Collaborative Behavior in Relational Contracting Projects in Hong Kong—A Contractor’s Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Research Objective One:To assess relational attitudes, collaborative intentions, and collaborative behavior of CPTs in relational contracting projects.
- Research Objective Two:To establish the relationship between relational attitudes, collaborative intentions, and collaborative behavior of CPTs in relational contracting projects.
2. Relational Contracting and Collaboration—Key Lessons from the Literature
2.1. Relational Contracting
2.2. Coordination, Cooperation, and Collaboration
2.3. Effective Collaboration through Teamwork in Relational Contracting Projects
3. Theory of Planned Behavior
4. Hypotheses Development
4.1. Relational Attitudes and Collaborative Intentions
4.2. Collaborative Intentions and Teamwork
4.3. Collaborative Intentions and Affective Trust
4.4. Collaborative Intentions and Extra-Role Behavior
5. Research Methods
5.1. Data Collection
5.2. Measurement of Constructs
6. Data Analysis
6.1. Preliminary Analysis of Data
6.2. Reliability and Factor Analysis
6.3. Convergent and Discriminant Validity Test
6.4. Model Testing
7. Discussion
7.1. Contributions
7.2. Limitations
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cropper, S.; Ebers, M.; Huxham, C.; Ring, P.S. Introducing inter-organizational Relations. In The Oxford Handbook of Inter–Organizational Relations; Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., Ring, P., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsson, J.; Larsson, L. Integration, application and importance of collaboration in sustainable project management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ring, P.S.; Van de Ven, A.H. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1994, 19, 90–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksson, P.E.; Volker, L.; Kadefors, A.; Lingegård, S.; Larsson, J.; Rosander, L. Collaborative procurement strategies for infrastructure projects: A multiple-case study. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. Law 2019, 172, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bygballe, L.E.; Dewulf, G.; Levitt, R.E. The interplay between formal and informal contracting in integrated project delivery. Eng. Proj. Organ. J. 2015, 5, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faems, D.; Janssens, M.; Madhok, A.; Looy, B.V. Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: Connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. Acad. Manag. J. 2008, 51, 1053–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwawu, W.; Hughes, W. The impact of relational contracting on the construction industry. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, London, UK, 7–9 September 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Kadefors, A. Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2004, 22, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, J.K.; Slevin, D.P.; English, B. Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of owner/contractor relationships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2009, 27, 638–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bresnen, M.; Marshall, N. Partnering in construction: A critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksson, P.E.; Nilsson, T.; Atkin, B. Client perceptions of barriers to partnering. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2008, 15, 527–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksson, P.E.; Atkin, B.; Nilsson, T. Overcoming barriers to partnering through cooperative procurement procedures. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2009, 16, 598–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gadde, L.E.; Dubois, A. Partnering in the construction industry—Problems and opportunities. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2010, 16, 254–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, S.T.; Rose, T.M.; Mak, M.; Chen, S.E. Problematic issues associated with project partnering—The contractor perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 437–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.M.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. Multicountry Perspectives of Relational Contracting and Integrated Project Teams. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.M.; Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Ling, F.Y.Y. Building a relational contracting culture and integrated teams. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2007, 34, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McKinsey and Company. Building for a Better Future—Vision 2030 for the Hong Kong Construction Industry; Construction Industry Council: Hong Kong, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, H. Construct for Excellence–Report of the Construction Industry Review Committee; Printing Department; Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government: Hong Kong, China, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- South China Morning Post, Contractors’ Not Cooperating’ with MTR on Delayed High-Speed Rail Link to Mainland China. Available online: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/1803002/some-contractors-not-cooperating-mtr-delayed-high-speed-rail (accessed on 19 May 2015).
