international EPC contractors have
questionnaire respondents. A total of 165 questionnaires were sent confidence in suppliers, owners, and designers. The score of trust
out to international EPC contractors in China either by mail or de- between contractors and local residents is the lowest, indicating that
livered in hand. After excluding two invalid questionnaires, 107 contractors’ relations with stakeholders indirectly involved in proj-
effective questionnaires were returned with an acceptable response ects is relatively weak.
rate of 64.8%. On average, the respondents had 13 years of work
experience in the construction industry, with rich knowledge and Openness
skills in executing international EPC projects.
After completion of the questionnaires, semistructured inter- Table 2 summarizes the degree of openness between stakeholders
views were conducted to obtain more detailed information about evaluated by respondents on a Likert scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very
interface management in practice. Forty-two respondents with more high). Cronbach’s alpha value for the degree of openness is 0.887
(Table 2), which indicates that the internal consistency reliability of
than 10 years of experience in construction and holding senior
the data is good (Sharma 1996). The degree of openness between
company positions such as project manager were selected to inter-
contractors and designers receives the highest, followed by open-
view. Questions from the questionnaire were used as the interview
ness between contractors and suppliers, which demonstrates that
framework, and the respondents further explained their views on
contractors, designers, and suppliers in international EPC projects
specific questions based on their experience. The outcomes of the
have a high degree of openness with each other. This is because
face-to-face interviews were used to interpret the survey results for a
designers, suppliers, and contractors are the key members of the
deeper understanding of interface management in EPC projects.
project team and are reciprocally interdependent in the business
chain. Dealing with multiple interface issues requires project par-
Data Analysis Techniques ticipants to be open to sharing information and resources, which
can merge their organizational boundaries and, consequently,
The collected data were analyzed employing Statistical Package for
Social Science (SPSS 19.0) and UCINET. The data analysis tech-
Table 1. Level of Trust between Contractors and Project Stakeholders
niques adopted in this study included (1) ranking cases, (2) reliabil-
ity test, (3) Pearson correlation, (4) path analysis, and (5) social Trust Rating Rank Cronbach’s α
network analysis. Contractors–owners 4.02 1 0.868
Means of samples and ranking cases were applied to reveal the Contractors–suppliers 4.02 1
level of trust, openness, communication, and interface management Contractors–designers 4.00 3
in delivering EPC projects. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used Contractors–local government 3.74 4
to assess the reliability and validity of the data, with the hurdles Contractors–consultants 3.71 5
0.7 ≤ α < 0.8 (acceptable), 0.8 ≤ α < 0.9 (good), and α ≥ 0.9 (ex- Contractors–financial organizations 3.71 6
cellent) (Sharma 1996). Pearson correlation analysis was employed Contractors–subcontractors 3.60 7
Contractors–local residents 3.52 8
for measuring the strength of association between interface man-
agement performance of different stakeholders. Path analysis
was applied to validate the relationships in the conceptual model.
Table 2. Degree of Openness between Contractors and Stakeholders
Social network analysis (SNA) is regarded as a powerful way to
exhibit interrelationships between individuals or organizations by Openness Rating Rank Cronbach’s α
capturing and visualizing the social network structure and interac- Contractors–designers 3.94 1 0.887
tions among multiple stakeholders (Bourne and Walker 2006; Cova Contractors–suppliers 3.83 2
and Salle 2006; Rowley 1997). It can be used to compresence and Contractors–owners 3.77 3
analyze interface management in construction projects viathe Contractors–consultants 3.69 4
sociogram, which is a mathematical technique to formulate inter- Contractors–financial organizations 3.67 5
actions between actors (Shokri et al. 2015a, b). Because interface Contractors–local residents 3.61 6
issues are fundamentally related to social networks, SNA was ap- Contractors–local government 3.58 7
Contractors–subcontractors 3.52 8
plied in this research as a quantitative method to reflect the dynamic
Table 4. Performance and Correlations of Interface Management between Contractors and Stakeholders
Interface Rating Rank C–D C–S C–SU C–C C–O C–FO C–LG C–LR
C-D 4.00 1 1 — — — — — — —
C-S 3.95 2 0.597a 1 — — — — — —
C-SU 3.85 3 0.585a 0.511a 1 — — — — —
C-C 3.78 4 0.318a 0.475a 0.214b 1 — — — —
C-O 3.68 5 0.476a 0.353a 0.530a 0.473a 1 — — —
C-FO 3.41 6 0.158 0.345a 0.144 0.647a 0.319a 1 — —
C-LG 3.36 7 0.422a 0.346a 0.529a 0.459a 0.610a 0.396a 1 —
C-LR 3.25 8 0.446a 0.347a 0.333a 0.253a 0.287a 0.468a 0.540a 1
Note: C–C = contractors–consultants; C–D = contractors–designers; C–FO = contractors–financial organizations; C–LG = contractors–local government;
C–LR = contractors–local residents; C–O = contractors–owners; C–SU = contractors–subcontractors; C–S = contractors–suppliers.
