Building absorptive capacity in a mega-project program alliance: Learning to mitigate rework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative procurement forms such as program alliancing can create a burgeoning environment for absorptive capacity to materialize, enabling learning and rework to be mitigated. However, little is known about the learning routines and practices enabling program alliances to tackle their rework effectively. As a result, this has stymied best practices that can be used to reduce rework from being made available to other construction organizations. This paper fills this void by addressing the following research question: How does a program alliance develop its absorptive capacity to learn and mitigate its rework? We use an illustrative case study approach to draw on the practices of a transport mega-project (>AU19 billion) delivered using a series of program alliances to address our research question. We reveal how one of its program alliances utilized its absorptive capacity to assimilate and apply new knowledge to manage errors and mitigate rework. Additionally, we unearth the presence of desorptive capacity, as the alliance exploited its error knowledge and transferred it to others as part of an incentivization scheme manufactured by the client authority to stimulate learning and continuous improvement within the project. The knowledge gleaned from the program alliance case examined in this paper provides an opportunity for organizations to learn how to deal with errors and rework, which has been absent in the literature.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it