Table 1 Integration elements that... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Integration elements that collaborative teams deploy to work effectively as a united team

Element	Notes and references
United single project team contractual form with the POR paying all direct project-related expenditures	A binding contract integrates the project owner representative (POR) participant with the non-owner participants (NOPs). In the alliancing case this is Project Alliance Agreement (PAA), in the case of IPD it is the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA), and for numerous similarly delivered projects in the UK the New Engineering Contract 3/4 (NEC3/4). These contracts specify that the POR pays for all direct project-related costs incurred by NOPs for the project. The POR pays for project insurances on behalf of all alliance participants which is more cost-effective than each paying separately. This encourages NOP team integration into a united team because the POR is directly paying for project-related expenses including participants employment costs, NOP fiduciary duty is to the project and not their home-based organisation
Joint project responsibility and accountability	The PAA and IFOA governance arrangements support and reinforce team integration through project-based and not individual POR performance (Ashcraft, 2015; Walker et al., 2025b). Participant are selected on, and must adhere to, taking joint responsibility and accountability for project performance (Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2011)
NOP incentivisation	The PAA/IFOA also includes an agreed fixed negotiated margin price for each POR and a gain/pain sharing incentivisation agreement with key result areas (KRAs) and key performance indicators (KPIs) measured by the whole project performance (Ross, 2013). This effectively integrates participants into a single united team, each participant organisation is then judged by project performance and not their individual team’s contribution. They are therefore incentivised to achieve a best-for-project outcome
PAA integrated organisational structure governance arrangements	The organisational structure has two integration tiers. The project alliance management team (AMT) comprises representatives of the NOPS and each POR team; this integrates the NOPs as well as encourages collaboration. A second integration team comprises key senior company-level NOP executives in the Alliance Leadership Team (ALT) that is like a company’s board of directors. The ALT integrates the NOP organisation with the project through its project performance oversight role and access to each NOP’s organisational resources. This integration and collaboration element has been credited with positive workplace motivation and culture on numerous projects (Pitsis et al., 2003)
Integrated team decision-making and open respectful discussion	All parties are bound by consensus for AMT and ALT decision-making. Thus, allocating blame to NOP individuals is illogical because the united team is bound by consensus decision-making. Events often events compromise plans so a no-blame policy for participants’ early warnings that acknowledges making mistakes is not subject to reprimand. Reported errors are treated as lessons to be learned and a natural part of experimentation and innovation (Lloyd-Walker et al., 2014; Koolwijk et al., 2020)
Sharing innovation, learning and continuous improvement	To ensure that lessons learned are retained and that innovation is effective diffused the project needs a “knowledgeable client” as the POR. Most research results available in the literature suggest that hands-on PORs are experienced clients are clearly not “eternal beginners” (Flyvbjerg et al., 2021) constantly repeating mistakes due to corporate memory evaporating with each project’s completion There also needs to be governance measures in place to support learning and innovation. Highly integrated programs of alliance projects, learning can be designed-in to diffuse knowledge and innovation across projects. Australian examples of program alliances such as minimising rework on the Australia Barwon Water Alliance (Love et al., 2016) and continuous improvement governance mechanisms deployed on Melbourne’s LXRP (Love et al., 2025). These examples are instructive because they demonstrate motivated team collaboration as well as integrated knowledge and innovation from one project to another within a program of alliance projects

Element	Notes and references
United single project team contractual form with the POR paying all direct project-related expenditures	A binding contract integrates the project owner representative (POR) participant with the non-owner participants (NOPs). In the alliancing case this is Project Alliance Agreement (PAA), in the case of IPD it is the Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA), and for numerous similarly delivered projects in the UK the New Engineering Contract 3/4 (NEC3/4). These contracts specify that the POR pays for all direct project-related costs incurred by NOPs for the project. The POR pays for project insurances on behalf of all alliance participants which is more cost-effective than each paying separately. This encourages NOP team integration into a united team because the POR is directly paying for project-related expenses including participants employment costs, NOP fiduciary duty is to the project and not their home-based organisation
Joint project responsibility and accountability	The PAA and IFOA governance arrangements support and reinforce team integration through project-based and not individual POR performance (Ashcraft, 2015; Walker et al., 2025b). Participant are selected on, and must adhere to, taking joint responsibility and accountability for project performance (Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2011)
NOP incentivisation	The PAA/IFOA also includes an agreed fixed negotiated margin price for each POR and a gain/pain sharing incentivisation agreement with key result areas (KRAs) and key performance indicators (KPIs) measured by the whole project performance (Ross, 2013). This effectively integrates participants into a single united team, each participant organisation is then judged by project performance and not their individual team’s contribution. They are therefore incentivised to achieve a best-for-project outcome
PAA integrated organisational structure governance arrangements	The organisational structure has two integration tiers. The project alliance management team (AMT) comprises representatives of the NOPS and each POR team; this integrates the NOPs as well as encourages collaboration. A second integration team comprises key senior company-level NOP executives in the Alliance Leadership Team (ALT) that is like a company’s board of directors. The ALT integrates the NOP organisation with the project through its project performance oversight role and access to each NOP’s organisational resources. This integration and collaboration element has been credited with positive workplace motivation and culture on numerous projects (Pitsis et al., 2003)
Integrated team decision-making and open respectful discussion	All parties are bound by consensus for AMT and ALT decision-making. Thus, allocating blame to NOP individuals is illogical because the united team is bound by consensus decision-making. Events often events compromise plans so a no-blame policy for participants’ early warnings that acknowledges making mistakes is not subject to reprimand. Reported errors are treated as lessons to be learned and a natural part of experimentation and innovation (Lloyd-Walker et al., 2014; Koolwijk et al., 2020)
Sharing innovation, learning and continuous improvement	To ensure that lessons learned are retained and that innovation is effective diffused the project needs a “knowledgeable client” as the POR. Most research results available in the literature suggest that hands-on PORs are experienced clients are clearly not “eternal beginners” (Flyvbjerg et al., 2021) constantly repeating mistakes due to corporate memory evaporating with each project’s completionThere also needs to be governance measures in place to support learning and innovation. Highly integrated programs of alliance projects, learning can be designed-in to diffuse knowledge and innovation across projects. Australian examples of program alliances such as minimising rework on the Australia Barwon Water Alliance (Love et al., 2016) and continuous improvement governance mechanisms deployed on Melbourne’s LXRP (Love et al., 2025). These examples are instructive because they demonstrate motivated team collaboration as well as integrated knowledge and innovation from one project to another within a program of alliance projects

Source(s): Created by author