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Measures of Centrality
Centrality is a concept used to measure the prominence of an actor
in a network (Freeman 1978). If an actor’s centrality is high, he or
Fig. 2. Final model for interface management in international EPC she has strong influence or power in the network. The three most
projects; *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); common measures of centrality are (1) degree, indicating the num-
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed) ber of direct connections to an actor; (2) closeness, capturing
how independent an actor is from the communications flow and
measured by the number of an actor’s indirect connections; and
(3) betweeness, assessing the power or capability of an actor by
As shown in Fig. 2, trust influences interface management per-
calculating how often he or she travels a path between two non-
formance by driving openness and effective communication. The
connected nodes” (Freeman 1978). A person with high betweeness
path analysis results validate the paths shown in Fig. 1. Path 1:
centrality occupies a brokerage position and can be considered a
trust → interface management performance; Path 2: trust →
gatekeeper or broker who has the power of to control the resources
communication → interface management performance; and Path 3:
and information flowing through the network (Krackhardt 1992).
trust → openness → communication → interface management per-
Table 6 scores the three centralities s of the trust and interface
formance. The first and second paths indicate that trust not only is
networks of EPC contractors and project stakeholders. It shows
directly conducive to good interface management performance but
that, in a trust network, owners, suppliers, and designers are the
also has a positive impact on interface management performance
top three in all three types of centrality, demonstrating that they
through enhanced communication. The third path shows that trust are highly reliable from the perspective of international EPC con-
has a significant impact on openness and that openness exerts its tractors. This also suggests that EPC contractors have high confi-
influence on interface management performance through improved dence that owners will meet their commitments and that designers
communication. These paths demonstrate that communication plays and suppliers can competently carry out their assigned project
a partial mediation role in the relationship between trust and inter- tasks. Comparatively, in an interface network, suppliers, designers,
face management performance, but plays a full mediation role be- and subcontractors are the top three in the three types of centrality,
tween openness and interface management performance. The although subcontractors rank fourth in betweenness centrality. This
results indicate that establishing effective communication channels is quite reasonable because international EPC contractors, design-
that adapt to a project’s characteristics and delivery processes is ers, suppliers, and subcontractors are team members and have high
essential for trust and openness to facilitate interface management connectivity with each other in project-implementing processes.
performance. Notably, suppliers play significant roles in EPC contractors’
trust and interface networks. Good relationships with key suppliers
can help contractors obtain cost-effective materials and equipment
Social Network Analysis
in global markets. This is is particularly important when consider-
Construction projects are multidisciplinary and multiorganiza- ing that a large proportion of EPC projects’ costs are related to
tional. As the results in Table 4 reveal, the interwoven relationships material and equipment, especially in large-scale and technically
among stakeholders fundamentally represent a social network. Be- complex projects such as hydropower (Azambuja et al. 2014;
cause of the dynamic and one-off nature of construction projects, Du et al. 2016). As shown in Table 6, suppliers are first in both
the networks in the construction industry are normally less cohesive trust and interface networks regarding degree, closeness, and
and unstable than those in the manufacturing industry (Chinowsky betweeness centralities, indicating that EPC contractors have estab-
et al. 2008), and the interactions among project stakeholders in lished high levels of trust-based cooperation with suppliers to im-
these networks are complicated. Social network analysis is an ideal prove international EPC project performance.
