Diseño del Programa de Corrección

“Structural analysis [or social network analysis] is an approach to theorizing about, representing, and analyzing social processes which emphasizes their systematic character. It is, in other words, a transdisciplinary paradigm fo r doing research

Berkowitz (1982:vii)

The need for a quantitative method of analysis, coupled with a more systematic means of visualization for organizational structures and systems, was discussed in some detail in Chapter Two. Perhaps more correctly, the shortcomings of existing approaches were dealt with and the need for a more satisfactory method identified.

Most of the tools or approaches available to the social scientist were not designed to

In fact, as Berkowitz (1982:viii) points out, the very opposite usually applies; a sample is selected and a test is applied by the sociologist or economist, that assumes

independence between the actors from whom the data is gathered. As interdependence is an important characteristic of the organization of the construction project^, we need a means of analysis that recognizes the existence of interdependence between variables and provides useful analysis.

5.6 Five basic premises for taking a network perspective

Social network analysis as an academic discipline has matured over the last two decades and this growing maturity has coincided with a period of growth in information technology and an expansion in the numbers of small entrepreneurial firms in the UK.

There are five basic premises for taking a network perspective on organizations (Nohria and Eccles, 1992:4):-

□ All organizations are social networks and therefore need to be addressed and analyzed in terms of a set of nodes linked by social relationships. These might be formal or prescribed relations as well as emergent or informal relationships, based on friendship, advice or conversational aspects.

□ The environment in which an organization operates might be viewed as a

network of other organizations. Network analysts recognize that the most

significant elements of an organization’s environment are the other organizations with which they must transact. It is insufficient merely to identify (or count) these other organizations with which they must transact, we need to have a means of describing the relationship between the organizations.

□ Organizations are suspended in multiple, complex, overlapping webs of relationships and we are unlikely to see the overall pattern from one organization. To detect the overarching structures, we need to rise above the individual firm and analyze the whole interorganisational field to include key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies and competitors.

□ Actions (attitudes and behaviour) of actors in organizations can best be explained in terms of their position within networks of relationships. We must therefore consider an actor’s position and the attributes of that position to gain a full insight into their actions. Networks constrain actions and in turn are shaped by them (they are also dynamic in that actors can change their positions in the networks and create new sections of network around them). White (cited in Nohria and Eccles, 1992:7) sees actors in networks as “active, purposeful agents who are constantly trying to wrest control for themselves or blocking others from taking control”. Networks might therefore be viewed as a process rather than a form of structure^.

□ The comparative analysis of organizations must take into account their network characteristics. Centrality, for example, is a measure of the average degree of asymmetry in relationships within an organization or project, and the extent to which decision rights are concentrated among few individuals^.

5.7 Some Fundamental Concepts in Social Network Analysis

* This is an important concept for this piece o f research since the position that the various actors occupy within various networks o f transactions provides a measure o f quantifiable change in both organisational form and roles within that form.

’ Centrality is an important measure for this research project and will be discussed in greater detail, later in this chapter.

Before we discuss the importance of the concepts of density and centrality to this study, it would be appropriate to provide a very brief introduction to the basic terms used in Social Network Analysis (SNA).

One of the advantages of the use of SNA is that it provides explicit formal statements and measures of social structural properties that might otherwise be defined only in metaphorical terms (Wasserman and Faust, 1997; 17). Phrases in common use such as webs of relationships, closely knit networks of relations, social role, social position, group, clique, popularity, isolation, prestige, prominence and so on can be given precise meanings and mathematical definitions.

It should also be noted that there are a number of different terms used to describe common SNA attributes. In some cases each author seems to have devised a new set of terms to describe the measures observed; there are also national variations. I cite for example, links, edges, curves and connections, which are all variations of the term that describes the connection between two nodes or actors. For clarity, I shall adopt the terminology used by Wasserman and Faust; the terminology is not necessarily superior, but their text (Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, 1997) does offer a comprehensive selection of SNA terms.

Wasserman and Faust (1997:17) identify a number of key terms or concepts in Social Network Analysis. These are: actor, relational tie, dyad, triad, subgroup, group, relation, network centrality, connectivity, stochastic modelling and cluster analysis. A brief statement of definition, of the terms relevant to this study, is felt necessary in order to avoid ambiguity in the analysis later in this thesis.

Actor

“Actors are discrete individual, corporate, or collective social units ” Wasserman and Faust, (1997:17)

A term given to a social entity. It may be an individual or some sort of group. Examples of actors are people in a group, departments in a corporation and nations within the world economy. If there is homogeneity within the members of the group, then we refer to this collection as a "one-mode network".

