Recently, architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) project teams have begun to adopt the integrated project delivery (IPD) method with increased frequency. This adoption has been made on the assumption that IPD will lead to beneficial project team dynamics and outcomes. Although novel and potentially useful, we contend that the mere implementation of the IPD method does not in and of itself guarantee successful project team dynamics and outcomes. In specific, in this manuscript we argue that commitment disparities between project team members are problematic for numerous project team dynamics and outcomes: goal alignment, communication behaviors, and decision-quality. Using data from 21 IPD project teams, we show this to be the case. Results from this investigation suggest that when members’ commitment levels vary within project teams, goal misalignment, poor communication behaviors, and reduced decision quality are expected to follow. Moreover, results suggest that this is especially likely to occur when members’ commitment levels are low as opposed to high. This work contributes substantially to our understanding of project team dynamics in the AEC industry, especially as they relate to those delivered under contractually followed IPD. Although the IPD method holds the potential to be beneficial, these results suggest that such benefits accrue only if team members’ commitment levels are both high and uniform. In the absence of such conditions, problematic team-level dynamics and outcomes are expected to ensue.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Business and International Management
- Management of Technology and Innovation