To explore whether there is consensus among the stakeholders’ respondents have trust relationships with those stakeholders
rankings in different centralities, Spearman rank correlation coef- (Borgatti and Everett 1997). The rules of interpreting the interface
ficients were calculated and are summarized in Table 7. The results network (Fig. 4) are similar to those for the trust network. The po-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 06/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
show that in both networks, the correlation coefficients among sitions of actors indicate the number of their linkages to others: the
degree, closeness, and betweenness centralities are higher than 0.8 actors with more ties to others are located in the center, whereas
(at p < 0.01), indicating that they are significantly correlated with those with fewer ties are scattered around the periphery.
each other. As shown in Fig. 3, in the trust network the owners, designers,
and suppliers are located in the center of the sociogram, suggesting
Sociograms of International EPC Contractor Trust and that EPC contractors’ trust relationships with these three stakehold-
Interface Networks ers are most influential. This is in tune with the survey results in
Based on degree centralities, this study used two-mode network Table 1, where trust between EPC contractors and these three stake-
analysis for visualizing the relations between international EPC holders is ranked at the top. The interviewed project managers con-
contractors and project stakeholders to further understand trust firmed the significant impacts of building trust relationship with
and interface networks. The results are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, these stakeholders, saying, for example, “In the bidding stage,
which represent the multidimensional scaling of the trust and many of our jobs were largely attributed to owners’ trust based
interface networks of EPC contractors, respectively. The 107 ques- on our good industry reputation or our past successful cooperation
tionnaire respondents are represented by round nodes, and 8 stake- experiences, and in the implementing stage, we highly relied on
holders in EPC projects are represented by square nodes. The trust-worthy designers and suppliers to help us fulfill the EPC
relations between actors (the respondents and the stakeholders) project tasks.” Other stakeholders such as local residents are located
are represented by links (Wasserman and Faust 1994; Pryke relatively far from the center of the interface network, indicating
2004). Each node is sized according to the actor’s betweenness cen- that EPC contractors’ trust relationships with these stakeholders
trality, which is a measure of the extent to which the actor controls need to be gradually developed.
the interaction of others. In the trust network (Fig. 3), (1) the nodes In Fig. 4, it is observed that the eight stakeholders can be
representing the stakeholders are close to each other if they have grouped into four clusters. The first cluster, consisting of designers,
trust relationships with almost the same respondents; (2) the nodes suppliers, and subcontractors, is located in the core of the socio-
representing the respondents are located close to each other if they gram, illustrating that EPC contractors interact most frequently
have trust relationships with almost the same stakeholders; and with these stakeholders. This makes intuitive sense because EPC
(3) the stakeholder nodes are close to the respondent nodes if those contractors take total responsibility for carrying out engineering,
procurement, and construction, and designers, suppliers, and sub- dealing with transaction costs arising from uncertainty and oppor-
contractors are the essential upstream and downstream partners in tunism (Williamson 1979; Zaheer et al. 1998; Cheung and Pang
the business chain. This is in line with the survey results in Table 4, 2013). Fig. 2 shows that trust can both directly enhance openness
where the performance of interface management between EPC con- and influence communication to improve interface management
tractors and these three stakeholders is ranked at the top. performance, showing that it can reduce information asymmetry
The second cluster includes two nodes representing owners and and lower monitoring costs by promoting openness and effective
consultants. As the owner’s agents, consultants represent the own- communication among stakeholders.
ers by sending orders to contractors and approving design, equip- It is notable that trust, openness, communication, and inter-
ment manufacture, and construction options (Tang et al. 2009). face management performance of “contractors–designers” and
Therefore, in many circumstances consultants’ behaviors are con- “contractors–suppliers” are all ranked in the top three in Tables 1–4,
sidered the owners’ organizational behavior from the perspective of demonstrating that EPC contractors perform well with designers
EPC contractors. This explains why the two nodes are near each and suppliers in terms of interface management. The results of social
other in the interface network (Fig. 4). network analysis can explain the critical roles of designers and
The third cluster in Fig. 4 includes local governments and finan- suppliers in the networks of international EPC contractors.
cial organizations. Local government exercises permitting power As shown in Table 6 and Figs. 3 and 4, suppliers have the high-
over a project by evaluating its influence on the economy, society, est centralities and are located in the center of the trust and interface
and the environment. Financial organizations, such as the Export- networks, showing that their ties spread out among various
Import Bank of China, normally require local governments’ secu- international EPC contractors. The results support the proposi-
rity for loans to develop a project. From the perspective of tion that procurement risk management is critical in delivering
international EPC contractors, interactions with these two stake- international large-scale, technically complex EPC projects be-
holders are less frequent than they are for the first and the second cause procurement costs account for a large share of total project
clusters. However, local governments and financial organizations investment (Azambuja et al. 2014; Du et al. 2016). By establishing
can largely decide whether or not a project will proceed. long-term trust-based cooperative relationships with suppliers
Local residents are located peripherally with the lowest central- worldwide, contractors can use their global channels to reduce
ity in the network of EPC contractors (Fig. 4), indicating that logistical uncertainties caused by long-distance transportation
contractors’ ties with local residents are relatively weak. Local res- and thereby reduce equipment and materials delivery time and cost.