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach; Taylor and Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armitage, C.J.; Christian, J. From attitudes to behaviour: Basic and applied research on the theory of planned behavior. Curr. Psychol. 2003, 22, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheeran, P. Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 12, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macaulay, S. Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1963, 28, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macneil, I.R. Many Futures of Contracts. South. Calif. Law Rev. 1973, 47, 691. [Google Scholar]
- Memon, S.A.; Hadikusumo, B.H.; Sunindijo, R.Y. Using social interaction theory to promote successful relational contracting between clients and contractors in construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyström, J. The definition of partnering as a Wittgenstein family-resemblance concept. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2005, 23, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, J.F.; Chan, A.P.; Chan, D.W. The definition of alliancing in construction as a Wittgenstein family-resemblance concept. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, J.F.Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Chan, D.W.M. Defining relational contracting from the Wittgenstein family-resemblance philosophy. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lahdenperä, P. Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2012, 30, 57–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.; Lu, Y.; Le, Y.; Li, Y.; Fang, J. Formation of Interorganizational Relational Behavior in Megaprojects: Perspective of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 34, 04017052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harper, C.M.; Molenaar, K.R.; Cannon, J.P. Measuring constructs of relational contracting in construction projects: The owner’s perspective. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ning, Y. Boosting Public Construction Project Outcomes through Relational Transaction in Singapore. Ph.D. Thesis, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ning, Y.; Ling, F.Y.Y. Reducing hindrances to adoption of relational behaviors in public construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 04013017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, D.H.; Lloyd-Walker, B.M. Collaborative Project Procurement Arrangements; Project Management Institute: Newtown Township, PA, USA, 2015; Volume 1, p. 220. [Google Scholar]
- Henisz, W.J.; Levitt, R.E.; Scott, W.R. Toward a unified theory of project governance: Economic, sociological and psychological supports for relational contracting. Eng. Proj. Organ. J. 2012, 2, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lloyd-Walker, B.; Walker, D. Project alliances in Australasia—Differences with other forms of relationship based procurement. In Proceedings of the 11th Euram Conference, Tallinn, Estonia, 1–4 June 2011; pp. 1–40. [Google Scholar]
- Scott, W.R. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities, 4th ed.; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Børve, S.; Ahola, T.; Andersen, B.; Aarseth, W. Partnering in offshore drilling projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2017, 10, 84–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeffries, M.; Rowlinson, S. Public-private partnerships and Relationship-Based Procurement Approaches. In New Forms of Procurement: PPP and Relational Contracting in the 21st Century; Jeffries, M.C., Rowlinson, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016; pp. 13–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Commerce and Contracting. IACCM 2019 Benchmark Report. Available online: https://www.worldcc.com/Resources/Content-Hub/View/ArticleId/9498/IACCM-2019-Benchmark-Report (accessed on 7 April 2021).
- Walker, D.H.; Lloyd-Walker, B.M. Characteristics of IPD: A Collaboration Framework Overview. In Routledge Handbook of Integrated Project Delivery; Rowlinson, S., Walker, D., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, D.H.; Lloyd-Walker, B.M. Making sense of collaborative forms of relationship-based construction procurement. In Proceedings of the Engineering Project Organization Conference, Devil’s Thumb Ranch, Tabernash, CO, USA, 9 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bedwell, W.L.; Wildman, J.L.; DiazGranados, D.; Salazar, M.; Kramer, W.S.; Salas, E. Collaboration at work: An integrative multilevel conceptualization. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2012, 22, 128–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattessich, P.W.; Monsey, B.R. Collaboration: What Makes It Work? A Review of Research Literature on Factors Influencing Successful Collaboration; Amherst H. Wilder Foundation: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Pinto, M.B.; Pinto, J.K.; Prescott, J.E. Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. Manag. Sci. 1993, 39, 1281–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gajda, R. Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. Am. J. Eval. 2004, 25, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anvuur, A.M. Cooperation in Construction Projects: Concept, Antecedents and Strategies. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hoegl, M.; Gemuenden, H.G. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ. Sci. 2001, 12, 435–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baker, D.P.; Day, R.; Salas, E. Teamwork as an essential component of high reliability organizations. Health Serv. Res. 2006, 41, 1576–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rousseau, V.; Aubé, C.; Savoie, A. Teamwork behaviors a review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Res. 2006, 37, 540–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, P.J.; Sanders, S.R. Partnering continuum. J. Manag. Eng. 1998, 14, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suprapto, M. Collaborative Contracting in Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Tabassi, A.A.; Ramli, M.; Bakar, A.H.A. Effects of training and motivation practices on teamwork improvement and task efficiency: The case of construction firms. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suprapto, M.; Bakker, H.L.; Mooi, H.G. Relational factors in owner–contractor collaboration: The mediating role of teamworking. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1347–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, D.H.; Rowlinson, S. Procurement Systems: A Cross-Industry Project Management Perspective; Tylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flin, R.; Yule, S.; McKenzie, L.; Paterson-Brown, S.; Maran, N. Attitudes to teamwork and safety in the operating theatre. Surgeon 2006, 4, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helmreich, R.L.; Foushee, H.C.; Benson, R.; Russini, W. Cockpit resource management: Exploring the attitude-performance linkage. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1986, 57, 1198–1200. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Taylor, C.L. Attitudes toward physician-nurse collaboration in anesthesia. AANA J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Anesth. 2009, 77, 343. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitudes and the attitude-behaviour relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 11, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, E.W. Intentions to form project partnering in Hong Kong: Application of the theory of planned behavior. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, F.Y.; Ke, Y.; Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Wang, S. Key Relational Contracting Practices Affecting Performance of Public Construction Projects in China. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 140, 04013034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phua, F.T.; Rowlinson, S. How important is cooperation to construction project success? A grounded empirical quantification. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2004, 11, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, P.R.; Lorsch, J.W. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 1967, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, T.; Williams, T.; Ryall, P. It is not what you achieve it is the way you achieve it. Total Qual. Manag. 2000, 11, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Memon, S.A.; Rowlinson, S. An investigation into the attitude and relational behaviour in relationship based procurement (RBP): A conceptual framework. In Proceedings of the Engineering Project Organization Conference, Scotland, UK, 24–26 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Baiden, B.K.; Price, A.D. The effect of integration on project delivery team effectiveness. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baiden, B.K.; Price, A.D.; Dainty, A.R. The extent of team integration within construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosch-Rekveldt, M.; Smith, J.; Mooi, H.; Bakker, H.; Verbraeck, A. The application of value improving practices: Team integration pays off. In Proceedings of the 11th Euram Conference, Tallinn, Estonia, 1–4 June 2011; Available online: https://bit.ly/36x9qt0 (accessed on 18 November 2015).
- Klakegg, O.J.; Pollack, J.; Crawford, L. Preparing for Successful Collaborative Contracts. Sustainability 2021, 13, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izam Ibrahim, K.; Costello, S.B.; Wilkinson, S. Key practice indicators of team integration in construction projects: A review. Team Perform. Manag. Int. J. 2013, 19, 132–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; Camerer, C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zineldin, M.; Jonsson, P. An examination of the main factors affecting trust/commitment in supplier-dealer relationships: An empirical study of the Swedish wood industry. Tqm Mag. 2000, 12, 245–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costa, A.C.; Fulmer, C.A.; Anderson, N.R. Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellewigt, T.; Madhok, A.; Weibel, A. Trust and formal contracts in interorganizational relationships—Substitutes and complements. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2007, 28, 833–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyler, T.R.; Blader, S.L. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement; Psychology Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Van Dyne, L.; LePine, J.A. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raelin, J. Does action learning promote collaborative leadership? Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2006, 5, 152–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, K.H. The relation among fit indexes, power, and sample size in structural equation modeling. Struct. Equ. Modeling 2005, 12, 368–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J. Psychometric Methods; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978; pp. 7–21. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pituch, K.A.; Stevens, J.P. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS, 6th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1998, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.M.; Ugwu, O.O.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. Relational integration for sustainable infrastructure. In Proceedings of the Fifth Brunei International Conference on Engineering and Technology, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, 1–3 November 2014; Available online: https://bit.ly/2O0DlUc (accessed on 27 December 2016).
