Table A3 Case analysis for project A:... | Emerald Publishing

Table A3

Case analysis for project A: Relational frictions, coping activities and distributed relational frictions (direct and indirect)

	Pre-procurement: Need articulation and supplier selection	Procurement: Contract development and interaction design	Service collaboration: service delivery, monitoring, and evaluation
Relational frictions	FA.1 Unspecified need articulation [interactive] – specified needs [standardized] FA.2 Competence in understanding the technologies to co-create [needed for interactive] – not enough competence among alpha’s staff FA.3 Need for informal alpha–supplier a communications [interactive] – established procedures [standardized]	FA.4 Fitting joint understanding of deliverables [interactive] in the contract template [standardized] FA.5 Planning a budget for unspecified work tasks [interactive] alongside formal and standard deliverables [standardized] FA.6 Need for informal collaboration channel [interactive] alongside standardized channel [standardized] FA.7 Friction in managing the ad hoc coordination at alpha [interactive] vs. traditional and standardized coordination within alpha [standardized]	FA.8 Evaluating a service collaboration [interactive] with standardized monitoring templates [standardized] • Need to provide symbolic reports at procedural checkpoints • Additional expectations from buyers, under-expected delivery from suppliers • Financial aspects of agreeing on value of informal deliverables [interactive] and formal deliverables [standardized] FA.9 Friction in managing the ad hoc coordination at alpha [interactive] vs. traditional and standardized coordination within alpha [standardized]
Coping activities	CA. 1 Informal joint proposal development alongside standard bureaucratic process of proposal approval • Informal meetings for specification of needs • Informal training sessions to gain minimal competencies of technology understanding CA. 2 Creating an internal ad hoc process at alpha for internal coordination and other units’ interfaces with supplier a in alpha’s traditional and standardized coordination system • Creating informal communication channels between suppliers and internal units (involving policy research suppliers in relevant internal meetings) • Creating informal information sharing channel between alpha’s manager alongside standardized channel using informal meetings and direct communication channels that bypass formal communication procedures	CA.3 Informal agreement alongside formal contracting • Informal and unspecified deliverables vs. formal and specified contract deliverables • Agreeing on potential future deliverable needs based on trust • Assigning an internal unit to help the team connect informally to other alpha units and monitor the informally agreed deliverables • Making (internal alpha) justifications for taking this risky approach CA.4 Managing the internal ad hoc process at alpha for internal coordination and other units’ interfaces with supplier a in alpha’s traditional and standardized coordination system • Agreeing on informal communication systems • Managing informal communication channels	CA.5 Managing conflicts between two types of evaluation (formal and informal) • Conflict resolution sessions to mitigate new challenges related to possible additional expectations (particularly between supplier a and the external project monitoring team) CA.6 Using different public relation tools light project reports four events to gain legitimacy CA.7 Managing the internal ad hoc process at alpha for internal coordination and other units’ interfaces with supplier a • Agreeing on informal communication systems between supplier, internal units, and external evaluators • Managing informal communication channels • Using additional legal ways to compensate for unprecedented tasks (supplementary contracts)
Direct triggered frictions	(FA.1,2) + (CA.1) → FA.3 (FA.1,2) + (CA.1) → FA.4,5 (FA.1,2,3) + (CA.1,2) → FA.6,7	(FA. 4,5) + (CA.3) → FA. 6,7 (FA. 4,5) + (CA.3) → FA.8 (FA. 5,6,7) + (CA.4) → FA.9	(FA. 8) + (CA.5,6) → FA. 9
Indirect triggered frictions	(FA.1,2,3) + (CA.1,2) affected the following interfaces: • Alpha’s managerial unit – the higher authority organization of alpha (to obtain permission) • Alpha’s managerial unit – other internal units (increase in political tensions like perception of misuse of power by alpha’s manager)	(FA. 5,6,7) + (CA.4) affected the following interfaces: • Alpha’s managerial unit – accounting and finance unit (regarding contract-related procedures) • Alpha’s managerial unit – department of licensing and regulatory affairs (about coordinating internal processes) • Alpha’s managerial unit – future potential suppliers (like project B, with the creation of templates for informal agreement procedures)	(FA.1,2,3) + (CA.1,2) affected the following interfaces: • Alpha’s managerial unit – external monitoring agent and accounting and finance unit (regarding contract monitoring) • Supplier a and national directory for tax and insurance • Alpha’s managerial unit – department of licensing and regulatory affairs (about evaluation processes) • Alpha’s managerial unit – potential future suppliers (like project B) about the possibilities of these coping activities