idents’ low participation can be attributed to the lack of a mecha-
The interviewed project managers indicated that they prefer major
nism to incorporate community needs into the project development
equipment suppliers from the home country based on their success-
process. Besides, local governments and owners are more critical in
ful cooperative experiences with them. Choosing these suppliers
dealing with the issues such as land acquisition and resident reset-
lowers the costs stable and cost-effective equipment and materials
tlement, whereas EPC contractors mainly focus on building local
and reduces problems associated with the equipment design–
infrastructure and protecting the environment.
manufacturing–installation interface.
Designers also have high centralities and are located in the
Discussion center of the networks (Table 6 and Fig. 4), demonstrating their
strong role in delivering EPC projects. EPC contracts signed
The results of this research have confirmed and advanced the between contractors and owners are normally based on conceptual
conclusions of previous studies and have broad theoretical and design, leaving high uncertainties in the early stages of project
practical implications. Testing the model of interface management implementation. Interviewed project managers confirmed that it
in EPC projects supports the belief in trust’s prominent role in is critical for contractors to create interface conversations between
and cost-effective design option that saved approximately US terface management regarding trust, openness and communication.
$50 million. This case is in line with the finding that effective com- The results demonstrate that, on the basis of trust and openness,
munication has a strong influence on the optimization of design EPC contractors have developed good relationships with the main
options and design change management (Wang et al. 2016). project stakeholders such as owners, and are able to communicate
It is also notable that owners’ positions in the trust network dif- efficiently with key EPC team members such as designers and
fer from their positions in the interface network. Whereas designers suppliers.
and suppliers occupy central positions in both networks, owners are Path analysis of the conceptual model reveals three critical paths
in the core of the trust network (Fig. 3) but are relatively far from from trust to interface management performance: (1) trust → interface
the center of the interface network (Fig. 4). This discrepancy can be management performance; (2) trust → communication → interface
explained by the final model (Fig. 2), in which interface manage- management performance; and (3) trust → openness → communi-
ment performance is influenced not only by trust but also by open- cation → interface management performance (Fig. 2). These paths
ness and communication. Because EPC contractors take sole demonstrate that communication plays a partial mediation role in
responsibility for carrying out EPC tasks, owners are not actively the relationship between trust and interface management perfor-
involved in routine jobs. This is different from DBB projects, in mance but a full mediation role between openness and interface
which contractors need to interact with owners frequently in deal- management performance.
ing with design errors and omissions, unforeseen site conditions, Social network analysis allows visualization of relations be-
equipment and materials quality problems, and other relevant issues tween international EPC contractors and project stakeholders to
(Pishdad-Bozorgi and Garza 2012; Tang et al. 2013). further understand trust and interface networks. In the trust network
The findings from this study have broad practical implications (Fig. 3), owners, designers, and suppliers are located in the center
for improving the management of complicated interorganizational of the sociogram, suggesting that EPC contractors’ trust relation-
interfaces in international EPC projects. They can be translated into ships with these three stakeholders are the most influential. In the
the practical strategies discussed next. interface network (Fig. 4), from the perspective of international
First, the interface management model (Fig. 2) shows that build- EPC contractors, project stakeholders are grouped into four clus-
ing trust is fundamental to openness, communication, and interface ters. The first cluster, consisting of designers, suppliers, and sub-
management performance. This means that contractors should es- contractors, is located in the core of the sociogram, illustrating that
tablish trust-based partnering relationships with stakeholders by EPC contractors interact most frequently with these stakeholders,
creating a cooperative climate, allocating risks/rewards equitably, who are essential upstream and downstream partners in the busi-
and enhancing team building in project implementation. ness chain. The second cluster includes owners and consultants;
Second, the study reveals communication’s direct mediational in many circumstances, consultants represent owners in orders
effects on interface management performance. This suggests that to contractors and design, equipment manufacture, and construc-
building formal and informal communication channels that adapt to tion option approval. The third cluster includes local governments
EPC project characteristics and delivery processes should be empha- and financial organizations, which, in controlling project permis-
sized to create trust and good interface management performance. sion and financial support, largely decide whether or not a project
Third, because openness is a significant element in improving will proceed. Local residents are at the periphery of the sociogram
interface management, measures should be taken to increase infor- with the lowest centrality in the EPC contractor network (Fig. 4),
mation sharing and traceabilityto reduce information asymmetry indicating that international EPC contractors’ ties with local resi-
and conflicts arising from opportunistic behavior. dents are relatively weak.