- Cheung, S.O.; Zhu, L.; Lee, K. Incentivization and Interdependency in Construction Contracting. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 33, 04018010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Memon, S.A.; Rowlinson, S. Exploring Project Teams’ Collaborative Behaviours in Hong Kong’s Relational Contracting Projects. Proj. Gov. Controls Rev. 2019, 2, 80–91. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, K.K.; Kumaraswamy, M.; Mahesh, G.; Ling, F.Y. Building integrated project and asset management teams for sustainable built infrastructure development. J. Facil. Manag. 2014, 12, 187–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Construct | Item | Factors (Acronyms) | Short Description of Measurement Items | Key Sources |
---|---|---|---|---|
Relational Attitudes (RA) | RA1 | Senior Management Comitment (SMC) | Senior management commitment for resources | [53] |
RA2 | Senior management commitment for delegation of authority | |||
RA3 | Senior management commitment for developing good relationships | |||
RA4 | Senior management commitment for engaging in project-related discussions | |||
RA5 | Mentoring team members | |||
RA6 | Adoption of ‘no-blame culture’. | |||
RA7 | Relational Norms (RN) | Fair treatment | ||
RA8 | Identifying and reporting problematic areas | |||
RA9 | Believing others are trustworthy | |||
RA10 | Not taking others for granted | |||
RA11 | Adopting ‘best for project approach’ | |||
Collaborative Intentions (CI) | CI1 | Intention to integrate/integrated project team | [67,69] | |
CI2 | Intention to align/aligned project objectives | |||
CI3 | Intention to conduct/conducted team building exercises | |||
CI4 | Intention to conduct/conducted facilitated workshops | |||
CI5 | Intention to conduct/conducted dialogues and meetings for maintaining good relationships | |||
Collaborative Behavior (CB) | TW1 | Teamwork (TW) | Open communication | [49] |
TW2 | Open sharing of information | |||
TW3 | Satisfaction with the information shared | |||
TW4 | Close synchronization of interdependent tasks | |||
TW5 | Clear linkage for interdependent tasks | |||
TW6 | No redundancy among the tasks | |||
TW7 | Recognition of strengths and weakness | |||
TW8 | Exercising knowledge and skills to their best | |||
TW9 | Balanced contribution of ideas, skills, knowledge, and experience | |||
TW10 | Supporting other project teams | |||
TW11 | Putting in best efforts for resolving the issue | |||
TW12 | Contribution from all concerned in decision making | |||
TW13 | Personal engagement | |||
TW14 | Working as one team | |||
TW15 | Being proud of the involvement | |||
TW16 | Feeling responsible for sustaining relationships | |||
AT1 | Affective Trust (AT) | Comfortable being relied on by others | [72] | |
AT2 | Keeping promises | |||
AT3 | Working with a high level of integrity | |||
AT4 | Being fair to others | |||
AT5 | Looking after interests of others | |||
EXB1 | Extra-role Behavior (EXB) | Voluntarily helping others | [48,76] | |
EXB2 | Voluntarily teaching/learning from others | |||
EXB3 | Voluntarily providing innovative suggestions |
Construct | Sample Adequacy | Chi-Square/df | Sig. | Eigen Value | Variance Explained | Cronbach’s Alpha | Factors | Details |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Relational attitudes | 0.877 | 475.73/45 | 0.00 | 5.122 | 62.014 | 0.834 | SMC | RA1-RA5 (-RA6) |
1.08 | 0.834 | RN | RA7-RA11 | |||||
Collaborative intentions | 0.829 | 225.53/10 | 0.00 | 3.257 | 65.147 | 0.865 | CI | CI1-CI5 |
Teamwork | 0.854 | 695.95/66 | 0.00 | 1.617 | 70.397 | 0.848 | COM | TW1-TW3 |
1.071 | 0.709 | COR | TW4-TW6 | |||||
0.608 (rejected) | TMC | |||||||
5.759 | 0.726 | MS | TW10-TW16 (-TW12) | |||||
0.899 | TC | |||||||
Affective trust | 0.815 | 185.00/6 | 0.00 | 2.844 | 71.104 | 0.819 | AT | AT2-AT5 (-AT1) |
Extra-role behavior | 0.712 | 118.01/3 | 0.00 | 2.260 | 75.435 | 0.834 | EXB | EXB1-EXB3 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Memon, S.A.; Rowlinson, S.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Zahoor, H. Collaborative Behavior in Relational Contracting Projects in Hong Kong—A Contractor’s Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5375. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105375
Memon SA, Rowlinson S, Sunindijo RY, Zahoor H. Collaborative Behavior in Relational Contracting Projects in Hong Kong—A Contractor’s Perspective. Sustainability. 2021; 13(10):5375. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105375
Chicago/Turabian StyleMemon, Shoeb Ahmed, Steve Rowlinson, Riza Yosia Sunindijo, and Hafiz Zahoor. 2021. "Collaborative Behavior in Relational Contracting Projects in Hong Kong—A Contractor’s Perspective" Sustainability 13, no. 10: 5375. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105375