	Pre-procurement: Need articulation and supplier selection	Procurement: Contract development and interaction design	Service collaboration: service delivery, monitoring, and evaluation
Relational frictions	FA.1 Unspecified need articulation [interactive] – specified needs [standardized]FA.2 Competence in understanding the technologies to co-create [needed for interactive] – not enough competence among alpha’s staffFA.3 Need for informal alpha–supplier a communications [interactive] – established procedures [standardized]	FA.4 Fitting joint understanding of deliverables [interactive] in the contract template [standardized]FA.5 Planning a budget for unspecified work tasks [interactive] alongside formal and standard deliverables [standardized]FA.6 Need for informal collaboration channel [interactive] alongside standardized channel [standardized]FA.7 Friction in managing the ad hoc coordination at alpha [interactive] vs. traditional and standardized coordination within alpha [standardized]	FA.8 Evaluating a service collaboration [interactive] with standardized monitoring templates [standardized]• Need to provide symbolic reports at procedural checkpoints• Additional expectations from buyers, under-expected delivery from suppliers• Financial aspects of agreeing on value of informal deliverables [interactive] and formal deliverables [standardized]FA.9 Friction in managing the ad hoc coordination at alpha [interactive] vs. traditional and standardized coordination within alpha [standardized]
Coping activities	CA. 1 Informal joint proposal development alongside standard bureaucratic process of proposal approval• Informal meetings for specification of needs• Informal training sessions to gain minimal competencies of technology understandingCA. 2 Creating an internal ad hoc process at alpha for internal coordination and other units’ interfaces with supplier a in alpha’s traditional and standardized coordination system• Creating informal communication channels between suppliers and internal units (involving policy research suppliers in relevant internal meetings)• Creating informal information sharing channel between alpha’s manager alongside standardized channel using informal meetings and direct communication channels that bypass formal communication procedures	CA.3 Informal agreement alongside formal contracting• Informal and unspecified deliverables vs. formal and specified contract deliverables• Agreeing on potential future deliverable needs based on trust• Assigning an internal unit to help the team connect informally to other alpha units and monitor the informally agreed deliverables• Making (internal alpha) justifications for taking this risky approachCA.4 Managing the internal ad hoc process at alpha for internal coordination and other units’ interfaces with supplier a in alpha’s traditional and standardized coordination system• Agreeing on informal communication systems• Managing informal communication channels	CA.5 Managing conflicts between two types of evaluation (formal and informal)• Conflict resolution sessions to mitigate new challenges related to possible additional expectations (particularly between supplier a and the external project monitoring team)CA.6 Using different public relation tools light project reports four events to gain legitimacyCA.7 Managing the internal ad hoc process at alpha for internal coordination and other units’ interfaces with supplier a• Agreeing on informal communication systems between supplier, internal units, and external evaluators• Managing informal communication channels• Using additional legal ways to compensate for unprecedented tasks (supplementary contracts)
Direct triggered frictions	(FA.1,2) + (CA.1) → FA.3 (FA.1,2) + (CA.1) → FA.4,5 (FA.1,2,3) + (CA.1,2) → FA.6,7	(FA. 4,5) + (CA.3) → FA. 6,7 (FA. 4,5) + (CA.3) → FA.8 (FA. 5,6,7) + (CA.4) → FA.9	(FA. 8) + (CA.5,6) → FA. 9
Indirect triggered frictions	(FA.1,2,3) + (CA.1,2) affected the following interfaces:• Alpha’s managerial unit – the higher authority organization of alpha (to obtain permission)• Alpha’s managerial unit – other internal units (increase in political tensions like perception of misuse of power by alpha’s manager)	(FA. 5,6,7) + (CA.4) affected the following interfaces:• Alpha’s managerial unit – accounting and finance unit (regarding contract-related procedures)• Alpha’s managerial unit – department of licensing and regulatory affairs (about coordinating internal processes)• Alpha’s managerial unit – future potential suppliers (like project B, with the creation of templates for informal agreement procedures)	(FA.1,2,3) + (CA.1,2) affected the following interfaces:• Alpha’s managerial unit – external monitoring agent and accounting and finance unit (regarding contract monitoring)• Supplier a and national directory for tax and insurance• Alpha’s managerial unit – department of licensing and regulatory affairs (about evaluation processes)• Alpha’s managerial unit – potential future suppliers (like project B) about the possibilities of these coping activities

Source(s): Authors’ own work