Forth, the results of social network analysis highlight that con- It is noteworthy that owners’ positions differ between the trust
tractors’ ties with local residents are relatively weak. Measures network and the interface network. Owners locate in the core of the
should be adopted to enhance local participation in dealing with trust network, whereas they are relatively far from the center of the
social and environmental issues related to EPC projects, thereby interface network. This can be explained by the difference between
incorporating community needs into project development. EPC projects and DBB projects: in EPC projects contractors take
sole responsibility for tasks, in which owners are not actively
involved.
Conclusions The findings suggest broad practical strategies to improve
management of complicated interorganizational interfaces in
international EPC projects. These include (1) building close inter-
Findings
organizational links and social networks with various project stake-
The engineering-procurement-construction (EPC) method is gain- holders to resolve problems of resource restriction; (2) promoting
ing acceptance worldwide because of its high efficiency and inte- partnering among participants on the basis of trust and equitable
grative solutions (Hale et al. 2009). A key challenge in delivering risk/reward allocation to facilitate information sharing, mitigate
in both theory and practice. First, this study advances previous Appendix S1, the survey questionnaire, is available online in the
research on interface management (Shokri et al. 2015a, b, 2012; ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary.org).
Chen et al. 2007; Pavitt and Gibb 2003) by developing a systematic
framework based on trust for understanding and promoting inter-
face management. Second, by drawing a holistic picture, this re- References
search reveals that trust not only directly promotes interface Ahn, S., Shokri, S., Lee, S., Haas, C., and Haas, R. (2016). “Exploratory
management but also exerts an influence on communication study on the effectiveness of interface-management practices in dealing
through enhanced openness, thereby improving interface manage- with project complexity in large-scale engineering and construction
ment performance. By achieving a greater level of trust, a project projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000488,
team will be able to enhance openness and communication within 04016039.
the network, which in turn will lead to higher interface management Akerlof, G. (1970). “The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the
performance. Third, this research provides valuable insights into market mechanism.” Q. J. Econ., 84(3), 488–500.
Al-Hammad, A. M. (2000). “Common interface problems among various
relationships between stakeholders by combining interface manage-
construction parties.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 14(2), 71–74.
ment with social network theory. The results reveal the different Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., and Kramer, S. J. (2004).
impacts of stakeholders in the trust and interface networks of “Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived
international EPC contractors, which can help contractors optimally leader support.” Leadersh. Q., 15(1), 5–32.
allocate resources in interactions with high-impact stakeholders, Anvuur, A. M., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2007). “Conceptual model of
such as designers, suppliers, and owners. Fourth, comprehensively partnering and alliancing.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
understanding in-depth underlying interrelations can contribute to 0733-9364(2007)133:3(225), 225–234.
improving alignment between stakeholders and to appropriately ap- Azambuja, M., Ponticelli, S., and O’Brien, W. (2014). “Strategic procure-
ment practices for the industrial supply chain.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
plying interface management in practice. Specifically, the insights
age., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000851, 06014005.
from this study can help contractors strategically develop their Back, W. E., and Moreau, K. A. (2000). “Cost and schedule impacts of
industrial relationships and handle complex interface issues to im- information management on EPC process.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061
prove international EPC project outcomes. /(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:2(59), 59–70.
Bakens, W., Foliente, G., and Jasuja, M. (2005). “Engaging stakeholders in
performance-based building: Lessons from the Performance-Based
Limitations and Future Research Directions Building (PeBBu) network.” Build. Res. Inf., 33(2), 149–158.