The actors for this study are defined as firms, rather than individuals. The decision to analyse the governance of transactions between firms rather than individuals, was taken after the completion of two case studies and the consideration of the work of others using SNA in the construction context. There is some discussion in Chapters Six and Eleven on the first point. The latter point relates to the importance of contractual conditions in the analysis of construction project coalitions. The important contractual relationships and those relevant to this study are contained within the building contract

and these contracts describe relationshipsbetw een firms rather than individuals.

Clearly, if we are to provide a useful analysis and graphical representation of contractual relationships and map these against the relationships between the project roles under various procurement routes, we need to use the firm and its relationships as

the basis of our analysis. Actors can perform the role of transmitters and receivers in a

network; an actor that performs both functions at once is defined as a carrier. The

number of incoming connections to any given actor is measured as the in-degree for

that actor (expressed as a number of other nodes sending to the given actor). A similar

principle applies to the term out-degree, in relation to an actor.

Refer to the discussion o f Loosemore’s work later in this chapter. Loosemore recognised the importance o f contract but carried out analysis o f interpersonal communication relationships. This effectively prevented any conclusions being drawn about the relevance o f contract to the projects under investigation.

Relation

“The collection o f ties o f a specific kind among members o f a group is called a relation. For example, .... the set o f formal diplomatic ties maintained by pairs o f nations in the world, are ties that define relations. ”

Wasserman and Faust, (1997:20)

Actors are linked to one another by social ties. The definition of social ties would include contractual and financial relationships between firms. The following comprises some useful examples of the most common types of ties cited by Wasserman and Faust. Those relevant to this study are shown in bold type

□ Evaluation of one person by another (expressed fiiendship, liking or respect)

a Transfer of material resources (for example business transactions, lending, or borrowing things)

□ Association or affiliation (for example jointly attending a social event or belonging to the same social club)

a Behavioural interaction (talking together, sending messages)

□ Movement between places or statuses (migration, social or physical mobility)

□ Physical connection (a road, river, or bridge connecting two points)

□ Formal relations (for example authority)

□ Biological relationship (kinship or descent)

This study will observe contractual, performance incentive and information exchange relations, between firms engaged on a particular project. Many network studies look at relationships between one set of actors and one set of events (for example, the extent to which there are marriage ties in a community), this is a one-mode network. Others look at the relationship between two sets of actors and one set of events (for example, marriages between white and black South Africans); this is a two-mode network.

This research project seeks to look at a number of different types of relationships existing between a group of construction project actors and would, therefore, be classified as multi-mode. This is intended to establish a correlation, or otherwise, between the different positions that actors hold in a number of differing networks that relate to one project. The exercise is then repeated for similar actors in three other projects to establish the changing network relationships and the way in which these relationships change in response to reforms in procurement decisions.

Dyad

“A dyad consists o f a pair o f actors and the (possible) ties between them. ” Wasserman and Faust, (1997:18)

In its simplest form, a “network” or relationship exists between just two actors. Dyadic analysis is an approach to SNA that focuses on relationships between pairs of actors only. The dyad is frequently the basic unit of analysis for SNA. In this study, although it is very important in the analysis of contractual conditions, it is not fundamental to the other networks. The point here is that the solution of complex technical problems rarely, if ever, involves dyadic relationships. These relationships involve a number of project actors in an iterative process and this point is discussed in more detail elsewhere.

Triad

Refers to a subset of three actors and the relationship between them. The triad will not form an important feature in our research, for the reasons given above.

Group

“A group, then, consists o f a finite set o f actors who fo r conceptual, theoretical or empirical reasons are treated as a finite set o f individuals^^ on which network measurements are made. ”

Wasserman and Faust, (1997:20)

Although analysis of dyads and triads within a group can be important, the strength of SNA lies in its ability to facilitate the analysis of ties amongst a larger (more or less bounded) group. The analysis of group ties as against a dyadic or triadic approach is most relevant to this particular research project. We would need to be able to argue by theoretical, empirical or conceptual criteria why a group of actors are located within a given group boundary. In our case, the criteria for inclusion within the group will be that they have involvement in one particular construction project; the individuals are members of a particular project coalition.

Subgroup

" we can define a subgroup as any subset o f actors, and all ties among

them. ”

Wasserman and Faust, (1997:19)

" We can imply, by reference to the definition for actors given above, that Wasserman and Faust intended the term “individual” to include all definitions o f actor. The term “individual actor” might have been more useful than the term “individual” here.

The SNA term for a subset or clique; a small group with ties of some sort operating within a larger group. Locating and studying subgroups is considered an important aspect of SNA research (Wasserman and Faust, 1997:19). It is an important aspect of the primary research that will follow.

