Relationships between Construction Clients and Participants of the Building Industry: Structures and Mechanisms of Coordination and Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the factors that determine the relationships between project clients and participants of the building industry at two different levels: at the level of the structures created for project procurement and at the level of formal and informal mechanisms of coordination and communication between the client and participants of the building industry, integrated within the project's temporary multi-organization (TMO). Contrary to the majority of contributions in project governance in construction, this research analyses both inter-organization and intra-organization relations in order to challenge existing configurations of the TMO based on procurement strategies. The research, based on comparative case studies of institutional clients in Canada, examines (a) the functioning of the structures and contractual relations between clients and their main consultants and contractors and (b) the formal and informal mechanisms of coordination used by client representatives (notably mechanisms based on informal communication). The results highlight important characteristics of the mechanisms of communication between the institutional client and other members of the project TMO. The study (based on document analysis, observations, interviews and network mapping) concludes that the structure of the TMO, as derived from procurement strategies, does not reflect the real relations between project participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".