The main research limitation of this study is its use of data collected Bonet, I., Frey, B. S., and Huck, S. (2000). More order and less law: On
contract enforcement, trust and crowding (RWP00-009), John F.
only from Chinese EPC contractors. Nevertheless, because the con- Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA.
ceptual model is developed based on theories derived from world- Borgatti, S. P. (2009). “2-Mode concepts in social network analysis.” Ency-
wide experience, it appears that the insights it offers are transferable clopedia of complexity and system science, Springer, New York.
to interface management in different project delivery systems, such Borgatti, S. P., and Everett, M. G. (1997). “Network analysis of 2-mode
as design-bid-build (DBB) and build-operation-transfer (BOT)/ data.” Social Networks, 19(3), 243–269.
private-public-partnership (PPP). Future studies could be con- Bourne, L., and Walker, D. H. (2006). “Using a visualising tool to study
ducted to (1) validate the model by collecting data worldwide from stakeholder influence—Two Australian examples.” J. Project Manage.,
different project delivery approaches and different perspectives of 37(1), 5–21.
Bresnen, M., and Marshall, N. (2000). “Motivation, commitment and the
project participants such as clients, designers, and consultants;
use of incentives in partnerships and alliances.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
(2) identify more factors impacting the performance of interface 18(5), 587–598.
management from a boarder view, considering the dynamic features Brewer, G., and Strahorn, S. (2012). “Trust and the project management
of project execution; and (3) studying how to enhance efficient in- body of knowledge.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 19(3), 286–305.
formation circulation and reduce conflicts among interface-related Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces,
stakeholders by developing appropriate industrial networks. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Cerić, A. (2015). “Trust in construction projects: Literature analysis
using keywords.” Organiz. Technol. Manage. Constr. Int. J., 7(1),
1179–1185.
Data Availability Statement Cerić, A. (2016). Trust in construction projects, Routledge, Oxon, MD.
Chen, Q., Reichard, G., and Beliveau, Y. (2007). “Interface management—
Data analyzed during this study are available from the correspond- A facilitator of lean construction and agile project management.” Proc.,
ing author by request. Information about the Journal’s data-sharing Int. Group for Lean Construction, East Lansing, MI, 57–66.
policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28 Chen, Q., Reichard, G., and Beliveau, Y. (2008). “Multiperspective ap-
ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0001263. proach to exploring comprehensive cause factors for interface issues.”
model of construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE) projects.” Int. J. Project Manage., 33(7), 1495–1508.
0733-9364(2008)134:10(804), 804–812. Miles, R. S., and Ballard, G. (2002). “Problems in the interfaces between
CII (Construction Industry Institute). (1991). In search of partnering mechanical design and construction: A research proposal.” J. Constr.
excellence, Construction Industry Development Agency, Sydney, Res., 3(1), 83–95.
NSW, Australia. Morgan, R. M., and Hunt, S. D. (1994). “The commitment-trust theory of
CII (Construction Industry Institute). (2014). Interface management imple- relationship marketing.” J. Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
mentation guideline (IMIGe), IR Interface Management, Univ. of Texas Morris, P. W. G. (1983). “Managing project interfaces—Key points for
at Austin, Austin, TX. project success.” Project management handbook, D. I. Cleland and
Cova, B., and Salle, R. (2006). “Communications and stakeholders.” The W. R. Kings, eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
management of complex projects: A relationship approach, S. Pryke Nadler, D. A., and Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing by design: The power
and H. Smyth, eds., Blackwell, Oxford, U.K., 131–146. of organizational architecture, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
Crowley, L. G., and Karim, M. A. (1995). “Conceptual model of partner- Nooteboom, U. (2004). “Interface, management improves on-time,
ing.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1995)11:5(33), on-budget delivery of megaprojects.” J. Pet. Technol., 56(8), 32–34.
33–39. Öztaş, A., and Ökmen, Ö. (2004). “Risk analysis in fixed-price design-
Dettman, K., and Bayer, D. (2012). “Alignment partnering: A bridge to build construction projects.” Build. Environ., 39(2), 229–237.
ADR processes?” J. Legal Affairs Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 5(2), Pavitt, T. C., and Gibb, A. G. F. (2003). “Interface management within
60–66. construction: In particular, building façade.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
Du, L., et al. (2016). “Enhancing engineer-procure-construct project 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:1(8), 8–15.
performance by partnering in international markets: Perspective from Peter, S., and Deimann, M. (2013). “On the role of openness in education:
Chinese construction companies.” Int. J. Project Manage., 34(1), A historical reconstruction.” Open Prax., 5(1), 7–14.
30–43. Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., and Garza, J. M. (2012). “Comparative analysis of
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). “Agency theory: An assessment and review.” design-bid-build and design-build from the standpoint of claims.”