In particular, I shall look at the existence of three main cliques or subgroups within the project coalition: the client, the consultant and the constructor subgroups. The entire collection of actors within a study is referred to as an "actor-set". Although we may have many groups of actors, in a one-mode network we would have only one actor-set. It follows that a multi-mode network might have a number of actor-sets.

Social Network

“A social network consists o f a finite set or sets o f actors and the relation or relations defined on them. ”

Wasserman and Faust, (1997:20)

Our finite set of actors has a boundary defined by involvement with a given construction project. The details of this boundary definition and its application to each of the case studies are dealt with in Chapter Six.

Density

“Degree [density] is a concept that deals with the number o f links incident with each node in a graph. ”

In particular it is an expression of the total number of lines or links present in relation to the total number of links that are theoretically possible for any given network. This provides us with comparability between networks o f different sizes. The number of links divided by the total possible number o f units; this latter condition occurs where every node is connected to every other node.

Actor Centrality

“Prominent actors are those that are extensively involved in relationships with other actors. We are not particularly concerned with whether this prominence is due to the receiving or the transmission o f many ties

- what is important here is that the actor is simply involved. ”

Wasserman and Faust, (1997:173)

Centrality as a concept was first developed by Bavelas (1948, cited in Wasserman & Faust, 1997:173-174) and is very relevant to our research project. Knoke and Burt (1983, cited in Wasserman & Faust, 1992:174) point out that sociological and economic concepts such as access and control over resources and brokerage of information are well suited to measurement through centrality measured. The work of Linton Freeman is important in relation to centrality, in particular.

Freeman (1979) is credited with having clarified the definition and application of centrality and his work is discussed later in this chapter.

Actor attributes

The main attribute of interest to this project is the role or function of the actor. Where the role is common to most procurement routes (for example architect, main contractor) very little elaboration is necessary.

It is, however, of fundamental importance to this study that the nature of the network (for example its density and configuration) and the position of a particular actor

within a given network will have the effect o f influencing the role o f that actor and

effectively changing the actor attributes. Actor attributes, therefore become one o f the variables that we shall be measuring. Point 4 under section 5.5 above (“Networks constrain actions”) refers to the work of White and Nohria and Eccles on this point. It is, however, implicit within the terms of reference of this research that

we move towards a redefinition o f construction project actor roles.

This redefinition reflects the reforms in procurement and management strategies and is expressed in social network terms. Clearly, the construction industry is moving away from defining actor roles using traditional terms like architect, quantity surveyor and main contractor. The industry will, increasingly, refer to roles such as Design Manager, Financial Manager and Cluster Leader. There is evidence of this point in Chapters 4, 9 and 10. Part of the transition dealt with in this thesis is associated with the redefinition of actor roles and, in particular, changing the terminology and relationships dealt with in standard forms of construction contracts.

5.8 Density or cohesion of contractual, performance incentive and

information exchange networks

Size and density measures give us a means of describing and quantifying the characteristics of the construction project network as a whole (refer to definitions earlier in this chapter). Density is a reflection of the overall size of the network (the number of actors) and the extent to which these actors are connected to each other. Density is a measure of the extent to which actors are linked to each other. A network of firms where every firm trades with every other firm in the data set, would be a high density network (in this case would have a value of one). At the other extreme, a network where no firms trade at all, would have a density of zero.

The implications of the density measure vary depending on which of the project characteristics we are focusing upon. Size and density in relation to contractual and performance incentive relationships will provide a measure of fragmentation of the project team and the extent to which the team members are connected to each other. Density might, therefore, be regarded as a measure o f what might be referred to as

dyadicness of contractual relationships between project actors. Density in relation to information exchange networks provides a measure of the non-hierarchical nature of information exchanges.

This does, however, need to be considered alongside the configuration of the network as a whole. It is proposed that a traditional project, where information exchanges correspond to traditional standard forms of contract, will have higher information exchange network densities when compared to a project where partnering, supply chain management and clusters are in use (all other factors being e q u a l T h i s assertion is made on the basis that supply chain management implies a large number of connections between one central actor and each supply chain

member but generally fewer links between members of the supply chain. The use of

cluster leaders may tend to focus design information exchange around a relatively small group of actors.

The relational basis of partnering agreements and the totally (and deliberately) non- hierarchical nature of information exchanges associated with the supply chain management and cluster approaches, involve smaller, more focused, groups of actors

in making decisions. Density will also be used as a means of establishing a

correspondence^^ between the network types within a given project.

Unfortunately, in the case o f construction projects these other factors rarely are equal. This point is dealt with in some detail in Chapter Eleven.

We shall be adopting Barnes’ “socio-centric” approach, rather than the “ego-centric” approach advocated by M i t c h e l l T h e argument, in essence, is that we focus on the density of the networks as a whole (socio-centric), rather than focus on networks