Acad. Manage. Rev., 14(1), 57–74. Proc., Construction Research Congress 2012, ASCE, Reston, VA,
ENR (Engineering News-Record). (2015). Top 250 international contrac- 21–30.
tors, McGraw-Hill, New York. Pryke, S. D. (2004). “Analysing construction project coalitions: Exploring
Freeman, L. C. (1978). “Centrality in social networks conceptual clarifica- the application of social network analysis.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
tion.” Social Netw., 1(3), 215–239. 22(8), 787–797.
Gainey, T. W., and Klaas, B. S. (2003). “The outsourcing of training and Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., and Camerer, C. (1988). “Not so
development: Factors impacting client satisfaction.” J. Manage. 29(2), different after all: A cross-discipline view on trust.” Acad. Manage.
207–229. Rev., 23(3), 393–404.
Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations, Addison- Wesley, Rowley, T. J. (1997). “Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of
Boston. stakeholder influences.” Acad. Manage. Rev., 22(4), 887–910.
Gorse, C. A., and Emmitt, S. (2003). “Investigating interpersonal commu- Sarkar, M. B., Aulakh, P. S., and Cavusgil, S. T. (1998). “The strategic role
nication during construction progress meetings: Challenges and oppor- of relational bonding in interorganizational collaborations: An empiri-
tunities.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 10(4), 234–244. cal study of the global construction industry.” J. Int. Manage., 4(2),
Hale, D. R., Shrestha, P. P., Gibson, G. E., Jr., and Migliaccio, G. C. (2009). 85–107.
“Empirical comparison of design/build and design/bid/build project Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (2007). “An integrative
delivery methods.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future.” Acad. Manage.
.1943-7862.0000017, 579–587. Rev., 32(2), 344–354.
Hargadon, A., and Sutton, R. I. (1997). “Technology brokering and inno- Sharma, S., (1996). Applied multivariate techniques, Wiley, New York,
vation in a product development firm.” Administrative Sci. Q., 42(4), 116–123.
716–749. Shokri, S., Ahn, S., Czerniawski, T., Haas, C. T., and Lee, S. H. (2014).
Hong, Y., Chan, D. W. M., Chan, A. P. C., and Yeung, J. F. Y. (2012). “Current state of interface management in mega-construction projects.”
“Critical analysis of partnering trend in construction journals.” J. Man- Proc., Construction Research Congress 2014, ASCE, Reston, VA,
age. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000084, 82–95. 2266–2275.
Huang, R. Y., Huang, C. T., Lin, H., and Ku, W. H. (2008). “Factor analysis Shokri, S., Ahn, S., Lee, S., Haas, C. T., and Haas, R. C. G. (2015a).
of interface problems among construction parties-A case study of “Current status of interface management in construction: Drivers and
MRT.” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., 16(1), 52–63. effects of systematic interface management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
Jäger, C. (2008). The principal-agent theory within the context of economic 23(2), 04015070.
sciences, Herstellung und Verlag, Books on Demand, Norderstadt, Shokri, S., Haas, C. T., Haas, R. C. G., and Lee, S. H. (2015b). “Interface-
Germany. management process for managing risks in complex capital projects.”
Kadefors, A. (2004). “Trust in project relationships—Inside the black box.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000990,
Int. J. Project Manage., 22(3), 175–182. 04015069.
Krackhardt, D. (1992). “The strength of strong ties: The importance of Shokri, S., Safa, M., Haas, C. T., Haas, R. C., Maloney, K., and
philos in organizations.” Organizations and networks: Structure, form, MacGillivray, S. (2012). “Interface management model for mega capital
(2007). “Risk management in the Chinese construction industry.” contractual relations.” J. Law Econ., 22(2), 233–261.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:12(944), Wong, P. S. P., and Cheung, S. O. (2005). “Structural equation model of
944–956. trust and partnering success.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742
Tang, W., Qiang, M., Duffield, C. F., Young, D. M., and Lu, Y. (2008). -597X(2005)21:2(70), 70–80.
“Incentives in the Chinese construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Wright, J. N. (1997). “Time and budget: The twin imperatives of a project
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:7(457), 457–467. sponsor.” Int. J. Project Manage., 15(3), 181–186.
Tang, W., Qiang, M., Duffield, C. F., Young, D. M., and Lu, Y. (2009). Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., and Perrone, V. (1998). “Does trust matter?
“Enhancing total quality management by partnering in construction.” Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 135(4), 129–141. performance.” Organiz. Sci., 9(2), 141–159.